Jump to content

Mystical

Members
  • Posts

    774
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mystical

  1. They would have Arya, of all people, be the one to support this disgusting storyline in universe? Sansa's own sister? Wasn't it bad enough when they used Maisie Williams in S5 interviews to support this storyline? Lets not forget that the only reason she got fired was because she started demanding to get the same things all the other actors got who had equal screentime.
  2. The problem is that there have to be so many sub points in his will, he could never account for every possibility. Lets say Jeyne is pregnant (and really that's the only importance of her in the story if GRRM was truthful about her playing a big part), then that child would be the heir. However that child won't be of use to anyone until over a decade later. So Robb would have to name someone to rule in the child's stead until it comes of age. Then there is the added problem of the possibility of the child being female. Martin has been clear about there never having been a female Stark who ruled in her own right (I'd love to debate the mathematical improbability of that with GRRM but he doesn't do science so whatever). So even if Robb had a child, if that child is female it's useless for the line of succession anyway. Just ask Serena Stark. The will was also made under false assumptions. Sure Robb made it under what he currently knew as the truth but we all know different. And we also know that certain people are aware of the falsehood of said truth. The clansmen know about Bran and Wyman knows about Rickon. Then there is Arya, both real and fake. Jeyne hasn't been outed yet to all the northern Lords as a fake so technically there is already a Stark present. Unlikely though it may be, real Arya could also pop up. And if Sansa reappears then all you need to do is get rid of her illegal marriage (Joffrey was a false king, Tyrion was already married etc.) and you have another Stark. I don't see what it matters what was in the will in regards to Jon. The Lords won't give Jon Winterfell or a crown if it means bypassing legal heirs. If they make that a precedence then there will be hell in the North with bastards coming out of the woods claiming their rightful seat.
  3. Depends on what your definition of 'justification' is. Most killings in this book series have little or no justification as far as I'm concerned. But then I don't have the Planetos mindset. And even if you excuse them with law, rule, oaths, war etc., justification is still lacking because of power imbalance in the system, an individual rulers mindset and so forth. Neither killing was justified. 'I'm training to be an assassin' is an excuse but not a justification for killing the insurance man. When it comes to Daeron, if he was actually guilty of his crime which got him send to the wall, then he literally escaped his prison sentence which should be punished. However the severity of the punishment for that would depend on his original crime (if he was a murderer and ran away from his sentence, killing him could be justified). If I think of it in terms of the world they live in, I still don't think either is justified. Being an assassin is still just an excuse. Unless insurance man killed his clients or had them killed so he won't have to pay. But that wouldn't be Arya's justification since he is her job. Daeron was in Braavos where the Starks have no jurisdiction so Arya's justification that she has to do her duty as a Stark, holds no water. And marriages at sword point are binding even for high nobility. Same crap.
  4. Because it doesn't matter. When it comes to characters people stan (whether that's love or hate stanning), reality and facts don't matter. They read whatever they want into the text and then bend over backwards to defend their opinion as 'facts'. If you apply the same standard to the other characters in the story that people apply to Arya in terms of mental illness, 99% of them are more ill than her.
  5. Really? The first thing that comes to my mind is his hypocrisy in regards to looks. Tyrion hates being judged for his stature/looks/disability. Yet he judges women and their value only by their looks (and social class of course). Only the prettiest women for him while he thinks women of average looks, with disabilities etc. are beneath him and not worth his notice.
  6. Even if these ambitions existed, for which there is NO proof except fanon based on house/character hate...what does it matter to the current events? All the supposed movers and shakers of these supposed ambitions are all dead. Why would that have any effect on how one sees the currently alive characters, some who weren't even born then? If the argument is that if those ambitions are true, it changes anything about a House as a whole, I seriously doubt it. You won't find a House (especially the big ones) without dirt in their history.
  7. I don't understand this part of the fandom. Why do so many think Jaime has a redemption arc? Generally the first step of redemption is admitting, even if it's just to yourself, that you have committed wrong doings or wronged others. Following that, an active desire to make amends to those you have wronged. Or at the very least take action to change as a person to do and be better. None of that applies to Jaime.
  8. Am I going to watch 'The Kardashians of Westeros' just with more dragons, blood, insanity and incest? No thank you. Wake me up when someone decides to give me something new that doesn't take place in the same 300 years of history.
  9. The same Cersei who said that the North can't be held by an outsider? Why would Sansa need to plan to be LoW? In the absence of Bran, it's her birthright.
  10. Before wondering about the fleet, you'd have to figure out the conundrum of why they even exist still in that world. They are a menace to the entire west coast. They raid, pillage and rape the waters and even land. Since this involves several kingdoms, they would absolutely band together to get rid of the Ironborn for good. I'm still baffled they survived the last rebellion considering Tywin Lannister was there for it. But their very existence makes no sense. So anything that involves the Ironborn, including them having a fleet (huge or small), falls into the category of crappy world building on the author's part.
  11. Considering how big WF is, it is unbelievable (but so many things are in these books). WF is big enough that thousands can be comfortably living there (it's the size of a city). So even if you don't have many guards there anymore, there should be so many people that Theon and his 20 Goodmen would be taken care of by them no problem. Even if they were only armed with torches and pitchforks, what would 20 men do against 1000? It's about as believable (NOT) as Ned taking 50-100 men with him when he goes south to become HotK.
  12. Considering that both The Westerlands and Reach are on the west coast (arguably the most prosperous Kingdoms), there should be more ports on the west side. And that includes the North. It's important for trade and import/export. Especially the North with it's winters could find themselves in dire need of food so sailing on the west side is the most expedient. I understand that harsh winters could be a problem but if you have an actual port attached to a city, you have the manpower to deal with ice. Not to mention that it's possible to build ships with ice breakers on the front. If you sail a bit further out into the sea, it won't be frozen ice there. And if the Greyjoys/Ironborn are making trouble, get rid of them. That they still exist at all makes no sense anyway. Considering what a pain they are to the west coast of the continent, no one would stand for that in the world GRRM presents to us. It's similar to the idiocy of the Boltons still being alive. Hard to suspend one's disbelief for those types of things.
  13. It clearly doesn't take that many to take possession of WF. Theon did it with 20 Goodmen, so to speak. They would just have to do what Theon did, scale both walls. All they have to do is a little recon on the movements of Theon's men, maybe create a diversion.
  14. Ok here is a general thing I've been wondering. Could it be that at the end of the books there will be a North that is it's own kingdom hence you have someone ruling there and another person ruling the rest of Westeros? I'm not talking about how the show did it because that made no sense. But this ties into the magic of the story which D&D weren't interested in. I've been thinking about the WW and the Children and magic. What if the North (and bit parts of other Kingdoms) literally separates from the rest of Westeros? By that I mean the landmass gets split so it's no longer physically connected to Westeros. I'm alluding here to a 'Hammer of the Waters 2.0' kind of deal. We have several hints in the books that the WW will make it to the Trident, possibly down to the Neck. We also know that Howland Reed spend months on the Isle of Faces. It's also assumed that the reason for the Neck being marsh land is because the HotW was attempted there again and failed. So what if the Others come down to the Neck but this time the spell succeeds, performed by Howland (or maybe even Bran or with the help of Bran)? And as a result it literally splits the landmass east to west, leaving an ocean/sea between Westeros and the landmass that split off (anything above the Neck). I don't see any other way for the conquest of the WW to end there (as it's been alluded to) because I don't see a giant Westerosi army facing them. All the Kingdoms are kind of preoccupied with their own petty little games and wars. It's also probably not going to be solved politically, unless someone becomes fluent in 'Other'.
  15. Except if he turned babies into WW they would stay babies. Undead don't grow or age. That's how the NK, WW and weights have been around for 1000s of years. And technically if that's the process, there should be hundreds of WW, plenty of babies beyond the Wall thanks to Wildlings. Incest or not doesn't matter in this case, especially since incest brings with it physical deformities (unless GRRM writes because he doesn't do science at all) and you'd think the NK would want good specimen.
  16. Again, I have no idea. I'm not D&D. You'd have to ask them. And if you do, ask them what that whole NK touching Craster's sons and turning them into...something...is all about. And where it was NK did that. What do their symbols made with body parts mean?
  17. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. It clearly didn't matter back then. You have to think like D&D think. Everyone watching would be all 'OMG they are this close to the Wall' and freaking out. From the look of it, seems like the AotD has been walking in circles behind the Wall for 7 Seasons waiting for the story to catch up. In story? Nope. Sam's still alive in the books at that point so he can't die. Maybe?
  18. By then GRRM had nothing to do with the show anymore. It's possible they never asked him when he was still involved. It's also possible that they asked/he told them and they decided it's not cinematic enough. I mean these are the guys who think polar bear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>plot, characters, world building etc.. Except Arya and Sansa came to KL to see Jon freed and returned home (Sansa even wanted Jon to remain King). They brought a freaking army to ensure that. I don't know. And I'm not going back to check. All I remember is Sam running off with others and being the sole survivor (at least I think there were others with him originally), cowering behind that stone, the WW looking at him and sparing him for no reason. Then the WW looks ahead, raises his spear and points it forward making a screeching noise at which point the camera zooms out and we see the dead with him starting to march in the direction the WW pointed. That direction is clearly the Wall because it's right there in front of them a little distance away.
  19. When the White Walker roars and points his spear after sparing Sam, the camera zooms out and the Wall looks like it's right there or at least very close. Also the ranging party in the first episode couldn't have been far from the Wall since the deserter makes it past the Wall for Ned to execute (without a horse or anything to eat). So they have been marching and have been near the Wall before. And it still doesn't negate all my other points. The winter we saw in S7 was a joke, with barely any snow. In the thousands of years prior there would have been some harsh winters that would have aided the NK and his army to freeze the shores in order to cross. But it has clearly never happened, was never mentioned as an option and was also not how the AotD crossed into the South in S7. Ergo, it can't be done. The same with Bran being marked by the NK which negates the magic of the Children, the same magic that supposedly is in the Wall. Nothing apparently happened when Bran crossed the Wall, therefor this was also not an option.
  20. We've had this discussion before. 1) The army was also marching way back when a Walker decided to spare Sam for no reason. That was right at the Wall. The dead have been there several times over the Seasons and nothing happened. 2) Hound saw them marching. Bran saw them marching. We saw them marching. And nothing came of it. 3) If they wanted Bran (because of being marked) to be the reason for the AotD to cross the wall, he would have been. Problem is, that's clearly not cinematic enough or D&D forgot, so Bran crossing through the Wall did nothing. 4) If there was a way over, through or around the Wall then it would have happened thousands of years ago already. But the NK and his army didn't cross into Westeros during all that time so clearly there was no way for them to do so.
  21. What does it matter what anyone knows? I was talking about cause and effect. If the Lannisters don't try to kill Bran then the whole timeline of events on Cat's end might have changed. In which case Cat's and Tyrion's paths wouldn't have crossed at the inn and Cat wouldn't have taken Tyrion prisoner. What are you babbling about? 'Trial by combat' is a 'let God sort out someone's guilt' trial in the southern part of Westeros. If someone wins it that means the Gods judge them innocent. Or do you not know what 'trial by combat' is or means?
  22. You are supposed to tell the authorities of you suspect someone of murder just as you are someone who actually did murder a person. So the point stands. But a Lannister did try to kill Bran. Who knows how things would have unfolded if that hadn't happened. Cat and Tyrion might not have run into each other.
  23. What are you even trying to say? Especially since Tyrion was not only making fine points about his innocence but his trial by combat proved that beyond doubt (in the south of the continent anyway). And Cat let him go. The fact that people have to point out to you that Westeros doesn't operate like our times with judge and jury and laws is frankly beyond disappointing. You said Robb, Not Cat. Pick one. Or discuss them separately, even though Robb has nothing to do with what we were discussing. This is getting confusing. Do you even know what point you are trying to make? And no, Cat abducting Tyrion started the razing of the Riverlands by Tywin. Nothing more. The war was started because of the twin fuckers having illegitimate kids and LF wanting his petty revenge on the Houses that 'stole' his girl. And I ask you which came first: a Lannister trying to murder a Stark or a Stark apprehending a Lannister? And by your modern sensibilities regarding Westeros, Tyrion knew who tried to kill Bran and refused to tell anyone. So Tyrion is actually guilty of concealing the identity of an attempted child murderer.
  24. No he didn't. That was never mentioned in the show, ever.
×
×
  • Create New...