What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Game of Thrones, tv only, books don't exist, no backstory...NERDS already ruining a series that hasn't started (3 Viewers)

I consider myself a fairly intelligent person and when I watch the show I'm not doing anything else (sometimes if the kids get to bed late I'm pretty tired when watching and doze off mid-way through and have to re-watch) so I think I pay reasonable attention to it.  

There's just a lot of damn characters and storylines in the show.  I'd need to keep an actual notebook to keep the names and places straight. 
Be quiet with that blasphemy around here.  Go enjoy your candy crush!

 
Best episode of last year for sure, but the huge battles isn't what I love about the show and got me hooked.  Those episodes are great once a year, but I like the ones like episode 2 this year that feature great acting and dialogue.  I think the epic episodes of the past seasons did a better job of mixing the two as well - ie Blackwater we got more of the behind the scenes as well.  I could not be remembering what all happened in that Hardhome episode last year too. 
I thought the "I'm gonna break the wheel" scene between Dany and Tyrion was as good as anything on this show. Dinklage is pretty much awesome all the time but I thought Emilia Clarke rose to the challenge of acting alongside him. That was just one small scene in the season I realize but I thought it was extremely well done. I could probably go through the entire season and find a lot of moments like that I enjoyed. I wouldn't say Season 5 ranked as highly as the first four seasons but I don't think it was a huge disappointment for me. Certainly the final scene did everything it set out to, that's for sure.   

 
I found season 5 really disappointing compared to 1-4.  Is season 6 any better than 5?
Last season just took FOREVER to get moving. After like 5 episodes I recall the crew at work all pissy about lack of pace and good #### happenings. Last three episodes picked things up with some epic moments, but it was a real slow burn to get going. 

This season doesn't share that tedious nature IMO, it's been pretty solid overall, especially the last two episodes which I've really enjoyed. 

 
I consider myself a fairly intelligent person and when I watch the show I'm not doing anything else (sometimes if the kids get to bed late I'm pretty tired when watching and doze off mid-way through and have to re-watch) so I think I pay reasonable attention to it.  

There's just a lot of damn characters and storylines in the show.  I'd need to keep an actual notebook to keep the names and places straight. 
I think someone did that already.  My Link

 
So they make a huge deal out of all the Baratheons having Black hair and we think Jon is the badtard son of some platinum blonde Targayan sissy and his ginger mother?
Lyanna STARK had dark hair of the Starks. Lyanna was said to have very Stark like features.

Arya was supposed to look just like Lyanna. And it's been mentioned that Jon and Arya look alike.

 
Or do it with a montage. Just rapid-fire clips of Sam flipping through books (MONTAGE!) and writing things down (MONTAGE!) and failing at alchemy (MONTAGE!) and then more reading (MONTAGE!) and more writing (MONTAGE!) and then slightly more success at alchemy (MONTAGE!) and then a handy from Gilly (MONTAGE!) and then more reading (MONTAGE!) and footage of him finally finding the right formula for dragon glass, where he looks at Gilly and nods knowingly (MONTAGE!)
Plenty of gifs of the Khaleesi's ####### out there for you.

 
I thought it was just me and I thought I liked the show.   But after this thread I clearly do not like it to the extreme others do. 
Yeah only extreme over the top fans know things like names.  That's why when the Dolphins are playing I yell "Go QB #17!!! Throw it to WR #14!!!!"

 
Yeah only extreme over the top fans know things like names.  That's why when the Dolphins are playing I yell "Go QB #17!!! Throw it to WR #14!!!!"
Terrible example,  if GOT actually spoke the names as often as sports announcers then fine.  Maybe you brought up a good point, every time Ramsay kills someone they should put a subtitle that says his name and how many people he has offed.  

 
A precedent has already been set--Rhaegar's children with the Martell girl did not have his platinum hair. They had their mothers darker hair. The incestuous Targ hair is definitely recessive. 

 
The character has evolved and grown.

Sophie has also grown up. I am not usually much for red heads but she has grown into a beautiful woman. She has really grown as an actress as well.
Sansa-Little Finger exchange :lol:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure hope Ghost stayed behind at Castle Black when Jon and Sansa left. Season 6 has not been kind to the Stark Dire Wolves. 
I'm hoping that was a stunt wolf head that was flopped on Ramsay's table, and Shaggy & Ghost team up to go all ebony & ivory during the impending war.

 
If Jon finds out that he is a Targaryan it doesn't mean he is all of a sudden going to be like "Yea, give me some of that unburnt Aunt stuff"

I am not 100% sure on the claim. Martin takes inspiration for a lot of his stuff off of historic Europe. I am not really sure if a woman would automatically be given preference over an illegitimate son. Though, historically usually the answer to the question of who has a better claim as an heir is "whoever has a bigger/better Army".
I really don't think that bastards have any claim to the throne unless they are legitimized. Jon would have to be legitimized by a Targaryan king to have any claim to the throne as a Targaryan. I posted this before in here, but people seemed to disagree with me. Here's what I found on the internet regarding the rules of succession in the GoT universe. 

Targaryen Succession


An uncle before a daughter.

This is a form of agnatic primogeniture, which greatly favors males over females inheriting. Female lines are disinherited, so males typically always inherit before females, even collaterally related males (i.e. uncles/brothers over daughters). It's not entirely clear how male-driven the Targaryen succession was, since they never had to look very far for a suitable male heir. It's likely a female could inherit if they were the last descendant of the patrilineal lines (male derived lines). For example, a more distant male relation from a female line (e.g. king's sister's son) wouldn't inherit over a daughter of a king, but a male relation from a male line (e.g. king's brother's son) would. (credit to /u/feldman10) The Targaryens at first followed Andal succession, but started following this form of succession following the "Dance of the Dragons" when Rhaenyra and Aegon II (half-siblings) fought over their father's crown.

...


Bastards


In any of the above laws of succession, bastards do not inherit at all. However, if a ******* is legitimized they stand to inherit after all trueborn children, including daughters and younger siblings (credit to/u/Axetronaut). Although this is not always the case and can be a point of contention and dispute. This is why Roose is convinced that Ramsay will kill any children Fat Walda has, because those children would be trueborn to Roose and thus come in line before Ramsay (ADWD 32: Reek III).

Typically only acknowledged bastards (i.e. ones welcomed into the father's house) are legitimized. Ramsay Snow, Jon Snow, Aurane Waters, Edric Storm, Joy Hill, and the Sand Snakes are all examples of acknowledged bastards. People like Gendry and Mya Stone are unacknowledged bastards, so it is exceedingly unlikely they would be legitimized, as they would need proof of their lineage and they have none. Also, only a King can legitimize a *******, not a Lord or even Lord Paramount.
Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/16mqp1/spoilers_all_complete_guide_to_westerosi/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I really don't think that bastards have any claim to the throne unless they are legitimized. Jon would have to be legitimized by a Targaryan king to have any claim to the throne as a Targaryan.
The difficult question is why two knights of the Kingsguard would be guarding a ******* and mistress. That's the point of the two questions Ned asks - essentially, why weren't you with the king in Kings Landing or with the prince at the Trident? (The book version is slightly different.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The difficult question is why two knights of the Kingsguard would be guarding a ******* and mistress. That's the point of the two questions Ned asks - essentially, why weren't you with the king in Kings Landing or with the prince at the Trident? (The book version is slightly different.)
Well I would suspect that Rhaegar viewed Lyanna as much more than a mistress. I just can't see a scenario where they were actually married. He was married to Elia who died after Rhaegar did. We have heard nothing of polygamy or divorce in Westeros to my recollection. Rhaegar probably ran off with Lyanna and they were in love and he wanted her protected.

All that being said, I think Jon's true lineage isn't about claiming the throne. It is about being descended from both Starks and Targaryens, the special powers that may come with that, and what that means for the real issue at hand - the invasion of the WWs. Even if Jon was somehow not a *******, he probably wouldn't want the throne anyway and certainly wouldn't be willing to go to battle to prove he was the true Targaryen heir, which would be difficult at best. 

 
The difficult question is why two knights of the Kingsguard would be guarding a ******* and mistress. That's the point of the two questions Ned asks - essentially, why weren't you with the king in Kings Landing or with the prince at the Trident? (The book version is slightly different.)
I'm not sure it says anything regarding legitimacy, but wasn't Rhaegar obsessed with fulfilling the Prince that was Promised prophecy? Regardless of whether Jon is a ******* or if there's some record of his birth/some technicality,  Rhaegar wanted to protect him (all assuming the theories are true). I think the child was more important to him than Lyanna was.

 
Well I would suspect that Rhaegar viewed Lyanna as much more than a mistress. I just can't see a scenario where they were actually married. He was married to Elia who died after Rhaegar did. We have heard nothing of polygamy or divorce in Westeros to my recollection. Rhaegar probably ran off with Lyanna and they were in love and he wanted her protected.

