OT: Game of Thrones S6 E3-Oathbreaker
put that amulet back on and she's still a 10..... thousand year old.
I feel like this Umber-Rickon business is a ruse of some sort.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Don't like how they made Ned seem like he lied about the battle. In the books, he always professed that Dayne would have killed him if not for Howland Reed. Not so in the show.
I took it more like Bran realizing that, despite knowing Howland Reed helped his father, he probably still had some vallaint, good over coming evil legend in his mind. Yet, of course, reality is much messier. And, I think that's an important thing for Bran to see/know, since in his mind his father is this pure hero. He's now beginning to see some truths about his father that he didn't know existed.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Well, here's some relevant exact book quotes:
The finest knight I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne, who fought with a blade called Dawn, forged from the heart of a fallen star. They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed. - Ned to BranSo, yes, we know Ned gave full credit to Reed in the books. That quote doesn't necessary rule out that Ned didn't "win a 1v1 combat" with Dayne, though. Then, there's this:
They whispered of Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, deadliest of the seven knights of Aerys's Kingsguard, and of how their young lord had slain him in single combat. - Cat of Winterfell's maids"their young lord," here, is referring to Ned. So, there's this legend around Winterfell that Ned did beat Dayne in single combat. From that viewpoint, it would make sense that a young (8ish?) Bran remembered that his father won this heroic battle and didn't remember or never knew the specifics of how Howland Reed helped his father.
You can still have Bran seeing new things about his father without implying that Ned lied
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I understand where you're coming from, but I really don't think they implied Ned lied.
I just re-watched it. All Bran said was "He stabbed him in the back?" I think this simply implies that Bran never considered Howland Reed saving his father would be so messy and "unchivalrous."
If even show!Bran was told exactly what he was told by Ned in the books, I think that's a fine reaction. Your dad tells you Howland Reed helped save him, but that's all he says. You're a little kid who idolizes his dad and, while you hear what your dad says, you still probably are going to think that your dad defeated the best swordsman there is. That's what everyone in your homeland says and things. Yes, you know your honorable and modest dad says he would have died if it weren't for his friend, but he's your dad and you're 8. How do you not form that legendary image of your dad defeating the greatest swordsman? Sure from the logic of us mature readers, we'd be like "ummm... probably not." But, we're not seeing it from 8 yo Bran's perspective.
Back to my main point, I think there's something to breaking Bran's illusion with some reality, which will tie into what he learns about that there Tower and what's in it.
But, hey, you have a fine point worth arguing too.
I'm now wondering if we'll jump around a bit; if we'll see some Smiling Knight and Tourney of Harrenhall before we come back to ToJ part two.
Honestly, Reed stabbing him in the back is perfect. They are known as a great force, but not individually great fighters that no one has ever beat because of their tactics. There is no chivalry in a fight, esp one to the death, Howland Reed is well aware of that. After all, amush is part of the reason Greywater Watch and the Neck have never fallen.
Doesn't the rest of westerns disdain the way the crannogmen fight? Ambush, guerilla war, etc.
This shouldn't be that shocking (to us). To bran I could see it being a shock.
If I'm dayne I try to kill reed first.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
IIRC, Reed was the first to fall. Slashed, but not finished.
In the books the ironborn (!) keep pissing and moaning about how the crannogmen are dirty fighters, using poisoned arrows and the like. You don't F with swamp people.
Still holding out hope that the Umbers and Manderlys are good guys
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Thanks for posting that!
I've been feeling a bit medieval that I find Asha so hot... now I see I'm not alone!
The dude fed his step-mother and infant half brother to his dogs..... I don't think he's changed much.
could allow for a different path, is what he's hoping for. A ruse, as mentioned. Or a herioc rescue from Jon. Simply turning Osha and Rickon over, having them tortured / killed, and then going on to the wall as planned does seem like an unnecessary plot insertion. There has to be more to it.
Cleganebowl confirmed. Get Hype.
Theringer.com says "coming soon."
They email a newsletter for now while the site is constructed. You can sign up at the web address.
You can also follow Jason Concepcion (sp?) on Twitter: @netw3rk
IIRC, either he or the @ringer twitter account linked to it last week.
It does.
