Scaeva

People in Alaska, Montana, and the Dakotas need guns to defend themselves from domesticated horses? I know you mean wild animals like bears (even though stastificallly attacks by bears are extraordinarily rare), but my post was clearly talking about domesticated ones. I wasn't outraged by the horse's death. No animals were harmed in real life. I was just attempting to explain why people might find an animal's make pretend death on film, sadder than all those make pretend deaths of humans. Besides, all the humans that died in this episode were part of some cannibal cult being run by a creep. What did you find offensive? I didn't say peoples' deaths in WW1 were not tragic. I just said the horses, unlike the people involved, were innocent, and that gives their deaths an extra layer of tragedy.

Have you ever been in the military? I served in the US Marine Corps, and think the deaths of military working dogs is more tragic than that of the military personnel they serve beside in combat zones. That isn't to say that I don't find the death of people in war sad or tragic. But those wars are started by humans, not dogs, and a Marine who was killed in war at least knew the risks and enlisted of their own free will.

Animals feel pain & fear, no different than humans. The horse however was innocent & had no hand in any of the violence. It's why in films like War Horse for example, the the plight of the horses is more tragic than that of the humans dying around it. Its the humans' war, not the horses.

I think it was a little bit of both. Looking back now at the earlier episode where the older Native American couple told Joel & Ellie to head back east, instead of west, and that no one returns from crossing the river to the west....I think the implication now is that people who were crossing the river were encountering that other group of survivors, being killed, and then eaten.

It's because animals, like small children, are truly innocent and entirely dependent on their caretakers. The horse's death would be more tragic than any of those of the adult humans involved in the story because it did not understand what was going on, had no "hand" in the events that led to it's death, and that death is ultimately senseless and came about because of a rather depressing tendency for humans to be selfish or violent. Even if Joel had died this episode, the horse's death would be more tragic. The horse was innocent. Joel isn't.

I loved that there were at least two people who were living a somewhat normal life, or as normal as was possible under the circumstances, who had rebuilt a small slice of civilization, even if was just for them. Zombie flicks and other post apocalyptic films often portray humanity as going full Lord of the Flies the moment our species reverts to a primitive state, with every encounter with other people not in the protagonists' immediate circle revealing them to be untrustworthy, selfish, and irrationally violent, but while it might make for cinematic drama it's just not very realistic at all. Humanity has had plenty of disasters on a smaller scale that may as well have been apocalyptic for the people experiencing them, like the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake & tsunami, the 2011 Tohuku earthquake & tsunami, the Chernobyl disaster, ect...and while all of those might have featured some isolated cases of selfish or abusive behavior by individuals, on the whole people got through it by supporting each other as best as they were able. In Pliny the Younger's account of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in 79 BCE, he reports that some of the bewildered survivors from Pompeii & the surrounding area - of which he was one - did think it was the end of the world. They didn't turn on each other either. Humans don't turn on each other when the chips are really down, they band together. No doubt TLOU will feature some of the genre tropes, as it has with FEDRA and the brief encounter with the raiders, but it's nice to have some characters other than the leads who aren't complete dogshit, and it gives the setting a bit more verisimilitude. If civilization collapsed every other band of survivors isn't going to want to rob or eat you.

Hypocritcally too it seems, as that nausea-inducing scene with Larys was rather obviously not the first time they'd done that and the king's corpse had not yet grown cold. It might have been transactional and clearly not something she enjoyed, but that doesn't make it any less adulterous. Alicen't real issue with Rhaenrya isn't that Rhaenyra was living a dissolute life, but rather jealousy at Rhaenyra having agency that she sorely lacked. Similarly the outrage directed at the illegitimacy of Rhaenyra's children was motivated more by a desire to see her own son elevated, at the expense of Rhaenyra, than any true sense of indignation over moral boundaries having been crossed. Having said that I do think Alicent truly believes she's taken a moral stand, but in that she's lied to herself to assuage herself of any guilt over having played just as dirty as the others in the game of thrones.

I'm totally Team Black but would have cheered King Aegon the Abominable too. I think it's a bit like footage of North Koreans "mourning" the death of Kim Jong-il. Maybe it is sincere, maybe the people are pretending really hard to be sincere, because bad things are bound to happen to you if you don't look pleased.

It does seem as if Helaena is being potrayed as autistic, but in addition to that she also seems to have inherited the Targaryen "gift" for prophecy. More than one of her socially awkward proclamations have come to pass in some form, the latest being "beware the beast beneath the boards." It is possible that gift of foresight revealed something about her mother. Or that she is holding a grudge at being married off by her mother to her drunken wastrel of a brother, who evidently treats her no better than he does serving girls.

Rhaenys' also already had a whole lot of blood on her hands from the smallfolk her dragon trampled, so she wasn't choosing to be gentle or magnanimous at all. Eve Best is fantastic in the role, but she's wrong about her character here. Every one involved in the production of this show keeps talking about how heroic or merciful the character was in that scene and it's absolutely baffling, considering the character quite literally killed innocent people in that scene. If the intent was for Rhaeyns to be an honorable character having her kill a bunch of civilians before she makes her dramatic exit was certainly an interesting choice. I do like the explanation given earlier in the thread about Rhaenys sparing the Greens because she needed an exit, and the guards were closing the door until Otto shouted for them to open it. Though that leaves me wondering why doors are so much to get through than ceilings, since that would then be twice that Rhaenys found closed doors to be be an impenetrable barrier for her dragon, despite that dragon being capable of bashing through the stone flooring of the keep. Still my least favorite scene of this series but at least with that explanation Rhaenys' "mercy" (after killing a bunch of people that her actor & the showrunners seem to have forgotten about) makes some sense. The seed is Strong.

The issue with Rhaenys isn't so much that she killed innocent people. You don't expect moral behavior from most characters in these shows, particularly Targaryens, and awful aristocrats doing awful things to each other is a big part of the drama that keeps people tuning in. It's more that she killed a bunch of innocent people who are inconsequential to the succession crisis, only to inexplicably spare the not-so-innocent people who actually do matter. Daemon has done far worse but all his wicked acts at least seemed like they were carried out with the intent to provide him, if not the kingdom or his immediate family, some benefit. You understand why he did the thing even if you think he's awful for doing the thing. Rhaenys' actions in contrast seem nonsensical, at least on the surface. Assuming she's not pulling a Littlefinger and hoping to grab the crown after every other head fit to wear it has been lopped off, not only did the raid on the coronation kill a bunch of people for no tangible gain, sparing the Green king & council guarantees civil war and puts her own house in peril. Daemon acted with a similar degree of foolishness perhaps with his mad charge at the crab king's men, but he thought he'd lost and was trying to fall on his sword in dramatic fashion. There was method to the character's madness and the motivation behind it was clear. Daemon's impulsivity is also entirely in character, while I'm not certain Rhaenys' crashing the coronation only to kill smallfolk, but none of the royals or nobles who are soon to be her enemies, was. Until the end of this episode she had always been presented as one of the more wise characters. Tl;dr: Different reactions for those two characters' evil acts isn't necessarily a double standard. Daemon's actions seem in character & have purpose behind them, Rhaeyns' raid on the coronation lacked both.

Thanks, though we seem to be in the Hot Take camp. lol If social media impressions elsewhere are anything to go by, most viewers seemed to have loved that scene. I'm jealous. A dragon crashing through a floor to smash some Westerosi folks into a fine paste should be content I'd like, but I didn't understand the character motivations behind it and *maybe* thought it was an uncharacteristicly foolish act from a character who normally comes across as the brightest in the room. I didn't watch the episode live & so I caugtht the behind the scenes bits, and also found that confusing, as the showrunners said they wanted to give Rhaenys a heroic exit. I'm sorry, what?! She killed a lot of innocent spectators, but spared the people whose deaths might actually sort out the mess one way or another. I'm hoping there is a reason the dragon couldn't have just exited through the door, and had to smash through the floor instead, and I'm the dumb one for missing it. Or that Rhaeyns is now steepling her fingers & cackling somewhere at the chaos she hopes to exploit, because otherwise I'd rank it as one of the weaker scenes of the GoT universe, spectacle aside.

I think there not being many lords present to pledge obedience to Aegon, at least in comparison to the previous oaths sworn to Rhaenyra, makes a fair amount of sense. Presumably with Rhaenyra lords from all over Westeros had been summoned ahead of time to make their way to King's Landing and pledge their obedience, but with the coronation of Aegon it's all being rushed following the king's death. They've only got the lords who happened to be present at the time to swear obedience (or murder, apparently) while the majority are still going to be far from King's Landing ruling their fiefdoms from their own keeps.

So Rhaenys decided to crash the king's coronation to do what exactly? Kill a whole lot of innocent bystanders in attendance, and then fly off without killing any of the people whose deaths might actually prevent a civil war? If she wasn't going to kill Aegon, why not just leave without a whole lot of pointless death? Eve Best is fantastic but that was quite possibly the stupidest action we've seen by a character in the Westeros TV universe. At least Ned didn't (intentionally) kill a bunch of innocent people when he did a Big Dumb. I hope they are going somewhere with that and Rhaenys wants a war to weaken both sides for her own potential gain, because otherwise her actions are monstrously ruthless while falling well short of being ruthless enough to accomplish any sort of practical gain. Great episode otherwise, but I thought whatever epicness was intended by the dragon entrance was undercut by Rhaenys actions seeming to be bereft of any forethought or purpose.

Wow, that is quite stacked with talent. Thank you for the recommendation! I'm not certain I agree that it was done for the audience, as it wasn't necessarily out of character for Alicent. She's not an inherently evil person, like Joffrey or Ramsay Bolton, but rather someone who started off relatively decent but then becomes morally compromised after being entangled in the politics of succession. Her character arc, at least so far, is a bit of a tragic one. Alicent could have had the serving girl killed, or she could have called the serving girl a liar and dismissed her, and there likely wouldn't have been consequences for either because of all the class & gender inequalities baked into Westerosi society. Either one is likely the route Cersei would have taken, but I don't think that would be in character for Alicent. She's not inherently inclined toward choosing the most evil solution, and the bad she does is usually tied in with her resentment toward Rhanira or to secure the crown for her own son. Alicent spared the servant and paid her because the sympathy for her is genuine, as is the anger she feels toward her own son's monstrous behavior. Maybe on some level the payment was also intented to assuage her own guilt, since of course she would never allow her son to face punishment for it and she is ultimately enabling him in order to secure her own family's position, if not it's survival. That said, Blacks for the win!