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

[RobertoCarlos]

Another thing that pisses me off about dany's arc seeing as people refuse it let it die but,

Its never shown once the signifance of Missandei to Dany to the lannisters. We the viewer know shes important to dany because they met early on and dealt with a lot of shit together, but in terms of official position missandei was literally just a translator.

And shes treated as this epic war token like its the kings daughter or some shit.

[cubby]

It wasn't built up. The examples you cite as "signs of madness" aren't mad at all. She has dragons. They're tools, just like a sword or an army. She's a Targaryen. She grew up with the idea that ruling was her birthright. Threatening to use the weapon she has in order to achieve her goals is not crazy. Extreme? To us, perhaps, but within the setting it's not at all crazy. Again, you seem completely incapable of understanding the difference between what made the Mad King actually crazy and these things about Daenerys that you simply find extreme.

The dozens of examples myself and others have brought to your attention regarding her capacity for madness and the slow build up seem to bounce off your diminishing common sense. And you're just entirely clueless as to the difference between "building up" and actually going mad.

It's abundantly clear we aren't going to agree on this issue. That's fine.

- - - Updated - - -

Another thing that pisses me off about dany's arc seeing as people refuse it let it die but,

Its never shown once the signifance of Missandei to Dany to the lannisters. We the viewer know shes important to dany because they met early on and dealt with a lot of shit together, but in terms of official position missandei was literally just a translator.

And shes treated as this epic war token like its the kings daughter or some shit.

You don't have to talk about it you know....

You people who bitch and moan about this topic yet cannot stop posting when it comes back crack me up. Adam's already own-goaled himself by saying "no one cares" and then spending the next 5 pages reposting about it.

Just go somewhere else and talk about what you want.

[Adamas102]

The dozens of examples myself and others have brought to your attention regarding her capacity for madness and the slow build up seem to bounce off your diminishing common sense. And you're just entirely clueless as to the difference between "building up" and actually going mad.

Ah yes, "dozens of examples". Binders of them, right? You're utterly delusional...

You literally revived this thread just to claim that a scene where Daenerys says she isn't like her father was "evidence" she would become like her father. It's nonsense. You continually provide examples of your gross ignorance while thinking you're finding insightful connections. Funny how you continually reference these "examples" while avoiding the specifics that are brought up (probably because deep inside you realize that delving into it too much would shatter the narrative you concocted).

I'm sure you'll ignore this but try for once to use some critical thinking skills and answer these questions:

In a medieval fantasy setting that revolves around bloody conquest and brutally holding onto power, where might makes right and political realism dominates, why do you think threatening the destruction of your enemies is indicative of mental illness? In a setting where the heroes of the narrative commit some of the most heinous acts, why do you think executing enemy combatants is indicative of madness?

And why did you bold the line in my quote about Daenerys' perceived birthright? I'm really curious to know why you think that is something that supports YOUR position.

[cubby]

No one cares about GoT anymore

This sure aged well.

Ah yes, "dozens of examples". Binders of them, right? You're utterly delusional...

You literally revived this thread just to claim that a scene where Daenerys says she isn't like her father was "evidence" she would become like her father. It's nonsense. You continually provide examples of your gross ignorance while thinking you're finding insightful connections. Funny how you continually reference these "examples" while avoiding the specifics that are brought up (probably because deep inside you realize that delving into it too much would shatter the narrative you concocted).

And you're just an intellectually dishonest shit poster. Yes, dozens of examples showing her doing the things you say she never did. They are all in this thread, you've argued with a lot of them. Don't you remember what you've said? The facts are entirely in my favor, objective instances that have been pointed out to you time again by several people.

[A]nswer these questions:

In a medieval fantasy setting that revolves around bloody conquest and brutally holding onto power, where might makes right and political realism dominates, why do you think threatening the destruction of your enemies is indicative of mental illness? In a setting where the heroes of the narrative commit some of the most heinous acts, why do you think executing enemy combatants is indicative of madness?

I get what you're saying here - if her enemies do heinous things to their enemies, and the world of Westeros is a brutal place where everyone does heinous things to each other, why do Dany's heinous things stand out as evidence of building madness - while her enemies do not.

