[SPOILER] Game of Thrones Discussion

[NYRangers92]

An argument can be made that he can have an influence on the past using the part of ADWD where Reek goes into the Godswood and Bran is in the tree and yells "Theon!". The next Reek chapter after that is called "Theon" and it's where he seems to have gained back a bit of his humanity and eventually escapes with Jeyne.

 

We'll see what happens if he meets Coldhands next week

[Drew a Penalty]

So he just sees events that would have occurred regardless? How is that "influencing"?

 

For example, the Tower of Joy scene -- him shouting to his father happened irrespective of whether he goes back to see himself or experience himself doing so? If yes, he's not actually altering anything.

 

So does he influence the past, and change it by definition, albeit briefly, or does he simply witness events that already occurred that he cannot change?

 

It hard to wrap my brain around, but at least in the case of Hodor, it's an event that occurred because Bran went back in time but the situation was to happen because it was destined to happen. Hodor had the seizure that rendered him the way he was before Bran even messed with time because it was supposed to happen.

 

I don't get how it makes sense, but Bran is influencing the past, or at least we think he is, however what's going on is supposed to happen. So if Bran for instance influences the Mad King to kill Rickard and Brandon Stark, there was no stopping it because Bran was always meant to be the Mad King's thought (Provided that Bran is supposed to be that kind of influence, I'm using it merely as an example).

 

He can't change anything because he doesn't really have any control. We would think that he does, but whatever move he makes is just supposed to happen. Assumedly him calling out to Ned in the Tower of Joy scene happened in the past too.

[Phil]

But again, is that actually influencing? The term, by definition, would imply changing the past.

 

For example:

 

Scenario A: Ned is going to turn left. He turns left.

Scenario B: Ned is going to turn left. Bran "influences" him to go right. He goes right instead.

 

Scenario B changes the timeline. What if going left was Ned walking into his bedroom where he was about to make love to Cat that would eventually lead to Bran's birth? Now Bran isn't born. He just erased his own existence.

 

See what I'm saying? This is why I hate time-changing stories.

[Phil]

It hard to wrap my brain around, but at least in the case of Hodor, it's an event that occurred because Bran went back in time but the situation was to happen because it was destined to happen. Hodor had the seizure that rendered him the way he was before Bran even messed with time because it was supposed to happen.

 

I don't get how it makes sense, but Bran is influencing the past, or at least we think he is, however what's going on is supposed to happen. So if Bran for instance influences the Mad King to kill Rickard and Brandon Stark, there was no stopping it because Bran was always meant to be the Mad King's thought (Provided that Bran is supposed to be that kind of influence, I'm using it merely as an example).

 

He can't change anything because he doesn't really have any control. We would think that he does, but whatever move he makes is just supposed to happen. Assumedly him calling out to Ned in the Tower of Joy scene happened in the past too.

 

Then this is all a giant exercise in futility for him. Him learning his "power" is not actually power. It's the ability to basically experience the past through the eyes of "others" (in this case a tree).

 

Like you having the ability to witness your neighbor meet his wife. You're just a witness, though. You're there, but not there. You are "experiencing" what already happened. You aren't actaully changing what happened.

[Drew a Penalty]

Then this is all a giant exercise in futility for him. Him learning his "power" is not actually power. It's the ability to basically experience the past through the eyes of "others" (in this case a tree).

 

Like you having the ability to witness your neighbor meet his wife. You're just a witness, though. You're there, but not there. You are "experiencing" what already happened. You aren't actaully changing what happened.

 

Basically. I have no idea what he's supposed to learn from it besides the absolute knowledge of everything that has happened.

[NYRangers92]

but in ADWD he did it in the present

[Drew a Penalty]

but in ADWD he did it in the present

 

I think when it happens doesn't really matter.

 

Bran's encounter with the Night King, based on the amount of wights and the location was also likely in the present. Whatever he does, past or present, was meant to happen.

[Phil]

I'd rather it be that than what we're being lead to believe, which is that he can actually change the past.

 

I'd rather he stubbornly try and fail, only to realize the true power of his power is the ability to "re-live" the past as a means to shape a different future. To use his power to influence those in the present.

[Dave]

But again, is that actually influencing? The term, by definition, would imply changing the past.

 

For example:

 

Scenario A: Ned is going to turn left. He turns left.

Scenario B: Ned is going to turn left. Bran "influences" him to go right. He goes right instead.

 

Scenario B changes the timeline. What if going left was Ned walking into his bedroom where he was about to make love to Cat that would eventually lead to Bran's birth? Now Bran isn't born. He just erased his own existence.

 

See what I'm saying? This is why I hate time-changing stories.

 

Bran can still time travel and change the past as long as it does not create a time travel paradox that prevents him from going back in time.

 

Time is going along differently than we experience through the books/show and events unfold a certain way up until Bran ends up with the Children of Forrest/3 Eyed Raven.

 

I'm just going to use this one example, but it would be that billions of things were different:

 

Up until this time, Bran was still born, still makes it North of the wall, but Hodor never had a seizure. Perhaps in this timeline, Bran can still walk, whatever. Bran goes back in time, changes what he changes, and now there is a new reality/timeline. It's this new reality/timeline we're all experiencing in the books/show. He has influenced the past in countless ways now. The only thing he didn't do was to create a time paradox where he was never able to get to go back in time (not born, killed before he makes his trek, no reason to make the trek, etc). All he did for his own timeline was change how and why he got there.

 

In this way, Bran still has a purpose and still influences the past. Perhaps in the prior timeline, the entire world is almost lost to the White Walkers. Bran becomes man's last hope for survival. He makes his trek and changes enough to give mankind a new/different chance.

[Dave]

Not sure where to put this because it's a theory so not a spoiler for the show, but anyway, I figured in here was safer.

 

The Arya is the Waif theory is garbage to me. There is so much wasted interaction between them and also Jaqen and the Waif if it's true. The "Game of Faces" scene, the unclothing and washing the dead bodies scene, all the fight scenes. That's training to be a Faceless man, not symbolic of any split. It also occurs very early in her training, before she'd be at the point where a split would make sense. If anything, the scenes we'd see a split fighting with themselves would be when Arya kills Meryn Trant or is watching the plays. Also, it makes no sense what so ever that Jaqen would tell Arya to kill herself but to not let her suffer after it's pretty clear that Arya has chosen her path. That decision would remove the necessity for the Waif altogether. So if Arya has made her choice to be Arya Stark and not "No One" then there's no reason for the "No One" half to try to kill Arya Stark. If anything, the symbolism would be the other way around, with Arya killing off the "No One" portion of herself.

 

That the Waif seems to enjoy hurting Arya and happy that she gets to kill Arya is pointed to as "not Faceless man behavior". Then how would that be the split version anyway? The "No One" half should be like Jaqen then, dispassionate and business like. More likely, the Waif is still in her own training. Why else would she be told to train Arya? There doesn't seem to be much of a hierarchy among the Faceless Men, so Jaqen shouldn't be telling the Waif what to do if she, too, is a Faceless Man. The Waif is clearly beneath Jaqen, the way Arya is.

[Future]

Not sure where to put this because it's a theory so not a spoiler for the show, but anyway, I figured in here was safer.

 

The Arya is the Waif theory is garbage to me. There is so much wasted interaction between them and also Jaqen and the Waif if it's true. The "Game of Faces" scene, the unclothing and washing the dead bodies scene, all the fight scenes. That's training to be a Faceless man, not symbolic of any split. It also occurs very early in her training, before she'd be at the point where a split would make sense. If anything, the scenes we'd see a split fighting with themselves would be when Arya kills Meryn Trant or is watching the plays. Also, it makes no sense what so ever that Jaqen would tell Arya to kill herself but to not let her suffer after it's pretty clear that Arya has chosen her path. That decision would remove the necessity for the Waif altogether. So if Arya has made her choice to be Arya Stark and not "No One" then there's no reason for the "No One" half to try to kill Arya Stark. If anything, the symbolism would be the other way around, with Arya killing off the "No One" portion of herself.

 

That the Waif seems to enjoy hurting Arya and happy that she gets to kill Arya is pointed to as "not Faceless man behavior". Then how would that be the split version anyway? The "No One" half should be like Jaqen then, dispassionate and business like. More likely, the Waif is still in her own training. Why else would she be told to train Arya? There doesn't seem to be much of a hierarchy among the Faceless Men, so Jaqen shouldn't be telling the Waif what to do if she, too, is a Faceless Man. The Waif is clearly beneath Jaqen, the way Arya is.

Responding to this 10 months later because I just went and re-watched Season 6.

 

Completely agree that Arya isn't the Waif, but for much simpler reasons. That fruit Arya fell on was red and they filmed the scene to make that VERY obvious. Arya wasn't hurt and bleeding when the Waif arrived, she was springing a trap. I don't know why they'd go through all of that just to reveal that Arya died.

[Future]

Also, the season 6 finale is brilliant.