teej6

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

So, Sansa was given a treat because she willingly made herself a victim.

The morons even had her say that she would have stayed a little bird all her life had LF and Ramsay not been in her life. I guess the repeated rapes and torture at the hands of Ramsay was just what Sansa needed to grow up. Ugh!

Book!Sansa is not one of my favorite characters but I do not dislike the character and I do enjoy reading her chapters. Sansa, in the books, still has a long way to go before she can convincingly take on LF. When Martin shows Sansa come into her own and take down LF (I’m pretty certain she’ll be the one to do it), I’m sure we’ll clearly see and appreciate the transition in Sansa. It won’t be anything like the travesty the dimwits showed in S7.  Oh yes, LF is another character D&D ruined to make their Sansa arc work. I would also add Jon to this list, but then again, D&D ruined Jon’s character long before Sansa and Jon were merged into the same storyline.

Show!Sansa from S5-S8 was terrible and hard to watch. First, with her rape and victimization (like Joffrey wasn’t enough to drive sense into her), then, by turning the victim into an arrogant, self-serving, whiny, inconsistent character — D&D’s version of a strong woman I guess. Apart from filling the granaries, scheming, and sewing, what does the QitN know about ruling I wonder. And oh yes, she also believes in taking away lands from kids and making them homeless due to the sins of their fathers. Yeah, one helluva queen she’ll make. 

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

I don’t see Bran’s arc in the novels having that many similarities w/ his show arc. In a way, some are giving David and Dan way too much credit IMO.

They ruined Bran - DUH!

The show doesn’t really deal w/ the magical/mystical/fantasy side of the story. David and Dan don’t care for it, or can’t handle it; probably a combination of both. 

So everything is left kind of vague and open-ended, in an attempt to make it look smart, or deep, and leave people debating and speculating on “what does it mean?”. But there’s nothing there, it means fuck all, it’s just an empty shell of a story. The only aspects the show runners seem to enjoy/care about is the power/money side of the story. Small wonder they love the Lannisters so much (except dumb-as-a-bag-of-hammers Jaime). And that’s what happened to Bran’s story... They forgot the character for as long as they could, and then came up w/ this rubbish at the end, because they had no clue what to do. And dealt w/ it in a way that maybe it was all Bran’s plan all along, to grab power and become king. 

“Maybe” being the key word in this sentence. The dimwits thought they were creating suspense and intrigue by giving two lines to Bran in the finale which vaguely alludes to him having had known/planned things. Well I guess they succeeded somewhat judging from all the fan theories that ensued, nevermind that D&D did not bother to explain Bran’s powers/abilities and only had him come back from a one season hiatus to spout ridiculous one-liners and say he’s not Brandon Stark anymore, and zone out like he was high or something.  

If you theorize, based on the show, that Bran can see the future and planned the eventual outcome, then you’ll have to also assume that Bran is either evil or indifferent to human suffering. He either manipulated events that led to the death of a million people or he was indifferent to their deaths and did not try and prevent it. Either way he’s a terrible person and not fit to rule. And let’s not forget kinslaying universally reviled Tyrion’s 5 minute speech that convinced rulers of kingdoms that have always wanted their independence that Bran was the best person to rule Westeros because he had the best story. I wonder how Bran managed that? Did he warg Tyrion and the rest of the council? How was wise and omniscient Bran so sure of this outcome? So does this mean that not only can Bran see the future but he can have people act the way he wants them to? Up until that point Bran hadn’t interacted with the so called Prince of Dorne. How was he sure that this unnamed prince would be convinced by Tyrion’s ridiculous argument? Trying to understand and make sense of this travesty is a pointless exercise. There are so many unanswered questions, and the assumptions and suspension of disbelief one has to make for D&D’s story to make sense is astounding. It’s always good to leave some things to the readers/viewers imagination, but I doubt that was D&D’s intent when they wrote the final season — subtlety is not part of their writing style, but large amounts of exposition definitely is. In regards to Bran especially, they had no clue how to develop his character or explain his power or the magic that governs it and that’s the reason why Bran the Broken makes no sense.

In the books, if GRRM takes the King Bran route, I do hope he’ll tie things together in a way that Bran being the God Emperor makes sense. To me, King Bran can only make sense if Bran is the recognized saviour of humanity and his powers become public knowledge. In this case, a Grand Council that convenes after several years of winter and desolation could elect an older Bran as King. Or else, another King/Queen who recognizes Bran’s powers appoints Bran his/her successor. I remember GRRM stating as recently as last year that several people will take the throne before the end, so perhaps Bran will take the throne because he is named another’s heir. If GRRM ends up showing an 11-year old Bran taking the crown through subterfuge and manipulation and in the process allowing thousands to die, I’ll probably trash every book I have of his. That would truly be the most meaningless and nihilistic ending. 

6 minutes ago, Mystical said:

You can believe canon is just what we are told. But that doesn't make it so when the story has holes in it the size of trucks. And if you have watched any videos at all or read anything about the final episode, there are many people who think Bran schemed his way into power and lots of think he is downright evil for letting a million people die just so he can become King. People are just trying to make the story make sense.

To me, canon is what is shown or described, everything else is speculation. If you look up the etymology of the word, it comes from references to the scriptures in the Bible. The word canonical was used to differentiate scriptures in the Bible from the non-canonical apocryphal writings. Now, can one speculate that Bran manipulated the series of events to get to an outcome where he is King so as to make the pile of rubbish make sense? Sure, one can speculate and theorize that that is probably what happened but that does not change the fact that Bran got elected because Tyrion convinced the Lords and Ladies of Westeros that Bran is the perfect candidate in a 5 minute speech. Any speculation on Bran’s motives or scheming does not nullify this event. By showing this event, D&D made it show!canon as to the manner in which Bran was chosen to be King. Further, they failed to show any scheming on Bran’s part, instead they had him sit motionless spouting nonsensical and weird one-liners.  D&D probably thought they were being brilliant with the two lines Bran uttered in the finale, one to Tyrion and the other to Jon. To me, all that seemed like was that D&D didn’t know what they were doing with Bran’s character —  they couldn’t fully understand Bran’s powers and didn’t know what to show or how to show it, and so decided to throw random concepts together and see if anything stuck. If they meant to show Bran as something akin to the God Emperor in Dune, they failed at that as well.

4 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

You're still not discussing the particular points of the ideas and just throwing out ad hominem arguments. I could have dismissed RLJ fairly recently with the same just some fan theory idea, but that wouldn't have been right, would it? You can't apply ad hominems when it suits you and then handwave it off when it doesn't.

You can think or believe what you want. I refuted your argument because it is a only a theory and is not based on the facts of the show. You are well within your rights to dismiss RLJ just as I'm within my rights to argue for the theory. Similarly, I can dismiss your theory (and it's only a theory) that Bran schemed to get the throne on the show and dismiss your entire premise connecting GRRM's statement on a 12-year old conquering the world with events that transpired on the show.

We are going in circles here and this is the last response I make to you on this topic.    

13 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

That you refuse to discuss the specific points of the idea and ignore that Bran's the 3ER/3EC and the implications of that are telling. Noted. 

I have no idea what you mean. I never once disputed Bran being the 3EC. You compared Bran getting the IT on the show to a statement by Martin where he states that he has given up the 5 year time jump and if that means a 12 year conquers all the world so be it. To which I stated that Bran conquers nothing on the show as the IT was given to him because Tyrion made a ridiculous argument about Bran having the best story. You then linked to some fan’s video and used that as proof for your argument as there’s nothing on the show that indicates anything remotely to Bran conquering anything. All your Bran scheming are just theories at this at this points, attempts by fans like you to make sense of that travesty. But hey if it makes you feel better than you won this debate, go ahead knock yourself out.  

14 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I suggest a more expansive definition of conquering as some are conquered by words, not swords. Ask Robb. LF and Varys also did a helluva job bringing down houses without a sword themselves. 

You can expand the definition all you want, on the show, Bran does NO conquering either by word or deed. You theorizing and speculating thus doesn’t make it so. 

24 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

The books aren't a perfect keeping of a single Earth year. We don't know how that pacing will work out. In AGOT, Sansa is 11. In AFFC, she's only 13. In TWOW Alayne I and the Mercy chapter, most think there was a time jump of some significance. Sometimes it moves slowly and at other times quickly. We don't know and 11-12 is too close of a call, especially as Winter slows everything down. It might be Arya, it might be Bran, it might be both, or even more likely, it's just a turn of phrase as I don't see any character at all conquering the whole world. But as Arya goes off to wander and explore as she has since AGOT, and we know Bran becoming King comes right from GRRM, Bran seems much more likely if one had to choose. 

 Earth year or Westeros year, in 5 book, all the characters have aged by only 2 years at most. Again, you can twist the facts to suit your narrative doesn’t make it so. And I’ll believe Bran becoming King came straight from Martin when he himself confirms it.  

1 minute ago, Lollygag said:

Google this topic and see how common this view is. It's all over the place, not just "a fan's interpretation" and this particular "interpretation" is quite sound and well-cited.

Isaac said Bran as king came from GRRM. He doesn't get it like he won a beauty pageant or something. So yes, the 3EC might well be that hypothetical 12 year old who conquerors. 

 

Again, you go on about how popular some theory is. For the umpteenth time, I don’t care for the popularity of a theory that fans came up with to make sense of D&D’s senseless plot. In the show Bran does not conquer anything, he got the throne because Tyrion said so. If you can show me where in the show they show Bran “conquering” (which is what GRRM said), I’ll say you have a point. As of now you don’t, so no point in repeating some theory that people came up to make sense of the nonsense which is the show.  

As to your reference to a beauty pageant, you are not far off as on the show that’s somewhat how they showed Bran getting the throne. He wasn’t the most beautiful or talented, but he had the best story. 

And it’s hard to see how Bran will be 12 in the next two books. He started the books as a 7 year old and in 5 books he has aged by 2 years. I don’t think in the next two books GRRM is going to make time work differently and have Bran miraculously age to 12. If Martin isn’t doing to do a time jump, the most I can see Bran being is 11, that is if you stretch it. This is why I said your quote about a conquering 12 year old will make more sense for Arya, considering her current age in the books.

26 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

The video shows where Bran did do things. Actually some of his actions make no sense unless it's a move to where he is now. Yes, they were convinced by Tyrion's speech, but the point was that Bran set up that this would happen. Which means that Bran wasn't just sitting there and got picked out of the blue to his surprise like he won some contest or something. 

Your video is a fan’s interpretation.  I’ll stick with what D&D actually showed. What they showed was the most moronic way a bunch of people who rule the kingdoms agreed to have a total unknown character upto that point become king. I don’t care if fans want to see some hidden scheming on Bran’s part, point is its Tyrion who convinced the council to elect Bran with his ridiculous 5 minute speech. Like I said, unless Bran warged all those people, my point stands — he was elected king because he had the best story.

20 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

On the side, the bolded would be a minority view on your part. Most seem to be under the impression that Bran arranged himself to be on the throne and the most heated debate is what exactly he plans to do with it. 

20 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

 

 

 

Minority/majority view I don’t care. Bran didn’t utter a word or do a thing. He got the throne because all the dumb Lords/Ladies of Westeros were convinced by incompetent kinslaying Tyrion’s 5 minute speech. Unless you are telling me Bran warged Tyrion and the rest of the people on the council, D&D showed Bran getting the throne because he had the best story.

3 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Using the word deluded is offensive and rude. I'd never call someone that. I've been a reader since 2005 and posting here since 2008 (under a different name). Lots of people were getting Sansa's endgame wrong, thinking she'd be some kind of sex kitten in the Vale, shipping her with abusive older men like Sandor and Tyrion. Which is fine, but it just goes to show that most readers are shippers in some way. Folks just pretend to be above that because of fandom sexism. The story left a lot of good things for Jon and Sansa and I'm excited to see GRRM to have them interact in the books. Jon will kill Dany to save Sansa 's life, and I think the books will be much more explicit about that.

I didn’t been to be offensive, and if in using the word “deluded” I offended you, my apologies. I still however stand by my argument that there is absolutely no textual hints to a Jon/Sansa romance. And I’ve seen all the so called evidence provided by the Jonsa fanbase. The Jonsa ship started mainly on the show forum and many old timers on this forum who have been hardcore Sansa fans never subscribed to this theory and still don’t. 

10 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

GRRM has said he'll deal with the age issues as he will. 

https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/US_Signing_Tour_Half_Moon_Bay_CA/

 

Q: 5-year gap?

A: It worked for characters like Arya and Dany but not so much for the adults or those who had a lot of action coming. He was writing chapters where Jon thought, "Well, not a lot has happened these past five years, it's been kinda nice." And Cersei chapters where she thought, "Well, I've had to kill sooo many people the last five years." So he ended up dropping it. He said he would have done it sooner if he hadn't told so many fans about it. And there is no gap anymore. "If a twelve-year old has to conquer the world, then so be it."

And why do you think he means Bran when he says twelve-year old? Bran is currently nine in the books, and Arya is 11. The 12-year old could be Arya? It seems like Arya will more likely be 12 in the next books than Bran. That statement has no correlation to Bran sitting the throne. And if you recall, in the show Bran conquers nothing, Westeros was handed to him because he had the best story.

6 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

 

My arguments on Sansa and Dany ended up being canon in the show. My arguments on Jonsa did not that's 2 out of 3. Plus, I am happy because Jon chose Sansa over Dany in the show, that neither of them married anyone else, and that they ended geographically close to each other. This leaves a lot of happy headcanons for me. There is foreshadowing for the Stark line to be revived with Bael and the Rose of Winterfell, and Jon fathering a bastard. "How many children did Scarlet O'hara have?" --> "How many children did Sansa Stark have?"

OMG! keep deluding yourself about Jonsa. As for Dany, people on this site (myself included) saw her turn to dark Dany happening almost a decade ago. No great insight there. In terms of Sansa, I still believe, her show arc is D&D’s fanfic and retcon for all the flak they got for giving her Jeyne Poole’s storyline from the books. We’ll just have to wait and see how things will turn out for Sansa in TWOW. 

26 minutes ago, T and A said:

It would be funny, if it weren't so sad, how this forum has become 10 people denying and bargaining about the reveal they got blown in their face 

Funny how I see its about 10 people saying that show and books will align  Most people are somewhere in the middle — they see that some of the characters will have similar endings, others will not. Besides, almost everyone agrees that GRRM’s story will be far superior to what those hacks came up with. In fact, you should check out the video posted by this site’s administrators, and they’ve been working with GRRM pretty closely from the beginning.

23 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The show and books align for Sansa taking on a bigger role in the North. We've been over this in other threads. I told you LF is already planning on taking her there and setting her up as QitN. 

And I’ve never been convinced with any of your arguments. Correct me if I’m wrong, weren’t you also a proponent of Jonsa? I guess that theory is out the window now considering the happenings in the show? Or isn’t it? Well, we are not going to agree, so cheers!

2 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Beric is a secondary character, who is already dead in the books.  The ending will be the same for the main characters.  Arya will leave Westeros.  Dany, yes, Dany fans, she will turn into a tyrant and die, Jon may not kill her or he might.  Jon will go back to the NW for a life of desolation.  Sansa will rule Winterfell and the North, Bran will be King, Tyrion will keep playing the GOT and the twins will die together.  The Others will be defeated, but I doubt Arya plays any role there whatsoever.  Rickon will die.  

Like I keep saying, people who don't like the ending for their favs are grasping at the straws that GRRM all too willingly provides as part of his equivocating, trollish persona....

Your post is full of holes. If you believe D&D’s version of the Others being completely defeated, then there can’t be a NW. The NW was a militant order whose purpose was to protect the realm of men. It wasn’t set up as a penal colony. No need for such an order considering the WWs don’t exist and the Wildlings are this side of the Wall. So no NW for Jon to go back to. GRRM is not stupid or sloppy enough to keep the NW going once it has served its purpose. Either the WW threat continue to exist and the NW exists or the WWs are completely destroyed (as in the show) and NW ceases to exists. You can’t have it both ways. Even stupid D&D couldn’t explain why it still exists so they had show!Jon ask the dumb question as to whether it still exists.

And I’m more certain than ever before that Rickon will survive and be Lord of WF. Sansa will probably act as his regent. Davos will find Rickon and the North will rally behind him through Manderly.

No one is grasping at straws as you say because they don’t like the ending of their favorite characters, people are shaking their heads in disbelief because there’s no narrative way that the things in the books are going to end up like in the show. Firstly, the show is third-grade writing at best, and the way things are currently in the books GRRM will have to make major leaps in the characters’ arcs to get them where they in the show at the end.  An 11 yr old is not going to be “elected” king of anything, let alone the 7 kingdoms and neither is a 13 yr old going to captain a ship and explore the high seas.

You seem to have a very defeatist and hopeless view of how the books will turn out. In fact you even think that GRRM will not finish the books. I, and many others, think that GRRM will find a way to make the books satisfying to a lot of his readers and will finish the books if he stays healthy and alive for a few more years. If he does make Bran king in the end, it will be in a manner that is convincing and organic.  

8 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

If you want to look at the foreshadowing just type in "queen" in A Search of Ice and Fire for her chapters. Right off the bat - her direwolf is called Lady but eats as delicately as a queen. LF calls it war of the 3 queens. She never becomes Joffrey's queen and yet everyone is giving her queenly advice and she's observing how power looks from the other side. Hmm... I wonder why.

 

I can find just as many clues to Arya being queen (if not more) — Arya’s wolf is named after a Queen after all and not just “Lady”. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to argue Arya will end up queen.

7 minutes ago, teej6 said:

 

Sorry! double post. 

4 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

you can't really think that he would say GOT was more faithful than 97% of adaptations if they massively changed the ending including who ruled Westeros?  

Actually I can. And based on Elio and Linda’s recent video — two people I believe know GRRM pretty well — I seem to think that GRRM might not end the storylines of several characters as the show did. Bran might become king somehow if GRRM shows an epilogue where time has passed (his 5 year jump). I don’t see it happening without sufficient time having elapsed. 

15 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Sure, why not?  We already know that the North can't be held by outsiders, so it make sense they would get their independence.  Of course it won't be brutally stupid and insulting like what the show did, in order for it to happen Westeros will have to be decimated in it's major population centers, the Others will have to get at least to the Riverlands before a final battle and Bran will have to somehow be known and recognized as a key reason for victory.  The alternative, that the showrunners made a character they hate and have sidelined for 4 years King when George doesn't isn't believable to me.  Bran will be king.  Dany will lose it and die.  Arya will leave Westeros.  Jon will go back North for a life of sacrifice and crap.  The only possible change could be to Sansa's story, but if she's not Queen in the North or Lady of Winterfell, I can't imagine her end game unless she dies, which is ever so slightly possible but very unlikely. 

If Bran gives the North it’s independence, the Iron Islands and Dorne will stake their claims. I can’t imagine Dorne that fought the IT when the Targs had dragons not wanting independence. Also, if the population of Dorne is to be decimated, then there won’t be much left in Westeros, and definitely not the North.

Sansa could end up ruling the Vale, that’s more what I see for her. And if GRRM keeps Rickon alive, which is looking more likely to me, she could be regent to him in the North. But in QitN when a Stark sits the IT is beyond stupid and baffling.

27 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

She has load and loads of queen foreshadowing.

She moves up as Robb's heir while Bran "died" in the crypts in ACOK. Bran in the show kept saying he'll never be LoW and that's probably a clue.

I don’t where these loads and loads of foreshadowing for her becoming queen in the books are. I agree she will have a more central role to play and can see her ruling the Vale but not the North, not in the books.

As for being Robb’s heir, she isn’t currently in the books. We know that Robb disinherited her in the books. Now could things change in future books, perhaps but as it currently stands she has no claim to the North based on Robb’s will, which was witnessed by many of the Northern lords.  

4 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

Both the showrunners and GRRM have said repeatedly that the endings for the main characters are the same, the only way to get to the idea that the endings would be vastly different is to take random sentences out of their original context.  The showrunners said they loved George's ending, they said the journey would be different but would end the same, George said GOT was more faithful than 97% of adaptations and that the endings would be 'mostly' the same except for secondary characters.  This seems definitive to me unless wishful thinking is involved to maintain a cherished theory from the books.  But, since I don't expect that he will finish the series people will be able to keep hope alive forever.  LOL.

C’mon you are completely ignoring GRRM’s recent blog. He’s being very cagey in it, more so than he’s ever been. And you are forgetting one of his most important quotes that he writes like a gardener and seldom plans things out. As to him knowing the endings of the major characters since the 90s, we know that the story in his initial draft and the books turned out very different. If you go by that, Sansa isn’t even a central character let alone end up QitN. 

He will finish the books now as his legacy depends on it. The show will be eventually forgotten probably much sooner seeing the hate the last season received. GRRM is a smart person, he won’t want his legacy or story’s ending defined by that abomination.

5 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

The show made Sansa Queen in the North, they didn't leave it open and unresolved, they gave a definitive end point, Sansa is Queen in the North and Bran is King of Westeros.  I don't see any wiggle room for other interpretations.

You’re smarter than this  You really think Bran is going to be King of Westeros and Sansa QitN? All the other kingdoms are going to shut up and accept this? None of them are going to claim independence for their own kingdoms? And the dumb Northerners are going to be fine being ruled by Sansa when Ned’s eldest living son rules the rest of the kingdoms?

1 hour ago, Newstar said:

D&D have never cared all that much about Bran as a character, so I have no doubt that King Bran is 100% GRRM. 

GRRM gave D&D the outline in 2013 or 2014, can’t remember when, and Bran becoming king may have been part of this outline. At the time I guess he was still hoping he could make the 5-yr gap work. I don’t know when he gave up on the time gap but we now know he has. So the question now is how will he make it work considering he has to now to make the plot of a 10-11 yr old king believable. IMO, Bran is not going to age much more in the next 2 books so GRRM will have to make this plot believable somehow. Since the show aged up all the Stark kids, they could show Bran being king or Arya being captain of a ship, but as they are still kids in the books, it may have to be included in some epilogue. 

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Does he? I must have missed that part.

He doesn’t.

1 hour ago, Grdas1979 said:

I believe that Martin told the ending of all POV characters and its what we see in the show. It seems illogical because the show couldnt connect the dots and because secondary characters are missing. 

Unlikely as there are several secondary characters with POVs in the books. And GRRM keeps insisting that he hasn't mapped out the endings for the secondary characters.

So did Bran plan all this? What are they implying?