|
|
Post by kuroitheblack on Jun 5, 2015 16:37:53 GMT
Yeah, but my point was: I don't see all the screentime given to Olly being the reason for this "version" of FTW to happen. If he's not alone, it'even worse: it's "Olly, a 13 year old kid, matures hatred towards Jon's decision and convinces other Sworn Brothers to kill their freaking Lord Commander". That sounds ridiculous, but moreover completely disintegrates the whole meaning behind "For the Watch": they don't decide to protect the Watch from the decisions of a Lord Commander who breaks his vows, stabbing him in tears, they decide that Jon is to be killed becasue... Olly says so?Sorry, but I don't see this happen.. And i don't understand why would people prefere this over a well executed version of the whole thing °_° I haven't seen anyone say that. It just looks like this is the direction they'll go with it. Maybe we should wait for the episode to air before we say that whatever they end up doing isn't well-executed. Judging it now is juuuuust a bit unfair. You're right, my bad on the judgement. but it's an argument I've seen discussed in other places: there are people convinced that FTW is such a good cliffhanger that it must be season 5 ending, no matter how simplified or changed it might come out to be |
|
sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 5, 2015 16:39:06 GMT
Probably. This is D&D, they do stupid stuff all the time. Who knows, maybe Jon finds out about Sansa and a version of the pink letter is in and he wants to go rescue her. Yeah, I don't know. I understand the diffidence towards D&D, they have done stupid stuff in the past, after all. But just because it happened in the past it doesn't mean it's meant to happen everytime. To me it doesn't sound hard to believe that they would alter the reasons behind Jon's stabbing... but it's really hard to believe they'd change the dynamic of such a pivotal scene. They know the reaction of the fans very well by now. FTW is powerful because of the crying and the emotional impact of the scene. Olly stabbing Jon alone is freaking ridiculous, underwhelming and, most importantly, not what happens in the books. And they said clearly that the last scene was gonna be from them.. "What happens in the books" is the least important thing now. They've changed the dynamic of the Wall. They've cut out the fArya, Mance and internal mutiny at Winterfell subplots, so there's not the same force behind the pink letter. Jon hasn't been mulling on Arya's safety for a long time...nor did book-Jon see what happened at Hardhome. They CAN'T keep it exactly like the books, or it will make no sense. |
|
|
|
Post by lordcarson on Jun 5, 2015 16:44:03 GMT
I haven't seen anyone say that. It just looks like this is the direction they'll go with it. Maybe we should wait for the episode to air before we say that whatever they end up doing isn't well-executed. Judging it now is juuuuust a bit unfair. You're right, my bad on the judgement. but it's an argument I've seen discussed in other places: there are people convinced that FTW is such a good cliffhanger that it must be season 5 ending, no matter how simplified or changed it might come out to be It is a good cliffhanger. I agree with you that I would rather see it play out closer to the books, but that's less likely now and I'm cool with it. Ultimately, the scene is about Jon and the Night's Watch having a falling out and as long as it's clear that that's what has happened, I think the scene will succeed. I also don't think Olly will be the ring leader of the whole because, as you've said, that's a but silly, but they've made it quite clear that he will have a part in it. I could see him being the one to cry and show the conflict some brothers had about this choice. Its obvious that he's uncertain about Jon's decisions and if they show some a bunch of men with a range of emotions then I think it will show that for some this was a difficult choice, but for others it really is for the Watch. |
|
|
|
Post by kuroitheblack on Jun 5, 2015 16:46:33 GMT
@sj4dy Never said they should. But the very meaning behind "for the watch" has nothing to do with Olly or the Wildlings. Please don't take me for a purist, I myself have loved some of the changes the show made. I'm just trying to explain why the whole rush towards FTW doesn't sound right to me  |
|
sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 5, 2015 16:56:45 GMT
@sj4dy Never said they should. But the very meaning behind "for the watch" has nothing to do with Olly or the Wildlings. Please don't take me for a purist, I myself have loved some of the changes the show made. I'm just trying to explain why the whole rush towards FTW doesn't sound right to me Well, we have two episodes left this season. I think it's easier to judge this kind of stuff afterwards. And I didn't take it as a book purist sentiment...I was just illustrating why the book version couldn't work in the show universe anymore. Or at least, not exactly the same way. Honestly, I'm more curious to see how they will deal with the aftermath than I am about how they will do it. I would give anything to have some sort of inkling as to his condition or what will happen to him, but I'm not holding my breath XD |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 5, 2015 17:01:35 GMT
