I'm glad they didn't drag it out and try to do something cute like have him stand up in the fire. Shit or get off the pot.
Maybe, but the way the handled the red women was ridiculous. "You know how to revive someone?" "Nah... but we can try, I guess?" Ughhhh... What is her motive to revive Snow? She even says out loud that he is better off dead. So then she changes her mind because she wants to do good old Davos a favor? Oh please...
i think her motive is testing her now-broken faith. She said she saw him in the flames, fighting at winterfell. That and she knows it is possible given the many ressurections of Baeric
And as far as Davos, Stannis thought highly of Jon as a leader. Davos does as well. And Jon is a man who commands no small amount of alliegance from the wildlings, a force that could be pivotal in the fight against the walkers.
that an action which would get you baked, chewed, and destroyed in the books has a happy ending here.
oh no missendei is gonna get quentyn'd oh no Tyrion is gonna get quentyn'd
general question: are dragon's considered magical creatures?
Yes.
+4
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
It might have worked a bit better if they'd played up the difference between
her crazy blood magic and actual miracles powered by faith. Because after seeing what she needs in order to get a little warm weather going on, I wouldn't be so eager to ask her for a favor on the scale of resurrecting someone.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I think calling Roose stupid for hugging Ramsay is a fundamental misread of what's happening there. As soon as Roose was told he had a son he knew the game was over. Calling Ramsay his firstborn was simply an effort to leave the room alive and without killing his supposed heir in a room full of people, because that's Roose's understanding of the game. That hug was meant to buy him enough time and trust to arrange for Ramsay's death.
He didn't grasp the extent of Ramsay's willingness to be known as a mad dog, basically.
And let's not forget that Roose was a villain in his own right. This isn't watching the Big Bad get away with more murder, this is watching duplicitity and deceit begin to eat away at the villains' power. We're going to see a resurgent North by the end of this season. No idea how pleasant that's going to look or how long it'll last though.
Nah, it's Roose wearing the stupid-hat to move the plot in the direction they want.
Roose is many terrible things, but he's never been stupid and certainly never stupid just to preserve a public image.
+8
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
that an action which would get you baked, chewed, and destroyed in the books has a happy ending here.
oh no missendei is gonna get quentyn'd oh no Tyrion is gonna get quentyn'd
general question: are dragon's considered magical creatures?
Yes.
So magical that their presence seems to raise the overall level of magic in the world. Stuff like Thoros's abilities and the formula for making wildfire were less effective before the dragons hatched.
-I can see why they offed Roose. It's obviously something that will happen in the books. Unfortunately, the execution here is clearly lacking. But oh well, what are you gonna do. They needed to get from A to B, and I guess the shortest path is better than what they did to Dorne.
-Davos suddenly going to Melisandre and asking her to resurrect him came out of the blue. Completely out of character for both of them given the history and context. I can get that the writers were short on time, but they could've written that whole scene so that it made sense, but instead it devolved into Davos begging Melisandre and her weirdly agreeing. But again, whatever. It got Jon Snow back, so yay.
-Theon leaving Sansa was another out-of-the-blue moment. He might as well have just said, "I want to stay with you, but the plot demands that I be elsewhere". Like, if he can't stay with her, he should at least go with them most of the way, right? All he has to do is not show up at Castle Black, and as long as Sansa & Co. keep their mouths shut, he's fine. Why would he just up and leave right then and there? Also, when Theon says he's going "home", it's clearly a misdirect to the audience, right? They assume he means Pike, and he actually means Winterfell. This is likely the setup for "A Ghost in Winterfell" this season.
Yeah, this kind of stuff is the thing for me. I mean you can talk about what they are missing or not getting from the books or how they are rushed I guess or the type of show they want to make or whatever. But at the end of the day I feel like the password is "bad writing".
So many things with the show imo come down to the writers going "off script" as it were in their adaptation for reasons good and bad and utterly mystifying and everything in between and that basically always ending up being much more cheaply and sloppily plotted, with things happening because the script says they must to get from A to B or because the show must maintain a certain style and tone and specific tropes and all that.
You know, bad writing.
I still enjoy the show, but I gotta agree the plotting is bad right now. They seem to be in such a rush that they don't set up a logical way for the plot to get from point A to point B. They end up having to twist the characterization to make things happen on time; things that don't logically follow from what they've set up. It all just feels very rushed.
The killings don't have any weight because we never cared about the characters in the first place. I'm shocked the deaths are happening as fast as they are. As a book reader it's nice to feel the same shock of the unexpected that tv-only people have had all along, but it feels cheaper than the deaths in past seasons.
He's already shown he's willing to remove a fuckers head, so it wouldn't exactly be out of character. Also, fuck Olly.
I'll just be kinda sad to see Thorne go. What an asshole, but dude was an awesome asshole.
Show
Seriously, fuck Olly! I really wanted the wildlings to kill him. Fucking Brutus.
Can he? After all
Show spoiler
Night's Watch 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 fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all nights to come.
And when someone dies, the invocation is "And Now His Watch is Ended."
Jon Snow reborn is arguably no longer a member of the Night's Watch
HOT TAKE (with book stuff)
I would hate this so much.
Jon is the prophesied hero.
He can't do what is necessary because of honor and legal requirements.
He dies.
He's resurrected because he's the hero.
LOOPHOLE!
Also he's a Targaryen. And marries the heroine because Targaryens do that and it's cool.
It would be basically a subversion of the subversion. Good ends up winning because it's supposed to.
