Jump to content

Season 8 Predictions?


AEJON TARGARYEN

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, jcmontea said:

That is your interpretation and it very well could be true in the books. Would have to re-read the relevant sections to have a view on book Mance. But this is not the books. Its the show runners show and if they want to suggest that its pride than that means their chracters are just different than your interpretation of Martin's characters. Its not necessairly wrong unless it contradicts prior show characterizarions without an explainable reason. The show is the show and the books are the books. 

And you might trully be right about all the free folk saying F U Mance and not wanting to accept the deal to get through the wall. Its a counterfactual situation. I just have a hard time believing what he did was the best choice since literally 95% of his people died. Its hard to be more cataclysmic than that. But maybe him bending the knee would have been worse.

what i also have a hard time believing is you insisting that seeing the total destruction of his people would have no impact on how Tormund sees the world, what is truly important and how he thinks and acts. A holocaust should have some impact on your thinking and make you re-evaluate things.

That could be true for some characters. However, a characterization can't be all over the place if the characterization is coming from the books and your comparing it to the show if the show never established the book characterization or if some major events happened that forced the character to change.

Forget the books. We have a scene in season 5 where Mance tells Jon that he doesn’t give a flying f*** about his own pride, and then provides perfectly valid reasons for not bending the knee:

- He doesn't want them bleeding for Stannis (or the Iron Throne in the future since it would be seen as the Free Folk submitting to the Seven Kingdoms)

- He doesn’t want for his people to give up the Free Folk way of life, which makes them who they are.

- And finally, because most of the Free Folk would stop respecting him, and would not go along with his decision anyway.

Nothing about this scene leads me to believe that Mance was lying. His statements come across as being genuine and straight from the heart.

Then a couple of seasons later, a character that should know Mance better than most, is now suddenly accusing Mance of being prideful. The same guy who up to this point has been practically praising Jon for not being like the other kneelers, and who was only willing to help him out because he believed that he was genuine about them becoming allies (i.e. equals) and that he would not force them into giving up their way of life in return for sanctuary, is now chastising Mance for not kneeling even though he never got such an offer from Stannis.

Obviously, the near total destruction of the Free Folk should have an effect on Tormund, but if he’s a rational individual he should understand that this wasn't really Mance’s fault for not kneeling since that would probably not have changed much anyway (on the other hand he probably should blame Mance for not coming up with a better plan to take Castle Black and the Wall, but that’s another matter). The Free Folk were screwed because the vast majority of them hated southerners and were not willing to give up their way of life even at the risk of dying beyond the Wall (and really, if they did they would no longer be the Free Folk, so it would spell the end of their people anyway), and because the people south of the Wall were not willing to come to some agreement where the Free Folk could stay as refugees/allies against the WWs and be excepted from most Westerosi norms and rules until Jon Snow rose to a leadership position in the North.

I get that Tormund himself might have had a change of heart about kneeling, but being Free Folk himself he should understand why it was pretty much impossible for Mance to accept Stannis' offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

 

4. Jon is fully aware of Mance's decision not to ben the knee to Stannis to preserve the solidarity of the Free Folk, but He'll also be aware of Tohren Stark bending the knee to Aegon to not see his people burned alive.  Forming an alliance with the Dragon queen to fight the army of the dead is at least as good a reason.

They had already formed an alliance at that point, so there was no longer any reason for him to bend the knee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MinscS2 said:

I'm glad someone brought this up. I've seen so many "Jon's an idiot, the northern lords will hate him for this"-posts here recently. Jon (and Danerys) know there will be tension after his decision to bend the knee, but he believes the matter will be resolved. No one can argue with the fact that it's very much a part of Jon's character to do what he considers the right thing, even if people will disagree with him - to the point that they plot to kill him.

