ummester

I watched a bunch of Preston Jacobs videos recently - mainly his big picture (wolves and robins) series. He has a very interesting take on the ASoIaF saga - and a very pragmatic view of how to assemble the information from books and show. I like his references to the Frost poem. What I seem to disagree with him on though (and he may well be right with how the saga is going to tie up and my POV biased) is that he thinks the humans of Westeros deserve a second chance, deserve to hope for a better future and make peace with the Others/White Walkers. I think the humans in Westeros have already proven, time and time again, that they are bad for Westeros, so deserve no more chances - but either way, it is a good indication of how the bittersweet ending will play out. Here is the poem, just because I like it and it may have great clues for the ending of this show: Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I’ve tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice. Is it inevitable that the world must end, is the question the poem leaves me with (yes, I know it's actually about desire and hate - so, in other words, is it inevitable that human nature has to lead to it's own destruction)?

The whole Arya/Faceless men plotline jumped the shark last season - it's broken and makes no sense, even if Arya is actually the Waif, why is the Waif completing Arya's list? This is the part I'm most interested to see who the books explain, because in the show it's crap. I just want the character Arya to go away now, so I don't have to be reminded of her plotline stupidity.

What about Tyrion? Healthiest and most respectful relationship she ever had - and he's not dead yet (more's the pity).

This is a good observation and I think relevant because a big part of the story, as I am interpreting it, is the destruction of Westeros and the Feudal system. The Game of Thrones is not meant to be won, it's meant to be ended, kind of thing.

Is it a popular theory now? I haven't really discussed theories for a while - there being no more books and such a long wait between seasons. People used to write off Jamie being the valonqar a couple of years ago but Jamie being the PtwP and Cerise his Nyssa Nyssa always appealed to me.

So did anyone else think this episode spoiled who was going to strangle Cersie by having her standing on the neck, when Jamie was standing on the fingers? I also noticed a lot of dialogue around cerise about sibling killing.

Two ladles, one Sam

@Dudu42 - can't seem to quote you without the reply crashing. Are you sure you know who the 'good guys' are? Arya and Sansa don't seem that good anymore. I'm not sure Dany will wind up 'good' GRRM recently said in an interview that coming back from the dead always lessens someone - which would include Jon and Beric. If anyone, I recon Jamie will end up being the 'good guy' after he frees himself by strangling his big sister. Re the episode, I give it 7. It's true that the dialogue is not as good as earlier seasons based on GRRMs writing but then the show will finish and the books probably won't, so you have to take it how you can.

First thought I had was Tyrion. Also, when Euron said he wanted to marry the most beautiful Queen in the world, even though Cersie thought it was her, I'm sure he was referring to Dany.

Thank you! But Jon's dad must be a Targ, otherwise why was Lyanna so afraid Robert would kill it? So, Jon's dad was either Aerys or Rhaegar and considering it has been mentioned that Lyanna and Rhaegar got it on in show - it's not hard to connect the dots. But I ask again, even if Robert would have killed baby Jon, could Mel have brought him back? It seems pointless to worry so much about protecting a baby who was destined to die and be resurrected anyway anyway.

9 One of the 3 good eps in a mostly poor season. Only 2 things sucked, Arya and Tyrion - Arya because her kill lacked context and wasn't earned and Tyrion coz he annoys the fuck out of me now. The rest was good - sure, Varys can now teleport like Littlefinger but meh, who cares - perhaps that final scene was 3 months later or something. Of special not this episode - the music was excellent, best in ages.

8 Jon cam was absolutely amazing, you know, just after the cavalry collided how the camera followed him around the initial fray - that was one of the best scenes in the whole series. The ending was fucking stupid - why did Ramsay's dogs eat him? Was a very silly scene, not as bad as Arya last week but very silly. I swear Wun Wun and Drogon get a little bigger every time you see them - I guess Wun Wun won't be growing any more though. Dany and Tyrion were kind of boring and annoying. The whole girl power thing Dany had going with Yara was dumb. But, that initial battle fray - that was just so good that I can't hate the episode.

The Hound shouldn't have said, 'You're shit at dying' he should have said, 'You're shit at kissing'

That's not the point though - the point is that Game of Thrones originally established a very gritty tone, with realistic human characters, This made the dragons and White Walkers feel more plausible, because the human elements were so believable. Arya is pulling a Shaw from Promethues, being super woman with a gut wound. It wasn't believable in that film and it isn't believable with Arya.

I give it 5 - lowest rating I have ever given. Everything in Essos is shit and Westeros is ok. Arya's plot is just fucking stupid. Saved Lady Crane only to have her ruin the face of the jealous actress - good one Arya, you really saved someone worth defending there. And then a little sleep on the milk of the poppy turns gut wound Arya into Wonder Woman - WTF? The Waif is the most useless assassin ever - how did she beat Arya in all of those fights before and she can't even keep up with wounded Arya and kill her before she gets to a dark room? And then what is up with Jaquen - the leader of a death cult doesn't even understand the concept of being no-one The whole side plot is just crap. Mereen was equally crap. Dinklage proving yet again that he can't act and the only thing that made Tyrion great was Martin's writing. Without Martin, Tyrion is a nothing character played by a hack. Missendai sure is pretty but fuck she is boring. And then it all ends with yet another Dany dragon entrance. What happen to those other 2 dragons anyway? Westeros was pretty good, dialogue not as good as Martin can write it but still pretty good. Hound and Edmure being the highlights.

