Eyes High July 13, 2017 Share July 13, 2017 (edited) 22 minutes ago, GrailKing said: I think the 7-01 to 7-06 is Sansa setting herself up to look bad to keep LF confused and slowly thinking he has Sansa, before she and Arya lowers the boom on him. As far as Karstark and Umbers she (as far as I know )isn't asking for their death just loosing privileges, maybe she or Jon suggest marriages ( like the book ) to endt he mini feud. I believe Luka said that there are a "few things in particular that take place" that lead Sansa to ask Bran to dig up dirt. According to GOTit1111, who was right about the Frey massacre cold open, Sansa defends LF to Brienne in 7x01 when Brienne asks Sansa what LF is still doing at Winterfell and insists that LF earned his right to stay at Winterfell by helping retake it. So Sansa has to go from willing to keep him around to realizing that she's best rid of him and apparently she takes a whole season to do it. Edited July 13, 2017 by Eyes High Link to comment
GrailKing July 13, 2017 Share July 13, 2017 1 minute ago, Eyes High said: I believe Luka said that there are a "few things in particular that take place" that lead Sansa to ask Bran to dig up dirt. According to GOTit1111, who was right about the Frey massacre cold open, Sansa defends LF to Brienne in 7x01 when Brienne asks Sansa what LF is still doing at Winterfell and insists that LF earned his right to stay at Winterfell by helping retake it. So Sansa has to go from willing to keep him around to realizing that she's best rid of him and apparently she takes a whole season to do it. Input from Arya ? Arya knows of the meeting of LF, Sansa doesn't knows of Lysa's letter or the KL incident the Hound does and he's north of WF; so Bran googles the trees Sansa playing a long game ( well as long as possible )? I know they're stretching it, but maybe it's their way of showing Sansa figuring things out and needs corroboration that only Bran can do. Also like in the books she's is he Petyr or is he LF; that courtyard look was: what did you just say all over her face. Link to comment
nikma July 13, 2017 Share July 13, 2017 (edited) I think Sansa will start to work against him when she realizes that he is trying to create some kind of conflict between her and Arya. Lads said that Sansa realizes that LF became too poisonous for her. LF saved her from Joffrey, Lysa and he played an important role in their victory against the Boltons. It would't make much sense if she wanted to kill him at the start of S7. Edited July 13, 2017 by nikma Link to comment
GrailKing July 13, 2017 Share July 13, 2017 5 minutes ago, nikma said: I think Sansa will start to work against him when she realizes that he is trying to create some kind of conflict between her and Arya. Lads said that Sansa realizes that LF became too poisonous for her. LF saved her from Joffrey, Lysa and he played an important role in their victory against the Boltons. It would't make much sense if she wanted to kill him at the start of S7. Yeah, Brienne is removed from that stuff, she knows his reputation, but like with the Hound she doesn't know the side stories. Link to comment
SeanC July 13, 2017 Share July 13, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Eyes High said: I believe Luka said that there are a "few things in particular that take place" that lead Sansa to ask Bran to dig up dirt. According to GOTit1111, who was right about the Frey massacre cold open, Sansa defends LF to Brienne in 7x01 when Brienne asks Sansa what LF is still doing at Winterfell and insists that LF earned his right to stay at Winterfell by helping retake it. So Sansa has to go from willing to keep him around to realizing that she's best rid of him and apparently she takes a whole season to do it. Yeah, I think I've talked about this before, but the thing that most consistently annoys me about the show's handling of the Sansa/Littlefinger dynamic is that the way they get rid of all the book reasons why she's with him (and have her repeatedly talk about being independent, having her own agenda, etc.), but still have her hang around with him anyway and more or less continually remain open to his constant manipulations. Ever since 408 it's felt to me like the writers wanted to skip to Independent Sansa, but then remembered that the plot doesn't actually allow that yet, so what we get is Littlefinger-influenced Sansa, but with much less justification. In this particular case, I've seen a lot of people claiming that Sansa's tolerating him still being around is a ploy to keep the allegiance of the Vale, but the spoilers suggest that isn't a consideration at all. Indeed, I believe that the Freefolk guy who said he'd seen the first two episodes said that Lord Royce (the show's Vale Guy) outright tells Littlefinger to fuck off in 702. So we're really at the point in the story where literally the only reason Littlefinger is still around is that Sansa refuses to get rid of him, which both undermines Sansa as a character and, at least as importantly, undermines Littlefinger as a villain, since defeating him will end up being really, really easy once somebody decides to do it. Edited July 13, 2017 by SeanC 5 Link to comment
Eyes High July 13, 2017 Share July 13, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, SeanC said: Yeah, I think I've talked about this before, but the thing that most consistently annoys me about the show's handling of the Sansa/Littlefinger dynamic is that the way they get rid of all the book reasons why she's with him (and have her repeatedly talk about being independent, having her own agenda, etc.), but still have her hang around with him anyway and more or less continually remain open to his constant manipulations. Ever since 408 it's felt to me like the writers wanted to skip to Independent Sansa, but then remembered that the plot doesn't actually allow that yet, so what we get is Littlefinger-influenced Sansa, but with much less justification. In this particular case, I've seen a lot of people claiming that Sansa's tolerating him still being around is a ploy to keep the allegiance of the Vale, but the spoilers suggest that isn't a consideration at all. Indeed, I believe that the Freefolk guy who said he'd seen the first two episodes said that Lord Royce (the show's Vale Guy) outright tells Littlefinger to fuck off in 702. So we're really at the point in the story where literally the only reason Littlefinger is still around is that Sansa refuses to get rid of him, which both undermines Sansa as a character and, at least as importantly, undermines Littlefinger as a villain, since defeating him will end up being really, really easy once somebody decides to do it. Yes, I agree completely. For those not in the know, the Freefolk guy who claimed to have "a friend" who had seen the first two episodes, Lalalandsucks12, not only said that Littlefinger unsuccessfully tries to recruit Lord Royce to Sansa's side and to get Lord Royce to betray Jon--which makes no sense, since Royce despises LF and wants nothing to do with him, but let's leave that aside for now--but that the following happens in 7x02: Quote Alright, here's the information about episode 2 from my friend: He says the episode is amazing and is easily top 10 material. The sea battle is insane and Euron is actually very creepy. The last scene is Theon in the water watching the flames of the ships with tears in his eyes. Sadly we see nothing from that Ellaria and Yara sex scene, it's just kissing. Arya is at an Inn and she wants to go to King's Landing and try to kill Cersei, Se also mentions Illyn Payne. However she sees Hot Pie and he tells her Cersei is dangerous and she blew up the Sept and the Starks have taken winterfell and she gets really happy. And she decides to go to Winterfell. Jon receives a raven from Dany and he decides to go to make an alliance and take dragonglass. Before he leaves he has a quick scene with Ghost, send Tormund to Eastwatch, and makes Sansa in charge. He goes to the crypts and he breaks down in front of Neds statue. Littlefinger sees this and tries to get into his skin, but Jon chokeslammes him. Very powerful set of scenes for Jon. Many political scenes in dragonstone with ALL of Danys allies. Tyrion is back to his old self planning the war and being witty. Cersei convinces Randyl Tarly to betray the Tyrrells. Randyl says to his son that after he's done with the Tyrrells he'll go to old town to take care of Sam. Jorah arrives in Oldtown, he looks like shit. For those familiar with the leaks, there's not much new information here other than the Cersei/Randyll scene, the LF/Royce scene, and Jon breaking down in front of Ned's statue (we knew that he was going to the crypts to visit Ned's statue, the breakdown part is new). The "strong sexual content" TVMA warning for 7x02 apparently refers to Arya seeing a couple boning in the Inn at the Crossroads. Edited July 13, 2017 by Eyes High Link to comment
GrailKing July 13, 2017 Share July 13, 2017 I read somewhere that the close up of LF could be him watching Sansa bathe also creep level 1000 if true, or Sansa if it is true is setting him up. She uses some Cersei,some Marg, some Hound and a bit more LF. Someone said to Luka that unless Sansa really beats him by out LFingering him it be boring, Luka said she will. Link to comment
GrailKing July 13, 2017 Share July 13, 2017 OT: Now that our son got his own place , I got HBO Now, how do I watch GOT live Sunday will it just populate or do I have to click a link? I got it via Roku. Link to comment
Eyes High July 13, 2017 Share July 13, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, GrailKing said: I read somewhere that the close up of LF could be him watching Sansa bathe also creep level 1000 if true, or Sansa if it is true is setting him up. She uses some Cersei,some Marg, some Hound and a bit more LF. Someone said to Luka that unless Sansa really beats him by out LFingering him it be boring, Luka said she will. It seems, though, that in the show, the only obstacle to LF's demise is that Sansa up to that point in 7x07 has refused to have him killed. He has no leverage in Winterfell; it's the Starks' home turf, and Sansa is in charge there for most of Season 7. LF has no leverage over Sansa whatsoever and only lives by her good graces. Everyone in the show despises LF. Jon chokes him in 7x02. Brienne apparently questions why he should be allowed to remain at Winterfell at all. Whether or not the 7x02 spoiler from Lalalandsucks12 about Lord Royce telling LF off is correct, it's no secret that Lord Royce loathes LF and wants him gone. The only person at all supportive of keeping him alive is Sansa, and the only person with the power to do anything about it at Winterfell seems to be Sansa as well. At the end of the season, when she does move to have LF executed at long last, no one objects in the slightest, suggesting that she could have done so all along and no one would have cared. It negates the significance of Sansa's victory over LF if the only obstacle to that victory is her own opinion about whether or not LF should be allowed to live. She doesn't "beat" him; by 7x01, he has already lost, since he has thrown in his lot with someone who is shut out of Northern leadership, who doesn't need him anymore and who is beginning to see him as a liability. It takes Sansa seven episodes to realize that and put him out of his misery, which does sound like some boring TV. I'd prefer that to seven episodes of her sniping at Jon about his choices, though. Edited July 13, 2017 by Eyes High 3 Link to comment
GrailKing July 13, 2017 Share July 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, Eyes High said: It seems, though, that in the show, the only obstacle to LF's demise is that Sansa up to that point in 7x07 has refused to have him killed. He has no leverage in Winterfell; it's the Starks' home turf, and Sansa is in charge there for most of Season 7. LF has no leverage over Sansa whatsoever and only lives by her good graces. Everyone in the show despises LF. Jon chokes him in 7x02. Brienne apparently questions why he should be allowed to remain at Winterfell at all. Whether or not the 7x02 spoiler from Lalalandsucks12 about Lord Royce telling LF off is correct, it's no secret that Lord Royce loathes LF and wants him gone. The only person at all supportive of keeping him alive is Sansa. At the end of the season, when she does move to have LF executed at long last, no one objects in the slightest, suggesting that she could have done so all along and no one would have cared. It negates the significance of Sansa's victory over LF if the only obstacle to that victory is her own opinion about whether or not LF should be allowed to live. She doesn't "beat" him; by 7x01, he has already lost. It takes Sansa seven episodes to realize that and put him out of his misery. I keep thinking of the Vale arc and how she felt no one helped Robb, why would they help her? Maybe it has to do with Robyn? Hopefully they give a decent explanation. Link to comment
nikma July 13, 2017 Share July 13, 2017 I think we should wait for the season to make a judgment. Context matters. 2 Link to comment
OhOkayWhat July 13, 2017 Share July 13, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, nikma said: I think we should wait for the season to make a judgment. Context matters. Exactly. Also, things are not so simple with LF and Sansa. Petyr does not need leverage to control Sansa. It's already established on screen that Petyr's words are still able to manipulate her even in season 6. One of the ways LF manipulates her is making her to believe she is able to use Petyr and manipulate him too. Petyr uses people delusions and that is one of Sansa's delusions (at least, as far we know) Another reason is Sweetrobin. Petyr just needs to send him a letter to cause all sort of problems, but obviously he knows how capricious Sweetrobin is, and I imagine LF keeps that option as last resort. Edited July 13, 2017 by OhOkayWhat Link to comment
nikma July 13, 2017 Share July 13, 2017 I don't know what will happen, but D&D were always able to make their villains look like victors, just before they died. That happened with Tywin, and Joffrey, Ramsay, HS, Walder Frey,... I'm sure it will seem like LF won just before he dies. It's not like D&D are idiots and they will let him be humiliated for a whole season and then they will just kill him off. Link to comment
WearyTraveler July 13, 2017 Share July 13, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, Katsullivan said: I'm saying that according to the laws and costums of Westeros and the North, according to the bloody civil wars that have occurred because of this exact situation played out on both smaller and larger scales, what happened was an anomaly to the story we've been told so far. I think sometimes people take the laws and rules of succession of Westeros more rigidly than the book characters do. Yes, all titles, including King, go to the legitimate male heirs, and when none exist, the female heirs, but that hasn't always been true in Westeros: Starting with Aegon Targaryen who conquered Westeros by force and made a single Kingdom for himself and his family out of 7 separate kingdoms. He had no blood claim to even the smallest of the 7 Kingdoms, and yet, he ruled for decades, and after him, his family ruled for hundreds of years. The Ironborn have a long tradition of holding a Kingsmoot, which is the closest version to a democratically elected leader, so, the concept of choosing your own king is not really a new, never before heard of idea. As has been pointed out, Robert took the IT for himself, even though Viserys was alive and well. Old Robert could reasonably argue that Mad Aerys had to go because he was crazy, and that he (Robert) had to avenge Lyanna's honor and kill Rhaegar; but that didn't mean he had to kill the legitimate heirs too. He could have taken the role of Regent and help shape and mold young Viserys into a good King (a similar scenario was suggested to Ned after Robert died), but he chose to take the throne that, according to the rule of law in Westeros, didn't really belong to him. The unhappy masses of Westeros can "demote" a King. We saw how they attacked Joffrey and his party, and we saw that Tyrion was rightfully afraid for his noble life, as well as, that of his hated nephew. Had it not been for the swift action of The Hound and other knights of the KG, the people would have probably killed Joffrey and a few more nobles that day. Tyrion knew that their hold on power was tenous. If the masses can take you out, the masses can lift you up. Or as Varys so succinctly put it: "Power resides where men believe it resides." (see here for the full passage of Varys and Tyrion's conversation, which actually explains how Westeros really works) I think that throughout the show, and the books, we have seen that while politics, power, land ownership and titles are supposed to work in a certain way in Westeros, they do so only until someone else comes up with a justifiable alternative that serves their purpose. Just like Cersei had Joffrey and Sansa's engagement annulled: customs, tradition and law dictated that their engagement was forever, but they came up with an excuse, bribed the High Septon to go along with it, and voilá, no more engagement. The reason why there are so many wars in Westeros is precisely because the rule of law is not always respected. So, I don't have a problem with the show having Jon ascend to the title of King in the North without Robb's letter (although I still don't understand why they didn't choose to use it, as it would have taken only a few seconds to set that up in S3), such things, though not as common as following the rules of succession, are entirely possible in the Westeros I know. Edited July 13, 2017 by WearyTraveler 2 Link to comment
Raachel2008 July 13, 2017 Share July 13, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, Katsullivan said: Which makes Jon basically usurping Sansa to her face and nobody (except devious Littlefinger) raising an eyebrow over it all the more galling. I'm not arguing that Sansa would make a better Queen or it makes any kind of sense to crown her as Queen. But by their own culture and standards what Jon did was a declaration of civil war and I think it says something about how little the GOT showrunners understand the world of ASOIAF that they did that with so little consideration. (...) Only Jon's claim to the title is because he's Ned Stark's son. (...) And that's about all I'm going to say about this because people seem unable to separate that there is a difference between having a problem with: 1. the how of Jon's 'crowning', the way that story was played out, against the back-drop of this world, and the larger consequences of it being ignored, Jon didn't usurp the tittle. Nobody raised an eyebrow because everybody there wanted Jon to be their king. Jon did'nt do a declaration of civil war, how could he when all the lords were the one electing him king? Jon didn't divide the North, he united the North. D&D could have solved it easily with Robb's will, they did not. But, for what is worth, I think it was for the best , because Jon wasn't legitizimed because of a letter or an order from a higher power of some sort. He was legitimized because of his actions, which spoke louder than the fact that he is Ned Stark's bastard son. That was his real 'claim' (quotation marks since he himself didn't claim anything). People are too ingrained in that idea that things are done a certain way, and that means they shall never change. Things are done one way until they are not, and that was a decision from the Northern lords, not from Jon. Jon himself only wanted people to join forces against the WW. The back-drop of this world changed from within this world, in a decision made by the people who live in this world. Dylan said it better: for the times they are a-changin’. As @WearyTraveler pointed, Westeros is not a place where the ruling is always the same way. Just because the North has been kind of the same for hundreds years it doesn't mean the North is unaffected by history. ETA: Sansa cannot get rid of LF in episodes 1 or 2 because then there will be other 5-6 episodes where her only arc will be reacquainting with her siblings. I doubt very much D&D will do what they should do, which is write Sansa learning how to rule Winterfell. Edited July 13, 2017 by Raachel2008 Link to comment
WindyNights July 13, 2017 Share July 13, 2017 18 minutes ago, Raachel2008 said: Jon didn't usurp the tittle. Nobody raised an eyebrow because everybody there wanted Jon to be their king. Jon did'nt do a declaration of civil war, how could he when all the lords were the one electing him king? Jon didn't divide the North, he united the North. D&D could have solved it easily with Robb's will, they did not. But, for what is worth, I think it was for the best , because Jon wasn't legitizimed because of a letter or an order from a higher power of some sort. He was legitimized because of his actions, which spoke louder than the fact that he is Ned Stark's bastard son. That was his real 'claim' (quotation marks since he himself didn't claim anything). People are too ingrained in that idea that things are done a certain way, and that means they shall never change. Things are done one way until they are not, and that was a decision from the Northern lords, not from Jon. Jon himself only wanted people to join forces against the WW. The back-drop of this world changed from within this world, in a decision made by the people who live in this world. Dylan said it better: for the times they are a-changin’. As @WearyTraveler pointed, Westeros is not a place where the ruling is always the same way. Just because the North has been kind of the same for hundreds years it doesn't mean the North is unaffected by history. ETA: Sansa cannot get rid of LF in episodes 1 or 2 because then there will be other 5-6 episodes where her only arc will be reacquainting with her siblings. I doubt very much D&D will do what they should do, which is write Sansa learning how to rule Winterfell. What are his actions? He swung a sword around really well. He was a terrible general though. 1 Link to comment
anamika July 13, 2017 Share July 13, 2017 (edited) So GRRM gave a new interview where he talks about Beric: Quote And poor Beric Dondarrion, who was set up as the foreshadowing of all this, every time he’s a little less Beric. His memories are fading, he’s got all these scars, he’s becoming more and more physically hideous, because he’s not a living human being anymore. His heart isn’t beating, his blood isn’t flowing in his veins, he’s a wight, but a wight animated by fire instead of by ice, now we’re getting back to the whole fire and ice thing. This confirms GRRM's position that there is a price for being brought back to life. There are consequences - which the show completely skipped over. Now if Mel plays a role in Jon's resurrection, then Jon would also be a fire wight. Maybe the song of ice and fire is about fire wights and ice wights fighting against each other? If Jon is indeed a fire wight, then I don't see him surviving the series. Kit Harington also thinks that he is dead certain about who ends up on the Iron Throne. Maybe both Jon and Dany perish in the final war along with the dragons - the Targaryens are wiped out. Arya rules Winterfell and Tyrion sits on the IT. Remember in the books, Tyrion is still lawfully married to Sansa - so Sansa may get her wish and become Queen on the Iron Throne after all. Regarding the first few episodes, no mention of Edmure. So Arya either does not free him for some reason or he is trapped in Casterly Rock. Edited July 13, 2017 by anamika Link to comment
Raachel2008 July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 20 minutes ago, WindyNights said: What are his actions? He swung a sword around really well. He was a terrible general though. Jon managed to win the Battle of the Bastards, and yes, I'm aware of the Valle troops' role in the victory. But however the way you look at it, Jon Snow won the Battle of the Bastards and defeated Ramsay Bolton. He kicked the Boltons out of Winterfell. He managed to build an army of wildlings and soldiers from small Northern houses, and he went to war outnumbered and knowing he was outnumbered. His plan was not impossible, and his only mistake was to trying to save Rickon, which by, the way, could have happened if Ramsay had missed the last arrow. Jon rode alone to death to save his brother, and he stood alone against Ramsay cavalary. He also went after Ramsay and confronted him armed with ony a wood shield. These are the actions the North saw or heard about, and these are the actions that spoke for him. He won. And yep, he did swung that sword around really well. Link to comment
Edith July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 (edited) 25 minutes ago, anamika said: So GRRM gave a new interview where he talks about Beric: This confirms GRRM's position that there is a price for being brought back to life. There are consequences - which the show completely skipped over. Now if Mel plays a role in Jon's resurrection, then Jon would also be a fire wight. Maybe the song of ice and fire is about fire wights and ice wights fighting against each other? If Jon is indeed a fire wight, then I don't see him surviving the series. Kit Harington also thinks that he is dead certain about who ends up on the Iron Throne. Maybe both Jon and Dany perish in the final war along with the dragons - the Targaryens are wiped out. Arya rules Winterfell and Tyrion sits on the IT. Remember in the books, Tyrion is still lawfully married to Sansa - so Sansa may get her wish and become Queen on the Iron Throne after all. I don't think the Targaryens are going to be wiped out. That's why Jon and Dany are having sex at the end of the season! Although one has to wonder if Jon is actually going to die in the book or him dying was D&D way of simplifying that plot. Because if he dies in the book and Grrm is saying that, for example Beric's heart isn’t beating, his blood isn’t flowing in his veins, then I don't know how Jon is going to be able to make a child. Also, does this mean that Jon is the one with "manhood cold as ice", that dany dream in the book? Edited July 14, 2017 by Edith 1 Link to comment
Katsullivan July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, WearyTraveler said: I think sometimes people take the laws and rules of succession of Westeros more rigidly than the book characters do. Well obviously, the laws & rules of succession of Westeros are not followed. If they were, we'd literally have no conflict or no story. Which is my point exactly - the lack of conflict. I mean, look at your own examples: Aegon made the Iron Throne and took Westeros by conquest. He didn't just waltz into the continent and have the Kingdoms democratically elect him their King. The Ironborn a.k.a. "we do not sow" are not exactly a civilised, conflict-free society. Euron still wanted his brother's children killed after he was crowned King. Why did he still fear them if the democracy was enough to keep him in power? Robert had to have the Targaryen babies murdered and was still sending assassins after Viserys decades after he was King. Dany got pregnant and Robert freaked out over her having a son. After decades of the Mad King, Robert was as popular as he could get, but he obviously didn't think that was enough to keep him power. Of course, the unhappy masses can demote a King. Violently. I can add other examples: Aegon I died, and the Septons rebelled against crowning his children born of incest. Battles were fought and finally, the "Church" was de-militarised permanently (until Cersei the Idiot). Renly felt he would be a better King than his older brother, Stannis. Guess what happened? Daemon Blackfyre was legitimised at his father's death bed + rumours that King Daemon was the old King's illegitimate nephew and not his son = generations long civil war. Rhaenyra Targaryen, the older female daughter + Aegon, younger first son = a civil war that led to the extinction of the dragons. There is a consistent pattern of violence where rules of succession are not followed or perceived not to have been followed (Lannister bastards). Sometimes after this conflict, new rules are put in place to forestall future occurrences. (e.g. decreeing exactly where women fall in the line of succession after the Dance of the Dragons). There is no precedent of the kind of peaceful, conflict-free democracy that "elected" Jon. 1 hour ago, Raachel2008 said: ...everybody there wanted Jon to be their king. Jon did'nt do a declaration of civil war, how could he when all the lords were the one electing him king? Jon didn't divide the North, he united the North. The entire scenario does not bear examining because everything about it was unrealistic. For one, that kind of wonderful unanimity doesn't even happen in democratic societies, talk less of feudal ones. Weren't half of those Houses fighting for Bolton an episode ago? Now they're all seated and singing kumbaya? For another, those Lords and Ladies are not the ones that'll be "revolutionising" government any time soon. Rebellions and revolutions never start from nobility. It starts from the small-folk, the religious, the military - basically everybody in these societies who've needed to crawl and climb their way through life. The same people - nobility - who get everything they have because they are born under the right circumstances - would be the last people to perpetuate the idea that leadership isn't an exclusive club. 1 hour ago, Raachel2008 said: D&D could have solved it easily with Robb's will, they did not. Also in the books, all the legitimate Starks are presumed to be dead which I'm sure goes a long way to Jon's acceptance. Edited July 14, 2017 by Katsullivan 3 Link to comment
YaddaYadda July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, anamika said: So GRRM gave a new interview where he talks about Beric: This confirms GRRM's position that there is a price for being brought back to life. There are consequences - which the show completely skipped over. Now if Mel plays a role in Jon's resurrection, then Jon would also be a fire wight. Maybe the song of ice and fire is about fire wights and ice wights fighting against each other? There's also the case strange case of Coldhands and however he was reanimated by the children or the magic of the old gods. Does he fall in between fire and ice magic? I know what the show says, but I wanna know what the book also says. I also don't remember if anything was mentioned about any of this in ADWD. I've always wondered if the reason Beric is the way he is because he's been brought back without the benefit of blood magic and the whole "only a life can pay for a life" business that we got from Mirri Maz Duur. With Jon there's the whole warging business which sets him apart from everyone we've seen reanimated so far. It should be interesting to see how things go down. I'm sure Mel will go fire happy with Bowen Marsh and everyone who participated in Jon's stabbing. Edited July 14, 2017 by YaddaYadda Link to comment
aslightjump July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 So Littlefinger hangs around a whole season past his expiration date just to create irrelevant tension for Sansa and Sansa and her siblings. Alright I'll reserve judgment but jeez what a crappy denouement for not only Sansa/Littlefinger's story but Littlefinger. 2 Link to comment
Advance35 July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 Quote I keep thinking of the Vale arc and how she felt no one helped Robb, why would they help her? Maybe it has to do with Robyn? Robin is how LF checked Lord Royce in Season 5 if I recall. Robin was ready to throw Lord Royce through the moon door on Littlefingers say so. Quote The entire scenario does not bear examining because everything about it was unrealistic. I think we are going to see a lot more of this for the next 13 episodes. They need Jon front and center so he can play Aragorn to the Other's Orc's, kneel to Dany, and put another of the seven Kingdoms in her pocket. Though I don't think this is going to be the tv show alone. GRRM is going to have to channel Houdini to wrap up this story in book format. If he ever does. Link to comment
WindyNights July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 58 minutes ago, Edith said: I don't think the Targaryens are going to be wiped out. That's why Jon and Dany are having sex at the end of the season! Although one has to wonder if Jon is actually going to die in the book or him dying was D&D way of simplifying that plot. Because if he dies in the book and Grrm is saying that, for example Beric's heart isn’t beating, his blood isn’t flowing in his veins, then I don't know how Jon is going to be able to make a child. Also, does this mean that Jon is the one with "manhood cold as ice", that dany dream in the book? I think Jon and Daenerys are having sex so they can bond with each other so when one of them has to sacrifice the other it'll be more tragic. GRRM sterilized Daenerys and (seemingly) Jon for a reason. So look forward to no one on the throne or King Edric/Gendry. 1 Link to comment
aslightjump July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, anamika said: Jon was brought up by Ned Stark in the North. In the books, he plans Stannis' entire military campaign in the North - he explains to Stannis how to approach the mountain clans and which houses are likely to support him. He creates a new Northern house, and allies Wildlings to the North - informing Stannis of Karstark treachery. He invites the leaders of the mountain clans to Alys' wedding and convinces them that bringing the wildlings this side of the wall was the right thing to do. So no, Jon's political know how does NOT only come from the wall and the wildlings. In fact his downfall as LC of the watch was precisely because he kept meddling in the politics of the North - the last straw being his plan to go attack Ramsay. In the show, we had Stannis asking Jon about the Northern houses and Jon explaining things to him. Again, for those people in the back, before next season starts : Jon was brought up in Winterfell and well versed in the politics of the North. Yeah, but in the show, which is the thing we are talking about, Jon has done almost none of that, except the last, which really only shows that Jon paid attention in his lessons and to his fellow man. There is no evidence that Jon has this great political know-how about the North. I'm not gonna buy that based on what they've shown me. Most of the maneuvering in the show is done by Davos, Littlefinger, and Lyanna as far as I remember, who either know how to politick or are a Northerner who have lived through the last couple of hellish years. I could be wrong, I never rewatched S6. But in the show, his experiences does come from the Wall and the Wildlings. I'm not saying it as bad thing either, especially considering how he got a grasp on the Wildlings and how to handle them fairly quickly. The Wall storyline was a mess, so I don't hold that negatively or positively against him. As far as the rest of your quote, that was only what I recalled D&D, Sophie, Kit and others saying at the end of the finale. I have no opinion on it either way, since most of it talks about how Sansa feels and not always what is absolutely true and shown on our TVs. Jon seems to have great respect for Sansa, Sansa less for Jon in the beginning but there at the end. Next season is apparently going to trash this for unnecessary conflict, so OK show. Outside of all that, I've never thought that they ever meant to portray Sansa as smart and Jon as dumb, or that they ever sacrificed Jon's development for Sansa's, or ever portrayed either one as unequal to the other. They had the siblings talk, and discuss things, and yes, argue, because Jon was frustrated and depressed and Sansa was mistrustful of everyone (she doesn't like Tormund, now she's not sure of Davos, oh wait there's Littlefinger, she doesn't think Jon can protect her) and terrified. I liked that they had different methods of doing things because of their own experiences and those methods clashed with each other, even though I thought at several points that both characters should be smarter than this. But there are very few conversations I remember that had Sansa bring up her complaints and then not have Jon either get to bring up his own points or refute her own (the much maligned 6x09 conversation, which has Sansa pleading and then Jon basically demanding an option better than his that she can't/won't give, is my favorite example of this). JMO, please. And also, even if they did sacrifice, it would not be the fault of Sansa the character, but the writers. I think that Jon is a great leader of men, or very much can be. I think he 'deserves' to be King in the North more than Sansa does Queen as he has more experience actually leading, but I really can't imagine either of them genuinely wanting it, because Jesus what a prize that is not. Sophie can talk about Sansa getting power all the wants, and I can see where she's coming from for sure, especially in scenes with Littlefinger, the show has shown me that Sansa primarily wants to be safe and go home. And vengeance, I guess. Which she has accomplished. Now Sophie says Sansa wants to create a safe haven, which is more in line with my own viewpoint so woo, but we'll see how that works out for her if she lets Littlefinger lurk around. That quote about Dondarrion is fantastic and I can't believe I never even thought of 'fire wight.' Edited July 14, 2017 by aslightjump 3 Link to comment
Eyes High July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, anamika said: So GRRM gave a new interview where he talks about Beric: This confirms GRRM's position that there is a price for being brought back to life. There are consequences - which the show completely skipped over. GRRM breaks his own rules all the time for his faves. I'm sure GRRM will do things differently with Jon and find some excuse for why Jon's resurrection is special or different and the usual rules that apply to minor characters like Beric don't apply to him. Something something Targ blood something something Azor Ahai, I bet. Quote Kit Harington also thinks that he is dead certain about who ends up on the Iron Throne. Probably because it seems increasingly obvious from the show's emphasis on Jon as king--culminating, apparently, in the 7x07 reveal that Jon is the legitimate heir--that that person is Jon. Quote Maybe both Jon and Dany perish in the final war along with the dragons - the Targaryens are wiped out. Arya rules Winterfell and Tyrion sits on the IT. Remember in the books, Tyrion is still lawfully married to Sansa - so Sansa may get her wish and become Queen on the Iron Throne after all. The show has pretty much ruled out Tyrion as king, as far as I can tell. I'd say Jon is safe as the likely endgame king; the jury's out on Dany. TV Tyrion falling in love with Dany seems like the nail in the coffin of any possibility of Tyrion and Sansa ending up together, even in a purely political marriage of convenience. TV Sansa might have shed her romanticism, but Tyrion is still very much a romantic, not to mention that he hated being married to her. 2 hours ago, WindyNights said: GRRM sterilized Daenerys and (seemingly) Jon for a reason. Maybe so that the miracle baby they'll likely conceive will be an even bigger deal...? In the 7x06 script page, Dany makes a point of telling Jon that the dragons are the only children she'll ever have. It's not the first time the point has been made, but to Jon? Sounds like boatsex might be conceptionsex to me. Quote So Littlefinger hangs around a whole season past his expiration date just to create irrelevant tension for Sansa and Sansa and her siblings. Pretty much, from the sounds of it, anyway. To be fair, we know a lot about how LF/Sansa's arc starts this season, and how it ends, but not much about the middle. All we know about 7x02-7x06ish is that LF realizes Arya is a threat, Arya and Sansa squabble about something political, LF plants Robb's letter for Arya to find, and Arya accuses Sansa of wanting to usurp Jon. That's not nothing, but it's not much to go on, either. There could be more material in Season 7 that will flesh things out and make the storyline more compelling than it currently seems. Taken at face value, though, the spoilers do not seem encouraging. Edited July 14, 2017 by Eyes High 1 Link to comment
GrailKing July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 4 hours ago, Raachel2008 said: I doubt very much D&D will do what they should do, which is write Sansa learning how to rule Winterfell. They thought it to boring for screen, I thought her Vale arc was great, wished they added something of it in WF. Link to comment
WindyNights July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 46 minutes ago, Eyes High said: GRRM breaks his own rules all the time for his faves. I'm sure GRRM will do things differently with Jon and find some excuse for why Jon's resurrection is special or different and the usual rules that apply to minor characters like Beric don't apply to him. Something something Targ blood something something Azor Ahai, I bet. Probably because it seems increasingly obvious from the show's emphasis on Jon as king--culminating, apparently, in the 7x07 reveal that Jon is the legitimate heir--that that person is Jon. The show has pretty much ruled out Tyrion as king, as far as I can tell. I'd say Jon is safe as the likely endgame king; the jury's out on Dany. TV Tyrion falling in love with Dany seems like the nail in the coffin of any possibility of Tyrion and Sansa ending up together, even in a purely political marriage of convenience. TV Sansa might have shed her romanticism, but Tyrion is still very much a romantic, not to mention that he hated being married to her. Maybe so that the miracle baby they'll likely conceive will be an even bigger deal...? In the 7x06 script page, Dany makes a point of telling Jon that the dragons are the only children she'll ever have. It's not the first time the point has been made, but to Jon? Sounds like boatsex might be conceptionsex to me. Pretty much, from the sounds of it, anyway. To be fair, we know a lot about how LF/Sansa's arc starts this season, and how it ends, but not much about the middle. All we know about 7x02-7x06ish is that LF realizes Arya is a threat, Arya and Sansa squabble about something political, LF plants Robb's letter for Arya to find, and Arya accuses Sansa of wanting to usurp Jon. That's not nothing, but it's not much to go on, either. There could be more material in Season 7 that will flesh things out and make the storyline more compelling than it currently seems. Taken at face value, though, the spoilers do not seem encouraging. GRRM could make a special exception for Jon but he's not going to because he seems vehemently against the idea of a character coming back the same or better. And the idea of Jon on the Iron Throne is ludicrous to begin with considering that "Aegon" is a satire of Jon becoming king. 1 Link to comment
Eyes High July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 (edited) 25 minutes ago, WindyNights said: GRRM could make a special exception for Jon but he's not going to because he seems vehemently against the idea of a character coming back the same or better. GRRM seems "vehemently against" a lot of things that nonetheless make their way into ASOIAF. He is supposedly vehemently against including rape from a POV perspective but was apparently untroubled by having Dany raped repeatedly in one of her POV chapters in AGOT chapter by Drogo. He bends or breaks his own rules all the time, especially for his faves, to tell the story he wants to tell. He'll probably do it soon enough with Arya and the FM to allow her to walk away unscathed from a highly secretive and dangerous assassin cult, just as she did with the show. Just as with the other main characters, Jon is special and different and gets breaks more minor characters don't. Quote And the idea of Jon on the Iron Throne is ludicrous to begin with considering that "Aegon" is a satire of Jon becoming king. That's one opinion, but there are many other perspectives on the reasons for the inclusion of the Aegon storyline. Jon is well on track in the books and the show to be the endgame king, in the latter simply because there's nobody else left other than Dany who has been established as a viable endgame ruler (whom he seems likely to get involved with romantically in any event), and in the former because king foreshadowing has been all but tattooed all over Jon's arc. Edited July 14, 2017 by Eyes High 1 Link to comment
WindyNights July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 Just now, Eyes High said: GRRM seems "vehemently against" a lot of things that nonetheless make their way into ASOIAF. He is supposedly vehemently against including rape from a POV perspective but was apparently untroubled by having Dany raped repeatedly in one of her POV chapters in AGOT chapter by Drogo. He bends or breaks his own rules all the time, especially for his faves, to tell the story he wants to tell. He'll probably do it soon enough with Arya and the FM to allow her to walk away unscathed from a highly secretive and dangerous assassin cult, just as she did with the show. Just as with the other main characters, Jon is special and different and gets breaks more minor characters don't. That's one opinion, but there are many other perspectives on the reasons for the inclusion of the Aegon storyline. Jon is well on track in the books and the show to be the endgame king, in the latter simply because there's nobody else left who has been established as a viable endgame ruler, and in the former because king foreshadowing has been all but tattooed all over Jon's arc. 1) That's evidence of GRRM having a troubling idea of what exactly constitutes rape although he's not against showing rape from a POV. He's not going to show a female POV get raped which he didn't. Daenerys remembers Drogo raping but we never see it. But again that could be that GRRM has a troubling idea of what rape is even if you do want to count that. 2) Well of course he gives gives his main characters more breaks but he never break his rules for it. So Jon isn't going to come back the same because "lol main character". Gandalf was a main character but so Jon, BR and LSH are GRRM's responses to how it should be. 3) The foreshadowing is for Jon to be king which he is now. He's King in the North but Chekhov's Wildfire dictates that KL is blowing up. On top of that, there isn't a reasonable way to make Jon king without creating a war for his claim. Howland Reed isn't a credible witness and neither is Bran Stark. He comes off looking like a copycat after "Aegon". And then even if you do prove it, you have to convince them why they should follow him. And you have to convince people that his parents were married. And he needs a strong enough powerbase and will the North really support Aerys' grandson and Rhaegar's son. Neither of which they love. Basically it's too much. I can see the show setting it up but to me, it looks like a giant red herring especially in lieu of Jon likely coming back as a fire wight. It's like when they made Talisa pregnant and then killed her off savagely at the Red Wedding. They tease the possibility and then rip it out to make it more surprising. Link to comment
anamika July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, aslightjump said: Yeah, but in the show, which is the thing we are talking about, Jon has done almost none of that, except the last, which really only shows that Jon paid attention in his lessons and to his fellow man. There is no evidence that Jon has this great political know-how about the North. I'm not gonna buy that based on what they've shown me. I agree that the show cut Jon's ADwD story entirely where we see Jon as a political player of the game. But we did have a season 5 scene where Stannis asks Jon about house Mormont for example and Jon explains the North to him - a 5 minute scene - but still. It shows that Jon knows the North. 1 hour ago, aslightjump said: And also, even if they did sacrifice, it would not be the fault of Sansa the character, but the writers. Similarly, if the show did not portray Jon's political side, it's the fault of the writers, not the character. Here's the thing. The show may not have depicted Jon's political arc - but I don't think that Harington or David and Dan have come out and said that Jon knowledge is limited to the wall. GRRM is building up Jon as a political player - why would David and Dan negate that if they are trying to get to the same ending? Last season, while Jon was restricted to grunting in scenes (as per Kit Harington), Sansa was pretty much directing how they should go about the Northern campaign against Ramsay - she was the one telling what to do and how to do it. And she was pretty much wrong about almost everything. So this season, Jon is being more pro-active in ruling the North. Let's give him the chance to be put his knowledge of the North to the test. Instead of the knee jerk - Jon is dumb, knows nothing about the North, should listen to Sansa - let's see Jon's take on how to manage the North. As the showrunners and Harington see it, the major difference between Jon and Sansa is that Jon is honest, straightforward and unwilling to cross a certain line in the sand. Sansa on the other hand can be manipulative, duplicitous and ready to break the rules. In some ways, in the world of Westeros, this makes her smarter than Jon. But both on the show and in the books, at the end of the day, these players get what's coming to them. Look at master player LF - he's seemingly at the mercy of a bunch of teenagers this season. Playing the game may give short term victories, but Jon is looking at the bigger picture which is where his differences with Sansa is most likely going to show up. 1 hour ago, Eyes High said: The show has pretty much ruled out Tyrion as king, as far as I can tell. I'd say Jon is safe as the likely endgame king; the jury's out on Dany. How has the show ruled out Tyrion as King? The only reason I can think of for him not becoming King, is that we would then have a Lannister on the Throne for pretty much all 8 seasons - and that would suck. It would no longer be Game of Thrones, but Lannisters on the Throne. 1 hour ago, Eyes High said: Probably because it seems increasingly obvious from the show's emphasis on Jon as king--culminating, apparently, in the 7x07 reveal that Jon is the legitimate heir--that that person is Jon. I watched him on this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj4XanOHZDs and he seems to genuinely think that he is right about who sits on the IT. He does not reveal who it is here, but in a later interview he says Tyrion - not sure if he deliberately changed his answer later on. I do think that Jon is a goner though. Even if he wargs into Ghost, how is going to get back into his body without Mel's magic? He's going to be changed and not for the better - Beric sounds like foreshadowing for Jon. And this sorts of gels with my theory of why GRRM shifting from Jon/Arya/Tyrion to Jon/Dany/Tyrion really does not change the ending. Jon dies, Dany ends up on the IT with Arya ruling Winterfell. Whether we will have Targ babies is the big question - considering the current theory is that Dany cannot have children and I don't see fire wight Jon, who apparently will not even have a beating heart, being able to procreate either. Maybe Jon and Dany will be the last dragons :( Edited July 14, 2017 by anamika Link to comment
Raachel2008 July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Katsullivan said: For one, that kind of wonderful unanimity doesn't even happen in democratic societies, talk less of feudal ones. Weren't half of those Houses fighting for Bolton an episode ago? Now they're all seated and singing kumbaya? No, only House Karstark and House Umber fhought for Bolton,. The others either supported Jon (three or four houses if I'm not mistaken), or chose to not be envolved. Lyanna Mormont's speech is directed exactly at the lords from the Houses who bolted. 4 hours ago, Katsullivan said: For another, those Lords and Ladies are not the ones that'll be "revolutionising" government any time soon. Rebellions and revolutions never start from nobility. It starts from the small-folk, the religious, the military - basically everybody in these societies who've needed to crawl and climb their way through life. The same people - nobility - who get everything they have because they are born under the right circumstances - would be the last people to perpetuate the idea that leadership isn't an exclusive club. And who is talking about revolutions or rebellions here? The Lords didn't decided that a peasant or wildling was going to be king, they decided that Ned Stark's bastard son was going to be king. That was not Gendry getting Robert's throne, that was the son Ned Stark raised in his own house, right next to his other children. Ned went to such great lengths to cover Jon's origins that nobody ever doubted he was his son. I understand that your point is birthright, but I think the difference here is that all the lords decided that Jon was entittled to the birthright Ned denied him. In this case, in this situation, when the person who saved their asses, when the person who was not born into the quite right circumstances is not that far from their exclusive club. 1 hour ago, Eyes High said: I'd say Jon is safe as the likely endgame king; the jury's out on Dany. I don't think there will be an Iron Throne for Dany or Jon, not like we know it today. But I agree that there is no way both survive. I'm inclined to think that Dany will sacrifice herself against the WW, saving the kingdom that was supposed to be hers, so the people of this kingdom could survive. I doubt Jon will endgame is KITN either. I think once the WW are defeated - we'll see - he will just leave and Sansa will be QITN. 3 hours ago, WindyNights said: GRRM sterilized Daenerys and (seemingly) Jon for a reason. Did he? All we know is that a woman who hated Dany said she would not have children, and in the books it is something Dany thinks herself. There is no proof this is by any means true. Dany has only been with Daario after Drogo, for all we know he could be sterile. I'm going to agree with @Edith adn @Eyes High here. Though, the last thing I want to see in this show, is a baby. Baby Sam is more than enough. 3 hours ago, Advance35 said: I think we are going to see a lot more of this for the next 13 episodes. They need Jon front and center so he can play Aragorn to the Other's Orc's, kneel to Dany, and put another of the seven Kingdoms in her pocket. Since he is already King, whats is the difference? Once he was named KITN everything else that happens could/would happen with anyone else. 8 minutes ago, anamika said: Beric sounds like foreshadowing for Jon. Does he? I'm going to agree that GRRM has no problem twisting things when he wants to, and neither does D&D. I think the changes will be much less drastic - if we ever see them - and the will come up something like "Jon didn't want to be brought back to life, thus he is not guilty and should not be punished" or "Mel did things differently" or "Benjen saves him during the WW hunt and takes some of his burden from being a fire wight". You know, something like that. On another note, I saw the pictures from the GoT premiere in LA and I didn't know Gemma Whelan (Yara) was pregnant. I'm going to assume, based on the pics, that she is 7-8 months along, but I know nothing about pregnancies or babies, so correct me if I'm wrong. Could that mean that we won't see Yara in the first episodes of next season or even that Yara will be killed? Edited July 14, 2017 by Raachel2008 Link to comment
Katsullivan July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 (edited) More likely Karstark and Umber were the named houses that fought with Bolton. That army came from somewhere. We know at least of House Manderley who "gifted" Rickon to Bolton. That was actually a greater betrayal than fighting alongside Ramsay. Anyway, my point still stands - the overnight unanimity was incredulous. 33 minutes ago, Raachel2008 said: And who is talking about revolutions or rebellions here? The Lords didn't decided that a peasant or wildling was going to be king, they decided that Ned Stark's bastard son was going to be king. A rebellion is exactly what happened when Daemon Blackfyre was crowned by his group of nobility - and he was a legitimised bastard. The Lords won't think that Ned denied Jon anything. Why would they? Each of those Lords most likely has at least one Snow or is half-brother to some other Snow or the other. If anything Ned treated Jon better than a lot of those Lords treated the bastards in their families. By declaring a Snow their King, each of those Lords has immediately set a precedent where their own rule, the rule of their children will be threatened by any bastard in their Houses. If the North were Dorne, it would be one thing but it's not. Edited July 14, 2017 by Katsullivan 1 Link to comment
ElizaD July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 22 minutes ago, Raachel2008 said: Did he? All we know is that a woman who hated Dany said she would not have children, and in the books it is something Dany thinks herself. There is no proof this is by any means true. Dany has only been with Daario after Drogo, for all we know he could be sterile. I'm going to agree with @Edith adn @Eyes High here. Though, the last thing I want to see in this show, is a baby. Baby Sam is more than enough. On another note, I saw the pictures from the GoT premiere in LA and I didn't know Gemma Whelan (Yara) was pregnant. I'm going to assume, based on the pics, that she is 7-8 months along, but I know nothing about pregnancies or babies, so correct me if I'm wrong. Could that mean that we won't see Yara in the first episodes of next season or even that Yara will be killed? There's a theory that Dany's heavy bleeding in her last ADWD chapter, when she can't remember how long it's been since she last had her period, is a miscarriage that she doesn't know about since she believes she is barren; a clue to the readers that Dany can indeed have children. Lena was pregnant during season 1 (hidden by costumes and camera angles) and Carice, IIRC, during season 7. If Gemma looks visibly pregnant now, she ought to be fine when filming begins (later than usual, if they're even talking about 2019 as a possibility for season 8), especially since Yara won't have as much filming/fighting to do as bigger main characters. On the topic of inheritance: considering how much Henry VIII cared what the law said about which queen he was married to and how often he changed his mind about which child was his legitimate heir (Mary, you're a bastard! Elizabeth, you're a bastard! girls, you're back in the succession!), it's amusing that I've seen so many people insist that Jon is a bastard even if Rhaegar married Lyanna. Yeah, the show is totally devoting precious screentime to irrelevant background information just for a lol gotcha when Jon gets killed again and is in no way doing buildup that will give him a more acceptable claim as the endgame king. If Jon dies or only lives long enough to get Dany pregnant, it doesn't matter if he was an R+L bastard or legitimate son; if he becomes king, though, his legitimacy is like Robert's Targaryen lineage, a bit of extra credibility that can be questioned but still makes a throne won in battle look like it did not require a total abandonment of the law. 2 Link to comment
Raachel2008 July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 3 minutes ago, Katsullivan said: That army came from somewhere. I'm pretty sure the Boltons and the Karstarks are the biggest Houses in the North, right behind the Starks and the Manderly. 9 minutes ago, Katsullivan said: We know at least of House Manderley who "gifted" Rickon to Bolton. Not, that was the Umbers. Manderly stayed away and said during the scene in Winterfel when Jon was made king that he didn't join Jon's cause because he didn't want more Manderly killed. Not because he was supporting Ramsay. 7 minutes ago, Katsullivan said: - and he was a legitimised bastard. So was Ramsay. 13 minutes ago, Katsullivan said: Why would they? Why wouldn't they? Ned never legitimized Jon, but the Lords did it for him. Yes, I do understand that most of those Lords probably have bastards brothers, sisters and children. Yet, they still decided that this one bastard was going to be king in this specific ituation. For all they know Bran is dead, and Sansa is Sansa Stark Lannister Bolton. Just now, doram said: By defeating Ramsay did Jon really "save" their asses? Or did he just settle a millennia long score between the Starks and the Boltons? The Northern Houses seemed pretty chill under Ramsay's rule. If they were supposed to be under some kind of oppression, they didn't show it. When were they chill? We didn't even see the Northern Houses other than Kaerstark, Umber, Mormont and Glover, the last one in a single scene where Lord Glover refuses to help Jon because of Robb, his family bieng killed etc. 19 minutes ago, ElizaD said: There's a theory that Dany's heavy bleeding in her last ADWD chapter, when she can't remember how long it's been since she last had her period, is a miscarriage that she doesn't know about since she believes she is barren; a clue to the readers that Dany can indeed have children. Yes, that too. 19 minutes ago, ElizaD said: (later than usual, if they're even talking about 2019 as a possibility for season 8) I'm pretty sure someone here posted that Liam C said they were going to start shooting in September. Link to comment
Raachel2008 July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 2 hours ago, GrailKing said: They thought it to boring for screen, I thought her Vale arc was great, wished they added something of it in WF. I cannot stand Robin, he ruins everything about the Vale for me. But yeah, D&D know nothing. All they needed to do was write 3-4 shorts scenes where Sansa learns something about ruling in the broader aspect of the word. Sansa is surrounded by people who knows more about management and fighting than her; Jon, Brenne, Davos, Arya, all the Northern lords, even Lyanna who is a child. Wouldn't hurt to show her talking with them. 1 Link to comment
WindyNights July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 5 hours ago, ElizaD said: There's a theory that Dany's heavy bleeding in her last ADWD chapter, when she can't remember how long it's been since she last had her period, is a miscarriage that she doesn't know about since she believes she is barren; a clue to the readers that Dany can indeed have children. Lena was pregnant during season 1 (hidden by costumes and camera angles) and Carice, IIRC, during season 7. If Gemma looks visibly pregnant now, she ought to be fine when filming begins (later than usual, if they're even talking about 2019 as a possibility for season 8), especially since Yara won't have as much filming/fighting to do as bigger main characters. On the topic of inheritance: considering how much Henry VIII cared what the law said about which queen he was married to and how often he changed his mind about which child was his legitimate heir (Mary, you're a bastard! Elizabeth, you're a bastard! girls, you're back in the succession!), it's amusing that I've seen so many people insist that Jon is a bastard even if Rhaegar married Lyanna. Yeah, the show is totally devoting precious screentime to irrelevant background information just for a lol gotcha when Jon gets killed again and is in no way doing buildup that will give him a more acceptable claim as the endgame king. If Jon dies or only lives long enough to get Dany pregnant, it doesn't matter if he was an R+L bastard or legitimate son; if he becomes king, though, his legitimacy is like Robert's Targaryen lineage, a bit of extra credibility that can be questioned but still makes a throne won in battle look like it did not require a total abandonment of the law. No, it isn't proof that Daenerys can have kids. MMD specifically said that Daenerys' womb would have to quicken. That means Daenerys would have to get past the first trimester which she didn't. Once she gets there then we'll talk. 1 Link to comment
YaddaYadda July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 9 hours ago, WindyNights said: GRRM could make a special exception for Jon but he's not going to because he seems vehemently against the idea of a character coming back the same or better. I doubt Jon will be anything like Beric or Lady Stoneheart or be brought back the same way these two were. I think GRRM is going to have his cake and eat it too. GRRM will probably give Jon something that is uniquely his and connect him to his Targ roots, through fire and blood. Or something... I will be missing episode 701 which kinda sucks. 1 Link to comment
glowbug July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, WindyNights said: No, it isn't proof that Daenerys can have kids. MMD specifically said that Daenerys' womb would have to quicken. That means Daenerys would have to get past the first trimester which she didn't. Once she gets there then we'll talk. It's not proof Dany can have kids, but it is a suggestion, especially when you take into consideration that the other conditions of MMD's prophesy are coming true in the books (sun rising in the west and setting in the east, mountains turning to dust, etc.). We don't know exactly what MMD meant by quickens since quicken means "spring to life; become animated". I think GRRM was trying to sound poetic by using that word not realizing that quickening can also refer to a baby's early movements. It's also possible he knew both uses and wanted to confuse people. But if he were using quicken to mean a baby's movements he used the word incorrectly because quickening is the first fetal movements or a women's perception of those movements since fetuses move from the beginning. The womb in that sense doesn't quicken, the baby is said to quicken. This is not to say Dany will for sure get pregnant but I think it's a likely possibility given that the other conditions of the prophecy are coming true in the books, and the show suddenly bringing it up in season six and, according to the leaks, again in season 7 right before Jon and Dany have sex. Edited July 14, 2017 by glowbug 3 Link to comment
Eyes High July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, WindyNights said: 1) That's evidence of GRRM having a troubling idea of what exactly constitutes rape although he's not against showing rape from a POV. No, it's an example of how GRRM talks a lot of shit about his philosophical views on narrative and such but ultimately does whatever he wants. He sets up these elaborate rules and talks a good game about the importance of consequences, and then he conveniently exempts his faves from those rules and consequences all the fucking time. Quote 2) Well of course he gives gives his main characters more breaks but he never break his rules for it. Oh, yes, he does, and he does it all the time, like how everyone in the books makes such a big fuss about the kinslayer curse even though capital-k Kinslayer Tyrion is alive and destined to survive the books if the outline is to be believed. The rules don't apply if you're one of GRRM's faves. It's plot armour on steroids, frankly. Quote So Jon isn't going to come back the same because "lol main character". Gandalf was a main character but so Jon, BR and LSH are GRRM's responses to how it should be. GRRM grumping about how Gandalf never should have been brought back is an example of his own hypocrisy, since he clearly intends to bring Jon back, and if TV Jon is any indication, Book Jon won't come back wrong, either. Quote 3) The foreshadowing is for Jon to be king which he is now. He's King in the North but Chekhov's Wildfire dictates that KL is blowing up. On top of that, there isn't a reasonable way to make Jon king without creating a war for his claim. Howland Reed isn't a credible witness and neither is Bran Stark. He comes off looking like a copycat after "Aegon". And then even if you do prove it, you have to convince them why they should follow him. And you have to convince people that his parents were married. And he needs a strong enough powerbase and will the North really support Aerys' grandson and Rhaegar's son. Neither of which they love. The show is getting there, gradually. The revelation of Jon's legitimacy is an important step, and I agree with @ElizaD that if you think Jon will be revealed as legitimate only to get killed off in short order, you're mistaken. I have no doubt that the books will get there as well. Quote Basically it's too much. I can see the show setting it up but to me, it looks like a giant red herring especially in lieu of Jon likely coming back as a fire wight. It's like when they made Talisa pregnant and then killed her off savagely at the Red Wedding. They tease the possibility and then rip it out to make it more surprising. Jon is not a red herring character, though. He is at the heart of the books, and his journey to kingship and to realizing his true parentage--and GRRM has said that Jon will find out his true parentage in the books, by the way--is part of that. There's no comparison to more minor or non-POV characters who are built up and then killed off for shock value, like Robb. 9 hours ago, anamika said: How has the show ruled out Tyrion as King? The only reason I can think of for him not becoming King, is that we would then have a Lannister on the Throne for pretty much all 8 seasons - and that would suck. It would no longer be Game of Thrones, but Lannisters on the Throne. (...) The main reason I believe the show has ruled out Tyrion as king is that there's been no attention to Tyrion as a ruler. He has always been an adviser; he's the consummate Hand, but the show has reminded us that he would never be accepted as a leader in his own right (Tyrion and Varys' conversation in 5x02 about how they're freaks who cannot hold power on their own but are drawn to it nonetheless). The only two characters with ruling arcs are the only two characters likely to end up with the throne: Jon and Dany. If Tyrion is "in training" for anything, it's to be the endgame Hand to Jon and/or Dany. Quote I do think that Jon is a goner though. Even if he wargs into Ghost, how is going to get back into his body without Mel's magic? He's going to be changed and not for the better - Beric sounds like foreshadowing for Jon. And this sorts of gels with my theory of why GRRM shifting from Jon/Arya/Tyrion to Jon/Dany/Tyrion really does not change the ending. Jon dies (...) I assume you're referencing the outline when you mention Jon/Arya/Tyrion, but remember that in that same outline, GRRM said that Jon and Dany would make it through all three (as then planned) volumes. 8 hours ago, ElizaD said: Yeah, the show is totally devoting precious screentime to irrelevant background information just for a lol gotcha when Jon gets killed again and is in no way doing buildup that will give him a more acceptable claim as the endgame king. If Jon dies or only lives long enough to get Dany pregnant, it doesn't matter if he was an R+L bastard or legitimate son; if he becomes king, though, his legitimacy is like Robert's Targaryen lineage, a bit of extra credibility that can be questioned but still makes a throne won in battle look like it did not require a total abandonment of the law. I agree. If Jon is just going to die again in short order, who cares whether or not he's the legitimate heir? If Jon being the legitimate heir will be ultimately irrelevant, why make that revelation central to the climax of the season 7 finale? 3 hours ago, WindyNights said: MMD specifically said that Daenerys' womb would have to quicken. That means Daenerys would have to get past the first trimester which she didn't. Once she gets there then we'll talk. I agree with @glowbug on this one. I think GRRM meant by Dany's womb quickening "When you conceive" not "When you get past the first trimester." GRRM's grasp of medicine is a little lacking, shall we say, so it's understandable that he would make a mistake when trying to use flowery, poetic language. Edited July 14, 2017 by Eyes High Link to comment
Katsullivan July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 23 minutes ago, Eyes High said: I agree with @glowbug on this one. I think GRRM meant by Dany's womb quickening "When you conceive" not "When you get past the first trimester." GRRM's grasp of medicine is a little lacking, shall we say, so it's understandable that he would make a mistake when trying to use flowery, poetic language. Yes, I also think that's what was meant. It's why her miscarriage was significant - it was a clue. I really don't understand the idea of thinking that Jon's bloodline was kept a secret for so long - and ultimately means nothing. I don't know if Jon will survive the series. I don't know which character will survive the series. But I am quite certain that he will 'continue' via his bloodline after the series. The only reason why I'm not so certain of whether he and Dany will have a child/children together is because of the original outline that had Jon/Arya as endgame. 2 Link to comment
Eyes High July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 6 minutes ago, Katsullivan said: Yes, I also think that's what was meant. It's why her miscarriage was significant - it was a clue. I really don't understand the idea of thinking that Jon's bloodline was kept a secret for so long - and ultimately means nothing. I don't know if Jon will survive the series. I don't know which character will survive the series. But I am quite certain that he will 'continue' via his bloodline after the series. The only reason why I'm not so certain of whether he and Dany will have a child/children together is because of the original outline that had Jon/Arya as endgame. I think the prevailing opinion among those who believe that Jon/Arya as King/Queen is endgame that Jon will marry Dany, Dany will get pregnant and die in childbirth giving birth to the next Targ, and Jon will (after what I assume is a suitable period of mourning) marry Arya. Link to comment
Katsullivan July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 1 hour ago, Eyes High said: I think the prevailing opinion among those who believe that Jon/Arya as King/Queen is endgame that Jon will marry Dany, Dany will get pregnant and die in childbirth giving birth to the next Targ, and Jon will (after what I assume is a suitable period of mourning) marry Arya. The idea that Dany's endgame is being a womb is horrifying. 1 Link to comment
WindyNights July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 7 hours ago, YaddaYadda said: I doubt Jon will be anything like Beric or Lady Stoneheart or be brought back the same way these two were. I think GRRM is going to have his cake and eat it too. GRRM will probably give Jon something that is uniquely his and connect him to his Targ roots, through fire and blood. Or something... I will be missing episode 701 which kinda sucks. Why? GRRM literally says that Beric was foreshadowing for LSH and Jon Snow. And then he points out what's wrong with Beric aka he's not really alive. GRRM has not introduced a mechanic to fully resurrect a person and any resurrection mechanic used in TWOW would be an asspull. I mean think about it. If he intended to completely break his rule then why set up Beric and LSH as Fire Wights. I'd recommend reading GRRM's other stories. He's the type of guy that once helped writed a story where an old man transferred his mind into a 16 year girl's body then he's raped by his grandson and impregnated. 5 hours ago, Eyes High said: No, it's an example of how GRRM talks a lot of shit about his philosophical views on narrative and such but ultimately does whatever he wants. He sets up these elaborate rules and talks a good game about the importance of consequences, and then he conveniently exempts his faves from those rules and consequences all the fucking time. Oh, yes, he does, and he does it all the time, like how everyone in the books makes such a big fuss about the kinslayer curse even though capital-k Kinslayer Tyrion is alive and destined to survive the books if the outline is to be believed. The rules don't apply if you're one of GRRM's faves. It's plot armour on steroids, frankly. GRRM grumping about how Gandalf never should have been brought back is an example of his own hypocrisy, since he clearly intends to bring Jon back, and if TV Jon is any indication, Book Jon won't come back wrong, either. The show is getting there, gradually. The revelation of Jon's legitimacy is an important step, and I agree with @ElizaD that if you think Jon will be revealed as legitimate only to get killed off in short order, you're mistaken. I have no doubt that the books will get there as well. Jon is not a red herring character, though. He is at the heart of the books, and his journey to kingship and to realizing his true parentage--and GRRM has said that Jon will find out his true parentage in the books, by the way--is part of that. There's no comparison to more minor or non-POV characters who are built up and then killed off for shock value, like Robb. The main reason I believe the show has ruled out Tyrion as king is that there's been no attention to Tyrion as a ruler. He has always been an adviser; he's the consummate Hand, but the show has reminded us that he would never be accepted as a leader in his own right (Tyrion and Varys' conversation in 5x02 about how they're freaks who cannot hold power on their own but are drawn to it nonetheless). The only two characters with ruling arcs are the only two characters likely to end up with the throne: Jon and Dany. If Tyrion is "in training" for anything, it's to be the endgame Hand to Jon and/or Dany. I assume you're referencing the outline when you mention Jon/Arya/Tyrion, but remember that in that same outline, GRRM said that Jon and Dany would make it through all three (as then planned) volumes. I agree. If Jon is just going to die again in short order, who cares whether or not he's the legitimate heir? If Jon being the legitimate heir will be ultimately irrelevant, why make that revelation central to the climax of the season 7 finale? I agree with @glowbug on this one. I think GRRM meant by Dany's womb quickening "When you conceive" not "When you get past the first trimester." GRRM's grasp of medicine is a little lacking, shall we say, so it's understandable that he would make a mistake when trying to use flowery, poetic language. 1) Well no because I don't think he even views what ASOS Jaime did to Cersei as rape so it is more likely to be more troubling views on sex. You'll have to find another example if you want to convince me. 2) There is no kinslayer curse. It's all superstition. That's not a rule. Also outline Tyrion had a story where he wasn't a kinslayer. Give me another one. 3) The show made Beric into a living being where he's undead in the books. They had Sansa raped by Ramsay. I don't think they did it GRRM's way because Jon would have to wrestle with his inhumanity so they made him alive instead. Notice how Show Jon doesn't really change. He's sad for a bit then he gets over it. Why even kill him? There was no real point to it. 4) GRRM says it himself. He's responding to Tolkien and Gandalf hence he's showing us what he thinks a "resurrected" person should look like. It's like when people say that GRRM is a hypocritical for putting a Dark Lord in his series when he's deconstructing the trope. The whole idea that Jon will be the same is based on the author lying which is a bad way to base theories. That's when desire drives reason. @Eyes So I have to ask you but if GRRM goes this route with Jon then what? Are you going to be mad? Because it seems like you have a bit of distaste for the idea that Jon will be undead for the rest of the story. Link to comment
anamika July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 There's no doubt in my mind that Jon comes back different after getting resurrected. The question is how bad will the changes be. If he comes back like Beric - a fire wight- then I don't see him surviving. What would be the point? Or he could still be physically changed in some way - and not for the better because there will be a price to pay - but still end up alive and on the IT. Frank Herbert's Dune series had main characters die in the end or rule with great sacrifices and sad personal lives. Or maybe there will be no IT. I still think there's a greater chance of Jon dying than Dany. Jon's parentage may be more important for him to ride dragons than sit on the IT. Link to comment
Katsullivan July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 54 minutes ago, WindyNights said: I don't think he even views what ASOS Jaime did to Cersei as rape so it is more likely to be more troubling views on sex. You'll have to find another example if you want to convince me. OK, am I missing something? I know the show shot that as a rape scene but in the books, that was very much consensual? Link to comment
WindyNights July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Katsullivan said: OK, am I missing something? I know the show shot that as a rape scene but in the books, that was very much consensual? It wasn't an explicit rape scene like in the show. In the books, if was more gray rape. So between consensual sex and sexual assault. Basically Jaime wants sex and so does Cersei but she doesn't want it in the sept and Cersei tries to stop him from banging her here and pleads for him to stop but he kind of just doesn't ignores her but she starts begging for it right before he puts it in. But if you back to AGOT, that's consistent with what we know of their sex life. Jaime forces himself on Cersei when she doesn't want to but she not so secretly finds it hot and wants it because she just sees Jaime as an idealized male version of herself. It's very much a male fantasy in many respects. But maybe they're into BSDM and they have a safe word Edited July 14, 2017 by WindyNights Link to comment
OhOkayWhat July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, WindyNights said: I don't think they did it GRRM's way because Jon would have to wrestle with his inhumanity so they made him alive instead. Notice how Show Jon doesn't really change. He's sad for a bit then he gets over it. Why even kill him? There was no real point to it. Jon is not struggling with his inhumanity. He is struggling with his own humanity. To show him coming back to life as a season long resurrection/rebirth event, a long act; to make it about a man embracing life, finally, at the end of the season (knowing this man will be the leader of the fight to live); is a very subtle and nuanced narrative move. 20 hours ago, anamika said: Maybe both Jon and Dany perish in the final war along with the dragons - the Targaryens are wiped out. Arya rules Winterfell and Tyrion sits on the IT. At least in the show, I don't see Arya ruling Winterfell, the Iron Throne or even a castle as part of her narrative. Edited July 14, 2017 by OhOkayWhat Link to comment
SeanC July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 (edited) I can't see how Tyrion could ever hold the Iron Throne, honestly, if he doesn't have a dragon. Edited July 14, 2017 by SeanC 1 Link to comment
WindyNights July 14, 2017 Share July 14, 2017 1 hour ago, OhOkayWhat said: Jon is not struggling with his inhumanity. He is struggling with his own humanity. To show him coming back to life as a season long resurrection/rebirth event, a long act; to make it about a man embracing life, finally, at the end of the season (knowing this man will be the leader of the fight to live); is a very subtle and nuanced narrative move. At least in the show, I don't see Arya ruling Winterfell, the Iron Throne or even a castle as part of her narrative. I'm talking about the books. The show went with something else. I don't think that's the story that GRRM wants to tell. Book Jon's story is more about identity not about embracing life again (this is more ADWD Tyrion's story). If you're resurrected as a zombie, you're going to be going through an identity crisis too. Especially if things are off. Like will he be able to feel pain anymore? Heat? Cold? Taste? Living without really living. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts