Jump to content
AEJON TARGARYEN

Season 8: News, Spoilers And Leaks

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Butterwell said:

Here’s something that don’t sound too bad. Kinda supports the Spanish Sofia leaks but in a less fanficy way. https://medium.com/@jorywea/episode-5-of-game-of-thrones-50a613585e99. I actually don’t mind this version.

There’s another article that supports the Spanish leaks, almost word for word, in a translated sense. Claims he has a different source and unaware of Sofia’s leak but released after the initial Spanish one.

There’s debate on the veracity of the leaks and claims that a lot of this is misinformation campaign by HBO.

So are any of the leaks accurate? Are they all just misinformation sprinkled with some truth to add credibility?

 

How could Tyrion be on board with that? Makes no sense. I mean, I know he hasn't forgotten how they betrayed him after saving them in the Battle of Blackwater, but it's completely out of character.

Edited by House Cambodia

Share this post


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

How could Tyrion be on board with that? Makes no sense. I mean, I know he hasn't forgotten how they betrayed him after saving them in the Battle of Blackwater, but it's completely out of character.

Maybe Cersei will be singing as King's Landing burns, like Peter Ustinov in Quo Vadis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Maybe Cersei will be singing as King's Landing burns, like Peter Ustinov in Quo Vadis.

I can see how this would lead to Jon killing her and then finding out he made a massive mistake, which would brilliantly piss off every Danyfan AND Jonfan in the biggest WTF possible, but that Tyrion would be carrying that plan in his mind all this time just stretches credulity to breaking point. It would be fine if Cercei planned that on her own without involving Tyrion. Feckin' D&D :bang:  [if true, of course]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, House Cambodia said:

It would be fine if Cercei planned that on her own without involving Tyrion.

I don't know how much all these leakers are credible. I believe that some of them have seen some imagines, but most likely the context is something they had to put together/invent.

That said, I'd bet that Cersey is playing everybody.

That she is not pregnant, but that she relies on that lie to play Tyrion (just like she has done the first time around) too.

She knows he cares about her child.

And the only reason as to why she didn't kill him in the last episode is to use this precise Tyrion's weakness.

In addition, I believe that maybe she didn't kill anybody else the last time around, just because in that occasion
all her enemies weren't there. Not all the allies were present (Jon and the norther men, the prince of Dorne, Yara), not all the army.

She's planning to trap everybody to get rid of them all in one single shot, just like she has done in the past.

To win or - if she loses - to die with everybody else leaving nothing behind her.

Edited by lalt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Torienne said:

To stop the Nazis from murdering millions of jews and to end World War II it was absolutely necessary for the allied forces to bomb the German cities. Hundreds of thousands of civilians died. Does anyone think President Franklin D. Roosevelt or PM Mr. Winston Churchill or General de Gaulle should have been executed for that?

To stop the madness, to end the bloodshed of the Nazis the allied forces had to do what they did. Sometimes violence is the only way to stop violence, it´s the only way to break the wheel. If one likes it or not: That's history. That's reality. The bombing of civilians 1942-1945 prepared the ground for the UN-declaration of human rights later in 1948.

Sometimes something good develops from something incredibly cruel. I don't know if I would call that "bittersweet".

But should one really judge a medieval conquerer/ruler with the standards of 1948ff? 

This. Also let´s not forget the Japan. Not only US used two nuclear bombs on their cities, but they also led a weeks long bombing campaigns which purposefully turned most of the cities into a fiery hell. And the military objective of the campaign was openly to rise enough terror and human casualties the Japanies will give up.

And we still see a similar tactic today with the "shock and awe" campaigns, only much better masked with willing media and the so called "smart" bombs which are suppose to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. If there is an enemy in the city it always ends with only two solutions:  a) use special forces and infantry for actual street to street fight until the enemy is destryoed which is extremely costly in human sources and can be risky even for the most advanced army, or b) use bombs and planes and rockets to destroy the enemy from far, which is mostly save but usually ends with a lot of civilian casualties. As we can see everywhere around the world, nobody ever goes for the option A. 

