Pink Fat Rast

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Pink Fat Rast

  • Rank
    Hedge Knight
  1. Well LF was there for Sansa, on Sansa's request - not just him, but Sweetrobin and the orders he gave. Would the Vale army just "accept" Jon's refusal? And if not, would Jon stupidly started fighting the Vale army? Very implausible. Already addressed - if he heard that from Sansa, Sansa also could've told them that LF's original reasoning was for her to undermine the Boltons from within... somehow, and then possibly get crushed by Stannis. That could've reduced his protest. That might even make the most sense as a theory - he might've feared another "Locke scenario" (though he didn't find out the truth about that one), or Sansa might've thought that he feared that. However, that would then mean that Sansa didn't trust Jon to trust Littlefinger, which... is something else entirely. Also, the Blackfish was never under LF's influence, why omit that too? Seems like there's a pattern and it's got nothing to do with distrusting LF and his army's allegiances. Well, getting help from a huge army could've reduced the amount of "fighting". However, it's also possible that he's now prone to getting entrenched in whatever he's doing - maybe a side effect of death? In that case, maybe he got a bit reckless and suicidal and just wanted to face the bigger Bolton army already instead of the endless talking and planning. I don't know, somewhat consistent with his behavior but I think there isn't much more. Well, just the general idea of "he plays with people and will try to make you do something he wants" + "they've got Rickon and he's probably doomed" = "hey he could do a hostage thing, what do you think is a list of things he could do"? Common sense - they should've had more than just one debate/briefing. Especially after getting arrogant and angry and losing track of their discussion - definitely should've calmed down and then tried again.
  2. Btw something I forgot to mention, there's a possibility that the notion that her agenda might end up having a bit of an edge to it was actually implied by the score, i.e. in the ending sequence. 3 minutes of sunshine, optimism and spiritual elation, but then in the last 5 seconds when the camera goes for the final scenic zoom out and eventually the screen turns black, the tone suddenly turns more sinister and then ends on a note of worry and uncertainty. Might be meaningless and just something the composer came up with, but could also be, well, meaningful - no proof, but might be a potential clue ; - )
  3. I don't understand the nature or extent of those "trust issues" in the first place. Based on some of the editing/music choices, I could imagine that they've made this a deliberate mystery rather than a plot hole (and don't want people to think it's a mystery) - that's being optimistic with a bit of basis to it, but either way I'm pretty sure the motivation isn't in the show; trying to figure out if there might be at least something amounting to clues.
  4. aha Depends on the type of the complaint - if it's for example "Tht. Daenerys has no edges", and my counter is that yes, she does have edges and the ranter should pay more attention next time, then no, that wouldn't make me "pro-Daenerys" (maybe pro-Daenerys-scenes if I think they're better than they claim, but that's something else entirely). They get a lot of facts wrong over there, and their value judgements can be quite confusing as well: for example if the show adds "edge" to a character or scenario then that's bad juvenile cynicism, but if it reduces said edge then it's bad Hollywood Fanfiction. Personally I'd prefer as much moral ambiguity and confusion in this show as possible - so Jon's S5 arc was a huge missed opportunity in that regard, and if S7 goes for good two shoes Jonarys as some fear, it'll be yet another.
  5. She trusted Jon to keep her safe at the Wall - the trust issue was limited to LF.
  6. Hm, what would Jon have done, fought the Vale army? Would LF just turn around and go away even though they were there officially for Sansa? Also what would've happened, in her mind, if she'd said "LF told about Blackfish" - would Jon have refused to work with Blackfish then? What reason did she have to be concerned about that? Jon started out by saying he was "done fighting" - sure he'd have less fighting to do with the Vale army to sweep over the enemy? He thought because he'd fought the Wildlings, he was prepared for Ramsay's devious games? And Sansa didn't proceed to challenge him on that? And she hadn't thought of Ramsay using Rickon even though she was warning him about his games? Davos and Tyrion have always been quite reasonable people to begin with - I doubt they'd spend too much time being angry over Blackwater; they might have slightly different opinions on the whole red priest thing, but no major butting heads in sight either.
  7. As far as specifically Daenerys vs. Stark conflicts, the only way I can think of right at this point is if all those Red Priests take some issue with Bran's greenseeing / weirwood / CotF and start insisting that R'hllor has the correct solutions and answers to the threat rather than the "false Old Gods" - despite it being the other way around, most probably. As far as generally how could thinks develop in a somewhat less predicted manner: Probably something like different human factions trying to use the WWs to their advantage or finding some kind of way to control them or make a pact with them (i.e. like Craster, or maybe a Dead Man's Chest kind of thing) - not just Cersei or Euron, but neutral or "good parties" as well: Olenna could be tempted to use it against Cersei, the Warlocks to increase their power again; LF might prefer "ruling in hell to serving in relative heaven", and on it goes. Then a large part of "the end game" might end up consisting of humans fighting and plotting over WW control, those trying to "get good with the Gods" and finally those trying to destroy them as initially expected. Things could get messy if someone did an incantation and made the WWs invulnerable to dragonglass and fire etc. So that kind of situation could turn anyone into a zealot, and Daenerys the "fire queen" probably most of all - kinda hard to predict specifics though, if all that were to happen.
  8. Yeah! *Christ Rock gif* Drogo did nothing wrong. Uh, sure, okay It's a nice city. hm I came here to fight RRRRanters who complain about the showrunners worshipping St. Daenerys too much, among other issues - now I'm confused... The Throne was his by right.
  9. If the gray's gonna be cleared away, why have it there the whole time in the first place? Nah, keep it complicated till the end kthnx
  10. If "will fly" refers to riding a dragon, then by that logic he also "walked" whenever being carried by Hodor.Or, in fact, whenever he warged into Hodor or the wolf.But Raven said he won't ever walk again - so yeah, flying means something else. Maybe literally on his own, or something less literal.
  11. That was alright, but indiscriminately crucifying the masters was neither just nor pragmatic. Threatening to feed them to the dragons later on was, because she was demonstratively aware of some of them being innocent and it was to stop the terrorists. But the crucifixions were Dany's characteristic "blind justice" - i.e. the same impulse that drives an angry mob to lynch innocents while believing they're lynching murderers: angry, self-righteous, too reckless and driven to check properly. She didn't realize not all of them guilty (and neither did Selmy, apparently) until Hizdahr(?) told her. Not very pragmatic either, since that stunt must've contributed a lot to the Harpy insurgency... Maybe at some point the Dothraki and the wildlings were the same - but it looks like Mance (along with Tormund and whoever else) stirred them in a more noble direction, and he wanted to put a stop to the "raiding and killing" after crossing the Wall. They were driven primarily by survival, and secondarily by resentment against the crows and sutheners who were keeping them out - especially now that their existence is threatened by demons. It's questionable how noble Drogo could've ended up had he not dropped dead - shortly before he did so, he was still condoning unnecessary mass rape even though he agreed to put a halt to it to please his wife. Rape and pillage is in the very Dothraki culture and religion, and they hadn't been neutered yet like the Ironborn - I'm not aware of the same applying to most Wildlings, they were just generally savage and violent and warring with each other etc. but raiding and raping wasn't an inherent part of their "culture" was it? Hating the Crows sure, but that's about it. So under normal circumstances, Drogo probably couldn't have stirred his tribe away from that without losing his position - under slightly more messianic circumstances, if they had born their Stallion and started to unite all the Khalasars and whatnot, who knows; apparently they were awed enough by D's fire trick to turn at least slightly less evil, so who knows. But then Drogo died, and the dude from S6 didn't seem particularly benign, so yea - the Dothraki in S1-6, much worse than wildlings; the new Dothraki under Daenerys' leadership, maybe now comparable to wildlings under Mance's and now Jon's. Or.... at least MORE comparable - they're stilll out for glory and conquest, unlike the freefolk. No one's saying that she isn't "grey at worst" - however, causing massive damage in the euphoric belief you're doing good and restoring justice, can be a very dangerous thing, and in fact an evil thing in the eyes of those affected. So I'd say to herself she might appear as "light grey" (realizing her methods to be slightly... epic, but all in a good just cause and necessary), while in some others she'd be seen as "dark grey" - a horrible destructive tyrant who, in her own mind, thinks she's doing good. But that depends on her behavior in S7, I'm just saying that's the worst case scenario. 1) Burned isn't comparable to hanging. Though I guess clean beheading is even better. 2) Yes - she took direct revenge against Drogo; that's comparable to Olly killing Tormund or something (even though Tormund had a more ethical motivation in the first place). I bet even if he killed Ygritte in Jon's arms while she wasn trying to shoot him while they were on opposing sides of a battle, Jon still wouldn't have executed him - and if he had, it wouldn't have been brutal but at least then it would've started being comparable. Also: Olly was told, TWICE, about the necessity to make peace with the wildlings. There was never a "necessity" for Drogorys to invade Westeros in the first place, she didn't come up Mirri and said "look, I know Drogo burned down your village a month ago, but he was scared of the ghost grass and now the ghost grass is on its way here - please understand, and don't kill my baby out of revenge if that's possible he's prophsized to eat all the grass, saving YOU from it as well". You mean magi? Uh, I dunno, have any of them sheep people done anything bad anywhere? She went quite a bit further in her "break the wheel" speech. However, she showed willingness to moderate herself after learning Aerys was a tyrant => Baratheons maybe not so bad for eliminating him, etc. The question at this point is, is she gonna continue on this, uh, more enlightened path provided by her various advisors, or are the zeal and glory going to take over again? She shows some dangers of slipping. Jon probably wouldn't be particularly tempted to "kill all the Lannisters" after befriending Tyrion - though I'd prefer if he did and then someone had to bang heads with him over his hypocrisy with the wildlings; we've got enough noble heroes elsewhere, I want more juicy grey shades in my game of thrones. She was Stockholm-deluded into thinking that killing her beloved warlord invader and the prophesized super-invader in her womb was an utterly evil act - as was the audience, that's why she appeared as sympathetic when getting back at Mirri, even though objectively it's the other way around. Has she shown regrets about that after she's gained power and freedom? Or I guess it hasn't been brought up by anyone. Even though that she's "taken them as allies", or followers even, her motivation is still glory rather than something noble - or, rather, it's primarily the former, but she's convinced the latter plays a big role and the two could end up being in conflict later on. That was a noble cause, yep. However, Westeros isn't enslaved atm - depending on how tyrannical Cersei's gonna be, anyway; the Tyrant in the North had just been defeated, and Dorne/Reach seem fine for now. No one said "absolute bitch", but for some more nuance see the breakdowns above^^^^ 1) Boltons = asshats; Westeros on its whole, not so much. 2) Daenerys has shown self-righteous recklessness even in pursuit of the "noble" cause, i.e. freeing the slaves and crucifying a bunch of masters who were innocent (probably). And taking back Westeros is even less of a clear-cut issue than slave cities - HOWEVER, the way things are right now, if she stays allied with the good Starks, the good Tyrells, the "good" Martell/Sands (at least in the sense they seem not to be going after their population), and Yara's Ironborn, all of whom support her claim to the throne, while opposing Cersei (with nuance even, judging by the leaks) and Euron's Ironborn; and makes sure neither the Dothraki nor her red priests get to apply their glorious ways to the wrong people... then I'd say the better angels of her nature are bound to prevail - or, in fact, even avoid temptation altogether. ... ..... Let's see how that'll work out
  12. The most interesting thing about the sansa/jon argument is that it's a few words of leaked script dialogue lol
  13. That's just what Jon and Sansa think, they don't know all the things he's been up to.
  14. "Shock" deaths