Jump to content

Chris is my name

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Chris is my name

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. This is fairly understandable and at least should have been given a cursory explanation on screen. Without that explanation, the gaps in the story start to expand out of control; Grey Worm could have just as easily told the arriving armies that Jon died in the fighting or burning. Some of these developments are (somewhat) sensible to us as viewers, but the writing gave very little reason for the characters to behave as they did within the story itself.
  2. I would dispute this notion, especially considering that Sansa threatened Grey Worm with force and Tyrion was able to placate him with a simple, "it's not for you to decide." The show didn't really make it clear whether or not the Unsullied were even using Jon as a bargaining chip; we just jumped forward in time where "what to do with Jon?" was a question yet it was completely devoid of context. Why was Jon not killed by Grey Worm immediately, before the (offscreen) Northern armies even arrived? Grey Worm would not have known of his real value as a prisoner (that he was a legitimate claimant) and even if he did, why was the issue not raised at the council? Leaving some things ambiguous can be a great narrative tool, but leaving it to your viewers to suss out major plot developments from inconsistent evidence is nothing more than poor writing. I don't think his parentage necessarily means that he is somehow destined to become the king, but this explanation is also very weak. It also relies on all the other narrative factors to align perfectly; what if, instead, Varys had chosen to be loyal to Daenerys and had Jon imprisoned straightaway so he could not press his claim? This would render that whole scenario moot. The fact that his claim was the primary wedge between them and then promptly dropped as an issue altogether is completely ludicrous.
  3. Well, firstly, it was ridiculous that the Unsullied kept Jon alive in the first place. But even saving that, it makes absolutely no sense and completely destroyed any relevance the R+L=J/Jonerys plots had that, at the moment of truth, his claim wasn't even considered. And then they unanimously select someone to serve as king from a newly separate kingdom? Preposterous.
  4. Great, great points. And I'd love to see Queen Meera by his side in the sequel. Whatever happened to her, anyway??? Once again, why should anyone believe that Bran is an omniscient being that can see all of history? There wasn't a single justifiable reason for him even to be at that council, much less be selected as king. And both Tyrion and Varys' final plotlines involved them betraying Daenerys (part of the reason for her burning of King's Landing!) in favor of Jon because he would be a much better ruler, only for Tyrion to not even mention Jon as a candidate to the council. Bollocks.
  5. There appears to be a bottomless trove of incompetence easter eggs laid by D & D: Sam representing the Reach (I suppose because of the Citadel/Oldtown?) even though he skipped out on his training and stole secret texts? And isn't he still bound to the NW anyway? Even worse, moments later they remind us that Bronn is in charge of Highgarden and also Lord Paramount of the Reach! Why wasn't he at the council?? They must take us for absolute fools.
  6. This is the exact reason that the "books done/secret deal with HBO" conspiracy was absolute bollocks. Hopefully everyone can see that now.
  7. I suspect full-Targ Dany is going to happen more effectively in the books, so I am not really too concerned about that; I think what we're all worried about now is King Bran. As I mull it over, the "King Bran the Broken" bit was just D & D's oversimplified version (I know, shocker) of what the bigger implications of what GRRM may have told them. It's also possible that they just completely missed the point. When I look at it all now, it looks to me that the EndBranGame may actually be that the conclusion of the story involves the final victory for the Children of the Forest. Basically they had two weapons with which to fight man: the WW and. . .prophecy. Since the Children couldn't beat man on the battlefield, they created a WMD, the Others, which man was able to contain by building the Wall. Failing in that, they used the 3ER to make humanity kill itself through commitment to falsified prophecies. Not sure of all the details and implications, but having man think they "won" and are safe when in actual fact the main agent of the Children sits the throne may be. . kind of interesting? Not sure.
  8. Honestly I think the potential merits of Bran's rule are completely moot: it is based on the knowledge and bias that we have as viewers. Are we expected to believe that everyone just plainly accepts that this boy is a benevolent and omniscient being? They spent no time whatsoever establishing why this claim should be taken at all seriously by the characters in the show.
  9. I think this could actually be quite powerful if handled correctly which, needless to say, D & D did not.
  10. I guess my expectations were subverted. . . /s
  11. This is the exact same contrivance that was used for Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars EPIII to become Darth Vader: "We've run out of time to properly establish this character as a villain, so let's have him just murder a bunch of children for no reason to make sure the viewers know Vader is irredeemable and don't end up feeling sympathy for him in the overall story."
  12. That is in part true, but regardless of their sire, her children were always her children and never seen as her niece/nephew. . .
  13. Yeah, considering this was one of the main sources of tension and intrigue since the very beginning. . .no.
  • Create New...