HairGrowsBack Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 Just now, A Ghost of Someone said: Sophie Turner was there. Oh, I got confused, sorry That wouldn't make much sense : she fights for Winterfell than leaves it to go South ? But then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Ghost of Someone Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, HairGrowsBack said: Oh, I got confused, sorry That wouldn't make much sense : she fights for Winterfell than leaves it to go South ? But then Well, her Gruncle, the Blackfish is at Riverrun, holding it out against incredible odds but may be needed helping her up North, also, the BWB is down there, consolidate Stark loyalists and bring them to the fight at Winterfell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daske Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 On 29/04/2016 at 5:06 PM, StepStark said: ... why are always fans like you that come up with all those excuses? Why Benioff and Weiss never "explain" anything? Like, when he read the interview, why didn't Benioff react and said that he didn't actually mean it that way? Even in the matters that deal only with the scenes from the show, why are fans like you always the ones that have to come up with some explanation? ... Because we are fans. Posting on a fan site. And we mostly post to disagree when we feel people are being unfair or overreacting. If we felt the show was so awful I'm sure we wouldn't be defending anybody. What you call 'excuse', I call 'explanation'. It's not complicated. What gets forgotten here is that millions and millions of people are thoroughly enjoying the show. Does that make it faultless? No. But this site is lop-sided, it makes it appear like those who complain and those that enjoy the show are about even in number (and yes, I'm aware those two categories are not totally exclusive). But you are a tiny minority of the audience. Now that in itself doesn't make anything right or wrong, but don't try to pretend 'fans like me' are some kind of crazy blind cult; we are the norm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meera of Tarth Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 anybody here having again LSH hype? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairGrowsBack Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 8 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said: anybody here having again LSH hype? I wish but I really don't feel it will happen. The plotline, yes (sort of), but not the character itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meera of Tarth Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 10 minutes ago, HairGrowsBack said: I wish but I really don't feel it will happen. The plotline, yes (sort of), but not the character itself. what would annoy me if she finally doesn't appear is that everything points to that direction. Jon is already resurrected; we were told that this season will be a shocking moment after a shocking moment and, if the next one will be toj; INTRODUCING lsh after would be amazing; and the old characters that are returning...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meera of Tarth Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 not to mention the secretism and that the face of cat was in a teaser..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 I think introducing her now after resurrecting Jon would possibly be the most anti-climatic event in the show ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meera of Tarth Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 22 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: I think introducing her now after resurrecting Jon would possibly be the most anti-climatic event in the show ever. On the contrary! It would be perfect. It would be shocking and, considering they are introducing the fantasy elements this season: UnGregor, Bran's visions and Jon's resurrection it would be amazing. Furthermore, LSH is not Catelyn. It would be a balance to Jon's resurrection. We have yet to see if Jon has lost something of his soul in the process, but regardless of that, LSH would be a real WTF moment. And it would also please the readers who like her (a lot of them). And it would follow Beric's words of losing some part of me....... If she appeared before, it would be anticlimatic...but after...it's just perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Stoneheart Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 I don't think she is appearing. However, the title of the next episode is Oathbreaker. I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all, but so many episode titles have more than once coincidentally given a hint of Stoneheart: Mhysa (one episode after she dies), The Children, Mother's Mercy...and now Oathbreaker. I'm a little ticked that the showrunners keep doing this--coincidence? 