Jump to content

WeDoNotKneel_HailMance

Members
  • Content count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About WeDoNotKneel_HailMance

  • Rank
    Freerider

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. WeDoNotKneel_HailMance

    So what happened to the Reeds?

    I am guessing you meant Ned and Howland had a falling out? Howland Reed was there w/ Ned, Jojen is Howland's son. Anyways, there are no hints of any falling out - if Ned and Howland had a falling out, why did Howland send Meera & Jojen to help Bran? I think the OP is on to something here that this is just a plot line that the series left completely unresolved. There will be something to Howland Reed (and the Reeds in general) in the books, although its hard to say what it is.
  2. WeDoNotKneel_HailMance

    How would you have ended it?

    This would have been so awesome to see and would have really put our characters to the test: people in conflict with themselves and having to make difficult choices/sacrifices. Perhaps you could've had it where a still alive Littlefinger actually coordinates the murder and burning of Jon, thinking "Chaos is a ladder" but then, as you describe, people still work together in honor of Jon the martyr and his death is a rallying cry. Would also be fun if Jon died and went into Ghost, eventually killing Littlefinger AND ending up north of the wall at the end. Also like the idea of Drogon being untamable after the WW fight, you could also have a parallel to this w/ one of the human characters also going crazy and blood last after fighting death itself.
  3. This is a good point to remember. The POVs, from other characters and from Dany, will provide a lot more depth and insight to her story and potential transformation to the dark side. If/when we ever get to read the books, that is.
  4. Well said. The amazing part is that all you have to is read the last few posts of this thread to realize that the writers had about 10 different options for Dany's story to make it coherent and believable (versus just Dany turning into Hitler/Satan in 2 episodes). They never created the story to support it. ......Dany could have....been a relatively moral conquerer who was unfairly rejected in Westeros for any # of reasons (gender, brought Dothraki, R'Hllor support, daughter of Mad King, offended Lords, etc).....or she could have slowly become a monster and murderer (starting @ beginning of S7), abusing power with her dragons, burning many lords alive (and more unfairly then R Tarly), letting peasants starve out of spite or anger, impulsively betraying agreements with the Tyrells or Dorne or Yara, becoming less and less just while blinded by her self delusion about power, fire, and blood..... oooooooooooooor simpler options could have included 1) her having a major, darker, horrifying character worldview after fighting the Army of the Dead, 2) in conquering King's Landing we could have seen her forced into a conflicting choice - if she was losing the battle at the start and she had to choose between genocide and beating Cersei vs saving peasants and losing KL, she chooses genocide, and Jon kills her for that choice, or 3) they could have had Varys actually plot against her and put her in a situation where she had to burn 1,000s of good people alive in order to survive..... Really they just had so much to work with, and instead decided to just flip the Hitler/Satan switch, because, hey subversion and oh it doesn't require much work. The audience will be so fooled!
  5. I would just like to point out that a couple of months after S8, I'm still entirely convinced that the ending was incredibly, amazingly, catastrophically bad.
  6. WeDoNotKneel_HailMance

    Car battery question for the hive mind!

    This. If it's a 2013 vehicle with an original battery, then the battery has surpassed its life and is just on the edge of dying entirely. Getting 6 years out of a battery is pretty normal.
  7. I agree. I have probably watched S1-S5 at least 3 times, but these recent seasons have made everything before them into garbage. It did actually start w/ the ending of S6 when they blew up the sept and just ended so many interesting plot lines with no resolution. S7 was bad. S8 just ruined everything, ESPECIALLY everything related to the WW, NK, and Jon Snow. I didn't re-watch a single episode in S8. Shrug.
  8. Agreed. I wonder if we'll get the dragon version of nuclear holocaust in WoW. I also wonder if we'll get the real world one since literally every country is advancing nuclear capabilities, not scaling them back. And on a side note, how I wish was a "what is dead may never die" thread. S7 & S8 were just soooooo bad, sooooo much worse than anyone would have guessed or anticipated. The ranting and raving should continue for years to come, but unfortunately my apathy is taking over and I really can't care anymore.
  9. WeDoNotKneel_HailMance

    The North is finally independent

  10. WeDoNotKneel_HailMance

    The North is finally independent

    Yes. Dany can decide to not kill Sansa for treason. And do so for this strategic reason.
  11. WeDoNotKneel_HailMance

    The North is finally independent

    Your description of that situation is entirely inaccurate. Watch the conversation in the video clip. There is no agreement of pardoning the Tyrell's for their help, there is no deal. They explicitly say "perhaps that treason should be punished one day, after Stannis." Meaning that they aren't punishing treason for strategic reasons. Which frankly could be exactly Dany's plan with Sansa...Sansa's treason should be punished one day, after Cersei. She needed the northern army and Jon to help her take KL. I will state the following questions again, in hopes that you can respond to them: What is your definition of treason? Are you saying Sansa didn't commit treason because she didn't intend for her statement to Tyrion to bring down or overthrow Dany in favor of Jon? Or are you saying that Sansa didn't commit treason because she told the truth and was therefore absolved? Or are you saying Sansa didn't commit treason because Dany didn't burn her for it? Or are you saying that Sansa didn't commit treason because Sansa doesn't matter and so she can't commit treason? Or.....?
  12. WeDoNotKneel_HailMance

    The North is finally independent

    Ugh. How do we know that Dany knew what Sansa said or Sansa's intent? And even if we say you're right, yes Dany knew, well how does that even matter? It seems like you're arguing that Dany knew what Sansa did and didn't punish Sansa, and therefore Sansa is innocent. So....if I'm speeding in my car, get pulled over, a policeman got my speeding on radar (they know what I did), but they decide to not give me a ticket because I'm a nice guy...does that mean that I wasn't speeding? Let's take an in universe example. The Tyrells committed treason against Joffrey by declaring for Renly. Tywin is obviously fully aware of it. (see video link here). And what did Tywin do to them? Nothing. Does that mean they never declared for Renly, or that declaring for Renly wasn't treasonous?
  13. WeDoNotKneel_HailMance

    The North is finally independent

    Are you saying this means that people only actually committed crimes when they get caught or punished? Like, you're saying Sansa didn't commit treason because Dany didn't burn her alive.....right? And if this holds, then... did Tyrion not murder Tywin, because he was never punished for it? did Roose Bolton not commit treason against Robb Stark because he was never punished for it? Did Littlefinger not commit treason against Joffrey because he wasn't punished for it? I'm so confused by this argument. I also still don't understand your definition of treason or your argument for why Sansa did not commit treason. Are you saying Sansa didn't commit treason because she didn't intend for her statement to Tyrion to bring down or overthrow Dany in favor of Jon? Or are you saying that Sansa didn't commit treason because she told the truth and was therefore absolved? Or are you saying that Sansa didn't commit treason because Sansa doesn't matter and so she can't commit treason? Or.....?
  14. WeDoNotKneel_HailMance

    The North is finally independent

    I thought we were having a discussion about whether or not Sansa committed the crime of treason. You had asked the initial question of why Sansa telling Tyrion about Jon's parentage is a crime. Looking at this definition of treason, it appears to me that when Sansa says "what if there is someone else, someone better" she is attempting to spread information in order to overthrow Dany. But anyways, if we're discussing whether or not Sansa committed the crime of treason, I thought it would be useful to be aware of your definition of treason because you may be viewing this in a different way. But we've probably taken this too far already, so I will stop now.
  15. WeDoNotKneel_HailMance

    The North is finally independent

    OK. I will try to understand. What is your definition of treason?
×