Season 8: Speculation and Spoilers Discussion

[Raachel2008]

58 minutes ago, stagmania said:

They literally showed her going crazy and deciding to burn everyone after the bells rang. You can tell yourself that’s not what happened if it makes you feel better, but it’s what the show depicted.

They literally showed her stopping AND thinking when she heard the bells, making a decision and methodically burning everything. I understand there is a fine line between madness, saying fuck it all and being evil (see Cersei), but the way I saw it Dany made a conscious decision: she knew what she was doing.

Now we can debate endless if to make such a decision is a signal of madness or not, but I can assure you that I’m not telling myself anything in order to “feel better”. I don’t really have a problem with Dany’s arc, my only problem is how rushed it was, crammed in two episodes.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Raachel2008

[stagmania]

7 minutes ago, screamin said:

That doesn't sound to me like 'going crazy.' A decision made to indulge anger isn't necessarily 'crazy'. Otherwise there would be a lot more murderers going free on insanity pleas than there are.

6 minutes ago, Raachel2008 said:

They literally showed her stopping AND thinking when she heard the bells, making a decision and methodically burning everything. I understand there is a fine line between madness, saying fuck it all and being evil (see Cersei), but the way I saw it Dany made a conscious decision: she knew what she was doing.

This is basically just a semantic argument. A decision to burn innocents for no good reason is “crazy.” Jon’s going to kill her next week because she’s out of control. The show is going with the Mad Queen narrative, so that’s what I’m going to respond to. 

[anamika]

1 hour ago, SNeaker said:

To me the book titles planned of "Winds of Winter" followed by "Dream of Spring" also indicate winter and the others will be dealt with first. He's talked about his obsession with the scouring of the shire and what happens after you save the world.

I always imagined that everything would come together too in one big epic showdown, but the more I'm reading up on it lately the more I'm getting the sense that the very bare bones of this is true to the books.

The next book that GRRM is currently writing is 'The Winds of Winter'. In which Jon is still dead, Arya is still in Braavos, Dany is not even going to finish her arc in Essos and Sansa is just starting her Vale plot. And you think that GRRM is going to have the Others - who he has not even introduced yet- defeated in this book? And the very hopeful 'A dream of spring' is going to be about human beings fighting and destroying each other?

 GRRM's plan for his books from his original outline when it was still a trilogy:

Quote

Roughly speaking, there are three major conflicts set in motion in the chapters enclosed. These will form the major plot threads of the trilogy, intertwining each other in what should be a complex but exciting (I hope) narrative tapestry. Each of the conflicts presents a major threat to the peace of my imaginary realm, the Seven Kingdoms, and to the lives of my principal characters.

The first threat grows from the emnity between the great houses of Lannister and Stark as it plays out in a cycle of plot, counterplot, ambition, murder, and revenge, with the iron throne of the Seven Kingdoms as the ultimate prize. This will form the backbone of the first volume of the trilogy, A Game of Thrones.

While the lion of Lannister and the direwolf of Stark snarl and scrap, however, a second and greater threat takes shape across the narrow sea, where the Dothraki horselords mass their barbarian hordes for a great invasion of the Seven Kingdoms, led by the fierce and beautiful Daenerys Stormborn, the last of the Targaryen dragonlords. The Dothraki invasion will be the central story of my second volume, A Dance with Dragons.

The greatest danger of all, however, comes from the north, from the icy wastes beyond the Wall, where half-forgotten demons out of legend, the inhuman others, raise cold legions of the undead and the neverborn and prepare to ride down on the winds of winter to extinguish everything that we would call "life." The only thing that stands between the Seven Kingdoms and an endless night is the Wall, and a handful of men in black called the Night's Watch. Their story will be [sic] heart of my third volume, The Winds of Winter. The final battle will also draw together characters and plot threads left from the first two books and resolve all in one huge climax.

GRRM's final battle has always been about the Others - something he has reiterated several times in his interviews. The central message being that people keep fighting each other while ignoring the far more dangerous threat up North.

As for the scouring of the shire - that's the very ending of LOTR where our heroes return from fighting Sauron and find out that their world did not escape unscathed. That's what's bittersweet about it.  The scouring of the shire is not a whole book about our heroes fighting each other. It is about the reality of life after war - and people have speculated it's based on Tolkien's own experiences. It's a dream of spring - it's about the ending after winter and war.

On the show our characters were scoring the shire for 7 seasons, not paying attention to Sauron, then defeated him in one quick fight, then went back to scoring the shire. I doubt this is what GRRM is writing.

The show itself hints at this in Dany's vision where she first enters a burned down KL covered in ashes - but before she can touch the throne, a call from beyond the wall makes her go there where she meets a dead drogo and child most probably in the afterlife. So the show itself indicated in season two that Dany destroys KL before she goes North.

Edited May 14, 2019 by anamika

[MarySNJ]

11 hours ago, screamin said:

Again, that sounds like history written by the victors. I'd like to see unbiased Westerosi opinion polls and census data. 😉

Ha! Exactly. We know from Westerosi history that just in the North there have been thousands of years of internecine fighting between the Starks and the Boltons for control, for example. The Skagosi houses sometimes rebelled against the ruler in Winterfell and had to be put down. The Manderleys ended up fleeing to the North during a power struggle in the Reach, etc. I’d be willing to bet those weren’t the only warring houses. That’s just within Kingdoms and there were territorial conflicts between kingdoms. For example, there is a long-standing historical animosity and conflict between the Reach and Dorne.  

Westeros has been a violent place since the first men’s arrival. 

[screamin]

29 minutes ago, stagmania said:

This is basically just a semantic argument. A decision to burn innocents for no good reason is “crazy.” Jon’s going to kill her next week because she’s out of control. The show is going with the Mad Queen narrative, so that’s what I’m going to respond to. 

No, it's a legal argument. "Not guilty by reason of insanity" means (at least in the US) that the person who committed the crime is so incapacitated by mental illness that they have lost the capability to distinguish between right and wrong. There's a great difference between that and being aware of the difference and deciding to disregard it for your own benefit. Deciding you're special enough to be above the laws that apply to the little people because you're more powerful is a criminal, not a medical condition, whether you consider yourself special because you're a mafia boss or a dragon queen.

[AuntieMame]

So, Dany is mad and inhuman because she doesn't show emotion? I thought that women were unsuited to leadership because they were too emotional. Oh well, damned if you do, damned if you dont, forever at risk of criticism and destruction trapped in the double bind and the rules and expectations can change at any moment to put any/every woman in the wrong as required by circumstance. There isn't a woman alive who doesn't understand this at least intuitively. Game of Thrones the series could be a masterclass in misogynist writing occasionally dressed up to look superficially woman friendly. 

Now, as for actual human experience and emotion and reactions to overwhelming events, Dany has had an enormous amount of loss. I'm not certain that going crazy and deciding to burn King's Landing because her feelings were hurt is an emotional reaction that makes any sense. Seriously. Dany has never been a favorite of mine, but her biggest emotional reactions are about the most superficial of recent hits? Missandei's death is no big deal, but the Northerners not immediately bending the knee and feting her with adoration and Jon's revelation which sours their love is her main concern? After a dead bestie, two dead dragons, her Dothraki and Unsullied almost wiped out and her guilt and sorrow as a leader because she did promise to deliver them ultimately. We see none of this and no reactions to any of this. Other characters are also hearing enormous losses and we get nothing real about that. The writing is a shit show. I'm watching with people who are distracted by the spectacle, but it is disappointing. 

With one notable exception. The existential threat of the White Walkers posing as climate change and environmental and ecological degradation has been an unwitting and unconscious portrayal of humanity's fatal flaws. I think the way the writers are managing this is EXACTLY how the average person hopes it will happen. No big deal, fixed easily and quickly almost by magic, if at the last minute, so that humanity can get back to fighting for immortality substitutes driven by the need to survive and the drive to destruction. This is absolutely human and what we desperately need to be looking at, but I don't think the writers have ANY clue what they've actually written, driven as they are by the need to move on to other prizes. 

Edited May 14, 2019 by AuntieMame

[YaddaYadda]

4 hours ago, anamika said:

Jon's lineage should not be useless to him. The realization that his entire life was a big lie and that he is a Targaryen should not be useless to him. Arya's realizations that this brother she loved all her life is not a Stark should not be useless.

Well the trailer promo Kit participated in for How to Train Your Dragon fleshed out Jon Snow's emotions about his parentage better than the show did (which they didn't do at all), so that's saying something.

Everything that Jon ever knew is gone, just like that. He's wanted to know who his mother was all his life when she was there all along, in the crypts. 

"That's Lyanna Stark, Rhaegar loved her, they married, had a baybay THE END!"

Not even going to get into the Dany situation. 

[BadAssRobinArryn]

24 minutes ago, AuntieMame said:

So, Dany is mad and inhuman because she doesn't show emotion? I thought that women were unsuited to leadership because they were too emotional.  

Dany proved unfit to rule, not because she showed too much emotion or not enough Emotion or because she's a woman, but because she burned and killed many innocent civillians. In the end she turned out to be one of many rulers, most of them male, who simply were overcome by their flaws. Dany isn't portrayed worse than for example Stannis, she just has the even more dangerous weapon. 

[Raachel2008]

35 minutes ago, AuntieMame said:

So, Dany is mad and inhuman because she doesn't show emotion? I thought that women were unsuited to leadership because they were too emotional. Oh well, damned if you do, damned if you dont, forever at risk of criticism and destruction trapped in the double bind and the rules and expectations can change at any moment to put any/every woman in the wrong as required by circumstance. There isn't a woman alive who doesn't understand this at least intuitively. Game of Thrones the series could be a masterclass in misogynist writing occasionally dressed up to look superficially woman friendly. 

Now, as for actual human experience and emotion and reactions to overwhelming events, Dany has had an enormous amount of loss. I'm not certain that going crazy and deciding to burn King's Landing because her feelings were hurt is an emotional reaction that makes any sense. Seriously. Dany has never been a favorite of mine, but her biggest emotional reactions are about the most superficial of recent hits?

Missandei's death is no big deal, but the Northerners not immediately bending the knee and feting her with adoration and Jon's revelation which sours their love is her main concern? After a dead bestie, two dead dragons, her Dothraki and Unsullied almost wiped out and her guilt and sorrow as a leader because she did promise to deliver them ultimately. We see none of this and no reactions to any of this. Other characters are also hearing enormous losses and we get nothing real about that. The writing is a shit show. I'm watching with people who are distracted by the spectacle, but it is disappointing. 

She showed a lot of emotion, anger being one of them. And those are not superficial hits or superficial reactions.

Now, the feminism part... I'm sorry, but Dany is not wrong because she is a woman, she is wrong because she burned an entire city with women, children and non-soldiers men.  She was not put in the wrong, she is in the wrong. Dany is one of my favorite characters but the rules didn't change because she is a woman, neither is she being punished because she is a woman: that is how GRRM is ending her story. It was rushed? It was poorly done? Absolutely. But I don't think it is because she is a woman.

[bijoux]

12 hours ago, Moxie Cat said:

And because I feel like griping: What was the point of Bran being able to alter history? Why the heck was it important that he affected Hodor? Why couldn't Hodor just be slow, full stop?

I just thought it was to reiterate the lesson taught by Back to the Future. Don’t mess with the past. Or don’t leave a door between timelines ajar or you’ll mess people up in this case.

2 hours ago, anamika said:

I will have to disagree here. Making Dany the final villain would have the same message that the show has right now - political squabbles and infighting is more important than this is existential threat (Climate change) that threatens mankind. And I really don't think that this is GRRM's moral of his story.

I think each order of events works. Reading the books I always thought it would be the throne and then the Others. In which case you’d have people ignoring a huge threat and dealing with their petty squabbles only to face the Others decimated. Now we have it the other way around with the end result being people being so damn myopic that they’ll go on obliterating each other right on the heels of beating literal death.

the seult is the same, people are idiots and they throw away their lives on senseless shit, not seeing or purposely ignoring the bigger picture.

[lucindabelle]

16 hours ago, chrisvee said:

plus he was going to let Cersei, Jaime, and their child go free so how long before Cersei started up another game of thrones?

THIS!!!! Tyrion was a traitor!!! And deserves a traitors death. I do NOT understand everyone weeping over his scene with his brother when he was literally making a plan to save the enemy- if she were Hitler. Mussolini, is the comparison helpful? Dany questioned his loyalty and his Lannister background a gazillion times, and turns out she was RIGHT. I HATE that he’s going to be alive and on the council at the end. He couldn’t have harmed her more if he’d been complicit with cersei all the time.

15 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Very true, but his entire EXISTENCE was to show what all these "nobles" descended from.  A bunch of bro-dude murderers that were good at rising out of the slums of being nobody.

UGH. Seriously? Someone whose loyalties can be BOUGHT AND PAID FOR is what Martin thinks of the small folk? Because no, show. Just no. We small folk have loyalties and affections too.

13 hours ago, Umbelina said:

They are all sick of war, most of those waging war are now dead.  I can see them coming together for peace and rebuilding.

Yeah. That war to end all wars lasted so long right? Correct me if I’m wrong but seems to me some of the soldiers who fought in WWI were still young enough to fight in WWII. Human nature doesn’t work this way. And the people in Westeros are clearly human.

11 hours ago, anamika said:

Actually they just blew up the whole Rhaegar - Lyanna stuff from the books with this ending. As per the show now, it was just an ordinary love affair and Rhaegar just eloped with Lyanna because he loved her and did not care about any of the consequences.

  

And I have been expecting SOME explanation for the annulment and now know I won’t get one. Lyanna was a STARK. I just don’t believe she’d willingly cause so much pain without some good reason. At their marriage they didn’t look guilty just in love and happy. ugh. 

9 hours ago, rmontro said:

You're very optimistic, but it's not going to happen, unfortunately.  

I am starting a revolution, I am demanding an alternative ending.  They don't even have to film it or spend any money on it.  Just issue it in print along with an apology from those responsible for the TV ending.  And notice no smiley face here, I'm not kidding.

If this is the ending Martin decided on, I could see why he is reluctant to finish the books, or lacks the enthusiasm to do it.  

I hope this series at least ends the idea that killing off your main characters equates to good writing.  Walking Dead started that, I think.

Co signed.

for me this is like The Last Battle in The Chronicles of narnia. I’m going to have to pretend it never happened.

likely not watching Sunday. 

[AuntieMame]

17 minutes ago, Raachel2008 said:

She showed a lot of emotion, anger being one of them. And those are not superficial hits or superficial reactions.

Now, the feminism part... I'm sorry, but Dany is not wrong because she is a woman, she is wrong because she burned an entire city with women, children and non-soldiers men.  She was not put in the wrong, she is in the wrong. Dany is one of my favorite characters but the rules didn't change because she is a woman, neither is she being punished because she is a woman: that is how GRRM is ending her story. It was rushed? It was poorly done? Absolutely. But I don't think it is because she is a woman.

I'm not arguing that Dany's decision to burn King's Landing and slaughter innocents is right or moral. Nor am I arguing that women aren't subject to the siren calls of power and corruption. I'm arguing that the portrayal of how Dany got there is shallow at best and the motivations the writers have shown us are sexist and inconsistent with the portrayal of Dany's character thus far. Stannis for example was consistent in his loyalty to abstract morals and his entitlement to power based on those rules. When Stannis crossed the line we at least understood how and why based on the entire development of the character and consistent elements of emotion and personality. This isn't the case with Dany. 

Edited May 14, 2019 by AuntieMame

[Stallion12]

5 hours ago, anamika said:

To be honest I think this episode’s left me a little punch drunk. I mean, over the years I’ve said a few things about characters on Game of Thrones dying from falling rocks, and you know what?

I was fucking kidding.

Imagine my surprise.

So in the long list of things I’ve been wrong about this season (it starts with “surely it can’t get much worse”) I was also wrong about Jaime Lannister having the arc of a yo-yo. To have the arc of a yo-yo one must actually have an arc. Now his story is complete we can see that it wasn’t actually much of a story. Vale Jaime Lannister - he looked at his accomplishments and the world beyond his incestuous relationship with his sister, said “naaaah, let’s stick with the incestuous relationship,” and died. The end.

Vale Cersei Lannister, who I don’t think actually did anything this season but provide an excuse for a terrible plot twist. Like Littlefinger last season, but with a better view. Lena Headey did act her socks off…but then you realise that the only reason the character was still around was so Lena Headey could act her socks off, and that is not how you write a story. Or at least it shouldn’t be how you write a story. Not to mention it’s a big old mishandling of GRRM’s preferred poisoned satisfaction for bad guy comeuppance - it’s not the viewer going “yikes at this and yikes at me for wishing it on them,” it’s “…you seriously expect me to feel bad about this? After she packed a city full of civilians as meat shields to protect her from the consequences of her actions?”

Vale Varys, who was quite neatly disposed of after he failed Intrigue 101 by openly approaching one of Dany’s actual loyalists with explosive information and an even more explosive treacherous proposal on a beach that can be seen from goddamned anywhere. You know Varys, honest to a fault. Cannot tell a lie. Far too honourable for the cutthroat world of King’s Landing - 

- hang on, wait, got him mixed up with show!Ned Stark. Easy mistake to make, I know. In any case, may he rest in peace, with every single eunuch joke Tyrion’s ever made.

Vale Qyburn, whose death was actually fitting, if rather abrupt. Vale Sandor, who actually found the time to tell Arya the point of her plot. Vale those guys in the golden armour, sure glad they showed up for the story.

But now we’ve dealt with the dead, let’s move on to the living.

It’s a pretty rough episode where the least bafflingly atrocious narrative decisions are Davos being willing to commit treason as a favour for Tyrion (remembering, as the writers do not seem to, that Tyrion gave the order that directly resulted in the death of Davos’ only son), and Arya having a last second epiphany over the nature of revenge. And yet this is what we’ve got to work with, folks. That’s the least bad.

Tyrion’s probably the next least bad. Oh, sure, he’s still a totally rational candidate for Westerosi canonisation,  but at least he’s consistently a totally rational candidate for Westerosi canonisation and the narrative bears out his saintly and self-sacrificing nature. Less so his intelligence, but he’s not exactly alone on that count. Anyone like his odds of surviving to the end of the season?

Tysha? Who’s Tysha? Did that have any sort of effect on Tyrion’s life?

Next, Jon. Poor, poor Jon. We keep getting told that he’s the bees knees, yet I watch him and I wonder that he can put his armour on the right way round. This is the second of two big setpiece battles this season in which he’s accomplished both jack and shit. Poor bastard just wandered around the set looking confused and occasionally sticking people with the pointy end. Objectives? Commands? Are those things you eat?

To be fair, he managed to get at least one effectual command out, right at the end of the episide. That’s one more than he managed during the Battle of the Bastards!

Speaking of the Battle of the Bastards, though, that reminds me about the other wonderful characterisation we saw: Sansa. Sansa leaked the information about Jon’s parentage to fuck with Dany, confirmed. After Jon asked her not to, knowing Jon’s in love with Dany, and knowing Jon has no interest in the throne. Aaaah, I love me a good story about family bonds helping people overcome adversity!

And now the main event: Daenerys and her campaign for the Iron Throne.

We’ll start with that fucking appalling military framing, hey? In which we got lots of shots of innocent white civilians, and then the emphasis on the scary foreigners invading. Just so we can be certain that Cersei was 100% correct in her racist and xenophobic scaremongering about a mad Targaryen overrunning Westerosi cities with those terrifying savages. And the narrative is validating the open racist…why…?

“Why?” is a question you’re going to see me ask a lot in this section of the review. Why didn’t Dany burn Euron’s fleet last episode, or, hell, last season? Why did Dany leave her strategic nous back in Meereen? Why is it that it’s romantic rejection that sends Dany over the edge (that and bells)? Why is it that Dany experiencing emotion that calls her leadership and her sanity into question, when similar emotional outbursts from male characters don’t end up with that result? Why did the writers look at seven solid years of this character coming down on the side of good even through battles with her own propensity for extreme actions and decide to yell “psych! Actually a villain!”

This was not helped by the fact that we’re not put in Dany’s shoes. Dany’s grief and impending madness is seen through the men around her. Dany doesn’t get a fucking line to explain why she started burning the city when she did, the way she did.

The biggest plot twist, undermining one of the most prominent characters in the entire series, and it amounts to “but wouldn’t it be cool if Dany turned evil?”

No. It’s not. It’s really not.

Sounds right out of my head lol.

[Brn2bwild]

One thing among many (many) that pisses me off is that the conclusion of Dany being killed is too easy for GRRM.  I always thought the conclusion would be Dany getting the throne, but as the price she paid, having everything be in utter chaos, and having to deal with Dothraki roaming the country raping and pillaging and forming alliances with the hill tribes, etc.  Dany would get the throne, but ruling would suck.  That seems like a George RR Martin ending. 

Frankly, I think the destruction of King's Landing will happen differently in the books.  There will be a second Dance With Dragons between Dany and fAegon, and Dany's single-minded pursuit of destroying Aegon and his forces will lead her to total the city and kill many innocent inhabitants.  Still reprehensible, still makes you question her ability to rule, but with enough plausible deniability that you can still sort of see her as a decent character and not a full on psychopath.   

[Stallion12]

4 hours ago, anamika said:

People keep talking about that vision of Dany's with the Iron Throne in ashes in season 2 but let's recall that she does not touch the throne and instead hears a call and goes beyond the wall.  In the final season D&D turned the order around because they wanted to keep Lena Headey and Cersei around till the very end.

And if they had stuck to this order and what GRRM is heading toward which is most likely Dany getting rid rid of fAegon in a dance of dragons, sacking KL and sitting there as the queen of Ashes once Jon became KITN and went to her for help, then the underlying message of the series still stands.

And then Dany goes North for the final book and the war against the Others. Because even if the show destroyed the entire premise and message of the series, that’s not the story GRRM is trying to tell.  That's why characters like fAegon matter in the books.

GRRM’s characters are flawed and morally grey and do terrible things – but he does not consider these acts to make them nonredeemable.  His Tyrion rapes a sex slave in a brothel and as per the show  ends up being de facto ruler of the 7K.  His characters don't do evil things because some bells went off and it turns on some Targaryen genes for madness. Even Aerys II – the poster boy for Targ madness - went mad over years  - not in the span of 30 seconds. But apparently according to D&D’s nonsensical interviews Dany was mad right from the start when she was cold about her abusive brother being killed by Drogo.

I have noticed that this is a common thing in D&D’s commentaries. How Dany is cruel, merciless, without compassion, mad etc. because she does not show emotion. I remember the random comparison they made with Dany not crying over executing those two stranger Tarlys  and  compassionate Sansa crying over her mentor of 7 seasons when she executed LF. They have this idea that women who don't show emotion are somehow cruel and mad.

There was a post over at ASoIaF at how the showrunners venerate mothers in their writing pointing to David Nutter's explanation for Tyrion's bizzare trust in Cersei

And considering that Dany is barren, D&D probably see her as even more of a monster than Cersei.

All this is also a complete disservice to GRRM's homage to the non-traditional women in his life growing up in the seventies with Arya and D&D then reducing Arya to a revenge obsessed psychopathic killer and giving over all her skillsets, plots and narrative themes to Sansa.

D&D have inherently sexist views about women and it just shows in their writing.

Dany dying on the show means that she dies in the books. But I am pretty sure she dies in the books fighting their ultimate antagonist - the Others beyond the wall. The books are called Ice and Fire for a reason - it signals the clash between Dany/Dragons (Fire) and the Others (Ice).

I'd so have loved her dying against the night king rather than what we are getting.

[Solace247]

6 hours ago, Coxfires said:

I wouldn't go that far, Jon lineage is useless to him, but for Deanerys it robs her of her legitimity which since Viserys died she was so sure of. It is a huge blow for her confidence, as she knows people will see her as not entitled to the throne but Jon, who on top of that has people sympathy. So yeah, it never was about Jon would be affected, it was about how she would be affected.

Good writing would have had it be about different things for both of them. Dany was robbed of the feeling of having family and not being alone; Jon was robbed of exploring his roots and having a fully-formed identity. The Wedge(tm) would have worked better had it encompassed all of this in addition to the legitimacy claim.

[Constantinople]

Has the show ever explained why Rhaegar and Lyanna ran off, other than for shits and giggles?

I'm not sure that it has, though I'm not sure.

If there's no further explanation in the finale, that seems kind of weak.

[Minneapple]

Just now, Constantinople said:

Has the show ever explained why Rhaegar and Lyanna ran off, other than for shits and giggles?

I'm not sure that it has, though I'm not sure.

If there's no further explanation in the finale, that seems kind of weak.

No, unfortunately the show really dropped the ball on Rhaegar and Lyanna and everything to do with Jon's parental reveal. I always hoped they would show the tournament at Harrenhal when they presumably met for the first time and Rhaegar made Lyanna the queen of love and beauty, and the Knight of the Laughing Tree and all that. I love the way GRRM wrote about that tournament, so mysterious and tragic. 

But we got nothing about Rhaegar and Lyanna's courting or anything like that. And so, because we didn't know anything about Rhaegar and Lyanna, it didn't really matter much who Jon's parents were. I mean I guess we could learn in the finale that Jon is Azor Ahai, the prince that was promised like Rhaegar envisioned (and since he kills Dany, she could be Nissa Nissa). There's also a thing about Azor Ahai killing a beast, so maybe he also kills Drogon. 

[AuntieMame]

6 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

Has the show ever explained why Rhaegar and Lyanna ran off, other than for shits and giggles?

I'm not sure that it has, though I'm not sure.

If there's no further explanation in the finale, that seems kind of weak.

You make a good point here. We don't really know even the mechanics of how Rhaegar even had Lyanna with him given that he was married and she engaged. In societies where women are traded as breeders, valuable breeders are controlled (oops, I meant protected) and not really allowed to run all over the countryside breaking up marriages, especially the King's marriage. Not a lot of sense here. 

[Moxie Cat]

1 hour ago, bijoux said:

I just thought it was to reiterate the lesson taught by Back to the Future. Don’t mess with the past. Or don’t leave a door between timelines ajar or you’ll mess people up in this case.

Right, that's the lesson - but why even have this ability in the story at all?

Bran and the 3ER's ability to see history serves a purpose, for Bran to better understand his family, history, Jon's lineage, etc. and pass along that knowledge.

But their ability to AFFECT history serves no purpose in the story. Bran's connection to Hodor only affected Hodor. We haven't seen him be tempted to use this ability to affect the larger story (or, more importantly, actually use it while knowing the risk BECAUSE of the Hodor experience). If we had, then the "Hodor lesson" would have meant something. As it is, it just stands alone as some random thing Bran can do that has no connection to anything.

(And I really wish autocorrect would stop changing "Hodor" to "Honor"!)

[Dobian]

After episode 5, I would like the entire episode next week to simply be a construction crew sifting through the rubble of the Red Keep in search of the Iron Throne,  In the closing moments they unearth the throne and set it down, then go on a lunch break.  One of the workers pulls a sandwich out of his pocket and sits on the Iron Throne to eat it.  And there you have it, the person who ultimately sits on the Iron Throne.

[YaddaYadda]

11 minutes ago, AuntieMame said:

You make a good point here. We don't really know even the mechanics of how Rhaegar even had Lyanna with him given that he was married and she engaged. In societies where women are traded as breeders, valuable breeders are controlled (oops, I meant protected) and not really allowed to run all over the countryside breaking up marriages, especially the King's marriage. Not a lot of sense here. 

I don't disagree with you, but Fire & Blood had plenty women running off and a lot of marriages that were not sanctioned by the king or that people were against for x & y reasons. Alysanne/Jaehaerys, Maegor/his 6 wives, Baela Targaryen/Alyn Velaryon, Daemon Targaryen/Laena Velaryon, Daemon Targaryen/Rhaenyra Targaryen and these are just the tip of the iceberg. 

That said, if anyone thought the show was going to delve into anything pre-Robert's Rebellion and explain anything, well . . . after the botch they have made of things I'd rather D&D don't come near the whole Lyanna/Rhaegar/Elia situation. 

[MadameKillerB]

Yeah, no flashback to why Jon's identity is so important bums me out. I was looking forward to some Robert's Rebellion stuff.

[Oscirus]

The Rhaegal Lyanna courtship doesn't serve any part of the story other than to serve up fan service. The important points were hit for the sake of this given story, if it gets developed further it could do so in a Robert's rebellion movie.

As a matter of fact, this story should've steered clear of the prophecies in general since they couldn't even get the amount of children that Cersei was supposed to have right. 

So basically I assume that Tyrion gets arrested fairly early, we may or may not see his trial, Jon killing Dany, Jon forming a new nights watch,  a tryrion speech and a likely epilogue?

Bigger question, what becomes of the dothraki and the unsullied? Dany wasn't the only person behind the violence this week and I don't think theres enough soldiers left to make them go away.

[Jextella]

I didn't read the books, but I read somewhere online that the Mad King went mad because of the messed up gene pool caused by incest.  Thus the coin toss analogy.

If this was GRRM's intent, it seems Dany's increasing aggression could be interpreted as a genetic flaw and has zero to do with gender.

We are told the Mad King ordered his troops to "burn them all!".   Turns out something snapped, and Dany delivered. 

Having said that, my read on Dany is that her snapping at the end is more about reaching her limit.  She lived much of her life as a slave - first to her brother and then to Drogo.  She turned it around, tried to do the right thing and got shit on from all sides in the end.  This is what caused the snapping, IMO.  I feel she's portrayed as a very strong person because she survived it all and endured far more than most would before snapping.

Unpopular opinion, but I would never read from this show that the author or show producers dislike women or characterize them as evil because they are women.  Nor would I make allegations in that direction since I don't know these people personally nor do I know their true intentions behind the characters.

For now, from where I sit, I feel they've presented equal parts of both good and bad in both men in women.  If anything, the women have come out stronger and more interesting than any of the men.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Jextella

[SNeaker]

27 minutes ago, Jextella said:

Unpopular opinion, but I would never read from this show that the author or show producers dislike women or characterize them as evil because they are women.  Nor would I make allegations in that direction since I don't know these people personally nor do I know their true intentions behind the characters.

They have only shown two female rulers, and both turned out to be monstrous madwomen.

Moreover, when Season 7 started, we had one female on the throne and another massive group of female heads of houses looking to put a different woman on the throne. Every single one of those women has been wiped out and the last one standing will have to be put down like a dog next week. All to be replaced by an all male council. The only possible woman left to lead anything is Sansa, likely because she has Stark plot armor and because she's basically the show's creation. (Not a hater, she's actually my fave. It's just the truth.)

That's not even getting into how they villainized Dany before she became a villain by having a bunch of stupid stupid men give her bad advice that caused failure after failure and then gaslit her, but we're supposed to think if only she'd listened to these nice reasonable men everything would be ok.

Edited May 14, 2019 by SNeaker

[Bean421]

I loved this read on Dany's actions. Less of a snap and more of following through with what she told Jon about "Let it be fear." 

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/game-of-thrones-the-bells/

Edited May 14, 2019 by Bean421
Updated Link

[Jextella]

On 5/14/2019 at 12:33 PM, SNeaker said:

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, SNeaker said:

They have only shown two female rulers, and both turned out to be monstrous madwomen.

Sansa, Lady Olenna, Lyanna Mormont, Yara, and even Brienne for that matter have had various leadership roles.   

Edited May 16, 2019 by Jextella

[Dobian]

I doubt we'll even see Sansa next week except for the epilogue.  The show has pretty much been steering Sansa to becoming the Queen of the North all along.  She'll always be in Winterfell.

[JennyMominFL]

Im not thrilled with how a lot of minorities have been portrayed but I am mostly ok with the portrayal of women on here. This is a show about a patriarchal medieval society. I did not expect it to be super progressive. I wouldnt exactly say the portrayal of men has been lovely either

[SNeaker]

5 minutes ago, Jextella said:

Sansa, Lady Olenna, Lyanna Mormont, and even Brienne for that matter have had various leadership roles.   

I used "rule" on purpose. None of those sought to be queen.

Margeary did, and she was decent (though her kindness towards the people was presented as savviness to gain their favor, she was in it for the power) but she wasn't really the ruler and didn't have much time to become one before she got blowed up. 

[lucindabelle]

33 minutes ago, Jextella said:

 .

Unpopular opinion, but I would never read from this show that the author or show producers dislike women or characterize them as evil because they are women.  Nor would I make allegations in that direction since I don't know these people personally nor do I know their true intentions behind the characters.

Oh come on. You do NOT need to know someone personally or see inside their hearts to judge their actions.

the women have been portrayed as hysterical, unless they’re acting like men.

i call BS on the ONLY time in eight years we see the horrors of war affect the smallfolk in a large way to be this episode.

we saw more fear on the faces of innocents than we did from the Dothraki. 

Mans dany, as daily beast put it, turned into a crazy ex girlfriend.

[ulkis]

7 hours ago, MissLucas said:

Brienne has one more option beyond the ruins of the wall - just saying.

There are others besides Jaime and Tormund. She never liked him like that, Jaime or no Jaime. Her hooking up with Tormund would be a "nice guy" syndrome situation, imo.

[bijoux]

1 minute ago, ulkis said:

There are others besides Jaime and Tormund. She never liked him like that, Jaime or no Jaime. Her hooking up with Tormund would be a "nice guy" syndrome situation, imo.

Agreed. Plus, I love Tormund and have greatly enjoyed his thing for Brienne, but I think part of the charm is that she didn’t respond to it.

16 minutes ago, Bean421 said:

I loved this read on Dany's actions. Less of a snap and more of following through with what she told Jon about "Let it be fear." 

https://lareviewofbooks.org/arti…/game-of-thrones-the-bells/

I’m getting an error message.

[onyxrose81]

14 minutes ago, Dobian said:

I doubt we'll even see Sansa next week except for the epilogue.  The show has pretty much been steering Sansa to becoming the Queen of the North all along.  She'll always be in Winterfell.

She's not going to be a Queen, but Lady of WF/Warden.  I think people should stop conflating the two.  Bran is apparently King with a council and the kingdoms are separate.  Except maybe the Iron Islands but they won't get mentioned again and no one wants them around anyway.

Edited May 14, 2019 by onyxrose81

[Eyes High]

22 minutes ago, Dobian said:

I doubt we'll even see Sansa next week except for the epilogue.  The show has pretty much been steering Sansa to becoming the Queen of the North all along.  She'll always be in Winterfell.

Sansa ends up in KL towards the end along with Sam, Brienne and Bran (also currently at Winterfell), since she's at the Dragonpit for the big powwow with all the lords and ladies. The episode spoilers indicate that she rules the North alone, so her last scene is probably of Sansa alone at Winterfell. That would explain why Sophie displayed the storyboard of Sansa's last scene in the show in her home without anyone noticing what it was: Sansa has had so many scenes at Winterfell that a scene of Sansa at Winterfell wouldn't strike anyone as strange.

The episode spoilers didn't say anything about Sansa other than the fact that she ends up ruling the North, so it does seem likely that her role in the story is essentially over, like Brienne's and Sam's. She'll still presumably have to say her goodbyes to Bran, Jon and Arya, though, since Bran will be staying south, Jon will be taking the black and Arya will be leaving Westeros if the spoilers are correct.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Eyes High

[Dobian]

4 hours ago, anamika said:

The next book that GRRM is currently writing is 'The Winds of Winter'. In which Jon is still dead, Arya is still in Braavos, Dany is not even going to finish her arc in Essos and Sansa is just starting her Vale plot.

I wouldn't be surprised if he throws in a couple of pages where they burn Jon's body, scatter his ashes to the four winds, and have a red priest say a prayer to forever bind his soul to the afterlife.  In other words, nope, he ain't comin' back.  FU show!

[Portia4844]

The previous 3-eyed Raven hid out in a cave and gave no helpful history to anyone until Bran gets there and then he's all about sharing.  If Bran is the King or on the council, I can only hope he can speak in complete sentences and someone is writing it down so history isn't lost.  So far, what he shares is more like soap opera family drama.  Jon needed to know who he was,  Littlefinger needed to know Bran knew what he said to Ned, Jaime needed to know Bran remembered the things he did for love, and so on.  Not a word about what was going on in KL or Euron.  If he isn't supposed to give information that can change the outcome or prepare others with the knowledge that is available to him, what would be the point of him being King?  

[BadAssRobinArryn]

48 minutes ago, SNeaker said:

Moreover, when Season 7 started, we had one female on the throne and another massive group of female heads of houses looking to put a different woman on the throne. Every single one of those women has been wiped out and the last one standing will have to be put down like a dog next week. All to be replaced by an all male council. The only possible woman left to lead anything is Sansa, likely because she has Stark plot armor and because she's basically the show's creation. (Not a hater, she's actually my fave. It's just the truth.) 

This is not quite true. There ist still Yara.

And About the other women in this council: Ellaria had it coming. Queen of Thornes loss was a tragedy, but she went out in style.

Edited May 14, 2019 by BadAssRobinArryn

[lucindabelle]

3 minutes ago, BadAssRobinArryn said:

This is not quite true. There ist still Yara.

And About the other women in this council: Ellaria had it coming. Queen of Thornes loss was a tragedy, but she went out in style.

Going out in style is irrelevant. 

Whether or not Ellaria has it coming? Also irrelevant. 

[glowbug]

I highly doubt GRRM is going to have Dany, for no reason at all, burn down all of King’s Landing. That is the problem with the show. She burned it down after everyone had surrendered and she targeted areas with civilians. She had already achieved fear by showing up with a dragon and handedly defeating the Golden Company and Euron’s fleet. There was no purpose to that end for destroying anything else. For vengeance I could see burning down the Red Keep, killing innocents in the process, justifying it as a necessary evil to take down Cersei, and targeting her soldiers who had surrendered, again also killing innocents and civilians. That would instill more fear. There is nothing she achieves by destroying the entire city. 

It’s completely out of character whether she’s sane or crazy. Dany could never realistically become her father because Aerys wasn’t a good person before he went crazy. He had superficial charm but he showed a real lack of empathy. He was probably a psychopath, which is also inherited to some extent. Viserys clearly was as well. Dany wasn’t like Viserys or Aerys. She had empathy. She cared about other people. In madness she wouldn’t lose those traits. She could become more Machiavellian and kill innocent people if necessary (in her mind) to achieve a goal but the show didn’t have her do that. She just decided to slaughter everyone for no reason. I suspect that is so that Jon and Tyrion are clearly good while Dany is clearly the evil one. Then when Jon kills her as the leaks tell us he does there’s no question that it was the right thing to do. It also justifies Sansa (their favorite) and Arya’s distrust for her, and it makes Cersei (their other favorite) the lesser of two evils. As always D&D like to sacrifice characters (Dany, Jon, Jaime, Arya) in service to their favorites (Cersei, Sansa, Tyrion). 

Edited May 14, 2019 by glowbug

[screamin]

55 minutes ago, onyxrose81 said:

She's not going to be a Queen, but Lady of WF/Warden.  I think people should stop conflating the two.  Bran is apparently King with a council and the kingdoms are separate.  Except maybe the Iron Islands but they won't get mentioned again and no one wants them around anyway.

If there is no Iron Throne at the end, then there will be Seven Kingdoms again. Do you mean that Bran will be King in the North and King on the Iron Throne as well?

Edited May 14, 2019 by screamin

[onyxrose81]

No Iron Throne doesn't mean that there's no Seven Kingdoms.  The throne is just a symbol.  From what the leaks said, still Seven Kingdoms but a representative council.

[Umbelina]

3 hours ago, lucindabelle said:

19 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Very true, but his entire EXISTENCE was to show what all these "nobles" descended from.  A bunch of bro-dude murderers that were good at rising out of the slums of being nobody.

UGH. Seriously? Someone whose loyalties can be BOUGHT AND PAID FOR is what Martin thinks of the small folk? Because no, show. Just no. We small folk have loyalties and affections too.

Not at all.  Flip it.

THOSE WHO RISE TO POWER are the cutthroats, the schemers, murders, the best war mongers.  The rest of the "small folk" stay as they are, nice, kind, mean, whatever, but they don't become lords or nobles because they don't do the things Bronn does.  In this tale, mostly they die, as fodder for the royals in their wars for power.

It's a statement about the "great houses" and rulers.  They descend from people JUST LIKE BRONN.  The Tyrells, the Starks, the Freys, the Baratheons, the Lannisters...ALL OF THEM began from a guy no better than Bronn.

1 hour ago, SNeaker said:

They have only shown two female rulers, and both turned out to be monstrous madwomen.

As were nearly all the men on this show (already dead) from Stannis who murdered his own daughter for power, to Robert who was killing babies to secure his throne, to Tywin who laid waste to every village on his march to power...on and on.  Dany's weapon was just bigger, if they had dragons, they would have used them without a second thought.

3 hours ago, lucindabelle said:

17 hours ago, Umbelina said:

They are all sick of war, most of those waging war are now dead.  I can see them coming together for peace and rebuilding.

Yeah. That war to end all wars lasted so long right? Correct me if I’m wrong but seems to me some of the soldiers who fought in WWI were still young enough to fight in WWII. Human nature doesn’t work this way. And the people in Westeros are clearly human.

I didn't say it would LAST forever, although their is a deux ex machina in this story, so it could last a good long while.  Bran, or rather, the all-knowing, all-seeing, past/present/future 3 ER who said his job is to save the human race.

22 minutes ago, glowbug said:

I highly doubt GRRM is going to have Dany, for no reason at all, burn down all of King’s Landing.

Oh there are plenty of reasons, as stated all over this thread, and, for the most part, in the show.

I do think that will happen in the books, why have Dragons at all, if not to use them.  There is also Harrenhall.

3 hours ago, AuntieMame said:

I'm not arguing that Dany's decision to burn King's Landing and slaughter innocents is right or moral. Nor am I arguing that women aren't subject to the siren calls of power and corruption. I'm arguing that the portrayal of how Dany got there is shallow at best and the motivations the writers have shown us are sexist and inconsistent with the portrayal of Dany's character thus far. Stannis for example was consistent in his loyalty to abstract morals and his entitlement to power based on those rules. When Stannis crossed the line we at least understood how and why based on the entire development of the character and consistent elements of emotion and personality. This isn't the case with Dany. 

Not just of Dany.

Of ALL of them, we all got screwed by D and D because they wanted to move on.

1 hour ago, Oscirus said:

The Rhaegal Lyanna courtship doesn't serve any part of the story other than to serve up fan service. The important points were hit for the sake of this given story, if it gets developed further it could do so in a Robert's rebellion movie.

As a matter of fact, this story should've steered clear of the prophecies in general since they couldn't even get the amount of children that Cersei was supposed to have right. 

So basically I assume that Tyrion gets arrested fairly early, we may or may not see his trial, Jon killing Dany, Jon forming a new nights watch,  a tryrion speech and a likely epilogue?

Bigger question, what becomes of the dothraki and the unsullied? Dany wasn't the only person behind the violence this week and I don't think theres enough soldiers left to make them go away.

There is a cool spoiler about the unsullied going home to continue the slave freeing work, no idea if it's true.  Dothraki will probably go back to doing what they have always done in the inland sea.

1 hour ago, SNeaker said:

They have only shown two female rulers, and both turned out to be monstrous madwomen.

Moreover, when Season 7 started, we had one female on the throne and another massive group of female heads of houses looking to put a different woman on the throne. Every single one of those women has been wiped out and the last one standing will have to be put down like a dog next week. All to be replaced by an all male council. The only possible woman left to lead anything is Sansa, likely because she has Stark plot armor and because she's basically the show's creation. (Not a hater, she's actually my fave. It's just the truth.)

That's not even getting into how they villainized Dany before she became a villain by having a bunch of stupid stupid men give her bad advice that caused failure after failure and then gaslit her, but we're supposed to think if only she'd listened to these nice reasonable men everything would be ok.

That's the fault of the headlong breakneck rush to end this show.  D&D should have handed it off to people who weren't sick of it.

It had very little to do with Dany, it actually character assassinates Tyrion, Jon, Varys, Jorah and many others making them completely stupid.

1 hour ago, Jextella said:

Sansa, Lady Olenna, Lyanna Mormont, and even Brienne for that matter have had various leadership roles.   

And Yara.  All were rulers of their own areas.  Well, not Brienne, but she is a woman of honor.

1 hour ago, JennyMominFL said:

Im not thrilled with how a lot of minorities have been portrayed but I am mostly ok with the portrayal of women on here. This is a show about a patriarchal medieval society. I did not expect it to be super progressive. I wouldnt exactly say the portrayal of men has been lovely either

Me too, the women and men have been pretty equally "evil" and murderous, other than most don't wield swords. 
Dany just had nukes, and when she wasn't received in Westeros with flowers, love, praise, and joy?  When she lost two "children" and her advisers disappointed or outright betrayed her, and her best friends were killed?

"Let it be fear."  "Let it be fire and blood." 

She was determined to rule the 7 Kingdom, even after she found out she was not the "rightful ruler" after all.  She would have rather won by being adored and flattered, called Mysha and had people lovingly and happily take the knee.  However, when that didn't happen?  She would rule the other way, but RULE she would.

She had the biggest nukes, the dragons, just like her ancestors, the people of Westeros in fear?  Kneeled.

11 minutes ago, screamin said:

If there is no Iron Throne at the end, then there will be Seven Kingdoms again. Do you mean that Bran will be King in the North and King on the Iron Throne as well?

Most likely a Commonwealth of some kind.

Eventually some kind of democratic set up, but that would take time.  The Wildlings already have that though, so maybe not that much time.

[screamin]

2 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

It's a statement about the "great houses" and rulers.  They descend from people JUST LIKE BRONN.  The Tyrells, the Starks, the Freys, the Baratheons, the Lannisters...ALL OF THEM began from a guy no better than Bronn.

That's what Bronn says. While it may be true, I would still say that he's not an objective person in the argument, and that further citations are needed to prove that ALL founders of noble houses would have been willing to kill babies if the price was right.

[Umbelina]

2 minutes ago, screamin said:

That's what Bronn says. While it may be true, I would still say that he's not an objective person in the argument, and that further citations are needed to prove that ALL founders of noble houses would have been willing to kill babies if the price was right.

That's what history says as well, but most of all, that was what GRRM has said.  It's one of his most important messages in the book.

That was straight up GRRM talking.

[lucindabelle]

6 minutes ago, screamin said:

That's what Bronn says. While it may be true, I would still say that he's not an objective person in the argument, and that further citations are needed to prove that ALL founders of noble houses would have been willing to kill babies if the price was right.

It’s also a terrific cliche. It’s hardly news that rulers are thugs. 

It doesn’t make BRONN an everyman nor Martin a deep thinker. 

[SNeaker]

Fair, I forgot about Yara still being alive. 

Maybe because the show did. More important to have her Uncle Douchebag chewing up scenery.

[Umbelina]

1 minute ago, lucindabelle said:

It’s also a terrific cliche. It’s hardly news that rulers are thugs. 

It doesn’t make BRONN an everyman nor Martin a deep thinker. 

No, but it does state a truth that many do overlook.  Not just for power, but also for wealth.

[lucindabelle]

1 minute ago, Umbelina said:

No, but it does state a truth that many do overlook.  Not just for power, but also for wealth.

Who?

nobody who’s ever learned any history. Jaimie is quite aware of the history of his own house.

It’s also an unbelievable cliche that wealthy people steal millions, one repeated daily in cable tv these days and one that anybody who’s ever paid the slightest attention to the stock market let alone corporate bailouts knows well.

its insulting to the viewers intelligence, TBH.  And it still doesn’t make Bronn a wise philosopher- he’s a greedy fuck with no principles.