TRILOGY

Season 8 Predictions?

906 posts in this topic

"What I think links those two characters is that they're both characters who are in possession of abilities and skills that nobody else has," Bradley told TV Guide. "Between them, they're such a formidable team because, okay, they can't fight between them, they don't have much physical power between them, but both of their set of skills are so unique. Sam's penchant for absorbing knowledge and absorbing academia and his wish to apply that for the greater good combined with Bran's visions and supernatural skills means that between the two of them, it is a real recipe for success."

John Bradley agrees, teasing that Bran and Sam will definitely continue to make major moves in Season 8. "Don't write them off as a partnership because between them, they can use their own and each others' skills to really shake the place up a bit as we go forward."

Edited by Meera of Tarth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

GRRM said that Arya and Gendry have separate futures.

That said, I could buy King Gendry in the show and King Edric in the books.

he said that to the friend of a blogger, which could mean anything, not necessarily spoiling the ending of the book as meaning the ultimate futures in ados.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp, a lot to get through.

I won't say any more on the "will Bran burn down KL?" thing because nothing put forward in the posts I missed changed my thoughts on the matter. Moving on...

15 hours ago, TRILOGY said:

It’s going to be tricky for her, because at the end of last season, she felt that she had everything set up. She had her family back together. They were in control of the North again. This season, there’s a new threat, and all of a sudden she finds herself somewhat back in the deep end. And without Littlefinger, it’s a test for her of whether she can get through it. It’s a big challenge for her, without this master manipulator having her back. This season is more a passionate fight for her than a political, manipulative kind of fight.

2

LF wouldn't have been much use against the WW anyway. Good job they did him it.
 

18 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

If being a robot  is his final fate, then I see no point in making him  be a robot 10 episodes before the ending, bc people would not get invested in whatever happens to him (the possible tragic ending of becoming an unemotional person/ 3eyed being), so my guess is that he will recover his nature before the ending, regardless of his final fate being sweet, bittersweet or tragic, so as that people is invested in his actions, as I'm sure he wil have to fight, or at least, face dilemmas of some kind. 

Honestly, I think the showrunners set Bran up as the "Exposition Guru" or the "Hint Fairy" for narrative's sake. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking him, nor do I think it's necessarily what is happening in the books. However. due to them essentially scaling down so many plots to stop the show from being too overstuffed, Bran's ability to see visions made him useful as a plot mechanic to get around their "no flashbacks" rule and not having characters like Howland Reed waiting in the wings to fill in gaps later. So, they not only doubled-down on that but they extended his powers to be able to see EVERYTHING rather than just Weirwood.Net stuff. In other words, they used Bran's powers as an excuse to give him all the plots that involve exposition. 

Ultimately, we must also concede that Book!Bran is a character that is very difficult to adapt because almost ALL of his issues and conflicts are internal rather than active. I don't think they turned Bran into an emotionless husk because they dislike the character but because they have condensed his story to such a level that they only need him for his core role in the end game -- to be the Wizard of the team.
 

18 hours ago, jcmontea said:

do they want people to get invested in what happens to him? Based on the way they treat the character its not clear he is supposed to be someone we are supposed to care about. Its almost like they heard everyone thought he was boring during seasons 1-4 so they kept him off screen for a year and then kept him to as little screen time as possible to serve his functional role in the plot and nothing more. 

It's hard to tell. As I said above, Bran is a very hard character to adapt, anyway, and it also isn't helped by how quickly they burned through his book-plot due to them diverging from it very early on.
 

18 hours ago, jcmontea said:

So I chatted on redit with the guy behind this page which has the best analysis of GoT music I have found so far. https://www.youtube.com/user/TheHunterYTV/featured?disable_polymer=1

He mentioned a few interesting things regarding the House of the Undying Music: 

1.) He said it is indeed the White Walkers music and its pretty obviously so. So ultimately what that means for the plot who knows but the idea of the NK being responsible for the destruction of the Red Keep looks pretty solid. 

2.) Interestingly he also made the observation that Dany's theme - Love in the Eyes - plays on a descending scale with minor notes when she approaches the throne. So this could be foreshadowing for potentially her dying during the destruction of King's Landing. Or it could just be musical reinforcement for all the other clues in the scene that she is not the rightful heir: her pulling away from the throne and not touching it, Snow falling on it, the blue rose in the window when she walks in to the throne room etc. 

