[TV/Books] Game of Thrones ***SPOILER Discussion***

[Deleted]

OMG battle of the bastards....in my opinion it makes the warcraft movie look like a puppet show! I wonder how much that episode cost ? Awesome.....a must watch

[Deleted]

Lol no. I read the books and watch the show. It's just the redundant level of bitching and moaning in this thread.

Is anyone forcing you to participate, or denying you the right to make another thread?

Most people here ejoy either the books, the show or both, which is why we're so adamant about discrepancies and inconsistencies.

[Elim Garak]

You mean what this show became famous for during the first three seasons?

Realistic Gore, Titties and Genitalia? Unrealistic Dragons, Zombies and Magic? You cannot pick just one. Jon Snow is a magical zombie and a realistic swordsman with a magical sword.

[Krawu]

Lol no. I read the books and watch the show. It's just the redundant level of bitching and moaning in this thread.

Yup.. you want a discussion thread where no one is allowed to voice an opinion you don't like, which is the literal definition of a safe space.
This right here is an actual discussion thread. I say I don't like something about the show. You are free to discuss that opinion with me and others. If you don't want a discussion, you shouldn't be here.

[eschatological]

Realistic Gore, Titties and Genitalia? Unrealistic Dragons, Zombies and Magic? You cannot pick just one. Jon Snow is a magical zombie and a realistic swordsman with a magical sword.

Narratively realistic, not actual realistic. IE, characters follow consistent logic, the world follows a consistent logic for what's in it, etc. You get a volley of arrows fired at you, they land behind, in front, and to the sides of you, then some land in your back as well. It's a strawman to point out "DRAGONS AND UNDEAD" to argue the show wasn't realistic in its brutality, politicking, and power struggles in the first few seasons.

[tehealadin]

That episode was fucking outstanding. Nuff said.

[Gaman]

Lol no. I read the books and watch the show. It's just the redundant level of bitching and moaning in this thread.

Blackwater was great because GRRM wrote it, Tywing charging in late to the battle was awsome and not like LOTR at all.
BoB sucked because D&D wrote fanfic and put it on film, Littlefinger charging in late to the battle sucked and was too much like LOTR (and also not as cool).

Jon Snow surviving volley after volley while beeing in the infantry/cavalry was so dumb and unrealistic, during battles in the old age, every cavalary and infantryman died from volleys. Archers actually never died, because infantry/cavalry could never reach them due to them all dying from the volley's.
Stannis surviving a giant fucking explotion, then volley's, aimed shots, stones beeing thrown from above, while fighting alongside his infantrymen, was awsome, because GRRM wrote it. And also very realistic.

Now in case it went over someones head, that was sarcasm.

My tip, hit ignore on the Linda's. (and if you dont know what a Linda is, read the above not as sarcasm but as a serious opinion.)

[Elim Garak]

Narratively realistic, not actual realistic. IE, characters follow consistent logic, the world follows a consistent logic for what's in it, etc. You get a volley of arrows fired at you, they land behind, in front, and to the sides of you, then some land in your back as well. It's a strawman to point out "DRAGONS AND UNDEAD" to argue the show wasn't realistic in its brutality, politicking, and power struggles in the first few seasons.

Is it a strawmen to point out that the fire god was looking out for Jon whom he resurrected from the dead for a purpose?

As I said you cannot pick just one aspect, the point which you missed. If there are gods that can resurrect a dead guy it is LOGICAL to assume the CONSISTENCY in them protecting the resurrected guy up until the zombie accomplishes that for which it was raised from the dead.

So yeah, Dragons and Undead. Deal with it. In a Narratively Realistic way.

Not to mention the mere luck. Which you know is purely realistic.

[eschatological]

That's not a strawman, but there's no indication that's at all the case. I mean, even Beric Dondarrian dies, Thoros just keeps rezzing him. And Jon got bloody and bruised during the fight, but can't get hit by an arrow? He can come near death, but not die? Is that your argument?

Because that argument makes no sense.

