Jump to content

Season 8 Predictions?


AEJON TARGARYEN

Recommended Posts

On 25/11/2017 at 9:16 PM, Angel Eyes said:

But declaring his marriage with Elia annulled, which results in prior children being labeled bastards (read: Elizabeth I) and having his child with Lyanna named Aegon while his son Aegon with Elia was still alive? It reeks of him viewing his son with Elia as expendable. 

Well, that's in the show. I don't think they care too much about it since they are not going to answer all the questions about Rhaegar&Lyanna story. For example what was their plan? We do not know what they did or didn't do. Did they sent a letter or smth and were betrayed? Who told Brandon and what was he told? Why did Rhaegar stayed a whole year away, when a war was going on. The whole year in Dorne doesn't make sense at all and it's crucial, IMO. What plans he had for the Kingdom? He seemed confident enough when going to face Robert in the battle. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he meet with Elia as well, before that battle? Is Jon's real name Aegon in the books as well? Who knows, but if yes, why? I don't think we'll get the answers to those questions in the show. Only the books and I think their story is much more complicated, although I do believe they fall in love with each other. 

 

@jcmontea I love that channel. I watched that video and she has made very well all the points why I love Jon so much. Although I do think in the books he's far better and interesting, but that's hardly news. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/11/2017 at 0:38 AM, jcmontea said:

More specifically I doubt Ned will be made to look a villain at all. If anything he looks better and better as the seasons pass. 

I agree with this. 

Quote

Robert on the other hand, who knows. If he knew Lyanna loved Rhaegar and went with him willingly but invented that lie to save face than he wouldn’t look so good. Really depends on whst he actually knew

I think Robert knew. I think the woman's name Rhaegar murmured before dying was Lyanna's and Robert heard him. That made him hate Rhaegar even more then he already did. Idk, but I have a feeling that deep down Robert knew she went willingly with Rhaegar. He just didn't want to admit it.

I hardly blame him for that and I don't think we need to demonize Robert in order to sympathise with Rhaegar and Lyanna. I never considered Robert as a villain. The guy was threaten with his life by the Mad King. They had no other choice but to go to war against him. I blame Robert for how he ruled (or the lack thereof) as a King, not for the rebellion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Caterina Sforza said:

Well, that's in the show. I don't think they care too much about it since they are not going to answer all the questions about Rhaegar&Lyanna story. For example what was their plan? We do not know what they did or didn't do. Did they sent a letter or smth and were betrayed? Who told Brandon and what was he told? Why did Rhaegar stayed a whole year away, when a war was going on. The whole year in Dorne doesn't make sense at all and it's crucial, IMO. What plans he had for the Kingdom? He seemed confident enough when going to face Robert in the battle. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he meet with Elia as well, before that battle? Is Jon's real name Aegon in the books as well? Who knows, but if yes, why? I don't think we'll get the answers to those questions in the show. Only the books and I think their story is much more complicated, although I do believe they fall in love with each other. 

 

@jcmontea I love that channel. I watched that video and she has made very well all the points why I love Jon so much. Although I do think in the books he's far better and interesting, but that's hardly news. 

I am talking about the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

I am talking about the show.

Oh well, as I said the show doesn't care too much about that story.  I don't think they have even mentioned Elia's children by name, if I am not mistaken? For them, Rhaegar divorced his wife cause he fell in love with Lyanna and Jon is legitimate. That's about it, as far as they are concerned. I don't think they will tell us more in season 8, but who knows?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Caterina Sforza said:

@jcmontea I love that channel. I watched that video and she has made very well all the points why I love Jon so much. Although I do think in the books he's far better and interesting, but that's hardly news. 

Its such a good channel. Their family videos, the one on jon and dany and the lessons of history are so good. 

I thought that video did a great job highlighting how he already has been a Targaryen and a Stark and made me appreciate how they have written him more. 

Agreed on the books. Especially early on he was so much better in the books. I saw the first two seasons before I read the books and I just didn’t care about the character. I only liked him in season 3 because i read AGoT and ACOK before it came out and was halfway through ASOS. My wife did not read the books and she didn’t start liking him until Season 4. Although he has now become one of her favorites. 

6 hours ago, Caterina Sforza said:

I think Robert knew. I think the woman's name Rhaegar murmured before dying was Lyanna's and Robert heard him. That made him hate Rhaegar even more then he already did. Idk, but I have a feeling that deep down Robert knew she went willingly with Rhaegar. He just didn't want to admit it.

I hardly blame him for that and I don't think we need to demonize Robert in order to sympathise with Rhaegar and Lyanna. I never considered Robert as a villain. The guy was threaten with his life by the Mad King. They had no other choice but to go to war against him. I blame Robert for how he ruled (or the lack thereof) as a King, not for the rebellion. 

Yea i guess i need to know more. Right now i don’t really blame the guy. Would only blame him if he was the one that told Brandon. But i agree. In his heart of hearts he knew. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jcmontea said:

Its such a good channel. Their family videos, the one on jon and dany and the lessons of history are so good. 

I thought that video did a great job highlighting how he already has been a Targaryen and a Stark and made me appreciate how they have written him more. 

Indeed. She does some very good videos about movies and other tv series too.

I was positively surprised , watching one of her videos, that she was well informed about italian neorealism films too. 

Quote

Agreed on the books. Especially early on he was so much better in the books. I saw the first two seasons before I read the books and I just didn’t care about the character. I only liked him in season 3 because i read AGoT and ACOK before it came out and was halfway through ASOS. My wife did not read the books and she didn’t start liking him until Season 4. Although he has now become one of her favorites. 

Funny, I have a similar story. Lol

I started reading the books after season 1 and that's when I started to love Jon. A lot of people who have seen the show only, start to like him in Season 3 but mostly in season 4. Understandably so since up to season 3 it's Robb who mostly gets the attention.

The thing I miss most in Jon/show is his dry sense of humour and sharp tongue that is in the books. Also his warging abilities, missing in the show as well, takes away a bit the intrigue from him. The pink letter also takes away the conflict that he has between duty and family, personal matters. His grey area, if you want. I understand why they had to cut that part, but the first two they could've done a it more and keep them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Caterina Sforza said:

Indeed. She does some very good videos about movies and other tv series too.

I was positively surprised , watching one of her videos, that she was well informed about italian neorealism films too. 

Funny, I have a similar story. Lol

I started reading the books after season 1 and that's when I started to love Jon. A lot of people who have seen the show only, start to like him in Season 3 but mostly in season 4. Understandably so since up to season 3 it's Robb who mostly gets the attention.

The thing I miss most in Jon/show is his dry sense of humour and sharp tongue that is in the books. Also his warging abilities, missing in the show as well, takes away a bit the intrigue from him. The pink letter also takes away the conflict that he has between duty and family, personal matters. His grey area, if you want. I understand why they had to cut that part, but the first two they could've done a it more and keep them. 

I understand why they cut the warging abilities in Jon and the other Starklings because it might have been difficult to sell Bran’s gift being all that special if they are all doing it. In the book it’s easier because warging is distinct from skinchanging and greensight. In the show, that sort of exposition would bog it down. Much easier to say “Bran’s the only one who’s magic” and leave it at that.

I agree with pretty much everything you said about Jon’s wit being sorely missed. Same with his common sense - though his views and policies as LC were controversial, there wa method and reasoning to it that at least helped me understand his choices. In the show, it’s just “Oh, he follows his heart!” and that’s about it. This brings us to his murder (which is a murder/assassination of an elected leader) — in the books, you can see it coming because Bowen Marsh has been roped into the politicking of KL since ASoS and he is a stuck in the mud old school NW man. Together with Jon declaring that he intends to go South to answer Ramsay’s threats (not least because he knows at that point he doesn’t have “Arya”), you can believe this murder was either a moment of madness or even a crime of opportunity, a fortuous excuse to Marsh and the others to assassinate their LC.

In the show, there was no catharsis at all — the reason was, essentially, he went to Hardhome and brought back a load of wildlings. Wildlings that Thorne let through off his own back. Then they kill Jon after they’re through? It didn’t flow.

Had they chosen to have Sansa reach the Wall at the end of S5 and essentially be a verbal version of the Pink Letter, and Thorne killed him because he intended to lead the wildlings against Ramsay... it might have made better sense. Sansa begging Melisandre to bring Jon back would have made more sense too because, as far as she knows, he’s all she has left since all her other siblings are dead or MIA, PD. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Faera said:

I understand why they cut the warging abilities in Jon and the other Starklings because it might have been difficult to sell Bran’s gift being all that special if they are all doing it. In the book it’s easier because warging is distinct from skinchanging and greensight. In the show, that sort of exposition would bog it down. Much easier to say “Bran’s the only one who’s magic” and leave it at that.

That is true. It's just my wish though cause I like that he's kinda conflicted with his abilities too, while Bran fully embrace it. 

Quote

I agree with pretty much everything you said about Jon’s wit being sorely missed. Same with his common sense - though his views and policies as LC were controversial, there wa method and reasoning to it that at least helped me understand his choices. In the show, it’s just “Oh, he follows his heart!” and that’s about it. 

Yeah, I hate that tbh. Everybody "Oh, he's like Ned". No he is not, and I am saying this as smb who loved Ned. Jon is honorable but not to a fault. He's actually very intelligent and till now he has made pretty sound decisions. We can argue whether the pink letter decision is right or wrong, but there is an argument to be made in his favour there too. I find him to be pretty pragamatic rather than idealistic character. Although he's def. smb with a strong moral compass. 

I thought the scene with Jon-Dany-Tyrion was silly. Putting him in the position of smb who ruined things with his answer to Cersei. Although I found it funny that the "liars" were outplayed by a liar.

I admit, I had a Shadenfreude moment. Lol

I still can't believe how they made Tyrion to trust Cersei. I mean we don't know what agreement they reached, but please, I didn't believe her for a second. I refuse to believe that Tyrion of all people would trust anything coming out of her mouth. 

Quote

Had they chosen to have Sansa reach the Wall at the end of S5 and essentially be a verbal version of the Pink Letter, and Thorne killed him because he intended to lead the wildlings against Ramsay... it might have made better sense. Sansa begging Melisandre to bring Jon back would have made more sense too because, as far as she knows, he’s all she has left since all her other siblings are dead or MIA, PD. 

You know, I've never thought about that but it is brilliant. Of course it would've worked way better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Caterina Sforza said:

Yeah, I hate that tbh. Everybody "Oh, he's like Ned". No he is not, and I am saying this as smb who loved Ned. Jon is honorable but not to a fault. He's actually very intelligent and till now he has made pretty sound decisions. We can argue whether the pink letter decision is right or wrong, but there is an argument to be made in his favour there too. I find him to be pretty pragamatic rather than idealistic character. Although he's def. smb with a strong moral compass. 

In the books? Jon is intelligent and pragmatic, he can be ruthless too, or at least, there is potential there.

“My characters who come back from death are worse for wear. In some ways, they're not even the same characters anymore. The body may be moving, but some aspect of the spirit is changed or transformed, and they've lost something,” Martin said.

I can't wait to read about his transformation in TWOW. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, TRILOGY said:

In the books? Jon is intelligent and pragmatic, he can be ruthless too, or at least, there is potential there.

“My characters who come back from death are worse for wear. In some ways, they're not even the same characters anymore. The body may be moving, but some aspect of the spirit is changed or transformed, and they've lost something,” Martin said.

I can't wait to read about his transformation in TWOW. 

Yeah, in the books, and I agree with you. 

I'm very curious about his transformation in TWoW too. Funny how he hasn't change one bit in the show though. But maybe I am wrong, he has gone from the Jon we know to Jon/Ned 2.0. Maybe that's the transformation they were looking for. :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/11/2017 at 4:42 PM, Caterina Sforza said:

Yeah, I hate that tbh. Everybody "Oh, he's like Ned". No he is not, and I am saying this as smb who loved Ned. Jon is honorable but not to a fault. He's actually very intelligent and till now he has made pretty sound decisions. We can argue whether the pink letter decision is right or wrong, but there is an argument to be made in his favour there too. I find him to be pretty pragamatic rather than idealistic character. Although he's def. smb with a strong moral compass. 

5

Oh, absolutely.

I have seen many people companion that Jon's story in ADwD was boring but I found it fascinating. He demonstrated an intelligence, leadership and negotiation skills that his father and brother utterly lacked. A massive failure of both Ned and Robb was that neither could ever truly put themselves in their enemy's shoes -- they would make plans based on what they would do if they were in the situation of the enemy, not if they were the enemy.

In comparison, Jon knows how to get into another person's shoes. When Stannis is failing to win the Northern support he needs, it is Jon who tells him where he's going wrong and suggests a plan. He is also pretty good at negotiating with Stannis, a pretty blunt man, who really seems to have a begrudging respect for Jon (perhaps because both have a curt sense of humour).

Then when the threat of Tormund and the rest of the wildlings attacking looms over the Watch, he sends Val to seek him out and promptly sits down to negotiate with him to find common ground and terms. Both are concerned that the free folk will be fodder for the Others, so Jon decides to have an "open gate" policy. The Night's Watch need men to garrison their castles but are worried the wildlings will eat them out of house and home and cause trouble -- so, Jon takes hostages among their chieftains and tells the wildlings that if they wish to eat and be treated as well as the men of the Black, they need to work for it.

The only place where he fails is with Bowen Marsh but one can argue that he was never going to see eye to eye with him.

In many respects, his choice to meet Ramsay wasn't just a case of following his heart either. He wanted to go to save Arya but he was also answering a threat. You are also right that Jon is very pragmatic with that in mind. Some of his choices have a deep moral centre, e.g. his determination to rescue the wildlings at Hardhome, planning to possibly go himself because "I won't ask the men to do what I am not prepared to do" - to paraphrase - and choosing to meet Ramsay's threats rather than ignore them, but there is a logic behind these choices too. Again, he wants to try and save the people at Hardhome because they are otherwise more meat for the Others, and taking out Ramsay potentially neutralises a threat of an attack on the Wall from the South, potentially leading to a battle on two fronts. He's a proper Byronic hero.

Bottom line: I'm not saying he is a perfect leader by any means but considering he's - what? Sixteen, seventeen? He's got a lot of promise at such a young age.

All of this is lost in Kit!Jon. He's just dreamy Kit Harrington brooding over how "I just want to do the right thing like my father would have!" while all the while you think, "Kit!Jon, if my Dad was Sean Bean!Ned, I'd love him too but bloody hell! He is not the sort of person you want to emulate."

On 28/11/2017 at 5:13 PM, TRILOGY said:

I can't wait to read about his transformation in TWOW. 

Personally, I would love it if Jon slipped even more into this idea of seeing things from the enemy's point of view and actually started to question, "What is the deal with the Others and why are they attacking now? There must be a reason... maybe we should try negotiating with them." I mean, if he is himself a deadman walking, wouldn't it make sense he'd come back with the outlook of "So, what is the difference between me and the dead things I'm so frightened of?"

On 28/11/2017 at 4:42 PM, Caterina Sforza said:

You know, I've never thought about that but it is brilliant. Of course it would've worked way better. 

It would have made more sense giving the wildlings were already through the Wall. Thorne had begrudgingly let them through, so he should have held his peace. However, if Sansa then shows up with all the Pink Letter details still relevant to the show, lets him know what Ramsay is doing to people and the North, (Maybe he even already has Rickon prisoner to add an extra sense of urgency to her plight), and begs Jon to help her get rid of Ramsay with the wildlings -- then we not only have a parallel with the book-plot but it gives Thorne a reason to take action.

After all, Jon would be intending to take the wildlings into battle, the same ones they just got done fighting! You could believe that Throne might kill Jon to stop him and you can understand why Ollie might have finally turned against Jon; he would be loosing the wildlings on the North like what happened to his village.

As for the Sansa aspect, she might have bridged the gap between Davos and Melisandre (two characters who do not like each other). IDK, it makes sense to me. Her actions would have got Jon killed and she would be desperate to save him because her life, her home, her freedom and possibly the life of others she cares about would depend on getting him back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Caterina Sforza said:

I thought the scene with Jon-Dany-Tyrion was silly. Putting him in the position of smb who ruined things with his answer to Cersei. Although I found it funny that the "liars" were outplayed by a liar.

I found Jon honesty here very important. No harm was done because Cersei would not have cooperated anyway. But it was important he demonstrated the meaning of his word. I don't know for who it will matter, Daenerys or Jaime or Cersei again. But it is important your enemy believe your word. Otherwise you cannot have a deal with him or her later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Faera said:

It would have made more sense giving the wildlings were already through the Wall. Thorne had begrudgingly let them through, so he should have held his peace. However, if Sansa then shows up with all the Pink Letter details still relevant to the show, lets him know what Ramsay is doing to people and the North, (Maybe he even already has Rickon prisoner to add an extra sense of urgency to her plight), and begs Jon to help her get rid of Ramsay with the wildlings -- then we not only have a parallel with the book-plot but it gives Thorne a reason to take action.

After all, Jon would be intending to take the wildlings into battle, the same ones they just got done fighting! You could believe that Throne might kill Jon to stop him and you can understand why Ollie might have finally turned against Jon; he would be loosing the wildlings on the North like what happened to his village.

As for the Sansa aspect, she might have bridged the gap between Davos and Melisandre (two characters who do not like each other). IDK, it makes sense to me. Her actions would have got Jon killed and she would be desperate to save him because her life, her home, her freedom and possibly the life of others she cares about would depend on getting him back.

I couldn't have said better myself all you just mention about Jon. :agree:And this ^ would've been so much better narrative. It would've also addressed the issue of him coming back from death and Sansa's reaction (or lack thereof). I thought it was weird that there was no talk between him and Sansa about it. No mention at all. It was like for her that was all normal. Nothing strange or "special" had happened. She immediately jumped to ask help to get back WF. I thought the whole thing was odd.

11 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

I found Jon honesty here very important. No harm was done because Cersei would not have cooperated anyway. But it was important he demonstrated the meaning of his word. I don't know for who it will matter, Daenerys or Jaime or Cersei again. But it is important your enemy believe your word. Otherwise you cannot have a deal with him or her later.

I agree with you and I liked Jon response. But I think that was put there just as an excuse to have the scene with Tyrion and Cersei. She could've still lied without asking Jon anything and the ruse would've worked. But the problem I had with that scene is that Jon does know how and when to lie, if it serves a greater purpose. He has done that before with the wildlings. So, making him look, yet again, as some sort of Ned's identical copy didn't make much sense to me. But what I didn't really like was Dany's and Tyrion's reaction to it. She went as far as to mention Viserion's death and make him feel guilty for that, more than he already was. I can understand Tyrion cause that's his mindset, but not Dany. First of all, did anybody informed Jon that he should've kept that a secret? How would he know that if he lied to Cersei, Dany would still understand and trust him? After all, they both don't know each other that much and she is far more important to Jon, in the war against the WW. She has 2 dragons, not to mention the unsullied and the Dothraki army. For him is far more important to ensure her trust, so why would he jeopardize that by telling lies? A big lie that is. I would've expected her to appreciate that, instead of getting upset. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/11/2017 at 0:19 AM, SoooTrypticon said:

I still think most of Westeros will be lost and the “bittersweet” ending will see the surviving characters fleeing to Essos. 

Winterfell and King’s Landing fall to the Walkers. 

A new wall is erected in Dorne.

The survivors live to tell the tale of a new long night, as snow falls on the pyramids of Mereen. 

I have thought of this possibility. Like, there will likely be a lot of damage when the Ws arrive. But, I'm not completely sure. They could rebuild the continent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/11/2017 at 11:30 PM, TRILOGY said:

The NK is the final enemy but Cersei will die around the same time. Euron is a non factor.

In the show, I could see it this way. A double climax feauturing Cersei bc she is more important there than in the books, she is basically the protagonist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/11/2017 at 10:01 PM, Caterina Sforza said:

If the NK doesn't bring Viserion into play immediately, then, it might make sense. It is a bit far fetched for me still, but it depends how they (writers and director) will play it. I just don't want to see another Beyond the Wall situation/plot armour. :mellow:

I don't know. If they start quickly, all the season will be about battles. But if they get lost in the Wall, it will not be very credible. (Not that the show is)..

But---I could see a first battle at Winterfell, and later a final one in the South, probbaly KL (that gives time to the WWs to arrive at the SOuth and the heroes to prepare); it would also work with a double climax that includes both storylines, the game of thrones and the fantasy one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/11/2017 at 11:11 PM, Angel Eyes said:

So what are the odds of:

  • The Night King being the final enemy
  • Cersei being the final enemy
  • Euron being the final enemy

Just for starters.

Euron will play a role, but I'm not sure if he'll be the final human villain or he will be alive along with Cersei, probably marrying her as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

But---I could see a first battle at Winterfell, and later a final one in the South, probbaly KL (that gives time to the WWs to arrive at the SOuth and the heroes to prepare); it would also work with a double climax that includes both storylines, the game of thrones and the fantasy one.

That would be ideal. But it's tricky and difficult to be done properly, narratively speaking. I feel like they have lost sight of the story. I'm not sure what's the story is about anymore and I think it's going to be difficult for the books as well. If they can pull this off it will be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the logic of the story would be to have the final resolution at Winterfell. Because it is the place of the Starks, the place the story started, the place best protected with its crypts. The place made by Bran the Builder. Possibly with magical protections like BR cave.

But we should also have a battle with all the main characters. And it can only be at KL.

I could imagine the Others taking WF. But failing to catch those taking refuge in the Crypts. The Others then going south, destroying everything everywhere. With the main battle at KL. Finally the last survivors having a last victorious stand at WF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2017 at 0:49 PM, BalerionTheCat said:

I found Jon honesty here very important. No harm was done because Cersei would not have cooperated anyway. But it was important he demonstrated the meaning of his word. I don't know for who it will matter, Daenerys or Jaime or Cersei again. But it is important your enemy believe your word. Otherwise you cannot have a deal with him or her later.

It really depends what message the show is looking to convey. On the sliding scale between idealism and cynicism, this show generally has tended towards cynicism.

Characters like a Jon, like a Daenerys and Tyrion are advocating for something different. They are daring to imagine a different world, one where honesty is important, there is no slavery and where the small folk are not continually crushed as a result of the political games played by the high born. 

While it is important for these characters to rise to power and to advocate for these principles, if the show is to end with a message that is not excessive cynicism, these characters will actually have to triumph at some point because of their beliefs and not despite them. 

Season 7 seemed to swing back towards cynicism after Season 6's much needed correction by having the wight hunt go so catastrophically bad with the death of Vicerion, Cersei's betrayal and the fact that Cersei is still around and arguably in a good position as her enemies are set to bear the brunt of the burden fighting the dead. 

So I agree. Jon's honesty was important. But if ultimatley his honesty doesn't serve for more than just to further gain Dany's trust and get her in the sack, it will ultimately have been nothing more than just to re-emphazize cynicism.  For it to be important it has to lead to something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...