# Game of Thrones "The Mountain and the Viper" 6/01/14 S4E8



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Are you kidding me?

How can they still surprise me after all this...


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Booooooooooooooooo.


Arya laughing at the Hound was awesome.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)




----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Arya bursting out laughing was hysterical

I can't wait to see the youtube videos of people's reactions to the ending...


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I yelled "frack" (ok, the real word) so loud, I woke my daughter up...and I'm sitting in the basement!


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

I am majorly bummed!! Oberyn got too friggin' cocky!! 

Am I to assume the Mountain is dead too, only died after Oberyn?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I guess tie goes to the warrior for the prosecution...

In the book,


Spoiler



Oberyn's spear was poisoned. Oberyn scratched him before he got killed, and the Mountain ended up dying a slow, terrible death later.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Remember, never gloat over your victim, unless you are sure they are dead.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

My name is oberyn. You killed my sister. Prepare to die. 

I was too busy laughing in how much he sounded like a deranged indigo Montoya than stunned by the outcome.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> I was too busy laughing in how much he sounded like a deranged indigo Montoya than stunned by the outcome.


Of course, if he was Indigo Montoya, he would have had MUCH more firepower!


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

Arya's reaction was priceless. Everywhere she goes, death for her family is sure to proceed her...


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Anubys said:


> Arya bursting out laughing was hysterical ...


I was giggling to myself a split second before her outburst. After all she's been through, it's so absurd it's funny.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Well, I did not see that ending coming.  People will stop watching if they kill the little guy.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Johncv said:


> Well, I did not see that ending coming.  People will stop watching if they kill the little guy.


Yeah. So much for my theory.

Now I wanna know how they weasel out of Tyrion getting chopped.

Maybe Varys will break him out of the dungeon and he becomes a fugitive.
Maybe he can hook up with Ser. Jorah and they become The Cisco Kid and Pancho.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

kaszeta said:


> Remember, never gloat over your victim, unless you are sure they are dead.


He didn't _want_ him to be dead, yet.


----------



## Tracy (Mar 12, 2000)

Oh, man, that end was gory, but I saw it coming as soon as he didn't kill him when he had the chance. Gross.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)




----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Does anyone want to play Viper-Mountain-Imp?

Viper cuts Mountain.
Mountain crushes Viper.
And the Imp just loses.

Or we could play Petyr-Lysa-Sansa. 

Kudos to Sansa for taking control of the situation. Just as Arya is learning from The Hound how to kill, Sansa is learning from Littlefinger how to maintain her persona of powerlessness while manipulating those with visible power.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Well, ****.

_When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk._
- tuco


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

They continue to surprise me in this show. I don't think there has ever been another show on TV that has killed off so many main characters. If they actually kill Tyrion it wont surprise me now, but I'm sure they will find a way to get him out of it because his death would not be a surprise. Now if in the course of escaping he fell off a cliff or something now that would be a surprise. 

I hope they end the leg of the story with Robert's brother and the witch soon. That part is boring. So is the part with the "iron born".

The parts with Kalisi aren't great either, but man is she fun to look at.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> If they actually kill Tyrion it wont surprise me now, but I'm sure they will find a way to get him out of it because his death would not be a surprise.


I've been trying to figure out how they might do this. If I was Tyrion, I'd claim the trial by combat was a stalemate with both combatants dead (the mountain is dead, right?). But, the verdict was already rendered by Tywin, so that ship seems to have sailed.

I'm hoping Lord Varys has some plan to save Tyrion. He seems to be one of the few in King's Landing who actually cares about Tyrion and appreciates his actions.

Perhaps evidence could turn up naming 'the real killer'.

Maybe Tyrion could be pardoned. Has Tommen been sworn in as King yet?



Dan203 said:


> I hope they end the leg of the story with Robert's brother and the witch soon.


Thing about the show is, boring stuff has a way of suddenly becoming relevant and interesting.

I do feel that post-season 1 the show suffers from too much going on, and too little time to tell all of it. We have so many hours invested in the Greyjoys, Theon/Reek, Ramsey Snow, and Roose Bolton and so little payoff for it.



Dan203 said:


> The parts with Kalisi aren't great either, but man is she fun to look at


I was irritated with how she treated Jorah. True he was a spy originally, but he's since proven himself time and time again. The letter was such an obvious ploy to cause dissent (almost a little too obvious; I thought the Lannisters wanted her killed, not just to lose an adviser. Maybe it's part of some bigger plan)


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> My name is oberyn. You killed my sister. Prepare to die.
> 
> I was too busy laughing in how much he sounded like a deranged indigo Montoya than stunned by the outcome.





Rob Helmerichs said:


> Of course, if he was Indigo Montoya, he would have had MUCH more firepower!


Indigo Montoya? Is that what you get when you cross Inigo Montoya with her:










Man, I was sure Oberyn was going to win, so that ending totally shocked me.

And are we to assume that The Hound and Arya were admitted into The Eyrie?


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> My name is oberyn. You killed my sister. Prepare to die.
> 
> I was too busy laughing in how much he sounded like a deranged indigo Montoya than stunned by the outcome.


Great minds think alike ... :up:


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Indigo Montoya?


He started it!


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

smbaker said:


> I'm hoping Lord Varys has some plan to save Tyrion. He seems to be one of the few in King's Landing who actually cares about Tyrion and appreciates his actions.
> 
> Perhaps evidence could turn up naming 'the real killer'.
> 
> Maybe Tyrion could be pardoned. Has Tommen been sworn in as King yet?


Yes, Tommen was crowned king a while ago.

I don't see why Tywin's deal with Jaime is off the table...Tywin still wants Jaime back at Casterly Rock and Jaime still wants to save Tyrion.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

kaszeta said:


> Remember, never gloat over your victim, unless you are sure they are dead.





MacThor said:


> He didn't _want_ him to be dead, yet.


That was his point.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

and kudos to Sansa for finally borrowing a brain from someone!

Making herself look like her mother was a stroke of genius.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Anubys said:


> I don't see why Tywin's deal with Jaime is off the table...Tywin still wants Jaime back at Casterly Rock and Jaime still wants to save Tyrion.


Because once Tyrion demanded trial by combat, everything was out of Tywin's hands. He could only decide the outcome when he was (a) judge; now, the gods are the "judges," and he can't go against their "verdict."


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Because once Tyrion demanded trial by combat, everything was out of Tywin's hands. He could only decide the outcome when he was (a) judge; now, the gods are the "judges," and he can't go against their "verdict."


That makes no sense to me. He was going to find him guilty in the regular trial then send him to The Wall anyway. He has just been found guilty, why can't the king decide the punishment? Why does the Trial by Combat change this?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Anubys said:


> That makes no sense to me. He was going to find him guilty in the regular trial then send him to The Wall anyway. He has just been found guilty, why can't the king decide the punishment? Why does the Trial by Combat change this?


Trial by combat is to the death. If your proxy dies, you die.

Unless, of course, you want to literally bring the wrath of the gods upon you...


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

You'll put your eye out kid.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> He started it!


Siri started it!


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Mental note: if I'm fighting a 12 foot guy and I have the chance to kill him, do so quickly!

Edit: I feel sorry for Tyrion, but the look on his face was priceless!


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)




----------



## tiassa (Jul 2, 2008)

Anubys said:


> That makes no sense to me. He was going to find him guilty in the regular trial then send him to The Wall anyway. He has just been found guilty, why can't the king decide the punishment? Why does the Trial by Combat change this?


Tywin's plan was for Tyrion to plead for mercy, then he would be shown leniency and sent to The Wall. Tyrion's outburst in court and demand for trial by combat made that impossible.

I don't see how Tyrion gets out of this. I suppose Varys could help him out, because in some ways it is "best for the realm", but I don't think Varys would risk the political capitol to do so. I suppose if Castle Black falls to Mance Rader (which seems to be imminent), that might distract the King's Landing folk, but I don't see that helping Tyrion, really.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Sansa escaped King's Landing, so I'm holding out hope that Tyrion will as well.

I knew the second The Viper didn't kill The Mountain that he was a goner. I've watched too many horror movies and when they think the bad guy is down for the count, he always gets a second wind and reaches up and grabs your leg. 

I know GRRM is famous for offing popular characters, but Tyrion's death would be too expected at this point and too obvious, so I'm hoping that Peter Dinklage is still going to be employed after next week. Although, he may be pulling a fast one on us and the shocker is that he's going to go ahead and let the obvious play out.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Jstkiddn said:


> Sansa escaped King's Landing, so I'm holding out hope that Tyrion will as well.


Then again, Sansa wasn't a prisoner when she escaped...


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Then again, Sansa wasn't a prisoner when she escaped...


No, not a prisoner on the level of Tyrion, but she was enough of a "prisoner" that she wasn't going to be going anywhere without someone's help. I'm hoping that Tyrion can find someone to help him. I know Jaime is still on his side, although I'm not sure what he'll be able to pull off without putting his own life in danger.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

smbaker said:


> ...I'm hoping Lord Varys has some plan to save Tyrion. He seems to be one of the few in King's Landing who actually cares about Tyrion and appreciates his actions.
> 
> Perhaps evidence could turn up naming 'the real killer'.


You read my mind.

Maybe a clue: "Only women kill with poison. Men kill with steel."



smbaker said:


> .Maybe Tyrion could be pardoned. Has Tommen been sworn in as King yet?


Yeah, Tommen is on the throne. Thinking now I don't think we saw him at the contest.

Wouldn't it be Thommen who imposes the death sentence?

"Can you imagine the look on Father's face?"



smbaker said:


> .
> I do feel that post-season 1 the show suffers from too much going on, and too little time to tell all of it. We have so many hours invested in the Greyjoys, Theon/Reek, Ramsey Snow, and Roose Bolton and so little payoff for it.


The problem is, even with all of those plotlines none will hold the audience if Tyrion is gone.

Sansa _finally_ showed some smarts.

I wonder how the reunion of Arya and Sansa will go, and Brienne is on the way to take care of both them. somehow, somewhere.



smbaker said:


> .I was irritated with how she treated Jorah. True he was a spy originally, but he's since proven himself time and time again. The letter was such an obvious ploy to cause dissent (almost a little too obvious; I thought the Lannisters wanted her killed, not just to lose an adviser. Maybe it's part of some bigger plan)


WHERE did the pardon scroll come from? The (same?) kid gave it Jorah way back at the market right before he saved Dany.

Is the kid supposed to be a "little bird" messenger from Varys that can go back and forth at will?


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

allan said:


> Mental note: if I'm fighting a 12 foot guy and I have the chance to kill him, do so quickly!
> 
> Edit: I feel sorry for Tyrion, but the look on his face was priceless!


Yeah. David took Goliath's sword to take Goliath's head.

I was thinking that we could have Tyrion survive headless like Mike the Headless Chicken.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Jstkiddn said:


> No, not a prisoner on the level of Tyrion, but she was enough of a "prisoner" that she wasn't going to be going anywhere without someone's help. I'm hoping that Tyrion can find someone to help him. I know Jaime is still on his side, although I'm not sure what he'll be able to pull off without putting his own life in danger.


All she had to do was walk away. The only reason she needed help was because, being Sansa, walking while thinking about where you want to go at the same time is difficult.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> All she had to do was walk away. The only reason she needed help was because, being Sansa, walking while thinking about where you want to go at the same time is difficult.


This made me laugh, but it so tragically true. Although it seems our little bird is finally starting to use her head....amongst other things.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

I fell asleep before all the good stuff happened!


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

I think that all acceptable, "legal" ways out for Tyrion are done. If he is to keep his head, it has to be by escape or a major power reversal in Kings Landing.

Sansa's finally in the Game! Feminine wiles! Is she going so far as to make a move on LF??



Anubys said:


> Arya bursting out laughing was hysterical


 Yes! Although I was also thinking "There are a lot of men with bows pointed at you who may think you're happy about the death of their <whatever Lyssa's title was>".


----------



## ducker (Feb 21, 2006)

tlc said:


> I think that all acceptable, "legal" ways out for Tyrion are done. If he is to keep his head, it has to be by escape or a major power reversal in Kings Landing.
> 
> Sansa's finally in the Game! Feminine wiles! Is she going so far as to make a move on LF??
> 
> Yes! Although I was also thinking "There are a lot of men with bows pointed at you who may think you're happy about the death of their <whatever Lyssa's title was>".


True, but they know that she's noble as well. As much as they may not like her actions.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

smbaker said:


> I was irritated with how she treated Jorah. True he was a spy originally, but he's since proven himself time and time again. The letter was such an obvious ploy to cause dissent (almost a little too obvious; I thought the Lannisters wanted her killed, not just to lose an adviser. Maybe it's part of some bigger plan)


I'm a little surprised the Jorah told the truth. 
It would have been easy enough to lie and say the pardon was a bribe to inform on her, but one he ignored (or claim; correctly that after he knew her he'd become her loyal follower and ignored the pardon -- just gloss over the bit about how long he'd been sending letters)


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

If you think Jorah could lie, you haven't been paying very much attention to the show. He is like Ned.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Well except for the slaves part, which is a pretty big deal to Dany, as it turns out.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

MonsterJoe said:


> Well except for the slaves part, which is a pretty big deal to Dany, as it turns out.