Saving the Wildlings and letting them trough the gate was the right thing to do even if the NW and the Wildlings have a long history of animosity and it would cause some massive tension within the NW.
Bending the knee to Daenerys after she risked her own and her dragons life to come and save him was the right thing to do, even if it was technically pointless for him at that point and would cause tension with his subjects.
Refusing Cerseis request and openly admitting that he had already bent the knee to Daenerys was the right thing to do, even if lying would've given them what they wanted (or at least they thought so.)

I agree with this 100%. This was totally in character for Jon and I think the northern lords will come around since Jon is right. Once they see her they will want to follow her and if not hey they can always get married. 

Question. Do you think Jon knows that Dany exectued the Tarlys? I don't know if that is being set up as a big reveal next year that will add tension or if it will be a nothing burger. 

6 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

 

 

 

 

So, this whole discussion is about whether or not Jon bends the knee to Dany at the end of season seven in relation to a conversation he has with Mance at the beginning of season five?

Some points that seem to be missing: (I apologize if this has been gone-over, but these posts are really long)

1. Jon doesn't agree with Mance's decision not to submit to Stannis. He accepts it, but he doesn't agree with it.  This to me is one of the central themes of the show: Idealism vs Pragmatism. 

2. Jon takes a considerable amount of convincing. His decision was a bit of a shock but not really a surprise. Also, he's more than a little in love with her at that point.

3. The very first words out of Dany's mouth after he pledges himself to her are "What about those who swore allegiance to you?" He responds "They will come to see you for what you are." He knows his people will take convincing. He believes they can be convinced.  Same as the Free Folk and Mance, The same as the North Men and Jon Snow and the same as Jon himself regarding Dany. Is it a certainty? No.  People aren't robots.

4. Jon is fully aware of Mance's decision not to ben the knee to Stannis to preserve the solidarity of the Free Folk, but He'll also be aware of Tohren Stark bending the knee to Aegon to not see his people burned alive.  Forming an alliance with the Dragon queen to fight the army of the dead is at least as good a reason.

5. It's likely there will be a marriage next season.  This should go a long way to bringing the Northerners on side. Dany will be their queen either way.

I agree with all your points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

Question. Do you think Jon knows that Dany exectued the Tarlys? I don't know if that is being set up as a big reveal next year that will add tension or if it will be a nothing burger. 

I don't think he knows, but even if he did I don't really think he'd care enough to bring it up.
He has no reason to like Randyll (after what Sam told him), and he has no relation with Dickon.
Dany and the Tarlys are (or rather, were) at war - The Tarlys could've just as easily had died on the battlefield. Just because they somehow survived the battle and was brought before her as PoW's doesn't mean she must show them mercy; as the victor she can have them executed for whatever reasons she fancies, at least she gave Randyll several choices and he chose death. Technically Dany could've sentenced Randyll to death for treason (he did betray her ally, Olenna Tyrell) just as Jon would've sentenced Smalljon Umber and Rickard Karstark to death if they had survived the Battle of the Bastards.

They might bring it up in regards to Sam at some point: "Hey Sam, nice to see you. By the way, my wife-to-be had your father and brother executed, no hard feelings right?". He'll get over it though I'm sure, he hated his father and he's pragmatic enough to realize that Dickon chose his own fate. If anything their deaths might open up the fact that Sam might end up Lord Tarly of Horn Hill and Warden of the South in the end.
It's not like the Nightswatch is needed with all the Wildlings south of the wall and the White Walkers defeated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MinscS2 said:

I don't think he knows, but even if he did I don't really think he'd care enough to bring it up.
He has no reason to like Randyll (after what Sam told him), and he has no relation with Dickon.
Dany and the Tarlys are (or rather, were) at war - The Tarlys could've just as easily had died on the battlefield. Just because they somehow survived the battle and was brought before her as PoW's doesn't mean she must show them mercy; as the victor she can have them executed for whatever reasons she fancies, at least she gave Randyll several choices and he chose death. Technically Dany could've sentenced Randyll to death for treason (he did betray her ally, Olenna Tyrell) just as Jon would've sentenced Smalljon Umber and Rickard Karstark to death if they had survived the Battle of the Bastards.

They might bring it up in regards to Sam at some point: "Hey Sam, nice to see you. By the way, my wife-to-be had your father and brother executed, no hard feelings right?". He'll get over it though I'm sure, he hated his father and he's pragmatic enough to realize that Dickon chose his own fate. If anything their deaths might open up the fact that Sam might end up Lord Tarly of Horn Hill and Warden of the South in the end.
It's not like the Nightswatch is needed with all the Wildlings south of the wall and the White Walkers defeated.

That makes sense if it goes that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-9-18 at 5:32 PM, jcmontea said:

Love at first sight has been studied and its been determined that its actually a thing that exists. In a pre-agricultural world, where there were not many people around you could mate with, being able to fall in love with someone quickly and reproduce conferred significant survival advantages. So being able to fall in love quickly is actually a thing. 

Well, showing two people falling in love at first sight by having them look at each other, is not really portraying a well written developing romance; As is being argued.

Quote

I think for these two, i buy that they would fall in love quick since literally they are the only two people in the world that are each others equals. The mating pool is super shallow for them. 

Huh, how is Jon Snow, the bastard deserter of the Watch, and illegitimately appointed, unrecognized KitN, who is denying the birthrights of Danny, suppose to be considered as an equal by Daenerys Stormborn, the Queen of the Andals, the Rhoynar and the First Men, Protector of the Realm, Queen of Meereen, Yunkai and Astapor, Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea, Mother of Dragons, The Unburnt, Breaker of Chains, and Lady of Dragonstone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, MinscS2 said:

You need to stop focusing on the comments from Davos and Tyrion. There are many other hints throughout S7 of how Jon and Dany are falling for each other. If you didn't notice them, it's your loss I'm afraid.

Also, what experiences did Jon and Ygritte share before they had sex? They walked around in the north for a short while, Ygritte tried to seduce him, he get's captured, feigns allegiance to the wildlings and on their way back to the wall she tricks him and strips naked in front of him which causes him to...cave in I suppose. 
Jon did come to love Ygritte after this, I agree, but when they had sex he didn't love her (if he did, the show did a shitty job of showing it), he was simply very attracted to her. Why was it OK for Jon and Ygritte to go from doing nothing intimate into having sex (especially when they weren't really in love yet), but forced when Jon and Dany does the same thing, albeit with the massive difference that they are in love by the time they have sex?

I personally prefer the kind of romance where love comes before the sex, but maybe that's just me.

 

I see the hints, my analysis come from the veracity of these hints as a viewer.

You put the example of Ygritte's relationship with Jon at the same level in terms of rushed as Talissa/Robb and Jon/Dany and I disagreed, 'cause Jon/Ygritte is not an example of that. The others are.  I also disagree with the fact that Jon and Ygritte's shared experences are less important than Jon and Dany's, but I see your point about sex before love. I'll explain my view with more examples: (SPOILERS OF OUTLANDER AND SMALLVILLE)

Whether they had sex before being in love it's irrelevant to the point, since the relationship continues evolving through the seasons, 1.5 seasons further after the sex to be precise. I personally prefer love before sex in a TV romance but that's not necessary for me to dislike a relationship with other characteristics, such as the one we are describing. Let's take another example, in Outlander, there is a relationship between Jamie and Claire and they share some experiences together before marrying and having sex but the big part of their love story comes after. If things were black and white I should dislike it, since I prefer the order of the events to be reversed, but it's not the case. However, if I am forced to believe there is romance before it can have happened -add the fact we are quickly told they are in love by others- then I'll never like this relationship, (whether it is incestuous or not). And example of that is the relationship of Lois and Clark in Smallville universe. They are not related, but as a viewer I was forced to believe that Clark had suddenly fallen in love with Lois (I didn't dislike the other way around). So, because of that, I didn't like the relationship. Same happens with Jonerys, but with the fact that it's way worse for other reasons of compatibility and story-telling, but they have the contrived thing in common

 

Quote

But it's an established fact that one year passes during the course of a season. You might not agree with it, but it changes nothing.
Jon and Dany are both 17 at the start of S1 and 23 by the end of S7.
Sansa is 13 at the start of S1 and 19 by the end of S7.

