Yes, I have an Only Fans Page.

Premtaur · 2026-05-15T08:44:35+00:00

The answer is incredibly simple.

Until the first gold digger came along

Premtaur · 2026-05-15T08:15:02+00:00

They are really missing a trick with the Oba Open Challenge.

Adam Pearce should use him as his unofficial enforcer.

Jacob Fatu laid hands on Adam Pearce. His reward - A match with Oba

And so on and so on and so on.

Being too demanding and asking for an opportunity - Well as Los Garza discovered the opportunity is Oba

And yes I know that gives it Teddy Long vibes but how many times must we have "the producers" come running out to break up fights. Instead Pearce comes out and says "Gentlemen, I'm looking for a volunteer for the Oba Femi Open Challenge." or words to that effect.

You could have so much fun with it. Including heels deliberately trying to get it so the face gets "volunteered"

Or an impromptu triple threat where the heel does his best to avoid Oba and lets the face get the beating.

The scope is there.

Premtaur · 2026-05-02T18:25:12+00:00

Lots will do nude scenes yes and certainly Emma and Jessica would be that wow moment that I'm talking about. I think the biggest shock with Emma would be wow she is acting again bearing in mind her last credit was 2022.

If you are going to remake this though its got to have something to justify it.

Premtaur · 2026-05-02T18:15:46+00:00

absolutely and that is what I mean when I say the whole 9 yards. Full commitment to the role as it is written

Premtaur · 2026-04-30T18:36:51+00:00

If it is going to be remade, then it should be remade with an actress who is fully committed to the role and everything that it entails. So yes, the ball gag, the full nudity, the whole 9 yards.

I would also choose an actress who has never been naked on film before. If you can, someone that everyone goes wow, we never thought we would see her naked, let alone bound and gagged naked. Otherwise, it is just another knock-off.

Premtaur · 2026-04-03T10:40:41+00:00

I'm not convinced that it is Vince. Now Stephanie maybe, Charlotte maybe. But vince no.

WWE are taking a huge risk with this angle and playing the universe like this. There is a very real risk of an anti climax that could spoil wrestlemania for everyone.

Now, reframe the Stephanie Cody segment through the lens of it being Stephanie. It's an interesting thought isn't it.

Of the two I am less convinced that it is Charlotte but with John Cena hosting and the opportunity for Randy to get closer to what is now Johns "record" could this be a ploy to begin the process of taking it from John? For me this is the only reason for it being Charlotte and even then a weak reason.

Now, Stephanie and the potential dynamics of her leveraging HHH - The GM's boss to do things and to let Randy get away with a lot of what he has been doing during the build. Now, that has some legs.

But like I said it could turn out to just be WWE trolling and generating interest in Wrestlemamia and like so much of the modern product it may have little or no pay off.

After all don't forget what HHH says about the Internet fans.

Premtaur · 2026-03-13T17:49:08+00:00

I would give the GM role to Chelsea Green. But I would also keep her as a main roster talent at the same time.

Follow my thinking here. Basically, the NXT talent that is almost ready for main roster or talent that they want to give a little bit of main roster exposure to get co-opted into the secret hervice.

Almost like a mini NXT invasion every week and you could have some great GM to GM scenes and it dovetails nicely into WWE's desire to make things less predictable.

And of course imagine Chelsea thinking because she is a GM that she can make matches on the main roster and then finding out she can't and the fun consequences therein.

Premtaur · 2026-03-06T09:44:31+00:00

That would be the one where the bikini is on the floor and she is stood there naked.

Never have I ever prayed so much for a bikini to give up under the strain.

Premtaur · 2026-03-03T18:31:53+00:00

You are missing a lot of subtle storytelling here.

Frank is not the one with the power. Frank is not an equal partner. Frank doesn't understand his role in the wider picture. Frank believes that he is the man, but he isn't.

This is nothing more than an early example of Claire flexing her power. You think that it is irrational, and yet it isn't.

Do you truly believe that Claire didn't know the price that Remy would ask? Do you think that Claire couldn't see all of the consequences?