That was dishonorable but he has never lied about it. He only did it because he had a wife that liked to spend money and he was trying to keep her.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> I'm a little surprised the Jorah told the truth.
> It would have been easy enough to lie and say the pardon was a bribe to inform on her, but one he ignored (or claim; correctly that after he knew her he'd become her loyal follower and ignored the pardon -- just gloss over the bit about how long he'd been sending letters)


I thought this too at the time. He could have claimed he was only there to spy on her brother Viserys. The problem would be if letters that he wrote about Daenerys turned up at some point. I'd expect her to have him beheaded on the spot if caught lying again.



Jstkiddn said:


> I know Jaime is still on his side, although I'm not sure what he'll be able to pull off without putting his own life in danger.


Perhaps he will in fact be willing to put his life in danger. The problem is he's not much of a swordsman anymore. He can't spring Tyrion and fight his way out. He would have to enlist helpers, and I don't know who would be on his side. Certainly not Bronn, who seems to be following the money.



MikeAndrews said:


> Maybe a clue: "Only women kill with poison. Men kill with steel."


I definitely noted that line when it was said, and wondered how safe the Tyrells are.

We're running out of time to tie this up though. I'm expecting much of the next two episodes to be spent on Mance Rader vs Castle Black. I hope we get resolution on Tyrion before the end of the season.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

MikeAndrews said:


> Sansa _finally_ showed some smarts.


I think we are being unfair to Sansa. While she appears to be stupid, she is actually surviving. How many Starks are alive? Not many. She has actually been quite cautious and taken careful steps to survive.



Jonathan_S said:


> I'm a little surprised the Jorah told the truth.
> It would have been easy enough to lie and say the pardon was a bribe to inform on her, but one he ignored (or claim; correctly that after he knew her he'd become her loyal follower and ignored the pardon -- just gloss over the bit about how long he'd been sending letters)


Not only is Jorah very honest, but he truly is in love with her and wanted to be honest with her. She is his queen now. And she showed a lack of judgement in turning him away. She lost a good adviser and may, in the long run, created an enemy.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

MonsterJoe said:


> Well except for the slaves part, which is a pretty big deal to Dany, as it turns out.





BeanMeScot said:


> That was dishonorable but he has never lied about it. He only did it because he had a wife that liked to spend money and he was trying to keep her.


Jorah had that conversation with Dany where he asked her to spare the slave masters, saying he had personal knowledge of the crime, where she said, "Tell them that you convinced me."


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> I think we are being unfair to Sansa. While she appears to be stupid, she is actually surviving. How many Starks are alive? Not many. She has actually been quite cautious and taken careful steps to survive.


I'm not sure how being a useful pawn constitutes taking careful steps...


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

MikeAndrews said:


> Jorah had that conversation with Dany where he asked her to spare the slave masters, saying he had personal knowledge of the crime, where she said, "Tell them that you convinced me."


I was just addressing the comparison to Ned.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

I wonder if Ygritte is going to be very happy or very sad that she let Gilly live?


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> I think we are being unfair to Sansa. While she appears to be stupid, she is actually surviving.


So is Hodor.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> I think we are being unfair to Sansa. While she appears to be stupid, she is actually surviving. How many Starks are alive? Not many. She has actually been quite cautious and taken careful steps to survive.


well, actually:

1. Ned - Dead
2. Robb - Dead
3. Jon Snow - Alive
4. Sansa - Alive
5. Bran - Alive
6. Arya - Alive
7. Rikkon - Alive

So 5 out of 7 are alive! I'm not counting Kat since she's a Tully


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

"You dumbass!" That was me yelling at Oberyn after the Mountain cracked his head open.

I groaned when I saw the Ramsay/Theon clips in the previouslies. It's like seeing Betty Draper in Mad Men previouslies. You know you're going to stuck with these crappy characters in this episode. I'm not a book reader and I have very little idea who the Boltons are and frankly, don't really care for now. Their subplot is torture to watch, literally and figuratively. They'll probably be important enough before the series ends but for now, I have to resist the urge to hit the ffwd button during their scenes.

Sansa story was so good that I thought she and Littlefinger had rehearsed it.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> "You dumbass!" That was me yelling at Oberyn after the Mountain cracked his head open.
> 
> I groaned when I saw the Ramsay/Theon clips in the previouslies. It's like seeing Betty Draper in Mad Men previouslies. You know you're going to stuck with these crappy characters in this episode. I'm not a book reader and I have very little idea who the Boltons are and frankly, don't really care for now. Their subplot is torture to watch, literally and figuratively. They'll probably be important enough before the series ends but for now, I have to resist the urge to hit the ffwd button during their scenes.
> 
> Sansa story was so good that I thought she and Littlefinger had rehearsed it.


Agreed, on all points! The Ramsay/Theon stuff really reeks!


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm not sure how being a useful pawn constitutes taking careful steps...


Depends on what your goal is. She is not out for revenge like her sister. She is trying to survive. Tell me how she has not done that.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I thought the Ramsey stuff was a ton more interesting this week...

From the commander of the Iron Born spitting blood at Theon's face in mid-bluster to the macabre comedy of him getting an ax in the skull while rejecting the offer...

cue the "we'll go home, promise?" to the same guy flayed and one eye gouged out...


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Anubys said:


> well, actually: 1. Ned - Dead 2. Robb - Dead 3. Jon Snow - Alive 4. Sansa - Alive 5. Bran - Alive 6. Arya - Alive 7. Rikkon - Alive So 5 out of 7 are alive! I'm not counting Kat since she's a Tully


Kat is a Stark as far as the story goes. Jon Snow? Nobody cares about him. They aren't targeting him as a Stark because he isn't.

Rikkon? Now that's an important character.

BTW, as far as Sansa knows, Arya is dead.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Depends on what your goal is. She is not out for revenge like her sister. She is trying to survive. Tell me how she has not done that.


There's a difference between surviving because you have a plan, and surviving just because you're useful to someone.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Sansa has come a long way. I think some forget that she was a very protected and very young lady when the story first began. She's been through things that might have crushed some. Has she handled it with as much verve and spunk as Arya? No...but she and her sister are two completely different types of people. In as much as Sansa could not have survived what Arya's been through, I also think that had Arya had to endure Sansa's fate, she would have lost her temper and been beheaded long ago.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm not sure how being a useful pawn constitutes taking careful steps...





TonyD79 said:


> Depends on what your goal is. She is not out for revenge like her sister. She is trying to survive. Tell me how she has not done that.


She took the first step, finally, towards changing her lot from a pawn to something else. Even a pawn can transform into a queen...


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Jstkiddn said:


> Sansa has come a long way. I think some forget that she was a very protected and very young lady when the story first began. She's been through things that might have crushed some. Has she handled it with as much verve and spunk as Arya? No...but she and her sister are two completely different types of people. In as much as Sansa could not have survived what Arya's been through, I also think that had Arya had to endure Sansa's fate, she would have lost her temper and been beheaded long ago.


true story


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> BTW, as far as Sansa knows, Arya is dead.


As far as Sansa knows, Bran and Rikon are dead also.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Kat is a Stark as far as the story goes. Jon Snow? Nobody cares about him. They aren't targeting him as a Stark because he isn't.


Shouldn't he count as 1/2?


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

Arya's version of verve and spunk leans more towards murder, though.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

BeanMeScot said:


> Arya's version of verve and spunk leans more towards murder, though.


Which is why we all love her.  

I do truly hope that we get to see a Sansa and Arya reunion before this season ends. So close! Yet, we know how close Arya was to a reunion with her mother and brother last season, so.......who knows what to expect.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> Kat is a Stark as far as the story goes. Jon Snow? Nobody cares about him. They aren't targeting him as a Stark because he isn't.
> 
> Rikkon? Now that's an important character.
> 
> BTW, as far as Sansa knows, Arya is dead.


your original point was that she has managed to stay alive longer than most Starks. I simply pointed out that most Starks are still alive. Her knowing about them wasn't relevant to your original point!

Even if I give you Kat, still 5 out of 8


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Anubys said:


> your original point was that she has managed to stay alive longer than most Starks. I simply pointed out that most Starks are still alive. Her knowing about them wasn't relevant to your original point!
> 
> Even if I give you Kat, still 5 out of 8


Or 4 1/2, counting Jon Snow as 1/2.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Anubys said:


> Her knowing about them wasn't relevant to your original point!


But her knowing (or not knowing) about them might change the way she would react to her situation. As far as we know, at this point she may think she's the only one left? Right? I've lost track of who knows what.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Jstkiddn said:


> But her knowing (or not knowing) about them might change the way she would react to her situation. As far as we know, at this point she may think she's the only one left? Right? I've lost track of who knows what.


I know this is minutia... but the original post stated that she did better than most Starks because most Starks are dead. I simply pointed out that, other than Ned and Robb, all the other Starks are actually still alive.

The larger point is that everyone in Westeros thinks the Starks have been decimated and that the only one left is Sansa. We, as the viewers, should know better!

And, yes, Sansa at this point thinks she is the last one standing (other than Jon Snow).


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

I was a bit confused momentarily with the Jorah pardon reappearing. Not that Tywin did it, but her not knowing. I would have sworn she knew. I thought I recalled someone in her entourage knowing Jorah was a spy. Didn't he have a conversation with someone about how he would never betray her again? Maybe I'm off my rocker.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Anubys said:


> your original point was that she has managed to stay alive longer than most Starks. I simply pointed out that most Starks are still alive. Her knowing about them wasn't relevant to your original point! Even if I give you Kat, still 5 out of 8


Fine. But anything she does and choices she makes are made from her viewpoint, so it is valid.

Other than that, I will not give you Jon Snow. He just doesn't count to the power brokers in Westeros.


----------



## Mr. Soze (Nov 2, 2002)

smbaker said:


> _When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk._
> - tuco


That's almost exactly what I said to my son.  But "If you're gonna shoot,.... "


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> Fine. But anything she does and choices she makes are made from her viewpoint, so it is valid.


The thing is, she doesn't do anything or make any choices (until now, that is). She has just gone with the flow and done as she's told, regardless of how she feels about the people doing the telling. So up until now, her "survival skills" have consisted entirely of being useful to others.

Now she's actually doing something on her own. So that's pretty cool, and about friggin' time.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

So how come Bolton is not reacting to all the raids happening around Castle Black? At this point, haven't they sent ravens telling them 100,000 wildlings are a week away from The Wall?

I understood the apathy when it was all theoretical back in season 2 and 3. But, at this point, I expected some reaction...


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Jstkiddn said:


> I do truly hope that we get to see a Sansa and Arya reunion before this season ends.


I wonder if Littlefinger is on Arya's "list" ? That reunion could get awkward.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Anubys said:


> So how come Bolton is not reacting to all the raids happening around Castle Black? At this point, haven't they sent ravens telling them 100,000 wildlings are a week away from The Wall?
> 
> I understood the apathy when it was all theoretical back in season 2 and 3. But, at this point, I expected some reaction...


As Bolton pointed out, The North is huge. He's so far from Castle Black he doesn't care.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

cherry ghost said:


> As Bolton pointed out, The North is huge. He's so far from Castle Black he doesn't care.


But if he helps man Castle Black, he only needs 1,000 men. If he lets them through, he's in for a huge fight and will need tens of thousands.

As warden of the North, he's the second line of defense after Castle Black.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

I don't think Littlefinger is on Arya's list. She doesn't know he sold out her father.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Anubys said:


> That makes no sense to me. He was going to find him guilty in the regular trial then send him to The Wall anyway. He has just been found guilty, why can't the king decide the punishment? Why does the Trial by Combat change this?


The sending of Tyrion to the Wall was going to be part of a plea deal. That was off the table the moment Tyrion demanded trial by combat.

As for Sansa, are we to believe that she got all dolled up for Baelish because she sees that he wants her so she's going to give him what she wants?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Anubys said:


> But if he helps man Castle Black, he only needs 1,000 men. If he lets them through, he's in for a huge fight and will need tens of thousands. As warden of the North, he's the second line of defense after Castle Black.


Nobody believes Jon Snow's warnings that Mance Rayder is approaching the Wall with 100,000 Wildlings. In fact, I doubt anyone outside Castle Black even knows about the warnings, because someone at Castle Black would have to take them seriously enough to send out ravens about it.

I suspect it's not unusual for small bands of Wildlings to get past the Wall and attack the smaller settlements in the far North. And in the past, those haven't really poses much of a threat to the rest of the North, so I suspect that's why Bolton isn't taking any action.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

If the prosecution hadn't called Shae to lie/testify, the plea deal would have likely happened.

I loved the looks on Jamie's face when he realized Oberyn could/should win.

Sheesh. It seems like the people you "root for" on this show never, ever win. IF GRRM ever finishes the saga, I doubt it's going to have a happy ending.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Anubys said:


> I thought the Ramsey stuff was a ton more interesting this week...
> 
> From the commander of the Iron Born spitting blood at Theon's face in mid-bluster to the macabre comedy of him getting an ax in the skull while rejecting the offer...
> 
> cue the "we'll go home, promise?" to the same guy flayed and one eye gouged out...


Didn't we see the same kind of thing when Theon was trying to hold Winterfell? He gave a big speech and they cheered and then someone knocked him out and they surrendered? I'm not sure the Ironborn deserve all this talk as brave men. 



Jstkiddn said:


> I also think that had Arya had to endure Sansa's fate, she would have lost her temper and been beheaded long ago.


LOL So true. I never thought of it that way.



DevdogAZ said:


> As for Sansa, are we to believe that she got all dolled up for Baelish because she sees that he wants her so she's going to give him what she wants?


So is she still going to marry Robin? Not that that would stop Baelish. 
Or does he want her to marry him and claim Winterfell? If she marries Robin then Baelish has no official power, although he could run things behind the scenes like he always does. If they claim Winterfell, he's Lord of the North and only has to control Sansa.



DevdogAZ said:


> Nobody believes Jon Snow's warnings that Mance Rayder is approaching the Wall with 100,000 Wildlings. In fact, I doubt anyone outside Castle Black even knows about the warnings, because someone at Castle Black would have to take them seriously enough to send out ravens about it.


If I remember right, someone did send a raven to Stannis, which Davos found while he was practicing his reading. That's how seriously they took it. But Stannis and the Red Lady were more interested.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I get the feeling that "THE WILDLINGS ARE COMING WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE but not if you send us a few good men to man the wall" messages have been quite common over the millennia...


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

smbaker said:


> I wonder if Littlefinger is on Arya's "list" ? That reunion could get awkward.


If she/they know that Littlefinger betrayed Ned.

Actually the only character that I'd tune in to watch if Tyrion goes is Arya. I surmise that she is to become the Stark avenger at some point.

---

What is the significance of Dany asking Jorah if he told King's Landing that she was with Drogo's child? Would her son have had a claim to the throne after her brother?

Remind we what happened to Kalisi's Dothraki anyway. It looks like they all left or or got kilt. She's only left with The Unsullied.

Whatsername should have asked Grey Worm to show what he has left.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

So what is the strategic importance of Moat Caillen? It seems like it would be a great defensive position if you're trying to protect something that's physically inside the fort, but a horrible place to try and project any power from. I don't see why it was important for Bolton to gain control of.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

MikeAndrews said:


> What is the significance of Dany asking Jorah if he told King's Landing that she was with Drogo's child? Would her son have had a claim to the throne after her brother? Remind we what happened to Kalisi's Dothraki anyway. It looks like they all left or or got kilt. She's only left with The Unsullied.


Because Jorah's letters about her baby meant the Lannisters sent someone to kill her, which resulted in many deaths.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> So what is the strategic importance of Moat Caillen? It seems like it would be a great defensive position if you're trying to protect something that's physically inside the fort, but a horrible place to try and project any power from. I don't see why it was important for Bolton to gain control of.


It's on The Kingsroad and if you want to get to the rest of The North by land you have to go through it.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> So what is the strategic importance of Moat Caillen? It seems like it would be a great defensive position if you're trying to protect something that's physically inside the fort, but a horrible place to try and project any power from. I don't see why it was important for Bolton to gain control of.


It's a bottleneck when traveling north to south.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

MikeAndrews said:


> What is the significance of Dany asking Jorah if he told King's Landing that she was with Drogo's child? Would her son have had a claim to the throne after her brother?
> 
> Remind we what happened to Kalisi's Dothraki anyway. It looks like they all left or or got kilt. She's only left with The Unsullied.
> 
> Whatsername should have asked Grey Worm to show what he has left.


Correct on the child front. Tying the Targaryen's to the Dothraki with a child would have been bad news for whoever was on the throne. You have a name and an army. Heck you could argue that King's Landing might have been better off just facing her with a Dothraki army!

She doesn't just have the Unsullied though. She also has the army of her admirer. On top of that whatever military forces from the cities she has conquered.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cherry ghost said:


> It's on The Kingsroad and if you want to get to the rest of The North by land you have to go through it.





heySkippy said:


> It's a bottleneck when traveling north to south.


But since it appears the fort is set way back and surrounded by a wide moat, it would be easy to just go around the fort and you'd be able to easily see if the people in the fort were coming out after you.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

It's not the defense of the ruins that is important, but the surrounding area. Being able to set up in the ruins allows you to defend the area better.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

MikeAndrews said:


> Remind we what happened to Kalisi's Dothraki anyway. It looks like they all left or or got kilt. She's only left with The Unsullied.


The Dothraki only follow strong Khal's. When Drago fell, almost all of the Dothraki left. Some named themselves Khal and took people. Others went to join other Khal's. She still has a few left that stuck with her but nothing compared to what Drago had.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> It's not the defense of the ruins that is important, but the surrounding area. Being able to set up in the ruins allows you to defend the area better.


That was my point. Because of how hard it is to get in and out of the fort, it seems an easy place to defend if what you want to protect is inside the fort. But it doesn't seem like it would be valuable for projecting force to the surrounding area, because anyone could just either take a wide berth, or they could put their armies at the land sides of the narrow access and make it hard for anyone to get out of the fort.


----------



## tiassa (Jul 2, 2008)

DevdogAZ said:


> That was my point. Because of how hard it is to get in and out of the fort, it seems an easy place to defend if what you want to protect is inside the fort. But it doesn't seem like it would be valuable for projecting force to the surrounding area, because anyone could just either take a wide berth, or they could put their armies at the land sides of the narrow access and make it hard for anyone to get out of the fort.


You can't "take a wide berth" the area around Moat Calin is all overgrown and marshy and not fit to mach an army through. Think of it like the straights of Gibraltar, or the pass at Thermopylae, a natural "choke point" that a small force can use to hold off a larger one.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

tiassa said:


> You can't "take a wide berth" the area around Moat Calin is all overgrown and marshy and not fit to mach an army through. Think of it like the straights of Gibraltar, or the pass at Thermopylae, a natural "choke point" that a small force can use to hold off a larger one.


If that's the way it's described in the books, they sure didn't do a very good job of depicting it on the show. Otherwise, how did Ramsay and Theon get to that point where they were overlooking the Moat from the nearby high ground?

And are we supposed to understand that the tiny, narrow path that Theon traversed in order to get to the Moat is the Kingsroad? So anyone traveling through that part of the country, even with large wagons and such, has to traverse that ridiculously skinny path and then travel through the fort?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> And are we supposed to understand that the tiny, narrow path that Theon traversed in order to get to the Moat is the Kingsroad? So anyone traveling through that part of the country, even with large wagons and such, has to traverse that ridiculously skinny path and then travel through the fort?


No, that's a narrow, tiny path. The Kingsroad is the only way to get anything substantial through the area, and it passes by the fort. So if you want to go North with, say, wagons, or an army, you have to pass Moat Cailin, otherwise you'll get bogged down in, er, the bogs. And if they don't like you, they get to rain death down upon you from the walls.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> No, that's a narrow, tiny path. The Kingsroad is the only way to get anything substantial through the area, and it passes by the fort. So if you want to go North with, say, wagons, or an army, you have to pass Moat Cailin, otherwise you'll get bogged down in, er, the bogs. And if they don't like you, they get to rain death down upon you from the walls.


And besides, in normal circumstances, the holders of Moat Cailin would surely send out regular patrols, so if an army was coming up the Kingsroad, they would know about it in plenty of time to deploy their forces appropriately. Of course, the Iron Born did not have anywhere near enough men to hold Moat Cailin against anything but a small siege.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

MikeAndrews said:


> Actually the only character that I'd tune in to watch if Tyrion goes is Arya. I surmise that she is to become the Stark avenger at some point.


She'd probably die the very next episode.



MikeAndrews said:


> What is the significance of Dany asking Jorah if he told King's Landing that she was with Drogo's child?


At first I thought maybe the crown had some complicity in the death of her unborn child. But I'm pretty sure if I remembered right, it was a medicine woman who had a beef with the Dothraki for killing and raping her people that was behind that.

I feel this season has really changed Dany. In many ways they're turning her into someone whose no better than the rulers back in Westeros:

1) Crucifying the masters regardless of which ones were responsible for the slavery

2) Ordering all masters in Yunkai to be slaughtered (later convinced by Jorah to change her mind)

3) Treating Jorah with a zero-tolerance policy without giving him much of a chance to explain himself.

Without Jorah to temper her, I have to wonder if she's going to spiral out of control. She's an effective liberator, but not an effective ruler. I have to wonder if there isn't massive starvation and poverty in the cities she has left behind her.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

ClutchBrake said:


> I thought I recalled someone in her entourage knowing Jorah was a spy. Didn't he have a conversation with someone about how he would never betray her again? Maybe I'm off my rocker.


No, that was some mystery woman in Qarth (the one with the odd headdress where you could only see her eyes). We don't know who she was, and Jorah had no clue about her either.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

MacThor said:


> Sheesh. It seems like the people you "root for" on this show never, ever win. IF GRRM ever finishes the saga, I doubt it's going to have a happy ending.


I was actually convinced that Joffrey was going to still be ruling when the series ended.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

BeanMeScot said:


> The Dothraki only follow strong Khal's. When Drago fell, almost all of the Dothraki left. Some named themselves Khal and took people. Others went to join other Khal's. She still has a few left that stuck with her but nothing compared to what Drago had.


And many of those who stuck with her died in Qarth when her dragons were stolen.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

ClutchBrake said:


> She doesn't just have the Unsullied though. She also has the army of her admirer. On top of that whatever military forces from the cities she has conquered.


It seems to me you are also forgetting 3 other things.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

__
http://instagr.am/p/ov11YCnw-U/


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> If that's the way it's described in the books, they sure didn't do a very good job of depicting it on the show. Otherwise, how did Ramsay and Theon get to that point where they were overlooking the Moat from the nearby high ground?
> 
> And are we supposed to understand that the tiny, narrow path that Theon traversed in order to get to the Moat is the Kingsroad? So anyone traveling through that part of the country, even with large wagons and such, has to traverse that ridiculously skinny path and then travel through the fort?


Actually, I think the show did explain that. Earlier this season Roose Bolton explained that his men were trapped in the south and he had to smuggle himself back home because the Iron Born were holding Moat Cailin, which was the entire reason Roose sent Ramsey to take it.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> No, that's a narrow, tiny path. The Kingsroad is the only way to get anything substantial through the area, and it passes by the fort. So if you want to go North with, say, wagons, or an army, you have to pass Moat Cailin, otherwise you'll get bogged down in, er, the bogs. And if they don't like you, they get to rain death down upon you from the walls.





john4200 said:


> And besides, in normal circumstances, the holders of Moat Cailin would surely send out regular patrols, so if an army was coming up the Kingsroad, they would know about it in plenty of time to deploy their forces appropriately. Of course, the Iron Born did not have anywhere near enough men to hold Moat Cailin against anything but a small siege.


According to the Wiki of Ice And Fire, "The remaining three towers command the causeway from all sides and enemies must pass between them. Attackers would have to face constant fire from the other towers should they attempt to attack any one tower, wading through chest deep water and crossing a moat."

The Wiki also notes that the fortress was only designed to withstand an attack from the south, and that the northern flank is relatively exposed and vulnerable, which is what the Ironborn originally took advantage of.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

allan said:


> Edit: I feel sorry for Tyrion, but the look on his face was priceless!


Not to mention the look on Oberyn's face. Talk about a splitting headache!


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

danterner said:


> Not to mention the look on Oberyn's face. Talk about a splitting headache!




Good thing the Mountain knew that applying a little pressure helps headaches!


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

HeadOn! Apply directly to the forehead!


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

LordKronos said:


> I was actually convinced that Joffrey was going to still be ruling when the series ended.


Just to F with everybody GRRM will kill off everybody except Cersei.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Anubys said:


> I thought the Ramsey stuff was a ton more interesting this week...
> 
> From the commander of the Iron Born spitting blood at Theon's face in mid-bluster to the macabre comedy of him getting an ax in the skull while rejecting the offer...
> 
> cue the "we'll go home, promise?" to the same guy flayed and one eye gouged out...


The one guy got his splitting headache (after questioning Theon's true identity) just as Theon admitted that he was Reek, but the axeman didn't hear that crucial bit of info.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

What if Tywin goes to Tyrion with "I know you didn't do the killing. boy, so if you agree to take the black I'll advise King Tommen to commute your sentence."


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

MikeAndrews said:


> What if Tywin goes to Tyrion with "I know you didn't do the killing. boy, so if you agree to take the black I'll advise King Tommen to commute your sentence."


I'd rather see Tyrion dead. Being confined to the knights watch just doesn't seem quite so interesting for his character


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

MikeAndrews said:


> What if Tywin goes to Tyrion with "I know you didn't do the killing. boy, so if you agree to take the black I'll advise King Tommen to commute your sentence."


Tyrion took that option away from him. Tywin (and Tommen) can't overrule the gods.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Tyrion took that option away from him. Tywin (and Tommen) can't overrule the gods.


Where is izzit writ that Tywin decides the sentence then?
The gods should have sent a lighting bolt.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

LordKronos said:


> No, that was some mystery woman in Qarth (the one with the odd headdress where you could only see her eyes). We don't know who she was, and Jorah had no clue about her either.


Ah, thank you! :up:


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Tyrion took that option away from him. Tywin (and Tommen) can't overrule the gods.


Why do some of you keep arguing like this? As far as I recall, we haven't heard all the rules spelled out clearly, so unless you are introducing book knowledge into this thread, how can you say it with such absolute certainty?

With the trial is by judge, Tywin explicitly said that Tyrion will be found guilty, and THEN he will have a chance to plead mercy and get sentenced to the wall. Why is it so implausible that Tyrion could be found guilty by the gods in combat, and THEN have a chance to plead mercy?

Edit: OK, I just rewatched the ending. I was thinking Tywin said Tyrion was "found guilty", but he did actually say he was "sentenced to death". I guess if there was a chance for a plea, it probably should have came before that.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

So anyone have any idea why 4 minutes was spent on that story about the simple cousin smashing beetles? It seems like there was obviously some 2nd level of meaning to that story or something, but I'm just not sure. Was he likening himself to the beetles...asking why has everyone his entire life always been trying to smash him?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

LordKronos said:


> Edit: OK, I just rewatched the ending. I was thinking Tywin said Tyrion was "found guilty", but he did actually say he was "sentenced to death". I guess if there was a chance for a plea, it probably should have came before that.


The way trial by combat works (here on Earth, and presumably in Westeros) is that the accused and his accuser fight to the death, and God or the gods determine guilt or innocence by whether the accused lives or dies. If they use proxies, the accused still lives or dies based on the combat. So if the proxy dies, and then they don't execute the accused, then they are refusing the gods' justice. In essence, saying "FY, gods, we reject your judgement."

So when Tyrion demanded trial by combat, he ended the possibility of a negotiated settlement, and he took the outcome completely out of Tywin's hands.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The way trial by combat works (here on Earth, and presumably in Westeros) is that the accused and his accuser fight to the death, and God or the gods determine guilt or innocence by whether the accused lives or dies.


But that's Earth. We have no idea what happens in Westeros, and whether or not the king has the power to pardon.

Furthermore, I'm not even sure you're correct about trial by combat here on Earth always resulting in the death of one of the combatants. IIRC, trial by combat was occasionally used to satisfy civil disputes, and there was even the ability to forfeit.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

LordKronos said:


> So anyone have any idea why 4 minutes was spent on that story about the simple cousin smashing beetles? It seems like there was obviously some 2nd level of meaning to that story or something, but I'm just not sure. Was he likening himself to the beetles...asking why has everyone his entire life always been trying to smash him?


Presumably, it was to show us that Tyrion isn't like everyone else and instead of just looking at the dumb cousin and accepting it as the unexplainable actions of an idiot, Tyrion saw it as a puzzle and studied it and tried to figure out what was going on in the kid's head. It showed that Tyrion is more complex than most other people in Westeros, and that he thinks deeply about things where most others just accept what they see without question.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Presumably, it was to show us that Tyrion isn't like everyone else and instead of just looking at the dumb cousin and accepting it as the unexplainable actions of an idiot, Tyrion saw it as a puzzle and studied it and tried to figure out what was going on in the kid's head. It showed that Tyrion is more complex than most other people in Westeros, and that he thinks deeply about things where most others just accept what they see without question.


I think there could a lot of interpretations...how the strong kill the weak for no reason...that the Gods who hold dominion over us are no wiser (and even dumber) than us...how impossible for humans to try to understand why the Gods do what they do...

I thought it was the kind of thing that is better done in a book since most people (including me) would find it boring on TV; especially when you know the fight is coming after it .

But I applaud them for including it. It was thought-provoking and added depth to the characters as well as the show as a whole.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The way trial by combat works (here on Earth, and presumably in Westeros) is that the accused and his accuser fight to the death, and God or the gods determine guilt or innocence by whether the accused lives or dies. If they use proxies, the accused still lives or dies based on the combat. So if the proxy dies, and then they don't execute the accused, then they are refusing the gods' justice. In essence, saying "FY, gods, we reject your judgement."
> 
> So when Tyrion demanded trial by combat, he ended the possibility of a negotiated settlement, and he took the outcome completely out of Tywin's hands.


I see that now and I agree with you. I was hoping that the death of the champion simply meant "guilty" and not "guilty and must be executed".

I don't think GRRM would kill off Tyrion. I'm starting to figure out the pattern now and Tyrion is just the kind of character that GRRM would keep. He would keep him miserable and fighting against the odds. The ones that are full of themselves and have everything are the ones that die...that includes Robb as well as Jofferey. So I'm betting that Tyrion will escape somehow and embark on a journey full of despair and misfortune (see: Arya)


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

This show is a roller coaster. I never saw that ending happening. The prince was trying to make the mountain say it was the Lanisters that ordered the killing of his sister. And it got him killed. I was sitting on the edge of my seat.

The only part I found boring was the love connection between the translator and the leader of the unsully.

I loved the way the relationship between the hound and Stark girl has changed. The hound introducing her as a traveling companion instead of prisoner. And it was funny that the hound missed his reward money by 3 days.

I'd be very angry if the imp is killed. He's the only Lanister I like. And he character is so terrible interesting. 

I'm know I'm late to the party here.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I honestly don't see how Arya is going to turn around and leave. The next question should be "so, who is in charge and can I speak to them?". 

They are already foreshadowing The Hound's death from infection...I really like him...he has some of the best lines...but Arya needs to go and find the faceless assassin, so she and the Hound must part at some point very soon...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

smbaker said:


> But that's Earth. We have no idea what happens in Westeros, and whether or not the king has the power to pardon.
> 
> Furthermore, I'm not even sure you're correct about trial by combat here on Earth always resulting in the death of one of the combatants. IIRC, trial by combat was occasionally used to satisfy civil disputes, and there was even the ability to forfeit.


In case anyone is interested....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

smbaker said:


> But that's Earth. We have no idea what happens in Westeros, and whether or not the king has the power to pardon.
> 
> Furthermore, I'm not even sure you're correct about trial by combat here on Earth always resulting in the death of one of the combatants. IIRC, trial by combat was occasionally used to satisfy civil disputes, and there was even the ability to forfeit.


You do know that Rob is sort of an expert in what he is talking about, right?


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Anubys said:


> They are already foreshadowing The Hound's death from infection...I really like him...he has some of the best lines...but Arya needs to go and find the faceless assassin, so she and the Hound must part at some point very soon...


Why do people think Arya will reunite with the faceless assassin?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Anubys said:


> I see that now and I agree with you. I was hoping that the death of the champion simply meant "guilty" and not "guilty and must be executed".
> 
> I don't think GRRM would kill off Tyrion. I'm starting to figure out the pattern now and Tyrion is just the kind of character that GRRM would keep. He would keep him miserable and fighting against the odds.* The ones that are full of themselves and have everything are the ones that die...that includes Robb as well as Jofferey. *So I'm betting that Tyrion will escape somehow and embark on a journey full of despair and misfortune (see: Arya)


Never thought about it like that - but it makes sense.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

danterner said:


> Not to mention the look on Oberyn's face. Talk about a splitting headache!


The actor has a pretty good sense of humor about it

And I am spoilerizing this pic in case profanity offends people



Spoiler


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I knew the prince was going to get killed by the Mountain as soon as he started spouting off about killing his sister. It reminded me of so many professional wrestling matches I saw as a kid. Good guy is winning, surprising the big beast. The beast at some point makes a run at him. In the end the beast gets his due, but wait, no, the good guy can't stop pontificating...which leaves an opening...and the good guy loses (which usually sets up the PPV rematch  ). So as soon as the prince demanded that the Mountain confess, I knew he was a goner. The ending did NOT surprise me at all. But I still said, HOLY CRAP at the end.

Also wondered about the beetle speech. Somehow I thought that was going to lead somewhere, and I still do. We just don't know it yet.

What do Arya and the Hound do now? Somehow, I don't think Littlefinger is going to like the idea of a Sansa/Arya reunion. I get the feeling that Arya might be a "bad" influence in his eyes. So I think he's going to somehow prevent the meeting. I'm guessing he's going to tell Arya she's dead, killed in King's Landing or something like that. Arya will never know that Sansa is in the Erie.

I kind of liked the "Reek" scenes this week. I loved watching Greyjoy squirming when he tried to convince them to let Bolton in. I wondered if bastards were commonly made full family members as what happened here.

I'm taking a bit of a different thought process on Jorah and Dany. I think somehow, Jorah will seek redemption with Dany, and somehow save her down the road. He's too much in love with her to just meekly walk away from the situation. That does not seem his style. What is Barrisan's ulterior motive here? Should be interesting to find out.


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> I knew the prince was going to get killed by the Mountain as soon as he started spouting off about killing his sister. It reminded me of so many professional wrestling matches I saw as a kid. Good guy is winning, surprising the big beast. The beast at some point makes a run at him. In the end the beast gets his due, but wait, no, the good guy can't stop pontificating...which leaves an opening...and the good guy loses (which usually sets up the PPV rematch  ). So as soon as the prince demanded that the Mountain confess, I knew he was a goner. The ending did NOT surprise me at all. But I still said, HOLY CRAP at the end.
> 
> Also wondered about the beetle speech. Somehow I thought that was going to lead somewhere, and I still do. We just don't know it yet.
> 
> ...


Barriston has no ulterior motive. He has always wanted to serve a king or queen worthy of his service. He has found that in Dany, and looks to protect and serve her in every way. He would not hide information from her to protect Jorah.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

So it looks like Ned was a dick to Jon by not naming him a Stark? Or was he too p-whipped by Kat to do that?


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

Only the king can make a bastard an heir. Tommen (Tywin) made Ramsey a Bolton per Roose's request.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

The most devastating death that could rock GoT to the core?...



Spoiler



George R R Martin!


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Tywin and Tyrion are the only two interesting people in Lannister-land. I'm hoping Tyrion somehow lives. Personally, I think the Mountain dies from his wounds before Tyrion's execution and nobody knows what to do when both champions die.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

heySkippy said:


> Why do people think Arya will reunite with the faceless assassin?


Because she still has the coin (we saw her play with it before she killed the soldier who was bragging about cutting-off Robb's head). We also have Mellissandre telling her that she will kill a lot of people, implying that she will be a formidable assassin. Maybe she will kill a lot of people with sheer luck and help from people like the Hound. But I still think she will call to the assassin and learn the trade for real.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Shaunnick said:


> Barriston has no ulterior motive. He has always wanted to serve a king or queen worthy of his service. He has found that in Dany, and looks to protect and serve her in every way. He would not hide information from her to protect Jorah.


This is GoT. EVERYONE has an ulterior motive


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TonyTheTiger said:


> The most devastating death that could rock GoT to the core?...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



Might be the best thing to happen to the series....we might finally get this finished!! Of course I wouldn't wish death on GRRM.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

DUDE_NJX said:


> So it looks like Ned was a dick to Jon by not naming him a Stark? Or was he too p-whipped by Kat to do that?


I still think the reveal of Jon's true parents (be it what I think it is or not) is the reason for Ned's silence on the issue. Recall that he promised Jon the truth as Jon was heading to the Wall. I think it will be something game-changing if/when we find out about it.



Shaunnick said:


> Only the king can make a bastard an heir. Tommen (Tywin) made Ramsey a Bolton per Roose's request.


I was surprised at Ramsey's surprise. Being recognized as the son was exactly what Roose promised him for capturing the Moat thing. I understand that Roose has Ramsey whipped and Ramsey could not "demand" payment, but his surprise seemed strange.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

It felt to me like it was going to go the opposite direction for a while.... I kind of expected Ramsey to die soon.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

DUDE_NJX said:


> It felt to me like it was going to go the opposite direction for a while.... I kind of expected Ramsey to die soon.


Now that Ramsey is an heir, Roose better sleep with one eye open now...


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Anubys said:


> I was surprised at Ramsey's surprise. Being recognized as the son was exactly what Roose promised him for capturing the Moat thing. I understand that Roose has Ramsey whipped and Ramsey could not "demand" payment, but his surprise seemed strange.


I didn't take it that way. Roose was very disappointed in Ramsey for damaging his hostage and indicated that a successful mission to take Moat Calin could mitigate that disappointment, but he didn't promise or even hint at legitimizing him.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DUDE_NJX said:


> It felt to me like it was going to go the opposite direction for a while.... I kind of expected Ramsey to die soon.


I kind of expected Roose to throw him off the mountain. He got Ramsey to do his dirty work, knows he's deranged so why not just off him at that point?


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I kind of expected Roose to throw him off the mountain. He got Ramsey to do his dirty work, knows he's deranged so why not just off him at that point?


Yup, this.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> Roose was very disappointed in Ramsey for damaging his hostage and indicated that a successful mission to take Moat Calin could mitigate that disappointment, but he didn't promise or even hint at legitimizing him.


Actually, Roose was disappointed, but then a few minutes later, when Roose realized the valuable information that Ramsey managed to extract in the process (about the Stark boys being alive), I think he changed his tune a bit. And I think that was actually the reason he gave him the Moat Cailin mission. He thinks Ramsey did a great job with Theon, and if he does a great job with Moat Cailin too, then he would be worthy of being named an heir.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

heySkippy said:


> I didn't take it that way. Roose was very disappointed in Ramsey for damaging his hostage and indicated that a successful mission to take Moat Calin could mitigate that disappointment, but he didn't promise or even hint at legitimizing him.


Well, here's the synopsis of that conversation. And, actually, it also gives Jon Snow additional weight as a possible heir...so the count is back to 5 out of 8, Tony! 



> Roose dispatches Locke with orders to find and kill Bran and Rickon; Reek suggests that Jon Snow might either be hiding the boys or at least may know where they have gone, while Ramsay advocates killing Jon as well, given that the fact he has Stark blood could lead to him becoming a threat. Roose gives Ramsays orders as well; to take Theon and an army to Moat Cailin and reclaim the fortress from the Greyjoys. *If he succeeds, Roose will give consideration to legitimizing Ramsay as a member of House Bolton.*


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

The advice Tyrion had before the fight was very valuable. "At least where a helmet".


