|
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. |
http://www.reddit.com/r/gameofthrones/comments/1g1eqa/season_3_talisas_letter_official_translation/
Talissa's letter translated:
"Dearest mother,
So much news I have to give you from over the seas. I find myself held by the arms of a husband I never expected to have. They say he is a king and of my heart that is true. He holds us safe, for now I am two, with his child beneath the heart that beats for him. The war rages on, but soon, when it is all over, we shall come to you and celebrate together."
WHELP. There goes the spy theories.
On June 11 2013 04:04 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 04:01 fleeze wrote:On June 11 2013 03:55 Redox wrote:On June 11 2013 03:47 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2013 03:45 Redox wrote:On June 11 2013 03:29 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2013 03:18 Redox wrote:On June 10 2013 21:07 sickle wrote:On June 10 2013 20:34 Redox wrote:On June 10 2013 20:28 Doctorbeat wrote:
[quote]
It's not better than the original, but it can work and it's nowhere near as much of a big deal as the character assassination of Stannis. Holy shit, I am so much disagreeing with this I am literally getting angry. I think I will read the Davos chapters of the first half of Storm again because I cant believe my perception would be this wrong. I really feal like the show absolutely mirrors my perception of Stannis. Go re-read the chapters. Stannis is in no way Melisandre's lapdog. Many many times she and the other fanatics try to persuade Stannis to sacrifice the boy but he doesn't. He is also an outspoken atheist who always made japes about being surrounding by fanatics. Always being sceptical and conflicted about the Lord of Light and its powers. And only after the THIRD usurper died Davos sent the boy away, and then persuaded Stannis himself of his duty - by in-depth discussion, of his duty, Davos said that by killing the boy Stannis would be in breach of the duty of the King to protect his subjects. In the show you get none of that, absolutely nothing. Instead only one usurper falls and already Stannis wants the boy killed. All Stannis does is puppet what Mel says, which is a spit in the face of his book counterpart. This is how it went down in the show: Stannis: Davos, I sentence u to die Davos: no we must go north Stannis: no u die Mel: no hes right Stannis: ok u live This is extremely patronizing. Why shit all over such a pivotal scene instead of using the wealth of GOOD dialogue and material from the books? Nor in the book does he ever get angry like he does in that scene. If anything he just gets perpetually more aggravated and grinds his teeth. In a rage, ordering Davos to death is the complete opposite of Stannis. Davos says it when he had his fingers cut off all Stannis had was an iron look of justice. I now reread the Stannis chapters. And I still say differences between book and TV Stannis are rather small. Ok he struggled a little more with killing Gendry/Edric and he needed 3 leech kills instead of 1 to be convinced. But thats just a result of limited time on TV, and the end result is still the same. Stannis was still always listening to what Melisandre told him, except for taking her to the Blackwater battle. Stannis never was an "atheist" as someone here claimed. He followed the Red God. For what other reason would he forsake the Seven and introduce the Red God as the new religion if not for belief? Its not like Melisandre had anything else to offer. And the TV series doesnt even show how they burn non-believers alive. If they had done hat people would probably really get a negative opinion about Stannis. The scene with Davos bringing the message from the Night's Watch you are complaining about here happened almost exactly the same in the books. Stannis wants to kill Davos because of letting Edric escape. Then Davos gets out the letter and reads it. The scene is cut then but from what we learn later and before its obvious that Melisandre is in favor of fighting the Others (or "the Other") and convinces Stannis to go north. You're wrong to say Stannis forsake the seven for the Red God. It's made clear in the epilogue of ACOK that Stannis stopped believing in the gods the day his parents died outside Storm's End as their ship sank to the sea upon returning home from Essos. He is very cynical about it and doesn't believe any gods could be so cruel as to do that. I might not call him an "atheist", maybe an "agnostic" but that's not really an important argument here and you get the point. Stannis doesn't follow the Red God, he finds Melisandre useful. It's a pragmatic decision. He values her council as a consequence but definitely doesn't follow her blindly. He even goes so far as to make death threats if she is wrong (and why else if he isn't still skeptical). Ok so he stopped following the Seven even earlier, doesnt exactly change my point. And he does clearly not listen to Melisandre only for pragmatic reasons. He adopted the Red God, burned the Seven and went against all the advice of his Maester, Davos and others before Melisandre did anything for him A large portion of his power comes from soldiers and vassals who DO believe in the Red God and so he needs her. Even if he doesn't necessarily believe himself, he knows he must play some minor courtesies of the Game of Thrones even if he hates them. Throughout Davos chapters it's made pretty clear Stannis is surrounded by yes-men and he despises it, but he needs them. Those yes-men happen to believe in the Red God. Remember "Queen's Men"? After the Battle of the Blackwater, they clearly outnumber the "King's Men". He stopped listening to his Maester regardless though because his Maester was useless to him and had no real council to provide. He confides this in Davos and wishes that the Maester could have just lived the remainder of his days peacefully because he had been a good servant his whole life and earned his rest. Still the amount of followers of the Seven by far outweighs the number of followers of the Red God, except for Dragonstone itself maybe. If he hopes to be King of all of Westeros its surely not practical to be seen as a the harbinger of a new, foreign belief. Even for Dragonstone itself you would think letting both beliefs exist instead of creating friction by having the Seven burned, would be the better approach. Especially as news of this burning will surely spread elsewhere. did you even read the books? you're arguing from your own perspective which is a "little" weird to book readers.. stannis sees no way to become king without the help of melisandre. so it is just pragmatic... he even doesn't believe he is azor ahai despite melisandre telling him and giving him the "flaming" sword. Exactly which pragmatic things did she give to him when he originally adopted her belief? Also, he did believe that Melisandre could create a dragon if he gave her Edric. You have to be gone pretty far from reality to believe that.
