Game of Thrones General (Non-Book Related) Discussion Thread - Part 1

[DACrowe]

If there were hints for Arya, then there were certainly hints for Jon.

You're basically admitting that yes... the only value that Arya brings to this scene is the fact that it was a shocking twist. That's poor storytelling. How would you like it if Legolas came when Frodo was on Mt. Doom... took the ring...threw in the volcano.. and then walked off? Would that be a cool twist? It certainly was unexpected. I guess that's all we need huh? Doesn't matter what the twist.. it's GOT... so all twists are good.

P.S. You know Tolkien kind of did do this right by having Gollum take the ring from "dark Frodo" and throw it into the volcano. It happened not in the way fans expected (and I recall some online kvetching when that was the ending too of ROTK back in 2003, believe it or not...)

 

[MaceB]

You keep saying did it for shock value... from what I gather what you wanted (hypothetically, and you can correct me if I'm wrong) is that the moment the Night King approaches Bran (or thereabouts), Jon Snow valiantly steps into his way with a flaming sword. They have a duel and he plunges the burning sword into the Night King?

I mean, that would look cool, I grant you... but doesn't that just feel like every other fantasy narrative? The Chosen One? I genuinely prefer what we got. Either way the Night King was going down, but it was nice to be on the edge of my seat and elated when he suddenly did die as opposed to waiting for him to die in a protracted Voldemort/Kylo Ren/what have you sword fight.

Like another poster just said... the writers literally admitted it in the BTS that it was for shock, surprise value. I didn't need them to tell me that.. cause it was obvious, but they did, and I'm grateful for their honesty.

I wanted a confrontation between Jon and the Night King. It didn't need it to look exactly how you describe, but yes - I think that would have been better. Is it more predictable... yeah. But we're at the end of the show dude. Who wants to be surprised at the very end of the show? Like I've said... a twist for the sake of a twist adds nothing, now that we are the very end. Who cares if we change course? We won't be around to see it.

What that kind of ending would have lost in predictability, it would have gained in importance. This could have been a pivotal moment, in which the Long Night is eraticated, bringing the dawn... eraticating the big bad forever after an epic battle. Instead, we got this... which really does feel like... ho hum... just one of those things. Arya could be the Prince who was promised.... or the NK could just be a highly overrated villain who basically can't go out anywhere, because he could get killed by pretty much anyone.

There are other ways to build suspense and to add risk. You don't need to jettison years of narrative in order to raise the stakes. And there are ways to keep it fresh too. Bottom line... the NK wasn't Arya's antagonist... he was Jon's. Jon is the one who looked into his eyes. Jon was the one who died so he could defeat him. Jon was the one who gathered all the men, and became hated by his people just to kill the Night King. The Night King was Jon's kill. And if they were going to upend all that... when they knew it'd be dissatisfying to a lot of people... then they could have at least done us the courtesy of explaining why.

They better do so in the next episode, or it just becomes worse and worse. If everyone acts like this is no big thing, I might lose it. There are so many questions now, and pretty much no time for the answers to really mean anything.

 

[DACrowe]

I'll just leave it now for saying I like unpredictability at the end of the show because it's in Game of Thrones' DNA. It is true to the show that anyone can be killed (an Arya quote, by the way) if circumstances allow. Arya is a master assassin and is able to sneak up on him, she able to get a game winning goal when all hope was lost. It didn't ring false (which it would have if, say, Sansa killed him).

And yeah, he was a Jon Snow antagonist. But was Joffrey an antagonist to Olenna Tyrell and Littlefinger? Was Vargo Hoat more of an antagonist to the Mountain (or Locke in the show to Bran/Hodor) or Jaime and Brienne, the man he crippled and the woman he tried to rape? If you've noticed, there is a trend of who we think should get the showdown does not.

 

[MaceB]

Sigh... alrighty then. It certainly rang false to me when a teenage girl that had no connection to the character was able to rush past his guards miraculously, and resolve the whole show in no more than 10 seconds and 2 moves. Personally... to me... that rang very false.

Now, if we find out that this isn't the end, and the NK is really in Arya or Bran... or there's a baby that now has to be killed... or something... then we'll see. But as it is now, I truly cannot see how one can't see how this is incredibly underwhelming.

It's different than Geoffrey getting poisoned at a wedding. It really is. Georffrey's poisoning led to Sansa's escape and Tyrion's capure... which led him to flee to Dany. It served a function, and in retrospect, it actually was an obvious conclusion that many of us didn't see. Maybe that will happen here too. But again, we're at the very end of the show, and unless they give me a reason... I don't know why i should care anymore. I don't see how this is better than the predictable route. It gives us the same ends, without any of the benefits that the traditional ending would.

Just because a show did a lot of twists in the 2nd Act... I don't think that means we need or even should have an empty twist in the 3rd act. But it's obviously a matter of opinion.

 

[Marvolo]

I'm willing to bet money until they started writing this season they hadn't decided who would kill the NK and Hound, Berric, Jon, Arya, and Dany were all candidates. I'm also willing to bet their decision process amounted to little more than throwing those names in a hat and drawing one out at random. It would explain why for multiple seasons Hound and Bereic have been destined for something vague. D&D didnt want to commit to anything concrete with those characters because they hadn't decided who would kill the NK.

 

[MaceB]

I'm willing to bet money until they started writing this season they hadn't decided who would kill the NK and Hound, Berric, Jon, Arya, and Dany were all candidates. I'm also willing to bet their decision process amounted to little more than throwing those names in a hat and drawing one out at random. It would explain why for multiple seasons Hound and Bereic have been destined for something vague. D&D didnt want to commit to anything concrete with those characters because they hadn't decided who would kill the NK.

Beric's death rang a little hollow to me too, I have to admit. But at least they explained it. I was starting to get worried that they wouldn't.

 

[Reek]

THEY DID DO IT FOR SHOCK VALUE. THEY SAID IT THEMSELVES.

jesus christ.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

Oh come on now, if you didn't think this foreshadowed some of the deaths, many of which did come to pass, including in the immediacy when she ordered Jaquen to kill several nearby names on her list, then you're just refusing to see it is setting up for the reader a thirst for vengeance. Arya will get Joffrey. Or Robb. Some Stark will.

Instead he is killed by a conspiracy we don't understand for hundreds of pages (or a number of episodes) that doesn't involve the Starks, and it ends up getting another character we like (Tyrion) sentenced wrongfully to death.

No, I think that being foreshadowing would be terrible writing. It's not a subtle hint what's to come, it's outright saying, over and over again, that Arya will try to murder them if she gets the chance. It's just establishing character and externalizing her hatred. Martin isn't a terrible writer without subtlety.

The result is even more in my favor. It clearly wasn't a foreshadowing, it was just her character speaking her desire. It's not something I would see as a red herring, which it would be if it was actual foreshadowing being a misdirect.

You mean like "Red eyes, blue eyes, green eyes?"

Yes, that is something that actually can be seen as foreshadowing (although it's brown eyes, not red eyes), as it's something vague from a source that actually can see something of the future.

However, what she says is that she sees darkness inside Arya, and within that darkness eyes that stare back. Brown eyes, blue eyes, green eyes. Eyes sealed shut forever. The likely foreshadowing isn't that Arya will kill people but that she will have those eyes. Meaning that she will follow the god of death and become a faceless woman with the eyes (and faces) of dead people.

It's pretty telling that they changed the quote when they brought it up again. Melisandre would probably have been a lot more interested in Arya if she saw a connection to the Night King.

I honestly never put much stock in the Azor Ahai prophecy. It is too vague and the person who was the must gung ho about sharing it got it wildly wrong by betting on Stannis, who clearly was never it. Words are wind is a common refrain in the show. Only Maggy the Frog's prophecies have had much validity.

So you're saying that you don't put much stock in the prophecy that gave the story its name because it's vague and Melisandre has interpreted it wrong? That's pretty funny as you brought up her comment about the eyes, which is far less substantial to the subject of the Night King, not even consistent between the two times it's been mentioned, and from the same source.

Unlike the eyes comment the Azor Ahai prophecy is shown to the readers from many different sources and it's a pretty central thing in the story, unlike the eyes one which isn't even in the books at all. While Melisandre interpreted the identity of the Prince That Was Promised wrong we still get to see R'hllor show her the truth. I don't think it's wise to dismiss a prophecy just because a character doesn't interpret it right (that's standard with prophecies) when the actual god, that has directly intervened through his priests, is weighing in on it. That prophecy is very much in play.

 

[warhorse78]

Eh, is it really bad writing or is that just our emotions because we hate being manipulated like that which I get. Do you think George will have Jon kill the white walkers in your opinion?

It's somewhat bad storytelling. They emphasized alot on Valerian steel can kill white walkers, and they were sure to show who had that steel. Just saying, it's awesome Arya killed the Night King. It does work for me. But, what doesn't work for me is that Jon did absolutely nothing in this episode. He and everyone else who had Valerian steel should have had one on one battles with the White Walker generals, and that would have filled one plot hole/plot armor of Arya getting past the generals unnoticed (they were distracted because they were battling the best fighters in the realm) Also, I still think Jon should have been able to kill the Wight dragon. But in the end, he does nothing but fly around aimlessly on Rhaegal, and then hides behind a rock. It was a shady thing to do to a prominent character in the series, only because the show wants to be all "woman power, eff yeah!" I'm a woman, and I am seeing it clear as day what the show has been doing as of late. But really, what was the significant reason why Jon was brought back from the dead, if not to defeat the Night King?

 

[warhorse78]

New promo pics are out. It shows them burning the dead. Dany and her group are standing together apart from the Starks.

My prediction:

Dany will alienate Jon and be cold towards him. Jon will want to recover before dealing with Cersei. Dany's going to want to rush to KL. She'll give em the pep talk. Get them riled up to kill Cersei. Then she's gonna use the North as meat for the grinder at KL. The Stark's wont be liking that ****. Tensions will rise to a boiling point. Jon will have to kill her to save his people.

If this show has any balls, I would love to see her get ready to execute somebody (Tyrion, Sansa or Varys, or maybe all of them with the way the story is playing out) and she tells her dragons Dacarys, but then Jon commands them no and they listen to him over her. Dany is nothing without her dragons, and I would just like her to realize it when they don't answer to her orders anymore, but to Jon. It would be sweet, but I just don't think the show has the balls to prop up Jon to be this great leader like they were originally grooming him for.

 

[warhorse78]

We'll see. The risk is that we do know Dany at this point. She's not a malicious or sadistic person. Her transition needs to feel smooth, and I just don't think they have time for that. The absolute worst case scenario is if she turns into Anakin in EP3.... basically as if she's come under some kind of Mad Queen spell.

All things being equal, I think that's the most likely scenario unfortunately. They really needed another season.

Are you so sure about that? We have been shown two different people on a similar journey. Daernerys and Jon. Jon says it best, he is good at killing, but he doesn't enjoy it. It broke his heart to kill Olly, but he did it swift. And, he put an arrow into Mance's heart to give him mercy after he was being burned alive. Then lets look at Dany. She takes joy in killing people. She locked two people away, alive. That is a torturous death. She burned the Tarleys alive, and during that whole battle, we were seeing it from the eyes of Jaime and Bronn, not Dany. We even seen Arya earlier talking to some Lannister soldiers and realize most of them are not bad, they are just put into bad positions.

 

[harlequinade]

It could be interesting and tough to choose favorites but D&D indeed painted Jon like a saint while demonizing Dany and that 'not all Lannister soldiers are bad' scene is a great example of that.

We all know when it comes to one or the other which one of them will die

 

[Incredible Hans]

I'll just leave it now for saying I like unpredictability at the end of the show because it's in Game of Thrones' DNA. It is true to the show that anyone can be killed (an Arya quote, by the way) if circumstances allow. Arya is a master assassin and is able to sneak up on him, she able to get a game winning goal when all hope was lost. It didn't ring false (which it would have if, say, Sansa killed him).

And yeah, he was a Jon Snow antagonist. But was Joffrey an antagonist to Olenna Tyrell and Littlefinger? Was Vargo Hoat more of an antagonist to the Mountain (or Locke in the show to Bran/Hodor) or Jaime and Brienne, the man he crippled and the woman he tried to rape? If you've noticed, there is a trend of who we think should get the showdown does not.

Well put.

 

[Rocco]

It's somewhat bad storytelling. They emphasized alot on Valerian steel can kill white walkers, and they were sure to show who had that steel. Just saying, it's awesome Arya killed the Night King. It does work for me. But, what doesn't work for me is that Jon did absolutely nothing in this episode. He and everyone else who had Valerian steel should have had one on one battles with the White Walker generals, and that would have filled one plot hole/plot armor of Arya getting past the generals unnoticed (they were distracted because they were battling the best fighters in the realm) Also, I still think Jon should have been able to kill the Wight dragon. But in the end, he does nothing but fly around aimlessly on Rhaegal, and then hides behind a rock. It was a shady thing to do to a prominent character in the series, only because the show wants to be all "woman power, eff yeah!" I'm a woman, and I am seeing it clear as day what the show has been doing as of late. But really, what was the significant reason why Jon was brought back from the dead, if not to defeat the Night King?

Jon has proven, at least in this show, to be incompetent at times and has been coaxed into things. He's also just rushed into fights and luckily escaped with his life. Being a great fighter worked too of course. Jon in the battle kills zombies just like everyone else, that's not doing nothing. The only character that did a little extra was Arya in killing the night king. Jon and Dany were on the dragons most of the time because the night king was on his dragon most of the time. They were trying to get him, eventually obviously succeeding in knocking the night king off his dragon. Having a "woman power, eff yeah" moment isn't bad as progressivism has been part of this story's DNA. The showrunners are liberal, GRRM is liberal, and HBO is liberal so yeah that makes sense. There's been moments where men are less competent and moments when women are just like in our reality. I don't know why so many men and women act thin skinned and paranoid (not saying you are) about this in entertainment as if the opposite sex is out to get them LOL.

 

[Rocco]

No, I think that being foreshadowing would be terrible writing. It's not a subtle hint what's to come, it's outright saying, over and over again, that Arya will try to murder them if she gets the chance. It's just establishing character and externalizing her hatred. Martin isn't a terrible writer without subtlety.

The result is even more in my favor. It clearly wasn't a foreshadowing, it was just her character speaking her desire. It's not something I would see as a red herring, which it would be if it was actual foreshadowing being a misdirect.



Yes, that is something that actually can be seen as foreshadowing (although it's brown eyes, not red eyes), as it's something vague from a source that actually can see something of the future.

However, what she says is that she sees darkness inside Arya, and within that darkness eyes that stare back. Brown eyes, blue eyes, green eyes. Eyes sealed shut forever. The likely foreshadowing isn't that Arya will kill people but that she will have those eyes. Meaning that she will follow the god of death and become a faceless woman with the eyes (and faces) of dead people.

It's pretty telling that they changed the quote when they brought it up again. Melisandre would probably have been a lot more interested in Arya if she saw a connection to the Night King.



So you're saying that you don't put much stock in the prophecy that gave the story its name because it's vague and Melisandre has interpreted it wrong? That's pretty funny as you brought up her comment about the eyes, which is far less substantial to the subject of the Night King, not even consistent between the two times it's been mentioned, and from the same source.

Unlike the eyes comment the Azor Ahai prophecy is shown to the readers from many different sources and it's a pretty central thing in the story, unlike the eyes one which isn't even in the books at all. While Melisandre interpreted the identity of the Prince That Was Promised wrong we still get to see R'hllor show her the truth. I don't think it's wise to dismiss a prophecy just because a character doesn't interpret it right (that's standard with prophecies) when the actual god, that has directly intervened through his priests, is weighing in on it. That prophecy is very much in play.

The Azor Ahai prophecy is a little vague too, all these predictions from Melisandre have been. Maybe it's more clear in the books compared to the show but until we get book 6 and 7 then the books as far as I'm concerned are irrelevant. We should't assume GRRM is going to have Jon kill the white walkers in the books just because he's supposedly set it up.

 

[Rocco]

No, I think that being foreshadowing would be terrible writing. It's not a subtle hint what's to come, it's outright saying, over and over again, that Arya will try to murder them if she gets the chance. It's just establishing character and externalizing her hatred. Martin isn't a terrible writer without subtlety.

The result is even more in my favor. It clearly wasn't a foreshadowing, it was just her character speaking her desire. It's not something I would see as a red herring, which it would be if it was actual foreshadowing being a misdirect.



Yes, that is something that actually can be seen as foreshadowing (although it's brown eyes, not red eyes), as it's something vague from a source that actually can see something of the future.

However, what she says is that she sees darkness inside Arya, and within that darkness eyes that stare back. Brown eyes, blue eyes, green eyes. Eyes sealed shut forever. The likely foreshadowing isn't that Arya will kill people but that she will have those eyes. Meaning that she will follow the god of death and become a faceless woman with the eyes (and faces) of dead people.

It's pretty telling that they changed the quote when they brought it up again. Melisandre would probably have been a lot more interested in Arya if she saw a connection to the Night King.



So you're saying that you don't put much stock in the prophecy that gave the story its name because it's vague and Melisandre has interpreted it wrong? That's pretty funny as you brought up her comment about the eyes, which is far less substantial to the subject of the Night King, not even consistent between the two times it's been mentioned, and from the same source.

Unlike the eyes comment the Azor Ahai prophecy is shown to the readers from many different sources and it's a pretty central thing in the story, unlike the eyes one which isn't even in the books at all. While Melisandre interpreted the identity of the Prince That Was Promised wrong we still get to see R'hllor show her the truth. I don't think it's wise to dismiss a prophecy just because a character doesn't interpret it right (that's standard with prophecies) when the actual god, that has directly intervened through his priests, is weighing in on it. That prophecy is very much in play.

You can dismiss prophecies to a degree especially if they're not 100% clear. It's perfectly normal to interpret a prophecy incorrectly, it happens. Us fans who were so sure we knew what a prophecy meant and it ended up being something else it upsets us. We get so passionate about these things because we care so much and really want to be right. But alas we're not always right. We're flawed. They seemed to change the quote a bit yeah which there was clearly room to do so. So either GRRM doesn't know how he's going to deal with the white walkers so D&D did their own thing. Or he does and told them and it wasn't Jon doing the deed. Either way it was never going to be Jon in either version it seems. Should we get mad at GRRM and D&D? Well you can and I understand why.

 

[Incredible Hans]

and resolve the whole show in no more than 10 seconds and 2 moves.

Like Darth Vader killing the Emperor... or David killing Goliath... or Roose Bolton killing Robb...

I don't understand the whole "but Arya killed the Night King in a couple of seconds"-argument. Most times, dieing is a matter of seconds.

 

[Rocco]

Like Darth Vader killing the Emperor... or David killing Goliath... or Roose Bolton killing Robb...

I don't understand the whole "but Arya killed the Night King in a couple of seconds"-argument. Most times, dieing is a matter of seconds.

It would appear many wanted the night king to be killed in a sword fight with someone who was superior at sword fighting than him in order to accept him being killed. A quick move like that from Arya doens't cut for them. Eh to each their own.

 

[Reek]

said it in another thread... its not how he died... its that YES we did want a bit of a showdown... even if jon lost! it built to him vs jon for years! of course we wanted a sword fight with those two. how could you not?!

 

[Rocco]

said it in another thread... its not how he died... its that YES we did want a bit of a showdown... even if jon lost! it built to him vs jon for years! of course we wanted a sword fight with those two. how could you not?!

Oh believe me I absolutely did hell yeah. However the more I think about it and even in the moment it happened I wasn't that surprised considering what show I'm watching lol. (shrugs)
It appears the closest to a showdown we got was an aerial fight with dragons.
I do hope though Arya doesn't kill Cersei AND the Mountain. They are both on her list so I wouldn't be surprised if she does LOL.

 

[Reek]

not surprised one bit... i thought it was happening then he raised the dead.... and i knew that was that. I kind of wanted Theon to get back up and do something and thats not me being Reek biased..

 

[Rocco]

not surprised one bit... i thought it was happening then he raised the dead.... and i knew that was that. I kind of wanted Theon to get back up and do something and thats not me being Reek biased..

Yep was thinking the same thing my friend lol. I was thinking "get him Jon, **** him up" Alas it was not to be. I ONLY accept this because it was Arya and how they found a way to tie it back to previous seasons and the god of death and the Hound teaching Arya to stab in the heart to kill someone, even if it was unnecessary. I'll be fair and say those who hate Arya killing the night king and Jon not fighting him make strong arguments. I'd be lying if I said they didn't ha. I think twists and surprises in the 3rd act/finale can and does work. I expect it actually, especially with this show. Didn't they say there would be another twist/s in the final season? I could have sworn they did.

 

[Reek]

there are still 3 episodes... so... im holding out my true judgment.

 

[DACrowe]

No, I think that being foreshadowing would be terrible writing. It's not a subtle hint what's to come, it's outright saying, over and over again, that Arya will try to murder them if she gets the chance. It's just establishing character and externalizing her hatred. Martin isn't a terrible writer without subtlety.

The result is even more in my favor. It clearly wasn't a foreshadowing, it was just her character speaking her desire. It's not something I would see as a red herring, which it would be if it was actual foreshadowing being a misdirect.

Except it did foreshadow Arya killing Pollivar at the tavern and reclaiming Needle (or whichever she killed at the Tavern, because I think it's arranged slightly differently in the books). It also foreshadowed Arya killing Meryn Trant when he comes to Braavos, breaking her Faceless Man training, in The Winds of Winter (which we've seen will happen via an excerpted chapter). And in the show it foreshadowed her also killing Walder Frey. It was teasing she'd become an assassin (or at least a proficient killer) and check off many of these names. Many she has, more so on the show. And it again gives the reader a hope for vengeance on Joffrey, especially after the Red Wedding. Making the shock he was poisoned by, seemingly no one at the time, all the more unexpected and mayhaps disappointing to some.

So you're saying that you don't put much stock in the prophecy that gave the story its name because it's vague and Melisandre has interpreted it wrong? That's pretty funny as you brought up her comment about the eyes, which is far less substantial to the subject of the Night King, not even consistent between the two times it's been mentioned, and from the same source.

Unlike the eyes comment the Azor Ahai prophecy is shown to the readers from many different sources and it's a pretty central thing in the story, unlike the eyes one which isn't even in the books at all. While Melisandre interpreted the identity of the Prince That Was Promised wrong we still get to see R'hllor show her the truth. I don't think it's wise to dismiss a prophecy just because a character doesn't interpret it right (that's standard with prophecies) when the actual god, that has directly intervened through his priests, is weighing in on it. That prophecy is very much in play.

First the Prince Who was Promised and Azor Ahai are two different prophecies. The fact Melisandre (and now fans) blur that line underlines how murky and unreliable this thinking is to me. Second, I don't think the prophecy is where the show got its name. Beyond the obvious (White Walkers and dragons, the Wall and Essos being different extremes), to me it was always a story about Jon and Daenerys' rises, and Jon himself being born out of a secret union of ice and fire.

I have seen very little reason to believe in any prophecy in the books and show, because I always took a very skeptical view to that and so has Martin given his penchant for undermining prophecy left and right. Maybe Maggy the Frog was right, or maybe it was a self-fulfilling prophecy because Cersei turned Tyrion into an enemy by antagonizing him to the point of trying to kill hi multiple times and she antagonized Margaery to the point she invited the sparrows. There is a very non-religious reading of that.

The other main prophecy (two, in fact) were sold by a human-sacrificing witch who got it so wrong on Stannis that he (probably) ends up getting himself and his entire family killed. She already begins measuring Jon Snow as the next "chosen one," but there is a definite air of her making it up as she goes. I don't think prophecies mean anything in this world any more than they do in ours. It's probably why I didn't think about it at all when it came to defeating the White Walkers, because I never once believed Jon would have a flaming sword (much less make it flaming by running it through Daenerys like some of the more low-key-misogynist fans wanted) because it ain't that kind of story.

If you want foreshadowing, I do think there is plenty with Arya in retrospect. While I do roll my eyes a bit at Melisandre, you can just as easily turn to her "blue eyes" comment as her sizing up Jon after Stannis dies. There's also the fact she's trained from the start to say to the "God of Death," "not today." I actually think it lines up very well with her character, and I like it more because it isn't what we wanted. The thought of Jon Snow fighting the Night King just sounds like every other fantasy story.

 

[AverageMan]

Oh believe me I absolutely did hell yeah.
I do hope though Arya doesn't kill Cersei AND the Mountain. They are both on her list so I wouldn't be surprised if she does LOL.

Surely the Hound is going to take care of the Mountain?