1. #26801
    Quote Originally Posted by Puri View Post
    I just realized: Sansa queen, Bran king, Jon exiled, Arya on an adventure.

    Almost like Catelyn Stark wrote the episode.
    "The lone wolf dies, but the pack survives".

  2. #26802
    Quote Originally Posted by joebob42 View Post
    Bran can't see the future. Whenever he says something like someone was right where they were supposed to be, it just a matter of accepting the past just like Sansa accepting that all the bad that she endured was what brought her to where she needed to be.

    He didn't know Dany would torch the entire city, but he still expected to win. He figured that he was the only logical one to become king no matter how Dany and Cersei were defeated.

    - - - Updated - - -



    They didn't have infinite rewind and pause available to viewers during the first showing.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Except that isn't what would have happened at all. Dany was never benevolent. She just never went up against any arguably "innocent" people who didn't bend the knee until reaching Westeros.
    If Bran can't see the future he definitely sees glimpses of it and has proven it repeatedly.

    One big give away is against the Night King. He gave Arya the dagger in the exact spot where she would kill the Night King. When Bran and the Night King were having a stare down we see Bran look the Night King in the eye, breaks eye contact to look the Night King in the spot he gets stabbed in. The Night King was confused himself as he tilts his head in curiosity. 10 seconds later Arya stabs the Night King in the spot Bran was just staring in the same location where Bran gave Arya the dagger.
    He knew Dany would go mad as he already seen that vision. The warlocks in the House of the Undying seen the same thing Bran did. It is highly probable he purposely drove her to madness because Jon being king was completely useless to bring up if he was not going to acknowledge it or even mention it. When Grey Worm was demanding true justice for Jons crime that was a perfect chance to tell everyone that Jon did nothing wrong. He was the true king and Dany was an absolute tyrant who wanted the entire world to be her subjects.

    Tyrion also gave an interesting facial expression when Bran clearly says he only came to Kings Landing to be king. He seemed shocked or confused.

    He clearly has some cognition of the future whether or not he can travel there is one thing but he does have a good idea of that is coming. The prequel should definitely touch up on the mystical parts of the show much better than the main series did so we should get a lot more information on the Three-Eyed Raven, the Night King, Children of the Forest, The Great Other and Lord of Light.

  3. #26803
    Quote Originally Posted by Dystemper View Post
    LOL you made a alt account just to try and insult me? Seriously? Tell me how any one who didnt know Bran would describe him ? Because he sure as hell not normal. Can you honestly say thatBran does not appear to have some mental problems to anyone outside of his immediate family that does not know his story?


    You seriously think the People of Westeros outside of the North Know as much about Bran as they would Joffrey, "Son" of King Robert Baratheon and Cersei Lannister? Not to mention that for most of the series, Everyone thought Bran was dead and gone . I seriously Doubt the people south of Winterfell gave 2 shits about the North to the point of keeping tab on whos who. And to the average person in Westeros, Bran would appear to have some kind of mental issues. He no longer has any emotions, very aloof and is really no longer capable of cennecting with people on a emotional level. I am sure the average person in Kings Landing would look at him and think " Oh he must be some sort of super wizard who can see the futire, the past and control animals" yeah that seems legit. That explains why everyone that knew Hodor didnt think he was some crazy guy with limited mental capacity and instead a hero who held off the White walkers by holding a door. I mean how did they not instantly know what he did?
    Bran is not portrayed as autistic or suffering from any mental illness at any point, to which you suggested he was. He's reserved and speaks only when needed, unlike others. That's not a sign or symptom of disease. By that frail assumption, all quiet people that speak very little and with reserved emotions are autistic. If you can't see what's wrong with that, then I'm afraid I can't help you see clearly. His journey was not an easy one, and your discounting him because he's crippled.

