re: All the Bran hate is intellectually dishonest

Yeah - Bran wouldn’t be the night King.

He’d be something far more dangerous and sinister.

I think the blue eyes would just confuse everyone then.

Downvoted for pretentious and incorrect use of phrase "intellectually dishonest."

quote:

---

NK was absolutely trying to kill all the living and rule with his army of undead

---

Link?

quote:

---

He survived the fall

---

Fell and became crippled. Not special. Jon Snow was stabbed in the heart and raised from the dead.

quote:

---

He became the 3ER

---

How is that compelling? Can he see the future? Can he change it? Did he know what was going to unfold when he told Sansa about Jon’s heritage? Had he not told Sansa about Jon’s heritage would the future still unfold that way? How does that make sense at all? Assuming he can only see the past, and is just super wise as a result, why not be an advisor? Game of Thrones explored the many facets of power. How it’s obtained, how it’s used, and how it’s lost.

Look at Bobby B. He took the throne, under false pretenses as it turns out, but the kingdom was relatively peaceful. Some minor skirmishes and rebellions, but Robert didn’t have the Targaryen madness ability and he allied himself with the Lannisters for their money and political power, but it wasn’t perfect. He was ignorant to internal corruption and just maintaining the status quo. He might have taken the throne in a way the realm embraced, but he didn’t manage it well. Not terribly, but it was failing.

Now contrast this to the War of the Five Kings. At a macro level it’s about different claims to the throne and the problems with birthright succession, but each King wasn’t good enough and was flawed. Generally their flaws lead to their downfall.

Rob didn’t play politics and tried to marry for love, he died for it.

Renly was killed by magic or whatever. He had the love of his men, but that’s all he relied on.

Greyjoy was just an old man that couldn’t see two feet in front of him and he was usurped because he was a dumbass. Having no loyalty to anyone, just trying to scam his way to success was doomed.

Stannis didn’t have the love of his men, just military knowledge, and he died with alone after sacrificing his daughter for military victory.

Joffrey was killed because his cruelty won him the war it led to him being betrayed internally.

The idea behind a great story is that when the characters motivations, intentions and guiding principles are established, their fate is somewhat inevitable. The “how” is just happenstance but the why is important. Ned Stark was always going to die being honorable if he was forced to play an unhonorable political game. You could even argue his honor was so great it made his ability to avoid the political game forever impossible.


Now contrast this to Jon and Dany. They were leaders that were built up to be beyond the flawed characters, which is how they were able to win the love of their people.

Jon was a “bastard”, so nobility wasn’t all he cared about. It made him better. He was able to unite the free folk and the north because he was a fearless leader and every time he was able to save the day, it only endeared him to others. Same with Dany. She has immense power, but her motivation was to use that power for good. She wept when her dragons burned innocents. Do you think Tywin would have blinked at that? She had great power but people were endeared to her because she only used it when it was necessary. She wasted times freeing the slave cities because even though she wanted a home in westeros, it was the right thing to do.

And for what? For Dany to go mad murdering innocents in a blood thirsty rage to punish everyone, even those that don’t deserve retribution like the slavers did, and remake the entire world in her image? Why?

And why should Jon have been exiled? For killing the Queen and having the birthright anyway? He’s only suited for a Night’s Watch? Why? Him leaving the Night’s Watch was part of his character arc. It should that honor can be conflicting. His honor to men, superseded some silly oath. Honor was always important, but he let go of it when necessary. He became King in the North because of it. He killed Dany because of it. This is the kind of growth and nuance that should, and was, rewarded.

And he showed much better judgement in managing the North than Sansa did trying to steal houses from people. And Jaime Lannister killed the King, didn’t have the birthright, and all went well.

You’re being sold on inevitability of character flaws leading to a tragic ending, like you saw throughout the series, but with none of the logic. Jon wasn’t Ned. Dany wasn’t her father. Yet their fates were the same.

quote:

---

I'm pretty sure you're getting different posters confused here. Unknown never said anything about having Bran's eyes go blue in his scenario.

---

You're right, my bad.

Fun fact about the actor that play's Bran, Issac Hempstead Wright

quote:

---

He had no interest in acting until he joined a drama club to avoid playing football on Saturday mornings during the cold months of the year;

---

quote:

---

Bran becoming king makes sense. He's the 3ER. He should\would be the best king.

---

I don't buy into all that line of reasoning.

Bran can know everything, that doesn't make him functionally wise or smart.

If he withholds Jon's heritage, then Jon/Dany wed and take the throne, and Dany doesn't go nuts. She had already told Jon in season 7 that he was right and she should have listened to him. I think Varys underestimated how much sway he had over her, I think he could easily have controlled her.

And then, he doesn't provide the intel on Euron camping by Dragonstone. That cost Rhaegal, a dragon now bonded to Jon.

Those are 2 big mistakes if you are wanting "what is best".
And if you are scheming against Jon, your brother and now known true heir to the Throne, I don't think that's an endorsement of being a good king.

quote:

---

The fact that they completely omitted him from Season 5 was ok with me at the time due to his character not really doing much of anything.

---

This was the time to get more of a backstory on what the history of the 3ER is what powers does he have, how many world events has he influenced etc instead we got an inordinate amount of time on the sand snakes and sons of the harpy

quote:

---

OR it's acknowledgement that Bran being king is laughably stupid.

---

By the premise set forth by the show? Yes it is


By the premise set forth (so far) by the books? No it's not.



The book version of Bran is spectacular. Unfortunately they ruined him in the show and turned him into some cliche Mystery Man with no sense of anything other than he knows everything.