Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

ursula

Member
  • Content Count

    844
  • Joined

Everything posted by ursula

  1. ursula

    Murder Mystery (2019)

    I started laughing 5 minutes into the movie and I couldn't stop. I think I legit snorted when the Big Guy (Sergei?) told Jennifer to "just ask Siri" as she was fumbling with her phone. I've been looking forward to this movie since I watched the "look what you made me do" trailer and it didn't disappoint. (Though thinking about it, it kinda of spoiled the story. That high speed chase could only have meant one thing.) They totally need to make a series of these movies, like a modern day Tommy and Tuppence.
  2. ursula

    Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019)

    Makes sense. Only thing I'll add is that it's more likely Rey's mother whom Kylo killed and her father is Luke. And it will finally explain/justify Luke's attack on a teenage boy. In ROTJ, he snapped when Vader threatened Leia. Some random vision about Kylo turning vaguely "evil" is one thing but a specific vision/prophecy of Kylo murdering his wife and child will make sense. And if Luke is convinced that Kylo succeeded, and that he (Luke) in fact catalyzed their deaths by attacking Kylo, it will go a great deal to explain his personality in TLJ.
  3. ursula

    S01.E15: I'll Tell You A Story

    This is such a great explanation. I think he's probably a witch and almost definitely not a vampire but it's never been established what he is. We see other little kids in the school - in the first episode we see Pedro, he's part of a class that Lizzie is supposed to be helping. Later on in the same episode, the school counselor protects the younger kids from the gargoyle. In fact, she's supposed to be the Head of the Elementary school - that's why she gets a seat and vote on the Council. (Which doesn't make sense. Having a teacher on the student council is counterintuitive. They should have given that seat to the "valedictorian-esque candidate" of the elementary school but whatever). In the Freddie Kruger episode, he wakes up in a bunk dorm with other children. He's just the only named character little kid. (And I head canon that he's Lizzie's bff 😁.)
  4. ursula

    S01.E09: What Was Hope Doing in Your Dreams?

    I love this theory and I won't mind if it were true. However I think Hope liked Landon for the stated reasons - he was a cute boy that was nice to her. He was apart from her supernatural world yet still accessible and that made him appealing to her especially since her last crush was a gorgeous vampire that betrayed her and got her mom killed. Landon introduced "normalcy" to Hope's life at a time she really needed it. That he was a "damsel" in need of rescuing was just the cherry on top. Hope has a Harry-Potter-sized savior complex. The more I think about it, the more I think the show dropped the ball in not keeping him human. I don't think it's surprising that they made him a doppelganger-esque creature - he's a supernatural target without any tangible powers. (Resurrection isn't exactly an offensive weapon). Yep. Tl dr... Hope likes Landon because he's the Elena to her idealized Stefan Salvatore.
  5. ursula

    S02.E10: Level Up

    Well this is apparently an unpopular opinion but I like the voodoo aspect of the show. It's what distinguishes it from other superhero shows at the moment. Somewhat relatedly I like Evita and I enjoy her and Ty's dynamic. More importantly, the show hasn't sold me on Tandy/Ty as a couple or given me any indication that they will go there with their relationship.
  6. ursula

    S01.E10: There’s A World Where Your Dreams Came True

    Fair enough but the only kid he has a particular relationship is with Hope. Not like Elena. Alaric had to step up and parent Elena after Jenna died. Hope has a huge extended family - 3 blood aunts and uncles, 3 by marriage, an adopted brother, an honorary uncle... The two characters are nothing alike. Alaric's relationship with Hope looks less like him stepping in to parent an orphan and more like him trying to relive his "glory days" through her. Lizzie didn't choose to be born with mental illness. It's Alaric's responsibility to parent her. Yes, it's not "fair" but that's life.
  7. ursula

