EPTNow taking this to look at things that happen, I was thinking about the leeches and the deaths "caused" by Melisandre. Balon's was the only one that was truly an accident and could be attributed to "magic", but if the Gods really are causing everything, do you think that Robb and Joffery's deaths were caused by the Red God and Melisandre's spell? Both had long courses of cause and affect unrelated to Melisandre (Robb breaking his marriage pact and beginning to lose the war, Joffery... well being Joffery and Petyr's plotting), so it could be entirely coincidence, but if it was all "set up" by the Red God in the first place... that could be interesting. Would that make Roose, the Freys, and even Petyr the Gods' pawns?
[TV/BOOK] *SPOILERS* Game of Thrones Discussion - Page 267
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
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 Fire Click Here for the spoiler-free thread. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
Now taking this to look at things that happen, I was thinking about the leeches and the deaths "caused" by Melisandre. Balon's was the only one that was truly an accident and could be attributed to "magic", but if the Gods really are causing everything, do you think that Robb and Joffery's deaths were caused by the Red God and Melisandre's spell? Both had long courses of cause and affect unrelated to Melisandre (Robb breaking his marriage pact and beginning to lose the war, Joffery... well being Joffery and Petyr's plotting), so it could be entirely coincidence, but if it was all "set up" by the Red God in the first place... that could be interesting. Would that make Roose, the Freys, and even Petyr the Gods' pawns? | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On April 18 2013 02:14 doner0 wrote: (*spoiler in this post for those that only watch the show) ok can someone remind me about this part of the book in the show cause doesn't theon not escape? and that is why he became reek so are they just completely avoiding that part of the story? this may have been in a post before but i didn't see it In the book Theon disappears until book 4 I think. We only know what he has been doing through his thoughts and remembering (like his try at escape which was only Bastard playing with him). | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On April 18 2013 01:44 Requizen wrote: Hopefully her finding someone with king's blood means we're going to have more Davos scenes. The only thing I find off about her going after Gendry is that she'll likely try to bring him back to Dragonstone. But Gendry shows up again in a couple Brienne chapters of aFfC, which means either they're going to change that pretty significantly, or that Davos will just send him back to the Brotherhood rather than overseas to get Gendry away from Melisandre. I still think it will be Stannis daughter. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
So a few pages ago (and I'm to lazy to find it) someone mentioned that they thought the story was, overall, a game of cat's paws for a more mystical game. i.e., the whole conflict is a war between the Gods (Red God, Old Gods of the North, the Seven, the Others[?]) In an interview ( i don't remember exactly which one it was) George R.R. Martin said that, as he has currently planned it out, at the peak of the story it will have "less fantasy and magic than other novels have in the beginning" which makes me think that the god stuff will just remain a mystical element and not become a major part of the plot. I also think the "war of gods" theme is rather cheap and the way the books are going until now is way more interesting. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On April 18 2013 03:03 Nyxisto wrote: In an interview ( i don't remember exactly which one it was) George R.R. Martin said that, as he has currently planned it out, at the peak of the story it will have "less fantasy and magic than other novels have in the beginning" which makes me think that the god stuff will just remain a mystical element and not become a major part of the plot. I also think the "war of gods" theme is rather cheap and the way the books are going until now is way more interesting. There's still a fair amount of magic in the books as it is though. Revival through Red Priests, Faceless Men, supernatural creatures like Dragons and Giants (not necessarily magic, but still high fantasy), Wargs, Greensers, Dany being more or less immune to dragonfire, and of course the doozy that is the Others and their zombie army. And seeing as all of these things are going to come to a head in the final books... I don't see how it can have "less fantasy and magic" than anything beforehand. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
I don't see how it can have "less fantasy and magic" than anything beforehand. Well that's not what i said, of course ASOIAF has magic and fantasy, but it's used in a way to create a mystic and dangerous atmosphere and to "spice" some key moments up, it's not used as a major element of the plot. But if you say "hey everything in this story is about all the gods which are battling against each other and every character is just a puppet" then at this moment fantasy becomes much more important and kind of neglects all the complex storylines that GRRM created so far. And i really think that would be a shame, it would actually remind me a lot of the mass effect 3 ending where it was like: "Hey, we have created all these great storylines and characters, but let's get all philosophical and make the ending about fate and the wheel of time and whatnot and leave the characters aside" and that didn't turn out to well, that's at least what the majority of the community thought and i share that opinion. | ||
|
moopie
12605 Posts
On April 18 2013 03:51 Requizen wrote: Dany being more or less immune to dragonfire nope. nope nope nope.. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
Her hair, clothes, and nails aren't, but there's a reason one of her titles is "The Unburnt". In fact, isn't it pretty much all forms of fire? | ||
|
moopie
12605 Posts
On April 18 2013 04:05 Requizen wrote: Her hair, clothes, and nails aren't, but there's a reason one of her titles is "The Unburnt". In fact, isn't it pretty much all forms of fire? We've covered this before here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=225659¤tpage=156#3119 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=225659¤tpage=157#3123 In short, no she isn't immune to fire, and no she isn't immune to dragonfire. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On April 18 2013 04:06 moopie wrote: We've covered this before here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=225659¤tpage=156#3119 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=225659¤tpage=157#3123 In short, no she isn't immune to fire, and no she isn't immune to dragonfire. Alright, fair enough, but that doesn't discount the initial hatching of the eggs, and her walking into the flames and emerging with naught but a haircut. The rest was my misremembering. | ||
|
whatwhatanut
United States195 Posts
On April 18 2013 04:08 Requizen wrote: Alright, fair enough, but that doesn't discount the initial hatching of the eggs, and her walking into the flames and emerging with naught but a haircut. The rest was my misremembering. I remember as something along the lines of she gives up her protection from fire by hatching dragons or something like that. We know for sure she is not immune to dragonfire because of her thoughts and interactions with the dragons. | ||
|
Furycrab
Canada456 Posts
On April 18 2013 02:53 -Archangel- wrote: In the book Theon disappears until book 4 I think. We only know what he has been doing through his thoughts and remembering (like his try at escape which was only Bastard playing with him). Ya, but that's what starting to be a little confusing. It seemed like they introduced the bastard bolton (they didn't name him per say but he did seem to enjoy flaying Theon and it was mentioned in the TV show that Lord Bolton had sent his bastard/son? to help in the recapture of Winterfell) to then kill him and put him in the hands of a character I just really can't place? I'm guessing that the first guy that was flaying Theon is Bolton "real" son, and that the guy that just helped Theon is Ramsey. How it will go from him "saving" Theon to turning him into Reek. Little bait and switch with the people that read the book making us believe we are far later in the story. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On April 18 2013 05:20 whatwhatanut wrote: I remember as something along the lines of she gives up her protection from fire by hatching dragons or something like that. We know for sure she is not immune to dragonfire because of her thoughts and interactions with the dragons. She doesn't give up anything, she has always been resistent to higher temperatures, but never immune to anything. In that first link you can see Martin himself saying that the hatching was a unique event, that for no specific reason (magic is weird) allowed her to walk into the flames. But it's not a characteristic she has, or Targs have in general, it was just a special ocasion that allowed it. It's the kind of thing you can't really try to make sense off, it's not the kind of magic that has rules. It's like trying to explain how it is possible that dragons fly. It's basically a classic case of "A wizard did it." | ||
|
kleetzor
Germany360 Posts
On April 18 2013 05:34 Furycrab wrote: Ya, but that's what starting to be a little confusing. It seemed like they introduced the bastard bolton (they didn't name him per say but he did seem to enjoy flaying Theon and it was mentioned in the TV show that Lord Bolton had sent his bastard/son? to help in the recapture of Winterfell) to then kill him and put him in the hands of a character I just really can't place? I'm guessing that the first guy that was flaying Theon is Bolton "real" son, and that the guy that just helped Theon is Ramsey. How it will go from him "saving" Theon to turning him into Reek. Little bait and switch with the people that read the book making us believe we are far later in the story. I think it has been discussed, even by Mr. Martin himself, that the whole Reek/Ramsay/Theon capture/Winterfell situation is pretty confusing even in the books, and it should be done very carefully in the tv show imo. | ||
|
karazax
United States3737 Posts
On April 18 2013 05:34 Furycrab wrote: Ya, but that's what starting to be a little confusing. It seemed like they introduced the bastard bolton (they didn't name him per say but he did seem to enjoy flaying Theon and it was mentioned in the TV show that Lord Bolton had sent his bastard/son? to help in the recapture of Winterfell) to then kill him and put him in the hands of a character I just really can't place? I'm guessing that the first guy that was flaying Theon is Bolton "real" son, and that the guy that just helped Theon is Ramsey. How it will go from him "saving" Theon to turning him into Reek. Little bait and switch with the people that read the book making us believe we are far later in the story. It seems likely that the whole thing is just Ramsay playing tricks with Theon similar to how he let him escape in the books and then hunted him down with his dogs. It seems unlikely that the bastard killed Roose's real son (who died prior to book 1 in the book story line and was considered well liked). The reason being that Roose wouldn't tell Robb he was going to send his bastard to liberate Winterfell if he had a legitimate son still alive, and if he had a legitimate son of that age he most likely would have accompanied him south with Robb. | ||
|
Conti
Germany2516 Posts
| ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On April 18 2013 06:13 Conti wrote: Hmm. Since I can't really ask in the other thread without giving away potential spoilers: Did they ever actually explicitly make the distinction between White Walkers and Wights in the show? GRRM kept that part particularly vague for many, many books, and I can't remember anyone ever talking about this in the show, yet people in the thread keep explaining in great detail the differences between the two. I'm confused. You could mostly tell just by looking. The White Walkers have a distinct design (most easily seen in the one at the end of S2), while the Wights are just, well, dead dudes. Visually not that hard to differentiate. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On April 18 2013 06:15 Requizen wrote: You could mostly tell just by looking. The White Walkers have a distinct design (most easily seen in the one at the end of S2), while the Wights are just, well, dead dudes. Visually not that hard to differentiate. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mpr0TfFc15E/T9ZB65F8caI/AAAAAAAAACQ/k3bLrn4_5uw/s1600/wallpaper-1983121.jpg) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://oyster.ignimgs.com/mediawiki/apis.ign.com/game-of-thrones/thumb/f/f3/Game-Of-Thrones-White-Walkers2.jpg/417px-Game-Of-Thrones-White-Walkers2.jpg) | ||
|
Conti
Germany2516 Posts
On April 18 2013 06:15 Requizen wrote: You could mostly tell just by looking. The White Walkers have a distinct design (most easily seen in the one at the end of S2), while the Wights are just, well, dead dudes. Visually not that hard to differentiate. True, but what people say in the other thread goes way beyond "They look different". They deliver detailed explanations of how they work and what they do. There's not even any speculation going on, it's treated as fact. Which is the part that confuses me. When was this covered in the show? | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On April 18 2013 06:20 Conti wrote: True, but what people say in the other thread goes way beyond "They look different". They deliver detailed explanations of how they work and what they do. There's not even any speculation going on, it's treated as fact. Which is the part that confuses me. When was this covered in the show? It wasn't, likely spoilers then. | ||
| ||
