Game of Thrones

[AliAle]

Not having read the book at all, just the fact that he refuses to mention the mother had me thinking that either he banged some kind of paranormal entity, or it ain't his kid.

Same here, got started on the books after the first few episodes aired but I was already suspicious. I think the book gives too many hints anyway, Martin has been bugged with questions about it so they might want to keep it as a big surprise for the upcoming seasons.

[StoneGold]

Since the show ended, I have been reading the book, and I have to say, there are at least two things it has in common with Da Vinci Code -- it knows how to keep the language moving forward, and it knows how to end a chapter on a cliffhanger. Although much less pretentious. For a genre usually steeped in pretentiousness, Martin has bled a good chunk of it out.

[Forseti]

Same here, got started on the books after the first few episodes aired but I was already suspicious. I think the book gives too many hints anyway, Martin has been bugged with questions about it so they might want to keep it as a big surprise for the upcoming seasons.

It's been a long time since I read the first book, and the TV series gave me some things to consider that I didn't remember from the book, or perhaps just didn't pick up on. (Or perhaps it wasn't even there, I should check I guess. )

I'm talking about spoilers:

the vehemence with which Ned tolk Robert he'd never know the identity of Jon's mother.

end of spoilers That's a clue pointing toward a popular theory.

[Alex]

I want the game Total War: Game of Thrones.
Now.

[Jack]

I want the game Total War: Game of Thrones.
Now.

The Targaryen dragons are a gamebreaker.

[Alex]

The Targaryen dragons are a gamebreaker.

you wouldn't get them until really late in the game though, at that point it wouldn't matter.

[Omega Alpha]

I want the game Total War: Game of Thrones.
Now.

Can I play with the zombies?

[GRANT!]

Same here, got started on the books after the first few episodes aired but I was already suspicious. I think the book gives too many hints anyway, Martin has been bugged with questions about it so they might want to keep it as a big surprise for the upcoming seasons.

Yeah in the first book it seems a little obvious who it is. Then again the hints could be misdirection.

[GRANT!]

In a perfect world, they'd get Mark Strong to play Stannis. But I think he's too busy being a go-to guy for movies right now. Eccleston would also be an excellent choice, though...[/spoil]

Well I think he might freed up from Green Lantern commitments.

[Corrina]

I tend to believe it's the latter, it seems more like a time constraint thing than exercising it due to unimportance.

I picked up the fuzziness of it even though I've never read the books.

At this point, I think Jon is a Stark but he's likely not Ned's kid.

[Jmacq1]

I picked up the fuzziness of it even though I've never read the books.

At this point, I think Jon is a Stark but he's likely not Ned's kid.

The question is though: Would you have picked up on the fuzziness of it if there weren't people on message board forums talking about it?

Not trying to insult your intelligence or anything, I'm just curious, because I'm not sure I'd think there was much of anything amiss with "the official story" of Jon's parentage solely based on the show. I agree that it's played just ambiguous enough to leave a tiny bit of doubt, but the flipside of the ambiguity is that it could simply be Ned being emotional about a woman that he loved and lost.

[Corrina]

Yep, I got it from the way Robert talked about his lost love and the way Ned let Jon got to the wall, and the way Catelyn dislikes him so intently.

Not to mention the fact that Ned would *not* identify the mother. That's a huge steaming clue there. Why not tell Ned who his mother was? Ned's a forthright guy, he tells the truth. He'd not cause Ned this wondering without a reason.

Now, granted, after the next to last (or was it last) episode when the blind bird-keeper told his story of being out of the line of succession, I did some research because that talk seemed another clue, akin to a neon sign.

After that, I read spoilers and found nothing to persuade me that my theory was wrong--and much to confirm it.

[Omega Alpha]

Yep, I got it from the way Robert talked about his lost love and the way Ned let Jon got to the wall, and the way Catelyn dislikes him so intently.

Not to mention the fact that Ned would *not* identify the mother. That's a huge steaming clue there. Why not tell Ned who his mother was? Ned's a forthright guy, he tells the truth. He'd not cause Ned this wondering without a reason.

Now, granted, after the next to last (or was it last) episode when the blind bird-keeper told his story of being out of the line of succession, I did some research because that talk seemed another clue, akin to a neon sign.

After that, I read spoilers and found nothing to persuade me that my theory was wrong--and much to confirm it.

Yeah, I got this from the show too. Although, reading the book, it becomes much more obvious, to the point that there is only theory that remotely makes sense (the "Benjen is the father" one), but even then, if it's true, it makes all the other clues seem pointless.

[Spike-X]

And now I find myself wondering, "Just what did Benjen do to end up at the Wall, anyway?"

[Mia]

I don't really see why Joffrey would listen to Tyrion any more than he did his mother and the council. Unless the risk of Lord Tywin's ire would make him fall into line, but we've seen nothing of that relationship yet.

From the books...

spoilers:

Joffrey doesn't take part in any running of the kingdom. He's off playing. It's his mother and Tyrion who rule

end of spoilers

So I assume that they will do the same thing with him in the show. That is if they decide to follow the books. Thus far they've changed a lot of the characterisations.