Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 18:55:30 GMT -5
As much as I hated what Stannis did, I don't think he's evil. Let's face it, if He was Joff level evil he would've made Davos sit and watch. Stannis seems to understand the bigger picture. He might be being used, but in his heart it was the only way. The actor portrayed the inner conflict perfectly. When you burn your daughter alive thinking its going to help you achieve personal power, you're evil. I don't know. There are days when I'd burn my non-existent kid alive for some hot wings. And don't even get me started on what I'd do for a Klondike Bar.
|
|
|
Post by Raskovnik on Jun 12, 2015 20:03:49 GMT -5
As much as I hated what Stannis did, I don't think he's evil. Let's face it, if He was Joff level evil he would've made Davos sit and watch. Stannis seems to understand the bigger picture. He might be being used, but in his heart it was the only way. The actor portrayed the inner conflict perfectly. When you burn your daughter alive thinking its going to help you achieve personal power, you're evil. What would you rather him do, from his POV, one driven by duty to the realm? Spare his daughter, only for her and everyone else to die anyways in a way that means nothing? Tons of people decry what he did but very few offer alternatives. People calling Stannis evil/irredeemable and wanting him to die don't even make any sense. They're just upset over something that yes, was horrible, but completely understandable and even possibly even justified. It's not even like he did it for the hell of it. That would make him f***ing evil. "Evil" itself is also really nothing but an oversimplified box to tick in the first place for a series with characters as complex as this one (save for Ramsay) and especially for who I'd consider to be possibly the most complex character within that series. Stannis doesn't WANT to sit on the Iron Throne. He HAS to, in his mind, and that's the tragedy of his character: that he is sacrificing so much for something he doesn't even have any real desire for and ultimately doesn't have much of a chance of getting in the end. In another tragic irony, this also could have probably been prevented if Davos didn't let Gendry go free, if I remember correctly. I can understand not being too pleased with him burning his sweet baby girl but the man isn't evil. I just realized I'm passionately defending the actions and character of a man who burned his daughter at the stake. I also don't even think I'm wrong. What a series.
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Jun 12, 2015 20:20:38 GMT -5
When you burn your daughter alive thinking its going to help you achieve personal power, you're evil. What would you rather him do, from his POV, one driven by duty to the realm? Spare his daughter, only for her and everyone else to die anyways in a way that means nothing? Tons of people decry what he did but very few offer alternatives. People calling Stannis evil/irredeemable and wanting him to die don't even make any sense. They're just upset over something that yes, was horrible, but completely understandable and even possibly even justified. It's not even like he did it for the hell of it. That would make him f***ing evil. "Evil" itself is also really nothing but an oversimplified box to tick in the first place for a series with characters as complex as this one (save for Ramsay) and especially for who I'd consider to be possibly the most complex character within that series. Stannis doesn't WANT to sit on the Iron Throne. He HAS to, in his mind, and that's the tragedy of his character: that he is sacrificing so much for something he doesn't even have any real desire for and ultimately doesn't have much of a chance of getting in the end. In another tragic irony, this also could have probably been prevented if Davos didn't let Gendry go free, if I remember correctly. I can understand not being too pleased with him burning his sweet baby girl but the man isn't evil. I just realized I'm passionately defending the actions and character of a man who burned his daughter at the stake. I also don't even think I'm wrong. What a series. He burned his daughter alive because for some reason, he couldn't travel the distance Ramsay and his merry men traveled in one afternoon. He's like South Park on that episode they all resorted to cannibalism.
|
|
|
Post by Raskovnik on Jun 12, 2015 20:28:30 GMT -5
What would you rather him do, from his POV, one driven by duty to the realm? Spare his daughter, only for her and everyone else to die anyways in a way that means nothing? Tons of people decry what he did but very few offer alternatives. People calling Stannis evil/irredeemable and wanting him to die don't even make any sense. They're just upset over something that yes, was horrible, but completely understandable and even possibly even justified. It's not even like he did it for the hell of it. That would make him f***ing evil. "Evil" itself is also really nothing but an oversimplified box to tick in the first place for a series with characters as complex as this one (save for Ramsay) and especially for who I'd consider to be possibly the most complex character within that series. Stannis doesn't WANT to sit on the Iron Throne. He HAS to, in his mind, and that's the tragedy of his character: that he is sacrificing so much for something he doesn't even have any real desire for and ultimately doesn't have much of a chance of getting in the end. In another tragic irony, this also could have probably been prevented if Davos didn't let Gendry go free, if I remember correctly. I can understand not being too pleased with him burning his sweet baby girl but the man isn't evil. I just realized I'm passionately defending the actions and character of a man who burned his daughter at the stake. I also don't even think I'm wrong. What a series. He burned his daughter alive because for some reason, he couldn't travel the distance Ramsay and his merry men traveled in one afternoon. He's like South Park on that episode they all resorted to cannibalism. It was Ramsay Sue and TWENTY GOOD MEN, I'll have you know. Not a fair comparison due to the lousy writing involving all things Ramsay, like how he scared off the Ironborn who went halfway across the world only to get spooked by a little shirtless dude and some doggies.
|
|
|
Post by hossfan on Jun 12, 2015 20:43:10 GMT -5
When you burn your daughter alive thinking its going to help you achieve personal power, you're evil. What would you rather him do, from his POV, one driven by duty to the realm? Spare his daughter, only for her and everyone else to die anyways in a way that means nothing? Tons of people decry what he did but very few offer alternatives. People calling Stannis evil/irredeemable and wanting him to die don't even make any sense. They're just upset over something that yes, was horrible, but completely understandable and even possibly even justified. It's not even like he did it for the hell of it. That would make him f***ing evil. "Evil" itself is also really nothing but an oversimplified box to tick in the first place for a series with characters as complex as this one (save for Ramsay) and especially for who I'd consider to be possibly the most complex character within that series. Stannis doesn't WANT to sit on the Iron Throne. He HAS to, in his mind, and that's the tragedy of his character: that he is sacrificing so much for something he doesn't even have any real desire for and ultimately doesn't have much of a chance of getting in the end. In another tragic irony, this also could have probably been prevented if Davos didn't let Gendry go free, if I remember correctly. I can understand not being too pleased with him burning his sweet baby girl but the man isn't evil. I just realized I'm passionately defending the actions and character of a man who burned his daughter at the stake. I also don't even think I'm wrong. What a series. Nope. When you're willing to burn your own child alive out of some misguided sense of messianic duty, you're evil.
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Jun 12, 2015 20:50:51 GMT -5
When you burn your daughter alive thinking its going to help you achieve personal power, you're evil. What would you rather him do, from his POV, one driven by duty to the realm? Spare his daughter, only for her and everyone else to die anyways in a way that means nothing? Tons of people decry what he did but very few offer alternatives. People calling Stannis evil/irredeemable and wanting him to die don't even make any sense. They're just upset over something that yes, was horrible, but completely understandable and even possibly even justified. It's not even like he did it for the hell of it. That would make him f***ing evil. "Evil" itself is also really nothing but an oversimplified box to tick in the first place for a series with characters as complex as this one (save for Ramsay) and especially for who I'd consider to be possibly the most complex character within that series. Stannis doesn't WANT to sit on the Iron Throne. He HAS to, in his mind, and that's the tragedy of his character: that he is sacrificing so much for something he doesn't even have any real desire for and ultimately doesn't have much of a chance of getting in the end. In another tragic irony, this also could have probably been prevented if Davos didn't let Gendry go free, if I remember correctly. I can understand not being too pleased with him burning his sweet baby girl but the man isn't evil. I just realized I'm passionately defending the actions and character of a man who burned his daughter at the stake. I also don't even think I'm wrong. What a series. In the context of the show/books, this actually makes alot of sense. Granted, I say that as someone who didn't even watch that scene. I got to the point where the crowd split, and she saw the stake and I immediately paused the show and sat there debating for about 15-20 min whether I could handle watching that and I decided not to. Robb's unborn child being brutally murdered left enough of an impact on my brain I had no desire to watch Stannis burn his daughter alive.
|
|
Mochi Lone Wolf
Fry's dog Seymour
Development through Destruction.
Posts: 24,153
|
Post by Mochi Lone Wolf on Jun 12, 2015 21:09:30 GMT -5
Considering that they had Littlefinger ride from Winterfell to King's Landing in what seemed like a day, it didn't surprise me that Ramsey and his 20 GOOD MEN~! were able to get to Stannis by nightfall in what's supposed to be the shittiest weather imaginable. Not to mention in a camp filled with supposedly thousands of soldiers.
Once Theon and Sansa snap out of it, Ramsay needs to bite it hard.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jun 12, 2015 21:46:36 GMT -5
So, in terms of something that is likely happening next week. How big do you think the shitstorm is going to be on the outrage blogs when: {Spoiler}{Spoiler}Cersei in stripped naked and walks through the street with the masses jeering at her? {Spoiler}{Spoiler}{Spoiler}{Spoiler}{Spoiler}{Spoiler}What will be funny about the outrage that scene will get is that said blogs will not realize that the whole point of that scene is to bring about the discussion they will be trying to have. It's supposed to make everyone think about just what exactly justice really is and when is the line to cruelty and humiliation crossed. Especially in regards to the punishment of female criminals in a medieval setting. Of course, they'll be too busy seeing red to realize that they themselves ended up helping the narrative of the show they claim to be so pissed off at. {Spoiler}A lot of the criticism I've seen about the touchier stuff this season has been less "they did </insert bad thing here>, screw this show forever", and more about the actual presentation of whatever said bad thing was. For example, a lot of people think Shireen's burning wasn't warranted given the way the show depicted Stannis and his army's circumstances (even putting aside people's "Book Stannis vs. Show Stannis" feelings), and that scenes like Sansa's rape came of poorly more for storytelling reasons and a sense that the show runners are relying too much on things like sexual violence as a dramatic crutch.
I bring that up because I have the feeling that Cersei's humiliation will likely be treated similarly. I'm sure there'll be some voices out there that get angry at it simply for for it is on the surface, but if they direct it, write it, shoot it, and present it in a way that really communicates its purpose, I don't think you'll hear the same type of uproar about it.
Basically, it's about presentation, I guess. My girlfriend hasn't finished Dance with Dragons yet, and this weekend she and her family are going to Spain for a week. I gave her a strong warning to stay off any and all social media during their second and third days there, lest she gets the finale spoiled for her. It's going to feel weird after this season, not being able to play the "I know what's coming, I read the books" card.
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Jun 12, 2015 21:55:39 GMT -5
What would you rather him do, from his POV, one driven by duty to the realm? Spare his daughter, only for her and everyone else to die anyways in a way that means nothing? Tons of people decry what he did but very few offer alternatives. People calling Stannis evil/irredeemable and wanting him to die don't even make any sense. They're just upset over something that yes, was horrible, but completely understandable and even possibly even justified. It's not even like he did it for the hell of it. That would make him f***ing evil. "Evil" itself is also really nothing but an oversimplified box to tick in the first place for a series with characters as complex as this one (save for Ramsay) and especially for who I'd consider to be possibly the most complex character within that series. Stannis doesn't WANT to sit on the Iron Throne. He HAS to, in his mind, and that's the tragedy of his character: that he is sacrificing so much for something he doesn't even have any real desire for and ultimately doesn't have much of a chance of getting in the end. In another tragic irony, this also could have probably been prevented if Davos didn't let Gendry go free, if I remember correctly. I can understand not being too pleased with him burning his sweet baby girl but the man isn't evil. I just realized I'm passionately defending the actions and character of a man who burned his daughter at the stake. I also don't even think I'm wrong. What a series. Nope. When you're willing to burn your own child alive out of some misguided sense of messianic duty, you're evil. Annoyingly, they could have made it work with one slight change. His men were growing uneasy and about to rebel, or were demanding her sacrifice after being whipped into a frenzy by the Red Plot Device. So, Stannis would have to kill her to prove to his men that he was willing to sacrifice whatever it took. Instead of... "It's been one day since our tents were destroyed, and we're nearly 4 miles from Winterfell." If you're going to use the story of Agamemnon as inspiration, go full Agamemnon.
|
|
Mochi Lone Wolf
Fry's dog Seymour
Development through Destruction.
Posts: 24,153
|
Post by Mochi Lone Wolf on Jun 12, 2015 22:30:02 GMT -5
Nope. When you're willing to burn your own child alive out of some misguided sense of messianic duty, you're evil. Annoyingly, they could have made it work with one slight change. His men were growing uneasy and about to rebel, or were demanding her sacrifice after being whipped into a frenzy by the Red Plot Device. So, Stannis would have to kill her to prove to his men that he was willing to sacrifice whatever it took. Instead of... "It's been one day since our tents were destroyed, and we're nearly 4 miles from Winterfell." If you're going to use the story of Agamemnon as inspiration, go full Agamemnon. It also would have helped if they had reminded us that the "Azor Ahai" prophecy involves sacrificing someone they love(Nissa Nissa) to bring about Lightbringer, the sword that will supposedly destroy the White Walkers and end "The Long Night." Stannis mentions in the episode that he must "become what he's destined for" yet, they never really pushed what that was and what that entailed. That's the whole bloody f****** point for why Melisandre is there in the first place. Because she believes him to be that hero. You take that out, she's just an attractive older woman with red hair who shows her tits all the time and has some magical powers. if you push that angle plus go with your idea of going full Agamemnon, it makes the viewer think "Damn, that was horrifying. I can't believe he did that to his own daughter. And yet.."
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Jun 12, 2015 22:42:33 GMT -5
Ok, one more:
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,444
Member is Online
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Jun 13, 2015 2:19:31 GMT -5
What would you rather him do, from his POV, one driven by duty to the realm? Spare his daughter, only for her and everyone else to die anyways in a way that means nothing? Tons of people decry what he did but very few offer alternatives. People calling Stannis evil/irredeemable and wanting him to die don't even make any sense. They're just upset over something that yes, was horrible, but completely understandable and even possibly even justified. It's not even like he did it for the hell of it. That would make him f***ing evil. "Evil" itself is also really nothing but an oversimplified box to tick in the first place for a series with characters as complex as this one (save for Ramsay) and especially for who I'd consider to be possibly the most complex character within that series. Stannis doesn't WANT to sit on the Iron Throne. He HAS to, in his mind, and that's the tragedy of his character: that he is sacrificing so much for something he doesn't even have any real desire for and ultimately doesn't have much of a chance of getting in the end. In another tragic irony, this also could have probably been prevented if Davos didn't let Gendry go free, if I remember correctly. I can understand not being too pleased with him burning his sweet baby girl but the man isn't evil. I just realized I'm passionately defending the actions and character of a man who burned his daughter at the stake. I also don't even think I'm wrong. What a series. He burned his daughter alive because for some reason, he couldn't travel the distance Ramsay and his merry men traveled in one afternoon. He's like South Park on that episode they all resorted to cannibalism. I don't mind the "Ramsay could travel, Stannis can't" thing. Think about it, Ramsay's had to come? What? 5-10 miles from his comparatively cushy, well provisioned castle, whereas Stannis and co have come tens if not hundreds of miles already through the winter snows with just their supply lines. It makes sense Ramsay's guys would be quicker, stronger, fresher in this situation.
|
|
Gecko
Grimlock
FAN Pyrite Member. Muahahaha
Posts: 13,635
|
Post by Gecko on Jun 13, 2015 4:54:32 GMT -5
I'm reading through the books again and I'm just thinking of the changes between the books and the show. {Spoiler} If they do the John betrayal for the last episode, what will Sam's role be? In the books, by the time the betrayal happened, Sam had already left the wall along with Aemon, Gilly and Mance's son who had been switched with Gilly's. They were sent away because the baby and Aemon were possible Stannis sacrifices and also to get Sam to start his maester training. Thinking about it as I'm typing, although the Stannis part isn't an issue anymore, they do need a replacement for Aemon. Guess I answered my own question.
Can someone remind me where Ghost was when John got stabbed?
|
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on Jun 13, 2015 7:05:58 GMT -5
I absolutely do not like or trust Melisandre. The very fact that Stannis is following her so blindly proves right there that he's a dumb ass and...yeah, doesn't deserve to be the king or even live that much longer. What have we seen Melisandre do exactly? Let's see, first she claims she can see visions. Then she can show visions to other people....something that could easily be done with drugs, mind control, hypnosis, or any variety of tricks. She can survive drinking poison...which could be done by magic, sure, or a counter cure that maybe she knows about and the maester who tried to poison her didn't. She can make exactly one shadow baby/monster/killer thing and kill exactly one dorky guy with it. She supposedly takes tiny bits of blood from one basically worthless blacksmith bastard and supposedly is able to cause the deaths of two or more guys...but none of this means anything and it could all be coincidence.
All her prayers and incantations and magic and whatever other bullcrap she claims to have meant absolutely nothing at the battle of Blackwater where Stannis had his ass handed to him. She claims she had to "be there" but that sounds to me exactly like a charlatan making a bullshit excuse to save her own life. She's amazed, dumbfounded, seemingly even a little scared when they come across another red priest who CAN BRING PEOPLE BACK FROM THE DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This guy required no sacrifice, no blood squeezed from the left testicle hair of a giant moose, or whatever other dumb bullshit Melisandre claims is required, and the only price paid was the person brought back "loses a piece of himself" whatever the f*** that means (heh, in Dungeons and Dragons/Pathfinder this translates to losing a level or a constitution point if they are level one). As for the blacksmith kid...hey, if her claims about his blood were true, don't threaten to squeeze every last drop from the kid and murder him off...give him his precious bull helmet back and set him up with a blacksmith shop, clothes, food, and all the f***ing orange juice he can drink! Yeah yeah, Melisandre claimed the power of his blood was diminished or what the hell ever, but really, how does she know that? It just sounds like more lies and bullcrap.
I keep seeing this whole thing as a Dungeons and Dragons/Pathfinder story! A bard/sorcerer/wizard (Melisandre) is tricking some dip shit fighter into thinking she's a great and powerful cleric, while the real great and powerful cleric is over there somewhere, and the fighter keeps falling for her shit...like she's constantly rolling 20's on her maxed out diplomacy/bluff skills. I don't believe Melisandre is who she says she is, and it's going to cost Stannis in the end. I really hope, for his sake, that Stannis doesn't find out...all the horrible stuff he's done, and all for nothing.
|
|
|
Post by hossfan on Jun 13, 2015 7:20:39 GMT -5
Stannis really is the drizzling shits on the show. He's accomplished nothing on his own. Ned Stark is the one who figures out he's the one with the best claim to the Iron Throne when his brother the king dies. Melisandre kills his other brother and rival for him with her queef smoke monster. Davos convinces the Iron Bank to back Stannis. Jon Snow and the Night's Watch has done all the heavy lifting when it came to defeating/recruiting the Wildlings. Stannis's one chance to prove himself as a general literally blew up in his face at Blackwater. He's the worst.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,444
Member is Online
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Jun 13, 2015 10:26:20 GMT -5
I'm reading through the books again and I'm just thinking of the changes between the books and the show. {Spoiler}{Spoiler} If they do the John betrayal for the last episode, what will Sam's role be? In the books, by the time the betrayal happened, Sam had already left the wall along with Aemon, Gilly and Mance's son who had been switched with Gilly's. They were sent away because the baby and Aemon were possible Stannis sacrifices and also to get Sam to start his maester training. Thinking about it as I'm typing, although the Stannis part isn't an issue anymore, they do need a replacement for Aemon. Guess I answered my own question.
Can someone remind me where Ghost was when John got stabbed?
{Spoiler}Ghost was locked away so he wouldn't start trouble with a wildling who had a boar he wargs into.
They like pairing people up in the show, maybe they'll send Sam and Davos off together since John'll be dead and Davos has to lose his faith in Stannis now.
|
|
Gecko
Grimlock
FAN Pyrite Member. Muahahaha
Posts: 13,635
|
Post by Gecko on Jun 13, 2015 11:37:43 GMT -5
I'm reading through the books again and I'm just thinking of the changes between the books and the show. {Spoiler}{Spoiler}{Spoiler} If they do the John betrayal for the last episode, what will Sam's role be? In the books, by the time the betrayal happened, Sam had already left the wall along with Aemon, Gilly and Mance's son who had been switched with Gilly's. They were sent away because the baby and Aemon were possible Stannis sacrifices and also to get Sam to start his maester training. Thinking about it as I'm typing, although the Stannis part isn't an issue anymore, they do need a replacement for Aemon. Guess I answered my own question.
Can someone remind me where Ghost was when John got stabbed?
{Spoiler}Ghost was locked away so he wouldn't start trouble with a wildling who had a boar he wargs into.
They like pairing people up in the show, maybe they'll send Sam and Davos off together since John'll be dead and Davos has to lose his faith in Stannis now. {Spoiler} I'm amusing myself with the thought of Davos trudging all the way to the wall to get supplies, chatting with Sam about him going off to become a maester and saying he'd like to go with Sam but he's loyal to Stannis. Then he has to go all the way back to Stannis only to find out what's happened and immediately turning round and going back to the wall again.
|
|
chrom
Backup Wench
Master of the rare undecuple post
Posts: 87,135
|
Post by chrom on Jun 13, 2015 14:41:57 GMT -5
Between Stannis and Daenerys I don't know who's the worst. Why should I have faith in either of them?
|
|
denna5
Mephisto
The gentle beating of mighty wings.
Posts: 735
|
Post by denna5 on Jun 13, 2015 14:48:39 GMT -5
Between Stannis and Daenerys I don't know who's the worst. Why should I have faith in either of them? Daenerys is really young and headstrong which I think would hamper her ability to rule. I used to be alright with Stannis ruling because Davos would be his right hand and could help kind of reign him in a bit, help cut down on the red lady's influence, but at least on the show I can't see Davos sticking with Stannis now which would make his main influence Meslisandre and I don't think that would be a good thing.
|
|
Mochi Lone Wolf
Fry's dog Seymour
Development through Destruction.
Posts: 24,153
|
Post by Mochi Lone Wolf on Jun 13, 2015 16:52:22 GMT -5
Stannis really is the drizzling shits on the show. He's accomplished nothing on his own. Ned Stark is the one who figures out he's the one with the best claim to the Iron Throne when his brother the king dies. Melisandre kills his other brother and rival for him with her queef smoke monster. Davos convinces the Iron Bank to back Stannis. Jon Snow and the Night's Watch has done all the heavy lifting when it came to defeating/recruiting the Wildlings. Stannis's one chance to prove himself as a general literally blew up in his face at Blackwater. He's the worst. In fairness, there's no way Stannis could have predicted Tyrion's wildfire plot nor could he have predicted Littlefinger sweet talking the armies of the Reach to their side and Lord Tywin being quick enough to mobilize them for battle at the last minute. Hell, Tyrion wasn't entirely sure it would work. As far as Dany goes, I'm not sure she can properly prioritize herself for ruling. She's so concerned about what happens in Slaver's Bay that it makes it nearly impossible for her to get back to Westeros considering how many resources she's put into cities like Meereen and Yunkai. Not to mention she's shown quite a few instances of being her father's daughter rather than her brother's(Rhaegar, that is) sister.
|
|