Jump to content
Ran

[Book Spoilers] EP510 Discussion

Recommended Posts

However, I don't agree with the part that I bolded. I think that's counter to the real world, and also (at least possibly) counter to the themes of the series. While it's certainly true that we see people seizing power through evil and dastardly deeds, those same deeds seem to predictably also be the seeds of an ultimate comeuppance. Tywin is dead because of what he did to Tyrion; Cersei humiliated because of what she tried to do to Margaery; Freys are hunted; Aerys and his family wiped out; there are plenty more examples and trust me, Ramsay will get his.

Evil-doing works in the short run, but you make people hate you and hate has staying power and consequences.

What you're saying is, "Bad guys may conquer the world, but they can't hold it". I'll agree with that, at least usually.

But how does that contradict "Good guys don't conquer the world"?

The people who conquer the world and hold it (at least for their lifetimes)Saul, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Napoleonall of them did things that are pretty hard to justify if you want to see them as Great Noble Heroes; all of them also did some pretty impressive good things for their subjects that no Dark Lord of Evil Evilness would even consider.

And what they did generally was not really "enlightened self-interest" in the normal sense that they calculated that making the realm stable and rich would keep them in power, but it often was self-interest in a twisted sense that they identified themselves with their realms to an abnormal degree. (Timur even made that explicit. When the Spanish diplomats told him he was clever for focusing on the roads because it kept the merchants and pilgrims happy, he told them that was a reason for merchants and pilgrims, not a reason for him; he kept the roads strong for the same reason he kept his bones strong.)

If you're looking for an Aragorn instead of a Babur, you're going to be disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would Alliser Thorne stab Jon. He despises him but he would never do this. Epic fail.

i agree....was really hoping he wouldnt be involved...yes he hates jon but he is a stickler for rules and not even at castle black in the books. Seems dumb...if he wants to be Lord commander so badly this is a pretty stupid way to go about it... how does he know it wont happen to him someday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am tired of the excuse of Feast and Dance being the reason why this season wasn't good, to me this is nothing but people not understanding their are people outthere that actually liked a Feast for Crows and Dance of Dragons. Like Linda said I am not in a hurry to get to the end.


Edited by King Jon Targaryen I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news jons not dead he will be living in ghost. I cant post the link but theres a youtube video with kit and d&d where kit says he would like to be a warg and weiss says "all i can say is season 6 ......season 6. They had all been drinking on camera and when weiss made his comment danny told him quietly but loud enough to be picked on on mic to "keep drinking". Obvioudly he was subtley telling weiss what did you just say you drunk idiot.

Nah, it was a joke. The audience has read the books. D&D know the fan theories and they also know when they are going to drop Kit from the series. Kit also knows that his character gets the stabby stabby at the end of season 5.

It's not about that, it's about character A leaving before character B, going a shorter distance, but character B ends up there episodes before.

No logic. It's not about not seeing it happen. It's about consistency.

Tyrion and Jorah travelled by sea. Varys travelled by caravan on land. That would take a lot longer in those days. The horses etc have to be rested regularly.

All the horses are gone. Stannis and his men are seen walking to Winterfell.

Mel is on a horse. So, "all" the horses except one? LOL.

You think "all" meant something else? If so, why wasn't anyone in Stannis army riding a horse? Everybody walking.

In context, 'horses' means cavalry horses. Mel is riding a palfrey, not a war horse.

As the battle showed, Stannis had lost all his horses because his sell swords had switched sides.

Also, in the book, the brothers assassinate Jon because he is deserting the night's watch to go participate in a political war. In the show they murdered him because they were butthurt about wildlings, even though they have proof that Jon's decision was the best option by far.

Unless Ser Alisser wrote the pink letter in which case its not really the final straw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




i agree....was really hoping he wouldnt be involved...yes he hates jon but he is a stickler for rules and not even at castle black in the books. Seems dumb...if he wants to be Lord commander so badly this is a pretty stupid way to go about it... how does he know it wont happen to him someday





Also, why make a point of showing him seemingly growing to at least respect Jon a little with his reaction to being made first ranger and the 'you've got a good heart, but' moment - it made it even less likely he'd be involved. The extra reasoning such as going south for the pink letter was missing, so it seemed a bit one dimensional. I think they could have shown more of the moral struggle, they made it seem like it was only Olly who even thought twice about it.



I thought hardhome was excellent and I don't mind little slips like the wrong side of the wall for the sake of dramatic effect but for the watch wasn't as good as it could have been. It felt rushed to me.


Edited by Sopranos With Swords

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone feel disgusted that Drogon would make a den out of and sleep in rotting carcasses? Where is the hygeine factor? And they even showed him licking himself. Like that's gonna help you get clean. No animals do that!


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,



I've been lurker for awhile now but never thought to join in any discussion until now. I'm a show lover who's read the books and have been accepting of all the changes made in the show until ep10. I've read the interviews by Kit and Weiss who were both adamant that Jon is gone for good. Weiss made the comment that in the books, Jon's death is ambiguous, but in the show it HAS to be clear-cut. This leads me to believe that Jon is dead and not coming back.



As a proponent of R+L=J, I'm devastated to learn that this is the ending that they (both D&D + Martin) have planned for Jon. What is the purpose of all the foreshadowing in the books and show if Jon is not AA or integral to the song of ice and fire? Let's assume that if Jon is to really die and not be resurrected in any way, what is the real significance of R+L=J other than Jon being AA?



On the other hand, maybe Jon will be resurrected but in another form - like an ice dragon hidden in the wall, or a dragon to be awoken amidst "salt and smoke". Or maybe his death is needed to advance future plot points. Any thoughts?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would Alliser Thorne stab Jon. He despises him but he would never do this. Epic fail.

Make him look like a bad guy and Jon the good guy instead of it being a very debatable area. Where Jon had very few options and the Night's Watch brothers had no choice but to caeser their commander who had just abandoned the Wall, broke his oath and openly invited his brothers to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who has the claim for the throne if Tommen dies? Assuming Myrcella is dead and Tommen not having much time left. Stannis would not get the throne, even if he was alive.

Gendry?

I'm pretty sure they'd call a Great Council and argue it out. There's plenty of precedent, and the nice thing about a Great Council is that everyone pretty much has to come to agreement, because they know if they walk out without having picked a King they've guaranteed a war of succession (or guaranteed the continuation of an existing one, as when Rhaenrya did it). And they aren't gathering to dispassionately work out the lineage and the relevant laws and traditions, they're gathering to pick a King, and then rationalize it after the fact, Otherwise, the only possible outcomes for the Council of 233 would have been Queen Vaella the Feebleminded or King Aenys Blackfyre.

So, it's true that there are no true-born descendants of Ormund Baratheon and Rhaella Targaryen and Gendry is the closest if bastards are considered. On the other hand, who says that descendants of Ormund and Rhaella matter, as opposed to going back to the next offshoot of the Targaryen line (I think that's Egg's younger sister Rhae's family?), or even going farther up the Baratheon line? At any rate, unless there were someone who wanted to push Gendry (in which case they could use that as a rationale), none of that would probably come into the discussion at all.

The real problem is that it would be hard to even agree on who to invite. There are no Starks, it's unclear who represents the Lannisters or the Arryns, pretty much nobody will want Euron to have a say. In fact, I suspect that may come up as a plot point in the next book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

I've been lurker for awhile now but never thought to join in any discussion until now. I'm a show lover who's read the books and have been accepting of all the changes made in the show until ep10. I've read the interviews by Kit and Weiss who were both adamant that Jon is gone for good. Weiss made the comment that in the books, Jon's death is ambiguous, but in the show it HAS to be clear-cut. This leads me to believe that Jon is dead and not coming back.

As a proponent of R+L=J, I'm devastated to learn that this is the ending that they (both D&D + Martin) have planned for Jon. What is the purpose of all the foreshadowing in the books and show if Jon is not AA or integral to the song of ice and fire? Let's assume that if Jon is to really die and not be resurrected in any way, what is the real significance of R+L=J other than Jon being AA?

On the other hand, maybe Jon will be resurrected but in another form - like an ice dragon hidden in the wall, or a dragon to be awoken amidst "salt and smoke". Or maybe his death is needed to advance future plot points. Any thoughts?

