Jump to content

New Peek at House of the Dragon


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

The Others are Tad Williams’ Norns, pretty much.  I expect that the resolution of the Norns’ conflict with men will be similar to that of the Others.

Ooh how were they defeated?

26 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

I really hope not, because that would be plagiarism. :unsure:

One of the big complaints I’ve seen of ASOIAF among hardcore fantasy nerds is that it is too similar to TW’s trilogy (George has cited him as an influence*). ASOIAF is so much more popular though, I don’t think most fans have read the other series.

*With that in mind, I’m surprised more fans aren’t clamoring for TW to be GRRM’s successor. He sounds like a better fit than Sanderson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 I mean, one of the show guys even said that George told them during the production process of the first season that 'everything is about Jon and Daenerys', something that surprised this person since Jon didn't seemed to a central character to them at that time.

How is that possible? Even without knowing the ending, wouldn't it be obvious that Jon is one of the central characters just from reading the books? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

How is that possible? Even without knowing the ending, wouldn't it be obvious that Jon is one of the central characters just from reading the books? 

The guy was one of the directors who didn't read the books, I think. The way the show was set up Jon wasn't exactly a core character in the beginning.

And without the Rhaegar-Lyanna thing Jon is still just one of the more important POVs. If he hadn't the secret Targaryen background we would not number him among the core heroes in the fight against the Others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And without the Rhaegar-Lyanna thing Jon is still just one of the more important POVs. If he hadn't the secret Targaryen background we would not number him among the core heroes in the fight against the Others.

I'm not sure I agree. Jon's plotline is completely centered around the Wall and the far North and is geared much more towards the Others than the fight for the Iron Throne. 

Edited by Takiedevushkikakzvezdy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

I'm not sure I agree. Jon's plotline is completely centered around the Wall and the far North and is geared much more towards the Others than the fight for the Iron Throne. 

Oh, he certainly was our POV for the Wall and important in that sense. But if we had reason to believe there was a prophesied savior supposed to defeat the Others and if we were crystal clear that it wasn't/couldn't possibly be Jon ... he would be an important core POV character - like Arya, Tyrion, or Sansa - but we would not view him as the big prophesied hero.

Although there might certainly be people who would play down the importance of the prophecy, assume it is a red herring, or come up with theories how Jon might be the savior after all.

But people would then mostly view Daenerys as the prophesied savior, with quite a few people thinking that Stannis or Aegon would develop into the big heroes before the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Anybody else heard about the leaked plot elements from HotD? No idea if they are genuine, @The Dragon Demands is making a video about that.

  Reveal hidden contents

Namely it seems they will play with the idea that Aegon conquered Westeros because of a (seemingly) prophetic dream about the return of the Others, and this is a secret that's passed down in House Targaryen from king to heir (no idea how Aenys was able to inform Jaehaerys about this - I guess one could go with Alyssa passing it on to Jaehaerys since Aenys' original heir, Aegon the Uncrowned, was not on Dragonstone when his father died, so he may have told his wife so that she could in turn inform their son - alternatively Rhaena could be the source if Aenys told Aegon and Aegon told Rhaena before he went of to war against Maegor; another possibility is that Alysanne and Jaehaerys discovered old manuscripts written by Aegon I and his sisters during their early stay on Dragonstone - we do have that comment that they read on Valyrian scrolls and stuff in that time). When Aemma dies, Viserys is grief-stricken and searches for meaning in all of that while Daemon is just a cynic dismissing prophecy and stuff. When Rhaenyra is named Heir Apparent Viserys takes her to Balerion's skull and makes it clear that her first duty is to ensure Westeros will stay united forever to be able to defeat the Others.

I guess this is something that might come from George - assuming it is true. In the show universe any Targaryen specialness went down the toilet in the final season, of course, but not in the books.

And while historians either didn't know about this - or refused to put it down on paper - this is the kind of backstory Bloodraven and Bran could provide for us. We could see flashbacks of, say, Jaehaerys and Alysanne in the Winterfell godswood talking about the true destiny of House Targaryen. We could also see the Conqueror and his sister-wives talking about this. We might otherwise learn how Aerys II and Rhaella got ever more desperate when they had just one child because they knew/very much believed that they would be failing all their ancestors if House Targaryen died with Rhaegar.

It is also quite clear, one imagines, that Jaehaerys and Alysanne must have had thoughts about the far north and stuff after Alysanne's visit to the Wall. Gyldayn never touches on this thing again, but they did rule decades after that and eventually Jaehaerys I apparently also visted the Wall.

In context, I think, the Dance's outcome might sort of cut the Targaryens off from that tradition, since Aegon III may not have had a chance to talk to his mother about the true job of the Targaryen king. That could also explain the kind of weird priorities the kings after Aegon III - fucking around with Dorne, pious nonsense, gluttony and avarice, etc.

We would then assume that the information - or pieces of it - were rediscovered by Aerys I and Bloodraven, possibly even during the reign of Daeron II. In a sense it seems in the books we are going to learn that the the prophecy about the return of the dragons and the prophecy about the return of the Others/promised prince sort of blurred together because anyone who believes in the idea that the Targaryens will have to fight the Others one day would also believe that they would stand no chance without dragons - so they would have to come back somehow.

Now, in the books this whole complex must come up both when Daenerys' motivation to go to Westeros comes up as well as in Westeros as the return of the Others finally is revealed to an ever growing group of people - at this point Mel and Stannis already think in such categories, but the followers of Aegon should also start to think in those terms.

Another story element from @The Dragon Demands's video is that 

Spoiler

Viserys I has a vision of his son wearing the crown of Aegon the Conqueror and that he wished for a son with Aemma Arryn against her own health, why he married Alicent etc. And that he considers making Aegon II his heir, but does not do so after Aegon the Elder fails to kill a white stag during a hunt, which is a bad omen.

I do think the "Aegon I" plot element is very interesting, and certainly deepens the character a lot. It adds a surprisingly understandable twist of why revoking an heir's right to the throne after making a big announcement and proclaiming it in a public way has huge downsides - even if you are now just favoring a son over a daughter. (I think Viserys would have made missteps, but with these two elements it does seem like he reconsidered the succession issue with sincerity).

I can also see the 'Aegon I' part feeding into future story beats such as: the mysteries of Jace at Winterfell, the 'generous terms' from Alicent, and Alicent's second offer in the Brothel Queens incident. 

I also can very much buy the idea of additional magic at this level, stuff that didn't make it into F&B or TWOIAF: not only would it be a family secret, but something omitted due to maester bias/conspiracy. After all, the rate of this sort of thing in the Dunk & Egg adjacent characters is suspiciously common compared to Targaryen characters whose lives have only been described in Citadel histories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Vaith said:

Another story element from @The Dragon Demands's video is that 

  Hide contents

Viserys I has a vision of his son wearing the crown of Aegon the Conqueror and that he wished for a son with Aemma Arryn against her own health, why he married Alicent etc. And that he considers making Aegon II his heir, but does not do so after Aegon the Elder fails to kill a white stag during a hunt, which is a bad omen.

Yeah, I added that later. Not sure what to think about that symbology. We do have the white stag there in Robert's last hunt, before they hear about the boar, but this doesn't strike me as a particularly strong Targaryen symbol for power. It may have been better to make this about a dragon thing - say, have Viserys demand that Aegon mount a proper royal dragon, Vhagar, perhaps, or better still the Old King's Vermithor. Him publicly failing at that could have been a more fitting 'ominous omen' than him failing with a stag.

One could also make a big thing out of it by Alicent providing her firstborn son with a very beautiful dragon egg from Dragonstone from which Sunfyre would afterwards hatch.

Spoiler

The news about the dragon eggs somehow being 'prepared to hatch' by people and braziers feels very off to me.

Those eggs were laid by dragons and then they just hatched. There was no magic or weirdo rituals required. One could - or perhaps should - show such things once the dragons no longer hatch all that easily, i.e. at the end of the Dance and during the reign of Aegon III.

The whole blood oath/beach scene between Rhaenyra and Daemon actually

Spoiler

being their Valyrian-style 'fire and blood' wedding is a very interesting idea. That could actually make sense since, like with Maegor and Alys, Rhaenyra and Daemon married without royal permission, so they may not have been willing or not able to call upon a septon to marry them. If they model this ceremony on what we know about Maegor's second wedding then a woman might conduct the rites - which, in this context, could mean that Princess Rhaenys is going to marry Rhaenyra to Daemon.

 

16 minutes ago, Vaith said:

I do think the "Aegon I" plot element is very interesting, and certainly deepens the character a lot. It adds a surprisingly understandable twist of why revoking an heir's right to the throne after making a big announcement and proclaiming it in a public way has huge downsides - even if you are now just favoring a son over a daughter. (I think Viserys would have made missteps, but with these two elements it does seem like he reconsidered the succession issue with sincerity).

That ths show would have to address why Viserys does remarry (love certainly should be an important factor there but not necessarily the only one) after he has formally anointed an Heir Apparent in a big ceremony was always clear. However, the decision for Rhaenyra being a decision against Daemon makes a lot of sense in context of this 'royal secret' since a man who doesn't believe in prophecy, destiny, or the gods might not exactly be ideally suited to act as a guardian of the united Realm and preparing it for something he doesn't believe will ever happen.

And, of course, in light of the fact that he himself only ascended the throne because he was a man descended through the male line he also needs a pretty good reason to keep Rhaenyra as his Heir Apparent after he has not only one but multiple sons.

Hopefully they come up with other scenarios as to how the Aegon II with the Conqueror's crown scene can make sense - the other big issue that needs explanation is why they didn't make an incestuous union between Rhaenyra and Aegon the Elder. The book glosses this over pretty quickly - the half-siblings didn't like each other and Alicent wanted the throne 'for her son' - but if the king believes his son will wear a crown one way to ensure this is going to happen without him being a usurper would be as prince or king consort at Rhaenyra's side.

This is where I hope the Velaryon claim will enter the game - the very real threat that if the Velaryons are not finally included in the royal family in a proper manner they will rebel against Viserys I - or at least against his chosen heir. If there is sufficient pressure in this regard a dynastic match between Rhaenyra and Aegon may simply become impossible for Viserys. Especially if the show were to tweak the timeline a little and Laena were to marry Daemon before Rhaenyra's betrothal to Laenor is arranged. In such a scenario you have Daemon and the Velaryons form a united power bloc controlling lots of dragons against Viserys/Rhaenyra and the Hightower-Targaryens.

16 minutes ago, Vaith said:

I can also see the 'Aegon I' part feeding into future story beats such as: the mysteries of Jace at Winterfell, the 'generous terms' from Alicent, and Alicent's second offer in the Brothel Queens incident. 

If Rhaenyra rejects those weird 'let's split up the Realm between different Targaryen pretenders' ideas because she feels she had to keep the Realm united because of the others and to preserve the Conqueror's legacy I'm all for that.

Actually, George could also use such an idea to finally provide us with a convincing explanation as to why the Targaryen kings never created landed cadet branches. No younger son got ever a lordship or 'principality' of his own until Maekar got Summerhall. Earlier there were some attempts to give Dragonstone as a seat to younger sons, but nothing ever came from that. Maegor was just called 'Prince of Dragonstone', neither Aegon nor Aenys ever ceded the island to him (and Aenys actually gave the title to his heir after he had exiled Maegor). Rhaena was the only one who sort strongarmed a king into giving her a seat of her own, but it was clear it was held in Jaehaerys' name - although it seemed to have been a proper lordship which would have gone to Aerea after Rhaena had she lived.

That Jaehaerys I never gave Baelon a lordship in his own right could make sense in that context.

16 minutes ago, Vaith said:

I also can very much buy the idea of additional magic at this level, stuff that didn't make it into F&B or TWOIAF: not only would it be a family secret, but something omitted due to maester bias/conspiracy. After all, the rate of this sort of thing in the Dunk & Egg adjacent characters is suspiciously common compared to Targaryen characters whose lives have only been described in Citadel histories.

That there are 'dragonlore family secrets' is effectively confirmed by Rhaenyra in FaB when she cries out that Joffrey doesn't know when he mounts Syrax. There is certainly room for other such secrets, although the Dance-era Targaryens do not strike me as the magical/mystical types. Archmaester Vaegon may have also been interested in magic, Jaehaerys and Alysanne may have conducted their own secret studies of prophecy, dragonlore, and magic with the help of Septon Barth - stuff that was never written down or revealed to any maester.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Ooh how were they defeated?

One of the big complaints I’ve seen of ASOIAF among hardcore fantasy nerds is that it is too similar to TW’s trilogy (George has cited him as an influence*). ASOIAF is so much more popular though, I don’t think most fans have read the other series.

*With that in mind, I’m surprised more fans aren’t clamoring for TW to be GRRM’s successor. He sounds like a better fit than Sanderson.

That remains to be seen.

 Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn is a huge influence on this series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea is more that the power behind the Others - the power who implemented that plan - is more or less motivated by a similar hatred as the Norn Queen from Osten Ard. Somebody who remembers the original war between First Men and Children ... and how often and how quickly the short-lived First Men forgot the solemn promises and the pacts they made.

I don't think the good guys will just have to kill individual Others and wights - they must get to the heart of the matter - the Heart of Winter - and whatever is there is not going to some Lich King guy but more likely a twisted, forever frozen Child greenseer or something along those lines.

Intentionally or not, the show presented this as a mess created by the Northmen, who conducted a campaign of genocide against the Children.  It’s entirely possible that the Others (like the Norns) have genuine grievances against the First Men, and being very long-lived, do not view these grievances as ancient history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, I added that later. Not sure what to think about that symbology. We do have the white stag there in Robert's last hunt, before they hear about the boar, but this doesn't strike me as a particularly strong Targaryen symbol for power. It may have been better to make this about a dragon thing - say, have Viserys demand that Aegon mount a proper royal dragon, Vhagar, perhaps, or better still the Old King's Vermithor. Him publicly failing at that could have been a more fitting 'ominous omen' than him failing with a stag.

Sansa chapters have the white stag as a symbol of a good hunt, but you know, after thinking about that, there are interesting connections. The real white stag has symbolic roots in Celtic mythology, arguably closest to the First Men. White is connected with the Celtic Otherworld... perhaps Aegon II slaying the stag would be symbolic of the king's duty to eventually launch a campaign against the White Walkers/Others?

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Hopefully they come up with other scenarios as to how the Aegon II with the Conqueror's crown scene can make sense - the other big issue that needs explanation is why they didn't make an incestuous union between Rhaenyra and Aegon the Elder. The book glosses this over pretty quickly - the half-siblings didn't like each other and Alicent wanted the throne 'for her son' - but if the king believes his son will wear a crown one way to ensure this is going to happen without him being a usurper would be as prince or king consort at Rhaenyra's side.

This is where I hope the Velaryon claim will enter the game - the very real threat that if the Velaryons are not finally included in the royal family in a proper manner they will rebel against Viserys I - or at least against his chosen heir. If there is sufficient pressure in this regard a dynastic match between Rhaenyra and Aegon may simply become impossible for Viserys. Especially if the show were to tweak the timeline a little and Laena were to marry Daemon before Rhaenyra's betrothal to Laenor is arranged. In such a scenario you have Daemon and the Velaryons form a united power bloc controlling lots of dragons against Viserys/Rhaenyra and the Hightower-Targaryens.

Age always seemed like a credible explanation and I'm surprised F&B didn't explicitly state that. Ten years is pushing it if the woman is older, though obviously Rhaenyra/Aegon II could be an exception, but perhaps Viserys wanted to have an heir-to-the-heir sooner due to political concerns or prophecy concerns, yes.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Actually, George could also use such an idea to finally provide us with a convincing explanation as to why the Targaryen kings never created landed cadet branches. No younger son got ever a lordship or 'principality' of his own until Maekar got Summerhall. Earlier there were some attempts to give Dragonstone as a seat to younger sons, but nothing ever came from that. Maegor was just called 'Prince of Dragonstone', neither Aegon nor Aenys ever ceded the island to him (and Aenys actually gave the title to his heir after he had exiled Maegor). Rhaena was the only one who sort strongarmed a king into giving her a seat of her own, but it was clear it was held in Jaehaerys' name - although it seemed to have been a proper lordship which would have gone to Aerea after Rhaena had she lived.

That Jaehaerys I never gave Baelon a lordship in his own right could make sense in that context.

That could work, yes! Though the issue then for me is why the static ASOIAF world had no other cadet families from the Gardeners (aside from likely the Oldflowers and the earliest legendary descendants), the Durrandons (aside from perhaps the Wensingtons), the Martells, the Lannisters (the existing cadet branches apparently go back to Lann the Clever with none more recent getting their own lands), the Arryns, the Starks only having two cadet houses in millennia... :rolleyes: But hey, that explanation would be interesting at least for the Targaryens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@The Dragon Demands
You posted a Youtube video yesterday explaining the prophecies that are rumored/leaked to be incorporated into House of the Dragon.

It's a very captivating video and it gives me extra confidence that House of the Dragon will be great.

However, I'm curious where you got the information from. Even though I follow HOTD news pretty closely, I didn't know about these rumors/leaks before. Could you possibly provide me with the direct source?

(If for some reason you cannot disclose the source, send me a Personal Message on this forum. I will not distribute it further.)

Edited by $erPounce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Interesting. How did the conflict with the Norns end in the original series?

They were defeated in battle, but not destroyed, and fled North.  Since then, they have replenished their numbers through mass rape of human captives, with the offspring being inducted into their army.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SeanF said:

They were defeated in battle, but not destroyed, and fled North.  Since then, they have replenished their numbers through mass rape of human captives, with the offspring being inducted into their army.

Urgh is MST as rape-y as ASOIAF?

I expect that the Others will retreat for a few thousand more years at the end of the book, which is why there’ll still be a Wall. I also think the show was correct in having Drogon fly off at the end, meaning that magic still lives, even if it’s far away.

The fact that almost no major characters died fighting the Walkers gives me pause. The showrunners originally planned on sending Jorah to the Night’s Watch, so that just leaves Theon. Either George had no idea what to do with the Others as of 2013, or a lot of people are going to be surprised/disappointed by what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Urgh is MST as rape-y as ASOIAF?

I expect that the Others will retreat for a few thousand more years at the end of the book, which is why there’ll still be a Wall. I also think the show was correct in having Drogon fly off at the end, meaning that magic still lives, even if it’s far away.

The fact that almost no major characters died fighting the Walkers gives me pause. The showrunners originally planned on sending Jorah to the Night’s Watch, so that just leaves Theon. Either George had no idea what to do with the Others as of 2013, or a lot of people are going to be surprised/disappointed by what happens.

No, it's referred to, but not depicted.

If we ever get the books, I suspect the body count in the War for the Dawn will be very high.  It seems to me that that war has to be the climax of the tale, rather than the fight for Kings Landing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

No, it's referred to, but not depicted.

If we ever get the books, I suspect the body count in the War for the Dawn will be very high.  It seems to me that that war has to be the climax of the tale, rather than the fight for Kings Landing.

Unless GRRM does a Scouring of the Shire where the final confrontation isn't Mount Doom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

Intentionally or not, the show presented this as a mess created by the Northmen, who conducted a campaign of genocide against the Children.  It’s entirely possible that the Others (like the Norns) have genuine grievances against the First Men, and being very long-lived, do not view these grievances as ancient history.

If we assume there are individual Others remembering this ancient past. So far the impression is that the Others aren't exactly individuals, and if some or many of them are the sons of Craster or other recently transformed male human children then it is not *that* likely that any of them actually remember the ancient past.

This would be more a scenario where there is a show-like Night King, remembering everything. I've the strong feeling that the kind of coordinated attacks the Others indicate a patient and subtle mind who is able to direct all their actions. It also could be the hive mind of the Others if they do have a hive mind. But I'm more inclined to believe that if the Children first created the Others that the very Child who did this is still around in some form.

5 hours ago, Vaith said:

Sansa chapters have the white stag as a symbol of a good hunt, but you know, after thinking about that, there are interesting connections. The real white stag has symbolic roots in Celtic mythology, arguably closest to the First Men. White is connected with the Celtic Otherworld... perhaps Aegon II slaying the stag would be symbolic of the king's duty to eventually launch a campaign against the White Walkers/Others?

There is certainly general symbology there which could be easily enough connected to the Westerosi concept of kingship, but it is not a strong Targaryen or Valyrian symbology.

I guess part of the reason for the hunt is that George/the writers just wanted to make up for the silly royal hunt in GoT...

Although I must say that I never much associated Viserys I with royal hunts or imagined him as a king who often went hunting. But then - George didn't tell us much about his personality aside from him being a fun party king, so the writers are certainly free enough to invent interesting pastimes for him.

5 hours ago, Vaith said:

Age always seemed like a credible explanation and I'm surprised F&B didn't explicitly state that. Ten years is pushing it if the woman is older, though obviously Rhaenyra/Aegon II could be an exception, but perhaps Viserys wanted to have an heir-to-the-heir sooner due to political concerns or prophecy concerns, yes.

Age is certainly also a factor, but if Viserys actually does have a dream about Aegon being king then it is really pushing things to not try to make him and Rhaenyra kind of joint heirs if he isn't willing to change the succession in Aegon's favor.

The setting also has them decide only pretty late who Rhaenyra is going to marry - nobody makes a match for her when she is still in her pre-teens - so one imagines that this is a sign that Viserys originally hoped that she would one day marry a son of his. I think one can draw parallels there to Aenys' elder children Rhaena and Aegon. Back then the Targaryens didn't dare to announce an incestuous betrothal but behind the scenes it was always clear that Rhaena would marry Aegon. Viserys might have hoped for a similar thing, but as long as no betrothal was arranged everybody felt encouraged to put forth their own candidates. We also see this kind of thing happen with Jaehaerys and Alysanne when Alyssa decides that they are not going to marry each other.

But I think in context it is pretty clear that Rhaenyra-Laenor is only pushed through because Viserys has no other choice after both the Great Council and his later decision against Laena. In a sense, Rhaenyra has to pay the price for her father's decision to marry Alicent Hightower.

5 hours ago, Vaith said:

That could work, yes! Though the issue then for me is why the static ASOIAF world had no other cadet families from the Gardeners (aside from likely the Oldflowers and the earliest legendary descendants), the Durrandons (aside from perhaps the Wensingtons), the Martells, the Lannisters (the existing cadet branches apparently go back to Lann the Clever with none more recent getting their own lands), the Arryns, the Starks only having two cadet houses in millennia... :rolleyes: But hey, that explanation would be interesting at least for the Targaryens.

There is at least some explanation for the Gardeners having no lesser branches later on. The royal dynasty really declined in that whole Garth crisis which led to the rise of the Tyrells. And I think we can still imagine that the Lannisters kind of provide very generous allowances for most of their cousins, even if they do not make them lords or landed knights in their own right. We hear that Kevan is a very rich man despite the fact that he doesn't hold any lands - a result of the last will of his father Tytos.

But, of course, this kind of thing is still very odd. And for the Targaryens I still think we are going to learn that Aegon III gave Dragonstone to his brother Viserys, intending him and his heir to have this as their own seat, and this only not happening because eventually Viserys II became king himself.

2 hours ago, $erPounce said:

@The Dragon Demands
You posted a Youtube video yesterday explaining the prophecies that are rumored/leaked to be incorporated into House of the Dragon.

It's a very captivating video and it gives me extra confidence that House of the Dragon will be great.

However, I'm curious where you got the information from. Even though I follow HOTD news pretty closely, I didn't know about these rumors/leaks before. Could you possibly provide me with the direct source?

(If for some reason you cannot disclose the source, send me a Personal Message on this forum. I will not distribute it further.)

Hopefully, some of the stuff is actually true. I'm not following leaks and spoilers in any detail myself, but it seems there are at least lots and lots of genuine fotos from filming locations (e.g. the great royal hunt).

Speaking about another thing - the appearance of Criston Cole killing Joffrey Lonmouth during the wedding feast rather than at a tourney is something I really don't like. Even if Joffrey were a total ass, this is simply not something a Kingsguard should be allowed to do and get away with it. At a tourney he could always excuse his behavior with manly arguments like 'Don't participate if you are a weakling' or something along those lines. Folks might still fault him for being to hard on Joffrey and Harwin but it would be difficult to phrase this as a crime.

But a fight at the wedding feast as such should be viewed differently. I guess both could be drunk, and Joffrey could, for some reason, insult or provoke Criston but I still don't like that all that much.

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

No, it's referred to, but not depicted.

If we ever get the books, I suspect the body count in the War for the Dawn will be very high.  It seems to me that that war has to be the climax of the tale, rather than the fight for Kings Landing.

Of course, not just the war but also winter will kill lots and lots of people. And it is pretty much impossible that a stupid fight about KL can be the climax of ASoIaF. It just doesn't work that way.

And in context we must acknowledge that at that point in the story Daenerys - or anyone playing a crucial role in the fight against the Others - could eradicate, say, all the Westermen and majority opinion would likely not necessarily view them as monsters.

I mean, we had the Bitterbridge and Tumbleton discussion above. Daeron the Daring is still viewed as a kind of tragic hero by some, never mind what he did at Bitterbridge. And while Tumbleton was viewed as monstrous, it didn't have any lasting consequences for the lords and knights who committed the crimes there and survived the Dance (e.g. Unwin Peake).

If Daenerys were to butcher all the Kingslanders for something Aegon or whoever holds the city at that point did (assuming they are blamed for something as ugly as the death of Prince Maelor) then this would apparently completely in line with Westerosi values, and she shouldn't be viewed as a monster for this.

In fact, I'm struggling to see what's going to cause you to be viewed as a monster at this point. I mean, the Red Wedding was monstrous, but if the folks avenging it are going to steep to that level, the lines between good and evil will be blurred even further. Certainly there are monstrous and evil characters in the books - folks like Euron, Ramsay, Roose, Littlefinger, etc. - but they are mostly evil for their respective private lives, not so much how they conduct themselves in war.

16 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Urgh is MST as rape-y as ASOIAF?

No, not at all. Compared to ASoIaF it is all very nice, especially the first series.

1 minute ago, Angel Eyes said:

Unless GRRM does a Scouring of the Shire where the final confrontation isn't Mount Doom.

While that's not impossible, it is not very likely that such a confrontation will be a big deal, turning one of the heroes into a villain. Getting rid of Euron, Cersei, Littlefinger, or whoever else might still be alive at this point is not going to be viewed as a monstrous crime. Especially if the reason they have to be dealt with is that they refused to fight and bleed and die with the rest of the good guys in the fight against the Others.

The people refusing the fight the ice demons and their zombie army should be viewed as the uttermost scum by most folks in Westeros.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...