Main Menu

Game of Thrones: the last series [SPOILERS]

Started by sheridan, 15 April, 2019, 11:09:22 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Richard

That Small Council meeting wasn't the next day after the massacre. I felt that more time had passed, and the initial shock and grief had worn off a bit.

Turning back to Steve Denton's argument about Grey Worm's actions, that is logical if we assume that Grey Worm's priority is to live. But the Unsullied are not afraid to die. I don't think it is consistent with what we know about the Unsullied to suppose that Grey Worm spared Jon Snow's life because he was frightened by, or even bothered about, what the consequences might be if he killed him. They were all prepared to die for their queen and liberator.

Steven Denton

Quote from: Richard on 23 May, 2019, 11:13:56 PM
That Small Council meeting wasn't the next day after the massacre. I felt that more time had passed, and the initial shock and grief had worn off a bit.

Turning back to Steve Denton's argument about Grey Worm's actions, that is logical if we assume that Grey Worm's priority is to live. But the Unsullied are not afraid to die. I don't think it is consistent with what we know about the Unsullied to suppose that Grey Worm spared Jon Snow's life because he was frightened by, or even bothered about, what the consequences might be if he killed him. They were all prepared to die for their queen and liberator.

My argument never include Grey Worm being afraid to die or motivated by fear at all. He's conditioned to follow orders at the exclusion of all else, once his commander is removed he fails to make command decisions for reasons I payed out upthread. The bit about if he had killed John he would have been killed was a response to Leigh's suggestion that he should have killed John and sailed off with his head as a trophy.

Keef Monkey

Quote from: Richard on 23 May, 2019, 11:13:56 PM
That Small Council meeting wasn't the next day after the massacre. I felt that more time had passed, and the initial shock and grief had worn off a bit.

Part of the problem with the focus of the story narrowing during the last couple of seasons is that there are still points where a considerable amount of time has passed between events, but because it's cutting straight from one event to another that sense of things happening later is missing.

In the past they would have had another storyline to cut away to for a couple of episodes before coming back to something but with everything boiling down to the main narrative late in the show there wasn't another storyline for them to use as a diversion.

One example is going straight from Missandei's death at the end of an episode to Dany being holed up and paranoid at the start of the next one. I know a few people who found it unbelievable that Dany would wind up in that state so quickly, but to me it definitely seemed to be the case that a fair amount of time has passed (months maybe?) between those two episodes.

Honestly think if they'd had something else going on they could have moved to for a couple of episodes before returning to Dany there would have been fewer complaints. They could possibly have cut over to King's Landing for a bit and spent an episode or so showing what's going on there and where Cersei's head was at (one criticism I do agree with is Cersei was really underused this season so that would have solved that too).

Likewise those people didn't seem to pick up on the fact that Tyrion had been imprisoned for a while before being taken out for negotiations (even though he had a longer beard, which is the universal cinematic language for 'time has passed'). Not saying all criticisms are down to this, but I definitely heard the same people complain repeatedly that something had happened too 'suddenly' when it was clearly days/weeks/months later.

At the same time though, while I think pacing the season out with some 'time passing' episodes, it probably just would have frustrated a lot of viewers. For the last couple of seasons I had friends flip between complaining that the show was rushing and was too battle heavy when what they really wanted was slower character driven episodes, to complaining after every slower character driven episode that nothing had happened to progress the plot. As much as they claimed to want a slower show, seemed like they were possibly too invested in and excited about seeing how things ended to have had the patience for one. 

There are definitely a lot of valid criticisms to be had about it, but for a lot of people the creators were probably screwed whatever they did once the backlash started snowballing, especially with the amount of 'the writing is bad now and if you still like it then you're a dum dum who doesn't understand what good writing is' posturing that was driving a lot of that (not here, just in general)!

Funt Solo

I think Grey Worm was sensible not to kill Jon: killing your important hostages is a fairly stupid move.  When we last saw Grey Worm he was all fired up and slaughtering the opposition on his queen's orders.  We didn't get to see his reaction to her assassination - but it may have been a bit like Drogon's.  At that stage, there may have been a struggle to figure out how to survive.  The show sums all this up with Sansa's Basil Exposition about how King's Landing is under siege.

It made sense to negotiate.

(An interesting aside that I haven't seen discussed much is Drogon's seeming high intelligence.  He decides not to kill Jon and instead melts the throne.  Just how intelligent are the dragons?  And why do they allow themselves to be controlled by humans?)
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

The Legendary Shark


I've managed to avoid all the spoilers but I've seen a lot of negativity, which had me worried, but I rather enjoyed that.

Now to read this thread from the beginning...

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




IndigoPrime

Quote from: Funt Solo on 24 May, 2019, 05:22:41 PM(An interesting aside that I haven't seen discussed much is Drogon's seeming high intelligence.  He decides not to kill Jon and instead melts the throne.  Just how intelligent are the dragons?  And why do they allow themselves to be controlled by humans?)
I see them a bit like dogs. So Drogon understood that Daenerys was non-responsive, but didn't understand that she'd been killed – and certainly not by Jon. Mourning, it took out its ire on something nearby, rather than toast Jon (who he knew as a 'friend' of sorts), scooped up him mum, and flew away. As for why they allow this, who knows? Why did wolves?

Richard

QuoteThe bit about if he had killed John he would have been killed was a response to Leigh's suggestion that he should have killed John and sailed off with his head as a trophy.
Ah, I see. Fair enough.

The Monarch

I really want to think [spoiler]the brothers clegane are still kicking the fuck out of each other in what passes as an afterlife in this series[/spoiler] :lol:

JayzusB.Christ

Quote from: IndigoPrime on 24 May, 2019, 07:09:31 PM
Quote from: Funt Solo on 24 May, 2019, 05:22:41 PM(An interesting aside that I haven't seen discussed much is Drogon's seeming high intelligence.  He decides not to kill Jon and instead melts the throne.  Just how intelligent are the dragons?  And why do they allow themselves to be controlled by humans?)
I see them a bit like dogs. So Drogon understood that Daenerys was non-responsive, but didn't understand that she'd been killed – and certainly not by Jon. Mourning, it took out its ire on something nearby, rather than toast Jon (who he knew as a 'friend' of sorts), scooped up him mum, and flew away. As for why they allow this, who knows? Why did wolves?

I thought it was because Jon is a Targaryen and thus respected by the family dragons (through scent or  something). And maybe something instinctive, or magical, inside Drogon made it understand that the throne was to blame.  Or maybe not.

  I was expecting the one that Euron shot not to be dead after all; but maybe I've just been making too many Nikolai Dante comparisons.  (Also, why do they shout 'fire' when shooting crossbows, when firearms haven't been invented and thus shooting has no connection with fire? I fully realise how unimportant this is.)
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"

The Legendary Shark

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Hawkmumbler

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 26 May, 2019, 12:49:25 PM

Flaming arrows?
Are a bad cliche that really need to be phased out of fantasy fiction.

Richard

They're not really speaking English, they're speaking the Common Tongue, which would obviously be a completely different language, since they're on another world. But as a concession to the audience, their lines are being delivered in modern English, and so the Westerosi word for unleashing an arrow is translated into the word we would say, despite its etymology. It thereby acquires an anachronism which it doesn't possess in the original Westerosi.

Richard

Alternatively, maybe they were using dragons as weapons before the bow and arrow were invented, and "dracaris" means "fire."

JayzusB.Christ

Quote from: Richard on 26 May, 2019, 01:31:05 PM
They're not really speaking English, they're speaking the Common Tongue, which would obviously be a completely different language, since they're on another world. But as a concession to the audience, their lines are being delivered in modern English, and so the Westerosi word for unleashing an arrow is translated into the word we would say, despite its etymology. It thereby acquires an anachronism which it doesn't possess in the original Westerosi.

Fair enough.  I thought it was like Star Wars where by pure coincidence the common tongue is exactly the same as English. (Not impossible, it's a big universe.)

Double negatives must be a no-no* in Westerosi too then.

*See what I did there.
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"

JayzusB.Christ

... Though if I was being really pedantic, I'd point out that Brienne writes in English too. (Sorry)
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"