Jump to content
Ran

[Spoilers] Episode 805 Discussion

Recommended Posts

Just now, The Bard of Banefort said:

Watching Dany comb through the streets, I got the impression that she was punishing the people for not loving her. It would match up with what else we’ve seen this season, with her being unable to cope with no longer being seen as a goddess.

I agree, when she complains that the people don't love her, as she is used to in Essos, when she blames the people of KL for not rising up against Cersei, and then she ends it with 'let it be fear'....

I still think it was poorly done and could have worked much, much better with more set up and finesse, but I believe this is what we're supposed to take away from it, despite that the showrunners claim  'it was pesonal' whatever that means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/12/2019 at 9:12 PM, SeanF said:

The lesson she took was "Let them hate me, so long as they fear me."

This doesn't even work because they're basically all dead. How many survivors did we actually see w/Arya at the end? I'm sure in a technical sense, poof there will be plenty, like suddenly there were more than the half Dozen Dothraki we saw alive after the inept and moronic charge of the light brigade mass slaughter against the Night King (just one of numerous examples of idiotic writing, completely ignore the history of how city states deal w/defense against vastly superior numbers, sending a calvary charge against vastly superior numbers, not exactly how its done). At the end of the day, based on the depiction of the attack, there's little to no "subjects" left to fear her to begin with, at least in Kings Landing anyway. Most of this stuff is a product of rushed story telling and inept writing. I have no doubt devout book readers are right in arguing that this isn't against the depiction of Dany in the core material but I still have two problems with that.

 

#1: Television and Movie portrayals of adapted fiction are their own entities period, they may hue closely to the source material, or not at all, and should be judged independently on their merits.

#2 Regardless of whether they were loyal to Martins source material, they have repeatedly failed to do so in numerous other instances AND they did a horrendous job of telling the story in a convincing and reasonably logical fashion that rings true. It doesn't even remotely ring true. She was just ready to sacrifice everything for essentially a racist band of ingrates in Winterfell. Now, people who don't know her in the least and have done nothing to her are deserving of total incineration? It's absurd. 

Edited by stoneghost28
spelling error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Question is why did Connington make the "mistake" in the first place. Elaborate on that.

There are two reasons why Connington didn't burn the city.

One, he didn't want to be a killer (" I did not want the name of butcher.")

Second, he wanted to capture Robert himself, not get him as a casualties (" I wanted the glory of slaying Robert in single combat ").

None of these options are completely altruistic. He doesn't say "I didn't want to be a bad person". He says "I did not want to be known as a bad person". Of course most characters of ASOIAF have a sense of morality, but such morality is still not similar to ours. Cutting resources is normal for them during war times; that's considered a war crime now.

I'm not justifying Dany's actions in the recent episode because the episode itself is a (npi) hot mess from every angle. Some people believe she had a good development that took her to this, others said she just turned mad all of a sudden. The fact that we can tell both are correct and incorrect isn't product of expectations and tropes being subverted, but rather, mediocre writing. Had Dany being given a good storyline, then I could say "well, ok, she had her reasons, I don't like it, but I understand it". For what I've seen of the episode, it seems like her actions are due to a need to shock the audience. We really cannot debate much about the characters when there is not an intention of having a good development but simply try to surprised the watcher as much as possible while also attempt to give the characters the same ending as Martin planned for them.

But, as I said above, the setting of these characters has a context. They have a very tribalistic mindset. Dany loves her people, but her people have to be that: her people, people who follow her, who support her, who she feels she should protect. The rest, are her enemies. This applies for most of the characters who are in a position of power. We've seen examples of many Lords and Ladies protecting their people, but I'm sure they wouldn't mind much for the people of other lands. This doesn't make them necessarily bad because they're are very unfamiliar with the concept of universal human rights. Dany's reaction to the crucified children happened because she felt personally responsible of what happened: it personally affected her as she affected their decisions.

Dany's actions in the episode, rather than amoral are absurd. Like a very cynical review said: "Dany, isn't this your land, now? Aren't you meant to pay for the reconstruction of all of this??". Reviewer has a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, stoneghost28 said:

This doesn't even work because their basically all dead. How many survivors did we actually see w/Arya at the end? I'm sure in a technical sense, poof there will be plenty, like suddenly there were more than the half Dozen Dothraki we saw alive after the inept and moronic charge of the light brigade mass slaughter against the Night King (just one of numerous examples of idiotic writing, completely ignore the history of how city states deal w/defense against vastly superior numbers, sending a calvary charge against vastly superior numbers, not exactly how its done). At the end of the day, based on the depiction of the attack, there's little to no "subjects" left to fear her to begin with, at least in Kings Landing anyway. Most of this stuff is a product of rushed story telling and inept writing. I have no doubt devout book readers are right in arguing that this isn't against the depiction of Dany in the core material but I still have two problems with that.

 

#1: Television and Movie portrayals of adapted fiction are their own entities period, they may hue closely to the source material, or not at all, and should be judged independently on their merits.

#2 Regardless of whether they were loyal to Martins source material, they have repeatedly failed to do so in numerous other instances AND they did a horrendous job of telling the story in a convincing and reasonably logical fashion that rings true. It doesn't even remotely ring true. She was just ready to sacrifice everything for essentially a racist band of ingrates in Winterfell. Now, people who don't know her in the least and have done nothing to her are deserving of total incineration? It's absurd. 

The implication of that Arya scene was definitely not that everyone in King's Landing is dead; the survivors have abandoned the streets and gone into hiding, and many have died. For all your complaints about "idiotic writing" and military strategy (I'm sure you're just as critical of Martin when he has knights ride horses across bridges of boats and has every siege except by the most cowardly commanders begin with an assault or has brilliant commanders fail to use scouts), this is how brutal sieges worked, at least in the ancient world; massive casualties and enslavement to discourage the survivors from taking up arms again and to encourage other cities and powers to surrender without the need to fight. Brutality and plundering also served as incentives for soldiers. The brutality of these sieges could often be criticized, but they continued to happen.   

As for the rest; I buy Dany's transition. It's been built up throughout the whole series. In the moment, an extra episode would have probably helped with the pacing of the immediate decision; but the show gives you plenty of reasons for why her snap happens, from her destiny as the last Targaryen being a lie, losing or distrusting all her advisors and friends, receiving little support in Westeros when she sacrificed her armies and dragons to save the continent from the undead, etc... If she makes the decision to rule with fear, it's for understandable and pretty well established reasons, and her brutal treatment of King's Landing is exactly how a ruler rules through fear.

It's a brilliant ending for her, and works well in the show, regardless of what happens in the last book of the series when it's published in 40 years.

Edited by Caligula_K3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, JonCon's Red Beard said:

There are two reasons why Connington didn't burn the city.

One, he didn't want to be a killer (" I did not want the name of butcher.")

Second, he wanted to capture Robert himself, not get him as a casualties (" I wanted the glory of slaying Robert in single combat ").

None of these options are completely altruistic. He doesn't say "I didn't want to be a bad person". He says "I did not want to be known as a bad person". Of course most characters of ASOIAF have a sense of morality, but such morality is still not similar to ours. Cutting resources is normal for them during war times; that's considered a war crime now.

I'm not justifying Dany's actions in the recent episode because the episode itself is a (npi) hot mess from every angle. Some people believe she had a good development that took her to this, others said she just turned mad all of a sudden. The fact that we can tell both are correct and incorrect isn't product of expectations and tropes being subverted, but rather, mediocre writing. Had Dany being given a good storyline, then I could say "well, ok, she had her reasons, I don't like it, but I understand it". For what I've seen of the episode, it seems like her actions are due to a need to shock the audience. We really cannot debate much about the characters when there is not an intention of having a good development but simply try to surprised the watcher as much as possible while also attempt to give the characters the same ending as Martin planned for them.

But, as I said above, the setting of these characters has a context. They have a very tribalistic mindset. Dany loves her people, but her people have to be that: her people, people who follow her, who support her, who she feels she should protect. The rest, are her enemies. This applies for most of the characters who are in a position of power. We've seen examples of many Lords and Ladies protecting their people, but I'm sure they wouldn't mind much for the people of other lands. This doesn't make them necessarily bad because they're are very unfamiliar with the concept of universal human rights. Dany's reaction to the crucified children happened because she felt personally responsible of what happened: it personally affected her as she affected their decisions.

Dany's actions in the episode, rather than amoral are absurd. Like a very cynical review said: "Dany, isn't this your land, now? Aren't you meant to pay for the reconstruction of all of this??". Reviewer has a point.

A few things.

1. I know you're the board Connington expert and correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember part of Connington's reason is that he felt Rhaegar would not approve of such an action. The broader point here is the idea that there is no moral norms in Westeros that views killing innocents negatively is not entirely correct as some people argue. Even Connington saying "I don't want to be known as a bad person." points to the fact that these norms do in fact exist, even if Westeros doesn't have our exact moral norms.

2. I've never been Dany's biggest book fan as I'm sure you know. That said, even I'm shocked at her actions in the show. I'd always thought she be more accepting of the innocent loss of life to pursue the IT, but I did not expect her to just outright kill innocents in the manner that she did in the show. And I'm not even quite sure that is how it will go down in the books. But, if it does go down in the books, like it did in the show, I'd be utterly appalled by that action and believe she should be condemned for the willful and wanton slaughter of innocents. We're not just talking about innocents dying during the prosecution of combat operations. Nor are we just talking about her failing to exercise command responsibility and stopping her troops from going on a rampage after the city fell. We are talking about the deliberate targeting of innocents after the enemy had clearly surrendered. Something she directly and intentionally participated in. I think even Westeros with its somewhat different norms would find that too much. But, even if it didn't, I just can't be a complete moral relativist. I can make some allowance for the norms that exist within Westeros. But if somebody is asking me to excuse the most horrific acts of willful and wanton acts of destruction, that have little reasonable purpose, I just can't get there.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still so angry I can barely talk about this.  I think they wanted to go out with another "Red Wedding" level shock and they ruined the show to get it.  The biggest betrayal of Daeny was by the writers.  They totally distorted the Khaleesi to get this result.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Initially...I didn't like what happened with Dany in this ep....but after thinking about it, I'm ok with it. Not in having innocent people burned to death mind you, but in terms of character and story. 

It would seem to fall in line with GRRM's penchant for Greyness in human behaviour and dissing fantasy tropes. And if this is indeed the general direction Martin is going with her, then the joke may well be on fandom for falling for the whole female Aragorn/ Return of the King, thing. In other words this could wind up being GRRM going "Surprise...there's no such thing as a benevolent medieval style conqueror!" Every conqueror type King in real-history left monstrous trails death and destruction upon common people, especially the likes of Edward III and Henry V.

Also...in this ep, Dany was acting no different whatsoever from her ancestors, particularly Aegon, Visenya and Rhaenys. Again, I'm not saying what she did was right by any means (I too would prefer Dany to have remained a female Aragorn). Only that this could be GRRMs statement about the truth of 'Conquering' Heroes. 

Edited by Blackfyres R Legit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Imp Beyond the Wall said:

I am still so angry I can barely talk about this.  I think they wanted to go out with another "Red Wedding" level shock and they ruined the show to get it.  The biggest betrayal of Daeny was by the writers.  They totally distorted the Khaleesi to get this result.  

"You are the blood of the dragon. Dragons plant no trees. Remember that. Remember who you are, what you were made to be. 'Fire and Blood,”' Daenerys told the swaying grass." - ADWD

This decision about Dany's character 100% ultimately stems from Martin, and is very fitting, given the themes of the show and books. We can argue over how well it's executed in the show (I think very well, given that many people have been predicting this based on Dany's actions in the show), but if the intention is to get a Red Wedding shock, it's a shock given by Martin. If it's a betrayal of the character, which I don't think it is, it's a betrayal by him. In my opinion, it's a brilliant way of flipping our view of the protagonists as the "good guys," giving us a Red Wedding perpetrated by them, and showing that in wars of vengeance, nobody is the good guy. And you can go back through the series, both books and show, and see many moments that presage this.

Edited by Caligula_K3

Share this post


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

Sure there maybe Chinese people that revere him. How about a majority? You provided no evidence of that. And I don't recall there being years of state sponsored propaganda about Aegon in Dorne.

Moving the goal post. I never said the majority of Chinese people revere him. I specifically said many do.  And it’s genuinely absurd to think otherwise given decades of it being taught by the government that he’s a Chinese hero. 

11 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Except your rebuttal wasn't very compelling. And the one piece of evidence that was offered up to support your assertion, really didn't help your case. In fact, in undermined it. There was no evidence that the people of China just woke up one day and said. "Genghis what a swell guy!"

If I claimed that you would’ve had a point. 

11 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

understand exactly what Tywin was trying to do when he sent Gregor into the RL. The point was that seems a bit too much even for Westeros.

Not exactly. The pro-Stark  that resides there preyed upon the peasantantry just as badly as the pro-Lannister forced. 

11 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

And saying that rape would be excused by most commanders isn't the same thing as saying they view as not being bad.

Kinda yeah. “Boys will be boys” is a often used, and gross expression but it’s sentiment and it would be the line of thinking for most medieval military commanders. Their  men have desires, for money, honor, and of flesh. They’re not turning a blind eye to it(or encouraging it), and secretly brimming with disdain at the abhorrent conduct. 

11 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Why did Jaime execute somebody for committing rape?

“Attempted” rape. Because he wants to play hero, and Pan professed to having idolized him for years.  And notice he didn’t execute all the mountain’s men who raped Pan. Only the one who tried to raped her while he was around.

11 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Does Dany just not care when the Dothraki commit rapes during their attack on the Lhazareen? 

She doesn’t actually stop her in plans to invade Westeroes over it. Honestly I took her “saving” of these women more done out of soothing her own ego and reaffirming she’s a good person than pure altruism.

11 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

People in the world of ASOIAF clearly understand rape is a bad act, even if some choose to look the other way.

Yeah not my argument. My argument was that in general  military commanders in a medieval  don’t fret over their men taking liberties with the enemies peasantry. This is like your strawman with killing. No, a peasant man raping his neighbor generally won’t be accepted by his lord. But a soldier raping the subject of his enemy would be.

11 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

So what was that Connington thing about again. Why didn't he just burn down the whole city? Seems like it was a no-brainer, if burning down entire cities isn't viewed as being that bad in Westeros.

Well, I’ve already given you reasons for why’d it’d be reviled and why it would be stupid. You find Aegon’s war in Dorne. Please explain why isn’t it seen as a the actions of a monster in Westeroes? Why did see lords encouraging him to continue burning Dorne?

11 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Within Westeros. Probably not. That still doesn't mean it wouldn't be viewed as a good thing. People would still understand it was a tragic action even if "necessary".

Probably not tragic for many. They’re viewed as subhuman after all. And recent enemies. Making actual empathy for them in short supply. 

11 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

So even in Westeros people have their limits? Right? It's not enough to say, "Oh well people die war, no worries".

12 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Oh my god, yes! Seriously, I never argued they had no limits in anything. You keep doing this. No, not all killing is allowed. Not all rape is allowed. I never argued the opposite. I’ve argued they don’t have your limits.

11 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well, first, I'd view each of these acts as being fundamentally terrible. That doesn't necessarily mean I'd condemn the characters. That would turn upon the circumstances of each case and what options each character had. Certainly if they committed such an act and it served no remotely reasonable purpose, I'd likely condemn them. A point I'm trying to make here is that is not enough to say, "Oh well innocents die war, so we should just accept that

The circumstances for Ned would be merely to keep others from thinking they could rebel with no great consequences. Basically to maintain the notion Robert should be feared/respected.? If Balon rebels, Theon dies. That’s it.  In Stannis case it’s not if. He’s serving up enough women for his torturers to find entertainment. In hopes there’d be information that could aid in his war-effort.

11 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

For instance, Dany just bombing the shit out of KL means she deserves to be condemned by us the readers. Change the facts sightly. If innocents had simply died while the fighting was still going on, without being directly targeted, I'd would be a lot more hesitant to condemn Dany. I might be critical of her decision to make a direct assault upon KL, when she had other options and even say she made a bad decision, but not necessarily condemn her completely for it.

