Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cron

  1. Tom Brady does a number of things well, but his greatest strength is how quickly he gets rid of the bal (measured from the time the ball is snapped until the time the ball leaves his hand). He's able to do that because of a number of other things he does well. I've read entire articles about Brady's release time, and the numbers are absolutely stunning. As a side benefit, it allows him to greatly minimize sacks and hits he takes, which is what has allowed him to stretch out his career the way he has. It's also what makes Brady the best NFL QB of all time, and the same thing is what made Dan Marino the best NFL QB to never win a championship (Marino was far better than nearly every other QB who ever won a championship. In fact, if I could choose any QB from NFL history for my team, Brady would be #1, and Marino would probably be #2.) When a QB gets rid of the ball so quickly and commits so few turnovers, it takes enormous pressure off of everyone else around him.
  2. Ahsoka and Anakin are my two favorite characters from Clone Wars, so I'll gladly take whatever episodes I can get with one or both of them in it. Can't wait to see Ahsoka in live action on the big screen (movie theaters), and I'm sure it will happen eventually. She's an absolutely critical character in Star Wars canon (much more important than many other characters who are far more well known), so I think it's inevitable. Regarding the most recent episode: My understanding is that that was just the first episode of a 3 or 4 episode story arc for Ahsoka, so even though it may have felt like filler, I'm optimistic that the story will build in "meaningfulness" until we (hopefully) get a big payoff. Gotta have patience, and see where this leads.
  3. Well, I hear you, but my understanding is that the NBA is evolving into almost "positionless" basketball, where teams are increasingly just finding the five best players they can (almost irrespective of position), putting them out there and hoping it works. Would the Warriors like to trade Russell for a superstar Small Forward, Power Forward or Center? Probably, but I don't think that deal is even remotely likely to happen, and I really don't see a deal happening where the Warriors would get enough back for Russell at a different position to make trading him make sense. But hey, maybe I'll be surprised, as I have been surprised at times before (I didn't think the Pelicans would trade Anthony Davis to the Lakers, but they did, in a deal that I believe was terrible for the Pelicans. If I ran the Pelicans, I would have traded him to the Knicks for the #3 pick in the Draft, then taken RJ Barrett.) Yeah, I think Klay can do that. He's a great defender, and I think he's 6'6", isn't he? He'd be a bit undersized at SF, but not much. Well, like I basically said above, in theory that might be a good idea IF they could get a superstar in return at a different position, but I don't think they can get a player back at a different position who is better than Russell. I guess we'll see what happens, though. Seems like NBA rosters are pretty solidly set for 2019-2020. Theoretical trades are often fun to talk about, but I don't see Russell being traded unless the experiment in Golden State is a complete disaster and so they throw in the towel to rebuild. But hey, maybe I'm wrong.
  4. Embiid is a great player when healthy (which is not nearly often enough for his team), but not even the best player at his position, even when healthy In my opinion, no team in the NBA would take him over Paul George, Anthony Davis, Kawhi or LeBron. I understand you disagree about where Embiid ranks when he is healthy, and that's okay, of course, but if nothing else I think we should be able to agree that no NBA team would even consider trading George, Davis, Kawhi or LeBron for Embiid, even if for no other reason than that Embiid's injury history is horrendous. Regarding LeBron: I have been following his career very closely for many years (even more than nearly all NBA fans have done, I'd say). He is still the best player in the game, but he almost never goes full throttle in a regular season game anymore. Once the playoffs start, though, he's got gears that no other player except a fully healthy Kawhi might be able to match, though, and even then I'd take LeBron (because LeBron is so incredibly well rounded, and can make all the players around him better in a way that Kawhi cannot. For example, LeBron has taken quite a few very bad teamst ot he Finals, and nearly won. How many times has Kawhi done that? Zero.), Yes, this year will be different for the Clippers. They just added by far the two best players on their roster (Kawhi and PG). And they added them to a team that made the playoffs even without those two guys. This season is gonna be a great show to watch, no doubt. "If things come together for them" is a huge qualifier. Look, I'm not knocking the Sixers, they are clearly a very good team. But as I think I've said, I believe that in a matchup with the Clippers or Lakers in the playoffs, the Clippers and Lakers will both have the top 2 players in a series over the Sixers, and that's what really matters in the playoffs. But hey, don't get me wrong. A major point by me here is that I believe injuries will decide the NBA champ next year, as they so often do. We'll see. Curry and Draymond are both very good players, no doubt. (I'd take Curry on my team, but not Draymond, though. I believe Draymond brings a lot of downside, and in fact I've heard many people believe Draymond is THE reason Durant left. Oops.) Not sure why the Warriors would trade Russell, though. Didn't they just acquire him? I think he'll mesh fine with the rest of the Warriors, even when Klay returns, and yeah, I would agree that if the Warriors enter the playoffs fully healthy next year (including Klay) they could be a factor.
