Jump to content
AEJON TARGARYEN

Season 8: News, Spoilers And Leaks

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, longest night said:

Bran died in that tree. Bran no longer exists and since the 3EC has taken control, we've learned very little of anything of what it has done. No one has yet to give a good explanation of why this 3EC who he himself says is not Bran, would care who Jon's parentage is. It didn't matter to the battle against the Others. Why did Bran need Sam to tell Jon who he is at that very moment when Sam was at his most emotional.

 

Bran knew it was wrong. Bran doesn't exist anymore. Yes, we learn in Varamyr's prologue also that wargs who died can move their conscience to their bonded animal. It doesn't discount that it would be impossible for someone to do it to a human under the right conditions or with enough power.

What if the 3EC moved its conscience to Bran? In the books, he's being fed what everyone knows is Jojen paste, making him linked closer to the power. We don't know exactly what's happening in the books yet. However, in the show, we are repeatedly told Bran doesn't exist anymore. We aren't even sure the point that happens except for Meera who says Bran died in that tree. What if it happened right at the point that the old 3EC died?

What if the King's of Winter were puppets of the children of the forest until the Andal invasion who uprooted their power? I know people have this "noble savage" trope in their mind, but the cotf could very well be more like the Aztecs that offered human sacrifice to their gods.

The Three Eyed Raven is still Bran according to Isaac: 

There's a sense of … I wouldn't necessarily say "joy," but there's still a part of Bran in the Three-Eyed Raven. He remembers what it was like to be Bran. Usually, his mind is occupied with so many other things. But when he's there in Winterfell, surrounded by so much of his family and so many people he hasn't seen in such a long time, it certainly flares up the parts of his brain that are Bran. I think there's a flicker of him thinking, "Good to see you again. It's been interesting to see your journey."

 

Share this post


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

The Three Eyed Raven is still Bran according to Isaac: 

There's a sense of … I wouldn't necessarily say "joy," but there's still a part of Bran in the Three-Eyed Raven. He remembers what it was like to be Bran. Usually, his mind is occupied with so many other things. But when he's there in Winterfell, surrounded by so much of his family and so many people he hasn't seen in such a long time, it certainly flares up the parts of his brain that are Bran. I think there's a flicker of him thinking, "Good to see you again. It's been interesting to see your journey."

 

Technically he says that Bran still exists in his mind. Hodor still existed in Hodor when Bran warged him, he fights until he gives up and then hides in the dark corner of his mind scared. We aren't exactly sure what's going on with the 3EC. It seems to be the embodiment of all the past greenseers.

Edited by longest night

Share this post


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

Technically he says that Bran still exists in his mind. Hodor still existed in Hodor when Bran warged him, he fights until he gives up and then hides in the dark corner of his mind scared.

Hodor isn't fused with Bran. Bran is straight up usurping Hodor's body rather than melded with his mind. 

 

The Three Eyed Raven and Bran are one mind. That is why Isaac is saying it's flaring up those parts of his brain that are Bran. 

 

It's like if I mixed 90% Sprite with 10% Coke. It's no longer coke and sprite. It's a mixed drink but there is far more of the Sprite than the Coke.

 

Hence Three Eyed Raven Bran saying he remembers what it felt like to be Brandon Stark but he remembers so much else now. Bran's memories on;y make up a sliver of his person although it's there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, longest night said:

I hope for the sake of ASOIAF that Bran ends up being evil and thwarted because at this point, who the hell wants Bran on the throne at the end of the books? I may just move on from the book series if that's the end of the TV show.

 

In retrospect, he's kind of the central character. He starts the story as the beginning POV, he's the last son of Ned Stark, he journeys to the North to meet with the COTF, transcends his humanity to become a god, journeys south and is instrumental in the defeat of the Others, he's the memory of all man (which also means every person is a live inside of him as he remembers everyone's stories) and becomes king at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

 

In retrospect, he's kind of the central character. He starts the story as the beginning POV, he's the last son of Ned Stark, he journeys to the North to meet with the COTF, transcends his humanity to become a god, journeys south and is instrumental in the defeat of the Others, he's the memory of all man (which also means every person is a live inside of him as he remembers everyone's stories) and becomes king at the end.

Watch the reaction of watchers to Bran being king at the end of AGOT. That would pale in comparison to the reaction of book readers.

Share this post


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

Book bran is supposed to not leave a cave

That's an expectation. Hold the Door kind of points to him leaving the cave. 

 

But regardless, Benioff and Weiss foreshadowed King Bran since the first season where they thought they were going to do GRRM's ending.

 

You don't have to like it but it's happening. 

 

Season 1 Episode 1:

 

https://i.redd.it/1cq24acrx3y21.png

https://i.redd.it/ui9njjdjhpx21.png

 

 

https://i.redd.it/rbc2xj3g3by21.png

"Robb will set aside his crown if you and your brother will do the same," she said, hoping it was true. She would make it true if she must; Robb would listen to her, even if his lords would not. "Let the three of you call for a Great Council, such as the realm has not seen for a hundred years. We will send to Winterfell, so Bran may tell his tale and all men may know the Lannisters for the true usurpers. Let the assembled lords of the Seven Kingdoms choose who shall rule them.-Catelyn ACOK

 

 

"At Winterfell, Tommen fought my brother Bran with wooden swords," Jon said, remembering. "He wore so much padding he looked like a stuffed goose. Branknocked him to the ground." He went to the window and threw the shutters open. The air outside was cold and bracing, though the sky was a dull grey. "Yet Bran's dead, and pudgy pink-faced Tommen is sitting on the Iron Throne, with a crown nestled amongst his golden curls."-JON ADWD

Edited by Lord_Ravenstone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, longest night said:

Watch the reaction of watchers to Bran being king at the end of AGOT. That would pale in comparison to the reaction of book readers.

 

As we've noted, Benioff and Weiss like to make things more shocking. That's the height of story-telling for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord_Ravenstone said:

 

As we've noted, Benioff and Weiss like to make things more shocking. That's the height of story-telling for them.

We are five books in with the story so derailed at this point, Bran as king is a joke. Those paragraphs you say are foreshadowing is also shallow to non-existent. In his original manuscript he was to be deposed by the end of book 1. That's long gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

That's an expectation. Hold the Door kind of points to him leaving the cave. 

 

But regardless, Benioff and Weiss foreshadowed King Bran since the first season where they thought they were going to do GRRM's ending.

 

You don't have to like it but it's happening. 

 

Season 1 Episode 1:

 

https://i.redd.it/1cq24acrx3y21.png

https://i.redd.it/ui9njjdjhpx21.png

 

 

https://i.redd.it/rbc2xj3g3by21.png

"Robb will set aside his crown if you and your brother will do the same," she said, hoping it was true. She would make it true if she must; Robb would listen to her, even if his lords would not. "Let the three of you call for a Great Council, such as the realm has not seen for a hundred years. We will send to Winterfell, so Bran may tell his tale and all men may know the Lannisters for the true usurpers. Let the assembled lords of the Seven Kingdoms choose who shall rule them.-Catelyn ACOK

 

 

"At Winterfell, Tommen fought my brother Bran with wooden swords," Jon said, remembering. "He wore so much padding he looked like a stuffed goose. Branknocked him to the ground." He went to the window and threw the shutters open. The air outside was cold and bracing, though the sky was a dull grey. "Yet Bran's dead, and pudgy pink-faced Tommen is sitting on the Iron Throne, with a crown nestled amongst his golden curls."-JON ADWD

Nothing here is foreshadow for bran being king... Literally nothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, longest night said:

We are five books in with the story so derailed at this point, Bran as king is a joke. Those paragraphs you say are foreshadowing is also shallow to non-existent. In his original manuscript he was to be deposed by the end of book 1. That's long gone.

And Arya x Jon was supposed to be a thing and that changed to Dany x Jon. Guess GRRM decided that Bran is the endgame king. Although, I have a feeling that Bran was always the endgame king. Also take a look at the images that I linked too. Benioff and Weiss knew from season 1 that it was.

 

 

6 minutes ago, divica said:

Nothing here is foreshadow for bran being king... Literally nothing

 

You literally have a raven on the throne in the teaser. You have a raven on the throne in the original intro. 

 

You have the phrase King of the Andals and First Men being recited over Bran's face.

Let's be honest, it's not that you can't read this as foreshadowing. It's that you guys don't like GRRM's ending. 

And that's fair but GRRM is ending this a lot more high fantasy than people expected.

I'm sure the context of how it all goes down will be a lot different than in the show.

Just gonna point out that Preston Jacobs figured out years ago that the ending would involve Bran over Jon and Dany by reading GRRM's other works:

 

Preston Jacobs: "The question is what is good in the long term and what will last. Now many people read Ice and Fire and hope for Jon and Dany to sit on the Iron throne at the end but that is not a lasting answer. The problems facing Westeros are incredibly complicated and I would say they too require a god-like intervention. This would point us more toward an ending involving Bran or the weirwood net."

 

Preston Jacobs: I'll say this about Jon Snow being the chosen one and defeating evil. Our author has never written a story ending that way. It is a trope that our author seems to want to avoid. Weirdo-freak protagonists like Tuf can succeed but not a classic hero like Jon at least not in a badass sword-fight triumph over evil sort of way. But even Tuf the weirdo doesn't have a traditional ending normally.

Edited by Lord_Ravenstone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, longest night said:

D&D didn't know by their own admission the ending of the story until between season 3 and season 4.

They knew the fate of the main characters or at least who would be king which is different from asking George to tell everything he knew about his story which is what they asked for..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord_Ravenstone said:

They knew the fate of the main characters or at least who would be king which is different from asking George to tell everything he knew about his story which is what they asked for..

They only knew R+L=J because the correctly guessed that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

Just gonna point out that Preston Jacobs figured out years ago that the ending would involve Bran over Jon and Dany by reading GRRM's other works:

I only know Preston Jacobs through his youtubes and podcasts. I'm a reader, not a listener - do you have a link for his stuff in blog or written format?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, HouseLancaster said:

As a basic example the good is that they were trying to stop the WW, it's not like Wildlings weren't been slaughtered. Everything else is just interpretation and assumptions based on how events unfolded. 

There is no justification based on what has been presented to us to make Bran responsible for decisions Jon, Daenerys, Tyrion etc have made with regards to the WW and Kings Landing. It's hindsight on a rediculous scale for events/people, as far we know, he had no impact over.

But they didn’t need to, wildlings populations had been rescued and if there were wildings still existing now they had access to the safety of the wall. Or what was John’s arc all about? 

Since the show runners confirmed that the wall was protecting them for 8000 years and there was no reason why it shouldn’t keep doing that, Brans agony over the WW becomes another plot device for doom. 

When John gets Bran message he says “Bran saw them marching, if they make it past the wall”

Then Varys verifies that the wall kept them for a thousand years...

Right Varys. How doesn’t that make Bran totally useless for all the knowledge and special abilities he has? 

 

 

 

Edited by Nightwish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few thoughts that will not surface in the show:

- the previous 3EC was Bloodraven, aka Brynden Rivers

- is there a need/connection for the 3EC to be a Brynden/Brandon?

- if so, Bran was a rushed backup for Brandon killed by Aerys because Bloodraven was dying?

- because Bran is only 9 years old when he becomes the 3EC, he doesn't understand some things he sees and fails to give proper advice because he does not know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, longest night said:

 Yes, we learn in Varamyr's prologue also that wargs who died can move their conscience to their bonded animal. It doesn't discount that it would be impossible for someone to do it to a human under the right conditions or with enough power.

To be fair, Varamyr was merely a powerful skinchanger and not a greenseer, so what was impossible for him might still be possible for Bran. There are all these legends about people being magically "enthralled" by folks such as the book Night's King and Morgan  Banefort. Not that I actually believe in the theory of Bran skinchanging into Dany/Drogon or into anybody else to cause the events of the last 2 episodes.

 

Quote

What if the King's of Winter were puppets of the children of the forest until the Andal invasion who uprooted their power? I know people have this "noble savage" trope in their mind, but the cotf could very well be more like the Aztecs that offered human sacrifice to their gods.

You forget that the Starks were the ones who eradicated the last stronghold of CoTF and their allies in the North. They weren't some great friends of the CoTF - just the opposite, which is why the CoTF are also extinct in the North, where the Andals never reached.

 

12 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

 The issue of these Stark uncle-niece marriages was never recognized as potential heirs, nor their descendants.

Says who? The genealogical tree only tells us that the boys died young and the girls were shafted because of their gender - as happened repeatedly in such cases. Them being one more generation removed from an actual Lord Stark and them likely being children at the time would have made it even easier to side-line them than it was to do the same to their mothers.

 

11 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

No need to read the future. The obsession of bending the knee and burning people rather than caring for what they want was enough.

This is some fairy-tale morality and rather hypocritical, given that the power of all kings and lords and chieftains in ASOIAF is rooted in violence. "People" didn't elect the Starks of old to be Kings in the North - they conquered and massacred and executed child hostages to unite the North and cement their power. When Greatjon spoke about taking his forces home back in AGoT, Robb threatened to storm his castle and hang him on his own gates.

Even  Mance Raider's claim to leadership was based on violence - him being a celebrated raider, fighting other chieftains and killing those who refused to follow him even after being defeated, etc.  And that's with the threat of the Others hanging over the wildlings and making it easier to point them in the same direction.

Tormund is a stone-cold killer of northern civilians.

Not that any of it matters, the show presentation, which glosses over these uncomfortable truth, being what it is, and possibly even Martin's ultimate plan being what it is.

Edited by Maia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Bran isn’t gonna be king of Westeros in the books. He has zero claim to the Iron Throne. There will be a great council yes, but that likely is how Jon becomes King.

Any reference to Bran sitting on a throne likely refers to the Throne of the North. Even in the books he is called the Prince of Winterfell.

Signifying an independent North in the end, which the Showrunners have clung to against all odds, with Sansa pushing that agenda to the end in the Show, as Martin has been hinting at in the books as well, if you read carefully.

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

You mean my post of "this" in reply Balerion the Cat's, I presume. I agreed with the arguments that by the time before the battle (and not end of s7), Bran clearly had some intel on Dany to decide that Dany did not exactly filled him with confidence about her. He's impatiently waiting for their arrival, cuts the niceties of the welcome short and informs Dany what happened to her dragon and that the NK breached the Wall. Dany's response to this is deadpan. Nothing. Now I get that Dany trained herself to reveal little to no emotion to strangers. But next she frolicks with dragons and takes Jon on a dragon-flying date.

I can see Bran think, what's up with her. We all had this reaction of "who does that, when you learned a giant army just breached the wall?" It does come across as "Does she even have her feet on the ground?" And so while waiting for the arrival of his "Old friend" he can check out Dany's past hypothetically. On top of that both in the present and in the recent past, Bran can certainly ascertain that Jon is now falling in love with his aunt.

Everyone notices that Jon is defensive about Dany, and meanwhile Sam's hiding in the library, trying to avoid the subject. Sam finally comes out, grieving and angry over the death of his brother, and Bran doesn't want Sam to tardy it anymore.

Well, D&D had to cram everything asap at the moment. So, I agree with that on a meta-level.

Agreed to that as well.

It just doesn't have to be the sole reason. Jon could die. If he doesn't die, he should know who he is, asap, because he deserves to know. It's his secret to decide on, and to weigh whether his love overcomes the kinship to Dany. And finally, that moment allows Jon just enough time for Jon to tell Dany too.

And for this D&D have a meta-writing reason. They clearly wanted to write Dany as making an independent choice in epi 5. Yes, they have her be certain that Jon betrays her to highlight her paranoia, but she has no real rational reason to accuse him of manipulating or betraying her. Sure, she's angry that he told Sansa, but she does at some level understands that it is his responsibility and choice and secret to tell or not tell to people. Now, imagine Jon told her during epi 4, after Dany lost Jorah, after she saw the Dothraki lights go out, etc... Would she have a reason to be spiteful towards Jon right there and then? She would. She's already suspicious of betrayal anyhow. By having Dany herself find out before epi 3, she cannot blame Jon for manipulating her to commit forces for his war, in order to weaken her military power. Her committing to the battle in epi 3, becomes something she goes through with, while knowing the truth. For the same reason they made sure that she traveled by herself, without Jon to Dragonstone, and the loss of Rhaegal and Missandei is not something she can ever pin on Jon. He had no part at all in advizing her on Dragonstone to negotiate surrender with Cersei one last time.

They wrote the timing of the reveal for making Dany and Dany alone for her decision to burn the KL citizens. On the one hand they needed her to know, to make her paranoia peak, but they simultaneously wanted Jon to be as honorable as he could be about it, so that Dany doesn't have real cause to execute him along with Varys. And thus Dany had to know before the battle. So, Jon had to learn of it before the battle. And thus Bran had to urge Sam, and that just as Sam made his mind up about her being a sociopath with no remorse in the way she tells him about the death of his father and his brother.

 

The reason that I deny seeing Bran as an evil character playing his own game here to bring conflict is because I don’t have faith in the script. 

If someone wants to read Brans actions and decisions as intentional to create conflict so he can personally get rid of two opponents (the Night King and Dany) he can. Thats the bad thing about him. He is not an heroic figure because the script doesn’t make him one as he fails to offer support, guidance or any kind of help. For example Sam’s intentions are good beyond doubt. Bran is not this kind of character. He is debatable. 

Αs for the timing he chooses to reveal John’s identity just before the battle again it’s not wise  if he considers Dany as bad as you say, the easiest way to get rid of a rival is exactly in a battle. And she had her chance to do so, yet she saves him. 

So he is risking his brother safety again exposing him to a dangerous crazy opponent as you supported? 

To wrap it up I think that Bran has two readings, one is the obvious he is useless and used as a plot device so he can create unintentionally conflict and the script can move forward. 

The other is that his motives are dark since he always delivers information in a convenient way for him. 

 I don’t that’s the case but I can see both readings because as I said you can doubt his role on the hypothesis that he delivers far less than what his abilities are supposed to be. 

 

 

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

×