Page 518 of 551 FirstFirst ... 18418468508514515516517518519520521522528 ... LastLast
Results 7,756 to 7,770 of 8264

Thread: Game of Thrones

  1. #7756
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    3,169

    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.
    We didn’t need anything. The show isn’t about bull shot Star Wars style light side and dark side crap. The White Walkers are a force of nature. Jon discovered the threat and prepared the world for it.

    The best fighter in the show got the kill. Aka the logical outcome happened. Not the fan service one. Jon did enough justify his existence in that plotline. And logically if Jon fought him, he should have died.

  2. #7757
    The Forever Walker remydat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackalope89 View Post
    Not really. I seem to recall Dany threatening the city of Qarth (or whatever), by burning it to the ground, simply because they didn't want to let in a bunch of Dothraki (small in number or not). And that was season 2.
    Yes she threatened them for a reason and gave them a chance.

    Nothing to do with torching kids for shits and giggles after you already won the war.

    People threaten violence all the time on the show. They dont just BBQ children instead of killing their actual enemy.
    It's hard for me to listen to someone not in my position. A caterpillar can't relate to what an eagle envisions.

  3. #7758
    The Forever Walker remydat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    Again, it's easier for me to buy the arguement that it's not in her characterization if she didn't threaten to do exactly what she did multiple times in the last 7 years.

    If it were say Jon who ended up murdering hundreds of innocent women and children sure, I'd say that's out of character. But frankly I've seen discussions about Dany doing this for YEARS. So the foundation for it was there. Not saying I personally knew it would happen or it was inevitable... but it didn't happen in a complete void either.
    Again threatening to punish evil is not morally equivalent to burning children for fun. Not sure why this confuses you.


    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    There’s a difference between subjectively saying you didn’t like something out of personal preference and trying to validate your dislike of something by calling it bad writing. You are entitled to not like something. You aren’t entitled to have the story told the way you want or else it’s bad writing.

    The fact that so many people saw it coming should kind of tell you there was something to it. Lots of people didn’t see the Red Wedding coming. Some did. The clues were there. The clues were here too. It’s very hard to get around the fact that a character who constantly expressed a desire to do something actually going through with it and then saying it’s poor writing
    Yes there is a difference but I explained why it was poor writing. Threatening to punish evil and burning children for fun are two different things.

    If someone threatens to kill a racist I dont assume that means they want to kill a baby.
    Last edited by remydat; 05-21-2019 at 03:15 PM.
    It's hard for me to listen to someone not in my position. A caterpillar can't relate to what an eagle envisions.

  4. #7759
    Incredible Member your_name_here's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    We didn’t need anything. The show isn’t about bull shot Star Wars style light side and dark side crap. The White Walkers are a force of nature. Jon discovered the threat and prepared the world for it.

    The best fighter in the show got the kill. Aka the logical outcome happened. Not the fan service one. Jon did enough justify his existence in that plotline. And logically if Jon fought him, he should have died.
    If it’s not “about” that then WHY have them stare eachother down ever since Season 5?
    I don’t mind Arya getting the kill, but when you endlessly tease a showdown, the ultimate battle is where you should have it. Even if it meant Jon is defeated and about to be killed when Arya swoops in.

  5. #7760
    The Forever Walker remydat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,698

    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 itís the obvious choice doesnít make it the bad way to go. As you head into the finale of anything, itís 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.
    NK did not draw his sword. White Walkers just stood there while he died like a chump. The purpose of a story is in part to entertain. That is not entertaining.
    It's hard for me to listen to someone not in my position. A caterpillar can't relate to what an eagle envisions.

  6. #7761
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,924

    Default


  7. #7762
    the devil's reject choptop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    3,217

    Default

    I'm not a GOT super fan or anything and I haven't read the books but I don't really think this last season has been half as bad as people have been saying....

  8. #7763
    Fantastic Member TriggerWarning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by choptop View Post
    I'm not a GOT super fan or anything and I haven't read the books but I don't really think this last season has been half as bad as people have been saying....
    I liked season 8 well enough, could have used a few more episodes but the story beats were right.

    got.jpg

  9. #7764
    Invincible Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    26,758

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaelforce View Post
    And though she said it, up until the penultimate episode of a ten year/eight season show, she never actually did it.
    First time for everything. Mass murderers don't start mass murdering right out of the womb. Saying that Dany wasn't a mass murderer prior to to the first time she committed mass murder doesn't mean all that much once she actually does the deed. We just happened to see the first time in the second to last episode. Jack the ripper wasn't a serial killer until after the first time he murdered someone... gotta start somewhere.

  10. #7765
    Invincible Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    26,758

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    Again threatening to punish evil is not morally equivalent to burning children for fun. Not sure why this confuses you.




    Yes there is a difference but I explained why it was poor writing. Threatening to punish evil and burning children for fun are two different things.

    If someone threatens to kill a racist I dont assume that means they want to kill a baby.
    I'm not confused at all. A person who threatens to burn down cities eventually burns down a city. It seems pretty straightforeward enough to follow.

    And it seemed to be easy enough for a lot of people to follow since again people have been speculating that she would do this very thing for YEARS.

  11. #7766
    Wonder Moderator Gaelforce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    First time for everything. Mass murderers don't start mass murdering right out of the womb. Saying that Dany wasn't a mass murderer prior to to the first time she committed mass murder doesn't mean all that much once she actually does the deed. We just happened to see the first time in the second to last episode. Jack the ripper wasn't a serial killer until after the first time he murdered someone... gotta start somewhere.
    I agree!

    But I also think that stating that 'she kept saying she would burn places down' as evidence that she was actually going to do it doesn't wash when she repeatedly *didn't* burn places down

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    I'm not confused at all. A person who threatens to burn down cities eventually burns down a city. It seems pretty straightforeward enough to follow.

    And it seemed to be easy enough for a lot of people to follow since again people have been speculating that she would do this very thing for YEARS.
    Sorry, I disagree with this one. In fact, as I recall, it's generally the opposite - those who talk a big game rarely follow up on it.

  12. #7767
    Fantastic Member TriggerWarning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaelforce View Post
    I agree!

    But I also think that stating that 'she kept saying she would burn places down' as evidence that she was actually going to do it doesn't wash when she repeatedly *didn't* burn places down
    The only reason she didn't burn places down was because her advisors kept her in check: Dario, Varys, Jorah, Tyrian, Beristan, etc. By the time she went full mad Queen the only advisor she had left was Tyrion and she felt betrayed by him so she did what came natural to her which burn everyone.

  13. #7768
    Invincible Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    26,758

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaelforce View Post
    I agree!

    But I also think that stating that 'she kept saying she would burn places down' as evidence that she was actually going to do it doesn't wash when she repeatedly *didn't* burn places down
    It's not 100% concrete evidence that she would do it certainly... but if we wanna look back in hindsight at clues that she might have been the sort of person that might do something like this, saying she would do it over and over again is a descent place to start.

  14. #7769
    The Forever Walker remydat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    I'm not confused at all. A person who threatens to burn down cities eventually burns down a city. It seems pretty straightforeward enough to follow.

    And it seemed to be easy enough for a lot of people to follow since again people have been speculating that she would do this very thing for YEARS.
    Please show me where people speculated the city would surrender and she would burn innocent children anyway.

    This would be like saying because the US said they would attack terrorists, it makes perfect sense when they massacre a city after they surrender. Absurd logic.

    We are all aware she may have burned a city. If we are all honest we imagined it being a city that actually resisted and thus the burning was for the purposes of winning a battle. In this case the battle was already won.
    Last edited by remydat; 05-21-2019 at 05:05 PM.
    It's hard for me to listen to someone not in my position. A caterpillar can't relate to what an eagle envisions.

  15. #7770
    Invincible Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    26,758

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    Please show me where people speculated the city would surrender and she would burn innocent children anyway.

    This would be like saying because the US said they would attack terrorists, it makes perfect sense when they massacre a city after they surrender. Absurd logic.

    We are all aware she may have burned a city. If we are all honest we imagined it being a city that actually resisted and thus the burning was for the purposes of winning a battle. In this case the battle was already won.
    The idea of massacring an entire city that surrenders can be considered absurd logic, but again... she's not being called the logical queen. She's being called the MAD queen.

    Meaning her actions aren't supposed to be entirely moral or even necessarily logical. People speculating that she will be the MAD queen pretty much means she'll go freaking nuts. Which would entirely be the point if they decide to go in this direction, which they did.

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
  •