Share this post


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

That said, I'd bet that Cersey is playing everybody.

I can't see how it could be possible since GRRM said the end of the show more or less matches the end of the books, and in the books Cersei is not exactly very cleaver…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, House Cambodia said:

I can see how this would lead to Jon killing her and then finding out he made a massive mistake, which would brilliantly piss off every Danyfan AND Jonfan in the biggest WTF possible, but that Tyrion would be carrying that plan in his mind all this time just stretches credulity to breaking point. It would be fine if Cercei planned that on her own without involving Tyrion. Feckin' D&D :bang:  [if true, of course]

Yes, if true. It’s terrible either way. Nothing in any of these leaks is a satisfying conclusion to this story. This can’t be what GRRM intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

I can't see how it could be possible since GRRM said the end of the show more or less matches the end of the books, and in the books Cersei is not exactly very cleaver…

It would be in character for Cersei to wish to take down thousands of people with her, when she dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, tws1978 said:

This. Also let´s not forget the Japan. Not only US used two nuclear bombs on their cities, but they also led a weeks long bombing campaigns which purposefully turned most of the cities into a fiery hell. And the military objective of the campaign was openly to rise enough terror and human casualties the Japanies will give up.

And we still see a similar tactic today with the "shock and awe" campaigns, only much better masked with willing media and the so called "smart" bombs which are suppose to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. If there is an enemy in the city it always ends with only two solutions:  a) use special forces and infantry for actual street to street fight until the enemy is destryoed which is extremely costly in human sources and can be risky even for the most advanced army, or b) use bombs and planes and rockets to destroy the enemy from far, which is mostly save but usually ends with a lot of civilian casualties. As we can see everywhere around the world, nobody ever goes for the option A. 

You are forgetting a big difference.

Cersei may be ruthless, she surely doesn't care about her people, she killed many of them to get rid of her "real" enemy... but she's not invading any country and the purpose itself of her regime is not to kill millions of people.

She's not Hitler. And she has not start this war.

Daenerys has it. So it's up to her to show that she may be a better ruler.

From this pov I think that today "shock and awe" campaigns are a better sample. Cersei being more similar to those bad ruleres western democracies sometimes decide to fight (sometimes not). But  it's not that there is a general consensum on those campains just because many believes that civilians casualties are something that must be avoided. And that no one can "export democracy" by bombing.

It's a sentive issue for many...

 

Edited by lalt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

I can't see how it could be possible since GRRM said the end of the show more or less matches the end of the books, and in the books Cersei is not exactly very cleaver…

I don't even think Cersei will arrive alive at the end the books serie.

I think, however that with that George only meant who's going to sit on the throne or whether or not there will be a throne..

Edited by lalt

Share this post


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

You are forgetting a big difference.

Cersei may be ruthless, she surely doesn't care about her people, she killed many of them to get rid of her "real" enemy... but she's not invading any country and the purpose itself of her regime is not to kill millions of people.

She's not Hitler. And she has not start this war.

Daenerys has it.

It's up to her to show that she may be a better ruler.

 

Did the Lannister armies not defeat the Riverlands? 

Did they not march to conquer Highgarden? How did Jaime get into Lady Olenna´s castle - if not by massive bloodshed against her people before?

The fact that D&D didn't show us these battles doesn't mean they were not extremely bloody.

And, btw, blowing up the sept of Baylor and the whole part of the city around it: Cersei is somebody who reigns by terror against the innocent. Cersei is someone like Hitler. (Even if the Lannister Territory ist now somewhat smaller. And even if we are - for D&D-propaganda-reasons- not informed about all her crimes.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, lalt said:

I don't even think Cersei will arrive alive at the end the books serie.

I think, however that with that George only meant who's going to sit on the throne or whether or not there will be a throne..

Probably gonna be fAegon instead of Cersei in the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Torienne said:

Did the Lannister armies not defeat the Riverlands? 

Did they not march to conquer Highgarden? How did Jaime get into Lady Olenna´s castle - if not by massive bloodshed against her people before?

The fact that D&D didn't show us these battles doesn't mean they were not extremely bloody.

And, btw, blowing up the sept of Baylor and the whole part of the city around it: Cersei is somebody who reigns by terror against the innocent. Cersei is someone like Hitler. (Even if the Lannister Territory ist now somewhat smaller. And even if we are - for D&D-propaganda-reasons- not informed about all her crimes.)

That's war, in fact.

But again, this war started because Dany and her allies wanted this war to start.

There are not pacificists in this story.

And like I said, I believe Cersei is a bad ruler. But I don't find the parallel with Hitler the right one.
She's a Geddafi, if you will.

Or a Pinochet... someone who took power with a cup. 

In one case, at some point someone started a war against him, in the other one... no one ever did.

What was the right choice?

I think there's not right answer (and sometimes a lot of hypocrisy)

 

Edited by lalt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, lalt said:

You are forgetting a big difference.

Cersei may be ruthless, she surely doesn't care about her people, she killed many of them to get rid of her "real" enemy... but she's not invading any country and the purpose itself of her regime is not to kill millions of people.

She's not Hitler. And she has not start this war.

Daenerys has it. So it's up to her to show that she may be a better ruler.

From this pov I think that today "shock and awe" campaigns are a better sample. Cersei being more similar to those bad ruleres western democracies sometimes decide to fight (sometimes not). But  it's not that there is a general consensum on those campains just because many believes that civilians casualties are something that must be avoided. And that no one can "export democracy" by bombing.

It's a sentive issue for many...

 

Cersei has lost the support of most her subjects.  She's been given more than one chance to save her life, by leaving Kings Landing, and has refused.  In the end, such a ruler can only be deposed by force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the dragons are gone Dorne has the biggest army. Whoever is in charge there can conquer Westeros easily.

Maybe the Prince that was promised refers to the Prince of Dorne? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, alienarea said:

Once the dragons are gone Dorne has the biggest army. Whoever is in charge there can conquer Westeros easily.

Maybe the Prince that was promised refers to the Prince of Dorne? :)

Historically, in the books, I don't think Dorne has ever shown any interest in wars of conquest. They just like to be left in peace.

Share this post


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

Historically, in the books, I don't think Dorne has ever shown any interest in wars of conquest. They just like to be left in peace.

After the trainwreck of season 8 Westeros deserves to be ruled by Darkstar ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Cersei has lost the support of most her subjects.  She's been given more than one chance to save her life, by leaving Kings Landing, and has refused.  In the end, such a ruler can only be deposed by force

Yes. She has and the houses that opposed her can absolulety use that argument.

I would say that a rebellion against such a sovereign is a textbook example of a legitimate rebellion against a king / queen, even according to XV/XVI century philosophy or political science.

The problem - however -  is that the people of KL is not asking her deposition.

Probably because they fear Cersei. Probably because her "propaganda" vs Dany was effective and they fear her too.

But one thing is for sure: they are not asking Dany to free them. At the moment.

 

Share this post


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

I can't see how it could be possible since GRRM said the end of the show more or less matches the end of the books, and in the books Cersei is not exactly very cleaver…

But Jon Connington is. He also had a decade-and-half to dayly regret his unsufficient ruthlessness when it counted, would be desperate  _and_ he has a strong association with the Bells.

I have noticed that the show occasionally uses motives from the books out of context - like battle on the frozen lake with combatants falling through the ice. Maybe this is another such repurposing.

 

2 hours ago, Torienne said:

Did they not march to conquer Highgarden? How did Jaime get into Lady Olenna´s castle - if not by massive bloodshed against her people before?

The fact that D&D didn't show us these battles doesn't mean they were not extremely bloody.

Oh, yea, didn't they briefly show some dead bodies even and had Dickon talk with Jaime about killing? But all those wonderful counselors kept saying that there was no rush to put an end to Cersei. There was no chance that she would have used the forces that she pledged to the war against the NK and then held back to attack their other possible allies in the south! Like the Vale, for instance. None at all! I am sure that Dany just up and left, Cersei would have totally left the North alone, too! Sansa is smart, after all... And for the record, I like her in the books.

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

×