Mourning Dany

[Vanadis]

Pretend if it wasn't Dany, but Arya who went berserk and assassinated innocents in E5. Would it be possible to say that this made sense, Arya going mad was foreshadowed since season 1? 
I think that argument could have been made.

What if it was Tyrion who destroyed King's Landing with wildfire, could we have claimed that we had seen evidence of him turning mad since season 1? I think probably we could.

What if it was Jon who finally decided he wouldn't take any more from anyone and went on a killing spree. Would it be possible that him going mad was foreshadowed since season 1?
I think possibly yes.

Now, Dany's father really was mad, so in that respect it was wise to keep an eye on her. But the way this story turn was built up, it could have worked just as well with any other character. By that I mean it did not work well the way they did it.

Couldn't they have turned her into a Godfather, who is full of ideals in the beginning, but then we see him break his own ideals one by one through the progression of the story? Not just murdering slavers and giving harsh speeches and staring people down without emotion in her eyes.

That beautiful face Emilia Clark gave us when Dany turned, full of emotion and qualm, we should have been very familiar with that face by that point for the story to work.

[Sigella]

3 hours ago, Vanadis said:

Pretend if it wasn't Dany, but Arya who went berserk and assassinated innocents in E5. Would it be possible to say that this made sense, Arya going mad was foreshadowed since season 1? 
I think that argument could have been made.

What if it was Tyrion who destroyed King's Landing with wildfire, could we have claimed that we had seen evidence of him turning mad since season 1? I think probably we could.

What if it was Jon who finally decided he wouldn't take any more from anyone and went on a killing spree. Would it be possible that him going mad was foreshadowed since season 1?
I think possibly yes.

Now, Dany's father really was mad, so in that respect it was wise to keep an eye on her. But the way this story turn was built up, it could have worked just as well with any other character. By that I mean it did not work well the way they did it.

Couldn't they have turned her into a Godfather, who is full of ideals in the beginning, but then we see him break his own ideals one by one through the progression of the story? Not just murdering slavers and giving harsh speeches and staring people down without emotion in her eyes.

That beautiful face Emilia Clark gave us when Dany turned, full of emotion and qualm, we should have been very familiar with that face by that point for the story to work.

I totally agree with all this.

[Sir Hedge of Hog]

 I agree too

 

[Vanadis]

Sir Hedge of Hog, I think I read your reply before you edited it, and I would just like to say that that would probably have been too clever for the writers of the show. 

(The suggestion was that Bran could be the master mind behind it all. I would have bought that. An all-seeing, all-knowing mad young boy who pretends to not want the throne because he knows that the movers and shakers of the land want a king who does not want power. The ultimate player of the game.)

[Nightwish]

5 hours ago, Vanadis said:

Pretend if it wasn't Dany, but Arya who went berserk and assassinated innocents in E5. Would it be possible to say that this made sense, Arya going mad was foreshadowed since season 1? 
I think that argument could have been made.

What if it was Tyrion who destroyed King's Landing with wildfire, could we have claimed that we had seen evidence of him turning mad since season 1? I think probably we could.

What if it was Jon who finally decided he wouldn't take any more from anyone and went on a killing spree. Would it be possible that him going mad was foreshadowed since season 1?
I think possibly yes.

Now, Dany's father really was mad, so in that respect it was wise to keep an eye on her. But the way this story turn was built up, it could have worked just as well with any other character. By that I mean it did not work well the way they did it.

Couldn't they have turned her into a Godfather, who is full of ideals in the beginning, but then we see him break his own ideals one by one through the progression of the story? Not just murdering slavers and giving harsh speeches and staring people down without emotion in her eyes.

That beautiful face Emilia Clark gave us when Dany turned, full of emotion and qualm, we should have been very familiar with that face by that point for the story to work.

I don't believe they wanted us to foreshadow it neither predict it, they wanted a big surprise, a final big plot twist that would be discussed (and they achieved it), so we are not crazy for not having seeing it or believing it would come to this.

And the people who saw it or said it are more or less the youtubers who have made every possible video from Bran being the NK to Tyrion be a Targaryen and I don't know how many useless Azor Ahai theories. So never mind them. They turned GOT into a profession, either what they are saying has any truth or not. 

But what the produces wanted was shock. And it was very easy to achieve it since they presented Dany in the light of the savior, the victim, the survivor, the woman who wants back her legacy and has to do cruel acts in a cruel world, and yet she tries to resist using all of her power.

And this is kind of twisted for my perception because they are leading the audience into a pitfall for more than 7 years. They know it, they laugh and make money out of it. 

This is a fictional story and we shouldn't care that much because neither do they. They delivered a product and that's it. 

 

[House Cambodia]

8 hours ago, Vanadis said:

Pretend if it wasn't Dany, but Arya who went berserk and assassinated innocents in E5. Would it be possible to say that this made sense, Arya going mad was foreshadowed since season 1? 
I think that argument could have been made.

What if it was Tyrion who destroyed King's Landing with wildfire, could we have claimed that we had seen evidence of him turning mad since season 1? I think probably we could.

What if it was Jon who finally decided he wouldn't take any more from anyone and went on a killing spree. Would it be possible that him going mad was foreshadowed since season 1?
I think possibly yes.

Now, Dany's father really was mad, so in that respect it was wise to keep an eye on her. But the way this story turn was built up, it could have worked just as well with any other character. By that I mean it did not work well the way they did it.

 

1

This is all absolutely correct, but think through what conclusion you want to draw from it. In a decent police procedural, all the main characters are painted in such a way that to the viewers all are suspects and the entertainment comes from using your intellectual chops to work out the killer. You find out in the final episode and then you see how in retrospect all the clues were there from the beginning, together with the red herrings concerning the other characters. That's basic good writing. Now I fully agree that D&D lack the talent to squeeze quality out of the outline, but the overall approach I think is good.

And it's not just fiction/TV. In real life when terrorist atrocities occur, we learn that intelligence services had profiles on the murderers, but in amongst hundreds of profiles of suspects who haven't done anything, they failed to identify the actual perpetrators in time. So not giving us more overt clues that Dany would be that 'terrorist' has an air of verisimilitude.

[ComfyLettuce]

I usually just lurk and enjoy reading people's take on things. This is the first time in a while I felt compelled to comment. Hopefully I can provide something close to clarity that the show wont shit all over on Sunday lol.

First, id have to confirm but Id bet $ she committed the single worst act of inhumanity in Westeros, ever.  Thats saying something, and it's hard to accept. I dont think any amount of build up would've prepared us for it. It will happen in the books, except we will know her mindstate well beforehand. This is very important for all of us asking: why?  And how? 

I shy away from the "out of his/her character" argument because these stories blur those thin lines, esp. in an ensemble show where she gets less facetime, let alone a chance to reveal deep feelings while she deals with non-stop tragedy. If the show tells us this attack was a calculated move by a sane person to instill fear, I'll pull the out of character card, and wait for the books to decide.  For now there is only one explanation...

"Targaryen madness" is neither myth nor exaggeration. Its not properly explained but weve heard the "gods flip a coin" quote a few times, and for good reason. Their propensity for insanity is well documented.  

Westeros saw 17 Targaryen monarchs during their reign. I think 7 of them were considered insane.  The "when" and "to what degree" the madness hits them varies. It seems you can be born with it, or it can hit later on.  Of those 7 insane kings, most were brutally violent, but a few were weirdos who died doing weird things.  If factoring in Dany, the forecast for Targs is cloudy with a 44% chance of crazy. Not the most favorable odds.

Her father King Aerys was a beloved man who lost his mind gradually as he aged. He still had some wits about him the day he was kidnapped and held for ransom. He was rescued under the cover of night months later. Aerys was never the same after that event. He returned to Kings Landing as the Mad King, and the rest is history. 

I say that to say I believe experiences matter as it pertains to her mental health. It's unfair for us as a viewer to say "her friend died, so she killed everyone". She couldve been queen a while ago. Instead In the last 9 episodes she lost the armies of Dorne, Highgarden, Iron Islands, and half of the Dothraki and Unsullied. Rhaegal and Viserion. Jorah and Missandei. Varys. Tyrion. Jon.  

Another post earlier said that she just snapped. I concur. I think that as she sat on that dragon overlooking the city, staring at the Red Keep she waited her whole life for, she thought of everyone on the list I just named, and then some. The bells told her she won. But she knew better. The Mad King once gave the command to "burn them all" as soon as he realized he had lost, and not a moment sooner.  He just didn't pull it off.

It is a beautifully tragic (if not brief, thanks tv limitations!) end to an amazing character.  I look fwd to Sunday and even more so the last two books. 

[Minsc]

31 minutes ago, ComfyLettuce said:

Westeros saw 17 Targaryen monarchs during their reign. I think 7 of them were considered insane.  The "when" and "to what degree" the madness hits them varies. It seems you can be born with it, or it can hit later on.  Of those 7 insane kings, most were brutally violent, but a few were weirdos who died doing weird things

 

Aegon I = Sane

Aenys = Sane

Maegor = Mad

Jaehaerys I = Sane

Viserys I = Sane

Aegon II = Sane

Aegon III = Sane

Daeron I = Sane

Baelor = Mad, but peaceful

Viserys II = Sane

Aegon IV = Sane

Daeron II = Sane

Aerys I = Sane

Maeker = Sane

Aegon V = Sane

Jaehaerys II = Sane

Aerys II = Mad

 

Honestly, I would only three might qualify as being Mad as being a shitty person (aka Aegon II and IV) doesn't make someone Mad.  Furthermore, one of those three Baelor was if anything too peaceful in his madness. 

[ComfyLettuce]

22 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Aegon I = Sane

Aenys = Sane

Maegor = Mad

Jaehaerys I = Sane

Viserys I = Sane

Aegon II = Sane

Aegon III = Sane

Daeron I = Sane

Baelor = Mad, but peaceful

Viserys II = Sane

Aegon IV = Sane

Daeron II = Sane

Aerys I = Sane

Maeker = Sane

Aegon V = Sane

Jaehaerys II = Sane

Aerys II = Mad

 

Honestly, I would only three might qualify as being Mad as being a shitty person (aka Aegon II and IV) doesn't make someone Mad.  Furthermore, one of those three Baelor was if anything too peaceful in his madness. 

I'll give you Aegon IV as "sane".  Not Aegon II, I'm keeping that maniac. 

A few of my guesstimate were indeed prince or princess, not king or queen. 

 

Point being (that I hope)  Danys atrocity can be attributed to madness triggered by circumstance.  

[Lady's Secret]

On 5/13/2019 at 8:38 PM, GOTFanatic said:

Sadly I think it does. Martin told Dumb & Dumber the ending and major plot points. The Night King, and Arya's killing of him, is of course made the hell up, but this is probably how it goes down in the books. Now undoubtedly the books will make her descent into madness more believable, but I still don't think it makes for good story. I mean imagine if Luke joined the Sith and replaced his father Darth Vader instead of transcending the trend and putting an end to them. 

I think GRRM  told them that Danny burns down King’s Landing and kills almost everyone in it...but left out that it was an accident.

In the books, Kings Landing’s still has caches of wildfire underground rigged to go off in a chain reaction to destroy the whole city if one cache is ignited.  How much dragon fire do you think it would take to ignite one cache and set the whole thing off? I don’t think it would take much. And only Jaime and Brienne know about it.

I’ve always thought this detail would come back into play. And I like the idea of Jaime not really saving King’s Landing  but only delaying the inevitable. All because he is too proud to explain his actions.

 Also Danny would likely lose everyone fighting for her that enters King’s Landing when this happens. Talk about a mental stressor!  In her quest for the iron throne, she gets a whole city full of civilians killed, destroys her own capital, fulfills the Mad King’s plan and causes the death of her own soldiers. That’s pretty damn bittersweet.

[Vanadis]

4 hours ago, House Cambodia said:

This is all absolutely correct, but think through what conclusion you want to draw from it. In a decent police procedural, all the main characters are painted in such a way that to the viewers all are suspects and the entertainment comes from using your intellectual chops to work out the killer. You find out in the final episode and then you see how in retrospect all the clues were there from the beginning, together with the red herrings concerning the other characters. That's basic good writing.

I think for this to work, we should all have been deeply troubled about whether or not one of the main characters would go insane. And it shouldn't just have been the Targaryens who were the cause for our concern, we should have worried about anyone wielding supernatural power. We should have been aware at the moment it happened that the show's theme is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But I'm not so sure that has been a topic in this series at all. In season one, Ned is killed by a mad boy, but that was not a sweet boy turned crazy by power. Ned's downfall is his honor, not that he turned mad because he had the power to kill people, as displayed in the very first episode.

Thing is, because this is a fantasy story, and so many rules are different than in our world, the show needs to teach us how the rules work, and stick to the rules they make rigidly. If not, anything goes. The show has told us that Dany's father was mad, but they haven't shown us other people of power going mad with the power given them up until this point. 

This just isn't good writing, it's just jumping around from plot point to plot point nonsensically to get to the end. 

2 hours ago, ComfyLettuce said:

"Targaryen madness" is neither myth nor exaggeration. Its not properly explained but weve heard the "gods flip a coin" quote a few times, and for good reason. Their propensity for insanity is well documented.  

Then Varys should have been against all Targaryens from the start.
He should be against Jon as well. Jon might snap in his sixties, who knows? Keep him off the throne.
Tyrion could have been enamored with Dany, he has a weakness for pretty ladies, but the moment Varys voiced his concern, Tyrion should have said "Yes, this is distrubing." And then he should have proceeded to tell Dany in a one on one that "your grace, we're seeing signs you're going mad like your father." Like she asked. 
I think this happened because they wanted us to look the other way, so they took a character (Tyrion) who we trust and had him support her all the way in order for this to be a bigger shock. But that means that things happen because plot.
It is as much a character assassination of Tyrion as it is of Dany. And Varys never made sense in this setting.

And even if viewers decide that they don't want to be a judge of character (Tyrion certainly used to be a good judge of character, and not afraid to confront dangerous people), it is because this is a story that we are entitled to use what we know about these characters as basis for our predictions. A plot driven story has less value, because things happen at random, and we're just supposed to enjoy the spectacle. Yes, there are stories like that out there, many of them. The first movies made in the history of cinema were spectacles. Until they realized that they could use cinema for something deeper and more rewarding.

GOT always was a character driven story, and for that reason, what the characters would have done should be the building block. HBO should not get any credit for creating shock for the sake of shock. 
 

1 hour ago, Lady's Secret said:

I think GRRM  told them that Danny burns down King’s Landing and kills almost everyone in it...but left out that it was an accident.

Yes. 

Before this episode, I thought one way it could go was that as Dany flew over King's Landing, Cersei would start wildfires in the city to make people think Dany was attacking them. Then someone, maybe Jon, would kill Dany and solve Cersei's problem for her.

I like your accident version too. Any version is better than the one we got.

If Jon killed a woman we knew were mostly innocent because he thought she was guilty - that would have been a subversion of our expectations worthy of this show.

[loverofcats]

Like I said the theory about Bran could be wrong. But something is wrong with Bran too. He cares less of the others. They are not a threat for Westeros, they don't want the IT. But... he had that vision about a shadow of the dragon over KL before Dany to come to Winterfell. It's clear that the vision is link to Daenerys and her dragons. After NK and Viserion have been defeated, he knew that that shadow  it's one of Daenerys dragons. He knew is Daenerys, but he did't warned Jon. He didn't tell anyone. Why? If I'm not mistaken that vision it's the  only one in which they show us that Bran can see fragments of the future. I guess Bran knew what will happen in KL but he did nothing to prevent that slaughter. Why?

[Vanadis]

Loverofcats, as interesting as your theories are, I just don't think the writers are capable of thinking on that level.

Throughout the past seasons I've expected something clever in certain storylines, and it never happened.

I think the way of telling a story "late season GOT style" would be something like this:

- I let the characters do wildly inconsistent things
- I cut conversations between characters where it would be natural for these things to be discussed, so that we don't really know their way of reasoning
- In the gap of logic I create, I let the viewers fill in their own favorite theories

Voila, hopefully I have now made viewers think I'm brilliant, while it's really them doing all the work. Now I can lean back and watch the fans fight over who understood the story and who got the clues.

As much as I like the idea of Bran being the ultimate bad guy, that too should have been built up properly. For example:

In the scene where Varys and Tyrion discuss Danerys, Tyrion could say:

Tyrion: Where is this even coming from, Varys? You always supported her before.
Varys: Yes, but you see her father actually wasn't mad from the beginning. You know what made him snap? He was all alone in the world. I can tell Jon doesn't really love her. She hoped Sansa would be like a sister, but Sansa is giving her the finger. I can tell she's becoming paranoid even as we speak. A Targaryen alone in the world...
Tyrion: But she isn't alone. She has us.
Varys: What, two wizened old men? Jorah might have kept her sane, but at this point I think he was the only one.
Tyrion: For the Gods sake, Varys. You do realize that if we stop supporting her, we will have to kill her? She's a ruling queen! 
Varys: Sacrifices will have to be made.
Tyrion: No, I don't accept it!
Varys: Have you really come to love her that much? You're my friend. I'd consider you my best friend. I wanted to warn you, but now I have to ask you, please, turn from her. If not to spare my life, then to spare the innocent lives of the people she's going to kill when she turns.

Then, after watching Tyrion anguish for a while, a scene where Tyrion decides that he wants to save Dany, so he confronts her and she's all like:
Dany: Going mad, me? Don't worry Tyrion. I've got this under control. I certainly am not alone, I've got you. You're clever. You know Jon. If you say Jon isn't going to betray me, I believe you. But I'm sorry, your friend has to go.

Now, when she flies over the city on her dragon, this question is active in our mind. Will she go mad? Won't she? When she does, we have a good reason for her to do so as highlighted by Varys' reasoning, but we also have a good reason why she wouldn't as highlighted by Dany.

Then, when we have the discussion of whether this made sense or not, it is a discussion rooted within the story actively exploring this theme. It does not break the immersion. And when it turns out that Bran was behind it, it comes as shock, but since Dany's version absolutely sounded reasonable, there was an opening that something was not quite right. This way, Bran's evil plotting will be within the outline that the story gave us, not just another random surprise...

This version might have worked. I'm sure there are better ways. But at least in this way there's an attempt to introduce some logic to it all.

[ComfyLettuce]

1 hour ago, Vanadis said:

Then Varys should have been against all Targaryens from the start.
He should be against Jon as well. Jon might snap in his sixties, who knows? Keep him off the throne.
Tyrion could have been enamored with Dany, he has a weakness for pretty ladies, but the moment Varys voiced his concern, Tyrion should have said "Yes, this is distrubing." And then he should have proceeded to tell Dany in a one on one that "your grace, we're seeing signs you're going mad like your father." Like she asked. 
I think this happened because they wanted us to look the other way, so they took a character (Tyrion) who we trust and had him support her all the way in order for this to be a bigger shock. But that means that things happen because plot.
It is as much a character assassination of Tyrion as it is of Dany. And Varys never made sense in this setting.

Varys serves who he thinks is fit, until he thinks otherwise. Always has.  He favors Targaryens, but hes not a blind follower. He clearly had no desire to serve another Aerys.  He was underused in the show lately but his purpose was managing spies and writing letters. He will be missed.

Tyrion also freed Jaime to help Cersei escape.   I dont know where they go from here. 

 

1 hour ago, Vanadis said:

GOT always was a character driven story, and for that reason, what the characters would have done should be the building block. HBO should not get any credit for creating shock for the sake of shock. 

You make all good points re: Tyrion.  And the inferior quality of dialogue this season is never more apparent than in his scenes. 

This season could have spanned a lot more episodes allowing the story to play out. But it's the showrunners' call. HBO offered to extend it longer.  And they said no. 

[ComfyLettuce]

1 hour ago, loverofcats said:

Like I said the theory about Bran could be wrong. But something is wrong with Bran too. He cares less of the others. They are not a threat for Westeros, they don't want the IT. But... he had that vision about a shadow of the dragon over KL before Dany to come to Winterfell. It's clear that the vision is link to Daenerys and her dragons. After NK and Viserion have been defeated, he knew that that shadow  it's one of Daenerys dragons. He knew is Daenerys, but he did't warned Jon. He didn't tell anyone. Why? If I'm not mistaken that vision it's the  only one in which they show us that Bran can see fragments of the future. I guess Bran knew what will happen in KL but he did nothing to prevent that slaughter. Why?

Honestly any theory involving Bran is good.  I always liked the idea of him figuring out how to see into the future.  When he gave arya the catspaw dagger he sensed something as she took it. Where was he during the WF battle?  When he came to, he thanked Theon as if he saw that his death was inevitable. 

[Pauld123]

At the point when Bran thanks Theon it didn't take a psychic to work out that Theon had little chance of survival. he was out of arrows, all his men dead, and was surrounded by enemy. I don't think Bran had to tap too deep into his mystic talents to predict Theon was not likely to last, and if you want to forgive him, "...that would be the opportune moment".

If instead Bran had made the same statement to him just before the Dothraki started their charge, then you would have grounds for thinking there was some magical foresight involved. But even then, the conclusion in the castle was that everyone was going to die anyway, so probably it would still not have required much intelligence to figure out there may not be a second chance.

[ComfyLettuce]

30 minutes ago, Pauld123 said:

At the point when Bran thanks Theon it didn't take a psychic to work out that Theon had little chance of survival. he was out of arrows, all his men dead, and was surrounded by enemy. I don't think Bran had to tap too deep into his mystic talents to predict Theon was not likely to last, and if you want to forgive him, "...that would be the opportune moment".

If instead Bran had made the same statement to him just before the Dothraki started their charge, then you would have grounds for thinking there was some magical foresight involved. But even then, the conclusion in the castle was that everyone was going to die anyway, so probably it would still not have required much intelligence to figure out there may not be a second chance.

Yeah, that was the weakest of the 3 examples. It's a pipe dream though. No point to it now. 

[Sir Hedge of Hog]

2 hours ago, loverofcats said:

Like I said the theory about Bran could be wrong. But something is wrong with Bran too. He cares less of the others. They are not a threat for Westeros, they don't want the IT. But... he had that vision about a shadow of the dragon over KL before Dany to come to Winterfell. It's clear that the vision is link to Daenerys and her dragons. After NK and Viserion have been defeated, he knew that that shadow  it's one of Daenerys dragons. He knew is Daenerys, but he did't warned Jon. He didn't tell anyone. Why? If I'm not mistaken that vision it's the  only one in which they show us that Bran can see fragments of the future. I guess Bran knew what will happen in KL but he did nothing to prevent that slaughter. Why?

I have my theories but they are spoilery. check out the bran posts on the forum

[Sir Hedge of Hog]

2 hours ago, loverofcats said:

Like I said the theory about Bran could be wrong. But something is wrong with Bran too. He cares less of the others. They are not a threat for Westeros, they don't want the IT. But... he had that vision about a shadow of the dragon over KL before Dany to come to Winterfell. It's clear that the vision is link to Daenerys and her dragons. After NK and Viserion have been defeated, he knew that that shadow  it's one of Daenerys dragons. He knew is Daenerys, but he did't warned Jon. He didn't tell anyone. Why? If I'm not mistaken that vision it's the  only one in which they show us that Bran can see fragments of the future. I guess Bran knew what will happen in KL but he did nothing to prevent that slaughter. Why?

bran has some role to play, whether it is for good or evil we will have to see.

ask your self this....

If jon did not know who his parents were, what would have happened? (we can argue from an emotional point of view that he needed to know of course)

[loverofcats]

6 minutes ago, Sir Hedge of Hog said:

bran has some role to play, whether it is for good or evil we will have to see.

ask your self this....

If jon did not know who his parents were, what would have happened? (we can argue from an emotional point of view that he needed to know of course)

I was just reading theories in Bran topic. I agree thay Bran could be a bad person now or maybe all he did was for the good of the realm.
Unfortunately I don't think we'll see an explanation about Bran at the  end of the show.