Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Isewein

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Still has to be Daenerys, really.
  2. But it would have been viewed negatively in a good way. As in, Jon would have been viewed more ambivalently for it, but the characters as a whole would have remained consistent. Mind you that even in the ending we got to see Jon didn't really kill her to avenge the innocents, but to protect his family. For his motivations it wouldn't have made a difference, and I think he would have been just as (un)justified from a Westerosi perspective.
  3. Isewein

    Jon killing Dany doesn’t work for me

    But that's the thing. Yes, in E6 her behaviour and speeches can be congruous with her general megalomaniac tendency. Not her burning of the entire capital of the kingdom she wants to rule after it has surrendered, however. No prisoners - sure. Burning of the keep regardless of the human shields to not let Cersei get away - sure. Even Stalinist mock-trials of Lannister supporters - if you really want to. But burning the entire people she wants to liberate? That's not megalomaniac or ruthless. That's flat out insanity, rendered even more implausible by her reversion to rational in E6.
  4. Isewein

    What happens to Meereen?

    Naath is clearly fanservice. Oh look, the POC are returning to their ancestral homeland (bc all POC are somehow the same) to save future generations from slavery; look we aren't racist! I'm positively sure that won't be in the books, and that the Unsullied would return to Mereen and continue Dany's crusade without her.
  5. Isewein

    A season of Jons betrayal

    That's not GRRM's fault, that's D&D's own mistake of omitting Dragonbinder and F!Aegon coming back to haunt them.
  6. Isewein

    Jon killing Dany doesn’t work for me

    This precisely is the reason it doesn't work for me. The divergence between the morals presented to us, the audience, through not-so-subtle techniques and the morals of the feudal society we have been presented with quite accurately for 7 seasons breaks the fourth wall and hence my suspension of disbelief. It turns Jon and Dany from being a multifaceted characters existing within the world to plot devices, to hero and villain of a classic black-and-white Fantasy story. Nothing wrong with those, but it ain't GoT. And this is coming from someone who had been hoping for Jon-vs-Dany as the final coda of the Song of Ice and Fire for a long, long time.
  7. It's pretty sad to see how many people seem to think the reaction is because of some desire for a flawless heroine. I can only speak for myself, but I think it's quite the contrary. I had always hoped for the Jon-vs.-Dany ending, but wanted it to be one of the moral ambiguity appropriate to ASOIAF. I very much hoped to see Dany as an eventually "villainous" (from the perspective of the Westerosi) foreign invader and tyrant, and in fact these darker aspects of her character are what made the character interesting to me in the first place (without them she would have been just a boring and inhuman Hollywood princess). My favourite scene in the last season was the Battle of the Goldroad, which was moral ambiguity done right - Dany didn't do anything she hadn't done before in Essos, but because the show let us experience it from a sympathetic perspective (Dickon, Jaime and Bronn) it acquired new nuances. When Jaime charged the dragon I was rooting for both sides simultaneously, and that is a great narrative achievement comparable to the Blackwater between Tyrion and Stannis. As has been rightly pointed out in this thread, in-universe this moral ambiguity still exists: sacking a city which repeatedly refused to surrender is cruel but not unheard of, Tyrion only convinces Jon by bringing up the alleged threat to his sisters, and Jon is anything but hailed as a liberator following the deed. But across the Fourth Wall all ambiguity has needlessly been shattered by exaggerating Dany's propensity for violence beyond anything remotely reasonable within her character as presented before. Even between episodes 5 and 6 there was no continuity. In 5 she "snapped" and went mad due to Targaryen genetics; in 6 it was all presented as an end-justifies-means question, without making clear what end exactly burning all the people she wished to liberate would serve. This not only cleared Dany, but also Jon of any real interest as a character. When Jon went to murder Dany, I couldn't root for either of them - not for Dany because the show had demonised her through its incongruous characterisation, and not for Jon because it had made it too easy for him. The narrative so clearly pushed me to take a side here, and one side only, that it ruined the possibility for real tragedy.
  8. Isewein

    Why Did the Show Turn on Jon?

    Ah the more I think about it the more blatantly stupid basically every plot point that happens after Dany's death turns out to be. They might as well have instituted Sam's proposal; it could hardly have seemed more out of left field than the epilogue we got. And Winter! Winter has come, saw and made right off again.
  9. Isewein

    No one really cares about KL massacre

    It's just that the show took any moral gravity from his decision by telling its audience that Dany is suddenly evil incarnate in such a hamfisted way. We still saw Jon grapple with whether murdering her to protect Sansa was the right thing in the beautiful conversation with Tyrion, but it loses so much power due to the "right" thing to do already being established to the audience with the whole stupid Nazi allegory.
  10. Isewein

    Dany should have been Queen for a season

    Basically Jon as Jamie 2.0. I like it. Certainly better than what we got. I still prefer Dany as a tragic hero rather than a "Mad Queen", but if it was to be done this should have been the way. Don't understand why you would switch up Tyrion's and Varys' roles, though. Varys seems more utilitarian while Tyrion (in the show) shows greater personal attachment to Dany.
  11. Isewein

    A Beautiful Tragedy...

    Or they could have just, you know, swallowed their pride and done more seasons or let someone else do it. Agree with everything you wrote, but I have little sympathy for D&D here. I agree that transplanting an ending inorganically onto a show that hadn't sufficiently explored its themes is part of what left it so lackluster, but I'm not sure completely deviating from the source material and telling their own ending would have turned out any better.
  12. Spot on. The shots of Dany as a Sith Lord weren't a coincidence I guess; they really switched to telling a Star Wars story here. Larger than life heroes and villains existing in a vacuum and choosing Light or Dark. There is an epic appeal to it but it's not ASOIAF.
  13. Damn that would have been so poetic! For her, who all her life tried to avoid becoming her father, to set off the wildfire caches and fulfill his last wishes. Now that could have believably driven her over the edge. The writers missed so many great narrative opportunities. The Golden Company and Iron Bank switching to JAegon through Varys, the wildfire caches, the prospect of Jon and Dany marrying, Arya's faceless skills... All that would have perfectly fit into the plot they were trying to get across, but for some reason they just didn't bother.
  14. Isewein

    No one really cares about KL massacre

    As they shouldn't, really. I would have been even more appalled had they waxed on and on about how many innocents died. Varys and Tyrion really were the only characters with a history of championing smallfolk; for any others it should have been a particularly brutal but conventional sack. I'm glad Jon ultimately decided to go Sic Semper Tyrannis to protect his family, upon being manipulated by Tyrion to save his hide, rather than to punish Dany for roasting smallfolk. That was the only thing that made the Jon/Dany scene somewhat believable for me. Of course, it also only makes it more clear that all the excessive, senseless burning in E5 was addressed solely at us, the audience. To kindly inform us who we are meant to root for when Good Boy Jon Snow betrays his lover's/relative's trust and foregoes his oath of allegiance to his queen (much more serious crimes in a mediaeval context than any number of burned smallfolk!) to assassinate Dany. Because anything else could have actually showed him as a grey and interesting character, and we couldn't have that now, could we?