Rant & Rave Season 8 [Spoilers]: When you are cool like a cucumber, as evil as the mother of madness, but never as perfect as the pet!

[Mystical]

6 hours ago, divica said:

So bran's evil plan was to kill the sarah connors! That sneaky bastard...

No, John Connor. And Skynet succeeded. The Night King died, didn't he? NK was trying to save the world from Skynet and the stupid humans helped kill him and to top it off then gave Skynet free reign over their fate.

[divica]

2 hours ago, Mystical said:

No, John Connor. And Skynet succeeded. The Night King died, didn't he? NK was trying to save the world from Skynet and the stupid humans helped kill him and to top it off then gave Skynet free reign over their fate.

Yeah, but both Emilia Clarke and and lena headey played Sarah Connor. And both died in the end... 

[Count Balerion]

Tyrion says stupid things and is considered a genius. (My theory being that the Tyrion of the last few seasons was actually his idiot brother Morion.)

Cersei mostly stared out from the balcony in season 8.

The more I learn from the Dragon Demands about the D-chaps' lack of even the most basic qualifications and about their general modus operandi, the more I marvel that the show wasn't worse.

[Angel Eyes]

24 minutes ago, Count Balerion said:

Tyrion says stupid things and is considered a genius. (My theory being that the Tyrion of the last few seasons was actually his idiot brother Morion.)

Cersei mostly stared out from the balcony in season 8.

The more I learn from the Dragon Demands about the D-chaps' lack of even the most basic qualifications and about their general modus operandi, the more I marvel that the show wasn't worse.

I think the reason why it wasn’t worse was because they had actual benchmarks in the books they had to hit. They had to hit the main events of AGOT including Ned’s execution, they had to hit the Battle of the Blackwater, the Red Wedding, the Purple Wedding, Daenerys’ conquests, the Battle of Castle Black, and the death of Tywin. Then they reached a point that they felt like they couldn’t cover with GRRM’s material within a TV show year after year (AFFC and ADWD take place simultaneously) and decided to throw out the books.

I don’t really believe the problems they had was playing to their actors’ talents, otherwise maybe Cersei could have gone out with a bang, say in a final duel with Arya (because Lena Headey has shown she can do action scenes, ie 300: Rise of an Empire and Dredd) and I believe that Peter Dinklage could have done a good job as the more villainous Tyrion seen in ADWD; my first recollection of Dinklage was in the Disney film Underdog where he played the cartoonish Simon Barsinister (and was the role I associated him with until Game of Thrones), and as the well-intentioned but malevolent Bolivar Trask in X-Men: Days of Future Past, who wanted to bring about world peace... by giving humanity an opponent to unite against.

[Count Balerion]

Also, they had a good cast crew who helped carry the show in sppite of the writing. The writers didn't perhaps play to the actors' real talents, but what they imagined were their talents. ""Kit Harrington can make a brooding face," etc. "These performances, these faces," as the Dragon chap likes to quote.

[BlackLightning]

2 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

I think the reason why it wasn’t worse was because they had actual benchmarks in the books they had to hit. They had to hit the main events of AGOT including Ned’s execution, they had to hit the Battle of the Blackwater, the Red Wedding, the Purple Wedding, Daenerys’ conquests, the Battle of Castle Black, and the death of Tywin. Then they reached a point that they felt like they couldn’t cover with GRRM’s material within a TV show year after year (AFFC and ADWD take place simultaneously) and decided to throw out the books.

I don’t really believe the problems they had was playing to their actors’ talents, otherwise maybe Cersei could have gone out with a bang, say in a final duel with Arya (because Lena Headey has shown she can do action scenes, ie 300: Rise of an Empire and Dredd) and I believe that Peter Dinklage could have done a good job as the more villainous Tyrion seen in ADWD; my first recollection of Dinklage was in the Disney film Underdog where he played the cartoonish Simon Barsinister (and was the role I associated him with until Game of Thrones), and as the well-intentioned but malevolent Bolivar Trask in X-Men: Days of Future Past, who wanted to bring about world peace... by giving humanity an opponent to unite against.

If Feast and Dance take place simultaneously, then the simplest, "laziest" solution is to make them simultaneously. You can still cover that material in a TV show year after year. It may take two years (like the adaptation of A Storm of Swords did) or maybe even three. So what?

If a storyline needs a bit of filler, make a bit of filler. If a storyline needs to be cut down or expanded in order to make sure that all the other storylines move at the same speed, then cut it down or expand it out.

It doesn't make change, it doesn't make dollars, it doesn't make sense.

