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 Fire Click Here for the spoiler-free thread.
On July 01 2016 04:51 Bigtony wrote: Low points - night king magically touching bran while he's in a vision and showing up at their cave. Summer randomly jumping on people instead of just running the fuck away with Bran.
Surprise here's Rickon! WTF? How did you find him? Stupid.
No one can get out of the Great Sept hahaha there's like 10 guards here trying to stop everyone hahaha. The fuck
I'm Jon Snow I'm going to charge across the field like an idiot.
Vision flashback pussy out on confirming Jon's parents.
Well they confirmed one his parents with that scene with the eyes.
And while his father for sure is not Robert, only other man around her was Raegar. Unless you think she fucked one of the Kingsguard.
I don't get why some people are so upset that the show didn't explicitly spell it out. I'm betting half those people were annoyed by all the telegraphing of Jon's stabbing last season too.
But I'm glad they have that infographic so now people who feel the show wasn't explicit enough now have official material to fall back on.
On July 09 2016 03:13 Wuster wrote: I don't get why some people are so upset that the show didn't explicitly spell it out. I'm betting half those people were annoyed by all the telegraphing of Jon's stabbing last season too.
But I'm glad they have that infographic so now people who feel the show wasn't explicit enough now have official material to fall back on.
I'm more dissapointed people didn't see Arya killing Walder coming until she took off the face, which caused them to lose their shit. By comparison no one seemed to really care about R + L = J
On July 05 2016 14:09 B-royal wrote: Just a random question, but does anyone know why Balon Greyjoy is referred to as the "Lord Reaper" of the iron islands when the ironborn are in my opinion all about reaving?
As far as I know reaping means to cut or gather crop often with a scythe, presumably also the reason why death is referred to as the Grim Reaper.
I understand the relation of reaping and their words "we do not sow" but still think Lord Reaver would be a more fitting name. Because let's face it.. How far apart are sowing and plowing fields from reaping the harvest? It's still both the work of peasants not really fitting for the ironborn.
Does anyone feel the same way?
when i first heard it, i thought it was derogatory, alluding to the fact that ironborn got rekt by northerners and with their rebellion squashed, were forced to sow, therefore reap.
but on wiki i read its an honorary title, not specifically for balon but for house greyjoy ruling in pyke. so their family motto "we do not sow" plus old saying "You reap what you sow", implies they have to be bad motherfuckers to be able to reap without actually sowing anything...
Ironborn's culture is based on reaving other people's possessions, including their harvest. They reap what other people have sown.
On July 01 2016 05:25 KwarK wrote: I'm thinking that the Arya theatre presentation of Ned's death etc might be foreshadowing for the entire of what we know about Robert's rebellion being no more accurate. They could at the very least have taken advantage of that. It's a bit of a reach at the moment but if the same troupe were to show the abduction and rape of Lyanna then we'd be forced to frame what we "know" about the past in the same light as things we know are false.
That's a really good point. It got me thinking, and it turns out they've used this trope a bit, just never as overtly as this season with the play. It's kind of alluded to in the books with Sam talking to Jon about all the places history must be wrong after reading the library at Castle Black too.
Quite a lot of people assume Lyanna wasn't abducted already, so that could be another revision we see in the later books/series, but we've seen it happen quite a few times already.
I'm vaguely recalling a story the Reed children told Bran about a nameless knight on some tournament near Harrenhall who helped Howland. Speculation is that the knight is a disguised Lyanna, who's been described as tomboyish. There are enough hints that she may have gone with Rhaegar willingly.
On July 09 2016 03:13 Wuster wrote: I don't get why some people are so upset that the show didn't explicitly spell it out. I'm betting half those people were annoyed by all the telegraphing of Jon's stabbing last season too.
But I'm glad they have that infographic so now people who feel the show wasn't explicit enough now have official material to fall back on.
I'm more dissapointed people didn't see Arya killing Walder coming until she took off the face, which caused them to lose their shit. By comparison no one seemed to really care about R + L = J
Shock torture/violence stuff is popular, see Walking Dead
On July 09 2016 03:13 Wuster wrote: I don't get why some people are so upset that the show didn't explicitly spell it out. I'm betting half those people were annoyed by all the telegraphing of Jon's stabbing last season too.
But I'm glad they have that infographic so now people who feel the show wasn't explicit enough now have official material to fall back on.
I'm more dissapointed people didn't see Arya killing Walder coming until she took off the face, which caused them to lose their shit. By comparison no one seemed to really care about R + L = J
Shock torture/violence stuff is popular, see Walking Dead
Show has a great premise, but man is it filler city.
On July 09 2016 03:13 Wuster wrote: I don't get why some people are so upset that the show didn't explicitly spell it out. I'm betting half those people were annoyed by all the telegraphing of Jon's stabbing last season too.
But I'm glad they have that infographic so now people who feel the show wasn't explicit enough now have official material to fall back on.
Perhaps because it meant that the majority of the viewers had no idea what the scene was about besides figuring out who his mother was.
Like you see completely unaware of the fact that alot of viewers do not go read go to the internet and read about theories on Game of Thrones.
On July 09 2016 03:13 Wuster wrote: I don't get why some people are so upset that the show didn't explicitly spell it out. I'm betting half those people were annoyed by all the telegraphing of Jon's stabbing last season too.
But I'm glad they have that infographic so now people who feel the show wasn't explicit enough now have official material to fall back on.
Perhaps because it meant that the majority of the viewers had no idea what the scene was about besides figuring out who his mother was.
Like you see completely unaware of the fact that alot of viewers do not go read go to the internet and read about theories on Game of Thrones.
Did you read the books? Or do you simply not care for any potential spoilers? :D (book thread)
All the information needed was actually in the show btw, i agree that it probably wasn't handled too well considering that it is one of the main mysteries, but at other times people complained about over the top exposition as well. But sure it is an important moment so they could have done it a bit better, showing Rhaegar before would have been a good start.
On July 09 2016 03:13 Wuster wrote: I don't get why some people are so upset that the show didn't explicitly spell it out. I'm betting half those people were annoyed by all the telegraphing of Jon's stabbing last season too.
But I'm glad they have that infographic so now people who feel the show wasn't explicit enough now have official material to fall back on.
Perhaps because it meant that the majority of the viewers had no idea what the scene was about besides figuring out who his mother was.
Like you see completely unaware of the fact that alot of viewers do not go read go to the internet and read about theories on Game of Thrones.
I'm posting this in the *book* thread so you're right I absolutely expect anyone seeing my post to know who Rhaegar is without it being spelled out.
On July 09 2016 03:13 Wuster wrote: I don't get why some people are so upset that the show didn't explicitly spell it out. I'm betting half those people were annoyed by all the telegraphing of Jon's stabbing last season too.
But I'm glad they have that infographic so now people who feel the show wasn't explicit enough now have official material to fall back on.
I'm more dissapointed people didn't see Arya killing Walder coming until she took off the face, which caused them to lose their shit. By comparison no one seemed to really care about R + L = J
Shock torture/violence stuff is popular, see Walking Dead
Show has a great premise, but man is it filler city.
I dunno if I'd call "zombie apocalypse" a great premise, but the show definitely could've been better than it was
On July 09 2016 03:13 Wuster wrote: I don't get why some people are so upset that the show didn't explicitly spell it out. I'm betting half those people were annoyed by all the telegraphing of Jon's stabbing last season too.
But I'm glad they have that infographic so now people who feel the show wasn't explicit enough now have official material to fall back on.
Perhaps because it meant that the majority of the viewers had no idea what the scene was about besides figuring out who his mother was.
Like you see completely unaware of the fact that alot of viewers do not go read go to the internet and read about theories on Game of Thrones.
I'm posting this in the *book* thread so you're right I absolutely expect anyone seeing my post to know who Rhaegar is without it being spelled out.
Yes and when some people view a show, it's a good habit to think about how the majority of the target group perceives it. If a scene is only good for the 10%, it's not done optimally.
On July 01 2016 04:51 Bigtony wrote: Low points - night king magically touching bran while he's in a vision and showing up at their cave. Summer randomly jumping on people instead of just running the fuck away with Bran.
Surprise here's Rickon! WTF? How did you find him? Stupid.
No one can get out of the Great Sept hahaha there's like 10 guards here trying to stop everyone hahaha. The fuck
I'm Jon Snow I'm going to charge across the field like an idiot.
Vision flashback pussy out on confirming Jon's parents.
Well they confirmed one his parents with that scene with the eyes.
And while his father for sure is not Robert, only other man around her was Raegar. Unless you think she fucked one of the Kingsguard.
Because if you're going to take all the trouble to show us the scene and then not let us hear the words I feel like that's just a shit directorial decision overall. I'd much rather hear Lyanna say the words than a shitty jump cut to Jon's eyes.
Well, it's been established by Martin (and I think in the actual books too) that Jon isn't his birth name, but something Ned picked. So it would have been rather confusing if Lyanna handed the baby to Ned and said, "Protect Not-Jon, promise me!" =p. And if the show had retconned the book to Lyanna naming Jon, well I think more book folks would be complaining about that.
BTW, if this really was the end of the big reveal then I'd agree this isn't 'enough'. But, iIt's pretty obvious that something this major isn't going to end with just Bran knowing. There's no point in going through all this trouble to just leave it there. In universe Jon's heritage will have ramifications so it'll be brought up again (and probably again), certainly Jon will find out.
As book reader's we're already ahead of the curve on where this is going. Since everyone seems to want to argue screen-writing 101, I don't think a giant info-dump would be all that helpful for viewers. In a way the show is treating it like the book where R+L=J has been hinted at for a looong time with Ned's fever dream, the Knight of the Laughing Tree, ect. Besides, if we're honest, most of us were told/lead to the conclusion rather than seeing it ourselves, it certainly hasn't been explicitly laid out in the books, so why exactly does it have to be in the show?
On July 12 2016 02:56 Wuster wrote: Well, it's been established by Martin (and I think in the actual books too) that Jon isn't his birth name, but something Ned picked. So it would have been rather confusing if Lyanna handed the baby to Ned and said, "Protect Not-Jon, promise me!" =p. And if the show had retconned the book to Lyanna naming Jon, well I think more book folks would be complaining about that.
BTW, if this really was the end of the big reveal then I'd agree this isn't 'enough'. But, iIt's pretty obvious that something this major isn't going to end with just Bran knowing. There's no point in going through all this trouble to just leave it there. In universe Jon's heritage will have ramifications so it'll be brought up again (and probably again), certainly Jon will find out.
As book reader's we're already ahead of the curve on where this is going. Since everyone seems to want to argue screen-writing 101, I don't think a giant info-dump would be all that helpful for viewers. In a way the show is treating it like the book where R+L=J has been hinted at for a looong time with Ned's fever dream, the Knight of the Laughing Tree, ect. Besides, if we're honest, most of us were told/lead to the conclusion rather than seeing it ourselves, it certainly hasn't been explicitly laid out in the books, so why exactly does it have to be in the show?
Because it didn't register that much with viewers. Jon being KitN or Arya killing Walder makes everyone go berserk. Jon being Rhaegars son gets as much of a reaction as Emmeryn...
I think the people that have not read the books and just watch the show (probably the majority) actually don't remember who Rhaegar is or have just forgotten. I genuinely can't remember hearing about him in the show, it was probably in the first series which were 4-5 years ago...
Another reason might be the fact that the theory was so wide known that some were just taking it for granted.
My guess is there will be a scene next season that explains it better for the viewers and they will go "Ohh, so that's why..."
But yeah i agree that it wasn't done well enough for people to really care about Rhaegar or even the Targaryen line as a whole. We would have needed some flashbacks throughout the other seasons as well, Bran showing us stuff now might be more natural to the story because of his abilities, but narratively it's worse and shoehorned in tbh. If every season would have had some flashbacks/dreams/prohpectic visions it would have been way better
But yeah i agree that it wasn't done well enough for people to really care about Rhaegar or even the Targaryen line as a whole. We would have needed some flashbacks throughout the other seasons as well, Bran showing us stuff now might be more natural to the story because of his abilities, but narratively it's worse and shoehorned in tbh. If every season would have had some flashbacks/dreams/prohpectic visions it would have been way better
Thank you for that clip, Prince Oberyn. The scene is pretty good and it explains a lot to the viewers actually. You are a truly great man and I bow down to you
On July 13 2016 01:30 nukem1 wrote: I think the people that have not read the books and just watch the show (probably the majority) actually don't remember who Rhaegar is or have just forgotten. I genuinely can't remember hearing about him in the show, it was probably in the first series which were 4-5 years ago...
Another reason might be the fact that the theory was so wide known that some were just taking it for granted.
My guess is there will be a scene next season that explains it better for the viewers and they will go "Ohh, so that's why..."
I think the first part is why it was done the way it is.
If you don't know who Rhaegar is then there's not much impact in that part of the reveal compared to just knowing that Ned didn't cheat. So I think it's fine to leave that part lingering and go in depth to the implications next season.
But for book viewers we get to finally be treated to what we always suspected.
EPT