That said, they could surprise me that he turns out wrong and bitter from his betrayal. Then we could the expected union of Jon and Dany but they both have learned to be more like Tywin or Roose than like Tyrion or Varys.
book stuff + endgame speculation
I mean Jon *is* the prophesied hero. Or part of him anyway.
R+L = J
Jon, Tyrion, and Dany are the 3 heads of the dragon - the dragonriders who defeat The Others
Jon and/or Dany are Azor Ahai or some kind of savior of humanity
the ending will be bittersweet as per GRRM's words: so I imagine they succeed in saving humanity but die in the attempt
I think people misinterpret how much subversion or deconstruction GRRM is doing. The people of the forest aren't evil, the others aren't going to be humanized, evil is not going to win. It's still --at its heart- an epic fantasy save the world story. The whole point of Game of Thrones is that the politicking is a distraction from the existential threat of the ice demons next door. All our squabbling and plotting and warring will doom us as a species if we don't get our shit together and stop all this bullshit.
People also misinterpret how "grimdark" it is. The show doesn't help with the plotlines they choose to adapt, but in the books it's clear that we're at a nadir and things are all set to bounce back in a big way.
other peoples fan theories I like but don't believe necessarily
The Wall will fall to The Others as they sweep south to Kings Landing before being driven back by the dragons
The dragons are temporarily under the control of someone other than Dany/Jon/Tyrion eg. Euron, VIctarion, fAegon
I think that with all the ships so prominently burnt Danaeris will cross the oceaon with her dragons and Tyrion, leaving all those bothersome plotthreads and characters far behind. Guess there would be one seat for someone extra.
PSN | Steam
___
NNID: carmofin
3DS: 2852 6971 9745
Throw me a PM if you add me
I think calling Roose stupid for hugging Ramsay is a fundamental misread of what's happening there. As soon as Roose was told he had a son he knew the game was over. Calling Ramsay his firstborn was simply an effort to leave the room alive and without killing his supposed heir in a room full of people, because that's Roose's understanding of the game. That hug was meant to buy him enough time and trust to arrange for Ramsay's death.
He didn't grasp the extent of Ramsay's willingness to be known as a mad dog, basically.
And let's not forget that Roose was a villain in his own right. This isn't watching the Big Bad get away with more murder, this is watching duplicitity and deceit begin to eat away at the villains' power. We're going to see a resurgent North by the end of this season. No idea how pleasant that's going to look or how long it'll last though.
Nah, it's Roose wearing the stupid-hat to move the plot in the direction they want.
Roose is many terrible things, but he's never been stupid and certainly never stupid just to preserve a public image.
People have been criticizing Ramsay for murdering his father, brother, and step-mother because it's going to isolate him. Because nobody would have faith in such a man. Roose even said as much earlier in that scene.
Roose wasn't lying. If you need to kill family or friends, you don't do it in front of others unless they're just as guilty and anybody opposed is going to be dead soon (Red Wedding). His patience and caution are what got him killed there. It's fully in his character to embrace a person he plans to kill in just a few moments. The shot even plays on this, making it seem like Roose is the one doing the stabbing for a brief moment before pulling back. Both of these men are willing to betray others for their own self-interest, and that's what we see here: backstabbers backstabbing backstabbers.
Being with Ramsay when he gets the news about his son is a plot contrivance, but the fallout is all supported by the characterization and scene setting we've been given.
+3
Options
scherbchenAsgard (it is dead)Registered Userregular
I think calling Roose stupid for hugging Ramsay is a fundamental misread of what's happening there. As soon as Roose was told he had a son he knew the game was over. Calling Ramsay his firstborn was simply an effort to leave the room alive and without killing his supposed heir in a room full of people, because that's Roose's understanding of the game. That hug was meant to buy him enough time and trust to arrange for Ramsay's death.
He didn't grasp the extent of Ramsay's willingness to be known as a mad dog, basically.
And let's not forget that Roose was a villain in his own right. This isn't watching the Big Bad get away with more murder, this is watching duplicitity and deceit begin to eat away at the villains' power. We're going to see a resurgent North by the end of this season. No idea how pleasant that's going to look or how long it'll last though.
Nah, it's Roose wearing the stupid-hat to move the plot in the direction they want.
Roose is many terrible things, but he's never been stupid and certainly never stupid just to preserve a public image.
People have been criticizing Ramsay for murdering his father, brother, and step-mother because it's going to isolate him. Because nobody would have faith in such a man. Roose even said as much earlier in that scene.
Roose wasn't lying. If you need to kill family or friends, you don't do it in front of others unless they're just as guilty and anybody opposed is going to be dead soon (Red Wedding). His patience and caution are what got him killed there. It's fully in his character to embrace a person he plans to kill in just a few moments. The shot even plays on this, making it seem like Roose is the one doing the stabbing for a brief moment before pulling back. Both of these men are willing to betray others for their own self-interest, and that's what we see here: backstabbers backstabbing backstabbers.
Being with Ramsay when he gets the news about his son is a plot contrivance, but the fallout is all supported by the characterization and scene setting we've been given.
No, it's not. It's fully in character for Roose to embrace a person he plans to kill in just a few moments. It's not in character at all for Roose to embrace a person he knows plans to kill him in just a few moments. Roose is not the guy who puts his neck on the line and never has been. It's why he betrays Robb in the first place.
Unless, of course, the plot demands he wear the idiot hat so we can move the plot along.
I think calling Roose stupid for hugging Ramsay is a fundamental misread of what's happening there. As soon as Roose was told he had a son he knew the game was over. Calling Ramsay his firstborn was simply an effort to leave the room alive and without killing his supposed heir in a room full of people, because that's Roose's understanding of the game. That hug was meant to buy him enough time and trust to arrange for Ramsay's death.
He didn't grasp the extent of Ramsay's willingness to be known as a mad dog, basically.
And let's not forget that Roose was a villain in his own right. This isn't watching the Big Bad get away with more murder, this is watching duplicitity and deceit begin to eat away at the villains' power. We're going to see a resurgent North by the end of this season. No idea how pleasant that's going to look or how long it'll last though.
Nah, it's Roose wearing the stupid-hat to move the plot in the direction they want.
Roose is many terrible things, but he's never been stupid and certainly never stupid just to preserve a public image.
People have been criticizing Ramsay for murdering his father, brother, and step-mother because it's going to isolate him. Because nobody would have faith in such a man. Roose even said as much earlier in that scene.
Roose wasn't lying. If you need to kill family or friends, you don't do it in front of others unless they're just as guilty and anybody opposed is going to be dead soon (Red Wedding). His patience and caution are what got him killed there. It's fully in his character to embrace a person he plans to kill in just a few moments. The shot even plays on this, making it seem like Roose is the one doing the stabbing for a brief moment before pulling back. Both of these men are willing to betray others for their own self-interest, and that's what we see here: backstabbers backstabbing backstabbers.
Being with Ramsay when he gets the news about his son is a plot contrivance, but the fallout is all supported by the characterization and scene setting we've been given.
No, it's not. It's fully in character for Roose to embrace a person he plans to kill in just a few moments. It's not in character at all for Roose to embrace a person he knows plans to kill him in just a few moments. Roose is not the guy who puts his neck on the line and never has been. It's why he betrays Robb in the first place.
Unless, of course, the plot demands he wear the idiot hat so we can move the plot along.
Roose didn't expect Ramsay to kill him in just a few moments. Roose just finished lecturing Ramsay on how behaving like a mad dog will get him treated like a mad dog. Roose is not a mad dog, and he believes that Ramsay is at least intelligent enough to recognize the need for self-preservation. That's a mistake, but it's not new to this scene or to these characters.
Dislike the scene if you want, but this isn't something that makes any sense to write off as just being another stupid thing those terrible show writers did that fundamentally misunderstands the characters. They got the characters. Roose and Ramsay bear many similarities, with the core differentiation being patience and caution. Here that patience cost Roose his life. It's not the first time a smart man in Westeros has failed to fully understand the sort of children they've created. It's not even the first time it's led to patricide. Ignoring all this to say it's stupid and they just wanted another shocking death is a pretty shoddy argument.
I think calling Roose stupid for hugging Ramsay is a fundamental misread of what's happening there. As soon as Roose was told he had a son he knew the game was over. Calling Ramsay his firstborn was simply an effort to leave the room alive and without killing his supposed heir in a room full of people, because that's Roose's understanding of the game. That hug was meant to buy him enough time and trust to arrange for Ramsay's death.
He didn't grasp the extent of Ramsay's willingness to be known as a mad dog, basically.
And let's not forget that Roose was a villain in his own right. This isn't watching the Big Bad get away with more murder, this is watching duplicitity and deceit begin to eat away at the villains' power. We're going to see a resurgent North by the end of this season. No idea how pleasant that's going to look or how long it'll last though.
Nah, it's Roose wearing the stupid-hat to move the plot in the direction they want.
Roose is many terrible things, but he's never been stupid and certainly never stupid just to preserve a public image.
People have been criticizing Ramsay for murdering his father, brother, and step-mother because it's going to isolate him. Because nobody would have faith in such a man. Roose even said as much earlier in that scene.
Roose wasn't lying. If you need to kill family or friends, you don't do it in front of others unless they're just as guilty and anybody opposed is going to be dead soon (Red Wedding). His patience and caution are what got him killed there. It's fully in his character to embrace a person he plans to kill in just a few moments. The shot even plays on this, making it seem like Roose is the one doing the stabbing for a brief moment before pulling back. Both of these men are willing to betray others for their own self-interest, and that's what we see here: backstabbers backstabbing backstabbers.
Being with Ramsay when he gets the news about his son is a plot contrivance, but the fallout is all supported by the characterization and scene setting we've been given.
No, it's not. It's fully in character for Roose to embrace a person he plans to kill in just a few moments. It's not in character at all for Roose to embrace a person he knows plans to kill him in just a few moments. Roose is not the guy who puts his neck on the line and never has been. It's why he betrays Robb in the first place.
Unless, of course, the plot demands he wear the idiot hat so we can move the plot along.
Roose didn't expect Ramsay to kill him in just a few moments. Roose just finished lecturing Ramsay on how behaving like a mad dog will get him treated like a mad dog. Roose is not a mad dog, and he believes that Ramsay is at least intelligent enough to recognize the need for self-preservation. That's a mistake, but it's not new to this scene or to these characters.
Dislike the scene if you want, but this isn't something that makes any sense to write off as just being another stupid thing those terrible show writers did that fundamentally misunderstands the characters. They got the characters. Roose and Ramsay bear many similarities, with the core differentiation being patience and caution. Here that patience cost Roose his life. It's not the first time a smart man in Westeros has failed to fully understand the sort of children they've created. It's not even the first time it's led to patricide. Ignoring all this to say it's stupid and they just wanted another shocking death is a pretty shoddy argument.
The previous times Roose has dealt with Ramsey he has shown that he understands perfectly well he's dealing with a sociopath. Him hugging the armed sociopath after the sociopath was just told Roose had no more need to keep him around was incredibly stupid and conflicts with all the previous times that Roose showed he well understood how murderous Ramsey is.
The end result fits the story well but I really wish they'd taken more than five seconds to write out the actual how it happened to lend it a bit of plausibility. This is the recurring problem that people dislike about the show, they do not take the time to polish the scenes so they fit well with established facts.
I think calling Roose stupid for hugging Ramsay is a fundamental misread of what's happening there. As soon as Roose was told he had a son he knew the game was over. Calling Ramsay his firstborn was simply an effort to leave the room alive and without killing his supposed heir in a room full of people, because that's Roose's understanding of the game. That hug was meant to buy him enough time and trust to arrange for Ramsay's death.
He didn't grasp the extent of Ramsay's willingness to be known as a mad dog, basically.
And let's not forget that Roose was a villain in his own right. This isn't watching the Big Bad get away with more murder, this is watching duplicitity and deceit begin to eat away at the villains' power. We're going to see a resurgent North by the end of this season. No idea how pleasant that's going to look or how long it'll last though.
Nah, it's Roose wearing the stupid-hat to move the plot in the direction they want.
Roose is many terrible things, but he's never been stupid and certainly never stupid just to preserve a public image.
People have been criticizing Ramsay for murdering his father, brother, and step-mother because it's going to isolate him. Because nobody would have faith in such a man. Roose even said as much earlier in that scene.
Roose wasn't lying. If you need to kill family or friends, you don't do it in front of others unless they're just as guilty and anybody opposed is going to be dead soon (Red Wedding). His patience and caution are what got him killed there. It's fully in his character to embrace a person he plans to kill in just a few moments. The shot even plays on this, making it seem like Roose is the one doing the stabbing for a brief moment before pulling back. Both of these men are willing to betray others for their own self-interest, and that's what we see here: backstabbers backstabbing backstabbers.
Being with Ramsay when he gets the news about his son is a plot contrivance, but the fallout is all supported by the characterization and scene setting we've been given.
No, it's not. It's fully in character for Roose to embrace a person he plans to kill in just a few moments. It's not in character at all for Roose to embrace a person he knows plans to kill him in just a few moments. Roose is not the guy who puts his neck on the line and never has been. It's why he betrays Robb in the first place.
Unless, of course, the plot demands he wear the idiot hat so we can move the plot along.
Roose didn't expect Ramsay to kill him in just a few moments. Roose just finished lecturing Ramsay on how behaving like a mad dog will get him treated like a mad dog. Roose is not a mad dog, and he believes that Ramsay is at least intelligent enough to recognize the need for self-preservation. That's a mistake, but it's not new to this scene or to these characters.
Dislike the scene if you want, but this isn't something that makes any sense to write off as just being another stupid thing those terrible show writers did that fundamentally misunderstands the characters. They got the characters. Roose and Ramsay bear many similarities, with the core differentiation being patience and caution. Here that patience cost Roose his life. It's not the first time a smart man in Westeros has failed to fully understand the sort of children they've created. It's not even the first time it's led to patricide. Ignoring all this to say it's stupid and they just wanted another shocking death is a pretty shoddy argument.
For me it comes down to two very simple statements for Ramsay/Roose:
1)Roose is not stupid. He knows what Ramsay is.
2) He is NOT a hands on dad. The hugging was way out of character for Roose by all ive known him as. Show or otherwise.
I think calling Roose stupid for hugging Ramsay is a fundamental misread of what's happening there. As soon as Roose was told he had a son he knew the game was over. Calling Ramsay his firstborn was simply an effort to leave the room alive and without killing his supposed heir in a room full of people, because that's Roose's understanding of the game. That hug was meant to buy him enough time and trust to arrange for Ramsay's death.
He didn't grasp the extent of Ramsay's willingness to be known as a mad dog, basically.
And let's not forget that Roose was a villain in his own right. This isn't watching the Big Bad get away with more murder, this is watching duplicitity and deceit begin to eat away at the villains' power. We're going to see a resurgent North by the end of this season. No idea how pleasant that's going to look or how long it'll last though.
Nah, it's Roose wearing the stupid-hat to move the plot in the direction they want.
Roose is many terrible things, but he's never been stupid and certainly never stupid just to preserve a public image.
People have been criticizing Ramsay for murdering his father, brother, and step-mother because it's going to isolate him. Because nobody would have faith in such a man. Roose even said as much earlier in that scene.
Roose wasn't lying. If you need to kill family or friends, you don't do it in front of others unless they're just as guilty and anybody opposed is going to be dead soon (Red Wedding). His patience and caution are what got him killed there. It's fully in his character to embrace a person he plans to kill in just a few moments. The shot even plays on this, making it seem like Roose is the one doing the stabbing for a brief moment before pulling back. Both of these men are willing to betray others for their own self-interest, and that's what we see here: backstabbers backstabbing backstabbers.
Being with Ramsay when he gets the news about his son is a plot contrivance, but the fallout is all supported by the characterization and scene setting we've been given.
No, it's not. It's fully in character for Roose to embrace a person he plans to kill in just a few moments. It's not in character at all for Roose to embrace a person he knows plans to kill him in just a few moments. Roose is not the guy who puts his neck on the line and never has been. It's why he betrays Robb in the first place.
Unless, of course, the plot demands he wear the idiot hat so we can move the plot along.
Roose didn't expect Ramsay to kill him in just a few moments. Roose just finished lecturing Ramsay on how behaving like a mad dog will get him treated like a mad dog. Roose is not a mad dog, and he believes that Ramsay is at least intelligent enough to recognize the need for self-preservation. That's a mistake, but it's not new to this scene or to these characters.
Dislike the scene if you want, but this isn't something that makes any sense to write off as just being another stupid thing those terrible show writers did that fundamentally misunderstands the characters. They got the characters. Roose and Ramsay bear many similarities, with the core differentiation being patience and caution. Here that patience cost Roose his life. It's not the first time a smart man in Westeros has failed to fully understand the sort of children they've created. It's not even the first time it's led to patricide. Ignoring all this to say it's stupid and they just wanted another shocking death is a pretty shoddy argument.
It's totally new to the character. Roose has never been this stupid around Ramsay before because as the whole mad dog talk illustrates, he knows the guy is a fucking psychopath who would kill him if given a reason.
It is totally bad writing. It's Roose doing something stupid and out of character to move the plot forward.
The only one ignoring something here is you, who is continually acting like Roose doesn't know who Ramsay is and isn't a frankly shrewd to the point of sociopathy thinker concerned with self-preservation.
He's also not a hugger.
The only reason Roose would ever hug Ramsay, especially after giving Ramsay a reason to kill him, is because the plot demands he must so he can be stabbed.
+1
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I think calling Roose stupid for hugging Ramsay is a fundamental misread of what's happening there. As soon as Roose was told he had a son he knew the game was over. Calling Ramsay his firstborn was simply an effort to leave the room alive and without killing his supposed heir in a room full of people, because that's Roose's understanding of the game. That hug was meant to buy him enough time and trust to arrange for Ramsay's death.
He didn't grasp the extent of Ramsay's willingness to be known as a mad dog, basically.
And let's not forget that Roose was a villain in his own right. This isn't watching the Big Bad get away with more murder, this is watching duplicitity and deceit begin to eat away at the villains' power. We're going to see a resurgent North by the end of this season. No idea how pleasant that's going to look or how long it'll last though.
Nah, it's Roose wearing the stupid-hat to move the plot in the direction they want.
Roose is many terrible things, but he's never been stupid and certainly never stupid just to preserve a public image.
People have been criticizing Ramsay for murdering his father, brother, and step-mother because it's going to isolate him. Because nobody would have faith in such a man. Roose even said as much earlier in that scene.
Roose wasn't lying. If you need to kill family or friends, you don't do it in front of others unless they're just as guilty and anybody opposed is going to be dead soon (Red Wedding). His patience and caution are what got him killed there. It's fully in his character to embrace a person he plans to kill in just a few moments. The shot even plays on this, making it seem like Roose is the one doing the stabbing for a brief moment before pulling back. Both of these men are willing to betray others for their own self-interest, and that's what we see here: backstabbers backstabbing backstabbers.
Being with Ramsay when he gets the news about his son is a plot contrivance, but the fallout is all supported by the characterization and scene setting we've been given.
No, it's not. It's fully in character for Roose to embrace a person he plans to kill in just a few moments. It's not in character at all for Roose to embrace a person he knows plans to kill him in just a few moments. Roose is not the guy who puts his neck on the line and never has been. It's why he betrays Robb in the first place.
Unless, of course, the plot demands he wear the idiot hat so we can move the plot along.
Roose didn't expect Ramsay to kill him in just a few moments. Roose just finished lecturing Ramsay on how behaving like a mad dog will get him treated like a mad dog. Roose is not a mad dog, and he believes that Ramsay is at least intelligent enough to recognize the need for self-preservation. That's a mistake, but it's not new to this scene or to these characters.
Dislike the scene if you want, but this isn't something that makes any sense to write off as just being another stupid thing those terrible show writers did that fundamentally misunderstands the characters. They got the characters. Roose and Ramsay bear many similarities, with the core differentiation being patience and caution. Here that patience cost Roose his life. It's not the first time a smart man in Westeros has failed to fully understand the sort of children they've created. It's not even the first time it's led to patricide. Ignoring all this to say it's stupid and they just wanted another shocking death is a pretty shoddy argument.
The previous times Roose has dealt with Ramsey he has shown that he understands perfectly well he's dealing with a sociopath. Him hugging the armed sociopath after the sociopath was just told Roose had no more need to keep him around was incredibly stupid and conflicts with all the previous times that Roose showed he well understood how murderous Ramsey is.
The end result fits the story well but I really wish they'd taken more than five seconds to write out the actual how it happened to lend it a bit of plausibility. This is the recurring problem that people dislike about the show, they do not take the time to polish the scenes so they fit well with established facts.
Spoiler is Show Stuff.
more on this
there were 2 other people in the room
it's weird, so many posts about how dumb it was for him to do that... but you can't also agree that roose would feel the same?
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
show
Presumably Ramsay lined up Karstark support before he killed his dad in front of their emissary. I mean, there's reckless and then there's reckless.
I hope they go into some detail of how this alliance got made, because right now I am not seeing any reason why a sane house would choose to ally with Ramsay over Roose. Especially when there are such strong taboos against kinslaying.
Gonna drop it here, but most recent episode Bolton wrap up:
You can make a mistake without being stupid. The mistake here was thinking that Ramsay wouldn't kill him immediately.
He's kept Ramsay around despite knowing about his tendencies, so we've already established either that Roose is stupid, or that he thinks he knows how to control his dog. I'm pretty sure it's the latter coming back to bite him in the ass, especially given that this is exactly the kind of theme the series bends towards: Deceit and treachery grant you short wins at great cost. Roose just paid his share. Ramsay's is coming due.
Additionally, Ramsay rapidly approaches Roose to hug him, not the other way around. Roose looks wary, but he thinks he has control still. He's not going to jump to stabbing his kid and he's not going to flee the room because that is not who the character is. He's a methodical, traitorous plotter. He's going to say the lies he believes will put Ramsay at ease.
I know this is a fine point, but when you start from the assumption that the storytellers are incompetent it's easy to pretend that things just happened rather than being decided upon. It's the kind of detail that matters.
Does it need to be spelled out why Davos thinks jon is important? He's the only man who could have "easily" united the north and the wildlings
Show/Book Spoilers:
Sure would play better if he didn't know Stannis was dead and that was something he had some reason to care about.
he already has a reason. Davos was the man that convinced stannis that the real war was in the north. With stannis dead Jon is the only other leader he knows to take up the mantle
Gonna drop it here, but most recent episode Bolton wrap up:
You can make a mistake without being stupid. The mistake here was thinking that Ramsay wouldn't kill him immediately.
He's kept Ramsay around despite knowing about his tendencies, so we've already established either that Roose is stupid, or that he thinks he knows how to control his dog. I'm pretty sure it's the latter coming back to bite him in the ass, especially given that this is exactly the kind of theme the series bends towards: Deceit and treachery grant you short wins at great cost. Roose just paid his share. Ramsay's is coming due.
Additionally, Ramsay rapidly approaches Roose to hug him, not the other way around. Roose looks wary, but he thinks he has control still. He's not going to jump to stabbing his kid and he's not going to flee the room because that is not who the character is. He's a methodical, traitorous plotter. He's going to say the lies he believes will put Ramsay at ease.
I know this is a fine point, but when you start from the assumption that the storytellers are incompetent it's easy to pretend that things just happened rather than being decided upon. It's the kind of detail that matters.
The bolded is where you show your understanding is completely at odds with mine.
Roose keeps Ramsay around because he needs an heir. Both of them know this. There have been multiple scenes detailing that Roose is very concerned with the continuity of his line. The stupid hug scene begins with the announcement that Roose has a second heir. This should make it obvious to them both that Ramsay is now no longer necessary to Roose's goal. Ramsay is now in a precarious position and they both know this. It is the absolute last time for Roose to give Ramsay close personal access, unless of course that is what is required of the plot.
Gonna drop it here, but most recent episode Bolton wrap up:
You can make a mistake without being stupid. The mistake here was thinking that Ramsay wouldn't kill him immediately.
He's kept Ramsay around despite knowing about his tendencies, so we've already established either that Roose is stupid, or that he thinks he knows how to control his dog. I'm pretty sure it's the latter coming back to bite him in the ass, especially given that this is exactly the kind of theme the series bends towards: Deceit and treachery grant you short wins at great cost. Roose just paid his share. Ramsay's is coming due.
Additionally, Ramsay rapidly approaches Roose to hug him, not the other way around. Roose looks wary, but he thinks he has control still. He's not going to jump to stabbing his kid and he's not going to flee the room because that is not who the character is. He's a methodical, traitorous plotter. He's going to say the lies he believes will put Ramsay at ease.
I know this is a fine point, but when you start from the assumption that the storytellers are incompetent it's easy to pretend that things just happened rather than being decided upon. It's the kind of detail that matters.
The bolded is where you show your understanding is completely at odds with mine.
Roose keeps Ramsay around because he needs an heir. Both of them know this. There have been multiple scenes detailing that Roose is very concerned with the continuity of his line. The stupid hug scene begins with the announcement that Roose has a second heir. This should make it obvious to them both that Ramsay is now no longer necessary to Roose's goal. Ramsay is now in a precarious position and they both know this. It is the absolute last time for Roose to give Ramsay close personal access, unless of course that is what is required of the plot.
Really gonna finally back out of this, but on the bolded:
Keeping a crazy murderous heir to preserve your legacy and line is still not a rational move unless you think you know how to control them. To say nothing of legitimizing them in the first place.
I agree that it was a bad time to let Ramsay get close, but it's also not much more reckless than having him around in general. And Ramsay didn't give him a lot of time to do anything about it.
Again, I'd say having Ramsay around while you're expecting news of your new son is a plot contrivance, but what happens in that scene doesn't betray (ha) the characters that I've come to know through either the show or the books.
that an action which would get you baked, chewed, and destroyed in the books has a happy ending here.
oh no missendei is gonna get quentyn'd oh no Tyrion is gonna get quentyn'd
general question: are dragon's considered magical creatures?
Yes.
So magical that their presence seems to raise the overall level of magic in the world. Stuff like Thoros's abilities and the formula for making wildfire were less effective before the dragons hatched.
If you've ever been the "family tech support guy", you should be familiar with people asking you off the wall shit that somehow relates to computers.
Have you tried turning your Savior on and off again?
Oh, that fixed it, actually. Thanks!
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
more re: ramsay
if it was just to get roose dead why do it in a way that supposedly betrays the character? it doesn't need to happen but angry possum's read makes sense of it all imo
Gonna drop it here, but most recent episode Bolton wrap up:
You can make a mistake without being stupid. The mistake here was thinking that Ramsay wouldn't kill him immediately.
He's kept Ramsay around despite knowing about his tendencies, so we've already established either that Roose is stupid, or that he thinks he knows how to control his dog. I'm pretty sure it's the latter coming back to bite him in the ass, especially given that this is exactly the kind of theme the series bends towards: Deceit and treachery grant you short wins at great cost. Roose just paid his share. Ramsay's is coming due.
Additionally, Ramsay rapidly approaches Roose to hug him, not the other way around. Roose looks wary, but he thinks he has control still. He's not going to jump to stabbing his kid and he's not going to flee the room because that is not who the character is. He's a methodical, traitorous plotter. He's going to say the lies he believes will put Ramsay at ease.
I know this is a fine point, but when you start from the assumption that the storytellers are incompetent it's easy to pretend that things just happened rather than being decided upon. It's the kind of detail that matters.
The bolded is where you show your understanding is completely at odds with mine.
Roose keeps Ramsay around because he needs an heir. Both of them know this. There have been multiple scenes detailing that Roose is very concerned with the continuity of his line. The stupid hug scene begins with the announcement that Roose has a second heir. This should make it obvious to them both that Ramsay is now no longer necessary to Roose's goal. Ramsay is now in a precarious position and they both know this. It is the absolute last time for Roose to give Ramsay close personal access, unless of course that is what is required of the plot.
you act like he couldn't have stabbed roose unless he hugged ramsay.
since there's no reason to think that there's no reason to think it was required of the plot and shoehorned in. thus, a reading where it serves the characters makes far more sense to me.
Gonna drop it here, but most recent episode Bolton wrap up:
You can make a mistake without being stupid. The mistake here was thinking that Ramsay wouldn't kill him immediately.
He's kept Ramsay around despite knowing about his tendencies, so we've already established either that Roose is stupid, or that he thinks he knows how to control his dog. I'm pretty sure it's the latter coming back to bite him in the ass, especially given that this is exactly the kind of theme the series bends towards: Deceit and treachery grant you short wins at great cost. Roose just paid his share. Ramsay's is coming due.
Additionally, Ramsay rapidly approaches Roose to hug him, not the other way around. Roose looks wary, but he thinks he has control still. He's not going to jump to stabbing his kid and he's not going to flee the room because that is not who the character is. He's a methodical, traitorous plotter. He's going to say the lies he believes will put Ramsay at ease.
I know this is a fine point, but when you start from the assumption that the storytellers are incompetent it's easy to pretend that things just happened rather than being decided upon. It's the kind of detail that matters.
The bolded is where you show your understanding is completely at odds with mine.
Roose keeps Ramsay around because he needs an heir. Both of them know this. There have been multiple scenes detailing that Roose is very concerned with the continuity of his line. The stupid hug scene begins with the announcement that Roose has a second heir. This should make it obvious to them both that Ramsay is now no longer necessary to Roose's goal. Ramsay is now in a precarious position and they both know this. It is the absolute last time for Roose to give Ramsay close personal access, unless of course that is what is required of the plot.
While I agree the hug felt unnatural and both being in the same room the moment the announcement was made felt like a contrived coincidence, I'm not sure that Ramsay is immediately unneeded the moment the son was born. Infant mortality rates are extremely high without modern medicine and on top of that the kid would have to make it through years of Winter before reaching adulthood. Plus as the son of nobility, he'd be expected to lead men in battle where he could be easily killed. And that's on top of all the other things that can make children not turn out well. I doubt Roose would be happy if he offed Ramsay and then his new son turned out to be a sickly idiot like Robyn.
So having a backups still would make sense to someone like Roose. Now each time Walda gives birth to another child Ramsay becomes less and less useful for that purpose and Roose's short term goals likely included getting Walda pregnant again. Completely avoiding being in the vicinity of Ramsay until the survival of multiple other children was assured could be difficult.
Part of what makes the scene so jarring in terms of contrived coincidence is that we had no idea of how far along Walda had been in her pregnancy. We don't really get a good scale of time so the announcement that she'd suddenly gave birth felt really out of nowhere.
Posts
And as far as Davos, Stannis thought highly of Jon as a leader. Davos does as well. And Jon is a man who commands no small amount of alliegance from the wildlings, a force that could be pivotal in the fight against the walkers.
general question: are dragon's considered magical creatures?
Yes.
Roose is many terrible things, but he's never been stupid and certainly never stupid just to preserve a public image.
That makes sense except
So magical that their presence seems to raise the overall level of magic in the world. Stuff like Thoros's abilities and the formula for making wildfire were less effective before the dragons hatched.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
so it's reasonable to think that
show spoiler
My parents would probably not be so eager to ask me to fix their computer if I demanded ritual sacrifice first every time is all I'm saying.
Add a third beat for Varys, and that was my experience.
Show/Book Spoilers:
It is two things for that Podly:
1) Tyrion wasnt lying that he drinks and knows things. So his talk of their intelligence etc was on point.
2) Almost bookish spoilery
I still enjoy the show, but I gotta agree the plotting is bad right now. They seem to be in such a rush that they don't set up a logical way for the plot to get from point A to point B. They end up having to twist the characterization to make things happen on time; things that don't logically follow from what they've set up. It all just feels very rushed.
The killings don't have any weight because we never cared about the characters in the first place. I'm shocked the deaths are happening as fast as they are. As a book reader it's nice to feel the same shock of the unexpected that tv-only people have had all along, but it feels cheaper than the deaths in past seasons.
book stuff + endgame speculation
R+L = J
Jon, Tyrion, and Dany are the 3 heads of the dragon - the dragonriders who defeat The Others
Jon and/or Dany are Azor Ahai or some kind of savior of humanity
the ending will be bittersweet as per GRRM's words: so I imagine they succeed in saving humanity but die in the attempt
I think people misinterpret how much subversion or deconstruction GRRM is doing. The people of the forest aren't evil, the others aren't going to be humanized, evil is not going to win. It's still --at its heart- an epic fantasy save the world story. The whole point of Game of Thrones is that the politicking is a distraction from the existential threat of the ice demons next door. All our squabbling and plotting and warring will doom us as a species if we don't get our shit together and stop all this bullshit.
