Jump to content
Knugen

Who told the People/Soldiers that the bell was for surrender?

Recommended Posts

This bothered me about the episode (Of course with A LOT of other things) but who actually told the soldiers of KL that the bells meant Surrender? 

We have proof of Davos - Who is born in KL saying:  "I have never known bells to means surrender." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4kNneOct6A

And in the episode, it seems that only GW, Jon, Tyrion, Jamie and Dany know that if the bells ring, the city surrender and Jamie is nowhere near the bell nor Cersei at the point of the bells ringing. 

Being the episode is called "The Bells" I just assume this is just one out of 1000 different flaws this season and this episode. 

 

Lets discuss how this became general knowledge in KL or was it all just a plot by Tyrion/Cersei to have Jon's and Danys army walk further into KL and being burned by the Wildfire or is this just a massive flaw that Dumb & Dumber completely ignored? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Knugen said:

This bothered me about the episode (Of course with A LOT of other things) but who actually told the soldiers of KL that the bells meant Surrender? 

We have proof of Davos - Who is born in KL saying:  "I have never known bells to means surrender." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4kNneOct6A

And in the episode, it seems that only GW, Jon, Tyrion, Jamie and Dany know that if the bells ring, the city surrender and Jamie is nowhere near the bell nor Cersei at the point of the bells ringing. 

Being the episode is called "The Bells" I just assume this is just one out of 1000 different flaws this season and this episode. 

 

Lets discuss how this became general knowledge in KL or was it all just a plot by Tyrion/Cersei to have Jon's and Danys army walk further into KL and being burned by the Wildfire or is this just a massive flaw that Dumb & Dumber completely ignored? 

The bells serve no purpose once the battle has begun right? You can hear people screaming out ring the bells in the scene before it happens, multiple voices saying it, so it had to be a known thing. Then the bells ring and the soldiers drop their swords. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, dbunting said:

The bells serve no purpose once the battle has begun right? You can hear people screaming out ring the bells in the scene before it happens, multiple voices saying it, so it had to be a known thing. Then the bells ring and the soldiers drop their swords. 

But that's the thing. It's not a known thing, we even get that quoted in season 2 by Davos himself. Nobody would have known that the bells mean surrender. None other than Dany and her Generals + Jamie. 

So I can just assume it's another plothole/Crap writing by D&D.. And to me this might be the biggest hole in the entire episode, because it was called The bells - Dany "Snaps" when the bell rings and I'm sure it will be used next episode explaining "But..but they surrendered" She could just ask Davos if the Bells means surrendering and he would proclaim - As he did in season 2 that NO. They do not. 

Share this post


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

But that's the thing. It's not a known thing, we even get that quoted in season 2 by Davos himself. Nobody would have known that the bells mean surrender. None other than Dany and her Generals + Jamie. 

So I can just assume it's another plothole/Crap writing by D&D.. And to me this might be the biggest hole in the entire episode, because it was called The bells - Dany "Snaps" when the bell rings and I'm sure it will be used next episode explaining "But..but they surrendered" She could just ask Davos if the Bells means surrendering and he would proclaim - As he did in season 2 that NO. They do not. 

You assume that nothing has changed since Davos said, I never new the bells to mean surrender. That was what 10 years ago in show time?  Except we see the Lannisters throw down their swords after hearing them, so they had to know what they meant. We hear people screaming, ring the bells, ring the bells. 

Another thing is Dany didn't snap when the bells rang. The bells ring, we see all the main characters reacting to it, then we see Dany staring at the Red Keep, then she snaps. I take it as she is still infuriated with Cersei and she is like, f this, she is going down with fire and blood.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest difference is that George RR Martin wrote the episode, Battle of the Blackwater and D&D wrote The Bells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because Davos has never heard surrender bells doesn't mean it can't happen. The bells can mean anything, they are just a general "BREAKING NEWS!!" announcement. Davos and Mathos discuss surrender as one possibility and Davos is just letting his lad known that it won't be that easy. In the same episode Tyrion and Varys crack a joke about the different horrors the bells can mean; death, invasions, weddings. 

Bad Writing isn't always the explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is Dumb and Dumber's writing style. They wanted the bells to mean surrender so the bells now mean surrender.  Everything that comes before or makes sense has no bearing on what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the earlier episode where Davos rejects bells as a surrender signal and aside from Jaime not telling anyone that the bells were the surrender signal, the other big problem I have with bells meaning surrender is that anyone with access to a bell can ring it. And in a town/city there's going to be so many bells so there's no way to judge if its a co-ordinated surrender ordered by military command or just a random rogue who's had enough. Ringing bells is too non-specific for it to be a battle signal (unless its a particular pattern of bells but that wasn't the case here). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give up guys. There is no way the Bells were some sorte of a trap to Dany that meant to trigger de mad queen barbecue.

