Television Game of Thrones - Season 8 - Starting April 14th

[skillzdadirecta]

4 hours ago, thewhyteboar said:

I think if the show wasn't so compressed it would have allowed her to mourn her dragons and she would have realized that the reason Drogo was able to survive and grow the best was because he was the only dragon who wasn't chained up.

She realized that awhile ago. She had that conversation with Jon in the dragon pits and told him that the dragons died off because they were never meant to be chained up. Once they were chained, they basically withered and eventually became extinct.

[Mercury33]

1 hour ago, SimpleG said:

No they didnt, she makes the call on her own

 

Touche sir.  I was def wrong lol

[TheGreatGamble]

1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said:

Official: D&D's Star Wars project will be the first post-Rise of the Skywalker film.

In shocking news to nobody 

 

if if they move far in time away from the saga, I’ll be super excited about that trilogy. I love the Skywalkers saga, minus the prequels, but I want something far different. I would love to see something done in the old republic, or some era where the Jedi and sith are still vying for supremacy. Pulling something from the histories of The book of the Jedi and the Book of the sith and expanding on it would be fantastic. The set is full of Jedi and sith legends and artifacts to pull from through thousands of years of history.

 

go back like 35k years in the past, and show us something fresh.

[Kal-El814]

1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said:

 

Too real. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

11 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

In shocking news to nobody 

 

if if they move far in time away from the saga, I’ll be super excited about that trilogy. I love the Skywalkers saga, minus the prequels, but I want something far different. I would love to see something done in the old republic, or some era where the Jedi and sith are still vying for supremacy. Pulling something from the histories of The book of the Jedi and the Book of the sith and expanding on it would be fantastic. The set is full of Jedi and sith legends and artifacts to pull from through thousands of years of history.

 

go back like 35k years in the past, and show us something fresh.

Prior to now, it was unclear whether their Star Wars project or Rian Johnson's would be the first to be released.

[Spork3245]

6 hours ago, Mercury33 said:

 

She didn’t hear a child died and lock the dragons up on her own. Her advisors helped convince her to do it. 

 

3 hours ago, SimpleG said:

No they didnt, she makes the call on her own

 

 

1 hour ago, Mercury33 said:

Touche sir.  I was def wrong lol

 

I know you admitted to be wrong (and lol at the people upvoting) but I’m glad the video was posted because you can see how horrified and distraught Danny’s reaction to it was. What happened in E5 wasn’t just a morality switch, it was a personality switch brought on by any number of mental states (depression, ptsd, anxiety, possibly bi-polar, etc) she is currently experiencing due to recent events that could constitute as “madness” in the medieval fantasy setting this world takes place in. That’s literally my only argument: that what she did, given her previous actions in previous seasons does seem to lean to the side of “madness”. The examples of Caesar and/or Truman given prior in this thread are poor examples as their adversaries weren’t surrendering, and they didn’t have a sudden (possibly temporary, possibly not) personality shift associated with the actions. Ramsey did horrible things, he didn’t have “madness”, that’s who he always was. Aerys Targaryen (the mad king) was initially normal and considered a brilliant and ambitious ruler, then there was a personality switch.

[Chairslinger]

That dragon didn't go crazy. That dragon went dragon.

 

 

 

[SimpleG]

5 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

Aerys Targaryen (the mad king) was initially normal and considered a brilliant and ambitious ruler, then there was a personality switch.

That seems like a rather large assumption. No where on the show  can I remember anyone say that happened or even allude to harsh personality switch. They just refer to his madness in general. 

[Spork3245]

Just now, SimpleG said:

That seems like a rather large assumption. No where on the show  can I remember anyone say that happened or even allude to harsh personality switch. They just refer to his madness in general. 

 

There's your problem  

[Spork3245]

1 minute ago, SimpleG said:

That seems like a rather large assumption. No where on the show  can I remember anyone say that happened or even allude to harsh personality switch. They just refer to his madness in general. 

 

 

[Spork3245]

2 minutes ago, SimpleG said:

That seems like a rather large assumption. No where on the show  can I remember anyone say that happened or even allude to harsh personality switch. They just refer to his madness in general. 

 

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Aerys_II_Targaryen

Quote

Aerys showed great promise at the start of his reign, bringing peace and prosperity to the Seven Kingdoms, but later descended into insanity, caused by, amongst other factors, multiple miscarriages and stillbirths, the deaths of three sons, and a brief uprising known as the Defiance of Duskendale, in which he was held prisoner for half a year by a rebellious lord. His paranoia and cruelty grew out of control. He was eventually killed by a member of his own Kingsguard, Ser Jaime Lannister, during Robert's Rebellion.[2]

 

[eggydoo]

32 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Aerys_II_Targaryen

 

that's what happens when you sleep with your sister Jamie!

[fuckle85]

Daenerys nuking King's Landing isn't out of character for her but I think the way it went down in the show might've been.  She's a ruthless conqueror, but one who was almost always interested in conquering the conquerors. But her thirst for the throne still motivates her.  So I think the fix is that you show those events a bit differently, first by having her begin to lose the battle.  Her troops are being slaughtered, Cersei is looking even more smug than usual, and so on. 

 

At first she only targets Cersei's troops and naval fleet, as she started doing in the last episode. Then she perches on a vantage point and looks around as her own troops are being slaughtered and gets angrier and angrier because as we know how much she's wanted the throne, to rule, and that might not happen now. She would hate to lose for a multitude of reasons both understandable and not, and that's a legit character flaw established as early as season 1 and THAT triggers her mad queen instinct and she goes too far with it just like in last sunday's episode.  

 

It would be more internally consistent with her character to depict the tragedy of her snapping and killing everyone that way and would get the same point across.  I wonder to what extent how it went down in the TV series is because of creative liberties the show for whatever reasons might've taken with the book story, like how Daenerys is portrayed as a white savior on the show and not in the books, how gay characters are given less development on the show, Everything in Dorne, Tyrion being less smart, etc.

[fuckle85]

BTW, the remaining books might not be coming, but if anyone does want something GoT-related that's entertaining to read, check out the official GoT thread on Resetera where tons of users, many with Dany avatars, are absolutely livid about the events of last week's episode. Yowza!

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

3 minutes ago, fuckle85 said:

BTW, the remaining books might not be coming, but if anyone does want something GoT-related that's entertaining to read, check out the official GoT thread on Resetera where tons of users, many with Dany avatars, are absolutely livid about the events of last week's episode. Yowza!

Are they livid about the execution of the events or the events themselves?

[Spork3245]

1 hour ago, fuckle85 said:

 

 

1

1 hour ago, fuckle85 said:

Then she perches on a vantage point and looks around as her own troops are being slaughtered and gets angrier and angrier because as we know how much she's wanted the throne, to rule, and that might not happen now.

 

Erm, what? She lands on that vantage point as HER troops have caused the enemy forces to surrender and have literally thrown down their swords and the bells are ringing in surrender. Her troops never got slaughtered, they were doing the slaughtering and it looked like it was a one-sided squash with barely any casualties on her side.  

She won, it was over, she was in zero danger of "not getting the throne" and then she went "fuck it" and started burning the entire city anyway.

[fuckle85]

1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said:

Are they livid about the execution of the events or the events themselves?

 

Just checked in and it looks like things have calmed down since a day or two ago.  Was trying to get some screenshots of the posts that were cheering her on as she nuked the city and the ones still defending her as a character or saying there was no indication she could be a villain, but that side of the argument has pretty much given up the ghost now at least

[fuckle85]

 

 

[Anathema-]

Dany's attack was not without strategy. Just because it was unnecessary to win the day doesn't mean it was without thought or strategy. The strategy, in fact, was obvious: prevent any challenges to her rule.

 

Like, it's the exact same reason why the red wedding was a massacre and not an assassination. A display of power to quell rebellion. The only thing that's shocking is how out of place people think it is here. We need to stop imposing a modern mindset, morality, and set of mores to a show that clearly is designed to make us question that modernity.

[Spork3245]

5 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

Dany's attack was not without strategy. Just because it was unnecessary to win the day doesn't mean it was without thought or strategy. The strategy, in fact, was obvious: prevent any challenges to her rule.

 

What challenges? The women, children and surrendered Lannister forces? If that's what it was about and not revenge for being exiled for years and all of her pent up rage from recent events making her snap and go overboard, then she should have been burning Jon and Tyrion and then b-lined to the Red Keep to take our Cersei directly  

[Anathema-]

1 minute ago, Spork3245 said:

 

What challenges? The women, children and surrendered Lannister forces? If that's what it was about and not revenge for being exiled for years and all of her pent up rage from reason events making her snap and go overboard, then she should have been burning Jon and Tyrion  

 

You can always justify things to yourself but if you've gone so far as to diminish her fears over Aegon's claim to the throne and how his relative desire for it means fuck-all then your mind is made up and nothing will convince you otherwise. Good day to you.

[Spork3245]

10 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

 

You can always justify things to yourself but if you've gone so far as to diminish her fears over Aegon's claim to the throne and how his relative desire for it means fuck-all then your mind is made up and nothing will convince you otherwise. Good day to you.

 

When did I diminish that? When I pointed out that she should have killed Jon Snow if her fear was challengers? Or when I mentioned that she clearly is in a bad mental state (caused from recent events, ie: losing her friends, Jon having a stronger claim to the throne, all the betrayals) and lead to her snapping and going "burn them all"?

 

I never stated I thought it was bad or that I didn't enjoy it. My only argument is that is was clearly "madness", whether full-on, partial, and/or temporary, and it wasn't just some morality shift.

 

Also, if you think Jon has a "relative desire for [the throne]" then you're clearly also suffering from madness from all of the mental gymnastics you did to arrive at "it was a strategy to get rid of the potential challengers to the throne she ignored and didn't burn" and not mostly just her snapping  

[Amazatron]

58 minutes ago, fuckle85 said:

 

 

 

This might be his greatest performance ever, "you people are in for it"...

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

My only argument is that is was clearly "madness", whether full-on, partial, and/or temporary, and it wasn't just some morality shift.

 

This seems to be very close to “distinction without difference” territory.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 hour ago, fuckle85 said:

 

 

Along the same lines:

 

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, sblfilms said:

 

This seems to be very close to “distinction without difference” territory.

THAT'S MY TERRITORY!

[darkness35]

Honestly the more I think about it, the more I really think Dany didn't do anything wrong out of reaction, and I do emphasize "out of reaction."  I can't help but think that the Battle of King's Landing was really just the culmination of all of Cersei's (or just Lannisters's) enemies fighting for revenge, especially the North.

 

Dany's father was assassinated by Jaime, and the rest of the Targaryen family usurped, killed, and/or scattered.  Aemon is forced to live with the Night's Watch for safety.  Dany and Viserys are both exiled to Essos, where assassination attempts are still made towards Dany, including Jorah.  And then there's also the shitshow when she comes back to Westeros, with little to no one to trust (especially when the whole continent really just wants her dead/are afraid of her).  Of course, she's going to take this personal and not anyone survive.

 

And then we have the North.  The majority of the Starks dead thanks to the Lannisters and allies.  The losses from the Red Wedding were not only tragic, but also humiliating.  Then add the fact that Ramsay pretty much used the North as his own toybox.

 

Arya and Sandor going to King's Landing for revenge: both for Cersei, but for Sandor specifically for Gregor.

 

And of course, Grey Worm losing Missandei in the last episode.  Throwing that spear was probably just out of that same reaction too.

 

 

It's funny, because the one moment the Lannisters/King's Landing soldiers drop their weapons, implying they are asking for mercy, they receive what they had inflicted upon their enemies they fought.  And while at first I sympathized with Varys, Tyrion, and Jon at the time, I'm starting to think that their moral pedestal is just straight bullshit to some degree, even though they are right in their intentions.  It's simple to write off "oh Dany went mad she's gonna kill everybody like a crazy bitch," but thinking at a common level she's acting how anyone would act if they took this battle personally [for revenge].

 

Which we can just deduce "wow this show is just gotten pretty shitty with its writing ."  Also note, I haven't been reading most of the comments in this thread since I last posted so yeah.

[fuckle85]

Regardless of how anyone feels about how well the point the writers were trying to make in the recent episode was conveyed within the constrains of a TV show, ultimately the attempt of commentary on the evil that potentially resides in all humans, no matter how seemingly good, that is brought to the surface when given power is still fairly intact and can make for compelling storytelling and conversation.

 

There's a complicated discussion to be had about how Dany's methods mirror both past and contemporary human actions and also how strategic they were in reaction to the politics of Westeros.  How successfully did/can you achieve your goal of being a peaceful ruler when many of the soldiers in your armies during the siege are drunk on power and literally raping and pillaging the citizens?  To what extent would that come back on you? How secure is your position of power when the citizens of Westeros are all alive to tell the tale, possibly distort the truth as it spreads?  How necessary is it to nuke the city when you've already won the war in one evening in a gross display of power?  To be concerned about the citizens not fearing you enough when you literally have the most dangerous weapon in the world perched on your castle as you sit on the throne? What would the domino effects of any siege of King's Landing be over time? etc

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

3 minutes ago, fuckle85 said:

Regardless of how anyone feels about how well the point the writers were trying to make in the recent episode was conveyed within the constrains of a TV show, ultimately the attempt of commentary on the evil that potentially resides in all humans, no matter how seemingly good, that is brought to the surface when given power is still fairly intact and can make for compelling storytelling and conversation.

Or whether or not there is actually a thing as "good" or "evil" at all.

[darkness35]

29 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Or whether or not there is actually a thing as "good" or "evil" at all.

Or who should the audience/viewers fear more? Dolthraki?  White Walkers?  Cersei? Ramsay?  Dany?

[fuckle85]

Since SFLUFAN might be on the verge of going peak depressive nihilist again, it is time to inject some humor ITT which will also hopefully quell his rage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

10 minutes ago, darkness35 said:

Or who should the audience/viewers fear more? Dolthraki?  White Walkers?  Cersei? Ramsay?  Dany?

Gendry or Hot Pie

[skillzdadirecta]

2 hours ago, fuckle85 said:

 

Just checked in and it looks like things have calmed down since a day or two ago.  Was trying to get some screenshots of the posts that were cheering her on as she nuked the city and the ones still defending her as a character or saying there was no indication she could be a villain, but that side of the argument has pretty much given up the ghost now at least

 

Oh she's definitely an irredeemable villain now... there's not doubt about that. I predict once she dies, Drogon will go berserk and basically become the Godzilla/Smaug of Westeros, terrorizing the continent for generations.

[Anathema-]

 

[RedSoxFan9]

This season is a good beta test for the Winds of Winter and A Dream of Spring