Rant & Rave Season 8 [Spoilers]: When you are cool like a cucumber, as evil as the mother of madness, but never as perfect as the pet!

[SeanF]

35 minutes ago, divica said:

I think it actually makes sense for them to fall in love.

First because it is kind of obvious for them to have a political marriage. Unless one of them is already married when they meet this is the most logical thing for them to do. Even if at the time they love other people and both see the marriage as a political move then afterwards we see them fall in love over time. There are a lot of ways that their love can happen.

And the queen and king falling in love is something normal. It isn t cheasy. Having one royal falling in love and wanting to marry some nobody and jeopardizing his people for his/her love is cheasy.

We have argued about this before, but the problem here is if jon wargs into ghost is he dead? would his personality change from spending a short amount of time in ghost? If jon is ressurected it will be a completly diferent from the other ressurections grrm did so far. 

I even think it is more likely that the price of the ressurection will be ghost and jon having some residual effects from being inside him (nothing important wether it is good or bad). Oh and he will be a competent skinchanger.

I think this is irrealistic. They might have failed to adapt grrm storypoints but a lot of the events they showed must be from grrm. The danny turns into THE villain must come from him. They knew that people would hate that development and scheduled their interviews after ep 3 where they though they were going to be praised. Making danny the villain would allways lead to people insulting them and saying GOT is unfair to women and all that...

If it was a matter of removing danny from the game they could easily have her sacrificing herself in some war and jon deciding to remove himself because of grief or something like that...

Even the fact that grrm will fail to meet his imposed deadline and that he has been trying to sell that the books will end diferently shows that he was affected by how much people disliked the ending. If I remembre right a while ago he used na analogy of little mermaid's original story and Disney story to show that the books and show will be diferent. He didn t act like this when GOT ended. I seriously think he is completly lost about what to do with asoiaf as a result of how GOT was received

Who can fathom the "minds" of D & D?  They made Tyrion, Sansa, Stannis, Ellaria, Shae, Varys, Jon, Arya, Cersei, Jaime, radically different to their book counterparts.  Why would they be faithful to Daenerys (who never gives any of the boastful speeches of destiny in the books that the show gave to her?)

I'm completely on board with the idea that Daenerys could be an antagonist to other characters that we like.  But *the villain* seems unlikely to me.  The climax of the story is almost certain to be the fight against the Others, in which she will play a lead role.  How is that villainous?

I think it very unlikely that Martin will give us  D & D's apologetics for slavery, via Tyrion's "evil men" speech, in which he argues that fighting slave dealers is akin to the persecution of Jews by Hitler. The more I think about that speech, the more I think it's one of the most disgusting pieces of sophistry I've ever listened to.

 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, divica said:

We have argued about this before, but the problem here is if jon wargs into ghost is he dead? would his personality change from spending a short amount of time in ghost? If jon is ressurected it will be a completly diferent from the other ressurections grrm did so far. 

It has been said that Beric and Cat are foreshadowing the Jon thing, just as Varamyr is foreshadowing the Jon thing.

Hammering home the fact again and again - with Drogo, with the eggs hatching, with the shadow assassins, with Bran's magical powers, with Beric and Cat, with Gregor Clegane, with Victarion's wound - that magic comes at a price it makes no sense at all that Jon would not also have to pay that price.

If Jon were perfectly fine after his resurrection because of some skinchanger shenanigans then this would be exactly the same cheap trick Tolkien did with Gandalf.

I don't think Jon will be as damaged as Beric and Cat, of course, but he'll be no longer the same guy. In fact, he may become one of the darkest characters in the entire series after that.

1 hour ago, divica said:

I think this is irrealistic. They might have failed to adapt grrm storypoints but a lot of the events they showed must be from grrm.

Why is that? Because you want it to be the case?

1 hour ago, divica said:

The danny turns into THE villain must come from him. They knew that people would hate that development and scheduled their interviews after ep 3 where they though they were going to be praised. Making danny the villain would allways lead to people insulting them and saying GOT is unfair to women and all that...

GoT was unfair to women from the start - this is the show where Sansa got raped by Ramsay. Why isn't that tidbit from George? Surely, there is still time and opportunity for some Sansa-Ramsay rape action? Or better: Why don't we suppose that Harrold Hardyng is going to rape Sansa, and the show just 'streamlined things' by giving Sansa's real rape plot to Ramsay because they didn't include Harry the Heir?

Surely that's possible, right?

1 hour ago, divica said:

If it was a matter of removing danny from the game they could easily have her sacrificing herself in some war and jon deciding to remove himself because of grief or something like that...

