Jump to content

Le Cygne

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Le Cygne

  • Rank
    More Beauty and the Beast on my About Me

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

49,638 profile views
  1. I agree with your point, but just wanted to comment a bit on how much is a book plot. They don't learn well. I'm not so sure they were even told this. We have seen how they never get the book plot points, and never met one they didn't want to "improve" by doing the opposite and erasing all meaning. Bran could be lord of Winterfell, not king of Westeros. Dany could make a well intentioned mistake that she regrets, and that's her downfall. We really don't know much, going by the show. Also some more thoughts: Maybe Dany chooses to fly away on Drogon in the end. Maybe Jon and Dany both decide it's best for Gendry to take the throne, and that accounts for his meaningless show plot. Lots of bits and pieces of leftover plots all over the place they didn't know what to do with after they "improved" things, that were there but they left out where they really went. And there's the interchangeable plot unit stuff going on, the missing Jon Con, fAegon, Arianne, Lady Stoneheart, were mixed in and mashed up by the bad learners.
  2. When it was useful to them, for the moment. They screwed Jon over by making the story of the season Sansa vs. Dany. The season before, it was Sansa vs. Arya. They had a long history of this sort of thing. Book Sansa knows how to BEHAVE. She'd have been horrified that THIS was supposed to be her! Their Sandra monster was just a puppet to them, a plaything they used to move along their stupid plots. They all were, basically, but she's one they gutted and shamelessly used for a long time. Jaime is another. You can't even follow the bouncing ball of their stupid plots, it drops with a thud, then is thrown into the stratosphere, often the very next scene or episode. There was no thought or consistency, the characters were just plot units.
  3. Agree on the first point. As for the second point, I think being "fair" to any plot point on this show is shaky ground. The show said morality is stupid, they had the Stark kids mocking their own father, who basically ran on the morality platform. They didn't actually tell a story about morality, or what the North even wanted, in any coherent way. It was just a way of deflecting criticism for season 5. Also I'll just add, the reason ranting is still fun is that GoT is the BAD EXAMPLE. So when you watch good things, it comes to mind. 
  4. I think she's fully capable of being nasty, as she demonstrated, she almost killed Arya and Jon, and threw Rickon under the bus, and well, where would she draw the line? I see no line. But I don't see any cleverness. I think she flunked out of Littlefinger School (although that was easy since he was stupid, too) and would quickly lose control and then off with her head. The whole thing was just incredibly stupid, so it would end stupid, too.
  5. I think it would go to hell in a handbasket quickly, and she'd be gone within months. Branbot would assume rule (he saw it coming, that's why he agreed to it, get rid of the traitorous sister, and move on).
  6. Sandra (the pod person who replaced Sansa) of course had to have a tiara, her reward for thanking them for what they did to her. When the north revolts and storms the gates, Sandra will say let them eat cake. And Branbot will see but just say well, she asked for it.
  7. Sansa's prom queen of the extras dress was hilarious, she did just about everything she could to thumb her nose at the north, including nearly killing her siblings and choosing to marry family killers, then the final insult was flaunting a weirwood tree after breaking a weirwood tree vow. Ugh. Was Dany wearing black? I didn't even notice, there was a sea of black, white, and grey going on, it was so monotonous, if I was supposed to infer something from it, YAWN. They were all about THE SHOT which meant absolutely nothing (and often made mockery of everyone and everything).
  8. Every now and then I read a quote from the books, and simple things were missing from the show. Simple things that should have been commonplace, no matter what. Pretty dresses just because it's fun to wear them, made with soft fabrics and happy colors, that don't look like they robbed the Star Trek Romulan officer costume rack, and are not making some bizarre statement a costume designer dreamed up. Pretty gems in bright colors, not metal that would be painful to wear and looks like the stuff of nightmares, something lighthearted and happy. Two people dancing together, that's commonly used in stories, but not this one. People singing about happy things, instead of massacres and war. All of this is just normal people stuff. Benioff and Weiss never knew how to write about human beings, which is really telling about them. (Yes, I'm saying they write like pod people, but it's true.)
  9. I understand, I was just having fun making fun of it again! It's like Netflix adopted the Benioff and Weiss Doctrine.
  10. The friend I watched it with and I had good fun making fun of it. For us, it was shades of GoT. There were naked women out the wazoo, while the men wore panties at an orgy, and the male lead never showed below his upper chest. We kept joking that he must have been super bashful, because even in the bath and while having sex, he was discreetly covered. Meanwhile the female lead who was dying to be pretty and obsessed over having a baby was naked as a jaybird as much as she was clothed. I barely watched, forgive me if I missed the plot (was there one?), but I think it could have been fun if they'd listened to Abigail Adams and remembered the ladies.
  11. Good point, and as a fantasy, there is a lot of opportunity to break free of confining constructs that go down well worn paths that deny characters opportunities to explore who they really are. I often hear the argument, well, they had to do this. No, they didn't, they only "had to" because it was written that way. That's the beauty of telling stories, they can be told any way you like.
  12. Well, there's a massive appetite for other stories, but it is unmet.
  13. That wasn't the point of her article. You are justifying Dany in the framework of the show. She's saying think beyond the framework of a world where women are not valued. She's saying take women like Dany and Sansa and write very different stories about them, that celebrate who they are, and that will be a very different kind of story. When I read the books vs. watch the show, I see a difference, even though he's not grasped telling such stories, either. At least he's trying to be true to the women. At this point, even an effort is appreciated. This show not only didn't try, it made things worse, they never bother to think beyond their own viewpoint because they don't have to.
  14. There really was nothing groundbreaking about Game of Thrones. That was another talking point, but Lord of the Rings had already broken the ground, and you could actually SEE it. Another talking point, strong women (as if this needs to be remarked upon, like women aren't naturally strong). The way GoT used women as plot devices was certainly nothing new. Even the spirited Antigone, the brave Joan of Arc and the unfettered Thelma and Louise meet tragic ends in large part because they are spirited, brave and unfettered. They can defy kings, refuse beauty and defend themselves against violence. But it’s challenging for a writer to imagine a world in which such free women can exist without brutal consequences... When we kill women in our stories, we aren’t just annihilating female gendered bodies. We are annihilating the feminine as a force wherever it resides — in women, in men, of the natural world. Because what we really mean when we say we want strong female leads is: “Give me a man but in the body of a woman I still want to see naked... I don’t want to be the dead girl, or Dave’s wife. But I don’t want to be a strong female lead either, if my power is defined largely by violence and domination, conquest and colonization. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/opinion/sunday/brit-marling-women-movies.html
  15. Another oft used talking point, when asked about the ending, the actors deflected answers about ending, instead saying that it was "bittersweet" for the show to end because they wouldn't be working with each other again. The "reporters" (who were for the most part serving as paid fans to keep the hype train rolling with their fan pages) would in turn deliver the talking point as "the ending is bittersweet" even though that's not what they said. Just did a quick search, first one that came up: Headline: 'Game of Thrones': Peter Dinklage Teases "Beautifully Bittersweet" Ending Actual comment: "But as anticlimactic as it was, my last day was also beautifully bittersweet. A lot of people whom I love were on set that day. Even if they weren’t working, they came to set, which was beautiful. I tried to do the same thing when other actors were wrapping out. If it was their day, you would go to set to say good-bye. It was really hard." Also just have to add, not only is this not the book character, this should be no character. He was always awesome, he just had to find out what to do with his awesomeness: "The beauty of Tyrion is that he grew out of that mode in a couple of seasons and developed a strong sense of responsibility. Not morality, because he always had that, but what to do with his intelligence." https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/game-thrones-peter-dinklage-teases-beautifully-bittersweet-ending-1152511