text:
Watchers on the Wall Awards: Best Dramatic Scene of Season 8
Posted on	 November 28, 2019 by	Sue the Fury	· 297 Comments
We hope everyone has refreshed your memory of your favorite scenes from Game of Thrones season 8 in our newest giveaway post because today we'll begin choosing the Best Dramatic Scene of the final season! This year was packed with important moments, and our preliminary round was intense, with dozens of initial nominees for fans to choose from. Some may be controversial choices, but surprises and passionate debate have always been a part of the Game of Thrones experience. The final five, as voted by the fans are:
The climactic sequence of "The Long Night" – Theon and Jorah fall, and Arya kills the Night King
In the battle of Winterfell, the Dothraki charge, their flaming arakhs go out and the dead come
The people in Winterfell ready for battle to the sound of "Jenny of Oldstones"
Jon kills Daenerys and Drogon destroys the Iron Throne
The knighting of Brienne of Tarth by Jamie Lannister
You can view results from the first round of voting HERE!
Final round rules: To choose the winner, cast your vote in the poll below. In the finals, unlike the preliminaries, fans have one vote to cast. At the end of one week (Thursday 12/05/19 at 12PM ET), the scene with the most votes will be the winner! The results of the polls will be revealed during the live Watchers on the Wall Awards ceremony, specific date to be announced in the near future!
Posted in Awards	Tagged Best Dramatic Scene, Finals, Season 8, WotW Awards
Enter to Win Game of Thrones The Complete Series and Season 8 on Blu-ray!
Watchers on the Wall Awards: Best New Costume of Season 8
Have you already read all the books and/or don't care about spoilers? You can reveal/hide all the spoilers in the comments with the click of the buttons below.
Show spoilers! Hide spoilers.
How do you put spoilers in your comment?
Place the spoiler remarks inside this short code:
[ spoiler ] your spoiler comments [ / spoiler]
Remove the extra spaces between the word spoiler and the brackets, and the front slash and brackets before publishing your comment.
Jump to (and Always Support) the Bottom
Ten Bears says:
"Sandor! …. Thank you."
(Is this a finalist? Gonna go check now.)
Ten BearsQuote Reply
mau says:
mauQuote Reply
Jack Bauer 24 says:
They were all brilliant, but Mr. Benioff and Mr. Weiss outdid themselves in the finale. Jon killing Dany was a magnificent, gut wrenching, brilliantly executed ending to a marvelous story that will stick with me forever. I'll always be grateful.
Jack Bauer 24Quote Reply
kevin blake says:
I loved the final season flaws and all.
Jon killing Danny was my pick
kevin blakeQuote Reply
It looks like my top choices didn't even make it into the finals.
Based on: (a) the overwhelming choice of "Jaime knights Brienne" in the comments under the recent Contest announcement post asking entrants to describe their favorite "moment" of Season 8, and (b) the linked chart in the current post ("view results from the first round of voting HERE!") showing that "The knighting of Brienne of Tarth by Jaime Lannister" was the top vote-getter in the semifinals [490 votes/14.27% compared to 330 votes/9.61% for the runner-up]…
It sure looks like Brienne's knighting will win "Best Dramatic Scene of Season 8" in a landslide.
singedbylife says:
Hey Ten bears – where or when can I find the voting results from the preliminary rounds?
singedbylifeQuote Reply
MotherofWolves says:
My choice was the sequence of Jorah and Theon dying with Arya killing the NK. The music filled me with utter dread as the NK walked over the fatally wounded Theon as he slowly drew his ice sword. Arya leaping out of the darkness was a complete shock. Jorah's death was beautifully acted by IG and EC.
Brienne's knighting is definitely a close second.
MotherofWolvesQuote Reply
Caveat ⚠
Part 1 of ASNAWP Fanboy/Sandorista Mini-Whinge to follow.
The only Arya scene among the five finalists (#2 vote-getter in the semi-finals), The climactic sequence of "The Long Night" – Theon and Jorah fall, and Arya kills the Night King, wasn't even included in my preliminary round nominations.
Jorah went out just as he'd wanted: fighting and dying for his Khaleesi. That was cool – though a little fan service consisting of a few dying words with his last breath would've been nice.
However, I never understood Theon holding a spear and charging at the NK and his WW lieutenants instead of, e.g., trying to hurl the spear at NK; nor did I understand how or why Theon could run out of arrows, or why a band of Ironborn would be Bran's primary line of defense – especially when unsupported by any of the Valyrian Steel swordfighters.
I know I'm in the minority of Arya fans who weren't thrilled with Arya materializing out of thin air to attack NK, as if she'd been beamed down from the transporter room of the Starship Enterprise to those exact coordinates. Apparently the originally scripted scenes of Arya fighting her way through the Godswood and leaping off a pile of wights were jettisoned in favor of an ASNAWP ex machina surprise.
Still, I acknowledge it was a rousing, fist-lump moment for the majority of the fandom.
singedbylife:
In the text of the article, right under the last of the video clip thumbnails, it says:
The word "HERE" is in blue font. Clicking on it should take you to an "Imgur" chart showing the voting totals and percentages in the semifinal round.
Farimer123 says:
Dothraki charge for me, all the way.
Farimer123Quote Reply
Tron79 says:
This was a tough choice, but I went for Arya killing the NK sequence. It was a masterful sequence of film. It was a combination of Ramin Djawadi's score, Jorah's last stand, Theon's redemption, Arya's knife drop, and my feeling of relief that the entire cast wasn't all going to die!
I could make a case for all of the finalists. The Jenny of Oldstones montage was something I will never forget. I can see Sansa sipping soup with Theon (the best couple of season 8..is there an award for that?). Arya's cold look is burned in my brain. She was laying next to Gendry under the covers looking away from him thinking about facing death.
Tron79Quote Reply
https://slate.com/culture/2019/04/game-of-thrones-battle-of-winterfell-dothraki-eisenstein-jackson-nevsky.html
I'll just leave this here…
Ten Bears:
I know I'm in the minority of Arya fans who weren't thrilled with Arya materializing out of thin air to attack NK, as if she'd been beamed down from the transporter room of the Starship Enterprise to those exact coordinates. Apparently the originally scripted scenes of Arya fighting her way through the Godswood and leaping off a pile of wights were jettisoned in favor of an ASNAWP ex machina surprise.Still, I acknowledge it was a rousing, fist-lump moment for the majority of the fandom.
It helps me to think of her channeling her inner WOLF with a wolf leap onto her pray (the NK). Yeah, I saw the differences in the script as well. But Wolves do attack by leaping, so it does help me to think about it that way.
Young Dragon says:
I went with the Long Night sequence. It was the most gripping 10 minutes I've ever experienced during a television show or movie.
Young DragonQuote Reply
re: transporter room…
Yeah, I would have loved to have seen her fight her way through like the script suggests. They gave us the wisp of wind in the White Walker's hair as the only indication that she didn't just materialize. Perhaps that was enough… I did love how she just materialized next to Jon on the steps in the finale.
Something about Valyrian steel and Dragonglass for book readers or those curious…
BTW, if I read the books correctly, Valyrian steel and Dragonglass really have no effect on the Wight drones. Only fire does the trick on the drones in the books. I could have read it wrong but I believe that's right. You need valyrian steel and/or dragonglass on White Walkers. But the drone wights seem to need fire. So it would have been a totally different battle in the books. And there's no NK leader in the books. You would have had to use the dragons to wipe out the army of drone wights. Dany did some of this later after she saw her Dothraki decimated, but the strategy would have been totally different. I don't think the books will have Arya's arc/training used to kill TAOTD like the show.
Adrianacandle says:
Jenny of Oldstones. That was really well done and I cried buckets, even giving myself a snotty nose, so… success! 🙂
AdrianacandleQuote Reply
Dame of Mercia says:
Jack Bauer 24:
Now why do I think you may have typed the above with your tongue firmly in your cheek, JB24? I went for the same scene though. People probably know by now that I didn't find the last season of GoT cr*p the way some other watchers did. My tinfoil hatting about how the story would end wasn't always on point. I always worried about Dany's temper (though I realised she did good things – freeing the slaves etc – and I was on her side when she acquired the Unsullied). When Dany lit the pyre for Jorah and expressed sadness I thought the kinder aspect of her nature was starting to win through – well I won't be starting a fortune business any time soon. I did find something tragic about Dany's downfall albeit the burning of KL was a monstrous act.
Dame of MerciaQuote Reply
This isn't pertinent to this thread particularly but some time ago I typed something wondering why Dany and the other females in GoT rode to horse astride rather than side saddle as they were in a pseudo-medieval setting. I mentioned this elsewhere (i.e. not on a GoT website) and someone informed me that Eleanor of Aquitaine and Queen Elizabeth I of England (among other ladies) rode astride back in medieval and Tudor times so it seems it was not such a wild and weird thing for Dany to ride astride when she was horseback. My "bad" as folk say nowadays.
Part 2 of ASNAWP Fanboy/Sandorista Mini-Whinge to follow. (And sorry so verbose.)
• Well f*ck me. My #1 choice (S8e5, "Sandor encourages Arya to forget vengeance and they say goodbye" *) came in 10th place with only 87 votes and a measly 2.53%, and didn't even come close to making it into the top five to be eligible for the finals.
* Sandor & Arya, from S8e5:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSenpGeeThk
• My second favorite semifinal nominee, from S8e2, Arya, Beric and the Hound meet on the Winterfell battlements, came in 57th place with only 5 votes and a negligible 0.17% of the aggregate vote totals.
After multiple rewatches, it still gets to me when Arya challenges Sandor, "When was the last time you fought for anyone but yourself?", and he looks at her and replies: "I fought for you, didn't I?"
Perhaps the drama of the moment was undercut by Beric's intrusion right after Sandor's reply.
• Some other Arya scenes that didn't make the cut:
– 13th place: S8e5, Arya in Dany's Inferno
– 20th place: S8e3, Arya helped by Beric and Sandor
– 26th place: S8e3, Arya vs. wights in library
– 30th place: S8e5, Arya finds and rides off on white horse
– 36th place: S8e1, Arya & Jon reunion **
– 37th place: S8e2, Arya seduces Gendry
– 39th place: S8e3, Sandor, incapacitated by fire/PTSD, unfreezes and sprints into action when he sees Arya in peril
– 40th place: S8e3, Arya and Mel
– 45th place: S8e1, Arya reunited with Gendry and Sandor in WF forge
– 50th place: S8e4, Arya and Sandor ride south from WF
** I suspect some book readers were also dissatisfied with Jon & Arya's abbreviated reunion, since I understand that Jon & Arya's closeness and thoughts about each other are emphasized throughout the books. As a pre-books, show-only fan I've got to admit some disappointment that Jon & Arya's reunion in S8e1 was so brief, and that there was a paucity of Jon-Arya scenes in S8.
By contrast, the show!-only reunion of Jon and Sansa in S6 was given "breathing room" and was beautifully done – the build-up! the music! the disbelieving looks across the CB courtyard! the feels! – and the duo had a fully developed story line and extensive dialogue thereafter.
I'll chalk it up to post-source material adaptation decisions, i.e., (1) to provide Show! Sansa/Sophie Turner with a "take back the North with Jon" plot line instead of developing Arya's relationship with Jon; and (2) to devote Arya's screen time to the reconciliation of her conflicting feelings about and for the Hound.
The showrunners have said in the past that they tweaked Sansa's books! storyline (e.g., merging Sansa into Jeyne Poole's WF plot) so that Sophie/Sansa wouldn't be sidelined during S5. (I believe that the books left off with Sansa essentially treading water in the Vale.) So I guess show! Sansa's premature return to the North would dovetail into show! Jon Snow's post-resurrection plot to oust the Boltons and unite the North.
Since show! Arya didn't make it back to WF until S7e4 (after Jon had already left on his mission to Dragonstone), and the show kind of retconned Jon's professed belief (in S7e5) that he "thought Arya was dead," I'm guessing that the showrunners made a conscious decision to abandon the culmination of Jon & Arya's relationship that was foreshadowed or impliedly promised in the books. The conspicuous absence of any mention of Arya among Jon, Sandor, Gendry, Thoros, Beric in the Eastwatch cells encounter in S7e5, or during the pre-wight hunt banter in S7e6, reinforces (to me) that the showrunners, with finite screen time
rather than the author's unlimited page count (and incomplete tale), minimized Arya's end-game storylines and expanded Sansa's role.
It'd be hard to blame the showrunners if in fact these were deliberate choices: After Season 4, it had to be apparent that they had struck gold with the Arya/Maisie Williams & Sandor/Rory McCann pairing. Whether the producers were swayed by feedback from HBO beancounters or the characters/actors' Q-ratings, revisiting Sandor & Arya was probably a no-brainer. (Or else, I figure, why even bother bringing back Sandor, when it would've been so much easier to leave him presumed dead? After all, the show had no compunctions about prematurely killing off characters still alive in the books! timeline, e.g., Mance, Doran, Barristan, et al.)
Of course, this is all rank speculation on my part. We'll never know one way or the other if the Big Kahuna doesn't finish the books. 😳
Ten Bears: I'm guessing that the showrunners made a conscious decision to abandon the culmination of Jon & Arya's relationship that was foreshadowed or impliedly promised in the books.
I don't think it was conscious, I think it was sidelined because they only met up again in a short season (and the final season), a season in which they had to wrap up all of these storylines and during which I had found quite a few things were compromised, like relationship exploration. In the show, Sansa's storyline ended up situating her much closer geographically to Jon in a way Arya's storyline couldn't because she was still across the Narrow Sea. And Sansa and Jon meet up in the last 10-episode season of Game of Thrones when the place was slower. Season 6's pace was still faster than the paces of seasons 1-5 but season 7's pace was faster than season 6's and then season 8's was the fastest paced of them all and had the responsibility of bringing everything to an end.
I think the books have an advantage because we can access characters' thoughts in their chapters in a way we can't in the show. Much of what we know of Jon and Arya's relationship comes from their thoughts and in the show, we have no access to them. I don't think Jon knew about the Hound's, Beric's, or Gendry's relationships with Arya — but they knew Jon was Ned Stark's bastard son and as Ned Stark's bastard son, he'd be the half-brother of Ned Stark's daughter. Which is… weird… that they never brought it up.
I think if Jon and Arya could have met up with more episodes left in a slower-paced season, we'd get that relationship exploration — it's a blow to me that we didn't get much of that.
Farimer123:
Hey, thanks for that! Good reading about the history of staging big battle scenes – and the way Sapochnik exploited established conventions to subvert expectations in the Dothrakis' charge against the AotD at the beginning of S8e3.
I gotta admit: the long-distance shot of the thousands of Dothrakis' flaming araks (?) charging across the battlefield – only to be
snuffed out like candles on a birthday cake – was deflating as hell.
(* Cue voice of Bill Paxton in Aliens: "Game over, man!"*)
"… I don't think Jon knew about the Hound's, Beric's, or Gendry's relationships with Arya — but they knew Jon was Ned Stark's bastard son and as Ned Stark's bastard son, he'd be the half-brother of Ned Stark's daughter. Which is… weird… that they never brought it up."
Right! You'd think that with all of these characters who had a history with Jon's sister, they'd all be curious about her whereabouts and well-being. Especially Gendry, yet all he talked about in S7e5 and e6 was his … unfortunate experience with Melisandre; and when he first met Jon Snow on Dragonstone, Gendry brought up his five minute encounter with Jon's father in S1, but nothing about his close friendship and extensive experiences with Jon's sister from S1e10 through mid-S3.
P.S. I skimmed quickly through the S7 outline linked to a recent comment on another thread. I thought it might have indicated that the intention was to script the Beyond the Wall banter to include mentions of Arya, and that originally, Brienne was supposed to be a member of the Snow Patrol.
If so, it'd be interesting to learn why the actual scripts opted for Melisandre callbacks, Tormund-Sandor conversation about Brienne, and d*ck/c*ck jokes instead…
Ten Bears: Right! You'd think that with all of these characters who had a history with Jon's sister, they'd all be curious about her whereabouts and well-being. Especially Gendry, yet all he talked about in S7e5 and e6 was his … unfortunate experience with Melisandre; and when he first met Jon Snow on Dragonstone, Gendry brought up his five minute encounter with Jon's father in S1, but nothing about his close friendship and extensive experiences with Jon's sister from S1e10 through mid-S3.
Yeah! I mean, it's super cool that Gendry's bio dad was BFFs with Jon's uncledad and a fun factoid to bring up! But this is also Arya's brother, Arya — who Gendry had a pretty significant connection with, who Gendry actually met. But yeah, they opted for Melisandre talk and d*ck jokes. Maybe it was a no-sister-discussion-allowed wight hunt. Jorah and Jon have a dad talk, Beric and Jon talk about Ned, Sandor and Tormund talk about Brienne, Gendry talks about Melisandre and how cold it is…
Not many people like Melisandre in-universe (though I think she's one of the most beautiful women ever — her and Nicole Kidman ;D) but boy is she a topic 😉
I skimmed quickly through the S7 outline linked to a recent comment on another thread. I thought it might have indicated that the intention was to script the Beyond the Wall banter to include mentions of Arya, and that originally, Brienne was supposed to be a member of the Snow Patrol.
I have that somewhere on a USB at home! I'll do a quick search upon my return!
Efi says:
The Long Night sequence.
Even though I liked a lot Brienne being knighted, even though it was show-wise part of her main arc, I'm not sure that it's true to its book original.
Also I am a fan of the Starks, so I'd choose a scene with a Stark in it. But Jon killing Dany was for me a bad scene due to the ambiguity and the blur of the entire ep.6.
So the Long Night it is.
EfiQuote Reply
Dee Stark says:
this was really hard
soooooooooooo good
Dee StarkQuote Reply
kevin1989 says:
I'm going with:
kevin1989Quote Reply
Azor Asshai says:
-Jon kills Daenerys and Drogon destroys the Iron Throne
This was definitely between the last two for me. Ruled out the first two for this category pretty quickly, and while the Jenny of Oldstones sequence was great, I can't imagine voting for it as the single-best dramatic scene of the season when it was carried almost entirely by the music. The last two had some great acting going on, but in the end, the iconic climax of the final episode took this for me. No one who watched the show is ever going to forget it.
Azor AsshaiQuote Reply
"The conspicuous absence of any mention of Arya among Jon, Sandor, Gendry, Thoros, Beric in the Eastwatch cells encounter in S7e5, or during the pre-wight hunt banter in S7e6, reinforces (to me) that the showrunners, with finite screen time rather than the author's unlimited page count (and incomplete tale), minimized Arya's end-game storylines and expanded Sansa's role."
I think that in another instance D&D specifically said that they avoided smalltalk (my translation) as much as they could unless it pushed the story forward or it means something for the story/characters.
As you said, they didn't include any hint about Gentry sharing this with Jon, but there's more, i.e. Arya never said to Sansa that she had been travelling with Sandor either, and Sandor had saved Sansa from rape once (which Sansa never told to Arya but Arya knew from Sandor himself). But they did include Tyrion asking Jon about Sansa, for example, or Sansa apologizing to Tyrion for leaving him behind in KL.
They cut away smalltalk.
The talk between Gentry and Jon about their fathers rather touches upon the sensitive issue of bastard boys' father issues (which was ditched in season 8).
But I don't think that Arya's story in season 8 fell victim to Sansa's story in particular. I just think that the Starks -all of them, including Bran- fell victims to the gotcha moment. They didn't have normal relations among them anywhere in season 8. The heart tree reunion was about Jon's parentage and it was interrupted because they'd have to discuss what Jon's position would be in relation to Daenerys. They've had the entire ep.2 being about all the others but the Starks (as if the Starks wouldn't fight, wouldn't die*). That by itself speaks volumes about how messed up season 8 was.
* Giving them the benefit of a doubt, I'd say that Jon has a bad record in dying anyway, so they decided not to go there, lol.
Dame of Mercia,
Many ladies preferred to ride astride because it's more comfortable, and many a source make mention of them riding "like men". But the norm is that women don't ride in general. Horses were expensive and weren't part of medieval households for the fun of people, they were most of the times work animals.
In the show I think all women ride astride (Cersei was in a carriage). Sansa in season 6 rode astride in spite of her dress; Daenerys' coats were better fitted for riding, as they had a deep cut on the rear side -it's perceivable in all her outfits and in the grey-white and red-white fur coats of eps 7.6 and 8.1.
Efi: Many ladies preferred to ride astride because it's more comfortable, and many a source make mention of them riding "like men". But the norm is that women don't ride in general. Horses were expensive and weren't part of medieval households for the fun of people, they were most of the times work animals.
When I'd ride astride, my thighs hurt in ways I wasn't able to imagine was possible 😧😧😧😧But side-saddle looked sooo slippery and scary and a guaranteed flight-off-horse T___T
BTW/FYI: I did my first Forum posting today, under a thread topic you started (GoT actors appearing in other shows).
The closest experience I have of riding is with the big pilates ball. Great thighs, lol.
(I do have a friend who's taken up riding for finishing her phd. she confirmed my opinion)
Efi,
"…But Jon killing Dany was for me a bad scene due to the ambiguity and the blur of the entire ep.6."
My take on this is that the tragedy of Jon Snow aka Aegon Targaryen compelled by "duty" to murder his lover lacked emotional punch – probably because I never bought into their romance.
Ygritte's death was heartbreaking because their romance had been developed over many episodes in two or three seasons, with lots of playful flirtation and believable love scenes.
I remember reading Romeo and Juliet in school, but when I saw Zeffirelli's film version I was reduced to a sobbing, babbling tub of jello – and left with a huge crush on Olivia Hussey.
The point (if there is one 🤥) is that the love story has to be credible for the tragedy to be heart-wrenching. I just did not get that from Dany & Jon. Apologies to anyone who did.
Lol, that's what I meant too. I didn't get the romance, I didn't get the entire ep. 6 because of that, and I absolutely abhor the insinuation that a murder (killing Daenerys) might ever be "duty". Considering that most people thought that, I guess that I must be wrong here. But for me the real difference would be found there, where such a person as Dany would be brought to justice; that's what makes a difference even in a medieval setting (contrary to what most people believe they did have laws in the middle ages). So I don't get the duty equals murder in this instance. It's not superior, it's not noble, there's no moral takeaway and no one becomes better here (not even the audience who believed in the romance).
So on the one hand we (at least some of us) didn't buy into the romance, on the other this "duty" thing turns my stomach. I'd much rather they showed us Jon straight-up not being in love with Daenerys and perhaps loving someone else. I think it would have been a better story with a vast latitude of emotions and drama to explore, and the killing for protecting someone he loved dearly would have been much more credible, instead of just "duty".
Eh, what can we do! It's over and done now.
Those big, bouncy ones? I love those 🙂 But one day, I was bouncing too much, fell backward, and my headphones connecting me to my computer took my computer (and non-SSD external hard drive) with me, sending us all to the floor.
I had nearly finished editing a photoshoot for a show and I had spent a year setting this project up but because that external wasn't an SSD, all data was destroyed on impact and 2015 was the worst year ever.
[…]I absolutely abhor the insinuation that a murder (killing Daenerys) might ever be "duty". […] So I don't get the duty equals murder in this instance. It's not superior, it's not noble, there's no moral takeaway and no one becomes better here (not even the audience who believed in the romance).
I know you and I have talked about this before so please forgive me for stepping in again — just to offer my view here for the sake of this discussion.
First, it's totally fair if somebody doesn't buy into the romance and totally fair you don't like this idea of duty = murder! But if it's killing a loved one who poses a serious threat and refuses to stop, then I think it can be seen as a duty in that way as Tyrion explained ("You are the shield who guards the realms of men […] Who is the greatest threat to the people now?"). Or like Jaime killing Aerys.
It was also Jon's duty to assassinate Mance to stop his attack on the Wall, an attack the Watch was failing to defend against — and that's also murder (and breaking guest right to boot) and Jon liked Mance. In the books, Jon is forced into this duty. In the show, Jon takes it upon himself.
I don't think doing one's duty alone makes somebody "better". Sometimes, sticking to duty can be wrong (and duties can conflict) but in this case, I think Jon ultimately made the right choice.
Yet, in Westeros, what Jon (and Jaime) did was not well-regarded and is seen as a crime. Yara and the Unsullied wanted Jon's head and the compromise becomes exile. Jaime becomes notoriously known as the kingslayer and scorned forever after that.
I think it'd be very difficult to bring Dany to justice under the legal system since she is queen and has the power to defeat any opposition. Since Dany feels what she did was right, I don't think she'd agree she'd need to stand trial for democide if she feels it's necessary to build her new world. As queen, Dany controls the law. There isn't an international war council in this world.
This kind of thing has been done before in media more than once: killing a loved one to prevent the destruction they pose — one example is Buffy. Buffy killed her love Angel to save the world in much the same way as Jon killed Daenerys. Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy) made the comparison herself ;D
So I think that's how.
I hope nobody misinterprets what I'm about to say:
Dany's incineration of KL could almost be excused as a "mulligan" – sort of like a modern day road rage incident when ordinarily reasonable people lose their temper and beat up or shoot other motorists.
(I'm in Florida, where we've got this ridiculous "Stand Your Ground" law, so instead of retreating from a volatile situation, people shoot first and ask questions later – and if charged with a crime, can simply say "I was in fear for my safety" and therefore justified in blowing away the other driver – who's conveniently no longer around to give a different version of what happened. 😵 It's as if our NRA cash-guzzling "lawmakers" abide by the LF/Sansa notion that "There is no justice in this world unless we make it." But I digress….)
Jon appeared to want to give Dany the chance to repudiate what she'd just done in roasting thousands of non-combant civilians, including innocent women and children. But she didn't show any contrition.
Assuming Jon got the drift of Dany Hitler's Valyrian/Dothraki speech to the assembled Unsullied and Dothrakis, that they were going to "liberate" the rest of the Seven Kingdoms just like they had "liberated" KL; and that this "liberation" would include anyone who didn't yield to Dany – like his sisters – that's what impelled Jon to assassinate Dany. At that point, it appeared Dany had gone full-on fire & blood: she was delusional and beyond listening to reason.
Was there supposed to be a parallel to Jaime assassinating the Mad King when he gave the command to "Burn them all!" and roast everyone in the city? I'm not sure.
In any case, I do wish Jon's "love" for Dany had been better established so that his decision to assassinate her had more impact. Thatwould've illustrated "the human heart in conflict with itself."
Instead, his ardor had already cooled off once he'd learned they were aunt and nephew; by the the time of the attack on KL, he was apparently withholding his … physical charms, and avoiding intimacy. (Geez Jon, for the good of the realm couldn't you just fake it?) She was already unsettled after losing her closest friends, Jorah and Missandei, and two of her children; her advisors (Varys and Tyrion) has just betrayed her; and Jon himself had disregarded her warning about the consequences of divulging his secret to Sansa – who immediately broke her promise to Jon and blabbed to Tyrion.
I don't know. It also seemed to me like Jon kept spouting "you're muh Kween" when it should've been plain that his girlfriend was losing her marbles. I also don't understand how and why he blithely ignored his queen's/lover's express conclusion that their relationship and her reign's stability depended on his discretion. Why did he assume he knew better? He didn't. She was right. All he had to do was what Ned had done his whole life, and not disclose the potentially explosive secret of his parentage.
I'm probably bringing my own biases to my perceptions. To me, Jon came off as an unsupportive, unenthusiastic boyfriend who stood idly by as his girlfriend endured one disappointment after another, before slipping into madness.
– End Unintended Jon-Bashing –
Jon was also struggling with the incest and had just learned that his whole life had been a lie. I don't think it was about unenthusiasm so much as conflict and confusion:
From the shooting script for that 805 scene:
"[Dany] is desperate for a connection; she cannot remember a time she has felt this alone. She pulls back from the kiss and looks at Jon. This is complicated for him. He loves her. He disapproves strongly of what she's doing. He lusts after her. He fears her. She feels his ambivalence."
He gives into their make-out sessions in both 804 and 805 before pulling back due to their blood relationship.
I think their relationship could have used more development like many of the relationships in season 8, especially with what the showrunners were trying to acheive with it.
But I agree Jon should have kept silent about his parentage and that he and Dany should have discussed a compromise. However, I don't think Jon blithely ignored Dany. He didn't see what Dany saw, who Sansa was now and how her experiences changed her. I think Jon's issues are blind spots. I think Jon still viewed Sansa as the younger sister he knew growing up and that Sansa wouldn't say anything if he asked her not to. I also think Jon thought his sisters deserved to know the truth about himself, like Dany deserved to know the truth, and that they could all live together, that they'd come around to Dany, believing he could have it all — he could be honest about himself with his sisters, renounce his claim for Dany's, Sansa would respect his wishes, all good! And Jon did swear Sansa and Arya both to secrecy, believing they'd keep their promise but Sansa… didn't.
But yes, Dany ended up being right. She could see what Jon couldn't.
In a way, I think Jon was also deseperate to avoid seeing the truth about Dany (per the 806 script, "Looking at her, his need to believe is almost overwhelming.") until that came crashing down when she said, "They don't get to choose." I think that's what tore the wool from Jon's eyes. I don't think Jon went into the throne room with the intention of killing Dany but with the hope he could change her mind to mercy but then Dany made it clear that nope, this is what she plans to do and it's right.
Ten Bears: P.S. I skimmed quickly through the S7 outline linked to a recent comment on another thread. I thought it might have indicated that the intention was to script the Beyond the Wall banter to include mentions of Arya, and that originally, Brienne was supposed to be a member of the Snow Patrol.
I think I found that part!
Gendry talks to the Hound about Melisandre and her leeching, which the Hound doesn't think sounds so bad. They can also talk about Arya.
But it's not a discussion between anyone and Jon :/
Efi: The talk between Gentry and Jon about their fathers rather touches upon the sensitive issue of bastard boys' father issues
This is a good way of looking at it in a way I didn't realize before. I think this could also touch upon the Jorah/Jon conversation about their dads as well because Jorah also had some dad issues too with Jeor, especially after Jorah fled across the Narrow Sea but left the Mormont sword behind.
Oh, I like your thoughts on Daeneryscide! (I just posted a rant about it a few minutes ago.)
I have not seen "Buffy" so I'm not familiar with Buffy's decision to kill her beloved, Angel, to save the world. From the way you describe it, I'm reminded of two scenarios.
First, in Stephen King's "The Dead Zone" (and the movie version with Christopher Walken), a guy emerges from a coma after suffering a brain injury, with the ability to visualize premonitions of a person's likely future by touching him or her.
The catch is that he can "see" future tragedies and intercede to prevent them from happening. (I think early on he implores a parent to keep a child at home on the day the kid would otherwise perish in a car crash or something.) Anyway, one day he touches a presidential candidate at a campaign rally and "sees" that the candidate is really a nut job who's going to launch nukes once he's elected. So the unlikely hero decides he has to assassinate the candidate before that terrible future can happen. (The assassination attempt itself fails; however, the candidate holds up a baby as a human shield against the gunshots, and the unflattering photographs of his cowardice doom his candidacy. So, mission accomplished.)
Then, there's the old philosophical hypothetical: "What would you do if you could go back in time and murder Hitler as a child?" Would that be moral or would it be evil? (I believe "Dr. Who" addressed a similar quandary when the Doctor had a chance to kill a child before he grew up to become a supervillain; I don't remember the details though…)
I really don't know what to make of Jon's "duty" in S8e6. I guess he didn't know either from the tenor of his conversation with Tyrion, i.e., to check back with him in ten years or something.
The murder just seemed a bit… too abrupt, and too expedient. I didn't see Jon agonizing over what to do. Nor did I see him beg, plead, cajole or argue with Dany to try to get her to back off from the "liberation" chatter, and appeal to her "good" side.
P.S. These may be inapt comparisons: I remember "feeling" Ygritte's heartache when she fired arrows into Jon after he abandoned her to return to the NW. I did not get that same feeling when Jon knifed Dany. Ygritte dying in Jon's arms was so so sad 😭; I did not react that way to Dany expiring in Jon's arms.
These comparisons are not intended as criticisms. They're just my personal observations.
I am not so sure the characters' emotions as described in the shooting script were conveyed on the screen. What did you think?
I highly recommend Buffy! If you can get past the first season — where Joss Whedon had all of $5 for a budget (yikes) — it's well worth it!
Anyway, Angel is a vampire with a soul. In Buffy's world, vampires don't have souls but Angel, when he killed this girl, was cursed with one — to feel the pain and guilt of all the atrocities he committed when he was a vampire.
K, so, 16-year old Buffy (the vampire slayer) naturally falls in love with 200-year old vampire Angel. In the second season, Buffy and Angel have sex, Angel loses his soul (yeah) and turns into the souless version, Angelus!
So Angelus spends much of the second half of season 2 plotting to release a demon to destroy the world. As Buffy's friend Willow, who is just getting into witchcraft, is trying to return Angel's soul to him, Buffy confronts Angelus. They have a fight, during which Angelus manages to release the demon. At the climax of their fight, just as Buffy is about to strike the killing blow, Angelus's soul is returned to him and he is Angel again, the guy Buffy loves. However, the only way Buffy can stop the demon from destroying the world is to kill the one who released it — Angel. So she and Angel have a moment, Buffy starts crying and tells Angel to close his eyes, they kiss, and Buffy drives the sword through Angel, sending him to hell.
It's a bit different from the scenarios posited in your post! But it's kind of the same thing!
I really don't know what to make of Jon's "duty" in S8e6. I guess he didn't know either from the tenor of his conversation with Tyrion, i.e., to check back with him in ten years or something. […] The murder just seemed a bit… too abrupt, and too expedient. I didn't see Jon agonizing over what to do.
I, myself, saw the agony. It seems Tyrion really had to twist Jon's arm since Jon is really resistant to the idea of killing Dany all throughout their conversation. He's trying to find reasons for Dany doing what she did ("Cersei killed her friend! Her dragon was shot!"), blames Tyrion for his counsel, insists she's not her father, that their name does not define who they are, etc. while Tyrion is trying to wake Jon up to the truth of what Dany has become. And Jon looks pretty sick when Tyrion pushes Jon to assassinate her:
Tyrion: I know you love her. I love her too. Not as successfully as you. But I believed in her with all my heart. Love is more powerful than reason. We all know that. Look at my brother.
Jon: Love is the death of duty.
Tyrion: You just came up with that?
Jon: Maester Aemon said it a long time ago.
Tyrion: Sometimes duty is the death of love. You are the shield that guards the realms of men. And you've always tried to do the right thing.
No matter the cost, you've tried to protect people. Who is the greatest threat to the people now? It's a terrible thing I'm asking. It's also the right thing.
And still, even when Tyrion brings up Jon's sisters, Jon still tries to talk with Dany.
Plus, that final conversation with Tyrion, Jon looks pretty rough and says that killing Dany doesn't feel right:
Jon: Was it right? What I did?
Tyrion: What we did.
Jon: It doesn't feel right.
Nor did I see him beg, plead, cajole or argue with Dany to try to get her to back off from the "liberation" chatter, and appeal to her "good" side.
I think he does plead with Dany here and tries to convince her they need a world of mercy. He says things like, "You can forgive all of them, make them see they made a mistake. Make them understand. Please, Dany," insists to her, "The world we need is a world of mercy. It has to be," — but as Dany keeps giving Jon the wrong answers, Jon is getting more and more upset, starts crying, and questions her about how she knows her new world will be good and what about what everybody else wants in a good world? And Dany's all, "They don't get to choose."
That and Jon weeps while holding her after he does the deed.
So I think Jon did try — as much as time in the episode allowed anyway — because it seemed like he really didn't want to kill her.
But I think your emotional reaction is fair (and I really loved Jon-Ygritte too). Emotional reaction to this stuff is totally, totally subjective! I really dislike the romance between Brianna and Roger in Outlander because I think they're both twats and suck as people — but my friend loves them.
And on that note…
I, myself, did — or at least Jon's conflict between love, attraction, and discomfort over incest and Dany sensing it. He resists her advances, then gives in and grabs her to him, but stops — and it seemed to me that Dany realized why. Incest, that it's an issue.
But reading emotion and facial expressions is totally subjective, which is why I have a tendency to resort to the shooting scripts and written material to see what the show was trying to convey because things can convey different things to different people.
Because I always want to link a Buffy scene, here is the Buffy kills Angel scene!
… It is from 1998… and the budget wasn't awesome (but so much better than season 1's!):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ5saUodvzc
I was 11 when I first saw this and couldn't stop crying for a week 😉
Heres my big problem with the unilateral decisions and actions of both Jon and Sansa:
• Jon had no right to second-guess his queen after he'd "bent the knee" (and made a big public stink at the dragonpit summit in S7e7 about how he had already pledged himself to Queen Daenerys of House Targaryen). If his queen determined that divulging his secret would be destructive, then what right did Jon have to dispute her judgment? The attitude that "f*ck it, I know better" is a recipe for anarchy, if not outright treason.
• Even if Jon determined he was going to open his fat mouth anyway in contravention of his monarch's wishes, he should've told Dany: "Sorry. I'm going to tell my sisters anyway." He didn't. As a result, Dany got blindsided.
• Sansa had no justification for second-guessing the Warden of the North or for breaking her express promise to her brother/cousin not to divulge his secret to anyone. Breaking her promise was a betrayal of trust. (Not that she had a great track record of "trust" after concealing KotV; after that fiasco, she had apologized to Jon, who cautioned her "we have to trust each other." It didn't take her long to breach that trust, did it?)
If Sansa thought she knew better, she still did not have the right to disobey the Warden of the North, and did not have a valid excuse for disregarding her own promise.
• Even if Sansa thought her judgment was better than Jon's, she could have and should have told him: "Sorry. I will not keep this secret. Just letting you know.". She didn't. As a result, Jon got blindsided.
• Sansa's express intention in blabbing to Tyrion was to undermine Daenerys. (Sansa said to Tyrion something like "What if there's someone better?" before revealing Jon's parentage to Tyrion.) Jon didn't even want the throne. Arguably, Sansa committed treason.
Plus, it sure did look like she used Jon as an unwitting pawn in her power play.
Miscellaneous, Random Ramblings and Unanswered Questions
• People can disagree with their leaders. Voicing dissent can be constructive, though the monarch is supposed to have the final say. Pledging fealty to a king or queen is supposed to be a solemn vow, isn't it?
I suppose I have a problem when people not only disagree with their monarch but feel they are justified in defying royal prerogatives because … they know better? Secretly going behind the back of a liege lord or monarch doesn't strike me as a defensible or ethical option. (If everybody thinks they're smarter and they know better than the leader they've sworn to follow, doesn't that inevitably lead to civil disorder and violent-free-for-alls?)
It's one thing to have fail safe mechanisms in place for deposing looney tunes despots and replacing mentally unfit leaders. It's another matter entirely for anyone with their own agendas and selfish priorities to be able to undermine the rightful ruler whenever they feel like it.
That's the impression I got from Jon disregarding Dany, and Sansa disregarding Jon.
Together, they both created an otherwise completely avoidable sh*tstorm.
• Some commenters have suggested Sansa pulled a "Littlefinger" by purposely creating chaos. That may be so. I'm not sure. What was clear was that Sansa intended for Tyrion to act on the information she imparted. That could be deemed sedition, likely to cause upheaval at a time when the Northern alliance still had to prepare to contend with the enemy to the south – an adversary that Sansa herself had been so preoccupied with.
Why throw a political hand grenade that could blow up the alliance, causing the North to lose the armies and firepower needed to defeat Cersei, the enemy Sansa feared? Where was the logic behind Sansa's actions? (And what about the timing of her maneuver? Wouldn't waiting until after Cersei was defeated to "out" Jon as a Targ have made more sense?)
• Whether Sansa was aiming to create chaos and see what happened when the dust settled, or had a specific outcome in mind, it was certainly foreseeable, if not intended, that Tyrion (and then Varys) would be in jeopardy by supporting Jon over Dany; and that Jon aka Aegon himself would be in danger when anti-Dany factions decided to support his superior "claim" whether he wanted to be king or not.
As a direct result of the disclosure to Tyrion – and to Varys by Tyrion – Varys betrayed Dany, Tyrion outed Varys, Dany executed Varys, and ultimately Tyrion betrayed Dany too.
• What still puzzles me is why Sansa would think it was her prerogative to use Jon as a political piñata – especially without forewarning him – and endanger his life in the process?
Sansa had witnessed firsthand the turmoil and loss of life from the War of the Five Kings and the aftermath of the Red Wedding, ignited by rival claimants to the throne and accompanied by betrayals and ever-shifting alliances. Why would subjecting Jon and her family to another round of jockeying for titles and territory be an appealing prospect?
• Some may argue (don't look at me – I'm not a Sansaphobe) that were it not for Sansa's machinations, Dany would not have felt isolated, unloved and betrayed; Dany would not have been deprived of the loyalty of advisors who reined in her "worst impulses"; Dany would not have embraced fear over love; Dany would not have succumbed to her worst tendencies; and therefore Dany would not have wound up indiscriminately torching the whole city, frying civilians and soldiers alike.
Is it fair to make all those causal connections?
Dany was in an emotionally precarious state after the death of Jorah and the beheading of Missandei. Was the transformation to Mad Queen already a foregone conclusion – or did it take the ingratitude of the Northerners, the estrangement of her boyfriend, and the betrayals of her advisors to push her over the edge?
• For whatever reason, Sansa had a bug up her ass about Dany long before she had any reason to distrust her. Dany had brought her armies and dragons to defend WF – Sansa's home. As Jon admitted, the Northern armies had no chance without Dany's help. It seemed frivolous, selfish and premature for Sansa to whine about the North's future sovereignty at a time when everyone's very future survival was in doubt with a 100,000-strong zombie horde bearing down on WF, and only Daenerys and her forces offered any hope of avoiding extermination.
I never quite understood why Sansa had such a visceral distrust of Dany. Jon had determined he had to undertake a critical mission for the express purpose(s) of mining the dragonglass deposits on Dragonstone; and convincing Dany to deploy her armies and dragons in defense of the North. He returned to WF having accomplished both objectives.
So why the side-eye looks and contemptuous attitude from his sister? I don't get it. If Sansa was pissed off that Jon surrendered his crown without telling her first, then that's on him – not Daenerys.
• Finally, the Starks had never come off as an "us against them" kind of family. That was the S1 Cersei-Joffrey Lannister motto: "Everyone who isn't us is the enemy." In S8, even egalitarian Arya (who'd never discriminated against anyone based on class, affiliation or parentage), was spouting the "family first" anti-outsider nonsense. Frankly, after her fangirling over Visenya Targaryen in her chat with Tywin in S2 (Tywin: "She's a heroine of yours I take it") and Dany's heroic rescue of Jon and his besieged wight hunters from the frozen lake beyond the wall in S7, I thought Arya would be delighted to make friends with Daenerys Targaryen – and maybe take a spin on a dragon. Never happened.
Where did the whole "down with Dany" attitude come from?
I'll be sure to watch the Buffy clip. Thanks.
I have to confess I should have, but have not watched any episodes of Buffy or Angel.
I'm familiar with Joss Whedon. I think he wrote the screenplay for the first "Toy Story." I know he wrote the screenplay for "Alien Resurrection", which I thought is one of the most underrated movies of all time. Winona Ryder as a self-loathing android? Ron Perlman as a wiseass mercenary? Sigourney Weaver as a snarky Ripley clone? Brad Dourif as a weirdo doctor? Dan Hedaya as general of a military space laboratory? Sign me up! "Alien Resurrection" was such an unexpected treat.
I have the Joss Whedon movie "Serenity" recorded on DVR. I have yet to watch it. I heard the series "Firefly" is good too.
If his queen determined that divulging his secret would be destructive, then what right did Jon have to dispute her judgment? The attitude that "f*ck it, I know better" is a recipe for anarchy, if not outright treason.
Well, Dany didn't give Jon an official order as queen. It was more a personal plea than a royal command. Jon did tell her he was going to tell his sisters and didn't say he wouldn't:
Jon: I owe them the truth.
Dany: Even if the truth destroys us?
Jon: It won't.
Dany: It will.
Dany: I've never begged for anything but I'm begging you. Don't do this. Please.
Jon: You are my queen. Nothing will change that. And they are my family. We can live together.
Dany: We can. I've just told you how.
[Dany leaves]
I'm not sure if Sansa committed treason as Dany didn't command her but she did break her vow of secrecy to Jon and while I can appreciate her concern for the North's interests, I think she was kindling a war she couldn't win and putting Jon in the line of fire. I don't think Sansa wanted him killed and I don't think Sansa had any idea whatsoever what telling Jon's secret would (help) lead to but if Jon were anyone else, Dany would likely have him killed because Sansa did validate Dany's fears.
But I agree Jon should have kept silent. Or at least, he and Dany should have come to a compromise about a better time to tell them. This is Jon's very identity — Dany asking him to lie to his family forever is harsh but at the same time, Dany was right and Jon ended up being wrong. It led to disaster.
I think, at the end of the day, Dany is responsible for her own decisions — no matter what grief and loss she experienced. I think others certainly contributed to her despair but Dany, as a queen and ruler with experience, needs to have the strength of character not to go berserk on the people.
I think Jon should have kept silent.
I think Sansa should have kept her vow.
I have NO idea why Tyrion told Varys — when Tyrion knew Varys was having doubts about Dany.
And I think Varys's deciding to defect from Dany to Jon (as well as Jon's discomfort with incest) also helped contribute to Dany's state of mind.
And I think much of this is because they wanted to expedite the Mad Queen plot to get to the end.
I've spoken about this before but I don't think it was a foregone conclusion. I, myself, don't think this was sufficient build-up to what Dany ended up doing (but people here disagree, which is fine!). She's faced tremendous grief and loss before but didn't go and take it out on a city full of smallfolk.
I don't know what Sansa's issue with Dany was — I recall Linda Antonsson wondering the same thing. I think it's reasonable for Sansa to be wary of cautious of Dany, be pissed at Jon, but not to show her dislike so overtly. I think that is the opposite of Sansa's book saying, "Courtesy is a lady's armour."
I think Sansa explained her upset with Jon in 801: they gave Jon the crown but Jon bent the knee and I think Sansa sussed out it was at least partly because of personal feelings (and per the shooting scripts, it was). That and Sansa didn't truly realize the enormity of the threat from the North that was facing them. Jon did, Dany did, the wildlings did, etc. but not Sansa or the angry Northerners. As Dany said, "You have to see it to know. Now I know."
Finally, the Starks had never come off as an "us against them" kind of family. That was the S1 Cersei-Joffrey Lannister motto: "Everyone who isn't us is the enemy." In S8, even egalitarian Arya (who'd never discriminated against anyone based on class, affiliation or parentage), was spouting the "family first" anti-outsider nonsense.
That always struck me as weird, especially coming from Arya of all people, befriender of misfits regardless of class, name, or appearance. If you were decent, she liked you. Arya made friends will all sorts of people, had friends with all sorts of allies, forged a connection with the Hound of all people. Arya is a fellow outsider, alongside Jon (bastard son), Dany (exiled ex-princess and daughter of the Mad King), and Tyrion (dwarf).
I was wanting an Arya-Dany interaction too. Along with Arya's Visenya worship, Arya even named her direwolf Nymeria — a warrior queen and Dany's kind of a warrior queen herself (in that she takes part in battle).
My thoughts are this involve it being based on the less-than-stellar rep Targaryens have in the North, Dany being the daughter of the Mad King, and perhaps any notorious reputation that has followed Dany (burning Tarlys, reports from across the Narrow Sea). However, at the same time, I'm not entirely sure about that last bit. Sansa only mentions Dany's father and that she's the dragon queen, not anything Dany's… done. And Dany refused Northern independence, which didn't improve Dany in Sansa's eyes (I have my own thoughts on Northern independence but that's a separate issue). Cersei started a smear campaign about Dany, using some not-entirely-untrue material about her but Sansa never referenced it.
Ten Bears: I have to confess I should have, but have not watched any episodes of Buffy or Angel.
Yes!! I was in love with Toy Story when it first came out….!
I think Buffy was one of Whedon's first but I did read he wrote for Roseanne, a show I never saw (I heard about it though)! I like Angel a little bit better (I love the concept of an evil law firm, "Wolfram and Hart", representing hell on earth XD) but Buffy will always be my first love, my first obsession (well… Sailor Moon was my first obsession ;D Dad HATED it and thought it was the stupidest thing ever! But he did become a Buffy/Angel/Potter fan so my work there was done 😆)
I'm one of those freaks who never got into Firefly but my dad loves it and I heard basically nothing but praise for that series so I'd definitely recommend it to you! 🙂
Typo!
*Arya made friends *with all sorts of people, had friends *from all backgrounds, different kinds of allies, forged a connection with the Hound of all people.
(And I mean that in the way it's very difficult to earn the Hound's appreciation, affection, and respect but Arya did it.)
"Well, Dany didn't give Jon an official order as queen. It was more a personal plea than a royal command. Jon did tell her he was going to tell his sisters:"
More a personal plea than a royal command? Maybe so. It gets tricky when your girlfriend is also your queen, doesn't it? "I've just told you how" sounds like an affirmation of an instruction rather than a suggestion, but I've never dated royalty so what do I know. 😉
Still, Jon should have informed Dany right away that he had gone ahead and told his sisters, despite her plea (or command). She had expressly warned him that telling them the truth "will [destroy] us." While he disagreed, he was well aware of her conviction.
Again, it turned out that she was right and he was wrong. (I still don't get the urgency of Bran telling Jon, and Jon telling his sisters. Not much upside, and too much known – and unknown – downside in revealing that Ned Stark's son, the former King in the North and now Warden of the North, was really another Targaryen. Northerners would likely ostracize him. Targ Restoration partisans wary of Dany's "impulses" would (and did) seek to cast aside Dany in favor of the true "heir." Even Jon's BFF Samwell Tarly wasn't a fan of Daenerys "Kneel or Fry" Targaryen, who'd roasted his POW father and brother alive. (Okay, maybe Randyll deserved it. He was a pompous jackass. Torching Dickon was a bad move, as Tyrion warned Dany to no avail.)
I knew that "kneel or fry" ultimatum would come back to bite Dany in the a*s, and that it was another harbinger of her eventual descent into "Burn them all!" lunacy.
Anyway, didn't book! Ned keep the secret from his family his whole life because some secrets "are too terrible to tell," or something like that? Any rational person – and I thought Sam and Bean were supposed to be the brain trust – would realize that prudence demanded they keep the secret a secret, at least until the two great wars were over.
More a personal plea than a royal command? Maybe so. It gets tricky when your girlfriend is also your queen, doesn't it? "I've just told you how" sounds like an affirmation of an instruction rather than a suggestion, but I've never dated royalty so what do I know.
It is tricky! And Dany did feel betrayed. Still, Jon did say he was going to tell them, he was pretty adamant, and Dany didn't command him as his queen. But… I think Jon should have zipped it.
Maybe so but Jon was pretty honest with Dany about his intentions and true, Jon was well aware of her conviction — he swore Sansa and Arya to secrecy — also with vehement conviction! And then Sansa told!
I agree that it turned out Dany was right and Jon was wrong. I think the urgency with Jon wanting to tell Sansa and Arya was because he didn't want to keep lying to them and truly believed they would keep silent. Arya did, Sansa's didn't. As much as it concerned Dany, and it did, it concerned Arya and Sansa too. Their father never cheated on their mother, their father protected his sister's son. Jon's struggle with identity and his shame over being the one stain on Ned Stark's honor has always been a large (biggest) source of angst for him and having to knowingly lie about it to his own family, especially when Sansa and Arya are going on about he's their brother and their father's son, I think it was too much. That and Jon really genuinely believed Sansa and Arya would never tell. He had this idea that all his sisters needed was time to come around and see Dany as he saw her, Sansa would keep his secret because they're family, and that they'd all be able to live together.
Jon was willing to live with the label of bastard to the rest of Westeros but I think it was much harder where his family was concerned for the reasons above. I think it's much harder for Jon to lie to them or Dany about who he is since it concerns them.
You make a good point about Sam — and Sam, though he's no fan of Dany, didn't tell.
I don't know why Bran was so insistent on Jon knowing — as soon as he got home, he was all about telling Jon (and then had Sam tell Jon). I think this is what sparked conspiracy theories over Bran's true intentions, if he wanted Dany to go mad to become king, but… I don't know…
I think it was to serve the Mad Dany plot.
I recognize that Dany's rep as the "Mad King's Daughter" along the lines of Cersei's great propaganda speech, preceded her. And I get the Northerners' ingrained distrust based on the Mad King's roasting of Ned's dad while forcing Brandon Stark to strangle himself trying to save his father.
Still, recruiting Dany and her armies was King Jon's decision. So was his (unnecessary) "bending the knee,"
And when all is said and done, for the Northerners it came down to a choice of: (a) Accept Dany's help and have a fighting chance at survival; or (b) Die; or (c) Supply their body parts for NK interior decorating; or (d) Become undead zombies in the AotD.
If it weren't for the imminent threat of annihilation I could understand the xenophobia and anti-Targ prejudice of Sansa and the Northerners. But treating your savior with such disdain made little sense. As you noted:
"…I think it's reasonable for Sansa to be wary of cautious of Dany, be pissed at Jon, but not to show her dislike so overtly. I think that is the opposite of Sansa's book saying, "Courtesy is a lady's armour."
Why not suck up to Dany now, and diss her all you want after she's defended your home from the WWs and left to head south to take out your personal antagonist Cersei Lannister?
That would've demonstrated that Sansa had become a "savvy politician" and learned how to ingratiate herself with people using charm and courtesy. (Sansa could've easily made Dany feel like she'd gained two loving sisters in law even if she intended to blow her off later on. I really wanted to see Sansa use guile and manipulation to achieve her aims; rudeness and coldness were counterproductive.)
Oh well. Not Sophie's fault. I guess the showrunners deployed Sansa as a catalyst to make Dany feel unappreciated and unloved – one of many factors accelerating Dany's descent into madness.
"… I think it was to serve the Mad Dany plot."
Ditto. See above. 👌
"(I have my own thoughts on Northern independence but that's a separate issue)."
Oh? What are those thoughts? I'm genuinely curious.
As I saw it, Northern independence wasn't a big deal until Joffrey and Cersei f*cked everything up after Robert's death. Before then, it seemed the North was semi-autonomous and nobody had reason to venture there to bother anyone. (On the show, in S1e1, I think Robert remarked that it had been many years since he'd seen Ned, and had never met Ned's (younger) children.)
The first episode presented the Starks as a happy family leading an idyllic life in a stable, peaceful territory. I didn't see any indications the people were oppressed or rebellious.
"Northern Independence" made as much sense back then as it did once Bran Stark became King of the Seven Kingdoms. 🤓
I agree with much of what you said re:the Northerners, Sansa, and Dany and while I think it was also in Dany's best interest to aid in defeating the undead — a threat that would be coming for her eventually and if the North falls, with a bigger army — the North wasn't in the best position to be picky at this time.
That would've demonstrated that Sansa had become a "savvy politician" and learned how to ingratiate herself with people using charm and courtesy.
Yeah, I agree — or at very least, reserve the unhappiness/venting for private? 🙂 Otherwise, it is, as you noted, counterproductive.
I agree and I think that's the case for more than a few character/plot choices in season 8. Not to bash the show needlessly (there are moments/scenes in season 8 that I liked) but, and I know I've said this before (and this is only my opinion, not a definitive statement on D&D's intent because they haven't made these statements, I'm not in their heads, and I highly doubt it was their intention to have anything fall flat), it sort of felt like a grocery list of items they needed to check off in order to get to the story's conclusion.
"… I think the urgency with Jon wanting to tell Sansa and Arya was because he didn't want to keep lying to them and truly believed they would keep silent. Arya did, Sansa's didn't. As much as it concerned Dany, and it did, it concerned Arya and Sansa too. Their father never cheated on their mother, their father protected his sister's son. Jon's struggle with identity and his shame over being the one stain on Ned Stark's honor has always been a large (biggest) source of angst for him and having to knowingly lie about it to his own family, especially when Sansa and Arya are going on about he's their brother and their father's son, I think it was too much. That and Jon really genuinely believed Sansa and Arya would never tell. He had this idea that all his sisters needed was time to come around and see Dany as he saw her, Sansa would keep his secret because they're family, and that they'd all be able to live together.
And because the scene in S8e4 cut away just before the actual reveal to Sansa and Arya, we never got to see any of this. 😡 👺😫
Here goes!
In the post-war situation they found themselves in, food shortages, resource shortages, half their fighting forces gone, I don't think they were in the best situation to sustain independence. Once they're able to secure sources and get the North up and running, yeah, but the North is not a fruitful country and I'm unaware of any valuable resources they produce and export (except ice?). The monarch of the 6K would need to look after the 6K first before helping the North and its people out, which is why I'd think the North would need to remain part of the 7K until they can get back on their feet and sustain themselves.
Dorne, on the other hand, could probably go it alone because they have what they need to sustain a population on its own.
Or maybe I'm reading too much into it T___T
Right, it seemed to be a good arrangement until yes, Ned was arrested and Joffrey had Ned beheaded, sparking the War of the Five Kings.
Although, my reservations with Northern independence aside, I wonder if it's because Bran isn't really Bran Stark anymore and doesn't hold a special allegiance to the North as the Three-Eyed Raven? And can be truly neutral? At the same time, in the eyes of the North, Bran is still the trueborn son of Ned Stark… I don't know how much they know about Bran's… erm… "upgrade".
Ten Bears: And because the scene in S8e4 cut away just before the actual reveal to Sansa and Arya, we never got to see any of this. 😡 👺😫
I KNOW!!!!!!
Per Kevin's Sirius Black gif, I had been waiting 12 years for this!!! I did my waiting!! 12 years (3 years) of it to see the reactions of the Stark kids!!! 12 years!!! (3 years)!!!
I screamed when they cut away! That was cruel!
Think about X-Men one of the biggest franchise out there and pretty long in existence. Wolverine killing Jane in the end.
Adrianacandle: I screamed when they cut away! That was cruel!
Are we quoting the Imp here?
That's cruel, even for you.
I'll have a "decko" later at your post TB.
On the other hand, the North was independent before the Targaryens. They didn't have a problem sustaining themselves for thousands of years. Torrhen Stark was the last king before Aegon showed up. Daenerys reminds Jon of that in 7.3 (I wonder whether not recognizing Robb as king was deliberate or whether the showrunners slipped once more).
Yes! And I can think of another in the 100:
Clarke killing Finn. Finn snapped and massacred a village in grief and rage over Clarke's disappearance. The grounder clans demanded justice — Finn's death — or they'd wage war against the sky people (Clarke and Finn's people). Finn was turned over to them. Raven, Finn's first love, wanted Clarke to get to Finn to save him but when Clarke reached Finn, she stabbed him during their kiss — both to spare him the pain of the long torture process required by grounder justice in retribution for the innocent grounder lives he took and to stop a war with his death.
Unintentional quote but nice catch XD
Efi: On the other hand, the North was independent before the Targaryens. They didn't have a problem sustaining themselves for thousands of years. Torrhen Stark was the last king before Aegon showed up. Daenerys reminds Jon of that in 7.3 (I wonder whether not recognizing Robb as king was deliberate or whether the showrunners slipped once more).
True, which is why I think the North could probably get to the point again where they can sustain themselves but I don't think it could happen yet under the circumstances they found themselves in later in the show. The North was already struggling (especially with food) even before the war and after the war, half their defenses are gone. So I think they'd need time and help to rebuild before becoming independent.
Although, the Long Night appeared to make minimal impact on the environment, much less than I originally anticipated. It seems only Winterfell was impacted and I don't know what kind of hit their food stores would have taken from damage.
I do think the omission of Robb was a slip-up!
Shy Lady Dragon says:
Happy Thanksgiving for those who celebrate!
I'm European, but I love this American holiday.
Shy Lady DragonQuote Reply
Adrianacandle: I KNOW!!!!!!
Even as a show-only fan, the "I'm just a bastard" theme permeated every aspect of Jon's personality, and just about every character with whom he interacted had something to say about his illegitimacy. His lower class status among his family (he couldn't even sit with them in formal dinners), his longing to be a real Stark, and his mistreatment by Catelyn and Sansa because he was a reminder of Ned's supposed infidelity, were a BFD (big f*cking deal) throughout the first seven seasons.
Catelyn herself had a long soliloquy (in a scene with Talisa) about praying to the gods to get rid of baby Jon, then when he fell gravely ill promising the gods she'd treat him like a son if they saved his life, but then couldn't keep that promise, blaming her inability to love a motherless child for all of the misfortune that befell her family. Did that all mean nothing? If so, I'd rather they told me about Baby Hot Pie.
So much screen time was devoted to Jon's parentage, and ultimately, the big ToJ reveal. Jon didn't even know his mother's name or if she was alive; Ned told him nothing. The mysterious "ghost" of Lyanna Stark haunted Robert & Cersei's marriage, and her younger self popped up in Bran's tine travels to WF of the past. The show reminded us of the "official" version of Rhaegar kidnapping and raping Lyanna vs. the actual truth that they loved each other, eloped and married. Presumably all of this was the foundation for the Big Reveal.
With all of that carefully constructed backstory and all of that setup, it's baffling that there was 0 payoff.
How long would it have taken to show the reactions of Arya, Sansa and Jon in that S8e4 episode? For god's sake, excise that goofball Euron if episode running time was an issue.
While I have not been waiting twelve years to see the reactions of the Stark kids, the show had me invested in Jon's parentage mystery and patiently awaiting its emotionally resonant resolution ever since the very first episode of the first season.
Cutting away just when that climax was about to happen was [what's the right word? "Inexcusable?" "Unforgivable"? "Bullsh*t"? "A total rip-off''?]
I refuse to believe that the monumental R + L = J thing boiled down to nothing more than one of many reasons why Dany went nuts at the end. No way. No f*cking way.
😡😡👺😵😫
-End Diatribe –
100%!
And in addition to the reactions of Sansa and Arya, which I so longed to see, I also kind of wanted to see Cersei's, although I don't think the truth of Jon's parentage would have gotten that far… Cersei was in love with Rhaegar and as you said, the ghost of Lyanna haunted her marriage with Robert and here's Lyanna's kid with Rhaegar. I'm hearing the Days of Our Lives theme in my head but STILL. I have longings! 😉
Desire for JonxCersei crackship reemerging in 3, 2, 1…
Those would be some great family dinner scenes.
Anyway! That monologue was so beautifully acted by Michelle Fairley, who gave me a new appreciation for Catelyn. This was a show addition — still, it was so well done by Fairley. I really loved Fairley's Catelyn.
"… And in addition to the reactions of Sansa and Arya, which I so longed to see, I also kind of wanted to see Cersei's, although I don't think the truth of Jon's parentage would have gotten that far… Cersei was in love with Rhaegar and as you said, the ghost of Lyanna haunted her marriage with Robert and here's Lyanna's kid with Rhaegar."
Until someone confirmed (?) that it's unlikely Cersei ever saw Lyanna Stark, I was holding onto the tinfoil fanfic hope that the "ghost" of Lyanna would return to spook the sh*t out of Cersei and take everything she holds dear, in the form of YMBQ Arya decked out as her Aunt Lyanna.
Maisie Williams aka the Many-Faced Goddess could have pulled it off. With the right hairstyle, makeup and dress, she could easily resemble
show! Lyanna.
Here's Aisling Franciosi as bride Lyanna:
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/gameofthrones/images/8/85/Lyanna_S7_E7.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20170830234842
…. and here are side by side photos of Maisie Williams and Aisling Franciosi:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/29/90/2c/29902c3336bb43bf09267bdacd0cce9f.jpg
But we never got to see Arya confront Cersei. (I so much wanted Cersei to have to contend with who she called a "filthy little animal" who had "disappeared" from KL at the end of S1, and had been presumed dead all this time.)
Nor did we see Cersei's reaction to seeing Rhaegar's son in the flesh (as you kind of wanted). 😕
P.S. I never understood the fan specuiation that Arya would somehow fulfill the Valonqar prophecy by killing Cersei wearing Jaime's face. However, as far as I was concerned, Arya could very well turn out to be the YMBQ and TPTWP. Why not?
Well Jon was doing a great job at that; it'd be boring to have two sucking up to Dany.
Plus, what's the interest in that?
Why not have Dany go crazy over the frosty sister, Jon going desperate for the same reason and trying to figure out what's happening around him, and at the same time feed the audience's belief that Sansa undermines Jon all the time?
The characters were turned to devices to drive Dany mad. It's a shopping list, like Adriana says.
(it's black friday over here. same mood, lol).
Adrianacandle: Unintentional quote but nice catch XD
I read it in a book. 😉
So basically in this scene Dany commands Jon to keep silent, not from the rest of the world, but from his very family, and the secret concerns them as well.
By "the truth will destroy us" she really means "it will destroy me". Because at this point, there's no "us" and she knows it.
Jon in reality offers her a family, the reasoning being, you're my paternal aunt, they're my siblings, we're all family, right?
But Dany can't have that, and I wonder why. She could very well offer that she legitimize him as a Stark, but she didn't go there. (Jon wouldn't have accepted because he'd tresspass on his siblings' rights on WF and the North, but that's another issue).
Why is it that Dany saw Jon's siblings as a threat to her? What was the stake here? Why would she fear Jon's siblings the most (that they will plot?) instead of her own councilors? Was she afraid that they'd take Jon away? They wouldn't. They (Sansa, I suppose) only wanted Jon in the North, and the North independent. That's not plotting. It's a normal request to be expected after everything and I don't get why would Dany not concede to that, meaning, Jon staying in the North, just like Ned did before. Like Sansa said to Tyrion, good relations with the South are secured with Jon as Warden. So what's the problem? Why did Tyrion reply that Jon wouldn't be spending time in the North anymore?
In general, I don't get it. They tried to make it personal, but still not everything is said in these dialogs. It's not at all clear, it's as if they're saying "choose your own interpretation".
My interpretation is that Daenerys wanted Jon with her as a hostage, not as a nephew, hers to hold and to intimidate for a lifetime so that the North "behaves" (I know that not many accept this view). And what she asked of him would maintain him a bastard forever, taking in disgrace and scorn all his life. That's not something you do to someone you love.
So I think that Sansa did well by telling. At least even with that ending Jon is free and everybody knows he's a Stark and a Targ at the same time, and as legit as he could ever get. No disgrace for him anymore. And if she wanted she'd legitimize him as a Stark later, because she ended up queen (that's what love is like).
Game over, lol.
Robb was King in the North, recognized by the North, the Riverlands… and literally no one else. Any boy with an army can call himself that. How'd it all work out for him? All those thousands of northerners fighting for their "king", yeah they all died for nothing. So, no, it wasn't a slip-up.
"Anybody can get it; the hard part is keeping it, muthfucka." -Dr. Dre, TPAB
Hovo says:
Tron79,
EXACTLY!!! what you said about books is trustworthy,,, I think in the books DANY-JON-FAEGON dragon has three heads will solve TAOTD problem,,, we will have all 3 alive dragons against the others,,, and in the books NKs absance will make room for many heroes to kill WWs
HovoQuote Reply
(CC:Ten Bears)
But Dany can't have that, and I wonder why. She could very well offer that she legitimize him as a Stark, but she didn't go there […] Why is it that Dany saw Jon's siblings as a threat to her? What was the stake here? Why would she fear Jon's siblings the most (that they will plot?) instead of her own councilors? Was she afraid that they'd take Jon away? They wouldn't. They (Sansa, I suppose) only wanted Jon in the North, and the North independent. That's not plotting. It's a normal request to be expected after everything and I don't get why would Dany not concede to that, meaning, Jon staying in the North, just like Ned did before.
I think it's exactly what Dany said — Sansa will want to see Jon on the Iron Throne over her and Dany was right. Sansa did want that and broke her promise to Jon. Jon being on the throne would require Jon to be in KL too. I think Sansa wanted Jon as king because it'd be in the interest of the North and he'd likely grant Sansa's wishes for the North.
As for Dany, it's also because she wants what she said she wanted: for things to go back to when neither of them knew Jon's parentage, without the complication the truth brings and fear of Jon's (unwanted) claim being used against her own.
And per KH's EW interview for 801, Jon wishes he never knew the truth either.
Jon believed Sansa wouldn't tell. Dany didn't. And Dany ended up being right.
Like Sansa said to Tyrion, good relations with the South are secured with Jon as Warden. So what's the problem? Why did Tyrion reply that Jon wouldn't be spending time in the North anymore?
I think the problem that sure, good relations seem likely but that's not all Sansa wants. She wants Northern independence full-stop. I think the reason Tyrion said Jon won't be spending much time in the North is because he's with Dany and may need to help build the new kingdom.
In general, I don't get it. They tried to make it personal, but still not everything is said in these dialogs. It's not at all clear, it's as if they're saying "choose your own interpretation". […] My interpretation is that Daenerys wanted Jon with her as a hostage, not as a nephew, hers to hold and to intimidate for a lifetime so that the North "behaves" (I know that not many accept this view). And what she asked of him would maintain him a bastard forever, taking in disgrace and scorn all his life. That's not something you do to someone you love.
I don't think the writers were being that ambiguous with this scene. It was a personal pleas and the writing was pretty clear in the dialogue vis a vis what Dany wanted and why, and what Jon wanted and why. Jon didn't want his claim but he felt he owed his family the truth. Dany was afraid if that if people found out, they'd thrust Jon into another position he didn't want. Jon swore he'd refuse but he needs to tell his sisters because he owes them the truth. Dany was afraid that Sansa would pit Jon's claim over her own and Jon insisted she wouldn't. Dany wants things to go back to how it was between them — before either of them found out — Jon is certain everything will be okay, it won't destroy them, that they can have it all, no problem, but Dany knows Sansa will push Jon's claim.
And Dany ended up being right.
Not everyone knows Jon's true parentage (Tyrion, Bran, Sansa, Arya, and Sam know) and Jon is in disgrace as a queenslayer. Sansa breaking her vow to Jon is part of what led to the situation in which Dany went berserk. Of course, at the end of the day, Dany is responsible for her own choices but Sansa helped spark that chaos and against Jon's wishes. I don't think Sansa ever wanted Jon harmed but she put Jon in the line of fire by validating Dany's fears and pushing his claim to the Iron Throne. Sansa didn't have an army to oppose Dany. If Jon had been anyone else, Dany would have removed him as a threat to her claim.
Efi: It's a shopping list, like Adriana says.
LOL. Good connection with Black Friday! XD After I reply to Ten Bears and Kevin, I need to get myself to Amazon 😀 😀 😀
Nice photo comparison, wow :O They did a really nice job casting Aisling Franciosi as Lyanna, her having both a resemblance to Maisie Williams and Kit Harington.
That would have been cool in the form of a very Lyanna-dressed Arya!
I don't remember Cersei being mentioned at the Tourney at Harrenhal but I imagine Cersei would have attended and seen Lyanna there? Jaime was there as a new 15-year old Kingsguard, Cersei would be 15 too and Lyanna about 15/16. Yet I'm not certain about Cersei's attendance.
Yeah, I also really wanted a final confrontation between Cersei and Arya too 😕– for Cersei to come face to face with this deadly assassin who fled Cersei's clutches as a little girl all the way back in season 1.
I think it was about both sort of twisting the prophecy of Valonqar and having Arya be the one to kill Cersei in one fell swoop: it'd look like Cersei's younger brother by minutes killing Cersei, though it wouldn't truly be Jaime, fulfilling the appearance of the prophecy but it still allowing it to be by Arya's own hand.
kevin1989: I read it in a book. 😉
Grandmaester Flash says:
Ten Bears: Anyway, didn't book! Ned keep the secret from his family his whole life because some secrets "are too terrible to tell," or something like that?
I thought it was to protect Jon from Robert, who would have deeply resented a child fathered on Lyanna by Rhaegar. Once Robert was dead, Ned would probably have told his family the truth but circumstances prevented it..
Grandmaester FlashQuote Reply
Lord Parramandas says:
All are great but considering that up to this day, I'm still obssessed with listening to "The Night King" soundtrack and envisioning the scene in my head, it's obvious which one I'll pick. That sequence captured so many special feelings in my case.
Lord ParramandasQuote Reply
I have a few thoughts but I doubt that any of them will ever answer your deeply thought-out questions, TB! To tell you the truth, I don't think that we'll ever know for sure either what Sansa wanted to do, or Jon, or even why Daenerys did anything for that matter. We'll have to wait for the books to see how the true story evolves (if they ever get to the end).
Daenerys herself needed to learn to compromise. Why didn't she say to Sansa instead alright, once the war is over, I'll give you independence, or autonomy like Dorne has because I understand that you suffered a lot from southern rulers? Why didn't she compromise?
In the end, blaming everybody else for what Daenerys did is far too easy. Why would Jon/Sansa/Varys/Tyrion be responsible for the burning of KL? Why did everything had to evolve around Daenerys? Why didn't she want to compromise and give the Westerosi some time to get used to her? Why would everybody have to do what she wanted without her giving in an inch from what she wanted in the first place?
The producers chose to bring about Daenerys' slide to the dark side through loss and suffering and personal emotions, and they did that in just 4,5 episodes. That's because they presented her as a hero in the first place in all the previous eps.
I didn't see anyone complaining about the shitty way she treated Jon in 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5. She had a king in front of her, and she chose to call him "my lord". She wanted not to be held accountable for her father's actions, but she did hold Jon accountable for his actions based on his ancestor from 300 years ago (!). Jon tried to explain to her that he couldn't give up the northern independence because he was elected to the office, which would mean at the very least that he'd have to talk it over with the lords first, and she didn't respect that. She took away his ship, his weapons, and he laments that "he's a prisoner on this island". He tried to tell her "my people are proud; they won't accept a southern ruler", and Daenerys ignored it, to have it backfire on her face as soon as she got North. When he tried to leave, she said "I didn't give you permission to leave", as in what tf? Hasn't Tyrion been saying "I wouldn't say you're a prisoner on this island"? Free people are allowed to come and go, right?
But no; her grace went up North to save them, and everybody says that she's a hero, that Daenerys loves him, that's why she went. Alright; I do not doubt Daenerys' feelings, they showed pretty well. But everybody forgets that she's the reason why the Wall fell in the first place. Had she not insisted on the truce with Cersei the Wall would still be standing.
So she got the North; the (fake) truce; the boyfriend.
At this point I'd say enough is enough if I were in Jon's shoes. I'd tell my family, because it's a family issue and what Daenerys wanted to do with him was really [email protected] up.
In my country we say that one "wants the dog sated and the whole pie".
You can't have everything in this life. You gotta give something back.
Daenerys didn't want to give anything. What she did was her responsibility alone, and I wouldn't blame either Jon or Sansa for any of it. This is probably why Bran (Sam) told Jon in the first place, because everybody's responsible for their own actions, not just Jon and Sansa, Daenerys too.
Also this, but it's related also to the Jon/Sansa situation:
"People can disagree with their leaders. Voicing dissent can be constructive, though the monarch is supposed to have the final say. Pledging fealty to a king or queen is supposed to be a solemn vow, isn't it?"
Daenerys made a grave mistake by demanding that Jon bend the knee. Jon is a bastard, he has absolutely no claim on the North as such. His position is only held with Sansa's tolerance, who specifically told him "you're a Stark to me" at the end of 6.10 and wanted him to have the lord's chambers, which he declined, because he's aware of her position. This type of understanding is predestined to succeed only if the two of them are in accordance. If there's a breach of trust between them, or a disagreement of policy, it could become ugly, as it did.
By abdicating, Jon is absolutely nobody in the North. The highest authority is held by Sansa as lady of WF. Jon's position of Warden is only by appointment by a wannabe queen and its legality depends on two things, first, that Daenerys becomes queen in KL (she was right to point that out in the meeting in ep.4), second, on the North's acceptance. The office of Warden is a KL office, handed out by the Targaryens to the lords that submitted, so it's up to the North to accept the appointed person or not. Also, its function is different than the lord's; while the lord rules the territory, the Warden is the supreme military commander. So it's not like Jon is the highest authority; he's not, Sansa is, as trueborn daughter of Ned Stark, which is why it was up to Sansa, not Jon, to raise the issue of the northern independence with Daenerys. In the context of Westeros, most of the Wardens were the lords paramount of the kingdoms, but that's not always the case.
The point is, Jon himself as Warden cannot guarantee that the North will do his bidding if he's at odds with Sansa. If Jon was king, however, then Sansa would truly have to obey, because he'd be the highest authority. But now that she doesn't like what he has done, no, she doesn't. Perhaps that's the reason why Daenerys wants him with her anyway, to secure the North's loyalty, and that's why Sansa reacts so badly. After all, Daenerys has a Lannister among her councilors, she knows how things are now, and it's Tyrion that pointed out to Sansa that Jon "won't be spending too much time in the North". [I don't know why that line exists btw; the Warden needs to be close to his command. What did Tyrion mean, why did he say that?]
Lastly, the trust issue. I tend to disagree with you. "The pack survives" is all about family. There is no room there for strangers unless they become part of the pack too. Daenerys refused to blend in; she refused Jon's proposal that they become a big happy family.
But why did Sansa separately need to trust in Jon and Jon had the right to not tell her the truth about the situation? Why did he never explain to her how much they needed the dragons? It may have been that he cautioned her about "trusting each other", but apparently what he meant was "trust in me; I know better; ask no questions", didn't he?
It seems to me that he too wanted the dog sated and the whole pie, just like Daenerys –unless I'm missing something.
Dany never sat on the throne, so she's no queen in reality though. I doubt they'll hold it against him that he killed a conqueror for too long. In any case, the North being independent in the end secures that Jon won't have to suffer the southern scorn about king/queenslayers, lol. That's the whole point, they'll be forever rid of the hypocrisy.
And I think Varys did a good job spreading the secret, otherwise he wouldn't have burned. So by the end of the show many in the South know who Jon is.
Farimer123,
Good point. Still, Dany's "the hero". No matter if she gave our boy a hard time.
Being recognized by others for being what you are (or claim to be) is the very essence of politics. Everything has been happening for this thing since ages. It's like being recognized by the UN. If you're not, you don't exist.
There was a time when titular kings/queens of this and that abounded in Europe; they were without a seat but still claimed it based on whichever right (most of the times some obscure descent and/or complicated marriage alliance) and went around the royal courts seeking for allies to take their seat "back".
Perhaps that's why Daenerys lost it in the end; because she had little if any recognition.
Why didn't she say to Sansa instead alright, once the war is over, I'll give you independence, or autonomy like Dorne has because I understand that you suffered a lot from southern rulers? Why didn't she compromise?
Dorne has semi-autonomy but it seems like Sansa wants full independence, no allegiance to the crown whatsoever (not even if a Stark is on the Iron Throne). Dany could have been willing to work with Sansa, true, but I don't know why Sansa was showing such overt dislike to somebody coming to help them. Why not try to utilize goodwill with Dany to eventually get what she wants? Why poke the bear, especially since Sansa thinks Dany is a dangerous tyrant?
But like with Sansa's overt dislike, I think Daenerys's refusal to compromise (as she was willing to do with Yara in season 6) was also one of those story choices to further the Mad Queen plot, same as her not willing to give the people of Westeros time to know her.
When he tried to leave, she said "I didn't give you permission to leave", as in what tf? Hasn't Tyrion been saying "I wouldn't say you're a prisoner on this island"? Free people are allowed to come and go, right?
Well, Jon did get to leave. He reminded her he was a king and he got to leave on the wight hunt.
Had she not insisted on the truce with Cersei the Wall would still be standing.
I think the wight plan was super stupid but Dany's concerns about Cersei are not unreasonable. Sansa is concerned about Cersei, why can't Dany be too? Cersei attacking her allies and Dragonstone while Dany's busy up North is a reasonable concern.
It wasn't that f*cked up, Dany's concerns were sound — and she ended up being right about Sansa trying to push Jon's unwanted claim against his wishes and it (helped) lead to disaster.
Jon was pretty naive where both Sansa and Dany were concerned. But I agree that at the end of the day, Dany needs to know better and not demolish a city. That choice is on her, she's the only one in charge of her brain. Still, Sansa (and others) had a hand in helping spark this chaos and I think Jon should have kept silent until a better time could be agreed upon.
By his own choice, Jon was willing to stay a bastard in the eyes of society. He willingly gave up his claim for Dany's. I understand his reasons for wanting to tell Sansa and Arya about his true identity but Dany wasn't wrong in her concerns either.
Daenerys didn't want to give anything.
Well… she did help the North's defense against the undead and gave everything to that. Without Dany's help, the North would be decimated… It's true that defeating the undead is also in Dany's best interest but it's certainly in the North's best interest too.
Daenerys made a grave mistake by demanding that Jon bend the knee. Jon is a bastard, he has absolutely no claim on the North as such. His position is only held with Sansa's tolerance, who specifically told him "you're a Stark to me" at the end of 6.10 and wanted him to have the lord's chambers, which he declined, because he's aware of her position.
Jon was a chosen king, it wasn't dependent on birthright. Winterfell is Sansa's birthright, not the kingdom of the North.
The kingdom of the North passed back into the 7K when Robb was killed and the Wardenship was given over the Boltons. After Sansa and Jon retook Winterfell, the lords declared Jon their king.
It wasn't dependent on Sansa's tolerance of the situation because the lords didn't choose her, they chose Jon.
By abdicating, Jon is absolutely nobody in the North. The highest authority is held by Sansa as lady of WF. Jon's position of Warden is only by appointment by a wannabe queen and its legality depends on two things, first, that Daenerys becomes queen in KL (she was right to point that out in the meeting in ep.4), second, on the North's acceptance.
I don't think this is entirely true. As king, I think it was within Jon's capacity to bend the knee to another ruler and he chose to bend the knee to Dany. Dany was the North's queen so, by her appointment, Jon was Warden of the North.
I don't think such a thing is up to the Northern lords — they can form a coup and overthrow their monarch or declare a rebellion. If successful, they decide who their new leader will be. If unsuccessful, the current monarch decides their fate.
But given the situation the North is in, I don't think that'd be the wisest course of action given their limited martial power and need for help.
I mean, I think it's understandable for the North to be wicked pissed and Sansa to be wicked pissed over not being consulted … again… but, as king, that decision was within Jon's capacity. His authority as king doesn't change because he was elected rather than inheriting the position — he's still a king in a feudal system. Robb was a chosen king too. To get rid of a king, the Northern lords can form a coup or rebellion and attempt to overthrow him (as they were talking about doing in 705 to replace Jon with Sansa).
But now that she doesn't like what he has done, no, she doesn't.
Sansa still betrayed Jon though by telling his secret. She made a vow to him — and in front of the heart tree. I don't think Sansa's in a great position to make demands at this time, she doesn't have the power or military forces to oppose Dany unless she wants another war which will likely wipe out much of the North's defenses.
I think the issue here is is that it's really, really unlike Arya to say this and it's not productive to trust only those who grew up with, that's not a great way to make alliances or foster unity, it's a great way to make enemies though by declaring everyone else the enemy and only a select group as friends — and those same people can still betray your trust.
It is pretty Lannister-esque.
You can still be a family and stick together — but that doesn't mean you have to only trust each other and nobody else because they're not one of the group.
Had Jon fostered this same attitude, the wildlings would still be fighting them, the North would have only the Starks to defend against the undead, and maybe they wouldn't even have the Vale's aid, etc. The Arryns aren't Starks and Bran/Sansa/Arya/Rickon/Robb didn't grow up alongside Sweetrobin.
This is Jon's information to do with what he will, not Sansa's. It's his identity, it's his claim. That's why I think Jon has every right not to tell her or anyone he doesn't want to know. Jon did explain to her why they needed help — he explained this in 702, 801, and when he was defending Daenerys in 804 — that they'd be dead without her.
Dany never sat on the throne, so she's no queen in reality though. I doubt they'll hold it against him that he killed a conqueror for too long.
Dany was queen by right of conquest, she won the city — and she was still Jon's queen, she was still the queen Jon gave his crown to.
Yara and the Unsullied certainly held it against Jon. Nobody advocated for Jon's claim to the throne in the Dragonpit. And queenslaying is still a taboo in Westeros. Jon was exiled for it as a compromise.
In any case, the North being independent in the end secures that Jon won't have to suffer the southern scorn about king/queenslayers, lol. That's the whole point, they'll be forever rid of the hypocrisy.
Jon is away from the scorn but he's still living in disgrace and exile, and he committed one of Westeros's worst sins (oathbreaking/queenslaying) and a grievous sin in the eyes of the gods as well (kinslaying). He also has to live with killing Dany — the pain of which KH talks about ("This destroys Jon to do this. ") and which Jon himself says doesn't feel right.
Sansa didn't do Jon any favours by telling his secret against his wishes.
So by the end of the show many in the South know who Jon is.
Nothing came out of Varys's letters, it's unknown if he even managed to send them out and they didn't help Jon in the end. Nobody mentions his trueborn status in the end. He's exiled to the Night's Watch for queenslaying, Jon must give up all claims and titles. And Jon didn't even want the world at large to know about his identity, especially with it having come to this.
Plus, the Targaryen name has probably been dragged to hell after what Dany did so that stigma probably is associated with Jon too if Westeros believes he's a Targaryen.
It seems the Starks all lied in the last season:
Sansa: I will keep your secret Jon
Jon: His stabby stabby in episode 6 was possible because he lied to Dany (don't complain about that, she needed to be put out)
Arya: Family needs to stick together
Bran: I can't be lord, I'm the 3ER (technically he was right, he became King not lord)
kevin1989:
I don't think Arya and Sansa necessarily lied because it may not have been their intent to go against their words at the time. I saw a genuine struggle on Sansa's face in her scene with Tyrion.
But the Arya thing was kind of weird. She made that speech in which they can only trust each other because they're family, which I feel was a bit out of character for reasons Ten Bears and I discussed, but in the next scene, she's like, "Leaving Winterfell, never coming back."
As for Jon, I think there's some truth to what you're saying in that while I think Jon meant his last words to Dany in a symbolic way, it wasn't in a "I'll do whatever you want me to," way. Jon had already been in stabbing proximity to Dany for quite some time before he made his decision to assassinate her (upon Dany's line, "They don't get to choose.")
As for Bran, yeah, that was weird. From 703's "I can never be Lord of Winterfell. I can never be lord of anything" to 806's "Why do you think I came all this way?" (upon being asked if he will accept the crown). But uh, maybe Bran didn't know he'd be accepting the crown… either?
"Hi. I'm Aegon Hitler. Pleased to meet you."
Ten Bears: "Hi. I'm Aegon Hitler. Pleased to meet you."
Yes, I think that'd be a bit awkward 😉
"Targaryen as in… Burnt-King's-Landing-to-a-Crisp Targaryen?"
"Uh… those were the Swiss Targaryens. I'm of the Norwegian line."
Lol, quite right. One addition:
Arya: Family needs to stick together. I'm out of here.
You're right of course, but I found it funny that all the Starks lied in a way.
And I think we would all have done what Jon had done, at least if we had the courage, I mean that is one of the hardest thing to do, (I think it would only be harder if it was a child of yours)
I would love to see a sequel where we see them all back together. Just one season. Maybe Daenerys comes back as the fire version of the Night King (Fire Queen) and then they need some sort of White Walker equivalent to defeat the Day Queen.
And then the circle is round.
Regarding Arya, when she said "Starks need to stick together," she meant mentally they needed to be on the same page and they needed to trust one another. It's not rational to think the Starks were all going to be in the same place for the rest of their lives.
Young Dragon:
Fair enough but I did find the contrast somewhat jarring because in the very next scene, Arya declared she wasn't planning on ever returning home to Winterfell.
Agreed!! 🙂
Oh, did you get all your HDM questions answered??
I just finish 5×04 till 5×06. My thoughts, let's put it per character.
Sansa: The ball has been rolling in episode 3, so now I will put my opinion of how it's executed. I though the whole part with the North and Myranda was done perfectly, still doesn't like the whole her being married to Ramsay but the way episode 4 till 6 was for her, it was as it should (when they went this route with the storyline), I only didn't like her end scene in 5×06. The thing is, that they had to make the choice here by either having shown Sansa being raped (I'm happy they didn't go that route), or 2. Having it played out as it was played out, making Sansa the secondary character to Theon in that scene.
Arya: I did like her scenes but I don't like how the whole Faceless Man is being presented, her training is pretty fast when you think of it, she wants to be a full member of one of the most secret organisations in the world, and in just a couple of weeks she already is shown the face-hall. And it's also strange that for D&D who are not that fond of magic, made the whole FLM more magical than the books.
Jon: I wish we would have seen more of Stannis and Jon together and Jon battling being a lord commander. Stannis left and already his concern is Hardhome. But overall I like this storyline.
Kings Landing: I understand why they changed that storyline, but I didn't like the whole: People of faith hating on the gays trope. And why did the High Sparrow let Littlefinger go? I mean Lancel knew who Littlefinger was, and they were against whoring, why wouldn't they put the big boss in chains for that? What I liked was Olenna and cersei scenes together.
Dorne: *Yawn* And more over, they butchered Ellaria, yes they made her more important, but her whole character was destroyed for me. In season 4 she was one of my favorites, she was one that you saw understand things (the way she calm Oberyn down in 4×01), and they change her into a child-killer.
Tyrion: I like his story in those 3 episodes.
Daenerys: I didn't care that much for her storyline. Episode 4 the killing of Baristan, only for making an fighting end for episode 4 and for making the Sons of the Harpy in one big enemy. Her marrying Hizdahr feels to easy. Her arc is action in this season, instead of the battle for peace.
Did I miss something?
Yes I did. I have put it on my list.
I hope I like those books better than the books of Outlander. Some how I couldn't get into those books, maybe it was just the time I was reading it, maybe I would like them now better. But the books felt empty too me.
Well, it didn't seem odd to me, but I can understand why it would be odd to other people. When she said that, I never thought she expected the Starks to be joined at the hip forever. She left Winterfell to kill her family's last enemy and to avenge her father, and she knew how risky it was and didn't think she would succeed. She was thinking of her family when she left, so I don't see the contradiction.
kevin1989: I hope I like those books better than the books of Outlander. Some how I couldn't get into those books, maybe it was just the time I was reading it, maybe I would like them now better. But the books felt empty too me.
I think that's fair. I don't love DG's writing but one of my friends adores it. Maybe I need to try again too? It also took me quite some time to actually invest in the Outlander TV series — not that there was anything wrong with the show itself! It's beautifully done, wonderfully acted, well-written! It just wasn't hitting my "hooks", not until I got properly invested in the characters.
Young Dragon: Well, it didn't seem odd to me, but I can understand why it would be odd to other people. When she said that, I never thought she expected the Starks to be joined at the hip forever. She left Winterfell to kill her family's last enemy and to avenge her father, and she knew how risky it was and didn't think she would succeed. She was thinking of her family when she left, so I don't see the contradiction.
I can really appreciate that it worked for you! And I totally accept that! Things that have worked for me don't always work for others either 🙂 I'm just going off of this dialogue:
Arya: You're heading to King's Landing?
The Hound: I have some unfinished business.
Arya: Me too.
The Hound: I don't plan on coming back.
Arya: Neither do I.
I think there's leeway to interpret why she doesn't plan on coming back — maybe it is because she doesn't expect to survive. At the same time, I don't believe Arya ever expected to remain at Winterfell or perhaps even return there. I don't think it's the life for her, which is why it made sense to me that she chose to leave the whole of Westeros and sail west to explore unknown lands 🙂
Ow than I will try them again, but I think I will go first with HDM because it's finished the books (at least he main storyline).
Yes, the trilogy itself is a complete story 🙂
Adrianacandle: I think that's fair. I don't love DG's writing but one of my friends adores it. Maybe I need to try again too? It also took me quite some time to actually invest in the Outlander TV series — not that there was anything wrong with the show itself! It's beautifully done, wonderfully acted, well-written! It just wasn't hitting my "hooks", not until I got properly invested in the characters.
I wanted to jump in about Arya. d&d had Arya say she wasn't going back North again right after Jon reveals he's a Targaryen. Before that reveal, Arya seemed to be making a stronger bond with Sansa. She sees her as the smartest woman she has ever met (for example). Her reaction about not going back home seemed to at least have a little to do with Jon's reveal. But it doesn't make much sense to me. I can understand that her character will never be a lady in a castle. That's not her. But she also learned that it was important to be part of her pack. She also obviously still loves Jon after the reveal and still sees him as her brother. This is pretty apparent in the finale. I could see her deciding to take one for the team and go off to kill Cersei on her own, but I don't think Arya was saying she was planning on dying. She was saying she wasn't going back North after her job was done. I think it would have been more in her character if she killed Dany for Jon so Jon wouldn't be burdened with the guilt. Then she would have left perhaps taking on a different persona. That would have been noble because of her love for Jon.
The way D&D positioned her line about not returning North made it sound to me like Arya was just fed up. Jon's reveal was the last straw. But that doesn't seem like Arya to me so I am very perplexed by it. I look forward one day to what GRRM has in mind for her arc. I would have loved to have seen Arya take matters into her own hands with Dany which would have spared Jon the guilt. Then she could have turned to change her face and rode away on the white horse again to end the season.
Season 5 is my least favorite season, but it's still amazing television. I thought they vastly improved the books they adapted. The only storylines I thought were done better in the books were Arya's storyline and Winterfell's storyline, though I still enjoyed the show's versions.
Yeah, I agree with all of this and those were my feelings as well. I can certainly see validity in Young Dragon's interpretation, I don't think that's a wrong interpretation by any means, but the impression I got was Arya was done after learning about R+L=J and that was perplexing to me too. I feel, with some of these plot points, more information was needed… I think Arya would love Jon just the same even if it was discovered Jon was a half-robot werewolf vampire from the moon so that's why I found my impression jarring.
Adrianacandle:
Yeah, he may be a half robot vampire from the moon, but he's still my brother!! I love that!!! 🌚. I didn't really get why they didn't reveal the reactions under the weirwood. It made it seem like the Starks worked out a secret plan.
Wolfish says:
In addition to all of this, which I've harped about a number of times before, I'll always be astounded about Jon and Sam never saying a word to Dany about Maester Aemon.
WolfishQuote Reply
Yeah, you're not alone. Chemistry is such an inexplicable thing, and difficult to cast—it's there or it isn't. Saner Half generally hates rom-coms and couldn't give a shit about celebrity news, but he *loved* the sparks between Jon and Ygritte, and when I told him they'd gotten married irl he reacted like a little kid. "REALLY?! That's so awesome!"
Tron79: Yeah, he may be a half robot vampire from the moon, but he's still my brother!! I love that!!! 🌚.
Yeah! XDDD
It wasn't my impression that the Starks worked out a secret plan, or I think we would have heard something about it (Jon's bewildered when he sees Arya in KL in 806, Sansa disapproves of Jon going to KL), it seemed more like a dramatic cutaway while Bran tells them all of the information the audience already knows (and that we have heard twice already this season: first, in the Sam/Jon scene and second, in the Dany/Jon scene) — but I would have liked to have seen!! 🙁 AND I would have liked to have seen Tyrion's reaction when Sansa told him! AND Varys's!
By 804, I think it was kind of "old news" to the writers so maybe that's why they opted to keep these reveals off screen, because the audience knows it already, and it probably saves time 🙁
BUT!!
There is this hilarious idea of what Bran told them XD
Oh, I didn't get that feeling at all. Arya's farewell to Jon was very tearful. She loved him as her brother, as she always had. She said it herself. The reason she leaves is because castle life isn't for her. She's a fighter and an explorer, and she finally has the opportunity to live her life as she wants.
They explained the reason why. They've already revealed Jon's parents to several people, it's lost its sting. The two people who we absolutely needed to gauge their reactions were Jon and Danerys, which they gave us. The reveal wouldn't mean much to the Stark sisters because, as Arya said, he would always be their brother.
Adrianacandle: I really dislike the romance between Brianna and Roger in Outlander because I think they're both twats and suck as people — but my friend loves them.
That's precisely how I feel about Cathy and Heathcliff, but for some reason that's utterly inexplicable to me I've always been surrounded by women who love them!!!
To go with that meme I linked…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFjaOyAWd4
Wolfish: That's precisely how I feel about Cathy and Heathcliff, but for some reason that's utterly inexplicable to me I've always been surrounded by women who love them!!!
Yeah!! It's something that either grabs you or doesn't, I can't figure it out!
Maybe it's like perfume — with perfume working on some people and not on others, reacting with your individual body chemistry — and this reacts with your mind chemistry…? 🙂
Young Dragon: Arya's farewell to Jon was very tearful. She loved him as her brother, as she always had. She said it herself. The reason she leaves is because castle life isn't for her. She's a fighter and an explorer, and she finally has the opportunity to live her life as she wants.
That part seriously made me cry. Arya never cries — but she did here. That huge tear rolling down her cheek when she was saying goodbye to Jon, I'm getting teary now 🙁
AnnOther says:
Efi: I absolutely abhor the insinuation that a murder (killing Daenerys) might ever be "duty".
Well, that's the central question of maaaany tragedies and plays, from the Ancient times to XXth century. And of many films (the good guys have the duty to kill some villain to save the world). That was quite straightforward when some strange undead guy had to be "killed", so I'm not sure murder was an appropriate term. Anyway, what stroke me was that Jon was stabbed by his "brothers" in a very Julius Caesar way, because they thought it was their duty to protect the NW and the realms of men. And eventually, Jon ended in Brutus' shoes, so to speak. So, I do think Jon's choice is openly presented as questionable (and if I remeber correctly, he questions it himself, saying something like 'Was it right?'). That's what I like in GoT, and where it does subvert genre tropes and makes some viewers uneasy: it leaves questions open and lets each one think about it (well, if they wish to; if they don't, you still have action and cinematography and drama).
PS: Ten Bear: I agree the timing did the Jon/Daenerys story a diservice . The Wall was down just next to their boat scene, so from a narrative perspective it would have been weird to dwell on their romance. Having a flirtatious dragon ride while the end of the world was knocking at the door felt a bit contrived; and I think a tense passion with an urgency feeling due to an impending apocalypse would have been hard to blend in the general tone. They may have found some good solution, but it was a damn hard task given the overall constraints.
AnnOtherQuote Reply
Young Dragon,
Personally I think most stories are better in the books and the show could have been much better in the show had they followed the books more precisely. And that opinion I have is more because I talked with a lot of people who only watch the show and not the books and found season 5 not that great, but when I talked about the books what they had, I get almost an universal reaction: I wish they had stick to the book storyline.
Before I dive deeper in that first I talk about what made GoT so unique in the beginning compared to other shows, was it fantasy element? Not really, only if you call it horror-fantasy, what the fantasy made so great in GoT was that it was more horror like, the way the WW are introduced is filmed in horror style, the magic is scary in the show and books (except later). Is it the action? A trope that is used by almost every show and movie as a easy trope to get viewers and to let the story flow. Was that what made GoT great the first couple of seasons? No not really, but from season 5 on they decided to change the books into a more action based season where as much plot happen per season. Is it the plottwist that GoT had? A bit it is, but every damn show out that have plot twist, so what made GoT put aside compared to the many and many shows that had multiple plottwist and shocks every season? Same with "Everyone can die." I mean even the TWD use that trope and it's not really on level of GoT.
So what is it that made GoT that amazing, if it's not the action, not the plottwist, not the everyone can die, they helped yes but what was it that made GoT so amazing. Is it maybe the amazing way the story is being told like a puzzle, where you see puzzles falling in place and every single story starts in book 1/season 1 and every season every puzzle put itself in place, yes a big part was this, except later on in season 5 and beyond they let that go and made things easier for the casual viewers (because they would not follow the show and thereby stop watching), so action was put in place, because this trope always helps, it scores, it get viewers. Look at Marvel movie, movies that the script are made in 15 minutes (That's what the writers tell that in 15 minutes they known the whole storyline of the movie and only need to write it), that's not GoT.
What sets GoT aside is it's characters. We can follow a character in a season (especially season 1 till 4) where they stick just in one place and we get to know them, the plot progressed because the characters made certain choices, there was no need for the "This character act a bit out of place to get to plotpoint A", no if that didn't work they invented a small scene or episode where that made sense, for instance the detour of 1×07 with Daenerys, that was invented by GRRM in his books because it wouldn't make sense for Drogo to take Westeros for Daenerys, while in later seasons they just go with: He forget that this is not who he is. In the end in season 1 till 4 per season the plot didn't progress that much, Many character stayed in one place a whole season. Bran season 2 first half season he did do nothing with plot, but we had some nice character moments. Talk about magic, etc. So it's the characters before plot storytelling, it didn't matter that we had to wait, because the character moments were great, we could feel the characters alive. They didn't have a plot-arc but a character arc in those seasons.
What happened with season 5 when they adapted the books. They didn't look at: What is the character-arc of this season but with what is the plot-arc of the season. They wrote the plot and added the character arc, instead of visa versa. What I meant with that is for instance Cersei in season 5, her whole season 5 arc was about: Introduction of High Sparrow, High Sparrow gaining power and imprison her, she does her walk of shame. And it ended with the big plotmoment. But if they use what they did in season 1 till 4 and went with character base moments, the story would be much different, it would not be about the Sparrows, it would be about "Cersei's madness with her battle with Margery". It would start with the notion that Cersei is making plans to undo Margery, and we see her making plans, and only halfway through we see that Cersei got the plotpoint to make that happen. We wouldn't have see the High Sparrow until the last part of the season. It would also not have ended with Cersei's Walk of Shame and walking back home. Instead her arc would have been: Making plans to get rid of Margery, get the means to do it and do it, and the plan backfire in her face. Meaning that her last Feast part would have been her last scene of the season. Her begging for help while being imprisoned.
Same with many other storylines: Iron Island would have had a nice character moments with the family that could have been amazing on screen. Dorne the same why go with the action-trope instead of the character base storytelling.
Tyrion the same: Progress the plot that he rules Meereen as fast as possible, and just forget about the character progression he needs to go through. Do we really have a feeling that he changed when he was a slave? Why include it only for the plot convenience, if it does not serve a reason for the character to build, just ignore it. If the goal was to meet Daenerys and rule Meereen, the whole slavery episode could have been omitted.
The characters for me they did a service was: Theon, Ramsay, Cersei (to a degree), Bronn, Thormund and other secondary characters. For all the rest I wish they had stick closer to the books, and with closer I don't mean page for page. Just don't ignore the character arc that George build, because that's what matter, not the plotpoints, the character points. Do it like season 3 and 4, change a big amount of things but still feel like the characters are the core of the show.
I watched over 100 shows (and I think I see a lot what works and what don't and which show stick in the end and which don't and shows that went from character to action most of the time lose quality) and I really think that if they stick closer to the books season 5 would have received better, they didn't have to dumb down the story for the casual viewer in my mind.
Still I think all the seasons are a great watch, and season 1 till 4 for me is far beyond the average in writing and one of the best writing I ever saw. Season 5 I need to wait till I finish the season. 4 to go.
Adrianacandle: As for Bran, yeah, that was weird. From 703's "I can never be Lord of Winterfell. I can never be lord of anything" to 806's "Why do you think I came all this way?" (upon being asked if he will accept the crown). But uh, maybe Bran didn't know he'd be accepting the crown… either?
The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that lordships are hereditary, but in the new Six Kingdoms thrones are not. So great castles will still be inherited, while kings will be chosen.
It does peeve me that, after having stated in S7 that "the Ironborn have their kingsmoot" Tyrion made no allusion to it in the Dragonpit. It would have been a nice nod to Yara. But hey, Yara's character got totally screwed over in her last scene, so there's that.
To add: What I think they should have done was just finish whole of feast (with not a single chapter from Dance or Winds from those characters). And add the characters from Dance until the 30 day skip. And what is after the 30 day skip being the start of season 6 with the beginning of the winds chapters (like they did in the show) for season 6.
But overall I think D&D did a great job, especially with the timeframe they work with and the choices they need to make with short time, there was no time to think over, there needed to be a decision and the work needed to be done. They didn't have half a year the time to puzzle everything together (and in the hope that they had some new source material after that)
Wolfish: The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that lordships are hereditary, but in the new Six Kingdoms thrones are not. So great castles will still be inherited, while kings will be chosen.
Right. I think that makes sense and I think Kevin said something to that effect (a lord being different from a king). Lords can be inherit via succession and kings chosen. I think the idea is a gradual change toward a more elective system in which rulers are (hopefully) selected based on merit rather than birth order and blood.
I think you have a nice point about Yara. The finale script says that Yara is cool with Bran as king because Theon died defending him, so I'll accept that as the writers' reasoning for Yara's acceptance, but it would have been nice if something like the kingsmoot was addressed and Yara had thoughts on the independence she once negotiated with Daenerys when allying with her.
The Light King says:
I know a lot people, show only watchers, who found season 5 pretty great and I am one of them. I realy dont unterstand the negativity . I dont care whats in the books. When I watch the shwo then the shwo is the only thing that matters and someone who prefers to see the book storylines should stay with the books and not watch the show.
The Light KingQuote Reply
Fireandblood87 says:
Arya didn't worship Visenya she did admire her though. She is also not the same little girl she was at the time. She distant with almost everyo
They didn't have a down with Dany attitude. They did however see something was off with her.
Fireandblood87Quote Reply
Fireandblood87,
Apologies, 'worship' was the wrong word, I was being hyperbolic.
I didn't give it a second thought, didn't look at the results until after I chose Brienne's knighting; pleasantly surprised to see that I was right at the top!
ashQuote Reply
This. Every word of it. The fact that D&D didn't consider that perhaps they should use the gun that they hung for seven years tells me that they were impatient to be done. At that point it really would have been better if they reliquished their role to other writers to finish.
KaraQuote Reply
Nick20 says:
It's impossible for me to decide between Jenny of Oldstones and Brienne's knighting. Both are very worthy of winning.
While Theon and Jorah's deaths were pretty well done, there were too many issues with that sequence for me to vote for it.
Dany's death and the Dothraki charge are also too mixed for me. There are things I like about those scenes, but there are also aspects that are huge issues for me.
Brienne's knighting however is basically a perfect scene to me, and one of the most emotional in the series. Same goes for the Jenny of Oldstones sequence, which felt like a very beautiful goodbye to the series, even though we still had 4 episodes to go.
I'm happy with either of those two scenes taking the prize.
Nick20Quote Reply
Chilli says:
ChilliQuote Reply
Step 1: Automatically eliminate the Theon/Jorah/Night King/Daenerys/throne deaths.
Step 2: Think, "Well, Brienne's knighting was beautiful, but that'll get enough votes. The Jenny of Oldstones montage was chilling, but has a bitter undertone now that I know everybody in the fireside chat survived the impending war that lasted one night and ended so underwhelmingly. I'm going with the flaming arakh scene, because that was also fantastically chilling and powerful but will probably get fewer votes than Brienne's big moment." (After checking the shades-of-green-and-blue graph, that would seem an accurate assumption, as it was fifth of the top 5…and my fave moment for the contest came in 9th.)
Step 3: Vote. 😀
Step 4: Express TOOOOONNNNSS of agreement with mostly the same clever folks as usual (TB, Adriana, Wolfish, Ash, Nick, Kevin, a wee bit of Efi's……)
…Especially here!:
Not many people like Melisandre in-universe (though I think she's one of the most beautiful women ever
shelleQuote Reply
I wouldn't presume to know why people watch GOT. I'm sure it was for a variety of reasons. I agree that normally the source material is better than the adaptation, and that remained true for the first three books. However, I felt the show was far superior than Feast and Dance. Yes, characters are very important, but story is just as important, and Martin was able to balance story and character masterfully in the first three books. I'm not sure how you can say the plot didn't advance much in seasons 1-4, because that is clearly not the case. However, in Feast and Dance, the balance shifted drastically. He worked more on character development and world building, and completely disregarded the plot, causing the story to move forward very little. I admit there was a slight shift in the balance in GOT when D&D concentrated more on the plot, but the shift was minimal and wasn't nearly as bad as the shift in the books. Unlike Martin forgetting to move the plot, D&D never forgot about the characters. Not once. The final seasons gave us some of the best character moments in the entire series, book and show. I can't speak for the people you talked to, all I know that my family, friends, and I loved season 5, all because D&D avoided the same mistakes Martin made.
No, it wouldn't. D&D took an unfinished story that the author himself considered to be unfilmable and turned it into the most successful television series of all time. Handing the reigns to someone else could very well have been a disaster.
I few points I have, but I don't have much time. I'm in the middle of correcting my students' papers (and they're not good and I'm frustrated) so I'm rather desperate for anything different than work, but I have to keep it brief. 😃
I think Sansa spilled the beans when Tyrion suggested that Jon wouldn't return. So her main concern wasn't really to "put Jon on the throne" even though with him on the throne the North would be secure and perhaps independent. I think she meant to undermine Daenerys for freeing Jon rather than putting him on the throne. Her concern here for telling the secret was not the independence of the North, but Jon.
Yes, Daenerys did fight for the North (Jon's war, she called it) like she went North to bring them back. But I was expecting of her to act more diplomatically and not target Sansa from day one. It was a bad move, Jorah was right to set her straight, and yet she kept doing it. Daenerys didn't need to know who Jon was to threaten Sansa. She did it already before that. So it doesn't matter if she was right that Sansa would tell (what does that even mean? that Jon shouldn't tell? that he had to do her bidding for something that was so personal and concerned his entire family?), but her entire behavior induced Jon to tell, induced Sansa to tell. So I think that much of that was at least partly her fault. If you're stepping on people's feelings (not to mention the northern people's interests) like that, they're bound to react.
As for the Northern kingdom. While it was Jon's decision to relinquish his title, not having discussed this in advance with his lords means that they were not obliged to obey him if they didn't want to, and this is much more true in the North were decisions are a product of discussion and negotiation with the lords. So I think in the beginning the lords are distrustful of Daenerys, but since Jon has Sansa's support there's not much they can do.
Jon knows that his position is now ambiguous, so to speak (for lack of better word). He supported a queen who is not a queen yet, so what becomes of him will in reality be a result of whether Daenerys manages to take the throne or not (as it happens in the end too). Jon is not king anymore, he is not lord anyway, so he steps back and does absolutely nothing (not even defending Daenerys in public, as he should), while Sansa does all the handlings and the management of WF and the North. Sansa is the supreme authority in the North after Daenerys at this point (which is why Jorah steps in and urges Daenerys to find common ground with Sansa).
I think you're underestimating Sansa and her position as lady of WF. Yes, lord/lady and king are different offices, but the kingship of someone who is not trueborn heir of the lord paramount cannot stand without strong support from the leading family. If Sansa wanted to turn the lords against Jon she could have done it easily, and have him deposed and ousted from the kingdom. This is what LF tried to do in season 7. Jon cannot have the support of the lords without Sansa, and he doesn't have an army without Sansa. If Sansa decided to issue an order for the Northern army to return home, there'd be no one going South for Dany except for Jon. The army is not Jon's; the North is not Jon's.
It's a shame that that scene where the Northerners spit on Dany didn't make it past the editing room. It immediately preceded Dany's line "if she can't respect me…." and is apparently the cause of that line. It would have shown that Sansa's position in the North and her influence on the people is much stronger than the audience thinks. I suppose it was redundant; I enjoyed most another scene with Tyrion and his line "and the masses rejoice" in ep. 2. KH's smirk also didn't help I guess, i would have been weird to see (but it explifies that Jon really didn't support his queen that much in the North).
The Light King:
first off, didn't they adapt the books? Or did the story come from D&D minds? As far as I know GRRM.
Second, as stated I don't have a big problem with changes at all. Season 4 is my favorite season and 40%+ (Maybe even 60%) was show only and not in the books, and for the first 4 seasons it was the season that changed the most of them all and still my favorite. Those things they added or changed were brilliant. Sandor and Arya journey, great. Why did it work? Because of the plot? Because of action? No if it was plot it would have been skipped, if it was action we would have seen more action. It was the character-arc. They both had a great character arc and building their characters together. And season 5 they change that, no more character arc, only plot-arcs. Get to the big plotpoint every episode and every season.
So no, I don't care about "putting everything the same as the books". What I do care about is, that the book version would have suited the show better than what we got, and I don't mean by having the exact same storyline, but at least follow the structure of it. There are lot of things the book version worked too that would have been goose-bump moments in the show if they would have included them. I can understand that you don't know that because you didn't read them. And I understand book and show are 2 different mediums, but what they did was change something into something worse for screen and they went with the obvious: Action trope. To gain more viewers.
And the thing is what I hear mostly of show only watchers in my surroundings was that they didn't care about the characters after season 5 anymore, the story was still good, but that they way the story was told changed. Which is true. The arcs change from character arcs to plot-arcs. If you want to know the difference I give you 2 extremes. A plot show is for instance: CSI. 90% of the episode surrounds itself with the plot of that episode, the case of the week. A character-arc show is for instance: Sopranos, the shield, deadwood, 90% of the episodes were about the characters and only a little about the plot.
Every show can make a big amazing plot that is breathtaking. But not everyone can make great characters (Which GoT did by the help of the books, even D&D admitted that the way the characters live on screen is because of Georges writing that they adapted). The plot need to be a support for the characters, a path that they walk to let the character moments keep interesting (that means the best is as slow as can be but not slower, and too fast you miss a lot of great character moments), and not the other way around that the plot comes first and the characters are the support.
shelle,
Agree about Mellisandre, Carice is amazing.
I agree that people watch GoT for multiple reasons, but I think (not knowing for sure 100% but when deducting what people comment since the beginning) the core lies with the characters. Look at what people state why they watch the show, Ten Bears stated it was Arya's introduction that got him hooked, and so does many have a moment that is connected with a character. And of course it needs to be, look at season one, lot's and lot's of character moments where we get to know them. And only at the end of episode 6 we got our first big plot moment that change things. Same with episode 7 that had the second plot change, Ned in chains. they build the whole season of character moments with just one plot point per character. Season 5 gave plotpoint to plotpoint to plotpoint and little character moments. Too little for me, I understand why some doesn't have a problem with it of course, but for me when rewatching, I don't care for those plotmoments, I care for 2 characters interacting and stating what's on their mind and hearts. For instance in season 5 I cared a lot for Arya putting needle away. I even cared for Cersei in blackwater because you felt what she feels when she try to poison Tommen.
Well for me for Feast and Dance I personally like the book version much more (especially when reading combined version), I don't agree with all what George did, and I would change a lot of it if put on screen. But just like season 1 till 4 you don't need to fill the season with multiple plotpoints. Just focus on one plot per character and build the character moments around that. For me character moments needs to be at least 70% of the screentime. And story is important yes, but when a season concerns for most about plot and put the characters second, the story will suffer. Even if you would have gone with a more character driven season, there would have been enough plot to delve into. And the season would maybe be 20/30% slower max. I mean look at season 6, they changed the whole plot-based story telling into once again character driven storytelling and it paid off.
Of course season 1 till 4 progress a lot storywise. That was not the point I was making, but the main core was the characters. 90% of season 1 was filled with character based scenes where we get to know the characters. Season 4 had a lot of slow character arcs. For instance Arya, or take Tyrion. His plot-arc was: On trial for Joffrey's murder. Not more. Everything else had character moments concerning that arc. In season 5 it was multiple plots. First with Varys, then with Valyria and stonemen, then with slavery, then with advisor of Dany, to ruler of the city. (Or take even Tyrion season 3 arc, his arc was getting married and nothing more, did we complain he didn't have something big to do that season? No because we knew he got his season later)
Well I have to disagree with Feast and Dance, the story progressed more than people think it did. People compare it too SoS which was the end of Part 1 of the big story, meaning it needed to end with big moments. But Feast and Dance were more like GoT and CoK, and Feast and Dance are faster than those 2 books. Look at Sam he got in Oldtown (compare that too how fast Jaime got in Kings Landing in SoS), Cersei got her revenge of Margery, and she herself is imprisoned and again released in Dance. Jaime is done with Cersei. The new arcs are introduced with little POV per arc. People stating that tyrion moved to much, but did he really? Compare his arc to Arya in SoS how much Arya stayed with the BwoB without her having a real plot moment, I remember we got 3 or 4 chapters before she finally met Beric, she moved from place to place and only got character moments, which I loved. Tyrion's arc is faster than Arya's SoS arc. And Arya moved in 2 books from Kings Landing to Saltspan. (3 seasons) compare that to Tyrion moving from pentos to Meereen in merely 7 episodes (or 10 chapters). And take for instance where Storm ended and where Dance ends. It had almost as much plot development as the first 3 books combined. What people wanted is that Feast and Dance would be faster and faster and faster than what came before.
If going by which book had the most plot it would be like: SoS > Feast/Dance > AgoT > CoK. CoK was the book with the least plotprogression.
And if you go by bigger plot where Martin is heading. Feast and Dance is much more important than CoK. The things he did there is maybe only known for people reading the books multiple times, but he did very smart put many things into place without people knowing at first for the last 2 books. Little crumbs. The whole Lyanna/Rheagar part was more involved in those 2 books. The whole Varys/Illyrio storyline was finally come into play, which we've been waiting for since the first book. (More important than who will take Storms End in Clash). The past of Daenerys comes into play again. (started in book 1 but only spoken about once again in book 5), he put many hints about what he will do in Feast and Dance in the first 2 books and they came to fruition. Aegon being alive was already a theory when only the first book was out. In CoK he even introduced us to that later Dorne and the Iron Island will take big part into the story. the HoTU chapter.
And the notion that Feast and Dance were lower on plot is just wrong, it moved much and much faster than people realize at first, look how much has changed already with Feast (and part 1 of Dance which you can say is one book). More than GoT did, and more than CoK did.
And I disagree, I think the shift was very big in the show: Where season 4 was at least 70% character 30% plot. Season 5 changed that from 40% character (at most) to 60% plot. The whole balance got to the other side of the scale. Season 6 change it back to 70/30 again in favor of characters.
D&D forget a lot about characters I'm just 6 episodes in season 5 and they forget about: Varys, Littlefinger, Ellaria, Sansa, Stannis and many more who acted out of character because the plot asked for it. And that's only a few I name, but there are more that react different than the way they did in the first 4 seasons. With Ellaria it's very noticeable because she acted completely different and needed to re-intervene the character. That was not Ellaria from season 4. Same with LF. Sansa changed also, season 4 she ended with: I won't trust anyone, not even you Littlefinger but you're my best option right now. To I trust you completely Littlefinger, if you say Ramsay is a nice guy I would believe it. The character that D&D are always truthfully to are Cersei, Tyrion (to a degree), Bronn, Thormund and the hound. Their favorite characters.
Unlike Martin forgetting to move the plot, D&D never forgot about the characters.
And the mistake you name that Martin make in his 2 books are very important that they needed to be included for Winds of Winter and Dream of Springs, they are there because they needed to be there for the plot and character endings. (And most mistakes many name are even introduced in the first 2 books, which means they are not mistakes and we could already know they were going there)
Thank you! Never noticed it before LOL 😀
As for "They could have done it better when doing more what the books did", I have to add that yes they could have but only if they had the time to do that. Those 2 books are very vast. And that puzzling together would have resulted in more time than what they got. I think that would result into at least half a year of writing and thinking how to fit everything together, so I understand why D&D made the changed they made, they had no other choice. The season needed to be on HBO in April the year later and not 1,5 years later.
So her main concern wasn't really to "put Jon on the throne" even though with him on the throne the North would be secure and perhaps independent. I think she meant to undermine Daenerys for freeing Jon rather than putting him on the throne. Her concern here for telling the secret was not the independence of the North, but Jon.
But after Tyrion reminds Sansa that Dany is her queen too and that he believes in Dany, Sansa replies, "What if there was someone else? Someone better?" I feel that's pretty clear in what Sansa was trying to do. As Tyrion told Jon, "Why do you think Sansa told me about you? Because she doesn't want Dany to be queen!"
I'm not sure how telling Jon's secret would serve to free Jon since Jon's not a prisoner. He chose Dany and renounced his claim to her of his own free will. Sansa is putting a target on Jon's back by validating Dany's fears that people will push Jon's claim against her own if they knew. I can't see how this helps Jon at all. Sansa doesn't have the means to oppose Dany. This has every possibility of sparking yet another war.
But I was expecting of her to act more diplomatically and not target Sansa from day one. It was a bad move, Jorah was right to set her straight, and yet she kept doing it.
I definitely think Dany could have (and should have) been more diplomatic. Sansa could have been too — but Dany didn't target Sansa from day 1. When Dany was introduced to Sansa, Dany tried to be friendly and complimentary. Her feelings about Sansa's dislike for her didn't come out of nowhere. Sansa was pretty overt in her disapproval of Dany's presence.
Daenerys didn't need to know who Jon was to threaten Sansa. She did it already before that. So it doesn't matter if she was right that Sansa would tell (what does that even mean? that Jon shouldn't tell? that he had to do her bidding for something that was so personal and concerned his entire family?), but her entire behavior induced Jon to tell, induced Sansa to tell.
Jon wanted to tell his sisters because he felt he owed them the truth, not because Dany's behavior induced him into this decision. Of course Jon is going to want to be honest with his family about his parentage — it concerns Sansa and Arya too. Jon had no desire for the throne and did not want his claim pitted against Dany's. He swore his sisters to secrecy, only telling them because he felt they deserved the truth because they're family.
Dany felt disrespected by Sansa because Sansa was publicly unhappy with Dany's presence in the North and didn't do anything to hide her dislike. It wasn't because she just decided not to like Sansa upon her arrival. Dany made an effort with Sansa upon their introduction in 801.
I also think Dany should have held back any retorts when Sansa was voicing her unhappiness with the prospect of feeding Dany's armies and I think Sansa's concern over food is reasonable. But nobody's going to need any food if they're all wiped out by the AoTD.
As to what it means when Dany was afraid Sansa would tell, I think it means exactly what Dany said, "She'll want to see me gone and you on the Iron Throne." Which is what ended up happening, despite Jon's belief otherwise.
I agree with you about disaster part. Who knows how it could have turned out. I have seen shows where it worked, for instance Grey's anatomy got better again once Shonda Rhymes took a step back with writing and gave the writing to new writers who had new ways to tell the story, it worked there. But I also saw shows where it backfired. Supernatural (not that it turn to shit), dropped in quality the moment a new writer took over, and once the old writer came back (only for help not really writing) the show got back on track.
With GoT I don't think giving writing to somebody else would have worked because D&D gave their own spin on many characters that only they understood. So that means the new writers need to work with both GRRM and D&D writing which I think is even more difficult.
But if they would have given the show to somebody else, I would rather have it that D&D would have chosen to give the storytelling to Bryan Cogman, and that they would write 2 or 3 episodes themselves, and give the rest to others like Cogman, Hill, and other writers that the show had. And no new blood but old blood giving more scripts to write.
But personally if everything would have been to much for them, I rather that they delegated other parts of their jobs instead of the writing. Location shooting for instance etc.
So I think that much of that was at least partly her fault. If you're stepping on people's feelings (not to mention the northern people's interests) like that, they're bound to react.
I think Dany could have done better and been more open, more willing to compromise as she did with Yara, but I don't think Sansa did well here either. Here was somebody coming with her all to defend Westeros and Sansa's home. Without Dany, Sansa and the Northern lords would be sitting ducks — and Sansa is clear with her dislike of Dany — and she doesn't even know Dany yet.
Again, why agitate somebody with a dragon and greater martial power? Why not try to use some of that "courtesy is a lady's armour" and use grace and goodwill to achieve her goals? Sansa doesn't even have to lie, she just doesn't have to be so overt in her dislike of Dany to the point where Dany realizes Sansa will always be against her.
I don't think it means that. If a ruler does something his lords don't like, it doesn't mean his lords have the freedom to disobey. The Northern system is still a feudal system where the ruler has all the power and if somebody disobeys their liege lord/king/lord commander, they are subject to punishment. Jon has as much power as any other king, with or without Sansa's support. A king is not required to discuss his decisions with his vassals. And he bent the knee to Dany.
Vassals not liking the ruler's decisions can put the ruler at risk for a coup but if the coup fails and the king is victorious, those lords committed treason. If the coup is successful, they can choose a new ruler. But the North isn't a democracy either.
I do think Jon should have consulted Sansa at the very least before bending the knee though.
Jon knows that his position is now ambiguous, so to speak (for lack of better word). He supported a queen who is not a queen yet, so what becomes of him will in reality be a result of whether Daenerys manages to take the throne or not (as it happens in the end too).
No, I didn't get any indication that Jon feels his position is ambiguous. He knows he's Warden of the North. He signed his letter to Sansa as such in 707. Dany is their queen by virtue of Jon passing his crown to her, the show has been clear about that.
For anyone wanting a great character driven story with a great plot, it also had the one big plot-twist of the season which are always brilliant and mind blowing. Mr. Robot.
The story is pretty relevant now and personally one of the best written.
Currently into season 4 (which will be the last) and it seems this one will be the best out there. (And I think best season of 2019 of any show out there). It will have 46 episodes total with 41 already aired.
Of those 41 episodes. 7 rated between 8,1 and 8,5. 14 between 8,6 and 8,9. 14 between 9,0 and 9,4 and 7 above 9,5.
I can't really tell more about why it's a great show because then I need to reveal the plot-twist of the first season. But I would recommend this show. And every new season is better than it's previous one.
Sansa is the supreme authority in the North after Daenerys at this point (which is why Jorah steps in and urges Daenerys to find common ground with Sansa).
Do you have a source for this maybe?
All I know is Sansa is Lady of Winterfell, Jon is Warden of the North. The two are different roles. Sansa has ultimate power in the running of Winterfell. Jon's has authority over the North's martial forces. Dany has final say in the North's dealings as their queen.
Well, the Northern army isn't Sansa's either.
As of 707, the North is at Dany's command.
While Jon was KitN, the North is at Jon's command.
In 804, Sansa would not be able to issue an order for the Northern army to return to the North. Martial power falls under Jon's authority as Warden of the North and Dany makes the final decision.
If Sansa turned the lords against Jon and had Jon deposed, that would be a coup. If they were successful, they could name Sansa as their queen. If they were not successful, Jon could have them all executed for treason.
The Vale is there for Sansa but the Northern lords threw their support behind Jon.
I don't think that scene is meant to exemplify Jon doesn't support Dany. It's in Jon's best interest to want cooperation, not dissent. Like Dany and Sansa, Jon could have done better there but he has supported Dany multiple times (elaborated below). I think it exemplifies that Jon isn't quite able to recognize the situation unfolding around him, that neither the Northerners and his sisters won't come around to Dany as he believes — also, he's not all that bothered by Dany's attitude toward Sansa either. It's like all he sees is the Unsullied and Northerners working together on the defenses. After that one Northerner spit the water on the ground, Jon was sincerely smiling at Dany as if she thought everything was fine too. The Northerners were disregarding Jon as well. It was a weird scene and pretty disjointed. It feels like something's missing. The cut after — I think that comes down to facial expression interpretation because to me, this played as an awkward smile to save face rather than a smirk (why on earth would Jon be happy about dissent?) when Dany left in front of the Northerners — but in the very next scene, seconds later, Dany is all smiles too as if nothing's wrong. And I think this is why it was removed, because it didn't work. It was oddly put together.
Jon refused to betray Dany all throughout the season (until the very last moment in their 806 scene when Dany made it clear she wasn't backing down), he sided with Dany over Sansa in 804, he marched south to help her take the throne, he defended Dany to others when Dany wasn't around (Sansa, Arya, Sam, Tyrion), he resisted killing her after KL, he renounced his claim for hers, he swore Sansa and Arya to secrecy because he didn't want his claim pitted against Dany's. He wanted Sansa and Arya to get to know Dany and believed all people needed was time. I think Jon could have done better but he did support her. Yet, what Jon values (people working together) vs. what Dany values (allegiance, respect) differ. I think they're focusing on different things, that's the best sense I can make of it.
I remember when Jon went to Hardhome and it was revealed Mance was dead, Jon said he shot Mance, not even mentioning that it was a mercy kill because Stannis was lighting him up. Tormund had to get Jon out of that situation and explain why Jon shot Mance.
I think some of these character choices in season 8 were meant to expedite the plot, get the story to where it needed to be for its finale conclusion because I thought there was some odd behaviors for most all of the characters. Dany's all, "I hope I deserve it," in 706 when Jon bends the knee but in 801, it seems like Dany expects instant reverence. Even with the writing, it seemed some of the dialogue was forgotten — like in 706. In 804, Dany says she came North for Jon but that's not what happened on screen. She vowed to help Jon because she had seen the Night King and the army of the dead for herself and the NK had just killed her dragon.
"…What sets GoT aside is its characters. We can follow a character in a season (especially season 1 till 4)…
So it's the characters before plot storytelling, it didn't matter that we had to wait, because the character moments were great, we could feel the characters alive. They didn't have a plot-arc but a character arc in those seasons…"
I like your incisive distinction between plot arc and character arc.
It was surely the procession of character moments that made the show so great especially in S1-S4, even if nothing much "happened" in the overall plotline (like some big cathartic battle or a slew of killings).
Rich character moments and well-developed character arcs are why my favorite characters, season, episode, and scenes are: Sandor and Arya; Season 4; S4e7 Mockingbird; and the final scene of S4e1 Two Swords last 9 min. ("little lady wants a pony?" – little lady gets a pony) + S4e7 (Sandor: "You say your brother gave you that sword? My brother gave me this" … Arya: "Let me wash it out and help you sew it up at least.")
I should also add that even in limited screen time, Hot Pie had a fulfilling character arc (despite, or maybe in part because of, his idiosyncrasies), from the boastful bully threatening Arya in S1e10, to the sweet loyal friend who stuck his neck out to help her in S4e7 and was delighted to see her again in S7e2.
"I think you have a nice point about Yara. The finale script says that Yara is cool with Bran as king because Theon died defending him, so I'll accept that as the writers' reasoning…"
… Which begs the question: Why not have Yara say that? It would've taken 5-6 words in 2-3 seconds.
shelle: Not many people like Melisandre in-universe (though I think she's one of the most beautiful women ever
She really is, hey??? ;;;
I'm going with the flaming arakh scene, because that was also fantastically chilling and powerful but will probably get fewer votes than Brienne's big moment.
I think this would have been my second choice, that was a great scene — in visual terms and it shows Melisandre's power is a really magnificent way, which is a word I don't use much but that was the word which came to mind when I saw that scene XD;;
Ten Bears: … Which begs the question: Why not have Yara say that? It would've taken 5-6 words in 2-3 seconds.
I agree. It would have been great to throw a few more lines Yara's way in general. I would have like to have seen her mention Theon's sacrifice and address the independence of the Iron Islands and why she's good with Bran as king, especially when she wanted independence in season 6.
I agree, and a plot-arc can have multiple character arcs. For instance Robb, his plot-arc is: His ruling as King in the north.
In season 1 you had part 1 with this plot-arc. This had many character moments leading to him being crowned King in the North. One big character moment in this big arc.
Season 2 show's 2 things. One character arc with his love with Talisa that resulted in him marry her. His whole season 2 arc was about that, marrying Talisa. And his plot-arc: Being King in the North and his ruthlessness in battle.
Season 3 shows the third part of his King in the North storyline. It's his downfall. His character arc was forgiving his mother and living with his choice that he made with Marrying Talisa and trying to make things right. The plot-arc was: Other's conspiring against him and orchestrated his downfall. Both come together at the twins.
What's the big difference for me when it comes to character vs plot story, 3 things.
– Plot is the path the story takes, character is close-ups of the path where we get to know the characters at the moment they are on that path.
– Character is internal, the choice within, the battle of the heart. Plot is external how other forces intervene into a characters arc.
– Character is dialogue, emotion, laugh, cry, getting to known them. Plot is action (and the next step in the story), and if the character arcs are done right, people will be scared, frightened, with goosebumps when those plots are shown.
A great example of character driven story is Lord of the Rings. Everything happening there is mostly done from within the characters. Look at the first movie. It's all about Frodo, how he feels, how he is, ow the ring effects him, how he feel responsible for the death of Gandalf, and it ends with him making the choice himself to leave everyone and Sam makes his choice to stick with Frodo. Character over plot. Peter Jacksons concern wasn't to make the battle between Aragorn and the Orcs amazing (which he still did), but how it effected all the characters at that moment. And it ended with a character moment. "We don't let Merry and Pippin to torment and death. Leave all that you can spare behind, we travel light" What did we feel there? Did we feel: Oh yeah Aragorn will show his big sword-play and is going to fight the Uruk Hai. Or did we feel: The bond of these characters is strong, they care for each other, to would gladly die for each other, this warms my heart and put a smile on my face. I was with the last group.
The Light King,
"I know a lot people, show only watchers, who found season 5 pretty great and I am one of them. I realy dont unterstand the negativity ."
A: Sansa's revictimization & regression to human punching bag + nonsensical LF Bolton marriage plan + Sansa rape + High Sparrow + forehead-carving idiots + Shireen BBQ + too much Ramsay + Stannis's ignominious defeat + Brienne executing the One True King in the name of treasonous would-be usurper + Myranda's murder.
(Okay, that last one was personal to me. 🏹💘)
I was just skimming through the transcript of S4e7, and it's striking how many of its indelible moments take place between two characters sitting in a confined space, just talking e.g., about past events. No "action," movement or screensaver-worthy visuals required.
* Disclaimer: This reply constitutes campaigning for Best Episode in 2020? watchersonthewall Awards for all eight seasons.
My name is Ten Bears and I approved this message.
Fireandblood87:
What did they see that "was off with her [Dany]"? (For ease of reference and to avoid repeating myself, I cut and pasted part of my prior comment below.)
It seemed to me that the anti-Dany attitude became apparent almost immediately upon her arrival in WF in S8e1. (Even Grey Worm and Missandei sensed the xenophobic bias against them.) Kind of a f*cked-up point of view to have about a leader and her troops who've come to fight and die for you.
All of this was way before Dany started showing any sign of delusional or dangerous behavior.
If Sansa and the Northerners were grumpy about having a new queen, their ire should've been directed exclusively at their elected king, Jon Snow. He was the one who hastily and unilaterally decided to relinquish the North's sovereignty. He was the one who spontaneously decided to "bend the knee" when it wasn't even necessary because Daenerys had already committed to coming North to help defeat the NK with no strings attached. (Maybe Jon conveniently glossed over that little factoid when relating his decision to his people?) He was the one who gave up his crown without bothering to discuss it with his people first. He was the one who did all of this despite his understanding (expressed to Dany, in early S7) that "my people won't accept a Southern ruler."
And if he changed his mind and acted precipitously only because his Johnson overruled his brain, then something is off with him and he shouldn't have been in a position of power.
So, what was the "something" that you think they saw that was "off with her"?
"… Finally, the Starks had never come off as an "us against them" kind of family. That was the S1 Cersei-Joffrey Lannister motto: "Everyone who isn't us is the enemy." In S8, even egalitarian Arya (who'd never discriminated against anyone based on class, affiliation or parentage), was spouting the "family first" anti-outsider nonsense. Frankly, after her fangirling over Visenya Targaryen in her chat with Tywin in S2 (Tywin: "She's a heroine of yours I take it") and Dany's heroic rescue of Jon and his besieged wight hunters from the frozen lake beyond the wall in S7, I thought Arya would be delighted to make friends with Daenerys Targaryen – and maybe take a spin on a dragon. Never happened.
Adriana you don't understand feudal structure.
No.king.is.a.king.without.his lords'.support.
That's the end of the story and there's no discussion about it.
This is true for Daenerys too. Daenerys doesn't have the North if Sansa doesn't want to cooperate. That's feudalism. And no army belongs to any feudal king just because he is king. That's why the support of the lords is a product of negotiation with the king and that's why feudalism sucks as a system.
(and is the reason why Germany for example is a confederation –I bet the German emperors would kill to have it so easy as you say it is, but they couldn't; until the second Reich the German imperial authority was actually very weak, almost nominal, and the Bavarians still think of themselves as if they're an entirely different state anyway)
In this context if the Vale wanted to withhold support from Jon, they could have done it without Sansa because they have their own lord paramount. Sansa could influence them because of the relation, but she can't make decisions for them. They're autonomous in the context of feudalism and can make up their own minds, just like any other of the 7 Ks.
In the same context Sansa would be able to give any order she wanted. She didn't, out of respect for Jon, I guess. Also, fighting one with two dragons is not very wise.
"Jon could have them all executed for treason"
Nooooooo! A big no. The biggest, actually.
Jon is a TARG. He has no rights in the North.
I don't know how many times I have to say this and how many ways for it to be understood.
If he did something like that he'd be no different than the Lannisters. They did exactly that, executed Ned, murdered Robb and Catelyn, ousted Bran (well, Theon did that, but it served their purpose). The war showed well that it's better to compromise and find middle ground than go to extremes.
Jon is a Targ. He has no rights in the North, just like Joffrey didn't have any. His Targ identity does not give him any right to intervene in the North, which he knows well, I guess.
Jon and Daenerys could wage war on the North because of the treason. If they got to win it, and they got their hands on the lords and the ladies, they could execute as many as they wanted. But it doesn't sound very wise either. This whole thing started because the Lannisters intervened in the North in the first place.
Back to what we saw on screen.
Daenerys simply refused to discuss with the North. She demanded submission instead of negotiating it. Sansa had to swallow that she wouldn't have independence or autonomy for that matter and that her brother would be away for the rest of his life – for what reason, it is not stated, and the office of Warden does not precondition that one is away from his district and his army.
You say that Jon was free, but what would the purpose be that he stayed with Daenerys South? It is not stated anywhere why is that. It seems to me that on Daenerys' part this was "just because" she wanted it (willkürlich the Germans say it). There is no real reason for that. If you have a king/queen that needs to be restrained, whose impulses have to be kept in check by the people around him/her, as Tyrion/Varys/Jon repeatedly recognize, then that king/queen is not fit to rule (he/she rather belongs to a mental institution, just like Joffrey/Cersei).
So it was Daenerys' fault that Sansa turned against her, that's my opinion. She was impatient, she was unyielding and irrationally demanding.
You also say that Jon didn't mind that Daenerys threatened Sansa. That he killed her for some grander ideal.
Not in my opinion. We've discussed this before, and we don't agree.
Jon killed Dany for securing that Sansa wouldn't be harmed (and Bran, perhaps, even though he's not involved in this). Arya would have easily escaped Daenerys' wrath. Otherwise why mention Sansa in particular until almost the very last moment? Why does Arya bring Sansa up, and doesn't say to Jon, "hey, she'll kill many more innocents now"? Why does she say "try telling that to Sansa"? Jon knows that if there's one dissident in the realm after the burning of KL, it's Sansa. So the discussion may be about those who "think they know better", but in reality it's about Sansa, because she's the one that exemplifies dissention in Daenerys' regime.
So Jon cared about Sansa after all.
ash:
Yeah, from the preliminary round voting results (in the linked "Imgur" chart) and the consensus of the Comments under this Final Voting post, I think it's safe to say that Brienne's knighting is going to be the runaway winner of "Best Dramatic Scene of Season 8."
I say this as a disinterested observer. None of my nominees in this category made the cut for the final round voting.
Sandor & Arya's last scene together in "The Bells" was my #1 choice. As I recounted in a previous comment above, I think that scene wound up in 10th place in the preliminaries. 😕 My #2 choice, Sandor & Arya on WF battlements in S8e2 ("I fought for you, didn't I?") was way down in 32nd place or something with a meager vote total of less than 1%. 😡
The only Arya scene that did make the finals (S8e3, Jorah and Theon fall; Arya kills NK) was probably one of only a handful of S8 Arya scenes I didn't like. I wasn't thrilled with the abbreviated Arya & Jon reunion in S8e1 either; the majority of fans apparently felt the same way. That long-awaited reunion should have captured the "Best Dramatic Scene" trophy; instead, it quickly devolved into a wonky discussion of Sansa (Jon: "You… you're defending [Sansa]?"; Arya: she's "the smartest person I've ever met"), and out of character, family-first comment by Arya.
Crap. I hadn't meant to whine about the disappointing fate of my nominees, or critique scenes that I felt didn't live up to expectations. 🤐 Comments should celebrate the scenes that did resonate with the fandom. I'll try to keep that in mind.
Sure, and that's how coups are formed if the king loses his support. I don't think it means they're legal under that king's law though. But if the people overthrowing the king wins, the new ruler they decide on determines the law.
I think I understand the system as far as ASOIAF goes well enough. Is there a source you can link me to stating that Sansa (or a member of the formerly ruling family) is the supreme legal power in the North, despite not being queen or having authority over the martial forces?
If the Northern lords support her and they want to act against their current rulers, that's a rebellion.
Legally, the king/queen has control over their armies. If somebody is unhappy with the current system, they muster up support and rebel. Then the victor makes the rules.
If Sansa doesn't want to cooperate and the North is on her side so Sansa makes the rules, they need to rebel and whoever wins decides the rulership.
So to prevent rebellions, the ruler should try to keep their people happy.
I'm not saying killing comes without consequences. I'm speaking to the law and who has the legal rights under that law. When enough people are unhappy with the current state of things and want change, want to support somebody else, they form a coup or start a rebellion.
They're autonomous in the context of feudalism and can make up their own minds, just like any other of the 7 Ks. In the same context Sansa would be able to give any order she wanted.
Isn't the Vale part of the 7K and beholden to the crown?
But with Dany as queen, Sansa doesn't have that legal right under the current law of the North since Sansa is not in charge.
Whoever is currently ruling the North has legal power to make such decisions in the North. If Jon was able to quell a rebellion, it would be within his legal rights to execute the rebels. If the rebels won, they could execute Jon.
It's like with the Iron Throne — it's not a Targaryen birthright as of 283 AC, only Dragonstone is. A Targaryen can't walk into KL under the Baratheon regime and demand his rulership rights are recognized — because the Targaryen dynasty was overthrown.
It's not just about blood. If it were, Targaryen rulership would still be recognized in the south. They founded the Iron Throne. But Aerys was overthrown. It's about who is currently in power, whether by right-of-conquest (Baratheons), succession, or being chosen (Robb, Jon).
The Starks had no rulership rights in the North beyond what the crown appointed when the North returned to the 7K under the Baratheon regime. The Boltons were appointed Wardens of the North. If Jon and Sansa lost against Ramsay, they could be legally executed for treason since Ramsay would still legally be Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North.
I'm not saying it's right, just within his legal power to do so if he was victorious.
Jon was still the king they chose and he has the same power as any other king in Westeros. Now, if the Northern lords found out and wanted to oust him, they could rebel and depose Jon — if successful, the Northern lords determine who they want as ruler. But Jon secretly being a Targaryen doesn't change the fact that the Northern lords chose him to be king and he still had that authority. Typically, bastards have no rights either but they still chose Jon.
Jon and Daenerys could wage war on the North because of the treason. If they got to win it, and they got their hands on the lords and the ladies, they could execute as many as they wanted. But it doesn't sound very wise either.
No, it doesn't sound wise or even good. It'd be stupid. I'm not opting for this course of action.
However, Dany already has the North. If somebody were to try and oust her, that would be treason and she'd be in her legal rights to execute that person. I'm not saying it wouldn't lose her support.
That's Jon's choice to make, not Sansa's. It may be because he wants to be with Daenerys or he'll be in the south to represent the North's interests. Robert didn't take an active hand in ruling, Robert's council didn't much care about the North and weren't making policies that could affect it. However, Jon does want to see a better world for all and maybe that's also why he'd be south to take part in building that better world. I don't really think it's where he belongs at all but there are reasons for Jon to be south and I don't think it'd be strange for a Warden of the North to be present to represent the North's interests.
Daenerys definitely could have been more open about the North's independence but Sansa did not go about it the right away at all.
If you have a king/queen that needs to be restrained, whose impulses have to be kept in check by the people around him/her, as Tyrion/Varys/Jon repeatedly recognize, then that king/queen is not fit to rule (he/she rather belongs to a mental institution, just like Joffrey/Cersei).
Daenerys didn't really need to be restrained — until she made that decision upon the walls of KL to decimate the populace after surrender. Before 805, Dany often listened to advice and council. Sometimes, she opted against the advice (the Tarlys) but she wasn't going on irrational killing sprees. Dany opted not to go after the Red Keep because she didn't want to kill a bunch of people. She wasn't exactly frothing at the mouth to kill, kill, kill before her purge-a-thon in 805.
But as I said, Dany was pleasant to Sansa when they first met. Her issues with Sansa didn't come out of nowhere. I think Dany and Sansa both could have done better.
I meant that Jon didn't seem bothered by Dany's attitude toward Sansa from episode 801 to 805 and I think that's because he was holding on to this ideal that they could all find a way to live together. Jon still resisted killing Dany even after Arya and Tyrion warned him about Sansa. After Arya's warning, Jon was still resisting the prospect of killing Dany. I think Tyrion's words put the fear of God into him but Jon didn't walk into that throne room and immediately kill her, he tried talking to her. He didn't even make the decision to kill her until Dany's line, "They don't get to choose."
I do think the lives of both Jon's sisters were a deciding factor in that decision. It wasn't the only consideration but it was the final, ultimate thing that pushed Jon over and he still felt like utter crap and didn't feel it was right.
Nothing in the support material or the show says Jon only did it for Sansa and Sansa alone and I do rely on the support material for what the writers are trying to convey because it's the writers stating their intentions and I think personal interpretations can differ. The wording is always 'sisters'. Jon doesn't say to Dany, "Okay, as long as you don't kill my sisters or even just Sansa, go ahead." Jon pleaded for mercy on behalf of the people, he objected to Dany killing soldiers in the street, he used the words, "What about everyone else? What about all the other people who think they know what's good?" He didn't only say, "What about Sansa? What about what Sansa thinks is good?"
I've always said that Jon loves Sansa, I've never disagreed. I just don't think she was the only reason.
As many criticisms as I have of the last two seasons—and as much as I do love the books—I agree with you 100% here. For instance, I will never, ever understand why GRRM wrote Quentyn Martell.
Gods, no! There's a mutual contract between the king and his feudal lords; it's a give and take situation, they both give and take. If the king breeches that contract, it's no coup and the lords actually do have a right to denounce, overthrow, or kill the king. If a lord breeches the contract, the king is allowed to do the same.
Your references from Wiki (even though I don't need it to know what was the law in Westeros because Martin followed historical facts):
"Male-preference primogeniture is customary, but not binding, for most nobles. A man's eldest son is his heir, followed by his second son, then his third son, and so on. In theory, the youngest son is followed in the line of succession by the eldest daughter, after whom come her sisters in birth order. A man's daughter inherits before her father's brother. However, a lord also has the option of naming one of his younger sons heir, passing over his elder children, or to name the child of another as his heir. When there is no clear heir, claims can be presented to the King. The only exception is Dorne.There, no distinction is made between sons and daughters. Instead, children inherit in order of birth regardless of gender, as per Rhoynish custom. In the case of an inheriting female, her last name will be passed on to her children, instead of the name of her husband. When a ruling lord dies and leaves no clear heir, his widow might lay claim upon his lands and rule until her own death (e.g., Lady Donella Hornwood and Lady Barbrey Dustin), and in such a case, might name an heir by herself.
"The role of legitimised bastards throughout the Seven Kingdoms is also unclear i.e., whether they follow trueborn children, or join the line of succession in order of birth as if they had been trueborn all along. Legitimisation, once made, is irreversible. The claims of legitimized bastards can present dangerous consequences for trueborn relatives".
"Heirs born into a different house drop their birth surname when they come into their inheritance, adopting the name of the inherited house as their own."
All that proves that Sansa comes before Jon (as he acknowledges himself in the books), but not if he is legitimized. If he becomes heir of the North, he has to take the Stark name. But Dany asked him to remain a bastard forever. So whatever claims he may have are relinquished, both by him, since he abdicated from the office to which he was elected, and by Dany, who didn't want him to take any name.
Warden:
"Wardens for the Iron Throne act as supreme military leaders responsible for the defense of their region in the event of foreign invasion. In times of peace, this prestigious title is purely honorary. Tradition holds that each title is hereditarily given to the lord of a certain family, but the king retains the right to award it to another of his choosing. This typically only happens if the traditional holder dies and his heir is not yet of age, although in times of turbulence the office may be offered to those holding a monarch's favor."
So, it was to the monarch's benefit to award the office to the lord paramount of each kingdom. If this does not happen, dissension may arise between the lord and the warden, as it is the lord paramount that rules the region by birthright, and not the warden who has a specific military role. In this case, there's a lady paramount.
Luckily they included a short thing that Martin said about Wardens:
"Wardens are supposed to defend their regions against invaders. In theory, at least, they are each the supreme general for their region and therefore preventing any disunity of command."
By "disunity of command" he means of course the military forces. Military commanders cannot come before the lords paramount of their regions, and this is why under normal circumstances one person is both lord paramount and warden.
As I understand it, the feudalistic contract involves lease of lands from the king to the vassals to hold in their name and farm (done by peasants, the lowest of the hierarchy) in exchange for services from the vassals, such as military support and loyalty to the crown. Feudalism is a hierarchy in which the king owned all the land and vassals (great lords) held the land in his name. The vassals still had their lands and fiefdoms when Jon bent the knee. Jon still had the power to pass his crown to another, as Torrhen Stark did to Aegon the Conquerer.
At the top of this hierarchy is the king, then their vassals, then military support, then the peasants. Sansa, as Lady of Winterfell, does not outrank the king/queen of the North.
If enough people are unhappy with the king, then vassals put together armies to overthrow that king (as the Targaryens were overthrown, as Robb was overthrown). However, if the king is able to defeat the rebelling vassals, the vassals are subject to punishment for breaking loyalty because the current king is still top of the hierarchy.
As Torrhen Stark bent the knee to Aegon Targaryen, he was no longer King in the North and became a vassal of Aegon. Jon bent the knee Daenerys Targaryen and became her vassal. The vassals are required to give loyalty to the crown and in return, they are granted lands to hold in the crown's name.
A coup is a violent uprising seizing power from the government (the king in this case).
Where does it say coups are legal in feudal monarchies or in ASOIAF if the king bends the knee to another, does something the vassals disapprove of? If you have a source, please tell me.
You described the line of succession but kings and leaders can still be chosen in Westeros. Lord Commanders of the Night's Watch are elected. Robb became KiTN because he was chosen by the Northern lords as the Northern lords didn't want to follow any of the southern rulers (Joffrey, Renly, Stannis). Robb didn't inherit the position because Ned was not king before him. Ned inherited the position of Wardenship, granted to the Lord of Winterfell by the crown since Torrhen Stark bent the knee.
All that proves that Sansa comes before Jon (as he acknowledges himself in the books), but not if he is legitimized. If he becomes heir of the North, he has to take the Stark name.
Sansa's birthright is not the Kingdom of the North, Winterfell is — as Jon said. And Sansa received Winterfell. They took Winterfell but at that time, Winterfell was still under the Baratheon regime. As with Robb, the Northern lords declared their independence and chose Jon as their king.
In ASOIAF, rulers can be determined in several ways and it isn't limited to succession:
Right of conquest (eg. Robert Baratheon)
Chosen (eg. Robb, Jon)
Bending the knee (eg. Torrhen Stark bending the knee to Aegon Targaryen, Jon Snow bending the knee to Daenerys Targaryen)
But Dany asked him to remain a bastard forever. So whatever claims he may have are relinquished, both by him, since he abdicated from the office to which he was elected, and by Dany, who didn't want him to take any name.
Dany didn't want Jon to tell people the truth of his parentage for fear they'd press Jon's unwanted claim against hers and thrust him into a position, despite Jon not wanting it.
The Northern lords still chose Jon, who they believed to be a bastard at the time.
So, it was to the monarch's benefit to award the office to the lord paramount of each kingdom.
From that quote, it also says, "but the king retains the right to award it to another of his choosing."
Sansa was not ruling the North by birthright, the kingdom of the North is not her birthright — Winterfell is. Like the Iron Throne stopped being a Targaryen birthright in 283 AC upon Robert's Rebellion and overthrowing Aerys, the Kingdom of the North stopped being a Stark birthright in 1 AC when Torrhen Stark bent the knee and Wardenship became an inherited position. And again when Robb Stark was overthrown, upon which the kingdom of the North became part of the 7K again.
When Robb Stark was overthrown by the crown, Boltons, and Freys, the crown appointed the Boltons the Wardenship of the North, which is at the crown's discretion to do.
Do you have a chart illustrating the power structure in ASOIAF? That would be helpful for my own knowledge. The power structures in ASOIAF are based on real-life systems but it still exists within the fantasy world GRRM created with some of its own laws and customs as illustrated by the story's canon.
A warden is still a lord and vassal in service to their monarch and, as this quote says, are the "supreme military leaders". Sansa's position governs the estate of Winterfell, not the whole of the North or its forces. At the end of the day, as queen of this region, Dany is of the highest rank and vassals are required to give loyalty to the crown in exchange for lands. Dany hasn't taken away anybody's land.
Lord Paramount is a title granted by the monarch which, in this case, would be Dany. As far as I know, Dany didn't appoint Sansa as Lord Paramount. Sansa is Lady of Winterfell but who the Lord Paramount is at the discretion of the monarch in power (as the wiki says, Littlefinger was named Lord Paramount of the Trident by King Joffrey).
Wolfish,
Quentyn Martell isn't dead. I'm not sure why people think that. It's the tattered Prince that is dead. The tattered Prince is absent.
The thing is:
– Quentyn is called the frog for a reason. He can jump further and faster than anyone, why did you think GRRM wrote that part in when he knew where Quentyn's arc end? That was put in for a reason.
– And read Quentyn's last chapter again. He saw himself burning, his arms and he saw a flame (the whip is a flame). He had time to process the attack and his arms burning. His arms not his face. Look back at the dead of Kranzyk, fire to the face is instance death. If Quentyn was blasted with Dragonfire in his face he wouldn't have time to think about. And we know the body that was burned was blasted in his face. That's already something that should give a clue, and the smile, read Quentyn's thoughts before he died. Why would that make a smile on your face?
– The story of his companions, they are lying it's very obvious, so what are they hiding? Maybe because Quentyn had taken over the Windblown (and pretend to be the Tattered Prince) to get the army to Daenerys, which resulted into the Second Sons going back to Daenerys.
– GRRM stated a character that we 100% believe is death is alive. That couldn't be Sandor or Jon because we all knew they were alive. Everyone reading Feast already know Sandor is alive, GRRM made it very obvious. Jon himself we also know he get back alive, especially with the show he doesn't need to state that.
What would be the reason for Quentyn to be alive?
– Quentyn backing up Daenerys. Daenerys seem to trust him when we read her chapters, she even urge him to go home for his own safety.
– Arianne backing up (f)Aegon.
Result could be two things:
– Doran need to choose between his children and what started the Dornish storyline, Arianne fearing Doran chooses Quentyn over her, come into play. Will Doran really choose Quentyn over Arianne, will she be proven right or wrong there.
– Quentyn and Arianne are the bridge between Dany and (f)Aegon.
JenniferH says:
Theon goes down, the Night King walks forward to that music, Arya takes out the Night King.
Jon kills Dany, Drogon melts the Iron Throne a close second.
JenniferHQuote Reply
Out of curiosity, when it comes to rights of succession, how does it work when a presumptive female heir like Sansa Stark marries into another house? As Lyanna Stark snarked in S6e7, Lady Sansa was a Lannister – or a Bolton; she'd heard "conflicting reports." 😄
I never quite understood how Sansa came to be "Lady Stark" by S7, unless the last name and title revert back upon feeding one's husband to dogs.
(Olenna Tyrell maintained her last name and status in House Tyrell notwithstanding the death of her husband.)
* Clarification!
When I said, "as this quote says, are the 'supreme military leaders'," I was referring to another previously quoted excerpt post 🙂 Namely:
Wardens for the Iron Throne act as supreme military leaders responsible for the defense of their region in the event of foreign invasion.
When Martin said, "In theory, at least, they are each the supreme general for their region and therefore preventing any disunity of command," I think he's talking about how a lord traditionally holds two positions at once but it's only theoretical that these positions would be one in the same, as in the case of Jon (Warden of the North) and Sansa (Lady of Winterfell).
When House Bolton was granted Wardenship by the Baratheon/Lannister regime, House Bolton became the supreme general for that region and the crown relied on the Boltons to hold the North for them.
This is where things get tricky because Roose and Ramsay Bolton were still Lords of Winterfell as well as Warden of the North. With Jon and Sansa, those positions are divided. Sansa governs Winterfell and its affairs, not its military forces, while the Warden has authority over the North's military forces, not the affairs of Winterfell. I haven't seen anything which states that region's warden must serve the head of a designated Great House though as these positions tend to be bestowed upon the same person.
Yet both positions are in service to whoever holds the position as king/queen.
Right. So how in the world did Renly claim he was the rightful king (and why would Brienne presume to execute the rightful king after Robert's death)?
Olenna Tyrell bemoaned the fact that she'd warned Mace and Loras that supporting Renly was treason, but they didn't listen.
It seemed Renly's claim was based on his popularity compared to his brother Stannis. Are superior wardrobes and likeability other means of determining rulers? That would be … chaotic.
"…as queen of this region, Dany is of the highest rank and vassals are required to give loyalty to the crown in exchange for lands. Dany hasn't taken away anybody's land.
Lord Paramount is a title granted by the monarch which, in this case, would be Dany. As far as I know, Dany didn't appoint Sansa as Lord Paramount. Sansa is Lady of Winterfell but who the Lord Paramount is at the discretion of the monarch in power…"
At the beginning of S8e1, upon Dany's arrival in WF, didn't Sansa welcome her with "Winterfell is yours, your Grace" (not that she was surrendering WF, of course – just being hospitable) – yet calling Dany "your Grace" signaled that Sansa accepted Jon's subjugation of the North to Queen Daenerys's rule, and acknowledged her as rightful monarch.
You don't have to love or like your king or queen. Plotting her overthrow her or scheming to replace her with someone else you think might be better? Isn't that treason?
Ten Bears: Right. So how in the world did Renly claim he was the rightful king (and why would Brienne presume to execute the rightful king after Robert's death)?
It seems Renly didn't put much stock in the rules of succession and put more into strength, power, and likeability: he had the support of House Tyrell and the bannerman of the Stormlands, which gave him more support over Stannis and as a result, Renly (and Stannis) were trying to take the throne by right-of-conquest since, legally, Joffrey/Myrcella/Tommen were Baratheons and they were ahead of Stannis and Renly in line for the Iron Throne. But there were those who disputed the claims of the "Baratheon" children, owing to the rumours of their parentage, I believe — which kickstarted the war between Renly, Stannis, and the crown upon Robert's death while Balon and Robb declared independence.
Anyway, Renly's thoughts on why he is the "rightful" king. Nobody wanted Stannis, Renly had the bigger army, and didn't put much stock into the rules of succession:
Stannis studied [Catelyn], unsmiling. "The Iron Throne is mine by rights. All those who deny that are my foes."
"The whole of the realm denies it, brother," said Renly. "Old men deny it with their death rattle, and unborn children deny it in their mothers' wombs. They deny it in Dorne and they deny it on the Wall. No one wants you for their king. Sorry."
[Renly] "You served Robert, why not me?"
[Stannis] "Robert was my elder brother. You are the younger."
"Younger, bolder, and far more comely . . ."
". . . and a thief and a usurper besides."
Renly shrugged. "The Targaryens called Robert usurper. He seemed to be able to bear the shame. So shall I."
[Stannis] "Do you think a few bolts of cloth will make you king?"
[Renly] "Tyrell swords will make me king. Rowan and Tarly and Caron will make me king, with axe and mace and warhammer. Tarth arrows and Penrose lances, Fossoway, Cuy, Mullendore, Estermont, Selmy, Hightower, Oakheart, Crane, Caswell, Blackbar, Morrigen, Beesbury, Shermer, Dunn, Footly . . . even House Florent, your own wife's brothers and uncles, they will make me king. All the chivalry of the south rides with me, and that is the least part of my power. My foot is coming behind, a hundred thousand swords and spears and pikes. And you will destroy me? With what, pray? That paltry rabble I see there huddled under the castle walls? I'll call them five thousand and be generous, codfish lords and onion knights and sellswords. Half of them are like to come over to me before the battle starts. You have fewer than four hundred horse, my scouts tell me—freeriders in boiled leather who will not stand an instant against armored lances. I do not care how seasoned a warrior you think you are, Stannis, that host of yours won't survive the first charge of my vanguard."
Stannis addresses your wardrobe criteria 🙂
Ten Bears: You don't have to love or like your king or queen. Plotting her overthrow her or scheming to replace her with someone else you think might be better? Isn't that treason?
I believe if a faction is successful in overthrowing their king/queen, they can replace them with a new ruler (Robert's Rebellion resulting in the overthrow of the Targaryens). However, if they fail in their break from the current ruling monarch, as in the case of the Greyjoy Rebellion when they tried to declare themselves independent but were crushed by the crown's forces, that is treason because Robert Baratheon remained their king. I think that means they are subject to the punitive measures the crown (Robert Baratheon) chooses to take.
I think it's tricky in Sansa's case because while Dany was the North's queen, she wasn't yet queen of the 7k and it seems Sansa was trying to prevent Dany from becoming that. Technically, Sansa wasn't plotting to overthrow Dany in her current position as Northern queen but I think Sansa likely wanted a monarch who'd grant the North its independence.
But it wasn't exactly loyal either.
I thought (on the show at least) Stannis's claim was predicated exclusively on his status as legal. rightful heir rather than seeking the throne by conquest. Ned had sent out a ravengram blast notifying Stannis that he was next in line (because Joffrey was an incest bastard.)
That's why Jon, upon meeting Stannis in S4e10, said something about Ned dying to support Stannis's claim.
I'm going by (admittedly faulty) memory. I didn't think Stannis was relying on the right of conquest though.
"If you have a king/queen that needs to be restrained, whose impulses have to be kept in check by the people around him/her, as Tyrion/Varys/Jon repeatedly recognize, then that king/queen is not fit to rule (he/she rather belongs to a mental institution…"
What happens when "the people around him" won't keep him in check, and enable his unrestrained lunacy by their inaction?
Asking for a friend. 🇺🇸
Ten Bears: I thought (on the show at least) Stannis's claim was predicated exclusively on his status as legal. rightful heir rather than seeking the throne by conquest. Ned had sent out a ravengram blast notifying Stannis that he was next in line (because Joffrey was an incest bastard.)
I think that's right, Stannis and Ned were both going by the rules of succession since they knew Joffrey wasn't Robert's blood son. However, they couldn't exactly prove that, Joffrey still had enough martial support, his true parentage was based on rumors (I don't think Joffrey himself believed it and I'm not sure how far Tywin believed it but it's doubtful Tywin would dispute Joffrey's claim since that's not in his interest) so I think Joffrey was still legally a Baratheon and next in line. As a result, Stannis had to take the throne by right of conquest since the crown would not recognize his succession rights to Robert's crown.
"… Jon knows that if there's one dissident in the realm after the burning of KL, it's Sansa. So the discussion may be about those who "think they know better", but in reality it's about Sansa, because she's the one that exemplifies dissention in Daenerys' regime.
So Jon cared about Sansa after all." </em<
Well, yeah, because Jon knows that
Dany knows that Sansa's the one who blurted out his secret to Tyrion in order to foment an insurrection to topple Dany.
Sansa put a bullseye on her own back.
This things have nothing to do with the quality of the writing/plot. These are just things people dont like because it didnt fit in their personal wishes for the plot 🙂
Maybe so. I was answering in general, based on others' disenchantment.
For me, S5 had more than enough quality episodes and scenes that hit the target. I didn't like the LF-Sansa-Ramsay WF storyline at all, but "Hardhome" fired on all cylinders.
Hardhome was amazing. All the scenes. I will watch that one tomorrow. And don't forget this scene:
https://i.imgur.com/iTcn7Hm.jpg
And I don't like the whole: If you don't like it, it's your fault as a viewer and not the makers.
Compare that too a chef. If the guest don't like your food you don't go with: You just don't understand great cooking. No you going too taste it maybe they were right and it was wrongly spiced or a wrong ingredient is in it. Maybe the guest was wrong that's also possible. But when half the guests in your restaurant are complaining and stating what's wrong. There maybe is something wrong. Same with the show. Especially when faults are so easily backed with arguments by many. (I know there are also many whiners who don't like a single scene from season 5 till 8).
And too stick with the cooking, maybe it's a silly comparison maybe not. But compare the show to a nice christmas meal with 7 courses.
1. A Nice slices of bread with home-made butter (spiced with herbs)
2. A nice soup
3. A Carpaccio
4. The main course. A nice tenderloin with a mushroom saus. or a nice fish for the the ones that don't like Tenderloin.
5. Side dishes: steamed potatoes, baked potatoes, stewed pears, green beans, a mix of other vegetables.
6. A creme brulee with a scoop of ice cream.
7. A coffee with a fresh baked apple pie to finish the meal.
A perfect 7 course meal where everyone will be forfilled.
Looking at this from story point. 1 and 2 are the start of the main story. 3 is a follow-up story that could have been skipped, but it's nice to have it. (Arya with the Hound in season 4?) 4. Is the main storyline: WW and the war for the Iron throne. 5. The side dishes are the side story's to make the main story more interesting. Some are needed some not. You could just do with the mush potatoes and one vegetable, like we would have enough of the storylines of the first POVs introduced to us. While the other vegetables could be Dorne, Iron Island and Young Griff which they cut. Including them all would be the best option if it could be done perfect. 6. Would be the runner up to the big climax season 7. And 8 would be the finish touch to finish it all.
The second best option that could be done was just give the bread with the soup, the main course with one potato side dish and one vegetable. And no apple-pie with the coffee. It would still suffice as a great meal, less options but we could get more of the same (our favorite POVs), same as they would have skipped Dorne and the Iron Island we wouldn't really have missed them but they include them. So they went with option 3.
3. They put in all the dishes (except one), try to cook it all into the seasons. Result, the beans were undercooked and side dishes were undercooked. The main dish suffered from it and was overcooked, the coffee was too bland and felt empty, the apple-pie fell apart the moment you touch it. The ice cream was melted and was throw away later. And the mix vegetables got mixed with the baked potatoes by mistake. That's what happened. And then they blame the viewers for not appreciating it (with they I mean many fans). For the show it means, they put in Dorne but didn't know what to do with it, got sidelined in season 6. Iron Island was "only put in because it needed to" but it gave us not really something that other characters couldn't fill in. Cersei could have been conspiring with one of her Kingsguard or Qyburn and her betrayal to Jaime could be shown. Why put in those storylines if they didn't know what to do with it, why not just cut Dorne completely. They could just have cut whole Dorne plot and have Myrcella's body send back to Kings Landing and it would have resulted in the same effect. They are in war with Dorne but they have the High sparrow to worry about, so they talk about going to war with Dorne after it, but have season 6 ended with Dorne siding with Daenerys. Same with Iron Island, why include that without having an idea what they would serve for the story. And no, not the martin argument, Martin integrated them into the main storyline, instead of being an obstacle for the main characters to defeat and overcome, they have their own agenda's and plans to execute which are more important than you would think beforehand and have everyting to do with the endgame of the WW, Dragons and more.
But at least this is my take on what went wrong with season 5 and beyond. They tried to put in everything without knowing how and it back fired. Do I really care that those stories didn't work, not really then I just skip them in the future and enjoy the rest.
Sansa for some reason didn't like Dany from the outset, and although Jon was confident Sansa would be okay with Dany once she got to know her, Sansa said: "I'll never get to know her. She's not one of us." (From S8e4, below)
That closed-off attitude sounds less like Ned Stark and Jon Snow, and more like … Cersei Lannister and Joffrey (in S1): "Anyone who isn't us is the enemy."
(S8e4, Jon, Sansa, Arya & Bran)
Jon: "You understand we'd all be dead if not for her. We'd be corpses marching down to King's Landing."
Sansa: "Arya's the one that killed the Night King."
Jon: "Her men gave their lives defending Winterfell– "
Sansa: "And we will never forget them. That doesn't mean that I want to kneel to someone who–"
Jon: "I swore myself and the North to her cause."
Sansa: "I respect that."
Jon: "You 'respect' it? We needed her. We needed her army, her dragons."
Sansa: "You did the right thing. And we're doing the right thing telling you we don't trust your queen."
Jon: "You don't know her yet."
Sansa: "I'll never know her. She's not one of us."
The odd thing is it's Arya, of all people, who made that statement:
Sansa: You 'respect' it?
Arya: We needed her. We needed her army, her dragons.
Arya: You did the right thing. And we're doing the right thing telling you we don't trust your queen.
Arya: I'll never know her. She's not one of us.
And then Jon objects to that whole idea oddly coming from Arya:
Jon: If you only trust the people you grew up with, you won't make many allies.
Arya: That's all right. I don't need many allies.
Jon: Arya —
Arya: We're family. The four of us. The last of the Starks.
Jon: I've never been a Stark.
And it is kind of Lannister-y rather than Ned Stark-y, it's an odd character choice for Arya.
The idea of trusting only family is also debunked 10 min later because although Sansa agrees to swear she won't tell Jon's secret if Jon tells her when Jon brings up the family card…. Sansa tells, thus — as Dany said — she betrayed Jon's trust there, despite her vow.
I have more to add but I'm on the road (or rather, at a freezing train station with numb stuff fingers) and will hopefully add more later!
1. I'll try to reply in terms on your dining metaphors in a little bit. 😏
2. As for Dorne on the show: I remember the pre-S5 teasers and featurettes hyped the Sand Snakes. The showrunners must've thought a Dorne plotline was worth crafting a show-only detour for Jaime and Bronn. (They even recast Marcella, I assume because they had big plans for the Dorne story to continue throughout S6.)
Personally, I liked Tyene and her flirtation with Bronn. I was also looking forward to seeing more of Alexander Siddig as Doran Martell.
My sense is that the showrunners must have concluded that the Dorne detour was a flop, and pulled the plug on it. (Siddig publicly groused about being contracted to film several S6 (?) episodes, only to be informed his character was going to be killed off in the first episode.)
I remember lots of fans complaining that the Sand Snakes were cartoonish, and their plan with Ellaria to avenge Oberyn Martell's death at the hands of the Lannisters by murdering … Oberyn's brother and nephew made no sense. Likewise, poisoning innocent Myrcella was a head-scratcher, especially since they could have justifiably executed Jaime for espionage if inciting Cersei to start a war was the objective.
I guess the question is: If the showrunners reluctantly concluded that their Dorne detour was a dud, can they be faulted for euthanizing it? Or should they have tried to resuscitate it and keep it on life support?
I don't know the answer.
(You know me. As far as I'm concerned, any new story line that doesn't involve Arya or the Hound is a waste of precious screen time. 😉)
Oh sh*t! I'm sorry if I transcribed that scene wrong and attributed Arya's words to Sansa! *
But I appreciate you correcting it.
There was also some dialogue in S8e1 between Jon and Arya during their reunion scene, in which I thought Arya told Jon Sansa didn't like his queen. I'd better rewatch that scene to make sure I didn't f*ck that up too.
* Obviously, it's difficult for me to comprehend those kinds of insular, narrow-minded beliefs being expressed by Arya. WTF? That's so unlike her! She's made fast friends out of bullies, rejects, misfits, assassins and monsters! The Arya character established throughout 7 1/2 seasons would never say something like "I'll never know her. She's not one of us.".
I think yesterday or the day before we already commented on this out of character attitude, so I'll stop my whining. 🤢
I misremember and blank out of details myself!! But if you recalled all that from memory, nice job 😮!!!
Yes, I remember that 801 scene! I'm writing while standing up on the train so I can't pull up the transcript but I'll try to recall from memory! Jon's cranky about Sansa and Arya gleans she doesn't like his queen, Jon says he could have used her help with Sansa and Arya says Sansa is the smartest person she's met and she's defending her family.
But I agree with you — it is difficult to comprehend for the reasons you said about those 804 lines coming from Arya. It sounds very very unlike her. Arya's has had many non-family allies and most of them are outsiders like herself, that's part of the reason she and Jon has that special bond. It's perplexing to me why she doesn't give Dany a chance, there is stuff I think she had Dany could bond over (I thought the same of Sansa and Dany but I guess not).
I feel there were odd odd character choices across the board in season 8 and they were meant to further the plot, namely the Mad Queen culmination.
… For all we (the audience) knows, Arya has never spoken to Dany, which makes her Danyphobic attitude even more mind-boggling.
Here's the S8e1 dialogue – unless I transcribed it wrong from the closed captioning. 🤢 I'll have to rewatch the scene again with the volume up to compare…
From S8e1, Jon & Arya:
Jon: "Where were you before? I could've used your help with Sansa."
Arya: "She doesn't like your queen, does she?"
Jon: "Sansa thinks she's smarter than everyone.
Arya: "She's the smartest person I've ever met."
Jon. "Now you're defending her? You?"
Arya: "I'm defending our family. So is she."
Jon: "Yeah. I'm her family too."
Arya: "Don't forget that."
"… But I agree with you — it is difficult to comprehend for the reasons you said about those 804 lines coming from Arya. It sounds very very unlike her. Arya's has had many non-family allies and most of them are outsiders like herself, that's part of the reason she and Jon has that special bond. It's perplexing to me why she doesn't give Dany a chance, there is stuff I think she had Dany could bond over (I thought the same of Sansa and Dany but I guess not).
I feel there were odd character choices across the board in season 8 and they were meant to further the plot, namely the Mad Queen culmination."
As I'm sure you know, there's been quite a bit of criticism from some fans that S8 felt rushed, with the showrunners checking off plot points without sufficient "connective tissue" to explain characters' behaviors and actions.
In particular, some might say the showrunners started with the "Mad Queen culmination" as a pre-determined end point, and then reverse-engineered a series of contrivances to reach that destination. This in turn required "odd character choices across the board" and forced situations that made Dany feel isolated, unappreciated, unloved, undermined… and pissed off at the world.
[Please bear with me if I go too far off on a tangent…]
Have you ever seen the movie "Trading Places" (1983) with Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy? Dan Ackroyd plays Louis Winthorpe III, a Harvard-educated top executive at a commodities brokerage firm. He's on top of the world. The two co-owners of the brokerage firm, brothers Randolph and Mortimer Duke, have a running debate about nature vs. nurture. So they make a $1 bet: whether Winthorpe will devolve into a lowlife sociopathic criminal if he's deprived of his money, status and comfortable lifestyle. (The flip side of the wager is whether a street beggar, Billy Ray Valentine (Eddie Murphy) can be transformed into a successful executive with the right economic benefits.)
Anyway, the two Duke brothers scheme to deprive Winthorpe of his townhouse, bank accounts, butler, fiancé, and friends, and frame him for embezzling from the company and dealing drugs; Winthorpe is arrested, and left penniless and homeless on the streets. His "friends" and (former) fiancé shun him and won't help him. He pawns his watch, buys a handgun, and goes on a drunken rampage at the firm Christmas party dressed in a Santa suit. He runs off, and at his wits' end, points the gun at his head and pulls the trigger – but the gun misfires. (Did I mention this is a comedy? 🤪) I won't give away the rest if you've never seen the movie.*
What I was (trying) to get at is that like with Winthorpe, the Daenerys story in S8 seemed to rely on a series of (arguably contrived) mounting setbacks and losses that combined to push her over the edge, until she erupted into full-blown, delusional "fire and blood" rampage. Was it the inherited Targ tendency to madness (nature) or the combined weight of multiple misfortunes and betrayals (nurture) – or both – that drove her nuts? I don't know. I'm not even sure if that question was (adequately) framed for the audience.
I'm just trying to reconcile the reason for all of the conspicuously "odd character choices across the board in season 8" that appeared to be "meant to further the plot, namely the Mad Queen culmination." I can't think of any other (reasonable) explanation for the spontaneous and disproportionate anti-Dany attitude of Arya and Sansa: It was as if deaths of Jorah and Missandei weren't enough; the intermittent "red flags" in prior seasons (e.g., the S6e9 aborted plan to destroy the Masters' cities and the S7e5 Tarly BBQ) weren't enough; the writers felt compelled to throw in generous helpings of betrayals, rejections, ingratitude, and xenophobia to get from Point A to Point B in S8 in less than six episodes. I assume that's why many fans were dissatisfied with the way Dany's "heel turn" played out, rather than the ending itself.
"Looking good, Billy Ray!"
"Feeling good, Louis!"
I never understood why Tyrion and Varys wanted to replace Dany with Jon after hearing Jon was a Targaryen too. Jon had a better claim on the throne, but since he didn't want it, Dany was next in line. And Dany at that point hadn't done anything wrong. Until then she had listened to her advisers not to burn Kings Landing.
I would have advised him to marry Dany. Starks have also married other Starks in the past. Tywin Lannister also married family. It's only brother and sister that's strange for non Targaryens.
And I think she should have attacked the Red Keep the moment she arrived in Westeros. Of course innocent people would have died, but how else could she do it? Ask Cersei nicely to abdicate?
That wight hunt was a stupid idea and Jon after Hardhome should have known that. And Tyrion should have known his sister better. It's he who gave bad advice, that's why Dany stopped listening to it.
I love the show, a lot of things are the best things I have ever seen on television. That's why the illogical things in season 7 and 8 are so frustrating.
Ten Bears: I'm just trying to reconcile the reason for all of the conspicuously "odd character choices across the board in season 8" that appeared to be "meant to further the plot, namely the Mad Queen culmination." I can't think of any other (reasonable) explanation for the spontaneous and disproportionate anti-Dany attitude of Arya and Sansa: It was as if deaths of Jorah and Missandei weren't enough; the intermittent "red flags" in prior seasons (e.g., the S6e9 aborted plan to destroy the Masters' cities and the S7e5 Tarly BBQ) weren't enough; the writers felt compelled to throw in generous helpings of betrayals, rejections, ingratitude, and xenophobia to get from Point A to Point B in S8 in less than six episodes. I assume that's why many fans were dissatisfied with the way Dany's "heel turn" played out, rather than the ending itself.
Right, it felt contrived to me — I can accept it didn't for others, that they feel there was sufficient build-up but I found some character choices designed to get Dany to this place where she's looking at the Red Keep from atop of Drogon and decides to democide the entire city. And not only with other characters contributing to Dany's despair (as discussed) but from Dany herself too and the plot. She doesn't really consider allowing time for the people to get to know her, she's unwilling to at least negotiate interests whereas she was open to these requests before (Dany was willing to accept the independence or the Iron Island when she negotiated with Yara back in season 6), she inexplicably believes Jon has the love of Westeros (Jon doesn't even really have the love of the North, they're mad at him every Tuesday — Jon has the love of the wildlings who aren't Westerosi), Varys decides she's unstable based on…. (?), and she's been through tremendous grief and despair before but she's never demolished a city over it. I think the writers wanted to keep heaping things on Dany so she gets to that point where she's on the walls of KL, looking at the Red Keep, and then decides, "F*ck it!" and starts burning everyone and everywhere willy-nilly after the city surrenders — without even going after Cersei and Red Keep itself, she just starts strafing areas well away from the Red Keep. My mum even remarked, "Wow…. Dany's being quite thorough, isn't she? [20 min later] Is she still going?!?" And then Dany swan dives into blissful death=liberation delusion. And I think that's why we had characters acting OOC, to get Dany to that point where she'd sort of break inside.
Not that it's not possible for Dany to go dark, I think she will, but I think (hope) it'll be more of a gradual shift where Dany values civilian lives less and less, the people she came to save.
But that's just my opinion. Some think it was built up.
There are other things too — when they were discussing battle plans for 804, why was there no mention of Arya — the super sneaky ninja assassin who managed to shank a thousands-year-old mythical ice demon and end the Long Night in one fell swoop? And Cersei's on Arya's hit list! And Arya's going there anyway! Dany's concerned Cersei will keep accumulating power if she waits any longer. Sansa wants the troops to rest. Both reasonable points but they have somebody who could take care of Cersei in the meantime, Arya, allowing Dany to stay in the North, well away from Cersei's troops, away from Euron's ambush (why, pray tell, did Dany not burn Euron alive after Euron shot her dragon? She dives bombs Euron but… no… fire?).
But if things had gone down that way, Dany would still have two dragons and her best friend and less reason to make the decision she did when she was on the walls of KL.
Chilli,
Yeah. And as AltShiftX said, there's no gentle way to take the city 🙂 A siege is bloodless but would be pretty brutal too. The bells plan actually worked and would have worked nicely if it was thought of back in 704 but then I suppose the story would need to change? Less reason for Dany to go as dark as she did? I definitely agree with the concern for civilian lives and wanting to inflict as little damage as possible but a siege results in problems for the populace too. And by the time 805 came around, Cersei had successfully stuffed the Red Keep with people as if it were a Thanksgiving turkey (happy Thanksgiving to all you in the USA btw!) to stave off Dany's attack — so if Dany decided to go for the Red Keep, even more lives would be lost.
"… And I think she should have attacked the Red Keep the moment she arrived in Westeros. Of course innocent people would have died, but how else could she do it? Ask Cersei nicely to abdicate?
Right. That was the problem. Formerly smart and clever characters had to ignore common sense, disregard logical solutions and conjure up stupid ideas in order to reach the pre-determined ending. Obviously, heading straight for the Red Keep right after Dany made landfall on Dragonstone in S7e1 and uttered the words "Shall we begin?" was a no-brainer. A "siege" wasn't the answer: starvation and disease would kill more civilians than any dragonfire bombardment. All that Dany & Tyrion's roundabout, convoluted "plans" accomplished was the avoidable deaths of thousands of her own soldiers and allies.
Nuke the Red Keep on Day 1. Conquest complete.
(If they wanted to assuage their consciences, drop "Surrender today or fry tomorrow" leaflets.)
The wight hunt? As you correctly observed: "a stupid idea and Jon after Hardhome should have known that. And Tyrion should have known his sister better."
The plan itself, a dozen guys, on foot, with no surveillance drones (Bran) or air support, against 100,000 ice zombies and White Walkers, in the hopes of capturing a single wight to take back south for a show and tell… What could possibly go wrong? 🤦🏻♂
It was disheartening to listen to that "plan" when Tyrion proposed it and when Jon agreed to it, and even worse to watch it turn into disaster (as anyone with half a brain could foresee) when Jon & Co. sought to carry it out.
After the ingenuity of Tyrion's elegant wildfire ghost ship plan in "Blackwater" (S2e9); Robb Stark's tactical ploy to deceive the Lannister army in the Battle of Whispering Wood (?); and the outnumbered NW's efficient deployment of gadgets and weaponry in "The Watchers on the Wall" S4e9), it was a real letdown to witness the ridiculous bag-a-wight mission in S7. (I don't even want to get into Benjen ex machina, or supersonic ravens and time-compressing transcontinental dragon flights.)
As for Tyrion, yes: "It's he who gave bad advice, that's why Dany stopped listening to it." For me, after enjoying the cerebral, one-step-ahead Tyrion of S1 – S4, it was deflating to have to endure the dumbed-down, easily duped version of Tyrion in the final seasons. (I don't get it. Was the lack of source material to blame?)
Like you, "I love the show, a lot of things are the best things I have ever seen on television" – which makes some of the less than stellar aspects of S7 and S8 so frustrating.
I second everything you say. I just wanted to alert you that I may have to steal your Arya Stark biographical synopsis:
"Arya — the super sneaky ninja assassin who managed to shank a thousands-year-old mythical ice demon and end the Long Night in one fell swoop…"
Of course I won't quote this without attribution. 😎
I'm honoured! No attribution required!! I just think it's a huge boon you like it! 🙂
I like what both you and Chilli said about loving the show and this is why some of these aspects are so frustrating.
I can't believe Game of Thrones was a TV show — it was like an hour movie every week and what it managed to achieve was incredible, I don't know if I've ever been invested in a series so much. So as much as I'm complaining, I really do think this show as a miracle and made its mark on the television landscape.
I remember watching Cleganebowl and thinking to myself, again, "I just can't believe this is a television series."
By the way, thanks for the movie plot! I haven't seen the 1983 movie Trading Spaces but I did used to watch TLC's Trading Spaces with Alex Macleod!! 🙂 Sometimes neighbours who swapped houses for a redesign were also driven to the depths of despair when they saw what their buddy turned their house into…
"Trading Places" also stars Jamie Lee Curtis and Denholm Elliott, along with Ralph Bellamy and Don Ameche as the Duke brothers.
Dan Aykroyd is a hoot as the upper crust, genteel Winthorpe who's like a fish out of water among the "smallfolk" of society. Eddie Murphy is just as good as the street hustler the Duke brothers try to transform into a commodities broker as part of their wager.
Although it's a comedy, I could not help but think about the intentional sabotage of Winthorpe's life and what it did to him when I was watching what appeared to be the downfall-by-design of Daenerys.
"Trading Places" is worth a watch.
"… I can't believe Game of Thrones was a TV show — it was like an hour movie every week and what it managed to achieve was incredible, I don't know if I've ever been invested in a series so much. So as much as I'm complaining, I really do think this show as a miracle and made its mark on the television landscape."
I'd never seen anything like the stereotype-defying characters or heard the kind of rich dialogue on any other show before – at least for so many episodes. (All too often, I'm dazzled by a new drama series, and then midway into the second season it peters out and falls back on tired old cliches and dumbed-down dialogue. I admit I'm impatient and lose interest easily.)
I'll say this: Watching the first episode of GoT I thought to myself: "Who is that mischievous little girl showing up her brother at archery and taking a bow before running away? And flashing that devilish grin while flinging dessert in her sister's face?" Very rarely have I seen a child actor with natural talent like that. I had seen 11 year-old Anna Paquin in "The Piano", and thought she was okay [well, good enough for an Oscar], but nowhere near as good as the actress playing little Arya.
My first reaction to "the Hound" was that he was just a third-tier, standard bodyguard/brute background character. I never thought he'd emerge as the heart and soul of the show, without losing any of his anti-social, foul-mouthed crudeness along the way. (Just for kicks, sometimes I replay Arya scowling at him "Someday I'm going to put a sword through your eye and out the back of your skull" and yelling "You're the worst sh*t in the Seven Kingdoms!" – followed by her affectionate call out Sandor!… Thank you." I don't believe I've ever seen a complex hate/love relationship like theirs portrayed anywhere before.)
Sure, there were characters I didn't like at all (e.g., the High Sparrow, Euron and Ramsey), that will soon evaporate from my memory, and others that were just serviceable; just as there were story lines that I thought meandered or fell flat. Even if I edited out everyone and everything I didn't like, I think I'd have a 65-hour top-notch cinema-grade film to watch over and over again. That's not bad. Not bad at all.
I wouldn't presume to know why people watch GOT. I'm sure it was for a variety of reasons. I agree that normally the source material is better than the adaptation, and that remained true for the first three books. However, I felt the show was far superior than Feast and Dance. Yes, characters are very important, but story is just as important, and Martin was able to balance story and character masterfully in the first three books. I'm not sure how you can say the plot didn't advance much in seasons 1-4, because that is clearly not the case.However, in Feast and Dance, the balance shifted drastically. He worked more on character development and world building, and completely disregarded the plot, causing the story to move forward very little. I admit there was a slight shift in the balance in GOT when D&D concentrated more on the plot, but the shift was minimal and wasn't nearly as bad as the shift in the books. Unlike Martin forgetting to move the plot, D&D never forgot about the characters. Not once. The final seasons gave us some of the best character moments in the entire series, book and show. I can't speak for the people you talked to, all I know that my family, friends, and I loved season 5, all because D&D avoided the same mistakes Martin made.
Agree on every single word of this. S5 is huge improvement for me compared to books 4/5. I still regret spending the 80 euros on these two books back in 2011 & 2012.
In my case, I actually rank it higher than S1 and S2 (which are my second least and least favorite GoT seasons).
Me too I prefer season 5 and 6 over the last two written books. Not saying it was perfect, but for me it was definitely better. And they did a good job on avoiding the problems GRRM had with the last 2 written books. Only some minor things about the writing should have been worked out a little better, but the plot and overall story was alright.
I know you don't agree with me on season 7 and 8. I did love season 7, although some people made some very strange and out of character decisions. But I'm not gonna repeat that.
Goodness, that comedy is one of the best comedies ever made! Every time I saw it I laughed my guts out. Is it from 1983 already? Sh*t time flies!!!!!
What happened with GoT season 8 was truly unfortunate. The least I can say is that the story lacks imagination to a great degree –it was a whole different story imo, or rather, there was no story and the plot was reduced to driving Dany mad for no reason, which by itself is no story. I don't think that anything anyone says will come close to the truth as to why this happened and the producers themselves are blissfully unaware -or blissfully refuse to acknowledge- that what was problematic was the "story" they told not the ending per se. No matter how many people disliked the ending for whatever reason -some are Dany fans, some are Jon fans- what fell flat wasn't so much the ending but the story itself. This is why dissatisfaction runs very deep, even for those who don't overanalyse it like we do here.
I don't know what they could have done to avoid this; perhaps hire a good story-teller for the scripts? One that understands the character arcs and the plot arcs as Kevin would say? They could have reached the exact same ending with an actual story, where characters would remain characters with personalities instead of being reduced to senseless plot levers for driving her majesty mad.
Running out of material is no excuse for the failure to narrate an interesting story; it is no excuse for the simplicity of it, for reducing smart characters to universal idiots (Tyrion, Jon, Cersei), or for the base dialogs, or plotlines that led nowhere. In fact, if it was just the ending they wanted to achieve, they could have reached it in 7.7. No need for anything else, since Dany dracarys-ing the khals, dracarys-ing the Lannister army was very recent, so sowing KL with fire was in the same mood. Extending it for another season in which Tyrion had ample time to display his stupidity, Jon to repeat like a robot "I don't want it", Cersei to elegantly bring the glass to her marvellous lips and drink her favorite multi-varietal red simply seemed like a waste of time and money.
But of course it brought the producers and the channel loads and loads of money and broke all the records and did create patterns that will dominate visual story-telling for decades (small and large screen).
It was a success -but not because of the story. For the story, we'd need Martin's work to compare.
It's not a competition. There's no need to keep score. I don't count out the number of character moments, because I much prefer quality over quantity. Personally, I prefer plot and characters equally. I could never enjoy a good story with bad characters, and vice versa. It's the reason why I could never get into Better Call Saul. The characters are great, but the story is rather lacking. As for plot points in season 1, you don't consider Jaime pushing Bran out a window to be a plot point? Or Catelyn kidnapping Tyrion?
I highly disagree that Feast and Dance moved the plot more than Game and Clash. There were so many plots that went nowhere. Brienne's arc was pure filler. Tyrion spends all that time traveling to Mereen only for him not to meet Danerys. Sam's travelogue is filler. Arya trains in Braavos, to what end, nobody knows. Dany's arc is repetitive. Sansa's arc only begins to ramp up in her last chapter. Jaime's arc is filler. Etc. The problem with Feast and Dance is mostly their lack of a climax. That is what moves the plot the most. In Game, we had Ned's beheading. In Clash, we had the Battle of the Blackwater. In Storm, we had the Red Wedding. Nothing that happened in Feast and Dance comes close to moving the plot as much as those 3 events.
Ugh, remove him from power? We would actually support you all the way through and we could certainly use a change of power over there, lol. (some pretty sh**y things are happening in my area lately and it gets worse almost by the day)
There's a clarification in Wiki (I won't reproduce it here, I'm too bored).
When a girl enters a new family by marriage, she takes her husband's name. She is not the heir to his house, her children are. If they are still minors upon their father's death, the wife can rule the district as lady in the name of her children. If there are no children, there's a number of options, one of them being that she can claim her husband's house as her own inheritance under the precondition that no male heir of husband's ascending line exists. It such an heir exists, then it's not good for the lady, but she can always rely on the fact that she does have a dowry that would sustain her, and she can always return to her own family.
In most real case scenarios I know of, the lady either marries one of her husband's own house or, if she is the final heir of her husband's fief she seeks for a knight or lord to marry, because someone has to fulfill the military obligations attatched to the fief and the "contract" with the overlord/king (i.e. in French medieval law, which included also all the French conquests in the eastern Mediterranean). If the military service is not paid, then whoever has the fief must be removed, so that someone else who can fulfill that obligation takes over.
[cases like that were extremely frequent; many didn't have children, or the death rate was high during childhood anyway; keeping the marriages within the family, most often among first cousins, for maintaining the fiefs/castles/estates contributed to procreating difficulties all around Europe]
Stew says:
Lord Parramandas,
I don't reject the purchase since I love everything thrones but I was bored reading them. The show I'm always entertained and engaged even on my 8th rewatch
StewQuote Reply
Dear Adriana, whatever suits you.
I am not going to discuss this anymore. You seem adamant on believing that Sansa committed "treason" to one she didn't owe any allegiance in the first place. To do that you are set on putting aside her claim, on underestimating her position and on holding Jon on a pedestral in the North. Apparently according to what you say a Glover or a Karstark or a Hornwood can be supreme lord of the North. Fine.
All that for clearing Daenerys of her part in the situation. Nothing would have happened if her majesty was willing to discuss things. It's not what others could do so that she wouldn't set fire on KL, it's what she could do herself because she's the one holding all that power –and ASoIaF is all about holding and managing power.
I am just going to remind you that Sansa is called "the blood of Winterfell" and "key to the North" in the books and in the show. Nothing can happen in the North without her. Jon stupidly relinquished his own power in season 8. I doubt he'll do that in the books.
Even if I edited out everyone and everything I didn't like, I think I'd have a 65-hour top-notch cinema-grade film to watch over and over again. That's not bad. Not bad at all.
Agreed with this and your whole post!! 🙂
I wanted to address something from last night's discussion: I think part of the reason for the problems in the latter season was due to the lack of framework provided by the books. And I think as the books got more and more complex (A Feast for Crows and A Dance With Dragons being two large halfs of the same book), the story became harder to adapt.
I believe AltShiftX noted that D&D signed up to adapt books, not write the end of Game of Thrones, which I think is a fair point. And when they were left to freeform connect the various dots GRRM gave them in this very complex world, I view that as a much different task than adapting (or distilling) detailed, written books to a televised story.
I'll get the movie and give it a watch!
I think there is a similarity between what you described of the movie's plot vs the "downfall-by-design" (good phrase) of Daenerys. I think the primary difference is that it sounds as if it happened more organically and deliberately in-universe with Trading Places while I think a bunch of odd character choices (which, in-universe, were both witting and unwitting) and plot details in season 8 were brought about by the writers to culminate in a snapping point for Dany as quickly as possible — when some of this stuff could have been avoided. I also think Chilli had some great recommendations of alternatives Dany's advisors could have taken (marriage — which would nullify competing claims, not being opposed to attack in 704) but I think the writers had certain story beats they needed to hit and I think they needed to drive Dany to that point of snapping to get to the story's conclusion.
I am not going to discuss this anymore. You seem adamant on believing that Sansa committed "treason" to one she didn't owe any allegiance in the first place.
I'm trying to go with what has been established in the story itself, the various ways positions can be attained in Westeros, and what those positions entail. I've explained why I don't think the Kingdom of the North is a Stark birthright as of 1 AC, I've given references and precedents from the story itself to illustrate some of my points, I've explained my understanding of feudalism and coups. I'm not sure how I'm going by whatever suits me.
I've also asked if you had references for some of the points you made, which I would have been interested in.
As for Sansa, I didn't say anything about treason. In fact, I think I told Ten Bears that it's tricky whether or not Sansa committed treason against Dany but yes, I think Dany is her queen (in the North, at least) by virtue of Jon's decision to bend the knee. And I do think Sansa betrayed Jon's trust and broke her vow to him because I'm not sure how else to describe it?
To do that you are set on putting aside her claim, on underestimating her position and on holding Jon on a pedestral in the North. Apparently according to what you say a Glover or a Karstark or a Hornwood can be supreme lord of the North. Fine.
I'm going by what has happened in the story. Sansa's birthright isn't the Kingdom of the North. It's Winterfell and Sansa got Winterfell. When the Northern lords declared their independence, they chose Jon as their king, not Sansa. Robb was also a chosen king — he didn't inherit the position from Ned, the Kingdom of the North was no longer a Stark birthright as of 1 AC.
Then Jon bent the knee to Dany and Dany appointed him as Warden of the North. I've also gone over in a previous post some questions I had over what that entails (with Lord/Lady of Winterfell be separate from Warden of the North) because I haven't seen anything say the Warden of the North must answer to the Lord/Lady of Winterfell, or vice versa, as those positions are traditionally held by the same person. However, it seems in this society, both are lordship positions in and of themselves that serve the crown and control different areas.
I think you agreed once that the Iron Throne was no longer a Targaryen birthright because they were overthrown and the Iron Throne passed into a new regime, is that correct? Making neither Dany or Jon heirs to the Iron Throne, which I agree with. As with the Iron Throne, the Kingdom of the North also passed into a new regime — twice. Once when Torrhen Stark bent the knee and another when Robb Stark was overthrown.
Apparently according to what you say a Glover or a Karstark or a Hornwood can be supreme lord of the North. Fine.
Just as the Boltons were granted Wardenship of the North and Lordship of Winterfell, yeah. If a Glover/Karstark/Hornwood was chosen as king or took the North by right-of-conquest, yeah. It's very possible and has precedent in the story.
Whether the vassals would support this and rebel — that's a different issue.
I believe I said both Dany and Sansa could have done better. I think Dany should have been more open to discussing things as she was with Yara in 609, much more willing to allow people the time to get to know her. And I think Sansa could have handled the situation much better herself as well. I don't think it was smart to be so open in her dislike of Dany, a woman she doesn't know personally. I think fostering goodwill (on both their parts) would have served both characters better.
I've also said that ultimately, Dany is the only one in charge of her own brain so the responsibility for her decision to burn KL ultimately lies with her. I think the actions of others unwittingly contributed to the situation which brought Dany to that point of breakage, I think that was to bring about the Mad Queen culmination in as few steps as possible but I've also said (on this site and others) that only Dany made that decision to burn KL, nobody else, nobody forced her, and I think the ultimate responsibility falls on her.
I've also said that as a queen and leader, Dany should have known not to take out her grief and loss on the people and it was absolutely her responsibility not to do so. As soon as she decided to take action against the people after the city's surrender, I don't think Dany was fit to rule any longer.
I know Sansa is called the "key to the North" twice (both times in ACOK, Tyrion III) as it's believed that by marrying Sansa, the Lannister family wins Winterfell and the allegiance of the North. That's what was believed in the show too. However, in the books at least, Robb tries to prevent the North falling into Lannister hands by disinheriting Sansa due to her marriage to Tyrion.
But whatever came of the will, the Northern kingdom has passed back into the 7K too and is now under the Boltons. Consequently, because the Stark crown under Robb was overthrown, the Northern kingdom is no longer a Stark birthright.
I'm not sure how nothing in the North can happen without Sansa? She's not the Stark girl everyone believes Ramsay married to solidify his hold on Winterfell, that's Jeyne Poole posed as Arya.
As for the "blood of Winterfell," Sansa declares herself to be the blood of Winterfell in AFFC, Sansa I, Jon is called the blood of Winterfell by Qhorin Halfhand (ACOK, Jon VI), Ygritte (ACOK, Jon VIII), and thinks of himself as the blood of Winterfell and a man of the Night's Watch during a nightmare (ASOS, Jon VI).
And on the show, the Northern lords still chose Jon, not Sansa — which they can do if not crushed by the crown they have attempted to break away from (as the Greyjoys were in 289 AC). In turn, Jon bent the knee to Dany, as Torrhen Stark bent the knee to Aegon Targaryen.
I don't know what Jon is going to do in the books, that's up to GRRM. We'll have to wait and see.
Young Dragon: It's not a competition. There's no need to keep score. I don't count out the number of character moments, because I much prefer quality over quantity. Personally, I prefer plot and characters equally. I could never enjoy a good story with bad characters, and vice versa. It's the reason why I could never get into Better Call Saul. The characters are great, but the story is rather lacking. As for plot points in season 1, you don't consider Jaime pushing Bran out a window to be a plot point? Or Catelyn kidnapping Tyrion?
I also prefer quality over quantity that's why I prefer book 4 and 5 over season 5 and 6 😉 the show had huge quantity of unnecessary scenes, action scenes (better have as much as possible too please the masses right?) oh and add some unnecessary boob-count that will please some other fans and plot's that didn't work. The books did not. Every chapter and story was needed for later, and people who have read those books multiple times could connect those stories to the earlier 3 books. Also many stories that many fans who dislike book 4 and 5, Dorne, Iron Island, YG, are exactly very important for the later 2 books. And are already hugely foreshadowed in the first 3 books. Omitted those stories by Martin would have been not that great writing. same with quentyn, Qyentyn is not death so that argument is not valid.
The first time I read feast and Dance I was on your side which was better, but the more I read those 2 books the more I see how brilliant feast/Dance are together and are in fact the best written of the books. Martin is very sneaky with implementing things symbolically, like Quentyn is really alive, he put it very obviously on page, but still 99% of the fans missed it. (Same as people missed it that Davos survived blackwater)
As for Better Call Saul, that story doesn't lack plot. And objectively speaking it's much better written story than GoT. (But still I prefer to watch GoT again). Look at Sopranos one of the best written stories out there, or Six Feet under, or the shield, all stories that are 90% character development and only 10% plotdevelopment. With your assessment about what's a good show, those 3 shows would have been badly written, but they are not. They didn't need to resolve to the "Action"-thrope, it was there when it was needed, they needed to delve into other thropes that GoT fell into in season 5 and beyond. And you can say much about Martin but he surely avoided those tropes.
As for Bran being pushed out of the window. In the long run this was more character base than character based. The thing is too look what it did in short turn: We disliked Jaime, and his character arc started there. We didn't think: Oh war is coming now. No we hated Jaime, Cersei. And we were hoping that Bran would survive. It had plot-device in it, but later on that. The Long run the character moment was more important: It started the Jaime redemption-arc. And it was a moment that Jaime couldn't forgive himself. It changed his character. Same as for Bran, mostly that moment changed Bran himself, who he is, what he is, what his goals are.
As for Cat taking Tyrion, it's both like above. But it shows a lot about Cat who she is as a mother, her fierce side, it shows who are loyal to her. And she make a mistake, both had a plot-device in it.
Same as the ending of 1×05. They all show a side of characters. We see Jaime's love here for his brother. We see how Ned cared for his man. But all 3 scenes are all one plotpoint: The starting of the War of Lannister and Stark. Divided into multiple character based scenes that together fill in the plot-arc.
And too take another scene: ending of 1×06. Many see this as a plot-point. No it's 100% a character-scene. It didn't push a single plot forward. Drogo sailing to Westeros only happen in episode 7 (plot-development), it was all character development. Who Dany is, how far she will go, that she will look violence in the face and more, we learned a lot about who Dany is there. It also ended a character. Would this scene been shot from the POV of Viserys than it would indeed be a plot-development.
I will react to every story of Feast and Dance:
– Brienne: It was important to show who Brienne is, her naivety to believe everyone, which was part of her arc here, that she learn from that. It also showed her first kill. It also showed the Brave Companion (which are important for the Dorne plot in Winds of Winter). It had a huge character development of Brienne here. With plot it started the Sparrow story in Kings of Landing, It showed us that Sandor is alive, it showed us what happened with the Brotherhood without Banners. And that all in 6 chapters. Her story moved pretty fast. Compare that to Arya in SoS, where she traveled (something bad if I read your comments) to Beric in 4 chapters. She hears that she will go to Beric but it takes 4 chapters to go there, bad writing right? Or was it great because we saw a lot of character development here. Is that maybe what made SoS so great, the character instead of the plot? Needs to be, when Tyrion's first 70% chapters of SoS was only character development and only the last 30% he had some plot to do.
But back to the point, so no Brienne was not a filler, omitting her would result into a massive plot hole in those books and for the story in Winds of Winter.
– Tyrion didn't travel to Meereen to meet Daenerys, if that's your view on it you didn't get who Tyrion is as a character, and not what that story was about. He traveled to Meereen for 2 things: 1. To survive. 2. To use Daenerys to get revenge on his family. That story didn't lead to where you think it would lead to. And if that was wrong that he didn't meet Daenerys in Dance. Why wasn't it bad that Jon didn't meet with the WW and Mance in Clash of Kings. GoT ended with the notion that Jon would meet both in Clash of Kings, both didn't happen. Or SoS started with that Daenerys would go to Westeros, it ended by delaying that. Or Clash started with Arya going back to Winterfell, still she is not there yet. Maybe because what you think is important and a story will lead to is not what's important for the story and what it is about? And we see Tyrion change, setting up a new plot (YG), We see him in action with slavery we see now from within what's that's like (which also serve Jorah's character to think of it), he got the Second Sons to the side of Daenerys. Lot's of plot. And he traveled in one book from Pentos to Meereen, compare that too the journey's in SoS. Tyrion travel far.
– Sam's travelogue if you call it that, is neither a filler or a travelogue, lot's of things happened here. We saw how Jon become harder by swapping the baby's. We saw a other side of Aemon. We saw Arya killing Sam. We saw a plot development about bloodmagic that has to do with controlling dragons. (Aemon's body with Kingsblood is on the same boat as Marwyn in the end who is going to Meereen, he is into bloodmagic he learned it all to Mirri Maz Duur, this story is also connected to Doran Martell), and we got the Citadel.
– Why does it matter that we don't know yet what Arya's story had in store, do you want to know the end-point before you start a journey? That's the whole point about reading, to find out while reading where it will end. And what was her point for that storyline in the show? nobody knows and the show is over. As for the books, it's pretty obvious, she will become a highly trained faceless man (more than the show). She get an assignment in Winds of winter first to Sealord's Palace finding things out about Daenerys. And then she get an assignment to kill Alayne Stone (ordered by Myranda Royce), and there's where Arya needs to make a hard choice.
– I agree with Sansa's arc. I still like her first 2 chapters of Feast (she only got 3 if I remember right) but they were only for character moments. I personally liked them a lot but I can see why some find it lack lusting. But winds seem to put her into a new direction which I like. Especially when Arya will go and try to kill her (And she will not do it), I think Arya will kill Myranda instead)
– How is Jaime's arc a filler? We see the Riverrun again. We see him finally cast Cersei aside. In Dance he learn something about Bloodraven (Bran storyline) and he will go meet LSH after this. Also his story is less a filler in the books than the show. At least in the books at the end of book 4 he is finally on his own. In the show he was after season 4 Cersei's lap dog and his character serve nothing more than to be a support for the character of Cersei. At least George gave him a story of his own.
– I agree 100% about the climax, you need to read the winds chapters to feel a better climax. At least I agree half. I think Feast had a real climax for every character, it seems it had ended with Part 1 of those storylines. (like GoT ended with part 1, CoK part 2, and SoS ended the whole storyline). And the beginning of Dance could have serve as a cliff for the Dance characters (by putting them in Feast), thereby we could have at least had a Dance that ended where George intended to first. And else he should just have released DoD Part 1, and DoD part 2. I don't care if I would have had 2 smaller books in my closet when I know part 1 doesn't have the book ending. So I agree there, but I disagree highly about that the plot and characters move no where. Season 3 ended for instance in a lacklusting way, and only serve as a bridge for part 2 of that storyline. And I still believe that they could have done that with season 5 also, just having season 5 be the first part and season 6 the second part. And there could be a lot of climaxes. Cersei's imprisonment (release next season as an episode 2 or 4), Kingsmoot could have been huge, Getting the GC back home could have been huge if they introduced right, Stannis gaining the Northern clans could have been a huge moment. Doran fire and Blood, Battle of Dragonstone, Faceless man in the Citadel, Jaime breaking bond with Cersei would have been a huge climax where fans would be cheering for. Lady Stoneheart introduction, big climax there. And I could think of some other things. But espcially the imprisonment of Cersei could have been a huge episode 9 moment if done more like the book with the torture of Kettleblack.
But the thing is why we feel the plot is moving less is because of more characters. But those characters all have huge moments (see above).
Personally I like the way the books is portrait with the whole puzzle to fill in (which if you're into that you see the puzzle falling into place, most don't but I do), compared to the simplistic version of the show. I'm currently stuck at 5×07 and somehow I can't even put myself to watch 5×08 which is one of my favorites. But with the books I'm into the story from beginning to end with Feast. To delve into the characters minds, feel like them, think what they think etc. If I read Brienne, I feel like Brienne, if I read Tyrion I feel like Tyrion, If I read Arya I feel like Arya etc, with the show I only had that with the first 4 seasons a lot. With season 5 not so much, I can not feel the characters like I did in the books.
How season 6 goes, I don't know. I need 3 episodes of 5 till I'm there.
And to add why I think Feast and Dance is better than the show version is this famous quote of one of the best writers out there:
"The only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself"
― William Faulkner
The books does this perfect.
I agree, and I think Feast and Dance adapting as perfect as possible would have taken half year to write the least. Lot's of new stories erupt that means introducing new characters. That means, make sure the first scene stick for the new characters. And that takes a lot of time writing and overthinking, it could be done if HBO had said, we take a year of like they did with season 7, else it could not be done, maybe it could be if D&D were only the writers, but they weren't they were also producers, location seekers etc. So my complain about season 5 has nothing to do with D&D, I understand that the job they had was difficult and that there needed to be a choice: 1. More time writing for every storyline. 2. Introducing them all with timelimit and result in bad writing. 3. Just introduce one of those storylines.
HBO wouldn't go for 1. D&D didn't go for 2 (luckily) so they went for the only option that was 3. (option was was omitting every new storyline but they didn't want to do that).
And the thing is, I think D&D could easily already be overworked at the end of season 4. Peter Jackson was already tired at the end of filming the movies. Which took 14 months, he wrote in between (sleeping only 4 hours per working day). But if it would have took 15 months I think Peter Jackson would have been broken. D&D did it already for 4 years.
But that doesn't mean that I don't have a feeling that I wish things would have been different. It's not an attack on D&D but more how I feel about it.
(Huge eye roll induced)
I'll consider these points when I re-read the books, which I probably won't until TWoW is released. It would be too fucking depressing otherwise.
Thanks a million for the response, though.
kevin1989: We saw Arya killing Sam.
What?! Dude, I'm totally lost here. It's been quite a while since I've read the books, but I'm pretty damn sure it's the deserter from the Watch that Arya kills—not Sam, who's accompanying Maester Aemon.
death by chickenfire says:
a comment section really paying back for all the hateful and brainless crap that has been flooding this site after the end of the series. thanks to all of you who contribute their thoughts and put them into comments worth reading. i'll bookmark this thread for a day when i have more time to read. today, i had to stop after some 20% of the comments, but the ideas and discussions you provided until there are classy! thank you!
i picked the ending scene as my favorite.
Dany losing her best and most loyal friend is one thing. Dany making her first one-to-one fighting experience and still not being able to save him is the other. some may underestimate how killing with her own hands in that situation contributes to her fascist-turn when everything she loved and desired is finally out of reach in the moment of military victory. for me, that scene was essential in pushing Dany over the edge.
Prince! Theon being redeemed before there is no other choice than being the (probably) last defence for Bran is great too. it's actually beyond great, and fuck every jury that hasn't already thrown Emmys and stuff like this at Alfie Allen! fuck them, and then hire some who continue fucking them!
Arya's Ice Crush could have been performed with less slow-motion in the leap… and maybe a very short fight scene on the ground. hell, she's agile and experienced, and i really would have loved to see Mr. Fridge in a real one to one fight. she still could have dropped the dagger in that.
still, the redemption factor of her last second kill justifies a mentioning of this scene.
i also love this scene for the score. who doesn't? quiet start, crescendo… we know this from the blowing of the Sept of Baelor (the Moron).
there, it was one person smelling the trouble (Margery) and one having seen and trying to avoid it (Lancel, what a ridiculous name!). they all had a blast.
here we have every living person in the north knowing the trouble and one finally avoiding it. and – the trouble had a blast.
and this leads to what i loved most about the final scenes of The Long Night: the pairing of the surviving main characters.
right after the kill, we have Arya and Bran. the two Stark kids we got introduced to first in a scene that made clear who can handle a weapon. Arya had this smile on her face after hitting a bull's eye for Bran. did i see a bit of that smile again after she just said "no" to the god of death very clearly?
also, Tormund and Gendry are standing on a pile of dead dead. the very Tormund who confused Gendry on the way north with strange confessions about sexual needs and their fulfillment; who took Gendry's hammer before the boy was sent to the wall in order to send an emergency raven; who was breastfed by a giant. and Gendry? he had some experience with sucking too. Ask Mel for Details!
also we see the Samwell Tarly and Grey Worm standing their ground to the end. there could be no more difference between these two!!
the hated child Sam from a rich family, the coward, the one who stole his family sword from his dad – and the curageous Grey Worm from a poor family, who had to kill a baby and pay the fucking "owner" of the baby's mom for it in order to become an Unsullied.
an Unsullied, not a lover of ladies… with these two guys standing to the end, the show depicted the whole range of manipulated and abused men Westeros has to offer. and i mean "men", as women there had to go through even much more shit. like today.
the trophy for the most unexpected pairing of survivors goes to Melisandre and The Hound. the fire priestess and the man scared of fire. when they open the door, it is clear that the war of the living against the dead has been won. Melisandre's mission is accomplished. The Hound on the other hand needs one more thing to be ready for his last mission: loving, and being loved. just a little bit of course, as we still talk of Sandor Clegane…
the last scene of The Long Night had so much to offer, how can i chose an other?
death by chickenfireQuote Reply
Lord Parramandas:
Good argument. 🙂
Funny that when the books are attacked you're on the bandwagon and hate is acceptable and even encouraged, and the books are bad etc, but when the show is concern even the slightest critic is shot down with "You hate the show, why watch it" and other arguments. But all their own opinion of course, and you should try to accept others, like other's accept yours. As with Young Dragon and me with our discussion, I state my opinion and I don't agree with him, but I respect his opinion. (And I feel the same from him, I like that discussion with him)
But it seems you're only content with somebody's argument when GRRM bad writer, D&D good writers are presented.
Your Welcome, first time I read feast and Dance I though he died, but the more I read the books I was: But wait this doesn't make sense. And I saw more and more things wrong. I though then that I didn't understood the journey or something. But then I found this theory and all fell into place.
Damn, it seems I make a huge mistake when typing that much XD Dareon of course, Sam is all good and well in the citadel. (Until Euron unleashed his forces of course)
My crackpot theory is also that Euron is responsible for the re-awaking of the Whtie Walkers in the books, and that he is a greenseer. When Bloodraven searched for his successor (and one with huge powers for the weirwood trees to absorb), Euron was the first, remember that there was a passage about Euron visited by a crown or something. I think Patchface is another one. But in the end bloodraven got with Bran, because Bran has more power that the Weirwood tree want.
About patchface I think his singing is less bad than we think. I think "Under the sea" means "In the world of vision". And that it has nothing to do with the sea itself.
I also think the end-enemy in the books won't be the White Walkers. But the weirwood trees. I think the great other is in fact a huge weirwood tree. Don't know why. But those trees scare me XD
My other comment awaits moderations.
But I finish season 5 now, episode 7 and 8 and 9 and 10.
Cersei: I loved her smirk face when she visited Margery and how she got imprisoned and her confess scene in episode 8. I also love how much Tommen love Margerey. Her walk of shame was perfectly done.
Tyrion/ Daenerys: I didn't like that he met Daenerys that soon into the story without even making sense, his whole being in slavery was just a meaningless detour for Tyrion, his character development was zero this season. And personally I didn't really care for the meeting with Daenerys, why would she follow him? Because Barristan is death and she needed somebody from Westeros? It doesn't make sense that she already trust Tyrion that much. Episode 9 and 10 I love from both. The Dragonpit was perfectly done, and I loved the final from both.
Dorne: I won't talk about this one, a story I loved in the books is for me completely skip-able in the show, the characters are cartoonish and bland, Dorne itself doesn't feel alive at all. Ellaria is changed from an interesting character in season 4 to a one dimensional character this season with her 3 Charlie's Angel children. Myrcella is even more naive than her mother. And Ellaria killing Myrcella feels so out of character and this is not Ellaria from season 4.
Winterfell: I dislike that Sansa became a secondary character to Ramsay and Theon and that once again she is a victim that needs to be rescued. But I love her season 8 scene where she bound with Theon and their friendship begins. And I like her final scenes and escape.
Stannis: I love the addition of Stannis talking about the Stormcrows. I dislike the whole Stannis burning Shireen, still doesn't make sense for Stannis to do this. It feels out of character. I loved Davos with Shireen together. And 20 good man? Really? The final with Stannis feels for me empty and skip-able.
Jon: I love Jon's scene before departure, and the departure of Aemon, beautifully done. Hardhome was brilliantly done and one of the finest 30 minutes of the saga, the horror vibe in this part of the episode is just brilliant. In episode 9 I also love the wall scenes, Sam and Jon together was perfect.
The wall scenes were just perfect, with Jon leaving, and of course the beautiful departure of Aemon. But only one continue error, why would Jon and Co walk north of the wall towards Castle Black when the WW could pick them off there? Was this only for tension? And why not get pass the wall by east watch and just enter there, they board the ships there towards Hardhome so the watchers there already knew about Jon's plan. The final was amazing with Jon. But hard to watch (for the watch).
Arya: I love arya in all the 4 episodes. Her part with the Tin-man. And of killing of Meryn trant. I only am not really into the way they made Arya blind.
Mace: I give him an own little part. This character is just brilliant. I really laughed the way he was singing to Tycho.
Season 5 is the season with the most scenes I would skip. Season 1 only the "Sex-scenes" and with that I mean 1×07 LF brothel scene, meaning that I would skip less than 2% of the scenes in season 1. Season 2 I skip the torture scenes in episode 4 and that includes Joffrey's torture of the whore. But not much more maybe 2/5% Season 3 I would skip Theon's scene's can't really think of a nude-scene that was over the top. So around 5% of the season I would skip, with season 4 I would skip only the Jaime/ Cersei sex-scene in 4×03. Meaning less than 1% of the season. Season 5 I would skip 20/25% of the season. I just don't care for most, not because what is happening, but how. The overuse of tropes.
For me after re-watch I go with: S4 > S1 > S3 > S2 > S5
Regarding your Tyrion comments about season 5…
I think Dany just thought he was clever and she bought into what he was saying that she's going to need someone who knows Westeros, and that's him. I agree with you though that book Tyrion is more interesting. I think D&D began the de-clevering of Tyrion in season 5. He was very full of himself in believing what he was doing was clever. He did make progress in helping Meereen become a functional city again, but he didn't know the masters (as Greyworm kept pointing out). He would have been in deep sh*t if Dany didn't return when she did. It only gets worse from there for Tyrion in the show. In the show he's thinking he can have it all with helping Dany at the same time not killing his sister and brother. He's naive in the show thinking Cersei actually would bring her Army North. In the books Tyrion is still very clever. I can't see him making any of the season 5-8 decisions in the books. I quite enjoyed his final chapter and his sample TWOW chapter. And as I've said before, he seems much more remorseful in the books for what he's done. I had a very tough time with show Tyrion after he murdered Shae the way he did, and he never really seemed that remorseful about it in the show.
death by chickenfire,
"… this leads to what i loved most about the final scenes of The Long Night: the pairing of the surviving main characters.
What I wouldn't have given for Arya, after pulverizing the horned f*cker, to follow up that little smile to Bran by taking a bow – in a nod to the S1e1 archery scene when she hit the bullseye…
S1e1 Arya takes a bow
at 0:48 – 0:52
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3McA5fYmxc
🎯 👸🏻
one of my fav movies, never tire of it. Esp the gorilla. um, that must be the female'
kevin1989: And the thing is, I think D&D could easily already be overworked at the end of season 4. Peter Jackson was already tired at the end of filming the movies. Which took 14 months, he wrote in between (sleeping only 4 hours per working day). But if it would have took 15 months I think Peter Jackson would have been broken. D&D did it already for 4 years.
Yes, this was my feeling. I wondered if D&D were overworked and got to a place where they just wanted to finish. This is only a suspicion because I'm not them and they haven't made any kind of statement to that effect but I've wondered the same thing.
I think it's reasonable to talk about aspects we didn't like about the show and have negative opinions on certain developments/plotlines. Even better if we explain why we didn't like them and why we feel they didn't work. In my mind, it's not personal to D&D — they're two people I don't know, they created a show I'm very grateful for, one that I loved, one available for public viewing and discussion, and I wish them all the best in their lives. To me, it's sort of like what went on in art school — we'd critique each other's work, we'd debate endlessly, and some of us were very divided in our opinions but we'd never personally attack the artist themselves or wish them ill.
There's a lot of content here, and I'm not going to bother to respond to all of it.
I'm the opposite. I prefer quality over quantity, which is why I prefer seasons 5 and 6. I'm not sure what unnecessary action scenes you're referring to, but the nudity was really toned down in the later seasons, so if you truly have a problem with it, your problem mostly lies with seasons 1, 2, and 3. You have no idea what's going to be important for Winds and Spring, so stop pretending like you do. And Quentyn Martell being alive is a theory, one I don't subscribe to, and it isn't a fact.
I haven't seen those other shows, but The Shield was not 10% plot. That's a highly ridiculous assertion. Better Call Saul was 10% plot, however, which is precisely why not many people took to it. And it's not better written than GOT. Not even close.
Yes, we learned a lot about Brienne's character, but that's what I'm saying. Martin developed Brienne's character but completely abandoned the plot. It's possible to do both at the same time, like he did in the first three books. And you have no idea if the Brave Companions will wind up being important.
Tyrion was perfectly safe in Pentos, so his safety wasn't the reason. Yes, he traveled to Mereen to get revenge on his family, which required him to meet Danerys. You have no idea if Young Griff will become important.
Sam's arc was about character, not plot.
All you did was list things Jaime did, not how they will end up being important. Yes, Jaime returned us to the Riverlands, but so what? Why does that matter?
And too think of that Book Tyrion is Darker, and show Shae loved Tyrion, book Tyrion doesn't at least that's how it looks, but I have a theory on that. I think Shae was with Tywin on Oberyn's orders. She poisoned Tywin. Therefore the shitting of Tywin, and the smell when he died. There's a poison of that. If that came out, that would be heartbreaking.
Agree fully. It's not personal to D&D and I still love GoT, I just don't like certain things.
And about the time working on the show. I think I would have been "broken" after just one season, the amount they put in.
Well that's not how I see it, I mostly see that when huge quantity of action is concern, the seasons with higher quantity of action does tend to be a preference to you, at least that's how I see it. And season 5 had a lot of action that was not needed, Brienne the Vale knights fight, the way the High Sparrow is introduced with the smashing of the markets etc, and many more were there just for action sake.
And objectively speaking, season 5 is not really great quality speaking, the writing is pretty falling down, whole Dorne which took a lot of time is wonky and without sustenance, Sansa going to Winterfell is also "We just need to go there with the plot, doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense character wise", LF acted dumb, Ellaria changed from a great character to a one dimensional character, same with Euron in season 6. "I'm going to fuck the queen" great storytelling indeed, better than "I'm going to control a dragon and run hell on earth"
I would bet all I have that Quentyn is alive, it's pretty much on the page, the more you read it the more it's seen as true, and in Winds the tattered Prince is being said to be Dornish (which he isn't)
There's still plot with Brienne as I stated but you tend to ignore that. More than you think.
The Brave Companion are working for Dorne. They even go back home at the end of Dance.
How was he safe in Pentos? Do you think Illyrio would have let him stay there without contributing to something? Or that Cersei wouldn't find out?
YG is already stated to be important by Martin himself, so why ignore that Martin said that? he will be part of Dance of Dragon v2. He even showed that in the HotU a written page.
Is the prince that was promise Plot? Because that was in Sam's 5 chapters. And Maester plot, and Marwn?
About Jaime, so what did Jaime do in the show for season 4 till 7 that was so important for plot? Nothing, he was Cersei's lapdog. No story, no progression. The books did have more plotdevelopment with him.
I watched the shield just 1 year ago, I read the interviews with the makers, they said that they worked with the characters not the plot, they driven the story by characters, the plot can even be told in half a a4 for the whole show. It's pretty straight forward the plot, and the plot goes very slowly, but the characters fast. It's one of the slowest plot's I ever seen, but I like it because of the characters, one of the best stories I saw.
Jucor says:
Tyrion is haunted by Shae in the show and it is quite evident in many circumstances. He speaks more of his father's murder because it's certainly more important to the plot.
JucorQuote Reply
oierem says:
And objectively speaking, season 5 is not really great quality
Well, objectively speaking season 5 was the first season to win an Emmy for Outstanding Drama Series. That's a fact.
Judging a TV series is never "objective", so it's better if we just give our opinion, without trying to pass it as absolute truth.
And if everything you say from books 4/5 is going to be relevant in books 6/7, it just means that there is no way to finish the story in two more books.
You are basing your appretiation of Feast/Dance on the fact that later books (which aren't written yet) are going to validate many of the characters/plots in them (and being too sure about things like Quentyn being alive, YG's importance….). Maybe you are right -in that case, the downside is that it will be impossible for Martin to finish the series, I'm afraid. But maybe you are wrong about those "facts".
oieremQuote Reply
"Yes, Jaime returned us to the Riverlands, but so what? Why does that matter?"
We need a PoV for the murder of the Freys. One with access to the Frey castle. One they would trust because he's a Lannister. Lady Stoneheart will do the rest.
(that's my guess; if it is so, it's brilliant and good story-telling on Martin's part)
Also, Lady Stoneheart will probably direct Brienne to the Vale, if she's to meet Sansa. She knows LF and knows what he'd do.
I want to say that I found my last comment a bit over the top, sorry for that 🙂
But about the Jaime argument, you state that it's maybe not much what Jaime did in the last couple of seasons, but that we must look for why those things he did were important in the end. But isn't it a bit strange that for the show it doesn't matter to you that for instance Jaime doesn't do much in season 4 till 7 because it's important for the end what he did (4 seasons of plot for just one end season). But for the books, every character needs to do a whole plot in a book and everything needs to make sense and have a point at the end of that book. So the books need to have an end for every character per book, but she show can take 4 seasons for it? If you really think that it didn't matter that Jaime was just the side kick of Cersei and didn't have his own story because in the end it served it's purpose, why not having that same argument for the books with Brienne, Sam, Arya, Sansa, Tyrion etc for what these small plot maybe tell for the end.
If those stories were indeed non-existent of plot in the books, and you had a problem with that I can't see how you can say that Jaime had a great moving plot in the show when he just had one small plot stretched over 5 seasons. (More than half the show). I mean I understand that you maybe think plot needs to move faster, but Jaime move much much faster in the books than the show. If they would have follow the books in the show, Jaime would have left Cersei already at the end of season 5 instead of 7. Sam would be in Oldtown at the end of season 5, Brienne would have done something in season 5 and 6 with her own story with LSH instead of being a extension of Sansa, I mean if Brienne would have been killed in the show at the end of season 4 I wouldn't really have missed her plot in season 5, 6 and 7, and not even 8 except her knighting scene and her endscene in the final.
oierem,
Winning an Emmy is also very political. Many great shows don't even get nominated.
And if you think: You want this bad pussy line is a great written line and show quality.
If you want to know which one are better written look at which seasons are talked by people working in the industry. Season 1 till 4 there was lot of talk by many other writers and producers about how they loved GoT and how it was amazingly made. Season 5 even those in the industry stop talking about the show. Even actors on the show show their discontent from season 5 onward, the actors of Baristan (which even state the book version should have been filmed of that storyline), Doran (a very professional actor and highly acclaimed, he even state that D&D made many producing faults and could not work with money), Osha, Varys. To name 4 very great actors who showed discontent. And look at how Ian McShane talked about the show.
I still love season 5, but it's gotten very mainstream here, action, action, oh and of course using once again the: People of faith hating gays, trope to sell the Sparrow storyline, as a gay guy I really rolled my eyes for this.
As for the books, As I state Quentyn is easily decipher with the books itself. Everyone getting roasted by a dragon died instantly. The one died, died 3 days later, the one that died didn't die of Dragonfire. And why do you think Drinkwater and Archibald were constantly talking about: How great Quentyn is, and how great he would be for Daenerys. But he's death right? Why constantly getting his name in good grace with Barristan even when it's already told that Barristan will send his body home with Archibald and Drinkwater, they are safe, no need to keep on talking about how great Quentyn is. And why would they take the blame of Quentyn's mistake? Why put them self in the risk-radar of Barristan and maybe even get imprisoned only to give a good name for Quentyn. And we didn't see Quentyn die, only Barristan's perception. We saw Davos die in book 2 he lived. We saw Rickon and Bran die, they lived. We only saw Quentyn burn his arm but not that he died in his chapter, only Barristan. If he would have died, he would had gone with the Catelyn route, thinking back of the past. There's also Drinkwater being scared to get the windblown to the side of Dany, but archibald tells he had a plan that shocks drinkwater. And there's also a spoiler in winds of winter sample chapters
Where the Tattered Prince is being told to look Dornish and younger than he really is. I can't remember if this was a Barristan or Tyrion chapter, I though Tyrion). The Tattered Prince is white looking, Pentosi, they look like Illyrio not Dornish.
Young griff is not a theory. The house of the Undying tells that YG will be King. The cloth dragon being cheered on by the people of Kings Landing. And we see Jon Connington smiling at the Sarrows succumbing of Greyscale. And even Martin stated YG will have a huge role and part to play in the Dance of Dragon v2.
As for time to finish in 2 books. Oh there is enough time. People tend to forget how Martin writes. He writes on the forefront the story we see, the battles, the dialogues etc. But he put in puzzle pieces in every chapter, that had nothing to do with that storyline itself. Like for instance the story of Ashara Dayne. We got lot's and lot's of pieces through out the story. We only need a couple of small pieces that could be told in just a couple of sentences each. And having a chapter where everything falls together (which I suspect will be in dream of Springs), that could even be done in a couple of pages. Same with all the plans of LF and Varys and Doran etc. Those plans could fall very fast into place. With most mysteries Martin already filled in 80% of the mystery, we only are waiting for the clue of it.
I suspect at the end of Winds:
Arya: I think Mercy character is done. Her next 2 chapters will be the Sealord Palace. Which end with the notion she will go back to Westeros to kill Alayne Stone. Her third will be meeting Alayne and finding out it's Sansa, I think this will be shown through Sansa's eyes not Arya's. She and Arya story will come together. But in Arya's chapter we see that Arya will not kill Sansa but Myranda.
Sansa: One chapter where she will marry Harry and where Harry is killed. One chapter where we see the discontent that that bring to Myranda, in which she will send a FLM toward Alayne. It's also possible that Myranda sends the FLM to Westeros because Sansa will marry Harry. But Arya kills Harry. I think the 3rd chapter is already where she will meet Arya. After that they both either go to WF or Arya makes plans to kill Cersei, while Sansa will make arrangements with LF to get an even bigger claim, Sansa marrying YG (just speculation but I think either Sansa will go there with Arya or both go to WF). Personally I think Sansa will go south to Griff.
Jon C/ Arianne: One chapter where Jon thinks back of the battle and the casualties, I think Duck will die and that will be hard on YG, the arrogant joyful boy will turn into a serious guy with his first lesson in life. At the end of the chapter they will meet Arianne in Storms End with maybe a shocking revelation. The second chapter will be through the eyes of Arianne where she will meet with Aegon and bond and where the battle with Mace is being shown through Arianne's eyes. The third will be again through the eyes of Jon C, it's about working together with Mace to take KL and free Margery, YG will tell he has faith and Septa Lemore can convince to let Margery go. The fourth is a chapter of Arianne telling her father what is happening and that they will march on KL. The fifth is the crowning of YG and how he will be received in KL. The last the sixth is a chapter where Jon C is at the sorrows thinking back about Arianne and YG marrying. telling about his Greyscale and ends with him standing at the Sorrows. End story of this in winds.
Cersei: Cersei will have a chapter with her preparation of her trial and hearing about storms End, the death of Kevan and Pycelle by the hands of Tyrion (We know it was Varys), she also meet the dornish who went to KL. Her second is her trial which ends with the death of her children by Tyene. But Cersei will survive. The third will be the battle of KL where she will flee or die by the hands of the Volanqar (maybe 1 or 2 chapters in between). Her last will be her death. She will be death at the end of Winds. (except if she will be taken prisoner by Aegon, and maybe in dreams he will give Cersei to Tyrion and Dany to make ally with her. And Tyrion is the Volanqar)
Jaime: Meeting with LSH, getting free how? Is he the Volanqar and will kill Cersei to free Brienne? His story will end either with the death of Cersei or how some others think, he will take the black and he will be the eyes and ears the moment Jon is stabbed in the north. Maybe one or 2 Jaime chapters were skipped from Dance to winds. We knew he will fight the WW so maybe he is much sooner north than we think. I also think the bonding between Jaime and Brienne will be bigger in the books.
Jon: Getting back to life and going to Winterfell and make preparation for the WW invasion. It ends with the wall going down.
Bran: He got already lots of plot in just one chapter in Dance. I think we can expect around 3 or 4 chapters in winds where we will finally found out who the real enemy is but not how to defeat them.
Brienne: see Jaime.
Euron/ Sam: Sam will get 2 chapters before Euron attacks, the attack of Euron another one. Fleeing of Sam towards his parents home? My guess is more that he find out about the Daynes and Dawn and his fourth chapter will be in Starfall getting that sword. How his story will end I don't know. Maybe in KL maybe in WF. Euron himself will unleash something on Westeros, and he will get a dragon.
Tyrion/ Dany/ Barristan: Battle of Meereen. What to do with Tyrion and Jorah in Meereen. I think Dany has nothing to do with the retaking of Meereen. Dany herself will go as leader to Vaes Dothrak, she already sowed her strength by riding the biggest horse there is, Drogon. She takes the army to Meereen after the battle is won and finds it burned from the battle. around 2/3 of the books she will meet Tyrion. In the last third she and Tyrion makes plans to go to Westeros, executions maybe? And I expect that last third of the book will be about her leaving everything in place. I think she will have a scene before Valyria. Where everyone parts ways to forfill their own part. Dany will take care of Qarth with Drogon. Quentyn will take care of Pentos for Daenerys. Tyrion will take care of Volantis. End of this book for those stories.
Stannis will take winterfell in a clever way, but is made prisoner by the north for burning the weirwoodtree. When Jon and Mellisandre get to WF, Mellisandre cast Stannis aside and choose Jon. How that all comes together I don't know, but I think the book will end with the fighters against the WW will be all in WF here.
Dream of springs: First part is seeing all 3 Essos groups having a chapter dealing with their city. Tyrion and Dany meets in the fourth in Volantis. The fifth is in Pentos. In the mean time YG deals with the people of KL in just one chapter and a second he will meet Sansa. In the north the news about the wall fallen is revealed. This is just the set-up of 200 pages. Then we get part 2. The battle of WF (lost) and the dance of Dragons. Which end around 400 pages in. My believe is that Aegon and Dany will work things out when they both fight of Euron. Dany sees that she is not loved in KL and the burning was the fault of Euron. But Dany gets the blame. She also sees to break the wheel, the people need to choose their queen or king. Even if YG is fake, the people chose him and he is good for the people. She herself will turn north to the WW treat. 400/600 pages is about: YG dealing with choosing Sansa or Arianne. (Sansa will be the one). The north meets with Daenerys, Jon and she fall in love, The truth will be revealed about his past. 750 pages in. Then the defeat of the great other will come into play with Nissa Nissa, Dany is killed by Jon by getting stabbed by dawn. They go to the heart of winter. Where everything is resolved. 900 pages in. Then we get 100 pages where every character has his own kind of "epilogue" what to do next. Only the ones that live at that moment. Jon, Arya, Bran, Sansa, Tyrion, Davos, Brienne. (I expect the rest to die)
This is just roughly but it could be done. Look at SoS. It contained so much story in just one book. And we get 2 of those still.
Efi:
Agree but I think it's more about Sending them to the Wall. I think Jaime will take the black. And I think you're right about Brienne. But I also think Arya will get a assignment to kill Alayne Stone and thereby meeting Sansa. Or maybe LF wants to take care of somebody and Arya is send to the Vale. I think here Arya will make her choice: No One or her family. Will she kill Sansa or put herself in danger by disobeying the FLM. And maybe they will work something out: Alayne is death, Sansa Stark is back.
And for me good storytelling still remains: The human heart in conflict with it self.
I found that more interesting than: Battles, big fantasy enemies etc.
And also I like the magic to be unexplained, to be scary, afraid to touch it. The way Martin subscribe it.
Mr Derp says:
kevin1989: Good argument. 🙂
This is very well said, kevin. Lord pandabear is the biggest hypocrite on here. And, if you notice, he never can muster up a legit defense or explanation as to why he acts this way to people. He's the most disrespectful poster on here and quite frankly, I don't know why he doesn't get called out more often for his behavior.
Mr DerpQuote Reply
I voted for the knighting of Brienne.
I actually wanted to vote for the lighting of the swords, but as cool as that scene LOOKED, it was completely nonsensical.
Best Dramatic Scene: The climactic sequence of "The Long Night" – Theon and Jorah fall, and Arya kills the Night King. I've already expounded at length about how much I love this entire sequence, so I won't repeat that gushing here, but suffice it to say that this is a Top 3 moment of the entire show for me (the only moments currently ahead of it are Cersei's destruction of the Great Sept of Baelor and the double hammer of the Tower of Joy reveal and Jon being named King in the North).
All of these moments are outstanding, however, and I'd be happy to see any of them win. While this might seem strange coming from someone who genuinely loves Daenerys as a character, I'm particularly surprised and pleased that the scene where Jon kills her and Drogon destroys the Iron Throne made the final five (I think it fully deserves it on merit, but was worried that it would be too controversial, even among our relatively measured and positive community here). Crushingly sad and tragic as it was, I thought it was exceptionally well done, both with respect to the interpersonal dynamics between the two characters as as the climax of the show's entire political/War for the Iron Throne storyline. Furthermore, that moment still makes me tear up every time I watch it. If I could have cast a second vote in this category, it would have gone to that scene.
JaredQuote Reply
I agree with you, the "conflict" is the most interesting part in a book. If it's missing, I lose interest. As for battles, I'm a visual person myself. I like to see them rather than have them described, but I think that Martin does a good job describing battles and fights; he's very vivid and the rich vocabulary helps, even though in description sections I have lots of unknown words (I read ASoIaF in English).
[Although I have to admit that lately, because my work involves lots of serious reading anyway, I have taken my istance from serious literature. Anything that is more serious than the SPQR series and Asterix is more likely to be rejected if it comes my way, lol. I don't know how is it that I came to read ASoIaF; I read many of the classics when I was much younger]
Why do you think that LSH will send Jamie to the Wall? And why would Jamie listen to her? I don't think that Jamie will return to Cersei any time soon. I think that where he is, he's likely to head North too, but perhaps following Brienne and in search for Sansa after the murder of the Freys. I also think that sth will happen to drive Sansa away from the the Vale. If she escapes, and the people from the Vale start looking for her, I think LSH and Brienne will understand that she'll be heading North. The Twins are not too far away from the Vale, so the location is right. We'll see if the timing is right too.
In any case, Martin has said that it gets worse before it gets better for the characters. Of all the characters of ASoIaF, I think the only ones that have hit rock bottom are Jon, Tyrion and Daenerys, perhaps Cersei too with the walk of shame. I don't think that's the case yet for Jamie and Sansa. [and I really don't know where to put Arya in that scheme] I think Jamie will reach that point with the murder of the Freys. I have only an idea about what could happen to Sansa. We'll see.
Mr Derp,
The thing is, I think he can be a great guy to hang out with, he seems fun to talk to about shows he likes etc, but he needs to learn to respect others opinion (Even I had to learn that you didn't want to talk to me 2 years ago when I disagree with somebody, politics at home was not fun subject back then 😉 )
And I understand where he's coming from, and I tried to be open to his reviews etc because he liked it, and I enjoyed reading them, they had a nice reading vibe to it that was very enjoyable. I also tried to get to know him. I always respect his opinion and try to understand him. But last time when he put the blame on me for wanting to leave this site, I was a bit done with it. And again now he only get with the fallacy, with the rolling the eye comment. It's a bit done for me. It's a shame because I always liked his positiveness.
But look at us 2 (or others like Efi and Adriana with their debate above) we disagree but we do it with respect. And when I feel that I went to far I always man up and tell that I was wrong the way I acted, like I felt later that I was not very respectful to Young Dragon (I hope he didn't feel like I was disrespecting him of course).
Here ends my comment about this, and I rather not talk any further about it. We have a nice group here, talking respectful to each other when we disagree, we talk about the show, books, other stories than Westeros and I like it.
I don't like talking about it either, and I generally agree with you, but I think what LP is doing is a microcosm of the biggest problems with society today and it needs to be addressed. Some people just cannot seem to coexist with people they do not agree with and that's sad. Especially when it comes to something as unimportant as a fictional fantasy show. That's a problem to me, and imo, should be an issue to everyone.
That's all I have to say about that 🙂
Conflict is what made me read. I love Jaime's conflict of Cersei. Or Brienne learning to not be naive. Or Arianne being conflicted of her brother and wanting her father's love. Or Jon C about the past and his regrets. Or Arya about her identity, I don't care who she kill, I care how that made her feel and change. Or Jon with his conflict as leader. Or Daenerys the character I really hated to read the first time I read Dance, I started to like, the conflict of peace vs her ideals, how far will a human go to have peace? It's a bit about what they say in America, better dead than red. First I always though what a stupid bunch of people (and the people saying it I disagree with), but looking back at Daenerys story it make sense. Why put your ideals on the side and your freedom of that, for peace that comes with a price. Sorry to talk about it so much, I'm a talker (damn how much would Sandor hate me XD)
I agree I also like visuals, but when I really care about the characters, meaning that it has to be limited, lot's of character moments that build towards the big battle, or event (like RW). I still love Blackwater because of those character moments. And I get action-fatigue very fast. But what I like about Martin is that Martin makes a deliberate choice with battles, is it big then show it like Blackwater, the wall, Meereen. But is the battle itself not the important part but how the characters changed, or make a decision after that, he skips it and we see a short flashback of it, like taking of Meereen, or my guess is that he does the same with the taking of Storms End (especially when part 2 of that battle is coming).
I also read in English I don't like reading my native tongue when it comes to books, English is a better language for telling stories.
I think that's very logical, if you do that the whole day, you want something light. Same as the otherway, if work is light for the mind you go faster to difficult books. And maybe you have the same thing as me, I always switch between genres. Then something serious like Sopranos, Shield, Leftovers kind of show and than I want to watch something more like Supernatural something different and then I want to watch a comedy.
I think that Jaime's trial that he got in the show with Daenerys he will get from LSH. And I think he ask himself to go to the wall, and be punish for his sins. We already know from his vision chapter (that weirwoodstrump dream in SoS) that he will go north. It's maybe possible that Jaime will be the eyes and ears at the wall until Jon comes back to live. (I think Jon's last chapter was always meant to be to be Jon's last chapter. But I feel that Jaime still have 2 or 3 chapters to go in Dance in the original outline. It's possible that that would end with him going to the wall and Jaime will be the first POV at the Wall. It's of course speculation, but I would like that idea very much.)
I also like that LSH will drive Sansa from the Vale. But how will she know that Sansa is there? And the thing is when you die the think that was on your mind the last will be your way of life after. Beric goes on and on about Ned's assignment. LSH killing Freys and Lannisters. Jon will likely up his sense of duty to the realm and stopping the WW treat and saving his family. I wonder if LSH still have it in her to feel for her children, she was dead for 3 days. Compare that to Beric who was only dead for maybe 2 minutes. But I like the idea.
Personally I think the show will go with that Myranda will send a Faceless Man after Alayne (for either the death of Harry or for the marriage that is coming which also make sense why Sansa is absent in Dance), and that Faceless Man will be Arya. Arya will choose her sister over the FLM. And I think both will head south. Sansa will be the wedge between Aegon and Arianne (like Rheagar choosing a Stark over a Martel). Arya will go there to get Cersei of her list. (But find out Cersei is already death?). I wonder how LSH will fill into this. And I think the ending of the books will be
Aegon and Sansa rulling the seven kingdoms, with Sansa being Queen. I think this will be done by choosing like the show, Daenerys will put this choosing path into play until heading north herself. Bran will be King of Winter. I really believe his last chapter, Bran's body "died". The weirwood tree seed punctured his stomache, and he taste his own blood. He will become one with the tree, and I don't see how Bran can come back from that. I would really hate it if Bran would to warg into "the king", I just can't see how Bran's body could end on the throne, how he could survive the removal of the weirwood roots from his body without dying.
I also wonder what could happen to Sansa. But I hope that theory is not true about LF and her 😉
I enjoy character moments and action scenes equally. I know people normally have a preference, but I don't know why people have to choose. GOT has plenty of both. I agree about Dorne, it was just as bad as the book's version, but I don't hate it as much as other people. It also took up about 1% of the show, so not a lot of time was spent on it. Sansa in Winterfell was a lot better than her Vale arc, if you can call it that, and she was much more involved in the story. Littlefinger's plan was consistent with his previous behavior. Handing Sansa over to the Boltons was no more reckless than poisoning Jon Arryn. Ellaria was barely a character in season 4, so there was no character to ruin. Euron wasn't great, but at least D&D regulated him to a secondary antagonist rather than a primary, like Martin is trying to do in the books. Book Euron is far worse as a character.
Season 5 may be my least favorite season, but the writing was still the best television had to offer. There's a reason season 5 won Best Writing and Best Drama.
Quentyn is not alive. He's dead, until the books prove otherwise. Theories are not facts. There is no evidence that the Brave Companions are working for Dorne. That's another ridiculous theory that doesn't hold water. You did not list any plot developments in Brienne's arc. Her first kill is about her character. The Brave Companions, as noted, aren't important. Finding out the Hound is still alive does nothing for the story until he actually comes back to it. And how will the Brotherhood impact the story moving forward.
You're right, some characters also didn't advance the plot for several books. However, there were other characters in those very same books that did. The problem with Feast and Dance is they had no characters that advanced the plot very much.
I don't care what Martin says, after Quentyn, I have no reason to believe that any of the new additions will play a vital role in the story.
Yes, The Shield was character driven, but it still was comprised of much more than 10% of plot.
"Finding out the Hound is still alive does nothing for the story until he actually comes back to it."
As a pre-books, show-only fan who's generally familiar with the "gravedigger" passages in the books from reading comments here, I'm curious whether the books hint that the Hound will "actually come back to" the story – or if the Big Kahuna seemed content to let him live out his life in peace with the monks (?) on the Quiet Isle or whatever he was when the books left off.
I acknowledge that the show wasn't reluctant to kill off characters still alive on the books (e.g., Mance and Barristan), or simply gloss over characters some thought might reappear (eg Jaqen 2.0 and Kinvara). When the show brought back the Hound when it would've been easy to leave him presumed dead, and kept Beric "alive"'when I believe he gave up his last life in the books (for LSH?), I figured these characters wouldn't be just window dressing.
I guess I'm wondering if the showrunners got word from GRRM that he intends to bring Sandor back into the story, or whether the showrunners decided on their own to give him an expansive role based on the popularity of Rory McCann and show! Sandor. (Certainly, the conspicuous callbacks to the Hound during Arya's Game of Faces sessions with Jaqen in S5 and the Waif in early S6, and Arya's unresolved, conflicting emotions revealed in those sessions, made me fairly confident that he would be back (independent of Ian MacShane's pre-S6 interview that spoiled the surprise).
I get the impression that the show – especially in S4 – amplified Sandor's role compared with the books. Is that an accurate assessment?
In any case, if GRRM hinted that Sandor was alive, wouldn't that mean he's "got plans for Sandor Clegane" and he's "not done with him yet"? Or were Sandor's S6e7 – S8e5 story lines cooked up exclusively by the showrunners, e.g., to tie into the Brotherhood and to flesh out Arya's story, or simply because he was a fan favorite?
I ask because I'm still waiting to start the books until George releases TWOW, and I doubt George or the showrunners will reveal the books' intended fate of the Hound until then.
Any thoughts from any book readers out there?
Tensor the Mage, Who Always Loves A Satisfying Soluiton To A Good Math Problem says:
Every point you made about R+L=J was already answered in the show.
On Jon's bastard status, and not seeing Sansa and Arya's reactions to the R+L=J reveal: Sansa had already sewn Jon a Stark sigil, and assigned him to their parents' bedroom at Winterfell. Arya had long made it clear he was always a Stark to her. Jon had learned the hard way — when his own men killed him! — that wanting something really really really hard for a very, very long time doesn't make actually having it a good idea.
R+L=J wasn't just a large payoff; it was one of the foundation-stones of the entire story. It was Martin's way of ensuring his two main protagonists could never have a fairy-tale ending, e.g. riding off into the sunset together on their dragons. It ensured their conflict and Dany's downfall. Jon Snow's final conflict was always going to be love vs. duty, and setting him up to kill Dany was the proper climax for his arc. (Hers was the very last violent death in a series marked by them, and that was thematically appropriate as well.)
Yes, R+L=J was the first and largest of the hammer-blows to Dany's psyche, but it wasn't merely (!) that. Her entire character was based on her belief she had the best claim to the Iron Throne, and R+L=J toppled that pillar of her self. Revealingly, her response to R+L=J was not to hail Jon as her one true king, but to demand he censor the truth from his own family — the most personal and familial truth he could ever possibly have, for reasons you gave — just so she could keep pretending her own claim wasn't inferior to his. By demanding from him the absolute obedience her own logic now said she should give to him, she revealed herself to be not the just ruler she wanted to be, but a power-hungry tyrant.
Tensor the Mage, Who Always Loves A Satisfying Soluiton To A Good Math ProblemQuote Reply
Mango says:
Just a fly by post – I have been enjoying the posts (well, nearly all!) from this thread on dramatic scene and from the previous thread on favorite scene. Many interesting contributions, thank you for my reading pleasure.
I do not usually vote but if I had to – I would vote for Brienne's knighting for favorite. And for dramatic, when NCW saw Bran. Both scenes has excellent acting – voice in one and facial in another. In one of the tributes to acting on an award show (Emmy?) they used the knighting scene as the voice-over as they spoke about acting excellence.
MangoQuote Reply
The first time I read Feast, I completely missed that the gravedigger was supposed to be The Hound lol (I didn't re-read the first three books before reading Feast, so I was a bit fuzzy on the details).
Reading the books, I don't think it's actually hinted that the Hound will have a role to play in the future – merely that he is alive and that he's found peace in a religious comunity. The assumption that he will come back comes from fans wanting him to come back, as well as the obvious notion that if a character is not dead, it will be important somehow.
(Season 4 expanded the role of the Hound notably, but Seasons 1 and 2 reduced it).
I liked the Hound in S8 and how he helped Arya, so that alone justifies his presence in the previous two seasons, in my opinion.
However, I do have a problem with how the books keep bringing "dead" characters back to life. It's a cheap plot-device, and Martin uses it a lot (which undermines the "anyone can be killed" idea).
The idea that Quentyn is not dead is not ridiculous just because we've seen many other characters who were supposedly dead come back alive.
However, I have a hard time thinking how every character who is still alive (and, according to Martin, will be very important in the future) can have a role to play with just two more books.
"And maybe you have the same thing as me, I always switch between genres. Then something serious like Sopranos, Shield, Leftovers kind of show and than I want to watch something more like Supernatural something different and then I want to watch a comedy."
Exactly! Switching when watching TV shows only, because generally I do not read outside work. When it's time to either read or watch sth, it has to be sth light, funny, even dumb. I was a huge fan of Supernatural (so much for high scientific standards!). I also love Peaky Blinders and I liked Shield, but they're both very complicated. Nowadays it seems that I'm turning into a fan of The 100. But the more I watch the more complicated it gets too.
I like the idea of Jamie's trial. I think too that LSH will give him some hard time.
But LSH must remember something more than her last moment, because she refrained from killing Brienne when she told her about Jamie and about searching the girls, didn't she? (I don't remember very well, I haven't got to re-reading Brienne's chapters yet) So she might actually come to remember that LF is from the Vale. Only thus would she be able to direct them there to find Sansa.
As for Jon, I think it's already established in the books that he's a very powerful warg, much more than Varamir. He'll be able to resist the loss of his humanity, but I think he'll be resurrected much more beastly, all his senses sharpened like Ghost's. But he'll be much more focused, like you say, on the war and his family.
But, anyway, in my opinion Sansa has to escape alone, and I think she will. I hope nothing truly bad happens to her, but lately I think that her PoVs are very tricky because she has this mismemory thing, wiping out of her memory trauma, or turning it into something else. I don't know how Martin intends to use it, but he has gone at lengths to prove that she has it in her PoVs, which means that he set up the stage with something little for doing something else with her, bigger, much more important, so that the reader goes "oh, I see, I understand now". Considering that the "unkiss" relates to her private life, I think her mismemory issues revolve around that, and not, for example, her aunt's death or Marillion's execution or even her father's execution. I think something else has also happened to her, which she doesn't remember, or sth will happen to her (in the Vale) that she will forget. If it's the first option, whatever happens in the Vale perhaps will make her remember and causes her to escape; if it's the second, though, I have no idea how it'll go. In any case I think after her released WoW chapter she will become a lot darker too. As you said, her released chapter is a nice chapter, it begins promisingly, but imo it ends in a dark place.
The ending. I don't think it'll be much different than the show. Martin always intended to make Bran king. Imo whether he's South or North depends a lot on the Wall. If it has to be rebuilt, wouldn't he have to be North? I don't know. But I think, as per the opening scene of ASoIaF, the one with the execution of the deserter, both Bran and Jon will be kings, which means two kingdoms, not three. (even the show made sure that Jon and Bran are in the same frame when Ned says "in the name of the king"). And this is also foreshadowed in Melisandre's PoV in Dance. She asks Rh'llor to show her the king, and he shows her two things (among others, Hardhome, the blind men): Jon Snow and Brandon; she also wants to find the girl in grey, and she thinks about her, but the way I see it, I don't think that the girl in grey shall be a queen in her own right like the show because she's not exactly part of this particular vision, she's a forced thought because of her importance.
It's a good ending, I like that ending to tell you the truth. I've said before that I don't see Jon as king in the North without Sansa (because he can have no claim on it as a Targaryen). If he ends up in the South, he may as well be alone. But since there must always be a Stark in WF, which means that at the end of the book there will have to be the suspicion that the next generation of Starks is coming, whoever ends up in the North will have to be able to procreate. And I don't see how Bran can fulfil this role, so yeah, I do see him as king of the six kingdoms.
[and I wasn't all that displeased with Bran ending up ruling everything because it's part of the scheme "the Starks rule it all", but all the rest in the show ending was a big incoherent blur]
I enjoy action scenes also but only when I really care about the characters. And I care about the characters if there is enough character moments. Else I don't care.
For me Dorne in the show is just boring and one of the worst things I have ever seen on screen the last decade. It's right out of a 90s movie like Charlies Angels, only Alleria is charlie, and the sandsnakes are the angels.
As for the books, I think Dorne is really underappreciated by some, Feast won many awards because of Dorne plot and the II plot and many more that people tend to dislike (SoS never won a important book award, that one went to Harry Potter that year, which Martin saw as an insult to his fans). Dornish plot is more interesting than people tend to see, it already started way in book 1 if people tend to look at the books. (Whole Elia got killed started there and Oberyn and Doran were named and more), book 2 even got another puzzle in that storyline, book 3 also. It's a much bigger story than we would think it is, yes we only saw the introduction of the storyline, and in winds and dream in will come to full fruition. Does that really matter? No, many stories take many books to show us all, Walder Frey only got his introduction in book 1, got skipped in 2. Got important again in 3 with a big twist. Same as for Robb, he didn't have a big plot in second book. or the third or even the fist, but combined all 3 he had a story. We didn't complain in CoK that Robb didn't take Casterly Rock when it was already talked about in GoT. Or that Arya didn't got back to Winterfell at the end of CoK when her story started in that book with: Arya is going home. Or Jon meeting Mance Rayder or the others in Clash even when GoT ended in a big cliffhanger that he will finally will meet them, we didn't complain we waited, we understood that it was only a small part of the bigger storyline. Book 3 gave us the answers. We waited 3 books for both storylines (Mance was also introduced in book 1). But with Dorne everything needed to be shown in Feast. That's not how this story is told since book 1, back then we didn't complain, no we do.
As for Sansa Winterfell better than the vale story I disagree fully, Winterfell story was about her once again being the rape-victim, being the downtrodden, being the secondary character to Ramsay and Theon, they forget about her big cliffhanger at the end of season 4 where we see a stronger Sansa who take control into her own hands. That powerful scene was there for nothing, season 5 showed no connection to the season 4 storyline of Sansa.
As for the Vale story in the books, here they do build Sansa further instead of tearing her down. She starts to take control into her own hands, controlling Harry, controlling Robin. She starts to become confident. And at the end of winds 1 chapter she takes control of her own plan, we just don't know what it is. What does Sansa not see yet fully who LF and of course Myranda, I think winds will show us that she will see through that, and she really becomes aware who LF is and out-smart him (instead of like the show that she still didn't understood who LF was but she was the smart one right? Except that Arya was the only one who saw it). Only thing is that she probably won't learn about Myranda until Arya is there to end the life of Alyne Stone.
I still don't understand why people tend to prefer the show version instead of the books, that people tend to prefer a rape-storyline for Sansa where she is once again the victim, instead of a character who becomes smarter and smarter and playing the game better than anyone like the books. But for everyone there preferences, personally I dislike rape to be a plotdevice to make a character "smarter" etc. I rather see them playing the game themselves.
LF plan was not consistent with his previous behavior. LF always knew every ins and outs of somebody before even working with them, else he can't turn everything to his own benefits, and things can bite him in the ass (like it did with Ramsay storyline). LF would always know who he is dealing with, with his many and many spies, LF would know who Ramsay was. poisoning Jon Arryn was much less reckless than handing Sansa over to the Boltons. He manipulated Lysa for years and years, he knew who Lysa was. He knew how to start the feud between Lannister and Stark, he took that initiative because he knew all the outcomes that could have happen, and he would have had all the options in his head what could go wrong and what to do when it goes wrong., the chance to succeed was very high here, and if it went wrong he just could state that Lysa was mental ill, that she speaks non-sense, no one would think LF would have had an hand in it, who would believe a deranged woman? With handing Sansa over it could only end wrong, If ramsay was a good guy he could help Sansa take back the north and undo his father and restore the north. If he is not a good guy, it could undo his influence over Sansa, which he needs more than the help of Roose, why does LF need Roose? And why would he even trust him to hand LF the north? And don't forget he traveled with Sansa to the North, there was a big chance that a bird of Qyburn would have landed in KL that LF traveled to the north, hell Cersei should have known, why else send a letter to Winterfell to talk with LF. Then what he did was entering the Lion's Den, fully know that Cersei could know everything by now, especially when Brienne escaped him who could go back to Jaime stating that LF have Sansa. Somehow he forget about Brienne having a bond with Jaime at that moment. Brienne could easily have given a letter to Jaime about Sansa being with LF. No what LF did in the show is not smart at all and not the LF of the previous seasons. As for the books it makes more sense, he gives Cersei a present to control the North, which Cersei takes, he even told Cersei the truth, this is Jeyne not Arya, he played Cersei there. And he played the Bolton's there.
Ellaria not a character in season 4? I think you should rewatch that season again. Her personality jumps off the screen even with her first scene. We see who Ellaria is as a person. Compare that to Ellaria in season 4, the character changed 180 degrees, even the actress admitted that she needed to play Ellaria completely different.
Oh Euron is much greater in the books than you let on. There's a reason why he is one of the favorites in the books and the character that book readers looked forward to in the show. And sorry I can't really take your book Euron is worse argument serious. Book Euron is very important for the character, connected to the faith, to many POVs, to the lore of the books (and elements like the WW dragons etc), he is a core character that if removed the story falls short, he made Victarion and Damphair who they are, he is connected to bloodraven and more. While in the show he is just a fool with one liners that don't stick and if removed he wouldn't have been missed. Even Pilou admitted he rather had the book counterpart to act. Even the actor playing show Euron admitted that book euron was a better character.
Oh I agree with that, season 5 even when I disagree with a lot, and it had it's problems I still like it. As stated I think GoT is one of the best. But I compare GoT to, what GoT could have been and what we got.
Oh my sweet summer child, wait till the books are out and you see the character Martin refer to: The character that people believe is death, is really alive and coming back in a twist. Quentyn being dead falls very short when thinking, it doesn't make sense. To start for, not a single one who is killed by dragon fire lived more than 5 seconds. The body who died lived for 3 days. That should be evidence enough. Or that the dragons escaped the labyrinth, (same as the Archibald and drinkwater) and the only one knew the path of the ones entering the pit was Quentyn. If Quentyn is dead, Archibald etc would be death and rotting in the pit. And tattered prince is dornish is stated in winds of winter. Look up how tattered prince looked by the artist that Martin has a contact with. (white).
Brave Companion working for Dorne hold very much water:
– Oberyn was the one who founded the Brave Companion.
– The brave companion are heavily in the faith of the seven. But lately they burn septs down which force the High Sparrow to take action to march to KL to ask the faith to be rearmed.
– At the end when the Brave Companion when they stop making havoc in westeros, where do they go? Right back to Dorne. What's their business in Dorne if not going back to their master?
– Qyburn was a member of the Brave Companion. hey but isn't he working for Cersei now? And doesn't he provided a skull for Gregor, but later Gregor seems to be alive, showing that Cersei lied? And doesn't Kevan state that Qyburn is a sycophant?
– Brave companion is told by Martin that they are important in Winds. So no your argument is invalid. Even martin stated the Brave Companion is very important.
– Do I think that the Brave Companion will go that route? I don't know, but the facts lay in the books (which I read already 5 times both feast and dance), is showing that they are more important than you think and that it's connected to Dorne.
Brienne's arc has LSH. And more is not needed. You refer to book 1 till 3 having major plot-advanced by many characters. But most had just one big plot-point. Daenerys book 2 had only HoTU and book 3 only plotpoint, taking slaver's bay. Tyrion's only plot in book 3 was his trial rest was character development. Bran in book 2 was, theon taking the castle, supposedly death and leaving winterfell. Plot was never that big in the first book per character.
Finding out about the hound still alive does indeed nothing for the story yet. But it was important to show that moment for later on. When he does come back in winds. That scene with brienne was important for what we will see there. Like for instance Cat/Walder frey chapter in got was then: Why the hell was this even in it, it does not serve any plot-relevance. Wait till book 3 and the relevance became known. Or Jon's parentage. I mean it must suck for you that they didn't reveal his parentage in the first book, it was not plot in book 1 because it was not revealed. but wasn't it important for the story that Jon's parentage was talked about in book 1? Even when we only will find out in book 7 about his parentage?
Yes but every book of GoT doesn't advance the plot that much per book. It was always about characters. The plot moved because the characters moved. But in book 2 we had 8/10 POVS. In feast and Dance almost double. Meaning that you get a bit more character moments until we arrive at that climax point of those stories.
Even the writers of the Shield tell that they write the story through the characters not the plot. The plot of season 1 can easily be told in just a couple of sentences. It's not that difficult with the plot, every that made the shield great was because of the characters. How Vic battled between his family and him being corrupt and wanting money. How far he will go to safe his own ass. Every episode of an hour had maybe 50 minutes of character moments and 10 (max) plot. The shield falls into the category character driven storytelling.
https://nybookeditors.com/2017/02/character-driven-vs-plot-driven-best/
Nice read about what both means.
So in the documentary on the DVD, it sounds like Bran will be the final king, which seems like the king of the 7K:
Around season 3, we went to visit George R. R. Martin and he writes and kind of figures things out as he's writing. When we went to visit him back then and this was while he was still writing book 5, he didn't know, yet, where the story was going. And he knew a few key things and one of those key things was that the final king at the end of the story would be Bran.
Book 5 was published in July 2011, it sounds like GRRM revealed this info to them before that time. In the commentary for 806, they also said that they decided the fall-out between Jon and Dany while they were prepping for season 3 (which I think, because it's prepping for the filming of the season, would happen in 2011/12). Both the Bran is the Final King detail and Jon/Dany details were before their meetings with GRRM in which he gave them all the broad details occurred in 2013.
However, GRRM might have had these plans for J/D since the beginning too as Alan Taylor said GRRM revealed things to them about J/D while they were filming season 1, which may have been around 2009/10, including this:
I can't say much more about what [Martin] said about where we're going with Dany and Jon because that leaps ahead into [season 8].
So it could have come from that…?
Efi: And this is also foreshadowed in Melisandre's PoV in Dance. She asks Rh'llor to show her the king, and he shows her two things (among others, Hardhome, the blind men): Jon Snow and Brandon
Wasn't that about Azor Ahai and the Great Other?
Yet now she could not even seem to find her king. I pray for a glimpse of Azor Ahai, and R'hllor shows me only Snow.
The dark recedes again… for a little while. But beyond the Wall, the enemy grows stronger, and should he win the dawn will never come again. She wondered if it had been his face that she had seen, staring out at her from the flames. No. Surely not. His visage would be more frightening than that, cold and black and too terrible for any man to gaze upon and live. The wooden man she had glimpsed, though, and the boy with the wolf's face… they were his servants, surely… his champions, as Stannis was hers.
First part, that's why I found Feast and Dance so brilliant, the more you read it the more you see the puzzles falling together.
The second: He have use that since book 2, Bran is not death, Davos is not death. And he uses a lot. But one thing he made clear is, do we think a character is dead because of a burned body, it's always a body of somebody else. And the thing with Quentyn being alive is only a problem because the battle of Meereen was pushed to winds. If we would have seen Quentyn back alive just a couple of pages later, or maybe just one chapter later it's very much into how George writes his books since the beginning.
But the characters I would hate too be alive in the end is Lyanna and Rheagar, there are many theories that suggest they are alive. Some even suggest that Rheagar = Illyrio. Personally I hope those aren't true.
About Arya hound in season 8, I loved those scenes too.
Supernatural last season has arrived. It will end in May. I didn't watch the new episodes yet but the last season cliff was amazing and I'm looking forward to the last season.
I will look into it when rereading next time. With feast and Dance I will read per character (when not in the same place like Jaime and Cersei I need to read both in the beginning but after that I will first read Cersei's whole story then Jaime's). This because that maybe show me something I would miss when reading from storyline to the next.
But wasn't LF from the riverlands, (and his grand-grandfather from Braavos, I'm still freaked out over that mysterious way George wrote that chapter where Sansa sees his great grand grand father's shield). Or do you mean that she will find out that LF rules the Vale? It's possible when she hears that Petyr has a child that she will make a connection.
That's something I would like for Jon. (as long as he don't turn into werewolf XD)
I also wonder about her memories. Does Sansa do this to herself, or does Petyr brainwash her somehow? Or maybe Bran messing with her? But what if it's something else, what if Martin shows with Sansa that people tend to remember things different when growing up, I mean I do that, if I talk with people about the past, something we all remember things different. And what if it's only a set-up for some other character. Like Daenerys. I mean she has memories about her past before her first chapter start, but those seems also very strange and not making any sense at all. What if it's a set-up to show the fans that people's memories change and that Daenerys past is a lie.
As long as they don't go with that unkiss really happened.
But personally I hope she will become darker instead of her being the downtrodden. And to think about it, I'm pretty much settled in that Arya will go west for a mission of the FLM and that she meet Sansa there. But what if Sansa is the one who ordered the FLM? And yes a dark place, but not dark because Sansa turned Dark. She manipulate Harry, goes against LF plan and with her own, she also has Robin in her corner. I wonder if Sansa has some hidden plan that we just don't know yet. I would rather much like that.
It seems we still need to wait a long time.
But what is King. But the only thing I wonder is
Bran ate that weirwood seed, he tasted blood in his mouth. It looks like this was the weirwood root puncturing his stomache. We saw with bloodraven that the trees grow through his body, why else would Bran need to eat a paste of weirwood seeds. But if his body is punctured with weirwood trees, how can he become King of the 7K. I can understand him becoming King of Winter. But how will his body survive when he is taken from the weirwood net. Will his body somehow heal. Will he warg out of his body into the one that will become King and take over that body. I personally cannot see how he can become King of the 7K in just 2 books. I expect him not to leave the cave (if he can live when taken from the weirwood net) before almost at the end of Winds. I think there's a reason why Bran is not that much in Dance. I see all the signs for him to become King of Winter but zero for king of the seven kingdoms. I wish Winds was out so at least we could have a clearer view of what to expect in the end of the books.
Well, it does sound — from D&D's comments and this coming re:Bran's election at the Dragonpit — that he will be king of the 7K (ie. what else could the final king be? That doesn't really sound like Bran is king of one region alone). It's also the only character ending D&D confirmed that came from GRRM (they don't confirm Tyrion as hand, dead Dany, exiled Jon, explorer Arya, Cersei and Jaime dying together). Other than Shireen, Hodor, and what Alan Taylor shared of his conversation with GRRM re: Jon and Dany, Bran as "the final king at the end of the story" is the only ending they confirmed as having come from D&D. But I do think (with perhaps the exception of Tyrion…? I don't know), their endings will be broadly the same.
Have branches started growing out of Bran already? I think Bran eating the wierwood paste was to induce those greenseeing dreams.
Anyway, I don't know how King Bran will come to fruition, just that it came from GRRM so I think it's going to happen. I never would have thought Bran would be king before — until these comments. I want to believe otherwise, I don't want a dead Dany or exiled Jon (although, I'm okay with Jaime and Cersei dying together and Arya as voyaging lands unknown) but… I don't think this is something that D&D would come up with alone.
I do like your scenarios — but I also think there's something to the idea of progressing past blood succession into a gradual change with how rulers are selected if Bran is a chosen king.
Here, Adam Feldman (of the Meereenese Blog) explains how the story might have been setting up King Bran all along:
https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/bqwy1a/spoilers_extended_how_brans_chapter_sets_up_a_far/
It's not the ending I love or even like but I think it's the ending we're getting, brought on in a probably different way.
But the frustrating thing is — what if we never find out and we're debating endlessly?
True, but I think GRRM only told: Sansa will be queen and Bran will be king. But not dive into of what. I think there's a reason why GRRM tell the ending is the same, yes but no but yes but no but yes but no. I think Bran will be King, Sansa Queen (But they are changed in the book. Bran King of Winter, still means he will be King but not of the kingdoms), and I expect Sansa to be queen of the seven Kingdoms. Also I think Arya going West will be into it, but I think the way will be different. I think she must to escape the FLM who are after her. With Jon I think he will be back at the wall because the WW are not fully defeated, they never can be (or at least the Great Other can't be), so the wall remains to prepare for the next invasion 8000 years later. I think Dany will be killed by Jon for Nissa Nissa, her being death the same but yes but no into play, how it's filled in is different. And I think Tyrion will be hand of the King
I really believe that it's Aegon with Sansa in the end, the more I read the books the more I think that's the ending, I think that the scene of the HotU is really one of the last chapters of the books in dreams and not in winds. And Sansa will be the queen. And it makes sense for Tyrion that he could become hand of Aegon in the end.
But even Isaac is not certain he told in that last interview that it's possible George will not go with Bran becoming King of the seven Kingdoms.
As for the weirwood paste, it's of course just how I interpreter it, and it seems online that many saw it that way. That Bran have become part of the tree in that chapter. It also make more sense why he could see through Winterfell hearttree. He have been connected to the weirnet and his heart (heart tree) makes sure he sees through the Winterfell tree. I think you can see greendreams etc when making contact with a tree, but I don't think you can "watch" through the eyes of the tree unless your part of the weirwood net. And that's what Bran did. He watch through the eyes of the weirwood tree in Winterfell, so he must be connected to the tree already. But I need to reread those chapters to be certain. But I don't believe that the children are there to help man kind who slaughter them to almost non-existing, like Bran said: Men would be wroth, so would the children.
Why I also inclined to think of that in the end it's in fact Aegon with Sansa who sit's on the throne is the following: The war of 5 roses is the basis of the story. And Aegon (YG) = basically Henry the VII Tudor (A late entrance to the fight of the throne and won) and Sansa could be Elizabeth of York (One of the 2 big houses who were at war at the beginning of the war of the Roses). This married contained the peace that was needed.
And this theory:
https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/116126-5-reasons-why-i-think-a-sansaaegon-match-is-coming/
And lets hope we will get an ending.
I don't know, Kevin. I agree with most of your speculations for the characters' ends except for Bran and Sansa just because D&D said word-for-word that Bran being the final king came from GRRM and the final king sounds like king of the 7K. As for Sansa, we don't really have any confirmation on what GRRM intends to do with her ending. Personally, I think her destiny is the North and Winterfell, I think she will be in a high leadership position, but I'm not sure in what capacity.
Can you link me? 🙂 I've seen this:
HBO: So, the biggest question on our minds: What was your reaction when you found out Bran would become king?
Isaac Hempstead Wright: I had to physically get up and walk around my flat. I said, "What?! You're joking." It was the very last thing I expected to happen. I was convinced they had sent a script to everyone in which they become king or queen, so I still didn't believe it until the read-through.
But I think he is a great character to take on that role. You never thought of him in that way, but what more could you ask for in a king than to have no personal attachments, no agenda, but have a calm understanding of the entire universe? He's the ideal person to be in charge.
[Creators] David [Benioff] and Dan [Weiss] told me there were two things [author] George R.R. Martin had planned for Bran, and that was the Hodor revelation, and that he would be king. So that's pretty special to be directly involved in something that is part of George's vision. It was a really nice way to wrap it up.
But I don't remember another interview with him saying it's possible GRRM would not go with Bran as king. Is there another interview?
Yes that interview, Isaac state he would be king. Not king of the six kingdoms. And that's what D&D tell everyone that George told them, that bran would be king, and Sansa would be queen. But they are not confident enough to tell that George told them Bran would be King of the six kingdoms, and Sansa will be queen in the north. And george keeps on telling yes and no yes and no. So yes I believe every word D&D tell and that Bran will be King and Sansa will be queen. But I also believe there's a reason why they only keep it with the words: King & Queen. And not the full titles Queen in the north and King of the six Kingdoms. I wonder why they are not confident in stating that. Or why George keeps avoiding the question about if Bran will be king of the sixth kingdoms in the end.
For me storywise it's also a problem, where Sansa is now and Bran. They both still have a huge storyline to go in winds, (else why skip them that much in Dance and Feast. She can't just go north before the Vale storyline has a ending and every treat hanging there is resolved. Myranda, LF. And of course the north needs to be cleared. Another problem is, WF will be crowded enough when the Bolton's are defeated: Jon, Stannis, Rickon, Queen Jeyne is coming to Winterfell, Manderly and many more who have a huge role in the build up of the WW, so what will Sansa do there? Somebody who the north doesn't trust because she married Tyrion. But she could have a huge role in the defeat of Cersei, which also make storywise much more sense. Her whole feud with Cersei.
As for Bran it's the opposite he needs to leave the Cave which I suspect will not be very fast in winds but not until the end the earliest and maybe he will leave in Dreams. And he need to be south in KL before the fight against the dawn is happening. (It's likely that the war of the throne is first and when that is resolved the war of the dawn that's the only way how Dany's story could make sense). And if the DoD happen first before the War of Dawn, that means the new King will be chosen before the battle against the WW. Meaning that it doesn't make sense storywise to be Bran.
The thing that suggest this also that the choosing of the King of Westeros will become before the War against the death is George's words, he is very interesting to know what the new king will have with his tax policies etc. The choosing of the king in the books will not be the ending, it will be long before and we will see the policies of the new king instated in the books, which I expect we will see at the same time The war against the death is busy. And if George decided to crown the king in the first 300 pages of Dream, we have enough time to see all those policies at work.
I think if George really goes with Sansa being queen in the North, and Bran being King of the seven kingdoms that George needs another 3 books after winds is done. But I think doing the most straightforward where the characters are in place right now, I think he could put Aegon and Sansa on the trone begin dream and the same as for King of Winter Bran, he could even be crowned in Winds of Winter.
And don't forget why should they follow the king Queen. Especially Bran. Why would Westeros follow a northerner? Because he is 3ER? He doesn't have a single political connection to a single southerner. If Sansa will marry Aegon and sit on the throne, they do have the Reach, Dorne, the Vale, I can see that the riverlands would also follow (also when Bran will be crowned), and Tyrion could make sure CR will follow Aegon and Sansa.
Of course it still could be Sansa queen in the North and Bran King of the seven Kingdoms but for me the more I read the books again the least likely I found that outcome.
And I like the Ashford Theory. And the connection with Henry Tudor the VII
I will still love it if Bran will be king of the 6K in the books of course, it's all how George writes it that matters to me.
LF is from the Fingers; Drearfort is located in the smaller Finger. The Fingers belong to the Vale. His father (I think) was a friend of Hoster Tully, and that's why Petyr grew up hosted in the Riverlands. That is also why he took over the taxes (?) of Gulltown, which is a port of the Vale.
The Baelish sigil is the Titan of Braavos. Sansa describes it well, because, remember, titan=giant. She's destined to "slay a giant", but it's so weird: connecting the giant of the prophecy with LF is very easy, because he's mocked as Little-finger and because his family sigil is the Titan, and admittedly he's the "titan of westerosi politics".
That's why I suspect that the giant-slayer prophecy may also refer to Tyrion. But which of the two, well, it's hard to say.
You couldn't explain it better!
Yes, I think too that what they've said is not final, but on the other hand I think, why would D&D care to assure the audience that Bran is "king of the 6Ks", and Sansa is "queen in the North"? King and queen would just do it for them and the specification could be easily left out as self-evident.
Also, your other observation is very right to the point: Martin hasn't disclosed anything about Jon and Sansa, or Bran for that matter, hence the "yes and no" reply. They are endgame, but where they shall be is up to him alone -and I believe that D&D did him a service by swapping persons and positions, if they did, which I tend to believe they did because they needed to accomodate them in the context of Daenerys' murder and her being the protagonist of seasons 7 and 8. If this estimation is anywhere close to being correct, then it means that the ending of ASoIaF will be quite different (but I do believe that Bran will be king somewhere).
[I don't think that YG will survive the ending though; considering that the principle is "the Starks rule it all" there is no room for him, and narratively-wise to have two Targs alive instead of one would be beyond the targets of the book; Martin is not planning a restoration of the Targ dynasty in any way, their story in ASoIaF and before that is the story of their downfall and serves as an example for what happens when politics is ran with the sword of Damocles -dragons aka nuclear power- hanging above their heads].
On the good side, in a recent interview Martin said that he's working on WoW, to be followed up by ADoS and Dung and Egg (in that order). As I understand Fire and Blood II is somewhere in there.
So, spirits up! Perhaps we'll read how it all ends after all.
Yes that interview, Isaac state he would be king. Not king of the six kingdoms. And that's what D&D tell everyone that George told them, that bran would be king, and Sansa would be queen. But they are not confident enough to tell that George told them Bran would be King of the six kingdoms, and Sansa will be queen in the north.
Well… D&D didn't say anything about Sansa being queen coming from GRRM so we can't really be sure of that, I don't think. They only say GRRM knew Bran would be "the final king" which sounds like more than King in the North to me.
They don't say anything about dead Dany, exiled Jon, duo deaths for Cersei and Jaime, Arya the voyager, Queen Sansa coming from GRRM. We don't know what D&D know, only what they and associates on the show have said that comes from GRRM.
They've also said, other than what they have disclosed, they won't reveal the parts which will differ from what GRRM has planned in the books. So it's not a question about confidence, it's about not wanting to spoil all of GRRM's books (per this interview here).
Or why George keeps avoiding the question about if Bran will be king of the sixth kingdoms in the end.
GRRM won't confirm anything about anything. He won't even confirm whether or not Jon's dead 😉
But he has never confirmed or denied stuff from the latter seasons of the show — all we know is what comes from verified sources behind the show who have worked with GRRM. Now, if any of these people spoke out of turn, I'm pretty certain GRRM would pipe up because if they weren't speaking truly, they're misrepresenting his views.
All of your questions may be answered by the set-up in the books because I think different circumstances are going to lead to the same thing.
I don't know how it's going to come together but if it's coming from GRRM, I think it's going to happen.
There's a not-so-small part of me that wants to believe Jon, Dany, and Bran's endings are all different, Jaime's too, hoping to hold on to that bit of hope that maybe they did make some of that up? It's like Mulder's UFO poster: "I Want to Believe" — different endings for Jon, Dany, Bran, and Jaime are my UFO XD;;; But my gut's telling me no, they're probably the same, the path may differ somewhat.
Kevin: You're such a prolific writer, and it's apparent you've mapped out all kinds of different possible scenarios and conceivable storylines for all of the characters.
I think you ought to take a crack at completing ASOIAF.
You can send Young Griff on all kinds of adventures; I know you like YG/fAegon.
All I ask is that you give the Hound a satisfying "character arc" and that Arya survives and lives happily ever after. Oh… and a more credible entrapment and execution of Littlefinger than on the show. Maybe have him poked full of holes and exsanguinated a la S5e10 Meryn F*cking Trant, reanimated as a wight, bisected by that Sandor, and then roasted to a crisp by dragonfire. (What can I say? He got off way too easy on the show. "All over in an instant. Where's the punishment in that?")
The Big Kahuna has had — how many years? Going on 9 years and counting since the release of "A Dance with Dragons," to finish "The Winds of Winter."
If the chronology below is accurate, it's been 28 years since George began constructing his fictional world. After a quarter century. I honestly can't blame him if it's all become stale and he just can't get his heart and his head back into it.
Perhaps it's time to pass the baton to someone else for the final sprint to the finish line.
* I had scribbled down this chronology of the ASOIAF book series:
1991 GRRM starts writing "A Game of Thrones"
1996 "A Game of Thrones" (Book 1) published
1998 "A Clash of Kings" (Book 2) published
2000 "A Storm of Swords" (Book 3) published
2005 "A Feast for Crows" (Book 4) published
2011 "A Dance with Dragons" (Book 5) published
How could I forget the fingers, I was too focus on where LF grew up with Cat.
As for the prohecy, every part of that prophecy ended in SoS. And I think that's what it is, that whole prophecy that Arya got from that dwarf witch have already been in the same book Storm of Swords. The dead of Balon, the Red Wedding and the rest. And I also believe the part about Sansa have already been in Storm of Swords. I can't see the reason for 1. GRRM to give a bunch of vision that are happening within the same book, and just keep one of them all for 3 or 4 books later. (We already passed Feast and Dance and winds is 3 books and dream is 4). 2. Why would the witch herself get visions that is happening within a couple of weeks (Balon's death, RW, PW all happening shortly after each other) and then another that is more than a year into the future. Why didn't the witch not see everything else that is happening in between with for instance Sansa. 3. We had the 5 year gap that George first intended, lot of the story has changed since then. 4. Every part of the vision was not metaphorical, but giving the name giant to a person is.
To conclude, I think that the prophecy has to be already been given in the books in Storm of Swords (point 1) within a couple of weeks since the visions (point 2). Sansa slayed giant (doll of Robin) who destroyed her snow Castle. Sansa destroyed a giant in a snow castle. (point 4)
It's also in the prophecy itself: I dreamt of a maid at a feast with purple serpents in her hair, venom dripping from their fangs. And later I dreamt that maid again, slaying a savage giant in a castle built of snow.
in a castle BUILT of snow. Not Covered, but build, meaning that it only consists of snow. And Winterfell consists of wood.
Also Savage is not what could refer to LF, LF is cunning, ruthless but not savage. Tyrion could be it, but why would he slay a snow-castle?
But the doll of Robin (named giant), was savagely knocking down the castle.
But that scene could also just be an allegory for later events of course. Maybe it's of course laying LF or Tyrion, but more could be, maybe she slay the mountain, or Umber (housesigil is a savage giant).
ps. Many times when I don't know if I should take a theory seriously I sometimes read on Quora the comments of Kelsey, she is journalist who is very much into the books (and show) and know every inch and outs of it. she read the books many times. She most of the time can tell if a theory is answered or not, and she thinks it has already been answered because every other part of the visions were in SoS)
Brace yourself.
"On the good side, in a recent interview Martin said that he's working on WoW…"
And I'm going to build a Wall and have the White Walkers pay for it.
(Sorry…)
What? What he changed it? First DoS then the rest? First he wanted a D&E in between.
But who knows how it ends, I like my idea about Aegon (YG) and Sansa ruling together (war of roses connection, Ashford theory, choosing the new king) and Daenerys see that this is not what she's looking for in Westeros, and that the north is her destiny (Marwyn is going to talk her into it but maybe not convincing her), and there Jon will do Nissa Nissa, they defeat the Other's.
But I would also like it if Sansa goes north defending Winterfell against the WW treat and become queen in the north and Bran king in the south. As long as it's amazingly written.
I think once winds is out this is already cleared, I don't think we need to have dreams to know who end up on the throne. If Sansa is not back in Winterfell at the end of Winds, she will become queen of the seven Kingdoms (and if her story moves south already in winds, I could see LF once he hears the news about Aegon arriving killing Harry and try to make "alliances" between Aegon and Stark with a marriage between Sansa and Aegon, so he could control Sansa when she becomes queen of the 7K)
And if Sansa has moved North we can know for 100% certain that she will become QITN. I wonder if GRRM knows this and maybe waits with releasing winds until he finish half of DoS so that there will not be long between winds and dream for us, so that we can't say: We know the ending before dreams is out.
That's something I like about D&D, they won't spoil the fun of book-readers.
And true about that, if you will ask Martin if he ate eggs this morning, he would probably say: Just wait till my official blog, there you will know what I ate.
But are we certain that the final King in the books is that of the IT? I can see George go a different route with ending the whole Throne-quest in the first quarter of dreams (going then with the whole what is the tax-policy thing George wants to tell), and that then the final king will be revealed in the war of dawn. What if the final king = the last hero = (king of winter) (and that the PTWP is not the last hero).
George george you driving me nuts with the wait XD you releasing the news about winds would be such a great christmas gift, and release it in June 2020 so that I can have a nice birthday gift in July
Thank you, I have many ideas, but my head is when thinking about a story like a room with mice where a piece of cheese is thrown in the middle. It's pretty chaotic sometimes. And I sometimes need to say: No ASOIAF today (or other shows I watch). Way back when GoT was around season 2, And I read all the books I have written snippets about "How would I introduce these characters" YG was the first I was thinking about, and how I would do that storyline, I think that's why I like him so much. I also wrote some small parts about Arianne back then and Stannis, I did those in real manuscript form. (INT. EXT. etc). I also have a feeling how I would film some scenes, close-ups, etc. It always interest me somehow.
I also do this with many other shows. For instance I watch Grey's anatomy (I like it, but not love it like I did with the first seasons), but even there I have ideas about real life events that could play a big role in that show, that could hit a lot of people. That show many times work best when hard truths are put in front of the audience and how that effect people. And it's annoying for myself that my brain does that, one moment I watch the show, then it's over. I see something in the news, or a snippet from a movie or documentary or something and I think well if they do this and that that would be such a great watch.
And why I like Young Griff, I don't know, as many already stated he is not really a fleshed out character in dance, he is there and we see some sides and that's it. But I think it has to do about his personality and what that tells about that character in the world of Ice and Fire, and that is probably going to change in book 6 but in book 5 I like that.
1. He is joyful, like to play games and talk and talk.
2. He has a temper, but more a teenage temper, he throws one time a tantrum in the books with Tyrion and storms off, but later it seems like it never happened and he talks normal again with Tyrion. This reminds me of teenagers.
3. He knows what's right maybe not with wisdom but he knows it and tries to live by it. He wants to take the throne because it's his. But he also has a sense of "People should not die for me if I'm not willing do die for them", it's pretty much a naive and reckless thing he does with that, but it shows me that he is willingly to put himself in danger for others.
4. He is naive, which is a learning point.
5. I love the caring way Jon Connington is with him.
in conclusion: It reminds me off when I was younger, not really lived through things, innocent, happy like a teenager should be. Compare that to all the other teenagers in the story, it's a happy place to read. (And it will also be a big contrast in winds when YG finally learn how hard life is, I think this will show a pretty awesome character development and he will get a lot of shit is my guess, his father figure will need to leave because of Greyscale, he probably will lose his best friend Duck in the taking of Storms End which will destroy him because he is responsible for Duck fighting for him without any good fighting skills, I wonder what could happen with his mother figure Septa Lemore, will she befall something? And I don't expect his part with Arianne will all that good, I think he will be torn between Varys and LF game, and then Daenerys comes into play, I think he will learn pretty fast how hard life is)
And yes 9 years. But I will wait, the writing of George with his books helped me a lot to get through some shitty things last decade (I read also all his other books only need to read his book of the last 2/3 years). His other books are almost all great. Especially windhaven (If I remember that right) & that trilogy where you visit planets cannot come with the name. The theory is that planetos is part of those worlds). And I love his vampire novel, normally I hate them.
And I'm going to build a Wall and have the White Walkers pay for it.(Sorry…)
We're gonna make the North great again.
[it's finally coming in my country too]
[I'm tired of paying taxes myself…]
He did however visit NY, and he implied that he also visited his publishers. I suppose he presented them with a box of donuts.
That's true. Or, "Is it eggs I had? Maybe I just left them and had something else." 😉
I don't think D&D were playing with words when they said "the final king", I think it means in context of the Iron Throne, which has changed hands so many times throughout the series, which so many characters have warred over, and Bran would be the final king. When Benioff said this, they were talking in the context of Bran's election in the Dragonpit.
I'm born in July too!
But sadly… speaking of which…
Ten Bears: Brace yourself.
I think the way he's described his work it's more like writing a series of chapters of the same person before jumping to another person, because he's immersed in the character's world. Otherwise it'll be difficult to write one chapter per character and then write fifteen other characters and then return to the first character again.
This means that even if he comes to finish WoW he'll still have chapters for ADoS. From a creator's perspective I don't see how one can stop writing especially if he's close to the end (no matter if that end is 1500 pages in his case), because inspiration flows, it comes unwarranted.
So yeah, it is a possibility that he changed the order, but it was a random reply to a random question, so why would he be 100% accurate? It will also depend on the deadlines. If he committed that he'd present F&B sooner, then he'll have to start getting to it. Or, if we're lucky, now that it'll become a show, the same fate that struck ASoIaF will hit that one too (lol, only after the end of House of Dragon will vol. II of F&B come out!)
Here too, personally I'm already done with the cold. I rather have warm weather (with warm I mean 20/25 degrees C max. I hate the dry air I get from my heater. (I also hate the humid when it goes above 30 degrees in Holland)
But mostly I hate the absent of sun, I'm one of those people who does't really like to be in the sun the whole time, but I need it, I have that winter depression thing, it's very annoying.
hahahaha true, maybe he ate some kidney pie instead 😉
True, you can see that he writes in the mind of a certain character, maybe some characters are too difficult to get into now? Would suck if he was already on 99% but stuck on that last character which he can't get into.
Well let's hope not. Let's hope he will finish F&B before that. but I think F&B is an easier book to write. It doesn't consist of that many characters, I've not read it yet, but if I heard it right, it's more documentary like instead of through the eyes of characters?
kevin1989: I've not read it yet, but if I heard it right, it's more documentary like instead of through the eyes of characters?
I don't have the book yet, it's an item on my Amazon wish list that I think my parents will ignore again (see, Dad only gets me things that Dad puts on my Christmas wishlist! So I end up with a lot of backup batteries, chargers, screen protectors, a motherboard, etc. for "when [I] break [my] computer/phone again" — but I also got a cat repair one Christmas!). However, I think you're right — I've heard it's written like a history book rather than a story from characters' POVs.
Have you ever had kidney pie? If so, what's it like? 🙂 Does it involve kidneys the organ or kidneys the bean?? 🙂
Do you know which games I wish would become a TV-series, but both are still busy and very expensive so that would take a while before it could be a tv show.
1. Assasin's creed. It could be a show like GoT. The overall story is something that could work with a tv series. The only difficult is that it would be a show that's half continuous and half anthology series. small part per game (that also meant small part per season) would be about the present, about saving the world (reason I won't spoil if somebody wants to read it), but saving it comes with a price that's the second part of the bigger story. And third another problem arises. But all are connected to a certain events that happen in the past in certain times in the past, but every game has it's own time and place where the story is told. The thing is what's out now is already more than 15 seasons worth of series. The first game would be 1 season. The second is bigger and split over 3 games and also need at least 3 seasons (plays in Rome around the time of the Borgias). The 3rd needs 2 seasons is my guess (America around Washinton). The fourth (just before with blackbeard on sea), fifth (French revolution), sixth (Victorian Era in London) and the 7th (Ancient Egypt when Cleopatra and Ceasar were in play there) needs at least two per story. And the 8th which plays in Ancient Greece needs at least 4 which is pretty big story. That means what's out is already 18 seasons worth of story. (Could be 2 told through 2 stories when the main characters changed in the present)
But my favorite game I would love to see on screen. The Last of Us. It's pretty unique game, games are always more action than a tv-show, I mean that's where games succeed in, action. But not the Last of Us. It has action but that's not what this game is an universal rated 10,0. It's seen as the perfect game. Why? Because of that it's character driven story. It's the game that made me feel more than the average movie/show, which I never really have with games. The story is one of my favorites, and the characters the same. But this would be one of the most expensive series ever made if they ever want to do it justice. (And they just started the game series, game 2 is out in February)
What's it about? It's about something I normally don't like. In the present a zombie-fungus (a real zombie fungus that is on earth but only works on ants but here in the game it got over to people) infects people. These zombie's are not zombies like in the average zombie movies. They are not death. The fungus takes control over them, resulted in first them losing control of themselves (Like people who are violence because under control of drugs but here the fungus does that to them, it's in the brain), but later the fungus takes over completely and they change into something else. So the zombie's are what's interesting? No not at all luckily they are just a small part of the game only (25% of the game you interact with them)
So what's so amazing about this game? Back to where the story starts. In the present the main character Noel tries to escape the outbreak and run with his daughter and brother. But in the end of this prologue he loses the thing he loves most, his daughter, she dies. Then the game skips over 20 years later. And we meet again with Noel. Together with his present partner he gets an assignment by a group to smuggle a girl of 12/13 years out of the city and towards a headquarter in another city, that girl Ellie is important for a reason, but why is the question. What this game make so amazing is that those characters feel so real, like they are really alive, you cry when they tell a story about what they've been through, you laugh about the jokes that are told. You feel the world is real like the world really ended and only a few survived, plants cover buildings and more. But what this game made so amazing is the change from Noel and Ellie who establish the father daughter bond (the thing he lost years ago). The music and voice acting is also great. And also the story is about people, how do people change, the biggest enemy in the games are people.
But this series would be very expensive to make, the CGI and set-building to make this series work and not feel "fake" would cost so much, especially when you keep moving from one place to the next, and really need to feel the world we know ended by having plants all over roads/buildings. Buildings who have collapsed etc.
But I wish this game would be filmed, it's one of my favorite stories overall, and all because of the character building.
My best friend always gives me Game of Thrones things for my birthday. She doesn't follow it, but she knows I do. She gave me all the Dvd-boxes and also some of the books (Dunk & Egg, Fire & Blood, …). Maybe a good tip if your parents don't give you what you ask.
I've never gotten into video games, though I am aware that some are reknowned for their storytelling, world-building, voice acting, and realistic CGI.
I did start watching a movie version of "Assassin's Creed" (2016) starring Michael Fassbender. If I recall, the premise was that an organization had some gizmo or technology that sent Fassbender's character's consciousness back in time to live through the experiences of his ancestor, and retrieve certain information from the past needed in the present. My memory is hazy: I gave up on the movie about fifteen minutes in, after tedious, repetitive scenes of sword fighting and running around. Plus. the basic premise (traveling back into the past to recover information vital to the present) seemed like a blatant rip-off of "Twelve Monkeys."
I think I saw a (music video?) clip from "The Lasf of Us." I remember that the CGI characters looked incredibly life-like. (I may have been watching an Awards show in which the voice actress of Elle won for best voice acting.)
I thought I had read somewhere that Ellen Page had originally been under consideration to play Elle in a movie version of "The Last of Us" as she closely resembled the video game CGI Elle, but after a couple of years went by, Ellen Page had "aged out" of the role. As you noted, Elle is a 12-13 year old girl. It's a shame, really, because Ellen Page was fantastic in the psychological thriller "Hard Candy" (2005) when she was eighteen and excellent in the comedy "Juno" (2007) when she was twenty – when she could credibly play girls in their early teens.
Then, I read reports that the film's producers wanted ASNAWP – I mean Maisie Williams – to play Elle. However, the last time I heard, the film version still hasn't gotten off the ground.
By the way, your elegant synopsis of "The Last of Us" (excerpted below) identifies the main character as "Noel." From fancasting blurbs I thought his name was "Joel." Are Noel and Joel two different characters?
Kevin1989 wrote:
"In the present the main character Noel tries to escape the outbreak and run with his daughter and brother. But in the end of this prologue he loses the thing he loves most, his daughter, she dies. Then the game skips over 20 years later. And we meet again with Noel. Together with his present partner he gets an assignment by a group to smuggle a girl of 12/13 years out of the city and towards a headquarters in another city; that girl Ellie is important for a reason, but why is the question."
Finally, from your description (below) of a zombie-like fungus that infects people and takes control of their brains, I suspect that 30% of the population in the real world has already been infected. 😬
"… In the present a zombie-fungus (a real zombie fungus that is on earth but only works on ants but here in the game it got over to people) infects people. These zombies are not zombies like in the average zombie movies. They are not death. The fungus takes control over them, resulted in first them losing control of themselves (like people who are violent because under control of drugs but here the fungus does that to them, it's in the brain), but later the fungus takes over completely and they change into something else. So the zombies are what's interesting? No, not at all; luckily they are just a small part of the game… "
P.S. Here's a Feb. 8, 2019 Screenrant article "Why the Last of Us Movie Hasn't Happened Yet & Why That's Good."
I haven't read it yet. I don't know if it's current. I just thought you might be interested…
https://screenrant.com/last-of-us-movie-updates-not-happening-good/
There was never a movie made about Assassins creed Ten Bears 😉
All seriousness, that movie was horrible, I watched it because I was a fan of the games but they crammed in what should have been at least 3 seasons worth in 1 movie. Like a bit that whole of GoT would be crammed in a trilogy. And I prefer the version of the games, the timelines there. If they would made it a series they could do just to the story of the games, which is pretty good when it comes to characterization, (there are even books made of very game). The games is mostly about family/friends/characters.
So don't take that horrible movie of what the story of the games are. They are amazing when it comes to characters and could compare to what GoT gave us with characters. And this story could only work with a series. With some games I even cried with some scenes. Especially the last one.
12 monkeys I don't know, I've heard about it.
It's possible that she won, she was great.
And true but the movies are not going to be made, to much need to be cut, and it's not yet possible to give the story the visual justice now. It's shelved for eternity. I hope after 10 years they will make it into a series. (or maybe 15 years)
Damn it seems I made a big typo of my favorite game, Joel. Why do I write big pieces of text when I should be asleep.
Ten Bears: Finally, from your description (below) of a zombie-like fungus that infects people and takes control of their brains, I suspect that 30% of the population in the real world has already been infected. 😬
Some even become president 😉
But this story is one of the best, not even many shows or movies come close to the characters in this game, which say a lot when game characters are most of the time bland and one dimensional.
I even made a season divider on my crashed laptop years ago where I wrote how I would have divided the story into episodes, what would be in what etc. I love to think how stories are made into tv shows
Thanks, and I agree with this. And also if they ever made this into a screening, it needs to be a TV show not a movie. With movie too much need to be cut. And the games need all be done.
Thank-you, Chilli, that is a nice tip! I was also planning on buying it for myself one day too, hopefully during sales! 🙂
(Also, I realized how I must have sounded ungrateful — yikes! Those things have come in very handy when I do break my computer/phone 🙂 )
Adriana & Efi,
We've been talking lot lately about the books about what could happen in winds of winter. I think I just though about something that will happen in the books that was in the show, but I think it will be different.
Hardhome, we all think that it's Jon who will go there. I think we already got our answers who we will see in hardhome, and it's not Jon. There was news about trading ships were moved towards Hardhome, it was in the second half of Dance. Who do we know is in fact around Hardhome on a trading ship? Davos.
We are going to see Hardhome through the eyes of Davos. And I think he will get some wildlings south of the wall. I think he will go there when the massacre is already over and maybe meet with the few survivors that hardhome has. And need to escape the horror that still is there, and I expect that we will see something new there, a plottwist. Maybe something about weirwood trees, or krakens or something.
But then the question is, will he already have Rickon? I think it depends, is Rickon really on Skagos, then I think yes he will have rickon, or he will get rickon after hardhome. But what if Manderly lied and Manderly already have gotten hold on Rickon, and Davos is send on a goose chase because Davos is the best advisor of Stannis, and Manderly needs to control Stannis in winds, meaning that Davos can't be in the picture to forfill Manderly's plan.
1. I was curious if you'd seen those two Ellen Page movies. I think you'd like them.
[I wrote above that "Ellen Page was fantastic in the psychological thriller "Hard Candy" (2005) when she was eighteen and excellent in the comedy "Juno" (2007) when she was twenty."]
She plays "Hayley Stark" in Hard Candy. One of her many memorable lines: "Playtime… is over. Now it's time to wake up."
2. You wrote: "12 monkeys I don't know, I've heard about it.
I started scribbling out, and will try to post later, a spoiler-free summary of "Twelve Monkeys." I think it's got similarities to "The Last of Us." ("Twelve Monkeys" also has Brad Pitt in what I think is his best performance ever.)
As far as I know I haven't watch them. I have seen Ellen Page in "Inception" in which she was brilliant.
And I will await your spoiler-free summary of 12 monkeys. But still I think Last of Us would be brilliant as a tv-show. Especially because of the rich characters. I never care really about Zombies, but it became one of my favorite story out there. It's also one of the few games out there that's rated with a 10,0, and that because of it's story.
I like stories that's about the characters and bounding. (Plot for me comes second and is only there for the "backbone" of the story. Hopefully that's the right word I'm looking for). I think everyone can make a story about a certain plot, but changing that plot into a story with rich characters is something few can do. For instance, everyone can make a story about maffia, but somehow the Sopranos and godfather sticks far above the rest.
Personally, I have no idea what's going to happen after the mutiny — it's going to be chaos, if not all-out war between the wildlings, mutineers, other Watchmen, and perhaps the Queen's men. By the time Jon "returns", I think he's going to have stuff at Castle Black and the Wall to deal with. It's possible Jon may go to Hardhome but I have doubts.
As for Davos, I believe Davos is in White Harbour and would be approaching Skagos from the south. Skagos is much closer to White Harbour than Hardhome is (as Hardhome is quite a bit farther north) so I'm not sure why Davos would sail to Hardhome when it's really out of the way?
For Davos to come across Hardhome while trying to get to Skagos, he'd have to sail from the north and I'm not sure how or why Davos would do that… Or what port he would dock from, unless he took a port on a western shore and sailed around part of the continent, but I'm not sure why Davos would do that either…
It's possible Davos may encounter "dead things in the water" but I don't recall Manderly saying anything about the Others so I'm not sure why he wouldn't expect an experienced sailor like Davos not to come back.
Those are my thoughts 🙂
That said, if the geography were different (if Hardhome were on the way to Skagos from White Harbour or Eastwatch), it would be really kind of cool for Davos to encounter Hardhome and be the POV there 🙂
It just occurred to me that searching the island of Skagos for Rickon could kill Davos, that's something I totally overlooked in my first post to you, and I suppose it does make sense in a way that Manderly would want to remove loyal Stannis followers like Davos. Still, would Manderly expect to control a man like Stannis, who is already known as rigid and harsh? Stannis wants the North's support but Stannis hasn't exactly become malleable as a result… I am doubtful Manderly has Rickon and is hiding him…
The Manderly plan is possible but I don't know… I'd have to do some more reading up 🙂
I wholeheartedly agree. The action scenes wouldn't be half as good if we didn't care about the characters, which is why I thought it was a very good idea for D&D to wait almost two seasons before giving us our first on screen battle. That's why I didn't mind that the later seasons had more and more action scenes. We already knew and cared dearly for the characters.
I didn't know Feast won the award mostly because of Dorne and the Iron Islands. Do you have a source for that? I don't think you want to use awards to prove quality of work, though. After all, seasons 5-8 won Best Drama, whereas seasons 1-4 did not.
Sansa going from pawn to player isn't very realistic. I'm glad the show had her stumble and fall before she became great at ruling. Besides, putting her in Winterfell put her in the perfect position to take back the North and placed on the path to become queen. As for Littlefinger, there was no way he could know about Ramsay. Remember in season 1, when Varys had to inform him that Catelyn was on her way to King's Landing? Littlefinger's intelligence doesn't reach that far. Ramsay wasn't like normal bastards, who would have been eternally grateful to marry a highborn. Littlefinger expected him to be more like Jon. Remember, Littlefinger is not infallible. He got lucky in the War of Five Kings, but his luck was never going to last forever.
I think you're listening too much to Preston Jacobs. As soon as one of his videos said, "Vargo Hoat mentioned magic and a Sand Snake is in Oldtown studying magic, so there's obviously a connection" I turned it off. He clearly reaches with all of his theories and tries to force pieces to fit. He even said Hoat cut off Jaime's hand to get him out of the way. First off, one swordsman is sort of inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. He shouldn't have been that much of an obstacle. Second, do you know what also would have gotten Jaime out of the way? Killing him.
I feel very differently about judging GOT. I judge it against other television shows, not itself. I feel that much of your disappointment is because of this. You need to remember that GOT is still a television show and therefore has flaws, and if you're more critical of it than the other shows you watch, you're doing it and yourself a disservice. I believe it was Ten Bears that said GOT was 95% good and 5% bad, but the bad stocks out like a sore thumb. I feel the opposite. I feel like there is so, so much more good than bad that the bad is buried by the good and makes the bad almost inconsequential. When I think of GOT, I think only of the hundreds of scenes that I love rather than the few that I don't.
A lot of plot happened in the first three books. In Game of Thrones, Ned becomes Hand of the King, Danerys marries Drogo, Bran is pushed out a window and crippled for life, Jon joins the Night's Watch, Catelyn kidnaps Tyrion, Robert treies to have Danerys killed, Ned quits as Hand, Jaime attacks Ned in the streets, Viserys dies, Ned figures out Cersei had children with Jaime and not Robert, Robert dies, Ned is imprisoned, Robb goes to war, he agrees to marry a Frey, Ned is killed, Robb takes Jaime prisoner, Tywin tells Tyrion to go to King's Landing to rule as Hand, Robb becomes King in the North, Renly declares himself king, Arya joins with Yoren, Sansa is taken prisoner, and the dragons are born.
In Clash, Theon betrays Robb, the ironborn attack the North, Stannis kills Renly, Brienne enters Catelyn's service, Tyrion prepares King's Landing for a siege, the riot in King's Landing, Arya meets Jaquen. Yoren is killed and Arya is taken to Harrenhal, Arya helps the Northmen take Harrenhal, the Freys learn Robb has betrayed them, the Battle of the Blackwater, Tywin defeats Stannis, Tyrion loses his position as Hand, Joffrey is betrothed to Margarey, and Jon is taken by the wildlings to meet Mance Raydar.
I'm not even going to bother listing everything that happened in Storm. All of these plots are far more important than anything that happened in Feast or Dance.
Ten Bears: Ellen Page was fantastic in the psychological thriller "Hard Candy" (2005) when she was eighteen and excellent in the comedy "Juno" (2007) when she was twenty – when she could credibly play girls in their early teens.
I haven't seen Hard Candy (I should) but I agree about Juno — I really love that movie, Ellen Page is great in it.
That's true, but wasn't there a talk about a storm in the Bay of Seals (Where Davos should enter Skagos from) with ships that got traveled to Hardhome.
I really wonder how hardhome come into play in the books.
True! There's a storm raging on the Bay of Seals but it looks like it has trapped the ships meant for the Hardhome rescue:
It was snowing heavily to the south, Jon knew. Only two days' ride from here, the kingsroad was said to be impassable. Melisandre knows that too. And to the east, a savage storm was raging on the Bay of Seals. At last report, the ragtag fleet they had assembled to rescue the free folk from Hardhome still huddled at Eastwatch-by-the-Sea, confined to port by the rough seas.
So if Davos did make it to the Bay of Seals before the storm hit, it seems he'd be trapped too — or he'd be trapped on the island of Skagos. Or killed in the storm. There's a chance he could have been swept way north to Hardhome but:
Traders reported finding only nightmarish devastation where Hardhome had stood, a landscape of charred trees and burned bones, waters choked with swollen corpses, blood-chilling shrieks echoing from the cave mouths that pocked the great cliff that loomed above the settlement.
This sounds like these ships encountered Hardhome on their trade routes, not by being swept unintentionally to Hardhome. Davos was meant to go to Skagos so I'm not sure why his ship would be around Hardhome as a trader.
Still, like you, I also wonder how Hardhome will come into play in the books. There's a chance Davos was swept to Hardhome but that's really, really, really off-course and it depends on which way the wind was blowing.
Although, it'd be a cool way to connect up Jon and Davos if Davos did manage to survive Hardhome and made it to the Wall.
But having said all that, even when I have doubts, your speculations tend to stick in my head, Kevin ;D
And to the east, a savage storm was raging on the Bay of Seals. At last report, the ragtag fleet they had assembled to rescue the free folk from Hardhome still huddled at Eastwatch-by-the-Sea, confined to port by the rough seas. "You are seeing cinders dancing in the updraft."
Jon in dance of dragons
And the other was if I though right in Arya chapter that there was news about ships from the Bay of seals gotten into the storm and stranded on Hardhome. Was that Mercy chapter?
Agree, characterization is very important for action work. Especially on rerun I prefer the first seasons because of that, as you stated one action moment in season 1 and 2. Same with 3 and 4. Season 3 had the big character moment. Season 4 the battle.
I seem to miss-remember it, they got in the nomination list for feast for crows: Hugo Award, Locus Award for Fantasy, British fantasy award & Quill awards. And it was Dance of Dragon that won the Locus award. (And I think I had the NY times in my head. They put Feast as best fantasy book of 2005, which does of course say nothing).
I still agree with you of course that the structure of Feast could have been much better. I still not understand why he didn't just made Feast a 1000 page book of the start of every storyline. (Complete of Feast + first half of Dance). Having Dance given the rest + beginning of what we now get in winds. That also could solve the whole too much POV problem, if he just gradually added POVs. Asha in feast, Victorion in dance (or end Feast with just one chapter), end of Dance or beginning Winds Damphair. And I think with more characters it should have gotten with this.
Of course she should fall, she should learn the game but she also should stumble which she sure will do. She maybe gain the control of Robin and Harry, but she didn't get the control of LF and Myranda yet. She is still too naive of them. She trust them both completely when those are the 2 she should worry about. So she learned to play the game, but she still is on Cersei's level. I think winds will give her the big stumble that she learned finally that she can't trust blindly like she did with Myranda, and after that she learn about LF.
I still love of course the route the show took from season 6 onward. Her becoming queen in the end.
Comparing LF not knowing about Cat, which took all the precaution to enter KL unnoticed from the north, she even state they need to worry about spies from the Lannisters. Cat wasn't an idiot. And also do we really know that LF didn't know? It's not the first time he make it seems he doesn't know when in fact he does. He even lied in the same scene about the dagger. Stating he knew about Cat entering the city would have played his hand about his spies, now Varys showed LF his cards. But compare this to Ramsay, knowing who Ramsay is is not some secret thing. If he would have send 3 spies north and non return he knew Ramsay was not to be trusted. If at least one returned he would have told LF that Ramsay was not to be trusted. And LF never does anything without knowing the full content of his "Allies", he wants to know if he can or cannot trust his ally. book and season 1 till 4 LF would never have send Sansa to WF without knowing who Roose was, who Ramsay was, who all the loyal man to Roose are, which one he can control of the ones close to the Boltons. (Season 2 Varys LF scene should be prove about this, LF does know many things of the allies he has).
I wouldn't call something luck when less than 1% chance there is that the plan would not succeed. He started the war of five kings, that's what he wanted and he got it. And he played that war as a Fiddle.
I only watched a couple of videos of Preston Jacobs. Some things I could see happening some things I couldn't see happening. (I personally prefer Alt X shift). But I wonder if you really watch the video of Quentyn is alive, it seems you didn't but still got an opinion on it that it's not true. As for Quentyn is alive he even state all the book parts and it make sense. Even many who dislike Preston Jacobs and think all his theories are too reaching state that he is probably right about Quentyn being alive.
As for the Sandsnakes: It's true that one of the Sandsnakes is studying in Oldtown. About the Vargo Hoat mentioning Magic I cannot state my opinion I never watched that video. But I surely watch it too give my own opinion of it.
As for him reaching, he even admit that probably he is wrong, that state something about him, he makes a theory but doesn't do like it's the truth. But he did saw many things from Dance before Dance was released, so maybe he has some insights in the books that we don't?
As for Jaime's hand, Vargo state it was to send Tywin a message, many fans state that he only did it to make sure Jaime wasn't a treat with his sword, and as you state that doesn't make any sense, just kill him then. So what was the message that needed to be send to Tywin? (personally I believe in the Dornish masterplan, and that they were still working for Oberyn, it still is a mystery why Oberyn would want to hire a man like Vargo or Shagwell or Zollo, but he did. so what's the whole truth here, Qyburn was also part of the brave companion but somehow Oberyn didn't recognize him in the capital or speak to him. Why didn't Oberyn go, hey I know you, how is it been.). Also look at the name: Bloody mummers. What is a mummer? Somebody putting up a act. Combine that with Bloody. I still wonder what Martin will do in winds with the BC and we surely would read it if we can believe Martin when he talks in interviews. It's one of the points he states: is in the next book(s) but not in the show.
But why would you turn it off within the first part instead of watching it off where he is heading, I mean maybe at the end you are, ooh that's what he meant.
With judging GoT against itself I meant the show not the books.
But if I judge it against other shows, many shows rank higher for me. Even 2 shows that ended this year I rank their last season higher than that of GoT. Especially mr Robot which is currently ending (end of this month it ends), which for me the writing is miles ahead of GoT. And compare to GoT final season it's also critical acclaimed by critics and viewers. 96 from critics, with every episode of the last season a aproval rate of 100%. With audience a 94. On imdb an average of 9,4 for the episodes of the last season. The writing is something groundbreaking in that last season. (And even when it's very character based season it still move the plot forward in a shocking way). And it would be a crime if Sam Esmail wouldn't be nominated for an emmy next year.
So even when comparing to other shows I wouldn't rate season 5 till 8 higher than many shows. (And if Mr robot is your kind of show, I would recommend it highly)
And I don't disagree with that it's still great as a whole. I would never call GoT bad. It's a show that made many shows that are currently in the making, it's for better wording the king of those shows. The characters are unique, the story is unique. The ending is something I personally looking forward too. But I still hold the opinion that if they made different kind of writing choices the show would have received better. How GoT would be received really we need to wait 10 years. Will it still be talked like then like sopranos is still, or Lord of the rings which is still called by many critics and fans alike as the best fantasy movie ever made. Personally I have my doubts. And the problem for the show is also, when the books will be out, how does that differ, how do the critics and fans compare the 2. If for instance Martin gives us a more interesting reason for the White Walkers than this would be bad for how the show will be remembered, especially when the common knowledge is that Martin told everything to D&D, so if Martin gives us a plot revelation about the WW that is groundbreaking in fantasy and literature, that would not be a good sign for the show.
And there's a reason why I have my rewatch already after the show is just ended half a year ago, I really wanted to see the show again, that should say that I as a person look at the scenes I like. I just skip the ones I don't. And the rest is all good watch. I just watched till 6×03 tomorrow 6×04 (another show review from the first 4 episodes).
About the plot, that's where Martin doesn't agree. For him Clash is the one that was an extension book. clash stood on it's own. The whole war of 5 kings was pretty much ended already here. Renly is not important for the grand scheme, the battle of Blackwater wasn't important. It was important for the book itself, but for winds and dream, the most important part is that Myrcella was send to Dorne, House of the Undying, the fire god. As for Dance many plots that are happening here are in fact important for the last 2 books. YG, Euron, Wall going down, Citadel, Everyone in Meereen that is gathering there to get Dany home, Stannis/Jon etc in the north. I read book 1 till 3 recently, and the book that contained the most connection to what is still left hanging and need to answer in winds and dream is GoT. Clash I only had a couple of points the rest was answered in Clash itself. Storm the same, it was a book on it's own where not much needs to be answered in for the last 2 books. But when reading Dance I could see why this book was initially the second book in the saga. It was the book that had the most connection to the first book.
I think it also depends where the safe place to enter Skagos is. Maybe it's more halfway west. But I think Davos will maybe still land in Skagos, Martin told that we will see some unicorn like in Winds and: It is believed that unicorns live on Skagos.
It's maybe possible that after he rescued Rickon he will strand there with his ships.
But it's possible from the Bay of Seals when hitting a storm to end in Hardhome. Ships can crash 100km/miles away when getting into a storm. Well I would at least find Skagos already amazing and if Davos would find out about Hardhome, but even more if he would be there. And maybe Davos will only find out about the death things in the water. (Somehow thinking about it make me shiver. What kind of new horror will we read in winds, I suspect something not connected to the WW. And it make me think about patchface)
It's a gift. XD
I couldn't find a passage like this in Arya's chapters or mention of ships caught up in the Bay of Seals storm getting stranded at Hardhome but if you know of the passage (or find it later), can you quote it here? 🙂 I'll keep an eye out too!
It's possible for Davos to have been swept up to Hardhome and I think it'd be cool to have him encounter the threat of the Others — I just don't see much evidence for it as of now :/ But it is possible, I agree, and I'll now have that in the back of my brain when people speculate about Skagos, Hardhome, and Davos 🙂
Agreed about the super creepiness of "dead things in the water" T____T
I will read the books later this month if something catch my eye I will write it here. But it was if I remember right something about slaver ships with it, that took people from hardhome, or was that another storm?
Well I think I go to sleep, I will look into it tomorrow.
Oooh, I know what you're talking about!! Those two slaver ships! I think that was an earlier storm (there are storms reported on the Narrow Sea) because Pyke's six ships arrived after those two ships (The Goodheart and the Elephant) had already left and I think the Bay of Seals storm is why only six of the eleven ships Jon had sent made it to Hardhome.
Eastwatch reported savage storms upon the narrow sea.
The expert from one of Arya's chapters involving slavers taking off with Hardhome wildlings:
But no ships came, except these two Lyseni pirates, Goodheart and Elephant, that had been driven north by a storm. They dropped anchor off Hardhome to make repairs, and saw the wildlings, but there were thousands and they didn't have room for all of them, so they said they'd just take the women and the children. The wildlings had nothing to eat, so the men sent out their wives and daughters, but as soon as the ships were out to sea, the Lyseni drove them below and roped them up. They meant to sell them all in Lys. Only then they ran into another storm and the ships were parted. The Goodheart was so damaged her captain had no choice but to put in here, but the Elephant may have made it back to Lys. The Lyseni at Pynto's think that she'll return with more ships. The price of slaves is rising, they said, and there are thousands more women and children at Hardhome.
Cotter Pyke's letter to Jon:
At Hardhome, with six ships. Wild seas. Blackbird lost with all hands, two Lyseni ships driven aground on Skane, Talon taking water. Very bad here. Wildlings eating their own dead. Dead things in the woods. Braavosi captains will only take women, children on their ships. Witch women call us slavers. Attempt to take Storm Crow defeated, six crew dead, many wildlings. Eight ravens left. Dead things in the water. Send help by land, seas wracked by storms. From Talon, by hand of Maester Harmune.
The Lyseni ships taking the wildlings to sell as slaves would be the reason why Cotter Pyke and the Watchmen are mistaken as slavers — so it appears whatever drove the slaver ships north was a different storm because they arrived earlier than the Watch's rescue ships.
Thanks, yes I meant that one. Now I really go to sleep. Work tomorrow.
Well, the thing is that Davos will be close to the Wall when he'll arrive at Skagos. You're right, there's lots of talk about ships going up and down the northern shore in the books, I noticed that too (I think it's in more than one chapters) and I wondered what's the point of it. At first I thought that it was Davos sailing North, but then I think there's mention of ships going South instead and there's mention of pirates, or ship wrecks, or sth like that.
I think it's not by chance. Even though I don't think Manderly's lying. I think I've said it before, it's a possibility that Manderly has Robb's will and he plans on using it; but even if he doesn't, his plan is to get Rickon and establish him in WF as lord of the North with Stannis' help. This is why he sends Davos to get Rickon, in reality he plans to support Stannis, which is the reason why Davos went to White Harbor in the first place. Rickon as the -allegedly- only surviving male child of Ned Stark is the heir to WF and comes before Jon (provided that Robb's will doesn't resurface) and certainly before the girls. Rickon (re: Manderly) could unite the North against the Boltons with Stannis' backing.
But, the twist here is Hardhome, which is close. We know that Jon wants to take as many people as he can out of there, but his plans fail, first because of the storm, and then because he gets murdered. But we know from the show that Shireen will be sacrificed, and this means that the storm will abate, so he'll get the opening he needs, and I think this time he'll go himself (which he planned to, but then the pink letter happened and there was a change of plans). He still has no ships though, and even if Davos is in Skagos, he'll only have a couple of ships, no more. Davos by himself won't be able to do anything for the people in Hardhome, even if he knew; but I don't think he knows.
At the same time, the fleet that Cersei has prepared is probably sailing North to Stannis. And I think that's where Davos comes in, because Skagos is close to Eastwatch. There's a possibility that Davos meets with the master of the ships there, and sends a message to CB, unaware of what has happened in CB and of Stannis' whereabouts. Otherwise the master himself will notify CB, also unaware of where Stannis is.
In any case, the message will get to Jon resurrected, and I think he'll leave immediately for Eastwatch. If Davos is there at that point, he'll also meet with his brother Rickon. I don't think Rickon is sailing South with Davos. I don't think that Davos is sailing south again. When they meet, Davos will learn where Stannis is, and they can always notify Manderly from CB.
But the thing is, if Davos goes to Hardhome instead of Jon, who'll stay with Rickon? How will Rickon get to CB? Admittedly it's a possibility though, but Davos needs to learn about Hardhome in the first place. I don't think he knows and I'm not sure he'd give priority to Hardhome instead of, say, Stannis and Rickon. Davos serves Stannis, not Jon, and Stannis is alive and kicking and in a hurry to find allies in the North.
Also, narratively wise, Jon has already tried to send others to Hardhome twice. This probably means that the third time is a charm, but it may also mean that for this to succeed, he needs to go there himself, so that he sees whatever it is that he sees. He's already focused on the war beyond the Wall, but this will give him a clearer perspective of what is happening (the 100 thousand of the show). I think that what he sees there will determin his next moves with regard to the Others and the North. Adding Rickon and Sansa to the equasion, it will color the entire effort with very personal undertones for Jon. So far Jon has been fighting for humanity; now he needs to fight for his family. He will need to save his family from the existential threat that's coming for them all. In other words, I think he'll realize that what he needs to do for protecting his family from this existential threat is first and foremost to unite the North again. Also, the timing in the books -it happens after the resurrection, not before- also serves this narrative purpose; Jon will be a hundred times more focused to do what he means, to do whatever it takes for what he believes is right.
And here the resurrection becomes important. The stage is set for the North to know that Jon has been resurrected. Melisandre will burn Shireen, hoping to resurrect Stannis (I think you've said that). But she'll resurrect Jon instead. Currently at CB there are the Flints and a Karstark to witness the resurrection. If you add Manderly and the will of Robb, everything is ready for Jon to step up and take the North. The lords will rally behind Jon without further ado.
[it will be interesting to see what will happen with Stannis though; he'll come to know that Jon has been resurrected and that will shatter the image he has of himself as tptwp]
Also, regarding Hardome I have to add that I don't think it was D&D's idea. It was far too great a moment for the show to be just an invention. I think it came straight from Martin because it was important for the same reason, it showed how great the threat is. In this context, it's not logical that it won't be Jon who will witness it.
I would like that very much. But do we know for certain timeline wise that Jon's resurrection happen before the third is a charm? What we know about Dance of dragon is that 1. Jon's dead was always suppose to be his last chapter of Dance. Before that we know the battle with Stanni