Page 521 of 550 FirstFirst ... 21421471511517518519520521522523524525531 ... LastLast
Results 7,801 to 7,815 of 8242

Thread: Game of Thrones

  1. #7801
    Invincible Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    26,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    Yes my whole point was that they had fears related to what she would do to defeat Cersei.

    However she didnt burn children to defeat Cersei. She burned children for fun. Nothing in the show sets up anyone thinking she is that sadistic. This is out of character because it had nothing to do with her attaining power or the throne or punishing evil.

    If she had burned the city in order to defeat Cersei that would be consistent with her previous characterizarion. Instead she burning children for fun after the city had already surrendered. That is what makes it out of character.
    It wasn't for fun... it was about power. She couldn't rule with love, so she needed to rule through fear. She basically told that to Jon before the battle. Again, her reasoning was flawed as it was coming from the mind of a crazy person at that point, but she wasn't killing them just for kicks. She was trying to build a new world, and if they weren't win her then they were against her. And bells or no bells, she dam well knew these people weren't going to embrace her as their queen.

  2. #7802
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    It wasn't for fun... it was about power. She couldn't rule with love, so she needed to rule through fear. She basically told that to Jon before the battle. Again, her reasoning was flawed as it was coming from the mind of a crazy person at that point, but she wasn't killing them just for kicks. She was trying to build a new world, and if they weren't win her then they were against her. And bells or no bells, she dam well knew these people weren't going to embrace her as their queen.
    For being an absolute monarch, Dany's whole outlook has a surprisingly Leninist bent to it, where she thinks that she can unite all the oppressed peoples of the world under her leadership and build a better society, but to achieve that all of the bad people representing the old ways need to be eliminated since they would never give up their power voluntarily. And even though everyone sort of agrees that her approach was extreme and she needed to be stopped, her death feels more anticlimatic than anything, because what exactly did the heroes do to fix all of the underlying problems that led to the conflict in the first place? The realm basically returned to what it was before, with a bunch of functionally independent lords ruled over by a weak central government, and the condition of the vast majority of the people not having improved at all. If anything, an elected monarch leads to even more backroom intrigue and dynastic politicking than a hereditary one, and empowers the regional nobles, leading to more rivalry and conflicts over land, less economic cohesion which reduces living standards for everyone, and more openings for foreign powers to intervene and destabilize the realm.

  3. #7803
    Invincible Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    26,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PwrdOn View Post
    For being an absolute monarch, Dany's whole outlook has a surprisingly Leninist bent to it, where she thinks that she can unite all the oppressed peoples of the world under her leadership and build a better society, but to achieve that all of the bad people representing the old ways need to be eliminated since they would never give up their power voluntarily. And even though everyone sort of agrees that her approach was extreme and she needed to be stopped, her death feels more anticlimatic than anything, because what exactly did the heroes do to fix all of the underlying problems that led to the conflict in the first place? The realm basically returned to what it was before, with a bunch of functionally independent lords ruled over by a weak central government, and the condition of the vast majority of the people not having improved at all. If anything, an elected monarch leads to even more backroom intrigue and dynastic politicking than a hereditary one, and empowers the regional nobles, leading to more rivalry and conflicts over land, less economic cohesion which reduces living standards for everyone, and more openings for foreign powers to intervene and destabilize the realm.
    Similar to comic books, the heroes don't necessarily solve the worlds problems. They just keep it spinning. No Jon isn't able to end all the underlying problems in the society of Westeros, but he was able to stop the Night King from killing the livning and he mad Dragon Queen from conquering the world. So he made a difference ... he just didn't fix everything becauase most of the time heroes don't do that. They really can't, that's more a thing that society as a whole needs to work on.

    That said, an elected monarch I think will eventually lead to greater democracy. Despite the reaction to Sams suggestion, it's almost always the inevitable outcome of change in governemnt. Not that greater democracy solves all societys problems either... but it's a start

  4. #7804
    Astonishing Member Jackalope89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    3,936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    Similar to comic books, the heroes don't necessarily solve the worlds problems. They just keep it spinning. No Jon isn't able to end all the underlying problems in the society of Westeros, but he was able to stop the Night King from killing the livning and he mad Dragon Queen from conquering the world. So he made a difference ... he just didn't fix everything becauase most of the time heroes don't do that. They really can't, that's more a thing that society as a whole needs to work on.

    That said, an elected monarch I think will eventually lead to greater democracy. Despite the reaction to Sams suggestion, it's almost always the inevitable outcome of change in governemnt. Not that greater democracy solves all societys problems either... but it's a start
    More of a Holy Roman Empire thing than democracy though...

  5. #7805
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    Similar to comic books, the heroes don't necessarily solve the worlds problems. They just keep it spinning. No Jon isn't able to end all the underlying problems in the society of Westeros, but he was able to stop the Night King from killing the livning and he mad Dragon Queen from conquering the world. So he made a difference ... he just didn't fix everything becauase most of the time heroes don't do that. They really can't, that's more a thing that society as a whole needs to work on.

    That said, an elected monarch I think will eventually lead to greater democracy. Despite the reaction to Sams suggestion, it's almost always the inevitable outcome of change in governemnt. Not that greater democracy solves all societys problems either... but it's a start
    A big part of Dany's appeal was that she was promising to change the way things were done, albeit in a pretty extreme and ruthless way, whereas the rest of the cast was mostly just concerned with putting everything back the way it was. Historically, major wars and climate events have brought about pretty monumental societal changes, though they probably were not as obvious at the time as they are to us in hindsight, if anything Game of Thrones undersold the impact of its own plot and went with far too conservative of an ending.

  6. #7806
    Invincible Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    26,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PwrdOn View Post
    A big part of Dany's appeal was that she was promising to change the way things were done, albeit in a pretty extreme and ruthless way, whereas the rest of the cast was mostly just concerned with putting everything back the way it was. Historically, major wars and climate events have brought about pretty monumental societal changes, though they probably were not as obvious at the time as they are to us in hindsight, if anything Game of Thrones undersold the impact of its own plot and went with far too conservative of an ending.
    When Jon asks whether or not they did the right thing, I think he responds something like ask me in 10 years. The show ends what... weeks after Danys death? Maybe a couple months? I think it's very possible there could be a bigger impact, and we're just not seeing it because things have ended too soon to really see in. Course it's also possible things might not really change that much, or get even worse... again, too soon to tell.

  7. #7807
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    When Jon asks whether or not they did the right thing, I think he responds something like ask me in 10 years. The show ends what... weeks after Danys death? Maybe a couple months? I think it's very possible there could be a bigger impact, and we're just not seeing it because things have ended too soon to really see in. Course it's also possible things might not really change that much, or get even worse... again, too soon to tell.
    Well, it's just that the show pretty much presents everything going back to the way it was as essentially a happy ending, when throughout the course of the series viewers had been led to believe that the heroes were committed to doing things differently and that by the end of the story everything will have changed in some monumental way.

  8. #7808
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by your_name_here View Post
    A cheesy sword fight between two characters (essentially the only 2 GOOD and EVIL in the whole show, one of which has a ridiculous amount of fantasy-chosen-one secrets being revealed) who have been staring eachother down ever since they met, constantly teasing a battle is EXACTLY what we needed. Maybe not even a fight, but some sort of ackowledgement that THIS is what Jon is destined for.
    Just because it’s the obvious choice doesn’t make it the bad way to go. As you head into the finale of anything, it’s the time where everything you have teased or built up towards finally happens...and the only I could think of was Jon and the Night King.
    I would have marked out for the sword fight, Jon losing, and THEN Arya killing him.
    If ten years of recording The Young and the Restless for my mother have taught me anything, it's that characters in serial dramas are always happily in love...until they're not

    “The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.” - the 4th Doctor

  9. #7809
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,180

    Default

    Speaking of time... what the he’ll happened to Winter? It’s dnowing in a Kings Landing (finally) when Jon stabs Daenerys, and then when the lirds gather its spring again.

    Winters last years?
    If ten years of recording The Young and the Restless for my mother have taught me anything, it's that characters in serial dramas are always happily in love...until they're not

    “The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.” - the 4th Doctor

  10. #7810
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    Again, they didn't turn on Cersi. They simply didn't want Dany's forces to kill them. At that moment no, they didn't care what happened to Cersi... they just didn't want to die. She didn't win over the people like she wanted... she just got the people of KL to fear her more than Cersi. The problem with Dany is that wasn't enough. That's one of the differences between Cersi and Dany. All Cersi cares about is power... she could care less what people thought about her. But Dany's messiah complex meant she required people to love her, and when she realized that wasn't possible the people of KL simply stopped mattering.
    Oh, well that only makes her a Wise Master.
    If ten years of recording The Young and the Restless for my mother have taught me anything, it's that characters in serial dramas are always happily in love...until they're not

    “The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.” - the 4th Doctor

  11. #7811
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,901

    Default


  12. #7812
    Extraordinary Member The Shape's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,532

    Default

    Can we talk about how even Sansa laughed at Sam’s suggestion of democracy? Surprised some people are still arguing that she isn’t power hungry when she basically said “haha No way I’m being voted out of being Queen”.

  13. #7813
    Astonishing Member Starter Set's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    2,533

    Default

    Why anyone on the face of westeros would want democracy though?

    It just doesn't come out like that, it's an idea who has to grow, mind sets have to change. You don't go somewhere who hasn't already a democratic culture and just impose it. (as recent history has shown)

  14. #7814
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Shape View Post
    Can we talk about how even Sansa laughed at Sam’s suggestion of democracy? Surprised some people are still arguing that she isn’t power hungry when she basically said “haha No way I’m being voted out of being Queen”.
    People are idiots. Given the chance they'd have voted the High Sparrow in as King.
    If ten years of recording The Young and the Restless for my mother have taught me anything, it's that characters in serial dramas are always happily in love...until they're not

    “The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.” - the 4th Doctor

  15. #7815
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Starter Set View Post
    Why anyone on the face of westeros would want democracy though?

    It just doesn't come out like that, it's an idea who has to grow, mind sets have to change. You don't go somewhere who hasn't already a democratic culture and just impose it. (as recent history has shown)
    That's a bit of an unfair characterization I think, democracy didn't fail in the Middle East because people there were too dumb to make their own choices. It failed because we assumed for some reason that democracy always produced an outcome that favored American interests, and when people decided to vote for leaders that wouldn't just do what we told them to, we declared that democracy had failed instead of even considering the possibility that maybe Middle Easterners wanted leaders that would push back against American influence rather than just welcoming our troops with open arms. Of course, these leaders didn't exactly govern well, but I think given the circumstances it would be hard for anyone to.

    It's actually a bit interesting to think about what's actually been going on in the farms and villages of Westeros as all of these nobles have been spending their days fighting each other instead of actually governing their realms. Some kind of local self government must have developed as notable members of the community would have had to step up and handle the day to day administration, finding ways to ration food and forming militias to guard against bandits or whatever. Certainly some people would have preferred this kind of communal existence to the old feudal order, and would question why these lords and ladies were needed at all if the people could govern themselves just as well, and without the heavy tax burdens or imposition of arbitrary laws.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •