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

It's pretty low how they are selling this as unconventional storytelling too. Hero-cum-villain is such an old trope; what would have been unconventional is to really leave the question to the audience: how many deaths can the ends ever justify? It's hinted at when Tyrion quips "ask me in ten years", but it's still pretty clear that we are meant to root for Jon. Just as it was clear in previous seasons that we were meant to root for Dany. There's nothing less manipulative about the cinematography and writing now than there was back then, to the contrary. It's disingenuous of them to insinuate otherwise. Why else the senseless civilian slaughter, appealing so clearly to modern rather than Westerosi sensibilities?

Share this post


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

I hated that speech that Tyrion gave about how she was really always evil because she killed her enemies in Essos. We just cheered for her and didn't see the truth in the face. She killed them with fire, dragons and with other means. Just because she didn't wield a sword, didnt do it herself and wasn't a man, it doesnt make her a crazy villain. What she did in KL is another story. But trying to make us feel COMPLICIT because we cheered when she crucified child murderers and killed slavers is fucking insane. Why all of the sudden they are aplying modern sensitivities to the story?  In the recent EW interview even Kit agrees, Dany was never a good person we never believed the signs. FFS! Emilia Clarke seems to be heartbroken and very conflicted about the morality of her character even 2 years later. Whatever her undoing in Westeros was and her fast descent into madness/villainy it does not negate her past actions. Daenerys Targaryen was a GOOD PERSON and made the world across the sea a better place despite the doom she caused in her homeland.

I don't see this at all.  Tyrion remains conflicted about what happened to her.  And Jon is completely torn up; he's asking himself later whether he did the right thing.  He will always be asking himself that. Jon and Tyrion support her "journey"--how is that making the viewer feel guilty about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yeah they totally shift the goal posts. 

In this episode they frame it as Dany making a decision for the Greater Good. Torch the Red Keep to kill Cersei killing the people inside. Instead of what she actually did, butchering the Lannister prisoners and the whole city. That’s an act of insanity. One episode she’s snapped and the next we’re talking about the Terror of the French Revolution.

Plus for all the talk of the wheel, they didn’t have the courage for Dany to actually say she would do anything for the common people. Like, you know, abolish serfdom and give the land back to the people who worked it for generations. This isn’t a legitimate argument over the Greater Good.

I think they made her actions so far beyond the pale, unreasonable and without any justification because they ultimately want you to sympathise with her killer and his emo feelings. That kind of sours if there’s any doubt on the Starks. I suspect they knew people might give Dany the benefit of the doubt unless they were unequivocal on her being evil.

Personally, in the books, I would want it to be Jorah who’s there to grieve for her; not Jon. Maybe have him go Robert Baratheon 2.0 while we’re at it. Rhaegar died...

Edited by Tyrion1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the show for several years I was a Dany supporter. I guess most of my posts are in the books section, but they are there.

I don't feel guilty at all. I didn't support her in the end, but it was mostly because I thought D&D ruined her. By proxy I did to the very end. Drogon dying would have really made me sad. I could deal with her death - I think it was inevitable after what they did to her. She was a tragic figure and a complex one at that. It didn't work out for this fictional character in this fictional universe, but it was a great story in the beginning and I thought - all things considered - she had a meaningful end.

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.

Share this post


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

I hated that speech that Tyrion gave about how she was really always evil because she killed her enemies in Essos. We just cheered for her and didn't see the truth in the face. She killed them with fire, dragons and with other means. Just because she didn't wield a sword, didnt do it herself and wasn't a man, it doesnt make her a crazy villain. What she did in KL is another story. But trying to make us feel COMPLICIT because we cheered when she crucified child murderers and killed slavers is fucking insane. Why all of the sudden they are aplying modern sensitivities to the story?  In the recent EW interview even Kit agrees, Dany was never a good person we never believed the signs. FFS! Emilia Clarke seems to be heartbroken and very conflicted about the morality of her character even 2 years later. Whatever her undoing in Westeros was and her fast descent into madness/villainy it does not negate her past actions. Daenerys Targaryen was a GOOD PERSON and made the world across the sea a better place despite the doom she caused in her homeland.

Tyrion was just trying to save his ass (as usual) so he gave Jon multiple arguments to persuade him to kill Dany. When others didn't work, he put the family argument upfront (and that made the job).

So he is not the super objective person. People can say anything to save their life. So his narrative here is biased as hell.

Edited by Nightwish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AlaerysTargaryen said:

I hated that speech that Tyrion gave about how she was really always evil because she killed her enemies in Essos. We just cheered for her and didn't see the truth in the face. She killed them with fire, dragons and with other means. Just because she didn't wield a sword, didnt do it herself and wasn't a man, it doesnt make her a crazy villain. What she did in KL is another story. But trying to make us feel COMPLICIT because we cheered when she crucified child murderers and killed slavers is fucking insane. Why all of the sudden they are aplying modern sensitivities to the story?  In the recent EW interview even Kit agrees, Dany was never a good person we never believed the signs. FFS! Emilia Clarke seems to be heartbroken and very conflicted about the morality of her character even 2 years later. Whatever her undoing in Westeros was and her fast descent into madness/villainy it does not negate her past actions. Daenerys Targaryen was a GOOD PERSON and made the world across the sea a better place despite the doom she caused in her homeland.

I agree.

The morals of this story is all over the place. In the end, Tyrion's greatest regret isn't killing his lover and his father, but following a leader who kills not out of revenge, but out of idealism. Until she reaches Westeros and begins her own revenge journey. Then, everything Dany has done since the beginning is somehow wrong. Unless they're trying to say that we shouldn't have cheered for any of the violence from any of the characters in the show, from start to end, then perhaps there is some wisdom in what Tyrion says. But surely they could have made all the characters fit into that theme, not just Dany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Yeah they totally shift the goal posts. 

In this episode they frame it as Dany making a decision for the Greater Good. Torch the Red Keep to kill Cersei killing the people inside. Instead of what she actually did, butchering the Lannister prisoners and the whole city. That’s an act of insanity. One episode she’s snapped and the next we’re talking about the Terror of the French Revolution.

Plus for all the talk of the wheel, they didn’t have the courage for Dany to actually say she would do anything for the common people. Like, you know, abolish serfdom and give the land back to the people who worked it for generations. This isn’t a legitimate argument over the Greater Good.

I think they made her actions so far beyond the pale, unreasonable and without any justification because they ultimately want you to sympathise with her killer and his emo feelings. That kind of sours if there’s any doubt on the Starks. I suspect they knew people might give Dany the benefit of the doubt unless they were unequivocal on her being evil.

Personally, in the books, I would want it to be Jorah who’s there to grieve for her; not Jon. Maybe have him go Robert Baratheon 2.0 while we’re at it. Rhaegar died...

Jon killed her for the greater good.

Her speech about "liberating" the kingdom from Winterfell to Dorne should have horrified everyone. Liberated from what, exactly? Replaced with what, exactly? Were we greeted as liberators in Iraq or Vietnam? Hell no. And she didn't have a plan for what to do after, only that the people of Westeros from Winterfell to Dorne were going to suffer yet again because of her ego.

Insanity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

Jon killed her for the greater good.

Her speech about "liberating" the kingdom from Winterfell to Dorne should have horrified everyone. Liberated from what, exactly? Replaced with what, exactly? Were we greeted as liberators in Iraq or Vietnam? Hell no. And she didn't have a plan for what to do after, only that the people of Westeros from Winterfell to Dorne were going to suffer yet again because of her ego.

Insanity. 

 

Thats hypocritical of Jon. For all he knew he could have plunged the realm into civil war and gotten his sisters killed anyway. Millions more could have died to rampaging Dothraki and Unsullied. To replace one autocrat with another?

The breaking the wheel plot line is an invention of the show.

Technically speaking the common people are held as either serfs or slaves whilst the landowners treat them as cattle. Plus they lack laws and legal protections. If they wanted a more nuanced depiction of a character wanting to change things they would have her say “oh but the peasants are just like the slaves in Essos”. I am not convinced Dany would fail to make that leap of logic and it would be a pretty clear justification. I suspect too good a justification since that would frame those trying to stop her as reactionary nobles and we can’t be having that now can we.

Justinian didn’t write his own law code. It’s the responsibility of her advisors to suggest practical ways of improving the lot of the people.

She doesn’t have an ego. She has every reason to be proud of herself before she burns KL. She had nothing to prove to anyone. Nobody had sacrificed more to save Westeros from the NK. Her mistake was not thinking, “oh, Jorah didn’t love me at first. So I guess people might change their minds eventually once they realise I do have a gentle heart.” Which is kind of silly when you think about it. People wept when Stalin died and she’s done a lot more good and a lot less bad than Stalin. So I don’t buy the “let it be fear” turn.

Edited by Tyrion1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Thats hypocritical of Jon. For all he knew he could have plunged the realm into civil war and gotten his sisters killed anyway. Millions more could have died to rampaging Dothraki and Unsullied. To replace on autocrat with another?

The breaking the wheel plot line is an invention of the show.

Technically speaking the common people are held as either serfs or slaves whilst the landowners treat them as cattle. Plus they lack laws and legal protections. If they wanted a more nuanced depiction of a character wanting to change things they would have her say “oh but the peasants are just like the slaves in Essos”. I am not convinced Dany would fail to make that leap of logic and it would be a pretty clear justification. I suspect too good a justification since that would frame those trying to stop her as reactionary nobles and we can’t be having that now can we.

Justinian didn’t write his own law code. It’s the responsibility of her advisors to suggest practical ways of improving the lot of the people.

She doesn’t have an ego. She has every reason to be proud of herself before she burns KL. She had nothing to prove to anyone. Nobody had sacrificed more to save Westeros from the NK. Her mistake was not thinking, “oh, Jorah didn’t love me at first. So I guess people might change their minds eventually once they realise I do have a gentle heart.” Which is kind of silly when you think about it. People wept when Stalin died and she’s done a lot more good and a lot less bad than Stalin. So I don’t buy the “let it be fear” turn.

And he agonized over whether it was the right thing. Only time will tell. But how exactly would it have plunged Westeros into a civil war? There aren't that many Dothraki left and they're foreign invaders, not Westerosi. 

Jon probably saved millions of lives, not cost them. 

"She did more good than Stalin" is just a rationalization. You could argue that Hitler did some good things, too. That doesn't make them good and it doesn't make them good leaders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until this episode I didnt like or enjoy Danys character. But Tyrions speech and her lines to Jon before he kills her really put it together for me. Her journey was that of a tragic hero. She had done so much good and all her decisions worked so well after walking into Drogos funeral pyre that she had to believe she was in the right. How could the people of Kingslanding choose the tyrant Cersei over a liberator? In the end she wasnt the mad queen, she was the breaker of the wheel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Winter prince said:

Until this episode I didnt like or enjoy Danys character. But Tyrions speech and her lines to Jon before he kills her really put it together for me. Her journey was that of a tragic hero. She had done so much good and all her decisions worked so well after walking into Drogos funeral pyre that she had to believe she was in the right. How could the people of Kingslanding choose the tyrant Cersei over a liberator? In the end she wasnt the mad queen, she was the breaker of the wheel.

She didn't.  The people who rule are the same sort of people who ruled previously, and she died in disgrace, remembered as a monster who had to be put down.

She helped to save the world and smashed the slave trade, but will Sam mention any of that in his history?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

And he agonized over whether it was the right thing. Only time will tell. But how exactly would it have plunged Westeros into a civil war? There aren't that many Dothraki left and they're foreign invaders, not Westerosi. 

Jon probably saved millions of lives, not cost them. 

"She did more good than Stalin" is just a rationalization. You could argue that Hitler did some good things, too. That doesn't make them good and it doesn't make them good leaders. 

 

Well there would be no clear successor. The realm would fragment Into kingdoms who would grab territory. It would be a free for all. Old scores to settle. Instead we have the wise council elect Bran. That’s not realistic. They essentially remove any consequence or fallout from the decision.

Which is again, a greater good argument. You can’t have it both ways. Either using violence for long term good is reprehensible or it is not. 

He could have saved millions of lives by being there for her and not telling her things she didn’t need to hear.

She freed an entire continent of slaves. She defeated the NK. She brought down Cersei. Had she chosen not to walk her path then what fate would have come to the world? Her mistake was to inexplicably burn all of KL down after she had won and had nothing more to prove. 

Share this post


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

She didn't.  The people who rule are the same sort of people who ruled previously, and she died in disgrace, remembered as a monster who had to be put down.

She helped to save the world and smashed the slave trade, but will Sam mention any of that in his history?

An electoral monarchy is better than a line of succession.

That's why shes a tragic hero, imo.

The slave trade will not get mentioned besides maybe because it's irrelevant in the history of Westeros. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cheered as she crucified 162 "slave owners."  Some of those men were pieces of shit, but all 162?  Yes, slavery is outlawed in the 7 kingdoms just like it is in our world, but unlike our world, you don't get executed for not bowing low enough to a highborn.  Did you not watch the finale as the main characters chuckled at the idea of democracy?  Comparing you and I to a horse or dog?  Protip: Feudalism isn't morally superior to the quasi feudalism and slavery practiced in Essos.  Danerys would have killed anyone who didn't submit to her rule or her way of existence, she was a tyrant.

There isn't a good character or an evil one.  For the premiere forum of book readers, I'm shocked at how many people fail to grasp this message.  Danerys believed she was right, just as every other character in the series.  She just happened to have nuclear weapons at her disposal, and showed the world she wouldn't hesitate to use it to burn a hundred thousand innocent people, including children, to get her will.  She had a higher body count than the Night King, and people are debating if there was any moral "shades of grey" to her character.

Share this post


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

You cheered as she crucified 162 "slave owners."  Some of those men were pieces of shit, but all 162?  Yes, slavery is outlawed in the 7 kingdoms just like it is in our world, but unlike our world, you don't get executed for not bowing low enough to a highborn.  Did you not watch the finale as the main characters chuckled at the idea of democracy?  Comparing you and I to a horse or dog?  Protip: Feudalism isn't morally superior to the quasi feudalism and slavery practiced in Essos.  Danerys would have killed anyone who didn't submit to her rule or her way of existence, she was a tyrant.

There isn't a good character or an evil one.  For the premiere forum of book readers, I'm shocked at how many people fail to grasp this message.  Danerys believed she was right, just as every other character in the series.  She just happened to have nuclear weapons at her disposal, and showed the world she wouldn't hesitate to use it to burn a hundred thousand innocent people, including children, to get her will.  She had a higher body count than the Night King, and people are debating if there was any moral "shades of grey" to her character.

And if she had been portrayed as a murderous, lying hypocrite throughout, we'd have no quarrel with her end.  It's the jump from flawed heroine to monster in three episodes that seems like trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Well there would be no clear successor. The realm would fragment Into kingdoms who would grab territory. It would be a free for all. Old scores to settle. Instead we have the wise council elect Bran. That’s not realistic. They essentially remove any consequence or fallout from the decision.

Which is again, a greater good argument. You can’t have it both ways. Either using violence for long term good is reprehensible or it is not. 

He could have saved millions of lives by being there for her and not telling her things she didn’t need to hear.

She freed an entire continent of slaves. She defeated the NK. She brought down Cersei. Had she chosen not to walk her path then what fate would have come to the world? Her mistake was to inexplicably burn all of KL down after she had won and had nothing more to prove. 

Who did she free? Many of them willingly re-entered servitude just like during Jim Crow and the carpetbaggers. They just didn't call it that.

She did not defeat the NK. Her strategy was shit and her dragons ineffective. If it hadn't been for Bran and Arya, they would have all died. It turns out she wasn't even necessary.

I expected the realm to break up, but the Westerosi seem like they want to stay together. For now at least. 

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

×