On 4/11/2020 at 6:30 AM, Daemon of the Blacks said:

I'm not too sure I agree with this one. If anything the worst thing they did with Cersei is do far too much with her. In season seven she suddenly became extremely competent and with the White Walkers being weak enough to be defeated in a single episode Cersei is suddenly left in the position of main villain of the show, a position she logically shouldn't have the merit to hold. 

Cersei's story should have ended very early in season 7. The green trial was such a typical Cersei move in that it was great at acquiring power but abysmal in keeping it. She got control over Kings Landing but the Tyrels naturally defect which should logically starve the city and deprive Cersei of half her forces. The Westerlands too should have seriously shaken loyalty considering she killed Kevan and Jaime is horrified at what she did. So logically it should just be Danny with the full might of the southern portion of Westeros and dragons casually walking up to Kings Landing and destroying Cersei who deprived herself of any advantage she could have had. 

But that's not what happened. Instead the Westerlands and Jaime meekly fall into line and Cersei suddenly got extremely competent. The sort of competence where she can just destroy the Tyrels, the second strongest house in Westeros in just a single episode. Tywin had to spend three seasons fighting an alliance between the Starks and Tullys. Cersei faces an arguably far stronger alliance but she almost casually wipes them out in a single episode. Tywin, supposedly the most competent man alive needed three seasons for a lessor enemy, Cersei the supposedly incompetent queen needed one episodes for an arguably far stronger alliance that had dragons to boot. Even with Tyrion's bumbling Cersei should not have what it takes to do any of that. 

Also I think there's more of Book Cersei present in Show Cersei then people might appreciate, at least before season 7 where Cersei gets bewilderingly capable and dangerous. In the earlier seasons Cersei was smug, deluded, far less competent then she thinks she is, constantly makes bad decisions and comes off as incredibly self centered and vain. Her love for her children is far stronger but the implication she loves them as extensions of themselves is still present in the way she almost shrugs off Tommens death. To some extend I even think that going a bit less over the top with Cersei was a good move. Book Cersei is fascinatingly vile but also a little bit cartoony, show cersei keeps most of those unstable traits but dials them back a little bit. 

A lot of character get a raw deal but until season 7 I think Cersei was handled differently but also mostly correctly. 

I agree.

I had absolutely no problem with that part of the season 6 finale. It was typical Cersei.

I never felt that Book Cersei was cartoony. Book Euron feels a little bit cartoony and Show Euron is a certifiable cartoon in a live action feature (think Jessica Rabbit) but Book Cersei? Nah. She was just spectacularly delusional and wicked. Honestly, what you saw as cartoonish behavior, I felt that it was mania. It's like if Cersei is bipolar and that 70% of her chapters was her experiencing a severe manic episode. Notice how the "cartoonish" behavior started the moment Jaime left after she burned the Tower of the Hand?

On 4/11/2020 at 2:56 PM, The Fattest Leech said:

Quick question for anyone who follows book to show Plotzee! The world famous game of chopping up the books, scrambling them in a blender, then rearranging the pieces to create something... more brokener

What do you think are the chances that the letter Jon wrote in AFFC/ADWD to Cersei in King's Landing asking for help with the common foe (the Others), that was then discussed by Cersei in her AFFC 4 chapter where she ignores his pleas and instead conspires to kill him was remade into the wight hunt idea? Is it possible this was a D&D Plotzee! rework for that 'wight in a box", err, event? I was just discussing this scene elsewhere on the forum when this possibility inhabited my brain. I am kind of thinking it is a "rework" and that it adds to the mounting list of reasons we won't see a wight hunt in the books.

A Feast for Crows - Cersei IV

Cersei gave him a sharp look. "What are you saying?"

"This," Qyburn said. "For years now, the Night's Watch has begged for men. Lord Stannis has answered their plea. Can King Tommen do less? His Grace should send the Wall a hundred men. To take the black, ostensibly, but in truth . . ."

". . . to remove Jon Snow from the command," Cersei finished, delighted. I knew I was right to want him on my council. "That is just what we shall do." She laughed. If this bastard boy is truly his father's son, he will not suspect a thing. Perhaps he will even thank me, before the blade slides between his ribs. "It will need to be done carefully, to be sure. Leave the rest to me, my lords." This was how an enemy should be dealt with: with a dagger, not a declaration. "We have done good work today, my lords. I thank you. Is there aught else?"

OMG, I forgot how crazy she sounded lmao

Definitely mania.

I'm sorry but I don't see how they can get the idea for the wight hunt out of this. Maybe it's because I'm not familiar with the Maniac dialect of the Loser language. Jokes aside...I'm serious. I'm really trying to see it but I can't.

