Looking forward: what are your top five predictions of what you are more than 50% sure will happen in season 8?

WotW Spoiler Town, with extensive Game of Thrones Season 8 Spoilers including major leaks, filming spoilers, photos and all. Consider yourself warned!
FierceAsAWolverine
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:38 pm

Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:49 pm

Violator wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 3:04 am

Your 5 sounds far worse than the prospect of a baby.

If you think about it, we already know the ending will be bittersweet. There's no better way to do that than have a child become the new ruler after both of their parents die in the war. That's a lovely, bittersweet ending
I'm not annoyed by the prospect of a baby because it fails the test of being "bittersweet." I'm annoyed by the prospect of a baby because it's the "bittersweet" ending of every single dumb heroic star-crossed romance story ever. "Two people die to save the world but they leave behind a legacy in the form of a baby! Wow!" Some might find it lovely, but I find it boring and cliche. I'd far, far rather follow the mature ruling trajectory of these two characters that I've come to know and care about than be left with an infant of unknown qualities and character in charge of a very troubled realm. That doesn't leave me feeling bittersweet. It leaves me anxious as I flip the final page of the book closed or watch the credits roll.

I really wonder though if this child will end up on the throne in the event that both Jon and Daenerys die. GRRM has made a point of illustrating the instability of having child lords, and the very tenuous hold on power that even a legitimate inheritor of the throne holds. If Westeros is so thoroughly weakened by war after the WW invasion (which is entirely possible), then maybe everyone will agree to hold off on playing the game of thrones until this infant reaches its majority. Maybe they'll agree to suddenly accept its claim because it happens to descend from two people who were not universally supported by the entire realm. I don't know. But it seems really out of keeping with what we know about how power and governance work in this world. My #5 was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I really do hope that the feudal system of war and misery and unstable transitions of power is broken at the end of the story. That, too, would be bittersweet for those of us who have immersed ourselves in this world and come to enjoy it.

I guess on some level I just find biological/reproductive resolutions to major character arcs and political problems to be a cop out.

Anyway, not trying to pick a fight, but just trying to elucidate why some people might feel that the production of a baby fails the expectations that GRRM has set for us in terms of the sophistication of the storytelling.

FierceAsAWolverine
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:38 pm

Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:59 pm

trarecar wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:24 am


Jon can't be Azor Ahai and have Ayra kill the NK. They are constantly foreshadowing a showdown between Jon and the NK. They've been sizing each other up with 'Imma kill you' looks for a while now.

Also regarding Jon - is it written somewhere that the Lord of Light is the same magic as the NK? I didn't think we knew anything about the Lord of Light. The Children of the Forest throw fire balls (still rolling my eyes over that one) but what do we really know about him?
But what if his role as AA was to simply believe in his little sister and give her a sword, thus inspiring her to become the assassin of the NK? He alone in all the world of Westeros had the vision to arm a little girl who wanted to be a swordswoman, this creating the weapon to kill the NK. ;)

I don't honestly believe that, but it would be quite a nice and unexpected twist on messiah figures.

I wasn't contending that the same magic animates the NK and the Lord of Light, and we know that fire wights can remain upright and walking after their creator is killed (see Beric, after Thoros died...) So there are some differences. But I do think that the dragons are a source of power that sustains and stokes the fire magic, and if they go, Jon may too. (I used to think he would survive the series, and I still want him to, but I'm taken by the fact that GRRM came out and stated that Beric was a fire wight shortly before the season started. Why? Perhaps because it's important for us to know that there are limitations on the lives of people who are returned by Red Priests.)

BeardedOnion
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:33 pm

Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:45 pm

If Arya kills the NK I'll be kinda pissed. That's Jon's and Bran's kill to make, not hers.

I love Arya but she's had enough glory moments, don't give her the biggest at the expense of Jon and Bran and their stories.

Violator
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:14 pm

Wed Aug 23, 2017 4:20 pm

FierceAsAWolverine wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:49 pm
Anyway, not trying to pick a fight, but just trying to elucidate why some people might feel that the production of a baby fails the expectations that GRRM has set for us in terms of the sophistication of the storytelling.
I don't mean to sound harsh, but that's just 'tough' really I'm afraid. I would put money on this relationship leading to a child and that child having some importance. Is it cliched and predictable? - yeah! But it looks like this story will begin to meet at least some genre expectations before we're finished. Those who don't want that may have to get used to their disappointment.

A full out constitutional change would be laughable fan service, largely invented to preach for an American TV audience. In no way would it be realistic to see a country that has existed in a state of feudalism for millennia suddenly embrace elections and representative governments in a generation. This 'breaking the wheel' nonsense has been invented for the show and it doesn't sit well because it creates an inherent contradiction in Dany's character - it's almost like 'Bonnie Prince Charlie returning to Britain to oversee the abolition of the monarchy. It's bonkers - the only reason he contested the throne with the Hanovarians is because he believes he has divine right by inheritance to it and so does Dany. She may want to rule justly, but she wants to rule, just as Aegon V did.

