Books A Song of Ice and Fire (Books) | TV show? What TV show?

[Ian Reus]

Cersei is the wife of the dead king and all of Robert's children have died. She's the rightful Queen regent.

Well we the readers/viewers know differently but i get what you're saying.

 

[padr81]

Book 6 is awesome and the 'Kneel before the Lord Dragon' might be the best 'scene' in Wheel of Time. I found only books 9 and 10 insufferable, to be fair, with books 7, 8 and 11 being alright, but pointless (a bit like Storm of Swords and Dance of Dragons, though more childish).

The main difference between Jordan and Martin seems to me that Jordan tried to finish the book, while Martin doesn't give that impression. A sick Jordan was writing faster than Martin. At the same time, both lost their way on their books with Jordan unfortunately not being able to finish them (and even if he didn't die, I doubt that he would have been able to finish them). Sanderson had to fix Jordan's story, and still think that the best bet to finish ASOIAF would be if Martin agrees to leave the books to some other writer (Abercrombie would be my favorite). Thing is, Martin is becoming even more slower. Even if Winds get releases sometime during the next year, it is hard to see the final book being released before 2025. And then, will the 'final' book be really the final one?

He is not going to finish this story, so GoT - like it or not - is most likely the only closure we are going to get.

Like AsoiF, they aren't bad books per se, though a bit of a slog at times. They do do not really drive the story forward. There is a noticable pickup in pace once Sanderson's name starts appearing in the credits for book 11. They do indeed have some great chapters but are moving way too slow. Going off topic now so I'll probably have a look for a fantasy book thread.

Back to the topic at hand I'd love to see someone come in help Martin get stuff done but really he could have fit AffC and AdwD into 1 book with good edited and if he knew how to get it done. I kind of feel despite his protesting he's not too interested in finishing AsoiF now he knows GoT will give away the ending. I'd love if the endings were completely different in both and George had fed D&D an alternate ending though I imagine he'd get in alot of trouble for it. The butterfly effect is so big right now I think it'll all be vastly different bar the result of the battle vs the WW and who sits on the iron throne (if their is one.)

 

[JustAFan]

When it comes to someone becoming the King, isn't it sort of already established that basically you just need the power of a strong enough army behind you to back your claim. Which really amounts to the support of enough houses. So yeah if the houses of the north decide Jon is the man, then he becomes the King of the North with the legitimacy the support of his banner men provides.

Renly had no legitimate claim to the throne of the Seven Kingdoms but he had support of enough of the other houses, to back him it was only the magic of the red witch brought his claim to the end. Heck even Robert becoming King had nothing to do with any sort of legitimate claim to the throne, other than the fact that those who rebelled against the Mad King decided they would support him.

Even bastards can become legitimate family members if the family decides to give the bastard their name (IE Ramsey Snow becoming Ramsey Bolton).

Bloodlines are broken and reformed for all royal seats. Fiction or not.
I don't think cersei had a claim but it didn't stop her putting the crown on her head and the people will have no choice but to show allegiance.
Also, didn't Cersei say something to Ned along the lines of, "I'm surprised you didn't claim the throne for yourself after Jaime killed the mad king struck.

Cersei did have a legit claim to the throne with the death of all the other heirs, though again it is the power she still has behind her in Kings Landing that really gives her claim legitimacy.

I think the conversation about Ned grabbing the Iron Throne for himself was between him and Jaime when they were talking about Jaime killing the mad king. Jaime made a comment along the lines of "If only you had claimed the throne for yourself" or "You should have claimed the throne for yourself"

To me it seems the lines of succession are there to provide a peaceful and planned out transfer of power upon the death of the king, but when it suits them people in GOT have no qualms about saying "feck that, we want this person on the throne instead" or "Feck that, I want the throne for myself"


Side note: Fecking hell auto-correct I want THRONE not THROWN

 

[caid]

The north has been ruled for years by a bastard, why wouldn't they accept a new bastard?
Its a world with dragons, i can get past some slightly underdeveloped accessions.
The show has left some things behind at this point, its a story written in broad strokes

As for the books and Manderley knowing about Rickon and Bran,
it doesn't help if Rickon is killed and Bran is thought to be beyond the wall (and dead because no one would expect him to survive).
Sansa isn't in the north in the books and god knows when she shows up. She could wind up ruling the Vale in the books.
If Bran shows up then he legitimises Jon as the ruler of the seven kingdoms, forget the north.

 

[padr81]

@JustAFan - I think the issue isn't that its achievable but the issue is that the North would just abandon the fact Sansa is home. A daughter of Ned and Catelyn is right there in Winterfell what they are doing is pretty much treason. Despite being married to Ramsay, she also had the Vale army come to support her and that is what turned the BotB. Sansa and Littlefinger in the show are the reason the Boltons are gone, not Jon.

I quite like Jon as he's pretty much Ned mkII but it's weird everyone just changed their tune and supported him as KitN after Ned and Catelyn's daughter rode had the army of the Vale save their ass.

 

[DWelbz19]

I can't help but feel like this anti-show stance is all a bit too precious. I mean, I've criticised the show for the last few seasons myself, but at this point surely we should just take it for what it is? We really are past the point of expecting nuance and/or detailed lore continuity within the show. I now just see it as a bit of an all-action blockbuster with the ASOIAF fantasy backdrop.

 

[JustAFan]

@JustAFan - I think the issue isn't that its achievable but the issue is that the North would just abandon the fact Sansa is home. A daughter of Ned and Catelyn is right there in Winterfell what they are doing is pretty much treason. Despite being married to Ramsay, she also had the Vale army come to support her and that is what turned the BotB. Sansa and Littlefinger in the show are the reason the Boltons are gone, not Jon.

I quite like Jon as he's pretty much Ned mkII but it's weird everyone just changed their tune and supported him as KitN after Ned and Catelyn's daughter rode had the army of the Vale save their ass.

It is not really treason since Sansa has never been crowned ruler of the north and who is going to charge them with treason anyway? The assume Jon is the son of Ned, so from their point of view, given his actions in trying to free the north from the Bolton's you can't really blame them for throwing their support to him.

It really does not strike me as weird, but it would not have struck me as weird had they supported Sansa. As I said, the rules governing the succession are there to try and make things run smoothly, but what we know from the books they can be tossed out anytime anyone feels like if they have power behind them.

The north is really doing a reset right now isn't it. As the leaders of the minor houses look around, they are in the position to basically decide who to follow and for their own reasons they picked Jon as the one they want to follow. It might be that they, like Jon fear what is coming from beyond the wall more than they fear any challenge from the south. If they felt the other way, they might have very easily shifted towards Sansa.

At the end of the day, people, even many of the characters in GOT's, will look out for what they perceive as their own best interest over honoring some line of succession. So if the lords of the North feel Jon is the best to follow, they will follow him, especially since they believe him to be a Stark anyways regardless of his last name.

 

[Cheesy]

Anyone feel Tyrion's really stagnated in the show? I presume he'll develop his own arc as the season goes on, but right now he's pretty much just following Daenerys around...and why does she trust him so much? I mean, yeah, he knows Westeros, and he's a very convenient ally to have, but at the end of Season 6 Daenerys treats him like some long-term ally when they've only met about three times. I'm hoping we see more of the bitter-book Tyrion type character.

 

[DWelbz19]

Anyone feel Tyrion's really stagnated in the show? I presume he'll develop his own arc as the season goes on, but right now he's pretty much just following Daenerys around...and why does she trust him so much? I mean, yeah, he knows Westeros, and he's a very convenient ally to have, but at the end of Season 6 Daenerys treats him like some long-term ally when they've only met about three times. I'm hoping we see more of the bitter-book Tyrion type character.

Difficult to make the [now] peripheral characters fleshed out with genuine story-arcs when action on the Walkers, Dragons, and other violence has to be pushed to forefront for the last 12 episodes. Same sort of thing seems to be happening to others like Littlefinger, Davos, etc. Tyrion is definitely the most high-scale character for it though, all he was for the last season and a half was "I drink and know things". Jaime's storyline has become undone as well, at this point he's just there disapprovingly glaring at Cersei.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I can't help but feel like this anti-show stance is all a bit too precious. I mean, I've criticised the show for the last few seasons myself, but at this point surely we should just take it for what it is? We really are past the point of expecting nuance and/or detailed lore continuity within the show. I now just see it as a bit of an all-action blockbuster with the ASOIAF fantasy backdrop.

The problem is, it's not all action. It still takes itself very serious and has episodes where nothing really happens. So then people look for the nuance and good writing, which just isn't there. It does the action well when it happens, but for the last few series it's kind of given up the ghost with it's continuity and characters.

I think some of the anti-show stance comes from just how hard it's pushed as this great show that it just doesn't live up to outside of the action. I mean it's got a separate after show that spends half an hour pretending every single part of the episode was a brilliant master piece that gripped them relentlessly. I think people will always rebel against that kind of relentless positivity eventually, especially if it feels a bit forced.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Medieval ascension is a murky area. Power, especially in war had a huge contributing factor when deciding leaders. Jon characterises this in the show so his reasons to be declared king makes sense.
.

It isn't murky, bastards don't inherit if there are trueborn heirs alive.

The most notable in history is William of Normandy and he was reared to rule and legitimized. Even then, he spent years struggling to quell vassals unruly to the idea, fending off challenges to succession. Bravery and accomplishment means feck all. Birth > everything else.

 

[padr81]

Anyone feel Tyrion's really stagnated in the show? I presume he'll develop his own arc as the season goes on, but right now he's pretty much just following Daenerys around...and why does she trust him so much? I mean, yeah, he knows Westeros, and he's a very convenient ally to have, but at the end of Season 6 Daenerys treats him like some long-term ally when they've only met about three times. I'm hoping we see more of the bitter-book Tyrion type character.

Alot of his arc looks to have been cut. His journey and being a slave in the books leads to him becoming darker and darker in nature and very bitter. It's all been cut and he's probably been put in his endgame position too soon so he's got nothing to do but hang around make bad father jokes with Dany till his next major plot point pops up.

 

[b82REZ]

It isn't murky, bastards don't inherit if there are trueborn heirs alive.

The most notable in history is William of Normandy and he was reared to rule and legitimized. Even then, he spent years struggling to quell vassals unruly to the idea, fending off challenges to succession. Bravery and accomplishment means feck all. Birth > everything else.

Again, you are choosing to compare a work of fiction with reality. Also there are plenty of examples of bastards rising to power throughout history.

In GoT there is precedent of a bastard being named ruler, as well as a multitude of different, non-legitimate claims to thrones, houses etc.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Again, you are choosing to compare a work of fiction with reality. Also there are plenty of examples of bastards rising to power throughout history.

In GoT there is precedent of a bastard being named ruler, as well as a multitude of different, non-legitimate claims to thrones, houses etc.

I'm comparing it because despite the fantasy element, both books and show base the Westerosi system on medieval Europe and made a point of showing it in the early seasons. You can't claim how gritty and real the show is with brutality, violence etc and at the same time excuse every anachronisms and inconsistencies with 'it's a show about dragon and magic'. That just doesn't cut the mustard.

And again, while might is right in both the real world and ASOIAF̣ ̣̣̣, like when Robert asserted that he won the throne with his warhammer, bastard rule can't be legitimised without a higher authority, be it political or religious. The one and only example in ASOIAF when that happened is when Bran acting as Lord of Winterfell in Robb's absence decided to give the inheritance of a minor house without trueborn heir to a bastard, and it was understood that the rule would be legitimised by a royal decree of the KitN. You have to do it right or face the criticisms, can't have the cake and eat it.

 

[Revan]

I'm comparing it because despite the fantasy element, both books and show base the Westerosi system on medieval Europe and made a point of showing it in the early seasons. You can't claim how gritty and real the show is with brutality, violence etc and at the same time excuse every anachronisms and inconsistencies with 'it's a show about dragon and magic'. That just doesn't cut the mustard.

And again, while might is right in both the real world and ASOIAF̣ ̣̣̣, like when Robert asserted that he won the throne with his warhammer, bastard rule can't be legitimised without a higher authority, be it political or religious. The one and only example in ASOIAF when that happened is when Bran acting as Lord of Winterfell in Robb's absence decided to give the inheritance of a minor house without trueborn heir to a bastard, and it was understood that the rule would be legitimised by a royal decree of the KitN. You have to do it right or face the criticisms, can't have the cake and eat it.

Jesus man, you're stubborn. There was a fecking big war between Targaryans when half of the kingdom supported a bastard over the legit king.

Rules aren't set in stones in Westeros. If people like you, then you can go far, bastard or not.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Jesus man, you're stubborn. There was a fecking big war between Targaryans when half of the kingdom supported a bastard over the legit king.

Rules aren't set in stones in Westeros. If people like you, then you can go far, bastard or not.

That bastard was legitimized by his father Aegon the Fourth, try again.

 

[b82REZ]

I'm comparing it because despite the fantasy element, both books and show base the Westerosi system on medieval Europe and made a point of showing it in the early seasons. You can't claim how gritty and real the show is with brutality, violence etc and at the same time excuse every anachronisms and inconsistencies with 'it's a show about dragon and magic'. That just doesn't cut the mustard.

And again, while might is right in both the real world and ASOIAF̣ ̣̣̣, like when Robert asserted that he won the throne with his warhammer, bastard rule can't be legitimised without a higher authority, be it political or religious. The one and only example in ASOIAF when that happened is when Bran acting as Lord of Winterfell in Robb's absence decided to give the inheritance of a minor house without trueborn heir to a bastard, and it was understood that the rule would be legitimised by a royal decree of the KitN. You have to do it right or face the criticisms, can't have the cake and eat it.

God, you're tedious.

You're always going to find inconsistencies between fiction and reality. As historically accurate aspects of the series are, it doesn't mean it is set in stone as a historical reconstruction.

You cannot keep complaining about political inaccuracies between medieval Britain while ignoring massive inconsistencies like Dragons and magic.

The North don't seem arsed about a King or Queen legitimising their leaders as shown by Robb's, Roose's and now Jon's revolts.

GRRM did a great job in creating a realistic and believable political system in a fantasy world. Yes this has mirrored medieval politics to a point, but he isn't beholden to them.

If you want absolute medieval politics you are watching/reading the wrong series.

 

[b82REZ]

Jesus man, you're stubborn. There was a fecking big war between Targaryans when half of the kingdom supported a bastard over the legit king.

Rules aren't set in stones in Westeros. If people like you, then you can go far, bastard or not.

I feel like we should just give up. I'm now getting a suspicion he may just be trolling.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

GRRM did a great job in creating a realistic and believable political system in a fantasy world. Yes this has mirrored medieval politics to a point, but he isn't beholden to them.

If you want absolute medieval politics you are watching/reading the wrong series.

So why did GRRM throughout the series made a point about how prejudiced the Westerosi are about bastards? Why did he bother creating the Blackfyre rebellion and made characters holding it up as a great folly of Aegon the Unworthy which brought blood and tear and destruction? Why go to all that length about Robb fighting his mother for the will if at the end of the day, a bunch of medieval rulers would accept a bastard in a heartbeat anyway?

I'm sorry my friend, throughout this discussion you have always basically resorted to 'it's a show'. That's not an argument.

 

[b82REZ]

So why did GRRM throughout the series made a point about how prejudiced the Westerosi are about bastards? Why did he bother creating the Blackfyre rebellion and made characters holding it up as a great folly of Aegon the Unworthy which brought blood and tear and destruction? Why go to all that length about Robb fighting his mother for the will if at the end of the day, a bunch of medieval rulers would accept a bastard in a heartbeat anyway?

I'm sorry my friend, throughout this discussion you have always basically resorted to 'it's a show'. That's not an argument.

I've never once said "it's a show", I have said it's a work of fiction because it is.

You cannot compare fiction and history and then complain about inconsistencies.

The treatment of bastards throughout has been to juxtapose the coronation of Jon. The whole point is the north realise that birthright means feck all. To paraphrase the show "I don't care if he's a bastard".

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

I've never once said "it's a show", I have said it's a work of fiction because it is.

You cannot compare fiction and history and then complain about inconsistencies.

The treatment of bastards throughout has been to juxtapose the coronation of Jon. The whole point is the north realise that birthright means feck all. To paraphrase the show "I don't care if he's a bastard".

The greatness of a work of fiction is in how consistent it is with its own universe. And in this universe the idea that 'I don't care if he's a bastard' is laughable.

For the record, this isn't to say I do not understand the mentality behind WHY they did it that way. But same as the Battle of Bastards or Dany's one woman show in subjugating the Dothrakis in Vaes Dothrak, after the momentary gratification, you are left scratching your head because of how stupid it is when you think about it. Good cinema for the mass doesn't equal consistent storytelling.

 

[b82REZ]

The greatness of a work of fiction is in how consistent it is with its own universe. And in this universe the idea that 'I don't care if he's a bastard' is laughable.

For the record, this isn't to say I do not understand the mentality behind WHY they did it that way. But same as the Battle of Bastards or Dany's one woman show in subjugating the Dothrakis in Vaes Dothrak, after the momentary gratification, you are left scratching your head because of how stupid it is when you think about it. Good cinema for the mass doesn't equal consistent storytelling.

Well we'll agree to disagree. You'll be disagreeing with a lot of people this season I feel.

 

[Revan]

The greatness of a work of fiction is in how consistent it is with its own universe. And in this universe the idea that 'I don't care if he's a bastard' is laughable.

For the record, this isn't to say I do not understand the mentality behind WHY they did it that way. But same as the Battle of Bastards or Dany's one woman show in subjugating the Dothrakis in Vaes Dothrak, after the momentary gratification, you are left scratching your head because of how stupid it is when you think about it. Good cinema for the mass doesn't equal consistent storytelling.

Jon and Danny are above the rules, that has been clear from the beginning. They are basically Azor Ahai/The Prince who was Promised, prophets, the chosen ones, call them whatever they want. From the beginning Martin has made them special characters which are far above the average Joe.

There is also the extensional threat that is coming from the Others, and some of the Northern Lords are quite aware of it. They saw how Jon fought, they heard that Jon was killed and then resurrected.

The situation is far more complex than 'just making a bastard king when there is a trueborn lady there'. Jon is far more than just an another bastard and he has got more credibility from his leadership, charisma and heroics than a letter from Rob or a legitimization from Stannis could have given him.

 

[JustAFan]

Already been two bastards on the Iron Throne and people who knew they both were bastards did not care because of the power behind them, it suited personal goals to support them, fear, etc.

Then you have the fear of bastards getting in the way of claims to the throne leading to the killing of most of Robert's bastards. done in part to make sure they could not be used to present someone with a claim to the throne.

The entire story has been filled with people not honoring the official line of succession or who has the
" right " to rule. Even the history mentioned is full of it.

There is even a hint in the name of the first novel.....
Game of Thones....really sort of indicates that there will be people who will have their own views on who should rule.

If you have not caught onto this, you are sort of missing some of the major driving forces in the events of the world the story is set in.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Jon and Danny are above the rules, that has been clear from the beginning. They are basically Azor Ahai/The Prince who was Promised, prophets, the chosen ones, call them whatever they want. From the beginning Martin has made them special characters which are far above the average Joe.

There is also the extensional threat that is coming from the Others, and some of the Northern Lords are quite aware of it. They saw how Jon fought, they heard that Jon was killed and then resurrected.

The situation is far more complex than 'just making a bastard king when there is a trueborn lady there'. Jon is far more than just an another bastard and he has got more credibility from his leadership, charisma and heroics than a letter from Rob or a legitimization from Stannis could have given him.

We'll end up agree to disagree anyway, but I'll give it another stab.

The only one who is given a cheat code in ASOIAF is Daenerys, because dragons! But at the same time, she runs into problems ordinary rulers would. The biggest part of her arc in AFFC and ADwD has been learning to deal with the consequences of her actions, like the ruin of Astapor, having to marry Hizdarh to keep her people safe etc... Ofc the charade will end soon when she returns with a horde behind her back, but that's by the by. Martin is an anti war hipster, he doesn't glorify in the Messianic fantasy trope.

Jon on the other hand is the tragic hero, starting from his birth. His father's house is in ruins, his mother dead and he was raised as a bastard to keep himself alive, totally oblivious to the fact, enduring scorns and hostility from Catelyn when he could have been the loved nephew, raised with every honors his birth bequeath on him. He left home at 14, choosing a life of service and celibacy to redeem his bastard birth. At the Wall, his upbringing became an obstacles when trying to fit in with other misfits. Then the expedition and Yggritte, when he chose between love and duty and was haunted by her death from then on. He was thrusted into command of a husk of a force depleted of its remaining best man and ended up betrayed and assassinated. Every step of the way he was given no leeway, no special power, no get out of jail card. That's what make his character great. We empathise with him because we as readers have both his experiences and the context of the society he lives in to understand the pain, rejection and conflicts he put himself through. That's why the idea that proclaiming him King without a legal basis is out of place. The only point of his character is that he's given no respite and endured regardless to do what he thinks is right. That's what the show, in its attempt to write a typical Hollywood hero, doesn't translate that to the screen.

I may ended up eating my hat in Book 6, but I'd bet my housee (if I have one) on the disclosure of Jon's lineage playing a pivotal role in his acceptance. It's the ultimate catharsis for him. Deep down he has a resentment, envy and bitterness just as everyone would feel put into his position, glory and titles bequeathed on him by people he doesnt know do not matter. The disclosure and reveal of Ned's pain are what will reconcile Jon with his actions and sense of self-worth.

 

[Cheesy]

So why did GRRM throughout the series made a point about how prejudiced the Westerosi are about bastards? Why did he bother creating the Blackfyre rebellion and made characters holding it up as a great folly of Aegon the Unworthy which brought blood and tear and destruction? Why go to all that length about Robb fighting his mother for the will if at the end of the day, a bunch of medieval rulers would accept a bastard in a heartbeat anyway?

I'm sorry my friend, throughout this discussion you have always basically resorted to 'it's a show'. That's not an argument.

There's a prejudice against bastards but depending on the setting they also get a certain level of respect depending on certain factors - Jon's sometimes ostracised at Winterfell due to Catelyn, but when he goes to the Wall his Stark status lends him a lot of credence and helps him rise through the ranks quite quickly.

