Jump to content
AEJON TARGARYEN

Season 8: News, Spoilers And Leaks

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, T and A said:

I think Star Wars is just the right franchise for D&D. Cheesy dialog, no real story, zero characters and basically a toy merchendise. 

Shame...shame...shame.  The original trilogy was awesome. 

Edited by Red Dragon10

Share this post


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

The other lords simply accepting bran that is a cripple and might not be able to have kids, has no emoticons, has no claim, no charisma, only has the support of 1 or 2 regions, has weird creepy powers, etc... as their king is crazy...

 

I'm totally with you here. But that isn't really an issue of claim as it is utility. The original post by me was meant very generally and in response to people saying "BUT BRAN DOESN'T HAVE A CLAIM!!!" well neither does anyone else. So if there is going to be an Iron Throne or a central ruler then that necessarily has to be a non-issue.

The more logical solution to me is a dissolution of the Iron Throne until another cycle of wars leads to a dominant house exerting enough influence as to be a central power. A good argument, however, could be made that such a cycle will lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths and a really bad situation for Westeros. The only way that this fits any kind of logic is if someone actually makes that argument and frames it as "Well, we can wait 500 years and wait for a huge war to decide who unites the 7 kingdoms or we can try to install someone who will prevent the millions of deaths that will occur in the meantime."

I'm not saying any of this should be the first logical option. I'm simply saying, 1) Claims don't matter at this stage because no one has one, 2) There is some rudimentary logic behind it. But the logic depends on all of the lords agreeing that war is bad (lololol, lords exert power most in a war setting), that we should avoid unnecessary deaths (when have the lords ever primarily made a decision based on the death of smallfolk?) and that the answer is to install a relatively foreign entity to prevent those two things. And then finally that all of those things are best accomplished by this crippled boy from up North who, we promise, knows and does things that'll be..er....good?

Logic is very faulty but not because of "claims" as others have suggested because there aren't any claims to press ATM unless you're Gendry.

Share this post


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

If Bran becomes king then I'm pretty confident that this is what will happen in the books as well (in the unlikely event that the book series is ever completed) except I'd expect Martin to do an infinitely better job at setting it up. I'd also say that the Ds sidelining of Bran was deliberate. For them, making Bran into little more than an extra will result in a bigger shock when he becomes king and that is all they ever care about. In fact they probably think that totally blindsiding the audience is actually great writing. 

People keep wondering why he can't seem to finish his story. Maybe this is why. He has an end he wants to get to, but he can't get there logically. So he keeps throwing in these secondary characters to try to get the characters get there. However, the cost is that he lost his way in the multitude of characters. Bran was no longer the central point he had planned when he was going to be a deposed king because he couldn't logically get him there in the first book. Even his outline sorta magically placed him there without an explanation as to how.

So here we are, five books in and more focus on Jon, very little focus on Bran. With this is him showing his skill at leading and now he will rise to power from Lord Commander to king in the North to what? His story progression gets cut off? For Bran whom readers barely have any attachment to?

GRRM may be good at weaving words, but he has demonstrated a completely inability to write a proper character arc progression and his ending will demonstrate this. At this point it makes it seems as he's just deceiving us about his characters, Bran is as much a conspiracy against the readers as he is against the realm. He should probably go back and revise his ending to fit what he's created, but he won't. I think he's too stubborn.

One thing is for sure, he is going to hear the backlash of Bran being king after the next episode.

Edited by longest night

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Red Dragon10 said:

Shame...shame...shame.  The original trilogy was awesome. 

It is just nostalgia. Who is the evil guy in the original trilogy? You don't even know his name. He shows up in the last movie and has zero, absolute zero character and backstory. 

Share this post


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

GRRM may be good at weaving words, but he has demonstrated a completely inability to write a proper character arc progression and his ending will demonstrate this. He should probably go back and revise his ending to fit what he's created, but he won't. I think he's too stubborn.

Given how people are reacting to the ending of the show I don t think anyone sane wouldn t make some changes or have a story completly diferent from the last seasons of the show. The real problem at the moment are the 2 together… They just don t fit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So Bran said to Tyrion he didn't want to be Lord of Winterfell, and I suppose that Tyrion remembers that (or forgets it like Dany did with the fleet or doesn't pay attention like Euron with Cersei), never mind, Bran said he didn't want it. He mostly lives in the past. 

By all means if this is the end why putting Bran to say these lines? Another trolling for the fans? 

To get money from bets? 

Haven't we been trolled enough already with 8 seasons of WW which ended in one hour and bittersweet endings that only the writer thinks as bittersweet? 

Ok this is twisted. Tragically twisted. 

Edited by Nightwish

Share this post


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

I think we will see they are as evil as the r'hllor priests. If on one side one religion burns people alive to grant some kind of power the other sacrifices them to weirwoods… Basically that there is a cost for the "old gods" to do some magic… It would even be interesting seeing jon and bran mirroing stannis and mel and see what jon is willing to do for the old gods...

Andals and southerners call it sacrifice. There is an allusion early on that it was capital punishment for a criminal instead. And Bran's response to witnessing it being done in aDwD heavily suggests, this was not something the CotF would ever have done, but a human invention. Bran cries out "no, don't" which seems rather weird given the fact he witnesses his father cut a man's head off without looking away and protesting, and that he has eaten killed off mutineers as Summer. Bran isn't sqeuamish anymore about these things, and yet as greenseer looking through time and eyes of the weirwood he wants the execution to stop, and because it is so contradictory to his earlier responses this "not wanting it be done in front of the tree" seems actually a response of protest by the tree itself. The weirwood tree doesn't want the blood sacrifice.

There is one story that children called on their greenseers who all gathered at the Isle of Faces and sacrificed hundres of POWs (or even their own children) before weirwood trees to call upon their Old Gods to Break of the arm of Dorne. It's a total BS invention by people who clearly don't have any idea that

  • greenseers = Old Gods. It's completely nonsensical for those greenseers to gather and call upon themselves.
  • you can't even see the Isle of Faces from the short of the Gods Eye, so how could people have witnessed such a thing.
  • any witness account of the Isle of Faces must come from human who were on it, for the Pact, which is said to have created a peace of thousands of years, from the start of the Age of Heroes until the arrival of the Andals, and then the First Men fought as allies alongside CotF against the genocidal newcomers
  • High Hill and most of the forest of the RL survived the coming of the First Men as far as until the arrival of the Andals. The pact gave all the forests to the children. Pacts normally are made or agreed upon in an area that lies between two territories. It's nonsensical for the First Men to have already occupied the North and the Vale, for the Children to propose a pact in that location and High Hill surviving. So, we can logically infer that when the First Men and the Children made their Pact, the First Men only occupied Westeros as far as the Westerlands and the Crownlands, and were about to potentially conquer the forests of the Riverlands. The Isle of Faces lay near the border at the time of the Pact.
  • After the Pact, First Men begin to worship the weirwood trees too. This heavily suggests that the First Men who agreed to the Pact and were present at the Isle of Faces, were initiated into the truth about the Old Gods and weirwoods, and were given a chance to consult with greenseers themselves.
  • The Breaking of the arm of Dorne was obviously a natural disaster, and beyond the powers of any greenseer (GRRM would never have magical beings have that kind of power anyway).
  • The Breaking of the arm of Dorne also certainly occurred after the Pact, because by then First Men indeed already occupied lands north of the Neck, and thus long after the Pact, which both Children and First Men agree upon was a time of peace between the Children and humans. 
  • The Children sacrificing their own young is even more absurd: they were always low in numbers, not as fertile as humans, but living longer lifes.

It is quite clearly a mishmash of prejudice by people who are not First Men and don't understand one jot of greenseers and weirwood trees who wanted to villify the Children of the Forest. And the Andals are the likeliest candidates. They have a habit of inserting their own fiction into Westeros history before their arrival even, such as calling the Falcon Knight a "knight" and an "Arryn" (both Andal concepts), though the Falcon knight was a hero of the Age of Heroes (predating the coming of the Andals).

The same is true for the legend of the Hammer of the Waters being called down upon the Neck by Children or greenseers singing on top of the Children tower of Moat Cailin to halt the migration of First Men.

  • Children don't build structures, and thus what the hell are they doing on Moat Cailin
  • Same issues with Pact and Isle of Faces conclusions regarding the migration of First Men, aka just doesn't work with Moat Cailin to halt them. If the First Men needed to be halted at the Neck, then High Hill and the Riverlands forests would have been long taken down by First Men. And yet we still have a forest barrier covering the width of the Riverlands from Darry to west of RR.
  • Moat Cailin was built in basalt, that is a specific stone that is ideal to build large structures in swamp areas or lakes (eg. Tenochtitlan by the Aztecs), and it was built as a defence on the sole higher pass through the Neck. In other words, the Neck was already a swamp and looking like it did, when Moat Cailin was built, and therefore no need to call down a "hammer of the waters".

