Not a spoiler, is it? Am i the only one totally let down by "Jon is REALLY REALLY Dead"?

[Sir Matthis Light]

I have a question. I heard that George told D&D how the story is suppose to end, is this true?? If so, and, Jon gets resurrected, and we get confirmation Jon father and mother are Rhaegar and Lyanna, Will that stop the doubters and haters?( Who am I kidding, there will always be doubters and haters lol so ignore this part )

 

But seriously this true?

[UnmaskedLurker]

3 hours ago, Sir Matthis Light said:

I have a question. I heard that George told D&D how the story is suppose to end, is this true?? If so, and, Jon gets resurrected, and we get confirmation Jon father and mother are Rhaegar and Lyanna, Will that stop the doubters and haters?( Who am I kidding, there will always be doubters and haters lol so ignore this part )

 

But seriously this true?

I have been pondering those questions for a while now. Yes, D&D have stated on multiple occasions that GRRM told them the ending and the ultimate fate of each of the main characters. D&D also have confirmed that they are telling basically the same story -- just in a different way. So just like every telling of Cinderella (not necessarily a modernist "reimaginings -- but any basic telling of the story) ends with the Prince putting the glass slipper on her foot and taking her away from her evil step-mother, GoT will end basically the same way that ASOIAF books will end and the main characters will have the same basic fates.

So for those who are primarily books readers but who either also watch the show or in some fashion come across information about what occurred on the show, they should be wiling the acknowledge that the basic outlines of the plot with respect to the major characters -- and in particular their roles in the endgame and their ultimate fates -- will basically be the same in both media. 

But many book loyalists are holding to the mantra that the books and the show are totally different and nothing from the show can be relied upon to happen in the books until the books actually confirm it. While such statements are technically correct, they ignore the reality of what D&D are doing and what the show is intending to do with respect to GRRM's story.

So yes, assuming Jon is resurrected (as I think we pretty much already know occurs based on leaked reports regarding the Battle of the Bastards -- which name for the battle would not even make sense unless Jon is leading one side and Ramsey the other), and assuming Rhaegar and Lyanna are revealed on the show to be Jon's parents (which also has been close to confirmed based on reports of the ToJ scene that has been filmed), the debate should be over (other than on forums in which show information is strictly forbidden -- which actually happen to include the book forum for these boards -- but the information is bound to get to these people in some way and they cannot scrub their brains). But it won't be -- because some people are really, really stubborn (and hold to wishful thinking as long as humanly possible -- and sometimes even longer than that).

[sj4iy]

On 4/11/2016 at 5:50 AM, Not_A_Quokka said:

i'm glad someone is sure about this.  I thought we'd already seen, and read the limits of the reanimation though!  You can "good" reanimate like Beric Dondarrian, who of course did it 6 times and the nfought with the Brotherhood doing mostly niceness except for the killing part - or BAD reanimate like Stoneheart and come back with a big ol literal chip on her shoulder hell bent on hanging every Frey!  How do we know when Jon comes back he wont try to drink an ale then get ticked off when it pours into his lap, my bad....OK bad joke but, is reanimatin something you can really stall?!  For the fans if nothing else, would be like "Oh, ok, Jon came back from the dead after all!"  Just because we know, pretty much, that nobody burned Jon's body and he'd be preserved in the ice cells, what's to prevent him from coming back as the Night's King?  !  

There are no rules to magic in this universe, so you can't say there are limits to anything.

[Sir Matthis Light]

4 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

I have been pondering those questions for a while now. Yes, D&D have stated on multiple occasions that GRRM told them the ending and the ultimate fate of each of the main characters. D&D also have confirmed that they are telling basically the same story -- just in a different way. So just like every telling of Cinderella (not necessarily a modernist "reimaginings -- but any basic telling of the story) ends with the Prince putting the glass slipper on her foot and taking her away from her evil step-mother, GoT will end basically the same way that ASOIAF books will end and the main characters will have the same basic fates.

So for those who are primarily books readers but who either also watch the show or in some fashion come across information about what occurred on the show, they should be wiling the acknowledge that the basic outlines of the plot with respect to the major characters -- and in particular their roles in the endgame and their ultimate fates -- will basically be the same in both media. 

But many book loyalists are holding to the mantra that the books and the show are totally different and nothing from the show can be relied upon to happen in the books until the books actually confirm it. While such statements are technically correct, they ignore the reality of what D&D are doing and what the show is intending to do with respect to GRRM's story.

So yes, assuming Jon is resurrected (as I think we pretty much already know occurs based on leaked reports regarding the Battle of the Bastards -- which name for the battle would not even make sense unless Jon is leading one side and Ramsey the other), and assuming Rhaegar and Lyanna are revealed on the show to be Jon's parents (which also has been close to confirmed based on reports of the ToJ scene that has been filmed), the debate should be over (other than on forums in which show information is strictly forbidden -- which actually happen to include the book forum for these boards -- but the information is bound to get to these people in some way and they cannot scrub their brains). But it won't be -- because some people are really, really stubborn (and hold to wishful thinking as long as humanly possible -- and sometimes even longer than that).

Thank you for answering my question, and I must say it was well written as well!!! I now understand why some people won't watch the show, but its gonna be very hard not to hear spoilers from fans. I also agree that humans are very hard headed when they want to believe and hold on to their beliefs. Anyway since Stannis is dead on the show permanently, im going to assume he WILL EVENTUALY DIE in the books, which is kinda sad

[~DarkHorse~]

21 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

I strongly disagree with the bolded sentence. Look at how GRRM does it. When he was asked about Jon being dead, he said something like "Oh, you think Jon is dead." People still debated the point.

Anything short of direct confirmation that Jon is coming back will not be taken as confirmation of anything. They really don't need to lie. It is just a lazy way of not figuring out ways to avoid giving away spoilers without having to resort to lying. GRRM does it all the time. Kit and the producers, etc. should do the same thing. They did not.

It is not the biggest deal in the world. There are much worse things they could have done. I don't think they are "bad" people for having done it. But they did not have to do it. It was a choice -- and a choice I would not have made under identical circumstances.

This is true. However, Jon's fate plays out differently in the show than the books. In the books, GRRM has deliberately left room for interpretation (Melisandre's visions, Jon warging into Ghost and him not actually being addressed as dead). In the books, you are supposed to believe that it is highly likely that Jon is coming back, it has been built up that way. 

However, the show has made it clear that he is dead. Whether you think this was a poor choice or not, is up to you (personally, I think they should have left his fate more open like the books with him warging into Ghost and Mel having visions). But given the shows direction, it should not be up to the actors or anyone off screen to add in the room for interpretation. It should have been there on the screen. Therefore, no, I do not fault the actors for the whole 'Jon Snow is not coming back' lies because that is the angle the show's forced. All they are doing is going along with it. 

 

[evita mgfs]

8 hours ago, ~DarkHorse~ said:

This is true. However, Jon's fate plays out differently in the show than the books. In the books, GRRM has deliberately left room for interpretation (Melisandre's visions, Jon warging into Ghost and him not actually being addressed as dead). In the books, you are supposed to believe that it is highly likely that Jon is coming back, it has been built up that way. 

However, the show has made it clear that he is dead. Whether you think this was a poor choice or not, is up to you (personally, I think they should have left his fate more open like the books with him warging into Ghost and Mel having visions). But given the shows direction, it should not be up to the actors or anyone off screen to add in the room for interpretation. It should have been there on the screen. Therefore, no, I do not fault the actors for the whole 'Jon Snow is not coming back' lies because that is the angle the show's forced. All they are doing is going along with it. 

 

Exactly.  The show publicists feed the press strategic leaks as red herrings to fan the flames of the Martin fandom.  This has happened over and over again for decades in television series, novel series, and movie serials - it is often called a cliff-hanger.  It is amazing how an audience who collectively loves whatever genre can be so easily manipulated by these games designed to generate publicity.  It is often said there is no bad PR.  If there is no hype around a show, a sequel, a whatever, then the PR department has failed.

We as fans feed into this game over and over again.  Does anyone remember "Who shot JR [Ewing]?"  the big Dallas cliffhanger?

What HBO is doing with Game of Thrones is nothing new - it has been done before.  It is not an original strategy - and it is designed to ensure an audience will return to learn the fate of a fan favorite.  Moreover, the resulting hype attracts new viewers who are curious and who want to be in on what others are debating or celebrating.

I am a willing participant in HBO's marketing strategy, and if I weren't, I would not be reading the replies in this thread and writing my own.

[TheKitttenGuard]

17 minutes ago, evita mgfs said:

We as fans feed into this game over and over again.  Does anyone remember "Who shot JR [Ewing]?"  the big Dallas cliffhanger?

I have more of memory for The Simpsons "Who shot Mr. Burns?"

[evita mgfs]

1 hour ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

I have more of memory for The Simpsons "Who shot Mr. Burns?"I

I reveal my age, sadly.  But each generation seems to have memorable cliffhangers to define them.  Now my grandpa was a Hitchcock fan, and in his films "less was more" - the violence was not overt and the bloodshed minimal: the power of suggestion allowed the viewers to use their imaginations, and people's imaginations were once more vivid than anything presented on the big or small screen.

Now people are used to graphic murders with blood and guts everywhere.  In Braveheart, when William Wallace is disemboweled, the audience did not need to see it - we saw the pained expression on his face, and that was enough.  Now I guess it is expected, demanded, and a must in order to sell tickets and boost ratings.

I suppose I sound like an annoying adult who is out of touch with the youth of today.  However, I have a high regard for young people, and I think if many of them had an idea of what they are missing, they are smart enough to judge for themselves how people overall have created the monster of media prevalent today.

But who will teach them there's another alternative?  Thankfully, the youth I have worked with are wise enough to have a good appreciation for classic film and television.  However, social media is a big temptation for them, and many seldom perceive the long-range implications of exposing too much.

So HBO's GoT will still feature extra and manufactured sex and violence in an attempt to please an audience and win ratings even though such events are not necessarily part of Martin's novels.  I still wish the show had been true to the lovemaking scenes of Dany and Drogo - but Drogo was characterized differently in those intimate scenes.

[TheKitttenGuard]

1 hour ago, evita mgfs said:

I reveal my age, sadly.  But each generation seems to have memorable cliffhangers to define them.  Now my grandpa was a Hitchcock fan, and in his films "less was more" - the violence was not overt and the bloodshed minimal: the power of suggestion allowed the viewers to use their imaginations, and people's imaginations were once more vivid than anything presented on the big or small screen.

Now people are used to graphic murders with blood and guts everywhere.  In Braveheart, when William Wallace is disemboweled, the audience did not need to see it - we saw the pained expression on his face, and that was enough.  Now I guess it is expected, demanded, and a must in order to sell tickets and boost ratings.

I suppose I sound like an annoying adult who is out of touch with the youth of today.  However, I have a high regard for young people, and I think if many of them had an idea of what they are missing, they are smart enough to judge for themselves how people overall have created the monster of media prevalent today.

But who will teach them there's another alternative?  Thankfully, the youth I have worked with are wise enough to have a good appreciation for classic film and television.  However, social media is a big temptation for them, and many seldom perceive the long-range implications of exposing too much.

So HBO's GoT will still feature extra and manufactured sex and violence in an attempt to please an audience and win ratings even though such events are not necessarily part of Martin's novels.  I still wish the show had been true to the lovemaking scenes of Dany and Drogo - but Drogo was characterized differently in those intimate scenes.

Psycho is a slasher flick.  It was marketing as a bloody flick that will shock you. Janet Leigh was it's Ned Stark.  

Less is more can just be shadows and sounds if it not done well.  There is a line in igniting a person imagination and really being lazy.  

The Jaws rule is so praised and idolized that it has hurt the monster genre because you can never see the monster clearly for any length of time.  What is being done on purpose is what Spielberg had to do out of necessity because "Bruce" couldn't work properly.  That it worked is more on how just incredible a Director Spielberg is then that they did not the shark a lot.

 Braveheart has plenty of graphic blood and gore that may or may not needed to seen.  The scene was still very intense and do show some horrible things even though they did not show that particular part.

Seeing Gibson graphically disembowled, drawn and quartered is something I will not mind seeing.  Between that movie's homophobic element, The Passion, and his various remarks, it will be quite cathartic.  Well, there is always South Park.

 

 

[UnmaskedLurker]

8 hours ago, evita mgfs said:

Exactly.  The show publicists feed the press strategic leaks as red herrings to fan the flames of the Martin fandom.  This has happened over and over again for decades in television series, novel series, and movie serials - it is often called a cliff-hanger.  It is amazing how an audience who collectively loves whatever genre can be so easily manipulated by these games designed to generate publicity.  It is often said there is no bad PR.  If there is no hype around a show, a sequel, a whatever, then the PR department has failed.

We as fans feed into this game over and over again.  Does anyone remember "Who shot JR [Ewing]?"  the big Dallas cliffhanger?

What HBO is doing with Game of Thrones is nothing new - it has been done before.  It is not an original strategy - and it is designed to ensure an audience will return to learn the fate of a fan favorite.  Moreover, the resulting hype attracts new viewers who are curious and who want to be in on what others are debating or celebrating.

I am a willing participant in HBO's marketing strategy, and if I weren't, I would not be reading the replies in this thread and writing my own.

But the point is that they did not treat Jon's death as a cliffhanger. They could have done so -- and I would have really respected that approach. They could have done what GRRM did -- "Oh, so you think Jon is dead?" They could have refused to give a direct answer. They could have told everyone to tune in to find out whether Jon is dead.

Instead they did not treat the issue as a cliffhanger. They lied. They not only said that Jon is dead (technically true -- at least at the start of the season) but went on and lied and said that Kit Harrington is not in the upcoming season. Saying that is not setting up a cliffhanger. Saying that is simply a lie because they are going for the "surprising twist" value over "tune in to see what happens" value.

[TheKitttenGuard]

22 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

But the point is that they did not treat Jon's death as a cliffhanger. They could have done so -- and I would have really respected that approach. They could have done what GRRM did -- "Oh, so you think Jon is dead?" They could have refused to give a direct answer. They could have told everyone to tune in to find out whether Jon is dead.

Instead they did not treat the issue as a cliffhanger. They lied. They not only said that Jon is dead (technically true -- at least at the start of the season) but went on and lied and said that Kit Harrington is not in the upcoming season. Saying that is not setting up a cliffhanger. Saying that is simply a lie because they are going for the "surprising twist" value over "tune in to see what happens" value.

Does anyone think that if the interviewer said to Martin that Jon Snow is alive that Martin would of said yes?  Martin answer most likely would of "Oh, so you think is alive?". 

Whatever is being stated by anyone, a lot of Marketing is built around on Jon Snow death.  People asking and wondering makes it a cliffhanger.  

 

[UnmaskedLurker]

1 minute ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Does anyone think that if the interviewer said to Martin that Jon Snow is alive that Martin would of said yes?  Martin answer most likely would of "Oh, so you think is alive?". 

Whatever is being stated by anyone, a lot of Marketing is built around on Jon Snow death.  People asking and wondering makes it a cliffhanger.  

 

GRRM probably would have said something like that. That is my very point. Refuse to give a straight answer if you wan't to treat the issue as a cliffhanger. Tell people -- oh, so you think Jon is dead or so, you think he is alive. It does not matter. What matters is refusing to answer the question and telling people they have to tune in to find out.

But unlike GRRM, Kit and the producers did NOT do that. They answered the question -- and they answered it with a lie. They said Jon is dead and Kit is not returning for season 6. That is not a cliffhanger -- it is simply a lie. They appear to be trying to shut down speculation that Jon is still alive. They seem to be giving the same sort of definitive answer they gave with Stannis being dead (which appears to be true). \

The purpose of such a lie is not to act as a cliffhanger to get people to tune in. Refusing to answer the question might do that but lying does not. What lying is intended to do is to make it a complete surprise to people when Jon is resurrected. They don't want people to wonder whether Jon will come back -- i.e., a cliffhanger. Rather, they want people to be certain that Jon does not come back (not a cliffhanger) but then when he does come back -- WOW -- shock and awe.

[TheKitttenGuard]

24 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

GRRM probably would have said something like that. That is my very point. Refuse to give a straight answer if you wan't to treat the issue as a cliffhanger. Tell people -- oh, so you think Jon is dead or so, you think he is alive. It does not matter. What matters is refusing to answer the question and telling people they have to tune in to find out.

But unlike GRRM, Kit and the producers did NOT do that. They answered the question -- and they answered it with a lie. They said Jon is dead and Kit is not returning for season 6. That is not a cliffhanger -- it is simply a lie. They appear to be trying to shut down speculation that Jon is still alive. They seem to be giving the same sort of definitive answer they gave with Stannis being dead (which appears to be true). \

The purpose of such a lie is not to act as a cliffhanger to get people to tune in. Refusing to answer the question might do that but lying does not. What lying is intended to do is to make it a complete surprise to people when Jon is resurrected. They don't want people to wonder whether Jon will come back -- i.e., a cliffhanger. Rather, they want people to be certain that Jon does not come back (not a cliffhanger) but then when he does come back -- WOW -- shock and awe.

Not giving a straight answer is lying regardless of context.  

Martin is generating interest in the book by being evasive to get the interest for someone to buy the book.

Kit and D&D are being definitive and the question is still out there despite the definitive responses.

You also have a great deal of marketing around a dead character and it will a first for all that marketing to be on a permenant dead character.  So you have a definitive answer compare to what the marketing is saying implicitly.   Does that generate an interest to watch.  If it is yes then the Marketing done it's job.

If a person finds that deeply offensive, cynical, and insulting than the right course for that person is to just not to watch.

[UnmaskedLurker]

40 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Not giving a straight answer is lying regardless of context.  

Martin is generating interest in the book by being evasive to get the interest for someone to buy the book.

Kit and D&D are being definitive and the question is still out there despite the definitive responses.

You also have a great deal of marketing around a dead character and it will a first for all that marketing to be on a permenant dead character.  So you have a definitive answer compare to what the marketing is saying implicitly.   Does that generate an interest to watch.  If it is yes then the Marketing done it's job.

If a person finds that deeply offensive, cynical, and insulting than the right course for that person is to just not to watch.

I strongly disagree with the bolded. No one can be forced to answer a question. Refusing to answer or giving an evasive answer is not lying -- particularly in that context where it is clear he is giving an evasive and not informational answer. Telling a blatantly and unambiguously untrue answer is lying. GRRM did the former. Kit and the producers did the latter.

But more important, you are shifting the terms of the debate. The issue that was being discussed originally was whether Kit lied and whether he "had to lie." I think I have demonstrated unambiguously that he lied. I don't think he had to lie but I don't think it is a really big deal -- he is not a "bad" person for this lie. I don't dislike him for the lie. I just think it was a mistake in judgment.

Even more to the point, the most recent discussion was whether the lie was used to create a "cliffhanger" in the nature of "Who shot JR?" I believe I have clearly demonstrated that it did not create a cliffhanger -- but rather the opposite. It attempted to unambiguously lead viewers to the conclusion that Jon is dead and will stay dead. Such a conclusion is not a cliffhanger -- it is a definitive answer to the question of what happened to Jon. Of course, we know it is a lie (at least the second part). The purpose of the lie is not to be a cliffhanger but rather to create more "shock and awe" when Jon is resurrected -- to make the buzz that much louder and "surprise" the viewers that much more.

Is that a marketing strategy? Sure, in some respects. No one ever stated otherwise, which is why I am arguing that you are shifting the terms of the debate. The discussion has never been about whether the statements were made for marketing purposes. The issues have been whether a lie was told (it was) and whether the lie served as a cliffhanger (it did not).

Whether the lie is good marketing is a subjective question. I think giving more ambiguous answers and not lying could have been better marketing -- but I really don't know for sure or care that much. I have already spent way more time discussing this point than it deserves. I am not upset with them. I just think a lie should called what it is. And I think the lie was unnecessary -- but in the end, I really don't care about it very much.

[TheKitttenGuard]

4 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

I strongly disagree with the bolded. No one can be forced to answer a question. Refusing to answer or giving an evasive answer is not lying -- particularly in that context where it is clear he is giving an evasive and not informational answer. Telling a blatantly and unambiguously untrue answer is lying. GRRM did the former. Kit and the producers did the latter.

