Jump to content
hallam

Time to rewatch from the beginning

Recommended Posts

The most vehement criticism I see here comes from people who are either upset that the show is exploitative (Renly nude scene! Danny white savior) or 'bad writing' when they failed to notice the clear signs that the character they hero worshiped was evil all along (Stannis, Danny).

I think it is time to rewatch GoT because the importance of most of the important scenes only becomes apparent later on.

The books are full of references to other literature that fans will know just as they are full of references to historical events. I can see why the show dropped some of the references to other shows because they don't work nearly as well on the screen when people have already seen that scene. Now we know that Jamie and Cersei die together as the Red Keep falls, there is only one way that the Valonquar prophecy can really end up and it has happened on TV already. That is perfectly fine in the book, not so fine on the show.

The show does not use prophecy or flashbacks anywhere near as often as the books do. But there is plenty of prefiguring. And most times, when people fail to notice that a character is flawed it is because they refuse to see the evil that they do.

Danny was never the good guy. She was an enthusiastic member of Drogo's tribe murdering and enslaving their way across Esseros. She puffs herself up with titles she has awarded herself in the manner of a Roman emperor. Most significantly, she breaks her word. She trades her dragon for the unsullied and then immediately murders the slave trader who she made it with. She could have simply broken her word and refused to hand over the dragon but she murders him as well.

Now at the time, we are gulled into believing that this is all ok and the ruse is acceptable because the outcome is just. But that is a large part of what the books are about: The type of people who do that sort of thing for good reasons are the type of people who do them for bad reasons as well.

The pretext for Danny's conquest is that she is taking her birthright back. But she doesn't change course when she knows that the throne isn't her birthright. She doesn't even change course knowing that she will be queen either way. That is why the surrender of King's Landing is such a threat. The city surrenders to Jon. So Danny has to erase Jon's victory with a massacre.

So in the end all the concerns about white savior syndrome were unfounded because Danny is no savior. She was just another tyrant. Before she massacres the inhabitants of KL to make a point, she murders Varys for telling the truth.

It was the exact same thing with Stannis. His first act in the book is to burn his kin alive for refusing to forsake their gods. He murders his brother with blood magic. Of course it was always going to end with Stannis murdering his only child.

Arya's killing of the NK only appears to be a surprise to us because we aren't really paying attention. We know she is making her way through the building. We have seen the plan that shows she must go through the buildings to get to the Godswood. We know that she is an assassin and that her chief weapon is surprise. Did we really need to see her climb the Wierwood tree and wait for the NK to arrive?

Arya's plan is exactly the one that an assassin would use. She used her skills to climb the tree unseen, waited for the NK to get as close as possible and struck at the exact moment that he was focused on killing Bran.

The clues were always there. But you have to know the ending to see them. Don't assume that just because you can't see what the show writers meant on the first viewing that they are stupid or it is bad writing. The show and the books are intentionally complex and misleading. The point is to make people think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with OP. I just finished binge-watching the whole series over the last five weeks. As we near the end and as the fates of the characters have become clearer, i viewed the old episodes in a new and different light.  It is nice to go back and pick out missed clues. People criticize the the Mad Queen development.  But if the show runners had made it more clear that there was a streak of madness in her, everybody would have guessed the ending in advance.  R+L=J was predicted several seasons in advance.  And Cleganebowl was anti-climatic because it was expected since season 1.  On the other hand, Arya-Night King was such a fun surprise.  People criticize Jaime's end story and say that he failed to redeem himself.  He did not need to redeem himself imo.  Jaime was a tragic hero in this story.  He did some awful things and he did some admirable things.  His greatest flaw was that he loved Cersei and had to be with her even though he knew that death was likely. Each episode is like a fine bottle of wine.  It was nice to go back and savour another glass (while I still could because I will be cancelling HBO again after Episode 6).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree going back and watching is important, it isn't going to suddenly make these past two seasons good...

You can re watch the first season and all the hints of Ned dying are there. The show blatantly tells you he will be executed. But we are shocked because it doesn't happen on TV shows. It made sense, it was logical and the show focused on character development to get to that point, not pushing a plot agenda.

The Red Wedding makes sense, the hints that something bad will happen are there. We are on edge because we know no character is safe, but Rob is warned non stop about Walder Frey. Warned about the choices he makes, but he makes them because it is logical with his character and his charater's development. You want it to be different, but you look back and see that character made certain choices for a certain reason that makes sense.

Season 7 and to a lesser extent season 6 decided shock value was more important. That plot will drive the story and character's growth will be thrown out the window. That character's made choices they would never have normally made. They have abrupt changes in how they do things because the plot needed it and the biggest issue is, the fake deaths. GOT never had fake deaths in its first few seasons because it ruined the suspense of someone could die any second. We can only be fooled by the same trick so many times now.

I agree re watching will be important because it will show even more how much this season, and last, make zero sense and how truly awful these seasons were for those who still seem to want to defend it as a masterpiece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You talk about rewatching as if it's going to make everything all make sense.

Rewatching isn't going to do anything but make you realize how horribly written these last two or three seasons have been in comparison to the first four seasons of the show.

One of the first things you notice is the dialogue and the quality thereof. And then the second thing you'll notice is pacing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is ZERO chance I'd rewatch the show at this point.

Now, I'm one of the people that have felt Danny's going to go dark at some point since fairly early in the show.  The problem is they've spent the last couple seasons building up her intention to free people from other's tyranny, and ignoring the darkness she held within.  And in the most asinine twist of the entire series, right as she gets everything she's ever wanted, King's Landing has surrendered, the throne is hers, she decides rather than killing the one person who deserved it (Cersei), she would instead turn on those who are innocent bystanders and burn them all.  As much as I knew the turn would happen, I hated the way it played out because it made ZERO sense in context.  Had there been some reason for her to lose it, rather than literally every reason in her world to stand down and accept everything she'd been working for, it would have been fine.

As it is, it's yet another tick in the "what has happened to this show?" column.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been rewatching. It just makes me that much sadder. I am in mourning. It was the dialogue, the character development, the differences between books and screen that had me hooked. After reading books, generally the movies just can't compare. This was the rare occasion that both were good, just enough differences to keep you hooked. And then.... Sigh. Just disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2019 at 8:36 PM, hallam said:

the character they hero worshiped was evil all along (Stannis, Danny)

I don't like Dany and am indifferent about Stannis but no they were not evil all along, They did evil acts; Stannis mostly with the help of Melisandre, Dany maybe once or twice I don't remember...until the last episode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Quillon said:

I don't like Dany and am indifferent about Stannis but no they were not evil all along, They did evil acts; Stannis mostly with the help of Melisandre, Dany maybe once or twice I don't remember...until the last episode.

Stannis was an unprincipled bastard who never did anything that wasn't to get the throne.

  • Murder of his relatives who refused to worship the red god.
  • Murder of his brother by shadow baby
  • Tries to sack Kings Landing and murder the inhabitants of the city
  • Melisandre warns him he will commit worse betrayals before it is over, he is OK
  • Sends Melisandre off to find Roberts bastards to murder them.
  • Use of the leeches.
  • Sacrifices one of his bannermen to the LoL
  • Burns Mance Rader alive for refusing to bend the knee
  • Murders his daughter

There was never anything remotely admirable about Stannis. He was a power hungry despot who murdered someone to advance his cause in every other scene he was in.

Danny wasn't much better. Like with Stannis, there was no shortage of signs that she was a ruthless merciless killer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between stannis and fake dany is that when fake dany did her horrific act she had already won. There was no need for any horrible act.

 

All of stannis's crimes were because he believed he needed to take the throne. The show stannis  goes back and forth and is hard to pin down his "personality" However his biggest crime in our eyes is when he burned his daughter. Now while I am not defending it  this was the act of a desperate man. If the snow didn't melt he and all his men would die as would his wife and daughter because if stannis lost his wife and his daughter would be killed by cersei and her gang or the boltons.  And again while I am NOT saying it was okay or anything but evil it was a horrific act with a point.

Fake dany killed at least a hundred thousand innocent people because....she won? There was no reason to do it. She had won the throne and cersei was defeated. You cannot tell me how that makes any sense. The "fear" argument is stupid. She had just beaten the queen of the seven kingdoms like it was nothing and destroyed the iron fleet and the vast majority of it was done by a dragon with no help from her army. She showed that walls and ships were no more then an annoyance. Innocent people would have been killed during that battle already. So it would have shown her to be ruthless. All she did was take away any respect and any chance of people willing to work with her if it's not by force. She had a dragon there is nothing scarier in westeros then that. She anniahlated the golden company a group of twenty thousand highly skilled warriors and didn't have her army have any part in that fight except to execute the wounded.  And  her burning scores of innocent people like that BEFORE going after cersei in the red keep made no sense. It was just stupid and bad writing. Throughout the whole series if dany did something bad it was for some purpose.  And yeah she did some bad stuff there is no doubt. However this had no point to it and just hurt her cause. If they had her attack cersei in the red keep and attacked the red keep after the bells rang and knew that killing cersei  with her dragon would mean killing the innocent civilians and yet still did it would have had the "fear" that people seem to think she needed after demolishing cersei's entire military and the iron fleet.  And it would have shown she broke to at least some degree.

 

 

Instead they had her do something stupid that was entirley out of character because they wanted it to be shocking.

 

So Stannis-did horrible things to take the throne and did his worst crime in desperation.

 

Fake dany-Commited the worst crime we have seen or heard of in the game of thrones world and did it AFTER she won and had the throne she wanted.

You can't equate the two

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, hallam said:

There was never anything remotely admirable about Stannis. He was a power hungry despot who murdered someone to advance his cause in every other scene he was in.

Stannis didn't have a chance at beating anyone in the war of 5 kings when he denounced Joffrey and declared war. He almost assuredly would of been way better off just playing along with the Lannisters and being proclaimed Lord Paramount of the Stormlands. In spite of this he decided to declare war due to his fundamentalist sense of justice in the cynical world of GOT. 

Also:

  • Stannis' choice to go fight for the North shows that he isn't only driven by ambition for the Iron Throne.
  • After the battle of the Blackwater, he shows regret for the lives of his men being lost in vain.  Besides, for some reason Stannis didn't want to hire the golden company due to them being sellswords, despite their battle prowess and history of victory

This doesn't necessarily make him a good person, but he certainly isn't without redeeming qualities.

Share this post


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

I’m fairly new to this forum - who is fake dany?

Danaerys was wildly out of character last episode, so they're joking that she was just an impostor.

Share this post


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

I’m fairly new to this forum - who is fake dany?

The folk not paying attention don't want to believe the Khalesi who loved Drogo and wanted to help him enslave Essos was a baddie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I wouldn't do this to myself knowing how all characters were assassinated in the final season. It makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re watching The Bells also throw up a lot.  

It is much clearer that Dany is going to go all Burn Them All, and not just to win.

And apart from her initial approach to Euron's fleet (when she nearly fucks it all up), it is much clearer how she ovecomes the scorpions - they can't turn fast enough as she flies round them and changes direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, for those going on about Stannis. Realize that show Stannis is WAY different than book Stannis. D&D hated Stannis since the beginning and turned him into "a bad guy"

In the books, Stannis is a firm but fair man. D&D butchered his character and it's one of the reasons re watching the show hurts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2019 at 1:36 PM, hallam said:

 

Danny was never the good guy. She was an enthusiastic member of Drogo's tribe murdering and enslaving their way across Esseros. She puffs herself up with titles she has awarded herself in the manner of a Roman emperor. Most significantly, she breaks her word. She trades her dragon for the unsullied and then immediately murders the slave trader who she made it with. She could have simply broken her word and refused to hand over the dragon but she murders him as well.

 

Technically she did give him Drogon.  But the poor sap had no idea what to do with Drogon and kept yanking on the chain/rope thing till Drogon got pissed and roasted him.  

But yeah is was a good example of foreshawdowing Dany not being miss goody twoshoes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, btfu806 said:

Also, for those going on about Stannis. Realize that show Stannis is WAY different than book Stannis. D&D hated Stannis since the beginning and turned him into "a bad guy"

In the books, Stannis is a firm but fair man. D&D butchered his character and it's one of the reasons re watching the show hurts.

No he is not.

Book Stannis is every bit as much of a bastard as show Stannis and more. He uses two shadow babies, not just one.

If you think book Stannis is anything but a monster, its because you haven't been paying attention. And of course, that is GRRM's point: We glorify 'great men' like Wellington and Napolepon without considering the methods they used to achieve ends which at best were to stop the other.

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

×