One down
Not bad but not great. I could do without the Avatar-esque dragon ride.
shareYeah, I didn't think much of the episode until the last ten minutes, really. That's often the case with season openers though.
shareI would've sat on the Jon reveal longer. After beating to death the idea that these things wont matter if they dont survive, who cares?
shareWell, because it was necessary now so Jon can rally and unite all the bannermen of the North behind him when they clearly were not crazy about going to battle for Daenerys.
shareBut a similar conflict will arise on the other side now. I doubt they're going to depict an easy acceptance from Dany and all those who have followed her to this point. But getting back to my point, and the point Jon's been expressing ad nauseam, it's all moot once the dead arrive anyway. You wont have to convince anyone to fight for this one or that one. It'll be fight or die.
shareWhy would it be hard for Dany to accept when she's clearly in love with him?
It's not like the Dothraki will hitch a ride across the Narrow Sea and go home because don't like the idea of uniting behind Jon. They're still subordinate to her and will respect her wishes. Whereas House Glover's decision to stay in Deepwood Motte because of their reluctance to unite behind Dany is a harbinger of how the northern bannermen could very well just decide to stay home. The situations aren't even remotely similar.
It's only all moot if you find no redeeming value in organizing a united front to battle the dead because you think the humans are all fated to lose anyway. If you do believe organization, numbers, strategy, and cohesion can give them a chance to beat the dead then it absolutely does make a difference whether they meet them as a unified force in the field of battle instead of allowing the dead to march down and pick them off as they run for the hills.
Danerys won't give up the throne because some dusty old book says so. And how can Jon marry her now and unite the North if she's his aunt? I'm betting he keeps the secret under wraps, has Sam locked up, and schedules the wedding chapel.
shareShe won't have to give it up so much as share it with Jon.
Nor is it just a "dusty old book". You didn't understand the significance of him riding the dragon prior to learning who he was? Dany will know Sam speaks truth about Jon because his Targ lineage is the only way to explain how he was able to tame and solo ride a dragon bareback.
And why can't they marry? Targ rulers have a long and storied history of marrying within the family.
Giving her the news also reveals their blood relation. So this love is thrown into turmoil as well.
The idea that this will go over easily with an instant smiling acceptance, without any conflict, goes against every rule of drama. Conflict is the thing. You cant have it both ways. Before Jon returned, you could've used the same logic for his loyalists. They'll certainly listen to Jon about the threat, they're loyal and they're united behind him; they believe in him, and he's behind her -- but that's not what happened. Dany scratched and clawed and fought her way to this point to be Queen, as did those loyal to her. It won't go over easy for her side. It's actually worse since she's had the investment in being the heir all along while Jon just stumbled onto his birthright. It's written to be the time bomb that it is.
And the logic to unify would exist no matter what. That's not what's moot here. The bookkeeping is -- which has been Jon's point, expressed over and over and over. What you just described goes against what he's been saying to every leader since Hardhome.
I'm not saying it will "go over easy", just pointing out the very real logistical challenges to Dany's loyalist Dothraki not having the option of packing up and going home unlike the Northern bannermen. Same goes for Unsullied, who strike me as far more loyalist to Dany's wishes should she defer to Jon than bannermen to Dany.
But I don't see it being an either/or situation either because I honestly don't see her bending the knee to Jon. I see them jointly ruling as co-equal partners and rulers from marriage. It's hard for me to imagine it turning out any other way. Dany unwillingly subordinating herself to Jon being the rightful king just doesn't ring as a possible plot contrivance at this point with only 5 episodes left. IMO, there's just not the time to explore such divisive soap operatic elements before everyone must get on the same page to fight off the dead and thwart Cersei's scheming.
My point on unifying is that regardless of the logic to unify, the theme of this first episode was the resistance to unify in spite of the logic.
