Recommended Posts

Except for the simple joy of watching Joffery finally bite it, his death was really unsatisfying. Definitely not worthy of all the awful things he has done up to (and including) the wedding. I was hoping for something more brutal and direct. And the worst part is, they will probably play the mystery card for a while which is just frustrating.

 

Thats how its written in the books ...

And? Just because it's taken directly from the books doesn't mean it wasn't unsatisfying.

 

You're right, but its pretty pointless to complain about. That event was written in 2000. Joffrey's death is less about it actually happening and more about what it sets in motion - the Purple Wedding is the beginning of the end of the saga where the Red Wedding was the end of the beginning.

You're right, but its pretty pointless to complain about. That event was written in 2000. Joffrey's death is less about it actually happening and more about what it sets in motion - the Purple Wedding is the beginning of the end of the saga where the Red Wedding was the end of the beginning.

I haven't read the books, so I didn't know what was supposed to happen. Diverging from the source material isn't unheard of, but I get what you're saying. And I agree. His death has definitely messed up Tywin's plans, and it will probably have some major fallout. I was just really hoping for his means of death to have more "oomph".

I haven't read the books, so I didn't know what was supposed to happen. Diverging from the source material isn't unheard of, but I get what you're saying. And I agree. His death has definitely messed up Tywin's plans, and it will probably have some major fallout. I was just really hoping for his means of death to have more "oomph".

 

The suspects for who did it aren't aren't really the 'stick 'em with the pointy end' type.

 

Out of curiosity, what part of CT?

I have my guesses as to who did it, but I'm fairly certain it wasn't Tyrion. It was pretty obvious that he was framed. Honestly, my best guess is that Cersei did it. But as long as the show explains, without a doubt, who did it I'll be fine with whomever.

 

Out of curiosity, what part of CT?

Southington.

I have my guesses as to who did it, but I'm fairly certain it wasn't Tyrion. It was pretty obvious that he was framed. Honestly, my best guess is that Cersei did it. But as long as the show explains, without a doubt, who did it I'll be fine with whomever.

 

Southington.

 

Cersei? Interesting theory. Not one I've really seen before. Although some things from the book that were made a big deal were barely even hinted at in the episode. Wonder what scenes hit the cutting room floor.

 

Ah, not far. I'll be working there tomorrow... My office is in Hamden, I'm from West Haven.

Other than Joffrey attempting to have him murdered by a Gold cloak during the battle of Blackwater (to name but one example)?

 

And the incident you're referring to was before Joffrey was King and had any real power with the only person who witnessed it being the Hound.

Cersei? Interesting theory. Not one I've really seen before. Although some things from the book that were made a big deal were barely even hinted at in the episode. Wonder what scenes hit the cutting room floor.

 

Ah, not far. I'll be working there tomorrow... My office is in Hamden, I'm from West Haven.

NIce, it's good to meet a fellow Neowinian so close.

 

But as for Cersei, I think she doesn't want to give up her Queen Regent power. (made obvious by her actions in this episode) Maybe by killing Joffery before his marriage to Margaery was consumated, it means the marriage isn't valid. Which would mean Joffery's younger brother is now heir to the throne, leaving Cersei as Queen Regent until her other son is old enough to marry. But that's all based on the assumption of how marriage rules work in Westeros. I have no idea if that's how it works or not.  :rofl:

But as for Cersei, I think she doesn't want to give up her Queen Regent power. (made obvious by her actions in this episode) Maybe by killing Joffery before his marriage to Margaery was consumated, it means the marriage isn't valid. Which would mean Joffery's younger brother is now heir to the throne, leaving Cersei as Queen Regent until her other son is old enough to marry. But that's all based on the assumption of how marriage rules work in Westeros. I have no idea if that's how it works or not.  :rofl:

 

Not a bad line of reasoning. #TryingToWalkAFineLine

Fantastic episode.


I have my guesses as to who did it, but I'm fairly certain it wasn't Tyrion. It was pretty obvious that he was framed. Honestly, my best guess is that Cersei did it. But as long as the show explains, without a doubt, who did it I'll be fine with whomever.

 

Southington.

 

 

My money is on Sansa

when she gave Tyrion the cup.

It was Margaery and her grandmother.

That was my first thought, but then Margaery had no control over his antics with the goblet and no real opportunity. Tyrion had no way of knowing the little psychopath would decide to focus on him either. I figure Sansa has probably been walking around waiting on an opportunity.

Suppose the poison could have been added to the cake rather than the wine.

 

He did comment about it being dry?

The death of a certain character this episode almost makes up for the killing off of my two favorite female characters in the last season.

I'm no literary snob, but though I am quite enjoying Game of Thrones, I could not imagine sitting down and actually reading it.

NIce, it's good to meet a fellow Neowinian so close.

 

But as for Cersei, I think she doesn't want to give up her Queen Regent power. (made obvious by her actions in this episode) Maybe by killing Joffery before his marriage to Margaery was consumated, it means the marriage isn't valid. Which would mean Joffery's younger brother is now heir to the throne, leaving Cersei as Queen Regent until her other son is old enough to marry. But that's all based on the assumption of how marriage rules work in Westeros. I have no idea if that's how it works or not.  :rofl:

 

Waterbury here

 

I still have the sneaking suspicion that either Cersei or Tywin did it, they were loosing control of Joffrey and we know Cersei has a thing against Margery, and seems hell bent on going against Dad and how better to do that then becoming the full queen once she's disposed of the "interloper" 

I'm thinking that it could have been any of them, but I think my vote goes for Sansa, Joffrey has been really bad to her, killing Ned, Killing her Dire Wolf and then the rest.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if we find that it was Sansa, she usually sits at events rather quietly but she seemed to make a hell of a point of wanting to leave. Just thinking :)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!