iknownothingjonsnow

Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson. Based on those 2 seconds, he looks AWESOME. At first glance I thought he was the original one (Conan Stevens).

What trailers?

Apparently. Understanding that those passing judgement aren't at all concerned about justice, I'm confused as to what events are supposed to have transpired. Wherever Sansa and Dontos met up with LittleFinger, it took them hours to get there - yet apparently they were still close enough that Dontos's body was sure to be discovered. Beyond that, what conclusion is one to draw from a dead Dontos with a crossbow bolt sticking out of his face and a poison necklace laying on his torso. That Sansa betrayed and killed him, then betrayed Tyrion and incriminated herself by leaving Joffrey's murder weapon on Dontos's corpse?

Yeah, that's moronic. She made a split-second psychological evaluation during the heat of battle and instantly reached the prognosis that there was no possible hope for recovery, ever?

Yara: Nothing will stop us from rescuing my dear brother. Ramsey: I have a dog. Yara: Run away!!!!!

Ok, well perhaps learn what a straw argument is before you throw the term around incorrectly, and consider actually reading the relevant posts before you respond. That way you wouldn't make irrelevant points which were addressed pages ago, and you wouldn't get your panties in a bunch when your irrelevant points get ignored. You wouldn't that type of instruction would be necessary, but I guess there are always people like you to come around and defy common sense...

Which is why she stopped him. Oh wait... Maybe you should try a little harder? At this point you're disagreeing with reality (in Osha) and a straw man (in Hodor). It's pretty sad...

Bran not wanting anyone to know and never having the opportunity to explain it to Jon is a book construct. Bran not caring if Jon knows, despite the assumption that he'll unnecessarily risk his life in response to the knowledge, is a show construct. Bran having the opportunity to convince Jon with the help of mini-Jesus's superpowers, yet deciding that Jon is too much of a moron to understand what Bran, Meera, and Osha all easily understood (and despite the fact that his failure to do so unnecessarily puts Jon's life in danger), is a show construct. I understand the difference, hence why I recognize the book construct is sound and the show construct is moronic, hence my making the effort of my original post.

Well if we're going to ask insulting questions that insinuate the other person is an idiot: You do understand that there is a difference between a book and a television show, right? And that show!Jojen refers to show!Jojen while book!Jojen refers to book!Jojen? And that things which occurred in the books but not the show are things which occurred in the books but not the show? You could have simply answered "Yes." As in, "I think it's plausible that Jojen, a complete stranger, was able to instantly convince Bran to risk his life on this absurd quest; yet Jon, with the baseline of already knowing and trusting Bran, would be unable to be convinced to merely step aside."

So Jojen, a complete stranger, was able to instantly convince Bran to risk his life on this absurd quest; yet Jon, with the baseline of already knowing and trusting Bran, would be unable to be convinced to merely step aside? Rather than having an insultingly low opinion of Jon, they apparently think that Jon has absolutely no faith at all in Bran. I don't see how that's any better. I also think it's comical that show!Jojen would lack the confidence to convince anyone of the importance or validity of their quest. The kid is a blue light saber and scruffy beard short of being Obi-Wan...

Hodor was pretty 'Johnny on the spot' freeing Jojen and Meera - took him about 15 seconds from the time he left Bran's side until they all popped back on screen. How did Hodor heal so immediately after having a spear stuck through his leg? Why exactly did Bran allow them to do endure captivity for so long if the entire time he had the ability to lead their escape? If Jon is as overprotective as everyone seems to think, the only logical conclusion is that he'll venture north to find and save Bran. It seems to me that Jojen and Bran think so little of Jon that they can't trust him not to interfere in their quest, and they care so little about his safety that they don't care whether he exposes himself to completely unnecessary danger. Either Bran and Jojen are dicks, or D&D are shitty writers.

Can someone possibly explain Bran's actions? We're captured - good. Hodor is being tortured - good. Women all around us are being raped and abused - good. Maera is about to be raped - good. Locke shows up - ok, this has gone on JUST long enough, and NOW it's time to warg into Hodor (nevermind the fact that he recently had a spear put through his leg) and get us out of here. WTF???

YOU WERE JUST DUELING WITH THAT GUY FOR 2 FUCKING MINUTES - WHY DID YOU SUDDENLY FORGET HE WAS LYING ON THE GROUND RIGHT BEHIND YOU WTH HIS FREAKING SWORD YOU FREAKING MORON??? #D&Dsuck

You just called me your 'flesh and blood', why are you freaking out that I called you 'Aunt'?

Emilia doubling down on her "smell the fart" acting I see...

