Jump to content
Beardy the Wildling

What was the best unintentional lesson learned from Game of Thrones?

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Oh, well I kinda treated them as part of your post so I hope I still addressed those paragraphs sufficiently.

The North wasn't - the official story was that they were all poisoned by enemies, only like 3-4 people knew the truth, and Ramsay was reigning through terror anyway, unconcerned with being liked or supported (as Roose kept advising him).

 

If everyone in the North hated Ramsay (which would have made sense), that sure wasn't apparent, as he had a big army of Northmen, just as strong as Jon's.
What means did he use to rule by terror, anyway? Where exactly did he get so much power to be able to do so? It's not like he's been getting any support from the Lannisters or from the Freys (and it would be pretty surprising if he did).

Quote

It's not "insane", it's a particular human mindset - a quite relatable one at that.


Really?! :blink:

Quote

Yes, but over time that turned into a myth and most grounded people came to believe it was against the wildlings - I'm sure you're aware of that main plot point as well :D


Yes, exactly. Which is why the Night's Watch was so poorly manned and supplied, and had lost its previous importance in the minds of people in most of Westeros (minus the North and maybe a few other places). 
But now that they know that the White Walkers are real and have definitely returned, the Night's Watch should logically be gaining in importance, and Jon should be able to get more support to do his job as the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch

I'm not sure what you thought you were proving with this argument...

Quote

Case in point - it's questionable whether Ned would've still executed him had he believed his ghost story


How is that in any way relevant to Jon's situation? Did Jon run away from White Walkers, like Will did?

Quote

Everyone was too flabbergasted by his resurrection, and afterwards it's not clear who was told about that and what their take on it was.


And then they said "Oh my gods, this man died and was resurrected through some weird foreign magic? We must then make him our king!" :huh:

If anything, I'd expect people to be completely freaked out and kind of scared of Jon.

Quote

But he used his "death" as a honorable loophole to leave the post, if everyone here recalls.

Did he? How did that go - did he appear before a panel of maesters considered to be legal experts. or a council of noblemen, or at least his NW brothers, who considered the rights and obligations of undead resurrected people under the Westerosi laws and customs? Somehow I don't think they had a precedent they could use...

Edited by Annara Snow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

 That was great. Hopefully there will be more posts like that in this thread.

Thanks I really enjoyed your first post as well (especially the armor being pointless except to prevent drowning - har!).

@Beardy the Wildling would you be opposed to the thread getting restarted without any of the super long back-and-forth arguments and just the funny "unintentional lessons"?  I was kind of hoping to read a bunch of those and not spend 8 minutes scrolling through joyless debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

If everyone in the North hated Ramsay (which would have made sense), that sure wasn't apparent, as he had a big army of Northmen, just as strong as Jon's.
What means did he use to rule by terror, anyway? Where exactly did he get so much power to be able to do so? It's not like he's been getting any support from the Lannisters or from the Freys (and it would be pretty surprising if he did).

Ramsay's rule of terror was successful apparently, in this continuity.

How? He could skin disobedient lords for not paying taxes; apparently his central combat force was strong enough to terrorize individual lords; even getting some of them together + a bunch of wildlings still resulted in an inferior army.

9 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

Really?! :blink:

Ya

9 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

Yes, exactly. Which is why the Night's Watch was so poorly manned and supplied, and had lost its previous importance in the minds of people in most of Westeros (minus the North and maybe a few other places). 
But now that they know that the White Walkers are real and have definitely returned, the Night's Watch should logically be gaining in importance, and Jon should be able to get more support to do his job as the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch

I'm not sure what you thought you were proving with this argument.

As I said - arguments could've been had about whether he was more effective at the Wall, or ruling the North in preparation for the storm etc.

It's a situation that hasn't occurred for like 3000 years and what exactly happened back there is shrouded in myth - reconsidering some of their rigid rules would certainly be a reasonable thing on the table.

And while it wasn't actually brought up in the show, the fact that they all accept this semi-deserter as their king even after the dust has settled doesn't appear particularly implausible given this general circumstance - esp. given how important off-screen discussions definitely happen in this universe judging from other examples; so who knows what was said there?

This is in contrast to them praising Jon as the hero of the battle, which actually doesn't make sense, and everyone incl. the lords and the viewers were there to witness it.

9 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

How is that in any way relevant to Jon's situation? Did Jon run away from White Walkers, like Will did?

It's relevant in a more general sense in terms of how rigidly people follow all those rules under varying circumstances.

Your argument was that yes, very rigidly, look at Ned/Will! But a big part of him going through with it (against Cat's misgivings at that, and she hadn't even heard the spook story) was his disbelief so your argument stops being as solid - and it opens up the possibilities of other Northern characters bending the desertion rules under extraordinary spooky circumstances.

9 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:


And then they said "Oh my gods, this man died and was resurrected through some weird foreign magic? We must then make him our king!" :huh:

I've no idea what was said there - no one does.

If that was something that was brought up, placating arguments could've been: 1) Stannis subscribed to that religion and he was backed by Ned. 2) That religion is a good ally because it also sees the Others as an arch-enemy. 

(Well, not sure if the Old Gods traditionally do, but it's the religion of (some?) of the Wildlings and the mythical CotF, who were allies against the WWs, so it all adds up.)

9 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

If anything, I'd expect people to be completely freaked out and kind of scared of Jon.

Well there was the initial concern but his eyes weren't blue and he was acting like himself, and then I guess they just got used to it - however that angle has been heavily neglected in many ways, to the point that it's even now open to speculation whether the Northern Lords knew. about it.

9 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

Did he? How did that go - did he appear before a panel of maesters considered to be legal experts. or a council of noblemen, or at least his NW brothers, who considered the rights and obligations of undead resurrected people under the Westerosi laws and customs? Somehow I don't think they had a precedent they could use...

Were all stunned and just let it happen - Jon's self-confidence and then leaving command in the hands of his loyal friend certainly ought to have placated the "hey hey wait... he's technically deserting so does that mean off with his head now or what?" voice that probably rang in one or two people's heads.

Plus he had a whole horde of wildlings backing him, certainly no need to start a new conflict over Jon's freedom status.


That part wasn't very unbelievable, however the way this sort of fell by the wayside in the aftermath ranged from the uneblievable to the murky (i.e. no one knowing what if anything took place off-screen and who knew or thought what about this issue).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Do you mean that in the sense of D&D trying to champion feminism or smear it? It can't be the former, because they're portrayed as villains.

They wanna champion feminism in the same way angry liberal college students do: To virtue-signal to become popular, and only do it by making women strong by either making them stereotypically manly or using sex as a weapon rather than because, you know, they might want to. Because actually not being sexist is hard.

Edited by Beardy the Wildling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lucius Lovejoy said:

Thanks I really enjoyed your first post as well (especially the armor being pointless except to prevent drowning - har!).

@Beardy the Wildling would you be opposed to the thread getting restarted without any of the super long back-and-forth arguments and just the funny "unintentional lessons"?  I was kind of hoping to read a bunch of those and not spend 8 minutes scrolling through joyless debate.

Wouldn't that be the day? Alas, if you so much as playfully criticise Game of Thrones on these forums, it's to be expected. It's okay, after all, variety of opinion is the spice of life. Joyless debate is somewhat cathartic to me XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lucius Lovejoy said:

 

Daenerys Targaryen:  Do not ever state specific policy proposals for what you would do as ruler - as long as "break the wheel" is as ambiguous as "hope and change" and "drain the swamp" you'll be successful in becoming the leader of the free world.  It also helps to surround yourself with people who insist that you are the only one capable of leading without providing any evidence or reasoning to support their opinion.

Lyanna Mormont:  Speak in as aggressive a tone as possible and do not acknowledge that allies you disagree with have similar goals/concerns to you and may also be smart, well-intended, and deserving of respect, and you will win every debate and persuade everyone to follow your lead.

Rhaegar Targaryen:  Meet a girl and run off with her, don't show up to work for a solid year without so much as sending an email explaining your absence, continue to get access to the company bank account and protection service while the company falls apart without you, and if you fail to save it when you finally come back to work you'll still be remembered fondly and romanticized for following your selfish passions over meeting your commitments and obligations.

Huh, now that you mention it, Dany and Euron are both unnervingly like Trump. I was thinking Euron was the only Donald expy, but nope, there's another, and unlike Euron, this one's unintentional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

They wanna champion feminism in the same way angry liberal college students do: To virtue-signal to become popular, and only do it by making women strong by either making them stereotypically manly or using sex as a weapon rather than because, you know, they might want to. Because actually not being sexist is hard.

0) The talk was about the Sand women, who were portrayed as villainous and hence couldn't have been intended as champions of feminism.

1) Lots of female characters on GoT have sex because they want to and without using it as a weapon.

2) Lots of women are strong (incl. physically) without losing their feminity.

All your points are invalid somehow :o


 

24 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Huh, now that you mention it, Dany and Euron are both unnervingly like Trump. I was thinking Euron was the only Donald expy, but nope, there's another, and unlike Euron, this one's unintentional.

Being a charismatic "natural leader/orator with appealing ideas" is literally the only thing she has in common with Trump, while Euron has significantly more specific resemblances: the machismo, make Iron Islands great again, and actually being elected after persuading the people are the main ones.


 

22 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Alas, if you so much as playfully criticise Game of Thrones on these forums, it's to be expected. It's okay, after all, variety of opinion is the spice of life.

Being playful doesn't prevent your points from being wrong; and if you or @Lucius Lovejoy ever feel the desire to type wrong nonsense without being challenged, you know which thread to go to for that ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Being a charismatic "natural leader/orator with appealing ideas" is literally the only thing she has in common with Trump, while Euron has significantly more specific resemblances: the machismo, make Iron Islands great again, and actually being elected after persuading the people are the main ones.

Out of interest, are you a Trump supporter, because you're describing Trump with VERY flattering terms. I mean, if there's one thing Trump's first year in power has shown, it's that he's NOT a natural leader.

Off the top of my head, I can draw similarities:

Euron: Makes no attempt to say anything meaningful, ineffectually brags about cock size (there's no problems with my hands, and there's no problems elsewhere, I assure you), makes grandiose claims (gonna build the biggest naval fleet/wall ever, and it will be beautiful), says one thing, then means another (marry Daenerys, oh wait, I mean Cersei now), thinks woman candidates inherently are a joke (bleeding from her wherever, anyone? Not that I liked Hillary, but come on, man), ultimately wins the approval of the people by being an idiotic bully in trying times because people want change.

Daenerys: Makes grandiose claims, proposes slogans rather than actual policies (MAGA/Break the wheel), brags about prior achievements incessantly, even if they're irrelevant, likes to believe conspiracy theorists (cave drawings = real, present danger, gais!), makes no attempt to say anything meaningful, ultimately wins the approval of the people by being an idiotic bully because people will take anything that represents change, says one thing, then means another...

Yeah, both of them are weirdly Trump-like. Neither have grabbed something by the pussy yet, but I can wait. I know that Euron is at least an intentional Trump parody.

PS: If you are a Trump supporter, it explains why you think Margaery and Tommen isn't a case of sexual abuse of a child; you wouldn't mind it if child sex laws were overturned so you can be like his buddy Roy Moore, amirite?

Edited by Beardy the Wildling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Out of interest, are you a Trump supporter, because you're describing Trump with VERY flattering terms. I mean, if there's one thing Trump's first year in power has shown, it's that he's NOT a natural leader.

Daenerys turned out to be a bit shite at ruling as well - the main point is charisma and an authoritative personality.

And unless acknowledging Hitler's charisma makes you a Hitler supporter, that's a really weird conclusion to draw; no I wasn't a partisan during the election lmao

Quote

Off the top of my head, I can draw similarities:

Euron: Makes no attempt to say anything meaningful,

Making concrete promises that are meaningful to the tribe, isn't meaningful? What?

Quote

ineffectually brags about cock size (there's no problems with my hands, and there's no problems elsewhere, I assure you),

It contributed to him winning the election, so I'm not sure how ineffectual it was.

Quote

makes grandiose claims (gonna build the biggest naval fleet/wall ever, and it will be beautiful),

Yes, the fleet / the Mexican wall etc. is a direct parallel.

Quote

 says one thing, then means another (marry Daenerys, oh wait, I mean Cersei now),

I forgot how and why he changed his mind, but I think it had to do with Yara stealing his ships at that time and getting there first?

Quote

thinks woman candidates inherently are a joke (bleeding from her wherever, anyone? Not that I liked Hillary, but come on, man),

Missed that part I guess, but either way the boisterous machismo and possible chauvinism are the 2nd concrete similarity that i cited.

Quote

ultimately wins the approval of the people by being an idiotic bully in trying times because people want change.

There was nothing "idiotic" about Euron's words at any point; Trump has said lots of stupid things but I don't think saying he "won by being an idiot bully" is the most nuanced take on the events.

Being a bully to some of the GOP rivals certainly earned him popularity, but not really against Hilary for example.

Quote

Daenerys: Makes grandiose claims, proposes slogans rather than actual policies (MAGA/Break the wheel), brags about prior achievements incessantly,

Huh?

Quote

even if they're irrelevant, likes to believe conspiracy theorists (cave drawings = real, present danger, gais!),

What?

Quote

makes no attempt to say anything meaningful, ultimately wins the approval of the people by being an idiotic bully because people will take anything that represents change, says one thing, then means another...

Yeah, both of them are weirdly Trump-like. Neither have grabbed something by the pussy yet, but I can wait. I know that Euron is at least an intentional Trump parody.

Yes, and he's actually similar to Trump in several ways - not every way of course, he didn't whack any previous presidents and he's not a dynasty member who's spent time outside the system for instance; he actually was outside the political system.

Mainly, he's a boisterous macho man who promises to return his nation to former glory after the "weak rule" of previous leaders, who promises to build some huge thing and wins against a "less villainous" female candidate that starts out really self-confident but shows a few subtle cracks when challenged by him.

With Daenerys though, it's literally vague stuff like "makes opaque promises that people like" which can be applied to countless flawed leaders throughout the world and history, and nothing else apart from that.

Quote

PS: If you are a Trump supporter, it explains why you think Margaery and Tommen isn't a case of sexual abuse of a child; you wouldn't mind it if child sex laws were overturned so you can be like his buddy Roy Moore, amirite?

I think Margaery sexually manipulating Tommen and thus stirring him and the realm in a better direction than Cersei would, was a necessary evil that she simply had to do under those dire circumstances - in modern times, she of course would've long chosen to live as a gay man.

Edited by Pink Fat Rast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

I think Margaery sexually manipulating Tommen and thus stirring him and the realm in a better direction than Cersei would, was a necessary evil that she simply had to do under those dire circumstances - in modern times, she of course would've long chosen to live as a gay man.

Yeah, see, if they depicted it as a necessary evil, that'd be all well and good, but it's pretty obvious it's played for humour, aka 'lucky kid amirite'.

Which is a shame, but eh, out of the things I pointed out, Marg's sexual manipulation of Tommen being unfortunately poorly toned is like, the least of the issues. At least it's not an objective plothole, just proof that D&D are morons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Yeah, see, if they depicted it as a necessary evil, that'd be all well and good, but it's pretty obvious it's played for humour, aka 'lucky kid amirite'.

Are you implying that him being happy and looking like he can't believe his luck makes it not rape??

8 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Which is a shame, but eh, out of the things I pointed out,

Well your other points were all nigh flawless eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Are you implying that him being happy and looking like he can't believe his luck makes it not rape??

Nah, I'm referring to how the morning after, Marg's gloating to Cersei is portrayed as humourous and sympathetic, and Cersei is still treated as the shit one somehow. Tommen himself... yeah, pretty accurate reaction for a victim of the emotional (rather than physical) side of sexual manipulation. But the whole thing is played out as 'Marg = Good guy, Cersei = Bad Guy' when... eh, it's all the same shit, they're both horrible people and surprisingly, I'm seeing Cersei as slightly more sympathetic in that situation.

