Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Personally going into the last season I thought Dany and Jon would end up aganist each other. I actually thought they'd fight a war against each other over the fate of Westeros, rather than just have her kill him. I thought she'd do something, not as awful as what she did, but something that would make Jon believe she was capable of it and that would lead to a war between them. Although once I saw the final season would be 6 episodes I kinda knew that was impossible.

 

Really though some people may have wanted the happy ending but there is nothing in that show to make you think there would be a happy ending. You may have expected something different from Dany but really the overall ending is about as happy as you could expect with the Walkers and Cersei both defeated.

 

I really thought the ending would be darker than it was. I kinda thought Cersei was gonna wind up on the Throne.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As long as this cut gives us more sexy shots of Gal Gadot, I'll be happy.

It's alright, Seth. I still think you Rose to the occasion.

Relax yourselves, I was being intentionally dramatic because Im sick of Star Wars.

I'm a firm believer that, as an audience member, if I sit through the bad guys winning over and over and things being bleak, at the very for real end, I should be rewarded with a something good. Audiences deserve a reward on occasion.

 

This is why I quit watching Walking Dead.

 

Good guys losing is the the middle. It's ESB. You don't end ROTJ on a down note! It rarely works. I can't actually think of a long-running story where the final end is a down note and people were good with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things I loved about Thrones is that with a few exceptions very few characters were really evil. I loved playing devils advocate and saying how what the "bad guys" did wasn;t so bad. For instance when Tywin comes up with his plan to marry Cersei to Loras and Tyrion to Sansa its seen as this awful thing he is doing. Placing his kids in these loveless marriages to strengthen the family politically. But thats just how things are done in Westeros. Ned and Cat married on the day they met, it was arranged. Cat was supposed to marry Neds older brother in an arranged marriage before he was killed. Yet no one thinks Neds dad or Cats dad was evil.

 

The best example is really the Red Wedding. Ofcourse on face value the Lannisters, Freys and Boltons are awful. However by killing a couple dozen Stark bannermen thousands and thousand of lives were saved by ending the war.

 

Stuff like this is part of why the show was great. Obviously Cersei was someone who it is hard to defend. Im not really into "dark" endings, but I do like bittersweet. I felt that defeating the Walkers but at such a great cost that Cersei was left on the Throne would be bitter sweet.

 

A truly happy ending with Jon and Dany sitting on 2 Thrones in the Red Keep while all the characters we like sort of fill the room for their joint coronation would have felt false to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what you are saying about a long series ending darkly never satisfying people is probably true. I think thats a shame and I think it's because people are trained to expect it so much. This may sound ridiculous but Shakespeare wrote tragedies. Tragedies can be great stories. Its a shame that people can't accept that any longer. I remember even in the show thread here during some season someone was complaining that the "good guys" never seemed to win. I remember telling him this wasnt Star Wars or Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. The good guys were not going to win. This wasn't a dark story that was dark so at the end the victory seemed that much greater. This story was a tragedy and really it was about a dozen tragedy rolled up into one. But it was a real, honest to goodness tragedy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree-- but so much of genre, fantasy and scifi, which is mostly what we talk about, is almost always based on a mythic hero journey/quest. That style of story doesn't lend itself to tragedy. I think that's why it puts people off.

 

I mean, going into Terms of Endearment I wasn't expecting cancer to be cured. But going into Star Wars, you know Luke is going to do some hero ****.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree-- but so much of genre, fantasy and scifi, which is mostly what we talk about, is almost always based on a mythic hero journey/quest. That style of story doesn't lend itself to tragedy. I think that's why it puts people off.

 

I mean, going into Terms of Endearment I wasn't expecting cancer to be cured. But going into Star Wars, you know Luke is going to do some hero ****.

But that's part of my point. The whole reason people loved GoT was because it defied those expectations at nearly every single possible turn. I don't think it's fair to expect that to stop at the end of the story. In fact this story was at it's weakest when it was closest to the normal "fantasy" type story. The closer the Walkers came to being a real time threat, the more the story felt like a traditional fantasy. I think this was the weakest aspect of the story. The Walkers were great as this far off, ominous threat. When they began to really play a part in the story they were just orcs attacking Minas Tirith.

 

What made the show great was how it played with the traditional good/evil stuff and threw it away. The way a character could in the course of the story go from "bad" to "good" to "bad" again all the while every single thing that character did was consistent with that character and the character never changed sides or flipped. Just the circumstances changed.

 

In the end from a large perspective you are right, fantasy and sci fi stories normally go the way you are saying. But this story, what made it great was that it flat out wasnt those things. I would have felt betrayed had at the end the story had reverted and become the thing it wasn't.

 

And thats not to say any one decision is right or wrong. Dany could have stayed "good" and not burned the city. However then I would have expected some other tragic event to take place.

 

It was like Ramsay Bolton said to Theon Greyjoy

 

"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention."

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one thing for a thread to drift off topic somewhat. We all do that from time to time. But it is another thing entirely to completely hijack a thread with discussions about a show that has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic of a thread*.

 

*Edited to be less incendiary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to discuss Star Wars, I invite you to post here. There are literally hundreds of threads to choose from:

https://nightly.net/topic/79825-game-of-thrones-seasons-7-and-8/page-18

 

If you want to dicsus Game of Thrones, I invite you to post here.

https://nightly.net/forum/13-star-wars/

 

If you would like to discuss the Snyder cut, please do not bring up the two topics\franchises above (or any other unrelated franchise or topic), as they are totally unrelated to the original topic, the Snyder Cut. If you cannot make an argument either for or against the Snyder Cut without dragging Star Wars or Game of Thrones or some other franchise\topic into this thread, perhaps it is your argument that is the problem. Not the topic at hand, or the people who are tired of hearing about GOT or Star Wars*.

 

 

Here are another few articles about the Snyder cut that may be of interest....

 

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2547481/zack-snyders-justice-league-could-be-dc-comics-huge-second-chance-at-a-cinematic-universe

 

https://movieweb.com/snyder-cut-success-hbo-max-justice-league/

 

https://uproxx.com/movies/hbo-max-release-the-snyder-cut-precedent/

 

*Edited to offer something more constructive, yet get the point across that it is not okay to hijack a thread with unrelated topics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't my own original thought (can't remember who came up w/it) but it's almost a sure thing that HBO isn't going to put out a movie; they'll re-cut it into a long enough mini-series ( maybe even incl. Man of Steel (2013) & Bat Lash v. Super-Chief : Dawn of Justice (2016) ) released weekly so they can get multiple months of subscription fees out of whatever potential audience this sort of thing is intended to attract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't my own original thought (can't remember who came up w/it) but it's almost a sure thing that HBO isn't going to put out a movie; they'll re-cut it into a long enough mini-series ( maybe even incl. Man of Steel (2013) & Bat Lash v. Super-Chief : Dawn of Justice (2016) ) released weekly so they can get multiple months of subscription fees out of whatever potential audience this sort of thing is intended to attract.

I read this morning that Cavell signed a new contract as Superman, and the speculation is it is for MOS 2. I wonder if they will be filming MOS 2, along side new scenes for the Snyder cut.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you create a thread you do not own it. You don't get to choose what path the discussion goes down. No one "hijacked" your thread. This thread is entitled "Snyder Cut Happening". Well what I find interesting about that is that basically a group of people didn't like a movie so they petitioned the studio for a different version and they got it. Thats fascinating for me. Whats even more fascinating is the long term possibility of that happening again across and all "nerdy" fandoms whether its Star Wars, Star Trek, Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, Marvel whatever. That is 100% part of the discussion with this "Snyder Cut". So once you open that door it opens up discussions of times in the past in other franchises where the fans didn't like what they got. Ofcourse the next logical step is to discuss specific instances of that in other franchises. It's all under the umbrella of what this "Snyder Cut" is and is 100% on topic.

 

Furthermore we have a board here that at most has a couple dozen active posters. There are days sometimes where not one post is made here. In the past there was enough traffic here to justify threads being more specific but now to stifle and fragment discussion is plain crazy.

 

Anyway I won't plague your topic with any more "off topic" responses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this morning that Cavell signed a new contract as Superman, and the speculation is it is for MOS 2. I wonder if they will be filming MOS 2, along side new scenes for the Snyder cut.

I find it interesting in a car wreck sort of way that WB is still trying. Its one thing to hire Cavill and everyone else for reshoots to a Snyder Cut movie or mini-series. But are they really going to continue with MoS 2 after all that?
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I read this morning that Cavell signed a new contract as Superman, and the speculation is it is for MOS 2. I wonder if they will be filming MOS 2, along side new scenes for the Snyder cut.

I find it interesting in a car wreck sort of way that WB is still trying. Its one thing to hire Cavill and everyone else for reshoots to a Snyder Cut movie or mini-series. But are they really going to continue with MoS 2 after all that?

 

Well, the articles I have read online are all rumors and there is a lot of conflicting info, and I am almost wanting to walk back my earlier post. That is what is so frustrating when "news" is released at stages this early. I have read details that range from Cavell is only returning in cameos for other superhero movies, to coming back for MOS 2, to even being part of a mini series or series on HBO MAx after the Snyder Cut is released. Some even saying Batfleck will be back, and may even have his own HBO Max series. I've also read that MOS2 may even be a Bad Robot JJ Abrams film, which is a real turn off to me.

 

Bottom Line: I don't know what to believe!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Interested in seeing the film Snyder wanted to make, as opposed to the rushed crap that was "finished" by someone who had no clue about making a film with DC characters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interested in seeing the film Snyder wanted to make, as opposed to the rushed crap that was "finished" by someone who had no clue about making a film with DC characters.

I am curious to see what it turns out to be. But I think it was rushed more because the suits wanted it a certain way, and the spreadsheets and focus groups said Joss Whedon was the guy to do it. And really, he should have been able to.

 

When it comes to film, there is little difference between DC and Marvel characters. It really depends on who's put in charge of making the film. If Kevin Feige was hired to do the Justice League instead of/in addition to the Marvel verse, I think it would be just as popular. Feige had done I think like 10+ non-MCU Marvel films, before jumping into the MCU, so he perfected what worked and what didn't. Had the same care been given to the DCEU, it could have been a lot better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd disagree that the characters are the same.

 

Marvel has ALWAYS taken the POV that their heroes are mostly made of normal people, or extraordinary people with normal person problems, having powers thrust upon them via accidents, genetic defects, experiments, or deals, and must then contend with said power and responsibility.

 

DC heroes tend to be Gods amongst men who deal less with their internal angst and more with world-ending threats and calamities.

 

Obviously there are exceptions, but that;'s why i have always liked Marvel, and the only DC character I've ever really loved is Batman, who fits the Marvel modality).

 

I think that makes for very different movies. Sure, Marvel got to the world-ending epic stuff with the Avenger movies, but they did the smaller personal stories first. Those movies are harder for DC characters to do I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking movies, not comics.

 

But for a minute, lets look at the comics. Marvel, in the comics, has some crazy overpowered characters. Sentry anyone? And of the Avengers, Iron Man...not all that different from Batman (or maybe more like Batman Beyond). Thor? How relatable is he? He's a GOD, just as Wonder Woman is (these days, anyway). Captain Marvel (current Marvel version) is like Superman on steroids. Superman is often cited as too powerful to be relatable. I disagree. Superman, under John Byrne, was an attempt to humanize Superman. Unlike previous versions, under Byrne and a few years after, it was the Clark persona that was the actual persona, and Superman was the alter ego. That was until the mid 1990s (arguably after he was killed by Doomsday, even) that things went off the rails. But Supes was depowered and faced everyday people problems. He's been repowered, but even then, each founding member of the Justice Leage can beat superman one on one. Bats did it on screen, even. Wonder Woman can do it. Shazam has been written as more powerful than supes. So could Green Lantern and Flash. There is even a debate going on that Supergirl is actually more powerful than Supes, physically.

 

The Timmverse is another example where DC characters excel in being interesting, as well as being Marvel like. I know its just cartoons, but I think that the Timmverse has probably the best version of JL ever made, and arguably, same with Batman and possibly Superman.

 

I think where the DCEU went wrong was by not having each character have their own movie first, and then bringing them together for a JL movie, like how MCU did. It would have been a good way to flesh out and humanize the DC characters. Also, they should have done the Marvel thing and highlighted the lesser known characters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They key to a good Superman story, and they totally exist, is that that CLARK KENT is the person at the heart of the story.

 

Unlike Barman, in which case Bruce Wayne is the alter ego.

 

But I wasnt just talking about power levels, I was talking about psyche.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it's also about weaknesses, which defines heroes.

 

What's Spider-Man's weakness? The fact immense power and responsibility was dropped on him at a young age, forcing him to grow up before he was ready, and always making him worry and doubt himself.

 

What's Green Lantern's weakness? The color yellow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...