Daegon5585

[Theory] History of Aegons Conquest repeated

54 posts in this topic

19 hours ago, RhaenysB said:

The Arya storyline was so far from reality it was basically in rosewood. Cersei was crowned queen and Jon king in less than a snap of a finger. And then I haven't even said a word about Dorne, Varys and daenerys meeting off screen or Sandra. So yeah, writing wasn't quite at the top of the game, or should I say it was at the bottom? 

Arya's storyline was weird but killing Walder Frey made sense.

Crowning of Cersei and Jon. I mean what else would you do in this limited amount of time they have? I'm sure if there was more time for them, they would do it differently. Varys teleportating much like Baelish. Writing is what makes show sometimes weaker because otherwise this show is top notch in every department casting, VFX, costumes, the level of details is amazing, production or stunt teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Friendzone said:

Arya's storyline was weird but killing Walder Frey made sense.

Crowning of Cersei and Jon. I mean what else would you do in this limited amount of time they have? I'm sure if there was more time for them, they would do it differently. Varys teleportating much like Baelish. Writing is what makes show sometimes weaker because otherwise this show is top notch in every department casting, VFX, costumes, the level of details is amazing, production or stunt teams.

No one questions the the flawless, state of the art technology or the amazing stunt teams and crew members. But isn't the STORY the heart of every show or movie? 

Arya's storyline was the worst thing I have ever seen on tv. James Bond doesn't run like that after being stabbed in the abdonement three times. 

What limited amount of time? They have two seasons. What would I do? Anything but what we saw. First things first have a riot. The heart of the church the small folk so adore just blew up! Is everybody just okay with that? And all the nobles in that court, don't they want answers and a plan? Why is Cersei Tommen's successor and what does she intend to do regarding an heir or the Tyrells or the faith or the  furious small folk outside? Why is nobody questioning this situation? They can crown her, all right, but least pretend there's a procedure and a cover story. 

As for Jon, same thing. Why does nobody stand up and say Shut your mouth little girl who the hell do you think you are to talk to grown men like that, this guy isn't even a Stark and last time I checked he was lord commander at the nights watch, did he just desert, or what, and anyway where's the older Stark boy, not to mention that this guy didn't avenge anything, he was about to lose the battle when the Vale army arrived, shouldn't that girl be the lady of Winterfell, since she's an actual Stark, the wife of the previous lord and the one who allied with the winning army? Just one person. At least question it. At least show this isn't obvious or self-explanatory because it isn't. Have those lords discuss their options for a second. And then, let them pick Jon if they want, but just like that... come on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RhaenysB said:

Arya's storyline was the worst thing I have ever seen on tv. James Bond doesn't run like that after being stabbed in the abdonement three times. 

I agreed with that.

Quote

What limited amount of time? They have two seasons. What would I do? Anything but what we saw. First things first have a riot. The heart of the church the small folk so adore just blew up! Is everybody just okay with that? And all the nobles in that court, don't they want answers and a plan? Why is Cersei Tommen's successor and what does she intend to do regarding an heir or the Tyrells or the faith or the  furious small folk outside? Why is nobody questioning this situation? They can crown her, all right, but least pretend there's a procedure and a cover story. 

 

They have two season but many more things to do and they have to speed up with things.

Cersei mde herself to be Queen and doing what she wants, as always. Do you think Lords or smallfolk will care, this reign of tyranny. They say a word and she'll do the same thing to them. This is why the whole throne room was silent and nobody said a word except Qyburn. It is supposed to look like Aerys II reign and Jaime looking at her.

Quote

As for Jon, same thing. Why does nobody stand up and say Shut your mouth little girl who the hell do you think you are to talk to grown men like that, this guy isn't even a Stark and last time I checked he was lord commander at the nights watch, did he just desert, or what, and anyway where's the older Stark boy, not to mention that this guy didn't avenge anything, he was about to lose the battle when the Vale army arrived, shouldn't that girl be the lady of Winterfell, since she's an actual Stark, the wife of the previous lord and the one who allied with the winning army? Just one person. At least question it. At least show this isn't obvious or self-explanatory because it isn't. Have those lords discuss their options for a second. And then, let them pick Jon if they want, but just like that... come on. 

Northerners value strentgh, bravery, warriors over anything else. Especially in the times, where it looked Starks are done and no worthy King can rise. Jon risked his life to save Rickon which must impress them. Is Sansa capable of leading them against Night King army? I am not sure.

Lyanna Mormont is the Head of House Mormont, she can talk as much as she wants. She helped Starks, where as other were too afraid to say or do anything against the Bolton ... even if they might not agreed with thier reign of terror and tyranny. Glover was ashamed that he did not fight with Jon. Jon is like Ned, Brandon and other Starks leading by examples to fight. They always follow these sort of characters.

Baelish saved them but Sansa is not like a Northerner they accept, she married to House Lannisters and Bolton they hate. That's all not exactly an advantage plus misogyny.

I agree that they omitted Jon and Night's Watch situation. That should have been adressd. You really must hate Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lord Friendzone said:

I agreed with that.

They have two season but many more things to do and they have to speed up with things.