A few bones to pick with the fight at the Tower of Joy:
(1) having Arthur Dayne wield two longswords was silly. It looked awkward and was totally non-believable (imagine the kind of arm muscles that would be needed to wield two longswords like daggers). What makes this especially horrific is that dayne's great claim to fame was that he had been found worthy of carrying Dawn, a greatsword of legend, which was, of course, a two-handed weapon. The two sword bit was unnecessary silliness.
(2) Neither Ned nor his men were wearing armor, despite the fact that they knew that they were likely going up against the three Kingsguard (plus whoever else might be at the tower). Going into battle against armored men without your own armor is boneheaded. Granted, Howland reed may nt have been traied in the use orf armor, given his background, but there is no excuse for ned to be unarmored.
(3) Where were the shields? I saw only one of Ned's men, and no Kingsguard, with shields. I get that Arthur Twoswords couldn't wield a shield, but everyone else could have. Even Arthur Twoswords would have been at a disadvantage against a sword-and-shield fighter.
I've argued before that the show's combat choreographers are boneheads. This fight provided more proof.
i think they actually thought the guards would abandon their posts and that proper equipment was unnecessary. They told them the army was coming and that they should run. The guards took their duty to heart and refused.
You're thinking too hard about a sword fight. Just enjoy it! It was brilliantly choreographed!
Dawn hasn't even been mentioned in the show (I believe) - it's going to be one of those great pieces of minutaie from the books that won't make the shaw and that is OK!
I think one of the swords was Dawn - it had a star design on the pommel. Also, Max von Raven called him "The Sword of the Morning" which is the title the Dayne's gave to whoever wielded Dawn (but then again the show doesn't indicate that that is anything other than a nickname for Arthur Dayne).
So the fictional sword fight that was witnessed by the guy who is 100+-years-old living inside tree roots with magical cat-elves and his dead-legged apprentice who can magically time-travel -- that fight wasn't realistic enough for you?
Good eye.
First laugh of the day.
But how is Bran seeing all this? My understanding is that he can get his knowledge via the wierwood network.
But I don't see any near the TOJ.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
"Once you have mastered your gifts, you may look where you will and see what the trees have seen, be it yesterday or last year or a thousand ages past. Men live their lives trapped in an eternal present, between the mists of memory and the sea of shadow that is all we know of the days to come. Certain moths live their whole lives in a day, yet to them that little span of time must seem as long as years and decades do to us. An oak may live three hundred years, a redwood tree three thousand. A weirwood will live forever if left undisturbed. To them seasons pass in the flutter of a moth's wing, and past, present, and future are one. Nor will your sight be limited to your godswood. The singers carved eyes into their heart trees to awaken them, and those are the first eyes a new greenseer learns to use … but in time you will see well beyond the trees themselves." "When?" Bran wanted to know. "In a year, or three, or ten. That I have not glimpsed. It will come in time, I promise you. But I am tired now, and the trees are calling me. We will resume on the morrow." (Bran III, ADWD)I believe this quote relevant to your question.
it sure does. Thanks.
Dunno why you are putting this as a response to my post, since the standard of "realistic" is yours, not mine. Reading comprehension fail much?
My standard is "believable," and the fight wasn't believable in a number of ways. None of those ways were nevcessary for the fight to have been exciting and good-looking; all of the unbelievable choices were boneheaded.
I was just kidding with you, but since you want to insult me:
You specifically said it's "non-believable" for Dayne to have arm muscles capable of handling two longswords. And I find it hilariously selective that in a vast fantasy world this is the one "non-believable" part that sticks out to you and causes you to rage post a three-part breakdown.
"Yeah, dragons, smoke-babies, warging, red priestesses bringing dead people back to life, I'm with you so far. But WHOOOOA!! I call bullshit on Ser Arthur Dayne's arm workouts."
Maybe Ned & Friends weren't intending to fight. Maybe that's why they left their shields. Maybe they were tired of carrying them. Maybe guys were dying of heat exhaustion wearing full armor in the middle of the day. Maybe their shields were stolen in the night by a band of medeival metal scrappers. Who knows and who f***ing cares?
And maybe there is an army of undead who have been marching for 6 years and still haven't completed a short hike to the wall that Jon Snow's made like 3 different times - there and back. Like another guy just said, show me the weirwood with a sight line to the Tower of Joy. How is Bran even seeing any of this? There are inconsistencies absolutely everywhere that require you to suspend believability for an hour a week, 10 times a year.
For some comical reason, that all came crashing down for you when it came to, of all things, weaponry, and it made me shake my head and shrug.
But sure, I'll work on reading comprehension since you want to try to nail me on a semantic technicality. Great point.
Again with the reading comprehension fail! :)
You claim that this is "the one non-believable part" that sticks out to me; fail. It is the one element that i am discussing at the moment, since it was brought hup here and was, you know, part of the episode.
Dunno why my comment pisses you off so much that you launch a six-paragraph rant that boils down to just another seires of strawman arguments, but, whatever. Might want to check the brand of panties you wear, though. They seem to wad for no reason.
Actually the identification of wielding two knightly swords as a "strength" issue is on its own kind of silly. "Arming swords" were, after all, designed as a one-handed weapon (although Arthur Dayne was supposed to carry the greatsword Dawn). They are certainly lighter than a heavy shield.
Ned has never been shown wearing full plate. Essentially none of the northerners have, they apparently prefer reinforced leather. Ned's got that trademark coat of plates. And Ned of course would not carry a shield, since his weapon of choice was the greatsword Ice, an exclusively two-handed weapon.
Anyway the armor in Game of Thrones has always been highly stylized to give each faction it's own "feel".
Dude, it was a joke. To which you said "Dunno why you are putting this as a response to my post..."
I needed six paragraphs of reply because apparently you couldn't grasp the humor of my shorter comment the way, as of right now, 17 upvotes did. I had to hold your hand like you were a small child and explain why it was humorous to everyone else (and apparently it's still over your head). It ABSOLUTELY was a series of strawman arguments. That's the f***ing joke, guy.
(sigh)
This place. Sometimes...
If we're going to nitpick, it seemed weird that the Kingsguard at the Tower were wearing Targaryen armor - the Kingsguard was supposed to have their own arms and sigil (and it's supposed to be white, but the gold outfits they have in the show look pretty good so I haven't complained). After all, Jaime's kingsguard armor doesn't have a dragon on it, and he originally served Aerys (though I guess we've never gotten that flashback).
I'm guessing it was just to make it easier for non-book fans to recognize who was fighting and not think they were Lannisters or something.
I just assumed that the Kingsguard wore the sigil of the ruling Targaryans. Wasn't their armor basically the same as that worn by Jaime (other than the sigil)?
The style of the armor (particularly the helmet) was similar, but it was silver instead of the gold worn by the "present day" Kingsguard. Also, note that the "present" Kingsguard in the show does not wear the sigil of the ruling house (which would be a stag), they wear their own symbol, a crown made of three swords (which is displayed prominently in their chamber).
Anyway it's established in the books that the Kingsguard, while established by the Targaryens, has its own symbols (the idea was you basically swore off your old house allegiances and the KG was its own order).
Again I'm guessing the showrunners figured the dragon and different color armor would keep viewers from getting confused by establishing Arthur Dayne as a Targaryen-loyal knight rather than a member of the current Kingsguard.
I think the Umbers betrayal s no ruse. I think it's real. Now when the Manderlys show up they may have something up their sleeve. Maybe.
this is harder for me to get... the Umbers seemed really gung ho about the Starks. In the books it was explained better, I thought.
I hope its a ruse. But if not, then yes, I hope the Manderly's come in as they are a pretty powerful Northern house.
May be a ruse, but I find the alliance believable. Last Hearth sits in the shadow of the wall and carries a stong hate for wildings. I have trouble believing that its an easy move to give up on the Starks, but fear could be getting the best of them.
but I'd hope not. Its one thing to say 'Hey, we're going to throw over with the Boltons to stabilize things and take it to the wildlings'. Its another to say 'Hey, we're going to throw over to the boltons. Here is a Stark son who can be tortured at your convenience, cuz we aren't concerned about the rumors coming out of Winterfell at all...'
Sure the Umbers don't like the wildlings, but the head of their house was betrayed and murdered by the Boltons and their allies at the Red Wedding. I think it's more likely that they'll pretend to cooperate with the Boltons, accompany them north to the Wall, and then backstab them once the fighting starts.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad