Jump to content

The One Who Kneels

Members
  • Content Count

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About The One Who Kneels

  • Rank
    Sellsword

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Sure but if the Tyrells were going extinct why weren't the Tarlys fishing to see what Daenerys would offer them before committing? That would've been sensible and it would've been a good start to Daenery's downfall where she refuses the practical solution (just promise the Tarlys control of the Reach once Olenna dies) because she doesn't want to reward and elevate another noble asshole like Randyll Tarly who's only concerned with increasing his own power but this idealism creates a big headache for her in the Reach since none of the nobility is now particularly inclined to declare for her. Now you would've had a political situation that at least tries to make sense and you've laid the seeds for Mad Queen Daenerys. Instead we got absolute nonsense where a bunch of nobles willingly travel to King's Landing and volunteer to join Cersei. She killed her uncle and cousin when she blew up the Sept of Baelor. Also everyone in Westeros would suspect her of having Tommen murdered so she could steal his throne. Didn't mean to put you on the defensive. It's just the way you responded made it sound like unless I was interested in supplying ideas as to how what the show did made sense I shouldn't have been talking. Sorry if I misinterpreted that. I too can see what the showrunners wanted to communicate. But I don't think the overarching story holds up at all because they didn't really attempt to tell one. In Queen Cersei we literally don't know anything about how she holds the throne except that the writers gave it to her and had people act like she had authority when she should've had none and somehow Daenerys isn't immeasurably more popular than her because the writers say so. In King Bran we just have Tyrion give a speech about stories that convinces a bunch of nobles to unanimously elect a weird foreign teenager in a wheelchair as King of Westeros. There's not really anything there and a lot more missing than the details. And here's the thing again though based on what the show actually gave the viewers how are we supposed to consider King Bran or Queen Cersei as anything other than profoundly stupid? It throws out everything we were told about how politics in this world previously operated in order to elevate characters into positions they shouldn't be able to aspire to or hold. We can see this again in a minor fashion with Bronn, Sam, and to an extent Gendry. Now you or I can come up with our own reasoning as to how all of this could make sense but the show didn't and I can only judge the show based on what the show actually did. In the show Bran wasn't truly the best possible choice to rule. He was a terrible choice and no one should've ever chosen him.
  2. Yes I should've said the Iron Throne rather than the Seven Kingdoms. My bad. Sure that but that doesn't mean that three centuries later the Targaryens, the creators of Westeros as a unified political entity, would be perceived as foreign invaders by the nobility when one of them comes to take the throne from a murderous usurper. She never talks about breaking the wheel to anyone in Westeros besides Tyrion. She also mentions it in a speech to prisoners after the battle with the Tarly/Lannister army (i.e. after the nobles have already picked Cersei over her). This is far from anything any Westerosi noble would probably ever hear about let alone be worried about. She certainly never implements or tries to implement anything that could actually make the nobility concerned for what her rule might represent for their power. At least not much more than they should be concerned about what Queen Cersei Lannister (usurper, kinslayer, killer of most important religious figure in Westeros and so on) represents to their established social order. If the show wanted for Daenerys to alienate the Westerosi nobility through "breaking the wheel" then they should've shown that. Yep. But why did she do manage to do that? I guess Tarly just really hates foreigners to the point of being willing to march against dragons for a kinslaying usurper and every other lord in Westeros just falls into line once he does. That's not very convincing for a show that used to pride itself on its sophisticated and intelligent treatment of politics and power relationships in a feudal society. I didn't realize this forum was limited solely to discussions aimed at patching up the problems with the show. Here's the thing if your opinion is "this didn't make sense in the show but here's how it could've made sense" then we have nothing to disagree about . I too think it didn't make sense in the show and there are many things I would do to have it make sense (starting with no Queen Cersei because that's absurd). But if your opinion is "it made sense in the show" then that is where we disagree. No I didn't like what I saw. I thought it was profoundly stupid. And the point is none of the ideas you have offered, good though they might have been, was actually part of the show. But she's the only option because the show made her the only option. The writers could have done whatever they wanted to create a plausible conflict between a relatively unpopular Daenerys and someone on the Iron Throne. They didn't. They just plugged in Cersei. That's terrible writing.
  3. Except that he clearly talks about roots growing through him. Daenery's unpopularity in Westeros was part of the reason Varys turned against her in favor of Jon. It kinda had to be since she had done literally nothing else that would make her worse in comparison. There would be no Seven Kingdoms without the Targaryens. They were apart from the general population but this idea that the founding and ruling dynasty of Westeros for centuries were always considered foreign invaders is nonsense. Daenerys never offered any revolutionary rhetoric to the nobility that we're aware of let alone put it into practice. You're doing this thing where instead of looking at what was actually offered in the show you're trying to fill in the gaps to make sense of it. You're welcome to do that but you can't offer it as a defense of what was actually put on screen. It could've made sense for Daenerys to become unpopular through trying to implement radical reforms, But the show never did that. It just treats Queen Cersei like a legitimate monarch who could actually rally support against the last surviving Targaryen with her allies, powerful armies, and three dragons. It's laughable.
  4. That's book only. Max von Sydow clearly isn't Bloodraven. He mentions waiting in the cave for a thousand years which means he well predates Bloodraven. Also not an albino with a prominent birthmark or missing an eye. Because the Westerosi would be hung up on the fact that he is crippled just like they're hung up on Tyrion being a dwarf, Sam being a fat nerd or Cersei being a woman. That's certainly not the biggest reason they wouldn't elect Bran as King or respect his rule but it's a significant one. The prejudices of the setting used to matter. An elective monarchy is fine. Electing Bran, and having that be anything other than a disaster, was not fine because it made no sense within the setting. No I'm saying the considerations that used to guide politics and sentiments within a feudal monarchy have been thrown out the window. The vast majority of nobles would never look at Bran, however qualified (and Bran has not proven himself qualified as a ruler in any way shape or form) and see a man they could elect as King. You may not be but the lords and commoners of Westeros would be which is why Daenerys being unloved as she fights to overthrow Cersei is completely ridiculous. There are fantasy elements in a fantasy series so it's okay when humans stop acting like humans suddenly? This is a show that was literally named after the struggle for the Iron Throne and you're telling me it's okay for the nobility to suddenly view emotionless foreigner weirdos in wheelchairs as viable King material because there's magic? Yeah again this is a complete insult to what this show used to be about and the books it was based on. I think you're getting hung up on arguing that I'm saying Bran couldn't be a good ruler. It's possible he could be (that has never been established and I would argue it doesn't make much sense to believe so but it's possible). I'm saying that regardless of whether or not Bran could be a good ruler his nature would prevent anyone from ever recognizing that and it wouldn't really matter much in terms of how he was perceived by his subjects and vassals. Stannis was a good ruler. But the nobility and smallfolk simply didn't like him because he was a harsh, prudish, socially awkward man and this was a serious problem that let Renly steal away most of his support. Sam Tarly might've been a great lord in the abstract (he's smart could pick good advisers, knows tons of history etc.) but he would still be a fat nerd who couldn't command respect or inspire loyalty or perform the martial functions expected of a Westerosi ruler and this would cripple his attempts to rule. This very season Daenerys was "unloved" in Westeros and this was viewed as an issue that made her less fit to rule than popular Jon. Again he just has the support of those regions because the writer said so. Is Tyrion even in charge of the Westerlands? And if so why? There's no dragons to put him in Casterly Rock why wouldn't some Lannister cousin (or vassal) make a play for it? Why would the Vale not want independence? Do they just do what Sansa says now? Edmure Tully wanted to be King before getting shot down. Is he just going to resign himself to serving King Bran? How would Bronn get to be Lord of the Reach? He's an upjumped sellsword. All his vassals should hate him and want to replace him. Why wouldn't Dorne want independence? Why are Yara and the Iron Islands going to respect the rule of a teenaged cripple? Why wouldn't they want to be independent? Everything about King Bran and the post-war settlement is a joke. Sure the Targaryens had good kings and bad ones good periods and bad periods. That doesn't answer why this Targaryen is apparently viewed as a hated foreign invader when she's coming to fight Queen Cersei. She should've been welcomed by a great many within Westeros.
  5. Bran has the loyalty of all the major houses in Westeros because the script said so. It makes no sense in a plausible feudal setting that an emotionless crippled foreign teenager who is of debatable humanity and has practically no experience in government or war would be elected as King. Bran shouldn't have the loyalty of anyone aside from his family and his reign should be a disaster. Daenerys was born on Dragonstone and is the last living member of House Targaryen the family that created the Seven Kingdoms and ruled it for centuries. This idea that she would be viewed as a foreign invader rather than a welcome claimant in the face of usurping murderess Queen Cersei is absurd. The last time a Targaryen invaded with dragons they crushed or vassalized everyone except Dorne and rewarded those who submitted. No one should want to fight Daenerys and lords should be lining up to bend the knee in the hopes of being elevated for their loyalty and service. The common people would be at worst indifferent and in reality quite open to the idea of a Queen who will bring back the good old days of stability and peace instead of the constant state of civil war that has existed since Robert's death particularly those directly affected by Cersei's rule. I mean how bad could Dany possibly be perceived in comparison to a woman who blew up the Westerosi equivalent of the Pope and hundreds of courtiers, murdered her popular daughter-in law and her entire family, her own uncle and cousin, had been marched naked through the streets for adultery, is suspected of producing incest babies with her brother that triggered the War of the Five Kings, would be widely suspected of murdering her own son to usurp the throne and has a zombie bodyguard that goes around murdering people who insult her? It's not an overstatement. You cannot tell me with a straight face that someone like Bran would be elected king or that his reign wouldn't immediately be a disaster even if we buy that the ridiculous Council at the Dragonpit could be coerced or stacked in Bran's favor. I'm not a Dany fan. I'm a fan of what this show used to at least try to be in terms of realism and politics. This is was what brought the show mainstream acclaim and it's been utterly trashed for seasons now.
  6. In a feudal monarchy the ability to inspire loyalty among your vassals is absolutely huge. Having that ability doesn't make you a good king but not having it is a huge stumbling block. Once upon a time this show actually had a character called Stannis Baratheon whose whole problem was that despite being eminently qualified to be King (and actually being the legitimate heir) he struggled to command loyalty or affection outside of a small circle of foreigners and outsiders. Compared to what Bran has become Stannis looks like a rock star. Even in this season Jon's ability to win over Westerosi has been an important point as to why he would be a better ruler than unloved Daenerys (who is only unloved because the plot demands it but whatever). But all of a sudden all of this basic shit about how a feudal monarchy works gets thrown out the window so we can get King Bran? It made no sense and is an absolute insult to everything this show used to be about and the books it was based on.
  7. Because being a good king is all about having the right qualifications to govern and not about charisma and leadership right? I'm sure the emotionless weirdo foreigner in a wheelchair will inspire a great deal of love and loyalty from lords and smallfolk alike.
  8. I just can't wait to see how people will still try and defend Game of Thrones as a serious commentary on politics after this. A crippled weirdo teenager who can't father children is elected king "because he's got the best story?" The North just gets to declare independence and no one else wants it? Bronn actually takes control of the Reach and gets a position on the Small Council?
  9. There certainly is. Aerys tortures a father and son to death in a sick mockery of justice while Dany executes a father and son who willingly joined a murderous usurper in openly fighting against her after they refuse repeated offers of clemency. One of those is the actions of an insane, bloodthirsty monarch. One of them is not. Foreshadowing my ass.
  10. Dany never said anything against it. It was Tarly who rejected it out of hand. I'm not a die hard Dany fan. I'm just pointing out that trying to use the Tarly burning as proof of her madness doesn't work. If it was meant to show Dany as unreasonable and ruthless then the scene failed because the Tarlys only get burned due to refusing every reasonable compromise that can be expected in the setting out of some bizarre sense of loyalty to Cersei.
  11. Executing lords who refuse to bend the knee or go to the Wall after they side against you in war is certainly not what makes Tywin or Roose Bolton evil.
  12. There's nothing to rationalize. Tarly wasn't minding his own business when Dany rolled in and demanded he bend the knee or die. He's a Westerosi lord who took sides against her in a civil war. When his army gets smashed and he is captured he has three simple options: bend the knee (and this option doesn't have to be offered at all), take the black or die. He rejected the first two and got the third.
×
×
  • Create New...