On May 22 2019 12:01 KlaCkoN wrote: 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.
On May 22 2019 11:38 TheTenthDoc wrote: 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.
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.
When Ned executes someone (which I think clearly is not justified by our moral standards), the story makes a point about it. They have Bran watch (which is cruel) because he has to learn that this is one of the duties as a lord.
Daenerys kills people in deliberately cruel ways.
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.
How was she learning to be a great ruler and control her temper? She had crazy speeches and cruel acts throughout. I guess back then you though her words were symbolic and that now you forgot what she actually said. People like you really should go back. The only reason she didn't do the same thing in Essos is because people surrendered. And yes, maybe then she would have spared woman and children. But back then she was fine with killing innocent men of military age if they were inside a city that didn't surrender.
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.
Threw away exactly what? Her becoming a great ruler? You got to be kidding me. If she actually became a great compassionate ruler that would have been complete subversion of expectation. If you keep showing off a gun, the audience expect it to go off at some time. Daenerys had to go off. And they did it for the most shock effect, which I think is the right decision.
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.
Her isolating herself is exactly her story. She is also a tragic character. She lost all her family, has no friends, and she wants to have power in the North so she doesn't become a victim once more.
All characters in GoT are tragic.
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
Yeah, obviously. I cannot understand how people can complain about Daenerys or Jon, when that was their obvious setup all along. Especially when you have this elephant in the room that is Bran/3ER and the Night King.
People should complain about that, and the show being rushed. Not about Jon not petting ghost, water bottles, or their favorite characters becoming evil (Daenerys) or losers (Jon) and maybe Tyrion being less witty (which I think is not intentional, but in the end I think they decided to turn it into an arch Jame lost his fighting ability, Cersei lost her children/power, Tyrion lost his wits).
Sansa also learned how things worked and how to play the game herself over the show’s run.
Dany, no. Her advisors would talk her from doing something stupid, then they’d do so again. She never seemed to learn not to even think x was ever a good idea in the first place .
Her not being a great ruler (or being a terrible one) is absolutely within her arc because it fits into everything else that came before. What triumphs she has had have almost all been due purely to dragons or some show of martial force, and not down to Dany showing statescraft or ingenuity.
I can’t claim to speak for the thread by any means, I think for Most people the issue is not Dany not being great or even good and our expectations not being met (I didn’t want that myself anyway), but that she turned into a genocidal maniac for basically no good reason whatsoever.
I’ve never even liked Dany, for a whole slew of reasons so her doing something bad and getting killed for it is a pretty satisfying end to her arc.
I wish Sansa had learned how the game was played, or had at least demonstrated she truly knew it. Instead she was a naive fool who was raped, after being raped a dozen or more times she declared she was no longer naive. Thats it, that was the end of her storyline...
On May 22 2019 23:22 Dazed. wrote: I wish Sansa had learned how the game was played, or had at least demonstrated she truly knew it. Instead she was a naive fool who was raped, after being raped a dozen or more times she declared she was no longer naive. Thats it, that was the end of her storyline...
On May 22 2019 23:22 Dazed. wrote: I wish Sansa had learned how the game was played, or had at least demonstrated she truly knew it. Instead she was a naive fool who was raped, after being raped a dozen or more times she declared she was no longer naive. Thats it, that was the end of her storyline...
No, she is the smartest person we know
God, why did you have to remind me of Tyrion saying that. So, so bad ><
That scene was totally foreshadowing Dany's madness. It let us know Tyrion became really bad at judging people. We just weren't smart enough to understand it /s
"Show and not tell" was the one effective storytelling maxim that the writers mostly ignored in recent seasons. They screamed at the audience at how smart these characters were, rather than showing them maneuvering politics with any intelligence. That Sansa + Arya plot to trap Littlefinger was just odd and happened because the writers thought it should happen, and Sansa being cold to everyone passes as being political savviness for some reason.
That line never bothered me as much as it does the community at large, I always felt that Tyrion could say that just by Sansa's pure ability to survive to an extent, but it is like the perfect flashpoint quote for "Show and not tell" given that we never see Sansa do anything that's really smart.
The closest we get to a Sansa scheme is that she knows if she gets Jon on the throne she can declare for an independent North and she ends up with Bran so it still works.
I really wonder what the writers want us to think when they write Tyrion to say "Sansa is the smartest person I know." Obviously they know they cannot tell us to think Sansa is smart. So d&d are trying to tell us that Tyrion is a bad judge of character? That is what they are showing, right?
Also, what is Tyrion's intelligence actually based on? That he is witty and sharp with language. But besides that, is he supposed to be a good judge of character? Can he ride the waves of the flow of politics? Can he deceive others about his true intentions?
On May 23 2019 05:38 Sent. wrote: He did a pretty good job as the acting Hand to king Joffrey in season 2.
Tyrion was good when he was written by GRRM. Once that ran out and D&D had to do it themselves he dropped off because they are not able to write as deep a character, nor tie him in the world enough for his ability to play politics. Varys suffered from the same problem.
On May 23 2019 05:31 Rasalased wrote: I really wonder what the writers want us to think when they write Tyrion to say "Sansa is the smartest person I know." Obviously they know they cannot tell us to think Sansa is smart. So d&d are trying to tell us that Tyrion is a bad judge of character? That is what they are showing, right?
Also, what is Tyrion's intelligence actually based on? That he is witty and sharp with language. But besides that, is he supposed to be a good judge of character? Can he ride the waves of the flow of politics? Can he deceive others about his true intentions?
I think Tyrion's character is pretty consistent throughout the show: he is someone who is excellent at palace intrigue, a decent administrator, and a horrible general/strategist (who has one brilliant tactical idea during the defense of King's Landing). He seems hapless after leaving the capital because there is no more palace intrigue for him to do, everyone around Danny is fiercely loyal and dedicated to the goal of wining her the throne. At the very end, as soon as Varys' loyalty starts to falter Tyrion immediately swats him down. The sort of nice thing the show does is that it lets us think for a second that Tyrion is going to be a good general, but there was never any real reason to assume that. Danny truly lost out when ser Barristan was assassinated.
As an aside, anyone else think it's truly effed up how Tyrion just casually murders his ex-girlfriend for sleeping with his dad after they broke up without any sort of comeuppance or even remorse. Talk about evil.
His only examples of being bad at strategy come late in show, and are literally the examples people give of him being out of character. I dont see how you can counter the notion that its out of character with some 'aha! he was always bad at it!"
hes a smart guy who suddenly became a moron the last two seasons. There was no consistency.
On May 23 2019 05:31 Rasalased wrote: I really wonder what the writers want us to think when they write Tyrion to say "Sansa is the smartest person I know." Obviously they know they cannot tell us to think Sansa is smart. So d&d are trying to tell us that Tyrion is a bad judge of character? That is what they are showing, right?
Also, what is Tyrion's intelligence actually based on? That he is witty and sharp with language. But besides that, is he supposed to be a good judge of character? Can he ride the waves of the flow of politics? Can he deceive others about his true intentions?
I think Tyrion's character is pretty consistent throughout the show: he is someone who is excellent at palace intrigue, a decent administrator, and a horrible general/strategist (who has one brilliant tactical idea during the defense of King's Landing). He seems hapless after leaving the capital because there is no more palace intrigue for him to do, everyone around Danny is fiercely loyal and dedicated to the goal of wining her the throne. At the very end, as soon as Varys' loyalty starts to falter Tyrion immediately swats him down. The sort of nice thing the show does is that it lets us think for a second that Tyrion is going to be a good general, but there was never any real reason to assume that. Danny truly lost out when ser Barristan was assassinated.
As an aside, anyone else think it's truly effed up how Tyrion just casually murders his ex-girlfriend for sleeping with his dad after they broke up without any sort of comeuppance or even remorse. Talk about evil.
In the scene before she fakes testimony that would lead to his execution, so yeah, I wouldn’t say he just casually murders her. That’s a pretty intense betrayal. Hard to call him evil.
On May 23 2019 10:20 Dazed. wrote: His only examples of being bad at strategy come late in show, and are literally the examples people give of him being out of character. I dont see how you can counter the notion that its out of character with some 'aha! he was always bad at it!"
hes a smart guy who suddenly became a moron the last two seasons. There was no consistency.
He also gets completely owned by the slave masters while in charge of Mereen, in spite of having perfectly adequate troops at hand. But sure, fair point, he is not consistently bad at being a general as much as when he finally gets to be one he is bad at it. But why is that weird? Ned Stark was bad at palace intrigue and good at war, and everyone thought this was perfectly fitting. I don't think there was any reason to expect Tyrion, who is good at scheming, to also be good at war.
On May 23 2019 05:31 Rasalased wrote: I really wonder what the writers want us to think when they write Tyrion to say "Sansa is the smartest person I know." Obviously they know they cannot tell us to think Sansa is smart. So d&d are trying to tell us that Tyrion is a bad judge of character? That is what they are showing, right?
Also, what is Tyrion's intelligence actually based on? That he is witty and sharp with language. But besides that, is he supposed to be a good judge of character? Can he ride the waves of the flow of politics? Can he deceive others about his true intentions?
I think Tyrion's character is pretty consistent throughout the show: he is someone who is excellent at palace intrigue, a decent administrator, and a horrible general/strategist (who has one brilliant tactical idea during the defense of King's Landing). He seems hapless after leaving the capital because there is no more palace intrigue for him to do, everyone around Danny is fiercely loyal and dedicated to the goal of wining her the throne. At the very end, as soon as Varys' loyalty starts to falter Tyrion immediately swats him down. The sort of nice thing the show does is that it lets us think for a second that Tyrion is going to be a good general, but there was never any real reason to assume that. Danny truly lost out when ser Barristan was assassinated.
As an aside, anyone else think it's truly effed up how Tyrion just casually murders his ex-girlfriend for sleeping with his dad after they broke up without any sort of comeuppance or even remorse. Talk about evil.
In the scene before she fakes testimony that would lead to his execution, so yeah, I wouldn’t say he just casually murders her. That’s a pretty intense betrayal. Hard to call him evil.
Man characters used to be interesting
She isn't willing to die/suffer Cersei style snuff torture for him after he says a bunch of horrible stuff to her? That's hard to swallow as an excuse for wanting to murder someone. Like sure he had great reasons for wanting to drive her away, but she didnt know that. And he should be aware that she didn't now that. I guess perhaps the point is that she deliberately stayed beyond just to get to rat him out? I don't remember exactly how the scenes were cut, but definitely my impression when watching was that she had been caught by the Lannisters, either when trying to stay around him in hope that he would change his mind, or when trying to leave the city.
On May 23 2019 10:20 Dazed. wrote: His only examples of being bad at strategy come late in show, and are literally the examples people give of him being out of character. I dont see how you can counter the notion that its out of character with some 'aha! he was always bad at it!"
hes a smart guy who suddenly became a moron the last two seasons. There was no consistency.
He also gets completely owned by the slave masters while in charge of Mereen, in spite of having perfectly adequate troops at hand. But sure, fair point, he is not consistently bad at being a general as much as when he finally gets to be one he is bad at it. But why is that weird? Ned Stark was bad at palace intrigue and good at war, and everyone thought this was perfectly fitting. I don't think there was any reason to expect Tyrion, who is good at scheming, to also be good at war.
I’m fine with that, if anything I don’t know why there aren’t more military men at least floating around as advisors in such things.
He’s gradually got pretty shit at both intrigue, but even the basic judgement of character that you need to even try to intrigue, even if it’s not your intent.
I’m rewatching it at the minute, rather enjoying it. Also trying to reappraise what’s nostalgia goggles with these characters and what isn’t.
Pretty early on, Tyrion’s coming across as a pretty smart dude thus far.
EPT