Damn! Just the points you highlighted are really, really interesting. Just goes to show how little the throne might mean in the end.
 

14 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

"What I think links those two characters is that they're both characters who are in possession of abilities and skills that nobody else has," Bradley told TV Guide. "Between them, they're such a formidable team because, okay, they can't fight between them, they don't have much physical power between them, but both of their set of skills are so unique. Sam's penchant for absorbing knowledge and absorbing academia and his wish to apply that for the greater good combined with Bran's visions and supernatural skills means that between the two of them, it is a real recipe for success."

John Bradley agrees, teasing that Bran and Sam will definitely continue to make major moves in Season 8. "Don't write them off as a partnership because between them, they can use their own and each others' skills to really shake the place up a bit as we go forward."

That's good. For a moment I was worried they were just going to be the comic relief. :rolleyes:

It also dashes pretty much every single one of the numerous S8 outlines that keep popping up here and there. Nearly every single one of them forgets that Sam seems primed to point Bran's "Winterfell, MI5 Department"... or whatever the Westeros equivalent would be. 
 

13 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

he said that to the friend of a blogger, which could mean anything, not necessarily spoiling the ending of the book as meaning the ultimate futures in ados.

In the books, I never really thought the Arya and Gendry thing was seriously going anywhere. It feels like something they played up just for the show.

Edited by Faera

Share this post


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

Honestly, I think the showrunners set Bran up as the "Exposition Guru" or the "Hint Fairy" for narrative's sake. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking him, nor do I think it's necessarily what is happening in the books. However. due to them essentially scaling down so many plots to stop the show from being too overstuffed, Bran's ability to see visions made him useful as a plot mechanic to get around their "no flashbacks" rule and not having characters like Howland Reed waiting in the wings to fill in gaps later. So, they not only doubled-down on that but they extended his powers to be able to see EVERYTHING rather than just Weirwood.Net stuff. In other words, they used Bran's powers as an excuse to give him all the plots that involve exposition. 

Ultimately, we must also concede that Book!Bran is a character that is very difficult to adapt because almost ALL of his issues and conflicts are internal rather than active. I don't think they turned Bran into an emotionless husk because they dislike the character but because they have condensed his story to such a level that they only need him for his core role in the end game -- to be the Wizard of the team.
 

It's hard to tell. As I said above, Bran is a very hard character to adapt, anyway, and it also isn't helped by how quickly they burned through his book-plot due to them diverging from it very early on.
 

:agree:

Quote

Damn! Just the points you highlighted are really, really interesting. Just goes to show how little the throne might mean in the end.

That is really a fascinating question: how much the throne will mean in the end. On the one hand, all the fighting over the throne has been a disaster for Westeros. Literally just 25 years of war that have done nothing to either better the country or prepare the country for external threats. 

"Some say the world will end in fire, 
Some say in ice. 
From what I’ve tasted of desire 
I hold with those who favor fire. 
But if it had to perish twice, 
I think I know enough of hate 
To say that for destruction ice 
Is also great 
And would suffice."
 
Thinking back to Frost's poem, Westeros in many ways has already been destroyed by Fire and Ice before the Dragons and the White Walkers even showed up. If we think about the emotions from the poem - desire and hate - those have been the emotions that have been driving all the destruction in Westeros. Desire for power and a hatred of others and other families leading to cycles of revenge. So from that perspective, the throne truly means very little when compared with all the bloodshed that has been spilled trying to gain it. 
 
However, at the same time, I get the sense from the story that who has the throne in someways is indeed an important question even if its not worth starting a war to put someone else on the throne. Slavery was eliminated in Essos because someone had power and decided it was a worthy goal versus just getting rich or staying in power. Wildlings were saved because someone had power and decided they were humans and were worth saving. So marrying power with noble goals can achieve positive outcomes and is important. 
 
Going to be very interesting how this all ends. Ultimately, I think a non cynical ending to this story would be for the main protagonists to overcome those baser human emotions - desire and hate. Dany of her own free will and without being forced saying that she would support Jon's claim to the throne as the rightful heir and having a reconciliation between the main families - Stark, Lannister and Targaryen would make the most sense to me. 
 
In some ways this was what Season 7 was heading towards with Jon and Dany giving in to each other (overcoming desire) and the main protagonists pushing for a united front to face the white walkers (overcoming the hatred of each other and all the past bad blood). But Cersei and the revelation that Jon is the rightful heir were the spanners in the works that will need to be overcome to get there again. 
 
Quote

That's good. For a moment I was worried they were just going to be the comic relief. :rolleyes:

It also dashes pretty much every single one of the numerous S8 outlines that keep popping up here and there. Nearly every single one of them forgets that Sam seems primed to point Bran's "Winterfell, MI5 Department"... or whatever the Westeros equivalent would be. \
 

:agree:

 

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


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

Sorry man. Maybe the story will go there but I think its horrible writing. 

If you want her to deal with the consequences of bringing WMDs to Westeros, than it makes way more sense to do with what the show has done which is have one of her weapons fall into enemy hands because of a choice she made to take them into battle despite seeing they were vulnerable and being warned she was throwing everything away by her closest advisor.

You don’t have her deal with the consequences of bringing WMDs to Westeros by having GOD take over one of those WMDs and win the war by using her WMDs . Thats super shitty writing because its not directly tied to her decisions and its not even a metaphor for real life since GOD does not take over weapons in real life. 

WMDs do proliferate in real life though so if they are going to explore that angle than doing it through the damage the NK does makes way more sense. 

And it is her downfall in that theory. All her goals are gone and done. She loses everything and then does some heroic sacrifice afterwards. Which is another reason why the theory is stupid because it cheapens her supposed heroic sacrifice afterwards since she has already lost everything. Sacrifice is interesting when you actually have something to live for. Sacrifice is interesting when you have something to atone for. In this case its some bizaro world where its neither death by redemption because she did nothing wrong as her WMD literally just was used by GOD to save the world but its also not as meaninful as The Too Cool to Live heroic sacrifice since she has effectively lost everything. 

Its really an atrocious theory that is trying to mash everything into one and trying to do too much which  results in it frankly sucking. 

I mean this is all fair but this is what the show and books are setting up. 

Also that's what the pregnancy is for. She still has a chance at a family with Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jcmontea said:

Or it could just be musical reinforcement for all the other clues in the scene that she is not the rightful heir: her pulling away from the throne and not touching it, Snow falling on it, the blue rose in the window when she walks in to the throne room etc.

I just get back to this scene. Not sure for the blue rose. But we hear what seems a woman crying. Now I believe it was Lyanna dying giving birth to Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

I mean this is all fair but this is what the show and books are setting up. 

Also that's what the pregnancy is for. She still has a chance at a family with Jon.

We shall see.

I am on the record though saying Bran burning down KL, Dany getting the blame and then Dany killing herself and her baby to defeat the WW is one of the stupidest endings to this show I have really ever heard. Stupid from a basic dramatic writing principles to stupid on a thematic level. Only someone who was a proponent of R+L=D and got every other prediction he has made wrong  could have come up with something so convoluted. 

If the show does go with that, it will still be stupid. 

Also for the record - and I am willing to be wrong on this - I don't think that is what the show is setting up at all. Also seeing how negatively I have seen people react to that theory besides myself - I really don't think that will be a satisfying end for people and they promised a satisfying end.

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


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

I just get back to this scene. Not sure for the blue rose. But we hear what seems a woman crying. Now I believe it was Lyanna dying giving birth to Jon.

its on the stain glass window right when she walks in to the throne room. I give full credit to  @Megorova for pointing it out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

its on the stain glass window right when she walks in to the throne room. I give full credit to  @Megorova for pointing it out. 

Yes, I know I saw it. But is it a rose? It has 7 branches, like the 7-pointed star. Some are red. It could also be the Red Star.
For example: http://metro.co.uk/2014/06/24/the-queen-fails-to-try-out-the-iron-throne-for-size-in-game-of-thrones-set-visit-4773739/

Never mind, my point was about a woman crying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Yes, I know I saw it. But is it a rose? It has 7 branches, like the 7-pointed star. Some are red. It could also be the Red Star.
For example: http://metro.co.uk/2014/06/24/the-queen-fails-to-try-out-the-iron-throne-for-size-in-game-of-thrones-set-visit-4773739/

Never mind, my point was about a woman crying.

https://www.google.com/search?q=blue+rose+red+keep+throne+room+house+of+the+undying&client=safari&hl=en-us&prmd=ivsn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiNzbCh-fjXAhUQ6GMKHaNCD9AQ_AUIESgB&biw=414&bih=622#imgrc=3ivr2WY9p5n1VM:

this is an image of it.

Share this post


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

Maybe it is not. Interesting on the woman crying. Will have to look.

Share this post


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

We shall see.

I am on the record though saying Bran burning down KL, Dany getting the blame and then Dany killing herself and her baby to defeat the WW is one of the stupidest endings to this show I have really ever heard. Stupid from a basic dramatic writing principles to stupid on a thematic level. Only someone who was a proponent of R+L=D and got every other prediction he has made wrong  could have come up with something so convoluted. 

If the show does go with that, it will still be stupid. 

Also for the record - and I am willing to be wrong on this - I don't think that is what the show is setting up at all. Also seeing how negatively I have seen people react to that theory besides myself - I really don't think that will be a satisfying end for people and they promised a satisfying end.

 

 

D & D thought that Ramsay raping Sansa was a good idea. You really gonna trust their idea of satisfying? 

Besides there are more characters than Bran and Daenerys around.

This is the idea that I agree with: 

It's not about should or should not. It's about the reality of war, not an idealistic representation. How wars are actually won as opposed to how we'd like to believe that wars are won.

I think the goal is to make us want to avoid war all-together, not to lie to us and tell us that war can be won without acting ruthlessly (all the battles and wars so far are being won through ruthlessness and trickery). Understanding that war is inevitably dirty and does not cater to our better selves is an honest to get people to avoid senseless wars.

I don't think GRRM is trying to depict an ideal world where war can be won by saving every single person, and defeating the other team's leader in a badass sword fight. This isn't Doctor Who (not trying to insult Doctor Who, just that they are different types of stories). GRRM isn't trying to lie about the world, or create an idealized one, but rather I see ASOIAF as a coming of age story in which our characters (even Davos) start out with one idea of the world and then are reshaped by coming to an understanding of the world is, and decide who they are going to be in spite of it.

So I think the place GRRM is inserting his ideals is through the characters and their efforts to reform the outdated institutions that have failed their society. I realize that's kind of broad, but when you look at stuf like Jon's story at the Wall, or Dany's story in Slavers bay (those being pretty major ones, and the ones you seem most compelled by), you can see that characters themselves aren't inherently rewarded for their idealism, and the idealism of the ruling class alone is not a lasting solution, but idealism can contribute a positive change. 

For example, Dany's efforts to reform Slavers Bay are not depicted as futile, just difficult and painstaking. But her more idealistic tendencies ultimately seem doomed to fail unless they are accompanied by the more ruthless draconian approach of the Shavepate. Is GRRM glorifying the Shavepate? no. But he also isn't denying the horrors of revolution by making the Shavepate come across as a clear cut hero or villain, or as being a hinderance. By the same token, he doesn't make Hizdahr a mustache twirling villain either, but despite his gentle nature, Hidahr is not the hero nor is idealistically trusting him or catering to the wise masters in the name of peace a realistic approach.

Share this post


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

 

 

D & D thought that Ramsay raping Sansa was a good idea. You really gonna trust their idea of satisfying? 

Besides there are more characters than Bran and Daenerys around.

This is the idea that I agree with: 

 

 

I don’t think they said Ramsey raping Sansa was satisfying. 

Regarding the rest of the what you quoted from, that really does not say anything. All it says is that the story makes the case that being ruthless is necessary at times. Sure. I agree with that. We even saw that in Season 7 when objectively speaking the protagonists are in a worse position now than they were at the beggining of the season because they were not ruthless enough. That has been an ongoing theme. You can’t approach the world in a rigid way and sometimes you have to be ruthless to survive. The North won the civil war because it started burning cities to the ground. 

The question is not is that a reasonable theme or not, its how do you approach and write that theme. Do you do it in an organic way where the protagonists relalize there lack of ruthlessness put them in a worse spot and they have a moment of actual character development where they learn their lesson and don’t make the same mistake next time? Or do you do it through a deus ex machina where GOD intervenes in the story to be ruthless where the other characters won’t be and in the process lead to the downfall of the main female protagnist? 

In my view the first way is good organic dramatic storytelling. The second way is just contrived and dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

I don’t think they said Ramsey raping Sansa was satisfying. 

Regarding the rest of the what you quoted from, that really does not say anything. All it says is that the story makes the case that being ruthless is necessary at times. Sure. I agree with that. We even saw that in Season 7 when objectively speaking the protagonists are in a worse position now than they were at the beggining of the season because they were not ruthless enough. That has been an ongoing theme. You can’t approach the world in a rigid way and sometimes you have to be ruthless to survive. The North won the civil war because it started burning cities to the ground. 

The question is not is that a reasonable theme or not, its how do you approach and write that theme. Do you do it in an organic way where the protagonists relalize there lack of ruthlessness put them in a worse spot and they have a moment of actual character development where they learn their lesson and don’t make the same mistake next time? Or do you do it through a deus ex machina where GOD intervenes in the story to be ruthless where the other characters won’t be and in the process lead to the downfall of the main female protagnist? 

In my view the first way is good organic dramatic storytelling. The second way is just contrived and dumb.

I expect it to happen the way you said in the books where Bran is a character and not an emotionless god yet.

The show fumbled it. I know you said that it could be an indication that it won't happen but D & D have said that the vision about dragon flying above is KL is about Bran using and mastering his powers. What's the alternative explanation to that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

I expect it to happen the way you said in the books where Bran is a character and not an emotionless god yet.

The show fumbled it. I know you said that it could be an indication that it won't happen but D & D have said that the vision about dragon flying above is KL is about Bran using and mastering his powers. What's the alternative explanation to that?

That is a pretty big fumble if your right. Like leave people fundamentally unsatisfied with the story fumble. 

In terms of what those visions could mean, who really knows right. But there are several possible explanations and just because I or you can't think of the right one doesn't mean there is not an alternative one. But here is my best guess

Bran's big super power is the ability to see through space and time. When the three eyed raven told him he could fly it meant he would fly through space and time like... a raven. The way his power has manifested and come in handy up until now is by seeing through space (e.g. the NK is marching on KL) and time (e.g. Robert's Rebellion was built on a lie). The first vision he had in 4x02 was seeing key snippets of the story but because he was still a novice all he saw were snippets. In 6x06 after more training and becoming the 3ER he saw more: similar types of images but more of them to reflect that he was better trained but he still does not understand the full significance. Now in season 8 with the aid of Sam he will finally understand the full picture - how to actually destroy the NK once and for all and how the past of the story (e.g. Rhaegar's actions, Robert's Rebellion etc.) tie into the present - and be able to help the main protagonists of the story win the war. He will do this through knowledge and by overcoming the NK's own unique green-seer abilities which gives him a special clairvoyance and control over the dead. The reason why the picture of the dragon over KL is the most critical picture is because that symbolically represents the final battle, KL when dragons will fly over the city and dance, and where the living will triumph over the dead and the NK with his help. 

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jcmontea said:

We shall see.

I am on the record though saying Bran burning down KL, Dany getting the blame and then Dany killing herself and her baby to defeat the WW is one of the stupidest endings to this show I have really ever heard. Stupid from a basic dramatic writing principles to stupid on a thematic level. Only someone who was a proponent of R+L=D and got every other prediction he has made wrong  could have come up with something so convoluted. 

If the show does go with that, it will still be stupid. 

Also for the record - and I am willing to be wrong on this - I don't think that is what the show is setting up at all. Also seeing how negatively I have seen people react to that theory besides myself - I really don't think that will be a satisfying end for people and they promised a satisfying end.

On the other hand it would be interesting if the NK is in KL and they have the choice to use the dragons to burn it and with the wildfire kill the NK. However, they would have to kill thousands of people still alive in KL!

Then after some discussion between the leaders some are against but danny decides to do it, however at the last minute she back down but bran wargs drogon and destroys KL.

Then everybody hates danny and refuses her as their queen because they think she is a monster and people are sick of monsters rulling the seven kingdoms. In the end she decides to leave westeros with her dothriaki and jon stays back because he feels it is his duty to help the north/seven kingdoms rebuild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, divica said:

On the other hand it would be interesting if the NK is in KL and they have the choice to use the dragons to burn it and with the wildfire kill the NK. However, they would have to kill thousands of people still alive in KL!

Then after some discussion between the leaders some are against but danny decides to do it, however at the last minute she back down but bran wargs drogon and destroys KL.

Then everybody hates danny and refuses her as their queen because they think she is a monster and people are sick of monsters rulling the seven kingdoms. In the end she decides to leave westeros with her dothriaki and jon stays back because he feels it is his duty to help the north/seven kingdoms rebuild.

we are just talking personal preference here. but if the end of her story is to get exiled out to Essos than I want it to be because she decided to burn KL consequences be damned. i want there to be a link between what happens to her and the big decisions she makes in the big moments and I want that link to exist for all the main characters. their rewards or their downfalls connected to their actions. 

I think we have had that more or less up until now and it should certainly continue with the main female protagonist. 

Ned lost his head... because he couldn't play the game

Robb lost his... because he chose love over duty amongst other mistakes

Cat lost hers.... because she started the war in the first place 

Oberyn died... because he was arrogant

Stannis died... because he burned his daughter 

Littlefinger died.... because his ambition knew know bounds and he didn't know when to stop 

Tywin killed by his son.... because he had him sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit 

 

 

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

we are just talking personal preference here. but if the end of her story is to get exiled out to Essos than I want it to be because she decided to burn KL consequences be damned. i want there to be a link between what happens to her and the big decisions she makes in the big moments and I want that link to exist for all the main characters. their rewards or their downfalls connected to their actions. 

I think we have had that more or less up until now and it should certainly continue with the main female protagonist. 

Ned lost his head... because he couldn't play the game

Robb lost his... because he chose love over duty amongst other mistakes

Cat lost hers.... because she started the war in the first place 

Oberyn died... because he was arrogant

Stannis died... because he burned his daughter 

Littlefinger died.... because his ambition knew know bounds and he didn't know when to stop 

Tywin killed by his son.... because he had him sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit 

 

 

not my personal preference. just trying to change the previous discussion into a more interesting ending. 

My only personal preference is that the show doesn t have all the zombies moving together like a wave destrying everything where they pass through. We just need to look at the previsons/false leaks from other people to see how bad this would be! Can you imagine jon and danny's army and hundreds of people (kids, and old people) retreating from the north to KL or some place in the south? and they being faster than na army that doesn t eat, sleep or tyre? how they would need increasingly more food to feed all the commoners fleeing with them?

 

I think it would be much better to have the WW separate, raising the dead in diferent locations and attack the major cities so that the threat is global. The NK and main army would obviously focus in winterfel but other places would also be attacked!

Share this post


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

That is a pretty big fumble if your right. Like leave people fundamentally unsatisfied with the story fumble. 

In terms of what those visions could mean, who really knows right. But there are several possible explanations and just because I or you can't think of the right one doesn't mean there is not an alternative one. But here is my best guess

Bran's big super power is the ability to see through space and time. When the three eyed raven told him he could fly it meant he would fly through space and time like... a raven. The way his power has manifested and come in handy up until now is by seeing through space (e.g. the NK is marching on KL) and time (e.g. Robert's Rebellion was built on a lie). The first vision he had in 4x02 was seeing key snippets of the story but because he was still a novice all he saw were snippets. In 6x06 after more training and becoming the 3ER he saw more: similar types of images but more of them to reflect that he was better trained but he still does not understand the full significance. Now in season 8 with the aid of Sam he will finally understand the full picture - how to actually destroy the NK once and for all and how the past of the story (e.g. Rhaegar's actions, Robert's Rebellion etc.) tie into the present - and be able to help the main protagonists of the story win the war. He will do this through knowledge and by overcoming the NK's own unique green-seer abilities which gives him a special clairvoyance and control over the dead. The reason why the picture of the dragon over KL is the most critical picture is because that symbolically represents the final battle, KL when dragons will fly over the city and dance, and where the living will triumph over the dead and the NK with his help. 

It would be great if Bran was the General Commander of the Great War, the Strategy department along with Sam. If only they added the part in which he communicates with his siblings or Theon through dreams and weirdwoods, it would be nice if that was done telepathically. But I can buy him and Sam somehow telling others what to do.

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