Jump to content
Suzanna Stormborn

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

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

I hate the Tyrion AJ theory, hate it, hate it, but I did think with the world book that the author seemed to open up the possibility that it's true on purpose, of course, he's kind of a troll, so I think it could/might happen in the books, but it feels like there is no way the show has any time even for a SHOCKING reveal like that, and at this point, it isn't going to have any impact on the narrative either.

This is hardly surprising considering that Dinklage never played GRRM's Tyrion. The weird and inconsistent guy they created for the show has basically nothing in common with George's Tyrion or his story. And it is quite clear that in a scenario - although there is no evidence they had that idea when Tyrion arrived at Meereen - where the Lich King creature rides and undead dragon we cannot have 'the three heads of the dragon' as three dragonriders, can we? 

On 4/15/2019 at 3:57 PM, UnmaskedLurker said:

^^ It appears to me that D&D simply have dropped the entire notion of "dragon bonding" altogether. If such a concept existed on the show, Dany would know about it (she knows about it in the books, I believe) and would not have let Jon ride the dragon (as she would have no reason to think he could bond with a dragon and he almost certainly would have died in her view). Now they seemed to have done a "ret con" on the issue so that anyone that a dragon like can ride the dragon (and presumably that could be different people at different times). No bonding required -- no Targ blood required. Dany seems fairly unworried about the likelihood Jon would be killed by the dragon (because the dragon seemed to like Jon) -- a fear that would have been all to real in the books.

Oh, the nonsense show could still later explain that Jon could ride a dragon because he is a Targaryen, etc. but it is obviously the case that no character seeing Jon ride a dragon knew or said anything about that. What's crystal clear, though, is that Daenerys has no idea at all about the dragonbonding, dragonriding, or anything in the dragon department, really.

On 4/15/2019 at 3:57 PM, UnmaskedLurker said:

My fear is that D&D have basically taken most of the "mysticism" out of the show so that, for example. there are no longer any magical rules regarding dragons and the "three heads of the dragon" prophecy will not be central to the resolution. Similarly, the maggy the frog prophecy on the show eliminated the line about the valonqar, so I suspect Cersei's death will be quite different on the show than GRRM has planned (which I still believe will be Jaime in the books -- if he ever gets around to writing them) but not necessarily on the show. By eliminating the three heads of the dragon prophecy, D&D were free to incorporate other deviations, such as being able to add the drama of killing off a dragon (something I am not convinced will happen in the books) and eliminate the complexities surrounding Tyrion as a Targ bastard (something that assuming we are correct will happen in the books, D&D perhaps concluded was too complicated to explain (no back story regarding Tyrion's mother on the show like there is in the books) and repetitive of Jon as really being Aegon Targaryen -- personally still convinced in the books it will be Aemon Targaryen).

See above on the dragons thing.

One could also add that the chances that a dragon is going to change sides from a representative of 'fire' to 'ice' is also pretty much zero in this world. If it worked that way then why are there any 'hot Others' or something like that?

But Sam's diatribe about Jon being 'Aegon Targaryen, the Sixth of His Name, etc.' strongly suggests that they just twisted the real Aegon plot line from the books giving parts of it to Cersei (now most evident with the Golden Company!) and Jon (rightful heir and 'Aegon name' stuff). The only thing left of the Second Dance of the Dragons from the books seems to be this 'tension' between Jon and Dany's people which is essentially going to go nowhere. If George wanted Dany and Jon to clash he could just as well dropped the entire Aegon plot - but he didn't.

In the books there is likely going to be zero reason for any bitching between Dany and Jon - the breach between the Targaryens will be between Aegon and Dany, not Jon and Dany.