Because those examples, along with others, are contrary to what she said she would do previously to demonstrate she wasn't like her father ("I am not my father" S2/3 when she meets Ser Barristan Selmy). Just another for example, Dany said she wouldn't burn cities to the ground, and yet she threatened to do so in S2 - the entire city, civilians and all. Keep in mind that all the examples we've been shown you aren't HUGE, they are small instances of her capacity for madness, and more precisely to be who her father was, despite her statements to the contrary. They start out small, stay small through the character building of S1-S6, and are then triggered when she start losing everything she ever worked for in S7 and S8. She loses her friends, her love, her claim to the throne, all in a relatively short period of time.

[Adamas102]

And you're just an intellectually dishonest shit poster. Yes, dozens of examples showing her doing the things you say she never did. They are all in this thread, you've argued with a lot of them. Don't you remember what you've said? The facts are entirely in my favor, objective instances that have been pointed out to you time again by several people.

Just because you don't have the mental capacity to carry on a proper discussion doesn't mean the responses to your asinine posts are "shit posting". You'll also have to be more specific since 90% of the time no one is saying that a scene didn't happen but rather that your INTERPRETATION of said scene is horribly wrong. But go on, regale us with these "facts" of yours.

You did say that Dany "literally burned a son in front of her [sic] father" and "then we see in S8 she does just that". Everyone figured you were erroneously referencing the scene where she executed the Tarly's together, but if there was some scene that no one else saw where she burned a son in front of his father then by all means remind us. If you do in fact think that the execution of the Tarly's mirrors what Barristan was talking about with reference to the Mad King then you FUNDAMENTALLY don't understand any of these characters, what they did or why they did it. It would be akin to suggesting that Arya has Aerys' madness because she murdered sons in order to torment a father. But sure, let's hear your "facts". I know you WANT to believe that these things are connected (or at least the ones that conveniently fit your narrative) but you either don't have the ability to communicate why or you're just basing this belief on the most ignorant, simplistic interpretations.

I get what you're saying here - if her enemies do heinous things to their enemies, and the world of Westeros is a brutal place where everyone does heinous things to each other, why do Dany's heinous things stand out as evidence of building madness - while her enemies do not.

Because those examples, along with others, are contrary to what she said she would do previously to demonstrate she wasn't like her father ("I am not my father" S2/3 when she meets Ser Barristan Selmy).

No, the ONLY time she did something contrary to what she said (with regard to not being like her father) was when she burned King's Landing after spending 7.5 seasons as a self proclaimed champion of the common folk. At no point in the first 7 and a half seasons did she do anything that mirrored what her father was known for. But go on, give us these "facts". Don't stop at "her father burned people and she burned people" because that alone means nothing. Aegon, Stannis, Melisandre, Tyrion, and many more burned people as well.

Just another for example, Dany said she wouldn't burn cities to the ground, and yet she threatened to do so in S2 - the entire city, civilians and all.

Explain why you think this is an example that makes her similar to her father. Sacking an enemy city and putting its inhabitants to the sword is certainly extreme, but not a sign of madness. It's a perfectly reasonable tactic within a setting like this.

On the flip side, Aerys' desire was to burn HIS OWN CITY in order to reincarnate as a literal dragon. Please point out where Daenerys said she would do the same thing. Not burn an enemy city as part of conquest, but burn her own city as part of an insane delusion. Do you not understand the difference between these two things?

Keep in mind that all the examples we've been shown you aren't HUGE, they are small instances of her capacity for madness, and more precisely to be who her father was, despite her statements to the contrary.

As explained countless times, these instances you reference prior to season 8 are not indicative of madness. They are ALL perfectly reasonable responses to what her character goes through.

You also keep suggesting she was slowly becoming her father, but you are completely oblivious to who her father was. Do you have any idea how Aerys' madness manifested? He was paranoid and often believed that people were trying to backstab him when in fact they were planning nothing of the sort. At his worst he would relish in the suffering he inflicted on these supposed traitors. Compare that to Daenerys; name ANY of these "dozen" scenes you keep vaguely referencing and you'll find that Daenerys was nothing like that. Through almost the entirety of the show people were actively trying to kill her, enslave her, and/or steal her dragons. She had good reason to be angry, and even when she did condemn someone to death for ACTUALLY acting against her she didn't enjoy it the way her father did. So again, explain why YOU seem to think that despite being completely different they were actually the same.

And what do you mean by "capacity for madness". A character either has a mental illness or they don't. Aerys' cruelty certainly intensified in the latter years of his reign, but Barristan noted that his erratic behavior was always a part of him. His imprisonment at Duskendale exacerbated a condition that had always been part of him. Dany exhibits no such condition. When she's angry it's because she has good reason to be, not because she suffers from mood swings and gets sad or angry for no reason at all.

They start out small, stay small through the character building of S1-S6, and are then triggered when she start losing everything she ever worked for in S7 and S8. She loses her friends, her love, her claim to the throne, all in a relatively short period of time.

First off, she never lost her claim to the throne. Where are you pulling that idea? She won. Her enemies routed. You remove her out-of-character massacre and what happens? What does anyone have to complain about regarding her fitness to rule if she simply accepted her victory when the army surrendered? Other than Varys turning into an absolute idiot and being justly executed for treason and attempted assassination, what is everyone else scared of? Jon didn't want to usurp her, Bran didn't seem to have a problem with her. Her dragons weren't shown to cause the common folk any issues after season 3. Without the massacre neither Arya nor Tyrion would have reason to want her dead. You mentioned before how terrible a plan it was to introduce the marauding Dothraki to Westeros but even with their Khaleesi dead they seemed to pose no real issues in the show and just went back home in the end.

Secondly, you're still incapable of reconciling the fact that at the end of season one Daenerys also lost all the people she loved the most in a "relatively short period of time" and yet did not lash out at innocents. If D&D had really planned this out from the beginning all they would have had to do was have her burn Mirri Maz Duur's village in retaliation for the loss of Drogo and Rhaego. Even though a subsequent 6.5 seasons of no war crimes on civilians still dulls that point, at least there would have been SOME precedent to work with.

This sure aged well.

Pull your head out of your ass for a moment and realize that this thread isn't just about the show. Some of us actually derived much of our enjoyment of the setting and characters from the books, though it's obviously you never read those otherwise you'd feel a lot less positive about the show that botched what started as a pretty damn good story.

Also, are you trying to suggest that people in general still care about this show when this thread had been dead for almost a year and a half, and almost all subsequent discussion has be about how badly you misunderstood one particular scene? Sounds more like you own-goaled yourself. And hey, if you decide to stop posting here (maybe even take the time to go read the books and get a better understanding of the story that GRRM meant to tell) I'd be happy to see this thread once again fade into obscurity. Hopefully the next time it's revived it will be with news of the next book, as unlikely as that may be.

[Varodoc]

I think this thread is very funny, because the people hating on GoT are probably the same people who applaud HOTD and have no problem with steaming garbage like Alicent's personality flip-flopping every episode or that awful Rhaenys Girlboss nonsense from Ep.9.

To Me, it is amazing how people complain about S8 for deviating from the source material while applauding HOTD that is so far-removed from the source material from its very inception (Alicent and Rhaenyra are not supposed to be from the same generation, for example).

But just like the Prequels from Star Wars, I do expect Season 8 to benefit from Nostalgia in a few years.

[Adamas102]

I think this thread is very funny, because the people hating on GoT are probably the same people who applaud HOTD and have no problem with steaming garbage like Alicent's personality flip-flopping every episode or that awful Rhaenys Girlboss nonsense from Ep.9.

To Me, it is amazing how people complain about S8 for deviating from the source material while applauding HOTD that is so far-removed from the source material from its very inception (Alicent and Rhaenyra are not supposed to be from the same generation, for example).

But just like the Prequels from Star Wars, I do expect Season 8 to benefit from Nostalgia in a few years.

You only think that because you're not very smart and can't wrap your head around the idea that just because someone enjoys a show or finds it superior to another doesn't mean that they can't have criticisms about it as well. HotD has plenty of flaws. I'm quite certain no one around here has called HotD a perfect show so you had to dig pretty far up your ass to pull that one out.

The complaints about GoT also have very little to do with deviating from the source material. Everyone understands that the showrunners didn't have books to work with for the later seasons. That's not the complaint. The issue is that once they ran out of source material they veered so far off the character arcs and traits that had been established over 5-6 seasons that it became obvious that they never really understood these characters or stories to begin with.

It would actually have been BETTER if D&D had deviated more from the books earlier on if they had known the direction they wanted to take these characters in the end. There's nothing wrong with having Daenerys inherit her father's madness, but to do that you need to SHOW that in the early seasons. Have her murder innocent people just because she believed they were trying to backstab her, have her enjoy torturing people and seeing them suffer, have her believe that she can turn into a literal dragon herself.

[Varodoc]

You only think that because you're not very smart and can't wrap your head around the idea that just because someone enjoys a show or finds it superior to another doesn't mean that they can't have criticisms about it as well. HotD has plenty of flaws. I'm quite certain no one around here has called HotD a perfect show so you had to dig pretty far up your ass to pull that one out.

The complaints about GoT also have very little to do with deviating from the source material. Everyone understands that the showrunners didn't have books to work with for the later seasons. That's not the complaint. The issue is that once they ran out of source material they veered so far off the character arcs and traits that had been established over 5-6 seasons that it became obvious that they never really understood these characters or stories to begin with.

It would actually have been BETTER if D&D had deviated more from the books earlier on if they had known the direction they wanted to take these characters in the end. There's nothing wrong with having Daenerys inherit her father's madness, but to do that you need to SHOW that in the early seasons. Have her murder innocent people just because she believed they were trying to backstab her, have her enjoy torturing people and seeing them suffer, have her believe that she can turn into a literal dragon herself.

"You only think that beacuse you're not very smart"

Let Me guess, you must be a Millennial. Ever the pseudo-intellectual, know-it-all, "you're not as smart as me!!!" generation.

the idea that just because someone enjoys a show or finds it superior to another doesn't mean that they can't have criticisms about it as well

And I find the idea that someone would prefer HOTD to GOT completely and utterly ridiculous and the purest form of recency bias.

HOTD wouldn't even exist without GOT. HOTD is just a side spin-off made to milk the brand after the major success of GOT.

Have her murder innocent people just because she believed they were trying to backstab her, have her enjoy torturing people and seeing them suffer, have her believe that she can turn into a literal dragon herself.

You would still be oblivious to it all.

I mean, we had Daenerys threaten to raze cities to the ground; doom people to horrible fates (locking two people inside a dark room to die of starvation/cannibalism; crucifixion; burning people alive and feeding them to her dragons); insufferable attitude of "It's my way or the highway" (such as not holding a trial to determine which slavers were genuine scumbags and which were trying to reform the system); launching a continent-wide war with an army of slavers and rapists to seize the throne; and that still wasn't enough for you people to get the memo.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, are you trying to suggest that people in general still care about this show when this thread had been dead for almost a year and a half, and almost all subsequent discussion has be about how badly you misunderstood one particular scene? Sounds more like you own-goaled yourself. And hey, if you decide to stop posting here (maybe even take the time to go read the books and get a better understanding of the story that GRRM meant to tell) I'd be happy to see this thread once again fade into obscurity. Hopefully the next time it's revived it will be with news of the next book, as unlikely as that may be.

You do realize that the HOTD thread is in an even worse state, right? The trailers barely generated any response on this forum.

Or, this forum is just dead and so anything out of the WoW sphere won't get any attention? The LoL subforum here is also dead, does that mean that people in general don't care about LoL anymore? Hilarious.

[Ghost of Cow]

It's weird that people keep bringing up stuff like the Tarly's execution as proof of some kind of "madness".

Even in the real world during ancient/medieval times, if you're a recently captured leader of the opposition during a war over a throne, a quick death might just be the best case scenario for you. Depending on the circumstances, you might have been looking at a whole lot worse, depending on the disposition of the monarch in question and/or what they might want out of you.

But sure, a quick execution by dragonfire is somehow a crime against humanity.

[Adamas102]

"You only think that beacuse you're not very smart"

Let Me guess, you must be a Millennial. Ever the pseudo-intellectual, know-it-all, "you're not as smart as me!!!" generation.

Funny how that had absolutely nothing to do with me, but rather your moronic assessment that people who hate on GoT have no problems with HotD. But go on, keep making a fool of yourself with this bizarre "you must be a millennial" bullshit.

And I find the idea that someone would prefer HOTD to GOT completely and utterly ridiculous and the purest form of recency bias.

HOTD wouldn't even exist without GOT. HOTD is just a side spin-off made to milk the brand after the major success of GOT.

No one has ever claimed that the spinoff would exist without the original show. No one. But that isn't even relevant AT ALL in terms of the quality of either show. The fact that you think "which came first" has anything to do with this just further proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I mean, we had Daenerys threaten to raze cities to the ground; doom people to horrible fates (locking two people inside a dark room to die of starvation/cannibalism; crucifixion; burning people alive and feeding them to her dragons); insufferable attitude of "It's my way or the highway" (such as not holding a trial to determine which slavers were genuine scumbags and which were trying to reform the system); launching a continent-wide war with an army of slavers and rapists to seize the throne; and that still wasn't enough for you people to get the memo.

You still can't get it through your thick skull that NONE of these things are indicative of madness or are comparable to what the Mad King did. If you're just stuck on "mean man did mean things, so mean woman is same as mean man" then it's really never going to sink in. Glad you made a list, though. Makes it easy to point how how wrong you are.

1. Threaten to raze cities to the ground - Yeah, that's what her NOT crazy ancestors did in order to conquer. Nothing wrong with using threats to try to bring enemies into submission. There's a big difference between THREATENING to destroy a confrontational enemy and actually burning down a city after it has surrendered.
2. Doomed people to horrible fates - Yep, people who betrayed her, tried to kill her, tried to steal her power and/or enslave her. Her actions are perfectly justified and in no way similar to what Aerys did to people who had not wronged him at all.
3. Insufferable attitude - Well this is probably just you being a misogynistic twat. Not only does she listen to her advisors, she is still perfectly within her right to made demands. She has the only dragons in the world, she is descended from the most famous house of conquerors in a world that's strongly focused on hereditary rule, and she literally survived self immolation TWICE. Why shouldn't she exert her power in order to claim what she perceives as her birthright? Unlike Aerys who tormented the kingdom he already ruled, she has to fight to take hers.
4. Holding trial for the slavers - First off, what makes you think any of them were innocent? Because one character who turned out to be a liar and traitor claimed it so? This isn't a setting where people get fair trials. Trial by combat or summary execution is the norm across the world.
5. Launching a war with slavers and rapists - Did you completely forget that she did away with those Dothraki customs back in season one? If you think launching a war is a sign of madness then you just don't understand this setting at all. She wasn't even coming to take a kingdom at peace. It's not even like she was invading a peaceful kingdom. Even without the threat of White Walkers Westeros was already dealing with plenty of its own political violence and strife.

NONE of this is crazy, or even particularly extreme, in a setting where a fairly respected house touts how much they enjoy flaying people alive. There are plenty of sociopaths in positions of power in the setting. Daenerys was certainly not a nice person, but the point is that none of what she said or did for seven and a half seasons indicated she might have a total break from reality and suddenly start thinking that burning commoners to death equates to liberating them.

[Varodoc]

You still can't get it through your thick skull that NONE of these things are indicative of madness

Huh, this scene isn't indicative of madness?




Clearly this digression cannot continue as your personal definition of "Madness" apparently does not match the English dictionary one.

- - - Updated - - -

- Sentencing to death someone who could very well be innocent;

- Burning alive and feeding the aforementioned person to a dragon;

- Not showing any emotion throughout the whole ordeal;

- Forcing everyone else to watch in order to establish a regime of terror.

In the real world, this would be the very definition of "Madness".

[Adamas102]

In the real world, this would be the very definition of "Madness".

And this is why you are incapable of understanding why something could be one thing and not another. You fundamentally misunderstand the setting. It really is a very different system of morality.

Is Arya an insane villain that should put down because she killed a bunch of people then took the time to dismember them and cook them into pies which were then fed to another person so that she could see the look of horror on his face before slitting his throat? Should Sansa be locked up because she took pleasure in watching a bound man get torn apart by dogs? Should we question Jon's morality because he followed through with the execution of a child who had been roped into a plot by a bunch of adults? Are people like Tywin and Robert clinically insane because they ordered the deaths of children in order to secure the power of their houses? Was Drogo mentally ill because he was a paragon of the brutal culture that he was born into? Was Aegon the Conqueror certifiable because he and his family used the power they had to violently subdue an entire continent?

Daenerys wasn't burning people for sport or for fun. She was dealing with a violent insurrection led by a secretive cult of people who supported a brutal system of institutional slavery. Again, this is not at all similar to the delusions that guided Aerys Targaryen's madness. There's also a pretty big difference between methodical vs indiscriminate violence.

[cubby]

Just because you don't have the mental capacity to carry on a proper discussion doesn't mean the responses to your asinine posts are "shit posting". You'll also have to be more specific since 90% of the time no one is saying that a scene didn't happen but rather that your INTERPRETATION of said scene is horribly wrong. But go on, regale us with these "facts" of yours.

You did say that Dany "literally burned a son in front of her [sic] father" and "then we see in S8 she does just that". Everyone figured you were erroneously referencing the scene where she executed the Tarly's together, but if there was some scene that no one else saw where she burned a son in front of his father then by all means remind us. If you do in fact think that the execution of the Tarly's mirrors what Barristan was talking about with reference to the Mad King then you FUNDAMENTALLY don't understand any of these characters, what they did or why they did it. It would be akin to suggesting that Arya has Aerys' madness because she murdered sons in order to torment a father. But sure, let's hear your "facts". I know you WANT to believe that these things are connected (or at least the ones that conveniently fit your narrative) but you either don't have the ability to communicate why or you're just basing this belief on the most ignorant, simplistic interpretations.



No, the ONLY time she did something contrary to what she said (with regard to not being like her father) was when she burned King's Landing after spending 7.5 seasons as a self proclaimed champion of the common folk. At no point in the first 7 and a half seasons did she do anything that mirrored what her father was known for. But go on, give us these "facts". Don't stop at "her father burned people and she burned people" because that alone means nothing. Aegon, Stannis, Melisandre, Tyrion, and many more burned people as well.



Explain why you think this is an example that makes her similar to her father. Sacking an enemy city and putting its inhabitants to the sword is certainly extreme, but not a sign of madness. It's a perfectly reasonable tactic within a setting like this.

On the flip side, Aerys' desire was to burn HIS OWN CITY in order to reincarnate as a literal dragon. Please point out where Daenerys said she would do the same thing. Not burn an enemy city as part of conquest, but burn her own city as part of an insane delusion. Do you not understand the difference between these two things?



As explained countless times, these instances you reference prior to season 8 are not indicative of madness. They are ALL perfectly reasonable responses to what her character goes through.

You also keep suggesting she was slowly becoming her father, but you are completely oblivious to who her father was. Do you have any idea how Aerys' madness manifested? He was paranoid and often believed that people were trying to backstab him when in fact they were planning nothing of the sort. At his worst he would relish in the suffering he inflicted on these supposed traitors. Compare that to Daenerys; name ANY of these "dozen" scenes you keep vaguely referencing and you'll find that Daenerys was nothing like that. Through almost the entirety of the show people were actively trying to kill her, enslave her, and/or steal her dragons. She had good reason to be angry, and even when she did condemn someone to death for ACTUALLY acting against her she didn't enjoy it the way her father did. So again, explain why YOU seem to think that despite being completely different they were actually the same.

And what do you mean by "capacity for madness". A character either has a mental illness or they don't. Aerys' cruelty certainly intensified in the latter years of his reign, but Barristan noted that his erratic behavior was always a part of him. His imprisonment at Duskendale exacerbated a condition that had always been part of him. Dany exhibits no such condition. When she's angry it's because she has good reason to be, not because she suffers from mood swings and gets sad or angry for no reason at all.



First off, she never lost her claim to the throne. Where are you pulling that idea? She won. Her enemies routed. You remove her out-of-character massacre and what happens? What does anyone have to complain about regarding her fitness to rule if she simply accepted her victory when the army surrendered? Other than Varys turning into an absolute idiot and being justly executed for treason and attempted assassination, what is everyone else scared of? Jon didn't want to usurp her, Bran didn't seem to have a problem with her. Her dragons weren't shown to cause the common folk any issues after season 3. Without the massacre neither Arya nor Tyrion would have reason to want her dead. You mentioned before how terrible a plan it was to introduce the marauding Dothraki to Westeros but even with their Khaleesi dead they seemed to pose no real issues in the show and just went back home in the end.

Secondly, you're still incapable of reconciling the fact that at the end of season one Daenerys also lost all the people she loved the most in a "relatively short period of time" and yet did not lash out at innocents. If D&D had really planned this out from the beginning all they would have had to do was have her burn Mirri Maz Duur's village in retaliation for the loss of Drogo and Rhaego. Even though a subsequent 6.5 seasons of no war crimes on civilians still dulls that point, at least there would have been SOME precedent to work with.



Pull your head out of your ass for a moment and realize that this thread isn't just about the show. Some of us actually derived much of our enjoyment of the setting and characters from the books, though it's obviously you never read those otherwise you'd feel a lot less positive about the show that botched what started as a pretty damn good story.

Also, are you trying to suggest that people in general still care about this show when this thread had been dead for almost a year and a half, and almost all subsequent discussion has be about how badly you misunderstood one particular scene? Sounds more like you own-goaled yourself. And hey, if you decide to stop posting here (maybe even take the time to go read the books and get a better understanding of the story that GRRM meant to tell) I'd be happy to see this thread once again fade into obscurity. Hopefully the next time it's revived it will be with news of the next book, as unlikely as that may be.

I read what you had to say above, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. Most of what you say above has been said and rehashed again and again. I thank you for the points you make, I just disagree.

However, two final items.
First, this concerns me because you continually criticize me for "not understanding". You ask above:

First off, she never lost her claim to the throne.

Jon has the rightful claim to the throne. It was made abundantly in S7/8. I'm not sure how you missed that fundamental piece from the show, but it really calls into question your recollection, and therefore your arguments, about the show in general. His claim to the throne, and Dany finding out about, was yet another huge piece of her fall into madness.

Second:

And what do you mean by "capacity for madness". A character either has a mental illness or they don't.

Mental illness is not a binary condition, even in fictional medieval shows. Characters have varying degrees of mental illness, completely dependant upon how their character is developed in any particular show or movie. It's never "[do] or don't" as you claim.

[Adamas102]

Jon has the rightful claim to the throne. It was made abundantly in S7/8. I'm not sure how you missed that fundamental piece from the show, but it really calls into question your recollection, and therefore your arguments, about the show in general. His claim to the throne, and Dany finding out about, was yet another huge piece of her fall into madness.

No, Jon had A claim to the throne, and some characters argued that he had a BETTER one being the son of the son of a prior king, or just because he had a dick. Saying outright that he is the RIGHTFUL king isn't fact. His father never ascended the throne, and after his grandfather, the Mad King, was deposed there were three other kings and one queen regent. Plus when he joined the Watch he gave up claims to any crowns, and while there's the whole technicality of having died he did maintain his title as Lord Commander long enough to order the executions of his killers so yeah, technicalities.

More importantly, if you'd paid attention at all to the show from the very beginning you'd know that "rightful king" means very little. How many kings and queens did we have throughout the series? 8? I mean, that's kind of the driving force behind like 70% of the series. "Might makes right" which meant that Dany's claim was never in any real danger. Even if Jon hadn't told her that he would make no claim, he never had the support to do so.

Mental illness is not a binary condition, even in fictional medieval shows. Characters have varying degrees of mental illness, completely dependant upon how their character is developed in any particular show or movie. It's never "[do] or don't" as you claim.

Uh, no. Mental illness is indeed a binary condition. You're probably thinking of the extent of how it manifests which might change over time. In Aerys' case, his condition greatly deteriorated after he was imprisoned for several months during the Defiance of Duskendale, but Barristan (who was a kingsguard before Aerys even took the throne) has a quote that notes how his madness was always a part of him long before his imprisonment. Mental illness is literally a physical condition that has no cure. In Aerys' case it wasn't that it made him violent, it made him erratic and susceptible to delusions which in turn fueled his paranoia. He wasn't called the Mad King because he did mean things, but rather because he acted upon notions that didn't match up with reality.

Daenerys exhibits no such condition. Her character throughout the first several seasons mirrors the one in the book very closely, and as a POV character we KNOW her inner thoughts and we KNOW that she doesn't suffer from a mental illness. When she is angry it is because a legitimate threat is endangering her life or the lives of those she cares about. She didn't threaten to burn cities to the ground because someone said hi to her on the street. THAT is the type of reaction that the Mad King would have because in his mind someone saying hi to him is obviously trying to flatter him and get close enough to stab him in the back and therefor that person needs to die. This is the hurdle that you and a few other posters can't seem to get over. That anger or violent reaction to a legitimate threat is NOT madness.