Game of Thrones

[Flash]

 

[AZGAL]

HEAR YE! HEAR YE! King Bran...

 

[AZGAL]

pirates of the ol days...

 

[AZGAL]

 

[AZGAL]

Game of Thrones ending - Games Radar


The Game of Thrones ending is here and, after eight years, the whole thing is over. It's done.

 

[RWS]

The amount of complaining about the final season is laughable.

For 7 seasons there were twists and turns. In 6 episodes all those varied story lines had to be completed.

GoT is still, hands down, my favorite TV series. Epics in scale, and beautifully shot.

That would have been pretty cool. But I was wishing Tyrion took the throne. I did the way they ended it, with banter amongst our fav characterless. and fade out from there.

It seems like there wile be a sequel, instead of a prequel Or maybe both. Go Bronn!

 

[Flash]

 

[Flash]

 

[martybegan]

To be fair, before she died, Catelyn regretted how she treated Jon, because she wished he was with Robb to advise him.

Of course no Jon Snow in the Nights Watch means probably the Night king would have killed them all, so in the end it worked out.

And to be fair the fault of her not liking him can be traced to Ned not telling her who he really was.

 

[Flash]

To be fair, before she died, Catelyn regretted how she treated Jon, because she wished he was with Robb to advise him.

Of course no Jon Snow in the Nights Watch means probably the Night king would have killed them all, so in the end it worked out.

And to be fair the fault of her not liking him can be traced to Ned not telling her who he really was.

Ned did tell Jon the last time he saw him ( just before going off to the NW) that he would tell him about his mother the next time they met.

Of course that next meeting never happen.

I suspect that if he told Jon he would have told Catelyn.

What I don't understand is Ned told Cat that Jon was not the bastard child he had with a whore. He led her to believe it.

You would think that he would have trusted his wife and she would have understood the importance of never telling anybody else.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, it sucked pretty bad and I'm glad it's over. Meanwhile Thomas Harris finally has a new novel out

 

[miketx]

 

[Flash]

 

[theHawk]

This YouTuber correctly predicted Bran would be king:

 

[RWS]

was anyone not entertained?

all in all, the show is superb in its entirety and way better than most series today and I would probably have given it a solid ten out of ten had the ending not been so rushed.

p.s. Daenerys Targaryen becoming a white walker and marrying their king would have been quite an ending

Well said. I was hoping Dany would try to burn Tyrion as his death sentence, only to find out he's a Targarian and wont burn. And the true son of the mad king. But that didn't pan out.

It could have, if it lasted another season. Who's decision was it to make this last rushed season only 6 episodes? And piss so many people off? Peeps are blaming the writers, but the writers don't get to determine how many eps happen. So what entity made this show end abruptly . The writers of the show?

Or maybe HBO? I thank it was HBO. Too expensive to continue, and not enough profit from new watchers. They forced the writes to make it a short ending.

 

[RWS]

Because honestly, who decides to end a show?

The people writing the show? Who will lost their jobs?

Or the network, that decides it's not financially viable anymore.

The end of GOT in such a short manner, is to be blamed on HBO, and the lack of future profits. Monthly subscribers will start to leave.

They will turn out sequels and prequels, to get customers to come back, and new ones to join.

But the original was done, and they want to move forward with the new projects.

 

[rightwinger]

Because honestly, who decides to end a show?

The people writing the show? Who will lost their jobs?

Or the network, that decides it's not financially viable anymore.

The end of GOT in such a short manner, is to be blamed on HBO, and the lack of future profits. Monthly subscribers will start to leave.

They will turn out sequels and prequels, to get customers to come back, and new ones to join.

But the original was done, and they want to move forward with the new projects.

HBO wanted the show to continue indefinitely

It was the producers who pulled the plug

 

[Zorro!]

Vox: Daenerys was right to burn King’s Landing to establish a strong central government



“Scratch a progressive, find a fascist.”

Vox’s Matt Yglesias published a piece yesterday at Vox arguing that Daenerys was right to burn people alive in the city of King’s Landing because she needed to convince the entire kingdom not to question the dictates of a powerful central government.

Daenerys has an objective — to induce the Lords of Westeros to bend the knee and acknowledge her supremacy — and her attack on King’s Landing in “The Bells” was well-calibrated to achieve that objective. She had previously offered Queen Cersei the opportunity surrender, and Cersei refused — packing the city with civilians and ringing it with air defenses that pose a lethal threat to Drogon, Daenerys’s one remaining dragon. A combination of skilled piloting and poor marksmanship allowed Daenerys to overcome the city’s air defenses, destroy the Golden Company, and induce the Lannisters to attempt to surrender.
If Daenerys had simply allowed King’s Landing to surrender without consequences only after she evaded its air defenses, then every other recalcitrant lord in the Seven Kingdoms would have incentive to resist her. After all, it only takes a lucky shot or two to bring down the dragon — and the Queen riding him — and if she manages to burn your scorpions, you can always just surrender…
Making an example of King’s Landing was a harsh decision. It was a cruel decision. And it’s certainly a decision whose morality one could question. But it wasn’t a “crazy” decision or the act of a Mad Queen — it was a rational calculation based on a clear-eyed assessment of the strategic situation…
The only real consistent through-line in all of this is that Westeros’s great houses oppose the creation of an effective central government.
​

There is no point in arguing about a TV show with someone like Yglesias, or arguing with this clown about real life. But, for posterity, everything he has said here is wrong and would be monstrous if applied in the real world.

Burning tens of thousands of people alive, including women and children, is guaranteed to enrage the populace and cement the image of Daenerys as a foreign tyrant. She may be feared but she will also be hated from that point onward in a way she might not have been if she’d allowed the losers to surrender and executed Cersei (who everyone hated already).

The idea that napalming a city of a million people, most of them civilians, when they are trying to surrender on the grounds that it’ll teach others to respect the central government, that’s a pretty awful take.

 

[boedicca]

Vox: Daenerys was right to burn King’s Landing to establish a strong central government



“Scratch a progressive, find a fascist.”

Vox’s Matt Yglesias published a piece yesterday at Vox arguing that Daenerys was right to burn people alive in the city of King’s Landing because she needed to convince the entire kingdom not to question the dictates of a powerful central government.

Daenerys has an objective — to induce the Lords of Westeros to bend the knee and acknowledge her supremacy — and her attack on King’s Landing in “The Bells” was well-calibrated to achieve that objective. She had previously offered Queen Cersei the opportunity surrender, and Cersei refused — packing the city with civilians and ringing it with air defenses that pose a lethal threat to Drogon, Daenerys’s one remaining dragon. A combination of skilled piloting and poor marksmanship allowed Daenerys to overcome the city’s air defenses, destroy the Golden Company, and induce the Lannisters to attempt to surrender.
If Daenerys had simply allowed King’s Landing to surrender without consequences only after she evaded its air defenses, then every other recalcitrant lord in the Seven Kingdoms would have incentive to resist her. After all, it only takes a lucky shot or two to bring down the dragon — and the Queen riding him — and if she manages to burn your scorpions, you can always just surrender…
Making an example of King’s Landing was a harsh decision. It was a cruel decision. And it’s certainly a decision whose morality one could question. But it wasn’t a “crazy” decision or the act of a Mad Queen — it was a rational calculation based on a clear-eyed assessment of the strategic situation…
The only real consistent through-line in all of this is that Westeros’s great houses oppose the creation of an effective central government.
​

There is no point in arguing about a TV show with someone like Yglesias, or arguing with this clown about real life. But, for posterity, everything he has said here is wrong and would be monstrous if applied in the real world.

Burning tens of thousands of people alive, including women and children, is guaranteed to enrage the populace and cement the image of Daenerys as a foreign tyrant. She may be feared but she will also be hated from that point onward in a way she might not have been if she’d allowed the losers to surrender and executed Cersei (who everyone hated already).

The idea that napalming a city of a million people, most of them civilians, when they are trying to surrender on the grounds that it’ll teach others to respect the central government, that’s a pretty awful take.

I made a related point earlier in the thread: that it's rather ironic that the Leftwing Progs of Hollywood actually created a parable about how their utopian fantasies lead to totalitarian oppression and violent extermination of those who won't submit.

 

[Zorro!]

Vox: Daenerys was right to burn King’s Landing to establish a strong central government



“Scratch a progressive, find a fascist.”

Vox’s Matt Yglesias published a piece yesterday at Vox arguing that Daenerys was right to burn people alive in the city of King’s Landing because she needed to convince the entire kingdom not to question the dictates of a powerful central government.

Daenerys has an objective — to induce the Lords of Westeros to bend the knee and acknowledge her supremacy — and her attack on King’s Landing in “The Bells” was well-calibrated to achieve that objective. She had previously offered Queen Cersei the opportunity surrender, and Cersei refused — packing the city with civilians and ringing it with air defenses that pose a lethal threat to Drogon, Daenerys’s one remaining dragon. A combination of skilled piloting and poor marksmanship allowed Daenerys to overcome the city’s air defenses, destroy the Golden Company, and induce the Lannisters to attempt to surrender.
If Daenerys had simply allowed King’s Landing to surrender without consequences only after she evaded its air defenses, then every other recalcitrant lord in the Seven Kingdoms would have incentive to resist her. After all, it only takes a lucky shot or two to bring down the dragon — and the Queen riding him — and if she manages to burn your scorpions, you can always just surrender…
Making an example of King’s Landing was a harsh decision. It was a cruel decision. And it’s certainly a decision whose morality one could question. But it wasn’t a “crazy” decision or the act of a Mad Queen — it was a rational calculation based on a clear-eyed assessment of the strategic situation…
The only real consistent through-line in all of this is that Westeros’s great houses oppose the creation of an effective central government.
​

There is no point in arguing about a TV show with someone like Yglesias, or arguing with this clown about real life. But, for posterity, everything he has said here is wrong and would be monstrous if applied in the real world.

Burning tens of thousands of people alive, including women and children, is guaranteed to enrage the populace and cement the image of Daenerys as a foreign tyrant. She may be feared but she will also be hated from that point onward in a way she might not have been if she’d allowed the losers to surrender and executed Cersei (who everyone hated already).

The idea that napalming a city of a million people, most of them civilians, when they are trying to surrender on the grounds that it’ll teach others to respect the central government, that’s a pretty awful take.

I made a related point earlier in the thread: that it's rather ironic that the Leftwing Progs of Hollywood actually created a parable about how their utopian fantasies lead to totalitarian oppression and violent extermination of those who won't submit.

Utopians are murderers.