Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cersei's #1 Fan

Unpopular Opinion: Support Daenerys

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Ilissa said:

Red Wedding happened during the war. But Dany won the war.

Purple Wedding happened after Robb's death, if you think it's over with Cersei's death you're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think there are two routes you go down, a realistic ending or a Hollywood ending.

Realistic ending.

Dany is still there with her unsullied and Dothraki and an extremely powerful Dragon. Yes many, including Jon, are unhappy with the destruction of most of a city but there are no alternative claimants with both a strong claim to the throne and sufficient resources to control seven kingdoms.

Jon has proved himself in service to his queen and either returns North to take up his responsibilities or stays to marry her.

Tyrion has proved useless time and again as an advisor but Dany might just let him take up his rightful title rather than kill him. 

Everyone else recognises the warning from the fate of Kings landing and swiftly falls into line. Dany recruits some better advisors and presides over decades of peace and prosperity and it is not certain she is infertile so she could easily birth a new dynasty to rule after her.

Hollywood ending

Everyone is so horrified that Dany destroyed a city that Jon or Arya kills her. Jon becomes a great king because he is good regardless of the fact that he has little political or military ability. Dany's army don't care that their queen is dead and clap as Jon ascends to the throne. all the other lords of Westeros bow down before someone once considered a bastard, with an unverified claim to the throne, and little army left that is personally loyal to him (seriously how many men does the North have left by this point?) .

On the extreme edge of this we could have some sort of democracy, in a world of illiterate peasants with no media to inform them as well.   

Edited by JagLover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Erkan12 said:

Purple Wedding happened after Robb's death

Because Joffrey was a tyrant.

Edited by Ilissa

Share this post


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

Because Joffrey was a tyrant.

Dany is even worse. Burned hundreds of children and innocent people at KL.

Share this post


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

Dany is even worse. Burned hundreds of children and innocent people at KL.

Are you sure about this though? I seem to remember that all of the Dothraki died, but they're obviously still alive. We can't trust what we see in this season.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burning a million people to the ground and support the person who did it? Yeah right. Might as well support Mao or Hitler or Bolsheviks. How about no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MinscS2 said:

What's the moral of the story if she dies?
...
"We are who we are born to be, and no agency can change that"?


This is what I take away from this story. You will become whatever you were born to be. 
 

1 hour ago, Ilissa said:

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."

"A good conqueror cannot be a good person."

"There is no good war even with a good leader."

I think this is an overall anti-war message from Martin.


How about
"To bring the end to one bad leader, we need another bad leader, and once they've done their job of removing each other, we can then dispose of the survivor and have our happy ending."

What the show gave us was not a display of how terrible things happen at war. It was a display of how terrible things happen because a person with the madness trait established in her family, a person who once had a vision of great destruction that turns out to be a depiction of her destiny, does go mad in the end. 
 

55 minutes ago, Erkan12 said:

Ruling without having an heir is a big problem. Her being young isn't a guarantee for living long, anything can happen.

Elizabeth I did it successfully. It can be done.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mystical said:

Burning a million people to the ground and support the person who did it? Yeah right. Might as well support Mao or Hitler or Bolsheviks. How about no.

It's just a theory that millions of people died. It might as well have been that no-one died. 50% of the troops survived the Long Night against all odds, and only a handful of named characters died in that battle. It would be unlikely but far from impossible that most of King's Landing survived, and that the destruction was simply filmed in such a way to make it seem far more cruel than it really was.

After all, if the plot demands that Dany gets killed, we need an illusion of her doing as much harm as possible in order to justify her end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Erkan12 said:

Dany is even worse. Burned hundreds of children and innocent people at KL.

Come on, from the very beginning I said that now I see only death for Dany. But if the war ended with the bells, the absence of heirs would not be so terrible.

Share this post


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


 

Elizabeth I did it successfully. It can be done.

 

Did Elizabeth I burned hundreds of children alive, and killed many people from noble houses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Erkan12 said:

Did Elizabeth I burned hundreds of children alive, and killed many people from noble houses?

The whole Tudor dynasty were known for being ruthless when needed.

Apparently, Elizabeth's reasoning for not naming a successor was that she knew from personal experiences that being an heir made you vulnerable to plots. In her case, it was not only matter of having people plotting to kill her. There had been plots where someone decided they wanted to put her on the throne now, at once, and when the plots were uncovered she very nearly was killed herself because of it. She was sent to the tower by her own sister. So Elizabeth did it to protect her successor. Of course, she might also have done it to give her successor less credit, in case he decided to push his claim before her natural death (or in case she had children later). Who knows.

But either way, Elizabeth I decided not to name a successor until the very end of her reign, and whether it was a wise move or not, it worked out just fine.

Edited by Vanadis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Erkan12 said:

Dany is even worse. Burned hundreds of children and innocent people at KL.

More likely hundreds of thousands.

1 hour ago, Vanadis said:

It's just a theory that millions of people died. It might as well have been that no-one died. 50% of the troops survived the Long Night against all odds, and only a handful of named characters died in that battle. 

We literally watched women and children get roasted. In the trailer for episode 6, Tyrion walks past a burnt baby skeleton. The carnage was massive and indescriminant.

You can either agree or disagree with her decision to kill as many of King's Landing's smallfolk as she could manage (not to mention the surrendering soldiers), but it's silly to say "maybe no one died." 

Share this post


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

More likely hundreds of thousands.

We literally watched women and children get roasted. In the trailer for episode 6, Tyrion walks past a burnt baby skeleton. The carnage was massive and indescriminant.

You can either agree or disagree with her decision to kill as many of King's Landing's smallfolk as she could manage (not to mention the surrendering soldiers), but it's silly to say "maybe no one died." 

Yes it's silly, but not entirely impossible. Arya seeemed to be dead many times. Maybe they grow back flesh and rise again to continue their day.

And it absolutely looks as if Dany's decision was to kill as many smallfolk as she could manage, but it's not entirely impossible that it just looked that way because of how they filmed the assault. It's a possibility that only a few died after all.

There's so many weird things happening in this show lately - people teleporting around, people surviving where they should have died, people making the strangest choices - that it wouldn't be impossible in this universe that the show has established, for Dany's rampage to not be so destructive after all.

It all boils down to one question: Does the plot demand that Dany dies?

If yes, the rampage will have been horrible.
If no, then the rampage will have been not so bad.

Since they managed so well to make it seem utterly terrible, we can suspect that Dany will have to die now.

Share this post


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

Yes it's silly, but not entirely impossible. Arya seeemed to be dead many times. Maybe they grow back flesh and rise again to continue their day.

And it absolutely looks as if Dany's decision was to kill as many smallfolk as she could manage, but it's not entirely impossible that it just looked that way because of how they filmed the assault. It's a possibility that only a few died after all.

Nope, whether you want to claim "no one died" or "only a few died," it's impossible. We watched more than a few people die. We watched lots of people die, reduced to smoldering corpses or cut down by pillaging sldiers. 

If you want to claim that no one we didn't see die died, well that isn't impossible, just ridiculous, as the long shots of Daenerys methodically reducing the entire city to ashes should have made clear. Basically, it was Dresden, if the bombing of Dresden were accompanied by a rampaging army butchering everyone they could find.

Yes, it was horrible, and yes, the reason it was so horrible was to make sure everyone in the audience understood why she is dying in tonight's episode.

Share this post


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

If you want to claim that no one we didn't see die died, well that isn't impossible, just ridiculous, as the long shots of Daenerys methodically reducing the entire city to ashes should have made clear.

Uhm, yeah. I saw all of the Dothraki die just a few episodes ago. Didn't one of the show runners even say as much in the after the episode special? Something about how this was the end of the Dothraki or some such nonsense?
I have become accustomed to not trusting what I see, because when I think I've seen something, the show tells me later that no, that thing you think you saw didn't actually happen. So, it is likely that people died, but I wouldn't put it past the show at this point to suddenly claim that nobody died if they felt like it. At this point, it seems like anything goes.

But apart from that, I agree with you. They made it so that we have not choice but to turn on Dany. But let her live long enough to have her own historians retell her story, and it will be an entirely different story.
 

Share this post


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

The whole Tudor dynasty were known for being ruthless when needed.

Apparently, Elizabeth's reasoning for not naming a successor was that she knew from personal experiences that being an heir made you vulnerable to plots. In her case, it was not only matter of having people plotting to kill her. There had been plots where someone decided they wanted to put her on the throne now, at once, and when the plots were uncovered she very nearly was killed herself because of it. She was sent to the tower by her own sister. So Elizabeth did it to protect her successor. Of course, she might also have done it to give her successor less credit, in case he decided to push his claim before her natural death (or in case she had children later). Who knows.

But either way, Elizabeth I decided not to name a successor until the very end of her reign, and whether it was a wise move or not, it worked out just fine.

I am not talking about Tudors, I am talking Elizabeth I only.

Also if she died without naming a heir, there would be chaos and divisions.

Edited by Erkan12

Share this post


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

I am not talking about Tudors, I am talking Elizabeth I only.

She too had plenty of opponents killed.
 

Share this post


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

She too had plenty of opponents killed.
 

Burned hundreds of thousands children and innocent people? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Erkan12 said:

Burned hundreds of thousands children and innocent people? 

Did Elizabeth I ever have to travel across the sea to stake her claim years after all of her family got murdered? Was she ever viewed as a foreigner not only by those of a different faith, but by every single one of her subjects? Did she ever have to rule alone after all her advisers had failed her, even her most loyal ones? Did she bring a dragon?

You know what really makes me pissed? That after Dany's action, so many of us are just left with the question "Why?" 
Foreshadowing? Horseshit.

After Ned's beheading, we didn't wonder why. We knew why. Ned was Ned. Jeoffrey was Jeoffrey. It could have gone differently, but it didn't leave us as big question marks. 

After the Red Wedding, we didn't wonder why. We knew why. Robb was Robb and lord Frey was lord Frey. It hurt, but it made bloody sense.

There wasn't so much foreshadowing that made us accept those incidents. It was that it was a logical conclusion of who the characters were. 

Dany's action is not logical, because she's always cared about the innocents.

She's committing a heinous act because it is the second to last episode, and we don't have time for more. So let's bring in a big shock so we can skip to the end.

And all the while the show has become inconsistent and weird, and there's no reason why we should believe anything we see anymore anyway.

Share this post


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

Dany's action is not logical, because she's always cared about the innocents.

No she hasn't..  maybe here and there when it suited her purpose..  all she's ever cared about is her throne.  She was a dothraki princess ffs, the kings of rape and plunder against innocents. 

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
Sign in to follow this  

×