I don't know who owns the IP for the old D&D cartoon characters, but they're using WotC's dragon designs for Tiamat's heads. I wonder if there's any copyright violation going on in this ad?
Clarke was the was the one who played the character as a lawful good paladin who only wanted to conquer the world for perfectly justifiable reasons (and it's okay to crucify or burn thousands so long as they are "always chaotic evil"). The character shouldn't have unconvincingly turned evil - she was supposed to be evil all along!
Either the directors or the actor was to blame, and judging by Clarke's comments it sounds like she always wanted to play a big damn hero, rather than a nuanced character whose actions might seem justified to themselves and their devoted followers but viewed from the outside was a mono-maniacal demagogue with a messiah complex.
Oof. This is a quote from someone who doesn’t understand the role of the writers in television/movies. If a character made an unconvincing turn.... it’s not the actors fault.
If you think it's just the writing that matters, you need to go to the theatre more, and see the same play performed with different writers and directors. For example, have seen several versions of A Midsummer Night's Dream. One was utterly brilliant, anther was utterly, toe-curlingly awful.
The writing was fine. Everything was set up, signalled and foreshadowed. Clarke's acting was, in a sense, too good. She convinced much of the audience that her character was noble, just and wise, even when her actions, viewed objectively, where clearly otherwise.
Strike 3. Theatre and film/TV are NOT the same medium for delivery a story.
Guys, what does this thread have to do with your opinions on Game of Thrones?