4 times? come on, it's outright trolling. That being said, if she is indeed in, we have to see a glimmer of the unfolding story in this very next episode. Brienne is not mentioned at all in the synopsis. Not a good start. If we don't see or hear of some hints of the BwB next episode, you may as well count her cut--an episode called Oathbreaker is crying out for some hints of LSH (if not the lady herself to hiss out the word). If we don't see story progress in the next episode, she's done, folks. And if we do see glimmers of the storyline, and Sansa is still there with Brienne when they approach the brotherhood, then expect Lady Lemonheart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 15 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said: On the contrary! It would be perfect. It would be shocking and, considering they are introducing the fantasy elements this season: UnGregor, Bran's visions and Jon's resurrection it would be amazing. Furthermore, LSH is not Catelyn. It would be a balance to Jon's resurrection. We have yet to see if Jon has lost something of his soul in the process, but regardless of that, LSH would be a real WTF moment. And it would also please the readers who like her (a lot of them). And it would follow Beric's words of losing some part of me....... If she appeared before, it would be anticlimatic...but after...it's just perfect. nah, I can't see it that way at all. This whole season and last season was about building up to Jon dying and then coming back again. In fact this season it seems Jons role is going to be integral to the entire plot. Having him die and then come back again is the WTF moment. Why would doing it again but on a much smaller, less important scale be anything other than a sidenote. It would be 'WTF' only in so much as everyone would be like ' oh what, theyre going to bring back everyone who died now?' I don't see how it would be a balance if its just retelling the same story? If Jon is not the same as he was when he died then what is the real difference to LS? You are just repeating yourself and detracting from Jon's story, who, like it or not, is the main focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meera of Tarth Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 7 minutes ago, Mister Stoneheart said: I don't think she is appearing. However, the title of the next episode is Oathbreaker. I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all, but so many episode titles have more than once coincidentally given a hint of Stoneheart: Mhysa (one episode after she dies), The Children, Mother's Mercy...and now Oathbreaker. I'm a little ticked that the showrunners keep doing this--coincidence? 4 times? come on, it's outright trolling. That being said, if she is indeed in, we have to see a glimmer of the unfolding story in this very next episode. Brienne is not mentioned at all in the synopsis. Not a good start. If we don't see or hear of some hints of the BwB next episode, you may as well count her cut--an episode called Oathbreaker is crying out for some hints of LSH (if not the lady herself to hiss out the word). If we don't see story progress in the next episode, she's done, folks. And if we do see glimmers of the storyline, and Sansa is still there with Brienne when they approach the brotherhood, then expect Lady Lemonheart. Exactly!! It's like...keep waiting folks However...this episode was called Home...and what where the home references? Bran's, Theon's....this episode was Jon's resurrection!! Ok, is he going home? Not exactly a good title after all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meera of Tarth Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 Quote nah, I can't see it that way at all. This whole season and last season was about building up to Jon dying and then coming back again. In fact this season it seems Jons role is going to be integral to the entire plot. Having him die and then come back again is the WTF moment. Why would doing it again but on a much smaller, less important scale be anything other than a sidenote. Because Jon's resurrection has not been a big deal. He returned only after two episodes. Mel's age was a big deal, and more shocking than Jon's moment. I agree that Jon will have a great impact, and I admit My chances for LSH have increased from 1% to only 10%, after all. However, Ungregor has happened. And he is a minor character. They could have cut him and put Jaime instead protecting Cersei, it wouldn't have been much different. LSH is more shocking than Ungregor. 13 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: It would be 'WTF' only in so much as everyone would be like ' oh what, theyre going to bring back everyone who died now?' It's not everybody, just 3 people, 4 counting Beric. It's a fact. It's not something strange. There are also WWs.. How many people have returned from death in the show compared to how many have died? Just a small proportion. Quote I don't see how it would be a balance if its just retelling the same story? If Jon is not the same as he was when he died then what is the real difference to LS? You are just repeating yourself and detracting from Jon's story, who, like it or not, is the main focus. Well, we don't know how much of Jon will return. If he returns as the same, it would be balanced, if not, just a fact and a shocking moment. And Jon being the main focus doesn't diminish the fact that Ungregor and Beric (minor characters with less impact than Catelyn) have revived in some way or another. By the way, I'm not afan of Jon's (he is not in my top 10) but I emphatize with him, so I like him and him being alive. Jon's story doesn't have to be the most important, just one of the main ones. LSH doesn't have to be in the show/book for too long, just like Robert Strong won't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Matt Dayne Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 I'd be amazed if the accusation of oathbreaker isn't levelled at Brienne in the next episode, multiple meanings behind episode titles and all that. It's just a question of who the accuser will be. I'm still of the belief that LSH won't appear and especially not next week as it would be way too soon after Jon's resurrection. Maybe if it was an episode solely dedicated to Jon but of course, it won't be. However, I think it would be interesting in terms of placement if the Tower of Joy and Stoneheart's debut were in the same episode. Just imagine the irony the viewer would feel of finally finding out Jon's true parentage, only for the next scene to be the reveal of a woman who was tormented over that very thing.....only now, she probably doesn't give two fucks about it. As for Jon himself and Stoneheart serving as a comparative to him, Jon of course will be affected by what has happened but let's be honest....the guy is arguably the MVP of the show. So they're not going to do anything with him that will make the audience recoil in horror. Stoneheart on the other hand will indeed do such things. Thus, exploring that is still most definitely worthwhie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairGrowsBack Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 5 minutes ago, Ser Matt Dayne said: I'd be amazed if the accusation of oathbreaker isn't levelled at Brienne in the next episode, multiple meanings behind episode titles and all that. Well be prepared because I'm sure it won't be. She might not even appear at all. Won't have anything to do with Jaime either, I'd bet. My money's on Jon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Matt Dayne Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 6 minutes ago, HairGrowsBack said: Well be prepared because I'm sure it won't be. She might not even appear at all. Won't have anything to do with Jaime either, I'd bet. My money's on Jon. It will, but the title can apply to others as well....as often it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairGrowsBack Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 1 minute ago, Ser Matt Dayne said: It will, but the title can apply to others as well....as often it does. Yes, it can indeed. Didn't mean to say it wouldn't, just that it wouldn't apply to whom it should. That said, might be we'll have that Kingslaying flashback. Fingers crossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meera of Tarth Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 25 minutes ago, Ser Matt Dayne said: I'd be amazed if the accusation of oathbreaker isn't levelled at Brienne in the next episode, multiple meanings behind episode titles and all that. It's just a question of who the accuser will be. I'm still of the belief that LSH won't appear and especially not next week as it would be way too soon after Jon's resurrection. Maybe if it was an episode solely dedicated to Jon but of course, it won't be. However, I think it would be interesting in terms of placement if the Tower of Joy and Stoneheart's debut were in the same episode. Just imagine the irony the viewer would feel of finally finding out Jon's true parentage, only for the next scene to be the reveal of a woman who was tormented over that very thing.....only now, she probably doesn't give two fucks about it. As for Jon himself and Stoneheart serving as a comparative to him, Jon of course will be affected by what has happened but let's be honest....the guy is arguably the MVP of the show. So they're not going to do anything with him that will make the audience recoil in horror. Stoneheart on the other hand will indeed do such things. Thus, exploring that is still most definitely worthwhie. -I was thinking...next episode is called Book of The Stranger. The Stranger is related to death. -Totally!!!LOL. It's just perfect. I said it! Good point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Matt Dayne Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 1 minute ago, Meera of Tarth said: -I was thinking...next episode is called Book of The Stranger. The Stranger is related to death. -Totally!!!LOL. It's just perfect. I said it! Good point Episode titles have been wrecking me head since Mhysa. Book of the Stranger is such a weird title, could be anything! Just once I'd like to see a nice subtle title like, you know, The Hangwoman or The Silent Sister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon in the North Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 4 hours ago, Mister Stoneheart said: I don't think she is appearing. However, the title of the next episode is Oathbreaker. I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all, but so many episode titles have more than once coincidentally given a hint of Stoneheart: Mhysa (one episode after she dies), The Children, Mother's Mercy...and now Oathbreaker. I'm a little ticked that the showrunners keep doing this--coincidence? 4 times? come on, it's outright trolling. All those titles have been explained in the episode itself. This "trolling" as you call it is simply Stoneheart fans seeing something that isn't there. For example: Mhysa refers to Daenerys The Children refers to the Children of the Forest Mother's Mercy refers to Cersei's walk of atonement. Oathbreaker can refer to any assortment of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.