Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

[Bernie Mac]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Nope he says it will take Bran some time to learn the greenseeing arts. Specifically, when Bran asks how long, he says maybe a year, maybe 5. Quite similar to the originally planned 5 year gap, wouldn’t you say...And likely similar to the amount of time George originally had planned for Arya to spend learning assassin skills with the Faceless Men, Sansa to spend learning politics with Littlefinger in the Vale and Jon learning leadership skills at the Wall.

Maybe we will be getting that 5 year gap at some point in the next two books. It would certainly explain the delay.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Maybe we will be getting that 5 year gap at some point in the next two books. It would certainly explain the delay.

 

Interesting idea. Not impossible. To me the main challenge would be the series would then resume 5 years into Winter, which means everyone should pretty much be starving by then. 

[Bernie Mac]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Interesting idea. Not impossible. To me the main challenge would be the series would then resume 5 years into Winter, which means everyone should pretty much be starving by then. 

No food will certainly cut down on the page count.

[Lollygag]

13 minutes ago, teej6 said:

I have no idea what you mean. I never once disputed Bran being the 3EC. You compared Bran getting the IT on the show to a statement by Martin where he states that he has given up the 5 year time jump and if that means a 12 year conquers all the world so be it. To which I stated that Bran conquers nothing on the show as the IT was given to him because Tyrion made a ridiculous argument about Bran having the best story. You then linked to some fan’s video and used that as proof for your argument as there’s nothing on the show that indicates anything remotely to Bran conquering anything. All your Bran scheming are just theories at this at this points, attempts by fans like you to make sense of that travesty. But hey if it makes you feel better than you won this debate, go ahead knock yourself out.   

You can expand the definition all you want, on the show, Bran does NO conquering either by word or deed. You theorizing and speculating thus doesn’t make it so. 

 Earth year or Westeros year, in 5 book, all the characters have aged by only 2 years at most. Again, you can twist the facts to suit your narrative doesn’t make it so. And I’ll believe Bran becoming King came straight from Martin when he himself confirms it.  

Bold: No. I said that GRRM wasn't letting the younger characters' arcs change just because the 5 year gap made them younger. You assumed I meant that statement referred specifically to Bran. I took issue with your statement that the 3ER/3EC won the kingship in a contest when there's evidence to the contrary which you keep ignoring. 

4 hours ago, Lollygag said:

I said age issues plural, meaning characters plural. Sounds like GRRM will deal with the problems from the arcs of the younger characters as best he can.

On the side, the bolded would be a minority view on your part. Most seem to be under the impression that Bran arranged himself to be on the throne and the most heated debate is what exactly he plans to do with it. 

You're still not discussing the particular points of the ideas and just throwing out ad hominem arguments. I could have dismissed RLJ fairly recently with the same just some fan theory idea, but that wouldn't have been right, would it? You can't apply ad hominems when it suits you and then handwave it off when it doesn't. 

 

It doesn't hold that previous pacing will equal future pacing. See the TWOW chapters. There's jumps in timing in the series. Travel speeds up time, and battles slow it down. We had multiple POV chapters cover the single night of the Battle of Blackwater and the immediately surrounding time, But we don't get the same treatment when Sam travels from Castle Black to Oldtown thank goodness. While we can be fairly certain that we won't see any characters say 10 years later, any reader is out of line in being certain of the pacing within the frame of a few years, especially as we're facing Winter (travel through snow is slower) and long sea voyages half-way across the world when GRRM won't be using jet packs. The characters will converge. That takes time. 

[teej6]

4 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

You're still not discussing the particular points of the ideas and just throwing out ad hominem arguments. I could have dismissed RLJ fairly recently with the same just some fan theory idea, but that wouldn't have been right, would it? You can't apply ad hominems when it suits you and then handwave it off when it doesn't.

You can think or believe what you want. I refuted your argument because it is a only a theory and is not based on the facts of the show. You are well within your rights to dismiss RLJ just as I'm within my rights to argue for the theory. Similarly, I can dismiss your theory (and it's only a theory) that Bran schemed to get the throne on the show and dismiss your entire premise connecting GRRM's statement on a 12-year old conquering the world with events that transpired on the show.

We are going in circles here and this is the last response I make to you on this topic.    

[Lollygag]

Just now, teej6 said:

You can think or believe what you want. I refuted your argument because it is a only a theory and is not based on the facts of the show. You are well within your rights to dismiss RLJ just as I'm within my rights to argue for the theory. Similarly, I can dismiss your theory (and it's only a theory) that Bran schemed to get the throne on the show and dismiss your entire premise connecting GRRM's statement on a 12-year old conquering the world with events that transpired on the show.

We are going in circles here and this is the last response I make to you on this topic.    

"Only a theory" doesn't mean it isn't true. RLJ used to be "only a theory". And I'm not dismissing RLJ, that was just an example making my point. 

You've done exactly zero to establish that the theory has nothing to do with the facts of the show and haven't shown any evidence at all of even having had watched the video or researched the popularity of the idea and the support cited for it. 

And again, it's not my theory that that statement was in reference to Bran, That was your projection. I'm just holding that it fits that the 3ER/Bran did conquer the kingship (not the world obvi). I see why we're going in circles. I say something and you ignore it. 

[Lollygag]

24 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Interesting idea. Not impossible. To me the main challenge would be the series would then resume 5 years into Winter, which means everyone should pretty much be starving by then. 

Based on the TWOW chapters, there may be some number of mini-jumps totaling up to a few years or so. Not sure if enough could be worked in to amount to 5 years, though. We're are getting Winter and lots of travel which would help that. 

[Nevets]

4 hours ago, teej6 said:

Again, you go on about how popular some theory is. For the umpteenth time, I don’t care for the popularity of a theory that fans came up with to make sense of D&D’s senseless plot. In the show Bran does not conquer anything, he got the throne because Tyrion said so. If you can show me where in the show they show Bran “conquering” (which is what GRRM said), I’ll say you have a point. As of now you don’t, so no point in repeating some theory that people came up to make sense of the nonsense which is the show.  

As to your reference to a beauty pageant, you are not far off as on the show that’s somewhat how they showed Bran getting the throne. He wasn’t the most beautiful or talented, but he had the best story. 

And it’s hard to see how Bran will be 12 in the next two books. He started the books as a 7 year old and in 5 books he has aged by 2 years. I don’t think in the next two books GRRM is going to make time work differently and have Bran miraculously age to 12. If Martin isn’t doing to do a time jump, the most I can see Bran being is 11, that is if you stretch it. This is why I said your quote about a conquering 12 year old will make more sense for Arya, considering her current age in the books. 

Bran was almost 8 when he was pushed out the window.  It has been roughly 2 1/2 years since then.  Bran is now 10, and Arya is 11, nearly 12. 

I think it is quite likely that the next 2 books will encompass 2 years, especially since Daenerys has to get to Westeros, which will take time.  My guess is that the 12-year-old that saves the world is Bran.

[Mystical]

2 hours ago, teej6 said:

To which I stated that Bran conquers nothing on the show as the IT was given to him because Tyrion made a ridiculous argument about Bran having the best story. You then linked to some fan’s video and used that as proof for your argument as there’s nothing on the show that indicates anything remotely to Bran conquering anything. All your Bran scheming are just theories at this at this points, attempts by fans like you to make sense of that travesty. But hey if it makes you feel better than you won this debate, go ahead knock yourself out.  

You can expand the definition all you want, on the show, Bran does NO conquering either by word or deed. You theorizing and speculating thus doesn’t make it so.

That's a pretty narrow minded view of what canon is though. Just because Tyrion said that Bran becomes King because of his story doesn't preclude viewers to interpret the story differently. Canon can be interpreted any number of ways, usually because there are holes in the story.

As an example, when it comes to the tv show Buffy the Vampire Slayer, to this day people argue whether Spike (vampire) went to get a soul or not. Even though they have the character say so and even Whedon said so. Why do people continue to argue against what the character and creator said? The reason is simple. It's a supernatural world in which certain rules were not explained or canon was outright retconned later. The soul canon was never clear to begin with and the same goes for the turning of people into vampires. And the show ended almost 20 years ago yet people still hold differing views.

Why do I bring this up? It was never clearly explained or defined on the show what exactly a 3ER is. Neither was what the 3ER powers are. What it's goals are. Who it's working for/against (if anyone). It's made even worse by the inconsistent writing of Bran/3ER. For 2 Seasons the character has been saying 'I can't be Lord of anything.' Only to do a sudden u-turn without explanation. Then there is also the fact that by S8 it's explicit that the 3ER can see the future. People want the stories they watch to make sense. When a show doesn't offer that because it lacks basic story elements or a concept is not sufficiently explained, then people will head canon in order to make it fit based on how they understand the world/story/characters.

