Jon killing Dany doesn’t work for me

[Gianna Dorenberg]

I came in this thread hoping for a fair critique of maybe the execution of how and why but instead I get one of the most shallow and childish critiques I've ever read.  It's like watching that reaction of those dumb cosplay Dany girls crying that their fav mass murdering dictator got killed off. 

Maybe you should send a letter to GRRM and HBO asking them to pair your favorite mass murdering dictator with a character you'd be more OK with.

Jesus christ. 

[Isewein]

3 hours ago, JagLover said:

To go into this a little deeper in terms of the mind set of the time. Jon had sworn fealty to her, and this was a pretty big deal at the time, breaking such vows was a far more extreme act than we would consider it. Consider how Jaimie was constantly reviled as a man with no honour for killing a madman about to blow up the city. Secondly Dany had done right by her liegeman, she had taken her army and helped defend his lands. Done everything therefore that a feudal overlord was supposed to do.

We the audience are supposed to then cheer Jon's actions but in the world as created it has no justification.

This precisely is the reason it doesn't work for me. The divergence between the morals presented to us, the audience, through not-so-subtle techniques and the morals of the feudal society we have been presented with quite accurately for 7 seasons breaks the fourth wall and hence my suspension of disbelief. It turns Jon and Dany from being a multifaceted characters existing within the world to plot devices, to hero and villain of a classic black-and-white Fantasy story. Nothing wrong with those, but it ain't GoT.

 

And this is coming from someone who had been hoping for Jon-vs-Dany as the final coda of the Song of Ice and Fire for a long, long time.

[Kajjo]

3 hours ago, Vanadis said:

So much better.

The whole saga "The Song of Ice and Fire" is about the Stark children defeating threats of Ice and Fire.

Both the Others and Daenerys represent threats. This is not a saga about Daenerys.

[Ilissa]

2 hours ago, Pacala said:

Jon was a man of duty when was on NW and he didn`t had the hart to kill Ygritte. Same situation other reaction.

  He killed Ygritte not directly, but by his actions. He sacrificed love for duty. And he did it a second time with Daenerys.

[Ilissa]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

They meet and BOOM they are in love and its wonderful.. except you never really get to understand what it is they like about each other and it all feels incredibly false.

In real life there are no special conditions for love. You just fall in love and that's all. They are coeval , handsome, young, unmarried, crowned. It was easy to fall in love.

[Davidlopan]

4 hours ago, Vanadis said:

It was a very black and white ending that seems to be a final moral judgment of the characters to the extent that it tells the fandom which fan base was "right all along" and which fan base was "wrong". It does not resonate well with me at all. It's as if they jumped into a different genre: It's not Game of Thrones anymore, now it's a Fantasy Soap Opera.

 

Too true. If Lord of the Rings, Friends and Dynasty had a messy threesome it would look something like Season 8

[Pacala]

1 hour ago, Kajjo said:

The whole saga "The Song of Ice and Fire" is about the Stark children defeating threats of Ice and Fire.

Both the Others and Daenerys represent threats. This is not a saga about Daenerys.

This is a world about Targaryen family.

Quote

He killed Ygritte not directly, but by his actions. He sacrificed love for duty. And he did it a second time with Daenerys.

You missed the point. He couldn`t killed the love. He failed the test, he didn`t overcome the obstacles that makes young boy to become a man. Usually the main protagonist(male or female) do that to overcome the greater chalenge, to destroy the evil. Danny did that, same as Sandor, not Jon.

Jon is just a Messiah revived, same as Tyrion or Bran. Jon changed from human figure to Messiah figure, he contradict the whole story and Martin beliefs.

[Lord Stackspear]

I think this probably happens in the books, and I think it can sense, but I would be really surprised if GRRM has such a black and white explanation for why this happens.  The show set Dany up to have basically had a psychotic break and she was now delusional.  If she had lived, she would have killed countless others.  Jon, being the black and white character that he is at this point in the show, makes the call that the wrong of killing his Queen is less than the wrong of letting millions die at her hands for psycho reasons.  It doesn't work for me because the whole world of Westeros is not a world of black and white - it's a world where there are many shades of grey.  It's a world where Cersei is an evil villain who deserves death, but where, as you find out how she became what she became, you almost have a degree of sympathy for her - not enough for her to be redeemed, but at least enough where you understand why she is what she is.  Even Jon and Dany, at times in the past, had shades of grey - less so than the other characters in the show, but they clearly both committed things that were questionable/debatable.

