Beech27

Yes. And, the problem with a malignant narcissist running things is that, the further the notion that their ideas are the problem spreads, the more likely they are to insist on those ideas being followed. Backing off would be admitting defeat; winning isn't enough, they have to win on their terms, because of those terms. So, the more people complain about Vince being the problem, the more likely he is to be the problem. Aside: Meltzer's latest on WOR is that there are more people asking for a release, enough to count on two hands, some of whom are "shocking." So.

I think this super juniors tournament has demonstrated the importance of variety, and Moxley has a lot of experience working a 15 minute tv match style that could work well in a tournament. I still don’t expect (or really want) him to be in it, but there would be reason for optimism.

It's not surprising at all, but I do think it's interesting that AEW's first Weekly Pro Wrestling cover features Omega, and not Moxley or Jericho, both of whom have big matches at Dominion.

If? Linda literally worked for him, the whole family posed in the White House, and he’s their Hall of Fame.

Yeah. This is one of those periods where New Japan World’s full price feels like theft. There are a few guys I’m entirely skipping, and some I’m not as high on as others, but there’s still great variety and absurdly high highs. If Shingo does the G1, this could be an all time great few months of singles matches. (Though hell on his body, I’m sure.)

Stevens is that Stevens from a decade ago, out of retirement.

The irony being that their initial Star Wars press junket will now be loaded with vaguely critical "What did the GoT experience teach you and what would you do differently now?" sorts of questions--to say nothing of the lack of excitement now attached to their involvement. Oh well. Anyway, despite my better judgment it seems I'm going to watch this whole series again. Already. Everyone looks so young.

I’m reminded of Laurence Olivier’s famous “It’s called acting quip” when measures are taken to ensure a real performance. (Quite the contradiction in terms.) Mostly I’m reminded because Clarke just said D&D told her to think of Dany as Lawrence of Arabia—a would be savior who is doomed by that very complex. If I wanted to play devil’s advocate—I don’t!—I’d note that maybe Dany snapping justifies a sudden change in acting perspective. (And, better fan theories aside, we are told by the writers that she did basically go over the edge in that one moment.)

Dinklage was (not surprisingly) great; but I think it's worth pointing out how good Emilia Clarke was at selling something that--if her interviews are to be believed--legitimately stunned her. (And I think it's fair to say she may have actively disliked/disagreed with some of it.) Considering how maligned she was early in the show, it's pretty impressive how the consensus has shifted that, despite criticism of her arc, no one faults her for the portrayal. If we take the pseudo-historical allegory somewhat seriously, maybe, instead of the aftermath of the War of the Roses, we should look to the Holy Roman Empire as the model of a nonhereditary monarchy. You can choose whomever you want... as long as you want a Hapsburg (or Stark, as it were).

I'm not really sure yet how I feel or what I think, whether to treat this as the ending or an ending. I'm probably most intrigued by ideas surrounding subversion and consistency and confirmation, and whether a work that is expected to do the anti-fantasy thing is, in fact, subversive by going for an ending that is both (realistically) blandly politically uniformitarian and very LOTR also. The corrupting thing is burned with magic fire as the hero who never wanted to be a hero or powerful fails but succeeds in that failing and then is whisked away to a land beyond because this place is just too trauma laden and can't be home anymore and then Arya literally sails west while dynastic politics continues more or less the same as ever while someone writes the whole frame narrative/book which is how the story has come down to us. There are very large essays to write about all that, but I can't quite get it straight in my own head. Also, can't wait for the sequel set ages in the future, when a mystical threat from beyond the wall rises, a name out of legend that the people take to be myth and metaphor because an undead ice zombie king with the last name Snow, come on.

You could have fixed a lot by switching the conflict order at the end. Dany goes crazy and takes the throne, and the disparate parties have to balance their horror with the knowledge that they need her to defeat the pending apocalypse. The central conflict—that the game of thrones is a game, distracting from the real problem—comes into sharp focus.

Nope, not even close. Thanks for the contribution, though.

That's utterly vacuous, especially since you admit to having no context at all for this specific case. People should engage with fiction, not passively and uncritically consume it.

Maybe I'm naive, but I think it's still possible for writers to produce good work in 2019.

Nomura hits people really hard. Hideki Suzuki has a (not entirely unearned) reparation for working in a (boring) fashion that seems disdainful of his opponent and audience, but that can work really well when he wants to work hard. And yeah, Sekimoto and Okabayashi are prime beef.

I wonder if we get a Julius Caesar ending for her? She's near invincible while on a dragon... but she's not always on a dragon, and she has no real martial skill otherwise. I could see a scene where she berates Jon and Tyrion for treason, makes demands, and slowly realizes everyone in the room is against her: Cue the mass stabbing, et tu, Jon? It would be smart to keep loyal Unsullied and Dothraki around her at all times to prevent this; but no one here is smart, so.

The point isn't just that some assortment of any population are good and some are evil, but also that people are products of circumstance and context. That is, everyone isn't evil but almost everyone has the capacity for it; violence breeds violence; this is what war is; this is what sacking a city is. From the Assyrians to Greeks to Romans to Medievals, you usually had to surrender before the fight even started in order to be treated well. (Or there needed to be a strategic advantage to mercy, enforced by good leadership. They probably had the former here, but not the latter. If Jon shouts to stand down in the moments of silence and Dany just hangs out, or flies right for Cersei, it all unfolds differently.) Even the beginning of resistance was taken as license to perpetrate atrocities. This is shitty! For sure. And it's good that we're mostly beyond it. It's also worth noting that "it's historically accurate!" isn't an ironclad defense when it comes to fiction. But this has always been how this universe has been depicted.

Big—and hilarious—if true.

I think Dany goes mad in Martin's books too--if they ever come--with the important distinction that a mad king/queen is basically a redundant phrase. The books have always echoed Martin's anti war/imperialism politics a little--and more than the show, certainly--so I think it will be emphasized that Dany ultimately does what she always has: kill those who betray her or will not bend the knee. In that way she's the ultimate rational expression of monarchy when faced with nothing but enemies, and not mad at all. (I'm aware that the show runners contradict this directly, and shot/directed it to suggest a momentary snap. Her madness gene suddenly triggers. Which is dumb, so I'm ignoring it. Death of the author is easy when they aren't really, totally the authors.)

The Dothraki and Unsullied acting as they did is basically supported by... every city sacking ever, so I don't need much to justify that. Dany, I don't think is practically motivated. That is, in that moment she isn't thinking that this will help her keep the throne. I think, instead, she sees the people as avatars of the rejection she's faced and feels--rather than thinks--in that moment that they are all present or potential conspirators against her, and thus should be treated like traitors. If you wanted to take it further, she's breaking her toys so no one else can play with them.

Tad Williams, whose trilogy inspired Martin to take a crack at the epic fantasy game in the first place, is still completing things; Abercombie has a new trilogy; Jemisin hasn't shown herself to be anything but punctual; and there's Lawrence, Weeks, et al. There's new big fat fantasy all the time, and I never get to 3/4 of it I'd like to, so I try not to worry about a lack here and there. Though if Martin gets around to it, I'll happily read. (The pending adaptation of Kingkiller is, if it happens, going to give us lots of nostalgic conversation fodder about a show passing the books, weird sexism, etc.) On the subject of mercy, I'm curious/nervous to see how that's handled in Amazon's second age Tolkien show, since that was his whole (very Catholic) thing.