|
SPOILER WARNING If you only watch the show, this thread will spoil you of future events in HBO's Game of Thrones. Thread contains discussion of all books of the series A Song of Ice and FireClick Here for the spoiler-free thread. |
On May 25 2011 02:26 lixlix wrote:
Well if the Rhaegar Lyanna theory is true, Dany would be Jon's aunt so her marrying him would be kind of sick.
No, that's just how the Targaryen do their business : Dany was supposed to be the wife of Rhaegar but was too young.
|
On May 25 2011 02:15 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 02:05 flamewheel wrote:From http://towerofthehand.com/essays/chrisholden/jon_snows_parents.html : As one last tidbit of evidence, it can be said that if Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, it fits with the series name 'A Song of Ice and Fire.' Jon seems to be shaping as the main character, and it would fit the series title if his parents were Rhaegar (fire) and Lyanna (ice). So I was discussing GoT with Wax last night before sleeping. The conclusion we came to was that Jon was ice and Dany was fire and they would go against one another in the end... or something like that. Basically because Jon is now pretty much the only character left in the series without fault. I mean, you know he's got to be something important in the end, even if he's getting ignored now. Though that interpretation above makes me think... Jon + Dany get married or something? Who knows; I actually need to read the books now instead of spoilering myself off wiki plots and internet articles. Edit: Huh, and the first comment at the end of that article came to the same conclusion I did... Yeah even if it's quite pointless to theorize on the end of the books, I also think Jon and Daenerys will fight one against each other, until the others or any other bigger threat comes and force them to unite. Then Daenerys marry Jon (who is the prince that should come or whatever) and everybody is happy. At least that's how I see the end of the book. Daenerys have had some dream about her brother Rhaegar and how he talks about the third head of the dragon while looking at his two child, meaning Jon is the third. The problem is Martin is the guy that is known to shaken your own certitude. On the other side, he already killed almost everyone. Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 00:35 Mattes wrote:
Its not only Ned (although you're right, he is the main character of book 1), but the viewers who haven't read the books will experience 4 "major" deaths in 4 consecutive episodes as it seems (ep6 - visery, ep7 - robert, ep8/9 - drogo/eddard).
Yeah, probably the first time for many viewers that a show kills of a huge percentage of (at that point) important characters.
Will be interesting to see. The main problem will not be in Season 1 I think because, even if Ned / Varys / Drogo /Robert are all great characters, they don't die letting nothing behind them: Ned has a son, Varys and Drogo's story line / legacy will still be there through Daenerys and Robert will be there through Stannis / Renly / Joffrey. My main concern is about S2, when you have Robb dying, Catelyne changing name (meaning no more grown up Starks), Renly dying (like a shit). Those characters will let nothing behind them, nobody will get revenge for them (at least not now after 4 books) and nobody will take their legacy / name through the rest of the saga.
Robb and Catelyn die in book 3. And their deaths are just as important for driving the story forward as Neds was. The main theme of the books is not the conflict between the Starks and the Lannisters, it is just a backdrop for the first three books. And it seems to me like you try to fit the story into some kind of formula where a character was useless unless they leave an heir behind or they get revenged. That is not true. Each of them contributed in their way to the state of the world as it is now. And just as importantly, they each contributed to tell a good story. But they had to go to allow the story to progress. And in my opinion, all the interesting characters are still alive anyway. The Stark kids are going to take more active roles now. That is why Martin originally wanted a 5 year gap between book 3 and 4, and why he suggested to age them up for the tv show.
|
I'm gonna throw up if we get an ending with Jon and Dany living happily ever after. It would be just too convenient, and they are both dangerously close to being "Mary Sue"-characters. Dany cannot have children anyway, so that leaves the problem of succession.
I'm guessing they'll die destroying the others.
|
On May 25 2011 02:28 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 02:26 lixlix wrote:
Well if the Rhaegar Lyanna theory is true, Dany would be Jon's aunt so her marrying him would be kind of sick. No, that's just how the Targaryen do their business : Dany was supposed to be the wife of Rhaegar but was too young.
Danny was supposed to marry Vyseris according to the Targaryen law, but he sold her to Drogo for an army.
|
I'm thinking Dany's dragons are what turn the tide against the white walkers, Jon Snow dies epically in battle, and Bran ends up King.
|
On May 25 2011 02:36 pred470r wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 02:28 WhiteDog wrote:On May 25 2011 02:26 lixlix wrote:
Well if the Rhaegar Lyanna theory is true, Dany would be Jon's aunt so her marrying him would be kind of sick. No, that's just how the Targaryen do their business : Dany was supposed to be the wife of Rhaegar but was too young. Danny was supposed to marry Vyseris according to the Targaryen law, but he sold her to Drogo for an army.
No, Rhaegar was the older brother and the heir to the throne.
|
On May 25 2011 02:30 Maginor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 02:15 WhiteDog wrote:On May 25 2011 02:05 flamewheel wrote:From http://towerofthehand.com/essays/chrisholden/jon_snows_parents.html : As one last tidbit of evidence, it can be said that if Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, it fits with the series name 'A Song of Ice and Fire.' Jon seems to be shaping as the main character, and it would fit the series title if his parents were Rhaegar (fire) and Lyanna (ice). So I was discussing GoT with Wax last night before sleeping. The conclusion we came to was that Jon was ice and Dany was fire and they would go against one another in the end... or something like that. Basically because Jon is now pretty much the only character left in the series without fault. I mean, you know he's got to be something important in the end, even if he's getting ignored now. Though that interpretation above makes me think... Jon + Dany get married or something? Who knows; I actually need to read the books now instead of spoilering myself off wiki plots and internet articles. Edit: Huh, and the first comment at the end of that article came to the same conclusion I did... Yeah even if it's quite pointless to theorize on the end of the books, I also think Jon and Daenerys will fight one against each other, until the others or any other bigger threat comes and force them to unite. Then Daenerys marry Jon (who is the prince that should come or whatever) and everybody is happy. At least that's how I see the end of the book. Daenerys have had some dream about her brother Rhaegar and how he talks about the third head of the dragon while looking at his two child, meaning Jon is the third. The problem is Martin is the guy that is known to shaken your own certitude. On the other side, he already killed almost everyone. On May 25 2011 00:35 Mattes wrote:
Its not only Ned (although you're right, he is the main character of book 1), but the viewers who haven't read the books will experience 4 "major" deaths in 4 consecutive episodes as it seems (ep6 - visery, ep7 - robert, ep8/9 - drogo/eddard).
Yeah, probably the first time for many viewers that a show kills of a huge percentage of (at that point) important characters.
Will be interesting to see. The main problem will not be in Season 1 I think because, even if Ned / Varys / Drogo /Robert are all great characters, they don't die letting nothing behind them: Ned has a son, Varys and Drogo's story line / legacy will still be there through Daenerys and Robert will be there through Stannis / Renly / Joffrey. My main concern is about S2, when you have Robb dying, Catelyne changing name (meaning no more grown up Starks), Renly dying (like a shit). Those characters will let nothing behind them, nobody will get revenge for them (at least not now after 4 books) and nobody will take their legacy / name through the rest of the saga. Robb and Catelyn dies in book 3. And their deaths are just as important for driving the story forward as Neds was. The main theme of the books is not the conflict between the Starks and the Lannisters, it is just a backdrop for the first three books. And it seems to me like you try to fit the story into some kind of formula where a character was useless unless they leave an heir behind or they get revenged. That is not true. Each of them contributed in their way to the state of the world as it is now. And just as importantly, they each contributed to tell a good story. But they had to go to allow the story to progress. And in my opinion, all the interesting characters are still alive anyway. The Stark kids are going to take more active roles now. That is why Martin originally wanted a 5 year gap between book 3 and 4, and why he suggested to age them up for the tv show.
Sorry in my country the books are separated and Robb dies in the sixth or something.
No it's not a formula, I was just implying that it's easier for the viewer : if you like a character his / her death will leave a hole. You will want revenge for him or something, but that's just not how Martin write, so I just don't know how it will go on TV.
The Stark kids have no activ roles, rickon is AFK and will not come again and Bran is beyond the wall. Sansa changed her name and Arya too (and blind lol). There are no Stark or anyone to represent the Stark in the Game of Throne at the moment (by game of throne I mean all the shit around the iron throne). Even winterfell is destroyed.
Yeah Martin wanted a gap, but it will not happen no ? I'm not really clear about that.
|
On May 25 2011 02:15 WhiteDog wrote:
The main problem will not be in Season 1 I think because, even if Ned / Varys / Drogo /Robert are all great characters, they don't die letting nothing behind them: Ned has a son, Varys and Drogo's story line / legacy will still be there through Daenerys and Robert will be there through Stannis / Renly / Joffrey.
My main concern is about S2, when you have Robb dying, Catelyne changing name (meaning no more grown up Starks), Renly dying (like a shit). Those characters will let nothing behind them, nobody will get revenge for them (at least not now after 4 books) and nobody will take their legacy / name through the rest of the saga.
First of all...robb will die in s3.
And even though his death was kind of a mindfuck, it certainly does not mean his legacy will perish. Bran is now the reightful heir to the house stark, and even though his story is pretty much unwritten at the end of book 3 im looking forward to his destiny.
Renly i gotta say i dont care that much, but there is always stannis for the baratheon-family-line.
Catelyns Story alone continues due to sansa, bran and arya being alive. Certainly, she does not know that, but there is no doubt in my mind that arya will come back to westeros.
I didnt mean that other events (and the red wedding is definately in that category) arent more impactful. But this is season one of a new show for viewers without book-knowledge, and killing of 4 major characters of the first season just hasnt been there before.
On May 25 2011 02:26 lixlix wrote:
Well if the Rhaegar Lyanna theory is true, Dany would be Jon's aunt so her marrying him would be kind of sick.
Well, considering targaryens have married their siblings together for decades it wouldnt be that surprising/unwarranted
@the whole jons parentage/dany thing:
Its seems obvious that jon and dany will meet each other at a certain given time in the books (book 6, "The Winds of Winter" does seem to heavily focus on the northern part, or at least the coming of the long winter, while "A dream of spring" does indicate some kind of resolution)
With the implication of the white walkers aversion of fire, and dragons with lots of fiery capacity..i guess dany could be, with jon, as both the last survivors of the targaryen-bloodline, the resolution against the coming winter/whatever behind the wall.
On the other hand...yeah, song of ice and fire...ice and fire...jon and dany...its obvious. Maybe too obvious to be true.
|
On May 25 2011 02:39 Cyberspace1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 02:36 pred470r wrote:On May 25 2011 02:28 WhiteDog wrote:On May 25 2011 02:26 lixlix wrote:
Well if the Rhaegar Lyanna theory is true, Dany would be Jon's aunt so her marrying him would be kind of sick. No, that's just how the Targaryen do their business : Dany was supposed to be the wife of Rhaegar but was too young. Danny was supposed to marry Vyseris according to the Targaryen law, but he sold her to Drogo for an army. No, Rhaegar was the older brother and the heir to the throne.
Yeah, but he died, so Vyseris is next in line to marry her.
|
On May 25 2011 02:40 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 02:30 Maginor wrote:On May 25 2011 02:15 WhiteDog wrote:On May 25 2011 02:05 flamewheel wrote:From http://towerofthehand.com/essays/chrisholden/jon_snows_parents.html : As one last tidbit of evidence, it can be said that if Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, it fits with the series name 'A Song of Ice and Fire.' Jon seems to be shaping as the main character, and it would fit the series title if his parents were Rhaegar (fire) and Lyanna (ice). So I was discussing GoT with Wax last night before sleeping. The conclusion we came to was that Jon was ice and Dany was fire and they would go against one another in the end... or something like that. Basically because Jon is now pretty much the only character left in the series without fault. I mean, you know he's got to be something important in the end, even if he's getting ignored now. Though that interpretation above makes me think... Jon + Dany get married or something? Who knows; I actually need to read the books now instead of spoilering myself off wiki plots and internet articles. Edit: Huh, and the first comment at the end of that article came to the same conclusion I did... Yeah even if it's quite pointless to theorize on the end of the books, I also think Jon and Daenerys will fight one against each other, until the others or any other bigger threat comes and force them to unite. Then Daenerys marry Jon (who is the prince that should come or whatever) and everybody is happy. At least that's how I see the end of the book. Daenerys have had some dream about her brother Rhaegar and how he talks about the third head of the dragon while looking at his two child, meaning Jon is the third. The problem is Martin is the guy that is known to shaken your own certitude. On the other side, he already killed almost everyone. On May 25 2011 00:35 Mattes wrote:
Its not only Ned (although you're right, he is the main character of book 1), but the viewers who haven't read the books will experience 4 "major" deaths in 4 consecutive episodes as it seems (ep6 - visery, ep7 - robert, ep8/9 - drogo/eddard).
Yeah, probably the first time for many viewers that a show kills of a huge percentage of (at that point) important characters.
Will be interesting to see. The main problem will not be in Season 1 I think because, even if Ned / Varys / Drogo /Robert are all great characters, they don't die letting nothing behind them: Ned has a son, Varys and Drogo's story line / legacy will still be there through Daenerys and Robert will be there through Stannis / Renly / Joffrey. My main concern is about S2, when you have Robb dying, Catelyne changing name (meaning no more grown up Starks), Renly dying (like a shit). Those characters will let nothing behind them, nobody will get revenge for them (at least not now after 4 books) and nobody will take their legacy / name through the rest of the saga. Robb and Catelyn dies in book 3. And their deaths are just as important for driving the story forward as Neds was. The main theme of the books is not the conflict between the Starks and the Lannisters, it is just a backdrop for the first three books. And it seems to me like you try to fit the story into some kind of formula where a character was useless unless they leave an heir behind or they get revenged. That is not true. Each of them contributed in their way to the state of the world as it is now. And just as importantly, they each contributed to tell a good story. But they had to go to allow the story to progress. And in my opinion, all the interesting characters are still alive anyway. The Stark kids are going to take more active roles now. That is why Martin originally wanted a 5 year gap between book 3 and 4, and why he suggested to age them up for the tv show. Sorry in my country the books are separated and Robb dies in the sixth or something. No it's not a formula, it's easier for the viewer if you like a character his / her death will leave a hole. You will want revenge for him or something, but that's just not how Martin write, so I just don't know how it will go on TV. The Stark kids have no activ roles, rickon is AFK and will not come again and Bran is behond the wall. Sansa changed her name and Arya too (and blind lol). There are no Stark or anyone to represent the Stark in the Game of Throne at the moment (by game of throne I mean all the shit around the iron throne). Even winterfell is destroyed. Yeah Martin wanted a gap, but it will not happen no ? I'm not really clear about that.
I said they will take more active roles. As in the future books. The characters don't have to stay in the same place. We don't know if Arya is permanently blind, and their name changes was out of convenience, not necessarily forever. We don't know if the bulk of the story is going to focus around Kings Landing for a while either. I sort of felt like the situation there was resolved in AffC, and will not change much for a while. A Game of Thrones was the name of the first book. This is the Song of Ice and Fire.
|
On May 25 2011 02:43 pred470r wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 02:39 Cyberspace1 wrote:On May 25 2011 02:36 pred470r wrote:On May 25 2011 02:28 WhiteDog wrote:On May 25 2011 02:26 lixlix wrote:
Well if the Rhaegar Lyanna theory is true, Dany would be Jon's aunt so her marrying him would be kind of sick. No, that's just how the Targaryen do their business : Dany was supposed to be the wife of Rhaegar but was too young. Danny was supposed to marry Vyseris according to the Targaryen law, but he sold her to Drogo for an army. No, Rhaegar was the older brother and the heir to the throne. Yeah, but he died, so Vyseris is next in line to marry her.
Rhaegar was married to Elia Martell so he wouldn't have married Daenerys anyway.
