[BOOK SPOILERS]Tower of Joy - Deleted Scene - Why ?

[Mr Crannogman]

i think it would have been hard to properly foreshadow R+L=J without giving it completely away. (like the dragon eggs hatching). Much easier to do that in print. They are saving the whole seen for later.

[Dunnii]

I'm going to go with those that think they want to save it for later and that it might have been too much in this first season.

BUT... I think it is a crime that "Promise me, Ned...." was not whispered to Ned while he waited in the cells. Or hear an echo of her when he and Robert went down into the crypts. I really think that could have been added.

I don't want to believe that "Promise me, Ned" isn't important. And with Ned no longer with us, how will it be shown?

[Anomandaris86]

If they're saving it for later, there are only two possibilities:

1) The House of the Undying.

2) a Howland Reed flashback.

As for it being indecipherable, I disagree. All you need to establish is that Ned is going after his sister, it's back during the war, and that those three are the last of Aerys' Kingsguard. And since it would be the only flashback from that time, and since the show references that war all the time, it would be something that would naturally grab the attention of viewers. The mystique of it all would be enough to draw attention to it.

[modehead]

If they're saving it for later, there are only two possibilities:

1) The House of the Undying.

2) a Howland Reed flashback.

If Benjen is alive and appears in the unpublished books.

3) Benjen explains Jon's parentage. I assume that's how Jon finds out.

[Ser Latecomer]

ToJ could be a suitable "prologue" chapter for season 2 or 3. They reproduced the prologue for book 1, but the book 2 and 3 prologues would really not have as much impact on the screen since they would not have the POV structure of Maester Cressen or Chett. These scenes would still be shown, of course, but just as normal scenes in the flow of the show, whereas a ToJ flashback could be set aside as "different" in the same way the Waymar Royce ranging party was different from the rest of season 1.

[HotPiesBastard]

I doubt we will ever see the Tower of Joy scene. Unless it is a deleted scene and it is shown in the show when the Dvd becomes avaible. very upsetting if they never even filmed it. would of loved to see it.

[Padraig]

All you need to establish is that Ned is going after his sister, it's back during the war, and that those three are the last of Aerys' Kingsguard.

And how do you do that easily? Its not impossible but it would take a lot of exposition. For something that wouldn't play out until the 6th or 7th book.

If the reveal is done well, the more unobservant viewers will go, "Whoa! I didn't see that coming" and accept it

Jon's parentage? The producers don't want people to realise who Jon's parents are.

Even the line "promise me" is not that important. We know Ned must have promised Lyanna because he told nobody the truth about his parentage (except maybe Benjen, while Howland was there). Its a nice line but you don't have to spell it out to people. That early scene between Jon and Ned is enough of a hint.

I would be shocked if they filmed the ToJ scene. They could do it in future but i'd be surprised. They have so much to film and all the actors would be new.

[Asha—Not Yara!]

Jon's parentage? The producers don't want people to realise who Jon's parents are.

Of course not, but people are still going to speculate and any clues that are dropped are going to be examined and debated by the more attentive viewers. For the unobservant viewer, it'll go over their heads, but if the reveal is done well, it should be satisfying for both types of viewers, with one type going, "Yes! I guessed right" or "Drat! My theory was wrong but this fits too" and the other type will be going, "Whoa, I didn't see that coming at all. Cool!"

[Arrogant Bastard]

ToJ could be a suitable "prologue" chapter for season 2 or 3. They reproduced the prologue for book 1, but the book 2 and 3 prologues would really not have as much impact on the screen since they would not have the POV structure of Maester Cressen or Chett. These scenes would still be shown, of course, but just as normal scenes in the flow of the show, whereas a ToJ flashback could be set aside as "different" in the same way the Waymar Royce ranging party was different from the rest of season 1.

I don't think the ToJ would work as a prologue. It's a lot different from the prologue with Waymar Royce because the ToJ is a flashback; Will, Royce, and Gared beyond the wall still took place in the present. The show so far hasn't done any flashbacks and I think the only way ToJ could have worked is if it was established as a dream, like it was in the book, which can no longer happen with Ned dead. Also, it just wouldn't make much sense to open a new season with a flashback centered mainly on a character that's now dead and of which the importance is at least a few season's away. I think the ACOK prologue will be kept as the opening of season 2; it sets up a foreboding tone with Melisandre and establishes that Stannis's character and that he is after the throne.

[metr0man]

regarding the TWoP noobs thread, you guys are confusing "ASoIaF noobs" with "noobs" in general. TWoP forum posters are HARDCORE tv watchers, raised up on a steady diet of Lost, X-Files, Dexter, Mad Men, etc etc. They analyze every angle to death and then some. The fact that the show is faithful to a book probably makes them analyze it EVEN MORE since its clear the writers are following a story and not making sh-t up. They're not representative of the average tv viewer.

[Padraig]

Of course not, but people are still going to speculate and any clues that are dropped are going to be examined and debated by the more attentive viewers.

Sorry, when you talk about the "reveal", do you mean when Jon's parentage is eventualy revealed in S6 or 7 (if we ever get that far)? I thought the reveal was showing the ToJ scene.

In that case, indeed, showing the ToJ would be a nice hint. But the safest (and least complicated) thing to do was just not show ToJ at all. There are still enough hints in S1 for people to wander about Jon's parentage.

[Asha—Not Yara!]

Yep, I was referring to the reveal of Jon's parentage if we get that far. Sorry for the confusion.

[Anomandaris86]

And how do you do that easily? Its not impossible but it would take a lot of exposition. For something that wouldn't play out until the 6th or 7th book.

Mostly by having it just like it was in the books - a dream, with shadow companions, a younger Ned with makeup, and pretty much the same dialogue with maybe an added line "I've come for my sister." There.

[Padraig]

Mostly by having it just like it was in the books - a dream, with shadow companions, a younger Ned with makeup, and pretty much the same dialogue with maybe an added line "I've come for my sister." There.

And they must make it clear that we are back in time. Ned with make-up wouldn't do. Plus Hightower saying "I am legendary Kingsguard and Lord Commander Ser Gerold Hightower". Arthur Dayne saying "I am legendary Kingsguard Ser Arthur Dayne, Sword of the Morning and here is my legendary sword Dawn". And Whent saying "I am not so legendary Kingsguard Ser Oswell Whent".

Or you could not name them but that loses part of the charm.

I'm still not sure what a non-reader gains. It would be a very nice scene if they get it to work for the reader but just confusing otherwise. Not when they can't explain the scene in any near future episode. And they'd make it a lot more obvious that J=R+L, so you'd lose that surprise on top of everything else.

[The Anti-Targ]

YOu are making a mistake in basing your judgments on the TWOP noobs thread. The people in that thread are generally dedicated show watchers who watch and rewatch, analyze, and pick out every detail and try and figure out what it means. The average TV viewer is not going to do that. So you're going to have some people who understand it completely (bookreaders), and some number of people that can kind of figure it out, and then most people that will be totally lost as to what the hell is going on with the scene.

While I think the TWOP'ers aren't a good example of your average GoT non-reading viewer I think a hazy surreal sort of dream sequence about ToJ from Ned while he's in the Black cells would have gone down a treat with everyone who's been a dedicated watcher of the series up to that point. Especially if the final shot in the sequence is Lyanna yelling for Ned, and ned shouting Lyanna's name as he runs into the ToJ after Howland kills Arthur Dayne. We don't see Lyanna or her bed of blood (or a mewling babe with black hair and an emo attitude). But everyone knows it's during the rebellion and it's about Lyanna and it's probably significant. But it would still be infuriatingly vague about what it means to the current story. It would have been great and every dedicated viewer for the series would have understood it on some level.

There should have been at least one really good dream sequence in the season, but all we got were half arsed 3-eyed crow dreams. ToJ would have been best, but I would have settled for a decent 3-eyed crow dream.

[Kadence]

It should have been included because it would have been well-received. Regardless of the Jon's parentage issue it would have been good TV. If filmed right it would have been a very atmospheric, memorable, tragic scene where firstly you see Lyanna's death, and the series has mentioned Lyanna a lot. Secondly it raises the "promise me" mystery question, which makes for good serial TV. If done subtly many might not even wonder about it.

As for the setup, that's very easy. Just have one scene where someone mentions "Arthur Dayne, the greatest swordsman I saw ever" and then someone like Jaime goes "Didn't Stark have a thing with his sister? Then she killed herself. And Lord Stark talks about honor!" or something like that; there's a thousand different ways to do it in very quick and compact fashion. It adds depth and some mystery to Ned's character and takes all of 45 seconds to introduce the name Arthur Dayne, and the other two Kingsuard don't even need be named, they aren't important. And the actual fight between 7 vs. 3 doesn't need to be shown, only hinted at.

The ToJ scene could probably be done in 3 minutes. Atmospheric dream where Ned says he thought they'd be with Daenerys, them responding Jaime is a false brother, KG does not run...they unsheathe their swords...then it fades to Ned holding Lyanna dying, "promise me", Ned gets kicked awake. No more than that is needed and viewers would have enjoyed the scene even if they had no idea about it relating to Jon.

[Padraig]

It should have been included because it would have been well-received. Regardless of the Jon's parentage issue it would have been good TV.

I'm still not convinced. Especially when even those who are in favour of showing the scene aren't sure what we should see and not see. Should we see Lyanna's death or just hear her? I don't think subtle would apply either way.

And yes, i'm also leery of the idea of introducing even more characters (so throw in Arthur Dayne and his sister and the rest of the KG at the ToJ). More exposition? Not like the series lacks characters. And there is still no easy way to make it clear that Ned is dreaming about what happened after the war.

And its not like the series lacks atmospheric, memorable, tragic scenes?

Flashbacks/dreams can be expensive (especially the dream Bran had in the books. Not sure how people thought that would be shown). And aren't particularly needed. There is so much story to tell that. Dedicated viewer should just be delighted at what we got. :)

[ferthepoet]

Another thing to consider is that they may be keeping their options opens for doing a tele movie based in Roberts Rebellion so they may have not wanted to cast the characters

[Kadence]

Should we see Lyanna's death or just hear her?

Director's choice, doesn't really matter.

I don't think subtle would apply either way.

To what?

And yes, i'm also leery of the idea of introducing even more characters (so throw in Arthur Dayne and his sister and the rest of the KG at the ToJ). More exposition?

As I said though, you don't need exposition. No Ros needed :) Just a one-minute (or less) throwaway dialogue which mentions Ashara and Arthur. Probably in the previous episode to make it easier for the viewer to connect.

And there is still no easy way to make it clear that Ned is dreaming about what happened after the war.

Ned asking the KG "Hand over Lyanna" or something would make it clear this was a flashback, since the viewers have been told repeatedly she died years ago.

And its not like the series lacks atmospheric, memorable, tragic scenes?

What, are we supposed to have too many memorable scenes now? :) Good scenes are never a bad thing. Good TV is good TV. The more quality scenes the better.

Also the episode beginning with the atmospheric tragic death of Lyanna, and ending with the atmospheric tragic death of Ned, would be a great bookend and quality storytelling.

Flashbacks/dreams can be expensive

Now this is very much a legitimate reason to not do it - a new set that would only be used for a short flashback. It's really the only reason to not add the scene which I think is valid. Since the scene would be very short, is easy to set up, barely makes things more complicated (some people are acting like name-droppping a couple Daynes would make things oh-so-confusing - we've got a jillion names mentioned already, the viewer won't care or maybe even notice a couple more, and those who do notice will enjoy the added background for Ned), and for the ordinary viewer the motivation for the scene would be to show Lyanna's death. They'd just go "oh, here's this Lyanna they keep mentioning, and now Ned is sad thinking of her." It's hardly something they'd be confused over.

Another thing to consider is that they may be keeping their options opens for doing a tele movie based in Roberts Rebellion so they may have not wanted to cast the characters

That wouldn't be for years (and probably never), also the scene would probably be vague and blurry, with the knights wearing helms. And we don't need to see Howland, he could be skipped for now. The only people of relevance were Ned, Lyanna (who we don't need to see the face of) and Arthur Dayne (who can wear a helmet).

[The hairy bear]

What, are we supposed to have too many memorable scenes now? :) Good scenes are never a bad thing. Good TV is good TV. The more quality scenes the better.

I gues the point is that the Tower of Joy sequence (while still being a great scene in the books) would make for very, very bad television. Inserting it in show we've seen without huge changes in the presentation and overall scheme would be a terrible decision.

Just a one-minute (or less) throwaway dialogue which mentions Ashara and Arthur. Probably in the previous episode to make it easier for the viewer to connect.

Ned asking the KG "Hand over Lyanna" or something would make it clear this was a flashback, since the viewers have been told repeatedly she died years ago.

You make it sound as if it were an easy thing, but it's not. Most viewers won't remember a throwaway name mentioned an episode ago, or even Lyanna's name out of context, for that matter.

The thing is: either you focus the attention to explaining the backstory or you make it came out of the blue. If you do the first, people will get confused because there's already too much characters being constantly introduced, and it's already difficult to keep track of the players, the allegiances, geography and son on. If you do the secons, people will get confused because there's no context.

But let's say that you could manage to introduce Ser Arthur's name beforehand in a subtle way and still make the average viewer remember. You'd still have the headache of how to identify the knight in white from the dream sequence with Arthur Dayne (and the young man with the wolf sigil as Eddard Stark).

Once this is done, how could you put down the dialogue? I'll try to do it to the best of my ability, but please take a chance if you think you can improve (English is not my mother tongue, after all).

Gerold: Eddard Stark, we were waiting for you.

Eddard: The last surviving knights of the Kingsguard! I had expected to see you defending Prince Rhaegar at the Battle of the Trident.

Gerold: We were not there.

Oswell: Woe to Robert the Usurper if we had been.

Eddard: When King's Landing fell, Ser Jaime Lannister slew your king, and I wondered where you were.

Gerold: Far away, or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells.

Eddard: I came down to the south to fight the last Targaryen supporters. They all dipped their banners, and their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty. I was certain you would be among them.

Arthur: Our knees do not bend easily.

Eddard: The Queen and Prince Viserys are fled to the Free Cities. I thought you might have sailed with him.

Gerold: We are of the Kingsguard. The Kingsguard does not flee.

Arthur: Then or now.

Gerold: We swore a vow.

Arthur: And now it begins.

Eddard: No. Now it ends. You've lost. Robert is the king now. Return Lyanna to me.

Oswell: Over our dead bodies.

Honestly, it loses a lot. Specially if you don't have knowledge of the specifics of the war, or the kingsguard's vows. And it would feel out of place in any episode you included this. People should not be centering their debats on a mystery dream scene from the past that they are not sure what to make of, but on the actual dynamics of the show.

Adding this scene would detract from the show much more than add to it.