K. 

11 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well sure I can't provide take a poll in Dorne about how the people their feel about Aegon. And neither can you for that matter.

This whole argument got started because somebody asserted that Aegon I is particularly beloved in Westeos. And I pointed out maybe not. And Dorne was a different because it fought a particularly protracted and bitter conflict with Aegon. There are good reasons to think he wouldn't be fondly remembered there.

 

The Stormland had their rightful king murdered, and had a probably up jumped bastard take his place. Thousands of Lannister forces died fighting Aegon, and Highgarden lost the house that had been its kings completely. The Ironborn’s empire, was basically destroyed with them not really coming close to what they lost. Yet still, we don’t see much disfavor in regards to Aegon to any of the people he’s conquered.

11 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

But I guess you'll try to convince me that the Young Dragon is loved there too.

No, just contending until we see otherwise, it’s reasonable to assume Dorne’s not particularly disfavorble to Aegon.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Caligula_K3 said:

The implication of that Arya scene was definitely not that everyone in King's Landing is dead; the survivors have abandoned the streets and gone into hiding, and many have died. For all your complaints about "idiotic writing" and military strategy (I'm sure you're just as critical of Martin when he has knights ride horses across bridges of boats and has every siege except by the most cowardly commanders begin with an assault or has brilliant commanders fail to use scouts), this is how brutal sieges worked, at least in the ancient world; massive casualties and enslavement to discourage the survivors from taking up arms again and to encourage other cities and powers to surrender without the need to fight. Brutality and plundering also served as incentives for soldiers. The brutality of these sieges could often be criticized, but they continued to happen.   

As for the rest; I buy Dany's transition. It's been built up throughout the whole series. In the moment, an extra episode would have probably helped with the pacing of the immediate decision; but the show gives you plenty of reasons for why her snap happens, from her destiny as the last Targaryen being a lie, losing or distrusting all her advisors and friends, receiving little support in Westeros when she sacrificed her armies and dragons to save the continent from the undead, etc... If she makes the decision to rule with fear, it's for understandable and pretty well established reasons, and her brutal treatment of King's Landing is exactly how a ruler rules through fear.

It's a brilliant ending for her, and works well in the show, regardless of what happens in the last book of the series when it's published in 40 years.

#1: I hear you there, and I also fully understand what you're saying about medieval warfare, ancient warfare etc. The bulk of the world today has completely forgotten how hideous and brutal warfare was for 99% of human history. I'll grant that WWII was as brutal and worse in terms of scale than anything ever, and the behavior of the SS/Einsatzgrupen in Europe and the Soviet Union combined w/some of the brutality in the Pacific Theatre comes close, but generally speaking the surviving texts we have covering war particularly in the Ancient World would make a Horror Porn devotee never stop throwing up. The Assyrians come to mind again, in terms of the insane brutality they indulged in w/regards to defeated enemies. So none of this is unfamiliar to me. Ditto the sacking of cities as a form of salary for soldiers. I get that. My problem here is that Dany, on the show, was different. She was ruthless when she needed to be, but never strayed into an out of control genocidal psychopath until Sunday Night. 

 

#2 On Dany's transition. I understand what you're saying here as well. This is the case for it. But in the actual #1 pacing of the show and #2 character of the individual I just don't buy it. I suppose there's a core split here between people who seem to hue more closely to the book character, and those of who hue to the series character. I'm the latter. I'm judging entirely based upon what I'm seeing on the show (being the show thread), and while this inclination may be more clear in the books, it's not in the show. I can see what your saying about the things that have happened.

 

#1: Suddenly Tyrion becomes a total halfwit when they move back to Westeros seemingly not making one quality decision in two entire seasons and the resulting disasters that befall Dany's allies as a result.

#2 Losing Viserion

#3 Discovering Jon's parentage and claim.

#4 Losing Jorah, losing the Dothraki, and the Unsullied (a huge portion) and nearly losing both Dragons in battle w/Night King.

#5 Losing Rhaegal and a Navy, AGAIN.

#6 Witnessing Beheading of Missandei

#7 Learning of the betrayal of Varys, Jon and to some degree Tyrion.

 

That's a lot to handle, and part of the problem is that all of this has been compacted into basically what, 8 or 9 episodes, five of those seven things happening in just four episodes, so it comes across as a bit much when it comes to a show that's what 72 or 73 episodes deep. However, even w/all these things happening, why do you suddenly become a genocidal maniac? Everyone everywhere experiences tragedy. Even world leaders. I didn't see Joe Kennedy jump into a B-52 and Nuke Russia or hell, blow up the pentagon after he lost his second AND third son's to assassination. Tragedy and loss happens. Anger and Grief can be a response. But this? It's just crazy and Dany, in the show anyway, never came across as crazy or psychopathic to me. Ruthless sometimes. Sure. Shrewd, sure. But genocidal? No. This is a total negation of the intentions behind literally everything she was trying to accomplish: Rule and change the world in how she chose to rule. Instead she just fed a city into a wood chipper so to speak. 

Glad it worked for some people anyway. Just didn't at all for me. Glad Sapochnik got to direct it as well, he's marvelous at taking source material and making something unique out of it. I've never seen anything like Hardhome, Battle of the Bastards, The Long Night, or this one, so at least there was spectacle and it was amazing to watch. 

In regards to the writing, I'm critiquing what I regard as lazy, and hasty writing to wrap up a show. Everything I've seen the past two years has been actors and directors desperately trying to make something work out of hastily thrown together material from D&D and my suspicions all along have been that landing a deal with Kathleen Kennedy AND probably being bored being locked down for a decade w/this material is behind it, and what do you know, we get a press announcement just 24 hours or so after that episode that  D&D will be helming the next unique Star Wars story to be released in movie theatres after IX (their working with Kennedy had been announced a few years ago, but this news was an update on that announcement). I think I nailed at least some of the issues behind the sloppiness in these final two seasons (not that it's an original idea or anything, I'm sure most have considered it largely responsible for the decline in quality as well). 

 

 

Edited by stoneghost28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Moving the goal post. I never said the majority of Chinese people revere him. I specifically said many do.  

Not really. You were never clear about how many Chinese People revere him. So now your saying its only probably a minority. That undercuts your original assertion by quite a bit.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If I claimed that you would’ve had a point

Then what in the fuck was your point? If the Chinese don't have admiration for Genghis, then why did you bring it up?

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Not exactly. The pro-Stark  that resides there preyed upon the peasantantry just as badly as the pro-Lannister forced. 

And Hoster Tully deserves criticism and condemnation for his actions.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Kinda yeah. “Boys will be boys” is a often used, and gross expression but it’s sentiment and it would be the line of thinking for most medieval military commanders. Their  men have desires, for money, honor, and of flesh. They’re not turning a blind eye to it(or encouraging it), and secretly brimming with disdain at the abhorrent conduct. 

The point though is it is known to be wrong.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

“Attempted” rape. Because he wants to play hero, and Pan professed to having idolized him for years.  And notice he didn’t execute all the mountain’s men who raped Pan. Only the one who tried to raped her while he was around.

So your point here is that rape isn't viewed to be bad in Westeros? Seriously?

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

She doesn’t actually stop her in plans to invade Westeroes over it. Honestly I took her “saving” of these women more done out of soothing her own ego and reaffirming she’s a good person than pure altruism.

But if rape isn't considered to be that "bad" why would she need to reaffirm to herself she was a good person? Can you please explain that?

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah not my argument. My argument was that in general  military commanders in a medieval  don’t fret over their men taking liberties with the enemies peasantry. This is like your strawman with killing. No, a peasant man raping his neighbor generally won’t be accepted by his lord. But a soldier raping the subject of his enemy would be.

Well no shit. We already knew that military commanders in Westeros don't fret over rape often. But, thanks for pointing out the obvious. Anyway, just because military commanders don't fret about it does not mean rape is not considered to be wrong.And as for my alleged strawmanning That comes from mainly me having no idea what the fuck your point is or points are. You just keep asserting basically, "well things are different in Westeros", like that's really helpful. About as helpful as somebody saying, "well, innocents die in war. That is just the way it is!", like that's a fucking helpful observation in trying to parse through these issues.

And is should be rather obvious that just because people often ignore moral norms or violate them, that doesn't mean they are not present. 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Well, I’ve already given you reasons for why’d it’d be reviled and why it would be stupid. 

You have? 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You find Aegon’s war in Dorne. Please explain why isn’t it seen as a the actions of a monster in Westeroes? Why did see lords encouraging him to continue burning Dorne?

Mabye because his lords were assholes too.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Probably not tragic for many. They’re viewed as subhuman after all. And recent enemies. Making actual empathy for them in short supply. 

So you could see Ned Stark just killing Theon and not being bothered by it? Or how about Jon killing hostages? Or even Dany killing those kids in Mereen.

Just because a lot of people could rationalize and make themselves not feel bad about it, doesn't mean it's not considered bad. 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Oh my god, yes! Seriously, I never argued they had no limits in anything. You keep doing this. No, not all killing is allowed. Not all rape is allowed. I never argued the opposite. I’ve argued they don’t have your limits.

Well no shit they don't have my limits. Thanks for that. What a profound insight by you! Is that the reason you started this whole argument, to just point that out. Dear fuckin' lord.

But seriously, I can't seem to get you to say in plain English what you'd consider to be too much or over the top.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The circumstances for Ned would be merely to keep others from thinking they could rebel with no great consequences. Basically to maintain the notion Robert should be feared/respected.? If Balon rebels, Theon dies. That’s it.  In Stannis case it’s not if. He’s serving up enough women for his torturers to find entertainment. In hopes there’d be information that could aid in his war-effort.

I have my doubts that Ned would go through with such an action if his reasoning process were similar to his objection to killing Dany.  But, if he were to kill Theon in the circumstances described, I would find that to be a bad act, but probably would not condemn him. And I've though Stannis' use of torture was bad. I can condemn certain actions without quite condemning the characters. Fact is there is lots of stuff Dany has done that I would say was bad, but wouldn't entirely condemn here character for it. But, when we get into the massacre of thousands of innocents, then yes a character deserves to be condemned for that.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The Stormland had their rightful king murdered, and had a probably up jumped bastard take his place. Thousands of Lannister forces died fighting Aegon, and Highgarden lost the house that had been its kings completely. The Ironborn’s empire, was basically destroyed with them not really coming close to what they lost. Yet still, we don’t see much disfavor in regards to Aegon to any of the people he’s conquered.

