Gotta wrap up all those pesky plotlines and characters! Pace, pace, pace!
I thought this episode fell flat, to be honest. Everything happened more or less as we expected. Cersei will act like she's cooperating but backstab them, the NK will use the dragon to breach the wall, Jon and Daenerys will end up together, etc. And that Jon "revelation" (other than his name) felt like a lot of handholding for audience members who haven't been paying any attention.
Regarding Jon being dumb, he just looks that way because he isn't playing the same game (of you-know-what) as everyone else. If he lied and then later backstabbed Cersei, he'd be *exactly* like her. He's the only one who seems to understand -- and he seems to understand this better than Daenerys -- that if you want to build something different, you have to genuinely be different. Else whatever you build will be on the same rotten foundation.
paulson games wrote: So magically cold frosty breath is what was needed to bring down the wall? Not flaming hot ice melting dragon fire? While I understand the need to drive the plot forward just how strong is frosty breath? Does the dragon fire melt and shatter entire stone fortresses at a pass? While dragon fire certainly cooked a bunch of Lanisters it seemed nowhere near as brutally effective as frosty cold somehow melting through something the size of a mountain.
I'd think adding extra frosty cold would make more snow and the ice might grow? Maybe make a nice ice ramp up the wall? But explode it? These GOT physics are baffling indeed.
From what I saw it was less cold, per se, and more impactful - it seemed more like it was destroying the wall like a hammer vs melting.
I think it was just blue flame. It isn't an ice dragon, just an undead one. There are (were) supposed to be ice dragons in that world, but they weren't undead creatures. Two different things.
I enjoyed the episode but it went pretty much as I expected. I'd like to see less politicing and more dragons blowing stuff up from this point on, please.
So when Jamie defects to the north, is there gonna be a lovers triangle between him, briene and wildling guy? I'm assuming he's got the plot armor now and can survive dragons blowing stuff up, eye patch guy probably not so much.
Couldn't Clegane have just let the wight kill Cersi, and pull it back a moment too late, and just be like "oops, my bad" ?
I really liked the episode. I think we knew each of the plot points was coming, but they still felt right.
There were no big new surprises but honestly I think defining good stories by how surprised you are means missing out on a lot of good stuff. Sometimes the art is in the telling, not in tricking you with new twists.
And while game of thrones is most famous for its big twists and character deaths, that's selling the show short. What's always made it work is the range of characters, and the way it had those characters interact with each other in ways that are interesting & believable to all involved.
And the episode certainly got those right this time. The big moments, Tyrion & Cersei, Arya & Sansa etc were all well done. But there was a lot of short conversations that did a lot in a few lines, each interesting in their own way. Brienne and Jaime's short scene showed how much things had changed, Bronn and Tyrion showed how some things were the same as ever
This episode definitely did a better job of pausing and letting the characters talk than last. Had one of these little 3 minute scenes existed between Benjen and Jon last episode I would have been a lot happier with how that went down.
Necros wrote: So when Jamie defects to the north, is there gonna be a lovers triangle between him, briene and wildling guy?
The real awkwardness will start if Jamie is in the same room with Bran. Bran will probably be above getting emotional about it, but Jamie will have to do some more soul searching.
Depends which side of the breach they were on. If they were on the landward side they can just march to the next fort and get down there, but the whole seaward side collapsed.
Given everything else in the episode played out pretty much as expected, it's likely the former.
There was nothing wrong with this one specifically, but it did feel oddly unsatisfying for some reason. I was on the edge of my chair for a lot of the ep. where Arya reaches Winterfell and Dany attacked the Lannister convoy, but I think Jaime kinda sums up how I feel as a viewer when they threaten a character to raise the stakes now - I don't believe them.
Yodhrin wrote: There was nothing wrong with this one specifically, but it did feel oddly unsatisfying for some reason. I was on the edge of my chair for a lot of the ep. where Arya reaches Winterfell and Dany attacked the Lannister convoy, but I think Jaime kinda sums up how I feel as a viewer when they threaten a character to raise the stakes now - I don't believe them.
Yeah, I was expecting someone to die. Bronn was my candidate because I believe Cersei implied it an episode or two ago on how Jamie was going to punish him, and she would do it in his stead.
I enjoyed the episode, but like everyone else was saying it is rather predictable with no really unexpected twists.
Two things that I will say; - I'm sad that they killed Littlefinger, not for any great love for the character, but because he was the only 'bad guy' who might concievably have won in the end. We now seem to be inexorably on course for a standard Hollywood ending. - They are really foucusing on getting the good guys and bad guys on opposite sides, wereas I enjoyed the shades of grey that dominated the earlier series.
I'll be interested to see what they do in the last series, as there are only battles left to resolve. GoT has never made much of a war film so they will need to create some more political wrangling from somewhere.
Necros wrote: I enjoyed the episode but it went pretty much as I expected. I'd like to see less politicing and more dragons blowing stuff up from this point on, please.
So when Jamie defects to the north, is there gonna be a lovers triangle between him, briene and wildling guy? I'm assuming he's got the plot armor now and can survive dragons blowing stuff up, eye patch guy probably not so much.
Couldn't Clegane have just let the wight kill Cersi, and pull it back a moment too late, and just be like "oops, my bad" ?
Yeah. I saw it.
The triangle. Brianne was one who changed Jamie's, view point. She gave him this slowly building streak of honour and began his turn from old to new Jamie. And now his honour means he even abandoned his sister and Armour. So almost his house.
Tormund, ell he loves her and wants giant babies lol.
Episode was great.
Little finger was plain well, arya is plain cold stone ruthless.
Epic ending.
Sam. Well Don t tell jon.
Just Don, t! Might be for the best.
Very very good episode.
Good ending to season.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yodhrin wrote: Depends which side of the breach they were on. If they were on the landward side they can just march to the next fort and get down there, but the whole seaward side collapsed.
Given everything else in the episode played out pretty much as expected, it's likely the former.
There was nothing wrong with this one specifically, but it did feel oddly unsatisfying for some reason. I was on the edge of my chair for a lot of the ep. where Arya reaches Winterfell and Dany attacked the Lannister convoy, but I think Jaime kinda sums up how I feel as a viewer when they threaten a character to raise the stakes now - I don't believe them.
The breach was east watch...
I think there on landward side but the eastward fort is gone. So the next castle down wall. There's 19. Not many are garrisoned so unless they have working routes down you gotta go all the way to next which is like castle black..
Also randomnthought.
Jon returns with Dany after boat sex...
So meet the family. Bran creepy kid who sees everything and has magic powers.
Arya who is a lethal asasain.
Jon. Oh I returned from dead and killed 2 white walkers.
Dany... Dragon Queen immune to fire.
And...
Sansa... I just play games... Epic games but still.
Wonder how sansa and Co take to a dany...
I'd love it if the culmination of his arc was Littlefinger making his move to put Sansa in charge of the north in front of all the other lords, but she refuses and guts him with the fancy dagger
Close enough I wonder how Theon's rescue plan is going to effect his uncle bringing the Iron banks mercs over to Westeros?
Beric Dondarrion: The Lord brought you back, and he brought me back. No one else. Just us. Did he do it to watch us freeze to death? ... I've been waiting for the end for a long time. Maybe the Lord brought me here to find it?
*a few days later*
Beric Dondarrion: *dies off screen*
Wonderful.
He's not dead yet...I've seen a so called plot leak for the Season 8 premiere...
Spoiler:
that claims Beric will die fighting a rearguard action at the Wall covering the retreat of Tormund and the other wildlings.
jhe90 wrote: Well he got what one ship?
Jon n Dany took one, and they only had like what 5 left in the scene heading there.
Umm... I think something not able to take down a whole fleet.
Yeah he's not going to take out the fleet. But maybe a sneaky rescue op and some sabotage could delay them enough so that they only arrive in time to get stomped by the Night king, along with Cersei and the rest of Kings Landing?
jhe90 wrote: Well he got what one ship?
Jon n Dany took one, and they only had like what 5 left in the scene heading there.
Umm... I think something not able to take down a whole fleet.
Yeah he's not going to take out the fleet. But maybe a sneaky rescue op and some sabotage could delay them enough so that they only arrive in time to get stomped by the Night king, along with Cersei and the rest of Kings Landing?
I suppose if he does some tricky stuff in port he can slow the fleet down or block harbour somehow.
Even he disabled there flag ship. They can sail without surely. Leave in port. Delivering army is objective you can return and sent one back after to collect your flag vessel.
Unless he attacks the boat carrying the iron bank gold...no gold. No army.
Whatever happens, its Theon he'll probably screw it up somehow What happened to Gendry? I'm assuming he stayed at the wall, so will probably be heading to Winterfell next season. At the risk of shipping, could Sansa end up with Robert Baratheon's son after all?
Still, I knew from the moment Danny brought the dragons beyond the wall it was a cockup of monumental proportions. Due to John's shortsighted idiocy, the wall is gone and the army of the dead can just march in unopposed.
I think Theon finally turned himself around and managed to throw out Reek to embrace the honor of his Stark upbringing and the determination of his Greyjoy heritage.
Still, I knew from the moment Danny brought the dragons beyond the wall it was a cockup of monumental proportions. Due to John's shortsighted idiocy, the wall is gone and the army of the dead can just march in unopposed.
How else are they supposed to breach the wall?
If they used the magical horn that let's them "toot toot" the wall away there would be people complaining even louder, I think.
d-usa wrote: I think Theon finally turned himself around and managed to throw out Reek to embrace the honor of his Stark upbringing and the determination of his Greyjoy heritage.
That smirk when he'd been beaten to a pulp, and then the Ironborn tried to kick him in the balls...Reminded me of Euron. He's found his Ironborn side at last.
Little Finger bit was predictable but well crafted.
The negotiations were good.
In some ways I would have liked it if Cersei had actually followed through and joined them- would have made things more interesting.
Also the whole Euron /Cartman - Feth this I am goping home" would have been even more fun - esecially since we now have to suffer the Gold Company nonsense.
Oh and Jon;s a Targyrian - yawn. Still no chemistry between him and Dany but thats the main couple so oh well.
Bran is still an epic dick or a pawn of the undead.
Little Finger bit was predictable but well crafted.
The negotiations were good.
In some ways I would have liked it if Cersei had actually followed through and joined them- would have made things more interesting.
Also the whole Euron /Cartman - Feth this I am goping home" would have been even more fun - esecially since we now have to suffer the Gold Company nonsense.
Oh and Jon;s a Targyrian - yawn. Still no chemistry between him and Dany but thats the main couple so oh well.
Bran is still an epic dick or a pawn of the undead.
good episode.....even Jon got a good line.
The jon snow bit was nothing new. And honestly changes little bar incest, and well Got has so much it ain't shocking now on that show.
Maybe season one. Not 7. It's just shrug.
But hey. Least jon snow might be less of a downer now he got laid. And dany less obsessed with burning things.
Meet the family could be fun...
Hey... Umm I cam eback from dragonstone... And capital. Now meet my new girlfriend.
Little finger. Good. Arya showing how she cold as winter there.
Not even looking at him. Cut turn. Walk.
Sansa. Well you graduated to game player status.
True, I liked some of the infreque was back.
Jamie.... We ain't seen the last of him.
And maybe a possible lanister vs lanister fight. Who is the arm y loyal too.
Lanister vs golden company?
d-usa wrote: I think, and hope, that Janie will be the little brother from the prophecy.
Yeah. She gone pretty unhinged. Even was thinking about hurting her brother\lover....
I mean he is the battlefield commandor.
Tywinn is dead. He built the army.
Tywinn brother. Kevin. Was warden of castle rock when Tywinn hand and senor lanister out there. Gone
Sandor is long gone. Tough fighter though.
Gregory's is just a zombie. He did have banner force but nope.
Batistan gone. Legend gone. Dead.
Some of the bigger military skilled knights, or commandor are gone. What sway and respect does she have over army by title.
Least Jamie's is a famous Knight, kings guard and has a battlefield reputation.
Who she got left.
Dany, Snow alience has more leaders who can lead from front...
Cersai. She got far less. Good luck holding the army together
d-usa wrote: I think, and hope, that Janie will be the little brother from the prophecy.
Maybe - I still think it would have been braver and more intersting to have Cersei as a proper ally against the dead -ah well - its should be a good fun final season.
LunarSol wrote: This episode definitely did a better job of pausing and letting the characters talk than last. Had one of these little 3 minute scenes existed between Benjen and Jon last episode I would have been a lot happier with how that went down.
The real shame of it is they did a great job at the start of that episode letting the characters talk. The interactions between the various members of the expedition beyond the wall were great. But then with Benjen they just dropped the ball entirely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: The breach was east watch... I think there on landward side but the eastward fort is gone. So the next castle down wall. There's 19. Not many are garrisoned so unless they have working routes down you gotta go all the way to next which is like castle black..
Wildlings climbed the wall while under attack from above. So it isn't much of a stretch that characters might be able to fashion together some climbing materials from what's left on top of the wall, and make their way down, possible using some structures still partially standing.
jhe90 wrote: Yeah he's not going to take out the fleet. But maybe a sneaky rescue op and some sabotage could delay them enough so that they only arrive in time to get stomped by the Night king, along with Cersei and the rest of Kings Landing?
I suppose if he does some tricky stuff in port he can slow the fleet down or block harbour somehow.
Even he disabled there flag ship. They can sail without surely. Leave in port. Delivering army is objective you can return and sent one back after to collect your flag vessel.
Theon isn't trying to stop the Iron Fleet or prevent the Gold Company crossing the sea. He's just trying to get his sister back.
d-usa wrote: I think Theon finally turned himself around and managed to throw out Reek to embrace the honor of his Stark upbringing and the determination of his Greyjoy heritage.
Not sure how many "Redemption of Theon" storylines the character deserves tbh.
Ouze wrote: Not sure how many "Redemption of Theon" storylines the character deserves tbh.
Yeah, Theon's plot has been a bit directionless and a bit boring for a while now. Probably since he escaped Ramsey.
It didn't help that this redemption effort was pretty goofy, never mind the corny bit about being kneed in the groin and it not hurting, the whole thing about Theon killing the ship's captain to take the ship and prove he was strong again is a pretty goofy cliche. I mean, in what world does the crew of a ship just following some guy on a suicide mission, just because that guy just murdered their old captain in front of them?
*getting kneed hurts all the time, even in places that don't have genitals, so it'd also still really hurt in a place that used to have genitals.
d-usa wrote: I think Theon finally turned himself around and managed to throw out Reek to embrace the honor of his Stark upbringing and the determination of his Greyjoy heritage.
Not sure how many "Redemption of Theon" storylines the character deserves tbh.
Agreed let him die saving Yara and then she can take back the Iron Fleet not bother with the whole Gold Company nonsense. Theon's story is done and if they want to redeem him then let it end in his death.
If Euron is dead and Yara unable to command, its likely the Iron Fleet would breakup anyway with no unifying force and go back to raiding.
d-usa wrote: I think Theon finally turned himself around and managed to throw out Reek to embrace the honor of his Stark upbringing and the determination of his Greyjoy heritage.
Not sure how many "Redemption of Theon" storylines the character deserves tbh.
Agreed let him die saving Yara and then she can take back the Iron Fleet not bother with the whole Gold Company nonsense. Theon's story is done and if they want to redeem him then let it end in his death.
If Euron is dead and Yara unable to command, its likely the Iron Fleet would breakup anyway with no unifying force and go back to raiding.
Year a is only one to command fleet minus her uncle.
Theon is a dick less coward with a bad reputation.
Yara still has a reputation as a hood captain and did challenge euron despite the odds against her.
And if they wanted to bring in golden company. Should have been earlier and maybe had them landing in secret before the meeting.
Maybe end the name meeting with the golden commando coming out of a side room and starting discussing the coming battle.s
Just throwing out there that episode 6 is tied for 2nd lowest rated episode (in terms of reviews) behind only season 5, episode 6 where Sansa was raped.
Well random thoughts I had in car.
We have a very few options for a Jon snow romance.
As king, we need least a noble house. We need someone about 20's, and get his honour/mope mode nature.
So...
Who we have left alive/unmarried etc.
Sansa, arya. Hell no... Jeez. Just no.
Mormont. Too young, if older I'd put her above dany. Northern, noble. Loyal to house stark. Has more balls than most men.
Dany is closest match despite related. Similar backgrounds. Age and both of same rank, I high noble,/royal.
Both have similar stories. And goals.
Others.
We had tyrells... Had.
The eyre. Well aunt lysa, the Vale with Sansa and others well we have potentials. But we need to introduce new character. Running short on time.
Also semi related via stark side. There's no getting away from this in noble houses. Too old, too many to marry, not ernough families.
House gives frey... No. Pretty obvious.
Cesai... Do we need a answer...
Yara... Despite obvious sexual alignment issues.
Stark and grey joy, theon, seige of pike, just no...
Not gonna work.
Dany adviser. Nope. Grey worm got there first.
So unless we add a new charenter. And build them up alot so more than a obvious add in just for purpose. We low on choices.
Alot of losses in noble houses. Most side characters have fallen by way suitable, and with him being king. We need nobles.
So all in all. Bar magic time againg we only have Dany.
...
Dany wise. Well Jon snow only who slots in, there nigh on stuck with the other because we'll it just only way with current roster plus ending plus characters.
Options wise are not so high.
Unless we start adding a gendry - arya.. But that's out of character. Make tough team though.
Sansa has had her relationship alotted plots.
We have room in brine. Jamie's. Tormound triangle.
Tyrion had his plots too so unless we re link the old annulled marriage but that's a cliché I'd say...
All in all.
If they want romance. We have very few options with the current slotting.
sebster wrote: It didn't help that this redemption effort was pretty goofy, never mind the corny bit about being kneed in the groin and it not hurting, the whole thing about Theon killing the ship's captain to take the ship and prove he was strong again is a pretty goofy cliche. I mean, in what world does the crew of a ship just following some guy on a suicide mission, just because that guy just murdered their old captain in front of them?
*getting kneed hurts all the time, even in places that don't have genitals, so it'd also still really hurt in a place that used to have genitals.
So it actually turned out to be a GOOD THING that Ramsey carved him up down there!
And yeah, I don't see why they'd follow Theon on a suicide mission given that what they were planning to do obviously sounded better to them in the first place.
trexmeyer wrote: Just throwing out there that episode 6 is tied for 2nd lowest rated episode (in terms of reviews) behind only season 5, episode 6 where Sansa was raped.
Deserves to be much lower than that episode - at least the Sansa story made sense within the plot. It was unpleasant but that's quasi-medieval life for you and in fact very little different to what happened to Dany - in fact its a pity that Sansa and Dany have not met.
I enjoyed the episode - but suspension of disbelief only really lasted to the titles. This was very thin gruel.
Jon's fascination with Ygrit evolved, added tension and sparks to their relationship. With Dany - nothing. This was the real emptiness at the heart of the episode for me. Considering it's the climax of so much plotting... no resonance, no magic, no tension.
Bran has incredible powers - but all he's ever really done is work out who Jon's parents are. How bloody useful for all that hassle and all those dead companions. The encounters with Samwell was laughable.
What did Samwell learn in his time away? He got reminded where dragonglass comes from, and his girlfriend found a scroll. Is that really what you'd expect from a life-changing quest?
Tyrion has sorted out many deals that didn't work out because the other party wasn't trustworthy. He did it again. Shock horror. Plus, as mentioned before, his plan to kidnap the wight lost us a dragon. When was the last time we saw Tyrion demonstrating his intelligence. Or even his wit?
As for Littlefinger, the evil Machiavelli. What did he do this season, except stand in the background looking significant? It was ok, his death, but hardly a shock or a thrill.
Yep, theon being Theon. More of the same.
And the Winter King looks silly on a dragon, I reckon.
I still enjoy the performances, but there was absolutely zero flair in the plotting or dialogue.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I enjoyed the episode - but suspension of disbelief only really lasted to the titles. This was very thin gruel.
Jon's fascination with Ygrit evolved, added tension and sparks to their relationship. With Dany - nothing. This was the real emptiness at the heart of the episode for me. Considering it's the climax of so much plotting... no resonance, no magic, no tension.
Bran has incredible powers - but all he's ever really done is work out who Jon's parents are. How bloody useful for all that hassle and all those dead companions. The encounters with Samwell was laughable.
What did Samwell learn in his time away? He got reminded where dragonglass comes from, and his girlfriend found a scroll. Is that really what you'd expect from a life-changing quest?
Tyrion has sorted out many deals that didn't work out because the other party wasn't trustworthy. He did it again. Shock horror. Plus, as mentioned before, his plan to kidnap the wight lost us a dragon. When was the last time we saw Tyrion demonstrating his intelligence. Or even his wit?
As for Littlefinger, the evil Machiavelli. What did he do this season, except stand in the background looking significant? It was ok, his death, but hardly a shock or a thrill.
Yep, theon being Theon. More of the same.
And the Winter King looks silly on a dragon, I reckon.
I still enjoy the performances, but there was absolutely zero flair in the plotting or dialogue.
To be fair to Theon, he been a coward and such but also h got tortured by ramsey snow...
What can that guy on beach do more,, pain aint going to work.
and well... lol.
So, cannot hurt whats gone. Maybe finally now Jon managed to give him some guts back, and Theon grew some balls he might be able to do something.
He might be dangerous combining that determination and giving him back his,,, Theon part. reconciling the wolf and thee kraken.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I enjoyed the episode - but suspension of disbelief only really lasted to the titles. This was very thin gruel.
Jon's fascination with Ygrit evolved, added tension and sparks to their relationship. With Dany - nothing. This was the real emptiness at the heart of the episode for me. Considering it's the climax of so much plotting... no resonance, no magic, no tension.
Bran has incredible powers - but all he's ever really done is work out who Jon's parents are. How bloody useful for all that hassle and all those dead companions. The encounters with Samwell was laughable.
What did Samwell learn in his time away? He got reminded where dragonglass comes from, and his girlfriend found a scroll. Is that really what you'd expect from a life-changing quest?
Tyrion has sorted out many deals that didn't work out because the other party wasn't trustworthy. He did it again. Shock horror. Plus, as mentioned before, his plan to kidnap the wight lost us a dragon. When was the last time we saw Tyrion demonstrating his intelligence. Or even his wit?
As for Littlefinger, the evil Machiavelli. What did he do this season, except stand in the background looking significant? It was ok, his death, but hardly a shock or a thrill.
Yep, theon being Theon. More of the same.
And the Winter King looks silly on a dragon, I reckon.
I still enjoy the performances, but there was absolutely zero flair in the plotting or dialogue.
All good analysis and agree with all the points.
I think that's the problem with established cast in a tv show - you have to give them something to do or kill them off - so you end up inventing plots for them - I recall True Blood being awful for this and watching Originals at the moment and they keep having to find a plot for Cami.....
This season that's been the problem with Sam and family, Theon, Sansa, Littlefinger and others.
Bran is a simply awful creation - yeah I know everything - except when I don't , nah not going to tell you anything useful - URGGGHH -- He is a really terrible plot device which they seldom bother to utilise except for exposition and fan service.
He tried being Ironborn without honor, that's how he took Winterfell and we have seen the results. He tried being honorable like a Stark after Ramsey, but he didn't have the strength of the ironborn to back it up and failed.
It's the combination of Stark and Greyjoy that we finally got to see, the strength of the islands with the honor of the north.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I enjoyed the episode - but suspension of disbelief only really lasted to the titles. This was very thin gruel.
Jon's fascination with Ygrit evolved, added tension and sparks to their relationship. With Dany - nothing. This was the real emptiness at the heart of the episode for me. Considering it's the climax of so much plotting... no resonance, no magic, no tension.
Bran has incredible powers - but all he's ever really done is work out who Jon's parents are. How bloody useful for all that hassle and all those dead companions. The encounters with Samwell was laughable.
What did Samwell learn in his time away? He got reminded where dragonglass comes from, and his girlfriend found a scroll. Is that really what you'd expect from a life-changing quest?
Tyrion has sorted out many deals that didn't work out because the other party wasn't trustworthy. He did it again. Shock horror. Plus, as mentioned before, his plan to kidnap the wight lost us a dragon. When was the last time we saw Tyrion demonstrating his intelligence. Or even his wit?
As for Littlefinger, the evil Machiavelli. What did he do this season, except stand in the background looking significant? It was ok, his death, but hardly a shock or a thrill.
Yep, theon being Theon. More of the same.
And the Winter King looks silly on a dragon, I reckon.
I still enjoy the performances, but there was absolutely zero flair in the plotting or dialogue.
All good analysis and agree with all the points.
I think that's the problem with established cast in a tv show - you have to give them something to do or kill them off - so you end up inventing plots for them - I recall True Blood being awful for this and watching Originals at the moment and they keep having to find a plot for Cami.....
This season that's been the problem with Sam and family, Theon, Sansa, Littlefinger and others.
Bran is a simply awful creation - yeah I know everything - except when I don't , nah not going to tell you anything useful - URGGGHH -- He is a really terrible plot device which they seldom bother to utilise except for exposition and fan service.
A thing to remember is that Bran doesn't actually know everything. He has the means to get all the information, yes, but he still has to look for it. It also still takes time for him to find these events and watch them.
You're all overlooking how Theon willingly fought in the naval battle, risking his life. He is no stranger to battle, and a reasonably capable fighter. If he'd been present at the Battle of the Bastards, I think he would have acquitted himself honourably.
It was only the prospect of capture and being tortured once again that triggered his PTSD and broke his nerve. Theon does not fear death, he fears torture.
I think best he can hope for is a noble sacrifice in some manner but he was put through the wringer.
And fair play to the actor, i think he's carried that part well -- his face/acting during that sea battle was really good IMO.
...
.. so I figure they'll do some sneaky rescue attempt, sorta succeed and the .. Golden Company ..?? or whatever --- will either not arrive or be "turned" to work against Cersei.
That said you don't see elephants fighting undead armies very often so I hope we get to see that whatever happens.
A thing to remember is that Bran doesn't actually know everything. He has the means to get all the information, yes, but he still has to look for it. It also still takes time for him to find these events and watch them
Maybe he should actually look for important things and if / when he finds them - tell someone!
The location of the Undead, what they are doing, if they are about to ambush and kill a dragon for instance is a bit more important at this point than what Sansa was wearing on a given night or Jon's parents - for all the fan squealing.
Remember he has had months sitting in his chair in Winterfell to find useful things and given them squat. Charles Xavier he ain;t. Dull exposition device he is.
Yeah, have to agree here.
I think best he can hope for is a noble sacrifice in some manner but he was put through the wringer.
And fair play to the actor, i think he's carried that part well -- his face/acting during that sea battle was really good IMO.
... .. so I figure they'll do some sneaky rescue attempt, sorta succeed and the .. Golden Company ..?? or whatever --- will either not arrive or be "turned" to work against Cersei.
That said you don't see elephants fighting undead armies very often so I hope we get to see that whatever happens.
I thought that the whole reaction to him being captured was really well done - on the other hand - they could have just left his story there, his men chuck him back overboard and sail on - Viking style raiders were not really accommodating of PTSD - they would see it (and are ) as
cowardice.
But he is a show regular - so need to give him a plot.
I think the Elephants are intended to be used against the Dothraki - historically they tend to cause havoc with cavalry (sight, smell, sound of them terrifies horses) so would be extremely effective against them.
A thing to remember is that Bran doesn't actually know everything. He has the means to get all the information, yes, but he still has to look for it. It also still takes time for him to find these events and watch them
Maybe he should actually look for important things and if / when he finds them - tell someone!
The location of the Undead, what they are doing, if they are about to ambush and kill a dragon for instance is a bit more important at this point than what Sansa was wearing on a given night or Jon's parents - for all the fan squealing.
Remember he has had months sitting in his chair in Winterfell to find useful things and given them squat. Charles Xavier he ain;t. Dull exposition device he is.
Yeah, have to agree here.
I think best he can hope for is a noble sacrifice in some manner but he was put through the wringer.
And fair play to the actor, i think he's carried that part well -- his face/acting during that sea battle was really good IMO.
... .. so I figure they'll do some sneaky rescue attempt, sorta succeed and the .. Golden Company ..?? or whatever --- will either not arrive or be "turned" to work against Cersei.
That said you don't see elephants fighting undead armies very often so I hope we get to see that whatever happens.
I thought that the whole reaction to him being captured was really well done - on the other hand - they could have just left his story there, his men chuck him back overboard and sail on - Viking style raiders were not really accommodating of PTSD - they would see it (and are ) as
cowardice.
But he is a show regular - so need to give him a plot.
I think the Elephants are intended to be used against the Dothraki - historically they tend to cause havoc with cavalry (sight, smell, sound of them terrifies horses) so would be extremely effective against them.
Winter though. snow is far south as kings landing. In the north its been snowing and winter for a entire season of the show.
they have a limited range. though keeeping a dothraki force fed and mounted mid winter aint easy too.
I was kinda working on the assumption that Bran has been telling people things off screen, albeit in broad brush strokes. EG, "so the dead are somewhere near-ish Eastwatch" - hence how Jon knew to look for them.
Compel wrote: I was kinda working on the assumption that Bran has been telling people things off screen, albeit in broad brush strokes. EG, "so the dead are somewhere near-ish Eastwatch" - hence how Jon knew to look for them.
Bran knew exactly where they were due to his flock of ravens - but apparently told no-one - likely still perving on his sister - Starks after all are on the few Houses without incest.
Why would he not tell them exactly where they were - unless he is actually not interested in the living anymore.
d-usa wrote: So Sansa is pissed that John is fething his Sister because Bran didn't tell him where the White Walkers were?
Er what - also Dany is not Jon's Sister
Aunt... Not sister.
That's the lanisters.
And at this point admittedly t every noble house is related somewhere down the line. Between marriages and blood, many of the noble houses are at least distant relations.
d-usa wrote: We have no indication that Bran isn't telling anybody anything.
Bran sees stuff - apparently - but when exactly has he told anyone anything of any actual use? Nearest he came was when he quoted Little Fingers words to Ned but even if he hadn't it would have made zero difference.
MDSW wrote: Maybe not brother and sister, aunt and nephew, but most of European nobility had arranged relative marriages to cousins, etc.
True. Cousins and other less direct relations often married. What did not help was small pool, marriages. In the end alot would be related over time.
Egypt married closer at times . Old Egypt.
One dynasty even married to brother sister to keep the line "pure"
One euprooeen family married internally for 6 centuries over a larger but rather inbred gene pool. Hasburgs.
The whole semi incestuous nature of game of thrones is slightly based in real facts. Close marriage by choice or sheer fact everyone was related did happen.
I think we can safely assume that Bran told his sisters quite a bit about Littlefinger offscreen, because Sansa knew some stuff she shouldn't have otherwise (that Littlefinger started the feud between the Lannisters and Starks and that the blade used in Bran's assassination attempt was really Littlefingers), and what Bran did say to Littlefinger in that 'hearing' didn't register any kind of surprise on Ayra or Sansa's faces.
He had definitely filled them in on whatever bits they didn't know.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I enjoyed the episode - but suspension of disbelief only really lasted to the titles. This was very thin gruel.
1. Jon's fascination with Ygrit evolved, added tension and sparks to their relationship. With Dany - nothing. This was the real emptiness at the heart of the episode for me. Considering it's the climax of so much plotting... no resonance, no magic, no tension.
2. Bran has incredible powers - but all he's ever really done is work out who Jon's parents are. How bloody useful for all that hassle and all those dead companions. The encounters with Samwell was laughable.
3. What did Samwell learn in his time away? He got reminded where dragonglass comes from, and his girlfriend found a scroll. Is that really what you'd expect from a life-changing quest?
4. Tyrion has sorted out many deals that didn't work out because the other party wasn't trustworthy. He did it again. Shock horror. Plus, as mentioned before, his plan to kidnap the wight lost us a dragon. When was the last time we saw Tyrion demonstrating his intelligence. Or even his wit?
5. As for Littlefinger, the evil Machiavelli. What did he do this season, except stand in the background looking significant? It was ok, his death, but hardly a shock or a thrill.
6. Yep, theon being Theon. More of the same.
1. I felt tension from the moment he refused to bend the knee. Granted more from Dany who was grappling with her feelings which became interesting when Jorah showed up. I think they built it nicely for her. Jon has always been a bit....thick. "He knows nothing". She literally had to ride a dragon to save him and stay at the wall for him to show back up for him to realize she had feelings. Ygritte wasn't much different in how she got his attention but remember Jon was also a virgin then
2. I like Bran. I think that most people of the north don't know what to do with him. I think he'll be a weapon for those with the wit to use him which will be Jon and Dany. They don't fear the weird and are more accepting of it than Sansa is. Hell look how easily in stride Sam took his weirdness and used him to determine new information. You can't expect a teenage kid to suddenly understand and guide powers he's had a few months like a master. And you can't expect people to listen to him. Though the maester at least sent ravens for him.
3. Samwell Tarly learned the difference between being a watcher and a doer honestly. He found additional information but realized that he wasn't going to affect the war where he was meaningfully and Sam isn't a coward anymore. He WANTS to help. I thought he developed nicely. For god sakes he's proven he can cure greyscale.
4. Bringing one back wasn't his idea. It was Jorah's. So Jorah got a dragon killed. Or Jon since she probably would have written it off if it was just Jorah. But the idea to a truce is solid. His first plan for the war was solid but didn't account for the ironborn. Which no one expected. He's also basically fighting with one hand because he's trying to keep his queen from becoming a mass murderer and because he believes she can break the cycle that's plagued the 7 kingdoms since her ancestor showed up. And to be fair he's managed to keep her mostly from making that mistake.
5. Littlefinger I agree but we saw him trying to extend his influence over Sansa throughout the season. This season was actually more about seeing him fail and Sansa's growth than it was Sansa. I liked it because he literally thought the game hadn't changed. He should have remembered Stark honor before trying to pit sister against sister. It showed, in small scale, the changes in the world. And then he died. Think of him as a predictor of Cersai.
6. Theon grew too. And I'll second that the dude was brawling and murdering before the spectre of capture and torture reared it's head. And Jon forgiving him freed a lot of his baggage.
Overall I think the season was excellent. Speed travel not withstanding but I don't care about it. The realism of travel wore thin 5 seasons ago. Outside of that issue I felt the season moved well, things happened, there was character building and lots of things said and showed in smaller bursts with deeper meaning. But maybe I'm a minority.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yakface makes a good point too. I could see sansa turning to bran to see if he could tell anything once she had that last convo with Littlefinger.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I enjoyed the episode - but suspension of disbelief only really lasted to the titles. This was very thin gruel.
1. Jon's fascination with Ygrit evolved, added tension and sparks to their relationship. With Dany - nothing. This was the real emptiness at the heart of the episode for me. Considering it's the climax of so much plotting... no resonance, no magic, no tension.
2. Bran has incredible powers - but all he's ever really done is work out who Jon's parents are. How bloody useful for all that hassle and all those dead companions. The encounters with Samwell was laughable.
3. What did Samwell learn in his time away? He got reminded where dragonglass comes from, and his girlfriend found a scroll. Is that really what you'd expect from a life-changing quest?
4. Tyrion has sorted out many deals that didn't work out because the other party wasn't trustworthy. He did it again. Shock horror. Plus, as mentioned before, his plan to kidnap the wight lost us a dragon. When was the last time we saw Tyrion demonstrating his intelligence. Or even his wit?
5. As for Littlefinger, the evil Machiavelli. What did he do this season, except stand in the background looking significant? It was ok, his death, but hardly a shock or a thrill.
6. Yep, theon being Theon. More of the same.
1. I felt tension from the moment he refused to bend the knee. Granted more from Dany who was grappling with her feelings which became interesting when Jorah showed up. I think they built it nicely for her. Jon has always been a bit....thick. "He knows nothing". She literally had to ride a dragon to save him and stay at the wall for him to show back up for him to realize she had feelings. Ygritte wasn't much different in how she got his attention but remember Jon was also a virgin then
2. I like Bran. I think that most people of the north don't know what to do with him. I think he'll be a weapon for those with the wit to use him which will be Jon and Dany. They don't fear the weird and are more accepting of it than Sansa is. Hell look how easily in stride Sam took his weirdness and used him to determine new information. You can't expect a teenage kid to suddenly understand and guide powers he's had a few months like a master. And you can't expect people to listen to him. Though the maester at least sent ravens for him.
3. Samwell Tarly learned the difference between being a watcher and a doer honestly. He found additional information but realized that he wasn't going to affect the war where he was meaningfully and Sam isn't a coward anymore. He WANTS to help. I thought he developed nicely. For god sakes he's proven he can cure greyscale.
4. Bringing one back wasn't his idea. It was Jorah's. So Jorah got a dragon killed. Or Jon since she probably would have written it off if it was just Jorah. But the idea to a truce is solid. His first plan for the war was solid but didn't account for the ironborn. Which no one expected. He's also basically fighting with one hand because he's trying to keep his queen from becoming a mass murderer and because he believes she can break the cycle that's plagued the 7 kingdoms since her ancestor showed up. And to be fair he's managed to keep her mostly from making that mistake.
5. Littlefinger I agree but we saw him trying to extend his influence over Sansa throughout the season. This season was actually more about seeing him fail and Sansa's growth than it was Sansa. I liked it because he literally thought the game hadn't changed. He should have remembered Stark honor before trying to pit sister against sister. It showed, in small scale, the changes in the world. And then he died. Think of him as a predictor of Cersai.
6. Theon grew too. And I'll second that the dude was brawling and murdering before the spectre of capture and torture reared it's head. And Jon forgiving him freed a lot of his baggage.
Overall I think the season was excellent. Speed travel not withstanding but I don't care about it. The realism of travel wore thin 5 seasons ago. Outside of that issue I felt the season moved well, things happened, there was character building and lots of things said and showed in smaller bursts with deeper meaning. But maybe I'm a minority.
I only got energy to answer one or two but one.
Dany and jon.
They do I admit are a somewhat fan forced couple. Yes there was tension from the cave scene onwards and small sparks from the cut off died for his honour bit.
Of all the characters they do have a shared value.
They both only ones same background. I think that will improve with time.
They ain't entirely forced. Just not entirely natural.
Give it 10 episodes and more time to evolve. It would of been better in that sloe chemistry and trust building.
In comparison.
Look at Sansa. She is the game.
Jon, dany they are not. I sense some friction coming there though when he stark women meet dany.
Also friction how she is now game player.
Jon has straight up need stark honour.
...
Bran.
Well I fell potential for growth there. In right hands he a war winning weapon. More than dragons. He can guide your armies exactly where you need to be. At right time. Perfectly.
Also waging and ravens. He a spy network. He can track half the damned north movements.
Only if smart ernough to use such a tool at disposal.
....
Sam no coward. He stood against two rapists alone, took beating and stood back up for round two.
He got more guts than you give him credit.
He found his strengthnin the knights watch. He took his family sword, he is a Tarly. He is worthy of his name.
...
Little finger. Well his love may have worked against him. He never saw it coming from Sansa.
His pupil. His mini cat.. His project.
He got blind sided. He predicted arya. And maybe saw risk in bran. Knew jon.
But Sansa.... Nope. Out off thr blue.
...
Lasty. Yeah. The admin lord has a strong point.
Sansa is a smart game player now. She would of seen the value in bran and his powers.
He has ability to keep house stark one step ahead of enemies.
She ain't gonna ignore that.
And bonus points.
Jamie's holding his honour above his family seems a big change. Slow change but somthing just broke his code too far now.
He turned away for cesai it seems and is upholding his personal honour over family honour. Big thing for lanisters.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Bran has incredible powers - but all he's ever really done is work out who Jon's parents are. How bloody useful for all that hassle and all those dead companions. The encounters with Samwell was laughable.
Bran's involvement in the plot isn't over yet. Bran will likely play a major part in stopping the Night King in the next season. Your statement is a lot like saying that all Ob-Wan and Yoda's training of Luke was a waste because all Luke did was get his hand cut off and fall down a hole.
Also, 'work out who Jon's parents are' is wrong and misses the point. He learned the true heir to the Targaryen throne, learned the original cause of Robert's Rebellion was based on a lie. Both of these are likely to play a major part in establishing the Azor Ahai prophecy.
What did Samwell learn in his time away? He got reminded where dragonglass comes from, and his girlfriend found a scroll. Is that really what you'd expect from a life-changing quest?
It wasn't a life changing quest. It was what he thought he wanted for his life, only to begin that journey and realise that what he'd experienced in life meant the dreams for his youth of being safely surrounded by books and learning weren't what he wanted any more. He'd seen the real dangers in the world, and now feels that he must play his part. Sam's time in the Citadel was character development through internal development, not by overcoming an external antagonist.
Also he saved Jorah's life while at the citadel.
Mr Morden wrote: I think that's the problem with established cast in a tv show - you have to give them something to do or kill them off - so you end up inventing plots for them - I recall True Blood being awful for this and watching Originals at the moment and they keep having to find a plot for Cami.....
The irony here is that when the show put Gendry on ice for a few seasons people joked about it. It seems the audience wants it both ways, and will bitch about whichever side they don't get.
Bran is a simply awful creation - yeah I know everything - except when I don't , nah not going to tell you anything useful - URGGGHH -- He is a really terrible plot device which they seldom bother to utilise except for exposition and fan service.
Most of the problem here is that many people haven't paid attention to how Bran's power is actually shown on the screen. Lots of people just assume omniscience and start making up complaints. But if you actually watch, you see Bran has the ability to go to any point in time, but needs to actually go there to see what happened. Lacking the time to go to every single point in history ever, Bran obviously needs a reason to go to a particular point and see what happened. So knowing nothing about Rhaegar's relationship with Lyanna other than the abduction he was told about as a kid, he never knew to go see what really happened. When Sam told him about the annulment, he went to see what really happened.
This also explains other things like his mistake with his sister, he was curious to see his sister's wedding, but not being a creep he didn't wait around to see what Ramsey did afterwards.
Mr Morden wrote: Maybe he should actually look for important things and if / when he finds them - tell someone!
The location of the Undead, what they are doing, if they are about to ambush and kill a dragon for instance
Bran's been shown on multiple occasion's using his warging abilities to control a flock of crows, scouting the location of the army of the dead.
Claiming Bran should have known they were planning to ambush a dragon is a strange thing you just made up. There's no indication at all that Bran has any kind power that would have allowed him to learn what the Night King was planning, if indeed it was the plan at all.
is a bit more important at this point than what Sansa was wearing on a given night or Jon's parents - for all the fan squealing.
The true heir of the Targaryen throne is actually pretty important, and it's role in Azor Ahai and stopping the Night King is also a big deal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: Bran sees stuff - apparently - but when exactly has he told anyone anything of any actual use? Nearest he came was when he quoted Little Fingers words to Ned but even if he hadn't it would have made zero difference.
Note that during Sansa's long series of doubts about her sister Bran was absent, but when Sansa allies with her sister and condemns Littlefinger, Bran is there behind, looking very smug about everything. Sure he spoke up and quoted exactly what was said, but it's absurd to conclude that's the only part he played. It's pretty clearly shown that he was behind Sansa learning about the depth of Littlefinger's plotting. I mean, he was literally behind her when she accused Littlefinger.
The irony here is that when the show put Gendry on ice for a few seasons people joked about it. It seems the audience wants it both ways, and will bitch about whichever side they don't get.
Personally zero interest in him then or now.j I was talking about others - specfically LittleFinger after her and Sansa saved Jon Snow and his army after Snow had lost (Again) he had nothing meaningful to, his ploting has become more and more bizare and nebulous - simply to give him soemthing to do - end of season - they get rid of him - and that was actually well done.
Sam was given the whole cure Jorah as something to do, Gendry becomes the Flash etc
Most of the problem here is that many people haven't paid attention to how Bran's power is actually shown on the screen. Lots of people just assume omniscience and start making up complaints. But if you actually watch, you see Bran has the ability to go to any point in time, but needs to actually go there to see what happened. Lacking the time to go to every single point in history ever, Bran obviously needs a reason to go to a particular point and see what happened. So knowing nothing about Rhaegar's relationship with Lyanna other than the abduction he was told about as a kid, he never knew to go see what really happened. When Sam told him about the annulment, he went to see what really happened.This also explains other things like his mistake with his sister, he was curious to see his sister's wedding, but not being a creep he didn't wait around to see what Ramsey did afterwards.
1 We don't know whathe saw or how long he hung about - he is portrayed as increasingly inhuman.
2. He has had Months to do find out stuff and tell people on screen - none of which has been shown or even implied to have happened, no one has referenced him in any way being a useful source of information so its fair to conclude he is now little more than a voyer of unfolding events in universe and in the show serves as nothng more than a exposition mouth piece and fo fan service snap shots of the past.
Bran's been shown on multiple occasion's using his warging abilities to control a flock of crows, scouting the location of the army of the dead. Claiming Bran should have known they were planning to ambush a dragon is a strange thing you just made up. There's no indication at all that Bran has any kind power that would have allowed him to learn what the Night King was planning, if indeed it was the plan at all.
And yet no one up North knows where they are, which part of the wall they are heading to, how far they are from the Wall etc - yep Bran does but apparently has told no-one - either because he is unwilling or simply not interested. Again there is absoluitely no reference to him passing on his godly insights. They had to rely on vague visions from the Lord of Light and wonder about in the snow.
The true heir of the Targaryen throne is actually pretty important, and it's role in Azor Ahai and stopping the Night King is also a big deal.
Personally I say Feth the Azor Ahai prophecy and that crap - I have been hoping in vain that GRM and the writers were trying to go with the whole - don;t believe in Propercy - make your own way - hence the whole story with a certain Red Priestess. But thats not going to happen - Its all about Jon Fething Snow.
Note that during Sansa's long series of doubts about her sister Bran was absent, but when Sansa allies with her sister and condemns Littlefinger, Bran is there behind, looking very smug about everything. Sure he spoke up and quoted exactly what was said, but it's absurd to conclude that's the only part he played. It's pretty clearly shown that he was behind Sansa learning about the depth of Littlefinger's plotting. I mean, he was literally behind her when she accused Littlefinger.
Bran - looking smug - like every moment he is on screen - again inhuman mind watching all the little humans scurry about - its all very Dr Manhatten at the moment
Sansa needed him there as the male heir to Winterfel, she was just lucky he was not drooling. She may have asked him to go back and look at her fathers time leading up to his death - but I doubt Bran had the interest or will to do it on his own.
It wasn't a life changing quest. It was what he thought he wanted for his life, only to begin that journey and realise that what he'd experienced in life meant the dreams for his youth of being safely surrounded by books and learning weren't what he wanted any more. He'd seen the real dangers in the world, and now feels that he must play his part. Sam's time in the Citadel was character development through internal development, not by overcoming an external antagonist.
Also he saved Jorah's life while at the citadel.
Those are fair observations; we are all calibrated differently in terms of whether we believe character development is full and convincing. I love Samwell as a character; he's a bright guy and I didn't see an intellectual journey there. The bravery of trying to cure Jorah was perhaps the one instance that hinted at this; I could have done with more.
Overall, GOT has always shown about the consequences of our actions, culminating in dramatic events like the red weding, or Jon's murder. Usually the foundations for events are laid well in advance, for instance Cat's hurried deal with Waldor Frey worked itself out over two series. There are still foundations in the new series; they're simply not as deep.
I enjoyed the episode as it rolled; but I think, objectively, it's fair to observe the plotting this time around is not as deep as in earlier seasons.
I think we can safely assume that Bran told his sisters quite a bit about Littlefinger offscreen, because Sansa knew some stuff she shouldn't have otherwise (that Littlefinger started the feud between the Lannisters and Starks and that the blade used in Bran's assassination attempt was really Littlefingers), and what Bran did say to Littlefinger in that 'hearing' didn't register any kind of surprise on Ayra or Sansa's faces.
He had definitely filled them in on whatever bits they didn't know.
Aerys wasn't completely nuts, but he was stupid. His poor decisions and lack of tact killed the Seven Kingdoms.
Rhaegar allowed his father to act like an idiot and did nothing to stop it. He made the situation worse (along with Lyanna) by not doing things the proper, acceptable way.
Viserys was an arse, but that's to be understood. He's the product of childhood abuse, neglect, and an over inflated ego.
Daenerys talks about making the world a better place, but has she ever actually done that? What does than even mean? It sounds like an inane political slogan.
Jon is so far deep into Lawful Stupid that he could go on a crime spree for the next decade before seeing an alignment shift. I liked the character in the books and up to season 5, but since then he's gone downhill fast. Why do we care if he's Rhaegar's son? Rhaegar got killed by Robert FFS. Rhaegar didn't have enough sense TO NOT run off with a betrothed girl. What makes Rhaegar so damn special? All we ever get are second hand accounts of how amazing he was...
And the Targaryens as a whole are nothing special. They weren't renowned in Valyria. They're just the only house that happened to leave before the doom because of spooky visions.
The most notable thing any of them has done IMO is honor their oath to the Night's Watch. Wrecking people on your dragons isn't anything special. If find it hard to believe GRR Martin is actually intending to go the route of blood > effort.
Sure, I was just pointing out the audience seem to simultaneously demand that no character be left off screen for any length of time, and demand that the characters shouldn't be given minor sub-plots just to keep them on screen.
I was talking about others - specfically LittleFinger after her and Sansa saved Jon Snow and his army after Snow had lost (Again) he had nothing meaningful to, his ploting has become more and more bizare and nebulous - simply to give him soemthing to do - end of season - they get rid of him - and that was actually well done.
That's true, Littlefinger just hanging around Winterfell all that time was more than a little contrived. His multi-decade plan was to usurp control of the Vale and become its defacto ruler, and then... never go there and instead just hang around Winterfell all the time doing some kind of nefarious seeming nothing.
1 We don't know whathe saw or how long he hung about - he is portrayed as increasingly inhuman.
One option is to think Bran watched the ceremony, by the tree remember where visions are easiest, and was unaware of what Sansa suffered after that. The other option is that Bran hung around to watch his sister have sex, saw she was forced and brutalised, and then didn't think anything of that when casually mentioning the events to her sister.
The former is the more obvious, and works in describing Bran's ability and how it works afterwards, the second is weird and makes no sense with everything we saw after.
2. He has had Months to do find out stuff and tell people on screen - none of which has been shown or even implied to have happened, no one has referenced him in any way being a useful source of information so its fair to conclude he is now little more than a voyer of unfolding events in universe and in the show serves as nothng more than a exposition mouth piece and fo fan service snap shots of the past.
We actually don't know how much time he can spend in a day looking in to the past. It's really weird that you're assuming he must have the ability all day, every day, and then complain that he isn't doing it all day, every day.
And yet no one up North knows where they are, which part of the wall they are heading to, how far they are from the Wall etc - yep Bran does but apparently has told no-one - either because he is unwilling or simply not interested. Again there is absoluitely no reference to him passing on his godly insights. They had to rely on vague visions from the Lord of Light and wonder about in the snow.
They went North of Eastwatch, where the army was. The exact location of the army was unknown, but they knew its general location pretty well. While Bran isn't shown giving that information, it's weird to conclude it isn't happening and then complain that he should be doing it.
Personally I say Feth the Azor Ahai prophecy and that crap - I have been hoping in vain that GRM and the writers were trying to go with the whole - don;t believe in Propercy - make your own way - hence the whole story with a certain Red Priestess. But thats not going to happen - Its all about Jon Fething Snow.
Prophecy has been throughout the show and is often proven true, so hoping the shows major prophecy just wouldn't happen is hoping against what was already on the screen. But it is just as mistaken to think if there is to be prophecy, it must default to a boring chosen one narrative that sees Jon win the show through power of prophecy. GoT has treated prophecy throughout in very interesting ways. So it's most likely that the prophecy will be realised, but there'll be a bunch of twists in how it plays out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Those are fair observations; we are all calibrated differently in terms of whether we believe character development is full and convincing. I love Samwell as a character; he's a bright guy and I didn't see an intellectual journey there. The bravery of trying to cure Jorah was perhaps the one instance that hinted at this; I could have done with more.
Overall, GOT has always shown about the consequences of our actions, culminating in dramatic events like the red weding, or Jon's murder. Usually the foundations for events are laid well in advance, for instance Cat's hurried deal with Waldor Frey worked itself out over two series. There are still foundations in the new series; they're simply not as deep.
Fair point about everyone being calibrated differently. That story worked for me, but then a bunch of other minor stories in the show haven't worked for me at all, but lots of other people really liked. For instance I thought the double and triple crossing to take Winterfell felt like a parody of GoT, but lots of people loved that.
I agree that GoT has on some level been about consequences, and has worked because it had the appearance of a story where risk was real for everyone. However, I think this was always a bit of a con, Martin had his key characters who weren't going to meet sudden deaths. We were just tricked because the set of characters we were originally presented with weren't those core characters (or at least not all of them were). It isn't just Jon. Jaime should be dead. Tyrion is always let off. Brienne's had a whole lot of 'but then they decide not to kill her moments'.
I enjoyed the episode as it rolled; but I think, objectively, it's fair to observe the plotting this time around is not as deep as in earlier seasons.
The plotting isn't as intricate, and there's a lot more handwaving to get things moving along. I wish things were a little tighter, but at the same time I'm happy they're moving at a quicker pace. There's a lot to be said for depth, but there's also a lot to be said for pace.
s7 is far from the strongest series, but at this point in the show I'm much happier they're erring on the side of pace than detail.
A decent season overall but its simply gone too formulaic and a bit "goody good" for me. I no longer feel any fear from Cersie, the political intrigue from earlier seasons / backstabbing, hell even the undead dont feel much at the moment.
I have a bad feeling the last season is going to be feel good central after a few big (albeit hopefully enjoyable) battles.
I think this season started off lame, and continued to get lamer as it went on (but still nice to look at). The final episode being a happy surprise as it had some nice plot points.
Jon is just frustrating and is quite happy to betray his own people because Dany is so sexy.
Tyrion has become tedious, like he was in the last few books.
I quite like what they did with Sam, but why is Gilly not pregnant!
No one would follow Theon... no one... ever.
I hope Jon stays dead in the books..... and little Griff takes his place (or something).
StygianBeach wrote: I think this season started off lame, and continued to get lamer as it went on (but still nice to look at). The final episode being a happy surprise as it had some nice plot points.
Jon is just frustrating and is quite happy to betray his own people because Dany is so sexy.
Tyrion has become tedious, like he was in the last few books.
I quite like what they did with Sam, but why is Gilly not pregnant!
No one would follow Theon... no one... ever.
I hope Jon stays dead in the books..... and little Griff takes his place (or something).
Choosing sex, power or such over long term stratigic thinking is a got standard for any lord or king at this point lol.
Daenerys is the new Cersei: she became ruthless by killing the Tarlys, she's obsessed with her children and recently lost one (I bet all dragons will die by the end of the story), she's proclaimed herself queen while she doesn't have the right to be the queen, she has sex with a close relative. Both were portayed naked in more than an episode. And she's also blonde. She only need to cut her hair
I'm the only one that doesn't want Jon and/or Dany to sit in the iron throne? They're ok characters but IMHO the real stars of the show are not them. And I love Cersei but since she's the queen now it not likely that she will sit in the iron throne at the end of the show
I hope gendry will rule westeros, it's in his blood.
Blackie wrote: Daenerys is the new Cersei: she became ruthless by killing the Tarlys, she's obsessed with her children and recently lost one (I bet all dragons will die by the end of the story), she's proclaimed herself queen while she doesn't have the right to be the queen, she has sex with a close relative. Both were portayed naked in more than an episode. And she's also blonde. She only need to cut her hair
I'm the only one that doesn't want Jon and/or Dany to sit in the iron throne? They're ok characters but IMHO the real stars of the show are not them. And I love Cersei but since she's the queen now it not likely that she will sit in the iron throne at the end of the show
I hope gendry will rule westeros, it's in his blood.
Wow you hate Dany as much as I do Jon
Dany did what every other generous ruler in the Seven Kingdoms would do - she offered clemency to those who bend the knee - even to oathbreakers like the Tully's. They could have switched sides (again) but they choose death.
Dany is a true born daughter of a Royal Bloodline - how doe she not have the right? Gendry is a bastard - he has a vague claim but not a good one.
Dany is sleeping with close relative but thats traditional to her family and also she is unaware. Jon is likely the one to have a fit when he finds out given the stick up his ass.
trexmeyer wrote:Aerys wasn't completely nuts, but he was stupid. His poor decisions and lack of tact killed the Seven Kingdoms.
Wanting to burn King's Landing to a crisp isn't nuts?
How about killing your Warden of the North with fire in a trail by combat when he asks that your son explain his actions in "kidnapping" his daughter, throwing the Seven Kingdoms in disarray?
The man had no plan beyond solidifying his reign. He was vastly paranoid and generally incompetent - when he was kidnapped, his own Hand, Tywin, didn't even want to rescue him, saying that Rhaegar would be a far better king than his father.
Rhaegar allowed his father to act like an idiot and did nothing to stop it. He made the situation worse (along with Lyanna) by not doing things the proper, acceptable way.
Rhaegar was actually involved in the plot to depose Aerys. He fully intended to make the Seven Kingdoms a better place, and after much reading in his early life, believed he was involved in the Azor Ahai prophecy - sparking his marriage to Lyanna. In fact, rather much like Jon in that he was very single-minded about his personal belief and goals to make the Seven Kingdoms a better place, lacking duplicity and general foresight (see Battle of the Bastards) to avoid calamity.
Viserys was an arse, but that's to be understood. He's the product of childhood abuse, neglect, and an over inflated ego.
Mostly the ego part. He was obsessed with his heritage, and to all reason (aside from Jon) he was the heir to the throne. Of course, what he did was horrible, but unfortunately standard for medieval times.
Daenerys talks about making the world a better place, but has she ever actually done that? What does than even mean? It sounds like an inane political slogan.
I mean, she did:
- Free the Unsullied from a life of slavery
- Free the populations of Meereen and Yunkai from slavery (I think)
- Attempt to save as many people from the raping and reaving of the Dothraki as possible
- Refuse to burn King's Landing to a crisp
- Honour her alliances
- Protect the people of her realms by sealing Viserion and Rhaegal away (perhaps a bad move).
- At least giving people the chance to bend the knee, rather than killing them all, as Cersei or Aerys might have done.
So yeah, she does have a good reputation behind her.
Jon is so far deep into Lawful Stupid that he could go on a crime spree for the next decade before seeing an alignment shift. I liked the character in the books and up to season 5, but since then he's gone downhill fast.
Jon may be Lawful Stupid, but he's copying Ned. Do you complain that Ned was Lawful Stupid too?
Jon has looked up to Ned his whole life, so it makes absolute sense that he'd emulate him. Besides, if he's going to try and make Westeros a better place, instead of contributing to the issue of lying and backstabbing, he at least attempts to be an idealist and "practice what he preaches". That's his character, and we've seen little difference in that.
Why do we care if he's Rhaegar's son?
Because it makes Jon the rightful heir to the Iron Throne. Simple as.
Rhaegar got killed by Robert FFS. Rhaegar didn't have enough sense TO NOT run off with a betrothed girl.
Because he was driven by the Azor Ahai prophecy and his position in it. Rhaegar dedicated his life to that - in many respects, it mirrors Jon.
What makes Rhaegar so damn special? All we ever get are second hand accounts of how amazing he was...
Because he was very fair and level-headed for a Targaryen. He was regarded by Tywin to be better than Aerys, and Tywin tends to be very good at leadership and such.
And the Targaryens as a whole are nothing special. They weren't renowned in Valyria. They're just the only house that happened to leave before the doom because of spooky visions.
But in Westeros they were, because they were the only House with dragons.
The most notable thing any of them has done IMO is honor their oath to the Night's Watch. Wrecking people on your dragons isn't anything special.
It is if no-one else has dragons.
If find it hard to believe GRR Martin is actually intending to go the route of blood > effort.
We'll have to wait and see.
StygianBeach wrote:Jon is just frustrating and is quite happy to betray his own people because Dany is so sexy.
Or because she's proven herself to be helpful to the greatest cause (to Jon) in destroying the Army of the Dead, so solidifying an alliance to a genuinely helpful and idealistic monarch is the logical thing to do?
Jon has been clearly defined in being nearly single-mindedly driven in defeating the White Walkers. He only took up the mantle of King in the North to rally the Northment in defeating the northern threat. He didn't want to march south, he didn't want to kill of traitors. He wants to rally the North to defend Westeros. That's why he saved the Wildlings - because them fighting the Night's Watch was counter- intuitive to that goal.
Sure, the North will be suspect of him, but he's hardly "betrayed" them. He feels confident that if Daenerys can show her good intentions to the North, they will accept her rule. Perhaps, if her and Jon do succeed, she will allow Jon to continue being the King in the North, and grant more freedoms to the North and Riverlands/Vale.
TL;DR - Daenerys being "sexy" is hardly the reason Jon bent the knee. If that were the case, that brings the whole Melisandre scene into question, when she attempts to seduce him.
Tyrion has become tedious, like he was in the last few books.
What, because he's not wisecracking and is realizing his importance in holding Daenerys in check so she doesn't blow up King's Landing and everyone in it?
He's far worse in the books.
I quite like what they did with Sam, but why is Gilly not pregnant!
Because of a whole host of biological reasons, present in the real world today? Just because they have sex doesn't necessarily guarantee pregnancy.
No one would follow Theon... no one... ever.
Except the Ironborn's philosophy is strength over honour. Theon proves his strength by defeating that captain, and lives up to the idea of "what is dead may never die". He finally pays the Iron Price - he proves his strength and therefore his right to command the seamen.
That's why he wasn't just hailed as a hero when he returned to Pyke after his wardship: because all of his armour, his titles, his worth hadn't been earned by himself, which was why the Iron Islanders distrusted him. He tried to prove his worth by taking Winterfell, and failed. He tried to fall back on his upbringing with Stark honour, and failed. After his forgiveness from Jon, he is given a shred of confidence, and goes out to save his sister, paying the Iron Price.
Thus, his Greyjoy and Stark heritage are brought into alignment.
I hope Jon stays dead in the books..... and little Griff takes his place (or something).
Doubtful indeed.
Blackie wrote:I hope gendry will rule westeros, it's in his blood.
But as Bran proves, Jon's claim is stronger. He's the son of Rhaegar Targaryen, the son of Aerys II. His claim is the strongest, followed by Daenerys.
It might be in Gendry's blood, but he is still a bastard. Besides, he has very little experience anyway - Jon at least learnt from Ned ruling Winterfell, and hasn't been too bad at it. His major issues have been that inscrutable honour that Ned had, which got him killed (however, as Jon notes, if he wants to bring about any change for the better in Westeros, he has to actually honour his oaths and do what he expects other to do, rather than lie about them as Tyrion would - breaking the wheel, as Dany would put it), and his idealism/reckless nature in combat. Jon is straightforward - he's no pragmatist. Like him or hate him, that's Jon's character, and it's stupid to suggest that GRRM didn't intend for him to be this way.
Jon may be Lawful Stupid, but he's copying Ned. Do you complain that Ned was Lawful Stupid too?
Yep he caused the whole war, got so many people killed including his own wife and children because he would not keep another secret. He even went to Cersei and told her he was going toe xpose, what the hell did he think was going to happen, what would he have done to protect his own children in the same - say Jon's heritage had been exposed, Robert would have ordered him killed immediately.
He had seen how the real world of the court worked, even said so himself that he wanted nothiing to do with it.
Because it makes Jon the rightful heir to the Iron Throne. Simple as.
Given Jons total devotion to Honour - he has sworn an oath to serve Queen Daenerys so his blood no longer matters unless she dies
What makes Rhaegar so damn special? All we ever get are second hand accounts of how amazing he was
He was regarded by Tywin to be better than Aerys, and Tywin tends to be very good at leadership and such.
By that point anyone was better than the Mad King? Twyin thinking your are good for a given role may not be a good thing, given his own nature.
Tyrion is more serious because he is again a mover and shaker, when thousands of lives can depend on what you say or do, I would think you tend to laugh and joke less - and often drink more.
Has anyone in the show really enjoyed ruling apart from Joffrey and Ramsey and thats becuase they simply went for self gratifcation most of the time.
Jon "betrayed the north" because he needed to and remember he had kept (and is still) saying nothing was more important that uniting to fight the dead, so refusing to bend the knee contradicted directly that stance, as was pointed out on the trek north of the wall. I thiink he also recognises that he is not a king and to be fair has never wanted to be. Dany has the potential to be a great Queen on the other hand and he is now getting that.
Now the dead have breached the wall, there may not be much of North left.
Because he was driven by the Azor Ahai prophecy and his position in it. Rhaegar dedicated his life to that - in many respects, it mirrors Jon.
Is that in the show? I though it was more like Robb, he fell for a girl he shouldn't have?
Dany only didn't burn Kings Landing because several people begged her to do it.
She also managed to collapse the economy of an entire side of Essos because she's so self entitled and she believes that its either her way or the high way.
She is slowly turning into her father, she burnt 2 men alive because they refused to serve a queen who just waltz into the country with a couple of dragons and has spent her entire time having to be convinced to not burn everything.
welshhoppo wrote: Dany only didn't burn Kings Landing because several people begged her to do it.
She also managed to collapse the economy of an entire side of Essos because she's so self entitled and she believes that its either her way or the high way.
She is slowly turning into her father, she burnt 2 men alive because they refused to serve a queen who just waltz into the country with a couple of dragons and has spent her entire time having to be convinced to not burn everything.
Dany would not make a great queen.
And burning Kings Landing would have ended the war in one day and saved more lives than it killed, Tywin would have done it, Robert would have done it, Stanis would have done it - in fact ther advisors were wrong to advise against it. She didn;t do it becase the show needed to go on longer,
She burned two men who refused to turn sides (for the second time) and who were bent on serving a Queen that bew up the main cathedral of her own people plus the assembled clergy. Again any normal king of the time or the medieval time would quite likely kill them or suffer for it later . I am not sure you get the world in which she lives.
The ecomony of the region was based on extremly brutal slavery - by your argument the slave trade should still be flourishing now and those who stopped it are evil.
Of course she is entitled - thats what being royal born means.
She is fairly pragamatic, adaptable and willing to listen to advice, anyone else of royal blood fit that bill?
welshhoppo wrote: Dany only didn't burn Kings Landing because several people begged her to do it.
She also managed to collapse the economy of an entire side of Essos because she's so self entitled and she believes that its either her way or the high way.
She is slowly turning into her father, she burnt 2 men alive because they refused to serve a queen who just waltz into the country with a couple of dragons and has spent her entire time having to be convinced to not burn everything.
Dany would not make a great queen.
And burning Kings Landing would have ended the war in one day and saved more lives than it killed, Tywin would have done it, Robert would have done it, Stanis would have done it - in fact ther advisors were wrong to advise against it. She didn;t do it becase the show needed to go on longer,
She burned two men who refused to turn sides (for the second time) and who were bent on serving a Queen that bew up the main cathedral of her own people plus the assembled clergy. Again any normal king of the time or the medieval time would quite likely kill them or suffer for it later . I am not sure you get the world in which she lives.
The ecomony of the region was based on extremly brutal slavery - by your argument the slave trade should still be flourishing now and those who stopped it are evil.
Of course she is entitled - thats what being royal born means.
She is fairly pragamatic, adaptable and willing to listen to advice, anyone else of royal blood fit that bill?
The mad king would of landed with his dragon... and then burned cersai and all the lanisters alive with it as a negoiation.
probbly would have been alot easier admitly. all her main lords and guards with her, jamie, the main lanister general and her fleet command,
welshhoppo wrote: Dany only didn't burn Kings Landing because several people begged her to do it.
She also managed to collapse the economy of an entire side of Essos because she's so self entitled and she believes that its either her way or the high way.
She is slowly turning into her father, she burnt 2 men alive because they refused to serve a queen who just waltz into the country with a couple of dragons and has spent her entire time having to be convinced to not burn everything.
Dany would not make a great queen.
And burning Kings Landing would have ended the war in one day and saved more lives than it killed, Tywin would have done it, Robert would have done it, Stanis would have done it - in fact ther advisors were wrong to advise against it. She didn;t do it becase the show needed to go on longer,
She burned two men who refused to turn sides (for the second time) and who were bent on serving a Queen that bew up the main cathedral of her own people plus the assembled clergy. Again any normal king of the time or the medieval time would quite likely kill them or suffer for it later . I am not sure you get the world in which she lives.
The ecomony of the region was based on extremly brutal slavery - by your argument the slave trade should still be flourishing now and those who stopped it are evil.
Of course she is entitled - thats what being royal born means.
She is fairly pragamatic, adaptable and willing to listen to advice, anyone else of royal blood fit that bill?
The mad king would of landed with his dragon... and then burned cersai and all the lanisters alive with it as a negoiation.
probbly would have been alot easier admitly. all her main lords and guards with her, jamie, the main lanister general and her fleet command,
Indeed - Dany did not need to even do that - repeat Meerem - fly arund the harbour, burn some ships, show off a bit to show everyone there is no chance against her.
Then send an ultimation, no need for a battle. But then we would not have needed two more seasons, the dead would have faced a united Seven kingdoms and it would have been all very one sided. I do prefer that world, but its not as exciting tv - probably.
As long as she is not a complete disaster as a ruler, in a few years no one would have cared if she even burnt the city.. its what conquerors do, the small folk would have got on with their lives and the nobility would either be dead or plotting to prosper in her court.
welshhoppo wrote: Dany only didn't burn Kings Landing because several people begged her to do it.
She also managed to collapse the economy of an entire side of Essos because she's so self entitled and she believes that its either her way or the high way.
She is slowly turning into her father, she burnt 2 men alive because they refused to serve a queen who just waltz into the country with a couple of dragons and has spent her entire time having to be convinced to not burn everything.
Dany would not make a great queen.
And burning Kings Landing would have ended the war in one day and saved more lives than it killed, Tywin would have done it, Robert would have done it, Stanis would have done it - in fact ther advisors were wrong to advise against it. She didn;t do it becase the show needed to go on longer,
She burned two men who refused to turn sides (for the second time) and who were bent on serving a Queen that bew up the main cathedral of her own people plus the assembled clergy. Again any normal king of the time or the medieval time would quite likely kill them or suffer for it later . I am not sure you get the world in which she lives.
The ecomony of the region was based on extremly brutal slavery - by your argument the slave trade should still be flourishing now and those who stopped it are evil.
Of course she is entitled - thats what being royal born means.
She is fairly pragamatic, adaptable and willing to listen to advice, anyone else of royal blood fit that bill?
The mad king would of landed with his dragon... and then burned cersai and all the lanisters alive with it as a negoiation.
probbly would have been alot easier admitly. all her main lords and guards with her, jamie, the main lanister general and her fleet command,
Indeed - Dany did not need to even do that - repeat Meerem - fly arund the harbour, burn some ships, show off a bit to show everyone there is no chance against her.
Then send an ultimation, no need for a battle. But then we would not have needed two more seasons, the dead would have faced a united Seven kingdoms and it would have been all very one sided. I do prefer that world, but its not as exciting tv - probably.
As long as she is not a complete disaster as a ruler, in a few years no one would have cared if she even burnt the city..
I'm going to quote Book Varys in that he doesn't like Dany because she is do entitled, she thinks that ruling is a right. That's why he sides with book Aegon, because he knows that ruling is not a right and is given by the common folk.
I'm going to quote Book Varys in that he doesn't like Dany because she is do entitled, she thinks that ruling is a right. That's why he sides with book Aegon, because he knows that ruling is not a right and is given by the common folk.
Book Varys is not Show Varys nor is Book Dany Show Dany.
Name one member of a noble house that is not entitled? Thats the whole point of being brought up to rule - be that a small castle by the sea or the Seven Kingdoms.
Are there actually any democratic nations in Westros or Essos? Nope not that I am aware of - they are ruled by power groups be they nobility, religious, merchants etc - voting does not happen that I am aware of - at least not for the small folk.
Also remember that many of the "small folk" wil not even want that - thats the Nobles job, thats why they are nobles, partly as a result of hundreds or thousands of years of the social structure that they inhabit.
Its a quasi medievil world - true democracy does not exisit and although they have magic hypersonic ravens - it would be vitually impossible to enact in any meaningful way due to technological limitiations. Most of them (and us) don't care anyway as long as they can live their lives in peace and reasonably well.
Rome and Greece had pseudo deomocracy but again it was just slightly different power groups at the top making the decisions.
welshhoppo wrote: Dany only didn't burn Kings Landing because several people begged her to do it.
She also managed to collapse the economy of an entire side of Essos because she's so self entitled and she believes that its either her way or the high way.
She is slowly turning into her father, she burnt 2 men alive because they refused to serve a queen who just waltz into the country with a couple of dragons and has spent her entire time having to be convinced to not burn everything.
Dany would not make a great queen.
And burning Kings Landing would have ended the war in one day and saved more lives than it killed, Tywin would have done it, Robert would have done it, Stanis would have done it - in fact ther advisors were wrong to advise against it. She didn;t do it becase the show needed to go on longer,
She burned two men who refused to turn sides (for the second time) and who were bent on serving a Queen that bew up the main cathedral of her own people plus the assembled clergy. Again any normal king of the time or the medieval time would quite likely kill them or suffer for it later . I am not sure you get the world in which she lives.
The ecomony of the region was based on extremly brutal slavery - by your argument the slave trade should still be flourishing now and those who stopped it are evil.
Of course she is entitled - thats what being royal born means.
She is fairly pragamatic, adaptable and willing to listen to advice, anyone else of royal blood fit that bill?
The mad king would of landed with his dragon... and then burned cersai and all the lanisters alive with it as a negoiation.
probbly would have been alot easier admitly. all her main lords and guards with her, jamie, the main lanister general and her fleet command,
Indeed - Dany did not need to even do that - repeat Meerem - fly arund the harbour, burn some ships, show off a bit to show everyone there is no chance against her.
Then send an ultimation, no need for a battle. But then we would not have needed two more seasons, the dead would have faced a united Seven kingdoms and it would have been all very one sided. I do prefer that world, but its not as exciting tv - probably.
As long as she is not a complete disaster as a ruler, in a few years no one would have cared if she even burnt the city.. its what conquerors do, the small folk would have got on with their lives and the nobility would either be dead or plotting to prosper in her court.
good show move, bad statagy.
Cersai now has time ot mass make those anti dragon crossbow and turn the red keep into a fortified flak castle.
admitly, she could of ended the war in a stroke removing the entire main lanister and alleince command in a single strike.
She did. you do not leave cersai alive. no way in hell. too dangerous..
rather dull for tv. but makes sense as a war.
now back onto post below, Veris, well he yes, he never liked anyone in power though. he seems to prefer the game of it all which is somewhat at odds with Dany and her aims to break the game. On this point you see why she and Jon are compatable bar obvious.
Take soimeone like Sansa. she gonna not like her, One she is not the game player she is and nudges Jon her way., 2, Dany has Jon snow under her side now. Sansa weilded power via Jon as such. so, her control, less power for Sansa. People like Dany and Jon weaken the game players as they are not like the Cersai's who are the game.
but thats a side thought.
it seems all those who seem to love the game have joined Dany which is very odd as she represents a different game, a game they might not have the same level of power.
But point comes in.
you have a new era. you have the new game, the white walkers and the greater war. and the old game of thrones now clashing.
So would the Undead have been able to breach the Wall without the help of the Zombie Dragon?
Dany may have proved herself to Jon by flying her Dragon beyond the Wall, but by 'bending the knee' to her he is retuning the North to southern rule. This, I see this as a betrayal.
He had already secured her help, giving the North away was unnecessary and also if he felt it was indeed necessary it could have been a conditional agreement that he will declare fealty to Dany after the Undead were defeated. If the agreement was conditional, then at least the North would think that Dany earned her rulership.
Gilly has proven herself robust and fertile and managed to have a baby under terrible conditions, the Citadel by comparison is luxury. While it is possible that she did not fall pregnant in that time, it just seems like a lapse in creating backstory without actually having to devote any on screen time to it, (Or perhaps I am alone in imagining Sam and Gilly getting it on like rabbits and wanting some visual confirmation).
I never said she would leave Cersei alive just did not need to burn Kings Landing in the first pass. Give them a day - then do it if they don't surrender.
Qyburn would not have found his crossbow for a few months so that was no worry.
I do find it interesting that the Iron Bank has such power - historically medievil bankers did have some power but equally they could themselves be driven to bancruptcy by kings and Queens who refused to pay their debts.
StygianBeach wrote: So would the Undead have been able to breach the Wall without the help of the Zombie Dragon?
Dany may have proved herself to Jon by flying her Dragon beyond the Wall, but by 'bending the knee' to her he is retuning the North to southern rule. This, I see this as a betrayal.
He had already secured her help, giving the North away was unnecessary and also if he felt it was indeed necessary it could have been a conditional agreement that he will declare fealty to Dany after the Undead were defeated. If the agreement was conditional, then at least the North would think that Dany earned her rulership.
Gilly has proven herself robust and fertile and managed to have a baby under terrible conditions, the Citadel by comparison is luxury. While it is possible that she did not fall pregnant in that time, it just seems like a lapse in creating backstory without actually having to devote any on screen time to it, (Or perhaps I am alone in imagining Sam and Gilly getting it on like rabbits and wanting some visual confirmation).
Dany saved the King of the North (despite his best efforts to kill himself again) and lost a Dragon for it. Whose idea was it to go get a zombie, whose idea to send Flash Gendry and Hypersonic Ravens for help.
Now whether the North sees this as an approrpiate sacrfice will be up to them.
re Gilly - well without going into detail - it might depend on how difficult the birth was etc. Would it have added to the story - not for me. Also Sam may be infertile.
Mr Morden wrote: I never said she would leave Cersei alive just did not need to burn Kings Landing in the first pass. Give them a day - then do it if they don't surrender.
Qyburn would not have found his crossbow for a few months so that was no worry.
I do find it interesting that the Iron Bank has such power - historically medievil bankers did have some power but equally they could themselves be driven to bancruptcy by kings and Queens who refused to pay their debts.
StygianBeach wrote: So would the Undead have been able to breach the Wall without the help of the Zombie Dragon?
Dany may have proved herself to Jon by flying her Dragon beyond the Wall, but by 'bending the knee' to her he is retuning the North to southern rule. This, I see this as a betrayal.
He had already secured her help, giving the North away was unnecessary and also if he felt it was indeed necessary it could have been a conditional agreement that he will declare fealty to Dany after the Undead were defeated. If the agreement was conditional, then at least the North would think that Dany earned her rulership.
Gilly has proven herself robust and fertile and managed to have a baby under terrible conditions, the Citadel by comparison is luxury. While it is possible that she did not fall pregnant in that time, it just seems like a lapse in creating backstory without actually having to devote any on screen time to it, (Or perhaps I am alone in imagining Sam and Gilly getting it on like rabbits and wanting some visual confirmation).
Dany saved the King of the North (despite his best efforts to kill himself again) and lost a Dragon for it. Whose idea was it to go get a zombie, whose idea to send Flash Gendry and Hypersonic Ravens for help.
Now whether the North sees this as an approrpiate sacrfice will be up to them.
re Gilly - well without going into detail - it might depend on how difficult the birth was etc. Would it have added to the story - not for me. Also Sam may be infertile.
Also North , well North belives Jon on White walkers and all that far as i know and so they may see Dany as a far lesser threat than the dead.
Even if not at first. soon learn that a dragon queen as far preferable to being annihilated by the night king.
Its a war Living vs the dead, not the houses vs house like before
Different rules.
Also, and yes, she not even have to burn city, Cersai abdoned Castley rock so red keep has become primiary Lanister fortress. if thats seen to burning or say the top towers smashed asunder.
the poor she so has kept under foot may not be so scared of the queen too.
also rather hurts the defending army morale.
so yes. you could "Burn" kings landing and not hurt too many civilains.
.
Iron bank, yeah they seem to be rather powerful... overly almost, they paid for stannis army, guess that was a rather bad investment and a fair loss.
though the fact so many great houses and such owe them money means they have fair leverage in westeros,
welshhoppo wrote: Dany only didn't burn Kings Landing because several people begged her to do it.
She also managed to collapse the economy of an entire side of Essos because she's so self entitled and she believes that its either her way or the high way.
She is slowly turning into her father, she burnt 2 men alive because they refused to serve a queen who just waltz into the country with a couple of dragons and has spent her entire time having to be convinced to not burn everything.
Dany would not make a great queen.
And burning Kings Landing would have ended the war in one day and saved more lives than it killed, Tywin would have done it, Robert would have done it, Stanis would have done it - in fact ther advisors were wrong to advise against it. She didn;t do it becase the show needed to go on longer,
She burned two men who refused to turn sides (for the second time) and who were bent on serving a Queen that bew up the main cathedral of her own people plus the assembled clergy. Again any normal king of the time or the medieval time would quite likely kill them or suffer for it later . I am not sure you get the world in which she lives.
The ecomony of the region was based on extremly brutal slavery - by your argument the slave trade should still be flourishing now and those who stopped it are evil.
Of course she is entitled - thats what being royal born means.
She is fairly pragamatic, adaptable and willing to listen to advice, anyone else of royal blood fit that bill?
The mad king would of landed with his dragon... and then burned cersai and all the lanisters alive with it as a negoiation. probbly would have been alot easier admitly. all her main lords and guards with her, jamie, the main lanister general and her fleet command,
Indeed - Dany did not need to even do that - repeat Meerem - fly arund the harbour, burn some ships, show off a bit to show everyone there is no chance against her.
Then send an ultimation, no need for a battle. But then we would not have needed two more seasons, the dead would have faced a united Seven kingdoms and it would have been all very one sided.
Except it wouldn't be one sided, as the undead army is that strong. We are talking about a force numbering in the tens of thousands, that don't feel fear, cannot be slain via normal means, use magic and can replenish their losses easily on the battlefield. I would have greatly preferred the drop the civil war quickly and for the rest of season 7 and 8 to be about the campaign against the undead horde.
Three Dragons plus the Dothraki, the Tyrell army, the Unsulled, the Northern forces, the Dorne army, plus anyone else that can fight, plus the Tryells can pay for aditiional mercs plus Ironborn navy support.
Dragonglass weapons.
They had to level the armies in the show or it would have been a slaughter ( plus of course magic dragon-slaying missiles of unerring accuracy )
I think the army of the dead is hundreds of thousands - which is large for medievil times, fantasy and tv. Also don't they need a ritual post battle to replenish their armies.
We still have several epsiodes of conflict to come.
That's the thing, the white walkers apparently have reliable anti-dragon weapons. A team of them can probably throw up a nice little barrage of javelins.
I think them bringing out a zombie dragon is too unfair, as the night king can now go anywhere on the continent and raise dead whereever he wants, and that wall is now useless. You'd think there would be some awesome helm's deep style battle on the wall, but instead we get a zombie wins button.
There's only so much dragon glass too. Can they equip everyone with dragonglass weapons, especially the arrows? In time for the invasion?
I don't think they needed to "balance" the armies at all, especially if they followed the book and gave the white walkers their own set of monsters in the form of Ice Spiders and resurrected extinct species. Because think about it, if the white walkers can res a dragon, giants and wild life, then they should be able to res a mammoth or a T-Rex or something.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: That's the thing, the white walkers apparently have reliable anti-dragon weapons. A team of them can probably throw up a nice little barrage of javelins.
I think them bringing out a zombie dragon is too unfair, as the night king can now go anywhere on the continent and raise dead whereever he wants, and that wall is now useless. You'd think there would be some awesome helm's deep style battle on the wall, but instead we get a zombie wins button.
There's only so much dragon glass too. Can they equip everyone with dragonglass weapons, especially the arrows? In time for the invasion?
I don't think they needed to "balance" the armies at all, especially if they followed the book and gave the white walkers their own set of monsters in the form of Ice Spiders and resurrected extinct species. Because think about it, if the white walkers can res a dragon, giants and wild life, then they should be able to res a mammoth or a T-Rex or something.
Both sides have super weapons now!
There is apparently a vast amount of Dragon glass - if its touch kills the dead and white walkers - you even get to reuse it. Making weapons that works might take time, but equally if they can make ballisti that hurt Drogon, a dragon glass tipped bolt should kill mamoths, Giants and the undead Dragon. Don't need much for that. There is also the dragonfire napalm stuff. Stick someof that in catapults.
Well if the timeline followed the show they would have what 3 or 4 months before the undead even reached the wall, and only if they lured a Daragon north and killed it would they have a weapon to take it down. Assuming that Jon convinced Dany the threat is real, maybe get some actual Intel from Bran the Useless.
If they can resurect the long dead - they can bring back dragons anyway, arn't there supposed to be ice dragons and the like up there. They have Mammoths and Giants in the Show - well when the cgi budget runs to it - like the bears. They should have undead birds, dire wolves and whales and such.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: That's the thing, the white walkers apparently have reliable anti-dragon weapons. A team of them can probably throw up a nice little barrage of javelins.
I think them bringing out a zombie dragon is too unfair, as the night king can now go anywhere on the continent and raise dead whereever he wants, and that wall is now useless. You'd think there would be some awesome helm's deep style battle on the wall, but instead we get a zombie wins button.
There's only so much dragon glass too. Can they equip everyone with dragonglass weapons, especially the arrows? In time for the invasion?
I don't think they needed to "balance" the armies at all, especially if they followed the book and gave the white walkers their own set of monsters in the form of Ice Spiders and resurrected extinct species. Because think about it, if the white walkers can res a dragon, giants and wild life, then they should be able to res a mammoth or a T-Rex or something.
Both sides have super weapons now!
There is apparently a vast amount of Dragon glass - if its touch kills the dead and white walkers - you even get to reuse it. Making weapons that works might take time, but equally if they can make ballisti that hurt Drogon, a dragon glass tipped bolt should kill mamoths, Giants and the undead Dragon. Don't need much for that. There is also the dragonfire napalm stuff. Stick someof that in catapults.
Well if the timeline followed the show they would have what 3 or 4 months before the undead even reached the wall, and only if they lured a Daragon north and killed it would they have a weapon to take it down. Assuming that Jon convinced Dany the threat is real, maybe get some actual Intel from Bran the Useless.
If they can resurect the long dead - they can bring back dragons anyway, arn't there supposed to be ice dragons and the like up there. They have Mammoths and Giants in the Show - well when the cgi budget runs to it - like the bears. They should have undead birds, dire wolves and whales and such.
A battle for the wall would have been fun.
Everyone forgets also there's one handy weapon if the south can have. Wild fire. As you said.
Sure it ain't quite dragons but it's closest you got. Portable dragon fire. That's able to be in more than two places.
Also yes, balista and other larger dragon glass artillery handy for the big stuff. A good hit should kill em dead a second time.
Mr Morden wrote: Yep he caused the whole war, got so many people killed including his own wife and children because he would not keep another secret. He even went to Cersei and told her he was going toe xpose, what the hell did he think was going to happen, what would he have done to protect his own children in the same - say Jon's heritage had been exposed, Robert would have ordered him killed immediately.
Sure, but Robert was still alive and its pretty hard to condemn Ned for failing to predict Robert would get hammered and stupidly get himself killed. That changed the power balance completely, before that event Ned was acting with the support and protection of the King. Remember, when Cersei had complained to Robert about Ned previously, Robert hit her and said he'd wait for Ned's side of the story.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: And burning Kings Landing would have ended the war in one day and saved more lives than it killed, Tywin would have done it, Robert would have done it, Stanis would have done it - in fact ther advisors were wrong to advise against it. She didn;t do it becase the show needed to go on longer,
If they needed the show to go on longer they could have simply delayed the arrival in Westeros, afterall they'd delayed if for six seasons already.
Danaerys' reluctance to burn King's Landing isn't a delaying tactic, it's because the consequences of power, both in using absolute power and in staying your hand, is the central theme of the whole show. We've seen constant references to people failing and dying because they limited themselves with rules their opponent's didn't follow, and won the flipside we've also seen how unrestrained use of power caused immense suffering, including plenty of blowback on those who used the violence. Do you think Cersei losing all three of her children, her father, and plenty of other family besides, would be happy with how things have turned out?
Finding the balance between those two elements is what the show is all about. Having Danaerys turn up, use absolute power and win without ever spending any time considering the best course of action would have been abandoning the whole premise of the show.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: She also managed to collapse the economy of an entire side of Essos because she's so self entitled and she believes that its either her way or the high way.
Yes, it's so self entitled to be opposed to human slavery.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: That's the thing, the white walkers apparently have reliable anti-dragon weapons. A team of them can probably throw up a nice little barrage of javelins.
Only the Night King threw a javelin, and he threw with supernatural strength and accuracy. It's sensible to assume that he's the only one with that power.
Mr Morden wrote: Yep he caused the whole war, got so many people killed including his own wife and children because he would not keep another secret. He even went to Cersei and told her he was going toe xpose, what the hell did he think was going to happen, what would he have done to protect his own children in the same - say Jon's heritage had been exposed, Robert would have ordered him killed immediately.
Sure, but Robert was still alive and its pretty hard to condemn Ned for failing to predict Robert would get hammered and stupidly get himself killed. That changed the power balance completely, before that event Ned was acting with the support and protection of the King. Remember, when Cersei had complained to Robert about Ned previously, Robert hit her and said he'd wait for Ned's side of the story.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: And burning Kings Landing would have ended the war in one day and saved more lives than it killed, Tywin would have done it, Robert would have done it, Stanis would have done it - in fact ther advisors were wrong to advise against it. She didn;t do it becase the show needed to go on longer,
If they needed the show to go on longer they could have simply delayed the arrival in Westeros, afterall they'd delayed if for six seasons already.
Danaerys' reluctance to burn King's Landing isn't a delaying tactic, it's because the consequences of power, both in using absolute power and in staying your hand, is the central theme of the whole show. We've seen constant references to people failing and dying because they limited themselves with rules their opponent's didn't follow, and won the flipside we've also seen how unrestrained use of power caused immense suffering, including plenty of blowback on those who used the violence. Do you think Cersei losing all three of her children, her father, and plenty of other family besides, would be happy with how things have turned out?
Finding the balance between those two elements is what the show is all about. Having Danaerys turn up, use absolute power and win without ever spending any time considering the best course of action would have been abandoning the whole premise of the show.
re Ned - I really can't recall but when he confronts Cersei - hasn't Robert already been poisoned and she is acting as Regent - may be wrong.
I have not got that message at all - in fact its when Dany has not been ruthless that she has suffered most, she lost her husband and child because she saved the witch woman, she nearly lost Merrem because she locked away her dragons and would not crack down hard on the insurgents, she lost a number of armies and allies because she did not burn the red keep and all within it. Especially since the whole Meerem chapter was closed with a act of absolute power with no consequences.
Dany burned the slavers ships, killed a few leaders, her Dothraki slaughtered the insurgents - all done, everyone apparently happy. She just needed to sail over and do the same again which the show proved worked. Yet they needed two more seasons so we can't have that.
Violence has happened to everyone in the show - there is no judgement, karma or divine consequence - there is just life.
Bad things don't just happen to the power hungry, good things happen to bad people and bad things to good and vice versa. That's been true since episode one and continues now - both to the great and the small.
The Hound and the farming family he was with - he survives and they die horribly - which one of them gets through life with violence?
Cersei has never been happy since she was a child, even before the show started she had a loveless marriage to someone who abused her, only looking forward to occasional trysts with her lover and doomed to watch her children be sent of to likely equally loveless marriages or worse. She made good and bad choices to protect them but in the end she and life conspired to destroy her and her family. It would be interested to speculate on what she would do differently given the chance but would any of those changes result in a better world or keep any of them alive.
Sansa was a spoilt child but she never actively sought to harm anyone - now she enjoys watching dogs eat a man alive due to the horrific things she has witnessed and undergone.
Mr Morden wrote: re Ned - I really can't recall but when he confronts Cersei - hasn't Robert already been poisoned and she is acting as Regent - may be wrong.
It was when Robert was on his hunting trip. Cersei had her plan in place to get Robert more drunk than usual and hope an accident happened, but that plan was more optimistic than a committed murder attempt.
Ned had no reason to think Robert wouldn't be coming back from his trip. Telling Cersei about his suspicions was still a mistake, but nowhere near the mistake it would have been if Robert was already dead.
I have not got that message at all - in fact its when Dany has not been ruthless that she has suffered most, she lost her husband and child because she saved the witch woman, she nearly lost Merrem because she locked away her dragons and would not crack down hard on the insurgents, she lost a number of armies and allies because she did not burn the red keep and all within it. Especially since the whole Meerem chapter was closed with a act of absolute power with no consequences.
She didn't lose her husband because she saved the witch - Drogo was already poisoned. Trusting the witch was a mistake, but it didn't cause Drogo's death.
You're right that she has already suffered because she didn't just burn the Red Keep straight away. But that's the point. That the high way doesn't automatically lead to the best, optimal solution, that there's no point being noble if you're dead. But at the same time opting for the most powerful answer only causes more problems. The latter is written in to the very origin of the whole story, with the children decimated by their own plan to create the White Walkers to fight again men.
She just needed to sail over and do the same again which the show proved worked. Yet they needed two more seasons so we can't have that.
Once again, if they wanted to delay that for two more seasons it could easily be done by just keeping her from crossing the sea for two more seasons. They'd already delayed it five seasons, if that's all they wanted they could have simply had her dick around for another season one or two before crossing the sea.
No, the reason this season happened as it did is because they wanted to give her the choice of using absolute power immediately, and show the cost of delaying that, and still have her choose to aim for something less than absolute violence. This same central issue is repeated constantly, her and Tyrion argue it constantly, it re-appears with her decision to burn Tarly & son. If anything it could be criticized for dragging an underlying theme out of the subtext and making it headsmashingly obvious. But it can't be criticized for being used to drag the show out - "oh GoT is just filling time by focusing in on its central theme and exploring it through the central conflict and its key character" is not a sensible thing.
Violence has happened to everyone in the show - there is no judgement, karma or divine consequence - there is just life.
Not quite. There's no gods or author fiat that works to make justice happen. But you take it to far by claiming that 'violence just happens' as if it is divorced from the actions of the central characters. That's an argument that nothing matters, everything is just random happenings caused by nothing. That is clearly not true - the show is all about the consequences of one's actions, and more specifically the consequences of taking the high or low road. What makes GoT interesting is that it differs from the default fantasy setting where the noble action is always best, but that it doesn't go too far in the other direction and make the most cynical, violent course of action the best either.
Sansa was a spoilt child but she never actively sought to harm anyone - now she enjoys watching dogs eat a man alive due to the horrific things she has witnessed and undergone.
Yes, in one act of revenge, but she also aims to rule in the North with a sense of duty and responsibility. She is finding the balance and beginning to flourish as a result.
Depends on if you take the witches word for it. Drago was injured but not terribly. Witch says if you don't let me treat him it will get infected and he'll die. Witch treats him, and well we saw what became of him after that. Would he have really died if she didn't? Who knows.
So, I assume, after her 'bath by fire' to hatch the dragon eggs, this made her supposedly infertile? I heard this reference, but cannot really place it in any fact. Dany says she cannot have any children and her dragons are her children, but clearly she previously got pregnant.
MDSW wrote: Yup, that witch did need to die... horribly...
So the witch who had just been gang raped while watching the men and women of her village needlessly murdered and raped needed to die horribly?
All she did was kill the "Stallion who will mount the World" and render Drogo catatonic. She just prevented more violence.
But I guess because she's a minor character and Drogo is a bad ass we can forget that one is essentially a medicine women and the other is the leader of a horde of rapists and murderers.
MDSW wrote: Yup, that witch did need to die... horribly...
So the witch who had just been gang raped while watching the men and women of her village needlessly murdered and raped needed to die horribly?
All she did was kill the "Stallion who will mount the World" and render Drogo catatonic. She just prevented more violence.
But I guess because she's a minor character and Drogo is a bad ass we can forget that one is essentially a medicine women and the other is the leader of a horde of rapists and murderers.
I think she deserved a fair trial, or at least checking to see if she weighed the same as a duck...
So at what point does the zombie dragon lose its ability to fly? There were a lot of holes in the wings when it attacked the wall. Do we think that those holes will be used to prevent the Night King from flying anywhere in Westeros?
AndrewC wrote: So at what point does the zombie dragon lose its ability to fly? There were a lot of holes in the wings when it attacked the wall. Do we think that those holes will be used to prevent the Night King from flying anywhere in Westeros?
rule of cool. Half the wrights seem in no fit state to fight but they manage to do so.
AndrewC wrote: But they don't go over the limits of reality (Cant believe I just wrote that). A wight with no legs cant walk, so can a dragon with no wings fly.
True, but a guy with mostly a skull also seemed able to see?
theres abit of magic but yes, theres some fact, you remove a limb, it stays removed and has a effect
Now, i guess if you could damage the zomobie dragons wing?
Wrights and such have seen to not be able to regenerate right?
there dead... there no longer able to "repair"?
Living dragons have proven healing.
And once the raised dead dead a second time. It seems the rule is there dead for good.
She didn't lose her husband because she saved the witch - Drogo was already poisoned. Trusting the witch was a mistake, but it didn't cause Drogo's death.
Drogo was wounded in a duel, he wanted to clean out his wound in a stream, Dany wanted him looked after by a professional healer, and Drogo unfortunately for him listened to his wife.
there was no evidence the wound was poisoned, the poultice used for the wound was tainted though, and intended to make the wound turn septic. Drogo was crippled by blood poisoning and further harmed by successive 'cures'.
Once again, if they wanted to delay that for two more seasons it could easily be done by just keeping her from crossing the sea for two more seasons. They'd already delayed it five seasons, if that's all they wanted they could have simply had her dick around for another season one or two before crossing the sea.
People were getting impatient for the story to progress.
Sansa was a spoilt child but she never actively sought to harm anyone - now she enjoys watching dogs eat a man alive due to the horrific things she has witnessed and undergone.
Yes, in one act of revenge, but she also aims to rule in the North with a sense of duty and responsibility. She is finding the balance and beginning to flourish as a result.
Agreed, Sansa earned the right to end Ramsay her way. To some extent she was merciful, he suffered but not for months on end.
Orlanth wrote: Drogo was wounded in a duel, he wanted to clean out his wound in a stream, Dany wanted him looked after by a professional healer, and Drogo unfortunately for him listened to his wife.
there was no evidence the wound was poisoned, the poultice used for the wound was tainted though, and intended to make the wound turn septic. Drogo was crippled by blood poisoning and further harmed by successive 'cures'.
Ah, fair enough. I'll have to go and rewatch it.
People were getting impatient for the story to progress.
Which was fair enough, Dany stuffing about in various cities unconnected to other events was pretty tiresome. But it doesn't contradict what I'm saying. The claim was made that the only reason Dany didn't just attack King's Landing with ruthless force and wipe Cersei out was the show needed two more seasons, so it invented her reluctance to attack King's Landing and the subsequent setbacks. But if the show was feeling pressured to advance the story, why advance the story only to delay it again?
I disagree. It's politically convenient to wait to take King's Landing.
Right now, Cersei is loathed by everyone - highborn and lowborn alike. She's undermining her own powerbase at a great rate of knots.
Dany remains a foreign invader. Far better to rally as many Westerosi to her banner a possible first, then take King's Landing and depose Cersei as peacefully as possible. Show you're here to reclaim a birthright, but don't want others to suffer for it.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I disagree. It's politically convenient to wait to take King's Landing.
Right now, Cersei is loathed by everyone - highborn and lowborn alike. She's undermining her own powerbase at a great rate of knots.
Dany remains a foreign invader. Far better to rally as many Westerosi to her banner a possible first, then take King's Landing and depose Cersei as peacefully as possible. Show you're here to reclaim a birthright, but don't want others to suffer for it.
Getting her over to Westros was important - drop one whole location and related actors and have the main characters being to interact.
At the start of the Season Dany had the complete support of a Great House of Westros, The Tyrells plus Dorne, so that was not an issue given that Cersei just had the Lainisters, and she had been disgraced by the Church which she blew up.
If she had struck then, before any experiments with Balisti were conceived it would have taken a few hours to destroy resistance in the captial with Dragons alone, never mind the huge force of other troops she had. Euron would likely have tried to join her or at least stuck to raiding.
The "smallfolk" simply don't care who rules them long term, you don't need to take over peacefully - you can be hugely violent and if you prove to be a decent ruler that's fine. History across the world tells us this - ie not tax everyone too much or brutlaise them and their families - all would be fine. Its niave to think there would be some kind of popular resistance to her when there wasn't against Cersei - most of the people would be more interested in peace, getting the harvest in, taking care of their familes - as is always the case. If she burns a few nobles - why would they care. They didn't when her ancestors did it the first time. Its only the nobility that hold the grudges in the main.
Then when the dead mass north of the wall she has the entire 6 Kingdoms plus her Essos resources to muster against it Up North Jon would need to bend the knee - but even someone has stupid as he is would have to have faced facts and done so IF as he always claimed the only thing that was important was fighting the dead.
We did not get that as the show had finally got her over to Westros (having shed the terrible feet dragging influence of GRM who seems to have no interest in progressing the story) but the above would have taken one episode, the war against the dead maybe two and its done. Certainly not 2 seasons. Now if they wanted to show the complicated aftermath - that could be interesting but its not the story that many viewers would be interested in. It makes it more exciting perhaps and if anything in a slightly disturbing way shows that when Dany is weak, bad thinkgs happen, Killing and burning stuff as she did throughout Essos is the only way forward. ct
ie:
Dany saves witch and others = Bad things happen to her husband and her
vs Dany burns witch = She becomes Mother of Dragons
Dany tries to rule city nicely and lock up dragons to protect people = Brutal resistance and her dragons angry with her, Slavers attack her city
Dany burns the main chiefs of the Dothraki = She becomes their new goddess
Dany slaughters resistance movement, burns the fleet and lets the dragons out = All is great - city at peace, enemies afraid,
Dany goes slowly and does not attack Kings Landing for fear of causing destruction = looses her fleet, her Tyrell/Dorne allies and a Dragon!
Pretty obvious pattern here,
Plus they had to crowbar in the the Dany/Jon plot for fan service so he can't be just some hidebound nobody with a paltry few men in the North - he has to be a creditable ally. Hence she has to loose most of hers. Same with Exposition Bran - need to give him a reasons for his tiresome existance....
I found it a little silly that anyone was overly concerned with how the people would react to Dany violently taking the Red Keep when there had been zero fuss after the equivalent to a mass firebombing of the Vatican. I mean, sure, you can argue people don't know who did that, but "the people" seem remarkably unphased by it.
LunarSol wrote: I found it a little silly that anyone was overly concerned with how the people would react to Dany violently taking the Red Keep when there had been zero fuss after the equivalent to a mass firebombing of the Vatican. I mean, sure, you can argue people don't know who did that, but "the people" seem remarkably unphased by it.
I did find that amusing as well - I guess the "people" just get on with it after all its not like they would have known or cared about most people who died in there and the faith carries on it seems - although its not been that clear if Cersei ever bothered to appoint a new priesthood? If she didn't Trion def should have got Dany to do so and set up her own "pope" - worked in history......
The trouble with Bran is that if the character is handled logically he can uncover just about anything, and can turn into a piece of furniture who doles out intel.
Cersei however if benefitting from new plot writers. GRRM wrote her up as Chaotic stupid and very often shot herself in the foot by her machinations. She has outpaced her book persona and is getting genuinely smart. while as vicious and evil as ever she is plotting with guile now, handling the Iron Bank well, and limiting the threat Dany is to her politically. Though she also has Jaime and Euron to credit for that, she is working with them rather than against them most of the time.
Now Jaime is heading north, and that is part of his redemption story arc. as the story progresses he is becoming a more and more likeable and honourable character. He is also proving he isn't stupid, though in hid case unlike his sisters GRRM was already heading in that direction. Book Varys left Cersei in sole charge through selective assassination because she could be replied upon to feth up.
She didn't lose her husband because she saved the witch - Drogo was already poisoned. Trusting the witch was a mistake, but it didn't cause Drogo's death.
Drogo was wounded in a duel, he wanted to clean out his wound in a stream, Dany wanted him looked after by a professional healer, and Drogo unfortunately for him listened to his wife.
there was no evidence the wound was poisoned, the poultice used for the wound was tainted though, and intended to make the wound turn septic. Drogo was crippled by blood poisoning and further harmed by successive 'cures'.
Wow I got a completely different impression from that.
I thought he was on his way out anyway (from septicemia or similar), then the witch brought him back (to life) but into some kind of vegetative state. So technically he was still 'alive', but not in a meaningful way (in a nasty, Twilight Zone twist or Wishmaster kind of way
Some time since I have seen it though so may be completely wrong!
The last Targeryan they knew has this lovely habit of burning people, what would think if the next one they saw introduced herself by burning a city to ash.
The last Targeryan they knew has this lovely habit of burning people, what would think if the next one they saw introduced herself by burning a city to ash.
Cersei blew up the "pope" in "St Pauls" . Why would Dany need to burn the city to ash - it would be like Merrem - you give the city an ultimation - surrender or burn, same as she did with the Lanister soliders - most would surrender after she burned the Red Keep a bit - job done. She knows it works.
The last Targeryan they knew has this lovely habit of burning people, what would think if the next one they saw introduced herself by burning a city to ash.
Cersei blew up the "pope" in "St Pauls" . Why would Dany need to burn the city to ash - it would be like Merrem - you give the city an ultimation - surrender or burn, same as she did with the Lanister soliders - most would surrender after she burned the Red Keep a bit - job done. She knows it works.
Air attack badly damaging red keep would soon impact morale as seeing the cities strongest defense point crumbling in dragon fire.
AndrewC wrote: But they don't go over the limits of reality (Cant believe I just wrote that). A wight with no legs cant walk, so can a dragon with no wings fly.
AndrewC wrote: But they don't go over the limits of reality (Cant believe I just wrote that). A wight with no legs cant walk, so can a dragon with no wings fly.
Well, I mean they do. No muscles = no movement
Umm most wrights seems to have some muscle left. There a tad decayed but not walking skeletons quite yet.
LunarSol wrote: I found it a little silly that anyone was overly concerned with how the people would react to Dany violently taking the Red Keep when there had been zero fuss after the equivalent to a mass firebombing of the Vatican. I mean, sure, you can argue people don't know who did that, but "the people" seem remarkably unphased by it.
It wasn't about an idea that somehow the people would be unruly if Dany took the city by force. It's that Dany, through strong advice from Tyrion, didn't want to be another ruler who used absolute force to grab power. They were trying to break the wheel of endless violence and conflict.
Not because they fear what the low people might do if they took the city by force, but because they were trying to care for the low people and not kill them if they didn't have to.
The plan hasn't worked so far, obviously. Dany has burned through allies and the only success against the Lannister force came when she did use the absolute force of the Dothraki and her dragons. King's Landing is as secure as it was when she landed. But that's how stories work, characters form ideals and convictions, see them tested, and sometimes abandon those ideals, and other times stick to them either to triumph or not.
LunarSol wrote: I found it a little silly that anyone was overly concerned with how the people would react to Dany violently taking the Red Keep when there had been zero fuss after the equivalent to a mass firebombing of the Vatican. I mean, sure, you can argue people don't know who did that, but "the people" seem remarkably unphased by it.
It wasn't about an idea that somehow the people would be unruly if Dany took the city by force. It's that Dany, through strong advice from Tyrion, didn't want to be another ruler who used absolute force to grab power. They were trying to break the wheel of endless violence and conflict.
Not because they fear what the low people might do if they took the city by force, but because they were trying to care for the low people and not kill them if they didn't have to.
The plan hasn't worked so far, obviously. Dany has burned through allies and the only success against the Lannister force came when she did use the absolute force of the Dothraki and her dragons. King's Landing is as secure as it was when she landed. But that's how stories work, characters form ideals and convictions, see them tested, and sometimes abandon those ideals, and other times stick to them either to triumph or not.
But she used it on a military target, not a civilian populace. Battles were going to occur, the plan was never to avoid them, the emphasis was making sure they didn't occur in the cities.
djones520 wrote: But she used it on a military target, not a civilian populace. Battles were going to occur, the plan was never to avoid them, the emphasis was making sure they didn't occur in the cities.
It wasn't about avoiding all battles in cities. The first plan involved capturing Casterley Rock, which was expected to a very difficult siege. Even in Tyrion's plan it was understood that sieges and civilians deaths would happen. Instead it was about minimising that carnage, about doing things differently & proving that Dany wouldn't just burn things with her dragons at the first step, making her different from her tyrant ancestors.
Then when Dany did release her two most potent weapons, the dothraki and one of her dragons, the battle was far from triumphant. Instead there was a strong emphasis during the battle and in the aftermath of the use of such overwhelming force. The battle was shown largely from the view of Jaime and Bron on the receiving end, and much of the rest was seen from the POV of Tyrion, passively watching. And in the fighting they focused on the raw power involved, men were shown not just burned but turned to ash, and as the Lannister broke they were shown being run down by Dothrakia, causing Jaime to comment afterwards that the Dothraki were killing his men as if it was sport. And of course in the aftermath Dany gave the Tarly men the choice to either submit or be burned to death, and she didn't flinch when their choice caused her to burn them to death.
I agree that taking on that army in the field is still more restrained than taking it on in a city, and the Dany has still refrained from attacking King's Landing and destroying the Red Keep with her dragons. But even with that in mind, her attack showed she was moving past Tyrion's plans for a 'clever' strategy, and will instead use more direct force. It's about finding that balance, you don't hold back so much that you're ineffective, but you also don't use so much force that you're a tyrant.
djones520 wrote: But she used it on a military target, not a civilian populace. Battles were going to occur, the plan was never to avoid them, the emphasis was making sure they didn't occur in the cities.
It wasn't about avoiding all battles in cities. The first plan involved capturing Casterley Rock, which was expected to a very difficult siege. Even in Tyrion's plan it was understood that sieges and civilians deaths would happen. Instead it was about minimising that carnage, about doing things differently & proving that Dany wouldn't just burn things with her dragons at the first step, making her different from her tyrant ancestors.
Then when Dany did release her two most potent weapons, the dothraki and one of her dragons, the battle was far from triumphant. Instead there was a strong emphasis during the battle and in the aftermath of the use of such overwhelming force. The battle was shown largely from the view of Jaime and Bron on the receiving end, and much of the rest was seen from the POV of Tyrion, passively watching. And in the fighting they focused on the raw power involved, men were shown not just burned but turned to ash, and as the Lannister broke they were shown being run down by Dothrakia, causing Jaime to comment afterwards that the Dothraki were killing his men as if it was sport. And of course in the aftermath Dany gave the Tarly men the choice to either submit or be burned to death, and she didn't flinch when their choice caused her to burn them to death.
I agree that taking on that army in the field is still more restrained than taking it on in a city, and the Dany has still refrained from attacking King's Landing and destroying the Red Keep with her dragons. But even with that in mind, her attack showed she was moving past Tyrion's plans for a 'clever' strategy, and will instead use more direct force. It's about finding that balance, you don't hold back so much that you're ineffective, but you also don't use so much force that you're a tyrant.
Ah but you are also missing the point that Euron made - the "small folk" really don't care unless it directly effects them - and the nobles are not much different except because they own land and have larger ambitions anything new is more likely to effect them or their plans. Tyrants can be quite popular with the "smallfolk" if they don't interfere with them and just stick to the capital - Both Caliguia and Nero were popular with the people just not the upper class who were directly effected and often suffered their extravagant and brutal whims.
Tyrion may not know this but Varis should.
Except for the "Mad King" the prior Targayrian rule does not seem to have been more or less regarded than any other king - despite them arriving in a gale of fire and blood.
Again the problem with Westros plan was it completely ignored everything she had been cruelly taught in Essos - weakness means you and yours suffer. That's what the show has been demonstrating to the viewer throughout its run - especially with Dany.
Casterley Rock was just stupid - even with the secret passage - Dragons means sieges are a waste of time and resources - she has shown at Meerem that you don't need to burn everything to win, just demonstrate your overwhelming power and everyone bar fanatics will capitulate. I don't see the Lanister military as fanatics - their Queen may be - but the others are just men defending their homeland.
Dany offered (as would any ruler) clemency for those who swapped sides - ironically the only two men in the entire army who would not break their oaths had already done so once - so that made no sense! Two foolish men burnt, the rest did not and likely went home spreading the word that she 1. Was a force of nature, 2. She will let you live if you serve her.
Although the latter is a bit vague as I am not sure that the Dothraki have given up slavery.......
Mr Morden wrote: Ah but you are also missing the point that Euron made - the "small folk" really don't care unless it directly effects them - and the nobles are not much different except because they own land and have larger ambitions anything new is more likely to effect them or their plans. Tyrants can be quite popular with the "smallfolk" if they don't interfere with them and just stick to the capital - Both Caliguia and Nero were popular with the people just not the upper class who were directly effected and often suffered their extravagant and brutal whims.
But you're missing the point that people do things not just to avoid retaliation, but because they are the right thing to do. The point to Dany avoiding open slaughter isn't because she's scared of peasants being angry at her, its because she doesn't want to rule through tyranny.
Except for the "Mad King" the prior Targayrian rule does not seem to have been more or less regarded than any other king - despite them arriving in a gale of fire and blood.
There were quite a lot of very bloody wars through the few hundred years of Targaryen rule. The 'wheel' mentioned a few times during the last season was about the constant grinding of wars, one leading to the next, grinding down the nation and its people. The point being that if Dany was to break the wheel, it would need to start with something very different to what rulers had done before her.
Again the problem with Westros plan was it completely ignored everything she had been cruelly taught in Essos - weakness means you and yours suffer.
But you continue to ignore half the story. Sure, hold back too much and being weak will cause suffering as you are defeated by those who don't hold back at all, but at the same time characters who've been ruthless have caused their own suffering. I just don't know how you could watch GoT and see Stannis defeated utterly, waiting for his execution, and not realise what the show was telling you about his decision to burn his own daughter at the stake. I do not know how you could watch Cersei lose each of her children and her father, and think the shows most ruthless character is going just fine. When Ramsey realises his own dogs are about to turn on him, I just do not know how you could think the problem is he wasn't ruthless enough. Joffrey stopping chance of peace by cutting off Ned's head, leading to the need to marry in to the Tyrell's, leading to Joffrey's death?
Casterley Rock was just stupid - even with the secret passage - Dragons means sieges are a waste of time and resources - she has shown at Meerem that you don't need to burn everything to win, just demonstrate your overwhelming power and everyone bar fanatics will capitulate. I don't see the Lanister military as fanatics - their Queen may be - but the others are just men defending their homeland.
That's not how things have played with dragons in the Game of Thrones history. The Targaryen conquest saw some armies surrender, but also had lots of armies slaughtered by dragons. The ones that did yield, notably the Vale and the North, did so after dragons had massacred large armies to the South.
You might argue that isn't how things would 'really' happen and people would 'really' surrender, but the closest comparison we have is air superiority, which has proven quite ineffective at producing mass surrender.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Casterly Rock was not a city, it was a castle, like Winterfell and Storms End. Lannisport was the city.
Casterly Rock is connected to Lannisport, just as the Red Keep is connected to King's Landing.
AndrewC wrote: But they don't go over the limits of reality (Cant believe I just wrote that). A wight with no legs cant walk, so can a dragon with no wings fly.
Well, I mean they do. No muscles = no movement
Umm most wrights seems to have some muscle left. There a tad decayed but not walking skeletons quite yet.
I was thinking more along the lines of the zombies they reanimated. That same magic would be used on the Dragon. It appears the magic of the wights is able to fill the holes for missing tissue here.
As far as wights being over the limits of reality, they produce no body heat and they live in what is basically the arctic. Kinda crazy.
But you continue to ignore half the story. Sure, hold back too much and being weak will cause suffering as you are defeated by those who don't hold back at all, but at the same time characters who've been ruthless have caused their own suffering. I just don't know how you could watch GoT and see Stannis defeated utterly, waiting for his execution, and not realise what the show was telling you about his decision to burn his own daughter at the stake. I do not know how you could watch Cersei lose each of her children and her father, and think the shows most ruthless character is going just fine. When Ramsey realises his own dogs are about to turn on him, I just do not know how you could think the problem is he wasn't ruthless enough. Joffrey stopping chance of peace by cutting off Ned's head, leading to the need to marry in to the Tyrell's, leading to Joffrey's death?
Nope I am looking at Dany's story and stating that when she is weak she suffers, when she is strong she and those she loves prosper - are there any examples of the opposite?
Importantly I didn't say Ruthless I said Weakness - very different things.
As I said before good things happen to bad people and vice versa - in fact GOT is notorious for the latter more than the former.
Treat your friends well and destroy those enemies that will not become friends is an ongoing message of the show.
“No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full.”
―Lucius Cornelius Sulla
Of the other characters you discuss.
Joffrey was a cowardly and a deviant bully and was neither strong nor ruthless, he indulged his own twisted desires too much and that was the weakness that led to the need to marry into the Tyrell's - which was a good marriage - again it was his lack of control over his needs (weakness) not his strength that led to his death.
Ramsey played with his enemies - that was his weakness but he didn't loose and die because of "weakness" towards his enemies, he died because the Vale turned up, he had underestimated Sansa. If they hadn't he would be ruling the North and likely fighting the dead to try and survive.
Cersei is driven by her many problems - I would definitely agree with your previous statement that she is a much more interesting and realistic character than the book version. For much of her life she was at the mercy of others and even in the show - she has been reactive for the most part. She is ruthless to a large degree but I would not for the most part call her strong - although this season now she is truly Queen she was growing into the role. Her strength this season was also about her being able to restrain herself a bit - ie go and talk to the Alliance.
Stannis was driven by power and the chip on his shoulder about not getting to be king. He was manipulated by a witch and prophecy - just she is trying to do with Dany and others now. His act of sacrifice was simply pure desperation not strength or being ruthless.
There were quite a lot of very bloody wars through the few hundred years of Targaryen rule. The 'wheel' mentioned a few times during the last season was about the constant grinding of wars, one leading to the next, grinding down the nation and its people. The point being that if Dany was to break the wheel, it would need to start with something very different to what rulers had done before her.
Civil wars mostly and no different to non Targayrian rulers. And Dany (or the writers) has no idea what this alternative way is? Democracy is not something we have seen in their world and that does not lead to peace whatever some people dream about. I do worry that we will have some nonsense about an elected ruler by the end of the show.
That's not how things have played with dragons in the Game of Thrones history. The Targaryen conquest saw some armies surrender, but also had lots of armies slaughtered by dragons. The ones that did yield, notably the Vale and the North, did so after dragons had massacred large armies to the South.
Its exactly what the show demonstrated happened at Meerem?
As far as history - ie the books - IIRC its only Dorne that resist Dragonfire with any success. Remember that the continent has been at war for a long time, virtually all the armies are battered, almost all the leaders are dead or weary, Winter is coming. Why fight someone who is apparently no worse than any other ruler, has Dragons etc
But you're missing the point that people do things not just to avoid retaliation, but because they are the right thing to do. The point to Dany avoiding open slaughter isn't because she's scared of peasants being angry at her, its because she doesn't want to rule through tyranny
And she is finding out that it usually ends badly as Jon and countless others have done.
djones520 wrote: But she used it on a military target, not a civilian populace. Battles were going to occur, the plan was never to avoid them, the emphasis was making sure they didn't occur in the cities.
It wasn't about avoiding all battles in cities. The first plan involved capturing Casterley Rock, which was expected to a very difficult siege. Even in Tyrion's plan it was understood that sieges and civilians deaths would happen. Instead it was about minimising that carnage, about doing things differently & proving that Dany wouldn't just burn things with her dragons at the first step, making her different from her tyrant ancestors.
Then when Dany did release her two most potent weapons, the dothraki and one of her dragons, the battle was far from triumphant. Instead there was a strong emphasis during the battle and in the aftermath of the use of such overwhelming force. The battle was shown largely from the view of Jaime and Bron on the receiving end, and much of the rest was seen from the POV of Tyrion, passively watching. And in the fighting they focused on the raw power involved, men were shown not just burned but turned to ash, and as the Lannister broke they were shown being run down by Dothrakia, causing Jaime to comment afterwards that the Dothraki were killing his men as if it was sport. And of course in the aftermath Dany gave the Tarly men the choice to either submit or be burned to death, and she didn't flinch when their choice caused her to burn them to death.
I agree that taking on that army in the field is still more restrained than taking it on in a city, and the Dany has still refrained from attacking King's Landing and destroying the Red Keep with her dragons. But even with that in mind, her attack showed she was moving past Tyrion's plans for a 'clever' strategy, and will instead use more direct force. It's about finding that balance, you don't hold back so much that you're ineffective, but you also don't use so much force that you're a tyrant.
I think there were also a few scenes of (literal) friendly fire with some of the Dothraki being burned alongside the Lannister soldiers.
djones520 wrote: But she used it on a military target, not a civilian populace. Battles were going to occur, the plan was never to avoid them, the emphasis was making sure they didn't occur in the cities.
It wasn't about avoiding all battles in cities. The first plan involved capturing Casterley Rock, which was expected to a very difficult siege. Even in Tyrion's plan it was understood that sieges and civilians deaths would happen. Instead it was about minimising that carnage, about doing things differently & proving that Dany wouldn't just burn things with her dragons at the first step, making her different from her tyrant ancestors.
Then when Dany did release her two most potent weapons, the dothraki and one of her dragons, the battle was far from triumphant. Instead there was a strong emphasis during the battle and in the aftermath of the use of such overwhelming force. The battle was shown largely from the view of Jaime and Bron on the receiving end, and much of the rest was seen from the POV of Tyrion, passively watching. And in the fighting they focused on the raw power involved, men were shown not just burned but turned to ash, and as the Lannister broke they were shown being run down by Dothrakia, causing Jaime to comment afterwards that the Dothraki were killing his men as if it was sport. And of course in the aftermath Dany gave the Tarly men the choice to either submit or be burned to death, and she didn't flinch when their choice caused her to burn them to death.
I agree that taking on that army in the field is still more restrained than taking it on in a city, and the Dany has still refrained from attacking King's Landing and destroying the Red Keep with her dragons. But even with that in mind, her attack showed she was moving past Tyrion's plans for a 'clever' strategy, and will instead use more direct force. It's about finding that balance, you don't hold back so much that you're ineffective, but you also don't use so much force that you're a tyrant.
I think there were also a few scenes of (literal) friendly fire with some of the Dothraki being burned alongside the Lannister soldiers.
I suspect anyone in that world, especially the Dothraki would say "Its war....... it happens."
djones520 wrote: But she used it on a military target, not a civilian populace. Battles were going to occur, the plan was never to avoid them, the emphasis was making sure they didn't occur in the cities.
It wasn't about avoiding all battles in cities. The first plan involved capturing Casterley Rock, which was expected to a very difficult siege. Even in Tyrion's plan it was understood that sieges and civilians deaths would happen. Instead it was about minimising that carnage, about doing things differently & proving that Dany wouldn't just burn things with her dragons at the first step, making her different from her tyrant ancestors.
Then when Dany did release her two most potent weapons, the dothraki and one of her dragons, the battle was far from triumphant. Instead there was a strong emphasis during the battle and in the aftermath of the use of such overwhelming force. The battle was shown largely from the view of Jaime and Bron on the receiving end, and much of the rest was seen from the POV of Tyrion, passively watching. And in the fighting they focused on the raw power involved, men were shown not just burned but turned to ash, and as the Lannister broke they were shown being run down by Dothrakia, causing Jaime to comment afterwards that the Dothraki were killing his men as if it was sport. And of course in the aftermath Dany gave the Tarly men the choice to either submit or be burned to death, and she didn't flinch when their choice caused her to burn them to death.
I agree that taking on that army in the field is still more restrained than taking it on in a city, and the Dany has still refrained from attacking King's Landing and destroying the Red Keep with her dragons. But even with that in mind, her attack showed she was moving past Tyrion's plans for a 'clever' strategy, and will instead use more direct force. It's about finding that balance, you don't hold back so much that you're ineffective, but you also don't use so much force that you're a tyrant.
I think there were also a few scenes of (literal) friendly fire with some of the Dothraki being burned alongside the Lannister soldiers.
I suspect anyone in that world, especially the Dothraki would say "Its war....... it happens."
Worth a few losses for thr sheer shock and awe air power of a dragon close air support strike.
Mr Morden wrote: Nope I am looking at Dany's story and stating that when she is weak she suffers, when she is strong she and those she loves prosper - are there any examples of the opposite?
Your question is still bad, as it narrows the terms to only instances of Dany being ruthless. But Dany's first instinct is to be kind, and so they're won't be examples of her being ruthless and then getting blowback, instead we see instances of her initial kindness producing either benefits or losses. She offers the Unsullied freedom, and in return they choose to be loyal, free soldiers. Then Dany marched on Yunkai not because it helped capture the Iron Throne, but because she wanted to free the slaves there, and this gained her their loyalty as well. Meereen then revolted upon her arrival, without her losing a single soldier in the initial capture of the city.
Obviously there's been plenty of setbacks, times she has been too lenient, such as the master's revolt in Yunkai or the quagmire in Meereen. But that's how stories work, a character has a principle, a first instinct, and through the story that principle is tested, and the character adapts their principle, or stands firm and triumphs, or stands firm and fails.
Importantly I didn't say Ruthless I said Weakness - very different things.
They're opposite things, two extremes of a single spectrum. I'm not sure if you bungled that sentence or you're really not following what I'm saying hear.
Treat your friends well and destroy those enemies that will not become friends is an ongoing message of the show.
That's more like life advice, it isn't how drama works.
Joffrey was a cowardly and a deviant bully and was neither strong nor ruthless, he indulged his own twisted desires too much and that was the weakness that led to the need to marry into the Tyrell's - which was a good marriage - again it was his lack of control over his needs (weakness) not his strength that led to his death.
That's just word play. One character does a ruthless thing and it works, you call it ruthless and say it fits your theory, someone else does a ruthless thing and it fails and you call it weakness and remove it from your theory.
Ramsey played with his enemies - that was his weakness but he didn't loose and die because of "weakness" towards his enemies, he died because the Vale turned up, he had underestimated Sansa. If they hadn't he would be ruling the North and likely fighting the dead to try and survive.
Ramsey playing with his enemy's wasn't a weakness, he never suffered from it. Ramsey lost because he ended up with too many enemies, and no friends interested in helping him. That's an result of being a ruthless sociopath.
Cersei is driven by her many problems - I would definitely agree with your previous statement that she is a much more interesting and realistic character than the book version. For much of her life she was at the mercy of others and even in the show - she has been reactive for the most part. She is ruthless to a large degree but I would not for the most part call her strong - although this season now she is truly Queen she was growing into the role. Her strength this season was also about her being able to restrain herself a bit - ie go and talk to the Alliance.
End of the day Cersei is the flipside to Dany. They both define themselves by their children (though only one by their literal children). Both have their belief in their destiny to be queen to be their driving force.
The difference is that Dany's first instinct is kindness, while Cersei's is ruthlessness. This is largely why you are wrong in thinking the show is just about how being kind gets you and yours hurt - because despite coming from opposite approaches both Dany and Cersei have grown vastly in power in influence.
Stannis was driven by power and the chip on his shoulder about not getting to be king. He was manipulated by a witch and prophecy - just she is trying to do with Dany and others now. His act of sacrifice was simply pure desperation not strength or being ruthless.
This is wordplay again. You call it ruthlessness if it worked, but if burning your own child at the stake doesn't work you call it desperation.
Civil wars mostly and no different to non Targayrian rulers.
Exactly, a constant wheel of violence. One that Dany know dreams of breaking.
And Dany (or the writers) has no idea what this alternative way is? Democracy is not something we have seen in their world and that does not lead to peace whatever some people dream about. I do worry that we will have some nonsense about an elected ruler by the end of the show.
Huh? Two versions of sorts of democracy are explicitly mentioned to Dany as methods of rule to replace her when she's gone. That's not even subtext, it was actual text directly spoken.
That said, I hope they don't actually got that route. It's too obvious, too on the nose.
Its exactly what the show demonstrated happened at Meerem?
Dany used dragonfire to kill loads, before the rest surrendered? So not the 'everyone bar fanatics will capitulate' that you claimed.
As far as history - ie the books - IIRC its only Dorne that resist Dragonfire with any success.
Who said anything about successfully resist? You claimed that 'everyone bar fanatics will capitulate'. I showed you that actually whole armies got wiped by dragons on the field, surrender wasn't immediate or certain.
And she is finding out that it usually ends badly as Jon and countless others have done.
Sorry, no, your reading of the show is completely false.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I think there were also a few scenes of (literal) friendly fire with some of the Dothraki being burned alongside the Lannister soldiers.
Interesting. I've been looking for an excuse to go back and watch that battle again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: All hail Davos Seaworth, King of the Seven Kingdoms and the First Men!
They're opposite things, two extremes of a single spectrum. I'm not sure if you bungled that sentence or you're really not following what I'm saying hear.
Nope they are different things - you can be strong and ruthless but you don't have to be - you do seem obsessed by the idea that any kind of violence is a sign of "ruthlessness" which is a very emotive term - as is weakness which is why I used it in the context I did. This is the problem with pretending that anyone living in a quasi medieval world like GOT would have the same view and expectations about life, violence and suffering as we do.
Your question is still bad, as it narrows the terms to only instances of Dany being ruthless. But Dany's first instinct is to be kind, and so they're won't be examples of her being ruthless and then getting blowback, instead we see instances of her initial kindness producing either benefits or losses. She offers the Unsullied freedom, and in return they choose to be loyal, free soldiers. Then Dany marched on Yunkai not because it helped capture the Iron Throne, but because she wanted to free the slaves there, and this gained her their loyalty as well. Meereen then revolted upon her arrival, without her losing a single soldier in the initial capture of the city.
Why do you keep using the word Ruthless? She was Strong after having been exploited and weak - that's the whole point of Dany's character - she is repeatedly burnt by others and later her own actions but comes through stronger and able to enact vengeance /justice however you want to describe it. Her entire journey has been like this - since she was sold as a brood mare to her husband, betrayed by her trusted maid, to being captured by the sorcerers - all these things came from her being weak, and all of these things were set right by her being strong =- not Ruthless - STRONG. If she had been ruthless she would have crucified every member of a Masters family when she took the city - she did not - she enacted "Justice" on some following the Masters doing the same with children! We all know that many more would have died in the rebellion - we just did not see much of it - its is described a bit more in the books.
No I clarified my statements as you had expanded the discussion to other characters, as you say when Dany is kind - bad things happen. She freed the slaves by burning the Masters (strength) because that was the only way to get an army and also keep her Dragons. The fact that the Masters were deeply unpleasant people as was the brutal society that they maintained was a great bonus (in fact she was also following her ancestors who wiped out the empire that proceeded the Masters and whose colonies made up the cities in Slaver bay).
Again were are the examples of Dany being Strong that causes her any issues, ever?
Dany led her army to Mereem because she wanted a port and a fleet, and also to free the slaves but in her mind that's a legitimate justification for her war /crusade (and I am not saying it is not), because she was a Strong force that had galvanised her followers this spread to the slaves and resulted in the rebellion.
Whenever she is Weak, not Kind but Weak - she suffers.
Ruthless =
having or showing no pity or compassion for others
That's a good description of Ramsey and Joffrey but not Dany.
Weakness =
the state or quality of being weak; lack of strength, firmness, vigor, or the like; feebleness. 2. an inadequate or defective quality, as in a person's character; slight fault or defect.
Those are not pure opposites - you can be Weak and Ruthless or Strong and Ruthless - in fact many failed Tyrants are weak but ruthless.
Strength
refers especially to physical, mental, or moral robustness or vigor: "enough work to do, and strength enough to do the work" (Rudyard Kipling).
Not the same as Ruthless!!!!!
That's just word play. One character does a ruthless thing and it works, you call it ruthless and say it fits your theory, someone else does a ruthless thing and it fails and you call it weakness and remove it from your theory.
Nope - you are twisting things to fit your view of the show - anything that involves the slightest bit of violence is apparently "Ruthless" - I assume her Dragons burning the dead was "Ruthless"..... see above.
Ramsey playing with his enemy's wasn't a weakness, he never suffered from it. Ramsey lost because he ended up with too many enemies, and no friends interested in helping him. That's an result of being a ruthless sociopath
Nonsense - he had won - his enemies were about to be wiped out en masse, he had plenty of followers or those content to remain neutral - Sansa managed to summon a Deus Ex Machina of the Vale forces, but otherwise we would have a very different situation in the North now. Ramsey's own father tells him to control his needs - its too obvious - not don't do it - just don't be as flamboyant or it will cause trouble later. That - together with his brutal marriage to Sansa was one of the more realistic parts of the show for the world they live in.
The difference is that Dany's first instinct is kindness, while Cersei's is ruthlessness. This is largely why you are wrong in thinking the show is just about how being kind gets you and yours hurt - because despite coming from opposite approaches both Dany and Cersei have grown vastly in power in influence. This is largely why you are wrong in thinking the show is just about how being kind gets you and yours hurt - because despite coming from opposite approaches both Dany and Cersei have grown vastly in power in influence.
Both were given to abusive/brutal husbands when young but only Cersei suffered for more than a decade which has turned her into someone bitter, alcoholic and vengeful whereas Dany grew to love her husband and vice versa . Cersei's actions are driven by these and the terrible things that have happened to her because she was weak and powerless. She has power now - when it matters less and less to her having lost all that she loves - if she has a child it will be interesting to see if she evolves - the show is much better than the book at this element but I doubt it.
This is wordplay again. You call it ruthlessness if it worked, but if burning your own child at the stake doesn't work you call it desperation.
No its the truth - you have become obsessed with the word ruthless - remember the story - Stanis was leading a freezing starving army to its doom, his men were deserting and the only thing he had left to cling to was the false words of a witch - never trust prophecy! His act was pure desperation - it was not an act of Strength which is what I keep coming back to - it was Weakness. Not sure how you miss the fact that burning your own child alive because you have nothing else you can do is not an act of man in control.
Now if he had done this when he left his island with his full army etc and in good order just because the witch said it might help - now that would have been pure ruthlessness but he didn't - it was the last gasp of a failed leader who had nothing else to try.
Huh? Two versions of sorts of democracy are explicitly mentioned to Dany as methods of rule to replace her when she's gone. That's not even subtext, it was actual text directly spoken
I have missed this - what was said?
Who said anything about successfully resist? You claimed that 'everyone bar fanatics will capitulate'. I showed you that actually whole armies got wiped by dragons on the field, surrender wasn't immediate or certain.
How long did it take to wipe out the armies, did they even get a chance to surrender? You are making my point - you burn some, the others surrender - job done. The world moves on and you will be judged by how you treat your enemies when you have won. This is exactly what happened at Meerem and the raid on the convoy. It works.
I still like the bonkers and totally unsound theory that Gendry is actually Robert and Cersei's child that she gave away to spite Robert and replaced him with another body
MDSW wrote: Does anyone know the real background of Gendry beyond RB's bastard son? When was he born and to whom?
All we know is that he's about the same age as Robb Stark and his mother was blond.
According to the asoiaf wiki.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Turnip Jedi wrote: I still like the bonkers and totally unsound theory that Gendry is actually Robert and Cersei's child that she gave away to spite Robert and replaced him with another body
Mr Morden wrote: Nope they are different things - you can be strong and ruthless but you don't have to be - you do seem obsessed by the idea that any kind of violence is a sign of "ruthlessness" which is a very emotive term - as is weakness which is why I used it in the context I did.
No, you don't understand what a spectrum is or how it is being used in this case. It is an explanatory descriptor, it doesn't reduce everything down in to being purely about ruthlessness or weakness. Think of a line, on the far left you have weakness, on the far right you have ruthlessness. In between those two ends you have the full whole range of possible choices made by each character. Actions that edge to close to the left, to weakness, have had negative outcomes, and actions that have too far to the right, to ruthlessness, have had different negative outcomes. And again, this is more or less, and not an absolute law, because GoT isn't a dogmatic statement on morality.
Why do you keep using the word Ruthless?
Because I'm describing GoT through a framework to analyse how the characters have acted and what those actions have caused, in an attempt to give some meaningful connection between decision and result.
She was Strong after having been exploited and weak - that's the whole point of Dany's character
Ok, so now you're catching up to things I was explaining to you weeks ago. Actual, literal weeks ago.
No I clarified my statements as you had expanded the discussion to other characters, as you say when Dany is kind - bad things happen.
What? Dany's kindness has had negative consequences, but also great benefits. Remember she captured Meereen through a slave revolt, simply because the people there heard of her kind actions elsewhere. But you are obsessed with this reading that Dany's kindness has only brought negative consequences, which is a strange invention and not consistent with the story we've been given.
Again were are the examples of Dany being Strong that causes her any issues, ever?
Please read what I'm fething saying. Here, I'll just repost it for you;
"Your question is still bad, as it narrows the terms to only instances of Dany being ruthless. But Dany's first instinct is to be kind, and so they're won't be examples of her being ruthless and then getting blowback, instead we see instances of her initial kindness producing either benefits or losses. She offers the Unsullied freedom, and in return they choose to be loyal, free soldiers. Then Dany marched on Yunkai not because it helped capture the Iron Throne, but because she wanted to free the slaves there, and this gained her their loyalty as well. Meereen then revolted upon her arrival, without her losing a single soldier in the initial capture of the city."
Those are not pure opposites - you can be Weak and Ruthless or Strong and Ruthless - in fact many failed Tyrants are weak but ruthless.
You're playing word games again. The exact words used don't matter. You could replace 'ruthless' with 'gabblepots' and 'weak' with 'ooplesnaps' and it wouldn't matter. What matters is the dynamic, that the extremes of at each of the scale have grave consequences.
Nope - you are twisting things to fit your view of the show - anything that involves the slightest bit of violence is apparently "Ruthless" - I assume her Dragons burning the dead was "Ruthless"..... see above.
No, that isn't how words work. This is ridiculous.
Nonsense - he had won - his enemies were about to be wiped out en masse, he had plenty of followers or those content to remain neutral - Sansa managed to summon a Deus Ex Machina of the Vale forces, but otherwise we would have a very different situation in the North now.
Okay, you don't know what a deus ex machina is. It isn't used to describe any time a character is saved by anyone or anything. To be a deus ex, it needs to come out of nowhere, unrelated to previous plot or character developments. So for instance the eagles saving Sam and Frodo in LotR was a deus ex, but Han saving Luke in Star Wars was not. Get it? Good.
In GoT the Knights of the Vale saving Jon from defeat was the next step in Sansa's development. It showed she had developed a wise, strategic mind, just as she rightly warned Jon about the mind games Ramsey would play, she also rightly assessed the knights as essential to Jon's victory. It also was the next step in her relationship with Littlefinger, she relied on his army, gave him another inroad in to her life and the politics of the North, and made it look for a time that she was still being played by him. But then as s7 developed it became clear she was playing him, she knew his character and his crimes, but used him as a temporary ally.
This is another thing you got arse about in GoT. What you saw as a story being written as the Knights coming to rescue to get Jon out of certain doom was actually Jon's certain doom being written so that the Knights could come to his rescue.
No its the truth - you have become obsessed with the word ruthless - remember the story - Stanis was leading a freezing starving army to its doom, his men were deserting and the only thing he had left to cling to was the false words of a witch - never trust prophecy! His act was pure desperation - it was not an act of Strength which is what I keep coming back to - it was Weakness. Not sure how you miss the fact that burning your own child alive because you have nothing else you can do is not an act of man in control.
You're simply wrong when you say never trust prophecy. GoT is steeped in prophecy. It is actually less pronounced on the tv show, the books are almost unreadable if you assume the constant prophesy elements are just meaningless, made up stuff. I think what's happened is a lot of people have gotten confused because so many characters have misinterpeted prophecy and been led down the wrong path, most notably but not limited to Melissandre and Stannis, but that doesn't mean never trust prophecy. Instead the lesson has been that it is a mistake to apply your own personal ambitions on to an existing prophecy.
I have missed this - what was said?
In the Beyond the Wall episode, Tyrion and Dany discuss 'breaking the wheel', again. Tyrion then raises the question of succession, who will replace Dany, mentioning her infertility. He mentions the Night's Watch electing their Lord Commander, and the Iron Men electing their ruler. Dany says she will not consider anything like that until she wears the crown.
How long did it take to wipe out the armies, did they even get a chance to surrender? You are making my point - you burn some, the others surrender - job done. The world moves on and you will be judged by how you treat your enemies when you have won. This is exactly what happened at Meerem and the raid on the convoy. It works.
If that was yoru point, you should have said 'you burn some, the others surrender'. Instead you said ' just demonstrate your overwhelming power and everyone bar fanatics will capitulate'. So you've now moved from claiming overwhelming power can force surrender without having to kill anyone but fanatics, to a new position that overwhelming power must be used to kill a lot of people and then you get the rest to surrender. The difference in those two claims is massive.
And your claim that using overwhelming power always works is still just completely fething wrong. It sounds more and more like you're applying your own strange worldview on to a story and you just don't care how the events of that story have actually played out. To believe your claim, we would have to believe that all the characters who've shown no hesitation in their use of force, like Ramsey or Cersei, have done nothing but go from strength to strength. Obviously this is absolutely false. And it would mean that a story like Dany's, where she has not just shown kindness but often too much kindness, would be languishing & powerless, which is also completely false.
Debuts in April, according to Den of Geek. Which isn’t long at all. And in theory, should start around the time Walking Dead finishes up its current season.
The purpose of which is to reveal/confirm the Apr '19 premiere, so why you need to quote DoG to confirm something that's in the trailer already is because...?
I am 100% ready to see this season and have it be over. For me the show has dragged on just a bit much. Some of the changes from the books served to stream line and speed things up, but it also dulled down and made bits way less interesting. Dorne being the primary example. Ready for it to be done.
I’ve really enjoyed the show but this long wait has killed a lot of my interest. That trailer doesn’t help. Was all ready for it to rebuild some of that excitement, but instead it’s pure rehashed stuff with zero new scenes, and then tells me I still have to wait nearly half a year yet for the new season. ::yawn::
Pacing is an art and the books definitely never figured out how to pace the back half of the story. The shows have done better, but really suffers from the first half not leaving characters in a place to transition to the finale without a lot of pointless stage setting. I think more than anything though, all of the angst over whether or not the story will even get a proper conclusion has people mentally ready for it to be over.
Im sure it will have a proper conclusion. Just, all the surprises are gone. They telegraphed everything too far in advance and this season is like the 3rd hobit movie in that its basically 1 big fight.
So obvious predictions. Jon and danny get the throne. Jamie will betray cersi as cersi betrays everyone. The ice dragon will die. One of the other dragons will die. Only 1 dragon will be left. Danny and jon will take a more hands off approach to ruling and tyrion will get gak done.
Maybe it wont be that? But i would be shocked if more than 25% of that is wrong.
Lance845 wrote: Im sure it will have a proper conclusion. Just, all the surprises are gone. They telegraphed everything too far in advance and this season is like the 3rd hobit movie in that its basically 1 big fight.
So obvious predictions. Jon and danny get the throne. Jamie will betray cersi as cersi betrays everyone. The ice dragon will die. One of the other dragons will die. Only 1 dragon will be left. Danny and jon will take a more hands off approach to ruling and tyrion will get gak done.
Maybe it wont be that? But i would be shocked if more than 25% of that is wrong.
Why do we need surprises? Can be good or bad but if its done just because "oh i think people might have thought that" then so what. Not everything has to pretend to be edgy.
We all knew what exactly was going to happen in the LOTR films - it will be the exection of the plot and characters that will help us measure (to each their own standard) how good or bad the show is. Having Borimeer get the Ring would have been a surpirse but not necesarily a good one. The Books have however degenerated into turgid nonsense and I doubt we will see any more of them anyway so not worries there.
I agree that they could have been more interesting with the end of the Cersei story - having her continue as an active ally would have made her interactions far better ratehr than the obvious betrayal.
I think probably right re predictions - although hoping zombie Jon dies and we have more dragons by the end...
I also would not be surprised if they leave some plot threads for possible spin offs.
Yeah, I am not really saying we NEED twists and turns. More that one of the big appeals of the show WAS the twists and turns.
Like I said, this whole season is like the 3rd hobbit movie. Except instead of 2 hours it's going to be 7-8. It's a whole season about one big fight. Not the big fight thats coming. The big fight thats there. It's difficult to keep the enthusiasm up for an audience when there are no more valleys to dip into or peaks to build towards. If this was the conclusion of last season we would have all been pumped. Now I just look at how many more hours I have to get through to see the end and I am watching the clock.
Lance845 wrote: Yeah, I am not really saying we NEED twists and turns. More that one of the big appeals of the show WAS the twists and turns.
Like I said, this whole season is like the 3rd hobbit movie. Except instead of 2 hours it's going to be 7-8. It's a whole season about one big fight. Not the big fight thats coming. The big fight thats there. It's difficult to keep the enthusiasm up for an audience when there are no more valleys to dip into or peaks to build towards. If this was the conclusion of last season we would have all been pumped. Now I just look at how many more hours I have to get through to see the end and I am watching the clock.
Maybe, the shows shock horror twists / killings was really quite rare - the memorable ones being Daddy Stark getting killed and the Red Wedding.- Hell ,Shanara and Into the Badlands tv show was more brutal with its supporting cast.
I thnk there will be a series of encounters and betrayals and counter betrayals leading to a big fight - then hopefully a messy aftermath with Queen Dany and Tyrio trying to sort it all out. Not just "Horrah all is good in da lands"...
Lance845 wrote: Yeah, I am not really saying we NEED twists and turns. More that one of the big appeals of the show WAS the twists and turns.
Like I said, this whole season is like the 3rd hobbit movie. Except instead of 2 hours it's going to be 7-8. It's a whole season about one big fight. Not the big fight thats coming. The big fight thats there. It's difficult to keep the enthusiasm up for an audience when there are no more valleys to dip into or peaks to build towards. If this was the conclusion of last season we would have all been pumped. Now I just look at how many more hours I have to get through to see the end and I am watching the clock.
Eh, it's been said quite a few times now that the reality is GoT was always in fact the story we're seeing now, Martin was just adept at hiding that fact in the earlier books by making you think other characters were going to become the protagonists, and then murdering them. Thing is, that means that once you do establish what the "real" story is, you pretty much have to play it straight from that point on.
I mean who knows, maybe he was always planning one more big twist, and it'll turn out that Bronn was the "real" main character all along or something, but I suspect things are a bit more wysiwyg than that now.
Which is fine, I think the difference between how you're viewing it and how a lot of other folk are viewing it is you see an 8 hour slog to get to "the end", while others(myself included) see the whole final season as "the end" and are fine with that if it's done well, especially considering how rushed and compressed the last season felt.
