Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Kajjo's Achievements

Council Member

Council Member (8/8)

  1. Yes, I agree. Tyrion was supposed to be smart but it didn't show. That he became hand in the end was crazy. I wouldn't call that a ruined character, but bad storytelling. I suppose, better told, the same arc could be fine. Yeas, another agree. His role never became really clear. I never liked the Bran story arc. And yes, he became king out of nowhere, nonetheless not unexpectedly. The book was mising; they really didn't know how he might develop into a king. Well, here I don't agree. Yes, Jon was built up, but so was Arya and the deadly dagger from S1E1. This turn of events is fine with me. Jon as tragic hero is OK. I believe this will turn out very similar in the books, including him killing Daenerys. I don't see ruined characters here, but mostly bad story telling due to haste in S8. GOT is by far the most complex and intriguing story. Too bad they messed up S8 by rush and shortness. They should have made 9 seasons and tell the story properly. GRRM should have agreed to write the essential parts. Partly his mistake to let them rape his story.
  2. I cannot follow you criticism here. Stannis was presented different from the books, but he was presented consistently in the show. From the beginning on he was fallen for Melisandre, supporting her evil deeds and believing in her powers and misinterpreted visions. Stannis was weak inside and acted dumb and remote-controlled by Melisandre -- from the beginning on. The burning of Shireen was the climax, but it was in sync with his storyline and the overall storyline of the show. The sacrifice of Shireen delayed onset of winter and bought time for mankind to fight the White Walkers. So, how does it contradict what I have written? Which characters do you think are strongly ruined? The controversy of Daenerys is valid. But which other characters do you complain about?
  3. I tremendously enjoyed seasons 1-7 and quite a lot enjoyed season 8 as well. You are much to focused on (a) expecting books and show to be in close sync, and (b) focusing on the bad aspects of the final season rather than the great aspects of the best TV show ever so far. Game of Thrones had a substandard conlcusion, yes, that is unfortunate, but GoT is still an excellent show. I don't see where House Stark is supposed to have been mutilated? Sansa and Arya are the main protagonists with nice and expected and book-synced endings as Queen of the North and as Adventuress into West of Westeros. Perfect ending for both of them. Bran is King and wil be King in the books as well. House Stark was not ruined at all, but got what GRRM intended for it and the storyline. House Lannister was not ruined as well. Jamie's arc of redemption was broken, but I like that it is no Hollywoodish but closer to real-life with shortcomings. Cersei's fate was clear for a long time in the show. House Targaryen had the percect fate. was is ruined about Daenerys being killed after turning Mad Queen? Very many expected this for quite some seasons and the ending really makes sense. House Baratheon has not been ruined in the sense of bad writing but in the sense of ill fate. Shit happens and it surely happened to House Baratheon. Show-Stannis was different from the books, but I like the show version.
  4. I can accept that point. But back to the claim, that a conqueror would have to be the debts of the person he killed or from whom he usurped the throne. That makes no sense. That is no heritage. A usurper will not cover for his predecessors debts. Not at all. That is ridiculous.
  5. I accepted that point. But if he doesn't want to have a credit, he does not need to pay back any old debts.
  6. Well, he "agrees" and is pressured by the IB -- that does not mean he has to. New loans, new conditions. It might be sensible not to apply for new loan at the IB anyway. But paying back old debts makes no sense at all.
  7. Locking away his really sweet and clever daughter in the catacombs for years is sane for you? To fall for a witch who claims you are the saviour appears sane to you? To impregnate a witch like Melisandre to bear a shadow to kill his younger brother seems sane to you? Accepting burning non-believers on the stake appears sane to you? He had his doubts back than, but was mentally captured by Melisandre. Stannis was, at least in the show, a mentally unstable man to begin with. All of the early scenes of him were weird. He was very religious in the sense of the Lord of Light and tolerated blood magic to kill three enemies, one of them Jeoffrey. No matter whether it really worked. Stannis was portrayed as a religious nut case right from the start. In show this is consistent and crazily believable. How is Baelish an idiot to sell Sansa to Ramsay? He most probably knew what he did.
  8. I agree that the writing for S8 was below standard, but the writing in S1-S6 was fine. I liked the Stannis arc and I particularly liked the Ramsay/Sansa story line. D&D did some really good story additions back then, e.g. the Tywin/Arya dialogues in Harrenhal.
  9. Show-only I don't see any character assassination. Stannis was not a main character, he had his flaw from the beginning on, his crazy devotion to Melisandre and her vision. I liked the Stannis arc and burning Shireen was one of the most moving scenes of the series. Back then nobody moaned about a bad storyline. Don't compare it to the books, just see the Stannis arc in the show. I have no issues with that. Dorne was never important in TV. We have more important and well-depicted characters in GoT than any other show and more Dorne was not necessary. They could even had skipped the Myrcella story altogether and just have her murdered. The Dorne part is not essential in the show. I don't know what you moan about. The show leaves some story lines out, yes. So what? Lady Stoneheart is missing, too. No problem for the show. Sana/Ramsay was a great change, for example, too. I don't talk about D&D. Have you understood my explanation that I do not defend D&D?! Daenerys' turn was to be expected. Yes, it was not told in the best possible fashion. But many people here claim it was unexpected and entirely out-of-character. That's outright bullshitting. Do you accept that Daenerys turning to the dark side was to be expected?
  10. I long ago agreed that either "first Red Keep, then overdoing it" or maybe even better "won the battle, then Rhaegal is shot down and she snaps" would have been better twists. However, I still see the emotional dilemma for her, too. It's not as bad as you paint it. She won the battle and feels more lonely than ever. No lover, no friends, no advisers left, a people that certainly will not offer a mhysa-moment. She is sad and lonely and snaps. Not 100% without sense. A bit of a stretch maybe, but not that bad. She probabyl thinks more about whole Westeros than about a single city she has no connections with.
  11. If you believe so, then you grossly misunderstand my intentions. I do not want to defend D&D. They just wanted the fast way out and butchered a show that was the best ever TV show for at least six seasons. I loved seasons 1-6 very much and I like so many facets about it, from story line to actors, from characters to locations, from nudity to violence, from CGI to magic. Then it started to degrade significantly and seasons 8 is way too rushed, too short on dialogue and emotions and many developments are cut so short that we have to fill the gaps by indirect conclusions. It's a pity. So, when I defend the overall story-line I don't do this to defend D&D. Not at all. Apart from "much too rushed" and all its implications I also see several more concrete downfalls like the questionable election council or the idiotic decision for the small council, as well as the pretty "simple" military tactics in E3. But, and that is the major point, people discuss unfairly here. They always mix up "bad story telling" vs. "bad story" -- and that is destructive and not reasonable. Most people here enjoy shitstorming, bullshitting, whining, moaning and pejorative excesses. What I always try to defend here is the story line. Not the story telling. Seasons 1-6 were excellent and it was back then easy to realise that Daenerys will not be the sweet and shiny queen, but has the dragon inside and would turn vicious without good advisers. The story-telling in S1-S6 was fine and everybody was happy with it. It is unfair to moan in hindsight. The character arcs of Daenerys, Arya, Sansa, Jon are fine and believable for a phantasy story of destiny and magic. Littlefinger, Brienne, Jaime and so on had fine arcs, too. Some people might enjoy a certain ending more than others, but the arcs are not butchered. The story is pretty good. I accept that the Bran and three-eyed raven story line was cut so short that the ending is somehow butchered and unclear. Funnily enough, the moaning about that part is the least. This story arc is what annoys me the most. We actually need the books to understand it. But people moaning about Daenerys turning bad or Jon being the tragic hero simply have paid no attention at all. Both was clear quite a long time.
  12. Yes, first Red Keep and then overdoing it by continuing would have made more sense. So there it is again: A bit of craziness, of snapping, of irrationality. Decision and snapping go hand in hand here.
  13. So what? What's your point? She made a horrible decision with "let it be fear". She wanted to instill fear, more so than just winning the single battle. Awful.
  14. Come on, if a throne is conquered, the new king does not stand in for the debt of the old government. That is the risk of whoever lends money. The IB knew that they only get there money back if Cersei wins. Otherwise the money is lost. It is lost, obviously.
  15. This. Agreed. They ended the arcs nice and sensible and fitting.
  • Create New...