|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
On August 01 2017 05:42 Dazed. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 05:40 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2017 05:35 Dazed. wrote:On August 01 2017 05:33 Plansix wrote:
Danger, danger, we are headed into the “Slavery was fine because it was legal” area of discussion. Just because sex without contest was social acceptable and allowed in medieval times doesn’t make it not rape. It just makes it legalized rape. Thats not the dispute, the dispute is a matter of self perception and the logical characterization that comes from that. A woman in medieval times would not consider an arranged marriage rape, least of all for a person she fell in love with less than a week later. Moon of her stars and all that nonsense. Frankly, isnt it a hell of a lot worse for the writers to make danny both a self acknowledge rape victim AND to have fallen in love with her rapist? At least previously they could cover that in the smoke screen of an ancient culture, now its just...bizarre... Or it is just a story of what happens to some women in that era. A whole lot of them get murdered/abused by their husbands or cast aside. Are you saying that women typically fall in love with their rapists? And remain in love with them for years afterwards? Are you telling me its common for people to grow up in a slavery society, but suddenly have an anti slavery ethos? None of this is typical. Danny pops in as a 21st century women, then pops into being a medieval woman. Whatever the scene requires. One moment shes crazy, the next moment shes a modern day liberal. One second shes a medievalist, the next second shes virtually a democrat.
I did not say that it was typical. But it happened. People do all sorts of things to survive. Dany seduces her husband at first, asserting some control over their relationship. The story line goes from there, but it doesn’t change how it started. Once again, this is a weird discussion. Trial by combat wasn’t effective way to determine guilt either.
|
On August 01 2017 05:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 05:42 Dazed. wrote:On August 01 2017 05:40 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2017 05:35 Dazed. wrote:On August 01 2017 05:33 Plansix wrote:
Danger, danger, we are headed into the “Slavery was fine because it was legal” area of discussion. Just because sex without contest was social acceptable and allowed in medieval times doesn’t make it not rape. It just makes it legalized rape. Thats not the dispute, the dispute is a matter of self perception and the logical characterization that comes from that. A woman in medieval times would not consider an arranged marriage rape, least of all for a person she fell in love with less than a week later. Moon of her stars and all that nonsense. Frankly, isnt it a hell of a lot worse for the writers to make danny both a self acknowledge rape victim AND to have fallen in love with her rapist? At least previously they could cover that in the smoke screen of an ancient culture, now its just...bizarre... Or it is just a story of what happens to some women in that era. A whole lot of them get murdered/abused by their husbands or cast aside. Are you saying that women typically fall in love with their rapists? And remain in love with them for years afterwards? Are you telling me its common for people to grow up in a slavery society, but suddenly have an anti slavery ethos? None of this is typical. Danny pops in as a 21st century women, then pops into being a medieval woman. Whatever the scene requires. One moment shes crazy, the next moment shes a modern day liberal. One second shes a medievalist, the next second shes virtually a democrat. I did not say that it was typical. But it happened. People do all sorts of things to survive. Dany seduces her husband at first, asserting some control over their relationship. The story line goes from there, but it doesn’t change how it started. Once again, this is a weird discussion. Trial by combat wasn’t effective way to determine guilt either. Clearly trial by combat isnt very effective. But it would be a huge inconsistency in a character who was both fervently religious and traditional, who also considered it murder. As the entire notion harkens back to religious and traditional thinking. See? Danny at once supports the hierarchical notion of authority, and moral legitimacy when it comes to conquest, generational oaths etc, hell, she even implicitly and explicitly supports the hierarchical nature of society [and with that, the gendered hierarchy] but suddenly disavows it only when it pertains to her? Yes to arranged marriages and dynastic alliances between feudal land lords, but no when it comes to her. Rape, and yet love. Yeah, people do strange things to survive, but this isnt a strange thing. Its just incoherent writing. They never wrote Danny having ambivalent feelings towards Drogo, if they had, this would be a different story. She simplistically and completely fell in love with him, even years after she had come into power and [possibly] changed her views. None of her views are consistent or adult. Shes against slavery, but is in favour of blood determining social right, to such an extent as to basically equate to slavery. Etc.
And in all of this incoherent gibberish, is Tyrion, who somehow finds her...reasonable and compassionate and a competent leader, based on some babbled speech she gave about breaking the wheel? lol. I never know what to expect with danny, she has no core, and characters simply react to her based on whatever the plot needs, not their own characterizations.
|
United States42826 Posts
On August 01 2017 05:29 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 05:26 Reaps wrote:On August 01 2017 05:24 Dazed. wrote:On August 01 2017 05:19 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2017 05:15 Reaps wrote:On August 01 2017 05:14 bardtown wrote:
This seems like something I should know, but who raped Dany? Khal Drogo i guess Having watched that first episode again, yeah. If danny considered that rape [as opposed to just uncomfortable sex in a social scenario she would of preferred to have avoided all together] why did she fall deeply and passionately in love with her rapist less than a week later? And remain so much in love she named a dragon after him, and had a dream that he was alive and that she could be with him forever, etc? God awful writing. It was 100% rape, no question about it. Also it was this way in the books no? Come off it. A medieval woman calling an arranged marriage rape is ridiculous. That is the standard. She should tell the slaves she freed about how she was raped.
She didn't want to have sex with him but he forced her to. She was absolutely raped. What you're arguing is that rape was common in arranged marriage and therefore isn't rape. The argument just doesn't work.
|
No that's not what he is arguing, he is arguing that she wouldn't perceive it as rape.
That's the argument. It doesn't matter if it is or is not rape (it obviously is and it's bad).
|
On August 01 2017 06:02 Dazed. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 05:48 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2017 05:42 Dazed. wrote:On August 01 2017 05:40 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2017 05:35 Dazed. wrote:On August 01 2017 05:33 Plansix wrote:
Danger, danger, we are headed into the “Slavery was fine because it was legal” area of discussion. Just because sex without contest was social acceptable and allowed in medieval times doesn’t make it not rape. It just makes it legalized rape. Thats not the dispute, the dispute is a matter of self perception and the logical characterization that comes from that. A woman in medieval times would not consider an arranged marriage rape, least of all for a person she fell in love with less than a week later. Moon of her stars and all that nonsense. Frankly, isnt it a hell of a lot worse for the writers to make danny both a self acknowledge rape victim AND to have fallen in love with her rapist? At least previously they could cover that in the smoke screen of an ancient culture, now its just...bizarre... Or it is just a story of what happens to some women in that era. A whole lot of them get murdered/abused by their husbands or cast aside. Are you saying that women typically fall in love with their rapists? And remain in love with them for years afterwards? Are you telling me its common for people to grow up in a slavery society, but suddenly have an anti slavery ethos? None of this is typical. Danny pops in as a 21st century women, then pops into being a medieval woman. Whatever the scene requires. One moment shes crazy, the next moment shes a modern day liberal. One second shes a medievalist, the next second shes virtually a democrat. I did not say that it was typical. But it happened. People do all sorts of things to survive. Dany seduces her husband at first, asserting some control over their relationship. The story line goes from there, but it doesn’t change how it started. Once again, this is a weird discussion. Trial by combat wasn’t effective way to determine guilt either. Clearly trial by combat isnt very effective. But it would be a huge inconsistency in a character who was both fervently religious and traditional, who also considered it murder. As the entire notion harkens back to religious and traditional thinking. See? Danny at once supports the hierarchical notion of authority, and moral legitimacy when it comes to conquest, generational oaths etc, hell, she even implicitly and explicitly supports the hierarchical nature of society [and with that, the gendered hierarchy] but suddenly disavows it only when it pertains to her? Yes to arranged marriages and dynastic alliances between feudal land lords, but no when it comes to her. Rape, and yet love. Yeah, people do strange things to survive, but this isnt a strange thing. Its just incoherent writing. They never wrote Danny having ambivalent feelings towards Drogo, if they had, this would be a different story. She simplistically and completely fell in love with him, even years after she had come into power and [possibly] changed her views. None of her views are consistent or adult. Shes against slavery, but is in favour of blood determining social right, to such an extent as to basically equate to slavery. Etc. And in all of this incoherent gibberish, is Tyrion, who somehow finds her...reasonable and compassionate and a competent leader, based on some babbled speech she gave about breaking the wheel? lol. I never know what to expect with danny, she has no core, and characters simply react to her based on whatever the plot needs, not their own characterizations.
You are arguing with a fictional person, because I never made any of the argument you just made. I was responding to the idea that that early scene in the series wasn’t rape. That was it.
|
On August 01 2017 06:11 The_Red_Viper wrote:
No that's not what he is arguing, he is arguing that she wouldn't perceive it as rape.
That's the argument. It doesn't matter if it is or is not rape (it obviously is and it's bad).
That was absolutely the argument he was making. His post after that about reparations made that clear.
|
On August 01 2017 06:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 06:02 Dazed. wrote:On August 01 2017 05:48 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2017 05:42 Dazed. wrote:On August 01 2017 05:40 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2017 05:35 Dazed. wrote:On August 01 2017 05:33 Plansix wrote:
Danger, danger, we are headed into the “Slavery was fine because it was legal” area of discussion. Just because sex without contest was social acceptable and allowed in medieval times doesn’t make it not rape. It just makes it legalized rape. Thats not the dispute, the dispute is a matter of self perception and the logical characterization that comes from that. A woman in medieval times would not consider an arranged marriage rape, least of all for a person she fell in love with less than a week later. Moon of her stars and all that nonsense. Frankly, isnt it a hell of a lot worse for the writers to make danny both a self acknowledge rape victim AND to have fallen in love with her rapist? At least previously they could cover that in the smoke screen of an ancient culture, now its just...bizarre... Or it is just a story of what happens to some women in that era. A whole lot of them get murdered/abused by their husbands or cast aside. Are you saying that women typically fall in love with their rapists? And remain in love with them for years afterwards? Are you telling me its common for people to grow up in a slavery society, but suddenly have an anti slavery ethos? None of this is typical. Danny pops in as a 21st century women, then pops into being a medieval woman. Whatever the scene requires. One moment shes crazy, the next moment shes a modern day liberal. One second shes a medievalist, the next second shes virtually a democrat. I did not say that it was typical. But it happened. People do all sorts of things to survive. Dany seduces her husband at first, asserting some control over their relationship. The story line goes from there, but it doesn’t change how it started. Once again, this is a weird discussion. Trial by combat wasn’t effective way to determine guilt either. Clearly trial by combat isnt very effective. But it would be a huge inconsistency in a character who was both fervently religious and traditional, who also considered it murder. As the entire notion harkens back to religious and traditional thinking. See? Danny at once supports the hierarchical notion of authority, and moral legitimacy when it comes to conquest, generational oaths etc, hell, she even implicitly and explicitly supports the hierarchical nature of society [and with that, the gendered hierarchy] but suddenly disavows it only when it pertains to her? Yes to arranged marriages and dynastic alliances between feudal land lords, but no when it comes to her. Rape, and yet love. Yeah, people do strange things to survive, but this isnt a strange thing. Its just incoherent writing. They never wrote Danny having ambivalent feelings towards Drogo, if they had, this would be a different story. She simplistically and completely fell in love with him, even years after she had come into power and [possibly] changed her views. None of her views are consistent or adult. Shes against slavery, but is in favour of blood determining social right, to such an extent as to basically equate to slavery. Etc. And in all of this incoherent gibberish, is Tyrion, who somehow finds her...reasonable and compassionate and a competent leader, based on some babbled speech she gave about breaking the wheel? lol. I never know what to expect with danny, she has no core, and characters simply react to her based on whatever the plot needs, not their own characterizations. You are arguing with a fictional person, because I never made any of the argument you just made. I was responding to the idea that that early scene in the series wasn’t rape. That was it. I was never disputing that it was factually rape, though. So at best you merely wasted both of our times by arguing against a phantom.
|
On August 01 2017 06:22 Dazed. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 06:11 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2017 06:02 Dazed. wrote:On August 01 2017 05:48 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2017 05:42 Dazed. wrote:On August 01 2017 05:40 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2017 05:35 Dazed. wrote:On August 01 2017 05:33 Plansix wrote:
Danger, danger, we are headed into the “Slavery was fine because it was legal” area of discussion. Just because sex without contest was social acceptable and allowed in medieval times doesn’t make it not rape. It just makes it legalized rape. Thats not the dispute, the dispute is a matter of self perception and the logical characterization that comes from that. A woman in medieval times would not consider an arranged marriage rape, least of all for a person she fell in love with less than a week later. Moon of her stars and all that nonsense. Frankly, isnt it a hell of a lot worse for the writers to make danny both a self acknowledge rape victim AND to have fallen in love with her rapist? At least previously they could cover that in the smoke screen of an ancient culture, now its just...bizarre... Or it is just a story of what happens to some women in that era. A whole lot of them get murdered/abused by their husbands or cast aside. Are you saying that women typically fall in love with their rapists? And remain in love with them for years afterwards? Are you telling me its common for people to grow up in a slavery society, but suddenly have an anti slavery ethos? None of this is typical. Danny pops in as a 21st century women, then pops into being a medieval woman. Whatever the scene requires. One moment shes crazy, the next moment shes a modern day liberal. One second shes a medievalist, the next second shes virtually a democrat. I did not say that it was typical. But it happened. People do all sorts of things to survive. Dany seduces her husband at first, asserting some control over their relationship. The story line goes from there, but it doesn’t change how it started. Once again, this is a weird discussion. Trial by combat wasn’t effective way to determine guilt either. Clearly trial by combat isnt very effective. But it would be a huge inconsistency in a character who was both fervently religious and traditional, who also considered it murder. As the entire notion harkens back to religious and traditional thinking. See? Danny at once supports the hierarchical notion of authority, and moral legitimacy when it comes to conquest, generational oaths etc, hell, she even implicitly and explicitly supports the hierarchical nature of society [and with that, the gendered hierarchy] but suddenly disavows it only when it pertains to her? Yes to arranged marriages and dynastic alliances between feudal land lords, but no when it comes to her. Rape, and yet love. Yeah, people do strange things to survive, but this isnt a strange thing. Its just incoherent writing. They never wrote Danny having ambivalent feelings towards Drogo, if they had, this would be a different story. She simplistically and completely fell in love with him, even years after she had come into power and [possibly] changed her views. None of her views are consistent or adult. Shes against slavery, but is in favour of blood determining social right, to such an extent as to basically equate to slavery. Etc. And in all of this incoherent gibberish, is Tyrion, who somehow finds her...reasonable and compassionate and a competent leader, based on some babbled speech she gave about breaking the wheel? lol. I never know what to expect with danny, she has no core, and characters simply react to her based on whatever the plot needs, not their own characterizations. You are arguing with a fictional person, because I never made any of the argument you just made. I was responding to the idea that that early scene in the series wasn’t rape. That was it. I was never disputing that it was factually rape, though. So at best you merely wasted both of our times by arguing against a phantom.
You responded to me and I was responded to comments made by another poster on the last page.
|
Cersei raped Jaime in this episode. He quite clearly said "no" and everything. But don't worry, he enjoyed it.
Also, the dialogue between Jon and Daenerys was so painfully bad at the beginning.
|
On August 01 2017 04:52 cmdspinner1 wrote:
I wonder how all of you "experts" would criticise the "bad writing" if there was a series about a real war like WW2: "Why didn't the German army send their tanks and crush the british forces in Dunkirk before they could be evacuated, thats just bad writing and unrealistic."
In real wars Generals and rulers make mistakes and illogical moves all the time also because there is limited information on which they must base their strategies on. In real wars most things don't go about as a historian would have done it in retrospect. So I wouldn't overanalyze the Wars and battles in Game of thrones.
Except the wars and battles in the first few seasons had strategic merit, it wasn't a case of rulers making blatant mistakes, but simply being outsmarted or flat out outfought. Now the mistakes are just so freaking stupid and nonsensical despite Dany having all the info. If the military moves Dany did were from Dorne, I can understand them, but from Dragonstone? Hell no man. Im sorry, we're speaking absurdly stupid moves considering the position of Dragonstone in relation to King's Landing and Casterly Rock.
Dunno if they are doing this on purpose because they really don't have a strategist with them (Im not counting Tyrion, imo he is a total newbie compared to Euron, Tarly or Jamie) and trying to teach Dany a lesson that brute power and overconfidence dont win wars and battles and that she really needs a proper military mind to lead the campaign. If that's the case I can understand it, but I dont think you need a very keen military mind to see that the moves she's making are so stupid. Or maybe they are trying to even out the odds, since at the end of last season it was too obvious that they made Dany such a powerhouse compared to Cersei that they are trying to whittle down her forces to make it seem more even. In any case, the writing is of much lower quality compared to the first few seasons there's no doubt about that.
Sure the argument that we are getting short seasons and they are limited with time etc can be made and I accept that, but GoT has spoiled us with its complexity that its pretty hard to not notice the drop off in quality. I personally dont really care, I still enjoy the show, I hope it gets a bit better than it is now, but I understand why some people would make negative comments about the quality of the last few seasons.
|
I wonder how all of you "experts" would criticise the "bad writing" if there was a series about a real war like WW2: "Why didn't the German army send their tanks and crush the british forces in Dunkirk before they could be evacuated, thats just bad writing and unrealistic."
You can find alot of writing about this subject, it's clear you are extremely ignorant about it and only have the knowledge you got from the movie.
If you actually study WW2 you see that there are tons of different types of decisions and dilemmas from both sides. And you can easily get massive battle victories without super hero powers - such as Germany conquering France and belgium relatively easily. Mistakes were made, but those were human mistakes.
Anyway, I suggest you educate yourself on the topic before making nonsensical comparisons.
If WW2 had GOT writing it would be like Germany attacking USA in 1939 with 30000 men (because they have superpowers, winning the battle and then sailling back and conquering Great Britain and France afterwards before Scandinavia magically joins the war and beats Germany singlehandly while France, USA and Great Britain couldn't.
I am still surprised how people like you fail to see the difference in acutal historical events where each decision often came up with different advantages and disadvantages in contrast to GOT writing.
|
The events in this episode where good, their build up not so. I feel like the events that where unfolding happened way to fast, usually they would have been spanned out over more episodes but there are too few left I guess. Though I really apreciate that this epsiode wasn't much of a cliffhanger.
+ Show Spoiler +
Especially Olennas ennding deserved much more than "theres an army - your dead" since there also wasn't really any explanation to how it got there undetected. While her last moments where very fitting, basically unrolling it in the credits felt cheap and not really satisfying. Towards the end I felt like watching some run of the mill series, juding by the rapid wrap up.
|
On August 01 2017 06:38 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +I wonder how all of you "experts" would criticise the "bad writing" if there was a series about a real war like WW2: "Why didn't the German army send their tanks and crush the british forces in Dunkirk before they could be evacuated, thats just bad writing and unrealistic."
You can find alot of writing about this subject, it's clear you are extremely ignorant about it and only have the knowledge you got from the movie. If you actually study WW2 you see that there are tons of different types of decisions and dilemmas from both sides. And you can easily get massive battle victories without super hero powers - such as Germany conquering France and belgium relatively easily. Anyway, I suggest you educate yourself on the topic before making nonsensical comparisons.
But some of those decisions were bad and made with really limited information. Or in other cases, just stupid.
|
On August 01 2017 06:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 06:38 Hider wrote:I wonder how all of you "experts" would criticise the "bad writing" if there was a series about a real war like WW2: "Why didn't the German army send their tanks and crush the british forces in Dunkirk before they could be evacuated, thats just bad writing and unrealistic."
You can find alot of writing about this subject, it's clear you are extremely ignorant about it and only have the knowledge you got from the movie. If you actually study WW2 you see that there are tons of different types of decisions and dilemmas from both sides. And you can easily get massive battle victories without super hero powers - such as Germany conquering France and belgium relatively easily. Anyway, I suggest you educate yourself on the topic before making nonsensical comparisons. But some of those decisions were bad and made with really limited information. Or in other cases, just stupid.
Which decisions in WW2 were so stupid that they had no reasonable explanation. Most decisions had pro's and cons (given the information available at the time).
|
On August 01 2017 06:46 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 06:43 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2017 06:38 Hider wrote:I wonder how all of you "experts" would criticise the "bad writing" if there was a series about a real war like WW2: "Why didn't the German army send their tanks and crush the british forces in Dunkirk before they could be evacuated, thats just bad writing and unrealistic."
You can find alot of writing about this subject, it's clear you are extremely ignorant about it and only have the knowledge you got from the movie. If you actually study WW2 you see that there are tons of different types of decisions and dilemmas from both sides. And you can easily get massive battle victories without super hero powers - such as Germany conquering France and belgium relatively easily. Anyway, I suggest you educate yourself on the topic before making nonsensical comparisons. But some of those decisions were bad and made with really limited information. Or in other cases, just stupid. Which decisions in WW2 were so stupid that they had no reasonable explanation. Most decisions had pro's and cons (given the information available at the time).
Like all of them? Every decision in WW2? Does gross hubris and over confidence count as stupidity? If I don't provide enough pros and cons, does this mean we can never make a value judgment a decision in history? How do we account for the variance that is humanity? Am I really arguing against the assertion that all decisions made in WW2 were the best possible discussion possible with the information available? I think Occam's razor deals with that one, don't you think?
|
On August 01 2017 05:08 Dazed. wrote:
- Why is cersei, someone who condemend a nun to rape and torture for months, suddenly OK with nothing more than poetic revenge against ellaria?
Logical explanation: Eye for an eye and since Ellaria ist still alive after her daughter died, there is still lots of room for furter torture.
Worst case scenario: So that Ellaria can be miraculously get rescured. Bronn comes to save some of that "bad pussy" and they ride joyfully in the dawn *pun intended*.
- Tyrions best case scenario was that he would send a fleet around the length of the whole of westeros and attack a giant castle with the entire lannister army in it...for no reason. What strategical purpose did it have? Even if he was unaware the gold mines ran out, it was still nonsensical. Cant explain that away with 'hes not a military commander', there simply is no rationale for the action, at all.
It would have trapped the biggest chunk of the lannister armies as well as cut off their supposed goldsupply. With armies requiring gold and Cersei being immensly in debt, this doesnt seem that illogical to me.
- Why did we wait a year just to have two major battles done with a narration over dub and a cut scene?
Absoluteley agree on this. Too much is happening to fast all of a sudden. I was prepared for a cliffhanger ending and suddenly everything is resolved...
- Why was tyrion babbling lamely about freedom being what would allow the unsullied to win? How fucking lame was that? Very.
Yeah, that was corny.
- Why does danny veer from insane unhinged monarch to reasonable scene to scene? She does 180's moment to moment.
She feels a bit schizophrenic this season I agree. Could be explained by her being under a lot of stress, which the show didn't emphasize much.
- Why would bran explain the three eyed raven thing so utterly incompetently? Plot contrivance, thats why. We needed Sansa to be creeped out and not understand, so Bran simply...doesnt explain. "I am the three eyed raven, there used to be another, but I took his position upon his death". Wow, so difficult to explain. Not.
Made me shake my head as well. Though there was so much happening already, they might do a better job in the next episode.
- Why are Theons men so disgusted that he saved himself? Didnt they also save themselves?
Propably because she is his sister and Ironborn are okay with killing your relatives or fleeing in general, but not with abandoning relatives out of fear. I guess you shouldnt expect much logic from a bunch of people that pride themselve in not doing anything noteworthy but rape and pillage to aquire anything more than smelling fish.
- Why is a character whos literally known solely for being a cynical and rational man so idealistic and naive about a clearly unhinged maniac who likes to burn people?
Not sure who you exactly mean.
This would be my attempt to answer at least some of these questions.
|
On August 01 2017 06:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 05:29 bardtown wrote:On August 01 2017 05:26 Reaps wrote:On August 01 2017 05:24 Dazed. wrote:On August 01 2017 05:19 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2017 05:15 Reaps wrote:On August 01 2017 05:14 bardtown wrote:
This seems like something I should know, but who raped Dany? Khal Drogo i guess Having watched that first episode again, yeah. If danny considered that rape [as opposed to just uncomfortable sex in a social scenario she would of preferred to have avoided all together] why did she fall deeply and passionately in love with her rapist less than a week later? And remain so much in love she named a dragon after him, and had a dream that he was alive and that she could be with him forever, etc? God awful writing. It was 100% rape, no question about it. Also it was this way in the books no? Come off it. A medieval woman calling an arranged marriage rape is ridiculous. That is the standard. She should tell the slaves she freed about how she was raped. She didn't want to have sex with him but he forced her to. She was absolutely raped. What you're arguing is that rape was common in arranged marriage and therefore isn't rape. The argument just doesn't work.
Fuck me. It's really not complicated. I am not saying that it wasn't rape, I am saying that her calling it rape is ridiculous given the context.
By the way guys, I really don't think chaining a mother to a wall so she is forced to watch her daughter die/decompose is particularly 'lenient' even by Cersei's standards.
|
On August 01 2017 06:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 06:46 Hider wrote:On August 01 2017 06:43 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2017 06:38 Hider wrote:I wonder how all of you "experts" would criticise the "bad writing" if there was a series about a real war like WW2: "Why didn't the German army send their tanks and crush the british forces in Dunkirk before they could be evacuated, thats just bad writing and unrealistic."
You can find alot of writing about this subject, it's clear you are extremely ignorant about it and only have the knowledge you got from the movie. If you actually study WW2 you see that there are tons of different types of decisions and dilemmas from both sides. And you can easily get massive battle victories without super hero powers - such as Germany conquering France and belgium relatively easily. Anyway, I suggest you educate yourself on the topic before making nonsensical comparisons. But some of those decisions were bad and made with really limited information. Or in other cases, just stupid. Which decisions in WW2 were so stupid that they had no reasonable explanation. Most decisions had pro's and cons (given the information available at the time). Like all of them? Every decision in WW2? Does gross hubris and over confidence count as stupidity? If I don't provide enough pros and cons, does this mean we can never make a value judgment a decision in history? How do we account for the variance that is humanity? Am I really arguing against the assertion that all decisions made in WW2 were the best possible discussion possible with the information available? I think Occam's razor deals with that one, don't you think?
Like all of them? Every decision in WW2
What? No they had merits giving what we knew of the characters personal goals and ambitions.
I think you are quite missing what this is about. This is not about all characters making perfect rational decisions with all information available to them. Previous I distuinguished the difference between mistakes and bad writing. WW is filled with former but doesn't contain the latter.
Below is an explanation for Germany delaying the Dunkirk attack:
Here's what happened: the British and French counterattack at Arras on May 21, 1940 put a fright into German commanders. Though the counterattack had been pretty much a fizzle (some French troops barely got off the start line before running headlong into German spearheads and the British attack had been mauled), it had caught the German panzers with their pants halfway down.
The German armored divisions had outrun the slower infantry divisions and German commanders were worried about their flanks. Erwin Rommel contributed to the general angst among German commanders by claiming he was attacked by "hundreds" of British tanks at Arras and was in favor of sitting tight until the infantry caught up.
While the counterattack had been fended off, German commanders feared another attack at Arras.
General Ewald von Kleist, commanding Panzer Group Kleist, pulled out the 10th Panzer Division from Heinz Guderian's XIX Corps's advance on Boulogne and Dunkirk, put it into in reserve in case Britain and France renewed their attack at Arras. Kleist complained that his XIX and XIV corps weren't strong enough to continue their advance until Arras was dealt with.
That decision - while a mistake in hindsight - had merits. It wasn't clear-cut (as some ignorant people thought). And the more you study of WW2 the more you see that the majority of the tactical and strategic errors were filled with pro's and cons. (incl. pearl harbor).
So far you haven't been capable of understanding the difference - but do you still not see the difference between the above mistake and Tyrions plan not to attack Kings Landing but attacking Casterly Rock while having a siege around Kings landing (that doesn't do anything) while leaving High Garden easily capable of being attacked?
That decision has no merits. It's nonsense when you have a guaranteed win by attacking kings landing right now. Tyrion even admits the lannisters will be prepared during the attack on casterly rock so lots of human lifes will be lost regardless.
Give me one comparable decision from the history of the real world.
W/ regards to which countries allied each other during WW2. Either they were predetermined (as France/great britain) or you had nations like Spain that wanted to side with the likely winner. You would never see someone like Randall Tarly just siding with the likely loser just to make it appear more even.
That would be like Great Britain switching sides in 1945 (where germany was clearly losing) and allying them selves with Germany under the promise that they could get some part of the land of France if they won the war.... Like.... what? And those are the types of decisions we see over and over in GOT.
|
Speaking of WW2, what I would love to see in a new TV series is one where we are in an alternative world (with different countries/continents), and a war breaks out w/ a dynamic and complexity similar to WW2. And it has characters that - for the most part - are neither good nor bad mixed with one Littlefinger type of guy that manipulates everybody for his own good.
|
On August 01 2017 06:30 Hier wrote:
Cersei raped Jaime in this episode. He quite clearly said "no" and everything. But don't worry, he enjoyed it.
Also, the dialogue between Jon and Daenerys was so painfully bad at the beginning.
Rofl thanks for reminding me about that episode
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
