Game of Thrones

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

She'll most likely bend the entire Khalasar to her will with Drogon, be inspired to not waste any more time, gather her forces, and sail for Westeros.

[Peanutbutter]

As for Jon, if he's going the loophole route of having his watch end because he technically died and thus fulfilled his vows, what exactly gave him the authority to execute the perpetrators of his murder in the first place? You can't exactly have it both ways. Either you give up your Lord Commander status from the start or you're stuck with it, I believe. Of course, this is really just a nitpick since I'm sure that whoever took his place as Lord Commander would have started out by doing the same, anyways. Still, do the writers realize that Jon can't just give the command of the Night's Watch to whoever he wants to run it? The new Lord Commander is always decided by an election.

While it's not really a flaw or anything in terms of the show, it's worth pointing out that the Umbers turning over Rickon Stark to the Boltons would never happen in the books. Not simply because Rickon isn't even with the Umbers in the books, but because the Umbers fucking hate the Boltons, being that one of their own Lords was killed at the Red Wedding, including several of their men. The popular theory is that Rickon Stark will be one of the flayed bodies that we see during the battle which will presumably take place by the end of the season. I wouldn't be surprised by it, since he's always been a pretty useless character, even in the books, but it does feel odd that the show would bring the character back just to be killed off immediately.

It was after he killed the mutineers that he officially quit. That's why he was able to execute them.



As for Ricon, I've heard its because that the Umbers might be doing it to destroy Ramsay's army from within. Basically playing the long game to kill him when he puts down his guard. We'll have to see if it happens that way. Personally, I liked both episodes and I'm ecstatic that finally Jon doesn't have to be at the Wall anymore and can finally interact with a lot more of the cast.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

You missed my point: Only the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch has that kind of authority. Jon uses the loophole that since he died, his watch has ended, and he is no longer tied to his vows to the Night's Watch. That in and of itself is fine, but before bringing up that loophole, he does assume the responsibility of the Lord Commander by executing the mutineers, which technically he couldn't do unless he had re-sworn all of his oaths like the first time when he became a Brother of the Night's Watch. The point being that Jon Snow technically had no right to take the responsibilities of a Lord Commander again after being resurrected since his death absolved him of his previous oath.

The theory that you are bringing up about the Umbers is something that only applies to the books. In the books, several Northern houses, most notably House Manderly (who seems to have been cut from the show), in addition to Houses Mormont, Umber, Dustin, and several others seem to clearly be conspiring against the Boltons and Freys, pretending to be loyal to them while clearly plotting to overthrow them from behind their backs. The Great Northern Conspiracy theory is that they are planning to make Jon Snow the next King in the North since in the books, Robb named Jon as his heir should he die during their war with the Lannisters, and many of the allied Northern houses are attempting to honor that by first finding a way to get rid of the Boltons and Stannis (who is still very much alive and with a full-fledged army in the books) and clear a path for the Starks to make a comeback. This isn't just because Robb's death at the Red Wedding pissed them off, but because they also lost a lot of their own high lords and men at the Red Wedding as well, so they are just as pissed off as the Starks about it, hence the phrase "The North Remembers."

There are a few problems with that theory working out in the show. Firstly, they killed Rickon's Direwolf as proof that he's a Stark. Had they brought it alive and caged up, that might be one thing, but outright killing it is a pretty clear sign that they do not support the Starks anymore. Furthermore, the fact that Small Jon is the Lord of the Umbers now is in itself already a huge departure from the books, since he was one of the casualties of the Red Wedding in that version of the story, but in the show he's portrayed as a son who doesn't really care about the old generation of Northern Lords who have mostly been wiped out at this point. Thirdly is that since Lord Umber clearly knows that Ramsay killed his father, he should be well aware that he's rather unpredictable and a complete nut-case, so bringing Rickon directly to him would be way too dangerous. If it were Roose in his place, that would be one thing, since Roose would understand that Rickon is a valuable hostage and should be kept alive, but as we've already seen, Ramsay has absolutely zero interest in good political strategies. The fact that he killed off Walda and her baby is proof of that, since he essentially just made enemies of the Freys by doing so, which was a loss of valuable backing that the Boltons needed considering that they already lost the support of the Lannisters with Tywin's death and Ramsay's marriage to Sansa. To trust someone like that with the life of a Stark is just flat-out absurd.

If the Umbers are indeed playing the long-game in the show and plan to turn on Ramsay and Lord Karstark, then as far as the show goes, it will have been a poorly set-up twist and if it works out, it would have been relying on way too much luck to do so.

I understand that non-book readers probably don't notice and don't care about these things, and that's fine. I have no problem with enjoying the show as just good, entertaining television. But I'm only pointing out that there is a clear drop in quality from being great television in the first four seasons, and a lot of that has to do with how much the show has departed from the books while still trying to loosely tie key plot points to the books at the same time. As I've said multiple times before, the show would just be better off going completely in its own direction at this point, and disregarding the books altogether. Trying to work its way around a lot of important aspects of the books while still trying to show off all of the main events causes glaring plot-holes and awkward character motivations like we've been getting since the fifth season, IMO.

[Peanutbutter]

I didn't miss anything. I'm pretty sure there's never been a case within the Night's Watch where they had someone die only temporary. There's no precedent that says when someone dies they must re-take the oath.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I already said that it wasn't even that big of a deal, just a nitpick. But since you are so persistent on trying to argue the point, here's the definitive response to what you claim.

I didn't miss anything. I'm pretty sure there's never been a case within the Night's Watch where they had someone die only temporary. There's no precedent that says when someone dies they must re-take the oath.

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."

That pretty clearly, unarguably says that your membership with the Night's Watch ends upon your death. Jon dies. His watch is ended. He is resurrected, but it doesn't change the fact that he died and thus fulfilled his vows. That means that when he comes back to life, he is no longer a Brother of the Night's Watch, and Jon even follows this logic at the end of the episode. Except before that he carried out the duties of a Lord Commander even though he technically had no authority to.

Obviously the people who originated those vows probably didn't know anything about the possibility to resurrect people. But, just because it doesn't say anything about re-taking an oath doesn't mean that you wouldn't have to. If you fulfill your vows by dying and end your brotherhood with the Watch, and then are resurrected as a free man, obviously you would have to to re-take your oath to become a Brother again. Jon Snow did not do this, and thus had no right to be acting as the Lord Commander.

Like I said though, I merely just pointed it out, but said it didn't really matter that much in the grand scheme of things.

[Dr. Insomniac]

Reminded of Ser Barristan today, and I'm still a little pissed off at his death. Not because of his character, but due to his actor Ian McElhinney being very devoted to his role and quit some other acting jobs to focus on playing Barristan.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Not to mention that he's still alive in the books (and he's a POV character, at that), was incredibly underutilized on the show, and had a disappointingly underwhelming death scene for one of the best fighters in Westeros.

[Dr. Insomniac]

And McElhinney even wrote to D&D, telling them why killing off Barristan was a bad idea and how they could bolster his characterization instead.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Alright, this was a good episode. Yes, there were some plot contrivance and Ramsay is still a cartoon character to me, but the majority of it felt like classic Game of Thrones and it had me hooked the whole way through.

[Dr. Insomniac]

Sad ending aside, I'm wondering what exactly Bran has gained from the Three-Eyed Raven that was worth going all the way up North and losing three of his friends. And how is sending Brienne less conspicuous than sending a raven, Sansa? It just seems like an excuse to send her to her death.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

So that's what Hodor means! I actually do expect this to be in the books, since it's a very George R. R. Martin-esque plot-twist in how it brings things full circle.

Sad ending aside, I'm wondering what exactly Bran has gained from the Three-Eyed Raven that was worth going all the way up North and losing three of his friends. And how is sending Brienne less conspicuous than sending a raven, Sansa? It just seems like an excuse to send her to her death.

On the first point, I was expecting to see a certain important reveal in one of Bran's flashbacks, but it's possible that he learned something off-screen that we aren't privy to just yet. We'll have to wait and see when he wakes up.

As for Sansa sending Brienne instead of a Raven, you are aware that Raven's are incredibly risky to send since they can easily be intercepted by enemies, right? Sansa sending a trusted person rather than a Raven to a specific recipient is the same sort of logic that one would use to deliver a message that they don't want listened in on by having their phone tapped. She wants to send for help from her uncle without Ramsay or his supporters catching wind of it, thus only expecting opposition from Jon and underestimating the amount of men aligned against them. It's actually one of the more sensible strategies which she could employ; although, that's assuming that Littlefinger isn't just giving her faulty information on his part.

Anyways, this is the best episode of the season by far, IMO. It truly had me engrossed the entire way through and some scenes sent chills down my spine.

[Dr. Insomniac]

I know they said the raven would be less fragile of a messenger, but I'm wondering how Brienne-a over six-foot tall knight with a mixed success rate in keeping herself covert and who has only now been accepted as an ally after seasons of distrust from Arya and Sansa-would be a preferable choice. It just seems like a flawed tactic on Sansa's behalf not to tell everyone of Littlefinger's involvement so they can better handle the situation rather than send her limited resources to take care of it.

Not saying I disliked the episode, it's definitely the best in this season so far. I do quite lament wasting Max Von Sydow here. It seemed strange to recast the Three-Eyed Raven with a much higher-profile actor only to have him be either stuck in a tree or monologue to Bran for a handful of episodes before dying.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Brienne definitely isn't the brightest bulb, but it's pretty clear to Sansa that she can trust her after Brienne never gave up on rescuing her from Ramsay. And Sansa not telling everyone about Littlefinger is exactly what she learned from Littlefinger, about keeping your sources of information to yourself. It's the same concept of Varys having his "little birds," and it's a key component to playing the game of thrones. As for sending her alone, I figure that sending a large party is conspicuous, whereas sending someone who's both loyal and can fend for themself s a bit more ideal.

As for wasting a great actor in Max Von Sydow, I wasn't too surprised given how badly they already wasted Doran's actor in favor of the Sandsnakes  (ugghhh....); even Jonothan Pryce has been really underutilized. Aside from Sean Bean, no other big actor from films has ever been given much presence on this show. I suppose that the showrunners maybe don't want them to overshadow the main cast. That's about the best explanation that I can think of.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

[Dr. Insomniac]

Wondering why the Braavosi play romanticized Joffrey and Cersei liked that given their reputation in Westeros, Dorne, and probably more nations. Wonder if they just didn't get the message.

But on the bright side, finally! Benjen!