Jump to content

Nightwish

Members
  • Content Count

    546
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nightwish

  • Rank
    Noble

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. John’s character is so badly written. I don’t even know where to start but now that some time has passed after the end you can see his character dragging so much after his resurrection. Instead of becoming a man of his own mind he is constantly manipulated by others. A second wheel. Like his usefulness as a character is only to serve his sisters, the men in the North and much later Tyrion. He is emptied of true narrative and meaningful dialogues. Fails to understand the world around him, acts cowardly assasinating a woman who trusts him without speaking his mind against her actions, and then happily leaves for the wall to live as a monk the rest of his life, actually thanking the people that used him for their own means. What a pathetic ending for a supposed hero or the prince who was promised. Led so many people to their deaths with stupid decisions and then goes to live free in total ignorance. This is not about Jon but for the writing of Jon who turns from a promised prince to an ignorant fool with minus understanding of the world around him. The writers made it so you can’t really approach any character without feeling disgusted by what they become and ending up bashing them.
  2. moral lessons; the south kills you the north kills you love kills you duty kills you honor kills you the roof kills you your relatives kill you your friends kill you greed kills you poverty kills you the bad guys kill you the good guys kill you so go and live in a cave with the wildlings and have a king for a tree so you can survive your lasting days after everyone you loved is dead from the things above. Or assign yourself to the faceless God next door... Practical... and most of all realistic.
  3. The character is a disappointment specially for the fans that were expecting the weight of Jon’s revelation to be critical for the WW, but it seemed it only served to doom Dany. Honestly I think he had been overestimated as a character by the fans (unfortunately). And so his legacy, didn’t mean a thing other than being popular and confusing the fans into a pseudo debate about him being the rightful air. There was no rightful air after all since Bran was to sit on the throne. Complete idiotic story. It could be him or anyone in his shoes, even Dany falling for Jamie would do the job. Lol.
  4. The king Beyond the wall...who may never return because Greyworm who is miles away said so and his tree brother became King in his place so he can enforce Greyworm’s punishment? “He must know Sam, you must tell him” But now it seems he had already packed his luggage for the throne two seasons back and had bought to Jon a nice new coat for the harsh winter i still can’t get over these nonsense.
  5. Serve as exhile punishment? And why can’t John return, who will punish him Bran? And how does Greyworm know that Jon will execute his service? Bran will send him ravens? Can this seriously be what Martin wrote?
  6. I guess Jon is so dumb because his supposed to be the good guy?
  7. Yes but that’s theoretically, what happens in practice is that he doesn’t want it and thus has no reason to share it with other people who may start a war on his name. I would understand all of these arguements if Jon hadn’t refuse the throne to Dany and hadn’t insisted he is not into it. Aemon had a similar case when his older brother died and everybody supported him for the throne, he was in the Night Watch if I remember correct, but he just declined making his rightful air the next in line. So it has happened before and the main issue is Jon wishes, not what others want. In this case since nobody know he doesn’t need to perplex things by telling them. Dany has also to worry about her life as we saw for example assasin attempts against her and such. Its a cruel world.
  8. Not then, but he declared to Dany that he doesn't want it and that he will refuse. We are supposed to believe him because he is man of honor. And back then he was unprepared, now it seems that he has done his decision.
  9. Right, I thought it was his arrow, but nevertheless, the point is to see how potentially all characters could turn into villains because GOT universe is built, constructed and actually run by violence even in the pretense of the law. Again, I want to say that my argument here is not Dany's character, but how the script writers can so easily construct a character who results in violence because the GOT world allows it, since this is how the characters learn to resolve their problems with violence.
  10. No, because he said to her that he doesn't want the throne and even if people support him, he will refuse. So since he passed to her this right, if we believe they have a claim, she is the rightfull heir since he doesn't want it and has declared it to her. The throne has to be conquered because of Cersei. So in reality it is by conquest and belongs to the one who will claim it by force in this case.
  11. simply stated: all characters have shown extreme acts of violence - when under pressure or just for reasons of revenge. So in that aspect the screen-writers manufactured this side of Dany which could not be justified, as they could have manufactured the same side if needed also for other characters. So they don't trash the viewer's ability because a. they are not so clever b. universe of Westeros allows them just to pull the carpet under Dany's feet when its convenient because they set the table. But it could be Dany, it could be Tyrion (on his trial and under crisis he wished for everyone to die), it could be Arya (obsession with pies), it could be anyone if pushed to the corner, isolated, betrayed and probably finished. If violence under justification is just the reason we can't see Dany's dark side, this won't do. It is a motif repeatedly countless times in GOT, it is almost a standard in GOT universe, introducing itself as soon as Ned beheads a lad for running scared to death from the Night Watch. What does this example show for the ethics and morality of the time; that discipline to laws, fear for the punishment and submission are higher values than the human life itself. Under this context, how can viewers even distinguish the good from the bad since murder and death seem to be the solution that even the best of the characters have accepted? It is not Danny's character alone whose morality is double face, or who suffers from it, it is all the characters because this is how GOT is built. Even at the end the good Jon has to murder a young woman, pretending to give in to her charms. The script could have set another way to do it less treacherous. This is the second time that he does it (killing a lover). Perhaps deep down he finds a satisfaction in this and we are just seeing his justified side? So we don't see that he is a serial killer? If from there on the script writers showed him going on a serial killer mode, would you justify them to say: you should have foreseen it, because the signs were there? Well if you adopt this way of thinking, probably. Because you couldn't accept it for Dany if you don't accept it for Jon. So this is not just Dany's case, they are all potential murders who we just haven't seen under crisis, since they are accustomed to violence from a very young age (remember Ned's scene mentioned above?) But the simple truth is that is just manufactured all the way to cause surprise, taking advantage of the immorality that governs GOT. Nothing more.
  12. No, she is not, they are related. She is the next in line.
×
×
  • Create New...