And how long did those conflicts last as compared to Dorne? I'm pretty sure the Dornish conflict lasted longer and the carnage much more widespread.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Caligula_K3 said:

"You are the blood of the dragon. Dragons plant no trees. Remember that. Remember who you are, what you were made to be. 'Fire and Blood,”' Daenerys told the swaying grass." - ADWD

This decision about Dany's character 100% ultimately stems from Martin, and is very fitting, given the themes of the show and books. We can argue over how well it's executed in the show (I think very well, given that many people have been predicting this based on Dany's actions in the show), but if the intention is to get a Red Wedding shock, it's a shock given by Martin. If it's a betrayal of the character, which I don't think it is, it's a betrayal by him. In my opinion, it's a brilliant way of flipping our view of the protagonists as the "good guys," giving us a Red Wedding perpetrated by them, and showing that in wars of vengeance, nobody is the good guy. And you can go back through the series, both books and show, and see many moments that presage this.

Is Martin not a writer?  I do not absolve him of guilt for this travesty.   It makes since that Sherman burned Atlanta arguably to shorten the war and break the resolve of the rebels. But if Lincoln had sanctioned it after Appomattox, what would it have been then?  Or if Truman had dropped the bomb after MacArthur received the Japanese surrender?  I know war is hell.  I have no illusions about good guys and bad guys,  But there isn't much grey area here.  A conqueror is going to conquer, but this was a wanton act of cruelty by a crazy person. 

So, if you like this, bully for you.  I know a lot of Daeny haters are gleefully and gloating right now.  If this is where Martin has been heading this whole time, he should have kept this ending a secret.  I have been dying to give him my money so I could read the rest.  Now, I am not sure if I care whether he ever finishes.  The Khaleesi could be a hard ruler, it is a hard world.  But she tried to be just.   I am not arguing that every decision was right, but you could see what was going on.  She has never been crazy.  I really thought that Martin was another Tolkien, but perhaps he is just another M. Night Shyamalan.   

You have a right to see it how you see it. 
   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 11:30 AM, Obsidian Knight said:

Very strange aftertaste. 

It's like everything's wrong. All the characters ruined. All of them. I hope that GRRM will write his own story. I hope that this ridiculous ending will inspire him to write. Because what I saw was ridiculous. Some whys.

Why GRRM didn't write scripts for these series? (can somebody answer?)

What the hell happened to Cersei always staring expressionless until she is just killed by bricks? Wtf is this? At least they died together though I hope that Cersei survived. This death just doesn't feel right.

Why Dany just burned everyone? Why? What happened to her when she started to burn children? They didn't even show her face. Maybe she fell from her dragon and he went nuts? Everything can happen in this show. Even the most absurd things... I understand that she's mad a bit. But why so violent? 

Wtf with Jon? Just watcing how Varys gets burned. What is he thinking? He loved Ygritte too but this love wasn't blind. Is he just tired? At least now he will take some action. Same about Tyrion. When did he become so blind? Staring sadly after making the hundreth mistake.

Two characters I hate - Euron and Bronn. They should have killed Bronn long ago but he keeps appearing and makes everything so boring. And that huge role they gave to Euron. And that shitty death. Those lame scorpions. But no... They will kill Bronn in the last episode. That should be the Night King's episode.

That useless Bran. :( He could be something! We will never know.
 

I liked the fight between the Mountain (Varysface) and the Hound. Really liked.

 

I have a hell of a bitter taste too. I hate bronn also, what does he bring at this stage of the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, stoneghost28 said:

#1: I hear you there, and I also fully understand what you're saying about medieval warfare, ancient warfare etc. The bulk of the world today has completely forgotten how hideous and brutal warfare was for 99% of human history. I'll grant that WWII was as brutal and worse in terms of scale than anything ever, and the behavior of the SS/Einsatzgrupen in Europe and the Soviet Union combined w/some of the brutality in the Pacific Theatre comes close, but generally speaking the surviving texts we have covering war particularly in the Ancient World would make a Horror Porn devotee never stop throwing up. The Assyrians come to mind again, in terms of the insane brutality they indulged in w/regards to defeated enemies. So none of this is unfamiliar to me. Ditto the sacking of cities as a form of salary for soldiers. I get that. My problem here is that Dany, on the show, was different. She was ruthless when she needed to be, but never strayed into an out of control genocidal psychopath until Sunday Night. 

 

#2 On Dany's transition. I understand what you're saying here as well. This is the case for it. But in the actual #1 pacing of the show and #2 character of the individual I just don't buy it. I suppose there's a core split here between people who seem to hue more closely to the book character, and those of who hue to the series character. I'm the latter. I'm judging entirely based upon what I'm seeing on the show (being the show thread), and while this inclination may be more clear in the books, it's not in the show. I can see what your saying about the things that have happened.

 

#1: Suddenly Tyrion becomes a total halfwit when they move back to Westeros seemingly not making one quality decision in two entire seasons and the resulting disasters that befall Dany's allies as a result.

#2 Losing Viserion

#3 Discovering Jon's parentage and claim.

#4 Losing Jorah, losing the Dothraki, and the Unsullied (a huge portion) and nearly losing both Dragons in battle w/Night King.

#5 Losing Rhaegal and a Navy, AGAIN.

#6 Witnessing Beheading of Missandei

#7 Learning of the betrayal of Varys, Jon and to some degree Tyrion.

 

That's a lot to handle, and part of the problem is that all of this has been compacted into basically what, 8 or 9 episodes, five of those seven things happening in just four episodes, so it comes across as a bit much when it comes to a show that's what 72 or 73 episodes deep. However, even w/all these things happening, why do you suddenly become a genocidal maniac? Everyone everywhere experiences tragedy. Even world leaders. I didn't see Joe Kennedy jump into a B-52 and Nuke Russia or hell, blow up the pentagon after he lost his second AND third son's to assassination. Tragedy and loss happens. Anger and Grief can be a response. But this? It's just crazy and Dany, in the show anyway, never came across as crazy or psychopathic to me. Ruthless sometimes. Sure. Shrewd, sure. But genocidal? No. This is a total negation of the intentions behind literally everything she was trying to accomplish: Rule and change the world in how she chose to rule. Instead she just fed a city into a wood chipper so to speak. 

Glad it worked for some people anyway. Just didn't at all for me. Glad Sapochnik got to direct it as well, he's marvelous at taking source material and making something unique out of it. I've never seen anything like Hardhome, Battle of the Bastards, The Long Night, or this one, so at least there was spectacle and it was amazing to watch. 

In regards to the writing, I'm critiquing what I regard as lazy, and hasty writing to wrap up a show. Everything I've seen the past two years has been actors and directors desperately trying to make something work out of hastily thrown together material from D&D and my suspicions all along have been that landing a deal with Kathleen Kennedy AND probably being bored being locked down for a decade w/this material is behind it, and what do you know, we get a press announcement just 24 hours or so after that episode that  D&D will be helming the next unique Star Wars story to be released in movie theatres after IX (their working with Kennedy had been announced a few years ago, but this news was an update on that announcement). I think I nailed at least some of the issues behind the sloppiness in these final two seasons (not that it's an original idea or anything, I'm sure most have considered it largely responsible for the decline in quality as well). 

 

 

I completely understand your perspective, which you've expressed very eloquently. If the showrunners were going to have the shortened episode run, giving less space for Dany to get to this point, it probably would have been wiser for them to frame the scene differently: have Dany rush for the red keep at first, get attacked by scared civilians/soldiers, and then turn her wrath on them. I think otherwise, as you say, it depends on your interpretation of Dany's character up to this point. I'm sure I've been influenced by her portrayal in the books in ways I can't articulate, but this decision did seem fitting to me in terms of her show character: from her treatment of the conquered in the Slave cities, to her speech to the Dothraki in season 6 after she burned down their leadership, to the brutal battle in episode 4 of season 7 , to the execution of the Tarlys afterwards, to her continued inclination to just attack King's Landing and deal with the fallout later. For me, Dany's worst impulses have always been there; they've often been tempered by her sense of justice, empathy for the downtrodden, and the advice of her advisors. For me, it worked that in this situation her worst impulses would win out; but I understand why it didn't for you.

As for the sloppiness of some of the last two seasons, I'm slightly more sympathetic to D&D. They had to figure out an ending to this series and a path there in three years, while also , writing scripts, directing episodes, and overseeing the most complicated production in television history. If they just wanted to be done to work on Star Wars (though I'm sure they're exhausted), I doubt they'd have taken an extra year for Season 8; I think they want to do the ending justice. They've made mistakes along the way, but I can't blame them for that; the original author has taken eight years so far to just figure out just one stage in the story, part of which includes the climax from the last stage. Martin's ending too will either have to take four more books or get sloppy.

I wish Seasons 7 and 8 had at least eight or nine episodes each to flesh out more of the story and characters' decisions, but I also understand why they don't; they have a limited budget, even though it's the largest budget in television history, the actors have gotten more expensive and get paid per episode, and they wanted to concentrate their resources on fewer episodes. I don't know if it was the right decision, even though the spectacle of an episode like The Bells outstrips for me what you get in high budget Marvel movies, but I can  understand where some of the sloppiness comes from, and I don't blame them for it. For me, this hasn't been the best season of the show, but it's been pretty damn good, and much more satisfying than, say, Lost Season 6 or BSG Season 4.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, stoneghost28 said:

Tragedy and loss happens. Anger and Grief can be a response. But this? It's just crazy and Dany, in the show anyway, never came across as crazy or psychopathic to me. Ruthless sometimes. Sure. Shrewd, sure. But genocidal? No.

 

The same can be said about good old Winston Churchill then...The bombings of Dresden were definitely more revenge than strategy, and killed civilians in the thousands. But hey they are 'our allies'!

Quote

In four raids between 13 and 15 February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and 527 of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city.[1] The bombing and the resulting firestorm destroyed over 1,600 acres (6.5 km2) of the city centre.[2] An estimated 22,700[3] to 25,000[4] people were killed, although larger casualty figures have been claimed.

Sounds similar? Still a fan of Dany btw.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Fotothek_df_ps_0000010_Blick_vom_Rathausturm.jpg

Edited by Empress Sansa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

They botched Daenerys character into a premeditated Mad-Queen Narrative. Because of Poor Writing and prejudiced character goal (making her a mad-queen and the ultimate evil when she clearly is not). The pathetic lack of character integrity that the show runners got wrong with Daenerys Targaryen

Danaerys is not mad (definitely not mad-queen mad). Despite the outright massacre of the integrity of her character by the show runners, Dany is far from the mad-queen narrative they have portrayed this season.

Sansa is really dumb (“The most intelligent person I have ever Known”) - Little Arya knows very little. Well its again the show-runners fault. Why is Sansa hating a Southern Queen who risks her all to fight for a Northern Cause. It was pretty much doomsday, yet all we focus before, during and after the long night is how Sansa and the Northeners don’t trust Dany. Its plain stupid. For the things that Dany has done, The Northern lords should bend over and kiss her ass. And so must Sansa. It’s ridiculous how they have portrayed Dany’s character. Sansa learnt her skills from Little finger and Cersei, 2 of the least suited characters in all of thrones. She has an inherent lack of trust and is most ill-suited to judge Dany. For example, the disgust she shows towards Dany when she makes Gendry Lord Baratheon is over-hyped (including the subsequent guilt acknowledgement of Tyrion is so badly written). There is absolutely nothing wrong in what Dany did here. They won the war, she is focused on winning back her throne which is more important to her than her very life (while Sansa got her happy revenge on the Boltons winning her home back, these things didnt matter, including the sly ways of getting help from Little Finger and the Vale). But Dany making Gendry, a well deserved hero of the war, the rightful heir, Lord of Stormlands is portrayed as more evil makes absolutely no sense.

Jon having a better claim is shite. In any planet of the Universe, Jon will be a horrible King, just as his surrogate dad Ned. Both are noble fools incapabale of seeing deceit blinded by honor (He died once and wont be long before he dies again if he sits the throne). Jon is very likely to fall into the trap of false mercy and is never likely to take ugly decisions. Dany is perfect (as perfect as it gets to ruling the 7 kingdoms. Any which way possible Dany will be the better King (Queen) over Jon. Yet the show focuses more on Dany wanting the Iron throne more instead of the fact that Dany deserves it more than Jon/Sansa/Cersei or any other.

The Burning of King’s Landing. This whole episode 5 is so botched up I can’t even explain how terrible it is. The reason they state for her madness and the way they portray her is wrong at so many levels its not even a joke. Overall they killed Dany’s Character. She had rage with just cause and clearly made an impulsive mistake in burning king’s landing. Imagine Jon throwing the whole northern army to death for Rickon’s sake - mad fucking King in the North - No! but who cares. But Dany does it for her baby (Rhagael’s death is so underplayed) and for Missandei (her sister-companion) is considered Mad. Just poor portrayal overall.

It's here in greater detail:

https://v2krules.blogspot.com/2019/05/got-season-8-episode-1-review-lady-wolf.html

Edited by Sri Vi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess what people can snap and do terrible things in the real world too. People saying Danny snapped at nothing are idiots. She has lost everything that she cares about and trust me, feeling alone can put you in a very dark place. Her face said it all as the bells where ringing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked this episode a lot. If I could edit out Euron washing up on shore to fight Jaime I would have rated this a lot higher. That and if I didn't see Janos Slynt atop the Wall looking at the wildlings and mumbling about Giants and cold rolled steel every time I saw Cersei saying how safe she was and how the Lannisters would fight harder than any sellsword...

I loved that they went all in on Dany going mad and burning it all to the ground. If you are going that direction then by god go all out and do it. I would've disliked it if she only burned surrendering soldiers and such. Same with Grey Worm, IMO she told him what she planned to do because he followed suit immediately. Personally I think Emelia acted very well these last couple episodes. One second she is laughing and happy and the next she is stone faced and seeming hateful, showing her inner battle. I also liked that some of the Northern forces joined in the sacking, it was realistic and shows that they can be just as immoral as anyone else.

On my first viewing I missed that Varys was trying to poison Dany using the little girl but it failed because Dany wasn't eating. I just thought the girl was trying to get messages out. Then I re watched it and caught that the girl worked in the kitchen and that she felt like the soldiers were watching her. I was like, oh shit, he is trying to kill her and sending messages out. Now I assume he did send messages out to all the remaining lords to try to get them to come to KL and support Jon, what happens next with that is anyone's guess. 

Ok, so Dany will know that Tyrion visited with Jaime and Jaime is gone, so I assume she plans to burn Tyrion next week? Does Grey Worm tell Dany that Jon held back his forces when they started killing the surrendering forces? If so does she use that as an excuse to put Jon on trial as well? Does she try to use Drogon to burn Jon and Drogon refuses, or he does it and Jon doesn't burn, but rises from the ashes and smoke to kill Dany?

 

Last note. I have an opinion of the show, I liked it. Don't waste your time telling me how stupid it is, how horrible this or that was. Just let me enjoy it and I will try to let you not enjoy it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2019 at 4:09 PM, Caligula_K3 said:

"You are the blood of the dragon. Dragons plant no trees. Remember that. Remember who you are, what you were made to be. 'Fire and Blood,”' Daenerys told the swaying grass." - ADWD

This decision about Dany's character 100% ultimately stems from Martin, and is very fitting, given the themes of the show and books. We can argue over how well it's executed in the show (I think very well, given that many people have been predicting this based on Dany's actions in the show), but if the intention is to get a Red Wedding shock, it's a shock given by Martin. If it's a betrayal of the character, which I don't think it is, it's a betrayal by him. In my opinion, it's a brilliant way of flipping our view of the protagonists as the "good guys," giving us a Red Wedding perpetrated by them, and showing that in wars of vengeance, nobody is the good guy. And you can go back through the series, both books and show, and see many moments that presage this.

Can't agree with this post more. Martin wrote this, yes he didn't write the episode but this ending has him written all over it. Showing that humans are the true threat to humanity. There have been tons of hints in the books and show about Targaryens going mad, her actions have shown vengence, not justice, going way back. As you said about the good guys doing this,...history is written by the victors....  If she was to rule and continue her line for a hundred years, this will not be written as she conquered and sacked KL but instead how she liberated it from Cersei, the destroyer of the Sept of Baleor... and how she saved humanity from the others. To the victors go the spoils.

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

×