[Khellendros]

QuickTidal, on 21 May 2019 - 12:52 PM, said:

As to Jon, as I said it's weird for the Nights Watch to still exist when there is nothing to watch...but from the sense that they will always need a place to send the criminals...it works I guess.

There was no more Night's Watch. The only people waiting for Jon at Castle Black were the Free Folk, and then he left with them like he wanted for a long time. Basically, Grey Worm got screwed over

In any event, I enjoyed the finale.

[QuickTidal]

Anyone else notice the subtle (or really unsubtle) imagery in the opening where Tyrion was walking through burned out KL and there was a massive fallen bell with a lightning-looking crack in it? The Liberty Bell anyone?

[QuickTidal]

Khellendros, on 21 May 2019 - 02:10 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 21 May 2019 - 12:52 PM, said:

As to Jon, as I said it's weird for the Nights Watch to still exist when there is nothing to watch...but from the sense that they will always need a place to send the criminals...it works I guess.

There was no more Night's Watch.

I mean, they literally tell Jon the words they tell anyone who joins the Nights Watch though and call it "Taking the Black"...so it clearly still exists. I think Jon's choice to join Tormund and the Free Folk north of the wall was just a personal one that doesn't/won't affect there still being essentially a penal colony at the Wall.

[Gem Windcaster]

The only thing I despise more than 'surprises' are vagueness where the creator wants you to make up your own story of what happened. Such a cop out. Not saying that's what they did here - and some things are fine being open to interpretation - but there are definitely more vagueness than needed in regards to what happened to Aegon/Jon.

[Gorefest]

QuickTidal, on 21 May 2019 - 12:52 PM, said:

Re: Bran on the Iron Throne (symbolically, if not physically....because it's gone).

This is GRRM's plan, and always has been. The opening of the entire series from a POV angle happens on Bran chapters. Anyone expecting that this isn't what will happen in the books...? Cause it will.

I'm fine with that, I have no problem with Bran being the new King of Westeros. What bothers me is the journey. Or, more precisely, the way that D&D have displayed that journey. With this specific item and with a lot of other storylines, it very much feels as if GRRM has told D&D: "Right guys, in the end *this* and *this* and *this* is what will happen and needs to be in place. Good luck." In other words, D&D will have known the end point that they were supposed to work towards, but they had no clue how those character arcs and events actually came to be. So they gave their own spin on it and it is terrible and clunky. And no lofty arguments can convince me otherwise, unless you can show me handwritten pages by GRRM that describe similar story progressions as we have been exposed to in the TV series.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Gorefest, on 21 May 2019 - 02:38 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 21 May 2019 - 12:52 PM, said:

Re: Bran on the Iron Throne (symbolically, if not physically....because it's gone).

This is GRRM's plan, and always has been. The opening of the entire series from a POV angle happens on Bran chapters. Anyone expecting that this isn't what will happen in the books...? Cause it will.

I'm fine with that, I have no problem with Bran being the new King of Westeros. What bothers me is the journey. Or, more precisely, the way that D&D have displayed that journey. With this specific item and with a lot of other storylines, it very much feels as if GRRM has told D&D: "Right guys, in the end *this* and *this* and *this* is what will happen and needs to be in place. Good luck." In other words, D&D will have known the end point that they were supposed to work towards, but they had no clue how those character arcs and events actually came to be. So they gave their own spin on it and it is terrible and clunky. And no lofty arguments can convince me otherwise, unless you can show me handwritten pages by GRRM that describe similar story progressions as we have been exposed to in the TV series.

'The author of the original books, George R.R. Martin, has said his ending will be different from the television series, and will even have unicorns.

Writing on his blog, the 70-year-old [...] said: "How will it all end? The same ending as the show? Different? Well... yes. And no. And yes. And no. And yes. And no. And yes."'


http://www.ladbible....VFX2UaF9-yPGud4

[QuickTidal]

Gorefest, on 21 May 2019 - 02:38 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 21 May 2019 - 12:52 PM, said:

Re: Bran on the Iron Throne (symbolically, if not physically....because it's gone).

This is GRRM's plan, and always has been. The opening of the entire series from a POV angle happens on Bran chapters. Anyone expecting that this isn't what will happen in the books...? Cause it will.

