|
SPOILER WARNING If you only watch the show, this thread will spoil you of future events in HBO's Game of Thrones. Thread contains discussion of all books of the series A Song of Ice and FireClick Here for the spoiler-free thread. |
On June 13 2013 08:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 08:00 Conti wrote:On June 13 2013 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2013 07:38 Acrofales wrote:On June 13 2013 07:24 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2013 06:04 Conti wrote:
Why not? When Melisandre states the name of the three leeches herself, like she does in the book, you can say she's showboating: she's pretending that the Red God has the power to kill people with leeches of king's blood, when actually she has just seen in her visions of the future that the three kings were about to die (all the plots to kill the kings were already in motion before the leeches were burned). When it's Stannis that states the names, like he does in the show, it can only be magic at work. So the question arises, why the hell would she go to the trouble of creating a babyshade killer to kill Renly, significatingly weakening Stannis in the process, when she could instead have burned a leech with Stannis's blood in it and let Renly die that way? That makes no sense. I don't follow. It doesn't matter who says the names. It's clearly Melisandre who instructs Stannis on the procedure. It can equally well be showboating in the series. As Davos says himself, nobody really believes that Melisandre caused Robb's death do they? Except we have the whole meeting, and Melisandre never tells him what names to burn. What if he had chosen someone different, like Cersei or Varys or Tywin? That's a large gambit to make. One line would have been enough: "name the three kings that usurped your throne" or something like that, and there's nothing to be criticized. But she said nothing, and he just "happened" to choose the three right names... Oooor they actually talked about this beforehand, off-screen, and both knew which names he would say.. Beforehand, Stannis was allowing the full sacrifice to occur, with Gendry dying instead of just giving some of his blood. He hasn't met Melisandre after Davos made him change his mind.
So? For all we know Stannis discussed the potential victims for the fire before that already. We do not know that. Just like we do not know if there's been scenes off-screen where they discussed it. I don't get it.
|
On June 13 2013 08:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 08:00 Conti wrote:On June 13 2013 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2013 07:38 Acrofales wrote:On June 13 2013 07:24 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2013 06:04 Conti wrote:
Why not? When Melisandre states the name of the three leeches herself, like she does in the book, you can say she's showboating: she's pretending that the Red God has the power to kill people with leeches of king's blood, when actually she has just seen in her visions of the future that the three kings were about to die (all the plots to kill the kings were already in motion before the leeches were burned). When it's Stannis that states the names, like he does in the show, it can only be magic at work. So the question arises, why the hell would she go to the trouble of creating a babyshade killer to kill Renly, significatingly weakening Stannis in the process, when she could instead have burned a leech with Stannis's blood in it and let Renly die that way? That makes no sense. I don't follow. It doesn't matter who says the names. It's clearly Melisandre who instructs Stannis on the procedure. It can equally well be showboating in the series. As Davos says himself, nobody really believes that Melisandre caused Robb's death do they? Except we have the whole meeting, and Melisandre never tells him what names to burn. What if he had chosen someone different, like Cersei or Varys or Tywin? That's a large gambit to make. One line would have been enough: "name the three kings that usurped your throne" or something like that, and there's nothing to be criticized. But she said nothing, and he just "happened" to choose the three right names... Oooor they actually talked about this beforehand, off-screen, and both knew which names he would say.. Beforehand, Stannis was allowing the full sacrifice to occur, with Gendry dying instead of just giving some of his blood. He hasn't met Melisandre after Davos made him change his mind.
Says you. How the hell do you know what happened in Dragonstone in the TV series between scenes?
Additionally, it doesn't take a genius to just plain guess who Stannis would wish dead. He is super pissed at all the usurpers claiming his throne (or trying to carve parts out of his kingdom).