Cersei mde herself to be Queen and doing what she wants, as always. Do you think Lords or smallfolk will care, this reign of tyranny. They say a word and she'll do the same thing to them. This is why the whole throne room was silent and nobody said a word except Qyburn. It is supposed to look like Aerys II reign and Jaime looking at her.

Northerners value strentgh, bravery, warriors over anything else. Especially in the times, where it looked Starks are done and no worthy King can rise. Jon risked his life to save Rickon which must impress them. Is Sansa capable of leading them against Night King army? I am not sure.

Lyanna Mormont is the Head of House Mormont, she can talk as much as she wants. She helped Starks, where as other were too afraid to say or do anything against the Bolton ... even if they might not agreed with thier reign of terror and tyranny. Glover was ashamed that he did not fight with Jon. Jon is like Ned, Brandon and other Starks leading by examples to fight. They always follow these sort of characters.

Baelish saved them but Sansa is not like a Northerner they accept, she married to House Lannisters and Bolton they hate. That's all not exactly an advantage plus misogyny.

I agree that they omitted Jon and Night's Watch situation. That should have been adressd. You really must hate Jon.

It may have been unspoken in the all of Winterfell during the naming of Jon as KITN, but the Nights Watch thing was addressed on the show.  jon died, therefore his watch had ended.  He turned over command of the NW to Edd.  So while it may not have been mentioned at the gathering at Winterfell of all the North and Vale lords, it is implied to the viewer as not being an issue.  At least, that's how I took it...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Jaehaerys Stark said:

It may have been unspoken in the all of Winterfell during the naming of Jon as KITN, but the Nights Watch thing was addressed on the show.  jon died, therefore his watch had ended.  He turned over command of the NW to Edd.  So while it may not have been mentioned at the gathering at Winterfell of all the North and Vale lords, it is implied to the viewer as not being an issue.  At least, that's how I took it...

 

We're talking about Northern lords and what his desertion means for them. As you said, they did not adressed it during their meeting and they should have did that, because Northerners to do give a damn in the books about oaths and vows. Night's Watch is respected, not as much as before but not for it to be done this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Lord Friendzone said:

We're talking about Northern lords and what his desertion means for them. As you said, they did not adressed it during their meeting and they should have did that, because Northerners to do give a damn in the books about oaths and vows. Night's Watch is respected, not as much as before but not for it to be done this way.

I get what you're saying. What I mean is that I think D & D intended for the viewer to assume it had been covered already somehow.  Perhaps by raven, or simply word of mouth. Perhaps it's because they just don't have time to cover the small nuances like that.  I mean, they made the rounds prior to the Battle of the Bastards.  The show doesn't show them visiting every northern house trying to rally the troops.  I would think that any issue with him/the Watch/the vows, etc would have been covered during those interactions.  I mean, I imagine it would have been one of the first topics of conversation.  How else explain why he's there fighting for House Stark to begin with, as opposed to his LC duties at the Wall. "Aren't you Lord Commander of the Night's Watch?  Shouldn't you be at the Wall?"  Those questions would have come up while trying to convince northern lords to send you their armies. It would've been nice to see that conversation play out at least once.  I would have included it in the scene where they parlay with Lyanna Mormont, or even Robett Glover, but that's just me.  After he leads the army he assembled to victory, with help from the Vale, it was definitely a non-issue at that point.  He just rid the North of Ramsey and his men.  He did everyone a great service. They're past the whole vows and oath thing.  It is the show after all.  Far more details will be presented in TWOW I'm sure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jaehaerys Stark said:

I get what you're saying. What I mean is that I think D & D intended for the viewer to assume it had been covered already somehow.  Perhaps by raven, or simply word of mouth. Perhaps it's because they just don't have time to cover the small nuances like that.  I mean, they made the rounds prior to the Battle of the Bastards.  The show doesn't show them visiting every northern house trying to rally the troops.  I would think that any issue with him/the Watch/the vows, etc would have been covered during those interactions.  I mean, I imagine it would have been one of the first topics of conversation.  How else explain why he's there fighting for House Stark to begin with, as opposed to his LC duties at the Wall. "Aren't you Lord Commander of the Night's Watch?  Shouldn't you be at the Wall?"  Those questions would have come up while trying to convince northern lords to send you their armies. It would've been nice to see that conversation play out at least once.  I would have included it in the scene where they parlay with Lyanna Mormont, or even Robett Glover, but that's just me.  After he leads the army he assembled to victory, with help from the Vale, it was definitely a non-issue at that point.  He just rid the North of Ramsey and his men.  He did everyone a great service. They're past the whole vows and oath thing.  It is the show after all.  Far more details will be presented in TWOW I'm sure...

Fort Northerners this is a pretty big deal and should have bene adressed in some way. It's not a small nuance or anything like that but rather important part of why is Jon even there.

That sort of conversation would take place in some of those meeting and actually adress his resurrection they have omitted and only one scene wth Mel and Jon in the tent. Show is just skipping with these thing like Euron killing Balon and admiting to it. Kingslaying is not an issue for Westerosi people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Friendzone said:

I agreed with that.

They have two season but many more things to do and they have to speed up with things.

Cersei mde herself to be Queen and doing what she wants, as always. Do you think Lords or smallfolk will care, this reign of tyranny. They say a word and she'll do the same thing to them. This is why the whole throne room was silent and nobody said a word except Qyburn. It is supposed to look like Aerys II reign and Jaime looking at her.

