• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jabul

  1. After viewing part 2 of PJ's version, my opinion hasn't changed. It's an improvement over the HBO version of Season 7. However, I still don't buy the betrayals of Pod and Lady Nym. I don't like the idea of continuing LF's power. Getting rid of him sooner (HBO version) instead of later (PJ version) is preferable. I say that it was plot armor that allowed him to survive as long as he did.
  2. The Main Idea: How would you rewrite Season 7 to make the war in the south more plausible? Obviously, this presupposes that you believe that the war, as presented by HBO, is hard, perhaps impossible, to believe in. A good many posters say this. I have read several posts along the lines of “In a well-written story, Cersei wouldn’t have lasted more than one episode.” There is a thread entitled “The War makes no sense,” started by Tyrion 1991. In the current thread, we will follow on from the premise that things need to be, and could be, improved. If you wish to simply criticize or defend Season 7, please refrain from posting here. You can go to the above-named thread or start your own. As an example of what I’m talking about, we have this from Count Balerion in Tyrion 1991’s thread: “I had a vague thought for a more plausible scenario, where Dany apparently wins KL, but ... what are these mysterious murders that keep taking place? Could someone EVIL be lurking somewhere in the Red Keep, weaving an insidious web of murder and torture? What's that screaming in the dungeon?” I’m willing to bend the rules a little. If you feel that Season 7 is hopeless as it stands, you can go a little ways back into Season 6 and make some changes. Perhaps Prince Doran stays in power, and Dorne stays out of the war. Maybe Cersei manages to get rid of the High Septon and reduce the power of the Sparrows without blowing up the Great Sept of Baelor. Finally, you can have Cersei lose the war and die in one or two episodes. What happens then?
  3. Some good ideas here. Yes, the basic idea of Tarly turning his coat wasn't bad. The way the show runners developed the idea was absurd: All of the lords who come to KL from the Reach go over to the Lannister side. Or at least most of them do, and the others fail to inform Highgarden about the matter. Then the Lannister/Reach forces move across most of a continent, taking, say, three weeks or so, and Olenna and her people are taken completely by "surprise." This is nonsense. Your way, with some of Dany's forces doing highly unpleasant freelance work and turning a substantial part of Westeros back to Cersei would be much more believable, much more in tune with the way things work in the universe created in the first few seasons. Some of the lords of the Reach might well remain loyal to Highgarden, and the Queen of Thorns would still be alive. I'd say that one reason (likely the main one) that the story wasn't developed this way is that things would remain quite complicated. D & D wanted to finish things up. They felt pressed to streamline the narrative, get rid of characters, eliminate the need for scenes in the Reach and Dorne. They sacrificed logic to achieve this streamlining. Some good ideas here too. Once again, there is a conflict between streamlining and maintaining the logic of the narrative. If you had a society like Westeros which had suffered the kind of conflict portrayed in GoT, things would be incredibly messy. Lots of nobles would decide to take a sort of Tywin Lannister option. They'd want to wait and see which side was winning. Some of these lords would be in the Westerlands, and this would reduce the power of the Lannisters. Also, order would break down badly in a good many regions. The Brotherhood without Banners wouldn't just magically turn into three or four guys heading north to fight the White Walkers. There would be gangs of outlaws and broken men raiding farms and villages. The mountain tribes, with the superior armaments provided by the Lannisters, would wreak havoc over a wide area...In all, things would go to hell. This could create some interesting stories, but it would require a hell of a lot of episodes to pull the whole thing together.
  4. Interesting. Thanks for sharing this. I'll have a few comments later.
  5. My continued enjoyment of the show is a matter of some interest to me. One factor is a sort of inertia. I really liked the first few seasons, the latter seasons less so. Nevertheless, I still found value in many elements. Also, I had become invested in some of the characters and situations. I want to see how things turn out. There's a feeling of "I've come this far, so I'll keep going on." I'll watch season eight, in part to see how the show runners bring the story to an end. I may not like the ending, but I want to know what it is. This is not the only reason I maintain an interest in GoT, but it's part of it.
  6. After thinking about the Qyburn business, I find myself liking it even more. Do some of the things we discussed earlier--manage to depose the High Septon and replace him with a friendlier figure. This could keep the Tyrells in a position of power and thus in opposition to Daenerys, though still in conflict with the queen mother. Develop weapons like the ballistas and wildfire in a more plausible manner. This would make the odds more even. Then the warlocks come back into the picture. The show, unlike the books, just dropped them. However, even in the show it's apparent that the power of the warlocks has not gone to zero. Remember the little girl in Astapor? The show only used her as a gimmick to bring Barristan into Dany's service. We could do a lot more. Imagine a scene where Qyburn is talking about how to counter the dragon threat. He says that attacking the dragon rider is a possible counter measure. Then he brings in a young girl with a little ball that looks familiar to us. We could also have a scene in one of the torture chambers where Qyburn employs a crawling ugly-looking little scorpion-like device that is also familiar to us. Finally, Ser Creep tells his allies that words and spells are important. There is one word, "Dracarys," that looms large in the current conflict. He is looking into the matter. Perhaps there is some word or spell that will negate the power of Dany's command.
  7. Hmm, Qyburn as a warlock. Yeah, that could work. I don't think the show will go that way, but the idea is interesting. I had a somewhat similar idea. A character in the know in KL (perhaps Jaime) looks at the queen's advisor and says, "If those dead guys get down here, whose side will Ser Creep be on? I wouldn't count on his loyalty. He'll likely go over to the other side."
  8. Good ideas from the PJ video: The landing in Dorne makes sense. It's a lot better to have the scorpions developed in a reasonable manner instead of somehow quickly invented by a torture expert. Bringing in the wildfire makes the Lannister forces more formidable. Sending a secret letter to Lord Tarly is better than the throne scene we get in the official Season 7. On the other hand: I don't buy the Lady Nym betrayal. The Pod betrayal is hard to even understand. What would be his motivation? Littlefinger as a continuing player? Nah, one thing that Season 7 got right was eliminating this guy. As the story progressed, his always successful Rube Goldberg machines became harder and harder to accept. The Winterfell scenes were not well done, but the basic move of getting rid of Baelish was good. Some things that can't be fixed by simply rewriting Season 7: Yes, Dany's program is vague. Perhaps it's an expanded version of noblesse oblige or a sort of undeveloped belief that the Mother of Dragons will be a philosopher queen. The fleets business is a big problem. One of the reasons that the criticism of "deus ex Euron" is on point is that there are no house fleets, no royal fleet, etc. Why not?
  9. I stated a thread entitled "A More Plausible War." A discussion of the above video would fit into my thread. If anyone is interested, you can use the link below. http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/148777-a-more-plausible-war/
  10. 1. It's listed on E01--a mistake on my part. I started some other threads, but that was a long time ago, and the system was a bit different. I should have put this under E07. Don't know how much difference that would have made, but it might have made a little. 2. The Preston Jacob's version of Season 7 is an improvement. I don't agree with all of it either, but it does have some interesting possibilities.
  11. Well, that's an improvement over the Season 7 we were given. Euron's motivation is, to put it mildly, strange. He was all ready to sail off to Essos and pledge fealty to the dragon queen. Then, a couple of his relatives stole some ships, and he decided that he has this thing for a woman who, as far as I know, he has never seen before. What's worse is that we are supposed to believe that he could convince a bunch of pirate guys to follow him on the enterprise that we see. They have this humongous fleet, they sail all the way around a continent, passing up lots of tempting targets, and they offer their services to a woman who is the current occupant of the Iron Throne. These guys are sailing wooden ships, and they are offering to fight against a foe that has 3 fire breathing monsters. They are doing this because their leader has the hots for said current occupant. Frankly, it isn't much of a challenge to improve on the "logic" of Season 7.
  12. I agree with much of the above, but I'd put it in a somewhat different context. I am a long term fantasy and science fiction fan. In another thread I mentioned a rule promulgated by Ursula K. Le Guin, whom I regard as one of the best writers ever to work in these fields. The rule says that you get to create your own universe, but then you have to follow the rules of this universe. By the very reasonable standards of this rule, the show runners of GoT have failed badly. If dragons are born in season 1, and then dragons grow big and strong in the following seasons, then that is to be expected. If, however, the members of Dany's team are smart, even brilliant, in the early seasons, then they turn into dunces in Season 7, that is unacceptable. There are multiple problems with the battle we are considering in this thread. One (and I do mean only one) is the fact that it occurs so late in the game. Jaime, Bron, Lord Randyll, and a considerable force of men move most of the way across a continent, and none of their enemies realize that this is happening. The bogus "surprise" nature of the attack on Highgarden is not believable. After the castle falls, the wagons loaded with gold trundle slowly all the way back (or essentially all the way back) to King's Landing before the dunces on Dragonstone rouse themselves to action. Nah, this is baloney, and my objection is not a matter of nit picking. If the story telling in GoT had remained adequate, then the battle of the wagons would have occurred much earlier, and it would have been decisive.
  13. Okay, it seems the back story for the Battle of Qohor is the same in the HBO and the GRRM versions. Thanks for the "Histories" link. It looks like it has some worthwhile stuff.
  14. I believe the story of the Battle of Qohor is only recounted in the books, right? If it is mentioned in the show, could someone tell me in which episode this occurred?
  15. Any attempt to make the war more rational has to take on the Euron problem. His motivation, as presented in Season 7, is not convincing. Even worse, it is hard to believe that he could convince a bunch of pirate guys to follow him on the enterprise that we see. They have this humongous fleet, they sail all the way around a continent, passing up lots of tempting targets, and offer their services to a woman who is the current occupant of the Iron Throne. These guys are sailing wooden ships, and they are offering to fight against a foe that has 3 fire breathing monsters. They are doing this because their leader has the hots for said current occupant. This is hard to accept. I'm not sure what to do about it. Maybe we just have to let it go and work on other issues. One thing that absolutely should be done--Daenerys and her people have to have enough sense to include the humongous fleet in their war plans. This goes back to the critical need to show Team Dany acting with at least a minimum degree of intelligence. We have this war council with a plan to send a fleet here, a fleet there, here a fleet, there a fleet, everywhere a fleet fleet. No one even mentions the name "Euron." Essentially everyone knows that there is a big group of mean pirate guys out there. This group will most likely do something or other to disrupt Team Dany's plans, but no one says anything about the matter. Just have Tyrion, Yara, or whoever come up with some kind of idea of dealing with the potential enemy fleet. Later, we can have Euron win a victory or two by using some clever naval maneuver.
  16. 1. I don't think I'm misinterpreting Robert's comments. After all, I wrote "What does he say is a viable long-term strategy? He doesn’t say." Concerning Robert's thinking, I also wrote "It sounds more like, 'Hey, if the Dothraki get here, we’re probably doomed.'" Being doomed if the Dothraki arrive is the same as being "f*ed either way." However, as you say, 2. Robert's comments may not even enter into Cersei's thinking. Thus, the whole matter is not all that important.
  17. Thanks for the link. I've looked the site over a bit. Some quick reactions: I would really want Dany's team to act more intelligently. The lack of intelligence is one of my main complaints about Season 7. Thus, I heartily approve of your idea of sending out the ravens early. If, for some reason or other, that doesn't happen, then other methods of communication should be tried--sending ships to various ports, sending riders to various castles, etc. Also, some sort of move toward King's Landing is a must. At least do some scouting, intelligence work, patrolling, etc. Differing reactions to Daenerys, interactions with Olenna, Margaery's thoughts and actions...all have interesting possibilities. Euron is a major problem. More on him later.
  18. Sure, I don't want to presume what mode you were operating in or what your intentions were. I'd say that: 1. Your second paragraph was not a strawman. 2. I stay with my commentary on your second paragraph, whether it was close to what you intended or not. 3. Defense of show logic is a large topic. It has some relevance to the current thread, but a full discussion of the matter is a bit too much to attempt here
  19. Good question. I believe that there are places where the show is not true to its own logic. However, discussion of these things would probably take us beyond the current issue, even beyond issues which are appropriate for this thread. Let’s say my statement applies only to the castle issue. (I also quoted King Robert as saying, “Only a fool would meet the Dothraki in an open field,” but there are ways we can get around that.) My exact statement was "On the castle issue, I vote with MrJay. In fact, I'd go a bit further. I don't think the show is even true to its own logic. (Underlining added.)" Thinking further, I see that there are ways to avoid the whole business. One possibility—It’s reasonable to believe that Cersei would follow the former king’s advice on strategy and tactics. She hated the man, but she knows he was a good warrior. Saying this is reasonable, however, doesn’t say that it’s inevitable. Perhaps Cersie forgot the whole conversation. Perhaps she doesn’t even want to think about her former husband concerning his opinions on military matters. Then we have to judge the Lannister queen’s actions as smart, stupid, or something in between. Show logic doesn’t enter into the matter.
  20. Let’s say that Lord Reasonable is threatened by enemy forces. He decides not to stay in his castle. In Robert’s terms, he won’t “hole up” there. You appear to be saying that because he makes this decision, it absolutely follows that he must give up his castle. This is a false dichotomy. One does not have to choose between a sort of “stay in your shell” strategy and taking some kind of offensive action, even pretty aggressive action. If I attempted to formalize your weak argument, I could try something like this: You claim that my assertion doesn’t make sense. You claim that I am proceeding in a way like the following: One must not do action A (simply holing up). It will not work. Cersei does action B (abandoning castles). Therefore, Cersei is doing something that will not work; the show isn’t true to its own logic. On this basis, you claim that my statement does not make sense. But I have not made any argument like the one above, and you have not established the fact that I have made any argument like the one above.
  21. No, obviously not. I said that I vote with Mr. Jay on the castle issue. I don’t see how anyone can stretch and contort that into saying that I support the Lannister forces staying in their castles as a long term strategy. Such a contention gets even weirder when anyone reads what I’ve said in many posts in this thread. The war in the south makes no sense. If I were forced to say what Cersei’s best long term strategy is, I suppose I’d reply that she should talk to the show runners and tell them to keep providing plot holes and plot gifts. Maybe I could have made my point more clear by writing, “show logic,” but I don’t see why the quotation marks should be necessary. MrJay says that you do not give up a castle. I think this is a solid argument. Here is the part of his post that I quoted: "...The show can say that casterly rock is a death trap and that it is worthless to anyone. That doesn't make it any less stupid. ... Daeny would have her main foothold and split the 7k in two as well as control Lannisport and the port of KL from dragonstone. If this was written with even the slightest amount of military sense, Cersei would have lost by now in a dozen ways. You do not give up a castle. Not even an empty one. They are that important. But that's real life. The show can say that dragons are worthless and it would be so cause show logic. " The bolded part, if applied to the war in the south, is on point. Frequently in Season 7, the phrase “show logic” is an oxymoron. However, if we accept some things said in an earlier season, when the writing was better, it is the case that “Only a fool would meet the Dothraki in an open field.” Thus, Cersei’s act in sending her forces out into the open is the act of a fool. However, the king also doesn’t like the idea of staying in castles. What does he say is a viable long-term strategy? He doesn’t say. He does maintain that “We won’t be able to stop them.” Cersei gives reasons why the Dothraki are not such a threat. The king does not agree or disagree. He just says she sounds like her father. I don’t see how anyone can take Bob’s statements as a recommendation to either stay in castles or leave them. It sounds more like, “Hey, if the Dothraki get here, we’re probably doomed.” Also, Cersei does not go on the offensive with the full backing of the iron bank. She sends her forces most of the way across the continent and back before she gets said full backing. This enterprise, as I and others have said, is ridiculous. You have an army, including Reach forces, marching out in the open for the purpose of killing the liege of the Reach and despoiling the land. You also have Olenna Tyrell, a character who has been portrayed as one of the sharpest ladies in Westeros, acting like one of the dumbest broads in the world. No reasonable military men (Jaime, Bron, whoever) would have assumed that they could just depend on unbelievable stupidity on the part of their enemies. The whole thing fits in with MrJay’s “would have lost by now in a dozen ways.”
  22. Well, let’s just look at the bolded part of Count Balerion's post. That is not a strawman, at least if I understand it correctly. It’s a good point. Tarly (and the other lords too) is supposed to be a leader of his people and a man of honor. Important matters: 1. If you only talk to one side in a dispute, then you only get one side. This is a serious business; Tarly should do everything he can to gain accurate info. He cannot conceivably do that by talking exclusively to the pretender on the throne and her many-times-a-traitor brother/lover. 2. Olenna is his liege. If he has any honor at all, it is absolutely his duty to let her explain herself. Maybe she can’t do a good job. That is not the point. He has a duty. He can’t just assume that she has nothing of worth to say. We could, and perhaps should, take “Tarly” out of points 1 & 2 and substitute “the lords of the Reach,” along with the appropriate pronouns and possessive adjectives. Technically, there is an understandable problem. The show runners aren’t going to have most of the lords say anything; those lords are extras. This doesn’t change the argument significantly. Somehow, the show has to demonstrate that honorable, reasonably decent leaders are honorable decent leaders. I see no possibility that this can be done and at the same time have said “leaders” decide to take on what has to look like a suicide mission, a suicide mission aimed at betraying and killing their liege and despoiling the Reach. Of course, one could take a different tack here. Maybe the writers are trying to say that the lords are morons and/or the vilest of villains. I don’t think so. I think we have some poor story telling here.
  23. The bolded part is not accurate. In Season 4 (episode 4 I think) Olenna reveals how she used her "feminine skills" to catch Luthor Tyrell. Luthor was originally supposed to wed Margaery's great aunt, but Margaery's grandmother managed to show him that marrying her was a better idea. Thus, it is quite clear from GoT that Olenna had a husband. We don't see the wedding. So what? That is unimportant back story, quite different from this supposed murder club you claim the Lannister queen has. More importantly, it isn't legitimate to just assume something is true because you think it logical and then try to reason backward to show it must be the case. I could say that people in KL are badmouthing Cersei. It is only logical that Varys is in contact with some of them and has set up a secret network in the capital. After all, it is only logical that the Spider isn't as incompetent as he seems to have become in Season 7. It must be a secret network, because the guy who was killed by the Mountain was shooting off his mouth in public. Anyone in the Spider's network wouldn't be that dumb. I could come up with lots or other "logical" things that are "obvious." The problem is, I wouldn't have any evidence for these things, just as you don't have any evidence for your claims. The fact that Cersei ordered Qyburn to extend her network doesn't show that the network was extended in any effective way. Even if it has been extended, we have no reason to suppose that it contains unknown "other people" who are good at killing, People in the Reach, Dorne, etc. do not want to be killed. The authorities in these places don't want their people killed. Some creep in King's Landing would not have the power to fool all the authorities in far away locations.
  24. Who are these people that her network has killed? Can you give me a list? When the lords of the Reach meet with Cersei, Olenna is alive, the Sand Snakes are alive, Tyrion Lannister is alive, Lord Baelish is alive, and Sansa Stark is alive. Cersei's father and her three children are dead. Jaime doesn't have a right hand. I don't think the lords would be that impressed with Cersei's accomplishments. I don't think they'd be afraid of her. On the castle issue, I vote with MrJay. In fact, I'd go a bit further. I don't think the show is even true to its own logic. Do you remember the scene from "The Wolf and the Lion" (Season 1,5) where Robert talks to Cersei about the dangers of a Viserys-led invasion? He says the Westerosi leaders would hole up in their castles. "Only a fool would meet the Dothraki in an open field. They leave us in our castles. They go from town to town, looting and burning, killing every man who can't hide behind a stone wall, stealing all our crops...How long do the people of the Seven Kingdoms stand behind their absentee King, their cowardly King hiding behind high walls? When do the people decide that Viserys Targaryen is the rightful monarch after all?" The situation turns out to be considerably worse than the former king envisions. The Lannister-led forces give up a strong castle (actually more than one castle I'd say). They are no match for the Dothraki in the open field. And it's the noble defenders of King's Landing who steal crops. The Dothraki, to this point, haven't killed anyone but enemy soldiers.
  25. Considering Mr. Jay's legitimate complaint, let me be brief here. What rational basis does Lord Tarly, or any of the Reach lords, have for fearing Cersei Lannister? Or, more precisely, do these men have some rational fear-based reason for backing her in the war? What can she do to them that would make them act as they do? It's true that she blew up the Great Sept of Baelor. So what? Is she going to teleport wildfire beneath their castles? She has an army, but not one that is all that strong compared to the forces opposing her. I'm not asking for any other reasons for backing Cersei (e.g. xenophobia). I'm not just asking for quotes from the show, indicating fear on the part of some person. Of course, you can give quotes, but you need to say why you think the quotes provide the basis for a good answer to my query. There are lots of plot holes in the story. Characters often say and do things that do not make sense; the statements and actions just move things in a direction the show runners want to go.