Time passes not only between seasons, and episodes, but also between scenes. Take S7 E5 for instance: With less than 25% of the episode, Jon leaves Dragonstone and sails for Eastwatch. By the end of the same episode, he arrives. This is a journey that would've taken weeks, and so weeks has passed in the show, in the short span of ~20 minutes of actual show-time.

It is on occasion a complete mess though, as you say, but it would explain some of the stranger time jumps and why sometimes people seem to quick travel from point A to point B.
 

Again, Sansa didn't say that she hadn't "seen" Jon in weeks, she said she hadn't "heard" from him in weeks, which is a massive difference.
We also don't know exactly how long time that passes after Daenerys rescues Jon & Co and until they reach King's Landing - probably some more weeks, and this time it happened off-screen between episode 6 and 7.

This isn't always the case though; Between S5 and S6 no time at all passed, in fact less than 30 minutes pass between the end scene of S5 and the first scene of S6.
It's safe to say however, that by the end of season 7, an event that occurred in season 3 (like Theons torture by Ramsay) would've happened "years ago" (3-4 to be exact.)

We can't actually have a proper discussion on time in Game of Thrones since I personally think that not even the showrunners have that in their minds when writing. So it means that in general terms, any arguments provided with irrefutable and reasonable facts for each side of the discussion could be true but partly false as the same time unless the showrunners speak for us. 

Having said, I'll make a few comments.

-First of all, ages (unless spelled out in the dialogue) are just material from the wikia of Thrones, not from the showrunners. They have to make a lot of assumptions like saying that one season means one year because if not, it would not explain how the actors grow up. The showrunners have never said that every season of thrones (all of them included) it's one year eech; and if they said it exactly this way and now I can't recall it, they have made HUGE contradictions in their writing of the events that can be proved just by watching the show.

-It's not true that between s5 and s6 no time has passed. Your basing your argument on the fact of the resurrection of Jon Snow. It's true that hours, or a day has passed since it happened in that storyline but that doesn't mean that the other storylines are subject to the same chronology. In fact, we can assume that some time has happened since Daenerys has been caught, Arya is being a beggar or Cersei has returned to the Reed Keep after the Walk of Shame (her hair has visually grown, so at least some weeks have happened, or many more if she is styling it this way, just like she does in season 7, while Tyene grows her hair out). So it's a fair assumption to think that that same period of time happens after Jon’s resurrection, not before (it would be an example of time happening during the season, while the other time happens in between seasons for the other storylines). In fact, Bryan Cogman said that time happens differently depending on the scenes. (My guess is that they don’t even know exactly how, though).

Another clear example of time during seasons is the finale of season six. We see Varys in two locations, so it’s fair to assume that some weeks (minimum, could be more) have happened between those two scenes. I see that of an example of time happening “in between” seasons put together in almost the last minutes of the season. It’s clear that the main “amount of time” will be happening in between the seasons 6 and 7, while Dany is travelling, as usual, with the majority of storylines.

I’m not claiming to say this is all completely true, since, I should analyse other time facts from the different dialogues of the storylines to corroborate this. I have issues with Tyrion’s and Cersei’s trials (I can’t recall what they said now but I think they used the work weeks) and that would mean that the progression  of the storylines is not logical, and time is not absolute for everyone but relative depending on the characters or locations, which is an inconsistent fact since this world is based on fantasy and not science-fiction, but this is what we have and time facts and logical reasonings based on that are the most “truthful” ways to develop the timeline of the series. But the contradictions will appear, eitherway (I’m not counting the cases of Tommen and Sam since these two events are just impossible to explain altogether).

-You say that travelling involved weeks, likely, and I agree with you, it’s a fair assumption. However we still have the contradiction of how quickly ravens fly (established in episode 7, although the directors acknowledged it was a creative license) and we could compare them to the fact that several ravens are sent during the first episodes from Winterfell to Dragonstone and vice versa, for instance. So it’s basically a mess.

However, in previous posts, you stated that their relationship has covered approx. 6 months:

Quote

Something a lot of people who are against their relationship seem to miss however, is that Jon and Dany have known each other for more than half a season (episode 3-7 out of 7), which means that by the time they have #boatsex, they have known each other for over half a year.

While it’s true that more time could have happened that weeks due to the fact that Sansa says “heard” in weeks, according to you, but that can’t explain at all that six months have happened.

My arguments are:

-In episode 3 Cersei tells the Iron Bank she will pay the debt in 2 weeks. In episode 4 the banker reappears and she says the gold is coming. In these episodes we have the scenes of the beach, the cave, Davos, Dany asking Jon what to do… etc but we also know that the battle is between Dany and Jaime, so both storylines share chronology. Also, there is a sex scene in episode 3 in which Cersei gets pregnant.

-In episode 5 they prepare the strategy of the wight hunt. They share the petting Drogon scene (she is arriving from the battle so not much time has passed) and then the reunion. The next scene is when they leave. So we can assume they’ve been sharing intimate moments offscreen for less than 16 days. Considering that the storyline is tricky, and Sansa has not heard about Jon in weeks, and we can’t know how much time happens after the battle of the dragons my assumption is that there’s a maximum of 1.5 months (1 month in between battles).

-In episode 6 there is the trip to the wight hunt (one day, one weeks or weeks), the wight hunt that lasts 72 hours at most.

-Episode 7: some time can have happened between episode 6 and 7 and Jon and Dany can have shared offscreen moments before going to the dragonpit, but not quite a lot of time. How do I know that? When we see the dragonpit scene, the two chronologies (KL and Jon/Dany are juxtaposed). We also see that nobody notices in the dragonpit that Cersei is pregnant, so she can't be more than 2 months pregnant considering that her dress is tight.

So, overall, about 2 months have happened being very generous, 16/+/- days of some scenes in Dragonstone that are not always together (she goes to battle) +some days or a week SEPARATED+ possible offscreen scenes in the boat that last maximum one week before going to the dragonpit and be in the corner.

I’m afraid that this is EXTREMELY DIFFERENT than 6 months

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-9-18 at 6:55 PM, jcmontea said:

Example 2

7x03

Davos "He was named Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. He was named King in the North. Not because of his birthright. He has no birthright. He's a damn bastard. All those hard son's of bitches chose him as their leader because they believe in him."

7x04

Missy "All of us who came with her from Essos, we believe in her. She's not our queen because she's the daughter of some king we never knew. She's the queen we chose."

And who in Westeros has chosen Daenerys as their Queen? She is considered to be a foreign invader who's claim is based on an elitist right of birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, jcmontea said:

Is this the same Mance who one of his main lieutenants in the same episode said made a huge mistake by not bending the knee to Stannis? 

And lets be clear about that. Mance not bending the knee to Stannis was a huge mistake, it effectively lead to a Wildling holocaust if we can believe the numbers on the show. 

There were 100k in Mance's army. By the end of season 6 there is no more than what 5k wildlings? 

Way to go Mance! 

Who was this lieutenant? Jon?

At the time it was the right decision. I will reuse Mance words:

- They followed me because they respected me. Because they believed in me.
  The moment I kneel for a southern king, that's all gone.
- But if you can't understand why I won't enlist my people in a foreigner's war, there's no point explaining.

And who knows? All those following Stannis died at Winterfell. And in book, much Free Folk refused to bend the knee and pass the Wall. There went much of the 100k.

