Season 8: News, Spoilers And Leaks

[HouseLancaster]

18 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

GRRM: Dragons are nuclear weapons and only Dany has them.

Aerys tried to make up for the loss of dragons by hoarding wildfire. Whether fire from above or below it really makes no difference, its WMD, and that's not going to be shown to be effective because of the author's stance on nukes, in which he is classically scifi in its critique about their potential to destroy humanity.

I do think average GA viewers will be able to understand that dragons are stand-ins for air-dropped nuclear weapons when they see them destroying people en masse and melting castles in like 5 seconds. People have a Dany-level romantic attachment to them which I find disgusting.

 

Be that as it may, Jon is anti using dragons on people, castles, the living in general.

Just because he and everyone else want to use them to even the playing field to survive against the dead, you can't ignore his positives for humanity. 

Also, George might be anti WMD, but he aligned the dragons with his principle heroes.

FYI I'm not in favour burning people Dany Style either

 

 

[Rose of Red Lake]

4 minutes ago, HouseLancaster said:

Be that as it may, Jon is anti using dragons on people, castles, the living in general.

Just because he and everyone else want to use them to even the playing field to survive against the dead, you can't ignore his positives for humanity. 

Also, George might be anti WMD, but he aligned the dragons with his principle heroes.

FYI I'm not in favour burning people Dany Style either

 

 

That's why I believe they have to be shown to be destructive in some way, they can't be shown to be neat weapons that can save the day no problem (Jon's thinking is FLAWED). But he would still get support because he tried.

[Mystical]

22 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

That's why I believe they have to be shown to be destructive in some way, they can't be shown to be neat weapons that can save the day no problem (Jon's thinking is FLAWED). But he would still get support because he tried.

Just think about the Field of Fire in 7x04 and it's aftermath. All that death/destruction could have been avoided. Does Jon even know that this incident happened? He sure didn't know about Dany going all knee bending or be burned on the surviving soldiers (otherwise he would have known about the Tarly deaths).

But when you think about it, the dragons out of nowhere in S6 have shown that Dany is in full control of them (no idea how that happened and when) and that they can be directed towards minimal destruction via concentrated, direct hits like the one ship of the fleet in Mereen. So why all this nonsense in S7? If Dany can use them that well, why did she not fly directly to the Red Keep, in front of Cersei's window and go dracarys? At most the upper part of the Keep would have been burned. But no real danger to regular folk on the ground or possible wildfire destruction. What was the point of all that death among her own people (soldiers), her allies and the enemy soldiers (who we were shown thanks to Arya's plot to be regular folk who would rather be with their families)? Field of Fire was unnecessary destruction.

[HouseLancaster]

5 minutes ago, Mystical said:

Just think about the Field of Fire in 7x04 and it's aftermath. All that death/destruction could have been avoided. Does Jon even know that this incident happened? He sure didn't know about Dany going all knee bending or be burned on the surviving soldiers (otherwise he would have known about the Tarly deaths).

But when you think about it, the dragons out of nowhere in S6 have shown that Dany is in full control of them (no idea how that happened and when) and that they can be directed towards minimal destruction via concentrated, direct hits like the one ship of the fleet in Mereen. So why all this nonsense in S7? If Dany can use them that well, why did she not fly directly to the Red Keep, in front of Cersei's window and go dracarys? At most the upper part of the Keep would have been burned. But no real danger to regular folk on the ground or possible wildfire destruction. What was the point of all that death among her own people (soldiers), her allies and the enemy soldiers (who we were shown thanks to Arya's plot to be regular folk who would rather be with their families)? Field of Fire was unnecessary destruction.

Tyrion had that thing about not sending any dragons (foreign invader) to the red keep or any other cities. As it sends the wrong message. Guess she's happy to do so on a neutral battle ground though as it's not terrorism. 

Do a lot of people die? Yes, but...

That's my reading of it.

 

 

 

[Mystical]

8 minutes ago, HouseLancaster said:

Tyrion had that thing about not sending any dragons (foreign invader) to the red keep or any other cities. As it sends the wrong message. Guess she's happy to do so on a neutral battle ground though as it's not terrorism. 

Do a lot of people die? Yes, but...

That's my reading of it.

It's all about how she does it. If all she does is take out Cersei and a few of her goons on the upper levels...would anyone really have an issue with that? Heck the people of KL would probably thank her for it. Sept anyone? IMO the argument was made because dragons are destruction. That's all well and good but the dragons in S6 were controlled enough to burn little more than the size of a ship.

And neutral battle ground doesn't work for me since 99% of the soldiers getting burned would rather be at home than dying on the battle field. The only reason they have to fight is because of the feudal system. They don't do it out of a belief on their part, they were ordered to. They don't have a choice. I'm sure the families would be thankful for and prefer to have their sons back home rather than to never see them again.

[HouseLancaster]

9 hours ago, Mystical said:

It's all about how she does it. If all she does is take out Cersei and a few of her goons on the upper levels...would anyone really have an issue with that? Heck the people of KL would probably thank her for it. Sept anyone? IMO the argument was made because dragons are destruction. That's all well and good but the dragons in S6 were controlled enough to burn little more than the size of a ship.

And neutral battle ground doesn't work for me since 99% of the soldiers getting burned would rather be at home than dying on the battle field. The only reason they have to fight is because of the feudal system. They don't do it out of a belief on their part, they were ordered to. They don't have a choice. I'm sure the families would be thankful for and prefer to have their sons back home rather than to never see them again.

Everything you said makes logical sense but they just didn't for the seasons previously stated.

I personally shy away from applying modern day morality/sensibilities. It's the feudal system, and the truth is back then they just didn't give a flying f**k. I mean they would care in as much as they would think it was sad, but when push comes to shove it didn't matter. Look how many hundreds of his own men Rob sacrificed/ sent to certain death to get 3 people back. And you can garentee Jon and Sansa would have had those thousands lying dead outside Winterfell swept away, out of sight out of mind, as soon as possible.  

I find judging them by our values too much cheapens the world and, you're just going to go round in circles - because a) no ones hands are squeaky clean b) you'll be splitting hairs.

EDIT: In addition, Tyrion cares more about the political landscape in Kings Landing after she takes it more than he does saving lives. In most peoples minds 'soldiers are meant to die in battle', no one will hold that grudge. As the Joker would say; it's all part of the plan. (Dark Knight ref) 

 

  

[21st Century Moose]

10 hours ago, Mystical said:

It's all about how she does it. If all she does is take out Cersei and a few of her goons on the upper levels...would anyone really have an issue with that? Heck the people of KL would probably thank her for it. Sept anyone? IMO the argument was made because dragons are destruction. That's all well and good but the dragons in S6 were controlled enough to burn little more than the size of a ship.

But it's not just about taking out Cersei.  It's also about winning alliances with the other houses of Westeros.

You know this, you were told it at the beginning of season 7 episode 2.

[BalerionTheCat]

13 hours ago, Xemi said:

Jon is killing the NK, there are no ifs or buts about it.

That is where I don't think the Others can be defeated. Not since I read TWoIaF.

The main theme can't be A Song of Ice and Fire; and the war for Dawn, done at episode 3. With 3 yet to go. We will not have 3 episodes of "rescue the Shire" with D&D. If the NK is defeated at WF, then Cersei was right to let the North deal with the troubles. Everyone advocating war to solve problems was right. Ramsay was wrong only on the fact he had not enough "good men". The war method has been used for 10,000 years in Westeros. And there is still no visible improvement.

The Others have given us so far a beating, a trashing, to let this fact sink in our thick skull. When men will understand that, when they will be defeated and will have to think differently. Then it will be time to talk about peace. And Jon is there the best to think "seeking peace rather than war".  But some have thicker skulls than others. So why 3 more episodes.

 

[Mystical]

1 hour ago, 21st Century Moose said:

But it's not just about taking out Cersei.  It's also about winning alliances with the other houses of Westeros.

You know this, you were told it at the beginning of season 7 episode 2.

Cersei is on the IT. What does it have to do with alliances? You want the IT, Cersei needs to go. Jon needed an alliance more than Dany. Dany had alliances, alliances who might still be alive if she had just taken out Cersei and then dealt with Euron's fleet. But they made Dany too OP and Cersei is their fave character so we had to sit through 7 episodes of stupidity.

[Lady Fevre Dream]

1 hour ago, Mystical said:

Cersei is on the IT. What does it have to do with alliances? You want the IT, Cersei needs to go. Jon needed an alliance more than Dany. Dany had alliances, alliances who might still be alive if she had just taken out Cersei and then dealt with Euron's fleet. But they made Dany too OP and Cersei is their fave character so we had to sit through 7 episodes of stupidity.

Not burning Cersei out of the Red Keep, and only Cersei, was the newest piece of D&D plot armor.  They didnt' want Cersei out of power, in peril, so...........she's not.  Whenever common sense cannot be found in the show, usually checking out my siggie line helps:  Creatively, blah, blah blah.  That's where all the common sense of the Wight Hunt and it's execution can be found as well.  It is a sad state of affairs. 

[Error-504]

14 hours ago, Mystical said:

It's all about how she does it. If all she does is take out Cersei and a few of her goons on the upper levels...would anyone really have an issue with that? Heck the people of KL would probably thank her for it. Sept anyone? IMO the argument was made because dragons are destruction. That's all well and good but the dragons in S6 were controlled enough to burn little more than the size of a ship.

And neutral battle ground doesn't work for me since 99% of the soldiers getting burned would rather be at home than dying on the battle field. The only reason they have to fight is because of the feudal system. They don't do it out of a belief on their part, they were ordered to. They don't have a choice. I'm sure the families would be thankful for and prefer to have their sons back home rather than to never see them again.

It's no quite that easy (ok Euron's ships would be). the dragons can't just burn down solid stone, not as fast as they can burn men/ships/wagons. they would have to hover in place and focus their fire for a duration of time, leaving them very vulnerable to the ballista's, of which I am sure there are plenty in KL at this time. Furthermore, it would be like sending a cruise missile after Saddam Hussein, it only works if he is in the building, not bunkered down somewhere else.  Much easier to hire an assassin. 

[Error-504]

3 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

That is where I don't think the Others can be defeated. Not since I read TWoIaF.

The main theme can't be A Song of Ice and Fire; and the war for Dawn, done at episode 3. With 3 yet to go. We will not have 3 episodes of "rescue the Shire" with D&D. If the NK is defeated at WF, then Cersei was right to let the North deal with the troubles. Everyone advocating war to solve problems was right. Ramsay was wrong only on the fact he had not enough "good men". The war method has been used for 10,000 years in Westeros. And there is still no visible improvement.

The Others have given us so far a beating, a trashing, to let this fact sink in our thick skull. When men will understand that, when they will be defeated and will have to think differently. Then it will be time to talk about peace. And Jon is there the best to think "seeking peace rather than war".  But some have thicker skulls than others. So why 3 more episodes.

 

if you kill them all, aren't they defeated? We have already been shown they can be killed, rather easily I might add. getting to them is the problem. 

[lakin1013]

17 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I dont think Jon is going to be the big awesome savior, I mean...he cares about the North and all but his grab-a-nuke-and-hope-it-works-out-strategy is a set up for a disaster. What's the message if his strategy succeeds? Nuclear weapons are terrific? 

I think he'll be king but it won't be because he saved everyone, it will be because he keeps TRYING to do it.

I tend to agree with this.  I actually wonder if Martin wrote Val into the books for Jon's ending.  One thing Jon has always lacked is the desire, the need to rule (see Stannis ot Tywin for those who have the need).  At some point, Jon realizes he does not want to be King, does not have the skills to be a ruler, only has a good heart.  One ending for a core character (in the books) would be for Jon to end up with Val and the free folk, where he is happiest..  In the show, I still wonder if Jon walks away.  He lives to the end, but cannot or does not want to close the deal on ruling.

[Cas Stark]

Just now, lakin1013 said:

I tend to agree with this.  I actually wonder if Martin wrote Val into the books for Jon's ending.  One thing Jon has always lacked is the desire, the need to rule (see Stannis ot Tywin for those who have the need).  At some point, Jon realizes he does not want to be King, does not have the skills to be a ruler, only has a good heart.  One ending for a core character (in the books) would be for Jon to end up with Val and the free folk, where he is happiest..  In the show, I still wonder if Jon walks away.  He lives to the end, but cannot or does not want to close the deal on ruling.

No one gets what they want in the world of GRRM, so it would actually be fitting that Jon rule, something he will hate, and that Dany, who desires this above all, doesn't. Although at this point, I suspect that at least one of them will die, maybe both.

[lakin1013]

Just now, Cas Stark said:

No one gets what they want in the world of GRRM, so it would actually be fitting that Jon rule, something he will hate, and that Dany, who desires this above all, doesn't. Although at this point, I suspect that at least one of them will die, maybe both.

Jon has already died once. My logic is 'been there, done that' for Jon to die AGAIN.  I am in the Dany dies camp, but your logic of characters getting what they don't want, is reasonable.  Poor Jon wins it all LOL

[HouseLancaster]

18 minutes ago, lakin1013 said:

Jon has already died once. My logic is 'been there, done that' for Jon to die AGAIN.  I am in the Dany dies camp, but your logic of characters getting what they don't want, is reasonable.  Poor Jon wins it all LOL

Do you not wonder if Jon is on borrowed time because he actually should be dead?

On a side note, I think Jon has enough about him to rule. I hate the notion amoung some GOT fans that only cold calous political savy SOB's make good rulers i.e a good heart equals dumb. Plus they have advisors

[Cas Stark]

17 minutes ago, HouseLancaster said:

Do you not wonder if Jon is on borrowed time because he actually should be dead?

On a side note, I think Jon has enough about him to rule. I hate the notion amoung some GOT fans that only cold calous political savy SOB's make good rulers i.e a good heart equals dumb. Plus they have advisors

I think it can go either way with Jon, either, he's already died, and this brings him further to fulfil his destiny, and no repeat, or, he's already dead, so he's on borrowed time and will die for real a second time.

Yes, Jon Snow would be a good ruler, little more savvy and little more bendable than his foster father or his cousin, but still has a strong moral center, and he would hate it...so, presumably, that would be the reason it might happen.  But, I have strong doubts there will still be a 'king' in Westeros at the end.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, HouseLancaster said:

Do you not wonder if Jon is on borrowed time because he actually should be dead?

On a side note, I think Jon has enough about him to rule. I hate the notion amoung some GOT fans that only cold calous political savy SOB's make good rulers i.e a good heart equals dumb. Plus they have advisors

Westeros will be devastated and in ruins, with no castles or houses left. This will create an opening for Jon to try and form a new way of ruling - which we wont see in the show beyond a five minute (or less) clip where he puts Starks and allies in place to rebuild each of the seven houses.

[Mystical]

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

No one gets what they want in the world of GRRM, so it would actually be fitting that Jon rule, something he will hate, and that Dany, who desires this above all, doesn't.

Except we've already had a story abut a reluctant King, who only took it because no one else was stepping up and then hated it. His name was Robert Baratheon. Now I'm not saying Jon is anything like Robert (far from it) but reluctant ruler is not an automatic recipe for success. Reluctant ruler can be just as a bad a solution as ambitious 'I want it' rulers.

When it comes to Dany, I've always thought she wouldn't get it. What was the point of her Throne room vision back in the House of the Undying if the exact opposite comes to pass? I know D&D probably forgot all about that but initially I thought that the reason she turns away from the Throne was because she ultimately chose her child/children/family over power. Now this would have been good story for S8, say Dany does end up pregnant an chooser her child over her desire for the throne/ruling. Except since S2 there has been no hint whatsoever of this and Dany has been full stop all about conquering and 'the throne is mine and I will take it'. So even if that were a possible way to end her story, there has literally been no groundwork for it.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Mystical said:

Except we've already had a story abut a reluctant King, who only took it because no one else was stepping up and then hated it. His name was Robert Baratheon. Now I'm not saying Jon is anything like Robert (far from it) but reluctant ruler is not an automatic recipe for success. Reluctant ruler can be just as a bad a solution as ambitious 'I want it' rulers.

When it comes to Dany, I've always thought she wouldn't get it. What was the point of her Throne room vision back in the House of the Undying if the exact opposite comes to pass? I know D&D probably forgot all about that but initially I thought that the reason she turns away from the Throne was because she ultimately chose her child/children/family over power. Now this would have been good story for S8, say Dany does end up pregnant an chooser her child over her desire for the throne/ruling. Except since S2 there has been no hint whatsoever of this and Dany has been full stop all about conquering and 'the throne is mine and I will take it'. So even if that were a possible way to end her story, there has literally been no groundwork for it.

That would have been a good story. I really wonder what the story would have been if GRRM had stuck with a trilogy, which, I think, we all wish he had.