MovieChat Forums > Atarimaster > Replies
Atarimaster's Replies
We already had this link, but it’s so good, it can’t hurt to post it again! :-)
All right, then we were talking about two different things: I was specifically talking about that very moment at the council when nobody but Sansa declared independence.
When it’s ripe for picking – yes, that’s something different…
Thanks!
But is it true that HBO asked them to shoot more than 13 episodes?
> Deliberately killing civilians or other noncombatants,
> or executing foot soldiers after they surrender
> and have been disarmed is more ambiguous.
Today, of course.
But in Westeros? I doubt they had something like the Geneva Convention.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending Grey Worm. What he did was disgusting to me. However if the Council of Surviving Characters would’ve raised the matter of "War Crimes" – THAT would’ve been bad writing to me, not the other way round.
EDIT: That Jon tried to stop the execution, was in my opinion a matter of ethics, not a "juristic" matter.
> If they had the full 10 for season 7, I feel like it would have played much better.
I have to say I don’t quite understand you here – why would "7 eps for season 7, 3 eps for season 8" played out better?
Oh, and one more thing: A friend told me that HBO asked them to shoot more episodes for the finale, but D&D declined. Is that true?
All right, didn’t see that. Thank you!
If they had killed Grey Worm for his "war crimes", they would have to kill a lot of Northerners, too. And by the way, killing people in a war doesn’t count as war crime, not even today. Much less in those days.
And by the way, why bother? A little lie ("We’ll punish Jon Snow!") was enough to silence him.
Sorry, my bad.
I forgot that Grey Worm when he killed badbad white males was presented as a sane person doing good stuff.
Yes, it was absolutely politically correct how Grey Worm started killing the Lannister soldiers that had surrendered and insisted on executing the survivors of the battle.
Damn SJWs! They make all the black people do only good things!
… and, on top of it, being Master of Coin which enables him to, you know, occasionally put aside a little coin or two for himself.
So yes, he IS the biggest winner.
Personally, I would’ve loved to see Sansa and Tyrion fight instead of playing "duck and cover".
However, if they had fought, by now we would have about 20 postings complaining: "Hey, how can Sansa fight the wights and survive? She has no battle experience at all, she barely knows how to handle a stupid dagger, she said so herself! That’s bad writing!"
And the thing is… they’d not even be completely wrong.
Of course, you can say: "Oh, there was so much bad writing, it doesn’t even matter anymore to put that little bit on top of it."
By the way… what became of the little girl with the burned face that reminded Davos of Shireen? I think we saw here in a brief shot in the crypt but that was before the dead Starks came out of their graves. Was it revealed whether she survived or died? If so, I missed it.
Please enlighten me: What are/were the reasons specifically that made people watch Dallas and Game of Thrones?
And yes, I remember Dallas. I watched a few episode back in the 1980ies, found it boring and stopped. And I never knew WHY people were watching it.
I think one should distinct between things you didn’t like because you hoped they’d turn out differently and things that were done badly storywise.
For example: I hated that Missandei got killed, too, because I liked her a lot. But how is her death any more "stupid" (storywisely speaking) than, well, any other death we’ve seen in eight seasons?
There were a lot of flaws, sure, and the "Game of Thrones Season 8 Pitch Meeting" video that Atreides linked to in antoher thread ([url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhKOV3nImQ[/url]) works them out beautifully and in an funny way (though not completely unflawed itself), but I do have the feeling that SOME of the harsh criticism roots in being disappointed because things didn’t end the way people hoped for/expected/predicted.
Moreover, I’d be very careful in condemning the showrunners as long as we don’t know which ideas for the ending were theirs, and which things were done because GRRM told them to do so. (Of course, the trouble is that we might never know which are which.)
Just my two cents.
Dorne had trouble with the *Lannisters*, who killed Elia Martell. By now, most if not all of their fleet is destroyed. If the new Lord comes after Doran (which, admittedly, we don’t know) he won’t even think of leaving.
The Vale’s Lord was Hand of the King – until he was killed, supposedly by the Lannisters. Now it’s ruled by Robyn.
Highgarden – Olenna wanted to rule the Seven Kingdoms through Margaery, not at all to leave it. Lord Mace Tyrell … probably was too dumb to want *anything*. ;-) Now it’s Bronn and I’m sure he’s happy being Master of Coin of the Six Kingdoms instead of having to get along alone.
All of them hated the Lannisters, that’s for sure. None of them ever expressed (again, as far as I remember) to be unsatisfied with the state of being a part of the Seven Kingdoms in itself.
Riverrun – okay, right, they sided with the North. But now it’s ruled by Edmure. He doesn’t strike me as a rebel at all. One little attempt at suggesting himself as King and sits down when he’s told. By his niece.
Gendry is completly new to the business.
So MY point is, most of them, while unsatisfied with the Lannisters ruling, didn’t display dissatisfaction with being a part of the Seven Kingdoms in itself. And in the situation NOW I don’t see any candidate who would profit from leaving.
And yes, in the posting above I mentioned only the situation in the seasons before, not the situation in the end. But that’s because I’ve written about that in other threads already.
And now: Good Night! It’s VERY late over here.
Yes, that’s one advantage if you have a King.
I’m just surprised that so many people seem to think that it was bad writing that nobody else declared independency. In eight seasons, I can’t remember a single hint that any of the Seven Kingdoms except the North and the Iron Islands were unhappy with being a part of it, and the Iron Islands are probably very weak at the moment. So why do people expect they all want to get out of it?
There were enough examples of bad writing this season, no need to put something on top of it which actually is consistent with the things we’ve seen before.
Thanks for the explanation!
Although I still don’t get what that means in reply to my posting above – but don’t bother to explain that, too. Not that important.
> He'd go independent in a heartbeat if he had better ties to the Iron Bank,
> or at least the brains to deal with them himself.
He has neither, so he stays in the "union" and enjoys life in Highgarden and as Master of Coin. Makes sense to me.
I guess that was some kind of insult. Fortunately I didn’t understand it. (Probably that cake thing is some English idiom I’m unfamiliar with.)
Because they probably feel that they are NOT fine on their own. This also explains why nobody else even tried to declare independence.
While it’s right that there’s not a lot to support my "theory" so probably it IS wrong…
> Winter had to exist before the NK came to be, where else could the CotF get the idea?
Obviously, there were things about their creation that the CotF didn’t expect. For example, killing them too instead of just killing humans. They maybe didn’t fully understand the magic they were using.
So winter may have been another unexpected side effect.
(Of course, there might be other reasons why creating the WW went so wrong for the CotF, and it’s a shame that the show didn’t explore on that.)
> And how could he be the personification of forces that did not predate him?
Worked well for the Endless in Neil Gaiman’s "Sandman" comic book.
> the CotF probably found the humans to be at their most bothersome during summer
You’re right, that’s reasonable to assume.