Northerners value strentgh, bravery, warriors over anything else. Especially in the times, where it looked Starks are done and no worthy King can rise. Jon risked his life to save Rickon which must impress them. Is Sansa capable of leading them against Night King army? I am not sure.

Lyanna Mormont is the Head of House Mormont, she can talk as much as she wants. She helped Starks, where as other were too afraid to say or do anything against the Bolton ... even if they might not agreed with thier reign of terror and tyranny. Glover was ashamed that he did not fight with Jon. Jon is like Ned, Brandon and other Starks leading by examples to fight. They always follow these sort of characters.

Baelish saved them but Sansa is not like a Northerner they accept, she married to House Lannisters and Bolton they hate. That's all not exactly an advantage plus misogyny.

I agree that they omitted Jon and Night's Watch situation. That should have been adressd. You really must hate Jon.

I really don't (hate Jon), it just really didn't make sense. 

So underage Female child acting as head of house mormont who provided 63 soldiers can say whatever she wants but the lords don't like grownup female head of house Stark who brought an army to win back her family's seat because misogyny. That makes sense, that makes sense. 

Sandra doesn't have to lead them anywhere that's why there are captains and army commanders, which Jon very well could be. 

Nope, the Dothraki value strength bravery and warriors above all. The  northeners value tradition and loyalty above all (our way is the old way, anybody?). According to which, Sansa and/or Bran is Robb's heir and lady/lord of Winterfell.  

And yes, I think the lords and the smallfolk would care that their families/friends and the great sept of baelor was blown to smitherins. According to Jaime the population of KL is half a million and they have rioted over less before. And Aerys... Aerys ascended the throne after the death of his father as the rightful heir of the seven kingdoms. Aerys became king first and only started burning shit later. Aerys had seven provinces backing him up politically and militarily. I know they are going for the mad queen vibe, but I was getting more of a mad writer vibe. but yeah, I know, it was super awesome and shocking and it's so cool Cersei is back in power and she looks great in her overlong leather jacket. My sister loved the episode too. 

39 minutes ago, Lord Friendzone said:

We're talking about Northern lords and what his desertion means for them. As you said, they did not adressed it during their meeting and they should have did that, because Northerners to do give a damn in the books about oaths and vows. Night's Watch is respected, not as much as before but not for it to be done this way.

This is true indeed. And even if show northerners don't give a damn about oaths and vows, wouldn't they at least casually ask, dude, aren't you lord commander up there, what's the deal with that? 

8 minutes ago, Jaehaerys Stark said:

I get what you're saying. What I mean is that I think D & D intended for the viewer to assume it had been covered already somehow.  Perhaps by raven, or simply word of mouth. Perhaps it's because they just don't have time to cover the small nuances like that.  I mean, they made the rounds prior to the Battle of the Bastards.  The show doesn't show them visiting every northern house trying to rally the troops.  I would think that any issue with him/the Watch/the vows, etc would have been covered during those interactions.  I mean, I imagine it would have been one of the first topics of conversation.  How else explain why he's there fighting for House Stark to begin with, as opposed to his LC duties at the Wall. "Aren't you Lord Commander of the Night's Watch?  Shouldn't you be at the Wall?"  Those questions would have come up while trying to convince northern lords to send you their armies. It would've been nice to see that conversation play out at least once.  I would have included it in the scene where they parlay with Lyanna Mormont, or even Robett Glover, but that's just me.  After he leads the army he assembled to victory, with help from the Vale, it was definitely a non-issue at that point.  He just rid the North of Ramsey and his men.  He did everyone a great service. They're past the whole vows and oath thing.  It is the show after all.  Far more details will be presented in TWOW I'm sure...

So... why didn't we skip ahead to Daenerys and Jon on the Iron Throne after season 3 and assume the details have been covered somehow...? You know, the battles and the great night could have happened off camera, there's hardly enough time to present all that when there's important  footage to show about piles of dead bodies, religious fanatics talking to boy kings and prisoner queens in tight little rooms, Dothraki cracking dick jokes, Missandei and GreyWorm cracking jokes, people staring into the distance, people drinking wine, people drinking ale, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, RhaenysB said:

So... why didn't we skip ahead to Daenerys and Jon on the Iron Throne after season 3 and assume the details have been covered somehow...? You know, the battles and the great night could have happened off camera, there's hardly enough time to present all that when there's important  footage to show about piles of dead bodies, religious fanatics talking to boy kings and prisoner queens in tight little rooms, Dothraki cracking dick jokes, Missandei and GreyWorm cracking jokes, people staring into the distance, people drinking wine, people drinking ale, etc. 

Well, there's no sarcasm in your response is there? lol  Yet, I think you answered your own question.  Things like "piles of dead bodies, religious fanatics talking to boy kings and prisoner queens in tight little rooms, Dothraki cracking dick jokes, Missandei and GreyWorm cracking jokes, people staring into the distance, people drinking wine, people drinking ale, etc" make for good tv.  You can't leave that stuff out, right?  lol Conversations about why Jon is south of the Wall would have been had when they went to recruit the northern houses. I'm pretty sure I covered that...

16 hours ago, Jaehaerys Stark said:

The show doesn't show them visiting every northern house trying to rally the troops.  I would think that any issue with him/the Watch/the vows, etc would have been covered during those interactions.  I mean, I imagine it would have been one of the first topics of conversation.  How else explain why he's there fighting for House Stark to begin with, as opposed to his LC duties at the Wall. "Aren't you Lord Commander of the Night's Watch?  Shouldn't you be at the Wall?" 

I also stated that they should have shown at least one instance of that convo as well...

16 hours ago, Jaehaerys Stark said:

It would've been nice to see that conversation play out at least once.  I would have included it in the scene where they parlay with Lyanna Mormont, or even Robett Glover, but that's just me.

What I'm saying, again, is that 1 piece was not covered, but implied.  We know the show can jump in time quite a bit.  The telling of Jon's resurrection would have spread through the North.  It would have preceded his arrival at those northern houses.  It would also have been mentioned in those conversations with the northern lords.  Did they show it, no.  Would it have quelled viewers like yourself if they had, sure.  But we don't make the show.  I don't know what to tell you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jaehaerys Stark said:

Well, there's no sarcasm in your response is there? lol  Yet, I think you answered your own question.  Things like "piles of dead bodies, religious fanatics talking to boy kings and prisoner queens in tight little rooms, Dothraki cracking dick jokes, Missandei and GreyWorm cracking jokes, people staring into the distance, people drinking wine, people drinking ale, etc" make for good tv.  You can't leave that stuff out, right?  lol Conversations about why Jon is south of the Wall would have been had when they went to recruit the northern houses. I'm pretty sure I covered that...

I also stated that they should have shown at least one instance of that convo as well...

What I'm saying, again, is that 1 piece was not covered, but implied.  We know the show can jump in time quite a bit.  The telling of Jon's resurrection would have spread through the North.  It would have preceded his arrival at those northern houses.  It would also have been mentioned in those conversations with the northern lords.  Did they show it, no.  Would it have quelled viewers like yourself if they had, sure.  But we don't make the show.  I don't know what to tell you...

I don't know what to tell you either... I mean, I was sarcastic, but you truly seem to believe that something as significant as the protagonists' resurrection being addressed by his homeland is lower on the priority list than dick jokes and whatnot. And then, what's there to discuss. Each to their own, I suppose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RhaenysB said:

I don't know what to tell you either... I mean, I was sarcastic, but you truly seem to believe that something as significant as the protagonists' resurrection being addressed by his homeland is lower on the priority list than dick jokes and whatnot. And then, what's there to discuss. Each to their own, I suppose. 

I'm not sure where I said I thought it was more important.  I said that the people who make the show apparently think it was not necessary.  I am saying that I understand why they think that.  Sex sells on tv today.  Dick jokes and other debauchery too. I've stated numerous times I would have liked to have seen it addressed at least once in one of the scenes that they showed pleading their case to Houses Mormont and Glover.  I agreed with you while providing my opinion as to why they didn't address it.  I don't know if you are overlooking that purposefully or not, but it's not important. Moving on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jaehaerys Stark said:

I'm not sure where I said I thought it was more important.  I said that the people who make the show apparently think it was not necessary.  I am saying that I understand why they think that.  Sex sells on tv today.  Dick jokes and other debauchery too. I've stated numerous times I would have liked to have seen it addressed at least once in one of the scenes that they showed pleading their case to Houses Mormont and Glover.  I agreed with you while providing my opinion as to why they didn't address it.  I don't know if you are overlooking that purposefully or not, but it's not important. Moving on...

Okay, my bad. I kind of blended the show runners' opinion with yours, I'm sorry about that. 

I understand this is their opinion And their show but that doesn't justify this decision, in my opinion. It's still wrong and stupid (in my opinion) to prioritize dickjokes and the like over that important plot points.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, RhaenysB said:

Okay, my bad. I kind of blended the show runners' opinion with yours, I'm sorry about that. 

I understand this is their opinion And their show but that doesn't justify this decision, in my opinion. It's still wrong and stupid (in my opinion) to prioritize dickjokes and the like over that important plot points.

 

Thank you.  And agreed.  I would have liked to have seen it too.  I actually think addressing, and making common knowledge of Jon's troubles at the Wall, if anything, would have justified the decision to make him KITN.  Think about it, Jon is at the Wall, protecting the realms of men and doing his civil duty (no need to mention his trist with Ygritte. What happens north of the Wall, stays north of the Wall *wink wink*). He's stomping out injustices north and south of the Wall, he's fighting White Walkers and parlaying with the King Beyond the Wall, all for the sake of the greater good.  For the people.  Next thing you know, he's betrayed by his brothers, murdered, then resurrected.  Freed from the bonds of his oath, he is uniting Andal and Freefolk alike, in order to save humanity from the Others. The northern lords should have been made aware of this ahead of the Battle of the Bastards.  Maybe he could have gotten more support.  Or maybe it is explained in TWOW, but we never got to see it on screen.  I think it would have given the viewer a better look into the character of some of the lords in the North.  Did they know the whole story, and still refuse the call?  Were some informed, and that's why they chose to rally behind him?  We'll never know.  And that kind of sucks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Jaehaerys Stark said:

Thank you.  And agreed.  I would have liked to have seen it too. I actually think addressing, and making common knowledge of Jon's troubles at the Wall, if anything, would have justified the decision to make him KITN. Think about it, Jon is at the Wall, protecting the realms of men and doing his civil duty (no need to mention his trist with Ygritte. What happens north of the Wall, stays north of the Wall *wink wink*). He's stomping out injustices north and south of the Wall, he's fighting White Walkers and parlaying with the King Beyond the Wall, all for the sake of the greater good.  For the people.  Next thing you know, he's betrayed by his brothers, murdered, then resurrected.  Freed from the bonds of his oath, he is uniting Andal and Freefolk alike, in order to save humanity from the Others. The northern lords should have been made aware of this ahead of the Battle of the Bastards.  Maybe he could have gotten more support.  Or maybe it is explained in TWOW, but we never got to see it on screen.  I think it would have given the viewer a better look into the character of some of the lords in the North.  Did they know the whole story, and still refuse the call?  Were some informed, and that's why they chose to rally behind him?  We'll never know.  And that kind of sucks...

My thoughts exactly. :cheers: to agreeing on something. One of the reasons why it would have been essential to address Jon's NW involvement is that it would have grounded his rise to much more than bullshit like "he avanged the red wedding" (which he totally didn't, that's bullshit). "He saved the NW from the undead" - that he did, at least made a good attempt. Let's proclaim him king because he's the only person "qualified enough" - for the want of a better word - to lead the defense of the north also sounds much more legit than let's proclaim him king because he's the bastard son of a Stark lord. Of course, establishing this would have taken an extra episode and the audience would have cried if Jon only became KITN in season 7 episode 1 instead of in a mind blowing(ly idiotic) episode 10 of season 6. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RhaenysB said:

My thoughts exactly. :cheers: to agreeing on something. One of the reasons why it would have been essential to address Jon's NW involvement is that it would have grounded his rise to much more than bullshit like "he avanged the red wedding" (which he totally didn't, that's bullshit). "He saved the NW from the undead" - that he did, at least made a good attempt. Let's proclaim him king because he's the only person "qualified enough" - for the want of a better word - to lead the defense of the north also sounds much more legit than let's proclaim him king because he's the bastard son of a Stark lord. Of course, establishing this would have taken an extra episode and the audience would have cried if Jon only became KITN in season 7 episode 1 instead of in a mind blowing(ly idiotic) episode 10 of season 6. 

We are again in agreement.  We're on a roll, you and I! lol :love:  While admittedly entertained, I don't like how seasons 6/7/8 are being handled.  Season 6 to me could have done differently in the sense that, there was SO much build up to things that readers and solely show watchers could have seen coming, yet we are stuck with an abbreviated season 7 and even shorter series finale season 8.  They stretched season 6 as much as they could, but could have used that time more wisely to keep the story moving towards the series ending.  Now, I fear, seasons 7 and 8 will be crammed with all kinds of things we could have addressed already while moving at break neck speed, giving us hardly any time to process what we'll be seeing.  If anything, they should have been looking at ways to fill the season out.  They claim the shorter seasons will have a bigger budget, and therefore will be better in quality.  I say, cut your profits back a bit and give us 2 quality, 10 episode season.  There's plenty of money to go around...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, RhaenysB said:

So underage Female child acting as head of house mormont who provided 63 soldiers can say whatever she wants but the lords don't like grownup female head of house Stark who brought an army to win back her family's seat because misogyny. That makes sense, that makes sense. 

She did more than House Glover, Manderly and others. Mormonts were loyal to House Stark, one of the reasons why Wyman Manderly basically acknowledged that. If Manderly or Glover did joined them while Jon, Sansa and Davos were asking them, they wouldn't have been that good with it. Lyanna Mrmont had every right to be this rude towards them.

When did the North ever had a Queen or QITN? They always choose warriors over anybody else. As far as they know Jon risked everything to defeat the Bolton, lead his forces and almost died while doing so to save Rickon. Sansa gave up on him. That means a lot to them. They value bravery, strength and actions over anything else. Jon also showed loyalty even as a bastard, he did what Northerners value more. Name doesn't mean much to them and not in this situation. What is more weird is why the Knights of Vale hailed Jon KITN. Aren't they loyal to Sweetrobin and House Arryn?

Quote

Sandra doesn't have to lead them anywhere that's why there are captains and army commanders, which Jon very well could be. 

Again, you better re-read the books and re-watch the show, they always prefer hand on Kings.

Quote

Nope, the Dothraki value strength bravery and warriors above all. The  northeners value tradition and loyalty above all (our way is the old way, anybody?). According to which, Sansa and/or Bran is Robb's heir and lady/lord of Winterfell.  

Dothraki value strength, so do Northerners but in a different context. So you're wrong here.

Quote

And yes, I think the lords and the smallfolk would care that their families/friends and the great sept of baelor was blown to smitherins. According to Jaime the population of KL is half a million and they have rioted over less before. And Aerys... Aerys ascended the throne after the death of his father as the rightful heir of the seven kingdoms. Aerys became king first and only started burning shit later. Aerys had seven provinces backing him up politically and militarily. I know they are going for the mad queen vibe, but I was getting more of a mad writer vibe. but yeah, I know, it was super awesome and shocking and it's so cool Cersei is back in power and she looks great in her overlong leather jacket. My sister loved the episode too. 

They wouldn't because they could have ended up as the others. Cersei made he plan and it worked. They're going for Aerys II vibe and quite frankly smallfolk as Jorah said it only cars for food, crops, good weather and not games Lords plays. Lords would care but Cersei showed them. It seems Euron and Tarlys are backing her.

Quote

This is true indeed. And even if show northerners don't give a damn about oaths and vows, wouldn't they at least casually ask, dude, aren't you lord commander up there, what's the deal with that? 

Especially since Ramsay taunt Jon with this how he desrted he Night's Watch. Other Lords must have known this and didn't asked him about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RhaenysB @Jaehaerys Stark @Lord Friendzone I agree with a lot of what you guys said here... well, at least the critical stuff.  The pace has definitely been... off.  For the King in the North scene, I'm shocked no one considered stuff like "we ought to sleep on this," and "the last time we declared a king in the north it turned out bad for everyone," and "we need to hurry up and worry about this cold ass winter instead of politics."  The need to choose between Jon and Sansa makes sense from the standpoint that there needs to be a Lord of Winterfell and they need to make decisions on what to do with Bolton lands and how to respond to any blowback they may receive from Cersei or whomever (that Cersei either didn't know or didn't care about Roose's death, just as she either didn't know or didn't care about Ramsay being married to Sansa is one of these real face-palm moments for me - at least in S5 they had her meet with Littlefinger and the potential conflicts of interest were mentioned).  But in the KitN scene the practical matters of why they were there weren't addressed at all.  Robb's KitN scene made soooo much more sense, and was at least 1-2 episodes after he and his lords were marching together and the information about Ned's beheading and the lords had been summoned to King's Landing.  Naming him KitN after receiving news of Cersei blowing up the sept and Dany setting sail?  Yeah, I could definitely buy those being reasons to declare a king  Like Rhaenys said, all they needed to do was wait until S7ep1.

The incoherent things that really annoyed me the most though?  WTF is Varys up to and his motives.  Varys being the harpy would have made some sense to me - he was actively trying to help Robert and then Tywin kill Dany, he arrives in Meereen right after she flees to the Dothraki sea, he leaves on a "secret mission" right before she comes back, he has that strange scene with the prostitute who helped the sons of the harpy and he takes offense at the red religions support for Dany.  So after all this why in good fuck is Varys brokering deals in Dorne (and then sailing back to Meereen only to sail back to Dorne)?  Varys makes zero sense without Aegon.  Especially all those early season meetings with LF when its' just them staring at the Iron Throne, and the one with Oberyn when Oberyn asks him what he wants and Varys just looks at the throne and gives one of those suggestive Varys looks.

While I'm joining this bitch-and-moan fest, I also need to complain about the scene where Dany names Tyrion HotQ... he talks about how he believes in her and they share this special moment and all, but it really made no sense.  Let's see, Tyrion you believe in a queen who you barely knew before she went absent and then as soon as she got back your only real conversation was about how she shouldn't act like her crazy dad?  And Dany, you get back from Vaes Dothrak and find that slavery is being sanctioned in your cities and the masters have laid siege and gone to war against you, and you have so much appreciation for this that you name the man responsible for ruling in your stead (who you barely know) as hand of the queen?  If Missandei and Tyrion or Grey Worm and Tyrion shared a heartfelt scene together then I'd be okay with that, afterall they've spent the last 9 episodes playing drinking games together and making jokes.  But Tyrion and Dany?  We needed to see more of them together before a scene that was meant to be really touching could have the intended affect.

Sorry to the OP for us turning this thread into a place to state a lot of complaints.  I guess the lesson here is that, while Aegon's conquest has been mentioned often enough on the show for a repeat of history to happen without being too far in left field, while there hasn't been adequate build up to such a thing, build up and reason don't stop D&D from doing whatever they feel like doing.  This is why Westworld is in many ways a superior show now, the "twists" all are subtley telegraphed and build slowly and coherently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jaehaerys Stark said:

We are again in agreement.  We're on a roll, you and I! lol :love:  While admittedly entertained, I don't like how seasons 6/7/8 are being handled.  Season 6 to me could have done differently in the sense that, there was SO much build up to things that readers and solely show watchers could have seen coming, yet we are stuck with an abbreviated season 7 and even shorter series finale season 8.  They stretched season 6 as much as they could, but could have used that time more wisely to keep the story moving towards the series ending.  Now, I fear, seasons 7 and 8 will be crammed with all kinds of things we could have addressed already while moving at break neck speed, giving us hardly any time to process what we'll be seeing.  If anything, they should have been looking at ways to fill the season out.  They claim the shorter seasons will have a bigger budget, and therefore will be better in quality.  I say, cut your profits back a bit and give us 2 quality, 10 episode season.  There's plenty of money to go around...

Oh, yay us! :lol: 

yeah I get that. I'm not saying I totally agree, but I see where you are coming from and I absolutely agree that the storytelling should come before everything they spend the budget on (CGI, cinematography, etc). Yes, that's very important too, but it didn't make me stand up satisfied after watching season 6 episodes. The battle of bastards was so insanely beautifully shot that we kinda forgot about the plot holes and the characterization issues in the midst of the aesthetic orgasm. That's great, but not exactly sustainable on the long run, because sooner or later the plot holes come back and bite us in the arse. 

As for structuring the seasons: television adaptation is about effectively shrinking the plot.( I never ever had a problem with the show making changes and skipping storylines, all I ever wanted was the show to make sense in its own right, which it repeatedly fails to do, oh well) The show simplified the plot, edited out minor characters and redundant plotlines, all should be well. But. They waste screentime. They waste screentime so badly it hurts to watch. And I know they do that because they wanted to stretch the show to be 8 seasons long and make more money and that's a sound business decision. However, they have now got to the point where they waste so much time on nonsensical(ly long) scenes that don't advance the plot that even with 8 seasons they barely have time left to wrap up their simplified plot. I know television needs nudity and perv jokes, I watched the Tudors. But if I added up all the time spent on random extras shoving a finger up other random extras' butthole or Bronn  talking about who would fuck Brienne or Dothraki discussing Daenerys's public hair color, or just people staring into the camera or people sweeping and washing dead bodies, I would have time for a proper Dorne plot, but at the very least ten minutes each to build up Cersei's and Jon's coronation. I'm fine with less episodes (the runtime is longer anyways) IF they can use the time effectively. 

7 hours ago, Lord Friendzone said:

She did more than House Glover, Manderly and others. Mormonts were loyal to House Stark, one of the reasons why Wyman Manderly basically acknowledged that. If Manderly or Glover did joined them while Jon, Sansa and Davos were asking them, they wouldn't have been that good with it. Lyanna Mrmont had every right to be this rude towards them.

When did the North ever had a Queen or QITN? They always choose warriors over anybody else. As far as they know Jon risked everything to defeat the Bolton, lead his forces and almost died while doing so to save Rickon. Sansa gave up on him. That means a lot to them. They value bravery, strength and actions over anything else. Jon also showed loyalty even as a bastard, he did what Northerners value more. Name doesn't mean much to them and not in this situation. What is more weird is why the Knights of Vale hailed Jon KITN. Aren't they loyal to Sweetrobin and House Arryn?

Again, you better re-read the books and re-watch the show, they always prefer hand on Kings.

Dothraki value strength, so do Northerners but in a different context. So you're wrong here.

They wouldn't because they could have ended up as the others. Cersei made he plan and it worked. They're going for Aerys II vibe and quite frankly smallfolk as Jorah said it only cars for food, crops, good weather and not games Lords plays. Lords would care but Cersei showed them. It seems Euron and Tarlys are backing her.

Especially since Ramsay taunt Jon with this how he desrted he Night's Watch. Other Lords must have known this and didn't asked him about it.

I really don't agree with that. Or maybe she had every reason to be that rude, but Lyanna mormont is a ten year old girl in the Middle Ages bitching about what grown men did wrong. Come on... though I know sassiness is like dickjokes on tv, it overwrites realism. 

And HOW do the northern lords know these things? I'm not against the fact that Jon was made KITN, I'm against HOW he was made KITN. Oh there, you just said the northerners value loyalty too (so maybe I'm not that wrong about that). Yeah that's beyond ridiculous too. The Vale lords have even less clue about Jon and zero motivation or reason to support him. 

okay, the northerners value a different kind of strength, I can agree with that, but that doesn't make what I said wrong. (If we don't come to an agreement on this, we can always take the question to the wise masters of gen asoiaf to be our judges :D would that be funny? No, I'm scared of gen asoiaf, I'm just kidding)

yeah and Cersei just blew up the house that delivered their food from the reach and the high septon who spooned them soup and gave them shoes. 

Yeah, they could SEE Jon there so he obviously deserted and totally should have asked or said something.

 

I'll not make this post longer by quoting Lucius too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lucius Lovejoy said:

@RhaenysB @Jaehaerys Stark @Lord Friendzone I agree with a lot of what you guys said here... well, at least the critical stuff.  The pace has definitely been... off.  For the King in the North scene, I'm shocked no one considered stuff like "we ought to sleep on this," and "the last time we declared a king in the north it turned out bad for everyone," and "we need to hurry up and worry about this cold ass winter instead of politics."  The need to choose between Jon and Sansa makes sense from the standpoint that there needs to be a Lord of Winterfell and they need to make decisions on what to do with Bolton lands and how to respond to any blowback they may receive from Cersei or whomever (that Cersei either didn't know or didn't care about Roose's death, just as she either didn't know or didn't care about Ramsay being married to Sansa is one of these real face-palm moments for me - at least in S5 they had her meet with Littlefinger and the potential conflicts of interest were mentioned).  But in the KitN scene the practical matters of why they were there weren't addressed at all.  Robb's KitN scene made soooo much more sense, and was at least 1-2 episodes after he and his lords were marching together and the information about Ned's beheading and the lords had been summoned to King's Landing.  Naming him KitN after receiving news of Cersei blowing up the sept and Dany setting sail?  Yeah, I could definitely buy those being reasons to declare a king  Like Rhaenys said, all they needed to do was wait until S7ep1.

The incoherent things that really annoyed me the most though?  WTF is Varys up to and his motives.  Varys being the harpy would have made some sense to me - he was actively trying to help Robert and then Tywin kill Dany, he arrives in Meereen right after she flees to the Dothraki sea, he leaves on a "secret mission" right before she comes back, he has that strange scene with the prostitute who helped the sons of the harpy and he takes offense at the red religions support for Dany.  So after all this why in good fuck is Varys brokering deals in Dorne (and then sailing back to Meereen only to sail back to Dorne)?  Varys makes zero sense without Aegon.  Especially all those early season meetings with LF when its' just them staring at the Iron Throne, and the one with Oberyn when Oberyn asks him what he wants and Varys just looks at the throne and gives one of those suggestive Varys looks.

While I'm joining this bitch-and-moan fest, I also need to complain about the scene where Dany names Tyrion HotQ... he talks about how he believes in her and they share this special moment and all, but it really made no sense.  Let's see, Tyrion you believe in a queen who you barely knew before she went absent and then as soon as she got back your only real conversation was about how she shouldn't act like her crazy dad?  And Dany, you get back from Vaes Dothrak and find that slavery is being sanctioned in your cities and the masters have laid siege and gone to war against you, and you have so much appreciation for this that you name the man responsible for ruling in your stead (who you barely know) as hand of the queen?  If Missandei and Tyrion or Grey Worm and Tyrion shared a heartfelt scene together then I'd be okay with that, afterall they've spent the last 9 episodes playing drinking games together and making jokes.  But Tyrion and Dany?  We needed to see more of them together before a scene that was meant to be really touching could have the intended affect.

Sorry to the OP for us turning this thread into a place to state a lot of complaints.  I guess the lesson here is that, while Aegon's conquest has been mentioned often enough on the show for a repeat of history to happen without being too far in left field, while there hasn't been adequate build up to such a thing, build up and reason don't stop D&D from doing whatever they feel like doing.  This is why Westworld is in many ways a superior show now, the "twists" all are subtley telegraphed and build slowly and coherently.

Yeah!! Addressing those would also have been great groundwork to proclaim Jon king. 

In your thread about stuff we believed I said that I had believed Varys really served the realm. That would totally work for me on the show. He serves Robert's interests while He's still king of a stable kingdom, then he serves Tywin's interests while he seems to be the only one to stabilize the mess the war of the five kings brought about. When they are all gone and everybody is totally incompetent, he starts taking interest in Daenerys who is getting strong and influential in the east and starts backing her up. Varys representing balance and stability while Littlefinger works for chaos is a good enough contrast for me. What I really really really hated and missed was Varys and Daernerys meeting. Those two have a LOT to talk about. 

You are totally right about that too, it made no damn sense, nothing in this damn season did.

and yeah, sorry sorry sorry about going off topic and brining the rant and rave thread here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RhaenysB said:

I really don't agree with that. Or maybe she had every reason to be that rude, but Lyanna mormont is a ten year old girl in the Middle Ages bitching about what grown men did wrong. Come on... though I know sassiness is like dickjokes on tv, it overwrites realism. 

And who cares if she's 10 years old, She is Head of the House Mormont. That on its own deserves a round of applause at her age and have the courage to stand there and talk some sense to them. You just dislike she choose to acknowledge a bastard over higborn. Bastard who did a lot, even if I do not agree with him running toards the Boltons army. People dislike when there is a lack of good female characters, we have a child actor who's knocked it out of park, and you're criticizing it. I guess yu have the right but can't agree with that.

Quote

And HOW do the northern lords know these things? I'm not against the fact that Jon was made KITN, I'm against HOW he was made KITN. Oh there, you just said the northerners value loyalty too (so maybe I'm not that wrong about that). Yeah that's beyond ridiculous too. The Vale lords have even less clue about Jon and zero motivation or reason to support him. 

Jon was loyal to House Stark, even as a bastard and did all he coud to save Rickon. Last trueborn heir to House Stark as far as they know. he showed courage, strength and bravery. They value this more than writing a letter. No matter if that letter helped them with that war. Jon, Sansa and Davos meeting with Lord Glover exactly showed that Jon understand Northerners far better than Sansa. She was arrogant by reminding Lord Glover that his loyalty is with House Stark, when it fact Robb sadly made a tons of mistakes and what Lord Glover said, well we can't argue with that. Sansa has to rediscover her roots to the North, then she will be ready and worthy of ruling.

Quote

okay, the northerners value a different kind of strength, I can agree with that, but that doesn't make what I said wrong. (If we don't come to an agreement on this, we can always take the question to the wise masters of gen asoiaf to be our judges :D would that be funny? No, I'm scared of gen asoiaf, I'm just kidding)

It doesn't. What Jon did is something they value a lot more. Bravery, strength, courage, willingness to sacrifice himself for Rickon. If Jon just stood there and watched, as a bastard they might not look at him this way.

Quote

yeah and Cersei just blew up the house that delivered their food from the reach and the high septon who spooned them soup and gave them shoes. 

Smallfolk don't care for the games of high Lords, they care for their own lives. Lords should have done somethig but then Cersei by what she did to the Tyrells, High Sparrow showed her power.

Quote

Yeah, they could SEE Jon there so he obviously deserted and totally should have asked or said something.

There should have been a debate at some point about it. As a big fan of the North, this is something that matter to them in the books but I guess not on the show. I do prefr the books the North plot than show's but it's up to everyone's opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now