Jump to content

Kajjo

Members
  • Content Count

    1,701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Kajjo

  • Rank
    Council Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  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. Let's wait for the books, shall we? Why argue with the show when you want to attack GRRM? Thanks, perfectly explained and absolutely correct.
  4. Yes, so what? Two arsehole make the whole North? It is REALISTIC that even a "loyal North" has some illoyal members. A whole people is not homogeneous. Do you really expect ALL members of a people to be either loyal or illoyal? Come on, get down to earth. A loyal people has a higher percentage of loyal members. That's all.
  5. No idea. Probably misleading information.
  6. S8 was sub-standard and below expectations. That is bad and disappointing and frustrating. However, GoT is still the greatest TC show ever yet. There are so many aspects in which it is almost perfect and by far leading. No other series comes close. It's a pity they messed up the final season. But it is unfair to downgrade the whole series. I would watch a prequel, but I am somehow sceptic whether they can come up with a really interesting plot and character set. Prequels always suffer from the fact you you know the eventual outcome.
  7. Well said. The complex and grey-shaded characters and side in GoT are well done and simply made the great show. I cannot listen to all this constant moaning. My goodness, enjoy the show.
  8. Wow, you argue against vilifying Daenerys but have such a prejudiced and over-generalized view of Northerners? What have they done to you to deserve that? The Northerners are depicted to be very loyal to the North. And as such to the Starks in general. Not blindly, but they are. But Northerners value independence, even on a more individual basis. But little Mormont and many other scenes taught us that the North is loyal. Which scene do you have in mind that drive you to your conclusion of "illoyal bunch"?
  9. Well, there are parallels of course to Viserys -- and to other former Targaryens as well. The lack of admiration and the craving for acceptance probably lies in the family heritage. For me, her reaction of frustration and loneliness in the after-war celebration scene forestalled her development towards "so it is fear (if love does not work)". My point here is: We never saw Viserys being depressed, sad, frustrated, lonely, but for full of bitterness, rage, egoism. This is different from Daenerys in the after-war celebration scene, when Jon is glorified. I believe, we are told to see her lonely and frustrated at that point.
  10. I don't know whether this is what the show suggested. They showed us that she was frustrated and disappointed by not winning the admiration and loyalty of the Northerners. She craved for love and acceptance.
  11. I meant her inner feelings about birth right to rule Westeros and be "rightful queen". This was brainwashed into her in childhood and he accepted it wholeheartedly. Then she learns about Jon being a nephew with stronger birthright and that should have turned her inner feelings into turmoil -- but it didn't. She was just relieved Jon didn't want it and turned even more into the powerhungry wannabe-queen. She wanted to rule, to be queen, to rule them all, no matter the birthright, no matter whether they wanted her and so on. Of course Jon didn't want to be King of Westeros. Yes, he would have had to at least claim the Kingdom, if not fight for it, even figuratively. But nonetheless, Daenerys wanted to be queen, even without birth right. No, you are right. There is no obligation and there was none. She fought because she didn't want die by the common threat.
  12. The main issue should be: Why vilify or glorify Daenerys at all? The good thing about GoT are complex, realistic, grey-shaded characters, with good and bad, not only black or white. Vilifying or glorifying is against the books and show prerequisite. Daenerys has a lot of positive features, from the beautiful, charismatic actress, her smart, ambitious way from abused child to queen, her weaving between charismatic young lady and "mad Targaryen" with hunger for power and self-illusion. Daenerys' figure is complex and everyone should appreciate that. I never viewed her as "descended into evil". She obviously has traits like hunger for power and will to lead as early as season 1. Nobody can deny that. Why not mention it more neutrally? But yes, Daenerys committed actions like feeding life enemies or roasting the slave master. This showed her true nature very early on. Really? Maybe I was absent too long here, but I don't remember that. Daenerys is far away from being a slut. She was in love with Drogo, had an affair with Naharis and fell in love with Jon. Not too many partners... Of course, you are right. I don't see how this issue relates to Daenerys' character. She wanted to rule the North, the North wanted to be independent. Both are acceptable aims. What you did not mention is the decisive issue of her talking for years about birth right and then not accepting Jon's claim.
  13. 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.
  14. Yes, in hindsight we know these three are the main protagonists. And yes, show-Bran was boring, unimportant and his story not told well. Youquoted the correct sentences. Show-wise it does not make much sense that Bran suddenly turns from "never Lord of anything" to King. I sincerely hope this will make more sense in the books. I like the show-Jon arc, though. It played out pretty well, even the anti-climactic end fits ti this tragic character. Only the revelation of his parentage was cut much too short, but that is more a problem for the Daenerys storyline. Daenerys' story was really good in the show and I fully expected her to turn bad. It was just told way too rushed and short-cut. The parentage revelation should have caused much more trouble and should have played out in more detail and emotions. But everything she believed in, her right to the thrones, was snuffed out.
  15. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...