MovieChat Forums > MavKilledGoose > Replies
MavKilledGoose's Replies
The Night King was not an interesting character. He represented pure darkness and evil, which made him bland. The show has always been primarily about the political angle.
This could have been interesting with Daenerys as a tyrannical ruler, but they made her cartoonishly villainous in the penultimate episode.
Yes, everything is "obvious" in retrospect.
One thing set up for her character is that she was relatively adept at seizing power, but not so good at the hard task of governing. With more time, they could have developed this angle.
Again, I'm not disputing the arc -- just the rapid onset. She massacred tens of thousands of random people, which is not in keeping with previous behavior, and explicitly contrary to stated intentions in the previous season.
And you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. If a person is "perfectly healthy," then they wouldn't've exhibited all of these signs of madness. You're also cherry-picking. One can identify twice as many moments where reason consistently prevailed and she behaved in relatively benevolent manner.
Dany could've seized King's Landing, but she fought the army of the undead. Defended the realm. Cersei, meanwhile, lied and conspired, imperiled humanity in order to improve her position.
As for being plunged into insanity. She lost her dragon second dragon and Missandei earlier. These did not occur in the moment. Where was the erratic behavior immediately after those events leading up to the battle? It's as though she can behave in any manner at any time and it's perfectly acceptable just because.
This would make complete sense if it were not scary-retarded.
Deserves got nothing to do with it.
Yeah, and in a boxing match, one combatant should be brought up on charges of initiating violence. The Targaryen children were shuttled off to the easy because of orders to have them killed. Both sides were prepared for that battle; there were even first generation anti-dragon balistas.
Not to get technical, but the arguments in this thread suggesting the signs were all there are retarded. Virtually every character is morally compromised, but that doesn't mean atrocities of this type and on this scale were entirely predictable. In addition to what was mentioned earlier about Tyrion and Varys... The Hound has done his share of killing. Jorah Mormant took slaves (and facilitated the assassination of a child). Jaime pushed a kid out a window and maybe raped his sister (among other things).
Someone earlier said people could make excuses for Daenerys. Absolutely. What excuses can be made now? There's almost no moral ambiguity. The person below who imagines a scenario where Euron kills one of the dragons, which sets Dany off, is far more believable.
The Tarleys tried to kill her and her men. We accept their actions because it was war, and so they were offered an option to avoid their fate. They declined.
The episode with the slaves killing their masters is hazy. From what I recall, she was genuinely concerned for those oppressed. I don't recall if she anticipated the consequences of her actions, but I doubt she celebrated the violence and carnage.
After the episode, the showrunners said maybe she doesn't turn her dragon into a WMD if she's loved in the north, or loved by Jon, and so on. One could always argue for rapid onset madness. We're typically surprised when someone shoots up a school (99.9% of other kids who showed the same signs do not become mass killers).
Martin long ago said one character who was a good guy would turn bad, and she always the number one suspect, so I'm not shocked. But I don't think it was properly set up. Even at the beginning of the episode, Varys says he's not sure how her coin has landed.
She's definitely messianic, but when has she indiscriminately slaughtered innocents? This argument that it was well presaged is nonsense.
We could look at Tyrion. Strangled a whore, murdered his father on the toilet, lit conscripts on fire. Varys attempted to poison Dany when she was a child (and later on in this episode). And those are the good guys. There wasn't anything preparing people for this kind of curb-stomp. The bells were ringing, men had dropped their arms.
[Quote]Jon doesn't become the new king unless he either marries Dany, or someone is able to prove that he's a Targaryan.[/quote]
Varys was presumably writing (and sending) letters claiming Jon was a Targaryen.
Dothrakis gonna Dothraki.
That's not how it will read in the books at the Citadel. Sam, not Edd, acted heroically. Then he had women clawing at his junk, craving the D. Dead men don't live to tell tall tales.
Another loser poor person trying to compensate for lack of wealth by virtue signaling. #Trump2020
Gross/poor people always complain. You can't expect them to achieve anything like owning a top of the line television. The only thing poors ever invented was pity.
Oh, bullshit.
I subscribed to HBO Now yesterday, and I'll cancel the day of the GoT finale. This is a great value for fifteen bucks. I can watch a few movies that I missed, catch up on the second season of Vice Principals, the third season of True Detective, and the second season of Barry.
Thankfully streaming services do not (yet) have cancellation fees. I subscribe to Netflix once or twice a year, Amazon once a year, and Hulu can go fuck itself. I downloaded torrents of GoT for the second season, and streamed it from a now-defunct site after that. However, as soon as HBO offered the subscription service, I'd sign up for a month and then promptly cancel. If this option is not available to people in certain countries, then I'd certainly understand, but for Americans there's no great excuse.
This is nonsense. The homosexuals are supporting players dedicated to helping a relatively plain looking woman from humble beginnings win over the "crown prince". This movie taps into classic female wish fantasies, not social justice.
The female protagonist is certainly not the prettiest girl, but we're supposed to believe she has substance; she woos the most desirable man through her charm, passion and authenticity (e.g., she lures him back into bed for morning sex with a cartoonish hubba-hubba, not flaunting her ass). She'll be a great mom. While females find wealth attractive, our protagonist didn't know her prince was a prince, which means we can't say she's a gold-digging whore (again, she has too much substance). She's smart, but somewhat naive when it comes to evil in the world. Her enemies are other women -- young and beautiful, old and fork-tongued. The male love-interest is just about perfect. His main "flaw," after all, is that he didn't tell her he's rich. Other men are less handsome, less wealthy, less tall, and far more adulterous. This guy loves his mother, but he loves plain-Jane even more.
Women identify with the lead as female wish fulfillment.
How many times have we seen actors emote (or attempt to emote). I thought the hand covering the face made the scene 10X more interesting. It also felt authentic as I believe he wouldn't want the judge to see him crying.
I just knew there'd be some insecure crypto Nazi fascist who wouldn't be able to handle an intelligent, muscular black man. Jesus, he's not even banging a youthful babe but 50-something year-old Sandy Bullock.
We know how it ends, so the story always had that problem. Unfortunately, the plotting is generally A-to-B. What this movie needed was more chemistry between the leads. I'm not faulting the actors, per se. They were generally working toward the same purpose and got along well enough. Singing in the car, or asking to drive, or listening to the radio do not make for dramatic conflict. Worse, they're tired tropes.
Thanks, man.
Zane is a cool fucking name. The problem with this movie is how often people say it, especially Teri Polo's character. "Zane, Zane, Zane." It just gets repeated endlessly.
Zaminsky is just silly. The alliteration is a super-hero thing. Peter Parker, Bruce Banner, Clark Kent.