Quote:
Originally Posted by kittygrrl
A storyline written by an exclusive male writing team and a male director. No women were involved for the last season..it was a given she would die.. was it necessary? Maybe, but this story line was poorly written..they could have written a believable plot of a warrior queen with a heart that slowly goes mad but instead they make her nuts in 6 episodes..it's bad writing..There were so many bad scenes and the reasons behind them for the last season, I don't even know where to start and it's probably at this point, not very relevant..but i don't agree her death was necessary. This storyline was awful..even i could have written a better ending....now back to my bad dream
|
Martin wrote the story - the whole story; it all came out of
his head,
his thoughts. In
his mind, the Buddha was not written into the story. It is a
high fantasy, created by
his thought where, in
his mind, all the tyrants die. When I began watching GOT, like any story, I used the old rule of thumb of "Once upon a time..." and I suspended belief, and just went with it. It is one of the fables of all stories, whether written by women or men, that because the brain requires security, will "believe" that the battles that are fought are justified, even that battles in themselves are the way life works - and all the illusions perpetrated by the brain that there must always be a fight or flight response, that there must be effort, etc. etc. etc. Personally, I do not believe that, I do not buy into that. From what I understand of life,
thought itself cannot resolve anything at all, because thought itself is limited. What one knows in terms of thought can never be a final truth; thought is always adding to itself. Knowledge in itself is always imperfect.
But, in the context of a film, a fantasy, a drama, I do understand that any brain [which, of course, is using thought] will try to resolve conflict by a cathartic end. I think that it is important not to confuse reality (or truth) with what is fabricated by the brain by an artist. In that sense, I can appreciate what Martin wrote for what it was, not for what I would like it to be. In that sense, I accept works of art for what they are. Insofar as I am concerned, what Martin wrote was for entertainment, for pleasure; it was not an essay on truth or reality. It was just for fun.