She's not fucking George Washington or Che Guevara and thank God for that because it would almost look like someone had transported a post-enlightenment figure into a time where they don't belong.

Moreover, George has about as much respect for elected governments in his world as un-elected ones - they're both flawed and corrupt and he doesn't moralise or make a judgement for the reader anymore than he does with 13 year old girls being married to war lords or brothers and sisters being romantically involved and having children.

The fundamental question is will this story end as it began with a monarchy? My strong impression is that it will because that's just the world we've been visiting. For God, sake, it's high fantasy - it's been stuck in the 1300s for centuries without any real move towards modernity and that's simply because that's how high fantasy always is. This story will be no different.

Moreover, can I ask what would be 'sophisticated' enough for you? Have you any suggestions or are you holding out the hope that Martin can think of something that non of us have thought of yet (because considering the amount of theories knocking around, I doubt that). What would be 'sophisticated'? Jon and Dany realise they're both a really bored husband and wife and this has all been an elaborate fantasy they've created to spice up their sex lives, thus providing us with an allegory on the emptiness of modernity? Should Tyrion suggest that we begin a socialist revolution or we find out that the White Walkers were simply trying to prevent some greater evil (how would this latter one help with the close anyway)? What could possibly seem that sophisticated which wouldn't seem flatly ridiculous?

How would a story which leads us towards a glimmer of constitutional change, for example, be sophisticated, rather than leave us with a frankly clumsy and horrible 'lesson' on the evils of monarchy and the values of alternative government? You think that's sophisticated? - it's patronising. There is no fundamentally 'sophisticated' way you can end all this really. The 'sophistication' was always the complexities of the characters and how events seem very realistic and informed by English medieval history. Well, you can have all that complexity and sophistication but you still have what you started with - a monarchy. Read the Wars or the Roses in detail - the main inspiration for this whole saga. It has wonderfully complex characters and very real situations, but at the end, a young exile and descendant of John of Gaunt marries the last distant descendant of Edmund Langley, thus uniting the tow warring houses in - guess what - the production of an heir (First Arthur and then Henry) and the creation of a new dynasty.

MoaKaka
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 5:16 pm

Wed Aug 23, 2017 5:06 pm

Not what I want to happen, but my predictions:

The big battle with the white walkers will take place at Winterfell. Coincidentally, the Golden Army will attack Winterfell on Cersie's orders at around the same time. [I base this on the show pushing Sansa forward as a "leader" (ugh), and the characters stating many times that the south has never attacked that far north (which means, of course they will)].

Cersei will survive until the very end. [I base this on the writers' plot contrivances (like Tyrion giving bad advice) to keep Cersei in power during season 7)]. Probably Jaime will kill her in the last episode, and then himself (or it will cause his own death in the process).

Sansa will sit on the throne. [I base this on the writers trying very hard to make us believe Sansa is fit to rule. It has to pay off somehow]. She and Tyrion will renew their marriage to keep the people united.

Jon and Dany will both die. And the dragons too. All magic will disappear or be forgotten. [I base this on none of the spin-offs being sequels, because all the magic will have left that world].

What I want to happen (but know it never will):

Most of the people get wiped out. The dragons and the white walkers form a truce. The remaining dire wolves meet up and start to repopulate the forests with dires. The dragons do the same. The end.

User avatar
anna1226
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:45 pm

Wed Aug 23, 2017 5:37 pm

My Guesses:
Jon revealed as Targaryen, becomes dragon rider.
Gendry master weapon maker, non romantic reunion with Arya.
Bran worgs into ice dragon briefly when NK army gets to Winterfell, again in final battle.
Children of the Forest assist Winterfell battle, NK army retreats.
NK war reaches Kings Landing, the Red Keep is torched (roof missing in visions).
Jon is the prince that was promised & kills NK, with Bran's help.
Melisandre returns for final battle, maybe to resurrect Jon again.
J+D will have a baby (S8 time jump for this?).
Dany or Jon may die, though I'd love to see them rule together (references to Dany being a conqueror and Jon a ruler).
Cersie hires Golden Company army, but Daario Naharis secretly runs it & betrays her.
Jamie dies heroically in battles against NK (preferable in Brienne's arms), Arya steals his face/hand.
Arya will kill Cersie with dagger. Uses Littlefinger's face to spy, then maybe Jamie's face to kill.

After the war Westeros is more democratic, still kings/queens & lords but more balanced power.
Wardens: Sansa-North, Gendry- Stormlands, Tyrion-Rock, Sam-Reach, Edmure Tully-Riverlands, Yara/Theon-Iron Islands, Vale-Robin?, Dorne-unknown Martel?
Small Council: Tyrion-hand, Davos-master coin, Sam--master laws, Grand Maester-Ebrose, Brienne-LC kingsgaurd, Arya-master whispers (spies/assassins), Yara-master ships.
Bran remains TER. Tormund/wildlings-watchers of the wall. Gray Worm/unsullied- replaces gold cloaks. Dothraki-return to Essos. Ghost joins Nymeria's pack. Dragons retire to Valeria.
Last edited by anna1226 on Wed Aug 23, 2017 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
anna1226
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:45 pm

Wed Aug 23, 2017 6:01 pm

FierceAsAWolverine wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:49 pm
Violator wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 3:04 am

Your 5 sounds far worse than the prospect of a baby.

If you think about it, we already know the ending will be bittersweet. There's no better way to do that than have a child become the new ruler after both of their parents die in the war. That's a lovely, bittersweet ending
I'm not annoyed by the prospect of a baby because it fails the test of being "bittersweet." I'm annoyed by the prospect of a baby because it's the "bittersweet" ending of every single dumb heroic star-crossed romance story ever. "Two people die to save the world but they leave behind a legacy in the form of a baby! Wow!" Some might find it lovely, but I find it boring and cliche. I'd far, far rather follow the mature ruling trajectory of these two characters that I've come to know and care about than be left with an infant of unknown qualities and character in charge of a very troubled realm. That doesn't leave me feeling bittersweet. It leaves me anxious as I flip the final page of the book closed or watch the credits roll.

I really wonder though if this child will end up on the throne in the event that both Jon and Daenerys die. GRRM has made a point of illustrating the instability of having child lords, and the very tenuous hold on power that even a legitimate inheritor of the throne holds. If Westeros is so thoroughly weakened by war after the WW invasion (which is entirely possible), then maybe everyone will agree to hold off on playing the game of thrones until this infant reaches its majority. Maybe they'll agree to suddenly accept its claim because it happens to descend from two people who were not universally supported by the entire realm. I don't know. But it seems really out of keeping with what we know about how power and governance work in this world. My #5 was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I really do hope that the feudal system of war and misery and unstable transitions of power is broken at the end of the story. That, too, would be bittersweet for those of us who have immersed ourselves in this world and come to enjoy it.

I guess on some level I just find biological/reproductive resolutions to major character arcs and political problems to be a cop out.

Anyway, not trying to pick a fight, but just trying to elucidate why some people might feel that the production of a baby fails the expectations that GRRM has set for us in terms of the sophistication of the storytelling.
In the event that both Jon and Daenerys die I think Aunt Sansa will raise the baby. But I think Tyrion will set up a more democratic government for future. Maybe still lords & a prime minister of sorts. I wouldn't care fro this ending either & it sounds too simple to GRRM. Would it be possible for Sansa to actually get back with Tyrion now that she is grown? Prolly not.

User avatar
anna1226
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:45 pm

Wed Aug 23, 2017 6:04 pm

BeardedOnion wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:45 pm
If Arya kills the NK I'll be kinda pissed. That's Jon's and Bran's kill to make, not hers.

I love Arya but she's had enough glory moments, don't give her the biggest at the expense of Jon and Bran and their stories.
I think it's more likely Jon & Bran take out the NK & Arya takes out Cersie. But do fulfill the books little brother prophesy Arya would have to be wearing Jamie or Tyrion's face.

FierceAsAWolverine
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:38 pm

Fri Aug 25, 2017 5:14 pm

Violator wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 4:20 pm
FierceAsAWolverine wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:49 pm
Anyway, not trying to pick a fight, but just trying to elucidate why some people might feel that the production of a baby fails the expectations that GRRM has set for us in terms of the sophistication of the storytelling.
I don't mean to sound harsh, but that's just 'tough' really I'm afraid. I would put money on this relationship leading to a child and that child having some importance. Is it cliched and predictable? - yeah! But it looks like this story will begin to meet at least some genre expectations before we're finished. Those who don't want that may have to get used to their disappointment.

A full out constitutional change would be laughable fan service, largely invented to preach for an American TV audience. In no way would it be realistic to see a country that has existed in a state of feudalism for millennia suddenly embrace elections and representative governments in a generation. This 'breaking the wheel' nonsense has been invented for the show and it doesn't sit well because it creates an inherent contradiction in Dany's character - it's almost like 'Bonnie Prince Charlie returning to Britain to oversee the abolition of the monarchy. It's bonkers - the only reason he contested the throne with the Hanovarians is because he believes he has divine right by inheritance to it and so does Dany. She may want to rule justly, but she wants to rule, just as Aegon V did.

She's not fucking George Washington or Che Guevara and thank God for that because it would almost look like someone had transported a post-enlightenment figure into a time where they don't belong.

Moreover, George has about as much respect for elected governments in his world as un-elected ones - they're both flawed and corrupt and he doesn't moralise or make a judgement for the reader anymore than he does with 13 year old girls being married to war lords or brothers and sisters being romantically involved and having children.

The fundamental question is will this story end as it began with a monarchy? My strong impression is that it will because that's just the world we've been visiting. For God, sake, it's high fantasy - it's been stuck in the 1300s for centuries without any real move towards modernity and that's simply because that's how high fantasy always is. This story will be no different.

Moreover, can I ask what would be 'sophisticated' enough for you? Have you any suggestions or are you holding out the hope that Martin can think of something that non of us have thought of yet (because considering the amount of theories knocking around, I doubt that). What would be 'sophisticated'? Jon and Dany realise they're both a really bored husband and wife and this has all been an elaborate fantasy they've created to spice up their sex lives, thus providing us with an allegory on the emptiness of modernity? Should Tyrion suggest that we begin a socialist revolution or we find out that the White Walkers were simply trying to prevent some greater evil (how would this latter one help with the close anyway)? What could possibly seem that sophisticated which wouldn't seem flatly ridiculous?

How would a story which leads us towards a glimmer of constitutional change, for example, be sophisticated, rather than leave us with a frankly clumsy and horrible 'lesson' on the evils of monarchy and the values of alternative government? You think that's sophisticated? - it's patronising. There is no fundamentally 'sophisticated' way you can end all this really. The 'sophistication' was always the complexities of the characters and how events seem very realistic and informed by English medieval history. Well, you can have all that complexity and sophistication but you still have what you started with - a monarchy. Read the Wars or the Roses in detail - the main inspiration for this whole saga. It has wonderfully complex characters and very real situations, but at the end, a young exile and descendant of John of Gaunt marries the last distant descendant of Edmund Langley, thus uniting the tow warring houses in - guess what - the production of an heir (First Arthur and then Henry) and the creation of a new dynasty.
I seem to have hit a nerve. Let me reiterate: I answered #5 as a tongue-in-cheek reference to exactly the tendency you're talking about, which is the American love of self-mythologizing when it comes to our founding stories. But anyway, it's strongly intimated that there will be a change in government - not to a straight-up constitutional system sans monarchy, but at the very least, some kind of shift.

It's not incidental to the story that Jon and Daenerys both came of age in "barbaric" societies with non-monarchical traditions. These traditions are proto-democratic (not perfectly democratic, of course. But they have to do with following a leader based on the choice of the individual follower, not the passage of power through blood right) and serve to school both of the major protagonists in different ideas about leadership and power. In each case, they are bringing those "barbaric" people with them in their respective campaigns as they rise to power. We know that in the books, as in the show, Westeros is going to be overrun with Wildlings and Dothraki. Nor is it incidental to the story that societies like the Ironborn, Volantis, and Braavos, and the Night's Watch and the Unsullied as organizations, have elective systems. I don't know if you're a book reader or not, but Planetos shows us a variety of systems of government in greater detail in the books. This is what I mean about sophistication in storytelling. There are hundreds of fantasy books out there that show us nothing but monarchies, with zero consideration of whether there's a possibility of evolution in these systems. The whole point is stasis and claiming the throne and that's it. Game of Thrones is not that kind of story - at least not on the page. If you want more evidence that George is doing something different, look up what he said about his annoyance with Tolkien's take on "the good monarch" as the resolution of a story:

"Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine?..."

The same questions would easily apply to any child of Dany and Jon's that was left on the throne.

Anyway, we can revisit this at the end of season 8 and see what happens. Perfectly happy to sheepishly admit that I was wrong if that turns out to be the case. In the meantime, though, I'm definitely not out in left field with the idea of some evolution in government - most reviewers have picked up on and remarked upon the significance of Tyrion's conversation with Dany in the last episode. You can take it up with all of them while we await the resolution of the story.

Meg22
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 am

Fri Aug 25, 2017 5:33 pm

All the people who should be dead but aren't will be. Jon, Dany, Arya, The Mountain, The Hound, Bran, wights and WWs.

Arya hasn't been trained to be an assassin for no purpose other than to kill relatively unimportant characters. She'll be the one to kill Cercei.

Sansa and Tyrion will be regent to Dany and Jon's baby. However, they will set up a constitutional monarchy in which power is more evenly spread. Feudalism will be dead.

Euron will be taken out by the Night King.

There will be no swords thrust into Dany's body. Rather, the original sword will be found (Samwell's next task) and that will be used to kill the Night King, possibly wielded by Jon or maybe even Sam himself in the same manner he killed his first WW.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests