Season 8: Speculation and Spoilers Discussion

[ChipBach]

11 hours ago, spaceghostess said:

Don't know, but I can't think of poor Rickon Stark without hearing Peter Falk's voice yelling "Serpentine, Shelly! Serpentine!!".

Rickon Stark, the kid who was too dumb to zig...

[YaddaYadda]

On 9/3/2017 at 6:02 PM, MadMouse said:

I've heard that before, I don't know. He seems pretty devoted to Faegon.

"My lords, I give you Aegon Targaryen, firstborn son of Rhaegar, Prince of Dragonstone, by Princess Elia Martell..."

He doesn't say the son of Rhaegar, Prince of Dragonstone and Princess Elia Martel, or some variance of that. Instead he's the firstborn son of Rhaegar by Elia. Every male who has been named firstborn always has or had a younger brother. 

Doesn't matter though since the Aegon plot has been scrapped on the show.

23 hours ago, Nash said:

I'm interested in those Targ quirks - what would you say they are? The thing with Daenerys isn't a conscious adoption of Targ practice and his justice is taken from Ned - he'd have chopped Tarly himself but - I think - would have tried to give Rickon a way out. Which the idiot would have refused - you can see who had the brains in that family

The "quirks" are in the books, not on the show. And I call them "quirks" because I don't really know what to call them? Targanyerisms? 

In ADWD, Dragons. For a moment Jon could almost see them too, coiling in the night, their dark wings outlined against a sea of flames. 

That's one thing. 

Edited September 8, 2017 by YaddaYadda

[Nash]

To be honest it's a long time since I read the books and it was stretched out over such a period that other stuff has replaced it in my mind.

by contrast I have a very good memory of reading LOTR the first time. Then again, it's shorter.

Did GRRM really criticise Tolkien for not getting into the economy of Gondor??

[WindyNights]

32 minutes ago, Nash said:

To be honest it's a long time since I read the books and it was stretched out over such a period that other stuff has replaced it in my mind.

by contrast I have a very good memory of reading LOTR the first time. Then again, it's shorter.

Did GRRM really criticise Tolkien for not getting into the economy of Gondor??

GRRM cares more about socio-economic functions than anything else. He devoted Jon's entire storyline and Daenerys' entire storyline in ADWD to the exploration of governing at the top.

 

"You see that at the end of the [ 'Lord of the Rings' ] books, when Sauron has been defeated and Aragorn is king," Martin told the Advance. "It's easy to type, 'he ruled wisely and well,' but what does that constitute?"

"What was his tax policy? How did the economy function? What about the class system?"

"The orcs," he continued. "There are still tens and thousands of orcs at the end of 'Lord of the Rings.' Did he pursue a policy of genocide toward them? Or did he reach out and try to educate them and bring them into the mainstream and civilize them? We never get answers to any of these questions. We just get 'he ruled wisely and well.'"

 

GRRM loves Tolkien though but hates Tolkien imitators: 

 

I revere Lord of the Rings, I reread it every few years, it had an enormous effect on me as a kid. In some sense, when I started this saga I was replying to Tolkien, but even more to his modern imitators.

 

But they cheapened it. The audience were being sold degraded goods. I thought: “This is not how it should be done.” Writers would take the structure of medieval times – castles, princesses, etc – but writing it from a 20th-century point of view. I wanted to combine the wonder and image of Tolkien fantasy with the gloom of historical fiction.

[Nash]

Thank you - that's interesting. There was an ongoing debate in our D&D group over Orcs and killing them - would a Paladin kill an entire clan to the last runt? What if an Orc surrendered? What if there was a clan of Orcs living peaceably and the humans just attacked - how would a ranger react? 

LOTR was written - I think - from the perspective of a moral absolute, Sauron and his servants were evil. Today I see far less books using goblins or Orcs as the evil sword fodder and the focus is that we, the humans are the monsters. 

[SimoneS]

16 hours ago, WindyNights said:

GRRM cares more about socio-economic functions than anything else. He devoted Jon's entire storyline and Daenerys' entire storyline in ADWD to the exploration of governing at the top.

 

"You see that at the end of the [ 'Lord of the Rings' ] books, when Sauron has been defeated and Aragorn is king," Martin told the Advance. "It's easy to type, 'he ruled wisely and well,' but what does that constitute?"

"What was his tax policy? How did the economy function? What about the class system?"

"The orcs," he continued. "There are still tens and thousands of orcs at the end of 'Lord of the Rings.' Did he pursue a policy of genocide toward them? Or did he reach out and try to educate them and bring them into the mainstream and civilize them? We never get answers to any of these questions. We just get 'he ruled wisely and well.'"

 

GRRM loves Tolkien though but hates Tolkien imitators: 

 

I revere Lord of the Rings, I reread it every few years, it had an enormous effect on me as a kid. In some sense, when I started this saga I was replying to Tolkien, but even more to his modern imitators.

 

But they cheapened it. The audience were being sold degraded goods. I thought: “This is not how it should be done.” Writers would take the structure of medieval times – castles, princesses, etc – but writing it from a 20th-century point of view. I wanted to combine the wonder and image of Tolkien fantasy with the gloom of historical fiction.

What pretentious judgemental muck. No wonder he is struggling to finish the story. 

Edited September 9, 2017 by SimoneS

[WindyNights]

16 minutes ago, SimoneS said:

What pretentious judgemental muck. No wonder he is struggling finish the story. 

He's right though. Tolkien imitators copied a story template they didn't really understand.

 

Just look at the first book of the Shannara Chronicles.

Here's more of him on the subject (apparently he doesn't really believe in heroes):

 

The war that Tolkien wrote about was a war for the fate of civilization and the future of humanity, and that's become the template. I'm not sure that it's a good template, though. The Tolkien model led generations of fantasy writers to produce these endless series of dark lords and their evil minions who are all very ugly and wear black clothes. But the vast majority of wars throughout history are not like that. World War I is much more typical of the wars of history than World War II – the kind of war you look back afterward and say, "What the hell were we fighting for? Why did all these millions of people have to die? Was it really worth it to get rid of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, that we wiped out an entire generation, and tore up half the continent? Was the War of 1812 worth fighting? The Spanish-American War? What the hell were these people fighting for?"

Edited September 9, 2017 by WindyNights

[SimoneS]

26 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

He's right though. Tolkien imitators copied a story template they didn't really understand.

 

Just look at the first book of the Shannara Chronicles.

I am not getting into a debate about Tolkien and who is understands him better. I have enough issues with Tolkien on his own. I am an avid reader of the sci fantasy and enjoy a variety of authors. I certainly don't hold them to some imaginary Tolkien standard. I haven't read the Shannara Chronicles trilogy in over "many" years (I won't date myself). However, I remember enjoying them even though they were clearly in the LOTR mold.

I have said it before and will say it again; GRRM is never going to finish those books if he is motivated by trying to out Tolkien Tolkien and make some ridiculous point about other sci fantasy writers. 

Edited September 9, 2017 by SimoneS

[WindyNights]

9 minutes ago, SimoneS said:

I am not getting into a debate about Tolkien and who is understands him better. I have enough issues with Tolkien on his own. I am an avid reader of the sci fantasy and enjoy a variety of authors. I certainly don't hold them to some imaginary Tolkien standard. I haven't read the Shannara Chronicles trilogy in over "many" years (I won't date myself). However, I remember enjoying them even though they were clearly in the LOTR mold.

I have said it before and will say it again; GRRM is never going to finish those books if he is motivated by trying to out Tolkien Tolkien and make some ridiculous point about other sci fantasy writers. 

The first book of the Shannara Chronicles is almost a plagiarism of Tolkien's LOTR.

 

That was one of the motivations he had to make the series in the first place. Show where they went wrong. That's why almost ASOIAF has every fantasy trope in one series. You have Bilbo Baggins/the Frog Prince with Quentyn, Lancelot with Jaime, the Evil Queen of Snow White with Cersei, Aragorn with Jon Snow, Merlin with Bloodraven, Wart/young King Arthur with Bran, Conan the Barbarian as Robert Baratheon, Randall Flagg/Saruman as Euron etc. It's one of the more ambitious Book series that I've come across maybe too ambitious. 

[GraceK]

http://watchersonthewall.com/dothraki-huts-seen-at-titanic-studios-as-pre-production-for-season-8-continues/#more-153337

some pre production tidbits

[Nash]

I thInk the appendixes in LOTR say that Aragorn and Eomer still campaigned after the ROTK so I'd say it was open season on Orcs and any of saurons surviving servants. 

Tolkien started writing a story set a few hundred years after ROTK in which evil returned to Gondor; he didn't carry on as he felt it would simply be a thriller (no harm in that imho) but crucially it would undermine the final definitive victory of evil that he wanted to portray. 

Economics don't really do well in fantasy; tariffs, taxes and embargoes give background colour but I don't read fantasy for an exposition on the free market vs a controlled economy. I don't read it for Bolton torture scenes either. 

Tolkien gave us a world in which a hero could say "I bid you stand, Men of the West!"

In Westeros it's "I will hang any man who runs - after I've burnt his family before him!"

[Haleth]

18 hours ago, paigow said:

When did the writers from Newhart get hired???

"Hi.  I'm Rhaenys.  This is my brother Aegon and my other brother Aegon."

 

On 9/8/2017 at 2:01 AM, spaceghostess said:

Don't know, but I can't think of poor Rickon Stark without hearing Peter Falk's voice yelling "Serpentine, Shelly! Serpentine!!".

And Viserion too.  You'd think a dragon would know how to serpentine.

[SimoneS]

I just saw that @GraceK already posted this news.above.

Edited September 9, 2017 by SimoneS

[MarySNJ]

23 hours ago, WindyNights said:

He's right though. Tolkien imitators copied a story template they didn't really understand.

 

Just look at the first book of the Shannara Chronicles.

Here's more of him on the subject (apparently he doesn't really believe in heroes):

 

The war that Tolkien wrote about was a war for the fate of civilization and the future of humanity, and that's become the template. I'm not sure that it's a good template, though. The Tolkien model led generations of fantasy writers to produce these endless series of dark lords and their evil minions who are all very ugly and wear black clothes. But the vast majority of wars throughout history are not like that. World War I is much more typical of the wars of history than World War II – the kind of war you look back afterward and say, "What the hell were we fighting for? Why did all these millions of people have to die? Was it really worth it to get rid of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, that we wiped out an entire generation, and tore up half the continent? Was the War of 1812 worth fighting? The Spanish-American War? What the hell were these people fighting for?"

GRRM's writing seems to be some of both. I get his point about war, that there's no clear evil vs. good as every side in the conflict will view their own as correct and will justify their use of violence against the Other and dealing with the aftermath, the guilt and the regret.  That being said, I'm not seeing the Others in GRRM's books as grey. They kill all living things and enslave the dead. That's evil and I'm not sure that any justification would really work for me as a reader, so if GRRM doesn't like the template maybe he should have given some context earlier in the books to give the Others' perspective. 

[WindyNights]

36 minutes ago, MarySNJ said:

GRRM's writing seems to be some of both. I get his point about war, that there's no clear evil vs. good as every side in the conflict will view their own as correct and will justify their use of violence against the Other and dealing with the aftermath, the guilt and the regret.  That being said, I'm not seeing the Others in GRRM's books as grey. They kill all living things and enslave the dead. That's evil and I'm not sure that any justification would really work for me as a reader, so if GRRM doesn't like the template maybe he should have given some context earlier in the books to give the Others' perspective. 

D & D hit the nail on the head here: 

'We don't think of the Night King as a villain as much as Death. He is not someone who's like Joffrey or Ramsay. He's not really human anymore," they said. "Evil comes when you have a choice between that and good, and you choose the wrong way. The Night King doesn't have a choice; he was created in that way, and that's what he is. In some ways, he's just Death, coming for everyone in the story, and for all of us."

[MarySNJ]

On 9/9/2017 at 8:22 PM, WindyNights said:

D & D hit the nail on the head here: 

 

Hmm, well okay, I suppose I can see that. Beric:  "Death is the enemy... the enemy always wins but we still have to fight him."

I still feel that an enemy that can't be reasoned with or lacks the ability to choose and is instinctively driven to destroy all life would reasonably be called evil by those who are fighting to protect life.  A lot of what GRRM writes in the novels is about choices people make, consequences for revenge and the devastation of war. If the main enemy is driven to destroy life and lacks the ability to choose, I feel that it sort of goes counter to what GRRM has set up in the books so far but we'll have to wait and see what GRRM writes in TWOW and ADOS.

Anyway, that's one reason why I'm glad Lady Stoneheart was not brought into the TV series. If we're going to have unreasoning killers in the form of Night King and his army, we don't need another. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by MarySNJ

[WindyNights]

2 hours ago, MarySNJ said:

Hmm, well okay, I suppose I can see that. Beric:  "Death is the enemy... the enemy always wins but we still have to fight him."

I still feel that an enemy that can't be reasoned with or lacks the ability to choose and is instinctively driven to destroy all life would reasonably be called evil by those who are fighting to protect life.  A lot of what GRRM writes in the novels is about choices people make, consequences for revenge and the devastation of war. If the main enemy is driven to destroy life and lacks the ability to choose, I feel that it sort of goes counter to what GRRM has set up in the books so far but we'll have to wait and see what GRRM writes in TWOW and ADOS.

Anyway, that's one reason why I'm glad Lady Stoneheart was not brought into the TV series. If we're going to have unreasoning killers in the form of Night King and his army, we don't need another. 

LSH isn't an unreasonable killer. She's not out to kill everyone just the Lannisters, Freys, Boltons and their accomplices. She's just a worse Arya in a leadership position. LSH is Arya's Fairy Murder Mother(where Jaquen was her murder genie).

And hey, she does nice things too. She is housing all the Riverlander orphans she comes across in an inn. 

 

Anyways, you definitely lost something in the show when the two were combined. Instead of the pursuance of vengeance being this damaging and self-destructive thing, it's positioned as triumphant because Arya is doing it and the show wants us to think she's cool.

Take the Frey Massacre, for example. When Arya does it, we're meant to think this family massacre she's perpetrating is amazing and to cheer for her. She even only kills the bad Freys. It's this type of morally-safe schlock that GRRM has been trying to write against. 

[Nash]

I think what Beric's speech was meant to say is that death is inevitable but that he would fight against the monsters who would kill people who would otherwise live longer. The harder he fights, the longer others live. It's one of the noblest statements from the series and one - I think - of the few comments driven by altruism and not greed or necessity (though you could argue his actions are necessary to the survival of others).

Is the NK evil? I don't care - he is on a march to destroy the land and those who live in it. You could argue that Cersei is worse because she chooses to do vile things with her free will but the NK will violently take away that free will along with the lives of his victims. 

As for Arya, the Freys were shown as having no redeeming features - they weren't even stylishly dressed villains and seemed an inept bunch of semi cowards - so it seems fair that she (so far) gets a pass on the morals of wiping them out.

If this was a drama about Helmand and Jon Snow and Arya* Paras then yes, show the emotional trauma but it isn't so let's see the villains get the chop and about time.

*i know female combat role etc - let's not go there. 

[WearyTraveler]

I am re-reading ASOS, and I saw that upon my original read I had highlighted the following quote from Jon (he thinks this as he's having a conversation with Tormund while they are walking toward Mance's tent north of the Wall, when Jon is tasked to kill Mance by Janos):

Quote

"Someone needed to find some joy somewhere."

I even made a note that YES! something happy needed to happen to someone already because that far into the story it had all been death, war, destruction and the beat down of all the characters / houses that were fighting for just causes.  I think this is meant to say to the reader: "I see you, I know this is depressing, but it will all change".

It's silly, but I found the line oddly comforting.  Not that I think the ending will be unicorns and rainbows, but this line gave me hope that, eventually, things would start to look up for a least a few of the characters.  And what do you know? In the fifth book we find out Davos didn't die, that the North remembers, and that Manderly baked Frey pies... :-)

This is the sort of thing that keeps me mildly hopeful about the ending not being all bleak.

Edited September 12, 2017 by WearyTraveler

[Eyes High]

/Freefolk has its first alleged S8 leaker: user /ThrowawayBronn. He claims that this is the director order for Season 8:

Quote

 

8x01 and 8x02: David Nutter

8x03: Alan Taylor

8x04: Jack Bender or David Lynch

8x05 and 8x06: Miguel Sapochnik

 

He claims that D&D want David Lynch to direct 8x04 after being very impressed with Twin Peaks. That sounds incredibly unlikely to me, personally. So...grain of salt, is what I'm saying. 

His only alleged plot spoiler is that Pilou (Euron) won't be filming 8x05 or 8x06.

I wouldn't be surprised if Nutter and Taylor returned for Season 8: Nutter was supposed to direct for Season 7 until back problems sidelined him, and Taylor doesn't have anything else on the go at the moment.

If the episodes are really supersized for Season 8, though, I'd be surprised to see a director given two episodes. That's easily six months' worth of work. That's fine for Nutter, who's not busy at the moment, but Sapochnik has other irons in the fire. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Eyes High

[glowbug]

I hope Alan Taylor comes back. While there were serious issues with the writing for 07x06, I thought Taylor's directing was on point. 

[GraceK]

20 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

His only alleged plot spoiler is that Pilou (Euron) won't be filming 8x05 or 8x06.

 

I really hope that means Euron is dead by that point.  That gives me hope 

[Eyes High]

Even if /ThrowawayBronn turns out to be a faker--and I'm skeptical about their bona fides, given how much they seemed to know about /Freefolk (the fake S8 leaks, Lads' history on the sub, etc.)--I would not be at all surprised to see David Nutter and Alan Taylor in the S8 lineup. 

[SimoneS]

1 hour ago, GraceK said:

I really hope that means Euron is dead by that point.  That gives me hope 

Now that I think about it, it is difficult to believe that Euron is gone so soon. He has to bring the Golden Company to Westeros and of course, have that confrontation with Theon. I don't like Theon, but he clearly going to be around to end. So if Euron is gone so soon, Theon would have nothing to do. Kind of how they kept Littlefinger around to give Sansa and Arya a story.

[GraceK]

33 minutes ago, SimoneS said:

Now that I think about it, it is difficult to believe that Euron is gone so soon. He has to bring the Golden Company to Westeros and of course, have that confrontation with Theon. I don't like Theon, but he clearly going to be around to end. So if Euron is gone so soon, Theon would have nothing to do. Kind of how they kept Littlefinger around to give Sansa and Arya a story.

NOOO!!! Don't  crush my hopes!!! :)

then again, the season is only 6 episodes all together...so it can make sense for Euron to complete his "arc" or whatever within 4 episodes...especially if they are gonna be super sized 

[MadMouse]

I can see them wanting Miguel Sapochnik if the last two episodes involve the War for Dawn and Cersei's last stand, especially after the near universal praise he got for the Battle of Bastards.

Euron being taken out early makes sense in a way, losing all her her allies like Aerys and going full Mad Queen would be a fitting end to her arc and Jaime's.

Two things he also mentioned, them wanting someone really famous for new a role. Which can only mean Howland Reed or Connington IMO. And the other was how absurd all these previous S8 leaks were, which if you read them you'd know.

[Eyes High]

1 hour ago, MadMouse said:

Two things he also mentioned, them wanting someone really famous for new a role. Which can only mean Howland Reed or Connington IMO. 

That was the other thing that suggested to me that this user might be faking. It reminded me of the person who showed up in the WOTW comments section back in May claiming that Vanessa Redgrave had been cast to play the older version of a current character. Nothing further was heard about it, and I think there has yet to be a legit leaker in the WOTW comments section, so this bit stuck out as suspicious.

...Of course, if /ThrowawayBronn is a faker, why not come up with detailed fake spoilers? Why just dump the director order and vamoose? Strange.

[SimoneS]

1 hour ago, GraceK said:

NOOO!!! Don't  crush my hopes!!! :)

then again, the season is only 6 episodes all together...so it can make sense for Euron to complete his "arc" or whatever within 4 episodes...especially if they are gonna be super sized 

Maybe, but I feel like they will string out Theon and Euron like they did last season. Theon appeared in episodes 2, 3, 4, and then disappeared until episode 7.  It is difficult to know what Theon will be doing. He won't be fighting in the north. He seemed to have taken off with the Ironborn rebels, but he would need others to help him defeat his uncle and seems to be his purpose now like the Hound's purpose is fight his brother. If Euron brings the Golden Company with his fleet, it would be vulnerable to attack at King's Landing unlike at the Iron Islands. I have liked Pilou Asbæk since he played Kasper on Borgen so I don't mind him, it is Theon I cannot stand.

Edited September 12, 2017 by SimoneS

[SimoneS]

I have been wondering if we will see Daario in season 8. Michiel Huisman seemed coy when asked if he would return. The Golden Company arrival in Westeros seems like an opportune moment for Daario's return, either to betray Dany or to fight for her.

[MadMouse]

42 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

That was the other thing that suggested to me that this user might be faking. It reminded me of the person who showed up in the WOTW comments section back in May claiming that Vanessa Redgrave had been cast to play the older version of a current character. Nothing further was heard about it, and I think there has yet to be a legit leaker in the WOTW comments section, so this bit stuck out as suspicious.

...Of course, if /ThrowawayBronn is a faker, why not come up with detailed fake spoilers? Why just dump the director order and vamoose? Strange.

The fact they didn't really know alot makes me think he or she is legit. If they had dumped info like they had all the scripts already like the previous S8 ones I would be suspicious. 

 

10 minutes ago, SimoneS said:

I have been wondering if we will see Daario in season 8. Michiel Huisman seemed coy when asked if he would return. The Golden Company arrival in Westeros seems like an opportune moment for Daario's return, either to betray Dany or to fight for her.

I liked Huisman's Daario but at this point in the show a faux love triangle or vengeful ex lover is something the show doesn't need. And does any really want to hear what kind of cringey dialogue they'd probably come up with during a Jon/ Daario confrontation.

[madam magpie]

If I never see Daario again, I won't cry.

[Nash]

As a complete aside, I wonder if Huisman would make a good Conan? Based much more on the books, you'd have a massive source (and a finished one at that). You'd have to get past the whole Arnie thing but I imagine there are suits at HBO asking themselves "what next?"

[paigow]

7 hours ago, Nash said:

As a complete aside, I wonder if Huisman would make a good Conan? Based much more on the books, you'd have a massive source (and a finished one at that). You'd have to get past the whole Arnie thing but I imagine there are suits at HBO asking themselves "what next?"

They already rebooted with Drogo as Conan....As a movie franchise, it looks dead...

[Nash]

Indeed, I saw the film; it wasn't bad but I wasn't convinced. 

I was idly thinking; I'd not give up on Conan as a subject but the legacy of Arnie is a huge issue for a reboot.

[Eyes High]

WOTW has debunked /ThrowawayBronn's info: David Lynch, the director list, all of it. WOTW seems to be implying that Lads was never caught, either. Womp womp!

WOTW also debunked the fake S8 spoilers that have been circulating.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Eyes High

[WindyNights]

21 hours ago, Nash said:

As for Arya, the Freys were shown as having no redeeming features - they weren't even stylishly dressed villains and seemed an inept bunch of semi cowards - so it seems fair that she (so far) gets a pass on the morals of wiping them out.

If this was a drama about Helmand and Jon Snow and Arya* Paras then yes, show the emotional trauma but it isn't so let's see the villains get the chop and about time.

*i know female combat role etc - let's not go there. 

I think that's contrary to the spirit of the books. It'd be like writing a pure revenge fantasy in Middle Earth. Major plot changes don't bother me as much as when adaptations decide they're not going to adhere to the ideas and spirit of the book series they're adapting. That's why I give the show crap for being nihilistic. 

Like when D & D say they think Tywin is Lawful Neutral then you have know to that they're just operating on a different wavelength to GRRM and his book series.

 

Concerning the Freys, I think they've been  mishandled in the show. In the books, they have a large presence everywhere and there are plenty of good Freys that had no input in the Red Wedding or were loyal to the Starks.  As a family, they're not evil. They're just a mixed bag. Plenty of bad ones, plenty of good ones and plenty in-between.

 

In the show, you only know about Old Walder Frey and the rest of the Freys are nameless characters that are all interchangeable with one another.

[SimoneS]

4 hours ago, Nash said:

Indeed, I saw the film; it wasn't bad but I wasn't convinced. 

I was idly thinking; I'd not give up on Conan as a subject but the legacy of Arnie is a huge issue for a reboot.

I think that Conan is one of those dated franchises that is difficult to reboot. Huisman is a good actor, but I cannot see him as Conan, maybe because he lacks the bulging muscles.

Edited September 12, 2017 by SimoneS

[MarySNJ]

22 hours ago, Eyes High said:

/Freefolk has its first alleged S8 leaker: user /ThrowawayBronn. He claims that this is the director order for Season 8:

He claims that D&D want David Lynch to direct 8x04 after being very impressed with Twin Peaks. That sounds incredibly unlikely to me, personally. So...grain of salt, is what I'm saying. 

His only alleged plot spoiler is that Pilou (Euron) won't be filming 8x05 or 8x06.

I wouldn't be surprised if Nutter and Taylor returned for Season 8: Nutter was supposed to direct for Season 7 until back problems sidelined him, and Taylor doesn't have anything else on the go at the moment.

If the episodes are really supersized for Season 8, though, I'd be surprised to see a director given two episodes. That's easily six months' worth of work. That's fine for Nutter, who's not busy at the moment, but Sapochnik has other irons in the fire. 

Didn't Miguel Sapochnik already say that he will not be back for Season 8? Or was that Season 7?  And David Lynch? I highly doubt it. 

ETA:  Oops, I see above that these were debunked. Figured. 

Edited September 12, 2017 by MarySNJ

[Nash]

2 hours ago, SimoneS said:

I think that Conan is one of those dated franchises that is difficult to reboot. Huisman is a good actor, but I cannot see him as Conan, maybe because he lacks the bulging muscles.

The gym is a wonderful thing; I was having a chat about this just now - the comment was that Conan lacks the multiple POV that GOT has and if you can't relate to Conan, that's it. 

[Nash]

3 hours ago, WindyNights said:

I think that's contrary to the spirit of the books. It'd be like writing a pure revenge fantasy in Middle Earth. Major plot changes don't bother me as much as when adaptations decide they're not going to adhere to the ideas and spirit of the book series they're adapting. That's why I give the show crap for being nihilistic. 

Like when D & D say they think Tywin is Lawful Neutral then you have know to that they're just operating on a different wavelength to GRRM and his book series.

 

Concerning the Freys, I think they've been  mishandled in the show. In the books, they have a large presence everywhere and there are plenty of good Freys that had no input in the Red Wedding or were loyal to the Starks.  As a family, they're not evil. They're just a mixed bag. Plenty of bad ones, plenty of good ones and plenty in-between.

 

In the show, you only know about Old Walder Frey and the rest of the Freys are nameless characters that are all interchangeable with one another.

Lawful Neutral? Hoots of derisive laughter, Bruce.

Ive given up on the books and I'm happier for it. For me the series is the story now; I think it's taken us so far in the mire in terms of torture and rape that I'm quite happy to see the Freys get it. 

GRRM seemed intent on taking epic fantasy down some dark paths; this is where it ends up if you bin the moral compass

[WindyNights]

2 hours ago, Nash said:

Lawful Neutral? Hoots of derisive laughter, Bruce.

Ive given up on the books and I'm happier for it. For me the series is the story now; I think it's taken us so far in the mire in terms of torture and rape that I'm quite happy to see the Freys get it. 

GRRM seemed intent on taking epic fantasy down some dark paths; this is where it ends up if you bin the moral compass

I disagree with what you're saying. Here's a good video on how the book's spirit didn't make it to the screen. I'll quote some of the important parts too: 

Quote

 

 

 

Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived = Heinlein's premise.

The Spirit of ASOIAF:

Quote

Heinlein's premise holds very true in the endless power struggle between Stark, Lannister, Baratheon and everyone else. And Martin, moreso than any other author that I can think of, has refused to budge from the awful consequences of this premise. In the world of the books, the primary products of medieval authoritarianism are war, suffering and death. It's a place where all the good intentions in the world won't matter if they're fed into the same broken system as the bad ones.

Quote

AFFC started an important tonal shift in the spirit of the books....The fourth book features, for the first time, significant exploration and questions of Heinlein's premise. Wandering Septon Meribald and the inhabitants of the Quiet Isle exhibt a carefully considered almost pacifistic worldview, for instance. And as the story continues in the fifth, Jon and Daenerys both approach, with great difficulty, a different kind of authority. One based not on the direct or indirect threat of violence but on what we today would call the social contract. In short, the books begin to show an interest in riddling out from the Heinleinean boot. The contrast between these character moments and the bloody, ruthless world around them makes them much more admirable, that much more vital.  That's the spirit of A Song of Ice and Fire to me. One that critiques authoritarian politics and respects the value of ideals in a fallen world.

The Spirit of the Show: 

Quote

....You see the show rarely does any of the things I just described. It keeps the occasional shred of the original spirit, sure, but more often it gets it exactly backwards. While the books explore and critique Heinlein's promise, for the most part the show just wallows in it in a way that's almost obscene to me at this point. And one of their wallowing methods in particular is the worst....the cult of the badass

 

Quote

....You see the badass is a creature designed by and for Heinlein's premise (violence is the supreme authority from which all authority is derived). In the heinleinian world the only path to safety, security and independence is to be comfortable with violence or better yet to be stylish with it. In the cult of the badass, the highest achievement to which a character can aspire to is the ability to kill people with a completely blank look on their face . There's no room for Septon Meribald in a show like this. If there was he'd probably be tortured to death by Ramsay Snow or something by now. All those quiet moments in the Riverlands, at the Quiet Isle, at the Wall, in Meereeen, moments that you can call "goodass", they're gone. Unnecessary, extraneous to the proceedings, we're in the world of Heinlein's premise where cynicism is nothing less than wisdom and pacifism is nothing more than naïveté.

Quote

And that's my beef with the show. I don't care that Asha is called Yara now for some reason. I don't care that characters go to the wrong places or live and die when they're not supposed to or that storylines are changed, added it left out. I care that the spirit of the books hasn't made it from the page onto the screen the way it did with LOTR. I don't think the show is bad. It's well-costumed, well-acted, often well-directed and sometimes even well-written. But it's also nasty and vicious and glib in a way the books never were.

Edited September 13, 2017 by WindyNights

[WindyNights]

2 hours ago, Nash said:

Lawful Neutral? Hoots of derisive laughter, Bruce.

 

Here:

Weiss: Well, I don’t think Tywin is a villain.

Benioff: That’s a fair point. If you read the story from the Stark point of view…

Weiss: …then I guess he would be a villain.

Benioff: But Tywin isn’t torturing prostitutes for pleasure. He’s not a sadist. He’s ruthless, for sure. But there’s an argument to be made that Westeros needs ruthlessness. You look at Daenerys across the sea — she’s crucifying 163 masters; she’s pretty ruthless, too. So you love Daenerys even when she’s killing people and condemn Tywin. I think somebody asked Charles about that in an interview and he was quite resistant to the idea of Tywin as a villain. I think Dan’s right. I don’t think of him as evil.

Weiss: I would call him Lawful Neutral.

Add in comments that they want the Lannisters to win and they that they think Ramsay is a badass and it paints a very poor picture of them. They're ultimately edge lords. They prefer flash to substance.

[ShellsandCheese]

I've been rewatching seasons five and six and I really hope that season eight delves into how Jon Snow was brought back. I don't think they will but I want them to do. After watching the end of five and the beginning of six in one fell swoop, I am convinced that the sacrificing of Shireen is played a part in Jon being resurrected; life for a life. Add in the fact that Melisandre was responsible for both, and I'm convinced they are connected somehow and I would love see how they would explain because my imagination is running wild. 

I agree, Daario serves no purpose at this point. I hope he doesn't come back, we already have a shortened season best to leave these old storylines alone at this point. 

[Nash]

so, Tywyn is implicated in plotting the Red Wedding and remains LN? 

[MadMouse]

Some people use his argument that it saved lives in the end, a longer war more equals more death. The cut off the head argument, of course that ignores all the soldiers that were butchered outside. It also ignores all of his past actions too, the butchering of both the Reyne and Tarbecks, Tysha's gang rape, the murders of the Targaryen children and Elia. 

 

The amusing part of Tywin is he's so concerned with legacy but because of his own actions, the reputations of children he's going to be remembered as a monster.

[Nash]

Even if you try to argue the defence that he didn't give direct orders or kill people himself, as Lord of House Lannister the buck stops with him.

Lawful evil? And I suggest D&D refresh their reading of D&D alignments

[cambridgeguy]

12 hours ago, Nash said:

Lawful Neutral? Hoots of derisive laughter, Bruce.

Tywin WAS (mostly) lawful neutral back when he was Hand of the King under Aerys.  He was brutal and ruthless but ultimately he was enforcing the rules, he just liked to choose the most violent penalty.  An interesting what if scenario is how things would have played out if Joanna didn't die when she gave birth to Tyrion.  It's likely Tywin would still dislike him for being a dwarf but I doubt he would have such a blinding hatred for the guy.

[Nash]

55 minutes ago, cambridgeguy said:

Tywin WAS (mostly) lawful neutral back when he was Hand of the King under Aerys.  He was brutal and ruthless but ultimately he was enforcing the rules, he just liked to choose the most violent penalty.  An interesting what if scenario is how things would have played out if Joanna didn't die when she gave birth to Tyrion.  It's likely Tywin would still dislike him for being a dwarf but I doubt he would have such a blinding hatred for the guy.

Sounds like a shift in alignment to me - though you could argue that a preference towards cruel punishments suggests evil rather than good or true neutral.

In that sense Ned Stark isn't exactly LG, he's more LN applying the law with a swift death for the guilty and not laying the guilt of that execution onto a lackey. Perhaps that's good for Westeros; what's his record like on hungry peasants caught poaching?

perhaps the D&D alignment model doesn't work in Westeros? 

[paigow]

12 hours ago, ShellsandCheese said:

I am convinced that the sacrificing of Shireen is played a part in Jon being resurrected; life for a life.

Beric has been brought back without needing to kill somebody else. The life swapping is more connected with Faceless Men than the Lord Of Light....

[screamin]

The Red Wedding was a violation of the most ancient laws of hospitality; even if Tywin didn't know all the details of what the Freys planned, he knew there would be an attack under truce. Not very Lawful.

The killing of Elia and her children - similar. When Tywin decided he needed to win Robert's support, he didn't let laws stop him. The fact that he didn't punish the Mountain for what even Tywin admitted was exceeding his orders in brutality shows IMO that Tywin recognized no laws but his own, at bottom.