Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About NickStark2494

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. NickStark2494

    Foreshadowing is not character development

    This is complete and utter nonsense. She did not need to burn the city in order to sit the throne. She had already won. It was over. She would have been queen. Burning the city was not necessary in the slightest. On the contrary, she has compromised her position. Now her reign will end before it begins. People need to stop repeating this garbage about ruling through fear. When you're hated to this extent, you don't last long. Committing a needless slaughter only made her power more brittle. People will want to remove her ASAP. Jon and Tyrion will turn on her. She doomed herself. "People should neither think he is soft and easy to disobey, nor should they find him so cruel that he disgusts his society" - The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli.
  2. NickStark2494

    This is all Jon’s fault

    People are disgusting. "Dany is sane and would have totally been a great ruler, she only burned KL and killed thousands of innocents because Jon didn't give her that dick. But she's totally sane. Not mad at all. Just cock hungry". Jesus Christ, are these people even capable of understanding the drivel they write ?
  3. NickStark2494

    This is all Jon’s fault

    Why are you conflating attacking KL and burning the Red Keep with destroying the entire city ? Yes, in S7 Dany spoke of attacking the city. Attacking and capturing a city is not the same as destroying it and murdering thousands of innocents. Burning a castle isn't the same thing as destroying a city and murdering thousands of innocents. As we saw, she was perfectly capable of attacking the city and taking it without destroying it or killing civilians. She destroyed the fleet, the GC, the scorpions, the gates, and had won. They surrendered. With almost no loss of civilian life. So it's clearly possible. She just decided to kill people when it was totally unnecessary.
  4. NickStark2494

    This is all Jon’s fault

    The fact that you just compared breaking furniture to slaughtering thousands of innocents is disgusting, pathetic, and laughable. Killing thousands of innocents is "forgetting oneself" ? Jesus fuck.
  5. NickStark2494

    This is all Jon’s fault

    The absurdity of this argument is astounding. It's Jon fault that Dany massacred hundreds of thousands for no reason because he wouldn't spread her legs ? Do you even understand what you're saying ? Jon doesn't have some obligation to love her and fuck her in order to keep her sane. Jon has not betrayed Dany. His parentage is his secret. His life, his birthright. He's the true heir, and as the true heir, he's at perfect liberty to share the information with whomever he wants. It's his prerogative. He does not owe his aunt loyalty. Despite this, he has in fact given her absolute loyalty. He only told Sansa and Arya because he foolishly believed they'd keep quiet. He wasn't trying to betray Dany. No, on the contrary, he has stood by Dany and been a loyal pet, repeating that she will always be his queen approximately 36 times per episode. He doesn't seem to question anything she does until she begins slaughtering innocents for no reason. He's been more loyal than anyone deserves, and he bears no responsibility for her decision to become a monster. Your argument can't even be taken seriously, it's laughable.
  6. NickStark2494

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    "The loss of Jaime's hand wasn't a crucial part in his arc - it was what losing the hand did to him". Yeah, no kidding. That's exactly what I'm saying. You act like you're contradicting me but you're making the exact same point I did. The loss of his hand had an effect on him and was the catalyst for certain character changes. Obviously it's not the simple fact of being maimed. It's what the hand represented, what it was to him. How losing it affected him. That's my point. Trauma is used as a catalyst for change in fiction. And this is true to real life. Then you speak about Reek and Arya and how they were dehumanized. I know that. That's exactly my point. What happened to them changed them. That's character development. I don't understand why you seem to think the term "character development" only refers to a positive evolution. It doesn't. A character becoming lesser is also development. You say people like Arya and Theon had crucial aspects of their personality destroyed by their trauma. I know that. Is that not exactly what happened to Sansa ? Does Season 6 through 8 Sansa seem like the same person to you as Season 1 through 5 Sansa ? Did you see how Sansa smirked when Ramsay was devoured by dogs ? There she is smiling like all is right with the world, when her little brother just died. But the sound and sight of her abuser being eaten alive made her smile. Do you think we'd have seen Sansa behave that way in earlier seasons ? We wouldn't. Sansa also had a part of her personality destroyed, or at the very least damaged. She has become far less trusting, more callous, more jaded, more cynical, harsher (remember when she vehemently suggested awarding Last Hearth and Karhold to other families ?), less empathetic, and much colder in every way. She's not the girl she once was. Is this not character development ? I don't really know what you expect. "People survive ordeals, but they don't 'grow' because of that. The very concept is just silly. I mean, do you think all the vets suffering from PTSD did 'grow' because of their experience in war? That 80+-year-old people suffering from nightmares and pissing their bed because they think they are back in the trenches of World War I is character growth? " No, the concept is not silly. How exactly do you think people grow/change ? How do you think people learn and mature ? By everything going their way ? By happily frolicking in fields ? No, most of the time, people learn and gain experience through hardship. As someone who went through traumatic events as a kid, I can assure you, it did have an impact on me, in some ways for the worse, but in some ways for the better. I don't get why you seem unable to understand this idea. You really think no one comes out of horrific ordeals stronger than they were before ? You think there's nothing but PTSD and damage and dehumanization ? That's absurd, and I'd advise you to never say that to someone who has been through traumatic experiences. People do more than just survive ordeals, they also learn from them. As for vets, no, I never said that all of them grow because of their experiences. But why do you think that none of them do ? Some do and some don't. People are individuals, there aren't hard and fast rules. I don't get why you seem to believe it's impossible. As for 80+ year old people who have PTSD, why don't you look at Holocaust survivors. Take a look at what they say today, when they talk about their experiences. Of course they're incredibly damaged. But some of them are also incredibly strong. Your desire to deny the strength of victims is pretty disturbing. Trauma damages people, no one is denying that. You just seem hellbent on denying that anyone might become stronger after trauma, and that's just patently absurd. There are no absolute rules when it comes to human beings. Some will become stronger after traumatic experiences, others won't. It depends on the circumstances and the individual. Characters like Arya and Sansa are definitely damaged and dehumanized in some ways. But they're also stronger. Trauma can damage you and teach you at the same time. These two things aren't mutually exclusive. It's not an either/or proposition.
  7. NickStark2494

    "Bittersweet" can't happen in the show

    What second trilogy ? What are you talking about ? All I know is that in GRRM's original outline, the Others were described as the focus of the last book and the final battle.
  8. NickStark2494

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    But what's your point ? Yes, their actions lead to the point where they lose limbs. So what ? What does that have to do with what I'm saying about the relationship between suffering and growth ? Are you saying that writers should only traumatize or cripple characters who have done bad things ? GRRM certainly doesn't believe that, he cripples poor Bran right off the bat. It's perfectly legitimate to subject innocent characters to trauma. As for your other point, I have to say I respectfully disagree. Yes, there are other characters who get raped, and yes, it also has an impact on their character. Dany takes charge of her life because she's sick of the abuse she's suffering. Cersei's resentment towards men is largely based on her experiences with physical and sexual abuse at Robert's hands. This is especially clear in the novels. I don't remember Melisandre being raped. And I don't need to go asking women in rapey marriages. My closest friend suffered sexual abuse for months at the hands of her partner. I've been a direct witness to the damage it did to her. But I also witnessed how she rebuilt her life afterwards, became stronger as a person, and has since never tolerated any kind of abuse from anyone. She now stands up for herself and takes charge in ways she never did before. Her experiences changed her dramatically. This is just life. It's tragic but true.
  9. NickStark2494

    "Bittersweet" can't happen in the show

    The possibility of a bittersweet ending was thrown out when they decided to make the White Walkers a pointless distraction in order for senseless human slaughter over an ugly iron chair to be the endgame.
  10. NickStark2494

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    So what ? What difference does that make ? The point stands that suffering often leads to growth, in fiction and in real life. What happened to Sansa is one of the most realistic things on the show. Being married off for political reasons and raped is not some invention of the show. It still happens today ! I don't see why she can't change as a result of her trauma. Oh, and you're not actually correct about Jaime. The terrible things he did didn't have anything to do with him losing his hand. Locke/Vargo's motives have nothing to do with Jaime's sins.
  11. NickStark2494

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    I don't get this criticism about rape. Theon losing his penis and being tortured led to character development. Jaime losing his hand led to character development. Arya losing her family led to character development. But Sansa being victimized in a misogynistic medieval setting can't lead to character development ? Why not ? What happened to Sansa is something tons of women went through and still go through. Why should the show shy away from it ? Why shouldn't her suffering lead to growth ? That's literally what happens to all protagonists in stories, especially in a dark medieval fantasy. Characters suffer and grow by overcoming that suffering. And this is true to life. Overcoming hardship is often how people develop and change. I don't see the problem.
  12. NickStark2494

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    So what ? Why must a man be the one to commit the worst atrocity ? Why can't it be a woman ?
  13. NickStark2494

    Fave moment in AFFC?

    Jaime's last chapter, and the Ironborn stuff. The burning of the letter is the greatest moment of the book to me.
  14. It's much more than that. In the Season 1 finale we're told that King's Landing is 1000 leagues from the Wall. GRRM has said that 1 league in Westeros is 3 miles. So that's 3000 mile from King's Landing to the Wall. What Jon says in Season 7 Episode 1 about Winterfell being 1000 miles from King's Landing is simply nonsense. It's much more than that, as Winterfell is nearly 3/4 of the way to the Wall from KL. Dragonstone is right next to KL, maybe only 5 or 10 miles north of it, so whatever, it's about 3000 miles from where Dany is to the frozen lake, give or take. It is simply absurd. Alan Taylor, the director, has confirmed that they were only on that rock for about 24 hours. Gendry makes it to Eastwatch at night, and we see Dany leave DS during the daytime, so that's clearly the next morning. That means that in about 12 hours, a raven flew 3000 miles. That's a speed of 250 miles per hour. That's more than 5 times faster than ravens can actually fly. As for Drogon, let's break this down. Dany leaves Dragonstone during the daytime. She arrives at the lake during daytime. When Jon returns to the Wall on Benjen's horse, it is still daytime, the sun is even slightly visible. Keep in mind that days are short. It's winter, and we're in the very far North. So let's assume, being very generous to the show, that Dany leaves Dragonstone at 8:30 AM. Let's also assume that Jon returns to Eastwatch on the horse around 5 PM. It would take him a couple hours to make it there from the lake, so let's say he left the lake at 3 PM. That means Dany made it from DS to the lake on her dragons in about 6 hours. That means she was flying at 500 miles per hour. First of all, it is silly to think to dragons could fly that fast. That's the speed of a commercial airliner. Dragons are massive, but they only have wings, not jet engines. But even if a dragon could fly at that speed, how on earth could Dany survive that ? She isn't fastened to Drogon in any way, so she'd fall off. Even if she managed to cling to him, she wouldn't be able to breathe at that speed. She'd be getting smashed in the face by winds that are stronger than the most powerful hurricanes. Breathing would be impossible, her eardrums would likely explode, and she'd fucking die. The whole thing is utter nonsense.
  15. NickStark2494

    How would you rate episode 702?

    Maybe you ought to watch episode 2 again. We saw tons of sails, and they were ALL Greyjoy sails. Yes, it was dark, but we could still clearly see Greyjoy sails. Second, in the council scene on Dragonstone, Tyrion very clearly says that Yara will take "her Iron Fleet" and escort Ellaria to Dorne. It's obvious that Dany's other ships are needed for the Dothraki and Unsullied, so it's only Yara's ships that are being sent to Dorne. Finally, if you watched episode 4, you'll know that I was right, and that Dany's fleet was not entirely destroyed. We clearly saw that she was able to bring her tens of thousands of Dothraki to the mainland. Regarding Tarly, of course he COULD have sat it out, but he obviously didn't want to. It makes sense to me that he wouldn't want to sit back. The Late Lord Frey is a fucking coward, that's why he sits out battles, and Dorne and the Vale are kingdoms that are known for keeping to themselves. Randyll Tarly is no coward, he's a military man, and it seems completely within his character for him to fight foreign invaders instead of waiting for them to come murder and rape his family. My smugness isn't the issue here buddy, your lack of logic is.