Snippets from season 7

[Morgana Lannister]

20 minutes ago, farerb said:

In s2, He was mean to Gilly, unlike the books where he feels compassion for her and feels sorry that he actually can't help, instead he gets angry at Sam, he constantly defies his commands, he still doesn't get that in the NW he is just like everyone else, he's the one who wants to join Qhorin instead of the latter asking for him, showung again that he hasn't matured and then they completely disregarded his time with Qhorin, probably decided it's not important enough only to get Jon sexually harrassed by Ygritte. His time with Qhorin was important! That's when Jon learns what it takes to be a leader the most, and then thanks to him, his ranging party got killed.

S4 had pacing issues because they wanted big e9 battle, but Jon's arc resolution should have been refusing Winterfell and becoming the new lord commander, it resulted with him not doing much in s4 so they invented gang rape keep and rushed his ADWD arc in season 5, removing all of his internal conflicts about Winterfell, his oathbreaking and basically whitewashing him and making him a bland regular hero.

fair enough; however IMHO the whole point of having him killed, which has also happened in the books, was to release him from his vows, in other words, George kind of found a legal loophole there.

[Meera of Tarth]

2 minutes ago, JonSnowed said:

I would speculate the Iron bank call in it's debts and that forces Cersei to sack the reach in order to pay.  This is why we have the wagons which are ambushed in my opinion.

and that is what will happen.

makes no sense bc they are broke and they need a massive army to do that (The Reach has more soldiers) but they can't pay them.

I suppose the soldiers will believe Cersei's version that the food they steal will be for them (instead of for the bank).

everyone does what Cersei wants.

maybe the bank will just forgive Cersei the debt of the crown.

[Morgana Lannister]

6 minutes ago, JonSnowed said:

I would speculate the Iron bank call in it's debts and that forces Cersei to sack the reach in order to pay.  This is why we have the wagons which are ambushed in my opinion.

this could make sense actually

[Farerb]

Just now, Morgana Lannister said:

fair enough; however IMHO the whole point of having him killed, which has also happened in the books, was to release him from his vows, in other words, George kind of found a legal loophole there.

Yes, but IMO Jon in the books will go through internal journey and deal with the trauma of being resurrected, I don't think he will be the one to decide to leave the NW, I believe that it will be forced upon him and I definitely don't think he will take over Stannis' ADWD plot.

[Morgana Lannister]

1 minute ago, Meera of Tarth said:

and that is what will happen.

makes no sense bc they are broke and they need a massive army to do that (The Reach has more soldiers) but they can't pay them.

I suppose the soldiers will believe Cersei's version that the food they steal will be for them (instead of for the bank).

everyone does what Cersei wants.

maybe the bank will just forgive Cersei the debt of the crown.

however, there is that too, but do they soldiers know about the debt?  I doubt it very much; they would just do it for money, doubt many would for duty at that stage though; that debt has been significantly mentioned though so I think it has to be a major plot point at some point but no idea where it is going...

[Morgana Lannister]

30 minutes ago, farerb said:

Yes, but IMO Jon in the books will go through internal journey and deal with the trauma of being resurrected, I don't think he will be the one to decide to leave the NW, I believe that it will be forced upon him and I definitely don't think he will take over Stannis' ADWD plot.

I agree.  Stannis, I think will die at some point but differently, maybe even much later.  He will win the battle against the Boltons and may even die a hero in it, not sure but Jon has to definitely make it till the end as a very powerful person (whether he dies at the very, very end or not), even Robb's will points in that direction but I am mainly going with gut instinct here because he has been one of the main protagonists from the onset of the series.

[Cridefea]

1 hour ago, Lady of Whisperers said:

IMO there already was a lacking coherence in the global plots in season 6. Arya's plotline was obviously completel illogical and I believe that the Northern storyline made no sense at all, if you analyse it very closely and look for logical flaws. The same goes for most other storylines in Season 6. A lot of stuff that happened in that Season went against some of the rules of the universe that the showrunners had previously established and many characters (not just Sansa) acted against how they have been previously characterised. I don't agree with most of Preston Jacob's theories, but he did a really good job explaining these things in his 40 minute long Season 6 review. He really showed how many storylines where illogical in that video and how many character acted OOC. However, a lot of that stuff is only visible once you start analysing the show really closely and I admit myself that I missed many of the logical flaws he pointed out in his video. 

Yes, true. But there were some good parts too. What the leakers said seems to point to a more extensive loss of logic. But as soon as I have time, I must watch the video you're suggesting, cause I'm curious now.

[Cridefea]

It has nothing to do with your discussion, but I've just see Nikolaj and Pilou live on tv in the Stadium. They're keeping to focus on them.   LoL

 

[Morgana Lannister]

1 hour ago, kg1982 said:

How is Dany a force for good again?  Girl has done some violent things like crucifying and burning people.  And I think Dany's plot in Meereen is about the road to Hell being paved by good intentions.  Given that Martin wrote ADWD during the Iraq War, there is lots of allusions to real life events in that book.  There are also lots of allusions to past revolutionaries.  People with good intentions can end up doing the most harm.  In Martin's world and in life, there is no such thing as a truly good ruler.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  The system is what is evil.

As for the dumb romance, even if that is the end game in the books, spoilers suggest that it is cheesy as hell.  Dany is apparently a bitch to Jon and he still gives up his title and sleeps with her.  It reminds me of a bad crossover between Twilight and 20-year-old womyn's studies major militant feminist fantasy.  (And I am a feminist so please don't try the I hate women crap; you do not need to be man hating guys.)  I make no qualms about being on Team Stark and Team Jon and don't think you can be a Dany fan while being on Team Stark.  The North and Dany have opposite political goals; you cannot be a fan of both.  And I do not like the subservient nature of the relationship between Jon and Dany; I do not think Dany fans would like it if the two participants were flipped.  (And I would agree with their concerns.) 

And people get to complain.  Deal with it.  Most of us started reading these books for things like the Red Wedding, not the dumbest and most obvious romantic pairing written in the cheesiest way ever.  I cannot get over boat sex while the Wall falls.  If you like the cheese fest, then please ignore us.

As I stated above, yes Dany has made mistakes but I do not believe she is absolutely corrupt either.  I agree with you however that there is no such thing as a ruler who is always good or right, still "evil system or not" in their world and our no society can function without rulers.  If we were all great people and would not try to take away the rights of others for our own end game it could work with humans, as we are my belief is that is not.  However, I have to agree that I see the result of the end game involving not one single powerful being but a huge compromise on all parts, with sure someone slightly on top but with a very strong team encompassing many unlikely allied forces with different goals, hence bringing balance in.  The photographic spoilers for this season really point in that direction too, was I was really glad to see; like say Davos and Tyrion etc.

Okay, this is still unconfirmed (i.e. spoilery territory) but my understanding is not that Dany will be a total bitch to Jon and he has goes and acts totally puppet-like to her.  My understanding is that she starts off disbelieving the WW stuff and demands he bends the knee and that he initially refuses.  However, he has experienced the real threat and knows he needs her co-operation.  I believe Tyrion, in the spoiler, tries to persuade her that he knows the man and he is not a delusional guy.  Here I think the only way they may survive at all, all of them, is a lot of collaboration even with houses you hate, as a character.  They will not have the luxury to prolong house hatred out of desire, duty or tradition.

As whether it would be totally cliche, if this does come to pass, to me it would depend on how it is done.  Would I like that scene? maybe yes and no; my pet theory is that the Wall will come down because of something Bran does in error, but okay heavily influenced by the Hodor episode and he is the one major character who hasn't done yet, willingly or not, something which has resulted in aweful consequences but may well be wrong.

[Queen of Procrastination]

1 hour ago, farerb said:

In s2, He was mean to Gilly, unlike the books where he feels compassion for her and feels sorry that he actually can't help, instead he gets angry at Sam, he constantly defies his commands, he still doesn't get that in the NW he is just like everyone else, he's the one who wants to join Qhorin instead of the latter asking for him, showung again that he hasn't matured and then they completely disregarded his time with Qhorin, probably decided it's not important enough only to get Jon sexually harrassed by Ygritte. His time with Qhorin was important! That's when Jon learns what it takes to be a leader the most, and then thanks to him, his ranging party got killed.

S4 had pacing issues because they wanted big e9 battle, but Jon's arc resolution should have been refusing Winterfell and becoming the new lord commander, it resulted with him not doing much in s4 so they invented gang rape keep and rushed his ADWD arc in season 5, removing all of his internal conflicts about Winterfell, his oathbreaking and basically whitewashing him and making him a bland regular hero.

Agree in order to add a few things: The show has repeatedly portrayed him as a foolish idiot (both in season 2 and 6) and I never got that impression from the books. On top of that they've made him a better sword fighter, but removed most of his other skills like his skills as an administrator and negotiator (which we saw in his dealings with Stannis and the Iron Bank) and his extenstive knowledge about the northern houses. They removed all aspects which make him a competent leader, but somehow people still vote for him. 

57 minutes ago, Morgana Lannister said:

fair enough; however IMHO the whole point of having him killed, which has also happened in the books, was to release him from his vows, in other words, George kind of found a legal loophole there.

I disagree with that, at least a bit. I don't think GRRM only killed him in order to have him leave the NW. I don't want to open the whole "was Jon breaking his oath in ADWD?" discussion right now, but I  think we can agree that he started to take his oath a bit less seriously than before. Furthemore, Jon has already attempted to desert in AGoT and in the books the only reason why he didn't accept Stannis offer to become Lord Winterfell was that he would have needed to accept the Red God for this. In the show he didn't accept the offer because he wanted to stay true to his oath, but that was less the case in ASOS. What I'm saying is that GRRM could have written a story where he makes Jon go one step further and let's him desert for good. He could have also have used Robb's will which might have a clause which frees Jon from his oath, so he might have written a story where Jon manages to get free from his oath without being killed off. Instead he wrote a story in which Jon gets killed by his own men. Yes, this might partially serve in order to use the legal loophole and free Jon from his oath, but IMHO he also used it in order to change Jon in a way that only death can change him. On top of that Jon will likely spend some time in Ghost which will also affect him. I believe that the Jon we see in TWOW will not be a completely different person than the Jon we saw before, but I believe that he will be a much greyer character and that he might do some stuff which he wouldn't have done before. 

However, I'm not surprised that the show didn't go down that road, because they've whitewashed the main characters which is probably the most obvious with Tyrion, but was also done with other characters. 

[Morgana Lannister]

20 minutes ago, Lady of Whisperers said:

Agree in order to add a few things: The show has repeatedly portrayed him as a foolish idiot (both in season 2 and 6) and I never got that impression from the books. On top of that they've made him a better sword fighter, but removed most of his other skills like his skills as an administrator and negotiator (which we saw in his dealings with Stannis and the Iron Bank) and his extenstive knowledge about the northern houses. They removed all aspects which make him a competent leader, but somehow people still vote for him. 

I disagree with that, at least a bit. I don't think GRRM only killed him in order to have him leave the NW. I don't want to open the whole "was Jon breaking his oath in ADWD?" discussion right now, but I  think we can agree that he started to take his oath a bit less seriously than before. Furthemore, Jon has already attempted to desert in AGoT and in the books the only reason why he didn't accept Stannis offer to become Lord Winterfell was that he would have needed to accept the Red God for this. In the show he didn't accept the offer because he wanted to stay true to his oath, but that was less the case in ASOS. What I'm saying is that GRRM could have written a story where he makes Jon go one step further and let's him desert for good. He could have also have used Robb's will which might have a clause which frees Jon from his oath, so he might have written a story where Jon manages to get free from his oath without being killed off. Instead he wrote a story in which Jon gets killed by his own men. Yes, this might partially serve in order to use the legal loophole and free Jon from his oath, but IMHO he also used it in order to change Jon in a way that only death can change him. On top of that Jon will likely spend some time in Ghost which will also affect him. I believe that the Jon we see in TWOW will not be a completely different person than the Jon we saw before, but I believe that he will be a much greyer character and that he might do some stuff which he wouldn't have done before. 

However, I'm not surprised that the show didn't go down that road, because they've whitewashed the main characters which is probably the most obvious with Tyrion, but was also done with other characters. 

I actually agree with you but then again we all can go a bit harsh on the show but without the many pages and seeing the characters' points of view it is really hard to convey a clear message to the audience so I tend to be a little lenient with them... when I can... there are things about the show that really bug me lol.

I agree on the warging and on the fact that Jon will be more changed in the books but, to me, to get Jon just to desert and get Winterfell, just because Robb said so in his will wouldn't cut the mustard with the other characters, mainly NW and small falk make him any less that a desserter that needs beheading, no exceptions, even to kind Ned there weren't any.  But I worded it wrong in my previous post I think, there are several reasons why he died; no less to teach him that even your own allies can conspire and take you down.

 

[WolfQueenArya]

All I can say about all of this is that I hope this wight mission/dragon pit meeting makes sense when we finally watch the show/or get actual context. I'm still hoping some of these spoilers turn out false. I guess we'll see when we start seeing trailers, official photos, and interviews in the spring. And here's hoping Winds comes out next year.

 

[Morgana Lannister]

2 minutes ago, WolfQueenArya said:

All I can say about all of this is that I hope this wight mission/dragon pit meeting makes sense when we finally watch the show/or get actual context. I'm still hoping some of these spoilers turn out false. I guess we'll see when we start seeing trailers, official photos, and interviews in the spring. And here's hoping Winds comes out next year.

 

lol I hope so too but looking forward to all those meetings, some friendly some not so much lol Can''t wait either!

[kg1982]

18 minutes ago, Morgana Lannister said:

As I stated above, yes Dany has made mistakes but I do not believe she is absolutely corrupt either.  I agree with you however that there is no such thing as a ruler who is always good or right, still "evil system or not" in their world and our no society can function without rulers.  If we were all great people and would not try to take away the rights of others for our own end game it could work with humans, as we are my belief is that is not.  However, I have to agree that I see the result of the end game involving not one single powerful being but a huge compromise on all parts, with sure someone slightly on top but with a very strong team encompassing many unlikely allied forces with different goals, hence bringing balance in.  The photographic spoilers for this season really point in that direction too, was I was really glad to see; like say Davos and Tyrion etc.

Okay, this is still unconfirmed (i.e. spoilery territory) but my understanding is not that Dany will be a total bitch to Jon and he has goes and acts totally puppet-like to her.  My understanding is that she starts off disbelieving the WW stuff and demands he bends the knee and that he initially refuses.  However, he has experienced the real threat and knows he needs her co-operation.  I believe Tyrion, in the spoiler, tries to persuade her that he knows the man and he is not a delusional guy.  Here I think the only way they may survive at all, all of them, is a lot of collaboration even with houses you hate, as a character.  They will not have the luxury to prolong house hatred out of desire, duty or tradition.

As whether it would be totally cliche, if this does come to pass, to me it would depend on how it is done.  Would I like that scene? maybe yes and no; my pet theory is that the Wall will come down because of something Bran does in error, but okay heavily influenced by the Hodor episode and he is the one major character who hasn't done yet, willingly or not, something which has resulted in aweful consequences but may well be wrong.

Of course one person should not rule.  This is why modern Western democracies have lots of checks and balances in them.  That is where I hope GOT is headed to a system which has something like a Parliament and where the power of the nobles and the mon arch are beginning to be limited.  This has historical precedent with The War of the Roses, which really transformed English society.  And also the power being transferred from landed nobles to capitalism.  An ending with Dany as a perfect queen savior is unsatisfying, cliche, and misses the entire point of the story.  I also want to see the North gain its independence, which is diametrically opposite what Dany wants (everyone kneeling to her.)  It just seems unsatisfying for the North to have to kneel to some Southern monarch again and I do not think that someone who is on Team North can also be a Team Dany given they have different political goals.

And I am reacting to the spoilers as I initially read them.  There are two spoiler sets.  The first one is that Dany basically refuses to let Jon leave Dragonstone for some odd reason.  The second one makes Dany look better but makes Jon look like a moron.  Both are frankly trite and stupid as Hell.

[Morgana Lannister]

3 minutes ago, kg1982 said:

Of course one person should not rule.  This is why modern Western democracies have lots of checks and balances in them.  That is where I hope GOT is headed to a system which has something like a Parliament and where the power of the nobles and the mon arch are beginning to be limited.  This has historical precedent with The War of the Roses, which really transformed English society.  And also the power being transferred from landed nobles to capitalism.  An ending with Dany as a perfect queen savior is unsatisfying, cliche, and misses the entire point of the story.  I also want to see the North gain its independence, which is diametrically opposite what Dany wants (everyone kneeling to her.)  It just seems unsatisfying for the North to have to kneel to some Southern monarch again and I do not think that someone who is on Team North can also be a Team Dany given they have different political goals.

And I am reacting to the spoilers as I initially read them.  There are two spoiler sets.  The first one is that Dany basically refuses to let Jon leave Dragonstone for some odd reason.  The second one makes Dany look better but makes Jon look like a moron.  Both are frankly trite and stupid as Hell.

Okay, although perhaps not going as far as the onset of modern capitalism, it is my prediction too that the commoners and all noble houses will gain further rights against the monarch and I agree with the War of the Roses references, I think this might feel a bit "Magna Carta" at least; whether it is Dany or someone else slightly on top I cannot be certain.  The one think I am sure of is that they will all have to "go to bed with the enemy" (not necessarily literally) but a la Tyrell/Lannister to have a hope in hell and to me Dany and Jon make sense in that context, whether bedded and wedded or not.  The north might retain some "preferential independence" but why?  The only way I could see is if the person or people who rule it would not have it any other way and they have the military or political strength to achieve this.  The wildlings now is another matter and yes they might get a special chapter a bit akin to Native American reservations with some rules and/or privileges; never crossed my mind until now but that would make some sense to me.  Okay not saying for a second that Native Americans were dealt with fairly but more thinking about modern days.  Maybe they will be allowed to stay "unknealed" (if there is such a word lol) and can continue to do their own thing provided then don't attack others.  

If their world become a modern one over night it would not be credible but totally with you in that some very positive progress will be made.

As for Jon and Dany I prefer the initial tension and then necessary co-operation but we shall see and by the way, really enjoying the exchange with you.

[Meera of Tarth]

Cersei and Euron marrying or him trying to marry her would actually make sense since both of them want power and have similar personalities. There was a reliable leak that said that Cersei would ally with him from many months ago but Iirc that doesn't appear in the leaks.

[Evarei]

ok, back to some actual discussion. Lads claims Bran's all 'distant and visions', but from his leak it seems we're only getting one. Unless it's another thing he omitted. I'd like to see more than just one scene with Rhaegar. Don't even have to be full scenes, just glimpses.

I'm curious who gets the role, hope we're not disappointed.

He's really vague on Bran (among other things). I doubt the only things he does is get more insight into RLJ and help Sansa see through LF. Unless he's sidelined, that's not nearly enough to cover for his entire screentime in s7.

[Evarei]

3 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Cersei and Euron marrying or him trying to marry her would actually make sense since both of them want power and have similar personalities. There was a reliable leak that said that Cersei would ally with him from many months ago but Iirc that doesn't appear in the leaks.

I think Lads did mention the alliance (but we had known that before). Also said Euron makes advances at Cersei, trying to sell himself as a great husband material, but is totally friendzoned.

[Morgana Lannister]

2 minutes ago, Evarei said:

ok, back to some actual discussion. Lads claims Bran's all 'distant and visions', but from his leak it seems we're only getting one. Unless it's another thing he omitted. I'd like to see more than just one scene with Rhaegar. Don't even have to be full scenes, just glimpses.

I'm curious who gets the role, hope we're not disappointed.

He's really vague on Bran (among other things). I doubt the only things he does is get more insight into RLJ and help Sansa see through LF. Unless he's sidelined, that's not nearly enough to cover for his entire screentime in s7.

Glad to be back on track with this thread; I have given enough effort to trying to counter act the negativity lol  extremely intrigued, but I haven't read the whole thread which could possibly take days lol re who Jim Broadbent will be and if he is connected to Bran in some way (probably totally off my rocker there) but I think Bran will be important this season and not just re Jon's parentage.  I get the guy with the spoilers, as it has been said time and time before here, knows some major bits but not the totality...

[kg1982]

26 minutes ago, Morgana Lannister said:

Okay, although perhaps not going as far as the onset of modern capitalism, it is my prediction too that the commoners and all noble houses will gain further rights against the monarch and I agree with the War of the Roses references, I think this might feel a bit "Magna Carta" at least; whether it is Dany or someone else slightly on top I cannot be certain.  The one think I am sure of is that they will all have to "go to bed with the enemy" (not necessarily literally) but a la Tyrell/Lannister to have a hope in hell and to me Dany and Jon make sense in that context, whether bedded and wedded or not.  The north might retain some "preferential independence" but why?  The only way I could see is if the person or people who rule it would not have it any other way and they have the military or political strength to achieve this.  The wildlings now is another matter and yes they might get a special chapter a bit akin to Native American reservations with some rules and/or privileges; never crossed my mind until now but that would make some sense to me.  Okay not saying for a second that Native Americans were dealt with fairly but more thinking about modern days.  Maybe they will be allowed to stay "unknealed" (if there is such a word lol) and can continue to do their own thing provided then don't attack others.  

If their world become a modern one over night it would not be credible but totally with you in that some very positive progress will be made.

As for Jon and Dany I prefer the initial tension and then necessary co-operation but we shall see and by the way, really enjoying the exchange with you.

Ever heard of Scotland?  Braveheart?  That strikes me as the North.  And Jon as Dany's husband is frankly completely unsatisfying for the North especially if Jon submits to her authority because Dany is not going to share power.  That is just not who she is as a person.  She is a dictator and conquerer.  She is not a modern democrat.  Moreover, Jon by giving up his claim loses any formal power; anything he gets is literally granted to him by her.  And she does not share so it would be Jon basically as Dany's trophy husband and the North under the thumb of another Southern monarch.  They would have even less influence than they did under Ned.  The concept of a Personal Union might come up in the books and would be a good solution but the TV show has handwaved away that sort of thing.  Jon kneeling and submitting himself to Dany means such a solution will not occur in the show.