Jump to content

Vaith

Members
  • Posts

    659
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vaith

  1. Interesting theory video from LmL just went up about the Night Queen possibly being a villain and going more into the origins of the WWs and reorienting it away from the general boring-ness of the show version of the Others. Definitely one of the more interesting plot ideas, but I still think it's a character-centric ending that Kit has envisioned for his Jon.
  2. He grew up with the show, and has learned a lot over the last few years personally, just looking at his experience with rehab. I'll judge him when he does have a track record as a creative. For now I'll have the benefit of the doubt. Obviously I'd ideally want the slate to be wiped clean on the D&D continuity as soon as possible, but there's an argument to be made on Kit's possible take on a show that might wrestle with the legacy of GoT on some level. And right, I don't know if characters needed could come back. For one, Isaac Hempstead-Wright would be needed at the very least unless they want to kill him off-screen. Isaac has been in I think one movie but seemed to want to pursue science over acting after growing up in the industry. I do think Hivju would return though (the living character geographically closest to Jon) as he clearly had fun playing Tormund.
  3. I hope that if it's Kit's idea, it's very much getting closure and redeeming his character. He has spoken about dealing with alcoholism, depression and going to rehab, and the notion that he couldn't play Jon Snow again being apart from that. Maybe it's a way for him to reclaim "his" Jon from Benioff and Weiss. Knowing Kit I'm going to be charitable to him and assume it's something like that rather than 'Game of Thrones Season 9'.
  4. Going to be hard to be hate-watch something if it doesn't turn out to actually be bad. Maybe people are confused about the cast now (that's fine, the story's not out yet - a lot also found it hard to put names to faces early in GoT) but that likely won't be the case after the show communicates a likely timeskip where the actors are replaced I also don't really want to believe in a conspiracy of HOTD being popular rather than a lot of people at least intrigued by what a fresh new take on the setting would be
  5. I wonder if Rose Leslie may return as Ygritte in new dreams or visions. If it's her husband's projects she's likely to want to support him in some way. Also more likely we will see Val or Discount Val. I don't really think HOTD is failing. The numbers on trailers alone is pretty good, and it hasn't even aired yet. HBO has always been upfront on the possibility of working on multiple spin-offs at once.
  6. I like it: make it a good show by leaning into the ridiculousness and making it so bad it's good. Cersei's back and she has a machine gun. There is a Britney Spears concert in King's Landing
  7. Popping back in here for the first time in 2 years to share the news from the GoT news section that Emilia Clarke has confirmed the Jon Snow spinoff... We will never be free, will we? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-61896580
  8. Just saw the BBC article. Wow lmao. This is so bizarre.
  9. At this point a lot of people are definitely speculating 'Season 9' rather than a Jon spin-off specifically. Season 9 would be an interesting if messy idea though - imo no-one can make the way the show ended seem good, but if a bunch of actually skilled writers handled it... could it paper over the cracks enough for a casual audience? I also think the far future is off-limits. At that point, you'd have all the messiness of the way GoT ended to deal with, and none of the fanservice. So much easier to pick something that happened in the past that there's at least some vague outline for in TWOIAF. Would the hook be 'Westeros with guns'? I'm also not that worried about HOTD underperforming, really - both of its teasers and trailers so far were very popular. It likely won't become the exact same cultural giant that GoT was, but it'll perform very well.
  10. I'm very uncertain if Kit Harington would even come back for this. After eight seasons, a lot of actors seemed exhausted, and were on the verge of being typecast. Harington has a bunch of other projects, and I do think he'd need to be paid a huge amount to consider even coming back. From what I have heard about the way the rights were sold, HBO also couldn't order some sequel like this without Martin's approval. From what I was hearing even back in 2019 (about the spin-off pitches they were considering even in 2017), no sequels were considered: even something like an Arya sequel, which would have had more hooks to play with and more foreshadowing. Since then, the backlash to the last seasons makes it unlikely they'd want to play with the future of a timeline most people disliked rather than being able to tell stories that aren't connected. While I don't think it's a "marketing stunt", there's something fishy about this, and I would not be surprised if this just fizzled away or we got a clarification that it's definitely not happening.
  11. Sansa chapters have the white stag as a symbol of a good hunt, but you know, after thinking about that, there are interesting connections. The real white stag has symbolic roots in Celtic mythology, arguably closest to the First Men. White is connected with the Celtic Otherworld... perhaps Aegon II slaying the stag would be symbolic of the king's duty to eventually launch a campaign against the White Walkers/Others? Age always seemed like a credible explanation and I'm surprised F&B didn't explicitly state that. Ten years is pushing it if the woman is older, though obviously Rhaenyra/Aegon II could be an exception, but perhaps Viserys wanted to have an heir-to-the-heir sooner due to political concerns or prophecy concerns, yes. That could work, yes! Though the issue then for me is why the static ASOIAF world had no other cadet families from the Gardeners (aside from likely the Oldflowers and the earliest legendary descendants), the Durrandons (aside from perhaps the Wensingtons), the Martells, the Lannisters (the existing cadet branches apparently go back to Lann the Clever with none more recent getting their own lands), the Arryns, the Starks only having two cadet houses in millennia... But hey, that explanation would be interesting at least for the Targaryens.
  12. Another story element from @The Dragon Demands's video is that I do think the "Aegon I" plot element is very interesting, and certainly deepens the character a lot. It adds a surprisingly understandable twist of why revoking an heir's right to the throne after making a big announcement and proclaiming it in a public way has huge downsides - even if you are now just favoring a son over a daughter. (I think Viserys would have made missteps, but with these two elements it does seem like he reconsidered the succession issue with sincerity). I can also see the 'Aegon I' part feeding into future story beats such as: the mysteries of Jace at Winterfell, the 'generous terms' from Alicent, and Alicent's second offer in the Brothel Queens incident. I also can very much buy the idea of additional magic at this level, stuff that didn't make it into F&B or TWOIAF: not only would it be a family secret, but something omitted due to maester bias/conspiracy. After all, the rate of this sort of thing in the Dunk & Egg adjacent characters is suspiciously common compared to Targaryen characters whose lives have only been described in Citadel histories.
  13. I think I'll dislike anything involving time travel. I've hardly ever seen time travel work well as a plot device in stories where the premise hasn't clearly involved time travel from the outset.
  14. To return to the original hypothetical, I am not really sure how Sansa is supposed to factor into this. If they are still in the frenzy of killing as they did to the Lannisters in this scenario, either they kill Sansa as a member of the court without bothering to check who she is or as the daughter of the Usurper's dog. Or stop themselves if there are people who understand the complexities of Robb's independence war and can make her into their own hostage for leverage. I don't think Sansa could ever marry Rhaego without some very complex political circumstances. To begin with, she's ten years older than him - a future bride for Rhaego would likely be someone who isn't even born yet, a daughter of Willas/Garlan/Arianne perhaps. Even if a Stark marriage is required it would make most sense for Rhaego to marry Robb's daughter over Sansa. I suppose the big question is what the Dothraki occupation would look like long-term, since we never really saw it take off. Would they just be a launchpad for a Targaryen restoration and agree to retreat, or would they wish to impose themselves and their ways on Westeros, such as a Dothraki-Westerosi mix of leaders such as the Ilkhanate, or even a Dothraki ruling elite like Yuan China? It's a different story than the one we have so I'm really not sure where to go with this idea.
  15. We have a https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Blood_of_Dragons page and a https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire_Roleplaying page, so they could be shifted over to that. I will try to delete as many pages in that category then, but I think there are also a few House/location pages made also associated with the game, but I think they can be found thanks to the template.
  16. I have removed the pages for the MUSH. Was not sure about the Telltale articles, but I am fine with them going if that's the decision. I saw that the wiki had articles on some but not all, so thought it would be in line with things to add more. If all Telltale material is to go, then https://ttgot.fandom.com/wiki/Telltale's_Game_Of_Thrones_Wiki could be linked on the main page about the Telltale game, and/or on the "Derived works" article. If there is a rule of some kind of including characters only directly cast or mentioned, that's also fine I think. https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Category:Characters_from_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire_Roleplaying was also added recently to cover an adapted work, so that may also have to be removed depending on what people think.
  17. On polygamy: yes, I consider it the most likely option as Lyanna and Rhaegar's marital status. However, I also agree that it was something that was not practised by even Targaryens at that point. Would Rhaegar care about that, though? Probably not, he was fixated enough on prophecy that he didn't care about Elia's health. And given that Tyrion could find a drunken septon to marry him and Tysha, someone out there is going to marry Rhaegar and Lyanna without asking any further questions. This makes Jon an ambiguous heir. Was the marriage valid? Depends who you ask: people will say yes if someone wants to make that claim by force, and no if someone else is actively trying to dispute that claim. It would mean there is no one "true heir", which I think jives with Martin's statements that are critical of some true lost heir archetype, and feeds into the "power resides where men believe it resides" concept.
  18. I've never understood the claim that "not remembering" in that context means "not thinking" at all. Even if Rhaegar wasn't the biological father of his nephew/adopted son, I'd find it pretty hard to believe that the guy who, without a doubt, kidnapped your sister shortly before her death would never ever cross your mind. Or the dead crown prince who was a pretty big player in the war. All in all it is a pretty trivial quote that has been milked to death so that naysayers can use it to represent their own theories.
  19. Lord Estermont seems to already have many male heirs from previous marriage(s). It is highly unlikely that the Lord of Estermont would also become Knight of Spottswood if Eldon and Sylva have children. It is probable that the children may be considered Santagars. We don't know who Anders Yronwood's wife is, she may be from a house where dark hair is common. So it feels somewhat baseless to say she is illegitimate simply based off her features. If Delonne Allyrion has no other children, then it makes sense that she would want her son's children to be considered Allyrion. While, at the time of Ynys's marriage, she had other siblings that could take up Yronwood. The World of Ice & Fire app lists Gwyneth as heir to Yronwood in the wake of Cletus's death, so it is likely that Ynys was in fact disinherited as a result of her marriage into House Allyrion, rather than the Yronwoods following male-preference succession.
  20. And the problem is that not a single Dothraki, as far as I can recall, says anything to Dany after the Khals' death. No line about them being uneasy to cross the sea, nothing. They're a complete monolith, and it seems like Benioff & Weiss were desperate to get rid of them: as if, at the beginning of Season 7, they noticed that Dany could beat Cersei in 2 seconds with her armies, and needed to find a way of her dumping them and prolonging her attack on King's Landing (neither a siege or a controlled attack is "humane"? Okay...) But yeah, a lot of the Dothraki there were not helpless commoners looking for a liberator. It would be like if a lord's widow lit a room with all the most important rulers of Westeros on fire and all the knights and petty lords bowed down instead of killing her on the spot. If she defeats them on the field of battle with a dragon, sure, a lot would probably think it best to bend the knee (and to the Dothraki that would be actual martial strength). Imagine being a Dothraki rider in show-Dany's army. She kills all your culture's leaders with a brazier, makes you promise to commit ritual suicide if she dies, takes you on a sea you're deadly afraid of, you're sent on a couple of battles, go to the freezing north and see most of your culture get sacrificed to fight zombies. Then after your Khaleesi dies you decide not to commit suicide but her brilliant and fair rule just makes you forget the years you spent capturing slaves and you volunteer to liberate the Free Cities. One of them smirked, drank wine, and wore a textbook Evil Queen black dress. The other had epic music playing in the background, and she made a cool speech on a dragon. That makes all the difference!
  21. I think they were planning to do a story of "what if the Confederacy survives to 2020 (or 2016 or whenever it would've been)" as it mentioned two more Civil Wars. Probably where there were still slaves, which doesn't take into account that it would have eventually become defunct due to industry anyway, as slavery had been abolished in all countries in the Americas by 1890. At the very most you could do some modern apartheid state and/or exploring a world where the US had been more limited about what they could do in foreign policy, etc. It's the reason why Man in the High Castle is set only 20 years after WWII: because a fascist society can only sustain itself for so long, and so that we can see characters who fought in the war/lived before the war, etc.
  22. I find that Twitter etc. is auto inserted with a link. I'm not a Dany-hater, but I always thought that the killing of the Khals was handled... very bizarrely. The logistical implications weren't that great. Would they respect her for killing them by burning down the temple with the brazier? It seems like a pretty treacherous act that would have had the kos and bloodriders cut her down the minute she stepped out of the temple. In terms of what it implies about the character, she did have a pretty easy out, as Jorah and Daario had just turned up before she turned them down and decided to still kill the khals. However, this could have been fixed if they didn't retcon the ADWD ending. Having her kill the Khals with Drogon would have made far more sense and I honestly don't know why he wasn't there apart from them wanting to have two "epic Dany" moments with the speech she gave on Drogon's back. But at the end of the day, it does come down to one thing: marketing! Dany is the good guy, except when she doesn't bother to brush her hair and do her makeup. Then she's #MadQueen and all her actions that have been praised by the show become bad. At the same time, Cersei was a sympathetic woman who was being put down by Kevan because she was a woman, and competently handled the political situation for the most part (she didn't even kill the High Septon or falsely accuse Marg of adultery, she perjured herself). But then at the end of Season 6, she shed her exoskeleton and became Evil Queen who extracted a septa to torture her and killed everyone. Once Dany was the #MadQueen, Cersei reverted into that poor sympathetic woman who didn't want her baby to die. Arya is cool, Stannis isn't, so the standards are different there. Their modern/real-world approach to Westeros has been apparent since Season 2, where Talisa, a foreign healer, lectures Robb about his bad policy about who should sit on the Iron Throne and is rewarded with love and marriage, not viewed as insolent (that character is a plucky WWII nurse, not a Volantene noblewoman who is in the Riverlands for whatever reason). And yes, Tyrion hasn't been allowed to be anything less than saintly since the end of the trial (even that was probably only there for plot reasons). All I can say is: thank God that HBO cancelled the 2 D's "Confederate" show.
  23. Ronnel Penrose is listed as Lord of Parchments, but I do not see any reference to that in The World of Ice & Fire. We cannot assume he is just because he married a princess (in fact, given Elaena's soiled state and her abrupt first marriage, a marriage to a non-lord might even make sense...) All the information we have is that Elaena married Daeron II's master of coin (from the Baelor I section) and his name was Ronnel Penrose (from the family trees). I do not see any mention of a lordship. Edit: Now I do see the mention of him being a "good and noble lord", although lord does not necessarily mean lord of his house depending on the context, and small council members may be considered honorary lords, like Varys.
  24. I think D) would be the most convenient for me. Possibly opt-in?
×
×
  • Create New...