Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 02:01:51 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Game Of Thrones Season 8

Started by Dog Botherer, January 15, 2019, 06:13:03 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

NoSleep

Quote from: MiddleRabbit on May 17, 2019, 06:39:43 PM

In psychology, there's such a thing as 'creeping determinism' which I might be accused of but with statements such as, "I will take what is mine, with fire and blood I will take it", preceding someone taking what they thought was theirs with fire and blood, I don't really think it applies in this situation.

That's not how inevitability works. Just because you don't know about something doesn't put off it's inevitability. And, dramatically, concealing information (from the audience and/or characters) is often used. Doesn't lessen the inevitability of the inevitable if you don't see it coming.

QuoteOnce we knew about Roose and Tywin" - That's creeping determinism because you only found that out once it had happened.

No, no, no. It's new information about something that was inevitable regardless of who didn't know (in this case the audience and the Starks). Just because you don't see it coming doesn't make it any less inevitable, plus it will be inevitable that you will be surprised.

QuoteAh, there's the issue.  If something's inevitable, there's no 'might' about it, is there?

Except I'm talking about all possible surprise attacks; some will inevitably work whilst others are doomed to fail and some are touch and go.

colacentral

Quote from: MiddleRabbit on May 17, 2019, 07:22:14 PM
Why can't I get my head around it?  It's a good question.  A better question would be why the OED picked that as an example when, apparently, it's not a very good one.

Well, there you go. You brought that definition and example into it in the first place.

I think the root point of contention in this argument is that you believe that, because the writers said X happened and caused Dany to do Y, that in itself sufficient justification. But the writers can tell me that X means Y and I can still be unconvinced by it. For example, the idea that Missandei's death would push her Dany over the edge. I know that's what the writers want me to think, but I don't buy it, because we expect characters to have extreme reactions in the immediate aftermath of events. Let's say Missandei was kept as a hostage until the battle and killed there instead - then I could accept that as a catalyst for the destruction of King's Landing. The writers can't just tell me that Dany acted that way because this happened, then this, then that, and expect me to believe it. I understand, intellectually, why Dany burns everyone, because the writing is telling me; but I find the storytelling lazy and unconvincing.

Cause and effect isn't the entirety of what makes a story, otherwise we'd be satisfied with a second hand account of what happened from a mate telling us and wouldn't have to watch anything.

As a side note: I must have Star Wars on the mind as, thinking about it, it actually reminds me of Anakin's turn in Revenge of the Sith. Yes, we've been told that it's because his mum's dead, he doesn't like Obi Wan, etc. But is that enough to turn him from a moody teenager into someone who mercilessly kills a room full of children? I think no, but you can argue "well the film shows us he's a depressed nutter and that's the reason why." On paper it sounds believable but the reality is that the character never feels at any point like he's Darth Vader until the film tells you that apparently he is now.

Old Thrashbarg

Yes, I think that's exactly it. The way this and the last couple of series have played out just doesn't feel right. Because, whilst the actions of characters might fit with what have been shown to be their motivations and/or traits previously, we're just seeing bullet points. Like a child's story that jumps from plot point to plot point with with "and then... and then...". It's narratively unsatisfying, because it feels cheap, it feels like they're not writing the more complex, harder to tell, parts of the journey for the characters. We're just seeing the 'highlights' if their story. In fact, the last episode feels like the recap of a previous season or two that might be shown before an upcoming season.

Mister Six

Quote from: MiddleRabbit on May 17, 2019, 07:20:32 PM
Unsatisfying is subjective, isn't it?  I don't find it unsatisfying. 

You don't find what unsatisfying? Ned getting his head chopped off? Not getting his head chopped off?

QuoteLike a woman who said "I will take what is mine with fire and blood." taking what was hers with fire and blood five seasons later?

As I keep saying, the issue isn't that there's stuff from her past that might align with this turn, it's that the turn itself is poorly written and does not flow organically from what immediately preceded it. Basically what ColaCentral said a couple of posts up:

"I think the root point of contention in this argument is that you believe that, because the writers said X happened and caused Dany to do Y, that in itself sufficient justification. But the writers can tell me that X means Y and I can still be unconvinced by it. ... Cause and effect isn't the entirety of what makes a story, otherwise we'd be satisfied with a second hand account of what happened from a mate telling us and wouldn't have to watch anything."

You can lay out a bunch of bullet points for why you think this works, but at peak, the show didn't just have bullet points, it connected them fluidly and naturally in a way that allowed the story to flow to these peaks in which shocking decisions were made that nevertheless felt immediately (as opposed to on later examination of all the details) correct.

To some extent this is subjective, yes, but again - you are in the minority, so it's safe to say that the writers failed here, unless they wanted the majority of their viewers to feel confused/underwhelmed/disappointed.

QuoteI can't agree with you there.  You might quibble with the terminology but the fact that there was no hint at the Lannister - Frey pact until after it happened meant that it was impossible for anyone to have worked it out.

Well it's not a quibble because that is very definitely wrong, but it's certainly possible to believe that there might be some negative repercussions from Robb's actions, even if the details themselves remain hidden until just before the massacre. Frey is established as duplicitous and only concerned with what benefits him; Robb is warned before the wedding that the bannermen may betray him if they see him breaking selfishly breaking a pact between houses because of his own desires; Caitlyn says the same thing - these things are seeded, so that when the Rains of Castermere begins playing and Caitlyn sees the armour under Roose Bolton's clothes, none of it feels out of character. People might not be able to guess the specifics of a Frey-Lannister pact, but they might well expect bad things ahead. And when the twist is revealed it instantly makes sense given what occurred immediately following that scene, and farther back, as these threads were worked into the plot.

Not the case with Dany, because there's nothing immediately preceding the genocide to trigger her (it's been weeks at least since Hollyoaks got her noggin lopped), no suggestion that she would hold any of this against the people of King's Landing (just some talk about ruling by fear, but she did a grand job of that blowing everything up, and again that doesn't translate automatically to murdering innocents, especially given the way she's behaved up to that point), no suggestion why she doesn't just go fuck up Cersei straight away, to stop her from escaping (which she would have been able to do, were it not for circumstance/her own bloody-mindedness).

It's just 0-60 and a line about a coin toss, and let's hope that's enough. But it isn't, clearly.

QuoteNo it doesn't!  That's a logical fallacy: Argumentum ad popular i.e: it's not a logical argument.

Bollocks. Game of Thrones the biggest show in the world, and has been squarely aimed at a wide demographic. If a massive proportion of that demographic has trouble buying into the story being told - after years of being engrossed in it - then yes, the writers fucked up.

QuoteJaime's a complicated chap.  He wasn't always because he'd never met anybody like Brienne before.  The impression I got was that he went to Winterfell because he was moved by Brienne saying, "Fuck honour" at KL because he realised that, with the White Walker threat, family allegiances meant fuck all - which they did.  Once the White Walker threat was nullified, family matters again.  He was in love with Cersei, even though he knew it was bad.  He tried resisting it and he couldn't.  Maybe some people needed that spelling out for them, but I don't know why seeing as they've had Danaerys spelling it out what she was going to do and, apparently, they missed that.

You say "spelling out", I say "just writing it into the script at all". Let's call the whole thing off.

QuoteI see.  So when a character who had her respect and who advised her sensibly doesn't fit in with your previous statement that everybody she cared about died in the last two episodes, your response is that nobody gave a fuck about Barriston?  No.  You don't give a fuck about Barriston, she did because he was her link to Rhaegar, telling her about being nice and gentle.  Barrister's death doesn't suit your argument, so we discount him? 

No, we discount him because he died four years and three seasons ago, and Dany's psychopathic turn has only happened in the course of the last couple of episodes (at best). If anything, one would expect her to have gone man-mental when Barristan karked it and Jorah buggered off to get his rock skin cured, since she was two grizzled advisers down at that point, so it rather buggers up your argument.

QuoteMacro isn't scene to scene though, is it?  Macro is the whole thing.

Micro, then - there's no continuity of emotion or build-up from scene to scene. Macro, too - a few scattered references do little to justify this late-stage change.

mothman


Dr Sanchez

Middlerabbit, stop getting GOT wrong!.


Gulftastic

Leaving aside whether Dany's full heel turn was earned, I loved Grey Worm's angry face and desire to fuck xhit up.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

I agree with Mister Six's assessment.

The reaction is a mixture of it being what fans didn't want and it being executed in such a way that it feels almost degrading as a spectator.

However, I think it was so grotesque, degrading and horrific to watch it actually took on a new life of its own, becoming something genuinely new and interesting, a piece of art. It was a reminder that for about 4 seasons solid nothing positive happened, it was just pain, torture, rejection and gloom and so by the end I had made peace with the decision and look forward to the end episode.

People should disentangle what they want with what a story actually serves to deliver. In this case hideous shocking bloodthirsty destruction right at the point people were hoping for redemption and a conventional hero script. They totally fucked up the transition but my it takes balls to have ripped up the rug, set it on fire and thrown it over people's faces at the biggest moment and in the grandest way.

ZoyzaSorris

Quote from: mothman on May 18, 2019, 12:08:02 AM
It's about sociological versus psychological storytelling, apparently.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-real-reason-fans-hate-the-last-season-of-game-of-thrones/

Seems like a bit of a candidate for pseuds corner, a strange mixture of Reddit-level analysis (plenty of people have still enjoyed this series, whereas she histrionically claims it is the most terrible thing ever) with an unconvincing veneer of humanities professor on top. Basically she is just trying to put an unconvincing conceit on the fairly straightforward and common-sense observation that well-rounded characters are more engaging than straight black or white ones, and complex webs of intrigue have more depth than heroic action, and that GOT has always been at it's best when focusing on the former rather than the latter. it was inevitable (in the dictionary sense of the word) it would lose its way a little towards the end as good endings are exponentially harder to put together than good beginnings. 

Plenty of people are still enjoying it, they are just a lot less vocal than the TV-Tropes*-generation bulbs going about plot holes as though the definition now is 'a bit of the plot I didn't understand and/or like'.

*fucking hell, visited that grave of a place for the first time in years, what a stain on humanity.

NoSleep

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on May 18, 2019, 09:20:08 AMThey totally fucked up the transition but my it takes balls to have ripped up the rug, set it on fire and thrown it over people's faces at the biggest moment and in the grandest way.

Or a thick hide and a promise of jumping on the Star Wars franchise immediately.

sevendaughters

that Scientific American piece's premise lost me at the idea that TV that is able to investigate & explore the complexities of institutions and groups is rare - when that has generally been its strength, particularly if you look beyond the US (though even they have The Wire, Mad Men, Handmaid's Tale, etc.)

what it speaks to is a vocal group of people feel motivated to try and explain in new ways the decline of Game of Thrones; I just say that it is really hard to do and we should be thankful for the good stuff and use the contemporary version show as a starting point to think about what you could do, instead of accepting the enclosure of an ending.

Mister Six

#1031
Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on May 18, 2019, 09:20:08 AM
People should disentangle what they want with what a story actually serves to deliver. In this case hideous shocking bloodthirsty destruction right at the point people were hoping for redemption and a conventional hero script. They totally fucked up the transition but my it takes balls to have ripped up the rug, set it on fire and thrown it over people's faces at the biggest moment and in the grandest way.

I don't think anyone here is bothered by the existence of the twist (I certainly am not - I've always thought Dany was awful, and guessed after the Night's King karked it that she might be the great darkness that the prince who was promised was supposed to stop) - people seem to be more bothered about the execution, and the feeling that the turn from a bit mardy to deranged mass murderer wasn't psychologically convincing.

Alberon

Quote from: Mister Six on May 18, 2019, 02:03:04 PM
I don't think anyone here is bothered by the existence of the twist (I certainly am not - I've always thought Dany was awful, and guessed after the Night's King marked it that she might be the great darkness that the prince who was promised was supposed to stop) - people seem to be more bothered about the execution, and the feeling that the turn from a bit mardy to deranged mass murderer wasn't psychologically convincing.

Exactly. The groundwork for it is there in the books and in the TV show. But the absurd gallop through at least two seasons of material in six episodes robs it of any believability.

dallasman

Has this been posted?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i0a7RDPkM8

QuoteWatch as Game Of Thrones creator Dan Weiss, Tom Morello of Audioslave/Rage Against The Machine, Scott Ian of Anthrax, Nuno Bettencourt of Extreme, Brad Paisley, and Game Of Thrones composer Ramin Djawadi shred on the all-new Sigil Collection Guitars from The Fender Custom Shop.

They JAM OUT on the theme tune, and it sounds exactly like you imagine. RD and DW both take solos. Perfect celebration of where the series's at, as I could appreciate both the kitsch and the craftmanship.

Dr Sanchez

D&D trying to stick the landing.


Piggyoioi

Quote from: Dr Sanchez on May 18, 2019, 04:26:46 PM
D&D trying to stick the landing.



They already got the big Star Wars deal right? I imagine they've already jumped out the plane with their dollar stitched parachutes.

Dog Botherer

Quote from: Piggyoioi on May 18, 2019, 04:41:31 PM
They already got the big Star Wars deal right? I imagine they've already jumped out the plane with their dollar stitched parachutes.

There's a lot of talk about how the Star Wars thing was a done deal years ago and contributed to D&D announcing that there would only be 8 seasons of the show no matter what, resulting in them blasting through about 4 seasons worth of plot in about 13 episodes and severely tarnishing their legacy as showrunners as the dollar signs flashed in their eyes.

Nothing confirmed, of course.

MiddleRabbit

Quote from: Mister Six on May 17, 2019, 11:49:15 PM
You don't find what unsatisfying? Ned getting his head chopped off? Not getting his head chopped off?

I don't find any of it unsatisfying.  Well, not much.  Bits and pieces here and there have been a bit weak, but not the major events.

Quote from: Mister Six on May 17, 2019, 11:49:15 PM
As I keep saying, the issue isn't that there's stuff from her past that might align with this turn, it's that the turn itself is poorly written and does not flow organically from what immediately preceded it. Basically what ColaCentral said a couple of posts up:

"I think the root point of contention in this argument is that you believe that, because the writers said X happened and caused Dany to do Y, that in itself sufficient justification. But the writers can tell me that X means Y and I can still be unconvinced by it. ... Cause and effect isn't the entirety of what makes a story, otherwise we'd be satisfied with a second hand account of what happened from a mate telling us and wouldn't have to watch anything."

You can lay out a bunch of bullet points for why you think this works, but at peak, the show didn't just have bullet points, it connected them fluidly and naturally in a way that allowed the story to flow to these peaks in which shocking decisions were made that nevertheless felt immediately (as opposed to on later examination of all the details) correct.

To some extent this is subjective, yes, but again - you are in the minority, so it's safe to say that the writers failed here, unless they wanted the majority of their viewers to feel confused/underwhelmed/disappointed.

You don't buy it, I get it.  I might be getting this wrong but it seems that you wanted things to go a particular way/pace and when they haven't done that, it's crap. 

Perhaps it comes down to expectations.  I read 'rushed' a lot and I don't think it is.  It's a bit like evolution: people tend to think that it's a really gradual process and it's not.  Mutated features that give the organism an advantage tend to have a very rapid effect on the surrounding population.  And then nothing happens for a long time.  Evolution is inevitable but it's not predictable because of the nature of mutations.  You might point out the nature of the environment and suggest changes that might be beneficial, but that's not how it works.  And what's more organic than evolution? 

And being in the minority only makes me wrong in a popularity contest.  Statements like that detract from your argument.  A lot of what you're saying is reasonable, if a bit blinkered, but that's not because it has no bearing on the issue we're discussing.


Quote from: Mister Six on May 17, 2019, 11:49:15 PM
Well it's not a quibble because that is very definitely wrong, but it's certainly possible to believe that there might be some negative repercussions from Robb's actions, even if the details themselves remain hidden until just before the massacre. Frey is established as duplicitous and only concerned with what benefits him*; Robb is warned before the wedding that the bannermen may betray him if they see him breaking selfishly breaking a pact between houses because of his own desires; Caitlyn says the same thing - these things are seeded, so that when the Rains of Castermere begins playing and Caitlyn sees the armour under Roose Bolton's clothes, none of it feels out of character. People might not be able to guess the specifics of a Frey-Lannister pact, but they might well expect bad things ahead. And when the twist is revealed it instantly makes sense given what occurred immediately following that scene, and farther back, as these threads were worked into the plot.

I think that's a bit of a selective viewing with some careful wording.  It's certainly possible to view events in terms of those, ahem, bullet points.  Another way of looking at it could be to say that it's a bit like some of those Agatha Christie whodunnits that you can't possibly guess whodunnit because key information is kept from you, such as the Frey, Bolton, Lannister secret alliance.  The part that you're delicately treading around isn't that there would be repercussions, it's the scale of the repercussions.  A broken marriage vow made under duress and compensation and public apologies offered and the repercussions are what they are?  That escalated quickly, as the kids might still say. 

And it did seem out of character, Frey suddenly getting his hands dirty.  When had that ever happened before?  Which is why he had to have backing from the Lannisters and the Boltons.  Which we found out about when Roose finished Robb off.  I don't mind that, I enjoyed it.  Had we found out about the secret alliance beforehand, the surprise of the Red Wedding would have been diminished.  Which is why we didn't get to find out until it was too late.  Like Robb, with whom we were encouraged to sympathise with. 

Which you could apply to the Dany story.  If Robb's broken vow was always going to lead to Frey's repercussions, that was just one event causing another.  Dany's was death by a million cuts and the situation presented itself.  She's been dead keen on torching people who don't do what she says they should since season 1.  Add everything else up that she's been through and I have no more issue with her reaching the end of her tether than I did about Frey reaching the end of his. 

*Frey is established as duplicitous and only concerned with what benefits him  This line leapt out at me and made me wonder whether you were also being duplicitous and self serving, disingenuous or just reductive.  Frey is, of course.  But who isn't?  Robb?  Cat?  Bolton?  Cersei?  Jaime?  Tywin?  Tyrion?  Arya?  Sansa?  They're all duplicitous and self serving.  Even Ned was, in terms of Jon, and in terms of writing King Robert's will.  This is what I mean about paying attention to characters and maybe a lot of people don't, I don't know.  People aren't always predictable and how they behave isn't always inevitable.  Unless they're two dimensional cardboard cutouts and I don't think they are here.  Not most of them, anyway.

Quote from: Mister Six on May 17, 2019, 11:49:15 PM
Not the case with Dany, because there's nothing immediately preceding the genocide to trigger her (it's been weeks at least since Hollyoaks got her noggin lopped), no suggestion that she would hold any of this against the people of King's Landing (just some talk about ruling by fear, but she did a grand job of that blowing everything up, and again that doesn't translate automatically to murdering innocents, especially given the way she's behaved up to that point), no suggestion why she doesn't just go fuck up Cersei straight away, to stop her from escaping (which she would have been able to do, were it not for circumstance/her own bloody-mindedness).

It's just 0-60 and a line about a coin toss, and let's hope that's enough. But it isn't, clearly.

Bollocks. Game of Thrones the biggest show in the world, and has been squarely aimed at a wide demographic. If a massive proportion of that demographic has trouble buying into the story being told - after years of being engrossed in it - then yes, the writers fucked up.

Nothing to trigger Dany?  I'm not going to convince you, am I?  We all know what's happened, I don't need to list everything again.  People tend not to build up to losing the plot, not so you'd notice.  Things tend to build up and it tends not to be major issues that trigger psychotic episodes either, it tends to be a build up of little hassles that finally lead to an explosion as the straw breaks the camel's back.  Had we been shown her, I don't know, burning a small village that rejected her in Essos, that'd have been too much insight and would have been predictable, as well as being an unrealistic portrayal of someone's descent into insanity.  Is she insane?  Of course she is, but you're not going to have seen the extent of it until the end, are you?  Where do you go from that?

Why didn't she just go after Cersei?  I don't know the precise nature of her motivations but I can come up with some reasonable ones.  She wanted to scare her, you know, "I'll kill you last!" sort of thing.  She could have thought "Right, if you're surrendering, where are you?"  and thought Cersei might have done the noble thing and said, "Oh don't kill all these innocent people, here I am, kill me instead."  She might have thought that there was no point fucking about pussyfooting around a load of these ungrateful plebs who have, let's face it, been a fucking pain in the arse since day one.

I don't know.  It could be any of those things or something else.  Maybe we'll find out on Monday the precise nature of it but even if we don't, and I think we will, there's enough reasonable possibilities to account for it.


Quote from: Mister Six on May 17, 2019, 11:49:15 PM
No, we discount him because he died four years and three seasons ago, and Dany's psychopathic turn has only happened in the course of the last couple of episodes (at best). If anything, one would expect her to have gone man-mental when Barristan karked it and Jorah buggered off to get his rock skin cured, since she was two grizzled advisers down at that point, so it rather buggers up your argument.

As I've said, that's how psychotic episodes manifest themselves.  She's had her moments before and they're escalating in severity.  People like Selmy can't be discounted because they're her connection with a peaceful, decent Targaryen who cared for the small folk.   His death was just another brick in the wall.  She didn't go la-la at the point of Selmy's death or Jorah's greyscale, no?  Why not?  She doesn't go berserk at the moment of her friends' deaths.  How have you not noticed that?  None of her moments of brutal 'justice' have followed that.  She's done that when she's not received the reverence she believes she's entitled to.   On the other hand - ice and fire symbolism alert - that's exactly what Jon's triggers are.  When someone close to him is killed, or is about to be killed, he loses the plot.  Running towards Rickon was suicidal.  Shouting at a Dragon because Bran was in trouble was suicidal. 

Ice and fire, innit?  Jon's neurotic, Dany's psychotic. 

I think you've got a solid idea of what plotting should be, what's buggering up your argument is your lack of attention to character.   

Quote from: Mister Six on May 17, 2019, 11:49:15 PM
Micro, then - there's no continuity of emotion or build-up from scene to scene. Macro, too - a few scattered references do little to justify this late-stage change.

I think this is an interesting point.  It's difficult to see the big picture at the same time as focusing on the details, and focusing on the details makes the bigger picture harder to see.

Ultimately, it's not working for you and I can dig that.  Having read your comments, it's interesting to get an articulate viewpoint that's different to mine and it's also illuminating as to how we reached different conclusions from the same material.   I think we're both in similar boats too.  It's not working for you when it used to, so it must be doing something different and therefore wrong.  I get that.  There're different ways of seeing and that's what interests me. 

colacentral

QuoteThings tend to build up and it tends not to be major issues that trigger psychotic episodes either, it tends to be a build up of little hassles that finally lead to an explosion as the straw breaks the camel's back

There is no straw.

chveik


NoSleep

All this talk about psychological conditions that affect people on Earth. How do they cure Greyscale on Earth?

MiddleRabbit

Quote from: colacentral on May 18, 2019, 05:30:33 PM
There is no straw.

Course there is.  Cersei didn't come out and prostrate herself at her feet and the small folk didn't overthrow her when she'd beaten them. 

The bells mean surrender?  Where was Cersei then?  She didn't look like she'd surrendered to me.  The people had.  Why kill them, then?  To show everybody who's boss, whether they like it or not.

The postman doesn't deliver the giro, the husband takes it out in the wife, the wife takes it out in the kids, the kids take it out in the dog, who bites the postman who doesn't deliver the giro.

It's what happens, isn't it?

MiddleRabbit

Quote from: NoSleep on May 18, 2019, 06:00:35 PM
All this talk about psychological conditions that affect people on Earth. How do they cure Greyscale on Earth?

Are you suggesting that Greyscale is a psychological condition?   Mind you, I also note that these strange creatures on the telly die when their heads come off too.  It's almost as if they're human, isn't it?

NoSleep

Greyscale is a made up physical condition from another world. Just pointing out the the futility of fathoming Targaryen madness.

NoSleep

Quote from: MiddleRabbit on May 18, 2019, 06:10:03 PM
Mind you, I also note that these strange creatures on the telly die when their heads come off too.

Another dramatic device of the writers.

Gulftastic

Quote from: MiddleRabbit on May 18, 2019, 06:10:03 PM
Are you suggesting that Greyscale is a psychological condition?   Mind you, I also note that these strange creatures on the telly die when their heads come off too.  It's almost as if they're human, isn't it?

The psychological aspect of the disease manifests as a needs to pull your sleeve up and look at the infected bit every time no one is around

NoSleep

What if, just before the Night King was stabbed, he possessed Bran? And then, at King's Landing, Night Bran wargs into Drogon and kills a bunch of civilians.

mjwilson

Wouldn't make any sense.
(And yes I know lots of people think that what we saw didn't make sense either. But this makes even less sense.)

Poobum

Why not just have Rhaegal killed during the battle and have the King's Landing folk cheer, why not one of the many ways this could have been satisfying?

Thomas

I've been enjoying this truncated series of Medieval Tekken, but the more intelligent criticism I read the more I do find myself thinking 'oh yeah, shame that'.

Quote from: Poobum on May 19, 2019, 12:16:03 PM
Why not just have Rhaegal killed during the battle and have the King's Landing folk cheer, why not one of the many ways this could have been satisfying?

Good idea that.