hallam

Bids some of them farewell. Those kids look like the four kids the female chief sees that make her give up. I guess D&D decided to let up a little on the dark stuff by showing two of her kids getting to safety but that was surely the point of that bit.

If you don't like zombie scenes then you have chosen the wrong series. The prelude to book one chapter one tells you that it is a series about a zombie invasion. You obviously haven't been paying attention. The point of asoiaf is that the political elites are busy with their petty squabbles killing millions of people with their invasion of Iraq and the ISIS religious fanatics created as the common people realize the elites couldn't give a damn about them while climate change threatens to destroy the planet. But don't worry, lots of folk miss the fact that the Hunger Games is an allegory of the Iraq war. They don't even get the point when Collins introduces Gen Coin, aka COIN = Counter Insurgency.

And it is a silly quibble to make because we should assume Tyrion has been thinking very carefully about what he will say to Danny since he began the journey with Varys. He may not have known who Aemon was, it is not shown that he does. If he does know, he may not care to reveal this to Danny at this point. But even so, what he says is there is nobody with her name. Aemon is not a Targarean, he is a Maester. What Tyrion said is true whether Aemon is alive or not. Tyrion has clearly put a lot of thought into every word he says. He does not immediately commit to support her for a start, nor does he insist she takes his advice. Instead he states needs that she knows she has and his credentials to fill them.

The first one was necessary to show that ordinary steel breaks. But you are probably right about the second.

Pointing out they are the other side of the wall is one thing, suggesting they must have come home a strange route another thing entirely.

Well maybe people should wait till they actually make a mistake rather than making lame predictions that they are about to make a blunder in the next. And if they do make a mistake, maybe they should accept that maybe its an honest one rather than trying to impress us all with their epic denunciations of plot holes to come.

All I am saying is that it is pretty ridiculous to assume that the most likely explanation of a preview of the next TWO episodes is that the producers made an elementary continuity error.

Well, it would be rather nice if some people round here would accept the possibility that the showrunners might be cleverer than they are and know what they are doing, it being their job after all. One of the things everyone learns very quickly at MIT is that there are people at MIT that are much smarter than they are. If you are very very lucky you discover that even though there are folk who are smarter than you are in general, there are some areas in which you might be on a par with them and on a really good day exceed them. D&D are actually very clever and they do seem to know what they are doing a lot better than the average poster here.

Again, can we stop discussing continuity 'errors' in shows that have not yet been broadcast? Folk need to allow for the possibility that the two guys who managed to persuade GRRM to let them make the show and HBO to give them two thirds of a billion dollars budget just might know rather more about what they are doing than a bunch of random folk posting on a blog. Does Tyrion know who Aemon is? I seem to remember it being a reveal to Jon long after Tyrion left. So Tyrion thinks Danny is the last living Targarean because he isn't aware of any secret Targs even though we know of at least one. Plus, in the context of the talk, Tyrion isn't going to count a Maester or a member of the Blackwatch because both give up their families. Aemon is both. He is no longer a Targarean because he is a Maester. Or when the wildings get to castle black they suggest they know where others are hiding. Plenty of ways to get wildings and Jon the other side of that wall.

OK, how about this for a wild idea: Brienne rescues Shireen. Not Sansa who likely has her own ideas on ways out.

How about we wait to find out? They almost certainly have a reason. Getting rather fed up of complaints about continuity errors in episodes not yet screened.

If I was writing the series I would have slid them into season 6 for the following reasons: 1) There is more than enough material this season without them 2) Not much role for them in any of the Westeros plots unless Theon revives 3) Not much point in introducing the dragon beating horn until Danny can make some use of them 4) Keep some book material in reserve. 5) One less set to build and manage. Danny has to cross the ocean to Westeros in season 6 at which point they can strike all the Mereen sets permanently. That frees up space on the lot for the moot court sequence. They can also show one of the faceless men dropping Balon off a bridge and make a link to the FMs.

That would be logical. Jamie surely isn't expected to turn so easily and he is a sworn knight of the kingsguard. Bronn in contrast is a sellsword.

All in all I thought a very good episode in all respects and one that justifies a lot of the decisions people complained bitterly about earlier in the series. For the first few seasons, book readers have been able to lord it over the unsullied because they know what is going to happen. That has changed a lot this season and is now pretty much ended. The only remaining big spoilers that the unsullied don't know about are Danny flying off on Drogon and Jon getting the stabby stabby. I think that dynamic is what really lies behind a lot of the complaints that people have been making. And some of them have been the most idiotic and tedious complaints imaginable. If I had been writing the show, Ser Barristan wouldn't have made it on screen. Favorite characters getting whacked is all part of GoT and so are gratuitous nude scenes. If people don't like either they should make themselves some lemon cakes to eat while they wait for the next book to come out. But the complaints that annoy me the most are the ones where someone watches what happens one week, predicts what will happen as a result the next and then complains that it is 'stupid'. Only the thing is that in all the cases that come to mind, it is the complainers who have been wrong in their predictions rather than the two guys who wrote the biggest, most expensive TV serial of all time. In case folk didn't notice, it turns out that D&D have not played to the 'rape is empowerment' trope that is very common in SF and rather tedious and annoying. It isn't the rape that has brought Sansa out of her descent, it is the knowledge that her two brothers are alive. One of the things that I have thought for a while is that D&D will have great difficulty ending the series in three more seasons, let alone two. So killing off the Lemoncakes filler and the meander through the swamp with fake Aegon made perfect sense. It would be nice if people would restrict their complaints to things that have actually happened in the show, not the things they expect are going to happen.

Yes, we did need a reminder because Jon is going to get the stabby stabby in episode 10. The point of the episode is that it is setting up Sam to go to OldsTown to become the new maester. Which is of course essential if Jon is going to be told to think before responding to the pink letter. Which is also why Sam will argue that his place is at the wall with Jon. The point of showing that Gilly is at risk in Castle Black is to explain why Sam agrees to leave. I agree with the first two. The point of almost killing Bronn was to show that the Sand Snakes are actually a force to be reckoned with. GRRM doesn't need to do this in the books because they aren't characters yet, they are proto-characters for book 6. In a book you can have a person in every important scene and never give them a line of dialog. You can't do that in a TV show. If the viewers see a person on screen week after week, they want to know something about them. So D&D can't introduce characters slowly like GRRM does. The sex was not gratuitous either, it was showing that these women are entirely willing to use their bodies to achieve their ends. Seducing Bronn to make his heart beat faster and spread the poison was one example. Tyene has made an important point to Bronn which may prove critical in a future fight where they may well end up on the same side. On the Sansa thing, I am so fed up of complaints from the lemoncakes. Sansa's book arc sucks and the Jeyene Poole arc sucks. The show plot arc is much better. On Gilly, it has been evident that she wants to jump on his bones since they left Craster's keep. This is not a new development. The only change is on Sam's part.

The point is that the NW is formed of criminals and Gilly is in danger as a result. Also to show that Jon is going to have serious difficulty controlling them. This is to motivate Sam going to OldsTown with Gilly so Jon is alone when the pink letter arrives.

The possibility that you might be wrong on this doesn't seem to have occurred to you. They might not reveal R+L=J on the show because the theory might be nonsense. Of course Jon has to be a Targarean to ride the dragons. But he also has to be legitimate, remember the conversation with Tyrion? Sure a lot of people making nasty bullying comments and making thousands of posts can create the illusion that there are no problems with the notion. But I find their arguments about being a bastard not making any difference and it being OK for Lyanna to sleep around or Rheagar to be a rapist are rather hollow no matter how many times they repeat them. If you look at the show alone there is absolutely no bar to R+E=J. We have not heard any evidence that rules out Elia as the mother. In fact in the show we have no bar on Jon being Aegon because the timelines can be different.

So you think Sam gave birth? Astonishing. Like all the clues being given in the series, this is almost certainly a deliberate reference to the book scenes. But that doesn't make them proof of any particular theory. All we have been told in the show is that: * Jon has inherited 'his father's' honor and devotion to duty. * It was not Ned's way to father a bastard off a servant girl. * Sam in a bed of blood after a sword/fist fight. Of course these are consistent with R+L = J. But they are consistent with pretty much every other theory of Jon's birth apart from Wylda. From the show point of view, its only Jon's father that matters unless he is going to make a play for the iron throne itself. It is quite possible that we don't ever get a reveal of Jon's mother in the show. D&D could keep the backstory reveal for a movie. Lets say the book is published the week before the start of season 6 and D&D wrap up after season 7. They then take a year off and then spend a couple of years making a movie. That could come out round about the same time as books 7. Have we been told anything about Elia being sick in the show? I think we might have had a comment in season 1 about him looking like a Stark from Benjen but that's it. If you are looking for proof that R+L=J then that's a mistake to start with. But in any case any evidence in the books has to be considered separately from the show. There really is no in-show evidence for Jon's parentage and that's not surprising as it isn't set up as a whodunit.

Why does Bronn have to be in the cell more than a few hours?

I find it bizarre the way that people who complained about the 'unnecessary' scene in episode 1 and the 'unbelievable' Sansa plotline are off telling us what else is 'unnecessary' and 'unbelievable' after their earlier predicitions crashed and burned. Why are people so sure that what they expect will happen will happen? The most likely explanation to every potential plot hole is that the person complaining about it hasn't anticipated the resolution. But some folk are so wrapped up in their belief in one particular fixed theory of how the plot develops, they whine and moan when they see evidence that they are wrong. Really, some folk need to consider the possibility that either the showrunners haven't given us all the clues yet or that they have given enough clues and they are just not clever enough to work it out.

She is needling him and pointing out that he isn't going to have the upper hand in the relationship for long if he does not get rid of the competition. Poisons usually take effect faster with increased heart rate. If you get bitten by a snake you should not run for that reason. She was increasing his heart rate with her taunting before giving him the gift of the antidote. Why would ghost not be there? I don't think Mel saves Jon. She is evil and so is her religion. I think he is going to survive without any external help.

I think the point was that Jon has to get Gilly away from the watch and with Aemon dead he needs a new Maester. Sam has to be absent for FTW to happen. I always thought the switched babies thing a bit farfetched, even if it might well be a clue about Jon's parentage.

Another pretty solid episode. And again we have a whole bunch of posts from folk who haven't yet sussed that the show isn't the books. The gift is love if folk haven't worked it out. Gilly and Sam, Tommen and Margery, Myrcella and Trystin, Jorah and Danny, Not putting the house of black and white in the episode seems to be deliberate counterpoint. I thought the candle episode would end badly. Theon needs to find his inner strength first. But will Sansa trust him a second time? Ramsay telling Sansa about Jon makes perfect sense, he is toying with her. The point of the Dorne plot seems pretty obvious to me: The sand snakes were playing with Bronn. She had used the poison in the fight but they both lost and ended up in prison so there is nothing to be gained from letting him die. But that doesn't mean she can't toy with him first. Given that the sand snakes have done nothing in the books, this is an improvement on them. This is also about establishing Myrcella as a rival to Tommen. They have given her an opportunity to tell Jamie she has switched sides. The KL part was done pretty well. I think it clear that the queen of thorns was given Lancel by LF. She then let the High Sparrow know that if she doesn't get what she wants, she is going to expose him as a hypocrite as he already knows about Cersei's adultery. That coupled with the threat to starve KL should be enough to make him bend. But most likely, Cersei was his target from the start. What the Tyrell's probably haven't figured out is that the High Septon is going to go after Cersei for the incest. And that threatens to bring Tommen down as well and Margery with him.

Yes, I thought the Salon recap was pretty stupid. However bad things are for Sansa right now, Theon has had worse. Now granted he is a murderer and a traitor but he is broken, Sansa is not.

Well obviously you don't for very long. Which is why I think Myranda ends up being flayed: To drive that point home. It is really not clear to me if Myranda is being nasty for the sake of it or if her real game is undermining Ramsay for throwing her aside. Sansa is going to have to escape WinterFell. How she does that is going to be interesting. Does she trust to send the signal to Brienne or might it be a false hope? Not really, you join a loony assassin cult, you should probably expect some shit.