Without that movement, we would have had Cersei as an appetizer and The Night King as the main feast. However, we needed to be shown that The Night King was just a weak male in the end and not the serious threat of an empowered woman.
shareThis show went that direction long time ago.
shareJust saying that without that empowerment thing, it definitely would have been Night King at the end.
shareNah. Jon would've killed him. I liked the unexpected scene and Arya trained since she was a young child.
Arya's plan actually made the most sense. Would you leave your vulnerable brother to be defended by Theon? Of course not! Arya lay in wait to protect Bran and kill the Night King.
I meant Night King would be the final boss battle. Yeah, Jon would have killed him.
shareThe show was always about who would be on the Iron Throne which makes that more logical for a final battle. I'll laugh my head-off if little wimpy Robert Arryn ends up on it.
shareIt WOULD be hilarious, but this show, like all modern shows, is about empowering minorities and especially women, not incels.
shareMaybe. But the winner of the Iron Throne is based on a future GRRM book. He already gave the producers the identity.
Robert Arryn would be perfect too because it all started with a Mad King and then it'll end with another Mad King. He can't be operating on full cylinders considering his mom breastfed him until he was around 10.
I like underdogs and irony so I'm rooting for little wimpy incel Robert.
No, it wasn't. The show was always about people pettily squabbling over who would be on the Iron throne while a major global threat is making it's way south for all of them. And that all the feuding, scheming, lineages and houses would all be destroyed, forgotten and rendered meaningless, unless everyone found a way to put aside their differences in the face of this common enemy.
That is the show.
"Who will get the throne?" is just the highly dumbed down and simplified version of the show, made for the simple minded audience who cannot see the bigger picture.
Nevertheless it's called Game of THRONES. The political aspect of the show is the primary storyline, the zombies aspect is the secondary one.
Even the opening theme each week shows the different parties involved. Not a zombie in sight.
The political storylines are partially based on European history between different parties at war, too.
BTW, not everyone came together to fight. MIA: Cersei, Robert Arynn, Riverrun, the Freys and Dornes (what's left).
In the Game of Thrones, you win or you die. Slogan used in promos of the show. Zip about zombies.
Nevertheless it's called Game of THRONES.[/quote]It's a much catchier title than "A Song of Ice and Fire". Why does that matter anyway? Since when do titles have to be literal? And if it is, how do we know the NK wasn't part of the game? We never found out his intentionsAre you sure about that? The most classic and well known slogan from the show and for promotiing the show, is by far "Winter is coming". What is that a reference to again?
[quote]The political aspect of the show is the primary storyline, the zombies aspect is the secondary one.[/quote]What are you talking about? Both storylines have always run concurrently since the very beginning.
[quote]Even the opening theme each week shows the different parties involved. Not a zombie in sight.[/quote]Uh... there are no humans in sight either. Only locations. And what's the largest location shown in the opening intro? The Wall. I wonder what it's there for...
[quote]The political storylines are partially based on European history between different parties at war, too.[/quote]How is that relevant to what we're talking about?
[quote] BTW, not everyone came together to fight. MIA: Cersei, Robert Arynn, Riverrun, the Freys and Dornes (what's left).[/quote]How is that relevant to what we're talking about?
[quote]In the Game of Thrones, you win or you die. Slogan used in promos of the show. Zip about zombies.
"Both storylines have always run concurrently..."
You know zip about basic fiction writing which includes the main story (aka:plot) and subplot(s).
"Difference Between Plot and Subplot. ... The plot is where you'll find the story's theme or main idea. Sub-plot is a secondary plot (or side story) that is unfolding in your story. The subplot adds complications and puts obstacles in the way of the main character and therefore becomes a story conflict."
And yes, the book title reflects what's in the book!
GRRM interview:
"Martin has always loved popular history; Game of Thrones was loosely inspired by accounts of the wars of the Roses. “My model for this was the four-volume history of the Plantagenets that Thomas B Costain wrote in the 50s. It’s old‑fashioned history: he’s not interested in analysing socioeconomic trends or cultural shifts so much as the wars and the assignations and the murders and the plots and the betrayals, all the juicy stuff. Costain did a wonderful job on the Plantagenets so I tried to do that for the Targaryens.”
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/nov/10/books-interview-george-rr-martin
"based on European history between different parties at war"
See GRRM interview. War is basically people fighting for wealth and/or power. In history. In GOT.
"different parties involved."
The opening shows the sigels from the different Houses involved in this game to win the Iron Throne.
The Wall re: the Night Watch. Don't forget that most people didn't believe there were any zombies. They were focused on keeping out the Wildlings.
"How is that relevant to what we're talking about?"
You said"unless everyone found a way to put aside their differences..." I replied, "Not everyone came together to fight."
Reread your messages if you forgot what you wrote.
In the Game of Thrones, you win or you die.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/611x4W15Z3L._SY679_.jpg
Winter Is Coming" is the motto of House Stark.
The night kings entire purpose was to exemplify how futile fighting for the throne was when there was no one left to fight for it.
shareThat threat is finished halfway through the final season. Now the fighting over the throne continues. I'm expecting all those characters who didn't die during the battle with the Night King to die in the battle over the throne at King's Landing.
Originally there were seven separate kingdoms sharing power in Westeros. The Targaryens are the ones who selfishly invaded and needed to control it all.
Cersei has a point about Dani being a foreign invader.
No, OP. Just no.
shareThis is old news.
The show was criticized for its brutalized female characters and, when they ran out of George RR Martin book material and #MeToo occurred, the writers pushed waaay too hard and clumsily in the other direction.
It’s really a show about powerful women now. Whereas before, it was arguably about Jon Snow’s journey.
It was a popular move with audiences, though.
Surprised they missed the chance to create a Night Queen. Maybe they still will with Cersei?
shareOr maybe The Great Other would be 'female'?
shareWho will, spurtle? The walkers are dust, and The Children have learned their lesson. Then again, this is The Internet, and people who know nothing about . . . well, anything at all, feel free to speculate wildly and call it “theory,” blissfully unaware that a theory must first be supported by a, you know, hypothesis, which needs to be something more substantial than “because I want it to be true.”
shareNot really, Cersei has always been the big bad of the show even from the very first season
shareThat's right! The women have done a "Damn good job" running things!....*cringe*
shareWhite walkers are asexual bro
shareIf a straight white man ends up on the Iron Throne at the end, are you going to apologize for this foolishness?
Because at the end, it's either going to be Jon or Jamie as King of Westeros. I'd bet quite a lot of money on that.
If someone has to sit on the Iron Throne I'd prefer Jon or Jaime over Dany or Arya or Sansa..but then there's all these subliminal couplings like Sansa and Tyrion, Arya and Gendry, Jon and Daenerys and even Brienne and Jaime.
All that bores me silly but breaking the wheel might result in dividing the Kingdoms from under one ruler. Subtract those that will die and it still seems kind of a let down. Cersei surviving would be a let down too.
I don't know..at this point I'm wondering if they'll do anything to surprise me...in a good way, I mean
It seems so much of the mythology has been diverted down to the bottom line.
Was Jon resurrected just to bring people together to defeat the NK and then Cersei? Is that all fire and ice and the prince who was promised is? Arya is a bad ass who's training paid off but she's no ruler of men. She's better at killing them.