Jump to content
darmody

Why Did the Show Turn on Jon?

Recommended Posts

Jon's character started to go downhill since he was resurected. I think everyone was expecting Jon to come back darker than we knew him, more ruthless and distrusting in general. Instead we got a more... honorable Jon. Ummm, what?

Everyone points out that Jon wasn't so honorable due to him being undercover and such but I always go back to Jon after the battle at Castle Black. When he went to parley with Mance but has the hidden agenda to basically stab him in the back, which is not so honorable.

But post resurection Jon is Ned 2.0, hell they even make sure to style Jon to look like Ned. Disgraceful, really.

And don't get me started on how his entire arc with the NK was handled. Or his parentage reveal and the personal dilemma it offered. Or his heritage as a Stark and Targaryen.

I am baffled honestly how he is relegated to...I can't even say supporting character. He's even lower in the totem pole in s8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 1:47 PM, darmody said:

Okay, they gave the Night King kill to Arya because they wuv kick-ass ninja turtle girl and all the build-up between Jon and Ice Satan led people to believe they would clash. Because not to do so would be teasing. But expectations had to be subverted. 

What does Jon do instead? Nothing, until he stabs his lady love at the end. In the meantime he's inert. He 's allowed two lines of dialogue ("Ah dun wannitt," "you ah mah queen), and struggles between desire and ickiness as regards Dany I guess. 

Then, when he does get to be heoric or tragic or something, first he has to try and rationalize motiveless mass murder of perhaps a million people. Then there's an awkward scene and...that's it. We don't see what happens next, and are left to guess he walked up to an Unsullied, tapped him on the shoulder, and said, "[clears throat] Terribly sorry, but I just assassinated your queen."

This is aggravating, because it sets up the farcical, drama-free remainder of the episode. Jon doesn't get a fight. We don't get any payoff for the growing tension between Greyworm and he. (Jon hasn't dueled since the Battle of the Bastards, wtf?) Jon had no escape plan, though escape seemed easy given Drogon makes an incredible ruckus without arousing immediate suspicion. Even if the Unsullied were to show up the moment we cut away, Jon had plenty of time to flee. 

Upshot is Jon is captured. Dany wasn't ever really queen, so he's a hostage of the Unsullied and at most guilty of kinslaying. A council is convened, and the great lords of Westeros plus a bunch of interlopers (Brienne, Sam, Arya, Bran, Davos) are awaiting...what? Tyrion is brought out...why? Jon is still alive...why? Jon is not present...why? This entire scene is so fanfic-y that I can't analyze it in earnest. 

Not to get too bogged down, essentially we are: deciding Tyrion/Jon's fates and picking a new king. Right off the bat, this council is stacked with people related to Jon by blood, extended family, indirect oath, and/or alliance. We have his former best friend, his second-in-command, his cousins, Edmure Tully and Sweet Robin who are closely tied to the Starks through the Tully sisters, and a newly-minted knight in the service of his cousin. No one, not a single person, brings up the fact that he has a claim to the throne. Nor that he is either the King in the North or at least the Lord of Winterfell. Because the Northmen acclaimed him. 

What the hell? Why? Because he happens to be in Unsullied custody? Yet the traitorous patricidal convicted regicide Tyrion gets reinstated in a place of honor? More than that, he frickin picks the king!

 

Not that Jon's punishment is all that bad. The Night's Watch doesn't exist anymore. There's no great danger up there. He's with his buddies and his dog. Yet he looks miserable. And isn't he over worrying about fathering children now? Doesn't he want a family? 

In any case, it's a ridiculous set-up. If the North is independent how does the crown control the Night's Watch? What would prevent Jon from leaving the second Unsullied and Dothraki were gone? Nothing. 

But they need those shots of him being perma-grumpy, living in a tundra for no reason. Because why? He loved Dany allegedly and since bells made her lose her mind he must suffer for the rest of his life?

:bowdown: Perfection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

D&D had already completely ruined the story and the characters with their lazy writing at this point, but if we are looking for a few things that would have made latter half of the episode less lame, you could have had Jon ask for a trial by combat, I know this more of a thing with the faith than the old Gods, but they are in  KL after all. Don't see why GW would refuse that, he would be quite sure of himself.

Not saying this can create the tension of the Mountain and the Viper, and it would have looked a bit Spartacus-y, but at least it would have given Jon a chance to look a bit more than just a pancreas-stabber. GW to his surprise, loses the duel (maybe a cat gets warged by Arta to distract GW w/o Jon knowing about it?), and Jon torn with regret, promises a dying GW to go back to the wall. Would work better without GW executing the Lannister prisoners before hand and the whole pointless personality clash between them since the last episode.

Agree still a bit lame and cheesy, but I think better than the dumpster fire of an episode we got.

GW and his bros off to Nath? Duh, how about Mereen, that's your Mysa's legacy, are you sure it's going swimmingly there under Daario?

Edited by Ser Hedge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You will have little joy of your servitude to the dragon queen, but I think you have the stupidity in you to fall in love with tyrannical rulers. Kill the man, Jon Snow. The repetition of everything you've already been through is almost upon us. Kill the man and let the lovesick dumbass boy be born."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we believe that GW is great in single combat?  The books are pretty clear that the Unsullied are trained and "designed" to fight in units and are not good in single combat.   The show makes it clear that a trained knight is FAR better in non-unit combat when Selmy is ambushed compared to the ambush of the unsullied members.  I think Jon, and most trained fighters in the seven kingdoms, would wipe the floor with the unsullied in single combat because its basically what they are trained for.  The unsullied are trained to fight as a unit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Okay I hate the idea of Jon and GW having a duel, we didn't need anymore Hollywood cliche's in there and why should Jon have to kill GW or vice versa.

It would have been better if they hadn't made him a total failure so much so that viewers, critics, even themselves started calling him stupid and too stupid to rule Westeros or the North.  He's not stupid in the books,  pragmatic and fails to understand the need to sell his vision, but his judgment and his plans are always solid.  In the show, he's just a total idiot since his resurrection.  I can see that the showrunners would always dislike the traditional heroic figure, I guess they allowed Ned and Robb to be heroic and  tragic because they died early, but they chose to turn Jon into a stooge instead.  Which, given that they always knew Dany was going to break bad, ruining the other main lead was nonsensical. 

Edited by Cas Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, we've seen GW slaughter multiple opponents in 1 vs 2 or 3 combat repeatedly. You're right, there's no reason at all for him to be able to do that, he was selected as the Unsullied leader almost randomly, but there it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The show did not turn on Jon.

Since the very start of Game of Thrones it was made perfectly clear that this series is more based on realism than any other, and that this series doesn't have your typical movie hero thats immortal and can't die and saves everyone and is a true hero of the story.

In Game of Thrones everyone can die no matter how important they may seem.

That being said, if anyone out of all the characters in this whole series got closest to being a hero of the show then its Jon.

As the book title suggests, The Song of Ice (White walkers) and Fire (Daenerys) which are the two biggest threats to mankind.

Who defeated those threats? It was Jon.

Jon killed Daenerys (his love) to save the world from the future murder spree she would go on, saving millions of innocent people.

He is also indirectly involved in defeating the White Walkers even if Arya did get the final killing blow. He achieved the impossible by rallying the free folk and convincing them to stand by him and fight for him,  he achieved to rally most of the living population to fight the dead. If not for Jon then White Walkers would have steamrolled and killed everyone in westeros.

So I will never get this hate for Jon not getting what he deserved.

He was not King but he never wanted it and made it plain clear, its not a life he would enjoy living, otherwise he could have been King, once he found out he was, but he choose to not make it known and public, because he doesn't want to  be king, he strives for a free life without boundaries and restrictions and obligations, which is exactly what beyond the wall offers, which is where he went in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've never been good at writing him, they've always written him as a boy scout who is not particularly bright, whereas in the books he is honorable but also cunning and pragmatic. But by season 8 he had basically became a glorified extra.

