Jump to content
Danny-

Samwell Tarly stole the spotlight.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Hmmm, let's revisit that scene...

"Bend the knee and join me, or refuse and die." Bow or burn. Dany twice says that this is the only choice.

Drogon roars which forces/scares people to bow, the Tarly's are burnt, and Daenerys looks to the other men (soliders/smallfolk/people) who are still standing, she gives them a stare, and they bow because they don't want to burn.

 

Why have the showrunners continued with this issue after last season? Why is this still a topic of discussion on the show? If this was a faux issue it would have been resolved last season, but here it is. Why?

Thanks for that. I also noticed how Dany words it as "You don't want to trade your honor for your life. I respect that." In other words, she recognizes these men as having honor, and does not express any words or sentiments of seeing them as traitors, even if Tyrion tries to persuade Randyl with his aliegances being flexible in the political grey area they are in.

And I also notice that this scene in particular is indeed filmed to make Dickon at the very least look not just honorable, but brave. They really don't spare the created perception of Dany here as ruthlessly getting prisoners to bend the knee to her or they will be burned by her dragon. She is a conquerer here, ready to burn them, if they don't bend the knee, exactly the opposite of how she starts her speech where she claims she's not what Cersei claims her to be, that she's not there to "murder" them. And then according to D&D that's exactly what she does.

Edited by sweetsunray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The reason this shouting keeps going on is for 2 reasons: D&D's really bad scripting, character building and storytelling; 2) those who love Daenerys v. d those  who love Sam, and who also probably hate Daenerys into the bargain (unless they hate Sansa even more!) -- a fanlove face off, if one so wills.  :read:

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

And I also notice that this scene in particular is indeed filmed to make Dickon at the very least look not just honorable, but brave. They really don't spare the created perception of Dany here as ruthlessly getting prisoners to bend the knee to her or they will be burned by her dragon. She is a conquerer here, ready to burn them, if they don't bend the knee, exactly the opposite of how she starts her speech where she claims she's not what Cersei claims her to be, that she's not there to "murder" them. And then according to D&D that's exactly what she does.

This ties into another issue, that being Daenerys being a commander verses Daenerys being a leader. In S4 Emelia Clarke was in a video talking about Daenerys crucifying the Slave Masters right after she took Meereen. In the video Emelia stated that this behavior was something a commander might do but was not something a good leader would do. Perhaps there is a tie in here. Perhaps Daenerys' forte is being a commander, not a leader. Shades of Darrio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

 

Why have the showrunners continued with this issue after last season? Why is this still a topic of discussion on the show? If this was a faux issue it would have been resolved last season, but here it is. Why?

Duh, it's because Sam didn't find out last season. He could easily have been told at the Citadel but the show thought it would be more dramatic for him to learn just before he told Jon about his parents.

Also, because Danny's true nature as ruler has not yet been settled and burning Westerosi alive will always be an issue for the daughter of the Mad King. 

Edited by darmody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DisneyDoc2425 said:

This ties into another issue, that being Daenerys being a commander verses Daenerys being a leader. In S4 Emelia Clarke was in a video talking about Daenerys crucifying the Slave Masters right after she took Meereen. In the video Emelia stated that this behavior was something a commander might do but was not something a good leader would do. Perhaps there is a tie in here. Perhaps Daenerys' forte is being a commander, not a leader. Shades of Darrio.

I think that is absolutely true, after all, the dragon plants no trees.  But, if she's not a leader, and Johnny Snowflake is going to sacrifice himself to save the world, where exactly does that leave Westeros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, DisneyDoc2425 said:

This ties into another issue, that being Daenerys being a commander verses Daenerys being a leader. In S4 Emelia Clarke was in a video talking about Daenerys crucifying the Slave Masters right after she took Meereen. In the video Emelia stated that this behavior was something a commander might do but was not something a good leader would do. Perhaps there is a tie in here. Perhaps Daenerys' forte is being a commander, not a leader. Shades of Darrio.

Jon prefers to be a commander as well but he restored House Umber over Sansa’s objections. He knows when to kill and when to show mercy. Frankly so does Dany. 

Edited by King Jon Snow Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

I think that is absolutely true, after all, the dragon plants no trees.  But, if she's not a leader, and Johnny Snowflake is going to sacrifice himself to save the world, where exactly does that leave Westeros.

It feels like they're preparing us for Tyrion to ultimately take over. Or some combination of Tyrion in the South and Sansa in the North.

Remember, he got close to the dragons. He inquired as to who would take over should something happen to Danny. The show loves him to a fault. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, darmody said:

Duh, it's because Sam didn't find out last season.

Exactly. Faux drama is wrapped up in the same season. This apparently isn’t faux drama. 

Quote

He could easily have been told at the Citadel 

Yup. That would have made sense. But it didn’t happen. Instead it is dragged on into another season. 

Quote

 

but the show thought it would be more dramatic for him to learn just before he told Jon about his parents.

No doubt the show prefers drama over logic. If Bran hadn’t been left off of the show for an entire season then these issues would have made for a very different series than what we have now.

Edited by The Fattest Leech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, darmody said:

It feels like they're preparing us for Tyrion to ultimately take over. Or some combination of Tyrion in the South and Sansa in the North.

Remember, he got close to the dragons. He inquired as to who would take over should something happen to Danny. The show loves him to a fault. 

Sansa is definitely getting the North, no doubt about that, especially now that she's been christened the smartest woman in the world. 

I'm not sure on Tyrion, I doubt Westeros would stand for him as king, considering his long history of turncloaking and kinslaying, and being a dwarf...... it seems inconceivable that all three majors would die in the end.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The reason this shouting keeps going on is for 2 reasons: D&D's really bad scripting, character building and storytelling; 2) those who love Daenerys v. d those  who love Sam, and who also probably hate Daenerys into the bargain (unless they hate Sansa even more!) -- a fanlove face off, if one so wills.  :read:

Those same discussions occur over book characters just as well, including about Dany. You can't put the argument of  flawed character building and storytelling forward there.

Personally, I've never considered Dany as sociopathic before when reading the books. Though whenever she deals out justice in some way or another I end up disturbed by it, and increasingly get annoyed by her not wanting to look back, even if she tries different justice angles. Some of her elements grate and tire me, but I did not consider her as being callous and without empathy. I think I have to reread her chapters, again.

I did not see her like that in the show either. Just thought it had to do with Emilia's performance or how she was directed to play her and this restricts her in emoting, or think D&D wanted it to happen. But with Bradley's interview and the point that Sam made to Jon, that did made me rethink that. It seems increasingly that this was purposefully done and directed like that. If this is true since S1, then well... I'm with Sam: she shouldn't be on a throne as absolute monarch.

Well, D&D still wanted it to happen it seems increasingly, but not just for the shocks and giggles to wave away after with cognitive dissonance (not our Dany), but basically with Dany forcising the issue really.

 

Edited by sweetsunray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

It is interesting that the showrunners used the term 'murder'. 

Of course they don't always know what they're talking about even though they write the show, but it seems to close out this moronic debate about treason as the excuse.  The showrunners called it murder.  In the segment she specifically states she's killing them if they refuse to bend the knee.

I wouldn’t rely on anything D&D says as they are quite capable of changing “murder” into “justice” in the next episode.  Didn’t Davos call Dany a “just woman”? Their inconsistency is truly baffling. Probably next episode, Sam will be all fine and the deaths of his father and brother will be all forgotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, teej6 said:

I wouldn’t rely on anything D&D says as they are quite capable of changing “murder” into “justice” in the next episode.  Didn’t Davos call Dany a “just woman”? Their inconsistency is truly baffling. Probably next episode, Sam will be all fine and the deaths of his father and brother will be all forgotten.

Maybe after he is saved by Dany and her dragons. After rewatch that scene Sam tells Jon that he is a true heir for the iron throne not the true heir. I think that’s interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Those same discussions occur over book characters just as well, including about Dany. You can't put the argument of  flawed character building and storytelling forward there.

Personally, I've never considered Dany as sociopathic before when reading the books. Though whenever she deals out justice in some way or another I end up disturbed by it, and increasingly get annoyed by her not wanting to look back, even if she tries different justice angles. Some of her elements grate and tire me, but I did not consider her as being callous and without empathy. I think I have to reread her chapters, again.

I did not see her like that in the show either. Just thought it had to do with Emilia's performance or how she was directed to play her and this restricts her in emoting. But with Bradley's interview and the point that Sam made to Jon, that did made me rethink that. It seems increasingly that this was purposefully done and directed like that. IF this is true since S1, then well... I'm with Sam: she shouldn't be on a throne as absolute monarch.

 

But they are portraying danny as someone with sociopathic tendencies for several years. The way danny treated people with power in essos was completly sociopathic and then the scenes with the people calling her mhisa as if she was a godess were very disturbing.

I would say that D&D wanted to be able to go either the (semi) mad queen route or good ruler. And now either option can be seen as something organic that has been prepared for seasons...

Honestly, I think how the show will handle the consequences of jon's parentage will decide a lot about the quality of the series. Even with sam's comments I don t want to see jon turning against danny because she is too violent. He has known her for months and has fallen in love with her knowing how she acts. It would be really strange if jon now decided she doesn t desserve the IT and tried to put his claim forward… On the other hand, if the great houses of westeros simply don t want danny as their queen and danny decides that she desserves to be queen anyhow I could see jon stepping forward to stop another war. Even if it hurts danny...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, divica said:

But they are portraying danny as someone with sociopathic tendencies for several years. The way danny treated people with power in essos was completly sociopathic and then the scenes with the people calling her mhisa as if she was a godess were very disturbing.

I would say that D&D wanted to be able to go either the (semi) mad queen route or good ruler. And now either option can be seen as something organic that has been prepared for seasons...

Honestly, I think how the show will handle the consequences of jon's parentage will decide a lot about the quality of the series. Even with sam's comments I don t want to see jon turning against danny because she is too violent. He has known her for months and has fallen in love with her knowing how she acts. It would be really strange if jon now decided she doesn t desserve the IT and tried to put his claim forward… On the other hand, if the great houses of westeros simply don t want danny as their queen and danny decides that she desserves to be queen anyhow I could see jon stepping forward to stop another war. Even if it hurts danny...

Well, I don't want Jon to commit cognitive dissonance about Dany just because he fell in love with her. Though the show has left out some examples of the books they have showcased how Jon chooses what he feels is morally right for the "realm" over his personal desires: Ygritte, when Stannis offers him WF, Mel trying to seduce him. The show doesn't have Val, but book-Jon is very attracted to her, almost smitten, and at some point they flirt a lot, but the scene ends with Val having Shyreen and calling her "unclean" and how her mother should have killed her. This attitude disturbs Jon. 

How the show will have Jon handle this we will have to see, but I don't think he'll wave it off that easily, not with a man like Davos and Sam as his trusted advisors. Davos doesn't know either. He at some point worked with Mel, until he discovered what she made Stannis do with Shyreen. Jon banished her for it. And what about Varys? Varys knows what Dany did and urged Tyrion to find a way to control Dany's "impulses" better. What will Varys do when he learns that Jon Snow is actually Aegon Targaryen? And then we have Dany. She will realize at some point that Sam is very close to Jon. She didn't know that yet. But it's quite likely that she will discover this soon. Will she try to make "amends" to "win him over"? I'm betting she'll offer to make him Lord of House Tarly. I'm also betting it will only increase Sam's dislike of her. Sam's a kingmaker, right. He made Jon the LC in a clever way. Manipulating situations, rather than people. Sansa's also a kingmaker, helping out Jon with ther army of the Vale.

I don't expect this to be resolved by next episode at all. Tyrion's faith in Cersei and Sam's distrust of Dany set the political stage, not by war,  but I think we should not underestimate Sam's abilities in putting Dany check mate at some point later in the season when it comes to the iron throne.

Edited by sweetsunray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

Maybe after he is saved by Dany and her dragons. After rewatch that scene Sam tells Jon that he is a true heir for the iron throne not the true heir. I think that’s interesting. 

Who is saved by Dany? I don’t think “a true heir” makes sense. There’s no other way to say it other than “the true heir”. The true heir is singular, there can be only one. As to the Tarly killings, as someone upthread said, the reason D&D raised it as an issue again this season is because they mean to create conflict around it. They are not the most subtle writers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, teej6 said:

Who is saved by Dany? I don’t think “a true heir” makes sense. There’s no other way to say it other than “the true heir”. The true heir is singular, there can be only one. As to the Tarly killings, as someone upthread said, the reason D&D raised it as an issue again this season is because they mean to create conflict around it. They are not the most subtle writers. 

Maybe Sam will chance his mind after he saved by Dany. Maybe I heard it wrong. I will watch the episode again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sweetsunray said:

Well, I don't want Jon to commit cognitive dissonance about Dany just because he fell in love with her. Though the show has left out some examples of the books they have showcased how Jon chooses what he feels is morally right for the "realm" over his personal desires: Ygritte, when Stannis offers him WF, Mel trying to seduce him. The show doesn't have Val, but book-Jon is very attracted to her, almost smitten, and at some point they flirt a lot, but the scene ends with Val having Shyreen and calling her "unclean" and how her mother should have killed her. This attitude disturbs Jon. 

How the show will have Jon handle this we will have to see, but I don't think he'll wave it off that easily, not with a man like Davos and Sam as his trusted advisors. Davos doesn't know either. He at some point worked with Mel, until he discovered what she made Stannis do with Shyreen. Jon banished her for it. And what about Varys? Varys knows what Dany did and urged Tyrion to find a way to control Dany's "impulses" better. What will Varys do when he learns that Jon Snow is actually Aegon Targaryen? And then we have Dany. She will realize at some point that Sam is very close to Jon. She didn't know that yet. But it's quite likely that she will discover this soon. Will she try to make "amends" to "win him over"? I'm betting she'll offer to make him Lord of House Tarly. I'm also betting it will only increase Sam's dislike of her.

Ok. I think that jon will obviously want to talk with her about burning the tarlys but as jon said a king/queen has to kill people sometimes. And while danny could have handled the situation better it isn t a hideus act. She has a perfect justification for what she did. I don t think this is a deal breaker for jonerys…

Another interesting thing that the show might want to explore is that jon burned his hand and understands the pain of being burned while danny has no idea. So I hope someone talks about that not everyone that deserves to die should be burned alive. There are much better methods…

And I think you are right. Someone must talk to danny about how westerosi feel about burning people. However I don t understand how jon and davos might like danny but turn agains her because of the burnings. They know she used her dragons to burn an army… And burning criminals is diferent from burning children...

In regards to danny, sam and jon relationships. I think it will be pretty awkward. Sam knows that danny killing his relatives was justified even if she could have spared at least his brother. On the other hand he doesn t know they were burned alive… And jon must be acting diferently towards danny in the next ep and she probably will think it is because of sam. I have no idea what kind of conversation they will have...

But overall my point is. Given all that jon know about danny I don t think it makes sense for him to turn against her because she burns bad people. I think it will need to be more than that… He will have to know that westeros won t accept danny. That the only person all the kingdoms might accept is Aegon targaryen… I don t think his feelings about danny should change in 2 eps (they will only deal with human enemies from ep 4 forward). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DisneyDoc2425 said:

One of my main concerns regarding Daenerys' “executions” is not so much that she killed people (though I do feel some of them were inappropriate) but rather the seeming sense of sadistic satisfaction/gratification she appeared to derive from the “killing” behaviors, coupled with the lack of remorse afterwards. These include the following:

Refusing to look away and actually relishing watching Drogo kill her brother with the molten gold.

Standing on the balcony listening to the screams of the Masters she was crucifying in Meereen.

Caressing the back one of the Family Heads in Meereen while she is watching in an seemingly gratified manner as her dragons burns alive and then eats another Family Head.

The smiling and gratified look she had on her face while listening to their screams when she trapped and burned the Khals.

The lack of any empathy when telling Sam about her murdering (as per D&D) of his father/brother (indicating a lack of remorse in this case).

Again the above incidents have nothing to do with whether you perceive the “killing” behaviors as being justified or not, but rather what she personally derived emotionally from engaging in the behaviors. The sadistic satisfaction/gratification she derived from the behaviors would be consistent with a sociopathic component to her personality and is reinforced by her lack of remorse for the behaviors (at least I do not recall seeing any in my recent watching of the whole series).

GRRM is famous for imparting “gray” components (both good and bad character traits) to many characters in his writings. It is all relative of course but at some point the gray can evolve to darkness (as well as in the other direction for characters like Theon and Jamie). If the comments made by John Bradley are genuine then things don't look too good for Daenerys' fate. Perhaps they are red herrings and Daenerys will also move away from the dark side of her personality. I would prefer this. We shall see.

 

i agree with you. she has shown no remorse for killing sams father and brother and the why that she told was pretty cold. which ones did you think were inappropriate? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Those same discussions occur over book characters just as well, including about Dany. You can't put the argument of  flawed character building and storytelling forward there.

Personally, I've never considered Dany as sociopathic before when reading the books. Though whenever she deals out justice in some way or another I end up disturbed by it, and increasingly get annoyed by her not wanting to look back, even if she tries different justice angles. Some of her elements grate and tire me, but I did not consider her as being callous and without empathy. I think I have to reread her chapters, again.

I did not see her like that in the show either. Just thought it had to do with Emilia's performance or how she was directed to play her and this restricts her in emoting, or think D&D wanted it to happen. But with Bradley's interview and the point that Sam made to Jon, that did made me rethink that. It seems increasingly that this was purposefully done and directed like that. If this is true since S1, then well... I'm with Sam: she shouldn't be on a throne as absolute monarch.

Well, D&D still wanted it to happen it seems increasingly, but not just for the shocks and giggles to wave away after with cognitive dissonance (not our Dany), but basically with Dany forcising the issue really.

 

I remember one poster describing Dany as "a vicious teenager". As far as the books go, that's unfair.  She has a cruel and vindictive streak, but also a kind heart.  If that seems contradictory, that's human nature.  She does try to forgive people if she can.  She gave her brother endless chances, forgave Ser Barristan   his deception, wanted to forgive Ser Jorah's treason and still forbade Daario to kill him, and refused to harm child hostages.

Dany in the series is quite a different person.   Proud, selfish, ruthless, and expecting people to bend the knee or burn.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

I also notice that this scene in particular is indeed filmed to make Dickon at the very least look not just honorable, but brave.

I agree with this.  Dickon's not the only one to be filmed this way in the face of Dany's threats of burning.  Hizdahr was presented this way when one of the other masters was burned in front of him (even if he did confess fear later).  Yet Hizdahr's character was thrown aside as soon as the writers had no further use for him, with no one speaking a word of regret for his fate (or even glancing back as he died).  Dickon is at least a step up from this, seeing as his death comes up in a later episode. 

Some people have characterized Dickon's action here as foolish, but I wonder if any of these people have asked themselves how they'd handle the guilt if they stood to one side while a loved one was painfully killed.  Dickon would've saved his life by kneeling, but would he have been able to live with himself afterwards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×