The point of the show was always the game of thrones. They wanted to go out with the destruction of King's Landing and the Iron Throne. And that's what they did. George isn't going to end the books with that plot line, even if KL were to be destroyed or sacked at some earlier point in the story.

And as I said - if I had been making GoT I'd have also used the cheap twist of making one of the good guys 'evil'. That was the kind of cheap twist the show was thriving on.

Especially in a setting where they were no real villains left. Cersei and Euron and Littlefinger were all jokes in the show. The way they handled things they had to pull out 'a big bad' out of their asses because they had either killed them all or they had not even properly introduced them.

44 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think it very unlikely that Martin will give us  D & D's apologetics for slavery, via Tyrion's "evil men" speech, in which he argues that fighting slave dealers is akin to the persecution of Jews by Hitler. The more I think about that speech, the more I think it's one of the most disgusting pieces of sophistry I've ever listened to.

What did he say there? I've forgotten ;-).

[SeanF]

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It has been said that Beric and Cat are foreshadowing the Jon thing, just as Varamyr is foreshadowing the Jon thing.

Hammering home the fact again and again - with Drogo, with the eggs hatching, with the shadow assassins, with Bran's magical powers, with Beric and Cat, with Gregor Clegane, with Victarion's wound - that magic comes at a price it makes no sense at all that Jon would not also have to pay that price.

If Jon were perfectly fine after his resurrection because of some skinchanger shenanigans then this would be exactly the same cheap trick Tolkien did with Gandalf.

I don't think Jon will be as damaged as Beric and Cat, of course, but he'll be no longer the same guy. In fact, he may become one of the darkest characters in the entire series after that.

Why is that? Because you want it to be the case?

GoT was unfair to women from the start - this is the show where Sansa got raped by Ramsay. Why isn't that tidbit from George? Surely, there is still time and opportunity for some Sansa-Ramsay rape action? Or better: Why don't we suppose that Harrold Hardyng is going to rape Sansa, and the show just 'streamlined things' by giving Sansa's real rape plot to Ramsay because they didn't include Harry the Heir?

Surely that's possible, right?

The point of the show was always the game of thrones. They wanted to go out with the destruction of King's Landing and the Iron Throne. And that's what they did. George isn't going to end the books with that plot line, even if KL were to be destroyed or sacked at some earlier point in the story.

And as I said - if I had been making GoT I'd have also used the cheap twist of making one of the good guys 'evil'. That was the kind of cheap twist the show was thriving on.

Especially in a setting where they were no real villains left. Cersei and Euron and Littlefinger were all jokes in the show. The way they handled things they had to pull out 'a big bad' out of their asses because they had either killed them all or they had not even properly introduced them.

What did he say there? I've forgotten ;-).

"It matters more than anything. When she murdered the slavers of Astapor, I'm sure no one but the slavers complained. After all, they were evil men. When she crucified hundreds of Meereenese nobles, who could argue? They were evil men. The Dothraki khals she burned alive? They would have done worse to her. Everywhere she goes, evil men die and we cheer her for it."

A lot of people have picked up on the fact that Tyrion is referencing Niemoller's famous "First They Came " prose poem at this point.  In this case it's "First they came for the slave traders...."

Tyrion is saying in effect that killing slavers, rapists, murderers of children, leads inevitably to the mass murder of innocents.  

Note, that he is describing the killing of child murderers as *murder*;  he omits the fact that the khals kidnapped Daenerys;  and that the 163 Meereenese nobles (not "hundreds") were killed in retaliation for the murder of 163 children (being lower class children, they would be of no account to Tyrion).  

 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

"It matters more than anything. When she murdered the slavers of Astapor, I'm sure no one but the slavers complained. After all, they were evil men. When she crucified hundreds of Meereenese nobles, who could argue? They were evil men. The Dothraki khals she burned alive? They would have done worse to her. Everywhere she goes, evil men die and we cheer her for it."

Oh, that one. I dimly remember that one, I thought there was other such stuff back when they were still in Slaver's Bay.

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

A lot of people have picked up on the fact that Tyrion is referencing Niemoller's famous "First They Came " prose poem at this point.  In this case it's "First they came for the slave traders...."

Tyrion is saying in effect that killing slavers, rapists, murderers of children, leads inevitably to the mass murder of innocents.  

Note, that he is describing the killing of child murderers as *murder*;  he omits the fact that the khals kidnapped Daenerys;  and that the 163 Meereenese nobles (not "hundreds") were killed in retaliation for the murder of 163 children (being lower class children, they would be of no account to Tyrion). 

It just doesn't really fly to construe Dany into some sort of butcher. A warlord or general executing people and crushing armies in war, yes. But rounding up and murdering people she doesn't have to murder to accomplish her goals? No. Also not building up some sort of fascist-like tyranny.

I never expected her to forgive all her enemies or to come to Westeros as a beloved savior. But if she doesn't live then she will die in the fight against the Others, not afterwards in some kind of weird mad epilogue where people fight about some throne that would no longer matter after that.

I mean, as we both pointed out, if we have to take show Dany as 'real' then we should take a number of other characters and plot threads seriously, starting with the exploded Great Sept, Tommen's suicide, that there is never going to be a trial-by-combat involving Ser Robert Strong, etc.

[divica]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

"It matters more than anything. When she murdered the slavers of Astapor, I'm sure no one but the slavers complained. After all, they were evil men. When she crucified hundreds of Meereenese nobles, who could argue? They were evil men. The Dothraki khals she burned alive? They would have done worse to her. Everywhere she goes, evil men die and we cheer her for it."

A lot of people have picked up on the fact that Tyrion is referencing Niemoller's famous "First They Came " prose poem at this point.  In this case it's "First they came for the slave traders...."

Tyrion is saying in effect that killing slavers, rapists, murderers of children, leads inevitably to the mass murder of innocents.  

Note, that he is describing the killing of child murderers as *murder*;  he omits the fact that the khals kidnapped Daenerys;  and that the 163 Meereenese nobles (not "hundreds") were killed in retaliation for the murder of 163 children (being lower class children, they would be of no account to Tyrion).  

 

That whole speach is just one proof of how D&D are bad writers. They could have shwoed that danny wasn t all that good in so many ways and they did that… They would only need to use the break the wheel speach. What does that mean? how is she suposed to do that without hurting a lot of westerosi? and so on...

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It has been said that Beric and Cat are foreshadowing the Jon thing, just as Varamyr is foreshadowing the Jon thing.

Beric and cat can t foreshadow anything related to jon because their situation is completly diferent. r'hllor isn t returning jon's soul from the dead! His soul is inside ghost… That chages everything. At most they can be used to show the condition of jon's body is he is ressurected by mel.

And varamyr is only foreshadowing that jon will warg into ghost if he dies. There isn t anything else we can take from there...

If you want beric is foreshadowing cat's future of maybe jon if he is ressurected by mel and deicides to give the kiss of life to somebody.

Varamyr can also be used for any skinchanger that dies...

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Hammering home the fact again and again - with Drogo, with the eggs hatching, with the shadow assassins, with Bran's magical powers, with Beric and Cat, with Gregor Clegane, with Victarion's wound - that magic comes at a price it makes no sense at all that Jon would not also have to pay that price.

If Jon were perfectly fine after his resurrection because of some skinchanger shenanigans then this would be exactly the same cheap trick Tolkien did with Gandalf.

I don't think Jon will be as damaged as Beric and Cat, of course, but he'll be no longer the same guy. In fact, he may become one of the darkest characters in the entire series after that.

Again, whatever price cat and beric paid is completly unrelated to whatever jon may pay. Their ressurection process is completly diferent. Jon's soul never died. As I said at most their bodies will be in the same condition.

And if jon's soul never died how can he be ressurected? you are mixing 2 diferent things... At most jon will have the body of a ressurected person and the effects of spending too much time in an animal. Any other trauma will come from the act of being betrayed.

So it is unlikely that jon will have a big change in personality because of this. At most he will have some of ghost behaviours/impuses once in a while...

And not all magic comes with a heavy price. Look at skinchanging, glamours, beric paid with some memories to revive, shadowbabies, even victarion paid with pain and ugliness… Just because you want all magic to have a high cost doesn t make it so. Most of the magic we have seen has a very small price.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Why is that? Because you want it to be the case?

Because grrm has said several times that the show's ending will be similar. Because he has said that it is a faithfull adaptation. Most of grrm intervews are about how the show and books are similar. And then you want major events to be completly diferent? Doesn t really make sense...

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

GoT was unfair to women from the start - this is the show where Sansa got raped by Ramsay. Why isn't that tidbit from George? Surely, there is still time and opportunity for some Sansa-Ramsay rape action? Or better: Why don't we suppose that Harrold Hardyng is going to rape Sansa, and the show just 'streamlined things' by giving Sansa's real rape plot to Ramsay because they didn't include Harry the Heir?

Surely that's possible, right?

