WearyTraveler

THIS!!!! AND THIS!!! Soooooooooooooooo much!!!!

And with an Italian accent! I could understand if they chose to have the characters speak English for the sake of not having subtitles, there are movies about people from other countries where the characters speak English all the time and audiences understand that this is done for them because they know the characters would be speaking their original language, but why would they choose to have them have an accent? This I can understand, many people who emigrate to another country choose to speak only that country's language, even with others who speak their language. And when you are fully bilingual, all it takes is one word in another language to flip the switch in your head and continue the conversation in that language. It happens to me when I'm with bilingual friends all the time. We could start a conversation in Spanish, then one of us would use a word in English because it's shorter and that's what your brain tends to do (pick the shortest word to express meaning), and then the conversation would be in English for a while. I know! Me too. I can't reconcile the way their mouths move with the sounds they are making. And there's always something weird about the way the dubbed track is laid on top of the original track, it just sounds so fake. Takes me out of the story all the time.

He can be shallow and over the top, and sometimes too on the nose and gratuitous with gore and sex, but he did do an awesome, subtle job with The Normal Heart, so he can go deep.

No, they specifically say a new person. Here's what it says under each picture (the arguments the staff make for each Queen): MISSANDEI Started as a translator for Daenerys, then she became her adviser and even took part in important decisions. She is intelligent and loyal. And her partner, Grey Worm, is a eunuch... DAENERYS Now we know that Jon is her nephew. Will they continue to be together? There's always the possibility that Daenerys would turn evil, after all, she's a Targaryen and daughter of the Mad King ANOTHER One season is long enough. It is possible that the Game of Thrones writers would introduce a new female character who would become a new and definitive love for Jon Snow ------------------------------------ But, again, I wouldn't put any stock into these blurbs, they are speculation from the magazine's staff. More to the point, if one of them thinks that if Jon lives his queen would be some woman we have never met, then this person has clearly not watched the show (or much television), or read the books. D&D have had their blunders, but I'd think even they are smart enough to know introducing a new love interest for Jon this late in the game would be a disaster, Personally, I think Daenerys will be Jon's last partner in the TV show. Even if she were to die and he were to live, I don't think we would see a Dany replacement on the screen, unless they do a time jump of a few years and we see Jon with some new face ruling Westeros, which would have no emotional impact whatsoever.

I was thinking that! LOL! But I was wondering if people had plot-related reasons supporting the pairing (beyond the awesome aesthetics, that is)

Nothing of the sort. At least not on this page. The first paragraph is KH's answer to a question that must be on the page before the one pictured. I'll translate: KH: Yes, it's a connection. Maybe someone has found out something I don't know (laughs). XL: You have admitted that it took a great effort not to laugh when filming sex scenes with Emilia Clarke (Daenerys Targaryen in the series) KH: Yes, it took effort. When you know someone only a little bit and you have to film a sex scene with them, that doesn't happen, it's easier to be serious. But when you have known someone for 8 years, and she is a good friend, and you have to film a sex scene with her, you could burst into laughter, you have to concentrate a lot to remain serious. XL: Did that happen to you with Rose Leslie (his partner in real life and in the series as Ygritte)? KH: No, that didn't happen to me with Rose (laughs). When we filmed those scenes we were already a couple. XL: Is it going to be difficult to leave Jon Snow behind? KH: I think so, but I don't I should try to leave him behind because he is part of my career, my history. That's the way it is, and it can't bother me. XL: What do you have in common with your character? KH: He's partly my creation, there's a lot of me in him. --------------------- Now the bit on the side with the pictures of Missandei, Dany and a stranger, are speculation from the paper as to who Jon Snow could end up with. They say it's their own staff submitting theories: "Jon Snow has gained importance in Game of Thrones, he is already a King and could sit on the Iron Throne. Who would be his Queen? Our team has made its bets" And then under every picture the reasoning for the speculation, but it's no more informed than what fans do in boards across the world. Missandei as Queen is new to me, though. Is that a thing out there? Are people rooting for Jon and Missandei to get together?

Man, I've forgotten so much stuff, I'm going to have to do a rewatch if I don't want to be confused when the show comes back.

The end result of the book will be a win for the good guys and they won't stop being honorable to do so. I very much doubt Jon or Dany will do something dishonorable to win, but one, or both of them will win, in the end. That's how the story is being set up. I think even GRRM knows that if after 7 books, in the span of 20+ years, the good guys don't win, he'll have the biggest disappointment in fantasy writing ever. If Ned had gone with Renly's plan and won, we wouldn't have a story, now, would we? If Ned had gone with Renly's plan, GRRM would have come up with some other circumstance to make the Starks lose at the beginning of the series. His purpose was to have the Starks lose, so that he could then create the arc for the entire series which would culminate in (again) A Time for Wolves. Also, Ned's plan didn't fail because it wasn't a good plan, it failed because Sansa inadvertently betrayed him and because LF is a little shit who was so intent in destroying Ned and the Starks, he would have done anything to achieve his goal. Had Ned gone with Renly's plan, LF would have set up some other situation to eliminate Ned from the game. And given that this is a story and the story needs conflict in order for an arc to develop, LF would have been successful. Had GRRM written a book about wonderful Ned always being smarter than all the enemies of House Stark and winning at every single turn, he wouldn't have had a mega hit in his hands. People would get bored of reading that very quickly. So, while it's impossible to say what exactly would have happened if Ned had decided to go with Renly's plan, I have no doubt his family would not have been in a better position than where they were when LF betrayed him in the throne room. Stannis is a Southern Lord, and those men were not exercising their right to vengeance. The Northern lore says that a man is entitled to vengeance. And Stannis is not a very typical Southern Lord either. Gregor is never punished for making cannibals of other people, for example, and he was not avenging anything when he did it, he was doing it just for kicks: In Skaagos (under Northern rule), there are still cannibals who are not being executed. Jaimie also hears that Danelle Lothston's (from Harrenhal) is rumored to be a cannibal. I will say that cannibalism is considered an abomination by most Westerosi, but in the North, as per their rules, what Manderly did would not be considered a crime for which he would have to pay with his life, as clearly stated in the story of the Rat Cook. Not all dreams mean something in these books, and most of the times dreams and prophecies don't mean what the characters (or the readers) think they mean. George painfully makes the point, over and over again, that characters misread, misunderstand and assign meaning to their dreams colored by their own experiences. You can't take what Jon hears his ancestors say in a dream as the truth of how his ancestors feel. See: Melisandre getting things wrong, Rhaegar getting things wrong, Cersei getting things wrong, the Dosh Khaleen getting things wrong, and so on. I'm sure Lyanna Stark would consider Jon a Stark, we know that Ned considered Jon a Stark, those are two ancestors that consider the guy a true Stark, why wouldn't the other ancestors do too? More to the point, Jon is a true Stark, he is no bastard. Had he been a bastard, Rhaegar would not have left 3 Kingsguard protecting him and Lyanna. The show used a sappy, easy and expedient way to make Jon a legitimate child, product of a legitimate marriage. But that doesn't mean it will not be true in the books too. Probably through different means, but true all the same. Most likely, Rhaeghar got permission to marry Lyanna, as many of his ancestors were allowed to be polygamous. If Jon is the legitimate child of a Targaryen and Stark marriage, he is a real Stark by Westerosi standards. His ancestors would not say he wasn't a real Stark. You state that because Jon's ancestors tell him in a dream that he is no Stark, the North will use that as a reason not to follow him. The truth is he IS a real Stark because he is the product of a legitimate marriage, and the fact that the North declares Jon King in the North in the show, makes it very likely this will happen in the books too (just as his resurrection, which hasn't happened in the books yet, but we all know will happen because it happened on the show). Saying the North will not follow Jon is not supported by the facts. Martin says the blog gets him, it's a very ample comment. I doubt the blog gets EVERYTHING, and I doubt Martin would tells us what exactly they didn't get right, why would he? In any case, I read the essays and they are saying what I'm saying: The Watch turns against Jon not because of the Wildlings, but because by trying to save Arya, he proves to them that he is breaking his vow to take no part in the conflicts south of the Wall. For example, one essay says: Regarding Hardhome, I'll agree to disagree. I will mention that Cotter Pyke, a man of the NW and the Commander of Eastwatch, asked Jon to send help by land in the last raven he sent. So, this is a man of the NW asking his LC for help, not only the Wildlings. The essays' writer forgets this fact and doesn't include it in his analyses. I think that is important. The writer insists that Jon never considers the possibility that Stannis could lose, if that were so, Jon wouldn't have acted in secret and always trying to guarantee plausible deniability as the same author states. Once again, you are proving my point, which was precisely that the North would not be loyal if Robb hadn't proven himself to be a leader in their eyes. Bullying your liege into doing what you want is not being loyal. Coming because your liege Lord called you is not being loyal (ask Roose Bolton about Manderly's loyalty, Manderly went to WF when called by his current liege, the Boltons, but he wasn`t loyal to them). The North is not loyal to the Stark name only, it has to be a combination. See the Karstarks for an example of Northeners who refused to follow a Stark only because he was a Stark. For Northern Lords, the name will only carry you so far. The moment they think you are making the wrong decisions as a leader, they will turn, as the Karstarks did. These have been addressed by other comments above. Sigh! As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so, here we go: Treacherous: Jaime's action were a one time thing, he's not always ready to betray others, or forget his vows, he's not sitting somewhere making up plans to betray someone for his own personal game. And while he didn't uphold his vow to protect the King, he upheld his vow, as a Knight, to protect the realm and the innocents in it. So, no, Jaime is not a treacherous person. Jaime wasn't planning on betraying Aerys; it was a snap decision that he made when he realized that Aerys was about to burn the whole city down. Many readers still don't consider him good, though (even though he saved thousands of people) because there's the sticky point of him throwing Bran out of a window, but I think many more would agree that we are seeing him become a good guy as his story unfolds.

My point had nothing to do with Stannis' honor. You stated earlier that GRRM is writing a book where honor doesn't matter if you want to win, I pointed out that for the North, honor matters so much they are willing to accept a Southron as a leader to rescue Ned's daughter because Ned being honorable is what made them loyal to Ned. He was a guy that always did the right thing, in their mind. As my post states, yes, I am aware. I don't remember anywhere in the books where it's stated that cannibalism is punishable by death. I specifically highlighted for you that they believe a man is entitled to vengeance. It's a bit of an eye for an eye over there. And as my example shows, according to Northern lore, the northern Gods are not against cannibalism, they are against breaking guest rule. Even in the South, they don't seem to have a big problem with it. Biter goes around eating the flesh of people he bites while he's fighting and the other soldiers just laugh at that. Jon's ancestors don't tell him this. Jon dreams they are telling him this, it's a very different situation. You are taking the dream as a truth, when it's only a dream, and as such, is colored by the dreamer's own psyche. Even Melisandre, who is better than most at reading the flames gets the message wrong sometimes. She's guessing that the girl in the horse is Arya, when it's in fact Alys Karstark. The dream is not fact. It's a dream. One of the things about prophecies and dreams in the entire series is that their record of being true is inconsistent, and this is so by design. Martin doesn't want the reader to completely trust the magical, but sometimes the magical is right. IMO, when it comes to prophecies that have different sources (Prince That Was Promised vs. Azor Ahai, for example) and that are repeated throughout the series, are more likely to have some truth in them (otherwise, Martin wouldn't insist on repeating them). But other prophecies and dreams don't mean much. Also, different people have different abilities. Maggie the Frog could see the future by using blood magic, Mel sees the future in the fires, some substances induce visions but don't cause the seer to have the ability permanently (Dany in the House of the Undying). Some have the ability to warg animals, but they don't see the future (Jon, Arya, Robb, Bran), others, like Bran are much more powerful. Jon is a warg but he has never had a vision of the future or a dream that came true. You are using ONE dream to prove a point from a character whose dreams have never been prophetic. There's not enough logical evidence to make that leap. I suggest you do a re-read. Jon never yells at them. He only yells when he's issuing commands in battle. He also explained to them his reasons, in great detail. He tells them that the Wildlings that stay beyond the Wall would eventually become Wights and come at them again. He reminds them what it was like to be fighting 20,000 Wildlings, and how they only won that battle because Stannis showed up. He tells them Stannis is gone now and it would be them against an army of 20,000 dead people walking. He makes his case very well, this is why they don't stab him when he lets the Wildings through the doors. They don't like it, they may have doubts that the solution is correct, but they still understand his reasoning enough not to demote him or stab him right away. I don't know what else Jon could have told them or shown them to convince them. The fact many of the guys in the NW didn't understand the dangers is not on Jon. It's on their own stupidity. He sent his friends away because he couldn't trust anyone else to have command in the other castles and he sent Sam away because he was the only one good enough for the job. If he kept them close and gave them high command jobs in Castle Black, then he would have been accused of playing favorites. He doesn't say in his internal monologue that he doesn't care about the men in his council, if this were so, he wouldn't have bothered asking Bowen and the others for their opinions. He says he doesn't have the time to hear once again all the idiotic objections they always have. And he is right, he doesn't have the time, because there are many other issues that need to be resolved. If Jon didn't care about the NW, his black brothers or his duty, he would have accepted Stannis' offer and he would have been Lord of Winterfell, as he had always wanted. But he didn't take Stannis' offer to legitimize him, make him Lord of Winterfell and marry the beautiful Val because he did care about all those other things. There are two good arguments for trying to rescue the Wildlings at Hardhome: 1) They are thousands, who will then become thousands of wights to fight. They can't defend themselves against wights because they ran away from the battle with Stannis, their supplies are low. Sending a ranging party, well armed (with dragon glass and extra arms for the Wildlings at Hardhome), could very well mean that they can save a few hundred. 2) Jon is looking for the Wildlings he just let in through the gates (around 5,000 total if I remember correctly) to trust him. How can he ensure their loyalty if he will only fight for the people south of the Wall? He has to at least try. If he loses the people in the ranging party, so be it. He would be risking a few men to rescue thousands. Let's say there are 2,000 souls at Hardhome, if Jon does nothing he will eventually have to fight 2,000 Wights, if he sends out 100 men and loses all of them, he'll have to fight 2,100 Wights which is not that much of a difference, if he sends out 100 men and rescues 500, he'll fight 25% less Wights with 400% more men than what he risked. It makes absolutely perfect sense. The Wall will be manned by the NW and all the new additions they have just got, thousands of Wildings that Jon let through the door. The fact that he's sent a ranging party after some of their people will at least provide some motivation for them to help defend the Wall. Also, they know better than the brothers of the NW what the wights and Others can do, it's the only reason they accepted the terms of surrender, they have a vested interest in defending the realm because it is now their home too. Again, Robb was a child of Ned, and that didn't get him any loyalty. He still had to prove that he could lead. And again, bastards have been leaders and Lords in the North in the past without any sort of trouble. And again, even though Ramsey is supposedly married to Arya, Roose warns him that the Northern Lords are still not completely loyal to them. In the books, Robb's letter will legitimize Jon, he may be Targaryen but he is also the child of Lyanna Stark, so he will also be a Stark. And that alone will not be enough, he will need to prove to them, as Robb did, that he can lead them. I know the show and the book divert in many ways, but certain things like Jon being named King in the North are big enough for me to believe that they will also happen in the book. So, in a way, the point is moot. I'm absolutely sure the North will follow Jon once he is resurrected and decides to lead them. So, you are proving my point. If they could have been talked down and the only thing that convinced them was Jon's speech, that means the straw that broke the camel's back was the decision to go after Arya. I don't want to be the person who quotes the dictionary, so I won't. But I will say to you that no, they are not the same thing. You can be good and clever, good and smart, good and cunning, but good and treacherous are antonyms.

In the quote by @anamika Manderly is expressing the feelings of the entire North, though. This is confirmed by other characters later on. Roose tells Ramsey they can't rule by fear alone, for example, he already knows that the North isn't happy with them and how they got to power and he's weary of a future betrayal. Then we have the mountain clans following Stannis, of all people, a Southron! Why? because of their loyalty to Ned, which he earned by being honorable. Regarding Manderly making and eating Frey pie, that doesn't make him dishonorable according to Westerosi and Northern rule because he didn't do so by breaking guest rule. He killed them after they had left his castle, on the way to WF, and he fed them to the traitors and ate them himself under another man's roof, and because he was exacting justice for his own murdered son. If you recall the story of the Rat Cook, Old Nan explained to Bran that the actual sin of the Cook was to break guest rule, not to exact justice for the crimes committed against him. Quote below from A Storm of Swords, Chapter 56, Bran IV (emphasis is mine, off course): So, for the Northerners, Manderly cooking and serving Frey pie is perfectly honorable. He had a right to avenge his son's death, after all, and he did it without breaking guest right. This dream is more about Jon's own complex with his bastard status than with what the ancestors would say/do. Thanks to dear, old Cat, Jon thinks he is unworthy of the name Stark and that he would be rejected because of his bastard status. The North is less concerned with bastardy than with other characteristics they consider more important. Bastards can be legitimized, and they have the same rights as any legitimate son, if they are (incidentally, this will most likely be why GRRM had Robb write that letter). What the North cares about is the man's ability to lead and assert his authority over his vassals, as demonstrated by the first meeting of Lord Robb with Greatjon Umber. It was a very tense scene we see through Cat's eyes, IIRC. And we are told that the meeting is crucial, that if Robb, the legitimate, rightful heir to Winterfell, did the wrong thing here, he would lose the support of the entire North. Robb asserts his authority, Greywind even takes a couple of fingers from Umber's hand, and it's this extreme and gruesome act what actually makes the North believe that Robb is the right man to lead them. Jon is no stranger to asserting his authority either. Both Robb and Jon were taught well in this regard by Ned. When Jon is named Commander of the NW he follows through and calmly executes Janos, a penalty that was expected for the transgression he committed (stating publicly he wasn't planning to obey an order from his Lord Commander). Jon also proved to be a great strategist and knowledgeable of the North. He's the reason the North supported Stannis in the first place. So he knows how to make the Northern Lords follow him, if he wants to. The one bad decision Jon made was going after Arya. I'm going to disagree with @anamika that Hardhome was an entirely an emotional decision, it was also about not giving the WW more wights to fight. All his decisions regarding the Wildlings are about not increasing the numbers of the army of the dead. On the show they are more like zombies who can be defeated relatively easily, in the books, they keep coming at you, even after you have cut them down into tiny pieces and they are somehow stronger than when they were alive; so, book!Jon is absolutely right in not wanting any more of those creatures to fight against them. Also in the books, Jon keeps telling all the people who question his decisions regarding the Wildlings why he's doing it, over and over again, but unfortunately, the majority of those in Castle Black at the time were not with the old Bear beyond the Wall. Those who were understand Jon more, and accept his decision even if they have doubts. Stubbornly, they all think the Wall will stop the dead, but still they respect Jon's decision because they can see his intentions are the safety of the realm. It is only when Jon decides to act for his family, and, against the rules of the NW, challenge a ruling family within the realm, that his "brothers" murder him. So, it's only when Jon breaks his vow and acts dishonorably, that he loses. For all Martin fans claim that he's all about subverting tropes, the books are clearly showing a familiar pattern. The Starks are the good guys, who get fucked by the treacherous guys. Then, slowly, but surely the bad guys start losing, and the good guys start wining. Even in a bittersweet ending, the Starks will come out on top by the time this story is told. That's the arc. I mean, the last book was supposed to be titled A time for Wolves, right? Nothing wrong with that, either. His characters have more layers than many and his world is richly complex, so, he is subverting tropes in those areas. It will be satisfying to read that (if Martin ever finishes writing the books, that is).

I thought so. When he first met Jeff at the bar he greeted him, treated him kindly, made jokes to put him at ease, asked about his life, called him cute, bought him drinks. That was all very charming. It was the only time in the episode where we saw him being charming, the rest of the episode he was his own psycho self.

Two things I really liked about this episode: 1) More Versace: I can't get enough of Edgar Ramírez in this role. He is just fantastic. 2) Finally seeing Andrew Cunanan's "charm": I've said in other episode threads that we were told by other characters that Andrew was charming but we weren't shown enough of this. Many people wondered how anyone could believe him, or even like him enough to let him into their lives. In this episode, we finally saw him put on a fake persona good enough to fool someone like Trail. Their interactions in that first meeting were the things I was talking about. We finally saw Andrew being charming in a way that we can finally see how he was able to worm his way into his victims lives.

Regarding this: "...there’s no better way to leave the show..." Speculation that Arya dies starting in 3, 2, 1..... (In my personal opinion, she won't die either in the books or the show)

I read a review that mentioned viewers might feel exactly as you do, given the shift in focus from Versace to other victims. The reviewer said two things regarding this (no spoilers below, just general comments about the overall direction of the next episodes, like when someone said before the series started that the story would be told in reverse): 1) That although the choice was odd and could seem confusing to viewers, it was well worth the time spent on it because what the show does, honors the victims by portraying them as real human beings and not as mere statistical bleeps in a big, flashy story about the Gianni Versace Assassination . 2) That the story will loop back around to GV and that when it does, everything will click for the viewers who felt a bit disoriented by the change in focus

If they are Ironborn, maybe Theon an Yara do defeat their uncle and Jon is going to KL to inform Cersei that her plan failed? Iroborn could be loyal to Yara and Theon. It's hard to say what this shoot is about without some more context.

To extend on this a little, in the very first episode, Andrew's friend tells him that he doesn't know who Andrew is, because Andrew says he's straight to straight people, gay to gay people, etc. We were meant to take away form that that Andrew was some sort of chameleon that would take on different personas depending on who he was with. The problem is that we have not been shown this, so far. Andrew has been his same arrogant, entitled, envious, pissy self for all three episodes and that may not be the actor's fault.

I take everything the GOT big wigs (D&D, GRRM) say on interviews with a grain of salt (albeit a smaller one than the one I use with spoilers and leaks). D&D are the ones who insisted Jon was dead, dead, dead, never coming back to the show, done! And GRRM has a history of setting wrong expectations for the publication of his books (which he is more careful with now because of all the flack he got, but still). There is a public relations aspect and deals going on in the background and so on when these people give interviews. They are careful with the language and words they use, specially when they don't want to give something away. It's the nature of the beast. It's valid and interesting to speculate using what they say, off course, but I wouldn't flaunt it as the 100% confirmed truth of it all just yet. There's a strong possibility Martin is keeping the major points of his outline and only denies it because he doesn't want the ending of an unwritten book to be spoiled (for artistic and monetary reasons). There's also the possibility that he has changed a major plot point since the outline was leaked way back when and he doesn't want to tell us (why would he?). There's a strong possibility D&D's first interview where they declared the endings for the main characters would be the same is still true. But, when they said that the first time, it was believed that Martin would publish TWOW before the show ended; however, since Martin hasn't made any progress, a deal could be in place where they agreed to try to create some suspense for Martin's remaining books (if he ever publishes them). There's also the strong possibility that D&D got so caught up in their narrative after they passed the books that now they can't depict all of the character endings exactly as Martin revealed to them (or that other circumstances won't allow them to - say, for example, an actor will not be available for filming something). My point is, in the entertainment business (literary, TV, music, film, etc.) interviews are PR and their main purpose is not to give us information, but to keep us hooked (for lack of a better word) to their product. If something happens later that contradicts the original interview, they can always explain it away with statements such as "yeah, that's what we meant to do, but then we got this incredible (actor, set, idea, inspiration, incentive, etc) and we just HAD to change it". I'm sure we can all remember something similar with other shows, books, films, etc.

I don't think it's the format. I think it's the writing and directing choices. So far, we have only seen one side of Cunanan (the psycho unravelling), so, we wonder why anyone would even talk to the guy in the first place. But the thing is, even an unravelling psycho continues to turn on the charm every once in a while. Perhaps the creators' intent is to "surprise" us at the end when they reveal what a great manipulator AC was and that's why the writing and directing purposefully hasn't included any explicit portrayals of charming Andrew. If so, I think that's a mistake. As I said, even the worst psychos have self preservation instincts and if they have relied on their charms in the past, it will come naturally to them to do so, even in the most dire situations. While I see their intent of showing Cunanan as a completely unraveled killer at the beginning to perhaps a more charming beginning, I think the show would have benefited from having a couple of scenes showing us Andrew being his charming self, so that the audience could see a glimpse of the man and understand how it could be possible for him to insert himself in the lives of his victims. So far, he only comes off as an arrogant prick. Specially if someone were to believe his lies about things like his lobster lunches at school. The way he told that story was arrogant and entitled. And if that was not how the scene was supposed to come across, then the director should have directed the actor to make different performing choices. At this point, the portrayal seems one dimensional, and perhaps that is what is making some people question the histrionic abilities of Daniel Criss. I think there were at least 3 missed opportunities to show us Andrew charming someone: 1) The scene where he talked to Versace in the club. He came across as annoying, trying to butt in, not as someone GV would listen to. GV knew what people knew about his personal life from interviews. He knew that any dedicated fan would know where he was born, how big his family was, etc. So, for AC to actually grab GV's attention, the tone of the supposed memory of his mother talking about the old country, etc. would have to be different than portrayed on the show. If GV is going to take an interest, it wouldn't be because someone claims to be from the same region in Italy. It would be because the person appeared sincere about that claim, and the actor's choices indicated to me that it was all a lie. 2) The interactions with the hotel front desk clerk. Sometimes it almost feels like the intention of the scene is to show how Andrew got chummy with her, picked on some of the things she was saying and manipulated her into giving him a better room/deal. But there wasn't enough charm there. It should have come across as the clerk and Andrew being pals, with her being charmed by him, and him being more gossipy-supportive of her complaints. Like two best friends gossiping. Because that's not how it came across, then I'd have to guess the directors/creators wanted it that way. The dialog wasn't helping either. 3) The interactions with the ex gay escort at the hotel. Again, the guy is supposed to like Andrew, but most of the time it feels as if he was afraid of /guarded from Andrew. It would have helped if we had seen Andrew being charming to him and acting friendly when he gave the other guy drugs/money. We're supposed to infer from context that he did so, giving the last conversation those two had, but we never saw it. This again, falls under the script and directing choices. I'm willing to give the actor the benefit of the doubt here (never saw him in anything else, so I have nothing to compare).

As a Venezuelan, I'm incredibly happy that Edgar Ramirez' performance is so well liked. Go, Edgar! I think he's doing a superb job, but I'm biased, so, it's nice to see that others appreciate his work so much.

I feel that because the Vale army made it North on the show, there's a good possibility that it will, eventually, make it North in the books. Obviously, they can't at the moment because the North is completely cut off with all the snow, but.... ... there are several mentions of "the year of the false spring" in the books, referring to a time in the past when people in Westeros thought Spring had come. In order for them to think that way, the Winter weather must have mellowed out significantly to resemble Spring. So, there is the possibility that after all this snow, Westeros might have a respite that allows for some movement of characters from one place to another. At the end of the day, Martin will contrive whatever he needs to contrive to make any moves he considers necessary. That's why he set up in a Universe where weather doesn't behave as it does here on Earth. At the end of the published books Tyrion hasn't even made it to Dany yet, and Martin said he might not even meet her by the end of The Winds of Winter, so, something needs to slow down the action in Westeros for things in Essos to catch up. That something is the Winter we are seeing, which eventually needs to go away for a little while so that fAegon can get to doing some conquering and then be taken down by Dany. If Winter has covered everything and is not letting up at all before Dany gets to Westeros, there would be no forward movement in the stories South of the Riverland, and I don't think that's what Martin wants. Maybe one day Martin will finish this thing and we'll find out.

You know I was left with that impression after the first read too, but since then I have re-read the series several times and I have to say that I did notice many, many times when Jon specifically explained to his brothers in the NW what his plans were and he repeats, several times, that if they don't bring the Wildlings to their side of the Wall, they will become wights and strengthen the enemy's armies. I think the one thing he did wrong was to intend to take up arms against Ramsay. But I guess we'll save that discussion for the later Jon chapters.

This is one of my favorite Jon episodes of the entire series. Then again, I'm a sucker for internal conflict and daddy issues, so, that's no surprise. I love how Jon considers every aspect of his current circumstances and his honesty with himself, admitting, perhaps for the very first time ever, that what he really wanted in life is to be Ned's son, carry the legacy, and have a family. Apart from being honest, it's interesting that he doesn't want any of this out of greed or because he wants power. He's one of the few characters whose intentions and desires are devoid of the moral conflicts that we as readers see in people like the Lannisters, the Tyrells, and many of the other ruling families. I also liked how he was always better than Robb at everything a Lord is supposed to be, and yet he had to resign himself to being treated as a lesser person because of his birth, which was a circumstance of which he had no control. It's also probably a clue that he is Rhaegar's son, as we have read many times about how the royal prince was the best at everything he did. And boy, did Catelyn do a number on him! Here he is thinking about his "father" and his "siblings", and all he can see is her face, fueling his guilt. We also see his sarcastic, snippy side, which I enjoy very much, when he tells Slynt and company he will not interfere with their plotting. LOL! Upon first read, I think I actually squealed with joy and sighed with relief, at the same time (don't ask me how), when Ghost came back. I was so worried for him! And I loved that Ghost was the clincher on Jon's decision. In a previous chapter (when the characters are discussing Sansa's marriage to Tyrion, IIRC), someone says that Sansa is lost because she has lost her wolf, and here we have Ghost's return helping to ground Jon into doing the right thing, according to the values with which he was raised. It really is a pity that the show didn't do more to portray the special relationship between the Starks and their wolves. I love his election as Lord Commander and look at the final scene of Jon and his friends enjoying the victory as bittersweet. Knowing what comes next, I can't help but feel that this is the last time Jon gets to be "the boy" that Maester Aemon tells him he has to kill in order to become "the man".

I know one shouldn't toot one's own horn, but here's my comment after episode one: I knew it!!!!

Yes, it is. Brooke Shields had to walk in a ditch they dug in the sand for her because she was way taller than her male co-star in The Blue Lagoon. The couple was walking along the beach and someone decided it didn't look good to have the girl be so much taller than the guy, so, out came the shovels and they dug this nice little trench for her to walk in next to him while they shot the scene.

This is also the chapter where she tells him she has lied to him in the past, so, even this early, Cersei is working against herself out of spite, planting the seed that will later give more credence to Tyrion's comments regarding the way she has been exchanging sex favors to get her way.