Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ran

[Book Spoilers] EP 210 Discussion

Recommended Posts

I really disliked Stannis' characterization, I always saw him as stoic, brooding, and irritable, not a man who flies into rages and strangles others on a whim. It seems almost like the different screenwriters are interpreting his chracacter completely differently. He went from a determined, just, and somewhat depressed/dour commander in episode 8, to a reckless action hero in episode 9, and now he's a tempermental domestic abuser? Pick your key chracteristics and stick with them until there's adequate explanation for a personality change, Stannis seems like he'd be diagnosed with dissociative personality disorder at this point. Pretty upsetting that they've reduced my favourite character to a mercurial bully.

Completely agree. Stannis is a deeply flawed individual and quite happy to see people burned to death for his faith and send men to die for him. However all that happens within the framework of his personal views of justice. Assaulting Mel (or, arguably, having sex with her) is well outside that framework. The fact that his wife and child are being cast for next season (yay) underlines this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I really liked about this episode was having the leader of the tavern wench killing northmen be very reminiscent of Ned in appearance, dress, accent and manner

gave the strong visual image that these are north men but they are doing something 'bad' and introduced the idea that in this war black and white don't exist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to specifically pick you out for this, but your post reminded me of this. Why is Jaime tied up? (he is in the books here too) If he gets "free" where is he going to go? They both want him to get to King's Landing and the chances of that are improved if they can both fight and defend themselves. This will lead to their fight in the river, but it made no sense to me in the books and seeing it makes it seem even less sensible.

Well, a prisoner = restrained in every medium we ever see. This is the Kingslayer - one of the most feared men on the continent. Brienne is not travelling with him - she is escorting him, his comfort is not a question and, it seems, she is supremely confident she can deal with whomever comes along to stop her.

Would two swords be better than one? Sure...but there is no guarantee Jaime doesn't try to kill Brienne immediately so why take the chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as i wanted to see visions & prophecies (esspecially Rhaegar), I understand why they didnt show it now. First, we didnt her about ToJ, about Rheagar stealing Lyanna etc. My 2 cents are that they gonna show visions after they establish those things through Barristan and Reeds. And how they are gonna show it? That i dont know. Maybe through Quaithe... Visions & prophecies are great on their own, but in the books it made no sense why will Undying show it to Dany, and then try to kill her. Why they let Drogon with her? What if she stays in any room? In show it is much better, Pyat Pree was tempting her with visions, so she brake up and stays there, so he can get power from dragons. When he failed, he burnt.

As for the Rasmay... In the books we had his little adventure with Lady Hornwood, so we know that he is crazy, and to me burning Winterfell in the books was just Ramsay being Ramsay. I didnt expect northmen to betray Robb until Roose talks with Jaime. If they showed Ramsay in show, it would imply that Roose is betraying Robb, coz in the books Ramsay is captured and in disguise of Reek, and here he is sent on Roose's(Robb's) orders to retake Winterfell. So i expect a little torturing & killing of Ironislanders or something, before revealing that Ramsay burnt Winterfell.

Qurin... All my non book readers friends got why Jon killed him, only thing lacking was Ghost. Maybe he will save Sam :D .

Robb & Talissa... So far we saw him marrying in secret(that music was incredible), so they can do a lot of things with them in season 3...

Edited by PrinceRhaegar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am going to take the road less traveled on this episode...I loved it...with a few reservations. 1. Littlefinger offering help to Sansa: This is likely a good thing for non book readers, and clearly LF needed to be handled in a significantly different manner from the books as so much of what he does is offstage. However, I am still not convinced that overtly showing ALL of his machinations is the way to go. I feel that the TV only people are being robbed of that WTF moment when we all realize that LF is an alpha player.

LF has a weakness for Sansa - he talks as though he is in control of what he does at all times, and MAYBE he understands his weakness for Sansa to keep it from being too much of a liability. This is because she reminds him of his lifelong love, Cat. My Take Anyway.

Marie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a prisoner = restrained in every medium we ever see. This is the Kingslayer - one of the most feared men on the continent. Brienne is not travelling with him - she is escorting him, his comfort is not a question and, it seems, she is supremely confident she can deal with whomever comes along to stop her.

Would two swords be better than one? Sure...but there is no guarantee Jaime doesn't try to kill Brienne immediately so why take the chance?

Oh yes he WOULD kill Brienne the minute he had the chance, or try, he certainly was planning to the moment he got the chance. She knew it. He never got the chance since the Bloody Mummers caught them both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a prisoner = restrained in every medium we ever see. This is the Kingslayer - one of the most feared men on the continent. Brienne is not travelling with him - she is escorting him, his comfort is not a question and, it seems, she is supremely confident she can deal with whomever comes along to stop her.

Would two swords be better than one? Sure...but there is no guarantee Jaime doesn't try to kill Brienne immediately so why take the chance?

Oh yes he WOULD kill Brienne the minute he had the chance, or try, he certainly was planning to the moment he got the chance. She knew it. He never got the chance since the Bloody Mummers caught them both.

Why would he kill her? She was taking him where he wanted to go and having her there made his chances better of arriving there in one piece. (whoops) They both know they are in a dangerous place, and two swords are better than one (or 3 vs 2 in the books). I realize this is how the book did it, it made no sense to me there too. (Jaime turning on her DOES make sense in terms that she wasn't letting him free and thus (in his mind) killing her meant his chances increase of survival since he could then defend himself)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to specifically pick you out for this, but your post reminded me of this. Why is Jaime tied up? (he is in the books here too) If he gets "free" where is he going to go? They both want him to get to King's Landing and the chances of that are improved if they can both fight and defend themselves. This will lead to their fight in the river, but it made no sense to me in the books and seeing it makes it seem even less sensible.

He did break out of his cell to try and make a run for it. It is important for Jaimie to have his hands bound because Brienne is in charge. The moment Jaimie can free himself from bondage he would no longer see it that way. Cat freed Jaimie in hopes that her daughters would be freed in exchange. Brienne I don't think knows that Jaimie desires KL so bad. He could just as easily join up with the closest group of Lannister fighters and head right back to Riverrun(or wherever the show has them) to pay them back. We know better but I don't see any reason why she would. Jaimie's point of view is he believes in his sword hand to carry him through life basically. Without all of this you would then just leave out Brienne and have Cat let Jaimie out of his cell and say I am exchanging you for my daughters go straight to KL and return them. Sounds like a really dumb idea doesn't it. I think most think it sounds like a dumb idea anyway. Remember she is relying on Tyrion's word not the Kingslayer. Edited by Arbor Gold I'm Sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely agree. Stannis is a deeply flawed individual and quite happy to see people burned to death for his faith and send men to die for him. However all that happens within the framework of his personal views of justice. Assaulting Mel (or, arguably, having sex with her) is well outside that framework. The fact that his wife and child are being cast for next season (yay) underlines this point.

Well, he had sex with her in the books, that we know.

As for the strangling scene, I thought it was a powerful moment. Driven to desperation, he almost lost his faith in the Red God, or rather Mel. He wanted to be proven wrong, for his hands to burn or something. Mel convinced him and possibly showed him an image of him sat on the Iron Throne, or more likely, images of Joffrey, Balon and Robb's deaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, he had sex with her in the books, that we know.

As for the strangling scene, I thought it was a powerful moment. Driven to desperation, he almost lost his faith in the Red God, or rather Mel. He wanted to be proven wrong, for his hands to burn or something. Mel convinced him and possibly showed him an image of him sat on the Iron Throne, or more likely, images of Joffrey, Balon and Robb's deaths.

Or maybe Stannis actually saw visions in the flame, just like he did in the books (ASOS, Davos IV if you need citation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ambiguity over the burning of Winterfell demonstrates to me the dangerous ripple effect of small changes. First, to me, a cliffhanger is something that gets the audience excited about what's going to happen next. It's not something that means the audience is like, 'Huh? What just happened?' No one is going to be like, damn, I need to tune into Game of Thrones next season to find out who really burned Winterfell, because it wasn't set up as an interesting mystery, it just seems more like something that was filmed weirdly.

Why did this happen? All because they didn't want to take the time to include the Ramsay/Reek story. Is that totally understandable? Yes. But it left them with a hole in the story that they couldn't fill. Could they have included the Ramsay/Reek story? They could have had the Lady Hornwood/Bastard issue come up at one of those Little Lord session. It would have taken about a minute. They could even have had Rodrik bring Reek as a prisoner to the Little Lord, explain what he had done, then have Bran order him taken to the cells. They could have had him offer his services when Bran announced that Winterfell surrendered. Again, 20-30 seconds. Have him go along on the hunt for Bran/Rickon. When Asha comes without troops, have him make the same offer to round up troops he made in the books. Theon accepts out of desperation. 30 seconds. Have Robb inform Roose of his Bastard's death and what he had done at some point. Have Roose say, hey, he's a Bastard, I understand. Again, very brief. Have Robb send some other Northman's troops to save winterfell. Then have Reek show up with troops, kill the other northmen's troops, have Theon let him in - he slaughters the Ironmen and captures Theon or whatever. It's basically the same amount of time as what they did and it still means that Roose Bolton doesn't seem involved. It is his Bastard son, who he can't control and doesn't care about. It raises doubts about Roose, but it doesn't make Roose seem inherently untrustworthy.

Why did they not do it? Because they didn't want to hire an actor for Ramsay yet. But now the subtle connections between what happened in Winterfell and the Red Wedding have been severed, and the subtle clues to Robb's doom eliminated. I understand, but it bugs me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Show Bronn, Show Theon has became more of a character that people enjoy. Despite his terrible decisions (guided by Show Dagmar), Theon is still a character that retains sympathy. It was moving when you saw how Balon treated him and when he recounted his story to Luwin. It's clear that he is a lost boy. I'm not sure they will go down the full-blown torture (and subsequent gibbering wreck he becomes) he endures over the next few books.

Clearly S3 is going to start with Dagmar meeting with Ramsay. Ramsay then takes Theon, slays the Ironmen (possibly with a henchman saying "Robb Stark said to spare them." and Ramsay replying "Do you serve me or Robb Stark?" or something to that effect. Immediately the audience realizes that this guy, is a complete shit. Even have a scene were Theon tells Ramsay the boys are still alive, but Ramsay ignores him and orders Winterfell to be burnt. Theon is thrown in a dungeon and next time we see him Ramsay is torturing him. Ramsay and Theon scenes carry on for the rest of the season giving us an insight into the Bolton family and you could even have Ramsay spill some of the beans with regards to a plot to kill Robb although not spoiling the Wedding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ambiguity over the burning of Winterfell demonstrates to me the dangerous ripple effect of small changes. First, to me, a cliffhanger is something that gets the audience excited about what's going to happen next. It's not something that means the audience is like, 'Huh? What just happened?' No one is going to be like, damn, I need to tune into Game of Thrones next season to find out who really burned Winterfell, because it wasn't set up as an interesting mystery, it just seems more like something that was filmed weirdly.

Why did this happen? All because they didn't want to take the time to include the Ramsay/Reek story. Is that totally understandable? Yes. But it left them with a hole in the story that they couldn't fill. Could they have included the Ramsay/Reek story? They could have had the Lady Hornwood/Bastard issue come up at one of those Little Lord session. It would have taken about a minute. They could even have had Rodrik bring Reek as a prisoner to the Little Lord, explain what he had done, then have Bran order him taken to the cells. They could have had him offer his services when Bran announced that Winterfell surrendered. Again, 20-30 seconds. Have him go along on the hunt for Bran/Rickon. When Asha comes without troops, have him make the same offer to round up troops he made in the books. Theon accepts out of desperation. 30 seconds. Have Robb inform Roose of his Bastard's death and what he had done at some point. Have Roose say, hey, he's a Bastard, I understand. Again, very brief. Have Robb send some other Northman's troops to save winterfell. Then have Reek show up with troops, kill the other northmen's troops, have Theon let him in - he slaughters the Ironmen and captures Theon or whatever. It's basically the same amount of time as what they did and it still means that Roose Bolton doesn't seem involved. It is his Bastard son, who he can't control and doesn't care about. It raises doubts about Roose, but it doesn't make Roose seem inherently untrustworthy.

Why did they not do it? Because they didn't want to hire an actor for Ramsay yet. But now the subtle connections between what happened in Winterfell and the Red Wedding have been severed, and the subtle clues to Robb's doom eliminated. I understand, but it bugs me.

Very good post. It makes one wonder just how many more "subtle changes" we will be seeing through the course of the show and if we will end up like True Blood where by the 5th season the source material has been left in the dust and the show writers have taken over.

There is probably a little to much optimism around SoS being split into two seasons. I'm not so sure it's so we can get the complete story from the books. I would guess we are going to see a lot more "original ideas" coming in the next few seasons. Obviously Varys and Ros are going to have some contrived meaningless side plot that will only serve as a lazy way to shoe horn in more soft core sex at the whore house, what else?

It's bizarre that with the changes made to Robb's character, you have several fans posting here talking about how much they are anticipating the Red Wedding and want to cheer Roose on as they hate TV Robb. If I were the writers I might take a hard look at what the direction of the show is.

