Jump to content

[Spoilers] Episode 109 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, teej6 said:

Again, another inconsistency. Don’t they remember their script or do they write scenes independent of one another. 

I don't think it's necessarily a mistake. Again, part of this is making it clear the rules of suggestions are more like the Pirate's code.

It's not actually remotely a set of laws but suggestions.

Which was true in the Anarchy as well.

King Stephen utterly ignored the actual rules and people mostly went along with it because he lied and said the Church was backing him up (because his brother was the Archbishop).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

This is ridiculous.

Seriously. What sort of nonsense suggests that the writers are inventing a feminist agenda. ITS ALWAYS BEEN FEMINIST. The story is called the "Princess and the Queen." Also, why do people keep trying to defend the Greens? They've ALWAYS been the villains of this. Martin is a feminist and like half of A Song of Ice and Fire is about the female perspective in Medieval life and how it fucking sucks.

I think people need to check themselves if they don't think Martin has been promoting a pro-woman POV for the books.

And he did it decades before a misogynist dumbass became the US President.

Uh, no. That they are whitewashing all of the female characters is my point. Alicent was a cool schemer in the books who left her husband's body to rot while she staged a coup. Now she is a tragic victim determined to defend her son, stop the cruelties of men, and save the realm after she misinterpreted her husband's dying words. Her and Otto were clearly in cahoots in the books; here she didn't even know he was planning anything until it was unraveling before her.

Rhaenyra in the books likely never even tried to conceive an heir with Laenor and ordered Vaemond's execution. Now she was forced to have an affair because Laenor was infertile, and Daemon killed Vaemond entirely on his own.

Mysaria is a cruel sociopath in the books. Now she's a crusader determined to end childhood suffering.

It's not about politics or feminism. I have defended female characters and perspectives on this website plenty of times--we've interacted enough that you certainly must have noticed this. The writers are clearly afraid of backlash, and the story is suffering because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Uh, no. That they are whitewashing all of the female characters is my point. Alicent was a cool schemer in the books who left her husband's body to rot while she staged a coup. Now she is a tragic victim determined to defend her son, stop the cruelties of men, and save the realm after she misinterpreted her husband's dying words. Her and Otto were clearly in cahoots in the books; here she didn't even know he was planning anything until it was unraveling before her.

Rhaenyra in the books likely never even tried to conceive an heir with Laenor and ordered Vaemond's execution. Now she was forced to have an affair because Laenor was infertile, and Daemon killed Vaemond entirely on his own.

Mysaria is a cruel sociopath in the books. Now she's a crusader determined to end childhood suffering.

It's not about politics or feminism. I have defended female characters and perspectives on this website plenty of times--we've interacted enough that you certainly must have noticed this. The writers are clearly afraid of backlash, and the story is suffering because of it.

Depends on which of the accounts you believe and I feel like this is part of the problem here because a lot of people have their own views of which account to believe. Because the Rhaenyra account I believe was that she and Laenor had a very happy marriage where she often watched them pornographically act out for her own amusement.

And Laenor didn't allude to infertility so much as...uh, performance issues.

Which is the same thing it seems.

And Rhaenyra was totally down for killing Vaemond.

You could easily argue Viserys is whitewashed for the fact he didn't murder Harwin and his dad.

Edited by C.T. Phipps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Her and Otto were clearly in cahoots in the books; here she didn't even know he was planning anything until it was unraveling before her.

“She and Otto”.  Please recall that Fire and Blood is written as a faux history.  Therefore depending upon it as though it is holy writ is clearly misguided.  It is written after the Dance and after Aegon III (and the Blacks) have won the Dance.  Wouldn’t it paint the Greens in a worse light?  And paint Alicent as scheming with Otto?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, zajaz said:

The issue that I have with it is that those (except maybe Bran's case) are all things that happened to a huge amount of men in a span as short as a single month back in the Middle Ages. Stabbing a somewhat unpopular leader? Foreign condottieri maiming an enemy knight? A nobleborn man being injured in battle? Those thing happened in an almost weekly basis during the more violent years of the period.

Killing a noblewoman (akin to a Duchess) and then stripping her naked and throwing her corpse into a river?

That shit would have been condemned by almost everyone (particularly the Chruch), I feel.

Who knows maybe Westerosi are more progressive than we thought? Maybe thay have decided: "If male highborn can be tortured and mutilated, why can't the noblewomen ? It's quite sexist to spare them just because they are the gentle sex".:ph34r:

One can find precedents for everything in ASOIAF, but I would say that GRRM takes the cruellest acts and deeds of medieval history and makes them the norms of his world.

The alternative argument, upon reflection, is that Tywin went beyond accepted norms of cruelty, in this world, which then raised the stakes for everyone.

 

Edited by SeanF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't watched this episode yet because I'm scared about what's going to happen. 

Intellectually I know what has to go down but I don't want to see it. I don't want to see it, it just gives me a sick feeling in my stomach. But I'll pull through and watch it eventually. 

Though I have a prediction (feel free to correct me, I don't care about spoilers) this war is going to turn Daemon into a straight up superhero. 

Edited by butterweedstrover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I don't think it's necessarily a mistake. Again, part of this is making it clear the rules of suggestions are more like the Pirate's code.

It's not actually remotely a set of laws but suggestions.

Which was true in the Anarchy as well.

King Stephen utterly ignored the actual rules and people mostly went along with it because he lied and said the Church was backing him up (because his brother was the Archbishop).

But in this case, there is no dispute, right? By male primogeniture, Aegon’s son is next in line after his father. Aemond should have no claim as long as Aegon’s sons live. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, butterweedstrover said:

I haven't watch this episode yet because I'm scared about what's going to happen. 

Intellectually I know what has to go down but I don't want to see it. I don't want to see it, it just gives me a sick feeling in my stomach. But I'll pull through and watch it eventually. 

Though I have a prediction (feel free to correct me, I don't care about spoilers) this war is going to turn Daemon into a straight up superhero. 

You don’t see Daemon in this episode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, zajaz said:

I'm going to say (or, write) something that is going to bother a lot of people, I'm sure, but reading your post I have to say it: hearing the words "the evils of the Patriarchy" or "women for Trump" coming from a white dude's mouth is something that I find as laughable as it is pandering. It's like some of the writers are trying way too hard to be seen as "good white guys, totally not bigots".

Yeah, like I said to my reply to C.T., I don't even think it's a political thing. I think they're just very concerned with online backlash and are trying to ensure that they're seen as being "on the right side of things." It's a big shift from the way creators used to approach entertainment, which was to insist that depiction was not endorsement.

It would also be less jarring if this was a sequel and not a prequel. Progress isn't constant, but it's still weird to see the women show so much self-awareness about sexism/misogyny/patriarchy only to then suddenly forget it by the time GOT comes around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

It's not about politics or feminism. I have defended female characters and perspectives on this website plenty of times--we've interacted enough that you certainly must have noticed this. The writers are clearly afraid of backlash, and the story is suffering because of it.

The bolded is you making it about politics, and quite an assumption.  I don't think making Alicent more sympathetic is because they are "afraid of backlash."  And it certainly isn't for Rhaenyra.  The major change from the books is making them best friends at the beginning of the series, and of an age.  That change SHOULD reverberate in this episode, otherwise there's no point in doing it.

As for Helaena, I like that they've actually done something interesting with her for the show, but it's not like she needed to be "whitewashed" from the books.  She never did anything bad in the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, teej6 said:

But in this case, there is no dispute, right? By male primogeniture, Aegon’s son is next in line after his father. Aemond should have no claim as long as Aegon’s sons live. 

Except, of course, that the children are...children.

I suspect Aemond, correctly, believes that he'd assume the throne if his brother died now. You could also note Criston Cole seems to be thinking, "Wait, is he asking if it's okay to murder his brother?"

Which is another consequence of this usurpation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

Not really Aemond is a grown man it not surprising he would be considered heir at this point over a toddler.

He would be considered regent to the heir until he came of age. Otherwise, he is usurping his nephews’ rights. 

Edited by teej6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, C.T. Phipps said:

Except, of course, that the children are...children.

I suspect Aemond, correctly, believes that he'd assume the throne if his brother died now. You could also note Criston Cole seems to be thinking, "Wait, is he asking if it's okay to murder his brother?"

Which is another consequence of this usurpation.

As I said above, he would be considered regent until his nephews came of age.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Yeah, like I said to my reply to C.T., I don't even think it's a political thing. I think they're just very concerned with online backlash and are trying to ensure that they're seen as being "on the right side of things." It's a big shift from the way creators used to approach entertainment, which was to insist that depiction was not endorsement.

It would also be less jarring if this was a sequel and not a prequel. Progress isn't constant, but it's still weird to see the women show so much self-awareness about sexism/misogyny/patriarchy only to then suddenly forget it by the time GOT comes around.

Whether I'm right or wrong about these things, I should note that history doesn't go straight forward but is more like a heart monitor in things like women's rights and xenophobia. After all, just look at Iran and it used to be considered the most progressive and democratic Muslim nation.

I think it actually may be canon that the Targaryens were a fairly progressive (by Medieval standards) age in the middle of their reigns but gradually became more reactionary with people like Baelor and the undoing of Aegon V's reforms (meager as they were to his true goals).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, teej6 said:

He would be considered regent to the heir until he came of age. Now he usurper his nephews’ rights, that would be another thing. 

I mean, I was flat out taking his statement as feeling out whether he should murder his brother for the crown.

And he'd not even be the first Westerosi king to name his nephews his heirs.

Edited by C.T. Phipps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Corvinus85 said:

So they made Beesbury 76, while in the book he is 80. Surely, for all their unreliability, the account given in F&B is not wrong about a lord's age. So then I wonder why the change. Is it really 129 AC in the show?

This is the alternate reality, Planetos-616, compared to Planetos Prime that is in the books.

Also known as the Westeros Cinematic Universe.

Edited by C.T. Phipps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

I just realized they forgot the blood oath at the council. That would have been a powerful scene, no turning back now.

With Alicent's ambivalence - and outright threat to Jasper - I don't think it really would have worked in context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...