Jump to content

Broker

Members
  • Content Count

    20,546
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Broker

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    games, movies, comics, manga

Recent Profile Visitors

10,051 profile views
  1. Lying. Reddit suggests solid spoilers have been out there for about six weeks at most, and only really confirmed in the last few weeks. Without clicking through the spoilers I can’t be sure, but it looks like they’re still not 100% sure on the ending.
  2. I mean, the post I replied to was asking why we shouldn’t take all the things she’s been saying at face value, so I was pointing out that she’s basically been trained as a politicians for her whole life and is good at spinning what she’s doing to sell it to people. But her actions tell the story of someone violent who justifies those actions retrospectively when they often actually seem like angry whims. Given her stated feelings that her claim is insecure because of Jon, and her assertion that she could rule by love or fear, followed by Jon rejecting her love and symbolically acting as a rejection by the people of Westeros, it seems pretty clear that her motivation is making people scared of her to secure her role as queen. The moment with the bells is her deciding that they don’t fear her enough, that they’re weak and will fear anyone who is strong enough to take the city. So she wants to show them that she is stronger and scarier than anyone else, to secure their fear and her throne.
  3. Every one of Dany’s big, triumphant moments involves murdering people, often people who were unarmed. Her big story beats are burning that lady who killed her husband, burning those people who stole her dragons, crucifying slave owners, burning the owners of the unsullied, burning the Dothraki leaders. Every single step of the way she has been killing unarmed people, often to triumphant music because they were bad guys. Conversely, in Westeros we’ve been presented with heroes who value human life, and try to solve their problems without murdering too many people. In Westeros our characters often have to make decisions which factor in their support bases. Dany makes all her decisions unilaterally, sometimes with advice but the final decision is always hers until Tyrion convinced her not to burn kings landing last series. And she’s been pissed off about that since it happened. She he often says that she’s going to free people and depose tyrants. But only her definitions of those things matter. We watched her get bored and uncomfortable in Mereen, she could barely handle the politics and she hated actually pursuing peace. She hated compromising and having to concede anything. She waltzed into some people’s home, declared that their current rulers were bad, indiscriminately killed the ones she thought were bad, accidentally killed loads of other people, then in the end just left anyway. She’s basically the American Government in Iraq, and much like them it doesn’t really matter how nice and fair she says she’s being. She’s an elitist. She says she cares about the people, but she also thinks she knows what’s best for them and that they need her divine judgement. She’s proudly declaring she will smash up the systems that run the world, but she’s got zero plan for afterwards. She’s all about the war, with no real interest in the peace. Think of the two defining mirrored images of her and Jon. Jon is trapped in a crush of friendly soldiers. Jon’s friends and allies nearly kill him by accident, and Jon has to gasp for air as he’s almost consumed by the fighting and conflict that he is directly part of. In the mirrored image of Dany, she is lifted up by the foreign people she saved, and they call her mother. She’s above them, literally and figuratively, riding along of the top of them, feeding on their love but she’s not one of them, she doesn’t feel what they feel. It’s always all been about her, whatever she feels now, whether that’s her as a saviour, a hero, or something terrifying. That’s always been her.
  4. I don’t think that’s fair. They were hired to adapt books into a TV show and they did a spectacular job of that. Nobody ever asked them to write this story, and assuming GRRM isn’t way more honest with them than he is the rest of the world they were probably receiving the same assurances as everyone else that it was coming along well. At the point where it became obvious that wouldn’t happening, they’re being asked to write a decent ending for a story that the original author hasn’t managed to work out with fifteen years to do it. People can say that anything would be better, but the vast majority of “improvements” suggested on here, twitter and Reddit are garbage far worse than anything in the show. The only people who think fan fiction is better are the ones who wrote it.
  5. Can’t remember Twilight but he’s just been doing art films for years right? I’d be interested to see what he brings back to Hollywood. You should, it’s fucking hilarious. The first time I watched it I didn’t realise the comedy genius I was about to witness. Thats a terrible idea.
  6. If you want to fix red dead, just hire better writers so we’re not watching a Western acted and shot by Hollywood with the dialogue written by a sixth form media studies student.
  7. I hope the extra theme is a 2D version of Sunshine, though I imagine I’m the only person who would like that.
  8. Broker

    Are cutscenes necessary?

    I do skip most of them, but I’m not averse to games trying to tell me a story, just how terrible they all are. I usually give games a try and then if the cutscenes are shit I skip them to see if the game is still fun without any context. It rarely is. Though as I’m getting older I’m solving this differently. When I got bored of the terrible story in GTAV, I started skipping the cutscenes, but really the gameplay in the missions of GTA is generally terrible. So when I played Red Dead, I checked out both the cutscenes and gameplay, confirmed they were both shite and then just gave up on the whole thing. I don’t really mind how the story is delivered, though I think overall I prefer the Deus Ex/Dishonored method where you see stuff from the character’s perspective. I certainly think effective traditional cutscenes are possible, but I don’t think they play to the industry’s strengths. A game like Skyrim keeps you in the characters perspective, but it also turns most of its conversations into something more natural and casual. We have writers who are good at dialogue trees and stuff, whereas I’ve never seen a single piece of evidence that there’s anyone in the games industry who can write or shoot a genuinely impressive scene. The Last of Us is the closest I can think of, but it’s still got incredibly generic camera work and awful lighting. It’s just that the dialogue and performances are actually good for once. I can think of about five games I’ve ever played where I would say the cutscenes are actually fun to watch. The vast majority of the industry is aiming for functional and often falls short of that. But it if you imagine TLOU without gameplay it works fine. It’s genuinely satisfying to watch the cutscenes in order as a little movie, but the issue that creates is that nothing you do in the game actually matters. You’re just filling time until the next dramatic scene that you have no control over. It’s an amazing story, but not one you meaningfully participate in, at which point it would probably be better as a movie. Triple A games still do this all the time. Red Dead came out a few months ago, got nominated for all kinds of awards and is basically a flimsy excuse to get you to watch the creator’s terrible Western. The first few hours of the game is mostly watching, and what you’re watching is garbage. That’s one of the biggest selling games of the last year. David Cage is still directing games. There are definitely more creative approaches, but the triple A industry is still rife with people who think they should be movie directors, and are shaping a game, with an enormous budget, around telling their shite stories instead of making games. It makes me genuinely sad to think of the actual video games that could have been made with the millions Cage has spent trying to be a movie director.
  9. It’s tiring to see endless people wading in to say it’s the show that’s stupid when they’ve barely been paying attention. As another example, it showed the two of them going into the city, where Jamie followed them, then the red keep, where Jamie got locked out, both of which were admitting refugees. You seem to have missed that. What’s even more tiring though is you trying to take some tiny moral high ground when your entire stock in trade is making snide little comments and belittling people. I’d rather take lessons in politeness from Ramone than you.
  10. They blended in with the refugees that Cersei was letting in, who were mentioned twice. Arya and the Hound got a lot closer when travelling together and she removed him from her list. Maybe if you paid more attention you might understand more, as it is it doesn’t sound like it’s the show that’s stupid.
  11. It’s definitely the same horse in the literal sense of them using it twice on set, but I don’t think it’s supposed to be his horse because it’s got a different bridle on. It’s a pretty clear scene described to them by Martin as something he imagined in the final book, but the context isn’t possible in the show because they killed off Dany’s white horse in season 2.
  12. I imagine he’ll still get killed the same way, just as an enemy as part of the Blackfyres.
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.