|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
On May 15 2019 01:44 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 01:41 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 15 2019 01:27 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 01:23 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 15 2019 01:09 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:59 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:47 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:
[quote]
So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel?
So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity.
How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home. The end result of Dany's action is that she punishes some group of people for a crime that they did not commit. But we justify her actions because they were slavers and they were all bad I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful. We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people. There is no crime someone can commit that justifies being publicly tortured to death. That seems to be what you are defending here. That is was morally ambiguous to order the torture and death of the people responsible and some extra masters for good measure, just to make sure she got them all. The show is pitting the justice of the general action + the character of the person ordering it + the 1:1 retribution of the previous crimes against an emotionless assessment of the action. It's very clearly designed to invoke a conflict in you the viewer along a line of morals. I don't know how you can admit the viewer wants to justify the actions while still making the argument it's presented as a case of black and white morals and we all saw and knew Dany was terrible and cruel at this moment. The entire point is that the show presented moments like these because mudding the morals (or our emotions and morals) makes for good storytelling. None of what you say refutes that point in any way at all or makes it less of a disaster to have Dany commit a completely 100% morally unambiguous tragedy. And I don’t understand how people took all the nonsense Dany spouted about “breaking the wheel” by obtaining the throne at face value. Breaking the chains and freeing the slaves, so long as the slaves follow and fought for her. Leading an army of Dothraki, who are not nice to their women and kill for sport, but are fine so long as they fight for Dany. Traveling across the sea to take back a throne that her family was kicked off of a generation earliest for committing mass murder because she was told it belonged to her. I’ve been guilty of cheering for Dany in the past, but she isn’t a liberator. She is a conqueror and she is there to dominate the 7 kingdoms under her rule, even if they don’t want her. On May 15 2019 01:06 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 15 2019 00:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:47 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:
[quote]
So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel?
So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity.
How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home. The end result of Dany's action is that she punishes some group of people for a crime that they did not commit. But we justify her actions because they were slavers and they were all bad I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful. We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people. There is no crime someone can commit that justifies being publicly tortured to death. That seems to be what you are defending here. That is was morally ambiguous to order the torture and death of the people responsible and some extra masters for good measure, just to make sure she got them all. If that was your stance from the get go, why not just say it outright? Instead you backpaddled like 3 times now to come this this ultimate deontological statement. A lot of people disagree with you there though, a lot of people weigh their crimes up and come to own conclusions, it is designed to be morally ambigious. The show opens with an execution of a deserter and a lord talking about the duty to treat someone sentenced to death with humanity and dignity. I'm really not seeing the moral ambiguity and I don't think the show does either. Death by torture is not Ned Stark approved. I wasn't aware that anything moral ambigious has to be ned stark approved! I thought it has to somewhat split the audience, based on moral justifications, like the slave masters being terrible people in the first place. Now if your whole stance is deontology, there is no moral ambiguity period. There is just right and wrong. On the specific subject of torturing people to death, sure. There isn't a lot of wiggle room there, even in Game of Thrones. Well a lot of people would disagree with this, and the show quite clearly set it up to be morally ambigious, otherwise there was no need to set it up with the crucified children in the first place. Cause and reaction, you can disagree with the action but there is an actual justification as long as one doesn't outright look at it from a deontological pov. Just like the deserter in season 1 gets killed because he did something wrong (in comparison it isn't nearly as bad as what the slave masters did). The show even makes you feel for the deserter. Seeing as he deserted out of fear of the army of the dead and all. Was Ned Stark actually delivering justice? It's not clear.
Right, i should have stated it that strongly, that's basically what i meant when i said that it's not nearly as bad in comparison.
One can understand the action, there is justification for it, that doesn't mean one thinks it is morally right or morally wrong. That's exactly how moral ambiguous writing works, giving the audience a justification for a questionable act.
In the case of the deserter we might even sympathize with him, in the case of the slave masters we might as well when it becomes clear that a bunch of them weren't even guilty of that act.
