It might also just be a matter of practicality...cloaks would only tangle you up in a fight.
But no one else ever does this in the show. Whenever the KG threaten violence or what not, no stops to take off their cloak. About the only time I can think where a KG wasn't wearing his cloak was Mandon Moore at the Blackwater when he tries to kill Tyrion. Though that could just be that we never got a good enough look at his back so he could've been wearing his still and we just can't see it from the angle the scene's shot at.
Plus I mean the KG were going around patrolling the tower/keeping guard with their cloaks on. So like awfully convenient that they got a head's up that people were coming so that they could take off their cloaks first as otherwise if they were ever surprised they'd have had to fight in them given that they were wearing them for every day purposes. Like what would they do then, this?
Plus I mean if you wanna argue practicality reasons, then I see nothing practical about wearing a big old cloak while in Dorne lol
Your lordship lost a son at the Red Wedding. I lost four upon the Blackwater. And why? Because the Lannisters stole the throne. Go to King’s Landing and look on Tommen with your own eyes, if you doubt me. A blind man could see it. What does Stannis offer you? Vengeance. Vengeance for my sons and yours, for your husbands and your fathers and your brothers. Vengeance for your murdered lord, your murdered king, your butchered princes. Vengeance!
Plus I mean if you wanna argue practicality reasons, then I see nothing practical about wearing a big old cloak while in Dorne lol
LOL and all true. Just trying to flesh out the idea a bit more. It certainly seems meaningful given the show even decided to show it at all.
At a bare minimum, I think it settles (ha!) the Protect vs Obey debate. GRRM already did settle it of course, for many of us, but it has persisted as a topic of much discussion. The show made quite a show of hammering home the Obey argument, and rather flatly dismissed the Protect argument in the dialogue between Ned and Arthur.
The dis-cloaking seems along that same vein.
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."
If SAD was going to kill Ned he would have done it instead of disarming him. Just my two coppers.
It could just be staging, but Arthur pulls his arm back rather far before going in for his final blow after Ned is disarmed. If he were going to stab him, all he needs to do is. . . stab. Not a big swing.
But it might just have been staging to give Howland time.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
It sure seems like it. What it is, I have no idea. But the cloak removals do seem suggestive. It might also just be a matter of practicality...cloaks would only tangle you up in a fight.
But no one else ever does this in the show. Whenever the KG threaten violence or what not, no stops to take off their cloak. About the only time I can think where a KG wasn't wearing his cloak was Mandon Moore at the Blackwater when he tries to kill Tyrion. Though that could just be that we never got a good enough look at his back so he could've been wearing his still and we just can't see it from the angle the scene's shot at.
Plus I mean the KG were going around patrolling the tower/keeping guard with their cloaks on. So like awfully convenient that they got a head's up that people were coming so that they could take off their cloaks first as otherwise if they were ever surprised they'd have had to fight in them given that they were wearing them for every day purposes. Like what would they do then, this?
Exactly. And in the same episode where Jon "de-cloaks," the KG do so as well. Far as I can tell, other Night's Watchmen have the same big furry cloaks. So, Jon's giving his up isn't the Lord Commanders' cloak of office or something. It's a sign he's done.
They do both de-cloakings in the same episode. It should mean something if they bothered with it.
The show made quite a show of hammering home the Obey argument, and rather flatly dismissed the Protect argument in the dialogue between Ned and Arthur.
The dis-cloaking seems along that same vein.
So, if they are obeying, they are more likely to de-cloak? Not sure I'm following you on this. . ..
It seems like they are removed if they are doing something that might be dishonorable or to distance them from their kingsguard duties.
That would fit with the look on Arthur's face as Ned rides up.
What would have been really interesting is it only Arthur took off his cloak.
But we won't know at all until we see if they do something with it after Ned goes inside the castle.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
So, if they are obeying, they are more likely to de-cloak? Not sure I'm following you on this. . ..
Yeah, sorta. I guess my thinking was that Jon *decloaking* was a visual means to convey a conscious decision: he's no longer Protecting the Wall... the Wall is Edd's.
Clearly an homage to Eric Cartman's signature farewell:
So, along that vein, Arthur (and his brother's?) de-cloaking might be seen as a declaration that the are making a choice that is separate from their vow to protect the king.
This of course ties in to my feeling that they were no longer serving the King (who had been Aerys until shortly before the showdown), and had not been for some time.
Yeah, sorta. I guess my thinking was that Jon *decloaking* was a visual means to convey a conscious decision: he's no longer Protecting the Wall... the Wall is Edd's.
So, along that vein, Arthur (and his brother's?) de-cloaking might be seen as a declaration that the are making a choice that is separate from their vow to protect the king.
This of course ties in to my feeling that they were no longer serving the King (who had been Aerys until shortly before the showdown), and had not been for some time.
Possible. Though it is interesting that in the show, they don't talk about Aerys. Whent-Tower the Combo Knight talks about how they would have put Robert in the ground, but then Ned brings up Rhaegar and Arthur says their prince wanted them there.
A change from the book focus on Aerys with no mention of Rhaegar.
HA! Alas, probably the whole next week is in your way--I really think "The Door" will include Ned's going through a door with Arthur's bloody sword. And Bran learns a lot of painful things when he follows Ned.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
Possible. Though it is interesting that in the show, they don't talk about Aerys. Whent-Tower the Combo Knight talks about how they would have put Robert in the ground, but then Ned brings up Rhaegar and Arthur says their prince wanted them there.
A change from the book focus on Aerys with no mention of Rhaegar.
A change that further hints that Rhaegar was their king, imo. The Catspaw saw to it.
Can't help but notice that this image looks really familar....
...eyes were a grey so dark they seemed almost black, but there was little they did not see. He was of an age ... but they did not look alike ... slender where [his brother] was muscular, dark where [his brother] was fair, graceful and quick where his half brother was strong and fast.
Almost feel like I've seen these two men standing by one another before...
HA! Alas, probably the whole next week is in your way--I really think "The Door" will include Ned's going through a door with Arthur's bloody sword. And Bran learns a lot of painful things when he follows Ned.
That would be cool. Still, while I think you're right that the bloody sword will induce horror, I think they will not make the identity of the Father known. They will let us know who the Mother is, but I think they will save the Father for another season.
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."
If SAD was going to kill Ned he would have done it instead of disarming him. Just my two coppers.
It could just be staging, but Arthur pulls his arm back rather far before going in for his final blow after Ned is disarmed. If he were going to stab him, all he needs to do is. . . stab. Not a big swing.
But it might just have been staging to give Howland time.
Still Howland Reed stabbing him as he was going to kill Ned would look much better than when Arthur was standing over Ned.
Darkstar will be the next Vulture King.
Craster has 19 daughters and there are 19 castles on the Wall, coincidence I think not!
Tangential thought- Ser LadySage made another, off the cuff comment regarding the "ToJ" Showdown Scene... "This reminds me of how in Star Trek how when you saw a guy with a red shirt beam down onto a planet, you KNEW they weren't coming back."....Hmmm....
Tangential thought- Ser LadySage made another, off the cuff comment regarding the "ToJ" Showdown Scene... "This reminds me of how in Star Trek how when you saw a guy with a red shirt beam down onto a planet, you KNEW they weren't coming back."....Hmmm....
HA! I noticed that when I was little, too. Only I usually identified it by not knowing the character's name. I'd say he would die and my babysitter always got angry that I ruined it.
So, the show's version of this would be, if a character becomes a conglomerate without a name, he'll be the first to be killed?
A change that further hints that Rhaegar was their king, imo. The Catspaw saw to it.
If so, the show really doesn't want to bother with subtlety much any more. The Pink Letter lost all ambiguity. Same with this. The only ambiguity is why killing Arthur is so terrible for Ned that he never speaks of it. Which I don't think is that ambiguous at all.
That would be cool. Still, while I think you're right that the bloody sword will induce horror, I think they will not make the identity of the Father known. They will let us know who the Mother is, but I think they will save the Father for another season.
I could see that. Would make everyone both happy and frustrated--an excellent tease.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
If so, the show really doesn't want to bother with subtlety much any more. The Pink Letter lost all ambiguity. Same with this. The only ambiguity is why killing Arthur is so terrible for Ned that he never speaks of it. Which I don't think is that ambiguous at all.
I'm not sure if they have time for subtlety anymore. The visual medium alone makes it difficult. They are on a sprint to the finish and have only now realized they should have been doing flashbacks in order to set up the finale.
I think there will still be surprises, but they don't really have time (let alone source material) for subtext and methodical foreshadowing.
I could see that. Would make everyone both happy and frustrated--an excellent tease.
It really would. And, would buy some more time for GRRM to roll out Winds before next season. (Shut up karsa I need none of your reality checks right now)
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."