  5. Assuming all players are healthy, a matchup between Clippers and Sixers means the Clippers have BOTH of the best two players in the series (by quite a bit, given that one of them is Kawhi), and a matchup between the Lakers and Sixers means the Lakers have BOTH of the best two players in the series (especially given that one of them is LeBron)(. Sorry, but assuming all players are healthy, I'd say the Clippers and Lakers would both easily defeat the Sixers. (Remember in the playoffs, we have shortened rosters that play, and the Clippers and Lakers' top-heavy top 2 would be even more dominant). And the Clippers are inexperienced?? Uh, my memory is that were giving the fully healthy (including Durant) al they could handle this past posteason, and THEN they added Paul George and Kawhi Leonard. Oh, and by the way, the Sixers have some players with major injury histories, too. Warriors lost Durant and Iguodala. They made up for some of that loss in the offseason, but not even close to all of it. Not even close. Bottom line: I predict this season will be decided by which team can stay the healthiest (as so many seasons are), but all things being equal, Lakers and Clippers are easily head and shoulders above the rest. I
  6. I agree about Curry. We'll see how he holds up this year with Durant and Iguodala both gone. Yeah, the Warriors picked up some other talent in the offseason, but not enough to offset the loss of Durant and Iguodala, I think. I predict LeBron will be fine. He is one of the most durable players I have ever seen. Yeah, he's got a lot of miles on him, but he was at the top of his game last year before he got hurt with an injury that, so far as I know, did not even involve joints or tendons (I think it was muscle strain, and that stuff can heal up completely, I believe) It's going to be a fascinating season, though, no doubt. If they can all stay healthy, I think the Battle of L.A. may be the most intense rivalry (at least short term) in the history of sports, and I'll be rooting for the Clippers.
  7. Well, I hear you, but most NBA teams don't have any realistic chance to win a title even on opening day anyway. Clippers and Lakers are now both so stacked that if they are healthy I'd say no team can beat either of them except the other. Some stars and superstars are far more injury prone than others, though. Paul George, Kawhi Leonard and Anthony Davis all have severe injury histories, but LeBron does not, for example. Realistically, I'll be stunned if Kawhi, PG and AD all make it through this season without a major injury, and I think the NBA champ next year will be one of those two teams (Clippers or Lakers), so I think the title next year will be decided by injuries (or lack of injuries) among those three players: Kawhi, PG and AD.
  8. If I ran the Lakers, I wouldn't give Carmelo that money, either (even if I was a billionaire). I think he has the potential to be really disruptive to the Lakers, and they've got enough on their roster to win already. I believe if LeBron and AD stay healthy, they are as tough as any team in the NBA. If either one misses substantial time, though, they are toast. (Same is basically true for some other teams, too, of course, including the Clippers. If Kawhi and PG stay healthy, they'll go deep into the playoffs,maybe win it all. If not, they are in trouble.)
  9. I'm not sure why it might be a "problem" (as you say), but I believe you are correct that Starfleet is not military. That is explicitly stated more than once in Star Trek canon. (Also noteworthy is that we have seen future human military in Star Trek, and it is not Starfleet: It is the MACO's, or space marines, of Star Trek Enterprise, and it is clear they are under a completely different command structure from Starfleet.) I would agree with all of that, but I do think it adds up to a conclusion that Riker just wasn't ambitious enough to rise above where he was at during that time period. (Nothing wrong with that in my opinion, though, I like Riker fine as a character, even though sometimes he's a bit annoying, like when he's possessive of Deanna and jealous of other men she's with, even though HE (Riker) dumped HER (Deanna), but whatever. Janeway was a science officer, unlike any of the other major captains that I'm familiar with, including PIcard. I believe a viewing of Voyager from start to finish shows many instances where they rely on Janeway's brains far more than any other major captain that I"m familiar with (Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Archer). How often did Kirk, Picard, Sisko or Archer assist in other technical areas (science, engineering, medicine) under their command? To my memory, the answer is "almost never" (if not literally never), but Janeway assisted (or even led the way) in such matters on Voyager many times. By the way, I don't think it's so unusual to favor intelligent characters. Spock is incredibly popular from The Original Series, perhaps the most popular character from ToS. Why? I've always believed it's because he's super-smart, and logical (just like many Star Trek fans, who thus identify closely with him). Certainly, those are the reasons he is my favorite character from ToS. What else could it be? His ears? Vulcan nerve pinch? His winning personality? (Ha ha) I don't think so. And Spock is far from alone. Seven of Nine is extremely smart, and extremely popular too. Same for Data, Jadzia, The Doctor, Phlox, and others.
  10. I understand that many people view this differently than I do and I respect that Indeed, my guess would be that for most people, Kirk and Picard would rank VERY high on a list of all time favorite Star Trek characters. I get that, I really do. But I do not believe that all Star Trek characters are anywhere near the same level of intelligence, or that their intelligence (as portrayed) goes up and down as plot needs dictate. Let's say I were to ask you to rank the top 15 smartest Star Trek characters of all time. Are you saying you would not even know where to begin? In fact, we know a LOT about the background and capabilities of all the major characters, and they have different strengths and weaknesses. Are you suggesting that in any given episode, Worf or Tasha Yar (no offense to either, I like them both, but i picked them here because they were both relatively simple security officers) might be as smart or smarter than Data, Wesley Crusher, Spock, T'Pol, Seven of Nine, Julian Bashir, Jadzia Dax, The Doctor, Phlox, B'lanna Torres, Harry Kim, or Hoshi Sato? If so, then sorry, but I don't agree with that at all. For part of what you wrote, I think you answered your own question. It's not that I think Picard is below average intelligence for a human being. Oh no, not at all, not even close. Indeed, my opinion would be that among non-augmented humans, Picard would rank VERY high in intelligence. It's just that, in the competition for top 10 smartest Star Trek characters, Picard's competition ain't ordinary human beings, as you basically allude to above. Yeah. Androids, partial Borgs, Vulcans, super-enhanced human (Julian Bashir's intelligence is literally super human, he was genetically engineered for it; he also has other superhuman abilities, too, like reflexes and hand-eye coordination), and aliens like Jadzia who NOT ONLY was super-smart to being with, but also draws on numerous "lives" of life experience through the Dax symbiote. Regarding Harry Kim: The incident you mention was brought on by inexperience and naivete, not low intelligence. Tom Paris and Harry Kim become best friends in Voyager, but I believe anyone who knows them both would immediately say Harry Kim is far smarter (nothing against Tom Paris here, either. I like the Tom Paris character, I think he's cool, and as, arguably, the greatest pilot ever produced by the human race, he's got to have some smarts going on, but as with Picard, the competition here is VERY elite, and Harry Kim is on a very, very high level.) Possibly the most underrated intelligence in all of Star Trek: B'Lanna Torres. Her personality can be like nails on a chalkboard, but watch Voyager start to finish, and it will be seen that she is a major intellectual bad azz. She is often ahead of just about everybody else in figuring stuff out and solving problems of many different kinds. Mmm, with respect, no. My understanding is that Picard had ALL o the Borg technology removed, whereas for Seven of Nine, that is clearly not true. In early episodes after her initial appearance, The Doctor removed a lot of the Borg technology from Seven, but could not remove it all (because to do so would have killed her, because she had been Borg for so long). Indeed, we can see this just by looking at her face (in the form of her "ocular implant"). Further, there are MANY Voyager stories involving Seven's nanobots, which are still heavily present in her system. As such, Seven draws upon the knowledge of thousands of races, and has processing speeds and physical abilities FAR beyond a normal human. (Indeed, there is a Voyager episode that specifically states that Seven is likely the smartest human being who ever lived, at least out of humans generally known up to that point.) None of that is true for Picard, though, cuz he had it all removed.
  11. I think here are a lot of episodes in the first two seasons of Enterprise that are really bumpy, sometimes even awkward. Archer makes a lot of highly questionable (and I would even say "foolish") decisions that seemed really unrealistic to me (because I don't believe a captain with that personality would have been appointed to that ship, the first Warp 5 human ship, in the first place). And he does just about all of that stuff directly against the advice of T'Pol, a Vulcan who is obviously far smarter, wiser, and more knowledgeable about the galaxy than Archer. Also in those first two seasons, the writers were kind of experimenting with the characters to find out who they were, too, but I would strongly argue that the same is true of The Next Generation, too (re-watch the first season or two of TNG, and there's a lot of stuff like that in there, too, especially regarding Picard, who says a number of things that are flat out jarring, like shouting at Wesley to "Shut up, Wesley!") But the Xindi War (starting with the final episode of Season 2 of Enterprise) was awesome, I thought with the writers really hitting their stride. It starts with a huge bang in that episode, and almost never lets up, far as I'm concerned. But, different people prefer different stuff. If you watch it, let me know what you think. (I also thought that Shran, the Andorian, was really great during this run, too.)
  12. I tend to favor the smartest characters, and that list alone would bump Picard down quite a bit. Spock, Data, Wesley Crusher,, Seven of Nine, The Doctor, Julian, Jadzia, Phlox, T'pol, and Janeway (there are 10 right there) are all clearly much smarter than Picard, and I like them all better than Picard. (B'Lanna Torres and Harry Kim are both much smarter than Picard, too, but I guess it's not enough for me to rank them ahead of Picard) After that, just as a character, I find Kirk, Archer, Riker, Tom Paris, Q (who is far smarter than Picard in some ways, but not in others) to all be more interesting than Picard. Worf is really cool sometimes, but not at others. So, altogether, yeah, that's 15 just off the top of my head that I like more than Picard, and some others are really close. I think Garak from DS9 is a fascinating character (also another character smarter than Picard, too). I'd probably prefer a show all about Garak over Picard. Well, this might explain why I didn't think Season 3 of Enterprise stretched on too long: I binge-watched it all in FAR less time than it originally took to air (I watched it long after it originally aired). Out of curiosity, did you watch it as new episodes were being aired? If so, then I guess I could see how maybe that would seem to drag on for a long time (it does span 26 episodes, if I recall correctly, counting the last episode of Season 2, which clearly is the first episode of that run), Not many "filler' episodes in there, though, maybe 2 or 3, I think, so I thought the story moved along well because of that, too.
  13. Yeah. I like Picard as a character, but he would not be among my top 10 favorite Star Trek characters, maybe not even top 15. By the way, although I've only seen the 1st episode of Discovery (and thus i know very little about it), I've seen every episode of Enterprise, and there is excellent stuff in there, especially the Xindi War. If you want to see Enterprise at its best, I'd say start with the LAST episode of Season 2, then watch all the way to the end of Season 3. Fantastic stuff, on par with any other Star Trek I've seen, and better than most.
  14. Oh, are you saying Seven of Nine is in the new Picard show??? If so, the odds of me signing up for the CBS All Access just improved. I've seen all episodes from all Star Trek t.v. shows except Discovery, and Seven of Nine is probably one of my top 5 favorite Star Trek characters. If Data is on it, that would be cool, too. Bring back Wil Wheaton as Wesley Crusher, too. Potential in his storyline is literally unlimited.