[Elim Garak]

That's not a strawman, but there's no indication that's at all the case. I mean, even Beric Dondarrian dies, Thoros just keeps rezzing him. And Jon got bloody and bruised during the fight, but can't get hit by an arrow? He can come near death, but not die? Is that your argument?

Because that argument makes no sense.

It doesn't make sense only if you don't want to see sense.

There are plenty of realistic (narratively) explanations for your issue with stupid arrows, you just choose to ignore them and stick to "unrealistic". For whatever reason.

1. Fire god has one purpose for Beric, another for Jon. Beric can die and get resurrected, Jon cannot die again until the purpose is fulfilled - because he's a symbol and/or is more important than Beric so he needs that extra care. PR you know. Would it be cool if Jon died again and again like a lousy warrior commander? No.
2. LUCK, Fucking luck. Go ahead and try to claim it was impossible.
3. Reality. If volley of the arrows always hit all targets - I would scream MAGIC ARROWS.

[Frontenac]

That's not a strawman, but there's no indication that's at all the case. I mean, even Beric Dondarrian dies, Thoros just keeps rezzing him. And Jon got bloody and bruised during the fight, but can't get hit by an arrow? He can come near death, but not die? Is that your argument?

Because that argument makes no sense.

If Jon is really the Chosen One, Azor Ahai or the Prince That Was Promised, he may not have been resurrected the same way as Beric Dondarion. It seems that the show, at least, wants to make Jon a Christ-like figure. In the Gospels, Jesus returns Lazarus to life, but Lazarus will die later on. When Jesus returns to life, his body is changed and made uncorruptible. It is possible something like that happened to Jon. I mean, he may still be mortal, but he could have become stronger, faster with better reflexes, etc. We don't know. As we don't know if the Red God truly exists in that universe. I think they will intentionally leave it to the viewer to decide.

Perhaps Brother Ray's speech was also meant for the viewers. There is something greater than all the characters of this show and their quarrels. Maybe it's the Seven, or the Lord of Light, or the Drowned God, or the Old Gods, maybe none of them, or maybe they are all the same. We don't know. But something greater than all of this is at work. It would be fitting, since the last two seasons will be about the White Walkers.

[Sooba]

Doesn't matter. Unless hes legitimized Jon has no rights. Danny would be ahead of both.

I kinda already made that point. Please read the damn thread if you're going to make disagreements. I was referring specifically to a comparison of Tyrion and Jon. Edit to add a quote of my previous message:

1) Bastard Targaryens have never ruled. Civil wars were fought over it.
2) Even if they did, Jon has greater claim, since primogeniture means the right passes through Rhaegar to him. Tyrion is later in the succession.

- - - Updated - - -

How is that a moot point?

Jon ran out there to get him before he got killed. Because he was running straight, he covered more ground, which means more distance from Ramsay's cavalry. Had he zig-zagged, he would've covered less ground before Jon would get to him, putting Jon even closer to the cavalry. Rickon was dead regardless. If Ramsay felt like he wouldn't have been able to land the shot, he would've ordered a volley.

Jon was not some stationary target, he was moving closer to Rickon. Again, the more time Rickon wastes, the closer Jon gets to the enemy.

The goal was to put Jon in danger and force his troops to abandon their position to save him. And even with all the ground Rickon covered by running straight, they barely (as in a matter of 1-3 seconds) got to him in time. Nobody would've survived a line of cavalry on foot without some sort of backup.

Rickon running straight got himself killed (again, he wasn't going to live this regardless), but saved Jon a pointless death.

This misses the point completely. Had Rickon zig zagged, he never would've been at risk of getting hit, meaning Jon would never have felt compelled to chase him down. Sure the "hunt" would've lasted a bit longer, but once beyond a certain point (which the show clearly depicted him at), he had plenty of time to see where Ramsay was aiming and simply run a different zag. It would've been almost comically useless for Ramsay to do anything but order a volley. And If Ramsay had chosen to volley instead, Rickon would've died no matter what kind of route he ran, making it a moot point.

Which means he didn't run zig zag for the same reason Jon miraculously survived; the same reason the Giant wasn't actually armed with anything; and the same reason why Sansa didn't actually communicate the possibility of overwhelming force with her own brother. Because the plot required contrivance that strained credulity or it wouldn't work.

- - - Updated - - -

The only way to justify Peter's timely appearane is to assume he rallied the knights of the Vale regardless of Sansa's refusal. Sentries might not have seen the Vale's cavalry due to winter mists and overal dark winter days. It's thin and full of assumption, but it could be the reasoning behind the scene's writing. Not that I think the show's writers ever actually considered it, being the dimwits they are.

Jon led fighters beyond the wall in rangings, versus Whites and the Free Folk. Never against an organised army. Running towards Rickon, wasn't nearly as stupid as running towards Bolton's cavalry - that even seemed stupid for Jon.

Obviously, the book will be completely different, with Stannis having beaten the largest part of Bolton's army.

This episode was entertaining at least, unlike the 3 yawn inducing ones before it.

They were mobilized already and stationed at Moat Cailin, before she even rejected him.

[lonely zergling]

In the preview of episode 10 there is a white bird could this be a white raven from the maesters of the citadel?

I cant see if its raven or eagle. Could be arryn eagle too, was robins eagle white?

[Sooba]

In the preview of episode 10 there is a white bird could this be a white raven from the maesters of the citadel?

Could it really be anything else? I mean, maybe a dove just to fool people for the preview? Seems a white raven is the only logical assumption to make.

[lonely zergling]

Could it really be anything else? I mean, maybe a dove just to fool people for the preview? Seems a white raven is the only logical assumption to make.

Winter is really coming now? Finally?

[Paarthurnax]

Seasons are weird. This would mark the end of an almost 10 year long summer.

[Lime]

This misses the point completely. Had Rickon zig zagged, he never would've been at risk of getting hit, meaning Jon would never have felt compelled to chase him down. And If Ramsay had chosen to volley instead, Rickon would've died no matter what kind of route he ran, making it a moot point.

Your entire point of view is based around things not based on the show. The show itself, portrays the opposite.

"Jon would never have felt compelled to chase him down."
Because Jon was clearly making logical decisions, right? Abandoning the plan and leaving a more favorable position? Charging the enemy by himself?

And If Ramsay had chosen to volley instead, Rickon would've died no matter what kind of route he ran, making it a moot point.
That's not what a moot point is. That was quite literally the point of my post. But to rephrase it:

Rickon runs. Jon runs after him. Ramsay starts taking warning shots.

Here the scenarios diverge.

(A) Rickon runs straight, reducing the distance Jon has to travel. Ramsay kills Rickon right before he misses his window. Jon charges the opposing army by himself. Ramsay sends his cavalry. Seconds before Jon would be mowed down, his own army manages to barely save him.

(B) Rickon zig zags, increasing the distance Jon would have to travel. Ramsay orders his men to volley right before he misses his window. Jon charges the opposing army by himself. Ramsay sends his cavalry. Jon gets mowed down before his army arrives to save him due to be closer to the enemy.

This is based off what we saw. Everything in this episode should've highlighted that Ramsay's plan was to lure Jon's army out of it's position, which is what he did. It also highlighted how reckless Jon is. You said that Jon only ran out to try and save Rickon because he was running in a straight line. That's not logical in the least. Anyone watching knew that Rickon was dead the second Ramsay "let him go".

Which means he didn't run zig zag for the same reason Jon miraculously survived; the same reason the Giant wasn't actually armed with anything; and the same reason why Sansa didn't actually communicate the possibility of overwhelming force with her own brother. Because the plot required contrivance that strained credulity or it wouldn't work.

What are you even arguing at this point? None of this relates to the point I was making. At this point, I'm 100% sure you misinterpreted my first post in this chain.

[Sooba]

Your entire point of view is based around things not based on the show. The show itself, portrays the opposite.

"Jon would never have felt compelled to chase him down."
Because Jon was clearly making logical decisions, right? Abandoning the plan and leaving a more favorable position? Charging the enemy by himself?

And If Ramsay had chosen to volley instead, Rickon would've died no matter what kind of route he ran, making it a moot point.
That's not what a moot point is. That was quite literally the point of my post. But to rephrase it:

Rickon runs. Jon runs after him. Ramsay starts taking warning shots.

Here the scenarios diverge.

(A) Rickon runs straight, reducing the distance Jon has to travel. Ramsay kills Rickon right before he misses his window. Jon charges the opposing army by himself. Ramsay sends his cavalry. Seconds before Jon would be mowed down, his own army manages to barely save him.

(B) Rickon zig zags, increasing the distance Jon would have to travel. Ramsay orders his men to volley right before he misses his window. Jon charges the opposing army by himself. Ramsay sends his cavalry. Jon gets mowed down before his army arrives to save him due to be closer to the enemy.

This is based off what we saw. Everything before the battle in this episode should've highlighted that Ramsay's plan was to lure Jon's army out of it's position, which is what he did. It also highlighted how reckless Jon is. You said that Jon only ran out to try and save Rickon because he was running in a straight line. That's not logical in the least. Anyone watching knew that Rickon was dead the second Ramsay "let him go".

Those weren't "warning shots". It was the whole premise of the game. And you strawmanned my point. I didn't say Jon only ran out because Rickon was running in a straight line. Jon clearly ran out because Rickon was nearly getting hit and he wanted to save him. Had Rickon been zig zagging, he'd never have been close to getting hit.

However, if Jon ran immediately upon Ramsay commencing shooting you are correct, since my point would require Jon have long enough to fear for Rickon's safety. Zig zagging would have meant he'd only have survived long enough to tell Jon he's an idiot for coming out to save him. :P At which point Rickon could've just stood behind Jon, because " plot reasons". (Point being, weak writing either way.)

I attempted to see for myself either way, but my recording of the episode apparently failed. -.- Currently have tonight's recording to substitute.

As for quibbling about "moot point", I know the technical term. It hasn't been used that way colloquially for ages so kindly sod off.

Edit: clarity.

- - - Updated - - -

What are you even arguing at this point? None of this relates to the point I was making. At this point, I'm 100% sure you misinterpreted my first post in this chain.

I hope this latest post clarifies. Your 100% sureness would be wrong. I understand completely. :P

This could have simply been predicated on my mis-remembering the precise sequence of events at that point. I'll check when I can.

I still contend however, that from Rickon's perspective running in a straight line was asking to get shot. He had no way of knowing what Ramsay's plans were, and to maximize survival chances he'd be best giving Ramsay no chance to hit him.

- - - Updated - - -

Seasons are weird. This would mark the end of an almost 10 year long summer.

That's something that was made fairly clear from the beginning. Seasons in Westeros are extremely erratic. It's something many internet theorists have tried to tackle, simply to see if they can come up with a plausible explanation.

[Jotaux]

I kinda already made that point. Please read the damn thread if you're going to make disagreements. I was referring specifically to a comparison of Tyrion and Jon. Edit to add a quote of my previous message:

You replied directly to me, go back and read the damn post if you are going to make disagreements. I made no reference to Tyrion.

[Sooba]

You replied directly to me, go back and read the damn post if you are going to make disagreements. I made no reference to Tyrion.

why everyone think Jon is prince that was promised? if all bastards from Targaryens are true, Tirion has right to throne since he is son of a King

To which you responded:

The implication is that he is not a bastard.

The poster you quoted was trying to claim that Tyrion's claim supersedes Jon's if we're allowing bastards. Your contention (in context) was that Jon would (potentially by theory) supersede by right of being legitimate. My point is that he supersedes Tyrion regardless.

I also had clarified in an intervening post on the same topic:

1) Bastard Targaryens have never ruled. Civil wars were fought over it.
2) Even if they did, Jon has greater claim, since primogeniture means the right passes through Rhaegar to him. Tyrion is later in the succession.

After which you made the same point using Dany. Except, I already said that. And in context, you can understand why I made the correction. In terms of Jon and Tyrion (which was the conversation by virtue of who you were responding to), Jon has the greater claim -- for what it's worth at this point.

Either way, I could have phrased the response less combatively. So apologies on that score.