jcmontea

Members
  • Content count

    979
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jcmontea

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

619 profile views
  1. This is interesting. My current thought on this is that she is going to offer to put aside her claim and accept Jon as the Targ heir and her King. Her coming to this point will be one of her main arcs next year.
  2. I agree with that. If you think your son and heir has an incredible destiny ahead of him and is going to help save the world than there is really no better name for a Targaryen than Aegon.
  3. What I think is that on the show there is not really a difference between the impact of resurection from Jon AND from Beric. Just by what is shown Beric does not appear any different other than his scars which Jon has as well. Jon seemed slighy more depressed in season 6 but he gets over it eventually. And Beric seems emotionally normal most of the time. So i can’t say show Jon really seems that different than show Beric. In terms of what they talk about to me at least show Jon talking to Davos in 6x03, Mel in 6x09 and refusing to talk about his resurrection with Dany seems like the marks of someone who is haunted by the experience of coming back. That does not strike me as qualitatively any different from Beric talking about his experience on the show.
  4. It is weird for sure. Even weirder than Rhaenyra naming her eldest with Daemon Aegon even though Alicent already had an Aegon. Had they both lived it would have been another Aegon the Elder and Aegon the Younger situation. Elia probably would have taken it for a slight as Alicent did and who knows maybe it was. As I write that I cannot help but think its weird that the first dance of the dragons revolved around a Rhaenrya and two Aegons and we might get a second dance of the dragons and you have a Daenerys and possibly two Aegons on the board (assuming Jon’s name is the same as the books) I think it is more likely than not he does not take the name Aegon Targaryen. He might change his last name for political reasons though. Agree
  5. That’s pretty lame example. Beric tells not shows. Nothing of what he shows indicates any difference nor that he is a zombie.
  6. The main ideas i have on this are: - to make him King vs just Prince Consort when he marries Dany - to present an interesting conflict for Dany in having to deal with the fact that she is not the rightful heir as she has thought since Viserys died - there will be some thematic significance to the fact that Jon was Rhaegar’s true heir the whole time, would have been Crown Prince without the rebellion and likely would have married Dany in that alternative life
  7. 60% they both survive. 40% one dies. 10% they both die is where i tend to fall. You? Sure
  8. Is the fire wight concept a new thing? The first i heard of it was in that time interview this year. I wonder if this is an example of the garnder at work.
  9. Haven’t read AGOT since 13 so cannot speak to it. In the show in season 1 they do seem to make it much more about about Rhaegar kidnapping her since we mostly hear about it from Robert and I don’t think we get Dany's perspective on Rhaegar until season 3. This is what Bran said about it in 1x10 Bran Stark: That's my grandfather, Lord Rickard. He was burned alive by the Mad King, Aerys. That's Lyanna, my father's sister. King Robert was supposed to marry her, but Rhaegar Targaryen kidnapped her. Robert started a war to win her back. He killed Rhaegar, but she died anyway. That's where l saw Father. So based on this interpretation of Bran in season 1, which is also backed up with what Robert said, what Bran says in season 7 makes sense.
  10. Not really sure. I think the purpose could be as simple as Jon and Dany fulfilling their desire for a kid of their own (those are great quotes) to something more magical or political. This is one area where the tv show will probably give us an important clue in season 8.
  11. It does depend on Jon’s real name being Aegon that is true. But if good old Preston says it doesn’t make sense than I think its more likely to be true. I do think there are explanations though that make sense even if it is weird to give two of your sons the same name. Also, seems fitting that the real name of the main character in the story would be Aegon Targaryen.
  12. I almost think it makes more sense as a days that never were vision. For two reasons. 1.) why would aegon son of elia’s song be the song of ice and fire? What would a tagaryen with a dornish mom have to do with any of the ice imagery and symbolism of the series? 2.) Rheagar winning at the Trident and becoming King was the great day that never was. The greatest man Baristan ever knew becoming King and having 25 years to prepare the Kingdom with his son Aegon and his sister Daenerys for the threat of the others instead of all the bloodletting and civil wars we got.
  13. That seems pretty true and a good comparison to WWI.
  14. Yes. The show is simplyfying things significantly
  15. Every war from a certain point of view is justified. It has to be to some extent for people to be willing to go out and risk their lives. This is why George has multiple viewpoints: ”Having multiple viewpoints is crucial to the grayness of the characters. You have to be able to see the struggle from both sides, because real human beings in a war have all these processes of self-justification, telling ourselves why what we're doing is the right thing” We start out thinking this was a just war to depose a madman as you say and his evil son who kidnapped and raped a noble girl. We then find out nope that evil son was not so evil and he actually loved that girl and she loved him. We then find out that that son actually wanted to depose his father himself so the prospect of acheiving the supposed aims of said just war “deposing the mad king” was there via peaceful means. We then also find out if you subscribe to the Southron Ambitions theory, that there had been a long running power play going on involving the rebellious families. And then the supposed noble side ends up sacking the capital city and viciously murdering and raping innocents themselves. So the whole thing becomes a whole lot murkier than just these good lords overthrowing a tyrant. Then you add in the fact that the war itself killed tens of thousands for what, to avenge two noble aristocrats? That the war set up a situation where future wars were a lot more likely since any aristocrat with an army big enough could put themselves forward as king afterwards once the idea of the rightful king and bloodline goes out the window and the whole excercise starts to look like nothing more than just a pointless bloodletting that had more negative consequences than positive and at its core was probably driven less by a conception of justice and more by desire and hate.