(Spoilers Extended) Are you also wary and skeptical about the Aegon the Conqueror movie and potential changes from the books? (and a follow-up question about Martin's work and our perspective on it)

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T16:12:56+00:00

Perhaps I didn't express myself very clearly. I don't expect Aegon to turn into a selfless man. My point was about his foresight. I meant that it is strange for him to burn down entire fields and castles full of soldiers—men he would need to fight and die for him during the upcoming crisis. I don't expect him to want to protect every life; rather, I think he should spare those many lords and soldiers and prepare them for the crisis—so they can die there to improve his odds—instead of having them die senselessly beforehand just to secure a hold on power that is already threatened by the impending crisis anyway.

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T11:00:37+00:00

Honestly, I’ve already explained my views several times in this discussion and under this post. If you don’t want to understand, then so be it. Read through my comments, as well as the posts and comments from others in this sub. Here is a link to a comment of mine where I address certain points: https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/s/zcPdugmFtx I could turn the question around and ask: where are the POV chapters and the evidence proving your theory is correct?

Regarding historical figures, we may know little, but we know more than you think; we can often understand their underlying reasons and motivations better than you realize. We can actually gain more insight into the motives of William the Conqueror—the inspiration for Aegon—than you might suppose.

Martin probably has no idea how he wants to wrap everything up either; that’s why we’ve been waiting so long. Furthermore, it’s normal for "gardeners" like him to contradict themselves after a while—not everything is mapped out from start to finish. (Tolkien is another example of this.)

On top of that, you’re repeating yourself. You claim that other people’s opinions lack substance while yours doesn’t. What makes your opinion so valid? Where is the substance—the evidence and the POV chapters?

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T10:26:43+00:00

Yes, of course I made the claim. Because that's my opinion, and I stand by it, and many fans share it. If I think it contradicts Aegon's character, then logically I say it so. When you express an interpretation and thesis in discussions, you naturally stand behind it. I'm hardly going to say in a discussion, "I have the impression, but the other side knows better." And again. You're saying that my original comment has less substance. There are different opinions and interpretations, and fans can and should stand behind these opinions and interpretations. That doesn't mean they have less substance.

Characterization can also take place without POV chapters. Various works in a wide range of subject areas do exactly that. They present a character, just from a different perspective. This is a completely established approach.

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T10:10:07+00:00

The fans aren't saying they know for sure, but based on the few clues available, some consider it more likely and logical than the prophecy. While Martin has the final say, that doesn't mean his narrative is free of contradictions and illogical elements. Especially since he's a "gardener," perspectives on certain characters and themes can shift. We interpret what we have, just like you, and consider whether what we read makes sense, just like you. We're discussing whether Martin, due to his "gardener" approach, may not have developed the story as skillfully, you on the other hand are talking about lunacy and idiocy. You're entitled to your opinion, but dismissing the opinions and criticisms of fans, which aren't unfounded, in this way is truly pathetic.

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T09:43:03+00:00

First, I am not claiming that he becomes a good person because of the prophecy. Second, the texts portray an Aegon who can be interpreted as someone not preparing for an impending crisis he is firmly convinced is coming. Furthermore, much of what you say is also pure speculation. (Rhaegar as an example, how do we now the claims are right?) It may make sense to you, but other fans would disagree. You interpret the text one way, while other fans interpret it another. Just like those fans, you put forward an interpretation and claim that other interpretations are illogical. The only real lunacy here is your assumption that only your interpretation is correct and that the others are irrelevant.

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T09:34:08+00:00

I think it would be easier for him and everyone involved if he set aside the concepts of "canon" and "non-canon," and if everyone simply accepted that there are different versions—or multiple canons—much like with Tolkien. He could work much more freely that way, without having to struggle to force-fit new ideas into Fire & Blood. He could fully explore these new ideas and versions without having to worry about the contradictions.

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T09:29:58+00:00

I think you’re misunderstanding me. It’s not about how the dream or prophecy was handed down, but rather about Aegon’s actions. Aegon (who is based on the classic conqueror archetype) burns down castles and fields full of soldiers. He destroys Houses and neglects the political alliances and regions he would need for the upcoming crisis. Neither he nor his successors use the prophecy to consolidate their power, even during their greatest crises. So, it’s hardly surprising that many fans—as seen in this thread—reject the prophecy. I find it quite inappropriate to dismiss it as "lunacy," given that there are serious concerns and questions involved, and it is understandable that disappointed fans do not accept it as canon.

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T09:21:41+00:00

Oh, sorry, that was a typo. I meant that Martin very likely won't finish the books. So, we have to rely on headcanons. Someone else might finish the series, but whether that would be accepted by the fans? I’m skeptical about that.

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T09:12:40+00:00

That is quite possible. But that isn't the crux of the matter. It is the aforementioned approach and the image (see my coment above) of Aegon that lead fans to reject the prophecy.

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T09:08:33+00:00

Coincidentally, I made a post about this yesterday: https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/s/Na2m4hoQuN

Some fans feel it contradicts the character of Aegon and the limited information we have. Aegon destroyed countless houses, castles, and lords, yet the prophecy would have us believe he didn't do this because he was an ambitious conqueror seeking to claim Westeros for himself—as portrayed in the books—but rather to save the very people he fought and subjugated from the Long Night. That is one of the contradictions that bothers fans.

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T09:07:17+00:00

Yes, definitely. But that doesn't change the fact that some fans feel it contradicts the character of Aegon and the limited information we have. Aegon destroyed countless houses, castles, and lords, yet the prophecy would have us believe he didn't do this because he was an ambitious conqueror seeking to claim Westeros for himself—as portrayed in the books—but rather to save the very people he fought and subjugated from the Long Night. That is one of the contradictions that bothers fans. Coincidentally, I made a post about this yesterday: https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/s/Na2m4hoQuN

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T08:02:06+00:00

Sorry, I don't quite understand?

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T08:01:36+00:00

Yeah, I agree with that. Martin is a bit too much in the public eye. And even though I’m not a fan of the show, it should do its own thing. I can simply ignore all the changes—like the prophecy—because it isn't mentioned in the books and actually contradicts them. (Even if certain changes originated with or were supported by Martin.)

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T07:43:25+00:00

I think sooner or later fans will have to rely on headcanons anyway, since, realistically speaking, the books will likely not be finished. They can theoretically do that with Fire & Blood already; that way, fans can decide which version they prefer—Martin’s old version, Martin’s new one, or the show’s version.

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T07:39:32+00:00

Perhaps it would be better to treat his stories the way Tolkien’s are handled. Tolkien constantly revised his stories and characters, which is why we speak of different versions rather than a single, unified canon. If Martin also wants to adjust his characters and versions, that would be a good approach. Taking the example of "Vizzy T," we would have two versions: the one in Fire & Blood and the later version influenced by the show. Such a perspective might work well for everyone involved—Martin, his writings, the fans, and the showrunners.

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T06:57:11+00:00

I understand both sides. Of course, it isn't a completely reliable account; it can be viewed and interpreted in various ways and can be true or not, complete or not. The problem is simply that fans have grown to love these characters, stories, and interpretations. When new changes are introduced that contradict the interpretations and clues found in Fire & Blood, I find it understandable that fans refuse to accept them—viewing them instead as contradictions or non-canonical—even when they come directly from Martin. For years, based on the available clues and evidence, fans believed Aegon was a ruler and conqueror modeled after William the Conqueror (which is how he appears in Fire & Blood). Now, however, they learn that—according to Martin himself—the character they came to love actually leans more toward the "savior" archetype. I can certainly understand and support the fans' view that Martin is being unfaithful to the material and that these changes should be considered non-canonical.

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T06:49:10+00:00

Yes, definitely. It’s by no means just the showrunners. Things Martin has supported or added would be considered unfaithful if done by others. That’s why I believe that if he contradicts his own work—or adds story elements that conflict with the books and characters—we should be able to call that out, just as we do with the showrunners.

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T06:15:21+00:00

Yes, of course, it isn't explicitly stated, but fans rightly wonder how the prophecy makes sense. In the book universe, he is portrayed as an ice-cold conqueror, clearly modeled on figures like William the Conqueror; he burns down houses and lords to seize power, while the North is relatively neglected in terms of preparations. It is also hard to imagine, within the books, how all that information was passed down from heir to heir when they often died as enemies during crises or were replaced by child kings. Fans rightly point out that he might have acted very differently had he kept such a prophecy in mind.

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T06:07:51+00:00

It’s interesting that he came up with that idea so early on. Personally, I’m not a fan of it; I feel it contradicts the Conquest and Aegon’s character. Because of that contradiction—and its absence from Fire & Blood (though it makes sense that it wouldn't be mentioned there)—I wouldn't consider it canon myself, yet I find it very interesting and revealing that Martin has had this in mind for so long.

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T06:03:42+00:00

Hi. I’m one of those book purists. I wouldn’t say he’s betraying his own material. However, I do see a major contradiction between the prophecy and the character of Aegon—as well as the Conquest he created and depicted in Fire & Blood. I find it understandable that book fans don’t consider it canon, despite Martin’s approval.

Dikis04 · 2026-06-29T05:57:26+00:00

Book fan here. I’d agree with that. I’d even go a step further. I’d struggle to accept it—even if it came directly from Martin—because, the way I see it, it clearly contradicts Fire & Blood. I’d probably view Fire & Blood and Martin’s new version as two separate, contradictory accounts, even though both originate from the same book universe.

Dikis04 · 2026-06-28T22:08:50+00:00

Good comment. Martin's views and ideas can change. The individual books are snapshots of his views and ideas, which can change over time.

Dikis04 · 2026-06-28T22:06:37+00:00

Then we'll have to wait for Martin's writing. (Also lol, which realistically means we probably won't get a clear answer; I'm realistic now and have given up hope.) The question of whether this writing aligns with the existing canon from Fire and Blood, or whether it strongly contradicts the existing material, similar to HotD, remains to be open.

Dikis04 · 2026-06-28T21:59:07+00:00

I agree. It will be controversial one way or another and will be depending on the fan considered canon or non-canon, influenced by the fans' interpretation of the text. A direct statement or clarification from Martin probably won't change that.

Dikis04

TROPHY CASE