Jump to content

Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?


Ser Petyr Parker

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

No, the showrunners explicitly said that she is his aunt in the inside the episode and said this is gonna cause trouble. If they were merely referring to the claim thing (which also happens to exist in the scene) they’d not have said that.

Sorry, I don't watch that crap nor do I care what they say there. I only watch the show. And what the show built was the whole thing about 'Aegon Targaryen' being the true Targaryen heir. That also makes him Dany's nephew, of course, but the way the show set things up means that the real issue is that Jon is the rightful king there.

If they had wanted to set up the aunt-nephew thing as the main fake tension problem they could have VCR Bran witness their boat sex and being abhorred by it. Or they could have made the important part about telling the truth to Jon the prevention of sex rather than the political implications.

They could have made Dany-Jon begin their relationship somewhat earlier so that Sam/Bran already know when they discuss Jon's heritage. The possibilities there are endless. Not to mention, you know, that they could have used 'evil music' when they intercut the boat sex with Sam-Bran and the flashback. But they did not.

We are not supposed to see this whole thing as a bad thing.

9 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

The viewers already know who Rhaegar is, he is been mentioned many times as Dany’s brother, and the viewers know who Lyanna is and ten episodes ago she gave birth to Jon Snow, so it’s not that complicated.

It is underplayed and scarcely referenced in comparison to the ham-fisted way they usually do things. You have to keep in mind that the casual viewers not reading the books do not necessarily keep track of the names of people who are long dead and never showed up in the show.

9 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

I don’t know what they will do but Jon will likely relucntanly accept an incestuous marriage in order to not father a bastard but I think he won’t tell his child about his origins. I mean, not until his child is older, he will not tell him that his father is also his cousin and her mother is also his great aunt. This or, either, he fully accepts he is a Targaryen side and lives happily with it, which is very unlikely, because that’s not the way he was raised and would be out of character.

LOL, that is a ridiculous idea. I mean, you do know that 'Aegon Targaryen' is a Targaryen prince, right? And if he survives the series he'll rule as King Aegon VI Targaryen, right? How on earth could he keep the fact from his child that his or her mother, Daenerys Targaryen, happens to be the aunt of his his or her father?

Jon was never raised as guy who is defined by abhorring the very thought of avuncular marriages. Not in the books and certainly not in the show. And especially the books lay the ground for this kind of thing with all those Stark cousin marriages and the two uncle-niece marriages.

If Jon looks in his Stark family tree he'll see that his maternal grandfather and grandmother were rather closely related, too. And should he look further back he would see Sansa-Jonnel, Serena-Edric, and Cregan-Lynara. How can him marrying Daenerys be wrong in that context? How could it be wrong if he ends up embracing and accepting his Targaryen ancestry? The Targaryens do marry their own.

9 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

People in Westeros don’t marry aunts or nephews as a normal thing, so not being the same abomination as father-daughter and such doesn’t mean people who marry in these circumstances automatically think it’s fantastic, it always causes trouble and indeed, it is controversial. Why would it be unusual if there was no controversy at all? There is, because it's the sister of your father. Even if the laws of Westeros said it's OK it will still not be OK for the ones involved. That's the reason why that's not what the great majority of marriages are not avuncular.

It is not relevant what the majority of people do - and quite honestly, we don't know how many cousin or avuncular marriages there are among the smallfolk - it is only relevant what the Starks and the Targaryens do because that's what Dany and Jon are. And they don't have a problem with that.

9 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Jon will have a hard time knowing that he is a Targaryen, so having had sex with his aunt and even having a child with her will be the icing of the cake.

He might be pissed that Eddard lied to him, Catelyn, and his Stark cousins. After all, that poisoned his childhood and made him think to be not good enough to be a proper Stark when, in fact, he was always much better born than Ned and his Stark cousins. I doubt he is going to be pissed about the fact that he is a royal prince. It is much better than being a (Stark) bastard, don't you think?

3 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

"He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire." (House of the Undying)

Song of Ice and Fire refers to one person, THE prince. One person Fire and another person Ice is your interpretation. Not mine. On the elemental level, Daenerys is pure Fire, as the Others are pure Ice.

So you think Rhaegar is right about that? What makes you think that? He is wrong about Aegon being the promised prince, right? There are chances that this is not the only thing he was wrong about...

But I was actually talking about the title of this series. It refers to the entire series, not just a singular event connected to a singular character (if this was the case it would be a shitty title). And if you want to know what the Song of Ice and Fire refers to aside from the fight against the Others it sure as hell would be a great description for the romance of Daenerys Targaryen and Jon Snow - as well as for Rhaegar-Lyanna, the great doomed romance of the past. George likes to link songs and romances in his stories (e.g. the short-story 'A Song for Lya') so this is not exactly a big leap to take.

Dany and Jon clearly are the main protagonists of this series. And they will most likely sing the Song of Ice and Fire when they finally get together kiss and fuck and fight the Others. That's what the series is about. It takes the author a rather long while to get there but that's the point he is trying to reach.

And I'm actually flabbergasted how many people seem to be in denial about that. There were very few threads about the inevitable Dany-Jon romance throughout the years and if the show has does us any good at all - which remains controversial - then that we can now actually discuss the implications of this romance for the books series. That rarely happened because it was just a hypothetical scenario we were talking about.

And, no, Daenerys is not 'pure fire' on 'the elemental level' (whatever that's supposed to be). She is a living, breathing woman, not some sort of magical fire creature. The dragons may be pure fire but Dany is just symbolically associated with fire - certainly in a stronger sense as the Starks are with ice since the Targaryens are the ones riding dragons while the Starks don't ride dragons or other strange ice beasts.

Even those 'fire wights' would be pure fire. Just as the 'ice wights' aren't pure ice, either.

3 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Ygritte pretends women are not that helpless. And forced marriages between noble houses are not much better. But whatever, I will not argue about that.

Nobody said anything about forced or arranged marriages being great. And Ygritte is a woman who can defend herself - women like Gilly, Craster's other daughter-wives, and the majority of the women that are taking in raids either cannot or are beaten into submission. I'm sure you know how things would end if a woman like Arya or Lyanna was taken by some filthy savage and dragged into some ugly hovel beyond the Wall...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

@BalerionTheCat

As it happens, "the prince" is only a translation from "the dragon",... and the dragon is supposed to have three heads.

We cannot take Rhaegar´s words as gospel, because Rhaegar had been wrong before. Would be ironic if Rhaegar´s attempt to get the third head ultimately led to the third head missing, because Rhaenys and Aegon had been killed in the Rebellion. OTOH maybe it could a good thing after all, since the third might have a third wheel much like Visenya, which hadn´t worked out all that well. Two’s company, three’s a crowd.

Yes, It could be plenty of things. But usually I take what feels for me the most straightforward interpretation of everything. And only if things start to mismatch, I try to interpret things differently, and with the minimum changes. And hold fast on things which seems to have multiple supportive facts. Otherwise, IMHO, we are just manufacturing evidences for our own fantasies. So far for me, the prince is one person.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sorry, I don't watch that crap nor do I care what they say there. I only watch the show. And what the show built was the whole thing about 'Aegon Targaryen' being the true Targaryen heir. That also makes him Dany's nephew, of course, but the way the show set things up means that the real issue is that Jon is the rightful king there.

If they had wanted to set up the aunt-nephew thing as the main fake tension problem they could have VCR Bran witness their boat sex and being abhorred by it. Or they could have made the important part about telling the truth to Jon the prevention of sex rather than the political implications.

They could have made Dany-Jon begin their relationship somewhat earlier so that Sam/Bran already know when they discuss Jon's heritage. The possibilities there are endless. Not to mention, you know, that they could have used 'evil music' when they intercut the boat sex with Sam-Bran and the flashback. But they did not.

We are not supposed to see this whole thing as a bad thing.

It is underplayed and scarcely referenced in comparison to the ham-fisted way they usually do things. You have to keep in mind that the casual viewers not reading the books do not necessarily keep track of the names of people who are long dead and never showed up in the show.

Well, you should care about what they say or your points will just be subjective. I will requote it here for you. They emphasize that the problems will be on the political and the personal level, and finally, when they have already mentioned the problems, they state that she is his aunt, which is the biggest problem of all of them.

If the claim to the thorne was the only problem, marrying like Targs (because they are in love, apparently as many of you say) would solve all these problems, because Jon would just not want to take away Dany's claim in a selfish way (and he doesn't care about being the magnificient king), also by marrying their heir would have an amazing claim. Instead it "muddies the water" and "it's his aunt". 

Couldn't it be more clear, we'll all see how he is disgusted by it next season, so no need for Bran to be there. Seriously, there's no need for Bran being next to them while fucking, and I seriously doubt any director would think this is necessary or a creative good decision, even the showrunners are not so bad writers to to this. Hearing the words and the audience acknowledging this trouble that comes in two ways: Dany's claim that maybe won't be resolved bc Jon will doubt marrying her bc of the incest and both of them being disgusted on a personal level (Dany more conerned about the fact she is not the only heir and Jon about his origins and the fact he has made sex with his aunt) is extremely clear with the montage.

Oh, and the audience is not dumb, let's not pretend they don't know who Rhaegar and Lyanna are after six seasons. Just please.

"Sam: Oh, and they might be fucking now, you know Jon is Lyanna's son and Rhaegar is Dany's brother so..."

Bran: Yes, they are aunt and nephew

Sam: Exactly, see how they are fucking, they are related!

Bran: Yes, in season six episode 10 Let's remind the audience that I saw Lyanna giving birth and that after that scene we see JOIn's Snows face"

Sam: Yes, and let's also remind the audience that Rhaegar wears the same wig that Viserys, the guy from the firsts eason and the hair colour is exactly the same as Dany!

Bran: Thanks Sam for the info.

The quote:

"I would say the challenge with this sequence was finding a way to present information that at least a good portion of the audience already had in a way that was dramatic and exciting, also had a new element to it. Part of the answer as to how to go about doing that was in the montage, intercut-nature of it. It was about making clear that this was almost like an information bomb that Jon was heading towards. The only way to really emphasize that was to tie those two worlds together cinematically, and to have Bran actually narrating these facts over the footage of Jon and Dany. Just as we're seeing these two people come together, we're hearing information that will inevitably, if not tear them apart, at least cause real problems in their relationship. And she's his aunt." 

"It complicates everything on a political level, on a personal level, and it just makes everything that could have been so neat and kind of perfect for Jon and Dany, and it really muddies the water."

And she is his aunt. And she is his aunt. ......

I've stated my points. Take them if you want, but the thing is clear. No need to talk more about this.

Quote

Jon was never raised as guy who is defined by abhorring the very thought of avuncular marriages. Not in the books and certainly not in the show. And especially the books lay the ground for this kind of thing with all those Stark cousin marriages and the two uncle-niece marriages.

Yes, exactly, certainly not in the show!! In the show we have a  scene where Jon is learning what avuncular marriages are and he says, "It's normal"

Maester Luwin then says: "If you ever marry your aunt, it will be normal, please don't be abhorred by it"

Quote

LOL, that is a ridiculous idea. I mean, you do know that 'Aegon Targaryen' is a Targaryen prince, right? And if he survives the series he'll rule as King Aegon VI Targaryen, right? How on earth could he keep the fact from his child that his or her mother, Daenerys Targaryen, happens to be the aunt of his his or her father?

 

Now seriously.....as I stated, being quite miserable because that's not how he has been raised during 22 years if that's the case:rolleyes:

Don't expect Jon living happy totally embracing his "Targ" side. The ending will be bittersweet and the characters won't be out of character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Newstar said:

They had a long, prosperous reign that benefited them and the realm, they were beloved rulers, they had kids who successfully continued the Targ dynasty, and they had a (mostly) happy, fruitful marriage, living to a ripe old age. No one else in ASOIAF history managed as much, and certainly none of the non-incestuous king/queen matches. Incest worked out pretty well for them, and the realm. 

You do realize "Nuh uh!" isn't an argument, right?

 

Rhaegar and Lyanna's wedding was presented as very romantic and the writers explicitly linked their undeniable canon love with Dany and Jon's undeniable canon love through Bran's voiceover. You may not like it, but not liking something is not an argument.

As for the Rhaegar/Lyanna parallel, Rhaegar and Lyanna remained deeply in love until they died, as politically inconvenient as it was and as much collateral damage as it caused. Rhaegar died with Lyanna's name on his lips. If the parallel holds, Jon's love for Dany will be just as enduring as Rhaegar's for Lyanna. 

 

Dany and Jon are deeply in love in the show, according to the writing. You may not like it, but again, not liking something isn't an argument.

 

He's not portraying a message in regards to the implications of Targ incest, no more than he's portraying a message in regards to the merits of political marriages even though ASOIAF has a number of miserable political marriages (GRRM has said that happiness in Westeros marriage is a tossup, with happy and miserable political marriages, and happy and miserable love matches). Targ incest in the world of Westeros is more comparable to magic or dragons: a value-neutral feature of the fictional world he has created, exempt from real world considerations or consequences.

I think it's safe to say that GRRM loves the Targs. He has made two out of three ASOIAF lead characters Targs (three if you count A+J=T). He has written about them at great length (even to the point of neglecting to work on ASOIAF as a result). He has lovingly detailed the hair colour, eye colour, clothing choices, love lives (usually with other Targs), and biographies of the Targs going back hundreds of years in Westeros history. We know virtually nothing about Lyarra Stark, even though she's Ned's mother, but we know Elaena Targaryen's hair colour, eye colour, fashion preferences, childhood, personality, and marriages to a tee, even though she was never even queen!

If GRRM is so horrified about writing about incest and so determined to show with ASOIAF and related works set in Westeros that Incest is Bad, creating a fictional dynasty where incest is no big deal and carries no real world consequences and writing hundreds of thousands of words about the various members of that dynasty and their various incestuous liaisons is a funny way of showing it.

They are NOT in love. Jesus Christ. They barely know each other. If I had known a girl as briefly and as superficially as he knows Daedpan, she would run away screaming if I told her I loved her. The show displays that they are attracted to one another and are infatuated.  But that's isn't love. Jesus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Snormund said:

They are NOT in love. Jesus Christ. They barely know each other. If I had known a girl as briefly and as superficially as he knows Daedpan, she would run away screaming if I told her I loved her. The show displays that they are attracted to one another and are infatuated.  But that's isn't love. Jesus. 

It is, according to the writers and the writing. You don't think they're in love based on....your personal opinion of what true love should look like, I guess, since that's all you've put forward, but the writers' opinion matters, not yours. Saying "I know the writers believe and want us to believe that Jon and Dany are in love and tried to show that, but they did a shitty job of building up a believable romantic relationship" is fair and logical. Saying "They're not in love because I personally don't think they're in love" is neither. Who cares what you personally think about whether or not Jon and Dany are in love? You're not writing the show, and the ones who are have already made their position on the subject clear. We can argue about whether they succeeded in conveying that Jon and Dany are in love, but that they had that intent is undeniable.

I have to agree with @MinscS2 on this. Most of the arguments being put forward in this thread seem to boil down to "Jon and Dany being deeply in love and/or getting over their incestuous connection to each other can't be a thing because I hate it." That's not how reality works. Not to mention that in your case, being unable to call characters by their names and instead using nicknames--"Daedpan," whatever--is not exactly helping your point, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Oh, and the audience is not dumb, let's not pretend they don't know who Rhaegar and Lyanna are after six seasons. Just please.

I think you'd be surprised actually. It's not about the viewers being dumb, it's about them being casual. 
Casual viewers have trouble remembering all the names of characters who already have a lot of screentime, let alone characters who have never or barely appeared on screen, and what they have done on and off the screen.

For someone who's watched the show several times over and over, and read the books, and spends a lot of free time discussing the show with other online, it might seem almost degrading how the show tells us specific things over and over, but they have to do this in order to make the casual viewers follow the story. We on this forum are not casuals, we can't assume that everyone knows as much about the show as we do.

I got two good examples of what casual viewers might and might not know: both my father and my roomie love the show, have watched all the seasons, and they watch every episode when it airs. They rarely watch and discuss Game of Thrones during the off-season however. They are to all intents and purposes, casual viewers.
If I asked my father who Rhaegar Targaryen is, he'd shrug. If I asked my father who Lyanna Stark is, he'd shrug. He remembers the main characters (Jon, Daenerys, Tyrion, Jamie, etc), but he has a trouble remembering minor characters that he's only seen perhaps once or twice X seasons ago.
If I asked my roomie about the Azor Ahai prophecy, he'd shrug. If I asked him about Miri Maaz Duur's curse on Daenerys, he'd shrug.
I often talk about GoT with him (as an outlet for myself mostly :P ), so he's somwhat up to date with the series, and despite this, until two weeks ago, he actually thought that Jon and Daenerys where half-siblings, and that Jons father was Aerys, not Rhaegar.
That's the level of casual viewers.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MinscS2 said:

I think you'd be surprised actually. It's not about the viewers being dumb, it's about them being casual. 
Casual viewers have trouble remembering all the names of characters who already have a lot of screentime, let alone characters who have never or barely appeared on screen, and what they have done on and off the screen.

For someone who's watched the show several times over and over, and read the books, and spends a lot of free time discussing the show with other online, it might seem almost degrading how the show tells us specific things over and over, but they have to do this in order to make the casual viewers follow the story. We on this forum are not casuals, we can't assume that everyone knows as much about the show as we do.

I got two good examples of what casual viewers might and might not know: both my father and my roomie love the show, have watched all the seasons, and they watch every episode when it airs. They rarely watch and discuss Game of Thrones during the off-season however. They are to all intents and purposes, casual viewers.
If I asked my father who Rhaegar Targaryen is, he'd shrug. If I asked my father who Lyanna Stark is, he'd shrug. He remembers the main characters (Jon, Daenerys, Tyrion, Jamie, etc), but he has a trouble remembering minor characters that he's only seen perhaps once or twice X seasons ago.
If I asked my roomie about the Azor Ahai prophecy, he'd shrug. If I asked him about Miri Maaz Duur's curse on Daenerys, he'd shrug.
I often talk about GoT with him (as an outlet for myself mostly :P ), so he's somwhat up to date with the series, and despite this, until two weeks ago, he actually thought that Jon and Daenerys where half-siblings, and that Jons father was Aerys, not Rhaegar.
That's the level of casual viewers.
 

I know about it, but Bran mentioned Lyanna and Rhaegar and then we say the wedding scene and the childbirth scene. The childbirth scene is a very important moment people just don't forget if you've watched the last finale.And it's related to Jon, her mother.

As for Rhaegar, the focus is on the wig. It says Targaryen loudly! 

You even said that, people might now clearly know how they are related, but they know they are in some way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Newstar said:

It is, according to the writers and the writing. You don't think they're in love based on....your personal opinion of what true love should look like, I guess, since that's all you've put forward, but the writers' opinion matters, not yours. Saying "I know the writers believe and want us to believe that Jon and Dany are in love and tried to show that, but they did a shitty job of building up a believable romantic relationship" is fair and logical. Saying "They're not in love because I personally don't think they're in love" is neither. Who cares what you personally think about whether or not Jon and Dany are in love? You're not writing the show, and the ones who are have already made their position on the subject clear. We can argue about whether they succeeded in conveying that Jon and Dany are in love, but that they had that intent is undeniable.

I have to agree with @MinscS2 on this. Most of the arguments being put forward in this thread seem to boil down to "Jon and Dany being deeply in love and/or getting over their incestuous connection to each other can't be a thing because I hate it." That's not how reality works. Not to mention that in your case, being unable to call characters by their names and instead using nicknames--"Daedpan," whatever--is not exactly helping your point, either.

agreed with all this. just because kit and emilia can't act and just because the jon/dany romance scenes were cheesy and boring doesn't mean that they're not in love. they clearly are meant to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Newstar said:

It is, according to the writers and the writing. You don't think they're in love based on....your personal opinion of what true love should look like, I guess, since that's all you've put forward, but the writers' opinion matters, not yours. Saying "I know the writers believe and want us to believe that Jon and Dany are in love and tried to show that, but they did a shitty job of building up a believable romantic relationship" is fair and logical. Saying "They're not in love because I personally don't think they're in love" is neither. 

I have to agree with @MinscS2 on this. Most of the arguments being put forward in this thread seem to boil down to "Jon and Dany being deeply in love and/or getting over their incestuous connection to each other can't be a thing because I hate it." That's not how reality works. Not to mention that in your case, being unable to call characters by their names and instead using nicknames--"Daedpan," whatever--is not exactly helping your point, either.

yes, the opinion of the writers matters, as you have pointed out, that's why they say he is his aunt as I stated and it will cause trouble in s8.

if there was not trouble they'd just marry and both of them could be king and queen (Jon being the consourt bc he doesn't care about being king and is deeeply in love with Dany), but even if they marry, there will be trouble because of the other only problem they can experience, especially JOn: incest. It's the showrunners' words, and it's all that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, larastone said:

agreed with all this. just because kit and emilia can't act and just because the jon/dany romance scenes were cheesy and boring doesn't mean that they're not in love. they clearly are meant to be. 

LOL, exactly. Two of the least talented, most wooden actors on the show have trouble selling their characters' romance? I'm shocked. SHOCKED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This show also pretty much sells all romance as attraction/infatuation anyway. Dany went from being raped to learning how to seduce Drogo to being in love with him in 3 episodes. Jon was Ygritte's prisoner and then he joined the Wildings, had like 2 conversations with her, had sex and fell in love with her. Robb met Talisa, flirted with her and was in love with her in like 3 episodes

That's how the show has always done things. If you want depth, you're going to have to wait for the books

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Well, you should care about what they say or your points will just be subjective.

You don't need need more than 'the piece of art' to interpret it. I can't barely watch the show, I won't waste my time reading interviews about it.

1 hour ago, Meera of Tarth said:

I will requote it here for you. They emphasize that the problems will be on the political and the personal level, and finally, when they have already mentioned the problems, they state that she is his aunt, which is the biggest problem of all of them.

Well, your quote seems to suggest otherwise. They focus on the political repercussions - the aunt thing comes later on, just like some sort of afterthought.

1 hour ago, Meera of Tarth said:

If the claim to the thorne was the only problem, marrying like Targs (because they are in love, apparently as many of you say) would solve all these problems, because Jon would just not want to take away Dany's claim in a selfish way (and he doesn't care about being the magnificient king), also by marrying their heir would have an amazing claim. Instead it "muddies the water" and "it's his aunt". 

But does he? I'd also say that Sansa would never contemplate murdering Arya for no reason just as Arya would never behave like Arya did in the show. But the show did that anyway, so don't assume you know how they will write Jon once he knows who and what he is. He is a Targaryen prince now.

1 hour ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Couldn't it be more clear, we'll all see how he is disgusted by it next season, so no need for Bran to be there. Seriously, there's no need for Bran being next to them while fucking, and I seriously doubt any director would think this is necessary or a creative good decision, even the showrunners are not so bad writers to to this. Hearing the words and the audience acknowledging this trouble that comes in two ways: Dany's claim that maybe won't be resolved bc Jon will doubt marrying her bc of the incest and both of them being disgusted on a personal level (Dany more conerned about the fact she is not the only heir and Jon about his origins and the fact he has made sex with his aunt) is extremely clear with the montage.

It is not. It is what you want to see but it is not the message that's being sent. You are apparently extremely uncomfortable with this whole thing and project your feelings on those fictional characters. But ask yourself what you would feel if you found out that your husband and the father of your children - assuming you have one - was your lost brother or uncle. Such a thing does not kill your relationship if you are actually a kind and normal human being even if you are disgusted by the idea to fuck those uncles and brothers you know are your uncles and brother.

Because you would haven fallen in love with that person not knowing who he was. Just as Jon and Dany did. The revelation about their kinship is going to change the nature of their relationship, sure, but there is no reason why they can't continue if they want to - which they sure as hell will want to do. The whole thing is about them, and there is no one in the show who could replace the other.

1 hour ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Yes, exactly, certainly not in the show!! In the show we have a  scene where Jon is learning what avuncular marriages are and he says, "It's normal"

Maester Luwin then says: "If you ever marry your aunt, it will be normal, please don't be abhorred by it"

We also have Jon never thinking that it is unusual or unpleasant to marry your aunt, right?

1 hour ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Now seriously.....as I stated, being quite miserable because that's not how he has been raised during 22 years if that's the case:rolleyes:

Don't expect Jon living happy totally embracing his "Targ" side. The ending will be bittersweet and the characters won't be out of character.

Why shouldn't we expect that? Jon Snow is a lie, a fake, he doesn't exist. 'Aegon Targaryen' is the real guy. That doesn't unmake Jon's past, of course, but if the whole thing is supposed to be relevant for the plot 'Aegon' will have to come to terms with who he is.

1 hour ago, MinscS2 said:

I think you'd be surprised actually. It's not about the viewers being dumb, it's about them being casual. 
Casual viewers have trouble remembering all the names of characters who already have a lot of screentime, let alone characters who have never or barely appeared on screen, and what they have done on and off the screen.

Exactly, people don't give a shit about the names of fictional characters in a TV show they are not obsessed with. They watch and they remember people by their looks not by their names. And they sure as hell don't care or follow talk about characters that are long dead and never showed up in the show anyway.

I'm not more or less a casual viewer of the show, too. I have a pretty good memory but if you just watch something once and don't really care about it you forget. I no longer know what happened in the finale last season, nor do I remember how often Rhaegar was mentioned in the show. There was this ridiculous talk of Selmy's about Rhaegar the singer but that's pretty much all I recall of him being mentioned in any meaningful way. Oberyn also talked about him once, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Newstar said:

LOL, exactly. Two of the least talented, most wooden actors on the show have trouble selling their characters' romance? I'm shocked. SHOCKED.

I was so excited to see their romance before too. But even the Jon/Sansa shippers' delusion this season didn't make the jon/dany scenes enjoyable for me. so contrived, so forced. it was truly soul-sucking lol. i love book daenerys too and emilia seems like a lovely person but she's only watcheable onscreen when paired with good actors (i.e. iain glen) so pairing show dany with jon destroyed any interest i had in show dany.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, larastone said:

I was so excited to see their romance before too. But even the Jon/Sansa shippers' delusion this season didn't make the jon/dany scenes enjoyable for me. so contrived, so forced. it was truly soul-sucking lol. i love book daenerys too and emilia seems like a lovely person but she's only watcheable onscreen when paired with good actors (i.e. iain glen) so pairing show dany with jon destroyed any interest i had in show dany.

 

Yes, if Kit Harington were an Iain Glen-level actor, I think the conversation around Jon and Dany's pairing would be very different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

You don't need need more than 'the piece of art' to interpret it. I can't barely watch the show, I won't waste my time reading interviews about it.

Well, your quote seems to suggest otherwise. They focus on the political repercussions - the aunt thing comes later on, just like some sort of afterthought..

It is not. It is what you want to see but it is not the message that's being sent. You are apparently extremely uncomfortable with this whole thing and project your feelings on those fictional characters. But ask yourself what you would feel if you found out that your husband and the father of your children - assuming you have one - was your lost brother or uncle. Such a thing does not kill your relationship if you are actually a kind and normal human being even if you are disgusted by the idea to fuck those uncles and brothers you know are your uncles and brother.

Because you would haven fallen in love with that person not knowing who he was. Just as Jon and Dany did. The revelation about their kinship is going to change the nature of their relationship, sure, but there is no reason why they can't continue if they want to - which they sure as hell will want to do. The whole thing is about them, and there is no one in the show who could replace the other.

Well, if you seem to ignore the obvious, what the showrunners have said, I can't convince you otherwise.

No, I have no need to write arguments about how.... did you call it? projected feelings? to convince people that this is gonna be turbulent. In fact, I just need the showrunner's words and the scene of the boatsex juxtaposed with the revelation and many people will see it.

Maybe you are extremely uncomfortable with the idea that Jon would behave in character or that incest is not a common thing in Westeros and that's why you ignore it or think I am the one projecting feelings, I don't know; if that's the case it won't be me who will destroy that projected fairytale, since I am not writing the story; and each their own. And,oh, and I've never said they would not continue the incestuous thing.

Believe me, if that was a thread about "do you like Jonerys?" there is one going on, my posts would be much longer and subjective, but that's not the case. We can just agree to disagree and leave it here.

Quote

We also have Jon never thinking that it is unusual or unpleasant to marry your aunt, right?

:lmao::lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I'm in the minority but I actually think Emilia is really good in her scenes with Kit. The part of her character that I think does not match her abilities are all the "Fire and Blood" scenes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

They emphasize that the problems will be on the political and the personal level, and finally, when they have already mentioned the problems, they state that she is his aunt, which is the biggest problem of all of them.

I did watch this - and just re-watched it again, and you are not giving an even-handed portrayal of D&D's discussion.  It is clearly primarily about Jon being the rightful heir.  Conveniently, you neglect to quote Benioff's statement that introduces this portion:

Quote

Jon's not Jon Sand.  He's actually as Bran overhears from Lyanna, Aegon Targaryen.  And that means he's the rightful heir to the Iron Throne.  That changes everything.

This is the direct lead in to the longer Weiss quote you included, which is describing the main points they wanted to emphasize in intercutting Rhaegar/Lyanna's marriage with Jon/Dany sex.  And those main points of emphasis are clear by the parts of Bran's narration they highlight in this segment - which was also clear from the show - "Robert's Rebellion was built on a lie" (meaning R and L loved each other just as Jon and Dany) and "[Jon's] the heir to the iron throne."

Now, certainly Weiss mentions Dany's his aunt at the end - and Benioff goes on to point out that they'll have "personal" as well as political struggles in the least season, obviously referring to their relation.  And I think that will be part of the "inner-conflict" (mostly for Jon of course) that informs the larger issue.  But no objective recounting of that segment would say D&D's main purpose here is to hint at the incest as the main point of contention; they are plainly stating the main potential issue of conflict is that Jon is the heir.

I do not say this, btw, because I want the main conflict to be Jon's place in the line of succession - on the contrary I think that's just more faux tension and interminably stupid.  But that's the clear implication of what was presented in the show (with Bran's narration) and was reiterated by D&D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

yes, the opinion of the writers matters, as you have pointed out, that's why they say he is his aunt as I stated and it will cause trouble in s8.

if there was not trouble they'd just marry and both of them could be king and queen (Jon being the consourt bc he doesn't care about being king and is deeeply in love with Dany), but even if they marry, there will be trouble because of the other only problem they can experience, especially JOn: incest. It's the showrunners' words, and it's all that matters.

At the end of S6 D&D also said that S7 will see conflict between Jon and Sansa, because Sansa feels overlooked and dissatisfied with Jon becoming king... which ultimately instead of treason or rebellion translated into like three scenes of whinging. Also according to the behind the episodes comments, the Sansa-Arya beef this season was super serious. OMG, will Sansa kill Arya or will Arya kill her first? Tune up next episode to see what will happen. Stark blood will run!

I'd be seriously willing to bet my five years' worth of pay that the great incest drama will go the same route as the above examples.

But if you really still buy D&D hyperboling a faux conflict... at least you will be surprised by the development, I guess. Much like with the Lads leaks for this season, LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...