Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

tzanth

How will the TV series deal with R+L=J?

Recommended Posts

Other than the theorising done on boards like this, do we know whether Jon's parentage is at all important to the story?

I can't see how it isn't important. Otherwise its a silly plot point, which has been dragged out a long time.

My question regarding his parentage is whether they can reduce the number of clues in S1 and increase them later on (once they are surer we will get more than 2 or 3 seasons), without substantially weakening the series. I'm thinking yes they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon's parentage will eventually be revealed in the series, so it is somewhat important to main story. How important it is we don't know yet, but it has to be important, or else it would not become an issue at all. Jon Snow has already found his place in the world. He himself doesn't need to know who his mother was, nor would he be able to leave the Wall to seek out his mother or her kin to reunite with them.

But the fact that it somehow still is going to come up in the midst of all this war and plotting really could in itself be a sign that it must be important.

GRRM is really good at getting important stuff out of sight when the people who know the answers to the riddles are dead (Ned, Mandon Moore), so I'd really buying it, if Jon would just settle in his Lord Commander role and be content with that. He wanted to be it, and now he is. And he does clearly not aim for the Iron Throne, for example.

Given that Jon is also going to be an important character in the show, the fact that he does not know his mother (and neither does anyone else) will be revealed to the audience. And they will ask why anyone should keep her identity a secret. Especially if Catelyn's inquiry is going to be mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than the theorising done on boards like this, do we know whether Jon's parentage is at all important to the story?

They say that if you show a gun in the first act of a play/movie, then you better make sure it gets used by the final act - it's just bad writing if you don't. Likewise, GRRM has given us this question about Jon that has been a major motivational force in the lives of three major characters in the book: Jon, Catelyn and Ned. It would be bad writing if this element in the story is not somehow resolved. It may or may not amount to the final end-all-be-all most important thing in the story, but whatever the case it needs to be dealt with before the end of Book 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't even need to show it as specters and dreamscapes, it can be done just as a straight memory of Ned's, that would be even easier to shoot, but on the whole the imagery presented would work - the fight, the blue rose petals, the blood, Lyanna's voice and maybe her face.

Well, since it is a dream Ned has i think it would be appropriate. Not only a dream but a memory that torments him so much that he buried it deep into himself and never talks about it etc.

Not only is it a key scene for the whole story, I think it's very evocative and powerful. I mean, look how much we are all talking about it here for pages and pages on end, and this isn't the first long discussion I've been a part of about it, both on this board and with friends. Though a flashback, it's one of the key scenes in the series and one that people can't seem to get out of their heads. I think that's partly because there's so much mystery surrounding it, but also because it's so damn mythic.

Mythic, romantic, terrible and connecting many strands of the story past and present and future.

We speculated that Obi Wan was really 0-B1, Ben's clone number/letter designation.

Ha! :lol: ive never thought of that. Would be cool if it was true.

Well, there can be disagreement about anything; I don't know that I would agree that Lyanna is the prime reason for the war, or if you can even narrow it down to one person or one reason, but if I would I would say that Rhaegar is as important as Lyanna, maybe more, and that Aerys is more important than either of them. Lyanna and Rhaegar couldn't have reasonably expected their actions to lead to all-out rebellion,

Of course anyone can disagree by forcing it but the books are pretty explicit in saying that Lyannas "abduction" is what pushed Robert into open rebellion.

What made the North join in.

It doesnt matter what the two of them expected or not. Im not saying they intentionally caused the war or that the war didnt have many other factors contributing.

However Lyanna was a spark that directly started it.

Well, I just don't agree that ToJ is more important than the Tourney at Harenhal, and Rhaegar and Lyanna were both at Harenhal, and Rhaegar meets all of the same points that you mentioned for Lyanna, so having both of them would certainly be more significant than just one (Harnehal also has Eddard and Brandon, Oberyn and Elia Martell, Robert and Aerys). And there are other past scenes that I would consider more important and cooler than ToJ: Robert and Rhaegar on the Trident, Jaime killing Aerys and then being found on the throne by Eddard, the Tragedy at Summerhall (not quite as directly related to the present, I know, but there are connections, and it would be cool to see Egg and Dunk).

I wouldnt mind seeing that piece of history either. It does have many important connections to the naravtive but i dont see that as possible seeing as not even ToJ is certain.

The most important thing from ToJ as far as the narrative is concerned is Lyanna's "Promise me, Ned." They could insert that into a few different episodes, just having Eddard dreaming or remembering being at Lyanna's side as she whispers it, then either have Eddard wake up or come out of a daydream. Anything else could be mentioned in dialogue; in fact, isn't it even spoken in the books somewhere that Howland Reed saved Eddard's life?

That would only serve a purpose of watering it all down.

I think Eddard is in the Tower of the Hand, having a fever dream and recovering from his broken leg, when the ToJ dream is described in the books. They could easily change it to the black cells in the show, of course.

i think he has a dream about it in black cells too, though either way it would be stronger if they would show it while he was in the black cells - as something that torments him to the last moment of his life, more horrible then even his present circumstances.

The Kingsguard aren't ghosts in the book. If they do show the ToJ scene, i'd like to see the Sword of the Morning. His mystique is very well described.

Eddard refers to the three Kingsguard as ghosts and i explained above how it is a dream, a nightmare that torments him in many ways. Having them appear a bit ghostly would signify they haunt him still etc

I dont see a point in showing Daynes face.

I suppose they could but it seems more trouble then its worth.

Other than the theorising done on boards like this, do we know whether Jon's parentage is at all important to the story?

We are theorizing based on whats written in the books not on vacuum.

Even if the theory proves not to be entirely correct somehow, in details, the event is still extremely important and powerful one.

But as others have said above, i really really doubt that will be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However Lyanna was a spark that directly started it.

But then you go back a step and wonder why Rhaegar abducted Lyanna. Is Rhaegar reading some book the cause of the war? Or mis-interpreting it since he presumably thought Elia was the right woman to marry.

Eddard refers to the three Kingsguard as ghosts

He refers to the men with him as ghosts but he explicitly says he can still see the KG clearly. Contrasting the 2 groups highlights how the KG haunt him still. He can't forget those 3 men. But then, they are the men he (had) killed.

As Brude said, its probably easier to show people looking like normal than making them look like ghosts.

I don't think he dreams about Lyanna in the Black Cells. He does think about Jon IIRC. Showing him waking from a dream is one way to show the viewer what he is thinking of. Maybe have Varys ask him what he is dreaming of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course anyone can disagree by forcing it but the books are pretty explicit in saying that Lyannas "abduction" is what pushed Robert into open rebellion.

What made the North join in.

I'd have to re-read the books to see whether it's stated that Lyanna's abduction is what pushed Robert into open rebellion, though that certainly sounds like something from the books, but one great Lord and his vassals in rebellion is a bit different than four (and how many of Robert's vassals would've followed him against the crown because of his love life; I think he would've been deserted by a lot of his knights), and the Starks, except for Brandon and Lyanna, strike me as being a bit more practical and slow to act, though I don't know if we ever get a particularly clear view of Rickard.

It doesnt matter what the two of them expected or not. Im not saying they intentionally caused the war or that the war didnt have many other factors contributing.

However Lyanna was a spark that directly started it.

I agree that it doesn't necessarily matter what Lyanna and Rhaegar expected, but my larger point is that nobody could've reasonably expected Aerys to act the way he did; even looking at the situation in hindsight, it makes no sense. If somebody at Aerys's court had made a joke, and Aerys responded by having lords killed, which sparked a rebellion, you could draw a line back to the guy telling the joke, but I don't know that you could really call him the cause. It's impossible to predict the guy's actions, but it's reasonable based on what he did do to say that even if the Lyanna situation hadn't occurred, something else would've eventually set him off in a way that would've had serious repercussions, even if it never led to the all-out rebellion that the Lyanna situation caused (though I'm not saying that couldn't still have happened under different circumstances, there's just no way to know). There have been actual kings in European history that have been removed for being too incompetent or lackwit; the differences between them and Aerys might be that Aerys was more willing and capable of defending his throne, and had people still willing to fight for him. Aerys might more similar to some of the crazy Roman emperors, but they tended to end up being killed by their own people, which might've been a more realistic end to Aerys's reign (though I suppose he did end up being killed by his own personal guard, but only when he was minutes away from the end, anyway). Even Rhaegar made comments to the effect that he was going to "make changes," probably referring to removing his father's authority. Anyway, I think of the Lyanna situation as a spark that caused more sparks, but Aerys was already smoking beforehand.

That would only serve a purpose of watering it all down.

I think that just focusing on a scene of Eddard at Lyanna's side as she died might serve to simplify things. The producers can make a simple narrative for some of the past events, like Robert killed Rhaegar, Jaime killed Aerys, rebels won, Eddard found Lyanna near death. The books are so dense, the information can be difficult to sift through even when you have the greater luxury of taking your time, and flipping back to earlier pages; a lot of details are going to have to be edited out for the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, Jack. The TV show is an adaption, with all the constraints that exist in moving from a literary to a visual medium, from something where only the imagination is the limit to where the budget and running time is the limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh. He leaves me dry. I do not find him attractive at all. Oh well. I know that a million trillion women do, so it's my own damn fault.

If it is indeed someone of this high profile, it would point an enormous arrow at the importance of that character. Maybe too much, even.

woah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since it is a dream Ned has i think it would be appropriate. Not only a dream but a memory that torments him so much that he buried it deep into himself and never talks about it etc.

I probably should have also said that I think doing it as a dreamscape would look damn cool - I'm in no way against it and I think it would be a very neat way to show the sequence.

As for the War of the Usurper, the real spark was a bit more complicated than just Robert rebelling due to Lyanna being "abducted." Rhaegar took or ran off with Lyanna, her brother Brandon went to King's Landing to demand Rhaegar return her or die. Mad Aerys had Brandon arrested for threatening the Crown Prince and demanded his father come to KL to account for his son, whereupon he murdered the both of them. Aerys then demanded that Jon Arryn hand over Ned and Robert and it was actually Jon who first rose up in rebellion vs. Aerys due to his refusal to turn over his beloved wards (who were now themselves the Lords of the North and the Stormlands, of course). Because Robert a ) was motivated to get Lyanna back, and b ) had the better claim to the throne, it soon became a rebellion to make him king in favor of the Targaryens.

So the way I see it, Lyanna's abduction was more the first event in a series that sparked the rebellion, but I think the murders of the two Starks and Aerys' demand for Ned's and Robert's heads was the more direct spark to the war. It's probably debatable, though. More like real history where these events can be more complicated than just a single reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/War_of_the_Usurper

OK?

I think that just focusing on a scene of Eddard at Lyanna's side as she died might serve to simplify things. The producers can make a simple narrative for some of the past events, like Robert killed Rhaegar, Jaime killed Aerys, rebels won, Eddard found Lyanna near death.

I dont think there is a need to oversimplify things when doing the whole ToJ scene is perfectly simple and doable.

I really doubt the series would explode because of it.

Rhaegar`s and Robert clash and Jaime`s murder of Aerys certainly deserve their own moments, in my opinion but then again, the series might explode, i know, i know... so its probably better to just mention them somewhere.

Also someone could just mention battle of Kingslanding, or there being dragons.

After all things would be simpler that way.

I probably should have also said that I think doing it as a dreamscape would look damn cool - I'm in no way against it and I think it would be a very neat way to show the sequence.

Thanks, i guess. I always saw it like that actually, minor differences and details non withstanding.

As for the War of the Usurper, the real spark was a bit more complicated than just Robert rebelling due to Lyanna being "abducted." Rhaegar took or ran off with Lyanna, her brother Brandon went to King's Landing to demand Rhaegar return her or die. Mad Aerys had Brandon arrested for threatening the Crown Prince and demanded his father come to KL to account for his son, whereupon he murdered the both of them. Aerys then demanded that Jon Arryn hand over Ned and Robert and it was actually Jon who first rose up in rebellion vs. Aerys due to his refusal to turn over his beloved wards (who were now themselves the Lords of the North and the Stormlands, of course). Because Robert a ) was motivated to get Lyanna back, and b ) had the better claim to the throne, it soon became a rebellion to make him king in favor of the Targaryens.

So the way I see it, Lyanna's abduction was more the first event in a series that sparked the rebellion, but I think the murders of the two Starks and Aerys' demand for Ned's and Robert's heads was the more direct spark to the war. It's probably debatable, though. More like real history where these events can be more complicated than just a single reason.

Hah, but you see Brandon went to Kingslanding because of Lyanna.

And Robert definitely went into war because he thought Rhaegar is raping her.

Theres simply no contention here, its all in black and white. Literal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think there is a need to oversimplify things when doing the whole ToJ scene is perfectly simple and doable.

I will note that even in the books it is done in a vague way. Like Ned thinks about Lyanna and the KG but he doesn't explicitly link them. In other words, Ned doesn't say he kills the KG and then meets Lyanna. That is left to our imagination.

Showing Lyanna is dangerous because we can't see that she is dieing after giving birth.

I do think the ToJ scene is the most likely flashback, whatever good that is. Lots of other things will definitely be talked about.

Theres simply no contention here, its all in black and white.

The first aggressive act in the War was Lyanna's kidnapping. It wasn't the cause of the war though. That's clearly a lot more complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first aggressive act in the War was Lyanna's kidnapping. It wasn't the cause of the war though. That's clearly a lot more complicated.

Well, even Lyanna's kidnapping is not clear: it was perceived as aggressive by some, notably Brandon and Robert (actually, we're not even sure about what Brandon thought of it; he may have just been enraged by the scandal. It reminds me of the situation in 'Pride and Prejudice' when the family is freaking out because Lydia ran off with the soldier).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what this is in response to: this link is nice, but it doesn't appear to dispute many things that I've noticed in this thread. We're already pretty clear on the order of events that led up to the rebellion.

I dont think there is a need to oversimplify things when doing the whole ToJ scene is perfectly simple and doable.

I really doubt the series would explode because of it.

I don't think ToJ is complicated; the books are complicated, and many small things will probably not make the transition to screen. I don't think the producers are incapable of including the ToJ flashback: this conversation started over the idea that it might not be included, and your claim that not including it would be moronic. I have no idea whether it will be included or not. I used to think the dream probably wouldn't be included, but I've gone back and forth on it; just not sure.

Rhaegar`s and Robert clash and Jaime`s murder of Aerys certainly deserve their own moments, in my opinion but then again, the series might explode, i know, i know... so its probably better to just mention them somewhere.

Also someone could just mention battle of Kingslanding, or there being dragons.

After all things would be simpler that way.

I'm not sure what your point is here: the show will be a simplified version of the books. That's more or less inevitable. The people who hang out on this board, fans who are so into the books they congregate on the internet and discuss the minutia with other fans, would probably love a lengthy series that included every detail from the books that would probably bore even casual fans of the books to death. I'm not rooting for the story to be simplified, but that's just the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was in response of claims that Lyanna wasnt a cause for the war when infact she was which books themselves prove.

I see and realize that some people just cant admit their "ideas" might not be correct but that doesnt really interest me. Lyanna was the cause for the war and thats it. Martin says it, the books say it. End of story.

I'm not sure what your point is here: the show will be a simplified version of the books. That's more or less inevitable. The people who hang out on this board, fans who are so into the books they congregate on the internet and discuss the minutia with other fans, would probably love a lengthy series that included every detail from the books that would probably bore even casual fans of the books to death. I'm not rooting for the story to be simplified, but that's just the way it is.

This is a complete logical fallacy. First, no one is requesting every detail to be filmed and saying such a series would bore fans of the book to death is absurd.

And even though translating books into movies or tv series requires adjustments there is always a difference in how and which adjustments are made.

If any adjustment is automatically great then they can hire Uwe Bol to film it and butcher the story in which ever way they come up, even by throwing dice on what stays and what goes in - because it doesnt matter at all.

And that where that logic leads to.

Into nonsense.

Because it is nonsense.

Additionally these reactions of fear are absolutely ridiculous. Someone proposes they should include ToJ, which is an integral and pivotal moment in the story for numerous reasons not just because of the war and immediately you have several posters trying to dismantle it by going directly against what the books say or proposing pathetic nonsense ideas of simplifying it down, cutting it to pieces and transfering it around other characters like that makes any sense at all.

All because of this ridiculous fear that including such a simple thing in a flashback or two will somehow make the series explode. As if such scenes arent the most common thing when filming such material.

And all the while people are piping in with the nonsense wisdom of "hey, things must be done, adjustment made, its the way things go, must simplify, must simplify, cant film ever detail blah,blah,blah" like mindless drones or broken recordings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was in response of claims that Lyanna wasnt a cause for the war when infact she was which books themselves prove.

I haven't seen anybody state that she wasn't a cause for the war. She was one of many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try this logic then.

If she wasnt "kidnapped" would all those other causes matter or even came to be?

Would have then been a war?

I've already gone over this in two different posts: I speculated about many different factors that, if they were changed, might've stopped the war from starting. In another post I wrote that I thought Aerys's insanity might've eventually led to some type of conflict even if Lyanna and Rhaegar never hooked up. But no, Robert's Rebellion as we know it wouldn't have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the kidnapping of Lyanna was the straw that broke the camels back with regards to Targ rule. Though this is just opinion. What I can say is that the ensuing war was much more a result of Robert's character than it was to do with Lyanna's, she had a fairly passive role. So if the argument is significance to current events, you would be better served showing Robert on the Trident, or the fate of the other Starks who went to KL.

Regardless, you don't have to show the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand to make a decent movie about postwar Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, even Lyanna's kidnapping is not clear: it was perceived as aggressive by some, notably Brandon and Robert (actually, we're not even sure about what Brandon thought of it; he may have just been enraged by the scandal.

I used to debate this years ago. :) Its an aggressive move because you can't go off with the daughter of a major house (who is betrothed to a son of another major house) and offer little or no explanation. It didn't alone cause the war because Aerys didn't have to kill Brandon over it but it was the first aggressive move IMO.

And all the while people are piping in with the nonsense wisdom of "hey, things must be done, adjustment made, its the way things go, must simplify, must simplify, cant film ever detail blah,blah,blah" like mindless drones or broken recordings.

Lets not start the insults up again.

Nobody is going to say that any adjustment can be justified. For example, I'm very curious to see how they handle the King of the North scene without the Tullys.

But I don't think you have convinced everyone that the ToJ is so pivotal that it must be shown in S1. Hopefully it will be but its lack wouldn't require any changes in any S2 or S3. Eventually it's lack will cause problems but a way round them can be found. In contrast, not killing Ned in S1 would create huge problems. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it is this:

You can't make a big deal about something at the beginning (like a gun) without that something playing a big part in the story(or its resolution), but you also can't pull that something out of nowhere without some kind of build-up, be it subtle (as in The 6th Sense for example) or not.

The history of the war, Lyanna, the tower, Catelyn and Littlefinger's past, etc. are all important facts that push the plot along in the present. You can either have them exposed in dialogue, or deal with them in the way the books did with flashbacks and dreams.

"Promise me Ned" is easily inserted in several places(The Stark tombs, his ride with Robert, the fever dreams, the black cells) and creates an interest in what the promise was for the audience. Building on that with flashbacks and dreams, is also fairly easy to do with considerably less (and better used) screen-time than that of expository dialogue. Ned also can't simply talk to anyone about his experiences lest he break his promise so flashbacks and dreams are really the only way to insert them into the screen version of the story.

Cersei's fear of her fortune/prophecy is another good use of flashbacks to establish a reason behind her increasing paranoia and hostility, and there are probably a dozen more of varying importance. Not all have to be shown, and others might in fact be better of as simple dialogue, but at least in the case of Ned's memories there simply is no other way to show them to the audience in a compelling and consistent way. As I see it flashbacks are something that should be established as part of the style of the series, and it would be a shame to avoid them for the sake of simplifying the story and would likely result in 'info-dumping' with exposition later on when those events become immediately relevant to the current events in the story.

Not saying it isn't possible to do the story without any sort of flashbacks, but it seems a mistake to avoid them for any reason that I've seen presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×