People also misinterpret how "grimdark" it is. The show doesn't help with the plotlines they choose to adapt, but in the books it's clear that we're at a nadir and things are all set to bounce back in a big way.
other peoples fan theories I like but don't believe necessarily
The Wall will fall to The Others as they sweep south to Kings Landing before being driven back by the dragons
The dragons are temporarily under the control of someone other than Dany/Jon/Tyrion eg. Euron, VIctarion, fAegon
___
NNID: carmofin
3DS: 2852 6971 9745
Throw me a PM if you add me
Show (6.02)
Well, I gave him a sponge bath.
Roose wasn't lying. If you need to kill family or friends, you don't do it in front of others unless they're just as guilty and anybody opposed is going to be dead soon (Red Wedding). His patience and caution are what got him killed there. It's fully in his character to embrace a person he plans to kill in just a few moments. The shot even plays on this, making it seem like Roose is the one doing the stabbing for a brief moment before pulling back. Both of these men are willing to betray others for their own self-interest, and that's what we see here: backstabbers backstabbing backstabbers.
Being with Ramsay when he gets the news about his son is a plot contrivance, but the fallout is all supported by the characterization and scene setting we've been given.
...
I might have to try that out.
I'll get back to you.
Unless, of course, the plot demands he wear the idiot hat so we can move the plot along.
Dislike the scene if you want, but this isn't something that makes any sense to write off as just being another stupid thing those terrible show writers did that fundamentally misunderstands the characters. They got the characters. Roose and Ramsay bear many similarities, with the core differentiation being patience and caution. Here that patience cost Roose his life. It's not the first time a smart man in Westeros has failed to fully understand the sort of children they've created. It's not even the first time it's led to patricide. Ignoring all this to say it's stupid and they just wanted another shocking death is a pretty shoddy argument.
The end result fits the story well but I really wish they'd taken more than five seconds to write out the actual how it happened to lend it a bit of plausibility. This is the recurring problem that people dislike about the show, they do not take the time to polish the scenes so they fit well with established facts.
Spoiler is Show Stuff.
For me it comes down to two very simple statements for Ramsay/Roose:
2) He is NOT a hands on dad. The hugging was way out of character for Roose by all ive known him as. Show or otherwise.
Two
Well, I mean... that's not a bad idea.
"WHY CAN'T I CONNECT TO MY HOUSE WIFI 100 MILES AWAY?"
"Well, I'll tell you, but first I need a rabbit..."
It is totally bad writing. It's Roose doing something stupid and out of character to move the plot forward.
The only one ignoring something here is you, who is continually acting like Roose doesn't know who Ramsay is and isn't a frankly shrewd to the point of sociopathy thinker concerned with self-preservation.
He's also not a hugger.
The only reason Roose would ever hug Ramsay, especially after giving Ramsay a reason to kill him, is because the plot demands he must so he can be stabbed.
more on this
it's weird, so many posts about how dumb it was for him to do that... but you can't also agree that roose would feel the same?
I hope they go into some detail of how this alliance got made, because right now I am not seeing any reason why a sane house would choose to ally with Ramsay over Roose. Especially when there are such strong taboos against kinslaying.
He's kept Ramsay around despite knowing about his tendencies, so we've already established either that Roose is stupid, or that he thinks he knows how to control his dog. I'm pretty sure it's the latter coming back to bite him in the ass, especially given that this is exactly the kind of theme the series bends towards: Deceit and treachery grant you short wins at great cost. Roose just paid his share. Ramsay's is coming due.
Additionally, Ramsay rapidly approaches Roose to hug him, not the other way around. Roose looks wary, but he thinks he has control still. He's not going to jump to stabbing his kid and he's not going to flee the room because that is not who the character is. He's a methodical, traitorous plotter. He's going to say the lies he believes will put Ramsay at ease.
I know this is a fine point, but when you start from the assumption that the storytellers are incompetent it's easy to pretend that things just happened rather than being decided upon. It's the kind of detail that matters.
The bolded is where you show your understanding is completely at odds with mine.
Really gonna finally back out of this, but on the bolded:
I agree that it was a bad time to let Ramsay get close, but it's also not much more reckless than having him around in general. And Ramsay didn't give him a lot of time to do anything about it.
Again, I'd say having Ramsay around while you're expecting news of your new son is a plot contrivance, but what happens in that scene doesn't betray (ha) the characters that I've come to know through either the show or the books.
I might start taking this approach actually...
Oh, that fixed it, actually. Thanks!
I prefer it.
since there's no reason to think that there's no reason to think it was required of the plot and shoehorned in. thus, a reading where it serves the characters makes far more sense to me.
So having a backups still would make sense to someone like Roose. Now each time Walda gives birth to another child Ramsay becomes less and less useful for that purpose and Roose's short term goals likely included getting Walda pregnant again. Completely avoiding being in the vicinity of Ramsay until the survival of multiple other children was assured could be difficult.
Part of what makes the scene so jarring in terms of contrived coincidence is that we had no idea of how far along Walda had been in her pregnancy. We don't really get a good scale of time so the announcement that she'd suddenly gave birth felt really out of nowhere.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772