MovieChat Forums > Atarimaster > Replies
Atarimaster's Replies
»Jon was acclaimed Kingingthenorth in a burst of drunken enthusiasm, he has no law, tradition, or bloodline behind him, so in fact he's got exactly as much authority as the lords of the North are willing to allow him.«
Hmmm, Varys would probably reply that _all_ Kings _always_ had only as much authority as the people are willing to allow him. That’s basically what he was saying with his riddle of a king, a priest, a rich and a sellsword.
»it's heading more towards the standard Fantasy trope of the true king coming again.«
Yes, it looks very much like that at the moment.
However, I still hope there’ll be a twist and the ending will be different.
»Then, she killed the hand to protect her incest secret. Then Brann for the same reason.«
Ummmm…
Which hand?
She didn’t have anything to do with Jon Arryn’s death – and to kill Ned Stark was Joffrey’s decision, not approved by Cersei. It was Jamie who pushed Bran out of the window (and since she was alone with Jamie when she told him she didn’t want that, we can believe her), and the thug was hired most likely by Littlefinger.
Interesting thought, but I really doubt the White Walkers will do the "Pinhead of Hellraiser II" stunt – you know, "What, I used to be human? I think I’ll go good guy now!"
Well, of course you can deny persons any acting skills because you dont’t like them personally.
After all, this is a free, umm… internet.
»I disagree, I think Sophie Turner is really excellent«
I agree to disagree. ;-)
Of course Sophie Turner is great! Her spoiled brat of the first seasons was just as believable as her Lady of Winterfell now is.
»yet even though she never shows her feelings to other characters, the audience always knows what she's thinking and feeling!«
I agree again.
And don’t forget, she was about 14 when they shot the first episode and had no prior shooting experience.
But she has one thing in common with Jennifer Lawrence: Since I’ve heard her original voice, I just can’t stand anymore watching the German dubbed version! ;-)
(Many German voices on GoT are terrible. I’m soooo happy that I’m able to watch it in English.)
»but I've never heard of this show as being an enormous feminist landmark (…)«
What? It had a lot of gratuitous female nudity, isn’t that as feministic as it gets?
»Riots aren't going to break out...«
Oh, they will! Where I live, people are already collecting pitchforks and torches to be fully stocked in case a man ends up on the throne.
;-)
Why should she be a wight?
She died hundreds of miles south of the wall, far from the White Walker’s reach. This isn’t The Walking Dead where _all_ people who die come back.
Or (book spoilers following) [spoiler]aren’t you referring to wights at all but to Lady Stoneheart? I guess she won’t appear in the TV show – I can very much agree with this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/last-time-lady-stoneheart-definitely-wont-game-thrones/
[/spoiler]
»Isn't that just a fan made trailer?«
Yes, it is.
But of course HBO _could_ say: »Hey, great idea! What do we have to pay?«
As I’ve said above, I strongly doubt that… :-/
Ummm…
While I do think that the dragons won’t survive, I’m not sure what you’re meaning with »since there are no dragons now, they can't let them live«.
Are you saying: »Since there are no dragons in our world, they must become extinct«?
IF that is what you’re saying, then – no, they dont have to. After all, it’s not our world we’re seeing in GoT.
If you were saying something different, then could you elaborate?
»Of course, plot foreknowledge was the least of the problems with Star Wars 1-3.«
I’ve got to admin that you’re right here.
»Aegon's conquest of Westeros«
Hmmmm, well, we do know how it ends ultimately.
»or even earlier to the height of Valyrian society«
We kind of know the ending, too – we know that it’s going to perish.
However, we don’t know how, and the whole thing is very long ago and only marginally connected to the events we saw… so yes, it could be a comparetively good choice for a prequel.
A show that presents the events that lead to the Long Night (including the Long Night itself) could be interesting as well… but again, we know that in the end the WW are defeated.
However, I’d still prefer a show that varies the GoT theme like the suggested »modern world« show does. IF it would be carefully done instead of »we tell the same stories but with other players and in a different setting.«
Now, why did I come up with _that_ idea? ;-)
And as we know by now, shooting Drogon turned out to be absolutely useless.
So you probably shouldn’t cheer a TV show again, seems to be bring ill luck.
;-)
Actually, I’d prefer a show like this to a prequel.
Most prequels I remember were mediocre at best. One exception that comes to my mind is "Better Call Saul" which is better than "mediocre" in my opinion, but also isn’t nearly as fantactic as BB was.
"The Hobbit" was good, but doesn't count as "prequel" to me, since it was the earlier book and only was adapted as movie later than LoTR.
And well, yes, I also like "Rogue One" so that is one of the exceptions. But on the other hand, the other Star Wars prequels, Ep. 1 to 3, are good examples of the "mediocre at best" stuff.
The problem with prequels is IMO, that from the beginning you already know where it’s going ultimately. That takes out a lot of suspense. It can he interesting sometimes to see HOW the things developed to the point you already know… but it just isn’t the same as anxiously waiting WHERE it will go.
Of course you’re right: An idea is not enough.
But on the other hand, everything starts with an idea. So IF HBO jumped into this, collected a bunch of great writers, producers who care about a complete story arch from the beginning to the end (rather than figuring out what happens next as they go), it COULD become a great variation of the GoT theme.
That being said, I don’t think that show will ever be made.
One more thing came to my mind about the good kings/bad kings topic…
We all know that Robert Baratheon was a bad ruler.
But it seems to me that under his rule, the people of Westeros had a good time. As far as I remember, he started no wars – there was the Greyjoy Rebellion but that was hardly Robert’s fault. The people apparently could live a quiet, calm, peaceful life… or have there ever been hints that it was different? I surely can’t remember any…
Probably because Robert didn’t rule at all, but left most decisions to the small counsil, except when he overruled them to spend much more money than they advised. This of course wasn’t very good and _might_ have lead to big problems for all the kingdoms (and thus, all the people) at some point in the future if he had continued to rule.
But up to the end of his life, things seemed to run quite well.
So sometimes, bad rulers can be good for the people. *laugh*
Or am I forgetting something? Was there any hint that Robert’s rule was bad from the common people’s point of view?
According to GRRM, yes.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that this holds true for the TV show as well. But we do know that in the show, not ALL Targaryens are immune to heat.
Maybe he likes small women?
»but she didn't drink it even though she's practically a functioning alcoholic«
Yes, she is, but she’s also pregnant.
So my interpretation was that her not drinking was written into the story to give Tyrion a clue. Then her hand on the belly, so he just had to put two and two together…
»I wouldn't like it if the show, in the very last season, introduces a potion that allows you to make people do things for you. That would be stupid«
I agree 100% here.
You’re reight, he didn’t. But I favor the theory (which has been mentioned in other threads here) that the Night King has the Greensight and thus, he knew that simply standing there and waiting would bring him a dragon to kill and turn.
Hmmmm.
For nature, it’s a much harder job to freeze the open sea than to freeze a lake or a river. Especially when it needs to be frozen enough to allow thousands of wights to walk over it.
I can imagine that the same applies to the Night King: He might easily freeze the rivers that the wight army has to cross on their way south, but he can’t just let them walk over the Narrow Sea.
Of course, it IS possible that he’s up to the job. At Hardhome I think he wouldn’t have frozen the sea even if he is capable of that. He didn’t want to attack the south at that point anyway, so strategically it would’ve been unwise to reveal that he has that kind of power.
In terms of writing, i.e. thinking about what makes a great dramatic scene, it’d be highly desirable that he CAN freeze the sea.
Westeros has certainly had worse rulers than the one you describe. The Mad King of course, Joffrey and Cersei…
And Littlefinger’s not crazy, but I have to disagree with him not being cruel.
He handed Ros over to Joffrey so that he has someone to kill in sport. He handed Sansa over to Ramsey. To me, both actions were pretty cruel, done because he thought that he’ll gain some sort of advantage from it.
He ordered to kill Whatwashisnameagain, the fat guy who helped Sansa escape from the Purple Wedding, without a second thought. Granted, that was necessary to protect his schemes, but to stop at nothing for your own sake doesn’t make you a good ruler IMO.
It’ll sure make you a _successful_ leader in the sense that you’ll get what you want.
As I’ve said above, there sure were worse kings.
But that Littlefinger would’ve been a »pretty good« king – I’m afraid I don’t share that opinion. But I’m ready to agree that we disagree here. (Especially now, because it’s rather later over here and I’m tired… ;-) )
Coming to think of it… all major characters dead, but the White Walkers defeated… and with all the great houses destroyed, the people of Westeros have to try something new, and we see the birth of democracy…
… an ending like that would certainly fit the term »bittersweet« quite well to me.