Jump to content
Areisius

Who was Daenerys turned into?

Recommended Posts

Unsullied! It is amazing to see so many of you! You were mostly wiped out up at Winterfell. Your bodies were burned on immense pyres, using wood that the North could not afford to waste. Now, rank upon rank, you stand before me in the capital. In Esos, I told you that you were free men, able to choose your own path. You have just seen me slaughter countless people needlessly. I set fire to an entire city while you were in it, so I know you still love me. Now, we will set forth on great conquests, marching through winter lands without food, smashing other lands, some of which have already pledged fealty to me. Also, I and my advisers will totally forget that we will be sailing blind into seas totally controlled by our enemies. We will forget that twice a dragon has been knocked out of the skies by a weapon designed by a creep whose engineering credentials consisted mostly in a love of human vivisection. I have forgotten this despite the fact that on one occasion I was riding the dragon in question. It's clear that we are invincible. 

Was there ever, could there ever be, such a ridiculously stupid wack job as I have become? Obviously, the guys who write this stuff for me believe this. They also think all the viewers of this miserable television series will believe it. I assure you that, at least in regard to that last part, they are quite wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...into nothing, absolutely nothing, a cartoon character, everything copied from other sources. Set pieces then flip flop as necessary. Even Emilia said "out of nowhere!".

The scenarios they wanted were: danny in nazi/tolitarian speech/imagery. Jon kills her. Throne destroyed (imagery again that leads nowhere) then flies west. Lots of fan-service.  Ending as beginning Jon goes beyond the wall. Imp is god even in chains. Bran is best ruler candidate ever. Comic relief Edmure. Bring wolf back because people complained. 

Extras in that speech shot then all same few usual characters like a sitcom even if it makes no sense. If they went to a club: 1 shot of extras dancing then the same 6-10 characters talking, some strangely would be serving the drinks and acting as security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

From what I know sacks were very common and had nothing to do with the length of the siege. But we can certainly say that they have nothing to do with stuff like that in Westeros if you think of the sacks of King's Landing, Bitterbridge, or Tumbleton. In fact, in certain times sacks were completely normal since the opportunity to plunder was part of (or the only) payment the troops were getting.

I'm pretty sure nobody in the books would care if Dany sacks a city, just as pretty much nobody cared about such modern sensibilities in other instances. Nobody wanted to see Tywin dead because of KL, or the Green leadership because of Tumbleton or Bitterbridge.

I could see the sack taking place on the ground, which as you say, was common in real life.

I could see Dany burning the Red  Keep to the ground, and killing hundreds of civilians in the process.

These are both brutal, but acts of war in this world.

I can't see why, when the sight of the Red Keep had triggered her, she would then swerve  away from it to systematically torch street after street of fleeing civilians, other than the show runners wanted an excuse for having Jon murder her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Wsc48 said:

Adolf Vader?

After re-watching the part where she gives her speech I see the resemblance.  Those bastards!

Share this post


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

After re-watching the part where she gives her speech I see the resemblance.  Those bastards!

That was intentional.  Emilia Clarke modelled herself on Hitler at Nuremberg while delivering that speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2019 at 1:47 PM, Raebo said:

Have you read the books?  She says it herself in the Dance with Dragons, the last book Martin wrote, about 4 pages from the end in the last chapter when she is talking to the grass, her inner conflict, she changes her outlook and the last thing thing the grass asks her is, “who are you?”, and she replies, “________ and _________”.

I will not put her quote here since some may not have read the book but if you read it now, I think it is obvious that it foreshadowed what she would do and it tells what she turned into.  Looking back on it, the conversation with the grass is about the most important part of the books and sets up Danys arc but on first read, I just scratched my head and finished the book.

I think D&D failed to show that inner conflict adequately which left me very unsatisfied with how they portrayed her.

 

I disagree entirely. She vows to be a conqueror and not make the compromises which weakened her in ADWD. Which BTW, directly caused the deaths of a few hundred thousand Astapori through her inaction.

But in the show she is presented a surrendered city. She has no reason to kill the Smallfolk. By all means, kill the Lannister prisoners and put Cersei’s head on a spear. If you’re presented an easy way out; there’s no reason not to take it.

The whole breaking the wheel across the world is an invention of the show. Dany freeing slaves isn’t suggestive of this. She vows to go to Westeros, not liberate Essos. Plus, the logical leap would be to equate slaves with the small folk and abolish feudalism if GRRM went there. He won’t, as with the show, because that’s too sympathetic a motivation. 

Plus, on the show and I suspect in the books. Dany forgave Jorah. Think about it, this is a man who tried to kill her. She should accept the concept that an enemy can become a friend. That people who hate you can come to love you. If I killed Jorah then he wouldn’t have been there to save me. The same logic applies to killing the people of Kings Landing. They don’t love me today but people can change. Jon essentially argues a variation of this. But IMO that is something show Dany should believe based on her whole arc of forgiving Jorah. She should not just up and forget that because he died. That’s ridiculous.

Plus this is supposed to be a grounded and dark fantasy series. It’s a character flaw that Dany is wrathful. Yes it would be nice if Dany was like Nynaeve from Wheel of Time but Iam not expecting somebody who is perfect in this series.

Also, putting cities to the sword is normal in this world as it was in the real Middle Ages. People shouldn’t be super judgemental over it. If you gave a dragon to any medieval monarch they would use it as Dany did. That just makes her no better than a normal ruler. It’s just the show suddenly reverts to everyone being lawful good.

Share this post


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

That was intentional.  Emilia Clarke modelled herself on Hitler at Nuremberg while delivering that speech.

Oh, ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SeanF said:

I could see the sack taking place on the ground, which as you say, was common in real life.

As I said elsewhere I'd not be surprised at all if Dany decided to pay back the Lannisters their own bloody coin by following her father's Duskendale example (that is, eradicate the entire houses along with all the cadet branches) and this also involving a brutal sack/the destruction of Lannisport.

That would certainly be cruel but I'd also say that it would be necessary. Those lions have always been poisonous and they are simply too powerful due to their huge wealth, prestige, and monstrous castle.

Such a treatment of KL feels completely wrong for me. Especially doing it via dragon(s). This shouldn't work well in winter with snow everywhere, not to mention the size of the dragons in the books (in just two books none of Dany's dragons can even remotely grow to the size of Aegon's dragons, never mind what George says).

KL can be taken in a different fashion. Not to mention that some wildfire is still there (and more is produced) and could still be used in some fashion.

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

I could see Dany burning the Red  Keep to the ground, and killing hundreds of civilians in the process.

These are both brutal, but acts of war in this world.

I can't see why, when the sight of the Red Keep had triggered her, she would then swerve  away from it to systematically torch street after street of fleeing civilians, other than the show runners wanted an excuse for having Jon murder her.

I certainly could see such an act happening, too, but I don't see that happening in a way that's would make her *evil*. To do something like that she would have to surpass the hatred Rhaenyra and Aegon II/Alicent felt for each other - because these people were capable of controlling themselves enough to not use their dragons for such horrendous attack. And in Dany's case this would necessitate that she reacts in such an angry and destructive manner to some similar attack on her people/person/friends, etc. Anything else wouldn't make sense. In such a context she would likely not give a damn about the people who die in the process, but that would be classical collateral damage the kind we have already gotten countless times in that series and will get countless times again until it is over.

The proper way to get her people to turn against her would be the way George actually portrays tyrants in his feudal setting (among them Aerys II, too) - and that would involve her starting to cruelly and arbitrarily execute important noblemen. That would call the noble class to turn against her. In combination with problematic political decisions (the tax policy Rhaenyr allowed Lord Celtigar to implement, for instance) this could erode whatever power base she may have.

But the show never understood what 'tyranny' or 'royal madness' means in George's world. They have Renly ramble on about the Mad King killing hundreds of thousands or millions of innocent women and children, etc. (I don't remember exactly) back in season 1 when it was overwhelming the noble class who felt his wrath, not the population at large.

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

I disagree entirely. She vows to be a conqueror and not make the compromises which weakened her in ADWD. Which BTW, directly caused the deaths of a few hundred thousand Astapori through her inaction.

Yeah, Dany is pretty much her ancestor King Aenys in ADwD. Eager to please, forgiving to the point of self-destruction, and going insanely far in her willingness to compromise. Abandoning that course is necessary for her to survive, but there is certainly a middle ground between Aenys and Maegor. No longer trying the former's approach doesn't mean you have to become the latter.

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

The whole breaking the wheel across the world is an invention of the show. Dany freeing slaves isn’t suggestive of this. She vows to go to Westeros, not liberate Essos. Plus, the logical leap would be to equate slaves with the small folk and abolish feudalism if GRRM went there. He won’t, as with the show, because that’s too sympathetic a motivation. 

Yeah, that entire wheel nonsense is an invention of the show. Dany doesn't know or care about the game of thrones as it is played in Westeros, nor does she feel any need to end or change that. At this point she just shoulders the burden that comes with being the last Targaryen left to avenge her family and retake what was once theirs - which is the duty of any noble or royal child in this world.

The slavery story has taken a life of its own in the books - in George's books Dany will already come as the conqueror of Essos (at least from the Bones to the Narrow Sea) to Westeros, assuming she actually gains the allegiance of all the Dothraki. Then nothing on the mainland of Essos will stand before her, and considering that she already has a political agenda - end slavery - she will use those new means to accomplish that. And as George set up slavery and its apologists in ADwD it is quite clear that this can only work if the entire slavery culture is eradicated - not just the slavers. If you only kill the slavers then the freed slaves will set themselves up as new slavers if you don't watch them - as it happened in Astapor.

This is not going to work without a huge bloodletting. But the people surviving this could then rebuild a better world.

If Dany did accomplish that - and if she had basically the entire might of Essos behind her when she finally goes to Westeros - she is not likely to compromise much with the noble classes and other people opposing her.

But she would still not just arbitrarily kill people who opposed her rule because their betters did or deliberately target and kill such people. As part of a more important overall political/military objective, sure, but not as a goal itself - and that was how the show told the story.

I mean, none of George's mad Targaryens (or other characters) ever came up with the nonsensical notion 'to kill innocent commoners for fun'. That just doesn't happen. Yes, there were Targaryens who used their dragons and thugs to deliberately target specific peasants but even people like Maegor and Aemond were targeting sympathizers of the Faith Militant or were trying to draw out the enemy dragonriders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it would have made more sense if Tyrion had been true to his character. He's far more likely to tell her to burn down KL than save peasants. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2019 at 4:43 PM, Jabar of House Titan said:

I didn't see any Dothraki raping people in episode 5. Or even pillaging for that matter...

I did see a northerner try to rape someone and then try to kill Jon when Jon wouldn't let him rape someone.

Umm... I saw Dothraki killing people in KL in episode 5.  Rape and pillage is the Dotraki MO.   They are Dany's Cossacks.

Whether or not the Dotraki actually did r&p is irrelevant.  What matters for the discussion that you are having with Forlong is what the 'common people' believe that the Dothraki will do.  If the people believe that the Dothraki will r&p, then they are going to flee to the nearest fortified town/city/castle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 1:22 AM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

But these are all show inventions, don't happen in the books. How does that match up with the GRRM ending for Dany? Wasn't the show ending supposed to be GRRM's overall vision for the story? 

Dany in the show has always been more bloodthirsty compared Dany in the books. Still, her actions in KL and afterwards is a complete 180. I mean, it doesn't even look like she realized what she has done. Looks like they wanted to make her totally evil out of nowhere, so when Jon kills her, we feel sympathy for him and not her for some reason. 

In the end, the show has a happy ending for just about everyone except Dany, who goes crazy in literally a matter of minutes. 

 

:agree:

I'm completely ok with Dany turning into an antagonist, but it has to be told in a way in which viewers/readers can follow the development and mourn the turn of events, while fully understanding why it has happened.

This is not what we got here. If the producer of the show needs to go all the way back to S1 where she was almost killed by her brother and was only left with the option of seeing him killed instead and have that retconned, "see she crazy all along", then the story telling has failed.

The execution of the Tarlys is maybe a better example, and you can add the random Master in Mereen burned (show inventions) and add the crucification of the Masters, but they are all Lords/Masters.

The deliberate killing of the small folk had no build up/insight. It was not even clear if it was coldblooded or if she became temporarily deranged. It was too late in her arc already by that time, but at least even at that point it should have been delivered better cinematically - flashbacks, her facial expressions while she was burning, something ....

Share this post


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

I can't see why, when the sight of the Red Keep had triggered her, she would then swerve  away from it to systematically torch street after street of fleeing civilians, other than the show runners wanted an excuse for having Jon murder her.

Yep, exactly. When the bells go off, she takes off from the city walls and flies for a good distance - meant to create suspense, fine - we see Drogon's shadow on the roofs like in Bran's vision before she starts torching a mix of civilians and fleeing Lannister soldiers. This location should have been several blocks away from the walls. The next time we see her (from Cersei's vantage point), she is very close to the walls still, strafing streets left to right systematically. That is how bad the production is, inspire of the impressive visuals.

The only thing satisfying about this was the shot of Cersei's face when she finally seems to realize that she is a total imbecile.

Edited by Ser Hedge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 8:38 AM, Kajjo said:

True, but what we call foreshadowing are actually sentences by Daenerys and she made clear early on that destroying cities is an option.

There is no sudden development in S8, all this is in her all the time. 

 Don't moan about lack of development, better focus on why you haven't understood her character back in early seasons where they showed us cruel streaks of Daenerys's character. 

 It's not new. It been there all the time. 

But there are also so many more scenes where Dany clearly states she 'doesn't want to be queen of the ashes', where she cares about people and tries to avoid deaths. Where she shows no signs of going crazy.
But sure, ignoring the bells and murdering half a city because yes is totally convincing and I shouldn't complain about it.

It's funny how dany haters complained about the show white washing her during all the previous seasons and now they are saying her actions make complete sense 'cause she was a cold blood murderer from the start and no one realized. 

idk about you, but I strongly believe that if the directors of a show/movie have to come in defense of their choices for characters or writing, something is very wrong.  Fictional pieces should speak for themselves and if most of the audience has the 'wrong' impression, then it's not the 'wrong' impression. it's the impression the show gave them and that's pretty much what counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/20/2019 at 8:17 AM, sweetsunray said:

She becomes a Robespierre. He's the architect of the French Revolution and wanted to liberate France from tiranny, but became a tyrant himself, killing the civilians he wanted to liberate, and sent Napoleon out to liberate other countries as well. The French Revolution was a very very bloody affair, though its abstract ideals were good.

Or even the fictional Madam Defarge, exacting revenge on a family even after the wrong doers are dead or reformed in the name of the French Revolution. She transferred her vengeance quest on Robert to Cersei who had nothing to do with killing her family. She's also ranting against the "Usurpers dogs" in the books even after they are dead. Jorah convinces her to buy the Unsullied because she has some "dogs she wants to kill" but she knows only Tywin is still alive by that point. I bet she'll call Sansa that in the books. Then Jon shanks her, lol.

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

With all the complaints it sounds like people wanted this to be Breaking Bad with Dany as the star of the series? But George said he would have turned down such an option because one character is only 10% of the story. I think we got the right amount of khaleesi -- any more and it would be insufferable.Just adding in more Dany scenes would make the series solely about her, and everyone would revolve around her. I mean, I think that's basically what we got because Dany was the subject of conversation even in scenes she wasn't in.

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

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

×