Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 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.

A battle for the wall would have been fun.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

Trusting the witch kept her husband alive but killed her child, if I recall.

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.

Drogo was dying of sepsis, there wouldn't have been anyway to save him.

"Saving" him cost daenarys her child, a life for a life after all.

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.

Witch told her pretty much sums it up.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Witch told her pretty much sums it up.

Yeah might not have been the best idea to believe the witch who sacrificed her unborn child to "heal" her husband and made him into a brain dead husk.

Yup, that witch did need to die... horribly...

 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.

Yep - we have to love our main characters!

Actually, I kind of forgot about that part, but just recall her tricking Dany in the worst way, and I am not really a fan of Dany to begin with...

 MDSW wrote:
Yep - we have to love our main characters!

Actually, I kind of forgot about that part, but just recall her tricking Dany in the worst way, and I am not really a fan of Dany to begin with...

She tricked her. Though she also got burned to death or somthing so she never prospered after her revenge.

And all out main characters have done something bad. There's no goody out of lot of em. Everything new killed directly or indirectly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/41264914/game-of-thrones-to-shoot-multiple-endings-of-final-season-to-stop-story-leaks

 trexmeyer wrote:

 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?

I think its artistic license/rule of cool.

 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.

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.

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.

There is no real reason why the wings should be torn to begin with, so it's pure Rule of Cool.

 d-usa wrote:
There is no real reason why the wings should be torn to begin with, so it's pure Rule of Cool.

Viserion fell from the sky and crashed hard through a thick layer of ice. That must have done some damage to the wings.

 d-usa wrote:
There is no real reason why the wings should be torn to begin with, so it's pure Rule of Cool.

Those four large chains that they attached to pull it out of the lake may have something to do with it.

Pretty Certain that a animal that big has to be boosted with magic to fly anyway ?

So more magic - especially since the Night King is directly with it.

Same way that the zombies in Walking Dead even move or are able to bite.

re Zombies healing - its does not look like Jon Snow heals?

 Mr Morden wrote:
Pretty Certain that a animal that big has to be boosted with magic to fly anyway ?

So more magic - especially since the Night King is directly with it.

Same way that the zombies in Walking Dead even move or are able to bite.

re Zombies healing - its does not look like Jon Snow heals?

Umm... Lord of light rebirth, has a few rules and overdoing it has concqunces.
It seems after the first time you lose bits of yourself.

His injuries... Well he healed as in alive. But I think k some damage or loss of limb remain lost. His are a tad more serious than a cut.

He healed ernough to live despite taking multiple several inch steel blades to the heart so there must be some healing.