That is the whole point of the character writing in asoiaf and thus GoT, people are more complex than black and white.
|
United States42693 Posts
On May 15 2019 00:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2019 23:58 sharkie wrote:
ehh I got a problem calling crucifying slave masters cruelty...
They are scum and deserve to be treated like it Did they? I understand that the institution of slaver is bad and anyone who partakes in it is guilty of supporting that system. And of course that system should be destroyed. But I don’t buy into the argument “And all the slave owners should be tortured to death for the act of owning slaves.” Especially when families inherited slaves and there are people who were born into that system and have had limited ability to leave it. Sure, destroy slavery. But then create a world were the damage of slavery can be addressed.
The masters went full Roman slave revolt and crucified slaves at regular intervals on the road to the city. Dany marched her army past each murder in turn, in an ascending atrocity orchestrated to bring rage slowly to boil. Her response to the Masters was as merciful as could be expected and I have zero problems with it. How would you feel walking down that road lined with crucified innocents?
|
On May 14 2019 20:06 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2019 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 14 2019 19:56 Acrofales wrote:On May 14 2019 19:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I can totally see Arya killing Daenerys and be the one that stops both “fire” and “ice”.
Daenerys going full Anakin is a great turn of event and makes a lot of sense narration wise. At the end, ironically, the plottings of the seven kingdoms, with the intrigues, wars and betrayals were a much lesser evil than both the white walker and Daenerys. I don't mind Daenerys going full mad queen. What I mind is how little build up there was. We never saw her going slightly mad. Over the span of about half an episode she went from "not mad at all" to "burn them all!!!! *mouthfroth*" after 7 seasons in which she was trying her hardest to find the balance between just ruler and tyrant. I mean... she spent god knows how long in Meereen "learning how to rule" then eventually travelled north to fight against the dead because it was the "right thing to do". She was shown as struggling with the balance between taking and holding power, and showing mercy and forgiveness. She was never shown as having problems with going batshit insane (that was her brother, and her father). Is it possible she descends into madness? Absolutely. Did they show that descent? No. So all we got is Varys "fearing" her madness into her going stark staring bonkers and burning a city full of innocents. When she took flight despite the city surrendering I was expecting she would fly to the red keep and torch the castle (and Cersei). I even kinda expected that to light up the wildfyre caches all over the city, leading to the same effect. But it made zero sense for her to start her flight by laying waste to the city full of: 1. innocent civilians 2. soldiers who surrendered 3. her own men I think you could see she was totally unstable and that her altruistic vernish was cracking a bit more with every setback. I like the fact that she snaps brutally, it’s like a dam breaking under pressure. It’s like the mad king heritage just awoke in the worst possible moment. And i think the advantage is that we thought she was the “good” side until the very last moment, which makes for a much more interesting ending. Now, of all alternative we realize that Westeros business as usual, Cercei was by far the least terrible. You have the memory of a goldfish. It was only last season that Cersei did her own level best to blow up King's Landing.
If you can avoid ad hominem, i would be grateful.
Cercei is a horrible, egoistic, self centered narcissist, but she is rational and not a genocidal maniac. Dany just genocided a whole capital for absolutely no reason and no other rational than blood thirst. At that point she is by far ahead of Cercei in terms of evil. Blowing a building with her ennemies is ruthless, burning alive a whole civilian population is Hitler level of mania and psychopathy.
|
On May 15 2019 03:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 00:05 Plansix wrote:On May 14 2019 23:58 sharkie wrote:
ehh I got a problem calling crucifying slave masters cruelty...
They are scum and deserve to be treated like it Did they? I understand that the institution of slaver is bad and anyone who partakes in it is guilty of supporting that system. And of course that system should be destroyed. But I don’t buy into the argument “And all the slave owners should be tortured to death for the act of owning slaves.” Especially when families inherited slaves and there are people who were born into that system and have had limited ability to leave it. Sure, destroy slavery. But then create a world were the damage of slavery can be addressed. The masters went full Roman slave revolt and crucified slaves at regular intervals on the road to the city. Dany marched her army past each murder in turn, in an ascending atrocity orchestrated to bring rage slowly to boil. Her response to the Masters was as merciful as could be expected and I have zero problems with it. How would you feel walking down that road lined with crucified innocents?
Personally? Upset and wanting to punish those responsible. Not really into committing the same acts of cruelty as a response. I’m very over the eye for an eye version of justice.
|
On May 15 2019 03:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2019 20:06 Acrofales wrote:On May 14 2019 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 14 2019 19:56 Acrofales wrote:On May 14 2019 19:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I can totally see Arya killing Daenerys and be the one that stops both “fire” and “ice”.
Daenerys going full Anakin is a great turn of event and makes a lot of sense narration wise. At the end, ironically, the plottings of the seven kingdoms, with the intrigues, wars and betrayals were a much lesser evil than both the white walker and Daenerys. I don't mind Daenerys going full mad queen. What I mind is how little build up there was. We never saw her going slightly mad. Over the span of about half an episode she went from "not mad at all" to "burn them all!!!! *mouthfroth*" after 7 seasons in which she was trying her hardest to find the balance between just ruler and tyrant. I mean... she spent god knows how long in Meereen "learning how to rule" then eventually travelled north to fight against the dead because it was the "right thing to do". She was shown as struggling with the balance between taking and holding power, and showing mercy and forgiveness. She was never shown as having problems with going batshit insane (that was her brother, and her father). Is it possible she descends into madness? Absolutely. Did they show that descent? No. So all we got is Varys "fearing" her madness into her going stark staring bonkers and burning a city full of innocents. When she took flight despite the city surrendering I was expecting she would fly to the red keep and torch the castle (and Cersei). I even kinda expected that to light up the wildfyre caches all over the city, leading to the same effect. But it made zero sense for her to start her flight by laying waste to the city full of: 1. innocent civilians 2. soldiers who surrendered 3. her own men I think you could see she was totally unstable and that her altruistic vernish was cracking a bit more with every setback. I like the fact that she snaps brutally, it’s like a dam breaking under pressure. It’s like the mad king heritage just awoke in the worst possible moment. And i think the advantage is that we thought she was the “good” side until the very last moment, which makes for a much more interesting ending. Now, of all alternative we realize that Westeros business as usual, Cercei was by far the least terrible. You have the memory of a goldfish. It was only last season that Cersei did her own level best to blow up King's Landing. If you can avoid ad hominem, i would be grateful. Cercei is a horrible, egoistic, self centered narcissist, but she is rational and not a genocidal maniac. Dany just genocided a whole capital for absolutely no reason and no other rational than blood thirst. At that point she is by far ahead of Cercei in terms of evil. Blowing a building with her ennemies is ruthless, burning alive a whole civilian population is Hitler level of mania and psychopathy.
You're right. Cersei only burned a whole church full of people alive (and the hordes around it getting crushed by the rocks falling). She would *never* burn a whole city if it suited her.
Cersei has *repeatedly* shown that the plight of the common people is totally irrelevant to her, and she doesn't give a shit whether she is loved or hated, and they can all die as far as she's concerned. Daenerys isn't worse than her, she's just stooped to her level. The main difference is that she has a dragon.
|
Northern Ireland25344 Posts
On May 15 2019 01:21 Shock710 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 01:09 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:59 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:47 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:15 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:13 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I just want to be clear, are you saying that the act of torturing a group of masters to death is morally ambiguous? Because the story makes it very clear that those masters were not directly responsible for the children being tortured to death. That Dany picked the number based on the number of children killed. That's not true? The # of responsible masters is clearly implied to be more than 0, but less than the 168 she crucifies and all of them are responsible for perpetuating slavery. Even the innocent man mentioned, Hizdar's father complied with the plot when he was overruled. Notably in Westeros the penalty for slave trading is also death. Under Westeros laws she should have slaughtered every master in all three cities. Not that we're taking Westeros as what's moral and just, but there is a pretty strong context there. Yes. And in the first episode of the series we see Ned Stark executing someone for deserting the wall. And he manages to do it without torturing the man to death. And he doesn't kill anyone else that may have aided the deserter. The end result of Dany's action is that she punishes some group of people for a crime that they did not commit. But we justify her actions because they were slavers and they were all bad. But the reality of that we justify punishing a class of people simply because of the class they are part of. Not all masters were guilty of all crimes equally. Some were born into slave owning family and were still young. That doesn’t mean they should escape punishment, but it is hard to believe that they all deserve to die. And if they do, does that mean that all the adults in slave owning families must die? So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel? So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity. How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home. The end result of Dany's action is that she punishes some group of people for a crime that they did not commit. But we justify her actions because they were slavers and they were all bad I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful. We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people. There is no crime someone can commit that justifies being publicly tortured to death. That seems to be what you are defending here. That is was morally ambiguous to order the torture and death of the people responsible and some extra masters for good measure, just to make sure she got them all. The show is pitting the justice of the general action + the character of the person ordering it + the 1:1 retribution of the previous crimes against an emotionless assessment of the action. It's very clearly designed to invoke a conflict in you the viewer along a line of morals. I don't know how you can admit the viewer wants to justify the actions while still making the argument it's presented as a case of black and white morals and we all saw and knew Dany was terrible and cruel at this moment. The entire point is that the show presented moments like these because mudding the morals (or our emotions and morals) makes for good storytelling. None of what you say refutes that point in any way at all or makes it less of a disaster to have Dany commit a completely 100% morally unambiguous tragedy. And I don’t understand how people took all the nonsense Dany spouted about “breaking the wheel” by obtaining the throne at face value. Breaking the chains and freeing the slaves, so long as the slaves follow and fought for her. Leading an army of Dothraki, who are not nice to their women and kill for sport, but are fine so long as they fight for Dany. Traveling across the sea to take back a throne that her family was kicked off of a generation earliest for committing mass murder because she was told it belonged to her. I’ve been guilty of cheering for Dany in the past, but she isn’t a liberator. She is a conqueror and she is there to dominate the 7 kingdoms under her rule, even if they don’t want her. On May 15 2019 01:06 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 15 2019 00:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:47 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:43 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:34 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:31 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2019 00:15 Logo wrote:On May 15 2019 00:13 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I just want to be clear, are you saying that the act of torturing a group of masters to death is morally ambiguous? Because the story makes it very clear that those masters were not directly responsible for the children being tortured to death. That Dany picked the number based on the number of children killed. That's not true? The # of responsible masters is clearly implied to be more than 0, but less than the 168 she crucifies and all of them are responsible for perpetuating slavery. Even the innocent man mentioned, Hizdar's father complied with the plot when he was overruled. Notably in Westeros the penalty for slave trading is also death. Under Westeros laws she should have slaughtered every master in all three cities. Not that we're taking Westeros as what's moral and just, but there is a pretty strong context there. Yes. And in the first episode of the series we see Ned Stark executing someone for deserting the wall. And he manages to do it without torturing the man to death. And he doesn't kill anyone else that may have aided the deserter. The end result of Dany's action is that she punishes some group of people for a crime that they did not commit. But we justify her actions because they were slavers and they were all bad. But the reality of that we justify punishing a class of people simply because of the class they are part of. Not all masters were guilty of all crimes equally. Some were born into slave owning family and were still young. That doesn’t mean they should escape punishment, but it is hard to believe that they all deserve to die. And if they do, does that mean that all the adults in slave owning families must die? So it's an action that appears just and good in the moment, but on later reflection is a harsh treatment and unnecessarily cruel? So... morally ambiguous? This really sounds like you're explaining a type of moral ambiguity. How did that seem good in the moment? Like at all? She ordered people to be tortured to death for a crime they did not commit simply to equal the number of children killed. What do you think the families of those innocent people are going to do? Slaver or not, their kids are going to grow up knowing their father was killed for a crime they did not commit by some Dragon Queen from a far off land who ruined their lives. Just like how Dany spent her entire life on the run, afraid and being told that some evil family far away stole her home. The end result of Dany's action is that she punishes some group of people for a crime that they did not commit. But we justify her actions because they were slavers and they were all bad I don't understand you're making bizarre logical circles here admitting to the thing then denying it the next moment all the while ignoring the details to make it more hyperbolic. Many of those punished did commit the crime, we only know of one single man who was compliant but didn't agree to the plan and we learn that well after we've judged the act because that revelation occurs later in the season while the man telling us that is the suspected leader of the Sons of Harpy in which case his initial story would likely not be truthful. We don't have all these details you are trying to present until many episodes after the event occurs even before we account for the way you're misrepresenting the innocence of the people. There is no crime someone can commit that justifies being publicly tortured to death. That seems to be what you are defending here. That is was morally ambiguous to order the torture and death of the people responsible and some extra masters for good measure, just to make sure she got them all. If that was your stance from the get go, why not just say it outright? Instead you backpaddled like 3 times now to come this this ultimate deontological statement. A lot of people disagree with you there though, a lot of people weigh their crimes up and come to own conclusions, it is designed to be morally ambigious. The show opens with an execution of a deserter and a lord talking about the duty to treat someone sentenced to death with humanity and dignity. I'm really not seeing the moral ambiguity and I don't think the show does either. Death by torture is not Ned Stark approved. Hes the warden over the north...including the boltens he doesnt go telling the boltens not to flay people to death. He is totally okay with leaving them to flay their enemies and even display it as a sigil
I might be wrong but I was under the impression the flaying wasn’t really something the Boltons were openly doing in Ned’s era as warden and they’d resurrected it in the upheaval of the war?
|
I feel like all of you are underestimating what going mad / snapping in a fit of rage actually means / does for someone.
You become unhinged from your default personality and all that's left is a blind rage until theres nothing left to fuel the it. You stop to think. There's no thought process involved in it. She didn't go: "now let's all burn these fucks."
You don't know what triggered her. It's fucking inane to read here that it's an unbelievable transition or that it was so sudden. For all you know stuff has been simmering in her deepest of mental states..
The scene was actually one of the more believable one's in the entire fucking show.
Arguments in favor of her "sudden descent" into madness:
1) She has inherited the genes from her incestuous family
2) She has encountered so many setbacks, she's tired of being the good guy
3) She hasn't eaten for 3 days. Do you think you'd be fucking rational after that?
4) She has all the reason to distrust the people around her, except grey worm. Varys schemes against her because he believes in Jon, her hand is fucking terrified of her, the North despises her and Jon, the man she fell in love with, is quite possible to take her throne, has rejected her and also fears her.
5) She goes balls deep and destroys the Iron Fleet and the first line defenses of Kings Landing. You have a shitton of adrenaline rushing through you. Power + adrenaline: good combo for unhinging.
It was a beautiful transition.
Everything else was lackluster in the episode lol. I just Wish Jon/Jaime/Cercei/Tyrion had some better things to do than these banal things.
By the way, second best scene, or at least part of it, was Jaime desperately searching for a way out, despite fully knowing there wasn't any.
These were honest moments. Everything else was just forced.
|
Northern Ireland25344 Posts
On May 15 2019 03:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2019 20:06 Acrofales wrote:On May 14 2019 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 14 2019 19:56 Acrofales wrote:On May 14 2019 19:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I can totally see Arya killing Daenerys and be the one that stops both “fire” and “ice”.
Daenerys going full Anakin is a great turn of event and makes a lot of sense narration wise. At the end, ironically, the plottings of the seven kingdoms, with the intrigues, wars and betrayals were a much lesser evil than both the white walker and Daenerys. I don't mind Daenerys going full mad queen. What I mind is how little build up there was. We never saw her going slightly mad. Over the span of about half an episode she went from "not mad at all" to "burn them all!!!! *mouthfroth*" after 7 seasons in which she was trying her hardest to find the balance between just ruler and tyrant. I mean... she spent god knows how long in Meereen "learning how to rule" then eventually travelled north to fight against the dead because it was the "right thing to do". She was shown as struggling with the balance between taking and holding power, and showing mercy and forgiveness. She was never shown as having problems with going batshit insane (that was her brother, and her father). Is it possible she descends into madness? Absolutely. Did they show that descent? No. So all we got is Varys "fearing" her madness into her going stark staring bonkers and burning a city full of innocents. When she took flight despite the city surrendering I was expecting she would fly to the red keep and torch the castle (and Cersei). I even kinda expected that to light up the wildfyre caches all over the city, leading to the same effect. But it made zero sense for her to start her flight by laying waste to the city full of: 1. innocent civilians 2. soldiers who surrendered 3. her own men I think you could see she was totally unstable and that her altruistic vernish was cracking a bit more with every setback. I like the fact that she snaps brutally, it’s like a dam breaking under pressure. It’s like the mad king heritage just awoke in the worst possible moment. And i think the advantage is that we thought she was the “good” side until the very last moment, which makes for a much more interesting ending. Now, of all alternative we realize that Westeros business as usual, Cercei was by far the least terrible. You have the memory of a goldfish. It was only last season that Cersei did her own level best to blow up King's Landing. If you can avoid ad hominem, i would be grateful. Cercei is a horrible, egoistic, self centered narcissist, but she is rational and not a genocidal maniac. Dany just genocided a whole capital for absolutely no reason and no other rational than blood thirst. At that point she is by far ahead of Cercei in terms of evil. Blowing a building with her ennemies is ruthless, burning alive a whole civilian population is Hitler level of mania and psychopathy.
Pretty much, I thought that was pretty awesome tbh, I mean not on a moral sense but it made a lot of sense, and was solid spectacle with an actual point to it.
Cersei got outmanoeuvred by the Sparrow and his boys, but her and presumably Qyburn being the brains pulled off basically the only real plan that could have restored her to some kind of power.
With the added bonuses that she subsequently lost her child over it so it wasn’t without cost to her, plus the tension in that plot had built up pretty nicely over a period of time.
Dany going full crazy didn’t have enough to sell it, but as an end goal is not something I have an issue with, but like that and this relatively quickly?
As it stood I could have bought some kind of combo of her blowing the Red Keep and causing a ton of collateral damage, maybe igniting some residual wildfire, plus perhaps the Unsullied and Dothraki succumbing to bloodlust to the horror of Jon and the Northerners
You still keep many of the same beats and shots, Jon and Tyrion get their money shots of ‘oh shit we’ve backed the wrong horse here, Varys was right’, but in a way that is sufficiently built up to and doesn’t add other issues.
Issues like Jon being so respected by the Northerners that the Wildlings fell into line, and Sansa and Dany both recognise the threat of his power base, but suddenly Jon can’t control his men?
|
Northern Ireland25344 Posts
On May 15 2019 03:32 Uldridge wrote:
I feel like all of you are underestimating what going mad / snapping in a fit of rage actually means / does for someone.
You become unhinged from your default personality and all that's left is a blind rage until theres nothing left to fuel the it. You stop to think. There's no thought process involved in it. She didn't go: "now let's all burn these fucks."
You don't know what triggered her. It's fucking inane to read here that it's an unbelievable transition or that it was so sudden. For all you know stuff has been simmering in her deepest of mental states..
The scene was actually one of the more believable one's in the entire fucking show.
Arguments in favor of her "sudden descent" into madness:
1) She has inherited the genes from her incestuous family
2) She has encountered so many setbacks, she's tired of being the good guy
3) She hasn't eaten for 3 days. Do you think you'd be fucking rational after that?
4) She has all the reason to distrust the people around her, except grey worm. Varys schemes against her because he believes in Jon, her hand is fucking terrified of her, the North despises her and Jon, the man she fell in love with, is quite possible to take her throne, has rejected her and also fears her.
5) She goes balls deep and destroys the Iron Fleet and the first line defenses of Kings Landing. You have a shitton of adrenaline rushing through you. Power + adrenaline: good combo for unhinging.
It was a beautiful transition.
Everything else was lackluster in the episode lol. I just Wish Jon/Jaime/Cercei/Tyrion had some better things to do than these banal things.
By the way, second best scene, or at least part of it, was Jaime desperately searching for a way out, despite fully knowing there wasn't any.
These were honest moments. Everything else was just forced.
And what about being in love? People can give folks that benefit of the doubt to crazy ideas when they’re blinded by it, something she for some reason hasn’t extended to Jon this whole time.
The guy has a pretty damn solid record of not wanting thrones and doing things for the greater good, sticking to his word etc,
So yes people can do things that aren’t exactly consistent or rational via emotional states, but she’s remarkably unaffected by love for one.
Jaime’s departure was terrible, I didn’t mind the destination ultimately but it wasn’t set up or triggered at all well either. He seems to go into action when Cersei’s forces are doing surprisingly well, why then?
If he tries to be the good guy but when push comes to shove and it becomes fully clear that she and her child are going to die and he snaps and goes down then, yeah sure.
It just felt, really stupid and destroyed Jaime’s redemption arc at a twist. I don’t necessarily want him to be fully 100% redeemed either but seemingly shedding all his progression and making a comment completely at odds with why he was the Kingslayer in the first place to the person he’d confided that in a pretty good scene from earlier seasons?
|
Can someone link that page (I think it was a subredit) with GoT memes? I need memes to cope with what I just watched.
Nvm found it (r/freefolk)
|
On May 15 2019 03:25 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 03:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 14 2019 20:06 Acrofales wrote:On May 14 2019 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 14 2019 19:56 Acrofales wrote:On May 14 2019 19:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I can totally see Arya killing Daenerys and be the one that stops both “fire” and “ice”.
Daenerys going full Anakin is a great turn of event and makes a lot of sense narration wise. At the end, ironically, the plottings of the seven kingdoms, with the intrigues, wars and betrayals were a much lesser evil than both the white walker and Daenerys. I don't mind Daenerys going full mad queen. What I mind is how little build up there was. We never saw her going slightly mad. Over the span of about half an episode she went from "not mad at all" to "burn them all!!!! *mouthfroth*" after 7 seasons in which she was trying her hardest to find the balance between just ruler and tyrant. I mean... she spent god knows how long in Meereen "learning how to rule" then eventually travelled north to fight against the dead because it was the "right thing to do". She was shown as struggling with the balance between taking and holding power, and showing mercy and forgiveness. She was never shown as having problems with going batshit insane (that was her brother, and her father). Is it possible she descends into madness? Absolutely. Did they show that descent? No. So all we got is Varys "fearing" her madness into her going stark staring bonkers and burning a city full of innocents. When she took flight despite the city surrendering I was expecting she would fly to the red keep and torch the castle (and Cersei). I even kinda expected that to light up the wildfyre caches all over the city, leading to the same effect. But it made zero sense for her to start her flight by laying waste to the city full of: 1. innocent civilians 2. soldiers who surrendered 3. her own men I think you could see she was totally unstable and that her altruistic vernish was cracking a bit more with every setback. I like the fact that she snaps brutally, it’s like a dam breaking under pressure. It’s like the mad king heritage just awoke in the worst possible moment. And i think the advantage is that we thought she was the “good” side until the very last moment, which makes for a much more interesting ending. Now, of all alternative we realize that Westeros business as usual, Cercei was by far the least terrible. You have the memory of a goldfish. It was only last season that Cersei did her own level best to blow up King's Landing. If you can avoid ad hominem, i would be grateful. Cercei is a horrible, egoistic, self centered narcissist, but she is rational and not a genocidal maniac. Dany just genocided a whole capital for absolutely no reason and no other rational than blood thirst. At that point she is by far ahead of Cercei in terms of evil. Blowing a building with her ennemies is ruthless, burning alive a whole civilian population is Hitler level of mania and psychopathy. You're right. Cersei only burned a whole church full of people alive (and the hordes around it getting crushed by the rocks falling). She would *never* burn a whole city if it suited her. Cersei has *repeatedly* shown that the plight of the common people is totally irrelevant to her, and she doesn't give a shit whether she is loved or hated, and they can all die as far as she's concerned. Daenerys isn't worse than her, she's just stooped to her level. The main difference is that she has a dragon.
