Jump to content

bizzle

Members
  • Content count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bizzle

  • Rank
    Commoner
  1. That's a bit of a stretch to declare dynastic rule over.
  2. bizzle

    "Bittersweet" can't happen in the show

    In terms of a bittersweet ending, it's possible the ending is going to be something like Dany, for all her desire to rule this place as destined from birth, realizes the only way to break chains and wheels and usher in lasting peace is if the Iron Throne is no longer available for contestation. Hence, she destroys her ancestral home in order to obliterate the center of rule. Her actions instigating city-states or some rudimentary form of democracy would fit that bittersweet definition, I think. I do want to say that I don't think it's viable to use characters' opinions regarding Jon's potential as King as an accurate metric of what is or isn't a good ruler. Sansa, for example, is an unreliable narrator (outsider) when it comes to Jon's potential as King. She can recognize him as a leader of battles, but she has no reference of him as a ruler during peacetime as far as I know. She has much more ruling experience than he does in that regard. She's biased, however, in that her goal is not the best King for the people but rather the best King on that IT in regards to the north. And in that vein, she desires a ruler who will allow their autonomy and she believes she sees that in Jon. That's the basis for her position. The others are comparing him to "Mad" Dany. This comparison wouldn't even be occurring if not for this so-called madness they're picking up on. Dany hasn't done anything that would question her ability to lead, other than this so-called madness issue. In that vein, they're falling back on the next legitimate claimant in Jon, which is less about his potential to be a great King and more about her potential to be catastrophic. In making this the pivot point, however, the creators are ignoring the rules of ascension aren't as clean-cut as this version of the end is trying to force past everyone. It's become this strange space where if Dany doesn't get it, Jon gets it by default so we're being led down a path of his potential greatness in that capacity despite none of that actually being how any of this works in Westeros.
  3. bizzle

    Jon's biggest error?

    It's strange to me to see how people put these things into perspective. From my perspective, Dany is not paranoid about Sansa. Sansa has made it abundantly clear she doesn't like, respect, want Dany as her sovereign. She's also made it clear that, despite her following protocol, the rest of the north is all but short of outright rejecting her reign already. She also didn't guess that Jon betrayed her in the sense of taking a WAG at the culprit in the way that sentence implies to me. Not sure if you meant it that way, but Jon told Dany, Dany asked him to tell anyone, he said he needed to tell his family, and she reiterated he can't tell anyone. He wanders off and does tell his family, it circulates until eventually making its way back to Dany, whereupon she confronts him with the fact that he did betray her as the source of that information. She didn't guess so much as deduce who the culprit was. But impressions of paranoia and guessing at who is or isn't to blame for betraying her imply a certain color to her behavior that aligns with this "mad" Dany we're being offered. Her behavior looks rational to me other than the voiceovers beating me over the head with her eventual insanity.
  4. bizzle

    Jon's biggest error?

    That's a misattribution. GRRM provided them with those plot points and overall structure. It's their narrative deficiencies that are calling attention to it the points with big glaring arrows, but that's not the fault of a plot being in existence! I don't think that's an accurate quote or at least an accurate statement about the situation. They knew certain things needed to happen, it wasn't their desire, they just don't seem capable or perhaps interested in getting the audience to the end in a believable way. Excellent stories are heavily plot driven. If characters were just wandering around doing random things, it'd appear more like real life but it'd be a terrible story. An author being heavy handed in the delivery is the problem here-not the existence of plot.
  5. bizzle

    Jon's biggest error?

    That sentence was written poorly. I was responding to the explanation that certain characters are just doing things because the plot needs them to be done. It seems like the sentence immediately before the sentence you bolded and responded to agrees with your position and the last sentence, read in the way you did, contradicts the rest of the paragraph it is in. I think you should have asked for clarification instead of disregarding the point the paragraph was making. I don't think analogies to the real world make sense. In a book or show there does exist an omniscient author. The characters are not simply drawn into a page and allowed to do whatever their hearts lead them. Understanding an author exists along with an overall plot doesn't necessarily lead to the examples you're giving. Those are examples of poor storytelling, not of stories with plots that characters are working towards. Plots exist. Even in this story GRRM sat down with the creators of the show and outlined the major plot points, so your description of how this story emerges isn't accurate although I think I get what you're saying. There isn't any kind of obvious demands on characters to do strange things out of character regardless of plot, but I would say it's not due to the absence of plot but rather the ability of a good storyteller to keep that side of the story out of view from a reader or viewer. Anyway, those two sentences were intended to relay the point that I don't think character behavior should be required in any specific way to arrive at a plot point. That's what I meant by characters not driving plot in the same way you think people should not walk through bullet hail to arrive at a specific plot point. What should happen, in my opinion, is that an overall plot exists, characters should progress toward fulfilling that plot, and their behavior should remain consistent with their past. That's what I meant by plot driving character (development).
  6. bizzle

    Jon's biggest error?

    The reason Jon bent the knee to her was that he never wanted to be King in the first place. He didn't want to co-lead with Dany; he doesn't want to lead at all. This is one of the factors that people (in the story) keep missing/forgetting/ignoring when they consider the end-game here. As proven before, Jon will shed his duty to rule as quickly as he can. Regarding plot progression, I don't think it's acceptable to explain character behavior as a necessary element of plot progression. Plot should drive character behavior; character behavior should never drive plot.
  7. bizzle

    Arya got nothing

    Dany did raise a glass to her, at least.
  8. bizzle

    Arya Losin' It

    Both of those examples were criticized and discussed both within forum communities and the popular/news media. Arya's was mostly resolved by people pointing to the age of her character and the fact that she didn't actually perform in those scenes--that it was a ruse rather than her being an actual prostitute. I don't remember Dany's resolution beyond much more than it was claimed to have been handled more sensitively than in the books, maybe a conversation about a difference in age between her in-show vs her in-book, and both discussed within the context of the show's culture, laws, expectations, etc. The bottom line is all of the young females on this show shows in sexually explicit terms have had substantial conversation or "controversy" over what they are doing. Such conversations have even risen to the meta level where criticisms arise based on national perspective (like the US vs. Euro pre-occupation with sexuality vs. violence referenced earlier in this thread) and even angles of sexism in that the male characters are not held to the same scrutiny of whether they are 17 or 18 or whether their actors are 17 or 18, etc. (not exact numbers, but an example intended to illustrate how frequently these conversations turn on whether the character is or is not of acceptable cultural or legal age of consent and also whether the actor underneath the character is appropriately legal, too). As for whether the show built this up correctly, I wonder how many of the responsive have been from women. For me, I was reluctant to perceive the buildup. I didn't have a stake in it, but I mean I was simply regarding any awkwardness between her and Gendry as her playing around with him. My wife, however, called her interest out within a few seconds of them both being on scene. When I responded that was silly, she then proceeded to point out every single facial feature, eye raise, sideways glance (and the camera cutaways to Gendry's loose clothes and prominent muscles). It got to the point where I asked if she was trying to tell me something, maybe we should pause the show if she was projecting She also told me there was indications in E1 on account of their playing/teasing with one another (she did label it as flirting, but she is much younger than me in her mid-20s) but it was E2 where she said that it's happening, it's going down, and that wasn't clear to me until right about seconds before she started unlatching her clothes. That said, this also isn't too far from reality, either! That is, despite our culture's perspective on who initiates sex more frequently between the sexes, it's been my experience that I and other guys I know don't always know a woman has made her mind up to have sex with one of us until she's literally sitting on our lap or face. I'm not always oblivious I'm just having flashbacks to when I was in high school and remembering one of the girls in my class that I was very attracted to who asked me what my plans were for prom. I told her I hadn't asked anyone and no had asked me, so I had none and she said yeah no one had asked her either. After about a beat, I said oh man that's strange, well ok see you tomorrow! Anyway, it's completely within the realm of plausibility that the show was showing us things we weren't picking up rather than them simply not being there.
  9. bizzle

    Dany Fleeing After Jon Reveal

    Like I wrote, I couldn't find what I thought to be an accurate timeline but debating the difference between two years vs. seven doesn't change the overall point: the last 1/3 of someone's life is not more profound than the first 2/3s of it regardless of how significant those events are. She was fully supportive of her brother's right to the throne even though she despised him. Her arc has been about convincing herself of her fitness and rightness to rule, but that developed in the absence of any other Targs as far as she knows. However they choose to slice ruling behind closed doors, in public they'll abide by the rules and legitimate claims to the throne or their status wouldn't be seen by anyone as valid. After it's revealed that Jon is the true successor to the throne whereas she is not, it won't be her throne anymore except in her lustful desire, it won't be her throne anymore in his eyes even if he doesn't care to wear the crown, and her rule wouldn't be understood as legitimate by anyone else. If she ignores all of that, her personal desires will abrade against tradition and law. There is no realistic scenario where Jon is revealed as having the stronger claim, they marry, he either abdicates the throne to her or she just usurps him, and then everyone agrees to that arrangement. Maybe the script will set that up, but it's a strange stretch unless they really do develop her into something she hasn't been so far. Unless we also conclude she thinks anyone can ride dragons, she now knows Jon's not a mere mortal (pardon the pun) on top of everything else.
  10. We don't know the exact nature of his and Jon's relationship, but there exists enough hints sprinkled throughout that we ought not ignore the implications of a familial relationship between the two. I believe there were actually two instances where it seemed an obvious, deliberate choice to spare Jon: this one and at the frozen lake. The frozen lake sparing is often attributing to the NK's alleged abilities to either see the future or present things going on elsewhere but the bottom line is they he knew a dragon was coming and wanted it. The other explanation of that interaction, which would also explain this one, is that the NK *can't* or at least *won't* kill Jon.
  11. bizzle

    Dany Fleeing After Jon Reveal

    Her story arc has been about this ascension to the throne, but it was not something she's been feeling her entire life--or even a major portion of her life. She was originally married off to Drogo in exchange for an army to regain the throne for her brother, not her. It wasn't until she establishes herself in Drogo's eyes, however, that she begins to fight back against her brother's abuse towards her. Until that point she either didn't care or didn't think about claiming the throne for herself. The wiki says she was born in 282 AC. The same source claims Drogo died in 298 AC, which would have made her 16 at the time of his death. The only complete timeline I could find suggest we're currently at, or around, 300 AC, which is only two years after Drogo's death and Dany's rebirth from the fire with the dragons. She hasn't really been planning and actively attempting to sit on the Iron Throne for much longer than a couple years. I think it's far more accurate to conclude that she grew up believing that a Targaryen is the only rightful heir to the throne rather than it being specifically her. If anything it seems as though she would support Jon's claim and happily be his wife (which, if I'm not mistaken, would be regarded as entirely appropriate/normal/expected within their family). Her issues with Viserys were due to his abuse and not his claim to the throne (which I believe she supported) over hers. Her issues with Drogo were also due to the personal relationship and not due to the fact that she wouldn't be the ruler of her native land or even his troops. Of course, once those men died and left power vacuums, she hatched the dragons and declared herself as true heir and then anointed herself as savior of all men--but I don't know what we have by way of evidence that she's going to mow down any other claim to the throne she sees as legitimate (which can only be Jon, if not her, in her eyes).
×