Is there something that you really don't want to see happen in the series?

[Darkstream]

4 hours ago, Dragonsmurf said:

Do you consider the Spanish inquistadors of America to be evil? If yes, does that make the entire human kind evil? Their motivation most certainly wasn't survival, rather greed or malice. Humanity as whole is still very grey.

As to your first question, I feel that my ignorance of the subject prevents me from giving an informed opinion as to whether or not I would consider them to be evil or not. The limited knowledge I have on the subject would tell me that they did commit acts of evil. However, I don't believe that any one faction can be used to judge an entire species, So no, I don't think that would make all of human kind evil. 

Could there be more than one faction amongst the Others? I hope so. I would like to see the Others turn out to be a intelligent race, with their own problems and conflicts, just as the human species does, rather than one unified race of mindless zombies out for death and destruction. 

[Maxxine]

I'm the exact opposite. I don't want to see Jon stay at the Wall. He seems like he's being set up to be too important of a character to be so separated from everyone else. Geographically & Storyline wise.

But the most important thing will be happening at the Wall. That is the fight with the Others. Even if it the Others go farther into Westeros, they are bound to go through the Wall in some way and Jon would be there. I definitely think he will interact with other characters and will be important. But at the end of it even if he is Rheagars son I want him embrace that he is a Stark and was raised by Ned, not Rhaegar and be a new version of Ned, as honorable as Ned was. Which is why I want him to do his duty that he has sworn to do and serve the Night's Watch.

It's true that the most important plot issue is the Others. I guess I'll amend my statement to say that I don't want to see Jon spend the entire series at the Wall without ever leaving. I guess if he stays at there end I'll be ok with that. I would like him going to have to leave to go tell the other important characters about the Others so they will come help. I'm not sure they will just come to the Walls themselves. They won't worry about the Others unless/until they come far enough south and by then it will be too late for Jon.

In regards to being like Ned and remaining at the Watch and not becoming a Targ, I'm fine with that as long as he is not too much like Ned. I'm all for honor but not so much honor that it gets him killed like Ned

[hiemal]

I don't want certain plot elements to be red herrings. I don't want certain questions to remain unanswered. I don't want certain questions to be answered.

I don't want GRRM to stumble on his dismount.

[Maester Egg]

This may be a dangerous thread.  What if GRRM looks here to find out what is the most evil thing he can stick in the next book?

[purple-eyes]

I do not want to see Dany or Jon conquer and unify both Essos and Westeros into a whole new kingdom.

This will be so lame.

 

 

[Durran Durrandon]

34 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

I do not want to see Dany or Jon conquer and unify both Essos and Westeros into a whole new kingdom.

This will be so lame.

 

 

Agreed.

[hallam]

16 hours ago, Jaime4Brienne said:

I don't want Lady Stoneheart to get her revenge by pitting Jaime and Brienne against each other. In fact if she got her head lobbed off ASAP I'd be glad.

Yep. I think she bears almost as much blame as Cersei for the war.

15 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

I don't want Mellisandre to resurrect Jon. I just want him to survive the attack. 

Oh I do!

I want the watch to make a nice little bonfire for Jon and then say to themselves, 'hey there is something missing'. Now what do you put on bonfires? Wood! yes, what else, more wood! No! Witches! Witches go on bonfires.

Put Mel on the bonfire. Crackle crackle, life for life. Jon is resurrected.

Whether the watch or the wildings win the fight that follows the assasination of Jon, Mel is a gonner. In the books the Wildings will BBQ her for Mance. In the show I suspect its the Watch having heard about the murders she committed.

 

As for the Lannister twins being bastards. That would be delicious irony. I am sure that Tyrion is Tywin's legitimate son and equally sure that Tywin believed he wasn't and forced J to take an abortificant that caused her death and Tyrion's condition. The golden haired Jaimie and Cersei being by Aegon would really set that off nicely. Incest being a Targarean hobby after all. It also opens up more possibilities for the Valonquar. 

I do want to see LittleFinger sit on the Iron throne as well. Because that is his destiny. He is going to climb right to the top. But that doesn't mean he is going to stay there. I think there is going to be a rapid succession of people sitting on the Iron Throne in the end.

 

What I don't want to see is R+L = J. It is an obvious blind.  Being a Targ bastard isn't going to change Jon's situation, being a Stark bastard is arguably a stronger position in the new Westeros. Lyanna wasn't a slut. Rheagar wasn't a rapist. It is a very silly theory that adds nothing to the backstory.

[YouKnowNothingJonSnow]

There are lots of things I don't want to see happen that probably will (or already have in the show):

1) Shireen getting burned at the stake

2) Myrcella dying.

3) Sansa getting raped

4) Jorah getting Greyscale

----------------------------------

But for some more:

1) Arya dying

2) Littlefinger NOT dying

3) Never finding out what happen to Benjen

 

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

7 hours ago, hallam said:

Yep. I think she bears almost as much blame as Cersei for the war.

Oh I do!

I want the watch to make a nice little bonfire for Jon and then say to themselves, 'hey there is something missing'. Now what do you put on bonfires? Wood! yes, what else, more wood! No! Witches! Witches go on bonfires.

Put Mel on the bonfire. Crackle crackle, life for life. Jon is resurrected.

Whether the watch or the wildings win the fight that follows the assasination of Jon, Mel is a gonner. In the books the Wildings will BBQ her for Mance. In the show I suspect its the Watch having heard about the murders she committed.

 

As for the Lannister twins being bastards. That would be delicious irony. I am sure that Tyrion is Tywin's legitimate son and equally sure that Tywin believed he wasn't and forced J to take an abortificant that caused her death and Tyrion's condition. The golden haired Jaimie and Cersei being by Aegon would really set that off nicely. Incest being a Targarean hobby after all. It also opens up more possibilities for the Valonquar. 

I do want to see LittleFinger sit on the Iron throne as well. Because that is his destiny. He is going to climb right to the top. But that doesn't mean he is going to stay there. I think there is going to be a rapid succession of people sitting on the Iron Throne in the end.

 

What I don't want to see is R+L = J. It is an obvious blind.  Being a Targ bastard isn't going to change Jon's situation, being a Stark bastard is arguably a stronger position in the new Westeros. Lyanna wasn't a slut. Rheagar wasn't a rapist. It is a very silly theory that adds nothing to the backstory.

Oh dear, I have a feeling you are going to be hugely disappointed then. 

Interesting idea about Mel being burned herself, what gives you this idea? As far as I am aware there are no hints at this in the books, nor any evidence that simply placing a live person in a pyre with a dead one would bring about a resurrection. I mean MMD died in Drogo's pyre, but he never rose. 

Do you have any in text evidence for this being likely? if so I'd love to read it. 

[Aemond's Eye]

8 hours ago, hallam said:

What I don't want to see is R+L = J. It is an obvious blind.  Being a Targ bastard isn't going to change Jon's situation, being a Stark bastard is arguably a stronger position in the new Westeros. Lyanna wasn't a slut. Rheagar wasn't a rapist. It is a very silly theory that adds nothing to the backstory.

"It adds nothing to the backstory"? It certainly does. It shows how much Ned loved his sister, that he would have his honour stained by letting the realm think he fathered a bastard. The point where Ned again puts family before his own personal honour is to save Sansa. And he thinks of Lyanna and Jon in those hours.

The theory also does not mean Lyanna is a slut, nor Rhaegar a rapist. Unless any noblewoman who sleeps with anyone other than the man her father/guardian weds her to is a slut, which is rather stretching what that insult means.

[Lord Friendzone]

Jon riding a dragon.

Jon on the IT. Not his place and don't want Dany to make a way for him.

Bolt-on.

Stark cest in any way, shape or form.

Tyrion happy ending

Arya, Ser Pounce dying.

LF winning the game.

Dragons to survive.

 

[hallam]

4 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

Oh dear, I have a feeling you are going to be hugely disappointed then. 

Interesting idea about Mel being burned herself, what gives you this idea? As far as I am aware there are no hints at this in the books, nor any evidence that simply placing a live person in a pyre with a dead one would bring about a resurrection. I mean MMD died in Drogo's pyre, but he never rose. 

Do you have any in text evidence for this being likely? if so I'd love to read it. 

I don't think I am likely to be disappointed half as much as the R+L = J fans.

The reason I think Mel is going to end up on the pyre is that he plot arc is done. She was the wicked witch who utterly corrupted Stannis. Yes, Stannis bears a large part of the blame but Mel was the causal nexus.

Mel has consistently been wrong in her interpretation of her predictions. She is a rubbish advisor. But if she resurrects Jon she inevitably becomes a counsellor. It is the right time for her to die. In the series, Mel predicts she will meet Arya again. Therefore they will not meet.

Drogo couldn't rise from the pyre because he has already been saved by blood magic. But the horse was not enough, nor was the unborn child. And besides, he was not a Targarean, he didn't have the Dragon blood.

I predict a sharp difference between the HBO series and the books in the nature of Jon's resurrection. HBO are very clearly limiting the amount of magic and for good reason. It doesn't work so well on the screen as in books. In a book there can be lots of explanation and backstory. Even then, it can be overdone. Frank Herbert was the worst for that. Killing off characters and bringing them back as Gholas.

There has to be life for life. Mel is disposable. Burn the witch!

[TeamWhiteWalkerz]

3 minutes ago, hallam said:

I don't think I am likely to be disappointed half as much as the R+L = J fans.

Why? We'll get what we want. 

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

8 minutes ago, hallam said:

I don't think I am likely to be disappointed half as much as the R+L = J fans.

The reason I think Mel is going to end up on the pyre is that he plot arc is done. She was the wicked witch who utterly corrupted Stannis. Yes, Stannis bears a large part of the blame but Mel was the causal nexus.

Mel has consistently been wrong in her interpretation of her predictions. She is a rubbish advisor. But if she resurrects Jon she inevitably becomes a counsellor. It is the right time for her to die. In the series, Mel predicts she will meet Arya again. Therefore they will not meet.

Drogo couldn't rise from the pyre because he has already been saved by blood magic. But the horse was not enough, nor was the unborn child. And besides, he was not a Targarean, he didn't have the Dragon blood.

I predict a sharp difference between the HBO series and the books in the nature of Jon's resurrection. HBO are very clearly limiting the amount of magic and for good reason. It doesn't work so well on the screen as in books. In a book there can be lots of explanation and backstory. Even then, it can be overdone. Frank Herbert was the worst for that. Killing off characters and bringing them back as Gholas.

There has to be life for life. Mel is disposable. Burn the witch!

Do you mean you believe R+L does not in fact = J. Wow, bold statement. Care to back it up?

Hmmm, GRRM has stated that Mellisandre is the most misunderstood character in the books. So I wouldn't assume she is purely a "wicked witch" 

You think that she has to die because if she resurects him and lives she will be his councillor? and what evidence is there that she won't be? They already consult with one another. Just because she gets things wrong doesn't mean she has to die.Why do you think it is the right time for her to die?

She has never met Arya.

There is no evidence that once a person has been resurrected once, they can not do so again. Beric being the prime example. 

What makes you think MMD ever intended on restoring him whole, was it that the horse was not enough, nor the child. Or was it that she didn't want to raise him fully but played a cruel trick. And the baby, well. who says it's death had anything to do with what was happening in the tent at all? in the series several babies have been born with similar features and not one lived past the birth. 

Beric doesn't have the dragon blood either yet he has no problem coming back over and over again, Cat has no dragon blood yet she is resurrected with his "kiss"  I doubt Targaryen blood is required for resurrection. He had come back once already and Look who else is walking...Gregor Clegane. Not a Targ still living past death. 

Couldn't give a toss about HBO. 

Why is Mel disposable?

MMD says Only death can pay for life, but I'm calling BS on that if so then Thoros should have had to sacrifice someone to raise Beric. 

[hallam]

5 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

Do you mean you believe R+L does not in fact = J. Wow, bold statement. Care to back it up?

I think that the key to the backstory is the 'three heads' prophecy we have not heard yet. We know that was the cause of the rift between Aerys and Rheagar but not why. Presumably, Aerys took it as a prophecy that Rheagar's third child would take the throne by force. I suspect that the prophecy also predicts the reason Jamie sat on the Iron throne after murdering him.

R+L =J only provides an explanation for one fact, the reason Ned is concealing a child that is obviously not his. And it does not distinguish Jon from Gendry who as a Baratheon also has Targarean blood and could ride dragons.

A prophecy that would cause Rheagar to conceal the birth of his third child. i.e. R+E = J provides an explanation that ties together all the unexplained issues in the backstory. The only contrary evidence is given by a character known as 'JonCon' who only has it third hand at best. GRRM could hardly make it more obvious.

Jon's looks are something that I think are explained by the death of Lyanna and involve the sword Dawn.

Of course the text provides really heavy hints about R+L=J. Just like there are really heavy hints that the wrong people were the murderer in Agatha Christie novels.

5 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

MMD says Only death can pay for life, but I'm calling BS on that if so then Thoros should have had to sacrifice someone to raise Beric. 

Maybe, only remember that Thoros is a priest of the Red God and Mel is busy murdering people quite enthusiastically.

The only reason to keep Mel around is if it turns out that the Red God and the White Walkers are two sides of the same coin like the Vorlons and the Shadows in Bab5.

[Blade of Sunlight]

Westeros having a King/Queen.
Westeros being a magic republic of peace.
Dragons surviving.
No explanation for the Maester conspiracy and the workings of the FM.
Secret Targs everywhere.
Targ blood being the key to everything.
A single AA/ptwp instead of a collection of smaller heroes.
Dany and Jon together, Jon and Sansa or Arya, Sansa and the Hound.
Jaime not ending Cersei.
Jon being liberated from his vows by his death (It might be ok by the letter of the law, but it goes against the spirit of it).

[Blade of Sunlight]

9 minutes ago, hallam said:

I think that the key to the backstory is the 'three heads' prophecy we have not heard yet. We know that was the cause of the rift between Aerys and Rheagar but not why. Presumably, Aerys took it as a prophecy that Rheagar's third child would take the throne by force. I suspect that the prophecy also predicts the reason Jamie sat on the Iron throne after murdering him.

R+L =J only provides an explanation for one fact, the reason Ned is concealing a child that is obviously not his. And it does not distinguish Jon from Gendry who as a Baratheon also has Targarean blood and could ride dragons.

A prophecy that would cause Rheagar to conceal the birth of his third child. i.e. R+E = J provides an explanation that ties together all the unexplained issues in the backstory. The only contrary evidence is given by a character known as 'JonCon' who only has it third hand at best. GRRM could hardly make it more obvious.

Jon's looks are something that I think are explained by the death of Lyanna and involve the sword Dawn.

Of course the text provides really heavy hints about R+L=J. Just like there are really heavy hints that the wrong people were the murderer in Agatha Christie novels.

You mean that they killed Lyanna with Dawn to get Jon to look Stark? What do you mean by " Jon's looks are something that I think are explained by the death of Lyanna and involve the sword Dawn."?

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

6 minutes ago, hallam said:

I think that the key to the backstory is the 'three heads' prophecy we have not heard yet. We know that was the cause of the rift between Aerys and Rheagar but not why. Presumably, Aerys took it as a prophecy that Rheagar's third child would take the throne by force. I suspect that the prophecy also predicts the reason Jamie sat on the Iron throne after murdering him.

R+L =J only provides an explanation for one fact, the reason Ned is concealing a child that is obviously not his. And it does not distinguish Jon from Gendry who as a Baratheon also has Targarean blood and could ride dragons.

A prophecy that would cause Rheagar to conceal the birth of his third child. i.e. R+E = J provides an explanation that ties together all the unexplained issues in the backstory. The only contrary evidence is given by a character known as 'JonCon' who only has it third hand at best. GRRM could hardly make it more obvious.

Jon's looks are something that I think are explained by the death of Lyanna and involve the sword Dawn.

Of course the text provides really heavy hints about R+L=J. Just like there are really heavy hints that the wrong people were the murderer in Agatha Christie novels.

Maybe, only remember that Thoros is a priest of the Red God and Mel is busy murdering people quite enthusiastically.

The only reason to keep Mel around is if it turns out that the Red God and the White Walkers are two sides of the same coin like the Vorlons and the Shadows in Bab5.

Could you try to be more clear please. I am sorry I'm not grasping what you are trying to say in your comments regarding R+L=J. The cause of the rift between Rhaegar and Aerys was, as far as I recall the fact Aerys thought Rhaegar was plotting to take his throne. And nothing to do with the Prophesy. 

how can you ascertain any thing to do with Jaime sitting on the IT from what little we know of TPTWP? 

Are you saying that TPTWP says the third kid must be hidden? and that Jon is Elia's son? and some magic involving Dawn explains why he looks like a Stark? 

And just as GRRM has said he wouldn't lay the clues that the butler done it only to have it turn out the chamber maid did.  And have you ever read Christie? She doesn't lay clues that false suspects did it. She lays out clues as to who did do it, then peppers misdirections in which all ultimately are non starters. Kinda like R+L=J is threaded throughout, but there are misdirections in the form of other suggestions as to who may be Jon's mother, all ultimately come to nothing though as they just don't work within the framework of the text. 

Yes Thoros is a red priest and Mel kills people, what are you getting at?

I doubt the Red God exists at all. 

[Clegane'sPup]

Something I don't want to see happen is Jon and Arya getting married. The resurrected marrying the little assassin. It would be a mess.

[hallam]

1 minute ago, Blade of Sunlight said:

You mean that they killed Lyanna with Dawn to get Jon to look Stark? What do you mean by " Jon's looks are something that I think are explained by the death of Lyanna and involve the sword Dawn."?

No, I think is was suicide.

I think the main tell that Jon is not a Stark is that Ned does not have him legitimized. It would be a trivial thing for him to ask Robert and absolutely no reason for Robert to refuse. And that need not affect the Tullys in any way because the legitimization could put Jon's claim behind that of Ned's male heirs by Kat. 

Ned might defer to Kat if Jon was his son. But is it really likely he wouldn't legitimize Jon rather than build Lyanna a tomb with a statue?

If R+L = J then Jon is a bastard and that means he can't inherit. He certainly can't inherit over Robert of the Baratheon line. He doesn't have any stronger claim to the throne than Cersei's children. So why would Ned claim him as his own son? There are plenty of Stark kin killed in Robert's Rebellion. Ned needs absolutely no explanation for bringing home an orphan to raise as a squire.

R+L = J is sufficient to explain why Ned brings Jon home but doesn't fit the fact he is raised as a bastard son. Ned knows that Jon is going to join the watch because he is a bastard and does nothing to stop it.

Ned's actions only make sense if there is a very specific threat to Jon that demands that he put the boy under his direct protection by claiming him as a son but refuse to have him legitimized.

Oh and I think fake Aegon is involved. I think that the spell is a type of glamor spell. Fake Aegon is Ned's real bastard child (or his elder brother's). Which explains the lack of fake Aegon in the show and the reason they didn't do the Mance/Rattleshirt bit.