|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jul 14, 2017 8:14:18 GMT
In a recent interview, GRRM says about Beric Dondarrion: This is basically what Jon must be too. And does it make Melisandre or Thoros of Myr equivalents to the Night King? Not quite since they do not actively control the reanimation process, we only saw them asking for it. Could it change? |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 14, 2017 23:34:12 GMT
In a recent interview, GRRM says about Beric Dondarrion: This is basically what Jon must be too. And does it make Melisandre or Thoros of Myr equivalents to the Night King? Not quite since they do not actively control the reanimation process, we only saw them asking for it. Could it change? I guess Jon dying is the bitter-sweet ending that GRRM promised? I don't know but it will make sense to kill Jon and that way the whole show will be more realistic and memorable. I also hope that they kill that Essosi woman who calls herself queen. Melisandre is probably not an equivalent of Night King as she often refers to Lord of Light as her master. Till now there is no evidence that Night King is not the other that Melisandre says whose name shall not be taken. So it seems Night King is his own master and has no higher authority. |
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jul 15, 2017 9:03:53 GMT
In a recent interview, GRRM says about Beric Dondarrion: This is basically what Jon must be too. And does it make Melisandre or Thoros of Myr equivalents to the Night King? Not quite since they do not actively control the reanimation process, we only saw them asking for it. Could it change? I guess Jon dying is the bitter-sweet ending that GRRM promised? I don't know but it will make sense to kill Jon and that way the whole show will be more realistic and memorable. I also hope that they kill that Essosi woman who calls herself queen. Melisandre is probably not an equivalent of Night King as she often refers to Lord of Light as her master. Till now there is no evidence that Night King is not the other that Melisandre says whose name shall not be taken. So it seems Night King is his own master and has no higher authority. People start to say Daenerys is a "fire wight" too since she somehow "survived" Drogo's pyre. I like the idea. Cersei and Sansa will be left to fight for the living. I hope they win. We haven't seen the Night King answer to anything yet but it could come. After all, he was a man "invested" by a blue gaze at some point and that thing is possibly more than just him.
|
|
|
|
Post by luketargaryen on Jul 15, 2017 14:46:46 GMT
In a recent interview, GRRM says about Beric Dondarrion: This is basically what Jon must be too. And does it make Melisandre or Thoros of Myr equivalents to the Night King? Not quite since they do not actively control the reanimation process, we only saw them asking for it. Could it change? I guess Jon dying is the bitter-sweet ending that GRRM promised? I don't know but it will make sense to kill Jon and that way the whole show will be more realistic and memorable. I also hope that they kill that Essosi woman who calls herself queen. Melisandre is probably not an equivalent of Night King as she often refers to Lord of Light as her master. Till now there is no evidence that Night King is not the other that Melisandre says whose name shall not be taken. So it seems Night King is his own master and has no higher authority. The bittersweet ending may be Tyrion's death, i don't think Jon will survive either, but if he wants to kill a fan favorite Tyrion is the one that will die, Jon is boring to many. |
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jul 15, 2017 15:06:00 GMT
I guess Jon dying is the bitter-sweet ending that GRRM promised? I don't know but it will make sense to kill Jon and that way the whole show will be more realistic and memorable. I also hope that they kill that Essosi woman who calls herself queen. Melisandre is probably not an equivalent of Night King as she often refers to Lord of Light as her master. Till now there is no evidence that Night King is not the other that Melisandre says whose name shall not be taken. So it seems Night King is his own master and has no higher authority. The bittersweet ending may be Tyrion's death, i don't think Jon will survive either, but if he wants to kill a fan favorite Tyrion is the one that will die, Jon is boring to many. Jon and Daenerys will die, that much is obvious. We need Tyrion to further the Lannister dynasty. He'll be locked up in luxurious apartments with as many books he can read and just enough wine so he can still perform his matrimonial duties with Cersei's adoptive heir. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 16, 2017 4:22:08 GMT
I guess Jon dying is the bitter-sweet ending that GRRM promised? I don't know but it will make sense to kill Jon and that way the whole show will be more realistic and memorable. I also hope that they kill that Essosi woman who calls herself queen. Melisandre is probably not an equivalent of Night King as she often refers to Lord of Light as her master. Till now there is no evidence that Night King is not the other that Melisandre says whose name shall not be taken. So it seems Night King is his own master and has no higher authority. The bittersweet ending may be Tyrion's death, i don't think Jon will survive either, but if he wants to kill a fan favorite Tyrion is the one that will die, Jon is boring to many. Tyrion is definitely much more interesting than Jon but GRRM as well as Benioff and Weiss have made Jon the hero who is thinking about uniting the whole humanity against the potential problem that the whole Westeros faces right now. In that sense he is what will come close to be the central protagonist of the show (though less so in the books). Killing the hero will make the show more memorable. Also, I think Leo has also made a good point that Tyrion may survive just to keep Lannister name alive. Though Leo also believes differently than others in that he sees Jon as the one going on an uncalled for war against the white walkers and the person who is actually creating this war in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jul 16, 2017 5:29:18 GMT
The bittersweet ending may be Tyrion's death, i don't think Jon will survive either, but if he wants to kill a fan favorite Tyrion is the one that will die, Jon is boring to many. GRRM as well as Benioff and Weiss have made Jon the hero who is thinking about uniting the whole humanity Another trope to subvert. Watch out. |
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jul 16, 2017 5:37:30 GMT
The bittersweet ending may be Tyrion's death, i don't think Jon will survive either, but if he wants to kill a fan favorite Tyrion is the one that will die, Jon is boring to many. Though Leo also believes differently than others in that he sees Jon as the one going on an uncalled for war against the white walkers and the person who is actually creating this war in the first place. Bran is the one who will solve the problem. That's what we were told in S3E10. Jojen Reed: "The Night's Watch can't stop them. The Kings of Westeros and all their armies can't stop them." This is an anti-war story written by a conscience objector. He will present warmongers as problems, those who call for a "Great War" against the "Others" (the name of White Walkers in the books) just like those who called for war against communism in the 60s. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 16, 2017 7:17:48 GMT
Though Leo also believes differently than others in that he sees Jon as the one going on an uncalled for war against the white walkers and the person who is actually creating this war in the first place. Bran is the one who will solve the problem. That's what we were told in S3E10. Jojen Reed: "The Night's Watch can't stop them. The Kings of Westeros and all their armies can't stop them." This is an anti-war story written by a conscience objector. He will present warmongers as problems, those who call for a "Great War" against the "Others" (the name of White Walkers in the books) just like those who called for war against communism in the 60s. The problem with your theory is that there are reasons to believe the White Walkers were going to invade at some point of time in near future irrespective of of what Jon's potential actions in season 7 may be or earlier have been (like killing a white walker in season 5). - The Red woman has been preparing for war since the beginning
- There are folk tales that predict the long night of doom
- Dragons came back during the same time as disturbances in north started happening may be a coincidence but it could also be interpreted as a signal.
There is substantial evidence to believe that the Others pose danger of invading the continent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jul 16, 2017 8:32:51 GMT
Bran is the one who will solve the problem. That's what we were told in S3E10. Jojen Reed: "The Night's Watch can't stop them. The Kings of Westeros and all their armies can't stop them." This is an anti-war story written by a conscience objector. He will present warmongers as problems, those who call for a "Great War" against the "Others" (the name of White Walkers in the books) just like those who called for war against communism in the 60s. The problem with your theory is that there are reasons to believe the White Walkers were going to invade at some point of time in near future irrespective of of what Jon's potential actions in season 7 may be or earlier have been (like killing a white walker in season 5). - The Red woman has been preparing for war since the beginning
- There are folk tales that predict the long night of doom
- Dragons came back during the same time as disturbances in north started happening may be a coincidence but it could also be interpreted as a signal.
There is substantial evidence to believe that the Others pose danger of invading the continent.
Europe had been preparing for war for decades before 1914. That's the actual reason the First World War happened. There are always folk tales about some terrible future: Apocalypse, Ragnarök… Dragons are a metaphor for nuclear weapons and the unlimited power they confer. There is always a danger somewhere and various ways of reacting to it. This tale has been one about men and the way they behave, this is the core concern of this author. I refuse to believe the (possible) White Walker invasion is more than just another trigger for depicting men's actions. This analysis results from considerations of the personality and political leanings of the author. |
|
|
|
Post by Nightman on Jul 16, 2017 13:36:48 GMT
I think GRRM is saying that ice magic and fire magic are two aspects of the same magic. That's why Mel is more powerful at the Wall; all the magic is the same, no matter if it's ice or fire based. Mel isn't the equivalent of the Night King; GRRM more or less confirmed the original Night King isn't coming back.
The two magics need a warrior with ice and fire blood to bring a balance to the Force and fight for the side of life. That's what Jon is for, although he isn't the first person with ice and fire blood.
|
|
|
|
Post by luketargaryen on Jul 16, 2017 16:11:41 GMT
The bittersweet ending may be Tyrion's death, i don't think Jon will survive either, but if he wants to kill a fan favorite Tyrion is the one that will die, Jon is boring to many. Tyrion is definitely much more interesting than Jon but GRRM as well as Benioff and Weiss have made Jon the hero who is thinking about uniting the whole humanity against the potential problem that the whole Westeros faces right now. In that sense he is what will come close to be the central protagonist of the show (though less so in the books). Killing the hero will make the show more memorable. Also, I think Leo has also made a good point that Tyrion may survive just to keep Lannister name alive. Though Leo also believes differently than others in that he sees Jon as the one going on an uncalled for war against the white walkers and the person who is actually creating this war in the first place. I don't think Jon will remain a hero, many theorize he is Azor Ahai, i think he's actually related to the Great Other, Dany fits more as Azor Ahai than Jon cause she has the fire thing and Mel's god is a fire god, Snow could be a foreshadowing of Jon being related to the Great Other(ice) instead of Mel's god(Fire). |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 16, 2017 16:32:03 GMT
I hate the notion of prophecy repeating itself.
The story becomes mundane if there are direct correlations between prophecy and character, but considering what they did with Jon, mundane is what the story may become anyway.
As long as the action is good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 18, 2017 6:50:11 GMT
The problem with your theory is that there are reasons to believe the White Walkers were going to invade at some point of time in near future irrespective of of what Jon's potential actions in season 7 may be or earlier have been (like killing a white walker in season 5). - The Red woman has been preparing for war since the beginning
- There are folk tales that predict the long night of doom
- Dragons came back during the same time as disturbances in north started happening may be a coincidence but it could also be interpreted as a signal.
There is substantial evidence to believe that the Others pose danger of invading the continent.
Europe had been preparing for war for decades before 1914. That's the actual reason the First World War happened. There are always folk tales about some terrible future: Apocalypse, Ragnarök… Dragons are a metaphor for nuclear weapons and the unlimited power they confer. There is always a danger somewhere and various ways of reacting to it. This tale has been one about men and the way they behave, this is the core concern of this author. I refuse to believe the (possible) White Walker invasion is more than just another trigger for depicting men's actions. This analysis results from considerations of the personality and political leanings of the author. A good argument is always appreciated.  Not that I believe in what you said but you presented your case like an intelligent lawyer. I wonder how long do we have to wait for the 6th and 7th book to come so that we could all understand GRRM POV much better. Though we could still not really understand him even after the books are published. |
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jul 18, 2017 7:15:57 GMT
Europe had been preparing for war for decades before 1914. That's the actual reason the First World War happened. There are always folk tales about some terrible future: Apocalypse, Ragnarök… Dragons are a metaphor for nuclear weapons and the unlimited power they confer. There is always a danger somewhere and various ways of reacting to it. This tale has been one about men and the way they behave, this is the core concern of this author. I refuse to believe the (possible) White Walker invasion is more than just another trigger for depicting men's actions. This analysis results from considerations of the personality and political leanings of the author. A good argument is always appreciated. Not that I believe in what you said but you presented your case like an intelligent lawyer. I wonder how long do we have to wait for the 6th and 7th book to come so that we could all understand GRRM POV much better. Though we could still not really understand him even after the books are published. The best works of art are those that remain open to multiple explanations. It makes them objectively the best because we keep digging stuff out of them whereas clear statements are just that. The author would be well advised not to give all the keys. When a reader explains a book, he enriches it, he expands its legacy. When the author does, it limits it. No one will be able to come afterwards with anything else, no matter how much sense it would make. The series is also bigger than just that stance about war, the author speaks of many more things in it. I haven't seen the new episode, but I read about a scene showing Arya meeting nice Lannister soldiers caught up in a war they never wanted themselves. This is very much the core of the story: showing the cost of war and questioning its justification. Was Joffrey's parentage worth starting a war? Does Daenerys' sense of entitlement justify her invading anything, being herself the one who turns the wheel she claims she wants to break? Will an attack on whatever is north of the Wall be more than just a bloody waste of lives? |
|
|
|
Post by Nightman on Jul 18, 2017 7:46:22 GMT
I hate the notion of prophecy repeating itself. The story becomes mundane if there are direct correlations between prophecy and character, but considering what they did with Jon, mundane is what the story may become anyway. As long as the action is good. GRRM feels differently. He has made it very clear that he likes prophecies repeating themselves, he doesn't hold the opinion that it's somehow mundane, and that is exactly what he is doing in his books. However, he has planted clues that the prophecies are not what they seem. Azor Ahai was not a good guy, and neither will be whomever fills his role this time around. The Children of the Forest may not be good; readers hold a bias for creatures with wholesome Earthy magic, but they have no reason to have humans' best interests at heart. The Others may not even be bad. With these books, one can't just dismiss certain things happening because of storytelling biases. The Southron plots have subverted ancient tropes. Nothing is stopping the Northern plot from doing the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jul 18, 2017 8:00:14 GMT
I hate the notion of prophecy repeating itself. The story becomes mundane if there are direct correlations between prophecy and character, but considering what they did with Jon, mundane is what the story may become anyway. As long as the action is good. GRRM feels differently. He has made it very clear that he likes prophecies repeating themselves, he doesn't hold the opinion that it's somehow mundane, and that is exactly what he is doing in his books. However, he has planted clues that the prophecies are not what they seem. Azor Ahai was not a good guy, and neither will be whomever fills his role this time around. The Children of the Forest may not be good; readers hold a bias for creatures with wholesome Earthy magic, but they have no reason to have humans' best interests at heart. The Others may not even be bad. With these books, one can't just dismiss certain things happening because of storytelling biases. The Southron plots have subverted ancient tropes. Nothing is stopping the Northern plot from doing the same. I can see the notion of history grossly repeating itself because the basic mechanisms of societies remain unchanged and prophecies are reflecting this. People like to think that what happened will happen again, after all they see it every day, every year. They prophecy it too and they are right because the same causes usually have the same effects. The other thing GRRM does consistently is the greying out of characters. He wants us to reflect and come up with the conclusion that Ned Stark was not a good guy who died of being too honourable in a wicked world. He died because he threatened people who could defend themselves. He did this consciously. He also shows that being nice is not the same as being effective. Tywin was not a nice guy but he was obviously a very good Hand of the King. Then he seems to find childish joy in surprising his readers so better be ready to see your hopes of understanding the story thwarted a few times. |
|