But more important, you are shifting the terms of the debate. The issue that was being discussed originally was whether Kit lied and whether he "had to lie." I think I have demonstrated unambiguously that he lied. I don't think he had to lie but I don't think it is a really big deal -- he is not a "bad" person for this lie. I don't dislike him for the lie. I just think it was a mistake in judgment.

Even more to the point, the most recent discussion was whether the lie was used to create a "cliffhanger" in the nature of "Who shot JR?" I believe I have clearly demonstrated that it did not create a cliffhanger -- but rather the opposite. It attempted to unambiguously lead viewers to the conclusion that Jon is dead and will stay dead. Such a conclusion is not a cliffhanger -- it is a definitive answer to the question of what happened to Jon. Of course, we know it is a lie (at least the second part). The purpose of the lie is not to be a cliffhanger but rather to create more "shock and awe" when Jon is resurrected -- to make the buzz that much louder and "surprise" the viewers that much more.

Is that a marketing strategy? Sure, in some respects. No one ever stated otherwise, which is why I am arguing that you are shifting the terms of the debate. The discussion has never been about whether the statements were made for marketing purposes. The issues have been whether a lie was told (it was) and whether the lie served as a cliffhanger (it did not).

Whether the lie is good marketing is a subjective question. I think giving more ambiguous answers and not lying could have been better marketing -- but I really don't know for sure or care that much. I have already spent way more time discussing this point than it deserves. I am not upset with them. I just think a lie should called what it is. And I think the lie was unnecessary -- but in the end, I really don't care about it very much.

George can just say you have to wait for the book.

He is having a little fun with the question which is great and all.  He did though write the chapter that Jon Snow was killed with this mystery and do not see the greater in now being cutesy.  It is a form of the lie and it is one that people may not see as bad then the more explicit one.

 

I made a response in the context of the statement that D&D have killed more main characters than Martin.  You made a reply of what is important is the context of how those main characters are killed.  That is shifting goalposts.

 

People are making moral judgments on that they are lying.  You have posts of how insulting and offending it is and how they will be as assholes when Jon comes back.  I am more of the few that the vast majority will be pleased with Jon's return and any thought on what was being done as it most as some minor annoyance that is common with anything that is hyped. 

Many of the people who state how deeply and morally offensive it is have already been deeply offended by something from the show already.

[UnmaskedLurker]

49 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

George can just say you have to wait for the book.

He is having a little fun with the question which is great and all.  He did though write the chapter that Jon Snow was killed with this mystery and do not see the greater in now being cutesy.  It is a form of the lie and it is one that people may not see as bad then the more explicit one.

 

I made a response in the context of the statement that D&D have killed more main characters than Martin.  You made a reply of what is important is the context of how those main characters are killed.  That is shifting goalposts.

 

People are making moral judgments on that they are lying.  You have posts of how insulting and offending it is and how they will be as assholes when Jon comes back.  I am more of the few that the vast majority will be pleased with Jon's return and any thought on what was being done as it most as some minor annoyance that is common with anything that is hyped. 

Many of the people who state how deeply and morally offensive it is have already been deeply offended by something from the show already.

I did not know that you were responding to the accusation about D&D having killed more characters than Martin. My reply had nothing to do with the context of how those main characters are killed or how many have been killed. I think you might have me confused with someone else.

I have no problem with D&D killing more or fewer characters or the manner in which they have killed characters. I have enjoyed GoT on HBO and while I think a few of the choices the producers made were ill-advised (Jaime raping Cersei was unnecessary and Dorne last season was a little silly but I did not hate it as much as many others did), overall I have been quite impressed. So I don't think I am shifting goalposts as I was not consciously discussing the issue of how many characters have been killed or the manner of killing characters at all. Nothing in your post that I responded to even mentioned D&D killing more characters than Martin -- it spoke to the lies being done for the purpose of marketing. I am not sure how I would have been expected to understand that you were addressing the issue of D&D killing more characters, as you never mentioned that issue in the post to which I responded. Please re-read the last three or four posts you have made. They never mentioned the issue of D&D killing more characters or the manner of killing characters.

