Jump to content

[Spoilers] Episode 109 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Wow… you really think “historians” wouldn’t be impacted by political realities in a society where they can be murdered at the whim of their ruling lords?

Yeah, I bet Sam’s/Ebrose’s History was a revolting read.

The defeat of the Dead would be attributed to Bran, Sansa, and Sam.  Sam’s father and brother would be martyrs for Good Queen Cersei.  Dany would have fled from the fight at Winterfell, and sacrificed infants to the Black Goat.  Jon would be airbrushed out of history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Adaneth said:

I started to have minor doubts very early on because of some changes, and they became bigger as the show progressed. But I still liked it and had hope. When you like something, you are willing to give the creators a pass. The more you do that and the more you justify the crap they are feeding you. It's a natural reaction, I think, because you love the source material and you want the show to be good. 

Season 4 finale was the moment that I realised something wasn't right, and this was becoming problematic. Lady Stoneheart was already missing in S4. But I remember feeling very weird about the season finale, in particular. On one hand I liked it, but on the other hand there was something bothering me a lot. That "something" was Tyrion. The reason why he killed Tywin and how he departed with Jamie, left me empty, totally confused as what that meant for his story and role in the coming seasons. He was already whitewashed and this just sealed the deal, so to speak. 

I can pass over some stuff, such as; an ill executed battle, duel, maybe timeline (I mean, it depends) less than great value production etc., providing that is a good story with well written characters. I can't pass over narrative logic. But character's motivations, intentions, beliefs, values, consistency, credibility, context, story foundation and such, are very important to me.

To be honest, I never cared for Lady Stoneheart in the books, so I wasn't really bothered by that.

But yeah the finale of season 4 felt weird as well. I mean not all of it, but the escape of Tyrion was weird. O I'm just reminded about Jojen's death as well.... poorly executed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Yorick Ampersand said:

They have been doing this every episode. It's moronic.

Well, I didn't feel that way before, I loved the series before, this is the first big moment that just doesn't add up. It just reminds me of the later season of GoT, when there must be a big moment, logic be dammed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say episode 3's Stepstones battle and episode 5's wedding feast murder are the two big, "Err..." moments for me, and then this one. But the other episodes, I don't think they had that kind of cliffhanger/climactic moment in that way, that I can recall. I mean, fine, episode 1 ends with the lords swearing their oaths to Rhaenyra, but that's a properly built moment.

33% of episodes turning on some fairly stock "And here's a big wow moment to pump up the audience" may be too much, I don't know. I don't really think they need to do this, but then there were people who complain episodes are too slow because "nothing happens", so what do I know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Adaneth said:

I started to have minor doubts very early on because of some changes, and they became bigger as the show progressed. But I still liked it and had hope. When you like something, you are willing to give the creators a pass. The more you do that and the more you justify the crap they are feeding you. It's a natural reaction, I think, because you love the source material and you want the show to be good. 

Season 4 finale was the moment that I realised something wasn't right, and this was becoming problematic. Lady Stoneheart was already missing in S4. But I remember feeling very weird about the season finale, in particular. On one hand I liked it, but on the other hand there was something bothering me a lot. That "something" was Tyrion. The reason why he killed Tywin and how he departed with Jamie, left me empty, totally confused as what that meant for his story and role in the coming seasons. He was already whitewashed and this just sealed the deal, so to speak. 

I can pass over some stuff, such as; an ill executed battle, duel, maybe timeline (I mean, it depends) less than great value production etc., providing that is a good story with well written characters. I can't pass over narrative logic. But character's motivations, intentions, beliefs, values, consistency, credibility, context, story foundation and such, are very important to me.

Dany in Qarth was ridiculous, and Porne was a mess, and the idea that Sansa would marry Ramsay was absurd, but I only turned against it after watching Season 7, with its teleportation, Tyrion’s becoming a moron, Cersei facing no consequences for blowing up the Sept, and the general silliness.

Then came Season 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this will be my final rant on the issue, but for those who think Rhaenys made a fine, rational decision, would you entertain the notion that if she's going to escape with her dragon, perhaps it might have made more sense to use the standard exit instead of collapsing a huge floor with thousands of people on it, including family that she apparently doesn't want to harm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Although I still think Rhaenyra and Syrax will be at Rook's Rest, and Rhaenys will remain behind and sacrifice herself to cover her escape ... and possibly that of Jace and Baela as well.

Rhaenyra's presence at Rook's Rest and return to Dragonstone without Rhaenys will inflame tensions between her and Corlys even more than it did in Fire and Blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

Larys is a shit for attempting to kill Mysaria and all her spies in their own headquarters. Mysaria was doing a good thing.

Larys' talk is brillant this episode - notice how he succeeds in ingratiating himself both with Otto and Alicent Hightower at the same time, never mind that they are at cross purposes there. This is the guy who ends up masterminding the end of the Dance without anybody realizing that they are led around by the nose.

7 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

But ultimately, Rhaenys was acting out of self-defense and self-preservation. Breaking through the boards and thereby killing a couple hundred people is Rhaenys acting out of self-defense. Burning the Dowager Queen, the Hand, the King, the Queen, the High Septon, a prince, the Small Council and a couple knights of the Kingsguard with dragonfire is not acting out of self-defense...

It's a "kill or be killed" and "escape now or be forever trapped" situation when she sneaks below the boards and sets Meleys free. That changes when she and Meleys stare down the Greens on stage...it's not a "kill or be killed" situation anymore.

They should have made it so it was less obvious that she could kill them all - Aegon and Aemond at least should have been ushered away already, possibly being led to their own dragons to take on Meleys. Alternatively, Aegon could have been thrown to the ground with Alicent standing protectively over him, meaning Rhaenys would have to incinerate them both to kill him. Which could have been easily been enough to give her pause after their earlier talk.

In general, I think, it will depend on what Rhaenys wants to do in the future whether this scene made sense. If she is a war monger and die-hard Rhaenyra loyalist in the next episode it won't work. But if it is still not clear who the Velaryons are going to back and whether Rhaenys wants war ... then this makes sense. Only if you want to see Rhaenyra on the throne and if you have no issue with war would the cold-blooded murder of the new king and his family and advisers make much sense.

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

I quite agree.

No one condemns Prince Daeron for what he did at Bitterbridge.

In ASOIAF the stink over the murder of Elia and her children is because she’s Elia of Dorne.  No one would care if she were some random peasant.

It is because it is Elia of Dorne ... and because the children were Targaryens, Rhaegar's own children who had been in line for the throne.

Lots of folks were likely raped and killed during the Sack. But nobody cares.

5 hours ago, Adaneth said:

Agreed.

They even inserted TPTWP prophecy into Rhaenyra, as if she needed a better reason for wanting the throne? At least partially. I'm sure they inserted that as a Lore tidbit in regards to Aegon, and a connection with GOT, which I personally find it cringe. Leave TPTWP for the books. The less reminder of GOT series, the better for this show, IMO.

Giving Rhaenyra a reason why she thinks she should be queen is not bad. I mean, sure enough, they could create a female character so detached from reality (and untouched from the patriarchal system she grew up in) that she would think she is destined for the throne and the perfect ruler since she was a very small child.

But that would be hard to sell in this context, being almost comical. Rhaenyra clearly wants the throne, but she never grew up with the same certainty as a male Heir Apparent would have. Not in the show and not in the book (where her father threatened to disinherit her when she refused to marry Laenor Velaryon).

5 hours ago, Ran said:

But I think one aspect of things... are we sure the future Shepherd isn't in that crowd? Maybe with his wife and kids, or a brother, or what have you?  Did he lose his hand (and his family) in this disaster?  Is this basically going to be the key to the future Storming of the Dragonpit?

I wouldn't be surprised if they're thinking that way.

Even if he wasn't in there, we can hope he and other people will cite this incident as part of the reasons why the dragons have to die. The Shepherd's entire narrative is that the monsters are demons who don't protect anyone. They all of the go, not just Rhaenyra's, but Aegon's as well. And showing how dangerous them are by arbitrarily trampling people is pretty good, actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just love the Hightower et al.'s logic in the show. "If Rhaenyra becomes queen, there will be war, so we must start a war to prevent that from happening." They'd fit well here in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mark Antony said:

Yeah was a little weird not to go with any of the options F&B presented for Beesbury’s death. Also wish they had leaned into Cole being a “Kingmaker” a bit more than just him being the guy to put the crown on his head at the coronation, 

Well, Cole is basically just 'the Kingmaker' because he puts the crown on Aegon's head. He didn't do anything else of note. The schemers and organizers in the book are all Otto and Alicent. They are the real kingmakers, Cole is just their goon.

I kind of liked how they dealt with Beesbury since in context having Cole murder the guy intentionally in front of Westerling and the others would have been too much at that point. In the book this happens after a pretty long and increasingly heated discussion.

The show gets around the 'first blood intentionally shed' thing by moving the execution of (some of) the Black loyalists to this episode while in the book this only happens early in the war. There they throw them all into the dungeon during the coup.

Edited by Lord Varys
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Yeah, I bet Sam’s/Ebrose’s History was a revolting read.

The defeat of the Dead would be attributed to Bran, Sansa, and Sam.  Sam’s father and brother would be martyrs for Good Queen Cersei.  Dany would have fled from the fight at Winterfell, and sacrificed infants to the Black Goat.  Jon would be airbrushed out of history.

I fully believe Sam's history would call his father out as a traitor and a Lannister lickspittle. Sam isn't exactly going to forgive dear old dad in the histories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, Cole is basically just 'the Kingmaker' because he puts the crown on Aegon's head. He didn't do anything else of note. The schemers and organizers in the book are all Otto and Alicent. They are the real kingmakers, Cole is just their goon.

I agree that Alicent and Otto are the real schemers but Fire and Blood did give Cole a little more credit.

Quote

Only when Ser Criston convinced him that the princess must surely             execute him and his brothers should she don the crown did Aegon waver. “Whilst any             trueborn Targaryen yet lives, no Strong can ever hope to sit the Iron Throne,” Cole             said. “Rhaenyra has no choice but to take your heads if she wishes her bastards to rule after her.” It was this, and only this, that persuaded Aegon to accept the crown

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I’m glad to see other people online who are disappointed with this show’s approach to women. 

And I really don’t buy the “unreliable narrator” excuse for every change from the books. There were three different sources referenced for the Green Council in the books—none of them claimed Alicent was anything less than an active participant in the coup. Claiming that the maesters are biased is just a convenient excuse. By that logic, you could argue that the entire story is a lie and therefore completely irrelevant.

While book Alicent clearly would have had a more direct hand in the plotting of the coup ... in the show the whole Rhaenyra friendship thing as well as Alicent genuine feelings for Viserys more than explain why she wouldn't actually plan a coup involving murder in advance, and while the men making such plans wouldn't include her. (Just as the Green gang in the book also didn't include her in their 'blood oath'.)

Show Alicent wants Aegon on the throne ... but she doesn't want a war nor does she want to murder Rhaenyra or her family. Having somebody at the Green Council take that view does make sense since the book plot is really lacking plausibility there. Nobody could ever explain to me how the hell the Greens intended to get away with the coup and the usurpation? They didn't have the dragon advantage, and they didn't have any family members of Rhaenyra which they could use as hostages to ensure her good behavior.

The only way to try to make the coup work, for it to be accepted by the Blacks, would be prevent an escalation of violence. And even in the book that person is Alicent ... she and Helaena later urge Aegon to send peace terms to Dragonstone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Khloey said:

To be honest, I never cared for Lady Stoneheart in the books, so I wasn't really bothered by that.

But yeah the finale of season 4 felt weird as well. I mean not all of it, but the escape of Tyrion was weird. O I'm just reminded about Jojen's death as well.... poorly executed.

It's not that I care for her in the books either. Although, I think she has an important role to play. I was thinking more in terms of what might her absence mean for the other characters, like Brienne and Jaime. 

Anyway, don't want to derail the thread. My point is that given the experience with GOT, I'm very caution and skeptical with HOTD now, or any other show for that matter. Maybe I should wait and watch the whole thing when it's over. But it's fun to discuss it with other people on the boards. 

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...