Jump to content
Stannis is the man....nis

The problem with Bran being king narrative wise

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Making Bran King is like making some Geek King, because he spends 18 hours a day on his PC

I guess his 18-hr trance is a good thing. If he’s awake, he’ll have to engage with his petitioners. Just imagine how that will play out. 

Rape victim: Your Highness, I was raped.

King-Bran: I know. You looked beautiful then.

Rape victim: You creep.

Edited by teej6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, teej6 said:

I guess his 18-hr trance is a good thing. If he’s awake, he’ll have to engage with his petitioners. Just imagine how that will play out. 

Rape victim: Your Highness, I was raped.

King-Bran: I know. You looked beautiful then.

Rape victim: You creep.

 

"You creep" OMG :))))))

The even funnier thing is I actually see him doing something like this. Like show canon doing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bran being or wanting to be king is basically the same as a god caring about tax politics. It is nonsensical on any level.

And in any realistic scenario - especially the one we are likely to get in the books - Bran would be the worst kind of king Westeros could ever have - because he would effectively become the Leto II of Westeros, remaking humanity in his own twisted image, following impulses and knowledge on an individual with Bran's unnatural knowledge could understand.

It is a complete horror scenario, heralding the ending not only of liberty and freedom (or what the nobility who are somewhat free would call that) but essentially of privacy and free will as such.

You have to keep in mind that the Bran in the books does not only know everything about everyone, living or dead (or can find out in a moment what he wants to know) he also can see and overhear everything everyone will do in the future and he can influence the decisions and thoughts of people passively (through dreams) and actively (through mind rapes and possession - we have to wait and see how this far can go, of course).

Add all that together and Bran is the worst possible king Westeros could ever have - if Bran ever cared about acquiring or exercising political power than mankind were doomed.

And considering Bran's enormous powers the very idea that anybody could be 'independent' under a King Bran is silly. Bran would effectively rule the entire world assuming the weirwood magic extends to Essos and other continents - simply because he would know everything about everyone and could thus play everything like only a god could.

Such a character essentially only makes sense as a guy who actually become a god - and a distant one at that. If he were to live among mortals he would become the ultimate tyrant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Bran being or wanting to be king is basically the same as a god caring about tax politics. It is nonsensical on any level.

It can make sense, in the show anyway, depending on your head canon. As the show flat out refused to tell us anything about the 3ER, the audience is forced to assume their own canon. For example we don't know if the 3ER is a creation of the Old Gods, having been around as long as them. Was the 3ER, like the NK, a creation of the Children of the Forest? If it was the Old Gods, we don't know what their goal was with this creation. If it was the Children, well we can assume that just like the NK, the 3ER was an anti-human weapon. Because why would they make anything other than a pro-Children weapon? Was the 3ER created once the NK went rogue as a countermeasure (since they were arch-enemies in the show)? We simply don't know.

So if you look at the 3ER's powers (I refuse to call him Bran since he's not Bran in the show) which are a combo of formerly Bran Stark's greenseeing/warging abilities and the 3ER skills and put them into context with what happened on the show, it's hard not to come away thinking that the 3ER orchestrated the events in such a way to become King. The only question is why would he want to be King? If the 3ER is a creation of the Children, then it makes all the sense in the world. Bran had visions of the future in past Seasons, they were only flashes to us (due to time constraints and because it's more mysterious for us) but one would assume Bran had the full knowledge of these events eventually. He saw the dragon shadow over KL and the destroyed throne room all the way back in S4 and the blowing up of the Sept in S6. There is no reason not to assume that he didn't already know the future.

So if the 3ER is a creation of the Children, having him not stop atrocities or even facilitating them and wanting to be King makes all the sense in the world. The 3ER is anti-humanity, destruction of humans is what he's about. In that context, all of show!3ER actions make sense. Not stopping the wight hunt plan which leads to the fall of the wall. Facilitating Dany going mad. Giving Arya the dagger (because he knew she would kill his arch-enemy). Even his choice of small council makes sense, at least in the most important positions. Hand of the King (power), Master of Coin (finances) and Grand Maester (knowledge). The 3 people chosen for these are under qualified or downright not qualified at all. Putting Tyrion in that power position is a smart move if you want people to die. The wall falling was on him. Dany could have been sitting on the IT in 7x02 if she had never listened to Tyrion, instead his constant council is what eventually resulted in the catastrophe we saw in 8x05. Tyrion is perfect if you want large scale destruction of humans. Bronn is absolutely not in any way, shape or form qualified to be Master of Coin. He will wreck it and bankrupt the realm which will lead to nothing good.

