Game of Thrones TV extravaganza

JonathanVolk wrote: But Benioff and Weiss do care about the other less magical trappings of fantasy, especially in their positioning of the two least interesting characters (and the worst performers), Jon and Dany, at the center of everything. My hope is that the gesture at the end of this episode to rethink the centrality of Jon and Dany informs the remaining 3 episodes.

Holy god, I'll be happy to just stop watching these two attempt to act their way out of the wet paper bags they've found themselves inside of.

JonathanVolk wrote: I’ve re-watched the first 14 minutes a couple of times, before the Dothraki charge, and it is just fantastic filmmaking. There’s the painterly aerial shot of Melisandre walking through the gates of Wintertfell, the hoof prints like smeary pointillist pixels. There’s the zooms into the swallowing black of the horizon, where nothing appears, and then, again, nothing. There’s Ramin Djawadi’s reliably good score, which the director has good sense to dial down need be—the silences in this episode are frequent and pregnant. I am a formalist, and I love good technique.

But as GG points out, Benioff and Weiss have lost their way from the source material. Speaking of age and ethos, Benioff and Weiss are both 48 now, the exact age when Martin first published A Game of Thrones. In their “Behind the Scenes” bit after the episode, Benioff and Weiss talked about their love of the characters, and I feel like it’s this sentimentalism, maybe hard to avoid with characters you’ve written for 8 years, that has led the TV series away from the novels’ brutally unsentimental roots. Will Martin stumble similarly, assuming he’s even planning to release the final books? My theory is that Benioff and Weiss never cared much for the supernatural elements of the source material, and Martin discovered, deep into the books, that he didn’t need these wizardly signifiers to make that cheddar. But Benioff and Weiss do care about the other less magical trappings of fantasy, especially in their positioning of the two least interesting characters (and the worst performers), Jon and Dany, at the center of everything. My hope is that the gesture at the end of this episode to rethink the centrality of Jon and Dany informs the remaining 3 episodes.

But then, I will only be happy if Lord Varys shakes the crumbs out of his Late-Era-Marlon-Brando-in-Island-of-Dr.-Moreau kaftan before sitting on that damn throne.

Good points, especially about the cinematic quality of the Dothraki charge. The gradual approach of Melisandre was also suitably dramatic. The showrunners have taken some liberties with the story since moving beyond the scope of the five published books.

However, Jon and Dany were obviously intended to be the two most important characters in the series, going all the way back to the first book. Jon's rapid and repeated ascent to power, first at the Wall and then in the North is pretty blatant. Likewise, Dany's adventures in Essos are a major storyline throughout both the books and the show, even when all of the rest of the action was in Westeros. In fact, all of her chapters in the first book were originally published as a standalone novella before the first book of the series was published. You must be doing some amazing mental gymnastics to rationalize why they wouldn't be central to the story.

I do agree that the actors playing Jon and Dany are not that great, but they both look impressive enough when they silently stare into the distance. They're not bad actors, they're just not always strong enough to carry their central roles on the show when sharing scenes with the better actors.

I miss Charles Dance and Diana Rigg...

JonathanVolk wrote: In their “Behind the Scenes” bit after the episode, Benioff and Weiss talked about their love of the characters, and I feel like it’s this sentimentalism, maybe hard to avoid with characters you’ve written for 8 years, that has led the TV series away from the novels’ brutally unsentimental roots. Will Martin stumble similarly, assuming he’s even planning to release the final books?

Martin has already succumbed to this sentimentality. Not in keeping them alive necessarily but he just finds all of them so fascinating that he can’t stop giving plotlines to tertiary and quaternary characters and following their every step.

Question 1: what is the use of having a flying anything if it can’t help you distinguish a whole fleet of ships from a reasonable distance away?

Question 2: what is the use of a hostage if you’re just going to behead her for no reason without recourse to negotiations?

I have more questions.

GorillaGrody wrote: Question 1: what is the use of having a flying anything if it can’t help you distinguish a whole fleet of ships from a reasonable distance away?

Question 2: what is the use of a hostage if you’re just going to behead her for no reason without recourse to negotiations?

I have more questions.

The logic fails from a narrative standpoint, but works either as emotional beats or within the rules of specific games based on the series.

1: In terms of the Game of Thrones ccg, one player brought out naval forces during the marshaling phase and then started a military challenge. Maybe the ballista were from an event card or an attachment.

2. In terms of The Iron Throne boardgame, Missandei had already been taken hostage, and now was tormented for a loss of three power at the start of the Lannister turn. But Missandei only had three or less power, so she died. Or maybe Missandei isn't even represented as a character in the Targaryen faction of the game, and so it was just a Negotiate card that was held hostage, and tormented for one power.

Shellhead wrote:

GorillaGrody wrote: Question 1: what is the use of having a flying anything if it can’t help you distinguish a whole fleet of ships from a reasonable distance away?

Question 2: what is the use of a hostage if you’re just going to behead her for no reason without recourse to negotiations?

I have more questions.

The logic fails from a narrative standpoint, but works either as emotional beats or within the rules of specific games based on the series.

1: In terms of the Game of Thrones ccg, one player brought out naval forces during the marshaling phase and then started a military challenge. Maybe the ballista were from an event card or an attachment.

2. In terms of The Iron Throne boardgame, Missandei had already been taken hostage, and now was tormented for a loss of three power at the start of the Lannister turn. But Missandei only had three or less power, so she died. Or maybe Missandei isn't even represented as a character in the Targaryen faction of the game, and so it was just a Negotiate card that was held hostage, and tormented for one power.

Now it all makes sense.

GorillaGrody wrote: Question 1: what is the use of having a flying anything if it can’t help you distinguish a whole fleet of ships from a reasonable distance away?

Question 2: what is the use of a hostage if you’re just going to behead her for no reason without recourse to negotiations?

GorillaGrody wrote: Question 1: what is the use of having a flying anything if it can’t help you distinguish a whole fleet of ships from a reasonable distance away?

Question 2: what is the use of a hostage if you’re just going to behead her for no reason without recourse to negotiations?

I have more questions.

Apparently nobody in Westeros has ever heard of a siege, aside from the Freys. Night King could have easily done siege warfare, since his army doesn't seem to need food or water. Cersei's plan of inviting thousands of innocents into the Red Keep should backfire in a major way, except that the good guys won't conduct a siege.

Consolidation

Some people require surprises in their entertainment. I don't, though I resent when somebody spoils a surprise for me. One thing that I have really enjoyed so far about this final season is actually the quantity of non-surprising interactions between characters. Why? Because I have known some of these characters for a long time and it is somewhat gratifying when they make decisions that fit who they are instead of a transient need for a surprise twist.

Shellhead wrote: Some people require surprises in their entertainment. I don't, though I resent when somebody spoils a surprise for me. One thing that I have really enjoyed so far about this final season is actually the quantity of non-surprising interactions between characters. Why? Because I have known some of these characters for a long time and it is somewhat gratifying when they make decisions that fit who they are instead of a transient need for a surprise twist.

Do you feel like Daenerys' recent "heel turn" fits into this? I've found her recent actions to be quite sudden and jarring, and not in-character at all. For 7 3/4 seasons, she's been presented as a bold, progressive, compassionate leader. She destroyed the slave trade! She just wants to make the world a better place. Very smart characters like Tyrion and Varys and Davos have come to believe in her and what she represents. We've been ROOTING for her!!

But in the span of about 4 episodes, all of that hard work and characterization has been thrown out the window. Now she's rash and moody and impulsive, and she's threatening to nuke a major city out of vengeance. This all feels so contrived to me! This is the showrunners realizing, "Shit, we killed everybody else, and we need more conflict!" So they've tried to drive this silly wedge between Jon and Daenerys, and it just doesn't jibe. I also find it uncomfortably sexist in how the show is portraying Daenerys as too emotionally unstable to rule, and Jon is more calm and measured. Jon is a fucking idiot!

I have had this secret desire for the ending to be that Gendry takes the throne for like 6 years. I always thought the slow turn towards authoritarianism in the books by Dany fit this as well. I had written it off because Gendry has mostly disappeared in the books, but his reappearance in the show so prominently has my ears up about it again.

It's very consistent with Martin's thesis thorughout the books---it's outcasts and oppressed people who tend to have the most cogent view of what is right and wrong in these books. If you've read a knight of the seven kingdoms, that is basically this plot writ large if there was a shocker and Gendry took the throne. Egg ends up being a great king if you read the backstory, and a lot of that is due to being castoff and forced to live as a common hedge knight's squire.

Also, his confession was extremely out of place in the scene with Arya unless it is going to mean something in the future. It's a small chance but I would be so thrilled if that's how Martin's series ended. It's perfect to the themes of the show imo.

Gendry would be shit as King due to his complete lack of experience leading anything ever. He'd be like Tommen version 2.