All that being said, I think Jon's true lineage isn't about claiming the throne. It is about being descended from both Starks and Targaryens, the special powers that may come with that, and what that means for the real issue at hand - the invasion of the WWs. Even if Jon was somehow not a *******, he probably wouldn't want the throne anyway and certainly wouldn't be willing to go to battle to prove he was the true Targaryen heir, which would be difficult at best. 
Targaryens were into incest AND polygamy 

 
The difficult question is why two knights of the Kingsguard would be guarding a ******* and mistress. That's the point of the two questions Ned asks - essentially, why weren't you with the king in Kings Landing or with the prince at the Trident? (The book version is slightly different.)
At this point, anything can be explained away by Bran.  So, logic is kinda out the door.  Plus, wasn't he the Mad King?  So insantity.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, the Mad King was Rhaegar's father.

I don't get your Bran comment--explain?
Bran's able to project himself into the past (atleast) and he's able to influence those events.  His father heard him at the Tower of Joy.  He fried Hodor's brain.  He could potentially have instructed Rhaegar from the future.  

Another thing that I've considered is that he's actually the Lord of Light - he refined his astral projection like time travel and uses the mysticism/religion to hide is instructions through the flames - though that doesn't explain resurrection or smoke monster baby assassins.  Anyway, when you introduce such a strong power as Bran's, nothing is really off the table.    

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bran's able to project himself into the past (atleast) and he's able to influence those events.  His father heard him at the Tower of Joy.  He could potentially have instructed Rhaegar from the future.  Another thing that I've considered is that he's actually the Lord of Light - he refined his astral projection like time travel and uses the mysticism/religion to hide is instructions through the flames - though that doesn't explain resurrection or smoke monster baby assassins.  Anyway, when you introduce such a strong power as Bran's, nothing is really off the table.    
I think we're seeing it differently. Its not like in some time travel movies where he can change things...anything that seems like he "changed" it, it was always going to be that way. We just didn't know his role in those events yet. He didn't JUST make Willis into Hodor, as we always knew he was Hodor...Willis was always going to be Hodor and we saw why. It was destined to happen. Bran was just another part of that destiny, causing it to happen. That's why in his last living moments the Three-Eyed Raven kept him there at the moment of Willis' seizure...Willis was always going to have that seizure, it was always going to be caused by Bran, and he was always going to become Hodor for the rest of his life. The Three-Eyed Raven knew that and brought Bran to the proper place in history at the proper time, so that it could all play out. 

Its confusing but Bran isn't changing the past or really changing anything...he's just playing his predestined part in it all in his own way and we're seeing it as a revelation as the viewer.  But its not time travel and he's not going to be able to change anything. Anything he may have effected, we already know the outcome. 

The only thing you can say definitively about the Bran stuff is that it shows that there isn't really free will...whatever happens was meant to happen, essentially. The characters just don't know it and we don't know how things will play out. 

 
I think we're seeing it differently. Its not like in some time travel movies where he can change things...anything that seems like he "changed" it, it was always going to be that way. We just didn't know his role in those events yet. He didn't JUST make Willis into Hodor, as we always knew he was Hodor...Willis was always going to be Hodor and we saw why. It was destined to happen. Bran was just another part of that destiny, causing it to happen. That's why in his last living moments the Three-Eyed Raven kept him there at the moment of Willis' seizure...Willis was always going to have that seizure, it was always going to be caused by Bran, and he was always going to become Hodor for the rest of his life. The Three-Eyed Raven knew that and brought Bran to the proper place in history at the proper time, so that it could all play out. 

Its confusing but Bran isn't changing the past or really changing anything...he's just playing his predestined part in it all in his own way and we're seeing it as a revelation as the viewer.  But its not time travel and he's not going to be able to change anything. Anything he may have effected, we already know the outcome. 

The only thing you can say definitively about the Bran stuff is that it shows that there isn't really free will...whatever happens was meant to happen, essentially. The characters just don't know it and we don't know how things will play out. 
I'm not saying he's changed the past.  I'm saying that he could be the reason for anything that's happened in the past - including the guards being at the Tower of Joy.

 
That's a worm hole not worth going down, though.
What wormhole? He's basically saying that perhaps the same thing that happened with Willis happened with Rhaegar. That is to say that the story we're seeing, which includes Rhaegar protecting Lyanna/Jon in the Tower of Joy, is one that was already affected by Bran telling Rhaegar to do just that. 

Probably a long shot, but it works in the same way that the Hodor story did. I think it's likely that there are more things that we've seen that will later be revealed as being driven by Bran. Perhaps the tower of joy is one of them. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What wormhole? He's basically saying that perhaps the same thing that happened with Willis happened with Rhaegar. That is to say that the story we're seeing, which includes Rhaegar protecting Lyanna/Jon in the Tower of Joy, is one that was already affected by Bran telling Rhaegar to do just that. 

Probably a long shot, but it works in the same way that the Hodor story did. I think it's likely that there are more things that we've seen that will later be revealed as being driven by Bran. Perhaps the tower of joy is one of them. 
I'm saying anything is possible but precisely because anything is possible its dumb to speculate about, and a complete waste of time...its a wormhole not worth going down.

As for this specific theory though...why would some future version of Bran tell Rhaegar to have the tower protected without any knowledge of anything bad happening that having protection would have prevented? If anything that protection nearly killed Ned. This theory only "works" if something bad happened originally that Bran could change...but he can't change anything, we've already seen what always happened. Doesn't make sense for Bran to be the reason the Kingsguard are guarding the tower, he'd have no reason to make sure that happened. No idea why this is even a thing. 

 
I'm saying anything is possible but precisely because anything is possible its dumb to speculate about, and a complete waste of time...its a wormhole not worth going down.

As for this specific theory though...why would some future version of Bran tell Rhaegar to have the tower protected without any knowledge of anything bad happening that having protection would have prevented? If anything that protection nearly killed Ned. This theory only "works" if something bad happened originally that Bran could change...but he can't change anything, we've already seen what always happened. Doesn't make sense for Bran to be the reason the Kingsguard are guarding the tower, he'd have no reason to make sure that happened. No idea why this is even a thing. 
Figure out last week why Bran would have fried Hodor's brain.

 
Figure out last week why Bran would have fried Hodor's brain.
It wasn't done on purpose. Some combo of Bran greenseeing into the past and warging into Hodor while there allowed Willis to hear Meera's commands to "hold the door", and some mixture of those events burned that message into his brain, messed him up forever, and reduced him to a vessel with a singular goal and purpose, far into the future. In an episode filled with beings using their deaths to help Bran, Hodor's entire life and purpose for being was sacrificed, in a way. As someone said earlier I believe, pretty powerful stuff about destiny and fate.

We still have zero evidence that Bran will be able to communicate with anyone in his past visions, never mind directly influence events like that.

That's what I was trying to say above--Bran didn't go back in time and cause or change anything of his own free will, he just played his part in an event that had already happened, was always going to happen. Just like the Three-Eyed Raven did.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Execept Ned, who heard him,  and Willis, who got Hodored.  So other than two of the three times we've seen Bran look into the past and interact, no evidence at all.
You think Ned heard him, but the Three-Eyed Raven seemed unconvinced. Could easily be a red herring. As for Hodor, that wasn't really what was going on, as I explained above. 

 
It wasn't done on purpose. Some combo of Bran greenseeing into the past and warging into Hodor while there allowed Willis to hear Meera's commands to "hold the door", and some mixture of those events burned that message into his brain, messed him up forever, and reduced him to a vessel with a singular goal and purpose, far into the future. In an episode filled with beings using their deaths to help Bran, Hodor's entire life and purpose for being was sacrificed, in a way. As someone said earlier I believe, pretty powerful stuff about destiny and fate.

We still have zero evidence that Bran will be able to communicate with anyone in his past visions, never mind directly influence events like that.

That's what I was trying to say above--Bran didn't go back in time and cause or change anything of his own free will, he just played his part in an event that had already happened, was always going to happen. Just like the Three-Eyed Raven did.
You're missing the point.  Last week there was no evidence of why Hodor had his brain scrambled.  Likewise, we have no idea why those soldiers were protecting the Tower of Joy.  The fan theory of L + R = J is based in a logical world and trying to make sense of incongruous events. That's all out the door now.  Any time there's a weird occurrence, it can be hand waived away as Bran's doing.

And we do have evidence that Bran communicated with his father, though poorly.  

 
We pretty much know exactly why those Kingsguard were protecting the Tower of Joy, you're just trying to make a point with a really dumb example. 

I get what you're saying in general, it just doesn't fit with the Tower of Joy.

 
We pretty much know exactly why those Kingsguard were protecting the Tower of Joy, you're just trying to make a point with a really dumb example. 

I get what you're saying in general, it just doesn't fit with the Tower of Joy.
No, we don't.  You're speculatiing.  Partially based upon the books.  But even still thats a fan theory and not something explicit from the text.

 
Seth Meyers just had Emilia Clarke on.  Still cute but definitely looking a little plump, bordering on  :porked:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top