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: 17944
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

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

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-06-06 01:26pm

Esquire wrote:
2019-06-06 01:18pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-06-06 12:22pm
Esquire wrote:
2019-06-06 12:14pm
Is it... at all possible that y'all are reading too much into this? I know that's what we do here, but are you seriously worried about the IRL-politics implications of the show?
Yes. As we should be. Media has always been shaped by, and used to shape, political opinions. People saying "Its just entertainment, its not political" are fooling themselves. And people saying "It shouldn't be political" are generally being disingenuous, because I guarantee you that very few people mind when their entertainment reflects their political views. When people say "stop making shows political", what they generally mean is "I don't want it to say/show something I disagree with."

Everything is political. Literally any topic has political implications, because people disagree, and politics is simply a word for the processes by which people disagree about issues on a societal level. You can choose to ignore it and focus on other aspects of a story. That's your choice. Sometimes its nice to turn your higher brain functions off for a bit. But it will still be political, whether you choose to think about it or not. You can either be consciously political or unconsciously political. You cannot be apolitical.
Jesus Christ, it must be exhausting to be you.

No, everything is not political. You can politicize anything, but it doesn't start that way. Game of Thrones has no position on e.g. Northern Ireland, and trying to spin one out is not a useful project. Clearly I'm not going to change your mind here, but do you at least realize that this kind of thing makes you sound like a loon to anybody who doesn't already completely agree with you?
Whether Game of Thrones has a position on every single given issue doesn't change the fact that its stories and themes are relevant to other issues, and have political implications. Insulting me will not change it either.
"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals Sherman and Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.


"They are nearer to me than the other side, in thought and sentiment, though bitterly hostile personally. They are utterly lawless - the unhandiest devils in the world to deal with - but after all their faces are set Zion-wards."- Lincoln on radical Abolitionists.


"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.


I am a dual citizen of the US and Canada.

User avatar
Coop D'etat
Jedi Knight
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-02-23 01:38pm
Location: UBC Unincorporated land

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

Post by Coop D'etat » 2019-06-06 10:16pm

Westeros isn't W. Europe, where a powerful centralized state fulls the military-industrial-organizational development. It has no external threats of nite due to geography.

Hence a new dracocracy is just as apt to fuel centralized ostentation and corruption, producing stagnation.


Plus, Dany is looking to perpetuate the historical trend of Eossi imperialists bringing fire and the sword suppress the historically oppressed Westerosi inhabitants. She's the last gasp of thousands of years of Valyrean privilege that will need to be removed if the Andals and First Men can achieve ethnic equality and political self-determination.


You can interpret the politics of these things in all sorts of facile ways once you learn the trick of it. That's why contemporary art popular criticism which is so obsessed with advancing political points tends to be so facile.

User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20635
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

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

Post by K. A. Pital » 2019-06-07 02:54am

Sure you can, but ASOIAF is War of the Roses plus some fantasy elements, so jokingly or otherwise referencing British history is all but inevitable.

I mean, Sansa Sturgeon has a nice ring to it :lol:
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 17944
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

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

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-06-07 05:27am

Coop D'etat wrote:
2019-06-06 10:16pm
Westeros isn't W. Europe, where a powerful centralized state fulls the military-industrial-organizational development. It has no external threats of nite due to geography.
That it faces no outside threats is arguably in contradiction to your later characterization of Daenerys and her place in Essosi/Westerosi history, but otherwise, yes.
Hence a new dracocracy is just as apt to fuel centralized ostentation and corruption, producing stagnation.
Doubtful, considering that Daenerys would already be bringing an overseas empire with her (Mereen), and that Westeros would likely end up involved in Essosi wars and building a further Essosi empire (if you consider that a good thing, at least in terms of avoiding stagnation).

There's also a lot of room for expansion and settlement in the now mostly depopulated far North.
Plus, Dany is looking to perpetuate the historical trend of Eossi imperialists bringing fire and the sword suppress the historically oppressed Westerosi inhabitants. She's the last gasp of thousands of years of Valyrean privilege that will need to be removed if the Andals and First Men can achieve ethnic equality and political self-determination.
That's actually a fair critique of Danaerys, and ties into how her actions in Essos can be seen as Western liberator/white (wo)Man's Burden wish fulfillment. The scenes of liberator Danny being praised and worshiped by crowds of mostly brown freed slaves are just cringe-worthy.

The counterargument would be that Valyria has been dead 500 years, that Daenerys arguably identifies as much with Westrosi and Dothraki culture as with Valyerian, that she was born in Westeros and raised by Westrosi, and that her policies generally have nothing to do with Valyerian supremacy except insofar as she happens to have Valeryain ancestry/speaks Valyerian.
You can interpret the politics of these things in all sorts of facile ways once you learn the trick of it. That's why contemporary art popular criticism which is so obsessed with advancing political points tends to be so facile.
That people can twist things to make dubious interpretations does not mean that no valid parallels exist, though. And the very fact that people will use the story, rightly or wrongly, to reinforce their views gives it political significance in popular culture.

People seem to think here that my point is simply that "Game of Thrones supports (x) political view" and are trying to critique that. It isn't. Its that all media inherently has political implications, even if its only those that other people give it by their interpretations.
"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals Sherman and Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.


"They are nearer to me than the other side, in thought and sentiment, though bitterly hostile personally. They are utterly lawless - the unhandiest devils in the world to deal with - but after all their faces are set Zion-wards."- Lincoln on radical Abolitionists.


"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.


I am a dual citizen of the US and Canada.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 17944
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

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

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-06-12 04:52am

You know, I've just been thinking how much it must suck to be George RR Martin right now. Because whatever ending he writes to the books, its going to be measured against the show. People who defend the show's ending, especially wrt Daenerys, are going to expect the books to vindicate them by conforming to it, at least in broad strokes, and people who hate it are expecting Martin to vindicate them by doing it differently. I'm already seeing people asserting how the books will totally make Danny the Mad Queen, and others saying they won't. No matter what he writes, he's probably going to piss off a large portion of the fan base.
"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals Sherman and Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.


"They are nearer to me than the other side, in thought and sentiment, though bitterly hostile personally. They are utterly lawless - the unhandiest devils in the world to deal with - but after all their faces are set Zion-wards."- Lincoln on radical Abolitionists.


"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.


I am a dual citizen of the US and Canada.

User avatar
Alferd Packer
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3671
Joined: 2002-07-19 09:22pm
Location: Slumgullion Pass
Contact:

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

Post by Alferd Packer » 2019-06-12 08:58am

Assuming he ever writes the final book (TWoW is reportedly close to done, so we should at least get that). After all, he's already given away the ending in broad strokes--the story's been told. The urgency of having to tell the whole story is gone.

And yes, he could have an epiphany that causes him to change things, thus reintroducing the urgency and pushing him to finish the book. But I'm not gonna bet on that.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -Herbert Spencer

"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." - Schiller, Die Jungfrau von Orleans, III vi.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 17944
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

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

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-06-12 10:46am

I do hope that he finishes. Otherwise, the question of how much of the show's ending was his will go forever unanswered.

Or maybe it will anyway. For all we know, he might feel pressured to modify his earlier ideas to be closer to the show.
"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals Sherman and Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.


"They are nearer to me than the other side, in thought and sentiment, though bitterly hostile personally. They are utterly lawless - the unhandiest devils in the world to deal with - but after all their faces are set Zion-wards."- Lincoln on radical Abolitionists.


"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.


I am a dual citizen of the US and Canada.

User avatar
FaxModem1
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7286
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 » 2019-06-12 02:52pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-06-12 10:46am
I do hope that he finishes. Otherwise, the question of how much of the show's ending was his will go forever unanswered.

Or maybe it will anyway. For all we know, he might feel pressured to modify his earlier ideas to be closer to the show.
That's pretty much his own darn fault for agreeing to adapt the series in the first place when it wasn't finished and continuing to not write the main series, instead focusing on prequels, spin offs, and side stories while he was on a ticking clock of how fast the show was going through his already published material.
Image

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 17944
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

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

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-06-12 08:49pm

FaxModem1 wrote:
2019-06-12 02:52pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-06-12 10:46am
I do hope that he finishes. Otherwise, the question of how much of the show's ending was his will go forever unanswered.

Or maybe it will anyway. For all we know, he might feel pressured to modify his earlier ideas to be closer to the show.
That's pretty much his own darn fault for agreeing to adapt the series in the first place when it wasn't finished and continuing to not write the main series, instead focusing on prequels, spin offs, and side stories while he was on a ticking clock of how fast the show was going through his already published material.
Yeah, he definitely should have wrapped it up before the show. If he had, we might not be in this mess.
"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals Sherman and Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.


"They are nearer to me than the other side, in thought and sentiment, though bitterly hostile personally. They are utterly lawless - the unhandiest devils in the world to deal with - but after all their faces are set Zion-wards."- Lincoln on radical Abolitionists.


"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.


I am a dual citizen of the US and Canada.

User avatar
Alferd Packer
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3671
Joined: 2002-07-19 09:22pm
Location: Slumgullion Pass
Contact:

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

Post by Alferd Packer » 2019-06-13 08:04am

Eh, plenty of series are ended poorly. If we had had a 10 episode season, and they hadn't dicked around for the first 2 episodes, Dany's heel turn could've gone great. All the required elements are there, we just got them in a sloppy, rushed, hamfisted couple of hours.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -Herbert Spencer

"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." - Schiller, Die Jungfrau von Orleans, III vi.

User avatar
PREDATOR490
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1722
Joined: 2006-03-13 08:04am
Location: Scotland
Contact:

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

Post by PREDATOR490 » 2019-06-13 11:11am

For the most part Game of Thrones has certainly been a significant success and Martin is the kind of guy that would give the finger to fans by intentionally not finishing the books. What are they going to do, real-life Misery ?

User avatar
Themightytom
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2793
Joined: 2007-12-22 11:11am
Location: United States

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

Post by Themightytom » 2019-06-14 10:43pm

So given how it all ultimately turned out, I'm curious what people think, would it have made a difference if Danaerys had just gone forward with her original plan and attacked King's landing at the end of season 7 instead of negotiating? I don't think she ended up getting anything useful out of Cersei or the Lannisters, it doesn't seem like she took any heavy losses sacking King's landing with the survivors of the battle of winterfell, and it didn't even take more than a day, so what would have been the drawback to just plowing through King's Landing and THEN helping out the North? Would it have even turned out better politically in some ways, doing it in that order?

"Since when is "the west" a nation?"-Styphon
"ACORN= Cobra obviously." AMT
This topic is... oh Village Idiot. Carry on then.--Havok

User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 8065
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

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

Post by Solauren » 2019-06-15 08:39am

Themightytom wrote:
2019-06-14 10:43pm
So given how it all ultimately turned out, I'm curious what people think, would it have made a difference if Danaerys had just gone forward with her original plan and attacked King's landing at the end of season 7 instead of negotiating? I don't think she ended up getting anything useful out of Cersei or the Lannisters, it doesn't seem like she took any heavy losses sacking King's landing with the survivors of the battle of winterfell, and it didn't even take more than a day, so what would have been the drawback to just plowing through King's Landing and THEN helping out the North? Would it have even turned out better politically in some ways, doing it in that order?
Let's see..
First, odds are, the Golden Company would not have arrived. Fine. They didn't make a difference.
So, you have her full army hit King's landing, and hit hard. We saw the effect.

We also have the fact Danaerys still has her best friend with her (Melissandre), and doesn't konw about Jon yet.

This would have given her a massive (and easy victory), against a hated Tyrant.

This would put Danaerys in a much, much better place mentally and emotionally. She just achieved her destiny.

She can then take her complete army north, with all three of her Dragons, and reinforce against the Dead.

And, since she would have told Jon 'Oh, I'm going to take King's Landing, with the dragons it won't be a problem, I'm coming north Irregardless because of the evidence I've seen on Dragonstone', she'd have all three of her dragons, and wouldn't have to rescue Jon + co.

That would actually keep the dead contained North of the Wall, unless the Dead found the Horn of Winter. (Magical artifact that was said to be able to bring down the Wall).
If I was writing the series, I'd have the White walkers bring a few Children of the Forest, and the Three-Eyed Raven that Bran learned from, before the Night's king as Dany declared victory in the South, and then show another flashback to the Children using that to raise the Wall. The Three-Eyed Raven warns the Night King that using the Horn might bring down the wall, but will spell his doom. Part of the Wall comes down, and an ice dragon rises up for the Night King to ride.

This leads us to the build up at WInterfell, including possibly Jon asking Dany to marry him. Bran sees this, and he and Sam decide not to say anything. (Bran sees no need, as Dany isn't about to go off the deep end) The Battle of Winterfell happens, with the Dany and Jon riding the dragons into battle, and Bran Wogging the third, against the Night King and his Ice Dragon. It is still heavily in favor of the undead, however, and goes more or less as is did in the TV show. Up to and including Arya killing the Night King. (Just because I thought that was ironic, the little girl everyone over looked saving their entire fucking world).

The series then ends with either Dany and Jon on the throne, or Dany dying in childbirth.

Dany dying in childbirth would leave Jon on the throne (Which he never wanted), and grant Dany the last thing she wanted, children, while paying the ultimate price for it.
\

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 17944
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

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

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-06-15 09:41am

Themightytom wrote:
2019-06-14 10:43pm
So given how it all ultimately turned out, I'm curious what people think, would it have made a difference if Danaerys had just gone forward with her original plan and attacked King's landing at the end of season 7 instead of negotiating? I don't think she ended up getting anything useful out of Cersei or the Lannisters, it doesn't seem like she took any heavy losses sacking King's landing with the survivors of the battle of winterfell, and it didn't even take more than a day, so what would have been the drawback to just plowing through King's Landing and THEN helping out the North? Would it have even turned out better politically in some ways, doing it in that order?
She arguably got a break in Cersei attacking her while she fought the undead (which Cersei used to build up her forces, however), and she got Jaime Lannister. That's it.

I think it was worth making the effort given the stakes, and needing as much manpower as they could get, but with hindsight, it probably would have been better just to take King's Landing. But she's a woman, and taking an enemy's city is proof of madness if you're a woman in this universe. :roll: So it probably would have just mean Varys/Tyrion/Jon backstabbing her earlier.
"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals Sherman and Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.


"They are nearer to me than the other side, in thought and sentiment, though bitterly hostile personally. They are utterly lawless - the unhandiest devils in the world to deal with - but after all their faces are set Zion-wards."- Lincoln on radical Abolitionists.


"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.


I am a dual citizen of the US and Canada.

User avatar
Themightytom
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2793
Joined: 2007-12-22 11:11am
Location: United States

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

Post by Themightytom » 2019-06-16 08:14am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-06-15 09:41am
Themightytom wrote:
2019-06-14 10:43pm
So given how it all ultimately turned out, I'm curious what people think, would it have made a difference if Danaerys had just gone forward with her original plan and attacked King's landing at the end of season 7 instead of negotiating? I don't think she ended up getting anything useful out of Cersei or the Lannisters, it doesn't seem like she took any heavy losses sacking King's landing with the survivors of the battle of winterfell, and it didn't even take more than a day, so what would have been the drawback to just plowing through King's Landing and THEN helping out the North? Would it have even turned out better politically in some ways, doing it in that order?
She arguably got a break in Cersei attacking her while she fought the undead (which Cersei used to build up her forces, however), and she got Jaime Lannister. That's it.

I think it was worth making the effort given the stakes, and needing as much manpower as they could get, but with hindsight, it probably would have been better just to take King's Landing. But she's a woman, and taking an enemy's city is proof of madness if you're a woman in this universe. :roll: So it probably would have just mean Varys/Tyrion/Jon backstabbing her earlier.
She would have still had Jorah and Missandei at her side after taking King's landing, as well as the giant army and several dragons. She had a shield of advisors, most of the time, in season 7 and earlier. She really started to isolate after losing Jorah, Missandei and her second dragon in quick succession.

I think Varys particularly became more influential, the weaker she became, he may not have felt able to betray as readily, and Jon wouldn't necessarily have had the relationship that he exploited to get her to drop her guard, any sooner. He would have still needed her help to end the threat of the Night King, so unless she decided to nuke winterfell over Sansa's refusal, she wouldn't necessarily have needed to make a second demonstration. Cersei was the crazy one, and no one took HER out.

"Since when is "the west" a nation?"-Styphon
"ACORN= Cobra obviously." AMT
This topic is... oh Village Idiot. Carry on then.--Havok

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 17944
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

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

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-06-16 11:48pm

Themightytom wrote:
2019-06-16 08:14am
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-06-15 09:41am
Themightytom wrote:
2019-06-14 10:43pm
So given how it all ultimately turned out, I'm curious what people think, would it have made a difference if Danaerys had just gone forward with her original plan and attacked King's landing at the end of season 7 instead of negotiating? I don't think she ended up getting anything useful out of Cersei or the Lannisters, it doesn't seem like she took any heavy losses sacking King's landing with the survivors of the battle of winterfell, and it didn't even take more than a day, so what would have been the drawback to just plowing through King's Landing and THEN helping out the North? Would it have even turned out better politically in some ways, doing it in that order?
She arguably got a break in Cersei attacking her while she fought the undead (which Cersei used to build up her forces, however), and she got Jaime Lannister. That's it.

I think it was worth making the effort given the stakes, and needing as much manpower as they could get, but with hindsight, it probably would have been better just to take King's Landing. But she's a woman, and taking an enemy's city is proof of madness if you're a woman in this universe. :roll: So it probably would have just mean Varys/Tyrion/Jon backstabbing her earlier.
She would have still had Jorah and Missandei at her side after taking King's landing, as well as the giant army and several dragons. She had a shield of advisors, most of the time, in season 7 and earlier. She really started to isolate after losing Jorah, Missandei and her second dragon in quick succession.
There is an argument to be made, yes. I believe conventional strategic wisdom is that when you face two separate enemy forces, and have a more mobile force (and pitting them against each other isn't an option), the best course of action is to defeat them in detail, picking off the smaller, weaker forces first. Which means smashing Cersei, then turning North.

Of course, the delay in taking and securing King's Landing might have given time for the Night King to take Winterfell, in which case you'd probably be fighting him at the Neck or the Twins, and without the support of the Northern army.
I think Varys particularly became more influential, the weaker she became, he may not have felt able to betray as readily, and Jon wouldn't necessarily have had the relationship that he exploited to get her to drop her guard, any sooner. He would have still needed her help to end the threat of the Night King, so unless she decided to nuke winterfell over Sansa's refusal, she wouldn't necessarily have needed to make a second demonstration. Cersei was the crazy one, and no one took HER out.
Maybe. But then, I don't think she needed to make any demonstration. One blast of dragon fire to the walls, and her army is more than strong enough to take the city, easily. Especially since the Golden Company hadn't arrived yet.

Later, when Danny took the city post-white walkers, she should have just had Arya go in and do her thing. Varys could have supplied the know-how (secret passages into the Red Keep) if he wasn't being a misogynist dip shit traitor.

After that, its entirely possible that with their leadership gone, the remaining defenders might accept surrender, at least if generous terms were offered. I doubt they'll be eager to follow Euron. If Euron causes trouble, wait for Yara to show up with more ships, then take him. Or have the dragons hit him at night/in poor weather, so the ballistas won't be as accurate.
"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals Sherman and Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.


"They are nearer to me than the other side, in thought and sentiment, though bitterly hostile personally. They are utterly lawless - the unhandiest devils in the world to deal with - but after all their faces are set Zion-wards."- Lincoln on radical Abolitionists.


"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.


I am a dual citizen of the US and Canada.

Post Reply