No matter what we both know there's going to be a unity of most forces for some big battle. But again, my point is Jon's point. He's never played on who he is over the logic to join him. Time after time he convinces unlikely partners to fight with him rather than for him. Others might add the latter but he doesnt. So I could claim that the reluctance of the Northerners this time, with the stakes so high, to be a plot contrivance. This is when they're going to creep away? This is when his pitch falls flat? It might be the end of the world but his pragmatic approach to Dany is the deal breaker for unification? For the purpose of adding more conflict, it turned out to be just that.
So I have a hard time believing after devoting so much time to Dany's evolution and quest as a pillar of the show, there'd be no cashing in on the upcoming drama surrounding suddenly needing to modify her already lengthy and prestigious title with "and Aunt of her lover, the real rightful heir to the Iron Throne". I cant imagine they'd have such a long set up with no payoff. They may end up as co-pilots in some way (but there's still the outstanding question of Jon, the should-be-dead-but-isnt) as you say -- but Dany and her supporters are going to have issues with the news. Ironing them out without some blowback is a waste of the gut punch it's clearly meant to be. A new dramatic question has been put forth. If/when you tell her, what will happen? It's not set up to be an uneventful path to an obvious and easily accepted answer. You say it wouldnt be hard for her to accept. IMHO it will be. Jon's logic is correct: "it doesnt matter" But in drama they have to make it so.
I would've held off to drop that bomb at another moment -- but the 3-Eyed Raven knows something we dont.
Is it a plot contrivance when very few of the northerners have actually seen the Night King's army? No one doubts everyone would recognize the high stakes once the undead turn up at their homes and start turning everyone in front of them into wights. Seeing is believing. The skepticism of the undead army being real by those that have yet to witness it themselves has been a consistent feature throughout. Jon's MO has been to try to convince everyone of the threat despite not having seen it with their own eyes. It required the capture of a wight to get the southerners to see it. Jon's logic only makes sense if one is convinced the threat is real.
I have to defer to Bran's judgement since he is the greenseer. He's been on the same page as Jon. He recognizes the immediacy of the threat and grew alarmed as he watched the unfolding drama between Dany and Sansa over Jon bending the knee, interjecting that they didn't have time for that soap opera. I assume he urged Sam to divulge Jon's secret to him now for the very same reasons. His motive was to get everyone on the same page to fight the Night King and he felt the best way to do that was for Jon to know who he was and make his birthright known.
If Bran thought that would be counterproductive by causing even more drama to getting everyone unified to fight the threat then I don't see him doing it. But he is the Three-Eyed Raven, if anyone would have an accurate premonition on the best path forward, it would be him.
Yes, I think it is. It's Jon, their guy, not just a story from just anyone or an enemy attempting to fool them. He shouldn't need to provide Cersei level proof to convince his own loyalists. And aside from Jon, there's others there now who witnessed what's coming as well, some of them who were once enemies. But more importantly, there was no mention of skepticism in their reasoning. It's just that they have convenient tunnel vision focused on Jon and Dany, and IMO, it's there to ratchet up the difficulty and thus create more drama. I think the revelation will do the same.
And after thinking a little more about this, I'm not so sure Jon's revelation would be an instant path to rallying them. Is announcing that you're the son of a Targ, rather than the son of Eddard Stark, good news for northerners? There might a role for Sansa here after she finds out that they don't share a father. They've already butt heads, and she's already being painted as a growing power broker who's miffed about a Targ and her dragons. Despite the lineage, being half Targ might leave Jon without any happy parties -- at least initially -- except for wildlings and some night's watch. Maybe the 3-Eyed Raven is seeing something more twisty than we're thinking? It's not very compelling to just listen to Bran forecast everything in a straight forward manner. Maybe the set up of Jon's odd resurrection will be paid off? I dont know but I do know you raise stakes and create more obstacles in drama. Everything should be difficult and challenging.
He's still son of a Stark, he just happens to have the best claim to the throne of all seven kingdoms now. Is really being half Targ enough for them to forsake him? I guess we'll find out how purely racist the northerners are, because racism is exactly what it'd be if they choose to spurn Jon only because he's half Targ.
But racism is an irrational sentiment prone to the less intelligent and ignorant. It'd be disappointing should Sansa be revealed as a racist, especially with the show now playing up her smarts. I think it'd prove that she's irredeemably dumb if she holds it against Jon.
I understand the need for a story to raise the stakes, but the stakes are already sky high and I just don't see the time for a lot of additional drama for your anti-Targ racist angle to play out before we have the major battle coming in episode 3. Bran was very insistent on the need for Jon to know who he is now, so I expect we'll learn as the story unfolds that telling him later really wasn't an option if they wanted to survive.
There can be a lot of dramatic daylight between "forsake him" and "rally behind him". And call it racism if you want, but more broadly, the show has been all about us vs them. It's been tribalism in spades. What do you call their reaction to Dany, "the outsider"? What's that other than "she's not like us"? It's a significant change to strip away the connection to Edd Stark, the honorable man, and replace it with a Targ. I suspect it'll be most significant to Sansa. Throughout the show, bloodline claims are never quite enough to hold onto things. There's always an angle or scheme --i.e., a game of thrones. But let's just pretend for a second that this Jon reveal didnt exist. Should they rally around Jon and Dany? Why wont they? B/c she's got yellow hair? B/c she's not from there? B/c she's from a family they cant stand (which will suddenly be acceptable if Jon is from that family too)? B/c she's got more outsiders, those Dothraki, with her? B/c they cant stand her being at the head of the table in the North? The whole show has been about things like this.
shareHuge difference between not trusting Dany who they've never known and is a foreigner to them and forsaking Jon, who they've known all his life, for being half Targ. Especially Sansa who should know better.
The latter is pure and simple racism. No way to sugar coat it.
Who's sugar coating? Wrong show for that. Again, racism -- and 1000 other offenses, most of them as bad or worse, throughout the show, mostly rooted in tribalism and power lust -- with some depravity for the sake of depravity. And you're ignoring that Jon trusts her, but yet that conveniently doesn't carry much weight for them despite Winter's arrival. What are they saying about his judgment right now, before hearing the bombshell? Being against "the other", without reason other than her being "the other", despite Jon's endorsement, is the same thing. Worse, actually. You're applying high moral standards to a show that's replete with the opposite. There'd be no conflict, no drama at all, if all parties did the right, at the right moment, in every instance.
shareI'm just pointing out the difference in the false equivalence you were making between their natural fear and suspicion of Dany, who they've never known and is a foreigner, to Jon who is a Stark by blood and who is the same person they've known all their lives.
The former is natural, understandable, and rational. The latter is indefensibly irrational and pure and simple racism. No way to sugarcoat it.
Good grief. Who's sugar coating? You just keep reasserting without answering. Tribalism in all forms is a cornerstone of the show. Why you pretend that "natural fear" of a "foreigner" is unrelated to this is beyond me. Your description is the textbook root of prejudice and discrimination against "the other" in every world be it real or fantasy. Wrong show for examples of rational treatment of those unlike you.
But more importantly, getting out of those weeds, tell me why it's not indefensibly irrational for them to dissent, despite his trusting endorsement of Dany, despite being a son of Stark, despite the existential threat that they're all facing, where she's bringing immense muscle to their forces, where titles will be moot if they're all dead? Why wont they throw support behind a Targ Queen like their king did? Why did Sansa throw a little jab at Dany about her dragon's diet? Did you get a feeling of logical support for her and these logically superior weapons that will logically help in this epic battle for survival, or did you get another feeling from that and Dany's ominous retort? Isnt it all written to make things more tense, more difficult via another obstacle to overcome and another after that? "it wont be hard for..." is exactly the opposite of how you write drama. The harder the better.
You keep missing my point. There's a difference between tribalism and racism that you're failing to grasp. Turning on Jon simply because they learn he's half Targ is pure racism. No way to sugarcoat it.
shareYou're just avoided answering the questions b/c truthful answers lead where you dont want to go.
You saying that it would be racist to judge someone on being half Targ, yet it's not that when applied to Dany, a full Targ, is preposterous. That's why you keep ignoring Jon's vetting and vouching that should allay this "natural fear", and all the other pluses she brings to the table, including having an impressive resume of assembling people and forces from different lands just as Jon did with the wildlings. With all this, what pray tell do they hold against Dany? Her Targaryen-ness perhaps? It's you who's sugar coating and making excuses for their distaste for her being Targaryen, so much that they cant bring themselves to support their king, who supports her, despite what's at stake. If this was about logic in real circumstances, they should be cheering her arrival. And that's the answer you kept avoiding. No way to sugarcoat that.
And you gave yourself away early on when you said "He's still son of a Stark". If you werent suspecting racism on their part, why would that matter? Even if it were revealed that he's full Targ, it shouldnt matter, b/c they know him, right? But you put that qualifier in there anyway. Why?? Your own statement implies that being half Targ is a net negative for them -- with the Stark half being his saving grace. That's racist. Who cares if he's "still Stark" or anything else. He just needs to be the guy they know -- but you didnt leave it at that, did you?
I do find it amusing you keep spinning your wheels off on tangents that are besides my point. You keep trying to pretend there's no difference between rejecting Dany and rejecting Jon. I'm just pointing out you're wrong. There's a rational basis for rejecting Dany's leadership because they don't know her. Like Ser Davos said, they trust Jon, not Dany. Trust must be earned. Ser Davos didn't say trust was impossible because she's a Targ. Meanwhile, there is no rational basis for rejecting Jon because he's half Targ. That's just pure racism, plain and simple. You keep trying to deny this simple truth.
shareSince you wont answer any of my questions, and keep spitting the same stuff without acknowledging the context you're intentionally leaving out, no matter how many times I bring it up, b/c what you say wont fit if you do, just do this:
Show me where I denied that rejecting Jon on that basis would be racist.
You're right, you questioned whether they would and implied they might but did not explicitly state so outright here:
"Is announcing that you're the son of a Targ, rather than the son of Eddard Stark, good news for northerners? There might a role for Sansa here after she finds out that they don't share a father. They've already butt heads, and she's already being painted as a growing power broker who's miffed about a Targ and her dragons. Despite the lineage, being half Targ might leave Jon without any happy parties -- at least initially -- except for wildlings and some night's watch."
My bad on that. It was posed as a hypothetical and my immediate response was that if Sansa did that based on him being half Targ and not sharing a father then then that would prove she's irredeemably stupid because only racism could explain her sentiments. I'm sticking by that.
I appreciate the honesty but you left out the first part of my quote.
"I'm not so sure Jon's revelation would be an instant path to rallying them."
That's a little less severe than saying he'll be forsaken. Like I kept mentioning, there's drama to be culled here. And from just reading ahead to the description of the next episode, there's going to be something between Sansa and Dany as well as Jaimie having to appear before court for his past. They're going to be stuffing in any conflict they can in here. I'm sure Jaime leaving Cersei for the North was written for the chance of this mini-drama for killing Dany's father. I suspect the Night King battle will be saved for the first of the 80 min eps (the 4th?) later on in the season.
Anyway, I'm done debating. Enjoy the show. May it be well written.
Glover is a special case. That dude has proven to be a faithless jerk.
shareI don't disagree that he's an asshat.
But the theme of the episode appeared to be dissension in the ranks at Jon ceding his title to Dany, bringing to question the unity and loyalties of the northern bannermen under her rule. From Ser Davos explicitly warning Tyrion the Northmen are loyal to Jon Snow and not Dany ... to Lady Mormont literally ripping Jon a new asshole (to quite a bit of supportive heckling and cheers from the rest) that to put it plainly ... they were pissed.
The point being it was strongly implied there was enough dissension in the ranks from other families that they might not have been far behind Glover's lead. He may not have been such a "special case".