[Spoilers] Rant and Rave Without Repercussion

[Lord Varys]

16 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

Well, as I mentioned in my first post, Stannis sat on his arse and the knowledge of Joffrey's illegitimacy for the entire duration of Ned's tenure as Hand (knowledge which could well have saved Ned's life or altered the game in any number of ways) and Renly abandoned Ned at his hour of need (that's certainly Catelyn's view). That certainly could be considered as 'fucking Robb' or at least the Starks as a whole.

That is certainly true. Although that's more a betrayal of Robert. It has nothing to do with Robb. But, yeah, I think Stannis betrayed/abandoned Robert there.

Renly offered to help Ned - just as Littlefinger did, by the way. Ned declined them both. He cannot demand that men act against their own interests (Littlefinger) or risk their own lives and the lives of their men by waiting too long (Renly).

16 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

Unfortunately, I don't know much about the Skagos Rebellion (the wiki seems pretty bare on detail) so I can't answer that but wouldn't Raymun Redbeard be an example of the Starks doing their job? The Night's Watch were caught off-guard (hence the nickname of their Lord Commander) and let the wildlings past them; it was the Starks and Umbers that defeated them. That seems like the Starks did their job just fine to me.

They did their job eventually during the wildling invasion but it is the duty of the Warden of a particular region to keep the peace there. And you keep the peace best if you prevent an enemy from invading your territory in the first place. If you reread AGoT you will find that Ned entertains the notion of calling his banners and deal with Mance Rayder before he can attack the Wall. The Starks could (and most likely should) have done something similar back when Raymun was king-beyond-the-Wall.

And it is true that we know next to nothing about the Skagos Rebellion but usually a rebellion - like Robert's Rebellion or even Robb's decision to crown himself (or the Laughing Storm's back in the day) - is rooted at least in part in legitimate grievances. That could indicated that the Starks misruled Skagos and failed to rectify the situation before it came to violence.

Sure, that's not always the case - Balon's Rebellion or the Blackfyre rebellions are proof of that.

But just as one could say the Kings on the Iron Throne sucked at their job one could say the Starks sucked, at least at times, as Lords of Winterfell and Wardens of the North. This didn't lead to the Iron Throne replacing them with another family.

If we go back to the things as they are in the books then it is quite clear that the kings - Targaryen or otherwise - confirm pretty much any grant of land upon their ascension. A subject has to do homage to his or her king and in turn is confirmed in whatever title he or she holds (we see this happening after Joffrey's coronation when half the lords of the Realm or more are attainted because they do not show up at court and do Joffrey homage).

From that point of view the Starks are no longer in possession of Winterfell since AGoT. They just hold it illegally in defiance of the decrees of the Iron Throne. Now, while a King Jon could challenge Daenerys' claim to the Iron Throne he can hardly say that anyone in Westeros outside the North recognizes him as a king or the North as an independent kingdom. And the only other pretender to the Iron Throne aside from Daenerys is ... Cersei.

And it is quite clear that Cersei and Jon are enemies. How does it make sense in that context that Jon does antagonize Daenerys?

Euron could also have antagonized Cersei. Instead he tries to win her hand. Why doesn't Jon do the same? Because the writers want them to fall in love first before the obvious thing comes up. They ignore the fact that this is a medieval setting where love doesn't matter in a marriage. 

This is why I think Dany and Jon are likely to meet in a much more informal manner in the books.

If Dany showed in Westeros the way she does in the show - which is not all that likely - we would most likely see half the lords of the Realm trying to win her hand. That could make them king/prince consort of the Realm. And a King Jon would also line up and offer his hand in marriage to this queen simply to gain a potential ally against the true enemy. He would not bitch around and try to treat Daenerys like he would another man.

[Epyon]

I won't comment on the whole episode but two small things that I thought when the Daeny/Jon scenes came around:

 

1. Jon should have brought Ghost with him, a giant horse sized direwolf would have shut that smug Dothraki right the hell down.... and there's nothing a spoiled rich girl loves more than a bad boy with a dog, so it would have helped out with Daenarys. I'd add he spent the entire time looking either scared or meek, and he could have used some intimidation points.

2. He just handed a valaryian steel sword to a Dothraki with no guarantee about getting it back..... That sword is more valuable than basically everything and everyone there except the actual dragons. Felt like he should have at worst made it Tyrion's personal responsibility.

