# Game of Thrones "Breaker of Chains" 4/20/14 S4E3



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Fastest hour on TV. And another phenomenal episode. More pieces moving around the chess table. 

Tywin giving Tommen the birds & bees talk.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Every time I think stuff cannot be weirder, I'm wrong. Cersei and Jaime having incest sex by their dead son's body?!? WTF?


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Brilliant move by Dany. Last week's previews made you think it was barrels full of flammable liquid. But she's too smart for that!


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Jstkiddn said:


> Every time I think stuff cannot be weirder, I'm wrong. Cersei and Jaime having incest sex by their dead son's body?!? WTF?


to be fair, Jaime was raping Cersei.

Sansa could not figure out that there was a trap? The Starks are true idiots, aren't they?

Tywin was so done with Joffrey! the man is amazing.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

oh...and so much for my brilliant theory regarding who killed Joffrey!


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

The second the farmer told the Hound he had some silver I knew he was done for. And for the record I agree with The Hound. He's a lot smarter than he looks


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

Anubys said:


> to be fair, Jaime was raping Cersei.


Just when you thought Jaime was getting more likeable.



gossamer88 said:


> Brilliant move by Dany. Last week's previews made you think it was barrels full of flammable liquid. But she's too smart for that!


Loved the barrels!

So Tywin is lining up judges who will vote for him. But which way?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Anubys said:


> oh...and so much for my brilliant theory regarding who killed Joffrey!


So what is your theory now?


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Poor Sansa. I believe she's jumped from the frying pan directly into the fire.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

When Dany was talking all I could imagine happening was a bunch of people thinking "Is she talking?, I can't hear anything she is saying."


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Knowing that Lord Baelish had a pivotal role in the plan to assassinate Joffrey makes me more certain than ever that Olenna and Tywin were involved. I don't think they made their agreement in King's Landing anymore, however. If Lord Baelish was involved, I think that perhaps the plan to assassinate Joffrey began when he arranged for the Tyrells to aid in the defense of King's Landing against Stannis.

Unless Cersei was manipulating Jaime to kill Tyrion, I think she really is upset about Joffrey's death. (I do like Tyrion's comment about this being an unusual murder in that he was certain Cersei had nothing to do with it. )



Anubys said:


> Sansa could not figure out that there was a trap? The Starks are true idiots, aren't they?


To be fair to her, even if she suspected something, it's not like she had too many alternative options. And while this position might not be the best to be in, her running away from the The Fool and getting caught by the King's Guard would have led those behind Joffrey's assassination to cover their tracks by arranging something like a failed escape attempt that resulted in her death.

Lord Baelish was supposedly going to see Lysa. Perhaps that was a lie simply to set him up to be in a position to get Sansa, but if he really is heading there (or was there, and is heading back), then maybe Sansa will be reunited with Arya.

(Who am I kidding? They'll be just beyond arms lengths of each other, and then a bunch of people will get slaughtered, and they will be separated once again. Having more than one Stark in a certain region seems to lead to that. )



Azlen said:


> When Dany was talking all I could imagine happening was a bunch of people thinking "Is she talking?, I can't hear anything she is saying."


Their acoustics are specifically designed for these kinds of pissing matches.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Which gem was missing from the necklace last week? This week the rightmost (as facing Sansa) appeared to be missing. Also the gems appear to be made of glass.

At this point the only one who seems to care that Joffrey is dead is Cersei, which means anyone or everyone could have been behind the plot to kill him.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

morac said:


> Which gem was missing from the necklace last week? This week the rightmost (as facing Sansa) appeared to be missing. Also the gems appear to be made of glass.


The missing gem at the wedding was the one on her left, or the one on your right if you were facing her.



morac said:


> At this point the only one who seems to care that Joffrey is dead is Cersei, which means anyone or everyone could have been behind the plot to kill him.


Hence the reason why Tyrion said Cersie was the only person in Kings Landing that he was certain had nothing to do with Joffrey's death.

Did anyone else think of Monty Python when Stannis' daughter said, "Ka-nig-it?"


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Anubys said:


> Sansa could not figure out that there was a trap? The Starks are true idiots, aren't they?


What choice did she have. The king had just been murdered. Her husband is the prime suspect. She had the greatest motive to wish him dead. Without the fool spiriting her off to Baelish, she would have stood there like a deer in the headlights until apprehended and thrown in a dungeon.



BitByBlit said:


> Knowing that Lord Baelish had a pivotal role in the plan to assassinate Joffrey makes me more certain than ever that Olenna and Tywin were involved.


I think it's entirely possible that Baelish is in it for himself, including finding himself a nice Stark girl that he can marry to unite the lands after whatever plan he's pursuing against the Lannisters plays out.

I love how Baelish has now betrayed not only the Starks, but also the Lannisters. You really can't trust that guy.

Olenna and Tywin aren't involved. Olenna would have waited until the marriage was consummated. Tywin would not have framed one of his own sons for the murder, not even the son he doesn't like. An "accident" would have been a much better way for Tywin to dispose of Joffrey than a very public murder.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Jstkiddn said:


> Poor Sansa. I believe she's jumped from the frying pan directly into the fire.


More like jumped from the fire into the frying pan...i.e., she went from certain immediate death or worse to possible death or worse somewhere down the line.


smbaker said:


> I love how Baelish has now betrayed not only the Starks, but also the Lannisters. You really can't trust that guy.


Can it be said that he ever really betrayed anybody? He said himself, he's only on his own side. And he would NEVER betray himself!


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

smbaker said:


> Olenna and Tywin aren't involved. Olenna would have waited until the marriage was consummated. Tywin would not have framed one of his own sons for the murder, not even the son he doesn't like. An "accident" would have been a much better way for Tywin to dispose of Joffrey than a very public murder.


What's the evidence that Tyrion was framed other than Joffrey pointing at him and Cersei claiming him as the poisoner?

I still think Tywin had something to do with it. If that turns out to be untrue, he certainly won't miss the little tyrant.

Jaimie raping his sister next to their son's corpse further indicates that George R R Martin has one bleeped up mind.

What was in the barrels that Dany catapulted, collars?


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> What's the evidence that Tyrion was framed other than Joffrey pointing at him and Cersei claiming him as the poisoner?
> 
> I still think Tywin had something to do with it. If that turns out to be untrue, he certainly won't miss the little tyrant.
> 
> ...


Yes.
Slave collars.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> What's the evidence that Tyrion was framed other than Joffrey pointing at him and Cersei claiming him as the poisoner?


I don't really see a frame at all. Tyrion's actions were completely unpredictable (and for him, completely unfortunate). And how would Joffrey have known who poisoned him?

I suppose it's possible Petyr intended for him to be blamed at some point, and just got really lucky at the way things played out. But as you say, at this point there's no evidence of a frame...or really, no evidence that he did it other than Mommy Dearest freaking out.


cheesesteak said:


> What was in the barrels that Dany catapulted, collars?


Right, slave collars. The implication being, these are the collars of the slaves from the last city we took; the next city could get YOUR collars if you'd just pretty please pitch your masters off that wall, thank you and good night.


----------



## jollygrunt777 (Feb 28, 2012)

Anubys said:


> to be fair, Jaime was raping Cersei.


It seemed to me like she wanted a bit of a distraction.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

tlc said:


> Just when you thought Jaime was getting more likeable.


I know!

I think he realized what an awful person she was when she finally kissed him only when she needed him to kill Tyrion. To be so manipulated was more than he could take. And the only way he could get revenge was to do this.

wow.



john4200 said:


> So what is your theory now?


I have none. Olena seems innocent given her conversation with Margery. Tywin looks like a person who was given an unexpected gift.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

jollygrunt777 said:


> It seemed to me like she wanted a bit of a distraction.


It seemed to me that she kept saying no and fighting him.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

Sarcasm.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

I'm confused. ....was the poison on the bead and if so, how did it get from Sansa's neck to Joffrey's mouth?


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Jstkiddn said:


> I'm confused. ....was the poison on the bead and if so, how did it get from Sansa's neck to Joffrey's mouth?


Rewatching the previous episode, Olenna was playing with Sansa's hair and at the same time pulled a bead (glass filled with poison) from her necklace. How the poison got to Joffrey's wine...I'm not sure.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Jstkiddn said:


> I'm confused. ....was the poison on the bead and if so, how did it get from Sansa's neck to Joffrey's mouth?


At this point, my view is that the necklace thing was just to get Sansa to trust the Fool so she would follow him when it was time for her to "escape".

That was about the only thing we guessed right (including myself). Sansa was to be framed for the murder and her escape was planned to make her look guilty. Littlefinger either took advantage of this to steal her for himself or this was the price he demanded when he agreed to his part of the plot.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I still think it's the Tyrells, especially Lady Olena with Tywins unspoken blessing. I agree with this statement in the review of the episode in the NYT:



> At this point, we pause and start to put some things together. In retrospect, the subtext of Lady Olennas little chat with Tywin on the way to the wedding feast last week was essentially, look, you guys are in hock to the Iron Bank and were loaded, so if something terrible should happen to your grandson this afternoon, were still cool, right? The creepy painted stones had barely settled upon Joffreys eyes before Lady Olenna and Tywin were lining up Margaerys marriage to Tommen.


Littlefinger is angling to curry favor from both sides, as Littlefinger does always. And he gets Sansa as part of the bargain, which is something he always wanted after Cat was out of reach and then killed.

Is it just me, or is Dany's story boring at this point. It's the same story over and over. It's time for the story to move along.


----------



## Rickvz (Sep 5, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Right, slave collars. The implication being, these are the collars of the slaves from the last city we took; the next city could get YOUR collars if you'd just pretty please pitch your masters off that wall, thank you and good night.


There may have been other slave collars from the other cities but the collar that the slave looked at did look exactly like his. When they came to the slaves crucified going to Meereen Dany told them to bury them but to remove the collars first. That would have been 163 of the collars.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I still think it's the Tyrells, especially Lady Olena with Tywins unspoken blessing. I agree with this statement in the review of the episode in the NYT:
> 
> Littlefinger is angling to curry favor from both sides, as Littlefinger does always. And he gets Sansa as part of the bargain, which is something he always wanted after Cat was out of reach and then killed.


This is what I'm thinking as well, except that I believe Tywin may have been a little more involved. I'm betting he and Lady Olena are equally guilty.



Steveknj said:


> Is it just me, or is Dany's story boring at this point. It's the same story over and over. It's time for the story to move along.


No! It's not just you. I'm almost to the point of FF through her scenes.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

I was hoping a few of those arrows would connect with her skull to finish her miserable story.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Rickvz said:


> There may have been other slave collars from the other cities but the collar that the slave looked at did look exactly like his. When they came to the slaves crucified going to Meereen Dany told them to bury them but to remove the collars first. That would have been 163 of the collars.


Good point, although in that case it wouldn't make much sense for Dany to send them over the wall. The message then being: "Your fate is to suffer a horrible death. But at least we can pitch your collars over the next city's walls." 

I like mine better and it makes more sense, but I suspect you're right.

As for Dany being boring at this point, that's inherited from the books.


Spoiler



And there's not much they can do about it. She just plain doesn't do anything for several volumes; obviously, Martin wrote himself into a corner where she's just waiting for the story to be at the right place for her to go to Westeros. So unless the TV show diverges radically from the books, there's not much she can do without changing her storyline.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

smbaker said:


> I think it's entirely possible that Baelish is in it for himself, including finding himself a nice Stark girl that he can marry to unite the lands after whatever plan he's pursuing against the Lannisters plays out.


Oh yeah, I wouldn't put it past him. But in this case, I think he did it with the help of at least one family, and most likely both.



smbaker said:


> Olenna and Tywin aren't involved. Olenna would have waited until the marriage was consummated. Tywin would not have framed one of his own sons for the murder, not even the son he doesn't like. An "accident" would have been a much better way for Tywin to dispose of Joffrey than a very public murder.


From my perspective, Olenna and Tywin could barely contain their glee that Joffrey was dead.

Olenna was glad that Margaery would be safer now with Tommen instead of Joffrey. Regardless of how much she actually cared for her granddaughter, at the very least she seemed satisfied to sacrifice an immediate position of power for a longer lasting, more stable one. If Olenna was fiddling with Sansa's necklace, then she seemingly was directly involved, unless she was just noticing that one of the gems was missing. And I'm not sure that she would have been bold enough to kill Joffrey without "certain assurances" from Tywin.

Tywin was glad that there was now a more stable king who would listen to wise advisors (i.e., himself). His manipulation of Tommen at Joffrey's wake was so blatant that I still somewhat suspected Cersei's involvement (or at least consent) in the murder. The way she just stood there looking blankly at Tywin while he was talking to Tommen instead of realizing what was going on made me wonder if she was accepting that what was done needed to be done even as she was grieving. But now I'm leaning toward her just being so upset that she couldn't think clearly.

I do agree that Tywin most likely did not intend to frame Tyrion. There was no way he could have predicted how Joffrey would have acted. And I suspect that Martin wrote the scene of Joffrey taunting Tyrion specifically that way so that we could clearly come to that conclusion.

Tywin seems to be setting up Tyrion's trial to be a farce. And I'm leaning toward him wanting to get Tyrion off the hook. But I guess we'll see.

Whoever was behind the person that approached Podrick, and attempted to bribe/threaten him to turn on Tyrion does apparently want him blamed for Joffrey's murder. (Unless he or she simply wanted to test Podrick's loyalty.) Whether that person was involved in the murder or simply another party taking advantage of the situation is unclear.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

BitbyBlit said:


> Oh yeah, I wouldn't put it past him. But in this case, I think he did it with the help of at least one family, and most likely both.


Or probably more accurately, one (or more) of the families did it with the help of Baelish. How does he stand to benefit enough to run the risk of being caught murdering a king? But being on the edges of somebody else's conspiracy seems much more his speed.


----------



## mrpope (Jan 13, 2006)

Baelish was in love with Kat. Since he can't have her, her daughter is the next best thing.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Dany's story line may be boring but she can stand around and do nothing but be beautiful for a couple of minutes per episode and that's ok by me. I don't mind the respite from all the scraggly, dirty, stinky looking dudes.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Or probably more accurately, one (or more) of the families did it with the help of Baelish. How does he stand to benefit enough to run the risk of being caught murdering a king? But being on the edges of somebody else's conspiracy seems much more his speed.


Oh yeah, the way I worded that makes it seem like I thought he was behind everything, and the other families were just his pawns. But I just meant he didn't do this alone. Since he was the one who arranged the alliance between the Lannisters and Tyrells, he likely had a big role. But I doubt even he would be so bold as to suggest assassinating Joffrey unless Tywin brought it up first.

Maybe he would have been bold enough to be involved with just the support of the Tyrells, but I'm still leaning toward both families being involved.



mrpope said:


> Baelish was in love with Kat.


I do wonder how he feels about Walder Frey killing her with Tywin's blessing. Does he accept it because she never accepted him, or will he try to get revenge against Walder?

And what about Tywin? Does he accept Tywin's role in it because all Tywin did was promise not to attack the Freys and the Boltons, and Catelyn didn't need to be killed even if her son was? Or will he attempt to do something against him?


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

morac said:


> Which gem was missing from the necklace last week? This week the rightmost (as facing Sansa) appeared to be missing. Also the gems appear to be made of glass.
> ...


I was thinking that Baelish breaking the necklace ends that clue, but you watch: CSI Westeros will find a gem in the wine carafe, and then somebody will say it's from Sansa's necklace.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Remember that Jamie made a knight's oath pledge to Lady Stark to look out for Sansa and Arya. He's not going to let anybody find Sansa.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

MikeAndrews said:


> Remember that Jamie made a knight's oath pledge to Lady Stark to look out for Sansa and Arya. He's not going to let anybody find Sansa.


He also made an oath to protect the first king he served under. His oaths don't seem to a mean a lot.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Azlen said:


> When Dany was talking all I could imagine happening was a bunch of people thinking "Is she talking?, I can't hear anything she is saying."


I would ask why Dany needed a translation of the champion's taunts, but could talk to the whole city in Valerian with no problem.

Also note that there no dragons. They used the CG budget to make the pyramid city and the thousands of unsullied soldiers.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Jstkiddn said:


> He also made an oath to protect the first king he served under. His oaths don't seem to a mean a lot.


Well, he took that oath very seriously. It wasn't until the king decided to kill everybody in the friggin' city that Jaime took action against him. One could argue a better man would have broken that oath much, much sooner...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

BitbyBlit said:


> Whoever was behind the person that approached Podrick, and attempted to bribe/threaten him to turn on Tyrion does apparently want him blamed for Joffrey's murder. (Unless he or she simply wanted to test Podrick's loyalty.) Whether that person was involved in the murder or simply another party taking advantage of the situation is unclear.


I'm wondering if Tywin is going to get Tyrion off the hook as a way to "tame" him. While Tyrion is generally loyal to the Lannisters, he does a lot of things that piss off Tywin, and this could be his way of saving him under certain conditions.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> Dany's story line may be boring but she can stand around and do nothing but be beautiful for a couple of minutes per episode and that's ok by me. I don't mind the respite from all the scraggly, dirty, stinky looking dudes.


While I agree she's certainly enjoyable to look at, her story just bogs down every episode she's in. It's a far cry from season 1 where her story was just as interesting as the Lannisters and Starks. But I get that's probably the way the book is and her interesting story doesn't come until later. I also think that perhaps her story is more interesting in the books than the show (I've only read the first book).


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Was torn whether to post this here or the Frozen movie thread


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

For once Davos didn't look like hasn't taken a dump in months.

Wouldn't it be hoot if Cercie ended up preggers with another of Jamie's kids? Could she say it was from Ser. Flowers? 

I know she hinted that she got rid of one baby already.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

MikeAndrews said:


> For once Davos didn't look like hasn't taken a dump in months.
> 
> Wouldn't it be hoot if Cercie ended up preggers with another of Jamiies kids? Could she say it was from Ser. Flowers?
> 
> I know she hinted that she got rid of one baby already.


She hinted that she got rid of a Baratheon baby, if that's what you mean?


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> She hinted that she got rid of a Baratheon baby, if that's what you mean?


More recently (like 2 weeks ago), the maester had a line asking if "her problem" was solved by the potion he gave her.


----------



## MegaHertz67 (Apr 18, 2005)

So the Lannister family had an interesting couple of days, and it allowed them to all show their truest character.

Tywin Lannister--The plotter and schemer barely takes a moment to grieve one grandson king before he starts grooming the next grandson king. Anyone else find it odd that while he was talking about kings to young Tommen, he talked about Robert Baratheon's whoring, drinking, and hunting...noting the latter two led to his death. I'm pretty sure that Robert was the man that Tommen called Dad, even if that wasn't a biological certainty. Nice touch Grandpa.

Jaime Lannister--The son that is supposed to have the most nobility and honor, has been wallowing in self pity because the love he thought was waiting for him upon his return is not quite there. I wasn't sure if I should be horrified when Jamie got all rapey with his sister, or laugh at the absurdity of his arousal...for his sister...as she is asking him to kill their brother...while standing next to the corpse of his nephew/son. 

Cersei Lannister--The former Queen turned Queen Regent is the only one mourning for the demon seed she spawned with her brother/lover. It seems her love for her children is her best and only redeeming quality. BTW, when she said "our son" to Jamie...is that the first time we have confirmation that Jeoffrey is Jamie's son? It's the first I remember hearing it from her lips.

Tyrion Lannister--His reputation for living it up and enjoying his life hides the fact that there is a very well developed sense of nobility and justice that shape his actions. Even though he was forced to be hand of the king to Jeoffrey, he did his best to advise him well and help win the battle to protect the city. Even though he was forced to become Master of Coin, he takes that task seriously when a lesser man would try to embezzle funds to fuel a lifestyle. And even though he was forced to marry a woman that despises him, He is doing his best to be good to her and look out for her.

And last night when he tells Podrick that it he should better himself and incriminate Tyrion so that at least they both don't get killed, that had to be the noblest action I have seen a Lannister do in nearly 40 hours of storytelling. 

I love that this show is always full of surprises.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

MegaHertz67 said:


> BTW, when she said "our son" to Jamie...is that the first time we have confirmation that Jeoffrey is Jamie's son? It's the first I remember hearing it from her lips.


I think she admitted it to Ned Stark before he so inconveniently lost his head. She even told him how she would "finish Robert off" in other ways so that she didn't get pregnant with his children.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

MegaHertz67 said:


> So the Lannister family had an interesting couple of days, and it allowed them to all show their truest character.
> 
> Tywin Lannister--The plotter and schemer barely takes a moment to grieve one grandson king before he starts grooming the next grandson king. Anyone else find it odd that while he was talking about kings to young Tommen, he talked about Robert Baratheon's whoring, drinking, and hunting...noting the latter two led to his death. I'm pretty sure that Robert was the man that Tommen called Dad, even if that wasn't a biological certainty. Nice touch Grandpa.
> 
> ...


So? None of this surprises me. I think the reactions here is exactly what I would have expected from these characters. Tywin is always the calm cool reserved one, and I never expect him to wallow in sorrow, especially when we could always tell he really despises Joffrey. Jaime, well he's sleeping and baring children with his sister, and he's always been pretty self centered. Doesn't surprise me that he takes what he wants. Ceirce, always loved her sons, so this an expected behavior. And we already knew that Tyrion was the most noble of the bunch, even back in the first season when he befriended the older Stark boys.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I like Tywin bit I hope nobody invites him to speak at *my* wake.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

cheesesteak said:


> I like Tywin bit I hope nobody invites him to speak at *my* wake.


You don't really like him, do you? You just said that for the sake of your line, I hope?


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Weird fact: The actor who now plays Tommen played Martyn Lannister, the one murdered by Karstark!


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

gossamer88 said:


> Weird fact: The actor who now plays Tommen played Martyn Lannister, the one murdered by Karstark!


Incest would produce someone that has a lot of familiar features.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

They should have just gotten Tatiana Maslany to play all the Lannisters!


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> They should have just gotten Tatiana Maslany to play all the Lannisters!


That would have been awesome!


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

Jstkiddn said:


> Poor Sansa. I believe she's jumped from the frying pan directly into the fire.


This was the point in the books when I stopped despising her and started to fell sorry for her.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

Anubys said:


> That was about the only thing we guessed right (including myself). Sansa was to be framed for the murder and her escape was planned to make her look guilty.* Littlefinger either took advantage of this to steal her for himself or this was the price he demanded when he agreed to his part of the plot.*


 Yes! I think she was _the price_ or something Littlefinger did without agreement from Olenna. As long as the Fool got killed, Sansa could've stood trial without implicating anyone important. In fact, she never would've implicated the Tyrells - her only friends.



MikeAndrews said:


> I was thinking that Baelish breaking the necklace ends that clue, but you watch: CSI Westeros will find a gem in the wine carafe, and then somebody will say it's from Sansa's necklace.


No! Baelish broke some gems *and specifically swept the necklace down onto the dead Fool*, so it will be found!

What we "know":

Olenna was involved, she took a gem and did something with it.
Baelish was involved, he provided the necklace, used the Fool, got Sansa out and left the necklace for proof.
The Fool was involved as a pawn.
It doesn't matter if the gem/necklace actually carried the poison. It will implicate Sansa.

As someone said, it makes more sense if Baelish is not the mastermind. He's just the guy you use for this. So the big questions for me are:


*Was Tywin involved?* I wouldn't have thought so until reading this thread. But the more I think about it... The war isn't over and Joffrey was an uncontrollable idiot. Or he could just be rolling with it and seeing the upside. This would jive with Olenna's "remember that you still need our money" talk.
*Will Tywin let Tyrion go down for this?* I hope he sees Tyrion as an asset, if a bit uncontrollable. Who else does he have to help run the family business? Cersei and Jaime? Does he assume he'll live long enough to train Tommen?


----------



## Pralix (Dec 8, 2001)

I think Joffery was headed in the direction of another "Mad King" that tainted Dany's family name. Tywin would not want that to happen.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

cheesesteak said:


> What's the evidence that Tyrion was framed other than Joffrey pointing at him and Cersei claiming him as the poisoner?


I loved when he told Pod that if it was his plan he wouldn't have been standing there holding the cup and looking stupid when it happened. 



Anubys said:


> I have none. Olena seems innocent given her conversation with Margery. Tywin looks like a person who was given an unexpected gift.


Olena seems like a much nicer person than Tywin, but I wouldn't call either one of them innocent. They're definitely ends justifies the means people. The question is, how many nights with Joffrey could you survive to get a baby?



MikeAndrews said:


> Remember that Jamie made a knight's oath pledge to Lady Stark to look out for Sansa and Arya. He's not going to let anybody find Sansa.





Jstkiddn said:


> He also made an oath to protect the first king he served under. His oaths don't seem to a mean a lot.


Maybe not, but Brienne isn't going to let him forget it. She's already been after him about Sansa. And her oath is good to the death.



Steveknj said:


> I also think that perhaps her story is more interesting in the books than the show (I've only read the first book).


Nope



Rob Helmerichs said:


> They should have just gotten Tatiana Maslany to play all the Lannisters!


LOL This cracked me up. 

While Jamie seems to be interested in looking for someone other than Tyrion, Tywin seems totally ok with pinning it on him. Does he really know his son so little that he doesn't realize that he would never do this, and do it so sloppily? Or does he just hate him that much?

Cruel as it was to for Littlefinger to kill Dontos, he was absolutely right. No way he would keep his mouth shut. This is a typical GoT situation. Doing the right thing always comes back to bite you, so no one (who's still alive) ever does.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Gunnyman said:


> Yes.
> Slave collars.





Rob Helmerichs said:


> ... Right, slave collars. The implication being, these are the collars of the slaves from the last city we took; the next city could get YOUR collars if you'd just pretty please pitch your masters off that wall, thank you and good night.


The collars also indicate that Dany is to be seen as the "Breaker of Chains".


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

gossamer88 said:


> Weird fact: The actor who now plays Tommen played Martyn Lannister, the one murdered by Karstark!


So this season we have an actor who has had two roles and one role that has been handled by two actors.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Wasn't it Cersei who told Tyrion, "You will be left with nothing but the taste of ashes." and not the other way 'round?

It occurs that Tywin could have planned to blame Sansa, _if_ Tyrion was left to be the Lannister Lord of Winterfell. Wipe out the last Stark and get total Lannister control.


----------



## tiassa (Jul 2, 2008)

Yanno, just when I thought Jamie's journey thru captivity, maiming, and empathy for Brianne had made him a more self aware person, he turns back into the same entitled ****** he was in Season/Book 1. 

Ironically Littlefinger's involvement in the "Kill Joffrey" plot leads me to believe that both Lady Oleana and Tywin are involved, as the motivation moves from "getting rid of that ****** twerp" to "doing what's best for the realm". 

Tywin is clearly stacking the judges to get Tyrion off. I'm trying to figure out who the "fall guy" is going to end up being. Sansa would have been the logical choice, but Littlefinger won't allow that . I suppose the Fool could take the rap with Sansa's necklace in his possession.

My guess is that the person who wanted Pod to turn on Tyrion was Cersei (through an agent). Se could confer a knighthood (or pull the strings to get one conferred) and really wants Tyrion dead.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

MikeAndrews said:


> Wasn't it Cersei who told Tyrion, "You will be left with nothing but the taste of ashes." and not the other way 'round?


I know the scene you are thinking of, but it's more about knowing what it's like to have someone you love taken from you.

I have friends who have never seen it and we watched some of Season 2 and half of Season 3 yesterday and just happened to watch the scene where Tyrion says exactly that to Cersei.






Since we started in Episode 8 and he doesn't have the facial scar from the battle at the Blackwater yet, I would have to say it happened in episode 8 or 9 (prior to the battle).


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

tiassa said:


> Yanno, just when I thought Jamie's journey thru captivity, maiming, and empathy for Brianne had made him a more self aware person, he turns back into the same entitled ****** he was in Season/Book 1.


Not that it's any excuse, but I think Cersei rejecting him because he lost his friggin' hand (which seems to be the case; she was fine with him until she saw his stump, then she jumped back like it was a live wire) made him snap (the look on his face in that instant was not pretty).

I mean, if after all you had gone through to get back to your sister/girlfriend/mother of your children/love of your life, she rejected you like that, wouldn't you react badly?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Ereth said:


> I know the scene you are thinking of, but it's more about knowing what it's like to have someone you love taken from you.
> 
> I have friends who have never seen it and we watched some of Season 2 and half of Season 3 yesterday and just happened to watch the scene where Tyrion says exactly that to Cersei.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I did it backwards AGAIN? Man, that YT link tag gets me every time.

Thank you!


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

tiassa said:


> Yanno, just when I thought Jamie's journey thru captivity, maiming, and empathy for Brianne had made him a more self aware person, he turns back into the same entitled ****** he was in Season/Book 1.
> .


I realize that I should sympathize with Cercei, but I can't do it. If anyone ever deserved rape, it's her. Just picture her insisting that he throw Bran out the window. That does it for me.

In reading the recap I was reminded of the line where Tywin says that Dorne was the only kingdom that resisted the Targarians when they came to conquer Westeros. I don't remember hearing this before--I thought they conquered everyone. Since Dorne is all sand, was there nothing for the dragons to burn? Or did Dorne join the enemy and help defeat everyone else? Is that why Oberyn's sister was married to the Targarian prince?

Arya learning life lessons from the Hound is pretty scary. I can hear Ned rolling in his grave. And she's learning them pretty well.....


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Ereth said:


> I did it backwards AGAIN? Man, that YT link tag gets me every time.
> 
> Thank you!


Me, too, but I got used to it. The UI is really backwards.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I mean, if after all you had gone through to get back to your sister/girlfriend/mother of your children/love of your life, she rejected you like that, wouldn't you react badly?


That's probably pretty high up on your "sentences I never thought I'd write" list.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

tlc said:


> What we "know":
> 
> Olenna was involved, she took a gem and did something with it.


I don't see why you're making that claim. We suspect this, but we don't "know" it.

In fact, Olena (and Tywin, for that matter) seems surprised by what happened (unless she was lying to Margaery). But, ever the pragmatist, she was already dealing with it.

Both Olena and Tywin seem to be in "making a lemonade" mode. They do not act like the ones who wanted the lemons.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Anubys said:


> I don't see why you're making that claim. We suspect this, but we don't "know" it.


There was visual evidence that Olenna appeared to palm a gem, there was an empty setting on the necklace, and Olenna did not comment on the empty setting despite having a very close look at the necklace. tlc is certainly correct that we know beyond a reasonable doubt that Olenna took a gem from Sansa's necklace.

I did not think Olenna seemed surprised by Joffrey's death.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

gossamer88 said:


> Weird fact: The actor who now plays Tommen played Martyn Lannister, the one murdered by Karstark!


Now it all makes sense.

Think about it. It was Martyn Lannister's death that caused Robb to behead Rickard Karstark, forcing him to go to Walder Frey for help when the rest of the Karstarks left, which ultimately led to his demise.

Now someone who looks eerily similar shows up right before Joffrey dies. And conveniently this person is next in line to the throne.

Nicely done Tommen, or whatever your real name is. Just make sure to continue to smile and nod at grandpa while he's trying to manipulate you. He needs to feel special.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> They should have just gotten Tatiana Maslany to play all the Lannisters!


That would have made for some interesting scenes in this episode.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

stellie93 said:


> In reading the recap I was reminded of the line where Tywin says that Dorne was the only kingdom that resisted the Targarians when they came to conquer Westeros. I don't remember hearing this before--I thought they conquered everyone. Since Dorne is all sand, was there nothing for the dragons to burn? Or did Dorne join the enemy and help defeat everyone else? Is that why Oberyn's sister was married to the Targarian prince?


I was surprised to hear that too, as I was under the same impression that the Targaryens had conquered everyone.

Unless Tywin was planning on forming an alliance with Daenerys, I don't think he would consider joining with the Targaryens to have been a worthy means of resisting them. So I'm assuming Dorne must have done something else.

Aegon the Conqueror came 300 years ago, so the marriage between Oberyn's sister and Rhaegar would have not been directly a result of the war. But I suppose if they did form an alliance, perhaps that strong bond was maintained, leading to many such marriages throughout the years.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Ok, this is all history, takes place hundreds of years before the TV show. I doubt they are going to get into it in any detail so it's not really spoilers. I've taken it from A Wiki of Ice and Fire, where I'm sure TV viewers avoid going so as to avoid spoilers. There is nothing in this section that I would think could have any spoiler effect on the TV show, as it is all history, Nonetheless, I will enclose it in spoiler tags to be safe. It discusses the attempted conquest of Dorne by Aegon the Conqueror, and how Dorne came to be a member of the Seven Kingdoms, all of which is at least 100 years before the show.



Spoiler



Seven centuries after the Andal invasion, Aegon the Conqueror invaded Westeros and in his War of Conquest subjugated all of the Andal kings one by one, except Dorne, which successfully resisted the Dragon King. Whereas other kings and lords had taken to the field against Aegon, or clustered in castles, the Dornish refused to give open battle and allow Aegon to deploy his dragons. Instead, they turned to ambush and raids, striking quickly and then slipping back into the desert or through the mountain passes, where even the dragons could not find them. In time, Aegon pulled away from Dorne.

A century and a half later King Daeron I Targaryen, the Young Dragon, managed to do what his ancestor could not and successfully subdued the kingdom. Unfortunately, Dorne almost immediately rose in rebellion. In the resulting conflict, forty thousand soldiers gave their lives, forcing the Targaryens to pull away from Dorne.

After Daeron's death, his brother and successor Baelor the Blessed made peace with Dorne instead, marrying off his cousin, another Daeron, to Myriah Martell. When this prince ruled as Daeron II, he made another marriage pact, offering his younger sister Daenerys to the ruling Prince of Dorne Maron Martell, finally joining Dorne to the rest of the Seven Kingdoms through a peaceful alliance. Before officially joining the realm, the Dornishmen fought alongside Daeron II's forces (being led by his half-Martell son Baelor Breakspear), helping to suppress the Blackfyre Rebellion. Even though they are no longer independent and now owe allegiance to the Iron Throne, the ruling Martells still use the title prince, unlike their lordly counterparts in the rest of the Seven Kingdoms.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

john4200 said:


> There was visual evidence that Olenna appeared to palm a gem, there was an empty setting on the necklace, and Olenna did not comment on the empty setting despite having a very close look at the necklace. tlc is certainly correct that we know beyond a reasonable doubt that Olenna took a gem from Sansa's necklace.
> 
> I did not think Olenna seemed surprised by Joffrey's death.


This is why we suspect that she did. But we did not see the necklace before she talked to Sansa so we don't know if it was already missing a gem or not. We suspect she palmed a gem, but we did not see it. We suspect she would have mentioned the missing gem, but we don't know if she would have or not.

She has not admitted to anything. We did not see her actually do it. So we don't know for sure.

The poster said all these things were certain. My only point is that all these things are probable. But we don't know for sure.

In fact, the only thing she said about the death is that it is unfortunate that it happened before the marriage was consummated. It doesn't mean she didn't do it, but it is an indication that maybe she wasn't in on it.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Ereth said:


> Ok, this is all history, takes place hundreds of years before the TV show. I doubt they are going to get into it in any detail so it's not really spoilers. I've taken it from A Wiki of Ice and Fire, where I'm sure TV viewers avoid going so as to avoid spoilers. There is nothing in this section that I would think could have any spoiler effect on the TV show, as it is all history, Nonetheless, I will enclose it in spoiler tags to be safe. It discusses the attempted conquest of Dorne by Aegon the Conqueror, and how Dorne came to be a member of the Seven Kingdoms, all of which is at least 100 years before the show.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks!

(The next comments are spoiled only because I am responding to the history. It doesn't contain anything based on any knowledge of future events.)



Spoiler



This does give new light to Egret's comment about how people south of the Wall like to build big tall buildings and stay in one place.

Dragons turn people's defenses on their head. Harrenhal, Westeros' most impenetrable fortress, was melted like butter by the dragons. But since they are big and their fire cannot be finely targeted, spreading out, and attacking with quick raids that have fights in close quarters is actually an advantage.

This means the wildlings (or at least some of them) could be a threat to Daenerys. The White Walkers seem to like doing slow zombie walks with their massive hordes, so I'm not sure about them. But maybe they'll have more of a plan once they get south of the Wall.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Anubys said:


> We suspect she palmed a gem, but we did not see it.


Wrong. As I said, there was visual evidence where she appeared to palm a gem.

tlc is correct. We do know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Olenna took a gem from Sansa's necklace. You really have to being grasping at straws to argue otherwise.

And tlc did NOT say that we know for "certain". tlc said we '"know"', with the quotes. I interpret it to mean that we know beyond a reasonable doubt. Which we do.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Wrong. As I said, there was visual evidence where she *appeared* to palm a gem.
> 
> tlc is correct. We do know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Olenna took a gem from Sansa's necklace. You really have to being grasping at straws to argue otherwise.
> 
> And tlc did NOT say that we know for "certain". tlc said we '"know"', with the quotes. I interpret it to mean that we know beyond a reasonable doubt. Which we do.


Appeared is the key word. While we know it APPEARED like she palmed a gem, we don't know for sure that she actually did it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Steveknj said:


> Appeared is the key word. While we know it APPEARED like she palmed a gem, we don't know for sure that she actually did it.


Which part of "beyond a reasonable doubt" do you not understand?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Which part of "beyond a reasonable doubt" do you not understand?


Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? That's why appeared is the key.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

How about the lesser standard of "preponderance of evidence". Would you be happy with that one?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

john4200 said:


> Which part of "beyond a reasonable doubt" do you not understand?


It seems to be the "reasonable" part that you have difficulty with. Because there have been reasonable alternatives presented.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Question for the book readers. Answer yes or no only (no elaboration) and just to be on the safe side, spoilerize your yes or no answer. 

Do we ever find out for sure who poisoned him? Do we find out quickly (as in probably this season?)


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Appeared is the key word. While we know it APPEARED like she palmed a gem, we don't know for sure that she actually did it.


In the context of a TV show we do know this. It would be utterly ridiculous for them to have spent money and time filming a scene involving something that looked like the gem in her hand just moments after touching Sansa all to be a red herring for people who happened to be freeze-framing the show.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> In the context of a TV show we do know this. It would be utterly ridiculous for them to have spent money and time filming a scene involving something that looked like the gem in her hand just moments after touching Sansa all to be a red herring for people who happened to be freeze-framing the show.


There is a scene where you can see a gem in her hand? I missed that if so.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It seems to be the "reasonable" part that you have difficulty with. Because there have been reasonable alternatives presented.


You seem confused. There were no reasonable alternatives presented to Olenna having taken a gem from Sansa's necklace.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

zordude said:


> There is a scene where you can see a gem in her hand? I missed that if so.


yes. Screen caps were posted in the prior thread.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

zordude said:


> There is a scene where you can see a gem in her hand? I missed that if so.





TAsunder said:


> yes. Screen caps were posted in the prior thread.


Yes, but to be fair it was still attached to the necklace at the time. We never saw the unattached bead in her hand.

I haven't read all the arguments, but I don't think we have enough info to definitively say that she took the bead. She evidence so far points that way, but we don't know for sure.

*i can't believe I'm getting drawn into this discussion. The years at TCF are starting to rub off on me.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Well, one thing is for sure, "reasonable doubt" is a terrible way of determining this. It's highly subjective and it is so fraught with difficulty that there are many, many state and federal supreme court cases surrounding "reasonable doubt" and issues surrounding it.


----------



## MarkL (Jul 1, 2005)

cheesesteak said:


> Jaimie raping his sister next to their son's corpse further indicates that George R R Martin has one bleeped up mind.


It was consensual in the books. Still weird, but can't pin that rape on GRRM.


----------



## MarkL (Jul 1, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Right, slave collars. The implication being, these are the collars of the slaves from the last city we took; the next city could get YOUR collars if you'd just pretty please pitch your masters off that wall, thank you and good night.


Or were they the collars from the slaves that had been executed to make the miles along the path to Meereen? That's how I took it.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

There are 2 points to make:

1. We have never seen the necklace with the gem in it. So we don't know for sure that a gem is missing. The counter to that is that Olena would have said "oh, you poor dear, your necklace is missing a gem".

2. We have never seen Olena holding the gem. We saw her rubbing the hair, make a motion as if she took it, but we never actually saw the gem in her hand. The counter to this is "why would they go to all this trouble"?

both of these points do not erase "reasonable doubt". Since this is a legal term, I would say this: No jury would convict Olena of stealing a gem based on this evidence. She may very well have done it (and I think she did), but we can't say there is no reasonable doubt.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

MarkL said:


> It was consensual in the books. Still weird, but can't pin that rape on GRRM.


Ok, I'll change that to:

Jaimie having sex with his sister next to their son's corpse further indicates that George R R Martin has one bleeped up mind.

I find it odd that scene is causing such a crapstorm considering all the other really, really, really nasty stuff that happens on this show.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Anubys said:


> 2. We have never seen Olena holding the gem. We saw her rubbing the hair, make a motion as if she took it, but we never actually saw the gem in her hand.


Wrong again. I keep telling you, there is visual evidence of her appearing to palm a gem. There was even a screen shot posted.

And there is no reasonable explanation for the sequence of events we saw, other than Olenna took a gem.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

john4200 said:


> Wrong again. I keep telling you, there is visual evidence of her appearing to palm a gem. There was even a screen shot posted.


I'm happy to admit I'm wrong if such evidence can be produced. I've never seen it and many people say it doesn't exist.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Anubys said:


> I'm happy to admit I'm wrong if such evidence can be produced. I've never seen it and many people say it doesn't exist.


WTF?


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

MarkL said:


> It was consensual in the books. Still weird, but can't pin that rape on GRRM.


I thought someone said last week's episode was the one this season that GRRM wrote himself...
If so it's back on him


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

He wrote the Purple Wedding episode. Episode 2, not episode 3.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

john4200 said:


> WTF?


what? show me a screen capture with the gem in hand...you keep saying I'm wrong. prove it. if such a thing exists, throw it in my face and shut me up!


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Anubys said:


> I'm happy to admit I'm wrong if such evidence can be produced. I've never seen it and many people say it doesn't exist.


Images from the Internet, presented without commentary.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Continued from previous post.


----------



## MarkL (Jul 1, 2005)

Jonathan_S said:


> I thought someone said last week's episode was the one this season that GRRM wrote himself...
> If so it's back on him


GRRM wrote the wedding episode. The rape happened in the following episode, which GRRM did not write.

Still plenty of evidence that GRRM is a screwed up dude


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Right, but as I said it doesn't show it in her hand while unattached. It's still attached to the necklace.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Aha! first time I've seen a "before" picture. I've seen the "after" with the thing missing. I have not seen the gem actually there.

That proves it to me. I'm convinced. I take it all back.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Anubys said:


> Aha! first time I've seen a "before" picture. I've seen the "after" with the thing missing. I have not seen the gem actually there.
> 
> That proves it to me. I'm convinced. I take it all back.


Sorry, it's still not conclusive. There are six stones in each picture. The "after" picture reveals a seventh, empty mounting...but that one is covered by her hair in the "before" picture, so we can't tell if there was ever a stone there.

FWIW, I'm not saying she didn't steal the stone. Just that a reasonable case could be made either way.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

MarkL said:


> GRRM wrote the wedding episode. The rape happened in the following episode, which GRRM did not write.
> 
> Still plenty of evidence that GRRM is a screwed up dude


I concluded that 3 seasons ago!


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> FWIW, I'm not saying she didn't steal the stone. Just that a reasonable case could be made either way.


What reasonable case can be made that Olenna did not take the gem?

1) Olenna had the gem in her hand and appeared to palm it

2) A setting of the necklace is empty after Olenna appeared to palm a gem

3) Olenna was looking carefully at, and touching, the necklace for a significant time, and yet did not comment on an empty setting

What reasonable explanation is there for all of that, other than Olenna took a gem?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

When I got to the last picture my brain went "dun Dun dun DUNNNN!!!!" I don't know how Olenna could have removed the gem without Sansa noticing it. Hopefully, there's a closed circuit camera trained on Sansa's neck for Tyrion's legal team to obtain and zoom in on the footage.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

john4200 said:


> What reasonable case can be made that Olenna did not take the gem?
> 
> 1) Olenna had the gem in her hand and appeared to palm it
> 
> ...


She was admiring the necklace. She pulled it away from Sansa's neck, exposing the empty setting that Sansa had so carefully tucked under the neckline of her dress. Being polite, she didn't call attention to it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Anubys said:


> Aha! first time I've seen a "before" picture. I've seen the "after" with the thing missing. I have not seen the gem actually there.


That was not a before picture. Here is a before picture, but you cannot see all 7 gems because Sansa's hair is in the way.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> She was admiring the necklace. She pulled it away from Sansa's neck, exposing the empty setting that Sansa had so carefully tucked under the neckline of her dress. Being polite, she didn't call attention to it.


Olenna, being polite about something like that? You call that reasonable? And after she already told Sansa that she looks like the wind has been at her?


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Ereth said:


> Ok, this is all history, takes place hundreds of years before the TV show. I doubt they are going to get into it in any detail so it's not really spoilers. I've taken it from A Wiki of Ice and Fire,


That's awesome stuff. Thanks for looking it up and posting it. So is this stuff actually in the books? I don't remember it, but then, my memory is bad and the books are long.....



john4200 said:


> What reasonable case can be made that Olenna did not take the gem?
> 
> 3) Olenna was looking carefully at, and touching, the necklace for a significant time, and yet did not comment on an empty setting


Olena is an old lady and her eyesight sucks. This is why she was getting so close in the first place and why she never even noticed the missing setting.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

MarkL said:


> It was consensual in the books. Still weird, but can't pin that rape on GRRM.


It was still fairly problematic in the books assuming the detailed quotes I read online are actually verbatim from the books. But certainly not very very clearly rape by any rational definition as in the episode's scene.

I'm also somewhat unclear whether the writers/director intended it to be as troubling as it was. At least one interview seems to indicate the director believed that the scene portrayed was consensual.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> She was admiring the necklace. She pulled it away from Sansa's neck, exposing the empty setting that Sansa had so carefully tucked under the neckline of her dress. Being polite, she didn't call attention to it.


And they spent money and time filming those scenes, being sure to include those details, including the missing gem, why? Any explanation that doesn't conclude that she stole the gem must explain where they are going with those sequences to have spent time and money on them.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

It didn't look like rape to me - then again, I only watched it once and don't get to the granular level that y'all do.

It's Cersei we're talking about, after all. Nobody ****s with her.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> It didn't look like rape to me - then again, I only watched it once and don't get to the granular level that y'all do.


Did you have the sound off?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

stellie93 said:


> Olena is an old lady and her eyesight sucks. This is why she was getting so close in the first place and why she never even noticed the missing setting.


That is really grasping at straws. Olenna has been on screen now for a number of episodes, and there has been zero indication that her "eyesight sucks".


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TAsunder said:


> And they spent money and time filming those scenes, being sure to include those details, including the missing gem, why? Any explanation that doesn't conclude that she stole the gem must explain where they are going with those sequences to have spent time and money on them.


Well, now you're getting away from what happened on the show, and why the writers did it that way. Two different issues.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> Did you have the sound off?


No, why are you confused? ...and think what you will, but I'm fairly certain that I'm not wrong.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

It certainly looked like rape to me! I caught up to that part in the book soon after, and that seemed consensual.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Their love is incest. It is inherently wrong. I'm sure they try to convince themselves all the time that they're screwed up and shouldn't be doing it. Wasn't the scene in Winterfell similar? There was no urgency or alarm in her protests - as if she was trying to convince herself (not him) that she didn't want to.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

She was hitting him with her fists, turning away from him, said no at least a dozen times in various ways. He even said, "I don't care" to one of her protests. I cannot even comprehend how someone would perceive that as anything but rape.


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> It was still fairly problematic in the books assuming the detailed quotes I read online are actually verbatim from the books. But certainly not very very clearly rape by any rational definition as in the episode's scene.
> 
> I'm also somewhat unclear whether the writers/director intended it to be as troubling as it was. At least one interview seems to indicate the director believed that the scene portrayed was consensual.


This is the director's take on it:
http://www.vulture.com/2014/04/game...n-the-rape-sex-scene.html?mid=twitter_vulture

I saw it as rape. I don't think he got across everything he was trying to show.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Yeah... the director's understanding of what rape is is problematic to say the least.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> It didn't look like rape to me - then again, I only watched it once and don't get to the granular level that y'all do.
> 
> It's Cersei we're talking about, after all. Nobody ****s with her.


I'll be honest. ...I didn't think anything about it being rape until I read other's comments online.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Sorry, it's still not conclusive. There are six stones in each picture. The "after" picture reveals a seventh, empty mounting...but that one is covered by her hair in the "before" picture, so we can't tell if there was ever a stone there.
> 
> FWIW, I'm not saying she didn't steal the stone. Just that a reasonable case could be made either way.


I only count 5 stones in the "after" pictures. If you are going to argue that we can't be certain the stone on the far right was ever there due to her hair, you can't simultaneously argue that we are certain the one on the far left is there, as that setting is covered by her hair.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

I vote not rape, c'mon Cerci is not that weak, if she really didn't want to, they wouldn't have done it. 

But she was trying to show "restraint" I suppose by saying it wasn't the right place. Then she still allowed it.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

She probably just thought that no means no. You know, like it does legally in the real world?


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

If you know who is saying it; no doesn't always mean no, unless it really does...which I don't think it did in this case.

That, and I just confirmed it by reading what GRRM had to say about it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Ereth said:


> I only count 5 stones in the "after" pictures. If you are going to argue that we can't be certain the stone on the far right was ever there due to her hair, you can't simultaneously argue that we are certain the one on the far left is there, as that setting is covered by her hair.


I count 6 gems in all of these after pictures.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Ereth said:


> I only count 5 stones in the "after" pictures. If you are going to argue that we can't be certain the stone on the far right was ever there due to her hair, you can't simultaneously argue that we are certain the one on the far left is there, as that setting is covered by her hair.


You're missing the far-left one, which is pushed up sideways by the neckline of the dress but still visible. There are six.

And even if you don't see it, you're making my point...you say there is reasonable doubt as to what exactly we're seeing.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

MonsterJoe said:


> Their love is incest. It is inherently wrong. I'm sure they try to convince themselves all the time that they're screwed up and shouldn't be doing it.


In S1 there was a conversation between Cersei and Ned about her children being purer because it was between sibling.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> She probably just thought that no means no. You know, like it does legally in the real world?


That's a fairly recent development in the history of the world.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> If you know who is saying it; no doesn't always mean no, unless it really does...which I don't think it did in this case.
> 
> That, and I just confirmed it by reading what GRRM had to say about it.


You mean the part where he said the books were different as far as this scene was concerned, and where he seemingly distances himself from the scene portrayed here?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And even if you don't see it, you're making my point...you say there is reasonable doubt as to what exactly we're seeing.


Except there is no reasonable doubt to anyone who has watched carefully. There are clearly 6 gems and one empty setting.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

john4200 said:


> I count 6 gems in all of these after pictures.


And I definitely went back and counted 7 a couple episodes back when the fool presented the necklace to Sansa.

One is clearly missing by the end of the wedding feast, and the fact that it's missing when Littlefinger takes the necklace off her and crushes one more pretty much confirms it wasn't some kind of production error. (Which was unlikely since the bare attachment triangle did show fairly prominently in one scene before Sansa tucked it under the neckline of her dress)

I was originally a bit skeptical, but I now think it very likely that the grandmother took it as she was handling it. Now as to _why_ I guess I'll have to wait and see.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> If you know who is saying it; no doesn't always mean no, unless it really does...which I don't think it did in this case.


I think that logic leads to 10 years in an orange jumpsuit.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

and I think you guys take things too literally.

...but I sense that I'm letting myself slip into one of those ridiculous Internet debates that defy logic, so this is my last post about it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Jonathan_S said:


> And I definitely went back and counted 7 a couple episodes back when the fool presented the necklace to Sansa.


Here's an image from that scene:










By the way, it is worth noting that the number 7 has special significance in Westeros. Seven Gods. Seven Kingdoms.


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

Nice screen cap showing all 7!


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

It's kind of a weird scene.

If you are wearing a necklace with 7 gems arranged like that, who is going to come up to you and admire the one near your collarbone.

Everybody is going to check out the one in the middle.

-smak-


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

john4200 said:


> By the way, it is worth noting that the number 7 has special significance in Westeros. Seven Gods. Seven Kingdoms.


Don't forget seven hells.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

smak said:


> It's kind of a weird scene.
> 
> If you are wearing a necklace with 7 gems arranged like that, who is going to come up to you and admire the one near your collarbone.
> 
> ...


Someone who knows which one has the poison.


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)

Why did Littlefinger make such a big to-do about showing the beads were mere glass and easily crushed?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

SoBelle0 said:


> Why did Littlefinger make such a big to-do about showing the beads were mere glass and easily crushed?


Who says they were glass?


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)

Oh, I though he said they were just glass. 

Ha! I see.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I'm disappointed that no one has posted the obligatory picture of Piccard screaming THERE ARE SIX GEMS


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

If Game of Thrones took place entirely on Facebook - Season 4, Episode 3

http://happyplace.someecards.com/30782/game-of-thrones-facebook-recap-season-4-episode-3


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

MarkL said:


> Still plenty of evidence that GRRM is a screwed up dude


And we're all eager for the next episode!



SoBelle0 said:


> Why did Littlefinger make such a big to-do about showing the beads were mere glass and easily crushed?


He swept them off the railing onto The Fool. They will be found on The Fool and frame Sansa.


----------



## jgickler (Apr 7, 2000)

My theory is that by throwing the broken necklace onto the boat with the fool, they are linking Sensa to the fool and the murder. The missing gem was not poison, it was just planted clue to pin the murder on Sensa. So they find the fools body with the necklace, then they compare the gems with the fool to the one left at the wedding feast, plus Sensa fleeing the scene, and it can make a pretty compelling case that Sensa was the killer, or at least involved. If little finger thinks he can protect and keep Sensa out of sight, it may be a pretty good plan, may even save the Imps life.


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

But then why not just use an additional gem that could later be discarded than go to the trouble of palming it (assuming that Olenna took it off Sansa during the feast)?


----------



## jgickler (Apr 7, 2000)

We don't know where the necklace came from do we? I wondered if it was the necklace that was thrown in the bushes in an earlier episode.

If we assume that the fool or little finger procured the necklace in some manner, how would he procure an additional stone without implicating himself in trying to frame Sensa? Little finger may be able to pay someone off, but the fool certainly could not buy their silence. It seems to me that the best way to leave a stone is to take it from the necklace just prior to the murder, which seems to be what happened.

It would be pretty brilliant if the necklace was the one thrown in the bushes by Olenna, retrieved by the fool, then the stone taken by Olenna to plant evidence to implicate Sensa. We know that Sensa was very honest with Olenna, and it could all have been an evil charade to elevate the house of tyrell, but without having to be tied to Joffery.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

jgickler said:


> We don't know where the necklace came from do we? I wondered if it was the necklace that was thrown in the bushes in an earlier episode.


If he's to be believed, Littlefinger said he'd had it made the prior week.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

john4200 said:


> What reasonable case can be made that Olenna did not take the gem?
> 
> 1) Olenna had the gem in her hand and appeared to palm it
> 
> ...


She also *appears* to be looking at Sansa's cleavage, so does that mean, there's no reasonable doubt she's a lesbian? See what I mean by "appears"? The word "appears" actually says to me that there's a reasonable doubt. If you said she took it, then there's no reasonable doubt.

And you can blow up any frame of a show in time and tell a story about it that has nothing to do with what actually happened.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> She also *appears* to be looking at Sansa's cleavage, so does that mean, there's no reasonable doubt she's a lesbian? See what I mean by "appears"? The word "appears" actually says to me that there's a reasonable doubt. If you said she took it, then there's no reasonable doubt.
> 
> And you can blow up any frame of a show in time and tell a story about it that has nothing to do with what actually happened.


You appears to be quite clever to make a good point. 
But why would the writer add such specific details to the story, and have the camera shoot closeups if not to spell it out to the viewer? You are overthinking this, my friend. Just enjoy the Koolaid and come along for the ride.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

getreal said:


> You appears to be quite clever to make a good point.
> But why would the writer add such specific details to the story, and have the camera shoot closeups if not to spell it out to the viewer? You are overthinking this, my friend. Just enjoy the Koolaid and come along for the ride.


The problem is there are two different discussion going on. One about what we've seen, and another about what the writers mean by it. And they keep getting jumbled together.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The problem is there are two different discussion going on. One about what we've seen, and another about what the writers mean by it. And they keep getting jumbled together.


What would be the point of a discussion where they aren't jumbled together? Are we all trying to pretend we are Sherlock Holmes living in the fictional world of GoT and trying to solve the murder without the fourth wall knowledge we have that it is a show with budgets and scripts?


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> She also *appears* to be looking at Sansa's cleavage, so does that mean, there's no reasonable doubt she's a lesbian? ...


*NOOOO!!!!! *
You take that back!
















I've had a bad day already.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

3D said:


> But then why not just use an additional gem that could later be discarded than go to the trouble of palming it (assuming that Olenna took it off Sansa during the feast)?


Not being sure that Sansa would get away. It takes a full set for Sansa to put the necklace on. It takes a missing gem to implicate her if she doesn't get away. Sansa getting away might not have even been the conspirators' _plan_ -- it might be Littlefinger changing the plan.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Kablemodem said:


> Someone who knows which one has the poison.


Yah, but for the person wearing the necklace, it would be very strange.

-smak-


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

I can think of two alternate possibilities to Olenna removing the gem that still make sense in the context of Martin deciding to include those scenes. Both involve Olenna testifying, "I walked over to talk to Sansa. While talking to her, I noticed that one of the gems from her necklace was missing. I, of course, did not want to be rude, and point out a flaw that she was obviously trying to hide. The poor girl had been through enough. But now, knowing that the gem was found [in Joffrey's cup/near his table/wherever it ends up being found], I can only conclude that she must have snuck over near Joffrey's table at some point during the celebration, and it must have fallen off. But what possible reason could she have had to have been over there, except...no, that is unthinkable."

The first possibility is that Olenna knew about the plot to kill Joffrey, but did not remove the gem. Instead, she went over to talk to Sansa specifically so that she could "notice" that the gem was missing, and thus give plausible testimony implicating Sansa.

The second possibility is that Olenna's testimony would end up being true. In that case, Martin put in the scene so that there would be one more reason for people to suspect Sansa's involvment in Joffrey's murder. It would have simply been good luck for the actual perpetrators and bad luck for Sansa that Olenna happened to notice the missing gem, much in the same way Joffrey's taunting of Tyrion put him in a position to be a suspect in the murder.

I think the second possibility is the least likely, and even the first is less likely than Olenna removing the gem. Even with her being the one to remove the gem, she could still give the above testimony. But I don't think we can discount either possibility until we know more.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

jgickler said:


> My theory is that by throwing the broken necklace onto the boat with the fool, they are linking Sensa to the fool and the murder. The missing gem was not poison, it was just planted clue to pin the murder on Sensa. So they find the fools body with the necklace, then they compare the gems with the fool to the one left at the wedding feast, plus Sensa fleeing the scene, and it can make a pretty compelling case that Sensa was the killer, or at least involved. If little finger thinks he can protect and keep Sensa out of sight, it may be a pretty good plan, may even save the Imps life.


The fact that she would be tied to the fool, and that he's dead, brings in a much bigger conspiracy.

Plus the fact, since Sansa is Tyrion's wife, I'm not sure how her being involved exonerates him.

If she's the main suspect, then most definitely the imp would be considered the mastermind.

-smak-


----------



## jgickler (Apr 7, 2000)

Jstkiddn said:


> If he's to be believed, Littlefinger said he'd had it made the prior week.


I'm thinking he had it made then delivered to the lady to toss and for the fool to later retrieve. That way there is a back story about how the fool got the necklace. But that is just a guess I can't wait to learn the truth.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

jgickler said:


> I'm thinking he had it made then delivered to the lady to toss and for the fool to later retrieve. That way there is a back story about how the fool got the necklace. But that is just a guess I can't wait to learn the truth.


I don't know why you are going on about that. The tossed necklace was not the one that Sansa was given. They were not even remotely similar.


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

tlc said:


> Not being sure that Sansa would get away. It takes a full set for Sansa to put the necklace on.


Good point!


----------



## jgickler (Apr 7, 2000)

john4200 said:


> I don't know why you are going on about that. The tossed necklace was not the one that Sansa was given. They were not even remotely similar.


That was one of my questions. It just seems like a big coincidence that they were discussing necklaces at that point then later plot points seem to be pointing to the significance of a necklace. But if the necklaces were different then it must just be unrelated or a red herring.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

jgickler said:


> That was one of my questions. It just seems like a big coincidence that they were discussing necklaces at that point then later plot points seem to be pointing to the significance of a necklace. But if the necklaces were different then it must just be unrelated or a red herring.


Or it might have been foreshadowing to signal to us that necklaces were something to pay attention to.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

jgickler said:


> I'm thinking he had it made then delivered to the lady to toss and for the fool to later retrieve. That way there is a back story about how the fool got the necklace. But that is just a guess I can't wait to learn the truth.





john4200 said:


> I don't know why you are going on about that. The tossed necklace was not the one that Sansa was given. They were not even remotely similar.


"This was my Grandmother's..."


----------

