My biggest issue with the finale is that they tried to make us feel guilty for supporting Daenerys' journey.

[Hodor's Dragon]

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Lots of people observed the demands of the story and saw where this was going. Dany wants to play the game of thrones. She won't be able to win, without some kind of massacre and disregard for innocent life. If the story let her continue to only fight the "bad guys" and win then she gets it easy. 

Yes, and lots of people observed the demands of the story and saw it going some other way. Don't pretend your view was inevitable and other views did not have support. You're wrong if you do. You guessed right, not better.

[Rose of Red Lake]

4 minutes ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

Yes, and lots of people observed the demands of the story and saw it going some other way. Don't pretend your view was inevitable and other views did not have support. You're wrong if you do. You guessed right, not better.

There does seem to be a value judgment here that the story wants to play though, a game of "can you spot the tyrant?" It's probably a good skill to have in real life. So I'm going with better.

GRRM and D&D invested in manipulation and tried to pull the wool over everyone's eyes for a twist. It's not just a random guess, it's Doylist perspective and questioning the writing and the hype surrounding this character. 

[Hodor's Dragon]

I never said it was a random guess and I never denied there was support for your position--but there was undeniably an element of guessing involved when predicting how a producer would finish an ongoing story. The claim you are repeatedly making that you were inevitably right and we were inevitably wrong is just hot air. Although there was evidence Dany might cause a bloodbath one day, there was also a great deal of evidence Dany would likely break another way. There was no right or wrong about this and there's no cause to gloat just because things turned out the way you guessed.

[Rose of Red Lake]

"But if you track her story all the way back, she does some terrible things," Harington reminded fans. "She crucifies people. She burns people alive. This has been building. So, we have to say to the audience: ‘You’re in denial about this woman as well. You knew something was wrong. You’re culpable, you cheered her on.’ The justification is: Just because they’re women, why should they be the goodies? They’re the most interesting characters in the show. And that’s what 'Thrones' has always done. You can’t just say the strong women are going to end up the good people. Dany is not a good person. It’s going to open up discussion but there’s nothing done in this show that isn’t truthful to the characters. And when have you ever seen a woman play a dictator?” - Kit Harington

Sure you could just watch this as some mindless entertainment and bet on it like a sports event, but there are real life political implications. Aren't we lucky this is fictional? Aren't we lucky we didn't boost the next Daenerys into power?

[tallTale]

23 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

"But if you track her story all the way back, she does some terrible things," Harington reminded fans. "She crucifies people. She burns people alive. This has been building. So, we have to say to the audience: ‘You’re in denial about this woman as well. You knew something was wrong. You’re culpable, you cheered her on.’ The justification is: Just because they’re women, why should they be the goodies? They’re the most interesting characters in the show. And that’s what 'Thrones' has always done. You can’t just say the strong women are going to end up the good people. Dany is not a good person. It’s going to open up discussion but there’s nothing done in this show that isn’t truthful to the characters. And when have you ever seen a woman play a dictator?” - Kit Harington

Sure you could just watch this as some mindless entertainment and bet on it like a sports event, but there are real life political implications. Aren't we lucky this is fictional? Aren't we lucky we didn't boost the next Daenerys into power?

She crucifies slavers who crucified children. Good.

 

she executed enemy lords who disobeys orders to kneel after being thoroughly defeated.

 

Jon would have done the same thing. Daeny just uses a dragon instead of sword or hanging. Jon executes Janos slynt for disobeying an order, and he also hanged a 12 year old boy. Kit sounds like a huge hypocrite.

[CrypticWeirwood]

5 minutes ago, tallTale said:

She crucifies slavers who crucified children. Good.

 

she executed enemy lords who disobeys orders to kneel after being thoroughly defeated.

 

Jon would have done the same thing. Daeny just uses a dragon instead of sword or hanging. Jon executes Janos slynt for disobeying an order, and he also hanged a 12 year old boy. such hypocritical arguments.

Jon never murdered innocents the way Dany did repeatedly. She didn't bother to find out who was guilty or innocent: she crucified them anyway. Some of them were proven innocent. That's Vlad the Impaler levels of evil there.

I believe you'll find that shanking your commanding officer in a military organization during war is a capital crime no matter the age of the murderer. Jon but did his job. He did his duty. He always does. 

Dany in contrast serially committed heinous crimes against whomever she didn't like, up to and including crimes against humanity. To say she wasn't a good person is just Kit engaging in quintessentially British understatement. 

 

[tallTale]

11 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Jon never murdered innocents the way Dany did repeatedly. She didn't bother to find out who was guilty or innocent: she crucified them anyway. Some of them were proven innocent. That's Vlad the Impaler levels of evil there.

I believe you'll find that shanking your commanding officer in a military organization during war is a capital crime no matter the age of the murderer. Jon but did his job. He did his duty. He always does. 

Dany in contrast serially committed heinous crimes against whomever she didn't like, up to and including crimes against humanity. To say she wasn't a good person is just Kit engaging in quintessentially British understatement. 

 

Give me a break. Some were only guilty  of being slavers. Boo hoo. They were part of an awful regime who needed to go. 

[Rose of Red Lake]

5 minutes ago, tallTale said:

She crucifies slavers who crucified children. Good.

 

she executed enemy lords who disobeys orders to kneel after being thoroughly defeated.

 

Jon would have done the same thing. Daeny just uses a dragon instead of sword or hanging. Jon executes Janos slynt for disobeying an order, and he also hanged a 12 year old boy. such hypocritical arguments.

Jon to Slynt: I'm executing you because you're disobeying an order, which was to rebuild a castle on the Wall to defend the realm, and you've had multiple chances to reform. Ironically you played a role in the wrongful execution of my father, but I'm not killing you for that--even though I could. 

Dany to the Tarlys: Even though I'm not your commander, even though I just met you five seconds ago and you did nothing to me personally, even though you're a prisoner and killing you would break a social norm in this universe, even though you're a capable soldier who fought the usurper for my brother (lets pretend I actually know something about my family's history), even though I could really use some good public relations right now as my first act on Westerosi soil, even though I could use your son alive to install as my loyal bannerman in the Reach, even though what I'm about to do looks similar to what my dad did with Rickard and Brandon Stark --DESPITE THIS I am burning you alive. I need to look tough just like all the other bloodthirsty tyrants who wanted the throne, and these Westerosi have the audacity to question my amazingness. In conclusion, I'm not here to murder, just to melt the flesh of my enemies.

[tallTale]

3 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Jon to Slynt: I'm executing you because you're disobeying an order, which was to rebuild a castle on the Wall to defend the realm, and you've had multiple chances to reform. Ironically you played a role in the wrongful execution of my father, but I'm not killing you for that--even though I could. 

Dany to the Tarlys: Even though I'm not your commander, even though I just met you five seconds ago and you did nothing to me personally, even though you're a prisoner and killing you would break a social norm in this universe, even though you're a capable soldier who fought the usurper for my brother (lets pretend I actually know something about my family's history), even though I could really use some good public relations right now as my first act on Westerosi soil, even though I could use your son alive to install as my loyal bannerman in the Reach, even though what I'm about to do looks similar to what my dad did with Rickard and Brandon Stark --DESPITE THIS I am burning you alive. I need to look tough just like all the other bloodthirsty tyrants who wanted the throne, and these Westerosi have the audacity to question my amazingness. In conclusion, I'm not here to murder, just to melt the flesh of my enemies.

Any competing house would have executed Randal Tarley in that situation. The execution  of your enemies doesn’t make you a tyrant. She even gave them a choice, but the Tarleys chose their ego over common sense. Your only point is that she uses the  optics of a dragon. She’s a targ and she showed her strength, which is her dragon. 

[Rose of Red Lake]

Just now, tallTale said:

Any competing house would have executed Randal Tarley in that situation. The execution  of your enemies doesn’t make you a tyrant. She even gave them a choice, but the Tarleys chose their ego over common sense. Your only point is that she uses the  optics of a dragon. She’s a targ and she showed her strength, which is her dragon. 

And dragons aren't going to win, ultimately, because Targaryens use dragons to kill people.

This was just another step on her downward slide to becoming a tyrant, and also a clue to the audience that she's doomed. It doesnt really matter if she's justified or not, this was a big narrative tell that not all is right in Dany-land. If people thought it was normal, I have to wonder why because the story pulled out all the stops to make it look abnormal. 

Also, if this happens in the books, Dickon is like 11. I think it will because GRRM has bothered to add in some unnecessary backstory, like the fact that Dickon is newly married. 

[tallTale]

1 minute ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

And dragons aren't going to win, ultimately, because Targaryens use dragons to kill people. —-WUT

This was just another step on her downward slide to becoming a tyrant, and also a clue to the audience that she's doomed. It doesnt really matter if she's justified or not, this was a big narrative tell that not all is right in Dany-land. If people thought it was normal, I have to wonder why because the story pulled out all the stops to make it look abnormal. 

Also, if this happens in the books, Dickon is like 11. I think it will because GRRM has bothered to add in some unnecessary backstory, like the fact that Dickon is newly married. 

I disagree, it matters big time if she’s justified.

 If daeny burned the tarleys and their entire surrendered army, you could call all her a tyrant. But she didn’t, she only executes Randall and his idiot son after giving them an alternative. And a tyrant would have just murdered them without even giving them a choice. 

[Martyn Bull]

2 minutes ago, tallTale said:

I disagree, it matters big time if she’s justified.

 If daeny burned the tarleys and their entire surrendered army, you could call all her a tyrant. But she didn’t, she only executes Randall and his idiot son after giving them an alternative. And a tyrant would have just murdered them without even giving them a choice. 

No, I Think I tyrant would do exactly what she did: Unless you bend the knee, you die! Most tyrants will give their subjects a choice: follow me or die.

[Rose of Red Lake]

4 minutes ago, tallTale said:

I disagree, it matters big time if she’s justified.

 If daeny burned the tarleys and their entire surrendered army, you could call all her a tyrant. But she didn’t, she only executes Randall and his idiot son after giving them an alternative. And a tyrant would have just murdered them without even giving them a choice. 

She murdered them for a tyrannical reason--not letting her have supremacy over them. All tyrants speak the language of "bend the knee or die" and "join me or die." This is even a film trope. The optics of it are terrible, both in-universe and on film. She didn't get the hero shot. She got the villain one. I thought it was actually a brilliant perspective shift that should make people feel uncomfortable. 

[tallTale]

2 minutes ago, Martyn Bull said:

No, I Think I tyrant would do exactly what she did: Unless you bend the knee, you die! Most tyrants will give their subjects a choice: follow me or die.

They were houses at war. Jon executed Janos Slynt for simply  refusing an order, but is never labeled a tyrant.

[darmody]

1 hour ago, tallTale said:

She crucifies slavers who crucified children. Good.

 

she executed enemy lords who disobeys orders to kneel after being thoroughly defeated.

 

Jon would have done the same thing. Daeny just uses a dragon instead of sword or hanging. Jon executes Janos slynt for disobeying an order, and he also hanged a 12 year old boy. Kit sounds like a huge hypocrite.

We don't know the exact laws of Meereen and the Night's Watch, but in the former case Dany I think was clearly in the wrong when she carried out random reprisals for Harpy terrorism and burning surrendering commanders alive. Jon, on the other hand, I think was perfectly justified killing a subordinate who disobeyed direct orders and the mutineers who murdered him. 

[darmody]

1 minute ago, tallTale said:

They were houses at war. Jon executed Janos Slynt for simply  refusing an order, but is never labeled a tyrant.

Why do you imagine it's not Night's Watch law for a Lord Commander to sentence disobedient underlings to death? The Night's Watch is basically always at war. 

[tallTale]

Just now, darmody said:

We don't know the exact laws of Meereen and the Night's Watch, but in the former case Dany I think was clearly in the wrong when she carried out random reprisals for Harpy terrorism and burning surrendering commanders alive. Jon, on the other hand, I think was perfectly justified killing a subordinate who disobeyed direct orders and the mutineers who murdered him. 

Slavers who left children sacrificed on crosses for miles . Fuck them. A few may have been innocent, that doesn’t make her a tyrant. 

 

The other point was about the parallels of the Randal and Janos Slynt executions. 

[tallTale]

2 minutes ago, darmody said:

Why do you imagine it's not Night's Watch law for a Lord Commander to sentence disobedient underlings to death? The Night's Watch is basically always at war. 

Jon isn’t a tyrant, that’s my point  . Neither is Daeny for executing Randal Tarley. 

[Martyn Bull]

6 minutes ago, tallTale said:

They were houses at war. Jon executed Janos Slynt for simply  refusing an order, but is never labeled a tyrant.

I didn't say that made her a tyrant, I said she did what a tyrant would do: give people a choice, follow me or die. And there is a difference between executing someone for not following orders and executing someone for not doing as you want.

[tallTale]

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Martyn Bull said:

I didn't say that made her a tyrant, I said she did what a tyrant would do: give people a choice, follow me or die. 

Again, they were at war. A defeated house can't just say we refuse to serve and everything just goes back to the way things were before. 

 

4 minutes ago, Martyn Bull said:

And there is a difference between executing someone for not following orders and executing someone for not doing as you want.

WUT.

What if what you want is also an order?