That he would prefer to live seemed to go without saying.

Join the winning side, whose second in command is the guy who gave him his title in the first place? I mean, Bronn's character is a charming mercenary who they established is more concerned with being paid than anything else in this very episode. He and Tyrion parted on good terms. There's no reason to think his old…

I have my problems with the show's logic, but this isn't one of them. Jon and the others told her not to burn King's Landing and other castles with innocents inside. I expect there was an offscreen conversation about how to utilize her dragons to advantage without appearing monstrous. And so, she burned an army. Now,…

Someone went through a very detailed analysis of why Dany being aware of the weapons' existence and having the only "air force" in this war gives her such a great advantage that it would render the weapons useless.

I decided to ignore all of the idiocy and just enjoy the parts that kind of make sense along with the big set pieces like the battle in this last episode. As long as the dialog doesn't get too awful, I can manage it. But man, those first two episodes….

Because they are death personified? I'm only speaking for myself obviously, but that seems a tad offputting.

Okay. I think the writers are just moving things around as suits their purposes whether it fits with what they've done previously or not, but if you want to fill in the blanks, feel free.

What if I told you that child was going to grow up to be Hitler? Or a weirdly detached teenager who brings up his sister's rape for seemingly no reason? Now, who's shitty?

Didn't Jaime reference it in the first episode?

And Euron to the best of our knowledge completely controls the seas. Hitting a fleet transporting an army of horses and men would be easy, especially considering he snuck up on a war fleet with seemingly his entire armada. It isn't a temporal inconsistency, necessarily, but it sure is one of logic based on what the…

Heh. I decided that if I didn't just ignore the many logical flaws of this war so far, I'd just hate-watch the show. I'd rather at least enjoy the bits of it that work and pretend the rest of it doesn't exist. Maybe one day, I'll get the better conclusion from the books.

Logistics only matter when the plot calls for it. Just go with it.

I'd like to hear their positions on the Braavosi fatcats having undue influence on the political process and illegal immigration from Essos before I make up my mind.

And now there's another Targaryen with a monopoly on dragons. Now, maybe John would find the arrangement horrifying with his northern honor and all, but maybe not if he's already sealed the deal, so to speak, before he finds out.

No, but at least some considered it worth the coin flip based on various statements from characters.

I've assumed it was an alliance of men and children who built the wall, hence a Stark ancestor being called Bran the Builder. It may even state it outright somewhere that both men and Children built it, but I can't remember.

In the lore of the books, Targaryens had a long history of marrying even siblings. I get that it's icky to us, and for good reason, but it is hardly an unprecedented act in this world.

Burning soldiers alive isn't any worse than stabbing them. In some cases, it would even be a quicker death.

Obviously, Dany didn't know this, but there is a big war coming that will kill off most people, probably, and the Dothraki being killed by white walkers would be a good demonstration of the power of the dead for the southerners who don't quite believe. That's my logical assumption anyway. The show has been less…

Yeah, show Jamie's a lot less sympathetic.