Dont say George has no plan for him cause I highly doubt George would waste his time giving clues for no reason on to what will happen with Jon and the chapter opening in Dance With Dragons. Too much foreshadowing for George to say ah that's all folks, if Jon isn't coming because D&D are afraid of putting magical elements on the show. LSH is gone so Jon being gone to me proves that they are cowards when it comes to putting Magic on the show period which is why the House of Undying scene in the show was a JOKE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure they'd call a Great Council and argue it out. There's plenty of precedent, and the nice thing about a Great Council is that everyone pretty much has to come to agreement, because they know if they walk out without having picked a King they've guaranteed a war of succession (or guaranteed the continuation of an existing one, as when Rhaenrya did it). And they aren't gathering to dispassionately work out the lineage and the relevant laws and traditions, they're gathering to pick a King, and then rationalize it after the fact, Otherwise, the only possible outcomes for the Council of 233 would have been Queen Vaella the Feebleminded or King Aenys Blackfyre.

So, it's true that there are no true-born descendants of Ormund Baratheon and Rhaella Targaryen and Gendry is the closest if bastards are considered. On the other hand, who says that descendants of Ormund and Rhaella matter, as opposed to going back to the next offshoot of the Targaryen line (I think that's Egg's younger sister Rhae's family?), or even going farther up the Baratheon line? At any rate, unless there were someone who wanted to push Gendry (in which case they could use that as a rationale), none of that would probably come into the discussion at all.

The real problem is that it would be hard to even agree on who to invite. There are no Starks, it's unclear who represents the Lannisters or the Arryns, pretty much nobody will want Euron to have a say. In fact, I suspect that may come up as a plot point in the next book.

I'd be fascinated to see that play out but I honestly don't think it will come to that. There are just so many potential contenders ready to take advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way, Game of Thrones did a fantastic job at ruining the show over the last 2 episodes.



Hardhome was setting them in the right direction. Then they basically destroy Stannis character, and kill the only other male dominating character that really was left in Jon Snow. Now who do we cheer for on the male side?



Theon - Is he even considered a male anymore?


Varys - How many characters are missing their d's?


Jamie - He didn't lose it but he did lose his hand


Davos - He didn't lose his hand but he lost his fingers


Jorah - He'll be a stone soon


Daario - Even the first Daario had enough of him


Benjin - RIP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The people who conquer the world and hold it (at least for their lifetimes)Saul, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Napoleonall of them did things that are pretty hard to justify if you want to see them as Great Noble Heroes; all of them also did some pretty impressive good things for their subjects that no Dark Lord of Evil Evilness would even consider.

Hmmm, well I can't comment on Saul, but for the three others, the impressive things done for their subjects tended to be incidental. And they tended to be affected by the society and times they lived in.

Alexander, most prominently, spent almost all his time at war. Yes, he commissioned impressive public projects, but it's quite possible -- in fact, more than likely -- that these were about increasing his own image and fame than concern for the people of his Empire.

Julius Caesar lived in a very 'republican' time -- much moreso than 100 years later -- when it was expected of you to serve in government and civil service was a virtuous position. He did a number of good things for his people, but there's a reason he was assassinated: he really was taking more power than was necessary. In fact he had a precedent in Sulla, and was quoted as saying that it was Sulla's detriment in giving up power. Whereas we don't know as much about Alexander, with Caesar it seems pretty apparent he was increasing his own status first and foremost.

With Napoleon too, you have that same problematic relationship: but the thing with Napolean was that he lived in the time of the Revolution, and gained his position because of it. He probably did the most for his people out of the rulers listed, but a lot of that has to do with what preceeded his rise to power, with the examples of Danton, of Robespierre, of Roland, of Brissot, and even Marat. He himself was tied to Robespierre via his friendship with Augustin Robespierre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way, Game of Thrones did a fantastic job at ruining the show over the last 2 episodes.

Hardhome was setting them in the right direction. Then they basically destroy Stannis character, and kill the only other male dominating character that really was left in Jon Snow. Now who do we cheer for on the male side?

Theon - Is he even considered a male anymore?

Varys - How many characters are missing their d's?

Jamie - He didn't lose it but he did lose his hand

Davos - He didn't lose his hand but he lost his fingers

Jorah - He'll be a stone soon

Daario - Even the first Daario had enough of him

Benjin - RIP

what a weird way to look at things. Why do you need so badly to root for a man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am tired of the excuse of Feast and Dance being the reason why this season wasn't good, to me this is nothing but people not understanding their are people outthere that actually liked a Feast for Crows and Dance of Dragons. Like Linda said I am not in a hurry to get to the end.

Personally, I loved Dance the second time I read it--but it's a very different book from Storm, and that's a perfectly good excuse for why the show diverged so much farther than it had in previous seasons.

If you just read Dance (and, to a lesser extent, Feast) for the plot, it sucks. A bunch of the strands just tread water, and the ones that seem to go somewhere all end abruptly and pointlessly, and it's ultimately just 1000 pages of setup of a series of cliffhangers that will be resolved in a later book that you have no reason to believe is going to be any better.

But if you read it for the themes, the character moments, and the world-building, it's head and shoulders above Storm. Quentyn's story doesn't work as an epic story, but it definitely works as a satire. Tyrion's journey down the Rhoyne is boring as a Tyrion story (in fact, Tyrion almost gets in the way of it being enjoyable for the first half), but it's the first time Essos as a land devastated by the Curse, the Doom, the Century of Blood, etc. really came alive for me (far better than what we saw from Dany's earlier journeys). And so on.

And that means you can't possibly adapt it the same way you'd adapt Thrones or Storm. But you can't just completely transform the series into a different kind of show between season 4 and season 5. (When you're writing 1000-page novels that take centuries to come out and are aiming at an audience of thousands of thoughtful readers, maybe you can get away with that--although even then, it's a stretch; look at how many people complain about Dance...)

So, what option is there, other than to try to extract only the parts of the story that fit into the Storm mold, and adjust everything else to fit?

They obviously screwed up some parts of that. The first half of the Cersei storyline is so much better when it's clear that she's fooled herself into believing her own slander of Margy (e.g., Osney will obviously be able to seduce her, because I slept with him, and she's a huge slut). If there's no Dorne storyline worth extracting, just don't do Dorne (especially since Jaime's storyline was one of the more adaptable parts of Feast). And dealing with Manderly and friends would have been a much better way to get across the difference between Roose's subtle evil and Ramsay's blatant monstrousness than having Roose just lecture him.

But there are parts they did well. The second half of Cersei's plot was perfectly condensed. Arya... well, that one was easy to get right, so I won't give them too much credit there, but they got it right. Tyrion's journey was far more interesting, plotwise, than in the books. The Meereen story had just enough to highlight Dany's real choice, force her to make it, show her failing to make it, and get her on her way.

And what they gave us, while it's not perfect, and not the same thing as the books, is not just better than most other fantasy ever on the screen, it's far better than a faithful adaptation of the plot of Feast and Dance would have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who conquer the world and hold it (at least for their lifetimes)Saul, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Napoleonall of them did things that are pretty hard to justify if you want to see them as Great Noble Heroes; all of them also did some pretty impressive good things for their subjects that no Dark Lord of Evil Evilness would even consider.

Even if Saul existed at all, he was no more than a bit player in the politics of the region. The archeological evidence shows that the Egyptian empire had expanded out to the Levant during the Bronze age. And it was certainly captured by the Babylonian empire and then the Persian. All were vastly larger than Saul's alleged conquests.

Alexander was a vicious thug whose empire collapsed as soon as he died. In the books he would be Khal Drogo. Julius Ceasar wasn't any better and Napoleon was the Saddam Hussein of his day. All three were totally evil people.

Building a few monuments to your own glory does not make someone a good guy. Saddam's palaces don't make him a good guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In context, 'horses' means cavalry horses. Mel is riding a palfrey, not a war horse.

As the battle showed, Stannis had lost all his horses because his sell swords had switched sides.

So the sell swords stole the kings horse? and his generals horses? That were more than likely near their own tents? Not only are the sellswords ninjas who can "sneak" off in the night with 1000+ horses, they also can steal horses from battle commanders who are apparently unguarded and on Ambien?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the sell swords stole the kings horse? and his generals horses? That were more than likely near their own tents? Not only are the sellswords ninjas who can "sneak" off in the night with 1000+ horses, they also can steal horses from battle commanders who are apparently unguarded and on Ambien?

But they only stole the 'war horses'....not the 'other horses'...LMAO. So Mel having a horse after 'all' the horses were taken isn't a blatant continuity error, it totally makes total sense....just like a man with no horses or siege equipment planning a full frontal attack on a stone castle with a moat makes total sense when he's a skilled miltary tactician....he would never intend something at night to minimize the difference in manpower, get an element of suprise and possibly take the castle by stealth. nope. attack at dawn!!

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

×