Jump to content

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


TheBadboy

Recommended Posts

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:

"A contrived explanation"...good gravy. I can't for the life of me understand why people will tie themselves up in knots over non-issues like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Jon makes the comment to Sam about wanting to lead the attack on the deserters of the NW at Craster's Keep in hopes of finding Bran along the way.

Boom non existent problem solved.

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?

The only people in the audience confused are the book readers who are like, wait a minute in the books Sam promised not to tell anyone that he saw Bran so he can't tell Jon Snow in the show. Which is what I would call failed logic.

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.

The show has 50 minutes to explain stuff each episode. We don't need to see a conversation about Sam telling Jon that he saw his brother because the audience saw Sam and Bran meet last season. The audience has seen Jon and Sam being friends that talk about everything since season one.

and perhaps the show is "trolling" the "know it all book readers" .... did Sam tell him? Does Jon know? What is going on I can't figure anything out unless I read it or it is explicitly stated in the show.

Maybe the audience is suppose to wonder if Jon knows about where his brother is or not at this point in the season.

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

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.

Yes. Last season episode 9 titled the Rains of Castamere. Jon Snow is told by the wildlings to kill the old man, he refuses and starts fighting the wildlings, Bran wargs into Summer and attacks the wildlings. Jon Snow sees Summer and Shaggydog attacking wildlings which aids him in his escape from them.

Is it hard to believe that any conversation between Sam and Jon Snow is going to include what Jon went through including how he saw two direwolves and how Sam met Bran?

I mean some time has passed clearly. Jon's wounds are "healed" and Ygritte/Tormond are waiting for a response from Mance which "the man" was sent quite awhile ago and should be back with "word" on their "orders"

and finally reason for Coldhands/Bran/Jojen's promise was cut from the show, Bran is not thought to be dead to the world, like the books. This is not a plot hole, it is plot divergence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

That link was to an interview with Kit.

You claimed that "It seems Jon knows" We can only conclude that from something that is not in the actual show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon makes the comment to Sam about wanting to lead the attack on the deserters of the NW at Craster's Keep in hopes of finding Bran along the way.

Boom non existent problem solved.

Yep, one of a number of ways it can be elegantly handled.

The only people in the audience confused are the book readers who are like, wait a minute in the books Sam promised not to tell anyone that he saw Bran so he can't tell Jon Snow in the show. Which is what I would call failed logic.

Nope. I know people who haven't read the books who have asked the question. I have also read in various places comments by people who claim to have not read the books who are asking the question.

Yes. Last season episode 9 titled the Rains of Castamere. Jon Snow is told by the wildlings to kill the old man, he refuses and starts fighting the wildlings, Bran wargs into Summer and attacks the wildlings. Jon Snow sees Summer and Shaggydog attacking wildlings which aids him in his escape from them.

John seeing Direwolves south of the wall does not lead to a rational conclusion that he now 'knows' Bran is North of the Wall.

Is it hard to believe that any conversation between Sam and Jon Snow is going to include what Jon went through including how he saw two direwolves and how Sam met Bran?

No, it isn't hard to believe. It just involves having reason to accept that such a thing took place.

I mean some time has passed clearly. Jon's wounds are "healed" and Ygritte/Tormond are waiting for a response from Mance which "the man" was sent quite awhile ago and should be back with "word" on their "orders"

and finally reason for Coldhands/Bran/Jojen's promise was cut from the show, Bran is not thought to be dead to the world, like the books. This is not a plot hole, it is plot divergence.

Yep - hence why I describe it a a bit of pothole in the road instead of the grand canyon - sized issue that some were leading towards. It isn't a massive issue at all. But it isn't non-existent either. As I have said previously a number of times, I am confident they will spend a moment to address, but if they don't, well it will just be a lesser annoyance compared to some of the previous issues with the story at the wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any reason they would have told Jon about Robb but not Bran and Rickon? In the books Jon returns to Castle Black before the RW, so the only news they had to break to him was that Theon sacked Winterfell and his half-brothers are dead (which is when he remembers the direwolf and wonders if Bran was warging from beyond the grave).



From an adaptation standpoint it might be better for the viewers to have the scene we'll presumably see in one of the next few episodes:



Janos Slynt: Sorry about that whole 'trying to have you killed' thing, Jon. By the way, your daddy's ward torched your hometown and murdered your OBGYN. Oh yeah, and your little brothers too. You know, the crippled one and... uh... Oliver Twist.



Big Fudge Tarly: What? Dead? No they're not. I just saw them a few weeks ago. We were all hanging out at the Nightfort together. We ordered pizza and watched reruns of Three's Company.




