Game of Thrones Season 8 (spoiler tags)

[BlacKnight]

Or maybe if they devoted more episodes to developing Daenerys, people now complaining that burning King's Landing was out of character for her, would now be defending the burning as morally justificable, like they have defended or ignored her previous atrocities.

If Jon Snow or Arya or Tyrion were to take a dragon and burn a city to the ground would you think it's an OOC action ?
Yes or no ?

[The Pilgrim]

If Jon Snow or Arya or Tyrion were to take a dragon and burn a city to the ground would you think it's an OOC action ?
Yes or no ?

Yes. Neither of those characters has been living in a fantasy world of delusions of grandeur since they got in love with the savage monster who romantically raped her.

Arya *might* had, if they had given her a dragon right after her father was beheaded. But instead of a dragon, she was given a several-seasons-long Heroe's Journey during which she adquired superpowers by working hard and maturing to get them. Therefore she leart the "with great power comes great responsability" principle. Unlike Daenerys, she was not given far more powers than she is emotionally equiped to deal with.

The scriptwriters do not reall need any more chapters of character development to make the point that Daenerys is a child who has bern given absolute power, and behaves accordingly.

[BlacKnight]

Yes. Neither of those characters has been living in a fantasy world of delusions of grandeur since they got in love with the savage monster who romantically raped her.

Arya *might* had, if they had given her a dragon right after her father was beheaded. But instead of a dragon, she was given a several-seasons-long Heroe's Journey during which she adquired superpowers by working hard and maturing to get them. Therefore she leart the "with great power comes great responsability" principle. Unlike Daenerys, she was not given far more powers than she is emotionally equiped to deal with.

If Dany was "living in a fantasy world of delusions of grandeur" can you explain why she waited 2 seasons in Meereen or why she went North to fight the undeads ?
Why did she snapped only now, if she had been crazy since season 1 ?

[pendell]

Or maybe if they devoted more episodes to developing Daenerys, people now complaining that burning King's Landing was out of character for her, would now be defending the burning as morally justificable, like they have defended or ignored her previous atrocities.

Maybe they could have presented Dany as worse at her arc in the Slaver's Bay. But they presented her bad enough for a lot of us to catch the hint. It's not the scripwriters' fault that there are too many people out there projecting on her their own desires. "I wish I had a couple dragons so I could force everyone love me and force the real world bend into my private fantasy world where everything revolves around me and about how awesome I am because I have three dragons and absolutely no personal skills of worth".

So, GRR Martin, and D&D, taugh all those people a lesson: The world doesn't revolves around you. If you had absolute power you wouldn't fix the world. And if you want to become an influential and admired person, work hard to develope the skills for it, do not hope a Blue Prince, or a Dragon, will provide you with the praise you do not deserve. A lesson most people used to learn at puberty, but looks like an alarming number of people make it now past their teens without learning it.

(Note that I am not targeting this comment towards anyone debating here, just towards the huge crowd of fans of the "Daenerys' Phenomenon" out there who are totally dazed because looks like providing an inmature and insecure girl with an unstoppable doomsday superweapon didn't turn out like they expected).

I don't think that's fair. I think the showrunners -- and George RR Martin -- have been deliberately trying to paint Daenerys' character as ambigious. To show her capable of great goodness and great cruelty, so you can see hints of both, before finally and decisively causing the coin to irrevocably fall one side face up.

This they did in season 8, episode 5.

So it's not surprising that there were hints of previous darkness and madness which were partly or totally defensible by extenuating circumstances (done to people who had themselves done evil, serious provocation, and so forth). This is a deliberate intended affect: they wanted Dany to be both sympathetic and terrifying right up to the point when that character made her final decision. IMO, they succeeded. The events of episode 5 are directly traceable to the earlier character. If it was rushed, well, yeah. They only had a limited number of episodes to do it in.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[The Pilgrim]

If Dany was "living in a fantasy world of delusions of grandeur" can you explain why she waited 2 seasons in Meereen or why she went North to fight the undeads ?
Why did she snapped only now, if she had been crazy since season 1 ?

Because, until now, she had a father figure (Ser Jorah), a moral reference she respected (Varys), and an advisor she regarded as more clever than her (Tyrion).

Now she got the first killed in action, the secord executed for treason, and lose faith on the third.

She was previously a child under supervision of adults, whose validation she seek. But she is now a disgrunted teenager with no attatchment towards any adult reference figure.

[Devonix]

If Dany was "living in a fantasy world of delusions of grandeur" can you explain why she waited 2 seasons in Meereen or why she went North to fight the undeads ?
Why did she snapped only now, if she had been crazy since season 1 ?

Here's the problem. Many of us don't even see this as a snap. Its just Danny being Danny.

[BlacKnight]

Because, until now, she had a father figure (Ser Jorah), a moral reference she respected (Varys), and an advisor she regarded as more clever than her (Tyrion).

Now she got the first killed in action, the secord executed for treason, and lose faith on the third.

She was previously a child under supervision of adults, whose validation she seek. But she is now a disgrunted teenager with no attatchment towards any adult reference.

Maybe you have missed that she exiled Jorah. He only went back the last season.
She never really trusted Varys neither Tyrion, as clearly exposed when they met first time.
She made Tyrion her hand only in season 6.
In the meanwhile she was ruling Meereen alone without burning it.

You have got all these relations wrong. That she seeked Tyrion and Varys validation is such a big error that I just have no words to comment.

[Lacuna Caster]

So it's not surprising that there were hints of previous darkness and madness which were partly or totally defensible by extenuating circumstances (done to people who had themselves done evil, serious provocation, and so forth). This is a deliberate intended affect: they wanted Dany to be both sympathetic and terrifying right up to the point when that character made her final decision. IMO, they succeeded. The events of episode 5 are directly traceable to the earlier character. If it was rushed, well, yeah. They only had a limited number of episodes to do it in.

Or you could, uh... just not do it at all? Not having time to cram in believable character development is not a particular excuse for going ahead and cramming in that development regardless. The amount of time that the writers had was a variable entirely within the writers' ability to control- it's no-one else's fault if they wrote themselves into a corner.

[The Pilgrim]

Maybe you have missed that she exiled Jorah. He only went back the last season.
She never really trusted Varys neither Tyrion, as clearly exposed when they met first time.
She made Tyrion her hand only in season 6.

Maybe you have missed how she felt after Ser Jorah was slain in battle. And she had allowed Varys and Tyrion hold her leash since she landed in Westeros. Her initial plan was to make a beeline for King's Landing and schorching it to the ground the very next second after setting foot on the continent.

In the meanwhile she was ruling Meereen alone without burning it.

There are opinions about that. Several people have already pointed some of her less-than-edificant government decissions she made there.

You have got all these relations wrong. That she seeked Tyrion and Varys validation is such a big error that I just have no words to comment.

You have no idea how much sleep I am going to lose worring about how wrong I am.

[BlacKnight]

There are opinions about that. Several people have already pointed some of her less than edificant government decissions there.

I said that Dany wasn't searching recognition from Tyrion and Varys. You are carefully trying to avoid discussing that.
Can you keep goalposts or not ?

You have no idea how much sleep I am going to lose worring about how wrong I am.

Good, everyone needs to sleep.

[Dr.Samurai]

Overall there's a huge problem in that, once Dany allies with the Northern's she's got essentially all the magic-mojo (Zombie mountain being the only exception) on one side. This just doesn't work, and it's why all of the show's attempts to halt her have featured major writing problems. They made her OP, had to try and nerf her, and as might be expected trying to patch the game while an active instance is running doesn't work so good.

Personally I'm really coming down to the belief that events in the show have happened out of order and it really should have been Cersei first, Night King last.

Dany was mandated to burn king's Landing to the ground, it's clearly one of the 'three events' Martin revealed must happen to the showrunners. However, I do not believe that, should the books ever come out, that Cersei will be occupying the Red Keep, or even be alive, by the time this happens. It is much more likely that Young Griff will take the Iron Throne first, crown himself king, and demand Dany serve as his queen and subordinate, which results in her burning down the city in a fit of rage - something that's much more in character, especially if Young Griff has already gained the support of the lords of Westeros and Dany has nothing but Dothraki and Unsullied (neither of which are all that good at sieges).

I'm behind most of this.

For me, I still don't see Dany destroying King's Landing in a fit of rage just because someone else crowns themselves king. The only way I see Dany killing all of those people is as collateral damage; if her enemies positioned their Scorpions within the crowds of commoners, or if Cersei packs commoners onto the parapets or into the keep, etc. Dany is not beyond this type of thing, which would still be beyond the pale for the "moral" characters in the show and cause actual tension that makes actual sense (I can't defeat Cersei without taking out the Scoprions/walls/keep and to do that I have to kill all these people).

What we get instead is the most unbelievable thing in a show with dragons and evil personifications of Winter.

No, but the implication is clear. To the point Jon expressly tells her not to raze the city to the ground. As does Tyrion and later Varys.

But she never had to, and she didn't say she would. You said she said she was going to kill everyone and they could barely keep her from doing so. But we see, at least in this scene, that this did not happen. She wants to win. She wants to use her dragons to win quickly and decisively. We see, in episode 5, that this is absolutely possible without a massacre of commoners.

And yet, we never see this conversation happen this way:

Tyrion - If you go in and raze the city and kill the people of King's Landing, it will not serve you in winning over the lords of Westeros. You will be queen of the ashes.

Dany - I will destroy the walls and Cersei's armies, and take the Keep. The people have nothing to fear from my dragons.

Tyrion - Oh... well, then I guess go ahead...

Instead we get melodrama for the sake of it.

Yeah, but clearly everyone was worried she was going to raze the city to the ground. Worried because she threatened to do as much, because she's acting like a total tyrant, because she's already burning people to death for not 'bending the knee', because of her Father, and because she's the sort of person that brings an army of rapist Orcs and jackbooted Stormtroopers to Westeros.

Yeah, none of this follows. Are you aware that up until episode 5 the show itself has undermined every single one of your points?

Acting like a total tyrant - Dany suspends her campaign and pledges herself to the North's cause without Jon bending the knee to her. She sits at the table with the Lady of Winterfell and the Warden of the North beside her and listens to their counsel and does what they suggest. She tolerates Sansa's passive aggressive BS the entire time. She negotiates with Cersei. She listens to her advisors to the detriment of her own campaign over and over and over again.

Burning people for not bending the knee - She didn't burn Jon when he refused. She didn't burn Sansa when Sansa outright told her the North wouldn't follow her. Ned executed a deserter of the Nights Watch. Ned would have executed Jorah. Jon executed Janos. Stannis killed his own brother for not bending the knee. This is common in this world for people that don't follow the rules and doesn't mean Dany is capable of murdering an entire city of innocent people. Jon himself doesn't think the action is egregious, because this is normal.

Army of rapists and stormtroopers - They are completely under her control and haven't raped a single person in Westeros or torn down a single stone house. In fact, the only person we see attempting rape is a northerner. In fact, the most violence we've seen from these two armies is defending Winterfell from the Night King, literally dying in service to Dany for the lives of Westerosi people. It would make no sense for Sansa and Tyrion and Varys to see these armies as rapists and stormtroopers.

So here we have every single reason for them to have faith in Dany, and instead they alienate her and undermine her, apparently leading to her becoming the Mad Queen. Unjustified; bad writing.

No, it doesnt necessarily mean that she intends on burning down the city. But Tyrion, Varys and Jon all took it to be a distinct possibility she might.

Yes, bad writing.

Turns out they were right.

Yeah, they were right because they acted like it from the beginning and caused it to happen. Amazing...

Yes they do. She said as much.

So Sansa keeps resisting, Jon puts her in line, everyone calls Dany "Your Grace". After the Long Night, Sansa is still resisting, Jon puts her in her place, the North marches South for their queen. At King's Landing Jon tries to stop the Northerners from sacking the city, they follow Dany's lead and sack the city.

In what way does Dany "not have the North"? Did the North love Aerys? Did the North love Robert? Come on...

Yes, she *has*.

She's a liberator, not a "white" savior. Adding race to it changes what it is, so don't. It's the difference between a nationalist and a white nationalist. If you have a problem with a white skinned person helping other people, just say it.

Or maybe if they devoted more episodes to developing Daenerys, people now complaining that burning King's Landing was out of character for her, would now be defending the burning as morally justificable, like they have defended or ignored her previous atrocities.

Right. Or the people saying they knew all along she would go mad would be saying they knew all along she'd take King's Landing without torching it.

Maybe they could have presented Dany as worse at her arc in the Slaver's Bay. But they presented her bad enough for a lot of us to catch the hint. It's not the scripwriters' fault that there are too many people out there projecting on her their own desires. "I wish I had a couple dragons so I could force everyone love me and force the real world bend into my private fantasy world where everything revolves around me and about how awesome I am because I have three dragons and absolutely no personal skills of worth".

So, GRR Martin, and D&D, taugh all those people a lesson: The world doesn't revolves around you. If you had absolute power you wouldn't fix the world. And if you want to become an influential and admired person, work hard to develope the skills for it, do not hope a Blue Prince, or a Dragon, will provide you with the praise you do not deserve. A lesson most people used to learn at puberty, but looks like an alarming number of people make it now past their teens without learning it.

Ah, thank god for this armchair psychology. No such thing as rushed, bad, or lazy writing. It's simply the viewers are a superficial and vapid audience...

[ambartanen]

And if improving the position of his House was so important one wonder why he's ok with betrayal the first time, but suddenly he's super loyal to the point of leading to the extinction of it. Oh wait, actually his death and that of his son could lead to Sam inheriting it, which from its point of view could be even worse.

Its one of many things that season that make sense if you put it in its intended context- he isn't refusing to betray Cersei, he's a Targaryen loyalist refusing to betray (f)Aegon who the show dropped.

But they presented her bad enough for a lot of us to catch the hint. It's not the scripwriters' fault that there are too many people out there projecting on her their own desires.

Plenty of people caught the hint but it takes a lot more than a seasons old hint and a few heavy handed foreshadowing statements to justify someone who's been perceived as a fundamentally good person by both the characters and the audience into a maniacal war criminal out to slaughter civilians for absolutely no reason.

[pendell]

Whoops! This thread is over 50 pages. Time for a new thread!

Respectfully,

Brian P.