LS?[]
Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things.
D&D said that writing Season 5 "gave them nightmares" because, originally, they were going to end in the middle of books 4 and 5, and it just doesn't have a climax on the scale of the Red Wedding, Battle of Castle Black, or Tyrion killing his father.
While they have shifted gears to instead adapt most of both books into one season...logically, what else could provide such a shocking climax as they need? --The Dragon Demands (talk) 14:00, June 7, 2015 (UTC)
Reports of a "Hooded Woman" in the finale from IMDB were later vehemently denied as a hoax.
...and most curiously of all, a Wikia Staff member (Mighty No.9) some months ago contacted me directly on here and said to add an actress named "Mary Jordan" to the season finale credits....never contacted me again. Was this a hoax, or misinformed? Recasting? Fake name to hide identity?
...maybe we should check for credits for side characters like the BWB and Freys.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 14:07, June 7, 2015 (UTC)
"What else could provide such a shocking climax as they need?" Come on... For the Watch, for once, and not only that. But that's the main one, probably, the big cliffhanger.
LSH is gone. People should've really accepted it by now... —ArticXiongmao (talk) 14:44, June 7, 2015 (UTC)
NOTHING IS OVER! *NOTHING*! YOU JUST DON'T TURN IT OFF!
--The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:10, June 7, 2015 (UTC)
Leaks[]
The morons over at WICnet have reached a new low - spoiler pics from the episode leaked out on the internet and they posted it as a news item. Not just book spoilers, TV show-only death spoilers. Yikes.
WICnet's revolving door of editors-in-chief continued this season; after the original writing staff revolved last July after Season 4 ended, they went through about two head editors before Christmas. The new editor in chief apparently quit the site after around episode 3 "High Sparrow". Chaos over there, pure chaos.
Delete these photos if they are posted, block any info from them. WICnet remains blacklisted as a news source due to plagiarism.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 13:59, June 12, 2015 (UTC)
- That's unfortunate. Then again, WiC is in decline... not surprising that they're resorting to shock tactics to draw in readers.--The White Winged Fury 14:51, June 12, 2015 (UTC)
- Well "WICnet" just became WatchersOnTheWall.com (the entire original writing staff mutinied en masse, eight or so people, to make WOTW), and is separate entirely from "Fansided's WinterIsComing.net". Oh god they even still do the beer-flavor testing. I mean...soundtracks are one thing guys, but I can't TASTE the beer through the computer screen! I have to rely on your word for it! I mean showcasing them is one thing, but why do I want to watch them making drink? Well they had recipes but...how the heck do you have a "Lannister-flavored beer" that is "inspired" by the show? Yet no one makes a knockoff brand of "Arbor Gold" or "Dornish Red" wine? I mean the Harry Potter franchise people knew to make "Butterbeer" knockoff root beer stuff. Crud.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 22:06, June 14, 2015 (UTC)
Here we go[]
Alright boys (and girls), here we go. The eyes of the world are on the Season 5 finale. We've been pulling in about 1 million daily site views as the day-after spike in ratings on Mondays (drops off a bit over the next week then roars back with each new episode). Last week we reached over 2 million again. Season 4 finale was 3.2 million.
The enemy is at the gates. Everyone will be pouring into the wiki for the finale.
Maintain no illusions that all of us are going to make it through the night alive.
Good luck, everyone. --The Dragon Demands (talk) 22:11, June 14, 2015 (UTC)
- Brothers! Tonight we fight! And when the sun rises GoT Wiki will stand!--Gonzalo84 (talk) 23:14, June 14, 2015 (UTC)
What I think I'll do[]
...this episode has left me stunned at how ineptly Benioff and Weiss treated the adaptation. Retroactively, it reflects on what an awful decision it was to cram two books into a single season. Rather than "dragging out" the storyline, they are making it rushed and semi-coherent.
The first half of Season 4 was pretty good for Stannis at the Wall, and the Bolton storyline, even Sansa to a degree. Then from episode 6 onwards....they basically condensed an entire novel of storyline into only five episodes. "Stannis rallying the North" is an ongoing storyline. Instead the Manderlys, Mormonts, Glovers, they're all gone. The Boltons seem invincible in comparison.
Drastic changes would be one thing but they seem to just skip over things.
The "For the Watch" moment was worst of all - the Wall storyline was good, but when it overlaps with the Bolton storyline it was bad (same thing happened to Stannis's storyline when it left the Wall).
In the novels, the Watch grudgingly tolerates letting the wildlings through the Wall. Then Ramsay sends a letter to Jon at Castle Black assuming that his wife and his Reek fled there, demanding that he will attack Castle Black if Jon does not surrender them. Realizing he can't defend the Wall while the Boltons are tearing the North apart, Jon finally decides he needs to do something and outright break his oath of neutrality, and asks any who fill follow to ride with him south to war to defeat the Boltons. THEN and only then do they turn on him for explicitly wanting to break their oath of neutrality.
The TV show just has them stab him over the wildlings? WHY? This is dream logic, events just falling into place because they're out of sequence chunks from a different narrative. Why stab Jon NOW of all times? After they already let the wildlings in? After showing Jon reading through letters?
I strongly suspect that Jon's storyline was heavily rewritten. We have vague reports of this.
The Dorne plotline was an embarrassment. There's no sugar-coating that. It barely appeared, needlessly introduced new characters better held until next season, and what little time was devoted to it might have been better spent revisiting the already established plotlines more thoroughly.
....and on top of all of this, WHY have Ellaria kill Myrcella now? This makes no sense. Doran wants to ensure peace with the Lannisters for now, they've already wrecked Ellaria as a character, and storywise....why not just turn the ship around to get an antidote? Bad editing implies they're still close.
But all of these problems, "anything the Bolton plot touches which was hyper-condensed" and "what little we rushed in about Dorne at the last minute"...all stem from the stupid conviction that they could cram two books into one season. What did they think would happen?
I've been gaping at it for over four hours now, not editing anything.
I have lost what little remaining faith I had in Benioff and Weiss's writing abilities. Was this HBO forcing their hand?
And the pressure of being at the top of the wiki heap. When you're Number One, man, they're always gunning for ya, they're always gunning for ya.
The Greyjoys just haven't appeared since Season 2, did not appear at all this season, the Dorne storyline was hyped but turned out to be the weakest....the North storyline (which now includes not only the North, but Stannis, and the Wall, and the TV show added Sansa and Brienne into the mix)...no one understands. They wanted the "For the Watch" moment but didn't pause to think about setting it up well. No one understands.
....I'm not editing now and I don't know if I will for a while. The show now has massive problems which I can't easily overlook anymore. I'm going out, and may be some time.
I think what I'll do is, I'll pretend I'm one of those deaf-mutes.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 06:43, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
I think it was a great episode. I've also outlined many times how I believe it would be impossible to adapt those two books any other way (the only better alternative to what we got would be a longer season... which just wasn't going to happen.) —ArticXiongmao (talk) 10:41, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
I'm back. I remembered who I am. What is dead may never die.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:37, June 16, 2015 (UTC)
Characters who apparently died in this episode?=[]
Officially.
Yup. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHMuqH7yOQc
"Behind the Episode" is pretty straightsforward. DRAEVAN13 02:44, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
Is Myrcella dead? I don't think she is dead because Maggy also foreshadowed that she would wear a golden crown. She never wore a crown so...
- I think she meant "crowns" as in hair colour, not that all of them will wear an actually crown. Up for interpretation though. I'm not sure the show even cares about this stuff anymore. - Son Of Fire (talk) 21:50, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
- What a truly terrible storyline though. Spend an entire season on the plotline and the outcome is just for one character death that doesn't equate to anything. Just laughable. — Sharp Blades (talk) 21:55, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
Jon, Stannis and Myrcella are NOT dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carych (talk • contribs)
- Yup. They're officially dead as per the HBO Official Viewer's Guide and many interviews. Jon will probably come back, but he's, as of now, dead. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 11:48, June 16, 2015 (UTC)
- Myrcella isn't dead because Maggy's prophecy foreshadowed that Cersei's children will wear golden crown. Myrcella newer wore a crown yet, so she isn't dead. It willbecome clear in season 6 so, please wait and then write something certain about their fate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carych (talk • contribs)
- Begone with you uncultured noob. — Sharp Blades (talk) 11:53, June 16, 2015 (UTC)
- We need to get an Admin to lock these character pages, this is getting absurd. DRAEVAN13 11:54, June 16, 2015 (UTC)
Yeah no. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a literal crown, she could have been indicating her blonde hair. Or perhaps they've forgotten their own storyline, but either way, it's been confirmed by both the website and from the cast/creators' own mouths. Cast/crew/official source indication has priority over whatever canon may imply. Also please sign your comments so it doesn't look like someone else is saying it.
http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/14/game-thrones-jon-dies-interview
http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/14/game-thrones-jon-snow-really-dead
— Sharp Blades (talk) 12:05, June 16, 2015 (UTC)
- Cast and creators can say anything in order not to reveal spoilers so their information mustn't be belived. Especially about the season 6.
They're playing games with us but I think we should list like Myrcella as "apparently dead" unless proven otherwise. I don't know if they'd stoop so low as to lie in the Viewer's Guide but for the moment we should probably go along with that unless proven otherwise.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:35, June 16, 2015 (UTC)
Old Town?[]
Some words are wrong. I know that i am not the best english speaker in the world, but i really want to change the name of Old town and Citedal in the summary of what happens at the wall 194.255.125.205 09:28, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
"Oldtown", spelled as one word. "The Citadel" is located in Oldtown.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:37, June 16, 2015 (UTC)
First appearance[]
There is Robert Strong listed as a first appearance. 1. There is no Robert Strong, it is ser Gregor Clegane who died in the books and was "zombified" as Robert (headless) but he never died in the TV series, and he is healed albeit weirdly. He is still Ser Gregor and that doesnt change, so delete that. 2. Even if it were to be Robert (which he is not) he wasnt named on screen and thus we shouldnt name him based on the books. Things change Dont edit if you dont know what you're doing5.170.40.242 18:55, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Firsts (and Ser Robert Strong), I don't think Qyburn ever mentioned his name being Robert Strong. Should we still assume it's him? I think for now it's more safe to assume that he's a "resurrected Gregor Clegane", not a separate knight (that is allegedly Gregor Clegane). Reddyredcp (talk) 18:57, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
Gregor Clegane never died in the TV Show (unlike in the novels where his head was sent to Dorne). This, it is safe to say that the "Robert Strong" character is cut (in the books it is really implied he is ser Gregor) therefore the Show probably didnt bother killing him and then resurrecting him to introduce the change, in order to keep things simple. Thus, we know its the mountain and there is no such thing as Robert Strong
Westeros.org speculation & wrong sections[]
I fixed the "Looking ahead to Season 6", which essentially was a copy & paste of Elio & Linda's remarks. It's just their opinion. Shall I include four paragraphs about my opinion? Or from every GoT critic? TDD, really, I insist, stop including your opinion articles into the wiki. Cutting their and your subjective statements, what remains is nothing but a note, so that's where I put it.
As for "Adapting two books into one TV season: the Stannis/Bolton storyline in the North", the parts specifying the differences are now in the "Differences" page for the episode (though most of them already were), and the rest is fine, but it's not about the episode at all, but about the whole season. The Season 5 page already has a section on adaptation, which was unfinished until the season ended; this text (about how many storylines were condesned due to the decision to adapt both books into a single season) completes that section. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 21:17, June 16, 2015 (UTC)
My original draft was rather long, let me make another attempt and be more succinct...--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:06, June 17, 2015 (UTC)
- Okay I made another stab at it.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:26, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
Motivations/timing of betraying Jon in the TV continuity[]
The above rant makes me realise why my substantive edit to the notes on Jon Snow's Fate was reverted. But suppose that the loss of Jon's two greatest supporters were not enough to tip the balance of anti-Jon sentiment in the favor of killing him. Why, then, would Melisandre's news about Stannis's death and the Bolton's victory have influenced their decision any more, to have included that and not the other? HouseFan (talk) 05:00, August 24, 2015 (UTC)
...the problem is that the TV writers rewrote "Hardhome" at the last minute, then removed Ramsay Bolton's letter to Jon as the motivation for the mutiny against him...to the point that their motivations within the TV continuity are incoherent.
....you seriously claim that a blind 100 year old man and an infamously fat steward who self-acknowledges that he has no skill in combat were "major supporters" preventing Thorne and others from turning against Jon Snow?
Think on that for a minute.
In the novels, Jon fears that the White Walkers will begin to attack the undefended parts of the Wall, so he starts recruiting volunteers from the wildlings to re-garrison the other abandoned 16 castles - and to lead them he sends his most experienced Night's Watch Rangers.
The problem is that his most experienced men are also the only survivors of the Great Ranging beyond the Wall, about two dozen or so men. They're the ones that have seen the army of the dead and know that this is an extinction-level event, that letting the wildlings through the Wall is their only option, AND who would agree with Jon that they can't defend the Wall from threats beyond while the Boltons destroy the realm behind them to the south.
So Jon sent away his most loyal black brothers, such as Dolorous Edd, to command the other castles.
Again, how the heck are Aemon and Samwell enough to keep any mutiny at bay?
I know denial is a powerful force but...the TV show version just doesn't seem coherent at present.
you see they rewrote "Hardhome" at the last minute, to shoot the moon with an amazingly great episode...
then....
They leave Hardhome by ship at the end of episode 8, only to suddenly arrive at Castle Black by land in episode 9...which is in the middle of the continent and nowhere near the coast! Their ships would have simply returned back to Eastwatch, the part at the eastern end of the Wall. But they wanted a big dramatic stare-off between Thorne and Jon and wondering if he'd let them through the Wall.
THEN....why would Thorne even let Jon and thousands of wildlings through the Wall in episode 9, only to them betray him in episode 10?
WHAT CHANGED?
Aemon was already dead by that point, for that matter. What, you think Samwell Tarly leaving was the only thing holding them back?
MAYBE they can retcon in that the news of Stannis's defeat tipped them to betrayal, on the logic that they thought that 1-Stannis supported Jon, and would continue to aid him if he won, and 2 - if the Boltons beat Stannis, they'd never let Jon continue as leader of the Night's Watch but attack the Watch to kill him, so might as well remove him first.
You cannot think of this as just the TV show in isolation. For all of their claims of "the TV show is just different", these are just events randomly falling into place, that only really make sense when you know that they gutted what really happened in the novels, and their TV version is slapped together so poorly that it doesn't really stand on its own. --The Dragon Demands (talk) 06:57, August 24, 2015 (UTC)
You're being so aggressive and stand-offish with me that you are really only trying to intimidate me out of disagreeing with you. I am sure that it will work, because there is more to life than taking the bait of trolls. It will also drive me away from a website where administrators think that the wiki is for disgruntled fans of the books rather than fans of the TV series. HouseFan (talk) 07:42, August 24, 2015 (UTC)
I am not trying to intimidate you. I raised logical counterpoints to how this played out in the TV series - and you didn't answer my question. Why would Aemon and Sam be all that was holding people back from mutinying against Jon? Where did the ships go? Why would Thorne let Jon and thousands of wildlings through the Wall only to seemingly randomly betray him in the next episode? If he wanted to kill him, wouldn't it be easier before letting him through the Wall?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:01, August 24, 2015 (UTC)
Dragon your wording looks aggressive even if you don't intend it to be, I recommend you think about that. As to your points:
"Why would Aemon and Sam be all that was holding people back from mutinying against Jon?"- They're not but Aemon was well respected and Sam's speech to have Jon elected suggests that he has gained some respect, they were likely a factor.
"Where did the ships go?" - No idea, probably ditched them and ran or were having difficulty shipping so many people at once.
"Why would Thorne let Jon and thousands of wildlings through the Wall only to seemingly randomly betray him in the next episode?" If he wanted to kill him, wouldn't it be easier before letting him through the Wall? - He wanted to get them in and then rile his brothers up before they got used to the wildlings, keep them out and they wouldn't exactly die instantly, it would be like "the jungle" in Calais right now, the people at the wall would be arguing among themselves about what to do and in this instance it could have led to fighting which nobody would have wanted. He wanted to get them in and then rile his brothers up against Jon before they got used to the wildlings, that would make it much easier to get support and the risk of chaos would be smaller. Gboy4 (talk) 15:42, August 24, 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I blame the odd choice for the betrayal motivation on the same thing I blame most if not all of my complaints about this season:
Condensing 2 books into 1 season due to the producers not knowing if the actors' contracts would be re-negotiated.
They didn't have enough time to add in the Boltons writing to the Wall and Jon's decision to go fight them. THAT is a much better reason for the Watch to betray him: the "traitors" know that if Jon goes to fight them, the Boltons will have a perfectly valid reason to exterminate the Watch, and there'd be nothing the Watch could do to stop them. In their place, I'd have killed him too, or at the very least have him removed from command. DRAEVAN13 16:14, August 24, 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Gboy. I agree that the physicality of both those characters was far less important than their political influence in the Night Watch, which judging by the election scene must have been large. Also, it would seem far easier to kill more wildlings once they got them on their own side of the wall, trapping them from escaping back to their homeland.
Draevan, from what you and others say about the books, the reasons for killing Jon in the books certainly appear to be stronger. I just don't think that that makes them nonexistant on the TV show. I have only read A Game of Thrones, and am not likely to read any of the other books anytime soon, so I am really only going by what is on the TV show. And I was not remotely surprised when they killed Jon in the final scene (although it still felt fully tragic). HouseFan (talk) 21:36, August 24, 2015 (UTC)
- "He wanted to get them in and then rile his brothers up before they got used to the wildlings, keep them out and they wouldn't exactly die instantly, it would be like "the jungle" in Calais right now, the people at the wall would be arguing among themselves about what to do and in this instance it could have led to fighting which nobody would have wanted. He wanted to get them in and then rile his brothers up against Jon before they got used to the wildlings, that would make it much easier to get support and the risk of chaos would be smaller."
- ....I don't understand what you're trying to say in this. Killing Jon after letting the wildlings through the Wall is proverbially bolting the lock on the stable door after the horse has fled from it.
- I don't know why you think he needs to somehow "rile up" the others against Jon - what good does that do, when the thing he was angry about in the first place was letting the wildlings through the Wall?
- Moreover, the TV series hasn't verbally stressed this as much, but the Watch doesn't have strong defenses on the south side of the Wall - thousands of wildlings can overwhelm their meager defenses - only the Wall kept them back.
- I mean, you're saying it was a case of "let's allow our enemy within our defensive perimeter, where we're sensitive, rather than let them flee"? There's maybe 600 Watch members left, they cannot defeat even 5,000 wildlings if they're south of the Wall.
- Please try to explain your theory in more detail. Again: why let Jon and thousands of wildlings through the Wall in the first place, if only to then kill Jon? -- When the entire reason the TV show gave for wanting to kill Jon was letting the wildlings through the Wall. If this was enough to make them want to kill him -- why even let the wildlings through? Why not turn on him then?
- HouseFan: in the novels, the Watch officers don't turn on Jon for letting wildlings through the Wall. Pay attention and read the notes carefully I already explained this: this does anger many at Jon's leadership, but the tipping point is that he increasingly starts aiding Stannis against the Boltons with advice and tactics. The cliffhanger ending of the fifth novel is that Jon gets a letter sent by Ramsay claiming that he defeated Stannis's army and killed him, and threatening that he wants Stannis's wife, daughter, and Melisandre (all of whom stayed at the Wall). Jon announces to his men that he can't defend the Wall from White Walkers attacking from the north while the Boltons are destroying the lands to the south, so he will ride out and fight them with any who will volunteer. Shocked that he would break his oath of neutrality, he is stabbed by Bowen Marsh and several others as soon as Jon is distracted. Neither side was entirely right - Jon wasn't breaking his vows when he let the wildlings in but he sure was breaking them when he announced "I am turning on the Boltons".
- Both of you: stop thinking emotionally but with plot logic: why kill Jon in episode 10 for letting wildlings through the Wall...when they could have just locked both Jon and the wildlings on the north side of the Wall in episode 9? No, it doesn't "make sense" for Thorne to be turning on Jon this late in the narrative - if for the same reason, he would have done it in episode 9.
I'm sorry if my tone is coming off as strong I'm not trying to do that, but I'm not even sure what you're claiming as the reason Thorne let them through the Wall.
--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:05, August 24, 2015 (UTC)
I mean, the line of reasoning the writers presented - if they presented any at all - was "Thorne is killing Jon for the unthinkable action of leading wildlings through the Wall"....in which case, why did Thorne let Jon and the wildlings through the Wall when he had the chance to lock them out?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:13, August 24, 2015 (UTC)
- Basically I think he wanted a way of getting rid of Jon in the way that wouldn't result in a high probably of fragmenting the Watch or his own death (I know either could happen anyway), if he left them out there the watch would squabble among themselves about what to do and that may lead to violence, leave it too long and Jon may be able to win back support, the watch to start getting along with the wildlings or they could start focusing on the real enemy and attacking Jon then would probably result in his own death so attacking soon after they arrive and tensions are high would be a perfect time to gain support.
- (minus the wildings being south of the wall).
- I admit I'm not sure what he and the other traitors plan to do with the wildlings but that seems to be a flaw in their plan regardless of whether I'm right or not, although having said that I don't know how many of the wildlings are actual fighters as there was a large number of civilians, the watch may still be able to hold their own in that regard.
- Basically I think Thorne's a sore loser who wants to be Lord Commander again.
And it's a shame because the scene would've taken 10 minutes at most. Jon gets the letter after Stannis is defeated, assembles the Watch and Wildlings, tells them he's going to go to fight the Boltons, asks for volunteers to come with him, and when he leaves the meeting he's killed. Done. Barely a few minutes longer than what we got in the show, and makes much more sense than "we hate the Wildlings". DRAEVAN13 00:25, August 25, 2015 (UTC)
Gboy4: Thorne has been an honorable member of the Watch for years, to whom mutiny is unthinkable and the price of treason is death. In the novels you see how Bowen Marsh and others come to think that Jon is breaking his vows and they're doing it "for the Watch".
Thorne isn't presented with any reason to kill Jon yet let the wildlings through the Wall. Thorne doesn't care about "getting rid of Jon", but Jon's decision to let wildlings through the Wall. Why kill Jon after allowing what Jon wanted anyway?
Thousands of wildlings were led by Jon to the gates, clearly Jon's intent to all was to lead the wildlings through. *****ANYONE who would have been angry at Jon for leading the wildlings through the Wall...was ALREADY angry at Jon for leading them to the gates!
...okay, your reasoning is: 1 - allowing Jon to return with wildlings through the Wall would turn many more black brothers against him, making it easier to kill Jon; 2 - if they left the wildlings camp out at the gates, locking them out, the Watch would argue about what to do until it turned on itself?
Both of these are flawed, and I want you to specifically answer them:
1 - Thorne wasn't obsessed with killing Jon, he was upset at the idea of letting wildlings through the Wall - in which case, why kill Jon AFTER already letting the wildlings through the Wall? Thorne gained nothing significant from this, as Jon's will was already done.
2 - ...they already made it a point, even in the TV series, that MOST of the Night's Watch didn't support Jon doing this. Even Dolorous Edd said he didn't feel good about it. The only reason some of them go along with it is their grudging respect for the chain of command.
...in which case, the Watch would not be "divided" by this decision; they already presented Jon as being isolated, before he went to Hardhome.
No, what does "political support" of Aemon and Samwell even mean? How would this restrain them? (In the novels, he sends out many of his major supporters to re-garrison other castles).
--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:20, August 25, 2015 (UTC)
1 - Thorne has tried to get Jon killed before remember? it's what he was hoping would happen when he sent Jon against the mutineers and the main reason appears to be disliking him and finding him to be a petty nuisance. Thorne doesn't seem to take losing lightly, especially not to a boy like Jon. Personally I think the wildlings are more of an excuse for Thorne than a primary motive.
And Thorne gained support from having the wildlings in, or do you forget how hysterical people can be about immigrants? Making them seem like a possible immediate threat would make the haters louder, tilt the neutral ones towards their side and either fill the supporters with doubt making them quieter or have them drowned out by everyone else. By exploiting that fear Thorne probably has all the support he needs and in a way that isn't as likely to split the watch or leave him dead.
Also I think he was a little obsessed with seeing Jon dead from the start: "Now there's a rare sight. Not only a bastard, but a traitor's bastard. Blood talks. You'll hang for this, bastard."
2 - They might not have been happy with Jon but Jon still had support and even those who didn't like him may not have wanted him dead at that point.
The political support thing is simple, the more support Jon has the more likely betraying him will lead to his own death. Gboy4 (talk) 02:01, August 25, 2015 (UTC)
...No, Thorne never outright tried to kill Jon. The Return to Craster's Keep subplot (invented for the TV show) never had him try to "kill" him - Jon volunteered for a dangerous mission, Thorne refused, then Slynt said it would be no loss to them if Jon died risking his life, so Thorne eventually said what the heck, told Jon if he wanted to risk his own life doing it he wouldn't stop him. This is not remotely near the level of stabbing a superior officer.
"or do you forget how hysterical people can be about immigrants?"
...er....the wildlings are not "immigrants" (other than in the strict technical sense). They've been fighting the Night's Watch for years and the main point is that they've been fighting each other militarily for so long.
....combined with the prior reference to the refugee camps at the Pas de Calais, I really think you're confusing this with real-life situations which are not actually analogous to the situation.
....consider: if a Labour Party British Prime Minister says he wants to let in thousands of war refugees, and the Conservative Party candidate opposes that. Right? By this analogy...it's as if the Conservative candidate pushed to let the refugees immigrate....so he could blame it on the Labour PM, and rally support against him? People already oppose the immigrants coming in. The Conservative guy would sacrifice his political platform purely for political payback?
....but this isn't even a good analogy. Why...why are you bringing up these modern issues regarding "immigration", which has nothing to do with the wildling situation as presented in the story?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 02:09, August 25, 2015 (UTC)
Thorne never did outright try to kill him my point was that he's wanted Jon dead for a while and what evidence do you have that he's honorable? He might have been loyal until now but that isn't exactly the same thing.
"They've been fighting the Night's Watch for years and the main point is that they've been fighting each other militarily for so long." - Yes, exactly, therefore the tensions would be far worse which just backs up my point.
I was only briefly mentioning real world comparisons in an attempt to highlight the possible controversies and the dangers Thorne faced if he timed it wrong, I'm fully aware it isn't exactly like Calais I which is why I briefly mentioned it. Gboy4 (talk) 08:15, August 25, 2015 (UTC)
1 - Well that still doesn't sound like a very strong rationale.
2 - Oh, okay I misread what you meant.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 13:31, August 25, 2015 (UTC)
Blocked...again=[]
The Dragon Demands, you can't just block pages because you disagree with the editions of others. You just can't. You undid all of my work, which included corrections of severely wrong information (AFFC/ADWD are being adapted into Seasons 4, 6 and mostly 5; not all in Season 5; and the Battle of Winterfell was not the climax of ADWD), and plainly superfluous trivia (such as the Bowen Marsh casting shananigans, or the allegations of the expansion of the Hardhome massacre, which you took wildly out of context and proportrion.) There was also a lot of reworking of text; you tend to write in a stream of consciousness, so I tried to fit each paragraph into its topic, avoiding repetition. You undid all of that too. Be reasonable. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 14:00, October 3, 2015 (UTC)
The casting note about Marsh will not be removed.
...You didn't "remove repetition", you cut out parts you didn't like.
Do not change those notes subsections again. If you do, I'm going to revert the changes and lock the page again. This is a warning.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 14:30, October 3, 2015 (UTC)
And you won't correct the mistakes? I told you about quite a few! Absurd. I guess it's because they support your contention that the reason for Stannis's condensation is that AFFC and ADWD were all condensed into Season 5... An objective falsehood. But you don't care about that, of course...--ArticXiongmao (talk) 15:00, October 3, 2015 (UTC)
Jon Snow's fate notes section[]
It happened again. I've added some possible reasons why Ser Alliser let the wildlings through the Wall and The Dragon Demands automaticly reverted them, saying that it was already explained in text (but actually it wasn't). Not to mention that this article is very biased towards the books and almost openly criticises the TV show, something that is very inappropriate for a show fansite. Seriously, what's wrong with you The Dragon Demands? Even if you are administrator, you don't have the right to delete other people's work, just because it doesn't match your perspective. "Game of Thrones wikia is a site which everyone can contribute to" - but apparently, you own the site, even though you don't like TV series (at least your profile says so).Questlord195 (talk) 20:09, March 3, 2016 (UTC)
Oh I wasn't removing your points, I reworded your points into it; sorry, I wasn't done rewriting the section a bit yet, I am now. I reworked your stuff into the last paragraph. Only after writing that edit summary did I realize you are correct, I didn't make the point about Melisandre clearly enough before.
Your version:
- However, there is a possibility that not letting Jon through the Wall would portray Ser Alliser as an outright traitor in the eyes of the Night's Watch, so the officers decided to get rid of him in secret. It is also not clear if Thorne already intended to betray Jon, when that scene happened. It remains to be seen how the TV continuity will explain these discrepancies.
Revised version:
- "It remains to be seen how the TV continuity will explain these discrepancies: it is unclear in the TV version at what point Thorne decided to betray Jon and what the actual tipping point was that made the mutiny happen specifically when it did: if Thorne even intended to betray Jon when he let the wildlings through the Wall, or if Thorne did want to betray Jon then but feared being seen as a traitor in front of all of the other Watch members standing guard atop the Wall if he kept the gate closed, etc. The missing ships from Hardhome aside, if Thorne outright states in Season 6 that he turned on Jon only after the wildlings came through the Wall because Melisandre brought news of the Boltons' victory, it won't actually be a plot hole (within the TV continuity's own internal logic).
How is it?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:15, March 3, 2016 (UTC)
Yes. That is better.
Questlord195 (talk) 20:17, March 3, 2016 (UTC)