(April 30, 2019 at 7:58 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(April 30, 2019 at 7:43 am)polymath257 Wrote: When did Arya get her knife back from Sansa?

Arya gave Sansa an obsidian dagger, one of Gendry's, presumably. The Valyrian steel dagger she used at the end of the episode was given to Arya by Bran last season, and is the same one - I believe - that was used in assassination attempt on Bran in the first season, and that indirectly started the War of Five Kings.

OK, I went back and looked. For some reason I thought she gave up her Valerian blade.

Yeah Arya's dagger has been Chekov's gun since season 1 so I'm glad they did something with it. It was the dagger that was meant to kill Bran, but instead saved his (and everyone else's) life.

(April 30, 2019 at 9:54 am)Aegon Wrote:

(April 29, 2019 at 4:44 pm)Amarok Wrote: 1. Really their plan wasn't perfect but it wasn't completely dumb

2. The NK isn't suppose to have an understable  motivation  that's what makes him scary. As for the prophecy guess what even in fantasy setting legends and prophecy's can be bullshit . It's fans fault for trying to read to much into things . Why should it be nuanced ?  And Arya was always going to be the one to kill the Night King there was nothing anti climatic about it . Why should the NK [/color]be hard to kill nobody else in this show is . Yup winter came and it was defeated and that's an issue why . As for Cersei of course she's going to be the final antagonist she's a bigger monster then the Night King .

1. They sent a calvary of Dothraki into pitch black lol. What did they expect to happen? Also, they admitted they couldn't beat the dead in a straight fight but they took them on in a straight fight anyway. Hundreds of soldiers waiting to die in front of the castle. And they know the NK raises the dead (that's how he builds his army), so what's the point of fighting them initially like that? They know that for every living person who dies, the NK gets another soldier. So all that fighting was entirely pointless, since the amount of undead they "killed" most likely was equivalent to the amount of living men they lost, who then became the undead. Trying to fight them in the beginning like that was ridiculously dumb.

2. Who says that - you? George R. R. Martin made it clear that the Others (White Walkers) in his novels have a more nuanced goal than "end humanity." Why does it have to be nuanced? Because evil zombies who just want to kill for the sake of killing are BORING. It's boring! It's cliche! Game of Thrones built itself on breaking cliches and removing itself from stereotypical tropes like that, that's why we have had such interesting relationships with all of the characters; there isn't supposed to be good guys or bad guys, just characters doing what they think is right, which can be good or bad. There's nothing compelling about an evil guy who's evil because he's evil, and it's uncharacteristic of the series itself. That's why.

It's why I didn't really like any of the Marvel movies until Captain America: Civil War. Because they were boring, generic, invincible superheroes and supervillains beating each other up until the good guy inevitably wins. They were boring because they followed a basic and predictable formula, so I never felt any tension or significant attachment to unrelatable characters. Eventually that switched, and then I liked the newer films. (Endgame was awesome.) Game of Thrones has gone the opposite direction.

1.  They suck at siege fighting . They are cavalry who charge and they are the best at it . They fought in really role they would have a chance . Not to mention good luck getting them to fight in disciplined  ranks . As for fighting them straight up they couldn't beat them in any other kind of fight either so they were fucked anyway .

2. Really id like a quote and you do realize Martin contradicts himself all the time and often misleads people who ask him questions. By the way who says his goal of wiping out humanity was motivated by evil ? And funny enough you mention breaking clinches I argue that trying to make villain nuanced is a clinche, Also no one likes a villain who's simply evil 10,000 years of story telling say otherwise ., And lastly it's funny that you complain about it being clinche when in previous post you seem to be complaining about the opposite . So overall your complaints seem empty because motivation aren't to your liking it's bad .

Dude, it's a TV show.

(April 30, 2019 at 6:02 pm)Shell B Wrote: Dude, it's a TV show.

I know doesn't mean we can't debate the plot

It's just a bit feisty is all.

(April 30, 2019 at 7:47 pm)Shell B Wrote: It's just a bit feisty is all.

I'd like to think it's just passionate love for the show .

Hey, if that's all it is, I get it. It's a damn good show.

Okay, let's lighten up a bit.

I think the problem with this 3rd episode is that it's difficult to suspend disbelief to the point of such a waste of armies. So many people planning for it, and then it's all to waste.
Anyone who plays chess knows that it's important to preserve your troops and to always trade yours for at least an equivalent adversary.

Riding into the dark and unknown was stupid and something no one would do, especially against a magical foe. It's unbelievable that that would be the plan.