    Your disdain for handicap and challenged people is quite evidenced in your writing, and frankly, it's disgusting. You assume far too much to have a fruitful discussion, and your sarcasm leads me to believe you're only interested in arguing meaninglessly. Neither of which I'm impressed by, nor interested in. Farewell.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Halicia View Post
    Previous seasons maybe, but not the final one. Bran has nothing but face value, since there's nothing inside the cover. When King's Landing burned, everyone else was cheering or shocked. Bran just sat and watched.
    Yeah, it's almost as if he knew exactly what was going to happen and wasn't at all surprised by what he was seeing.
    Last edited by Black Goat; 2019-05-21 at 05:04 PM.

  4. #26804
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Goat View Post
    Bran is not portrayed as autistic or suffering from any mental illness at any point, to which you suggested he was. He's reserved and speaks only when needed, unlike others. That's not a sign or symptom of disease. By that frail assumption, all quiet people that speak very little and with reserved emotions are autistic. If you can't see what's wrong with that, then I'm afraid I can't help you see clearly. His journey was not an easy one, and your discounting him because he's crippled.

    Your disdain for handicap and challenged people is quite evidenced in your writing, and frankly, it's disgusting. You assume far too much to have a fruitful discussion, and your sarcasm leads me to believe you're only interested in arguing meaninglessly. Neither of which I'm impressed by, nor interested in. Farewell.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Yeah, it's almost as if he knew exactly what was going to happen and wasn't at all surprised by what he was seeing.
    You completely ignored what I said in order to rant at me in a self righteous manner . Your trolling is pretty weak. Why use the sockpuppet brand new account ? I in no way shape or form said or implied I had disdain for handicap it challenged people. That was a conclusion you jumped to because you decided to jump on a soap box .
    Last edited by Dystemper; 2019-05-21 at 05:24 PM.
    Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam

  5. #26805
    Quote Originally Posted by Dystemper View Post
    You completely ignored what I said in order to rant at me in a self righteous manner . Your trolling is pretty weak. Why use the sockpuppet brand new account ? I in no way shape or form said or implied I had disdain for handicap it challenged people. That was a conclusion you jumped to because you decided to jump on a soap box .
    You implied that a king named "Broken" would be looked down upon by a fictional nation of people. You implied that people would hold a negative view of him since he "seems" mentally ill. You made several references that people of Westeros would think poorly of a crippled king. There's no basis for that assumption other than you personally don't think very highly of crippled or people suffering from a disease. Since the people you're pretending to understand don't exist, these are thoughts of your own.

    I'm not trolling. My statements are direct results of the things you're saying. I'm telling you you're wrong. Those are very different things. You keep on about this "new account" business as if it's relevant. Perhaps you should look into what trolling actually is. Facts:

    -Bran is not autistic. You said he was.
    -The denizens of Westeros do not choose their King. You implied they do.
    -The opinion of the commonfolk of Westeros does not affect the Throne in a meaningful way. You implied they do.

    Those are three things which you tried to pass off as true, and they are not. So when you do stop this arrogant attitude that you can't be corrected and start realizing you're just incorrect, and that you probably have a personal distaste for people you see as diseased or crippled? Because I'm at a loss to how you'd conclude that from watching the show or reading the books.

    This is a new account I made on this forum. You can drop the arrogant act that I made this account to address you specifically. You're wrong again.
    Last edited by Black Goat; 2019-05-21 at 05:48 PM.

  6. #26806
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Goat View Post
    Yeah, it's almost as if he knew exactly what was going to happen and wasn't at all surprised by what he was seeing.
    Which would make him the most evil person on Westeros.

  7. #26807
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Goat View Post
    You implied that a king named "Broken" would be looked down upon by a fictional nation of people. That's a projection of yourself. You implied that people would hold a negative view of him since he "seems" mentally ill. You made several references that people of Westeros would think poorly of a crippled king. There's no basis for that assumption other than you personally don't think very highly of crippled or people suffering from a disease. All while pretending Westeros is some kind of democracy, as well.

    I'm not trolling. My statements are direct results of the things you're saying. I'm telling you you're wrong. Those are very different things. You keep on about this "new account" business as if it's relevant. Perhaps you should look into what trolling actually is.

    This is a new account I made on this forum. You can drop the arrogant act that I made this account to address you specifically. You're wrong again.
    It's just weird that those have been your only posts. There is plenty of reason to think that people who exist in an analogue to a time in which physical ailments were often thought to reflect personal failures would not embrace a king in a wheelchair. Someone earlier cited FDR as an example of a population doing so, but FDR worked extremely hard to hide his disability precisely because a 1930s population would have a hard time accepting a president who couldn't/could barely walk. You're the one making arrogant assumptions.

  8. #26808
    Quote Originally Posted by Halicia View Post
    Which would make him the most evil person on Westeros.
    Or totally devoid of attachment and emotions.

    He could be evil, he could be good but he isn't a normal human anymore either as he knows everything.
    I like to think he is absolute in neutrality whether the average person likes it or not Bran sees the entire picture and is the only one who knows what will happen.

  9. #26809
    Got, the show that was famous as a masterpiece, And in 6 episodes turned into garbage. I mean the last episode, the script,writing, everything.....I never knew i could feel this much disappointed/sadness from a tv show.

    Even the freaking actors are disappointed.

    I mean how could it even come to this, did they not have meetings,discussions?debate over anything? how did it come from the writing table to the stamp of approval?
    I guess som low level worker did try to argue with the directors and was shutdown. Did they even know there were 7 seasons before s8? nothing makes sense.

    Did the success/fame of game of thones go to their heads? Whatever they did nothing could be bad with "the got!!"...

    Yes David Benioff, D.B. Weiss, you sure proved that you could create one of the best shows the world had ever seen, "as long you had the books to guide you"...and with no books? yeah you sure showed your full potential. they will alway be remembered as the ones that destroyed game of thrones.

  10. #26810
    Merely a Setback Adam Jensen's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    29,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Snuffe View Post
    Got, the show that was famous as a masterpiece, And in 6 episodes turned into garbage. I mean the last episode, the script,writing, everything.....I never knew i could feel this much disappointed/sadness from a tv show.

    Even the freaking actors are disappointed.

    I mean how could it even come to this, did they not have meetings,discussions?debate over anything? how did it come from the writing table to the stamp of approval?
    I guess som low level worker did try to argue with the directors and was shutdown. Did they even know there were 7 seasons before s8? nothing makes sense.

    Did the success/fame of game of thones go to their heads? Whatever they did nothing could be bad with "the got!!"...

    Yes David Benioff, D.B. Weiss, you sure proved that you could create one of the best shows the world had ever seen, "as long you had the books to guide you"...and with no books? yeah you sure showed your full potential. they will alway be remembered as the ones that destroyed game of thrones.
    Yeah well at least they weren't rewarded with a new Star Wars movie.

    Oh . . . wait . . . ugh.
    Putin khuliyo

  11. #26811
    Quote Originally Posted by Byuiso View Post
    Or totally devoid of attachment and emotions.

    He could be evil, he could be good but he isn't a normal human anymore either as he knows everything.
    I like to think he is absolute in neutrality whether the average person likes it or not Bran sees the entire picture and is the only one who knows what will happen.
    If he's some "all knowing god", then there is no explanation for him knowing certain things were going to happen, and then allowing them anyways.

    I'm reminded of Breaking Bad, when Walt stands there and watches as Jesse's girlfriend chokes to death, but does nothing.

    Sometimes being an "uncaring neutral observer", is simply the purest kind of evil there is...

    Even disregarding the good/evil aspect, having Bran as a "ruler" is the worst choice possible. He sat and let a whole city burn not out of any sense of moral righteousness, or personal greed, but because he simply didn't care about whether those little ants lived or died.

    I mean, he brings that very same apathy to his first acts as ruler... simply walking out of the meeting and letting everyone else do everything because he simply doesn't care about his subjects' (or any human's) wellbeing.

  12. #26812
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    First, character development necessarily means that character changes, and does things they once would never have. And it's not always in a "good" direction.
    You can say that as much as you like, but it wont change the fact that her burning of King's Landing goes against her character.

    For that change to be credible, it needs to be seen happening over a long period of time. Nobody ever goes from heroic symbol to worse than nazis over the course of a single episode. And when they do? its stupid bad writing.

