Season 7: Speculation and Spoilers Discussion

[SeanC]

16 minutes ago, anamika said:

But if we agree with Sansa, then Dany would also be entirely justified in taking away the lands of the children of the 'Usurper's dogs' for the role they played in Robert's rebellion. The Mother of Dragons could kick Sansa out and hand over Winterfell to the allies who help her - Tyrells, Martells etc. But thus far, Dany has made Tyrion her hand and allies with Jon next season. So the person dubbed the 'Mad Queen' is seemingly more merciful than Sansa.

It's a complicated issue I agree. But it seems that we are against taking away the lands of traitorous houses if we like them and for it if we don't.  Robb rebelled against the crown, so the Lannisters gave away WF to the Boltons. 101 of what happens to the losing side. But we were still cheering for the Starks to get back their lands.

I'd say that's really a question of whether you think the houses had a good reason to rebel or not.  The Starks are generally thought to have had good reason, whereas the Umbers and the Karstarks don't come across nearly that well.  Dany's (supposed) rapprochement with houses like the Starks is, thematically, her coming to understand her father's tyrannical nature.  Whereas, whatever errors Robb may have made, it's hard to muster any sympathy for the people who stabbed him in the back in order to reap the Lannisters' rewards, or who handed Rickon over to be murdered.

Edited December 7, 2016 by SeanC

[anamika]

41 minutes ago, SeanC said:

I'd say that's really a question of whether you think the houses had a good reason to rebel or not.  The Starks are generally thought to have had good reason, whereas the Umbers and the Karstarks don't come across nearly that well.  Dany's (supposed) rapprochement with houses like the Starks is, thematically, her coming to understand her father's tyrannical nature.  Whereas, whatever errors Robb may have made, it's hard to muster any sympathy for the people who stabbed him in the back in order to reap the Lannisters' rewards, or who handed Rickon over to be murdered.

Again, it's a question of biases. Robb wanted an independent North. That's rebellion against the crown. We may agree with him since we like the Starks and all or we like the Starks because we agree with their viewpoint, but the Lannisters were equally justified in getting rid of him and handing over his lands to the Boltons.

As for Dany, Robert Baratheon and Jon Arryn rewarded the Lannisters who raped and murdered Elia and murdered her babies. Ned supported Robert, his entire reign. They killed Rhaegar.  They tried to kill Dany and her brother and made them vagabonds. Why should we not have sympathy for Dany if she wants some pay back against the families of the men who destroyed her life?

If we look at the situation without any biases, everyone is justified in wanting payback. On the show Karstark was angered by the way Robb handled his father and the Umbers were supposedly distressed by raping, pillaging Wildlings south of the wall. But then it becomes an eye for an eye situation, or never ending conflict. Show Dany at least seems to be moving forward in a more pragmatic way. It remains to be seen how the show presents the Jon/Sansa/Lyanna debate on the Karstark/Umber children. I wonder if Davos/Brienne will be there and if they will have any input/ reactions.  I think Cunningham and Gwendoline Christie were spotted on the set the day they were filming this scene.

Edited December 7, 2016 by anamika

[SeanC]

16 minutes ago, anamika said:

Again, it's a question of biases. Robb wanted an independent North. That's rebellion against the crown. We may agree with him since we like the Starks and all, but the Lannisters were equally justified in getting rid of him and handing over his lands to the Boltons.

That's not really a bias.  Robb declared independence in response to the Lannisters executing his father and razing the Riverlands, which in turn was the result of a Lannister coup d'etat.

Quote

As for Dany, Robert Baratheon and Jon Arryn rewarded the Lannisters who raped and murdered Elia and murdered her babies. Ned supported Robert, his entire reign. They killed Rhaegar.  They tried to kill Dany and her brother and made them vagabonds. Why should we not have sympathy for Dany if she wants some pay back against the families of the men who destroyed her life?

The Lannisters certainly did commit crimes.  But as for Rhaegar, Rhaegar was leading the Mad King's armies to kill Ned and Robert, who had been sentenced to death for no reason whatsoever.  Robert was entirely justified in killing Rhaegar.  And Dany and Viserys were, in fact, trying to overthrow the Seven Kingdoms, so they weren't strictly wrong there either.  Nobody is wholly blameless (except the Starks, I guess), but ultimate responsibility for the situation was with the Mad King.

Quote

If we look at the situation without any biases, everyone is justified in wanting payback. On the show Karstark was angered by the way Robb handled his father and the Umbers were supposedly distressed by raping, pillaging Wildlings south of the wall. But then it becomes an eye for an eye situation, or never ending conflict. 

I don't think that's at all the result of looking at a situation without biases.  The Karstarks don't have a leg to stand on, in particular.  Lord Rickard murdered innocent prisoners without any justification, in defiance of all codes of conduct.  Whether Robb executing him was politically wise, legally it was unimpeachable.

Edited December 7, 2016 by SeanC

[OhOkayWhat]

Disagree about the show showing being good = being stupid and being selfish = being clever

The show has two main plots: the Game of Thrones and the Long Night

1-Is true they show good=stupid (mostly) if you are playing the Game; and that is terrible. But. 

2-They show to play the game is stupid itself because its very nature and the other main plot, the Long Night.

Therefore, in a long term way, they are showing (slowly) that being selfish = being stupid.

Also disagree they show us all the time how we should feel about the characters. They included many grey characters and kept them grey in the show.

Edited December 7, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[Wouter]

6 hours ago, anamika said:

If the Others take the North, they will take WF, IMO. There has to be some massive losses on the human side. And the Others can bring down the Wall, but they can't break into WF? Hmm.

The thing is - with only 2 books left the Others have to make a big entrance in TWoW. Maybe the Others make their move while the North is battling for Winterfell. We already know how harsh the Winter is near there. Perfect climate for the Others to make an appearance. Or maybe just as Stannis wins back WF, the wall falls and they have to move everything into attack position. There are theories that the wall is about to fall in the last Jon chapter as he lies dead.

Or maybe you are right and WF holds, with Bran carrying out his 3ER role in defeating the Others from the WF Godswood.

 

The Others may bring down the wall, or they may scale it or go around it. They will have to be stopped somewhere though, it might (among other places) be Winterfell. Winterfell has its own set of magical defences and it has (crucially, IMO) the hot springs. I think the latter haven't been put in the books for nothing. It may just be better equipped to defend against Others than a Wall that will probably be severely weakened by years-long attack preparation or by a magical attack of some kind.

Also, once the Wall is breached, the host of the Others will probably spread out to attack lots of castles and strongholds (the Dreadfort and Last Hearth among them). They will not necessarily send their entire army after Winterfell, but content themselves with a force that they believe will be sufficient.

And once Bran masters his branch of magic, he could probably do some funky stuff to protect the castle. That he has entered Winterfell in the show points to the castle and most of its inhabitants surviving, IMO.

Winterfell once fell when it wasn't expected to; wouldn't it be nice if now it would hold against the odds?

1 hour ago, anamika said:

Which is why I don't put much stock in Tyrion being horrified at Dany burning people. First it's bad writing again - Tyrion has burned his enemies to death before. The Tarlys are traitor enemies who just aided in the sack of Highgarden.

This is not quite the same. Dany, like Melisandre/Stannis and mad Aerys, occasionally executes her enemies with fire. A very painful method of execution, when beheading or hanging would do, too.

Tyrion burned his enemies in battle - but he didn't bathe the captives of the Blackwater in it after they had surrendered. Most of those were even pardoned.

[anamika]

51 minutes ago, SeanC said:

That's not really a bias.  Robb declared independence in response to the Lannisters executing his father and razing the Riverlands, which in turn was the result of a Lannister coup d'etat.

Hence why we like the Starks because we think they were right. At the same time, Ned tried to get rid of Robert's 'son' Joffrey and put his brother on the throne. He then confessed to that treason. So the Lannisters were justified in executing Ned. Robb then rebelled against the crown and the Lannisters defeated him and gave away his lands.

51 minutes ago, SeanC said:

The Lannisters certainly did commit crimes.  But as for Rhaegar, Rhaegar was leading the Mad King's armies to kill Ned and Robert, who had been sentenced to death for no reason whatsoever.  Robert was entirely justified in killing Rhaegar.  And Dany and Viserys were, in fact, trying to overthrow the Seven Kingdoms, so they weren't strictly wrong there either.  Nobody is wholly blameless (except the Starks, I guess), but ultimate responsibility for the situation was with the Mad King.

Rhaegar did not sentence anyone to death. That was his father. Brandon Stark goes to KL and threatens to kill the crown prince, Aerys goes mad and burns Brandon and Rickard, demands some heads and then Jon Arryn declares war. Robert killed Rhaegar in battle, because war then broke out. Whether that was justified or not, again, depends on the POV. I doubt Lyanna Stark thinks it was justified.

Apart from which, as I mentioned, Jon Arryn and Robert Baratheon then reward the Lannisters for their brutal murder of Rhaegar's family. What justification is there for rape? For smashing the brains out of little babies? What justification did Robert have for constantly sending assassins after Dany and Viserys? For making them beggars? For wanting every last Targaryen dead? And Ned supported this man till the very end.

So if Sansa is right to demand reparation from Umber/Karstark children, then Dany would be equally right to demand reparation from the Starks and Lannisters for what was done to her family and home. She is trying to reclaim KL, just liked Sansa wanted to reclaim WF. And if Sansa wants to punish traitor houses, Dany can do so as well. But as we see, Dany has decided to be more pragmatic and ally with Tyrion and it looks like she will do the same with Jon.

19 minutes ago, Wouter said:

This is not quite the same. Dany, like Melisandre/Stannis and mad Aerys, occasionally executes her enemies with fire. A very painful method of execution, when beheading or hanging would do, too.

Tyrion burned his enemies in battle - but he didn't bathe the captives of the Blackwater in it after they had surrendered. Most of those were even pardoned.

Is Tyrion horrified because Dany executes them? Or she executes them with fire? Again, Tyrion is not averse to killing people painfully to achieve an objective. Remember how Dany's dragons obliterated an entire ship last season? Was that really necessary? A little burning or killing the masters and their soldiers would have achieved the same results. But she burned the entire ship and all it's occupants - a show of strength. I did not see Tyrion showing any revulsion then. So I don't see why he would horrified by that act now.

Edited December 7, 2016 by anamika

[Wouter]

Just now, anamika said:

Hence why we like the Starks because we think they were right. At the same time, Ned tried to get rid of Robert's 'son' Joffrey and put his brother on the throne. He then confessed to that treason. So the Lannisters were justified in executing Ned. Robb then rebelled against the crown and the Lannisters defeated him and gave away his lands.

Rhaegar did not sentence anyone to death. That was his father. Brandon Stark goes to KL and threatens to kill the crown prince, Aerys goes mad and burns Brandon and Rickard and then Jon Arryn declares war. Robert killed Rhaegar in battle, because war then broke out. Whether that was justified or not, again, depends on the POV.

Rhaegar led an army in the name of the King, who had ordered that Ned and Robert should be executed because he feared they would retaliate after his murders of Starks, Valemen and the supposed 'forceful' abduction of Lyanna. If he had won, it stands to reason that Ned and Robert would have been killed. The only way Rhaegar could avoid this if is if he followed up winning that battle immediatelly with his own rebellion against his father.

The Lannisters were not justified in executing Ned (and they didn't want to actually, it was LF whispering in Joffreys ear, against even Cersei's better judgment). Joffrey is not Robert's son and both Ned and Cersei/Jaime knew it, and it seems at least Kevan knew also (Tywin probably was in denial). It is high treason to put a pretender on the throne; Ned was in the right.

[Wouter]

7 minutes ago, anamika said:

Is Tyrion horrified because Dany executes them? Or she executes them with fire? Again, Tyrion is not averse to killing people painfully to achieve an objective. Remember how Dany's dragons obliterated an entire ship last season? Was that really necessary? A little burning would have achieved the same results. But she burned the entire ship and all it's occupants - a show of strength. I did not see Tyrion showing any revulsion then. So, I don't see why he would horrified by that act now.

Attacking a ship in battle is not an execution. Destroying the enemy fleet is a valid military objective. Burning the survivors after they managed to reach shore and surrendered would be far more comparable.

We haven't seen the scene yet, so we'll have to wait to see the context.

[anamika]

Just now, Wouter said:

Attacking a ship in battle is not an execution. Destroying the enemy fleet is a valid military objective. Burning the survivors after they managed to reach shore and surrendered would be far more comparable.

There would be no survivors to reach shore because she burned the shit out of that thing with her 3 dragons.

So painfully burning people to death during battle is okay but during execution it's not? What's the reasoning behind that?

[SeanC]

22 minutes ago, anamika said:

Hence why we like the Starks because we think they were right. At the same time, Ned tried to get rid of Robert's 'son' Joffrey and put his brother on the throne. He then confessed to that treason. So the Lannisters were justified in executing Ned.

No, the Lannisters weren't justified, seeing as they knew Ned was right.

Quote

Rhaegar did not sentence anyone to death. That was his father. Brandon Stark goes to KL and threatens to kill the crown prince, Aerys goes mad and burns Brandon and Rickard and then Jon Arryn declares war. Robert killed Rhaegar in battle, because war then broke out. Whether that was justified or not, again, depends on the POV. I doubt Lyanna Stark thinks it was justified.

Rhaegar didn't "sentence" them to death, but he was the would-be executioner.  Robert was fully justified in defending himself against Rhaegar's attempt to kill him for defying the Mad King.  And if Lyanna Stark thought that Robert should have gladly submitted to being murdered for having done nothing, then she was a pretty massive idiot, because there's no subjective element to Robert and Ned's right to self-defense.

Quote

What justification did Robert have for constantly sending assassins after Dany and Viserys?

Robert didn't do that, for one thing.  The one and only attempt he made to have Dany killed was ordered in response to Dany's marriage to Khal Drogo, which he correctly understood to be part of a plan to invade the Seven Kingdoms.

Quote

For making them beggars?

They fled into exile after their dynasty fell.  That made them beggars.

Quote

For wanting every last Targaryen dead?

That was certainly rage on his part.  But, as noted, he never made that policy until the Drogo marriage.

Edited December 7, 2016 by SeanC

[Wouter]

Just now, anamika said:

There would be no survivors to reach shore because she burned the shit out of that thing with her 3 dragons.

So painfully burning people to death during battle is okay but during execution it's not? What's the reasoning behind that?

Killing people who are armed and fighting is very different from killing people who are disarmed, defenceless and who have surrendered. The first is an act of war in chaotic circumstances, aimed at ending the ability of the enemy to hurt you, while the second one is a very deliberate action taken in cold blood.

In modern wars, I guess everybody understands the difference between firing artillery shells at armed enemy soldiers/machinegun nests/bunkers/armoured vehicles/artillery positions and using artillery to execute prisoners-of-war?

[anamika]

22 minutes ago, SeanC said:

No, the Lannisters weren't justified, seeing as they knew Ned was right.

Yeah, but according to the people of KL and everyone else, the Lannisters were justified. So what if the Lannisters knew that Ned was 'right'? They were in charge and he tried to overthrow them. They were then justified in defeating his family and giving away his lands.

22 minutes ago, SeanC said:

Rhaegar didn't "sentence" them to death, but he was the would-be executioner.  Robert was fully justified in defending himself against Rhaegar's attempt to kill him for defying the Mad King.  And if Lyanna Stark thought that Robert should have gladly submitted to being murdered for having done nothing, then she can stuff it.

Rhaegar was also fully justified in defending himself against Robert's attempts to kill him and his family. His failed attempt led to his wife being raped and murdered and his babies slaughtered. And If Robert and Jon thought that rewarding back stabbing Lannisters for rape and murder was the right thing to do, they can stuff it.

22 minutes ago, SeanC said:

Robert didn't do that, for one thing.  The one and only attempt he made to have Dany killed was ordered in response to Dany's marriage to Khal Drogo, which he correctly understood to be part of a plan to invade the Seven Kingdoms.

Who did it then? And so Robert was  justified in his wanting to kill a pregnant 13 year old because she could possibly invade Westeros? The Baratheons in effect committed genocide and continued to try to wipe out every last Targaryen. Even babies. And Dany is not supposed to retaliate for this, but Sansa is justified in wanting to take away lands from her enemies. LOL!

22 minutes ago, SeanC said:

They fled into exile after their dynasty fell.  That made them beggars.
 

They fled because their family was brutally murdered and they were being hunted by new King in charge. They could not stay in one place, hence them being vagabonds.

22 minutes ago, SeanC said:

That was certainly rage on his part.  But, as noted, he never made that policy until the Drogo marriage.

And that justified killing Dany and her unborn child? Dany should then exterminate every last Stark, Baratheon and Arryn in case they are planning to get married and have children.

19 minutes ago, Wouter said:

Killing people who are armed and fighting is very different from killing people who are disarmed, defenceless and who have surrendered. The first is an act of war in chaotic circumstances, aimed at ending the ability of the enemy to hurt you, while the second one is a very deliberate action taken in cold blood.

In modern wars, I guess everybody understands the difference between firing artillery shells at armed enemy soldiers/machinegun nests/bunkers/armoured vehicles/artillery positions and using artillery to execute prisoners-of-war?

But Dany obliterating that one ship was not in chaotic circumstances. She did not go and attack a few ships here and there to end the war. She deliberately trained all 3 of her dragons on that one ship and destroyed it totally - it was a show of strength basically. If you noticed, there were people trying to flee that ship - and she kept burning it.

As for modern warfare, there's a reason certain chemical weapons like Napalm or White Phosphorus are prohibited,restricted or not widely used. Because they burn people to death.  Powerful countries will continue to use them, but there are international laws and weapons conventions that prohibit their usage precisely for the way they kill.

Edited December 7, 2016 by anamika

[Eyes High]

This is what AwayfortheLads says about Tarlygate:

Quote

Dany gets a bit… determined, now that she's set foot on Westeros. Which worries Varys and Tyrion, who have been hoping she isn't as power mad as her dad. She torches a few rulers to make some points (including Sam's Dad and brother), so she's clearly not above using fear to rule after all.

Quote

All this is after Dany makes the impulsive decision to attack Jaime's forces - Jon has zero say in this. In fact, it's this that causes Tyrion and Varys to worry if the queen they've backed is unable to control her impulses.

Quote

And Tyrion isn't always successful [in persuading Dany not to kill innocents]--when they round up the survivors after the altercation the Tarlys are among them--Cersei had persuaded them earlier to switch allegiance from the Reach to her, on the basis that she was the one true Queen. [Randyll] Tarly actually really buys into this, and when Dany offers to let him bend the knee, he refuses. She orders Drogon to burn him and Dickon alive, which horrifies Tyrion - he can't see the point.

[SeanC]

34 minutes ago, anamika said:

So what if the Lannisters knew that Ned was 'right'? They were in charge and he tried to overthrow them.

They usurped the throne, and Ned tried to stop them.  So we the audience know they are not justified.

Quote

Rhaegar was also fully justified in defending himself against Robert's attempts to kill him and his family. 

No, he wasn't, because it was the Targaryens who started the war by murdering a bunch of nobles without trial and condemning others to death despite their having done nothing.  Rhaegar sided with his father against the justly aggrieved.

Quote

Who did it then?

Nobody, as far as we know.  Viserys' suspicions of assassins everywhere were paranoid fantasies.

Quote

And so Robert was  justified in his wanting to kill a pregnant 13 year old because she could possibly invade Westeros?

There's no "possibly" about it.  That was, in fact, what Dany was trying to do.  They were left alone before that point.

Quote

They fled because their family was brutally murdered and they were being hunted by new King in charge. 

They fled because they lost a civil war that their family started with its tyrannical behaviour.  It's not terribly fair to the kids, of course, but that's the way of dynastic politics in a medieval setting.

Edited December 7, 2016 by SeanC

[anamika]

12 hours ago, SeanC said:

They usurped the throne, and Ned tried to stop them.  So we the audience know they are not justified.

Hence, why we the audience, support the Starks. But from the Lannister POV, they were justified in defeating the Starks, who were trying to overthrow them, and distribute Ned/Robb's stuff to people who were loyal to them. Something like what Sansa wants to do now. Hell, according to GRRM, Jaime was justified in trying to kill Bran because he was trying to protect the people he loves.

12 hours ago, SeanC said:

No, he wasn't, because it was the Targaryens who started the war by murdering a bunch of nobles without trial and condemning others to death despite their having done nothing.  Rhaegar sided with his father against the justly aggrieved.

Rhaegar sided with his family because at that point he had no choice. War had broken out and Targaryen allies had already moved. He could not sit it out. He was fighting to save his family just as Arryn was fighting to save his wards. Aerys had Elia and her children trapped in KL.  We saw what was done to his family by the  'justly aggrieved' because he failed. That was what he was fighting to prevent. 

12 hours ago, SeanC said:

Nobody, as far as we know.  Viserys' suspicions of assassins everywhere were paranoid fantasies.

As far as we know. Maybe he send them, maybe he did not. Viserys was paranoid for a reason. They were taken to Essos for a reason. Or are you saying that Robert would not have tried to kill them if he knew where they were? And that Ned hiding Jon was just Ned's paranoid fantasy about Robert?

12 hours ago, SeanC said:

There's no "possibly" about it.  That was, in fact, what Dany was trying to do.  They were left alone before that point.

Yeah, no. Despite what Dany and Viserys wanted Drogo was not into it as Doram above mentions. It was the assassination attempt that convinced him to attack. And again, Dany was planning to take back her home just like Sansa wanted to take back Winterfell from the Boltons.  If Robert was justified in trying to kill Dany and her unborn child to stop her from reclaiming her home, then she would be equally justified in doing the same to all the remaining Starks, Baratheons and Arryns once she lands in Westeros with her armies.

12 hours ago, SeanC said:

They fled because they lost a civil war that their family started with its tyrannical behaviour.  It's not terribly fair to the kids, of course, but that's the way of dynastic politics in a medieval setting.

Sansa's father supported a drunken, abusive, no good king who condoned the killing of babies and allowed the Lannisters and LF to come to power leading to war, destruction and death.  The Starks lost the war of the 5 kings and although it's not terribly fair on the kids of course, that's the way of dynastic politics in a medieval setting. So what was done to Sansa was as justified as what was done to Dany and Viserys.  Dany, using Sansa's reasoning, would be fully justified to take WF with her dragons and hand it over to her allies.

Edited December 8, 2016 by anamika

[GreyBunny]

11 hours ago, doram said:

Considering the fact that Robert was going around claiming that Rheagar raped Lyanna, I don't blame Rhaegar for not expecting Robert to be reasonable.

What did Rhaegar honestly expect?  Lyanna disappeared, it was known Rhaegar absconded with her, he never bothered to leave a message explaining himself and if he did he failed to get it to the people who needed to hear it most.  

Rhaegar dropped the crown of roses in Lyanna's lap and threw gasoline on an already smoldering political firestorm in the process (no matter what his reasons were, he was blazingly stupid if he didn't have a clue what the consequences would be, including deeply offending and angering half the realm).  Rhaegar's father savagely killed Rickard and Brandon and a host of others when they came looking for Lyanna, and where was Rhaegar while all of this was going on?  Off playing shack-up with his new girlfriend instead of trying to mitigate his father's behavior and taking responsibility for his own.  Asshole.  By the time he did bother to emerge from hiding he was leading his father's army against those his father had wronged; it was perfectly reasonable to believe Rhaegar was fighting to keep a madman in power, and Lyanna was still missing and...was she chained up in a cellar? Being tortured? Was she dead?  Who knows because Rhaegar never bothered to tell anyone.  What was Robert supposed to believe?  If Robert was unreasonable it was Rhaegar's own damn fault for setting up that situation in the first place.

Edited December 8, 2016 by GreyBunny

[GrailKing]

6 hours ago, GreyBunny said:

What did Rhaegar honestly expect?  Lyanna disappeared, it was known Rhaegar absconded with her, he never bothered to leave a message explaining himself and if he did he failed to get it to the people who needed to hear it most.  

Rhaegar dropped the crown of roses in Lyanna's lap and threw gasoline on an already smoldering political firestorm in the process (no matter what his reasons were, he was blazingly stupid if he didn't have a clue what the consequences would be, including deeply offending and angering half the realm).  Rhaegar's father savagely killed Rickard and Brandon and a host of others when they came looking for Lyanna, and where was Rhaegar while all of this was going on?  Off playing shack-up with his new girlfriend instead of trying to mitigate his father's behavior and taking responsibility for his own.  Asshole.  By the time he did bother to emerge from hiding he was leading his father's army against those his father had wronged; it was perfectly reasonable to believe Rhaegar was fighting to keep a madman in power, and Lyanna was still missing and...was she chained up in a cellar? Being tortured? Was she dead?  Who knows because Rhaegar never bothered to tell anyone.  What was Robert supposed to believe?  If Robert was unreasonable it was Rhaegar's own damn fault for setting up that situation in the first place.

Based on little snippets of info, Lyanna could also be complicit in this.

Now if it can be proven ( though I don't think the time line matches ) that LF as a young man deliberately started that rumor well another thing to hate him for.

[SeanC]

14 hours ago, anamika said:

Hence, why we the audience, support the Starks. But from the Lannister POV, they were justified in defeating the Starks, who were trying to overthrow them, and distribute Ned/Robb's stuff to people who were loyal to them.

No, the Lannisters knew that they were wrong and had no claim on the throne.

Quote

Rhaegar sided with his family because at that point he had no choice.

That's not true.  He could have brought Lyanna to Ned and Robert and tried to explain the situation and broker a resolution.  Maybe it wouldn't have worked, but the ball was in his court to make the situation right, and he chose to side with his manifestly unjust father and try to kill people who were defending themselves against a tyrant.

Quote

As far as we know. Maybe he send them, maybe he did not. 

No, he very explicitly didn't.  This comes up in Ned's conversations with Robert, and that's why there's such a debate about whether to send an assassin against Dany in the timeline of AGOT.  If it was already regime policy, this would have been unnecessary.

Quote

Yeah, no. Despite what Dany and Viserys wanted Drogo was not into it as Doram above mentions. 

Drogo was going to invade.  The point is made in the books that Viserys totally misunderstands the culture of the Dothraki.  They're a gift culture, where Drogo, having received a gift from Viserys (Dany), will honour Viserys with a gift in time, but on his own time.  Drogo would have kept his word  eventually if Viserys hadn't stupidly invited his own death by demanding that Drogo act before he's ready (Viserys assumes it's a contract situation).  And arranging an invasion of the Seven Kingdoms was the point of the marriage; the Westerosi did not misread the situation.  Even if Drogo had decided to go back on his word, they can't be expected to know that.

On 12/7/2016 at 6:13 PM, doram said:

Robert Baratheon was an usurper, with Ned's support. If Ned was a righteous man who was only fighting for his life and/or revenge for his family's death, he crowned Viserys King and been Regent of the Kingdoms until Viserys was old enough to rule. Instead, he put his best friend on the throne, wrung his hands over the dead babies, and retreated to the North to stay out of "southron intrigue". 

That's not how medieval politics works.  Once a civil war has broken out, there's no real option but to overthrow the dynasty, otherwise they'd be vulnerable to reprisals from Viserys eventually.  Besides which, Viserys and his protectors weren't interested in being a figurehead mentored by rebels (understandably).

Edited December 8, 2016 by SeanC

[Constantinople]

3 hours ago, SeanC said:

That's not how medieval politics works.  Once a civil war has broken out, there's no real option but to overthrow the dynasty, otherwise they'd be vulnerable to reprisals from Viserys eventually.  Besides which, Viserys and his protectors weren't interested in being a figurehead mentored by rebels (understandably).

Moreover, if for some bizarre reason the rebels had offered the crown to Viserys, his advisers might very well have thought the offer was a trap.

[Jazzy24]

18 hours ago, GreyBunny said:

What did Rhaegar honestly expect?  Lyanna disappeared, it was known Rhaegar absconded with her, he never bothered to leave a message explaining himself and if he did he failed to get it to the people who needed to hear it most.  

Rhaegar dropped the crown of roses in Lyanna's lap and threw gasoline on an already smoldering political firestorm in the process (no matter what his reasons were, he was blazingly stupid if he didn't have a clue what the consequences would be, including deeply offending and angering half the realm).  Rhaegar's father savagely killed Rickard and Brandon and a host of others when they came looking for Lyanna, and where was Rhaegar while all of this was going on?  Off playing shack-up with his new girlfriend instead of trying to mitigate his father's behavior and taking responsibility for his own.  Asshole.  By the time he did bother to emerge from hiding he was leading his father's army against those his father had wronged; it was perfectly reasonable to believe Rhaegar was fighting to keep a madman in power, and Lyanna was still missing and...was she chained up in a cellar? Being tortured? Was she dead?  Who knows because Rhaegar never bothered to tell anyone.  What was Robert supposed to believe?  If Robert was unreasonable it was Rhaegar's own damn fault for setting up that situation in the first place.

Robert's Rebellion was not about Lyanna for Robert it was about saving his own life. 

[GreyBunny]

1 hour ago, Jazzy24 said:

Robert's Rebellion was not about Lyanna for Robert it was about saving his own life.

And why did Robert have to save his own life?  Because the crown prince acted like a nutcase and absconded with the daughter of a lord paramount who was also his betrothed, and the king acted like the madman he was when Lyanna's brother and father had to go south to deal with it. 

Lyanna wasn't the only reason, if she never caught Rhaegar's eye and was left alone there might have been an eventual civil war between Rhaegar and Aerys, but the situation with Lyanna was a major catalyst for Robert's involvement.  When Robert later reflects on the war, his most prominent memory is not about how Aerys threatened him, but what he thinks Rhaegar did with his betrothed, so a large part of it very much was about Lyanna for him.

[anamika]

7 hours ago, SeanC said:

No, the Lannisters knew that they were wrong and had no claim on the throne.

So? They were still justified in defeating the Starks, who were trying to overthrow them. That's just how dynastic politics in a medieval setting works. Robert himself was an usurper who took over using war and betrayal and the deliberate wiping out of one family. He had no claim to the throne. The Lannisters were more merciful this time around considering that Sansa was not raped and killed like Elia was. The Starks lost the civil war and Robb, Sansa, Arya, Bran and Rickon had to suffer just like Dany and Visery did.

7 hours ago, SeanC said:

That's not true.  He could have brought Lyanna to Ned and Robert and tried to explain the situation and broker a resolution.  Maybe it wouldn't have worked, but the ball was in his court to make the situation right, and he chose to side with his manifestly unjust father and try to kill people who were defending themselves against a tyrant.

How do we know that he could have done all this? Was Lyanna in a position to travel? When did Rhaegar hear of war breaking out? How reasonable would Robert have been? Would it have been possible to arrange a meeting? How would they meet? Why should Rhaegar risk his family? Why did Ned Stark feel it was unwise to tell Robert about what really happened to Lyanna and her son Jon? 

The ball was also in Robert's court to not make the same mistakes that Aerys did, but some of his first actions as king were to condone the rape and murder of his enemies. He send assassins after a child despite Ned telling him not to. Not a very trustworthy or nice person to parlay with.

7 hours ago, SeanC said:

No, he very explicitly didn't.  This comes up in Ned's conversations with Robert, and that's why there's such a debate about whether to send an assassin against Dany in the timeline of AGOT.  If it was already regime policy, this would have been unnecessary.

Again, this was because Dany and Viserys were in Essos, where it was harder to send assassins and get at them. And because Jon Arryn disapproved. If it was left up to King Robert Baratheon, they would be dead - Visery had every right to be paranoid - the minute Dany got married and became pregnant, Robert was out for her blood, despite his new hand of the king disapproving.

7 hours ago, SeanC said:

Drogo was going to invade.  The point is made in the books that Viserys totally misunderstands the culture of the Dothraki.  They're a gift culture, where Drogo, having received a gift from Viserys (Dany), will honour Viserys with a gift in time, but on his own time.  Drogo would have kept his word  eventually if Viserys hadn't stupidly invited his own death by demanding that Drogo act before he's ready (Viserys assumes it's a contract situation).  And arranging an invasion of the Seven Kingdoms was the point of the marriage; the Westerosi did not misread the situation.  Even if Drogo had decided to go back on his word, they can't be expected to know that.

Maybe Drogo would have kept his word - eventually - but the Dothraki are equally fearful of the poisoned water. Drogo was unmotivated to attack Westeros, until the assassination attempt on Dany angers him and spurs him towards invasion.

And as I have mentioned many times, even if Dany invaded with the Dothraki, she had as much right to do so as the usurpers who slaughtered her family and took over KL.  If Robert is justified in sending assassins after a pregnant Dany in case she invades, then the Lannisters/Boltons would be justified in trying to kill the Stark children as well.  Theon Greyjoy killing Bran and Rickon or Ramsay Bolton putting an arrow through Rickon would be as fully justified as Robert trying to kill Dany. If we condemn Theon and Ramsay for doing so, then we should condemn Robert Baratheon for trying to exterminate the Targaryen children. 

Condemning any actions against the Starks and Robert Baratheon while justifying crimes against the Targaryen children shows a kind of double standard and bias.

Edited December 9, 2016 by anamika

[SeanC]

10 hours ago, anamika said:

So? They were still justified in defeating the Starks, who were trying to overthrow them.

No, they weren't.  They had no claim on the throne, and they knew that.  

Quote

How do we know that he could have done all this? Was Lyanna in a position to travel? When did Rhaegar hear of war breaking out? How reasonable would Robert have been? Would it have been possible to arrange a meeting? How would they meet? Why should Rhaegar risk his family? Why did Ned Stark feel it was unwise to tell Robert about what really happened to Lyanna and her son Jon? 

We know because Rhaegar was a powerful man and did not have any problems traveling around.  As for why he should risk anything, because he caused the whole mess and it's incumbent on him to solve it.

Quote

If Robert is justified in sending assassins after a pregnant Dany in case she invades, then the Lannisters/Boltons would be justified in trying to kill the Stark children as well. 

Only if you nihilistically assume that all conflicts are the same, which they are not.  The Lannisters started the war with the Starks as part of a scheme to usurp the throne for their own power.  Moreover, the Stark children were captives, not state actors operating at a far remove, so the circumstances are quite different even on an operational level, which also matters.

I was not justifying Robert's pardoning of Tywin, morally.  If Dany wanted to revisit those crimes, fine, though the perpetrators are largely dead at this point.  But that doesn't take away from the fact that Dany's father bears the responsibility for the war, and that the rebels were acting in their own defense.

Edited December 9, 2016 by SeanC

[Eyes High]

Jorah, Sandor and Tormund's actors were snapped together in Belfast. Kit was separately snapped in Belfast as well.

A few blocks of Caceres are being prepped for filming. Props include a lot of Lannister banners, a fountain, and hampers full of food. Filming is scheduled for the 14th and 15th. I think Caceres is the last bit of Spain filming, after which I assume it's on to Iceland in January.

The Season 6 premiere date was announced in early January, and the first trailers dropped at the beginning of March, if I recall correctly. If we go by the metric of everything having been pushed back two months (with filming set to conclude in February instead of December as usual), then should be expect a premiere date announcement in March and the first trailer in May?

[YaddaYadda]

Little Finger started the war when he convinced lovesick Lysa to poison Jon Arryn, what Catelyn did was more of a declaration of war?

I think this thread needs spoilers. 

[whateverdgaf]

4 hours ago, SeanC said:

No, they weren't.  They had no claim on the throne, and they knew that.  

Well, neither did the Baratheons really, except for a relation through Robert's grandmother. They took the throne from the Targaryens, who in turn took it from the people who came before them. The throne goes to whoever is able to keep it. So the Lannisters knew they had no claim to the throne in that they did not inherit it, but so did the Baratheons and all their supporters knew that they didn't either.

[SeanC]

10 minutes ago, whateverdgaf said:

Well, neither did the Baratheons really, except for a relation through Robert's grandmother. They took the throne from the Targaryens, who in turn took it from the people who came before them. The throne goes to whoever is able to keep it. So the Lannisters knew they had no claim to the throne in that they did not inherit it, but so did the Baratheons and all their supporters knew that they didn't either.

The Baratheons took the throne because the previous dynasty was driven out for acting unjustly.  A different scenario, in my opinion.

But we're veering off from the purpose of the thread, so I'll leave it at that.

3 hours ago, Eyes High said:

Jorah, Sandor and Tormund's actors were snapped together in Belfast. Kit was separately snapped in Belfast as well.

A few blocks of Caceres are being prepped for filming. Props include a lot of Lannister banners, a fountain, and hampers full of food. Filming is scheduled for the 14th and 15th. I think Caceres is the last bit of Spain filming, after which I assume it's on to Iceland in January.

The Dragonstone filming this year really spoiled us in terms of interest, because the rest of the Spanish filming has been pretty dull by comparison.

I'll be interested to see whose interactions get prioritized in the scenes with Jon's A-Team.  There's a lot of potentially interesting character dynamics there, but the show doesn't have nearly enough room to explore them all.

[anamika]

20 hours ago, SeanC said:

No, they weren't.  They had no claim on the throne, and they knew that. 

Yes, they were. They were still justified in defeating the Starks, who were trying to overthrow them

20 hours ago, SeanC said:

We know because Rhaegar was a powerful man and did not have any problems traveling around.  As for why he should risk anything, because he caused the whole mess and it's incumbent on him to solve it.

We can't know since that story line is very vague as are Rhaegar's circumstances at that point. The mess was caused by his father who burned some people alive.

20 hours ago, SeanC said:

Only if you nihilistically assume that all conflicts are the same, which they are not.  The Lannisters started the war with the Starks as part of a scheme to usurp the throne for their own power.  Moreover, the Stark children were captives, not state actors operating at a far remove, so the circumstances are quite different even on an operational level, which also matters.

The Starks were trying to overthrow the ruling Lannisters. They were as subject to the outcomes of those actions as were the Targaryens during Robert's rebellion. What was done to the Stark children was as justified as what was done to Rhaenys, Aegon, Dany and Visery, children who were not state actors. This is not being nihilistic - That's just how dynastic politics in a medieval setting works, as you mentioned earlier.

16 hours ago, YaddaYadda said:

Little Finger started the war when he convinced lovesick Lysa to poison Jon Arryn, what Catelyn did was more of a declaration of war?

And Littlefinger came to get so much power because of Jon Arryn and Robert being an useless king. What has Robert Baratheon done other than be responsible for war and suffering for the small folk and trying to exterminate the Targaryens. If he was right to overthrow Aerys, the Lannisters were right to get rid of him and put someone else on the throne - only Joffrey was worse and now we have Cersei (on the show) and child Tommen (in the books) controlled by regents. The Targaryens (Aegon and Dany) are now in the right to get rid of these guys and take over.

Wrap party? NCW was also there. Maybe it's just for the Spain folks?  Emilia said she was filming till February and there's Iceland to be done in January.

I think Winterfell filming is done. Aiden Gillen is still walking around without a LF moustache and Maisie seems to be filming another movie.

Edited December 10, 2016 by anamika

[anamika]

So, some more add on stuff to existing spoilers from freefolk reddit/awayforthelads:

For Bran:

Quote

We only SEE a couple of Bran flashbacks, but his ability comes into play a few times. He knows about Arya's list when they're reunited, and he knows what happened to Sansa with Ramsey. And near the end of the Season Sansa goes to him in private and he tells her everything that Littlefinger has done, so he has LF executed (which Arya does). Flashbacks we see:a repeat of the Tower of Joy scene, but Bran is present this time and we can hear what Lyanna says. Oh, and within that there is a flashback to Rhaegar and Lyanna's secret wedding

Wall sex is a 3 way montage:

Quote

Quote

Last scene is a 3 way montage between : Sam and Bran figuring out together Jon's parentage and legitimacy : Jon and Dany in bed together and : The Night King taking down a chunk of the wall with ice dragon fire.

Regarding Sophie/Maisie crying after reading the scripts (Did Maisie say she cried?)

Quote

When I asked why emilia/sophie/maisie cried reading scripts: "Biggest character to die is Littlefinger. To be honest I don't know what made them cry. There's nothing overly emotional for either of them."

Maybe they were crying over Stark reunions and getting to act with each other.

Edited December 10, 2016 by anamika

[Brn2bwild]

3 hours ago, anamika said:

Regarding Sophie/Maisie crying after reading the scripts (Did Maisie say she cried?)

Maybe they were crying over Stark reunions and getting to act with each other.

I'd imagine there's at least one incredible touching scene between Sansa and Arya, or Sansa/Arya/Bran.

[Wouter]

As I suspected, it looks like Bran is the source for Sansa's turn on LF. Something which I have long thought will happen in the books as well, but through "wolf dreams", in the Vale or Riverlands. That's why Jon is not involved, he wouldn't be in the books, either.

This would be a highly emotional moment for Sansa. She learns that her de-facto mentor and supposed protector is actually her nemesis, responsible for so much harm to her and her family. Put this together with a reconciliation with Arya - and they have deep issues to work out, remember - and there would be plenty of reason to be emotional.

Sansa, Arya and Bran will kill LF together. That's actually quite an event.

So, I disagree with the source that "there is nothing overly emotional for them".

[Minneapple]

6 hours ago, Brn2bwild said:

I'd imagine there's at least one incredible touching scene between Sansa and Arya, or Sansa/Arya/Bran.

I dearly hope so. I just wish Jon was there as well. Instead, well. Creepy incestuous wall sex. Which, okay. Might be fun just because it will make the Internet explode. Still. Creepy incestuous wall sex.

[Brn2bwild]

2 hours ago, Wouter said:

As I suspected, it looks like Bran is the source for Sansa's turn on LF. Something which I have long thought will happen in the books as well, but through "wolf dreams", in the Vale or Riverlands. That's why Jon is not involved, he wouldn't be in the books, either.

This would be a highly emotional moment for Sansa. She learns that her de-facto mentor and supposed protector is actually her nemesis, responsible for so much harm to her and her family. Put this together with a reconciliation with Arya - and they have deep issues to work out, remember - and there would be plenty of reason to be emotional.

Sansa, Arya and Bran will kill LF together. That's actually quite an event.

So, I disagree with the source that "there is nothing overly emotional for them".

This makes me glad the season is only 7 episodes long, so we don't have to sit through filler episodes before we get to this.

[FemmyV]

On 12/10/2016 at 4:50 AM, anamika said:

On 12/9/2016 at 10:46 AM, SeanC said:

No, they weren't.  They had no claim on the throne, and they knew that. 

Yes, they were. They were still justified in defeating the Starks, who were trying to overthrow them

The Starks were not attempting to overthrow the Lannisers as much as they were trying to secure Baratheon ascension to the Baratheon throne.

Lannisters conducted a coup x2; first, secretly, as all of Cersei's children were fathered by Jaime that would have been a defacto coup. By taking Ned into prison and killing him, that was the open coup on the Lannisters' part, in all but the Lannister name. Ned was 100% legit in his attempt to arrest Cersei and knock her children out of contention for the throne. He just wasn't bright enough to realize that being legal and being powerful enough were not the same.

Now, you go back a generation, it wasn't Robert who ordered Rheagar's children be offed, it was Tywin Lannister. Likewise, post coup, the Lannisters went rounding up all possible rightful heirs to the Baratheon line and assassinating them. (Admittedly, if Robert knew of Jon's existence, that infant probably wouldn't have survived, either, but we can only speculate on that.)

All of this was only justified if one abides by "might makes right." Other pointers indicate Lannister actions to be unjustified, or there wouldn't be so many ways in which those decisions have come to bite them in the ass.

 

Quote

On 12/5/2016 at 2:28 PM, Eyes High said:
Jon has the best shot of ruling Westeros in the end despite the whole zombie thing

On paper, I agree, but there's a huge problem: Jon doesn't want to be King of Westeros. He doesn't want the responsibilities, nor does he want the rewards. Something is going to have to change, which we do know is going to happen. The question is, will finding out his true parental heritage be enough to bring him to a place where he desires to rule over others?

If the IT isn't destroyed, as a kingdom, I like the idea of Dany taking up rule. If it is, and is left as more of a confederacy, I'd be okay with Tyrion ascending to leadership.

[ParadoxLost]

There are really only three ways this show can end:

1) The new rulers are so popular and have enough support to squelch anyone that would dare move against them and this is enough to create a dynasty and a thousand years of peace

I think that this is what the spoilers are setting up (and its a red herring).  In the leaks, we've basically got the conqueror (Dany) and the defender (Jon) of the realm teaming up to save Westeros from White Walkers.  They are practically creating the Westeros version of the Avengers/Justice League/Suicide Squad to fight White Walkers. Uniting to save Westeros can only make it so that Jon and Dany gain support. And there are a ton of leaderless fighters who have done bad things for bad men and women and have demonstrated a desire to get some kind of, if not redemption, at least ability to tell themselves that they have some sliver of honor left.  Even Jamie gets sick of Cersei and ride North.

And if that isn't enough, they still seem to be pushing hard on the idea that Jon and Dany compliment each other by balancing out their weaknesses with their strengths.   And they are hooking up.  And Jon is legitimate. And so on.

But the thing is, this is happening way too early.  So its not going to last.  That brings me to the next possibility out of what Jon and Dany lack, political savvy

2) No one can ever hold the throne forever, stupid.

Someone has been on the Iron Throne this whole series.  So why would the end of the series be about who wins the throne.  That has changed three times already.  If this is the way it goes, then I think Tyrion will ultimately betray Dany and Jon and it will be a return to a figurehead sitting on the throne with political shenanigans in the backroom.  I'm not sure that Tyrion and Varys reaction to burning the lords is as much that they think she's out of control but may be more that she is ignoring their counsel and in Tyrion's case it has to do with him being a Lannister. The political manipulators may decide that Jon/Dany are not conducive to continuing their way of life. 

3) There is no Iron Throne

The fight to sit the Throne ultimately leaves Westeros in ruins and the focus turns to local concerns.  This is the everyone is dead version.  But maybe Bran lives as a nod to Bran the Builder and they go the BSG route of this has all happened before and will all happen again.

[FemmyV]

2 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

And if that isn't enough, they still seem to be pushing hard on the idea that Jon and Dany compliment each other by balancing out their weaknesses with their strengths.   And they are hooking up.  And Jon is legitimate. And so on.

While we, the viewers, view Jon and Dany as most likely benevolent rules, others will not and they will fear that union as being way too powerful. She has dragons. He can warg (TV version will have a magic sword, but we don't know what other, if other, powers), and his brother will have god-only-knows what powers. This is something the show's nobles - Dany's wheel - fear like mad. In medieval times, the nobles chased down King John and forced the Magna Carta on him. Meanwhile, the Faceless Men brought all of Valyria down to put a stop to dragon-riding rulers once, they'll likely try to do it again (makes me suspect that FM will approach Arya and try to command her to assassinate Jon and/or Dany at some point).

Something I'm wondering about: did the WW sleep through the entire Baratheon rule?

Edited December 12, 2016 by FemmyV

[anamika]

7 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

Someone has been on the Iron Throne this whole series.  So why would the end of the series be about who wins the throne.  That has changed three times already.  If this is the way it goes, then I think Tyrion will ultimately betray Dany and Jon and it will be a return to a figurehead sitting on the throne with political shenanigans in the backroom.  I'm not sure that Tyrion and Varys reaction to burning the lords is as much that they think she's out of control but may be more that she is ignoring their counsel and in Tyrion's case it has to do with him being a Lannister. The political manipulators may decide that Jon/Dany are not conducive to continuing their way of life.

If Tyrion ends up on the IT or ends up controlling the figure on the IT then what would be changed from season 1? Basically the Lannisters occupy the IT for all 8 seasons and then a Lannister again ends up on the IT or ends up controlling the puppet on it. For me, that would be a terrible ending. The Lannisters win the game of thrones without losing it even once.

I am still not sure of the Dany-Tyrion scene without knowing the presentation or context. Dany's weapons are her dragons. She has already killed lots of people this way and is going to kill lots more before the series ends.  If Tyrion is going to keep wringing his hand every time she does this, then why is he supporting her? The punishment for treason and oathbreaking is death - the Tarlys are treasonous oathbreakers who assist Jaime in sacking Highgarden and refuse to bend the kneee - so why is Tyrion protesting their execution?

The Tyrion- Dany scene could very well be to tell us Tyrion = good advisor and ultimately it's not going to be a big deal because Dany still sits on the IT. I don't think that Dany refuses to listen to him because he's a Lannister. Or it could be like the Stannis-Davos situation where Tyrion tells her not to do the thing, she does the thing, regrets it, realizes that the bigger threat is more important and that she could put her dragons to better use and turns North. What GRRM says of Stannis could be true of Dany:

Quote

And it is important that the individual books refer to the civil wars, but the series title reminds us constantly that the real issue lies in the North beyond the Wall. Stannis becomes one of the few characters fully to understand that, which is why in spite of everything he is a righteous man, and not just a version of Henry VII, Tiberius or Louis XI.

I think it's after her impulsive ambush, that Jon has had enough and decides to go North with the suicide squad to catch a wight.  Sometime after this, Dany takes her dragon and follows them. What drives her to do this is not clear.

On 12/11/2016 at 6:47 AM, Wouter said:

As I suspected, it looks like Bran is the source for Sansa's turn on LF. Something which I have long thought will happen in the books as well, but through "wolf dreams", in the Vale or Riverlands.

I am still not clear on how a person without a wolf or the least inkling of warging is going to have 'wolf dreams' where Bran gives a tutorial on Littlefinger.

Also, Brienne continues to be strangely absent in the North story. Lads did say that Brienne and Arya spar but does this take place at WF?

Edited December 12, 2016 by anamika

[SeanC]

6 hours ago, anamika said:

I am still not clear on how a person without a wolf or the least inkling of warging is going to have 'wolf dreams' where Bran gives a tutorial on Littlefinger.

I'm dubious about whether Bran is going to be involved in the Littlefinger plot resolution in the books, but Sansa is a warg, per GRRM.  She doesn't have wolf dreams because she doesn't have a wolf, but if Bran's ability to appear in Arya's dream in TWOW is based on her being a warg, I don't see any intrinsic reason why he couldn't do the same with Sansa (seeing as most wargs, as far as we know, don't have a particular spirit animal anyway, so Sansa's not unusual in that regard).  Or he could communicate through a weirwood, as with Theon.  Ultimately, it'll work however GRRM wants it to work, if it happens.  Bran's powers aren't especially well-defined at this point.

Quote

Also, Brienne continues to be strangely absent in the North story. Lads did say that Brienne and Arya spar but does this take place at WF?

It's at Winterfell.  I agree it doesn't sound like she has much going on prior to heading south to meet up with Jaime.  If I had to guess, she'll spend some of the early season warning Sansa about Littlefinger, and her being sent away toward the end of the season will be meant to make the audience worry about how things with go in that department.

Edited December 12, 2016 by SeanC

[whateverdgaf]

24 minutes ago, SeanC said:

It's at Winterfell.  I agree it doesn't sound like she has much going on prior to heading south to meet up with Jaime.  If I had to guess, she'll spend some of the early season warning Sansa about Littlefinger, and her being sent away toward the end of the season will be meant to make the audience worry about how things with go in that department.

I wonder what will actually cause Brienne to go South if she is going at a later date than Jon and Davos. If Sansa does send her, LF may have influenced that decision in order to leave Sansa more vulnerable. But Brienne may also be willing to leave for more personal reasons, after all her home is in the Stormlands.

[SeanC]

1 hour ago, whateverdgaf said:

I wonder what will actually cause Brienne to go South if she is going at a later date than Jon and Davos. If Sansa does send her, LF may have influenced that decision in order to leave Sansa more vulnerable. But Brienne may also be willing to leave for more personal reasons, after all her home is in the Stormlands.

According to the leaks, Sansa sends her south to attend the meeting with Cersei.

[Eyes High]

14 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

But the thing is, this is happening way too early.  So its not going to last.

Is it "way too early"? If Season 7 ended with Jon and Dany being crowned, then sure. However, if the leaks are correct, Bran and Sam realizing Jon's legitimacy and Jon/Dany hooking up happen at the very end of Season 7. By the end of Season 7, Jon and Dany are unaware that he's a Targ, much less a legitimate Targ, and Cersei is still queen. Even though the number of Season 8 episodes has yet to be confirmed, it's very unlikely that it will exceed seven. Seven episodes will afford enough time for Jon and Dany to learn of and accept Jon's parentage and legitimacy, and for Cersei to be definitively dethroned once and for all, but it's not that much time.

Jon/Dany as endgame Prom King and Queen of Westeros would be an awfully pat outcome, I agree, but that's another argument altogether.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Eyes High

[Edith]

1 hour ago, Eyes High said:

Is it "way too early"? If Season 7 ended with Jon and Dany being crowned, then sure. However, if the leaks are correct, Bran and Sam realizing Jon's legitimacy and Jon/Dany hooking up happen at the very end of Season 7. By the end of Season 7, Jon and Dany are unaware that he's a Targ, much less a legitimate Targ, and Cersei is still queen. Even though the number of Season 8 episodes has yet to be confirmed, it's very unlikely that it will exceed seven. Seven episodes will afford enough time for Jon and Dany to learn of and accept Jon's parentage and legitimacy, and for Cersei to be definitively dethroned once and for all, but it's not that much time.

Jon/Dany as endgame Prom King and Queen of Westeros would be an awfully pat outcome, I agree, but that's another argument altogether.

You know what I don't understand about the leaks, why are Jon and Dany not getting married? Last season she was very clear about having to get married to form alliances and here comes the KITN, a handsome, young guy, who rules the biggest land in Westeros and she's telling him to bend the knee? They get to know each other, fall in love and instead of getting married, Jon bents the knee? Why? 

On top of that nor one but two characters spend the whole season figuring out Jon parentage and we get the big reveal while J&D are having sex and the wall is falling... is weird

Obviously we are missing context and dialogue, but still the whole thing is weird and I don't understand why they decided to have a 3 way scene for those events. I mean the wall falling while J&D are doing it I get it, is their fault but the Jon parantege part...I don't know

[Wouter]

10 hours ago, anamika said:

I think it's after her impulsive ambush, that Jon has had enough and decides to go North with the suicide squad to catch a wight.  Sometime after this, Dany takes her dragon and follows them. What drives her to do this is not clear.

I am still not clear on how a person without a wolf or the least inkling of warging is going to have 'wolf dreams' where Bran gives a tutorial on Littlefinger.

Also, Brienne continues to be strangely absent in the North story. Lads did say that Brienne and Arya spar but does this take place at WF?

I don't think her ambush could be called "impulsive". Surprising and destroying your enemies main army in the field is a great success. One could describe Robb's victory in the Whispering Wood as "impulsive" too, then!

As for Sansa: what Sean wrote. IIRC GRRM stated somewhere that Bran's powers will continue to grow until he doesn't even need a warg-sensitive person to communicate with. Still, Sansa is a latent warg and there is possibly a reason for that.

2 hours ago, Eyes High said:

Jon/Dany as endgame Prom King and Queen of Westeros would be an awfully pat outcome, I agree, but that's another argument altogether.

It's the outcome that the books have pointed at since it became clear what Jon's parentage is (for me, during a re-read of AGOT; at first read it is very difficult to connect the dots). Princess in exile who wakes dragons from stone on the one hand, and a hidden prince who is also heroic on the other hand? It's an open goal.

But that does not have to mean that the outcome will be like that. It's entirely possible that Jon falls in battle at the end, that Dany may not be able to give birth (some people have definite opinions on that after ADWD, I'm not at all an expert on the matter), that Dany is assassinated in the hour of her victory, ...

The ending proposed by someone above, that Tyrion could turn on Jon and Dany and take the throne for himself or for his puppett, I doubt though. That would not be bittersweet, it would be an extremely dark ending. Tyrion turning on both Jon and Dany is already a heavy blow to the reader, having him then win in the end would not have a sweet taste.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Wouter

[ParadoxLost]

5 hours ago, Edith said:

You know what I don't understand about the leaks, why are Jon and Dany not getting married? Last season she was very clear about having to get married to form alliances and here comes the KITN, a handsome, young guy, who rules the biggest land in Westeros and she's telling him to bend the knee? They get to know each other, fall in love and instead of getting married, Jon bents the knee? Why? 

On top of that nor one but two characters spend the whole season figuring out Jon parentage and we get the big reveal while J&D are having sex and the wall is falling... is weird

Obviously we are missing context and dialogue, but still the whole thing is weird and I don't understand why they decided to have a 3 way scene for those events. I mean the wall falling while J&D are doing it I get it, is their fault but the Jon parantege part...I don't know

But isn't there supposed to be a private scene when Jon offers to renounce KITN to get Dany's help to fight the White Walkers; before they leave for the Wall and have sex on the boat.  I think its possible there is a counter proposal and a wedding/betrothal  somewhere in there.

The three way montage is likely just standard season finale cliffhanger stuff, although I don't really find the three events in the same montage all that odd.

[anamika]

16 hours ago, SeanC said:

I'm dubious about whether Bran is going to be involved in the Littlefinger plot resolution in the books, but Sansa is a warg, per GRRM.  She doesn't have wolf dreams because she doesn't have a wolf, but if Bran's ability to appear in Arya's dream in TWOW is based on her being a warg, I don't see any intrinsic reason why he couldn't do the same with Sansa (seeing as most wargs, as far as we know, don't have a particular spirit animal anyway, so Sansa's not unusual in that regard).  Ultimately, it'll work however GRRM wants it to work, if it happens.  Bran's powers aren't especially well-defined at this point.

Bran's extent of appearing in Arya's dream is to be a tree that watches her as she runs. He does better in Jon's though, even managing to say a few words. And these are wolf dreams where Arya and Jon are running as wolves. As per GRRM:

Quote

Are all the Stark children wargs/skin changers with their wolves?

GRRM: To a greater or lesser degree, yes, but the amount of control varies widely.

And again:

Quote

"I don't think this is necessarily a 'Stark' ability, though all the children have it to one extent or another. They also realize it to one extent or another. Arya doesn't realize she has it, she keeps thinking she has these weird dreams, and of course Bran is much further along".

Bran is currently the strongest warg followed by Arya and Jon. Sansa is the weakest warg seeing as she lost her wolf and has not had any wolf dreams. Considering the extent of Bran's communication with Jon and Arya till book 6, expecting him to detail LF's treachery to Sansa (The weakest warg) in the next two books via dreams is far fetched. Jon and Arya think these are weird dreams. How would Sansa react to Tree Bran suddenly making an appearance in her dreams talking about LF in book 7?

Quote

Or he could communicate through a weirwood, as with Theon.

Again, the extent of Bran's communication with Theon was whispering his name through the powerful WF weirwoods in the North. The Vale is out of the question, but I guess he could use the Riverlands weirwoods. I just can't see Bran explaining the intricacies of LF's treacheries using the weirwood.

Quote

Ultimately, it'll work however GRRM wants it to work, if it happens.  Bran's powers aren't especially well-defined at this point.

GRRM has to build up to it. If he wanted Bran to communicate with Sansa via dreams he would have had Sansa getting those dreams like Jon and Arya. She does not. Or Bran trying to talk to Sansa like he does with Jon and Arya. He does not.  It's the same as the weirwood. If GRRM wanted Bran to communicate via weirwood with Sansa, he would have stressed on the weirwoods in the Vale. He does neither.

And unlike the show, Bran is a very important character in his own right doing his own thing in the books. His story has always been connected to the North and Winterfell. He does try to get in touch with his siblings and get them to embrace their warg powers. But that's the extent of it.  He is in no way involved in their plots or their decisions. And in the next couple of books he will be involved in the fight against the Others and characters involved in that story.

Bran abruptly getting involved in Sansa's story down south and telling on LF seems pretty nonsensical to me. In the show, that's a consequence of them taking Sansa/LF North and wanting to finish the LF story. I mean, Sansa comes across as pretty useless next season- despite what David, Dan and Sophie will tell us in next year's 'Inside the episode'. She gets manipulated by LF for 6 episodes, then Bran gives her the LF folder in episode 7 and she asks Arya to execute him. Which Bran, as lord and heir to WF can as well ask Arya to do.

Sansa, so far, has been pretty useless in the books too.  I am hoping that GRRM does something with this character - at least let her introspect and come to her own realization that working with LF is not a good deal. I want to see her add 2+2 come up with 4 and connect the dots just once before the series ends. If it's someone spoon feeding her the info yet again, that's disappointing.

Edited December 13, 2016 by anamika

[Edith]

5 hours ago, anamika said:

Bran's extent of appearing in Arya's dream is to be a tree that watches her as she runs. He does better in Jon's though, even managing to say a few words. And these are wolf dreams where Arya and Jon are running as wolves. As per GRRM:

And again:

Bran is currently the strongest warg followed by Arya and Jon. Sansa is the weakest warg seeing as she lost her wolf and has not had any wolf dreams. Considering the extent of Bran's communication with Jon and Arya till book 6, expecting him to detail LF's treachery to Sansa (The weakest warg) in the next two books via dreams is far fetched. Jon and Arya think these are weird dreams. How would Sansa react to Tree Bran suddenly making an appearance in her dreams talking about LF in book 7?

Again, the extent of Bran's communication with Theon was whispering his name through the powerful WF weirwoods in the North. The Vale is out of the question, but I guess he could use the Riverlands weirwoods. I just can't see Bran explaining the intricacies of LF's treacheries using the weirwood.

GRRM has to build up to it. If he wanted Bran to communicate with Sansa via dreams he would have had Sansa getting those dreams like Jon and Arya. She does not. Or Bran trying to talk to Sansa like he does with Jon and Arya. He does not.  It's the same as the weirwood. If GRRM wanted Bran to communicate via weirwood with Sansa, he would have stressed on the weirwoods in the Vale. He does neither.

And unlike the show, Bran is a very important character in his own right doing his own thing in the books. His story has always been connected to the North and Winterfell. He does try to get in touch with his siblings and get them to embrace their warg powers. But that's the extent of it.  He is in no way involved in their plots or their decisions. And in the next couple of books he will be involved in the fight against the Others and characters involved in that story.

Bran abruptly getting involved in Sansa's story down south and telling on LF seems pretty nonsensical to me. In the show, that's a consequence of them taking Sansa/LF North and wanting to finish the LF story. I mean, Sansa comes across as pretty useless next season- despite what David, Dan and Sophie will tell us in next year's 'Inside the episode'. She gets manipulated by LF for 6 episodes, then Bran gives her the LF folder in episode 7 and she asks Arya to execute him. Which Bran, as lord and heir to WF can as well ask Arya to do.

Sansa, so far, has been pretty useless in the books too.  I am hoping that GRRM does something with this character - at least let her introspect and come to her own realization that working with LF is not a good deal. I want to see her add 2+2 come up with 4 and connect the dots just once before the series ends. If it's someone spoon feeding her the info yet again, that's disappointing.

Isn't there a theory that Sansa could have had already had a "wolf dream" in the book? the one that prompted the building of the snow castle? I think a read a theory about that. How she said that she doesn't remember if she dreamed but how she woke up wanting to built Winterfell and how she remembered every single detail of the castle, details that only Bran knows.

[SeanC]

5 hours ago, anamika said:

Bran is currently the strongest warg followed by Arya and Jon. Sansa is the weakest warg seeing as she lost her wolf and has not had any wolf dreams. Considering the extent of Bran's communication with Jon and Arya till book 6, expecting him to detail LF's treachery to Sansa (The weakest warg) in the next two books via dreams is far fetched. Jon and Arya think these are weird dreams. How would Sansa react to Tree Bran suddenly making an appearance in her dreams talking about LF in book 7?

GRRM has to build up to it. If he wanted Bran to communicate with Sansa via dreams he would have had Sansa getting those dreams like Jon and Arya. She does not. Or Bran trying to talk to Sansa like he does with Jon and Arya. He does not.  It's the same as the weirwood. If GRRM wanted Bran to communicate via weirwood with Sansa, he would have stressed on the weirwoods in the Vale. He does neither.

Jon and Arya have had one attempted Bran communication apiece, thus far.  That's not a huge amount of buildup.  And you're assuming that Bran's communicatory ability hinges on the warging abilities of the people he's speaking to, rather than his own power; he could easily become more powerful and skilled over the course of the novels, for instance.

Like I said, I don't even particularly think this is likely as far as plot resolution goes, but I don't think it can be ruled out on the basis of Bran not being able to do it.

[FemmyV]

20 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

You know what I don't understand about the leaks, why are Jon and Dany not getting married? Last season she was very clear about having to get married to form alliances and here comes the KITN, a handsome, young guy, who rules the biggest land in Westeros and she's telling him to bend the knee? They get to know each other, fall in love and instead of getting married, Jon bents the knee? Why? 

They aren't getting married (at least, not now) because they're getting what they need from each other without marriage. Jon gets help at the Wall, Dany gets his fealty and doesn't have to watch her backside, where the Starks are concerned.

[Wouter]

13 hours ago, anamika said:

Bran's extent of appearing in Arya's dream is to be a tree that watches her as she runs. He does better in Jon's though, even managing to say a few words. And these are wolf dreams where Arya and Jon are running as wolves. As per GRRM:

And again:

Bran is currently the strongest warg followed by Arya and Jon. Sansa is the weakest warg seeing as she lost her wolf and has not had any wolf dreams. Considering the extent of Bran's communication with Jon and Arya till book 6, expecting him to detail LF's treachery to Sansa (The weakest warg) in the next two books via dreams is far fetched. Jon and Arya think these are weird dreams. How would Sansa react to Tree Bran suddenly making an appearance in her dreams talking about LF in book 7?

 

Sansa doesn't need to do anything; it's ultra-super-duper Skinchanger Bran that has to invade her dreams, something which I think he will easily be able to do (especially if GRRM feels that the plot warrants it).

Jon is not involved in the resolution with LF, which very likely is in line with the books. However, Bran does get involved in the show and in a crucial way, it seems. Everything that takes place in Winterfell in the show, regarding the LF/Sansa showdown, could take place in the Vale.

And why did GRRM make the point of having Sansa (probably) be a weak, latent warg without much (if any) control, but still with the innate ability? To make her receptive of such messages would be a good reason.

[SeanC]

WOTW:  Indira Varma and Rosabell Laurenti-Sellers are in Spain.  The site speculates that the parade sequence is going to be Ellaria and Tyene dragged through the streets after being defeated by Euron.