I'm fine with that, I have no problem with Bran being the new King of Westeros. What bothers me is the journey. Or, more precisely, the way that D&D have displayed that journey. With this specific item and with a lot of other storylines, it very much feels as if GRRM has told D&D: "Right guys, in the end *this* and *this* and *this* is what will happen and needs to be in place. Good luck." In other words, D&D will have known the end point that they were supposed to work towards, but they had no clue how those character arcs and events actually came to be. So they gave their own spin on it and it is terrible and clunky. And no lofty arguments can convince me otherwise, unless you can show me handwritten pages by GRRM that describe similar story progressions as we have been exposed to in the TV series.

I totally agree. If anything, the ending of the show has reversed my earlier plans to "let the show finish the story for me" and I will now read the last two books when they come out, just to see GRRM more organically/non-rushed get us to the ending.

[QuickTidal]

Gem Windcaster, on 21 May 2019 - 02:28 PM, said:

The only thing I despise more than 'surprises' are vagueness where the creator wants you to make up your own story of what happened. Such a cop out. Not saying that's what they did here - and some things are fine being open to interpretation - but there are definitely more vagueness than needed in regards to what happened to Aegon/Jon.

Really? The whole series has shown two things about Jon Snow.

1. He never wanted/doesn't want the crown, or to "lead". (AND he's bad at it)

2. He has always felt at home in the north, at the Wall as a Ranger/Nights Watch, or with the Wildlings/Free folk.

He gets exactly those two things in his happy ending. I'm not sure what else there would be to say about him? The open-endedness of his story is simply "What did Jon do with his time north of the wall with Ghost and Tormund" and that's not really something anyone would be begging to see IMHO.

I guess I'm just unsure how that's vague...

[Gem Windcaster]

QuickTidal, on 21 May 2019 - 03:30 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 21 May 2019 - 02:28 PM, said:

The only thing I despise more than 'surprises' are vagueness where the creator wants you to make up your own story of what happened. Such a cop out. Not saying that's what they did here - and some things are fine being open to interpretation - but there are definitely more vagueness than needed in regards to what happened to Aegon/Jon.

Really? The whole series has shown two things about Jon Snow.

1. He never wanted/doesn't want the crown, or to "lead". (AND he's bad at it)

2. He has always felt at home in the north, at the Wall as a Ranger/Nights Watch, or with the Wildlings/Free folk.

He gets exactly those two things in his happy ending. I'm not sure what else there would be to say about him? The open-endedness of his story is simply "What did Jon do with his time north of the wall with Ghost and Tormund" and that's not really something anyone would be begging to see IMHO.

I guess I'm just unsure how that's vague...

Interesting, I've always thought he was a natural leader lol - and he's definitely a leader at the Wall aswell - it seemed so to me although they weren't clear. Also I always thought they would make him 'grow up' and realize he had to take the throne if they weren't going to descend into another war. The fact that he doesn't WANT the throne doesn't mean he'd be bad at it - probably quite the opposite - and him taking the throne would be a sacrifice, which would ring true to his character. Maybe I've misread his feelings about the north, but to me he always seemed miserable at the Wall. He does like the wildlings though. I also disagree that nobody would want to see what they did beyond the wall - I have A LOT of questions regarding that. But sure, it's not THAT vague, otherwise I disagree with every point you made. Also I don't find it particularly 'happy', just sad. But then I find the entire GOT world sad - I don't think I'd want to live there.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 21 May 2019 - 04:04 PM

[QuickTidal]

Gem Windcaster, on 21 May 2019 - 04:01 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 21 May 2019 - 03:30 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 21 May 2019 - 02:28 PM, said:

The only thing I despise more than 'surprises' are vagueness where the creator wants you to make up your own story of what happened. Such a cop out. Not saying that's what they did here - and some things are fine being open to interpretation - but there are definitely more vagueness than needed in regards to what happened to Aegon/Jon.

Really? The whole series has shown two things about Jon Snow.

1. He never wanted/doesn't want the crown, or to "lead". (AND he's bad at it)

2. He has always felt at home in the north, at the Wall as a Ranger/Nights Watch, or with the Wildlings/Free folk.

He gets exactly those two things in his happy ending. I'm not sure what else there would be to say about him? The open-endedness of his story is simply "What did Jon do with his time north of the wall with Ghost and Tormund" and that's not really something anyone would be begging to see IMHO.

I guess I'm just unsure how that's vague...

Interesting, I've always thought he was a natural leader lol - and he's definitely a leader at the Wall aswell - it seemed so to me although they weren't clear. Also I always thought they would make him 'grow up' and realize he had to take the throne if they weren't going to descend into another war. The fact that he doesn't WANT the throne doesn't mean he'd be bad at it - probably quite the opposite - and him taking the throne would be a sacrifice, which would ring true to his character. Maybe I've misread his feelings about the north, but to me he always seemed miserable at the Wall. He does like the wildlings though. I also disagree that nobody would want to see what they did beyond the wall - I have A LOT of questions regarding that. But sure, it's not THAT vague, otherwise I disagree with every point you made. Also I don't find it particularly 'happy', just sad. But then I find the entire GOT world sad - I don't think I'd want to live there.

He's definitely been a leader in the past, for sure, but he's not been a very good one when he's had that control. He has lost every battle he's led: Castle Black, Hardhome, and Winterfell (lost all of them, and badly), in the one that is called a victory, it's only such because his ass was saved by Stannis...I would give him a LITTLE leeway in Hardhome simply because his goals seemed to be "get the willings on side" which he achieved, but still....by the skin of his teeth and certainly not martial prowess or competent leadership. I mean, the character is written as "You know nothing Jon Snow"

As to how he feels about the Wall and the North? They produced the very best friends he's had his whole life (Edd, Sam, ect.), a father figure in place of his lost one (Lord Commander Mormont), and even a knowledgable grandfatherly character (Aemon) who it turns out was ACTUALLY his great-grandfather....as well as the love of his life (a wildling from north of the Wall) and he never wanted to come south for any other reason than to see his Stark family again. Perhaps it's more hammered home in the books? Jon Snow loves the North.

Quote

Also I always thought they would make him 'grow up' and realize he had to take the throne if they weren't going to descend into another war.

Who are 'they'? And come to that, why on earth does it have to fall to a guy who has stated more than once that he doesn't want it to "have" to take it? That seems to do Jon dirty to me. "Sorry old boy, you can't have the life you want, gotta be king because of whose seed you were made from!"

As far as ruling goes, Bran is a brilliant choice. He has literally no interest in power...so it won't corrupt him...and the last 3ER lived for a thousand years, so no need to worry about succession. I think Jon gets what he wants (AKA not the throne) and he knows his brother-cousin will rule well and justly simply be nature of him not having any aspect of avarice.

Quote

I also disagree that nobody would want to see what they did beyond the wall - I have A LOT of questions regarding that.

Are they intrinsic to the story they just told you though...or is it just that you like him, so want to follow his choices after the series? Because I can certainly see the notion of wanting to see how Chandler and Monica raise the twins after the series ended, but I think it was fine to end Friends where it ended with regards to their characters...if that analogy tracks?

Quote

Also I don't find it particularly 'happy', just sad.

Sad how? He's gone to the place he loved, is with his remaining friends (Tormund et al.), his wolf, and lives close to the rest of the people he loves (his family). I don't see that as sad. Killing Dany? Yeah, I guess that's sad...but I still feel he's been given the happiest ending he could be given.

And yes, the world is grim....but if you've not read them, might I recommend the Dunk & Egg novellas? They really show you what the ASOIAF world can be when it's summer, and it's much more traditionally "medieval fantasy" filled with Fairs, and Jousts and happy journeying without the perpetual grimness that came about because of The Mad King, and Robert's Rebellion. Worth looking into.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

QuickTidal, on 21 May 2019 - 04:30 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 21 May 2019 - 04:01 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 21 May 2019 - 03:30 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 21 May 2019 - 02:28 PM, said:

The only thing I despise more than 'surprises' are vagueness where the creator wants you to make up your own story of what happened. Such a cop out. Not saying that's what they did here - and some things are fine being open to interpretation - but there are definitely more vagueness than needed in regards to what happened to Aegon/Jon.

Really? The whole series has shown two things about Jon Snow.

1. He never wanted/doesn't want the crown, or to "lead". (AND he's bad at it)

2. He has always felt at home in the north, at the Wall as a Ranger/Nights Watch, or with the Wildlings/Free folk.

He gets exactly those two things in his happy ending. I'm not sure what else there would be to say about him? The open-endedness of his story is simply "What did Jon do with his time north of the wall with Ghost and Tormund" and that's not really something anyone would be begging to see IMHO.

I guess I'm just unsure how that's vague...

Interesting, I've always thought he was a natural leader lol - and he's definitely a leader at the Wall aswell - it seemed so to me although they weren't clear. Also I always thought they would make him 'grow up' and realize he had to take the throne if they weren't going to descend into another war. The fact that he doesn't WANT the throne doesn't mean he'd be bad at it - probably quite the opposite - and him taking the throne would be a sacrifice, which would ring true to his character. Maybe I've misread his feelings about the north, but to me he always seemed miserable at the Wall. He does like the wildlings though. I also disagree that nobody would want to see what they did beyond the wall - I have A LOT of questions regarding that. But sure, it's not THAT vague, otherwise I disagree with every point you made. Also I don't find it particularly 'happy', just sad. But then I find the entire GOT world sad - I don't think I'd want to live there.

He's definitely been a leader in the past, for sure, but he's not been a very good one when he's had that control. He has lost every battle he's led: Castle Black, Hardhome, and Winterfell (lost all of them, and badly), in the one that is called a victory, it's only such because his ass was saved by Stannis...I would give him a LITTLE leeway in Hardhome simply because his goals seemed to be "get the willings on side" which he achieved, but still....by the skin of his teeth and certainly not martial prowess or competent leadership. I mean, the character is written as "You know nothing Jon Snow"

As to how he feels about the Wall and the North? They produced the very best friends he's had his whole life (Edd, Sam, ect.), a father figure in place of his lost one (Lord Commander Mormont), and even a knowledgable grandfatherly character (Aemon) who it turns out was ACTUALLY his great-grandfather....as well as the love of his life (a wildling from north of the Wall) and he never wanted to come south for any other reason than to see his Stark family again. Perhaps it's more hammered home in the books? Jon Snow loves the North.

Quote

Also I always thought they would make him 'grow up' and realize he had to take the throne if they weren't going to descend into another war.

Who are 'they'? And come to that, why on earth does it have to fall to a guy who has stated more than once that he doesn't want it to "have" to take it? That seems to do Jon dirty to me. "Sorry old boy, you can't have the life you want, gotta be king because of whose seed you were made from!"

As far as ruling goes, Bran is a brilliant choice. He has literally no interest in power...so it won't corrupt him...and the last 3ER lived for a thousand years, so no need to worry about succession. I think Jon gets what he wants (AKA not the throne) and he knows his brother-cousin will rule well and justly simply be nature of him not having any aspect of avarice.

Quote

I also disagree that nobody would want to see what they did beyond the wall - I have A LOT of questions regarding that.

Are they intrinsic to the story they just told you though...or is it just that you like him, so want to follow his choices after the series? Because I can certainly see the notion of wanting to see how Chandler and Monica raise the twins after the series ended, but I think it was fine to end Friends where it ended with regards to their characters...if that analogy tracks?

Quote

Also I don't find it particularly 'happy', just sad.

Sad how? He's gone to the place he loved, is with his remaining friends (Tormund et al.), his wolf, and lives close to the rest of the people he loves (his family). I don't see that as sad. Killing Dany? Yeah, I guess that's sad...but I still feel he's been given the happiest ending he could be given.

And yes, the world is grim....but if you've not read them, might I recommend the Dunk & Egg novellas? They really show you what the ASOIAF world can be when it's summer, and it's much more traditionally "medieval fantasy" filled with Fairs, and Jousts and happy journeying without the perpetual grimness that came about because of The Mad King, and Robert's Rebellion. Worth looking into.

I listened to them a few months ago, there's a fair amount of perpetual grimness and grit, barely obscured by Dunk's comical naivety.

Spoiler

There's one genuinely noble character, prince so-and-so, but there's a wonderfully graphic scene after the trial of seven where they take off his helmet and a piece of his skull falls out, then he collapses onto Dunk. Also, Dunk's go-to move in fights is to drag his knightly opponent down and do some gruesome brute force mauling.

[QuickTidal]

Azath Vitr (D, on 21 May 2019 - 04:37 PM, said:

I listened to them a few months ago, there's a fair amount of perpetual grimness and grit, barely obscured by Dunk's comical naivety.

Spoiler

There's one genuinely noble character, prince so-and-so, but there's a wonderfully graphic scene after the trial of seven where they take off his helmet and a piece of his skull falls out, then he collapses onto Dunk. Also, Dunk's go-to move in fights is to drag his knightly opponent down and do some gruesome brute force mauling.

Well no one said it's not still GRRM after all, but compared to what happens in the main series, it's friggin Disneyland.

[polishgenius]

Yeah John was originally written as a leader but the last few seassons he's shown himself to be an utter utter moron who shouldn't be trusted with anything.



Anyway, yeah, I don't have a real problem with Bran ending up the king in principle, it's just show Bran was terribly used, did almost nothing, and just randomly showed up at the end to get given the crown in a pathetically written 'council' scene. For all the flaws later books have had I have to believe GRRM can set it up better than that.

The very least we should have had was an entire other episode in between melting the throne and the council meeting in which Tyrion goes to work persuading people of that choice (along with showing all the other political arguments that needed to be settled as well as the arguments over Jon and Tyrion's fates).

[Gem Windcaster]

QuickTidal, on 21 May 2019 - 04:30 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 21 May 2019 - 04:01 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 21 May 2019 - 03:30 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 21 May 2019 - 02:28 PM, said:

The only thing I despise more than 'surprises' are vagueness where the creator wants you to make up your own story of what happened. Such a cop out. Not saying that's what they did here - and some things are fine being open to interpretation - but there are definitely more vagueness than needed in regards to what happened to Aegon/Jon.

Really? The whole series has shown two things about Jon Snow.

1. He never wanted/doesn't want the crown, or to "lead". (AND he's bad at it)

2. He has always felt at home in the north, at the Wall as a Ranger/Nights Watch, or with the Wildlings/Free folk.

He gets exactly those two things in his happy ending. I'm not sure what else there would be to say about him? The open-endedness of his story is simply "What did Jon do with his time north of the wall with Ghost and Tormund" and that's not really something anyone would be begging to see IMHO.

I guess I'm just unsure how that's vague...

Interesting, I've always thought he was a natural leader lol - and he's definitely a leader at the Wall aswell - it seemed so to me although they weren't clear. Also I always thought they would make him 'grow up' and realize he had to take the throne if they weren't going to descend into another war. The fact that he doesn't WANT the throne doesn't mean he'd be bad at it - probably quite the opposite - and him taking the throne would be a sacrifice, which would ring true to his character. Maybe I've misread his feelings about the north, but to me he always seemed miserable at the Wall. He does like the wildlings though. I also disagree that nobody would want to see what they did beyond the wall - I have A LOT of questions regarding that. But sure, it's not THAT vague, otherwise I disagree with every point you made. Also I don't find it particularly 'happy', just sad. But then I find the entire GOT world sad - I don't think I'd want to live there.

He's definitely been a leader in the past, for sure, but he's not been a very good one when he's had that control. He has lost every battle he's led: Castle Black, Hardhome, and Winterfell (lost all of them, and badly), in the one that is called a victory, it's only such because his ass was saved by Stannis...I would give him a LITTLE leeway in Hardhome simply because his goals seemed to be "get the willings on side" which he achieved, but still....by the skin of his teeth and certainly not martial prowess or competent leadership. I mean, the character is written as "You know nothing Jon Snow"

As to how he feels about the Wall and the North? They produced the very best friends he's had his whole life (Edd, Sam, ect.), a father figure in place of his lost one (Lord Commander Mormont), and even a knowledgable grandfatherly character (Aemon) who it turns out was ACTUALLY his great-grandfather....as well as the love of his life (a wildling from north of the Wall) and he never wanted to come south for any other reason than to see his Stark family again. Perhaps it's more hammered home in the books? Jon Snow loves the North.

Well I've only read 1-2 books, and I don't remember much about them, except I got really tired of the writing, so my impressions are solely based on the show. I think Jon made what he could of a pretty horrible situation. I see it the other way around honestly - that if it was anyone else than him, they'd all be dead much quicker. But hey, that's me.

Quote

Quote

Also I always thought they would make him 'grow up' and realize he had to take the throne if they weren't going to descend into another war.

Who are 'they'? And come to that, why on earth does it have to fall to a guy who has stated more than once that he doesn't want it to "have" to take it? That seems to do Jon dirty to me. "Sorry old boy, you can't have the life you want, gotta be king because of whose seed you were made from!"

As far as ruling goes, Bran is a brilliant choice. He has literally no interest in power...so it won't corrupt him...and the last 3ER lived for a thousand years, so no need to worry about succession. I think Jon gets what he wants (AKA not the throne) and he knows his brother-cousin will rule well and justly simply be nature of him not having any aspect of avarice.

Bran and Jon has pretty much the same non-interest in power - Bran is a good choice because he's wise and knows stuff, sure. I just think they haven't been very clear in the show why he's a good choice - the people that have read the book knows a lot more I think. Personally I just think it was a boring choice. I have no doubt that Jon is happy about that, but it's still a fucking boring choice. IMO It would have been a lot more interesting if they had forced Jon to be king. Bran might be the 'best' choice, but the best choice is not always possible, so it feels very magical and unrealistic. But again, it comes down to HOW they get to that point. I'm personally not convinced with how they did that - my personal preferences aside.

