(Spoilers for book/show) Well a few theories just got confirmed/debunked...

[Ghost's Shadow]

So it could still very well be possible even though it was adapted?

[kiasyd]

I think book readers are in a difficult position right now - we've been told so far that TV show and books are entirely different beasts, and so far, it was working simply because TV show changes usually streamlined minor thread plots, usually to end up converging with the book narrative.

Now, we have quite big revelations (Others, babies, Craster and Night's King for one) and major changes (Jon knowing about Bran) - with GRRM so heavily involved in the TV show production I wonder which medium is actually canon.

Of course, the baby conversion into an Other was somewhat implied by the books already, and also a popular hypothesis for many people but this is only ep. 4... What else will be revealed / spoiled / changed until tWoW?

[Bael's Bastard]

It remains to be seen whether this was their own extrapolation based on the comments by Craster's wives, or if this is based on something revealed to them by GRRM.

I personally find the notion of using the show to assert that such and such was "confirmed" or "debunked" to be ridiculous. That goes extra for the "Night's King" slip up/mistake.

And unless GRRM chooses to chime in in the near future, and to do so in a revealing way (which, even the comment last week about Olenna ended up being ambiguous), something tells me we will likely be waiting years to find out how close or far this is to an actual book spoiler.

When I first watched, I thought it was a spoiler. The more I thought about it, the more I thought we really learned nothing for sure that wasn't already suggested in the books.

Now, I think it was somewhat spoiler-ish, and in hindsight will probably turn out to have shown quite a bit that we don't yet understand, but which will make more sense down the line.

But on its own, I don't think we learned much for sure, not about the show's direction, let alone the book direction. I just think it is an example of being able to see a little more without being confined by POVs.

[Bael's Bastard]

I dunno. I guess that while they're making small changes, they won't be changing everything as a whole. I think that in both books and show, this is what happened to Craster's sons and the NK is here to stay.

But I don't think we'll see him again until future seasons. They're simply introducing the character visually because if they have mentioned him (I can't remember), people can forget or miss him. In books we get some things repeated often for us to make theories and guesses but here is different. Image is better than words.

They're doing the same with the Iron Bank: we'll see it rather than hear about it because a main character will interact with it soon.

The Night's King has been mentioned in the show IIRC, but not as a White Walker. Nor was the White Walker in the show identified as the Night's King. Perhaps a mistake was made and that identification by HBO was true, but I am skeptical, and I am even more skeptical that it represents the book direction. We'll see on both counts in time.

[binhorde]

with GRRM so heavily involved in the TV show production I wonder which medium is actually canon.

He's really not though. He writes one episode a year. And the executive producer tag is more for legality and monetary payment terms than anything else. He himself has said they'll occasionally email him with a question, but he's not very involved. He sees the episodes when we see them.

[kiasyd]

He's really not though. He writes one episode a year. And the executive producer tag is more for legality and monetary payment terms than anything else. He himself has said they'll occasionally email him with a question, but he's not very involved. He sees the episodes when we see them.

Well, "executive producer" means a lot more involvement than the one episode script per season and contract payment. I know where you're coming from - everything that's being said in media and press releases points towards what you say, but I'm unsure...

[MountainThatSkates]

I don't see D&D making something up that is so significant. We know GRRM and D&D have had long talks about the future of the series, including the ending of the series. So for them to make something up about the monsters that we see in the first prologue of the first book... I don't buy it. Turning the babies into Others is something that my friends and I have suggested as a possibility for a while now. It seemed to be the most logical explanation.... this just confirms the theory.

[jobmartell]

I hope this isn't the beginning of my fears since pre season 1, what is show only canon, and what is a mixture of D&D and grrm's world intermingled. Like white and dark clothes in the wash.

[jobmartell]

Double post

[Dubbs]

To be honest, I think the fact that they removed the "Nights King" from the summary makes it more likely that this is the truth. They were very quick to realize the mistake and cover it up - in my opinion this would be because they realize they accidentally spoiled the book. The circular pointy shapes on that white walker's head also looked quite a lot like a crown.

I understand the books and show are different material, but let's face it, they are heading to the same place (or at least, the same region). This may not be hard "proof" that this is the direction the books are going, but I think its a strong indicator. Definitely just trying to share some information, not rain on anyones parade!

On another note, after seeing the mere touch of this white walker turn a baby into another white walker, I keep thinking about one of old Nan's stories... If there really were/will be examples of ice dragons the other's touch could be how they came to be.

[Guest Thorrand]

Interesting choice to move the thread, as this specifically effects the books. Best not to sully the books forum with anything at all concerning the show amirite? Mentioning the books in the show threads is okie dokie.

[bluelip]

The idea that D&D would just make up their own version of the nature of the White Walkers is a huge stretch. IMO what we saw last night is at least very, very close to how book canon will turn out.

This is the reality of being a fan of the great fantasy super-epic of our time: you experience it as a book and a television show simultaneously, and secrets are revealed alternately in books, TV episodes, and excerpts posted to the web by GRRM.

Accept this, and you'll squeeze the maximum amount of joy from the next ~5 years between now and the series' ultimate conclusion.

[Tageo]

We should remember that the "Night's King" episode - perhaps more than any GoT episode that ever went before it - has totally thrown cannon out the window.

1 Locke was never in the book and now he's buddying up with Jon Snow to betray him

2. he intends to betray him on a mission to Craster's which never happened in the book

3 Locke already knew anyway, but he overhears Jon Snow talk about his brothers being alive which he never knew in the books.

4 The "Famous five" expedition of Bran, Hodor etc. (I call them that because they mostly have posh English accents, when in the book Jojen and Mera were supposed to be swampy, crannogy people) are caught by the Nights watch mutineers

This is all crap that is not in the books. Why do you think the last scene will be any different?

[Roddy Darwin]

This is all crap that is not in the books. Why do you think the last scene will be any different?

The thing for me is that that last scene pretty much answers a yes/no question. Random shit like Locke is one thing, confirming Theon getting cut is another, but this... If this is book canon, it's a flat-out spoiler. If it's not, what the hell?

The Night's King thing is even worse imo, as it makes close to no sense for non-book readers.

I don't mean to start anything or to go on a pamphlet or anything, but I'm very surprised at how calmly people are taking this. By the way, it's not my place to ask this, and this is probably not even the place to do so, but... Don't you guys think, after that, and the Night's King fuck-up (whatever that was), that it might be time to start thinking about a "show spoiler" kind of policy for the book threads?

I know it's maybe just me getting warmed up over nothing, but I am seriously quitting the show. I bet I am not the only crazy one around here who'd like to avoid other things like the Night's King mess, from now on?

ETA:

This is the reality of being a fan of the great fantasy super-epic of our time: you experience it as a book and a television show simultaneously, and secrets are revealed alternately in books, TV episodes, and excerpts posted to the web by GRRM.

Accept this, and you'll squeeze the maximum amount of joy from the next ~5 years between now and the series' ultimate conclusion.

You're right of course, but somehow getting confirmations from readings, Not a Blog, old SSMs, Ran's posts, etc sits right with me, but if it's coming from the show, it reaaaally doesn't.

(edited for frenglish)

[Bluecore]

We should remember that the "Night's King" episode - perhaps more than any GoT episode that ever went before it - has totally thrown cannon out the window.

1 Locke was never in the book and now he's buddying up with Jon Snow to betray him

2. he intends to betray him on a mission to Craster's which never happened in the book

3 Locke already knew anyway, but he overhears Jon Snow talk about his brothers being alive which he never knew in the books.

4 The "Famous five" expedition of Bran, Hodor etc. (I call them that because they mostly have posh English accents, when in the book Jojen and Mera were supposed to be swampy, crannogy people) are caught by the Nights watch mutineers

This is all crap that is not in the books. Why do you think the last scene will be any different?

Although I agree with you in theory, I'll play devils advocate here for a second. All of the things that you mentioned were inconsequential. They all pertain to the otherwise boring journey of Bran making his way to Brynden Rivers. This part of Bran's story can easily be manipulated to create drama in a TV environment because nothing of consequence happens during this time that was of any significance, with the exception of the nature and development of Bran's powers which has already been adequately addressed for a TV audience.

The exception, however, is how they changed the fact that Jon Snow knows that Bran is still alive and that he is North of the Wall. Even the fact that Locke exists in the show where he doesn't in the books (the closest resemblance/replacement being Vargo Hoat, who dies) will not be of any consequence. He just serves as extra filler drama. It is pretty obvious he is going to go North with Jon and be killed when he makes an attempt on Jon's life, so it's really making a fuss over nothing.

They also have Ghost caged at Craster's keep, something you forgot to mention that happened in the show which didn't in the books. In fact, the whole mutiny is a non-issue in the books if I recall, after it happens. I think it's assumed that they're slaughtered by wights and/or White Walkers.

So to me, the two biggest questions we should have as book readers are the issue that Jon knows about Bran now, and the whole business regarding the last two minutes of the show. There is a difference between mistakenly calling him "the King of the Others", or the "Other King", and actually calling him Night's King. Then, the fact that they changed it. I agree with the previously mentioned point that the fact they changed it makes it likely a spoiler. The fact that they're using Craster's babies to turn them in to White Walkers is not a spoiler to me, it was pretty obvious in the books that's what was going on (and I am a reader who missed things like R+L=J and Frey Pies the first time around).

To me, my completely speculation based opinion, is that this is shaping up to be a Night's King/Jon Snow confrontation. I think they are doing this to lay the groundwork for that. If Jon has to go to war against the White Walkers in the last two books (someone has to, it seems pretty obvious that it's going to be the Night Watch, or at least Jon Snow in some way), then the show needs to develop the character of Night's King in some capacity before this starts to unfold on screen., IF he is indeed the main culprit in the books. The viewers will not be emotionally invested when some random White Walker with a Crown shows up to fight the people of Westeros, if they have not seen him or have some reference point of him before hand.

This makes a particular sense to me if you think about the significance of the Lord Commander's of the Night's Watch in relation to the Night's King, the Others, etc. I think it is possible that Jon Snow will become vulnerable to their allure at some point in the last two books.

EDIT: I'd also like to add one thing. One of the things a reader should catch on to, is that the past mythology such as what Old Nan tells the kids, and all the other stuff talked about in the "thousands of years ago" category, should sort of be read as fact in my view until disproven. One of the underlying themes of the show is that forces which had been gone are returning. He wouldn't put stuff like that in the books if it weren't relevant. So I think it is more than likely that it was in fact the Night's King. To me, the Night's King either has to be the "leader" of the White Walkers or it has to be Coldhands.

[bluelip]

Plot changes are one thing. Big reveals about the nature of Planetos are quite another. If the show is fast and loose with the latter, how could it reach the ending that GRRM's mapped out for the show?

In terms of the plot changes, most of them are so good that it makes me feel better about how the producers with handle AFFC/ADWD. They have shown that they can rework the duller sections of the story and create exciting new moments of action and drama.

I'm not a FeastDance hater by any means, but I get why many fans find them dissatisfying and expect them to be dealt with quickly. For my part, I hope D&D try to show us how good they truly are by re-imagining and re-plotting these sections of the story without speeding through them towards uncharted territory.

[W1NT3RF3LL]

I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, but with the craster's thing I do think that Bran and Co. do go near Crasters, but don't actually enter, as Cold Hands is the one that goes and kills them as he knows what they did. Correct me if I'm wrong? I believe they hear them and they stay back and Cold Hands goes and does his thing.

Although I agree with you in theory, I'll play devils advocate here for a second. All of the things that you mentioned were inconsequential. They all pertain to the otherwise boring journey of Bran making his way to Brynden Rivers. This part of Bran's story can easily be manipulated to create drama in a TV environment because nothing of consequence happens during this time that was of any significance, with the exception of the nature and development of Bran's powers which has already been adequately addressed for a TV audience.

The exception, however, is how they changed the fact that Jon Snow knows that Bran is still alive and that he is North of the Wall. Even the fact that Locke exists in the show where he doesn't in the books (the closest resemblance/replacement being Vargo Hoat, who dies) will not be of any consequence. He just serves as extra filler drama. It is pretty obvious he is going to go North with Jon and be killed when he makes an attempt on Jon's life, so it's really making a fuss over nothing.

They also have Ghost caged at Craster's keep, something you forgot to mention that happened in the show which didn't in the books. In fact, the whole mutiny is a non-issue in the books if I recall, after it happens. I think it's assumed that they're slaughtered by wights and/or White Walkers.

So to me, the two biggest questions we should have as book readers are the issue that Jon knows about Bran now, and the whole business regarding the last two minutes of the show. There is a difference between mistakenly calling him "the King of the Others", or the "Other King", and actually calling him Night's King. Then, the fact that they changed it. I agree with the previously mentioned point that the fact they changed it makes it likely a spoiler. The fact that they're using Craster's babies to turn them in to White Walkers is not a spoiler to me, it was pretty obvious in the books that's what was going on (and I am a reader who missed things like R+L=J and Frey Pies the first time around).

To me, my completely speculation based opinion, is that this is shaping up to be a Night's King/Jon Snow confrontation. I think they are doing this to lay the groundwork for that. If Jon has to go to war against the White Walkers in the last two books (someone has to, it seems pretty obvious that it's going to be the Night Watch, or at least Jon Snow in some way), then the show needs to develop the character of Night's King in some capacity before this starts to unfold on screen., IF he is indeed the main culprit in the books. The viewers will not be emotionally invested when some random White Walker with a Crown shows up to fight the people of Westeros, if they have not seen him or have some reference point of him before hand.

This makes a particular sense to me if you think about the significance of the Lord Commander's of the Night's Watch in relation to the Night's King, the Others, etc. I think it is possible that Jon Snow will become vulnerable to their allure at some point in the last two books.

EDIT: I'd also like to add one thing. One of the things a reader should catch on to, is that the past mythology such as what Old Nan tells the kids, and all the other stuff talked about in the "thousands of years ago" category, should sort of be read as fact in my view until disproven. One of the underlying themes of the show is that forces which had been gone are returning. He wouldn't put stuff like that in the books if it weren't relevant. So I think it is more than likely that it was in fact the Night's King. To me, the Night's King either has to be the "leader" of the White Walkers or it has to be Coldhands.

[Guest Thorrand]

Personally I believe it was a spoiler, not a mistake. It would take a lot of speculation to get the Night's King from what we saw and before they changed it, it wasn't ambiguous at all. A person doesn't accidently write that it was the nights king, and HBO has spoiled things before for other shows (code geass). I just don't see how someone mistakenly writes Nights King instead of white walker. Logic dictates that it was indeed a spoiler. As to whether or not that spoils a plotline in the books, I would have to conclude that it does as such a heavy departure from the books makes no sense. I fully expect to see this reveal in tWoW

[juanml82]

Regarding the Night's King, we don't know if it's the same creature from Old Nan's tale or if it's a title, which may or may not be inheritable. Turning things around, imagine the White Walkers reunite at the Heart of Winter during the events of ACOK to discuss current events, someone points out that the King of Winter has marched south with an army and they react "Good! Brandon the Builder/That Dude from Hot Springs Village is gone now!" OTOH, we know humans die of old age and we don't know if the same applies to White Walkers.

[Seneti]

The thing for me is that that last scene pretty much answers a yes/no question. Random shit like Locke is one thing, confirming Theon getting cut is another, but this... If this is book canon, it's a flat-out spoiler. If it's not, what the hell?

The Night's King thing is even worse imo, as it makes close to no sense for non-book readers.

I don't mean to start anything or to go on a pamphlet or anything, but I'm very surprised at how calmly people are taking this. By the way, it's not my place to ask this, and this is probably not even the place to do so, but... Don't you guys think, after that, and the Night's King fuck-up (whatever that was), that it might be time to start thinking about a "show spoiler" kind of policy for the book threads?

I know it's maybe just me getting warmed up over nothing, but I am seriously quitting the show. I bet I am not the only crazy one around here who'd like to avoid other things like the Night's King mess, from now on?

ETA:

You're right of course, but somehow getting confirmations from readings, Not a Blog, old SSMs, Ran's posts, etc sits right with me, but if it's coming from the show, it reaaaally doesn't.

(edited for frenglish)

Agreed. Changing Bran's story around, won't matter in the long run, as long as he still ends up with Bloodraven. But inventing a diverging explanation for something as important as the nature of the WW? I don't think D&D would dare to do that, not when they know how the books will end.

As for the Night King: How many show watchers do you think will actually have read that? I know we'll never get any hard numbers on this, but most show watchers I know are casual viewers who don't give a rat's ass about episode summaries/descriptions/featurettes etc. They tune in when the ep. is on and then they wait for next week. And for those who have seen it - yeah, it makes no sense, yet, but so do many things in GoT.

Also, I second the introduction of a "show spoilers" policy :)