Sansa was raped because she is representing farya in the show… It is kind of obvious that she is sufering the same things jeyne did in the books… 

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, divica said:

That whole speach is just one proof of how D&D are bad writers. They could have shwoed that danny wasn t all that good in so many ways and they did that… They would only need to use the break the wheel speach. What does that mean? how is she suposed to do that without hurting a lot of westerosi? and so on...

Well, if she executed the entire noble class of Westeros (roughly 50,000-100,000 people, I'd say) then she would not be scolded by mean if they coincided with more freedoms for the commoners and marked the end of noble oppression.

5 minutes ago, divica said:

Beric and cat can t foreshadow anything related to jon because their situation is completly diferent. r'hllor isn t returning jon's soul from the dead! His soul is inside ghost… That chages everything. At most they can be used to show the condition of jon's body is he is ressurected by mel.

Of course they can. A resurrection doesn't have to be exactly the same to foreshadow something. The wights also foreshadow Robert Strong, for instance.

5 minutes ago, divica said:

And varamyr is only foreshadowing that jon will warg into ghost if he dies. There isn t anything else we can take from there...

If you want beric is foreshadowing cat's future of maybe jon if he is ressurected by mel and deicides to give the kiss of life to somebody.

Varamyr can also be used for any skinchanger that dies...

Which skinchanger do you expect to die during the course of the series? Any Stark siblings? There aren't any other important skinchangers in the books.

And of course Varamyr died. Just like Jon will. Varamyr and Jon do/will live their second lives. There is a reason why it is called that way.

It will be a different type of resurrection, but it will be a resurrection, and Jon will no longer be the same. In a different way than Cat and Beric but still transformed. He will have lost the connection with his human body until it is resurrected. The reason why a dead skinchanger loses himself in his animal is because he no longer has a human body. Jon will be 'Ghoston' after his return, he will no longer be Jon Snow.

5 minutes ago, divica said:

Again, whatever price cat and beric paid is completly unrelated to whatever jon may pay. Their ressurection process is completly diferent. Jon's soul never died. As I said at most their bodies will be in the same condition.

And if jon's soul never died how can he be ressurected? you are mixing 2 diferent things... At most jon will have the body of a ressurected person and the effects of spending too much time in an animal. Any other trauma will come from the act of being betrayed.

So it is unlikely that jon will have a big change in personality because of this. At most he will have some of ghost behaviours/impuses once in a while...

And not all magic comes with a heavy price. Look at skinchanging, glamours, beric paid with some memories to revive, shadowbabies, even victarion paid with pain and ugliness… Just because you want all magic to have a high cost doesn t make it so. Most of the magic we have seen has a very small price.

No, there is always a price attached to stuff like this. Stannis lost two parts of his soul when he had Mel use his lifeforce to create assassins. Skinchanging merges the souls of beast and man, affecting your personality and making your less human. And of course magic that just heals your arm isn't that costly than magic bringing you back to life.

5 minutes ago, divica said:

Because grrm has said several times that the show's ending will be similar. Because he has said that it is a faithfull adaptation. Most of grrm intervews are about how the show and books are similar. And then you want major events to be completly diferent? Doesn t really make sense...

This show is not a faithful adaptation, and George never said that. He said it is more faithful than most other adaptations of books so far, which means nothing if you think how much such adaptations usually suck.

And, sure, the Others were defeated. Doesn't that count as 'a similar ending' in some sense? Dany and Jon got a romance, and perhaps Jon will even be involved in Dany's death in some manner and perhaps even KL will burn. But that doesn't mean that the Dany story go down even remotely in that fashion.

And who knows? Perhaps Bronn is going to be the Lord of Highgarden, perhaps St. Tyrion is going to be as saintly in the books as he was in the novels, perhaps Jaime and Cersei get crushed by some stones and Jaime kills Euron in a silly fashion?

5 minutes ago, divica said:

Sansa was raped because she is representing farya in the show… It is kind of obvious that she is sufering the same things jeyne did in the books… 

Sansa has nothing to do with Jeyne Poole in the books, meaning it made no sense to combine those stories.

But who knows, perhaps Aegon is the guy who burns down KL? They cut him in the show, so perhaps he and Dany got merged in the show like Jeyne and Sansa were?

[Cas Stark]

“The series has been extremely faithful compared to 97% of all television and movie adaptations of literary properties”  GRRM

[divica]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course they can. A resurrection doesn't have to be exactly the same to foreshadow something. The wights also foreshadow Robert Strong, for instance

Come on. The magic used to ressurect robert strong and the wights is completly diferent. They are completly unrelated. 

And if you use diferent magic to ressurect people you can t say there is a relation between them. We aren t talking about a small diference, rhllor won t get near jon's soul so that he can use memories to bring him back from the dead… You can t use anything about beric and cat's state of mind to foreshadow jon. There isn t any similarity between what their souls go through to revive their bodies. It doesn t matter how diferent cat and beric are after their resurection...

And again, jon won t be technically dead so technicaly he isn t in a gandalf like situation. we don t even know if his body will die… they might just use magic to heal his body before it dies (with all the snow around it would probably take a long time to die from 4 stab wounds if they didn t hit anything vital)

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Which skinchanger do you expect to die during the course of the series? Any Stark siblings? There aren't any other important skinchangers in the books.

And of course Varamyr died. Just like Jon will. Varamyr and Jon do/will live their second lives. There is a reason why it is called that way.

It will be a different type of resurrection, but it will be a resurrection, and Jon will no longer be the same. In a different way than Cat and Beric but still transformed. He will have lost the connection with his human body until it is resurrected. The reason why a dead skinchanger loses himself in his animal is because he no longer has a human body. Jon will be 'Ghoston' after his return, he will no longer be Jon Snow.

There are several wildling skinchangers near jon, there is the 3ec and bran. Even some theories about roose Bolton can benefit from the varamyr stuff (and anyone that reads with atention must conclude that the dude isn t normal (nobody would be happy that ramsay would kill any of his babies)).

The rest are only your speculations. There is no reason to assume that varamyr must be foreshadowing jon… And if he gets back in his body in a timelly manner there is no reson for him become too afected by ghost (and there are enough skinchagers around to know that). And if jon is diferent it won t be because of the ressurection but because of his time in ghost- therefore any reference to beric and cat is uncalled for. IT just doesn t make sense...

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No, there is always a price attached to stuff like this. Stannis lost two parts of his soul when he had Mel use his lifeforce to create assassins. Skinchanging merges the souls of beast and man, affecting your personality and making your less human. And of course magic that just heals your arm isn't that costly than magic bringing you back to life.

Come on… Where does it say that stannis lost 2 parts of his soul? how do you know what his fires are? how do you know it isn t something that heals over time? It is too dangerous to assume your speculations are facts...

And how is merging 2 souls a cost? It is just a transformation, you didn t lose anything...And you can skinchange how many times you want...

Magic that saved his arm only caused him pain and ugliness. Do you think that is a high cost?

Hell,losing some memories to revive is costly?

Most of the magic in asoiaf has a very low cost...

It is much more correct to say that all magic is dangerous and when used too much it has a step price. However small uses are almost cost free like beric being ressurected several times right after dying and cat being resurected 3 days after… Or like skinchaging for a short period of time is safe but there are consequences if a person stays too long inside an animal...

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This show is not a faithful adaptation, and George never said that. He said it is more faithful than most other adaptations of books so far, which means nothing if you think how much such adaptations usually suck.

And, sure, the Others were defeated. Doesn't that count as 'a similar ending' in some sense? Dany and Jon got a romance, and perhaps Jon will even be involved in Dany's death in some manner and perhaps even KL will burn. But that doesn't mean that the Dany story go down even remotely in that fashion.

And who knows? Perhaps Bronn is going to be the Lord of Highgarden, perhaps St. Tyrion is going to be as saintly in the books as he was in the novels, perhaps Jaime and Cersei get crushed by some stones and Jaime kills Euron in a silly fashion?

I think even you know that the danny and jon finale have a complerly diferent weight from the events you just said.

While I agree that danny may not burn KL if she doesnt become some psyco villain the message of the show and books would be completly diferent. And grrm never gave that idea. He is always saying they are similar. 

I don t think you should expect a very diferent story from the one we got unless grrm was really affected by how people reacted to the last season. And in that case I doubt we will even get 1 more book.

[SeanF]

We can see for ourselves that the last four seasons are not a faithful adaptation of those parts of the story we know about.

1.  Sansa's Vale storyline is excluded and she is given two other characters' stories.  She will play no part in defeating the Boltons..

2. Dragons are far too small to burn a city in the books

3.  Tyrion is completely whitewashed

4.  Jon Con, Aegon and Arianne are excluded

5. Stannis was vilified,

6.  The Night King is a show invention.

7.  Euron has nothing in common with the character with the same name in the show.

8. Jon never goes to Hardhome.

9. Jaime has split with Cersei 

10. Lady Stoneheart is excluded,  Robb's wife is still alive.

11.  Margaery and her brother are never taken prisoner by the Sparrows.

13.  Most elements of magic and prophecy were eliminated from the show.

14.  Porne.

15.  Frey pies are Lord Manderly's idea.

16.  The wight hunt

17.  The military strategies that make no sense, in order to keep Cersei alive to the end.

18.  Varys does not support Daenerys.

19. The "secret annulment" and diary entry making Jon the rightful king.

20. Cersei does not kill Pycelle or Ser Kevan

etc. etc.

Dany suddenly turning batshit at the end and slaughtering thousands of the Smallfolk for no apparent reason might still  be part of the story, but I'd be surprised.

It may be faithful, compared to the film adaptation of Nightflyers, which Martin was most unhappy with.    But,  my idea of a faithful adaptation of source material is something like the 1995 BBC version of Pride and Prejudice.

 

 

 

 

[SeanF]

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, that one. I dimly remember that one, I thought there was other such stuff back when they were still in Slaver's Bay.

It just doesn't really fly to construe Dany into some sort of butcher. A warlord or general executing people and crushing armies in war, yes. But rounding up and murdering people she doesn't have to murder to accomplish her goals? No. Also not building up some sort of fascist-like tyranny.

I never expected her to forgive all her enemies or to come to Westeros as a beloved savior. But if she doesn't live then she will die in the fight against the Others, not afterwards in some kind of weird mad epilogue where people fight about some throne that would no longer matter after that.

I mean, as we both pointed out, if we have to take show Dany as 'real' then we should take a number of other characters and plot threads seriously, starting with the exploded Great Sept, Tommen's suicide, that there is never going to be a trial-by-combat involving Ser Robert Strong, etc.

Yes,  any medieval King or Queen would have to be pretty ruthless, merely in order to survive.  

Up until the burning of Kings Landing, Daenerys would have been considered a laughably soft ruler by 15th or 16th century standards.  People like Henry Tudor, Henry VIII, or Elizabeth would just blink, if you suggested to them that they should have pardoned the Tarlys, for example.

Not the least of the oddities in the show was they way they jumped from judging Daenerys (and everyone else) by 15th century military standards, to suddenly judging her (and her alone) by 21st century military standards. 

The imagery and ideology of national socialism just doesn't fit Daenerys' story in either show or books.  The imagery and ideology of the French or Haitian revolutions, perhaps?

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Yes,  any medieval King or Queen would have to be pretty ruthless, merely in order to survive.  

Up until the burning of Kings Landing, Daenerys would have been considered a laughably soft ruler by 15th or 16th century standards.  People like Henry Tudor, Henry VIII, or Elizabeth would just blink, if you suggested to them that they should have pardoned the Tarlys, for example.

Not the least of the oddities in the show was they way they jumped from judging Daenerys (and everyone else) by 15th century military standards, to suddenly judging her (and her alone) by 21st century military standards. 

The imagery and ideology of national socialism just doesn't fit Daenerys' story in either show or books.  The imagery and ideology of the French or Haitian revolutions, perhaps?

In fact, I cannot see the Iron Throne and power be Dany's main goal once she finally starts to believe the Others are a thing. She isn't a person obsessed with or consumed by a desire to rule. She has no connection to Westeros at all. If she got her way she would retire in Braavos or settle down somewhere with Daario.

If she goes it will be more for a desire to help with the Others (there is a reason why the books have Marwyn search her out) not just to take her father's throne - although that certainly might be part of it because, like Mel, she might conclude that the savior needs to be in charge to lead the fight against the Others.

Dany is a character who becomes a conqueror merely out of desire to survive. That's the whole point of 'when I look back I'm lost' stuff.

And George's characters in the books are in no way as petty and freakish as the show people and would reject or vilify Dany when she comes to help them and her armies/dragons, etc. are an integral part of saving mankind.

If they were rejecting Dany after that they would be like an NW who throw Stannis out after he defeated Mance, who tell him to go fuck himself when he offers them to help with the Others, too. And that kind of thing simply doesn't happen.

One can see people like Euron, Cersei, and Littlefinger continue to hate after the rest worked together to defeat the Others, and one could even see somebody like Tyrion betray Jon and Dany out of love, but I think one cannot even remotely see Dany destroy a city for no reason ... especially not after the Others have been defeated. If all of Westeros marched against KL in such a scenario - and it would be essentially all of Westeros - then whoever is in charge there would be overthrown/murdered. Even a man like Euron.

[Angel Eyes]

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

We can see for ourselves that the last four seasons are not a faithful adaptation of those parts of the story we know about.

1.  Sansa's Vale storyline is excluded and she is given two other characters' stories.  She will play no part in defeating the Boltons..

2. Dragons are far too small to burn a city in the books

3.  Tyrion is completely whitewashed

4.  Jon Con, Aegon and Arianne are excluded

5. Stannis was vilified,

6.  The Night King is a show invention.

7.  Euron has nothing in common with the character with the same name in the show.

8. Jon never goes to Hardhome.

9. Jaime has split with Cersei 

10. Lady Stoneheart is excluded,  Robb's wife is still alive.

11.  Margaery and her brother are never taken prisoner by the Sparrows.

13.  Most elements of magic and prophecy were eliminated from the show.

14.  Porne.

15.  Frey pies are Lord Manderly's idea.

16.  The wight hunt

17.  The military strategies that make no sense, in order to keep Cersei alive to the end.

18.  Varys does not support Daenerys.

19. The "secret annulment" and diary entry making Jon the rightful king.

20. Cersei does not kill Pycelle or Ser Kevan

etc. etc.

Dany suddenly turning batshit at the end and slaughtering thousands of the Smallfolk for no apparent reason might still  be part of the story, but I'd be surprised.

It may be faithful, compared to the film adaptation of Nightflyers, which Martin was most unhappy with.    But,  my idea of a faithful adaptation of source material is something like the 1995 BBC version of Pride and Prejudice.

 

 

 

 

1. Which two stories was Sansa's combined with? I know one was Jeyne Poole, but who was the other?

[SeanF]

18 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

1. Which two stories was Sansa's combined with? I know one was Jeyne Poole, but who was the other?

Alys Karstark.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Yes,  any medieval King or Queen would have to be pretty ruthless, merely in order to survive.  

Up until the burning of Kings Landing, Daenerys would have been considered a laughably soft ruler by 15th or 16th century standards.  People like Henry Tudor, Henry VIII, or Elizabeth would just blink, if you suggested to them that they should have pardoned the Tarlys, for example.

Not the least of the oddities in the show was they way they jumped from judging Daenerys (and everyone else) by 15th century military standards, to suddenly judging her (and her alone) by 21st century military standards. 

The imagery and ideology of national socialism just doesn't fit Daenerys' story in either show or books.  The imagery and ideology of the French or Haitian revolutions, perhaps?

I'd argue that most people clutching on to the show story sort of want to see Dany go down such a road in the books, too. But that idea really doesn't fit very well with the story of the novels. She might not get a good ending but very few people in this story will.

And if you contrast her both with the real villains of the story as well as with various rivals and enemies of hers that are in the books but didn't make it into the show then it is kind of impossible that Dany takes that route. Aegon and Arianne and Cersei and Euron and Varys and Illyrio and the High Septon and whoever else is still going to be around when she arrives won't be positive alternatives to her.

Euron and Cersei will be the real monsters - Cersei will be the mad queen (although most likely not on the Iron Throne). And if one really looks at Aegon's gang then the chance that they will go down a very dark path, that they will do whatever it takes to keep what they won and sort of emulate the Mad King is actually more likely than Dany is going to go in that direction.

We do have it on pretty good authority that Stannis, Aegon, and that shadow beast whatever that is going to turn out to be are false saviors/dead ends Dany (and her allies) have to remove. Such a plot necessitates that they do stupid, unproductive, and destructive things that won't help the good guys to win against the Others.

And seriously, I'm still at a loss how a civil war involving Dany is even going to be possible in that story. This can only go if she arrives at a time when the Others haven't yet breached the Wall. But how likely is it that George really can go with that? If that is the plan then he'll need four more novels, not just two.

[SeanF]

17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd argue that most people clutching on to the show story sort of want to see Dany go down such a road in the books, too. But that idea really doesn't fit very well with the story of the novels. She might not get a good ending but very few people in this story will.

And if you contrast her both with the real villains of the story as well as with various rivals and enemies of hers that are in the books but didn't make it into the show then it is kind of impossible that Dany takes that route. Aegon and Arianne and Cersei and Euron and Varys and Illyrio and the High Septon and whoever else is still going to be around when she arrives won't be positive alternatives to her.

Euron and Cersei will be the real monsters - Cersei will be the mad queen (although most likely not on the Iron Throne). And if one really looks at Aegon's gang then the chance that they will go down a very dark path, that they will do whatever it takes to keep what they won and sort of emulate the Mad King is actually more likely than Dany is going to go in that direction.

We do have it on pretty good authority that Stannis, Aegon, and that shadow beast whatever that is going to turn out to be are false saviors/dead ends Dany (and her allies) have to remove. Such a plot necessitates that they do stupid, unproductive, and destructive things that won't help the good guys to win against the Others.

And seriously, I'm still at a loss how a civil war involving Dany is even going to be possible in that story. This can only go if she arrives at a time when the Others haven't yet breached the Wall. But how likely is it that George really can go with that? If that is the plan then he'll need four more novels, not just two.

Jon Con and the Sand Snakes are not nice people, for sure.

[The Bard of Banefort]

Maybe the showrunners were full of it and Dany will go down as the savior of Westeros, but I also remember when all the hardcore ASOIAF fans were absolutely certain that Bran would spend the rest of his life in that cave, and anyone who disagreed or thought that would be anti-climatic had clearly misread the text   

[SeanF]

The show runners must have known the ending would go down like a lead balloon, among fans of Daenerys.

They probably thought they could sell Jon murdering Daenerys and going off to live in the wilderness as a happy ending for him.  But no one bought that story.  And they made Jon a spineless wimp.

They probably thought that fanservice endings for Bran, Sansa, Arya, Sam, and Tyrion would win people over.

But, no one cared about Bran, Bronn or Sam.  Tyrion was despised as D & D's self-insert, and they made Sansa and Aya appear treacherous and selfish.  They were simply not telling the story they thought they were telling.  They really did believe that Jon stabbing Daenerys through the heart would be beautiful and tragic to viewers. 

They probably thought critics would rave about how they "subverted expectations" rather than blowing a raspberry.

[Cas Stark]

18 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The show runners must have known the ending would go down like a lead balloon, among fans of Daenerys.

They probably thought they could sell Jon murdering Daenerys and going off to live in the wilderness as a happy ending for him.  But no one bought that story.  And they made Jon a spineless wimp.

They probably thought that fanservice endings for Bran, Sansa, Arya, Sam, and Tyrion would win people over.

But, no one cared about Bran, Bronn or Sam.  Tyrion was despised as D & D's self-insert, and they made Sansa and Aya appear treacherous and selfish.

They probably thought critics would rave about how they "subverted expectations" rather than blowing a raspberry.

That is the inexplicable part.  Having built her up as Blonde Jesus, having created a massive PR and marketing armada around her as a new, feminist icon.....how could they have fumbled so badly?  But then, it is also true that the show was bad for years and no one but a handful ever called them on it, so it isn't impossible they thought the CGI and 'subverting expectations' and GOT was always dark ideas would somehow carry them over, since all of this had been carrying them already for years while the audience continued to grow and grow.  The show didn't start to win Emmys outside of Dinklage until it was inferior.

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

That is the inexplicable part.  Having built her up as Blonde Jesus, having created a massive PR and marketing armada around her as a new, feminist icon.....how could they have fumbled so badly?  But then, it is also true that the show was bad for years and no one but a handful ever called them on it, so it isn't impossible they thought the CGI and 'subverting expectations' and GOT was always dark ideas would somehow carry them over, since all of this had been carrying them already for years while the audience continued to grow and grow.  The show didn't start to win Emmys outside of Dinklage until it was inferior.

If her dark turn was intended from an early stage, it would surely not have been difficult to show her making good on her threat to burn Yunkai to the ground, crucify the Wise Masters, and leave a pyramid of heads behind her.  That would have taken about five minutes of footage at the end of Season 6.  

They could then have shown her torching towns and villages that were held by Cersei, and the Dothraki putting civilians to the sword.  None of this would have been unusual for a medieval warlord, but, it would have made her final decision to burn Kings Landing a lot more believable. Or come up with a credible military reason for the burning of the city (eg her forces are bogged down in street fighting, or the surrender is botched in some way, or she hits the Red Keep, only to find that caches of wildfire ignite across the city).  

In the end, D & D thought viewers would accept as  ethical truths that cocks matter, the children of mad parents will turn mad, and casual viewers would accept that the killing of slavers and rapists was somehow heinous. 

[Angel Eyes]

12 hours ago, SeanF said:

Alys Karstark.

Ah, yes. I forgot about her.

 

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

In the end, D & D thought viewers would accept as  ethical truths that cocks matter, the children of mad parents will turn mad, and casual viewers would accept that the killing of slavers and rapists was somehow heinous. 

Well, about the "cocks matter": they're not wrong per se; Balon Greyjoy gave up on Theon entirely after his favorite toy was sent to Pyke, and this was while they were (mostly) still following the books. And let's not forget that Jon was proclaimed King in the North over his legitimate sister Sansa in Season 6 despite being a bastard and being a Leeroy Jenkins.

But they are wrong about the children of mad parents turning mad; Myrcella and Tommen were mostly well put-together considering they were the children of Cersei, if a bit weak-willed in Tommen's case.