[Book Spoilers] R+L=J, A+J=T and other theories on HBO V.4

[Suzanna Stormborn]

11 hours ago, Jô Maltese said:

Does anybody think there is indeed something amiss with Tyrion? His legendary intelligence was questioned once or thrice last season and again during the first two episodes of season 8. Sansa saying something like "and I thought you were the cleverest man on earth", well he is, isn't he? So why those stupid strategic mistakes?

Also, twice now he had some long conversations with key characters, Cersei and Bran, conversations we know nothing about... He's onto something I think, and I am ready to bet he just secretly plays his own game to win the Iron Throne for himself in the end. And I believe he will.

Last, but not least, Arya telling Jon that Sansa is the "cleverest woman on Earth" draws a strange parallel with what Sansa said to Tyrion. As I keep saying here and there, those two are still husband and wife and have a genuine esteem for each other (and in the books Sansa does not marry Ramsay, but let's see what happens in the Vale), and who better to rule the 7K than the "cleverest couple on Earth"?

Idk what's going on with him. His character has dwindled down to nothing except Dany's punching bag. I am at least hopeful that he learned something in his talk with Bran ans will have some kind of helpful plan at some point.  Although anyone on the show would have to be very dumb to listen to any plan of his now considering his track record recently.

[T and A]

54 minutes ago, Suzanna Stormborn said:

Idk what's going on with him. His character has dwindled down to nothing except Dany's punching bag. I am at least hopeful that he learned something in his talk with Bran ans will have some kind of helpful plan at some point.  Although anyone on the show would have to be very dumb to listen to any plan of his now considering his track record recently.

Bran told him to blow up Kings Landing if needed, so that the NK won't get a bigger army. This will be the reason why he will be executed later. Mark my words . He saves the realm from the doom but has to pay a high price for it. A bittersweet ending indeed. 

[Zorral]

24 minutes ago, T and A said:

Bran told him to blow up Kings Landing if needed, so that the NK won't get a bigger army. This will be the reason why he will be executed later. Mark my words . He saves the realm from the doom but has to pay a high price for it. A bittersweet ending indeed. 

That's an interesting speculation, particularly narratively -- to have Tyrion, who is actually saving a lot of lives, go on trial for the same crime that his brother Jaime committed, but a crime in inverse.  Thus, if so, he'll probably exonerated?  Because burning the inhabitants would save them from becoming zombies? which is even worse than just being killed?  (While Jaime killed the king in order to keep him from burning all the inhabitants to death.)

[T and A]

23 minutes ago, Zorral said:

That's an interesting speculation, particularly narratively -- to have Tyrion, who is actually saving a lot of lives, go on trial for the same crime that his brother Jaime committed, but a crime in inverse.  Thus, if so, he'll probably exonerated?  Because burning the inhabitants would save them from becoming zombies? which is even worse than just being killed?  (While Jaime killed the king in order to keep him from burning all the inhabitants to death.)

Yes. So to speak. He would also save the realm from the Invasion. Jamie saved Kings Landing from burning down, for the right reason, and could live on, no one knowing what he did. Tyrion blows up Kings Landing and kills all the inhabitants, to save them from living the life of a Zombie and to save the realm and gets killed for that. Jon, an honorable men, raised by a Stark, condems him for this to death. Who is your hero now? "How can the Wolf judge the Lion?". That sound like a GRRM end. At least for me. 

"Dragons old and young, true and false, bright and dark. And you. A small man with a big shadow, snarling in the midst of it all"

[Zorral]

13 minutes ago, T and A said:

Yes. So to speak. He would also save the realm from the Invasion. Jamie saved Kings Landing from burning down, for the right reason, and could live on, no one knowing what he did. Tyrion blows up Kings Landing and kills all the inhabitants, to save them from living the life of a Zombie and to save the realm and gets killed for that. Jon, an honorable men, raised by a Stark, condems him for this to death. Who is your hero now? "How can the Wolf judge the Lion?". That sound like a GRRM end. At least for me. 

