perplexed_mind Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Loras charging at Olyvar gave it away too This. Is no one aware that Loras totally reacted? If anything he should've denied it. He didn't even do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Chang Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 My problem with all that is that Tyrells are waaaaaay too easily round up,including also Mace and his little trip, without any meaningful resistance that you have to wonder how how they lasted so long. (Well, tbf they have at least four or five soldiers so yay I guess...). It just makes them Lannister hostages which I feel is other way around in the books. I guess including Willas and Garlan would just burst show's matriarchy myth which I see is showing up more and more in mainstream, but that's another story... Yes, the Tyrell 'threat' seems to be virtually non-existant. One wonders how the Queen of Thorns has kept her head for so long. If the Tyrells really were that wet I'd have lopped it off the first time she got gobby. Poor old Mace in particular has really taken a hammering. The character casting didn't exactly help. Instead of a great lord he's a bumbling idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosfan Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 This. Is no one aware that Loras totally reacted? If anything he should've denied it. He didn't even do that. That actually doesn't prove anything, lot of people in real life would have reacted like that upon hearing slander, true or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MordredDayne Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I would also like to point out that, now that I have reached 200 posts and been officially made a squire, I can confirm the fact that we totally see knights naked all the time. It's really weird, actually. Turns out that they ALL have birthmarks shaped like realms of Westeros. You'll never guess where Jaime Lannister's Stormlands are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Chang Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I would also like to point out that, now that I have reached 200 posts and been officially made a squire, I can confirm the fact that we totally see knights naked all the time. It's really weird, actually. Turns out that they ALL have birthmarks shaped like realms of Westeros. You'll never guess where Jaime Lannister's Stormlands are... Yeah, me too. In fact If Kevan Lannister does that one more time my character growth will be shut down for good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Lasarte Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 In the books, she is accused of adultery and treason. Here, of what? Perjury? What else, tax fraud, like Al Capone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R4W13Y Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Squires wouldn't typically see the knights naked. The closest they came to dressing a knight was to help the knight don armor, hand them weapons. The knights wore clothing under their armor.A manservant or personal valet might help a gentleman/nobleman knight bathe, or in some cases a serving woman. Sure, that may be true in this world (though we saw how Lancel was basically a personal assistant to Robert in season 1, dressing him for the tourney and always in his bedchambers). But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that perhaps Olyvar could have at some point seen this birthmark. I think it's ridiculous to assume that the only possible way this squire that had a close relationship with Loras could have seen his birthmark was through sex. I see your point, but "wouldn't typically" isn't the same as "wouldn't ever." At the very least, Loras would have some leverage to cast serious doubt on Olyvar's story. Seeing as it's the one piece of evidence that incriminates both Margaery and Loras, it is surprisingly weak. I don't know they didn't go with the Margaery infidelity story line from the book, but they could at least have had Cersei bribe or coerce some other people to testify. Why not make Littlefinger say he saw Loras enter the brothel several times as a condition of making him Warden of the North? Maybe she doesn't bother because she knows that Loras might ask for trial by combat and Cersei is planning to use a certain character against him or Marge's champion? I'm seriously wondering at this point whether Cersei will get a trial at all. I'm thinking that the WoS might be it for her.Whatever the case might be, I think the scene came off as kind of shoddily written. Just something to move the plot along that makes sense if you don't think about it too much. Loras should have the leverage yes. Some people are waving it away by saying the FM completely took over KL which, okay yes, I see that's what they're trying to show us. Doesn't mean it makes any sense HOW or WHY they did and WHY no one is taking action. And if they didn't have the authority to fully take over as they had in the show, they wouldn't have the ability to throw the queen in prison for perjury based on what some squire/prostitute says. The second bolded point is such a good one. Just have her ask him in that scene to help her out with that. Or if he already is since Olyvar "works" for him, or whatever, SHOW that somehow. Maybe when LF is stopped by Lancel. As for your last point...I can do nothing but sigh heavily at how likely that sounds :frown5: I wondered if they skipped the adultery, torture-induced confessions, etc to avoid any resemblance to The Tudors, especially considering Natalie Dormer's playing Margery. But meh, then why cast Dormer in the first place? They could have at least insinuated some kind of a three-way between Loras, Margery and Olyvar (since she was around), to up the ante and foreshadow some of the Cersei troubles coming up, but they decided to go for perjury, which I found quite underwhelming, especially when it's clearly a he-said-she-said, like so many people point out.What's the punishment for perjury, even if she's found guilty in her trial? Definitely not death? I would have bought this more than the perjury bullshit. Sure! The Faith Militant are batshit insane, they are after all of the high lords, but mainly Cersei. It's all theater. They're making up laws and the severity of crimes as they go. "False testimony is as grave a sin as any, my lady." They have been written in the show to be an omnipotent presence in King's Landing (able to walk up to the high walls of the Red Keep in order to arrest Loras). Loras's hearing being in 5x06 is definitely a callback to Tyrion's farce of a trial being in 4x06. Ah yes, how compelling and logical to have a movement that makes everything up as it goes, instead of putting some time and thought into their beliefs and actions in order to meet their goals in more successful ways. I sure prefer this version of the FM instead of the one concerned with the treatment of the smallfolk by the noblemen and rectifying that. As to their "omnipotent" presence, that just seems like plot convenience to me. My problem with all that is that Tyrells are waaaaaay too easily round up,including also Mace and his little trip, without any meaningful resistance that you have to wonder how how they lasted so long. (Well, tbf they have at least four or five soldiers so yay I guess...). It just makes them Lannister hostages which I feel is other way around in the books.I guess including Willas and Garlan would just burst show's Tyrell matriarchy myth which I see is showing up more and more in mainstream, but that's another story... Exactly!! Ugh, it's so bizarre how incompetent they make them. And the matriarchy point: couldn't they have just...i don't know...stuck with the family that actually DOES have an egalitarian society with women rulers in the book instead of inserting it where it isn't necessary? *cough* dorne *cough* This. Is no one aware that Loras totally reacted? If anything he should've denied it. He didn't even do that. If this does "strengthen" their point, then that's pure luck that Loras happened to react that way. Having such a shoddy piece of evidence and hoping that he would then react in a way to "prove" it is dumb storytelling. That actually doesn't prove anything, lot of people in real life would have reacted like that upon hearing slander, true or not. Absolutely true. I would also like to point out that, now that I have reached 200 posts and been officially made a squire, I can confirm the fact that we totally see knights naked all the time. It's really weird, actually. Turns out that they ALL have birthmarks shaped like realms of Westeros. You'll never guess where Jaime Lannister's Stormlands are... :lol: I can't wait to become a squire!! Damn my sellsword status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombies That Were Promised Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Watching the Season 5 Wheel trailer again... we haven't had the scene of Marg aggressively hugging Tommen yet. So she does get released and soon. Probably ep 8 or 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon-Michael Pearson Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Yes it was bad wny did Loras get arrested over magery in the first place they blew this part of the story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturno Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 The thing that really gutted me was to bring the Queen of Thorns back just for her to look stupid. She actually pointed to Cersei that the Tyrells could stop sending gold and troops to KL if Cersei would not release Loras, but then she actually changes her mind? Why the empty threat? They CAN'T stop the gold and troops? She believed Cersei has nothing to do with the arrest? She actually CARES for the city and was persuaded to not stop the flow of money to not let the people suffer even more with war? Why the show made her "lose" her conversation with Cersei?And if the plot needs the Tyrells to be UNABLE to get off that situation by themselves, WHY bring Olenna back in this episode if they could EASILY have Mace goofing around, protesting without results and all that? But no, they decided to send him to Braavos just so Ser Meryn may die at Arya's hands. (as if she could just send Ser Meryn alone). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R4W13Y Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 The thing that really gutted me was to bring the Queen of Thorns back just for her to look stupid. She actually pointed to Cersei that the Tyrells could stop sending gold and troops to KL if Cersei would not release Loras, but then she actually changes her mind? Why the empty threat? They CAN'T stop the gold and troops? She believed Cersei has nothing to do with the arrest? She actually CARES for the city and was persuaded to not stop the flow of money to not let the people suffer even more with war? Why the show made her "lose" her conversation with Cersei?And if the plot needs the Tyrells to be UNABLE to get off that situation by themselves, WHY bring Olenna back in this episode if they could EASILY have Mace goofing around, protesting without results and all that? But no, they decided to send him to Braavos just so Ser Meryn may die at Arya's hands. (as if she could just send Ser Meryn alone). These are such good points it hurts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombies That Were Promised Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 The thing that really gutted me was to bring the Queen of Thorns back just for her to look stupid. She actually pointed to Cersei that the Tyrells could stop sending gold and troops to KL if Cersei would not release Loras, but then she actually changes her mind? Why the empty threat? They CAN'T stop the gold and troops? She believed Cersei has nothing to do with the arrest? She actually CARES for the city and was persuaded to not stop the flow of money to not let the people suffer even more with war? Why the show made her "lose" her conversation with Cersei? She didn't. The look QOT gave Cersei after Marg's arrest was very threatening, not at all one of stupidity. The QOT is just getting started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosfan Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 She didn't. The look QOT gave Cersei after Marg's arrest was very threatening, not at all one of stupidity. The QOT is just getting started. Yes, I have also interpreted that as Olenna saying:" You'll regret this". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallam Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 While Olyvar's testimony about Loras at least had the birthmark to give support (still hardly definitive), his claim about Margaery seeing them didn't have any proof whatsoever. He just said that she saw them once, and didn't give any more details. I didn't see why Margaery couldn't just plead ignorance. Was it just supposed to illustrate the kangaroo court nature of the trial? Yep, just like Kenneth Starr and Linda Tripp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallam Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 I would also like to point out that, now that I have reached 200 posts and been officially made a squire, I can confirm the fact that we totally see knights naked all the time. It's really weird, actually. Turns out that they ALL have birthmarks shaped like realms of Westeros. You'll never guess where Jaime Lannister's Stormlands are... It wasn't the knowledge of the birthmark that did for Loras, it was his reaction that clearly showed he had been lying. That and the fact that it is a kangaroo court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturno Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 It wasn't the knowledge of the birthmark that did for Loras, it was his reaction that clearly showed he had been lying. That and the fact that it is a kangaroo court. I see your point, but then again: why add the birthmark in the first place? If the whole plot is moved by Olyvvar provoking Loras, the birthmark isn't at all necessary. I believe the intent of the show was to make the birthmark the definitive and brilliant proof of the "crime". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Winter Knight Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 look this scene was silly, but we have to remember that the sparrows are appeasing Cersi right now. Cersi says hey I think that Loras is gay, and the high sparrow says good enough for me. The high sparrow wants to control the city, and the easiest way is to allow cersi to line up all the bad ducks and when he has them under his thumb he will go for cersi. Honestly Lancel and Cersi did the horizontal dance, and I am sure that Lancel said something to the high sparrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris999 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 I have a hard time believeing that the Kingsgaurd just allowed them to take the Queen hostage... But... they did the same to Cercei in the books, and she was acting Protector of the Realm at the time... the defacto ruler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 I have a hard time believeing that the Kingsgaurd just allowed them to take the Queen hostage... But... they did the same to Cercei in the books, and she was acting Protector of the Realm at the time... the defacto ruler.Cersei made the mistake of going into the Great Sept without guards. The High Sparrow could never have arrested her in the Red Keep.Over and above that, Ser Kevan and the Small Council made no effort to free her. They were happy for her to remain where she was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemiNymph Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Agree with most of you. What stupid writing. Then again, remember this is all done by the writers of the show. They are not going to make sense over GRRM. This is why he didn't like fanfiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.