[nacht]

The Tyrion/Cersei scene was weird

Cersei hates him but still spares him.
And he is trying to convince her by shouting down from way far away as if they are talking on the couch.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

nacht, on 06 May 2019 - 10:55 PM, said:

The Tyrion/Cersei scene was weird

Cersei hates him but still spares him.
And he is trying to convince her by shouting down from way far away as if they are talking on the couch.

Unless he was still somehow out of crossbow range... it didn't make much sense. Presumably the range of the scorpions depends on the thickness of the plot armor....

Scene would have been so much better if Missandei had at least had a good go at killing Cersei---she grabs her and jumps, the Mountain catches the end of the chain, Cersei's dangling from Missandei who's trying to kick her off, the Mountain reaches over and yanks Cersei up... then Missandei plunges her fingers into one of his eyes, he falls over the edge with Missandei. Gets up despite his armor being smashed, lifts her up and dashes her head against the wall (crunch, blood stain)....

[Edit: in the name of righteous titillation, and a call-back to 'Shame, shame', Cersei's robes fall off as she's dangling from Missandei... and in the name of gender equality, when the Mountain crashes to the ground, some of his armor comes off... revealing his massive---or would that be mistaken for blackface?... After looking at some photos---of his face, not his cock---he seems more grey than black... Greyworm spears his crotch so Sandor can finish him?...]

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 07 May 2019 - 03:26 AM

[Malankazooie]

[Maark Abbott]

So much wrong with this week's episode, and that's discounting the Starbucks cup and a shot involving Emilia reading her script whilst on-scene.

So, a series of pot-shots will easily kill a dragon with 100% accuracy from the ballistae but as soon as one is swooping towards them at speed, plot armour kicks in.

So, the Wheel of Time's Ways are a thing in this world too because how else do you explain the sheer speed this lot move around with.

The Tyrion / Varys talk lacked any sort of subtlety or nuance which was always the main draw between them, but at least Varys has all but confirmed he's going to kill Blonde Cersei.

On the subject of Blonde Cersei, her unsubtle shove towards going mad and the ending piece invariably leading her to do something incredibly stupid felt very contrived.

Bronn's return felt very token and I would have expected a character like him to be less overtly aggressive and more kicking back with the crossbow and saying something like "Now then lads, I'm hired to kill you, so how much will you pay me to not?".

The only bit which I really bought was The Hound and Arya. A good odd couple scenario that could give some interesting side stories.

Joel (Tatterdemalion) has some interesting theories about what's to come and I'm concerned that actually his theory is feasible and could play out.

[Cause]

Maark Abbott, on 07 May 2019 - 07:59 AM, said:

Bronn's return felt very token and I would have expected a character like him to be less overtly aggressive and more kicking back with the crossbow and saying something like "Now then lads, I'm hired to kill you, so how much will you pay me to not?".

This! A 1000 times this! It was not subtle at all and had too much absurdity in it. He would never be accepted as lord of high garden by the redwynes or Hightowers. He could never hold it. Its out of character for him to reach too high, he knows he would end up dead. Its also not in Tyrions or Jaimes power to grant. Lastly he might have snuck up on them with a crossbow once, in a post apocalyptic celebration but I doubt he could do it twice.

I was really hoping we would see something more resembling a bit of pragmatism, what will you give me, with a little bit of friendship too.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm sad to say they dropped the ball:

The new prince of dorne has promised his support! A throw away line.

Yara Greyjoy has retaken the iron islamds! In the drowned gods name how? She and her fifty men are holding down how many islands and castles? Euron was voted at the kingsmoot, he does actually have popular support.

We would lose the Vale, Sansa would see to that. Where is Royce, where is anyone important from the vale

We seem to be just pretending that the riverlands and the reach no longer exists.

The dothraki aren't all dead! Yay
_______________________________________________________________________

Also in the inside the episode feature, which I'm starting to find pretentious they say the party was a somber affair until Dany makes Gendry lord of stormsend which then gives people permission to relax and to celebrate? What. That was not my reading of that scence at all. She introduced politics into a somber moment. She bougt the loyalty of stormends, and it wasn't subtle. I actually felt like it seemed so out of place. Then when they party does relax, they relax with john not with her.

Also you cant make a big deal about feature length episodes if you now have recaps at the beginning (which are a new thing), previews at the end (a new thing) and a short directors commentary every episode.

This post has been edited by Cause: 07 May 2019 - 09:01 AM

[QuickTidal]

worry, on 06 May 2019 - 07:32 PM, said:

If you think I'm drawing too fine a line, I probably can't convince you, but the otherwise good scene landed with a thud for me.

Fair enough. I don't see it (like at all), but fair enough.

worry, on 06 May 2019 - 07:32 PM, said:

On the Tyrion thing, we're much farther apart. It seemed like Tyrion very deliberately turned the fun game into a pointed remark in order to hit Brienne in a sore spot. He knew that would be her reaction and did it anyway. That has nothing to do with her knighthood or her agency, it's a matter of the writers making Tyrion a mean-spirited chud to move the plot along. I'm sure the rationalization was that he was just mentioning the elephant in the room, but it very much read like him deliberately 'negging' Brienne for the benefit of his brother, being a good 'wing man.'

My guess would be you've never played this game? It's a drunken game where the very point is to embarrass. It's not even a little bit a "fun" game. It's horrifyingly revealing of your worst fears and secrets. If you choose to play, you've opened yourself up for whatever is coming down the pipe that might be a sore spot.

[Tattersail_]

QuickTidal, on 07 May 2019 - 12:57 PM, said:

worry, on 06 May 2019 - 07:32 PM, said:

If you think I'm drawing too fine a line, I probably can't convince you, but the otherwise good scene landed with a thud for me.

Fair enough. I don't see it (like at all), but fair enough.

worry, on 06 May 2019 - 07:32 PM, said:

On the Tyrion thing, we're much farther apart. It seemed like Tyrion very deliberately turned the fun game into a pointed remark in order to hit Brienne in a sore spot. He knew that would be her reaction and did it anyway. That has nothing to do with her knighthood or her agency, it's a matter of the writers making Tyrion a mean-spirited chud to move the plot along. I'm sure the rationalization was that he was just mentioning the elephant in the room, but it very much read like him deliberately 'negging' Brienne for the benefit of his brother, being a good 'wing man.'

My guess would be you've never played this game? It's a drunken game where the very point is to embarrass. It's not even a little bit a "fun" game. It's horrifyingly revealing of your worst fears and secrets. If you choose to play, you've opened yourself up for whatever is coming down the pipe that might be a sore spot.

Yes you can ask fun questions but it did seem a bit mean until it prompts Jaime to go shag her.

[QuickTidal]

Azath Vitr (D, on 06 May 2019 - 10:33 PM, said:

Briar King, on 06 May 2019 - 08:25 PM, said:

I'd love a new Civil War show. Been itching to read or watch something new this past week.

It was going to be an alternate history in which the South either won or successfully seceded and (iirc) where the Confederacy and US (de jure) slavery (outside of prison) still exist today(-ish). Outcry was (mostly) that people didn't think they'd be able to handle it well... they haven't improved their case.

Not that I'm defending the choice of concept for the show (I think it sounded kind of rank to be honest; but then I've never liked Civil War stuff myself)...but isn't this pretty much the concept of THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE? Just with Nazi's/Axis powers instead of racist civil war personalities and slave owners?

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

QuickTidal, on 06 May 2019 - 06:36 PM, said:

worry, on 06 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

The big flaws in this episode for me were Sansa attributing her growth to her abusers

I can see what you're saying here, but honestly...this is very much "I went through all this shit so I could become the best at seeing it, and routing it out in future and leading on my own". Her growth can still be her own...while acknowledging that without having gone through all that abusive crap, she might still be the "little bird", the vapid princess from Winterfell who cared only about princes, and dresses, ect. I don't think that's attributing her growth to her abusers, but instead is illustrating how going through shit often makes you ten times stronger.

Wading in on this.... firstly I thought she said she "might" have been a little bird all her life, not that she would have been (which is what I keep seeing quoted) - it's small, but it does alter the flavour of the line a little. That could well be me mishearing the line though.

Recognising, owning and celebrating the strength overcoming adversity requires in yourself is a pretty standard response and an oft-quoted coping mechanism for people who experience all sorts of things. I think it's more a problem of the writers lacking subtlety - the line is framed like she's stating a truth rather than acknowledging that those experiences have partly led her to where she is. Also, they didn't make her strong - she always was that, the proof being she survived at all - but they made her cynical and world weary and so made her drop the "princes and fairytales" that first series Sansa worshiped and lived for.

Everyone will interpret it their own way but for me the immediate outcry of "she's crediting abuse as character growth" was a bit wide of the mark and I think it's more poor heavy-handed writing than it is a statement "abuse/abusers create growth/strength".

This post has been edited by TheRetiredBridgeburner: 07 May 2019 - 01:41 PM

[QuickTidal]

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 07 May 2019 - 01:41 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 06 May 2019 - 06:36 PM, said:

worry, on 06 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

The big flaws in this episode for me were Sansa attributing her growth to her abusers

I can see what you're saying here, but honestly...this is very much "I went through all this shit so I could become the best at seeing it, and routing it out in future and leading on my own". Her growth can still be her own...while acknowledging that without having gone through all that abusive crap, she might still be the "little bird", the vapid princess from Winterfell who cared only about princes, and dresses, ect. I don't think that's attributing her growth to her abusers, but instead is illustrating how going through shit often makes you ten times stronger.

Wading in on this.... firstly I thought she said she "might" have been a little bird all her life, not that she would have been (which is what I keep seeing quoted) - it's small, but it does alter the flavour of the line a little. That could well be me mishearing the line though.

Recognising, owning and celebrating the strength overcoming adversity requires in yourself is a pretty standard response and an oft-quoted coping mechanism for people who experience all sorts of things. I think it's more a problem of the writers lacking subtlety - the line is framed like she's stating a truth rather than acknowledging that those experiences have partly led her to where she is. Also, they didn't make her strong - she always was that, the proof being she survived at all - but they made her cynical and world weary and so made her drop the "princes and fairytales" that first series Sansa worshiped and lived for.

Everyone will interpret it their own way but for me the immediate outcry of "she's crediting abuse as character growth" was a bit wide of the mark and I think it's more poor heavy-handed writing than it is a statement "abuse/abusers create growth/strength".

All well said, and thought out. Agreed.

[amphibian]

QuickTidal, on 07 May 2019 - 01:05 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 06 May 2019 - 10:33 PM, said:

Briar King, on 06 May 2019 - 08:25 PM, said:

I'd love a new Civil War show. Been itching to read or watch something new this past week.

It was going to be an alternate history in which the South either won or successfully seceded and (iirc) where the Confederacy and US (de jure) slavery (outside of prison) still exist today(-ish). Outcry was (mostly) that people didn't think they'd be able to handle it well... they haven't improved their case.

Not that I'm defending the choice of concept for the show (I think it sounded kind of rank to be honest; but then I've never liked Civil War stuff myself)...but isn't this pretty much the concept of THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE? Just with Nazi's/Axis powers instead of racist civil war personalities and slave owners?

The alternate history was described by the creators as "What if Robert E. Lee succeeded in invading Washington DC?". The fan fic nature of their views on slavery and the subjugation of black people - which is still ongoing - would have fed even more into the myth of Lee being a noble general who didn't want slavery (he actually did and defended the institution and practices many times over in act and in his letters to people). It is an exceedingly bad idea as described by Benioff and Weiss. It would be the dream of alt right racists, even if it focused heavily on the resistance or the enslaved. The show should not see air and if someone wants to write that book, they can go do that in a way that doesn't relitigate the goddamn enslavement of real people who have descendants living today in less than equal fashion.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 07 May 2019 - 02:03 PM

[Cause]

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 07 May 2019 - 01:41 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 06 May 2019 - 06:36 PM, said:

worry, on 06 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

The big flaws in this episode for me were Sansa attributing her growth to her abusers

I can see what you're saying here, but honestly...this is very much "I went through all this shit so I could become the best at seeing it, and routing it out in future and leading on my own". Her growth can still be her own...while acknowledging that without having gone through all that abusive crap, she might still be the "little bird", the vapid princess from Winterfell who cared only about princes, and dresses, ect. I don't think that's attributing her growth to her abusers, but instead is illustrating how going through shit often makes you ten times stronger.