Quote

Quote

I also disagree that nobody would want to see what they did beyond the wall - I have A LOT of questions regarding that.

Are they intrinsic to the story they just told you though...or is it just that you like him, so want to follow his choices after the series? Because I can certainly see the notion of wanting to see how Chandler and Monica raise the twins after the series ended, but I think it was fine to end Friends where it ended with regards to their characters...if that analogy tracks? [/]quote
I think the fact that he's the only character that I have any interest in has something to do with it, but I think we're all personally biased towards the characters we like or dislike. I gather you don't particularly like Jon?

Quote

Quote

Also I don't find it particularly 'happy', just sad.

Sad how? He's gone to the place he loved, is with his remaining friends (Tormund et al.), his wolf, and lives close to the rest of the people he loves (his family). I don't see that as sad. Killing Dany? Yeah, I guess that's sad...but I still feel he's been given the happiest ending he could be given.

But the show doesn't really 'show' he loves the North - I never really got that impression. To me he's been miserable pretty much all through the show. But yeah, it's how I feel, I can see how you'd think otherwise - there are things that are happy about it, like it could have been worse. I didn't really get a 'happy' feeling from that ending at all - he seemed very sad at the end, even if he smirked a little - he did seem more at peace though.

Quote

And yes, the world is grim....but if you've not read them, might I recommend the Dunk & Egg novellas? They really show you what the ASOIAF world can be when it's summer, and it's much more traditionally "medieval fantasy" filled with Fairs, and Jousts and happy journeying without the perpetual grimness that came about because of The Mad King, and Robert's Rebellion. Worth looking into.

The ASOIAF world was never my favorite. I didn't finish the books even. The writing just drove me nuts. What can I say.

[Gem Windcaster]

polishgenius, on 21 May 2019 - 05:00 PM, said:

Yeah John was originally written as a leader but the last few seassons he's shown himself to be an utter utter moron who shouldn't be trusted with anything.



Anyway, yeah, I don't have a real problem with Bran ending up the king in principle, it's just show Bran was terribly used, did almost nothing, and just randomly showed up at the end to get given the crown in a pathetically written 'council' scene. For all the flaws later books have had I have to believe GRRM can set it up better than that.

The very least we should have had was an entire other episode in between melting the throne and the council meeting in which Tyrion goes to work persuading people of that choice (along with showing all the other political arguments that needed to be settled as well as the arguments over Jon and Tyrion's fates).

Yes, it felt silly how everybody just went with it, it felt weird. Jon literally saved all of them from years and years of slaughter and war, and everybody just 'forgot' who he was and all he did to save them. He made a lot of mistakes, but he always tried to do the right thing and save people, which is more than most characters can boast - most of them only ever thought about themselves. And at least discuss the fact that Jon is the heir to the throne LMAO.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 21 May 2019 - 05:15 PM

[worry]

To be honest, if something like that had happened and she was essentially pulped but still alive, and he did it out of 'mercy' instead of vengeance or whatever, that would have been great (and heartbreaking and thematically resonant etc.).

[Gem Windcaster]

I like Tyrion's ending arc a lot - he's definitely one of the best written characters on the show.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

(AOC and Elizabeth Warren on the ending)
https://twitter.com/...864643063328768

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 21 May 2019 - 10:53 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'The ferocity of the debate is in itself a proof that the ideological stakes must be high
[...]

The finale combines the rejection of a radical change with an old anti-feminist motif at work in Wagner. For Wagner, there is nothing more disgusting than a woman who intervenes in political life, driven by the desire for power. In contrast to male ambition, a woman wants power in order to promote her own narrow family interests or, even worse, her personal caprice, incapable as she is of perceiving the universal dimension of state politics.

The same femininity which, within the close circle of family life, is the power of protective love, turns into obscene frenzy when displayed at the level of public and state affairs. Recall the lowest point in the dialogue of Game of Thrones when Daenerys tells Jon that if he cannot love her as a queen then fear should reign---the embarrassing, vulgar motif of a sexually unsatisfied woman who explodes into destructive fury.'

- Zizek

https://www.independ...KWUQzOQnGz5_e8Q

[Nicodimas]

Wow was this ever a terrible ending to a show.

Glad we got the books.

Glad we have Hollywood and will get a

Game of thrones: Brotherhood.


Alternatively I console myself thinking

Arya goes west to find west world.