WearyTraveler

I think Emilia Clarke has just spoiled Ice Dragon and Night's King riding it for everybody.

But they do pump their stomachs out when people try to commit suicide by ingesting pills and are then taken to a hospital, aren't they? Also, an instant dissolution rate does not mean an instant absorption rate by the body. Faster absorption, yes, but not instant. That said, given the amount f pills she took and how long she waited to induce vomit, I would say that yes, the show took a few liberties with reality here. You know how some of your medications have you take two pills every so often? Well, since it is very difficult, on average, to get a dog to swallow a pill, let alone two, you will many times find that a dosage for a dog is concentrated in one pill, when the similar version for adult humans would be split in two pills. You should see the size of some de-worming pills for dogs that are out there, they are as big as quarters and three or four coins deep. But yeah, in general, and considering that this particular dog was more of a medium sized dog than a large dog, one dog pill wouldn't affect one human the same way.

Except that I think categorically proving to John that Kevin did not, in fact, see Evie, would have gone a great distance in lessening John's pain: "Look, Kevin took a picture of the girl he saw and sent it to me. Clearly, it's not Evie, so, I didn't want to mention this to you and bring up all the pain you feel about her to the surface again" Voilá!

And this was my only complaint about the episode. Why didn't Laurie pull out her phone and showed them the picture?

It seems they went to great lengths to keep the name of the actor playing Rhaegar secret. They must have made people sign confidentiality agreements just for auditioning, because I don't recall hearing even the tiniest peep about it. If we knew who all auditioned, we might have an idea of what they were going for, but AFAIK, we don't know that. I think British actor Danny Mac is really hot and could be a good Rhaegar (with the right wig, off course) but I'm not all that familiar with British actors, to be honest. Tom Mison would be awesome, I have no doubt, and he looks great with long hair, but I think he's a bit slight of build for Rhaegar, and I don't know if his filming schedule with Sleepy Hollow would have allowed him to film anything for GoT.

I was thinking the correct answer is not saying a lie. Let me explain. I'm sure everyone here has taken one of those tests where you instinctively know the "right" answer to a question to get a better score. Burning man could have been thinking "well, if it cures cancer, sure! what's one baby compared to the lives of millions?", but, he believed that the morally correct answer is not to kill anyone; so, he says he wouldn't kill the baby. Nora, OTOH, was thinking that they had sent that woman with her baby as a test, so, while she probably wouldn't kill a baby, even to cure cancer, she answered yes, because she thought that's what the women interviewing her wanted her to say. There are many studies and experiments about "human lie detectors" out there. People who can spot a lie by watching micro-expressions, and linguistic neuro-programming reactions. So, perhaps if they knew for sure you were lying to them, they would deny you because they'd think you didn't trust them.

I don't think I ever mentioned inbred character traits. My point was, and continues to be that any spinoff would have to do more than set the story in the same universe to be successful. Think about every other spinoff, ever: in the majority of them one or two characters from the successful show spins off to have their own show, they have cameos, visits to the old house/coffee shop/office/city, they may make a recurring character in the original, a regular in the spinoff, and so on. in procedurals, they keep the same format, the same kind of team and at least one person that pops from one show to the other one. This is all done in the spirit of maintaining certain continuity and familiarity for the audience that is watching the original show because the point of doing a spinoff is to capture the audience of the original show, not to find a new audience. I think we all agree that continuing right after this story finishes is not an option. Whoever is left standing, the actors have probably committed to something else by now, and Martin would most likely object. So, we are left with the past and the future. In either scenario, they need to connect the current show audience to something that is familiar to them, or they will lose them. Just having the story set in Westeros doesn't really work, IMO. Particularly since the show hasn't really spent any time in doing any world building. I bet you the average viewer doesn't have a firm grasp of the differences between North and South, and in the South the differences between Dornishmen and Men of the Vale. The connection must then be the characters, and since we can't have the same characters, we'll have the same families, whether we go to the past or to the future. And these families will roughly have the same archetype they have now on the show. I named some traits, but, what I believe it will boil down to is: Starks = good Lannisters = evil Targs = 50/50 (plus dragons) Every other family will act similar to what we saw on the show, which is basically they will all want to wield the most power they can, and if there's anyone from Dorne, they will be all about revenge. If they go to the past, there are plenty of characters to choose from. If they go to the future, the main houses we saw on the show will survive. And that could mean: Brienne and Jaimie have a child that inherits the Lannister titles or Tyrion has a child. The Starks can come from Arya, Brandon, Sansa, or even Jon (if he survives and remains King in the North). The Targs can come from Dany, or Jon, or Dany and Jon.

Exactly! It was a clever metaphor for the whole episode. The episode was "useless" in the big scheme of things, but just as Gloria kept switching the box on, we kept watching it. Strangely fascinated by the uselessness of it. At the end, we liked it so much we take it home with us, even if it's just a useless box (or episode) I also think it was meant to be a self contained (like the box) episode. I noticed that the written testimonial phrases at the beginning of the show said that the events took place in Los Angeles. First time they have done that (I think), even though the cases from the past two seasons had switched locations. The case in this episode wasn't Ennis/Thadeus, it was solving who had attacked and almost killed the sleazy producer. Gloria actually says: "that's what the `accident´ was!".... Case solved! Same here! I think it's a sign of doing something good when the audience feels this way about a cartoon robot in a story within a story of murder and mayhem. It's certainly food for thought that a show that has never shied away from showing us how its characters die, in extreme detail, wouldn't show us the very first death of the season and the one that gets the wacky set of events rolling for this year. Kt could very well be that this box we thought was useless, was actually the time when Gloria solved the case of her murdered stepfather (she asked the actress/waiter if she thought sleazy producer sent someone to kill Ennis). Like Schroedinger's cat, or the woman who was married and divorced at the same time for a year. I think it was created with the purpose of helping, and, since it hadn't been able to help anyone, it was unfulfilled. When the others came in their spaceship and told it that it had helped (by recording history), then its purpose was fulfilled and it could turn itself off.

I don't understand what part of the text or the show indicates that Tyrion wouldn't have any children. If anything, the facts that the character is convinced no one would love him for who he is, and is obsessed with the idea of his happy, married bliss with Tysha, and convinced he could never attain that again, could actually be an indication that those very things would be his reward at the end of the series. There's absolutely nothing to indicate he wouldn't re-marry and plenty of time for him to find someone with whom to rebuild House Lannister. I disagree that Martin identifying with Tyrion means he won't have any children. I think a lot of the things we see Tyrion do are really Martin just living vicariously through his Mary Sue, and perhaps that is why Tyrion will have children. As for the Lannisters not being ruthlessly ambitious, perhaps a review of the family history is needed. They actually are proud that they are descendents of Lann the clever who basically stole Casterly Rock. They were Kings until the Targs came, and then devoted themselves to influence Kings through their wealth. One of the reasons Tywin hated his own father so much was because he perceived him to be weak and to have brought House Lannister down. He ruthlessly fought to bring his house to its former glory. Bastards can actually become rightful Lords and Ladies and found a House. Such was the case of the Baratheons, a house formed by a bastard Targaryen named Orys Baratheon, brother to Aegon the Conqueror, who married the daughter of the last Storm King after defeating him. So, if Tyrion were to have a bastard somewhere, which is possible (perhaps Tysha will resurface at some point bringing with her a youth with mismatched eyes), there's no reason why he couldn't be legitimized and continue the Lannister name. The Stark honor is something that is drilled into the readers chapter after chapter. It's what they are famous for all over Westeros. Ned died for it (had he put his honor aside and sided with Renly, he wouldn't have lost his head), Robb died for it (honor bound to marry the lady he had deflowered), Catelyn's last desperate attempt to save Robb included the words "On my honor as a Tully, on my honor as a Stark..." because the Tully honor didn't carry as much weight as the Stark honor did. Off course, not all the members of a family will be the same, but, as a general rule, that's what the story is telling us. But, more to the point, a spinoff would probably play into these archetypes if it wishes to leverage the popularity of the current story. If they focused on families we don't know, why would the GoT audience care? They have to relate it to the show we are watching now in some way, otherwise, they may as well create a new medieval fantasy show altogether and try to market that.

With all the whoring Tyrion has done, there are bound to be Lannisport Lannisters around for a long time. Plus, I have a feeling Tyrion will be the one Lannister that will survive the long night. Martin identifies with him, and I think his writing is always pointing out all the "good" things Tyrion has done for other people. He went through a serious slump and petty time, but, at the end of the last book he is fighting against slavers, freeing Jorah and doing nice things for Penny. He's in an upward arc, just as the series supposedly starts to wrap up (two books left, right?) Obviously, whether Tyrion survives this saga is immaterial 100 years into the future when all the Lannisters we know will be dead. But that's (again, obviously) not what I meant. What I'm saying is that they will use the archetypes established in GoT to shape a story in the future. Martin likes his worldbuilding but if they go to the past, they will be limited by Martin's own "historical" facts. If they decide to do Robert's Rebellion, for example, there are many things that they would be forced to do since those things will become the facts that set up the story we are currently watching. If HBO is smart, they'll want a series where they can invent the history as they go along, adjusting to any circumstance that may come, such as, the popularity of one character, current issues, actors being unavailable, etc. Actually, I think the reason they might be working on two spinoffs is probably that Martin wanted to do the past and HBO wanted to do the future. Circling back to the possibility of a story set in the future, we can see one of two things: 1) the archetypes established in GoT will carry forward - ambitious Lannisters like Tywin, and Cersei will act the way current Lannisters do; good, honorable Starks will fight them; Targs on the verge of fire obsession and insanity will play along 2) the archetypes are completely reversed - good Lannisters, evil Starks; Targs remain they same lottery they have always been, some mad some sane, but all fire hungry

My bet is that the story is set 100 years after Jon defeats the Night King (no spoilers, that's just what I think will happen) with the Lannisters trying to regain the power they once held.

I've read the books several times and never noticed this! Great observation.

Fred Johnson is an Earther. He's now with the Belters, but he's from Earth. It's part of what convinced the more extreme Belters to follow Dawes.

Soooooo, fess up! Who has Googled V.M. Varga?

I've just realized I'm actually looking forward to LF's death more than I thought I would. He's such a creep!

Yeah, I had a big problem with the base color of Cig's creation. It looked like that flesh color silly putty.

Well, I think considering that Catelyn grabbing Tyrion from the inn was what started the conflict with the Lannisters, and a case could be made that this conflict led to Ned's death, it's understandable that Jon feels that way in AGoT, but I do think that he probably feels different about Catelyn's death via Red Wedding. Jon would probably tend to excuse Robb's behavior more than Catelyn's because he doesn't have the same level of resentment toward Robb and when he realises he does resent him, he immediately feels guilty. But more than that, given Jon's history with Ygritte, I think he would understand Robb's actions better than most. And most of all, he would consider the scale of the revenge taken by the Freys to be disproportionate to the offense. So, on moral principles, and his own sense of justice (instilled in him by Ned), I think Jon would probably disapprove of Catelyn's murder. Side note: Many people condemn Robb for marrying Jeynne, specially after the show portrayed it as "twu love", but, in the books, he did the most honorable thing he could have done as per the rules of his society. The transgression of taking Jeynne's virginity is superior to the transgression of breaking an engagement, so he did do the honorable thing.

Well, Varys and LF are the ones that fooled Ned, not Cersei, who was also fooled by both of them into doing exactly what they wanted.

This is why I think the German intro is important. I get the feeling the last name Stussy is a modified German name that they took when they first landed in the US. I don't think it's a very common American name.

I think the show was ok, nothing groundbreaking, but good enough for Sunday nights. My only problem with season 1 was that the main characters were always one step away from being jailed. Someone was always after them. It gets tiring after 4 episodes. If they continue with that theme, they should change the name of the show to Lawyers in Peril, or Lawyers under Attack.... or something.

Ooops! you're right! Just change older for younger and vice versa in my post. It actually makes sense. Younger brother is more idealist, he is fighting for freedom, so, he gets a name to cover his identity because he knows he'll be in trouble with the police. It's interesting (or it could totally be a red-herring) that we have age being mentioned at the interrogation and age being mentioned between Emmit and Ray

I think Norman will always see Norma the same age she was when she died.

He is. Ray mentions it when they are talking at Emmit's party. He says something to the effect of an older brother taking advantage of a younger one. It's obviously intentional that Emmit looks younger, though, another thing for Ray to feel bad about. I'm thinking the German story will come to play later on. One of those two guys could be: Emmit and Ray's father, who stole something of great value (maybe some of the stamps?) before the Wall fell and when it did fall, he escaped to the US, changed his identity and started to make his fortune, but he died before he could become really rich, and Emmit took over. Ennis, who was hiding more than his love of sci-fi The founders of the group that gave Emmit the loan Another possibility is that the guy being interrogated was the younger brother of the guy the police was looking for (that's how he ended up living in the guy's apartment), and that both of them escaped to the US and adopted the name Stussy. Maybe older brother escaped to Minnesota first, while younger brother was imprisoned in Germany and had to suffer there until the Wall fell. Then he was freed and went searching for older brother in Minnesota, perhaps he even killed his older brother and went to live in another town. Or perhaps, as we have read in real life stories of war survivors, they had both chosen the same name, where living in the same state and in similarly named towns, but where not aware of the other brother being so close.

I think Norman will take Romero to Norma's body, and new sheriff will show up to stop Romero from killing Norman. Then we'll get the trial, where Norman will be declared legally insane and sent to a mental institution. Then, I'm going to guess we'll get a flashforward where Norman will be released 10-20 years later. He'll go back to the Bates Motel, which will be run-down and dilapidated, and then, just when we think everything is OK, Norma will show up and say something to the effect of fixing up the place so she and Norman can live there again.

I think that was not done on purpose in order to: Warn any other groups who might attempt something similar in Jarden Have a sort of "tourist attraction" to keep people (and their money) coming into town