[SeanF]

7 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

If Feast and Dance take place simultaneously, then the simplest, "laziest" solution is to make them simultaneously. You can still cover that material in a TV show year after year. It may take two years (like the adaptation of A Storm of Swords did) or maybe even three. So what?

If a storyline needs a bit of filler, make a bit of filler. If a storyline needs to be cut down or expanded in order to make sure that all the other storylines move at the same speed, then cut it down or expand it out.

It doesn't make change, it doesn't make dollars, it doesn't make sense.

I agree.

I had absolutely no problem with that part of the season 6 finale. It was typical Cersei.

I never felt that Book Cersei was cartoony. Book Euron feels a little bit cartoony and Show Euron is a certifiable cartoon in a live action feature (think Jessica Rabbit) but Book Cersei? Nah. She was just spectacularly delusional and wicked. Honestly, what you saw as cartoonish behavior, I felt that it was mania. It's like if Cersei is bipolar and that 70% of her chapters was her experiencing a severe manic episode. Notice how the "cartoonish" behavior started the moment Jaime left after she burned the Tower of the Hand?

OMG, I forgot how crazy she sounded lmao

Definitely mania.

I'm sorry but I don't see how they can get the idea for the wight hunt out of this. Maybe it's because I'm not familiar with the Maniac dialect of the Loser language. Jokes aside...I'm serious. I'm really trying to see it but I can't.

I definitely agree about Cersei.  In a real life situation, she'd have been left with precious few allies or supporters after blowing up the Great Sept.  Having so many remain loyal to her was one of the silliest contrivances in a show that had become full of silly contrivances. All the Tyrell cousins who were around in earlier seasons just disappeared, rather than they and their families clamouring for vengeance on Cersei, as would the Faith.

[BlackLightning]

59 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I definitely agree about Cersei.  In a real life situation, she'd have been left with precious few allies or supporters after blowing up the Great Sept.  Having so many remain loyal to her was one of the silliest contrivances in a show that had become full of silly contrivances. All the Tyrell cousins who were around in earlier seasons just disappeared, rather than they and their families clamouring for vengeance on Cersei, as would the Faith.

Yeah.

And what happened to the Tyrell army. The whole reason that the Lannisters went out of their way to ally themselves with the Tyrells instead of lording over them was because the Tyrells had the biggest army on the continent. Not only that but, according to show-canon, the Tyrells are the richest and most powerful family in Westeros.

I can understand that the Tyrells could have lost some of their bannermen along with Randyll Tarly. But some is not all. Even if it were half (unlikely given that Cersei is all but confirmed to be responsible for the deaths of their liege lord, their queen and a celebrity knight), Olenna Tyrell would not be in immediate grave danger. They might've still lost but it would've been much, much more of a fight.

Speaking of which, can anyone explain to me how the Lannisters still have such a massive army in seasons 6-8 if they are so broke. Cersei didn't have the men or the funds to send the Lannister army north in season 5. How do they have so many men that they can defend King's Landing, establish a token defense in Casterly Rock, patrol the Riverlands?

[SeanF]

18 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Yeah.

And what happened to the Tyrell army. The whole reason that the Lannisters went out of their way to ally themselves with the Tyrells instead of lording over them was because the Tyrells had the biggest army on the continent. Not only that but, according to show-canon, the Tyrells are the richest and most powerful family in Westeros.

I can understand that the Tyrells could have lost some of their bannermen along with Randyll Tarly. But some is not all. Even if it were half (unlikely given that Cersei is all but confirmed to be responsible for the deaths of their liege lord, their queen and a celebrity knight), Olenna Tyrell would not be in immediate grave danger. They might've still lost but it would've been much, much more of a fight.

Speaking of which, can anyone explain to me how the Lannisters still have such a massive army in seasons 6-8 if they are so broke. Cersei didn't have the men or the funds to send the Lannister army north in season 5. How do they have so many men that they can defend King's Landing, establish a token defense in Casterly Rock, patrol the Riverlands?

Like the Dothraki, they regenerated.

[Many-Faced Votary]

One of the funniest things about Cheryl's destruction of the Great Sept of Baelor is that it is apparently common knowledge, such that the lack of consequences is shamelessly lampshaded in the show without a hint of self-awareness. Pot Hie and Arya Todd were casually discussing the fact that Cheryl blew up the Sept -- and then they moved on to Jonny Cardboard defeating the Boltons and being crowned King in the North, which shocked Arya, who had been living as Walder Filch for about a fortnight. Why would the Lord Paramount of the Trident, who was rewarded by the Lannister regime for his part in the fall of House Stark, which their allies House Bolton had replaced as Lords Paramount of the North, not be told this at any point? Yet somehow be privy to how the Great Sept of Baelor was destroyed? Why was the conflict named "The Battle of the Bastards" in-universe?

That is one aspect of a single scene, the discussion of which I cut short because the lack of logic extended far beyond the current scope of the discussion, including Arya's presence there in the first place, what she had been doing before then, and so forth. Furthermore, this is only one example of the phenomenon I was discussing; and this astounding lack of logic is absolutely par for the course for Game of Thrones. This show doesn't even make sense at the most basic narrative level, never mind fundamentals of continuity, thematic cohesion, and cause-and-effect logic, which are inherently elementary elements of any narrative.

The writers have to earn those Emmys somehow, right?

 

25 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Speaking of which, can anyone explain to me how the Lannisters still have such a massive army in seasons 6-8 if they are so broke. Cersei didn't have the men or the funds to send the Lannister army north in season 5. How do they have so many men that they can defend King's Landing, establish a token defense in Casterly Rock, patrol the Riverlands?

Because the smallfolk of King's Landing are totes chill with the mass-murdering, kinslaying, heathen Queen Regnant with no claim to the throne and very poor public perception as Queen Regent. Because the Reach is fine with the their liege lords being all but wiped out. Because random powerful lords such as Randy Tarly know no Queen but the Queen somehow on the Iron Throne with no claim and no previous support, whose name is Lannister. Because Eurovision is a walking diabolus ex machina who is inexplicably eager to support Cheryl for an extremely bad, unwitnessed marriage pact. Because House Tyrell can't fight due to their sigil being a rose, and Highgarden is easier to capture than the flag on an preschool playground; so the giant sacks of gold they happened to have lying around paid off the debt to the Iron Bank, which impressed Tycho Dumbstoris to the point he offered Cheryl another huge loan, supplemented by his earlier anachronistic, nonsensical, and religiously insensitive and ignorant (on the part of the writers) support of her "casting off the yoke of superstition" by blowing up the analogue to the Vatican. This does not even bring up the endless teleportation and telepathy which made all of this possible.

[BlackLightning]

@Many-Faced Votary & @SeanF

Shameful indeed.

But you know what I noticed. In 100% of all the HBO promo material I have seen (for HBOMax, HBO Now and HBO in general) over the course of the COVID crisis, the only Game of Thrones character that is shown is Daenerys Targaryen. You don't see Jon, Cersei, Jaime, Arya or Sansa. Nothing for Bran which is interesting seeing as he is the endgame king. Zero from Tyrion who is arguably the most popular character on the show. It's all Daenerys.

What's even more interesting is that HBO will feature/spotlight multiple characters from the same show but yet all they bother with spotlighting when it comes to Game of Thrones is Daenerys.

I understand that they want to keep the juices flowing for the sake of the House of the Dragon prequel. But I think the fact that it is Daenerys or bust at HBO tells us all that we need to know.

I don't know if you all have seen stuff like this but...

I keep seeing stuff like this popping up all on Twitter.

On 4/12/2020 at 1:47 PM, Vaith said:

 

@Vaith how do you copy and paste/insert images and media?

[SeanF]

21 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

@Many-Faced Votary & @SeanF

Shameful indeed.

But you know what I noticed. In 100% of all the HBO promo material I have seen (for HBOMax, HBO Now and HBO in general) over the course of the COVID crisis, the only Game of Thrones character that is shown is Daenerys Targaryen. You don't see Jon, Cersei, Jaime, Arya or Sansa. Nothing for Bran which is interesting seeing as he is the endgame king. Zero from Tyrion who is arguably the most popular character on the show. It's all Daenerys.

What's even more interesting is that HBO will feature/spotlight multiple characters from the same show but yet all they bother with spotlighting when it comes to Game of Thrones is Daenerys.

I understand that they want to keep the juices flowing for the sake of the House of the Dragon prequel. But I think the fact that it is Daenerys or bust at HBO tells us all that we need to know.

I don't know if you all have seen stuff like this but...

I keep seeing stuff like this popping up all on Twitter.

@Vaith how do you copy and paste/insert images and media?

The reason is viewer surveys have Daenerys as far and away the most popular character.  Her abrupt and contrived vilification made her more, not less, popular.  Second is Jon, third Arya.  Tyrion doesn't feature.

[Many-Faced Votary]

@BlackLightning

There are several likely reasons for the Daenerys advertisements.

Part of it, as you alluded to, is an endeavor to build hype for House of the Dragon, which is after all a Targaryen-centric prequel.

Part of it is that HBO is trying to sell Mad Queen Dany as a tragic and intelligent story, as opposed to the utterly misogynistic and unearned cheap twist that it was. To an extent is, this is also a way to retcon the terrible justifications propounded by D&D, in trying to reframe this in a marginally less negative light. (To be clear, I am not a fan of Show!Daenerys in the slightest; she is absolutely nothing like Book!Daenerys, whom I love. However, even on the show, the characterization -- whether "criminally insane" in 8x05 or "pure evil" in 8x06, since they couldn't make up their minds -- is utterly inconsistent with the person we saw on our screens, inconsistent as she herself was. This is true in Season 8, which attempted to blackwash her to an irking extent with no subtlety whatsoever, and much more so on all the previous seasons, as vilified as she was on the show before then as well. However, ultimately, she was just like almost every other character, supposed "heroes" and "villains" alike -- on Game of Thrones, the distinction was only one of framing.)

Part of it is an attempt to obfuscate just how despicable virtually everyone on the show was, especially by the end.

Part of it is an attempt to hide that the "bittersweet" ending was "bitter" only for Daenerys and "sweet" for all the other surviving named characters, even though the elective monarchy that was implemented was a huge step backwards -- which, naturally, is utterly fitting when considering the nihilism that was always inherent to GoT.

Part of it is a means of attempting to appease or at least pacify Dany fans -- not that this is likely, for obvious reasons.

[SeanF]

25 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

@BlackLightning

There are several likely reasons for the Daenerys advertisements.

Part of it, as you alluded to, is an endeavor to build hype for House of the Dragon, which is after all a Targaryen-centric prequel.

Part of it is that HBO is trying to sell Mad Queen Dany as a tragic and intelligent story, as opposed to the utterly misogynistic and unearned cheap twist that it was. To an extent is, this is also a way to retcon the terrible justifications propounded by D&D, in trying to reframe this in a marginally less negative light. (To be clear, I am not a fan of Show!Daenerys in the slightest; she is absolutely nothing like Book!Daenerys, whom I love. However, even on the show, the characterization -- whether "criminally insane" in 8x05 or "pure evil" in 8x06, since they couldn't make up their minds -- is utterly inconsistent with the person we saw on our screens, inconsistent as she herself was. This is true in Season 8, which attempted to blackwash her to an irking extent with no subtlety whatsoever, and much more so on all the previous seasons, as vilified as she was on the show before then as well. However, ultimately, she was just like almost every other character, supposed "heroes" and "villains" alike -- on Game of Thrones, the distinction was only one of framing.)

Part of it is an attempt to obfuscate just how despicable virtually everyone on the show was, especially by the end.

Part of it is an attempt to hide that the "bittersweet" ending was "bitter" only for Daenerys and "sweet" for all the other surviving named characters, even though the elective monarchy that was implemented was a huge step backwards -- which, naturally, is utterly fitting when considering the nihilism that was always inherent to GoT.

Part of it is a means of attempting to appease or at least pacify Dany fans -- not that this is likely, for obvious reasons.

Nail hit on head.  D & D thought the theme of the story was the struggle for power, and that being like Cersei and Littlefinger was a good thing. They thought the Starks becoming like the Lannisters was a positive development.

I may be wrong, but I am 99% certain that this is not the point that Martin is making in the books. 

[BlackLightning]

13 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The reason is viewer surveys have Daenerys as far and away the most popular character.  Her abrupt and contrived vilification made her more, not less, popular.  Second is Jon, third Arya.

Tyrion doesn't feature.

Oh the irony.

It's delicious.

15 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

@BlackLightning

There are several likely reasons for the Daenerys advertisements.

Part of it, as you alluded to, is an endeavor to build hype for House of the Dragon, which is after all a Targaryen-centric prequel.

Good luck HBO.

15 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Part of it is that HBO is trying to sell Mad Queen Dany as a tragic and intelligent story, as opposed to the utterly misogynistic and unearned cheap twist that it was. To an extent is, this is also a way to retcon the terrible justifications propounded by D&D, in trying to reframe this in a marginally less negative light. (To be clear, I am not a fan of Show!Daenerys in the slightest; she is absolutely nothing like Book!Daenerys, whom I love. However, even on the show, the characterization -- whether "criminally insane" in 8x05 or "pure evil" in 8x06, since they couldn't make up their minds -- is utterly inconsistent with the person we saw on our screens, inconsistent as she herself was. This is true in Season 8, which attempted to blackwash her to an irking extent with no subtlety whatsoever, and much more so on all the previous seasons, as vilified as she was on the show before then as well. However, ultimately, she was just like almost every other character, supposed "heroes" and "villains" alike -- on Game of Thrones, the distinction was only one of framing.)

Honestly, I can't say that I can fault HBO for this. I would do the same thing if I were in their shoes. They can't throw the baby out with the bathwater without committing financial, critical, political and legal suicide. So the best thing for them to do is to put lipstick on a pig and call it Wilbur from Charlotte's Web.

However, I have a hard time understanding the bold section. You lost me there. What are you saying in layman's terms?

21 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Part of it is an attempt to obfuscate just how despicable virtually everyone on the show was, especially by the end.

I don't disagree.

But it is telling that HBO feels that way considering that, as you said, Daenerys was depicted as an alarmingly pure-evil mustache-twirler who struggled with simple arithmetic in the final episode.

23 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Part of it is an attempt to hide that the "bittersweet" ending was "bitter" only for Daenerys and "sweet" for all the other surviving named characters, even though the elective monarchy that was implemented was a huge step backwards -- which, naturally, is utterly fitting when considering the nihilism that was always inherent to GoT.

Part of it is a means of attempting to appease or at least pacify Dany fans -- not that this is likely, for obvious reasons.

Even Jorah, Euron, Cersei, Jaime and Theon got much sweeter endings than Daenerys. More than what they deserved in fact.

It's just all inexcusable. I need to go lie down lol

[Many-Faced Votary]

22 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

However, I have a hard time understanding the bold section. You lost me there. What are you saying in layman's terms?

My apologies! That was unclear phrasing on my part. 

 

The first part was meant to clarify that Dany was not even remotely characterized as Her Satanic Majesty in Season 8 before "The Bells" despite the writers' best efforts to vilify her, and much less so in Seasons 1 through 7, which had already blackwashed her significantly from the books.

 

For the second part, my argument is that there was virtually no difference between the characters we were supposed to think of as "good" and those we were supposed to think of as "evil." The distinction was only in how the show itself - - and promotional materials -- arbitrarily framed them.

For an example, let us take Season 6. Because sexism was unfortunately always a fundamental part of the show, I am comparing three women specifically: Cersei with Sansa and with Daenerys. It is first important to note that, until "The Winds of Winter", show!Cersei had consistently been a heavily whitewashed character who did very little wrong and only reacted to clear and present threats against her children in the narrative, even if other characters and promotional materials incorrectly called her evil and ruthless.

Recall that Sansa killed her abuser (Ramsay) at a juncture in which it was clear he had lost all his power and was in no position to hurt her again. Her feeding him alive to his own dogs was framed triumphantly. (I will ignore the revolting rape-revenge tropes here as it would open a can of worms that would take us off topic.) Contrast this with Cersei's villainous monologue to Septa Unella. She claimed that she "only does things that feel good to her" (a clear retcon), including the murder of her own abuser (Robert). Recall that they were still living together as husband and wife (so he inherently retained all the power, including the ability of martial rape), that he was the King (with the obvious power difference that entailed), that he had struck her across the face the episode prior, and that his discovering her treasonous twincest would result in the death of her children, her brother and lover, and herself. However, this speech framed this as a villainous action that exemplified how evil she was. This is a staggering double standard, solely because we were meant to see Cersei as a villain and Sansa as a hero.

Daenerys burned down a misogynistic, patriarchal church: that of the Dothraki. She smirked while decisively destroying and claiming an entire culture (obviously nonsensical, but it canonically occurred on the show). This moment was framed as empowering and positive. Cersei blew up a misogynistic, patriarchal church: the Faith of the Seven, by virtue of killing the High Sparrow (and all his followers somehow... again, nonsensical, but it happened). She did this when she had no other recourse to save herself from losing the remnants of her power and Tommen from his abuser (Margaery), although the latter became irrelevant since she was randomly a selfish, deranged, kinslaying, mass-murdering hedonist now. In any case, this was framed as an act of true evil. This is once again a staggering double standard, once more because we were meant to see Cersei as a villain and Daenerys as a hero.

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

My apologies! That was unclear phrasing on my part. 

 

The first part was meant to clarify that Dany was not even remotely characterized as Her Satanic Majesty in Season 8 before "The Bells" despite the writers' best efforts to vilify her, and much less so in Seasons 1 through 7, which had already blackwashed her significantly from the books.

 

For the second part, my argument is that there was virtually no difference between the characters we were supposed to think of as "good" and those we were supposed to think of as "evil." The distinction was only in how the show itself - - and promotional materials -- arbitrarily framed them.

For an example, let us take Season 6. Because sexism was unfortunately always a fundamental part of the show, I am comparing three women specifically: Cersei with Sansa and with Daenerys. It is first important to note that, until "The Winds of Winter", show!Cersei had consistently been a heavily whitewashed character who did very little wrong and only reacted to clear and present threats against her children in the narrative, even if other characters and promotional materials incorrectly called her evil and ruthless.

Recall that Sansa killed her abuser (Ramsay) at a juncture in which it was clear he had lost all his power and was in no position to hurt her again. Her feeding him alive to his own dogs was framed triumphantly. (I will ignore the revolting rape-revenge tropes here as it would open a can of worms that would take us off topic.) Contrast this with Cersei's villainous monologue to Septa Unella. She claimed that she "only does things that feel good to her" (a clear retcon), including the murder of her own abuser (Robert). Recall that they were still living together as husband and wife (so he inherently retained all the power, including the ability of martial rape), that he was the King (with the obvious power difference that entailed), that he had struck her across the face the episode prior, and that his discovering her treasonous twincest would result in the death of her children, her brother and lover, and herself. However, this speech framed this as a villainous action that exemplified how evil she was. This is a staggering double standard, solely because we were meant to see Cersei as a villain and Sansa as a hero.

Daenerys burned down a misogynistic, patriarchal church: that of the Dothraki. She smirked while decisively destroying and claiming an entire culture (obviously nonsensical, but it canonically occurred on the show). This moment was framed as empowering and positive. Cersei blew up a misogynistic, patriarchal church: the Faith of the Seven, by virtue of killing the High Sparrow (and all his followers somehow... again, nonsensical, but it happened). She did this when she had no other recourse to save herself from losing the remnants of her power and Tommen from his abuser (Margaery), although the latter became irrelevant since she was randomly a selfish, deranged, kinslaying, mass-murdering hedonist now. In any case, this was framed as an act of true evil. This is once again a staggering double standard, once more because we were meant to see Cersei as a villain and Daenerys as a hero.

The distinction there was that Daenerys had been kidnapped, had offered a huge ransom to her kidnapper and been turned down, and only killed her captors.  Cersei was actually guilty of the charges against her, and she wiped out a load of innocent people, as well as her captors.  The first was clear self-defence;  the second was self-defence to an extent, but also involved the deaths of hundreds of third parties.  However, I was and am unsure whether the showrunners were portraying the torture of Septa Unella as being a good or bad thing.

That said, Tyrion retconned Daenerys' killing of her captors as being morally wrong at the end, in his "evil men" speech.  His attitude seems to have been that when a woman is kidnapped and threatened with rape, imprisonment, or enslavement, she should just suck it up, and presumably D & D think so too, since he was their avatar.

I agree, there was something arbitrary about which acts were considered good and which were considered bad.  Daenerys' anti-slavery campaign was portrayed as being good, until it was retconned as being bad.

Cruelty was usually glorified, so it was hard to tell if it should be considered right or wrong.  It was certainly portrayed as liberating and empowering for Arya to inflict very brutal deaths on her enemies, but sinister for someone like Stannis to do so.  

In addition, I'm not entirely clear which kinds of values dissonance were meant to be period-typical, and which were examples of the showrunners putting forward their own points of view.  The decision to reframe Tyrion's murder of Shae, which is very ugly in the books, as something tragic and moving, with Tyrion shedding manly tears as he strangles her, has to be deliberate on D & D's part. They fetished violence against women (see also Daenerys and Ros).  Likewise his desire to reinstate slavery for seven years and to compensate the slavers (while  "explaining" to Grey Worm and Missandei what it was to be a slave) reveals quite a bit about D & D's attitude towards real-world issues, IMHO.  IIRC, there's an Inside the Episode where Benioff says Lincoln ought to have done the same. 

[Vaith]

9 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

@Vaith how do you copy and paste/insert images and media?

I find that Twitter etc. is auto inserted with a link.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

The distinction there was that Daenerys had been kidnapped, had offered a huge ransom to her kidnapper and been turned down, and only killed her captors.  Cersei was actually guilty of the charges against her, and she wiped out a load of innocent people, as well as her captors.  The first was clear self-defence;  the second was self-defence to an extent, but also involved the deaths of hundreds of third parties.  However, I was and am unsure whether the showrunners were portraying the torture of Septa Unella as being a good or bad thing.

That said, Tyrion retconned Daenerys' killing of her captors as being morally wrong at the end, in his "evil men" speech.  His attitude seems to have been that when a woman is kidnapped and threatened with rape, imprisonment, or enslavement, she should just suck it up, and presumably D & D think so too, since he was their avatar.

I agree, there was something arbitrary about which acts were considered good and which were considered bad.  Daenerys' anti-slavery campaign was portrayed as being good, until it was retconned as being bad.

Cruelty was usually glorified, so it was hard to tell if it should be considered right or wrong.  It was certainly portrayed as liberating and empowering for Arya to inflict very brutal deaths on her enemies, but sinister for someone like Stannis to do so.  

I'm not a Dany-hater, but I always thought that the killing of the Khals was handled... very bizarrely. The logistical implications weren't that great. Would they respect her for killing them by burning down the temple with the brazier? It seems like a pretty treacherous act that would have had the kos and bloodriders cut her down the minute she stepped out of the temple. In terms of what it implies about the character, she did have a pretty easy out, as Jorah and Daario had just turned up before she turned them down and decided to still kill the khals.

However, this could have been fixed if they didn't retcon the ADWD ending. Having her kill the Khals with Drogon would have made far more sense and I honestly don't know why he wasn't there apart from them wanting to have two "epic Dany" moments with the speech she gave on Drogon's back. 

But at the end of the day, it does come down to one thing: marketing! Dany is the good guy, except when she doesn't bother to brush her hair and do her makeup. Then she's #MadQueen and all her actions that have been praised by the show become bad. At the same time, Cersei was a sympathetic woman who was being put down by Kevan because she was a woman, and competently handled the political situation for the most part (she didn't even kill the High Septon or falsely accuse Marg of adultery, she perjured herself). But then at the end of Season 6, she shed her exoskeleton and became Evil Queen who extracted a septa to torture her and killed everyone. Once Dany was the #MadQueen, Cersei reverted into that poor sympathetic woman who didn't want her baby to die. Arya is cool, Stannis isn't, so the standards are different there.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

In addition, I'm not entirely clear which kinds of values dissonance were meant to be period-typical, and which were examples of the showrunners putting forward their own points of view.  The decision to reframe Tyrion's murder of Shae, which is very ugly in the books, as something tragic and moving, with Tyrion shedding manly tears as he strangles her, has to be deliberate on D & D's part. They fetished violence against women (see also Daenerys and Ros).  Likewise his desire to reinstate slavery for seven years and to compensate the slavers (while  "explaining" to Grey Worm and Missandei what it was to be a slave) reveals quite a bit about D & D's attitude towards real-world issues, IMHO.  IIRC, there's an Inside the Episode where Benioff says Lincoln ought to have done the same. 

Their modern/real-world approach to Westeros has been apparent since Season 2, where Talisa, a foreign healer, lectures Robb about his bad policy about who should sit on the Iron Throne and is rewarded with love and marriage, not viewed as insolent (that character is a plucky WWII nurse, not a Volantene noblewoman who is in the Riverlands for whatever reason). And yes, Tyrion hasn't been allowed to be anything less than saintly since the end of the trial (even that was probably only there for plot reasons).

All I can say is: thank God that HBO cancelled the 2 D's "Confederate" show.

[SeanF]

5 minutes ago, Vaith said:

.

All I can say is: thank God that HBO cancelled the 2 D's "Confederate" show.

Oh, dear.

Now, there is potentially a very interesting alt.history tale to be told, where the Confederacy wins.

But, D & D are absolutely the wrong people to tell it.  You can imagine there would be a false moral equivalency between nasty slave owners and the Underground Railroad (perhaps, led by a charismatic young woman).

In the middle, would be the good slave owners, the voice of reason, the Tyrion types.  They would be kind to their slaves, and in turn, their slaves would be devoted to them.  Perhaps, they would agree that slavery should be phased out, but gradually, and enabling them to keep their power and privileges.  Their slaves would agree that slavery was to the benefit of them all.  The extremists on both sides would be destroyed.  Sex slaves would give it away free to the Tyrion character.

[Vaith]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

Oh, dear.

Now, there is potentially a very interesting alt.history tale to be told, where the Confederacy wins.

But, D & D are absolutely the wrong people to tell it.  You can imagine there would be a false moral equivalency between nasty slave owners and the Underground Railroad (perhaps, led by a charismatic young woman).

In the middle, would be the good slave owners, the voice of reason, the Tyrion types.  They would be kind to their slaves, and in turn, their slaves would be devoted to them.  Perhaps, they would agree that slavery should be phased out, but gradually, and enabling them to keep their power and privileges.  Their slaves would agree that slavery was to the benefit of them all.  The extremists on both sides would be destroyed.  Sex slaves would give it away free to the Tyrion character.

I think they were planning to do a story of "what if the Confederacy survives to 2020 (or 2016 or whenever it would've been)" as it mentioned two more Civil Wars. Probably where there were still slaves, which doesn't take into account that it would have eventually become defunct due to industry anyway, as slavery had been abolished in all countries in the Americas by 1890. At the very most you could do some modern apartheid state and/or exploring a world where the US had been more limited about what they could do in foreign policy, etc.

It's the reason why Man in the High Castle is set only 20 years after WWII: because a fascist society can only sustain itself for so long, and so that we can see characters who fought in the war/lived before the war, etc.