Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ran

How would you rate episode 503?

How would you rate episode 503?  

454 members have voted

  1. 1. What's your rating from 1-10, with 10 being the highest/best

    • 1
      21
    • 2
      10
    • 3
      10
    • 4
      11
    • 5
      24
    • 6
      33
    • 7
      60
    • 8
      112
    • 9
      121
    • 10
      49


Recommended Posts

That's explicitly not the case. Ramsay's behaviour is clearly unusual, otherwise Roose wouldn't be demanding that he stop.

Roose is worried about how he looks politically, Ramsay isn't. Funny, they have the only true father/son dynamic left in the show, the rest are all dead and shit. Perhaps Jamie will step up and be a good dad to his incestuous spawn?

The Starks decapitate, the Lannisters backstab, Stannis' witch burns - seriously, what makes flaying or penis removal standout bad things among all of this? More importantly, from LF's perspective, why would he care?

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1: I do understand your point. The thing is, Roose doesn't have a problem with the actual flaying, he has a problem with how they'll be seen and the consequences if it were to become common knowledge - in the show, obviously. But then, in the scene with Ramsay, why not have him say, 'have those bodies taken down'? Then it would have been clear. I think the show suffers constantly because of sloppy writing.

2: And I do understand the scope and immense difficulties in trying to adapt a story like this. Maybe the show and Weiss and Benioff themselves could have benefited if they had others doing the actual writing and had remained the show's EP.

And I would never dare to make jokes about the high speed travelling!

1: It's possible that stuff like this is written into the scenes, it's just been cut in the editing room. I really hope they include a lot of these uncut scenes in the disc editions after the season. I made a longer post about this over on reddit, about the apparent editing done this season.

2: There's almost no way to avoid some characters moving very quickly due to the time constraints of 10 episodes. And to be fair to D&D on this, there is one benefit to the show - they use a linear narrative, whereas GRRM uses time deliberately to obfuscate the reader, which brings us to this...

D&D have constantly said there wouldn't be any major TWoW spoilers this season so no Stannis won't be dying.

Given that Jon's last chapter takes place after these events (book spoilers):

Stannis could well be dead during the last ADWD chapters. The letter does say Stannis is dead.

From a certain point of view, they might think it's not a significant spoiler since it's already been mentioned. And heck, Stannis isn't even a POV character. They might not fully grasp how much people really care about characters who are not Tyrion/Jon/Carol/Daenerys.

And with regard to the exact quotes, here are the full quotes I could find:

Q: You’re now at a point where you’ve caught up with the books. What does that mean for the future?

Benioff: Season five is still very much within the books for the most part. The very first scene of the season and the very last scene of the season are book scenes. It’s more season six that’s going to be diverging a bit. (Variety.com)

Benioff: We're not really beyond the books yet. Thinking about the first scene of the season and the last scene of the season, it’s all still within the novels [published so far], so you’re still mostly safe. (Mashable.com)

Benioff does not have the same view of the internet savvy book readers about what is a divergence alone, let alone a spoiler.

"It’s more season six that’s going to be diverging a bit." So if Season 6 is diverging only a bit, then I wonder what he would ascribe for Season 5, because half the arcs in the show are receiving total displacement or significant character makeovers - King's Landing, Dorne, Brienne, Sansa, Davos, Yara?, Varys?

I'm not saying he's lying, but the lens through which Benioff views what is a significant divergence/change/spoiler is not the same, and shouldn't be taken as gospel that things this season are safe, except for probably the major, major players.

Edited by AdmiralKyrd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ramsay's behavior has been shown to be extraordinarily brutal compared to that shown by most other people noted. There's not a question here on this. The horror expressed at the flaying of the "Stark children", the way that the horror of flayed bodies strewn about has been depicted, fits the idea that this is extreme behavior even by the standards of the Seven Kingdoms. The Boltons are known for flaying people. It's their thing, and it's what gives them an especially dark reputation even centuries after they allegedly flayed their last victim.



Again, just accept that the writers are fudging things to allow Littlefinger to unwittingly be handing Sansa to a monster when they want to keep him characterized as someone who wouldn't do that. They want their cake and they want to eat it too.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roose is worried about how he looks politically, Ramsay isn't. Funny, they have the only true father/son dynamic left in the show, the rest are all dead and shit. Perhaps Jamie will step up and be a good dad to his incestuous spawn?

The Starks decapitate, the Lannisters backstab, Stannis' witch burns - seriously, what makes flaying or penis removal standout bad things among all of this? More importantly, from LF's perspective, why would he care?

Everyone decapitates, from KL to The Wall. That's just standard procedure. Skinning entire battalions (and children) alive though? That's some extreme business. And Ramsay does it much more than usual even for a Bolton. And he does it for show. He does it to send a message. Everyone in The North would know of it by now and so would anyone who expects to fight alongside or against The Boltons.

As for why LF would care, maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. We can never be sure of anything with that guy. That's what makes him so fun to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ramsay's behavior has been shown to be extraordinarily brutal compared to that shown by most other people noted. There's not a question here on this. The horror expressed at the flaying of the "Stark children", the way that the horror of flayed bodies strewn about has been depicted, fits the idea that this is extreme behavior even by the standards of the Seven Kingdoms. The Boltons are known for flaying people. It's their thing, and it's what gives them an especially dark reputation even centuries after they allegedly flayed their last victim.

Again, just accept that the writers are fudging things to allow Littlefinger to unwittingly be handing Sansa to a monster when they want to keep him characterized as someone who wouldn't do that. They want their cake and they want to eat it too.

Maybe they want someone in Kings Landing to be the one to tell him the truth about Ramsay and the Boltons? (Like Olenna, from the shot in the trailer)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they want someone in Kings Landing to be the one to tell him the truth about Ramsay and the Boltons? (Like Olenna, from the shot in the trailer)

I could see it happening, but it would be an odd day for Olenna to know about Roose and Ramsay before Littlefinger. Maybe Highgarden captured Yara or part of her crew sailing around the Reach? It could also serve a segway to lead back to Pyke. *shrug*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see it happening, but it would be an odd day for Olenna to know about Roose and Ramsay before Littlefinger. Maybe Highgarden captured Yara or part of her crew sailing around the Reach? It could also serve a segway to lead back to Pyke. *shrug*

Yes, I thought it sounded like something that might be done, even if I personally couldn't think why Olenna would know these things and Littlefinger wouldn't. But I'm kind of expecting some turnaround from LF where he realises; "Oh shit, i done gone f***ed up now..." and that would work to achieve that (if he hasnt already realised that he is in way over his head with Roose already)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, to add to my rating of the episode, I watched this episode last night with a show-only person who had watched it once already. When we started it up and got to the Mercy scene, she said "Noooo, don't drink it!" and I was like "What, he wants to die, that's why he went there, to receive the gift of mercy. It's like a temple of euthanasia." She responded with, "Oh, I thought he was murdering him."



If you go back and watch the scene, there really isn't a way to tell the man wants to die. It is very interpretable Jaqen is just tricking the man into drinking from the pool. It's probably another one of those moments where an editor got ahead of themselves and sliced too much because they over-understood the scene based on the original, shot material.


Edited by AdmiralKyrd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone decapitates, from KL to The Wall. That's just standard procedure. Skinning entire battalions (and children) alive though? That's some extreme business. And Ramsay does it much more than usual even for a Bolton. And he does it for show. He does it to send a message. Everyone in The North would know of it by now and so would anyone who expects to fight alongside or against The Boltons.

As for why LF would care, maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. We can never be sure of anything with that guy. That's what makes him so fun to watch.

Skinning alive, burning alive.. I guess flaying might hurt for longer. The tickler did that rat torture thing to hundreds of people, Arya left Sandor to die, probably slowly and definitely in pain. Flaying may carry a bad rep because it looks more gruesome, but it seems to me that on A Game of Thrones, if you look at it all without picking a side, its just one of many ways to inflict some kind of cruelty or kill people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There could be a very simple explanation for why LF doesn't know about Ramsay.

Flaying, torturing and otherwise mutilating people may seem huge to us, but in GoTs Westeros, it may be business as usual, the kind of news that doesn't matter that much. When LF says he hasn't heard much about Ramsay, he isn't even referencing flaying and stuff, he means he hasn't heard much of Ramsay in political circles.

This is because Roose has previously tried to keep Ramsay covered up and is probably still covering up or downplaying some of Ramsay's more aggressive leadership methods for any news that travels outside the North. Roose is the Warden of the North, don't forget - he's the bossman, with the final word on how the North is presented to Westeros.

LOL, the mental gymnastics you go through to defend the show... "Flaying probably isn't that bad in Westeros!!!"

You're literally contradicting everything the show has told us but okay, whatever you need to do to defend the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

394 votes, 7.58 average, 7.77 with top/bottom 5% removed, 8 remains the median.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skinning alive, burning alive.. I guess flaying might hurt for longer. The tickler did that rat torture thing to hundreds of people, Arya left Sandor to die, probably slowly and definitely in pain. Flaying may carry a bad rep because it looks more gruesome, but it seems to me that on A Game of Thrones, if you look at it all without picking a side, its just one of many ways to inflict some kind of cruelty or kill people.

Jon The Beheader showed very clearly that burning alive is certainly considered far more cruel than Westerosi are accustomed to when he defied a king to put an arrow in Mance.

Roose has told Ramsay - and thereby us in the audience - several times that flaying alive is considered an extreme measure even in the context of the violent time and place we're watching.

It's not about picking a side. It's about picking up on information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon The Beheader showed very clearly that burning alive is certainly considered far more cruel than Westerosi are accustomed to when he defied a king to put an arrow in Mance.

Roose has told Ramsay - and thereby us in the audience - several times that flaying alive is considered an extreme measure even in the context of the violent time and place we're watching.

It's not about picking a side. It's about picking up on information.

Yes, so from Jon's POV burning is cruel, from Rooses POV flaying is not in the Bolton's political best interests (I never got the vibe Roose thought it was extreme, just that he thought it could upset the Northerners, which he didn't want to do because there were more of them). What about LFs POV?

Varys says LF is a person who views a whore as a series of profitable holes? People are a commodity to him. Do you think LF really cares if someone is decapitated, burnt or flayed? Why would LF care about that aspect of Ramsay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, so from Jon's POV burning is cruel, from Rooses POV flaying is not in the Bolton's political best interests (I never got the vibe Roose thought it was extreme, just that he thought it could upset the Northerners, which he didn't want to do because there were more of them). What about LFs POV?

Varys says LF is a person who views a whore as a series of profitable holes? People are a commodity to him. Do you think LF really cares if someone is decapitated, burnt or flayed? Why would LF care about that aspect of Ramsay?

(God I love Varys. Great quote.)

Because he is dropping Sansa in Ramsay's lap.

Which is why the real question is what does Sansa really mean to Petyr Baelish?

Either that or the real question is do DB & DB know what they're doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(God I love Varys. Great quote.)

Because he is dropping Sansa in Ramsay's lap.

Which is why the real question is what does Sansa really mean to Petyr Baelish?

Either that or the real question is do DB & DB know what they're doing?

Exactly - what it clearly shows is that LF doesn't really give a shit about Sansa - definitely not the same kind of shit she seems to think he gives.

Either LF has no idea about Ramsay and is risking Sansa on an unknown, or LF does know some of Ramsay's behavioural traits and is risking Sansa regardless - either way, LF doesn't really care about Sansa's safety and this is the important thing.

I think that LF is ultimately a mentor character for Sansa, as Ned was for all the kids, as Mormont was for Jon, as the Hound was for Arya - that is LFs main purpose in the overall plot, to be a captor, mentor and ultimately enemy of Sansa, so that she can learn how bad her particular giant is and slay it. I think that both the book and show will end up at this resolution, they are just taking different paths to get there.

I don't think we can judge whether GRRM of D&D provide a better overall telling of the story until the end.

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave it a 5. I found it more entertaining than the first two episodes (which I gave a 6) but I utterly loathed the two huge changes: (I) Tommen and Margaery consummating their marriage (he was portrayed as an innocent 12-year-old last season), and this really screws up the plot and (II) betrothing Sansa to Ramsay, WTF? Also I found Tyrion's and Arya's scenes (except for Jorah) generally bland.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, perhaps kind of random, but I cannot for the life of me think of why "Fetch me a block" was an important or noteworthy quote whatsoever. Some people seem to be seriously offended that it didn't make it to the show, and I just don't get why.



:dunno:


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, perhaps kind of random, but I cannot for the life of me think of why "Fetch me a block" was an important or noteworthy quote whatsoever. Some people seem to be seriously offended that it didn't make it to the show, and I just don't get why.

:dunno:

Coz they are book nerds/purists.

I was discussing this with a friend recently.

Generally, when people read a book first, than a cinematic version will never be as good - because it cannot live up to the power of your imagination. If you watch the show first, you can understand why certain concessions were made, because your imagination has already be tuned to the imagination of the director with the visual presentation.

A book creates a personal bond with a reader that a show cannot compete with, which is all well and good - but I consider that failing to understand exactly what is happening and reason outside of your emotional bond is fairly narrow minded.

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, perhaps kind of random, but I cannot for the life of me think of why "Fetch me a block" was an important or noteworthy quote whatsoever. Some people seem to be seriously offended that it didn't make it to the show, and I just don't get why.

:dunno:

There is more than one thing to it. First there is difference between Jon changing his mind like in the books and Jon directly beheading him like in the show. In the books he's still struggling between his Stark roots and his Nights Watch identity which is the major theme in his arc in ADWD. The show evidently doesn't plan to go there but instead they have him struggling between having sex with Mel and not having sex with Mel. And second there is something called changing for the sake of changing and that is not good sign for adaptations. They could have easily include "Fetch me a block" line but they decided not to include it and they cut the line just because they can. It proves disrespect for the source material and in that case why did they even adopt it if they think they're better writers then Martin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is more than one thing to it. First there is difference between Jon changing his mind like in the books and Jon directly beheading him like in the show. In the books he's still struggling between his Stark roots and his Nights Watch identity which is the major theme in his arc in ADWD. The show evidently doesn't plan to go there but instead they have him struggling between having sex with Mel and not having sex with Mel. And second there is something called changing for the sake of changing and that is not good sign for adaptations. They could have easily include "Fetch me a block" line but they decided not to include it and they cut the line just because they can. It proves disrespect for the source material and in that case why did they even adopt it if they think they're better writers then Martin?

It doesn't prove disrespect - you can't prove an emotional motivator without proof of intent, as emotional motivators are not factual elements.

If D&D are on record as saying, 'we disrespect GRRMs writing and think we can do better' then it is proven, otherwise it is impossible to prove.

You can't prove a murder was not manslaughter without proof that there was an intent to kill the victim, can you? Why do you suppose an emotional argument suddenly carries more weight when arguing aspects of an adaptation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×