The one I want Dany executes Jon and Tyrion for Treason, goes to Winterfell where Sansa refuses to bend the knee and torches Winterfell. Then Arya kills Greyworm and facelessmans Dany.
The one I suspect happens. Dany kills Tyrion (and she has all rights to here the guy is a traitor a few times over) then Jon kills Dany and heads beyond the wall. The seven realms all are independent with no common ruler.
I think this one is satisfying If people accept that what they want isn’t necessarily what the characters would do. In general D+Ds failures were all moving chess pieces or depowerimg Danys army. Outside of not building into Danys heal turn effectively they have done a real good job on the characters and giving them satisfying ends. So this type of episode as long as they don’t try to shock us should be satisfying.
Jon challenges Dany about her slaughter of Kings landing.
Grey Worm attempts to kill Jon, Jon wins but is wounded.
Dany orders Drogon to burn Jon, Drogon refuses sensing Jon's true lineage then flies away.
Dany goes from 9/10 to 15/10 on the nutball scale and Tyrion kills her as she attempts to kill an injured and unarmed Jon. Fitting that the King slayer's brother slays the daughter of the same King who has also gone mad.
Jon reluctantly takes the throne, has the loyalty of all 7 kingdoms, including the north of which Sansa is the warden. Tyrion becomes the hand of the new king.
Arya remains a roving assassin, loyal to the king.
I can't see any of the remaining forces killing Drogon, so a divided loyalties scenario that neutralizes him might be the most likely outcome.
Someone kills Dany.
Drogon goes crazy and torches the whole Seven Kingdoms.
Bran goes back and relives this being the Night Kings plan all along, once he saw the dragons reborn.
I just really want the Night King to mean something.
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
Wild ass guess: Everyone who has complained about this season will watch tonight’s episode.
Of course! It's a train wreck of historical proportions that will be discussed and analyzed for years. I wouldn't miss it for anything.
I'll honestly be a little disappointed if they manage to get their stuff together for the last episode, because there's no way I'll be as entertained by their best effort at this point as I was with the camp stupidity of the latest episode
Arya has to steal a face and kill someone this episode, there was too much development of that storyline for it to just end with the Frey’s, no?
Yeah, I think she'll kill Dany wearing the face of someone who is close to Dany. My top-three for whose face she'll wear: Grey Worm, Missendai, Drogo.
I don't know the logistics of how the Faceless Men use their faces. Does the person just need to be dead, or did they need to die in the presence of (or at the hand of) a Faceless Man?
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
I’ll start reminiscing early by posting one of my favourite scenes ever. I think it might be the first appearance of Tywin. Not only is it a great performance by both actors but Charles Dance especially because being the legend that he is, was skinning a real deer in this scene.
And since the topic of characters not being given their due by the writers has been a popular topic this last season, also thinking about how much of a wasted opportunity it was to kill Ser Barristan. One of the only men in the Seven Kingdoms to stand up to the Lannisters and live to tell about it (until he was needlessly and unceremoniously murdered by a pack of teenage bandits in an alleyway despite being the finest living swordsman in the Seven Kingdoms).
Last edited by Cecil Terwilliger; 05-19-2019 at 04:16 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
I will say that the series for me took a little bit of a step back with the death of Tywin, he was such a huge and menacing and overpowering character and Charles Dance was exceptionally good actually perfect in that role, and that deer skinning scene was awesome.
The High Sparrow was very good, and manipulated Cersei to power, but Tywin was awesome.
We really missed that political manipulator going forward.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Sigh. This is again one of those explanations that sound rational, but don't actually make sense in context of the series.
First of all, she didn't sack the city. She destroyed it, callously killing many of her own men in the process, in a situation where troop loyalty is just about to become a major issue.
Second, the one thing Daenarys specifically needs is something to symbolically legitimize herself as the rightful ruler. She just destroyed what the whole war was about, and the one thing she needed... And she needs it more than anyone else. Jon Snow could (theoretically) rule from anywhere, because he's seen as being from Westerös, and same goes for every other wannabe king from here on out. Daenarys has a problem there, because she's an outsider. She needed that throne more than anyone.
But more importantly, that "strategic" logic makes no sense to her character. She's not much of a strategic thinker, so it's pretty laughable go excuse it as something she did because "strategy".
Also, speaking from a historical perspective I don't even have to check your sources to call BS that historians would be in any way "lining up" to support the idea.
Yes, cities were often sacked and sometimes burned that's true.
But those who wanted to rule the Roman empire did not burn Rome. (No, not even Nero, and even if you buy that he did, you're also buying into the idea that he was mad, so...) Those who wanted to rule England did not burn London.
Her explicitly stated personal goal has long been to sit on that throne. At the moment of victory, she ruined her chance to get what she was fighting for.
I mean, destroying the throne is a move that would actually have made sense for Cersei.
It was normal for an army after a siege to be given license to sack a city for a certain length of time, a day or 2, during that time the soldiers got to do what ever the hell they wanted, rape theft murder, it was basically how they paid the troops, otherwise a besieging army would just drift away.
Armies lived by scavenging off the land while moving, a siege removed that ability, so a commander needed something as a payoff for the troops to stick around, a few days of sacking was the payoff
It was normal for an army after a siege to be given license to sack a city for a certain length of time, a day or 2, during that time the soldiers got to do what ever the hell they wanted, rape theft murder, it was basically how they paid the troops, otherwise a besieging army would just drift away.
Armies lived by scavenging off the land while moving, a siege removed that ability, so a commander needed something as a payoff for the troops to stick around, a few days of sacking was the payoff
Basically a city seige would go one of two ways in history.
If the city basically surrendered and vowed not to resist the knight(s) at the head of that army would offer complete protection of that city.
If the city didn't surrender and battle started, even if the city surrendered after the fact, the knight was not under the same obligation to protect that city and its occupants and the city was at the mercy of that knight and his interpretation of honor. And you are correct most soldiers were paid via the benefits of sacking a city, and the army which usually didn't have a logistical line would resupply at the expense of the town or city which would usually starve after the occupying army left.
People misunderstand what honor actually meant back then, but usually concepts of mercy and civility didn't play into the honor code.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
