Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About PatrickStormborn

  • Rank
    Slayer of Dany Haters

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

7,804 profile views
  1. He deliberately keeps the events of ADwD and TWoW ambiguous, though, as demonstrated when he doesn't reveal who Jon's parents are.
  2. Ah ok, sorry. I definitely disagree with that assessment, though. Varys and Illyrio seem like they were created because of Aegon rather than the other way around.
  3. Here's an article on the story. The relevant source is in the first paragraph on the second page of the letter. Exactly. I generally like how Martin handles character deaths - with realism, but without gratuitously killing protagonists. That is not suggested in the slightest... I don't know where you got that from. His legitimacy is not called into question and he is still killed by Khal Drogo. Aegon has been in play since he wrote A Clash of Kings, according to Elio (Ran). But there is plenty of foreshadowing even in AGoT. His role has always been extremely different from that of Viserys, in that he is supposed to complicate Dany's invasion.
  4. I can't speak for whatever this show has become, but ASOIAF is certainly a character-driven story, even if the story is an epic tale. When GRRM originally pitched the series he even specified that five characters would not die - Jon Snow, Daenerys Targaryen, Tyrion Lannister, Bran Stark, and Arya Stark (presumably he meant that they will all survive until the endgame, not "they will all live until the series is complete"; and I would also assume that Sansa got promoted to this level at some point). That may very well have changed, but the structure of the series suggests that the survival of those characters is important. And I have to admit, I really, really, really despise this trend of worshipping TV shows that kill characters seemingly at random. It's not "OMG BRAVE" - it's usually a sign of poor storytelling, bad characterisation and moronic writing. I understand that it's a big reason so many people watch The Walking Dead, for example, but for me it was the reason I eventually quit the show. Particularly because not any character could actually die in TWD (Rick and Carl are pretty much safe for most of the show, for example, unless there are contractual disputes somewhere down the road). The same is true of GoT. Daenerys and Tyrion need to be kept alive until they at least reach Westeros, and then they presumably need to do something in Westeros to justify their journeys. Similarly, Jon Snow needs to remain in the story, otherwise the mystery of his parentage was unneccessary and poor storytelling. The only "perfect" character in this show is Saint Tyrion, who can do nothing wrong apparently.
  5. I think it might be worthwhile if we start a topic about the show as a whole over on the General forum. That way there would be less risk of going off-topic because the thread would be centered around the show as a whole rather than just the individual episodes. It might also be better if we have the threads locked when they hit 400 replies and start a new one.
  6. Season 1 had to follow Ned, Daenerys, Jon, Tyrion, Catelyn, and even Bran in Winterfell. That is not "two storylines". Jon, Tyrion and Cat all had significant screen time in season 1, even if you consider Ned and Dany to be the main storylines. The show has been progressively getting worse since season 2, even when there were books to follow, so I don't think that excuse is appropriate. And the blame certainly doesn't lie with GRRM - the characters and story are so radically different at this point that him writing an episode would probably be a hindrance.
  7. In the books, yes. If Stannis dies in the books, it will happen after Dany's arrival.
  8. Well I'm sorry but you're very much missing the point. Dany is only important to the story because of her role in Westeros - hence why she has to actually do important things there... And Jon isn't going to stay dead (in the books, at least) anyway, so it's not a good comparison. Jon, Dany, Tyrion and the Stark children are the protagonists of this story, and that means they'll have some kind of role to play in the endgame.
  9. Dany was supposed to invade Westeros in the fourth book (after the five-year gap). But yeah I'm sure all the characters would have been dead by that point, you're right.
  10. You're just showing how little you know about the series. There has been substantial foreshadowing that Daenerys will lead a Dothraki invasion, oppose the Martells, depose Cersei, battle Aegon, face Stannis, and be linked in some way to Euron. In GRRM's original outline, Dany's invasion was given the same attention as the Starks vs Lannisters and the invasion of the Others. Her invasion is going to mean something - it's not a red herring.
  11. In GRRM's original outline of the series, he specified that Arya and her sword Needle would play a significant role beyond the Wall. I don't know what role Sansa could play, but she's currently a very valuable political pawn and could use that to her advantage. Some theories include her providing the Vale's food to soldiers. As for the Night's King, GRRM has indicated that no such character exists in the books, which fits with the general idea that the "Great Other" Mel speaks of is just ficticious and an over-simplification.
  12. There's no way Stannis dies early in TWoW. Dany sees visisions of him in the House of the Undying as part of her "slayer of lies" prophecy, indicating that she will have to face him at some point.
  13. :agree: And it can't be about Drogon being in danger/injured, because her dialogue suggests she had no idea he was injured. So why the hell did she tell him to fly?? Oh yeah, because they needed Dany to run into the Dothraki. Fuck logic.
  14. No I kind of agree with this. But the story he has chosen to tell involves the protagonists (Jon, Dany, Tyrion, Bran, Arya and presumably Sansa) surviving and playing a role in the endgame.
  15. I'm not going to write a fucking list of every single plot hole in the series. I've done that before and it's exhausting, and D&D apologists just ignore it anyway. If you want to read criticism of the show, go and find it yourself. You don't see how Stannis trying to besiege Winterfell with no food is insulting viewers? Okay, that's absolutely great for you! I'm glad you're happy to watch the show and enjoy it. But please don't spout nonsense about how there aren't plot holes in this show. Because - and I'll repeat this again - Stannis literally tried to besiege a castle... with no food... Do you understand how sieges work? You should, because the show has actually explained that to us a few times. We know that Stannis survived a siege once that lasted around a year, and by that point they were eating rats. So please explain to me why he would try and start a siege with no food. A siege that could potentially last years and yet he could not survive it for more than a few days. Please. Explain it.
  • Create New...