I really don't think he gets resurrected this year. I don't know why people think he will, it just seems unlikely to me to have him die and come back in the same episode
|
|
sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 5, 2015 17:08:05 GMT
I really don't think he gets resurrected this year. I don't know why people think he will, it just seems unlikely to me to have him die and come back in the same episode I don't think he'll actually need resurrection. But no, I didn't mean that...I just meant being able to see more of the scene than we do in the books...how bad off he is, etc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2015 17:09:08 GMT
I really don't think he gets resurrected this year. I don't know why people think he will, it just seems unlikely to me to have him die and come back in the same episode Agreed. That would losen the impact |
|
|
|
Post by tyrell19 on Jun 5, 2015 17:12:53 GMT
Unless perhaps his stabbing is in ep 9  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2015 17:14:26 GMT
The scene is from the books. Doesn't mean the stabbers need to be the same. And I doubt it would be Olly alone... Yeah, but my point was: I don't see all the screentime given to Olly being the reason for this "version" of FTW to happen. If he's not alone, it'even worse: it's "Olly, a 13 year old kid, matures hatred towards Jon's decision and convinces other Sworn Brothers to kill their freaking Lord Commander". That sounds ridiculous, but moreover completely disintegrates the whole meaning behind "For the Watch": they don't decide to protect the Watch from the decisions of a Lord Commander who breaks his vows, stabbing him in tears, they decide that Jon is to be killed becasue... Olly says so?"For the Watch" as in "the watch defends against wildlings". What John is trying to do is change their entire culture and purpose in their minds. Beyond the few who went to Hardhome with John and Edd, does Thorne or anyone else buy that this Other threat is all that real or massive? That to me still is emotional and understandable. Hatred for wildlings to me is far more believable and even more relatable than buying that murderers/thieves/etc. are so sworn to their duties. Half of them would love to march into glorious battle and rape, pillage and plunder. |
|
sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 5, 2015 17:18:11 GMT
Just wondering...am I the only one who doesn't think Jon will die?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2015 17:23:48 GMT
Just wondering...am I the only one who doesn't think Jon will die? Yes. Also, Kit was interviewed this week and said "if I'm back next season" and he emphasized the if. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 5, 2015 17:24:19 GMT
Unless perhaps his stabbing is in ep 9 Well the poster Patchface on WotW who may or may not know shit we don't said he will tells us more after episode 9 airs, as if something shocking and unexpected was happening in this ep |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2015 17:26:46 GMT
I haven't seen anyone say that. It just looks like this is the direction they'll go with it. Maybe we should wait for the episode to air before we say that whatever they end up doing isn't well-executed. Judging it now is juuuuust a bit unfair. You're right, my bad on the judgement. but it's an argument I've seen discussed in other places: there are people convinced that FTW is such a good cliffhanger that it must be season 5 ending, no matter how simplified or changed it might come out to be Well they willingly threw away the best possible cliffhanger they ever could have got from this show at the end of season 4, so people making that argument should school themselves on this show's history  |
|
sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 5, 2015 17:27:33 GMT
Just wondering...am I the only one who doesn't think Jon will die? Yes. Also, Kit was interviewed this week and said "if I'm back next season" and he emphasized the if. Okay, even if he DOES die, there's no way he STAYS dead. And Kit's been saying that for years now. I'm just asking if people believe he will die and be resurrected or if he never dies in the first place. Many people seem to think this is how he would get out of his vows, but I don't see it...seems like too corny and convenient of a loophole. |
|
|
|
Post by King Tommen on Jun 5, 2015 18:47:27 GMT
I'm not sure why people are ignoring Thorne's role in all of this. He's clearly against what Jon's doing, represents the longtime NW bureaucracy and has played an antagonistic role with Jon since the beginning of the show. He is basically Bowen Marsh.