 

However I have no idea how GRRM can possibly swing it in the books (not that he ever will release another book). I understand from Martin's other work that he has a fondness for hive-minded beings (like 3EC in aSoIaF) and god like beings that save everyone. But in the world this story takes place, getting Bran in the position of King would be hard to swallow, even if he does something monumental in regards to the Others or Westeros. Kid is still in a damn cave at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would indeed be an intriguing tale if Bran's body was just the medium for the 3ER to orchestrate the destruction of the Night's King, Kings Landing, Daenerys, and the Seven Kingdoms.  It's certainly not a bittersweet ending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Mystical said:

It can make sense, in the show anyway, depending on your head canon.

That would mean you yourself do the work of the show (writers) for them. I can also imagine the show was internally consistent and coherent, but that doesn't make it so. It is not our job to make sense of things - it was the show's job. And they failed.

And, frankly, your ideas don't make sense, either, because the series never indicated that Bran was supposed to be 'evil', etc. and it ended with Bran becoming king, selling that as a positive point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And, frankly, your ideas don't make sense, either, because the series never indicated that Bran was supposed to be 'evil', etc. and it ended with Bran becoming king, selling that as a positive point.

I think it was an accidental consequence that bran became evil in the show. D&D didn t realize that bran must be evil because most of his actions led to horrible scenarios that only benefited him. So the series kind of portrays bran as a villain even if D&D didn t realize that while filming. 

Another thing nobody is talking about. If bran cares about being king why didn t the previous 3er do something to save his family and keep them in power? Making the 3er care about mundane things will create a lot of problems in the story... We can t forget that bloodraven did everything he could to help the targs before joining the NW... 

Share this post


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

I think it was an accidental consequence that bran became evil in the show. D&D didn t realize that bran must be evil because most of his actions led to horrible scenarios that only benefited him. So the series kind of portrays bran as a villain even if D&D didn t realize that while filming. 

Another thing nobody is talking about. If bran cares about being king why didn t the previous 3er do something to save his family and keep them in power? Making the 3er care about mundane things will create a lot of problems in the story... We can t forget that bloodraven did everything he could to help the targs before joining the NW... 

I think we're constantly overthinking this train wreck.

There's just no coherent storyline in the last two seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And, frankly, your ideas don't make sense, either, because the series never indicated that Bran was supposed to be 'evil', etc. and it ended with Bran becoming king, selling that as a positive point.

Didn't require a lot for me to work to get there. There is plenty to indicate 3ER ( NOT BRAN) is anti-humanity (I never said evil). And I frankly never care what a writer's/director's/showrunner's intention is, what I care about is what's on screen. And really, plenty of people thought of the 3ER as 'evil' after the finale, to the point that it was even a question at Comic Con. From serious reviewers to casual watchers, you name it. And it doesn't even take much to come to that conclusion, you make it sound as if it takes a lot of work. The show is easy.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

It would indeed be an intriguing tale if Bran's body was just the medium for the 3ER to orchestrate the destruction of the Night's King, Kings Landing, Daenerys, and the Seven Kingdoms.  It's certainly not a bittersweet ending.

But he is just a body. I mean think about it, Bran was lured north by the last 3ER. Since 3ER knows the future, he knew Bran would go exploring without permission. That would lead to him being marked, the AotD to be able to breach the cave and for the 3ER to body snatch Bran (because NK kills him). Then we have the 3ER constantly reminding us that he is not Bran. He can remember Bran Stark and his life but it's not Bran. What is in Bran's body is the entity known as 3ER. And since we have no idea if 3ER serves anyone's agenda (Old Gods, Children or no one at all) you can only look at that entities actions or inactions and the consequences of those. And to me they clearly point to anti-human mindset. 3ER knew the future and not only let it happen but helped it along. How convenient that all 3 contenders for the throne (Cersei, Dany, Jon) are out of the running at the end. And even more convenient how 'Bran' took the time to tell Tyrion his life story when previously and any other time in S8 the guy barely speaks a sentence to anyone, much less explains (with exception of NK goals) anything.

Edited by Mystical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2019 at 9:09 AM, SeanF said:

Bran can see events.  That's not at all the same thing as "knowing" things.  For example, in the books, Melisandre is very good at seeing events.  The problem is when she tries to interpret them (eg, she can see the various sigils of the lords at Barrowtown, but she needs Jon to tell her which Houses they represent.  She wouldn't know without Jon being on hand to interpret her information).  There's no reason at all to believe that Bran is infallible.

Melisandre had visions that needed interpreting.  We have no reason to believe this is true of Bran, though.  For Bran, it is as if he was actually at events that occurred, or are occurring, or will occur.  No interpretation needed.  Mel has been wrong multiple times.  How many times has Bran been wrong? To my knowledge, the answer to that question is "zero."

On 8/5/2019 at 9:09 AM, SeanF said:

And, a king who has no emotions and no personality is a king who will not command the respect or affection of his lords, and a king who simply won't understand what motivates his people.

We don't know Bran has no emotions.  With respect, I think you are accepting things at a very superficial, face value.  We only know what Bran has said after becoming 3ER in the show, but we don't have his internal monologue (POV) anymore, like in the books.

And is a belief that Bran no longer has emotions or "wants" anymore consistent with what we have witnessed? No, I don't think so. Bran CLAIMED he doesn't "want" anymore, but if that's true, then WHY didn't he just do what his predecessor did, and go find some cave to live in so he could morph into a tree?  In fact, that is NOT what Bran did. What he did was take an active role in events in defeating the Night King, and then continued to take an active role in taking on the duties and responsibilities of a ruler of 6 kingdoms.  Why would he do all of that if he truly is an emotionless, uncaring, supercomputer, or "Bran 9000" (as some people call him)??  I don't think he would, and I don't think that's what we've been seeing.

Share this post


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

We don't know Bran has no emotions.

He never even moves a facial muscle. Emotions can be seen, even surpressed ones. 3ER literally has a complete blank face 100% of the time. You'd think with all the death he's causing there might be something but nope, he does that with a complete blank look as well.

3 hours ago, Cron said:

With respect, I think you are accepting things at a very superficial, face value.

What else is there other than face value? This is D&D, they don't do deep.

3 hours ago, Cron said:

We only know what Bran has said after becoming 3ER in the show, but we don't have his internal monologue (POV) anymore, like in the books.

This doesn't even make sense in terms of this discussion. No character in the show has an internal monologue so we all can only judge what the characters say/do and that's what we have to do for the 3ER as well. Saying 'well we don't have in the show what we have in the books' is meaningless, this isn't the books. There are no what-ifs or maybe-s, there is only the canon on your screen. So what the 3ER says/does/doesn't do is all you can interpret/discuss.

 

3 hours ago, Cron said:

And is a belief that Bran no longer has emotions or "wants" anymore consistent with what we have witnessed? No, I don't think so. Bran CLAIMED he doesn't "want" anymore, but if that's true, then WHY didn't he just do what his predecessor did, and go find some cave to live in so he could morph into a tree?

What makes you think the ultimate goal of the 3ER was to never leave the place? Because guess what, 3ER DID leave the place back in S6 and in a shiny new body to boot. Btw you do realize that his predecessor and Bran are the same freaking entity with the same freaking goal (whatever that is). They are the 3ER. They have no identity beyond that. And again, we don't know enough about the 3ER to make a definitive statement on if he always tells the truth or if he lies to achieve certain goals. His claiming he doesn't want anymore could have been in service of his end goal (being King) because we have been told over and over in S8 that a good ruler is one 'who doesn't want it'. 3ER can spy on everyone, every conversation. You don't think he listened in on some of Tyrion's and Varys' talks?

 

3 hours ago, Cron said:

What he did was take an active role in events in defeating the Night King, and then continued to take an active role in taking on the duties and responsibilities of a ruler of 6 kingdoms.  Why would he do all of that if he truly is an emotionless, uncaring, supercomputer, or "Bran 9000" (as some people call him)??  I don't think he would, and I don't think that's what we've been seeing.

He did nothing to defeat the NK. He already knew the battle before it happened. All he had to do was chill while sitting in the Godswood. Unless you mean that active in this case means that he didn't stop the wight hunt plan which brought down the wall, he might as well have killed Theon himself, he didn't find a better strategy to minimize the body count. Cause he doesn't care, he just needed meat shields to get rid of his arch-nemesis. Or how he didn't stop the burning of KL, probably because he knew it was his ticket to the throne. He decided when and how to reveal Jon's parentage with the maximum amount of damage.

And you really don't read other peoples posts, do you? 'Why would he do all that?' was answered in the show, TO BECOME KING. Considering the damage the 3ER has caused via actions and inactions his goal is pretty damn clear to me. He is anti-humanity. So there is your answer. A non-human is on the throne and doesn't have any fucks to give about humans. But now he rules over them anyway. Somewhere the Old Gods and Children are celebrating. That's why he chose Tyrion as Hand as well because Tyrion had a massive hand in all the slaughter/murder/burning/death of the past 2 Seasons in Westeros. If you are anti-humanity, you of course chose someone who gets people killed in droves.

Share this post


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

Melisandre had visions that needed interpreting.  We have no reason to believe this is true of Bran, though.  For Bran, it is as if he was actually at events that occurred, or are occurring, or will occur.  No interpretation needed.  Mel has been wrong multiple times.  How many times has Bran been wrong? To my knowledge, the answer to that question is "zero."

We don't know Bran has no emotions.  With respect, I think you are accepting things at a very superficial, face value.  We only know what Bran has said after becoming 3ER in the show, but we don't have his internal monologue (POV) anymore, like in the books.

And is a belief that Bran no longer has emotions or "wants" anymore consistent with what we have witnessed? No, I don't think so. Bran CLAIMED he doesn't "want" anymore, but if that's true, then WHY didn't he just do what his predecessor did, and go find some cave to live in so he could morph into a tree?  In fact, that is NOT what Bran did. What he did was take an active role in events in defeating the Night King, and then continued to take an active role in taking on the duties and responsibilities of a ruler of 6 kingdoms.  Why would he do all of that if he truly is an emotionless, uncaring, supercomputer, or "Bran 9000" (as some people call him)??  I don't think he would, and I don't think that's what we've been seeing.

Bran said that it was built on a lie. It was built on the fact that Aerys Targaryen made a mockery of trial by combat by burning Rickard Stark alive, had Brandon Stark strangled and threatened the lives of Robert Baratheon and Ned Stark. That makes Bran a liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2019 at 11:16 AM, teej6 said:

Based on the show, oh I don’t know, anyone on that GC that wasn’t a robot with no emotions, had empathy for humanity, and didn’t speak in cryptic one liners. Pick anyone, Sam, Edmure, Davos, or even Sandra. And if you wanted to pick someone not at that ridiculous council, how about Jon? One episode ago, we had Varys (who’s shown to be a good judge of character on the show) waxing on about how great a ruler Jon will be. Hmm, I wonder what happened to all those messages he was sending to the High Lords of Westeros? Puff, vanished! like every other stupid plot on the show. 

"...anyone on that GC..."??  Would you prefer Bronn over Bran??  If so...wow.

Sam might have been my second choice, but in addition to Bran being superior to Sam in numerous other ways, Sam is too mentally soft to get my vote. (I'm not saying he's not smart, I'm saying he's not mentally tough enough to get my vote, and lacks courage on top of that.  Face facts:  Sam's a great guy, but Sam is a coward.  I know it, and Sam knows it, even if some other people may have forgotten.  My goodness, if I recall correctly, he was cowering in the grip of a paralyzing fear as recently as Episode 803.)

Davos would be a decent 3rd choice (I would prefer Sam because Sam IS a lot smarter than Davos, even though Davos would be better than Sam in a variety of other ways), but Bran is far beyond Davos in numerous ways.

Sansa has not impressed me as being particularly bright.  We have been TOLD how smart she is, but not SHOWN it, in my opinion.  Arya's comment that Sansa is the smartest person she knows was like nails on a chalkboard to me.  Uhhh...based on what??

Jon is not particularly bright either, whether we are talking politically or militarily.  He has committed numerous blunders, and never stood out as particularly bright in the first place, either.  Here's how I view Jon: Great guy, great warrior, definitely a guy I would want next to me in a way, but as a leader of a small group of men (maybe a squad of 10 to 20), but NOT as a general.  He is terrible at politics, and has done stuff that anyone with an ounce of common sense would have known would NOT go well with people around him, but to which Jon seemed totally oblivious.

Further, I don't buy the notion that Bran is emotionless and doesn't care about anything or anyone.  In fact, it is radically inconsistent with what we have seen from Bran, which is his active involvement in major events (which led to the defeat of the Night King, by the way.  "You're welcome, Westeros") and now shows a willingness to engage with humanity as king, too (unlike his predecessor, who stayed in a cave turning into a tree)

Further, I don't necessarily take some of Bran's words at face value, as I've mentioned elsewhere. (a) He could have motives for making people think he's extremely dispassionate, (b) to my memory, his words were not quite what some people seem to be making them out to be (if I recall correctly, and someone might correct me on this, his words were "I don't really want anymore."    Okay, what does THAT mean??  Pretty vague, and cryptic (to use your word), and it could mean a lot of stuff other than "I am now a totally emotionless robot who could not care less about anything or anyone else.  In fact, everyone else is like ants to me."), and (c) humans have a tendency to HEAR far more literally than they SPEAK.  So, when we hear Bran's words, we have a tendency to take them more literally than he may have meant them, even as a casual, cryptic comment.

On 8/5/2019 at 11:16 AM, teej6 said:

The bolded is the problem with your arguments. You seem to assume a lot based on nothing. Your interpretation of how things transpired on the show is not how many others see it. For me, the whole thing is a giant mess. For one, to me, the show did NOT show us the extend of Bran’s powers or explain what he is capable of. He sees things but beyond that what else does he do? [Edited to add this bit: In the script of the finale, Tyrion refers to Bran as the “weird kid” from whom he expects “strange things” :bang: ...yeah those are the qualities of a good ruler]. 

First, I don't claim to have perfect answers.  Indeed, I believe I am assuming little or nothing on many related issues being discussed on these boards, but others seem to be assuming a LOT, sometimes taking things at superficial face value and then extrapolating a LOT more from there, and sometimes, I think, even assuming things for which we have NO actual evidence (such as theories that Bran is actually corrupt, either because of an external force or because he is so greedy for power and desperately wanted to be king.  Is it possible he is corrupt? Yes.  Is it fun to speculate about? Sure.  Do we have any actual evidence for that? NO.)

I understand many others see these issues differently from me.  My response: (a) that has no impact on my opinions whatsoever, and (b) actually, it's NOT just me against everyone else (even though, reading these boards, one might think otherwise, because the negative voices seem so much louder than the ones who liked Season 8).  But go look at the Episode ratings.  Are they low compared to other episodes? Yes.  Am I the only one who ranked episodes in Season 8 high?  Um, clearly not.  Season 8 IS highly divisive, sure, but there are a whole lot of people out there who did like it, including me.

On 8/5/2019 at 11:16 AM, teej6 said:

If you assume Bran sees the future and therefore “cannot be taken by surprise”, then you’ve lost the argument that he is good or benevolent. Knowing the future, he just allowed a million or so people to get incinerated. How’s that a good thing? And let’s not stop there, if you take the argument a step further, he orchestrated events such that Dany would descend into  paranoia — he nudged Sam to tell Jon the truth about his heritage knowing well that Jon would then tell Dany who would not look favorably on another contender to the throne. What was the purpose of Bran insisting that Jon must urgently know the truth about his parents? Did the show-runners give us an explanation for that? No, another plot that made no sense. 

Um, I don't "assume' Bran can see the future. Bran CAN see the future, this is information we have been given, numerous times.  The only real questions about his powers on this subject relate to how powerful he is, and how much control he has over it.  We know that Bran is very special in the history of Westeros, quite powerful even before he became the 3ER.  He can warg AND greensee (making him very rare, possibly unique).  In fact, he was able to do what many others thought was flat out impossible, which was to warg a human (Hodor). 

Now on top of all of that, he is the 3ER, and spent a LOT of time offscreen, doing things and viewing information which we can only scarcely speculate about.  It is possible Bran is now the most powerful human in the history of Planetos.  In fact, that would not surprise me in the least.  In the end, the "protagonist" of GoT (if there was one), was Bran Stark, and that's the person at the end of stories who gets "the prize" (although in Bran's case, it's a mixed bag, or "bittersweet," as GRRM might say)..

On 8/5/2019 at 11:16 AM, teej6 said:

One can interpret that all his cryptic lines in the final episode — his line to Tyrion for his being in KL, or his line to Jon in the end — means that he manipulated events (even the massacre of thousands of people) so that he could be King. If that was D&D’s intent, Bran should be tried for orchestrating mass murder, not be handed a crown.

We have zero evidence that Bran was responsible for what Dany did.  Absolutely none.  As I have discussed at length elsewhere, there are many possible alternatives, and NO evidence that Bran could have stopped what happened and chose not to just so he could be king.

On 8/5/2019 at 11:16 AM, teej6 said:

As to the books, as others have said, there is a lot GRRM needs to show (at this point I don’t what he can show to convince me that the King-Bran plot makes sense) if he needs to make Bran end-game King convincing and satisfying. As things now stand in the books, there are several obstacles (obstacles that GRRM himself introduced to Bran’s arc) for Bran being recognized King in Westeros. 

Sounds to me like some people want everything tied up in a neat little bow, all of which was properly foreshadowed, with the proper foundation properly laid so that when it's done everyone is so satisfied that they say to themselves "That is exactly how I would have written it."

But that's not "real life," and that's NOT GoT  (which is a HUGE part of why GoT is so popular in the first place, ironically enough.)  When GRRM began writing it, he specifically set out to BUST fantasy fiction tropes, not mimic them or reproduce them.  Now it's done, and many fans seem to be very unhappy because...wait for it...they didn't get the tropes they wanted at the end???  Sorry, that's not how I view it.

Share this post


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

"...anyone on that GC..."??  Would you prefer Bronn over Bran??  If so...wow.

FYI, Bronn wasn’t on the GC. Funny you missed that being an expert on the show. 

1 hour ago, Cron said:

Further, I don't buy the notion that Bran is emotionless and doesn't care about anything or anyone.  In fact, it is radically inconsistent with what we have seen from Bran, which is his active involvement in major events (which led to the defeat of the Night King, by the way.  "You're welcome, Westeros") and now shows a willingness to engage with humanity as king, too (unlike his predecessor, who stayed in a cave turning into a tree)

Further, I don't necessarily take some of Bran's words at face value, as I've mentioned elsewhere...

First, I don't claim to have perfect answers.  Indeed, I believe I am assuming little or nothing on many related issues being discussed on these boards, but others seem to be assuming a LOT, sometimes taking things at superficial face value and then extrapolating a LOT more from there, and sometimes, I think, even assuming things for which we have NO actual evidence (such as theories that Bran is actually corrupt, either because of an external force or because he is so greedy for power and desperately wanted to be king.  Is it possible he is corrupt? Yes.  Is it fun to speculate about? Sure.  Do we have any actual evidence for that? NO.)

Bran is not emotionless? Yeah right! That’s why I suppose he told his sister that she looked beautiful on the day she got raped. Go figure. As other posters above have stated, Bran himself keeps repeating that he isn’t Bran, so why do you think Bran still exists? The show-runners seem to allude that the 3ER has taken possession of Bran’s body or whatever.  As to your argument that being involved in events makes him have emotions, you have to do better than that. Mass murderers are usually very much involved in the actual event but have little to no emotions or empathy for the people they are killing or the act itself. 

As to the bolded, contrary to what you state, you are the one making huge assumptions and twisting yourself into a pretzel to make your version of what transpired (from that incoherent pile of mess) work.  The problem with your posts is that you are assuming a lot to make your head canon work. You think others are assuming and you are not? Just based on this thread itself, it seems most other posters saw things very differently than you. You “don’t take Bran’s words at face value” but instead you want to create your own interpretation and want to make the narrative work. You base your argument on things that happen offscreen. That’s your prerogative. But don’t expect others to drink the Kool Aid. 

4 hours ago, Cron said:

Um, I don't "assume' Bran can see the future. Bran CAN see the future, this is information we have been given, numerous times... Now on top of all of that, he is the 3ER, and spent a LOT of time offscreen, doing things and viewing information which we can only scarcely speculate about.  It is possible Bran is now the most powerful human in the history of Planetos.  In fact, that would not surprise me in the least.  In the end, the "protagonist" of GoT (if there was one), was Bran Stark, and that's the person at the end of stories who gets "the prize" (although in Bran's case, it's a mixed bag, or "bittersweet," as GRRM might say)...

4 hours ago, Cron said:

We have zero evidence that Bran was responsible for what Dany did.  Absolutely none.  As I have discussed at length elsewhere, there are many possible alternatives, and NO evidence that Bran could have stopped what happened and chose not to just so he could be king.

If Bran is all seeing and can see the future and did nothing to prevent the destruction of KL and the killing of thousands, then he is not good for Westeros by any stretch of the word. If he knew the future, he should have done everything in his power to prevent Dany from destroying KL. For instance, he could have told Jon, hey bro the chick you’re in love with is just going to nuke an entire city so perhaps you can kill her now instead of waiting till after she’s massacred thousands. You can’t have both, Bran seeing the future and doing nothing to prevent genocide, and have good King Bran. Pick one. Now if Bran was just a God-Head, you could make the argument that he is indifferent to humanity’s suffering. But to make the person who just allowed, through his inaction, the murder of thousands of innocents King, is just plain ridiculous.  

As to the bolded above, that’s exactly the problem with your arguments, you don’t know what transpired and as you said you are only “speculating” just like others have done. 

4 hours ago, Cron said:

Sounds to me like some people want everything tied up in a neat little bow, all of which was properly foreshadowed, with the proper foundation properly laid so that when it's done everyone is so satisfied that they say to themselves "That is exactly how I would have written it."

You insult people’s intelligence with the above. There are very smart people on this board who can analyze quite well without having things spoon fed to them. Nobody here expected all the loose ends to be nicely tied up, although I suspect that’s exactly what GRRM means to do. What people expect is that a show or book or any medium of storytelling have a coherent plot, logical character arcs, consistency, story that makes sense, and plots/arc that have logical conclusions. Instead what we got was character arcs that change from season to season, incoherent and incomplete plots and storylines, and a ridiculous conclusion that I suspect that even D&D didn’t fully understand. I suggest you read the script of the finale — the geniuses refer to your good and noble God-King as “weird kid” and “strange”, hardly any way to describe a good ruler, don’t you think?

5 hours ago, Cron said:

But that's not "real life," and that's NOT GoT  (which is a HUGE part of why GoT is so popular in the first place, ironically enough.)  When GRRM began writing it, he specifically set out to BUST fantasy fiction tropes, not mimic them or reproduce them.  Now it's done, and many fans seem to be very unhappy because...wait for it...they didn't get the tropes they wanted at the end???  Sorry, that's not how I view it.

Oh goodness! I do not know where to begin. Are you comparing the show to real life? If you are, all your arguments have just been rendered moot. If you made the argument that the show-runners decided to expand on the magical element of things in the end at the expense of reality, that would have made sense. In which real life medieval setting would a cripple kid with no claim to the throne be accepted by the nobility (some of whom are seasoned warriors and can claim the throne themselves and most of who have no affinity to said cripple kid) because a dwarf who is despised by most of them says that the cripple kid has the best story. Is that your version of reality? You need to read more medieval history.

Please read the books (if you haven’t) before you make blanket claims about GRRM’s intent. Yes, he added elements of reality to his fantasy fiction but at the end his books are still very much fantasy. I don’t claim to have any insights into GRRM’s thinking, but I’m pretty sure he’s writing the books to tell a good story not to “bust fantasy fiction tropes”. What he has oft said is that he likes to be surprised when reading a story and that’s what he wants his readership to feel as well, that’s quite different from what you are stating. As to busting tropes, you are aware that Bran’s character is a trope as well — young noble child who has a near death experience, who loses his father and home, who sets on an adventure with friends to find the magical wizard, who goes through trials and tribulations to attain great power, and who triumphs in the end.

Anyway, you are not going to convince me that the pile of crap D&D gave is gold, so cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bran really is omniscient, then he would certainly know that the reveal of Jon's parentage to Arya and Sansa would set in train the events that resulted in the destruction of Kings Landing.

And, one would have to conclude that that is what he wanted to happen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The fact that ppl are ok with Bran on the throne is frankly outstanding to me.

I'm a fairly lazy, go with the flow, not care much about things in general but even I balk at the idea of a non human like Bran having authority over a nation.

Ppl call Dany the mad queen and condemn her for what she did (understandibly and critique deserved) and yet call Bran good? At least you can say about Dany that she was a victim of her genetics and circumstances that made her snap at the end. Bran/3ER, on the other hand, knowingly and deliberately allowed to happen what happened - after all, he sees the future. And even worse, as how things are played on the screen, he intentionally manipulated some events to lead to it. Any omniscient 'deity' that would allow that amount of suffering is either impotent or doesn't care sufficiently about the suffering of other ppl. For Bran I tend to lean on the 2nd option.

Edited by Ruki88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2019 at 9:09 AM, SeanF said:

And, a king who has no emotions and no personality is a king who will not command the respect or affection of his lords, and a king who simply won't understand what motivates his people. 

Exactly.

That's why the idea of a King Stannis is so unattractive and, frankly, scary to a lot of people.

On 8/5/2019 at 1:04 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

Yes, if Jon is truly out of the running because he's a Targaryen - from the simple fact that no one trusts this House or wants them to breed -  and Sansa rules the North, I can see why Bran would be the only one left really. 

I think what a lot of people have a problem with is that GRRM promised them political realism and there is very little of that in a Bran ending. It skews traditional fantasy (he was the king Arthur all along!) with an art haus/literary fiction twist because of the chaoticness and unknown quantity that you bring up. People were drawn into the novel because of the political realism and thought it mattered, but Bran is more straight up fantasy and has too magical of an arc. He'll need to do a lot of work to get readers on board, but I'm pessimistic that he can. People want to feel like their curatorial knowledge, attention to foreshadowing, and knowledge of political realities paid off somehow. He's going to have (or is having?) a lot of backlash.

Having Tyrion as hand fits with that too. In any other story someone that dark wouldn’t end up as prime minister but apparently GRRM thinks Tyrion can leave his dirt in his personal life and not let it impede his job. LOL

Despite these complaints, what has helped me come to terms with the ending is this: reading ASOIAF is an exercise in realizing that many things that should happen... won't happen 

I don't think Tyrion, Sansa or Arya are going to have the same endings.

For one, Tyrion is the snarling lion pitting the dragons against each other. Moqorro has seen it in the fires and, unlike Melisandre, Moqorro is never wrong. Instead of charging Aegon to help Daenerys, Tyrion has already put Aegon in a position that makes him look like an enemy of Daenerys. And in the show, he manipulated Jon into killing Daenerys.

And Book Tyrion is three times as dark and twisted as TV Tyrion. Book Tyrion is actually exhibiting traits of a full-out villain. Raping slaves, killing people with poison, setting up people to be murdered by other people, mortgaging castles and gold that he doesn't have a claim on (aka fraud), beating innocent people black and blue, overindulging in alcohol, conniving to steal ownership of a sellsword company....

As for Bran? Um, do you realize that after Jon, Daenerys and Aegon (if he's not a fraud), the Iron Throne will legally pass to Bran. He is Jon's closest male blood relative (which is doubly important if Aegon is not a Targaryen and Daenerys joins her own independent claim to Jon's via marriage)

So, Bran Stark becoming king is very realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and another thing.

Bran has no power over the future. Bran's greenseeing powers only deal with the past or present. Unlike the Targaryen dragon dreams which are quite plain and always come true, green dreams are always symbolic and they don't always come true...especially not in the way one would expect.

Well, that's the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

And Book Tyrion is three times as dark and twisted as TV Tyrion. Book Tyrion is actually exhibiting traits of a full-out villain. Raping slaves, killing people with poison, setting up people to be murdered by other people, mortgaging castles and gold that he doesn't have a claim on (aka fraud), beating innocent people black and blue, overindulging in alcohol, conniving to steal ownership of a sellsword company....

Has he done really all of that? 

30 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

As for Bran? Um, do you realize that after Jon, Daenerys and Aegon (if he's not a fraud), the Iron Throne will legally pass to Bran. He is Jon's closest male blood relative (which is doubly important if Aegon is not a Targaryen and Daenerys joins her own independent claim to Jon's via marriage)

The problem is that he doesn t have targ blood... The claim to the IT mostly comes from that... 

Another big problem is who would support bran? Very few kingdoms have reasons to do it... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×