And dude, don't get snarky with me. I liked your username (it's a rightly deserved pisstake of the Sam sex scene, I presume. God GRRM is a bad sex scene writer :P) but you're toeing the line between being playful and being an arsehole. Look, I get it, you're angry that everyone's criticising a show you love, but... you're getting consumed by it a little. You're fighting everyone, always in your mind (dank philosophy from Littlefinger: Applied!)

Edited by Beardy the Wildling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Nah, I'm referring to how the morning after, Marg's gloating to Cersei is portrayed as humourous and sympathetic, and Cersei is still treated as the shit one somehow. Tommen himself... yeah, pretty accurate reaction for a victim of the emotional (rather than physical) side of sexual manipulation. But the whole thing is played out as 'Marg = Good guy, Cersei = Bad Guy' when... eh, it's all the same shit, they're both horrible people and surprisingly, I'm seeing Cersei as slightly more sympathetic in that situation.

Cersei's evil and asshole deeds over the course of the show certainly outweigh what Margaery was doing there with Tommen - whether gloating at Cersei and mocking her age etc. was warranted, eh maybe not. 

What did Cersei specifically do to Margaery to deserve that? Threatened to kill her if she called her sister or something, but then after Joffrey's death she had a (perhaps dishonest but whatever) more amicable conversation with her, so why bring in the animosity for no reason?

But maybe I've lost track of some things there, not sure.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

And dude, don't get snarky with me. I liked your username (it's a rightly deserved pisstake of the Sam sex scene, I presume. God GRRM is a bad sex scene writer :P)

It was to poke fun at the "book fans" who were whinging about immature low brow humor in the show too much, without qualitying why it was bad - don't think it ever worked though.

Didn't make any particular judgement statements on the quality of that scene though, I think Sam had sefl-esteem issues or something, so at least it was meant to be corny; and he wrote good ones as well (Victarion's in the ship comes to mind).

9 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

but you're toeing the line between being playful and being an arsehole.

So do you *shrug*

9 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Look, I get it, you're angry that everyone's criticising a show you love,

I'm not angry, I'm just effortlessly disproving your outrageous/sloppy arguments - my main issue is that it's this camp of show criticism (represented by DragonDemands, gotgifsmusings, the Rant&Rave community on here and related outlets) that ended up swimming to the top;
this material deserves a more nuanced and reasonable approach, both in terms of plot analysis and moral questions.

9 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

but... you're getting consumed by it a little. You're fighting everyone, always in your mind (dank philosophy from Littlefinger: Applied!)

Just a bit of snark here and there, I don't think I've ever reached your levels of "and D&D know you all are eating this up" or similar vitriolic outbursts that can be observed around here, and I don't really feel drawn to that either; maybe it's because I'm driven less by passion and more by moderation, eh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/1/2018 at 7:35 PM, Beardy the Wildling said:

Several characters can be considered 'paragons' by D&D, the ones they obviously want us to root for and cheer for when they say a 'profound' swear-laden quip, or use 'woman' as an insult, or threaten to flay the face of their sister. There are also obvious 'anti-examples', which D&D hate and want us to boo for and celebrate when something unspeakably cruel happens to them. Naturally, with their attempts at cutting-edge religious commentary with the Faith Taliban, it can also be assumed D&D want us to have some moral takeaways from Game of Thrones.

So, with this in mind, what was the best unintentional life lesson Game of Thrones taught us?

Examples:

Arya Stark: If you dress like a man and fight lots, you're perfectly justified in threatening your sister's life and resenting her for being traditionally feminine. Alternatively, if you go through PTSD, you'll be an absolute jerk to everyone you know and love, but will be cured for Ed Sheeran. Alternatively, if you get stabbed in the belly, definitely leap into scummy, disease-laden canals and consult your actress friend, as they'll know how to heal you.

Lady Crane: Female physical abuse of men is funny and quirky, and will give you excellent medical skills when you inevitably have to cover up the evidence for the police!

Stannis Baratheon: Don't sacrifice your daughter over the work of twenty good men. Alternatively, if you're the slightest bit uncharismatic, fuck off and die because nobody likes you.

Ramsay Bolton: Flaying, murdering, kinslaying and rape is cool as long as you fight (ala D&D's notes on him compared to Joffrey: Ramsay's kind of admirable compared to Joffrey...... like, he fights...) and will earn you lots of political friends like the Umbers and Karstarks. Alternatively: Never have sound battle strategy. Always send as few men as possible to do a job, and fight shirtless, because if you exhibit a competent battle strategy, you'll be beaten by Jon Snow.

Bran Stark: Don't ever have a story arc that doesn't involve waving your sword around a lot, because you'll get mind-raped into being glorified CCTV.

Tyrion Lannister: Be a dwarf niceguy, and all the women will be all over you, you'll always be right, anyone who disagrees with you will be evil, and you'll be the most moral man on the planet.

Petyr Baelish: Don't be a fucking moron and hang around Winterfell's various walls smirking when you have a jetpack and everyone wants to kill you.

Brienne of Tarth: Empowered women use 'woman' as an insult, never identify with their femininity at all, fight and swear a lot, and act like brutes. Essentially, to be a strong woman, just be a toxic, hypermasculine trans man.

Ellaria Sand: Alternatively, a woman can be empowered by killing men for not being the embodiment of toxic masculinity and being sexy. Also, the best way to avenge your lover is by murdering their entire family.

Jaime Lannister: Stick with family through atrocities such as blowing up the Vatican, through every indication they're a terrible person, until they bring up decent points about your political enemies and choose not to take part in a deal that obviously fucks them over in the long run. That's when it's a bridge too far.

Tommen Baratheon: If you have any trouble deciding what to do as a young teen in a position of power, you're a weak little shit who should kill himself.

Margaery Tyrell: In a crisis, you'll likely gain psychic powers and predict things like massive explosions, but no-one will believe you. Alternatively, if you're a hot woman, sexually manipulating a male child is funny and quirky, and a positive form of manipulation, as opposed to EEEEEVIL Cersei.

Loras Tyrell: If you're gay, it doesn't matter if you're a decorated knight or a renowned fighter, you're ultimately only ever going to be defined by your sexuality. Also, if you're gay, you don't mourn your previous lovers, because all gays are promiscuous. Finally, if you're gay, you exist only to be a victim of homophobia.

Septon Ray: Never be pacifistic, ever, because the world's shit and real men fight.

Samwell Tarly: Real men don't research problems before they solve them, and they don't learn how to study in institutes. They buy into the same toxic machismo as their fathers and endanger their loved ones for the sake of manliness.

Tormund 'Beardy' Giantsbane: If someone calls you gay, you should beat them to death. This will earn you respect and recognition as completely secure in your sexuality.

Cersei Lannister: If you blow up the Vatican or allow your youngest son's suicide to take place because you're busy torturing a nun, the citizens and your brother-lover will not bat an eye. In fact, openly have sex with your brother, because nobody has a problem with brother-sister incest any more. Walk around with an obviously undead bodyguard and ally yourself with a known pirate, the people will only love you more! But NEVER try to scheme against the mary sue of the day for basic self-preservation, because that's a bridge too far, and will cause your closest allies to abandon you.

Sandor Clegane: Never try to be peaceful, because REAL MEN kill for revenge and take boots from still-twitching hangmen. They also make rehashed chicken meme jokes.

Lyanna Mormont: Socks and food aren't necessary in wartime, and such provisions serve only to undermine women, rather than actually being necessary for warfare.

Weisseroff in General: The world is a shit, shit place, and you should feel bad, and if you ever get attached to anyone or emotionally invested, it's a trick. Also, the rules of the world are liable to flip upside down at a moment's notice at the whims of the powers that be. Also, if you want something to happen when writing a fiction, just make it happen without any thought, as it will automatically make creative sense.

Can you guys think of any others?

Jon Snow: The best way to defeat a zombie invasion is to risk your life without proper weapons (and your best men) capturing a wight from the lands where that zombie army have control of, and later show it to a mad queen who has basically murdered all the nobility from the capital in order to convince her to help you defeating that zombie invasion; not before telling her in the last moment that you can't accept her conditions because you have fallen in lurve with another queen.

Alternatively,  (maybe this could be considered reverse honeypotting) -How to win a Dragon's Queen heart: risk your life in a macho mission to capture a wight, showing her that you are brave, but also letting her save you so as that she can see your delicate side, and later show her you are such a good guy that you can even negotiate with mad queens (dragon queens also have compassion for her enemies), and finally confessing your secret love for the dragon queen in front of everyone, 'cause honour it's your best asset for lurve, and that you had not bent the knee before 'cause you wanted a more epic scene. Result: epic boatsex.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Nah, I'm referring to how the morning after, Marg's gloating to Cersei is portrayed as humourous and sympathetic, and Cersei is still treated as the shit one somehow. Tommen himself... yeah, pretty accurate reaction for a victim of the emotional (rather than physical) side of sexual manipulation. But the whole thing is played out as 'Marg = Good guy, Cersei = Bad Guy' when... eh, it's all the same shit, they're both horrible people and surprisingly, I'm seeing Cersei as slightly more sympathetic in that situation.

I agree here.  No matter what Cersei did, it does not give Marg any right to use an innocent kid.  That kid was used plain and simple.  I don't remember but did Cersei do anything to the Tyrells specifically to get this treatment from them.  If anything they were worse because they killed Joffrey because they couldn't manipulate him.  It's also why I don't like the Tyrells.  They use people.  That's not smart, that's skeevy.  I also think they used Renly but at least Loras was actually in love with him.  I actually have more respect for the Lannisters because at least they are more upfront about their intentions.  I wish I can feel more sorry for Olenna and the Tyrells but they had no qualms killing or manipulating people.  I think part of the reason people like them is that Natalie Dormer is hot and Olenna gives good snark.  I don't like Cersei and still think she's bad, but I also don't like them either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plot is king.  Cool story lines and cool moments have priority over characters' prior experiences and motivations.  They would even put a character in a storyline they think is cool even if they adapted out characters in said storyline. Bonus points if a plot point has a hot female, preferably naked.  The writers would rewrite storylines to accommodate said hot female.  Character experiences and motivations are secondary to this objective and gives the viewer whiplash about said character.  This fails more than it suceeds.

Internal logic in said world need not apply and characters make decisions that don't hold up to logic.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon Snow: To get the hot chick, ignore her attempts to rescue you and keep fighting. Action heroes don't give in to hypothermia and some undead redshirt will come along and save you.

Benjen Stark: That horse carried three people away from an army of wights last season. Remembering the details before you spout out a heroic line is important.

Night King: Keep hundreds of feet of huge chains with you at all times. Never know when this will come in handy.

Cersei Lannister: Don't let little things like being engaged to your one ally keep you from getting pregnant with your illicit lover's child and announcing it to the world. He wants you so bad, he won't care. Alternatively, lie about being pregnant to keep your man close to you.

Daenerys Targaryen: As long as you have an advisor will tells you "maybe you shouldn't do evil things if you don't want people to think you're evil" you're golden. You don't actually have to listen to them, people will still love you anyways as long as you're the hot, femininely empowered heroine.

Petyr Baelish: Loving women will get you killed for no reason.

Tormund Giantsbane: Being efficient with your scarce resources in the wild overrules the morality of implied rape.

Davos Seaworth: Find a powerful boss and attach yourself to him. It will take you far in the world.

Jaime Lannister: You can kill a child, lose a hand, fuck your sister, as long as you're good looking everyone will love you.

Arya Stark: No one will care if you butcher people up and serve them in pies if they're jerks. Or poison an entire family when there's no way to know if they were involved or not. But hey insultingly spare the wife. They'll even think you're nice after that.

Sansa Stark: Publicly undermine people and criticize their every plan without an alternative and people will think you're smart.

Edited by Lord Lannister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gendry: If a powerful person wants you dead, hide as close to that person as possible by continuing to practice the only profession you are known for in public.

Also, killing law inforcement officers in cold blood for doing their job is totally OK and won't be questioned by the "goog guys" you are with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/1/2018 at 4:10 PM, Rhollo said:

Gendry: If a powerful person wants you dead, hide as close to that person as possible by continuing to practice the only profession you are known for in public.

Also, killing law inforcement officers in cold blood for doing their job is totally OK and won't be questioned by the "goog guys" you are with.

He saved the most moral man in the world!

Edited by Meera of Tarth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×