Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ShadowKitteh

  1. ShadowKitteh

    Bran could have been used a better way.

    He's not Neo, this isn't The Matrix, and all the knowledge from the known universe wasn't instantly downloaded into his brain from Deep Thought. Brain is still learning, otherwise he'd be able to tell humanity how to survive and we would have a season 8, or likely so many books. I don't see him as emotion-free. He told Sansa something only she and Theon knows at this point to prove he wasn't insane. What are you going to do when GRRM gets to the same ending as the show?
  2. ShadowKitteh

    Season 8: News, Spoilers And Leaks

    You need Euron to provoke Jamie into killing Cersei.... I'd love it, if in a fit of rage at Jamie leaving her again, she rails at him something in the vein of, "I'm carrying Euron's child, and he's a better man and lover than you could ever hope to be..." Then goes on to say it's his fault she's going to blow up the city (echoes of Burn Them All), so he turns out to be the Valonqar. You need Cersei because she's been set up up to be the final boss since the beginning. Plus logistically, they'll have to fight The Night King first.
  3. True a girl's consent didn't matter, however, it was still Robert's lie about her being abducted and raped. If everyone believed she'd gone willingly, even though she was technically already Robert's "soon-to-be-chattel", Brandon might never have gathered his "boys" to go down and challenge Rhaegar. Or, they (Brandon & his boys) did know, and put Robert's shame (Rhaegar stealing his betrothed), ahead of Lyanna's happiness anyway, and publicly went with the lie to make their claim more acceptable to the general population, especially in the North, (which is entirely believable.)
  4. What does any of that have to do with the Right/Order of Succession when it comes to Monarchies? If Rhaegar had won at the Trident, it would be an entirely different story, but it still doesn't change the rules regarding Succession in a Monarchy.
  5. That's not how the Right/Line of Succession works. I'm honestly surprised there's not more history nerds around here. There's nothing questionable about Jon's legitimacy. Westeros isn't 21st century Earth, where everything is "fake news" if you don't agree. (Which is patently insane no matter where you are.) There's nothing to "prove." No one is going to hire some private detective to carbon-date the Maester's diary - because you have Bran. Either get on this exposition bus, or forever whinge about a plot line you don't like. Succession just IS. It isn't based off merit, or how much someone wants it.or how long they're been working for it. You're either the legit heir, (Jon), or you're not, (Dany), because a legit heir already exists, and it's not you. It doesn't matter if you don't want the job, unless you want to marry Wallis Simpson, and that came close to destroying the English Monarchy. And while that may be something many fans want to happen (no monarchy for Westeros), that plot remains to be revealed, and it still has no bearing on The Line of Succession. Jon is the heir. There is no changing the rules, or killing the filibuster because you don't like the way things are turning out...
  6. I love this entire post x ∞.
  7. It would not be weird in practice either, since that's not how Succession works. Succession works in order of birth, (usually males first.) So it wouldn't matter who the mother was, nor how she was "connected," as long as they are married at the time of birth, and there's no other offspring that are older... even from a previous marriage. The Bride/Mother's connections have zero bearing on the Right/Order of Succession. Where does that even apply anywhere - just because someone's second wife knows more people, her offspring should get preferential treatment when it comes to matters of inheritance? Seriously - I've seen this kind of thing posted more than once, and it makes no sense whatsoever.
  8. Maybe in community or High School theatre, but not professionally, there's too much money at stake. If the actor isn't good, they're not hired. If they become bad, they're replaced. This isn't cable access. This is the most successful, money generating show in TV history. If a director doesn't care in that level of the industry, they're fired. Just because you don't like Isaac in the role, doesn't mean everyone shares your opinion.
  9. But Ned does think about it, per the first book, and his memory dream of the ToJ, he has that dream repeatedly. If he never thought about it, how could he keep the secret? Totally agree. I'm not talking about the Northern Lords during the puppy scene (which they're not in), I'm talking about the actual Northern Lords, (Glover, Lyanna Mormont, Royce, etc.) now, in Winterfell, the ones who some people say will be upset if/when they find out Jon bent the knee to Dany. They're not in the puppy scene. Only Jorey and Roderick, neither of which are Northern Lords, are there besides Ned. Sorry if I wasn't clear. As for why Ned changes his mind about the pups, I feel it's both the argument, and his knowledge of who Jon is. As Hedera of the Helix said: Hedera also answered a similar question: The scene alone viewed at face value, yes. When viewed in light of Ned's POV chapters in the first book, no.
  10. Dany has no claim. Jon's is the only legit claim. That's how Monarchical Succession works. Westeros isn't a Democracy, nor a Republic, nor a Meritocracy. There is no, "Who deserves it more". or "Who has wanted it longer..." none of that has any bearing whatsoever. The people of Westeros know of no other way of governing. Once it's proven Jon is the heir, Dany isn't going to argue, because it would make her stupid, and no better than Robert Bratheon who tried to have her assassinated. Jon's claim is the only one that matters, even if he doesn't want it. Abdicating would hurt House Targaryen and by extension, Dany. Neither Jon nor Dany would want that. I don't understand how so many people think she's going to fight it. She's not Cersei. She's not Shakespeare's version of Richard III, killing her way into power. The Line of Succession is important to her. She was willing to support her insane brother until he threatened her life, and that took care of itself.
  11. There are directors on set. Actors aren't left to their own devices unless the director agrees with what they're doing. The directors get the final say on what the editors do with the footage they have, and what the audience sees, not the actors. This isn't Second City.
  12. This isn't the real world. If GRRM writes it that Tyrion and the rest of the population accepts it as proof, I dare say you will too. In the books and show, that book is proof, and Cersei validates it. Robert claims them as his kids, because he's got no reason not to. Would you tell your best friend on his death bed that he has no legal offspring?
  13. Thank you. As for the showrunners, I work in the industry and GRRM wrote the unfilmable when he made the decision to tell the story from inside various character's heads, so the entire thing is based on Unreliable Narrator, because of their biases. I think they're working freaking miracles considering the original source, and now they're working off - outlines.... While the first three books are miles better than the last two, they're still AMAZING novels, but the show can't do what the books did, and follow one set of characters through a single season, and a mostly different set the next. The show has raised the filming bar very high, which is great for scripted TV - to the point TV is better at the moment than most things in cinemas. There's been a huge shift of film actors moving to TV, which didn't happen much 20+ years ago.
  14. Great question. It's obviously hard to say for sure, since I'm not GRRM, but I think I do lean that way, yes. Maybe if Robb had said it, Ned would have thought about it more than when Bran just wanted a puppy... I can see him saying yes to it, but in a different way, yet not entirely... but going back to how Sean says what he says... I think he doesn't want to allow it, but does anyway, and for me, that comes with the weight on Ned of knowing Jon's true identity. Gods NO. The only people who know that are Sam & Bran. I'm saying they know about Rhaegar and Lyanna having a THING for each other because either they were AT the Tourney, or they've heard about it, because what Rhaegar did to Elia was HUGE, and likely a bit of a scandal. People talked about it. I agree with the mercy killing sentence. You don't make the rules on how anyone else thinks or forms opinions, and I think it's both.
  15. Please don't call me "Missy." No need to start out a post belittling someone. I'm not sure what you're asking. Do I feel like Jon made a better argument for keeping the pups? YES. Absolutely. I answered that in my last post. No, you don't have to be Royalty to change someone's mind. I never said that you did. Not sure if your "obeying" sentence is a question, but I said, most of what Ned does, is in service of his promise to Lyanna. So you're twisting what I said into something else, since I never said that Ned "obeyed" Jon every time he opened his mouth, nor did I infer it. So NO. I didn't say that, so your inference about Catelyn being "put in her place" is all you. NO. Ned doesn't "OBEY" everything that comes out of Jon's mouth. No idea why you would even go there. There are only two scenes where Ned and Jon interact in the show. In the pup scene, and when Jon is leaving for the Wall, and Ned says the next time they meet, he'll tell Jon about his mother. That's all we know on the show. I'm really confused what I did that set you off so much to the point you're trying to make it seem like I said something that I didn't say just to prove I'm wrong. You hate the showrunners. You've made that clear. I don't. I guess that makes me the enemy.
