Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Haskelltier

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Haskelltier

    The Iron Throne Episode script is out

    I am not that pessimistic with the next generation of Starks. Maybe Sansa don't want to marry right away, but she is young (should be around 20 at the end of the show) and can change her mind in 5 or 10 years. And even if she never marries, she can take a powerless lover (like the Mormont women with their bears), get as many children as she want (as bastards) and legitimize them. Since there are no close related Starks with a better claim to the throne than her legitimized children, that should work well. And should Arye change her mind or come back, Sansa might legitimize and/or take a child of Arya as heir. And in the books, the chances are even better, since Sansa won't marry Ramsay Bolton and Harry Hardying might not be a loyal husband, but he shouldn't rape her or do similarly bad things. Yes she was used by the Lannisters and by Littlefinger, but I don't think that that matters a lot when she is queen and is in charge (at least a powerless lover should always be an option).
  2. Haskelltier

    [Poll] How would you rate episode 806?

    Stannis claim to the throne is based on him being Roberts legitimate heir. So it is expected of him to pay for the debts his brothers accumulated during his reign. If he refuses to pay, he will get more trouble finding other persons, who want to lend him money, and he will lose reputation. „If a king doesn't pay the debt he has inherited, he might do the same with his other duties as a liege.“ And since Stannis' only positive traits are his combat experience and that he his a just person, that would give other people less reasons to follow him. In addition to that: Should he win the throne, its very unlikely to happen without additional battles in and around Kingslanding. That means destruction in and around the city and the Red Keep. To repair this damage, he would need a lot of money relatively fast and that means borrowing it.
  3. Haskelltier

    Dany CAN (And Shall???) Rise Again!!!

    HBO wants to do a prequel first. If they invest a lot of money into it and the prequel doesn't pay of, because of how they ended Game of Thrones, a new try (with maybe a sequel) might take some time. And even if we get a sequel after the prequel, there exists no guarantee, that it is a direct continuation of the story of Game of Thrones. Especially with the garbage ending of Game of Thrones. I think nobody wants to fix the mess D and D left. My problem with vengeful, undead Dany is: Such a character would be rather boring. Yes, undead Dany wants to slaughter Jon (who broke her heart and killed her) and the people of Westeros, hurray, what an interesting character and what an interesting plot with lots of potential for character development (I hope the irony is clear). One more problem the new showrunners would have to deal with. Vengeful Dany without the one person she was in love with and who killed her, would be a big loss plotwise and for character development. Well, first we will get a prequel. That will take at least 5 years until that is done (even if it flops and is cancelled after 2 or 3 seasons). And even if HBO ist quick with the decision to do a sequel, GRRM would take some time writing a good plot (look how long he takes to write his books) and getting everything rolling. Would I watch it? I would be interested how George would fix the mess D and D left behing. But without major changes, you won't get a good story with an interesting plot out of the end of season 8. I am certain you can make a lot of money with the world GRRM created. But I don't think that you need the surviving characters to do so. You can do historic stuffs, for example when the Andals came to Westeros or stories from the Age of Heroes. If you want battling dragons, you can do the Dance of the Dragons. And Essos is full of mysterious and interesting regions and cultures you can use for a good story.
  4. Haskelltier

    Dany CAN (And Shall???) Rise Again!!!

    I don't think there will be a sequel taking place in the near future of the end of Game of Thrones. After the garbage D and D called session 8, the World of Westeros is in an implausible, ridiculous state and I really don't want more sessions with more of that. In addition to that they would have to cast a lot of the original actors of the remaining characters. That would cost a lot of money and you need a silver tongue to get everybody on board. Alternatively you have to recast actors, who definitely don't want to continue. And you have to hope that the viewer will be okay with that (especially if there are main characters, who have to be recast). And you need a lot more plot for a good story. Only vengenceful Dany isn't enough for more than one or two sessions. So you have to create a good story on the mess D and D left behind after session 8. And I don't know if that is possible and if I could motivate myself to watch the results of that process. And vengeful undead Dany isn't a good story to begin with (at least in my opinion). So why should anybody want to tell this story and burden himself with the mess D and D left behind when you can tell a good story in the not so near future of Game of Thrones (with more freedom in what to do or not to do, with new characters and so on)?
  5. A plausible reaction. And I would bet, that Cersei or whoever rules in Kings Landing will stimulate those thoughts by spreading propaganda. A foreign invader with an army of ruthless slaves (freed slaves, but who knows the difference) and murdering, raping and pillaging barbarians with two very dangerous and deadly dragons. That will make it very difficult for Daenerys to find allies or rule after conquering the continent.
  6. Yes, these are definitely interesting developments and I look forward how these will end in the books. There are many possibilities for interesting stories and thats one thing I like about the book. There seldom is one way to go and the protagonists have to choose between different paths based on limited information with their own advantages and disadvantages.
  7. I don't have a problem with Daenerys turning mad, the crucial point is how it happens. If its done in a plausible, believable way, thats okay. The showrunners didn't manage to do that and thats bad. George could very well do it in his books.
  8. I don't see any trick here. When I look at Daenerys, I see a promising ruler with revolutionary ideas, who has a lot of problems to solve to implement those ideas. And there are moments in which she acts cruelly and brutally. So Daenerys is a gray character (and thats good, because white or black characters are often boring) and she definitely shows signs that she could committ mass-murder under the right circumstances. So are her good deeds pointless or nonsensical? No, in the contrary, they add to her character development and and make her an interesting character. Isn't it a tragedy if a promising person with well meant ideas ends up the opposite way?
  9. In this particular case, its not really difficult to separate the books from the show. The book-plot is very good in contrast to the show-plot, which was full of holes and implausible actions, bad dialogues and badly done character development. I don't see that happening. The expectations would be very high, all viewers (not only the book readers) know the story. Ned's beheading, the red wedding and so on wouldn't shock so many viewers. Investing multiple billions of dollars under these circumstances would be really risky. An animated adaptation would be possible. Like Avatar for example. With a very good story and all the freedom and possibilities you get from animation, you can deliver a nice plot with well written characters, dragons, huge battles with dragonfire and so on and you won't need billions of dollars for actors, CGI and so on.
  10. Possible. But who knows what will happen with the now lordless lands of the Boltons. Sansa could keep them under her own direct control or she could give them to a distant Bolton-offspring, she could divide the lands between other lords in the North or raise an able commoner into lordship. Or she could pardon Jon given time and make him Lord of the Dreadford (would be a nice parallel to the way House Karstark was founded). That the Manderlys were and are very important bannermen to the Starks should be obvious (more obvious in the books than the show). And she could definitely take a lesser Manderly as husband who will take her name in return.
  11. Haskelltier

    The North is finally independent

    Thats only one side of the coin. Yes. there were good Targaryen rulers, who did all these things. But there were almost as many bad rulers, who caused civil wars like the Dance of the Dragons, rebellions like the Blackfyre Rebellions by legitimating bastards on the verge of death. There were cruel rulers like Maegor, mad rulers like Aerys. pious rulers like Baelor, too, who did more harm than good. In the way the novels were written its clear that George doesn't favour killing, pillage, rape and destruction. I think a lot of people don't favour that. But that doesn't mean that those things don't happen (in the real world and the world George created). And its very difficult to change those things. Jon's short time of command and Dany's attempt to abolish slavery are examples of that. And they were told in a realistic, plausible way. That is how it is in the real world too. Fundamental changes aren't easily done and success isn't guaranteed.
  12. Because it means more power for Sansa and there was always a more or less hidden antipathy of Northern Lords against Southern Rulers since Aerys killed of Rickard and Brandon Stark. They couldn't identify themselves with kings like Renly or Stannis or Jofrey, who weren't concerned about the North and its problems/hardship. So getting independence means that these concerns were settled. They will start with the current laws they had under the Targaryens and Robert. But they will change laws they seem fit to change and maybe will create a very different set of laws in future generations. But thats a long process. If there is no law against that, nobody can stop him, not even a king (without causing conflict). Well, I think Tyrion mentioned, that the wall is a good place to get rid of criminals and its a way for people to reject king- or lordship without the fear that the next one in the line of succession with the weaker claim kills you to be safe. So the South might continue sending criminals and so on to the wall. But they won't supply the Wall with food and other goods. But to be true, Southern Lords or Kings didn't do that before (regularly at least; yes, there were exceptions like Good Queen Alysanne). Trade between the Wall and the South will be possible like before. She can marry somebody who takes the Stark name. Then their children will be legitimate Starks. But yes, dying childless is a major problem Sansa has to solve.
  13. Haskelltier

    The North is finally independent

    At least the small "Great Council", which elected Bran, had to know some part of his story and abilities. Or else there would be no good reason to chose Bran and not for example Edmure. You simply have to ask the question "Why should anybody south of the Neck elect a young cripple from the North to be there king?". Nobody knows him (except maybe Lord Royce, the other Starks obviously and Sam and Brienne, who are no acting Lords and therefore shouldn't play a big role at that council; but the show is lazy and full of plotholes, so lets ignore that) and there are uncountably many other persons who they know better. Okay, he had a hard childhood, but thats no good reason. Bran being the Three-Eyed-Raven with all his powers would be the only reason to chose him. But on the other hand, who wants to have a liege lord, who can literally look at everything you did in the past? As you can see, the show didn't deliver a plausible explanation for Bran becoming king (at least in my opinion). So, who knows.
  14. Haskelltier

    Theory: Book Jorah kills Jon

    You claimed that Jorah will kill Jon in the book and that the showrunners didn't want that. Well, then I claim Jon will be hit by a coconut (alternatively one of the dozens "more important non-POV characters" will kill him) in the books and the showrunners didn't want that. So, yes, maybe Jon will die (a second time) in the books and the showrunners changed that, but that doesn't mean it has to be Jorah killing him. In the first five books they don't even know that the other one exists. Jon might be Daenerys nephew (which is not confirmed in the books, only hinted), but thats all. I don't know how George will tell the rest of the story, will they meat, will they fall in love, will Jorah live long enough and be there when that happens? Maybe or maybe not. He gave Longclaw back to his father when he went into exile. And Jeor gifted the sword to a man who saved his life in a heroic act only very few would have done similarly. Thats all (yes, Jon overinterpreted that too, but in the end, Jeor only wanted to thank Jon for what he did). Will Jorah like Jon? Probably not, because there are very few other people, he likes. I could, but I really don't care why the showrunners did things the way they did and why they did some last minute changes. The overall story was a big mess. And I won't overinterpret what they did. Well, seeing your loved one massmurder a whole city without good reason might change that. He is heavily invested into her, but that doesn't mean he will follow her blindy and will accept everything she might do. My point is, that symbols and metaphors in generall don't have to mean a lot. Yes, some are used to characterize people, but I would be careful to unterstand them to literally. Its definitely a possibility and at least as likely as your theory. Thats the point. It would be rediculous. You compared Jon with Rhaegar Targaryen and Jorah with Robert Baratheon, because there was one situation in their lives, which fitted into your argumentation. But you ignored the fact, that the rest didn't fit. You can find a lot of those small situational comparisons between any two characters of the story, that doesn't proof anything. The point is, you are building your theory on quicksand. It might happen as you said, all your comparisons, analogies and assumptions might be correct, but it don't have to and there are literally dozens of other ways (equally plausible) to end this story without Jorah killing Jon. No, I'm not. I only said, that your argumentation is very fragile and miles away from good evidence or facts. A good fan fiction, which might come true, but probably won't.
  15. Haskelltier

    Theory: Book Jorah kills Jon

    I don't really know what the showrunners intended. Once I thought that they wanted to deliver a well written, believable story. But almost everything the showrunners had to write themselves was bad or worse. Beginning with everything that happened in Dorne after Oberyns death or Littlefinger/Sansas idea to merry Sansa to Ramsey Bolton. That was simply bullshit, I don't know how anybody could come up with that crab. So I don't really know, what the showrunners wanted at the end of this story. I personally think, that they wanted to be over with it as fast as possible and they took the hollywood way (action, spectacle, nice pictures, CGI with cringy dialogue and a plot that had more holes then a net). Yes, you found one hole, but thats only one out of uncountably many. Jon could be hit by a falling coconut and die and that wouldn't be a fan service Stark ending, so will he be hit by a coconut in the books? There are many people who might kill Jon in the books. Jorah is one of them and not the likeliest. It's hard to tell what the showrunners wanted or changed lately. The whole story/plot was so bad, it might as well been their original plan and the best they could come up with. I got the impression, that he was a loyal servant to Daenerys and lost his life following that task. That at least was relatively clear in the show. He went North of the Wall with Jon and Tormund, because Daenerys needed a proof (yes, that was bullshit, but that is what the show wanted desperately to sell to the viewer) and nobody couldn't/wanted to do it exept him (okay Jon volunteered later, but Jorah was the first, because he wanted to serve his queen). He hated the Starks equally at the beginning of the show. And I think that even Jorah wasn't so delusional to think that the Starks caused his breakup with Lynesse. His marriage had serious problems well before he sold the criminals and before Ned knew about his crime. I think the reason is the deciding factor here. In Astapor she freed slaves and ended slavery there (or at least tried to, given what happened after that). If she simply massaceres innocent people, even loyal Jorah might question his queen. I don't know. I think he knows somewhere that Daenerys doesn't love him. He hasn't realized that to this point in the story, but that might change. And Robert Aryn is a falcon, does that mean he will take wings any moment and fly? If Daenerys commits massmurder in the books too, that might change. Or he himself might kill her, when he realises what an evil person she became. Of Robert Baratheon. Does that mean, Jorah will be king of the seven kingdoms, because Robert killed Rhaegar and became king after that. Or are you only searching for small bits and pieces, which fit into your argumentation, and ignoring the rest? I don't know how George will end his story. Maybe he comes to a similar end on a very different route (or at least I hope that it will be a very different route, because the route the show took was very bad) and that'll change your opinion. Maybe you are right, but in my opinion this theory isn't very likely.