Jump to content

John Meta

Members
  • Content count

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About John Meta

  • Rank
    Sellsword

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. John Meta

    Can Jon Get Burnt?

    He gets burned every time someone says "You know nothing Jon Snow"
  2. If you think that is bad, you should watch the Lord of the Rings. Frodo Baggins makes it from the Shire all the way to Mount Doom in about 5 hours. I know because I looked at the clock when he was leaving the Shire and it was 5pm. When he arrived at Mount Doom two movies later, I looked at it was 10pm. It was then I knew that all timing continuity in movies was out the window.
  3. John Meta

    Bran is the Night King

    I removed this post as it was irrelevant to the thread.
  4. All I can say about the title is that it's clearly describing the political positionings of people playing for power. What that says about the players I'm not sure. But it is a Song of Ice and Fire, and it seems to me to be alluding to oppositions which are requiring balancing for stabilization. I mean, it's not a Song of Fire beating Ice, or, vice versa. It's like, yen and yang. Winter and Summer. I don't think the end game is for one to eradicate the other, but to come into harmony in such final mutual resolution which creates a kind of synthesis. If I look at it I would see the balancing line as: Ice -> Night King -> Starks -> Lyanna -> Jon Snow <- Rhaegar <- Targaryens <- Lord of Light <- Fire I would be surprised if the end game is "Ice beats fire" or "Fire beats ice" but instead "Ice and fire" as we already see manifested in Jon Snow. He is to me the center of the story. The balance. We already see Jon as bringing union, such as to the once-bitter rivals the Watch and the Wildlings. I suspect he is instrumental in bringing about the end game union of ice and fire; the microcosmic union bringing into manifestation the macrocosmic union.
  5. John Meta

    Bran is the Night King

    They both do seem to be counterparts. But, elaborate on the clinking chains in first season; I've forgotten the scene - how do you connect the two? Is there simply the sound of clinking chains, and thus you connect the sound to the latest episode? Sounds interesting, but as said I've forgotten the scene.
  6. John Meta

    Bran is the Night King

    Not really, Night King can have precog abilities without being Three-Eyed Raven (which itself creates serious narrative problems; so it's like saying "There is a massive plot hole here if a theory that creates massive plot holes isn't true") - Night King is counterpart to Three-Eyed Raven, the story is based on counterparts: ice-fire. Lord of Light knows the future, does that mean Night King is Lord of Light? They are counterparts which need balanced. I'm fairly sure Three-Eyed Raven will be critical in this balance with Night King; just as Jon (ice+fire).
  7. John Meta

    Bran is the Night King

    Penance is when you do good to repay wrong. I would propose that the murder of thousands due to Long Winter and army building is the exact opposite of penance.
  8. John Meta

    Bran is the Night King

    Bran was touched, yes; but he did escape with ease. That's really the point. The theory rests on the Children catching Three-Eyed Raven. My problem with that is that they can't catch someone who can disappear in the blink of an eye. Without being able to catch him, can't tie him up and put obsidian into him. Plus, if the guy tied up is in fact the Night King, that guy is clearly not Three-Eyed Raven. He looks nothing like him, and is much older. The warg idea is trying to circumvent this problem but only raises serious narrative problems. One, why would Three-Eyed Raven possibly try to warg a man who is clearly being subject to uncertain procedures; two, the man's eyes show no sign of being warged; three, what would be the point? Four, why would Three-Eyed Raven warg when the result of Bran's warg was an ill-cause for Hodor's state? It doesn't make sense. And I would re-iterate that this is being written by writers whose goal is to end the series in a satisfactory way for a mainstream viewing audience, and unless they can pull it off in some really easy to follow and understand way, they're going to put off the majority of their mainstream audience. I just can't see any of this doing anything but creating a very contrived and difficult to follow - if not outright defiance of reason - narrative. And what would be the point? Three-Eyed Raven is trying to stop the Night King from ever being? That would create a self-contradictory paradox in which Three-Eyed Raven stops the Night King from being created, thus Three-Eyed Raven would never have to stop the Night King from being created, thus the Night King would be created, thus Three-Eyed Raven would stop him from being created, etc. The only paradox we have in the story is a self-sufficient and non-contradictory paradox in which cause-effect cannot be determined. Even if the writers were to say, whatever, we will just ignore the self-contradictory paradox; they would be introducing a serious contradictory paradox that would inevitably be decried by a huge swath of the viewing audience. And what is the Night King's purpose? To kill Three-Eyed Raven? Before Three-Eyed Raven wargs the past? That creates another self-contradictory paradox. If the writers again ignore it, then what happens if the Night King never was? Reality changes and everything is different? Is Night King killing Three-Eyed Raven after he wargs the past? To what end? Nothing would change. Night King just wants to die? Does Night King know he was Three-Eyed Raven? Then why murder thousands of people? Where is Three-Eyed Raven's morality? There are many more narrative problems in the theory, for sake of brevity, those above are issues with the theory.
  9. John Meta

    Bran is the Night King

    I don't think Three-Eyed Raven is the Night King. Some comments in here suggesting Night King wants to kill his younger self, but according to the rules that can't happen because "the ink is dry" - there's no way to alter the past. Also I'm not recalling anything onscreen showing Three-Eyed Raven trying to stop things from happening; correct me if I'm not remembering something. Problems with the theory is that Three-Eyed Raven can't be caught by Children of the Forest; he is not physically there, and I don't see how they could catch someone who is not really there. Night King touched him, but Bran just ended the 'vision' so he can just end a vision, don't see how he could be 'caught'. If he travels physically, same thing. How can a being that can disappear in time ever be caught? Some mention Three-Eyed Raven warging into the man caught by the Children and getting 'stuck' but there's no evidence to suggest such a thing could happen, and I don't think introducing such unexplained things would do anything but greatly complicate the narrative, and confuse a large portion of viewers. How does someone get stuck in a warg? It would need to somehow be explained, and set up; and I can't think of explaining 'stuck in a warg' with any kind of credibility narrative-wise. Three-Eyed Raven would already be able to know what was going to happen in the past, how can a man who see the past not know the past? Sets up a confusing narrative. The writers are surely going to tread safely in tying all this up, and avoid overcomplicated, and confusing narratives; I should think. I do think Three-Eyed Raven is the Lord of Light, and is a counterpart to Night King; but not the same person. We know Three-Eyed Raven can speak to people in visions, and that is what the Lord of Light does.
  10. Martin said that one difference between his story and archetypes is that in his story the evil isn't ugly (like orcs in LotR). Given that I don't think the Night King will technically be the bad guy everyone expects he is. I think it's more likely there won't be an "final villain" but will be a "final realization" that there isn't really any "final villain". I'm thinking at this point in time that the Night King is the ice and Dany is the fire in the song of ice and fire. Jon and Dany will become romantic; but in the end (probably through Bran) the Night King will make his purpose known, and it is that he has come for his "princess that was promised" and Dany will have to become the Night Queen, to fulfill some promise that was made. Jon will have to give her up. Jon being both ice and fire will be instrumental in bringing the two together in some way. The Night King started stirring at the same time as Dany, and as she moves north, he moves south. Ice and fire is a union, you might say, a marriage, of oppositions, and when the Night King gets his promised princess, balance will be gained. But whatever happens, I don't think there will be a "final villain" such as Sauron in the LotR.
×