On April 25 2011 18:40 HowardRoark wrote: 3 questions:
Did they mention why the dwarf followed the bastard to the wall?
Did they kill the butcher's son?
The king Jon mentioned was killed by the dwarf's brother, was that the father of Daenerys?
BTW, I am bothered a bit that they have a 30 year old actor portraying a 14 yo child.
1. Yes, they just stated the Dwarf wanted to see/experience the wall. He will not be taking the black. Remember his quote when asked if he would take the black? "The whores would go begging from Dorne to Casterly Rock, I just want to piss off the top of the wall"
2. Yes. "He ran. Not fast Enough."
3.Yes
Edit: Added in some more details.
Also, this guys next video is up. It's a person who hasn't read the books who does a video after each episode. Pretty interesting to watch.
That guy cracks me up. Will be watching his reviews after every episode for sure.
I feel that Martin and the writers took A LOT of pain to make sure you can pick up what's happening off-screen if you pay enough attention, much like The Wire. From someone who's read the books, it's quite gratifying to see just how they are filling in the background plot using one-off lines and references. This reviewer obviously pays attention and is picking it up better than I'd expect any non-reader to.
I must say I was skeptical after the pilot, but this episode has completely hooked me in. I'm on my third watch-through of it now, and I'm getting the same feeling I got when I first got stuck into the books. Really, really excited to see all the political machinations in action!
I think I missed out on what went wrong with the fire and if it had anything to do with the butcher's son that died o.o
Anyone can fill me in?
The fire was a diversion to allow the assassin to kill Bran. It had nothing to do with the events at the Kingsroad at that point. (You don't have to spoiler mark things that happened in an aired episode).
Ned, King Robert, Joffrey etc. are on the Kingsroad on the way to King's Landing. The butcher's boy is dead; the Lannisters sent The Hound to kill him. It's his body on The Hound's horse at the end of the episode.
Great episode, the only thing that disappointed me was that Catelyn didn't tell Jon that it should have been him instead when he said goodbye to Bran. But they did a good job of showing her disdain of him anyway so yeah
Was definitely a good episode. I noticed a LOT of exposition that I think will help explain who everyone is for new viewers. Especially that recap at the beginning, it was one of the best recaps I've seen fir a TV show ever.
Does it still bother everyone else that they made all the children older than they actually were? Every time they mention Bran being 10, Rickon being 6, Arya being whatever she is, I correct them out loud.
I also would have preferred that tehy keep the "it should have been you" line in there. It's important for Catelyn's character, to show that she's not all good, and can be spiteful and mean (just like everyone else in GoT). The whole point of the books is that NO ONE is all good, and no one is all bad either.
On April 25 2011 16:01 FyRe_DragOn wrote: im less happy about cersei fabricating a story about a first born child that died to try and seem sympathetic (or maybe theyre going with it?) i dont know why they needed that or what it added...
Did she in the later books think about the baby she murdered that she had with Robert? (and later would drink moontea to not have more) This was just that put into season 1 to further her character. Later people will learn she lied to Cat.
On April 25 2011 16:01 FyRe_DragOn wrote: im less happy about cersei fabricating a story about a first born child that died to try and seem sympathetic (or maybe theyre going with it?) i dont know why they needed that or what it added...
Did she in the later books think about the baby she murdered that she had with Robert? (and later would drink moontea to not have more) This was just that put into season 1 to further her character. Later people will learn she lied to Cat.
She had got pregnant from Robert a couple of times IIRC. Had them all aborted before Robert knew. About the murdering, its more of having Cersei murdering Robert's bastards as they have a better claim for the throne then her own children.
On April 25 2011 20:42 whoso wrote: oh man this is sick. im really tempted to read the books now. but then i cant enjoy the series that much anymore. : (
Go and read it. I've read and re-read all 4 books so many times and i'm still fascinated by the TV series.
Ok so I guess I liked the episode, but there's really one thing bothering me... Why the assassin was given a fucking dagger ? That doesn't make no sense. The goal of the Queen and her brother was to prevent the boy from talking AND disguise his death as accidental. That's why Jaime didn't rip Bran's guts aparts with his sword and just gently pushed him through the window when the boy saw him riding the Queen. The assassin's dagger contradicts this goal. He should have wanted to strangle the boy, or choke him with a pillow, or poison him, this way no one would have lead further investigation. Given the medieval settings, I don't think they're aware of autopsies... So you might say, maybe he had planned to do that, but he took his dagger when he saw Catelyn - who "wasn't suppposed to be here". Well, aparently she has been sitting in the room since her boy fell, and the Queen herself saw her when she came to visit the boy, so that's kind of strange but nevermind. (I know he set on a fire as a diversion, but still). The big problem is : why was he given a dagger in the first place if the plan was to discretly murder the boy ? And why an assassin would need a weapon to just (because no one is "supposed to be here") kill a fucking sleeping child ? You know, assassins often already have weapons so that they can assassinate people... But maybe it was like a special dagger, + 15 damage against innocent sleeping 10-years olds, with a critical chance of not missing so he's sure to hit...
For me, the dagger spells a word in giant blood-red letters : CONVENIENCE. It is a VERY convenient way to make the Starks realize the Lannisters want Bran dead...
Its really sad that my favorite character already died, poor dog... ((( but well that little boy looks promising too. hopefully he will kill that ***** little prince
On April 25 2011 20:46 NormandyBoy wrote: Ok so I guess I liked the episode, but there's really one thing bothering me... Why the assassin was given a fucking dagger ? That doesn't make no sense. The goal of the Queen and her brother was to prevent the boy from talking AND disguise his death as accidental. That's why Jaime didn't rip Bran's guts aparts with his sword and just gently pushed him through the window when the boy saw him riding the Queen. The assassin's dagger contradicts this goal. He should have wanted to strangle the boy, or choke him with a pillow, or poison him, this way no one would have lead further investigation. Given the medieval settings, I don't think they're aware of autopsies... So you might say, maybe he had planned to do that, but he took his dagger when he saw Catelyn - who "wasn't suppposed to be here". Well, aparently she has been sitting in the room since her boy fell, and the Queen herself saw her when she came to visit the boy, so that's kind of strange but nevermind. (I know he set on a fire as a diversion, but still). The big problem is : why was he given a dagger in the first place if the plan was to discretly murder the boy ? And why an assassin would need a weapon to just (because no one is "supposed to be here") kill a fucking sleeping child ? You know, assassins often already have weapons so that they can assassinate people... But maybe it was like a special dagger, + 15 damage against innocent sleeping 10-years olds, with a critical chance of not missing so he's sure to hit...
For me, the dagger spells a word in giant blood-red letters : CONVENIENCE. It is a VERY convenient way to make the Starks realize the Lannisters want Bran dead...
On April 25 2011 20:46 NormandyBoy wrote: Ok so I guess I liked the episode, but there's really one thing bothering me... Why the assassin was given a fucking dagger ? That doesn't make no sense. The goal of the Queen and her brother was to prevent the boy from talking AND disguise his death as accidental. That's why Jaime didn't rip Bran's guts aparts with his sword and just gently pushed him through the window when the boy saw him riding the Queen. The assassin's dagger contradicts this goal. He should have wanted to strangle the boy, or choke him with a pillow, or poison him, this way no one would have lead further investigation. Given the medieval settings, I don't think they're aware of autopsies... So you might say, maybe he had planned to do that, but he took his dagger when he saw Catelyn - who "wasn't suppposed to be here". Well, aparently she has been sitting in the room since her boy fell, and the Queen herself saw her when she came to visit the boy, so that's kind of strange but nevermind. (I know he set on a fire as a diversion, but still). The big problem is : why was he given a dagger in the first place if the plan was to discretly murder the boy ? And why an assassin would need a weapon to just (because no one is "supposed to be here") kill a fucking sleeping child ? You know, assassins often already have weapons so that they can assassinate people... But maybe it was like a special dagger, + 15 damage against innocent sleeping 10-years olds, with a critical chance of not missing so he's sure to hit...
For me, the dagger spells a word in giant blood-red letters : CONVENIENCE. It is a VERY convenient way to make the Starks realize the Lannisters want Bran dead...
On April 25 2011 20:46 NormandyBoy wrote: Ok so I guess I liked the episode, but there's really one thing bothering me... Why the assassin was given a fucking dagger ? That doesn't make no sense. The goal of the Queen and her brother was to prevent the boy from talking AND disguise his death as accidental. That's why Jaime didn't rip Bran's guts aparts with his sword and just gently pushed him through the window when the boy saw him riding the Queen. The assassin's dagger contradicts this goal. He should have wanted to strangle the boy, or choke him with a pillow, or poison him, this way no one would have lead further investigation. Given the medieval settings, I don't think they're aware of autopsies... So you might say, maybe he had planned to do that, but he took his dagger when he saw Catelyn - who "wasn't suppposed to be here". Well, aparently she has been sitting in the room since her boy fell, and the Queen herself saw her when she came to visit the boy, so that's kind of strange but nevermind. (I know he set on a fire as a diversion, but still). The big problem is : why was he given a dagger in the first place if the plan was to discretly murder the boy ? And why an assassin would need a weapon to just (because no one is "supposed to be here") kill a fucking sleeping child ? You know, assassins often already have weapons so that they can assassinate people... But maybe it was like a special dagger, + 15 damage against innocent sleeping 10-years olds, with a critical chance of not missing so he's sure to hit...
For me, the dagger spells a word in giant blood-red letters : CONVENIENCE. It is a VERY convenient way to make the Starks realize the Lannisters want Bran dead...
Just be patient! The fact that it was brought up prominently during the show means its important. and stuff will be revealed!
On April 25 2011 20:46 NormandyBoy wrote: Ok so I guess I liked the episode, but there's really one thing bothering me... Why the assassin was given a fucking dagger ? That doesn't make no sense. The goal of the Queen and her brother was to prevent the boy from talking AND disguise his death as accidental. That's why Jaime didn't rip Bran's guts aparts with his sword and just gently pushed him through the window when the boy saw him riding the Queen. The assassin's dagger contradicts this goal. He should have wanted to strangle the boy, or choke him with a pillow, or poison him, this way no one would have lead further investigation. Given the medieval settings, I don't think they're aware of autopsies... So you might say, maybe he had planned to do that, but he took his dagger when he saw Catelyn - who "wasn't suppposed to be here". Well, aparently she has been sitting in the room since her boy fell, and the Queen herself saw her when she came to visit the boy, so that's kind of strange but nevermind. (I know he set on a fire as a diversion, but still). The big problem is : why was he given a dagger in the first place if the plan was to discretly murder the boy ? And why an assassin would need a weapon to just (because no one is "supposed to be here") kill a fucking sleeping child ? You know, assassins often already have weapons so that they can assassinate people... But maybe it was like a special dagger, + 15 damage against innocent sleeping 10-years olds, with a critical chance of not missing so he's sure to hit...
For me, the dagger spells a word in giant blood-red letters : CONVENIENCE. It is a VERY convenient way to make the Starks realize the Lannisters want Bran dead...
Maybe whoever sent the assassin with the dagger also knew this? What makes you so sure the Lannisters would be so stupid to send an assassin with a fancy dagger after the kid?
On April 25 2011 20:46 NormandyBoy wrote: Ok so I guess I liked the episode, but there's really one thing bothering me... Why the assassin was given a fucking dagger ? That doesn't make no sense. The goal of the Queen and her brother was to prevent the boy from talking AND disguise his death as accidental. That's why Jaime didn't rip Bran's guts aparts with his sword and just gently pushed him through the window when the boy saw him riding the Queen. The assassin's dagger contradicts this goal. He should have wanted to strangle the boy, or choke him with a pillow, or poison him, this way no one would have lead further investigation. Given the medieval settings, I don't think they're aware of autopsies... So you might say, maybe he had planned to do that, but he took his dagger when he saw Catelyn - who "wasn't suppposed to be here". Well, aparently she has been sitting in the room since her boy fell, and the Queen herself saw her when she came to visit the boy, so that's kind of strange but nevermind. (I know he set on a fire as a diversion, but still). The big problem is : why was he given a dagger in the first place if the plan was to discretly murder the boy ? And why an assassin would need a weapon to just (because no one is "supposed to be here") kill a fucking sleeping child ? You know, assassins often already have weapons so that they can assassinate people... But maybe it was like a special dagger, + 15 damage against innocent sleeping 10-years olds, with a critical chance of not missing so he's sure to hit...
For me, the dagger spells a word in giant blood-red letters : CONVENIENCE. It is a VERY convenient way to make the Starks realize the Lannisters want Bran dead...
There are no holes in this story if they keep to the books well enough. Trust me when I say to you, once they reveal the background of this you will say A-HA
EPT
((( but well that little boy looks promising too. hopefully he will kill that ***** little prince 
