I liked the interaction between Jaime and Tyrion, it was a nice nod to Jaime releasing Tryion from the dungeon. The plot line of Jaime trying to convince Cersie to surrender the city seems to have been left on the cutting room floor. I anticipated some climactic scene where he was racing to try and reach Cersie, or sound the bells on his own in an attempt to forestall the destruction of the city, but oddly, he ends up getting locked outside the city when they close the city gates just as he arrives. Even more baffling, he moves slightly to the left of the gate and finds what appears to be a fatal flaw in the city defenses, a stairway which bypasses the gates. Did I miss something here?
Even so, the walls are breached (I won't go into the inexplicable accuracy of the baristas last week when fired from the pitching deck of a ship and their inability to hit anything this week) and the bells sound signaling the city's surrender, without Jaime playing any part. Couldn't they at least have given him the opportunity to toll the first bell? That might have salvaged a bit of his redemption arc.
Instead they show a pointless fight better Jaime and Euron.
The show obviously ignored the valonqar prophesy which would have been an infinitely preferable way for Cersie to meet her demise than have a pile of rubble fall on her.
But it went much too long--I think about other war movies and even things like Henry V--they have side moments of the fighters talking.
The problem with war scenes and such is that the scenes can easily go on for either too short or too long. If there aren't enough players with the "right" storyline within the fight, they become too long. Like teenage ninja power puff Arya here.
The "Dany's" are workable--just say they were named for "Danielle."
But "Khalessi" is harder--though I personally wouldn't name anything other than a pet such a thing.
You know, if my parents called me Khaleesi I would kill them! Fortunately I was born way way too early for that! I just don't get how anyone would do that to their child...
That said--I am still surprised that even show-watchers didn't see this as possible.
It seemed really clear to me--especially after the Field of Fire, burning of the Khals, murder of MMD, etc.
Indeed they have. I think one part of the problem is that she's been set up as a SaviorTM, which redeems her acts.
MMD killed her husband and child - she deserves to die. And it got her the dragons. Never mind that the Dothraki rape, pillage and murder everyone they come across... Unless they pay up.
She frees slaves - the slavers deserve to die. Ending slavery redeems everything automatically.
Showing how badly that young retired khaleesi was treated, justifies the burning of the khals - never mind that it contradicts the burning of MMD as Drogo was good.
So while I see the point made of how she tries to do good, imo she crosses the line. In particular when she burned that Meerenese in front of the others. But she didn't like that, so I guess it's ok then. While I don't lament the deaths, I don't like how she deals with them either. The khals in particular was just sadistic!
In a way we have been trained to think in black and white through mass media, good vs evil and all that.
Very possible--though I'm kinda liking my brand new theory that Jon heads back north because the NK isn't done. Heads back to stand guard with a Dream of Spring--and perhaps it's only a dream and can never happen since the land is too corrupted.
And that journey is the ending of the series.
Would fit with some of the endings of Martin's other works. . . .
I've heard that combined with the theme of Wheel of Time - time resetting every time the sides face off, just to repeat it in the future. I kinda like it.
I'm not that familiar with Martin's other works, but my understanding is that he might go in this direction.
Detective Pikachu is a fun popcorn flick. I went to see it because I thought it would provide a simple laugh. The plot is predictable, but it's essentially Who Framed Roger Rabbit? meets Poke'mon meets your typical thriller. Good for a few laughs.
Tolkien is your typical cookie-cutter biopic, only with LOTR references all over the place. I thought the film did best of portraying how Tolkien and his generation were a spark of life and vibrancy against a very staid and well-oiled machine world run by the older adults. See it for that essence which the film captures, but all other aspects are typical biopic fodder that everyone's seen in some form or another since the 1970s. Someone really needs to overhaul the genre of the biopic, because this old model is tired and worn out.
I did hear they completely avoided his Catholic faith, a big part of the spirituality of his work. Is that true?
It's the innocent part that is bothering, not that she burns down shit. And that she sacks what one would suppose would be her own city. But then again, her father did consider building a new city, so maybe Viserys included that in his bed time stories.
Indeed innocents being destroyed for no reason is sad. Her destroying her own castle just to get at Cersei was funny.
Have we figured out yet exactly why Arya was even there? Yeah, I know that she wanted to kill Cersei and all, but still... Just for that "moment" with The Hound? Seems like a waste. I also hope that Davos isn't a collateral casualty for "helping" Tyrion...
Tolkien is your typical cookie-cutter biopic, only with LOTR references all over the place. I thought the film did best of portraying how Tolkien and his generation were a spark of life and vibrancy against a very staid and well-oiled machine world run by the older adults. See it for that essence which the film captures, but all other aspects are typical biopic fodder that everyone's seen in some form or another since the 1970s. Someone really needs to overhaul the genre of the biopic, because this old model is tired and worn out.
I did hear they completely avoided his Catholic faith, a big part of the spirituality of his work. Is that true?
They have him looked after by a Priest after his mother dies, and they remind us that because he's a Catholic he can't be with his future wife according to the Priest... it's not something he believes, it's an obstacle for his character to navigate the world with. So while I wouldn't say they avoided his Catholicism completely, they treated it as though it had little to do with his worldview.
Have we figured out yet exactly why Arya was even there? Yeah, I know that she wanted to kill Cersei and all, but still... Just for that "moment" with The Hound? Seems like a waste. I also hope that Davos isn't a collateral casualty for "helping" Tyrion...
Per the Inside the Episode (which is the first time I actually felt like watching one, I should mention), they said that they had wanted to focus solely on peasant characters from inside King's Landing throughout the sequence--but figured the audience wouldn't be invested enough in those characters for just that one episode, so they added in Arya to allow them to portray the struggle of the smallfolk on the ground to survive the dragon attack, figuring that the audience would care if Arya was there.
So Arya coming south to kill Cersei and then getting cold feet was all one gigantic excuse to maneuver her into position so they could have her escaping an Apocalyptic King's Landing.
Have we figured out yet exactly why Arya was even there? Yeah, I know that she wanted to kill Cersei and all, but still... Just for that "moment" with The Hound? Seems like a waste. I also hope that Davos isn't a collateral casualty for "helping" Tyrion...
Per the Inside the Episode (which is the first time I actually felt like watching one, I should mention), they said that they had wanted to focus solely on peasant characters from inside King's Landing throughout the sequence--but figured the audience wouldn't be invested enough in those characters for just that one episode, so they added in Arya to allow them to portray the struggle of the smallfolk on the ground to survive the dragon attack, figuring that the audience would care if Arya was there.
So Arya coming south to kill Cersei and then getting cold feet was all one gigantic excuse to maneuver her into position so they could have her escaping an Apocalyptic King's Landing.
For the most part I think her torment after her father's fall and death, she's had the punishment she had coming. And I take into consideration how young she was. A redeeming factor, but not one that gets her totally off the hook.
Perhaps if there was even some kind of acknowledge from her of what she did, what her attempt to manipulate the situation cost her family, I would be more sympathetic. So far, there is nothing like that going on, show or books. I get she was young, but Arya is younger, and would not have betrayed her father in that way, or at least I don't think so!
Their father understood as well. "You want no pup for yourself, Jon?" he asked softly.
Yes--I've started thinking we may get an ending of "atonement."
That the unnatural seasons can never be reversed, only atoned for and dealt with. That it's all just too broken.
Would make sense therefore that Jon returns to the Wall, with a "dream" of spring--hoping someday to know how to fix this mess.
Though why on earth he's a Targ or why he was resurrected or why they bothered with all the greyscale--that's all still pointless.
But if there's no "ending" the Night King--that I could buy.
The show has really never addressed the oddness of the long seasons, and so it makes sense they never will. But I do wonder about the books. If it's about magic, then perhaps some "magic" will set the season's right!
Jon's arc in the show might be about atonement, but so far in the books, I see nothing for him to atone for. Unless he is atoning for the deeds of other members of his family, Stark and whom ever the other half of his family is...unless the other half is Stark, too!
If Jon returns to the wall, and he might, then it would hint that the threat of the Other's is not over. And maybe it never can be! What stories will be told about the 998th Lord Commander. Who in showverse, could also perhaps be the 1000th Lord Commander.
So far, there doesn't seem to be much about Jon's Targaryen arc in the show that is important to the end game. I guess he rode a dragon, but didn't do much with it. His "claim" has been the cause of Dany's dive further into darkness, based on if she can't be loved, she might as well be feared. But all of this not really making a difference makes me question the truth of it at all. I even wonder if the show might yet have a twist for us in regards to this. Like that the "truth" of Jon's parentage didn't have anything to do with Dany's family, but it was simply used as a ploy to make her step over the crazy line! And Bran would have manipulated all of this into happening.
I don't usually see much that interests me on Facebook comments, but I did see one after this episode, basically saying "why is everyone so upset about the people of King's Landing. These are the same people that cheered for Ned's death and threw rocks at him". And that comment gave me some pause, because I have questioned Bran's roll in all of this. If he knew what would happen, how could he let it happen? Unless he wanted it to happen. If Bran is the great other/night king roll, that makes some sense. But what if this all goes down just because Bran, a child who had the ability to watch his father's death through the weirnet, felt like the people of Kings Landing needed to be punished? And Dany was that punishment!
Their father understood as well. "You want no pup for yourself, Jon?" he asked softly.
It's amazing how many people didn't see this coming. Granted I figured she would unleash the dragon just not on innocents. Its funny that she has burned down her city and castle.
Yes, the complete destruction of innocents was a bit of a shock, or at least the amount of them. But in Meereen I think they pointed out that not all of the people she crucified were responsible for the crucifixion of the slave children. They might have been slave holders, but they didn't condone the atrocity that many of the master's called for, therefore might not have deserved the fate that Dany handed them. So, another example of innocent's suffering for her sense of justice. I expect the books to handle such a thing much, much better, if we ever get the book version of this.
Still image this episode that ended with Dany flying up to Cersei with Drogon and saying Dracarys.
And that would have been great. Like if Jaime had offered Cersei an out, she refused due to her arrogance, and then Dany took Cersei out. Boom! Something could have culminated after than in the death of innocents and Dany's complete dive into the crazy pool!
She and Grey Worm planned on doing it. That much is obvious to me. Still LOL at Jon losing control, guess he isn't that great of a leader after all.
Yes, the more I think about it, the more I think that is the case. Her look of conflict at the time was not in regards to razing the city, but in regards to not doing it, and causing turmoil with at least Grey Worm. Grey Worm's hate was palatable. And it's really kind of ridiculous. It's not like he witnessed the city folk of Kings Landing laughing or calling for Missandei's death. THAT would have been better, if we wanted to turn Dany and Grey Worm's hatred into something truly believable.
Dragonfire is as strong/weak as the plot demands it. Takes out the Wall. Destroys lesser walls but becomes as strong as piss when Jon Snow hides behind a rock so he can YEET at a dragon.
Yes, that is stunningly apparent! Blow apart a tower at Winterfell with the blue fire, but cannot even move a pile of rubble so Jon can be safe behind it! Grrrr!
Their father understood as well. "You want no pup for yourself, Jon?" he asked softly.
I'm still surprised people didn't think Dany had this in her--they were hit and miss with the show's set up. But death of Viserys and the pyre with MMD--they've shown fire and blood Dany from the start.
Absolutely!!! This has been foreshadowed, and I am rather entertained by how butthurt several youtuber's are about Dany's turn to the fire side! Really, really butthurt! Seriously, I want to send them Kleenex and cookies!
Have we figured out yet exactly why Arya was even there? Yeah, I know that she wanted to kill Cersei and all, but still... Just for that "moment" with The Hound? Seems like a waste. I also hope that Davos isn't a collateral casualty for "helping" Tyrion...
In my head, it only makes sense if Arya went to kill one queen, but ends up killing another. But from what surmise, it was be
So Arya coming south to kill Cersei and then getting cold feet was all one gigantic excuse to maneuver her into position so they could have her escaping an Apocalyptic King's Landing.
Sounds like another "we thought it made sense thematically" sort of thing! Okay, nope, it does not!
Their father understood as well. "You want no pup for yourself, Jon?" he asked softly.
Absolutely!!! This has been foreshadowed, and I am rather entertained by how butthurt several youtuber's are about Dany's turn to the fire side! Really, really butthurt! Seriously, I want to send them Kleenex and cookies!
Yes, and I'm legitimately curious as to what those outraged viewers took away from her Season 1 arc.
Her entire journey in the first book/first season is her becoming increasingly confident in her role as "Khaleesi," queen of a people who are referenced several times in relation to the sacking and burning of cities, and ultimately culminates in her executing a woman by burning her alive--Aerys' favored method of execution. That all seems to be setting a pretty clear tone for her future.
I do, however, agree with criticisms of her characterization within this final stretch; it doesn't read like a progression toward madness, it reads like abrupt emotional instability, and it particularly presents poorly in contrast to Tyrion and Varys suddenly becoming paragons of morality and caution.