She resisted the poison of Maester Cressen, and by that time she had already converted Selyse (who acts as the fiercest proponent of R'hllor in Stannis' court) and others in his court. His conversion was at a time when her influence was already widely felt on Dragonstone.
As for when he originally adopted her belief, she gave him "Lightbringer" and named him Azor Ahai reborn, essentially the second coming of Jesus in R'hllor-ian myth. That's...kinda big.
|
|
|
On June 11 2013 04:09 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 04:04 Redox wrote:On June 11 2013 04:01 fleeze wrote:On June 11 2013 03:55 Redox wrote:On June 11 2013 03:47 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2013 03:45 Redox wrote:On June 11 2013 03:29 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2013 03:18 Redox wrote:On June 10 2013 21:07 sickle wrote:On June 10 2013 20:34 Redox wrote:
[quote]
Holy shit, I am so much disagreeing with this I am literally getting angry. I think I will read the Davos chapters of the first half of Storm again because I cant believe my perception would be this wrong. I really feal like the show absolutely mirrors my perception of Stannis. Go re-read the chapters. Stannis is in no way Melisandre's lapdog. Many many times she and the other fanatics try to persuade Stannis to sacrifice the boy but he doesn't. He is also an outspoken atheist who always made japes about being surrounding by fanatics. Always being sceptical and conflicted about the Lord of Light and its powers. And only after the THIRD usurper died Davos sent the boy away, and then persuaded Stannis himself of his duty - by in-depth discussion, of his duty, Davos said that by killing the boy Stannis would be in breach of the duty of the King to protect his subjects. In the show you get none of that, absolutely nothing. Instead only one usurper falls and already Stannis wants the boy killed. All Stannis does is puppet what Mel says, which is a spit in the face of his book counterpart. This is how it went down in the show: Stannis: Davos, I sentence u to die Davos: no we must go north Stannis: no u die Mel: no hes right Stannis: ok u live This is extremely patronizing. Why shit all over such a pivotal scene instead of using the wealth of GOOD dialogue and material from the books? Nor in the book does he ever get angry like he does in that scene. If anything he just gets perpetually more aggravated and grinds his teeth. In a rage, ordering Davos to death is the complete opposite of Stannis. Davos says it when he had his fingers cut off all Stannis had was an iron look of justice. I now reread the Stannis chapters. And I still say differences between book and TV Stannis are rather small. Ok he struggled a little more with killing Gendry/Edric and he needed 3 leech kills instead of 1 to be convinced. But thats just a result of limited time on TV, and the end result is still the same. Stannis was still always listening to what Melisandre told him, except for taking her to the Blackwater battle. Stannis never was an "atheist" as someone here claimed. He followed the Red God. For what other reason would he forsake the Seven and introduce the Red God as the new religion if not for belief? Its not like Melisandre had anything else to offer. And the TV series doesnt even show how they burn non-believers alive. If they had done hat people would probably really get a negative opinion about Stannis. The scene with Davos bringing the message from the Night's Watch you are complaining about here happened almost exactly the same in the books. Stannis wants to kill Davos because of letting Edric escape. Then Davos gets out the letter and reads it. The scene is cut then but from what we learn later and before its obvious that Melisandre is in favor of fighting the Others (or "the Other") and convinces Stannis to go north. You're wrong to say Stannis forsake the seven for the Red God. It's made clear in the epilogue of ACOK that Stannis stopped believing in the gods the day his parents died outside Storm's End as their ship sank to the sea upon returning home from Essos. He is very cynical about it and doesn't believe any gods could be so cruel as to do that. I might not call him an "atheist", maybe an "agnostic" but that's not really an important argument here and you get the point. Stannis doesn't follow the Red God, he finds Melisandre useful. It's a pragmatic decision. He values her council as a consequence but definitely doesn't follow her blindly. He even goes so far as to make death threats if she is wrong (and why else if he isn't still skeptical). Ok so he stopped following the Seven even earlier, doesnt exactly change my point. And he does clearly not listen to Melisandre only for pragmatic reasons. He adopted the Red God, burned the Seven and went against all the advice of his Maester, Davos and others before Melisandre did anything for him A large portion of his power comes from soldiers and vassals who DO believe in the Red God and so he needs her. Even if he doesn't necessarily believe himself, he knows he must play some minor courtesies of the Game of Thrones even if he hates them. Throughout Davos chapters it's made pretty clear Stannis is surrounded by yes-men and he despises it, but he needs them. Those yes-men happen to believe in the Red God. Remember "Queen's Men"? After the Battle of the Blackwater, they clearly outnumber the "King's Men". He stopped listening to his Maester regardless though because his Maester was useless to him and had no real council to provide. He confides this in Davos and wishes that the Maester could have just lived the remainder of his days peacefully because he had been a good servant his whole life and earned his rest. Still the amount of followers of the Seven by far outweighs the number of followers of the Red God, except for Dragonstone itself maybe. If he hopes to be King of all of Westeros its surely not practical to be seen as a the harbinger of a new, foreign belief. Even for Dragonstone itself you would think letting both beliefs exist instead of creating friction by having the Seven burned, would be the better approach. Especially as news of this burning will surely spread elsewhere. did you even read the books? you're arguing from your own perspective which is a "little" weird to book readers.. stannis sees no way to become king without the help of melisandre. so it is just pragmatic... he even doesn't believe he is azor ahai despite melisandre telling him and giving him the "flaming" sword. Exactly which pragmatic things did she give to him when he originally adopted her belief? Also, he did believe that Melisandre could create a dragon if he gave her Edric. You have to be gone pretty far from reality to believe that. again.... did you read the books? since the dragons grow with daenerys magic grows in effect in the world. especially the magic of the red priests (ressurection?) melisandre can see the future and she did show stannis what she is capable of with her god. especially with king's blood.
Well, "did you read?" my posts? Of course there is practical proof later on of Melisandres power. Thats not really up for debate. The question was why he originally followed her, when he decided to burn the Seven and chose the fiery heart as his sigil. When he had no other proof other then promises from Melisandre.
|
On June 11 2013 04:09 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 04:04 Redox wrote:On June 11 2013 04:01 fleeze wrote:On June 11 2013 03:55 Redox wrote:On June 11 2013 03:47 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2013 03:45 Redox wrote:On June 11 2013 03:29 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2013 03:18 Redox wrote:On June 10 2013 21:07 sickle wrote:On June 10 2013 20:34 Redox wrote:
[quote]
Holy shit, I am so much disagreeing with this I am literally getting angry. I think I will read the Davos chapters of the first half of Storm again because I cant believe my perception would be this wrong. I really feal like the show absolutely mirrors my perception of Stannis. Go re-read the chapters. Stannis is in no way Melisandre's lapdog. Many many times she and the other fanatics try to persuade Stannis to sacrifice the boy but he doesn't. He is also an outspoken atheist who always made japes about being surrounding by fanatics. Always being sceptical and conflicted about the Lord of Light and its powers. And only after the THIRD usurper died Davos sent the boy away, and then persuaded Stannis himself of his duty - by in-depth discussion, of his duty, Davos said that by killing the boy Stannis would be in breach of the duty of the King to protect his subjects. In the show you get none of that, absolutely nothing. Instead only one usurper falls and already Stannis wants the boy killed. All Stannis does is puppet what Mel says, which is a spit in the face of his book counterpart. This is how it went down in the show: Stannis: Davos, I sentence u to die Davos: no we must go north Stannis: no u die Mel: no hes right Stannis: ok u live This is extremely patronizing. Why shit all over such a pivotal scene instead of using the wealth of GOOD dialogue and material from the books? Nor in the book does he ever get angry like he does in that scene. If anything he just gets perpetually more aggravated and grinds his teeth. In a rage, ordering Davos to death is the complete opposite of Stannis. Davos says it when he had his fingers cut off all Stannis had was an iron look of justice. I now reread the Stannis chapters. And I still say differences between book and TV Stannis are rather small. Ok he struggled a little more with killing Gendry/Edric and he needed 3 leech kills instead of 1 to be convinced. But thats just a result of limited time on TV, and the end result is still the same. Stannis was still always listening to what Melisandre told him, except for taking her to the Blackwater battle. Stannis never was an "atheist" as someone here claimed. He followed the Red God. For what other reason would he forsake the Seven and introduce the Red God as the new religion if not for belief? Its not like Melisandre had anything else to offer. And the TV series doesnt even show how they burn non-believers alive. If they had done hat people would probably really get a negative opinion about Stannis. The scene with Davos bringing the message from the Night's Watch you are complaining about here happened almost exactly the same in the books. Stannis wants to kill Davos because of letting Edric escape. Then Davos gets out the letter and reads it. The scene is cut then but from what we learn later and before its obvious that Melisandre is in favor of fighting the Others (or "the Other") and convinces Stannis to go north. You're wrong to say Stannis forsake the seven for the Red God. It's made clear in the epilogue of ACOK that Stannis stopped believing in the gods the day his parents died outside Storm's End as their ship sank to the sea upon returning home from Essos. He is very cynical about it and doesn't believe any gods could be so cruel as to do that. I might not call him an "atheist", maybe an "agnostic" but that's not really an important argument here and you get the point. Stannis doesn't follow the Red God, he finds Melisandre useful. It's a pragmatic decision. He values her council as a consequence but definitely doesn't follow her blindly. He even goes so far as to make death threats if she is wrong (and why else if he isn't still skeptical). Ok so he stopped following the Seven even earlier, doesnt exactly change my point. And he does clearly not listen to Melisandre only for pragmatic reasons. He adopted the Red God, burned the Seven and went against all the advice of his Maester, Davos and others before Melisandre did anything for him A large portion of his power comes from soldiers and vassals who DO believe in the Red God and so he needs her. Even if he doesn't necessarily believe himself, he knows he must play some minor courtesies of the Game of Thrones even if he hates them. Throughout Davos chapters it's made pretty clear Stannis is surrounded by yes-men and he despises it, but he needs them. Those yes-men happen to believe in the Red God. Remember "Queen's Men"? After the Battle of the Blackwater, they clearly outnumber the "King's Men". He stopped listening to his Maester regardless though because his Maester was useless to him and had no real council to provide. He confides this in Davos and wishes that the Maester could have just lived the remainder of his days peacefully because he had been a good servant his whole life and earned his rest. Still the amount of followers of the Seven by far outweighs the number of followers of the Red God, except for Dragonstone itself maybe. If he hopes to be King of all of Westeros its surely not practical to be seen as a the harbinger of a new, foreign belief. Even for Dragonstone itself you would think letting both beliefs exist instead of creating friction by having the Seven burned, would be the better approach. Especially as news of this burning will surely spread elsewhere. did you even read the books? you're arguing from your own perspective which is a "little" weird to book readers.. stannis sees no way to become king without the help of melisandre. so it is just pragmatic... he even doesn't believe he is azor ahai despite melisandre telling him and giving him the "flaming" sword. Exactly which pragmatic things did she give to him when he originally adopted her belief? Also, he did believe that Melisandre could create a dragon if he gave her Edric. You have to be gone pretty far from reality to believe that. again.... did you read the books? since the dragons grow with daenerys magic grows in effect in the world. especially the magic of the red priests (ressurection?) melisandre can see the future and she did show stannis what she is capable of with her god. especially with king's blood.
OK I've always wondered, how exactly does King's Blood work? I mean, I know it's magic and therefore doesn't need to make sense, but still. We've met 7 people with the title "King", Aegon and Dany (and Jon) are contenders for the Targaryen line, and Maester Aemon was technically next in line to be King if he wasn't a man of the Night's Watch.
Would Robb's blood have "king's blood power"? Would Balon's? Does Dany's right now, or Aegon's (if he's not a Blackfyre)? How does Stannis' blood have the power if he isn't descended from Kings, but rather brother to one? And for that matter, did Robert get this power as soon as he killed Rhaegar and sat on the throne?
Fucking magic.
|
On June 11 2013 04:19 Redox wrote:
Well, "did you read?" my posts? Of course there is practical proof later on of Melisandres power. Thats not really up for debate. The question was why he originally followed her, when he decided to burn the Seven and chose the fiery heart as his sigil. When he had no other proof other then promises from Melisandre.
She had already resisted poisoning by Maester Cressen by the time of the conversion, and besides that, had a sizable faction at court, led by Stannis' wife, of the converted. The poisoning attempt was symbolically pivotal, given the representation of Cressen as a champion of the Seven against her, if you will.
Plus, what has the Seven ever done for Stannis?
On June 11 2013 04:21 Requizen wrote:
OK I've always wondered, how exactly does King's Blood work? I mean, I know it's magic and therefore doesn't need to make sense, but still. We've met 7 people with the title "King", Aegon and Dany (and Jon) are contenders for the Targaryen line, and Maester Aemon was technically next in line to be King if he wasn't a man of the Night's Watch.
