Author Topic: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)  (Read 413243 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1305 on: April 16, 2019, 04:32:14 PM »

Offline Sophomore

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6227
  • Tommy Points: 823
I say this with very little authority: If there is a "winner" of the Game of Thrones, I think it will be Sansa. I think she has the cleanest ark on the show and isn't the most obvious (Jon Snow is the most obvious). That would probably mean Jon and Dany die.

I'd put a dollar on that.

I would agree that Jon or Dany (or both) ending up on top at the end would run contrary to what the bigger themes of the show have been over the entire course of the series.

Which “themes” are you referring to when you say this?  I think most people misunderstand what George RR Martin was actually doing.

If you think the show/book is all about twists and shocking moments that defy expectations, you’re misinterpreting what makes this creative endeavor unique.

I don't think it's twists and shocking moments, per se. But Martin has said (many times) that conventional fantasy novels about evil dark lords and heroes of pure light usually bore him; he likes gray characters who do both good and evil.  He's also defended the violence in his books as reflecting the mideval world - when there was a great deal of violence, affecting the high and the low, and unexpected contingencies derailing the best laid plans. History generally doesn't spool out as an inevitability.

What that means for Jon I don't know. What you say about his role in the books is interesting; it does seem odd to focus so heavily on a character and then have him step aside. But it doesn't seem consistent for it to be easy for him, especially given that (as far as I can remember) he's never done anything that seriously compromises his virtue. What we have been shown again and again through this series is that the deceitful and vicious are very hard to hold at bay. To end the story with Jon staying entirely pure, slaying the entirely evil night king, and going on to bring peace in the realm ... that doesn't sound true to the rest of the series. Maybe he has to make a hard, bloody decision to get the throne - press his claim and kill Dany?

What do you see as the theme?

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1306 on: April 16, 2019, 04:37:44 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182


Which “themes” are you referring to when you say this?  I think most people misunderstand what George RR Martin was actually doing.

If you think the show/book is all about twists and shocking moments that defy expectations, you’re misinterpreting what makes this creative endeavor unique.


Subverting the trope of good intentions and ideals winning out; the noble hero triumphing; good vs evil; etc etc.


Generally the story of GoT so far has favored shrewd schemers who are willing to sacrifice their ideals in favor of recognizing reality. 

The last couple of seasons it's kind of gone away from that.  But early on the show was notable for how people who believed that right was on their side, who in an ordinary fantasy story would find a way to prevail in the end, met an unexpected and undignified death.  Whereas people willing to sacrifice their principles in favor of practicalities have managed to survive.


The dragon queen and the noble heir to the throne ending up on top at the end would seem much more in line with a traditional fantasy story, as opposed to a story that likes to subvert those kinds of expectations.

Indeed, Jon is now the classic fantasy protagonist.  He thought he was an illegitimate by-blow but actually he's a prince!  He came back from the dead!  He's literally the resurrected savior.

I would be surprised if he ended up making it to the end.  Seems more likely that he was brought back from the dead so that he could die again, later, in a more meaningful sacrifice.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1307 on: April 16, 2019, 04:50:24 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
just throwing this out there for conjecture -- what's the possibility that the living cannot hold/defeat the dead at Winterfell and have to beat a hasty retreat to King's Landing where by episode 5/beginning of 6, the remaining living forces use the better fortified King's Landing to defeat the dead and have the final battle for the Iron Throne?

I don't see it as likely but if Jon were to take out Dany, that would be the best place and time to do it --> when the dead are defeated and he doesn't need the Dothraki or Unsullied to fight that battle any longer.  Also, whoever is destined to kill Cersei would be in the city to do so.

Here's a related mystery: at least twice, characters have had visions of the throne hall in King's Landing - the hall empty, and snow falling in through a hole in the roof.  Dany saw that when she visited the House of the Undying, and Bran saw it when he was in his early three-eyed raven days.

So, what did it mean? Was it just a metaphor, or is something going to punch a hole in the throne hall and empty it out - something like Viseryon?

I always liked that because it can be read at least 2 ways - one is that winter, in the form of the Night King, will take/threaten the Iron Throne, the other is that "snow", in the form of Jon Snow, will. And it could even be both in succession!  Don't know how literal the hole in the roof will be but the conflict is coming there I'd say.


I've seen speculation that the coming Battle of Winterfell against the undead will be a rout, which would make sense given the timing.  There needs to be a major defeat that causes everything to appear lost before the final salvation.

So it would make sense that the battle would ultimately end up at King's Landing.