|
On June 13 2013 08:18 Conti wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 08:07 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2013 08:00 Conti wrote:On June 13 2013 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2013 07:38 Acrofales wrote:On June 13 2013 07:24 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2013 06:04 Conti wrote:
Why not? When Melisandre states the name of the three leeches herself, like she does in the book, you can say she's showboating: she's pretending that the Red God has the power to kill people with leeches of king's blood, when actually she has just seen in her visions of the future that the three kings were about to die (all the plots to kill the kings were already in motion before the leeches were burned). When it's Stannis that states the names, like he does in the show, it can only be magic at work. So the question arises, why the hell would she go to the trouble of creating a babyshade killer to kill Renly, significatingly weakening Stannis in the process, when she could instead have burned a leech with Stannis's blood in it and let Renly die that way? That makes no sense. I don't follow. It doesn't matter who says the names. It's clearly Melisandre who instructs Stannis on the procedure. It can equally well be showboating in the series. As Davos says himself, nobody really believes that Melisandre caused Robb's death do they? Except we have the whole meeting, and Melisandre never tells him what names to burn. What if he had chosen someone different, like Cersei or Varys or Tywin? That's a large gambit to make. One line would have been enough: "name the three kings that usurped your throne" or something like that, and there's nothing to be criticized. But she said nothing, and he just "happened" to choose the three right names... Oooor they actually talked about this beforehand, off-screen, and both knew which names he would say.. Beforehand, Stannis was allowing the full sacrifice to occur, with Gendry dying instead of just giving some of his blood. He hasn't met Melisandre after Davos made him change his mind. So? For all we know Stannis discussed the potential victims for the fire before that already. We do not know that. Just like we do not know if there's been scenes off-screen where they discussed it. I don't get it.
Well before Stannis changed his mind, there was no reason for Melisandre to showboat to him, because he was already on board and agreeing with the sacrifice. So there's no reason for her to discuss the leeches with him, because there's no reason for her to use the leeches until he disagrees.
We see Davos and Stannis debating, then we see Stannis freeing Davos, then we see them both rushing at the scene of Melisandre and Gendry in order to stop the sacrifice. Watch it again, both of you. The scenes are very clearly meant to be part of a sequence.
As to how obvious it is that Stannis would choose those three names, well, yeah, I would've guessed that too. Would I have based my whole credibility on him choosing those three names, when I could instead have instructed him to choose them? No I wouldn't have.
|
On June 13 2013 08:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 08:00 Conti wrote:On June 13 2013 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2013 07:38 Acrofales wrote:On June 13 2013 07:24 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2013 06:04 Conti wrote:
Why not? When Melisandre states the name of the three leeches herself, like she does in the book, you can say she's showboating: she's pretending that the Red God has the power to kill people with leeches of king's blood, when actually she has just seen in her visions of the future that the three kings were about to die (all the plots to kill the kings were already in motion before the leeches were burned). When it's Stannis that states the names, like he does in the show, it can only be magic at work. So the question arises, why the hell would she go to the trouble of creating a babyshade killer to kill Renly, significatingly weakening Stannis in the process, when she could instead have burned a leech with Stannis's blood in it and let Renly die that way? That makes no sense. I don't follow. It doesn't matter who says the names. It's clearly Melisandre who instructs Stannis on the procedure. It can equally well be showboating in the series. As Davos says himself, nobody really believes that Melisandre caused Robb's death do they? Except we have the whole meeting, and Melisandre never tells him what names to burn. What if he had chosen someone different, like Cersei or Varys or Tywin? That's a large gambit to make. One line would have been enough: "name the three kings that usurped your throne" or something like that, and there's nothing to be criticized. But she said nothing, and he just "happened" to choose the three right names... Oooor they actually talked about this beforehand, off-screen, and both knew which names he would say.. Beforehand, Stannis was allowing the full sacrifice to occur, with Gendry dying instead of just giving some of his blood. He hasn't met Melisandre after Davos made him change his mind.
This is known how? If anything they indicated that Stannis was against it beforehand. That is the very thing Davos called him out on.
And the laws/geography/politics of Westeros regarding which people are remaining usurpers of his throne is not clear to which of Melisandre and Stannis? Robb claimed the north and the riverlands. Balon claimed the iron islands and the north. Joffrey claims the whole seven kingdoms. There isn't much here for one of them to be on a different page from the other on in the first place even if they didn't discuss who the usurpers were beforehand. I suppose there is the slight chance Stannis would be the pragmatist and say "Tywin" instead of "Joffrey", but in both show and books that kind of thing is quite against his character. Just like Jaime is a Ser no matter what else, Joff is the usurper no matter what else.
The only person whose death is not well understood and with a plot that was in motion before the leeches is Balon. R'hllor gets no credit for Robb or Joff'.
|
On June 13 2013 08:28 Irrelevant Label wrote:
This is known how? If anything they indicated that Stannis was against it beforehand. That is the very thing Davos called him out on.
He might have been against it, but he wasn't stopping it from happening. Not before his chat with Davos.
On June 13 2013 08:28 Irrelevant Label wrote:
The only person whose death is not well understood and with a plot that was in motion before the leeches is Balon. R'hllor gets no credit for Robb or Joff'.
Balon was killed by a faceless man sent by Euron Greyjoy. The Red God had no part in it.
|
On June 13 2013 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:
Except we have the whole meeting, and Melisandre never tells him what names to burn. What if he had chosen someone different, like Cersei or Varys or Tywin? That's a large gambit to make. One line would have been enough: "name the three kings that usurped your throne" or something like that, and there's nothing to be criticized. But she said nothing, and he just "happened" to choose the three right names...
Why would Stannis choose any of those names? They aren't pretender kings. Stannis is as predictable as a rolling bowling ball when it comes to this stuff.
Robb and Joffrey were doomed long before Melisandre burned any leeches. Not enough backstory on the Ironborn dude, except for hints that his brother managed to go and trade a Dragon Egg to the Faceless Men before the hit.
|
I just finished A Dance of Dragons today! Now I can read/post in this thread! Yay!
|
On June 13 2013 08:28 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 08:18 Conti wrote:On June 13 2013 08:07 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2013 08:00 Conti wrote:On June 13 2013 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2013 07:38 Acrofales wrote:On June 13 2013 07:24 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2013 06:04 Conti wrote:
Why not? When Melisandre states the name of the three leeches herself, like she does in the book, you can say she's showboating: she's pretending that the Red God has the power to kill people with leeches of king's blood, when actually she has just seen in her visions of the future that the three kings were about to die (all the plots to kill the kings were already in motion before the leeches were burned). When it's Stannis that states the names, like he does in the show, it can only be magic at work. So the question arises, why the hell would she go to the trouble of creating a babyshade killer to kill Renly, significatingly weakening Stannis in the process, when she could instead have burned a leech with Stannis's blood in it and let Renly die that way? That makes no sense. I don't follow. It doesn't matter who says the names. It's clearly Melisandre who instructs Stannis on the procedure. It can equally well be showboating in the series. As Davos says himself, nobody really believes that Melisandre caused Robb's death do they? Except we have the whole meeting, and Melisandre never tells him what names to burn. What if he had chosen someone different, like Cersei or Varys or Tywin? That's a large gambit to make. One line would have been enough: "name the three kings that usurped your throne" or something like that, and there's nothing to be criticized. But she said nothing, and he just "happened" to choose the three right names... Oooor they actually talked about this beforehand, off-screen, and both knew which names he would say.. Beforehand, Stannis was allowing the full sacrifice to occur, with Gendry dying instead of just giving some of his blood. He hasn't met Melisandre after Davos made him change his mind. So? For all we know Stannis discussed the potential victims for the fire before that already. We do not know that. Just like we do not know if there's been scenes off-screen where they discussed it. I don't get it. Well before Stannis changed his mind, there was no reason for Melisandre to showboat to him, because he was already on board and agreeing with the sacrifice. So there's no reason for her to discuss the leeches with him, because there's no reason for her to use the leeches until he disagrees. We see Davos and Stannis debating, then we see Stannis freeing Davos, then we see them both rushing at the scene of Melisandre and Gendry in order to stop the sacrifice. Watch it again, both of you. The scenes are very clearly meant to be part of a sequence. As to how obvious it is that Stannis would choose those three names, well, yeah, I would've guessed that too. Would I have based my whole credibility on him choosing those three names, when I could instead have instructed him to choose them? No I wouldn't have.
You are still acting like Stannis and Melisandre only ever talk on screen, which is a silly thing to assume. They could have talked about the three names in between those scenes. Or a day before them. Or a week. Or a month. There are countless occasions where they could have discussed this beforehand. Again, you interpret the character's actions in the worst possible way, which makes no sense.
|
On June 13 2013 08:33 Soda wrote:
I just finished A Dance of Dragons today! Now I can read/post in this thread! Yay!
Great! Now you can catch up on the gazillions of crazy theories that will blow your mind. 
|
On June 13 2013 08:39 Conti wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 08:33 Soda wrote:
I just finished A Dance of Dragons today! Now I can read/post in this thread! Yay! Great! Now you can catch up on the gazillions of crazy theories that will blow your mind.
