Game of Thrones 2019

[BLPOG]

Huh? Did you not get that my post was a Star Wars thing? Benioff and Weiss are moving on from butchering Game Of Thrones to making the next few Star Wars films. Maybe they will be smart and will just follow a completed book series this time and make the Grand Admiral Thrawn trilogy (obviously, some changes necessary, but you know what I mean).

I understood it was a Star Wars thing. My point is that I don't think quality issues in this season are any more alarming than some in prior seasons, such as the terrible handling of the Dorne storyline. In fact (if memory serves) Disney brought on Benioff and Weiss after that point. Whoever are making those decisions either don't associate the decline in quality with those two, don't acknowledge a decline, or don't think it's terribly important.

[El_Diablo]

All the examples you cite are Danys killing folks who deserved it or who were opposed to her. In this case, she fried a city full of women and children for no reason. That's the big difference. When she burned the Golden Company, the Iron Fleet, or even the Red Keep that was perfectly fine. But there were 20 minutes of her turning moms with children in their arms into ash... on Mother's Day. That was a turn that was not developed into her character at all.

Maybe it says something about the viewer if he or she didn't find anything wrong with Dany's actions prior to the battle.

Remember when she burned one of the Mereneese nobles alive in Season 5? She had no proof that he had anything to do with the Sons of the Harpy. She just killed him to send a message, as a warning for other nobles to fall in line and do something to control the Sons of the Harpy.

She did the same thing with the Tarlys, killing them not in battle but after they had surrendered. Executing prisoners of war is not just a violation of the Geneva Convention in the real world but a big no-no in-universe. If you recall, Robb Stark executed Lord Karstark in Season 3 for killing the Lannister hostages (even though he knew it would cost him an ally).

Were you not troubled at all by those decisions, including a literal war crime?

Here is a somewhat prophetic exchange from Season 5:

Daenerys Targaryen: The "Mad King"? You're here to remind me of my enemies' lies? Consider me reminded.

Barristan Selmy: Your Grace. I served in his Kingsguard. I was at his side from the first. Your enemies did not lie.

Daenerys Targaryen: Go on.

Barristan Selmy: When the people rose in revolt against him, your father set their towns and castles aflame. He murdered sons in front of their fathers. He burned men alive with wildfire, and laughed as they screamed. And, his efforts to stamp out dissent led to a rebellion that killed every Targaryen, except two.

Daenerys Targaryen: I'm not my father.

Barristan Selmy: No, Your Grace. Thank the Gods. But the Mad King gave his enemies the justice he thought they deserved, and each time, it made him feel powerful and right...until the very end.

[BLPOG]

I guess I don't get why some people are upset/angry/shocked by Dany's turn to the dark side. It's been there from just about the first time we met her. She has always said that she will burn her enemies to the ground. She's been ruthless with people repeatedly (taking the rulers of Moreen and crucifying them, letting her dragons kill someone, gleefully watching as her brother was brutally killed, wanting to kill all the slave owners (Tyrion talked her into negotiating instead), etc, etc. THE point of this show is that power corrupts everyone (and that in the Game of Thrones, it is the innocents who really suffer, and the players could care less). The only people mostly immune to this are Tyrion and Jon, because their entire lives they have been treated as the "little" people. I always expected Dany to turn ruthless and evil. The disappointment would have been if she didn't.

Agreed.

I actually think her final descent to the dark side greatly improves the character as she exists in the prior seasons. I've been annoyed at the constant fawning adulation heaped on her in the show and by some fans. She has never been about "breaking the wheel" or any of that nonsense; she has always been about achieving power for herself and crushing anyone who stands in her way. She talks a good game when everything is going her way and she is getting what she wants, but is totally heartless and bloodthirsty if someone seeks to deny her what she views as hers by divine-right-of-I'm-the-magical-mother-of-dragons. People have selectively excised their memories of incidents in which she killed innocents; remember when she toasted some random guy in Mereen (?) just to make a point and intimidate the others assembled?

By moving Daenerys into firmly morally-abhorrent territory, it makes it easier to look back at the prior seasons and view her as more morally ambiguous, rather than the faux-righteousness the writers had started to give her. It makes her a much more interesting character. It turns a lot of otherwise trite blather about how she's the real change-you-can-believe-in into something more nuanced - the rationalizations of a tyrant and her administration.

Can you tell I have not been a fan of Ms. Stormborn?

Edit: El_Diablo sort of beat me to the point. I agree with him.

[El_Diablo]

It’s interesting...in the early going, I thought Varys was creepy and I saw him as a villain. It wasn’t until pretty late in the game that I realized he was one of the most honorable people in Westeros.

That's because he was, initially, but the showrunners simply picked up his character in Season 5 and threw it in the trash, starting over with him as someone who just cares about "the realm" and "the smallfolk." In Season 1, he was plotting with Illyrio Mopatis to plunge the kingdom into a war between the Starks and the Lannisters and to support an invasion of Westeros by Viserys and the Dothraki. Here is the scene (relevant dialogue starting around 50s in):



Okay, Varys. How, exactly, would provoking a massive war help the realm? How do you think the Dothraki horde would treat the smallfolk of Westeros under Khal Drogo and Viserys? How would Viserys on the Iron Throne be good for anyone? None of his earlier motivations make sense in-universe if he truly cared about the realm or the smallfolk. There actually is an explanation for his motivations in the books, but the showrunners cut a major plotline out (that would have started in Season 5) and thus had to retcon Varys at that point. The result is that what we have now is not really the same Varys we had then.

[Udaman]

Agreed.

I actually think her final descent to the dark side greatly improves the character as she exists in the prior seasons. I've been annoyed at the constant fawning adulation heaped on her in the show and by some fans. She has never been about "breaking the wheel" or any of that nonsense; she has always been about achieving power for herself and crushing anyone who stands in her way. She talks a good game when everything is going her way and she is getting what she wants, but is totally heartless and bloodthirsty if someone seeks to deny her what she views as hers by divine-right-of-I'm-the-magical-mother-of-dragons. People have selectively excised their memories of incidents in which she killed innocents; remember when she toasted some random guy in Mereen (?) just to make a point and intimidate the others assembled?

By moving Daenerys into firmly morally-abhorrent territory, it makes it easier to look back at the prior seasons and view her as more morally ambiguous, rather than the faux-righteousness the writers had started to give her. It makes her a much more interesting character. It turns a lot of otherwise trite blather about how she's the real change-you-can-believe-in into something more nuanced - the rationalizations of a tyrant and her administration.

Can you tell I have not been a fan of Ms. Stormborn?

Edit: El_Diablo sort of beat me to the point. I agree with him.

Obviously we are on the same page. And (again) this makes perfect sense when you look at what RR is trying to say (consistently) about power. It corrupts everything. Even people who at first want to do good, and who have a good heart. This why Jon Snow doesn't want it. It's also why, I think, Sansa would be just the same old thing. her comments about taking away a castle from the kids to punish their parents being a perfect example.

By the way, one edit I wish they had made with Dany last week. Have her fly up to the Red Keep, lock eyes with Cersei, and then start firebombing the city - basically saying "this is YOUR fault." When, of course, the decision to do it was all Danys (which again is RR's point - we try to blame everyone else for letting power corrupt us, but the blame is only our own).

[alteran]

That was a pretty brutal Mother's Day episode. Hadn't thought of that before. And yes, the jump to pure evil was a sudden leap. A longer Season 7 and 8 would have justified it more. But I always expected her to become evil. It's what power does.

Tywin was killed on Father’s Day.

[fuse]

Maybe it says something about the viewer if he or she didn't find anything wrong with Dany's actions prior to the battle.

Remember when she burned one of the Mereneese nobles alive in Season 5? She had no proof that he had anything to do with the Sons of the Harpy. She just killed him to send a message, as a warning for other nobles to fall in line and do something to control the Sons of the Harpy.

She did the same thing with the Tarlys, killing them not in battle but after they had surrendered. Executing prisoners of war is not just a violation of the Geneva Convention in the real world but a big no-no in-universe. If you recall, Robb Stark executed Lord Karstark in Season 3 for killing the Lannister hostages (even though he knew it would cost him an ally).

Were you not troubled at all by those decisions, including a literal war crime?

Here is a somewhat prophetic exchange from Season 5:

I agree in principle with your thoughts modern and imagined on war crimes.

What about “all is fair in love and war”? And (poorly paraphrased) “those who win write the history”?

Going super-meta, can a good person do bad things and still be a good person? Brienne thought so of Jaime. Not saying she is correct (about Jaime).

Is Sansa a bad person because she fed Ramsey to his hounds?
Is Theon a good person?
These character arcs playing in shades of grey are the most interesting in GoT.

There are a lot of supporting cast members that were one dimensional cardboard cutouts (Jorah, Daario, the Cleganes, the Tarlys, most of the Lannisters) that served a purpose.

I don’t think nuking King’s Landing with Drogon is in any way justifiable (although it made for some cool cinema).

[JasonEvans]

Here is a compilation of the cast of the show trying (failing) to hide their disgust at the way the final season has played out.

[fuse]

Here is a compilation of the cast of the show trying (failing) to hide their disgust at the way the final season has played out.

Geez. That was just flat out depressing.

[Highlander]

I think the most raw and realistic critique is the show was awesome when it had George RR Martin source material from which to create a show.

After the books ran out, others’ imaginations were not up to the task.

GRRM doesn’t owe me (or anyone) anything but largely the descent into poor fantasy tropes lies with his inability to write ahead of the pace of the show.

It would be fascinating to get an honest view of what he thinks of the show post published novels.

Great thread on Twitter talking about just this from Daniel Silvermint - https://twitter.com/dsilvermint/stat...261136896?s=21

In short he says stories are either told by "plotters" or "pantsers." Plotters create a detailed outline to start with and then fill in the details as the story evolves. JK Rowling is a great example of a plotter; she had the whole arc of the HP novels plotted before she wrote the first one, which is why the plot points largely fit together so neatly. Pantsers on the other hand plant the seeds of the story and see where it leads them. They constantly ask themselves "what would character X do in these circumstances?" and then move in that direction with no idea where they will end up. GRRM is one of the most famous pantsers ever, and has said he hates writing if he knows in advance how it will end.

Neither style is right or wrong, but they do have distinct advantages and disadvantages. Plotters know where the story is going, which can lead characters to behave in unusual ways in order to further the overall plot. If Character X is slated for a heel turn, one way or the other you have to make that happen. Pantsers don't have that particular challenge, and as a result their characters are much more consistent and believable in their actions. However, there's no neat bow at the end to tie things up.

HBO had wonderful source material to work with on character development, but GRRM really has no idea how its all supposed to end (because it's not). So there was a shift from pantsing to plotting around the end of season 6. The directors had a number of events that they needed to plot through (finish off the knight king, battle of King's Landing, Jon finds out about his past, Klegane-gate, etc.) and the remaining story became about making those scenes happen. Adding to the problem was the large number of characters who all needed to have neat bows put on their respective arcs. The result was an obvious shift in tone that the audience picked up on. So despite the fact they were getting the Klegane-gate battle they always wanted, it felt hollow.

Best of all? He did this entire thread all without spoilers!

[Lord Ash]

Huh? Did you not get that my post was a Star Wars thing? Benioff and Weiss are moving on from butchering Game Of Thrones to making the next few Star Wars films. Maybe they will be smart and will just follow a completed book series this time and make the Grand Admiral Thrawn trilogy (obviously, some changes necessary, but you know what I mean).

Do you mean the new Thrawn series, or the old one?

Thrawn has been pretty well established in Star Wars, at this point... I'd LOVE to see him get on the big screen.

[alteran]

None of his earlier motivations make sense in-universe if he truly cared about the realm or the smallfolk. There actually is an explanation for his motivations in the books, but the showrunners cut a major plotline out (that would have started in Season 5) and thus had to retcon Varys at that point. The result is that what we have now is not really the same Varys we had then.

Interesting.

I wonder if the wildly diverging views on Daenerys Stormborn factor on folks who are book fans versus folks who are HBO fans.

I think some folks are overselling the “Daenerys was always nutty” because in the books it was handled better and more clearly (not that the books get this far).

No one prior to this season, and not much before three episodes ago, talked about the impending madness of Daenerys, not even the folks in this thread talking about how obvious and clear it was based on in the show canon. Sure, there’s a number if instances of angry threats (“I will raze your cities!”) and horrible actions, but there’s a lot of counter examples— so many counter examples, in fact, that not only did the majority of the audience not see a hint of this coming and feel unconvinced, but many even did things like admirably naming their daughters after Dany.

Only three episodes ago, Dany risked casting aside her dreams of power to save the most godforsaken part of the seven kingdoms (oops, second most godforsaken, forgot about Pyke). Now she’s burning fleeing innocents in Kings Landing in the streets because Jon Snow dumped her.

I’d be curious if the percentage of people who saw this coming all along for many seasons are mostly book readers. My gut tells me a lot of the arc that makes this seem reasonable is contained there, and not in the show.

[Lord Ash]

Interesting.

I wonder if the wildly diverging views on Daenerys Stormborn factor on folks who are book fans versus folks who are HBO fans.

I think some folks are overselling the “Daenerys was always nutty” because in the books it was handled better and more clearly (not that the books get this far).

No one prior to this season, and not much before three episodes ago, talked about the impending madness of Daenerys, not even the folks in this thread talking about how obvious and clear it was based on in the show canon. Sure, there’s a number if instances of angry threats (“I will raze your cities!”) and horrible actions, but there’s a lot of counter examples— so many counter examples, in fact, that not only did the majority of the audience not see a hint of this coming and feel unconvinced, but many even did things like admirably naming their daughters after Dany.

Only three episodes ago, Dany risked casting aside her dreams of power to save the most godforsaken part of the seven kingdoms (oops, second most godforsaken, forgot about Pyke). Now she’s burning fleeing innocents in Kings Landing in the streets because Jon Snow dumped her.

I’d be curious if the percentage of people who saw this coming all along for many seasons are mostly book readers. My gut tells me a lot of the arc that makes this seem reasonable is contained there, and not in the show.

I've seen people suggest that Dany was a bit bland (as is Emilia Clarke) so that people could project their own thoughts/feelings upon her... that might explain how so many people love her, even though, if you look at what she has done, she has done some pretty terrible stuff.

[alteran]

Great thread on Twitter talking about just this from Daniel Silvermint - https://twitter.com/dsilvermint/stat...261136896?s=21

In short he says stories are either told by "plotters" or "pantsers." Plotters create a detailed outline to start with and then fill in the details as the story evolves. JK Rowling is a great example of a plotter; she had the whole arc of the HP novels plotted before she wrote the first one, which is why the plot points largely fit together so neatly. Pantsers on the other hand plant the seeds of the story and see where it leads them. They constantly ask themselves "what would character X do in these circumstances?" and then move in that direction with no idea where they will end up. GRRM is one of the most famous pantsers ever, and has said he hates writing if he knows in advance how it will end.

Neither style is right or wrong, but they do have distinct advantages and disadvantages. Plotters know where the story is going, which can lead characters to behave in unusual ways in order to further the overall plot. If Character X is slated for a heel turn, one way or the other you have to make that happen. Pantsers don't have that particular challenge, and as a result their characters are much more consistent and believable in their actions. However, there's no neat bow at the end to tie things up.

HBO had wonderful source material to work with on character development, but GRRM really has no idea how its all supposed to end (because it's not). So there was a shift from pantsing to plotting around the end of season 6. The directors had a number of events that they needed to plot through (finish off the knight king, battle of King's Landing, Jon finds out about his past, Klegane-gate, etc.) and the remaining story became about making those scenes happen. Adding to the problem was the large number of characters who all needed to have neat bows put on their respective arcs. The result was an obvious shift in tone that the audience picked up on. So despite the fact they were getting the Klegane-gate battle they always wanted, it felt hollow.

Best of all? He did this entire thread all without spoilers!

Great post. I’m going to have to cogitate on this one for awhile.

It kind of dovetails with a personal theory about GRRM— that he’s not finishing the books because he’s lost his nerve. He has no idea how to dig out of the hole his brilliant story is in, and anything he does will make it (and, by extension, him) less brilliant.

[Udaman]

Viewership off the charts.

https://m.ign.com/articles/2019/05/1...d-episode-ever

[JasonEvans]

I wonder if the wildly diverging views on Daenerys Stormborn factor on folks who are book fans versus folks who are HBO fans.

I think some folks are overselling the “Daenerys was always nutty” because in the books it was handled better and more clearly (not that the books get this far).

These comments about the books made me think...

If the TV show was being done as a book this season, we probably would have gotten 3 or 4 lines of Dany's thoughts when Tormund and others are praising Jon Snow for riding a dragon during the White Walker victory dinner. We likely would have had a few paragraphs on the rage and anger in Dany's mind at Rhaegon and Missandei's deaths. And we might have had an entire chapter of the wild emotions running through her head as those bells rung and she realized both that she had won and that none of her suffering and loss had been avenged.

But, on the TV show, all we get is 2-4 seconds of Emilia Clarke's confused/sad/angry face. I'm not blaming Clarke, just pointing out the limitations of the medium when it comes to knowing what is in someone's head.

[Wander]

Tywin was killed on Father’s Day.

Man, I will never forgive a certain DBR poster who posted a few hours before that episode "Looking forward to a special father's day episode tonight!" or something like that. It immediately gave away exactly what would happen.

I strongly agree with Udaman's take on Dany. I'd advise JE and others who think the burning of King's Landing was not believable to try to come up with historical examples in real wars when people very intentionally attacked and destroyed civilians targets, including examples perpetrated by a side we (justifiably) view as the "good guys".

[kAzE]

Game of Thrones v8.5 Patch Notes:

Scorpion accuracy -100%, reload speed - 500
Dragon evasion, durability, & firepower x 5000%
Khaleesi state of mind -9999999
Dothraki & Unsullied respawn rate = ∞
Jamie redemption questline reset to stage 0
Arya invincibility not a bug, working as intended

[bundabergdevil]

I guess I don't get why some people are upset/angry/shocked by Dany's turn to the dark side. It's been there from just about the first time we met her. She has always said that she will burn her enemies to the ground. She's been ruthless with people repeatedly (taking the rulers of Moreen and crucifying them, letting her dragons kill someone, gleefully watching as her brother was brutally killed, wanting to kill all the slave owners (Tyrion talked her into negotiating instead), etc, etc. THE point of this show is that power corrupts everyone (and that in the Game of Thrones, it is the innocents who really suffer, and the players could care less). The only people mostly immune to this are Tyrion and Jon, because their entire lives they have been treated as the "little" people.

Wait, Tyrion and Jon had it WORSE than the girl abused by her brother and sold into a rapey-kind of marriage who then led her people out of the desert? Jon was shunned by Catelyn and Tyrion’s family hated him (sans Jaime) but of those three, she is the only one whose life experience remotely qualifies them to understand how the strong abuse the weak. Unclear how anyone could arrive at a separate conclusion there based on what we saw Dany go through.

[fuse]

Great post. I’m going to have to cogitate on this one for awhile.

It kind of dovetails with a personal theory about GRRM— that he’s not finishing the books because he’s lost his nerve. He has no idea how to dig out of the hole his brilliant story is in, and anything he does will make it (and, by extension, him) less brilliant.

Is it ego driven or personality driven?

Regardless of medium, someone took his unfinished story and finished it.

One of the quotes attributed to GRRM up thread was writing when he already knew the ending was boring to him- he writes the characters to discover the journey.

Since we’re mixing Star Wars and GoT, I’d say GRRM has got a case of the Padme lost the will to live (write more books). My apologies, I groaned while typing this.