|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
On May 22 2019 07:09 Emnjay808 wrote:
By GoT standards Jaime and Cersei shouldn’t have died under that rubble if both their skulls weren’t turned to mush.
So yes I think they’re still alive and will be in a side story. Get to it HBO
What do you think Tyrion was doing down there? Smashing Cersei's head to make sure she's dead of course 
|
Northern Ireland23759 Posts
On May 22 2019 06:24 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 06:16 Sent. wrote:On May 22 2019 05:56 Logo wrote:
I thought Tyrion seemed fine and it was Connington that got the Greyscale?
I really hope we have more losses during the Long Night. I really liked that episode of the show (even with dumb NK snipe), but the show just didn't sell the impact of the losses that well since the armies just grew to meet the challenges in the next episodes anyways.
Like idk, the Long Night did all this building to impart just how many losses were being taken and how much these losses were due to the politics getting in the way of a good response, but it fell short of really driving it home. I still think the choreography (and soundtrack) of Jorah defending Dany is my favorite part of the entire season. At first I thought there was no need to keep so many characters alive, but even someone as irrelavant as Gendry had to survive so Arya could reject him later to show the viewers that she's uhh not the kind who wants to settle down. I guess Davos, Sam and Tormund could die, but the writers probably thought the ending would be worse without them even though they were no longer "important". Yeah, it's a hard line to have to deal with I suppose. I don't want like Sam and Davos just dying randomly without some narrative attached to it either given how long we've been with them. I think not having a lot of major characters die would work if they didn't just replenish the troops themselves next episode so we continued to feel the losses going forward. It's not like they needed more than a couple dozen unsullied, northmen, and vale soldiers to take kings landing. Losing Rhaegal to Viserion would also have probably been a lot more fitting of a loss but idk.
I was one going into episode 3 without wanting people to die die for the sake of it, equally characters I love dying I’m not against either.
My issue was throwing people who shouldn’t be there (especially Sam) into scenarios where them not dying seems completely ludicrous.
I like Davos too much to want the lad dead, if you were to kill him off it could have been him unsuccessfully trying to stem the bloodlust in King’s Landing
|
I couldve sworn I saw undead ghouls eating Sam alive when Jon entered Winterfell's square.
But nah Sam is completely fine and healthy right shortly after being swarmed by the undead army lmao.
Plot armor of peace.
|
On May 22 2019 07:17 BerserkSword wrote:
I couldve sworn I saw undead ghouls eating Sam alive when Jon entered Winterfell's square.
But nah Sam is completely fine and healthy right shortly after being swarmed by the undead army lmao.
Plot armor of peace.
Ever tried to chew meat through thick layers of fat? Yeah, this was no plot armor. Natural armour baby!
|
On May 22 2019 07:22 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 07:17 BerserkSword wrote:
I couldve sworn I saw undead ghouls eating Sam alive when Jon entered Winterfell's square.
But nah Sam is completely fine and healthy right shortly after being swarmed by the undead army lmao.
Plot armor of peace. Ever tried to chew meat through thick layers of fat? Yeah, this was no plot armor. Natural armour baby!
lmfao
ok I can accept that
|
Northern Ireland23759 Posts
On May 22 2019 07:23 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 07:22 sharkie wrote:On May 22 2019 07:17 BerserkSword wrote:
I couldve sworn I saw undead ghouls eating Sam alive when Jon entered Winterfell's square.
But nah Sam is completely fine and healthy right shortly after being swarmed by the undead army lmao.
Plot armor of peace. Ever tried to chew meat through thick layers of fat? Yeah, this was no plot armor. Natural armour baby! lmfao ok I can accept that
I’d accept it if Sam underwent unorthodox liposuction if they showed a notably more svelte version of him in later scenes
|
On May 22 2019 07:47 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 07:23 BerserkSword wrote:On May 22 2019 07:22 sharkie wrote:On May 22 2019 07:17 BerserkSword wrote:
I couldve sworn I saw undead ghouls eating Sam alive when Jon entered Winterfell's square.
But nah Sam is completely fine and healthy right shortly after being swarmed by the undead army lmao.
Plot armor of peace. Ever tried to chew meat through thick layers of fat? Yeah, this was no plot armor. Natural armour baby! lmfao ok I can accept that I’d accept it if Sam underwent unorthodox liposuction if they showed a notably more svelte version of him in later scenes
i bet grand maester qyburn can make it happen
|
On May 22 2019 03:23 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 00:52 Rasalased wrote:On May 22 2019 00:12 karazax wrote:
By that standard, everyone who wanted to be king was a bad person. Conversely Dany's main driving force beyond just conquest was freeing the slaves and protecting the weak, so there was plenty to say she was decent, if not good. Ideally GRRM wants most of his characters to be grey though. Capable of doing good and bad things in different situations. If she wanted to free slaves, why did she come to Westeros, then? Of course the story presented you the veil of that she was good and compassionate. That is why it was so well-written. Yet I thought everyone would see right through it and that the writing was supposed to be as if you would see right through it. I get that people see the jump from Daenerys who wanted to conquer Westeros to the one that burns down KL is sudden. But what about the transition from the girl she was in season 1 episode one and the woman she was when she arrived in Westros. When did she become a worse version of her brother? Because that did happen. I guess that plot was much better done than I thought because I hadn't realized people didn't recognize a general greyness plus moral dilemmas with a transformation into someone with a deep hunger for power and a messiah complex. It is a feudal world after all, I felt the scene was only included as a borderline 4th wall break referencing a particular possible ending, but even largely good characters laughed Sam’s democracy suggestion out of dodge. People did recognise the greyness, plenty called Dany doing something awful because of her messianic leanings. Not actively burning civilians in the manner she did, that flip just seems too abrupt by far vs her previous behaviour and rhetoric. As many said, and I agreed with, Dany blowing up the Red Keep in a fit of rage and taking tons of innocents as collateral damage would have been fine. Your messiah complex ultimately doing more damage to the people you want to free vs actively butchering those people for no real reason. The added bonus effect of doing it that way is also that Jon has an actual dilemma there rather than well, of course he’s going to kill her after that.
I don't know which scene you refer to as I didn't refer to a single scene. Yes, it is a world with different morals. But when people say she was kind in Essos that does not contract her burning people alive in Westeros. Those people in Essos she cared for were not rejecting 'her love'. Those were her people that wanted her as their ruler. She was viscous against those that opposed her. And all people that opposed her did so with violence and back then she was careful, because of advisors as well, to stay completely Machiavellian and rational.
Many characters in GoT are born into a noble house and they have to do their duty to keep afloat. So when Tywin is doing evil acts, he is in part doing it to survive. But Daenerys decided for herself that she had to be a conqueror. And we never really questioned that desire. One reason of course is that she did start off as a victim herself.
I still think people don't get it. She was supposed to reveal herself to be different from the start. Her killing people in collateral damage is not how you show the audience that she changed. People were supposed to think "Something is wrong with her or disturbing about her, but she is still acting kind and compassionate and improving the world, so she is one of the good guys and I want her to team up with Jon and be awesome." This is how she was written the entire tv series.
Maybe people think she was badly acted. If you look at an interview with the actress, she is incredibly emotive with her face. Daenerys was acted completely flat, formal, emotionless, calculated, controlled. Yes, given more episodes, they could have explored this in a better way. But not turning her full evil at the end of the show, and I don't mean some collateral damage, would have ruined the ending of the entire show. Same for her being cruel in a rational Machiavellian way. You don't set up a character that way and then not pull the trigger in the last season because you are afraid of fan feedback. No, KL had to be burned down, including the people. Call it 'shock value' or whatever. But doing anything less would be a half measure. It is just logical that if your story is a goodly cute girl messiah figure turning full evil, you have her carry out the extreme act you have been teasing the audience with for 8 seasons.
I would almost say they needed more foreshadowing, but I don't think that is true. I watched a compilation of a reaction video and so many people where cheering for Daenerys and then after the Lannisters surrendered and she stopped attacking the scorpions, people knew something was up. They said "What is she doing." and "Don't do it." and "No! They are surrendering, they are innocent." BEFORE she actually started flying again and before she did her first flame strafe. So while I can imagine good additional scenes, adding any such scene would not have added much more, as people already were into this plot twist. And explaining why exactly she did it, that will never work because it cannot be explained.
Anything more you would have added would have completely signaled what was going to happen before it happen. And people would still have said that it was 'out of character' because a character cannot go from killing no one at all to suddenly deliberately killing tens of thousands of innocents with no clear upside to it, and have the audience understand why the character did this.
So it was clear that she was going to do it before it happened.
And the only answer to why she did it is 'because she is crazy'.
And that something was wrong with her was also clear.
The only thing that needs more scenes is afterwards; what type of crazy is affecting her and how does she deal with being crazy?
Personally, I think that her completely cool and aloof attitude with Jon in epsisode 6 was strange. They should have humanized her more. They showed her to be extremely emotional before she attacked the people. They should have put a scene in after she burned all the people. A scene of just her reflecting on what she did and what that means for her. And then have her recompose herself, put back on her mask, and talk to Jon hoping he would be foolish and in love enough to somehow accept what she did. That was the only strange thing, that there was no doubt in her that Jon would be ok with what she did. Her battle for her destiny was with Jon, not with Cersei or the people of KL. Jon didn't listen to her. Jon was more loved. And then Jon rejected her. I still thought the actress acted really well.
But adding scenes beforehand, it won't really improve the story. Unless you want to rewrite her character.
If you think about it, up until S8E5, her character was always coherent. And when we arrive at S8E5, we are accepting the possibility that she is going to burn KL. So it already happened! And when she does we are shocked and we don't understand it at all, but that was always going to be that way. That is exactly what the story should do. Considering how many mistakes were made and how rushed the show is, I don't see how people can really quibble any longer about Daenerys burning KL. Just be happy they didn't change the ending to fit the desire of the fans or the rushed schedule or HBO CEOs or shareholders.
|
The only way to Dany's story could have been improved was to add more characters and more politics as soon as she arrived in Westeros, or even before that in Mereen. As a breaker of chains she was a heroine of an older system, a system of slavery, while Westeros never had that. They kept talking about breaking the wheel without clearly communicating what that truly means. I kept asking myself the same question, on one hand she is all about freeing the people but on the other hand but muh throne. Well until the end that is, but it didn't make a lot of sense because if you don't lay down the foundation for it what that means on a political level, you cant explain it in one episode, not in a way that will feel satisfying or to make sense. That was ultimately the downfall of her story arc and the show as a whole, they didn't know how to write the politics and it became a soap opera with long walks and long stares. Their best attempt at politicking was a comedic one. At least there are some youtube videos of the last small council meeting with an added laugh track.
|
Northern Ireland23759 Posts
But that’s largely what most of us have said, at least by and large far as I can tell.
It’s not a twist that people in this thread didn’t include as a possibility, having never particularly liked her anyway I actually wanted her to go Mad Queen but I thought it was terrible in the form it took.
It makes zero sense for Dany to burn everyone in the manner shown unless her previous acts at being a saviour were complete bullshit and not something she ever believed in:
It doesn’t make pragmatic sense if she’s purely power hungry and wants her crown to destroy where she would sit and weaken her own kingdom when there is no real need to.
It’s not even how crazy works, and she seemed to settle down pretty quickly. It also doesn’t seem to fit what we know about the Mad King, even just from the show, never mind the additional stuff in the books.
He showed signs of madness and behaviour to match for a long period, voices and all that. The wildfire caches were the peak of his madness after a leadup, Dany’s first act of madness is to basically equal if not top what he was planning.
Films that rely on a big twist hook and really nail it are some of the best films to rewatch the first time, because the viewing experience of noticing all that foreshadowing is enjoyable in a totally different sense if it all fits.
There’s a difference between telegraphing a twist and making it obvious, and having one that is inexplicable.
It’s Dany ex machina, the writers wanted the big shock and the destruction but didn’t do the groundwork to make it pay off.
|
Northern Ireland23759 Posts
On May 22 2019 10:35 FreakyDroid wrote:
The only way to Dany's story could have been improved was to add more characters and more politics as soon as she arrived in Westeros, or even before that in Mereen. As a breaker of chains she was a heroine of an older system, a system of slavery, while Westeros never had that. They kept talking about breaking the wheel without clearly communicating what that truly means. I kept asking myself the same question, on one hand she is all about freeing the people but on the other hand but muh throne. Well until the end that is, but it didn't make a lot of sense because if you don't lay down the foundation for it what that means on a political level, you cant explain it in one episode, not in a way that will feel satisfying or to make sense. That was ultimately the downfall of her story arc and the show as a whole, they didn't know how to write the politics and it became a soap opera with long walks and long stares. Their best attempt at politicking was a comedic one. At least there are some youtube videos of the last small council meeting with an added laugh track.
I’d love to know how much time they could have saved if they cut/cut down the staring/no dialogue scenes that have been more and more prevalent later in the run.
Somebody more diligent than me has probably done this I’m sure.
|
On May 22 2019 10:56 Wombat_NI wrote:
But that’s largely what most of us have said, at least by and large far as I can tell.
It’s not a twist that people in this thread didn’t include as a possibility, having never particularly liked her anyway I actually wanted her to go Mad Queen but I thought it was terrible in the form it took.
It makes zero sense for Dany to burn everyone in the manner shown unless her previous acts at being a saviour were complete bullshit and not something she ever believed in:
It doesn’t make pragmatic sense if she’s purely power hungry and wants her crown to destroy where she would sit and weaken her own kingdom when there is no real need to.
It’s not even how crazy works, and she seemed to settle down pretty quickly. It also doesn’t seem to fit what we know about the Mad King, even just from the show, never mind the additional stuff in the books.
He showed signs of madness and behaviour to match for a long period, voices and all that. The wildfire caches were the peak of his madness after a leadup, Dany’s first act of madness is to basically equal if not top what he was planning.
Films that rely on a big twist hook and really nail it are some of the best films to rewatch the first time, because the viewing experience of noticing all that foreshadowing is enjoyable in a totally different sense if it all fits.
There’s a difference between telegraphing a twist and making it obvious, and having one that is inexplicable.
It’s Dany ex machina, the writers wanted the big shock and the destruction but didn’t do the groundwork to make it pay off.
Maybe it's because I marathoned the entire series recently and the earlier parts are fresh in my head, but I don't think there was a lack of groundwork.
I still remember in earlier seasons she kept talking about burning cities to the ground to take what was rightfully hers, and she would tell the dothraki that they would tear down houses in King's Landing and whatnot. She's killed to put the fear of her in her opponents. She's brutally executed those who opposed her, or simply refused to kneel to her, and in so many of those cases taking them prisoner would be fine. She killed/threatened to kill her closest advisors (Jorah, Varys, Tyrion). She told Jon straight up that she would use fear to control the seven kingdoms.
All I remember thinking is that on the spectrum of Joffrey to Jon, she was closer to Joffrey lol. Not as sadistic as Joffrey, but brutal, authoritative, power hungry, killer.
|
She had quite a cast of characters around her to have her talk. Way more than Cersei. And several of them knew a lot about Westeros.
Yes, they could have made a bigger and clearer point that she was out of place in Westeros and that the way of thinking she had developed didn't work in Westeros. Maybe she should have had a scene with some common people. She had many of those in Essos. That would show how Westerosi responded to her, and how she reacted to their response, before things would go wrong for her.
As for her 'breaker of chains' thing. She only started freeing slaves when Jorah told her to buy Unsullied in Astapor. There, she learned that the Unsullied were slaves. So instead of buying the slaves, she frees them and they first for her as free men. And that puts her on a slave freeing expedition while actually they are looking for ships to take them to Westeros.
I don't think it is really bad what 'breaking the wheel' really meant. I always thought it would mean destroying all important noble houses and replacing the feudal society with something else. And that she wasn't exactly sure what that would be and that she thought she could decide on what that would be later. I guess that is why she vowed to destroy her allies Dorne and Winterfell after she burned down KL in her speech.
|
I mean, the biggest weird thing with Dany is I'm not even sure what her final "breaking the wheel" speech even entailed. What was she going to do if Jon hadn't stabbed her? "Liberate" Winterfell? What was her actual plan to make the world "good?" Kill all non-Targs? Nowhere in her entire exchange with Jon or her soldiers did I get a sense of what she was actually going to do with Westeros.
Because she doesn't actually believe mass murder is "liberation" or "good." Even in her last moments she regarded slaughtering the women and children as a necessary (for some reason I can't fathom) sacrifice, not the ends.
|
I enjoyed the fan service aspects of the last episode. Also the scene with Drogon and Jon for some reason made the entire season for me lol.
Looking back at the whole show I guess it didn't go where I was hoping. To me, ever since the first episode of the first season, the show was about the petty scheming of men set against a backdrop of an inexorable tide of world-ending evil. To that end I hoped that season 8 (and honestly also season 7) would be about Winters unstoppable advance as people slowly learn that their material designs are worthless. The show finally ending with a last stand at Kings Landing. A grimdark version where people fail to cooperate and Westeros gets overrun by zombies would also have been entirely fine.
As for where it actually went: The show spent a lot of time dwelling on the fact that the 'game' has no moral high ground and attempting to give a sort of realistic account of the geopolitics of its world. Pursuit of power and safety for you loved ones can often lead to acts of evil without it being the original intent. The show regularly looked at even truly heinous acts through a sort of morally gray lens, carefully laying out the motivations of each character. In this vein Tywin Lannister was presented as a worthy 'winner'.
But in the end, when the time finally came to follow the philosophy of 'might makes right' to its logical conclusion the show shirked away from the horror.
Taking a step back and looking at episode five the way GoT used to, we see this:
Danerys has the political ambition to rule unopposed in Westeros. She also seeks revenge on the Lannisters for personal reasons.
She stands before King's Landing wielding unstoppable power and offers the people of the city a choice:
Overthrow your masters, open the gates, and allow me to remake your world as I see fit. Else I will burn this city and everyone in it to ash.
When done burning King's Landing she declares that the next city will face the same choice.
In giving this ultimatum to the citizens of a hostile political power Danny is obviously in great historical company, rulers from Ghengis Khan to Harry Truman have offered the same ultimatum - and proceeded to carry out the slaughter when denied. In the real world threats like these are made to ensure that subsequent cities are easier to conquer, to save the lives of your own soldiers, and to ensure that your new subjects are fearful and pliable.
Prior seasons of GoT would have explored Dannys thought process here, why is this finally the time she choses to hurt not just those who cross her, but also those who wont actively help her?
But instead of asking that question and proceeding to dive into and explore the moral grayness of her choice, (can it ever be moral to kill civilians to end a war faster?) GoT finally recoils from the abyss that is actual war and declares that Danny must be evil, insane and beyond redemption. I find it sadly laughable that a show that pretended for so long to be 'realistic' about the pursuit of power by violent means in the end choses to present this fairytale version of war, where the fighting ought to be done by soldiers, and if a few civilians die or get raped here or there it's mostly an exception and an accident and that anything else is something abhorrent, something beyond the pale, something that only a monster could do.
In my view, any 'realistic' take on Dannys sacking of King's Landing would have been to declare it normal, not insane, and the logical conclusion of the shows original 'geopolitical realism' theme would have been for Danerys to channel Genghis Khan and forge an empire out of blood.
Instead I think the show ended up falling somewhat between the chairs of fairytale fantasy (my preferred ending), and a realistic take on swords and sandals power politics.
|
On May 22 2019 11:11 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 10:56 Wombat_NI wrote:
But that’s largely what most of us have said, at least by and large far as I can tell.
It’s not a twist that people in this thread didn’t include as a possibility, having never particularly liked her anyway I actually wanted her to go Mad Queen but I thought it was terrible in the form it took.
It makes zero sense for Dany to burn everyone in the manner shown unless her previous acts at being a saviour were complete bullshit and not something she ever believed in:
It doesn’t make pragmatic sense if she’s purely power hungry and wants her crown to destroy where she would sit and weaken her own kingdom when there is no real need to.
It’s not even how crazy works, and she seemed to settle down pretty quickly. It also doesn’t seem to fit what we know about the Mad King, even just from the show, never mind the additional stuff in the books.
He showed signs of madness and behaviour to match for a long period, voices and all that. The wildfire caches were the peak of his madness after a leadup, Dany’s first act of madness is to basically equal if not top what he was planning.
Films that rely on a big twist hook and really nail it are some of the best films to rewatch the first time, because the viewing experience of noticing all that foreshadowing is enjoyable in a totally different sense if it all fits.
There’s a difference between telegraphing a twist and making it obvious, and having one that is inexplicable.
It’s Dany ex machina, the writers wanted the big shock and the destruction but didn’t do the groundwork to make it pay off. Maybe it's because I marathoned the entire series recently and the earlier parts are fresh in my head, but I don't think there was a lack of groundwork. I still remember in earlier seasons she kept talking about burning cities to the ground to take what was rightfully hers, and she would tell the dothraki that they would tear down houses in King's Landing and whatnot. She's killed to put the fear of her in her opponents. She's brutally executed those who opposed her, or simply refused to kneel to her, and in so many of those cases taking them prisoner would be fine. She killed/threatened to kill her closest advisors (Jorah, Varys, Tyrion). She told Jon straight up that she would use fear to control the seven kingdoms. All I remember thinking is that on the spectrum of Joffrey to Jon, she was closer to Joffrey lol. Not as sadistic as Joffrey, but brutal, authoritative, power hungry, killer.
This isn't the crazy angle.
Tywin talked like this (and actually did shit like this). Many other characters in the story acted like ruthless, brutal killing machines.
We weren't saying any of them were crazy or that it was signs of them being crazy. The only reason people are saying it now is as a retroactive justification for bad writing.
I mean, the biggest weird thing with Dany is I'm not even sure what her final "breaking the wheel" speech even entailed. What was she going to do if Jon hadn't stabbed her? "Liberate" Winterfell? What was her actual plan to make the world "good?" Kill all non-Targs? Nowhere in her entire exchange with Jon or her soldiers did I get a sense of what she was actually going to do with Westeros.
Because she doesn't actually believe mass murder is "liberation" or "good." Even in her last moments she regarded slaughtering the women and children as a necessary (for some reason I can't fathom) sacrifice, not the ends.
This is another great point. Basically all of her reasoning, both concerning the specific deed itself and what she was going to do in the future, revolved around justifying torching King's Landing, with no actual foundation to the logic at all. There was no real reason to torch King's Landing, and there is no "wheel" to break across Westeros, since she rules it anyway now. It was just supposed to somehow show us "why" she did it, but it still doesn't and only leaves the "crazy" angle as plausible, which has been shot down for a hundred different reasons already.
|
On May 22 2019 12:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 11:11 BerserkSword wrote:On May 22 2019 10:56 Wombat_NI wrote:
But that’s largely what most of us have said, at least by and large far as I can tell.
It’s not a twist that people in this thread didn’t include as a possibility, having never particularly liked her anyway I actually wanted her to go Mad Queen but I thought it was terrible in the form it took.
It makes zero sense for Dany to burn everyone in the manner shown unless her previous acts at being a saviour were complete bullshit and not something she ever believed in:
It doesn’t make pragmatic sense if she’s purely power hungry and wants her crown to destroy where she would sit and weaken her own kingdom when there is no real need to.
It’s not even how crazy works, and she seemed to settle down pretty quickly. It also doesn’t seem to fit what we know about the Mad King, even just from the show, never mind the additional stuff in the books.
He showed signs of madness and behaviour to match for a long period, voices and all that. The wildfire caches were the peak of his madness after a leadup, Dany’s first act of madness is to basically equal if not top what he was planning.
Films that rely on a big twist hook and really nail it are some of the best films to rewatch the first time, because the viewing experience of noticing all that foreshadowing is enjoyable in a totally different sense if it all fits.
There’s a difference between telegraphing a twist and making it obvious, and having one that is inexplicable.
It’s Dany ex machina, the writers wanted the big shock and the destruction but didn’t do the groundwork to make it pay off. Maybe it's because I marathoned the entire series recently and the earlier parts are fresh in my head, but I don't think there was a lack of groundwork. I still remember in earlier seasons she kept talking about burning cities to the ground to take what was rightfully hers, and she would tell the dothraki that they would tear down houses in King's Landing and whatnot. She's killed to put the fear of her in her opponents. She's brutally executed those who opposed her, or simply refused to kneel to her, and in so many of those cases taking them prisoner would be fine. She killed/threatened to kill her closest advisors (Jorah, Varys, Tyrion). She told Jon straight up that she would use fear to control the seven kingdoms. All I remember thinking is that on the spectrum of Joffrey to Jon, she was closer to Joffrey lol. Not as sadistic as Joffrey, but brutal, authoritative, power hungry, killer. This isn't the crazy angle. Tywin talked like this (and actually did shit like this). Many other characters in the story acted like ruthless, brutal killing machines. We weren't saying any of them were crazy or that it was signs of them being crazy. The only reason people are saying it now is as a retroactive justification for bad writing. Show nested quote +I mean, the biggest weird thing with Dany is I'm not even sure what her final "breaking the wheel" speech even entailed. What was she going to do if Jon hadn't stabbed her? "Liberate" Winterfell? What was her actual plan to make the world "good?" Kill all non-Targs? Nowhere in her entire exchange with Jon or her soldiers did I get a sense of what she was actually going to do with Westeros.
Because she doesn't actually believe mass murder is "liberation" or "good." Even in her last moments she regarded slaughtering the women and children as a necessary (for some reason I can't fathom) sacrifice, not the ends. This is another great point. Basically all of her reasoning, both concerning the specific deed itself and what she was going to do in the future, revolved around justifying torching King's Landing, with no actual foundation to the logic at all. There was no real reason to torch King's Landing, and there is no "wheel" to break across Westeros, since she rules it anyway now. It was just supposed to somehow show us "why" she did it, but it still doesn't and only leaves the "crazy" angle as plausible, which has been shot down for a hundred different reasons already.
Except her enemies will still be alive waiting to pounce the moment she leaves. By killing them they are gone forever. Remember this was basically her plan in Season 6 before being talked out of it and what she talked about doing WAAAAAAY back in the early seasons. She believes she will make the world a better place simply by being queen so whatever has to happen to make that happen is worth it.
|
Northern Ireland23759 Posts
On May 22 2019 12:38 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 12:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 22 2019 11:11 BerserkSword wrote:On May 22 2019 10:56 Wombat_NI wrote:
But that’s largely what most of us have said, at least by and large far as I can tell.
It’s not a twist that people in this thread didn’t include as a possibility, having never particularly liked her anyway I actually wanted her to go Mad Queen but I thought it was terrible in the form it took.
It makes zero sense for Dany to burn everyone in the manner shown unless her previous acts at being a saviour were complete bullshit and not something she ever believed in:
It doesn’t make pragmatic sense if she’s purely power hungry and wants her crown to destroy where she would sit and weaken her own kingdom when there is no real need to.
It’s not even how crazy works, and she seemed to settle down pretty quickly. It also doesn’t seem to fit what we know about the Mad King, even just from the show, never mind the additional stuff in the books.
He showed signs of madness and behaviour to match for a long period, voices and all that. The wildfire caches were the peak of his madness after a leadup, Dany’s first act of madness is to basically equal if not top what he was planning.
Films that rely on a big twist hook and really nail it are some of the best films to rewatch the first time, because the viewing experience of noticing all that foreshadowing is enjoyable in a totally different sense if it all fits.
There’s a difference between telegraphing a twist and making it obvious, and having one that is inexplicable.
It’s Dany ex machina, the writers wanted the big shock and the destruction but didn’t do the groundwork to make it pay off. Maybe it's because I marathoned the entire series recently and the earlier parts are fresh in my head, but I don't think there was a lack of groundwork. I still remember in earlier seasons she kept talking about burning cities to the ground to take what was rightfully hers, and she would tell the dothraki that they would tear down houses in King's Landing and whatnot. She's killed to put the fear of her in her opponents. She's brutally executed those who opposed her, or simply refused to kneel to her, and in so many of those cases taking them prisoner would be fine. She killed/threatened to kill her closest advisors (Jorah, Varys, Tyrion). She told Jon straight up that she would use fear to control the seven kingdoms. All I remember thinking is that on the spectrum of Joffrey to Jon, she was closer to Joffrey lol. Not as sadistic as Joffrey, but brutal, authoritative, power hungry, killer. This isn't the crazy angle. Tywin talked like this (and actually did shit like this). Many other characters in the story acted like ruthless, brutal killing machines. We weren't saying any of them were crazy or that it was signs of them being crazy. The only reason people are saying it now is as a retroactive justification for bad writing. I mean, the biggest weird thing with Dany is I'm not even sure what her final "breaking the wheel" speech even entailed. What was she going to do if Jon hadn't stabbed her? "Liberate" Winterfell? What was her actual plan to make the world "good?" Kill all non-Targs? Nowhere in her entire exchange with Jon or her soldiers did I get a sense of what she was actually going to do with Westeros.
Because she doesn't actually believe mass murder is "liberation" or "good." Even in her last moments she regarded slaughtering the women and children as a necessary (for some reason I can't fathom) sacrifice, not the ends. This is another great point. Basically all of her reasoning, both concerning the specific deed itself and what she was going to do in the future, revolved around justifying torching King's Landing, with no actual foundation to the logic at all. There was no real reason to torch King's Landing, and there is no "wheel" to break across Westeros, since she rules it anyway now. It was just supposed to somehow show us "why" she did it, but it still doesn't and only leaves the "crazy" angle as plausible, which has been shot down for a hundred different reasons already. Except her enemies will still be alive waiting to pounce the moment she leaves. By killing them they are gone forever. Remember this was basically her plan in Season 6 before being talked out of it and what she talked about doing WAAAAAAY back in the early seasons. She believes she will make the world a better place simply by being queen so whatever has to happen to make that happen is worth it.
Which still doesn’t explain how she jumps from having at least certain noble goals, with the clear ego/destiny flaw and ruthlessness that isn’t atypical, to jumping into bed with Joffrey and Ramsay Bolton as cartoon villain.
Hell she even let Tyrion not just live for betraying her but listened to his counsel on this very issue of not burning the city.
The only thing that changes in the interim is that she wins, and pretty easily.
This isn’t even complicated in a storytelling sense to have Dany going in such a direction while not having it make zero sense on several levels.
If the Unsullied and the Dothraki are decimated after the battle of Winterfell, which until we are told/see they are not and are somehow on a par with Cersei’s forces, then combined with Sansa and the North’s somewhat frosty reception of her at large, it becomes a case of use your dragons and do something monstrous but be Queen, or don’t and do not. Maybe have Sansa and the North put their foot down on the men needing rest or something, or have the Golden Company best her boys in the field, maybe along with that.
Instead she somehow has equivalent forces that aren’t even equivalent, they seem to crush it in the end. The Golden Company were more underwhelming than this season somehow.
So she ends up doing all this despite having won, and won easily, and after she’s won?
|
I don't have a problem with Danerys burning down the city. The reason people feel she didn't show signs of evil in earlier seasons is that she has been portrayed badly by Emilia Clark that biggest contribution to the show was showing of her beautiful body in the beginning of the show, but otherwise made me feel disappointed, playing Danerys so i couldn't believe one emotion but more with an ironic distance to the person. Felt like she actually acted the best in the 2 last episodes.
For me the problem with the last season felt like one big checklist that had to be done.
1) bring people together, check
2) Prepare to die in one finale epic battle, check
3) Defeat the evil, Check
4) Hmmm somethings wrong season not over, make new super evil and kill dragon, check
5) Defeat new super Evil and make surprising twist, check
6) Make romantic epic ending, check
7) We need new king, check
8) Make sure we know what every surviving person we seen is in series is gonna do next, check.
The season could have greatly benefited from having loss ends, and not reading in every person. Bron for me is the stand out example of this. He has been a walking disaster this whole season, every time we see him its like a stripper at a funeral. The writers could just have let him flee after the living won, or we could have seen him burn when Danerys lost her temper a little. Or even better just ignored him because he didn't need to be a part of the story anymore. Seems goes for many others like Pod and Gendry.
|
On May 22 2019 11:11 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 10:56 Wombat_NI wrote:
But that’s largely what most of us have said, at least by and large far as I can tell.
It’s not a twist that people in this thread didn’t include as a possibility, having never particularly liked her anyway I actually wanted her to go Mad Queen but I thought it was terrible in the form it took.
It makes zero sense for Dany to burn everyone in the manner shown unless her previous acts at being a saviour were complete bullshit and not something she ever believed in:
It doesn’t make pragmatic sense if she’s purely power hungry and wants her crown to destroy where she would sit and weaken her own kingdom when there is no real need to.
It’s not even how crazy works, and she seemed to settle down pretty quickly. It also doesn’t seem to fit what we know about the Mad King, even just from the show, never mind the additional stuff in the books.
He showed signs of madness and behaviour to match for a long period, voices and all that. The wildfire caches were the peak of his madness after a leadup, Dany’s first act of madness is to basically equal if not top what he was planning.
Films that rely on a big twist hook and really nail it are some of the best films to rewatch the first time, because the viewing experience of noticing all that foreshadowing is enjoyable in a totally different sense if it all fits.
There’s a difference between telegraphing a twist and making it obvious, and having one that is inexplicable.
It’s Dany ex machina, the writers wanted the big shock and the destruction but didn’t do the groundwork to make it pay off. Maybe it's because I marathoned the entire series recently and the earlier parts are fresh in my head, but I don't think there was a lack of groundwork. I still remember in earlier seasons she kept talking about burning cities to the ground to take what was rightfully hers, and she would tell the dothraki that they would tear down houses in King's Landing and whatnot. She's killed to put the fear of her in her opponents. She's brutally executed those who opposed her, or simply refused to kneel to her, and in so many of those cases taking them prisoner would be fine. She killed/threatened to kill her closest advisors (Jorah, Varys, Tyrion). She told Jon straight up that she would use fear to control the seven kingdoms. All I remember thinking is that on the spectrum of Joffrey to Jon, she was closer to Joffrey lol. Not as sadistic as Joffrey, but brutal, authoritative, power hungry, killer.
She did execute people but Ned did the same, Jon did the same, I am sure most others have done the same.
she earned the dothraki by sheer will and strength, she earned the unsullied by balancing her power and control. She was learning how to become a great ruler, how to control her temper.
The final season just threw all that away. Maybe it's just me because I find her character too tragic, from the beginning till the end.
Also I so very much blame it mostly on Sansa, I have a huge issue with her thinking she has such a strong grasp of politics and overwhelming will to rule winterfell and isolate the north. Honestly deep inside I wonder if she even consider Jon as much as a stark after learning the truth.
The TV really messed up the Nightking and Bran, these two are the biggest problem I have with the show. So much potential, ended just like that in one episode, no deeper backstory, no interaction
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
