Modern gaming apologist: I once tasted diarrhea so shit is fine.
"People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an excercise of power, are barbarians" - George Lucas 1988
Modern gaming apologist: I once tasted diarrhea so shit is fine.
"People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an excercise of power, are barbarians" - George Lucas 1988
...which in turn is part of why I find her so boring. If she manages to conquer Westeros through swooping in at the last minute with three dragons it'll be very boring. I'd much prefer to see her being set up for a massive fall - along with Jon Snow and Tyrion. I don't want the ending to be predictable, especially with all the twists that the arguably more interesting characters have endured. The 'big three' just seem to be encased in convenient plot armour, especially in the show.
They did show Illyrio in S1.
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...nd_Illyrio.jpg
It wouldn't be a twist at this point, it would just be a very lame ending. Certain people can't die because basic storytelling requirements. Dany dying before she ever did anything or returned would make her pointless. Those three are the main-main characters of A Song of Ice and Fire, they've been around since the beginning and have always been big characters, and they've each had a pretty cool and unique journey so far. Sure Dany has flaws, but I can't comprehend people disliking her so vigorously for it. She's trying to be a good leader and doing the obvious good of freeing slaves, and her arc shows how hard it is to do, and all the problems that arise.
BTW, if Aegon and Quentyn is cut, what the heck is Doran doing?
It's her utter naivety, repetition of mistakes and absolute lack of paying attention to what her more experienced companions are trying to drive through that thick skull that makes her unbearable.
Just like how Eddard Stark was a total, selfish moron who'd put his honor over doing what is actually right, aka protect his family first and then worry about other shit second.
Modern gaming apologist: I once tasted diarrhea so shit is fine.
"People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an excercise of power, are barbarians" - George Lucas 1988
I don't believe you could put Eddard in the same camp as Dany. Part of doing what's right is doing what's right even if it puts you and your loved ones in danger. The protection of one's family isn't some "ultimate right" that subjugates all other right things to do. That's how Cersei operates, and see how that's worked out?
It's not "hate on the good guys club". It's "seeing these very real errors of conduct on the part of these characters that cause massive grief to people and judging them by it" club.
Robb Stark was just like his father, mistake after mistake in the name of "honour" that ultimately led to his own death and deaths of those he held close. They weren't the good guys, they were the idiots.
- - - Updated - - -
But he could've very easily done things differently. For example, send the kids to safety before going all bla bla to Cersei. He was unable to think straight because of his conduct.
Modern gaming apologist: I once tasted diarrhea so shit is fine.
"People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an excercise of power, are barbarians" - George Lucas 1988
Martin traveling around in circuits has absolutely no impact on when the book is released, considering he doesn't actually write the script word for word anymore.
I seriously doubt she will rule on the Iron Throne; the writers are too good for that. My guess is she will establish her kingdom in Essos, while the survivors of the War of the Five Kings and the Long Night will stand on top Westeros in the end.
- - - Updated - - -
Not idiots. The Starks were fortituous; they stood by their principles regardless of what happened; they didn't forsake morality when the going got tough. That's a quality pretty hard to come by. They may have died, but unlike most other people in the series, Robb and Edd carved meaning out of a meaningless world through their honor.
Not too sure I'd consider Ned Stark a full on good guy. Every character has shades of grey, him included. He supported Robert and turned a blind eye to his faults which could have prevented a lot of trouble. His son didn't fare much better, doing questionable things in the name of 'honour' and clinging to a holier-than-thou attitude at every turn.
Being a good guy does not mean to be perfect. Of course Ned Stark has flaws, like everyone. However, his moral stance is the archetype of the "lawful good" hero in D&D. Ned Stark supports Robert because he is the rightful King (well, technically he's a usurper, but he was still the one with the best rights to the throne after the Targs are gone). When he is Hand of the King, Ned does not turn a blind eye to Robert's action. On the contrary, he's the only one openly opposing him in the Small Council. He has (or may have not) fathered a bastard, which is against the loyalty he should have had towards Cat. However, he admitted his fault and raised Jon as if he was a legitimate child. So you have a guy that is principled, loyal, true, honorable, generous and just (and probably the best father model this story has as far as I know). What else do you need to be a good guy? Ned's problem was that he did not have the cunning and the skill to navigate in the treacherous and putrid moral swamp that is King's Landing. But that does not make him any less a good guy.
"Je vous répondrai par la bouche de mes canons!"
Can't believe they're getting rid of the Greyjoy and Aegon storylines for more of the worst character in the books and the show. Seriously, fuck Daenerys.
Last edited by Zelk; 2015-02-02 at 12:36 PM.
Check out the blog I write for LEGENDARY Indie Label Flicknife Records:
Blog Thirty is live! In which we discuss our latest releases, and our great new line of T-shirts.
https://www.flickniferecords.co.uk/blog/item/30-blog-30