Katsullivan

Well obviously, the laws & rules of succession of Westeros are not followed. If they were, we'd literally have no conflict or no story. Which is my point exactly - the lack of conflict. I mean, look at your own examples: Aegon made the Iron Throne and took Westeros by conquest. He didn't just waltz into the continent and have the Kingdoms democratically elect him their King. The Ironborn a.k.a. "we do not sow" are not exactly a civilised, conflict-free society. Euron still wanted his brother's children killed after he was crowned King. Why did he still fear them if the democracy was enough to keep him in power? Robert had to have the Targaryen babies murdered and was still sending assassins after Viserys decades after he was King. Dany got pregnant and Robert freaked out over her having a son. After decades of the Mad King, Robert was as popular as he could get, but he obviously didn't think that was enough to keep him power. Of course, the unhappy masses can demote a King. Violently. I can add other examples: Aegon I died, and the Septons rebelled against crowning his children born of incest. Battles were fought and finally, the "Church" was de-militarised permanently (until Cersei the Idiot). Renly felt he would be a better King than his older brother, Stannis. Guess what happened? Daemon Blackfyre was legitimised at his father's death bed + rumours that King Daemon was the old King's illegitimate nephew and not his son = generations long civil war. Rhaenyra Targaryen, the older female daughter + Aegon, younger first son = a civil war that led to the extinction of the dragons. There is a consistent pattern of violence where rules of succession are not followed or perceived not to have been followed (Lannister bastards). Sometimes after this conflict, new rules are put in place to forestall future occurrences. (e.g. decreeing exactly where women fall in the line of succession after the Dance of the Dragons). There is no precedent of the kind of peaceful, conflict-free democracy that "elected" Jon. The entire scenario does not bear examining because everything about it was unrealistic. For one, that kind of wonderful unanimity doesn't even happen in democratic societies, talk less of feudal ones. Weren't half of those Houses fighting for Bolton an episode ago? Now they're all seated and singing kumbaya? For another, those Lords and Ladies are not the ones that'll be "revolutionising" government any time soon. Rebellions and revolutions never start from nobility. It starts from the small-folk, the religious, the military - basically everybody in these societies who've needed to crawl and climb their way through life. The same people - nobility - who get everything they have because they are born under the right circumstances - would be the last people to perpetuate the idea that leadership isn't an exclusive club. Also in the books, all the legitimate Starks are presumed to be dead which I'm sure goes a long way to Jon's acceptance.

Only Jon's claim to the title is because he's Ned Stark's son. The House of Stark is entitled to the KitN as long as the title exists. They were the Kings before Tormund Bent the Knee. It's not a 'elected' title. Greatjon didn't elect Robb - he proposed Northern Independence. Greatjon's more or less exact words were: 'it was the Dragons we married, and the Dragons are dead. Why should anyone rule over the North?' The Stark family is tied to the title intrinsically. Cersei has the right as next of kin to the last living King. No, that is the counterpoint to your statement. Aemon had to take himself out of the way for his brother to be King. Sansa has not taken herself out of the way. As long as she exists as a potential legitimate Queen - as the legitimate Queen, she is a Problem, regardless of how she herself feels about the matter. The fact that Jon is being crowned and Sansa is sitting by his side, (apparently) smiling in agreement is an anomaly. Has anything in this story led you to believe that people claim power because they think that they will be good leaders who are willing to die for their people? Once again, I'm not arguing over whether Sansa should be Queen or would make a good leader or any of that. I'm saying that according to the laws and costums of Westeros and the North, according to the bloody civil wars that have occurred because of this exact situation played out on both smaller and larger scales, what happened was an anomaly to the story we've been told so far. And that's about all I'm going to say about this because people seem unable to separate that there is a difference between having a problem with: 1. the how of Jon's 'crowning', the way that story was played out, against the back-drop of this world, and the larger consequences of it being ignored, 2, the fact that he was crowned. My problem is with (1) and not (2).

I would like to see a few settled couples. It's possible to have couple drama without it being a make/break situation. Besides Richard and Katherine, is there any other couple unit that is stable?

Bran is believed to have died, either burned to death in Winterfell or having died across the Wall. That's exactly how Kings and Queen are chosen in this world and when people don't stick to these 'rules', wars are fought. Westeros is not a democracy. Kings and Queens aren't chosen because of who is more qualified. Babies have been murdered because of which side of the sheets they were born. Old Aemon Targaryen needed to go to the Wall because he knew that even though he didn't want to be King, he'd become a rallying point against his will for those who would oppose his younger, more qualified brother's rule. This also works on a smaller scale. Sam was sent to the Wall because his father wanted his younger brother to be Lord in his place and gave Sam the choice of being murdered or being exiled. You'd think that the reigning Lord would have a right to choose which of his sons should succeed him in his place, but it never works that way. Which makes Jon basically usurping Sansa to her face and nobody (except devious Littlefinger) raising an eyebrow over it all the more galling. I'm not arguing that Sansa would make a better Queen or it makes any kind of sense to crown her as Queen. But by their own culture and standards what Jon did was a declaration of civil war and I think it says something about how little the GOT showrunners understand the world of ASOIAF that they did that with so little consideration. (Anyway, my point wasn't really about Jon vs Sansa but about how Jon accepting to be KitN is just as selfish, maybe even more so, than Dany wanting to sit on her family's throne. I really don't care to see Sansa as QitN.) Let's hope then because otherwise it would be a big shame.

It's hard for me to have an opinion about the Jon/Sansa potential conflict or even Sansa herself because she seems more of a plot device than a character. She's weak and easily manipulated when it serves the plot, and pragmatic and hard-eyed when it does. I don't think the writers have made up their minds what they want her endgame to be, and I think that it's interesting because of all the main characters of the show, her TV-plot has diverged the most from her book-plot. Does that mean that whatever Sansa does has no bearing on the ASOIAF endgame? The wheel Dany was referring to was the cycle of false Kings that had followed after Robert's Rebellion. She was claiming the Iron Throne that she considered her birthright (there's also the fact that as a Targaryen Dany will always be a threat to the ruler of Westeros regardless of what she decided to do) to break that wheel. But if we're talking about people doing revolutionary things or changing the way things are traditionally done, then Dany gets credit for ending the millennia-long economy of slave trade in Essos and establishing a sustainable rule of government there. Before it's pointed out that she needed an Army, note that after she got her Unsullied she could have kept marching on to Westeros with them. She remained in the East to free slaves and to rule in a way that would not cause the system to revert in her absence. Note also that Jon is uniting the wildlings and the North because of the threat of the White Walkers. His reasons are less altruistic and more pragmatic than Dany's. Jon, by the way, accepted the title of King in the North even though he has no claim to it, and his sister was literally sitting right there. Wars have started in this world over siblings squabbling over who got to rule. Stannis vs Renly. Aegon vs Rhaenya.

I am all for this. A lot happened since that fling and Maggie's STI/UTI gag. Both characters have grown and changed. Rather than keep them in respective triangles (Jo & Jackson), please let them move on to each other.

They should cast her as Tuppence and run with that. It's a pity that Hollywood never quite exploited the potential of Tommy-and-Tuppence. They were a pair of young, hot, sexy investigators who starred in a lot of short stories that could easily have been expanded upon.

The only thing more frustrating than witnessing racism in action is witnessing it being defended by the same tired excuses and rationalisations.

TVLine wrote a "blind article" declaring this show "stank" and was certain to be cancelled. Is this usual for TVLine to claim a show would be doomed before an episode aired or did this show/Shonda just get "special treatment" this time around? Similarly, they, and their sister site Deadline, reported the move to Saturday with the headline "Still Star Crossed Cancelled" instead of, you know, "Still Star Crossed Moved to Saturday." that other media reported. To compare, look at the screencaps of the different headlines reporting the move. Again, is this typical for TVLine or was there something extra-malicious about their coverage of this show? Disgusting. I watched the show out of solidarity not because it was my cup of tea and I was aware of the vitriol that it generated for Shonda daring to cast POCs in the kind of costume drama that is typically reserved for whites. The show was not promoted for a year. It was pushed out of the Fall and Spring TV seasons when it could have been paired with the rest of Shonda's TGIT time-slot, and they didn't naturally pair it with ONCE upon a time, where it could have gathered the same kind of costume/melodramatic fans. Instead it was paired with the Bachelorette, I guess because since the Bachelorette was black, and black people will watch it, amirite? A "blind article" dooming it was published a week before it was finally aired, and it premiered on Memorial Day. After the natural dip in ratings because of the missed episode, even though it held steady after the Pilot, it was moved to Saturday and TVLine was crowing about cancellation before it was even announced. Well, they got their wish. Racism wins again.

As everyone and their mother are making movie "universes" these days, any chance that this is supposed to kick-off some Christie Universe or the like?

In my opinion & observation, Westallen were best at navigating around each other in season 1. It was more natural, it was more co-ordinated and seamless. Since then, other than a few stand-out episodes like "Runaway Dragon", their interactions have been "off", as I mentioned. Even the moments you've mentioned, they seem more ... I really am not being articulate right now, but once again I'll point to my Rogue/Alisha example. Characters don't even need to 'touch' to indicate intimacy. One person touching someone's shoulder or standing protectively near another person doesn't necessarily indicate intimacy, and this is what I got out of Westallen after season 1. Which is remarkable because in season 1, they weren't in an intimate relationship, yet they still managed to exude the potential for intimacy far more than they've done since they've got together. There are stand-out moments, like Barry being completely indifferent to Iris after he returned from the future in "Once and Future Flash", but there are also smaller, "silenter" signs. And I blame direction on this, not the actors, for the record. I think the actors can definitely bring in the intimacy, the heat, the indications that they are two characters who have deep levels of emotional, mental and sexual connection to one another. I saw that in season 1 so I know it's there - but the direction and the writing seems determined to down-play that and ... it might be possible that GG and CP have given up.

This news made me start rewatching the series and rediscovering my old love for it. I still remember literally throwing myself off my couch at the superhoodie reveal. I'm suspicious that they haven't cast Simon. Maybe they want to go with Overman's original plan to make Simon the Big Bad of the show. I would like to watch that version of Misfits, actually. If the US is going to remake a UK show that was a parody remake of another US show (Heroes), then this might be the best way to put a fresh spin on it. Of course, what I would really like is for them to adapt the epic Simon x Alisha romance and flesh it out properly. Love the ideas up thread about Alisha's arc being meant for something bigger but the show taking a u-turn on it for some reason. An adaptation could fix that. But with this casting news... Salisha is an interracial romance. I mean, it always was, but Simon was such a creepy character at the start of the show that the usual US audience backlash (Merlin fans know what I'm talking about) was not as intense. If they decide to 'hero' him up from the beginning, and make him the main male lead (something that I fear is why they're holding off the Simon casting announcement), then there'll definitely be a kick back against making his love interest a dark-skinned black girl.

That trailer was... interesting. Certainly got my attention at any rate. And I agree with everyone else who said that Poirot would never sport grey mustache or say he was probably the greatest detective in the world. But as for interracial romance in the 20s, I hope they're taking a leaf from Merlin and Still-Star-Crossed and color-blind casting rather than dealing with the real-life politics of it which will just drag the story down, imo.

So I've been rewatching my old fave misfits and it's clear to me what is 'off' about the way Westallen is portrayed on screen - they don't navigate around each other like a couple. There was an otp on misfits that where one half has X-men Rogue-esque powers so can't make physical skin-to-skin contact with anybody. But despite this, there are plenty of non-verbal cues that these people are a couple. They walk together, they stand close, they hook elbows through clothes. They 'gaze'. The camera gives them room to gaze. This is a couple that literally cannot make physical body contact. Yet the show manages to give them more tension and energy and visual cues that they are a couple than what we get from Westallen. Don't tell me that this is not deliberate.