It meant surrendered, everyone surrendering in The city was shouting to ring It.

 

Davos line at season two only makes It bad writing this episode, nothing more. The writers often make inconsistencies in The same episode so this is actually some kind of improvement.

 

Edited by joaozinm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Knugen said:

This bothered me about the episode (Of course with A LOT of other things) but who actually told the soldiers of KL that the bells meant Surrender? 

We have proof of Davos - Who is born in KL saying:  "I have never known bells to means surrender." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4kNneOct6A

A good topic. I am going to jump in after reading the thread, just wanted to thank you for pulling out the exceplent youtubes. i had forgotten all about that.

20 hours ago, Knugen said:

And in the episode, it seems that only GW, Jon, Tyrion, Jamie and Dany know that if the bells ring, the city surrender and Jamie is nowhere near the bell nor Cersei at the point of the bells ringing. 

Tyrion specifically informs Jamie that the bells mean surrender. Even if this was correct, whcih it isn't, why wouldn't jamie have figured that out in his nearly life long service as a member of the kings guard.

Also, is there a different number of bells for a kings death than there is for sounder. Is it like the night's watch. People just standing around the city trying to figure out if cersei has died or called a retreat?

20 hours ago, Knugen said:

Being the episode is called "The Bells" I just assume this is just one out of 1000 different flaws this season and this episode. 

 

Lets discuss how this became general knowledge in KL or was it all just a plot by Tyrion/Cersei to have Jon's and Danys army walk further into KL and being burned by the Wildfire or is this just a massive flaw that Dumb & Dumber completely ignored? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, legba11 said:

It is Dumb and Dumber's writing style. They wanted the bells to mean surrender so the bells now mean surrender.  Everything that comes before or makes sense has no bearing on what happens.

Maybe Gendry....ugh....Rivers after being legitimized by Dany effectively making him higher in the line of succession than she is make the executive decision to change the meaning of the bells....a tradition dating back to 47 AC with the death of Aegon I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the thing OP.

We. Don't. Know!

 

 The fact that people are trying to hand-wave this massive plot hole AND continuity error away is ludicrous.

I mean, how hard would it have been for Tyrion to organize a massive undercover (frankly treasonous) coup using Varys' spy network, spreading the word throughout the city that the bells means surrender and that someone should ring the bells if they should have the chance. And for Daenerys to learn from Tyrion's activities from the Unsullied so that she ends up not trusting the bell.

It's just no way around it. It's bad writing.

13 hours ago, dbunting said:

You assume that nothing has changed since Davos said, I never new the bells to mean surrender. That was what 10 years ago in show time?  Except we see the Lannisters throw down their swords after hearing them, so they had to know what they meant. We hear people screaming, ring the bells, ring the bells. 

Another thing is Dany didn't snap when the bells rang. The bells ring, we see all the main characters reacting to it, then we see Dany staring at the Red Keep, then she snaps. I take it as she is still infuriated with Cersei and she is like, f this, she is going down with fire and blood.

 

No, the Lannisters threw down their swords before hearing the bells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lannisters threw down thier swords and there was like a 15 minutes pause of everyone standing around uhhhhhhhhhh...  bunch of "ring the bells" shouts from random red shirts.  Cut to Jamie running around and around will he do it???   Oh wait he gone out on the beach because there was no gaurds or even a gate or.. anything.  Wait there's Euron! In the exact same spot!  and zero other ironborn because fuck them guys, they all drowned or something.  More wait for it.. wait..  Dramatic pause of FFS something happen before i go make a sandwhich.. THEN the bells finally started ringing. Or bell, they really only showed the one bell in the tower ring. 

Edited by Bradam
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn’t Tyrion spend the first part of the episode drumming it into everyone that the ringing of the bells means the city surrenders. He even repeats this to Jon and Davos and tells Jaime to ring the bells when he sets him free. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, maiden of tarth said:

Didn’t Tyrion spend the first part of the episode drumming it into everyone that the ringing of the bells means the city surrenders. He even repeats this to Jon and Davos and tells Jaime to ring the bells when he sets him free. 

He did, they made sure to repeat it for us all not to forget it when the time came for Dany to get mad. Like we are dumb or something LOL

Edited by Nightwish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nightwish said:

He did, they made sure to repeat it for us all not to forget it when the time came for Dany to get mad. Like we are dumb or something LOL

I watched the episode a couple of times and I thought that Tyrion's continuously bleating the same thing over and over seemed stilted and unnatural.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maiden of tarth said:

Didn’t Tyrion spend the first part of the episode drumming it into everyone that the ringing of the bells means the city surrenders. He even repeats this to Jon and Davos and tells Jaime to ring the bells when he sets him free. 

He did. But it wasn’t Northmen shouting “Ring the bells” and even if they did, the people of KL would have been like “The Bells? Why would we do that?”

Because nobody knows the bells mean surrender. 

3 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

That's the thing OP.

We. Don't. Know!

 

 The fact that people are trying to hand-wave this massive plot hole AND continuity error away is ludicrous.

I mean, how hard would it have been for Tyrion to organize a massive undercover (frankly treasonous) coup using Varys' spy network, spreading the word throughout the city that the bells means surrender and that someone should ring the bells if they should have the chance. And for Daenerys to learn from Tyrion's activities from the Unsullied so that she ends up not trusting the bell.

It's just no way around it. It's bad writing.

No, the Lannisters threw down their swords before hearing the bells.

Yeah, they could have actually used this to their advantage to make it more rational for Dany to lose her mind. Believing that Tyrion had betrayed her one more time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Knugen True.

Here's another way to know that it is a super-contrived sloppy example of bad writing.

No one in the city knows that ringing the bells means surrender and that therefore the bells should be rung as soon as things start going south.

Cersei had the city on lockdown. Tyrion never told her or anyone on her side that the bells mean surrender during the parley. The two camps were no longer on speaking terms after Missandei's death. Tyrion didn't give Jaime instructions to spread the word and Jaime never bothered spreading the word.

So how could they know?

Share this post


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

Maybe Gendry....ugh....Rivers after being legitimized by Dany effectively making him higher in the line of succession than she is make the executive decision to change the meaning of the bells....a tradition dating back to 47 AC with the death of Aegon I

Good catch :) 

Gendry becomes legitimized oddly makes him Robert's heir and thus the rightful heir to the throne  AFTER Dany ascends to the throne through right of conquest.  So I guess he instantly become her enemy....  Raising up Gendry would actually have been a good plot point in a long season of early GOT as he would have been an effective tool for bringing the Stormlords to Dany's cause.  Perhaps that is what Martin will do with Eldric Storm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, legba11 said:

Good catch :) 

Gendry becomes legitimized oddly makes him Robert's heir and thus the rightful heir to the throne  AFTER Dany ascends to the throne through right of conquest.  So I guess he instantly become her enemy....  Raising up Gendry would actually have been a good plot point in a long season of early GOT as he would have been an effective tool for bringing the Stormlords to Dany's cause.  Perhaps that is what Martin will do with Eldric Storm.

I actually had a post on this the other day, not only does legit  gendry become roberts heir but even if we look at pre rebellion line of succession

King Aryes II

Rhaegar

Rhaegar's Legitamite Male issue in age order

Viscyers

Viscyers legitimate male issue in age order

Robert ((Rhaegar's cousin and grand son of Rhaelle and great grandson of Aegon V)

Robert's legitamite issue in age order

 

 

Which means, with Aryes, Rhaegar, Baby Aegon, Vicsyers and Robert dead a legitimized Lord Gendry Baratheon is still in line for the throne before Dany as Targaryen primogeniture is agnatic since the great council of 101 where all male heirs were given primacy over any female. Smart danny. So the line of sucession as it stands now would be Jon as the son of Rhaegar though it looks like he has no interest in the crown and would probably rather spent his time back in the north living a life of repose. Then Gendry THEN Dany and the second Gendry knocks out a legitimate heir Dany is all through.

 

Raising him up earlier on does have potential, but just never would have seemed practical. You can only get raised from bastardy by royal decree, same with being given a lordship (especially of a great house like Storm's End). So who would do it? A living Robert I? That would cause way more problems with cersei than he ever seemed to want to be bothered with plus would be an impossition on Tommen (assuming robert doesn't know about Joff and Tommen being bastards I am sure the plan was for Tommen to be lord of storms end when he came to majority and hold it for his brother kIng Joff). So looks like Robert wouldn't raise him. Then you have Joff. Forget it. ANd after him Tommen which cersei would have seen to never happening for one of roberts bastards. So while it would surely have been interesting to see Gendry in the ultimate rags to riches as lord of storms end, there is simply never a monarch for whom it would have made any sense to actually do it)

 

Not sure what Martin's intention is with Storm, would love to know. Obviously with his mother being Delena Florent it would be even easier to sell it. One think I am sadly pretty sure of is that Martin will not actually release a book.

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

×