|
On May 24 2011 21:19 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 07:04 1Eris1 wrote:On May 24 2011 07:00 Shaithis wrote:On May 24 2011 06:47 1Eris1 wrote:On May 24 2011 03:31 WhiteDog wrote:On May 24 2011 02:51 1Eris1 wrote:On May 24 2011 01:37 WhiteDog wrote:On May 24 2011 00:57 Skilledblob wrote:On May 24 2011 00:54 WhiteDog wrote:On May 24 2011 00:40 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
Im not arguing that all the lannisters are good, just like not all starks are. Tywin is probably evil, ill give you that, but cersei is borderline. The only person that loves her is the one person she cant be with, thats gotta be frustrating. Couple that with being a strong willed woman in a male dominated society and you start to pity her Then tell me which Starks are bad ? Every time they killed it wasto survive/ for revenge / for power. and the lannisters are different? So murdering the whore of Tyrion is for survive revenge or power ? Killing a bunch of Night Guards is for power ? Using Lancel as a sexual substitution while Jaime is away, while having the intention to kill him as soon as Jaime come back is certainely to survive... Come on... Don't you see any difference ? I don't think anyone will argue that Tywin is a good guy, but you can't just lump the Lannisters together in one big pot labeled evil. Yes, cersei and jaime have done bad things, but they've also done good things, same as certain Starks. It's not that black and white. They are very few Wholey Good characters in this book and most of them are dead or not main characters. And I don't believe Cersei ever actually said she was going to murder Lancel, I believe that was just something Tyrion was speculating. I'd rather think you're the one too blind to see how the book was written. As it is right now, Tyrion has decided to rise against his own familly and help Daenerys while Jaime also decided to turn the head and forget about his sister. And they did that because, and since the beginning, they had remorse about what they did for Cersei / Tywin / the Lannisters. Using corpses as test subjects is not "evil" ? I'm not saying they're all "bad", like they are dark sith or something, of course it's not that easy, but they were what was closer to the main vilain during the first two books, except for Tyrion who was more or less hated by everyone in his familly except Jaime (who was non existent during the entire second book, in cell). Now sure they are changing, since Martin killed all his PoV or made them useless to the main storyline, but saying they are, since the beginning, just the "opponent" of the Starks is absolutly wrong. The first two books were written so that you take the side of Tyrion (who said he liked Jon Snow / Robert Baratheon / Ned Stark and hated Cersei / Tywin) and the whole Stark familly. That's how Martin explain the way he whrite : he makes it in a way that you take the side of the PoV. PoV of the first 2 books : Jon Sansa Arya Catelyn Bran Ned Tyrion Daenerys Davos Theon All of them are ennemies of the Lannister (yes Tyrion is too, he hate his sister / tywin more than Robert or Ned, just keep by their side because of his sense of the familly). It's actually the only thing they all have in common. Edit: I added Theon, which I had forgot like a noob, thx to my fellow TLer. Arguing based on POV is kinda silly. To, Eddard the Lannisters are evil. To the Lannisters, the Starks are the bad ones. We see it from the point of the Starks view first, but that does not mean the Lannisters are evil. You can't simply say. Books 1-2: Lannisters are bad. Books 3-4: Lannisters are suddenely nicer people. They are the same people, + a few events, but you understand the concept. Yes, the Lannisters are probably crueler overall, but I'd argue thats a result of suffering. If you compare the families, the Starks haven't really faced hardship in the beginning of book 1, besides from Eddard. The Lannisters all have, be it losing friends, being mocked, losing loved ones, being short, etc etc. And Ned's suffering is related in a direct line to a few specific individuals, who are now dead, so he's less likely to take it out on others. And guess what, as the Starks suffer, they start to do more radical and less good acts. I like the Starks more personally, but it's not because of good/evil, but personailty rather. I don't think GRRM wanted the book to be Starks vs Lannisters with some Dragon girl on the side. It's a lot more complicated than that, and I think each individual reader maps out his own thoughts This is a dumb post. The phrases "good" and "evil" simply do not apply to anything that has happened thus far in any of the books. The fact that you said that Eddard thinks someone is evil just says that this is not the only thing that you have misunderstood. Everyone has their own agenda. It all boils down to this. In the beginning, things were fairly clear-cut, generally along family lines, but now, it's a big mess. You are meant to identify with the Starks, as their dearly departed leader was one of the few "men of honor" in the story. This does not make his enemies evil, however. Did you not read my post? Thats exactly what I'm arguing, that good/evil is not black and white at all, besides from a few specific individuals like Gregor, etc. No you're the one who is since the beginning arguing around "good" or "evil". I never used that, I said the Lannister were the VILAIN, the ANTAGONIST, the bad guys. Does not mean they are nazi who only want to destroy, but you are still supposed to take the side of the Stark, that's it, there is nothing to argue to that. The PoV are absolutly relevant: every character that you follow are opponent / against the Lannisters for the first 2 books and, except Cersei, all the Lannister you follow AFTER the first two books are more or less getting more and more distant with the Lannisters (Jaime burning Cersei's letter, Tyrion killing his father and helping Daenerys against his own familly). That's why I don't like how the saga evolved in AFFC, he built the entire saga around one familly who follow certain rules, getting destroyed by another familly while other event occur that are yet irrelevant to the main plot, which is the game of throne (the shit around the Iron Throne). Then, Martin destroyed all the grown up Starks, letting only the Lannisters / a certain number of new PoV / Daenerys still away from Westeros / and a bunch of kids. It's good to schock the readers with amazing twist and the lost of some major characters, but once you did that, you gotta think about what you let after. And, before you came and talk to me about good and evil, I was asking, how the TV show is gonna get, when all the Starks are going to die / disappear. (Just to mention, Arya does not use the name Stark, Catelyn same, Sansa same, Jon never used it anyway, Benjen gone and most likely became "Cold Hand", the only Starks in the books are Rickon who will not be back and Bran).
You're misinterpretting what I'm saying. The Lannisters are the villians in the beginning because thats how the Starks portray them. And since you as the reader, see it from the Starks point of view, you think they are the villians too. But then, when you start reading from the Lannister point of view you realize they were never actually the villians and it was just a point of view.
So yes, POV is relevant, but it does not dictate the forces in the story, rather it influences the readers thoughts on them.
I do not remember your original post or whatever, someone had said that the Lannisters were evil, and I didn't think that was correct.
And the T.V. show seems to be trying to portray the Lannisters as only moderately bad people, because the producers know that eventually those characters (Jaime, Cersei, etc) will be main POV characters, and it will be a lot easier for the viewers to get behind someone who's only semi-bad.
|
i'm a little confused.
is cat really dead? i thought this creepy weird hooded woman who's chilling our with dondarrion (Was it him?! the dude that couldn't die and had the fella with the burning sword with him) was catelyn.
|
On May 24 2011 14:51 betaV1.25 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 13:27 GDbushido wrote:
Once the dragons are full-grown Dany will command the most fearsome known army in the world. For all we know the army of the others could match it easely. I do believe mister Martin is setting us up for a decent fight i expect atleast 1 dragon to die in the coming books due to a battle. No, it couldn't. Are you not familiar with Aegon the Conqueror? Three dragons plus the best infantry in the world makes Dany the most dangerous general around. Should the Westerosi knights flock to her banners, as seems likely, she will be nearly invincible against any army of men.
The battle in the north is another story altogether - who knows what kind of monsters could come out of that wilderness? But the point is that, between her dragons, Unsullied, and future western bannermen, Dany is obviously set up to lead the humans into battle.
Also I didn't realize what you meant by "others"...thats why I specified KNOWN armies in my post, and why we capitalize Others.
|
On May 25 2011 02:54 sCuMBaG wrote:
i'm a little confused.
is cat really dead? i thought this creepy weird hooded woman who's chilling our with dondarrion (Was it him?! the dude that couldn't die and had the fella with the burning sword with him) was catelyn.
Catelyn is now known as Lady Stoneheart, and she is basically undead. Dondarrion died so they could resurrect Catelyn.
Undead Catelyn now leads Dondarrion's men, who include Thoros of Myr (flaming sword), Tom of Sevenstrings (a bard who acts as a spy), Lem Lemoncloak (his yellow cloak always gets a mention), Gendry and others.
They are hanging all Freys and Lannisters they can find, the families that were behind the "red wedding". In a way the group has become a means for Catelyn to get revenge.
|
On May 25 2011 02:44 Maginor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 02:40 WhiteDog wrote:On May 25 2011 02:30 Maginor wrote:On May 25 2011 02:15 WhiteDog wrote:On May 25 2011 02:05 flamewheel wrote:From http://towerofthehand.com/essays/chrisholden/jon_snows_parents.html : As one last tidbit of evidence, it can be said that if Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, it fits with the series name 'A Song of Ice and Fire.' Jon seems to be shaping as the main character, and it would fit the series title if his parents were Rhaegar (fire) and Lyanna (ice). So I was discussing GoT with Wax last night before sleeping. The conclusion we came to was that Jon was ice and Dany was fire and they would go against one another in the end... or something like that. Basically because Jon is now pretty much the only character left in the series without fault. I mean, you know he's got to be something important in the end, even if he's getting ignored now. Though that interpretation above makes me think... Jon + Dany get married or something? Who knows; I actually need to read the books now instead of spoilering myself off wiki plots and internet articles. Edit: Huh, and the first comment at the end of that article came to the same conclusion I did... Yeah even if it's quite pointless to theorize on the end of the books, I also think Jon and Daenerys will fight one against each other, until the others or any other bigger threat comes and force them to unite. Then Daenerys marry Jon (who is the prince that should come or whatever) and everybody is happy. At least that's how I see the end of the book. Daenerys have had some dream about her brother Rhaegar and how he talks about the third head of the dragon while looking at his two child, meaning Jon is the third. The problem is Martin is the guy that is known to shaken your own certitude. On the other side, he already killed almost everyone. On May 25 2011 00:35 Mattes wrote:
Its not only Ned (although you're right, he is the main character of book 1), but the viewers who haven't read the books will experience 4 "major" deaths in 4 consecutive episodes as it seems (ep6 - visery, ep7 - robert, ep8/9 - drogo/eddard).
Yeah, probably the first time for many viewers that a show kills of a huge percentage of (at that point) important characters.
Will be interesting to see. The main problem will not be in Season 1 I think because, even if Ned / Varys / Drogo /Robert are all great characters, they don't die letting nothing behind them: Ned has a son, Varys and Drogo's story line / legacy will still be there through Daenerys and Robert will be there through Stannis / Renly / Joffrey. My main concern is about S2, when you have Robb dying, Catelyne changing name (meaning no more grown up Starks), Renly dying (like a shit). Those characters will let nothing behind them, nobody will get revenge for them (at least not now after 4 books) and nobody will take their legacy / name through the rest of the saga. Robb and Catelyn dies in book 3. And their deaths are just as important for driving the story forward as Neds was. The main theme of the books is not the conflict between the Starks and the Lannisters, it is just a backdrop for the first three books. And it seems to me like you try to fit the story into some kind of formula where a character was useless unless they leave an heir behind or they get revenged. That is not true. Each of them contributed in their way to the state of the world as it is now. And just as importantly, they each contributed to tell a good story. But they had to go to allow the story to progress. And in my opinion, all the interesting characters are still alive anyway. The Stark kids are going to take more active roles now. That is why Martin originally wanted a 5 year gap between book 3 and 4, and why he suggested to age them up for the tv show. Sorry in my country the books are separated and Robb dies in the sixth or something. No it's not a formula, it's easier for the viewer if you like a character his / her death will leave a hole. You will want revenge for him or something, but that's just not how Martin write, so I just don't know how it will go on TV. The Stark kids have no activ roles, rickon is AFK and will not come again and Bran is behond the wall. Sansa changed her name and Arya too (and blind lol). There are no Stark or anyone to represent the Stark in the Game of Throne at the moment (by game of throne I mean all the shit around the iron throne). Even winterfell is destroyed. Yeah Martin wanted a gap, but it will not happen no ? I'm not really clear about that. I said they will take more active roles. As in the future books. The characters don't have to stay in the same place. We don't know if Arya is permanently blind, and their name changes was out of convenience, not necessarily forever. We don't know if the bulk of the story is going to focus around Kings Landing for a while either. I sort of felt like the situation there was resolved in AffC, and will not change much for a while. A Game of Thrones was the name of the first book. This is the Song of Ice and Fire.
I agree with you, but it seems so far away even now. Rickon have no appearance in ADWD i think (at least not as a PoV) and Bran is beyond the wall and, with the leak Martin gave at the moment, + Show Spoiler [Spoiler for ADWD] +he has not yet see the three eyed crow.
What I mean is, there is a huge hole in the story in my point of view. But, as some said the first time, since AFFC and ADWD were supposed to be the same book, maybe they will change the TV so that S4 & 5 will stay in one peace.
