Jump to content
The Fattest Leech

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!

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Nope.

Apparently there was a Inside (Behind?) the Episode that was made for the series finale, but for some reason the decision to air it (per ususal after every episode) was scrapped.

Does anyone know why?

Adding link: https://winteriscoming.net/2019/06/19/what-happened-to-the-inside-the-episode-for-the-season-8-series-finale-the-iron-throne/

Wild guess here, but I'd say because the previous ones were such ginormous failures and everyone and their dragons were making fun of the whole thing: the segment itself, the show, the show runners and HBO. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Is their work "defendable"? 

Someone must do it and try to explain whatever D&D vision was. 

It shows a lot about their character that they make everyone else do it while they do whatever they want

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Wild guess here, but I'd say because the previous ones were such ginormous failures and everyone and their dragons were making fun of the whole thing: the segment itself, the show, the show runners and HBO. :lol:

But that’s why I needed it. Those things became gold. Comedy gold! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Is their work "defendable"? 

You'd certainly need the kind of barrister who charges £600 an hour to mount the defence, and even he would find it hard going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, divica said:

Someone must do it and try to explain whatever D&D vision was. 

It shows a lot about their character that they make everyone else do it while they do whatever they want

Dany "kinda forgot" that she wanted to be Queen of Westeros, so she decided she wanted to burn the place down.

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Kajjo said:

She always was moe a conqueror than a ruler. She probably does not want King's Landing as main capital anymore, but "liberate" the whole world. Continue conquering, fighting, enjoying the fire and blood. 

Westeros is so huge, that one burned city does not really count. And as we see there was a lot of damage in many streets but she didn't burn down whole King's Landing anyway. 

She was always better at conquering than ruling (hence the Meereen gaffe), but she always at least had the intention of, at some point, ruling Westeros. Until she didn't and decided that, like Pinky and the Brain, she must take over the world by playing 'Torch the Civilians'. After already getting what she wants.

Edited by Beardy the Wildling

Share this post


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

Until she didn't and decided that, like Pinky and the Brain, she must take over the world by playing 'Torch the Civilians'. After already getting what she wants.

So what? What's your point? She made a horrible decision with "let it be fear". She wanted to instill fear, more so than just winning the single battle.  Awful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Kajjo said:

So what? What's your point? She made a horrible decision with "let it be fear". She wanted to instill fear, more so than just winning the single battle.  Awful. 

But why bother when they've already surrendered? At least prioritise the Red Keep if you're gonna randomly transition from 'ruthless but understandable' to 'actual lunatic'.

Edited by Beardy the Wildling

Share this post


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

But why bother when they've already surrendered? At least prioritise the Red Keep if you're gonna randomly transition from 'ruthless but understandable' to 'actual lunatic'.

Yes, first Red Keep and then overdoing it by continuing would have made more sense. 

So there it is again: A bit of craziness, of snapping, of irrationality.

Decision and snapping go hand in hand here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Kajjo said:

Yes, first Red Keep and then overdoing it by continuing would have made more sense. 

So there it is again: A bit of craziness, of snapping, of irrationality.

Decision and snapping go hand in hand here.

I'm glad you're at least capable of understanding there were a million better options here, though I must ask, how long are you willing to apply lipstick to the pig, or insist the emperor has clothes?

You realise D&D don't give a fuck about any of these nuanced attempts to explain their decisions, right? Why do you think there's practically no dialogue in the final four episodes? They coast off the actors' talents and force them to carry everything by facial acting. Daenerys's silent decision to go batshit is done entirely with the face (making it unclear as to what her decision really was about), but it's a good way to bait out the Emmys (what they're really after).

If you think D&D care about the story beyond emmy-bait and watching actors facial-act, you haven't been paying attention. If anything, they'll just notice your excuses, crib them, and claim it was their intent all along.

Edited by Beardy the Wildling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

I'm glad you're at least capable of understanding there were a million better options here, though I must ask, how long are you willing to apply lipstick to the pig, or insist the emperor has clothes?

