Gethsemani said:
I'd be all for this parallel, if not for the fact that the whole thing as shown is more an idiot ball passed around Team Dany then it is an allegory to escalation of force. The problem is that the writers wants us to believe that using dragons to raze the Red Keep (ie. the seat of Lannister and Westerosian power) is this unforgivable massacre and a line that Dany doesn't want to cross. So the idea is to bring in an army from Dorne to besiege King's Landing. But as anyone with even a faint interest in medieval warfare knows, sieges end with either a massive slaughter when defenses are breached or a slow starvation of everyone behind the walls. The end result is still a lot of dead civilians in King's Landing. This is obvious and even an important plot point for Davos as a character, since he was knighted for helping to bring food into a starving besieged city. Except that plot point was relevant in Season 2 and 3 and the writers don't care about details anymore.
If the original plan to besiege King's Landing went forth, the onus would be on Cersei to surrender. That's different from using dragons to burn the place. Likewise, the use of Dorne and Highgarden would make it seem less like a foreign invasion to the average citizen. I'm not disputing that a long siege would result in deaths, but if Dany's aim is still to be seen as a new, better queen, I can still buy her non-fire approach.
Gethsemani said:
Exactly why the army of Dorne was needed when the Dothraki are apparently enough to besiege King's Landing a few episodes later is just another of those weird inconsistencies that season 7 run on...
See the above point. Dorne besieging King's Landing is one thing - Dorne's still part of the Seven Kingdoms. The Dothraki aren't, and have a fearsome reputation in Westeros.
Gethsemani said:
Sure, but when someone's dead it doesn't matter if it is from starvation or burning. The end result of attacking King's Landing is dead people, a lot of dead people. This is the main problem of going drama first when the first half of the show was details first. The show has acknowledged how miserable sieges are, yet now it is pretending as if a massive siege when winter is at your doorstep isn't this incredibly stupid thing that will have people on all sides dying of starvation.
See the above points.
Again, I'll reiterate, I'm not disputing that a long siege could result in the deaths of innocents, just that I can appreciate the rationale to avoid using the dragons. And as for starvation, we've only seen that being an issue in the Riverlands and the North (technically the Reach as well, but only because of the Lannister/Tarly armies living off the land). King's Landing seems to be doing alright for itself by this stage in the show (as opposed to Season 2, when the Lannisters were outnumbered before the Tyrells joined them). It's established mid-series that they have grain stores for three years (I think?) Either way, hunger hasn't been shown to be an issue for the Crownlands for quite some time.
Gethsemani said:
Sure it is a plot hole. Everyone knows Cersei did it. This is obvious since Hot Pie mentions it casually to Arya. The Sparrows are still around, lots of their leaders are still around yet they are hardly acknowledged this season, despite the furor that should arise. Never mind that Cersei destroyed the most important site of the Church and killed all its' high ranking members in a country where religion is very serious business. There's no fallout from a move that should have people rallying against the usurper queen (remember how Cersei had to use Joffrey and Tommen as figureheads to retain her power, since the crown is still technically with the Baratheons and women are not in the lines of succession? Neither does the writers) and her heretical ways. The writers dropped this important plot line because it would have made it impossible for them to sweep the board and establish the three way dynamic in season 8.
How do we know the Sparrows are around or their leaders? Every major Sparrow character is either dead, or in Unella's case, being tortured. Sure, there may be some fanatics about, but their leaders are dead, and if they are still around, we haven't seen them.
On the subject of fallout, I agree that it's glossed over, I just disagree that everyone would see Cersei as the worse threat when compared to Daenerys. As for her crowning, I know how figureheads work and line of succession, but at this point in time, Cersei is really the only one with any kind of claim to the throne. A very tenuous claim, but with the Baratheons gone, she's the closest blood relative to Jeoffrey/Tommen.
Gethsemani said:
Guest rights are sacred in Westeros. But Dany is a) a Targaryen and b) someone who's never set foot in Westeros. She's part of a dynasty known for violent madness and, as you yourself point out, having a king that burned to death people for thrills. This woman is laying claim to all of Westeros and demands you negotiate with her. Sure, Jon needs her dragons but unless Jon is psychic he has no way of knowing that the woman who toppled 3 city-states and casually killed a lot of people back in Slaver's Bay is actually pretty benevolent and will be pretty fine with giving him some leeway in not immediately bending the knee and declaring her his new Queen.
It is not that the plot doesn't work out, it is that Jon is either terminally stupid or has read the script so he knows that he won't have to take precautions to avoid being roasted alive by a dragon for a Targaryens amusement.
Obviously Jon has no way of knowing what will happen. This plot point is brought up again and again. It's a calculated risk on his part, and he's done plenty of risks in the past (e.g. saving the Wildlings). Whatever the Targaryens could do to him, being raised as a wight is far worse. Also, Jon's always been a stickler for honour.
You can point out how reckless his actions are, and yes, they are reckless. The characters point them out as reckless. But it's in keeping with Jon's character up to this point.
Gethsemani said:
I don't disagree with this. What I disagree with is how Bran spouts exposition not when it is plausible within the story but when it helps the writers make meaningful comparisons. Ie. the flight from the cave, when instead of making sure he survives he decides to do a little warging so that the show can intercut between the reveal that Jon is Rhaegar's and Lyssa's son and the sudden desire to talk to Sam (the guy he never met) about how Jon is actually a Targaryen so that the show can intercut that with Jon and Dany knocking boots so that the viewer can get the deeper meaning of how this is actually all totally legit Targaryen inbreeding, yo.
Don't know if you're snarking there, but while the end reveal is incredibly rushed, I saw it more as a tragedy rather than 'legitimizing' the pairing. As in, on one hand, Jon's found someone he can be proud to serve and proud to love (I'm not fond of DanyxJon, but that's another issue). It's intercut by the reveal of his parentage though. So while the music being used in the scene is soothing, the actual context is, in my mind, quite tragic.
Gethsemani said:
It is lazy and poor writing. The plot is resolving at a breakneck pace and the writers only seem able to brute force their way through to hit necessary plot points, which means that Bran, the guy who can't have a normal conversation with his sisters, casually starts talking to a random stranger about how his adoptive brother is totally the real heir to the Iron Throne and actually a Targaryen. It is character breaking like fuck and very bad writing.
If we're referring to the plot rapidly unfolding, then yes, I agree. However, I don't agree that Bran talking to Sam is out of character. He isn't a stranger, they met at the Wall seasons back. And Bran, at this stage, is without many social niceities. Him talking to people randomly isn't out of the ordinary, when he can barely interact as a normal human being with anyone.
Gethsemani said:
Yeah, and they only are so because the writers decided that Team Dany should totally fuck up their priorities, ignore sound military strategy (march divided, fight united) and then act like idiots so that the outmatched Lannisters could get a fighting chance to recover. I mean, that's a part from the fact that Cersei still retains the throne and has suffered no meaningful backlash from her destroying a holy site and murdering all the high ranking clergy (and several high ranking nobles to boot). The plot bends over backwards to acquiesce the writers desire to keep the Lannisters in the fight.
Not sure how they're acting like idiots. The Lannisters can help them in the fight against the Army of the Dead. But the Lannisters are still screwed in the long run. By the war's end, as long as Dany has one dragon, they're fucked. As long as she still has her Dothraki and Unsullied (and all sides take proportional losses), the Lannisters are still fucked. The Golden Company could change that, but Dany has no way of knowing about that. Even if Dany knocks the Lannisters out now, she'd still need to maintain a force in the Crownlands in addition to marching on the Wall.
Gethsemani said:
Ramsay is evil, that's well established. The problem is that the writers are obviously infatuated with his status as villain and does everything in their power to reminds us that Ramsay is evil and totally badass (their words, not mine). So this guy can casually stab his father to death during a normal conversation in his office with no one raising an eyebrow at it (almost as if fratricide wasn't a mortal sin in Westeros, something that the show also established previously).
I can admit it's stretching it, but Ramsey's already in the company of people who betrayed Robb Stark. It's a stretch, but not a character-breaking stretch. Ramsey's been shown to not fully appreciate the big picture from the outset, given how he tortures Theon, suggested attacking the Night's Watch directly, and has slaughtered Ironborn who surrendered...TWICE. Him killing his father isn't too out of the ordinary for me. I get the sense that once he was legitimized by his father, he became far more willing to indulge his darker impulses.
Gethsemani said:
Ramsay rapes Jayne Poole in the books (marrying her as a bid to have her impersonate Arya to let Ramsay make a 'legitimate' claim to Winterfell). The writers considered this tidbit important enough that it had to survive to the show (notice how the actual detail important plot about gaining legitimacy is barely mentioned in the show),
It's pretty clearly mentioned IIRC.
Gethsemani said:
so Littlefinger decides to reveal to Ramsay that Sansa is alive and with him (never mind that the Lannisters wants her dead for the murder of Joffrey and that the Boltons serve the Lannisters) and that he can marry Sansa to Ramsay. Sansa actually asks what she gains out of this and it is handwaved with some bullshit about influencing the enemy from within and regaining Winterfell that way. This is not how succession works in GoT, the show has established that if a man marries a woman with a claim the claim passes to him and if he dies it is passed on to his family, not back to the woman he married. So basically, by marrying Ramsay Sansa stands to gain absolutely nothing and she passes away Winterfell to the Boltons. Yet Sansa agrees to Littlefingers inane bullshit scheme and marries Ramsay. All so that the show can let Sansa suffer more (thus destroying her character development in the previous season) and show us how totally evil Ramsay is. Sansa was supposed to have taken charge of her own destiny at the end of the previous season (thus why she did her Morrigan Cosplay) and that's instantly taken away so that she can go through that arc again, with some added suffering at the hands of Ramsay.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't have misgivings about this arc, but I can appreciate the rationale behind Littlefinger's plan - at this point in time, there's a strong chance that Stannis will take the North. If he does, and defeats the Boltons, Sansa is in a place of power. You point out the marriage stuff, but at this point in time, marriage seems to be treated fast and loose - no-one cares about Sansa being forced to marry Tyrion, do you think the North will care if Sansa reneges on her marriage to Ramsay? Also, the idea of influencing the Boltons from within - again, it's an idea that backfires spectacuarly, but again, there is a rationale behind it. Sansa is going to have far more support from the people than the Boltons.
As for Sansa's character development/lack of it, I'm mixed on it here. I mean, I could discuss it at length, but I've been on the fence for Sansa's arc here for awhile now.
Gethsemani said:
As for Stannis, this is the guy who's made a big deal about righteousness, duty and honor. It is the guy who knighted Davos and cut off his fingers at the same time, because Davos was still a thief. The guy who doesn't want to be king but is ready to go to war and die to maintain succession because it is expected of him. The guy who refused to sacrifice criminals to the Lord of Light
He did?
Don't recall that. But he seemed happy to let Melissandre burn those who wouldn't convert to her new religion.
Gethsemani said:
and repeatedly passed over dishonorable ways of winning the war because honor and duty is everything to him.
Um, where?
Also, assassinating Renly, hiring pirates, hiring mercenaries...not exactly "honourable" courses of action.
Gethsemani said:
The guy who's established as perhaps the best strategist in all of Westeros and a loving dad. In the run time of two episodes Ramsay somehow manages to burn all his food, kill all his horses and get half of his men to desert by doing some kind of Rambo style commando attack (against the best strategist in Westeros), which in turn makes Stannis "be righteous and honorable" Baratheon sacrifice his only daughter to the Lord of Light and going on a utterly stupid attack on Winterfell with a decimated force and no preparation. Stannis in the show doesn't lose because he was outwitted, he loses because Ramsay has plot armor and writer's mandate and the writer decided to ignore all previous characterization of Stannis so that Ramsay could be propped up even more as totally radically evil and awesome.
Okay...no.
First (and this is a fallacy I've seen people fall into in other medias), if a character who's described as a master strategist is defeated, it doesn't invalidate their position as master strategist. If John Doe is described as an uber, but is beaten by Jane Doe, it doesn't mean that John Doe is worth nothing, it just proves that Jane beat John, and therefore Jane is pretty good as well.
But as for Stannis's march on Winterfell, you're selling the whole thing short, as:
-It's established, and stated outright in the following season, that Stannis has terrible luck. Him marching on Winterfell ASAP is a pretty sound move - has to beat winter, has to press his claim. However, his army gets snowed in, which results in lower supplies, lower morale (in an army composed mainly of mercenaries), and other issues. If it wasn't for Stannis getting snowed in, Ramsay wouldn't have the opportunity he did.
-Ramsay decimating Stannis's supplies isn't poor writing. It's hit home in conversations that (paraphrased) "the Northeners know the North better than we ever will." Ramsay, in theory, has better experience in operating in winter, and defeats Stannis through a tactical strike, only allowed for by appaling conditions. This isn't selling Stannis short. It does establish Ramsay as being a capable commander, but Stannis being capable and Ramsay being capable aren't mutually exclusive.
-Stannis marching on Winterfell at this point is the wrong move, but we know that from being armchair generals. Stannis is in a sore state right now. If he retreats, he loses. If he goes on, there's a chance, however slight, that he could still win. It fits in with his character, to take on the odds, regardless of how long they might be - he doesn't kowtow to Renly, even when he's outnumbered. He presses his attack on King's Landing, even after losing a portion of his fleet. He presses south, because he has to keep moving. But also of note, he's shown not to be in sound mind at this point in time - he's sacrificed his daughter (which, in theory, does alleviate the snows, least if you believe in that sort of thing), lost his wife, Melissandre's gone, and he's already had victory snatched away from him once. Stannis is sold as being a capable commander, but even the most capable of commanders are going to have their limits.
So, no, I don't buy the argument here. It seems to rest on the assumption that Stannis can do no wrong, is infalliable, and anyone triumphing over him is just poor writing...forgetting that Stannis was already defeated at Blackwater, and was out-thought there as well. Nothing is wrong with Stannis's plan there per se, he just doesn't account for events which are outside his control (the wildfire and the Tyrells joining in).
Gethsemani said:
The thing is, any of these things would have passed me by unnoticed if it was the only thing wrong or off. But they keep piling up. I've not even mentioned the weird way that GoT tells me Cersei is evil, yet her actions in the show are probably the most grounded and well-motivated of any character all the way up until she destroys the Sept of Baelor.
Being "evil" and having "grounded" motivations aren't mutually exclusive.
I wouldn't call Cersei either, and I don't think the show wants us to see Cersei as "evil." Characters call her that, because calling someone "evil" is a simple way of describing them for people who can't/won't appreciate the intricacies. Again, we have the benefit of an omnipotent view on events.
Gethsemani said:
The show wants us to think Dany is a rightful and just Queen out to break the cycle of violence and suffering. Yet it has the scene where she kills the two captured Tyrells in cold blood because they refuse to serve her. And the show seems to want me to think it is a fist pumping agency scene that shows how empowered and capable Dany is, not as a dark mirror of her Targaryen heritage and how she's just perpetrating the cycle.
Um...okay...
I never got the sense that the show wants us to think this. Oh sure, characters say this, and it leaves us open to think that, but it's hardly definitive. Dany could make the world a better place, but could also fall back on her darker impulses. The scene where she burns the Tarlys (not Tyrells, Tarlys) isn't meant to be a "fist pumping" scene (in my mind), it's a scene that shows us that Dany has made a potentially bone-headed move. Tyrion says this, Varys says this, and nothing in the scene suggests that this is a bona fide good action. Up until this point, Dany's a fairly dynamic character, with pros and cons - lots of characters have said pros and cons.
Samtemdo8 said:
My problem with Season 7 is how unbelievable rushed the romance between Jon and Dany was. And worse Jon ended up falling for her out of no where. And I think the whole mini plot of Dany finding out that Jon litirally died once and ressurected could have been done better.
I'm not fond of the romance either, but I can appreciate the rationale behind it.
On Jon's side of things...well, Dany's hot. Minor point, but it's a fact, and even pointed out. But beyond that, I can understand why Jon might fall for her. Jon's used to a world where rulers act in a certain way. Last Targaryen he knew of killed his grandfather (person who thought was his grandfather). After that, we get Robert Baratheon (incompetent), Joffrey (kills his 'father'), and a string of pretender kings that play their 'game' while he's fighting the battle that matters at the Wall. So, here comes Dany, who seems a bit different from those other rulers (has dragons, wants to avoid using them), and puts her own life at risk to save his. Danerys, up to this point, is a pretty atypical ruler from Jon's perspective. Also, since they're blood relations, there's also the argument that they have an instinctual attraction of sorts.
On Dany's side...this is a bit more iffy, since Dany's had one husband, one arranged husband, one knight who has the hots for her, and one lover...yet Jon is "true wuv" right now? Best I can come up with is that Jon is atypical of the people she's known. He's the King in the North, yet willing to put his own life at risk for the greater good, and is alligned with her to the extent that he can't even lie to Cersei about standing down. And again there's the idea of 'instinctual attraction.'
Like I said, I'm not particuarly fond of the pairing, mainly because of how rushed it is. In another show this would be fine, but JonxYgritte was fleshed out over two seasons, DanyxDaario fleshed out over 3-4, and Jorah's been pining for Dany since day 1. But in the scope of one season, Jon and Dany go from people sniping at each other to engaging in bedsheet diplomacy.
Um, okay. 0_0