Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

...well.... I can see that ....


then again

When they moved him, the shot did linger on the puddle of blood for a moment. I thought it was a shape, but didn't get a long enough look to make it out.

It would be truly idiotic if they resurrected Jon Snow.

Did they do that in the books?

Mdlbuildr wrote:
It would be truly idiotic if they resurrected Jon Snow.

Did they do that in the books?

...

There is no book for this part of the story yet. And it wouldn't be, it would actually be one of the things that make the most sense, given all of the foreshadowing done throughout the entire story, regarding Jon Snow.

I was also thinking that the old lady thing was saying she'll use her youngifying magic to bring back Jon Snow. I saw Kit Harrington (that's him right?) in the opening credits, so doesn't that mean he'll be around all season?

I'm not interested in Dorn at all. Like not 1 bit. When they showed it, I just kept hoping they would hurry up and get back to the rest of the story. None of those characters interest me at all.. I kinda liked the guy that got his head squished, but he got his head squished, so the whole dorn storyline should have ended there if they weren't going to add anything worthwhile afterwards.

I used to feel that way about the dragon lady storyline, till Tyrion got there, now I like it. Maybe Tyrion just needs to go to Dorn to make it watchable?

 Korinov wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Disagree strongly - in the later books her role is a passive weak willed observer obsessed by her mercenary lover. In the show she retains her own character and whilst she makes mistakes, - being too soft on the Masters in Meereen, locking her dragons away instead of feeding terrorists to them in the arena as part of the "games" that all her supporters wanted.

the Book is shocking bad and tiresome on this storyline.............with varied new Targayrians popping up out of the woodwork to drag the storylines out.

She also locks her dragons away in the books, and she does it because she fears she can no longer control them - the books however are ambiguous as to whether Drogon truly killed the shepherd's daughter.

As for being 'too soft' on the Masters... she actually did the worst she could, an arbitrary and random punishment. Which would be somewhat ok if she were able to actually control the city on a tight grip, but she's not. This is something both book and TV series actually agree on: Daenerys' biggest issue is that she's used to solve virtually every problem she faces by applying overwhelming brute force. Even if she also employs some cunning and political maneuvering to achieve her goals, in the end her core strategy is crushing the enemy as hard as she can. This becomes a huge problem when she tries to rule over a conquered city in Meereen, when she faces growing opposition and a shadow war inside her own walls, while her past conquests quickly crumble at reality's onslaught.

Regarding the "varied new Targaryens", there's actually a single one, and it's not clear at this point if he's a real Targaryen or not - like somebody really cares, the only thing that will matter is if he wins or loses at the end.

Daenerys is certainly not one of my favourite characters from the book series, and it would be a nice turn of events if she ends up losing it all in the end - I know it won't happen, but still it would be fun for me. The way she's portrayed in the show is quite confusing to me: she makes more or less the same right guesses and mistakes as in the books, yet he's usually portrayed in a much more sympathetic light - I guess being the strong, independent and empowered female lead has its advantages - as if her own misjudgements and extremely naïve decisions were many times someone else's fault. The actress probably doesn't help, she looks really limited in terms of actual acting talent, her overacting during certain sequences has been dreadful, and all this has got even more ironic after she refused to get naked on camera - understandable considering how gratuite nudity has become at this point, but her naked scenes were usually her best scenes.

Agreed - she locks the Dragons away - the symbol and actuality of her power in case they killed a child, which backfires - as it does every time she tries to be "nice" - this seems to be a constant in the books and show for most people.

In the book she does not make decisions, she has them thrust upon her by her advisors or her lover - in the show the decisions, right or wrong are influenced by them but are hers. She accepts a marriage that is forced on her, in the show she makes it a calculated decision and strictly on her terms but its just a bit too late. She was quite right to crucify the Masters in response the them doing the same to the children but then she eased up.......In the show she has perhaps the too most canny advisors that should be there to help her - Varis and Tyrion, and her two "fighting men" are likely to be by her side. In the books she is bereft of decent advice and under siege - again because she locked up her Dragons - so GRM could avoid the merest chance of her ever heading over to Westros.

In terms of rulers - brute force is a legitimate way to rule a quasi mediaeval realm - it works and did in our history. All the other rulers in her world operate the same way - when they don't, like Tomen they begin to fail. Its not that she is using brute force, she is not using enough of it or on the right people. Even Ned Stark operated on a basis "the law is backed up by my blade, I rule because I can defend my lands and people against others."

I have the same issues with Jon Snow as you do with Dany - he keeps being set up as the great hero but I just don't see it - naïve and foolish decisions, blatant favouritism, a scary dire wolf that's never there when its actually of any use.

yeah the Black is a life sentence - nah Sam your my best mate, you head south with your girlfriend and have a nice comfy life - but the rest of you lucky lads, well you get to hold a stupidly large wall against the undead whilst we let the wildlings in - nah they wont help defend it - come on there are at least 40 of you left - course we can hold it on our own. Wierdly the kid who saw his friends and family slaughtered by those same wildings - including Jon's girlfriend, is not happy. Most of the Watch are murderers and thieves - and likely looing for the opportunity to get out of dodge before the undead finally wander over

I personally think Emilia Clarke has done a fine job, but then I have constantly been impressed by the casting in the show - very few have not worked and all have built on the often inconsistent and sketchy or forgettable book descriptions. I would have preferred the first choice Tamzin Merchant as I think she looked more like how I pictured Dany but she has made the role her own.

 djones520 wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:
It would be truly idiotic if they resurrected Jon Snow.

Did they do that in the books?

...

There is no book for this part of the story yet. And it wouldn't be, it would actually be one of the things that make the most sense, given all of the foreshadowing done throughout the entire story, regarding Jon Snow.

I haven't read the books past the first one so I have no idea what is and isn't in the books. That's why I was asking.

I think it would be idiotic. You don't. Differing opinions.

It's not even 'idiotic' in the context of the TV Series.

And the show has already shown multiple avenues of resurrection, so it would be a bit...odd to not expect something similar to happen here.

What have we had so far:

- don't remember the name by the priest with the brotherhood of traveling banners
- Ser Strong
- Danny (maybe not resurrected, but did hang out in a funeral fire and is still alive)
- the entire army of the white walkers

I do like that there are certain parallels between Jon and Dany, even if the expected connection never materializes.
Naive regal arrogance on the part of Dany and naive honor on the part of Jon.

Dany's storyline last season became tedious. I'm hoping that was the point? Potential and hope that gets ground to dust by a reality she wasn't prepared for.
I'm not sure how good an actor Ms. Clarke is. Her reactions were...heavy handed to say the least in this episode.
I'm hoping we see her character develop in a meaningful way and not just 'ineffective bluster, ineffective bluster, poorly judged sympathy, ineffective bluster, saved by a dragon!'.

Kings Landing is starting to lose its relevance for me.The revenge of the least sympathetic character in the show (Cersei) isn't super compelling, and the Sparrows just seem to be a disruptive force with no narrative direction at this point.

 Alpharius wrote:
It's not even 'idiotic' in the context of the TV Series.

And the show has already shown multiple avenues of resurrection, so it would be a bit...odd to not expect something similar to happen here.

Resurrections: well

We have the weird Dr Frankenstein guy in Kings Landing
The ex red Priest who has been forgotten (in book and show) who raises you
Becoming an ice Zombie or Wight.

Anything else? (Dany I don't count as she didn't die)

Where he, is apart from Melisandre (who has never shown any ability in this area but is a red Priestess so maybe can do it) isn't the only way he is coming back is a ice wight thing (which apparently no one was worried about )

I think however if they were not bringing him back they would have had his body burnt and moved on ............. like they did with other characters. The fact that they are still messing about with his corpse etc likely means they have something to bring him back and please the fans.

least sympathetic character in the show (Cersei)

really - more than Ramsey?

I think he is a great bad guy but he is not exactly sympathetic, or his dad. Never quite sure why Jamie gets such a pass - he was the one that chucked a kid out of a tower window - with a quip no less................Is Cersei really worse than these guys?

 djones520 wrote:
When they moved him, the shot did linger on the puddle of blood for a moment. I thought it was a shape, but didn't get a long enough look to make it out.

Yeah,few theories -- largely similar to the above -- floating around.

And his wolf was quite upset eh ? ....

.. The grey scale thing that Jorah -- ?? -- has contracted : is there any indication about how long this sort of thing takes to kick in ?

 reds8n wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
When they moved him, the shot did linger on the puddle of blood for a moment. I thought it was a shape, but didn't get a long enough look to make it out.

Yeah,few theories -- largely similar to the above -- floating around.

And his wolf was quite upset eh ? ....

.. The grey scale thing that Jorah -- ?? -- has contracted : is there any indication about how long this sort of thing takes to kick in ?

The book had it varying at least. The character in the book who got it, was hoping that he could hold on for a couple of years before it took his mind.

 Alpharius wrote:
It's not even 'idiotic' in the context of the TV Series.

Please explain why you think so. Why specifically is Jon Snow's resurrection so important to the plot?

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
It's not even 'idiotic' in the context of the TV Series.

Please explain why you think so. Why specifically is Jon Snow's resurrection so important to the plot?

Included below.

Seems like there is a difference between something being idiotic, and something having relevance to the plot.

If rumors of certain scenes being shot are true, then they seem to be planning on showing the relevance that is implied in the books to TV viewers.

Well, looks like they beat me to it - thanks!

 djones520 wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
It's not even 'idiotic' in the context of the TV Series.

Please explain why you think so. Why specifically is Jon Snow's resurrection so important to the plot?

Included below.

Spoiler:

He is a Targaryean, one of the three necessary to ride the dragons. His mother was Lyanna Stark, father was Rhaegar Targaryean. This season will explain that, with the flashback to when Eddard went to the Tower of Joy and fought the remaining Kings Guard who was defending her. He, Daenarys, (and likely Tyrion) are the three heads of the dragon, the 3 Targaryeans who will tame the dragons.

Isn't all this not just fan theory at this point?

So wait.. I thought Jon Snow was ed stark's son?

 Necros wrote:
So wait.. I thought Jon Snow was ed stark's son?

fan theory says no- its implied in some parts that Ned was not his father but I don't think its ever been officially stated in the show or book that this is the case.........so its a theory.

There are many theory's............

 Mr Morden wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
It's not even 'idiotic' in the context of the TV Series.

Please explain why you think so. Why specifically is Jon Snow's resurrection so important to the plot?

Included below.

Spoiler:

He is a Targaryean, one of the three necessary to ride the dragons. His mother was Lyanna Stark, father was Rhaegar Targaryean. This season will explain that, with the flashback to when Eddard went to the Tower of Joy and fought the remaining Kings Guard who was defending her. He, Daenarys, (and likely Tyrion) are the three heads of the dragon, the 3 Targaryeans who will tame the dragons.

Isn't all this not just fan theory at this point?

Spoiler:

How is Tyrion a Targaryean? Who was his father then? (although he would likely make a better husband than Jon).............some of the noble families do have some Targaryean blood.

Hmmmm, interesting. Maybe not so idiotic then. Thanks for posting.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Hmmmm, interesting. Maybe not so idiotic then. Thanks for posting.

 djones520 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
It's not even 'idiotic' in the context of the TV Series.

Please explain why you think so. Why specifically is Jon Snow's resurrection so important to the plot?

Included below.

Spoiler:

He is a Targaryean, one of the three necessary to ride the dragons. His mother was Lyanna Stark, father was Rhaegar Targaryean. This season will explain that, with the flashback to when Eddard went to the Tower of Joy and fought the remaining Kings Guard who was defending her. He, Daenarys, (and likely Tyrion) are the three heads of the dragon, the 3 Targaryeans who will tame the dragons.

Isn't all this not just fan theory at this point?

Spoiler:

How is Tyrion a Targaryean? Who was his father then? (although he would likely make a better husband than Jon).............some of the noble families do have some Targaryean blood.

Spoiler:

He is Danaerys' half brother. The tv show has been horrible about the hints, but it was rumored that Aerys raped Tyrions mother. Its what led to the Lannister falling out with the Targaryeans.

I just want cleganebowl to happen

 Ustrello wrote:
I just want cleganebowl to happen

I thought that ship sailed fell off a cliff.

 kronk wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
I just want cleganebowl to happen

I thought that ship sailed fell off a cliff.

But what is hyped may never die but returns hyper and stronger

Isn't all this not just fan theory at this point?

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
It's not even 'idiotic' in the context of the TV Series.

Please explain why you think so. Why specifically is Jon Snow's resurrection so important to the plot?

Included below.

Spoiler:

He is a Targaryean, one of the three necessary to ride the dragons. His mother was Lyanna Stark, father was Rhaegar Targaryean. This season will explain that, with the flashback to when Eddard went to the Tower of Joy and fought the remaining Kings Guard who was defending her. He, Daenarys, (and likely Tyrion) are the three heads of the dragon, the 3 Targaryeans who will tame the dragons.

Isn't all this not just fan theory at this point?

Spoiler:

How is Tyrion a Targaryean? Who was his father then? (although he would likely make a better husband than Jon).............some of the noble families do have some Targaryean blood.

Spoiler:

He is Danaerys' half brother. The tv show has been horrible about the hints, but it was rumored that Aerys raped Tyrions mother. Its what led to the Lannister falling out with the Targaryeans.

Spoiler:

i think the hints in the book include his mismatched eyes (one having a common Targaryean color), the frequent "you are no son of mine" type comments by his father, and the constant attempts to remove his status as heir. Also his hair color and resistance to disease are sometimes mentioned.

I could see the three of them combined being one practical ruler, and would be an obvious reference back to the banner of House Targaryean. Danny as the conqueror since she sucks at playing the game but is loved by common people, John Targaryen as the battle field leader and possibly Master of Law, and Tyrion Targarean back as Hand.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Compel wrote:
I do think Azor Azhai is going to appear with a flaming sword and all that jazz.

I don't think that's necessarily going to end up being a good thing for a whole bunch of people.

I think there will be an Azor Ahai, but it won't necessarily end with a victory. Some form of peace treaty is more likely.

We've discussed this before, and I agree that the story (at least in the books; it's less clear for the show) isn't going to end in conventional fantasy fashion. GRRM has said that the ending is bittersweet, and we also know that he's not a big fan of true good vs. true evil stories. And given that Rhaegar says in Dany's vision that the song of ice and fire will be his son's... yeah, perhaps the savior figure in the story -- if it's even definitely one person -- will belong to both sides. Or neither, depending on how you look at it.

Anyway, it's clear that GRRM puts a lot of time and thought into the prophecies, myths and stories that are told in the series. Some may truly be "non-sense," but I suspect a good many will come true and make sense later...just not in the way we'd most expect. GRRM does a great job repeating certain themes and patterns to keep us off-track as to the prophecies' specific meaning.

Perhaps it's just because I'm an "intuitive" on the Myers-Briggs scale, but IMO what often gets lost in the "Is Jon Azor Ahai?" discussions are the bigger picture question that might ultimately answer the smaller ones. To me, it starts with the nature of R'hllor, the Great Other, and their relationships with the forest children's gods and maybe even the Seven. Answer that, and we might understand the true nature of the conflict/relationship between humanity and the Others/WWs. From that, we may understand why the Wall was built, how the seven kingdoms were founded, why the Night's Watch established. Etc.

I'm absolutely convinced that R+L=J, but I think that's just one brick and that we're missing a whole lot of foundation stones. Of course, seeing how the TV show is going, we may be waiting for the books to get answers. The show has ignored so much material -- which I understand, but still lament -- that I'm not sure that we CAN get much more than lower-level answers and resolution.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mdlbuildr wrote:
It would be truly idiotic if they resurrected Jon Snow.

Did they do that in the books?

What you need to understand is that the show -- which is entertaining and well done, don't get me wrong -- is like a Sesame Street production of War and Peace. Or maybe more like looking at the above-water portion of an iceberg.