[TV/Books] Game of Thrones ***SPOILER Discussion***

[Jastall]

Regardless if GRRM will have her go crazy, the problem is how she got there on the TV adaptation.

Indeed. As plenty have said, this was foreshadowed. However, just as with Arya and the whole "blue eyes" business in episode 3, "it was foreshadowed" does not mean "therefore it's good writing". The plunge from "ruthless and driven, but held back by principles" into "genocidal maniac" is too sudden, and too severe.

Had Dany decided to torch the Red Keep, uncaring for the civilians Cercei packed there, I wouldn't have had an issue with it. It would be a terrible and very ruthless act, but justified by her previous failures and losses going to her head and making her favor a more direct approach. It would also be more interesting and morally ambiguous in a Tywin-esque, ends-justify-the-means way.

Going out of her way to slaughter every single commoner in sight before gunning for the ones who actually wronged her after achieving victory is several steps too far, however, and removes any single possible moral ambiguity from the scene. Dany is a monster now, and there's no reason not to kill her.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

The actors were getting tired of it as well from what I have been hearing. I mean how long have fans been waiting for Dany to get to Westeros. We waited what 6 years for her to finally get to westeros, you think she is going to sit at Dragonstone for 4 more years? There is a such thing as too much of a good thing. I would rather the show go out on a high note then linger on like some shows cough...walking dead...cough.

Yeah, because that's totally what's happening! The highest note I've ever fucking seen in my life! Good call... Good call.

[Shadowferal]

Dany is a stereotypical monster...no?

[Notdev]

I would have preferred "mad dany" to have killed the surrendering soldiers and destroyed the keep, perhaps killing a thousand innocent bystanders in the process.

I don't like that she went full on evil and ended up murdering probably 100k+ innocents and destroying the city. They were not her enemies, they were not in her way. Killing a surrendered army and destroying the keep is still pretty bad, but not nearly as bad as what she did, and would have created enough 'fear'.

I suppose they wanted to be clear that there was no redemption for her. This is who she is now. Just another mad/evil ruler.

[Endus]

ProTip guys, get incredibly baked before the last episode and just enjoy the pretty cinematics, this show clearly isnt worth thinking hard about anymore.

Fingers crossed these bumblefucks dont ruin Star Wars, although I'm not holding out hope.

I mean, let's be clear.

Everything ever released since the original Star Wars has been "ruining Star Wars" to at least someone. With the possible exception of ESB, but I'm sure I could dig up some anger if I looked.

[toxicrusader]

She didn't "go crazy", in the show.

Her decision to torch King's Landing to ashes was entirely rational. She had come to realize that the people of Westeros would never love her, as a foreign conqueror, and so to retain control, they would have to fear her. This is how she sends that message.

The problem is that she's always been on the edge of making this kind of decision. Indeed, she arguably has, several times, it's just that her targets were terrible enough on their own merits that the audience chose to overlook her brutal savagery. There have been other times when she was about to make a similar decision, but voices like Tyrion and Varys managed to talk her down. The difference, here, is that she's decided those others are either wrong, or have betrayed her, and so she's going to do exactly what she wants to do.

Which is ensure that no one in Westeros will dare raise a hand against her rule, ever again.

To you and to all people who still think she planned to burn the city, let me quote DB Weiss for you:

"I don't think she decided ahead of time that she was... Going to do what she did."

https://youtu.be/5W8j6wOvxuo?t=201

[Endus]

To you and to all people who still think she planned to burn the city, let me quote DB Weiss for you:

"I don't think she decided ahead of time that she was... Going to do what she did."

https://youtu.be/5W8j6wOvxuo?t=201

I mean, I could point out the inherent silliness of an author trying to explain whether a character was planning on a certain act before a certain point.

Because the author clearly was, since that's what they wrote.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Ok so... 1.) maybe I’m wrong but JJ Abrams helped create LOST, he wasn’t involved much, if at all after that. So no, I don’t hold him accountable for it.

You should. You see it in every other fucking project he's worked on, pretty much. Must just be a random coincidence, amirite?

3.) was I supposed to list every actor/director/writer that I won’t support?

When you're bitching about a property they were involved with, yes.

[Independent voter]

Daenerys in Season 6: "I will kill every last one of their soldiers and return their cities to the dirt. That’s my plan."

Yeah, what if Dany just read one of those old "How to Govern" medieval books.

"Te best way to rule o'er peasants is to slaughter tem in greateth numbers so tat tey knoweth fear and trembleth whenet they heareath ye name."

A lot of leaders in medieval times were brutal a.f. Especially toward the poor.

[Aurrora]

Are we seriously trying to defend genocide as a rational decision?

[Rhlor]

"When my dragons are grown, we will take back what was stolen from me and destroy those who have wronged me! We will lay waste to armies and burn cities to the ground!"
@Adamas102

I feel sorry for the Dany fanbois

Daenerys in Season 6: "I will kill every last one of their soldiers and return their cities to the dirt. That’s my plan."

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, what if Dany just read one of those old "How to Govern" medieval books.

"Te best way to rule o'er peasants is to slaughter tem in greateth numbers so tat tey knoweth fear and trembleth whenet they heareath ye name."

A lot of leaders in medieval times were brutal a.f. Especially toward the poor.

Machiavelli said that it is better that the prince be feared to be loved

- - - Updated - - -

Qyburn isn't a better necromancer than the Night King simply because he created a physically stronger undead (which is debatable, I think a wight giant or Viserion could easily crush the Mountain). The NK simply chose quantity over quality. He doesn't give a shit about strong troops as the true power of his army lies in the sheer numbers, as was displayed perfectly at the Battle of Winterfell, where it was clearly shown just how overwhelming the forces of the undead where, to the point that towards the end of the episode the entire castle was swarmed with wights. Like locusts on a tree.

I think qyburn could create giant zombies and dragons better than the NK if he had their bodies!!

qybuern reminds me of keltuzad in his early years

[crakerjack]

You look ridiculous quoting that shit.

She watched her brother die and did nothing because said brother physically, sexually and verbally abused her during all her life, sold her off as a sex slave to a warlord to get himself an army, and put a sword in her belly threatening to cut her unborn child out of her. I'd say doing nothing and watch him die was tame.

Locking Xaro in that empty vault was done only after he and the warlocks killed her people, stole her dragons, kidnapped her and tried to imprison her forever. What would you have her do? turn the other cheek?

The people she crucified were slavers. Slavers who previously crucified children.

The people she burned alive were slavers, raiders, rapists, and in the case of the Tarlys, nobles who refused to bend the knee after they were defeated.

So yes, her actions in the last episode ARE out of character. She locked her dragons away after one of them burned a single baby girl to a crisp. But now she has no problem roasting hundreds of thousands of children, for no real reason.

You're getting that the little girl the dragon killed was one of her citizens, these people of kings landing weren't her citizens. They were people bending the knee because they had no choice. What kind of loyalty comes from that? When she saved past cities, the slaves greeted her with open arms. No one was doing that at kings landing. The whole time she was in westeros, no native greeted her with open arms and the few times we saw her smiling was around Jon. What you're doing is justifying her actions, regardless of how extreme they are, but now that she has committed another extreme act, people are all up in arms just because they can't justify it.

There's no Jorah, no Missandei and no intimate Jon to rationalize her thoughts. The real culprit is that they didn't put timestamps in the episodes showcasing just how much time has passed within episodes. One scene they're somewhere and then the next they're 2/3 south on the same continent. Weeks if not months are going by, but we aren't reminded of that. We see an event unfold and then we see people change. What we don't see are those emotions festering away and no one there to rationalize/console Dany. So again, a mixture of that + kings landing not receiving her the way past cities did, it was clear she would treat these people more differently than she did past cities.

Also the quote before the siege where she's talking about mercy is her greatest strength, she mentions how she'll show mercy to future houses. That pretty much indicates that she doesn't see these people as people needing saving. They're all invested to their current queen and only see Dany as the threat. At this point she has justified that there needs to be a clean slate in order for her new world to come to life.

[Shadowferal]

Seems that there's a lot of rationalizing for poor writing...
I understand that some people want to like what they've seen, but it's still poor writing, isn't it?

[Razzako]

She didn't "go crazy", in the show.

Her decision to torch King's Landing to ashes was entirely rational. She had come to realize that the people of Westeros would never love her, as a foreign conqueror, and so to retain control, they would have to fear her. This is how she sends that message.

The problem is that she's always been on the edge of making this kind of decision. Indeed, she arguably has, several times, it's just that her targets were terrible enough on their own merits that the audience chose to overlook her brutal savagery. There have been other times when she was about to make a similar decision, but voices like Tyrion and Varys managed to talk her down. The difference, here, is that she's decided those others are either wrong, or have betrayed her, and so she's going to do exactly what she wants to do.

Which is ensure that no one in Westeros will dare raise a hand against her rule, ever again.

I wouldn't say it was rational, it was 100% emotional. I do agree that she is exceedingly merciless and most people have thought about her being insane as her father was, but the thing is that her development was about her whether or not turning out like her father, that's the point of her entire arc and, as stated, her development.

Multiple times it was shown how she would not kill anyone who's innocent relative to whatever arc she was at and what situation she was dealing with, a narrative that was emphasized multiple times throughout the show and more commonly about a third into it. So, when the writers decide to do a 180 in a single episode, with no build up except for episode 4's literal final scene at the gates of King's Landing, then you know people are going to be pissed off. As I've said before, it was uncharacteristic of her, she's no longer the girl of season 1, do you get the point?

[Endus]

I wouldn't say it was rational, it was 100% emotional. I do agree that she is exceedingly merciless and most people have thought about her being insane as her father was, but the thing is that her development was about her whether or not turning out like her father, that's the point of her entire arc and, as stated, her development.

Multiple times it was shown how she would not kill anyone who's innocent relative to whatever arc she was at and what situation she was dealing with, a narrative that was emphasized multiple times throughout the show and more commonly about a third into it. So, when the writers decide to do a 180 in a single episode, with no build up except for episode 4's literal final scene at the gates of King's Landing, then you know people are going to be pissed off. As I've said before, it was uncharacteristic of her, she's no longer the girl of season 1, do you get the point?

Like I've said multiple times, time and again Daenerys herself has challenged this perspective you have of her. You've ignored those elements, because they challenged the image of the character you wanted her to be.

Back in Season 2, she was threatening to burn cities to the ground for daring to stand against her. You can't cry foul that she actually follows through on that in Season 8, and you certainly can't claim it wasn't foreshadowed.

And if you want a really obvious fairly recent variation on the same theme, when she burned the Tarlys to ash. There was no cause for that. That was not justice. That was a horrible, heinous death, served out solely because they stood against her, even though they had been defeated and could not fight back any more. It's awful not just in that she killed them, but in how she killed them. Burning alive is a horrible death. But one Daenerys Stormborn is incredibly fond of.

[Dacien]

Like I've said multiple times, time and again Daenerys herself has challenged this perspective you have of her. You've ignored those elements, because they challenged the image of the character you wanted her to be.

Back in Season 2, she was threatening to burn cities to the ground for daring to stand against her. You can't cry foul that she actually follows through on that in Season 8, and you certainly can't claim it wasn't foreshadowed.

She also decided not to show mercy in Mareen and executed the guy who did the thing (I forgot what it was) against the advice of those close to her, and she crucified a bunch of masters. She's always had a nasty streak that she's done her best to tamp down.

[Shadowferal]

Not sure if you guys are jumping off the bandwagon or jumping on...

[SethRoguen]

If the leaks I saw are correct. A Bran/Tyrion combo would be the most logical option and the best case scenario for Westeros. Think about it....probably one of the most competent rulers left in the 7 kingdoms and a kid who knows literally everything

[Yunaqt]

Like I've said multiple times, time and again Daenerys herself has challenged this perspective you have of her. You've ignored those elements, because they challenged the image of the character you wanted her to be.

Back in Season 2, she was threatening to burn cities to the ground for daring to stand against her. You can't cry foul that she actually follows through on that in Season 8, and you certainly can't claim it wasn't foreshadowed.

And if you want a really obvious fairly recent variation on the same theme, when she burned the Tarlys to ash. There was no cause for that. That was not justice. That was a horrible, heinous death, served out solely because they stood against her, even though they had been defeated and could not fight back any more. It's awful not just in that she killed them, but in how she killed them. Burning alive is a horrible death. But one Daenerys Stormborn is incredibly fond of.

She's a big fan of brutal deaths; Slowly suffocating; hanging out to starve/bleed to death/picked to death by crows or her personal favourite burning alive

[Shadowferal]

Brutality in a world that's brutal...some of you guys are trying to now impose your own sense of justice in such a world. That's just pathetic.