I am not making a moral judgment. I have said at least twice that I do not think Kit or the producers are "bad" people for having lied. I am neither offended nor insulted. I don't think they will be assholes when Jon comes back -- I just wonder what they will say as an excuse for their lies. As with you, I will be thrilled with Jon's return. Keeping Jon dead would make no sense for the story at all -- he is the central character -- he is the Song of Ice and Fire, personified. I have stated multiple times that the lies are not really a big deal, I am just not sure why they felt they had to do it. It is not a choice I would have made -- but I don't consider it that big a deal.

So I will not try to speak for anyone else other than me. I am not morally offended by the lies. I have not been morally offended by anything they have done on the show.

I was not morally offended when Jamie raped Cersei (even though I think it was unnecessary and the way it played out in the book made sense while the way it played out in the show was inconsistent with Jaime's character and added nothing to the plot). I was not offended by Ramsay raping Sansa (it was completely in Ramsay's character -- and Ramsay abused Jeyne Poole in the books in a similar manner so all the talk that D&D went further than GRRM is nonsense -- it just shows a bias in favor of a more main character like Sansa over a more minor character like JP). I was not offended by the burning of burning of Shireen (while a horrific scene to watch, it was completely in character for Stannis and Mel -- and furthered the plot in a necessary way).

So don't confuse me with the faint-hearted. I really don't offend easily, and the lies from Kit and the producers are no exceptions -- they don't offend me. It takes a lot to offend me, and D&D's version of GoT has never even come close. I merely question the necessity of the lie and want it to be called out for what it is -- a lie. And then when people try to say the lie was necessary because they want to create a cliffhanger -- I simply want to correct the record and point out that the lie resulted in the opposite of a cliffhanger -- as was its intent.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

1 hour ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

People are making moral judgments on that they are lying.  You have posts of how insulting and offending it is and how they will be as assholes when Jon comes back.

 

47 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

I think you might have me confused with someone else.

Probably me. But I'm pretty sure I called them flippin' dickheads, not assholes. 

They're still lying. Some lies are damn lies, some lies are kindly meant, some lies are.... not without honor. This isn't one o' them lies. It just looks makes them look foolish.

 

[Bran the Shipper]

The thing is, that at the moment we cannot call them liars because we do not know that Jon isn't dead and staying that way.  Yes almost everyone assumes he is returning but until we see/read that he is back, we shouldn't be treating it like it is inevitable in a series that does kill off major characters.  How foolish will this debate, on whether them lying about him being dead is acceptable or not, be if it turns out that they are not lying.  So maybe this conversation should be put on hold until that point, if it is proven (not assumed) that they are lying then we can argue about how wrong it was.

[TheKitttenGuard]

37 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

 

Probably me. But I'm pretty sure I called them flippin' dickheads, not assholes. 

They're still lying. Some lies are damn lies, some lies are kindly meant, some lies are.... not without honor. This isn't one o' them lies. It just looks makes them look foolish.

 

Foolishness is still in the eye of the beholder.  

There is incredible media saturation and having just a set denial is what they planned on for various reasons.  Anything on explanation will just be conjecture and speculation on my part.

 

 

 

[UnmaskedLurker]

24 minutes ago, Bran the Shipper said:

The thing is, that at the moment we cannot call them liars because we do not know that Jon isn't dead and staying that way.  Yes almost everyone assumes he is returning but until we see/read that he is back, we shouldn't be treating it like it is inevitable in a series that does kill off major characters.  How foolish will this debate, on whether them lying about him being dead is acceptable or not, be if it turns out that they are not lying.  So maybe this conversation should be put on hold until that point, if it is proven (not assumed) that they are lying then we can argue about how wrong it was.

We have leaked photos of Jon fighting at Winterfell. We have people referring to the battle as the Battle of the Bastards -- which makes no sense unless the battle has Jon leading one side and Ramsay leading the other. So even ignoring the logic that Jon cannot stay dead because he obviously has to be one of the major endgame players (for many reasons that I won't get into because I said I am ignoring this point for this purpose) -- we have enough reliable leaked spoiler information regarding the production to know that Jon is resurrected. So no, it is not conjecture -- it is happening. But I have had more than enough of the topic of them lying, so I would be thrilled to put this conversation on hold.