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

[Dizzeeyooo]

but with the timelimit they chose it was a hopeless task.

Fixed that for you

[Mister K]

I think it will end with Dany killing Jon, Tyrion and Davos and starting a reign of terror.

and Sansa rebuilding forces. Drogon will die somehow and Bran becomes the new Night King.

[Raelbo]

Dany has sacrificed almost nothing to "save the people". She sacrificed what she did to gain power, no more.

Dany has consistently placed a great deal of importance on the way in which she has gained power. And she has consistently paid a heavy price for doing so. Had she not cared about the people, she could have stormed King's Landing shortly after returning to Westeros.

If she done so

• she would not have lost her allies in the Tyrells and the Sand Snakes
• she would not have lost a big chunk of her fleet to Euron at Casterly Rock
• Cersei would not have been able to build any scorpions or equip the iron fleet with them (which ultimately cost her Rhaegal and Missandei)

Secondly, instead of pressing her attack on King's Landing after decimating the Lannister army on the road between Highgarden and King's Landing, she instead opted to save the world and sent her army North. She lost a big chunk of her army, and again, gave Cersei time to bolster her defenses (which ultimately cost her Rhaegal and Missandei).

The rest of your reasoning is classic abuser-level-logic. "I wouldn't hit you if you didn't make me so mad."

Holy shit, if that's all you can take from what I wrote, then that's a massive failure on your part. If anything Dany better fits the definition of an abusee getting her own back against her abusers.

She started with nothing and was abused first by her brother, then Khal Drogo, then Qarth, then Master Kraznys, then the masters of Astapor, the sons of the Harpy, the Dothraki (again), then the masters of slavers bay (again), then Cersei and Euron, the Night King, Cersei and Euron (again).

Each and every time she came out victorious, but really, at this point, it amazes that anyone is surprised that she feels justified in retaliating.

And FYI, I am not condoning her actions, I am explaining them.

- - - Updated - - -

What was the point of this character. What was the point of the Golden Company.

To give Cersei the sense of security she needed to act in the way in which she did.

And to be fair, Cersei did have a decent chance. All it required was one lucky shot from a scorpion and the Dragon Queen's reign would have ended before it began.

[Mister K]

Let her proclaim to the people that she has taught them their lesson. Let her warn them that if they fail to do better, she will return and punish them. Then let her return to Dragonstone with Drogon to live out her days in relative solitude and allow the people of Westeros to choose their own ruler, with her watching over them. She has broken the wheel. She can ensure that a better world rises from the ashes. But not if she chooses to remain queen.

Interesting, the new "Night King"

[Derah]

You are really underselling Daenerys' horrorshow.

She had no problem with her brother, at the time the rightful Targaryen heir, being "crowned" in molten gold by Drogo.

Said brother, was a piece of work that for years was physically, emotionally and sexually abusing her, and sold her off as a sex slave to a vicious warlord to get an army, and then put a sword in her belly and threatened to cut out her unborn child from her womb. I'd say he had it coming.

She burned all the Dothraki Khals, alive. Why? Because she wanted the Dothraki, and they said "no".

Said Khals were also a bunch of rapists, raiders, and pillagers who had sowed a long and bloody reign of terror across the entirety of Essos. So I'd say they had it coming too.

She locked Daxos in his vault to suffocate to death, for stealing from her.

Correction, after he stole from her, murdered her people, kidnapped her dragons, and tried to kidnap her. I'd say he had it coming.

She slaughtered the entire leadership of Astapor, for being slaveowners.

They were slave owners. And considering the monstrous process they put the unsullied through, I'd say they had it coming.

The bit about putting Meereen's slavers on racks in revenge for their doing the same to children is her stooping to their level, not a move for justice.

It may not have been "just", but again, slave owners, who crucified children to provoke her. They had it coming.

After all of this, she completely abandoned Essos. She has no consideration whatsoever for the political upheavals she created, nor any interest in ensuring a better system prevailed; she secured the resources and men she need, took them and left.

Wrong. She left the second sons in charge, and set up a provisional government to rule the place on her behalf.

She burned the Tarlys alive, when they were her prisoners and had already been defeated on the field.

Because they refused to bend the knee. This was standard procedure during medieval times. You fight a war, you win a war, once you've won, the feudal lords HAVE to swear their allegiance to you. If they don't, kill them, or you're inviting them to rise again in rebellion, tomorrow, or the day after, or the next month or the next year. Literally every king, high lord, and even lesser lord in Westeros had done the same (Just not using dragon fire to execute those who refused to knee)

None of this is new, or surprising. It's the natural evolution of her entire character arc.

"Natural" my ass. Did you not see the common denominator in all those "Deaths" you're pointing out of her? They were despicable, abhorrent, monstrous people. People who more than earned whatever punishment she doled out to them. At no point in her entire history, have we EVER seen her just murder someone in cold blood just because she's angry. Every single death she's delivered, had been to people who wronged her. Never EVER against innocent common folk. And SPECIALLY NEVER against children.

[Endus]

"Natural" my ass. Did you not see the common denominator in all those "Deaths" you're pointing out of her? They were despicable, abhorrent, monstrous people. People who more than earned whatever punishment she doled out to them. At no point in her entire history, have we EVER seen her just murder someone in cold blood just because she's angry. Every single death she's delivered, had been to people who wronged her. Never EVER against innocent common folk. And SPECIALLY NEVER against children.

First, character development necessarily means that character changes, and does things they once would never have. And it's not always in a "good" direction.

Second, the issue is not whether her targets "deserved" anything. Her methods were always abhorrent, and entirely at her personal whim. And this is the problem with someone like that; you can back them as long as their targets line up with people you don't like, but the moment they no longer line up, it's horror show time. But they didn't really change, in that process. They never had the moral center you thought they did. And neither did Daenerys "I will burn your cities to the ground" Stormborn.

[xcess]

Of course, GRRM would say it isn't true. It isn't surprising as he doesn't want to say they are ready yet. They are either not ready or they are but he doesn't want it out that he held off on releasing them.

he could just not respond to such accusations. People gonna get annoyed that he lied if it turns out it was true. People are gonna buy the books if they wanted them in the first place

[Marfrilau]

I would say there is more to it than that. You're right in the people just don't give a shit. Period. Not only are they utterly selfish, they also seem to take a perverse pleasure in the misfortune of others. The only time they do care is when they suffer personal misfortune. And I think that's the lesson that Dany wants to teach: That their apathy is the very reason why rulers like Cersei and Joffrey are allowed to exist in the first place, and that ultimately, that makes them equally responsible for the crimes perpetrated by those leaders.

Dany has sacrificed, on a personal level, just about everything to save the people. And they don't even care. So she is making sure that they do care. The people don't need another strong person to come and claim the throne. They need to take responsibility for ensuring that the right leader sits on the throne.

They don't care because they don't know anything about Dany. How would they know? You think Cersei informed them of how awesome Dany is? Blaming the bad leaders on the common people in KL makes no sense. Burning them to death makes even less sense.

[jimboa24]

I don't know if this comparison has already been made on here, but Jeremy Jahns just made a video about it and it blew my mind, because holy shit, he's absolutely right. Daenerys Targaryen = Anakin Skywalker.

[Adamas102]

Except, as we've already provided specific examples to prove, it has been foreshadowed, multiple times, by Daenerys herself.

She either lacked the capacity to act on it before, or allowed cooler heads to prevail and talk her down, but the desire and intent has been clearly there and explicitly stated since mid-way through Season 2, at least.

Edit: I'll also note, this is specific foreshadowing, by Daenerys herself, in her own words. If you move beyond that, her entire family history speaks for itself, and completely supports her strategy, here. She's Aegon the Conqueror's great-great-something-granddaughter. This is exactly what he did, and he's the ancestor she looks up to the most.

That isn’t foreshadowing. Her personality in those early seasons was heavily influenced by her crazy brother and the stories he told her about their history and their birthright. Her character arc entailed balancing those expectations while learning her true history and learning to govern, much of that in a 2 steps forward 1 step back sort of way. Torching the Tarly’s was definitely a callback to that fire and blood schtick, but still a far more reserved approach than her more angry, childish rhetoric from the earlier seasons whenever someone would cross her. She had grown a lot as a character, which was one of the reasons she was so well liked. To suddenly take her right back to her angry girl season 3 mentality is just a straight up character reversion for no reason other than to force the character fit the plot D&D wanted to tell.

Maybe if they’d had more close scenes with Missandei (she’d become pretty much just a background character since arriving in Westeros), or had dropped hints to an onset of mental issues ala Targaryen madness, then maybe her actions would have made sense. As it was presented, it was not earned. The crazed look on her face as she surveyed the city while the bells rang did not harken back to either her petulant childish yelling or her cool and composed “they will bow or burn” quotes.

[Marfrilau]

First, character development necessarily means that character changes, and does things they once would never have. And it's not always in a "good" direction.

Second, the issue is not whether her targets "deserved" anything. Her methods were always abhorrent, and entirely at her personal whim. And this is the problem with someone like that; you can back them as long as their targets line up with people you don't like, but the moment they no longer line up, it's horror show time. But they didn't really change, in that process. They never had the moral center you thought they did. And neither did Daenerys "I will burn your cities to the ground" Stormborn.

So only the how matters? Not the who or why? Does that mean you wouldn't find it strange if Batman suddenly started capturing innocent civilians? Because he has always used rough ways to capture bad guys and it was always on a personal whim.

[Endus]

That isn’t foreshadowing. Her personality in those early seasons was heavily influenced by her crazy brother and the stories he told her about their history and their birthright. Her character arc entailed balancing those expectations while learning her true history and learning to govern, much of that in a 2 steps forward 1 step back sort of way. Torching the Tarly’s was definitely a callback to that fire and blood schtick, but still a far more reserved approach than her more angry, childish rhetoric from the earlier seasons whenever someone would cross her. She had grown a lot as a character, which was one of the reasons she was so well liked. To suddenly take her right back to her angry girl season 3 mentality is just a straight up character reversion for no reason other than to force the character fit the plot D&D wanted to tell.

Maybe if they’d had more close scenes with Missandei (she’d become pretty much just a background character since arriving in Westeros), or had dropped hints to an onset of mental issues ala Targaryen madness, then maybe her actions would have made sense. As it was presented, it was not earned. The crazed look on her face as she surveyed the city while the bells rang did not harken back to either her petulant childish yelling or her cool and composed “they will bow or burn” quotes.

You're literally admitting there were warning signs throughout, here. But that you didn't want them to be true.

Well, neither did Tyrion. You were both wrong.

So only the how matters? Not the who or why? Does that mean you wouldn't find it strange if Batman suddenly started capturing innocent civilians? Because he has always used rough ways to capture bad guys and it was always on a personal whim.

If you really dug into my post history, you'd probably be able to find some posts where I point out that Bruce Wayne is definitively insane, and the only reason he's not considered a villain is that his particular psychosis makes him target criminals.

There's a reason why most of his enemies are nutcases who go to Arkham Asylum rather than prison; they're a funhouse mirror reflection of Batman himself.

[Adamas102]

You're literally admitting there were warning signs throughout, here. But that you didn't want them to be true.

Well, neither did Tyrion. You were both wrong.

That’s like saying that since you shit your pants as a baby that was a “warning sign” that you will shit your pants today.

Seems like a lot of people, such as yourself, don’t know what foreshadowing actually means. It would be as if Tyrion decided to hit up a whorehouse in the middle of the battle. I’m sure you clowns would be pointing towards his scenes from the early seasons screaming “totally in character!” while the rest of us lament another example of shit writing.

[Marfrilau]

If you really dug into my post history, you'd probably be able to find some posts where I point out that Bruce Wayne is definitively insane, and the only reason he's not considered a villain is that his particular psychosis makes him target criminals.

There's a reason why most of his enemies are nutcases who go to Arkham Asylum rather than prison; they're a funhouse mirror reflection of Batman himself.

So he targets criminals. And has done so consistently. For him to start targeting civilians something must happen. Some event that makes him change.

Throughout the series Dany has specifically made it a point to avoid hurting those she considers innocent even when it made her mission harder. What event made her consider the common people in KL including children not innocent?

I'm not saying that Dany shouldn't have gone mad. I actually wanted that to happen. But it should have been done a lot more gradually. But I guess then they wouldn't have been able to subvert expectations of all her fans...

[Frontenac]

So he targets criminals. And has done so consistently. For him to start targeting civilians something must happen. Some event that makes him change.

Throughout the series Dany has specifically made it a point to avoid hurting those she considers innocent even when it made her mission harder. What event made her consider the common people in KL including children not innocent?

I'm not saying that Dany shouldn't have gone mad. I actually wanted that to happen. But it should have been done a lot more gradually. But I guess then they wouldn't have been able to subvert expectations of all her fans...

She was ready to burn Yunkai and Astapor to the ground. There was just as much innocent civilians in those cities than there were in King's Landing.

[Poe]

She was ready to burn Yunkai and Astapor to the ground. There was just as much innocent civilians in those cities than there were in King's Landing.

Irrc King's Landing has a population of ~1 Million. Are you sure those cities were as populated as King's Landing ?

[tehealadin]

and Sansa rebuilding forces. Drogon will die somehow and Bran becomes the new Night King.

Personally I don't think this will happen. I think it will just end with her being the mad queen. Maybe killing Sansa and Bran, but I don't think we will see her deposed. I have no faith in the writers to make this in anyway neat.

[Frontenac]

Irrc King's Landing has a population of ~1 Million. Are you sure those cities were as populated as King's Landing ?

Does it matter? 100 000 or a million, she would still kill all those civilians.

[uopayroll]

That’s like saying that since you shit your pants as a baby that was a “warning sign” that you will shit your pants today.

Seems like a lot of people, such as yourself, don’t know what foreshadowing actually means. It would be as if Tyrion decided to hit up a whorehouse in the middle of the battle. I’m sure you clowns would be pointing towards his scenes from the early seasons screaming “totally in character!” while the rest of us lament another example of shit writing.

Using extreme examples to make a point does not make the point valid.

Foreshadowing is a literary device in which a writer gives an advance hint of what is to come later in the story. Foreshadowing often appears at the beginning of a story, or a chapter, and helps the reader develop expectations about the coming events in a story. There are various ways to create foreshadowing. A writer may use character dialogues to hint at what may occur in the future. In addition, any event or action in the story may throw a hint to the readers about future events or actions. Even a title of a work or a chapter title can act as a clue that suggests what is going to happen.

So it is a hint, or a possibility. There is a lot of red herring foreshadowing also, a twist so to speak.

Example. In John Steinbeck’s novel Of Mice and Men, George killing Candy’s dog foreshadows George killing Lennie. Even the nature of the death of the dog was the same as Lennie’s, as both were shot in the back of the head. He chooses to kill Lennie himself in order to save him from being killed by a stranger.

Tyrion loved whorehouses. If he went before or after the battle, or went to one instead of the battle, sure, no surprise. If he just dropped his weapon or walked into the city if he ws not fighting to find a house that is open for business despite all the fighitng...that would be shit writing.

Just because you dare a Danny "fanboie" or on the D&D Suck Bandwagon, does not mean there were not hints of Danny burning the city down. Unexpected...yes. Necessary...probably not. Done for the sake of a twist...maybe. But still the possibility was always there.

[crakerjack]

Imagine thinking Dany killing evil people, slave owners, and mutineers is somehow similar to killing innocents and an army that THREW DOWN THEIR WEAPONS.

You have to be pants-on-head ignorant to think this is in character.

I don't care if she goes mad queen, but how about a build up that lasts longer than, say, one episode.

You're ignoring the obvious elephant in the room. This was the first city that didn't treat her the same way past cities in Essos did. Unlike Kings landing, the cities in Essos needed saving and a huge population would reach out to her and love her like the saving queen she was. What did we see in Kings landing? People flocking towards her! Oh wait, no we didn't. They were all trying to get in the city and seek shelter from Dany. The whole time Dany is in Westeros, she comes to realize that she has no allies here. The native people show her no love and only look at her like she's an stereotypical Targaryen.

What have we seen Dany do to people she doesn't trust or don't respect her? She kills them. Just because it's possible to justify her actions doesn't mean she's incapable for extreme action. Yes she crucified slavers, but she still committed an act of nailing hundreds of people to crosses and even some of them weren't bad people. She just stereotyped them all and treated them all the same. So we know she has no issue murdering people if she can justify it and she's capable of getting really mad. Don't forget that this is the same person who said she would take what's rightfully hers with fire and blood.

Jorah/Missandei have been dead for over a month by the time the siege happens, if not longer. No one is consoling her and there's no close friends to rationalize her thoughts. What was the last thing Missandei said to Dany? "Make sure you show mercy my queen!" or was it something along the lines of "Burn these fuckers". I feel like it's the hardcore Dany fans that have a hard time realizing this was all a possibility. Hell, throughout the whole series, various people reference the Targaryen phrase "The gods flip a coin to decide which ones become mad". She was never an exception, but when you're love her and justify all her actions, you never see the sides of her that are questionable. "That's my badass lady! You go get em girl! She's going to be the best queen ever and we'll all have a proper ending with the rightful queen on the throne." Then when she doesn't, everyone wants to cry "But she was supposed to be the one!"