On May 25 2011 02:52 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 21:19 WhiteDog wrote:On May 24 2011 07:04 1Eris1 wrote:On May 24 2011 07:00 Shaithis wrote:On May 24 2011 06:47 1Eris1 wrote:On May 24 2011 03:31 WhiteDog wrote:On May 24 2011 02:51 1Eris1 wrote:On May 24 2011 01:37 WhiteDog wrote:On May 24 2011 00:57 Skilledblob wrote:On May 24 2011 00:54 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Then tell me which Starks are bad ? Every time they killed it wasto survive/ for revenge / for power. and the lannisters are different? So murdering the whore of Tyrion is for survive revenge or power ? Killing a bunch of Night Guards is for power ? Using Lancel as a sexual substitution while Jaime is away, while having the intention to kill him as soon as Jaime come back is certainely to survive... Come on... Don't you see any difference ? I don't think anyone will argue that Tywin is a good guy, but you can't just lump the Lannisters together in one big pot labeled evil. Yes, cersei and jaime have done bad things, but they've also done good things, same as certain Starks. It's not that black and white. They are very few Wholey Good characters in this book and most of them are dead or not main characters. And I don't believe Cersei ever actually said she was going to murder Lancel, I believe that was just something Tyrion was speculating. I'd rather think you're the one too blind to see how the book was written. As it is right now, Tyrion has decided to rise against his own familly and help Daenerys while Jaime also decided to turn the head and forget about his sister. And they did that because, and since the beginning, they had remorse about what they did for Cersei / Tywin / the Lannisters. Using corpses as test subjects is not "evil" ? I'm not saying they're all "bad", like they are dark sith or something, of course it's not that easy, but they were what was closer to the main vilain during the first two books, except for Tyrion who was more or less hated by everyone in his familly except Jaime (who was non existent during the entire second book, in cell). Now sure they are changing, since Martin killed all his PoV or made them useless to the main storyline, but saying they are, since the beginning, just the "opponent" of the Starks is absolutly wrong. The first two books were written so that you take the side of Tyrion (who said he liked Jon Snow / Robert Baratheon / Ned Stark and hated Cersei / Tywin) and the whole Stark familly. That's how Martin explain the way he whrite : he makes it in a way that you take the side of the PoV. PoV of the first 2 books : Jon Sansa Arya Catelyn Bran Ned Tyrion Daenerys Davos Theon All of them are ennemies of the Lannister (yes Tyrion is too, he hate his sister / tywin more than Robert or Ned, just keep by their side because of his sense of the familly). It's actually the only thing they all have in common. Edit: I added Theon, which I had forgot like a noob, thx to my fellow TLer. Arguing based on POV is kinda silly. To, Eddard the Lannisters are evil. To the Lannisters, the Starks are the bad ones. We see it from the point of the Starks view first, but that does not mean the Lannisters are evil. You can't simply say. Books 1-2: Lannisters are bad. Books 3-4: Lannisters are suddenely nicer people. They are the same people, + a few events, but you understand the concept. Yes, the Lannisters are probably crueler overall, but I'd argue thats a result of suffering. If you compare the families, the Starks haven't really faced hardship in the beginning of book 1, besides from Eddard. The Lannisters all have, be it losing friends, being mocked, losing loved ones, being short, etc etc. And Ned's suffering is related in a direct line to a few specific individuals, who are now dead, so he's less likely to take it out on others. And guess what, as the Starks suffer, they start to do more radical and less good acts. I like the Starks more personally, but it's not because of good/evil, but personailty rather. I don't think GRRM wanted the book to be Starks vs Lannisters with some Dragon girl on the side. It's a lot more complicated than that, and I think each individual reader maps out his own thoughts This is a dumb post. The phrases "good" and "evil" simply do not apply to anything that has happened thus far in any of the books. The fact that you said that Eddard thinks someone is evil just says that this is not the only thing that you have misunderstood. Everyone has their own agenda. It all boils down to this. In the beginning, things were fairly clear-cut, generally along family lines, but now, it's a big mess. You are meant to identify with the Starks, as their dearly departed leader was one of the few "men of honor" in the story. This does not make his enemies evil, however. Did you not read my post? Thats exactly what I'm arguing, that good/evil is not black and white at all, besides from a few specific individuals like Gregor, etc. No you're the one who is since the beginning arguing around "good" or "evil". I never used that, I said the Lannister were the VILAIN, the ANTAGONIST, the bad guys. Does not mean they are nazi who only want to destroy, but you are still supposed to take the side of the Stark, that's it, there is nothing to argue to that. The PoV are absolutly relevant: every character that you follow are opponent / against the Lannisters for the first 2 books and, except Cersei, all the Lannister you follow AFTER the first two books are more or less getting more and more distant with the Lannisters (Jaime burning Cersei's letter, Tyrion killing his father and helping Daenerys against his own familly). That's why I don't like how the saga evolved in AFFC, he built the entire saga around one familly who follow certain rules, getting destroyed by another familly while other event occur that are yet irrelevant to the main plot, which is the game of throne (the shit around the Iron Throne). Then, Martin destroyed all the grown up Starks, letting only the Lannisters / a certain number of new PoV / Daenerys still away from Westeros / and a bunch of kids. It's good to schock the readers with amazing twist and the lost of some major characters, but once you did that, you gotta think about what you let after. And, before you came and talk to me about good and evil, I was asking, how the TV show is gonna get, when all the Starks are going to die / disappear. (Just to mention, Arya does not use the name Stark, Catelyn same, Sansa same, Jon never used it anyway, Benjen gone and most likely became "Cold Hand", the only Starks in the books are Rickon who will not be back and Bran). You're misinterpretting what I'm saying. The Lannisters are the villians in the beginning because thats how the Starks portray them. And since you as the reader, see it from the Starks point of view, you think they are the villians too. But then, when you start reading from the Lannister point of view you realize they were never actually the villians and it was just a point of view. So yes, POV is relevant, but it does not dictate the forces in the story, rather it influences the readers thoughts on them. I do not remember your original post or whatever, someone had said that the Lannisters were evil, and I didn't think that was correct. And the T.V. show seems to be trying to portray the Lannisters as only moderately bad people, because the producers know that eventually those characters (Jaime, Cersei, etc) will be main POV characters, and it will be a lot easier for the viewers to get behind someone who's only semi-bad.
Sure, Martin wanted to give more depth to Cersei, but I don't see at which moment he made her look less villain... Also, Jaime and Tyrion's PoV are almost always about their own desire / set of value against what they do for their familly.
So, even after AFFC, I never felt the Starks & the Lannisters were just two equal protagonist of the plot. The Lannisters (meaning the familly, not just the addition of all the individual that are Lannisters, but familly as a whole and what it represent) are still pictured in my mind as the rich and ammoral familly that crush everything until you rise against it (especially for Tyrion & Jaime).
Even Tommen was pictured from the beginning as the less Lannisterish of the kids, and is, little by little, freeing himself from his mother / his legacy as a Lannister, thanks to Margaery Tyrell.
Well you know, we just read the book with different eyes 
Ho and you're right about the show.
|
Where do we hear that Arya is blind?
|
On May 25 2011 03:13 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 02:44 Maginor wrote:On May 25 2011 02:40 WhiteDog wrote:On May 25 2011 02:30 Maginor wrote:On May 25 2011 02:15 WhiteDog wrote:On May 25 2011 02:05 flamewheel wrote:From http://towerofthehand.com/essays/chrisholden/jon_snows_parents.html : As one last tidbit of evidence, it can be said that if Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, it fits with the series name 'A Song of Ice and Fire.' Jon seems to be shaping as the main character, and it would fit the series title if his parents were Rhaegar (fire) and Lyanna (ice). So I was discussing GoT with Wax last night before sleeping. The conclusion we came to was that Jon was ice and Dany was fire and they would go against one another in the end... or something like that. Basically because Jon is now pretty much the only character left in the series without fault. I mean, you know he's got to be something important in the end, even if he's getting ignored now. Though that interpretation above makes me think... Jon + Dany get married or something? Who knows; I actually need to read the books now instead of spoilering myself off wiki plots and internet articles. Edit: Huh, and the first comment at the end of that article came to the same conclusion I did... Yeah even if it's quite pointless to theorize on the end of the books, I also think Jon and Daenerys will fight one against each other, until the others or any other bigger threat comes and force them to unite. Then Daenerys marry Jon (who is the prince that should come or whatever) and everybody is happy. At least that's how I see the end of the book. Daenerys have had some dream about her brother Rhaegar and how he talks about the third head of the dragon while looking at his two child, meaning Jon is the third. The problem is Martin is the guy that is known to shaken your own certitude. On the other side, he already killed almost everyone. On May 25 2011 00:35 Mattes wrote:
Its not only Ned (although you're right, he is the main character of book 1), but the viewers who haven't read the books will experience 4 "major" deaths in 4 consecutive episodes as it seems (ep6 - visery, ep7 - robert, ep8/9 - drogo/eddard).
Yeah, probably the first time for many viewers that a show kills of a huge percentage of (at that point) important characters.
Will be interesting to see. The main problem will not be in Season 1 I think because, even if Ned / Varys / Drogo /Robert are all great characters, they don't die letting nothing behind them: Ned has a son, Varys and Drogo's story line / legacy will still be there through Daenerys and Robert will be there through Stannis / Renly / Joffrey. My main concern is about S2, when you have Robb dying, Catelyne changing name (meaning no more grown up Starks), Renly dying (like a shit). Those characters will let nothing behind them, nobody will get revenge for them (at least not now after 4 books) and nobody will take their legacy / name through the rest of the saga. Robb and Catelyn dies in book 3. And their deaths are just as important for driving the story forward as Neds was. The main theme of the books is not the conflict between the Starks and the Lannisters, it is just a backdrop for the first three books. And it seems to me like you try to fit the story into some kind of formula where a character was useless unless they leave an heir behind or they get revenged. That is not true. Each of them contributed in their way to the state of the world as it is now. And just as importantly, they each contributed to tell a good story. But they had to go to allow the story to progress. And in my opinion, all the interesting characters are still alive anyway. The Stark kids are going to take more active roles now. That is why Martin originally wanted a 5 year gap between book 3 and 4, and why he suggested to age them up for the tv show. Sorry in my country the books are separated and Robb dies in the sixth or something. No it's not a formula, it's easier for the viewer if you like a character his / her death will leave a hole. You will want revenge for him or something, but that's just not how Martin write, so I just don't know how it will go on TV. The Stark kids have no activ roles, rickon is AFK and will not come again and Bran is behond the wall. Sansa changed her name and Arya too (and blind lol). There are no Stark or anyone to represent the Stark in the Game of Throne at the moment (by game of throne I mean all the shit around the iron throne). Even winterfell is destroyed. Yeah Martin wanted a gap, but it will not happen no ? I'm not really clear about that. I said they will take more active roles. As in the future books. The characters don't have to stay in the same place. We don't know if Arya is permanently blind, and their name changes was out of convenience, not necessarily forever. We don't know if the bulk of the story is going to focus around Kings Landing for a while either. I sort of felt like the situation there was resolved in AffC, and will not change much for a while. A Game of Thrones was the name of the first book. This is the Song of Ice and Fire. I agree with you, but it seems so far away even now. Rickon have no appearance in ADWD i think (at least not as a PoV) and Bran is beyond the wall and, with the leak Martin gave at the moment, + Show Spoiler [Spoiler for ADWD] +he has not yet see the three eyed crow. What I mean is, there is a huge hole in the story in my point of view. But, as some said the first time, since AFFC and ADWD were supposed to be the same book, maybe they will change the TV so that S4 & 5 will stay in one peace.
ADWD is mostly focused on Jon and Daenerys, actually. So the Stark kids will begin to take on more active roles, but yes, it is still some time in the future before they are major players. And the three eyed crow is a metaphor for magical abilities. It is not an actual creature. The leak could also happen pretty early in the book.
Edit: Arya is made blind in the last sentence of her last chapter in AffC.
|
On May 25 2011 03:16 Cylon wrote:
Where do we hear that Arya is blind?
The last line of her last chapter in AFFC.
|
On May 25 2011 03:21 Maginor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 03:13 WhiteDog wrote:On May 25 2011 02:44 Maginor wrote:On May 25 2011 02:40 WhiteDog wrote:On May 25 2011 02:30 Maginor wrote:On May 25 2011 02:15 WhiteDog wrote:On May 25 2011 02:05 flamewheel wrote:From http://towerofthehand.com/essays/chrisholden/jon_snows_parents.html : As one last tidbit of evidence, it can be said that if Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, it fits with the series name 'A Song of Ice and Fire.' Jon seems to be shaping as the main character, and it would fit the series title if his parents were Rhaegar (fire) and Lyanna (ice). So I was discussing GoT with Wax last night before sleeping. The conclusion we came to was that Jon was ice and Dany was fire and they would go against one another in the end... or something like that. Basically because Jon is now pretty much the only character left in the series without fault. I mean, you know he's got to be something important in the end, even if he's getting ignored now. Though that interpretation above makes me think... Jon + Dany get married or something? Who knows; I actually need to read the books now instead of spoilering myself off wiki plots and internet articles. Edit: Huh, and the first comment at the end of that article came to the same conclusion I did... Yeah even if it's quite pointless to theorize on the end of the books, I also think Jon and Daenerys will fight one against each other, until the others or any other bigger threat comes and force them to unite. Then Daenerys marry Jon (who is the prince that should come or whatever) and everybody is happy. At least that's how I see the end of the book. Daenerys have had some dream about her brother Rhaegar and how he talks about the third head of the dragon while looking at his two child, meaning Jon is the third. The problem is Martin is the guy that is known to shaken your own certitude. On the other side, he already killed almost everyone. On May 25 2011 00:35 Mattes wrote:
Its not only Ned (although you're right, he is the main character of book 1), but the viewers who haven't read the books will experience 4 "major" deaths in 4 consecutive episodes as it seems (ep6 - visery, ep7 - robert, ep8/9 - drogo/eddard).
Yeah, probably the first time for many viewers that a show kills of a huge percentage of (at that point) important characters.
Will be interesting to see. The main problem will not be in Season 1 I think because, even if Ned / Varys / Drogo /Robert are all great characters, they don't die letting nothing behind them: Ned has a son, Varys and Drogo's story line / legacy will still be there through Daenerys and Robert will be there through Stannis / Renly / Joffrey. My main concern is about S2, when you have Robb dying, Catelyne changing name (meaning no more grown up Starks), Renly dying (like a shit). Those characters will let nothing behind them, nobody will get revenge for them (at least not now after 4 books) and nobody will take their legacy / name through the rest of the saga. Robb and Catelyn dies in book 3. And their deaths are just as important for driving the story forward as Neds was. The main theme of the books is not the conflict between the Starks and the Lannisters, it is just a backdrop for the first three books. And it seems to me like you try to fit the story into some kind of formula where a character was useless unless they leave an heir behind or they get revenged. That is not true. Each of them contributed in their way to the state of the world as it is now. And just as importantly, they each contributed to tell a good story. But they had to go to allow the story to progress. And in my opinion, all the interesting characters are still alive anyway. The Stark kids are going to take more active roles now. That is why Martin originally wanted a 5 year gap between book 3 and 4, and why he suggested to age them up for the tv show. Sorry in my country the books are separated and Robb dies in the sixth or something. No it's not a formula, it's easier for the viewer if you like a character his / her death will leave a hole. You will want revenge for him or something, but that's just not how Martin write, so I just don't know how it will go on TV. The Stark kids have no activ roles, rickon is AFK and will not come again and Bran is behond the wall. Sansa changed her name and Arya too (and blind lol). There are no Stark or anyone to represent the Stark in the Game of Throne at the moment (by game of throne I mean all the shit around the iron throne). Even winterfell is destroyed. Yeah Martin wanted a gap, but it will not happen no ? I'm not really clear about that. I said they will take more active roles. As in the future books. The characters don't have to stay in the same place. We don't know if Arya is permanently blind, and their name changes was out of convenience, not necessarily forever. We don't know if the bulk of the story is going to focus around Kings Landing for a while either. I sort of felt like the situation there was resolved in AffC, and will not change much for a while. A Game of Thrones was the name of the first book. This is the Song of Ice and Fire. I agree with you, but it seems so far away even now. Rickon have no appearance in ADWD i think (at least not as a PoV) and Bran is beyond the wall and, with the leak Martin gave at the moment, + Show Spoiler [Spoiler for ADWD] +he has not yet see the three eyed crow. What I mean is, there is a huge hole in the story in my point of view. But, as some said the first time, since AFFC and ADWD were supposed to be the same book, maybe they will change the TV so that S4 & 5 will stay in one peace. ADWD is mostly focused on Jon and Daenerys, actually. So the Stark kids will begin to take on more active roles, but yes, it is still some time in the future before they are major players. And the three eyed crow is a metaphor for magical abilities. It is not an actual creature. The leak could also happen pretty early in the book. Edit: Arya is made blind in the last sentence of her last chapter in AffC.
You're sure about that ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