Then comes the last couple of episodes and, boom, Dany's a blood-thirsty psychopath (that apparently was predetermined by her genetic lineage), Jon is a man of duty and honor, and he has to kill her.  That's pretty much it.  No grey, just black and white.  The show/story that was so good because it showed all the sides of these different characters and made you conflicted about their fates became a simple good vs. evil and the decision was simple.  I don't think that is the story GRRM is telling.    

[Kajjo]

15 minutes ago, Lord Stackspear said:

but I would be really surprised if GRRM has such a black and white explanation for why this happens

The show hasn't a black and white explanation. It's NOT about Daenerys changing drastically, it is about the fire and blood having bein always in her. Tyrion recites all the moments and we remember them from S1 onwards.

Daenerys might have snapped partly, and partly done this intentionally ("let it be fear"), but neither way this is a drastic change of her character. It IS her character. 

All this stupid babble about 180° changes. No changes at all. Just her true character acting out after all. She was always that way and only her advisors succeeded to talk her out of it. Now all the advisors are either killed in war (Jorah) or betrayed her (Varys and Tyrion). No one to talk her out of it. Jon never uses his influence, never talks politics and is not able to reciprocate her affections. 

It's her nature, always been. 

She snaps, because of all the hopelessness and no one on her side anymore.

19 minutes ago, Lord Stackspear said:

The show set Dany up to have basically had a psychotic break

Again, no. At least only partly. The show clearly showed streaks of brutality, ruthlessness and megalomaniac tendency from season 1 onwards. They show that she snaps after all and just behaves like her nature, not being tamed by advisors.

20 minutes ago, Lord Stackspear said:

Dany's a blood-thirsty psychopath

She's not a psychopath.

However, her megalomaniac tendency is troublesome and always has.

[Pacala]

40 minutes ago, Lord Stackspear said:

I think this probably happens in the books, and I think it can sense, but I would be really surprised if GRRM has such a black and white explanation for why this happens.  The show set Dany up to have basically had a psychotic break and she was now delusional.  If she had lived, she would have killed countless others.  Jon, being the black and white character that he is at this point in the show, makes the call that the wrong of killing his Queen is less than the wrong of letting millions die at her hands for psycho reasons.  It doesn't work for me because the whole world of Westeros is not a world of black and white - it's a world where there are many shades of grey.  It's a world where Cersei is an evil villain who deserves death, but where, as you find out how she became what she became, you almost have a degree of sympathy for her - not enough for her to be redeemed, but at least enough where you understand why she is what she is.  Even Jon and Dany, at times in the past, had shades of grey - less so than the other characters in the show, but they clearly both committed things that were questionable/debatable.

Then comes the last couple of episodes and, boom, Dany's a blood-thirsty psychopath (that apparently was predetermined by her genetic lineage), Jon is a man of duty and honor, and he has to kill her.  That's pretty much it.  No grey, just black and white.  The show/story that was so good because it showed all the sides of these different characters and made you conflicted about their fates became a simple good vs. evil and the decision was simple.  I don't think that is the story GRRM is telling.    

some leaders tend to become dictators. nothing wrong with Danny to become a tyrant. it`s not about their genes, it`s about beliefs, motivations, actions, etc.

[Isewein]

But that's the thing. Yes, in E6 her behaviour and speeches can be congruous with her general megalomaniac tendency. Not her burning of the entire capital of the kingdom she wants to rule after it has surrendered, however. No prisoners - sure. Burning of the keep regardless of the human shields to not let Cersei get away - sure.  Even Stalinist mock-trials of Lannister supporters - if you really want to. But burning the entire people she wants to liberate? That's not megalomaniac or ruthless. That's flat out insanity, rendered even more implausible by her reversion to rational in E6.

[Nightwish]

On 5/22/2019 at 2:44 AM, Tyrion1991 said:

Since this is the direction GRRM is going this is a massive problem because I really do not like Jon Snow. Which, given that he kills my favourite character is adding insult to injury. Yet, in the show you are very much being put in Jon Snows shoes and the show assumes that you like him. To make his grief your grief. 

But if you don’t care for Jon that’s very difficult to do. I didn’t buy that Jon cared about Daenerys. They hadn’t shared much time together at all. He hadn’t been on a journey with her. So I didn’t feel his pain and frankly I wanted Drogon to kill him. Which is clearly not the writers intent.

Which means in the books Danys arc will rely on her loving a character I despise. Never mind foreknowledge that this guys gonna kill her.

Its actually is worse that Dany is killed by Jon. Because he represents everything I don’t like about the series. It means that GRRM considers Jon the protagonist and ultimately the story hinges on him making his decision to murder Daenerys. Then focus on his emo feelings on the matter. Which is very difficult if you’ve never liked Jon Snow.

Yes along with the Stark Children who certainly don't deserve it. For me none of the show characters are actually worth rooting for. 

 

[Cas Stark]

I thought it was cheesy, personally.  Having the two main characters not only fall in love but then the man kills the woman, is cheesy.  I hope that if Jon kills her in the books that there is no romance, but only an alliance, because I can't see how this particular plot point, even beautifully written, can be anything but soap operaish. 

[Daemon The Black Dragon]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

IMHO, her ending should have been like Michael Corleone, sitting alone in the shadows, having won everything she wanted, at the cost of losing everything that mattered.

This is how I thought her story was going to end, up until episode 3 or 4ish of this season. With her dying in the show, I would say she's dying in the books too. 

[SeanF]

47 minutes ago, Kajjo said:

The show hasn't a black and white explanation. It's NOT about Daenerys changing drastically, it is about the fire and blood having bein always in her. Tyrion recites all the moments and we remember them from S1 onwards.

Daenerys might have snapped partly, and partly done this intentionally ("let it be fear"), but neither way this is a drastic change of her character. It IS her character. 

All this stupid babble about 180° changes. No changes at all. Just her true character acting out after all. She was always that way and only her advisors succeeded to talk her out of it. Now all the advisors are either killed in war (Jorah) or betrayed her (Varys and Tyrion). No one to talk her out of it. Jon never uses his influence, never talks politics and is not able to reciprocate her affections. 

It's her nature, always been. 

She snaps, because of all the hopelessness and no one on her side anymore.

Again, no. At least only partly. The show clearly showed streaks of brutality, ruthlessness and megalomaniac tendency from season 1 onwards. They show that she snaps after all and just behaves like her nature, not being tamed by advisors.

She's not a psychopath.

However, her megalomaniac tendency is troublesome and always has.

Initially I accepted that argument, but no, I think there are several steps missing between burning the Tarlys for refusing to bend the knee (Henry Tudor had no qualms about executing people after Bosworth in similar circumstances) or murdering a Meereenese nobleman pour encourager les autres, and flat out deliberate extermination of thousands of non-combatants.  At the start of Episode 5, it was plain she was going to incinerate the Red Keep, regardless of civilian casualties;  and it looks like that is what she will do when she takes off after the bells start ringing.  That would be cruel, but still an act of war.  The problem is that it then leaves her a fairly sympathetic character, with no real excuse for Jon to kill her off in the next episode.  So, she swerves aside from the Red Keep to spend ages roasting fleeing refugees.

I'd be happy with that, if it had been established earlier that that is the sort of things she is willing to do.  Had they actually shown her becoming Genghis Khan or Timur the Lame in the East -  ordering atrocities to be committed - rather than just talking about it at moments of great stress - then this would have seemed like much less of an arse-pull.

I don't call it a 180 degree turn, but certainly a 90 degree turn.

[Lord Stackspear]

1 hour ago, Kajjo said:

The show hasn't a black and white explanation. It's NOT about Daenerys changing drastically, it is about the fire and blood having bein always in her. Tyrion recites all the moments and we remember them from S1 onwards.

Daenerys might have snapped partly, and partly done this intentionally ("let it be fear"), but neither way this is a drastic change of her character. It IS her character. 

All this stupid babble about 180° changes. No changes at all. Just her true character acting out after all. She was always that way and only her advisors succeeded to talk her out of it. Now all the advisors are either killed in war (Jorah) or betrayed her (Varys and Tyrion). No one to talk her out of it. Jon never uses his influence, never talks politics and is not able to reciprocate her affections. 

It's her nature, always been. 

She snaps, because of all the hopelessness and no one on her side anymore.

Again, no. At least only partly. The show clearly showed streaks of brutality, ruthlessness and megalomaniac tendency from season 1 onwards. They show that she snaps after all and just behaves like her nature, not being tamed by advisors.

She's not a psychopath.

However, her megalomaniac tendency is troublesome and always has.

With all respect, I think you’re connecting the dots that the show did not connect.  They could have, but they chose not to.  The questionable/debatable moral decisions Dany made over the seasons are no more brutal, ruthless, or megalomaniacal than actions taken by Jon, Arya, or Sansa over the course of the show.  Give me a single decision Dany has made over the course of the show (or books) the provides any support for the idea that she has struggled with or been tempted to commit anything close to being considered mass genocide of thousands of innocent people, particularly after having just achieved a victory and fear of the people (as was her stated goal).  I just don’t see it.  As a result, the only logical explanation you can come up with for her decision to commit mass genocide followed by the the principles she exhorted to Jon before her death, IMO, is a psychotic break.  According to the show runners, it is largely because of her genetic lineage that she has been unable to escape.

There are many ways D&D could have told a story where Dany turns in a grey manner - heck, just have Rhaegal or Missandei live  until the bells are rung, and then one of them die, and then she burns the city - still evil and wrong, but you can make sense of it in some way other than a psychotic break.  I still don’t think that would have been the best story, but I could buy it.  

[SeanF]

4 minutes ago, Lord Stackspear said:

With all respect, I think you’re connecting the dots that the show did not connect.  They could have, but they chose not to.  The questionable/debatable moral decisions Dany made over the seasons are no more brutal, ruthless, or megalomaniacal than actions taken by Jon, Arya, or Sansa over the course of the show.  Give me a single decision Dany has made over the course of the show (or books) the provides any support for the idea that she has struggled with or been tempted to commit anything close to being considered mass genocide of thousands of innocent people, particularly after having just achieved a victory and fear of the people (as was her stated goal).  I just don’t see it.  As a result, the only logical explanation you can come up with for her decision to commit mass genocide followed by the the principles she exhorted to Jon before her death, IMO, is a psychotic break.  According to the show runners, it is largely because of her genetic lineage that she has been unable to escape.

There are many ways D&D could have told a story where Dany turns in a grey manner - heck, just have Rhaegal or Missandei live  until the bells are rung, and then one of them die, and then she burns the city - still evil and wrong, but you can make sense of it in some way other than a psychotic break.  I still don’t think that would have been the best story, but I could buy it.  

The thing is, if we get TWOW, I think she will do some atrocious things in Essos.  In ADWD, she's spent an entire book trying to conciliate the upper classes of Meereen, and she concludes at the end it's all been a waste of time.  She remembers her house words, Fire and Blood.  

But, in the show, we're left having to fill in the blanks. 

[Imp Beyond the Wall]

7 minutes ago, SeanF said:

 The problem is that it then leaves her a fairly sympathetic character, with no real excuse for Jon to kill her off in the next episode.  So, she swerves aside from the Red Keep to spend ages roasting fleeing refugees.

 

I agree with the entire post, but this sums it up nicely.  Daenarys could be ruthless but she was never evil or crazy that I saw.  They needed "poor Jon gotta kill his Boo" so they forced it into being.  It sucked and it left a bad taste.  

And the kangaroo court ascension of Bran was also ridiculous. No consequences for Tyrion or Jon.  Two Queenslayers and a Kinslayer?  And they walk because Smaller Finger and Arya frightened everyone.  Lame.  Considering their recent experience with boy kings, Bran?  Stupid.  

 

  

  

      

[RFL]

This is a joke right?  The execution of Ned did not work for me.  The Red Wedding did not work for me.  The Game of Thrones story is special because it does not simply pay fan service to the reader with clearly defined good and evil and good always winning in the end.  

[Lord Stackspear]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

The thing is, if we get TWOW, I think she will do some atrocious things in Essos.  In ADWD, she's spent an entire book trying to conciliate the upper classes of Meereen, and she concludes at the end it's all been a waste of time.  She remembers her house words, Fire and Blood.  

But, in the show, we're left having to fill in the blanks. 

I think you’re right - the foreshadowing is totally there in the books.  She may well leave Mereen having burned the city and/or made a complete mess of things.  That would show she is starting to unravel and unable to lead/govern.  She might start to justify what she did to Slaver’s Bay, and when the people of KL don’t respond to her with the love that the slaves did, she may figure it’s time to skip any attempt to try, and burn them because that’s what she’ll eventually have to do anyways.   

That’s not the story the show told.  The way she leaves Mereen in the show is as a victorious liberator and, as far as we know, with the slave master destroyed and as peace that has taken hold.