It was very very courageous of Mance. Like it was for the Tarlys. In Mance or any Free Folk shoes, I would have bent the knee and fled later, at the first opportunity. An oath is something you give freely. If you have no other choice than death, then you are not committed.

Maybe Mance should have done differently. But I can't think differently than giving my deepest hatred to Stannis for what he did. That is a view I will never change. I see we totally disagree here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-9-18 at 7:12 PM, jcmontea said:

Evidence 1

Mel saying: 

"I've done my part. I've brought ice and fire together." 

Well, Mel really doesn't have a clue what she's talking about, and doesn't know that Jon is a Targ. Jon is already ice and fire, he doesn't need Danny for that. It's not a song of ice and fire and fire.

On 2017-9-18 at 7:12 PM, jcmontea said:

 

Evidence 2 

HBO released a video after episode 7 called: Cast Commentary on a Union of Fire and Ice that was about Dany and Jon #epicboatsex 

 

Hmm, evidence that isn't a part of the actual show? That's horrible writing if you need to explain your story in an extra feature. Besides, I would posit that the show runners know less about the song of Ice and Fire that GRRM has been writing, than Mel does.

On 2017-9-18 at 7:12 PM, jcmontea said:

Evidence 3

"Back then, there was not a lot of secrecy because nobody was paying attention, and George R.R. Martin came to visit and he was being quite open about his plans. He said something: That it really is all about Dany and Jon. I was surprised because at the time, you know, I thought, well Robb Stark’s going to be king next, probably. And who knows where this story’s going? But it was absolutely clear to him that within this sprawling scale the whole story was coming down to this partnership.

A story about two characters does not mean that they have to hook up and fall in love. Or would Jon and Danny be ill equipped to face the Others without first having boat sex?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Who was this lieutenant? Jon?

At the time it was the right decision. I will reuse Mance words:

- They followed me because they respected me. Because they believed in me.
  The moment I kneel for a southern king, that's all gone.
- But if you can't understand why I won't enlist my people in a foreigner's war, there's no point explaining.

And who knows? All those following Stannis died at Winterfell. And in book, much Free Folk refused to bend the knee and pass the Wall. There went much of the 100k.

It was very very courageous of Mance. Like it was for the Tarlys. In Mance or any Free Folk shoes, I would have bent the knee and fled later, at the first opportunity. An oath is something you give freely. If you have no other choice than death, then you are not committed.

Maybe Mance should have done differently. But I can't think differently than giving my deepest hatred to Stannis for what he did. That is a view I will never change. I see we totally disagree here.

The lieutenant was Tormund 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Well, Mel really doesn't have a clue what she's talking about, and doesn't know that Jon is a Targ. Jon is already ice and fire, he doesn't need Danny for that. It's not a song of ice and fire and fire.

Maybe. Its not clear to me though this is purely a blood thing. Jon may have Targ blood, but nothing about him this entire series has been associated with Fire. He is someone who has always been in the far north, someone who has been dealing with the white walker threat etc. 

Dany on the other hand in contrast to Jon who literally has always been in the snowiest locals dealing with the ice zombies, has been heavily associated with fire from the dragons, to being the unburnt to being the warmest locations. 

Mel could be wrong. But that would mean ice and fire is purely blood and that is not clear. 

35 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Hmm, evidence that isn't a part of the actual show? That's horrible writing if you need to explain your story in an extra feature. Besides, I would posit that the show runners know less about the song of Ice and Fire that GRRM has been writing, than Mel does.

There is in universe explanation for this. Its not something that is only being commented on outside universe. 

35 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

A story about two characters does not mean that they have to hook up and fall in love. Or would Jon and Danny be ill equipped to face the Others without first having boat sex?

Sure. They didn't have to fall in love. But they did so that is the story. Not sure what your point is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MinscS2 said:

I don't think he knows, but even if he did I don't really think he'd care enough to bring it up.
He has no reason to like Randyll (after what Sam told him), and he has no relation with Dickon.

Someone is no less a criminal because we don't know/like the victim. Jon would be concerned, because it is the woman he bent the knee. And is in love with. I don't see the Randly's and Umber's betrayals alike. But that's could be argued. Not sure if Jon would disagree with Daenerys' decision. But still, it was a bad choice with everyone losing. Better when your enemy died on the battlefield. I believe the point was to have Daenerys still more hated in Westeros. And more fuel, if I could say, to Cersei's arguments.

7 hours ago, MinscS2 said:

It's not like the Nightswatch is needed with all the Wildlings south of the wall and the White Walkers defeated.

I don't see the White Walkers defeated soon. Or too many Wildlings south of the Wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Does time in KL expand or contract depending on the characters involved? I think that would be a cool thread. Does it happen as well in the more septentrional regions? That would explain why the WWs are moving so slowly in the eyes of the audience.

By the gods, I think I've figured it out! Maybe, we the viewers are suppose to be experiencing the story as though we're watching through the eyes of a Weirwood.

Quote

A man must know how to look before he can hope to see," said Lord Brynden. "Those were shadows of days past that you saw, Bran. You were looking through the eyes of the heart tree in your godswood. Time is different for a tree than for a man. Sun and soil and water, these are the things a weirwood understands, not days and years and centuries. For men, time is a river. We are trapped in its flow, hurtling from past to present, always in the same direction. The lives of trees are different. They root and grow and die in one place, and that river does not move them. The oak is the acorn, the acorn is the oak. And the weirwood … a thousand human years are a moment to a weirwood, and through such gates you and I may gaze into the past."

Mayhaps, should I ever be so inclined to re-watch the past few seasons (highly doubtful), I shall take Lord Brynden Rivers' advise, and attempt to watch with the mind set of a heart tree. Perhaps the show would be a little more coherent then. :P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

By the gods, I think I've figured it out! Maybe, we the viewers are suppose to be experiencing the story as though we're watching through the eyes of a Weirwood.

Mayhaps, should I ever be so inclined to re-watch the past few seasons (highly doubtful), I shall take Lord Brynden Rivers advise, and attempt to watch with the mind set of a heart tree. Perhaps the show would be a little more coherent then. :P

 

I love this interpretation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:wub::bowdown::bowdown:

I mean, that would mean that the core of the series is the Old Gods and Bran! And everything is related to this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Huh, how is Jon Snow, the bastard deserter of the Watch, and illegitimately appointed, unrecognized KitN, who is denying the birthrights of Danny, suppose to be considered as an equal by Daenerys Stormborn, the Queen of the Andals, the Rhoynar and the First Men, Protector of the Realm, Queen of Meereen, Yunkai and Astapor, Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea, Mother of Dragons, The Unburnt, Breaker of Chains, and Lady of Dragonstone?

His legitimacy comes from victory in battle and the acclaim of his people and her prior accomplishments don't make her Queen of Westeros. Someone has a problem with him deserting the NW? They can just go ahead and take it up with the new KitN.  Dany has a birthright? The current occupant of the Iron Throne  calls her "Usurper". 

This is about power politics, not legalese. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Mayhaps, should I ever be so inclined to re-watch the past few seasons (highly doubtful), I shall take Lord Brynden Rivers' advise, and attempt to watch with the mind set of a heart tree. Perhaps the show would be a little more coherent then. :P

Yes! That's it! The mindset of a tree, and stones, and winds. Makes sense now.:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

A story about two characters does not mean that they have to hook up and fall in love. Or would Jon and Danny be ill equipped to face the Others without first having boat sex?

We're criticizing a story where two characters fall in love because they "didn't have to fall in love"?

If the boat sex creeps you out maybe you shouldn't tune in next season. Because brother, those two are going to be humping, like, A LOT.

(WOLF-HEATTM)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...