    Second, the issue is not whether her targets "deserved" anything. Her methods were always abhorrent, and entirely at her personal whim. And this is the problem with someone like that; you can back them as long as their targets line up with people you don't like, but the moment they no longer line up, it's horror show time. But they didn't really change, in that process. They never had the moral center you thought they did. And neither did Daenerys "I will burn your cities to the ground" Stormborn.
    That's where you're wrong.

    Lemme draw a similar character that is very popular and has had a long long story. The Punisher.

    A brutal, ruthless, barbaric, and utterly merciless vigilante who does horrible things to horrible people. Yet we cheer for him because he ONLY does horrible things to horrible people. One of the staples of his character, one of the cornerstones that defines who he is, and what he believes in, and what he stands for, is that he never EVER hurts innocent people, innocent bystanders, and SPECIALLY NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER lays a hand on children.

    If the creators of The Punisher wanted to have him slip down the slippery slope, and slowly become the monster he set out to destroy, they'd have to slowly show him change, slowly start to modify his methods. But if in one comic he goes out of his way to save an orphanage full of children, then on the very next, he quite literally burns down four orphanages for no other reason than he was bored? That would be some bullshit writing.

    He tortures people, in one particular storyline he flayed human traffickers alive, excruciatingly torturing them to death. But he DOES NOT TOUCH CHILDREN. If you wanna sell the story of the punisher killing children, you can't just have him "suddenly snap" and then call it "the natural evolution of the character".

    That's not how it works with the punisher, that's not how it works with Daenerys. Her cornerstone pillar was her love of the underdog, the children, the downthrodden. She would NEVER burn innocent people with no reason.

    If they had her burning down the red keep, with all the civilians inside, just to get a cersei? that'd be brutal, horrible, and ruthless, yet totally in-character. She's killing innocent people, but because she wants something and she wont let anything or anyone get in the way. Her torching a city, after the battle was won, the enemies laid down their weapons, and the city surrendered? Not dany. No matter how much you say otherwise.

    Por que odiar si amar es mas dulce? (*^_^*)

  13. #26813
    "When she murdered the slavers of Astapor, I'm sure no one but the slavers complained," says Tyrion. "After all, they were evil men. When she crucified hundreds of Meereenese nobles, who could argue? They were evil men. The Dothraki khals she burned alive? They would have done worse to her. Everywhere she goes, evil men die and we cheer her for it, and she grows more powerful and more sure she is good and right. She believes her destiny is to build a better world for everyone. If you believed that, if you truly believed it, wouldn't you kill whoever stood between you and paradise?"


    Thing is, was Dany convinced she was good and right? And building a better world for everyone? Did Dany believe that it justified her murder of the poor folk in King's Landing? The poor people were completely innocent.

    I don't think so.

    She was just using strong man tactics to put fear in the hearts of her enemies, much like Genghis Khan did or Dany's Dothraki husband would've. I don't think Dany saw herself as a good person. I think she saw herself as a strong person, a person the savage Dothraki admired.

    Do you buy Tyrion's argument? Does he convince you Dany needs to die?
    .

    "This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."

    -- Capt. Copeland

  14. #26814
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Derah View Post
    You can say that as much as you like, but it wont change the fact that her burning of King's Landing goes against her character.

    For that change to be credible, it needs to be seen happening over a long period of time. Nobody ever goes from heroic symbol to worse than nazis over the course of a single episode. And when they do? its stupid bad writing.
    You seeing her as a "heroic figure" prior to the episode is the issue. She's been doing appalling things to people the entire length of the series.

    That's where you're wrong.

    Lemme draw a similar character that is very popular and has had a long long story. The Punisher.

    A brutal, ruthless, barbaric, and utterly merciless vigilante who does horrible things to horrible people. Yet we cheer for him because he ONLY does horrible things to horrible people. One of the staples of his character, one of the cornerstones that defines who he is, and what he believes in, and what he stands for, is that he never EVER hurts innocent people, innocent bystanders, and SPECIALLY NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER lays a hand on children.
    The Punisher, in the comics, has been a villain more than a few times. And he's never "heroic". At best, he's an anti-hero.

    This example does not work in your favour.


  15. #26815
    Quote Originally Posted by Derah View Post
    You can say that as much as you like, but it wont change the fact that her burning of King's Landing goes against her character.

    For that change to be credible, it needs to be seen happening over a long period of time. Nobody ever goes from heroic symbol to worse than nazis over the course of a single episode. And when they do? its stupid bad writing.



    That's where you're wrong.

    Lemme draw a similar character that is very popular and has had a long long story. The Punisher.

    A brutal, ruthless, barbaric, and utterly merciless vigilante who does horrible things to horrible people. Yet we cheer for him because he ONLY does horrible things to horrible people. One of the staples of his character, one of the cornerstones that defines who he is, and what he believes in, and what he stands for, is that he never EVER hurts innocent people, innocent bystanders, and SPECIALLY NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER lays a hand on children.

    If the creators of The Punisher wanted to have him slip down the slippery slope, and slowly become the monster he set out to destroy, they'd have to slowly show him change, slowly start to modify his methods. But if in one comic he goes out of his way to save an orphanage full of children, then on the very next, he quite literally burns down four orphanages for no other reason than he was bored? That would be some bullshit writing.

    He tortures people, in one particular storyline he flayed human traffickers alive, excruciatingly torturing them to death. But he DOES NOT TOUCH CHILDREN. If you wanna sell the story of the punisher killing children, you can't just have him "suddenly snap" and then call it "the natural evolution of the character".

    That's not how it works with the punisher, that's not how it works with Daenerys. Her cornerstone pillar was her love of the underdog, the children, the downthrodden. She would NEVER burn innocent people with no reason.

    If they had her burning down the red keep, with all the civilians inside, just to get a cersei? that'd be brutal, horrible, and ruthless, yet totally in-character. She's killing innocent people, but because she wants something and she wont let anything or anyone get in the way. Her torching a city, after the battle was won, the enemies laid down their weapons, and the city surrendered? Not dany. No matter how much you say otherwise.
    For all if Danys talk about being against slavery , tyrants etc in the end they wrote her as embracing that. The people will gave her firm if freedom. They don't get a choice as to a opinion what's good. She will tell them that. It was a complete destruction if her character that had been built up. She might gave been willing to do horrible things in the greater good, but she didn't embrace Holocaust. The character and the actress deserved much much better then what D&D gave her in the end
    Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam

  16. #26816
    Quote Originally Posted by Byuiso View Post
    Or totally devoid of attachment and emotions.

    He could be evil, he could be good but he isn't a normal human anymore either as he knows everything.
    I like to think he is absolute in neutrality whether the average person likes it or not Bran sees the entire picture and is the only one who knows what will happen.
    I think he is, too. I don't see any evidence that he manipulated events in order to have an outcome where he is king. The most he did was nudge a discussion with Jon about his parentage. It was up to Jon to share his parentage with his siblings and Dany, which led to events unfolding as they did.

  17. #26817
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by freefolk View Post
    "When she murdered the slavers of Astapor, I'm sure no one but the slavers complained," says Tyrion. "After all, they were evil men. When she crucified hundreds of Meereenese nobles, who could argue? They were evil men. The Dothraki khals she burned alive? They would have done worse to her. Everywhere she goes, evil men die and we cheer her for it, and she grows more powerful and more sure she is good and right. She believes her destiny is to build a better world for everyone. If you believed that, if you truly believed it, wouldn't you kill whoever stood between you and paradise?"


    Thing is, was Dany convinced she was good and right? And building a better world for everyone? Did Dany believe that it justified her murder of the poor folk in King's Landing?

    I don't think so.

    She was just using strong man tactics to put fear in the hearts of her enemies, much like Genghis Khan did or Dany's Dothraki husband would've. I don't think Dany saw herself as a good person. I think she saw herself as a strong person, a person the savage Dothraki admired.

    Do you buy Tyrion's argument? Does he convince you Dany needs to die?
    That's the thing. Here's Dany's chain of thought;

    The world needs saving.
    I'm the only one who can save it.
    I need to sit the Iron Throne to do so, first.
    My people must have a reason to support me completely, or I will face constant questioning and rebellion.
    That support must come through either love, or fear.
    The people of Westeros do not love me, they reject me.
    Thus, to sit the throne, and use it to begin my conquest of the known world, the people of Westeros must fear me.
    So I'll burn King's Landing to ashes to show what happens to those who refuse to bend the knee. The rest will fall in line.

    She's making a sacrifice to further her greater goal. That "sacrifice" is the innocent lives in King's Landing. It still serves her goals, the same goals she has always had. That she has told people, time and again. They have not changed. Neither has Dany. It's just that, until recently, the people refusing to support her were even worse, so you overlooked her response. You tried to see it as a response to their specific villainy, when it was almost always about refusing to fall in line in support of her cause.

    So when presented with targets, like the Tarlys or the people of King's Landing, who aren't overtly villainous, her strategy doesn't change, because it was never about that.


    And before you cite times when she claimed it was about that, these kinds of leaders always have inspiring words. Hitler had inspiring, motivating speeches. They were bullshit, and you shouldn't have ever given them the blind faith you did.


  18. #26818
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    Yeah well at least they weren't rewarded with a new Star Wars movie.

    Oh . . . wait . . . ugh.
    A trilogy in fact.

  19. #26819
    Quote Originally Posted by Halicia View Post
    If he's some "all knowing god", then there is no explanation for him knowing certain things were going to happen, and then allowing them anyways.

    I'm reminded of Breaking Bad, when Walt stands there and watches as Jesse's girlfriend chokes to death, but does nothing.

    Sometimes being an "uncaring neutral observer", is simply the purest kind of evil there is...

    Even disregarding the good/evil aspect, having Bran as a "ruler" is the worst choice possible. He sat and let a whole city burn not out of any sense of moral righteousness, or personal greed, but because he simply didn't care about whether those little ants lived or died.

    I mean, he brings that very same apathy to his first acts as ruler... simply walking out of the meeting and letting everyone else do everything because he simply doesn't care about his subjects' (or any human's) wellbeing.
    I don't disagree that due to his lack of emotions that he needs help and a lot of it. The benefit is that he can squash any attempt of a war or anything to harm the realm as he will know what is happening anyways.

    His reign begins with a kingdom born from blood and fire and he allowed it. That doesn't make him human he could have realized that this is the only way to truly save the realm as horrible as it sounds. He sacrificed Kings Landing for the future of the realm.

    The small council meeting is testament to how his kingdom will be ran. He does't seem interested in involving himself in the day-today going on of the realm and more focused on the larger issues for example Drogon. While his small council deals with laws, tax, ships, and the livelihood of the realm, Bran is concerned where this for all intents and purposes weapon of mass destruction is on the loose. Dany proved Drogon can destroy anything he wants and the only person who can control Drogon is Jon and Jon has been placed in exile.
    During Brans reign someone like Twyin or Littlefinger can not hope to attain power because he will be able to handle them before they build any amount of strength to challenge him and cause chaos in the realm.
    Last edited by Byuiso; 2019-05-21 at 06:19 PM.

  20. #26820
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Dystemper View Post
    For all if Danys talk about being against slavery , tyrants etc in the end they wrote her as embracing that. The people will gave her firm if freedom. They don't get a choice as to a opinion what's good. She will tell them that. It was a complete destruction if her character that had been built up. She might gave been willing to do horrible things in the greater good, but she didn't embrace Holocaust. The character and the actress deserved much much better then what D&D gave her in the end
    I mean, that's how she always was.

    "Your rulers oppress you, I will break the wheel. By becoming your oppressive ruler. If you step out of line, Dracarys."
    "I oppose slavery. But now that you've bent the knee, you're mine forever, and you'll like it. Or else, Dracarys."
    "My cause is righteous vengeance to undo the wrongs done to me and my family. If you're engaging in righteous vengeance against my wrongs done to you, Dracarys."

    And so forth.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •