Jump to content
Lady Fevre Dream

[Spoilers] Rant and Rave Without Repercussion

Recommended Posts

On 7/31/2017 at 9:10 PM, Cas Stark said:

Jon is Robb's heir in the books, there is a 100% chance that he will be named King in the North eventually, IMO.

At a minimum, he will certainly be the North's defacto leader if not its dejure one. 

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

It was way too long and so were a few other scenes this episode. Nothing was gained from such length. There was a lot of tedious, aimless posturing and pontificating. Several times I thought of this.

Hahaha !

Showrunners priorities are pretty disappointing. Cut Cersei's scene in half and give us a dialogue around Jon explaining to Davos why he doesn't want his resurrection talked about, or why Tyrion should have asked him how he was able to leave the NW.

Give Bran more although given how robotic is was not sure I want to hear from Bran again ! That was just such a buzzkill.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Actually, that's not what I understand from medieval legal theory. A vassal could disavow his ties to a lord and the lord's house if the lord broke his part of the bargain. Sure, it probably most often ended up in armed conflict. But the theory was there under medieval law, I do believe.

As the very next paragraph says: Jon's argument shouldn't be that he didn't break Torrhen's contract, but that the Mad King broke it first.

That's the fundamental property of contractual obligations: you can't hold someone to their obligation if you broke yours first. It's not something specific to vassalage, and it's certainly not something you'd write into an oath or contract. (Modern contracts do often include terms like that, but that's because they're generally seeking to override the fundamental property in some way—for example, you might want severability: if I fail to do X, you're absolved of A, but still obligated to B, C, and D.)

It's also worth pointing out that Jon's actual argument is a very bad idea. If he really believes that he's not liable to the vassalage of his ancestors, the North is going to fall apart within a generation as his current vassals die and are replaced (or as soon as he dies). But then it's actually plausible that Jon would not understand how feudalism works and have bad ideas like that—Ned and Cat may well have never had him instructed in how to be a liege or vassal, since he was a bastard.

Or, this being the same show where Dany talked about crushing the lords and the entire system and presumably replacing it with a parliamentary democracy or a Napoleonic dictatorship or something else more modern, maybe Jon is planning to eliminate feudalism in the North as well, who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RhaenysB said:

2. What. The. F*ck. With. Bran. He was literally a bitchy teenager last season whining that the 3 eyed raven would let him go up to the tower. And now he is like Yoda in a Zen garden with a blank face and blank voice and throwing around the worst lines of the entire series? Can he at least pretend to be happy to see his sister for his sister's sake? Hello sister. I can't be lord of Winterfell. I'm the three eyed raven. I see everything. The three eyed raven taught me. Oh you don't understand? That's because I'm deliberately talking nonsense to sound insanely wise. Oh and it's also because it's too difficult to explain. But I have an idea, I'll give you instant ptsd by reminding you how pretty you were on your unwanted wedding day. Because that's the kinda shit your late husband would say and I guess you miss him. You don't? That must be difficult to explain too. Well bye sister, I must sit here in the cold and wear this terrible blank expression for the rest of the show. (And make no mistake, Sansa is just as bad, she is so so so insufferable and so so so full of contradictions) this whole reunion was absolutely underwhelming and pretty redundant. They didn't share information, they didn't share memories, they didn't share emotions. maybe talk about... hmmm... FREAKING RICKON? 

To hopefully clear something up on the confusion about Bran's arc and IHW's acting...

I think this may be one area in which D&D actually fucking listened to what GRRM had to say about the characters in their roles beyond the published books.     GRRM admires writer/former DC Comics novelist Alan Moore (even invited him to participate in Wild Cards), who is best known for his series Watchmen.   If you're familiar with Watchmen at all, it's pretty clear that Bran/3EC/R/Whatever in his current 'enlightened' form is modeled after the character Dr. Manhattan - this emotionally devoid superbeing with unfathomable power over humanity, etc etc.

Of course, channeling this to television vis a vis a medieval fantasy background is difficult to do anyway, much less with basically zero build up or lead in so that the audience fully understands what is happening.   I think D&D tried, and I think IHW understood where they were going/what they were doing with it, but there just wasn't enough background and the whole thing fell flatter than Bran's responses.

Anyway, for the rest of the season just imagine IHW as a big naked blue guy with a hydrogen symbol on his forehead and you should be good to go.   LOL

Edited by PrettyPig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2017 at 9:47 PM, falcotron said:

As the very next paragraph says: Jon's argument shouldn't be that he didn't break Torrhen's contract, but that the Mad King broke it first.

Completely agree. But, he needs to go a step further and say that Aerys' actions released the North and House Stark from it's obligations to the Targaryens, contradicting the claim that the North could never be free from said obligation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Nami said:

 

wtf was LF's speech? what was he even saying? just put this character out of his misery already

Yes! I'm so over Littlefinger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The whole scenario is about as ridiculous as Wales declaring independence and the Welsh then asking England for help because the Irish are invading Wales while insisting that they are allowed to remain independence. What stupid head of state would go along with that kind of crap?

Victoria. Or FDR, or… actually most post-Victorian heads of state.

But your point still stands that would be ridiculous in the medieval era, even if it's perfectly normal in the modern era. When modern France defends Algeria, it's because of an obligation between the people or nation of France and the people or nation of Algeria, or because of the special economic ties between their states, or because there are strategic reasons to keep Algeria stable and friendly, or even out of guilt for misdeeds as a former colonial overlord. When medieval France defended Provence, it was because of a personal feudal obligation between the King of France and the Count of Provence. Remove that obligation and the King isn't going to show up. (Or, if he is, he'll be counter-invading to conquer it for himself, not defending you.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

[The torture scene] was way too long and so were a few other scenes this episode. Nothing was gained from such length. There was a lot of tedious, aimless posturing and pontificating. Several times I thought of this.

Hahaha, that link was better than this episode.

This show doesn't have enough time to show how Highgarden, one of the most important cities in Westeros and seat of the richest house with the largest army at this time, but somehow has time to show torture porn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

So, the season 6 ended with Dorne and Highgarden vowing revenge, and... pffft. Nothing. It's not that they lost is bad, it's that they didn't get a single shot in. There are few things as annoying as a major buildup leading to irrelevancy. If TPTB wanted to give Cersei an easy instantaneous win, WTF did Olenna even leave King's Landing, what was the point of her surviving the wildfire treason and plot? So that she could whisper "Wevenge!", and slip on a banana peel a couple minutes later? Sheesh.

And yeah, the exposition of the balance of power is all over the place. We somehow got from "Cersei is finished, surrounded, in hopeless situation, doomed etc." to "the Lannister army can crush Highgarden with contemptuous ease". Sorry, you don't get to do that without some epic "Surprise, motherfuckers! Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station!". And we got nothing of that sort.

Sigh. A letdown.

I laughed out loud at the wevenge part hahaha. Well done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lord Godric said:

This was a really disappointing episode. It feels to me (for the first time really, because I haven't had these problems before) that without Martin's writing, D&D are writing scenes in one episode that have absolutely no follow through in later episodes, or that they end up rushing through. 

For example, why bother introducing the plan to take Casterly Rock only to show the entire thing in a montage two episodes later that lasts only about three minutes. Why bother having Olenna and the Sand Snakes talk of justice at the end of last season only to have them eliminated so early without having done anything. Why bother having Olenna say that she "survived because she didn't listen to anyone" and then she dies because she listened to Tyrion. 

I was not impressed with this episode and how it rushed through so many scenes, it felt like we were back in season 1 where they didn't have the budget, and that's probably because they're saving the budget for scenes with the White Walkers, but that is not what I want. I want a well-rounded season, not one that rushes through storylines just to get us to the battlepor

I agree with your take on this and especially the absence of rich dialogue without GRRM's writing. All along I've been thinking that we are not going to get a happy ending because it's GAME OF THRONES and there are no happy endings (still traumatized by Ned's death over here...). But perhaps D&D aren't creative enough to stick with GRRM and they will give the masses what they want... Dany and Jon defeat the Night King, fall in love, and will an end to Winter. I hope not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, falcotron said:

It's also worth pointing out that Jon's actual argument is a very bad idea. If he really believes that he's not liable to the vassalage of his ancestors, the North is going to fall apart within a generation as his current vassals die and are replaced (or as soon as he dies). But then it's actually plausible that Jon would not understand how feudalism works and have bad ideas like that—Ned and Cat may well have never had him instructed in how to be a liege or vassal, since he was a bastard.

Or, this being the same show where Dany talked about crushing the lords and the entire system and presumably replacing it with a parliamentary democracy or a Napoleonic dictatorship or something else more modern, maybe Jon is planning to eliminate feudalism in the North as well, who knows.

I am a young member of the fan base here and I don't watch the show at all, or ever really. I watched it the other night when I was at my friends house and he put it on. This also stood out to me as not correct for both the book source and what it seems Jon should have been saying in that episode. Anyway, this whole idea of Jon not caring about his ancestors is like a modern idea. Lots of other people at my college think like this.

Jon in the books wants to be part of a family and have an identity other than bastard. Jon was trained in the castle along side Robb. Jon knows what Robb knew and what is taught to young men. This seemed very out of character for Jon and Daenerys to be saying to each other.

And I have one more question. I heard that Summer the direwolf was killed last season (I did not watch it) but did they also kill Ghost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon went to Dragonstone with no plan? Like, not even to ask Danearys for an alliance through marriage? This is a feudal culture, and it solves both their problems to just marry. Helps each of them save face, and it gets them both what they want.

Why hasn't anyone suggested this?

Also, Tyrion designed a secret way into Casterly Rock, his family's fortress, just so he could have sex with prostitutes? Give me a f***ing break. Tywin was right never to name him heir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, princess_snow said:

I couldn't agree more. I complained in another thread about the ruination of Jaime.

You raise excellent points on Mel. Why did they do the reveal of her being 400 years old then not touch back on this ? Not that I look at spoilers or leaks but it appears she is not coming back ? Idk. Its very disappointing that some conversations don't take place, Jons resurrection ok we saw he didn't want it talked about - but a brief scene between him and Davos explaining why would have been nice.

I learnt not to expect Ghost being a huge part of the show when the cost of CGI around this became an issue, its super disappointing I know. They chose to use that for the Dragons.

Bran returning was such a let down, I went from crying to - wtf ? I don't understand why he needed to mention Sansa's rape, it repulsed me.

I found Cersei's scene with the sand snakes way too long.     

Thanks. I'm glad it's not me who thinks they have wasted Mel (and CVH who is a talented actress). But like another poster said they seem clueless what to do with secondary characters without GRRM's books as a guide. 

 

Davos: established as being obsessively loyal and devoted to Stannis (who honestly never deserved the loyalty of Davos, who is a far better man) and a very moral and noble character. Seems surprisingly undevastated when Mel comes back to the wall alone, and proceeds to interact with her in almost a friendly manner (which was bizzare because he's always hated her). It's been established he loves Shireen deeply but he doesn't remember that until the final episode of the season because....Australia. Now apparently Jon is his new Stannis because....reasons. Oh and he's sworn to kill Mel even though she saved his life (sorry I have to put that in. It irks me as a Mel fanboy haha)

 

Mel: Formerly one of the most fascinating characters on the show her importance and role has been drastically reduced. Apparently the show revealing her (to the viewers. But NO characters) as an old woman made them think she was of no more importance because they apparently just like seeing Carice Van Houten's tits.  Fuck the interesting character though she can't be the sex kitten anymore. (I mean she could be but they're clearly done with using her for their fan service department which depresses the pervert in me because CVH is truly gorgeous). Good job D+D. She has been kind of floating uselessly around since she revived Jon. 

 

Littlefinger...The character everyone loves to hate, his scheming and plotting set the whole story in motion. He was a loathsome character always but he was incredibly dangerous and interesting before. Now he's just following Sansa around creepily hoping she doesn't find out he fucked her dad over? A far cry from the Littlefinger from earlier seasons, and he no longer seems to have coherent motives!

 

Theon....apparently his redemption arc was pointless and it's back to a humiliation conga line for him (thanks tv tropes). Shades of Jaime here in that the show ignores important character development completely, effectively wasting everyone's time. 

 

Varys....Basically became Tyrion's sidekick for a while which was incredible bizzare for someone who has read the books. Varys is far more menacing than the show has shown in quite some time and at this point seems like a harmless (albeit somewhat scheming) old man. His motivations are also muddy but that could be intentional. 

 

 

Edited by Snormund

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, then let the Starks defend the Wall. It is the border of their kingdom now, the Iron Throne and Daenerys have nothing to do with that.

If you don't make concessions you get nothing. That's the reality of politics.

And that's the problem with that crappy dialogue. Jon is supposedly the guy who sees the big picture. But he doesn't. He acts incoherently. He wants help against the common enemy but doesn't give any sign that he wants to be Dany's friend or ally. He doesn't even explain things 'the army of the dead' isn't an explanation. The best cause of action here would have been to give up this crown he wants to have in exchange for a place at Dany's table so that he can then ensure that help is going to go north as soon as possible. And it is not that he wanted that crown in the first place, has any right to it, or is particularly happy with it. The very idea that the Northmen would make a former Lord Commander of the Night's Watch their king is pretty much ridiculous. The chances that this is going to happen in the books is very low unless George essentially lobotomizes the Northmen between chapters...

Insisting on a crown and independence prevented an alliance between Robb and the Baratheon brothers, and it is, of course, not helping when you are trying to reach an understanding with Daenerys. Now, they will get the hots for each other and fuck things out but the artificial conflict here remains.

One can only hope that the real Jon is going to learn from his mistakes. His own petty ambitions and issues with the people south of the Wall got him killed back in ADwD. If there is a lesson to be learned from that then that the mission is more important than anything else. Including Arya and Stannis and the Boltons. Yes, Jon is likely going to become the leader of the people fighting against the Others in the North in the wake of Stannis' death (whenever that happens in the books) but he is not going to run around wearing crowns or insisting on Northern independence. He knows they need help. He does not want it from the Boltons, Freys, or Lannisters (and while that's inherently problematic it is sure as hell understandable). Fine. But he has no similar issues with Aegon or Daenerys. So he can ask them for help. Just as he might reach out to the Vale or the Free Cities.

Aegon's arrival should enable him to try to open some sort of dialogue with another faction he has no issues with even before Dany arrives. If there is a faction which is going to stay out the continuing civil wars in Westeros and trying to its best to defend the Wall it will be the North after the Boltons are dealt with (although they might face another major threat in the Weeper's army).

When Dany and Jon finally meet (whatever the context) there is not going to be any bickering and bitching about titles and claims. They will talk with each other like adults, completely unlike the ridiculous fans of those books in online forums...

Of course Jon will have to make concessions and cannot expect Dany to help him without some payback. Obviously, the dialogue in the show is atrocious and Jon's motives for refusing to kneel are weak (even though he actually has 1 reason not). That doesn't change the fact that, back in the first book (which I was talking about in reference to your comment), the Northerners actually had fair justification for deciding to split from the Iron Throne, even if it wasn't sensible.

The only reason Jon really has for not kneeling in exchange for help is that his lords might not accept it. He's a newly-made King, and he can be unmade just as easily. His lords didn't even want him to go to Dragonstone; I'm not sure they'd accept him bowing to a foreign invader (and after being LC in the show Jon should be more wary of making unpopular decisions, even when they are right). That isn't mentioned in the show, obviously, either because Jon doesn't want to let Dany know how delicate his position is or because the writing is poor. I'm betting on the latter, but you never know.

I hope to God there isn't a romance between these two brewing. I think I'll vomit if I have to watch that, although I dread reading it far more. And I've mentioned it before, but shouldn't Show Jon be a little worried about having died? You know, in relation to his reproductive system and such? We get no real indication on the show if the resurrected dead are normal or not (which, sadly, is probably an indicator that they aren't affected at all).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ashes Of Westeros said:

The last thing. LF is reduced to the roll of a creepy lap dog, that runs behind Sansa talking nonsense.

I'm laughing at this. It was like he was her Igor, yes, master, whatever you say!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then suddenly he stops and gives the psychedelic mushroom monologue - everything is good and bad and here and there and everywhere always in your minnnnnddddd... And who knows what that blank look on her face was meant to be, you never can tell.

(If only there was some groovy music...)

Edited by Le Cygne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Le Cygne said:

And then suddenly he stops and gives the psychedelic mushroom monologue - everything is good and bad and here and there and everywhere always in your minnnnnddddd... And who knows what that blank look on her face was meant to be, you never can tell.

Someone should photoshop LF's face on some stoner hippie and caption it with this haha

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

×