The guy who, at the beginning of the series, was the only one who saw the real threat and tried to mobilize the realms to fight it, becomes a character completely stripped of all agency; not only does season 8 Jon Snow know nothing, he also does nothing, unless someone else tells him to. His sole contribution to the Battle of Winterfell, which he entire journey has built up, was to yell at a dragon.  

They couldn't even give him the heroic moment of rejecting the throne and choosing self-imposed exile so as to prevent further bloodshed; even that had to be because someone else said so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither Dany nor Jon are meant to rule Westeros, apparently it’s Bran (still I don’t know why) but nevermind they needed to reach this conclusion somehow so they made this stupid council scene which was a parody:

Greyworm told Tyrion not be speak but Tyrion spoke nevertheless and even told Greyworm that  Jon’s fate will be determined by the new King. Hello, the city is under military command. What king? 

Anyway Greyworm IQ suddenly drops below zero and leaves them to choose a King between themselves aka Jon’s relatives and friends. Imagine every time you went to court the judges to be your mom, sister, brother, second cousin, your best friend, his friends etc. 

Tyrion who is supposed not to speak tells them that Bran has the best story because he is a collection of all the stories - you know like Netflix but with real people. Pure entertainment but with no subscription. Tyrion loves to have fun, so with Bran he will never get bored. Probably...just in case, Bran’s connection goes down, Tyrion puts Bron on the council because they both love dick jocks. Double entertainment. 

Arya has her dagger ready just in case anyone tries to mess around and Sansa states she wishes for the North to be independent. Not that Jon, even as prisoner should be asked because he was the one they had put in charge but prisoners as we know don’t speak. Unless you are Tyrion. Then you come to suggest also the ruler on your own trial. 

Not only that but then Bran chooses him to be the Hand of the king so he is given mercy? And his punishment is he has the chance to correct his mistakes? So what happens until he learns? How many will die? And that’s a punishment for him, seriously and not for the citizens?

Greyworm suffers from brain damage so he accepts. 

Back to Queen Sansa now and King Bran...ok all spots taken? And Jon? Well he can take the road and never come back with the wildlings, the dire wolves and the night king himself. After all he always had wanted to be a ranger. Talking about a carreer, ten years ago and when he thought to be a bastard. So no improvement? No development? At least a carreer change? A climate change? Something? 

Oh come on. The end is gonna be bittersweet. How is the poor writer is going to achieve that if you keep complaining about everything? Yes he will do what he did ten years ago and be happy about it and you should be happy about it, because that’s life. And a tree for king!

I also think the soundtrack of looney tunes would fit well here. 

To be honest the council is very laughable and entertaining. If you don’t take it seriously you obviously have a good time making fun out of it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 1:06 PM, Lord Varys said:

He is just dumb-looking Kit Harrington getting fucked by life and other people. Even his act to murder his lover wasn't his own idea but something that was fed to him by the caricature of a character that referred to Varys as 'my best friend' (!).

Jon certainly killed Dany, but are you sure it was really murder?  Those aren't the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Jon certainly killed Dany, but are you sure it was really murder?  Those aren't the same thing.

It might be justifiable. But it is still murder.

Unless you're going straight to the criminal law definition as per the link?

Even an accidental or self defense killing still adds up to the act of murder.

As in person A sticks person B with the pointy end.

Sorry, it was low hanging fruit.

 

Edited by It_spelt_Magalhaes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Jon certainly killed Dany, but are you sure it was really murder?  Those aren't the same thing.

 

5 minutes ago, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

It might be justifiable. But it is still murder.

Unless you're going straight to the criminal law definition as per the link?

Even an accidental or self defense killing still adds up to the act of murder.

As in person A sticks person B with the pointy end.

Sorry, it was low hanging fruit.

 

Definitely murder. That’s why Jaime needed a pardon and Jon was sent to the NW. Monarchslaying doesn’t get a pass. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Jon certainly killed Dany, but are you sure it was really murder?  Those aren't the same thing.

Sure, that was murder, even more so within the framework of this society - where it is completely up to the whim of the monarch/victor whether her enemies are granted pardons or not (which means nobody even has the right to criticize the monarch or demand that she spare the lives of people in her power - they can advise, but they cannot demand).

Dany wasn't threatening Jon personally, and she was unsuspecting. It was actually a very insidious murder, on par with Joffrey's poisoning.

1 minute ago, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

It might be justifiable. But it is still murder.

Perhaps it could be if we knew why it was done. But that is never properly established. The impression we get implies it is done because of fantasy threats to Arya and Sansa - not even to avenge all the poor dead Kingslanders the Northmen gladly helped to butcher and rape. Even their crappy dialogue did nothing to establish that. It is part of being a monarch to decide what's best for everyone and not listening to the voices of the governed. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be a monarchy in this world. Trying to sell us the idea that thinking you, as monarch, know everything best is wrong is ridiculous in light of this show which basically was 8 seasons of people celebrating monarchy and the glory of crowns.

I mean, was there ever any monarch who ruled by committee? Or by asking the people they exploited for permission to do so? I don't recall any such thing.

And if Jon so desperately wants to save Sansa and Arya from a, possibly, non-existing threat - why not smack some sense into them? Why not force them to leave Westeros like Ned wanted Cersei to leave Westeros back when he found out about her and Jaime (Arya would run away 20 minutes later anyway ;-))? Why not show them their place - after all, he, Jon Snow, was the King in the North and they were beholden to him, not the other way around?

This is all just crap, really.

Share this post


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

Sure, that was murder, even more so within the framework of this society - where it is completely up to the whim of the monarch/victor whether her enemies are granted pardons or not (which means nobody even has the right to criticize the monarch or demand that she spare the lives of people in her power - they can advise, but they cannot demand).

Dany wasn't threatening Jon personally, and she was unsuspecting. It was actually a very insidious murder, on par with Joffrey's poisoning.

Perhaps it could be if we knew why it was done. But that is never properly established. The impression we get implies it is done because of fantasy threats to Arya and Sansa - not even to avenge all the poor dead Kingslanders the Northmen gladly helped to butcher and rape. Even their crappy dialogue did nothing to establish that. It is part of being a monarch to decide what's best for everyone and not listening to the voices of the governed. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be a monarchy in this world. Trying to sell us the idea that thinking you, as monarch, know everything best is wrong is ridiculous in light of this show which basically was 8 seasons of people celebrating monarchy and the glory of crowns.

I mean, was there ever any monarch who ruled by committee? Or by asking the people they exploited for permission to do so? I don't recall any such thing.

And if Jon so desperately wants to save Sansa and Arya from a, possibly, non-existing threat - why not smack some sense into them? Why not force them to leave Westeros like Ned wanted Cersei to leave Westeros back when he found out about her and Jaime (Arya would run away 20 minutes later anyway ;-))? Why not show them their place - after all, he, Jon Snow, was the King in the North and they were beholden to him, not the other way around?

This is all just crap, really.

I was trying to rebutt this.

25 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Jon certainly killed Dany, but are you sure it was really murder?  Those aren't the same thing.

I'm never going to believe the way Jon's actions were portrayed was not cop out after cop out. 

Was Dany off the rails crazy and unstoppable, sworn liege or not?

Was it doable to have the forced circumstances resolved?

Who knows?

What I meant is that murder is murder. He killed her. The end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

It might be justifiable. But it is still murder.

Unless you're going straight to the criminal law definition as per the link?

Even an accidental or self defense killing still adds up to the act of murder.

As in person A sticks person B with the pointy end.

Sorry, it was low hanging fruit.

That's nonsense. Accidental homicide is not murder: it's manslaughter.  Which is a crime, but it's not murder.

And self-defence has never, ever, ever been murder. Having to take someone's life to save your own or others' lives has never been murder, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, that was murder, even more so within the framework of this society - where it is completely up to the whim of the monarch/victor whether her enemies are granted pardons or not (which means nobody even has the right to criticize the monarch or demand that she spare the lives of people in her power - they can advise, but they cannot demand).

Dany wasn't threatening Jon personally, and she was unsuspecting. It was actually a very insidious murder, on par with Joffrey's poisoning.

Perhaps it could be if we knew why it was done. But that is never properly established. The impression we get implies it is done because of fantasy threats to Arya and Sansa - not even to avenge all the poor dead Kingslanders the Northmen gladly helped to butcher and rape. Even their crappy dialogue did nothing to establish that. It is part of being a monarch to decide what's best for everyone and not listening to the voices of the governed. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be a monarchy in this world. Trying to sell us the idea that thinking you, as monarch, know everything best is wrong is ridiculous in light of this show which basically was 8 seasons of people celebrating monarchy and the glory of crowns.

I mean, was there ever any monarch who ruled by committee? Or by asking the people they exploited for permission to do so? I don't recall any such thing.

And if Jon so desperately wants to save Sansa and Arya from a, possibly, non-existing threat - why not smack some sense into them? Why not force them to leave Westeros like Ned wanted Cersei to leave Westeros back when he found out about her and Jaime (Arya would run away 20 minutes later anyway ;-))? Why not show them their place - after all, he, Jon Snow, was the King in the North and they were beholden to him, not the other way around?

This is all just crap, really.

What convience Sansa? :lmao:

Killing The mother of Dragons proved to be easier, more time efficient and far less dangerous for his mental health.  It also came with free tickets for the forgotten ice lands of the wild north. Miss such an opportunity?

Edited by Nightwish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think by far the biggest injustice done to Jon's character (and I agree with a lot of the other things mentioned in this thread) was to rob him of the only thing I think he truly wanted once Dany was dead and most definitely deserved.

To choose himself for once. 

Throughout the series and all the way to the end he was the champion of duty. The hero of making choices he didn't want to make. Do this, Jon. Do that, Jon. Swear here, kneel there. Carry this burden, accept this fate. 

He made so many decisions that went against his personal wants and after he made a final one to (from the show's perspective) save the world, his path was chosen for him. Burn. 

Sure, going up north was likely high up on his wish list but he didn't get to decide it himself. 
That is such a insidious ending to his arc. 

Although the comments around the "alternative ending" scenes suggest that he will indeed carry out his duty at the night's watch, I choose to interpret the last shot as him saying:

"F* it, I'm going with the wildlings. And I'm keeping the coat. You owe me."





 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 8:47 AM, darmody said:

Then, when he does get to be heoric or tragic or something, first he has to try and rationalize motiveless mass murder of perhaps a million people. Then there's an awkward scene and...that's it. We don't see what happens next, and are left to guess he walked up to an Unsullied, tapped him on the shoulder, and said, "[clears throat] Terribly sorry, but I just assassinated your queen."

~snipped a little~

I had this exact same question. Exact. Jon had no body, no weapon, no witnesses- nada- bu we got what we got on the show and show  Worm eats it all up because show Worm had been giving Jon more evil eyes all season long than Drogon did. The only answer is the most honest and basic one, creatively it made sense to them so they made it happen.

Share this post


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

That's nonsense. Accidental homicide is not murder: it's manslaughter.  Which is a crime, but it's not murder.

And self-defence has never, ever, ever been murder. Having to take someone's life to save your own or others' lives has never been murder, either.

Manslaughter is presented as involuntary homicide.

Self-defense as taking life, as in homicide.

I'm not saying lawfully or morally. But the action is still taking a life. The action, not the implication of forethought or intent. If the distinction is between murder and homicide, then you're right and I misspoke.

But I meant that no amount of rationalization will change the facts. Dany's a mass murderer. Jon's a murderer.

 

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

×