![]() |
Quote:
Hey the Chiefs cut someone that I don't agree with...."hurr hurr go GM your own team blehhhhh" :rolleyes: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
It isn't Bran. It's the 3-eyed Raven. He says it over and over and over again through out the show. That USE to be Bran. It's just Bran's body that's been possessed by whomever the 3-Eyed Raven is.
We know the 3-eyed Raven can go back in time and change the future. And we know he can see the future. Which means of course he knew the outcome all along. And since he has shown that he can go back in time and manipulate people/outcomes, it's likely that he manipulated these events to place himself on the throne. If he manipulated these events to place himself on the throne, does that make him an evil being? Could the Night's King have been trying to SAVE mankind by destroying the 3-eyed raven before he could conquer mankind as he did? Was the REAL game between the 3-eyed raven and the Night's King? If so, we could see this arc fleshed out during the prequel. Something like...maybe the 3-eyed raven caused King Aerys to go mad? |
|
Quote:
|
If anyone is looking to scratch a television itch now that Thrones has wrapped up, you should check out Westworld if you haven’t yet. They just released a trailer for season 3 and it looks like Aaron Paul will play a prominent role and I’m so damn stoked for that.
|
Quote:
Now that I got that out of the way, I want to say good luck to anyone that is going to try to be sneaky and try to overthrow Bran. How are you going to even attempt to plot to kill someone that sees and knows everything. He can crush any uprising before it evens begin. No need for trials anymore either. Bran saw it happen. |
Quote:
By all accounts, the 3-eyed raven can't really alter the past. He can do some stuff that may effect the future (often involuntarily), but there are few, if any, indications that the 3-eyed raven can really play God as you're suggesting. They'd have to retcon the shit out of things if that was something they ever wanted to try. |
Quote:
|
I also thought it was kinda weird that there was just zero consideration for Jon Snow to be King after he shanked Dany. He was still clearly the rightful heir. He had more than arguable reason to kill her after she murdered all the innocents in Kings Landing. I mean let's not ignore the long long history of rulers being taken out and replaced in similar fashion. But that was clearly not even a consideration by anyone, even though Grey Worm seemed to be the only person completely hating on Jon. They just chose to completely ignore Jon's right to the throne, and it didn't feel like the reasoning was supported by much of anything. The folks who urged Jon to murder Dany, like Tyrion, forgot all about that and instead called for Bran. Jon didn't say shit when he should have had at least an arguable claim to the throne, and everybody just ignores that and banishes him to the Wall. Thanks, bud. Kbye.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I didn't think the ending was AWFUL, but IMDb ratings of this season are pretty amusing.
https://i.redd.it/683mjwgvpbz21.jpg |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.