This is where making Iris a more active agent in her own story, in this whole show could have proved so useful. There are so many opportunities for this show to be elevated and everytime, they keep missing them.

The producers love Joe/Barry because it's a story about a Black man constantly validating his White son above his own Black children & it's been written that way from the start. From all the father/child scenes being focused on Barry, and practically none on Iris. To the story of the fricking watch that should have gone to Iris before Wally, and most certainly before the White cuckoo-in-the-nest and now to the fact that Barry basically murders Iris being swept under the rug. Honestly, I don't even understand why the producers made Barry = Savitar if they weren't going to deal with the consequences of Barry = Savitar.

This. Caitlin/Cisco are basically Hermione/Ron aren't they? Caitlin is the uptight bookworm and Cisco is the brilliant joker. If Cisco was White, that pairing would be catnip to the fangirls. Linda/Barry and Iris/Eddie got loads of PDA in season 1. And I remember the Hawkes getting it on in season 2. It looks like the no-PDA ban only came in effect when they realized they had to do Westallen.

Yeah, it doesn't bear analyzing, does it? ;) But I still think that in the convoluted way that Scandal seems to thrive on, the murder mystery made sense.

The more I read of this AU plot of yours, themore I hate what we got instead from canon so if your plan was to make me absolutely detest season 3, congratulations because you succeeded! But seriously, you need to write a proper multichapter fanfiction AU of this season based on this plot.

I LOVED that scene. Meredith's "if that was Derek, I would already be in the car" brought tears to my eyes and for the first time, I bought these two as a viable couple.

I'm still reeling over Maggie x Jackson. Why, Shonda? Why?

Luna wasn't random. The seeds were planted from the start with her not letting her children be present during Election Night. Scandal has always played hard on the 'Behind every great man is an even greater woman who could do his job better' trope. Luna was Dark Mellie - "there Mellie goes but for the grace of Olivia Pope". You could easily say that the Luna reveal was the culmination of not just 1 season but 6 seasons of build-up on this show. (As for the funding --- it seemed more of a partnership than a straight-up hire. Assassinate my husband, and get 'stocks' in the US Economy as we puppeteer the POTUS.) Cyrus was the Iago of the story. He assassinated by suggestion. I doubt he knew anything about Peus or Mama Pope or the details of the assassination and conspiracy. But he was the figurative Devil that planted that seed in Luna's ears. Much like Iago, he's the villain because he's the one preying on Othello's insecurities and manipulating situations but no court of law would convict Iago for Desdemona's murder. It was the perfect murder. There were some inconsistencies but overall, I think the season wrapped up perfectly. I think the series wrapped up perfectly and I really don't understand what can top this.

I agree and I say this as someone who quietly still ships Olitz, but that goodbye scene was epic, seeing Olivia rise to become the Most Dangerous Woman in the world was epic, and I really don't understand where else they can take this show to.

Definitely takes credence from the possibility of Iris dying or Candice being sent off if they're putting her in their Network sizzle reel. Perhaps there's hope for Westallen fans after all.

Thanks for putting this into words. And it bears repeating that not providing the inner lives is a pattern when it comes to POCs and Black characters in general in the media. The Wests are atypical because they aren’t just a Black family – they are the White hero’s family. Joe and Barry work in the same building. Iris is his love interest, and he dated someone at her work. But when you look at it critically, when you take away the aspects of their lives that do not intersect with Barry’s, you get the same treatment. There’s a reason why Joe/Iris & Joe/Wally interactions are so much less in quantity and quality than Joe/Barry. There’s a reason why Wally makes a stupid statement like “You trusted me and I let you down” to BARRY and not “Iris trusted me and I let my sister down”. There’s a reason why apart from Wally’s ignored question about ‘why would any version of Barry want to hurt Iris?’, no West – Joe, Wally or Iris herself – has reacted naturally to the realization that Savitar and Barry are the same person. It's more than just 'sets'.