I also agree with the speculation I've seen that the Night King threat will be resolved before the final episode, and the final episode will involve a last struggle amongst the survivors as to how power will be disposed moving forward.

My hope is that the show actually ends with NOBODY on the iron throne, and the result of the "game of thrones," at long last, is that the game ends, and the realm moves forward with some different path for how the people will be ruled.

But that might be too heavy a lift given they only have 6 episodes.

I agree with about all of this, especially the desire for another widescale gut punch. Basically Hardhome x10, including much worse luck for the named characters.

Kings' Landing makes sense symbolically and even strategically - the biggest weakness of the army of the dead is that so far they don't go in the water. Night King can fly now but that's about it. So it seems to fit.

I think the big fight in the 2nd-to-last episode with the power struggle in the aftermath is very on-brand for Game of Thrones. Probably with Cersei as the big threat that finally gets taken down. And I do expect there will be no throne at the end (not necessarily no clear ruler/leader though) - too much "break the wheel" talk. The fitting and likely end for the throne is to be melted down by dragonfire, though the symbolism is very different depending on whether Night King/Dany/Jon does it.
Maybe, in a fit of loss, Cersei blows up the Red Keep with wildfyre, killing Jamie along with her.

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1308 on: April 16, 2019, 05:00:00 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
just throwing this out there for conjecture -- what's the possibility that the living cannot hold/defeat the dead at Winterfell and have to beat a hasty retreat to King's Landing where by episode 5/beginning of 6, the remaining living forces use the better fortified King's Landing to defeat the dead and have the final battle for the Iron Throne?

I don't see it as likely but if Jon were to take out Dany, that would be the best place and time to do it --> when the dead are defeated and he doesn't need the Dothraki or Unsullied to fight that battle any longer.  Also, whoever is destined to kill Cersei would be in the city to do so.

Here's a related mystery: at least twice, characters have had visions of the throne hall in King's Landing - the hall empty, and snow falling in through a hole in the roof.  Dany saw that when she visited the House of the Undying, and Bran saw it when he was in his early three-eyed raven days.

So, what did it mean? Was it just a metaphor, or is something going to punch a hole in the throne hall and empty it out - something like Viseryon?

I always liked that because it can be read at least 2 ways - one is that winter, in the form of the Night King, will take/threaten the Iron Throne, the other is that "snow", in the form of Jon Snow, will. And it could even be both in succession!  Don't know how literal the hole in the roof will be but the conflict is coming there I'd say.


I've seen speculation that the coming Battle of Winterfell against the undead will be a rout, which would make sense given the timing.  There needs to be a major defeat that causes everything to appear lost before the final salvation.

So it would make sense that the battle would ultimately end up at King's Landing.

I also agree with the speculation I've seen that the Night King threat will be resolved before the final episode, and the final episode will involve a last struggle amongst the survivors as to how power will be disposed moving forward.

My hope is that the show actually ends with NOBODY on the iron throne, and the result of the "game of thrones," at long last, is that the game ends, and the realm moves forward with some different path for how the people will be ruled.

But that might be too heavy a lift given they only have 6 episodes.

I agree with about all of this, especially the desire for another widescale gut punch. Basically Hardhome x10, including much worse luck for the named characters.

Kings' Landing makes sense symbolically and even strategically - the biggest weakness of the army of the dead is that so far they don't go in the water. Night King can fly now but that's about it. So it seems to fit.

I think the big fight in the 2nd-to-last episode with the power struggle in the aftermath is very on-brand for Game of Thrones. Probably with Cersei as the big threat that finally gets taken down. And I do expect there will be no throne at the end (not necessarily no clear ruler/leader though) - too much "break the wheel" talk. The fitting and likely end for the throne is to be melted down by dragonfire, though the symbolism is very different depending on whether Night King/Dany/Jon does it.
Maybe, in a fit of loss, Cersei blows up the Red Keep with wildfyre, killing Jamie along with her.

I think that's good but maybe he kills her to avoid exactly that (or some other wildfire attack). Fulfills the prophecy and mirrors him killing the Mad King.

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1309 on: April 16, 2019, 05:02:30 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.

I've seen speculation that the coming Battle of Winterfell against the undead will be a rout, which would make sense given the timing.  There needs to be a major defeat that causes everything to appear lost before the final salvation.


It's total speculation but I said to my wife recently, "wouldn't it just be like Game of Thrones to finally give us the Clegane brothers fight but the Hound is a Wight so the Mountain is actually the lesser evil we have to grudgingly root for?"

It's more likely the Hound makes it back to Kings' Landing and maybe the Mountain gets wighted (small transition) but fingers crossed baby!
« Last Edit: April 16, 2019, 05:33:55 PM by fairweatherfan »

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1310 on: April 16, 2019, 06:00:06 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
I think that both Dany and Jon and those with magic must die.   This means Mel, Bran and anyone with magic will have to perish to start the new age.   I think that is the bittersweet end.   But I think Jon is Azor Ahai and lead folks to victory in the process.

Quote
I don't think it's twists and shocking moments, per se. But Martin has said (many times) that conventional fantasy novels about evil dark lords and heroes of pure light usually bore him; he likes gray characters who do both good and evil.  He's also defended the violence in his books as reflecting the mideval world - when there was a great deal of violence, affecting the high and the low, and unexpected contingencies derailing the best laid plans. History generally doesn't spool out as an inevitability.

One of this favorites is Lord of the Rings, why do you think that he imitiated Tolkien double R?

Quote
“I admire Tolkien greatly. His books had enormous influence on me. And the trope that he sort of established—the idea of the Dark Lord and his Evil Minions—in the hands of lesser writers over the years and decades has not served the genre well. It has been beaten to death. The battle of good and evil is a great subject for any book and certainly for a fantasy book, but I think ultimately the battle between good and evil is weighed within the individual human heart and not necessarily between an army of people dressed in white and an army of people dressed in black. When I look at the world, I see that most real living breathing human beings are grey.”

So you clearly omit the qoute but use other parts of the qoute about admiring Tolkien.  Even LOTR had some of this grey stuff because Frodo failed in his task.  Sam was the true hero and they succeeded only due to the Gollum's ineptitude.

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1311 on: April 16, 2019, 06:04:58 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
I think that both Dany and Jon and those with magic must die.   This means Mel, Bran and anyone with magic will have to perish to start the new age.   I think that is the bittersweet end.   But I think Jon is Azor Ahai and lead folks to victory in the process.

Quote
I don't think it's twists and shocking moments, per se. But Martin has said (many times) that conventional fantasy novels about evil dark lords and heroes of pure light usually bore him; he likes gray characters who do both good and evil.  He's also defended the violence in his books as reflecting the mideval world - when there was a great deal of violence, affecting the high and the low, and unexpected contingencies derailing the best laid plans. History generally doesn't spool out as an inevitability.

One of this favorites is Lord of the Rings, why do you think that he imitiated Tolkien double R?

Quote
“I admire Tolkien greatly. His books had enormous influence on me. And the trope that he sort of established—the idea of the Dark Lord and his Evil Minions—in the hands of lesser writers over the years and decades has not served the genre well. It has been beaten to death. The battle of good and evil is a great subject for any book and certainly for a fantasy book, but I think ultimately the battle between good and evil is weighed within the individual human heart and not necessarily between an army of people dressed in white and an army of people dressed in black. When I look at the world, I see that most real living breathing human beings are grey.”

So you clearly omit the qoute but use other parts of the qoute about admiring Tolkien.  Even LOTR had some of this grey stuff because Frodo failed in his task.  Sam was the true hero and they succeeded only due to the Gollum's ineptitude.


Tolkein's work was heavily informed by his Christianity, though.  Whereas Martin has said he finds religion "fascinating."  So I think that affects the way themes of good and evil come into play in his stories as compared to Tolkein.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1312 on: April 16, 2019, 07:12:37 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
It was once said that Tolkien's goal was to create a mythology for the British Isles.

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1313 on: April 16, 2019, 11:33:29 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016


Which “themes” are you referring to when you say this?  I think most people misunderstand what George RR Martin was actually doing.

If you think the show/book is all about twists and shocking moments that defy expectations, you’re misinterpreting what makes this creative endeavor unique.


Subverting the trope of good intentions and ideals winning out; the noble hero triumphing; good vs evil; etc etc.


Generally the story of GoT so far has favored shrewd schemers who are willing to sacrifice their ideals in favor of recognizing reality. 

The last couple of seasons it's kind of gone away from that.  But early on the show was notable for how people who believed that right was on their side, who in an ordinary fantasy story would find a way to prevail in the end, met an unexpected and undignified death.  Whereas people willing to sacrifice their principles in favor of practicalities have managed to survive.


The dragon queen and the noble heir to the throne ending up on top at the end would seem much more in line with a traditional fantasy story, as opposed to a story that likes to subvert those kinds of expectations.

Indeed, Jon is now the classic fantasy protagonist.  He thought he was an illegitimate by-blow but actually he's a prince!  He came back from the dead!  He's literally the resurrected savior.

