Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Daske

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Daske

    If Robert’s Rebellion was built on a lie,

    Thanks, I will try to find that scene. I agree with you about that with Ned and their friendship. And lying is not his way. But love can make you act in crazy ways (especially if you like a drink!). And make you blind to other obvious things. People can twist things in their heads to make them believe they are in the right if they are not seeing things straight. And Robert is proud. And handsome and strong. And hot-headed. She must love him, how could she not? I think Ned sees that Robert is overly obsessed with the Targaryans because of Lyanna in that scene in the field where Robert says he wants Dany dead. I'm sure Ned there believes that his friend has crossed a moral boundary in wanting this 'child' dead. Robert it must be said is right about the danger but he's also burning with intense hatred in that scene, considering she personally has done nothing to him. That doesn't mean much in itself with regard to did he lie, but I think it's clear his passion could overcome reason when he has his mind on Lyanna.
  2. Daske

    If Robert’s Rebellion was built on a lie,

    Except that the biggest and first reference to all this is about how much Robert really loved Lyanna and about how much he really hates the Targaryans. And Ned immediately ties that in with the rebellion. As a viewer you are meant to pick up that Lyanna-Targaryan-Rebellion vibe in the very first episode (and remember it has to be on the nose because at this point the viewer does not know the history at all). But you know, you don't have to throw around words like dumb and nonsense. There is usually more than one way to read things in shows like this. It's ok to respect other people's opinions without agreeing at all with them. And even if you don't respect their opinions you don't have to be rude. It's stuff like that that stops me (and others I have talked to) posting here. You may think you're just being blunt, or forthright, or just pushing away the pretend fans who don't know every word of the books, but noone here has kicked your dog, it's a TV show and you're just being rude because you feel like it. Anyway, whatever. Rule the board or whatever you are trying to do.
  3. Daske

    If Robert’s Rebellion was built on a lie,

    Let's say for a moment that Robert did know that Lyanna was in love with Rhaegar and purposely lied about it, is there anything in the show that disproves this? I realise nothing shows it - even Bran didn't see it happen, he just extrapolated it from the fact that they were in love and got married willingly. If I try to fill in the gaps, Lyanna tells Robert she loves another (or Robert sees them stealing a kiss, or whatever), Roberts says balls to that you're going nowhere, Rhaeger rescues her, and Robert just can't see beyond the fact that his one true love has been 'kidnapped', and has to get her back my whatever means necessary. And consciously or subconsciously lies about it to get support. I mean if Ned knew his sister was in love would he have gone to war on that alone? I dunno, can't see it. So Robert would have had to lie to him. And then the Stark deaths sealed it. That sounds like a lot of putty filling holes but it would be fairly normal fantasy fare if that version was told up-front (The Princess Bride is pretty close for example). (I still think 'built on a lie' may just mean 'built on a misapprehension' though). How does it justify the Mad King's actions? Robert can be lying or mistaken and the Mad King can be well, mad and murderous. But without the 'lie' then the following murders and demands wouldn't have happened. Or at least not followed on in the same way. But for certain Robert would have been nowhere near as pissed at the Targaryans. Bran only says 'built on a lie', not 'this and only this is what caused it'. Also, are you adding some book stuff detail in there around who exactly did what and when? The show is a bit vaguer than that isn't it? (I could be wrong; haven't re-watched the later stuff recently, but I don't recall the precise historical events being detailed to that level in the show). I do agree that another explanation could have also been compelling. I don't see any harm with this route either though. We know Robert was pretty serf-serving and exceedingly ruthless.
  4. Daske

    If Robert’s Rebellion was built on a lie,

    When Bran says 'built on a lie', are you sure it means a literal lie by Robert? It could be a turn of phrase to just mean it wasn't true, which is what I took it to mean when first watching. Edit: e.g. as in this randomly copied sentence... "The fact that the empire of Japan was training schoolchildren to attack soldiers with sharpened sticks lends lie to the thought they would have surrendered." This isn't saying that the historians are intentionally lying, but rather that the author believes they were under a misapprehension.
  5. Daske

    If Robert’s Rebellion was built on a lie,

    Yeah, I don't get this fuss about that line. I just started a re-watch and in Episode One Robert and Ned are talking about Lyanna's death & burial in the crypt in one of the very first scenes... While touching Lyanna statue's face, Robert: "In my dreams I kill him every night". Ned: "It's done Your Grace. Targaryens are gone" [because of the rebellion] Robert: "Not all of them" It's our first bit of historical lore we learn. It's obviously expanded on later, but it's planted in the wider history right there at the very beginning - he killed Rhaegar because of his own love for Lyanna. He is still burning with hatred for Targaryans even years later. The murder of the Starks may have kicked off the war itself, but Lyanna & Raeghar is what stoked the hatred in Robert. So I don't think it's wrong at all to say Robert's rebellion was 'built on a lie'. The thing here I am unsure about is whether the word lie is being used in a bit of flowery way meaning 'misconception', or more literally to mean a 'known falsehood'. If Robert knew how they felt about each other and was intentionally lying about it to Ned and others because he couldn't face the truth himself then that is nasty and paints his character in a much darker light. Yeah, I would call him a villain in this case. I think it's clear this is not something Ned would do, so don't see him as a villain here; he had no reason to doubt Robert.
  6. Daske

    [SPOILERS thru S7] Where did the show go wrong?

    Christopher Tolkein's work too could fall under this umbrella, which doesn't seem right at all.
  7. Daske

    [SPOILERS thru S7] Where did the show go wrong?

    I agree fanfiction is used inappropriately all the time on this site as an insult, and it does great disservice to the many fans of this and hundreds of other shows that spend a lot of time and energy and often great skill in producing it. It's a shame. One thing you may consider, at this point in time the rest of the show is the only version we have and there is more than a reasonable chance GRRM does not or cannot finish the books himself. In which case the show will in the end be the first, and possibly only, definitive and official version of the missing story whether people like it or not. (NB I don't think the show has gone wrong at all, it's just changed focus as it approaches the end-game).
  8. Well, you seem to spend a hell of a lot of time relentlessly bashing a show that isn't for you, so yes I disagree a lot with what you say. But whether I misunderstood you or not in this case maybe you need to tone it down a little. I will say this... if you think that Benjen showing up is 'pure shock value', then I think it's no wonder people don't understand what you say. It's convenient yes, surprising even, but shocking? I don't think that is an appropriate way to describe that kind of scene. So maybe I didn't answer to exactly what you meant, but no need to go off the rails. What is 'pure shock value' is Brienne getting her face bitten off or Ramsay's bestiality rape, both of which pretty much come out of nowhere in the books and are not in the show. But I will assume you are happy with those. I've said this before but if either of those were not in the books and the show happened to invent them then I'm sure that you and many others would be screaming that they were put in for 'pure shock value'. And I think that is an appropriate way to use the term. I'm just asking for consistency in evaluating things. And people are writing thesis on why the show is so popular, but you have it all worked out right? Anyone with half a brain...? Chill out! I bet fans can come up with a dozen different reasons, and they might all be correct. The reason I mentioned this was because I don't think it is possible to fully understand these high drama moments on the show if you aren't invested in the show. You're all in and most of the shlocky moments work brilliantly, or you're not and they fall completely flat. And yes that's a Catch-22 to some degree but that's the way of it. You either caught the ride or you didn't. (By the way, my original post was 14 lines, that's 'lengthy'? Your reply was double that, hardly a crime either way!).
  9. This doesn't make sense though. If you were to conduct poll around books with the most shocking moments the ASoIaF books would probably be No1. Throwing the book across the room in disgust has become almost a pretend (or real!) memory with many people. The shock moments are what people remember from the books more than anything, especially Ned and the Red Wedding. 'Don't get attached to any characters'. Ditto the show; it's not a failing for the show to have shocking moments. It's very in keeping with the books. Did you forget Brienne has someone eating her face in the books? Or the forced bestiality? Or the nipple removal? Or Jaime's hand chopped off? Or [insert any of dozens of other moments]? I don't think you understand what really makes the show popular - take a look at some of the hundreds of GoT reaction videos out there. People are seriously invested in the characters and intensely focused on most of the scenes. That's why people find the scenes are shocking. You don't get that kind of investment and reaction just because 'the music isn't bad'. What the do you mean by 'pure shock value' anyway? I don't see anyone closing a bathroom mirror and a ghost of a Japanese schoolgirl appearing in the reflection. Jon didn't just wake up and have his head cut off by Freddy Kruger. No, the shocking moments in the show are totally in keeping with the shocking moments in the books, for the most part built up slowly and executed effectively - just done in a way that the medium demands (e.g. they can't overlay the internal thoughts, but they can add music).
  10. Daske

    What is the role of Gendry?

    If this happens I think it will be with Nymeria rather than Gendry.
  11. Daske

    What is the role of Gendry?

    Gendry is back so that he can forge the white walker spear-proof dragon armour Drogon wears when he takes down Viserion. I can live in hope anyway. D&D please read this. Make it happen!
  12. I think it's the opposite. GoT has raised the bar so high that people are freaking out about a perceived drop in to poor quality when it doesn't match their own fan fiction. It should be this, it must be that. OK, everyone wants different things, how you rate stuff is subjective, sure. But there was a full on AD&D fight with flaming swords and a freaking undead bear. Right there, on screen! Viewers are spoiled these days. I spent a month once waiting for a schoolmate get me a dodgy VHS tape copy of a Hartnell black-and-white Doctor Who episode that was barely visible through the snowstorm and the sound was a full second out of sync. But it was AMAZING! I know I'm not alone in being so grateful that we have this show to watch - whatever faults it has with some of the writing and some of the pacing. So what? There was a freaking undead bear fight!
  13. I loved it. For me GoT has always been 1/3 fantasy drama, 1/3 soap opera and 1/3 horror show. Ticked all my boxes.
  14. In the early days I absolutely agree. But vision and scope is no good if you've opened it up far too wide and then get stuck piecing it all back together again. This is my second favourite book series, but I refuse to call it brilliant if he has painted himself into a corner and cannot deliver an ending because it's too bloated.
  15. Sounds like history though. The land barons and aristocracy tended to jump ship when it suited them (admittedly we tend to hear more about the worst ones, but still).