Jump to content
AlaerysTargaryen

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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, rustythesmith said:

No, moral judgements have to be made in the context of the environments in which the actions in question were performed. You're committing the exact error that you're accusing the showrunners of committing. Jorah practicing slavery is not equivalent to the slave masters of Slaver's Bay practicing slavery. Slavery has been successfully outlawed in Westeros and Westeros now operates mostly peacefully as a slave free society. Slavery is considered perfectly acceptable in Slaver's Bay and it is absolutely necessary to be involved in the slave trade in order to survive there.

I'm accusing the showrunners of turning Dany into a comic book villain for no other reason than that they want to force a modern audience into accepting that Jon is justified in murdering her.

They could have chosen to tell a story that was more in line with Dany as a character, but if they had, Jon's final action would have been more questionable. In this story they wanted a "clear good" and a "clear evil" character with no wriggle room for debate. And, of course, they wanted a "shock" because that's what made GOT famous to begin with.

I'm accusing the showrunners of not realizing that even tough the "shocks" from the earlier seasons indeed helped make HBO GOT famous, it's not ultimately why the audience liked the series. The backlash should indicate that what people liked was the realism, intelligence and complexity of the storytelling. 

But in the later seasons, they have repeatedly broken with established rules of the world in order to forward the plot (teleportation is an example). Dany's characterization in the latest seasons, or rather her lack thereof - becoming a device to move the plot forward more than a character, becoming the trope of one form of evil instead of being a person - is just another example of this.  

Edited by Vanadis

Share this post


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

Empathy worked out for Ned very well. Ned's kids were better served by Ned's principles than Cersei's kids were served by hers. His kids are still alive and hers are dead.

The show is admittedly limited with how much of Dany's psychology it can portray, but I think they portrayed more than enough of it. Dany does not learn from her mistakes and runs from the painful task of admitting that they were mistakes. She greenlit the bloodmagic, making her responsible for the deaths of her husband and baby, even though she was warned against it by both Mirri and the Dothraki. This is a recurring thing all the way through her story.

Dany also pathologized her dragons and followers as her "children". Jorah warned her against that pathology in Qarth but she guilted him into playing along with her unhealthy fantasy. This pathology later leads her to make bad decisions, justifying them with the make-believe "mother/child" relationship.

Really? 

The only one of his children the show made to act as an honorable man first, who obeys those principles even to his detriment is Jon. 

Or Robb, who got killed off really fast for that kind of thinking.

All of the others either died or became irrevocably changed from the kind of person who would commit treason if it was the right thing to do should it gain them nothing.

Even the ultimate superego consciousness of the world character they sold us in Bran is then made to say 'what do you think I came all this way for' or something like it.

My comparison, if it was one, was about the cost of a moral choice and the idea that somehow it pays off in the so-called reality of GoT.

Cersei's character as portrayed was never moral unless you consider it to be 'might is right.

The kind of reaction to trauma you're describing being spun into propaganda and her core belief about her dragons was very obviously done. 'The only children I'll ever have'. 

A barren woman stiling herself as a mother is the same kind of misdirection PR as say, Queen Elisabeth I claiming to be a virgin queen because she would not marry or as such, create a line of sucession.

Share this post


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

Really? 

The only one of his children the show made to act as an honorable man first, who obeys those principles even to his detriment is Jon. 

Or Robb, who got killed off really fast for that kind of thinking.

In the books, Ned's principles are passed on to his sons and arguably to Arya. Sansa seems to be the champion of Catelyn's principles.

In the show, Ned taught Sansa the Lone Wolf lesson, which is an iteration of the case for self-sacrifice that I described earlier. As in, we're all going to agree to make the survival of the group superordinate to the survival of the individual. I think the showrunners intended to have that lesson play out in the death of Littlefinger plot, where Arya and Sansa are secretly working together. It was a shitty plot, but we get the gist of it.

Robb's justice is something I haven't looked at closely enough yet. I think the root of his problem is when he dishonored his bargain with Frey by marrying Jeyne/Talisa. The Karstark execution, if that's what you're referring to, doesn't seem to me to be the cause of Robb's death.

Quote

All of the others either died or became irrevocably changed from the kind of person who would commit treason if it was the right thing to do should it gain them nothing.

It's hard to puzzle out what you're referring to with a lot of these. If you could just say what you mean it would be easier to respond to.

Rickon's death had nothing to do with any failure on the part of Ned's principles. Rickon also hadn't yet inherited Ned's principles regarding justice because he is younger than Bran and he hadn't seen his first execution yet.

I can only hazard a guess, but I think you're referring to Ned's mercy to Cersei?

Labeling actions as treason or people as traitors is pretty meaningless in the context of claim disputes because the only time a traitor label actually sticks is after a victor emerges and he orders the history books to be written that way. I try to avoid using the word treason because it's always both true and false depending on which claimant's perspective we're assuming.

Quote

Even the ultimate superego consciousness of the world character they sold us in Bran is then made to say 'what do you think I came all this way for' or something like it.

Yeah IDK what Bran was supposed to be about in the show. In the books he seems to be about selfless power vs selfish power. I liken him to a resentful video game addict who is succumbing to the temptations of power.

Quote

My comparison, if it was one, was about the cost of a moral choice and the idea that somehow it pays off in the so-called reality of GoT.

Oh no, not consistently in GoT. At least I don't think so. It's only consistent in the books. D&D don't have a clue. They should have been made to write a book report or something. The whole Jon Snow's Mother litmus test was a stupid idea, it turns out.

Quote

 

Cersei's character as portrayed was never moral unless you consider it to be 'might is right.

The kind of reaction to trauma you're describing being spun into propaganda and her core belief about her dragons was very obviously done. 'The only children I'll ever have'. 

A barren woman stiling herself as a mother is the same kind of misdirection PR as say, Queen Elisabeth I claiming to be a virgin queen because she would not marry or as such, create a line of sucession.

 

Unsure of your meanings.

Edited by rustythesmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I meant that Ned's actions in hiding someone who might someday become a threat to Robert's rule due to his honoring of a promise or his hiding of the true identity of the Queen's children can be construed as treasonous.

Rickon in the show is a non entity.

Sorry, the last two paragraphs were from a conversation about Daenerys and her forcing the image of mother to compensate her inabilty to carry a child, completely unrelated to Cersei.

Edited by It_spelt_Magalhaes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

Really? 

The only one of his children the show made to act as an honorable man first, who obeys those principles even to his detriment is Jon. 

Or Robb, who got killed off really fast for that kind of thinking.

All of the others either died or became irrevocably changed from the kind of person who would commit treason if it was the right thing to do should it gain them nothing.

Even the ultimate superego consciousness of the world character they sold us in Bran is then made to say 'what do you think I came all this way for' or something like it.

My comparison, if it was one, was about the cost of a moral choice and the idea that somehow it pays off in the so-called reality of GoT.

Cersei's character as portrayed was never moral unless you consider it to be 'might is right.

The kind of reaction to trauma you're describing being spun into propaganda and her core belief about her dragons was very obviously done. 'The only children I'll ever have'. 

A barren woman stiling herself as a mother is the same kind of misdirection PR as say, Queen Elisabeth I claiming to be a virgin queen because she would not marry or as such, create a line of sucession.

For Robb, it's actually the exact opposite. He dies because he failed to honor his word to marry the Frey girl. Ned did his duty and married Catelyn, even if she was meant to marry his older brother, but after Brandon dies, Ned marries her to honor the deal between the houses Stark and Tully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sheiraseastar23 said:

For Robb, it's actually the exact opposite. He dies because he failed to honor his word to marry the Frey girl. Ned did his duty and married Catelyn, even if she was meant to marry his older brother, but after Brandon dies, Ned marries her to honor the deal between the houses Stark and Tully.

The point I was trying to make there is that in accordance to what Robb was taught, he refuses to father a bastard child. He wants to do as taught, not shown. He wants to be better than his father by respecting his teachings if not his actions. So he marries the girl he loves and dishonored. Honor and duty can align, but they are not equal. 

He made a mistake and betrayed his sworn word. But he could have compromised. He refused. 

Which lost him the dubious alliance of the Freys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/21/2019 at 6:50 AM, Dragons 7th Eye said:

She wasn't buried under rubble at least. Or shot down by that mockery of Euron that we had in the show. That would have been terrible end.

I can't believe they reduced Cersei to a weeping, frail ostensibly sympathetic villain. Up until The Bells, they had portrayed her as one of the shows most vindictive villains. Eight seasons of callous behaviour and they kill her off as if she were Kate Winslet in Titanic. The writers gave her even more short shrift than Danaerys imo. And don't get me started on what they did to the vestiges of 'Jaime.'

Edited by Uilliam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uilliam said:

I can't believe they reduced Cersei to a weeping, frail ostensibly sympathetic villain. Up until The Bells, they had portrayed her as one of the shows most vindictive villains. Eight seasons of callous behaviour and they kill her off as if she were Kate Winslet in Titanic. The writers gave her even more short shrift than Danaerys imo. And don't get me started on what they did to the vestiges of 'Jaime.'

What did Cersei really do though after blowing up the sept? She threatened Tyrion... gained some allies... Talked about a baby we never saw evidence of. Sent Bronn of all people to go after Tyrion and Jamie. In this last season she mostly stared out a window. Could be they never really knew what to do with her? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Vanadis said:

What did Cersei really do though after blowing up the sept? She threatened Tyrion... gained some allies... Talked about a baby we never saw evidence of. Sent Bronn of all people to go after Tyrion and Jamie. In this last season she mostly stared out a window. Could be they never really knew what to do with her? 

Her blowing up the sept was thrilling at the time, but it left her no one to play off against. They propped her up as the 'mad Queen' for nothing. Lena did a great job with the VERY few lines of gibberish dialogue they gave her the last two seasons, but her character basically doesn't change, grow or even present itself in a tangible way in her final days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Vanadis said:

What did Cersei really do though after blowing up the sept? She threatened Tyrion... gained some allies... Talked about a baby we never saw evidence of. Sent Bronn of all people to go after Tyrion and Jamie. In this last season she mostly stared out a window. Could be they never really knew what to do with her? 

She was probably far off her book story and possibly beyond her sell by date as well, but, if they had built up Euron as a better character, at least they could have had him, Cersei and Qyborn plotting and they should have been brutally putting down the riots that would occur in KL after she blew the sept up and all the Highgarden food was torched, so that too, could have been something for her to do, maybe a new High Sparrow.  But, they almost literally had her staring out the window guzzling wine for 2 seasons.  Even if she went down and gloated to Ellaria, it would at least give her some fucking lines.  For an actress that they loved so much they made her a sympathetic villain and gave her a clean death, they sure short changed her on the last 2 seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts about this Season 8 poster of Daenerys in a white dress appearing sad before the Iron Throne.  [link below]

White has an equal amount of all colors in the spectrum, so it contains both their positive & negative aspects (good & evil).... and in many Eastern cultures white symbolically represents death, especially for those who believe in the afterlife (Dany’s vision of visiting Drogo & Rhaego).  

https://thephins.com/attachments/upload_2019-5-15_23-20-55-jpeg.2896/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)


simply stated: all characters have shown extreme acts of violence - when under pressure or just for reasons of revenge. So in that aspect the screen-writers manufactured this side of Dany which could not be justified, as they could have manufactured the same side if needed also for other characters.

True that they could have done things differently for other characters, but they didn't. The narrative we have is what I'm talking about; specifically Dany's character.


So they don't trash the viewer's ability because a. they are not so clever b. universe of Westeros allows them just to pull the carpet under Dany's feet when its convenient because they set the table.

That's set-up and pay off contained in the narrative. 


But it could be Dany, it could be Tyrion (on his trial and under crisis he wished for everyone to die), it could be Arya (obsession with pies), it could be anyone if pushed to the corner, isolated, betrayed and probably finished. If violence under justification is just the reason we can't see Dany's dark side, this won't do.

I don't follow what you mean by "this won't do" won't do what? I'd propose what you're doing here is creating an analogy that isn't true in that you're not taking into analogical account that this is happening along Dany's entire "coin flipping" arc. You allude to Tyrion doing something once, which is not a pattern and is not a character arc. I'm not sure what you mean by introducing Arya and pies.

I'd also say that I don't agree that "we can't see dany's dark side", we definitely see the dragon, but from a certain point of view we can justify it. Until we can't. Dany's character doesn't really change, it just settles on one side - dragon. That is where the coin flip lands. Dany has always had that side but she also had another side. There were people around her who were manipulating her in attempt to get the coin to their favored side but, in the end, when it was up to her, she went dragon.


What does this example show for the ethics and morality of the time; that discipline to laws, fear for the punishment and submission are higher values than the human life itself. Under this context, how can viewers even distinguish the good from the bad since murder and death seem to be the solution that even the best of the characters have accepted?

I suppose good and bad would be distinguished by the relative ethical code of the viewer, as it is the case in all such distinguishings. No doubt there are even some who, from their point of view, can justify what Dany did at King's Landing. But for most, that was the event that caused the inability to further justify Dany's dragon face. Even though it was the same face that had been shown every time her coin flipped through the air of her proverbial character arc.


It is not Danny's character alone whose morality is double face, or who suffers from it, it is all the characters because this is how GOT is built.

Of course, but it is a facet of Dany's narrative as well. This is the character about which I'm speaking, thus the things I'm saying.


Even at the end the good Jon has to murder a young woman, pretending to give in to her charms. The script could have set another way to do it less treacherous.

Okay, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the actual narrative that does exist. 


This is the second time that he does it (killing a lover). Perhaps deep down he finds a satisfaction in this and we are just seeing his justified side? So we don't see that he is a serial killer?

Well, again, that's not the narrative that exists. If you're proposing Jon is a serial killer I'd say you have little narrative information from which to make a case. On the other hand, the narrative gives us the information concenring Dany. That information that does exist is the narrative of which I'm drawing information to form conclusions and follow themes and character arcs. 


If from there on the script writers showed him going on a serial killer mode, would you justify them to say: you should have foreseen it, because the signs were there?

If the narrative contained information concerning Jon's ancestors sometimes being serial killers, adding that when a Stark was born a coin was flipped and the women held their breath, and such - then, yes, I'd say with all of the information alluding to this should be ample foreshadow. I'm not sure I would say it should be expected since we're also being given the information that children are not necessarily their fathers. But I'd conclude upon Jon's second kill that - this is making me question where his arc is potentially going.


So this is not just Dany's case, they are all potential murders who we just haven't seen under crisis, since they are accustomed to violence from a very young age (remember Ned's scene mentioned above?)

But again I'd propose this is a false analogy because you're not taking into account the narrative information we're given about Dany that we are not given about anyone else. There's a lot of narrative points around Dany that build the character arc; her character is not just "I killed people. The end."


But the simple truth is that is just manufactured all the way to cause surprise, taking advantage of the immorality that governs GOT. Nothing more. 

Of course it's manufactured, that is what a story is. But I'd propose there is quite a lot more to it. I think this story is very complex and this causes a lot of people to miss a lot of narrative connection tissue, as it were. Dany's destruction of King's Landing was an organic and natural culmination of a very complex arc which has fallen imperceptible on a lot of viewers.

Edited by John Meta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 7:19 AM, sifth said:

Well in our world 12 year olds can’t join most military orders, but if one could and he was caught killing his general, that would be treason. You know a capital crime.

Nonsense. Treason is waging war against your own country, or helping those who do.  Olly did no such thing. He merely fragged his commanding officer.

Murder is murder. It isn't treason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 9:00 AM, Dragonslack said:

What did Jon do? He killed a kid in cold blood. He killed someone for disobedience.

He did no such thing. He merely his his duty. He lawfully executed one of his men who was guilty of murder. 

Nothing more, nothing less. Military justice during war is swift and final, where even desertion is punishable by death. This was proven murder, whose penalty would have been the same in civilian courts outside the theatre of war.

Death. 

Jon simply did his job and sentenced murderers to the death they earned. That's what being Lord Commander required.

He also swung the sword that took their lives. That's what being a son of Winterfell required. 

There was no torture, no crucifixion, no burning at the stake. Just a terrible swift sword and a merciful death for the guilty.

Jon did his job. He always does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 6:41 PM, Cas Stark said:

Another example where she punishes the innocent instead of the guilty, and another example of a massive overreaction that she did not think through....dragons are the source of her power, locking them up, especially not even the one who ate the child is dare I say, madness.

Half reminds me of Cersei having Robert force Ned to kill Lady. Half. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 6:54 PM, The One Who Kneels said:

She never sacks Qarth in book or show. I think in the show she robs Xaro and leaves after sealing him in the vault. In the book she gets kicked out after she burns down the House of the Undying. 

Right.  She had no army to sack Qaarth with, nor dragons to burn it to the ground. Plus Xaro in the books preferred men over women, so that was silly, too. 

No, it was in Astapor that she betrayed her own honor to steal an army and then use that stolen army to murder their previous owners, sacking the city and putting all who wore a tokar to the sword. Later even worse things would befall Astapor and its children, all thanks to her actions that day. Check the books for what happened to those she left in charge, and their successors several times through. Also, the children. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 7:40 PM, ToddDavid said:

How do I come to the number of “thousands murdered”? Well, I just do the math.  I think about the massive number of people she impulsively and mercilessly slaughtered and then I take a percentage of that. It’s pretty commonsensical. Obviously not all of her victims would have chosen a different, more altruistic path if available, but plenty of them would have. Unfortunately she killed them all.

How many died in Astapor because of her, both directly and in the many aftershocks she caused?

Share this post


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

Nonsense. Treason is waging war against your own country, or helping those who do.  Olly did no such thing. He merely fragged his commanding officer.

Murder is murder. It isn't treason. 

He still committed a capital crime. My point still stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

He did no such thing. He merely his his duty. He lawfully executed one of his men who was guilty of murder. 

Nothing more, nothing less. Military justice during war is swift and final, where even desertion is punishable by death. This was proven murder, whose penalty would have been the same in civilian courts outside the theatre of war.

Death. 

Jon simply did his job and sentenced murderers to the death they earned. That's what being Lord Commander required.

He also swung the sword that took their lives. That's what being a son of Winterfell required. 

There was no torture, no crucifixion, no burning at the stake. Just a terrible swift sword and a merciful death for the guilty.

Jon did his job. He always does. 

Pretty sure Jon hanged them, so not as quick a death as beheading. Not sure whether death by dragon fire is as slow as hanging or burning at the stake (Stannis' preferred method).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 8:44 PM, beeeeeen said:

When she lost her child and her husband she went into a pyre in which she burned a woman alive.... it's not a sign of a great mental health...

Ya think? ;->

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

×