Wading in on this.... firstly I thought she said she "might" have been a little bird all her life, not that she would have been (which is what I keep seeing quoted) - it's small, but it does alter the flavour of the line a little. That could well be me mishearing the line though.

Recognising, owning and celebrating the strength overcoming adversity requires in yourself is a pretty standard response and an oft-quoted coping mechanism for people who experience all sorts of things. I think it's more a problem of the writers lacking subtlety - the line is framed like she's stating a truth rather than acknowledging that those experiences have partly led her to where she is. Also, they didn't make her strong - she always was that, the proof being she survived at all - but they made her cynical and world weary and so made her drop the "princes and fairytales" that first series Sansa worshiped and lived for.

Everyone will interpret it their own way but for me the immediate outcry of "she's crediting abuse as character growth" was a bit wide of the mark and I think it's more poor heavy-handed writing than it is a statement "abuse/abusers create growth/strength".

I was primed to watch out for this scence and I agree it comes across a little akward but I don't think its wrong. She is not saying I'm happy I was abused so now I can be strong, she is saying she managed to find herself and grow and is stronger for it. A different wording would have been nice. An acknowledgement that she was too scared to go with the hound back then but she would be strong enough to go with him today etc.

I disagree with that she was always strong. She could have crumbled or succeeded. She made the right choices in the end

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 07 May 2019 - 02:02 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 07 May 2019 - 01:05 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 06 May 2019 - 10:33 PM, said:

Briar King, on 06 May 2019 - 08:25 PM, said:

I'd love a new Civil War show. Been itching to read or watch something new this past week.

It was going to be an alternate history in which the South either won or successfully seceded and (iirc) where the Confederacy and US (de jure) slavery (outside of prison) still exist today(-ish). Outcry was (mostly) that people didn't think they'd be able to handle it well... they haven't improved their case.

Not that I'm defending the choice of concept for the show (I think it sounded kind of rank to be honest; but then I've never liked Civil War stuff myself)...but isn't this pretty much the concept of THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE? Just with Nazi's/Axis powers instead of racist civil war personalities and slave owners?

The alternate history was described by the creators as "What if Robert E. Lee succeeded in invading Washington DC?". The fan fic nature of their views on slavery and the subjugation of black people - which is still ongoing - would have fed even more into the myth of Lee being a noble general who didn't want slavery (he actually did and defended the institution and practices many times over in act and in his letters to people). It is an exceedingly bad idea as described by Benioff and Weiss. It would be the dream of alt right racists, even if it focused heavily on the resistance or the enslaved. The show should not see air and if someone wants to write that book, they can go do that in a way that doesn't relitigate the goddamn enslavement of real people who have descendants living today in less than equal fashion.

I don't see how any of this conflicts with what was concepted and executed in at least the first two seasons of THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE. I mean, aside from following Juliana on what is a quest for freedom (with a little help from a Japanese dissident), we literally follow Joe who is a Nazi insider spy, son of a major Nazi scion and "super" program child as a protagonist. It's a terrible, heinous reality, but that's the point. The main thrust is "What if the Nazi's made the bomb first and destroyed Washington and most of the east coast?" This show could also feasibly be the "dream of alt right racists, even if it focused heavily on the resistance or the enslaved"...and it's not. At least not that I'm aware of. It's a massive cautionary tale, where the main narrative is to seek a way out of that bad future.

Again, I'm not advocating that such a show about the confederacy exist...I just don't see the difference in a show that already exists and plays with the "what if the bad guys won, and the country was awful as a result?" narrative.

amphibian, on 07 May 2019 - 02:02 PM, said:

they can go do that in a way that doesn't relitigate the goddamn enslavement of real people who have descendants living today in less than equal fashion.

You mean like those who suffered in WWII, including the holocaust survivors and their families who still exist today? Because the Amazon Prime show of which I speak would fall into that very category and it didn't face the scrutiny that the concept for the B&W show did. Perhaps because it was an existing story by PKD? Not sure.

Playing devil's advocate, selling the concept would really be in the details, but it never got that far. Everyone lost their mind at the very basic concept stage, and it was turfed.

I'm just curious where the divide is between people who suffered, and are generationally are affected by the civil war actions/slavery...and those that did the same in WWII and afterwards. Is there one?

[Tiste Simeon]

QT it could be because Germany now recognises what it did and has done much to make amends or at least distance itself from it.

The South (or large swathes of it) preeeety much hasn't moved on from the Confederacy and many down there still treat black people as inferiors.

In before BK kicks off. I know there are good people there but there seems to be an overriding culture that celebrates the confederacy as a wonderful thing (see furore over flags and statues and the very Nazi response to them being taken away)

That's my thinking anyway.

[amphibian]

I also think that The Man in the High Castle should not exist as the show it is. My main reason is that in the original three Star Wars movies, the Empire is a bunch of xenophobic genocidal maniacs and they look cool enough that people today think the Empire is cool. They get Storm trooper tattoos, buy Empire merchandise, and talk about how the Empire had it's virtues.

Media actually changes popular opinion, especially when fascism and xenophobia are more subtle pieces of the villainous entity.

I don't watch High Castle for a reason and that's because I think that it still doesn't go far enough to show either parallels with today's governments or a strong enough alternate historical critique of the fictional government and tactics.

Confederate in the hands of Benioff and Weiss sounds like genuine shit and people spoke loudly about this.

[amphibian]

Tiste's point about apology through repudiation of the concepts and erasing of Nazi power in Germany is massive. The American South has not done that and by and large, the white inhabitants chose to further entrench racism in Jim Crow, in property theft, in damaging voting rights, and so on.

That's a huge difference between Germany and the South today.

[Andorion]

Re: alternate civil war history, Harry Turtledove has done this a lot, look up Guns of the South.

And that had the noble Lee as the hero, and yes he was against slavery.

I think Amph has a very good point about Germany's handling of the Nazi legacy vs the mess in the US south.

[QuickTidal]

Tiste Simeon, on 07 May 2019 - 05:03 PM, said:

QT it could be because Germany now recognises what it did and has done much to make amends or at least distance itself from it.

The South (or large swathes of it) preeeety much hasn't moved on from the Confederacy and many down there still treat black people as inferiors.

In before BK kicks off. I know there are good people there but there seems to be an overriding culture that celebrates the confederacy as a wonderful thing (see furore over flags and statues and the very Nazi response to them being taken away)

That's my thinking anyway.

This is a fair point, but I would only counter with the treatment of Jewish people has not entirely moved on either, just that it's not state sponsored anymore or as blatantly brutal (camps ect.). White supremacist d-bags hate POC and Jewish people pretty equally.

amphibian, on 07 May 2019 - 05:06 PM, said:

I also think that The Man in the High Castle should not exist as the show it is. My main reason is that in the original three Star Wars movies, the Empire is a bunch of xenophobic genocidal maniacs and they look cool enough that people today think the Empire is cool. They get Storm trooper tattoos, buy Empire merchandise, and talk about how the Empire had it's virtues.

I mean, that's a space opera. It's 100% fantasy fiction. Nobody getting tattoos of SW stuff is espousing that the way of the empire is right or just in our world. In reality. That's nonsense. This is similar to assuming that the views of a character in a fictional setting is representative of the Author...which is rarely the case.

amphibian, on 07 May 2019 - 05:06 PM, said:

Media actually changes popular opinion, especially when fascism and xenophobia are more subtle pieces of the villainous entity.

Proof? Are you going to tell me Columbine was the result of the Matrix and video games next?

amphibian, on 07 May 2019 - 05:06 PM, said:

I don't watch High Castle for a reason and that's because I think that it still doesn't go far enough to show either parallels with today's governments

I mean, again, it's fiction. It doesn't need to do this. No fiction needs to do this. You simply watch or don't watch based on your own interest or lack of.

amphibian, on 07 May 2019 - 05:06 PM, said:

or a strong enough alternate historical critique of the fictional government and tactics.

You know, since you admit yourself you don't watch it, you can't remotely make this statement. If you wish to watch it and then discuss this point with me, I'll be happy to debate it. Until then, you have no idea about the veracity of the statement.

amphibian, on 07 May 2019 - 05:06 PM, said:

Confederate in the hands of Benioff and Weiss sounds like genuine shit

It may well have been. I can't make that call either way because we were never given enough information about it as a piece of fiction beyond the initial "pitch".

amphibian, on 07 May 2019 - 05:06 PM, said:

and people spoke loudly about this.

I'm not sure that the snakepits of mediocrity that are Twitter and Facebook, or blog-based think/outrage/clickbait pieces is worthy of the blanket nature of this statement. Especially when they most recently decided that Taylor Swift was not allowed to use a drumline for a live performance because Beyonce did the same thing at Coachella...because apparently all those people's knowledge of the music industry began in 1999 with Destiny's Child, and not...you know...the hundreds of other acts who have used drumline's in their live performance for the last 100 years.

amphibian, on 07 May 2019 - 05:08 PM, said:

Tiste's point about apology through repudiation of the concepts and erasing of Nazi power in Germany is massive. The American South has not done that and by and large, the white inhabitants chose to further entrench racism in Jim Crow, in property theft, in damaging voting rights, and so on.

That's a huge difference between Germany and the South today.

I'm not just talking about Germany though. I'm talking about the continued treatment and racism against jewish people that was exacerbated by the war, the traumatic still felt effects of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the Japanese population, and the rest of the trauma of WWII on people may not be as in your face present as the civil rights problems in the US...but it's still present in various ways.

And again, I'm not advocating the show exist (I likely would not have watched it even if it did)...just attempting to understand how one is okay and the other is not. Is it just that the repercussions of slavery and the Civil War are stronger than those of the Axis powers? That seems like a thin edge of the wedge specifics argument to me.

Amph, I take your point that you think that HIGH CASTLE should also not exist, which answers that part of my question...you see a difference between the two concepts, but still don't think either should exist.

Anyways, I take all the points that you both gave here....I'm just not sure I'm there yet myself.

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

amphibian, on 07 May 2019 - 05:06 PM, said:

I also think that The Man in the High Castle should not exist as the show it is. My main reason is that in the original three Star Wars movies, the Empire is a bunch of xenophobic genocidal maniacs and they look cool enough that people today think the Empire is cool. They get Storm trooper tattoos, buy Empire merchandise, and talk about how the Empire had it's virtues.

Media actually changes popular opinion, especially when fascism and xenophobia are more subtle pieces of the villainous entity.

I don't watch High Castle for a reason and that's because I think that it still doesn't go far enough to show either parallels with today's governments or a strong enough alternate historical critique of the fictional government and tactics.

Confederate in the hands of Benioff and Weiss sounds like genuine shit and people spoke loudly about this.

Actually, Darth Sidious created the Empire to protect the galactic citizenry from the outside threat of the Yuuzhan Vong. He was a benevolent ruler who only had the protection of his subjects in mind. The Empire was virtuous.

This post has been edited by Whisperzzzzzzz: 07 May 2019 - 05:53 PM

[Tiste Simeon]

QT the bad treatment of Jewish people isn't, as a general rule, systemic though. By and large the inequality of black people in the South seems like it might still be that.

Put it this way. If a dude in Germany started trying to gather support for the reinstitution of Jewish Ghettos or something they would very quickly be shut down, aside from some support from a minority of right wing nutjobs (though the rise of AFD does concern me a bit).

If a politician in the South started waving the Confederate flag, proclaiming he was a true patriot and started talking about reintroducing Jim Crow style laws or segregation, you know he'd get a lot of vocal support, some of it from the White House and president...

Maybe a mod should move this part of the thread to the DB? It's kind of taken over.

This post has been edited by Tiste Simeon: 07 May 2019 - 06:09 PM