I myself am in the camp that believes the 3ER is the best schemer in Westeros' history. Because it's the only way that I can make the story they told make sense. At the very least the 3ER is anti-humanity. Why? Because the Children created both the NK and the 3ER. And we know what their goal was with the NK, destruction of mankind. So why would their goal for the 3ER be any different? We also know 3ER can see the future which makes you question why he let all of the destruction happen that we see in S8 (and the end of S7). The reveal of Jon's parentage that was perfectly timed to drive Dany into madness (and so was everything else she lost because Bran was mum about it). That in turn effectively took out 3 claimants to the throne (Dany, Jon, Cersei).

You can believe canon is just what we are told. But that doesn't make it so when the story has holes in it the size of trucks. And if you have watched any videos at all or read anything about the final episode, there are many people who think Bran schemed his way into power and lots think he is downright evil for letting a million people die just so he can become King. People are just trying to make the story make sense.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Mystical

[teej6]

6 minutes ago, Mystical said:

You can believe canon is just what we are told. But that doesn't make it so when the story has holes in it the size of trucks. And if you have watched any videos at all or read anything about the final episode, there are many people who think Bran schemed his way into power and lots of think he is downright evil for letting a million people die just so he can become King. People are just trying to make the story make sense.

To me, canon is what is shown or described, everything else is speculation. If you look up the etymology of the word, it comes from references to the scriptures in the Bible. The word canonical was used to differentiate scriptures in the Bible from the non-canonical apocryphal writings. Now, can one speculate that Bran manipulated the series of events to get to an outcome where he is King so as to make the pile of rubbish make sense? Sure, one can speculate and theorize that that is probably what happened but that does not change the fact that Bran got elected because Tyrion convinced the Lords and Ladies of Westeros that Bran is the perfect candidate in a 5 minute speech. Any speculation on Bran’s motives or scheming does not nullify this event. By showing this event, D&D made it show!canon as to the manner in which Bran was chosen to be King. Further, they failed to show any scheming on Bran’s part, instead they had him sit motionless spouting nonsensical and weird one-liners.  D&D probably thought they were being brilliant with the two lines Bran uttered in the finale, one to Tyrion and the other to Jon. To me, all that seemed like was that D&D didn’t know what they were doing with Bran’s character —  they couldn’t fully understand Bran’s powers and didn’t know what to show or how to show it, and so decided to throw random concepts together and see if anything stuck. If they meant to show Bran as something akin to the God Emperor in Dune, they failed at that as well.

[Mystical]

2 hours ago, teej6 said:

To me, canon is what is shown or described, everything else is speculation. If you look up the etymology of the word, it comes from references to the scriptures in the Bible.

Yet even when it comes to the bible people interpret said canon whichever way they see fit. And we are not dealing with religion here, we are dealing with a tv show. When it comes to canon of a show, the meaning refers to everything that happens on screen as the 'official' (and only) story. But that doesn't mean that canon can't be viewed by many people differently. What Tyrion is saying doesn't even make sense, as most characters on the show have a better story than Bran. And the even bigger flaw in Tyrion's speech is that Bran isn't  Bran anymore, so why does Bran's story even matter? They aren't even voting for Bran Stark to be King, they are voting for the 3ER. So the 'canon' is a mess that doesn't make any sense in it's basics.

2 hours ago, teej6 said:

Further, they failed to show any scheming on Bran’s part, instead they had him sit motionless spouting nonsensical and weird one-liners.

Scheming is not always all about taking action. In Bran's case it's inaction for the most part. He didn't stop Tyrion's wight plan, he didn't help minimize the deaths during the Long Night battle (certain key players died there, among them Jorah), he didn't tell Dany to watch out for Euron's fleet or just tell her to go by land with Jon's forces (which cost her Rheagal and Missandei), he didn't tell Sansa not to tell Tyrion (Varys died as a result and his plot to kill Dany failed). On and on it goes. The only action he took was the parentage reveal and the timing of it couldn't have been worse.

Now you could argue he doesn't say anything or help more because of free will. Which is all well and good in principle. But what does that have to do with a million people dying for 'free will'? That's a heavy price to pay. And really the one who gained the most from that was the 3ER.

[Ruki88]

I'm sorry guys but trying to fit this ending to the books it's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. For me 2books to resolve all the plotlines AND end up with this ending is not enough. I'm not denying it will end up like this but for me it feels like I've been duped. If the author would've written the books at an even pace and not have these huge gaps between volumes then maybe, maaaybe ppl would be OK with the ending since the books wouldn't have been dissected to death... Instead these huge gaps in updates and the show allowed ppl to theorize and analyse the books to insane levels so to speak. And, frankly, ending up with much better resolutions than what the author will provide at the end it seems.

I do think this is the reason ppl are so divided. I don't adhere to the idea that the author will do a better job therefore the ending won't be so bad. Sorry, not good enough. You don't spend 5books doing something and in the last 2books go with the "subverting the expectation" and doing a "shocking twist". I think after the show ppl are kinda over this subverting shit.

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

2 hours ago, Ruki88 said:

I think after the show ppl are kinda over this subverting shit.

That'd be because instead of a scalpel, they used a hacksaw.

Imo, it's perfectly in keeping with the content so far. GRRM, as the greatest troll who ever trolled, had magic slowly creep over human stories, until we have a mass conflict.

Conflict about human reaction to a somewhat balanced existence getting fucked over by the ressurgence of magic.

Then you start to discuss magic, root for magic and the fantastic to go on. But this was always a humanized version of Lotr. Magic is meant to end. The cycle must resume. 

Winter followed by Spring, the end of a forest fire followed by renewal, new life as the ages progress.

If Bran, as a greenseer, can be the memory of the world, his job is to maintain the cycle, to make sure the wheel keeps turning. His conquering can be seen as saving the world from active magical forces that would destroy that natural order.

To stop the Long Night, all the other Gods and magics will be necessary. To keep the wheel turning, Daenerys must be stopped and the dragons return to legend.

The show fails because they tried too hard to get rid of magic earlier on. We're left without that subtext when the time for magic is done and only simple, prosaic human affairs are left.

The final subversion is that, while a fantasy story, human values, and flaws, prevail over the fantastic.

The age of Men begins and only simpler, cruder magics are left in the hidden places of the world.

Until the comet returns and wheel turns again?

[Ruki88]

1 hour ago, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

 

But I think this is about life and humanity. You could say ASOIAF is realistic in depicting the unpredictability of life and the strengths and weaknesses of humanity and its struggles.  The futility of the pursuit of power, and the hubris of entitlement. The fallacy of nobility and honor, and the power of sacrifice and the price sacrifice brings.

GRRM: "the human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about"

 

And the final lesson we are to take at the end is that humanity needs a God Emperor to steer us in the right direction? I mean, I see Bran being a driving force in the battle against the supernatural for sure, but ending up king…It’s just so…reductive.  Bran has a role in the magical conflict of the story (and its solution), not the ‘mundane’ conflict of the story (and its solution).

What about “Aragorn’s tax policy”? What does "ruling wisely" means in this world? Apparently humanity is not good enough, it needs a magical being to do it for them.

I don’t know. I don’t agree with the message here. This is how I see it and I just can’t agree. I don’t want a higher power/God like figure ruling over me/humanity – must be the atheist in me :P.

 

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

1 minute ago, Ruki88 said:

But I think this is about life and humanity. You could say ASOIAF is realistic in depicting the unpredictability of life and the strengths and weaknesses of humanity and its struggles.  The futility of the pursuit of power, and the hubris of entitlement. The fallacy of nobility and honor, and the power of sacrifice and the price sacrifice brings.

GRRM: "the human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about"

 

And the final lesson we are to take at the end is that humanity needs a God Emperor to steer us in the right direction? I mean, I see Bran being a driving force in the battle against the supernatural for sure, but ending up king…It’s just so…reductive.  Bran has a role in the magical conflict of the story (and its solution), not the ‘mundane’ conflict of the story (and its solution).

What about “Aragorn’s tax policy”? What does "ruling wisely" means in this world? Apparently humanity is not good enough, it needs a magical being to do it for them.

I don’t know. I don’t agree with the message here. This is how I see it and I just can’t agree. I don’t want a higher power/God like figure ruling over me/humanity – must be the atheist in me :P.

 

We're just shooting the breeze here.

The 'lesson' about power and how it corrupts means only not using it is a safe path. Having King Bran present but only to handle matters that relate to magic and natural balance, leaving the council to deal with human matters, could be endgame. He went off to 'look' into the Drogon situation and left the joke council to figure shit out?

I'm with you on the skeevyness of looking at this in a 'we're too stupid to rule ourselves' way. A one-man intelligence agency, potentially with more knowledge than all the Citadel, and king all at once, yikes.

I kept seeing the Maesters as really hardass, coldblooded defenders of the anti-magic thing. Even Marwyn (?) can't remember the exact spelling, looked like a 'nature of the beast' resource. My pet conspiracy is they not only did they have a very set role on the extinction of dragons but also helped along what consanguinity was already doing to the Targaryens. Multiple stillborns, madness, frailness, the works.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

The only way Bran will be King at the end of the books is if every Lord in Westeros suddenly becomes a good person and forgets everything they've ever said or done their entire lives. And if they all suddenly find themselves living on Earth in 2020 instead of Planetos in the Bronze Age.

[Cas Stark]

20 minutes ago, Suzanna Stormborn said:

The only way Bran will be King at the end of the books is if every Lord in Westeros suddenly becomes a good person and forgets everything they've ever said or done their entire lives. And if they all suddenly find themselves living on Earth in 2020 instead of Planetos in the Bronze Age.

So do you think Isaac is lying or that the showrunners lied to him when they told him it came directly from GRRM?  

And why do you think the show made Bran king when it was clear for several seasons that they disliked his storyline after he left Winterfell?

It strikes me that an easier and more popular solution for the show would have been to have the Great Council as a new form of government....so since they didn't do this easier and more popular solution, I can only believe it was because Bran being king is a book endpoint, same as the endpoints they used for the rest of the major characters.  

 

[Nowy Tends]

4 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

...so since they didn't do this easier and more popular solution, I can only believe it was because Bran being king is a book endpoint, same as the endpoints they used for the rest of the major characters.  

Yes, that's what I'm starting to believe now. Obviously they are very uncomfortable with this situation, hence the lack of dialogue, the lousy attempts at humour, etc.

[Bernie Mac]

13 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

So do you think Isaac is lying or that the showrunners lied to him when they told him it came directly from GRRM?  

I don't think Isaac is lying, I don' think the producers are lying. I think it may be possible that the Bran becoming King was part of the original outline of the book series, the same outline that had Jaime be king at some point.

We really have no idea if that information came from the 2006 meetings between them and GRRM or a much later date or if it set in stone.

 

13 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

And why do you think the show made Bran king when it was clear for several seasons that they disliked his storyline after he left Winterfell?

I don't think its true that they disliked his storyline, they just did not know what to do with it.

It is possible that Bran's storyline is much, much bigger in the TWOW, with its own large cast of characters and events separate from the show and the producers did not have the time or budget to properly film it.

13 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

It strikes me that an easier and more popular solution for the show would have been to have the Great Council as a new form of government....so since they didn't do this easier and more popular solution, I can only believe it was because Bran being king is a book endpoint, same as the endpoints they used for the rest of the major characters.  

 

Unless Bran starts manipulating his way to become King I'm not sure how a random person being named in a Grand Council meeting in the (I'm guessing last or penultimate chapter) of a seven series saga is that important to the series as whole.

The way the show framed it anyone at the Council meeting could have been picked and it would have made as much sense as Bran. Bran being picked or not being picked changes nothing from every minute of the show before that moment.

The term Endgame is about everything that came before led to this moment, that is not the case of Bran becoming King, it was entirely inconsequential.

 

[Suzanna Stormborn]

20 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

So do you think Isaac is lying or that the showrunners lied to him when they told him it came directly from GRRM?  

And why do you think the show made Bran king when it was clear for several seasons that they disliked his storyline after he left Winterfell?

It strikes me that an easier and more popular solution for the show would have been to have the Great Council as a new form of government....so since they didn't do this easier and more popular solution, I can only believe it was because Bran being king is a book endpoint, same as the endpoints they used for the rest of the major characters.  

 

To the bolded, sure why not? They have lied about many things.

And like many have said, the story is constantly in flux, from the 1993 outline to now it has changed immensely. GRRM has stated that he gave them bullet points 6 years ago, maybe Bran was king in those bullet points and maybe he wasn't. Alls I know is that he only has 2 books and Dany is still in Meereen and Bran is still in a cave NotW. Nothing is set in stone until he publishes. 

Why do I think the show made Bran King? because they're idiots--same reason they made Arya kill the King White Walker--shock and a BIG STUPID TWIST that doesn't fit with the plot.