HBO's Game of Thrones

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
Posts: 4140
Joined: January 2012
Vader182 wrote:
June 27th, 2019, 1:42 pm
Master Virgo wrote:
June 27th, 2019, 10:43 am
One thing that bothers me overall about the show is that it pretends to depict a different type of world where justice will not always come for those who deserve it and yet, we have almost all the several villains of the story meeting their dooms in some ill fated manner.

How come some of them can't like get a happy ending then or at least not fail miserably in the end? lol
I wish the final 4 seasons weren't as neatly coded in general as nuance slipped away, but obviously the net-positive status quo at the end came at tremendous cost and betrayal in the preceding episodes. I expect the books to be similar in that sense.


-Vader
Jon
going into oblivion with almost noone knowing of his heritage and his good deeds
is a net-positive status quo? There is also no guarantee that
either Sansa or Bran will be good rulers or that Arya will survive her journey
. There is a chance that things will work out for them and be better for the people of Westeros but that's all there is. There is no certainty for any of it.

Posts: 12306
Joined: February 2011
Vader182 wrote:
June 27th, 2019, 1:42 pm
Master Virgo wrote:
June 27th, 2019, 10:43 am
One thing that bothers me overall about the show is that it pretends to depict a different type of world where justice will not always come for those who deserve it and yet, we have almost all the several villains of the story meeting their dooms in some ill fated manner.

How come some of them can't like get a happy ending then or at least not fail miserably in the end? lol
I wish the final 4 seasons weren't as neatly coded in general as nuance slipped away, but obviously the net-positive status quo at the end came at tremendous cost and betrayal in the preceding episodes. I expect the books to be similar in that sense.


-Vader
I'm talking specifically about the villains. I mean any garbage Hollywood villain manages to get a casualty or two or rule somewhere at some point, but what about their ultimate goals. What was their success rate in that regard? Barely any. They all failed one by one. Where is the nuance in that?

NK, Cersei, Ramsay, Tywin, Joffry, Baelish, The Mountain, Walder Frey, Bolton, High Sparrow, even the mini villains like Tanner, Locke, Craster, Ser Alisser, Viserys or Daenerys herself when she turned into one, they all had one thing in common, they utterly failed in what they wanted to achieve the most and they died in what felt like very karmic story like ways.

Compare that to some of Marvel's best villains for instance. Thanos, Zemo, Killmonger, Pierce. All of them were at least to some degree successful and what they accomplished had lasting consequences. Not just casualties.

How is the bittersweet ending anything new here. In the end it was just another traditional story like all the others despite all the pretence.

Posts: 19203
Joined: June 2012
Location: 1860s, New England
I just really love how Jon and Daenerys' arcs are wrapped up in the final episode. The more I think about it the more I love it. Especially Clarke is Golden Globe worthy

Posts: 18854
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
I can't think of any series where
one of two savior main characters has a meltdown and genocides an entire city, turns into the most devastating villain of the entire series, and breaking the heart of the other savior main character in the process.

Yes, I get you're talking about "the villains," but it was similar to Tolkien where the final enemies are corruption of good character.
So yes, in that sense, it did something very new.


-Vader

Posts: 4140
Joined: January 2012
Master Virgo wrote:
June 27th, 2019, 2:34 pm
Vader182 wrote:
June 27th, 2019, 1:42 pm
Master Virgo wrote:
June 27th, 2019, 10:43 am
One thing that bothers me overall about the show is that it pretends to depict a different type of world where justice will not always come for those who deserve it and yet, we have almost all the several villains of the story meeting their dooms in some ill fated manner.

How come some of them can't like get a happy ending then or at least not fail miserably in the end? lol
I wish the final 4 seasons weren't as neatly coded in general as nuance slipped away, but obviously the net-positive status quo at the end came at tremendous cost and betrayal in the preceding episodes. I expect the books to be similar in that sense.


-Vader
I'm talking specifically about the villains. I mean any garbage Hollywood villain manages to get a casualty or two or rule somewhere at some point, but what about their ultimate goals. What was their success rate in that regard? Barely any. They all failed one by one. Where is the nuance in that?

NK, Cersei, Ramsay, Tywin, Joffry, Baelish, The Mountain, Walder Frey, Bolton, High Sparrow, even the mini villains like Tanner, Locke, Craster, Ser Alisser, Viserys or Daenerys herself when she turned into one, they all had one thing in common, they utterly failed in what they wanted to achieve the most and they died in what felt like very karmic story like ways.

Compare that to some of Marvel's best villains for instance. Thanos, Zemo, Killmonger, Pierce. All of them were at least to some degree successful and what they accomplished had lasting consequences. Not just casualties.

How is the bittersweet ending anything new here. In the end it was just another traditional story like all the others despite all the pretence.
So for it to not be traditional you just wanted the villains to win? That does not sound like a very interesting subversion. I could make a theory that says that Victarion Greyjoy is Azor Ahai but that would not be in keeping with the spirit of the story, which is anti-war and anti-violence. It's a fictional story with a moral core at the centre, which is why the villain does not get to win, as Martin's not a nihilist. Cersei got the throne she wanted and held onto it...until she didn't because Martin understands a) her character flaws and b) that people never hold on to power forever anyway. Ramsay's goals just entail hurting people physically and psychologically because he gets off on it. He was pretty successful in doing that and it had an impact beyond his death too when you look at Theon. Arya and Sansa have generally been changed forever by the horrors they witnessed and those are somehow not lasting consequences?

Posts: 397
Joined: January 2019
Batfan175 wrote:
June 27th, 2019, 5:15 pm
Master Virgo wrote:
June 27th, 2019, 2:34 pm

I'm talking specifically about the villains. I mean any garbage Hollywood villain manages to get a casualty or two or rule somewhere at some point, but what about their ultimate goals. What was their success rate in that regard? Barely any. They all failed one by one. Where is the nuance in that?

NK, Cersei, Ramsay, Tywin, Joffry, Baelish, The Mountain, Walder Frey, Bolton, High Sparrow, even the mini villains like Tanner, Locke, Craster, Ser Alisser, Viserys or Daenerys herself when she turned into one, they all had one thing in common, they utterly failed in what they wanted to achieve the most and they died in what felt like very karmic story like ways.

Compare that to some of Marvel's best villains for instance. Thanos, Zemo, Killmonger, Pierce. All of them were at least to some degree successful and what they accomplished had lasting consequences. Not just casualties.

How is the bittersweet ending anything new here. In the end it was just another traditional story like all the others despite all the pretence.
So for it to not be traditional you just wanted the villains to win? That does not sound like a very interesting subversion. I could make a theory that says that Victarion Greyjoy is Azor Ahai but that would not be in keeping with the spirit of the story, which is anti-war and anti-violence. It's a fictional story with a moral core at the centre, which is why the villain does not get to win, as Martin's not a nihilist. Cersei got the throne she wanted and held onto it...until she didn't because Martin understands a) her character flaws and b) that people never hold on to power forever anyway. Ramsay's goals just entail hurting people physically and psychologically because he gets off on it. He was pretty successful in doing that and it had an impact beyond his death too when you look at Theon. Arya and Sansa have generally been changed forever by the horrors they witnessed and those are somehow not lasting consequences?
There are dictators who remained in power till they died. Stalin, Mao never paid the price for what they had done for example. Having like Dorne or something be ruled by a dictator would not have been nihilist but realist in the history sense of the word. That said, it remains much more realist than most other shows/films.
Also Drogon
is still alive, that's like finally impeaching DT but, then Bannon disappears with the nuclear bombs.
I think the fact that all the villains are eventually defeated has to do with the arc of Dany.
She freed Westeros, and maybe it was impossible to free Westeros without someone ready to do the dirty work. After all, in 1943/44/45, most of Europe was freed from Nazis by Stalin. Dany's success make her arc more ambiguous, and Jon's decision less right. The ambiguity of their dynamic in the last episode would be lost if Dany wasn't on the verge of finally implementing "the greater good" all over the world.

Posts: 54163
Joined: May 2010
Part I, here we go...


Posts: 4140
Joined: January 2012
Meh, I give this video a C- for effort but it is waayyy too reliant on memes that she found on reddit and she usually brings a lot more interesting analysis to the table and does not rely on blogs with out-of-context or quotes as her main sources and she makes some rather weird unfounded insinuations in this too (for example, how would she know that they decided to have 6 episodes in season 8 just so they could get to Star Wars when they have been talking about the 73 hour movie for literally years at this stage? I think the documentary that was released post-season 8 contradicts this assertion too). This makes her analysis seem rather sloppy and I usually expect better from her, even when I don't agree with her assessments all the time. The quality of this video, as a result, is rather disappointing, as it's mainly a simplistic recapitulation of the plot with added zingers. It's also weird that the people who hate the show have adopted Robert Baratheon as their mascot when the character represents tons of problems in both the show and the books. I also find it rather rich that she made a video on death of the author a while ago and now clings to old D&D quotes like they are absolutely essential to engaging with, and interpreting, the material.

Posts: 18854
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Season 8 of Game of Thrones is now the most nominated single season of television in the history of the medium.


-Vader

Posts: 54163
Joined: May 2010
Batfan175 wrote:
June 30th, 2019, 9:18 am
Meh, I give this video a C- for effort but it is waayyy too reliant on memes that she found on reddit and she usually brings a lot more interesting analysis to the table and does not rely on blogs with out-of-context or quotes as her main sources and she makes some rather weird unfounded insinuations in this too (for example, how would she know that they decided to have 6 episodes in season 8 just so they could get to Star Wars when they have been talking about the 73 hour movie for literally years at this stage? I think the documentary that was released post-season 8 contradicts this assertion too). This makes her analysis seem rather sloppy and I usually expect better from her, even when I don't agree with her assessments all the time. The quality of this video, as a result, is rather disappointing, as it's mainly a simplistic recapitulation of the plot with added zingers. It's also weird that the people who hate the show have adopted Robert Baratheon as their mascot when the character represents tons of problems in both the show and the books. I also find it rather rich that she made a video on death of the author a while ago and now clings to old D&D quotes like they are absolutely essential to engaging with, and interpreting, the material.
Triggered by any sort of criticism regarding this series? It’s just an opinion. Very highly regarded one but still.

Post Reply