Shh, they are not crazy! I'm almost done proving that every character in the story is a secret Targaryen Faceless Man because it is all just Arya's dream.
|
On June 13 2013 08:33 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:
Except we have the whole meeting, and Melisandre never tells him what names to burn. What if he had chosen someone different, like Cersei or Varys or Tywin? That's a large gambit to make. One line would have been enough: "name the three kings that usurped your throne" or something like that, and there's nothing to be criticized. But she said nothing, and he just "happened" to choose the three right names... Why would Stannis choose any of those names? They aren't pretender kings. Stannis is as predictable as a rolling bowling ball when it comes to this stuff. Robb and Joffrey were doomed long before Melisandre burned any leeches. Not enough backstory on the Ironborn dude, except for hints that his brother managed to go and trade a Dragon Egg to the Faceless Men before the hit.
Well the most likely scenario is that he would choose these three names. But are you ready to put everything on the balance on that guess? What if he chooses Cersei because she's queen regent? What if he chooses three Lannisters because he's pissed off about Blackwater?
The other scenarios aren't as likely, but why take that risk? She doesn't have to, it's magic. She just has to tell him what names to burn, and he can't discuss it.
Conti: I've already answered you. Before he talks to Davos in the cell, there's no reason for them to talk about leeches, because the leeches aren't happening. After he talks to Davos in the cell, they come to stop Melisandre, and that's the next scene we see from them and from Dragonstone. If they have talked about it offscreen, why is Melisandre introducing what she's doing to Stannis? Stannis would already know. And more pragmatically, why have this discussion offscreen? It's one line. Just put it in the scene and be done with it.
Next post => You do realize that's the third time you have posted the exact same answer, right?
|
And apparently it's entirely impossible that Melisandre ever talked to Stannis about leeches. Or about who they might want to kill. Or how the whole sacrificing thing works in the first place.
Not to mention we're on the assumption that no time whatsoever passed between those scenes, which is another, let's say, bold assumption. It's one line. It could have been put in literally anywhere off-screen. Your inability to acknowledge that is.. odd.
|
On June 13 2013 08:53 Nebuchad wrote:
Well the most likely scenario is that he would choose these three names. But are you ready to put everything on the balance on that guess? What if he chooses Cersei because she's queen regent? What if he chooses three Lannisters because he's pissed off about Blackwater?
The other scenarios aren't as likely, but why take that risk? She doesn't have to, it's magic. She just has to tell him what names to burn, and he can't discuss it.
The other scenarios aren't unlikely; they're almost impossible. Saying that Stannis choosing to burn the other pretender kings is "most likely" is like saying Flash is "most likely" able to kick my ass at Starcraft 1. And the last sentence is nuts, it would ruin any semblance of the illusion of choice for Stannis.
I mean, really, I'm not even bringing up Melisandre's magic foresight abilities. I bet Hot Pie could have seen where it was going.
|
Here's hoping Blackfish replaces Stoneheart with the Brotherhood 
|
On June 13 2013 08:28 Irrelevant Label wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 08:07 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2013 08:00 Conti wrote:On June 13 2013 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2013 07:38 Acrofales wrote:On June 13 2013 07:24 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2013 06:04 Conti wrote:
Why not? When Melisandre states the name of the three leeches herself, like she does in the book, you can say she's showboating: she's pretending that the Red God has the power to kill people with leeches of king's blood, when actually she has just seen in her visions of the future that the three kings were about to die (all the plots to kill the kings were already in motion before the leeches were burned). When it's Stannis that states the names, like he does in the show, it can only be magic at work. So the question arises, why the hell would she go to the trouble of creating a babyshade killer to kill Renly, significatingly weakening Stannis in the process, when she could instead have burned a leech with Stannis's blood in it and let Renly die that way? That makes no sense. I don't follow. It doesn't matter who says the names. It's clearly Melisandre who instructs Stannis on the procedure. It can equally well be showboating in the series. As Davos says himself, nobody really believes that Melisandre caused Robb's death do they? Except we have the whole meeting, and Melisandre never tells him what names to burn. What if he had chosen someone different, like Cersei or Varys or Tywin? That's a large gambit to make. One line would have been enough: "name the three kings that usurped your throne" or something like that, and there's nothing to be criticized. But she said nothing, and he just "happened" to choose the three right names... Oooor they actually talked about this beforehand, off-screen, and both knew which names he would say.. Beforehand, Stannis was allowing the full sacrifice to occur, with Gendry dying instead of just giving some of his blood. He hasn't met Melisandre after Davos made him change his mind. This is known how? If anything they indicated that Stannis was against it beforehand. That is the very thing Davos called him out on. And the laws/geography/politics of Westeros regarding which people are remaining usurpers of his throne is not clear to which of Melisandre and Stannis? Robb claimed the north and the riverlands. Balon claimed the iron islands and the north. Joffrey claims the whole seven kingdoms. There isn't much here for one of them to be on a different page from the other on in the first place even if they didn't discuss who the usurpers were beforehand. I suppose there is the slight chance Stannis would be the pragmatist and say "Tywin" instead of "Joffrey", but in both show and books that kind of thing is quite against his character. Just like Jaime is a Ser no matter what else, Joff is the usurper no matter what else. The only person whose death is not well understood and with a plot that was in motion before the leeches is Balon. R'hllor gets no credit for Robb or Joff'.
Not to mention that Tywin dies too (and maybe Melisandre saw that in the fire too), so it makes no difference if he did.
|
On June 13 2013 09:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Here's hoping Blackfish replaces Stoneheart with the Brotherhood
The Blackfish needs to slap some sense into Stoneheart first ><
I bet he'd do it, too.
|
On June 13 2013 09:14 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 08:53 Nebuchad wrote:
Well the most likely scenario is that he would choose these three names. But are you ready to put everything on the balance on that guess? What if he chooses Cersei because she's queen regent? What if he chooses three Lannisters because he's pissed off about Blackwater?
The other scenarios aren't as likely, but why take that risk? She doesn't have to, it's magic. She just has to tell him what names to burn, and he can't discuss it. The other scenarios aren't unlikely; they're almost impossible. Saying that Stannis choosing to burn the other pretender kings is "most likely" is like saying Flash is "most likely" able to kick my ass at Starcraft 1. And the last sentence is nuts, it would ruin any semblance of the illusion of choice for Stannis. I mean, really, I'm not even bringing up Melisandre's magic foresight abilities. I bet Hot Pie could have seen where it was going.
The core of that question is, why rely on probability when you can rely on certitude? Even if there was a 99% chance of Stannis choosing these three names (which there wasn't, it was more around 75% I'd say), why not go for the 100% of choosing the names yourself, since it doesn't change a thing?
Occam's razor is that they neglected this aspect of the leeches, they just used it as foreshadowing and didn't think about what it would entail for Melisandre's character or for her magic. If they had, they could have just added one line and be done with it. (and by the way, the first time I read the book, I neglected it too, I was just like ow hai, here's some foreshadowing, cool. It took me a reread to realize she had tricked Stannis.)
|
Maybe she saw that Stannis would say those 3 names in the fire! 
|
On June 13 2013 09:38 Nebuchad wrote:
The core of that question is, why rely on probability when you can rely on certitude? Even if there was a 99% chance of Stannis choosing these three names (which there wasn't, it was more around 75% I'd say), why not go for the 100% of choosing the names yourself, since it doesn't change a thing?
It's nowhere close to 75%; it's higher than 99%. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't 100%.
And if you can't see the benefits of having the mark "choose" the targets rather than the conman, I really can't help you.
On June 13 2013 09:38 Nebuchad wrote:
Occam's razor is that they neglected this aspect of the leeches, they just used it as foreshadowing and didn't think about what it would entail for Melisandre's character or for her magic. If they had, they could have just added one line and be done with it. (and by the way, the first time I read the book, I neglected it too, I was just like ow hai, here's some foreshadowing, cool. It took me a reread to realize she had tricked Stannis.)
If you want to ignore that Stannis is predictable, Melisandre has a taste for theater, is reasonably intelligent, and can see bits of the future? That Robb and Joffrey were marked for death long before the leeches? Then yes, Occam's razor suggests they screwed up.
I'd read the books, if I were you. If you have done so...to each his own.
|
Lol okay. Asserting with confidence is a cool thing to do, but proof would be better. Too bad you don't have that. Anyway I have no interest in discussing with you further if you're gonna consider your last post a good way to respond.
So, you're right, you clearly have read the book more closely than I have (especially since we used so much book knowledge to back up this discussion... sigh...). See you later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