Whereas Bronn wearing so much eye make-up in the Riverlands is more acceptable? He looked like some weird Keith Richards/Jack Sparrow wanna be this episode.

7. There was nothing wrong with it, I just found it a little boring. Not sure why - perhaps because it felt very predictable? The Hound is wrong you know, death does cure a disease. Once the host body dies, the disease is fucked also.

Possibly - I was wondering if it had something to do with him being a Stark?

Yea but he looked like a Wight Walker, not a wight. The wights are the zombies with blue eyes - The Wight Walkers are the ice things made by the Nights King. Benjen looked like his face was turning White Walker, not wight.

7 So what the fuck has Drogo been eating to get so big in the desert? Bonus points for no Tyrion Why does Benjin's face look like a White Walker? How come when he turns he turns like them but other people just turn into zombies? WTF is going on? I liked Kings Landing. And I like how it lead into the Riverlands plot. Arya was predictable - meh, I want her dead now. No fucking discipline - she chose to join up with the assassins and then has some change of heart why? Because she liked an actress - stupid girl - hope the waif kills her. Sam, I dunno - I dunno how I feel about it. I just want him to get to Old Town and start reading so we can find out how this fantasy world is supposed to work, if there is actually any logic behind it or not?

9 - best so far this season but not best ever. Will watch a better copy tonight.

This is a flawed and biased way of thinking that exists in many book fans. There is nothing wrong with thinking the books are better, just as there is nothing wrong in thinking the show is better - but drawing the conclusion that D&D deceived GRRM and that GRMM has distanced himself from the show because of where D&D have taken it is totally unfounded and represents a massive bias in thinking. It's not even insightful. We have no idea what has gone on behind closed doors re the show, agreements between D&D and GRRM and either of them and HBO and, of course, agreements with the actors and other artisans working on the show. All we can tell for sure is that GRRM has distanced himself which implies some kind of falling out - but we have no idea with whom over what. If we want to be insightful and try and work out what may have gone wrong, we have to take everything into account, including the books taking longer to finish than expected and GRRM changing plans for various characters. Who knows, perhaps the books and show will end totally different now and perhaps that is GRRMs choice and not D&Ds? We just can't tell. I don't think, for a second, that D&D believe they can write a better story than GRRM. I think if the saga was finished, D&Ds adaptation would be consistently good, as it was for the first 4 seasons - the lack of written material is more likely the cause of D&D dropping the ball than anything else. They proved that could do a reasonable adaptation when the material was there, right? Personally, I don't even imagine a falling out between GRRM and D&D - I would imagine it is more to do with either HBO executives or actors, or both.

Well, the thing with opinions is that they can never be wrong - because they are just opinions. Something presented as fact can be wrong but it is also impossible for any appreciation of art or entertainment to be factual - because beauty is in the eye of the beholder or whatever. We can argue that financial success is an indicator of quality - but I doubt anyone, even the fans, would suggest there is anything of quality about the Kardashians and yet they are financially successful entertainment. So that isn't even a reliable gauge. Ultimately, we all have our own opinion on GoTs, which can either be re-enforced or changed by reading the opinion of others. I personally like critical opinion because, if you can defend something against it, it means that something is good - the flipside is it makes flaws more apparent. For the record, I didn't mind Feast for Crows - I thought the slow paced look at a worn torn Westeros was fine after the War of the 5 Kings - that GRRM was still meandering in Dance, combined with the time it was taking him to write them vs the 1st 3 books, made me think 'he's lost the plot - he doesn't know how to end this'. The last 2 seasons of the show have done nothing to really make me think otherwise - there is a very real possibility that the end for this could be shit and that bothers me after such a great start and middle.

I think it's possible to be addicted to something you dislike, like an abuse victim. Are you wasting your time and being a victim - probably, yea, but it's still the individual's choice to be that. I'm so in the middle with GoTs now - the books and show have both definitely gone downhill after book 3/season 4 but I want to know if it's going to come together and it still hasn't quite jumped the shark, so I watch, cautiously... One thing I do think, though, is that discussing a show with others, on a forum, is either going to be positively or negatively re-enforcing depending on the overall mindset of the forum. It seems here that opinions are divided, which makes me think that the show has definitely developed issues but is still engaging overall, otherwise it would be more completely positive or negative.

A cash cow for HBO? The most widely embraced fantasy saga on film since Lord of the Rings? The thing that put GRRMs books on the map? A meme machine to rival Donald Trump? Better than Disney's Star Wars, at least...