FANDOM


Name

Wikipedia titles all real life coups and attempted coups with the full title of "Coup d'état". Could I rename this article as such, until an official name for the event is released? Salociin (talk) 13:13, April 26, 2016 (UTC)

As much as I like the idea, coup d'état means "coup of state" in French, referring straight to coups in independent and sovereign states. Dorne is not independent, it's (still) part of the Seven Kingdoms, so the use of the term will actually be wrong. 13:46, May 4, 2016 (UTC)Bulletproofvalentine (talk)
Coup d'état is a French term. I felt it was appropriate to use the Anglo term for it because this entire series is basically all set in medieval england. Simpsonsfan1992 (talk) 19:41, April 27, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "coup" will serve but "coup d'état" is a bit unfitting for the context.

I renamed it to "Ellaria's Coup in Dorne" because, on a scale of thousands of years of history the wiki will cover, there's probably been multiple coups in Dorne. So his is more specific.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 21:44, April 27, 2016 (UTC)

I renamed it "Ellaria's Coup in Dorne" - stop reverting the name without at least discussing it.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:12, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

The future of House Martell

I think we have to wait till the next episode(s) are aired, but I want to remember what was said in What is Dead May Never Die during the meeting between Tyrion and Pycelle, that "Princess Myrcella will wed the youngest son" which implies that Trystane is/was not an only child. The possibility of a introduction of Arianne and Quentyn still exists! --Exodianecross (talk) 16:12, April 28, 2016 (UTC)

Funny, that was trending on Twitter after the episode aired: Variations of "The only possible way this can be redeemed or at least make sense as a goal is if they're going to introduce Arianne as a rival to Ellaria". But why kill Ellaria for killing Doran...when, ultimately, the Martells DO want to turn on the Lannisters?
But many reviewers questioned: was this the showrunners shutting down a Dorne plot that wasn't working? In which case, we won't see much of it again? Or....is it them starting an entirely new direction with the Dorne plot which they feel is an "improvement"? Wow.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:13, May 1, 2016 (UTC)
The funny thing is, it has to go on! Not necessarily because of that what we can find out from the novels, the point is, Ellaria and the Sand Snakes want to launch a war against the Lannisters, they don't want to block Dorne and live there till they are old and grey in luxury or something like that. I presume, they try to assemble the dornish armies and march to King's Landing! And I really think, without Arianne, and possibly Quentyn and perhaps Daemon Sand, it wouldn't make sense! --Exodianecross (talk) 22:59, May 2, 2016 (UTC)

Plot mechanics

  • 1 - I rewatched the scene from 5.10, and the camera shows them getting on the ship, conversation in cabin ending with Myrcella nosebleed death, and then cuts back to Ellaria and the Sand Snakes still looking at the same ship from the shore.
  • 2 - While it is possible that the camerawork was just misleading - the conversation happened in the cabin hours later, but the camera just cuts back to Ellaria looking at the boat earlier - that's RULED OUT because we also see Ellaria herself start to show symptoms of the poison, so she takes the antidote.....implying that the poison took just as long to act on her as on Myrcella. At the least, this would have made more sense if we saw Ellaria and the Sand Snakes hours later in the gardens or something, and then she took the antidote.

So we're stuck with the ship seemingly right out of the harbor, but rather than turn around to A - hope to get some antidote in time, or at least B - inform Doran and punish the Sand Snakes....it keeps going on all the way to King's Landing? They just established that the poison acts faster than that!

  • 3 - The plausible explanation raised was that the crew was loyal to Ellaria and wouldn't turn the ship around. But....if that were the case, wouldn't they have killed both Jaime and Trystane?! Without letting Jaime go free to King's Landing?! In fact, why even wait for the ship to get to King's Landing, on the off-chance that Trystane was actually allowed on shore, despite Cersei's protests (she isn't exactly in power right now), and elude their grasp? No, if Ellaria's people had control of the ship they'd have just killed Jaime and Trystane at the first opportunity.
  • 4 - So it seems the crew had to be loyal to Doran, and his own son Trystane. In which case....Jaime's letter to Doran is phrased as if he thinks Doran still has a firm grip on power and can easily have Ellaria and the Sand Snakes beheaded. Why....if he was within sight of the shore, why would he sail all the way to King's Landing to send a letter stating that? Why would Trystane? Trystane could command the crew to turn the ship around.

So what we've established here is:

  • 1 - The crew almost certainly wasn't loyal to Ellaria but to Doran, otherwise they'd never have let Jaime simply get off.
  • 2 - ...the closing scene in the Season 5 finale, of Ellaria starting to show symptoms of the poison while still at the docks, while still looking at the ship....makes no god damned sense. Why would the ship continue on to King's Landing?

This isn't just wacky storyarcs and poor characterizations for Ellaria and the Sand Snakes....which it is....but....basic plot mechanics aren't adding up here, which in some ways is more insulting than a controversial albeit thought-out decision "let's have Ellaria kill Doran".

