Game of Thrones S07E03 Discussion Thread (WARNING: Episode 4 Leaked. SPOILERS will be BANNED)

[LuchaBear]

What if this Azor/Prince who was promised thing was somebody who's evil? Cersei, Euron or a Mad Aunty Dany.

I think it would be cool if the person who saves the day is evil and stays evil til the end. Would be a unique twist.

 

[LuchaBear]

why does the media even talk about leaked episodes. if an episode leaks, why do they feel the need to shout it from the rooftops so everyone knows?

Huh? Are they supposed to act like nothing happened? It's the or one of the most popular shows in the world, how could you expect anything different?

HBO getting leaked is news.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

The Hounds judgment falls into the area of 'do you hold soldiers morally accountable for following the actions they are commanded to do and if they do not will be killed for?'

Some people do think soldiers should be judged morally over that. I am not one in most cases if that soldier was only 'following orders'. They are, in that scenario acting under duress.

And while I agree with what you generally say about Jamie that does not give him a pass to kill anyone or everyone who accidentally comes across his affair and might expose them.

I'll ask this. If Cersei and Jamie were generally more careless and getting caught more often and Jamie was leaving a swath of dead people in his wake to protect their secret, would that affect your view? As the quantity does not determine the moral position.

It would affect my view - because there is a serious difference between the attempted murder of one person and the actual murder of several (in an ongoing trend). It's the difference between a serial killer and a passion laden assault or single act of self defense...

 

[LuchaBear]

GoT day!!! w000000000000000000, all you wretched children who already saw that shit 360p cant get hype

"360P wasn't even that bad."

 

[MikeMcMann]

Is Jaime really that evil in their world? Ned decapitated a guy because he ran from WWs. Can you really blame the guy for running? He saw them murder his brothers and they tossed a head at him. Jon decapitated a poor fool because he disobeyed an order. Arya killed a kid. Cat slit a girl's throat, and tried to get an innocent man (Tyrion) killed. Sansa helped LF cover up the murder of her aunt. Bran Flake condemned a poor kid to a life of brain damage and later death. Not to mention his negligence also got the TER, the remaining CotF, and Summer killed, and nearly Meera.

Man people can really spin (fake news) things then they want to rationalize someone as better than they are. Wow.

No Ned did not kill that guy because he ran from WW's. When judging Ned his rationale and reasoning matters even if he is wrong. And he was killing him for what was considered an unforgivable and death warranting crime of running away form the Knights Watch.

What I see over and over is people trying to rationalize Jamie as 'not so bad' and then scrubbing away Jamie's and the ones they compare reason for their actions to try and say 'look the actions are similar' if we strip away context.

Yes every murder is the same if you strip away context. A serial killer killing innocents and a person killing attackers of his family can all be called equal if we strip away context. But context matters. Ned and Jamie have no business being compared due to outcome of actions stripped of context.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

What if this Azor/Prince who was promised thing was somebody who's evil? Cersei, Euron or a Mad Aunty Dany.

I think it would be cool if the person who saves the day is evil and stays evil til the end. Would be a unique twist.

If it was Stannis then I think that would have been the twist you were looking for....

 

[LC Shepard]

360p master race

 

[Jon Stark]

You guys arguing about Jaime... mm... I like his character. He could be more principled but he doesn't give a fuck about that really, he just wants to be awesome and to love Cersei, which is not good. Like, I like that but it's not really a good thing that that makes up his character. I feel like he's no better or worse than anyone else on the show, he's just a person. I like all the characters that are left on the show, TBH.

How many guys pushed a kid out the window to cover up adultery with his sister and his kid's future claims to the throne?

I'll wait.

 

[Jon Stark]

* comebacks

jesus

 

[JAEGERX]

jesus

Preach brother

 

[Jon Stark]

I can't watch this episode until tomorrow so I cant check out the updates tonight. Oh, the pain.

 

[Jon Stark]

Preach brother

amen

 

[MikeMcMann]

It would affect my view - because there is a serious difference between the attempted murder of one person and the actual murder of several (in an ongoing trend). It's the difference between a serial killer and a passion laden assault or single act of self defense...

No you did not read my question properly.

nothing changes in Jamie's motivations for actions or how he acts upon them.

We all accept he will kill to protect the secret of him and his sisters incestuous sex and some say that is ok or understandable or not a clear bad or evil since he is protecting his family from a certain death after


So if that is his moral framework and you accept it then simply adding quantity DOES NOT change anything.

If Jamie and Cersei are not careful lovers and get caught out often and Jamie simply follows the above moral framework he is doing nothing different than he did the first time. It is not OK if only one or two times but wrong in 3+.

If it is the number that determines someone's moral judgement of the act then they do not understand how moral's or logic work.

 

[LEWIS540]

No he hasn't. No more so than Paul Bernardo could claim that if he did some good since his crimes or said he was acting on behalf of his family when he acted.

That does not mean you cannot still 'like' him but he has not been written as you suggest.

Again I would ask if your view would change if he and Cersei were careless lovers forcing him to kill one or many every episode to protect their secret and 'his family' if you would feel differently?

Because if you would you do not understand that a moral stand does not comprise quantity. His actions and reasons would be the exact same.

If you simply wave your hand that being a soldier subject to death is similar to Jamies situation then we will never agree. The Hound is close to a morally ambiguous character. Sure there are some situations you can argue but overall there is no comparison between he and Jamie.

1) GRRM has said that is exactly how he wrote Jaime........morally ambiguous, shades of grey. Is redemption even possible. Think he even compared him to Woody Allen!

2) Jaime is not a mindless serial killer, who kills for pleasure (though the hound does enjoy killing). All his acts were done for a purpose, whether you agree with them or not. Comparing him to Bernado is asinine.

3) The majority of the Hound's "bad" acts were not done as a soldier.


I get it you like the Hound and not Jaime, so you can easily forgive him and not Jaime. Does not make it right.

 

[Jon Stark]

Is Jaime really that evil in their world? Ned decapitated a guy because he ran from WWs. Can you really blame the guy for running? He saw them murder his brothers and they tossed a head at him. Jon decapitated a poor fool because he disobeyed an order. Arya killed a kid. Cat slit a girl's throat, and tried to get an innocent man (Tyrion) killed. Sansa helped LF cover up the murder of her aunt. Bran Flake condemned a poor kid to a life of brain damage and later death. Not to mention his negligence also got the TER, the remaining CotF, and Summer killed, and nearly Meera.

Yes, Jamie really is that evil as is Cerci.

 

[Jon Stark]

No you did not read my question properly.

nothing changes in Jamie's motivations for actions or how he acts upon them.

We all accept he will kill to protect the secret of him and his sisters incestuous sex and some say that is ok or understandable or not a clear bad or evil since he is protecting his family from a certain death after


So if that is his moral framework and you accept it then simply adding quantity DOES NOT change anything.

If Jamie and Cersei are not careful lovers and get caught out often and Jamie simply follows the above moral framework he is doing nothing different than he did the first time. It is not OK if only one or two times but wrong in 3+.

If it is the number that determines someone's moral judgement of the act then they do not understand how moral's or logic work.

Give me a break anyone who's backing Jamie with the ultimate political spin, should be Jamie's god damn campaign manager if there's ever an election in Westeros.

 

[LuchaBear]

It's funny how this show has yet to show Davos fight. Not a real knight.

 

[JAEGERX]

It's funny how this show has yet to show Davos fight. Not a real knight.

Davos survived the battle of the bastard, and that was a gigantic disaster, so he can probably holds his own

 

[LEWIS540]

Yes, Jamie really is that evil as is Cerci.

You should tell GRRM then because he is on record as saying that is not how the character was written.

Unless you have completely missed the point of the character, as unlikely as that would seem.

 

[MikeMcMann]

1) GRRM has said that is exactly how he wrote Jaime........morally ambiguous, shades of grey. Is redemption even possible. Think he even compared him to Woody Allen!

2) Jaime is not a mindless serial killer, who kills for pleasure (though the hound does enjoy killing). All his acts were done for a purpose, whether you agree with them or not. Comparing him to Bernado is asinine.

3) The majority of the Hound's "bad" acts were not done as a soldier.


I get it you like the Hound and not Jaime, so you can easily forgive him and not Jaime. Does not make it right.

1. If I write a book tomorrow I do not get to decide for the readers what is morally consistent or not in their view simply because I wrote the book. We are judging the characters based on our moral framework developed thru our experiences.

2. Paul Bernardo was never mindless. Go read about him. And I never said they were comparable so a lot of points are going over your head. The point was 'good actions after do not redeem what was done prior'.

If you do not agree with the above then you are in the same camp as Petey where if I tell you what Jamie or Paul Bernardo did exactly in their heinous acts, you both say 'wait I cannot judge the person until you tell me if they did anything good in the years to follow'.

It is clear the above is the crux of your position and one we won't agree upon.

3. I've already said I can like and root for Jamie and don't care if others do. I am simply pointing out how 'liking' someone leads many (you) to rationalize and excuse and accept their horrible acts. You want to like him so you NEED to see him as not bad as you and many others cannot rationalize you might like someone bad.