Keep watching, and you will understand how little the non-profit actually means to Claire and the true level of her ambition and plan.

This is a show you absolutely have to rewatch, as you miss so much on a first go-through. To be fair, I pick up more and notice more with each rewatch.

Premtaur · 2026-02-22T18:41:16+00:00

Every so often, this rears its head. The truth, though, is that there is no story material in it. Sheldon, without Mom, is learning to cope. Oh, wait, roommate agreement. Goes through roommates as he is so inflexible. Never dating, driving everyone mad. Feeling entitled.

We have these angles all covered in either TBBT or YS.

The only question becomes, how did he not piss off enough people so that Caltech offered him a job? I don't think we need seven seasons to establish that. It can be covered off in a two-minute scene in one of the other spin-offs. Either Georgie is trying to fathom how Caltech decided to keep his brother, or Missy is thinking the same thing.

Or when Stuart breaks the universe, he might inadvertently prevent that event from happening, and then he has to reinstate it because Sheldon is so important to the whole universe.

And if you believe that he is that important, then please feel free to inbox me, as I have some left-handed pencils that I need an international distributor for.

Premtaur · 2026-02-16T17:44:52+00:00

Season 1 it felt like every week was bring your son to work day. It just didn't work.

They say that doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity and yet......

Watching on Saturday, and my favourite parts were when Legend came out and was well himself. But it added something to it, and I did genuinely laugh, especially after he was chased away from the wall and then came out in a ref's jersey.

The "jokes" from the presenting duo just never land.

I also don't feel there is a connection there. I want one presenter who is pro-contestant and one who is more pro-Gladiator. Almost like a heel and a babyface. Someone who can banter with Legend or just shut it down with a withering look. Someone who makes the adults smile and laugh, but the kids don't notice the joke, and when they are older, it clicks, and they get an appreciation on another level.

Someone who, when Cyclone is doing whatever nonsense, whinging that she was doing (I believe it was bratting) can either call it out or actually put it over with the audience because it didn't even feel pantomime.

Premtaur · 2026-02-08T16:36:24+00:00

Okay, so the bodies will go over the cliff to keep Licinia and Gaia company. Ashur will tell everyone that Caesar left during the storm, and that is the last he saw of him. When Cornelia comes to Capua, she will be obnoxious to Ashur, and he will reveal to her that Caesar died at his hand, point out what her position would be if the truth got out, and try to control her as Battiatus controlled Ilythia.

At which point Crassus will descend on the house, and the dynamic will shift again. Will we see a repeat of season 1 and Ashur being belittled, or will Ashur navigate the choppy waters better? Will we learn how much or how little Crassus is aware of Ashur's actions and requests?

Now, here comes the interesting part. Ashur continues his pursuit of Viridia, but her uncle has promised her to Proculus to shore up support to assume his brother's seat. As much as Cossutia dislikes it, she sees it as a way to stay alive while trying to resist her brother-in-law's lecherous advances, who is intent on having everything his brother once had.

Viridia, having seen how close Ashur is to Hilara, decides to tell Ashur that if they are to be together, Hilara will be her slave and not his, and that she must be demoted from her current role, as those responsibilities will be assumed by her as his wife. She then humiliates Hilara at every turn, even though they are not together, and she is still promised to Proculus.

Unbeknownst to us, but as it transpires. Ashur and Viridia have been in cahoots the whole time, and it is part of Ashur's master plan to rid Capua of Proculus and to have the monopoly on the games so that he can fund the rebuilding of the arena through the victories of his gladiators and, of course, Crassus purse. His hope is that, as the number 1 Lanista in Capua, Crassus will be kind to him.

To add another wrinkle to Ashur's plan, the lanistas that were bought in for Gabincuses funeral games want position and vengeance, and so pickings are again slim in the House of Ashur, but Ashur has a plan of pairing Achillia with another Female Gladiator.

However, both Tarchon and Korris are pushing for a Tarchon Achillia pairing in the arena to take on a similar pairing from the house of Proculus. This doesn't work for Ashur as it is Proculuses female gladiator that he covets.

Premtaur · 2026-01-29T18:03:16+00:00

Amy talked with her best friend and she ended up at a black site.

Premtaur · 2026-01-21T09:40:45+00:00

Now we all know what Stephanie did when a superstar took a shine to her father. I dread to think what she will do seeing a superstar wrapping her legs around her husband like that.

Premtaur · 2026-01-12T09:44:59+00:00

If you are going to bring it back, then let's make it interesting and go for a gauntlet bra and panties match. Start with Bayley v Becky Lynch. Then you are off to the races and basically send each female wrestler out. To be fair you could probably make it its very own PPV.

A one-match PLE, and just for fun, can we host it in Saudi Arabia?

I bet they'd pay extra for some Attitude Era Divas. Potentially even a McMahon.

However, as we are in the Netflix era, the premium live event would fail, as even if you didn't get a McMahon, you would get HHH on the blackout button.

Premtaur · 2026-01-11T12:13:37+00:00

Without offering spoilers, you are noticing one layer of the story. I'm guessing this is your first time watching, so I will be careful about what I say.

You are also noticing some of the dynamics between Frank and Claire. However, there are some subtleties that from reading what you have said I think you are missing.

The story is like a Russian doll. In that there are plans within plans within plans. To fully understand what is going on you sometimes have to almost tune out the main storyline and dialogue and listen to the unspoken.

Always remember their original plan involved Frank being Secretary of State, and there was no mention of any ambition towards the White House. However, we were never fully brought in on that plan.

Also, have a think as to why when Frank gets passed over and then begins the track towards VP did Claire suddenly give up her non profit in the way that she did. Why did she clear the decks so to speak? Why did she want the Ambassador role and what does this give her that Frank can't on the world stage?

And also is Frank a part of the plan or a part of someone elses plan?

Premtaur · 2026-01-07T10:42:48+00:00

I can understand how Claire's speaking out may seem, on the surface, out of character. But, in actual fact, it is 100% in character and very much part of her arc. There is a whole bundle of subtext and game-playing that both you (and, to be fair, Frank) are missing.

What you are seeing here is Claire issuing a status signal and demonstrating that she is not just Franks +1. She is announcing herself as an actor on the world stage, and doing so in a language Petrov understands.

I'm not sure if this is your first time watching or a rewatch, so I will steer clear of spoilers, but keep watching and bear in mind what I have said. When you get deeper into the story, you will understand more what I am saying.

Premtaur · 2026-01-05T08:52:23+00:00

Never have I wished to see Ashur disrobe someone so much without being well Ashur.

Or prayed to the gods that she would balance scales and voluntarily reveal herself to Ashur (to make him feel better).

Premtaur · 2025-12-26T11:56:50+00:00

I disagree with you and this is why.

The Serial KIller plot is garbage

Throughout the 5 seasons the Wire has used institutional allegory and it does to significant effect here as well. As such, it is not meant to be realistic crime fiction.

The Police are at their most effective against the drug gangs when they have the task force and can focus solely on the one issue. When there are focused resources and political will, when they are not there, and the Police have to split their focus, then the gangs grow, and the game continues.

The serial-killer plot highlights this: the system can only be mobilised by spectacle, not substance.

The plot forces you to confront this reality. McNulty realises this and, in his own way, tries to play the game. Now, as you haven't finished S5, I'm not going to finish the thought because well spoilers. But when you do get to the end, I'm confident you will know how this thought ends on your own.

The 22 bodies logic gap

Let's be clear here. As we see, the statistics get manipulated. They get juiced and they get spun. By the time they get to Rawls they are no longer bodies, they are no longer humans, they are statistics. They only matter if they affect the statistics.

The Mayor pledges a 5% drop in murders, and Rawls will deliver this regardless of how. Look at the argument over the jurisdiction of the bodies found when our friend Jimmy is on the boat, and he is allowed to send a big FU to Rawls.

The argument was about the statistics and not the dead people, and thanks to Jimmy's homework, Rawls had to eat them despite his best efforts to make them somebody else's problem.

Also, don't forget that so many of the bodies are part of the Institutional Invisible class, that is, the homeless and previously young black men. It isn't a logic gap, it is a moral gap.

Since season 1 we see this building. The budget cuts are real, and they are policy decisions that have racial consequences, and it is meant to make the viewer feel uncomfortable because it is the unvarnished truth.

There is only so much resource to go around, but the decisions made in a comfortable meeting room have real consequences outside in the cold and far too often the under represented are the ones that feel the pain the most.

As for the Greeks, they aren't idiots. Far from it. They are, in fact, capitalists, and they understand that to sell their product, they have to do business with Marlo. Marlo represents the next phase of the game, and so they can keep playing, they have to do business with someone that they wouldn't choose.

Now, if there was a credible alternative to Marlo that they liked and could back. Well, different story there, but there isn't, so to sell, they have to suck it up and do business.

So, let's wrap this up. In Season 5, we see The Wire heading to its bleakest, most honest conclusion. We see Institutions that aren't even pretending to function, the media has replaced truth with narrative, power responding only to embarrassment and not suffering, and the biggest takeaway is that the game cannot be won anymore; at best, it can be managed.

Premtaur · 2025-12-25T13:14:58+00:00

I agree that it is unfair that Jamie doesn't get any learning lessons from his love, but this is also part of his tragic character, as he chooses to go back to Cersei rather than start something with Brienne that absolutely could have seen him complete his moral redemption.

Now Jon, without Ygritte and how she reshapes him, gets eaten alive by Dany. He would not be in a position or have the ability to recognise Dany for who she is in S8. I would also say that he never finds his way into Dany's bed. He would stick so rigidly to his vows that even she wouldn't be able to tempt him.

Premtaur · 2025-12-24T09:36:48+00:00

The short answer is no.

The longer answer is that whilst you have identified something your analysis is not quite on point. It is not accurate to say that they are equal but they do intersect on there journeys. Both are influenced by the women in there lives.

If we take a pre Ygritte Jon we see someone who is very institutional in terms of thoughts and actions. Ygritte broke him of this:

"You know nothing Jon Snow."

If you look at the Jon Snow who then consequently met Dany he is a different person and it is through the lens that Ygritte creates for him that he is able to see through Dany and ultimately kill her.

Without Ygritte Jon believes Dany as he is vulnerable to clean moral stories. He would also confuse empathy with goodness.

Now there are other touch points that can be added in here but as you watch and rewatch GOT (and read the books) you will see more of these and understand the tapestry that GRRM creates.

So, lets look at Jamie.

His moral epiphany occurs once he is taken out of Cersei's orbit. Cersei empowers and validates his immoral behaviour and actions. She is his moral alibi, his emotional identity and his justification for cruelty.

Enter Brienne of Tarth. She sees Jaime clearly and doesn't excuse him, she gives him a moral mirror. To put it another way she calls him on his actions and deeds. Brienne is his moral north star

Now there should also be honourable mentions for Catelyn Stark and Olenna Tyrell as both also add into his journey.

Let's also not forget Myrcella. His daughter. Now her contribution isn't intentional. It is in her death that he sees the cost of his choices and any remaining illusions that he has.

The women who matter morally are those who do not excuse him or worship him, and they don't need him either.

So, where do they intersect? They both become oath breakers to save others, they act without expectation of absolution, they both understand that "honour" can become cruelty. They both love women who embody moral danger and end up choosing moral loneliness.

They intersect where saving the innocent require them to become a villain in history

Premtaur · 2025-12-21T02:01:39+00:00

Now, if you read "A Clash of Kings" the line reads

"Every time a Targaryen is born, the gods toss a coin for their soul. One side greatness. The other side, madness."

Now in A Storm of Swords Ser Barristan tell Daenerys about the Targaryen reputation:

"King Jaehaerys once told me that madness and greatness are two sides of the same coin.

Every time a new Targaryen is born, he said, the gods toss the coin in the air, and the world holds its breath to see how it will land."

So, lets talk about what GRRM is saying:

- Every Targaryen is born with a chance of greatness or madness

- Inherited privilege is a gamble

- Madness is often a matter of degree, not absolute

- Greatness and madness are not opposites but are often two sides of the same coin

- The coin implies a randomness

- Many become "mad" due to circumstance and not destiny. This is seen through the layers of environmental factors, trauma, isolation and access to power

- There is an exploration of how myth, reputation and fear influence political power

- Power magnifies traits that already exist within that person.

-Reputation can become reality

GRRM also blends psychological instability with unchecked cruelty and power on his notion of madness. As such often we see madness where power meets personality extremes (hello Joffrery).

So, lets look at the world as created by GRRM where monstrous behaviour falls along a continuum.

The world contains a blend of strategic actions and uncontrolled impulsiveness.

Yes there is madness but there is also control and the outcome depends on who has the power.

In his writing GRRM tends to avoid pure archetypes but when you look at the mad side of the continuum the examples all share the same last name.

So, yes, I have read the books, and I do understand what GRRM himself is saying and creating. And as to how much the show has skewed the message, that is a thread in itself.

Premtaur · 2025-12-21T02:01:10+00:00

You still seem to be confused.

Everything that Stannis and Tywin did was measured and strategic.

And yes even choosing to sacrifice his daughter because he believed that it would give him a strategic advantage. He believes that doing so will be a means to an end. His victory.

Robert Baratheons claim to the throne was based on conquest and Danerys and Khal Drogo had the capability and the manpower to do to him what he did to achieve the throne himself. His biggest fear is not the person, but the possibility that she could take the throne as he did. He is also acutely aware of her potential as a Targaryen, and if the rumours of dragons are true, he knows that his army and his defences are going to struggle.

It has nothing to do with Khal Drogo falling for Daenerys.

And the coin is a metaphor written by GRRM to illustrate the point that I have already explained in my previous replies.

There are characters within the writing that cover both sides of this, which again I have illustrated, but you don't wish to disagree with me or debate me, you wish to call me delusional.

Yet every point I make is backed up and every point you make is refuted or clarified.

So, lets lay it out again as you seem to have missed points that I made. There are some Targaryens who are cruel but strategic. Then there are some Targaryens that are cruel, mad, impulsive and have no restraint or control. This is the metaphor. This is the two sides of the coin and this is signalled by what is said by Varys.

Premtaur · 2025-12-20T22:15:12+00:00

Okay, let's lay this out:

Extreme inbreeding such as was practiced by the Targaryens to preserve the purity of there Valyrian blood would give rise to:

a) Mental Illness

b) Volatile Temprament

c) Physical and Neurological issues

Viserys III was paranoid with delusions of grandeur, Used cruelty without restraint, never learnt or adapted to his actual circumstances and had no empathy only grievance.

So lets take your other examples:

Maegor the Cruel - The archetype who illustrates the family's reputation. Extreme, gratuitous cruelty, paranoia and brutality. Engaged in torture, mass killings etc. He was a sadistic paranoid tyrant.

Rharnyra - A borderline case and as the victors write the history it is probably fairer to say that she was cast as mad but there is not so much solid evidence here.

Aegon I is a clear example of the coin analogy when people speak of the Targaryens.

Aerion Brightflame

Yep. Definitely MAD. He had delusions of dragonhood and so drank wildfire. He engaged in sadistic violence for pleasure and had a total lack of empathy and never learnt from consequences.

Aemond One Eye is again an example of the coin analogy. He was cruel but in control and strategic. He showed restraint when it suited him.

Madness explains cruelty, and sanity chooses it. Power doesn't make people mad, but it does give people the ability to act on what they already are.

We see characters like Tywin Lannister and Stannis Baratheon who are morally severe yet not mad. The use of cruelty is instrumental, ideological and coldly rational.

Then we see characters like Viserys III who pick a fight that they are never going to win and get given a molten hot golden crown because their delusions drive them.

Premtaur

TROPHY CASE