Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Westeros

HBO Releases First Four Episode Titles

Recommended Posts

^Jon's fate is ambiguous (I do dislike George's cliffhangers, just not the two resurrections we've had). Sandor, if he lives, never died. LSH and Robert Strong are poised to have quite a bit of importance to the narrative, so let's not act like their coming back was a mistake just yet. We've yet to see the role they'll play, but its likely that both of them will be of some import.

And it's not as though he did it on a whim because he regretted killing them. Robert Strong was hinted at in Bran's dream in AGOT, so his return must have been at the very least premeditated. As for LSH, given that he wrote the RW after the rest of ASOS, that means he wrote the epilogue before and knew that she'd return before he officially "did the deed" himself. That to me indicates that his resurrections aren't just sloppiness on his part or representative of some newfound reticence in him to rid himself of characters, but are in fact very intentional and are building toward big things in their respective storylines.

IMO the resurrections are kind of an inexcusable plot device, premeditated or otherwise. The idea that anyone who happens to be near a red priest/Qyburn can be brought back from death has, for me, substantially taken away from the suspense of many of the major characters' arcs, something Martin has worked so hard (over the course of the first three books) to build, and I feel like the real fear I used to feel for all of the characters has been at least somewhat diminished by the effect of the last two books: every time a character is revealed to have been spontaneously resurrected (Ser Robert Strong), or saved from death off-screen in the nick of time (Davos, potentially Jon), it just makes me groan and wish the story were more realistic (something which should never be happening in GRRM's work).

And I don't believe Jon's fate is all that ambiguous. GRRM may intend it to be, but the very fact that he's made what happened to Jon a cliffhanger seems to indicate that the resolution isn't going to be "Yep, he's really dead. Sorry for the wait."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he could have been rescued before that shot and be taking part in the final fight at Crasters.

Anything's possible. The far more likely scenario is that Grenn and Edd make it back to Castle Black on their own to let the NW know what kind of shit the mutineers are up to at Craster's (abusing the wives, sacrificing babies etc). For all Sam knows, everyone just killed each other there and they scattered to the wind. They probably need a more detailed account of what the situation is there currently to get motivated to go and take them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it likely that Edd and Grenn will be back before the commando attack of Jon on Craster's Keep.



They'll obviously take part of the mission, I'm sure I saw both of them during the images we have so far of the scene, but I think it would be a good move of the show to have them come back earlier to give a little buildup to those two characters that really deserve it !


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the resurrections are kind of an inexcusable plot device, premeditated or otherwise. The idea that anyone who happens to be near a red priest/Qyburn can be brought back from death has, for me, substantially taken away from the suspense of many of the major characters' arcs, something Martin has worked so hard (over the course of the first three books) to build, and I feel like the real fear I used to feel for all of the characters has been at least somewhat diminished by the effect of the last two books: every time a character is revealed to have been spontaneously resurrected (Ser Robert Strong), or saved from death off-screen in the nick of time (Davos, potentially Jon), it just makes me groan and wish the story were more realistic (something which should never be happening in GRRM's work).

And I don't believe Jon's fate is all that ambiguous. GRRM may intend it to be, but the very fact that he's made what happened to Jon a cliffhanger seems to indicate that the resolution isn't going to be "Yep, he's really dead. Sorry for the wait."

Thank you!! This exactly how I feel. Does LSH drive the plot of two of our main characters? Yes. But being a plot device does not make her great character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you!! This exactly how I feel. Does LSH drive the plot of two of our main characters? Yes. But being a plot device does not make you a great character.

Agreed. All of that said, however, I don't think they can cut her; she is, in the end, too essential to the main plot.

I am hoping that they won't include the Jon cliffhanger, though, but rather just make it clear what happens to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you!! This exactly how I feel. Does LSH drive the plot of two of our main characters? Yes. But being a plot device does not make her great character.

The issue you have is with GRRM then because LS is far too big of a plot device to simply remove from the story. She directly impacts three different storylines (Jaime, Brienne, the BwB). The adaptation would have nowhere to go with all of these characters if they didn't cover this off.

You're free to dislike the character but the argument can't really be about removing her from the adaptation because it won't work without her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything's possible. The far more likely scenario is that Grenn and Edd make it back to Castle Black on their own to let the NW know what kind of shit the mutineers are up to at Craster's (abusing the wives, sacrificing babies etc). For all Sam knows, everyone just killed each other there and they scattered to the wind. They probably need a more detailed account of what the situation is there currently to get motivated to go and take them out.

If there's no potential of getting more troops by rescuing people from Craster's, the mission really makes no sense whatsoever. It would be completely idiotic of Jon to take most of the remaining troops on a dangerous, non-essential mission whilst there's a wildling strike team making their way up from the south. But of course most of the strategy in the show makes no real sense, so you may well be right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Death and guest right don't mean what they used to. :P

And that is one of my less liked lines in the books, one of the reasons I became such a great fan of the serie was Ned's death, and the story suffered a lot from that change, white walkers and Beric are OK, now everyone and their mother are brought back or not dead at all, it diminished the story IMO

Anyways, back on topic, even if I don't like LS (as a character, I do like the powerful image of horror, sadness and vengeance she has), but she will play an important part on both Brienne and Jaime's plot, and maybe some others we don't know yet, so they should keep her in the show

IMO the resurrections are kind of an inexcusable plot device, premeditated or otherwise. The idea that anyone who happens to be near a red priest/Qyburn can be brought back from death has, for me, substantially taken away from the suspense of many of the major characters' arcs, something Martin has worked so hard (over the course of the first three books) to build, and I feel like the real fear I used to feel for all of the characters has been at least somewhat diminished by the effect of the last two books: every time a character is revealed to have been spontaneously resurrected (Ser Robert Strong), or saved from death off-screen in the nick of time (Davos, potentially Jon), it just makes me groan and wish the story were more realistic (something which should never be happening in GRRM's work).

And I don't believe Jon's fate is all that ambiguous. GRRM may intend it to be, but the very fact that he's made what happened to Jon a cliffhanger seems to indicate that the resolution isn't going to be "Yep, he's really dead. Sorry for the wait."

I really couldn't agree more :agree:

ETA

Agreed. All of that said, however, I don't think they can cut her; she is, in the end, too essential to the main plot.

I am hoping that they won't include the Jon cliffhanger, though, but rather just make it clear what happens to him.

They did cut Arya's fate cliffhanger from the Red Wedding, so asuming Jon won't be dead too long, they may just make it clear he's not death and continue with the story some other way. I also hope they cut Mance fake death, it didn't make much sense in the books, and will be terrible in the show, but that's just my two cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's no potential of getting more troops by rescuing people from Craster's, the mission really makes no sense whatsoever. It would be completely idiotic of Jon to take most of the remaining troops on a dangerous, non-essential mission whilst there's a wildling strike team making their way up from the south. But of course most of the strategy in the show makes no real sense, so you may well be right.

I would imagine the reasoning would be two-fold. One would be to serve justice on the men who mutinied and killed the Commander of the NW and who are still committing atrocities to innocents at Craster's. And I agree that this would be, in the grand scheme of things not nearly as high on the priority list than defending Castle Black.

Strategically though, it can be made clear that the men being alive and hanging out at Craster's will pose a threat because they are in Mance's path to the Wall and their presence will alert Mance to the fact that 1) the NW are in disarray and 2) any interrogation would reveal that the NW numbers have dwindled to next to nothing. The illusion of a stronger NW presence at the Wall is key to the battle and that subterfuge is what keeps Mance at bay for a while during the battle. So eliminating that group could be considered a top strategic move as well for Jon and the NW.

And just because Grenn and Edd make it back to Castle Black, it doesn't mean that there couldn't be other loyal NW still captured at Craster's that need to be freed and could be used for reinforcements. This could be information that Grenn and Edd relay to Jon when coming back too.

There are plenty of options there to make the story work.

I think that you really need someone who's been at Craster's to report back what exactly is going on there and what the situation is. Sam doesn't have enough information based on what was going on there when he and Gilly ran away. It would be kind of silly of Jon to mount any kind of mission based on what Sam knows, that would make the whole endeavor kind of silly IMO. They need Grenn and Edd to return to lay out why going back there makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's no potential of getting more troops by rescuing people from Craster's, the mission really makes no sense whatsoever. It would be completely idiotic of Jon to take most of the remaining troops on a dangerous, non-essential mission whilst there's a wildling strike team making their way up from the south. But of course most of the strategy in the show makes no real sense, so you may well be right.

There's also the point that Allister and Janos maybe in Castle Black at the beginnig of the season, they may send Jon to a suicide mission just to prove his loyalty to the Night's Watch, if that's the case the attack on Craster don't need to be a good strategy, just a plot to get Jon killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part of the trailer? I only remember seeing him fighting in the ice tunnel (was that during the foreshadowing), which of course would happen after my proposed scenario.

The part where Grenn and Jon are attacking Craster's Keep... lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's no potential of getting more troops by rescuing people from Craster's, the mission really makes no sense whatsoever. It would be completely idiotic of Jon to take most of the remaining troops on a dangerous, non-essential mission whilst there's a wildling strike team making their way up from the south. But of course most of the strategy in the show makes no real sense, so you may well be right.

It only makes no sense to you because you let your biased hate get in the way. Didn't Sam clearly say in S3 that it was the Watch's duty to protect the realm? Are they just going to let deserters live out like kings sacrificing babies to the Others while raping Craster's wives? They killed the Lord Commander, they've taken women, they're serving the enemy, and if the wildlings find them they might spill all they need to know of the Wall's defenses in exchange of their lives (if they're that lucky). Jon and the Watch have a handful of reasons to go there and wipe them out. It'll also set an example to the other brothers that even under the threat of war, you don't let shit like that pass. You don't desert your brothers and kill your commander. Oh also, the wildlings won't attack until Mance gives the signal. They're attacking from the south in episode 9. That obviously gives Jon and the Watch a bit of time to plan other things...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An extra who posted on Reddit clued us in on this new Craster's Keep plotline before the trailers and featurettes confirmed it with glimpses. He said that part of Jon's reasoning is so that Mance won't show up at Craster's and get info about how poorly-manned the Wall is from the turncloaks. Apparently Jon gives a big speech (the one from the trailer I presume, "he was killed by his own men, all we can give him now is justice") and asks who is willing to go with him for this mission, hence the line above in the press release, "he looks for recruits". The reddit poster also referred to it as practically a suicide mission.



I hope someone backs up that they remember that being posted because 1. I can't post links on afoiaf due to some glitch and 2. I'm too lazy to go so far back on reddit looking for something that HBO might have had deleted.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if anyone's mentioned this because I'm not going to go read every post in the thread, but it's weird that it says "Joffrey and Margaery host a breakfast", instead of a wedding. It's not like it's a secret that they're betrothed so saying wedding wouldn't spoil anything for anyone.

Isn't there a breakfast before the wedding? When Tyrion gives Joffrey the book and he destroys it with Widow's Wail? I think they're probably referring to that when they say "host a breakfast".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a sidenote:



I find it funny that people praise the "realism" of the books as opposed to the show, when the battle strategies in the books are just as unrealistic and ludicrous as in any other fantasy novel. At the rate that these armies keep killing peasants logically they'd have all starved by the time book 3 started. Why would you try to conquer enemy lands if noone is there to farm for you? This is why usually peasants would delibverately not be killed in the Middle Ages because they were really important for the cities' food supplies. Plus, the previous bloody conflict with the targaryens wouldn't have made it possible for so many people to still be around for the kingdoms to be in semi-good shape by the beginning of A Game of Thrones in the first place. There are no baby-boomers in Westeros, people (well, maybe Craster's and Walder Frey's kids....). Also, if everyone was acting in self-interest all the time people would probably try to avoid conflicts because they wouldn't want to get harmed, which again speaks against the nonstop violence in the books. So everything happening in the books is the result of the author bending the narrative to get the plot to where it needs to go, not historical accuracy. Now burning people's villages, etc; was an actual tactic (the chevauchée, which precedes scorched earth policy) but it was only used in light of failing defensive sieges and the point was to get people to switch alliances by showing that their lord could not protect them (which Robert commented on in the season 1 scene with Cersei when they talk about the Dothraki, you know, the scene that was made up for the show that is supposedly unrealistic and seemingly does not add anything useful?). Since everyone burns down villages everywhere in the books, the general war is one of chevauchée, which often faileed by the way, but the books at no point either mention that part or explain how peasants keep springing out of hles in the ground to keep the westerosi society halfway sustainable. You actually wouldn't do that kind of thing to the poeople who would be your future subjects because that either is historically inaccurate (consider Henry V's speech at Harfleur that he deliberately does not follow up on). Now there'd be a simple solution to this creative paradox: noone would be ready to fight that long under those conditions and so they would all defect,..which they suspiciously don't do in large numbers. They were probably all hypnotised into fighting for their cruel and idiotic lords. It would make sense if they were slaves because that kind of system allows people to maintain absolute power over others but Martin did sort of hammer home the fact that slavery's a big nono in Westeros so there's really no reason for people to be where they are in every part of Westeros. the continent should be a real wasteland at this rate. The fact that it isn't, is in itself unrealistic. so the lesson to be learned is that just because something seems realistic in a book does not mean that it is either real or even realistic ad hence judging unrealistic battle moves in a show based on an unrealistic fantasy book series does strike me as a wrong criterion to judge it by.



So yeah, if the show makes unrealistic choices in its adaptation of the rest of the battles, sword fights, etc. (which is why I think Oberyn can have all the fancy lance moves that he wants on the show because at some point things that look cool have some worth as well). The one thing people liked about the Phantom Menace was the lightsaber fight and that stuff was weird and unrealistic as hell.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An extra who posted on Reddit clued us in on this new Craster's Keep plotline before the trailers and featurettes confirmed it with glimpses. He said that part of Jon's reasoning is so that Mance won't show up at Craster's and get info about how poorly-manned the Wall is from the turncloaks. Apparently Jon gives a big speech (the one from the trailer I presume, "he was killed by his own men, all we can give him now is justice") and asks who is willing to go with him for this mission, hence the line above in the press release, "he looks for recruits". The reddit poster also referred to it as practically a suicide mission.

I hope someone backs up that they remember that being posted because a) I can't post links on afoiaf due to some glitch and B) I'm too lazy to go so far back on reddit looking for something that HBO might have had deleted.

Precisely. I remember that being posted. And it makes sense, but not to protar, alas. Whatever lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Theon's gonna shave Ramsay? I do remember Iwan Rheo said last year that Ramsay might have "a thing" for Theon or something of a sexual attraction to whoever he's torturing at the time.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Theon's gonna shave Ramsay? I do remember Iwan Rheo said last year that Ramsay might have "a thing" for Theon or something of a sexual attraction to whoever he's torturing at the time.

It appears so. I noticed in the foreshadowing he is bearded whilst hunting. then storms into Theon's little room all sliced up but clean shaven. I look forward to seeing how they present a scenario whereby Theon attempts to hurt Ramsay and doesn't end in him getting peeled like a banana from top to toe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×