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!

[Lord Varys]

41 minutes ago, SeanF said:

What I find puzzling though, is if you are going for Daenerys as villain, why leave it to the last moment?  They could actually have portrayed her acting like Timur the Lame in Essos, leaving cities in flames and pyramids of heads in her wake, and then pursuing a ruthless scorched-earth policy against her enemies in Westeros (and I don’t think it would have damaged her popularity among fans, either).  Then, the sack and burning of Kings Landing would seem natural.  Instead, they tried to make out that the execution of slavers and the Tarlys was evidence of villainy.  That’s like saying that killing Frey’s and Boltons is evidence of villainy.

Because they didn't actually plan that for a long time. I mean, there are dozens of hints that they originally had different plans - Cersei's miscarriage plot, Jon/Dany love child, etc. Even in the last season itself there are hints that changed what they were doing while shooting it.

And whenever they do something the cheap twist out of the left field is their way to go ... when they don't do something completely obvious and stupid that people think there must be a twist but there is none (like with Talisa, the Vale coming in to save Jon, or Littlefinger in Winterfell). But their twists come with no foreshadowing at all aside from there being some mentioning of the thing in the recap of the last episodes. That's how it was with Stannis-Brienne, the blowing up of the Great Sept, the murder of Doran Martell and Myrcella, etc.

And then there is the fact that these people never even tried to write coherent characters with arcs or character development. This is a cheap show at heart, something aimed at effects and twists and big scenes, not something that is supposed to make sense if you think about it for two seconds. I mean, we don't have to discuss how people who actually say stuff like 'Dany kind of forgot about the iron fleet...' and gave us that wight hunt don't really give shit about this show having any kind of internal consistency or cohesion.

It is actually a disgrace to this shit show that we people here actually treat this thing as something that was written from the POV of a person who cares about ASoIaF and the characters George created. They don't. They never did. They only cared about what they could do with that raw material.

Back to HoD - I think GoT's treatment of the dragons was also very cheap. Not just because of the silliness that they didn't have saddles for the dragonriders, but also how they were killed. If you can barrage a gigantic dragon rather easily with scorpion bolts then they pretty much suck as weapons. But this isn't really true in George's world - and the main premise of the Dance is that (mostly) dragons kill other dragons. But for the audience of GoT even a beast like Vhagar shouldn't be very impressive. They could just shoot her down, just as they could all the smaller dragons.

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Because they didn't actually plan that for a long time. I mean, there are dozens of hints that they originally had different plans - Cersei's miscarriage plot, Jon/Dany love child, etc. Even in the last season itself there are hints that changed what they were doing while shooting it.

And whenever they do something the cheap twist out of the left field is their way to go ... when they don't do something completely obvious and stupid that people think there must be a twist but there is none (like with Talisa, the Vale coming in to save Jon, or Littlefinger in Winterfell). But their twists come with no foreshadowing at all aside from there being some mentioning of the thing in the recap of the last episodes. That's how it was with Stannis-Brienne, the blowing up of the Great Sept, the murder of Doran Martell and Myrcella, etc.

And then there is the fact that these people never even tried to write coherent characters with arcs or character development. This is a cheap show at heart, something aimed at effects and twists and big scenes, not something that is supposed to make sense if you think about it for two seconds. I mean, we don't have to discuss how people who actually say stuff like 'Dany kind of forgot about the iron fleet...' and gave us that wight hunt don't really give shit about this show having any kind of internal consistency or cohesion.

It is actually a disgrace to this shit show that we people here actually treat this thing as something that was written from the POV of a person who cares about ASoIaF and the characters George created. They don't. They never did. They only cared about what they could do with that raw material.

Back to HoD - I think GoT's treatment of the dragons was also very cheap. Not just because of the silliness that they didn't have saddles for the dragonriders, but also how they were killed. If you can barrage a gigantic dragon rather easily with scorpion bolts then they pretty much suck as weapons. But this isn't really true in George's world - and the main premise of the Dance is that (mostly) dragons kill other dragons. But for the audience of GoT even a beast like Vhagar shouldn't be very impressive. They could just shoot her down, just as they could all the smaller dragons.

That must be correct.  However silly the wight hunt was, Dany’s decisions to fly North of the Wall, to put her fight  against Cersei on hold, and to fight the Dead without pressing her claim, were portrayed as heroic and noble, in Season 7.   Jon gave fealty entirely voluntarily to her.  Dany even questioned whether Jon’s people would accept that, to be told “they’ll come to see you as I do.”

Come Season 8, her army is treated more like an army of occupation, and Jon implies to his vassals that he had no choice, but to bend the knee.  Sam asks “would she give up her crown”, and Jon ignores that she prioritised the fight against the Dead over her own claim.  So, either Jon is a liar (who could not tell a lie to Cersei) or more likely, this is a crude retcon.  D & D were just trying to pull the wool over the eyes of casual viewers, after having decided to vilify her, after Season 7.

And as The Dragon Demands has pointed out, the decision to have her swerve away from the Red Keep to burn random civilians, was taken very late in the day.

[The Bard of Banefort]

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

What I find puzzling though, is if you are going for Daenerys as villain, why leave it to the last moment?  They could actually have portrayed her acting like Timur the Lame in Essos, leaving cities in flames and pyramids of heads in her wake, and then pursuing a ruthless scorched-earth policy against her enemies in Westeros (and I don’t think it would have damaged her popularity among fans, either).  Then, the sack and burning of Kings Landing would seem natural.  Instead, they tried to make out that the execution of slavers and the Tarlys was evidence of villainy.  That’s like saying that killing Frey’s and Boltons and Janos Slynt is evidence of villainy.

I think it's partially because they wrote Jon to be the same post-resurrection as he was prior to it, and if Dany had started to go dark before season eight, they wouldn't have been able to sell their "love story." (As it is, I have a hard time seeing how book-Dany is going to fall in love with zombie-Jon, who will likely be a shell of his former self).

As for the pregnancy, I'm pretty sure that they had planned for Dany to be pregnant when Jon killed her, then decided that that was a bridge too far.

[The Bard of Banefort]

I'm surprised by the number of people here who don't expect Dany to be a villain by the end of the series, or think that D&D pulled it out of thin air. I can't think of any other reason why fAegon would be introduced if not to create a scenario where the smallfolk reject Dany due to having already been won over by him. Where do you expect her arc in the books to go? 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I'm surprised by the number of people here who don't expect Dany to be a villain by the end of the series, or think that D&D pulled it out of thin air. I can't think of any other reason why fAegon would be introduced if not to create a scenario where the smallfolk reject Dany due to having already been won over by him. Where do you expect her arc in the books to go? 

Their being in conflict with each other does not require either one to be a villain.

So far, nothing that I have read of Young Griff or Arianne leads me to believe they are better human beings than Daenerys is.

Let’s assume the pair take Kings Landing.  What do you think would happen to Tommen and Margaery?  I honestly think Arianne would *want* to spare them, but Jon Connington and the Sand Snakes would be very cruel.  I like Arianne as a character, but she has no notion that she’s feasting with panthers.  She has no idea that her cousins are rotten to the core.

[Le Cygne]

On 12/7/2020 at 3:29 AM, SeanF said:

Book fans like me were still hoping that D & D had enough self-respect to try and pull off a good ending.

Le Cygne is right to liken it to a Ponzi scheme, where you’ve sunk so much into it that you still hope for the best, until it all comes tumbling down, and you think “how was I duped into this?”

Benioff/Weiss/Cogman were such failures at telling stories, they relied on the audience to make up their own stories.

There was all the lobbying for the story to go this way or that on social media, and even the media outlets with the many clickbait articles.

(Editor to intern: Write anything, as long as you say it's awesome!)

That's a sign right there that something is wrong. Instead of eagerly awaiting the next developments, they filled in for the failed writers.

Picture Better Call Saul, that audience doesn't do that. They just sit back and watch it all unfold, that's the way it is when something is done right.

Anyway what happened was GoT ended it in such a dismal slash dull way, that they not only left the audience holding the bag, the bag was empty.

[SeanF]

15 minutes ago, Le Cygne said:

Benioff/Weiss/Cogman were such failures at telling stories, they relied on the audience to make up their own stories.

There was all the lobbying for the story to go this way or that on social media, and even the media outlets with the many clickbait articles.

(Editor to intern: Write anything, as long as you say it's awesome!)

That's a sign right there that something is wrong. Instead of eagerly awaiting the next developments, they filled in for the failed writers.

Picture Better Call Saul, that audience doesn't do that. They just sit back and watch it all unfold, that's the way it is when something is done right.

Anyway what happened was GoT ended it in such a dismal slash dull way, that they not only left the audience holding the bag, the bag was empty.

I can remember myself, working out complex arguments to cover the holes in the plot.

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

That must be correct.  However silly the wight hunt was, Dany’s decisions to fly North of the Wall, to put her fight  against Cersei on hold, and to fight the Dead without pressing her claim, were portrayed as heroic and noble, in Season 7.   Jon gave fealty entirely voluntarily to her.  Dany even questioned whether Jon’s people would accept that, to be told “they’ll come to see you as I do.”

Yes, if there had been a plan to kill Daenerys when they finished season 7 it would have either via Tyrion's jealousy - which is also strongly hinted at in their boat sex scene -, by means of death in childbirth, or by her dying in the process of the last fight against the Others.

Not by means of her going nuts and Jon killing her in turn. That wasn't the plan. And you have to keep in mind that even if you want to end the story with Dany not on the throne ... you don't have to kill her for that, either. She could fly away with her dragon, return to Essos (where in the show setting Daario is still around)

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

Come Season 8, her army is treated more like an army of occupation, and Jon implies to his vassals that he had no choice, but to bend the knee.  Sam asks “would she give up her crown”, and Jon ignores that she prioritised the fight against the Dead over her own claim.  So, either Jon is a liar (who could not tell a lie to Cersei) or more likely, this is a crude retcon.  D & D were just trying to pull the wool over the eyes of casual viewers, after having decided to vilify her, after Season 7.

Yes, there was a complete change there. In fact, it seems they came up with their crude way to 'adapt' the Aegon plot with Jon rather than the Aegon who they cut them only after they had revealed the truth about Jon's parentage. Which never made any sense.

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

And as The Dragon Demands has pointed out, the decision to have her swerve away from the Red Keep to burn random civilians, was taken very late in the day.

Yes, that's what I meant by them still making up things as they were shooting the last season, possibly even as late as the post production of the season.

7 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I think it's partially because they wrote Jon to be the same post-resurrection as he was prior to it, and if Dany had started to go dark before season eight, they wouldn't have been able to sell their "love story." (As it is, I have a hard time seeing how book-Dany is going to fall in love with zombie-Jon, who will likely be a shell of his former self).

Then they should have just cut that love story entirely. There is no reason these two be in love in the show - after all, it leads literally nowhere. And if Dany is to be killed by a guy who loves her, then Tyrion or Missandei or Grey Worm.

7 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

As for the pregnancy, I'm pretty sure that they had planned for Dany to be pregnant when Jon killed her, then decided that that was a bridge too far.

That would just make no sense ... especially since those audio commentaries indicate that Dany is not only going to be pregnant but will have a child.

5 hours ago, Le Cygne said:

Benioff/Weiss/Cogman were such failures at telling stories, they relied on the audience to make up their own stories.

There was all the lobbying for the story to go this way or that on social media, and even the media outlets with the many clickbait articles.

(Editor to intern: Write anything, as long as you say it's awesome!)

That's a sign right there that something is wrong. Instead of eagerly awaiting the next developments, they filled in for the failed writers.

Picture Better Call Saul, that audience doesn't do that. They just sit back and watch it all unfold, that's the way it is when something is done right.

Anyway what happened was GoT ended it in such a dismal slash dull way, that they not only left the audience holding the bag, the bag was empty.

Well, to be sure, we actually seem to have to thank @Ran for how they 'wrapped up' Dorne, since he jokingly tossed around some ideas in a video how could they do this after season 5 which later turned out to be eerily accurate, unless I'm misremembering. Chances are not that bad that Cogman watched that thing.

7 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I'm surprised by the number of people here who don't expect Dany to be a villain by the end of the series, or think that D&D pulled it out of thin air. I can't think of any other reason why fAegon would be introduced if not to create a scenario where the smallfolk reject Dany due to having already been won over by him. Where do you expect her arc in the books to go? 

I actually don't think Aegon's story will be that of a 'tragic hero'. He and his people will be villains in Dany's story, not the other way around. Aegon is set up as a political obstacle to Daenerys, yes, but also - as per the House of the Undying - as a fake savior (like Stannis) who is going to make things worse, not better. Meaning while there may be people happy with taking power and sticking with him until the end, he is not going to make things better for them, specifically, nor for Westeros in general.

I mean, Varys' entire Epilogue speech is a huge flag that the guy is backing the wrong horse dragon there. If a guy tells you that his prince is the perfect king who will bring peace and plenty to everyone then this guy has to be severely mistaken for the story to remain interesting - meaning either Aegon, personally, turns into a Maegor or Aerys II or Rhaenyra (loved at first, loathed a couple of weeks later), or he just becomes a complete failure in the ruling department, making one big blunder after another. After all, Aegon isn't exactly a main character/hero in this story. Varys is as mistaken in his belief in Aegon as the reader/Northmen were mistaken in their belief that Robb would turn things around. He, too, wasn't a main character or hero in this story.

Aegon will it more difficult for Daenerys to take over Westeros without much bloodshed, but the chances for him to be able to form a united front against her are also pretty low. Euron is not going to go away, he would never be able to count on the likes of Littlefinger nor the Targaryen loyalists in the Reach or the Riverlands.

And then Daenerys has dragons, which are both the ultimate symbols of power and legitimacy ... whereas Aegon will just be a big lie, a pretender people will gather around while they have no real Targaryen around.

Overall, we should not make the mistake to lay all the baggage 'TV Dany' had to take in the absence of an Aegon plot at her feet ... especially since the show was also lacking the real Cersei Lannister (who clearly is 'the real Mad Queen', if the books are going to give us one) and, more importantly, the real Euron Greyjoy (who was a joke in the show).

If you deliberately decide to take parts of the Dany-Aegon plot and give them to Jon-Dany, if you make Cersei an unimpressive/sympathetic sort of villain, if you take the Dark Lord equivalent from ASoIaF and turn it into a stupid pirate with an eye patch, then one cannot really expect that the Daenerys story from the books is even remotely reflected in the way things go down with her.

Especially when we reach the point where they have to fight the Others. Then nobody in the smallfolk should be rooting for Aegon, for instance.

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

Their being in conflict with each other does not require either one to be a villain.

So far, nothing that I have read of Young Griff or Arianne leads me to believe they are better human beings than Daenerys is.

Let’s assume the pair take Kings Landing.  What do you think would happen to Tommen and Margaery?  I honestly think Arianne would *want* to spare them, but Jon Connington and the Sand Snakes would be very cruel.  I like Arianne as a character, but she has no notion that she’s feasting with panthers.  She has no idea that her cousins are rotten to the core.

Arianne is interesting because so far she was protected from darker things by hanging out in a world where things worked pretty well under Doran's rule. When she is pushed into a role where she has to be more active, to fight against real and imagined enemies on a larger scale, we don't know what she will be capable of. But she is not likely goingt to be a force of peace.

And the Margaery question is actually rather interesting. If she were to be killed by/during Aegon's ascension to the throne this might have even bigger anti-Aegon ripple effects than if they just kill Tommen/Myrcella, because Margaery Tyrell is a very popular person both with her family and the people of the Reach as well as the Kingslanders.

The idea that the Tyrells end up spearheading an anti-Aegon movement first with a Queen Myrcella as their figurehead (betrothed/married to Willas Tyrell) if she doesn't die in KL or ends up in the clutches of Aegon's people and then, later, by joining Daenerys isn't very far-fetched at all.

But, yes, even if there is conflict there, you don't have to go with a big villain scenario (although I think Aegon will be a villain in the sense that he is not going to be a good king nor a viable alternative to Daenerys is the savior department) but rather a tragic conflict.

The reason why I really liked the direction ADwD was taking the story was that it was really clear that - Euron aside - most of the 'new pretenders' who would clash in the coming books were unsympathetic or evil in meaningful sense - Stannis, Aegon, and Daenerys do not resemble Tywin, the Cleganes, Roose, Ramsay, Littlefinger, or Euron in any meaningful way. You can basically root for all of them to win ... which is why the conflict is going to be interesting because you cannot say it is clear that this or that person must win, because the others all suck and cannot hope to survive the series (like it is with Euron, the Boltons, Freys, etc.).

[The Bard of Banefort]

56 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That would just make no sense ... especially since those audio commentaries indicate that Dany is not only going to be pregnant but will have a child.

Which audio commentary was that? This is the first I'm hearing of this.

[The Dragon Demands]

yeah

[SeanF]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Arianne is interesting because so far she was protected from darker things by hanging out in a world where things worked pretty well under Doran's rule. When she is pushed into a role where she has to be more active, to fight against real and imagined enemies on a larger scale, we don't know what she will be capable of. But she is not likely goingt to be a force of peace.

And the Margaery question is actually rather interesting. If she were to be killed by/during Aegon's ascension to the throne this might have even bigger anti-Aegon ripple effects than if they just kill Tommen/Myrcella, because Margaery Tyrell is a very popular person both with her family and the people of the Reach as well as the Kingslanders.

The idea that the Tyrells end up spearheading an anti-Aegon movement first with a Queen Myrcella as their figurehead (betrothed/married to Willas Tyrell) if she doesn't die in KL or ends up in the clutches of Aegon's people and then, later, by joining Daenerys isn't very far-fetched at all.

But, yes, even if there is conflict there, you don't have to go with a big villain scenario (although I think Aegon will be a villain in the sense that he is not going to be a good king nor a viable alternative to Daenerys is the savior department) but rather a tragic conflict.

The reason why I really liked the direction ADwD was taking the story was that it was really clear that - Euron aside - most of the 'new pretenders' who would clash in the coming books were unsympathetic or evil in meaningful sense - Stannis, Aegon, and Daenerys do not resemble Tywin, the Cleganes, Roose, Ramsay, Littlefinger, or Euron in any meaningful way. You can basically root for all of them to win ... which is why the conflict is going to be interesting because you cannot say it is clear that this or that person must win, because the others all suck and cannot hope to survive the series (like it is with Euron, the Boltons, Freys, etc.).

Arianne’s father deliberately kept her in the dark for years, relegating her essentially to party-planning, before now placing the power to wage war in her hands.  I can’t see that ending well.

[Angel Eyes]

On 12/11/2020 at 11:40 AM, The Bard of Banefort said:

I think it's partially because they wrote Jon to be the same post-resurrection as he was prior to it, and if Dany had started to go dark before season eight, they wouldn't have been able to sell their "love story." (As it is, I have a hard time seeing how book-Dany is going to fall in love with zombie-Jon, who will likely be a shell of his former self).

As for the pregnancy, I'm pretty sure that they had planned for Dany to be pregnant when Jon killed her, then decided that that was a bridge too far.

They'd already crossed that bridge twice; once with Talisa and once with Cersei (assuming she didn't miscarry).

[Cas Stark]

2 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Maybe keeping her in the dark wasn't such a good idea. And the betrothal to Viserys wasn't a good idea either.

It's good to be reminded that GRRM isn't immune to plot holes either.  I always thought that was among the dumbest retcons, that the Prince of Dorne would betroth his daughter to Viserys and with all of his Essos connections would never lift a finger to help him.

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

It's good to be reminded that GRRM isn't immune to plot holes either.  I always thought that was among the dumbest retcons, that the Prince of Dorne would betroth his daughter to Viserys and with all of his Essos connections would never lift a finger to help him.

Agreed.  Although perhaps he is in the loop with Varys/Illyrio etc.  Still, you would have expected him to be channelling funds via the Iron Bank to support Viserys and Dany.

I like the Dornish storyline in general - and view it as a tale of a family eagerly embracing its own destruction - but that part makes no real sense.

[Ghostlydragon]

12 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

It's good to be reminded that GRRM isn't immune to plot holes either.  I always thought that was among the dumbest retcons, that the Prince of Dorne would betroth his daughter to Viserys and with all of his Essos connections would never lift a finger to help him.

I never liked that either. I mean i like that he arranged that marriage but it made no sense for the Targaryens to be completely alone for so long. If they had been with Ilriyo from the start it would have made more sense.  

[Lord Varys]

15 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

It's good to be reminded that GRRM isn't immune to plot holes either.  I always thought that was among the dumbest retcons, that the Prince of Dorne would betroth his daughter to Viserys and with all of his Essos connections would never lift a finger to help him.

Doesn't Doran's overly cautious nature explain that? He thinks about himself, his family, and Dorne first before the Targaryens ... who are not his kin or his friends or anything, but simply pawns he intends to use and exploit to get his revenge.

It is a great scene when Doran talks about 'fire and blood' ... but don't get carried away by that. The man isn't a Targaryen loyalist as such. If he were, he would have declared for Viserys III after the Sack. But he didn't because he is first and foremost loyal to Dorne and its people, not to the dragons.

And he is clearly afraid to provoke Robert's wrath should news about him supporting or conspiring with Viserys III reach KL.

But then - we don't know if he actually did send funds Willem Darry's way, nor whether he kept an eye on Viserys III before he ended up with Illyrio. Even Daenerys is smart enough to realize that Doran could not afford to tell Viserys III about his betrothal ... because the moron wouldn't have been able to keep his mouth shut about that.

The plot hole George still has to fill is why Illyrio gave dragon eggs to Daenerys and apparently not to Aegon.

[Cas Stark]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Doesn't Doran's overly cautious nature explain that? He thinks about himself, his family, and Dorne first before the Targaryens ... who are not his kin or his friends or anything, but simply pawns he intends to use and exploit to get his revenge.

It is a great scene when Doran talks about 'fire and blood' ... but don't get carried away by that. The man isn't a Targaryen loyalist as such. If he were, he would have declared for Viserys III after the Sack. But he didn't because he is first and foremost loyal to Dorne and its people, not to the dragons.

And he is clearly afraid to provoke Robert's wrath should news about him supporting or conspiring with Viserys III reach KL.

But then - we don't know if he actually did send funds Willem Darry's way, nor whether he kept an eye on Viserys III before he ended up with Illyrio. Even Daenerys is smart enough to realize that Doran could not afford to tell Viserys III about his betrothal ... because the moron wouldn't have been able to keep his mouth shut about that.

The plot hole George still has to fill is why Illyrio gave dragon eggs to Daenerys and apparently not to Aegon.

No, not really.  Unless he was lying to Arianne, then the idea that he would betroth his daughter to Viserys and not lift as finger to help him, which given his position, his wealth and his connections it is simply not believable he couldn't have done something with very very little chance of discovery.  We also know Bob's wrath is not what it is cracked up to be as he was much more likely to pardon opponents than harm them.  Surely, if he had been keeping an eye on Viserys, watching him slip into poverty and desperation, he would have done something. So, sorry, I have to count that as one of the worst if not the worst GRRM decisions, it simply does not make sense and is one of the reasons I dislike Dorne so much, clearly its a later add on and he struggled to retrofit things.

Yes, indeed, Illyrio giving the eggs to Dany is also a plot hole that the author created when he started watering the weeds in the garden instead of the flowers. 

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

No, not really.  Unless he was lying to Arianne, then the idea that he would betroth his daughter to Viserys and not lift as finger to help him, which given his position, his wealth and his connections it is simply not believable he couldn't have done something with very very little chance of discovery.

But Doran really, really doesn't like to be discovered, does he? And I think the basis for Doran 'doing nothing' is also somewhat slim. He had arrangements made for Arianne and Viserys to meet at Tyrosh - this kind of thing would have only worked if the Archon and a number of other people had been involved. Somehow Viserys must have gotten to Tyrosh to be close by at the time when Arianne was supposed to fostered with the Archon. It may turn out that Viserys III was still alive at the beginning of the series because Doran Martell made sure he was still welcome with most of the merchants and magisters he visited before falling in with Illyrio.

7 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

We also know Bob's wrath is not what it is cracked up to be as he was much more likely to pardon opponents than harm them.  Surely, if he had been keeping an eye on Viserys, watching him slip into poverty and desperation, he would have done something. So, sorry, I have to count that as one of the worst if not the worst GRRM decisions, it simply does not make sense and is one of the reasons I dislike Dorne so much, clearly its a later add on and he struggled to retrofit things.

Doran clearly never wanted to provoke Robert's wrath ... and there is no indication he ever truly forgave the Dornish. He never visited Dorne throughout his entire reign. And Robert really liked wars. All he needed to invade Dorne, I imagine, was an excuse/pretext to do so.

And then there is the fact that we really have no idea on what Viserys III lived from the day Darry died. He was still a young boy at the time, and their servants at Braavos ran away with all the money they had left. The only thing Viserys was able to save was his mother's crown ... and he only sold that crown years later.

The real question is how this guy - who was incompetent as an adult and thus, most likely, even more pitiful as an adolescent - could even survive to grow up and then end up in Illyrio's clutches. Dany either doesn't know how her brother pulled that off ... or she has yet to give us information on that part of their lives.

I mean, if you read FaB you'll find another Viserys - Viserys II - as 'guest' with a number of powerful Lysene families, and all of them treated him as a pawn they might kill for this or that reason.

How on earth as unimpressive a guy like Viserys III could have survived those snake pits, travelling from city to city with no loyal protectors, no wealth, no retainers is very hard to swallow. How is it that he wasn't abducted, sold to Robert, murdered for Robert, or simply turned into the slave of some powerful guy? The Lysene kept Princess Saera as a prostitute in their pleasure gardens, why not also Viserys III?

And if you want to, you can insert Doran Martell's connections in that blank space. You don't have to so far, but you can. And I think if that's ever addressed we will find out that he had something to do with that. After all, Dany only knows what her brother told her. It might even be that Doran's friends in the Free Cities hooked Viserys up with Illyrio Mopatis. We have no idea how that connection was established. And, in fact, we only suspect Viserys was never told about his Dornish betrothal ... we don't know if that's true or not. He may have decided never to tell Daenerys.

7 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

Yes, indeed, Illyrio giving the eggs to Dany is also a plot hole that the author created when he started watering the weeds in the garden instead of the flowers. 

Aegon perhaps not having eggs, too, would be hard to swallow. But this is a question the author clearly hasn't forgotten as ADwD twice had Daenerys remember that Illyrio gave her the eggs, with phantom Viserys outright complaining that she got the eggs when they should have been his. Aegon could make a similar complaint. So this is something George is going to come back to. He has to. And perhaps he even has a good explanation for it. Or not. I don't know.

[Count Balerion]

(1) Reading/Suffering through Fire Cannot Kill a Dragon Part 10 - YouTube

[Count Balerion]

yikes, i forgot the beetle segment. natalie dormer was only willing to do it w/ tommen when told it's in the books (that's not in hibberd but audio commentary). the cat who "played" ser pounce "was a real diva" and wouldn't do anything. the lady who played shae didn't understand why shae testified against tyrion; it seemed she should understand why tyrion was casting her aside. hibberd uses apotheosis when he means epitome. dan b. weiss says pedro pascal "thought we were being nice. he didn't know us yet." there were a bunch of yachts that were in the way, and everyone moved except one chap who kept deliberately trying to get in their shots, but everyone laughed b/c he wasn't in their shots at all; it was a yachtrage". D&D held a meeting where they decided to drop tysha around this time; but the book so far has not mentioned tysha anywhere.