iknownothingjonsnow

Any word on who's going to be playing the Mountain? I just hope it's not the guy from season 2.

It's not the guy from S2. It's a new actor (I don't remember his name). You can actually see a shot of him in the preview for next week episode.

Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson.

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

I just think that doing it this way, people now have an entire week to think back to all those trailers with Oberyn fighting and realize that he's the champion. A lot of non book readers will probably realize it. Kind of ruins the surprise.

What trailers?

So did LF throw the necklace back on the boat so that someone would be able to retrieve it and use it as evidence to frame Tyrion and Sansa?

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?

It's not running away scared.

It's that she realized there was absolutely NO reason to fight anymore, Theon Greyjoy is dead.

SMH at some of you who don't get this.

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!!!!!

And how, exactly, would Osha have stopped Bran? She didn't stop him because it wasn't her place to do so. Your points here don't make any sense, and you seem to have ignored the main counter-points I provided in order to... What? Show that you don't understand how logical fallacies work, and/or don't know how to explain yourself clearly? Either refute the points made against your initial statements (which you haven't done), or concede that your complaints don't make any sense when taken in the context of what the show has presented.

How does Bran not interacting with Jon put him in more danger? How would Jojen's powers convince Jon that Bran must take this journey when Bran's powers would not do the same? How did you come to the conclusion that Bran considers Jon too "moronic" to understand his need to travel north, when Bran's own understanding on his journey is so esoteric?

The irony of calling someone's argument a straw man while you're in the process of doing exactly that is... Well, it isn't sad, but it is pretty stupid.

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...

Also, Osha quite clearly did not truly understand or agree with Bran's decision, hence why she and Rickon left the group. And to say that Hodor 'easily understands' the reason they're on this journey is kind of silly. I'm thinking his main goal is simply to stick by the person he's closest with, regardless of what he's doing and where he's going.

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...

I'm trying to show you that Bran etc. fearing that Jon will stop them is not a show construct. Jojen gains Bran's trust in the show by mentioning the three eyed raven even before Bran does.

Even in the books they don't want him or anyone to know. CH doesn't tell Sam 'You can tell his brother but nobody else..he'll be fine with it.' He says 'no seekers'. None.

Do you honestly think that Jon, knowing what is beyond the Wall is going to let Bran wander around there just because he tells him; 'I saw a three eyed raven in a vision'? Honestly? Would that would convince you in that situation?

Jon might trust Bran completely but there's a point where everyone says; 'No I'm not going to let that happen'.

Show Bran impresses upon Sam that he has to go beyond the Wall and presumably Sam relayed this to Jon but Jon still said he would have stopped them if he hadn't been injured.

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.

You're aware that in the books when they meet Sam they beg him not to reveal to anyone that Bran is alive?

Jon would definitely have stopped them, he said as much to Sam at Castle Black. Do you really think he'd let them wander in a place with Others, wights and a massive wildling army? They managed to get captured by a group of halfwits from the NW, they woudln't stand a chance in Jon's eyes.

Their story isn't very convincing..they're going to see a three eyed raven ffs. Who is going to believe that?

Why do you think Coldhands extracted the promise from Sam not to tell anyone in the books? Because if he did word would get to Jon who is the only one who would care that Bran is beyond the Wall and pursue them.

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."

In fairness, it's not an unfair assumption to make on their part. What person would allow their crippled younger brother, a sickly looking boy, a young girl and a simple giant to go wandering beyond the Wall? It's not that they're casting aspertions on Jon's character, more that they realise the absurdity of what they're doing and how crazy it would sound if they tried to explain it.

'We're looking for a raven with three eyes Jon, he's up here somewhere'.

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...

People's reactions to the concept of rape in the books and the show are interesting. It seems like there are (1) people who dislike the non-book rape scenes that HBO has added to the show, (2) people who argue that any rape in the show is consistent with the books because the books are violent, and (3) people who don't want to call what happens in the show rape.

Why aren't we having this argument about non-rape violence, I wonder? No one is arguing about the 163 crucified kids. Maybe because that was exactly from the book? Or the people burned at the stake? Also in the book. Joffrey being poisoned? book. Jaime's hand? Book. Theon's torture? Book, but off-page. The rape scenes at issue aren't book rape scenes - they're the Cersei/Jaime sept scene (consensual in the book), and the Craster's scene (not in anyone's POV from the book).

It's not an issue of "oh, my delicate eyes can't take this horror," it's just people noting that HBO has added extra sexual violence scenes that weren't in the books. The reason they're doing it is because sex sells. Sexual violence sells. It's all right to point it out.

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.

Wow, thank you for explaining the difference between watching and reading, and also saying exactly what I said but pretending to disagree with me.

: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".

I suggest people look up the meaning of "filler". It doesn't mean "not in the books". The sooner you get it, the better.

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.

We also see that same character chop off the head of a horse and try to murder the son of the second most powerful man in the kingdom. What you stated above felt unbelievably cheap on the show. GRRM has said many times that one of the big flaws of season 1 was they couldn't show any real battles.

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.

We've seen the Mountain do plenty of horrible things on page, The Mummers and Boltons too. So this comment only really applies to villains over at Slavers Bay, IMO

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.

People seem to be calling the Night's Watch traitors cartoonishly evil, but forget that George himself has created plenty of characters who are as well. The Mountain, Vargo Hoat and the Murmmers, The Boltons, pretty much every enemy Dany has in Slavers Bay.

So if GRRM creates a one sided villain it's alright, but if D & D do it there's whining. Can anyone say double standard, lol

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 and Ramsay are cardboard villains too*, but of course anything D&D-invented gets hate.

*Not hating on the characters; Joffrey is one of my favorites

Joffrey is one of your favorites.

Undoubtedly this caricature mutineer is not.

Thank you for proving my point.

I hate how they spoiled the books :ack: . I'm not watching this show anymore :bang:

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)