Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cron

Bran Truly Was The Best Possible Choice To Rule

Recommended Posts

On 5/21/2019 at 2:01 AM, GeorgeIAF said:

Who would you rather die fighting for ? Bran or Jon ? Who could motivate his men better ? 

Who would you want to captain the Enterprise; Spock or Kirk? Data or Picard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you consider the adage of information is power, regardless of if he is all-knowing or not, Bran is way ahead of the game.

Also, if you control the narrative, you can change society in a much more insidious and permanent way.

The Citadel had the information about the Long Night, hells, about 'Aegon's' bloodline and legitimacy, right?

They had operatives teaching and counselling every major and minor noble house in Westeros. They chose the information they willed to pass on and in which terms.

My scary moment about Bran as King?

He said he didn't 'want' anymore. 

It leaves other questions.

Like: are we supposed to believe that 'in the show' because what, he said so? It's like suddenly people in GoT are unable to lie.

Or: the most terrifying rulers tend to be not the actual crazy ones, mostly they screw enough people over and get shanked, but the clever ones who have a vision and the means of implementing it.

We could make the case for Bran, should he have an m.o. like the Maesters, having the potential to be worse than crazy dragon lady?

No idiotic destruction, just utter control you're not even aware of. 

Scary.

Also Bloodraven level shit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3ER (he's not Bran) was the worst choice on every level. First of all, I've seen Terminator so I know that putting yourself under the will of an all powerful AI is the worst idea possible. 3ER doesn't care about anything or anyone. We've had these rulers before, they were either tyrants (Cersei, Joffrey, Tywin) or so removed from everything except their own self-gratification because they didn't want to be King that they let it all fall apart (Robert). You HAVE to care on some level. And the 3ER cares about nothing except his own power seat, hence manipulating all the players so he ends up in charge. He's Little Finger turned up to 11.

No one should believe he's all seeing and all knowing. Not to mention that the Old Gods and anything associated with them is not going to be accepted in the South. They would see him as evil.

This might be the book ending, I don't know, but D&D should have stuck to their own story which they have been writing since the show went passed the books. And the first thing they did, in the first Season (5) without book material, they wrote Bran out completely. They were not heading into an endgame that has Bran as King on this show, ever. So they simply shouldn't have done it and stuck with their story.

The only thing that made sense within their story would have been to go back to 7 independent Kingdoms, each with their own local government (Council) but also have a Central Council that is made up of members of each Kingdom.

Share this post


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

Well, if you consider the adage of information is power, We could make the case for Bran, should he have an m.o. like the Maesters, having the potential to be worse than crazy dragon lady?

No idiotic destruction, just utter control you're not even aware of. 

Scary.

Also Bloodraven level shit?

I'm personally unable to see what having Bran become king at the end in the show honestly means for the books' deeper story because the entire "three-eyed raven" notion is a singular, show-only construction they've used as a substitute for everything there is to know in the books about greenseers (whether human or Children) and dream-sending and the second lives of skinchangers and the old gods' distributed collective consciousness residing in the undying weirwood network seeing all time as co-existent. 

Perhaps the showrunners did this because they have secret knowledge of the underlying "godgame", that somehow there really is just one merged intelligence wearing many bodies throughout the ages that is mostly alien and unknowable to humanity. 

But maybe it's just a way for them to avoid confusing a television audience with mystical complexities that wouldn't make for a smashing visual impact like they've been pouring so much money but so little dialogue into these past few seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 4:17 PM, The One Who Kneels said:

You're doing this thing where instead of looking at what was actually offered in the show you're trying to fill in the gaps to make sense of it. You're welcome to do that but you can't offer it as a defense of what was actually put on screen

This is all over every thread I read about the GoT finale. The writers of the show left way too many things unexplained, ambiguous, and off-screen.

Bran's character is no exception. Just reading this thread makes it pretty obvious that the show didn't give us a clear understanding (or in some cases, any understanding) of critical things about his character:

a) his greenseeing abilities (could he really see the future?)

b) his use of greenseeing in S8 (all off-screen in S8 other than showing us his white eyes...if he could see the future, we don't really have any clue what he saw unless we guess)

c) his warging abilities (could he warg humans other than Hodor? could he warg a dragon?)

d) and then, did he even do any warging other than Ravens in S8? We aren't told or shown.

e) his basic character motivations in S7 & S8 (he says he doesn't "want" and he rejects Winterfell lordship multiple times, but then happily accepts being a king...he never mentions if he cares about small folk or cripples or if he supports magic or really anything else human)

f) did he do any behind the scenes manipulation of people? did he plant information anywhere? what actions did he take to advance his motives?...we really have no idea unless we guess. 

 

Without knowing any of this, it's pretty hard to determine what kind of King Bran would be. But here we are, talking about it, because the show left us without answers to basic questions about the character, and we need head canon answers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We’re left with a lot of unknowns about Bran. I hope we get the books eventually.

He is, however, a good representative of someone who knows a lot about history, so that mistakes might not be repeated. I believe Martin does support that idea.

Just imagine if people didn’t forget what happens when an ethically challenged person with a propaganda wing takes over a country! 

Share this post


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

He is, however, a good representative of someone who knows a lot about history, so that mistakes might not be repeated. I believe Martin does support that idea

Agreed.

People who forget or neglect to learn history are doomed to repeat the patterns that lead to tragedy and suffering.

The provocation lies in, as ever, does the common good favor individuals?

At which point does the amount of power amassed through all that knowledge become dangerous?

Does having such knowledge of human nature automatically translate into using that knowledge for the betterment of society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2019 at 1:42 AM, Jabar of House Titan said:

Did they ever explain the nature of Bran's powers?

Not necessarily in super-specific detail, but here's my understanding of it:

(1) He can see anything he WANTS to see in the present or past, but he is not omniscient.  If he was omniscient, he would automatically know everything already, but he doesn't, he has to LOOK (in the present or past).

(2) Regarding the future:  He definitely has information from the future (this, I believe, cannot be rationally disputed, based on a number of incidents which prove he had information from the future), but the details of how this works are much less clear than regarding information he can get from the present or past.  Far as I know, Bran's information from the future has previously consisted of metaphors (such as when he foresaw "the ocean" coming to Winterfell, which turned out to be the Iron Islanders; as I recall, in the books, Jojen had this vision, but in the show it was Bran), but we know for a fact that this information from the future can be much more specific, such as when he twice saw Drogon over King's Landing.  Further adding to the uncertainty about his powers is that we have been given even LESS details about his powers since he became the 3 Eyed Raven.  In my mind, though, it is reasonable to assume that since becoming the 3ER, he is more powerful than he was before, possibly FAR more powerful, but we just don't know for sure. (Since becoming the 3ER, some things have happened from which we can reasonably infer Bran has specific information from the future, but it has not been expressly confirmed.  Examples of this would be his knowledge that he himself had to be used as bait for the Night King, and his words to Theon right before Theon got crossed off.  I infer from stuff like this that he now has VERY specific information from the future, but he has been an enigma since becoming the 3ER, and I don't think this has been explicitly confirmed.)

If someone else can add to this (or subtract from it, I suppose), though, I'd be grateful, and very interested to hear about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cron said:

This is an intriguing theory that I have heard bounced around a bit..

I can't say I support it yet, though. It's possiblebut I think that's a whole lot to extrapolate from that one quote from Old Nan.

Also, as I understand it, it has not been confirmed that show-3ER (Bran's predecessor) is in fact Brynden Rivers (Bloodraven), but hey, if I'm mistaken about that, I hope someone will let me know.

I did find Bran's interest in the whereabouts of Drogon to be interesting, too, but there are other possible explanations as well, such as (a) the possibility that he knows Dany is not really done, and what he's REALLY interested in is the whereabouts of DANY'S BODY, and/or (b) as king, he wants to make sure there's not a full grown dragon roaming Westeros, as that could be, shall we say, "problematic."

Well I know nothing ;) but what a coincidence that Bloodraven, who was known for spying everyone with a thousand eyes and one, became the « three eyed crow » who can spy on everyone.

It sounds to me like becoming the TEC was an evolution of what he already was, as in he sought more power to do what he was already doing and got it.

If you look at what the TEC supposedly is, and compare it to who Brynden was, the match is pretty close.

If you look at what the TEC supposedly is, and compare it to Bran, they are not even slightly similar.

I don’t know, we’re missing a lot of info, which we might never get, or GRRM hadn’t actually given it that much thought by the time he wrote the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2019 at 5:39 PM, The One Who Kneels said:

If the show wanted for Daenerys to alienate the Westerosi nobility through "breaking the wheel" then they should've shown that. 

Yep. But why did she do manage to do that? I guess Tarly just really hates foreigners to the point of being willing to march against dragons for a kinslaying usurper and every other lord in Westeros just falls into line once he does. That's not very convincing for a show that used to pride itself on its sophisticated and intelligent treatment of politics and power relationships in a feudal society. 

True.  Cerseis's power should have been very brittle.  We should have seen or hear of various rebellions against her.

re. the Tarly's, Cersei (or Jamie) offered them the Wardenship of the South.  The Tyrells in the show were going extinct, So their bannermen would be looking for The Next Thing (tm).   It does seems that other Reach lords follow Randall Tarly in supporting Cersei.  In particular the "marcher lords" on the borders with the Westerlands.

Cersei does convince them that Dany may be mad like her father, that few in the Realm liked.   And that Dany may just ignore the 'social contract' that the Crown has with the nobles.

 

Quibble/Question :  how is Cersei a kinslayer?

 

On 5/25/2019 at 5:39 PM, The One Who Kneels said:

I didn't realize this forum was limited solely to discussions aimed at patching up the problems with the show.

It isn't.   I just 'refuse' to be put on the defensive or be labelled.  :)

The phrase 'patching up problems' is an attempt to put the 'other side' on the defensive.  ;)

 

On 5/25/2019 at 5:39 PM, The One Who Kneels said:

Here's the thing if your opinion is "this didn't make sense in the show but here's how it could've made sense" then we have nothing to disagree about .

we really don't have much to disagree about then.  I never said season 8 was perfect.  far from it, sadly.  there should have been 10 episodes.  or even 16 - 2x8 episode half seasons.   I can see what the showrunners wanted to communicate, and think that the overarching story and story points are there.  But the details ... well, the Devil is in the details, isn't it?

 

On 5/25/2019 at 5:39 PM, The One Who Kneels said:

I too think it didn't make sense in the show and there are many things I would do to have it make sense (starting with no Queen Cersei because that's absurd).

 

On 5/25/2019 at 5:39 PM, The One Who Kneels said:

But if your opinion is "it made sense in the show" then that is where we disagree. No I didn't like what I saw. I thought it was profoundly stupid.

That's fair.  :)

As I said, I can see the overarching story, but don't think that enough groundwork was laid or time taken to get from A to B, as it were.  So I guess that I don't think that it was profoundly stupid.  It just wasn't executed as well as it could have been.

As part of that, I do think that Dany received too much 'good press' for too long.  She was lauded up as an infallible heroine past when her faults should have been showing.

An interesting article that I read mentioned the excised prophecies re. Dany and how their inclusion may have made Dany's 'other side' more obvious or explainable.

On 5/25/2019 at 5:39 PM, The One Who Kneels said:

And the point is none of the ideas you have offered, good though they might have been, was actually part of the show. 

Sadly, your are correct.  They are not part of the show, so they have to be 'made up' or inferred. 

But that's part of the fun, eh?  :)

 

On 5/25/2019 at 5:39 PM, The One Who Kneels said:

But she's the only option because the show made her the only option. The writers could have done whatever they wanted to create a plausible conflict between a relatively unpopular Daenerys and someone on the Iron Throne. They didn't. They just plugged in Cersei. That's terrible writing. 

Oh but for the Mummer's Dragon!  :) 
With 'fAegon' being excised, Cersei had to carry the brunt of his story.  With Jon picking up the rest.

Share this post


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

This is all over every thread I read about the GoT finale. The writers of the show left way too many things unexplained, ambiguous, and off-screen.

Bran's character is no exception. Just reading this thread makes it pretty obvious that the show didn't give us a clear understanding (or in some cases, any understanding) of critical things about his character:

a) his greenseeing abilities (could he really see the future?)

b) his use of greenseeing in S8 (all off-screen in S8 other than showing us his white eyes...if he could see the future, we don't really have any clue what he saw unless we guess)

c) his warging abilities (could he warg humans other than Hodor? could he warg a dragon?)

d) and then, did he even do any warging other than Ravens in S8? We aren't told or shown.

e) his basic character motivations in S7 & S8 (he says he doesn't "want" and he rejects Winterfell lordship multiple times, but then happily accepts being a king...he never mentions if he cares about small folk or cripples or if he supports magic or really anything else human)

f) did he do any behind the scenes manipulation of people? did he plant information anywhere? what actions did he take to advance his motives?...we really have no idea unless we guess. 

 

Without knowing any of this, it's pretty hard to determine what kind of King Bran would be. But here we are, talking about it, because the show left us without answers to basic questions about the character, and we need head canon answers.

 

 

You are absolutely correct.

The show didn't explicitly tell or show us.  So we have to resort to our own head-canon answers. 

Edited by Tywin Tytosson

Share this post


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

Bran being chosen King is like electing a Canadian to be President of the U.S. The north is it's own kingdom, so he isn't even a citizen in the kingdom that he's ruling. 

This isn't a requirement for a medieval/feudal kingdom.  Or even early modern kingdoms.  I would say 'citizenship' only became a requirement with republics and democracies.

To wit:

England (or the English Parliament) chose William of Orange as their king in 1688/1689.  William was Stadtholder of the Netherlands.

After Queen Anne, England chose George I of Hanover as their King.  Hanover was part of the Holy Roman Empire (Germany, the first Reich) and was an Elector who chose the German (HRE) Emperor.  King George's son (King George II) and grandson (King George III) held the Hanoverian title, including the Electoral title.  George III was King during the American Revolution and also during the French Revolution and the subsequent Napoleonic Wars.

Poland elected Duke (and Elector) Frederick Augustus of Saxony as King Augustus II in 1697.  Saxony was in the Holy Roman Empire (Germany).  His son was both Elector of Saxony and King of Poland.

Emperor Karl V was already King of Spain when he was elected Holy Roman Emperor (German Emperor) in 1519.  But he was born in Ghent, which was in the HRE, I believe.

Empress Katherine II of Russia, though not elected, was born in Pomerania (Prussia) to the German family of Anhalt-Zerbst.

Edited by Tywin Tytosson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 9:11 PM, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

According to the other thread? 

Wtf, he saw that and deemed it acceptable?

The myth of Horn of Brandon or whatever Mance was looking for became the Big Mouth of Bran. Without him opening his trap, no broken wall. 

But yeah, if you think someone coldblooded enough to orchestrate that mash up that was Dany going North, dragons and all, to end the NK, and to thin out her armies, create dissension and intrigue, all the way down to 'bitch, say no more, I'm here' is an ideal ruler?

Machiavelli would shed a tear.

Well... Machiavelli did try to describe an 'ideal ruler'.  ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

Well... Machiavelli did try to describe an 'ideal ruler'.  ;) 

Exactly. 

Bran could be the perfect ruler, much as I saw Tywin Lannister as a damn good one - shame he had such boneheads for children.

But you don't need to be a 'nice' person to rule.

My only objection is an emotional response to the moral dillema that most people see in the hamfisted portrayal of Daenerys as an unstable chick flying around straddling a nuke.

It's not that power corrupts, Bran!bot does not want, so we're all clear of that, duh!

That was sarcasm, btw.

But should a sungle individual have that much power, unchecked in the end?

Are we supposed the small council of jokesters and liars, novices and cutthroats will limit him or even try to?

The greenseer Bran gets my vote as the voice in the Tree, guiding people from disaster and calamity. Within reason.

King Bran?

The more I think about it, the more ot scares me.

Again, he'd be a perfectly ruthless cunt.

It's for your own good never sounded so sketchy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Rast-afari said:

Who would you want to captain the Enterprise; Spock or Kirk? Data or Picard?

Goatee Spock of course, how is that even a question. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2019 at 1:42 PM, RYShh said:

As being said, after Jon killed Daenarys, he couldn't become the king without destroying the Unsullied, Dothraki and Yara's Iron Fleet, which was nearly impossible, but the Unsullied couldn't execute Jon as well since there was a norhtern army waiting to save Jon.

So they find the middle ground, and send Jon to the Night's Watch.

I would dispute this notion, especially considering that Sansa threatened Grey Worm with force and Tyrion was able to placate him with a simple, "it's not for you to decide." The show didn't really make it clear whether or not the Unsullied were even using Jon as a bargaining chip; we just jumped forward in time where "what to do with Jon?" was a question yet it was completely devoid of context. Why was Jon not killed by Grey Worm immediately, before the (offscreen) Northern armies even arrived? Grey Worm would not have known of his real value as a prisoner (that he was a legitimate claimant) and even if he did, why was the issue not raised at the council? Leaving some things ambiguous can be a great narrative tool, but leaving it to your viewers to suss out major plot developments from inconsistent evidence is nothing more than poor writing.

On 5/25/2019 at 1:42 PM, RYShh said:

I guess R+L=J plot was essentially not for Jon becoming the king, it was for showing the real face of Daenarys Targaryen, especially to Jon,

I don't think his parentage necessarily means that he is somehow destined to become the king, but this explanation is also very weak. It also relies on all the other narrative factors to align perfectly; what if, instead, Varys had chosen to be loyal to Daenerys and had Jon imprisoned straightaway so he could not press his claim? This would render that whole scenario moot. The fact that his claim was the primary wedge between them and then promptly dropped as an issue altogether is completely ludicrous.

Edited by Chris is my name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Chris is my name said:

I would dispute this notion, especially considering that Sansa threatened Grey Worm with force and Tyrion was able to placate him with a simple, "it's not for you to decide." The show didn't really make it clear whether or not the Unsullied were even using Jon as a bargaining chip; we just jumped forward in time where "what to do with Jon?" was a question yet it was completely devoid of context. Why was Jon not killed by Grey Worm immediately, before the (offscreen) Northern armies even arrived? Grey Worm would not have known of his real value as a prisoner (that he was a legitimate claimant) and even if he did, why was the issue not raised at the council? Leaving some things ambiguous can be a great narrative tool, but leaving it to your viewers to suss out major plot developments from inconsistent evidence is nothing more than poor writing.

 

Of course Grey Worm knew Jon's importance, Jon was the Warden of the North, and the commander of the northern and the vale forces at the moment during the destruction of KL, 

If they executed Jon then they had to fight with Jon's army, both Davos and Arya were there, and considering that the Unsullied don't have a Dragon this time, they could even lose the battle to the northern and the vale forces, Grey Worm wanted justice but he couldn't throw away his soldiers lives recklessly. Keeping Jon as a bargaining chip and a prisoner and asking for justice was the most logical thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2019 at 8:47 AM, Cron said:

For many years, near-endless debates have been had about (1) who would be the best ruler (in theory, out of all possible candidates), and (2) who would be the actual ruler (or "winner") in the end.

Turns out both questions have the same answer, I think:  Bran Stark.

Incredibly wise and knowledgeable, consummate good (I can't recall ever seeing or reading even the faintest hint of darkness or badness in him; he was always clearly one of the most "pure good" characters in the story), and since he doesn't "want" anymore, he is, presumably, incapable of being corrupted.

Also, he's very young (which means there's a great chance he can rule for a long time and they won't have to worry about replacing him for an equally long time; indeed, as I recall, the 3 Eyed Ravens live incredibly long lives, right?  As I recall, Bran's predecessor was well over 100 years old), and the people who named Bran king seem to think it's good that he can't have children. 

Add all of that up, and no other candidate is even remotely close to being as well qualified as Bran.

And as an added bonus, they are set up perfectly for a sequel one day, with a very young actor/character as one of the centerpieces (along with Arya, Gendry, and Ser Podrick).

Bottom line:  If I lived in Westeros, there is no character we have seen that I would rather have as king or queen than Bran, and I'm glad that was the judgment of the characters who actually made the decision, too. 

I want to ignore this because it seems like a troll, but just in case you are serious.....

Knowing "stories" in no way qualifies one to rule.

One needs a house name - check

One should have had some achievement - None

One should show the ability to lead - Nope

One should inspire the people. Make them invested in your cause - None

So when the show comes up with a silly ass explanation, I don't know how you can defend it!!

Can the court clown become king? He tells a lot of funny stories.

How bout Old nan if she wasn't dead. She tells frightening stories of WW.

Is that all every human wishes to see in their leader?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, RYShh said:

Of course Grey Worm knew Jon's importance, Jon was the Warden of the North, and the commander of the northern and the vale forces at the moment during the destruction of KL, 

If they executed Jon then they had to fight with Jon's army, both Davos and Arya were there, and considering that the Unsullied don't have a Dragon this time, they could even lose the battle to the northern and the vale forces, Grey Worm wanted justice but he couldn't throw away his soldiers lives recklessly. Keeping Jon as a bargaining chip and a prisoner and asking for justice was the most logical thing to do.

This is fairly understandable and at least should have been given a cursory explanation on screen. Without that explanation, the gaps in the story start to expand out of control; Grey Worm could have just as easily told the arriving armies that Jon died in the fighting or burning. Some of these developments are (somewhat) sensible to us as viewers, but the writing gave very little reason for the characters to behave as they did within the story itself.

Edited by Chris is my name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...