Jamie is the girl who was married to Boromir but then his head got separated from his body and all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put it back together again.
Television Game of Thrones (TV) • The watch has ended
- Thread starter ha_rooney
- Start date
I assume someone edited out that massive fecking spoiler you posted here
Yeah that was me. He's been pm'ing spoilers to me. But he's said so much, and talks so much shite, that I can't remember what he said and even if I could I wouldn't belive it.
You're Lame-ie Lannister hahaha
No none of them were true, I was just messing JL about. Trying to get him to believe they were real by deleting them and asking him to change the quotes. Thanks for ruining it.
If it turns out to be true I'm gonna turn you into a Varys.
Your're going to turn me into a guy who can control the king with his mind by gaining the powers of a wizard I kill.
I dont like her! I dont understand how people can say shes "just and fair" when shes obviously drunk on power. And why did she sign a no-nudity contract. Biaaatch.
Eh? She has done nudity man. The pilot itself if I am not wrong. And few more times in the first season including the finale when she rises from the ashes with the dragons.
She signed a no nudity contract after the first season.
Ah. Damn!
I dont like her! I dont understand how people can say shes "just and fair" when shes obviously drunk on power. And why did she sign a no-nudity contract. Biaaatch.
I'm with you... in no way do I see her as being "just and fair"...
Also, for a woman who is so dead against slavery, lets be honest here... she's kind of using it to her advantage. Firstly, she buys a slave army then orders them to kill a bunch of people in the city (this was integral to her plan all along of course, so she didn't lose one of her dragons)... now, this plan only works if this slave army do exactly as she says.
If she was truely against slavery, wouldn't she have made them free men first? Nah, she couldn't take the risk... ultimately, her dragons/control > slavery.
On top of that, this "free-men" claim is nonsense as well. You have an army who know only how to follow without question. There whole lives they have followed every command and thats it. When you make these men free, you don't really make them free... because all they have known is to blindly follow, and that is what they'll continue to do. It's a face-saving sham.
You are taking it far too seriously. What exactly do you want to happen?
They live in a savage world and her sole purpose in life is to take the iron throne. It is called Game of Thrones after all. She is relatively benign. Consider that you have the character called Castor who rapes his daughters and sacrifices any sons that are born of this incest to the undead. This is a dark fantasy series!
Ser Friendzone is a slave to his emotions.
You are taking it far too seriously. What exactly do you want to happen?
They live in a savage world and her sole purpose in life is to take the iron throne. It is called Game of Thrones after all. She is relatively benign. Consider that you have the character called Castor who rapes his daughters and sacrifices any sons that are born of this incest to the undead. This is a dark fantasy series!
... If I'm not allowed to discuss character motivations/actions and their meanings for a sci-fi fantasy show on an internet forum...then whats the point?!
This is a show where a Red Witch popped a shadow assassin baby out of her snatch. I feel you're taking it a little too seriously.
Not really... it's a show I throughly enjoy I like to talk about.
I'm not criticising the show at any point, just discussing the characters within them.
I suppose we could just change this thread to "was good" or "was bad" depending on whether it was good or.......... was bad.
I'm not criticising the show at any point, just discussing the characters within them.
I suppose we could just change this thread to "was good" or "was bad" depending on whether it was good or.......... was bad.
You are trying to apply a perfect morality to the character, a morality of your own standards. This is a very dark fantasy series set in a mythical land. Look, the character Verys had his testicles cut off when he was a child, whilst he was conscious, by a magician who offered them to a God as a gift. Verys, as an adult, captured that magician and now keeps him captive in a box in his room.
This is not the same world as we live in.
Nail. Hit. Head.
... Eh?
I thought this thread existed to discuss the show. All I'm doing is questioning the morality and virtues of a character... Personally I see her as a bit of a hypocrite and not a pillar of good that others see her as... and stated the reason why I see it that way. Whats the harm in that? I'm not saying she's a poorly written character or anything, she's a great character and adds a lot to the show.
I say again, if we're not here to discuss the show and the characters. whats the actual point of this thread?
And I totally disagree about you not applying your own morality to this show. In my opinion, that's exactly what you should be doing with this show. It's filled with characters who lines of morality are constantly blurred, and who's motivations all differ... it's designed for you to use your own beliefs and logic to decide who you think has the right to the throne, or who you think would make the best king, and so on and so on...
Example, I think Lady Stark is a massive fecking idiot, and most of what she's done has been incredibly daft. My mother however (whilst agreeing she makes odd chocies) sympathises with her as she's clearly just a mother wanting her children back - and that's whats most important to her.
If this show tried to spoon-feed you everything you're meant to think about all these characters, it would be much, much duller for it.
I thought this thread existed to discuss the show. All I'm doing is questioning the morality and virtues of a character... Personally I see her as a bit of a hypocrite and not a pillar of good that others see her as... and stated the reason why I see it that way. Whats the harm in that? I'm not saying she's a poorly written character or anything, she's a great character and adds a lot to the show.
I say again, if we're not here to discuss the show and the characters. whats the actual point of this thread?
And I totally disagree about you not applying your own morality to this show. In my opinion, that's exactly what you should be doing with this show. It's filled with characters who lines of morality are constantly blurred, and who's motivations all differ... it's designed for you to use your own beliefs and logic to decide who you think has the right to the throne, or who you think would make the best king, and so on and so on...
Example, I think Lady Stark is a massive fecking idiot, and most of what she's done has been incredibly daft. My mother however (whilst agreeing she makes odd chocies) sympathises with her as she's clearly just a mother wanting her children back - and that's whats most important to her.
If this show tried to spoon-feed you everything you're meant to think about all these characters, it would be much, much duller for it.
Nah, just because a character looks like Mother Theresa next to rapey Craster doesn't mean we can't judge her morals independently.
I also don't buy the "It's a different world" thing. There's probably something happening right now in some dark corner of the world that is worse than anything that happens in the series. Cheery thought.
I also don't buy the "It's a different world" thing. There's probably something happening right now in some dark corner of the world that is worse than anything that happens in the series. Cheery thought.
Nobody bites people in Westeros for a start...
You don't buy that it is different world.......................OK then. It is a different world BTW with vastly different moral standards to our world, which is why it is a waste of time measuring the characters by our own moral standards. The fantasy genre has that license.
The way in which Mr Martin wrote that scene last night and considering Daenerys's character thus far: nothing suggests to me in the slightest that he wants us to question the nuances of Daenerys morals towards the culture of slavery in Westeros. I felt that the story line was written to further illustrate Danny as being one of the purer characters in the savage world that he created.
Okay, so if we are to not use any real world standards/thoughts, and only go by the world created in the show. Then really, what is wrong with slavery? That whole city was run on the model of slavery and looked to be running well... so why is it wrong?
It's wrong because our real-world perception of slavery and humanity makes us know that it is wrong... and because we think slavery is wrong, we then side with Danaerys when she kills them all. Our real world morals and values shape this.
Pretty much none of these characters are black and white for a reason. If the writers wanted, they could have made Danaeyrs the purest/kindest woman alive... but instead the gave her a ruthless streak to give her character depth. We can then form our own judgements on these characters based on how we see and read things... that's the whole point.
It's wrong because our real-world perception of slavery and humanity makes us know that it is wrong... and because we think slavery is wrong, we then side with Danaerys when she kills them all. Our real world morals and values shape this.
Pretty much none of these characters are black and white for a reason. If the writers wanted, they could have made Danaeyrs the purest/kindest woman alive... but instead the gave her a ruthless streak to give her character depth. We can then form our own judgements on these characters based on how we see and read things... that's the whole point.
Right OK then, do that, and where does that leaves Daenerys, as a progressive leader, as one of the good guys. Personally I feel that is the intention.
If I'm doing that, why is she progressive?
How can you enjoy a show like this unless you measure the morality of the characters and their actions? Thats almost all the show is about unless you are a retard who goes "Woah, dragons!!!" and "Daenerys owned that guy LOL!! Epic!". But then maybe thats why this show is so popular, you can be a simple guy who just enjoys the fantasy or you can actually look at the depth and nuances of the characters and its enough of both for people in either camp to enjoy it.
She has a different attitude to slavery than the norm, for a start, Like her Knight says 'he can't believe that she is real' as she can sit on the Iron Throne and change Westeros for the better. She has a gentle heart etc.
Of course you can measure the morality of the characters, only with an appreciation for the moral standards depicted in the world that they are living in. I doubt that many people watch it just for the action because a lot of the show is political maneuvering witnessed through scenes of dialogue.
Such a tiring argument over a fecking TV show. There is a point beyond which it starts to become really geeky and sort of sad, lads, and I think that was couple of pages back.Her knight is the sappiest guy ever. He is completely blinded by her looks (understandable tbh )
)Her attitude to slavery is different... but why is it better?
Like I said, the city works seems to work perfectly fine with a solid slavery system intact. Why is it bad?
I only started watching it 'cos a mate told me there was a load of sex scenes involving a dwarf.
He lied.
He lied.
Maybe you should make your own thread where we are only allowed to write "That dragon was good CGI", "I like Arya", "Jaime is a cnut" etc and not discuss anything further then., and stay in that thread.
In Westeros, slavery is considered immoral. The reason Sir Jorah Mormont was exiled was due to him dealing in slaves to pay for his terrible wife's expensive tastes. He fled to escape punishment from Ned Stark.
I think her intentions were good with the sacking of the city, but it was also very pragmatic- she needed an army, the army needs food and she needs more wealth to gain more power and being strong will gain her a reputation as a strong leader.
If you were to assign her a morality, it would be chaotic good.
I think her intentions were good with the sacking of the city, but it was also very pragmatic- she needed an army, the army needs food and she needs more wealth to gain more power and being strong will gain her a reputation as a strong leader.
If you were to assign her a morality, it would be chaotic good.
Alright cool down a bit, no need to be all touchy.
Was the dragon good CGI? I am not so sure!