LordBlakeney

Members
  • Content count

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About LordBlakeney

  • Rank
    Sellsword

Recent Profile Visitors

724 profile views
  1. Have to agree. @Black Crow seems to find the show anathema and the arguments boil down to rejecting any possibility of NK or WW leader simply because there is a Night King on GOT. @Matthew's point that the existence of NK does not negate the centrality of Winterfell's children to the plot seems to go largely unanswered in this back-and-forth, and that smacks of contrarianism for the sake of being contrary. Emphasis on the NK in the books, along with confirmed skinchanging magic and long-lived beings, elevates potential WW leaders to the realm of possibility, or at the very least should keep us from rejecting the notion out of hand just because we dislike the "mummers version."
  2. What a horribly dreary series you imagine.
  3. I love this insight.
  4. I've seen several posts that seem to put much more emphasis on this "heart of winter" concept than the text suggests. Maybe it will be important, but the significance attached to that Bran chapter always comes across as unjustified to me.
  5. I believe the show is hinting that the fact that Jon is a Targaryen is somehow relevant to the fight against the White Walkers - hence why Bran says they need to tell him. The show hasn't revealed why it's important, presumably we'll find out when they reveal it to Jon. I've seen a lot of posters assuming it will cause all sorts of drama vis-a-vis allegiances to House Stark in the North and therefore illogical that Jon needs to know. But it has been heavily foreshadowed that there is something about House Targaryen and the Prince that Was Promised prophecy that is key to winning the Long Night. Foreshadowed not just in the show but also the books. Too often criticism of the show hinges on stuff they simply haven't revealed to us yet, like Bran and the Stark sisters working together against Littlefinger. Instead of automatically assuming the show is stupid and illogical, why not give it the benefit of the doubt and assume we're not given all the information for narrative purposes. Jon's heritage is a crucial aspect of the story both in the show and the books, and the reveal of his true identity in the both and show and the books will probably have implications we are unable to fully appreciate with two books and a TV season still to come in the story.
  6. Right? There's a million reasons for Dany's scene on Dragonstone. We're smart enough to understand that we don't need exposition for every little detail. Get on with the story!
  7. Think about it this way. We know Dany probably took some nasty shits on her voyage to Westeros. It's a long way, nature will come calling, especially with god-knows-what kind of food they would serve on a medieval sea crossing. However, I don't need to watch her take those shits. There's only so much screen time a TV show can give something, and I'd rather they save their time for something besides someone struggling to take a shit. For narrative purposes, a shot of Dany leaving Mereen with the fleet and a shot of her arriving in Westeros with the fleet is enough to get the point across: she just sailed the seas and arrived back where she needs to be. I don't need scenes of her on the voyage dealing with Dothraki sea sickness and explosive diarrhea. It's probable that a couple of her ships were assailed by pirates. Maybe there was even a sea-battle or two. But none of that is shown in the TV show because 1) it won't matter to the plot in the long run and 2) taking time to show that on screen means less time with Arya killing Freys or Dragons flying around or the Mountain smashing heads. Stannis's garrison on Dragonstone can be safely put in the "sea-pirates and shits" category. Sure, watching some sea-pirates try to take a Dothraki-ladden ship would be fun, but it doesn't further the plot so let's not waste time on it in a TV show. Sure, watching 50 of Stannis's guys try to fight off some Unsullied might be cool, but Dany has tens of thousands. She's taking the Island. Why not just get to the money shot of her landing on the Island, and skip the nonsense of a tiny garrison that likely surrendered at the first sight of dragons anyway? Stannis is dead and gone. Why would I want to waste good TV time on shots of soldiers formerly loyal to him fighting for... what? That story is over. The new characters are here. The new players are here. Out with the old. The TV show is telling a story, it's going to focus on the important parts and leave the extraneous details to your imagination, as any good TV show should. So again, assume there were people. Assume they surrendered. Assume they tried to stay out of sight of the fearsome new Dragon Queen as she surveyed her conquest. It's not that hard at all. And enjoy the show.
  8. Again, most likely explanation is there was a garrison on Dragonstone, and they were quickly subdued/quickly surrendered once Dany showed up. This is such a weak excuse to complain about a "plot hole." It is ridiculous to think Dany sailed all those thousands of leagues to Dragonstone with tens of thousands of soldiers at her disposal and then took the first boat to the island. An invasion force that strong would send scouts ahead for reconnaissance. These scouts are the people who would have encountered your 50 men with crossbows. They either killed them, or those people surrendered. Then these scouts would give the go-ahead to Grey Worm "Hey you can bring the Queen now the Island is secured." I don't need to watch a 5 minute scene of Unsullied soldiers clearing Dragonstone room by room. Assume they did, assume it's then that Dany arrives, and just enjoy the show.
  9. This is silly. I guarantee before Dany landed on Dragonstone some sort of expeditionary force was sent to the island to get the lay of the land and probe for info. Any token force left by Stannis probably shit themselves and bent the knee to this token probe when they saw a huge fleet and three dragons. The smallfolk of Dragonstone probably did the same. Then, when the expedtionary force reports back to the fleet that the Island is secure, Dany gets in her little boat like Washington Crossing the Delaware and sets foot on Dragonstone for the beautifully shot silent triumphant arrival. Again, any smallfolk are probably trying to just stay out of her way. To complain about this is to complain that you lack imagination. The show shouldn't have to take the time to film smallfolk putting fresh rushes out on the floor in the bedrooms. I'm not watching Game of Thrones to watch the janitor at Dragonstone wonder when Stannis is coming back; I'm watching to see Dany walk up that bridge with Dragon's flying overhead and take her rightful seat. Even if there is a battle at Dragonstone and Stannis's peeps try to fight against Dany's force-it'd be a foregone conclusion they will lose. Don't waste time showing it. The closing scene was awesome and requires no suspension of disbelief.
  10. Robert didn't marry Cersei until a year after he had been crowned King. Crowned 283 they're married 284 (or 285). Jon was born prior to their nuptials. Therefore: 1) Whether he is Robert's bastard or Ned's, he is still a bastard and therefore an outcast. He's shunned either way. The best way to minimize that shunning? Be the bastard of the King. See, Edric Storm. 2) Again, Cersei is irrelevant, because at the time Ned is making decisions about Jon's future, she's not in the picture. The only reference Ned has for how Robert would treat one of his bastards is Mya Stone in the Vale, whom he dotes on with affection. Again, think how much more affection Ned would have expected Robert to show his son by Lyanna. There is no reason for Ned to think, prior to Cersei entering the picture, that Robert would harm him. Quite the opposite. 3) Cersei's first child wasn't born until a year after she married Robert, making Joffrey & Co even further removed from consideration. If he were to tell Robert he has a bastard son by Lyanna that he legitimizes, it offends no one and displaces no one. So again, I see absolutely no convincing argument for why Ned would hide one of Robert's bastards from him, let alone his bastard by the woman he loved so much he went to war.
  11. I have yet to hear a convincing explanation of why Jon had to be hidden if Robert was his father. Robert fawns over his bastards; how much more would he fawn over the son of Lyanna, the woman he loved? Unless you don't believe Lyanna is his mother. In which case what is Lyanna's purpose in our modern story? Why does her character exist?
  12. Should have added this to my first post: I mean that a central mystery of the series. It is constantly referenced across many POVs. The ancestry thing gets kind of circular. I mean yeah his ancestors matter but they only matter because of who his parents are. If the mystery gets revealed the "A-HA!" moment for readers will not be "Of course! It's because his 5th great grandparent is a Royce!" or something along those lines. It will be his parents that make him special.
  13. @LynnS of course I don't mean to say that the ancestry is irrelevant; bloodlines are obviously important in this world, and his ancestors will matter. Just that the more immediate cause of what sets him apart will be his parents.
  14. I believe the secret surrounding Jon Snow's ancestry will be much more immediate in his family tree. Going back multiple generations to find out why he's special misses the mark: GRRM left his parentage a mystery; if anything is special about him, it will be because of those two people, not some distant ancestor.
  15. I agree that he can be Jon Targaryen without being the central character.