Search results

I understood your point perfectly. You would have been surprised by those elements in the book. There is nothing inherently superior about on screen surprises vs book surprises.

There is nothing "better" for me about being floored by plot developments from watching a TV show vs reading a book. Yes, I knew what was going to happen on the show, but I STILL had the emotional reaction from reading the books, so it's not as though reading the books "ruined" anything for me...

Spot on analysis of the books. I particularly agree with the criticism of Martin introducing WAY too many characters, and losing focus on the main story and characters. As much as people have criticized the show, it's much better in this regard.

https://uproxx.com/hitfix/george-rr-martin-winds-of-winter-imprison-worldcon/2/

I'm fine with Bran being king. He's not insane like the Targaryens, he's not going to go lusting after someone's wife and thereby instigate a war, he won't try to conquer other lands. He'll leave the Wildlings alone, which is what they want. He won't be cruel. He'll be dispassionate, and he'll...

Sounds like it surprised you.

Very hard for him to find out, since he left for a far away island on another continent.

Grey Worm would not have accepted Jon as king, since he had killed Dany. No one was interested in having yet another war involving the North and the Unsullied. Also, Jon did NOT want to be king, period. Having him leave and go north was the only thing acceptable to everyone, including Jon.

I rather like it. A tolerant king, quite the opposite of the "I will conquer and rule!" mentality.

I for one am glad to see the end of the Iron Throne.

After all the angst about what a horrible ending it would be, I feel satisfied. Anyone can say he would have done this or that differently, but that doesn't mean it would be better. The ending of GOT is light years better than the ending of the likes of Lost and Dexter.

https://entertainment.theonion.com/game-of-thrones-showrunners-disappointed-with-how-qua-1834843021

I never used the phrase "greatly bothered", so I think you're overstating what I said.

I did find it bemusing that endless fire breath was "bothersome", but raising the dead and having them fight without getting tired or needing food or water was accepted without question.

Sure, because it was previously established that dragons have to flap their wings to fly. But it hadn't been established that dragon fire couldn't be sustained as Drogon showed.

https://www.newser.com/story/275253/360k-want-last-got-season-remade.html

And that's the only explanation any fantasy character ever needs.

What Drogon did would only be a problem if it was previously established that dragons in the world of GOT couldn't do that. Since there was no such limitation mentioned, what he did obviously IS possible, simply because he did it.

I responded by saying it didn't make sense to be bothered by it. You never gave any good argument why it does make sense. Instead, you resort to claiming I'm not "allowing" you to say it. I did no such thing. I simply challenged the logic of you being "bothered" by it. I would do the same...

I'm saying it makes no sense to analyze a fantasy creature scientifically. If you want to proclaim your ability to say something that makes no sense, feel free.

It was Johnny who was questioning what could be in a fictional universe, not me, so by your own logic, he's the one who's "hostile". And once again, you're substituting a label for an argument. Not in a way that makes sense. Fantasy has no relation to science in the real world.

You yourself said this: "I think Johnny Angell was just questioning the potential (fictional) mechanics behind the dragon spewing fire" Which sounds quite a lot like saying he doubted he could. My response was you can't do that in a fantasy context. Labeling me as "hostile" does nothing to...

Yeah, where's the "dragon reference manual" that describes what dragons are "really" capable of?

Sure they do, but the show has never said what the limitations are of their fire breath. There simply is no basis for saying Drogon couldn't do what he did. BTW, I'd say reanimating dead people requires FAR more of a suspension of disbelief than fire breath.

You CAN'T explain the mechanics, any more than you can explain why Peter Pan can fly. We're supposed to chemically analyze fairy dust? It's scientifically impossible for dragons to fly. Using any kind of science to explain the happenings in a fantasy story is meaningless.

The dragons can be killed because the show says they can. They're not invisible because the show doesn't show them as such. Drogon has extended fire breath sufficient to burn a city because the show says he does. No episode of the show ever said he doesn't. You have no objective reality that...

That's your interpretation, not something that was made "clear" in the books. I interpret it differently.

I've read the books, and it wasn't the least bit "clear" that she was descending into madness. Her motive for staying as ruler was to try to keep slavery from being revived. It wasn't just all about her being "worshipped as a goddess".

Yes, but that's a comment about the story, not dragon metabolism. You can hardly say "dragons can't do that. What would really happen is....". There is no "really" with respect to dragons.

If you're going to go down the rabbit hole of "dragon metabolism doesn't make sense", you'll be lost. Dragons inherently violate physical laws. They're not supposed to even be able to fly.