806 - The Iron Throne

11213141618

Comments

  • All the ChickensAll the Chickens Birmingham, AL
    I don't think in a million years that Yara would want or agree to be on any small council in Kings Landing. She's a seafaring adventurer and leader of the Iron Islands. Should could do neither while sitting around in KL on a small council.

    She wouldn't have left her more prestigious position to go sit around in a dusty tower in KL, while some dude probably also usurps her power in the Iron Islands. Yara is much more like Arya, who also would never serve in any of these capacities.

    It honestly doesn't make much sense that Bronn would want to be on the Small Council, unless that was part of his deal with Tyrion, and Bronn might just enjoy the night life in KL and drinking with his bud Tyrion. Normally the Lords of the great houses who are wardens over their regions/kingdoms send their younger brother or eldest sons to serve on the small council with a "Master of Whothehellcares" title.
    rkcrawf
  • chriskchrisk Indianapolis
    I don't think in a million years that Yara would want or agree to be on any small council in Kings Landing. She's a seafaring adventurer and leader of the Iron Islands. Should could do neither while sitting around in KL on a small council.

    She wouldn't have left her more prestigious position to go sit around in a dusty tower in KL, while some dude probably also usurps her power in the Iron Islands. Yara is much more like Arya, who also would never serve in any of these capacities.

    It honestly doesn't make much sense that Bronn would want to be on the Small Council, unless that was part of his deal with Tyrion, and Bronn might just enjoy the night life in KL and drinking with his bud Tyrion. Normally the Lords of the great houses who are wardens over their regions/kingdoms send their younger brother or eldest sons to serve on the small council with a "Master of Whothehellcares" title.
    Yeah, that doesn't make much sense. Who even lives in Highgarden now? Servants?

    Or do they have legislative sessions like Congress, so they can go home sometimes?

  • AnominalAnominal San Francisco Bay Area
    edited May 2019
    chrisk said:
    I don't see any reason to think the Iron Islands are in any position to bargain. They had already pretty easily submitted to Dany's demands in changing their whole culture (which is a separate writing problem). If Euron were in charge then ok, but Yara seems pretty well inclined to settle things down based on what we've seen. 

    I'm not sure why people are convinced that Dorne would want independence, or what it would do for them. In the books they're trying to help restore Targaryen rule in the Seven Kingdoms, and in the show Doran is trying to ally with the Lannisters through marriage and the Sand Snakes are all killed by Cersei who is now dead.

    I just don't see any reason the North's independence should inspire anyone else to do the same. It seems like people are just taking that for granted. Why would they want it? I understand why Sansa wants it.


    Anominal said:
    Yeah, the benefits of being a united kingdom and the practicality of not being able to pillage forever ignores the fact that the Iron Islands were able to do that for decades? Centuries? before the Seven Kingdoms was a thing, and ignores the fact that Iron Islands rebelled for independence twice in recent history.
    I think if the show invented the Iron Islands, people would say it makes no sense and they exist because D&D think they're cool. In this case, that's all on GRRM. They're the worst part of the books and don't make any logical sense. Maybe if they were in Essos. 
    So what you're saying is that the Iron Islands make no sense, and so completely changing their personality and motivations in the finale to make them make sense is okay. That they should have never tried to declare independence in show, so retconning them makes sense. But based on what we've seen, Yara went to Dany because she needed help killing her uncle so she could gain control of the Iron Islands. She only hesitantly agreed to give up her way of life in exchange for that. She has no such promise with anyone else, and her whole character has been to show how much of an Iron Islander she is than Theon, with the one exception of actually caring for her brother unlike their father.

    But at the same time, you're agreeing that Sansa declaring independence makes sense because she's been declaring it in the show. That all the benefits of united kingdom don't apply to her. That all the North wanted was someone from the North to rule them, and now that Bran is declared king of everything... now it makes the most sense for the North to rule independently even though now they have someone on the Iron Throne who not only is a Stark, but was demonstrated to be so immensely powerful the Night King wanted him dead.

    I feel like you're wanting things both ways and applying opposite logic to the same scenario at best. (It's worse if you consider that the North now has an ally on their side on the Iron Throne instead of Dany, but I also ultimately like her ending. Just not how everyone else just accepted it without question.)
    Giovanni
  • mtron32 said:
    zruiz7 said:
    A. Ron really turned into a C U next Tuesday. It particularly happened with the last few episodes. I used to love listening every week. You could tell that Jim was just going along with every complaint, even when he disagreed. I still love you A. Ron, but it was just difficult to listen when 98% of your sentences are complaints. Of course this season was horribly written, but you do not have to displace your displeasure at the expense of the audience. I will continue to follow and listen to your material, but I just hope you change your overall tone. Good luck boys!
    That's why I quit The WD podcast. Why would someone want to listen to someone complain?
    That's actually why I miss TWD because its was a refreshingly realistic take of the series and I love their humor.  GOT used to be on the level of Breaking Bad but in the last few seasons, became like old TWD so it was good to see the podcast reflect that.  The latest season has been iffy but still entertaining; meanwhile all that hope that fans built up over years and years ends in a wet fart so I'm really not surprised at the complaints.
    Ya, the reason I started listening to Bald Move was their honest take on The Walking Dead, which set it apart from all the pandering, sycophantic "fan" podcasts.

    There's probably a big distinction between the BM'ers who came aboard for that reason, and the ones who came on for the more positive casts like Breaking Bad or Leftovers. We should have a civil war.
    AnominalGiovanniblacksunrise7
  • awookiee said:
    chrisk said:
    I think the complaints about the North being independent and nobody else are a bit overblown. 

    Theres a a lot of benefit to being part of the Six or Seven Kingdoms. Trade, currency, travel, etc... It’s the same reason countries have joined the EU today.

    You give up some self determination and I suppose you can say they should have debated it more but all these kingdoms have been unified for generations. So being affiliated is the default for everyone already. Sansa’s the only one we know of who’s been making noise about leaving. 

    Also - Master of Whisperers is just the spy chief right? That’s the way I read it. Whatever Bran is capable of, the position needs to exist, no?

    That goes against everything the show has shown us. Robb declaring independence was depicted as a big deal. A big deal that upset not only the Lannisters, but Renly, Stannis and Dany. And then not only do they get independence by just saying so, but the Iron Islands, who have wanted to be independent for just as long, go "you go ahead and do you, we'll stay."
    I 100% understand your argument here as the Iron Islands have pushed for Independence in the show but I want to know how the Iron Islands declares Independence and live on their own without the support of others? Surely in this new Westeros they can't go back to reaving, raping, and pillaging and while it's possible they can survive on fish and food from the sea alone, I highly doubt that's what they want to do. There's tons of benefits being united that I think the Iron Islanders would benefit from.  
      As someone else mentioned, that is fine, if it is something that is even hinted at on screen. Instead, what we got was Yara making an alliance with Daenerys back in the "Battle of the Bastards" episode where Yara explicitly asked for Dany's recognition of the independence of the Iron Islands. And the particular scenario that you mentioned is explicitly discussed: Dany specifically says that she will support the independence of the Iron Islands if they agree to stop reaping and plundering the north, and Yara agrees.So we go from " we will support Dany and even agree to stop plundering in exchange for our independence" to "we're totally fine staying in under the monarchy of the brother who killed Dany and who we explicitly attacked before."
    Giovanni
  • The Iron Islands has leverage to leave the kingdoms because they are islands and they have the only remaining navy in Westeros.
    Giovanni
  • chriskchrisk Indianapolis
    edited May 2019
    Anominal said:
    chrisk said:
    I don't see any reason to think the Iron Islands are in any position to bargain. They had already pretty easily submitted to Dany's demands in changing their whole culture (which is a separate writing problem). If Euron were in charge then ok, but Yara seems pretty well inclined to settle things down based on what we've seen. 

    I'm not sure why people are convinced that Dorne would want independence, or what it would do for them. In the books they're trying to help restore Targaryen rule in the Seven Kingdoms, and in the show Doran is trying to ally with the Lannisters through marriage and the Sand Snakes are all killed by Cersei who is now dead.

    I just don't see any reason the North's independence should inspire anyone else to do the same. It seems like people are just taking that for granted. Why would they want it? I understand why Sansa wants it.


    Anominal said:
    Yeah, the benefits of being a united kingdom and the practicality of not being able to pillage forever ignores the fact that the Iron Islands were able to do that for decades? Centuries? before the Seven Kingdoms was a thing, and ignores the fact that Iron Islands rebelled for independence twice in recent history.
    I think if the show invented the Iron Islands, people would say it makes no sense and they exist because D&D think they're cool. In this case, that's all on GRRM. They're the worst part of the books and don't make any logical sense. Maybe if they were in Essos. 
    So what you're saying is that the Iron Islands make no sense, and so completely changing their personality and motivations in the finale to make them make sense is okay. That they should have never tried to declare independence in show, so retconning them makes sense. But based on what we've seen, Yara went to Dany because she needed help killing her uncle so she could gain control of the Iron Islands. She only hesitantly agreed to give up her way of life in exchange for that. She has no such promise with anyone else, and her whole character has been to show how much of an Iron Islander she is than Theon, with the one exception of actually caring for her brother unlike their father.