There were many people, myself included, who felt that Theon's torture scenes were gratuitous and unnecessary. I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. Death and violence are a reality of life and, therefore, have become a part of the vocabulary of most genres of entertainment. Rape and torture are not and, as such, well be held to higher levels of scrutiny. Long story short, objectionable content presented in a reasonable context will generally be accepted, and when it has no point and/or goes to far then people tend to get upset. GRRM is far superior to D&D in terms of knowing which buttons and how hard to press. It is known. EDT - GRRM also has the benefit of a more forgiving medium with respect to the depiction of these objectionable acts. Which is to say, GRRM both has an easier path to follow and is better at navigating it - that's why people who weren't troubled by the books get upset with the show.

:drunk: This forum can sometimes be dark and full of __________ (fill in any number of blanks). I've actually participated in a part of this conversation without full realizing what was being discussed. I wasn't offended by the gratuitous sex and violence displayed at Craster's, I was offended by the crappy writing. They'd have been better off wearing eye patches and signs stating "we are evil SOBs".

As much as I appreciate arrogance and condescension, in this case it kind of does mean that. D&D have professed a desire to stay true to the books. Ergo, anything they add will either [A] break that promise by leading a storyline to a different outcome, or do nothing to advance any of the storylines and thus constitute filler. The only real exception would be the revealing of upcoming book elements to which they've been privileged, but I'm guessing that's not the nature of the 'filler' complaints to which you refer.

Whether or not it's shown on screen isn't even a little bit the point. The point is: "Hi, I'm a bad guy, let me do a few ridiculous things to show you I'm a bad guy while I talk about all of the terrible things I've done to let you know I'm a bad guy so that you instantly hate me and can be happy when a good guy eventually shows up and kills me" is pretty much the most superficial, lame-ass writing imaginable. They've did it to introduce the Thenns, and now they've done it with Kirk (or whatever his name is). No one is trying to kill The Mountain because he decapitated a horse. Oberyn wants to kill The Mountain (sort of) because of events which occurred before the books and which we've heard about through natural means, not Gregor standing over a fire and beating his chest bragging about murdering Elia and her children. Similarly, his criminal acts in the Riverlands were parenthetical as related to the actual story. That tension was created by Jaime acting to protect Tyrion which conflicted with Ned acting to protect Cat, who was acting to avenge her son. All The Mountain provided was some measure of moral justification for Ned to do what he wanted to do anyway, which was act out against the Lannisters. That tangential influence is night-and-day from what we're talking about at Craster's. Good writing is believable characters committing understandable acts which naturally creates conflict with each other. That's why, in the best storytelling, both the good and bad guys justifiably believe they're on the side of the angels. That's also why ASOIAF has so many "grey" characters - because GRRM is brilliant with the establishment and interplay of many separate "worlds", and it rarely manifests itself as 'on the nose' as pretty much everything D&D have contributed so far this season.

The Mountain applies perfectly. Season 1, we hear about his misdeeds in the Riverlands which prompts Eddard to act on his negative feeling toward the Lannisters ultimately leading to his downfall. Is Clegane's contribution somewhat contrived? Sure. Does it feel feel cheap? No. Why not? Because it's only an element of the puzzle and GRRM actually knows how to drive a story forward without relying on artificial tension. In the case at hand, we have some douchebag who no one recognizes reciting lame dialogue about his misdeeds for the obvious purpose of making us hate him before he and his band of rebels meet up with Jon's band of Brothers. Does it feel cheap? Yes. Why? Because it's hack writing artificially inserting garbage to substitute as tension. It's the rough equivalent of playing a pop song at the end of a RomCom as a substitute for the emotional connection the script failed to make.

And again, it's 2 entirely different things to have vague references to a cardboard villain off doing misdeeds compared to a moron standing over a campfire beating his chest in a lame attempt to infuse dramatic tension. I'm not a D&D hater by any means, but that scene was incredibly lame and poorly conceived - anyone unwilling to admit that is simply being a D&D apologist.

Joffrey is one of your favorites. Undoubtedly this caricature mutineer is not. Thank you for proving my point.

At some point they're going to have to spoil the books, so I'd suggest you quit watching sooner rather than later if that's going to bother you. Having said that, since there's no possible way you can logically articulate what they allegedly "spoiled" already I'd also suggest that the folks complaining are doing so simply for the sake of doing so.

Strong 8 bordering on 9. I like that they had Dany at the beginning to get her out of the way. I hate it when you look the clock and realize that it's 45 minutes past the hour and you just know they're going to close out with Emilia making some boring diatribe with that stupid smug look on her face... The violent stuff at Craster's was pretty lame, IMO. I hate caricatures like Karl who are evil for no reason other than 'because they're evil'. GRRM knows how to build a true character, D&D still have no freaking clue. Everything outside of Dany and Craster's was top-notch.

Everything I do, I do it for you." -Brienne to Bryan Adams (aka Jaime Lannister)