Or perhaps some variation of that. I think it's a fine producorial decision, I just for the life of me can't think of a reason why they'd have already told him about 1 tragedy but not the other.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The show has 50 minutes to explain stuff each episode. We don't need to see a conversation about Sam telling Jon that he saw his brother because the audience saw Sam and Bran meet last season. The audience has seen Jon and Sam being friends that talk about everything since season one.

and perhaps the show is "trolling" the "know it all book readers" .... did Sam tell him? Does Jon know? What is going on I can't figure anything out unless I read it or it is explicitly stated in the show.

Maybe the audience is suppose to wonder if Jon knows about where his brother is or not at this point in the season.

I agree with most of this, but I think we need to find out at some point, because it will have strong implications for what Jon does with Stannis's offer to him. Book!Jon would never have even considered it if he thought Bran was alive. I don't think we need an entire conversation devoted to it...maybe just Jon making a remark to Sam like "who knows how long he'll survive North of the Wall" or something along those lines.

If they cut out Stannis's offer (unlikely), then perhaps we don't need clarification ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That link was to an interview with Kit.

You claimed that "It seems Jon knows" We can only conclude that from something that is not in the actual show.

LOL. Yes, 'it seems Jon knows', meaning from the interview with Kit, it seems Jon knows after all. But lets not lower the debate to semantics over whether the word 'seems' can apply to a conclusion from watching that interview. [it can].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know nothing, iknownothingjonsnow

Well, in this case he does. It is a plot hole that Sam would not have told Jon this by now - there is no logical reason based on what we have been given that Sam would not have told Jon. It's not "OHMIGOD, no one HEARD him say "Rosebud"" plot hole, but it is. Are there many plausible explanations we could get to in the next 9 episodes? yep. And we probably will...but until that time, until they choose to deliver the information that it was a secret or Jon was told or found out or however they handle it, it is a plot hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not "OHMIGOD, no one HEARD him say "Rosebud"" plot hole, but it is.

WHICH ISN'T A PLOT HOLE!!! A person's "last words" mean the last words someone else heard him say. He could have been saying "Rosebud" for the last several hours for all we know. If no one was around for the instance of him saying it that we see, obviously that wouldn't be considered his last words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHICH ISN'T A PLOT HOLE!!! A person's "last words" mean the last words someone else heard him say. He could have been saying "Rosebud" for the last several hours for all we know.

Yes, and if we're given that no one was there to hear them, then it is a plot hole even if it is referenced that they are the last words.

In that actual movie, yes, the butler was apparently in the room even though we never see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and if we're given that no one was there to hear them, then it is a plot hole even if it is referenced that they are the last words.

In that actual movie, yes, the butler was apparently in the room even though we never see that.

The very term "last words" implies someone hearing, and we know that he was attended to by a nurse, therefore it is fact that he said "Rosebud" at an earlier time and that was recollected as his last words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The very term "last words" implies someone hearing, and we know that he was attended to by a nurse, therefore it is fact that he said "Rosebud" at an earlier time and that was recollected as his last words.

So you're missing the point of an example. If something was said to be "last words when he died" and there is no one there to hear them, it is a plot hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're missing the point of an example. If something was said to be "last words when he died" and there is no one there to hear them, it is a plot hole.

No, you're missing the point. If the last thing anyone heard him say was something other than "Rosebud" (let's say he says to the nurse "Get me a glass of water," she leaves the room, and he dies), then those would have been his last words. The simplest explanation is that he said "Rosebud" before when someone was in the room with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoo boy, we can argue about semantics all day and all night but I'll tell you what I find interesting about sam promising (out loud/implied/for bran's own good). That the people who are least thought of in this series: bastards, criminals, broken men, people who are told they won't amount to anything, are the ones who keep their promises and vows. They end up beheaded, on the wall, being called kingslayer, etc. I guess sam makes jon sticking to his vows not seem as unusual as it apparantly is.

Some people always keep their promises, no matter what. Hard to wrap the head around knowing human nature in the books and IRL, but there it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you're missing the point. If the last thing anyone heard him say was something other than "Rosebud" (let's say he says to the nurse "Get me a glass of water," she leaves the room, and he dies), then those would have been his last words. The simplest explanation is that he said "Rosebud" before when someone was in the room with him.

No - I understand your point. However you are missing mine - if the author states there is no one in the room and at that time says Person B says his last words are "XX YY" then there is a plot hole because there was no one there to hear them. There's no one hiding in the corner, no one on the other side of the door, there is no one. There isn't previous conversation to reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...