[aliasocfan]

1 hour ago, SansaJonRule said:

Well he was imprisoned again by the Freys/Lannisters at the end of season 6, presumably at his own castle.  Walder mentions in his conversation with Jaime at the feast.

Yes. 

Since Arya went all murder happy on the Freys, it would be a little awkward if she just left him there. 

[teej6]

3 hours ago, Lady Fevre Dream said:

I'd like to know WHY they had Sam steal Heartsbane if neither he nor his Daddy ever mention it?  I'm really not certain if they remember they had Sam take it, LOL  Then again, Sam DID forget that he already knew about dragonglass on Dragonstone as well........but what's Randyll's excuse?

Looking at all the armies appearing all over Westeros doesn't lead me to the conclusion that the Lannisters, even Newly Evil Queen Carol, have the same magical powers as the NK, it's so obvious someone is going bonkers with the computer animation and the ability to just force multiply.  I am pulled right out of any suspension of belief in the story and thinking about computer programmers and such.  A warning for our own futures and terminators all over, perhaps.  They really need to leave off the damn multiply buttons on their computers.

 

D&D's MO is to completely ignore plot points, character development, timelines, etc. from prior seasons (sometimes even from prior episodes in the same season) until they need to use it again. Then they'll shoehorn it into the plot, which by that time will make no sense. Someone upthread brought up the example of Bran who probably knows what LF did to his family but he'll stay silent about it and watch the weasel pour poison in Sansa's ear. Why? Because D&D wants the big reveal to happen in spectacular fashion in the end of the season for maximum effect. Until then, we'll have to listen to nonsense like fight every battle everywhere always in your head.   

And yeah, the armies sizes are another thing that expands and shrinks as and when needed to accomodate D&D's script, nevermind consistency or logic. Dany's armada in the finale of last season looked massive. Then this season we have another massive Armada, only this time it belongs to Euron, whose men magically built 1000 ships with no trees in a matter of weeks. Of course, when they want to get rid of Euron, they'll make his armada disappear just as quickly as it appeared. 

[falcotron]

10 hours ago, Nerevanin said:

Yeah, I hate her too. The book Dany (and to an extent the show Dany) was likeable during the first two books. When she sacks Astapor it all goes downhill for me. What I dislike about her is that "I'm a dragon, you will all burn" persona and that "I'm a wise queen, I love you all" persona. I mean, choose one of them and stick to it. You can't be a "good queen" if you crucify ~200 people for something they might not be even guilty for and you think that you're better than them.  I wouldn't mind if her "mad moments" would eventually lead to her being an evil queen like her father, that'd be at least an interesting evolution.

I think the point of Dany is that she's not supposed to pick on or the other, she's supposed to learn to integrate the two. And that's where it gets really interesting, because, while it could lead to her being a great Queen, it could just as easily lead her to be a brutal zealot who'd horrify Pol Pot. That struggle is a great story, and the fact that the only people she has to advise her are as broken as Tyrion and Varys makes it even more interesting.

The problem is that 5 books or 63 episodes in, we're still in the setup. And the lessons aren't ramping up, they're just repeating. (And honestly, how could they ramp up from the lesson of Astapor?) I think this is one of those cases where a brilliant story for a trilogy with time skips doesn't translate into a good story for a heptalogy of oversized novels or 8 seasons of TV.

[WSmith84]

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is certainly true. Although that's more a betrayal of Robert. It has nothing to do with Robb. But, yeah, I think Stannis betrayed/abandoned Robert there.

Renly offered to help Ned - just as Littlefinger did, by the way. Ned declined them both. He cannot demand that men act against their own interests (Littlefinger) or risk their own lives and the lives of their men by waiting too long (Renly).

They did their job eventually during the wildling invasion but it is the duty of the Warden of a particular region to keep the peace there. And you keep the peace best if you prevent an enemy from invading your territory in the first place. If you reread AGoT you will find that Ned entertains the notion of calling his banners and deal with Mance Rayder before he can attack the Wall. The Starks could (and most likely should) have done something similar back when Raymun was king-beyond-the-Wall.

And it is true that we know next to nothing about the Skagos Rebellion but usually a rebellion - like Robert's Rebellion or even Robb's decision to crown himself (or the Laughing Storm's back in the day) - is rooted at least in part in legitimate grievances. That could indicated that the Starks misruled Skagos and failed to rectify the situation before it came to violence.

Sure, that's not always the case - Balon's Rebellion or the Blackfyre rebellions are proof of that.

But just as one could say the Kings on the Iron Throne sucked at their job one could say the Starks sucked, at least at times, as Lords of Winterfell and Wardens of the North. This didn't lead to the Iron Throne replacing them with another family.

If we go back to the things as they are in the books then it is quite clear that the kings - Targaryen or otherwise - confirm pretty much any grant of land upon their ascension. A subject has to do homage to his or her king and in turn is confirmed in whatever title he or she holds (we see this happening after Joffrey's coronation when half the lords of the Realm or more are attainted because they do not show up at court and do Joffrey homage).

From that point of view the Starks are no longer in possession of Winterfell since AGoT. They just hold it illegally in defiance of the decrees of the Iron Throne. Now, while a King Jon could challenge Daenerys' claim to the Iron Throne he can hardly say that anyone in Westeros outside the North recognizes him as a king or the North as an independent kingdom. And the only other pretender to the Iron Throne aside from Daenerys is ... Cersei.

And it is quite clear that Cersei and Jon are enemies. How does it make sense in that context that Jon does antagonize Daenerys?

Euron could also have antagonized Cersei. Instead he tries to win her hand. Why doesn't Jon do the same? Because the writers want them to fall in love first before the obvious thing comes up. They ignore the fact that this is a medieval setting where love doesn't matter in a marriage. 

This is why I think Dany and Jon are likely to meet in a much more informal manner in the books.

If Dany showed in Westeros the way she does in the show - which is not all that likely - we would most likely see half the lords of the Realm trying to win her hand. That could make them king/prince consort of the Realm. And a King Jon would also line up and offer his hand in marriage to this queen simply to gain a potential ally against the true enemy. He would not bitch around and try to treat Daenerys like he would another man.

I can't really disagree with anything you've written (mainly because, well, I don't). I'd still argue that the desire to not be ruled by the Iron Throne is at least understandable from a Northerner's perspective, even if I think it was mostly doomed and not likely to leave the North better off.

If I were Jon, I'd probably not bow down to Dany immediately (in case she is her father's daughter) but I'd certainly not be antagonizing her. Mind you, if I were Jon I'd also be trying to actually convince people of the army of the dead rather than just telling them about it. And I would have probably delayed meeting Dany until a later date; sent an emissary or something (maybe lent her a competent military general).

On a different subject, was anyone else supremely annoyed by Jorah's recovery speed (that he even survived is a miracle) from basically being flayed and that they just let him leave because he feels better? No period in isolation or anything? No isolating Sam, in case he managed to cure Jorah but infected himself? No?

[Lady Fevre Dream]

9 minutes ago, aliasocfan said:

Yes. 

Since Arya went all murder happy on the Freys, it would be a little awkward if she just left him there. 

Wait, wait.  I've figured it out.  Since Arya left the Frey women alive, obviously there's a possibility that Roslyn just went down to unchain her hubby and play house, right?  RME, yes, I am kidding. 

[falcotron]

5 hours ago, darmody said:

I think the Army of the Dead and the Knight King are supposed to be common knowledge, part of Westerosi lore. I don't know for sure, because the show doesn't tell me. I do know White Walkers are legendary. Jon mentioned them briefly, as I recall.

Yes, they're legendary—in the sense that most people believe they're legends. Things that either existed thousands of years ago, or were never anything more than myths. Remember Tyrion's bit about "snarks and grumpkins", which they just explicitly called back to this week? That's what everyone thinks.

So, Jon's challenge isn't explaining the legends to people, it's convincing people that those legends are real.

But I'm not sure why he thinks the way to do that is to just say "I have to fight the army of the dead" and then shut up and look really serious. It's as if he thinks the problem is that everyone believes he's joking, instead of that everyone believes he's probably insane. He might as well get a "The End is Nigh" sign, make a tin foil hat, and send ravens to Coast to Coast With Art Bell—that'll prove he's not joking.

[ummester]

Saying the army of the dead is real is like convincing someone you saw Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny IRL. But, given that it's a world with giant, flying, fire breathing crocodiles - you think people would have fairly open minds

 

I watched the episode again and it really pissed me off how easily Davos got on with Tyrion - Tyrion killed Davos' son, fathers don't just accept shit like that. He should have strangled the little imp on the spot.

[Meera of Tarth]

11 hours ago, LokisRaider said:

So Cersei and Euron apparently know every strategy that Dany and Tyrion are going to employ while Dany and Tyrion have no idea what the enemy is doing for... reasons? I guess? I guess that goes back to the theme of this season where everyone knows everything unless it is easier for the plot that they don't know something big.

And taking Ellaria prisoner defeats the Dorne army? If you are going to use the hostage reason at least have Tyrion say something like "With Ellaria taken prisoner the Dornish army is holding in reserve to try and get her back", something anything to explain why the Dornish are no longer going to be an ally. And how did the Tyrell army fall so easily? They are considered one of the freshest armies (as there is no storming of Dragonstone in the show) and the lannisters are one of the most depleted. It just doesn't make any sense. And I'm curious as to who is defending Kings Landing right now? The Lannister army is at Highgarden and Euron is at the Rock.

Why are people in the street cheering for Euron and Cersei? She just destroyed the Sept and the high septon that the people loved. Everyone knows it, I still do not understand how the small folk support her in the slightest other then again... reason. And isn't the King's Landing completely unprotected now? The Lannister army is at High Garden and Euron is at the rock.

So at the end of (I think Season 5) when Bronn was saying good by to the SS it zoomed in on her hand while they kissed. I speculated she gave him a cure and Mycella was going to live. Clearly I was wrong, but now I'm wondering if she did give him a cure for the poison that he will now use to help her. And didn't the show already imply that this poison takes a couple of minutes to work? Mycella was dead on the ship before it left the harbor, so whats with this it takes several days to work stuff?

 

 

good points about the dornish army

[falcotron]

16 minutes ago, ummester said:

Saying the army of the dead is real is like convincing someone you saw Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny IRL. But, given that it's a world with giant, flying, fire breathing crocodiles - you think people would have fairly open minds

Think about the time scales of this.

Dragons aren't fantasy at all in-universe, they're modern history. Old people's grandfathers fought alongside them. Their skulls were on display until 20 years ago, their eggs are still traded and displayed, and the lessons you learned from your Maesters had more dragon battles than naval battles. And, while dragons may seem fantastic to you, with your scientific upbringing and the inevitable associations with Smaug, etc., there's no such problem for people in-story. A Westerosi believing in dragons is like you believing in castle architects.

Wights, on the other hand, are just as fantastic to them as they are to you. They're part of ancient myths from 10000 years ago. For comparison, that's about twice as long ago as the Epic of Gilgamesh is supposed to take place. A Westerosi believing in wights is like you believing in lion-faced tree giants who can kill with a glance, only twice as credulous as that.

I think the visual and immediate nature of TV makes this a lot less obvious to show-watchers, so they need to go out of their way to get the point across explicitly far more than the novels do, and they've failed to do so. Putting the scene with dragon skulls in Robert's basement trophy room in the same episode as Jon asks Tyrion how to convince people isn't enough; Tyrion should have directly reminded Jon—and the viewers—of the difference. Because otherwise, Jon's failure feels baffling, for exactly the reasons you give.

(Of course they'd still have the problem that Jon doesn't seem to be even trying to convince people. Showing him try and fail rather than just having him mutter "army of the dead" and then move on to another topic couldn't hurt…)

[Crona]

I felt that Jon was talking about crazy things and Dany was talking like a crazy person. I still feel like that exchange was odd

Also, what was the point of Jorah having greyscale? Plot Wise?

[SansaJonRule]

1 hour ago, falcotron said:

So, Jon's challenge isn't explaining the legends to people, it's convincing people that those legends are real.

But I'm not sure why he thinks the way to do that is to just say "I have to fight the army of the dead" and then shut up and look really serious.

There was a good deal more than that.  Jon asks Tyrion if he thinks Jon's a liar or crazy and Tyrion says no.  Then Jon does say they are real, I've seen them, and Davos says "those things you don't believe in, he's faced them, he's fought them..." but Tyrion and little miss bitch keep derailing the conversation to what she thinks she is entitled to, then Varys comes in with the news about the Greyjoy attack.  Didn't leave him a chance to say anything else at that point.  Part of the story will be Jon convincing Dany (and hopefully others) that the WW are real and #1 priority.

Also getting Dany to believe the threat of the WW is real was only half of his objective.  The other half was to get her permission to mine dragon glass, which he did accomplish with Tyrion's help. 

[SansaJonRule]

1 hour ago, Epyon said:

2. He just handed a valaryian steel sword to a Dothraki with no guarantee about getting it back..... That sword is more valuable than basically everything and everyone there except the actual dragons. Felt like he should have at worst made it Tyrion's personal responsibility.

That would have shown a lack of distrust for Dany, and that's a very bad way to begin negotiations.  How do we know he took that sword?  If it was, handing over weapons is not an uncommon thing and he should have anticipated that and taken a different one.

[SansaJonRule]

Why does it matter that neither Sam nor Randall have mentioned the fact Sam took Heartsbane.  The fact hasn't been relevant to anything so far this season?  It will probably come into play later.  Also, remember his father said Sam would never weild that sword.  Sam taking it shows how much his character has grown by having the guts to defy his father.

Also, why does everyone seem to want Jon and Dany to get together?  Of course they're going to have to develop a mutual respect and perhaps liking for each other, but what happens when Jon finds out she's his aunt?  Just what Westeros needs, more incest!

[Anarchy99]

25 minutes ago, Crona said:

I felt that Jon was talking about crazy things and Dany was talking like a crazy person. I still feel like that exchange was odd

Also, what was the point of Jorah having greyscale? Plot Wise?

The greyscale has to be relevant later on somehow, I would hope they wouldn't keep it in (assuming it's JonCon's arc) just because it happens in the books, for no payoff, but I wouldn't put that past them either.

[Crona]

8 minutes ago, SansaJonRule said:

 

Also, why does everyone seem to want Jon and Dany to get together?  Of course they're going to have to develop a mutual respect and perhaps liking for each other, but what happens when Jon finds out she's his aunt?  Just what Westeros needs, more incest!

I think people see at as the next step, plus Dany said that she was planning to marry in Westeros, and Jon happens to be the only king, other than Robin, but nobody wants to see that.

i personally, prefer if they were enemies 

[Crona]

7 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

The greyscale has to be relevant later on somehow, I would hope they wouldn't keep it in (assuming it's JonCon's arc) just because it happens in the books, for no payoff, but I wouldn't put that past them either.

That's what I think, since GRRM hasn't finished it yet.  They didn't know what to do with it, so they just cured him 

[ummester]

1 hour ago, falcotron said:

Think about the time scales of this.

Dragons aren't fantasy at all in-universe, they're modern history. Old people's grandfathers fought alongside them. Their skulls were on display until 20 years ago, their eggs are still traded and displayed, and the lessons you learned from your Maesters had more dragon battles than naval battles. And, while dragons may seem fantastic to you, with your scientific upbringing and the inevitable associations with Smaug, etc., there's no such problem for people in-story. A Westerosi believing in dragons is like you believing in castle architects.

Wights, on the other hand, are just as fantastic to them as they are to you. They're part of ancient myths from 10000 years ago. For comparison, that's about twice as long ago as the Epic of Gilgamesh is supposed to take place. A Westerosi believing in wights is like you believing in lion-faced tree giants who can kill with a glance, only twice as credulous as that.

I think the visual and immediate nature of TV makes this a lot less obvious to show-watchers, so they need to go out of their way to get the point across explicitly far more than the novels do, and they've failed to do so. Putting the scene with dragon skulls in Robert's basement trophy room in the same episode as Jon asks Tyrion how to convince people isn't enough; Tyrion should have directly reminded Jon—and the viewers—of the difference. Because otherwise, Jon's failure feels baffling, for exactly the reasons you give.

(Of course they'd still have the problem that Jon doesn't seem to be even trying to convince people. Showing him try and fail rather than just having him mutter "army of the dead" and then move on to another topic couldn't hurt…)

good points - and I agree the show should have done as you suggest, a simple line from Tyrion "I believe you, you are an honest man. But dragons have only been gone from the world 100 years and it is hard to accept they are back. You are trying to convince the world that a myth thousands of years old is real."

I hate show Tyrion, he's such a waste of space.

[Edd Tollett's One Vote]

I'm seeing quite a few people questioning how the Cersei seems to know everything, while Dany/Tyrion are completely in the dark. Well I have a theory! It all comes back to kids and candy. 

We learn in Season 6 that Varys' brilliance as Master of Whispers came from his incredible discovery that 1) the children of Westeros had a secret network with incredible knowledge, and 2) they would happily sell this infallible knowledge for candy. Unfortunately, Varys has now ended up on an island with neither candy nor children, effectively crippling him from wielding this power. In contrast, Qyburn is in KL with lots of candy and lots of kids.

Now you're probably wondering how random children in KL (and probably across Westeros) have managed to establish this extensive information network, and be doubting if this is even possible. It seems unbelievable, right? But this doesn't rule it out as a relevant theory, because now that I've addressed that it's ridiculous, we can move past that. Thank you Shade of the Lamp!