Would Robb's blood have "king's blood power"? Would Balon's? Does Dany's right now, or Aegon's (if he's not a Blackfyre)? How does Stannis' blood have the power if he isn't descended from Kings, but rather brother to one? And for that matter, did Robert get this power as soon as he killed Rhaegar and sat on the throne?
Fucking magic.
I think it's going off a prophecy about the reawakening of dragons, when the prophecy may technically have been fulfilled by Dany with Kal Drogo.
|
On June 11 2013 04:19 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 04:09 fleeze wrote:On June 11 2013 04:04 Redox wrote:On June 11 2013 04:01 fleeze wrote:On June 11 2013 03:55 Redox wrote:On June 11 2013 03:47 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2013 03:45 Redox wrote:On June 11 2013 03:29 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2013 03:18 Redox wrote:On June 10 2013 21:07 sickle wrote:
[quote]
Go re-read the chapters. Stannis is in no way Melisandre's lapdog. Many many times she and the other fanatics try to persuade Stannis to sacrifice the boy but he doesn't. He is also an outspoken atheist who always made japes about being surrounding by fanatics. Always being sceptical and conflicted about the Lord of Light and its powers.
And only after the THIRD usurper died Davos sent the boy away, and then persuaded Stannis himself of his duty - by in-depth discussion, of his duty, Davos said that by killing the boy Stannis would be in breach of the duty of the King to protect his subjects.
In the show you get none of that, absolutely nothing. Instead only one usurper falls and already Stannis wants the boy killed. All Stannis does is puppet what Mel says, which is a spit in the face of his book counterpart. This is how it went down in the show:
Stannis: Davos, I sentence u to die
Davos: no we must go north
Stannis: no u die
Mel: no hes right
Stannis: ok u live
This is extremely patronizing. Why shit all over such a pivotal scene instead of using the wealth of GOOD dialogue and material from the books?
Nor in the book does he ever get angry like he does in that scene. If anything he just gets perpetually more aggravated and grinds his teeth. In a rage, ordering Davos to death is the complete opposite of Stannis. Davos says it when he had his fingers cut off all Stannis had was an iron look of justice.
I now reread the Stannis chapters. And I still say differences between book and TV Stannis are rather small. Ok he struggled a little more with killing Gendry/Edric and he needed 3 leech kills instead of 1 to be convinced. But thats just a result of limited time on TV, and the end result is still the same. Stannis was still always listening to what Melisandre told him, except for taking her to the Blackwater battle. Stannis never was an "atheist" as someone here claimed. He followed the Red God. For what other reason would he forsake the Seven and introduce the Red God as the new religion if not for belief? Its not like Melisandre had anything else to offer. And the TV series doesnt even show how they burn non-believers alive. If they had done hat people would probably really get a negative opinion about Stannis. The scene with Davos bringing the message from the Night's Watch you are complaining about here happened almost exactly the same in the books. Stannis wants to kill Davos because of letting Edric escape. Then Davos gets out the letter and reads it. The scene is cut then but from what we learn later and before its obvious that Melisandre is in favor of fighting the Others (or "the Other") and convinces Stannis to go north. You're wrong to say Stannis forsake the seven for the Red God. It's made clear in the epilogue of ACOK that Stannis stopped believing in the gods the day his parents died outside Storm's End as their ship sank to the sea upon returning home from Essos. He is very cynical about it and doesn't believe any gods could be so cruel as to do that. I might not call him an "atheist", maybe an "agnostic" but that's not really an important argument here and you get the point. Stannis doesn't follow the Red God, he finds Melisandre useful. It's a pragmatic decision. He values her council as a consequence but definitely doesn't follow her blindly. He even goes so far as to make death threats if she is wrong (and why else if he isn't still skeptical). Ok so he stopped following the Seven even earlier, doesnt exactly change my point. And he does clearly not listen to Melisandre only for pragmatic reasons. He adopted the Red God, burned the Seven and went against all the advice of his Maester, Davos and others before Melisandre did anything for him A large portion of his power comes from soldiers and vassals who DO believe in the Red God and so he needs her. Even if he doesn't necessarily believe himself, he knows he must play some minor courtesies of the Game of Thrones even if he hates them. Throughout Davos chapters it's made pretty clear Stannis is surrounded by yes-men and he despises it, but he needs them. Those yes-men happen to believe in the Red God. Remember "Queen's Men"? After the Battle of the Blackwater, they clearly outnumber the "King's Men". He stopped listening to his Maester regardless though because his Maester was useless to him and had no real council to provide. He confides this in Davos and wishes that the Maester could have just lived the remainder of his days peacefully because he had been a good servant his whole life and earned his rest. Still the amount of followers of the Seven by far outweighs the number of followers of the Red God, except for Dragonstone itself maybe. If he hopes to be King of all of Westeros its surely not practical to be seen as a the harbinger of a new, foreign belief. Even for Dragonstone itself you would think letting both beliefs exist instead of creating friction by having the Seven burned, would be the better approach. Especially as news of this burning will surely spread elsewhere. did you even read the books? you're arguing from your own perspective which is a "little" weird to book readers.. stannis sees no way to become king without the help of melisandre. so it is just pragmatic... he even doesn't believe he is azor ahai despite melisandre telling him and giving him the "flaming" sword. Exactly which pragmatic things did she give to him when he originally adopted her belief? Also, he did believe that Melisandre could create a dragon if he gave her Edric. You have to be gone pretty far from reality to believe that. again.... did you read the books? since the dragons grow with daenerys magic grows in effect in the world. especially the magic of the red priests (ressurection?) melisandre can see the future and she did show stannis what she is capable of with her god. especially with king's blood. Well, "did you read?" my posts? Of course there is practical proof later on of Melisandres power. Thats not really up for debate. The question was why he originally followed her, when he decided to burn the Seven and chose the fiery heart as his sigil. When he had no other proof other then promises from Melisandre.
as you can see melisandre HAS power. so where is the problem in convincing him of her powers? i don't see any problem here.
templar already explained that he didn't care which god he follows since he doesn't believe anyway. it's just pragmatic to take the services of one of the most powerfull sorceresses in westeros.
|
Is the Blackfyre rebellion just talking about the one war with Daemon against his half-brother (Daeron?) with Bittersteel and Bloodraven or does it span all the way down to the war of the ninepenny kings? I always thought it was only referencing the first war, but I remember that one of the leaders of the last war was also a Blackfyre so now I'm confused
|
From Melisandre chapter in ADWD:
"She walked as close to Jon Snow as she dared, close enough to feel the mistrust pouring off him like a black fog. He does not love me, will never love me, but he will make use of me. Well and good. Melisandre had danced the same dance with Stannis Baratheon, back in the beginning. In truth, the young lord commander and her king had more in common than either one would ever be willing to admit. Stannis had been a younger son living in the shadow of his elder brother, just as Jon Snow, bastard-born, had always been eclipsed by his trueborn sibling, the fallen hero men had called the Young Wolf. Both men were unbelievers by nature, mistrustful, suspicious. The only gods they truly worshiped were honor and duty."
Stannis is using Melisandre in the books. It's clear he is always in control. He's never a religious fanatic. He's never Melisandre's puppet. Melisandre's POV chapters in ADWD cleared up just how much Stannis is an autonomous entity and put to rest any sort of theory that he's just a puppet for Melisandre who has a hidden motive.
In ASOS:
"Give me the boy, Your Grace. It is the surer way. The better way. Give me the boy and I shall wake the stone dragon."
"I have told you, no."
"He is only one baseborn boy, against all the boys of Westeros, and all the girls as well. Against all the children that might ever be born, in all the kingdoms of the world."
"The boy is innocent."
"The boy defiled your marriage bed, else you would surely have sons of your own. He shamed you."
"Robert did that. Not the boy. My daughter has grown fond of him. And he is mine own blood."
"Your brother's blood," Melisandre said. "A king's blood. Only a king's blood can wake the stone dragon."
Stannis ground his teeth. "I'll hear no more of this. The dragons are done. The Targaryens tried to bring them back half a dozen times. And made fools of themselves, or corpses. Patchface is the only fool we need on this godsforsaken rock. You have the leeches. Do your work."
Melisandre bowed her head stiffly, and said, "As my king commands."
In the show, it looks like Melisandre is using him as a puppet. The first thing he does is hand the note to Melisandre to read for her judgment. They have botched up both the Stannis-Melisandre and Stannis-Davos relationships. Stannis will clearly listen to Melisandre's advice, but he won't obey it. He decides for himself.
|
if i remember correctly, davos shows him the letter from north and the chapter ends, then they show up killing wildlings and rumors of davos's head and hand cut at white harbor. i guess show writers had to do some imaginative work on what happened.
the cliff hanger on jon, WTF. by now i understand that a character does not die (dead-dead) unless its plainly obvious to readers but i wonder what will happen :/
i think it'll be awesome of jon is lyanna/rhaegar's son. maybe jon will find the truth via brann when he returns from the cave after learning bunch of things.
|
Has anyone seen the new season of Arrested Development? Under more capable hands maybe GoT would've ended up more like that! It's centered under one event (one night) and we get a completely different perspective on the events leading up to that night from each character. And each character's story either adds on another interesting thread to the story or ties up existing threads in a way that is highly satisfying.
|
On June 10 2013 22:57 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2013 22:47 Tiwo wrote:
I'm gonna throw something out there what is COMPLETELY change the Shae story.
What if Shae does not betray Tyrion at all, she is not even in Tywins room.
What if Tywin finds out, and doesn't kill her but she just disappears, Tyrion get angry kills Tywin at the PW, Where is Shae (and where is Tysha), Where do whores go?
I see this work somehow, or something close to this. Show watchers don't care about Tysha, she has no face. Calling it now. Tywin is going to kill Shae with the chain and Tyrion is going to revenge kill Tywin. Book it.
I really hope they don't do this. That lessens the impact of both Shae's betrayal and Tyrion's killing of his father.
|
On June 11 2013 03:24 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 02:31 D10 wrote:On June 10 2013 20:21 Redox wrote:
Other than that, I am surprised people are not bitching about the biggest plot change so far. Shae is confirmed for truly loving Tyrion, and not the common whore she was in the books. So most probably she will not betray Tyrion, there will be no scene with Tyrion killing her etc. It will all be very different. I didnt got away from her scenes thinking for a moment she loves him, if anything shes as petty and bitchy as ever Thats because you have read the books. I cant imagine a single non-reader having the same thoughts.
I dunno man, I'm getting lots of 'a woman scorned' vibes from her this season. I'd still feel it believable if she still betrays Tyrion.
|
On June 11 2013 04:07 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 03:59 Redox wrote:On June 11 2013 03:55 N3rV[Green] wrote:
I still don't understand why more people don't think Shae is employed by Tywin in the first place. Tywin, knowing that his son has a love for whores, makes sure Shae runs into Tyrion at the war camp with the instructions of reporting to him whatever Tyrion does/says/writes/whathaveyou.
For one there is her general behaviour. But especially how she lobbies hard for Tyrion not bedding Sansa. Thats the exact opposite of what Tywin wants. There's another idea to follow then - what if Shae just wants to see Tyrion suffer? Think of it this way: She despises Tyrion for keeping her around but hiding her, for calling her his lady while still treating her like a whore he needs to hide. He basically sells her into slavery to Sansa, she's used as a spy for however many people and thrust into an insane and potentially dangerous life in Kings Landing, as compared to her relatively normal life as a camp follower. And who is to blame for all that? That's right, Tyrion, because he wanted to drag her along to spite his father. That's why she's sticking around. Varys wants her to leave so Tyrion can survive and do what needs to be done, Shae wants to stay and fuck up his life as much as he fucked up hers. That's why she betrays him during his trial, and ultimately ends up in Tywin's bed - as a final slap to Tyrion's pride. I don't think Book!Shae was this manipulative, but considering what we've seen about Show!Shae, she could very well end up as a conniving woman who just wants revenge of a sorts.
I don't buy it, for various reasons. Most of all, I don't buy it because so far the writers have shown an inability to be so subtle that show watchers don't see a betrayal miles away. If Shae would really be betraying Tyrion for all this time, they would have given out hints by now, and they would have been blatantly obvious to us book readers. But not only did we get no hints so far, we got absolutely nothing that could even be interpreted as a hint. Not one little thing.
Second, it just doesn't make any sense to do it that way. Portray Shae as if she really genuinely loves Tyrion (by having her get seriously jealous of Sansa, by making her do stupid stuff to be close to him, by making her refuse to leave Tyrion, etc.), only to spontaneously go "surprise, she never loved him!". In the books, it was always ambiguous whether she loved him or not, because Tyrion was always full of doubt about her supposed love. Again, there are literally zero hints given out. At this point, a betrayal would simply be bad writing. And a double betrayal (Shae betraying Tyrion, Tywin betraying his principles) would be even more puzzling. Again, literally zero hints that Tywin might do something like that. And unlike the books, we see a ton of Tywin's character in the show.
If Shae would betray Tyrion with Tywin now, it would be the most nonsensical plot twist. But it's entirely possible that they are going to build Shae up to be not quite as trustworthy as thought in the next season, who knows. Still, I think it's more likely that Shae will become Tysha, in a way, and die at the hands of Tywin.
|
prediction:
shae replaces dontos. She's a whore and we all know who runs all the whores in westeros -.-. She will either die like dontos or be imprisoned and eventually smuggled out by tyrion/varys(eventually replacing the utterly worthless penny character)
|
Nah. They wouldn't have teased us with the golden chains if it turned out like that.
|
I hate that they have gone far enough off track with characters like Shae and Stannis that we cannot even predict how it will play out with much more evidence than the non-readers might use in their predictions.
That final was the weakest of the season finals, but not nearly the worst episode overall. Hopefully ep 6 is never challenged in that department. I think it holds up to the average reasonably well, we just expected more from a final and on the heels of the red wedding.
The big stuff can be annoying, but I hate the little things that they get wrong a lot. The cart in front of the horse analogy was huge for Davos' argument. That Davos did not get to have that moment of "HA, she didn't see it!" and reveal it the way he did while Mel was convincing Stannis to kill Ge/dric was a loss too.
In defense of show Stannis, he was about to execute Davos then and there in the books. The instant declaration of a death penalty is not so much of a departure, though there is something to be said for the difference in the delivery. That he went through the big official declaration without hearing more explanations as well as then backing off from it is a bit un-Stannis.
If the 7 seasons total thing holds true then I think bets will be off regarding show vs. book continuity after season 4. There is no sign of Balon's brothers and Asha is off to try to rescue Theon(wtf?), there is no sign of Dorne, Dany is shaping differently, Tyrion is even shaping differently...as much as I overall thought season 3 was reasonably good the total skew off course from the books is adding up fast.
I think it's going off a prophecy about the reawakening of dragons, when the prophecy may technically have been fulfilled by Dany with Kal Drogo.
I think "may" is a weak word for it. It seems about as clear as anything involving prophecy ever gets that Dany 'woke stone dragons by burning the blood of a king'.
I wonder if they will have some Melisandre-voiced season 3 lore video overview of the R'hllor religion that will mention the Azor Ahai prophecy so that the non-readers will be brought up to speed on how much of a quack she is rather than this perception of "Omg, demon shadow baby. She is legit."
|
On June 11 2013 08:21 Irrelevant Label wrote:
I hate that they have gone far enough off track with characters like Shae and Stannis that we cannot even predict how it will play out with much more evidence than the non-readers might use in their predictions.
I love it, actually. I really look forward to all the new stuff, since I get to predict all I want and almost feel like a non-book reader. Hooray! The writers are capable enough, and there's almost no completely new scenes they have fucked up yet. They seem to be much worse at changing existing characters and situations, but creating entirely new dialogues and characters, they can do that.
And yes, that includes Ros. I liked Ros. There, I said it.
|
Shae's decision of "serving" Tywin instead of Tyrion should be seen as not only a betrayal to Tyrion out of spite, anger or some petty reasons but because she is scared of Tywin and don't want to die.
Tywin Lanister is not only the richest man in Westeros but also considered the most powerful and quite merciless. In the show when Tyrion and Shae talk about their possible children she openly express her fear of Tywin. After witnessing Tywin defending King's landing from Stannis and now winning the war against the King of the North without even stepping out of King's landing we can guess that if Tywin approach her she knows she can either bend or break.
|
There's a lot of things about the show that have made no sense to me and I've been assured the books make more sense. Someone plz help me with this one thing for now..
I don't understand why Khaleesi out of nowhere suddenly decided that her cause is to free all the slaves etc. I saw on some director commentary after the episode on demand that their reasoning is that she had been treated as a slave by her brother, which seems like a kinda weak connection and the timing of this motivation seems worse than random. She saved that group of people from the whims of the Khal (or whatever those people are called, Khal Drogo's warriors) and she trusted that woman to heal her husband and that bitch betrayed her. Then, right after that, she's like "Hey, I should go free more slaves." Wtf....?
Nothing she's done in the entire series so far (again, just TV) has seemed even remotely relevant, important, coherent, etc...
I don't mind spoilers obviously
|
On June 11 2013 09:25 VasHeR wrote:
There's a lot of things about the show that have made no sense to me and I've been assured the books make more sense. Someone plz help me with this one thing for now..
I don't understand why Khaleesi out of nowhere suddenly decided that her cause is to free all the slaves etc. I saw on some director commentary after the episode on demand that their reasoning is that she had been treated as a slave by her brother, which seems like a kinda weak connection and the timing of this motivation seems worse than random. She saved that group of people from the whims of the Khal (or whatever those people are called, Khal Drogo's warriors) and she trusted that woman to heal her husband and that bitch betrayed her. Then, right after that, she's like "Hey, I should go free more slaves." Wtf....?
Nothing she's done in the entire series so far (again, just TV) has seemed even remotely relevant, important, coherent, etc...
I don't mind spoilers obviously
First of all her name is Daenerys, not Khaleesi.
I think not liking slavery due to being treated like a slave is a perfectly logical connection. She also just has a strong moral compass I guess. Mirri Maz Dur killed Drogo out of revenge. The slaves Dany free from Yunkai have no reason to take revenge on her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