I would be surprised if he ended up making it to the end.  Seems more likely that he was brought back from the dead so that he could die again, later, in a more meaningful sacrifice.

I think that's a standard interpretation of Game of Thrones... and perhaps it's right, but I've never felt it was accurate.

To me, this series has always been about telling a conventional "heroes journey" fantasy story, but using a unique style of storytelling
from multiple perspectives that magnifies secondary characters and masks the conventional arc.

The best way I can explain this is to imagine telling the original Star Wars trilogy over the course of 8 Game of Thrones style seasons.

Both stories are essentially a "heroes journey" about an unknown adopted nobody (Luke and Jon Snow).  The difference is that instead of purely focusing on Luke/Jon the entire time, Game of Thrones heightens the roles of everyone else.   

So imagine if Season 1 of "Star Wars" opens with the Organa family on Alderaan.  You assume Bail Organa, the patriarch of the family, is the main character of the series.  Maybe the show casts some big-name actor to play him. We meet him, his wife, his daughter Leia, various characters in his life, etc. 

Meanwhile, we shift focus to a young Imperial Academy recruit named Biggs Darklighter.  We meet his family.  Maybe he has a girl he leaves behind.  He's got an envious buddy named Luke from back home who we briefly meet. 

There's other characters we focus on like Admiral Ackbar and his crew.  The mysterious hermit named Ben.  We spend a lot of time seeing the big baddie of the series, Wilhuff Tarkin do all sorts of terrible things to make us hate him.  They'd all be given the same storytelling weight.  They'd all be "main characters".   

In classic "Game of Thrones" style storytelling, we'd assume Biggs Darklighter was one of the heroes of the story.  Him defecting to the Rebel Alliance would be a massive plot point as we watched him rise up the ranks.  Meanwhile, we'd assume Bail Organa was the star of the show.  His storyline would heat up when his daughter Leia is kidnapped.  We'd spend a lot of time dealing with the political intrigue of Alderaan and the fallout of his daughter's kidnap.

Of course, this would all culminate in the very shocking moment in which the entire planet of Alderaan - Bail Organa included, gets completely blown up by a Death Star.  Think of the Red Wedding, but magnify it by millions of voices crying out in terror.  Imagine how people would freak out as not only is the main star of the show eviscerated, but everyone near and dear to him that we've grown to love are also blasted into star dust.   

It would come as a great shock when the pretty boy star of the show Biggs Darklighter is killed in combat by the shadowy figure who is second in command to Tarkin (Vader).   

As the show progressed, we'd learn more about the "magic" and mysticism underlying the political drama.  We'd learn that there's more to this shadowy Vader character than we believed.

Meanwhile, we follow the young farmboy Luke as he begins his journey.

Other key characters would be introduced along the way. 

Following the Game of Thrones model, Luke probably doesn't even find out that he's the son of Darth Vader until Season 8 Episode 1.   By then, we'd have seen so much death and destruction that people would assume the show-runners were sadists that had no intention of having a happy ending.

To me, this story has always been about Jon Snow's arc in the same way the original Star Wars is about Luke Skywalker. 

Everything in this story feels like it adds context to Jon Snow's story. 

- The Starks:  Gives context to Jon's moral upbringing and crucial half of his family story

- Kings Landing:  Gives context to the throne that belongs to Jon

- The Wall:  Gives context to Jon's growth as a leader

- Dany:  Her entire arc serves the purpose of giving us context to Jon's Targaryen background while subsequently introducing dragons

I feel like "Game of Thrones" is subversive, but not in the way people think.  It's not about defying basic storytelling principles when it comes to the large arc.  It's about how much depth and importance is given to the peripheral.  Standard storytelling, you tell a story about Alexander the Great completely focused on Alexander the Great from start to finish.  In this style, you tell a story about 330s BC Macedon told through the real-time perspective of multiple main characters - and don't even realize this is a story about Alexander the Great until the home stretch. 

Problem is that fans have spent several years hyper-analyzing every aspect of the books/show so they expect more grand surprises.  It almost undermines how pivotal it was to find out that Jon is indeed the true King.  We have 5 episodes left.  If this thing doesn't land on the conclusion of his arc, it would be really bizarre storytelling that would feel random and "twisty" for the sake of being twisty. 

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1314 on: April 17, 2019, 12:21:34 AM »

Offline liam

  • NCE
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43397
  • Tommy Points: 3150


Which “themes” are you referring to when you say this?  I think most people misunderstand what George RR Martin was actually doing.

If you think the show/book is all about twists and shocking moments that defy expectations, you’re misinterpreting what makes this creative endeavor unique.


Subverting the trope of good intentions and ideals winning out; the noble hero triumphing; good vs evil; etc etc.


Generally the story of GoT so far has favored shrewd schemers who are willing to sacrifice their ideals in favor of recognizing reality. 

The last couple of seasons it's kind of gone away from that.  But early on the show was notable for how people who believed that right was on their side, who in an ordinary fantasy story would find a way to prevail in the end, met an unexpected and undignified death.  Whereas people willing to sacrifice their principles in favor of practicalities have managed to survive.


The dragon queen and the noble heir to the throne ending up on top at the end would seem much more in line with a traditional fantasy story, as opposed to a story that likes to subvert those kinds of expectations.

Indeed, Jon is now the classic fantasy protagonist.  He thought he was an illegitimate by-blow but actually he's a prince!  He came back from the dead!  He's literally the resurrected savior.

I would be surprised if he ended up making it to the end.  Seems more likely that he was brought back from the dead so that he could die again, later, in a more meaningful sacrifice.

I think that's a standard interpretation of Game of Thrones... and perhaps it's right, but I've never felt it was accurate.

To me, this series has always been about telling a conventional "heroes journey" fantasy story, but using a unique style of storytelling
from multiple perspectives that magnifies secondary characters and masks the conventional arc.

The best way I can explain this is to imagine telling the original Star Wars trilogy over the course of 8 Game of Thrones style seasons.

Both stories are essentially a "heroes journey" about an unknown adopted nobody (Luke and Jon Snow).  The difference is that instead of purely focusing on Luke/Jon the entire time, Game of Thrones heightens the roles of everyone else.   

So imagine if Season 1 of "Star Wars" opens with the Organa family on Alderaan.  You assume Bail Organa, the patriarch of the family, is the main character of the series.  Maybe the show casts some big-name actor to play him. We meet him, his wife, his daughter Leia, various characters in his life, etc. 

Meanwhile, we shift focus to a young Imperial Academy recruit named Biggs Darklighter.  We meet his family.  Maybe he has a girl he leaves behind.  He's got an envious buddy named Luke from back home who we briefly meet. 

There's other characters we focus on like Admiral Ackbar and his crew.  The mysterious hermit named Ben.  We spend a lot of time seeing the big baddie of the series, Wilhuff Tarkin do all sorts of terrible things to make us hate him.  They'd all be given the same storytelling weight.  They'd all be "main characters".   

In classic "Game of Thrones" style storytelling, we'd assume Biggs Darklighter was one of the heroes of the story.  Him defecting to the Rebel Alliance would be a massive plot point as we watched him rise up the ranks.  Meanwhile, we'd assume Bail Organa was the star of the show.  His storyline would heat up when his daughter Leia is kidnapped.  We'd spend a lot of time dealing with the political intrigue of Alderaan and the fallout of his daughter's kidnap.

Of course, this would all culminate in the very shocking moment in which the entire planet of Alderaan - Bail Organa included, gets completely blown up by a Death Star.  Think of the Red Wedding, but magnify it by millions of voices crying out in terror.  Imagine how people would freak out as not only is the main star of the show eviscerated, but everyone near and dear to him that we've grown to love are also blasted into star dust.   

It would come as a great shock when the pretty boy star of the show Biggs Darklighter is killed in combat by the shadowy figure who is second in command to Tarkin (Vader).   

As the show progressed, we'd learn more about the "magic" and mysticism underlying the political drama.  We'd learn that there's more to this shadowy Vader character than we believed.

Meanwhile, we follow the young farmboy Luke as he begins his journey.

Other key characters would be introduced along the way. 

Following the Game of Thrones model, Luke probably doesn't even find out that he's the son of Darth Vader until Season 8 Episode 1.   By then, we'd have seen so much death and destruction that people would assume the show-runners were sadists that had no intention of having a happy ending.

To me, this story has always been about Jon Snow's arc in the same way the original Star Wars is about Luke Skywalker. 

Everything in this story feels like it adds context to Jon Snow's story. 

- The Starks:  Gives context to Jon's moral upbringing and crucial half of his family story

- Kings Landing:  Gives context to the throne that belongs to Jon

- The Wall:  Gives context to Jon's growth as a leader

- Dany:  Her entire arc serves the purpose of giving us context to Jon's Targaryen background while subsequently introducing dragons

I feel like "Game of Thrones" is subversive, but not in the way people think.  It's not about defying basic storytelling principles when it comes to the large arc.  It's about how much depth and importance is given to the peripheral.  Standard storytelling, you tell a story about Alexander the Great completely focused on Alexander the Great from start to finish.  In this style, you tell a story about 330s BC Macedon told through the real-time perspective of multiple main characters - and don't even realize this is a story about Alexander the Great until the home stretch. 

Problem is that fans have spent several years hyper-analyzing every aspect of the books/show so they expect more grand surprises.  It almost undermines how pivotal it was to find out that Jon is indeed the true King.  We have 5 episodes left.  If this thing doesn't land on the conclusion of his arc, it would be really bizarre storytelling that would feel random and "twisty" for the sake of being twisty.

Star Wars is Anakin Skywalker's story. He's the hero who brings balance to the force. At least in the first 6 episodes. Anakin is still a shadow hanging over the new movies.

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1315 on: April 17, 2019, 05:14:21 AM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8113
  • Tommy Points: 549
I don't see how Jon killing Dani works. The Unsullied are pledged to Dany. The Dothraki are pledged to Dany. The dragons are bonded with Dany. Tyrion is pledged to Dany. Even Jon himself is pledged to Dany now. If Jon kills Dany, all hell would break loose. It would also be against his character. Even breaking his pledge would be. It would also go against his focus on stopping the Night King and the dead rather than who sits on the Iron Throne.

In season 7, when the White Walker was killed and a bunch of the dead with him collapsed, they speculated that killing the Night King might destroy all the dead. I expect that the dead will be winning the battle and when things are bleakest either Jon or Dany will sacrifice themselves to kill the Night King probably in a dragon battle where another dragon is lost. I could see either doing so but it is more in Jon's nature to do so. 

As for Jamie killing Cersei, I'd be surprised if that occurs. He's on the "becoming good" trendline. Killing Cersei would also kill his unborn child. Hard to see that happening even if Cersei were to succeed with having Tyrion killed. I'd speculate that Sansa or Sansa/Arya would be responsible for Cersei's demise probably with the inevitable Hound kills Mountain precursor fight. Now Arya could be wearing Jamie's face.   
Dany is ruthless and one tracked.  I could absolutely see a scenario where she goes crazy and in her quest to kill the Night King starts killing innocents along the way, giving Jon no other option.  Jon is also willing to do anything to protect the north and his people.  If he has to kill her to fulfill a prophecy that will allow him to kill the Night King, he would. 

I seriously doubt Cersei is pregnant.  I think she was just manipulating Jamie and Tyrion.  That is what she does.  And again, Martin loves prophecies, the one with Cersei says her little brother kills her.  Now the show could deviate from the books in that regard, but it would be a pretty big departure.  And it absolutely would fit with Jamie's redemption story to kill his Mad Sister.  Much like he killed the Mad King when he needed to go to protect the greater good.  At his center, Jamie is a good man that will do anything to protect the greater good (for awhile to him his sister was the greater good).
Ruthless:  Lacking compassion or pity.  Dany can be harsh but she isn't ruthless.  She is certainly focused on the Iron Throne but she isn't one tracked.  A ruthless one tracked person wouldn't have dealt with Slaver's Bay like Dany did.  Dany most certainly isn't crazy.  Dany's quest is the Iron Throne.  Dealing with the Night King is a side bar for her. 

The books and the show aren't the same and Martin isn't running the show.  Cersei being strangled by her little brother was apparently only mentioned in the books.  Besides prophecies are vague, often not literal and open to various interpretations and misinterpretations.  Cersei's little brother strangling her with his hands might be Jamie (although he only has one hand), or it could be Tyrion or it could be Arya wearing Jamie or Tyrion's face. 

I could certainly see Cersei faking pregnancy for her own purposes.  It makes sense with regards to Tyrion.  However Jamie would figure out the ruse in a few months.  I guess she could claim she miscarried.  As for Jamie, he's not a good man at his center.  A good man doesn't push Bran to his likely death from the Winterfell tower.  Jamie didn't even try to threaten Bran into silence before he did it.  It wouldn’t surprise me if Jamie kills Cersei but I don’t think Cersei having Tyrion killed would do it.  Now if the Night King and dead reach King’s landing and Cersei’s plan is to let them in and blow up all of King’s landing with Wildfire I could see him killing her.     

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1316 on: April 17, 2019, 06:12:59 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
Quote
The books and the show aren't the same and Martin isn't running the show.  Cersei being strangled by her little brother was apparently only mentioned in the books.  Besides prophecies are vague, often not literal and open to various interpretations and misinterpretations.  Cersei's little brother strangling her with his hands might be Jamie (although he only has one hand), or it could be Tyrion or it could be Arya wearing Jamie or Tyrion's face

Which means we may or may not get a Hollywood ending.

Quote
I could certainly see Cersei faking pregnancy for her own purposes.  It makes sense with regards to Tyrion.  However Jamie would figure out the ruse in a few months.  I guess she could claim she miscarried.  As for Jamie, he's not a good man at his center.  A good man doesn't push Bran to his likely death from the Winterfell tower.  Jamie didn't even try to threaten Bran into silence before he did it.  It wouldn’t surprise me if Jamie kills Cersei but I don’t think Cersei having Tyrion killed would do it.  Now if the Night King and dead reach King’s landing and Cersei’s plan is to let them in and blow up all of King’s landing with Wildfire I could see him killing her

If the Night King makes it to King's Landing he may get his Night Queen....

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1317 on: April 17, 2019, 07:02:26 AM »

Offline ederson

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2896
  • Tommy Points: 279
Quote
The books and the show aren't the same and Martin isn't running the show.  Cersei being strangled by her little brother was apparently only mentioned in the books.  Besides prophecies are vague, often not literal and open to various interpretations and misinterpretations.  Cersei's little brother strangling her with his hands might be Jamie (although he only has one hand), or it could be Tyrion or it could be Arya wearing Jamie or Tyrion's face

Which means we may or may not get a Hollywood ending.

there has been a turn towards a hollywood blockbuster kind of movie/series  though

I don't think (i certainly don't hope) that we ll see a wedding and a the lived happily ever after kind of ending but i can't rule it completely out.

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1318 on: April 17, 2019, 07:39:49 AM »

Offline A Future of Stevens

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2524
  • Tommy Points: 486


Which “themes” are you referring to when you say this?  I think most people misunderstand what George RR Martin was actually doing.

If you think the show/book is all about twists and shocking moments that defy expectations, you’re misinterpreting what makes this creative endeavor unique.


Subverting the trope of good intentions and ideals winning out; the noble hero triumphing; good vs evil; etc etc.


Generally the story of GoT so far has favored shrewd schemers who are willing to sacrifice their ideals in favor of recognizing reality. 

The last couple of seasons it's kind of gone away from that.  But early on the show was notable for how people who believed that right was on their side, who in an ordinary fantasy story would find a way to prevail in the end, met an unexpected and undignified death.  Whereas people willing to sacrifice their principles in favor of practicalities have managed to survive.


The dragon queen and the noble heir to the throne ending up on top at the end would seem much more in line with a traditional fantasy story, as opposed to a story that likes to subvert those kinds of expectations.

Indeed, Jon is now the classic fantasy protagonist.  He thought he was an illegitimate by-blow but actually he's a prince!  He came back from the dead!  He's literally the resurrected savior.

I would be surprised if he ended up making it to the end.  Seems more likely that he was brought back from the dead so that he could die again, later, in a more meaningful sacrifice.

I think that's a standard interpretation of Game of Thrones... and perhaps it's right, but I've never felt it was accurate.

To me, this series has always been about telling a conventional "heroes journey" fantasy story, but using a unique style of storytelling
from multiple perspectives that magnifies secondary characters and masks the conventional arc.

The best way I can explain this is to imagine telling the original Star Wars trilogy over the course of 8 Game of Thrones style seasons.

Both stories are essentially a "heroes journey" about an unknown adopted nobody (Luke and Jon Snow).  The difference is that instead of purely focusing on Luke/Jon the entire time, Game of Thrones heightens the roles of everyone else.   

So imagine if Season 1 of "Star Wars" opens with the Organa family on Alderaan.  You assume Bail Organa, the patriarch of the family, is the main character of the series.  Maybe the show casts some big-name actor to play him. We meet him, his wife, his daughter Leia, various characters in his life, etc. 

Meanwhile, we shift focus to a young Imperial Academy recruit named Biggs Darklighter.  We meet his family.  Maybe he has a girl he leaves behind.  He's got an envious buddy named Luke from back home who we briefly meet. 

There's other characters we focus on like Admiral Ackbar and his crew.  The mysterious hermit named Ben.  We spend a lot of time seeing the big baddie of the series, Wilhuff Tarkin do all sorts of terrible things to make us hate him.  They'd all be given the same storytelling weight.  They'd all be "main characters".   

In classic "Game of Thrones" style storytelling, we'd assume Biggs Darklighter was one of the heroes of the story.  Him defecting to the Rebel Alliance would be a massive plot point as we watched him rise up the ranks.  Meanwhile, we'd assume Bail Organa was the star of the show.  His storyline would heat up when his daughter Leia is kidnapped.  We'd spend a lot of time dealing with the political intrigue of Alderaan and the fallout of his daughter's kidnap.

Of course, this would all culminate in the very shocking moment in which the entire planet of Alderaan - Bail Organa included, gets completely blown up by a Death Star.  Think of the Red Wedding, but magnify it by millions of voices crying out in terror.  Imagine how people would freak out as not only is the main star of the show eviscerated, but everyone near and dear to him that we've grown to love are also blasted into star dust.   

It would come as a great shock when the pretty boy star of the show Biggs Darklighter is killed in combat by the shadowy figure who is second in command to Tarkin (Vader).   

As the show progressed, we'd learn more about the "magic" and mysticism underlying the political drama.  We'd learn that there's more to this shadowy Vader character than we believed.

Meanwhile, we follow the young farmboy Luke as he begins his journey.

Other key characters would be introduced along the way. 

Following the Game of Thrones model, Luke probably doesn't even find out that he's the son of Darth Vader until Season 8 Episode 1.   By then, we'd have seen so much death and destruction that people would assume the show-runners were sadists that had no intention of having a happy ending.

To me, this story has always been about Jon Snow's arc in the same way the original Star Wars is about Luke Skywalker. 

Everything in this story feels like it adds context to Jon Snow's story. 

- The Starks:  Gives context to Jon's moral upbringing and crucial half of his family story

- Kings Landing:  Gives context to the throne that belongs to Jon

- The Wall:  Gives context to Jon's growth as a leader

- Dany:  Her entire arc serves the purpose of giving us context to Jon's Targaryen background while subsequently introducing dragons

I feel like "Game of Thrones" is subversive, but not in the way people think.  It's not about defying basic storytelling principles when it comes to the large arc.  It's about how much depth and importance is given to the peripheral.  Standard storytelling, you tell a story about Alexander the Great completely focused on Alexander the Great from start to finish.  In this style, you tell a story about 330s BC Macedon told through the real-time perspective of multiple main characters - and don't even realize this is a story about Alexander the Great until the home stretch. 

Problem is that fans have spent several years hyper-analyzing every aspect of the books/show so they expect more grand surprises.  It almost undermines how pivotal it was to find out that Jon is indeed the true King.  We have 5 episodes left.  If this thing doesn't land on the conclusion of his arc, it would be really bizarre storytelling that would feel random and "twisty" for the sake of being twisty.

I agree with everything you said. This post made me really think about the Jon Targaryen surprise. Based on reading the books a few times and hearing so many of the R + L = J reddit theories, I wasn't shocked in the least when the show confirmed it. However that is the largest surprise in the whole story. I mean the name of the story is A Song of ICE and FIRE. The title even throws his parentage in your face. Of course the story is about Jon Snow.

I may completely rip off the way you described the focus on ancillary characters Lar. TP
#JKJB

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1319 on: April 17, 2019, 09:06:59 AM »

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31869
  • Tommy Points: 10047
Quote
The books and the show aren't the same and Martin isn't running the show.  Cersei being strangled by her little brother was apparently only mentioned in the books.  Besides prophecies are vague, often not literal and open to various interpretations and misinterpretations.  Cersei's little brother strangling her with his hands might be Jamie (although he only has one hand), or it could be Tyrion or it could be Arya wearing Jamie or Tyrion's face

Which means we may or may not get a Hollywood ending.

Quote
I could certainly see Cersei faking pregnancy for her own purposes.  It makes sense with regards to Tyrion.  However Jamie would figure out the ruse in a few months.  I guess she could claim she miscarried.  As for Jamie, he's not a good man at his center.  A good man doesn't push Bran to his likely death from the Winterfell tower.  Jamie didn't even try to threaten Bran into silence before he did it.  It wouldn’t surprise me if Jamie kills Cersei but I don’t think Cersei having Tyrion killed would do it.  Now if the Night King and dead reach King’s landing and Cersei’s plan is to let them in and blow up all of King’s landing with Wildfire I could see him killing her

If the Night King makes it to King's Landing he may get his Night Queen....
oh, wouldn't that be a sweet twist. 
- battle at Winterfell fails to stop the Night King so who's left retreats to King's Landing
- whomever's "destined" to kill Cersei is in King's Landing to do so and kills her off as the Night King's army approaches King's Landing
- Night King raises Cersei as his queen. 

Wouldn't that be the evil couple from hell!!   I could see that.  have those 2 and his army pitted against the survivors in a winner-take-all for the kingdom and throne.  if this did happen, I would suspect Dany and her dragon (or all dragons -- depends on whether the set up is a finale with dragons or not) were taken out in the battle of Winterfell.