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

mwhip said:


> The advice Tyrion had before the fight was very valuable. "At least where a helmet".


I'm pretty sure the Mountain would have broken that just as easily!


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

On the Trial by Combat, the Champion gets killed. How could they pardon the person he is championing? If Tyrion was Jaime (when he had his right hand), he would have championed himself and if he was killed by the mountain, that's the end of it. Why would the person being championed be able to wiggle out of something that the champion had to suffer? What happens to one will happen to the other. Otherwise, there is no point in having a champion at all.

On legitimizing bastards, the father has to request it and the king grant it. Robert would certainly have legitimized Jon had Ned requested it but he never did. Why is the question. Is it Cat or is there some other reason? Cat couldn't stand Jon because of what he represented.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

Anubys said:


> Because she still has the coin (we saw her play with it before she killed the soldier who was bragging about cutting-off Robb's head). We also have Mellissandre telling her that she will kill a lot of people, implying that she will be a formidable assassin. Maybe she will kill a lot of people with sheer luck and help from people like the Hound. But I still think she will call to the assassin and learn the trade for real.


And this conversation:
*The Hound: *Little **** deserved to die, but poison poisons a womans weapon. Men kill with steel.
*Arya: *Thats your stupid pride talking. Thats why _youll_ never be a great killer. Id have killed Joffrey with a chicken bone if I had to.

She intends to be a great killer.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Shaunnick said:


> You do know that Rob is sort of an expert in what he is talking about, right?


OMG! Who has he killed?

I don't know what his credentials are in this matter. I only know what I recall learning back in college so many years ago, which was that trial-by-combat in the middle ages eventually came to be used for deciding even petty crimes and civil disputes, and was outlawed due to the unfairness of the process, and the number of 'innocent' people being convicted because they lacked fighting skill.



BeanMeScott said:


> How could they pardon the person he is championing?


From what I understand, it was often the wealthy class that had champions to fight for them. The wealthy wiggle out of lots of things.

Quoting the wikipedia link that inigo posted,



wikipedia said:


> Civil disputes were handled differently from criminal cases. In civil cases, women, the elderly, the infirm of body, minors, and-after 1176-the clergy could choose a jury trial or could have champions named to fight in their stead. Hired champions were technically illegal but are obvious in the record. A 1276 document among Bishop Swinefield's household records makes the promise to pay Thomas of Brydges an annual retainer fee for acting as champion, with additional stipend and expenses paid for each fight.[7] In criminal cases, an "approver" was often chosen from the accomplices of the accused or from a prison to do the fighting for the crown. Approvers sometimes were given their freedom after winning five trials but sometimes were hanged anyway


That a member of the wealthy class would have so many of these trials that he kept a champion 'on retainer' implies to me that there was little fear of him being executed if his champion died. This is not unlike the scenario presented by Tyrion and Bronn. [not that I cam claiming Tyrion's fate was a civil case; just pointing out the existence of champions employed by the wealthy, to decouple themselves from the direct risk of combat]


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

smbaker said:


> OMG! Who has he killed?
> 
> I don't know what his credentials are in this matter.


I think he has a PhD in something or other dealing with Medieval Times...

With a degree like that, he works at Burger King...but he can certainly educate us on this topic!


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

smbaker said:


> I don't know what his credentials are in this matter.


If you ever want to know about Macquariums, you'd be well served to ask me, the poster formerly known as macquariumguy.

By the same token, if I ever wanted to know about medieval times, I would definitely ask the poster formerly known as medievalguy.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> ...I'm taking a bit of a different thought process on Jorah and Dany. I think somehow, Jorah will seek redemption with Dany, and somehow save her down the road. He's too much in love with her to just meekly walk away from the situation. That does not seem his style. What is Barrisan's ulterior motive here? Should be interesting to find out.


Jorah can stay out of sight and quietly help Dany and her entourage from behind the trees, until she realizes that her luck is too good and figures out who her benefactor is.

I should write these things (but I know I've seen such before.)


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Anubys said:


> I think he has a PhD in something or other dealing with Medieval Times...


Then I'm doubly surprised that he makes such an absolute claim. I thought it was well-known that trial by combat (and more frequently, trial by ordeal, such as trial by fire) were used for treating offenses such as theft in the middle ages, and that the ultimate punishment frequently involved mutilation rather than death.

That the motivation for the trial by combat (or trial by ordeal) is belief that God will intervene on the behalf of an innocent party is not something I'm disputing. Where I disagree is that the punishment is necessarily death.

Regardless, the magnitude of the crime, murder of the king, is so severe that it's hard to imagine any punishment other than death. If you didn't execute someone for that, then how would you ever justify executing someone for murder of a lesser individual? or desertion? or theft of a goat? or any of the numerous other things you can probably be executed in the GoT universe. I would expect Tyrion to be sentenced to a particularly cruel and unusual form of death, to match his particularly unusual crime.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

We are to presume The Mountain is dead, right? If the vote were up to me I'd say that qualifies Cersei for death as well. Woohoo!


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ClutchBrake said:


> If the vote were up to me I'd say that qualifies Cersei for death as well. Woohoo!


Unfortunately, she wasn't on trial.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

smbaker said:


> Then I'm doubly surprised that he makes such an absolute claim. I thought it was well-known that trial by combat (and more frequently, trial by ordeal, such as trial by fire) were used for treating offenses such as theft in the middle ages, and that the ultimate punishment frequently involved mutilation rather than death.
> 
> That the motivation for the trial by combat (or trial by ordeal) is belief that God will intervene on the behalf of an innocent party is not something I'm disputing. Where I disagree is that the punishment is necessarily death.
> 
> Regardless, the magnitude of the crime, murder of the king, is so severe that it's hard to imagine any punishment other than death. If you didn't execute someone for that, then how would you ever justify executing someone for murder of a lesser individual? or desertion? or theft of a goat? or any of the numerous other things you can probably be executed in the GoT universe. I would expect Tyrion to be sentenced to a particularly cruel and unusual form of death, to match his particularly unusual crime.


I'm sure Rob is perfectly capable of defending himself. So I'll leave it at listing his qualifications. I choose to trust him on this topic (and what he says in my autosig).

As to the punishment, we already know (Jaime told Tyrion) that it's beheading. So there is no speculation there.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

The next surprise will be DUHN DUHN DUHN! ... the real killer was Sansa.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Anubys said:


> As to the punishment, we already know (Jaime told Tyrion) that it's beheading.


Seems rather ordinary.



MikeAndrews said:


> The next surprise will be DUHN DUHN DUHN! ... the real killer was Sansa.


Which would put them in a difficult spot, as Tyrion has already been found guilty, and his guilt or innocence was declared by the gods during the trial by combat.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

smbaker said:


> Then I'm doubly surprised that he makes such an absolute claim. I thought it was well-known that trial by combat (and more frequently, trial by ordeal, such as trial by fire) were used for treating offenses such as theft in the middle ages, and that the ultimate punishment frequently involved mutilation rather than death.


First, you shouldn't conflate trial by combat and the other ordeals (fire and water). Second, trial by combat was (at least in principle) supposed to be to the death, and only in cases where the death penalty was appropriate. I suspect the cases you refer to happened in the later Middle Ages, when pretty much everything had degenerated pretty much into what we call the Modern World.  And third, I was speaking in theory, but in practice trial by combat seemed almost always to be used not as a way to decide guilt or innocence, but as a way to force the other party to back down; I can't remember the percentage of proposed trials by combat that actually took place, but it was quite low, more usually leading to a negotiated settlement.

But if, in a capital offense such as murder, a defendant insisted on trial by combat, it would be to the death, and if the defendant was represented by a surrogate who died, then the defendant would also be executed. Assuming, of course, that he lived in a time and place where trial by combat was considered an option, which was not all times and places by a long shot.

My "absolute claim" was intended in the context of a trial like Tyrion's, where trial by combat was allowed, where the defendant insisted on going through with it, and where his offense was capital. My apologies if that context wasn't clear.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And third, I was speaking in theory, but in practice trial by combat seemed almost always to be used not as a way to decide guilt or innocence, but as a way to force the other party to back down; I can't remember the percentage of proposed trials by combat that actually took place, but it was quite low, more usually leading to a negotiated settlement.


I can say with absolute certainty, that if trial by combat was an option, and the other guy looked even remotely like Clegane, I'd do the negotiated settlement.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> My "absolute claim" was intended in the context of a trial like Tyrion's, where trial by combat was allowed, where the defendant insisted on going through with it, and where his offense was capital. My apologies if that context wasn't clear.


I certainly respect your opinion on the issue. I'm curious. Do you believe the punishment of death is mandatory due to the offense (regicide), or mandatory due to fact that it guilt was established via trial by combat?

To put it in more modern terms, is death the mandatory minimum for regicide?

While doing my morning googling, I found an interesting case of a man in Britain who tried to resolve a traffic ticket via trial-by-combat:



telegraph said:


> Leon Humphreys remained adamant yesterday that his right to fight a champion nominated by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) was still valid under European human rights legislation. He said it would have been a "reasonable" way to settle the matter.


Silly as it is, this raises an interesting point. If you insist upon trial by combat for a non-capital offense, are you still executed if you lose due to disability or forfeiture?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

smbaker said:


> To put it in more modern terms, is death the mandatory minimum for regicide?


Any king would be extra special stupid if he did anything short of executing a kingslayer


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Anubys said:


> Any king would be extra special stupid if he did anything short of executing a kingslayer


Jamie Lannister waves hello.

(it's too bad Tyrion couldn't invoke the 'he deserved it' defense)


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

smbaker said:


> Jamie Lannister waves hello.


Tyrion winces as Jamie's hand clatters on the floor.


----------



## Fl_Gulfer (May 27, 2005)

If Tyrion gets killed that will be all for me and this show, he is the only person on the show that makes it worth watching.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

allan said:


> I can say with absolute certainty, that if trial by combat was an option, and the other guy looked even remotely like Clegane, I'd do the negotiated settlement.


There's a quote in the book by Tyrion something to the effect that it's been noticed that the stronger swordsman always seems to be on the God's side in trial by combat.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

smbaker said:


> I certainly respect your opinion on the issue. I'm curious. Do you believe the punishment of death is mandatory due to the offense (regicide), or mandatory due to fact that it guilt was established via trial by combat?
> 
> To put it in more modern terms, is death the mandatory minimum for regicide?


Absolutely. Which is why, in a perfect medieval world, trial by combat would be an option (there would also have to be a lack of clear evidence of guilt; if he's caught in the act or if there's undeniable evidence, then it's just off with his head).


smbaker said:


> While doing my morning googling, I found an interesting case of a man in Britain who tried to resolve a traffic ticket via trial-by-combat:
> 
> Silly as it is, this raises an interesting point. If you insist upon trial by combat for a non-capital offense, are you still executed if you lose due to disability or forfeiture?


I would put that under modern perversion of perfect medieval law. 

And as the Middle Ages slid into modernity, a lot of medieval institutions became almost parodies of themselves...e.g., indulgences, which started out as a way for a priest to release a sinner from the earthly consequences of his sin, but ended up being in effect the Church selling forgiveness for money (a practice which helped spark the Reformation). Since my period is around the 10th-12th centuries, when Europe was more purely medieval, I tend to think of medieval practices more in their original form, and not so much what they ended up becoming in later centuries.


BeanMeScot said:


> There's a quote in the book by Tyrion something to the effect that it's been noticed that the stronger swordsman always seems to be on the God's side in trial by combat.


Well, of course! The gods will always stack the deck in their favor by making sure the right party has the better fighter. That way, it's easier for them to make sure they get the right outcome.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

smbaker said:


> Jamie Lannister waves hello.
> 
> (it's too bad Tyrion couldn't invoke the 'he deserved it' defense)


you probably noticed, but just to be sure...

this is why I used the term "kingslayer" and put the winky!


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Anubys said:


> you probably noticed, but just to be sure...


Yes, I did! 

('tis why I had the one-handed man wave at you)



Rob Helmerichs said:


> The gods will always stack the deck in their favor by making sure the right party has the better fighter.


Hmmm.. I wonder if Oberyn defied the will of the gods by not killing The Mountain during the trial? If I was a god, I wouldn't take kindly to Oberyn pulling out that spear and trying to make the trial about him and his petty issues, rather than about conveying the gods' feelings of the guilt or innocence of Tyrion.

So Rob, what happens if both combatants die in a Trial by Combat? Victory to the side who died last seems a reasonable answer, but so does declaring it a mistrial and doing it all over again with new champions.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

smbaker said:


> So Rob, what happens if both combatants die in a Trial by Combat?


I haven't done any research on this, but I always assumed that all that really matters is if the accused's champion dies. Nothing else. If the accused's champion dies, the accused dies, period.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

smbaker said:


> So Rob, what happens if both combatants die in a Trial by Combat? Victory to the side who died last seems a reasonable answer, but so does declaring it a mistrial and doing it all over again with new champions.


I honestly don't know. But there are so few recorded cases of trial by combat, I wouldn't be surprised if it never came up...


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

The Mountain was still alive when it was quite clear Oberyn was dead. Tyrion lost.


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

This was pretty funny:

Pedro Pascal Details Oberyn Martell's Next Adventure And It's AMAZING


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I think it's a fun read here with people looking for loopholes for Tyrion and all  I think it's pretty clear that he lost. Tywin pronounced the sentence of death. I would imagine, short of something crazy (which is not out of the realm of possibility of course), unless the King commutes the sentence, Tyrion should be executed.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Jaime loves him too much - no way he lets it happen. They've been setting that up for episodes, now.

besides - no he "should" not be executed - since he didn't do it to begin with


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

BeanMeScot said:


> The Mountain was still alive when it was quite clear Oberyn was dead. Tyrion lost.


As pendragn points out, whether or not the Mountain survived might not have anything to do with it. It might only be about Oberyn, who I agree is clearly and unambiguously dead.

(Though if Oberyn would have somehow survived, then at least that smashing beetles story would have had some immediate relevance)



pendragn said:


> I haven't done any research on this, but I always assumed that all that really matters is if the accused's champion dies. Nothing else.


That makes the most sense to me. It's not really a competition between accuser and accused so much as it is a trial for the accused to endure and survive.



steveknj said:


> Tyrion should be executed.


Should be? sure.

I expect GRRM to pull a rabbit out of a hat and save him somehow. Not exactly sure how; you can't pull a Theon and put up a charred body pretending it is Tyrion. It's a beheading and Tyrion is of somewhat unique appearance. Though I suppose if someone found another dwarf, most people might simply assume it was him.

Let's assume he does escape somehow. He's then an outlaw and an easily recognizable one at that. Where does he go? I think he has to leave Westeros, and even then still be looking over his shoulder. If this happens, then we lose his ability to interact politically with the folks back at king's landing, which is what he's really good at.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I think it's a fun read here with people looking for loopholes for Tyrion and all  I think it's pretty clear that he lost. Tywin pronounced the sentence of death. I would imagine, short of something crazy (which is not out of the realm of possibility of course),* unless the King commutes the sentence,* Tyrion should be executed.


Well, that's what started all the Trial by Combat back-and-forth in this thread to begin with. The King has no power to commute the sentence. If he did, there would have been no point to Tyrion demanding trial by combat in the first place. He did it specifically because Tywin (standing in for the King) would have no say in the matter.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Dawghows said:


> Well, that's what started all the Trial by Combat back-and-forth in this thread to begin with. The King has no power to commute the sentence. If he did, there would have been no point to Tyrion demanding trial by combat in the first place. He did it specifically because Tywin (standing in for the King) would have no say in the matter.


Tommen: "_The gods visited me last night and told me to send Tyrion to the wall for eternal servitude of the realm instead of beheading him. All praise the wise and merciful gods_".

Doable, but weak and lame.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

smbaker said:


> ...I expect GRRM to pull a rabbit out of a hat and save him somehow. Not exactly sure how; you can't pull a Theon and put up a charred body pretending it is Tyrion. It's a beheading and Tyrion is of somewhat unique appearance. Though I suppose if someone found another dwarf, most people might simply assume it was him.
> 
> Let's assume he does escape somehow. He's then an outlaw and an easily recognizable one at that. Where does he go? I think he has to leave Westeros, and even then still be looking over his shoulder. If this happens, then we lose his ability to interact politically with the folks back at king's landing, which is what he's really good at.


I thought of that. Tyrion moves to live out his life in The Shire, of course.

Why wasn't in those movies anyway? No trick shots or CG needed.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> Jaime loves him too much - no way he lets it happen. They've been setting that up for episodes, now.
> 
> besides - no he "should" not be executed - since he didn't do it to begin with


Well "should" based on the sentence, not on guilt or innocent or what actually will happen. That's why I said should instead of WILL. Remember, this is GRRM, the man who had Ned Stark executed when nobody thought the MAIN character of the story at the time would be. I speculated earlier if the writers would change the story to keep a very popular character alive who died in the book (because, you know, ratings and all). I'm not saying I know if Tyrion will be executed or not (I have NO idea), but it's not something that would surprise me if it happened.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> Jaime loves him too much - no way he lets it happen. They've been setting that up for episodes, now.
> 
> besides - no he "should" not be executed - since he didn't do it to begin with


If he didn't do it, then the Gods shouldn't have allowed his champion to get his head squeezed like a pesky zit.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)




----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> If he didn't do it, then the Gods shouldn't have allowed his champion to get his head squeezed like a pesky zit.


Maybe the gods dislike stupid more than they care about justice.

I mean, the guy defeated a massively superior adversary, then he removes the weapon and starts having a chat with him within pummeling range. If you're a god, then you just sigh and find some other way to save Tyrion at that point. Make the executioner burst into flames. Have King's Landing be overrun by feral cats. Make all the beheading axes turn into marshmallow. Anything is more palatable than saving Oberyn.

We should also note (rewatching the scene now), that Tywin cut short Maester Pycell's remarks at the start of the ceremony, probably invalidating the whole damn thing!


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> YouTube Link: ...


Yup. This is what I see happening.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

smbaker said:


> Hmmm.. I wonder if Oberyn defied the will of the gods by not killing The Mountain during the trial? If I was a god, *I wouldn't take kindly to Oberyn pulling out that spear* and trying to make the trial about him and his petty issues, rather than about conveying the gods' feelings of the guilt or innocence of Tyrion.





smbaker said:


> Maybe the gods dislike stupid more than they care about justice.
> 
> I mean, the guy defeated a massively superior adversary, *then he removes the weapon* and starts having a chat with him within pummeling range. If you're a god, then you just sigh and find some other way to save Tyrion at that point. Make the executioner burst into flames. Have King's Landing be overrun by feral cats. Make all the beheading axes turn into marshmallow. Anything is more palatable than saving Oberyn.


That's twice you've mentioned Oberyn removing the spear as if that somehow prolonged the fight. Removing the spear would actually cause more damage and cause The Mountain to bleed out more quickly.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I kind of expected Roose to throw him off the mountain. He got Ramsey to do his dirty work, knows he's deranged so why not just off him at that point?


Is he deranged, or just "a Bolton" their banner is the flayed man after all.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's twice you've mentioned Oberyn removing the spear as if that somehow prolonged the fight. Removing the spear would actually cause more damage and cause The Mountain to bleed out more quickly.


That is LOGICAL. However, the intent was to let him live long enough to admit he raped and killed the sister. He even says that while he is removing the spear.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

smbaker said:


> Maybe the gods dislike stupid more than they care about justice.
> 
> I mean, the guy defeated a massively superior adversary


Massive yes, superior no ( except he won  )


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> That is LOGICAL. However, the intent was to let him live long enough to admit he raped and killed the sister. He even says that while he is removing the spear.


I took that to just mean he was delaying a finishing blow.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's twice you've mentioned Oberyn removing the spear as if that somehow prolonged the fight. Removing the spear would actually cause more damage and cause The Mountain to bleed out more quickly.


I meant removing it in the sense of no longer using it as a weapon, in contrast to removing it and promptly jamming it into The Mountain's eye socket. He's no longer holding it offensively or defensively. He sort of pulls it out and then starts ranting.

I just pulled up the final scene, right before The Mountain kicks Oberon's leg out from under him. Oberon stands there with the pointy end of the spear behind him and then blunt end of the spear pointed toward The Mountain.

It's clear to me from the presentation of the scene that as TonyD79 says, we're supposed to interpret Oberyn wishing to delay the death while he extracts a confession from The Mountain. His exact words are "_You're dying. No. No. No. You can't die yet. You haven't confessed._" He then pulls out the spear.



zordude said:


> Massive yes, superior no ( except he won )


It looked to me like The Mountain was dominating the fight. He broke Oberyn's weapon once. Had him on the floor a couple of times.

It'd be like putting a heavyweight and a lightweight together in a boxing match. One punch from the heavyweight would clobber the lightweight. Seemed to me Oberyn's strategy was to dance around and wear the big guy down until a mistake was made and a lucky blow could be made. It's a good strategy, but I would still consider the big guy the superior opponent and the little guy the underdog.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

smbaker said:


> Seemed to me Oberyn's strategy was to dance around and wear the big guy down until a mistake was made and a lucky blow could be made. It's a good strategy, but I would still consider the big guy the superior opponent and the little guy the underdog.


Is this not the exact strategy that Bronn said he might could use against The Mountain? Right before he said......nah!


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Jstkiddn said:


> Is this not the exact strategy that Bronn said he might could use against The Mountain?


I don't know that there's a whole lot of other strategies for dealing with a heavily armored opponent who is much larger than you are.

At least Bronn would have done less talking and more fighting.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

Bronn would have finished him off the first chance he got. Period.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Wait'l The Hound and Arya hear that the Mountain is no more.
One more off of her list.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

The Hound and Arya both wanted to be the one to kill him though.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

BeanMeScot said:


> Bronn would have finished him off the first chance he got. Period.


Well, not period. He then would have gotten off an amusingly cynical quip. THEN period.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, not period. He then would have gotten off an amusingly cynical quip. THEN period.


Someone needs to write that quip for us. Then we can all pretend Bronn killed The Mountain and Tyrion is safe for the next week (or two; wouldn't be surprised if next week is taken up with Jon Snow storyline).


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

smbaker said:


> Someone needs to write that quip for us. Then we can all pretend Bronn killed The Mountain and Tyrion is safe for the next week (or two; wouldn't be surprised if next week is taken up with Jon Snow storyline).


I heard on the Grantland Hollywood Prospectus Podcast that next week's episode:


Spoiler



will be one of the episodes that focuses on a single story for the entire episode, similar to S02E09 "Blackwater." In this case, it will focus on Mance Rayder's army attacking The Wall. So you are correct that it will likely be two weeks before we see anything else that happens in King's Landing.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Maybe something about making a molehill out of a mountain?


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

TonyTheTiger said:


> The most devastating death that could rock GoT to the core?...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The producers and HBO are also concerned about that also, which is why the writers and showrunner spent a month interviewing him about the plot of the last two books how the book series will end.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Johncv said:


> The producers and HBO are also concerned about that also, which is why the writers and showrunner spent a month interviewing him about the plot of the last two books how the book series will end.


In this week's Grantland Hollywood Prospectus podcast, they have some GoT expert on as a guest, and he claims that several of the best little touches in this season of GoT are things that were not in the books and he thinks that going forward, because the quality of the books goes down from here on out, that it's going to fall much more on Benioff and Weiss to make a good show, and based one what he's seen this season, he has no question that they'll be able to do it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> In this week's Grantland Hollywood Prospectus podcast, they have some GoT expert on as a guest, and he claims that several of the best little touches in this season of GoT are things that were not in the books and he thinks that going forward, because the quality of the books goes down from here on out, that it's going to fall much more on Benioff and Weiss to make a good show, and based one what he's seen this season, he has no question that they'll be able to do it.


I think the biggest problem with the books is that he has gotten lost in the middle, and has spent a lot of time the past 2-3 volumes just meandering around. What they're doing on the show, probably in large part due to their need to cut things down to ten hours per season and their using that as a gift instead of a curse, is trimming a lot of the fat from the books, consolidating or eliminating storylines and characters, and overall streamlining the story in ways that make me say that in some ways, the show is becoming better than the books.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

I'm not a reader, but my colleague at work is. On Monday mornings we discuss the episode and he always tells me what was different from the books. So far I pretty happy with the changes and for the most part he is as well.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I would love for the Bran story line to have some sort of payoff before the season is over.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

BeanMeScot said:


> The Hound and Arya both wanted to be the one to kill him though.


With a chicken bone!


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

gossamer88 said:


> I'm not a reader, but my colleague at work is. On Monday mornings we discuss the episode and he always tells me what was different from the books. So far I pretty happy with the changes and for the most part he is as well.


Interesting...being chewed out repeatedly for bringing up references to the books, I'm a little hesitant to bring this up, but would you or others be interested in another thread that talks about differences from the books, but doesn't include spoilers past the current episode?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Interesting...being chewed out repeatedly for bringing up references to the books, I'm a little hesitant to bring this up, but would you or others be interested in another thread that talks about differences from the books, but doesn't include spoilers past the current episode?


While I would enjoy such a thread, I would avoid it because I could never be certain that it would be spoiler-free. There would be too much grey area for people to make mistakes.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

There are 3 threads at Ars with much the same rules. One thread for book readers where all is allowed, one thread for TV viewers where zero mention of books is allowed, and one hybrid thread where book info is allowed (but spoilered) but nothing ahead of the current episode. 

Seems to be working well enough there.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

heySkippy said:


> There are 3 threads at Ars with much the same rules. One thread for book readers where all is allowed, one thread for TV viewers where zero mention of books is allowed, and one hybrid thread where book info is allowed (but spoilered) but nothing ahead of the current episode.
> 
> Seems to be working well enough there.


Sounds good to me!


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think the biggest problem with the books is that he has gotten lost in the middle, and has spent a lot of time the past 2-3 volumes just meandering around. What they're doing on the show, probably in large part due to their need to cut things down to ten hours per season and their using that as a gift instead of a curse, is trimming a lot of the fat from the books, consolidating or eliminating storylines and characters, and overall streamlining the story in ways that make me say that in some ways, the show is becoming better than the books.


I must be at the climax of book 4 because it has become more interesting in the last week or so of reading. I have a Kindle file with all 5 books so I don't really know where I am within a book.

I actually had less than 30 minutes left of book 4 so on to book 5!


----------



## dtivouser (Feb 10, 2004)

Yeah, that kind of thread has been attempted before and falls into huge spoiler-tag discussions. Discussing differences with the book often requires referring to a future chapter where there are implications.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

heySkippy said:


> There are 3 threads at Ars with much the same rules. One thread for book readers where all is allowed, one thread for TV viewers where zero mention of books is allowed, and one hybrid thread where book info is allowed (but spoilered) but nothing ahead of the current episode.
> 
> Seems to be working well enough there.


That sounds like a good idea. Unfortunately I can't remember what happened in which book, so I don't think I'd be able to post in the hybrid thread.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

pendragn said:


> That sounds like a good idea. Unfortunately I can't remember what happened in which book, so I don't think I'd be able to post in the hybrid thread.


Also, the book & TV aren't completely in sync. There was a short time when I was ahead of the TV on one plot and behind it on another. That could cause problems.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Interesting...being chewed out repeatedly for bringing up references to the books, I'm a little hesitant to bring this up, but would you or others be interested in another thread that talks about differences from the books, but doesn't include spoilers past the current episode?





heySkippy said:


> There are 3 threads at Ars with much the same rules. One thread for book readers where all is allowed, one thread for TV viewers where zero mention of books is allowed, and one hybrid thread where book info is allowed (but spoilered) but nothing ahead of the current episode. Seems to be working well enough there.


Sounds good to me. I'd definitely be interested in that thread.


----------



## bobino (Jul 24, 2002)

heySkippy said:


> There are 3 threads at Ars with much the same rules. One thread for book readers where all is allowed, one thread for TV viewers where zero mention of books is allowed, and one hybrid thread where book info is allowed (but spoilered) but nothing ahead of the current episode.
> 
> Seems to be working well enough there.


What is this "Ars" mentioned here? Can you share a link?

-Bob


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

smbaker said:


> It looked to me like The Mountain was dominating the fight. He broke Oberyn's weapon once. Had him on the floor a couple of times.
> 
> It'd be like putting a heavyweight and a lightweight together in a boxing match. One punch from the heavyweight would clobber the lightweight. Seemed to me Oberyn's strategy was to dance around and wear the big guy down until a mistake was made and a lucky blow could be made. It's a good strategy, but I would still consider the big guy the superior opponent and the little guy the underdog.


I wouldn't say the Mountain was dominating the fight by any means. In fact, he was completely outclassed and beaten soundly. Oberyn used his strengths - his agility and superior foot/hand speed, as well as his superior skill - to mostly neutralize the Mountain's strengths (his head-to-toe armor and superior reach/awesome power), and he succeeded in apparently mortally wounding the Mountain, before he got cocky.

No one can stand toe-to-toe with a fully armored Mountain and win. But by continually outmaneuvering him while probing the armor until he was able to attack the weak points and get the Mountain on the ground is hardly "landing a lucky blow". Sure, the Mountain connected a few times, and he did break one of his spears. But he was mostly ineffective until Oberyn let his guard down.

As the saying goes, styles make fights.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think the biggest problem with the books is that he has gotten lost in the middle, and has spent a lot of time the past 2-3 volumes just meandering around. What they're doing on the show, probably in large part due to their need to cut things down to ten hours per season and their using that as a gift instead of a curse, is trimming a lot of the fat from the books, consolidating or eliminating storylines and characters, and overall streamlining the story in ways that make me say that in some ways, the show is becoming better than the books.


I agree with all of this. There is still tremendous storytelling in books 4-5, but there's a lot of "the endless middle" as well, and I'm very hopeful that the Benioff/Weiss can boil those seemingly endless parts down to the their essence and bring out the greatness based on what they've done so far.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

bobino said:


> What is this "Ars" mentioned here? Can you share a link?
> 
> -Bob


http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewforum.php?f=23

3 threads:

"It's that time again. Game of Thrones Season 4, TV ONLY!!!!! "

"Game of thrones season 4 book discussion. (here be dragons...and spoilers)"

"GoT thread for reasonable people. We hope... (No Future Spoilers)"


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

So is it correct that most/all of the things that have occurred in the show up to this point have been in Book 3 (or before)? I was under the impression that Books 3 and 4 took place simultaneously, so Seasons 3 and 4 of the show would largely combine those two books. But based on the podcast I referenced above, it sounds like most of the notable things we've seen so far are in Book 3.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> So is it correct that most/all of the things that have occurred in the show up to this point have been in Book 3 (or before)? I was under the impression that Books 3 and 4 took place simultaneously, so Seasons 3 and 4 of the show would largely combine those two books. But based on the podcast I referenced above, it sounds like most of the notable things we've seen so far are in Book 3.


I don't think I have run across anything in book 4 that has been shown on the show. There is one thing that has happened in the book that I haven't seen mentioned yet but I am sure they are just saving it because the results of that happened in book 4.

The events that happened this week were at the end of book 3.


----------



## Rickvz (Sep 5, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> So is it correct that most/all of the things that have occurred in the show up to this point have been in Book 3 (or before)? I was under the impression that Books 3 and 4 took place simultaneously, so Seasons 3 and 4 of the show would largely combine those two books. But based on the podcast I referenced above, it sounds like most of the notable things we've seen so far are in Book 3.


Books 4 and 5 took place at the same time, just covering different characters. This season has been the last half of the third book.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> So is it correct that most/all of the things that have occurred in the show up to this point have been in Book 3 (or before)? I was under the impression that Books 3 and 4 took place simultaneously, so Seasons 3 and 4 of the show would largely combine those two books. But based on the podcast I referenced above, it sounds like most of the notable things we've seen so far are in Book 3.


Book 3 was split into Season 3 & 4. I think B4 & 5 happen simultaneously (haven't read either yet), which sounds like it will do evil things to my plans to keep my reading and watching roughly in sync next season.


----------



## Rickvz (Sep 5, 2000)

allan said:


> Book 3 was split into Season 3 & 4. I think B4 & 5 happen simultaneously (haven't read either yet), which sounds like it will do evil things to my plans to keep my reading and watching roughly in sync next season.


When I finished book 3 I read books 4 and 5 together. I would read a few chapters of one then switch to the other.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

I once saw a chapter reading order list for books 4 and 5 if you wanted to read them as one book in chronological order. I'm sure it's floating around the intertubes somewhere.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Tyrion escape method #17:
Brienne and Pod get to the Eyrie and Sansa tells them that her beloved hubby, Tyrion is sentenced to death. 

They go with Arya and The Hound to King's Landing rescue him.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Thanks, all. Seems I was mistaken about S3 and S4 being books 3 and 4, and about Books 3 and 4 being simultaneous. Guess I was just off by one book on each of those.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

no spoilers in what I am posting...



DevdogAZ said:


> So is it correct that most/all of the things that have occurred in the show up to this point have been in Book 3 (or before)? I was under the impression that Books 3 and 4 took place simultaneously, so Seasons 3 and 4 of the show would largely combine those two books. But based on the podcast I referenced above, it sounds like most of the notable things we've seen so far are in Book 3.


Book One = Season One
Book Two = Season Two
Book Three = Season Three & Four

The Future = ???

Book Three is universally acknowledged as the best of the five books, so far. It had enough epic events to easily stand as two TV seasons.

As GRRM was writing Book Four, it spiraled out of control. He decided to make two books out of it. And because he can't do anything in a normal fashion, rather than make them two chronological books, he basically split the characters in half, put some in B4 and the rest in B5. So we have two books, covering roughly the same time period, with half the story in one, and the other half in the other.

He actually brought the books together towards the end of B5 (ie, the time lines merged). So the last part of B5 is (time-wise) forward of everything written up to that point.

Clear as mud?

As far as the TV series, everyone has assumed the showrunners will tell the story as they see fit. Which means much tighter story lines, and forget adhering to the book structure.

There are minor parts of Books 4/5 that made their way into this season, primarily so certain storylines wouldn't disappear for a year or two.

All of this mess is why the books need to be kept, for the most part, totally out of the TV threads. It's just too unfair to non-book readers to create posts that discuss book events, in any fashion.

Other than of course a post such as this.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

MikeAndrews said:


> Tyrion escape method #17:
> Brienne and Pod get to Eyrie and Sansa tells them that her beloved hubby, Tyrion is sentenced to death.
> 
> They go with Arya and The Hound to King's Landing rescue him, *riding on the back of Daenerys's dragons, while Jon Snow and his wildling army herd white walkers into the gates of kings landing as a distraction*


FYP to make it slightly more epic.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Who were the three people interrogating Littlefinger and Sansa?


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

smbaker said:


> I meant removing it in the sense of no longer using it as a weapon, in contrast to removing it and promptly jamming it into The Mountain's eye socket. He's no longer holding it offensively or defensively. He sort of pulls it out and then starts ranting.
> 
> I just pulled up the final scene, right before The Mountain kicks Oberon's leg out from under him.


If he hadn't have removed the spear, The Mountain wouldn't have been able to do that impressive strength move -- lifting Oberyn bodily while flat on his back with a straight arm and without even shifting his torso.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> Who were the three people interrogating Littlefinger and Sansa?


Nobles of the Vale...presumably Robin's Small Council or some such.


----------



## tiassa (Jul 2, 2008)

cheesesteak said:


> Who were the three people interrogating Littlefinger and Sansa?


My guess is that they were the heads of the other prominent families of the Vale.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

astrohip said:


> no spoilers in what I am posting... Book One = Season One Book Two = Season Two Book Three = Season Three & Four The Future = ??? Book Three is universally acknowledged as the best of the five books, so far. It had enough epic events to easily stand as two TV seasons. As GRRM was writing Book Four, it spiraled out of control. He decided to make two books out of it. And because he can't do anything in a normal fashion, rather than make them two chronological books, he basically split the characters in half, put some in B4 and the rest in B5. So we have two books, covering roughly the same time period, with half the story in one, and the other half in the other. He actually brought the books together towards the end of B5 (ie, the time lines merged). So the last part of B5 is (time-wise) forward of everything written up to that point. Clear as mud? As far as the TV series, everyone has assumed the showrunners will tell the story as they see fit. Which means much tighter story lines, and forget adhering to the book structure. There are minor parts of Books 4/5 that made their way into this season, primarily so certain storylines wouldn't disappear for a year or two. All of this mess is why the books need to be kept, for the most part, totally out of the TV threads. It's just too unfair to non-book readers to create posts that discuss book events, in any fashion. Other than of course a post such as this.


And that's why I am saving the books for after the series is over.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Interesting summary of a Q&A GRRM did this last weekend at a Con in the Carolinas:

http://staceysimms.com/george-r-r-martin-qa/

Spoilers abound, so click at your own risk.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> And that's why I am saving the books for after the series is over.


You may be waiting a looong time.  At this point I think the show is way better then the books will ever be.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Johncv said:


> You may be waiting a looong time.  At this point I think the show is way better then the books will ever be.


I figure one day when I'm retired or in a home, I will have lots of time and will have forgotten the tv show anyway. 

Anyway, the show is excellent. I don't want to mess around with differences.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Interesting...being chewed out repeatedly for bringing up references to the books, I'm a little hesitant to bring this up, but would you or others be interested in another thread that talks about differences from the books, but doesn't include spoilers past the current episode?


I would. But would also be afraid of others adding stuff that has not happened. My colleague, is aware of I not wanting future spoilers, sometimes has to bite his tongue.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Ok, I started a thread...I tried to set up some rules.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

If Game of Thrones took place entirely on Facebook - Season 4, Episode 8.

http://happyplace.someecards.com/go...lace-entirely-on-facebook-season-4-episode-8/


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

I think we can give up on the books finishing first...

_[no spoilers in the article, which refers to the books, not the TV series]_
"Game of Thrones" To Live Longer Than Planned

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/32396/-game-of-thrones-to-live-longer-than-planned


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

astrohip said:


> I think we can give up on the books finishing first...
> 
> _[no spoilers in the article, which refers to the books, not the TV series]_
> "Game of Thrones" To Live Longer Than Planned
> ...


"...should the TV series outpace Martin's final book installments."

Should the sun rise in the East tomorrow.

Should the Tea Party continue to oppose Obamacare.

Should there be tension in the Middle East.

Or, as the girls of my youth used to say, "DUH-uhhhhh!"


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

astrohip said:


> If Game of Thrones took place entirely on Facebook - Season 4, Episode 8.
> 
> http://happyplace.someecards.com/go...lace-entirely-on-facebook-season-4-episode-8/


Gallagher. Chuckle. I wonder if the Mountain gave out plastic sheeting to the folks in the first few rows.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Johncv said:


> You may be waiting a looong time.  At this point I think the show is way better then the books will ever be.


This seems to be the prevailing thought these days. I read book one to support my viewing of the first season, and I thought it was really good (actually listened to it while driving...whatever), but it's LONG and the other books are longer I think. My feeling is, that if I watch the series and the books are not as good, I'm going to get bored of reading them pretty quickly. So I probably just won't bother.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Some off topic bit of coolness....Was watching the Rangers-Kings hockey game last night and at the arena, during a break in the action, they played the Game of Thrones TV Show theme


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

astrohip said:


> If Game of Thrones took place entirely on Facebook - Season 4, Episode 8.
> 
> http://happyplace.someecards.com/go...lace-entirely-on-facebook-season-4-episode-8/


OMG

*George R. R. Martin* Oh, I'm sorry, was I laughing too loud?

that was too funny! :up:


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Rangers looked good.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Some off topic bit of coolness....Was watching the Rangers-Kings hockey game last night and at the arena, during a break in the action, they played the Game of Thrones TV Show theme


We have Improv in the Park on the first Wed of the month. There was a guy onstage with a keyboard. He played the GoT theme, too.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Some off topic bit of coolness....Was watching the Rangers-Kings hockey game last night and at the arena, during a break in the action, they played the Game of Thrones TV Show theme


Well, it's probably the two NHL teams with the most appropriate names for GoT references.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

MacThor said:


> Well, it's probably the two NHL teams with the most appropriate names for GoT references.


:up:


----------



## jakerock (Dec 9, 2002)

MacThor said:


> Well, it's probably the two NHL teams with the most appropriate names for GoT references.


http://www.geekyjerseys.com/

Note the Crows, Dragons 4.0, Royals 2.0, Lannister 3.0, Krakens 2.0, and Direwolves 6.0.

Awesome freaking jerseys!


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

Who would want a Greyjoy one?


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

No Starks? 

Anyway - none of those are for sale. The Star Wars and Pokemon ones are the only ones that you can actually buy. 

I like the Night's Watch one.


----------



## jakerock (Dec 9, 2002)

The starks are the the direwolves. Apparently they've already sold that one six times. They only produce one or two types at a time and rotate through them. I've signed up for the various GoT shirts so they'll (in theory) let me know when they come up. (As people put in pre orders - or request to be notified - they judge interest and then produce the shirts that are top of the list.)

Some of the guys I play with have some of the other shirts (Tron, and I think a Link or Zelda one). They are really high quality jerseys. One of them is my father's day present for this year. (Though who knows how long till it actually becomes available and I get it.  )

My personal choice would be to get a Direwolves shirt and have Snow be the name on the back. Seems like a good inside joke for a hockey player.

Ha I just noticed that on the back there is a label at the top that says "Westeros League". Sweet.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Ya but it doesn't say "Stark" on the back, like all the others have their family name.

They do look like good quality, and decent price.


----------



## jakerock (Dec 9, 2002)

MonsterJoe said:


> Ya but it doesn't say "Stark" on the back, like all the others have their family name.
> 
> They do look like good quality, and decent price.


Hmm that's true. I suspect they were the first and most popular and they assume everyone knows who the Starks are that care.

Actually the back label says "Westeros League You win or you die." Nice.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

astrohip said:


> I think we can give up on the books finishing first...


I don't care about books 6 and 7--I'm way too old to count on reading those. I was encouraged that the editor is working on book 6. But then they also said GRRM is still writing it.  I just want to read book 6 SOON.


----------



## tivotvaddict (Aug 11, 2005)

Pre-fight happy hour!! hahahaha


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

astrohip said:


> I think we can give up on the books finishing first...
> 
> _[no spoilers in the article, which refers to the books, not the TV series]_
> "Game of Thrones" To Live Longer Than Planned
> ...


NCIS gets 18 million viewers.  Maybe they should start killing off the cast in a trial by combat.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Just came across this on CNet..

http://www.cnet.com/news/get-in-game-of-thrones-get-killed-help-wolves-for-just-20k/

Anyone have a spare 20k?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Listened to an interesting podcast today where they interviewed directors Alex Graves and Michelle Maclaren about directing GoT. Fascinating to hear them talk about how intricately structured the whole thing is. Basically, all ten scripts are written before any filming starts. Then all ten episodes are shot simultaneously. Everything is planned out so that Director 1, who may be directing Episodes 3 and 9, will shoot with Actors A, B, and C in Northern Ireland on Monday thru Wednesday. He'll get shots that will be used in both episodes. Meanwhile, Director 2, who may be directing episodes 5 and 10, is shooting with Actors D, E, F, and G in Croatia on those same days and getting shots for both episodes. At the same time, then Director 3, who may be shooting Episodes 1 and 7, is shooting Actors H, I, J, K, and L in Iceland and getting shows for both episodes. Then the directors rotate locations, different sets are built, different scenes for different episodes are shot, and they basically go like this for a 3-4 month period between August and November, and that's how they are able to manage the shoots with so many different locations and such a large recurring cast. Fascinating stuff.

It was the KCRW "The Business" podcast if anyone is interested in listening.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I had a feeling that's how they had to do it, with all the separate casts and locations they use...


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Listened to an interesting podcast today where they interviewed directors Alex Graves and Michelle Maclaren about directing GoT.


That's how it should be done.
Unlike Lost, who had no structure and clear direction, making s*** up on a weekly basis 

Actually, I was more shocked that "24" doesn't have the whole season planned out in advance! No wonder it usually falls apart halfway in and then tries to catch up to tie things up at the end.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

DUDE_NJX said:


> That's how it should be done.
> Unlike Lost, who had no structure and clear direction, making s*** up on a weekly basis
> 
> Actually, I was more shocked that "24" doesn't have the whole season planned out in advance! No wonder it usually falls apart halfway in and then tries to catch up to tie things up at the end.


It's actually extremely unusual for a TV show to have the whole season written in advance, and is really only possible with a cable show that has 10-13 episodes as opposed to a network show that usually has 22 episodes.

Also, I've heard many writers talk about how most TV shows would suffer from having all the scripts pre-written, because there frequently things that need to be changed based on actor chemistry, actor ability, etc. If you write a role for Character X and have his entire plot planned out, and then you find out while shooting the second episode that the actor is fantastic and is likely going to steal the show, then you want to re-write future scripts to enhance that Character's storyline. Hence, why most shows are written "as they go" and the writing is usually only a few episodes ahead of production.

But with a show like GoT that is based off existing source material, that should make it much easier for the writers to structure an entire season up front rather than your typical show where everything relies on the creativity of the writing staff.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

Holy crap. I just saw an article about the actor that plays the Mountain. I could look at the guy and know he was strong, but now I'm thinking the special effects of him crushing Oberyn's head were completely unnecessary...he could have actually done it.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...e-of-thrones-deadlifting-994-pounds?hpt=hp_c3


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

The guy who played Oberyn would strongly disagree.


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...cant-crush-a-mans-skull-with-your-bare-hands/


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

I think that article went about the whole thing wrong. They were talking about a pure crush. But if you look at Oberyn's remains, it looks a bit like his skull was ripped open. So the Mountain is on him, his thumbs are in the eye socket, and he's probably pulling outward at the same time he's pressing down. It's a lot easier to "crush" a spherical object in that manner.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

LordKronos said:


> I think that article went about the whole thing wrong. They were talking about a pure crush. But if you look at Oberyn's remains, it looks a bit like his skull was ripped open. So the Mountain is on him, his thumbs are in the eye socket, and he's probably pulling outward at the same time he's pressing down. It's a lot easier to "crush" a spherical object in that manner.


Agreed. I was thinking the same thing. If you take an intact egg and squeeze it in one hand, it is almost impossible to crush it. But if you dig your thumb in and create a crack first, then it is easy.

I wondered if Mythbusters could test it, but then I decided it would be tough for them to do properly. To test it properly, they would need a very fresh corpse. There is no way they would do it with a human corpse (even if someone willed their body to Mythbusters, I think the network would consider it bad taste to mutilate a human corpse like that). So, they would probably need to get a freshly slaughtered pig that was killed by cutting its throat (rather than a brain rod). And a pig skull is different enough from a human skull the results would be questionable. Then they would need to rig up some simulated hands to pull the skull apart, or else get someone as strong as the Mountain to try it. I doubt all of those difficulties would allow a conclusive test.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

LordKronos said:


> Holy crap. I just saw an article about the actor that plays the Mountain. I could look at the guy and know he was strong, but now I'm thinking the special effects of him crushing Oberyn's head were completely unnecessary...he could have actually done it.
> 
> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...e-of-thrones-deadlifting-994-pounds?hpt=hp_c3
> 
> ...


I have a feeling that his lines were dubbed to make them accent free ala early Ahrnold.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

john4200 said:


> Agreed. I was thinking the same thing. If you take an intact egg and squeeze it in one hand, it is almost impossible to crush it. But if you dig your thumb in and create a crack first, then it is easy. I wondered if Mythbusters could test it, but then I decided it would be tough for them to do properly. To test it properly, they would need a very fresh corpse. There is no way they would do it with a human corpse (even if someone willed their body to Mythbusters, I think the network would consider it bad taste to mutilate a human corpse like that). So, they would probably need to get a freshly slaughtered pig that was killed by cutting its throat (rather than a brain rod). And a pig skull is different enough from a human skull the results would be questionable. Then they would need to rig up some simulated hands to pull the skull apart, or else get someone as strong as the Mountain to try it. I doubt all of those difficulties would allow a conclusive test.


Myth busters has simulated the human body before. They could do it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TonyD79 said:


> Myth busters has simulated the human body before. They could do it.


As I explained already, while they could test something, it would not be a good test of the actual situation that we saw.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

john4200 said:


> As I explained already, while they could test something, it would not be a good test of the actual situation that we saw.


And I disagreed citing that they have done tests like this before without human body parts. The strength and structure of the skull and other body parts are known and can be simulated through means other than having a body or even another animal. Do you think we test crash safety devices with cadavers?


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> Do you think we test crash safety devices with cadavers?


I can assure you that the answer is "yes, for new concepts". I've personally witnessed it at Wayne State.

And the DoD still does weapons testing with cadavers. Again, personally seen it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TonyD79 said:


> And I disagreed citing that they have done tests like this before without human body parts. The strength and structure of the skull and other body parts are known and can be simulated through means other than having a body or even another animal.


Actually, you cited nothing. Just made an ambiguous claim, with no explanation or citation.

As for simulating the skull, the problem is, that would be a simulation. While that may be sufficient for something like a bullet, it is not sufficient for a test like we are discussing. Obviously this is not well understood, otherwise the "experts" who have been talking about it would not be in disagreement.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

LordKronos said:


> Why do some of you keep arguing like this? As far as I recall, we haven't heard all the rules spelled out clearly, so unless you are introducing book knowledge into this thread, how can you say it with such absolute certainty?
> 
> With the trial is by judge, Tywin explicitly said that Tyrion will be found guilty, and THEN he will have a chance to plead mercy and get sentenced to the wall. Why is it so implausible that Tyrion could be found guilty by the gods in combat, and THEN have a chance to plead mercy?
> 
> Edit: OK, I just rewatched the ending. I was thinking Tywin said Tyrion was "found guilty", but he did actually say he was "sentenced to death". I guess if there was a chance for a plea, it probably should have came before that.


Seems to me the trial by combat ended in a tie.

I don't think trial by combat happens very often and there's probably never been a tie. Regardless of Tywin thinking Red Viper lost, I think it's unclear.

I see that loophole allowing the imp to live. Not free, perhaps. But not dead.

Viper won the fight as much as Mountain did.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

uncdrew said:


> Seems to me the trial by combat ended in a tie.
> 
> I don't think trial by combat happens very often and there's probably never been a tie. Regardless of Tywin thinking Red Viper lost, I think it's unclear.
> 
> ...


Again, I don't think it was a tie. I think it's decided by whether the accused's champion (Oberyn) lives or not. What happens to the other champion (the hound) is inconsequential. The accused's champion dies, therefor the accused dies. There is no such thing as a tie.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

pendragn said:


> Again, I don't think it was a tie. I think it's decided by whether the accused's champion (Oberyn) lives or not. What happens to the other champion (the hound) is inconsequential. The accused's champion dies, therefor the accused dies. There is no such thing as a tie.


SAYYYYYYYY...Cersei's champion died, too.....if only.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

pendragn said:


> Again, I don't think it was a tie. I think it's decided by whether the accused's champion (Oberyn) lives or not. What happens to the other champion (the hound) is inconsequential. The accused's champion dies, therefor the accused dies. There is no such thing as a tie.


If I were Tyrian or Jaime there sure is such a thing as a tie. I hope they make the case.

But your logic makes more sense.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I'm willing to bet a few duels end by both parties lunging for a kill shot at the same time. I know that happened a ton when my friends and I were playing 3 musketeers with wooden sticks!


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

MikeAndrews said:


> SAYYYYYYYY...Cersei's champion died, too.....if only.


I'd go with that.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

kaszeta said:


> I can assure you that the answer is "yes, for new concepts". I've personally witnessed it at Wayne State.
> 
> And the DoD still does weapons testing with cadavers. Again, personally seen it.


I assume that for most testing of new concepts the cadaver testing could then be used to check that a non-cadaver analog (like a crash test dummy) is calibrated and providing comparable results in this new scenario.

I can see where if people haven't tested, using human cadavers, pulling the top of the head off by yanking up from the eye sockets then you won't know if something else (like a pig skull) is a reasonable analog. Might be, might not.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Jonathan_S said:


> I assume that for most testing of new concepts the cadaver testing could then be used to check that a non-cadaver analog (like a crash test dummy) is calibrated and providing comparable results in this new scenario.


Indeed, that's exactly what they do. Conduct cadaver tests to verify that any models (physical or analytical) are correct.

Any they have a lot of really good data on the tensile and compressive failure points of the human skull and eye orbits, primarily from actually cutting up and testing human skulls.


----------



## MarkL (Jul 1, 2005)

pendragn said:


> Again, I don't think it was a tie. I think it's decided by whether the accused's champion (Oberyn) lives or not. What happens to the other champion (the hound) is inconsequential. The accused's champion dies, therefor the accused dies. There is no such thing as a tie.


I think it these cases it's based on who dies FIRST. Oberyn clearly dies first. Even if the Mountain later dies from his wounds, he still won the trial.


----------