Wow.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:10, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

It does seem bit weird. Maybe, just maybe Jaime and Trystane were so devastated at Myrcellas death that they stopped acting rationally. I mean it happens in real life. I'm not sure how I would act if my own daughter or wife gets murdered. I would probably just sit on the floor and cry, ignoring everything and everyone else, now matter how emotionally stable I would try to be normally. Jaime could have irrationally thought that Doran killed her, but only came to senses near Kings Landing.
As for Sand snakes teleporting to Kings Landing. I always thought this was pretty obvious. They simply used another ship. Surely the TV series don't have to hold hands every second? And the actions of course are uncharacteristic of Ellaria, Doran etc. but this is not really good argument because this is TV-series, not the books. 91.155.149.206 00:05, May 2, 2016 (UTC)

Well it shifts the problem around: that the Sand Snakes simply took the next ship to King's Landing and followed like a single hour behind? Not an issue. Like taking one subway car after another.

The problem is the other aspect - that the Season 5 finale both shows the ship still within sight of the shore, AND that the poison acts quickly enough that Ellaria shows symptoms from while still able to see the ship - not hours later - and yet they STILL have the ship sail all the way to King's Landing, instead of just turning back to the port?

Pay attention: it's not something that can be simply waved aside as "you're just annoyed it's different in the books".

Obviously the TV show in this situation is different; the "complaint" is that the difference isn't logical.

Why would Ellaria kill Doran and expect to be able to rule herself? WHY wait to stab him until the moment he received the letter, and not sooner?

And if your answer is "well, that's her characterization in the TV show"....yeah, that's the complaint: that this is a poorly written and illogical character.

Same thing with "why the hell would Thorne in TV version kill Jon for letting wildilngs through Wall when he just let him through the Wall? (it was due to Boltons in the books).

"Well, Thorne is a short-sighted idiot" isn't a rational answer.

With Ellaria....they can't have their writing rely on "our characters are too stupid to act rationally, we write crazy people".

Look you aren't saying that as such but....that's your answer? "Maybe Jaime and Trystane were too shocked to act rationally?" It takes days to travel from Dorne to King's Landing, weeks even.

I'm hearing excuses....bad excuses not even "explanations" which could ever indicate the writers thought this out.

But why do *I* need to complain? Thankfully, all of the major review sites - not even fansites casual TV reviews are heavily criticizing the new Dorne arc.

It's not bad because it's different, but because the difference happens to itself be bad.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:22, May 2, 2016 (UTC)

Well, first of all I was merely providing plausible reasons, not explicitly saying something and expecting everyone to take it as a fact. I didn't mean it as that, and I'm sorry if I misled you. I also agreed that it was weird. I don't think I was providing excuses, but simply trying to think plausible reasons. For example I never said Jaimes actions could be explained by simply that this is a Tv-show. And I think your answer is a bit needlessly overaggressive. I know this has clearly upset you, but still.

Let me just try to again provide plausible reasons, just like you were providing plausible reasons in your original post. I don't see how this is any different?

"Why would Ellaria kill Doran and expect to be able to rule herself?" Well, she wants revenge, and of course thinks she can do better than the current ruler. It doesn't matter if she can actually do that. People often over- and underestimate their abilities.

"WHY wait to stab him until the moment he received the letter, and not sooner?" Perhaps, she wanted Doran and Areo to be together in their palace, or didn't really have other opportunity. Perhaps she hesitated at first. Many assassins of Hitler for example hesitated, it's not uncommon. Many possible reasons, hard to know which one is correct.

"why the hell would Thorne in TV version kill Jon for letting wildilngs through Wall when he just let him through the Wall?" It is possible he again hesitated, I mean he was betraying his lord commander and made that final decision later.

" It takes days to travel from Dorne to King's Landing, weeks even." That is a problem indeed. I don't really know how long such shocks could last. Thought I have heard real life stories of people refusing to eat for weeks. Jaime didn't have same effect from Joffrey, but it is possible that this one was more severe.

You arguments are largely based on irrationality. Problem with this is that many people are irrational. They don't take optimal decisions, instead relying on feelings to make decisions.

Look, I'm not saying that you are completely wrong and that the plots are perfect. I am simply trying to think on this, and provide plausible solutions. 91.155.149.206 00:56, May 2, 2016 (UTC)

Thinking on this more I've refined it somewhat:

  • Option 1 - As presented by the camera, Myrcella shows symptoms of poisoning at best a matter of hours after leaving port, if not within sight of the port itself. The ship continues on to King's Landing because the crew is loyal to Ellaria - thus ignoring even Trystane's commands to turn the ship around. They did this because they want to frame Cersei for Trystane's murder by killing him in King's Landing.
    • This raises the question of if the crew was loyal to Ellaria, why not just kill Jaime as well? Apparently the writers' reasoning was that Ellaria wanted to provoke a full scale war with the Lannisters, and killing Jaime on the ship would make it obvious that she was responsible, and she couldn't rally the rest of Dorne to fight the Lannisters for a war she started.
    • Problem is, if enough of Dorne hates the Lannisters that none of the guards prevent her from killing Doran, this falls flat - though maybe their reasoning was that the rest of Dorne wanted a war but wouldn't stand for outright killing their own prince. And killing Jaime is a major prize if their target is the remaining "Lannister family". But for the sake of argument let's say the goal was to start a full scale war to ensure the death of Cersei as well.
    • This option is a failure, because...it would be suspicious if the ship's crew outright refused Trystane's orders to turn around and instead spent days sailing north to King's Landing. Specifically, JAIME would be suspicious about this, have days to think on it, and would realize the crew was refusing Trystane's orders to turn around because they were loyal to Ellaria - in turn, because in his letter he was genuinely worried about Trystane's safety, he'd have never left him on the ship. Or at least, Viewer's Guide said Cersei wouldn't let him off the ship into the city - well and good. But Jaime would STILL be openly afraid of what the crew would do and realize that Ellaria had him killed by her loyal crew.
  • Option 2 - there was a drastic miscommunication, poor planning, and now just retcon about the visual elements of the Season 5 finale, and their actual intention (then or now) is to say that Myrcella died well into the voyage, past the halfway point, so the ship just continued on to King's Landing. In which case the crew actually wasn't loyal to Ellaria at all, and didn't need to refuse orders from Trystane to turn around.
    • On the one hand, this is a massive failure of visual storytelling and not just something we can shrug off. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume for the moment that this is what they intend happened now. Does this hold up logically?
    • Ran the risk of Jaime killing Trystane, though actually that would work out if her intent was to blame the Lannisters for it, and Obara and Nym were just the insurance in case Jaime was too level-headed to kill him (which he was).

...Option 2 is looking increasingly more likely as the writers' position.

As presented visually, the scenes simply make no god-damned sense, Jaime would be suspicious about why the crew refused Trystane's orders to turn the ship around.

Option 2 is that the scene was either poorly filmed or retconned, they truly didn't plan it out well, but their intent is that Myrcella died as they approached King's Landing...in which case, we have a massive failure of visual storytelling.

I mean it isn't just the director's discretion, it was in the script. Ellaria stands at the docks and wiping the poison off her lips with a handkerchief - this was in the script, as the Season 5 DVD commentary explains: they wanted a beautiful shot of the poison-smeared handkerchief fluttering away in the wind, but in real life it just kept dropping with a plop, so they actually had to spend money on CGI to insert a CGI handkerchief which would blow away into the ocean properly. A LARGE AMOUNT OF THOUGHT was spent on an mental image of Ellaria standing on the docks and already showing symptoms of a poison which allegedly only killed Myrcella days later?

So Option 1 is a massive failure of basic scripted plot logic, while Option 2 - only slightly more plausible - is a massive visual retcon to multiple scenes?

--The Dragon Demands (talk) 16:28, May 7, 2016 (UTC)

The part that upsets me most, recently, is that even casual viewer TV review websites, I mean not even fansites, pointed out these plot holes without outside help...within a day or two of watching the scenes in the Season 6 premiere.

...the showrunners had weeks and months to plan out, film, and review these scenes, all the while other cast and crew members they have contact with were reading the script for the scene as they filmed it. And the post-production editors.

How could none of these people have brought up the very obvious plot holes in this sequence of events....when Entertainment Weekly to New York Magazine noticed and was posting reaction pieces about it in less than a day?

In the 30 seconds it took to script the line "You want a good girl, but you need the bad pussy!" for the scene on the docks, anyone could have asked "why don't they just turn the ship around if it is within sight of the harbor?"

--The Dragon Demands (talk) 16:31, May 7, 2016 (UTC)

Hilarious

Saw this on the Tumblr: http://fatpinkcast.com/post/143459843054/chryswatchesgot-full-601-recap-reddit --The Dragon Demands (talk) 02:44, May 5, 2016 (UTC)

Didn't this happen in the Water Gardens, not Sunspear.

78.146.139.13 13:00, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

Siddig's comments

So I wouldn't know where to begin reshaping the article so just posting an FYI that Siddig confirmed he was originally signed to appear in four episodes of season 6, indirectly confirming Dorne was a victim of hasty rewrites: http://www.startrek.com/article/catching-up-with-alexander-siddig-part-1#sthash.B4quRV5T.wfhms1RK.dpuf --Alientraveller (talk) 02:09, September 22, 2016 (UTC)

Siddig's comments pt 2

"Alexander Siddig has even confirmed that he deliberately played Doran in this light in the fifth season"

Not doubting the liklihood of this, but any sources?

Jaydude1992 (talk) 10:06, October 15, 2019 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.