And considering that it would be utterly stupid of George to have two sons of Rhaegar's who are named 'Aegon' we can be reasonably certain that Jon is not named Aegon. Could be Aemon, could be Jaehaerys, could be Rhaegar - I like the latter version if Lyanna made the final call (as she should have) naming the boy after his father after his death. That could work pretty well and be a nice touch to their romance thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys--

I hope you can clarify one of the points you made regarding Dany and Jon. I agree that Dany and fAegon will likely be a sort of "dance of dragons" conflict, with Dany asserting that he is not the real Aegon (and she will be proven correct, I believe). Eventually, however, Jon and Dany seem destined to have a romance in the books, and eventually RLJ will be revealed in the books. How do you expect Dany to react? She has to have some reaction. It won't be the same as fAegon because she will be in a romantic and strategic alliance with Jon most likely at that point, and she also likely will believe the truth of the revelation, but some drama has to come out of the reveal, doesn't it?

On a side note, as to Jon's real name, I think that Lyanna would honor Rhaegar by giving Jon the name that Rhaegar picked out for Jon (rather than naming him Rhaegar). In fact, I don't think that any Targ in the family tree has the same name as his father, so the likelihood of Rhaegar wanting to name Jon as Rhaegar seems quite doubtful.

I strongly suspect that name to be Aemon for multiple reasons (discussed in multiple threads in the past on the book forum). The reason that sticks in my head the most, however, is the quote from the original Game of Thrones book from one of Jon's chapters:

But he had not left the Wall for that; he had left because he was after all his father's son, and Robb's brother. The gift of a sword, even a sword as fine as Longclaw, did not make him a Mormont. Nor was he Aemon Targaryen. (emphasis added)

I think that GRRM's love of irony and textual hints makes it logical that because "Jon Snow knows nothing" he would be wrong here and in fact he IS Aemon Targaryen. I think it is also relevant that a Targ named Aemon never was king before, but of all of the non-king Targs that have been discussed in the books, two of the more prominent were named Aemon (Dragonheart, who by the way was one of the characters Jon like to pretend to be when a child, and Maester) and both were given very positive "edits" by GRRM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

@Lord Varys--

I hope you can clarify one of the points you made regarding Dany and Jon. I agree that Dany and fAegon will likely be a sort of "dance of dragons" conflict, with Dany asserting that he is not the real Aegon (and she will be proven correct, I believe). Eventually, however, Jon and Dany seem destined to have a romance in the books, and eventually RLJ will be revealed in the books. How do you expect Dany to react? She has to have some reaction. It won't be the same as fAegon because she will be in a romantic and strategic alliance with Jon most likely at that point, and she also likely will believe the truth of the revelation, but some drama has to come out of the reveal, doesn't it?

Just to clarify: The Second Dance will be a thing. George already teased it. We would not expect such a thing to happen with the certainty we do if he hadn't said that there would be such a Dance. One can wonder how much it will be resemble the first, but it seems clear to me that it must be a war or at least a bigger conflict between a male and a female Targaryen pretender. Anything else would not get named the Second Dance of the Dragons in Westerosi history.

Your question would depend on the question when Jon's true parentage is revealed to whom. Is the romance going to begin before the reveal or only thereafter? Will they already be married at the point of the reveal? That we cannot say at this point considering the show is as twisted and nonsensical as it is.

I expect there to be a personal conflict in Jon, but really no political conflict, especially since it is quite clear that this nonsense about Harrington being 'the rightful king' is just fake tension. With Jon's outlandish origin story and the obvious inability of people to actually *prove* it - especially to the satisfaction of people who might not be keen or interested to re-imagine Ned Stark's bastard as Rhaegar's son - there seems to be very little potential for Jon to actually use the truth about his parentage to a start a political campaign. The Targaryen loyalists of Westeros will either gravitate towards Aegon or Daenerys. They look the part and they are claiming to be Targaryen pretenders that, according to public knowledge, exist. Neither of them is a *secret prince*.

I don't expect much political trouble within Dany and Jon's romance/relationship/marriage. If they love each other they will decide to establish a joint-rule, inspired by both Aegon the Conqueror and his sister-wives - with Dany playing the role of the Conqueror - or Queen Rhaenyra and Daemon Targaryen as her prince/king consort and Protector of the Realm (i.e. leader of the armies).

You have to keep in mind that Dany already believes the riders of the dragons - the other dragon heads - will be men she can trust. If Jon claims one of her dragons - or if his parentage is revealed to her after they meet and she subsequently urges him to try and mount one of the dragons - then this should seal the deal for her. There wouldn't be any great controversy there. Even more so since Dany actually knows about Rhaegar/Lyanna's romance, implying that she would not be overly surprised if a child had been born from that union.

George could also make a newer innovation and make them official joint-rulers like Mary II and William III of England. The latter could make sense if it were to turn out that Jon is actually King in the North by the time he and Dany marry or get together. They could decide that the North and the rest of the Seven Kingdoms are formally re-united by the ruling monarchs marrying each other (not sure I think that's very likely - I rather think Jon is going to rise power and prominence as the official or informal heir to Stannis; not to mention that I very much doubt that George is going to treat both Rickon and Sansa/Arya as badly as the show treated them insofar as their claims are concerned).

21 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

On a side note, as to Jon's real name, I think that Lyanna would honor Rhaegar by giving Jon the name that Rhaegar picked out for Jon (rather than naming him Rhaegar). In fact, I don't think that any Targ in the family tree has the same name as his father, so the likelihood of Rhaegar wanting to name Jon as Rhaegar seems quite doubtful.

The second Daemon Blackfyre is named after his father.Aside from that there seems to be no son named after his father, but this would be a special case considering that Lyanna's son would have (likely) been born posthumously. 

But at this point we have no reason to believe that Rhaegar actually came up with a name for Lyanna's son. If he did and if Lyanna honored his wishes - which I don't think she would necessarily have to do - then the names Aemon and Jaehaerys make the most sense, I'd think. But Daeron could also work, and possibly Maekar and Duncan if one considers Rhaegar's other more recent ancestors and kin. And then there is also the possibility of him making a reference to the early Targaryens on Dragonstone, i.e. pulling an Aenar or a Gaemon out of his head.

It is just not possible to figure this out at this point. All I think we can be reasonably certain is that he is not going to be named Aegon, because Rhaegar wouldn't have wanted to do that and Lyanna would have likely not chosen that particular name all by herself. If she chose a Targaryen name I'm leaning more towards Rhaegar considering he is the Targaryen she loved and she may have hoped to see something of the father to survive in the son, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I expect there to be a personal conflict in Jon, but really no political conflict, especially since it is quite clear that this nonsense about Harrington being 'the rightful king' is just fake tension. With Jon's outlandish origin story and the obvious inability of people to actually *prove* it - especially to the satisfaction of people who might not be keen or interested to re-imagine Ned Stark's bastard as Rhaegar's son - there seems to be very little potential for Jon to actually use the truth about his parentage to a start a political campaign.

Lol wut? Yeah, it's not like they have documents from the citadel citing the marriage between R and L and Jon is flying a fucking dragon now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Xemi said:

Lol wut? Yeah, it's not like they have documents from the citadel citing the marriage between R and L and Jon is flying a fucking dragon now.

There won't be any such stuff in the books (there are no marriage certificates or licenses in Westeros that I'm aware of) - and even if there were: in GRRM's world and setting nobody would care about nonsense written on paper. Words written on paper are not even wind. The idea that people are just going to buy a story by Sam because he says he read stuff is ridiculous in itself. The fact that Jon may believe him doesn't mean anybody else will.

And as I said - nobody in the show bothered to introduce the concept that only Targaryens/people of dragonlord descent can ride dragons. Thus it is literally meaningless that Jon rode a dragon or else Dany would already assume that Jon must be a Targaryen (descendant).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There won't be any such stuff in the books (there are no marriage certificates or licenses in Westeros that I'm aware of) - and even if there were: in GRRM's world and setting nobody would care about nonsense written on paper. Words written on paper are not even wind. The idea that people are just going to buy a story by Sam because he says he read stuff is ridiculous in itself. The fact that Jon may believe him doesn't mean anybody else will.

And as I said - nobody in the show bothered to introduce the concept that only Targaryens/people of dragonlord descent can ride dragons. Thus it is literally meaningless that Jon rode a dragon or else Dany would already assume that Jon must be a Targaryen (descendant).

Yeah, it's not like Joffrey and co being blonde was enough for half the realm to believe he was a bastard. I'm sure people will look at Jon on a dragon and will think "No big deal":lmao:

Sometimes I wonder if some people believe the BS they say or they're just arguing for the sake of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xemi said:

Yeah, it's not like Joffrey and co being blonde was enough for half the realm to believe he was a bastard. I'm sure people will look at Jon on a dragon and will think "No big deal":lmao:

Sometimes I wonder if some people believe the BS they say or they're just arguing for the sake of it.

While the books take great care in explaining many (although not yet all) of the dangers and nuances of dragonrider and dragonbonding, the show seems to be ignoring all of these issues. Based on Dany's suggestion that Jon should try to ride the dragon without much care, on the show, there must be no "one dragon/one rider" rule, apparently, like there is in the books. Additionally, there does not appear to be the kind of dragonbonding at all. The dragons let Dany ride them because she is their "mother" and they like and trust her. Presumably, Jon is able to ride the dragon because he is close to Dany and she gave her approval. So seeing Jon ride a dragon on the show likely will only prove that Dany likes Jon and thus the dragons like Jon.

The books will treat this issue very differently -- as GRRM has fairly clearly made his interest in the intricacies of how someone is able to ride a dragon quite important. The show cares nothing for such complexities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Xemi said:

Yeah, it's not like Joffrey and co being blonde was enough for half the realm to believe he was a bastard. I'm sure people will look at Jon on a dragon and will think "No big deal":lmao:

Sometimes I wonder if some people believe the BS they say or they're just arguing for the sake of it.

Not sure what you mean by that. You are aware of the fact that while Stannis is writing letters pretty much nobody is actually supporting him - and very few of the people who support him actually do so because Joffrey, Tommen, and Myrcella don't have black hair. They support him for their own reasons.

Telling the truth doesn't win you anything in a world like Westeros - especially when you don't have any proof (which Stannis never had). But even if you do have proof - and even if people actually share your view that a person isn't who they say he is - then this doesn't mean others act the way you want them to. Olenna Redwyne clearly does not believe that Cersei's children are Robert's - she publicly jokes about that - but that doesn't change the political alliance between the Lannisters and Tyrells.

Jon Snow doesn't look like a Targaryen and does not claim to be a Targaryen prince the world knew actually exist(ed) - like Dany and the Aegon of the books do. More importantly, historically there were other bastard dragonriders of obscure descent and parentage during the Dance - none of them was adopted into House Targaryen with open arms like a long-lost sibling. Not even the riders of dragons as large as Silverwing and Vermithor.

A Jon Snow with a dragon could certainly become a power in his own right - but there is no guarantee that people will just forget how he looks and that he is or was a bastard before he claimed a dragon.

The status quo rarely changes. Davos is technically a lord now, but very few people actually see or accept him as such. Chances are very high that it will be similar with Jon. He wasn't raised as a Targaryen prince but a Stark bastard - and he looks like Ned Stark not like Rhaegar Targaryen. His entire identity and bearing revolves around being Ned Stark's bastard son. He would not just suddenly behave like a prince just because some people say he is one. Nor are the Targaryen loyalists - much less Daenerys Targaryen's personal friends, allies, armies, and supporters - suddenly switch their allegiance to this guy simply because he claims to be her nephew.

If a dragon could fundamentally change how you are perceived then the Caltrops would have likely not conspired to murder the Two Betrayers. After all, nobody in that circle meant that being a dragonrider suddenly promotes you to 'royal prince' or even 'king', right?

2 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

While the books take great care in explaining many (although not yet all) of the dangers and nuances of dragonrider and dragonbonding, the show seems to be ignoring all of these issues. Based on Dany's suggestion that Jon should try to ride the dragon without much care, on the show, there must be no "one dragon/one rider" rule, apparently, like there is in the books. Additionally, there does not appear to be the kind of dragonbonding at all. The dragons let Dany ride them because she is their "mother" and they like and trust her. Presumably, Jon is able to ride the dragon because he is close to Dany and she gave her approval. So seeing Jon ride a dragon on the show likely will only prove that Dany likes Jon and thus the dragons like Jon.

I guess they have some guy give some talk in the next episode - or whenever it becomes public knowledge that Jon has ridden a dragon and that he is supposed to be Rhaegar's son - that only Targaryen descendants do right dragon - or that only such people are not immediately attacked by dragons when they try to mount them.

But they could just as well drop the thing entirely. In fact, the way they present dragonriding in this show - in a ridiculous way without saddles or any means to hold on to them - strongly suggests that they couldn't care less about this entire thing since they don't even try to make it a convincing part of the plot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2019 at 7:57 AM, UnmaskedLurker said:

^^ It appears to me that D&D simply have dropped the entire notion of "dragon bonding" altogether. If such a concept existed on the show, Dany would know about it (she knows about it in the books, I believe) and would not have let Jon ride the dragon (as she would have no reason to think he could bond with a dragon and he almost certainly would have died in her view). Now they seemed to have done a "ret con" on the issue so that anyone that a dragon like can ride the dragon (and presumably that could be different people at different times). No bonding required -- no Targ blood required. Dany seems fairly unworried about the likelihood Jon would be killed by the dragon (because the dragon seemed to like Jon) -- a fear that would have been all to real in the books.

For what it's worth, D&D said during the "Inside the Episode" segment that only Targaryens can ride dragons:

Quote

BENIOFF: No one's ever ridden a dragon except for Dany. Only Targaryens can ride dragons, and that should be a sign for Jon. Jon's not always the quickest on the uptake, but eventually he gets there.

WEISS: We wanted to kind of re-anchor their relationship. It seemed important for it to involve the dragons, since the dragons play such an important role.

BENIOFF: It's a major thing for her when she sees they have some kind of connection to him, they allow him to be around them. And when he flies up with her and shows her where he used to hunt as a kid, I think she falls even farther in love with him.

WEISS: Seeing Jon and Dany on the dragons together, it's a Jon and Dany moment, but it also seeds in the idea that these creatures will accept Jon Snow as one of their riders.

Game of Thrones | Season 8 Episode 1 | Inside the Episode (HBO) (2:56)

Realistically, I would have to take Benioff's subsequent comment about Jon being slow on the uptake as nothing more than a joke, however; because if Jon and/or Dany know that only Targaryens can ride dragons, but have no inkling that Jon is a Targaryen, then him trying to casually mount a dragon is crazy. So my interpretation right now is that in the show dragons can indeed only be ridden by Targaryens, but that Jon and Dany don't know about this. Someone like Varys might know, though, and bring it up in a future episode; they made a point of showing Varys, Tyrion, and Davos' reactions when Jon flew right in front of them. (I imagine the Night King killing and resurrecting a dragon as his thrall is an exception to the "only Targaryens" rule.)

Quote

Similarly, the maggy the frog prophecy on the show eliminated the line about the valonqar, so I suspect Cersei's death will be quite different on the show than GRRM has planned (which I still believe will be Jaime in the books -- if he ever gets around to writing them) but not necessarily on the show.

I'm pretty sure Cersei will be killed by the same person in both the books and the show (I think that person is almost certainly Jaime). I suspect that they eliminated the line about the valonqar from Maggy's prophecy just so Cersei's fate isn't as obvious to show-only viewers. I'm still somewhat surprised that GRRM wrote what appears to be such a clear instance of foreshadowing for the death of a major character. He obscures it a bit by referencing "valonqar" a few times without the full context, and only later clarifying that it means "little brother." But an actor saying something on-screen during a 60-minute episode sticks in a person's mind more than a few lines scattered throughout hundreds of pages in a book, so for that reason I think the showrunners didn't want to have Maggy essentially say, "You will be strangled by your little brother."

(I know some fans have interpreted this prophecy in increasingly vague and obscure ways, so that basically any younger sibling can be the valonqar, male or female (or Arya wearing Tyrion or Jaime's face), but I doubt those theories are true. I think the prophecy's fulfillment has to be personal to Cersei, limiting the candidates to Tyrion and Jaime. And since Cersei is convinced the valonqar is Tyrion, she would be blindsided if it's actually Jaime, who is younger than her by mere moments.)

But you could be right, and I will reanalyze my position when I see what the show does with Cersei and Jaime.

Edited by Shmedricko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ I am thinking someone else will try and mount a dragon on the show and be eaten or thrown off.  AND THEN Dany will realize only her and Jon can do it.

Edited by Suzanna Stormborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Suzanna Stormborn said:

^^^ I am thinking someone else will try and mount a dragon on the show and be eaten or thrown off.  AND THEN Dany will realize only her and Jon can do it.

Yes, maybe, but I still think this scene should have happened AFTER Sam's reveal. They treat dragon riding with flippancy and frivolity when it should be a huge milestone… :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Shmedricko--

Benioff comes across to me in that quote as an idiot for the reasons you outline. If anyone should know about the "rules" of dragonriding, it should be Dany (not Jon), who presumably learned about it from her brother. I understand that Benioff was trying to be funny, but it was still an idiotic comment to suggest that Jon was the one was slow -- Dany would be the one who would be acting foolish by suggesting that a non-Targ should casually try to mount the dragon. Yes, Dany did suggest that Jon might die in the attempt, but she was quite flippant about it and seemed to be comfortable that because the dragon seemed to like Jon that he would have no trouble riding it. And if someone like Varys knows about this "rule" -- he really should have warned Dany so that she did not accidentally kill someone by suggesting they should get on one of the dragons.

I enjoy the show -- but the failure to follow basic logic sometimes gets quite annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

@Shmedricko--

Benioff comes across to me in that quote as an idiot for the reasons you outline. If anyone should know about the "rules" of dragonriding, it should be Dany (not Jon), who presumably learned about it from her brother. I understand that Benioff was trying to be funny, but it was still an idiotic comment to suggest that Jon was the one was slow -- Dany would be the one who would be acting foolish by suggesting that a non-Targ should casually try to mount the dragon. Yes, Dany did suggest that Jon might die in the attempt, but she was quite flippant about it and seemed to be comfortable that because the dragon seemed to like Jon that he would have no trouble riding it. And if someone like Varys knows about this "rule" -- he really should have warned Dany so that she did not accidentally kill someone by suggesting they should get on one of the dragons.

I enjoy the show -- but the failure to follow basic logic sometimes gets quite annoying.

Just as an aside, Jon is fairly dumb on the show, he doesn't learn from his mistakes.  He didn't learn anything from being assassinated because he failed to effectively convince his men of his vision and he's doing the same thing now with the Northerners, this is why I've come to believe he's going to die in the end, both mediums, although he's not dumb in the books like the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could not be more disappointed with the whole lack of magic in the dragon riding. Dany's lack of knowledge, mixed with an apparent disregard for Jon's life. His cheesy line after "you've ruined horses forever for me". :bawl:

all were awful, just so bad.

I am thinking Jon and Dany will both die now on the show.

 

But I was also thinking that maybe GRRM will at least use the show as a test for what happens at the end of the books.  At this point he HAS to want to make it different than the show. so I am still very hopeful that the broad strokes of the ending of the show dont actually align with the books (which is what we have all been saying all this time, that the ending outcome will be basically the same even if the journey is different) I no longer believe the journey or the outcome will be the same.  the ONLY similarity I think is that the WW's will be defeated show and books, nothing else will be the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Suzanna Stormborn said:

I could not be more disappointed with the whole lack of magic in the dragon riding. Dany's lack of knowledge, mixed with an apparent disregard for Jon's life. His cheesy line after "you've ruined horses forever for me". :bawl:

all were awful, just so bad.

I am thinking Jon and Dany will both die now on the show.

 

But I was also thinking that maybe GRRM will at least use the show as a test for what happens at the end of the books.  At this point he HAS to want to make it different than the show. so I am still very hopeful that the broad strokes of the ending of the show dont actually align with the books (which is what we have all been saying all this time, that the ending outcome will be basically the same even if the journey is different) I no longer believe the journey or the outcome will be the same.  the ONLY similarity I think is that the WW's will be defeated show and books, nothing else will be the same.

