The hairy bear

Forum Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About The hairy bear

  • Rank
    Honey in the summer air!
  • Birthday 08/28/1980

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Many. A Song of Ice and Fire among them.

Recent Profile Visitors

11,940 profile views
  1. IMHO, there are two important reasons why attempted murder has to carry a lesser sentence than an actual murder: 1) People can reconsider. Someone can have a change of mind at the last minute. We can say that someone was planning a murder, but we can't be sure that he would have actually gone with it. 2) Knowing a person's real intent is impossible. I can prove someone was pointing someone else with a gun. But... perhaps he only wanted to scare him, or was planning to rob him. Sadly, we can only know with absolute certainty that his intent was murder once he has shot the gun. And this is even more complicated in cases such as beatings or stabbings.
  2. I don't think that it's likely, from a commercial point of view. A spinoff from a successful series has to stablish connections with the previous shows. Since the prequels won't be able to show characters from GOT, the only chance they'll have at creating any kind of link between both series will be showing scenarios that we are familiar with. It would make no sense to make a show about Asshai with no known character, no known scenario, no known noble family,... what would be the point of making a "successor show" if you don't use any of the material that's been introduced so far?
  3. I don't see why we discard so easily the fact that Cersei could have convinced Aerys herself. He certainly had access to Aerys, being the Hand's daughter and Elia's handmaiden. Cersei has always tried to seduce men to manipulate them, and we know that at 15 was already using this strategy with Jaime. And Aerys would be particularly receptive, her being the only daughter of Joanna. I can see a short-sighted Cersei telling Aerys that her gallant brother would be a perfect knight for the kingsguard, and thinking that her charms and seductive gazes have actually convinced him. Meanwhile, Aerys would consider the political implications of stealing Tywin's heir, and go for it.
  4. It's extremely unlikely that House Mallister would answer a summon from lord Baelish. In fact they didn't answer a summon from the Iron Throne itself, as Jaime notes in AFFC when he arrives at the siege of Riverrun: "the banners he did not see gave him pause. The silver eagle of Mallister was nowhere in evidence; nor the red horse of Bracken, the willow of the Rygers, the twining snakes of Paege. Though all had renewed their fealty to the Iron Throne, none had come to join the siege. The Brackens were fighting the Blackwoods, Jaime knew, which accounted for their absence, but as for the rest ..." Baelish has no real grasp over the Riverlands, and no army to impose it. He is completely dependant on the support or the crown for that matter. But anyway, even if you decide to ignore this, there are other clearer situations in the map that should be changed: Storm's End and Brightwater Keep would answer Stannis' summons (for the moment), and the Shield Islands would follow the Greyjoys.
  5. As I see it, the idea that the Dothraki could stand against a similarly sized force of disciplined armoured soldiers is unrealistic. The Dothraki can be useful for pillaging undefended towns, ambush small forces or plundering supply lines. But against actual armies, they have no chance. In this regard it's worth remembering the precedent of the three thousand of Qohor, when a small company of lightly armoured disciplined unsullied defeated a whole khalasar.
  6. As said, the problem with this map is that it confuses claims or nominal control (House Baelish ruling the Riverlands) with actual control (House Baelish ruling the Vale, or The High Septon controlling KL). You should decide which way to go. Other questionable decisions: House Greyjoy has conquered the Shield Islands, Stannis still controls (somehow) Storm's End. A lot of the locations marked as ruled by the Iron Throne (such as Dragonstone or Duskendale are actually under Tyrell control. The situation in the North is much more complicated, and it's hardly likely that the loyalties are split in contiguous territories as depicted.
  7. Summerhall would be the obvious answer. But Dunk's surely lived very interesting episodes before that. Besides what has already been said, I'd be very interested in seeing the relationship between Dunk and Rohanne when she was Gerold the Golden's wife, and the reasons behind her disappearance.
  8. I'm not sure about that. The other individual Balrog we know about, Gothmog, had the title of "Marshall of the Hosts" and "High captain of Angband". He is the commander of the surprise attack at Gondolin. And during the Nirnaeth Arnoediad, he captured Hurin instead of killing him, "and dragged him to Angband with mockery". All this does not indicate "mindless forces of nature" to me, but autonomous capability for planning, commanding and pursue their goals. Fair enough. Still, rabbits are known to attack snakes that delve into his lair. And while the elves of the third age may be a shadow of their first age counterparts, Durin's Bane may also be a shadow of his former lord Gothmog. So if Ecthelion killed Gothmog, couldn't Durin's Bane be slain if he tried to descend to Lorien or Rivendell? I wouldn't discard the possibility.
  9. Thinking about this matter has made me wonder... isn't Durin's Bane a little bit of a coward? He fled after the War of Wrath instead of fighting to death as most of his colleagues, he hid under a Mountain for some thousand years, he did nothing when Morgoth's old lieutenant warred against Eregion (which was just besides his hiding place), he only killed dwarves that delved too deep into Moria but never ventured outside (he didn't even helped the orcs at the battle of Azanulbizar that was taking place at the gates of Moria), and he didn't put himself at Sauron's service when the Dark Lord was in Dol Guldur (again, very close to his hiding place). Also, Ainur in earthly form have been repeatedly hurt in Tolkien's world: not only the lord of the balrogs was slain by an elf, but there's also Saruman being killed by Grima, Sauron being defeated by Elendil and Morgoth himself being severely scarred by Fingolfin in single combat. All this makes me think that perhaps Durin's Bane is not as powerful as many seem to believe. Or that he was, but lost a lot of his power when Morgoth was imprisoned. Otherwise, one would expect him to settle a small kingdom for himself and try to get revenge from the ones that caused the downfall of his old master. So I guess I'm in the Smaug camp.
  10. One of the less enticing trailers I've seen in a long while. They do not seem to grasp at all what Star Trek was about. And I agree that making a prequel is a very bad idea. But the thing that puzzles me the more is the continuously mutating the klingon looks... what's the problem with the make-up from the TNG era? It was menacing, it was distinct, it was cool, it was iconic. Where did that unexplainable obsession to change it came from?
  11. Werthead speculates at his Wertzone that it could be Daniel Abraham, a long-time good friend of George who also writes the ASoIaF comic books and has recent TV experience from The Expanse. I thinks it's a very good guess.
  12. I don't share that view. Regardless of the blood ties between Robert and the Targaryens, little was done to present Robert as the continuation of the Targaryen legacy. He didn't change his name, he never used the three-headed dragon banner, he took the dragon skulls away from the Throne Room... it was purposefully a change of dynasty. Besides, Viserys and Daenerys were alive and with a greater claim, so crowning Robert could only be justified by rights of conquest. The Iron Throne seen as default? The Greyjoys have contested this at every opportunity. When the Greatjon introduces the idea of seceding from the Iron Throne, he presents elaborate arguments that suggest that it's an idea that is not unusual in the North, and then many others join the proclamation passionately. 300 years is not that long a time, compared to thousands of years of history as an independent kingdom. If Jon, Eddard and Robert hadn't been in such good terms or had been a little more ambitious, the end of the Targaryen dynasty may have lead to the dissolution of the realm. I'm convinced that there were many people in each realm (specially in the North) that were pushing for this. One thing is to send a second son in Renly's camp to play politics and have one member of the family on his side. If it goes wrong and Renly has a traitor's end, you can blame Robar's youth and say that he went for adventure against the wishes of his father. But Yohn Royce actually calling his banners and fighting for Robb is a commitment on a completely different level. That said, it would be possible to assume that the Royces initially rooted for Renly, and only after his death (and Robar's), decided that the second best option was joining Robb. He's a fourteen year old boy who managed to call his father's banners and, on his own, lead an army to free him. He rides with a domesticated direwolf at his side. He gets to get proclaimed king by Northmen and Riverlords. He begins a series of campaigns and doesn't lose a single battle... You didn't need to meet him to admire the kid. There were people shouting his name even in the streets of King's Landing! This is like saying that Stark, Lannister, Tully, Arryn, Baratheon, Tyrell, Martell and Greyjoy are only eight houses and their join statements have little weight because they do not repesent the entirety of Westeros. They failed only because Lyn Corbray shamed them by unsheathing a sword during a parley. The important thing here is that those lords had enough strength to impose conditions to the Lord Protector. Their undecisiveness, taboos about guest rights or lack of cunning are not relevant to the point. I think that you take your statement far too far. You may find unlikely, or even extremely improbable, but delusional? Which is the delusional part? That people can swear allegiance to a king from a house that they never had been vassals of? The Riverlords swore fealty to Robb without even pausing to ask Hoster's or Edmure's opinion. If Blackwoods, Brackens and Mallisters were fine with it, why it's "dishonest" to suggest that some of the lords of the Vale had similar feelings?
  13. My personal guess is that the two ideas that George submitted (one was approved, the other not) are the potential novels that he mentioned in this 2005 interview: a novel on Aegon the Unworthy, and the other a murder mystery set in the Free Cities. I honestly think that the Dance and the Conquest are unlikely. Game of Thrones, which is a consolidated and successful product, can only afford a single major battle per season. Filming any of those conflicts would imply costs that it's unlikely that a brand new series can cover. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a Game of Thrones 2 in terms of themes and structure. Instead, I's more likely that we'll get side stories with conflicts that are not central to the Westerosi realm. Things such as the voyages of the young Sea Snake around the world, the adventures of Ser Jeffory Norcross of the Kingsguard, or a love story between a Bracken and a Blackwood.
  14. The quote you mention in your post is enough to satisfy me ("House Royce was close to open revolt over her aunt’s failure to aid Robb in his war"). Even if it's not said explicitly, I think it's the logical assumption by default. Robb was one of five different claimants, and "aiding" him means fighting the other four. The Vale swore fealty to the Robert not so long ago. Why it would be a delusion to accept a Stark king and not a Baratheon one? The Riverlords are also Andals, have also warred against the North, and their houses are as old as the Vale ones. The Vale has also shown lots of disunity and internal fighting. I don't think you are portraying them realistically. The Vale and the Riverlands are not that different. Westeros hasn't invented "republics" yet. An "alliance between equal partners" would require proclaiming Robert Arryn the King of the Vale, and then negotiate a treaty with the King of the Trident. Supporting Robb in the war would be seen by any independent observant as the Vale renouncing their ties with the Iron Throne. That would be seen as rebellion by Joffrey, Stannis and Renly. But it wasn't. Stannis and Renly were problematic candidates. Stannis was unpopular, uncompromising and had no male heir. Renly was young and had no sustainable claim. Any of them had any ties with the Vale. Meanhwile, Robb was young and charismatic, Lysa was his aunt and Robert his cousin. There were family ties with the Royces and other houses in the Vale too. We know the Lords Declarant were strong enough to besiege the Eyrie with six thousand men and impose conditions. The fact that they failed because of their naivete and lack of coordination doesn't take away the fact that they were strong enough to impose conditions. If together they do not represent half of the strength of the Vale, it's certainly close enough. Their opinion, though, has a lot of weight. Note that they're not only 5, as have many vassals on their own (The Royces have the Coldwaters, the Shetts and the Tollets).
  15. If the Vale lords had joined Robb after Karstark's murder, things would have turned out very differently. Of course, it wouldn't have been enough to defeat the combined Tyrell-Lannister force. But at the very least he could have maintained his status as a relevant player until the arrival of the Others and Dany. I'm sure Bolton and Frey wouldn't have dared to go one with the Red Wedding if the Vale had been with Robb. In this scenario, the Ironmen would have been expelled from the North relatively quick. From here on, it's very difficult to predict. Would the Tyrells have poisoned Joffrey with Robb still alive? Would Stannis go to the North with Robb there? Hard to say. The riverlords had never been sworn to Winterfell, yet all of them declared for Robb. The lords from the Vale could have easily done the same, and we know some of them wanted to. The alliance between the Vale and the North wasn't limited to Ned Stark: there were some family ties (Lysa and little Robert, the Royces,..), and they were on the same side on the Rebellion. Surely many friendships between both kingdoms and the Riverlands were born back then.