We even see in the clip for E9 that it's Thorne (who Jon has left in charge) that presides over the decision to allow everyone back through the Wall. He's going to lead FTW.
Everyone seems to be fixated on Olly but the reason the show is giving you these scenes is to incorporate a level of betrayal and pathos that the books didn't. Olly will go along with the others and will probably be the guy sobbing as he does it. But no one would actually follow his lead, he's a little kid. Thorne (like Marsh and Yarwyck et al in the books) is an a-hole who has never bought into Jon being a leader and has questioned his decisions from Day 1. Olly is supposed to be Jon's friend. That's the big betrayal that the books never incorporated.
The motivation for Olly to participate is obviously more personal but the main revolt will be the same as it was in the books. The NW leadership will be pushed to the brink by Jon's insistence on incorporating the Wildlings. We've seen several scenes demonstrating this already. Thorne has the pull to gather up the support to mutiny against Jon and they'll pull in his little steward as well.
But if you're speculating that Olly is the one leading the whole endeavor, then you haven't been paying attention.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2015 18:19:25 GMT
I'm not sure why people are ignoring Thorne's role in all of this. He's clearly against what Jon's doing, represents the longtime NW bureaucracy and has played an antagonistic role with Jon since the beginning of the show. He is basically Bowen Marsh. We even see in the clip for E9 that it's Thorne (who Jon has left in charge) that presides over the decision to allow everyone back through the Wall. He's going to lead FTW. Everyone seems to be fixated on Olly but the reason the show is giving you these scenes is to incorporate a level of betrayal and pathos that the books didn't. Olly will go along with the others and will probably be the guy sobbing as he does it. But no one would actually follow his lead, he's a little kid. Thorne (like Marsh and Yarwyck et al in the books) is an a-hole who has never bought into Jon being a leader and has questioned his decisions from Day 1. Olly is supposed to be Jon's friend. That's the big betrayal that the books never incorporated. The motivation for Olly to participate is obviously more personal but the main revolt will be the same as it was in the books. The NW leadership will be pushed to the brink by Jon's insistence on incorporating the Wildlings. We've seen several scenes demonstrating this already. Thorne has the pull to gather up the support to mutiny against Jon and they'll pull in his little steward as well. But if you're speculating that Olly is the one leading the whole endeavor, then you haven't been paying attention. I dont think the main focus is really on Olly being the leader, but more of him accepting and participating in the attack. I think he will have a role, reluctantly, in the attack. Not out of hate for Jon, but out of fear of the Wildlings. Thats why we have all those 'Olly nods' shots during scenes. To set up his opinion and opposition towards the wildlings. That said, I would hope the writers would realise the ridiculousness of men like Alliser Thorne following the orders of an inexperienced little kid, which was the reason he hated most of the recruits like Jon in the first place. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2015 19:46:02 GMT
I'm not sure why people are ignoring Thorne's role in all of this. He's clearly against what Jon's doing, represents the longtime NW bureaucracy and has played an antagonistic role with Jon since the beginning of the show. He is basically Bowen Marsh. We even see in the clip for E9 that it's Thorne (who Jon has left in charge) that presides over the decision to allow everyone back through the Wall. He's going to lead FTW. Everyone seems to be fixated on Olly but the reason the show is giving you these scenes is to incorporate a level of betrayal and pathos that the books didn't. Olly will go along with the others and will probably be the guy sobbing as he does it. But no one would actually follow his lead, he's a little kid. Thorne (like Marsh and Yarwyck et al in the books) is an a-hole who has never bought into Jon being a leader and has questioned his decisions from Day 1. Olly is supposed to be Jon's friend. That's the big betrayal that the books never incorporated. The motivation for Olly to participate is obviously more personal but the main revolt will be the same as it was in the books. The NW leadership will be pushed to the brink by Jon's insistence on incorporating the Wildlings. We've seen several scenes demonstrating this already. Thorne has the pull to gather up the support to mutiny against Jon and they'll pull in his little steward as well. But if you're speculating that Olly is the one leading the whole endeavor, then you haven't been paying attention. I dont think the main focus is really on Olly being the leader, but more of him accepting and participating in the attack. I think he will have a role, reluctantly, in the attack. Not out of hate for Jon, but out of fear of the Wildlings. Thats why we have all those 'Olly nods' shots during scenes. To set up his opinion and opposition towards the wildlings. That said, I would hope the writers would realise the ridiculousness of men like Alliser Thorne following the orders of an inexperienced little kid, which was the reason he hated most of the recruits like Jon in the first place. Men with different motives can work together for the same course though. For Alliser (if he is behind the stabbing in the show) it doesn't matter why people hate Jon, if the hate him for whatever reason, he can use and channel their emotions towards Jon. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 1:58:46 GMT
i think its kind've inevitable that for the watch happens, but what if they ran out of time this season? i mean is there going to be time to
1. Send Sam and Gilly to Oldtown
2. Jon receives a letter from Davos and sorts that out.
3. Probably a scene with the wildlings giving them food and asking for some to join the watch
4. has a meeting in the mess hall with the Watch discussing Winterfell
5. Stabbing.
I do think Sam and Gilly will be sent to Oldtown or just go to Oldtown when FTW happens. When Davos appears at the wall asking for food i think Jon might receive another letter from Ramsay saying Sansa has escaped and he wants her back. (kind've set up when Ramsay told Sansa that Jon was LC at the wall). He will then ask his men to come fight with him on that endeavor just like the books.
I'm not sure about the wildlings though. will they have time to show them starving, jon deciding to recruit some boys. Even sending Edd off to man a castle with the female recruits? i really want them to show this. It serves the purpose of sending away all his friends.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 5:07:30 GMT
Well I've waited until after episode 9 to start discussing this one because again, a lot of things in speculation get muddied when you don't know what the episodes in between are going to show or not show. Now we know the wildlings and Jon have made it back to the wall and passed through to the other side without incident so far. We know Alliser Thorne gave Jon some warning (again) about his doubts in his leadership decisions, and Ollie gave Jon a serious stink-eye cold shoulder when Jon smiled up at him. We also have the one snippet from the promo of Jon sitting at his desk looking very worried/upset about something and Sam's voice saying "What are you gonna do?" ... The stage is now set. Jon will probably get the Pink Letter in some form or another, even if it's Davos arriving by magic carpet from Camp Red God (*hissing*) ... so it seems likely that's the tipping point for his decision. I enjoyed reading past perspectives on this and I have to agree, the dynamic for his decision to abandon the watch to go to Winterfell has changed with Sansa in the role instead of the fArya of the books. It really was a much heavier situation as written though I'd argue what's happened to Sansa has been awful and deserving of serious concern. She's still not the same as Arya was to Jon - they had a special bond which is why Needle is so important to Arya. Show Ramsay would still definitely write that letter - just as full of hate as the book, with special emphasis on "Bastard" of course. He'll be furious if both his bride-victim and Reek are both gone. FTW is going to be different - but how different and does it matter? As much as I find Ollie annoying, I don't really care whether or not he's involved or the one crying or saying "For the Watch" as much as others do. I can appreciate having strong attachments to that particular part of the scene and it's significance from the book. It's true that if Ollie takes that role, he's doing it for personal reasons and not really the watch at all. He's holding a life-long grudge against the wildlings and taking it out on Jon. I honestly don't hate the kid - he's just a kid and it's not unreasonable for him to have this immature and strong hatred for the people who murdered his family. They have over-cooked that on the show however. We didn't really need it shoved in our faces every episode or his constant grumpy-cat faces but whatever. I am starting to think Sam and Gilly will not flee to Old Town until after FTW happens now. There's not really time left and if Jon's attacked by the Night's Watch, Sam will be left with no choice but to flee with Gilly to protect her. We've already seen her threatened and him beat up for that very reason - to set up a reason for him to abandon as well. I know it doesn't jive with the book where he went there by Jon's orders but let's just keep it as a possibility that also might piss people off. I've come to realize as unsullied from here on out we just cannot cling to those last scraps in the books. We have to let it go, Frozen style and shrug and enjoy the show. |
|
