MovieChat Forums > Game of Thrones (2011) Discussion > The wrap up to Game of Thrones proves Ho...

The wrap up to Game of Thrones proves Hollywood has become too addicted to the twist ending.

posted 5 years ago by Darren (1133)
37 replies | jump to latest

Lots of great shows, and great stories succeed because they have a surprise twist at the end that is really clever and subverts expectations. Even when an ending is foreseen, a really great writer will work the story out so that the average reader can't see how the heroes will win in the end, until they do. Hell, Rod Serling, proved he was a master of the twist ending fifty years ago with "The Twilight Zone," and done well, the twist ending is an absolutely great literary device. But it's not the answer to everything. You never want a story to be predictable, but a story doesn't have to have a twist ending to work.

The Game of Thrones, as a series, is a story that fails, in that regard. I think it fails because the writers are trying too hard to subvert our expectations. The expectation is that Dany, after 7 seasons as the protagonist, is expected to win. Another expectation is that, although Jon Snow is actually the legitimate Targaryen heir, with the best claim to the throne, he falls in love with Dany, and supports her. So the expectation is that Dany wins the Iron Throne, or that perhaps the two of them end up sitting on it jointly. But Weiss and Benioff don't want to do what viewers expect, so here we are.

This is a mistake.

Think about it: in the greatest of all fantasy epics -- The Lord of the Rings -- everyone really knows, right from the beginning, that good will triumph, evil will be vanquished, and the good guys. I doubt any reader who ever cracked the book expected Sauron to win, in the end, so the ending is very far from a twist ending. Same with the Harry Potter series. Voldemort was, we all knew, destined to be vanquished. Ditto Star Wars, where we always knew the Rebels were destined to win. We know that the victory won't be permanent victory, because that's not in the cards for human beings in the real world, imperfect as it is. But the cause of right and justice will be advanced. There's really no twist. It ends like we expect it to. The only question is, how will the author manage it. Tolkien managed it quite well. Rowling did too, and so did George Lucas.

But Weiss and Benioff haven't. They haven't even tried to make the expected ending work. Instead they've gone with a rather predictable route, that Dany goes full mad queen, and becomes the monster. The problem is that it turns off audiences because it's just wrong. She's shown signs up to now of being a little too ruthless from time to time, but still she's always basically been someone with a good moral center, and especially, with her determination to free the slaves of Mereen, someone with too much empathy for the weak and helpless to suddenly become a genocidal psychopath.

Also, twist endings work better for short stories. For grand, unfolding epics, I don't think it works. Over the course of eight seasons, people invest too much hope and affection in a character. And when you take a beloved character and flip the switch at the last moment to make them the villain instead of the hero, people will HATE it. It also seems lazy. In their desire to provide an unexpected ending, they've gotten lazy and just flipped the switch on the main protagonist's character, and it's not that believable to most people, who get it that nobody that evil just turns that way overnight.

It looks like Game of Thrones will join the reimagined Battlestar Galactica as a great series, with a massive letdown of an ending.

[–] BrunoAntony (1198) 5 years ago

George RR Martin, the author of the novels that the TV series is based upon, came up with the ending. It’s how he intends to finish the story in his books, in broad strokes.

Did you do any research on this subject?

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

In my opinion, both of you are right.

Once there weren't more books, D&D started to tell their own story. For example: the story of Dany, a female empowered modern woman that rules surrounded by stupid and useless white males (Tyrion and Varys), pervert white males (Mormont) and courageous and loyal non-white males (the unsullied). Or the story of Rey, sorry, Arya, a female empowered modern woman who can beat any male and is sexually dominant. And so on.

RR Martin gave them the plot events: "that point in the timeline, that happens". Of course, events are only MILESTONES in a story. I guess the story of Dany (in the next books) will be the story of a ruler slowly falling into the family disease: madness. Maybe she will aware of it, though she can't help it. What would Tyrion and Varys do? What would you do if your last hope for your land is falling into madness? Perhaps Tyrion hoped for the best, he's sick of intrigues, maybe (he thinks) she will overcome it. Perhaps Varys, more fatalist, didn't, and he thought it would be safer to take her down before it's too late. Two sides appear, and a story of treason opposing Tyrion and Varys grows. But Varys was right: she will go mad. Tyrion watches how Dany destroys King's Landing, and then he realizes that Varys, the man he executed as a traitor, was the one who was right. Varys was the best of both, and probably the best friend he ever had, and he killed him. And that's a blame Tyrion shall carry from there on.

That's a guess, but I suppose that could be what RR Martin had in his head. I imagine (too) that Arya won't be an all-powerful Mary Sue, but an skilled and trained assassin that knows how to sneak and stab in the back. I guess that in the Night King scene, she will stab him before he even realizes she's there.

The problem appears when you overlap the story D&D wanted to tell with the events in the story RR Martin wanted to tell, because they're not the same.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

[COMMENT CONTINUES FOR LACK OF SPACE]

D&D wanted to tell their own story, instead of RR Martin's story.

Then, when you overlap the events RR Martin gave them, they feel out of the blue. They feel like a twist ending, but it's not. It's just two different stories overlapping.

[–] delac147 (116) 5 years ago

I think they are trying to tell the same story overall, the problem here is that for Dany to turn into a murderous psychopath, it should've taken more time to develop the character towards that properly. You can't just do that evolution in two episodes and think people will go with it.

She showed some murderous behaviour but nothing close to burning everyone alive, full of children and women. I believe it needed more build up to it.

It all comes to time and money, I think this season is rushed, no surprise as it's the last one with only six episodes. I believe that ideally the show should've had two more seasons.

Season 8: Dealing with the Knight King, more lore background and explanation regarding the long night, the knight king and bran.
Season 9: Dealing with Cersei, more character development on why Dany tuns full mad queen and a bit more work into getting kings landing, it's just all too easy.
Season 10: Dealing with Dany's madness.

To sum up, this last 3 episodes in an ideal world should've been three seasons. It all comes to time and money to properly develop the evolution of the characters.

PS. Same with Jamie, this whole series developing him towards a good man, just to be turned in a split second and forget all that his sister did... Okay I'll go with it, but I just can't wait for GG Marting to finish the bloody books to get a proper build up to everything, and I'll just take this past season as a summary.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

•"It all comes to time and money, I think this season is rushed"

Time and money?? Rushed?? They had two years and the highest budget in the history of TV.

•"the problem here is that for Dany to turn into a murderous psychopath, it should've taken more time to develop the character towards that properly"

They could have made more episodes. When they had books to follow, they produced 10 episodes per year.

And EVEN if they hadn't, there was time enough to portray a fall into madness. There's many movies that deal with it. Check Perfect Blue: that movie is a masterpiece and a perfect story of a woman falling into madness, and it's just 80 minutes long, only a bit more than one single episode of GoT.

[–] delac147 (116) 5 years ago

•"It all comes to time and money, I think this season is rushed"

Time and money?? Rushed?? They had two years and the highest budget in the history of TV.

- Yeah, they did have two years and the highest budget in the history of TV. Yet, I believe they needed more time.

•"the problem here is that for Dany to turn into a murderous psychopath, it should've taken more time to develop the character towards that properly"

They could have made more episodes. When they had books to follow, they produced 10 episodes per year.

- That's what I said... more episodes.... you are correct, better writers, because since they finished all G RR Martin material the show has a clear downfall in character development and dialogue.

I don't think you can make a character do a full 180 in one episode, maybe in a movie where the character is presented and then twisted in 80 minutes yes, but a character that has been developing for 8 seasons and showing little to 0 signs of becoming a burn everyone and everything psychopath. And yes, she's shown some arguably grey killing decisions (Sam's Brother and Father). But they all were soldiers in a war, all within limits but burning kids and women alive also probably some of her own troops as well... since she was burning everything and dothrakis were raping people in the city, it's would not be crazy to assume that some ended up BBQed.

I think we all agree that this season has been disappointing, to say the least, and I believe that it's because it's been rushed and there was no time (and perhaps no talent) to do it properly.

[–] Darren (1133) 5 years ago

I really don't care if Martin came up with it, or if Weiss and Benioff came up with it. Crap is crap, no matter where it comes from. Although kuku, in his post above, explains how the same plot could play out more believably, by playing out over time, and showing a gradual descent into madness, rather than a sudden change from goodhearted champion of the oppressed to genocidal monster willing to slaughter an entire city full of innocent people. Perhaps that is Martin's intention, perhaps not. I suppose time will tell.

Even so I have a problem with it. If Targaryens are so prone to being monsters, why the hell would anyone follow them? How would a dynasty like that ever survive? I've always had a hard time with certain aspects of Martin's story (e.g. too many totally ruthless, totally unscrupulous sociopaths around, such as Joffrey, Ramsay Bolton, Viserys, Walder Frey, the Mountain, et al. for a civil society to work), but this episode was just crap. It was too sudden, and too absolute a change of character, and it seems to have been done for no other reason to subvert all expectations. Then you have other problems, like the giant crossbows, which were such a deadly menace the previous episode that Dany had to break off her attack, now are dealt with as if they're no threat at all.

It's bad writing.

[–] BrunoAntony (1198) 5 years ago

I really don't care if Martin came up with it, or if Weiss and Benioff came up with it.

That’s where I stopped reading.

Your subject line is “Hollywood has become addicted to the twist ending”.

As most people know, the ending of “Game of Thrones” comes from George RR Martin, the author of the books, not “Hollywood”.

It’s an important distinction. But you don’t care about that detail because you’d rather complain at length about “bad writing” and why the crossbows can hit some dragons but not others, etc...

LOL

[–] Darren (1133) 5 years ago

Yes, Hollywood has become addicted to the twist ending. Since we haven't seen how Martin actually will wrap up his version of the story A) I don't know if these ideas actually did come from him, or if you are simply talking out of your ass, and B) even if he does plan to do it that way, he may do it properly -- i.e. have Daenerys' descent into madness occur more gradually, and therefore be far more believable, not to mention NOT making it a sudden and nonsensical twist.

But you don't care about such things because you'd rather lap up whatever crap the writers dish out, no matter how shitty a dog's breakfast it is.

LOL.

[–] BrunoAntony (1198) 5 years ago

A) I don't know if these ideas actually did come from him, or if you are simply talking out of your ass

This is where I stopped reading.

Do some research on the topic you are whining about, you ignorant fool. It takes one minute on Google ... less time than it takes you to type up your ill-informed opinion.

LOL!

[–] Darren (1133) 5 years ago

Why should I bother to look that up? That would presume I actually care who's idea this steaming horse turd of a story was. And I don't. It sucks whoever came up with it.

Seems you're pretty invested in it though, judging by how emotional you're getting over it. Grow up.

[–] Scape (504) 5 years ago

You’re right... I think Writers/Director’s during these times are paying too much attention to things like social media etc.. They for the first time in Cinema history know in advance (from social media) what their audience is wanting/guessing will happen with how their favorite “story” will unfold.
- The best creators ignore it all.

- The worst change their ideas to fit more with mainstream.

- Then you have the middle ground.

Where writers like D&D decide to throw in something simply because no one would of guessed it would happen.
Which can work for a Season Finale, a 1st or 2nd movie in a trilogy. But definitely not out of nowhere for the Final Season of a hit show/movie.
Simply because most of the GOT audience can/does feel that (at least for the writing on the TV version) it doesn’t feel like it is it’s natural conclusion.

The “twist” trick, as far as I see it only truly works when thought-out far in advance. With the previous parts of the story having little hints here & there. Not enough for anyone to guess in advance, but there. With the writing & acting being done - so the audience can then go back and be like
“Wow, now that I know the ending that part from Season blah makes perfect sense.” Not something that is completely jarring.

Like what we have here with GOT...
What a bummer...

[–] Towelie_Towel (1701) 5 years ago

There were clear hints about this since at least season 2. Dany's always been a soft dictator, I always saw her as a possible villain.

[–] Scape (504) 5 years ago

There were hints that she was untested & had a dark anger streak in her. But she never acted in any way like someone who could completely murder an entire village or kingdom full of innocent people...

That’s what I meant.
Remember when she even locked her dragons away, because they hurt and innocent girl?..
Now she just burned alive innocent kids 200x over. Just doesn’t fit naturally with her character.

[–] Towelie_Towel (1701) 5 years ago

She was on the verge of having awful decisions many times already. But she was convinced to back down by people close to her, and show mercy.

This time... These events put her over the edge, and she hates that city and the people in it - the people that accepted the usurper and what they did to her family.

[–] alienzen (1929) 5 years ago

you get the story to where it is supposed to go, but in a different way to how the audience was expecting. In Infinity War we expected Tony to wear the gauntlet. What happened was that he took the stones out of the gauntlet. So we got to see what we wanted, but in an unexpected way. We were satisfied, and surprised at the same time.

We didn't see Tony put on the gauntlet and then go mad, ruining his character arc completely.

[–] Darren (1133) 5 years ago

Agreed. This episode was just God awful, and primarily because to give the story the surprise twist they clearly wanted to surprise viewers with, they had to make a few of the characters act so completely out of character that it just makes no sense whatsoever. It's going for the cheap shock over good storytelling and proper character development.

I saw a comment on a YouTube review that summed it up rather well: it's like a WWII movie where the U.S. and British armies liberate France, Belgium, and Holland, as well as concentration camps they encounter, all to free people from Nazi tyranny... Only to turn around, after Germany has surrendered, to engage in looting and pillaging as Eisenhower orders the firebombing of Berlin, and we see Hitler and Eva Braun share a tender moment of farewell in the Führerbunker.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Only to turn around, after Germany has surrendered, to engage in looting and pillaging as Eisenhower orders the firebombing of Berlin

Well, actually, that's more or less what happened. Eisenhower ordered the bombing of Dresden, which was mainly a civil city. From the military point of view, it was a minor target, but it had hundreds of thousands of German refugees. It was completely destroyed. The death toll was calculated back then in about half million of civilian casualties. It was the German equivalent to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Killing some hundreds of thousands of civilians, Dany's style, was the way Eisenhower used to give a final blow to end the war, both in Germany and Japan. And, I must concede, it worked.

And after that, the rape party started. The Red Army were the most enthusiastic ones... but not the only ones. Of course, history is written by the victors, and Western Countries just blamed Soviet Union.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany

But when you dig you get something like this:
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/book-claims-us-soldiers-raped-190-000-german-women-post-wwii-a-1021298.html

[–] Darren (1133) 5 years ago

"Well, actually, that's more or less what happened. Eisenhower ordered the bombing of Dresden, which was mainly a civil city. From the military point of view, it was a minor target, but it had hundreds of thousands of German refugees. It was completely destroyed. The death toll was calculated back then in about half million of civilian casualties. It was the German equivalent to Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

Not quite... Militarily Dresden wasn't that significant, but industrially it was. Allied intelligence may have overestimated its industrial importance, but we only know that with hindsight. Also, Eisenhower, as supreme Allied commander, may have given the final go order for the bombing, but he wasn't involved in originating or planning it at all. Churchill was far more responsible, and even so, he was horrified at the actual outcome and later tried to distance himself from it.

But we bombed Germany and Japan and killed millions because in the 1940s, precision bombing like we can accomplish today just wasn't possible. The only way to destroy the factories was to carpet bomb the cities they were in.

As for the rapes. Sadly, that's been a feature of war for man's entire history. Historically, it pretty much always follows in the sack of a fallen city. The wonder was the the number committed by the US and British armies was as small as it was. The Red Army stuck to the more traditional path in that regard. The point though, is all that here occurs AFTER the city surrenders. Even in ancient times, strong leaders didn't generally let their armies run amok in a city that surrendered, though they would if they had to take the city by force.

Also, while US and British forces may not have had completely clean hands -- no one fighting a war ever does -- they WERE the good guys, fighting in a just and noble cause. They did not suddenly abandon the nobility of their cause and their very morality, AFTER having won, no less. Dany did.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

•"Not quite... Militarily Dresden wasn't that significant, but industrially it was. Allied intelligence may have overestimated its industrial importance, but we only know that with hindsight."

That's excuse is NOT believable. It could have been... in 1941, or 1942. In 1945, German industry was destroyed. And even for what stayed, there were no supplies and raw materials.

•"Also, Eisenhower, as supreme Allied commander, may have given the final go order for the bombing, but he wasn't involved in originating or planning it at all. Churchill was far more responsible"

Dresden was the biggest non-nuclear bombardment in WW2. Probably, the biggest non-nuclear bombardment in which US Army has been ever involved (at least, until Vietnam). Again, it just not believable Eisenhower wasn't involved.

•"But we bombed Germany and Japan and killed millions because in the 1940s, precision bombing like we can accomplish today just wasn't possible. The only way to destroy the factories was to carpet bomb the cities they were in."

The same can be applied to Daenerys. Unfortunately, precision dragon-fire was not available, and she couldn't just kill the military. If you apply some standard to one, you must apply the same standard to another.

•"Also, while US and British forces may not have had completely clean hands -- no one fighting a war ever does -- they WERE the good guys, fighting in a just and noble cause."

The problem with that is... that can be applied to everyone. If nazis would have won the war, probably books of history would say something like 'Also, while German forces and SS may not have had completely clean hands -- no one fighting a war ever does -- they WERE the good guys, fighting in a just and noble cause.'. And if Dany becomes the final ruler, books of history in Westeros will say something like ''Also, while Daenerys I of Westeros may not have had completely clean hands -- no one fighting a war ever does -- she, and her army, WERE the good guys, fighting in a just and noble cause.'

[–] Darren (1133) 5 years ago

"That's excuse is NOT believable. It could have been... in 1941, or 1942. In 1945, German industry was destroyed. And even for what stayed, there were no supplies and raw materials."

German industry was destroyed? Yet somehow they were still manufacturing tanks, planes, rifles, etc. Sorry, it IS believable. And aside from that, the bombing was meant to coincide with a Soviet offensive, and so divert German resources and make the Red Army's job easier.

"Dresden was the biggest non-nuclear bombardment in WW2. Probably, the biggest non-nuclear bombardment in which US Army has been ever involved (at least, until Vietnam). Again, it just not believable Eisenhower wasn't involved.

Yes it is. Eisenhower didn't have a role in planning bombing missions. That was the job of the RAF bomber command under Arthur Harris and the USAAF strategic air force under Carl Spaatz. They reported to Eisenhower, but he had his own job to do managing the ground war and coordinating it with the air forces. The only time he selected targets was when he took the bombers off their strategic missions to hit German fortifications in Normandy prior to D-Day (which the USAAF resented, BTW).

"The same can be applied to Daenerys. Unfortunately, precision dragon-fire was not available, and she couldn't just kill the military. If you apply some standard to one, you must apply the same standard to another."

I AM applying the same standard! Did we continue bombing Germany AFTER they surrendered? Didn't think so.

"The problem with that is... that can be applied to everyone. If nazis would have won the war, probably books of history would say something like 'Also, while German forces and SS may not have had completely clean hands -- no one fighting a war ever does -- they WERE the good guys, fighting in a just and noble cause.'"

Sorry, but this is relativist nonsense. If you REALLY think that the only moral difference between us and the NAZIS is that we won and they lost... Smdh.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

• "Sorry, but this is relativist nonsense. If you REALLY think that the only moral difference between us and the NAZIS is that we won and they lost"

Actually, it's you the one that supports a relativist moral, when you said 'Also, while US and British forces may not have had completely clean hands -- no one fighting a war ever does -- they WERE the good guys, fighting in a just and noble cause'

I defend that the SAME standard should be applied to everybody. If you argue that a different standard of judgment should be applied to the 'good guys' because they were the 'good guys', that's textbook moral relativism.

Same standard should be applied, and then conclude. That doesn't mean the conclusion will be the same, only that judgments will have the same standard. 'Good' or 'bad' should be concluded AFTER judging according to whatever standard. If you FIRST decide who were the good guys, and THEN apply a different standard to judge actions because 'they were the good guys', as a said, that's what moral relativism is.

[–] Darren (1133) 5 years ago

"Actually, it's you the one that supports a relativist moral, when you said 'Also, while US and British forces may not have had completely clean hands -- no one fighting a war ever does -- they WERE the good guys, fighting in a just and noble cause'"

More nonsense. What is relativist about that statement? What is relativist about saying the Allies were the good guys, and the Nazis were the bad guys? Seriously, how can you not recognize NAZIS as the clear bad guys? Seriously? I mean really, if turning the industry, infrastructure, and bureaucracy of a modern, developed state over to genocide doesn't do it for you, what would it take?

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

More nonsense. What is relativist about that statement? What is relativist about saying the Allies were the good guys, and the Nazis were the bad guys?

I already explained it, but well. Last try.

It's relativist because you use them to apply a different standard to judged actions. 'Good' or 'bad' should be concluded from judging actions. You FIRST decide it and THEN judge the action with a different standard depending of the label you applied.

Massacring a city filled with civilians to win a war cannot be judged with different standards according to some prior categories. If you're the good guys, then massacring the city... well, you know, shit happens, it's a war after all, nobody has completely clean hands. If you're not part of the good guys, then massacring the city... that's a heinous!!.

Well, then you have a different standard, and that's textbook moral relativism. Being 'good' or 'bad' should be a final conclusion, NOT a prior category that gives you the right to have a different standard.

[–] Darren (1133) 5 years ago

"Massacring a city filled with civilians to win a war cannot be judged with different standards according to some prior categories. If you're the good guys, then massacring the city... well, you know, shit happens, it's a war after all, nobody has completely clean hands. If you're not part of the good guys, then massacring the city... that's a heinous!!."

Yes it is. And this is why Churchill, and other Allied leaders, in the aftermath of Dresden, were appalled by the carnage, and most came to regard it as an excess, something not to be proud of. Do you think Hitler would have expressed similar regrets? Stalin? Not bloody likely.

Yes, good guys do have standards, and mostly, they try to live up to them, though sometimes they fail. That's human nature.

Nevertheless, we were the good guys in WWII. If you're argument is "Dresden, so the Allies were no better than the Nazis!" I am going to call bullshit. Because that's nonsense on stilts. Nobody stays spotless in war, because war -- even in a just cause -- tends to bring out the worst in people. Even so, value judgments are possible, and some people, and some causes are worse than others.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

•"Yes it is. And this is why Churchill, and other Allied leaders, in the aftermath of Dresden, were appalled by the carnage, and most came to regard it as an excess, something not to be proud of. Do you think Hitler would have expressed similar regrets?"

Who knows. Maybe. Maybe not. Had Hitler won the war, once he got what he wanted, he could say how terrible it was... but hey, what's done is done! Besides that, who wins writes the books, and you'll always would have many people justifying the official winner with something like "Nazis may not have had completely clean hands -- no one fighting a war ever does -- they WERE the good guys, fighting in a just and noble cause against the countries that kept enforcing the treaty of Versailles. Yes, good guys do have standards, and mostly, they try to live up to them, though sometimes they fail. That's human nature.".

And besides that, probably official researches would have showed that only a few thousands jews died, so no much to apologize about, isn't it? Some people could extrapolate data to know the order of magnitude (for example, using the decrease in population, that's a good way to guess the casualties in a war), and guess that the real numbers was more like hundreds of thousands, even millions. But the answer would be something like "This is what pro-jew justification looks like. Nope. Sorry, I'll take the peer-reviewed research of a scholar over wild extrapolations.".

There would be always people disliking double standards, the 'good guys' one applied to nazis (had they won the war) and the 'bad guys' one applied to allies. But that would be answered with something like "Nevertheless, we were the good guys in WWII. If you're argument is "Auschwitz, so the Nazis were no better than the Allies!" I am going to call bullshit. Because that's nonsense on stilts. Nobody stays spotless in war, because war -- even in a just cause -- tends to bring out the worst in people"

[–] Darren (1133) 5 years ago

"There would be always people disliking double standards, the 'good guys' one applied to nazis (had they won the war) and the 'bad guys' one applied to allies."

No. No it wouldn't. The Soviets DID win the war, they weren't really the good guys. Just incrementally less bad than the Nazis.

"But that would be answered with something like 'Nevertheless, we were the good guys in WWII. If you're argument is 'Auschwitz, so the Nazis were no better than the Allies!' I am going to call bullshit. Because that's nonsense on stilts. Nobody stays spotless in war, because war -- even in a just cause -- tends to bring out the worst in people'"

There is so much wrong with this rephrase of my statement that I scarcely know where to begin. Perhaps with this. The Nazis WEREN'T fighting in a just cause! And that would remain true even had they won, and gotten to write the history. If you REALLY can't grasp this, then there is something fucking wrong with you! Seriously. Might, does not make right.

And yes, Auschwitz absolutely fucking DOES make the Nazis worse than Dresden does the Allies. It's one thing to oversaturate a legitimate industrial and military target and inflict excessive civilian casualties in an all out war for survival -- one the opponent you're bombing STARTED BTW. It's something quite different to systematically demonize and oppress a group of people because of their ethnic background, devote your highly developed bureaucracy, infrastructure, and industry to cold-bloodedly rounding them up and shipping them off to murder factories, and killing them by their millions, all while waging an unprovoked war of conquest against your neighbors.

How in the name of HELL is it possible you need someone to explain this to you? Seriously dude, what the fuck is wrong with you?

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Now, again, what would you say, had nazis won the war?

"And yes, Dresden absolutely fucking DOES make the Allies worse than Auschwittz does the Nazis. It's one thing to oversaturate a legitimate prisoner camp and inflict excessive civilian casualties in an group that betrayed their own country -- one they started supporting the enemy BTW. It's something quite different to systematically kill a group of people because they have been loyal to their country, devote your highly developed bureaucracy, infrastructure, and industry to cold-bloodedly bombing them up and massacring them, and killing them by their hundreds of thousands, all while waging and defending unethical conditions to sentence your neighbors to poverty.

How in the name of HELL is it possible you need someone to explain this to you? Seriously dude, what the fuck is wrong with you?"

[–] Darren (1133) 5 years ago

Also, the information in your second link is highly suspect. Even the article you link to acknowledges as much:

The total is not the result of deep research in archives across the country. Rather, it is an extrapolation. Gebhardt makes the assumption that 5 percent of the "war children" born to unmarried women in West Germany and West Berlin by the mid-1950s were the product of rape. That makes for a total of 1,900 children of American fathers. Gebhardt further assumes that on average, there are 100 incidents of rape for each birth. The result she arrives at is thus 190,000 victims.

Such a total, though, hardly seems plausible.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

The calculation extrapolates what's known (not much). Of course, that's highly imprecise... data just don't allow any better. That's one of the consequences of victors controlling history books.

Anyway, while being imprecise, it's a good method to calculate, at least, what should be the order of magnitude. The exact number? 190,000? Who knows. Perhaps the real number was closer to 100,000, or perhaps was closer to 300,000. What's sure it's that 11,000 is not believable.

[–] Darren (1133) 5 years ago

"Anyway, while being imprecise, it's a good method to calculate, at least, what should be the order of magnitude. The exact number? 190,000? Who knows. Perhaps the real number was closer to 100,000, or perhaps was closer to 300,000. What's sure it's that 11,000 is not believable."

Why? It's based on actual research. The higher number from the article is based on extrapolation. What you're telling me is you'll discount a number based on actual research, if it doesn't comport with your preconceptions, and accept one based on frankly sloppy extrapolations if it does.

But then again, you did just imply that the only reason the Allies are viewed as having fought a just war and the Nazis aren't is because the victors wrote the history. Never mind the Holocaust, never mind the Nazis started it by aggressively attacking their neighbors, never mind the totalitarian government, the secret police, the forced labor, etc., etc.

Sorry, I'm inclined to take you less and less seriously the more you write.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Why? It's based on actual research.

Actual (deep) research can be very precise when it's well done... but it can be easily faked too.

A more simple calculation based in extrapolation is far more imprecise, but because of its own simplicity, it's far more difficult to fake.

One example: civilian casualties use to have the same demographics than the civilian population. If 50% of the population are female, it's expected from civilian casualties (roughly, grosso modo) to be 50% female. It's simple, it's imprecise, but it's reliable.

Now, if you have a deep research about casualties that states that a pile a casualties where 90% happen to be young males were civilian casualties, I'll call that deep research bullshit. The same happens here.

(And I'm not making up the example. That was a research from the UN about the casualties in Gaza a couple of years ago).

[–] Darren (1133) 5 years ago

This is what justification looks like. Nope. Sorry, I'll take the peer-reviewed research of a scholar over wild extrapolations.

[–] whynotwriteme (7122) 5 years ago

I DETEST 'shocking twist endings' that have unsuccessfully developed the twist as a possibility. I first noticed this way cheap trick back in the movie "Along Came A Spider" when Morgan Freeman's partner was revealed in the last scene as a co-conspirator of the villain.

I mean, sure, Daenerys showed a cruel side, but to go from regular Danerys to psychopathic pyromaniac mass murderer Daenerys in two episodes is ridiculous. It should have taken much longer to reach that point. It's as if Luke Skywalker had suddenly decided to shoot down all the other X-Wings instead of destroying the Death Star.

[–] RoloTony (1163) 5 years ago

Agreed. Putting Brann on the throne serves no purpose beyond "I bet ya never would've thought of that!!".

[–] izmank (7) 5 years ago

Daenerys is a dragon and remember what her brother used to say, "Don't wake the dragon". They woke her. I'd expect a dragon to lash out like Daenerys did as opposed to taking her time, slowly reaching a point where she makes a decision to kill thousands of innocent people.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12299) 5 years ago

Sounds like the idiot writers took cues from Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz. Lazy, slopping writing, and adding in changes for the sake of change, instead of doing some real writing.