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!

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Le Cygne said:

Agree. If they were told at all, it will surely be different, in the way it comes about, and what it means, to the point it's a completely different thing, as usual.

Of all the things they chose NOT to do from the books, why do this? They didn't have to show a girl being burned alive, and yet they did, because they wanted to do THIS.

What they chose to do and what they chose not to do is very telling.

It's shocking! It's a girl burned alive! Two in one, their favorite things, brutality toward female characters and shock. In the context of their story (if you can call it a story), it meant nothing.

The aftermath was a wet fart. Super Ramsay (the "badass" as they called him) triumphed as usual. And Brienne the Brute abandoned Sansa to avenge her crush, yet paid no price.

Also Cogman's babies in bottles was yet another nasty thing that went nowhere. That nutty Selyse. Motherhood makes you crazy. And it made even less sense to then burn Shireen.

Also what was the point of Melisandre after season 2, other than to get naked (until they shamed her for being old) and do a magic trick to bring back Jon Snow to be the same as before.

She said she brought ice and fire together, but that also had no real point, other than to have one go bonkers when the other wouldn't have sex, and the other to kill her. Another wet fart.

Arya Ninja Turtle saved them all from the short night.

If say, Shireen had been burned to revive Jon Snow, that would have had more than shock value. No doubt Jon would have been horrified to learn what had been done to bring him back, even as Melisandre assured him it was for the greater good.

[Prince of the North]

On 9/26/2020 at 9:27 AM, Angel Eyes said:

Season 6. He goes poking around wherever Stannis made camp and that's were he found the wooden stag; how did that not burn?...

"Creatively it made sense to us, because we wanted it to happen."

23 hours ago, Ser Drewy said:

Ultimately, we'll find out whenever Winds is released. But I expect a lot of the supposed book plot-points they included will be extremely different in placement, execution and, frankly, purpose. 

The writing got bafflingly contrived in the show. They wanted such a moment to happen, so -voila - it happens, and logic be damned. By the point of S6 consistent characterisation, logic, plot and world-building had been tossed out the window. 

 

Absolutely, to the first paragraph!  As to the second paragraph, see above.

13 minutes ago, sifth said:

Getting back to Stannis, if Shireen does burn in the books, my prediction will be Stannis will have little if anything to do with it. Selyse is nuts, so who knows when it comes to her, but as far as ADWD is concerned, the books ends with Stannis being hundreds if not thousands of miles away from his family, getting ready to start the battle for Ice. Also in one of the sample chapters for WoW, Stannis mentions that if he should die in this battle, his men are to place Shireen on the Iron Throne in his place. This doesn't exactly sound like the type of guy who wants to kill his own daughter for his own gain, but maybe I'm just over thinking things.

I'm still confused at what/how Ramsay did what he did at the end of season 5. I recall him doing some weird ninja thing, Stannis walking to Winterfell, the Bolton army coming out  and the screen cutting to Stannis having lost the battle. The whole thing is so weirdly edited, it's even worse than Tyrion randomly getting knocked out by his own men right before the battle of the Green Fork starts, only to wake up and the battle be over. I get in the latters case they didn't have the money for major battles so they had to come up with something stupid, but by the time season 5 hit, HBO was pretty much just throwing money at D&D, to make things more violent and "awesome", so it comes off as just weird and lazy to me. It really felt like they were saying "how can we get Stannis out of this show, with spending as little money as possible", lol

Yeah, you're right, Stannis ain't burnin' Shireen in the books.  As for the rest of what you say here, yes, they had plenty of money.  In fact, they had plenty of everything.  They had all of the resources and advantages any show could ask for and, ultimately, they squandered all of it.  

12 minutes ago, SeanF said:

If say, Shireen had been burned to revive Jon Snow, that would have had more than shock value. No doubt Jon would have been horrified to learn what had been done to bring him back, even as Melisandre assured him it was for the greater good.

Bingo!  Can't wait to see how Martin handles this.  I don't think Jon is gonna be a happy camper upon learning of Shireen's sacrifice to resurrect him.  It wouldn't surprise me if some of that cold Stark justice is brought to bear.  In any case, I'm sure Jon is going to be quite changed by the experience in the books.

[Dalinar]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

If say, Shireen had been burned to revive Jon Snow, that would have had more than shock value. No doubt Jon would have been horrified to learn what had been done to bring him back, even as Melisandre assured him it was for the greater good.

I don't really know what "the greater good" was in Jons resurrection as far as the show is concerned. It was Sansa who defeated the Boltons with the help of Littlefinger and the Eyrie. He brought Daenerys to the north to help in the war against the WW, but she was irrelevant there too, because all it took was hide-and-seek with the Night King powered by Arya. His parentage was irrelevant too and "kind of forgoten" at the end. 

[sifth]

19 minutes ago, Dalinar said:

I don't really know what "the greater good" was in Jons resurrection as far as the show is concerned. It was Sansa who defeated the Boltons with the help of Littlefinger and the Eyrie. He brought Daenerys to the north to help in the war against the WW, but she was irrelevant there too, because all it took was hide-and-seek with the Night King powered by Arya. His parentage was irrelevant too and "kind of forgoten" at the end. 

I guess Jon being alive to kill Dany was pretty important? I might be reaching with this one, but it's all I got, lol

[Le Cygne]

9 hours ago, SeanF said:

If say, Shireen had been burned to revive Jon Snow, that would have had more than shock value. No doubt Jon would have been horrified to learn what had been done to bring him back, even as Melisandre assured him it was for the greater good.

I guess you mean in the books, not the show. Jon just messed everything up on the show. Arya saved the day, but the Night King wouldn't have even been there if not for Jon.

If Jon hadn't come back to life, Dany wouldn't have gone insta-bonkers when he wouldn't have sex with her. Benioff/Weiss said she was perfectly sane before that.

Because of Jon's stupid idea, a dragon died, and the Night King crossed the wall. And Tyrion used Jon to murder another woman who rejected him, so he could set up brothels.

Seems like Jonny Boy should have stayed dead on the show. Bringing him back was a bad omen.

(And let's just add that Ghost would have no doubt been happier with Tormund. Ghost was probably like, Oh, what a drag, HE is coming with us. I thought we got rid of him.)

[SeanF]

9 hours ago, Le Cygne said:

I guess you mean in the books, not the show. Jon just messed everything up on the show. Arya saved the day, but the Night King wouldn't have even been there if not for Jon.

If Jon hadn't come back to life, Dany wouldn't have gone insta-bonkers when he wouldn't have sex with her. Benioff/Weiss said she was perfectly sane before that.

Because of Jon's stupid idea, a dragon died, and the Night King crossed the wall. And Tyrion used Jon to murder another woman who rejected him, so he could set up brothels.

Seems like Jonny Boy should have stayed dead on the show. Bringing him back was a bad omen.

(And let's just add that Ghost would have no doubt been happier with Tormund. Ghost was probably like, Oh, what a drag, HE is coming with us. I thought we got rid of him.)

If Jon hadn't been brought back, the Others would still be North of the Wall, and Daenerys would be reigning in Kings Landing. Presumably, she would have executed Ramsay Bolton, and reinstated the Starks as rulers of the North.  It would have been win/win all round.

[divica]

21 hours ago, sifth said:

Getting back to Stannis, if Shireen does burn in the books, my prediction will be Stannis will have little if anything to do with it. Selyse is nuts, so who knows when it comes to her, but as far as ADWD is concerned, the book ends with Stannis being hundreds if not thousands of miles away from his family, getting ready to start the battle for Ice. Also in one of the sample chapters for WoW, Stannis mentions that if he should die in this battle, his men are to place Shireen on the Iron Throne in his place. This doesn't exactly sound like the type of guy who wants to kill his own daughter for his own gain, but maybe I'm just over thinking things.

I think it is really likeable that Stannis would burn shireen if it guarantees he will be sucefull in becoming king and defeat the others. I Don t think it is a matter of ambition for him. It is the belief that not only he should be the king but the he also has to be the king because he is AA. 

[Angel Eyes]

18 hours ago, Dalinar said:

I don't really know what "the greater good" was in Jons resurrection as far as the show is concerned. It was Sansa who defeated the Boltons with the help of Littlefinger and the Eyrie. He brought Daenerys to the north to help in the war against the WW, but she was irrelevant there too, because all it took was hide-and-seek with the Night King powered by Arya. His parentage was irrelevant too and "kind of forgoten" at the end. 

Except to cause conflict between Jon and Daenerys.

[Dalinar]

39 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

Except to cause conflict between Jon and Daenerys.

Yeah, but a good screenwriting can do that without resurrecting dead characters. The ingridients for the conflict within Danerys were there: Tyrion and Varys. I can tell you the rest of the story, without needing Jon and the result would still be the same:

- Sansa gathers the northern Lords and defeats the Boltons with the help of Littlefinger - as has already happend. She is named queen in the north. No need for Jon. 

- Daenerys comes to Westeros with Tyrion and Varys. They have problems gaining the trust of the Westerosi Lords and suffer big losses, because Danerys does not want to siege Kings Landing in the pursuit of not killing inocent people. Cercei wont give up. As has already happend.

- The only thing you need, is to give the Night King a dragon. In the show Danerys goes to the north to save Jon and thus looses Viserion. If there is no Jon, Tyrion could have taken that expedition. It might be his last atempt to make Danerys change her mind about sacking Kings Landing. His last atempt to prove to Cersei that the WW exist and maybe bring the war between Danerys and Cersei to an end - as it has already happend. This time, Danerys heads back to the north to save a guy she has known longer than Jon. Making it even more believable, than saving a guy she knew for some days. 

- Unnecessary to point out that the fight with the WW is exactly the same, if Jon was not there at all. He had zero impact on that "war".  Arya kills the NK. We move on.

- Daenerys going "mad" still happens. No one in Westeros is supporting her. She looses Rhaegal the same way. No one there loves her. 

- To make it a more interesting and believable character developement, Cersei wont give up against Danerys. She is forced to kill innocent people to end the war, making her a tragic villain, rather than a plain stupid psychopath. 

- Tyrion witness this massmurder, the death of his siblings and is forced to do what must be done, even though he loves her. He kills Danerys instead of Jon. It would be a more tragic death scene. Daenerys in this scenario had a difficult decision to make: End Cerseis terror while killing innocent people, or giving up and let Cerseis terror regime continue. A much more grey story telling than the stupid black/white story telling we got. Tyrion knows this of course and has a lot of problems to do what must be done. But in the end, he kills the only person he still loves. 

- We the audience are shocked what Tyrion has to do, yet we can somehow understand. He is then send to the Wall as a punishment, making his character developement coming full circle.

- Bran becomes the King. 

THE END.

No need for Jon.

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, Dalinar said:

Yeah, but a good screenwriting can do that without resurrecting dead characters. The ingridients for the conflict within Danerys were there: Tyrion and Varys. I can tell you the rest of the story, without needing Jon and the result would still be the same:

- Sansa gathers the northern Lords and defeats the Boltons with the help of Littlefinger - as has already happend. She is named queen in the north. No need for Jon. 

- Daenerys comes to Westeros with Tyrion and Varys. They have problems gaining the trust of the Westerosi Lords and suffer big losses, because Danerys does not want to siege Kings Landing in the pursuit of not killing inocent people. Cercei wont give up. As has already happend.

- The only thing you need, is to give the Night King a dragon. In the show Danerys goes to the north to save Jon and thus looses Viserion. If there is no Jon, Tyrion could have taken that expedition. It might be his last atempt to make Danerys change her mind about sacking Kings Landing. His last atempt to prove to Cersei that the WW exist and maybe bring the war between Danerys and Cersei to an end - as it has already happend. This time, Danerys heads back to the north to save a guy she has known longer than Jon. Making it even more believable, than saving a guy she knew for some days. 

- Unnecessary to point out that the fight with the WW is exactly the same, if Jon was not there at all. He had zero impact on that "war".  Arya kills the NK. We move on.

- Daenerys going "mad" still happens. No one in Westeros is supporting her. She looses Rhaegal the same way. No one there loves her. 

- To make it a more interesting and believable character developement, Cersei wont give up against Danerys. She is forced to kill innocent people to end the war, making her a tragic villain, rather than a plain stupid psychopath. 

- Tyrion witness this massmurder, the death of his siblings and is forced to do what must be done, even though he loves her. He kills Danerys instead of Jon. It would be a more tragic death scene. Daenerys in this scenario had a difficult decision to make: End Cerseis terror while killing innocent people, or giving up and let Cerseis terror regime continue. A much more grey story telling than the stupid black/white story telling we got. Tyrion knows this of course and has a lot of problems to do what must be done. But in the end, he kills the only person he still loves. 

- We the audience are shocked what Tyrion has to do, yet we can somehow understand. He is then send to the Wall as a punishment, making his character developement coming full circle.

- Bran becomes the King. 

THE END.

No need for Jon.

I think that they should have finished off Cersei, after blowing up the Great Sept.  Say, have Margaery and Tommen survive. and Cersei is overthrown and killed by a furious population.

That leaves a popular King and Queen who people have good reason to support, facing off against Daenerys and her foreign army,  and the Dornish, who are despised, anyway.

There are negotiations between both sides, but eventually, they break down.  There is an incredibly bitter fight for Kings Landing, with vicious street fighting.  Facing the prospect of defeat,  Daenerys unleashes her dragons on the defenders......

[Dalinar]

5 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think that they should have finished off Cersei, after blowing up the Great Sept.  Say, have Margaery and Tommen survive. and Cersei is overthrown and killed by a furious population.

That leaves a popular King and Queen who people have good reason to support, facing off against Daenerys and her foreign army,  and the Dornish, who are despised, anyway.

There are negotiations between both sides, but eventually, they break down.  There is an incredibly bitter fight for Kings Landing, with vicious street fighting.  Facing the prospect of defeat,  Daenerys unleashes her dragons on the defenders......

I like this too

[SeanF]

4 minutes ago, Dalinar said:

I like this too

That leaves a good moral debate.  Was Daenerys right or wrong?  You can argue it either way.  She didn't kill people just to prove how mad/evil she was, but you can argue her cause was unjust.   And, the North has good reason to fear her, based on something other than Sansa's petty spite.

[Dalinar]

Just now, SeanF said:

That leaves a good moral debate.  Was Daenerys right or wrong?  You can argue it either way.  She didn't kill people just to prove how mad/evil she was, but you can argue her cause was unjust.   And, the North has good reason to fear her, based on something other than Sansa's petty spite.

That was also my point. 

4 hours ago, Dalinar said:

To make it a more interesting and believable character developement, Cersei wont give up against Danerys. She is forced to kill innocent people to end the war, making her a tragic villain, rather than a plain stupid psychopath

 

4 hours ago, Dalinar said:

Tyrion witness this massmurder, the death of his siblings and is forced to do what must be done, even though he loves her. He kills Danerys instead of Jon. It would be a more tragic death scene. Daenerys in this scenario had a difficult decision to make: End Cerseis terror while killing innocent people, or giving up and let Cerseis terror regime continue. A much more grey story telling than the stupid black/white story telling we got. Tyrion knows this of course and has a lot of problems to do what must be done. But in the end, he kills the only person he still loves.

 

[HoodedCrow]

Hiroshima, right or wrong?

[SeanF]

24 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

Hiroshima, right or wrong?

Or Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo etc.?

I'll give my real world opinion which is that we spend way too much time agonising over what our grandparents and great-grandparents did in war.    War is hell, and you do what you must in order to win.

[HoodedCrow]

I was raised with idea that “ war is hell”. I was taught not to glamorize it from a guy who was in W. W. II. I was aware of the nuance as a child. Are the lessons lost, though? What do you make or the term “ feminazi”? I consider it to be offensive in multiple ways. As an ally, I find it particularly offputting. On the other hand, there are a chunk of people who don’t seem to understand the basics, or they are just led into violence and scapegoating regardless.

[Le Cygne]

Ran across Jason Momoa again, reacting to what they did to Dany.

It's interesting that an actor who hadn't acted in the role since season 1 (except for a cameo) thought more about Dany as a human being than the showrunners.

He's angry on Dany's behalf. He's yelling at Tyrion, he's yelling at Jon, he's yelling at everyone who screwed over Dany, because he remembers her as a person.

That's why everyone hated it, among many other reasons. It was a hatchet job. They never bothered to see this woman as a human being. And she's not the only one.

That's a basic requirement of a writer, to actually consider the characters people. They are bad writers, but even a little kid has empathy for the characters in a story.

[Count Balerion]

Covers it in a nutshell.

I've finally got around to watching Boston University's season 8. Vastly superior so far. Not that that's surprising.

[SeanF]

6 hours ago, Le Cygne said:

Ran across Jason Momoa again, reacting to what they did to Dany.

It's interesting that an actor who hadn't acted in the role since season 1 (except for a cameo) thought more about Dany as a human being than the showrunners.

He's angry on Dany's behalf. He's yelling at Tyrion, he's yelling at Jon, he's yelling at everyone who screwed over Dany, because he remembers her as a person.

That's why everyone hated it, among many other reasons. It was a hatchet job. They never bothered to see this woman as a human being. And she's not the only one.

That's a basic requirement of a writer, to actually consider the characters people. They are bad writers, but even a little kid has empathy for the characters in a story.

A decent writer can make a character an antagonist, show their downfall, point out that fatal flaw that set them on the path of destruction - yet still portray that character as a human being, with goals and motivations that made sense to them.

What we got (as you've pointed out) were pod people.

 

[SeanF]

9 hours ago, HoodedCrow said:

I was raised with idea that “ war is hell”. I was taught not to glamorize it from a guy who was in W. W. II. I was aware of the nuance as a child. Are the lessons lost, though? What do you make or the term “ feminazi”? I consider it to be offensive in multiple ways. As an ally, I find it particularly offputting. On the other hand, there are a chunk of people who don’t seem to understand the basics, or they are just led into violence and scapegoating regardless.

I think that comparing anybody to Hitler or the Nazis is offensive, unless such people really are national socialists, or commit atrocities on a similar scale. (Okay, one can joke about "grammar Nazis" and "Little Hitlers").  It's offensive to the people who one makes the comparison with, but worse, it's offensive to anyone who actually suffered under national socialism.

In the context of Season 8, for D & D to portray Daenerys as a female Hitler, her followers as Nazis, and to reference Niemoller's "First they Came" prose poem in the context of killing slavers and rapists - as opposed to socialists, jews, and trade unionists - was breathtakingly offensive.