  15. Seems to me you're trying to match up hypothetical future forces (including some not even formed and trained yet, and nearly all of whom were VERY far away except for the what was left of the Unsullied and Dothraki, which I'll address below) against Sansa's actual army, which was right there, at King's Landing, fully formed, organized, mobilized, and comprised of hardened veterans of the 3 wars you mentioned. In my opinion, there is no conceivable way such hypothetical future forces could have prevented Sansa from taking King's Landing; in fact her forces (along with what was left of the Unsullied and Dothraki) already did. Regarding whatever was left of the Dothraki and Unsullied: Their actual strength is highly speculative. They took massive losses in Episode 803 (The Long Night), and cannot bring up reinforcements (because other Unsullied are across the Narrow Sea and not loyal to Grey Worm anyway, and the Dothraki, as i understand it, ,pretty much all followed Dany to Westeros already). But can the North bring up reinforcements? Oh yeah, big time. They don't have to cross the Narrow Sea, and the North is huge, larger than all 6 of the other kingdoms combined. (Remember, the GoT series covers quite a few years. During that time, many young boys grew to fighting age in the North, I have no doubt.) Plus, of course, Grey Worm had no interest in more fighting in Westeros, he wanted to leave, and what did he care about whether the North belonged to the Starks or not??? It is unimaginable to me that he would care if the Starks held the North. And who is the "leader" of whatever was left of the Dothraki?? Nobody, far as I know, and I can't imagine why the Dothraki would care if Sansa is Queen of the North, either.. Plus of course, all the members of the council at the end agreed Bran would be best anyway, for a variety of different reasons. As such, these are basically the reasons I thought it was entirely plausible that the Starks got the North in the end, and it's not even just a matter of "might makes right," because as I've also mentioned above, I believe the Starks deserved the North and rightly won their independence, too.
  16. Regarding the request for elaboration: Sure, no problem. Under Bran's guidance, the NIght King was defeated. Pretty easy to forget about or overlook because so many fans thought it was anti-climactic, but ACTUALLY, the fate of the entire planet was at stake. Clearly victory over the Night King was a highly desirable outcome, for all of Westeros and Essos, and I hold the belief that Bran gave highly specific instructions for how the last battle between the Army of the Dead and the Army of the Living MUST be fought (beyond the limited information the show gave us, which was Bran telling them that he himself HAD to be used as bait in the Godwood, contrary to all the rest of their beliefs about what should be done). This would also explain MANY things we saw that otherwise seem to be strategic and tactical blunders that many fans have complained about in that episode (803). (Indeed, a re-watch of Season 8 will show that there are other clues that Bran was very closely and carefully manipulating events. Examples would include him giving the dagger to Arya, and not telling the others what Jaime had done to him, thereby ensuring that Jaime would be present, as needed.) So, what information were we given? Well, we already knew that Bran can see the future, so as long as we believe he's benevolent, it's a good idea to do what he says, even if it seems to make absolutely no sense, because Bran, so far as we know, cannot be wrong. He KNOWS, plain and simple. (Of course, all this presupposes that Bran actually IS benevolent. But as I have written about at length elsewhere, I am going to believe he is benevolent unless we are given contrary information, which I don't think we yet have. Are there theories that he has been corrupted somehow? Sure, but I think they are just theories, at least at this point.) I could write more about the above issues, but I think that's enough for now (I don't want to be a boor), and I'll try to briefly address another issue you raise, which is whether Bran "let" the massacre at King's Landing happen so that he would become king. There are many possibilities about this besides a theory that Bran has become corrupted and let hundreds of thousands of people get crossed off just so he could become king, even though he could have easily prevented it. Oee possibility is that Bran knew it was going to happen (indeed, we have strong reason to believe he DID know, based on the glimpses we saw him have of Drogon over King's Landing), but it is possible that he ALSO knew that in order for the Night King to be defeated, other things HAD to happen, too. How could that be possible? Well, I've already talked about my belief that Bran knew EXACTLY what needed to be done to defeat the Night King, and he did it, but perhaps he also knew that doing so would leave the "pieces on the chessboard" (my expression) in such a way that what happened at King's Landing COULD NOT be prevented, because there simply wasn't enough time, forces were already in motion and could not be stopped at that point. (Let's say you are Bran, and your powers tell you that you only have two choices: (1) The Night King wins, or (2) the Night King CAN be defeated, but the only path that leads to that ALSO has Dany doing what she did at King's Landing. Which would you choose?) Of course, it's also possible that there was NOTHING Bran could have done anyway, and Bran never had any choice at all (even the one I speculated about above). We have been told that "the ink is dry" (that's a quote, I 'm pretty sure Bran's predecessor 3ER told Bran that) on the past. Perhaps "the ink is dry" on the future, too, and if so that would mean that even if Bran knew what was going to happen, and that it would lead to him being king, then he also knew it couldn't be stopped and was GOING to all occur no matter WHAT he did. Here's another possibility: Bran can see multiple futures, and knows that all other alternatives are even worse than what actually did happen. For example, maybe Bran could have made changes to what was occurring even after the Night King was defeated, but knew that all alternate futures were even WORSE than Dany doing what she did. Are you familiar with "The Butterfly Effect"? It's possible that Bran knew that Dany COULD be stopped, but if he did it, then all possible alternative futures were even worse. A final note to anyone reading this: Yes, I'm well aware that some of the above theories and ideas are contradictory to each other. That's because I don't claim to know the truth for sure, because, as has been mentioned, we have been given SO little information about what is going on in Bran's head since he became the 3 Eyed Raven, and I 'm not a show runner or GRRM.
  17. I agree it would have been great to see all that stuff. Many people have complained that Season 8 was "rushed." But ultimately, I think this is what that really means: Lots of people (including me) wish we had gotten even more Game of Thrones than we did. Ideally, it would go on and on and on, with tremendous details, filling in all the blanks spaces along the way. Yeah, that would be cool, no doubt, but at some point the production meets "reality," and ends What they DID manage to give us, though (overall, over 8 seasons), was incredible, best t.v. show I've ever seen, so I try to stay focused on that, and give D&D credit for what they DID accomplish, which was nothing short of a worldwide entertainment and cultural phenomenon.
  18. It's not just Bran's knowledge of the past that is important (although that IS incredibly important). He also has knowledge of the present (or, if you like, at a bare minimum, the "very near past," so near that they are effectively current events) AND the future (which was absolutely vital to winning the war against the Night King Also, of course, Bran's lack of ambition and desire (as Bran said, he "doesn't want anymore") also make him singularly and ideally well suited to rule. This is theme we have been given multiple times in the series, especially in the Jon Snow storyline, but of course this is amped up even more dramatically in the case of Bran (since he "doesn't want, anymore") As a result, as long as he is benevolent, in my opinion Bran is by far the best choice to rule, with no one else even remotely close. (Regarding whether he is benevolent: There are theories that he has somehow been corrupted, but I don't believe the evidence is there to support that. Sure, he became mysterious and opaque after becoming the 3 Eyed Raven, but those mere facts do not necessarily make him evil. Also, don't forget, we have Bran's internal monologue (POV) from the books, where he is clearly fundamentally good, and we have been told that Bran becoming king is canon from GRRM.)
  19. To me, there are 3 reasons the North rightly ended up independent: (1) Bran approved it, and so far as we know Bran is by far the most qualified judge of what is best for Westeros. (I understand that is a most unsatisfying answer to a lot of people, but I still believe it to be true. That is the information we have been given, in my opinion) (2) The Starks sacrificed more and contributed more to the wars against the Night King and Dany than any other House, BY FAR. Therefore they get the biggest reward, and rightly so. (I could go on and on and on about the sacrifices and contributions by the Starks over the 8 seasons, with the biggest contribution of all being the combined efforts of Jon, Sansa, Bran and Arya in crossing off the Night King. That was quite a favor they did for Westeros. OH yeah, quite a big favor indeed. Dany contributed a lot too, but of course she had other issues, and her story ended much differently). (3) In the end, who had the power to stop Sansa?? By all means, let me know. At the end, Westeros was like Europe at the end of WW2, decimation of armies and populace all over the place, especially at the seat of power, King's Landing. The Northmen helped capture King's Landing and were right there during the aftermath (indeed, as I recall, Sansa made this very point at the council where power was divided), and the only other force that even might have challenged Sansa in battle at that point was what was left of Dany's army, which was about to depart with Grey Worm. In light of all of that, I found it very plausible and satisfying that the North ended up independent.
  20. Lotta stuff there, and I did read every word, even though I won't be able to conveniently reply to every word. I'll say this, though: My understanding is that we have no reason to believe Bran is bad. Yes, there's speculation about it, and there are theories about it, but there was also rampant speculation for years that Bran was the Night King himself, and now it looks like all of those theories were flat out wrong (although I do admit it's still possible Bran was/is the NIght King, it now seems extremely unlikely to me) The issues you raise about free will, fate, pre-determination, etc., are very complex (and would require a LOT of writing by me to respond to it all line by line), but I've not seen anything so far that would lead me to believe that Bran has had less tragic options available for him to consider yet chose a path that led to hundreds of thousands of innocent people being crossed off just because he wanted to be king. To my knowledge, we have NOT been given such information, and because all of the information we HAVE been given about Bran is that he is fundamentally good (both in his POV chapters in the books, where we actually get into his head, and in the show, based on his words and deeds), and so long as that is true I'm inclined to give him the benefit of any doubt rather than speculating that "well, maybe he's actually a bad guy," and then just assuming that is true. Regarding the Children of the Forest creating both the Night King and the 3ER: I'm not positive they created the 3ER (sounded to me like you're not positive about that either), but even if the DID create both, my understanding is that the Children of the Forest later regretted creating the NIght King and took steps to try to rectify that, AND note that ultimately the Night King and the 3ER (Bran) WERE opposed to each other, and Bran WON. Having said all that, I am not claiming it's impossible for Bran to be bad, just that I believe it's not consistent with information we've been given so far. Still, however, this is Game of Thrones, and I admit that nearly anything is possible. If a sequel is made and it turns out Bran has been corrupted, then I will accept that, and it may even turn out to be good story-telling (just as I accept Dany's turn to the dark side, or Anakin Skywalker's turn to the dark side, and consider all of that good story-telling even though it hurts to watch and I"m always still rooting for the "good guys," such as they are in Game of Thrones)
  21. Well, personally I would rather live in a Westeros ruled by Bran than any other character available for the job right now. He is extremely powerful, presumably beyond corruption (because he does not "want" anymore), and we have NO reason to believe he is anything but benevolent and good. I've heard theories that he has been tainted by his predecessor 3ER, but unless and until that is shown to be true, I'm going to assume he is good, because I think that is consistent with all other information we have been given.
  22. I don't believe Bran changed the past regarding Hodor. We have never been given a version of Hodor that does not include him being accidentally brain damaged by Bran. And yes, I agree, if anyone could warg a dragon I would think it would be Bran, but we've just not been given information that that is within even his powers. Personally, I like the fact that so much about Bran is still mysterious, and I'm very much looking forward to more about him being revealed in the sequel, when it is eventually made (and yes, I said "sequel," and "when" it is eventually made. Even though only prequels are in various stages of production, I consider it absolutely inevitable that a sequel will eventually be made, and that Arya, Brand and Sansa will all play huge roles. Probably Jon and Dany, too, for that matter, as I believe Dany WILL be resurrected.)
  23. Yes, and my understanding is that Bran's limitations involve the intelligence of the creature (including possibly humans) that he is trying to warg. Even relatively unintelligent humans are extremely difficult (and dangerous) to warg, which is why, so far as I know, Bran is the only Greenseer to ever achieve it, even with a relatively simple mind like Hodor's. Further, as I mentioned above, as I recall dragons in ASOIAF are NOT at a level of intelligence like other ordinary animals (such was wolves, birds, dogs, cats, whatever). My understanding is that dragons are of much higher intelligence than such animals, possibly even more intelligent than humans.
  24. Please see my Reply to Mystical, above, for some of the issues you raise. Regarding warging Drogon: My understanding it that it is extremely difficult to do that with a creature of higher intelligence (such as another human), and my understanding is that dragons in ASOIAF are of much higher intelligence than other animals, possibly even including humans.
  25. My strong assumption is that either: (1) Bran's ability to change the future using his knowledge of future events is very limited, if it exists at all, or (2) Bran has seen many possible futures, and knows that all other options would have turned out even worse. It's difficult to know for sure about stuff like this, though, because Bran is such a mystery, because we are given SO little information about his powers and what is going on in his head after he becomes the 3ER. However, I saw nothing in the show that would lead me to believe that he was a bad guy who would allow perhaps a million people to get crossed off just so he could become king, whereas we WERE giving information that he knows certain things MUST be acertain way (for example, when he said their plan against the Night King had to include Bran himself being used as bait in the Godswood. Superficially, that made no sense, but Bran knew it HAD to be that way, and sure enough, we have confirmation that he was right, because the Night King was in fact defeated.)
  • Create New...