If you believe so, then you grossly misunderstand my intentions. I do not want to defend D&D. They just wanted the fast way out and butchered a show that was the best ever TV show for at least six seasons. I loved seasons 1-6 very much and I like so many facets about it, from story line to actors, from characters to locations, from nudity to violence, from CGI to magic.  Then it started to degrade significantly and seasons 8 is way too rushed, too short on dialogue and emotions and many developments are cut so short that we have to fill the gaps by indirect conclusions. It's a pity. So, when I defend the overall story-line I don't do this to defend D&D. Not at all.

Apart from "much too rushed" and all its implications I also see several more concrete downfalls like the questionable election council or the idiotic decision for the small council, as well as the pretty "simple" military tactics in E3.

But, and that is the major point, people discuss unfairly here. They always mix up "bad story telling" vs. "bad story" -- and that is destructive and not reasonable. Most people here enjoy shitstorming, bullshitting, whining, moaning and pejorative excesses.

What I always try to defend here is the story line. Not the story telling. Seasons 1-6 were excellent and it was back then easy to realise that Daenerys will not be the sweet and shiny queen, but has the dragon inside and would turn vicious without good advisers. The story-telling in S1-S6 was fine and everybody was happy with it. It is unfair to moan in hindsight. 

The character arcs of Daenerys, Arya, Sansa, Jon are fine and believable for a phantasy story of destiny and magic. Littlefinger, Brienne, Jaime and so on had fine arcs, too. Some people might enjoy a certain ending more than others, but the arcs are not butchered. The story is pretty good.

I accept that the Bran and three-eyed raven story line was cut so short that the ending is somehow butchered and unclear. Funnily enough, the moaning about that part is the least. This story arc is what annoys me the most. We actually need the books to understand it. 

But people moaning about Daenerys turning bad or Jon being the tragic hero simply have paid no attention at all. Both was clear quite a long time. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kajjo said:

So what? What's your point? She made a horrible decision with "let it be fear". She wanted to instill fear, more so than just winning the single battle.  Awful. 

I don't think "let it be fear" is a bad decision, necessarily.  Essentially, this sums up the conversation between her and Jon.

"Upon this, a question arises;  whether it is better to be loved than feared, or feared than loved?  It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with:.  Because.....men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation, which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage;  but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails."

It's hard to disagree with that sentiment, if you want to rule Westeros effectively.  In fact, in ADWD, Tyrion gives similar advice to Young Griff.

So, I think Dany is right to want to make herself feared. People should be afraid of the consequences of defying her.   The problem is that burning down most of her capital city for shit and giggles is an absurdly stupid way of doing it.  Old Nick would leap out of his grave and slap her across the face for it.  There are so many ways of making oneself feared that are not so totally self-defeating.  There are plausible ways in which she could have made herself feared and presented Tyrion and Jon with acute moral dilemmas, for the purposes of the show:  eg

1. Mass hangings of anyone suspected of treason, after the city falls,

2. Sentencing Cersei and Jaime to death in really revolting ways, eg public crucifixion or burning

3. Summoning Bran, Arya, Sansa to Kings Landing to stand trial for their "treason" in revealing Jon's parentage

(none of which would seem out of character, IMHO) 

or ways in which the city could plausibly burn (as you have suggested the burning of the Red Keep runs out of control, or there's a botched surrender, or her forces are actually facing defeat, so she unleashes dragonfire on the entire city).  

Gut-wrenchingly spectacular though the death of Kings Landing was, it just doesn't make sense as a piece of storytelling.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Gut-wrenchingly spectacular though the death of Kings Landing was, it just doesn't make sense as a piece of storytelling.

I long ago agreed that either "first Red Keep, then overdoing it" or maybe even better "won the battle, then Rhaegal is shot down and she snaps" would have been better twists.

However, I still see the emotional dilemma for her, too. It's not as bad as you paint it. She won the battle and feels more lonely than ever. No lover, no friends, no advisers left, a people that certainly will not offer a mhysa-moment. She is sad and lonely and snaps. Not 100% without sense. A bit of a stretch maybe, but not that bad.

7 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The problem is that burning down most of her capital city

She probabyl thinks more about whole Westeros than about a single city she has no connections with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Kajjo said:

If you believe so, then you grossly misunderstand my intentions. I do not want to defend D&D. They just wanted the fast way out and butchered a show that was the best ever TV show for at least six seasons. I loved seasons 1-6 very much and I like so many facets about it, from story line to actors, from characters to locations, from nudity to violence, from CGI to magic.  Then it started to degrade significantly and seasons 8 is way too rushed, too short on dialogue and emotions and many developments are cut so short that we have to fill the gaps by indirect conclusions. It's a pity. So, when I defend the overall story-line I don't do this to defend D&D. Not at all.

Apart from "much too rushed" and all its implications I also see several more concrete downfalls like the questionable election council or the idiotic decision for the small council, as well as the pretty "simple" military tactics in E3.

But, and that is the major point, people discuss unfairly here. They always mix up "bad story telling" vs. "bad story" -- and that is destructive and not reasonable. Most people here enjoy shitstorming, bullshitting, whining, moaning and pejorative excesses.

What I always try to defend here is the story line. Not the story telling. Seasons 1-6 were excellent and it was back then easy to realise that Daenerys will not be the sweet and shiny queen, but has the dragon inside and would turn vicious without good advisers. The story-telling in S1-S6 was fine and everybody was happy with it. It is unfair to moan in hindsight. 

The character arcs of Daenerys, Arya, Sansa, Jon are fine and believable for a phantasy story of destiny and magic. Littlefinger, Brienne, Jaime and so on had fine arcs, too. Some people might enjoy a certain ending more than others, but the arcs are not butchered. The story is pretty good.

I accept that the Bran and three-eyed raven story line was cut so short that the ending is somehow butchered and unclear. Funnily enough, the moaning about that part is the least. This story arc is what annoys me the most. We actually need the books to understand it. 

But people moaning about Daenerys turning bad or Jon being the tragic hero simply have paid no attention at all. Both was clear quite a long time. 

 

 

 

I think the Storyline soured from Season 5 onwards. If you can truly call Stannis's character assassination and TV-Dorne 'excellent storytelling', then you're putting lipstick on a pig.

Worse, you're choosing to ignore what D&D themselves say. For example, the 'then let it be fear' explanation almost works; except for two things. First, Dany seems to consider her massacre a form of liberation, that is, she liberated the civilians by killing them. This isn't a stark turn to the darkest ends of machiovellian philosophy, this is outright delusional. Secondly, according to D&D, the reason she went nuts is she saw the Red Keep ringing its bells, saw the representative of all her family lost, then 'decided to make it personal', whatever that means.

To take the 'emperor has no clothes' analogy further; it's like David Benioff is walking around naked, expecting everyone to praise the quality of his clothes. However, he has one piece of clothing; a tattered piece of paper coloured green, that he's wearing like a cape. You then hop onto this and say 'look, he's clothed, and he's obviously wearing scarlet silk, with a navy-blue waistcoat to go with the fantastic scarlet outer clothes.'

See how it doesn't work?

Share this post


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

If you can truly call Stannis's character assassination

Show-only I don't see any character assassination. Stannis was not a main character, he had his flaw from the beginning on, his crazy devotion to Melisandre and her vision. I liked the Stannis arc and burning Shireen was one of the most moving scenes of the series. Back then nobody moaned about a bad storyline. Don't compare it to the books, just see the Stannis arc in the show. I have no issues with that.

5 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

TV-Dorne

Dorne was never important in TV. We have more important and well-depicted characters in GoT than any other show and more Dorne was not necessary. They could even had skipped the Myrcella story altogether and just have her murdered. The Dorne part is not essential in the show. I don't know what you moan about. The show leaves some story lines out, yes. So what? Lady Stoneheart is missing, too. No problem for the show. Sana/Ramsay was a great change, for example, too.

7 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

it's like David Benioff is walking around naked

I don't talk about D&D. Have you understood my explanation that I do not defend D&D?!

Daenerys' turn was to be expected. Yes, it was not told in the best possible fashion. But many people here claim it was unexpected and entirely out-of-character. That's outright bullshitting. Do you accept that Daenerys turning to the dark side was to be expected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Kajjo said:

Show-only I don't see any character assassination. Stannis was not a main character, he had his flaw from the beginning on, his crazy devotion to Melisandre and her vision. I liked the Stannis arc and burning Shireen was one of the most moving scenes of the series. Back then nobody moaned about a bad storyline. Don't compare it to the books, just see the Stannis arc in the show. I have no issues with that.

Dorne was never important in TV. We have more important and well-depicted characters in GoT than any other show and more Dorne was not necessary. They could even had skipped the Myrcella story altogether and just have her murdered. The Dorne part is not essential in the show. I don't know what you moan about. The show leaves some story lines out, yes. So what? Lady Stoneheart is missing, too. No problem for the show. Sana/Ramsay was a great change, for example, too.

I don't talk about D&D. Have you understood my explanation that I do not defend D&D?!

Daenerys' turn was to be expected. Yes, it was not told in the best possible fashion. But many people here claim it was unexpected and entirely out-of-character. That's outright bullshitting. Do you accept that Daenerys turning to the dark side was to be expected?

If Dorne wasn't important, they shouldn't have included it, simple as. As for Stannis, I'd argue that yes, it was, especially given they did that laughable BS where they make Stannis hug his daughter just so it's even more 'subversive' when he burns her over Ser Twenty Goodmen. Speaking of him, Ramsay was an incredibly laughable Villain Sue. Yet you claim it was good writing.

I don't think you realise that in defending the show's writing, you're defending D&D's decisions. Because the show's writing was D&D's decision.

Also, regardless of the outcome being acceptable (Dany going mad), the execution really is all that matters. You seem like the kind of person who views stories as a set of wiki points. 'This happens, this happens, this happens, and because of all these are acceptable, the story is acceptable'. Not true. Not even close. How the events of a story happen is infinitely more important than the whats. Anyone can stick to basic plot points.

It's like if I were told to adapt Romeo and Juliet, and were told that Romeo and Juliet fall in love, Romeo had an ex-lover named Rosalind, a witty best friend named Mercutio who he causes the death of, has a man from Juliet's family called Tybalt as an antagonist, and eventually, both Romeo and Juliet die.

Then, in response, I made it so Romeo killed Mercutio himself because he mocked Rosalind, Romeo and Juliet are only a fling before Romeo goes back to Rosalind while saying 'To be honest, I never really cared about Mercutio', Tybalt becomes the main bad guy and randomly decides to eat babies when earlier he was only hot-headed and merciless, and in the end, Tybalt successfully kills Romeo, but Juliet kills Tybalt in a murder-suicide as revenge.

See how nonsensical a story can be while sticking to plot points that are ostensibly fine on their own? Your 'can we agree this plot point in isolation makes sense' rhetoric is a flawed premise from the offset, so you can stop spamming it and acting like it's not been shot down a million times.

Edited by Beardy the Wildling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

errr .... this is a Rant thread? ahem ... (polite cough) ... a safe space for ranting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

I don't think you realise that in defending the show's writing, you're defending D&D's decisions. Because the show's writing was D&D's decision.

I agree that the writing for S8 was below standard, but the writing in S1-S6 was fine. I liked the Stannis arc and I particularly liked the Ramsay/Sansa story line. 

D&D did some really good story additions back then, e.g. the Tywin/Arya dialogues in Harrenhal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Kajjo said:

I agree that the writing for S8 was below standard, but the writing in S1-S6 was fine. I liked the Stannis arc and I particularly liked the Ramsay/Sansa story line. 

D&D did some really good story additions back then, e.g. the Tywin/Arya dialogues in Harrenhal. 

I respectfully disagree regarding Stannis (who went from reasonable man to daughter-burning idiot over a camp attack when he was apparently two minutes away from Winterfell, and Ramsay abandoned the tactically superior position inside Winterfell to meet them on the field... twice, and is only punished for it once, unsurprisingly the time the 'good guys' attack) and Ramsay/Sansa (Littlefinger was made into a complete idiot just to facilitate a shocking scene with a character we knew).

However, once upon a time, when D&D had GRRM (who isn't perfect, but better than these hacks) on board to keep them measured, they had semi-decent additions, but even then, they had the stink of... their later works all over them. Like Oberyn living in a brothel and Littlefinger monologuing while two prostitutes practice on each other.

Edited by Beardy the Wildling

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

×