    But at the same time, you're agreeing that Sansa declaring independence makes sense because she's been declaring it in the show. That all the benefits of united kingdom don't apply to her. That all the North wanted was someone from the North to rule them, and now that Bran is declared king of everything... now it makes the most sense for the North to rule independently even though now they have someone on the Iron Throne who not only is a Stark, but was demonstrated to be so immensely powerful the Night King wanted him dead.

    I feel like you're wanting things both ways and applying opposite logic to the same scenario.
    Sansa wanting independence makes sense because of what's happened to her and her family. I think she wanted independence no matter what would've happened. At some point Bran won't be king and they'll have to deal with that person. 

    I'm saying the Iron Islands are impossible to write for in a way that makes logical sense. They don't, in my opinion, work in the books or on the show. I think in real life they'd have been brought to heel hundreds of years ago and they'd be like any other house after 300 years under Targaryen rule. So whatever they choose to do with them in the show is fine enough by me.

    I just disagree on her reluctance with Dany. She made a token protest, Dany said "no more" and then Yara and Theon look at each other and nod. Something like that. No concern at all for how they'd sell that back home, which I think is either a writing mistake or a bad omission. Having said that, the Iron Islands were already cowed by Robert, which is why Balon's protestations against Theon were so ludicrous way back in S2. So -  I think the whole storyline is a hot mess. 

     EDIT - i guess i had forgotten that they asked Dany for independence or sovereignty. I was thinking they'd pledged loyalty to her, but that changes things and I agree it doesn't make sense. 

  • chrisk said:
    chrisk said:
    I think the complaints about the North being independent and nobody else are a bit overblown...

    Theres a a lot of benefit to being part of the Six or Seven Kingdoms. Trade, currency, travel, etc... It’s the same reason countries have joined the EU today.

    ...Sansa’s the only one we know of who’s been making noise about leaving.

    Ya, this is one of many gaps in the last few seasons that it's possible to imagine a rationalization for, but NONE OF THAT is depicted on screen. There are many arguments or and counter-arguments they could get into, but no one even acknowledges it as an issue.

    I understand that some people don't care about any of this and just want to see their favourite characters power up and do cool shit, but many of us were drawn to the series by the promise that it was going to depict am expansive, immersive, rationally consistent world.
    The problem is I see any clear, expressed reason why these kingdoms would want to be independent, so for me them going along with the Six Kingdoms and Northern independence isn't even an issue. The North has been independent in the past, in the recent past, and it's been a spoken concern of Sansa's. For everyone else, my assumption is they're fine being affiliated.

    The Iron Islands might make sense, if you think an independent pirate society makes any sense in this world. Or you think they have a leg to stand on, which I don't. Dorne is the other one I've heard - their "unbowed, unbent, unbroken" motto hasn't kept them out of the Seven Kingdoms before and their main quarrel was with the Lannisters so I don't see any reason the kid who's left would be itching to leave either.
    I mean, they are, after someone brought it up spontaneously in a single meeting that was not convened for the purpose of naming a king, agreeing to be ruled by a crippled psychic boy they know nothing about, and administered by a dwarf and the heir to the great House that seized the throne, blew up the religious leader of the continent, the Queen, and various other heads of state, etc. etc. And who also served as second-in-command to the Targ Queen who burnt the capital to the ground. And killed his father.

    Because Bran broke his legs and then got a superpower that he failed to use against either of their enemies. That's a "good story."

    I know that we as an audience know that Tyrion and Bran are cool dudes, but they didn't make any effort to show why everyone else would.

    If you don't think that any of this is even worth bringing up, then I'll throw that in the pile of things stretching my suspension of disbelief.
    Giovanni
  • chrisk said:
    Anominal said:
    chrisk said:
    I don't see any reason to think the Iron Islands are in any position to bargain. They had already pretty easily submitted to Dany's demands in changing their whole culture (which is a separate writing problem). If Euron were in charge then ok, but Yara seems pretty well inclined to settle things down based on what we've seen. 

    I'm not sure why people are convinced that Dorne would want independence, or what it would do for them. In the books they're trying to help restore Targaryen rule in the Seven Kingdoms, and in the show Doran is trying to ally with the Lannisters through marriage and the Sand Snakes are all killed by Cersei who is now dead.

    I just don't see any reason the North's independence should inspire anyone else to do the same. It seems like people are just taking that for granted. Why would they want it? I understand why Sansa wants it.


    Anominal said:
    Yeah, the benefits of being a united kingdom and the practicality of not being able to pillage forever ignores the fact that the Iron Islands were able to do that for decades? Centuries? before the Seven Kingdoms was a thing, and ignores the fact that Iron Islands rebelled for independence twice in recent history.
    I think if the show invented the Iron Islands, people would say it makes no sense and they exist because D&D think they're cool. In this case, that's all on GRRM. They're the worst part of the books and don't make any logical sense. Maybe if they were in Essos. 
    So what you're saying is that the Iron Islands make no sense, and so completely changing their personality and motivations in the finale to make them make sense is okay. That they should have never tried to declare independence in show, so retconning them makes sense. But based on what we've seen, Yara went to Dany because she needed help killing her uncle so she could gain control of the Iron Islands. She only hesitantly agreed to give up her way of life in exchange for that. She has no such promise with anyone else, and her whole character has been to show how much of an Iron Islander she is than Theon, with the one exception of actually caring for her brother unlike their father.

    But at the same time, you're agreeing that Sansa declaring independence makes sense because she's been declaring it in the show. That all the benefits of united kingdom don't apply to her. That all the North wanted was someone from the North to rule them, and now that Bran is declared king of everything... now it makes the most sense for the North to rule independently even though now they have someone on the Iron Throne who not only is a Stark, but was demonstrated to be so immensely powerful the Night King wanted him dead.

    I feel like you're wanting things both ways and applying opposite logic to the same scenario.
    Sansa wanting independence makes sense because of what's happened to her and her family. I think she wanted independence no matter what would've happened. At some point Bran won't be king and they'll have to deal with that person. 

    I'm saying the Iron Islands are impossible to write for in a way that makes logical sense. They don't, in my opinion, work in the books or on the show. I think in real life they'd have been brought to heel hundreds of years ago and they'd be like any other house after 300 years under Targaryen rule. So whatever they choose to do with them in the show is fine enough by me.

    I just disagree on her reluctance with Dany. She made a token protest, Dany said "no more" and then Yara and Theon look at each other and nod. Something like that. No concern at all for how they'd sell that back home, which I think is either a writing mistake or a bad omission. Having said that, the Iron Islands were already cowed by Robert, which is why Balon's protestations against Theon were so ludicrous way back in S2. So -  I think the whole storyline is a hot mess. 

     EDIT - i guess i had forgotten that they asked Dany for independence or sovereignty. I was thinking they'd pledged loyalty to her, but that changes things and I agree it doesn't make sense. 


    To quote the episode specifically:
    Theon:
    "Your ancestors defeated ours, and took the Iron Islands. We ask you to give them back."

    To which Tyrion replies:
    "What if everyone starts demanding their independence?"

    And Dany says"
    "She's not demanding, she's asking. The others are free to ask as well."

    So they explicitly discussed independence, and Dany agreed to their demands provided that they stopped reaving and plundering. They even shake on it.
    Giovanni
  • All the ChickensAll the Chickens Birmingham, AL
    edited May 2019
    LordBy said:
    The Iron Islands has leverage to leave the kingdoms because they are islands and they have the only remaining navy in Westeros.
    They don't talk about it much, but Dorne also has a huge navy, second to the Iron Islands. I know that some of it was destroyed in season 7 attacks by Euron, but by that some note the Iron Islanders should also not have any ships left. The Iron Islands are also on the other side of the continent, so, realistically, their fleet shouldn't matter to Kings Landing on a day to day basis.

    I think that the Iron Islands have leverage because no one gives a wet fart about the Iron Islands. The only reason I think that the crown beat down their rebellions was due to them attacking their coast lines. Outside of that, if they called themselves independent and don't attack Westeros kingdoms, no one would even notice. If they gave them some land on the shorelines to raise cattle and farm, they would have no reason to raid the mainland and their culture would permanently change.

    Then again, like I've mentioned before in this thread, they haven't really explained why it's important for any of these kingdoms to bend the knee to a central government, outside of that being the central theme of the entire show/story. They all sort of do what they want anyhow, the show has never explored any taxation system to benefit roads and construction projects, there is no royal army, etc. The money issues the crown has indicates that it gets it's gold from the Iron Bank and the richest families (the Lannisters) bankrolling them, and no from any taxes being collected from each kingdom.

    You can conduct trade with each other without a central government a thousand miles away giving you permission. The purpose of the unification of the kingdoms seemingly exists purely as a symbolic gesture of power to whoever sits on throne in KL, rather than any other real humanitarian or logical purpose.
    SanguinePenguinBloodyTacoblacksunrise7
  • chriskchrisk Indianapolis
    LordBy said:
    The Iron Islands has leverage to leave the kingdoms because they are islands and they have the only remaining navy in Westeros.

    You can conduct trade with each other without a central government a thousand miles away giving you permission. The purpose of the unification of the kingdoms seemingly exists purely as a symbolic gesture of power to whoever sits on throne in KL, rather than any other real humanitarian or logical purpose.

    I wish I remembered more about this from the books, because it really makes no sense. There should be some kind of reciprocal relationship - taxes, good and soldiers in exchange for services, relative peace and common defense. In which case the Iron Islands make even less sense.
  • chrisk said:
    LordBy said:
    The Iron Islands has leverage to leave the kingdoms because they are islands and they have the only remaining navy in Westeros.

    You can conduct trade with each other without a central government a thousand miles away giving you permission. The purpose of the unification of the kingdoms seemingly exists purely as a symbolic gesture of power to whoever sits on throne in KL, rather than any other real humanitarian or logical purpose.

    I wish I remembered more about this from the books, because it really makes no sense. There should be some kind of reciprocal relationship - taxes, good and soldiers in exchange for services, relative peace and common defense. In which case the Iron Islands make even less sense.
    There is a scene in season 1 where Joffrey says he wants to double taxes and create a standing army for the king. So there is some taxation. It’s not clear what benefits the kingdoms get though. I guess it keeps the peace when things are steady and the Kings road is kept free of potholes. 
  • All the ChickensAll the Chickens Birmingham, AL
    edited May 2019
    chrisk said:
    LordBy said:
    The Iron Islands has leverage to leave the kingdoms because they are islands and they have the only remaining navy in Westeros.

    You can conduct trade with each other without a central government a thousand miles away giving you permission. The purpose of the unification of the kingdoms seemingly exists purely as a symbolic gesture of power to whoever sits on throne in KL, rather than any other real humanitarian or logical purpose.

    I wish I remembered more about this from the books, because it really makes no sense. There should be some kind of reciprocal relationship - taxes, good and soldiers in exchange for services, relative peace and common defense. In which case the Iron Islands make even less sense.
    There is a scene in season 1 where Joffrey says he wants to double taxes and create a standing army for the king. So there is some taxation. It’s not clear what benefits the kingdoms get though. I guess it keeps the peace when things are steady and the Kings road is kept free of potholes. 
    Must not be much tax collection from the seven kingdoms since the crown has to borrow money from the Lannisters/Iron Bank just to hold a simple tournament celebration or a wedding. I remember the part with Joffrey telling Cersei they should have a standing royal army, to which she educated him on why that would not work and how he couldn't go attack the North and expect a victory.

    Reading the books, they don't make any more satisfactory answers for the exact point of the Seven Kingdoms, as far as why it's beneficial for anyone outside of Kings Landing, who reap the benefits of The Reach constantly letting them have free food so they don't starve. I know at least at some point in the show they mention the seven kingdoms constantly being at war with each other before Aegon united them under his rule, but that always came off as Targaryen propaganda to me. Plus, there were tons of wars in the realm under the Targaryen rule, except once you are united you just call them "rebellions" or "civil wars."
  • LordByLordBy Utah
    edited May 2019
    LordBy said:
    The Iron Islands has leverage to leave the kingdoms because they are islands and they have the only remaining navy in Westeros.
    They don't talk about it much, but Dorne also has a huge navy, second to the Iron Islands. I know that some of it was destroyed in season 7 attacks by Euron, but by that some note the Iron Islanders should also not have any ships left. The Iron Islands are also on the other side of the continent, so, realistically, their fleet shouldn't matter to Kings Landing on a day to day basis.

    I think that the Iron Islands have leverage because no one gives a wet fart about the Iron Islands. The only reason I think that the crown beat down their rebellions was due to them attacking their coast lines. Outside of that, if they called themselves independent and don't attack Westeros kingdoms, no one would even notice. If they gave them some land on the shorelines to raise cattle and farm, they would have no reason to raid the mainland and their culture would permanently change.

    Then again, like I've mentioned before in this thread, they haven't really explained why it's important for any of these kingdoms to bend the knee to a central government, outside of that being the central theme of the entire show/story. They all sort of do what they want anyhow, the show has never explored any taxation system to benefit roads and construction projects, there is no royal army, etc. The money issues the crown has indicates that it gets it's gold from the Iron Bank and the richest families (the Lannisters) bankrolling them, and no from any taxes being collected from each kingdom.

    You can conduct trade with each other without a central government a thousand miles away giving you permission. The purpose of the unification of the kingdoms seemingly exists purely as a symbolic gesture of power to whoever sits on throne in KL, rather than any other real humanitarian or logical purpose.
    I meant the Iron Islands being Islands with a navy could declare independence with impunity without real fear of repurcussion given the absence of a dragon, not so much that they’d be a threat to KL directly. If Dorne still has a sizable Navy, they they could probably do the same given the difficult terrain on their northern land border.

    Knowing how much of something is left after a devastating battle? Who knows, you literally cannot trust what you see on the screen in such situations given the huge number of surviving Dothraki and Unsullied, and only 50% casualty rate among the northmen, after the Battle of Winterfell.
  • edited May 2019
    Two Major Major Frustrations:

    -He used to only be able to see the past and present. Now things imply that he saw the future as well. Does that make him an asshole? For "allowing" things to happen. Was he always meant to take the throne?  


    They've always heavily implied that Bran can see the future. Although people adamantly argued against the evidence, for whatever reason.

    --Season 6 episode 6 Bran has his visions, and in those visions they spliced in a clip that was pulled directly from season 6 episode 10 when the Sept was blown up with wildfire. Despite that, some people still argued that it could be from the past, but that cannot be true because we have access to recorded history of Westeros since Kings Landing was created and that has never happened before in Westeros or KL.

    --In both season 4 and season 6, Bran has the vision of the Dragons shadow flying over Kings Landing, and they used that exact same vision clip in season 8 episode 5. At the time that Bran had those visions, people argued that it could have been from the past with any random Targaryen dragon flying over KL back then, but now we know by them using the same clip that it was a vision of the future.

    --Even in season 2, Bran had a vision about the sea flooding and drowning Winterfell and its people, including Ser Rodrik specifically. This was days before the Iron Born (the sea) took over Winterfell and kill Ser Rodrick.


    However, that doesn't at all imply that he could see exactly how everything was going to shake out. If I get a vision of a dragon flying over Kings Landing and even know it's in the future, does that mean that I know all of the context around that vision and every detail about how that came to happen? Not likely.









    I can't explain what happened in the show because even if the DDs established rules I doubt they followed them. I can speak to Bran's powers in the books. Bran and Jojen are both greenseers (https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Greenseer), which does mean they can have visions of the future. These visions are not always clear, and they don't always understand what they see. Second, when Bran become the three eyed Raven he gains access to the Wierwood network, meaning he can see anything that happened in front of a Wierwood tree. These visions of the past are more clear and definitive. 

    I would imagine if the show tried to follow the book rules that Bran could have visions of the future, without knowing or being able to predict the future. So, I agree with you, Bran might have visions of what could happen but know much about why it's happening or what exactly happened to get there. However, I certainly disagree that the show implies that Bran can straight up predict the future. Although, who knows with this show. 
    rkcrawf
  • I mean, they are, after someone brought it up spontaneously in a single meeting that was not convened for the purpose of naming a king, agreeing to be ruled by a crippled psychic boy they know nothing about, and administered by a dwarf and the heir to the great House that seized the throne, blew up the religious leader of the continent, the Queen, and various other heads of state, etc. etc. And who also served as second-in-command to the Targ Queen who burnt the capital to the ground. And killed his father.

    Because Bran broke his legs and then got a superpower that he failed to use against either of their enemies. That's a "good story."

    I know that we as an audience know that Tyrion and Bran are cool dudes, but they didn't make any effort to show why everyone else would.

    If you don't think that any of this is even worth bringing up, then I'll throw that in the pile of things stretching my suspension of disbelief.
    Don't even get me started.  I wanted, so bad, when Tyrion says Bran became the 3-eyed Raven, for one of those unnamed lords to lean over and ask his neighbor, "What the fuck's that?"

    Think back to the beginning of the show, when even Northerners didn't believe in stuff like giants and wargs and shit, when Old Nan is telling Bran those stories.  The Maester's didn't believe in White Walkers when presented with eyewitness accounts.  No history books or official records on that generations-long battle.  It's all myth to them.  All bullshit.  I doubt anyone besides Bran and his crew even talks about a 3-eyed raven on this show, and Jojen is the one who tells Bran about it in the first place.  Nobody else's even heard of that myth.  Since then, very few people have seen these things of legends, much less seen Bran demonstrate his powers.  But, all of the sudden we're supposed to just accept that fucking Dornish no-names are just like, "Oh yeah 3-eyed raven, for sure, make him king."  realistically, most Westerosi wouldn't even believe that the Short Night happened, nevermind that Bran is supposed to be their King now because of some legend they never heard of.  This finale is so stupid.
    alexander.klassenblacksunrise7
  • awookiee said:
    chrisk said:
    I think the complaints about the North being independent and nobody else are a bit overblown. 

    Theres a a lot of benefit to being part of the Six or Seven Kingdoms. Trade, currency, travel, etc... It’s the same reason countries have joined the EU today.

    You give up some self determination and I suppose you can say they should have debated it more but all these kingdoms have been unified for generations. So being affiliated is the default for everyone already. Sansa’s the only one we know of who’s been making noise about leaving. 

    Also - Master of Whisperers is just the spy chief right? That’s the way I read it. Whatever Bran is capable of, the position needs to exist, no?

    That goes against everything the show has shown us. Robb declaring independence was depicted as a big deal. A big deal that upset not only the Lannisters, but Renly, Stannis and Dany. And then not only do they get independence by just saying so, but the Iron Islands, who have wanted to be independent for just as long, go "you go ahead and do you, we'll stay."
    I 100% understand your argument here as the Iron Islands have pushed for Independence in the show but I want to know how the Iron Islands declares Independence and live on their own without the support of others? Surely in this new Westeros they can't go back to reaving, raping, and pillaging and while it's possible they can survive on fish and food from the sea alone, I highly doubt that's what they want to do. There's tons of benefits being united that I think the Iron Islanders would benefit from.  
      As someone else mentioned, that is fine, if it is something that is even hinted at on screen. Instead, what we got was Yara making an alliance with Daenerys back in the "Battle of the Bastards" episode where Yara explicitly asked for Dany's recognition of the independence of the Iron Islands. And the particular scenario that you mentioned is explicitly discussed: Dany specifically says that she will support the independence of the Iron Islands if they agree to stop reaping and plundering the north, and Yara agrees.So we go from " we will support Dany and even agree to stop plundering in exchange for our independence" to "we're totally fine staying in under the monarchy of the brother who killed Dany and who we explicitly attacked before."
    That's fair and 100% valid. The show basically went against itself when Yara said she would go retake the Iron Islands in Queen Daenerys name yet argued for their Independence near the time of battle of the bastards. I have no rebuttal because there is none.  Well played good sir and I tip my hat to you. 
  • Teresa from ConcordTeresa from Concord Concord, California
    LordBy said:
    The Iron Islands has leverage to leave the kingdoms because they are islands and they have the only remaining navy in Westeros.
    They don't talk about it much, but Dorne also has a huge navy, second to the Iron Islands. I know that some of it was destroyed in season 7 attacks by Euron, but by that some note the Iron Islanders should also not have any ships left. The Iron Islands are also on the other side of the continent, so, realistically, their fleet shouldn't matter to Kings Landing on a day to day basis.

    I think that the Iron Islands have leverage because no one gives a wet fart about the Iron Islands. The only reason I think that the crown beat down their rebellions was due to them attacking their coast lines. Outside of that, if they called themselves independent and don't attack Westeros kingdoms, no one would even notice. If they gave them some land on the shorelines to raise cattle and farm, they would have no reason to raid the mainland and their culture would permanently change.

    Then again, like I've mentioned before in this thread, they haven't really explained why it's important for any of these kingdoms to bend the knee to a central government, outside of that being the central theme of the entire show/story. They all sort of do what they want anyhow, the show has never explored any taxation system to benefit roads and construction projects, there is no royal army, etc. The money issues the crown has indicates that it gets it's gold from the Iron Bank and the richest families (the Lannisters) bankrolling them, and no from any taxes being collected from each kingdom.

    You can conduct trade with each other without a central government a thousand miles away giving you permission. The purpose of the unification of the kingdoms seemingly exists purely as a symbolic gesture of power to whoever sits on throne in KL, rather than any other real humanitarian or logical purpose.
    They only lost half. They forgot to bring the other half. 
    ken hale
  • Going back to the idea of the North being independent, I always thought the North was supposed to be like Scotland which is its own country but also part of the UK, unlike the other regions which were meant to be like regions of England. No? Doesn't Sansa say something like "The North is going to be independent like it was for thousands of years" or something like that? And isn't the North quite a bit larger than all the other regions, with more sub-castles/families etc? This is just from the show; I haven't read the books.

    It made sense to me that Sansa would just declare their independence at that meeting when no one else would, considering that history and the fact that the Starks all had some kind of key position or role in the war that had led to it, with Arya killing the Night King and saving the north (and all the other regions since he never made it down there), Sansa already basically being the leader of Winterfell, Jon being Jon and Bran now being the king of the other kingdoms. 
  • CeciliaM said:
    Going back to the idea of the North being independent, I always thought the North was supposed to be like Scotland which is its own country but also part of the UK, unlike the other regions which were meant to be like regions of England. No? Doesn't Sansa say something like "The North is going to be independent like it was for thousands of years" or something like that? And isn't the North quite a bit larger than all the other regions, with more sub-castles/families etc? This is just from the show; I haven't read the books.

    It made sense to me that Sansa would just declare their independence at that meeting when no one is else would, considering that history and the fact that the Starks all had some kind of key position or role in the war that had led to it, with Arya killing the Night King and saving the north (and all the other regions since he never made it down there), Sansa already basically being the leader of Winterfell, Jon being Jon and Bran now being the king of the other kingdoms. 
    Basically, until three hundred yards ago every kingdom was independent for a thousand years. Aegon united them all, but the Dornish, who I think held out longer. So yeah, the North doesnt really have any great claim of Independence 
    CeciliaM
  • Teresa from ConcordTeresa from Concord Concord, California
    Three hundred yards? That explains how they traveled so quickly. No jet packing at all. 

    Thank you for the typo giggle. It’s been a long day and I needed it. 
    GiovanniCeciliaM
  • Three hundred yards? That explains how they traveled so quickly. No jet packing at all. 

    Thank you for the typo giggle. It’s been a long day and I needed it. 
    Haha, that does explain the jetpacking...
  • Giovanni said:
    Three hundred yards? That explains how they traveled so quickly. No jet packing at all. 

    Thank you for the typo giggle. It’s been a long day and I needed it. 
    Haha, that does explain the jetpacking...
    But how many football fields? 
  • dragons said:
    The more I think about it, the more I do think Bran is a completely diabolical asshole who manipulated everyone involved.  Tyrion is definitely no longer the smartest man in Westeros since he fell for that.  All the times he said someone was exactly where they were supposed to be, it was so he could get there.  I still feel like he could have done or said SOMETHING ANYTHING to save the lives of so many people.  Yes, lives needed to be lost to defeat the Night King but just allowing so many people to be killed is bananas.
    After minute 7 you get a good visualisation of Brans masterplan, he is basically Keyser Soze.
     
    SanguinePenguintelephoneofmadness
  • Best summary I can find on the internet:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhKOV3nImQ
  • Bran allied with the Children of the Forest, the sworn enemies of humans, and proceeded to assist in killing millions(?) of people so he could sit the throne. It's baffling that no character besides maybe Meera called him on his behavior. Baffling that no characters discussed amongst themselves the Bran dilemma. I guess it was very difficult to film this type of show with a god-like character who can see every turn in time and adjust things accordingly. I hated the quality of the show for years but I'm interested in the story of how many more people in the universe will suffer and die with Bran and subsequent Ravens ruling over them. I can see a resurrected Dany returning with stronger magic or something knowing that she was warged into destroying King's Landing and behaving not like herself from then until her first death lol.
    blacksunrise7majjam0770
  • Wasn’t there a theory that Bran’s whisperings drove the Mad King insane?
    majjam0770
  • Yes, before the show never really mentioned his cross time powers again after Hodor Hodor Hodor.

    Wasn’t there a theory that Bran’s whisperings drove the Mad King insane?



  • Teresa from ConcordTeresa from Concord Concord, California
    edited May 2019
    Apparently a fan drew this a few seasons ago. I think we know who really sees the future. 



    Edit: of course the image didn’t work. Trying again because it’s pretty cool. 
    http://imgur.com/Y33imYn
    awookieeOldGriswold
  • MurderbearMurderbear Cold Spring, Ky
    From the SpoiLore cast:

    No man would ever be killed like how Jon killed Dany. They wouldn't use a man's closeness with another man to kill him that way.


    CapeGabemajjam0770alexander.klassenBloodyTacorkcrawfawookieeAll the ChickensTeresa from ConcordSanguinePenguinken hale
Sign In or Register to comment.