Didn't he just do a 60 minutes interview where he says he considers GOT a faithful adaptation and that the endings are mostly the same?  So, I think it will be just that, the same for the main characters in terms of the end, who lives, who dies, and the secondary characters things may change, I would guess it will be 80% the book ending, that won't ever be written anyway.

I certainly hope Dany dies, LOL.  I do think Jon dies, it's heavily telegraphed in the show that he is both too stupid and Ned Starkish to lead, and that he doesn't want anything done to bring him back a 2nd time, I'd say that equals dead. 

The dragon riding was typical show, thoughtless, lazy, out of sequence, out of context and illogical within the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, George recently said the ending of the books will be more or less the same. Here.

Interestingly I haven't seen a lot of people mentioning this here. I mean, after the interview came out, but maybe I missed it.

Edited to say: That said, he still may change some things for the book series' end. I mean, there's still a book before the last one, so he's gonna have a long time to think about it. But if he hasn't changed it since the show began, he may not change it at all.

Edited by Lady Anna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Or GRRM is intentionally misleading the readers to think the ending will be the same so that when it is different, they are even more surprised than they otherwise would be. I am reluctant to take anything he says totally at face value -- but I believe that certain elements of the ending are central to the plot he laid out for himself when he first started writing the series, and I don't think any of those elements will change. Whether D&D actually include all of those elements is another matter, but with respect to the essential outcome of the series, I suspect it will be mostly the same as the books (if GRRM ever writes them, which as others have noted, may never occur).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

^^Or GRRM is intentionally misleading the readers to think the ending will be the same so that when it is different, they are even more surprised than they otherwise would be. I am reluctant to take anything he says totally at face value -- but I believe that certain elements of the ending are central to the plot he laid out for himself when he first started writing the series, and I don't think any of those elements will change. Whether D&D actually include all of those elements is another matter, but with respect to the essential outcome of the series, I suspect it will be mostly the same as the books (if GRRM ever writes them, which as others have noted, may never occur).

I think GRRM entertained the idea of changing the ending, maybe even started writing to that end (which explain the massive delay in publishing TWOW), but I think he has given up now.

The major characters (which are basically the POVs from the first book, all POVs since then are secondary and those without POVs are tertiary) will end up in the same place IMO, as will import secondary characters (basically Jaime and Cersei).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

^^Or GRRM is intentionally misleading the readers to think the ending will be the same so that when it is different, they are even more surprised than they otherwise would be. I am reluctant to take anything he says totally at face value -- but I believe that certain elements of the ending are central to the plot he laid out for himself when he first started writing the series, and I don't think any of those elements will change. Whether D&D actually include all of those elements is another matter, but with respect to the essential outcome of the series, I suspect it will be mostly the same as the books (if GRRM ever writes them, which as others have noted, may never occur).

Yes, exactly. And I imagine it would be hard to change some core important things, because it could contradict what has already been written. I know some think Martin is a bit of a troll regarding this topic, but that's not my take on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this then also means the show was very much a 'faithful adaptation', covering the same plots and events featuring the same characters as in the books ;-)?

Guys, the ending is irrelevant. I could have told you years ago that good will triumph over evil, that the Others will be defeated, and the heroes will restore the peace. But that is not really relevant. The relevant thing is how to get there, and what happens along the way. The details are everything.

And this tells us nothing about details. They are what makes a George R. R. Martin novel a George R. R. Martin novel and not merely a synopsis or a blurb of such a novel.

If the character isn't the same character, if the plot isn't the same plot, if events aren't the same events, then the ending isn't going to be the same ending - never mind what George says. Just because a few basic things - like names and certain settings or events on a superficial level - seem to be the same doesn't make two different things the same thing.

If you lower the goal posts and count something as 'the same ending' when the broad strokes - like, say, the Others losing rather than winning or the overall 'good guy characters' winning the day - then you are right that books and show may have 'the same ending'. But I then say that you really have a crappy standard.

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

×