Board 8 > Game of Thrones Season 8: Final Topic [spoilers]

(+) Yeah! (+)

stannis is burning shireen in the books, but under different circumstances. there's no internal conflict in melisandre doing it. the story is only interesting if stannis does it.

and he has started burning people since saying there will be no burnings, albeit not as severe as in the show.
---

We don't even know if Stannis is alive in the books. I don't think we can assume much about his storyline from the TV show. For Stannis to burn Shireen it would require both a) the pink letter to be fake b) Jon snow to be revived by a different method than Shireen burning c) Stannis and his forces take winterfell, defeating the Bolton's rather than losing miserably like in the show

So it's certainly possible he does at some point, but either way his storyline is nothing like the show. If he just gets crushed and killed by the Bolton's like in the show, he is probably already dead (without burning Shireen). If he does burn her, he likely lasts a bit longer than in the show and events play out quite different.

PerfectChaosZ posted...

Hes clinging to a right to rule just like Dany, and people hate Dany for the same nice lawful character does evil things to upload her rightful claim path.

That's not why people hate Dany
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

PerfectChaosZ posted...

Hes clinging to a right to rule just like Dany, and people hate Dany for the same nice lawful character does evil things to upload her rightful claim path.

That's not why people hate Dany

Also, one of the reasons people like Stannis in the books is his realization that he can't just win the throne by right.

Lord Seaworth is a man of humble birth, but he reminded me of my duty, when all I could think of was my rights. I had the cart before the horse, Davos said. I was trying to win the throne to save the kingdom, when I should have been trying to save the kingdom to win the throne.

Stannis is interesting specifically BECAUSE of his heel turn early leading to his face turn late.

Regardless, virtually no one dislikes Danaerys' arc. They just dislike that we didnt get to see nearly enough of it so her actions felt arbitrary rather than organic.

Compare/Contrast to Stannis who's actions have been well chronicled by Davos at each turn.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Nope. Book Stannis already specifically refuses to burn non-believers (that aren't even related to him) in his army and just tells the religious people to pray harder. Shireen isn't even anywhere near his army in the book as she's at the wall with her mom and Melisandre.

It's going to be 100% different in the book. Shireen will get burned, but not by Stannis.

Why do people keep saying this? There are countless articles explaining that GRRM told D&D specifically that Stannis will have her burned in the books. D&D have said before that they were as shocked as anyone.

"In the Game of Thrones: The Complete Fifth Season Blu-ray set, there's a segment featuring footage from A Song of Ice and Fire series writer George RR Martin, who notes "his intention" has always been that Shireen would be sacrificed by her father, Stannis Baratheon, and burnt alive."
---

Personally, I remember reading they confirmed grrm said she would be burned, but never said specifically by Stannis. If that was clarified at some point then I wouldn't be surprised.

Eddv posted...

Stannis is interesting specifically BECAUSE of his heel turn early leading to his face turn late.

Regardless, virtually no one dislikes Danaerys' arc. They just dislike that we didnt get to see nearly enough of it so her actions felt arbitrary rather than organic.

Compare/Contrast to Stannis who's actions have been well chronicled by Davos at each turn.

No, plenty of people dislike Daenerys's arc. The common complaint is that she had all the buildup to be an actual strong female character whose empowerment was not predicated on men but her own actions, and then it was all handwaved away because "lol coinflip".
---

Let's be real Selyse would 100% burn Shireen if Mel asked.

I just think it might serve as the impetus for a Stannis/Mel conflict rather and the final turning face for Stannis rather than Stannis last drice towards pure evil.
---

My understanding was also that D&D defended/explained the Shireen burning by saying GRRM told them it would happen but I also remember that careful reading had it as "GRRM said Shireen would be burned" not necessarily that Stannis would be the one. Not to mention D&D literally said in one of those extras that they didn't like Stannis lol. They literally think Renly was the better option over him.

As explained, it's logistically impossible for Stannis to burn Shireen at the moment in the books anyway. He's at/nearby Winterfell (or dead but I don't buy that) and Shireen is at The Wall with Mel, Selyse, and the now-dead Jon.

Not to mention Stannis specifically instructed one of his subordinates to go off to get mercenaries with the explicit direction that "you might hear I've died, it may even be true" but to keep going because even in that event "you will see my daughter seated on the Iron Throne."

like this is literally the most recent stannis dialogue we've had.

You want to say future events somehow drive him there, okay - I disagree, but we can debate this. But the idea that he's already there and would do so at the moment? All evidence points against that despite him being in what has to be his lowest moments right now.
---

I downloaded and played Reigns GOT and man that game is really good! Seriously!
But I am also sad because the best GOT game is a silly mobile game. You would think that they would have make a good one by now for consoles but nope.
---

xp1337 posted...

You want to say future events somehow drive him there, okay - I disagree, but we can debate this. But the idea that he's already there and would do so at the moment? All evidence points against that despite him being in what has to be his lowest moments right now.

yeah, i definitely meant in the future. stannis isn't doing that before the battle of winterfell.
---

So Bran's actor confirmed in an interview that Martin told D&D that King Bran happens in the books, too.

http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/production-diary/season-8-episode-6-finale-isaac-hempstead-wright-bran-interview

Honestly I'm a little surprised. Not that I couldn't see Martin doing it, but it doesn't have nearly as clear a logical path as other parts of the ending.
---

Huh, well good now I don't have to read the books that will never be released anyway!
---

Hey hes set a goal for summer 2020 for WoW!
---

Summer is (never) Coming
---

He gave his consent to New Zealand to have him imprisoned in a log cabin there if he doesnt have the next book done by Worldcon next year. Which is obviously a joke, but also...lock him up tbqh
---

Also question for book people. The WW in the books talk to each other right? And they don't have a leader correct?
They summon Wights too right? But what happens if you kill them? The Wights die with them too?
---

Safer_777 posted...

Also question for book people. The WW in the books talk to each other right? And they don't have a leader correct?
They summon Wights too right? But what happens if you kill them? The Wights die with them too?

yes, they talk to each other. the wights dying is almost certainly a show invention as we've only seen the others "in person" twice (prologue, sam killing one)
---

Yeah the minute Jon killed that one Walker and they all died (in Beyond the Wall), it seemed pretty clear they were setting it up for the NK to be killed when all hope seemed lost, which would conveniently also kill the entire army. I just figured it would be with the NK approaching the Iron Throne, or something.
---

The Whitewalkers, aka the Others, serve The Great Other, the god of darkness, cold, and death. He's the opposite of the Lord of Light, R'hllor, the god of flame and shadow that the red priests like Thoros of Myr and Melisandre serve. It's a Song of Ice and Fire.

They don't as yet have a physical leader in the books. The Night's King (with an s!) in the books is a historical Lord Commander of the Night's Watch that fell in love with a female whitewalker and went rogue. He was defeated.... but he might still be alive. If he shows up he definitely won't be the defacto leader like in the show, but he might be a "General" of sorts. Killing him, or a similar figure if something else shows up, almost certainly won't be what ends winter.

---

It is also hypothesized that the Drowned God is a thrall of The Great Other. Euron in the books, with his horn that can control dragons, is hypothesized to be the one to bring down the wall and let the white walkers pass. Like Cly said, the Night's King is right now just a sort of mythical figure that hasn't actually shown up yet. Things are going to be significantly different in the books when it comes to that, at least.
---

All right thanks. Wonder how they will beat them in the books.
---

CoolCly posted...

The Whitewalkers, aka the Others, serve The Great Other, the god of darkness, cold, and death. He's the opposite of the Lord of Light, R'hllor, the god of flame and shadow that the red priests like Thoros of Myr and Melisandre serve. It's a Song of Ice and Fire.

speculation!
---

XIII_rocks posted...

Yeah the minute Jon killed that one Walker and they all died (in Beyond the Wall), it seemed pretty clear they were setting it up for the NK to be killed when all hope seemed lost, which would conveniently also kill the entire army. I just figured it would be with the NK approaching the Iron Throne, or something.

See again it just makes no fucking sense for the NK to even BE at the Battle of Winterfell with this knowledge.

Just overwhelm the living forces with wave after wave after wave of Wights and send in your WW generals.
---

I thought about writing a disclaimer that we don't exactly have proof that The Great Other exists, but considering the fact that the Others exist and we have pretty strong proof about the Lord of Light, I find this all to be very likely. I'm willing to push this well beyond the realm of other unconfirmed theories like Azor Ahai Reborn or the Great Northern Conspiracy or R+L=J
---

ExThaNemesis posted...

XIII_rocks posted...

Yeah the minute Jon killed that one Walker and they all died (in Beyond the Wall), it seemed pretty clear they were setting it up for the NK to be killed when all hope seemed lost, which would conveniently also kill the entire army. I just figured it would be with the NK approaching the Iron Throne, or something.

See again it just makes no fucking sense for the NK to even BE at the Battle of Winterfell with this knowledge.

Just overwhelm the living forces with wave after wave after wave of Wights and send in your WW generals.

NK wanted to personally kill the three-eyed raven because reasons. In fairness, he did make a big deal of making sure he personally killed Max Von Sydow in season 6. So there's some connection between NK and the Raven that they don't quite explain clearly beyond what Sam said about him being "memory" or whatever.

And in fairness, when NK did personally enter Winterfell, he'd just raised all the dead in and around the castle so all hope for the living was essentially lost.
---

Also without the NK there, there would be nothing to stop Dany from just bring the whole army.
---

Another point skimmed over is that in the books, The Night's King (again NOT the Night King) is named...Brandon Stark. This is just speculation, but whatever grudge the White Walkers had against Bran/3-Eyed Raven is probably the result of dropping this plot point and other 3ER stuff. Especially if you buy into Bran secretly being a time traveling chessmaster.
---

Man also the respawning armies of Danaerys is awesome.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Another point skimmed over is that in the books, The Night's King (again NOT the Night King) is named...Brandon Stark.

huh?
---

Brandon was just a popular name amongst the Starks. The dude who went north of the wall to marry what legends say was a female other, his name was also Brandon Stark. When he returned to the wall, he declared himself the Night's King and ruled at one of the forts.

The Night's King likely has no link the the Night King though and I doubt the Night King even exists in the books.
---

Right, but the show character is obviously based on the book character despite having little in common. I'm just pointing out that part of why Bran's plotline makes no sense is that in the books there is still clear potential for the Starks/Bran to be more closely linked to the Others than in the show. That context was completely discarded BUT it could have been deemed "important" enough that the show writers tried to show it anyways by making Bran a big deal for no reason.

Kind of like how they also had to make Bran king with no context because they knew it would be important.
---

Safer_777 posted...

I downloaded and played Reigns GOT and man that game is really good! Seriously!
But I am also sad because the best GOT game is a silly mobile game. You would think that they would have make a good one by now for consoles but nope.

Crusader Kings 2 will always be the best GOT game
---