"Dragons old and young, true and false, bright and dark. And you. A small man with a big shadow, snarling in the midst of it all"

Well, that makes sense.

So, then, it can't happen, am I right?  

[T and A]

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Well, that makes sense.

So, then, it can't happen, am I right?  

Keep in mind, the end will be the same, in the books and in the show. It is stated by the master himself . I sound now arrogant, because I just declared that what I wrote to be a GRRMish ending. But I can see the bitersweetnes in it. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, T and A said:

Keep in mind, the end will be the same, in the books and in the show. It is stated by the master himself . I sound now arrogant, because I just declared that what I wrote to be a GRRMish ending. But I can see the bitersweetnes in it. 

George does not know how the show is going to end, his new interview made that clear. He said he believes the show will have a similar ending to the book on the basis of some conversation he had with the writers years ago. If he had read the scripts or seen the episodes he would know. But he doesn't know.

Also, he never says the travesty is a faithful adaptation (he would have to be retarded to do that). He just points out that it is more faithful than a lot of movie and TV adaptations of literary content have been in the past - but if you compare awful shit to dreadful shit you really don't get very far, do you? After all, most such adaptations did not only change, rename, cut characters and plot lines but, at times, even the entire story of a book or book series.

The show is 'more faithful' than a lot of other crap simply because it includes pretty much all the main characters of the book.

[DMC]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The difference would be that you can actually go back and see me write stuff like that years before the show reached that point. Not to mention that there is nothing to rationalize here. Shit simply smells like shit. And gold doesn't.

I have absolutely zero problem believing you've always maintained you've known better than the show.  Hell, oftentimes you adopt a prose that sounds like you think you know better than Martin.  That being said, it's still hilarious and ridicule-worthy to watch you get the case of "nos" like a child in your cute denying.  My long-term memory isn't the best, but I'm fairly positive I recall when I argued on these threads (4-5?) years back most of the rest of us agreed if it wasn't on the show - in terms at least of him riding a dragon - then it'd be unlikely to affect the books.

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I have absolutely zero problem believing you've always maintained you've known better than the show.  Hell, oftentimes you adopt a prose that sounds like you think you know better than Martin.  That being said, it's still hilarious and ridicule-worthy to watch you get the case of "nos" like a child in your cute denying.  My long-term memory isn't the best, but I'm fairly positive I recall when I argued on these threads (4-5?) years back most of the rest of us agreed if it wasn't on the show - in terms at least of him riding a dragon - then it'd be unlikely to affect the books.

My contributions to the Jon thing usually revolve around internal motivation and justification of legal aspects (polygamous marriage, state of birth, strength of legal claims, etc.). I never had any issue with Jon being Rhaegar's son. I was on board with that idea long before I started discussing things on line.

I was never much into those show-book discussions, but I never agreed that the idea that these people have info from George we don't have must mean they actually use it or that new scenes and story lines that pop up in the show have any relevance in connection to the books. Such thinking was very tempting during the first season due to the wish to learn what happened in the absence of the few POVs we get in the books, but ultimately I'd think everybody must have known since season 1 that they were telling their story, not George's. After all, the man sold the rights. It is HBOs property now, they can do whatever the hell they want in the show. And they do.

The deviations were small at first, but there are a lot of those back then for which there was never any need - the changed Cersei actually loving Robert once, Cat the wailing mother, Drogo raping Dany in the wedding night, Ros, etc.

If you see that one really is mistaken when one thinks one can determine when they just did something because they wanted to, and when they were actually referencing something from George. Not to mention that they usually actually told us when they were drawing things from George later on (like with Shireen or HOLD THE DOOR).

It would have always been stupid to go look at the show to confirm a 'book theory'. I mean, honestly, does anybody actually believe the show confirmed that Jon's name is Aegon, that Rhaegar annulled his marriage to Elia Martell, and that Sam is going to find out about that in diary of some High Septon hidden somewhere in the Citadel of Oldtown?

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Xemi said:

Yeah, he totally believed that Jon would be King in the North... not.

Still don't believe that Jon will become the King in the North in the books, by the way.

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

My contributions to the Jon thing usually revolve around

Oh, I'm sorry this entirely in on my part in terms of confusion.  What I originally quoted from was definitely related to Jon, but I was referring to AJT in all of those responses.  Again, I apologize for the confusion, that's my fault.

Anyway, in terms of Jon, yeah I don't know where the fuck the show is going with that and I don't think it matters much.  Point is his heritage will play a role in the endgame, I suppose, but that's always been assumed by most everybody.  What I would say is you've kind of discounted the possibility that will actually matter to anyone beyond a small group of people, and it's fairly clear that's gonna be proven wrong in episode 4.  At least I think it is.  Maybe they kill him off next ep, but that'd be narratively idiotic after spending two episodes hyping it up.  So, actually, yeah, he'll probably die on Sunday.

[Lord Varys]

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

Oh, I'm sorry this entirely in on my part in terms of confusion.  What I originally quoted from was definitely related to Jon, but I was referring to AJT in all of those responses.  Again, I apologize for the confusion, that's my fault.

Anyway, in terms of Jon, yeah I don't know where the fuck the show is going with that and I don't think it matters much.  Point is his heritage will play a role in the endgame, I suppose, but that's always been assumed by most everybody.  What I would say is you've kind of discounted the possibility that will actually matter to anyone beyond a small group of people, and it's fairly clear that's gonna be proven wrong in episode 4.  At least I think it is.  Maybe they kill him off next ep, but that'd be narratively idiotic after spending two episodes hyping it up.  So, actually, yeah, he'll probably die on Sunday.

Oh, well, I'm still pretty certain Tyrion is Aerys II's son. Perhaps it is going to turn out the plot twist George decided to add to TWoW, after all. But in light of the changes they did to Tyrion's character, the decision to give a dragon to their Lich King, and the decision to rush through things it is not surprising that rather important plot lines are ignored. I mean, nobody ever said anything about the dragon having three heads in the show, right?

The 'Aegon story' in the show is just false tension. Whatever is going to happen in the books it will not revolve around Jon's claim vs. Dany's. It literally can't considering that Dany will have a vast army of people being loyal to her, and only her, personally. To them it wouldn't matter whose son Jon Snow is.

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I mean, nobody ever said anything about the dragon having three heads in the show, right?

No, think you're right there.  And the way they initiated Jon riding Rhaegal was a travesty beyond proportions.  But for the umpteenth time:  If Tyrion doesn't ride a dragon in the show that means he is very unlikely to in the books.  I don't care "how much they know."  That's something they, or anyone, would ask, because it's insanely pertinent and considering their treatment of Tyrion - up to and including this past Sunday's episode where multiple characters sucked his brain off to excuse all the narratively imposed stupid decisions he's made - there's no way they wouldn't include it.

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, think you're right there.  And the way they initiated Jon riding Rhaegal was a travesty beyond proportions.  But for the umpteenth time:  If Tyrion doesn't ride a dragon in the show that means he is very unlikely to in the books.  I don't care "how much they know."  That's something they, or anyone, would ask, because it's insanely pertinent and considering their treatment of Tyrion - up to and including this past Sunday's episode where multiple characters sucked his brain off to excuse all the narratively imposed stupid decisions he's made - there's no way they wouldn't include it.

But they don't give a damn about the entire dragonrider plot. No dragon-bonding in the story, no marriage between rider and dragon for life, none of that. If you basically can ride a dragon for arbitrary reasons, if there is nothing special to it, etc. - which is the case in the show - then why on earth do you think they care about dragonrider stuff?

Their take on the dragons basically is that they do what the script commands. They fly in and burn stuff and do whatever they are supposed to without a rider.

I mean, it is crystal clear that Dany's dragons will have multiple riders. There is a reason why there is the rule in the books that you can only ride one dragon at a time. Somebody will have to claim the other two dragons simply to get them to Westeros. And there is also a reason why there is this dragon horn in the novels.

The easy answer to this question is that Tyrion didn't ride a dragon because they didn't want him to ride one. Perhaps they didn't like the story about his true parentage (like so many readers), perhaps they thought it would be silly. But then - the most important reasons seems to be they just didn't give a damn about the dragonrider thing. They didn't want that magical dragon stuff in their show.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But they don't give a damn about the entire dragonrider plot. No dragon-bonding in the story, no marriage between rider and dragon for life, none of that. If you basically can ride a dragon for arbitrary reasons, if there is nothing special to it, etc. - which is the case in the show - then why on earth do you think they care about dragonrider stuff?

I agree, obviously, that they haven't attended to this at all.  That being said, I still don't think they're gonna put, like Tormund on a dragon anytime soon.  I still think who gets put on a dragon in the show matters for the books.  Of course you're totally right that I could be proven wrong in the next 4 weeks with the show's stupidity.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I mean, it is crystal clear that Dany's dragons will have multiple riders. There is a reason why there is the rule in the books that you can only ride one dragon at a time. Somebody will have to claim the other two dragons simply to get them to Westeros. And there is also a reason why there is this dragon horn in the novels.

I think you're right that the lore has strongly hinted at multiple dragonriders, but once again I refer you to the thing I said for the umpteenth time.  It's still entirely possible Tyrion rides a dragon on the show.  I just think at this juncture we should all acknowledge it's unlikely.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The easy answer to this question is that Tyrion didn't ride a dragon because they didn't want him to ride one.

Also again, I reject this premise.  The showrunners clearly love Tyrion, and will give even give more latitude to his character because they want Dinklage on the show.  Similar, albeit not to the same extent, as Headey with Cersei.  Frankly, this is plainly more likely to be a "Type I" error (false positive) where the showrunners want Dinklage to ride a dragon than a "Type II" error (false negative) where the showrunners fail to show him riding a dragon even though he does in the books.

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Also again, I reject this premise.  The showrunners clearly love Tyrion, and will give even give more latitude to his character because they want Dinklage on the show.  Similar, albeit not to the same extent, as Headey with Cersei.  Frankly, this is plainly more likely to be a "Type I" error (false positive) where the showrunners want Dinklage to ride a dragon than a "Type II" error (false negative) where the showrunners fail to show him riding a dragon even though he does in the books.

Perhaps they thought it would look silly?

They certainly like Dinklage, but they don't give a damn about the character Dinklage is supposed to be playing, are they?

I mean, why do we care who rides a dragon in the show? There is no system to this. Even Jon riding a dragon was completely arbitrary was essentially in no way narratively connected to his parentage. It was basically just a funny lead-up scene to sex. There is a meta-level to this for book nerds, of course, reading this as sign for Jon's Targaryen ancestry, etc. but that's not part of the internal continuity of the show as long nobody talks about who can ride a dragon for what reason.

Didn't really get that Tyrion could still ride a dragon. But then, even if he does, it would mean nothing to me. I'd not read that as confirmation of Tyrion's true parentage or anything.

I never even read Dany-Jon as confirmation of their romance. I truly am this detached from this thing.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Perhaps they thought it would look silly?

I mean, it all looks silly.  That's an egalitarian quality to CGI, so don't think that's a concern.

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Didn't really get that Tyrion could still ride a dragon. But then, even if he does, it would mean nothing to me. I'd not read that as confirmation of Tyrion's true parentage or anything.

I never even read Dany-Jon as confirmation of their romance. I truly am this detached from this thing.

Well, that's you then.  Think someone else mentioned this, but if that's the case there's really no point to be on this thread.

[Lord Varys]

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

I mean, it all looks silly.  That's an egalitarian quality to CGI, so don't think that's a concern.

Well, that's you then.  Think someone else mentioned this, but if that's the case there's really no point to be on this thread.

Well, you don't have to agree with things to discuss them, do you ;-)?

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, you don't have to agree with things to discuss them, do you ;-)?

No, but you're saying you just don't care about how the content of the show affects the content of the books.  That's fine as a position, but it's also antithetical to the very point of this thread.

[Jô Maltese]

The problem with Tyrion's dragon is that they gave it to the Night King! No way this happening in the books.