|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Dec 29, 2018 13:13:40 GMT
The story of Game of Thrones (A Song of Ice and Fire ) is the story about how the House Targaryen took back the 7 Kingdoms and the Iron throne.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Dec 29, 2018 15:39:42 GMT
This is the story of two destructive extremes, ice and fire, facing each other and cancelling each other out. Both ice cold dumb Stark and crazy hot Targaryen will annihilate each other. All will die but one. Sansa Lannister was severed from her family early on, this was symbolised by the killing of her direwolf. She will be queen.
|
|
|
Post by jon snow loves sansa on Dec 29, 2018 16:40:57 GMT
i do think jon may represent both ice and fire ....i think when HBO goes back in time with the prequels will get to see more of the targaryens and how they conquered but i dont think ice and fire is about that , maybe it is just a bit , little shireen kept reading about the targaryens and the story she told her father before she was sacrificed was chilling IMO and it will play out like that i think dragon Vs dragon- i too believe sansa will be queen i just dont believe jon will die
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Dec 29, 2018 18:02:47 GMT
Jon is the conciliator, the man who always stands in between the front lines, the balanced ideal. He might be allowed to survive for this reason. Besides, he never considered himself a Stark and even refused to be made one. He won't care for being a Targaryen either.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Dec 29, 2018 19:55:40 GMT
Jon is the conciliator, the man who always stands in between the front lines, the balanced ideal. He might be allowed to survive for this reason. Besides, he never considered himself a Stark and even refused to be made one. He won't care for being a Targaryen either. Stop acting like your opinions are facts. I am not claiming that my theory is a fact i know that i may be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Dec 30, 2018 2:41:37 GMT
Jon is the conciliator, the man who always stands in between the front lines, the balanced ideal. He might be allowed to survive for this reason. Besides, he never considered himself a Stark and even refused to be made one. He won't care for being a Targaryen either. Stop acting … Go fuck yourself.
|
|
Seto
Sophomore
@seto
Posts: 313
Likes: 230
|
Post by Seto on Dec 30, 2018 8:03:30 GMT
Feologild Oakes If your asking what the story will ultimately be about plot-wise rather than thematically, then I'll say in Martin's initial outline he said the story would be split into three parts. Part one would be the war of the five kings, part two Dany's invasion of Westeros and part three the battle against the Others. Originally all three parts would be covered in a novel each, but the number of books in the series continued to increase as he wrote. It's possible that part two and three will be greatly condensed now, but I think the original outline is still pretty much the crux of the story. So in answer to your question, I'd say the Targaryen's reclaiming the throne, (whether they succeed or fail) is only a portion of a much larger overarching plot.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Dec 30, 2018 8:48:15 GMT
Feologild Oakes If your asking what the story will ultimately be about plot-wise rather than thematically, then I'll say in Martin's initial outline he said the story would be split into three parts. Part one would be the war of the five kings, part two Dany's invasion of Westeros and part three the battle against the Others. Originally all three parts would be covered in a novel each, but the number of books in the series continued to increase as he wrote. It's possible that part two and three will be greatly condensed now, but I think the original outline is still pretty much the crux of the story. So in answer to your question, I'd say the Targaryen's reclaiming the throne, (whether they succeed or fail) is only a portion of a much larger overarching plot. We've known since S2E10 that Daenerys would never claim the throne. She was shown reaching for it, deserted and meaningless within a ruin, then heeding the call of her dragons instead and this is exactly what happened in S7. She stopped her conquest when she realised her weapons were required for something more important than toppling the queen of King's Landing. That decision was the beginning of the original "part three".
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Dec 30, 2018 12:20:05 GMT
Feologild Oakes If your asking what the story will ultimately be about plot-wise rather than thematically, then I'll say in Martin's initial outline he said the story would be split into three parts. I am not asking that, i am asking how much you disagree with my theory Well i guess its not really mine as i am sure i am not the only one with it. It would be strange if i was
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Dec 30, 2018 18:17:40 GMT
I don't agree that the story is to explain how Targaryens unified the seven kingdoms. It's more about political conflicts and depiction of response of different humans under changing circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Dec 30, 2018 18:23:39 GMT
I don't agree that the story is to explain how Targaryens unified the seven kingdoms. Obviously not since the first thing that happened after Aegon's death was division again and the whole thing culminated in decades of civil war. If anything, what Targaryen history shows is that while power can help do good things, the strife around that power can undo them. Only the terminally naive can believe that Daenerys was ever meant to prevail.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 5, 2019 19:52:20 GMT
I don;t think the Iron Throne is too important.
It's just another thing made to appear important when in reality it is not.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jan 5, 2019 19:59:55 GMT
I don;t think the Iron Throne is too important. It's just another thing made to appear important when in reality it is not. You could be right, but stop acting as your opinion is a fact its not.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 5, 2019 20:03:53 GMT
I don;t think the Iron Throne is too important. It's just another thing made to appear important when in reality it is not. You could be right, but stop acting as your opinion is a fact its not. Does it become my problem if you can't tell the difference? If it hasn't been proven correct, it is my opinion. It really is that simple. "I don't think" should have been the giveaway.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jan 6, 2019 5:45:18 GMT
I don;t think the Iron Throne is too important. It's just another thing made to appear important when in reality it is not. You could be right, but stop acting as your opinion is a fact its not. When he says "I don't think that…" he is acting as someone expressing an opinion, not a fact. Stop being a moron. Stop being at all. No one in this world needs your kind.
|
|
Troyal1
Sophomore
@troyal1
Posts: 223
Likes: 108
|
Post by Troyal1 on Jan 7, 2019 4:39:08 GMT
I think ice represents White walkers and fire the dragons. I don’t think Martin actually knew Snow was gonna be who he is in the show. I think that’s just dumb fan service personally.
|
|
Troyal1
Sophomore
@troyal1
Posts: 223
Likes: 108
|
Post by Troyal1 on Jan 7, 2019 4:42:46 GMT
Feologild Oakes If your asking what the story will ultimately be about plot-wise rather than thematically, then I'll say in Martin's initial outline he said the story would be split into three parts. Part one would be the war of the five kings, part two Dany's invasion of Westeros and part three the battle against the Others. Originally all three parts would be covered in a novel each, but the number of books in the series continued to increase as he wrote. It's possible that part two and three will be greatly condensed now, but I think the original outline is still pretty much the crux of the story. So in answer to your question, I'd say the Targaryen's reclaiming the throne, (whether they succeed or fail) is only a portion of a much larger overarching plot. Wow thanks for sharing that! So basically the throne might actually not mean a damn thing in the end? That would be quite interesting and a surprising ending if nobody really sat on the throne and the kingdoms just kinda rebuilt themselves. That would explain the actors talking about how unexpected it is in my eyes. It would also explain why the show is ending with such few episodes. White walker is defeated but most everyone dies..... that’s my theory anyway
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jan 7, 2019 7:13:01 GMT
So basically the throne might actually not mean a damn thing in the end? It is very obvious. "A Game of Thrones" is the title of the first book, not of the series. It is the name of the show because it sounds better and there was no guarantee of covering the whole series when it started. The "game of thrones" extends for a while, but it really ends with the Red Wedding. When Stannis goes north, it is meant as a detour which anyone can tell will be a one way trip. Daenerys is now taking the same detour and will die up north. None of the potential survivors will have an interest in conquering King's Landing when all is said and done. Whoever sits there will stay. No one with a brain ought to believe that a fat leftist fuck would dedicate his life work to the epic restoration of a monarchy.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jan 7, 2019 7:45:39 GMT
That would be quite interesting and a surprising ending if nobody really sat on the throne and the kingdoms just kinda rebuilt themselves. That would explain the actors talking about how unexpected it is in my eyes. Given that masses of the brainless kind expect Daenerys to win the day, anything else can be called "unexpected" but of course, an even larger proportion of the audience expects the story to still be about the Iron Throne. It is in the name of the show and up to the last season, we have characters who do intend to take it by force so that expectation is legitimate. Yet, everyone agrees to see the real struggle elsewhere and "the Great War" is meant to be the kind of major shock that drains resources and makes empires fall. The Holy Roman Empire fell under the Napoleonic Wars, both the Habsburg Austro-Hungarian and the German empires fell with the end of the First World War. It only makes sense that the "Seven Kingdoms of Westeros" follow the same path, with King's Landing losing significance. Cersei still controls the Lannister forces and has access to the Reach but should this be expended in war, conquering the rest will make little sense and the rest itself would have no reason to want to change anything. A fragmented structure is the logical outcome.
|
|
Seto
Sophomore
@seto
Posts: 313
Likes: 230
|
Post by Seto on Jan 7, 2019 12:02:45 GMT
Wow thanks for sharing that! So basically the throne might actually not mean a damn thing in the end? That would be quite interesting and a surprising ending if nobody really sat on the throne and the kingdoms just kinda rebuilt themselves. That would explain the actors talking about how unexpected it is in my eyes. It would also explain why the show is ending with such few episodes. White walker is defeated but most everyone dies..... that’s my theory anyway It's definitely a possibility. Although I was talking more in line with how the books will end, as that's what I thought OP was referring to. In regards to the show, the ending will certainly be no where near as complicated. Especially if the eye-rolling and predictable season 7 is anything to go by.
|
|