redline248 said:

---

I don't think HBO will spend 1 sec talking about Nissa Nissa. Also, once they had Missandei clarify it to be prince or princess I thought to myself "this prophesy is a nothing burger."

---

well i don't think they have to. there is way to do it in effect and satisfy book readers and those who follow the myths and [prophecies without alienating TV only viewers.


If anything happens as far as someone becoming AA and wielding a magic/fire sword to defeat the NK - well the creation of it can be simply a matter of circumstance without explanation but book readers would know what it is.

You don't have to say anything about why it happened - plenty of stuff is unexplained like Jon and Beric returning from the dead, and Dany walking out of fire, etc.

I think that's true of all of the prophecies. For example they can show:

• Valonqar prophecy fulfilled by having Jamie kill Cersei just through his own turn and redemption without ever mentioning the additional prophecy - but book readers would know.
• Dany getting pregnant and dying in childbirth without ever mentioning the rest of the witches prophecy - and perhaps also showing Dany reunited with Drogo in the afterlife - but book readers would know.
• Dany being betrayed again - once for love, blood and gold - without mentioning that prophecy - but book readers would know.

So none of it relies on showing the book prophecies in any detail really. They can just happen.

Or none of it happens. lol

But saying any of it cannot happen because it hasn't been fully explained up front is not true. imho.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

redline248 said:

---

I don't think HBO will spend 1 sec talking about Nissa Nissa. Also, once they had Missandei clarify it to be prince or princess I thought to myself "this prophesy is a nothing burger."

---

well i don't think they have to. there is way to do it in effect and satisfy book readers and those who follow the myths and [prophecies without alienating TV only viewers.


If anything happens as far as someone becoming AA and wielding a magic/fire sword to defeat the NK - well the creation of it can be simply a matter of circumstance without explanation but book readers would know what it is.

You don't have to say anything about why it happened - plenty of stuff is unexplained like Jon and Beric returning from the dead, and Dany walking out of fire, etc.

I think that's true of all of the prophecies. For example they can show:

• Valonqar prophecy fulfilled by having Jamie kill Cersei just through his own turn and redemption without ever mentioning the additional prophecy - but book readers would know.
• Dany getting pregnant and dying in childbirth without ever mentioning the rest of the witches prophecy - and perhaps also showing Dany reunited with Drogo in the afterlife - but book readers would know.
• Dany being betrayed again - once for love, blood and gold - without mentioning that prophecy - but book readers would know.

So none of it relies on showing the book prophecies in any detail really. They can just happen.

Or none of it happens. lol

---

I didn't consider the notion that Dany would get preggo. I'm not sure of the logistics of that story-wise (with only 6 episodes). I imagine it's sorta hard to ride dragons pregnant. They would have to have her do that early on and stop in the 2nd half or so (unless they have her die at episode 3 or so). I'd think they would try to save such big moments (her dying) towards the end.

Regarding Drogo... didn't she already reunite with him in season 2 when they were trying to trick her into staying forever in Qarth? Does that not count?

Quote:

---

But saying any of it cannot happen because it hasn't been fully explained up front is not true. imho.

---

Yeah Jamie can kill Cersei, Dany could be betrayed, etc. but they can't reference unmentioned prophecies or have characters make decisions based on them. For example, I think having Jon kill Tyrion would be a WTF moment for me, and having it be explained as prophecy (that viewers know nothing about) would not go over well.

I wonder if Rhaegar called his wedding tackle his "special sword" that he thrust into Lyana ; eventually killing her but giving birth to Jon Targaryen

I'm starting to think the only chance that there is really much follow through on any of the prophecies is if they carefully refresh the viewing audience of everything that the series (not the books) has presented so far.

Cersei's prophecy
Dany's (about betrayal and getting pregnant again)
Light Bringer/AA
The Long Night (not prophecy but still important)

I suppose they could do that via Sam and his books/scrolls, Bran's visions, Cersei's memories, even Melisandre.

But if they steer clear from some or most of that because they decided it was too cumbersome or convoluted, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

I'm still holding to my belief that AA is a red herring

Urban Ag said:

---

I'm starting to think the only chance that there is really much follow through on any of the prophecies is if they carefully refresh the viewing audience of everything that the series (not the books) has presented so far.

Cersei's prophecy
Dany's (about betrayal and getting pregnant again)
Light Bringer/AA
The Long Night (not prophecy but still important)

I suppose they could do that via Sam and his books/scrolls, Bran's visions, Cersei's memories, even Melisandre.

But if they steer clear from some or most of that because they decided it was too cumbersome or convoluted, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

---

When did they talk about Dany's prophecy? I don't remember that at all.

aTmAg said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

I'm starting to think the only chance that there is really much follow through on any of the prophecies is if they carefully refresh the viewing audience of everything that the series (not the books) has presented so far.

Cersei's prophecy
Dany's (about betrayal and getting pregnant again)
Light Bringer/AA
The Long Night (not prophecy but still important)

I suppose they could do that via Sam and his books/scrolls, Bran's visions, Cersei's memories, even Melisandre.

But if they steer clear from some or most of that because they decided it was too cumbersome or convoluted, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

---

When did they talk about Dany's prophecy? I don't remember that at all.

---

They didn't. not in the show. Well not directly and not completely.

Mirri Maz Dur the witch in season 1 who brought Drogo back by sacrificing their baby when Dany asked her when she would see Drogo "normal" again she said "When the sun rises in the west, sets in the east, When the seas go dry and mountains blow in the wind like leaves.".....which Dany took to mean never.

The book prophecy there went on to say: "When your womb quickens again, and you bear a living child"...... which still Dany took to mean never because she thinks she can never bear children again.

So even though the second part was never in the show...Dany at times has made reference to never being able to have children - which is a reference to the entire quote really. But her interpretation. It is sort of accepted that she can't have children in the show despite never hearing that part of the prophecy.


Now the other prophecy about betrayals happened in the book as part of her visit to the house of the undying. In the show she simply sees stuff - like the throne covered in snow and the castle burned, etc. In the book she also had this prophecy foretold:

"three fires must you light one for life and one for death and one to love three mounts must you ride one to bed and one to dread and one to love three treasons will you know once for blood and once for gold and once for love"

the fires are assumed to be - birthing the dragons in fire (life), killing the kahls with fire (death) and rescuing Jon with the dragons fire (love)

the mounts are assumed to be - Drogo (to bed), Drogon (for dread), and Jon for love (on the ship)

the betrayals are assumed to be - Mirri Maz Dur (blood for her son and Drogo), and Jorah (gold for spying on her)

So it assumed we still have to see a betrayal for love. But who will betray here and for what love? Not necessarily for the love of her.

They've shown these without specific mention of he prophecy but many believe that last betrayal is coming as the others have been fulfilled.

PS - there are of course other interpretations of the events that match up - those are the most common though.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

I'm starting to think the only chance that there is really much follow through on any of the prophecies is if they carefully refresh the viewing audience of everything that the series (not the books) has presented so far.

Cersei's prophecy
Dany's (about betrayal and getting pregnant again)
Light Bringer/AA
The Long Night (not prophecy but still important)

I suppose they could do that via Sam and his books/scrolls, Bran's visions, Cersei's memories, even Melisandre.

But if they steer clear from some or most of that because they decided it was too cumbersome or convoluted, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

---

When did they talk about Dany's prophecy? I don't remember that at all.

---

They didn't. not in the show. Well not directly and not completely.

Mirri Maz Dur the witch in season 1 who brought Drogo back by sacrificing their baby when Dany asked her when she would see Drogo "normal" again she said "When the sun rises in the west, sets in the east, When the seas go dry and mountains blow in the wind like leaves.".....which Dany took to mean never.

The book prophecy there went on to say: "When your womb quickens again, and you bear a living child"...... which still Dany took to mean never because she thinks she can never bear children again.

---

Even if Dany were to have another child, what about the seas going dry and mountains blowing in the wind? That seems like a tall order to make happen story-wise.

Quote:

---

So even though the second part was never in the show...Dany at times has made reference to never being able to have children - which is a reference to the entire quote really. But her interpretation. It is sort of accepted that she can't have children in the show despite never hearing that part of the prophecy.

---

I did just think of something... perhaps the reason the Targaryans were incestuous is because they couldn't have kids with outsiders. And that Dany can get pregnant with Jon Snow's kid since they are related and he has "dragon blood" or whatever.

Quote:

---

Now the other prophecy about betrayals happened in the book as part of her visit to the house of the undying. In the show she simply sees stuff - like the throne covered in snow and the castle burned, etc. In the book she also had this prophecy foretold:

"three fires must you light one for life and one for death and one to love three mounts must you ride one to bed and one to dread and one to love three treasons will you know once for blood and once for gold and once for love"

the fires are assumed to be - birthing the dragons in fire (life), killing the kahls with fire (death) and rescuing Jon with the dragons fire (love)

the mounts are assumed to be - Drogo (to bed), Drogon (for dread), and Jon for love (on the ship)

the betrayals are assumed to be - Mirri Maz Dur (blood for her son and Drogo), and Jorah (gold for spying on her)

So it assumed we still have to see a betrayal for love. But who will betray here and for what love? Not necessarily for the love of her.

---

What about the hot chick Dany locked into the vault? She betrayed Dany, and she was laying in bed with that fake-rich dude. Maybe that was for "love"?

I agree. HBO spent an entire season opening scene on the Maggie the Frog prophecy for example, and HBO intentionally left out the Valonqar part of that scene. Which leads me to believe they have no intention of addressing it. The other part of that prophecy, that they did address - her three children dying - has already come true in the show.

Same for NN and LB - they have only talked about the AA part of all that, which leads me to believe that is the only part they will address on the show. And yes, the gender neutral part of the AA prophecy served just to open up a whole other pool of possibilities of who it could be, including Dany. It could also mean any other female that has a legitimate shot at saving everyone from the darkness. I think they just wanted to bring that possibility into the equation and those (somewhat cheesy) lines of dialogue in the show served that purpose.

Remember, we only have 6 episodes left. I think they are going to have some incredible battle scenes and work on tying up all the loose ends of what is already out there. Not much time to introduce one or more new prophecies into the universe at this point.

Quote:

---

So it assumed we still have to see a betrayal for love. But who will betray here and for what love? Not necessarily for the love of her.

---

Well, Jaime should have some opportunity to betray her for Cersei. Or Tyrion for (what's left of) his family.

You know too much, you are out of the death pool

Damn - I really need a more ambiguous user name my friend.....

Something like Rustys-beef-o-Reeno?

Costanza fits my body type more unfortunately.....

Sine poena nulla lex.

C@LAg said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Even if Dany were to have another child, what about the seas going dry and mountains blowing in the wind? That seems like a tall order to make happen story-wise.

That could easily be flowery language for winter. Seas being dry = frozen; mountains blowing in the winds - snow coming off the mountains. So when Winter Comes.

Quote:

---

So even though the second part was never in the show...Dany at times has made reference to never being able to have children - which is a reference to the entire quote really. But her interpretation. It is sort of accepted that she can't have children in the show despite never hearing that part of the prophecy.

---

I did just think of something... perhaps the reason the Targaryans were incestuous is because they couldn't have kids with outsiders. And that Dany can get pregnant with Jon Snow's kid since they are related and he has "dragon blood" or whatever.


NOT AN ISSUE IN THE BOOK

---

---

mountains blowing in the wind - could also be the wall tumbling down when the ice dragon blew on it

seas being dry - very simple explanation is it could mean figuratively when the dothraki crossed the narrow sea - because it was said they never would. but they did at Dany's behest. Figuratively that would only happen if the seas were dry.


these things don't have to be shown explicitly to be true - or they may already have been shown as they are allegories to real world happenings (or nonsense). Does not have to be literal.


And.....Dany certainly can get pregnant by non Targs - she had Drogo's baby.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Even if Dany were to have another child, what about the seas going dry and mountains blowing in the wind? That seems like a tall order to make happen story-wise.

That could easily be flowery language for winter. Seas being dry = frozen; mountains blowing in the winds - snow coming off the mountains. So when Winter Comes.

Quote:

---

So even though the second part was never in the show...Dany at times has made reference to never being able to have children - which is a reference to the entire quote really. But her interpretation. It is sort of accepted that she can't have children in the show despite never hearing that part of the prophecy.

---

I did just think of something... perhaps the reason the Targaryans were incestuous is because they couldn't have kids with outsiders. And that Dany can get pregnant with Jon Snow's kid since they are related and he has "dragon blood" or whatever.


NOT AN ISSUE IN THE BOOK

---

---

mountains blowing in the wind - could also be the wall tumbling down when the ice dragon blew on it

seas being dry - very simple explanation is it could mean figuratively when the dothraki crossed the narrow sea - because it was said they never would. but they did at Dany's behest. Figuratively that would only happen if the seas were dry.


these things don't have to be shown explicitly to be true - or they may already have been shown as they are allegories to real world happenings (or nonsense). Does not have to be literal.


And.....Dany certainly can get pregnant by non Targs - she had Drogo's baby.

---

I didn't mean pregnant.. but successfully have a kid.

I do not think there is time for her to have a kid in 6 episodes, but perhaps she could have had one during the offseason? Or start episode 1 with the birth? Why do you think that she has to die in childbirth?

clinker03 said:

---

I agree. HBO spent an entire season opening scene on the Maggie the Frog prophecy for example, and HBO intentionally left out the Valonqar part of that scene. Which leads me to believe they have no intention of addressing it. The other part of that prophecy, that they did address - her three children dying - has already come true in the show.

Same for NN and LB - they have only talked about the AA part of all that, which leads me to believe that is the only part they will address on the show. And yes, the gender neutral part of the AA prophecy served just to open up a whole other pool of possibilities of who it could be, including Dany. It could also mean any other female that has a legitimate shot at saving everyone from the darkness. I think they just wanted to bring that possibility into the equation and those (somewhat cheesy) lines of dialogue in the show served that purpose.

Remember, we only have 6 episodes left. I think they are going to have some incredible battle scenes and work on tying up all the loose ends of what is already out there. Not much time to introduce one or more new prophecies into the universe at this point.

---

Well if you know TV watchers will not have that retention you would not show something 3-4 season before it is relevant.

Although I've said numerous times here they can be true without ever alluding to them specifically on the show - but also why would you show the other part of the Cersei prophecy THEN. It showed the part that pertained to the children because that was about to become relevant. Joffrey was already dead - but Myrcella was about to die in that season and Tommen in the next. I don't think you give it away before Joffrey dies - but after that it is on her mind and so they show it and it is then relevant to that season (they distanced it enough that casual viewers would not be expecting it in the finale.... but I was).

They could NOW show another quick flashback having established that the first was true - to show the valonqar part because it is about to be (possibly) relevant this season.

In other words I would not have shown that then if it was not going to be a factor for several seasons.

Same for NN and Lightbringer - yes AA or Prince that was promised are mentioned several times. But why mention those other parts in detail if not relevant THEN - they were talking about AA candidates so why mention the other parts. But if they want to include that now they still can. In fact using past conversations about AA to then bring up NN and LB would perhaps then make sense whereas if you mentioned it 4-5 seasons ago it would be forgotten.

The thing about the books is GRRM mentions these things - the myths and prophecies - all the time especially in people's thoughts or dreams and keeps refreshing the ideas. The show can't do that and so I would never mention any of it until just before I was about to use it in the show.

And although I have argued the prophecies can occur anyway without the show mentioning them specifically - they also have plenty of time (nearly 7 episodes in length actually) and we are talking maybe 5 minutes of time for establishing any of them via flashback or exposition by Bran/Tyrion or whoever. It really doesn't need much time because the groundwork was laid with the earlier prophecy and talk of AA.

Could go either way.

aTmAg said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Even if Dany were to have another child, what about the seas going dry and mountains blowing in the wind? That seems like a tall order to make happen story-wise.

That could easily be flowery language for winter. Seas being dry = frozen; mountains blowing in the winds - snow coming off the mountains. So when Winter Comes.

Quote:

---

So even though the second part was never in the show...Dany at times has made reference to never being able to have children - which is a reference to the entire quote really. But her interpretation. It is sort of accepted that she can't have children in the show despite never hearing that part of the prophecy.

---

I did just think of something... perhaps the reason the Targaryans were incestuous is because they couldn't have kids with outsiders. And that Dany can get pregnant with Jon Snow's kid since they are related and he has "dragon blood" or whatever.


NOT AN ISSUE IN THE BOOK

---

---

mountains blowing in the wind - could also be the wall tumbling down when the ice dragon blew on it

seas being dry - very simple explanation is it could mean figuratively when the dothraki crossed the narrow sea - because it was said they never would. but they did at Dany's behest. Figuratively that would only happen if the seas were dry.


these things don't have to be shown explicitly to be true - or they may already have been shown as they are allegories to real world happenings (or nonsense). Does not have to be literal.


And.....Dany certainly can get pregnant by non Targs - she had Drogo's baby.

---

I didn't mean pregnant.. but successfully have a kid.

I do not think there is time for her to have a kid in 6 episodes, but perhaps she could have had one during the offseason? Or start episode 1 with the birth? Why do you think that she has to die in childbirth?

---

As for the time to have a kid - yeah that seems short - but we don't know what transpires after the battle of WF and the NK, etc. and then whatever happens in KL. An Epilogue in the final episode could jump months ahead. Why not.

I don't think she has to die. It just makes sense in context of the prophecies.

Sine poena nulla lex.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

clinker03 said:

---

I agree. HBO spent an entire season opening scene on the Maggie the Frog prophecy for example, and HBO intentionally left out the Valonqar part of that scene. Which leads me to believe they have no intention of addressing it. The other part of that prophecy, that they did address - her three children dying - has already come true in the show.

Same for NN and LB - they have only talked about the AA part of all that, which leads me to believe that is the only part they will address on the show. And yes, the gender neutral part of the AA prophecy served just to open up a whole other pool of possibilities of who it could be, including Dany. It could also mean any other female that has a legitimate shot at saving everyone from the darkness. I think they just wanted to bring that possibility into the equation and those (somewhat cheesy) lines of dialogue in the show served that purpose.

Remember, we only have 6 episodes left. I think they are going to have some incredible battle scenes and work on tying up all the loose ends of what is already out there. Not much time to introduce one or more new prophecies into the universe at this point.

---

Well if you know TV watchers will not have that retention you would not show something 3-4 season before it is relevant.

Although I've said numerous times here they can be true without ever alluding to them specifically on the show - but also why would you show the other part of the Cersei prophecy THEN. It showed the part that pertained to the children because that was about to become relevant. Joffrey was already dead - but Myrcella was about to die in that season and Tommen in the next. I don't think you give it away before Joffrey dies - but after that it is on her mind and so they show it and it is then relevant to that season (they distanced it enough that casual viewers would not be expecting it in the finale.... but I was).

They could NOW show another quick flashback having established that the first was true - to show the valonqar part because it is about to be (possibly) relevant this season.

In other words I would not have shown that then if it was not going to be a factor for several seasons.

Same for NN and Lightbringer - yes AA or Prince that was promised are mentioned several times. But why mention those other parts in detail if not relevant THEN - they were talking about AA candidates so why mention the other parts. But if they want to include that now they still can. In fact using past conversations about AA to then bring up NN and LB would perhaps then make sense whereas if you mentioned it 4-5 seasons ago it would be forgotten.

The thing about the books is GRRM mentions these things - the myths and prophecies - all the time especially in people's thoughts or dreams and keeps refreshing the ideas. The show can't do that and so I would never mention any of it until just before I was about to use it in the show.

And although I have argued the prophecies can occur anyway without the show mentioning them specifically - they also have plenty of time (nearly 7 episodes in length actually) and we are talking maybe 5 minutes of time for establishing any of them vie flashback or exposition by Bran/Tyrion or whoever. It really doesn't need much time because the groundwork was laid with the earlier prophecy and talk of AA.

Could go either way.

---

Maybe it's just me, but it would come off as "cheating" if they describe a prophecy right before it happened. To me, prophecies in fiction are a sort of cat and mouse game between the writer and the audience. The audience is dared to guess how a prophecy will come to be and the author tries to surprise them in a cool and interesting way.

Also with today's DVR age, I think shows don't care so much about the time between first mention and relevance. In fact, if they can convince us to buy DVDs to watch it 20 times then that is ideal. For example, it's impossible to catch everything in the Wire on first viewing. You have to watch it several times to catch it all. I think that is part of what makes cable so much better than broadcast TV.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

clinker03 said:

---

I agree. HBO spent an entire season opening scene on the Maggie the Frog prophecy for example, and HBO intentionally left out the Valonqar part of that scene. Which leads me to believe they have no intention of addressing it. The other part of that prophecy, that they did address - her three children dying - has already come true in the show.

Same for NN and LB - they have only talked about the AA part of all that, which leads me to believe that is the only part they will address on the show. And yes, the gender neutral part of the AA prophecy served just to open up a whole other pool of possibilities of who it could be, including Dany. It could also mean any other female that has a legitimate shot at saving everyone from the darkness. I think they just wanted to bring that possibility into the equation and those (somewhat cheesy) lines of dialogue in the show served that purpose.

Remember, we only have 6 episodes left. I think they are going to have some incredible battle scenes and work on tying up all the loose ends of what is already out there. Not much time to introduce one or more new prophecies into the universe at this point.

---

Well if you know TV watchers will not have that retention you would not show something 3-4 season before it is relevant.

Although I've said numerous times here they can be true without ever alluding to them specifically on the show - but also why would you show the other part of the Cersei prophecy THEN. It showed the part that pertained to the children because that was about to become relevant. Joffrey was already dead - but Myrcella was about to die in that season and Tommen in the next. I don't think you give it away before Joffrey dies - but after that it is on her mind and so they show it and it is then relevant to that season (they distanced it enough that casual viewers would not be expecting it in the finale.... but I was).

They could NOW show another quick flashback having established that the first was true - to show the valonqar part because it is about to be (possibly) relevant this season.

In other words I would not have shown that then if it was not going to be a factor for several seasons.

Same for NN and Lightbringer - yes AA or Prince that was promised are mentioned several times. But why mention those other parts in detail if not relevant THEN - they were talking about AA candidates so why mention the other parts. But if they want to include that now they still can. In fact using past conversations about AA to then bring up NN and LB would perhaps then make sense whereas if you mentioned it 4-5 seasons ago it would be forgotten.

The thing about the books is GRRM mentions these things - the myths and prophecies - all the time especially in people's thoughts or dreams and keeps refreshing the ideas. The show can't do that and so I would never mention any of it until just before I was about to use it in the show.

And although I have argued the prophecies can occur anyway without the show mentioning them specifically - they also have plenty of time (nearly 7 episodes in length actually) and we are talking maybe 5 minutes of time for establishing any of them vie flashback or exposition by Bran/Tyrion or whoever. It really doesn't need much time because the groundwork was laid with the earlier prophecy and talk of AA.

Could go either way.

---

That makes sense, and I agree. Might be easier to bring it up now. I personally just don't see them doing it.

I think your argument about just doing it in the show (fulfilling the prophecies) without mentioning it in the show is much more probable. And I think that it plays out that way actually, however they decide to fulfill them.

Remember the nod to the internet meme about Gendry? Davos line- "I thought you might still be rowing". I feel like they like to make nods to things that not necessarily all the viewers know about.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Even if Dany were to have another child, what about the seas going dry and mountains blowing in the wind? That seems like a tall order to make happen story-wise.

That could easily be flowery language for winter. Seas being dry = frozen; mountains blowing in the winds - snow coming off the mountains. So when Winter Comes.

Quote:

---

So even though the second part was never in the show...Dany at times has made reference to never being able to have children - which is a reference to the entire quote really. But her interpretation. It is sort of accepted that she can't have children in the show despite never hearing that part of the prophecy.

---

I did just think of something... perhaps the reason the Targaryans were incestuous is because they couldn't have kids with outsiders. And that Dany can get pregnant with Jon Snow's kid since they are related and he has "dragon blood" or whatever.


NOT AN ISSUE IN THE BOOK

---

---

mountains blowing in the wind - could also be the wall tumbling down when the ice dragon blew on it

seas being dry - very simple explanation is it could mean figuratively when the dothraki crossed the narrow sea - because it was said they never would. but they did at Dany's behest. Figuratively that would only happen if the seas were dry.


these things don't have to be shown explicitly to be true - or they may already have been shown as they are allegories to real world happenings (or nonsense). Does not have to be literal.


And.....Dany certainly can get pregnant by non Targs - she had Drogo's baby.

---

I didn't mean pregnant.. but successfully have a kid.

I do not think there is time for her to have a kid in 6 episodes, but perhaps she could have had one during the offseason? Or start episode 1 with the birth? Why do you think that she has to die in childbirth?

---

As for the time to have a kid - yeah that seems short - but we don't know what transpires after the battle of WF and the NK, etc. and then whatever happens in KL. An Epilogue in the final episode could jump months ahead. Why not.

I don't think she has to die. It just makes sense in context of the prophecies.

---

I realize that my idea of having a kid in the offseason is stupid. The NK's army is on the march south of the wall. It makes no sense for them to fast forward 9 months while not showing us all the important stuff that happens in those 9 months. Hell Winterfell will likely rise or fall within that time.

Personally, I don't think there is a way for the show to have her get pregnant. Perhaps that is why they left that part off the prophecy? So say your ideas on seas going dry and whatnot are correct. All that has to happen is for her to die. They could easily do that in a dramatic way within the time allotted.

Sine poena nulla lex.

I think the most likely way the prophecies stay relevant, if they are going that route, is the most obvious.

A brooding Cersei flashes back, again, to when the prophecy was told to her as a child. But this time maybe there is more dialogue. She think on her younger brothers. Even talks to Qyburn about it. Qyburn is in to all dark magic stuff, he could probably be a vehicle to helping Cersei understand it more. And that would be any easy to communicate it to the audience. She told you you'd live to see all of your children die before you and you will die at the hands of your younger brother. Which one? I have no way of knowing.

Sam searches day and night through the master archives of Winterfell to find anything he can on the Long Night. Stumbles across the prophecy of AA and Light Bringer. Talks to Bran about it. Bran does his Bran thing. All of this is verbalized and backed up with whatever visions Bran has.

I think Zombie Jon Snow is right. It's roughly the equivalent of seven episodes which offer plenty of time to have these scenes. Not to mention, before the opening credits they can go back and re-show key scenes from the past seasons that touch on the prophecies.

Sine poena nulla lex.

aTmAg said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

clinker03 said:

---

I agree. HBO spent an entire season opening scene on the Maggie the Frog prophecy for example, and HBO intentionally left out the Valonqar part of that scene. Which leads me to believe they have no intention of addressing it. The other part of that prophecy, that they did address - her three children dying - has already come true in the show.

Same for NN and LB - they have only talked about the AA part of all that, which leads me to believe that is the only part they will address on the show. And yes, the gender neutral part of the AA prophecy served just to open up a whole other pool of possibilities of who it could be, including Dany. It could also mean any other female that has a legitimate shot at saving everyone from the darkness. I think they just wanted to bring that possibility into the equation and those (somewhat cheesy) lines of dialogue in the show served that purpose.

Remember, we only have 6 episodes left. I think they are going to have some incredible battle scenes and work on tying up all the loose ends of what is already out there. Not much time to introduce one or more new prophecies into the universe at this point.

---

Well if you know TV watchers will not have that retention you would not show something 3-4 season before it is relevant.

Although I've said numerous times here they can be true without ever alluding to them specifically on the show - but also why would you show the other part of the Cersei prophecy THEN. It showed the part that pertained to the children because that was about to become relevant. Joffrey was already dead - but Myrcella was about to die in that season and Tommen in the next. I don't think you give it away before Joffrey dies - but after that it is on her mind and so they show it and it is then relevant to that season (they distanced it enough that casual viewers would not be expecting it in the finale.... but I was).

They could NOW show another quick flashback having established that the first was true - to show the valonqar part because it is about to be (possibly) relevant this season.

In other words I would not have shown that then if it was not going to be a factor for several seasons.

Same for NN and Lightbringer - yes AA or Prince that was promised are mentioned several times. But why mention those other parts in detail if not relevant THEN - they were talking about AA candidates so why mention the other parts. But if they want to include that now they still can. In fact using past conversations about AA to then bring up NN and LB would perhaps then make sense whereas if you mentioned it 4-5 seasons ago it would be forgotten.

The thing about the books is GRRM mentions these things - the myths and prophecies - all the time especially in people's thoughts or dreams and keeps refreshing the ideas. The show can't do that and so I would never mention any of it until just before I was about to use it in the show.

And although I have argued the prophecies can occur anyway without the show mentioning them specifically - they also have plenty of time (nearly 7 episodes in length actually) and we are talking maybe 5 minutes of time for establishing any of them vie flashback or exposition by Bran/Tyrion or whoever. It really doesn't need much time because the groundwork was laid with the earlier prophecy and talk of AA.

Could go either way.

---

Maybe it's just me, but it would come off as "cheating" if they describe a prophecy right before it happened. To me, prophecies in fiction are a sort of cat and mouse game between the writer and the audience. The audience is dared to guess how a prophecy will come to be and the author tries to surprise them in a cool and interesting way.

Also with today's DVR age, I think shows don't care so much about the time between first mention and relevance. In fact, if they can convince us to buy DVDs to watch it 20 times then that is ideal. For example, it's impossible to catch everything in the Wire on first viewing. You have to watch it several times to catch it all. I think that is part of what makes cable so much better than broadcast TV.

---

by "right before"... i mean during the season where it is relevant.

like they did with Cersei and the frog lady prophecy about the kids.
Joffrey died in S4
Cersei prophecy shown at start of S5
Myrcella died end of S5
Tommen died end of S6

I would not have shown the Valonqar part at the start of S5 and expect to be recalled by TV viewers only in S8.

And even though they showed it there in S5 Myrcella's death still surprised almost everyone as did Tommen's (me included).

The Wire did not have to deal with book readers. GOT has been trying to pacify 2 crowds here - book readers who know every detail and show watchers that are more casual. They have to straddle that line. I don't think they are designing it so it only makes sense on a second watch - at all. They are pretty methodical about when they bring stuff up. They often use the "previously on" to bring back scenes that are about to be relevant but have not been on people's minds for a long time. Same with prophecies - show them when they are about to be relevant. Not 3-4 seasons before.

For example:

The S7 opening "previously on" showed several things including:

a very young Arya and The Hound on the road from when they visited the farmhouse and he killed the occupants - because in that episode he would return there with Beric and Thoros.

some really old footage from S2 I think of Stannis and Davos at Dragonstone talking about Aegon and then Viserys talking to Daenerys from S1 talking about going back to their home - because it was about to be relevant.

a lot can be done in 2-3 minutes of "previously on" and 3-5 minute flashbacks or exposition that builds on what has been shown before.

Anyone that thinks we are going to get 6 ( really 7) episodes and 385 minutes of nothing but action hasn't been paying attention. Bran/ three eyed raven exists for a reason and he's still here. And the myths and prophecies that have been included were for a reason and are not yet concluded.

But it does not have to be much really. Or not at all but readers know how it ties in just based on the parts we have been shown.

Yeah, it's going to pick up right where S7 left off. WW's are south of the wall and marching on Winterfell. No time for "oh Jon, the baby is kicking" and Brienne hosting a baby shower with Sansa, Arya, Gilly, and Missandie. Plus Arya wouldn't go anyway.

It' go time people.

I do think it would be cool if refugees from other northern towns plus what's left of the Night's Watch started flooding in to Winterfell, just to build up the impending doom.

I'd like to see a really wild eyed, haggard looking, Tormund come riding through Winterfell:

Jon: Tormund! You made it. Wait, why aren't you stopping....where are you going?
Tormund: Dorne! Then a ship to Essos. And if you'd seen what me eyes have seen boy, you'd be coming too. Harrrr!!
Jon: **** he's really not stopping.

Sine poena nulla lex.

C@LAg said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Personally, I don't think there is a way for the show to have her get pregnant.

---

---

ummm boat sex?

---

I meant timing wise. They would basically have to have a Battlestar Galactica-esq forward jump in time. And you can't do that right in the middle of the fighting. That's what people have been waiting 7 seasons to see. So since the NK is on the march now, they would have to win that war, THEN jump in time, and then fight Cersie (assuming she would wait for 9 months).