But that’s the thing, it doesn’t “suit” Dany. It’s totally, utterly gratuitous. You can imagine Cercei ruling for thirty years and never massacring anyone if it doesn’t advance her interest. She has no moral, it ruthless, mean, egoistic but she is not a maniac. Killing a million innocent out of blood lust would be totally out of character.
|
On May 15 2019 04:24 Sent. wrote:
Can someone link that page (I think it was a subredit) with GoT memes? I need memes to cope with what I just watched.
Nvm found it (r/freefolk)
Be careful though, they also have the leaks there and might openly talk about it?
|
I've yet to see /r/freefolk talk about the leak details on the post titles. So I think you safely read the content so long as you skip the comments.
|
I never go on reddit, but that was a nice 15min spent.
|
On May 15 2019 05:04 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 04:24 Sent. wrote:
Can someone link that page (I think it was a subredit) with GoT memes? I need memes to cope with what I just watched.
Nvm found it (r/freefolk) Be careful though, they also have the leaks there and might openly talk about it?
I reached the part when they're talking about how wrong the supposed leaks for this episode were. Dany and her dragon were supposed to wear armor. Arya was supposed to sneak into the Red Keep by putting on a peasant's face.
But yeah I'm trying to be careful, I stop reading the thread whenever I see someone talking about the season finale.
|
On May 15 2019 05:19 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2019 05:04 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 15 2019 04:24 Sent. wrote:
Can someone link that page (I think it was a subredit) with GoT memes? I need memes to cope with what I just watched.
Nvm found it (r/freefolk) Be careful though, they also have the leaks there and might openly talk about it? I reached the part when they're talking about how wrong the supposed leaks for this episode were. Dany and her dragon were supposed to wear armor. Arya was supposed to sneak into the Red Keep by putting on a peasant's face. But yeah I'm trying to be careful, I stop reading the thread whenever I see someone talking about the season finale.
As far as i am aware there are multiple leaks, some obviously faked. But there seem to be legit ones
|
![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/2x52jowo87y21.jpg)
Though, it would be smarter to wait until Monday, pretty sure you can grab 3-4 t-shirts for that price.
|
did the actors just want to pursue new projects and didn't want to keep going? i dont understand why HBO didn't do two more full seasons, instead of the 6 lulzworthy episodes we got.
i think given enough time, shit wouldn't have felt rushed and contrived, and we would get a "hell is paved with good intentions" dictator morally grey dany, instead of episode 5 clearly evil maniac dany. it was so over the top i was laughing as she was flying around roasting everyone and it panned out to show the entire city on fire.
i mean, HBO is desperately trying to do spin off series to cash in .... WHY NOT JUST KEEP THE MAIN SERIES GOING A LITTLE WHILE LONGER???? the only explanation is the actors were tired of the show, which is a damn shame
|
Look what fans made GRRM do. He has to sign onto the internet to tell everyone that the rumor that the books are done is complete bullshit. Do you know how often he does not update that blog? All the time. He spends so much time avoiding updating that blog.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/14/entertainment/george-martin-game-thrones/index.html
"No, THE WINDS OF WINTER and A DREAM OF SPRING are not finished," Martin wrote in an entry headlined, "Idiocy on the Internet." "DREAM is not even begun; I am not going to start writing volume seven until I finish volume six."
"It boggles me that anyone would believe this story, even for an instant," Martin wrote. "It makes not a whit of sense."
"Why would I sit for years on completed novels? Why would my publishers -- not just here in the US, but all around the world -- ever consent to this?" he continued. "They make millions and millions of dollars every time a new Ice & Fire book comes out, as do I."
Martin also said that delaying his books would not be in the best interest of HBO. (HBO and CNN share parent company WarnerMedia.)
"Why would HBO want the books delayed?" Martin wrote. "The books help create interest in the show, just as the show creates interest in the books."
As much as I give GRRM shit, his bitchy blogs are a joy to read. I've never seen an author less interested in humor fans.
|
Hahahahaha I just realized there are hundreds of little girls named Daenerys or Khaleesi. Wonder what their parents are thinking now
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
