Jump to content
Montelukast

A Misunderstanding of "Big Bad" / Why Cersei Last Makes Sense

Recommended Posts

Have seen many fans complain that the was the show chose to order the Army of the North's battles (Army of Dead, then Cersei) turns Cersei in to the "Big Bad" of the show -- a more fearsome threat than the White Walkers. While I did have some disappointments with S8E3, I think this particular one is wrong -- and reveals a misunderstanding (and short changing) of what the show has really been about for seven years.

What has caused the most hardship, suffering, death, war, pain on the show?

Has it been the White Walkers? No.

Has it been Cersei? No.

It has been the idea that power comes from strength and bloodline, instead of from cooperation and moral righteousness -- that ruling is a goal to be pursued at all costs, and its end justifies any means.

Basically every conflict in the show has been caused by a thirst for power -- the desire to rule. Whether it's over the Seven Kingdoms, or a region, or city, or family -- all the bad, ugly stuff is all trickle down from various characters' desire to rule -- and the belief that legitimacy comes from strength.

In short, the show's BIG BAD isn't a person -- it is THE THRONE itself. (Obviously, not the physical throne -- but the idea of it.)

The obsession with POWER has caused more pain and suffering than the White Walkers. Cersei is its current manifestation, but it is bigger than her -- it goes back centuries -- it is THE WHEEL that Dany pledged to shatter.

This is why I believe that the show's ultimate battle will be against the very idea of the throne, and that the show will end with a change to the system of rule in Westeros. Not saying it's going to be direct democracy, but the idea of a single person that rules all others will be upended.

Somehow, THE THRONE will be defeated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not turning it to the old Westeros after defeating the Targaryens was a stupid decision which came from Jon Aryyn and Ned Stark, considering Robert didn't want to be the king in the first place. In the books, that's clearly mentioned, Robert even says Jon or Ned should've been the king, he says he never wanted it, and then Ned says Robert had the best claim.

Not sure if anyone mentioned in the TV show, but Cersei says Ned could take the throne after the sack of King's Landing, then Ned says he also didn't want it.

Not sure about the democracy, but at least they should turn to the old system without having the Iron Throne. If you divide the seven kingdoms to its old shape, people like Littlefinger or Varys would've less impact on the events, these kind of people are more dangerous when you gather all the power of Westeros in one place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Montelukast said:

Have seen many fans complain that the was the show chose to order the Army of the North's battles (Army of Dead, then Cersei) turns Cersei in to the "Big Bad" of the show -- a more fearsome threat than the White Walkers. While I did have some disappointments with S8E3, I think this particular one is wrong -- and reveals a misunderstanding (and short changing) of what the show has really been about for seven years.

What has caused the most hardship, suffering, death, war, pain on the show?

Has it been the White Walkers? No.

Has it been Cersei? No.

It has been the idea that power comes from strength and bloodline, instead of from cooperation and moral righteousness -- that ruling is a goal to be pursued at all costs, and its end justifies any means.

Basically every conflict in the show has been caused by a thirst for power -- the desire to rule. Whether it's over the Seven Kingdoms, or a region, or city, or family -- all the bad, ugly stuff is all trickle down from various characters' desire to rule -- and the belief that legitimacy comes from strength.

In short, the show's BIG BAD isn't a person -- it is THE THRONE itself. (Obviously, not the physical throne -- but the idea of it.)

The obsession with POWER has caused more pain and suffering than the White Walkers. Cersei is its current manifestation, but it is bigger than her -- it goes back centuries -- it is THE WHEEL that Dany pledged to shatter.

This is why I believe that the show's ultimate battle will be against the very idea of the throne, and that the show will end with a change to the system of rule in Westeros. Not saying it's going to be direct democracy, but the idea of a single person that rules all others will be upended.

Somehow, THE THRONE will be defeated.

Now that would be most unrealistic element of the story , forming of some sort of Utopia, not the Dragons, Others, resurrection or Shadows.

There is overused Martin's quote but still I feel it applies:

Quote

Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

It is almost impossible to change nature of man, especially in so short time-span and its struggle to achieve various ambitions, desires in world with limited resources, even men even in our world with more developed societies and technology are far from that achievement.

Even when enforced with Dragons, presumed Utopia usually becomes tyranny or if centralized power devolves there would be many regional wars, that is my opinion.

Edited by Eltharion21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm definitely not suggesting it becomes a Utopia, that all becomes well in the Kingdom, or that problematic individuals will cease making tough decisions.

I'm just saying that the current cultural approach in Westeros to determining "claim" is f-ed up. And leads to terrible things.

Power via strength and power at all costs are the true Big Bads of the show, not the White Walkers.

Edited by Montelukast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Erkan12 said:

If you divide the seven kingdoms to its old shape, people like Littlefinger or Varys would've less impact on the events, these kind of people are more dangerous when you gather all the power of Westeros in one place.

This seems possible! And would represent what I'm talking about. Some change to the current system.

If the whole story just ends up with a new ruler, and business as usual, what was it all for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if they divide westeros up again it will just result in a bunch of major wars. Before the Targs came there was almsot always at least two kingdoms at war or on the brink of war. By uniting the seven kingdoms you don't have one greedy king trying to take over his neighbor. What really needs to happen in westeros in my opinion is to go from a feudilistic system to a complete monarchy. In the books this is shown alot more the the TV show but the lords have ALOT of power. Tywin basically owns robert.

 

Also I think they had the white walker fight first because they wanted to even the odds between cersei and dany. Before dany had more troops and three dragons. Even with the iron fleet and the golden company cersei didn't have as many troops as dany had dothraki. Add in the north and dany would win even without the dragons. And considering aegon and his sisters started their conquest with three dragons and a few hundred men and conquered all of westeros by force (except dorne)  it seems like dany's victory would be assured.  By obliterating dany's army like that it even things out. And the dragons need to heal up as well.

 

The problem they had with the WW is the same problem every writer has when it comes to the "unstoppable evil force". You build an enemy up to be unbeatable and then have to have them beaten.  It causes a problem. Tolkien had the way to defeat the big bad from the start which allowed his story to work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Montelukast said:

Have seen many fans complain that the was the show chose to order the Army of the North's battles (Army of Dead, then Cersei) turns Cersei in to the "Big Bad" of the show -- a more fearsome threat than the White Walkers. While I did have some disappointments with S8E3, I think this particular one is wrong -- and reveals a misunderstanding (and short changing) of what the show has really been about for seven years.

What has caused the most hardship, suffering, death, war, pain on the show?

Has it been the White Walkers? No.

Has it been Cersei? No.

It has been the idea that power comes from strength and bloodline, instead of from cooperation and moral righteousness -- that ruling is a goal to be pursued at all costs, and its end justifies any means.

Basically every conflict in the show has been caused by a thirst for power -- the desire to rule. Whether it's over the Seven Kingdoms, or a region, or city, or family -- all the bad, ugly stuff is all trickle down from various characters' desire to rule -- and the belief that legitimacy comes from strength.

In short, the show's BIG BAD isn't a person -- it is THE THRONE itself. (Obviously, not the physical throne -- but the idea of it.)

The obsession with POWER has caused more pain and suffering than the White Walkers. Cersei is its current manifestation, but it is bigger than her -- it goes back centuries -- it is THE WHEEL that Dany pledged to shatter.

This is why I believe that the show's ultimate battle will be against the very idea of the throne, and that the show will end with a change to the system of rule in Westeros. Not saying it's going to be direct democracy, but the idea of a single person that rules all others will be upended.

Somehow, THE THRONE will be defeated.

Well said, and I completely agree.

Share this post


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

This seems possible! And would represent what I'm talking about. Some change to the current system.

If the whole story just ends up with a new ruler, and business as usual, what was it all for?

Jorah point something out in season one and the books when dany says don't the common people wish for our (the tarageryan ruler) to return. He says the common people wish for a good harvest and a summer that never ends. Well it wasn't the exact quote but close enough. Most people in westeros really don't care who sits on the throne but just want to live their lives. At the beggining of the book we have horrible corruption and a king who spends his time drinking and whoring and running his country into the ground. If Ned hadn't of found out about joffreys true father (or just let it go) you would have had a horrible king but no war or at least not like there was. Now you will have a good king or queen who cares about the common people. Assuming jon or dany take the throne. Will that really change things who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, snow is the man said:

 

 

Also I think they had the white walker fight first because they wanted to even the odds between cersei and dany. Before dany had more troops and three dragons. Even with the iron fleet and the golden company cersei didn't have as many troops as dany had dothraki. Add in the north and dany would win even without the dragons. And considering aegon and his sisters started their conquest with three dragons and a few hundred men and conquered all of westeros by force (except dorne)  it seems like dany's victory would be assured.  By obliterating dany's army like that it even things out. And the dragons need to heal up as well.

 

The problem they had with the WW is the same problem every writer has when it comes to the "unstoppable evil force". You build an enemy up to be unbeatable and then have to have them beaten.  It causes a problem. Tolkien had the way to defeat the big bad from the start which allowed his story to work.

 

Yes I also mentioned this before that Dany loses her army so it evens a bit with Cersei to create a kind of suspense for viewers. The problem with the narrative is the bad story telling as all characters are presented as idiots apart from Cersei. 

And too many stupid elements all used to delay Danys confrontation with Cersei. 

Well George was influenced by Tolkien and there is a straight parallel between the Throne and the Ring, both represent ultimate power. In Tolkien’s story was about how to destroy it, here is about how to conquer it. But...

If Danys breaking of the wheel vision comes true then perhaps Westeros goes to democracy, even though Tyrion said that for her vision to be achieved it may surpass her lifetime. 

Edited by Nightwish

Share this post


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

Yes I also mentioned this before that Dany loses her army so it evens a bit with Cersei to create a kind of suspense for viewers. The problem with the narrative is the bad story telling as all characters are presented as idiots apart from Cersei. 

And too many stupid elements all used to delay Danys confrontation with Cersei. 

Well George was influenced by Tolkien and there is a straight parallel between the Throne and the Ring, both represent ultimate power. In Tolkien’s story was about how to destroy it, here is about how to conquer it. But...

If Danys breaking of the wheel vision comes true then perhaps Westeros goes to democracy, even though Tyrion said that for her vision to be achieved it may surpass her lifetime. 

But her goal is to become queen. Not like a constitutional monarchy (it's what britain has now pretty much and is just a democracy with a noble family who does ceremonies but has no real power) but a COMPLETE monarchy. And in modern history we see that it is INCREDIBLY rare that a democracy works the first time around. If she died without an heir there would be war to see who would sit on the throne. When we saw aegon (the one who was Sir duncans squire) tried to have reforms that helped the comman man and the nobles fought him every inch. If the nobles heard that the comman man would be given any amount of power they would revolt on mass. And unlike what some people seem to think ALOT of the comman man would side with the lords (this happened in real life alot) because it's all they know. 

 

As for the stupid elements I agree that they should have made it make more sense.   Also cersei is idiotic just as much as anyone else. Her plan would never have worked. If she had blown up the church like that the common people and noble families alike would have ripped her apart.  Not said okay lets let her be queen.  She had noone in her corner except qyburn and the mountain (and jaime who wasn't even there) so even if she did blow it up she would have been killed and someone else would have taken power. She won against drone because euron won it for her and against the tyrells because of jaime's skill in tactics and in getting the tarley's to side with them.

Edited by snow is the man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, snow is the man said:

But her goal is to become queen. Not like a constitutional monarchy (it's what britain has now pretty much and is just a democracy with a noble family who does ceremonies but has no real power) but a COMPLETE monarchy. And in modern history we see that it is INCREDIBLY rare that a democracy works the first time around. If she died without an heir there would be war to see who would sit on the throne. When we saw aegon (the one who was Sir duncans squire) tried to have reforms that helped the comman man and the nobles fought him every inch. If the nobles heard that the comman man would be given any amount of power they would revolt on mass. And unlike what some people seem to think ALOT of the comman man would side with the lords (this happened in real life alot) because it's all they know. 

I don’t disagree apparently in order to bring a change or any change she has to get the power  first. The tricky part is releasing it or letting go just like the ring I guess, because this is what power is about not to get corrupted by it. So I am not amazed how hardly she tries to get the throne especially if she has a bigger plan for the greater good as Tyrion mentioned. 

We don’t know what the breaking of the wheel actually means but we can theorize that she talks about another political system. Great changes take time. Perhaps this is what Tyrion meant that she needs to establish her reign and slowly reform the people around her. Such a plan could outlive her. She will need an heir to finish what she started if that the case but I guess they have already foreshadowed that the Targaryen line can continue. 

Can it be so predictable? I don’t know. But the breaking of the wheel has been mentioned and also that this will be a lengthy process (Tyrion words to her). 

Edited by Nightwish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nightwish said:

I don’t disagree apparently in order to bring a change or any change she has to get the power  first. The tricky part is releasing it or letting go just like the ring I guess, because this is what power is about not to get corrupted by it. So I am not amazed how hardly she tries to get the throne especially if she has a bigger plan for the greater good as Tyrion mentioned. 

We don’t know what the breaking of the wheel actually means but we can theorize that she talks about another political system. Great changes take time. Perhaps this is what Tyrion meant that she needs to establish her reign and slowly reform the people around her. Such a plan could outlive her. She will need an heir to finish what she started if that the case but I guess they have already foreshadowed that the Targaryen line can continue. 

Can it be so predictable? I don’t know. But the breaking of the wheel has been mentioned and also that this will be a lengthy process (Tyrion words to her). 

Before aegon came there was seven kingdoms with absolute monarchies. Aegon set up the feudal system in order to rule such a big kingdom  easier. I have never heard her talk about democracy except with tyrion and she didn't say if she agreed with tyrion or not. She might give the common people more rights but that's been done before.  For example one king made it illegal for a lord to get to to force a peasent women to  sleep with their lord on their wedding night (I think it was called the rule of first night or something). I think she is more likely to set up a complete monarchy and give the peasents more rights and protections then anything else. But she and then her children (assuming she wins) would rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, snow is the man said:

Before aegon came there was seven kingdoms with absolute monarchies. Aegon set up the feudal system in order to rule such a big kingdom  easier. I have never heard her talk about democracy except with tyrion and she didn't say if she agreed with tyrion or not. She might give the common people more rights but that's been done before.  For example one king made it illegal for a lord to get to to force a peasent women to  sleep with their lord on their wedding night (I think it was called the rule of first night or something). I think she is more likely to set up a complete monarchy and give the peasents more rights and protections then anything else. But she and then her children (assuming she wins) would rule.

She did include Targaryens in the list of houses she mentions about breaking the wheel. So...it doesn’t make sense to me if breaking the wheel doesn’t mean another political system other than monarchy. 

Tyrion talks about her idea or vision discussing issues that she needs to resolve. She cant disagree with her own plan. Whatever this might be. 

Edited by Nightwish

Share this post


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

She did include Targaryens in the list of houses she mentions about breaking the wheel. Tyrion talks about her idea or vision discussing issues that she needs to resolve. She cant disagree with her own plan. Whatever this might be. 

And at the same time she says she was born to rule the seven kingdoms since her family is targs. Maybe she will change some things like I said but I don't see her giving up power or keeping her future children from having it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, snow is the man said:

And at the same time she says she was born to rule the seven kingdoms since her family is targs. Maybe she will change some things like I said but I don't see her giving up power or keeping her future children from having it

Well she does need to get the throne to make a change, of course is another thing getting the throne and another thing letting it go. I am just saying that if her intention is to establish a complete monarch this does not qualify as breaking the wheel. since we don’t know her “vision” let’s just say that she presents herself to have good intentions that can bring changes. But who knows? 

Frodo transformed to a different person when he was about to release the ring, perhaps she will also transform after taking the throne. It’s really open to all directions. 

Edited by Nightwish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with Cersei being the "final boss"  is that she as an idiot that has not actually earned her status. An absurd number of coincidences and departures of logic have got her where she is. She might work better if she had someone like Littlefinger- a competent politician that has guided so much of the politics of Westeros currently on her side. Unfortunately she has a mute zombie, a mad scientist with no apparent political ability or connection to any other storyline and 2d, cartoonish pirate who appeared very late in the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cercei is disappointing as the "big bad" precisely because of what you are saying.  The point seemed to be that the pursuit of power is a folly and that it makes no difference whose butt warms the iron chair when it all comes crashing down.  The AoTD should've been humanity's reckoning for their failure to set aside their pointless squabbles and cause them to have to choose between standing together or falling apart.

 

Now it's out of order.  Turns out the White Walker side quest did not require any kind of paradigm shift or change in the status quo to overcome.  Just a little sleight of hand.  This existential threat to the realm was resolved much the same as every other conflict we've seen.  Took longer to oust the Freys than defeat the NK.

 

The entire series was clearly building around this impending "greater threat" only to revert right back to season 1 and bickering over an uncomfortable chair.  If there is a major political shift in the seven kingdoms once Cercei is defeated it won't be because of anything to do with the AoTD rendering their entire plot pointless.  They might as well have been another wildling invasion.

 

The AoTD was suppose to undermine the game of thrones, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting and optimistic idea. I would be less mad at them if they decided to take this route, though I must say that defeating the throne was/would have been rallying together against the long night/winter/night king/death. That was where the buildup was going that was where the story was supposed to head. 

Doubling back to Cersei and then defeating the idea of the throne seems like a waste of screen time and plot but it certainly sounds a little less ghastly an idea than someone taking the throne or someone declaring democracy or someone establishing a matriarchal dictatorship. 

At this point I have no faith whatsoever that any crippled meaning or message will crawl out from under this trainwreck (other than #girlpower of course), but I would be open to this idea, with the sidenote that it doesn’t redeem season 8 in any way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Amaretto said:

 An absurd number of coincidences and departures of logic have got her where she is.

So a pretty accurate depiction of the War of the Roses or 30 Years War. 

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

×