This has happened before. It's not unprecedented to see people doing an adaption try to dumb it down enough to please the general public. The result is usually the hard core source material fans eventually abandon it and then the public, being fickle, lose interest and walk soon too. You would think the core audience of these books and the long time fans would be at the forefront of the creative departments mind when adapting these works. Maybe it sounds crazy but some of us view this as not just entertaining but also very fine high level important literature, it deserves to be treated with respect and not cannibalized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would he kill her? She was taking him where he wanted to go and having her there made his chances better of arriving there in one piece. (whoops) They both know they are in a dangerous place, and two swords are better than one (or 3 vs 2 in the books). I realize this is how the book did it, it made no sense to me there too. (Jaime turning on her DOES make sense in terms that she wasn't letting him free and thus (in his mind) killing her meant his chances increase of survival since he could then defend himself)

Brienne's task is not only to convey Jaime, but to convey Catelyn's request and make it clear that Jaime was only released voluntarily by Catelyn in the hope that the Lannisters would respond honorably and with mercy. That would be public knowledge, and might have some effect on the Lannister decision. At least, in the minds of Catelyn and Brienne. If Jaime is free and kills Brienne, then he can walk into KL and make up any story he wants. It then looks less like a matter of mercy and honor for Catelyn than Jaime escaping from those disloyal Stark bastards.

At least, that's my take on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently not at home.

What visions did Stannis see in the flame in ASOS? Refresh my memory.

I think he saw a crown of daggers in the snow or something? Something that helped convince Davos that he had to tell Stannis to go to the wall.

ETA: Yeah, Jolene Brown has it right.

Edited by Ciglon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever they do, I hope they don't get rid of the Dontos-storyline. We need him to give the poisonous hairnet to Sansa, it just felt fair for her to have a tiny bit part in Joffrey's death before getting out of that place. "Wear this at the wedding, it's justice for your father." We need to hear those words!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I enjoyed it! I was worried they'd skip Dany's Undying magic scenes altogether, so was happy with what we did see. I thought Drogo's inclusion was kind of cool and felt a nice thrill when Dany lit up the bastard's with dragon fire.

Overall, I felt like episodes 5-8 sort of slumped compared to the first four, but man, did 9 and 10 rock!

I loved, loved, LOVED how the Others looked. Way better than the first season. Such an awesome, creepy way to end it, for now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a standalone episode I thought this was excellent. There are problems of course but that's the same with everything. The big postives for me were finally something satisfying happening in Dany's storyline and the ending at the Fist of the First Men which was just brilliant.

Dany's storyline has been poor this season, suffering from the writer's desire to have Emilia Clarke on screen more than she would be if they followed the book. But the House of the Undying worked very well for me. I know fans are disappointed with the lack of "visions" but how many can you put on screen without ruining future seasons? What they did worked well because it alluded to the past and future, of what could be and what might have been, showing Dany glories and tragedies. It served to emphasise the point that the future is uncertain (e.g. showing Drogo with Rhaego which obviously never came to pass). This is a good counterpoint to Melisandre's certainty about her visions which leaves viewers with the question: is the future already written as Mel believes or is it uncertain as suggested by Dany's visions? If I have to nitpick here, I'd say that since they wrote Dany a vision at the Wall then they might as well have had a close up of a Blue Rose, seems like a simple opportunity missed that would have had purists wetting themselves.

Shifting 3 Blasts from the ASOS prologue to Season Two was a great cliffhanger and now I can't wait for Season Three - pryaing for Neil Taylor to be given directorial duties on the battle at the Fist.

On Jon, I'm on the side that likes how this ended but I would like to have seen some more realisation from Jon that what he was doing was necessary, or at least what Qhorin wanted. I like that it looked like it was done in anger but it's stretching audience credulity a bit to ask to accept that Jon new what Qhorin's plan was, especially when Jon has been depicted as a bit slow on the uptake so far. Also, this would be a big decision for Jon, a huge moral dilemma; it would have been good to see him wrestle with that.

The only major criticism I have is the burning of Winterfell. If you don't have a book reader friend to explain it will be hard to know what has happened there - who did it? Why? Why didn't Luwin say anything to Bran or Osha, such as: "be careful of some of the Northmen Bran, they just burned down your home"...?

Still, very excited for next series. ACOK always feels like a bit of a transitory volume whenever I read it; it's just there to bridge the gap between AGOT and ASOS but it's not a middle act in a three act play, it's more of a bridge to the middle act. That's hard to adapt and kudos to the show creators for handling it well overall.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×