#J Robb

[saessenach]

What is honor compared to a woman’s love? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms… or the memory of a brother’s smile? Wind and words. Wind and words. We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for love. That is our great glory, and our great tragedy.

Jon Snow - and family that haunts him, because sometimes ghosts make for the best love stories.

[winterprince601]

thinking about how all three of the kingships jon stands to inherit are legacies of love - jon's ability to understand the free folk as human and worth saving is an act of love and they love him and essentially make him king beyond the wall in return. robb loves and trusts his brother and is confident in jon's love and loyalty in return, even fresh from theon's betrayal, so he names him his heir to the north. despite the ambiguity of the affair, grrm seems to suggest rhaegar truly loved lyanna and that would make jon, literally, their love child - illegitimate or not, his existence and potential claim to the iron throne is because "prince rhaegar loved his lady lyanna" and he lives because lyanna loved him and ned loved lyanna.

do you see it? around jon snow, more important than any royal blood or legitimacy, is a nexus of love?

[cummin4cregan]

stuff i hate about the asoiaf fandom!!

1. certain characters stans;

In this fuckass fandom, theres like an unspoken rule that if you like one character, you have to hate every other character and harass their fans. This applies to EVERYONE!! It’s exhausting. Examples being the rivalry stans; Jaime and Cersei, Daenerys and Jon, Daenerys and Young Griff, and even Daenerys and Sansa, not to mention Arya and Sansa.

2. making their own plot

Many fans of Asoiaf series tend to create their own fanon story in their minds. Some of y’all portray your favorite characters as having no flaws and sometimes will purposefully mischaracterize or misunderstand ones you don’t like simply because they don’t like those characters stans. They will twist the CANON TEXT if someone says something they disagree with AND attempt to provoke reactions from stans of characters they dislike by intentionally making things up. YOU DO NOTTTT need to make things up to defend your favorite characters. Its genuinely unnecessary especially when your fav ALSO HAS FLAWS…

example;

jon snow fans bringing up daenerys killing that crazy ass lady who murdered her unborn child, and mischaracterizes her by saying it was “wrong” or “evil” but then daenerys stans saying jon went around murdering wildlings by torching them on fire who wanted to escape and saying he tortured his prisoners and enjoyed it but “nobody ever mentions it!!!” PROBABLY BECAUSE IT WASN’T ANYWHERE IN THE BOOK LMFAOO.????

3. show vs books

Both fandoms can be annoying as SHIT, but one thing that really bothers me (and probably everyone else) is the fact some fans cannot distinguish the show and book canons. FOR INSTANCE; when fans of Jaime defend him against Cersei fans who point out that he RAPED Cersei in front of their DEAD SON in the show, they often retaliate by mentioning she slept with their SIXTEEN YEAR OLD cousin, which only occurs in the BOOKS (lancel is like 22 in show canon) It's genuinely so irritating to see them pick and choose which canon to defend their favorite characters, especially when the show and books are EXTREMELY DIFFERENT.

4. struggling with opinions:

I don’t know why so many people who like this series genuinely cannot handle opinions that aren’t their own. If someone thinks there’s more than one Azor Ahai, that’s FINE! Some of y’all forget the books aren’t finished yet—there’s still time for shit to happen..

If you think either Arya or Sansa will become Queen in the North, THAT’S FINE!!! You don’t need to ARGUE with people about it or CRY AND SEETHE just because you don’t agree that it’ll happen. If you think Young Griff is Aegon—good for you! If you don’t—also good for you.

If you dislike a character because they have traits written to make them PURPOSELY UNLIKABLE (Catelyn, Cersei, Jaime, Tyrion, Tywin), that’s genuinely fine. You don’t need to call people names or claim they’re misogynistic, misandrist, or braindead, or say they have no media literacy because of it.. Y’all do not need to make up BULLSHIT or purposely rile people up just because they disagree with you.

5. harassing workers!

Not only do some of y’all harass fans, but you will go out of your way to harass actors, writers of the shows, and the author himself. Y’all genuinely act like these people murdered your family—you will make fun of their appearance for doing their jobs, call them untalented and annoying because the writers made a decision for THEIR FICTIONAL CHARACTER they had no say in. Be so fr, do you ppl not have JOBS?? I’m convinced the author HATES YOUU because y’all are ungrateful, PARASOCIAL, AND WEIRD.

(This was mainly about HOTD fans, because why do y’all act like the Dance of Dragons is a real war and that the actors have the same rivalry as they do onscreen...)

Y’all aren’t entitled to shit, and I genuinely hope the author never gives you a new book in the main series, because y’all act like babies.

[northwestbi]

Moira is a proper milf

[maastrichtiana]

the R+L=J reveal doesn’t matter to me anymore I’m Team the Jon Snow Psychological Stew that will be Ned Stark’s lookalike at Winterfell with the Catelyn Tully lookalike and feral red-haired Rickon in his father’s house where he never felt he belonged has his Stark impostor complex validated

"If you kill a man, and never mean t', he's just as dead," Ygritte said stubbornly. Jon had never met anyone so stubborn, except maybe for his little sister Arya. Is she still my sister? he wondered. Was she ever? He had never truly been a Stark, only Lord Eddard's motherless bastard, with no more place at Winterfell than Theon Greyjoy. And even that he'd lost. When a man of the Night's Watch said his words, he put aside his old family and joined a new one, but Jon Snow had lost those brothers too.

Every morning they had trained together, since they were big enough to walk; Snow and Stark, spinning and slashing about the wards of Winterfell, shouting and laughing, sometimes crying when there was no one else to see. They were not little boys when they fought, but knights and mighty heroes. "I'm Prince Aemon the Dragonknight," Jon would call out, and Robb would shout back, "Well, I'm Florian the Fool." Or Robb would say, "I'm the Young Dragon," and Jon would reply, "I'm Ser Ryam Redwyne."

That morning he called it first. "I'm Lord of Winterfell!" he cried, as he had a hundred times before. Only this time, this time, Robb had answered, "You can't be Lord of Winterfell, you're bastard-born. My lady mother says you can't ever be the Lord of Winterfell."

I thought I had forgotten that. Jon could taste blood in his mouth, from the blow he'd taken.

In the end Halder and Horse had to pull him away from Iron Emmett, one man on either arm. The ranger sat on the ground dazed, his shield half in splinters, the visor of his helm knocked askew, and his sword six yards away. "Jon, enough," Halder was shouting, "he's down, you disarmed him. Enough!"

Not being Ned’s son will hurt, not being Robb or Arya’s brother? That’s going to destroy his sense of identity more than anything else.

[polysucks]

*hits vape* the real confirmation that Jon is Lyanna and Rhaegar’s kid is the fact that Ghost is white. Something something Targaryen hair.

[dannymillerfansite]

Some pictures shared by Beth Cordingly, who plays Ruby, on Emmerdale's Christmas party, featuring Danny.

[politicaldilfs]

Virginia Governor DILFs

Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Ralph Northam, Chuck Robb, Terry McAuliffe, Douglas Wilder, Bob McDonnell, Colgate Darden, Gerald Baliles, Jim Gilmore, Westmoreland Davis, John N. Dalton, J. Lindsay Almond, Albertis Harrison, John S. Battle, William M. Tuck, James Hubert Price, George Allen, Thomas B. Stanley, Linwood Holton, Mills Godwin, Glenn Youngkin

[dingle-barton-dynamic]

I swear if emmerdale are going to kill off my all time favourite soap lady and scottish icon moira barton or make her seriously ill then I am going to THROW HANDS.

I have never feared emmerdale more than I do right now

[che4pperfume]

Aaaaaand my “hear me out” casting of the [main] female characters I’ve met so far (I’m just beginning ACOWAR)

Maddie Hasson - Feyre

AnnaSophia Robb - Nesta

Olivia Holt - Elain

Portia Doubleday - Ianthe

Lucy Boynton - Morrigan

Gemma Chan - Amren

Yara Shahidi - Nuala

Amandla Stenberg - Cerridwen

Zoë Kravitz - Cresseida

Evan Rachel Wood - Amarantha

I tried my best 🤷🏻‍♀️

[northwestbi]

Moira getting a good seeing to

[scltbvrns]

In a very recent interview George RR Martin has stated the War of the five Kings in A Song of Ice and Fire is based on and is a homage to the true story of Sudeep from Malleshwaram area.

[denimbex1986]

'It can be said that Christopher Nolan has always known how to end a movie. From Leonard Shelby concluding his journey where it began and asking “now where was I?” in Memento to the topper that wouldn’t stop spinning in Inception, this is a filmmaker who looks for the most potent image that will burrow its way into audiences’ heads.

Yet the final scene of his most ambitious film to date is something more impressive, if altogether disquieting. Oppenheimer definitely implants a grim idea in the viewer’s mind, but it does so by giving the uncanny impression that we are seeing it through J. Robert Oppenheimer’s eyes first. Standing by the duck pond that Albert Einstein (Tom Conti) has been consigned to by posterity, and where Oppie will be joining him in exile sooner than he realizes, the man credited with fathering the atomic bomb asks if Albert recalls Edward Teller’s theory about a nuclear explosion triggering the end of the world.

“I remember it well, what of it?” Einstein asks. “I believe we did,” Oppenheimer says while an IMAX camera plummets so deeply into Cillian Murphy’s blue eyes that the viewer feels like we are being left to drown in his despair—despair at the prospect of nuclear war, despair at self-annihilation, and the lingering, eternal despair that comes with the realization that for the rest of time on this planet, these weapons will be at humanity’s disposal. It’s a chilling signoff for a film that plumbs the ambiguities of Oppenheimer’s life without offering easy answers. While Nolan made a picture accessible to almost any viewer, he refused to provide any degree of comfort, reassurance, or easily memeable sentiment and message.

Which is one of the many reasons I’ve long been skeptical of the common criticism about Oppenheimer being too long or that “the trial” in the last hour dragged on and on. More than once, I’ve been told the movie could have ended after Trinity, the first successful detonation of a nuclear weapon on July 16, 1945 which is shot and edited with all the tension of a thriller in Nolan and Jennifer Lame’s hands. It should be noted that the Trinity test, and the exuberant satisfaction Oppenheimer briefly feels toward his accomplishment as fellow scientists hoist him on their shoulders before the American flag, occurs at exactly the two-hour mark in the film.

The implication, therefore, seems to be that Oppenheimer should have ended on a note of triumph—a disastrous choice, to put it mildly, for the story of engineering a doomsday weapon—or that the movie could have glossed over Oppenheimer’s later years. Why should we care if Oppenheimer’s security clearance with the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was revoked, or that the architect of his downfall, Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.), suffered his own public humiliation?

The answer, of course, is that it is these turns of events which elevate a riveting piece of biographic storytelling into a cinematic prophecy of doom that on its own will likely be with us for many years to come.

Living with the Bomb

The most crucial thing to understand about why Oppenheimer went on for a full third hour after World War II concluded in the shadow of a mushroom cloud is that there is no credible way to discuss this man without delving into the fact that the government which entrusted him to build the device also pillared and besmirched his name to the point of infamy.

During a panel with Meet the Press’ Chuck Todd on the 78th anniversary of the Trinity test, Nobel Prize Laureate and theoretical physicist Kip Thorne said he knew scientists early in his career who demurred from pursuing a public life in government service or policy-making because of how Oppenheimer was treated.

Said Thorne, “I was as much influenced by my father who dealt with McCarthyism as the chair of a faculty in Utah at the time. We had a governor who was dictating to the board of trustees to fire faculty with left wing tendencies. So I went through this in my own family.”

The implication that Oppenheimer was a traitor, or at least untrustworthy with American secrets due to his political leanings, sent a chill through academia and government institutions that lasted for generations. With a simple letter speciously raising doubts about Oppenheimer’s loyalty to his country, William L. Borden (who was working as a proxy for Strauss) was able to discredit and muzzle the most respected scientific mind of the 20th century in American life; the man who ended World War II and brought our boys home. If the far-right could do that to him because he expressed vocal opinions about the hydrogen bomb, no one was safe.

So any biopic about Oppenheimer legitimately needed to cover a life that eerily matched the arc of Greek tragedy to a tee. After all, historians Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin named their definitive biography on the man American Prometheus, and what is a Promethean tale if you skip the part where the gods condemn him to be chained to a rock so his guts will be pecked out each morning?

Oppenheimer dramatizes these elements, and does so with spectacular detail and specificity. Even biographer Bird remarked with astonishment at the same Trinity anniversary panel that Nolan did something he and Sherwin had not: he went through the transcript of Lewis Strauss’ failed confirmation hearing and discovered a surprise witness named Dr. David Hill (Rami Malek in the movie), who was called on to essentially smear an unprepared Strauss with the same kind of one-sided testimony Strauss used to decimate Oppenheimer in his security clearance hearing five years earlier. The dramatic irony that this was done as revenge by the scientific community against the political class’ most envious party was not lost on Nolan.

In fact, it creates one-half of the climactic crescendo wherein Strauss raves after his Cabinet post begins slipping away that “I gave [Oppenheimer] exactly what he wanted: to be remembered for Trinity! Not Hiroshima! Not Nagasaki! He should be thanking me!” Of course Strauss’ fury also articulates why the film is so much richer and, ultimately, ambiguous. It explores part and parcel the facts of Oppenheimer’s life, and in doing so invites you to descend down into the pits of Hades.

A Trial Without a Jury or a Verdict

The most powerful sequence in Oppenheimer arguably occurs at the top of the third hour. After an exhilarating taste of success and triumph, Oppenheimer is left out of the final, gruesome moments of World War II. Two nuclear bombs fell on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the span of three days in August 1945. Two hundred twenty thousand lives were snuffed out in biblical fire or the lingering, years-long horror of radiation poisoning. And J. Robert learns about it just like every other American—by listening to the radio.

Then comes Nolan’s cinematic flourish. He lets you live in Oppie’s nightmare just as it is beginning to coalesce. While giving a patriotic speech crowing about the success of the nuclear weapons’ use on Japanese cities, Oppenheimer’s unconvincing stabs at jingoism fade away as he can only hear the sound of a woman screaming; then comes a bright light as the face of a young girl melts away. It is a new world for Oppenheimer, America, and the whole the human species. But only after he has let the genie out of the bottle does the film’s interpretation of Oppenheimer begin to seriously grapple with the long term ramifications of that release.

There is an argument to be made that Oppenheimer should have shown the nuclear holocaust inflicted on the Japanese people. I respect this opinion, although Nolan’s choice to trap you in Oppenheimer’s large, yet still limited, vantage point is the dramatically right one. It took this scientist years to come to terms with the horror of what he wrought on Japan, and the movie lets it slowly seep in.

There is also the uncomfortable fact that this story is bigger than just World War II. In the film, Oppenheimer considers the irony that his former tutor opined in the press that the nuclear bomb not so much ended World War II as it began what we now call the Cold War with the Soviet Union (which really happened). But the point of the Oppenheimer film is that what those scientists at Los Alamos did was bigger than just World War II or the Cold War—or even the 20th century itself.

Oppenheimer built, sharpened, and fastened a global Sword of Damocles above our collective heads, and it hangs there still. It will, in fact, hang there forever, unless one nation finally pushes the button and invites the inevitable response.

The last hour is about Oppenheimer, as a character and a film, coming to terms with that legacy. This is not a typical biopic about a great man, but a portrait of a soul damned by unspoken regrets and second-guesses that he never articulated to anyone. The film even posits Oppenheimer went through the humiliation of an unwinnable security clearance hearing as some form of penance for fathering the bomb.

“Did you think if you let them tar and feather you that the world will forgive you?” his wife Kitty (Emily Blunt) asks. “It won’t.”

“We’ll see” is Oppenheimer’s cryptic response. While we suspect Oppenheimer’s fight for political survival was not quite so history book-minded, the reality is he truly did tell the President of the United States “I have blood on my hands,” and spent the rest of his brief public life attempting to steer the United States away from the infinitely more deadly hydrogen bomb and the arms race it inevitably courted. He was then banished to the duck pond next to Einstein for his troubles.

Dramatically seeing that destruction is as cathartic as it is disturbing, with Jason Clarke’s government attorney Roger Robb embodying Zeus’ hungry eagle which is always eager to feast on Prometheus’ liver. It should be noted, this context also is what allows Kitty Oppenheimer, a brilliant woman whose mind is left to curdle by the oppressive expectations of her era, to finally speak candidly in one of the best scenes in the movie.

In the end though, the finale asks the audience to interrogate Oppenheimer the man. Can you forgive him? Should you even bother entertaining the idea? The real man never publicly admitted remorse over what happened in Japan, and whether he felt profound guilt or not, he still ushered in a nuclear age without end. There is no escape from the future Oppenheimer has wrought—not even for J. Robert Oppenheimer, who is professionally and spiritually destroyed by the legacy he pursued with wide open arms.

The last hour of Oppenheimer is not about the father of the atomic bomb; it’s about the father of our tomorrow and each and every one that will come after. Until one day, maybe it won’t.'

[freshlyblaked]

[thecreativemillennial]