As has been noted above, a ton of the figures at KL knew Joffrey and Tommen were bastards but didn't kick up a fuss while they were on the throne anyway.

Plus, they're all in the midst of what's going to be a massive, unprecedented war, in a Northern setting that's already seen most major houses decimated. The rules have changed a tad out of necessity, I'd imagine. Plus, ya know, Jon kind of has that whole undead thing going on for him - granted, the show almost seems to forget about it a lot, but his rising from the dead certainly elevates him as well.

 

[caid]

We'll end up agree to disagree anyway, but I'll give it another stab.

The only one who is given a cheat code in ASOIAF is Daenerys, because dragons! But at the same time, she runs into problems ordinary rulers would. The biggest part of her arc in AFFC and ADwD has been learning to deal with the consequences of her actions, like the ruin of Astapor, having to marry Hizdarh to keep her people safe etc... Ofc the charade will end soon when she returns with a horde behind her back, but that's by the by. Martin is an anti war hipster, he doesn't glorify in the Messianic fantasy trope.

Jon on the other hand is the tragic hero, starting from his birth. His father's house is in ruins, his mother dead and he was raised as a bastard to keep himself alive, totally oblivious to the fact, enduring scorns and hostility from Catelyn when he could have been the loved nephew, raised with every honors his birth bequeath on him. He left home at 14, choosing a life of service and celibacy to redeem his bastard birth. At the Wall, his upbringing became an obstacles when trying to fit in with other misfits. Then the expedition and Yggritte, when he chose between love and duty and was haunted by her death from then on. He was thrusted into command of a husk of a force depleted of its remaining best man and ended up betrayed and assassinated. Every step of the way he was given no leeway, no special power, no get out of jail card. That's what make his character great. We empathise with him because we as readers have both his experiences and the context of the society he lives in to understand the pain, rejection and conflicts he put himself through. That's why the idea that proclaiming him King without a legal basis is out of place. The only point of his character is that he's given no respite and endured regardless to do what he thinks is right. That's what the show, in its attempt to write a typical Hollywood hero, doesn't translate that to the screen.

I may ended up eating my hat in Book 6, but I'd bet my housee (if I have one) on the disclosure of Jon's lineage playing a pivotal role in his acceptance. It's the ultimate catharsis for him. Deep down he has a resentment, envy and bitterness just as everyone would feel put into his position, glory and titles bequeathed on him by people he doesnt know do not matter. The disclosure and reveal of Ned's pain are what will reconcile Jon with his actions and sense of self-worth.

You seem determined for it to happen that way but i dont think it will.
Its fairly obvious that hes already being considered for the position with various lords showing up to 'test' him and Stannis trying to get him to leave the nights watch.
The book has already provided better justifications than the tv series despite being a book behind.
And i'd agree that it jars slightly to see Jon nominated king in the north while sansa sits next to him but i just think thats one of them messy situations that the show runners walked themselves into by pushing sansa into jeyne pooles story arc.

They probably could flesh the decision out a bit more but honestly, im pretty sure 99.9% of showwatchers really dont give shit.

 

[JustAFan]

You seem determined for it to happen that way but i dont think it will.
Its fairly obvious that hes already being considered for the position with various lords showing up to 'test' him and Stannis trying to get him to leave the nights watch.
The book has already provided better justifications than the tv series despite being a book behind.
And i'd agree that it jars slightly to see Jon nominated king in the north while sansa sits next to him but i just think thats one of them messy situations that the show runners walked themselves into by pushing sansa into jeyne pooles story arc.

They probably could flesh the decision out a bit more but honestly, im pretty sure 99.9% of showwatchers really dont give shit.

it also builds some tension/drama they might work with in the story line. Provides Littlefinger with something he might be able to exploit. It might be a messy situation they intended to create.

the whole world of GOT is full of messy situations isn't it.

 

[caid]

it also builds some tension/drama they might work with in the story line. Provides Littlefinger with something he might be able to exploit. It might be a messy situation they intended to create.

the whole world of GOT is full of messy situations isn't it.

Yeah it could work out a better storyline for the tv show. Its probably one of many issues for GRRM too if he wants to keep Jon front and centre for the next book or two.
They just don't have or didn't give themselves the time and space to have sansa pissing about in the eyrie for 2 seasons i guess.
Sansa being completely overlooked to the point where she isn't even considered is a bit weird tbf.
Her marriage to Tyrion isn't even much of an issue in the tv show. Its already been made illegitimate really hasn't it?

I guess i've given up looking for that level of thought and consistency from the show.
Or for the two random lords drinking a beer and saying why they think jon is more suitable than sansa (theres reasons, its not that hard to justify),
your just not going to get scenes like that anymore.
Jon's king of the north cause some drunk dude enjoyed his party in the tv show effectively. You just need to fill in the blanks around it yourself.

 

[fishfingers15]

Bothers me that I'm the only one agreeing with @InfiniteBoredom.

Before people like @JustaRabidfan criticize me for not liking the show, I think story arcs have been compromised keeping in mind the TV audience and in books, it will be different. I definitely prefer the book's approach, but that doesn't mean the show is at fault. Every book adaptation rarely lives up to the books in my view and GoT has done a terrific job in keeping up with the scale and size of the 'story universe'

 

[2cents]

The last two books just didn't lend themselves to a TV adaption at all.

I'm thinking the show might have been better off leaving out Dorne and the Iron Islands altogether.

 

[JustAFan]

Bothers me that I'm the only one agreeing with @InfiniteBoredom.

Before people like @JustaRabidfan criticize me for not liking the show, I think story arcs have been compromised keeping in mind the TV audience and in books, it will be different. I definitely prefer the book's approach, but that doesn't mean the show is at fault. Every book adaptation rarely lives up to the books in my view and GoT has done a terrific job in keeping up with the scale and size of the 'story universe'

awwww poor baby.

Seems common though, get challenged for having crap opinions about a TV show, start calling people rabid fans/fanboys. Overall just proves the lack of thought you have put into your postings.

 

[MichaelKorleone]

Bothers me that I'm the only one agreeing with @InfiniteBoredom.

Before people like @JustaRabidfan criticize me for not liking the show, I think story arcs have been compromised keeping in mind the TV audience and in books, it will be different. I definitely prefer the book's approach, but that doesn't mean the show is at fault. Every book adaptation rarely lives up to the books in my view and GoT has done a terrific job in keeping up with the scale and size of the 'story universe'

I agree with @InfiniteBoredom too but I don't ever remember disagreeing with @Revan when it comes to fantasy reads so I'm in a weird place. Seems like most of the issues are due to replacing Jeyne Poole with Sansa and not fully bothering with the consequences of the change.

Is there any rule that women are not allowed to gain ascendance in the North? I don't remember coming across any such ideas. Jeor's sister Maege was ruling Bear Island and now Lyanna Mormont is their head. Alys Karstark's leading the Karstark house now. Lysa Arryn was head of Vale (don't remember if she is supposed to only be a regent until Robin comes of age). Without any male heirs, I thought rest of the Westeros allow women to head the house. It's only in Dorne where the oldest (whether male or female) is allowed to lead the house, right?

Sansa should have become the head of Winterfell ahead of Jon imo, what with Jon not being a Stark. Ramsay was legalized by Roose Bolton (Warden of the North) and only then he's allowed to head the Bolton family, innit? It doesn't stop me enjoying the show, just a minor complaint.

There are a lot of things to complain about TV show and there are a lot of things TV has done well which weren't in the books (Arya-Tywin for instance) but I've made my peace with both the media (except DwD which can go screw itself) and continue to enjoy both. I'm optimistic that GRRM would avoid the inconsistencies in the books since the medium provides lot more scope (which is ironically one of the reasons for the books taking so long to write)

 

[Moby]

The last two books just didn't lend themselves to a TV adaption at all.

Absolutely this.

The show would have been worse had it followed them play by play.

 

[JustAFan]

I agree with @InfiniteBoredom too but I don't ever remember disagreeing with @Revan when it comes to fantasy reads so I'm in a weird place. Seems like most of the issues are due to replacing Jeyne Poole with Sansa and not fully bothering with the consequences of the change.

Is there any rule that women are not allowed to gain ascendance in the North? I don't remember coming across any such ideas. Jeor's sister Maege was ruling Bear Island and now Lyanna Mormont is their head. Alys Karstark's leading the Karstark house now. Lysa Arryn was head of Vale (don't remember if she is supposed to only be a regent until Robin comes of age). Without any male heirs, I thought rest of the Westeros allow women to head the house. It's only in Dorne where the oldest (whether male or female) is allowed to lead the house, right?

Sansa should have become the head of Winterfell ahead of Jon imo, what with Jon not being a Stark. Ramsay was legalized by Roose Bolton (Warden of the North) and only then he's allowed to head the Bolton family, innit? It doesn't stop me enjoying the show, just a minor complaint.

There are a lot of things to complain about TV show and there are a lot of things TV has done well which weren't in the books (Arya-Tywin for instance) but I've made my peace with both the media (except DwD which can go screw itself) and continue to enjoy both. I'm optimistic that GRRM would avoid the inconsistencies in the books since the medium provides lot more scope (which is ironically one of the reasons for the books taking so long to write)

1) There is no absolute rule against women being in power within the GoT worlds. Hell we have Queen Cersei on the Iron Throne don't we and lots of people looking to put Dany on the Iron Throne.
2) Having the opinion that Sansa should have been made Queen of the North is nice, but the issue being presented was that it did not make sense in the setting and rules of the story and has been pointed out over and over, it actually fits in fine with the concepts presented in the story.
3) Ramsey was the head of the North when he took over from his father (well had his father killed so he could grab the power). So not sure where you are getting that he could only lead the Boltons. He led the North and all the houses loyal to the Boltons. True he was not made King of the North but then neither was Ned Stark. The Bolton's goal was to keep the North loyal to the Iron Throne, so there would not have been a call to make him King of the North. Now with the Boltons gone, the North is back to not being loyal to the Iron Throne, thus they look for a new leader and decide on Jon. Not much different from the rebellion against the Mad King when many houses joined forces and made King Robert despite him not having legal right to the throne.

The point being it is not at all a weird concept or inconsistent to have someone not in the normal line of succession become King. The world of GoT is full of those cases.

 

[Cheesy]

The last two books just didn't lend themselves to a TV adaption at all.

I'm thinking the show might have been better off leaving out Dorne and the Iron Islands altogether.

Yeah, cuts were always going to have to be made; to be quite frank the books themselves would have been much, much better had GRRM trimmed down a lot of the stuff he put in them.

I'd imagine the problem though was that a lot of the stuff they've adapted has ended up going wrong; doing Dorne in itself was fine, but the version we got was really cringeworthy TV. Likewise the Kingsmoot last season.

 

[Cheesy]

1) There is no absolute rule against women being in power within the GoT worlds. Hell we have Queen Cersei on the Iron Throne don't we and lots of people looking to put Dany on the Iron Throne.
2) Having the opinion that Sansa should have been made Queen of the North is nice, but the issue being presented was that it did not make sense in the setting and rules of the story and has been pointed out over and over, it actually fits in fine with the concepts presented in the story.
3) Ramsey was the head of the North when he took over from his father (well had his father killed so he could grab the power). So not sure where you are getting that he could only lead the Boltons. He led the North and all the houses loyal to the Boltons. True he was not made King of the North but then neither was Ned Stark. The Bolton's goal was to keep the North loyal to the Iron Throne, so there would not have been a call to make him King of the North. Now with the Boltons gone, the North is back to not being loyal to the Iron Throne, thus they look for a new leader and decide on Jon. Not much different from the rebellion against the Mad King when many houses joined forces and made King Robert despite him not having legal right to the throne.

The point being it is not at all a weird concept or inconsistent to have someone not in the normal line of succession become King. The world of GoT is full of those cases.

Pretty much. Varys' "Power believes where men believe it resides," quote sums up that perfectly.

 

[fishfingers15]

1) There is no absolute rule against women being in power within the GoT worlds. Hell we have Queen Cersei on the Iron Throne don't we and lots of people looking to put Dany on the Iron Throne.
2) Having the opinion that Sansa should have been made Queen of the North is nice, but the issue being presented was that it did not make sense in the setting and rules of the story and has been pointed out over and over, it actually fits in fine with the concepts presented in the story.
3) Ramsey was the head of the North when he took over from his father (well had his father killed so he could grab the power). So not sure where you are getting that he could only lead the Boltons. He led the North and all the houses loyal to the Boltons. True he was not made King of the North but then neither was Ned Stark. The Bolton's goal was to keep the North loyal to the Iron Throne, so there would not have been a call to make him King of the North. Now with the Boltons gone, the North is back to not being loyal to the Iron Throne, thus they look for a new leader and decide on Jon. Not much different from the rebellion against the Mad King when many houses joined forces and made King Robert despite him not having legal right to the throne.

The point being it is not at all a weird concept or inconsistent to have someone not in the normal line of succession become King. The world of GoT is full of those cases.

If it is full of cases, why don't you start naming them instead of just saying 'full of cases'.

 

[fishfingers15]

awwww poor baby.

Seems common though, get challenged for having crap opinions about a TV show, start calling people rabid fans/fanboys. Overall just proves the lack of thought you have put into your postings.

Ok, just a rabid fan.

 

[harshad]

If it is full of cases, why don't you start naming them instead of just saying 'full of cases'.

Wasn't the Dance of Dragons basically that. I confess I have no idea how what you guys are debating