    Spoilers and Spoiler Discussion

    Well speaking for myself, that sounds kind of cool. πŸ€·πŸ½β€β™€οΈ
  8. Can someone explain this to me? Because I've seen this brought up and I've never understood it. In the TV show, Dany locks up Xaro and Doreah, feeds her enemies to her dragons, executes her own loyalist, forces Hizdahr to marry her and kills his "innocent" father. She needs Tyrion to tell her not to kill Jorah for spying on her. None of these happen in the books. Instead in the books, Dany is ineffective because she's not ruthless enough. On Selmy's advice, she practices the Westeros method of keeping highborn children as hostages (Theon) but she's made friends with all of them and can't bring herself to harm them. She is personally treating plague victims in the middle of a siege, manages to maintain a frenemy relationship with Xaro, has managed to keep all her Dothraki inner circle (except Doreah who died of starvation in the Red Waste) alive. She was willing to forgive Jorah until he made it impossible by not apologizing and trying to "Nice Guy" her. (Jorah in the books isn't gallant Iain Glen but a pervert old enough to be her grandfather.) And that's not even talking about how animated and lively book!Dany is. The show pretty much dropped this after season 1. Book!Dany isn't stately or aloof. She laughs, plays, jokes around. (It helps that unlike the show that killed off all the POCs, all her Dothraki friends are still alive.) Selmy found it hard to believe she was Daenerys Targaryen because he was expecting someone more regal (exact words). She's intelligent and a strategist. The show gives all Dany's ideas and thoughts to the (white) men around her to articulate. Needless to say, Dany threatening Qarth - a stupid ridiculous arc - never happened in the books. And if that's too much to go over, compare her first ride between books and TV. In the TV show, she's under attack and Drogon sweeps in to save her. In the books, (after an incident where Dany saved Tyrion without him realizing it), Drogon is the one who's lured in by bloodshed and starts attacking people... Dany vaults over the barricade to put herself between him and his victim and whips an angry dragon (he's mad that she tried to chain him up) until he backs down. She rides away with him because he's being circled around to be killed. As someone on Tumblr described it: that was a straight up superhero moment for Dany and the TV show turned it into a damsel being rescued. So yeah, when people say that the books write Dany as less sympathetic and the TV show play up her hero side... I've gotta to ask and excuse my French but what the heck are they reading?
  9. I mean, "army of killers*, rapers**, pillagers (and cannibals)" is pretty much a description of the wildlings. Yet somehow they aren't deemed scary when they are fighting for Starks. *As opposed to other armies who are made up of people who don't kill. **The Unsullied don't even have dicks. The anti-Dany logic is so ridiculous that you just have to laugh.
  10. ursula

    S08.E05: The Bells

    I mean... 🀷 The "swing the sword herself" is an argument that is often used to censor non-Starks in general, and Dany in particular. It's only when the point is turned against Starks that these (very valid) points are brought up.
  11. ursula

    S08.E05: The Bells

    If he could claim he stopped being a Night's Watch because he died... Therefore, he wasn't Lord Commander after he died either. Whether they deserved to die or not was no longer up to him, and should have been left to the succeeding Lord Commander to decide. Irrelevant. But interesting in that it pretty much proves my point about the level of scrutiny Jon's grayer actions get, or rather don't get in-story and out-story. Here's a popular thought experiment: would a female character who is: a billionaire, a master at martial skills, genius level intelligent, devastatingly gorgeous, and a badass normal that leads a team of superhuman heroes that she regularly trumps... be a Mary Sue? Or this girl, who thinks she's a bastard but is really the secret (legitimate) product of two magical bloodlines, with all their advantages and none of their downsides. She literally tripped and fell over a magical direwolf (the only one still left with its owner), is crowned Queen over her legitimate sibling despite technically losing the Battle, got a dragon as a Valentine's Day present from a powerful King, is called beautiful by everyone she meets - even people that don't like her - and is so righteous that the universe bends to accommodate her grayer actions. Is she a Mary Sue? Only if her name is Jane Snow. Oh and the first woman, the genius-level badass normal drop dead gorgeous female billionaire? That's Batman sans dick.
  12. Honestly, those sound like Wikipedia questions, not story plot. (And even then, I won't be sure if the answer I'm getting is GRRM-canon or something like the Night King where the producers just made up their own "cool sounding" story.) And knowing all the answers about a world isn't always appealing. Dune prequels by Brian Herbert is a good example. I mean... 🀷
  13. ursula

    S08.E05: The Bells

    Killing by hanging was also a very un-Stark-like thing to do. Jon should have swung that sword 12 times. 5 seconds after their execution, Jon exploits the loophole of his death to quit the order. By his own admission, he was no longer a member of the Night's Watch when he resurrected and he was not the Lord Commander carried out those sentences. Those weren't executions, those were vengeance-motivated murders. And because its Jon, the biggest Mary Sue who's ever sued on this show, there is zero consequence to this.
  14. ursula

    Season 8: Speculation and Spoilers Discussion

    TV Tropes defines it clearly: The Iron Throne is obviously not a McGuffin because it is not interchangeable with a Magical Artifact or Secret Plans and of course, the seat of government of Westeros is important to the plot of Game of Thrones.
  15. ursula

    TV Tropes You Hate

    Seriously, did no one learn anything from M Night Shyamalan's career? πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘ Someone should make this a tee-shirt!
  16. ursula

    TV Tropes You Hate

    I can let that one slide. If they have the title in their name, it's public record. They won't need old papers. Plus in these days of electronic everything, it won't be so hard to get copies of financial statement. Of course, a hoarder like myself still has the receipt of the first car I ever owned (and sold over a decade ago) so this is very much a "do like I say..." advice. πŸ™‚
  17. Don't forget how her First Sign of Madness was not reacting "appropriately" to her abuser's death.
  18. Chill. It's not Martin's plot anymore than Sansa being raped or Ellaria killing children is Martin's plot. D & D got to write their very expensive fanfiction (tagged: "Cersei is my Queen", "Jaime/Cersei 4eva!", "Dany sux", "Rape is Growth", etc) and by Sunday, it'll be all over.
  19. You'd think Dany would be a tad more focused on burning the person that just murdered her friend than burning citizens that didn't bow down to her. But apparently we've got it all wrong. 🀷 Thank goodness for Drogon that there weren't any random fishermen in the water when she approached Euron's fleet. Clearly, Dany would have focused on attacking said fishermen and completely ignored the scorpions. 🀣🀣🀣
  20. Er... This is πŸ’― your self insertion into the text, though...πŸ™„ By peaceful city you mean... terrorist attacks by the Harpy's Sons, besieged by the Yunkai coalition and Astapor plague victims at her gates? I thought you were talking about the books? In the show, Dany is nonsensically threatening to burn down Quaithe when in the books she was welcomed into the city after asking nicely. Xaro and Doreah weren't killed by Dany - Doreah died in the Red Waste and Xaro is still alive, a frenemy of sorts to her. In fact almost all her original khalasar (inner circle) are alive in the books, and helping her rule. orah in the books is a potbellied lecher old enough to be her grandfather, not the noble Knight that looks like Iain Glen. She didn't even want to banish Jorah in the books and certainly didn't need Tyrion's advice not to kill him. It was Jorah's own arrogance and refusal to apologise ---- for selling her secrets to kill her! - that forces her to turn him away. And it goes without saying that in the books, Tyrion is Team fAegon and has never met Dany. Since Barristan Selmy is not dead, she has a robust inner council and events in Mereen are already underway, if they ever meet, Tyrion is not going to have the same arc and become her Hand. The show takes all her intelligence and strategy and cunning and gives it to Jorah, then Tyrion. The show has Dany feeding people to her dragons (and killed of Barristan Selmy to justify this, something that both the actor and GRRM have talked about). Dany constantly needs to be talked down from violence. In the books, Dany's ineffective against the terrorists because she is not violent enough! Even though she's adopted the Westeros practice of taking cupbearers, she can't bring herself to harm any of them. (Compare to Ned Stark who would have killed Theon Greyjoy at Robert's command. He won't have liked doing it, but he would have done it all the same). In the books, it's Quentin who (accidentally) releases the caged dragons. Dany didn't free them to go on a rampage. Dany's not failing at Mereen because she's too violent, but because she's not violent enough. "Fire and blood" isn't her giving into madness, it's her reconciling to the fact that - like every ruler in this world - she can't rule without some degree of ruthlessness. That her compassion needs to be stifled to an extent for her to be effective. Like the idea that the show whitewashes Dany is so far from the truth that it's borderline ridiculous that people assert this.
  21. Well the defining thing about ASOIAF is that it's "realistic" fantasy, that it's built on a foundation of real-world pragmatism. Robb Stark sends his best friend, pseudo brother Theon Greyjoy loose to the get Iron support for his claim. His mother tells him that this is a mistake, keep him hostage and ransom him for support. In "idealistic" fantasy, she'd be proven wrong - love would conquer all, bla blah, etc... and not the reality. And in the specific thread I brought this up: The idealistic fantasy version of the ruler who doesn't want to rule is that he'd be the best one.... But the realistic version is that he'd be bad at it... and that's what happened with Robert Baratheon and Ned Stark. In the books, Jon isn't an unambitious, humble shepard boy archetype who just wants to serve, not rule. He's the opposite. He joins the Night Watch because a bastard can rise in the order. He is ambitious within the order, b resenting his first assignment until Sam explains that he's being groomed for leadership. He's tempted by Stannis's offer to be Lord of Winterfell etc. In the past few seasons, D & D have written him as a humble! unambitious! accidental! leader and rewarded him for this by having him fail upwards. Book! Varys who is grooming fAegon and even early seasons! Varys said Ned's honor was a handicap would not have any use for Jon. Which is what I mean by the show shifting genres by having Varys find all these elements Jon as qualities of a good leader. Even the argument he makes "Dany is too powerful for Jon" is played straight when in reality, the obvious counter is "what you mean is she's too powerful for you (Varys)... You want a King that you can control." Instead we're presenting with the idealistic but inherently contrarian argument that Jon's weakness and (and cock) makes him inherently more suitable to lead.
  22. If you have to kill rival Kings, steal land, commit genocide, murder sons and rape daughters to get someone to bend the knee is that person actually loyal then? Because that's how the North was won. The Starks weren't elected by 21st century-democratic unanimous election. I mean, it's stating the obvious but this is a feudal system. If every House kept grudges over how they were conquered, the North won't stand. Which is obviously what did not happen since when the dragons died out, the North didn't check out of Westeros. Instead The Stark Heir followed Daeron I into battle to conquer Dorne. Well.. 🀷 I mean...🀷 I mean... 🀷 Almost everything I've replied is reposted so I don't see if there's any point in continuing this...
  23. I think someone on Reddit it framed it this way: the show understands that having Varys betray Dany can push her to the edge.... but does the show realize that Varys betrayed Dany? Like these events should make Dany sympathetic, not evil. I mean nothing justifies the mass murder of the people of King's Landing because morality, characterisation, story arc aside.... Cersei is right there... The bitch just murdered her best friend and kid and Dany glares at her then... takes a detour to kill some redshirts? Does Dany even know that Cersei is dead?
  24. Because if you need a bribe to buy someone's loyalty ... then they can sell their loyalty to someone that makes a better offer? I mean, isn't that self-evident? 🀷 I think you've lost the thread: (Aside for the whole semantics of metaphorical =/= symbolic...) not to ask the obvious but... you know Umber was not a real person? He "says" whatever GRRM wants him to say? Be that as it may... "He wasn't a true dragon. Fire cannot hurt a dragon..."
  25. Of course motives count. Or are you arguing that Tywin Lannister would have sacked King's Landing if it was Cersei in the Red Keep? Do you think the Tyrells threw in their support to the Lannisters after instigating a war against them because... reasons? The Starks showed more loyalty for the Targaryens and the Unified Kingdom with less "payment" compared to the other Houses. Obviously, there's the small matter of #KeepingItInTheFamily and external marriages for Targaryens being a matter of expediency which significantly narrows the pool of opportunities for any potential Targ/nonTarg union... But the easy Watsonian explanation is what you yourself pointed out: the Starks had no battles or bridges (or gold mines) to barter in exchange for a Targaryen prince or princess. Which makes it even more significant that the one time the Starks could afford to "buy" a Targaryen marriage (support for the Blacks or Greens) they demanded one. Or put simply - The Targaryens never needed to "strengthen" their Northern ties because unlike all the other Houses in the realm, they never had to second-guess Stark loyalty. The Doylistic reason, of course, is that GRRM wanted R+L=J to be Significant(TM). I don't entirely follow your reasoning for bringing up the literal interpretation when I already said that the statement was multi-layered and symbolic and not literal and was included to reward repeated reading. So are you arguing that it is not a symbolic/metaphorical statement but a literal one? A literal meaning that is false? I'm not sure I follow. With this:
×