[TV/Books] Game of Thrones ***SPOILER Discussion***

[TickTickTick]

But that happens after? Jaime leaves for Cercei's side earlier in episode 4 when he, Brienne and the rest of Team Dany are still in Winterfell celebrating, and the episode (almost) ends with the Iron Fleet 360 no scoping the dragon as Dany arrives at Dragonstone while forgetting about the Iron Fleet. You have your events out of order I'm afraid.

Umm... no? I can't remember exactly which episode it was, but it went like this:

- Battle for Winterfell is won, burial then celebration
- planning how to approach King's Landing (clash between Sansa and Daenerys regarding the northern army, Jaimie stays in Winterfell as a guest)
- Jon marches on foot with the army, while Daenerys flies on a dragon, with another dragon and a small fleet underneath her, on their way to Dragonstone
- Euron's ambush, dragon dies, fleet is destroyed
- the news reach Winterfell, Jaimie is still there. Sansa shows the letter to Brienne, Jaimie appears, they tell him the news, Sansa says "I always wanted to see your sister killed. Guess I won't get a chance".
- Jaimie snaps, wakes up in the night, has a short chat with Brienne, leaves Winterfell

So... you got it wrong.

[Mehrunes]

But that happens after? Jaime leaves for Cercei's side earlier in episode 4 when he, Brienne and the rest of Team Dany are still in Winterfell celebrating, and the episode (almost) ends with the Iron Fleet 360 no scoping the dragon as Dany arrives at Dragonstone while forgetting about the Iron Fleet. You have your events out of order I'm afraid.

Kind of forgetting about the Iron Fleet* You need to say the full thing, always.

P.S. the irony of netflix is that they absolutely do give money to everyone and everything. they are kinda know for greenlighting just abut anything that comes their way, and then letting directors do their thing. its kind of a thing that is known about netflix originals that there is no reliable yardstick of whether its going to be amazing, breathtakingly shitty or anything in between. because they have all of the above and CONTINUE to greenlight all of the above. so them giving $200 mil to show runners with mixed record? is very much in character for Netflix. it does not somehow confirm that the writers they gave it to, are good.

Plus it bears repeating that not only is this $200M for split among all of the four shows they are working on (plus the stand-up special they directed) but that they aren't even writers in most of them. They are responsible for writing only one while being executive producers for the rest. If Netflix was recognizing their writing prowess instead of simply banking on the "from the showrunners of GoT" recognition *cough* to lure people without taste *cough* it's mighty weird that they didn't ask them to write all four of these.

[Orange Joe]

EYour entire point is based on information I had to provide you and you thinking your opinions are objective reality. Plus, you think Netflix would throw $200M at "very bad writers". You can go on, but I won't be responding to your posts on this matter in this thread. Enjoy your self-produced delusions.

Netflix is throwing money at about anyone willing/able to make content for them. Have you watch many of netflix's original content? most of it is bad...

[Chelly]

dude come on, how can you defend game of thrones.

Because his taste is incredibly questionable to put it nicely.

[cubby]

oh wow. dude....

Wow indeed.

also, you should be able to click on the videos to watch them on youtube. first one is Jamie in season 3 talking to Brienne in a bathing house. second is Jamie in season 7 LEAVING Cercei after she stops him from gathering the promised army to go to the north. and the fact that they have him say "I don't give a fuck about people" while his whole arc starts with him MAKING A CHOICE TO BREAK HIS OATH AS KINGSGUARD because he cannot chose to be responsible for deaths of so many people? writers forgot again, I guess... or something something, this is jamie now, despite his development to the contrary? I don't even know your justifications are so thin..

I know both scenes intimately - the bathhouse is one of my favorites. You're still missing the overall theme of Jaime - Cersei is his primary focus, period. I have linked scene after scene, including 6.8, where he clearly never abandoned his desire to be with her, above all else.

the fact that you cannot, will not even try to see beyond "but it says it here, so it doesn't matter what it shows multiple times elsewhere" is.. both frustrating and sad. many of us have been showing you examples of why the ending and many other actions of the characters do NOT add up, contradictory to their own actions in prior seasons and so on... but you are doing an equivalent of "lalalala" can't hear you.

You are actually describing yourself here. In my case, I use multiple scenes, from the series, showing Jamie's never ending commitment to Cersei above all else. And YOU continue with one scene and "LALALALA" when I demonstrate, time again, that you're objectively wrong.

Jaime's commitment is Cersei above all else is fact - not even opinion. His commitment to his honor is secondary, at best, when we seen Jaime continue to do horrific things, prior to season 7 & 8, all in the name of staying with Cersei. Jamie leave Cersei to both honor his promise (oathkeeper) and protect her and their baby.

I'm tired. you have tired me out. i don't care enough about this shark jumping show to keep arguing. no, you didn't win. I'm just tired of beating my head against the wall of denial.

You don't have to respond anymore. The only one in denial is you. I've listed more than a dozen of examples for you, and you continue to say "that doesn't count" or "no, only this scene matters". Deny it all you want, but Jaime's ending in GoT is entirely justified. You not liking it has nothing to do with the objective evidence demonstrating that fact.

P.S. the irony of netflix is that they absolutely do give money to everyone and everything. they are kinda know for greenlighting just abut anything that comes their way, and then letting directors do their thing. its kind of a thing that is known about netflix originals that there is no reliable yardstick of whether its going to be amazing, breathtakingly shitty or anything in between. because they have all of the above and CONTINUE to greenlight all of the above. so them giving $200 mil to show runners with mixed record? is very much in character for Netflix. it does not somehow confirm that the writers they gave it to, are good.

The irony is that D&D weren't fired from Star Ways - which everyone here is claiming happened. They left Star Wars and Confederate for Netflix. The rest of you and others commentary is just trying to cover your ignorance of the initial facts. D&D have been handed numerous high-profile projects from multiple platforms, and everyone thinks that's evidence of their bad writing ability. Even you, if you were being at all rational, would call that pathetic.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny part is, they literally say that's what happens in a behind the scenes feature. The bells make her go mad because it reminds her that those same bells rang when her family was routed from the city. Which, yes, happened before she was even born so I've no idea how her mind could possibly make that connection, but it's what does make her flip on the genocide switch according to the directors. No, this wasn't the least bit foreshadowed by the show at all or even hinted at afterwards so it definitely comes across as a total asspull, the same with Dany just forgetting the Iron Fleet exists towards the end of episode 4.

Yep, all those examples I cited from the show didn't actually happen, I just made them up.

Dany is literally wanting to burn cities to ashes in season 5. Actually says the words. Has to be talked out of it by Tyrion. Then starts burning people alive as punishment, just like her father. But please go on about how it was never foreshadowed....

(can you even link that "behind the scenes feature"?)

- - - Updated - - -

Netflix is throwing money at about anyone willing/able to make content for them. Have you watch many of netflix's original content? most of it is bad...

Netflix is certainly throwing around a ton of money, no doubt, and some of it is landing on pretty shit projects. However, bringing on a team and paying them $200M doesn't happen every day. And with that amount of cash aimed at one team, I think most people would agree that Netflix at least thinks they are good at what they do.

Moreover, the stunning intellectual dishonesty put forth by people like @Mehrunes when they find out they were essentially wrong (D&D being fired) and actually continuingly successful is pathetic (just to be clear, I don't think you are being intellectually dishonest OJ).

Plus, Disney gave them a Star Wars trilogy to develop. That's huge. D&D walked away from it and Confederate, they were not fired. And Netflix gave them the Three Body Problem (which is on hiatus because of a weird turn of events) along with two others to run. Huh, actually, it's not on hiatus - I thought it was because one of the Exec Producers died mysteriously in China.

Anyway, I agree with your point, but at the same time, there were objective lies by posters above (that D&D were fired) and then some pretty disingenuous statements, given D&D ongoing projects. That was my point.

- - - Updated - - -

Because his taste is incredibly questionable to put it nicely.

So is yours, apparently. Your statement is utterly ironic, by the way, given your sig. You betray your own intents. Interesting.

[Adamas102]

Jaime's commitment is Cersei above all else is fact - not even opinion. His commitment to his honor is secondary, at best, when we seen Jaime continue to do horrific things, prior to season 7 & 8, all in the name of staying with Cersei. Jamie leave Cersei to both honor his promise (oathkeeper) and protect her and their baby.

Dany is literally wanting to burn cities to ashes in season 5. Actually says the words. Has to be talked out of it by Tyrion. Then starts burning people alive as punishment, just like her father. But please go on about how it was never foreshadowed....

Sorry, but you're still dead wrong on these. I blew all of these points out of the water in my last post. Jaime is NOT 100% committed to Cersei, and even though D&D injected one or two extra lines about Jaime wanting to be with Cersei that doesn't negate all the examples they essentially transcribed from the book that showed him pulling away from her grasp. He DEFINITELY puts his oath to Catelyn above Cersei. He is constantly acting against her wishes from season 2 through till midway through season 8, and him going north has NOTHING to do with oathkeeping (he keeps saying he made a promise, but apparently they forgot to actually put that scene in. Not that it would have made sense since he's not in a position to make that promise as the commander of CERSEI's troops. His ACTUAL oath is to remain at Cersei's side, but he breaks that and commits treason to go to Winterfell) or with protecting Cersei (I know Cersei called him the stupidest Lannister, but even Jaime isn't stupid enough to think that going by himself without the army that was supposedly needed is going to make any sort of difference).

As for Dany, again NOTHING like her father. It doesn't matter how many times she threatens to burn cities filled with enemies that are actively attacking her, that does NOT foreshadow the completely different scenario of burning a city AFTER the combatants have surrendered. Not a single scene from the beginning of the series to the end foreshadowed Dany attacking a foe that had surrendered. Not one.

[starstationprofm]

But sansa declared winterfell seperate from the kingdom.

So that would make him king in the north.

But they have a queen because wokeness also crippled this show

And Bran allowed her.

He could've still said " LOLNO "

What I want to point out here is that if Jon were to die, Bran is actually his heir, both for Winterfell and for the Crown, as his closest male relative.

If you want to argue the Crown has to have Targ blood, then the closest would be Tyrion or Robert, who both have some Targaryen blood.

[Adamas102]

What I want to point out here is that if Jon were to die, Bran is actually his heir, both for Winterfell and for the Crown, as his closest male relative.

Bran wouldn’t be behind Jon in the line of succession for Winterfell. It’s the other way around. All of Ned’s sons would come before Jon who was born to Ned’s sister.

[cubby]

Sorry, but you're still dead wrong on these. I blew all of these points out of the water in my last post. Jaime is NOT 100% committed to Cersei, and even though D&D injected one or two extra lines about Jaime wanting to be with Cersei that doesn't negate all the examples they essentially transcribed from the book that showed him pulling away from her grasp. He DEFINITELY puts his oath to Catelyn above Cersei. He is constantly acting against her wishes from season 2 through till midway through season 8, and him going north has NOTHING to do with oathkeeping (he keeps saying he made a promise, but apparently they forgot to actually put that scene in. Not that it would have made sense since he's not in a position to make that promise as the commander of CERSEI's troops. His ACTUAL oath is to remain at Cersei's side, but he breaks that and commits treason to go to Winterfell) or with protecting Cersei (I know Cersei called him the stupidest Lannister, but even Jaime isn't stupid enough to think that going by himself without the army that was supposedly needed is going to make any sort of difference).

And imo, you're dead wrong on this issue. I've given you more than half a dozen examples of Jamie's commitment to Cersei superseding everything else, including the Episode 6.8 clear example of no honor and all Cersei, and you continue to deny those facts. You continue to deny that primary example, hand-waving it away. I suggest you go back and watch that scene - it is literally character definging/affirming. Given your memory lapses from other scenes (see below) I'm not surprised you're forgetting how pivotal this moment is for Jaime and his character.

Jaime does not put his oath to Catelyn above Cersei - you've misunderstand that entire arc. His oath to Catelyn is his example of keeping his oath, as we see in the bathhouse scene, but he made that promise to get back to Cersei. Jaime's oathkeeping never supersedes his commitment to Cersei. Jaime's entire promise to Catelyn is only in an overall effort to get back to Cersei (he promised to give Sansa and Arya back if Catelyn released him). If you disagree, show me a specific example where I'm wrong (use an episode cite or post a youtube clip). Jaime doesn't blindly follow Cersei, he thinks for himself - such as sending Brienne off to find Sansa and protect her (he knows Sansa didn't kill Joffrey, just as he knows Tyrion didn't do it either) - but that never rises above his primary interest being Cersei and being with her. Your mistake is thinking that just because he goes against Cersei in certain instances, his priority still isn't being with Cersei no matter what. Disagreeing with her isn't tantamount to not wanting to be with her.

Do you see the difference here? You think Jamie disagreeing with Cersei is somehow proof that his desire to be with her above all else is true. And it's objectively not.

through season 8, and him going north has NOTHING to do with oathkeeping (he keeps saying he made a promise, but apparently they forgot to actually put that scene in.

Finally, and here is where either your memory is lacking or you're being disingenuous, Jaime literally tells Cersei he is going North because he promised Dany that he would would (oathkeeping). Here is the scene:


In case you don't watch it, at 1:27 Jaime says, clearly, "I made a promise". Then...right after that:
"Our child will never be born if the dead come south". That is, again, OBJECTIVE evidence that I am, to put it bluntly, right. And you are, as you said previously, dead wrong.

Jaime is literally going north to save Cersei and their baby. OBJECTIVELY. He says that he is fighting the dead with Dany, as he promised (oathkeeper), so that Cersei and their baby will be protected. Jamie disagreeing with Cersei and going against her wishes in this case is another prefect example of Jaime's commitment to being with Cersei.

As for Dany, again NOTHING like her father. It doesn't matter how many times she threatens to burn cities filled with enemies that are actively attacking her, that does NOT foreshadow the completely different scenario of burning a city AFTER the combatants have surrendered. Not a single scene from the beginning of the series to the end foreshadowed Dany attacking a foe that had surrendered. Not one.

And I, along with the dozen examples and thorough analysis I've provided, disagree. Dany's tip to madness is clearly foreshadowed throughout the series. You not liking it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I wish you could be a little more objective about this issue. Foreshadowing isn't some big billboard on the Red Keep, foreshadowing is subtle instances throughout a story that leads to a final dramatic scene (it's more than that, of course). And that's what we see throughout the series, as I've pointed out with example after example. Your answers to all those examples are to handwave them away, and say "they don't count".

[Adamas102]

And imo, you're dead wrong on this issue. I've given you more than half a dozen examples of Jamie's commitment to Cersei superseding everything else, including the Episode 6.8 clear example of no honor and all Cersei, and you continue to deny those facts. You continue to deny that primary example, hand-waving it away. I suggest you go back and watch that scene - it is literally character definging/affirming. Given your memory lapses from other scenes (see below) I'm not surprised you're forgetting how pivotal this moment is for Jaime and his character.

Well, first off you didn't give me half a dozen examples. I gave you more than half a dozen examples (listed) of Jaime not only moving along a more honorable path and developing over an arc across the seasons/books, but also many of them being in direct opposition to Cersei. You've only pointed to two lines (the threat to Edmure and the "I'll go fight for your enemy to help you" crap that I'll talk about below).

Again, the scene with Edmure is straight from the book except for that one line about Cersei. Tell me, does Jaime catapult a baby at any point in the series? The book and the scene make it clear the threat is given out of frustration after being rebuffed and insulted several times. Jaime doesn't just walk into the tent and outright threaten Edmure from the get go. The threat works because Jaime realizes that Edmure will always see him as the man he WAS.

And as I said before, injecting a couple lines throughout a sprawling series is a shitty way to change a character's motivations when you've stayed true to their original arc. It would be as if someone remade the original Star Wars trilogy shot for shot but at the battle of Endor Han betrays the rebels because the Empire paid him money and people go "but it makes sense because in these scenes he admits to being a mercenary and only caring about money and says he doesn't care about the rebellion, it's FORESHADOWING!". That would be a gross misunderstanding of the character, just as thinking Jaime only cares about Cersei throughout the entire series is a gross misunderstanding of his character and arc. I'll say that's more on D&D since they're the ones that added the couple lines that butchered the character.

Jaime does not put his oath to Catelyn above Cersei - you've misunderstand that entire arc. His oath to Catelyn is his example of keeping his oath, as we see in the bathhouse scene, but he made that promise to get back to Cersei. Jaime's oathkeeping never supersedes his commitment to Cersei. Jaime's entire promise to Catelyn is only in an overall effort to get back to Cersei (he promised to give Sansa and Arya back if Catelyn released him). If you disagree, show me a specific example where I'm wrong (use an episode cite or post a youtube clip). Jaime doesn't blindly follow Cersei, he thinks for himself - such as sending Brienne off to find Sansa and protect her (he knows Sansa didn't kill Joffrey, just as he knows Tyrion didn't do it either) - but that never rises above his primary interest being Cersei and being with her. Your mistake is thinking that just because he goes against Cersei in certain instances, his priority still isn't being with Cersei no matter what. Disagreeing with her isn't tantamount to not wanting to be with her.

Do you see the difference here? You think Jamie disagreeing with Cersei is somehow proof that his desire to be with her above all else is true. And it's objectively not.

Helping the Stark children is 110% against Cersei's interests. He doesn't know that she had no part in Joff's murder until Olenna confesses much later, but even still having her out in the world and sending Brienne to protect her is explicitly against Cersei's wishes. ANY Stark children that are allowed to survive and gain power are a direct danger to Cersei and her rule (something that becomes very obvious by the last couple seasons as Sansa rises to power). By honoring his oath to Catelyn he is putting his honor ahead of Cersei, not just her rule but her safety as well. Plain and simple, helping Starks is helping Cersei's enemies.

Finally, and here is where either your memory is lacking or you're being disingenuous, Jaime literally tells Cersei he is going North because he promised Dany that he would would (oathkeeping). Here is the scene:

In case you don't watch it, at 1:27 Jaime says, clearly, "I made a promise". Then...right after that:
"Our child will never be born if the dead come south". That is, again, OBJECTIVE evidence that I am, to put it bluntly, right. And you are, as you said previously, dead wrong.

Jaime is literally going north to save Cersei and their baby. OBJECTIVELY. He says that he is fighting the dead with Dany, as he promised (oathkeeper), so that Cersei and their baby will be protected. Jamie disagreeing with Cersei and going against her wishes in this case is another prefect example of Jaime's commitment to being with Cersei.

Oh, I'm well aware that Jaime SAYS he promised. Link the scene where Jaime actually made that promise, though. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist because Jaime never exchanges words with Dany until he's in Winterfell. Not only that, Jaime CAN'T make that promise. He's not in a position to promise his service, much less Cersei's troops, to anyone else. The only one who makes the decision is Cersei, so it's not Jaime's oath to uphold. Cersei is absolutely right that Jaime going north is treason and if he were anyone else she'd be justified in executing them for agreeing to fight for her enemy.

The idea that he goes alone "to protect Cersei and her baby" is simply stupid writing. Without the Lannister army that Dany's side felt like they needed, him going alone is him essentially marching to certain death. There are a couple scenarios here, and none of them make sense for Jaime to think this is protecting Cersei.

One way or another, Dany and Co. are going to win or lose without Jaime. He isn't providing any real support as a single soldier. If the North loses then they all die, including Jaime which of course doesn't help Cersei. If they win, then he HAS to know that Dany won't leave Cersei's betrayal unanswered, so he is literally playing a role in Cersei's downfall by helping Dany win.

The only way it would make sense is if Jaime made an attempt on Dany's life after the battle was won, which obviously he doesn't even try to do. No matter how D&D tried to frame it, it makes no sense for Jaime to abandon Cersei to help Dany if he truly cares about the former's health and well being. Injecting those "I made a promise" lines are quite literally just D&D bullshitting their way into having Jaime go north just so he can have a couple more scenes with Brienne and Tyrion since he (like everyone else other than Arya) does fuckall in the battle itself.

And I, along with the dozen examples and thorough analysis I've provided, disagree. Dany's tip to madness is clearly foreshadowed throughout the series. You not liking it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I wish you could be a little more objective about this issue. Foreshadowing isn't some big billboard on the Red Keep, foreshadowing is subtle instances throughout a story that leads to a final dramatic scene (it's more than that, of course). And that's what we see throughout the series, as I've pointed out with example after example. Your answers to all those examples are to handwave them away, and say "they don't count".

They don't count because a character saying they will do A does not mean they will do B. That's not how good foreshadowing works. I can't make it any more clear than I already have. The things that Dany says she will do to the enemies that oppose her is NOT foreshadowing of what she eventually does to civilians that don't oppose her, and at no point in the series does Dany do or say anything to suggest she is mentally unstable. Maybe that's how D&D wanted it to play out, but it's objectively shit writing. Every time I hear "it was subtle foreshadowing" I'm reminded that neither you nor D&D understood the work that was being adapted.

[cubby]

Ummm, what? It's an adaptation. He is the book character until D&D ran out of material and started taking it upon themselves to determine the trajectory of the character. The reason it was done poorly is because their either forgot, didn't understand, or didn't care about the trajectory that was set when they were adapting the character from the book almost scene for scene.

I understand that things change when you're adapting a work from one medium to another, but losing the core motivation and arc of a main character is a failure no matter how you cut it. If they'd been doing something like adapting the basic story to another setting or something like that, then that could make sense because they're making it their own from the get go. However, they were doing a very good, faithful adaptation for the first several seasons. That HAS to be taken into account with how the character is handled later on.

Again, how can he be "only about Cersei" when he's acting against her behind her back for almost the entire series? His desire to keep his oath to Catelyn by sending Brienne after Sansa is explicitly out of line with Cersei's scheming. Also, going to fight at Winterfell was not a promise HE made so it has nothing to do with "oathkeeping". Nor is it simply to defend Cersei and her child because frankly that's just silly. Even Jaime is smart enough to know that he alone isn't going to make a difference. He goes to Winterfell because it's the right thing to do, to fight for the living with all the other people willing to make a stand.

He never acts against Cersei's will in any effort other than to stay with her. And while you think Jaime is doing that, he's also affirmatively stating and confirming, time and again, that being with Cersei is his entire goal. You handwave these examples away, when there is clear and concise dialogue proving me right.

(going to redline these to make the responses clear)

As for Jaime's honorable actions:
1. Killing the Mad King - This is of course prior to the events of the show, but it's important because it sets up his character. He states at least twice in the show the contradiction between keeping his oath to protect the king vs saving the innocent, and it's pretty obvious which one he values more. Being saddled with the mantle of Kingslayer when he knows he did the right thing is what leads him to become such a cold and jaded individual. At his core, Jaime WANTS to do the right thing, but this experience sours his taste for it.
This goes to both our points - Jaime doing some good things, in his efforts to be an oathkeeper. It's not an example of him going against Cersei.
2. Being forced to make an oath to Catelyn Stark - This is important because up to that point in the story he'd been hammered with the titles of Kingslayer and Oathbreaker, surrounded by people who never expected him to take a vow seriously. It was important to him that she would entrust him with an oath to keep. This is the beginning of his arc as it starts to give him new purpose. It's his second chance to prove that he CAN uphold an oath and be a good person, and even after Catelyn is dead he still honors that vow.
Jaime makes this vow in order to return to Cersei. It's a combination of his honorable actions along with his desire to return to Cersei. It's NOT an example of him putting anything above his desire to return to Cersei.
3. Standing up for Brienne - Sure, he didn't know he'd be maimed for it, but sticking his neck out for someone he barely knew, who was not part of his family and technically was sworn to his enemy's forces is a big step. Even in the show he's shown to be struggling with the decision as he listens to the men take her into the darkness before finally speaking up.
Still not an example of putting honor before Cersei.
4. Negotiating with Edmure - I know you like to bring up this scene because of something Jaime says in it, but the simple fact that he even tries to negotiate and bring about a peaceful resolution is a big step for the character. At the start of the series he's a warrior, always happy to cross steel in battle. Not only is peaceful negotiation a change in his character, it's also a continuation of his oath to Catelyn to not go to war with the Tullys. No one else knows about this oath, so it's entirely his desire to remain honorable that leads him to keep to that oath. As for the threat he makes about the baby and the trebuchet, he never follows through and it does bring about the peaceful resolution that he'd been seeking so I'll count it in the "good" column.
You're being entirely disingenuous here, clearly ignoring direct dialogue of Jaime saying he will literally catapult babies, and do anything else necessary, to return to Cersei. Your continue to ignore this key scene and pretend it somehow either didn't happen, or bolsters your position. It is neither. It's a direct and late-series example of Jaime being all about Cersei, superseding anything else. This scene alone proves my point - because he clearly puts honor below his desire to be with Cersei.
5. Allowing Olenna a painless death - Again, directly opposing Cersei's wishes, but by this point Jaime is no longer her pawn and will act according to a more honorable code rather than acquiesce to her ruthlessness. At the beginning of the story he's willing to push a child to his death for Cersei without remorse, now he isn't even willing to execute an enemy under Cersei's orders and instead goes with a more merciful approach.
No, Jaime DOES NOT GO AGAINST CERSEI's WISHES. You need to refresh your memory on this and many more scenes. Jamie talks Cersei out of doing something else to her. Honorable, but still putting Cersei above all else.
6. Charging Daenerys and Drogon alone - One of my favorite scenes. He knew he was charging into certain death, but with his soldiers falling around him he makes the decision to give his life to try to end the war with a decisive strike. Any notion that Jaime will do anything to be with Cersei goes out the window in this scene. He isn't thinking about her when he makes the decision to charge, he's looking around at his troops.
Poor example. This proves nothing except he tried to kill himself.
7. Joining the fight in the North - As I explained above, this had nothing to do with a promise he made or to protect Cersei. It was part of his personal growth as a character. One who chooses to stand for a cause rather than stand with Cersei.
Exactly - trying to keep Cersei and their baby alive. He goes north to literally be with Cersei, save their baby, and not break his oath. This isn't putting honor above Cersei - this is to save Cersei.

(see reline answers above)

As I explained before, it only makes sense if you're viewing the story through Arya's perspective and hers alone. If this story was called Arya Stark instead of Games of Thrones and the whole army of the dead thing was just a background subplot then yeah it would make sense because the story just revolves around Arya getting good at killing things. If the Night King is "the toughest kill in the land" and only Arya could do it, then no one else really has any use from season 7 onward. We don't need Jon to kill Dany because Arya can do it. We don't need an army to defeat Cersei because Arya can do it.

If Arya was the only person who could kill the Night King and it was so important to the story then why is it never really addressed afterwards? Why does no one stop to think "hey, this girl is magic and can kill anything" why don't we save our armies and just send her to kill Cersei, a woman she is already determined to kill? Or did no one question what happened to end the battle? Did no one wonder why there were hundreds of wights all ringed around the Godswood? That's even more proof that picking Arya for the kill was a bad idea because D&D didn't know what to do with it afterwards. Armies just regenerated over night and the plot moved on as if nothing had really mattered.

I've seen people argue some weird head canon that Dany HAD to be the one to defeat Cersei herself for her claim to be legitimate, seemingly forgetting that the big war that set the stage for the series ended with Jaime assassinating the king and Robert marching in later to take the throne. Or that Jon would have stopped Arya from doing it as if letting her infiltrating the Red Keep would be any more dangerous than manning a wall against an unbeatable undead horde.

You're going off on tangents I don't want to address. She had the skill set and the abilities to kill the NK, and her story justifies that event. Not perfectly. And the kill shot location has already been addressed - so I'm not going to repeat myself.

Interesting points about Arya killing Cersei and Dany.

I mean, you're simply ignoring the definition of what collateral damage is just because the magnitude is different. Since Dany is only ever shown to be concerned with defeating the enemies that fight against her, ANY civilian casualties of her strategies are collateral damage, whether it's one civilian or a thousand. It isn't until season 8 that she seems to start grouping in civilians as enemies through complicity, and by then it's too late to be introducing these ideas.

No, I'm not. What I'm starting to wonder is if you can ever admit you're wrong. Burning a castle and burning an entire city are completely different. If you can't see that, we can stop having this part of the conversation - because it's wholly disingenuous of you to continue to hold this entirely illogical position.

I think I see the issue here. You're referring to symbolism where there is none. ASoIaF/GoT isn't a story of symbolism and subtle clues or foreshadowing. Sorry, but that's just you projecting your own beliefs on the setting. Maybe D&D wanted to add a few subtle "clues" here and there to have their endings make sense, but that's also more proof that they didn't understand the books they were adapting.

Burning is somewhat taboo in Westeros (which is only a small portion of the setting), but that doesn't mean it's a sign of madness. It doesn't matter that only "the crazies" do it in the story because it's not meant to be a symbol. It's simply a tool. Dany has dragons so that's her tool, just as most people in Westeros use swords and axes to do their dirty work. That she did it quickly is irrelevant as well because almost no one gets a trial in Westeros before execution.

Foreshadowing and providing clues are related. And and I'm not suggesting there is any symbolism at all. What I'm suggesting, through numerous examples, is that her actions are a clear indication to her tipping to madness. Her choosing to burn people, and only the crazies in GoT did this, is yet another example of that move towards madness. It's all foreshadowed in the storyline.

And no, Dany is not shown to be paranoid or delusional to the extent that it would be classified as insanity. And no, there's no such thing as foreshadowed insanity. A character is either insane or they aren't. Even the series makes it clear that "Targaryen Madness" is a result of inbreeding (but not something that affects all members of the family). Aerys might have suffered from this sort of affliction, or it could have also been a result of his age and health*. There's no subtle symbolism, just real world genetic disorders and degenerative diseases.

Because Shakespeare would disagree with you. What you are ignoring are clear yet subtle scenes where her madness is shown to be brewing. You don't like those because they disagree with your notion of the story. But those scenes clearly demonstrate something you didn't even know existed two minutes ago. Since you didn't know it existed, how could you know you were wrong?

Foreshadowed tipping to madness is a tool used through the history of literature. The fact that you didn't even know it existed, and were bold enough to claim so without even checking, speaks volumes to your knowledge of the topic of our discussion. Here is someone literally saying that Dany's reaction to an event was foreshadowing her insanity.

I think at this point we can put the discussion of Dany and her tip towards insanity to rest. It's been resolved above.

If she was suffering from genetic abnormalities brought on by Targaryen inbreeding then she'd have been unstable all along, but that clearly wasn't the case. She was often kind, calm, and strategic. Her bouts of anger were well within reason for a young queen who was beset by many enemies. Dany threatening to ruthlessly destroy her enemies with little regard for collateral damage isn't madness, it's valid strategy that many other characters in the series would have adopted if they had dragons. There was also no inciting incident for an episode of temporary insanity. She'd weathered losses galore and been victorious several times before, so in that moment with the bells there was no real reason for her to go insane unless they'd made note that bells are somehow a trigger for her.

No, she wouldn't have. The Mad King wasn't always unstable. And as everyone, including you, has pointed out, she was very young for all of this. A brewing insanity wouldn't show abruptly, there would be subtle signs and foreshadowing throughout the series to justify the final act. Which there was.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, first off you didn't give me half a dozen examples. I gave you more than half a dozen examples (listed) of Jaime not only moving along a more honorable path and developing over an arc across the seasons/books, but also many of them being in direct opposition to Cersei. You've only pointed to two lines (the threat to Edmure and the "I'll go fight for your enemy to help you" crap that I'll talk about below).

Again, the scene with Edmure is straight from the book except for that one line about Cersei. Tell me, does Jaime catapult a baby at any point in the series? The book and the scene make it clear the threat is given out of frustration after being rebuffed and insulted several times. Jaime doesn't just walk into the tent and outright threaten Edmure from the get go. The threat works because Jaime realizes that Edmure will always see him as the man he WAS.

And as I said before, injecting a couple lines throughout a sprawling series is a shitty way to change a character's motivations when you've stayed true to their original arc. It would be as if someone remade the original Star Wars trilogy shot for shot but at the battle of Endor Han betrays the rebels because the Empire paid him money and people go "but it makes sense because in these scenes he admits to being a mercenary and only caring about money and says he doesn't care about the rebellion, it's FORESHADOWING!". That would be a gross misunderstanding of the character, just as thinking Jaime only cares about Cersei throughout the entire series is a gross misunderstanding of his character and arc. I'll say that's more on D&D since they're the ones that added the couple lines that butchered the character.



Helping the Stark children is 110% against Cersei's interests. He doesn't know that she had no part in Joff's murder until Olenna confesses much later, but even still having her out in the world and sending Brienne to protect her is explicitly against Cersei's wishes. ANY Stark children that are allowed to survive and gain power are a direct danger to Cersei and her rule (something that becomes very obvious by the last couple seasons as Sansa rises to power). By honoring his oath to Catelyn he is putting his honor ahead of Cersei, not just her rule but her safety as well. Plain and simple, helping Starks is helping Cersei's enemies.



Oh, I'm well aware that Jaime SAYS he promised. Link the scene where Jaime actually made that promise, though. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist because Jaime never exchanges words with Dany until he's in Winterfell. Not only that, Jaime CAN'T make that promise. He's not in a position to promise his service, much less Cersei's troops, to anyone else. The only one who makes the decision is Cersei, so it's not Jaime's oath to uphold. Cersei is absolutely right that Jaime going north is treason and if he were anyone else she'd be justified in executing them for agreeing to fight for her enemy.

The idea that he goes alone "to protect Cersei and her baby" is simply stupid writing. Without the Lannister army that Dany's side felt like they needed, him going alone is him essentially marching to certain death. There are a couple scenarios here, and none of them make sense for Jaime to think this is protecting Cersei.

One way or another, Dany and Co. are going to win or lose without Jaime. He isn't providing any real support as a single soldier. If the North loses then they all die, including Jaime which of course doesn't help Cersei. If they win, then he HAS to know that Dany won't leave Cersei's betrayal unanswered, so he is literally playing a role in Cersei's downfall by helping Dany win.

The only way it would make sense is if Jaime made an attempt on Dany's life after the battle was won, which obviously he doesn't even try to do. No matter how D&D tried to frame it, it makes no sense for Jaime to abandon Cersei to help Dany if he truly cares about the former's health and well being. Injecting those "I made a promise" lines are quite literally just D&D bullshitting their way into having Jaime go north just so he can have a couple more scenes with Brienne and Tyrion since he (like everyone else other than Arya) does fuckall in the battle itself.



They don't count because a character saying they will do A does not mean they will do B. That's not how good foreshadowing works. I can't make it any more clear than I already have. The things that Dany says she will do to the enemies that oppose her is NOT foreshadowing of what she eventually does to civilians that don't oppose her, and at no point in the series does Dany do or say anything to suggest she is mentally unstable. Maybe that's how D&D wanted it to play out, but it's objectively shit writing. Every time I hear "it was subtle foreshadowing" I'm reminded that neither you nor D&D understood the work that was being adapted.

I did give you half a dozen examples, you're just either ignoring or forgetting them.

The rest of your entire statement here boils down you saying that the words from the characters in the series "don't count". That has to be one of the most disingenuous things I've ever scene in this conversation from you. I think we can stop here. If you don't accept lines from the show as evidence then we don't really have anything more to discuss.

[Adamas102]

No, I'm not. What I'm starting to wonder is if you can ever admit you're wrong. Burning a castle and burning an entire city are completely different. If you can't see that, we can stop having this part of the conversation - because it's wholly disingenuous of you to continue to hold this entirely illogical position.

What you don't seem to understand is that the definition of collateral damage makes no distinction between one death and a million deaths. This is just you not understanding what words mean. Dany threatens to kill enemies opposing her, and that is distinctly different than torching an enemy that has surrendered and poses no threat (much less torching a civilian population for no reason at all). You might think it's crazy to burn a city to defeat an enemy, but that doesn't change the intent of the act.

Foreshadowing and providing clues are related. And and I'm not suggesting there is any symbolism at all. What I'm suggesting, through numerous examples, is that her actions are a clear indication to her tipping to madness. Her choosing to burn people, and only the crazies in GoT did this, is yet another example of that move towards madness. It's all foreshadowed in the storyline.

What you are ignoring are clear yet subtle scenes where her madness is shown to be brewing. You don't like those because they disagree with your notion of the story. But those scenes clearly demonstrate something you didn't even know existed two minutes ago. Since you didn't know it existed, how could you know you were wrong?

Foreshadowed tipping to madness is a tool used through the history of literature. The fact that you didn't even know it existed, and were bold enough to claim so without even checking, speaks volumes to your knowledge of the topic of our discussion. Here is someone literally saying that Dany's reaction to an event was foreshadowing her insanity.

I should have been more specific. There's no such thing as foreshadowed insanity in ASoIaF. It takes a more grounded approach to world building rather than using literary devices to reach an already predetermined conclusion. Characters who are insane have underlying mental conditions. Fire is just a tool, not a symbol of evil or madness. Civilian casualties in war is an acceptable outcome shared by various ruthless, though not insane, characters.

Also did you even click that second link? It's literally showing how all the main characters have similar reactions to the death of someone who wronged them. Are you saying all those characters, Arya, Sansa, Jon, and Tyrion, are also insane? Because if you want to take the route of it being a symbolic gesture of something else then it has to apply to all examples within the work. Otherwise it means nothing. Also, the top comment is ironically "dany's reaction to her brother's death was not foreshadowing." I mean, it carries about the same weight as the page title, but I still thought that was amusing.

No, she wouldn't have. The Mad King wasn't always unstable. And as everyone, including you, has pointed out, she was very young for all of this. A brewing insanity wouldn't show abruptly, there would be subtle signs and foreshadowing throughout the series to justify the final act. Which there was.

Selmy clarifies that Aerys was always a bit unstable with bouts of madness throughout his life. There was an inciting, traumatic incident in his history that broke his sanity. Like a switch being flipped, the man that was released from captivity was not the man he was before. Again, this has nothing to do with literary foreshadowing, but rather a grounded approach to how a traumatic incident can manifest into a mental break from reality, especially for someone who already suffers from a disease. His time in captivity made him fearful of being touched by anyone and made him paranoid that everyone was conspiring against him. That makes sense given his experience.

Dany's turn doesn't make sense in the same way. Her experience is completely different from Aerys' and she has no one major incident that would have the same effect. It's not the times when she loses friends or dragons because she acts perfectly sane and normal right up until the point she is not, which is a point that is not in line with any sort of loss or tragedy.

The rest of your entire statement here boils down you saying that the words from the characters in the series "don't count". That has to be one of the most disingenuous things I've ever scene in this conversation from you. I think we can stop here. If you don't accept lines from the show as evidence then we don't really have anything more to discuss.

Again, a misunderstanding on your part. The argument is that copy/pasting characters and events from the books to the screen but injecting minor changes that contradict established parts of the story is a BAD way of doing an adaptation. When the series begins with a pretty accurate and faithful representation of what happens in the book, changing those characters later on down the line makes for A LOT of discrepancies and contradictions. Jaime, up through season 5 or so DOES have an arc because he's been presented very much like his book counterpart. Making a couple changes to completely invalidate that arc (and make people like you believe he never had one to begin with) is an example of terrible writing. Daenerys isn't shown to have a mental degenerative disorder through the beginning of the series. Her words and actions in those early seasons/books are perfectly normal for a young ruler trying to figure out her power in a world as ruthless as the setting presents. That's why the show ending doesn't make sense given the basis for the character.

[starstationprofm]

Bran wouldn’t be behind Jon in the line of succession for Winterfell. It’s the other way around. All of Ned’s sons would come before Jon who was born to Ned’s sister.

Jon was legitimalised by the Northern lords tho ( and by Robb in the books )

Also at this point people know Jon's not a bastard

[Adamas102]

Jon was legitimalised by the Northern lords tho ( and by Robb in the books )

Also at this point people know Jon's not a bastard

I know. But his Stark parentage still technically puts him behind Bran. Robb only legitimizes him in the book because at that point it’s assumed Bran, Rickon, and Arya are all dead and they’re worried Sansa might have a son with Tyrion that could vie for the Northern throne.

- - - Updated - - -

I think at this point we can put the discussion of Dany and her tip towards insanity to rest. It's been resolved above.

One last point since it literally just popped up on one of my feeds:

https://www.looper.com/441822/emilia...us-got-finale/

How can you effectively foreshadow insanity if you don’t even tell your actor to play the character as such. What a fucking joke…

The book didn’t foreshadow madness and the actor on the screen didn’t play a character tipping towards madness. It was literally just pasted on at the very end to surprise the audience, including the cast who were confused by the direction they took these characters.

[cubby]

What you don't seem to understand is that the definition of collateral damage makes no distinction between one death and a million deaths. This is just you not understanding what words mean. Dany threatens to kill enemies opposing her, and that is distinctly different than torching an enemy that has surrendered and poses no threat (much less torching a civilian population for no reason at all). You might think it's crazy to burn a city to defeat an enemy, but that doesn't change the intent of the act.

This is you still not understanding the significant difference between attacking and burning a castle and a city. In the objective definition of collateral damage there is no distinction between one and a million. Unfortunately, we aren't talking about the definition of collateral damage. We're talking about the morality of burning a castle vs a city. And they are diametrically opposed when it comes to burning them down to achieve your goals.

Dany threatening to burn an entire city to ashes because her enemies are in charge of that city is insane. And she threatened to do it more than once. That, along with the other examples I've pointed out show her foreshadowed fall into insanity.

I should have been more specific. There's no such thing as foreshadowed insanity in ASoIaF. It takes a more grounded approach to world building rather than using literary devices to reach an already predetermined conclusion. Characters who are insane have underlying mental conditions. Fire is just a tool, not a symbol of evil or madness. Civilian casualties in war is an acceptable outcome shared by various ruthless, though not insane, characters.

There is in the series, clearly. As seen in the many examples I've provided.
As we can see as well in this link. And literally hundreds more. You saying it isn't in there is just you not wanting it to be in there, even though it objectively exists in the series. Where is your examples of people agreeing with your position?

Also did you even click that second link? It's literally showing how all the main characters have similar reactions to the death of someone who wronged them. Are you saying all those characters, Arya, Sansa, Jon, and Tyrion, are also insane? Because if you want to take the route of it being a symbolic gesture of something else then it has to apply to all examples within the work. Otherwise it means nothing. Also, the top comment is ironically "dany's reaction to her brother's death was not foreshadowing." I mean, it carries about the same weight as the page title, but I still thought that was amusing.

Yeah, I fucked up the link. Sorry about that.

Selmy clarifies that Aerys was always a bit unstable with bouts of madness throughout his life. There was an inciting, traumatic incident in his history that broke his sanity. Like a switch being flipped, the man that was released from captivity was not the man he was before. Again, this has nothing to do with literary foreshadowing, but rather a grounded approach to how a traumatic incident can manifest into a mental break from reality, especially for someone who already suffers from a disease. His time in captivity made him fearful of being touched by anyone and made him paranoid that everyone was conspiring against him. That makes sense given his experience.

And that would be my argument for Dany flipping. Slow and foreshadowed build up throughout the series, then at the end, BOOM - she tips over.

Dany's turn doesn't make sense in the same way. Her experience is completely different from Aerys' and she has no one major incident that would have the same effect. It's not the times when she loses friends or dragons because she acts perfectly sane and normal right up until the point she is not, which is a point that is not in line with any sort of loss or tragedy.

It doesn't make sense to you, despite the many examples, analysis, and links I've provided. She wasn't sane the entire time, the fact that you ignore or handwave my examples doesn't change the facts or objective reality of the analysis.

Again, a misunderstanding on your part. The argument is that copy/pasting characters and events from the books to the screen but injecting minor changes that contradict established parts of the story is a BAD way of doing an adaptation. When the series begins with a pretty accurate and faithful representation of what happens in the book, changing those characters later on down the line makes for A LOT of discrepancies and contradictions. Jaime, up through season 5 or so DOES have an arc because he's been presented very much like his book counterpart. Making a couple changes to completely invalidate that arc (and make people like you believe he never had one to begin with) is an example of terrible writing. Daenerys isn't shown to have a mental degenerative disorder through the beginning of the series. Her words and actions in those early seasons/books are perfectly normal for a young ruler trying to figure out her power in a world as ruthless as the setting presents. That's why the show ending doesn't make sense given the basis for the character.

Jaime remains true to his character throughout the series. I've shown almost a dozen examples of him putting Cersei first, through both words and deeds. You are once again conflating the book and the series. You are misunderstanding the series character vs the book, and assuming Jaime was copy/pasted over directly from the book. He clearly wasn't, as I've shown time and again. Dany is shown to have a mental issue throughout the series, and it builds up to a tipping point.

We are now just repeating ourselves. Let's stop - we aren't going to convince the other, and any further discussion won't go anywhere.

Instead, let's pivot. What did you like about the entire series, if anything? I can answer in kind with things I didn't like about the series/ending.

- - - Updated - - -

One last point since it literally just popped up on one of my feeds:

https://www.looper.com/441822/emilia...us-got-finale/

How can you effectively foreshadow insanity if you don’t even tell your actor to play the character as such. What a fucking joke…

The book didn’t foreshadow madness and the actor on the screen didn’t play a character tipping towards madness. It was literally just pasted on at the very end to surprise the audience, including the cast who were confused by the direction they took these characters.

You mean they didn't tell her the ending or explain some of her character's long term actions and statement's overall significance? That is hardly surprising. And bears no significance on our discussion.

One last clarification:

Let me put this in a different way - show me an example of where Jaime doing something would prevent him from being with Cersei. Where has he done something that would prevent him from being with Cersei. Because looking over your examples again, all them end with Jaime working towards returning to Cersei - even when he swears an oath to Catelyn.

[Adamas102]

And that would be my argument for Dany flipping. Slow and foreshadowed build up throughout the series, then at the end, BOOM - she tips over.

It doesn't make sense to you, despite the many examples, analysis, and links I've provided. She wasn't sane the entire time, the fact that you ignore or handwave my examples doesn't change the facts or objective reality of the analysis.

Per Emilia Clarke herself, she did not play a character that was going insane. This is a major issue on the part of the showrunners who in trying to keep things secret in favor of big surprises gave the actors no cues on how their arcs would unfold. Played straight from the script (which was adapted faithfully from the book through the first several seasons), Daenerys is not slipping towards madness or becoming her crazy father. She's just one example of the actors who were blindsided by the last season of the show which is not something that should happen if you're trying to create a progressive narrative over the course of the series.

If it was so obvious and well done, then how come it blindsided all the actors on the show, including the one that was portraying the character for 8 years? That's simply antithetical for setting up a good, well told (and well acted) narrative.

Jaime remains true to his character throughout the series. I've shown almost a dozen examples of him putting Cersei first, through both words and deeds. You are once again conflating the book and the series. You are misunderstanding the series character vs the book, and assuming Jaime was copy/pasted over directly from the book. He clearly wasn't, as I've shown time and again. Dany is shown to have a mental issue throughout the series, and it builds up to a tipping point.

Alright, just to boil it down because I have probably been too long winded before:

Book Jaime has an arc as he develops over the course of the series.

Show Jaime shares most of the scenes from the book that give him his arc, but with a few extra lines added by D&D he negates that arc and remains a stagnant and pointless character. Show Jaime is essentially two different characters, part book Jaime and part fabrication by the show writers, and therein lies the issue with consistency.

Instead, let's pivot. What did you like about the entire series, if anything? I can answer in kind with things I didn't like about the series/ending.

I guess the most obvious thing I enjoyed at first was the pretty faithful adaptation to the source material early on. On the flip side, it was that faithfulness early on that made the ending more bitter with the deviations that began to happen. I can't watch the show ever again because of how it ends. I also understand how you can enjoy the show because you have no context for the source material that it drew from, making it easy to go back and rationalize the changed narratives.

I had another somewhat similar experience with the new Without Remorse adaptation on Prime that came out just the other week. It was one of my favorite Clancy books, but a very poor adaptation. I was totally fine with what are essentially cosmetic changes to the characters and setting, but the core of the story was so different that it no longer seemed like it had anything to do with the book. There's a biiiiig difference between a decorated soldier leading a one man vigilante revenge war on pimps and drug dealers vs that same soldier globe trotting around the world with a whole black ops squad chasing down Russian special forces and fanatical CIA double agents trying to start World War 3.

I just mention that to make the point that I'm perfectly fine with adaptations changing things from the source material, whether it's combining/deleting secondary characters or setting the story in a different time period. The issue is when major changes are done to things like the core motivations of characters or the basic premise of the story.

- - - Updated - - -

One last clarification:

Let me put this in a different way - show me an example of where Jaime doing something would prevent him from being with Cersei. Where has he done something that would prevent him from being with Cersei. Because looking over your examples again, all them end with Jaime working towards returning to Cersei - even when he swears an oath to Catelyn.

Easy. Going North to fight at Winterfell.

He was either going there to die or to help the enemy that Cersei JUST double crossed and would certainly seek her death in the end. He's either killing himself or killing Cersei.

[cubby]

Per Emilia Clarke herself, she did not play a character that was going insane. This is a major issue on the part of the showrunners who in trying to keep things secret in favor of big surprises gave the actors no cues on how their arcs would unfold. Played straight from the script (which was adapted faithfully from the book through the first several seasons), Daenerys is not slipping towards madness or becoming her crazy father. She's just one example of the actors who were blindsided by the last season of the show which is not something that should happen if you're trying to create a progressive narrative over the course of the series.

Alright, just to boil it down because I have probably been too long winded before:

Book Jaime has an arc as he develops over the course of the series.

Show Jaime shares most of the scenes from the book that give him his arc, but with a few extra lines added by D&D he negates that arc and remains a stagnant and pointless character. Show Jaime is essentially two different characters, part book Jaime and part fabrication by the show writers, and therein lies the issue with consistency.

And I respectfully disagree with your assessments. Let's just leave it at that.

I guess the most obvious thing I enjoyed at first was the pretty faithful adaptation to the source material early on. On the flip side, it was that faithfulness early on that made the ending more bitter with the deviations that began to happen. I can't watch the show ever again because of how it ends. I also understand how you can enjoy the show because you have no context for the source material that it drew from, making it easy to go back and rationalize the changed narratives.

I go back and forth on whether I will read the books or not. I doubt I will, but at the same time, on some level I want to, because of how much people enjoyed them. I think if GRRM completes the series, I might.

I had another somewhat similar experience with the new Without Remorse adaptation on Prime that came out just the other week. It was one of my favorite Clancy books, but a very poor adaptation. I was totally fine with what are essentially cosmetic changes to the characters and setting, but the core of the story was so different that it no longer seemed like it had anything to do with the book. There's a biiiiig difference between a decorated soldier leading a one man vigilante revenge war on pimps and drug dealers vs that same soldier globe trotting around the world chasing down Russian special forces and fanatical CIA double agents trying to start World War 3.

Without Remorse was one of my favorite Clancy novels as well. I haven't seen the Prime adaption, and with what you're saying above, I probably won't. I agree with your assessment. The one-man vigilante was a terrific story and gave great backstory to an already well developed character. The original Jack Ryan novels were some of my favorite techno-thrillers.

Stephen King was another author I thoroughly enjoy way back when.

Easy. Going North to fight at Winterfell.

He was either going there to die or to help the enemy that Cersei JUST double crossed and would certainly seek her death in the end. He's either killing himself or killing Cersei.

But in his eyes he's keeping his promise, and fighting to protect Cersei.

[Adamas102]

And I respectfully disagree with your assessments. Let's just leave it at that.

I mean, ok. Since you haven't read the books you don't really have any grounds to disagree. You don't have the context for it.

I go back and forth on whether I will read the books or not. I doubt I will, but at the same time, on some level I want to, because of how much people enjoyed them. I think if GRRM completes the series, I might.

Don't do it! One, it's not worth it if the books are never finished, and two it will probably lead you to dislike the adaptation. Or you'll prefer the show versions in which case you'll have wasted time reading the books.

Without Remorse was one of my favorite Clancy novels as well. I haven't seen the Prime adaption, and with what you're saying above, I probably won't. I agree with your assessment. The one-man vigilante was a terrific story and gave great backstory to an already well developed character. The original Jack Ryan novels were some of my favorite techno-thrillers.

Sorry, I should have probably put that in spoiler tags. That being said, if you liked the character of John Kelly/Clark and want to see a very different "origin story" for him, it's still a relatively competent action film. It's just not a good adaptation of the book.

But in his eyes he's keeping his promise, and fighting to protect Cersei.

But isn't the point to be with Cersei? He can't do that if either of them is dead which is ensured by him leaving her to go north. Again, the idea that he's doing so to BEAT the army of the dead is helping Cersei's most powerful and deadly enemy survive to enact revenge for his sister's betrayal. If all he wanted to do was be with Cersei (above any oath or promise) he would remain by her side, see how things panned out, and then if Dany succeeded attempted to convince Cersei to retreat/flee.

Hell we haven't even mentioned the fact that he knows Cersei sent an assassin to kill him. Why would he even assume that she wouldn't do so again as soon as she finds out he's alive?

[cubby]

Don't do it! One, it's not worth it if the books are never finished, and two it will probably lead you to dislike the adaptation. Or you'll prefer the show versions in which case you'll have wasted time reading the books.

Lol, more than likely won't. Or more than likely GRRM won't finish the series himself, so it won't even be an option.

Sorry, I should have probably put that in spoiler tags. That being said, if you liked the character of John Kelly/Clark and want to see a very different "origin story" for him, it's still a relatively competent action film. It's just not a good adaptation of the book.

No, it's fine - I wasn't going to watch it anyways. I usually don't watch adaptions of books I've enjoyed anymore (ironically). And, the series adaption blew it imo decades ago when they dropped Alec Baldwin for Harrison Ford after Hunt for Red October (I heard Baldwin was an ass to work with).

But isn't the point to be with Cersei? He can't do that if either of them is dead which is ensured by him leaving her to go north. Again, the idea that he's doing so to BEAT the army of the dead is helping Cersei's most powerful and deadly enemy survive to enact revenge for his sister's betrayal. If all he wanted to do was be with Cersei (above any oath or promise) he would remain by her side, see how things panned out, and then if Dany succeeded attempted to convince Cersei to retreat/flee.

That's because Jaime is a complicated character now - as you've pointed out. Part of his arc is holding true to his oaths. His oath was to help fight the dead. So he holds true to his oath, while at the same time doing what is necessary to protect Cersei and stay with her.

Hell we haven't even mentioned the fact that he knows Cersei sent an assassin to kill him. Why would he even assume that she wouldn't do so again as soon as she finds out he's alive?

But that's Cersei towards Jaime, not Jaime towards Cersei. He would do anything to stay with her.

[Adamas102]

That's because Jaime is a complicated character now - as you've pointed out. Part of his arc is holding true to his oaths. His oath was to help fight the dead. So he holds true to his oath, while at the same time doing what is necessary to protect Cersei and stay with her.

But that's Cersei towards Jaime, not Jaime towards Cersei. He would do anything to stay with her.

That's not really being complicated. That's just being really incompetent. Thinking that by helping the enemy that is looking to end your lover is in any way in your lover's best interest. Or just meandering back to someone that is explicitly trying to kill you with no real plan is at all smart. That's like brain damaged level of stupidity on the part of the character.