Amph Game Of Thrones (uh i guess it's done now? Edit: No!)

Erm

Arya was supposed to be mad about the note's content. She could still agree that Littlfinger was trying to manipulate them while simultaneously being genuinely angry about what she read. I already raised that possibility in this discussion. Logically, in fact, it's a lot more likely than her magically deciding not to be upset just because someone showed it to her to set her off. Things are either hurtful or they are not. If Arya was hurt by what she read, she's probably still going to be hurt after the fact.

Unless of course the family dealt with it. Which probably would have been nice to see.

At the bottom of it is this. You and others can call me a troll all you want. But at least I'm willing to try to give my attention beyond 5 minutes that aren't packed with adrenaline and/or testosterone. At least I'm trying to take an actual interest in the characters and what happens to them, not just cheer for a big stupid computer generated spectacle. You don't think it'd be a lot easier to ignore the story and just look for some mindless images to watch like a screensaver while I munch on popcorn? Sorry for trying to take the narrative seriously on its own terms.

 

IMO we saw as much as we needed to in their final scene together. After learning more following their discussions, Arya had a greater empathy for Sansa's past situation. We didn't need to see those discussions bcs we the audience already knew Sansa's history. We already emphasised with her. It was just a matter of the Stark kids getting together & bringing each other up to speed on things. If you'd prefer to've seen that on screen then fair enough. However it's too easy to change one element in the story & not consider the effect on others. There was nothing difficult about choosing to show those scenes of resolution between Arya & Sansa. That's easy. It was a dramatic/narrative choice not to due to the effect it would have on Litttefinger's demise. They chose one option. You're free to prefer the other. However, if we were shown the Starks making up & exposing Littlefinger, pls explain how you would depict Baelish's comeuppance in a way that would still be as tense & engaging.
If you want to keep putting on your showrunner's hat to criticise, at least put in on properly. These are the sort of choices & trade-offs that you'd be faced with.

 

Why does Littlefinger's "come uppance" need to be tense and engaging?* Why and how does that imperative exist?

Maybe instead of playing it as a TWIST, it could have been played straight to show Sansa's growing maturity and competence as a leader. That would have convinced me of her intelligence far more than having her point out that people need food when it's cold outside.

*It wasn't really, by the way. There was no "tension" about what was going ot happen once Sansa announced who was under suspicion. It was just surprising, because the show had dedicated itself to pointlessly misdirecting the viewer instead of telling the actual story. But yes, assuming you meant "surprising" I don't see why it ever needed to be. Things are allowed to just happen without trying to make them a huge shock. This isn't M Night Shamalan.

 

Darth Downunder, you have explained it all absolutely perfectly. I don't see how one could argue back after all of this.

 

Put another way:

What are the consequences of a non-twist execution? Does it change the story at all? No. It's ten seconds of "excitement" at best.

What are the consequences of not fully understanding the motives of our main characters, because key emotional moments occurred off screen? Potentially huge, as it's harder to make sense of subsequent actions. Especially if those actions require nuance.

I understand this was a narrative choice. An idiotic one that favored unneeded "twists" over the actual story. That's why I'm criticizing.

 

It doesn't have to be but it's far more interesting than your alternative. It also mirrors Baelish's many treacheries, such as his surprise betrayal of Ned also in a throne room & involving a dagger.

Play it straight? Ok, let's walk through this. So the Starks get together & have a thrilling conversation where they recount their various adventures, which we as the audience already know. This gives Arya & Sansa new perspectives on each other & they reach an understanding. The conversation also exposes Littlefinger & his manipulations including his past crimes against their family. We then see Baelish sentenced to death & executed. I'm almost falling asleep describing this. What a dull anticlimactic end for that character! We're robbed of any surprise at Baelish coming unstuck, & also Sansa outpointing him & publicly turning the tables. The scenario just plays out with mind-numbing predictability. Even your wall eating dragon idea was better than this.

There was enough information, both stated & implied in both the Baelish trial scene & especially the final scene between S&A to deduce what was said between them.

 

It's kind of a sad indictment on television when discussions about a show are far more interesting and entertaining than the show itself.

 

So...

If the remaining main characters die... how??

My ideas:

Jon - injuries while killing the Night King
Daenerys - she orders her dragons to go "Dracarys" on Jon in a betrayal, they roast her instead ... or Jorah kills her after she's starting to go insane
Sansa - Wights kill her while invading Winterfell, or Arya kills her
Arya - blows self up along with Cersei and King's Landing, or while fighting the White Walkers
Bran - sacrifices his body while attempting something mystical
Cersei - while giving birth (therefore Jaime does kill her, indirectly), or killed when Zombie-Dragon attacks her sitting on the Iron Throne
Jaime - fighting the Zombie-Dragon alongside Brienne
Tyrion - Daenerys orders her dragons to "Dracarys" him, or is killed by Cersei after she's lost everything and they're alone on some battlefield
Theon - gives his life rescuing his sister
Euron - goes down with his burning ship
Yara - maybe already killed by Euron

Robyn - thrown through the Moon Door
Brienne - fighting the Zombie-Dragon alongside Jaime and the Hound
Jorah - fighting Wights, or kills himself after feeling forced to kill an insane Daenerys
Davos - fighting Wights
Hound - fighting Zombie-Dragon
Mountain - fighting the Hound
Qyburn - burned by wildfire
Gendry - fighting wights
Edmure - maybe already dead?
Pod - fighting Wights while saving Tyrion or Brienne
Sam - fighting Wights for Gilly and little Sam
Gilly - fighting Wights for her son
Varys - burned by Daenerys, or killed by Sansa/Arya
Missandei - at the hands of Wights
Grey Worm - fighting Wights
Lyanna Mormont - fighting Wights
Beric - saving someone from Zombie-Dragon
Tormund - fighting Wights
Edd - fighting Wights
Melisandre - by Arya or by Zombie-Dragon
Hot Pie - by Wights
Meera Reed - by Wights
Bronn - by Zombie-Dragon
Archmaester - by Zombie-Dragon


Anyone else have ideas?


And characters I'd be not just sad, but upset, to see die:
any of the Targaryen/Starks, Brienne/Pod, Jorah, Davos, Bronn, Hound, Gendry, Gilly, Missandei, Lyanna Mormont, Hot Pie, Meera

 

That's a lot of deaths. I can't handle it.

 

1. Learning more of what, exactly? She saw her sister screaming and crying when Joffrey ordered their father executed. It obviously wasn't a happy situation. So, to recycle your old complaint, there wasn't really "new information" for Arya here either. What would she hear that makes her so newly sympathetic when she wasn't before? And what makes her willing to listen in the first place?

2. Why are you sequencing them like that? I'd handle Littlefinger before Arya ever arrives at Winterfell. One scene is soon after Sansa starts to run things alone. She's delivering justice and ruling on a number of cases (robbery, etc). After one such pronouncement, she says that she wants to address another major crime. She then lays out the fact that Littlefinger murdered her Aunt, a noble woman, and has him executed for that fact. It's perfectly justified, and shows her as a more effective/insightful ruler than many, who relied on him to their own regret. Arya can arrive at Winterfell and they can have a reconciliation that has nothing to do with him.There are many other alternatives to doing this.

3. Your standard here is a dumb one. Probably the most praised--and legitimately best--scene in that entire final episode was the discussion between Tyrion and Cersei. This is true even though they were both going over information we've both known for a long time and was never secret in the first place. Or what about Dany and Davos talking about the life experiences of the two rulers? Ned confronting Cersei with the truth about her children? Acting is more than swinging fake swords at a green screen. Seeing how characters feel and think can be compelling all on its own. It should be, if writers put any effort into things. Even if there are no big shocking "twists" in the process.

Only looking for new "spoilers" and "shocking moments" is an incredibly small-minded way to understand anything. Just go buy the Cliff Notes after the fact. It's not real engagement with a story, let alone the medium.

Speaking of, Ghost: I don't care how every single character on the show dies. It doesn't really matter to me if a zombie human or a zombie dragon murders someone. What does that even imply? Am I supposed to take some differing emotional import from that? Really? It's not even that it's macabre. It's just mind-numbing.

 

Terrible. Really just amateur-hour storytelling. Sansa had just a couple of episodes earlier sent an appeal to Baelish to bring the Knights of the Vale to save the day. Which he did. If it weren't for him the North would be lost, the Boltons would occupy Winterfell, Jon would be dead & Sansa would be back in the clutches of Ramsay. Do you think it's in character for Sansa, or any Stark to execute someone under those circumstances? After you've sent them a plea for help & they've answered & saved your life? Is that what Ned would do? Sansa may think he's a slimy weasel but she concedes in one of the earlier episodes that without him everything would be lost. Your idea would've been completely out of character for her. No, Baelish had partially restored his standing. Sure he was loathed by Sansa & Jon but they acknowledged the help he provided. He'd been given one last chance. So to justify killing him further crimes & indiscretions were needed.

Indeed, yet the most important revelation was a new one. Cersei allowing Tyrion to discover that she's pregnant, thereby making her false co-operative attitude more believable. I can't see any comparably vital revelation during the Sansa-Arya chat. What you seem to have missed is that Arya's concern about Sansa was all about her loyalty to their family. This suspicion was based on the note combined with Sansa's weak objections to those Lords who were denigrating Jon, & most importantly her possibly being under the influence of Littlefinger. This concern about Littlefinger was made plain by the looks Arya was giving him & her following & spying on him. So the whole issue Arya had with Sansa wasn't "hatred" as you mentioned earlier, it was mistrust. Clearly the fact that in the end Arya saw Sansa put her family first & execute Baelish was itself significant enough to allay her concerns. That & hearing the full story of Sansa's tortuous past few years. The final scene, where Arya says there's no way she could've survived Sansa's experiences makes it clear that Arya had been brought up to speed. The important information is all there. You just don't appear able to see it. I think your extreme desire to find fault & then come here to complain is blinding to you to these obvious elements within the story. It's then left to us to explain this show to you. Without so much as a thankyou.

 

1. Ned Stark believed in justice. He got into a huge feud with the man that made him Hand, just because of the principle of not attacking children. He accepted the personal shame of having bastard rather than reveal the secret of a family that burned his older brother alive. He absolutely would not let someone get away with the murder of a Paramount Lady of the Seven Kingdoms (one of the top 10 most powerful positions in literally the whole civilization) just because the murderer personally saved him. That's idiotic.

But while we're talking about things that Ned would never do, you know what comes to mind? Holding an elaborate ceremony to pretend he was executing his own sibling just as a "twist" to kill one of his former advisors instead. Congratulations on having zero understanding of either character. Is there a Michael Bay movie somewhere you need to catch?

2. Let's walk through your Sansa/Arya analysis again. Arya's issue is mistrust. Fine. So how is Sansa executing Baelish "putting family first?" She just discovered that Petyr planted evidence to inspire her sister to murder her. If that's the case, then executing Littlefinger will most of all protect herself, Sansa Stark. Family has nothing to do with it, or is incidental at best.

How is this reassuring? "At first I thought Sansa was self-centered and power-hungry but now that she murdered someone that threatened her I guess I changed my mind."

. . .

Great logic. Award-winning.

 

So, if Martin's novels ever reach a point where a Dragon is turned into zombie dragon by the White Walker / Others, you're saying it's going to be a nibbly dragon with no breath-related powers?

I really don't think Nibbles the Zombie Dragon is anywhere near as dramatic as Zombie Dragon breathing ice flames.

 

once you make a dragon undead, he has to breathe some kind of ice fire.

i think yankee is contesting that Martin won't have an undead dragon at all. i'll take the bet but it will likely never be resolved or be like 10 years away.

 

Sigh. Guys. King Kong. Baragon. Mothra.

Giant monsters are a tremendous threat unto themselves. There have been a good dozen films dedicated to watching them lay waste to everything around them without ever shooting anything. The action is convincing, and audiences have found it exciting. What is wrong with you? Where did we make up this stupid rule that nothing means anything unless it shoots fire? Can we please get a grip? Please? Nothing I'm saying is new or hard to figure out? Are you all just pyromaniacs or is your imagination that limited that you can't figure out how to imagine a monster absent fire? Ye gods.

 

if you are to mention a dragon to someone, it's not its size that is the first thing that springs to mind (despite their size), its their ability to breathe fire. to deprive an undead dragon from its key ability, is to take something very special away. and why would anyone want to do that, particularly when this is a visual medium we're talking about?

yankee's idea about capturing a live dragon at least resolves this, but beyond that, if you have an undead dragon you simply must have it breath some kind of equivalent version of its live self. you not only deprive the audience of a visual treat, but you deprive the creature itself of a lot of its own power. and why would you? because something something technicality something something

 

Erm, I'm pretty sure one of Godzilla's key abilities that everyone expects to see is the Atomic Breath...

 

1. Which is why I didn't mention Godzilla

2. That's very parochial. A huge number of legends about dragons don't involve fire at all.

3. Because maybe having limitations is interesting. It can surprise viewers, create tension by binding viewers in the "rules" of the world and force writers towards creative new solutions.

But sure. Let's do the most obvious, stupid thing. This story is for 12 year old boys and they are going to change the channel unless there's an explosion or a topless woman soon. END GAME

 

I mean, sure, Godzilla was only the progenitor of every giant monster movie ever made but let's leave him out as the original, I guess?

 

What is your argument? If fire was the key element to people finding these exciting, the others would shoot fire too. They don't. And he does so only occasionally.

Or what about all the myths of non-firebreathing giant animals. People clearly find the idea intriguing without this bell/whistle of yours.

 

Dp4m: 1. Jabba-wocky: 0.

 

If I may

Dragons in ASOIAF are animals and they behave like animals. They are not as intelligent as humans, they think differently, they exhibit instinctual behavior such as hunting, and they die of injury, illness and old age. They have fantastic abilities-- obviously fire breathing is the primary thing. However, the fire breathing is presumably governed by some sort of biological process. Wights are dead. All biological processes have ceased; they have no heartbeats, they do not breathe, they do not think. They are just thralls of the Others held upright with magic until that magic is disrupted or the bodies get too mutilated (no dancing skeletons). Even the other demonstrated method of resurrection diminishes the people it brings back. So I'm skeptical that a wight dragon would still be able to breathe fire or whatever. Could the Others' magic somehow replace the fire with... er, really cold air I guess? Sure, it's possible, but there's zero evidence of this in the narrative (yes, there's mention of ice dragons but I strongly suspect they're in the same realm as sea dragons/Bran the Builder/Night's King and will never appear). I think the show got the idea from this silly piece of fan art c. season 6. Yes, it's fan art, not official material.





Like yankee8255 I'm unsure if the Others will be able to get their hands on a dragon at all. They don't even need one; there are other, probably easier ways to bring down or bypass the Wall. I also agree that Dragonbinder is more likely to take away a dragon from Dany.

 

I think that provides the answer. The wight-dragon does not breathe fire of the same type as a living dragon. It emits some kind of freaky blue White Walker infused fire. Therefore we can surmise that the Night King's magic is having an effect & extending his fire breathing ability after death. Is there anything definitive that precludes the NK from having this ability? From a storytelling perspective, what kind of pathetic lame-ass dragon would it be if it couldn't breathe fire, which is the defining characteristic of any dragon. What use would it be against the other two dragons who can breathe fire? You'd be left with Wocky's idea of Bitey the Sharp-Toothed Dragon.

Have you actually watched this show? That Paramount Lady had seconds earlier tried to throw Sansa through that same moon door. Prior to that she'd been acting completely insane & making jealous accusations & threats towards her. Baelish distracted Lysa before she could kill Sansa, then dropped her to her death. Hardly surprising that Sansa would let slide the death of a crazy woman who was a grave threat to her life. After finding out that Baelish had helped kill Joffrey, it would understandably add to Sansa's (false) image that Littlefinger had portrayed. That of a guy who takes extreme measures to protect her. It would not be until later following the Ramsay fiasco that she'd lose faith in Baelish.

You're right, he wouldn't. Bcs he had absolutely no concept of guile. Everything was black & white to him & he played it all completely straight. That's why he's dead. If he'd used some intelligent tactics in the way he tried to reveal the truth about Joffrey things could've been different. If Sansa had taken his type of approach with Littlefinger, where he's given warning about what was to come he no doubt would've escaped or turned the tables on her. Like Sansa said, she'd learned some valuable lessons from him.

You're digging a deeper hole for yourself here. The key part of Arya's mistrust was that Sansa had fallen under the influence of Littlefinger. That was made patently obvious by the attention Arya gave to him. Sansa doing the right thing (in Arya's mind) & killing him clearly dispensed with that concern. And yet again as their final scene conveyed, Arya had learnt all about Sansa's various ordeals in their discussions. It's all there if you pay attention.

But yes, we should walk through your story idea again. Which was to have Sansa execute Baelish early in the season before Arya had shown up. Let's see how that would work. Last season we saw Sansa & Brienne meet with Baelish. Keep in mind this is after she'd escaped from Ramsay & suffered through all of his torment. Also a very long time after the Lysa incident in the Vale. Baelish was unarmed & Sansa was furious with him. He conceded that he'd made mistakes & gave her permission to have Brienne execute him then & there. Sansa relented & instead told him to leave. So at that point she didn't see enough cause to have him killed. Shortly after that she writes to him asking for aid at Winterfell. He arrives with his army & saves all of their lives & the North from the tyranny of the Boltons. So keeping that sequence of events in mind, your idea is for Sansa after Littlefinger's intervention at Winterfell to just suddenly out of the blue execute him with no further reasons?? Is this your example of "good writing" that you're always harping on about? Sorry but that's abysmal nonsensical storytelling. The show would've rightly been torn to shreds if it served up that tripe.
When it comes to story writing you're expertly demonstrating that old adage: "Those who can - do. Those who can't - criticise".

 

The point you're missing is that it's not a dragon anymore. It's a wight.

You don't refer to the dead humans in the Army of the Dead as humans anymore, do. you? Do you expect them to do things humans can, like forge weapons or do math?

 

It's a dragon-wight. None us can presume to know the rules for such a creature. It's probably an unprecedented event even in-universe. I'm surprised people are making a big deal about this. We've seen wights with no muscles on their bones still running around. How is that "logical?" Yet we can't except a magical dragon-wight breathing blue fire. Any chance that just maybe a creature that's evolved to emit fire can still do so as a wight? With the help of some WW magic? I mean we've also seen that wights are fearful or unable to travel through water. So is that a set in stone rule that can never be broken? What if the NK converts a shark into a wight? When it swims around attacking people would you then say "hey that's not allowed bcs the shark is now a wight & wights don't like water!". I think common sense says that certain rules come with exceptions.