John Meta

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About John Meta

  • Rank
  1. Anything is possible, but I think it was strongly hinted that the magic of the CotF was broken when Bran passed through the Wall. It was set up in the cave scene where once Bran was touched the magic wards which kept the Night King out were broken. Once Bran passed through the Wall, it was only then that the dragon would be useful for taking down the actual physical wall. So for all intents and purposes, what actually took down the wall was Bran's passage through it. I do think it is somewhat of a "ruse" (but not technically) in that he knew he had to pass through it in order to set in motion a chain of events which would culminate it the dawn.
  2. Find his motivation which will expose his weakness then exploit it. Easy. Also act like you have a plan so when it's over you can take all the credit.
  3. How do you determine when something is "fanservice"? I see people using words like "fanservice" "fanfiction" "deus ex machina" "plot hole" (as well as many others) and I propose that people using these words don't actually know what they mean. And how do you determine "inconsistent" in a character with a range of behavior? Is Rob Stark "inconsistent" when he married the foreign woman after vowing to take one of Frey's daughters? Is Ned Stark "inconsistent" for trusting Littlefinger? That is how the faceless assassins operate, by taking faces to be able to disguise themselves. Arya is really no more or less "psycho" than virtually anyone else in the story who kills people. How is this "inconsistent" with her character, who has a list of people to kill and has trained as a faceless assassin? You have access to the minds of the writers in order to explain this? Obviously not, so how can you even make the claim? Varys explained his reasoning when talking to Tyrion in that very scene - he was there when the Starks were burned alive, and it has haunted him. Do you see the correlation between a father and son being burned alive, and, a father and son being burned alive? The dragon wasn't on fire, and wasn't breathing fire at Sandor. He's afraid of fire because he was burned by fire, and now has a fear of situations where he can be burned. Honestly, I've read threads and watched videos where people talk about how bad the writing on the show is, and in the end I've come to the confident conclusion that the writing on the show is fine, the real problem is with a percentage of the audience which cannot understand what they're watching, and have trouble connecting and correlating information which is being given to them along a plotted timeline. So really, "This show has bad writing" translates into "I cannot understand or correlate information being given to me along a plotted timeline": it's basically become statements about the self, and not about the writing.
  4. I'll say that watching the scene, Cersei's drama with Jon I wouldn't claim to be "fake". The expressions she's making is clearly showing, embarassment, wounding and anger. If I were to speculate, it looks like Cersei came out with full intent of making an honest truce. This would be based on Jon acknowledging her request to stay out of the fight, which would be an indirect honoring of her as his "queen" and a respect of her wishes, and an act of fealty to her rule. When Jon says, "I cannot serve two queens" he basically embarasses her, wounds her and angers her all in one fell swoop. Truce is off. Now she's going on emotion and impulse, both having to be restrained in the presence of Dany's show of force. Next, Tyrion approaches and she decides to tell them what they want to hear just to get them off her doorstep. So it progresses from "I will accept truce" to "Screw you and your truce" to "Just go away now to the north" Euron's going to get the Golden Company was always a secret move, truce or no truce. Now, I can't be sure this is exactly the inner workings of Cersei's mind because we don't have that information and, frankly I don't think it's even necessary. All we know is what we're shown and it's all we need to know. At any rate, Cersei is volatile, impulse-based, and chaotic. Her actions reflect this. All of these characters are flawed, and realistic, and make gargantuan errors; just like real people do. You want to know why Jon Snow went to capture a wight? Dany answered that directly in a scene: because he's an idiot trying to prove he's more hero than Jorah. Dany plainly explained why Jon went to do such an "stupid" thing, and Jon even admitted he was sorry he ever went there.
  5. It doesn't matter, how; those machinations would be something only Littlefinger's manipulative mind would've been weaving. The point being that Littlefinger brought up the idea to use Brienne. The next scene, Sansa is sending Brienne away. So we go from Littlefinger "we can try to draw Brienne into this" to Sansa sending her away.
  6. Okay, and putting Geoffrey on the throne isn't insane? Blowing up the Sept isn't insane? I'm still wondering why you expect flawless reasonable actions to come from a person who, as you state below, has been sufficiently demonstrated to be "unhinged" Where did you get that definition of "bad writing"? Are you meaning to say that ever time a character doesn't act with precision logic, it is "bad writing"? Do you think that Cersei and Jamie having sex in Winterfell in a tower instead of behind closed, locked doors in season 1 was "bad writing"? Jamie pushing Bran from the tower "bad writing"? Because these are both insane actions; the nadir of illogic. Pretty much the entire story of GoT is riddled with characters doing the most irrational things, which things forward the plot. Pretty much describes not only every story ever written, but reality as well. Is everything under the sun "bad writing"?
  7. This thread has me wondering about irrational actions by characters in a story. When I read the initial post, I thought about it for a few minutes, then came to the conclusion that there's no way for me to know what's going on in Cersei's mind. I don't know her thoughts, so can't actually form any kind of judgment on the rationality of her actions. But that in turn made me wonder, should characters in stories always act in extremely consistent logical fashion? Should characters always be expected to perform and think and act as though the are mental giants incapable of even a hint of poor judgment; characters whose logic is always flawless as a computer? I think about people and generals and kings in our real history who made the worst decisions, enacted the most irrational plans, and judged in the most incompetent fashion. Since this thread is about Cersei, it brings to mind discussions I've had where I said "She has lost her mind" and I was not being facetious. When Cersei blew up the Sept, I thought "She is the Mad Queen". So I'm not sure what her plans are here, I don't have access to her actual inner thoughts; but if a person says "Why is she is acting and thinking like an irrational person" (as some in the thread propose) I feel like seriously responding "Because she's flipping insane, where have you been the past seven seasons?" And I'm not meaning to be, offensive by saying that, it's just a counterquestion of "You think this character is rational?" But again, the larger question is, why does every decision made by every character have to be forged in the flaming fires of searing logic? People in other threads have defended having characters die with unresolved character arcs as "realistic" and not "bad writing" (and I won't argue they're wrong as long as we're using the same criteria for determination), but then, isn't it "realistic" to have many instances of characters making poor decisions, acting illogically based on impulsive natures borne out of emotion, and not out of reason? If every character's actions and thoughts were always based on the precision logic of emotionless computing machines, isn't that about as "unrealistic" as a story could be? Do you see what I'm saying?
  8. Sure that's all possible, I agree. Personally I would always contest a "birthright" claim. I'd be arguing the whole way with Dany "Says who? How does you being the offspring of some person allow you to claim rulership over anything? This is all nonsense, your entire mission is based on a subjective philosophy that has no meaning in reality. It's all a scam!" But I'm sure no one will bring it up in the show.
  9. I agree that it's probable the Night King knows dragons are around through some connection with the fire aspect of the dragons. But practically speaking (if it's just a practical lure, not based on greensight) then for him to set a trap actually anticipating that Dany will risk showing up with dragons to rescue a half dozen men? If I were there I'd be saying, "Bad idea. This is really improbable. This is not a good strategy at all. I doubt your command decisions. You are banking on incredible odds." then after it was over he would probably smirk at me and I'd still reply "So she showed up; still doesn't mean your strategy was sound. It was a terrible strategy that miraculously paid off. So wipe that smirk off your face."
  10. I'd think it's just dragonfire that's blue because of whatever animation force makes wights causes color to go to blue.
  11. I think that's brilliant, and would be immensely satisfied with the irony Cersei would have to face up to in such a situation. And since the army of the dead can do a forced march with no need of ever stopping or resting, they could be there in no time, before any human forces could arrive (except maybe the Golden Company since they would be travelling by ship - but they would just be more fodder for the army to conscript). Cersei would find herself in a tight spot; I would relish it. Oh imagine if she ends up having to send ravens to Winterfell begging Jon and Dany to help her. Jon is like "Knock, knock" Cersei "Who's there?" Jon "Ben" Cersei "Ben who?" Jon "Ben D. Knee" (I got that joke from someone else but it's still funny) But she'd probably explode King's Landing before any of that. Maybe that's what will happen is the have to send a bomb-diffusal team south to stop the city from being exploded by Cersei. Exactly my line of thought with the "trap" theory. How does Night King even know about Dany and her dragons, and even if he does know there's no practical way the Night King would know Dany would show with her dragons. That isn't a trap, it is the worst and most illogical gambit even conceived. He has to either have greensight, or, communicating with someone who does. Agreed.
  12. Oh wow so there actually is a missing scene. Okay that makes perfect sense now. Well I guess that's it. Case closed. Thanks for the replies, all.
  13. It's not the trial scene, per se; I am talking about what has transpired in the episodes prior to this (and even some scenes prior to the trial scene). Some people hypothesized Arya was playing Littlefinger the whole time. Was she? I suspected that Sansa had figured out that Littlefinger was playing Arya (when she sent Brienne away, it seemed to me she did so so Littlefinger couldn't use her against Arya) and was turning the tables on him. But, was she? I still don't know. When was the truth made known to them? How?
  14. That is a good point. So clearly Arya was in the know at the trial itself. Good call. But what I'm really wondering about is, prior to this did Arya know; was she on to Littlefinger? Did Sansa know? Did she suspect? Was she playing Littlefinger? or did 3ER basically roll in and say "Littlefinger is playing the both of you, here are his crimes - now get him so I can get back to me visionings i got important stuff to do here"
  15. I feel it was the right decision to not ruin the surprise of Sansa charging Littlefinger, but surely there could have been some clarity brought after the death of Littlefinger. Something like, when Arya and Sansa were together at the end, an exchange of dialogue Arya saying "How did you know?" "Bran." or Sansa saying "When did you suspect him?" "When he left the message in the most obvious place." Anything just to clarify what actually transpired. I do agree it was a great scene.