But let's look at the Andals invasion. They were the ones stopped from ever invading the North, at Moat Cailin, and lost thousands of men trying to overrun the Crannogmen in the Neck. And they had already killed as many children as they could south of the Neck. Surviving Children disappeared into the Neck. We know from Meera that Crannogmen and the Children and the green men of the Isle of Faces have the closest cooperation. Oh, and Crannogmen are smaller than other people, so easily mistaken for "Children".  We also know from Meera that the Crannogmen have a floating castle and are able to direct the waters of the Neck to flood some areas while letting other sections become land. Now Meera calls it "Crannog magic" in a poetic tale about her father who can make this happen with a "whisper". That we shouldn't take Meera's claim about Crannog magic actually being magic is exemplified by Jojen's poetic description of Meera's hunter magic. You dpn't really believe she can fly through trees, do you? Hence the "Lord of Greywater's whisper" = "command", and the "water-land shifting magic" = "flooding by opening locks", exactly as the Belgian Army did in WWI at the Yser to halt the military progress of the Germans. Hmm, and now let the Andals be comparable to German Arian features, and have them commit a genocide like the Nazis did in WWII.

The Andals were sour over their losses at Moat Cailin, against both the alliance of First Men and the Children of the First, and they wanted to villify the CotF and the First Men who also talked to trees, and they just made up a story that retroactively explained the Neck ending up being marshland, extrapolating on their experiences of being outsmarted by the Crannogmen who use some type of lock system to flood Neck areas for defense purposes. And they did the same for the Breaking, because that prevented them from coming to Westeros on foot, and they grafted it onto legends in the South of heavy earthquakes, and mixed it with the Isle of Faces, the island they never managed to reach or harm and the last greenseer hold-out amidst Andal territory.

Basically, the whole "weirwood and greenseers are EVUL" is a conspiracy propaganda equivalent to "the zionists!" conspiracy propaganda by people worhsipping fascism. Don't believe the Andals, they're liars. Believe the Children, they speak the truth, the True Tongue.

Edited by sweetsunray

Share this post


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

Basically, the whole "weirwood and greenseers are EVUL" is a conspiracy propaganda equivalent to "the zionists!" conspiracy propaganda by people worhsipping fascism. Don't believe the Andals, they're liars. Believe the Children, they speak the truth, the True Tongue.

Wait, your argument is that because they themselves call their own language the True Tongue, they speak truth and we should believe them?

Edited by longest night

Share this post


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

Wait, your argument is that because they themselves call their own language the True Tongue, they speak truth and we should believe them?

George called it the True Tongue. So, yes, believe them: they can see the truth, they live the longest and are around the longest (1 million years) and have the Planetos' histories in the weirwood as a library, and they speak the truth.

Edited by sweetsunray

Share this post


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

It is just nostalgia. Who is the evil guy in the original trilogy? You don't even know his name. He shows up in the last movie and has zero, absolute zero character and backstory. 

Um, this is simply patently incorrect. He doesn't just show up in the last movie...

He is mentioned in A New Hope, mentioned and speaks in Empire Strikes Back (it was a different actor but I believe the RoTJ actor was edited in instead of the voice actor from the original cut of the movie) and has considerable face time in Return of the Jedi. To assert that a Star Wars fan "doesn't know the evil guy's name in the original trilogy" is entirely based on YOU not the average fan. Hopefully, everyone who knows anything about the franchise knows the guy's name... I mean the damn force of evil was called "the Empire." I have no idea where you got this, the hottest of hot takes.

Hell, I had the emperor palpatine action figure and he featured prominently in 10 year old me's battles. I'm not conceding it is a "toy" franchise, but for a lot of kids my age who were too young for the original trilogy release (but saw it remastered in theaters) that the toys were pretty special and our imagination through those toys did a lot to fuel passion for the franchise.

Edited by Demetri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sly Wren said:

Sorry for the delay--but had to respond to absolutely agree.

They've absolutely melded Jon with fAegon and Stannis--and I think they've melded Dany with Val.

This would certainly make sense of why the show characters seem to be constantly travelling up and down Westeros at the speed of sound.  They basically need to be at two places at once because they all may be doing double duty, taking on two or more book characters at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 9:33 AM, Suzanna Stormborn said:

As far as D&D following GRRM's wtf moment here--we dont know exactly what part of it they are following

To be fair, I've been saying "what the fuck" repeatedly while watching the shows this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, T and A said:

It is just nostalgia. Who is the evil guy in the original trilogy? You don't even know his name. He shows up in the last movie and has zero, absolute zero character and backstory. 

No way.  The evil guy is the Emperor and he was introduced in person The Empire Strikes Back (the second one).  He was given a lot more backstory later on.  I don't think he necessarily needed a name (though he does have one!).  One of the reasons Star Wars resonates so much with people is because of its great use of archetypes.  They're classic and universal figures.  A story about good and evil, hope, bravery, friendship, sacrifice, adventure, choosing ones fate, coming of age.  Sure, it's not terribly complex, but does a good story have to be?  It uplifts my spirits every time I see it. :)  

Anyway, of course it won't be everyone's cup of tea.  But it is certainly more than nostalgia that capture peoples imaginations! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Red Dragon10 said:

No way.  The evil guy is the Emperor and he was introduced in person The Empire Strikes Back (the second one).  He was given a lot more backstory later on.  I don't think he necessarily needed a name (though he does have one!). 

I mean FFS the Emperor's hologram is INCREDIBLY important in Empire Strikes Back. It isn't a passing mention. He and Vader are talking about "young Skywalker" and Vader famously tries to lobby for turning him saying "if he could be turned he would be a powerful ally" to which the Emperor gives assent to the plan after Vader assures that he could turn his son to the dark side. 

The conversation with the Emperor and Vader in the 2nd movie basically sets up the plot for the remaining story, not only the big ESB (2nd movie) twist, but also the eventual conflict in ROTJ and the resolution of it. Vader only engages in the plot to snare Luke AFTER the emperor greenlights it. It is absolutely insane to say that the Emperor (and I agree with your analysis here regarding Emperor v. Palpatine) was only present in ROTJ or was some sort of minor character. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

George called it the True Tongue. So, yes, believe them: they can see the truth, they live the longest and are around the longest (1 million years) and have the Planetos' histories in the weirwood as a library, and they speak the truth.

Leaf called it the True Tongue. A language ravens also speak.

"All crows are liars."
-Old Nan

Edited by longest night

Share this post


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

Leaf called it the True Tongue. A language ravens also speak.

"All crows are liars."
-Old Nan

And it's still George who decided to name it that way.

The Children aren't "Crows"... Crows are the men of the NW. Nor do Children skinchange crows, but ravens, and ravens don't lie.

ETA: kindof weird you cite Old Nan to paint the children as evul and liars, when that same woman tells stories of them as saviors and helpers.

Edited by sweetsunray

Share this post


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

And it's still George who decided to name it that way.

The Children aren't "Crows"... Crows are the men of the NW. Nor do Children skinchange crows, but ravens, and ravens don't lie.

If you were writing an evil people that lied, would you call it the False Tongue?

Crows and ravens are cousins. The Three-eyed crow is Brynden Rivers, also known as Bloodraven. He is simply known as three-eyed raven in the show.

Share this post


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

If you were writing an evil people that lied, would you call it the False Tongue?

Crows and ravens are cousins. The Three-eyed crow is Brynden Rivers, also known as Bloodraven. He is simply known as three-eyed raven in the show.

You cite Old Nan, who also tells tales of Children as saviors and helpers.

If I was writing an evil people that lied, I wouldn't surround them in imagery that make readers freak out with "waaah, skulls!" or have Maesters (liars) tell stories (internally conflicting) about them as wanting to wreak havoc on mankind with earthquakes and floods.

Share this post


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

You cite Old Nan, who also tells tales of Children as saviors and helpers.

If I was writing an evil people that lied, I wouldn't surround them in imagery that make readers freak out with "waaah, skulls!" or have Maesters (liars) tell stories (internally conflicting) about them as wanting to wreak havoc on mankind with earthquakes and floods.

 

"Most ravens will eat grain, but they prefer flesh. It makes them strong, and I fear they relish the taste of blood. In that they are like men ... and like men, not all ravens are alike. Doves and pigeons can also be trained to carry messages, though the raven is a stronger flyer, larger, bolder, far more clever, better able to defend itself against hawks ... yet ravens are black, and they eat the dead, so some godly men abhor them."  

-Aemon Targaryen

 

Jojen paste

“It had a bitter taste, though not so bitter as acorn paste. The first spoonful was the hardest to get down. He almost retched it right back up. The second tasted better. The third was almost sweet. The rest he spooned up eagerly. Why had he thought that it was bitter?”

Edited by longest night

Share this post


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

 

"Most ravens will eat grain, but they prefer flesh. It makes them strong, and I fear they relish the taste of blood. In that they are like men ... and like men, not all ravens are alike. Doves and pigeons can also be trained to carry messages, though the raven is a stronger flyer, larger, bolder, far more clever, better able to defend itself against hawks ... yet ravens are black, and they eat the dead, so some godly men abhor them."  

-Aemon Targaryen

 

Jojen paste.

:lol: Ravens are carrion eaters. So is Summer. Both eat wights, animated dead. So, it's not all bad. And nope, that is not evidence that Jojen is paste. He could be. Maybe he's stew. Maybe he had an accident in the caves. Or maybe he left to return home.

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

×