Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

FAN: Discuss various fictional worlds that don't qualify for SF.

Moderator: Steve

Post Reply
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18888
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-05-18 03:31am

Another thing: This ending is going to produce a lot of shitty fanfic, as everyone scrambles to write their own ending. Hopefully a few gems will turn up amid the muck. Hell, I've got a whole bunch of ideas for GoT fics, though I won't flatter myself with the assumption that any of them will turn out to be gems.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18888
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-05-18 04:13am

Some of the cast have now spoken out against the petition. Its hard to fault them, really. They obviously have dedicated much of their life to this show, and no doubt the petition could also be seen as a personal attack/rebuke on their work.

I will note though that I am pleasantly surprised to see that this time around, fan rage seems to have mostly not turned on the attackers. There's a very ugly tendency in fandom often to trash actors for their characters' actions, or for writing and directing decisions. But in this case, the anger seems to be for the most part laser-focused on the head writers, where it belongs. I'll probably be disappointed eventually, but so far I'm seeing no mass hate campaigns on social media against Emelia Clarke or Nathalie Emmanuel or Maise Williams or Kit Harrington or anyone.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
FaxModem1
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7408
Joined: 2002-10-30 06:40pm
Location: In a dark reflection of a better world

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by FaxModem1 » 2019-05-18 04:19am

Justifications for why Dany did what she did:



To sum up:
1. Dany is a Targarayen, and that carries a few things, such as entitlement, and a belief that she deserves things. This has been instilled into her since birth.
2. Adding to that, she's views Westeros as what 'has been taken from her'.
3. She is okay with burning others, 'Fire and Blood', as her family says.
4. Olenna, and others, have told her to trust her instincts, while Tyrion and Varys have told her not to, and each time she's listened to them, she's lost because of it. Whereas when she has followed her instincts, she's won.
5. Jon and Tyrion 'betrayed' her, she just lost her best friend, and Varys really did betray her.

All that, and she snapped. Most people snap after a certain point. It's just that most people don't have an army and dragons.
Image

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18888
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-05-18 04:31am

FaxModem1 wrote:
2019-05-18 04:19am
Justifications for why Dany did what she did:



To sum up:
1. Dany is a Targarayen, and that carries a few things, such as entitlement, and a belief that she deserves things. This has been instilled into her since birth.
Being Targaryen as a genetic predestination towards evil/insanity, no, obviously not. But if its just a question of upbringing... well, that might have had an effect. But its worth emphasizing, again (because its so often ignored) that Danny at the start of the series didn't particularly care for or aspire to the throne, or even think it was something that she could have. That came later, after her time with Khal Drogo, and his subsequent death.
2. Adding to that, she's views Westeros as what 'has been taken from her'.
Seems like a more succinct restatement of point one, but okay.
3. She is okay with burning others, 'Fire and Blood', as her family says.
Again, the insistence on justifying Mad Queen Danny by treating all Targaryens as carbon copies of each other. Doesn't that mean Jon should be a mass murderer too?

Yes, she uses fire with a weapon, although its debatable how much of that is pyromania, and how much is it simply being her most powerful available weapon (both in destructive terms and in propaganda terms, as it is a symbol of her Targaryen heritage and hence proof of her claim).
4. Olenna, and others, have told her to trust her instincts, while Tyrion and Varys have told her not to, and each time she's listened to them, she's lost because of it. Whereas when she has followed her instincts, she's won.
Well, yeah. And if she had simply unleashed dragon fire on Cersei's troops, I wouldn't call that a character-derail, I'd call it a sensible tactic that was long-overdue. I'd still complain if the show judged her for it more than male characters were judged for trying to storm cities to take the throne, but it wouldn't have been a character derail of Danny.

The problem is that they suddenly decided that her instincts lead her to "massacre innocents by the thousand after the city surrendered", which is a big step past anything she's done before. Most of the people she killed before were murderers, traitors, or enemy soldiers in open defiance of her, and I'm not sure how her killing them is all that worse than Ned chopping off a deserter's head or Jon killing Bolton troops in the Battle of the Bastards.
5. Jon and Tyrion 'betrayed' her, she just lost her best friend, and Varys really did betray her.

All that, and she snapped. Most people snap after a certain point. It's just that most people don't have an army and dragons.
True. And if it hadn't been placed and timed in such a way that it felt like a last-minute reversal, and if it didn't essentially canonize and odious, oversimplified, sexist bit of fan theory, I probably wouldn't mind so much.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18888
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-05-18 04:43am

Mind you, it still would have been disappointing, to say the least, to see their biggest female character reduced to a one-note villain. But there are definitely ways it could have been handled better.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
FaxModem1
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7408
Joined: 2002-10-30 06:40pm
Location: In a dark reflection of a better world

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by FaxModem1 » 2019-05-18 04:52am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-05-18 04:31am
FaxModem1 wrote:
2019-05-18 04:19am
Justifications for why Dany did what she did:



To sum up:
1. Dany is a Targarayen, and that carries a few things, such as entitlement, and a belief that she deserves things. This has been instilled into her since birth.
Being Targaryen as a genetic predestination towards evil/insanity, no, obviously not. But if its just a question of upbringing... well, that might have had an effect. But its worth emphasizing, again (because its so often ignored) that Danny at the start of the series didn't particularly care for or aspire to the throne, or even think it was something that she could have. That came later, after her time with Khal Drogo, and his subsequent death.
Note, she made a big deal about how a true Targaryen does not mind fire, heat, burning, etc. She does this even when walking into a bath after Viserys was his usual abusive self.
3. She is okay with burning others, 'Fire and Blood', as her family says.
Again, the insistence on justifying Mad Queen Danny by treating all Targaryens as carbon copies of each other. Doesn't that mean Jon should be a mass murderer too?

Yes, she uses fire with a weapon, although its debatable how much of that is pyromania, and how much is it simply being her most powerful available weapon (both in destructive terms and in propaganda terms, as it is a symbol of her Targaryen heritage and hence proof of her claim).
Not saying 'Mad Queen', as shown in the video, Dany is a three dimensional character. But it is a adapting to a tactic, even when it's not warranted. To use her as a Bush analogue again, torture became 'acceptable' when dealing with terrorists. Now, in American society, people are getting more and more okay with it, showing a cultural shift.

This is why, in comics, Batman doesn't use guns.
4. Olenna, and others, have told her to trust her instincts, while Tyrion and Varys have told her not to, and each time she's listened to them, she's lost because of it. Whereas when she has followed her instincts, she's won.
Well, yeah. And if she had simply unleashed dragon fire on Cersei's troops, I wouldn't call that a character-derail, I'd call it a sensible tactic that was long-overdue. I'd still complain if the show judged her for it more than male characters were judged for trying to storm cities to take the throne, but it wouldn't have been a character derail of Danny.

The problem is that they suddenly decided that her instincts lead her to "massacre innocents by the thousand after the city surrendered", which is a big step past anything she's done before. Most of the people she killed before were murderers, traitors, or enemy soldiers in open defiance of her, and I'm not sure how her killing them is all that worse than Ned chopping off a deserter's head or Jon killing Bolton troops in the Battle of the Bastards.
This will depend on GoT's execution, but again, Dany is getting used to burning people who oppose her, that it might be becoming almost muscle memory. And this is portrayed as a bad thing. Remember how Stannis was viewed as worsening because of his burning of people, or how Robert was all for the killing of the Targaryens. Like I said earlier in this thread, she is like Robert, in that she is apathetic about ruling, but fiercely aggressive about dealing with enemies. That's okay, on principle, if you have people to help you rule, but what happens when you think more and more people ARE your enemies? Where do you draw the line?
5. Jon and Tyrion 'betrayed' her, she just lost her best friend, and Varys really did betray her.

All that, and she snapped. Most people snap after a certain point. It's just that most people don't have an army and dragons.
True. And if it hadn't been placed and timed in such a way that it felt like a last-minute reversal, and if it didn't essentially canonize and odious, oversimplified, sexist bit of fan theory, I probably wouldn't mind so much.
Well, again, I don't think it's because she's a woman, or even because it's because she has evil blood, which she doesn't, I think it's because while she is well meaning, and would probably be a great queen if she had people to temper her more bloodlust tendencies(which she has had to rein in over the years), which are part of her as a Targaryen, because they do have that as part of them, for good or ill.
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-05-18 04:43am
Mind you, it still would have been disappointing, to say the least, to see their biggest female character reduced to a one-note villain. But there are definitely ways it could have been handled better.
I think Arya, Brienne, and Sansa will want to have words with you. And I still don't think she's a 'one-note villain'.
Image

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18888
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-05-18 05:19am

FaxModem1 wrote:
2019-05-18 04:52am
Note, she made a big deal about how a true Targaryen does not mind fire, heat, burning, etc. She does this even when walking into a bath after Viserys was his usual abusive self.
Not disagreeing. She just didn't seem that interested in the throne at that point.
Not saying 'Mad Queen', as shown in the video, Dany is a three dimensional character. But it is a adapting to a tactic, even when it's not warranted. To use her as a Bush analogue again, torture became 'acceptable' when dealing with terrorists. Now, in American society, people are getting more and more okay with it, showing a cultural shift.

This is why, in comics, Batman doesn't use guns.
True, although I think your interpretation here is perhaps more nuanced than the direction they seem to be taking Danny, or the fans I fear they are pandering to.

But... when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. For a long time, Danny's main, if not only, source of real power was her Targaryen heritage and her dragons. Batman has the luxury of not using guns because he has resources both in absolute terms and relative to his setting that Danny (at least early series Danny, meaning the first few books season) could never dream of.
This will depend on GoT's execution, but again, Dany is getting used to burning people who oppose her, that it might be becoming almost muscle memory. And this is portrayed as a bad thing. Remember how Stannis was viewed as worsening because of his burning of people, or how Robert was all for the killing of the Targaryens.
Yes, but nobody called them mad. Assholes, maybe, but not mad. Then again, neither of them went as far as murdering a city that had just surrendered.
Like I said earlier in this thread, she is like Robert, in that she is apathetic about ruling, but fiercely aggressive about dealing with enemies. That's okay, on principle, if you have people to help you rule, but what happens when you think more and more people ARE your enemies? Where do you draw the line?
The sad thing is, she's not wrong about having more and more enemies. She's too harsh on Jon, but its understandable from her perspective. Tyrion is increasingly distrustful of her, it seems, and Varys betrayed her. Sansa is betraying her. Missandei and Jorah are gone, as is Barristan. The show has been stacking the odds against. Her allies judge her as untrustworthy with little cause, and begin to turn on her. She then concludes that she can't trust them, and must rely on fear. And then this is used to validate the previous judgement of her that lead her to this point.
Well, again, I don't think it's because she's a woman, or even because it's because she has evil blood, which she doesn't, I think it's because while she is well meaning, and would probably be a great queen if she had people to temper her more bloodlust tendencies(which she has had to rein in over the years), which are part of her as a Targaryen, because they do have that as part of them, for good or ill.
See above.
I think Arya, Brienne, and Sansa will want to have words with you. And I still don't think she's a 'one-note villain'.
I don't really see any of these as main protagonists the way Danny is/was. Maybe Arya, especially now, but certainly not Brienne. Much as I love her, Badass of Tarth is most definitely a secondary character.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27188
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by NecronLord » 2019-05-18 06:13am

I have found it hard to process the depth of my disappointment with this episode. And this is as a recent defector to Team Cersei from Team Dany, not for any particular reason other than quite liking Qyburn and wanting to see the ruthless march of progress win.

But the thing that got me about this episode is I kept on expecting, from the start of the Episode, where Dany says "you have all betrayed me" some sort of cleansing of house montage, for those who don't get the reference, it's from the miniseries adaptation of Dune Messiah/Children of Dune and can be seen here. For context of the clip, the various people being executed are conspirators in the death of Chani (the woman giving birth) and are being executed on the orders of the Imperial Regent Alia Atreidies (not seen) in the Purge of the Houses, Alia is of course, Chani's sister-in-law.

I was expecting a burst of directed violence from Dany, what we got was an overly grandiose execution of Varys.

But then Dany lets Tyrion live.

And Jon.

For a while I thought she was going to do the smart thing, and that her insistance on attacking Kings Landing would be to have a battle in order that Grey Worm (I do like the H. Valyrian "Torgo Nudho" by the way but it's far too late to start using that now!) could get him alone to remove the problem (and by which we mean his head) and blame it on the Lannisters.

Jon's shown he can't be trusted not to depose Dany, and it's unlikely that she wants to marry him either now that he's shown he's willing to run his mouth.

I'd much prefer Dany and Grey Worm to have killed Jon, and the entire battle prove to have been a pretext to do this.
______

Dany turning on the population of Kings Landing is a weird character turn for her, as most of her character development has been concerned with the 'smallfolk' and people who say that she solves all her problems with violence are ignoring this side of her character. It's of course not entirely impossible she would disregard the people of Kings Landing out of sheer rage; they do look very small down there from Drogon's back, but it's still a turn.

When she turns to Unsullied on the Good Masters of Astapor, she does so in no small part after looking into the eyes of the enslaved. When she crucifies the Wise Masters of Mereen it is in rage at the crucifixion of children. A large part of her ef

It would feel much more likely if Dany were to say, burn the Red Keep with the dignitaries of the noble houses of Westeros inside.

As The Verge has said.
Daenerys has made aggressive, murderous decisions, but they’ve consistently been aimed at people designated as evil and / or a direct threat to her.
This could certainly have been done better (have Missandei horribly executed - hanging drawing and quartering perhaps, we don't need to see this - in front of a cheering Kings Landing crowd and I can see Dany turning on the population directly) but to be honest, violence against the smallfolk doens't really make sense.

Violence against Jon, makes lethal sense.

But they want to hand Jon, a leader so ineffectual he got his ass stabbed by his own supporters and needed Divine Intervention to bring him back. More than anything that's what aggravates me. I can certainly handle Dany failing, but I don't really understand the love of Jon. Perhaps it's because last I read of him in the books he was busy bleeding out into the snow on the Wall, and that his decisions in the show have not inspired me, but I don't get why "people are naturally drawn to him" is so important? His administative skills are minimal and while he certainly sees the larger outside problem of the Others, he is basically Ned Stark 2, and likely to be about as effective in rulership as Ned was.
______

If Dany is to be the 'bad guy' inasmuch as that actually is a thing, then can she at least be at this point a competent bad guy?

The obvious play is to get rid of Jon and Tyrion. Perhaps even burn Winterfell to ensure that no other tales are told. It's obviously too late to intercept Varys' message, but certainly no man, no problem.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18888
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-05-18 06:50am

NecronLord wrote:
2019-05-18 06:13am
I have found it hard to process the depth of my disappointment with this episode. And this is as a recent defector to Team Cersei from Team Dany, not for any particular reason other than quite liking Qyburn and wanting to see the ruthless march of progress win.

But the thing that got me about this episode is I kept on expecting, from the start of the Episode, where Dany says "you have all betrayed me" some sort of cleansing of house montage, for those who don't get the reference, it's from the miniseries adaptation of Dune Messiah/Children of Dune and can be seen here. For context of the clip, the various people being executed are conspirators in the death of Chani (the woman giving birth) and are being executed on the orders of the Imperial Regent Alia Atreidies (not seen) in the Purge of the Houses, Alia is of course, Chani's sister-in-law.

I was expecting a burst of directed violence from Dany, what we got was an overly grandiose execution of Varys.

But then Dany lets Tyrion live.

And Jon.

For a while I thought she was going to do the smart thing, and that her insistance on attacking Kings Landing would be to have a battle in order that Grey Worm (I do like the H. Valyrian "Torgo Nudho" by the way but it's far too late to start using that now!) could get him alone to remove the problem (and by which we mean his head) and blame it on the Lannisters.

Jon's shown he can't be trusted not to depose Dany, and it's unlikely that she wants to marry him either now that he's shown he's willing to run his mouth.

I'd much prefer Dany and Grey Worm to have killed Jon, and the entire battle prove to have been a pretext to do this.
______

Dany turning on the population of Kings Landing is a weird character turn for her, as most of her character development has been concerned with the 'smallfolk' and people who say that she solves all her problems with violence are ignoring this side of her character. It's of course not entirely impossible she would disregard the people of Kings Landing out of sheer rage; they do look very small down there from Drogon's back, but it's still a turn.

When she turns to Unsullied on the Good Masters of Astapor, she does so in no small part after looking into the eyes of the enslaved. When she crucifies the Wise Masters of Mereen it is in rage at the crucifixion of children. A large part of her ef

It would feel much more likely if Dany were to say, burn the Red Keep with the dignitaries of the noble houses of Westeros inside.

As The Verge has said.
Daenerys has made aggressive, murderous decisions, but they’ve consistently been aimed at people designated as evil and / or a direct threat to her.
This could certainly have been done better (have Missandei horribly executed - hanging drawing and quartering perhaps, we don't need to see this - in front of a cheering Kings Landing crowd and I can see Dany turning on the population directly) but to be honest, violence against the smallfolk doens't really make sense.

Violence against Jon, makes lethal sense.

But they want to hand Jon, a leader so ineffectual he got his ass stabbed by his own supporters and needed Divine Intervention to bring him back. More than anything that's what aggravates me. I can certainly handle Dany failing, but I don't really understand the love of Jon. Perhaps it's because last I read of him in the books he was busy bleeding out into the snow on the Wall, and that his decisions in the show have not inspired me, but I don't get why "people are naturally drawn to him" is so important? His administative skills are minimal and while he certainly sees the larger outside problem of the Others, he is basically Ned Stark 2, and likely to be about as effective in rulership as Ned was.
______

If Dany is to be the 'bad guy' inasmuch as that actually is a thing, then can she at least be at this point a competent bad guy?

The obvious play is to get rid of Jon and Tyrion. Perhaps even burn Winterfell to ensure that no other tales are told. It's obviously too late to intercept Varys' message, but certainly no man, no problem.
Ned was, to all appearances, a very effective leader in the North. In the South, he was out of his depth, in unfamiliar territory, where he didn't know the players (or he would have known better than to trust Littledick, which was his only really fatal mistake) and lacked manpower. He still nearly won, and only didn't because he wanted to give Cersei's children a chance to avoid execution, and trusted Littledick.

But he's "honourable"*, not a HARD MAN MAKING HARD CHOICES WHILE HARD, so a lot of fans hate and sneer at him.

Jon, like Ned, is a good man, and a good fighter, but I don't think he's as good a leader. I do think that you're wrong that he can't be trusted not to overthrow Danny- okay, he'll overthrow her if she's psychotically evil (ie now), but not out of personal ambition.

But I think that a lot of people pretty much want him as King over Danny (in and out of universe) because Mel said he was the Prince That Was Promised, or because he's got the requisite white penis to fit the role of traditional protagonist/leader.

*As an aside, this is a misunderstanding of Ned anyway. His honour goes right out the window the minute his family or the lives of innocents are threatened.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27188
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by NecronLord » 2019-05-18 07:29am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-05-18 06:50am
Ned was, to all appearances, a very effective leader in the North.
Or he never faced any significant political challenges
In the South, he was out of his depth, in unfamiliar territory, where he didn't know the players (or he would have known better than to trust Littledick, which was his only really fatal mistake)
Littlefinger is only an obvious creeper in the show, the books at least go out of their way to explain how and why one would trust Littlefinger. His snide joke 'I told you not to trust me' is only when his true colours are revealed.
and lacked manpower. He still nearly won, and only didn't because he wanted to give Cersei's children a chance to avoid execution, and trusted Littledick.

But he's "honourable"*, not a HARD MAN MAKING HARD CHOICES WHILE HARD, so a lot of fans hate and sneer at him.
No, sorry, Renly knew what way the wind was blowing and told him to get out. Renly was obviously smarter, and no one would call him a HARD MAN MAKING HARD CHOICES.
Jon, like Ned, is a good man, and a good fighter, but I don't think he's as good a leader. I do think that you're wrong that he can't be trusted not to overthrow Danny- okay, he'll overthrow her if she's psychotically evil (ie now), but not out of personal ambition.
Why should that matter to Dany? He is a threat regardless of whether he wants to be king or not.
But I think that a lot of people pretty much want him as King over Danny (in and out of universe) because Mel said he was the Prince That Was Promised, or because he's got the requisite white penis to fit the role of traditional protagonist/leader.
He's evidently not the Prince who was Promised to us out of universe. In universe, he's obscure outside the North, he's never even been south of the neck before.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18888
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-05-18 07:40am

NecronLord wrote:Littlefinger is only an obvious creeper in the show, the books at least go out of their way to explain how and why one would trust Littlefinger. His snide joke 'I told you not to trust me' is only when his true colours are revealed.
Maybe, but I'm talking about the show, where Littlefinger basically exudes "I'm a smug pervy motherfucker who thinks I'm better than everybody else" like a slime trail everywhere he goes.

And IIRC, in the book, Ned's trust in him was basically "I have no other allies and my wife says this guy's okay". Because Cat only knew her childhood friend, and not the man Littlefinger had grown into.
No, sorry, Renly knew what way the wind was blowing and told him to get out. Renly was obviously smarter, and no one would call him a HARD MAN MAKING HARD CHOICES.
I actually think Renly is an underrated character. Sure, he has no "rightful" claim to the throne (but then to me there's no such thing as a "rightful" claim to the throne), but damn it, he got the political situation better than anyone else. He'd have won if not for Melisandra, I truly think (at least until Danny showed up).

But yeah, Ned's mistake was basically going with Plan Littlefinger over Plan Renly.
Why should that matter to Dany? He is a threat regardless of whether he wants to be king or not.
My point is that you said "Jon's shown he can't be trusted not to depose Dany", and that really isn't the case. Maaayyyybe from her perspective, because she doesn't know him that well, but out of universe, no.
He's evidently not the Prince who was Promised to us out of universe.
Probably depends on how you interpret a very vague prophecy.
In universe, he's obscure outside the North and dead men make no claims.
True enough.

But yeah, I think the thing with people preferring Jon is about equal parts "he's a good man and "he's got a white penis", depending on the person.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27188
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by NecronLord » 2019-05-18 08:03am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-05-18 07:40am
My point is that you said "Jon's shown he can't be trusted not to depose Dany", and that really isn't the case. Maaayyyybe from her perspective, because she doesn't know him that well, but out of universe, no.
Who else's judgement would be relevant in saying she should have Grey Worm kill the fucker?
Probably depends on how you interpret a very vague prophecy.
If the Prince Who Was Promised isn't going to slay the Night King, what's the value of being the Prince Who Was Promised?
But yeah, I think the thing with people preferring Jon is about equal parts "he's a good man and "he's got a white penis", depending on the person.
And of course, GRRM's repeated stating in interviews that it is sloppy of Tolkien to say 'Aragorn ruled wisely and well for a hundred years' (which of course Tolkien never said and we have a fair bit of Aragorn's policies including genocide of orks) Varys saying that Jon will rule wisely and well, is of course, idiocy. Jon has no political acumen, less even than Dany has had at times.

Jon is a 'good' man for a value that largely consists of making friends with the wildlings. But will he in fact rule with political acumen? Probably not.

Cersei is the one who at least has the most understanding of these things out of the three serious contenders as of the start of this episode, but she is extremely vindictive and spiteful.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18888
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-05-18 08:24am

NecronLord wrote:Who else's judgement would be relevant in saying she should have Grey Worm kill the fucker?
Well, she might actually talk to those who know Jon better, like Ser Davos, for example.

But the point is, whether she would think that or not, or has reason to from her limited perspective, its not something that Jon would actually do, at least not without good cause. He's no more likely to betray her than Ned was likely to betray Robert.
If the Prince Who Was Promised isn't going to slay the Night King, what's the value of being the Prince Who Was Promised?
Well, the role of a Prince (ie a ruler) is not primarily to wield a sword in battle. Its to lead. It was Jon who put together the alliance that defeated the White Walkers, Jon who made people aware of the threat, hell, Jon who first started Arya on the path to learning how to fight.

Or alternately Danny, since she actually commanded the Alliance.

Or Arya can be the Prince Who Was Promised. That works too. :D
And of course, GRRM's repeated stating in interviews that it is sloppy of Tolkien to say 'Aragorn ruled wisely and well for a hundred years' (which of course Tolkien never said and we have a fair bit of Aragorn's policies including genocide of orks) Varys saying that Jon will rule wisely and well, is of course, idiocy. Jon has no political acumen, less even than Dany has had at times.
That's not entirely fair. He's shown a willingness at least to put the needs of his people ahead of his personal wishes, to consider unconventional solutions, and to compromise when necessary.

He's a bit blunt for political maneuvering, though. Not someone who plays "the game".
Jon is a 'good' man for a value that largely consists of making friends with the wildlings. But will he in fact rule with political acumen? Probably not.
Good in the sense that he genuinely cares about the people under him, even those that are generally considered inferior, and will take unconventional actions, even if they injure him, to protect them.
Cersei is the one who at least has the most understanding of these things out of the three serious contenders as of the start of this episode, but she is extremely vindictive and spiteful.
Cersei doesn't know how to compromise. Otherwise, that's about right.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27188
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by NecronLord » 2019-05-18 08:44am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-05-18 08:24am
NecronLord wrote:Who else's judgement would be relevant in saying she should have Grey Worm kill the fucker?
Well, she might actually talk to those who know Jon better, like Ser Davos, for example.
Davos met him a few months ago. Not too long before Davos was talking about how Stannis was the best thing since sliced bread to the Iron Bank.

But the point is, whether she would think that or not, or has reason to from her limited perspective, its not something that Jon would actually do, at least not without good cause. He's no more likely to betray her than Ned was likely to betray Robert.
He already did. All that was asked of him was to keep his trap shut, and he couldn't do that.

He told his family, one of whom is a ferocious assassin and the head of whose clan has no love for Dany for whatever insane reason she has.

I repeat:

He. Told. A. Magical. Assassin.

Who. Has. Motive. To. Make. Him King.

That. He. Has. Claim.


Treason.

Into the water reclaimer with him.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18888
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-05-18 08:49am

He told his sisters, in strict confidence.

Sansa is the real traitor here, not Jon.

Edit: And killing Jon would be the surest way for Danny to get a top spot on Arya's list.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27188
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by NecronLord » 2019-05-18 08:55am

Good grounds to burn the whole city the unsullied just reported she's in?
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18888
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-05-18 09:02am

NecronLord wrote:
2019-05-18 08:55am
Good grounds to burn the whole city the unsullied just reported she's in?
If you're going to seriously argue that exterminating an entire city to get one person who might possibly be a threat to you in the future is "good grounds", then you're either trolling me or you're a sociopath. I'm not even sure how to respond to that. Its just one of those things that's so self-evidently insane its like.

This would be like the FBI finding out that there was a person in with special forces training who knew something compromising about the President and was associated with some of the President's enemies-hadn't committed treason, hadn't made any threats, just knew some people who were enemies-and then deciding to glass DC as a response. Its psychotic.

Never mind that burning the whole city means that if you do get Arya, you'll probably never be able to confirm that you killed her. I wouldn't sleep well knowing that they couldn't find the body of the shape-changer I just pissed off.

You want to kill Arya, poison or arrows from ambush are the way to go.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27188
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by NecronLord » 2019-05-18 09:13am

But more seriously, yes, you'd want to catch Arya too, is some manner of stand up fight.

But again, the breach of confidence is more massive than you're thinking. "They're his family" is Stark-esque family-first thinking, not political thinking. He has basically told someone with means motive and just waiting now for the opportunity, who has been hardened into a killer and spends all their time together giving Dany the evils for no really apparent reason other than that she doesn't like that Jon gave away the farm, that all that's needed is for Dany to die, and the STARKS can have the throne, the dragons and everything else. He all but stabbed her himself.

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-05-18 09:02am
If you're going to seriously argue that exterminating an entire city to get one person who might possibly be a threat to you in the future is "good grounds", then you're either trolling me or you're a sociopath. I'm not even sure how to respond to that. Its just one of those things that's so self-evidently insane its like.

This would be like the FBI finding out that there was a person in with special forces training who knew something compromising about the President and was associated with some of the President's enemies-hadn't committed treason, hadn't made any threats, just knew some people who were enemies-and then deciding to glass DC as a response. Its psychotic.
The President doesn't exist in a feudal monarchy. In fact the person of the president is very unimportant to the function of the state. It's a lot more like someone who can overthrow the entire state, and replace it by rule by a different state. Say, somehow, the death of the President means that there is an inevitable civil war, on the scale of the Korean War, in the USA. It becomes rather more important to get that assassin, no?

The chief benefit of Republics and democracy is that they make the personal lives of their rulers less important. Orderly transfer of power doesn't exist in this system.

When do you break out the napalm?
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18888
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-05-18 09:26am

NecronLord wrote:
2019-05-18 09:13am
But more seriously, yes, you'd want to catch Arya too, is some manner of stand up fight.
Arya is sufficiently threatening that I would not move against her, or someone with her capabilities, unless I had a means that a) did not require direct confrontation, b) would allow me to confirm success, and c) could not be traced to me if it failed. Poison by a very loyal or disposable agent is the best option if you're going to kill her. Or a good marksman from cover (aka the Kincaid solution) though that's dicier.
But again, the breach of confidence is more massive than you're thinking. "They're his family" is Stark-esque family-first thinking, not political thinking. He has basically told someone with means motive and just waiting now for the opportunity, who has been hardened into a killer and spends all their time together giving Dany the evils for no really apparent reason other than that she doesn't like that Jon gave away the farm, that all that's needed is for Dany to die, and the STARKS can have the throne, the dragons and everything else. He all but stabbed her himself.
The question is, would Arya do that to someone Jon regards as an ally/sovereign behind Jon's back?

But yeah, I can see why Danny would be worried.
The President doesn't exist in a feudal monarchy. In fact the person of the president is very unimportant to the function of the state. It's a lot more like someone who can overthrow the entire state, and replace it by rule by a different state. Say, somehow, the death of the President means that there is an inevitable civil war, on the scale of the Korean War, in the USA. It becomes rather more important to get that assassin, no?

The chief benefit of Republics and democracy is that they make the personal lives of their rulers less important. Orderly transfer of power doesn't exist in this system.

When do you break out the napalm?
The only target that I think would be worth glassing an entire city to get would be the Night King, or possibly the Three-Eyed Raven, and then only if no other means was available.

All Danny has done is destroy one of her realm's largest cities, ensure she is a hated tyrant, and that her reign is now entirely dependent on a single dragon. Hell, she better start fucking sleeping with that dragon, and hope nobody slips poison in her food.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27188
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by NecronLord » 2019-05-18 09:38am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-05-18 09:26am
The question is, would Arya do that to someone Jon regards as an ally/sovereign behind Jon's back?
Almost certainly. You're Dany, you've seen that Sansa wears the trousers and that Jon is basically a lovable good natured fool who hits things and hangs out with the likes of Tormund Giantsbane, jovial friends but ones who think Politics involves blood oaths.

Who do you think Arya listens to, if you are Dany, her older and much more cynical and persuasive sister, or Jon the Fun?
The only target that I think would be worth glassing an entire city to get would be the Night King, or possibly the Three-Eyed Raven, and then only if no other means was available.

All Danny has done is destroy one of her realm's largest cities, ensure she is a hated tyrant, and that her reign is now entirely dependent on a single dragon. Hell, she better start fucking sleeping with that dragon, and hope nobody slips poison in her food.
Oh she's fucked for sure. We're going to get Jon sitting on the Iron Throne (or whatever replaces it) the narrative all bends that way.

Hypothetical Dany who had resolved this all by a purge of all traitors, killed Tyrion and Varys, done a King Saul 'killed while bravely leading our troops' to Jon, and not bothered burning the city (not that it will matter that much; Robert harrowed the city and no one influential cared) would be much more secure.

We've yet to see the payoff of Varys' note, but Dany at least knows one of his major co-conspirators, Illyrio Mopatis, whose house he lived in, and she would also be wise to pay especial heed to him, or even a visit.

As for being poisoned, that's honestly as likely for Jon as Dany, it's a persistent risk, particularly if either of them gives the other nobles the impression they'll curtail their riches.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18888
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-05-19 05:24am

Welp, petition has crossed one million votes.

I don't think its demands will be met. I think they frankly shouldn't be. But boy is it satisfying to see how thoroughly they've screwed the pooch on this one.

And so one of the greatest TV shows in history dies, not with a bang, but with a whimper. :(
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15518
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain
Contact:

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by Knife » 2019-05-19 11:43am

I'm watching it, but I'm going in prepared to be disappointed and mad about it. I have a bad feeling it will be the next 'Sopranos ending'.

Granted, it's art and it's subjective as hell. Hell, I might like it. I doubt it though. And I doubt I'll be alone.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red

User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10296
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by Elfdart » 2019-05-19 01:09pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-05-18 01:02am
Imperial Overlord wrote:
2019-05-17 04:49pm
Vympel wrote:
2019-05-17 10:18am
It started at the tail end of Season 6 and has gotten progressively more obvious since. And its like that same impulse is what caused them to fumble this pretty pivotal story point. I think most people really unhappy with this episode wouldn't have a problem with it if they had set it up and executed it better they did.
That's hitting the nail on the head. I would have been fine with it if it had been executed better. The issue isn't "is Dany capable of burning cities," its that having people throw down their swords and surrender usually defuses her blood lust instead of enhancing it. If, as an example, a hit team tried to kill her or a dragon (say moving a dragon death around) under cover of the surrender and that set her off, most people would be a lot happier with the episode.
For me, at this point, the problem is basically two-fold:

First, circumstances/context: Danny the Mad Queen is a well-established theory/narrative in the fandom, but one that I've always felt was thinly-justified, built on cliches/oversimplification and double-standards, and probably motivated at least partly by sexism. So any move by the show in that direction is likely going to come off as pandering to bad (and sexist) fanfic to me, and immediately alienate me. Maybe that's not entirely fair to the creators. But the circumstances make it difficult to do. In addition, "women are too emotional/crazy to be good leaders" is an extremely old sexist trope, so having yet another female leader go the Mad Queen route is going to have to be really well-justified to not seem sexist.

The second issue is that this feels like an about-face for Daenerys. Because Daenerys has been confronted by these issues before, and not long ago. She burned the Lannister army, and the Tarlys, but she also chose not to burn King's Landing. She chose to try instead to negotiate, and then to go north first, risking everything to put the realm ahead of the throne. So this is an about-face to an extent on her recent character development.

Now, people can regress. People who have been tempted by darkness can be suddenly pushed over the edge. I recognize that. But it nonetheless feels abrupt, probably because what I perceive as a reversal in course comes very quickly, right at the end of the show. It feels like a contrived bit of pandering or way to get manufacture some last minute conflict/get Danny out of the way for Jon's ascension.
:roll:

Image

:lol:
"One way we recognize a mass hysteria movement is that everyone who doesn’t believe is accused of being in on the plot. This has been going on virtually unrestrained in both political and media circles in recent weeks."

--Matt Taibbi

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18888
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-05-19 01:12pm

So, a contentless off-topic troll post, attempting to somehow link the issues with Daenerys's portrayal to Hillary to... I don't know, say I must be a dirty filthy establishment Dem Killary supporter because I like Daenerys, or feel that she was badly written?

Or maybe you just have contempt for female leaders and anyone who supports them? Yeah, that sounds about right for our board's local rape apologist.

You know what? Reported for vendetta and thread-jacking.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
Esquire
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1531
Joined: 2011-11-16 11:20pm

Re: Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

Post by Esquire » 2019-05-19 01:29pm

Or: your Hidden Political Motive Sensitivity setting is like 500x higher than anyone else, and it's simultaneously off-putting and self-parodic. Relax, dude.
“Heroes are heroes because they are heroic in behavior, not because they won or lost.” Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Post Reply