[Spoilers ] Why hasnt Sam mentioned Bran to Jon yet?

[Chebyshov]

Well its a plot hole to the millions who haven't seen that interview. They will need to show that Jon knows in the show.

I think the assumption is that it's going to be brought up during this season. Also TV viewers might just assume Sam told Jon, because why wouldn't he? Show!Sam had no reason not to.

Obviously until it's made explicit on the show, it's not good storytelling, but that interview shows tells us that the writers didn't let Sam's lack of promise to Bran hang there in limbo. They made a decision to have Show!Jon know about Bran's location, so it's not a plot-hole. And if Kit's saying it in an interview, then it will probably make it into the show's dialogue at some point.

[Ser Desmond Wine's Bane]

I think the assumption is that it's going to be brought up during this season.

A fair assumption. Kit and John (Sam) have both read the books so I am confident that they were part of a production discussion about the issues of not having Coldhands involved. Given the limited time for the scene, Jon's reaction to Robb's death was by the most important point that had to be given exposure.

I disagree however about saying that just because a character knows, then it isn't an issue. It is an issue until the audience knows.

[Cyvasse Khal]

First off, thanks Jenny for posting that link. Cleared up one bit of discussion as Kit is far more in the know than any of us are.

I still stand by that the audience would not have needed to see an on-screen promise for Sam to keep quiet as there have been about 7 or 8 legitimate reasons mentioned on why Sam shouldn't tell him anyway, or an on-screen Jon being told about Bran because simply Jon has a host of different crap he needs to worry about more anyway and he is one mis-step away from Thorne ending his watch.

If Jon had been told like Kit reckons. I can't decide whether he's maturing more than I give him credit for, or it's just out of character. We as an audience recognises that there's not too much that he can do about that situation and with that knowledge. Yet a pre-wilding Jon would be like "screw my vows, I'm out of here, going to find Bran, take him back to Castle Black and then go and avenge Robb."

[Ser Desmond Wine's Bane]

I still stand by that the audience would not have needed to see an on-screen promise for Sam to keep quiet as there have been about 7 or 8 legitimate reasons mentioned on why Sam shouldn't tell him anyway, or an on-screen Jon being told about Bran because simply Jon has a host of different crap he needs to worry about more anyway and he is one mis-step away from Thorne ending his watch.

I really cannot understand that position.

The actor knows - great!

The character knows - great!

The audience has to guess between at least 7-8 possible scenarios as to whether the character knows or not?

[Chebyshov]

I disagree however about saying that just because a character knows, then it isn't an issue. It is an issue until the audience knows.

I'm not saying it isn't an issue; it is and the audience need clarification on this within the next couple of episodes. I'm just saying it isn't a "plot-hole," but rather a change to the plot, which will (hopefully) be made explicitly. Kit's interview assured me that it wasn't a matter of the writers leaving something out (Sam's promise), but instead altering how it plays out.

However, if it's not brought up, I'm going to have a serious problem with it.

[Cyvasse Khal]

I really cannot understand that position.

The actor knows - great!

The character knows - great!

The audience has to guess between at least 7-8 possible scenarios as to whether the character knows or not?

That's right because it is that much of a non-issue (despite some people claiming it's the biggest plot-hole since Doc from Back to the Future not realising he has a 59 seconds margin of error for a 1 second lightning strike) about whether Jon knows or doesn't know about Bran that the audience doesn't need to know. It doesn't drive the plot forwards at all, in the slightest. There's a difference between the character who is in the world 24/7 to the audience who gets about 5 mins of dialogue from each story an episode. I personally think it's fine that they chose not to include a few of those precious screen time minutes of Jon getting told about Bran and Sam/Jon rationalising what that info means to him.

[Ser Desmond Wine's Bane]

I'm not saying it isn't an issue; it is and the audience need clarification on this within the next couple of episodes. I'm just saying it isn't a "plot-hole," but rather a change to the plot, which will (hopefully) be made explicitly. Kit's interview assured me that it wasn't a matter of the writers leaving something out (Sam's promise), but instead altering how it plays out.

However, if it's not brought up, I'm going to have a serious problem with it.

Ahhh yep. Thanks for the clarification. All the situation needs is an acknowledgement by Jon that he knows and the awareness that the Wildling attack means he cannot even hope to pursue. It will work fine. A Bran/Sam promise would be better but it isn't a broken situation unless they never make recognition in the show (or delay for too long).

[Harry Lime]

hello

i just wanted to say that in this video kit says that jon finds out about bran being north of the wall off screen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbrd1w-8KNk

Well, that settles it, I suppose. Hopefully they'll establish this in the next episode and put the debate to rest.

[P. frontalis chiripepe]

I really cannot understand that position.

The actor knows - great!

The character knows - great!

The audience has to guess between at least 7-8 possible scenarios as to whether the character knows or not?

I don't think we need to be spoon fed everything. Sometimes its better when we aren't. More cerebral. If the show dumbed itself down and Gerber'ed us with every fact, we wouldn't have as much to talk about. ;)

[iknownothingjonsnow]

That's right because it is that much of a non-issue (despite some people claiming it's the biggest plot-hole since Doc from Back to the Future not realising he has a 59 seconds margin of error for a 1 second lightning strike) about whether Jon knows or doesn't know about Bran that the audience doesn't need to know. It doesn't drive the plot forwards at all, in the slightest. There's a difference between the character who is in the world 24/7 to the audience who gets about 5 mins of dialogue from each story an episode. I personally think it's fine that they chose not to include a few of those precious screen time minutes of Jon getting told about Bran and Sam/Jon rationalising what that info means to him.

If it doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not Jon knows about Bran, then there weren't 7 or 8 legitimate reasons why Sam shouldn't tell him.

[P. frontalis chiripepe]

If it doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not Jon knows about Bran, then there weren't 7 or 8 legitimate reasons why Sam shouldn't tell him.

Well, we have the benefit of hindsight from the novels, so we know ultimately it doesn't matter in the slightest. A character without that hindsight has legitimate reasons though. There were plenty. You're just ignoring them. One of the best reasons is the one mentioned above: Jon is already dangerously close to being beheaded for breaking vows. Sam would know that if he tells Jon about Bran, there's a good chance Jon would go in search of him, thus making his beheading by the Night's Watch an almost certainty. Perfectly legitimate reason, once you expand your mind into what the characters might be thinking. However, even with a legitimate reason it seems Sam decided to tell Jon anyway.

[Blazfemur]

Perhaps your aversion to my use of the term 'plot hole' is that you clearly have no idea what it means?

Less than 30 minutes ago you were declaring that one version of events had occurred, based on information presented in the show. Now, based on extraneous information from a completely separate source, you are declaring the exact opposite. I applaud your malleability, but I'm afraid you can't have it both ways.

You know nothing, iknownothingjonsnow

[Cyvasse Khal]

If it doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not Jon knows about Bran, then there weren't 7 or 8 legitimate reasons why Sam shouldn't tell him.

Those two things are not one in the same. It is not an issue that Jon does/doesn't about Bran because he simply can't do anything about it anyway rgardless of what his reaction to it would be, and yes from hindsight from reading the novels we know it doesn't impact the plot so something so trivial being masqueraded as a plot-hole should not need to be included.

Sam as a character is in a similar position as what the audience is in, in realising that there's host of reasons why he shouldn't say anything. But apparently he did off screen, and maybe that off screen conversation also involved talking Jon out of doing something dumb. If that's the case, cool nice one Sam, good choice Jon, didn't need to see it, now we can move on to bigger issues.

[Ser Desmond Wine's Bane]

However, that's a legitimate reason IF Sam decided not to tell Jon, which it looks like he may have anyway.

Yep, he has been told, so that point is moot.

Unfortunately there are only a couple of thousand people who have that knowledge. The millions of others don't have that knowledge and have to hit the same 'Why hasn't Sam told Jon' pothole every time the story heads back to the Wall.

Its not a matter of spoon feeding anything. When everyone (except the couple of thousand who have the answer) are asking the same question, then there is a pothole in the road that needs patching.

[P. frontalis chiripepe]

Yep, he has been told, so that point is moot.

Unfortunately there are only a couple of thousand people who have that knowledge. The millions of others don't have that knowledge and have to hit the same 'Why hasn't Sam told Jon' pothole every time the story heads back to the Wall.

Its not a matter of spoon feeding anything. When everyone (except the couple of thousand who have the answer) are asking the same question, then there is a pothole in the road that needs patching.

Far from it. Getting the audience to ask questions can be a major strength of a story. We don't need to be told every fact. But as you said, the point is probably moot, as it seems Jon does know.

[Cyvasse Khal]

Yep, he has been told, so that point is moot.

Unfortunately there are only a couple of thousand people who have that knowledge. The millions of others don't have that knowledge and have to hit the same 'Why hasn't Sam told Jon' pothole every time the story heads back to the Wall.

Its not a matter of spoon feeding anything. When everyone (except the couple of thousand who have the answer) are asking the same question, then there is a pothole in the road that nee

And that 'pothole patching' will come in the form of the tv watchers hopefully realising in the upcoming episodes it doesn't really matter anyway. I think even with not knowing how the plot progresses from here, if I solely just watched the show and felt a detail was omitted, my first instinct would be to just assume it wasn't integral to the plot anyway, rather than lament on how much of a screw up it apparently is.

That's I guess an easy position to take admittedly, and as was said it's good if it gets the tv only watchers to think harder about what's going on and ask questions, and talk about whether they agree with a decision of a character. Calling it a plot-hole though is just using that term incorrectly.

[Ser Desmond Wine's Bane]

Far from it. Getting the audience to ask questions can be a major strength of a story. We don't need to be told every fact. But as you said, the point is probably moot, as it seems Jon does know.

Can you point anywhere in the show that would demonstrate that 'it seems Jon does know' please?

And that 'pothole patching' will come in the form of the tv watchers hopefully realising in the upcoming episodes it doesn't really matter anyway. I think even with not knowing how the plot progresses from here, if I solely just watched the show and felt a detail was omitted, my first instinct would be to just assume it wasn't integral to the plot anyway, rather than lament on how much of a screw up it apparently is.

That's I guess an easy position to take admittedly, and as was said it's good if it gets the tv only watchers to think harder about what's going on and ask questions, and talk about whether they agree with a decision of a character. Calling it a plot-hole though is just using that term incorrectly.

The problem with the question in this case is that a couple of thousand people have access to an answer that is not from the show and millions of people do not have that access.

If they address that situation going forward, in the show, then its fine. If they don't, then it is an issue. I just consider myself fortunate that having read the books I know such issue would be a pothole in the road not the Grand Canyon.

As I said a few times upthread, there were for more important things for Jon to go through in Ep1 than Bran so at the moment it isn't an issue, just a question.

[P. frontalis chiripepe]

Can you point anywhere in the show that would demonstrate that 'it seems Jon does know' please?

Apparently you missed the link above about the actor stating that Jon does know. And I was just agreeing with your statement about him already knowing, so your response here is bizarre.

[Khal Porno]

OF COURSE it will come up on the show. Jeeze, people!! Especially if Kit says explicitly that Jon finds out, that MUST mean that it will be addressed at some point when it becomes relevant. Why is it so important that there HAS to be a plot hole, when we know there ISN'T one? I swear to God, it's like some people here desperately need validation.

[iknownothingjonsnow]

Based on the comments, I think we can close the book on this one. It's clearly not a plot hole, simply an unexplained gap in the story which will eventually be addressed with a contrived explanation - that's nothing like a plot hole... :rolleyes: