Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ran

[Book Spoilers] EP508 Discussion

Recommended Posts

LOL, that is probably more on point that ranting about the rant and ravers, no?

I HATE the Tyrion as a secret Targ idea, and hope it's false, and so far, the show hasn't even hinted at such a thing, especially w/Tyrion killing his father saying I am your son.

I agree that there is the possibility that Jon is a legitimized Targaryen, but I still lean toward the idea that it's his blood that will be important and not his legitimacy, e.g. he's not going to sit the IT and no one but his immediate circle may ever know his true identity.

I don't see why being legitimate would matter at all anyway. If there is any chance that he'll actually sit the Iron Throne we've been told so many times that an king (or queen) can legitimize a bastard and so there is an easy out right now, Dany could just make him a legitimate Targaryen. But I think you're right. I don't expect Jon to sit the Iron Throne I expect what will really be important is his connection to the Targaryens and therefore dragons and probably how that will help him at the Wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to derail the thread entirely but there are some of us who don't think he is a bastard. The Targaryens were bigamists in ages past. They only stopped because of the Faith. (And really hoping to not derail further but the point of Jon not being a bastard is important thematically because Tyrion is actually a bastard of Aerys) :leaving:

To be fair, I think the parallelism is between Jon and Aegon rather than Tyrion and Jon.

Jon is a prince who has been raised as a bastard.

Aegon is probably a bastard/random kid raised as a prince.

Either way, Jon being a bastard or not might matter for the political subjects of the story. I doubt any kind of prophecy or magic would say "ah... we won't work because the boy's parents didn't marry!". And I doubt Jon will mind that much either as he identifies himself as a Stark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the books? Yes, they have married already.

No, I meant in the show. I know they really married in the books, but the show hasn't had them wed yet. I think that may be an important decision the show has made just as a means of Dany's later marriage-ability. (Although, granted, Sansa is married to Tyrion and still weds Ramsey).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, I think the parallelism is between Jon and Aegon rather than Tyrion and Jon.

Jon is a prince who has been raised as a bastard.

Aegon is probably a bastard/random kid raised as a prince.

Either way, Jon being a bastard or not might matter for the political subjects of the story. I doubt any kind of prophecy or magic would say "ah... we won't work because the boy's parents didn't marry!". And I doubt Jon will mind that much either as he identifies himself as a Stark.

I very much agree on this point. Part of the strength of the theme of both Tyrion and Jon as semi-mirrors is that both characters show that it is much more nurture not nature that makes you who you are. Jon is Stark through and through just as, as Jenna says, Tyrion is Tywin's son. Not biologically but everything else. And that everything else is more important (except for the BOTD and dragon-riding thing though :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I meant in the show. I know they really married in the books, but the show hasn't had them wed yet. I think that may be an important decision the show has made just as a means of Dany's later marriage-ability. (Although, granted, Sansa is married to Tyrion and still weds Ramsey).

It appears they will get married in the next episode. They go to Daznak's Pit for their wedding reception in the books and we see Dany in the pit for next weeks trailer. I just really hope they don't do the feet-washing thing like in the books. :ack:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I meant in the show. I know they really married in the books, but the show hasn't had them wed yet. I think that may be an important decision the show has made just as a means of Dany's later marriage-ability. (Although, granted, Sansa is married to Tyrion and still weds Ramsey).

IICR, some spoilers

say Daario kills Hizdhar

So, it's not like they can't get rid of him.

In any case, in the books he's arrested, right? And Victarion has kinda hinted Dany won't be the first woman he has made a widow. I think Hizdhar's time in the story is already in negative numbers (pity because I kinda like him).

Edited by JonCon's Red Beard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I meant in the show. I know they really married in the books, but the show hasn't had them wed yet. I think that may be an important decision the show has made just as a means of Dany's later marriage-ability. (Although, granted, Sansa is married to Tyrion and still weds Ramsey).

I don't know about that as the reason, but the show isn't going to be able to spend much time in Meereen with Dany gone off on Drogon; they're going to have to resolve the entire Meereen/Essos story fairly quickly next year and get everyone to Westeros, so it will be interesting, especially w/no Selmy and Jorah w/greyscale what they do with Meereen after she leaves. I assume Tyrion will be running things w/Jorah's help unless he dies this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I've seen this, this, Septa Spoonella and Zombie Battle stuff. Considering, for me, the show is practically pretty moving pictures and not exactly a coherent consistent narrative media, I have no problem with it. I have zero intentions on watching Theon/Sansa/Ramsay scenes because it gives me nightmares (I'm not joking on that. I thought I would NEVER use the word 'trigger' and then... that scene) and I'm not even interested in Arya in the books. So, let's say for those scenes I left the tv room cause I got diarrea (fuck yeah, Khaleesi!).


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about that as the reason, but the show isn't going to be able to spend much time in Meereen with Dany gone off on Drogon; they're going to have to resolve the entire Meereen/Essos story fairly quickly next year and get everyone to Westeros, so it will be interesting, especially w/no Selmy and Jorah w/greyscale what they do with Meereen after she leaves. I assume Tyrion will be running things w/Jorah's help unless he dies this year.

You just made me realize how much more insignificant Meereen will feel in the show after we leave it.

Anyway, I've always assumed that Dany's "fire and blood" revelation at the end of ADWD just meant she was going to ride Drogon into Meereen with the Dothraki and destroy it. That's a quick way for the both the books and the show to move on past Meereen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just made me realize how much more insignificant Meereen will feel in the show after we leave it.

Anyway, I've always assumed that Dany's "fire and blood" revelation at the end of ADWD just meant she was going to ride Drogon into Meereen with the Dothraki and destroy it. That's a quick way for the both the books and the show to move on past Meereen.

Full Disclosure: I hated the Meereen story and feel it destroyed Dany's character, for me anyway...and that GRRM has written himself into a corner.

If she burns Meereen to the ground, that doesn't set her up as much of a savior for Westeros, but how is she going to realistically get the fuck to Westeros and leave Meereen in some semblance of order and hopefulness?

My guess is he will go for the later and try to leave things somehow hopeful.

But, yeah, the show is in a much more tricky position w/Meereen than the books, because they are literally going to have Tyrion and Dany together for only 2 or 3 scenes and she will be gone, and then Meereen will be really dull because there is no one good for Tyrion to interact w/there, so they have to wrap it up VERY early next year. I hope anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just made me realize how much more insignificant Meereen will feel in the show after we leave it.

Anyway, I've always assumed that Dany's "fire and blood" revelation at the end of ADWD just meant she was going to ride Drogon into Meereen with the Dothraki and destroy it. That's a quick way for the both the books and the show to move on past Meereen.

In the books, Meereen is being besieged. I don't think she's going to ride back and burn the whole city, just the army at her gates. That might not even be necessary if Tyrion and Barristan clean up that rabble before she returns. I don't see why she would burn the city to the ground just to get rid of the Sons of the Harpy (in the show and the books).

Edited by RoamingRonin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the books, Meereen is being besieged. I don't think she's going to ride back and burn the whole city, just the army at her gates. That might not even be necessary if Tyrion and Barristan clean up that rabble before she returns.

You may be right, but Dany had the revelation at the end of the book that she cannot win over people by planting trees, she needs to use fire and blood and I don't think that was for naught. If it was, then that's poor writing on Martin's part - to have Dany go through this scene where she's crawling with dysentery or something and seemingly dying and comes to, what seems to be, a major personal revelation - and then...nothing?

Edited by Lord Godric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full Disclosure: I hated the Meereen story and feel it destroyed Dany's character, for me anyway...and that GRRM has written himself into a corner.

If she burns Meereen to the ground, that doesn't set her up as much of a savior for Westeros, but how is she going to realistically get the fuck to Westeros and leave Meereen in some semblance of order and hopefulness?

My guess is he will go for the later and try to leave things somehow hopeful.

But, yeah, the show is in a much more tricky position w/Meereen than the books, because they are literally going to have Tyrion and Dany together for only 2 or 3 scenes and she will be gone, and then Meereen will be really dull because there is no one good for Tyrion to interact w/there, so they have to wrap it up VERY early next year. I hope anyway.

fwiw, I hated it too because I thought it was boring and Dany didn't come to any important discoveries from her rule. But the one major scene she seems to have had was at the end - and that either means she'll just start killing and burning shit in Meereen or Westeros. Either way, I'm not sure if it sets her up as your traditional savior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right, but Dany had the revelation at the end of the book that she cannot win over people by planting trees, she needs to use fire and blood and I don't think that was for naught. If it was, then that's poor writing on Martin's part - to have Dany go through this scene where she's crawling with and dying and comes to, what seems to be, a major personal revelation - and then...nothing?

She still has to unite the khalasars and then there's Qarth, Volantis and all the others marching on her. There will be plenty of battles to fight in the future. Besides, the army at her gate is a joke. The fake unsullied, the guys on stilts, those inept commanders, they ain't worth her time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dany knows that her father was deservedly named The Mad King. She just doesn't know that the Targaryen Dynasty was destroyed because of what he did to the Stark Lords, and what he wanted to do with the Baratheon and Arryn lineages. Aerys brought the Rebellion upon himself, yet she still believes that the others are Usurpers/Usurper's Dogs...that it's all their faults for her House being all but annihilated.

It isn't about giving her all the gory details, it's about having a different perspective when it comes to her family's reputation - how Targaryens are viewed by the populace. She'll need to be prepared for what will greet her when she finally does get to Westeros - unless the realm is waist deep in snow, she'll have to prove to the people that she's not her father. Especially if she has 3 dragons at her side. If Westeros is waist deep in snow, it won't matter one way or the other, as they'll probably kneel to anyone who can fight the WWs.

This

again she acknowledges that he has earned his name and The mad king was not a lie framed upon her father by the usurpers ...so she does know why they turned against her family and she does know that they had a point to rise against her father

and by acknowledging it she knows that they had the reason to raise against their king which means she no longer others are responsible for her family's demise ,...

and all those usurper's dogs are dead except for stannis what does that matter anymore she is not the one to hold grudges against the children

like i said if she was mad and wants revenge what better way to start killing tyrion ...

She does not know about the Starks except for the lies or misinformation her brother told her, she doesn't know how Ned broke with Robert due to the deaths of Rhaegars children, she doesn't know the story of Lyanna and Rheagar, she desn't know about Ned breaking with Robert a second time about the hit on her and how he tried to protect her, Selmy started but was rebuffed by her, she has allies in the Starks, but she only sees enemies in her mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why being legitimate would matter at all anyway. If there is any chance that he'll actually sit the Iron Throne we've been told so many times that an king (or queen) can legitimize a bastard and so there is an easy out right now, Dany could just make him a legitimate Targaryen. But I think you're right. I don't expect Jon to sit the Iron Throne I expect what will really be important is his connection to the Targaryens and therefore dragons and probably how that will help him at the Wall.

I agree with you on the issue of legitimacy. I don't now why people get hung up on who is legitimate anyway. I think the books (and the TV show) have always been about Power > Legitimacy. The Targs took power with dragons and became "legitimate." Robert took power and became "legitimate." It doesn't matter whether Jon (or anyone else) has any "legal" right to the throne if you do not have an army to back you up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I've seen this, this, Septa Spoonella and Zombie Battle stuff. Considering, for me, the show is practically pretty moving pictures and not exactly a coherent consistent narrative media, I have no problem with it. I have zero intentions on watching Theon/Sansa/Ramsay scenes because it gives me nightmares (I'm not joking on that. I thought I would NEVER use the word 'trigger' and then... that scene) and I'm not even interested in Arya in the books. So, let's say for those scenes I left the tv room cause I got diarrea (fuck yeah, Khaleesi!).

You cannot claim you dont think the show is "consistent narrative idea" in the same post as you say you only watch some parts of the episode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He actually made a valid point. You can't watch one scene and say something like this:

You're not watching it as a whole. Imagine if I watched one scene out of a horror movie. Imagine if I watched Lord of the Rings just for the Bridge of Khazad Dum scene. I'm not going to care about Gandalf or understand what is going on.

That brings me to something I wanted to mention earlier: it's been said the battle wasn't all that great because it's just mindless "spooky skeletons" and fighting but the reason it's resonating with so many people because it's a turning point in the war fight against the Others. We've been building up to something like this for five seasons now.

Not to mention it was well directed, choreographed and acted. Theories were confirmed. It was good stuff all around.

I meant the bolder part of the quote I posted. It didn't really make any sense.

As for the battle, I haven't commented on it too much. I didn't like it, but more because that isn't the sort of thing I like watching (I also didn't enjoy WotW last season because it seemed generic Hollywood battle to me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, Jon being legitimate explains the past more than it predicts the future.



I don't think he'll become king because he's the heir to the Targaryen throne. That's not how this story has ever worked and I don't expect it to start working that way now.



But it helps to explain why things happened in the past to help shape Jon's future, like what happened at the ToJ and what happened between Rhaegar and Lyanna.



In any case, we'll see eventually, I'm sure. If it does have some significance to the story, Martin will be sure to include it.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×