If that was the only issue with S07 I'd be a happy man.Season 7 was amazing, please don't tell me you're one of those people who was upset because they didn't show them traveling for days.
Most of the people (like me) who are critical of these past seasons aren't "GRRM purists". I don't care about the adaptation diverting from the original work as long as it retains a certain quality. I'm for instance not complaining about Hardhome, which was a great episode in an otherwise mediocre season and it was pretty much completely imagined by D&D. Samen with the confrontation between Jaime and Olenna in Season 7, even though I hated most of season 7, that was a really good moment. I also do not think GRRM is this flawless writer, his writing has issues and his lack of respect for deadlines is awful IMO.I almost pity the GRRM purists. Bashing the show since season 2 and putting all their faith in GRRM to "tell it right", only for eight fucking years to go by and still no sign of TWoW. Now, they have no choice but to hate-watch the series since all but the most deluded know that Mr. I-don't-write-during-football-season is never going to finish.
I envy you. I would love to binge the series in one go fresh lol. I've ran out of people to introduce the show to and experience that feeling through them as we watch together :(So 3 months to get through series 7 (started from 1 a few months ago) to get up to date.
Fair enough!
It's been fun to watch with my partner.I envy you. I would love to binge the series in one go fresh lol. I've ran out of people to introduce the show to and experience that feeling through them as we watch together :(
Basically this, but you can't criticize the show without these comments coming out of the woodwork:Most of the people (like me) who are critical of these past seasons aren't "GRRM purists". I don't care about the adaptation diverting from the original work as long as it retains a certain quality. I'm for instance not complaining about Hardhome, which was a great episode in an otherwise mediocre season and it was pretty much completely imagined by D&D. Samen with the confrontation between Jaime and Olenna in Season 7, even though I hated most of season 7, that was a really good moment. I also do not think GRRM is this flawless writer, his writing has issues and his lack of respect for deadlines is awful IMO.
However, in my opinion, most of the deviations from the source material have been awful, not just in how they compare to the source material, but mainly in the way they themselves are written. Stuff like WHERE ARE MAH DRAGONS, the Sand Snakes, the raping of Sansa or the Beyond the Wall episode are awfully written IMO and fail not only as an adaptation, but just as a well written show in general. These last three seasons the show has thrown any sense of logic in the wind, instead opting for a 'as long as it looks awesome, we do it'-approach. The Beyond the Wall episode was the cumulation of this way of writing, with tons of stuff that the actual writers of the show actually admitted in the Behind the Scenes special were only there because they thought it would look cool. That entire confrontation with the zombie polar bear was only there because D&D really wanted to have a zombie polar bear fight.
It's frustrating because I loved the way most of the early season were written (with the glaring exception of the aforementioned Daenarys S02 plotline) and it just hurts to see what was once easily one of my favourite shows on tv turned into this lowest common denominator popcorn spectacular.
I almost pity the GRRM purists. Bashing the show since season 2 and putting all their faith in GRRM to "tell it right", only for eight fucking years to go by and still no sign of TWoW. Now, they have no choice but to hate-watch the series since all but the most deluded know that Mr. I-don't-write-during-football-season is never going to finish.
That's something I don't get though. With Jon in the watch, and Visarys dead, didn't Dany technically become the Targaryen heir by virtue of being the only living Targaryen that could claim it? I just don't understand how Jon getting out of his oaths on a technicality somehow puts him back at the #1 spot. Even if he gains his titles, wouldn't he be her heir?
Like say Jon was older than Rob and he wasn't actually a Targ. Rob becomes Lord of Winterfell after Ned right, and say Robb is still alive. Jon dying and coming back doesn't bump Rob from a position he already inherited. So Jon at best becomes his heir if he's child less, or realistically goes to the bottom of the line right? With Visarys dead and Jon in the watch having lost all titles, Dany became the Targaryen Queen. So how does Jon doing the revive thing take away he legitimate inheritance? He should be her second. Also, do we even know if technicalities like that even work? I mean you're not meant to die and come back.
Let them whine. Its makes it all the more hilarious when the shows breaks viewewship records and keeps winning awards.
I almost pity the GRRM purists. Bashing the show since season 2 and putting all their faith in GRRM to "tell it right", only for eight fucking years to go by and still no sign of TWoW. Now, they have no choice but to hate-watch the series since all but the most deluded know that Mr. I-don't-write-during-football-season is never going to finish.
Nah, GRRM plays straight just as many Fantasy cliches as he subverts.
Rian Johnson he is not.
How do the tropes influence your writing?
GRRM: You have to be aware of them but you have to smash them with hammers and make up your own. Tolkien twisted an old cliché of elves (tiny faeries) into something else - met with resistance from his editors at first, arguing over what an elf or dwarf is. Now Tolkien is the cliché. Can't just regurgitate them you have to do something with them.
The drop in dialogue quality from Season 1 to now is really apparent in these trailers.
Huh? What? This is a made up teaser that won't be in the show lol. You mean the line that Ned and Cat say?
I mean you're completely right but the show doesn't want you to think about it.
That's something I don't get though. With Jon in the watch, and Visarys dead, didn't Dany technically become the Targaryen heir by virtue of being the only living Targaryen that could claim it? I just don't understand how Jon getting out of his oaths on a technicality somehow puts him back at the #1 spot. Even if he gains his titles, wouldn't he be her heir?
Like say Jon was older than Rob and he wasn't actually a Targ. Rob becomes Lord of Winterfell after Ned right, and say Robb is still alive. Jon dying and coming back doesn't bump Rob from a position he already inherited. So Jon at best becomes his heir if he's child less, or realistically goes to the bottom of the line right? With Visarys dead and Jon in the watch having lost all titles, Dany became the Targaryen Queen. So how does Jon doing the revive thing take away he legitimate inheritance? He should be her second. Also, do we even know if technicalities like that even work? I mean you're not meant to die and come back.
This is proof that humans will never reach a consensus on anything ever. Dumpster fire is such ridiculously hyperbolic descriptor for season 7... regarless of opinion.
It's insane
You CAN'T being negative about GoT.
We have to acknowledge it's the best tv show of all time, if we don't you complain.
Dunno if you can talk seeing how you acted in the Westworld OT lol
The only episodes I hated last season were episode 5 and 6.
4 was the highlight, wish it went up from there but a few cool moments didn't fix much.
Jaime Lannister was the highlight of the season overall.
I think(hope) season 8's going to be much better, if not for the fact that Sapochnik is here.
I thought Ned told Bran that it didn't matter if what he said was the truth, the man broke an oath. It's like when Stannis still chopped off Davos' fingers because even though he saved him, he was still a smuggler. My question wasn't even in regards to the Watch but the realm as a whole and to how inheritance works. Once you lose your spot, I don't see how a technicality allows you to insert yourself to the same position you once held. People would have already moved up the inheritance latter, and someone who was behind you initially may have already inherited the title. So that's why I asked about Robb. If he was still alive and Jon was a full blown Stark, does he become Lord of Winterfell and King in the North, even though Robb has already legally inherited the first and was declared second? If he can't bump Robb back down, then he can't do the same with Dany. He'd be her heir until she has kids.Do you think the nights watch gave a damn about Jon leaving when...
1) they all saw literal white walkers and wights, many died fighting them at Hardhome
2) Jon died and came back to life
3) the impending war with the Boltons for his home
would Ned have killed the guy who fled after seeing a WW if Ned believed him? Because Ned assuming he was lying was just as influential in his decision as the oath he broke.
It's such a lame "technicality" to complain about because it ignores all logic and reason in favor of assuming the oath can never be broken. Not to mention Jon should have died way back in S3 when he escaped the first time then.
You know i said the "Bernard is on hangover" storyline was a bad narrative choice right?
What's next? Teasing me with posts about Mr Robot? =/
12. Hot Pie vs. Samwise Gamgee - who cooks a better meal on Iron Chef?
That's something I don't get though. With Jon in the watch, and Visarys dead, didn't Dany technically become the Targaryen heir by virtue of being the only living Targaryen that could claim it? I just don't understand how Jon getting out of his oaths on a technicality somehow puts him back at the #1 spot. Even if he gains his titles, wouldn't he be her heir?
Like say Jon was older than Rob and he wasn't actually a Targ. Rob becomes Lord of Winterfell after Ned right, and say Robb is still alive. Jon dying and coming back doesn't bump Rob from a position he already inherited. So Jon at best becomes his heir if he's child less, or realistically goes to the bottom of the line right? With Visarys dead and Jon in the watch having lost all titles, Dany became the Targaryen Queen. So how does Jon doing the revive thing take away he legitimate inheritance? He should be her second. Also, do we even know if technicalities like that even work? I mean you're not meant to die and come back.
Thanks for this detailed explanation. I totally forgot about Jon still being a bastard under Stark succession rules. So because of his Night's Watch vows, he either has to have the military strength to make a claim and succesfully take the throne, or Dany has to willingly step aside for him. That makes sense.It's basically due to Westerosi succession rules, which in GoT are based on European succession rules in nobility and royalty.
It works like this: the first trueborn male child of the monarch is the Prince and heir apparent, and has priority over his younger brothers and over all his sisters (younger or not). Also, his children have priority over his siblings. So even if the Prince died, as long as he had any children, they would come first in the sucession line, before the deceased prince's siblings.
So, Rhaegar was the Prince heir, second in line to the Mad King. His son Aegon by his marriage with Ellia Martell was his heir (being the first trueborn son), and third in line. His daughter Rhaenys was four in line (despite being older), while Viserys and Daenerys -Rhaegar's siblings- were fifth and sixth respectively. Now, at this point in time no onw knows Jon's true identity, so of course he isn't counted.
When Rhaegar, Aegon and Rhaenys all die, Viserys becomes the heir, and Daenerys second in line. Once Viserys is gone, Dany is the rightful heir. However, as we know it is revealed that not only is Jon Snow Rhaegar's son, but also he is a trueborn son at that (being born inside a marriage, so not a bastard). Being a son of the Prince (and strangely also named Aegon), that puts him second in line after the first Aegon, and before Rhaenys. When these two are dead, he is the true heir following succession rules, before both Viserys and Daenerys, because children come before siblings.
As he is not a bastard, the only thing truly preventing him from being in the sucession line, was his vow to the Night's Watch, as he renounced to all titles. I believe his death and resurrection is just a narrative technique that GRRM has decided to use to "free" him of his vow, and it technically established that it only lasted until his death, and he did die as a sworn brother. A loophole of sorts. Once the vow is removed, and he is recognised as a trueborn son of Rhaegar, he definitely has a claim on the Iron Throne.
Of course, this would mean Rhaegar's siblings (basically Daenerys at this point) would have to willingly recognise Jon as his brother's trueborn son, and this, as the rightful heir (which would put her as second in line until Jon's future children are born). In history there's many times when uncles and aunts refused to recognise the children of their deceased Prince as heirs, and civil wars have started because of that (for example, the Carlist Wars in Spain).
The difference is that under your scenario, Jon would still be a bastard, so even if he was released from his vow to the Night's Watch, he still would not be able to inherit Winterfell. If it was revealed that Jon was in fact a Stark (or he was legitimised as one), being older than Robb would in fact give him claim to Winterfell. In fact, in the books that's one of the reasons Catelyn Stark had against recognising him as a true Stark (she feared it would put her own children's future in jeopardy, as a 'Jon Stark' would be the rightful heir to Winterfell).
The resurrection thing does not interfer with the inheritance, it is just a way of releasing him of the vow (which does interfer).
I thought Ned told Bran that it didn't matter if what he said was the truth, the man broke an oath. It's like when Stannis still chopped off Davos' fingers because even though he saved him, he was still a smuggler. My question wasn't even in regards to the Watch but the realm as a whole and to how inheritance works. Once you lose your spot, I don't see how a technicality allows you to insert yourself to the same position you once held. People would have already moved up the inheritance latter, and someone who was behind you initially may have already inherited the title. So that's why I asked about Robb. If he was still alive and Jon was a full blown Stark, does he become Lord of Winterfell and King in the North, even though Robb has already legally inherited the first and was declared second? If he can't bump Robb back down, then he can't do the same with Dany. He'd be her heir until she has kids.
Thanks for this detailed explanation. I totally forgot about Jon still being a bastard under Stark succession rules. So because of his Night's Watch vows, he either has to have the military strength to make a claim and succesfully take the throne, or Dany has to willingly step aside for him. That makes sense.
Well, it's like I said, if we're talking about the Iron Throne Jon could argue that he never had knowledge of his claim and thus he could not have abandoned something he never believed he had in the first place. The revelation of his birthright after leaving the Night's Watch should make his claim valid. Further, Daenerys has yet to be vested as the Official Queen of the Seven Kingdoms. She has made her claim and pressed it, but until she sits the Iron Throne she;s simply another claimant. Thus, unlike Robb already inhering Winterfell and ruling as Lord in your hypothetical, Dany has yet to do so with the Iron Throne.
Well, it's not so much about his Night's Watch vows as it is about the fact that just a handful of people knew for a fact that he is Rhaegar's trueborn son, so Daenerys would have to simply 'accept it' with little proof. It's like, this guy shows up and says he is the lost son of my long-dead brother, and a trueborn son at that. Accepting this would mean Daenerys gives up its claim, so it's tricky. The Night's Watch vows do not really have much to do with it as long as we accept that Jon was released of them by dying, and it seems like the Watch itself has accepted it (they haven't called him a deserter nor attempted to stop him), so that kinda legitimises it.
Yeah I keep forgetting that Dany's title of Queen is from her being a Khaleesi and from being the Queen of Mereen. So she's a queen in her own right, just not of the Seven Kingdoms yet.
It's also enough to have people want to kill him too. Some of those Northerners and Vale Knights/Lord don't seem like they have love for any Targaryens.It's not so much that, I mean she is Queen of the Seven Kingdoms, at least that's what she claims. The problem is there are multiple claimants at this point. In a strict legal sense, either Dany or Jon would be the rightful ruler of Westeros. So, analyzing Jon's claim under such a strict legal theory can be interesting as you determine whether him joining the NW caused him to abandon a claim he never knew he had and whether his death and resurrection from the NW removed such vows. But, these are hypothetical legal theorizing. At this point, a claim is only as good as the sword behind them. So, the legality isn't really important.
The fact that Jon has Rhaegar's blood is enough to have people really around him.
these are not TV ratings. They are user reviews. And the graph has every season on it, I have no idea what you're talking about.The Walking Dead has high ratings too. Doesn't mean it's a good show.
Also, you posted a link directing people to season 1 in response to a post about last season.