  16. I'm not disputing any of that. There can be multiple reasons for why humans do things. It's definitely far more compelling, and I believe it's very much a big part of it. Absolutely. But I also think it's the source. Ned still knows who Jon is. The story is based on 15th century England. God chose the King. Divine Right isn't a bumper sticker. God is the head of The Great Chain of Being. Why would Westeros be different? There's an ingrained deference to those higher than your station. That's a foreign concept to 21st century humans, thankfully. Ned can claim Jon is his bastard son all he wants, but Ned know's that isn't true. You can't ignore that, since it's part of the main plot of the entire story. Ned is the only character who is actively in the story (hopefully we'll get to Howland eventually), who knows Jon's real identity/legitimacy. He knew the moment he saw a baby and had just killed three/two Kingsguard. Show Lyanna confirmed when she called him Aegon Targaryen and not Sand. It's also the way it's written, books and show. Book Bran and Robb want them, Theon states there haven't been Direwolves south of he Wall for two hundred years. Show Robb gets a version of that line, and Robb doesn't hold one. The big thing for me is the shift in Ned. He goes against the wishes of his own children, who really want them, and he gives it no thought, until Jon says what he says. He then begrudgingly gives them line-in-the-sand instructions on the having of Direwolves. If you think about it, most everything Ned does is in service to his promise to Lyanna, including becoming Hand. Way to not answer any of my questions. They're not hard to answer directly, are they? Yes or No will suffice. Here they are again: I honestly think some people refuse to see what's right in front of them, because that would mean the show doesn't suck as much as they need it to to validate their hate. GRRM foreshadows damn near everything in the story. The show has done the same.
  17. Why? That's what happened. Seriously, what part are you disputing? Are you saying: That Bran wasn't told "no" by Ned? That Ned didn't allow the pups after Jon said what he said? That Ned has no idea who Jon is? Seriously, what part do you think didn't happen?
  18. Seriously? Describing what happened in the first episode is too deep? In what way? I'm curious, or possibly not understanding what you mean. What's your opinion of N+A=J? (Hopefully, we can finally put that one to bed.) I'm shocked anyone thinks there's anything "too deep" especially for this forum.
  19. Meera went home for a reason. Howland is still alive in the books, and they've already introduced him. Yes, I know Bran believes only he knows... I don't know how they'll specifically square this.... they could just keep Bran in whistleblower/FISA warrant mode, and outing all disbelievers by publicly describing their deepest secret. It shut Littlefinger up. Or Sam could ask Bran to SEE if anyone else has the info, and Bran can then remember the ToJ.
  20. So much this. And I wish the actor who played him, Peter Vaughan, was still alive. Why? Dany has never been a power-hungry maniac. If Dany were Viserys, or Cersei, yes. She's not. Dany isn't ego. Dany has only ever wanted to do the right thing. The rightful heir and the Line of Succession is very real to these people. And Jon being a Targaryen means her House is still in power. It's not like the Martells are taking over. I think she also knows that Jon would never treat her as anything but an equal. I honestly don't see her character having a tantrum or anything of the sort. Succession ≠ Contest. It doesn't matter how hard someone works. It's not remotely democratic. It's Succession. Why would they be bothered if they're related? Why would anyone? Incest involves siblings or offspring. Nephew/Aunt ≠ incest. There is no DNA knowledge in Westeros. This is based on Medieval England. No one in Medieval England would care, so why would anyone in ASOIAF? Does anyone think GRRM, being the history geek he is, would address it? It honestly makes me sad that only history nerds, and people who bother to actually open a dictionary or google the word incest know the facts. Where did this even come from? No one freaks out over Ashley & Melanie in Gone With The Wind, and they were cousins. And again, I don't see Dany being bothered, as long as peace is restored, the Army of the Dead is defeated forever, her family is on the Iron Throne (perhaps figuratively since it might be part of the burned out ruin Show Dany saw), and slavery is a thing of the past. Every smart man bends the knee to his wife. That's not how succession works. He could abdicate, but that would only weaken House Targaryen, and there's no reason. He could suggest they rule together - like William & Mary. Again - it's Succession, not an election. There is no - oh YOU do it.... It's called "Divine Right" for a reason: a Higher Authority choses the King.... and someday maybe Jon & Dany issue in democracy, but that might a spin off. They'll be lucky there's humans left to breed. (Like President Roslin says, "We need to start making babies.")
  21. It's funny..... I've seen that first episode a bazillion times just making friends who have never seen the show, sit and watch it.... and a friend was over from the UK, and was very, "I don't like Fantasy..." and I told her to just watch the first ep, and if she wasn't in, no worries... and that it's a MYSTERY, not really Fantasy - that's only the semi-setting, it's more Historical Fiction where the people don't believe in the fantastical things... she's soooooo sucked in now. It was that viewing, that I (finally) realized they told Sean, and he plays it perfectly, just like later in the episode when Robert asks about, "Your bastard's mother..." when he says to Ned, "You never told me what she looks like." and Ned responds, "Nor will I." Brilliant stuff.
  22. He has seen the future. He saw the wildfire explosion under the Sept before it happened, and he's seen the shadow of a dragon over King's Landing - although that part could have been the past. I just think he doesn't know it's the future. And it might be possible futures....