Jump to content
LadyNoOne

Will Dany Resurrect?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, John Meta said:

 

 

I'm not comparing exile to death; I'm comparing moving "beyond the realm" to "beyond the realm" - beyond the Wall.

 

 

Why would we see him smile before he disappeared into the land "beyond the realm"?

 

 

Of course, she had a destined to fulfil. That destiny would lead her along the same path as in the premonition.

 

 

I'd propose the words "The Final Episode" tell us the narrative has completed.


 

While the comparison makes sense in a way, I don't think you can compare moving beyond life to physically moving some place else. I think they are fundamentally different things(Jon will still face the same struggles while having the same opportunities, Dany will not) but I suppose you could argue they are the same - going and never returning.

The show is done sure, Danys tale is complete within the confines of this series but nothing fundamentally prevents her revival while at the same time ending with Drogo eventually. 

Share this post


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

She moved away from them and turned to the north, the Wall. I guess this was made with different ideas for the ending in mind; 'twas only season 2, after all. 

 

(Drogon took her to the ER, obviously.)

Right, if you see my following replies the parallel is clear. She is at the Iron Throne, then moves through the gate in the Wall, where she finds the hut with Drogo. Her movement beyond the Wall is symbolic of leaving the world behind. She's moving "beyond the known" as does Jon in his epilogue; only Jon's movement is physical, Dany's movement is metaphysical. Both are moving to where they are supposed to be - free of the burdens of their destinies into a land "beyond the world" the "great unknown" as it were.

Edited by John Meta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Techmaester said:

While the comparison makes sense in a way, I don't think you can compare moving beyond life to physically moving some place else. I think they are fundamentally different things(Jon will still face the same struggles while having the same opportunities, Dany will not) but I suppose you could argue they are the same - going and never returning.

The show is done sure, Danys tale is complete within the confines of this series but nothing fundamentally prevents her revival while at the same time ending with Drogo eventually. 

Again, I'm comparing moving beyond the world, into the unknown regions to, moving beyond the world, into the unknown regions. These two are not only comparable - they are identical.

Share this post


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

Again, I'm comparing moving beyond the world, into the unknown regions to, moving beyond the world, into the unknown regions. These two are not only comparable - they are identical.

I see but I consider "beyond the wall" to still be within the world.  Also Jon already has lived beyond the wall and spent a great deal of time there - it's not unknown to him. 

Share this post


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

I see but I consider "beyond the wall" to still be within the world.  Also Jon already has lived beyond the wall and spent a great deal of time there - it's not unknown to him. 

Meaning it's not considered by the inhabitants to be a part of their world, Westeros. Think of it more as in the sense of cartography. It's a place that is, on the other side of the boundary of the realm. Jon is passing beyond the boundary of the world that is "common knowledge"

I'd also note the same is true of Arya. So there are these three: Jon, Arya, Dany with the same movement in closure. Arya and Jon are shown as very connected, as are Dany and Jon. Arya is a Stark, Dany a Targaryen, Jon is both - and in both parts is connected to a girl fully belonging to either half through a bond of love not typical with others of either half. (Not to say Jon has no love for Sansa or Bran, but that his connection with Arya is special, just as his connection with Dany - beyond lineage).

At any rate, there's a lot to consider in these aspects. Complex stuff.

Edited by John Meta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, John Meta said:

Meaning it's not considered by the inhabitants to be a part of their world, Westeros. Think of it more as in the sense of cartography. It's a place that is, on the other side of the boundary of the realm. Jon is passing beyond the boundary of the world that is "common knowledge"

I'd also note the same is true of Arya. So there are these three: Jon, Arya, Dany with the same movement in closure. Arya and Jon are shown as very connected, as are Dany and Jon. Arya is a Stark, Dany a Targaryen, Jon is both - and in both parts is connected to a girl fully belonging to either half through a bond of love not typical with others of either half. (Not to say Jon has no love for Sansa or Bran, but that his connection with Arya is special, just as his connection with Dany - beyond lineage).

At any rate, there's a lot to consider in these aspects. Complex stuff.

Thinking about the ending, I don't know if I agree with them intending her to die in the throne room when the HOTUD scene was filmed but they made Jon's ending be consistent with it.

If she was to die I think it was to be north of the wall but it got changed to fit. I think maybe her battle with Cersie was supposed to happen first but everything got rewritten.

Share this post


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

Thinking about the ending, I don't know if I agree with them intending her to die in the throne room when the HOTUD scene was filmed but they made Jon's ending be consistent with it.

If she was to die I think it was to be north of the wall but it got changed to fit. I think maybe her battle with Cersie was supposed to happen first but everything got rewritten.

Like I said, I'm going by the actual information conveyed in the narrative. In the narrative, the premonition (concluded as such since it shows the throne room in the actual state of destruction in which Dany actually enters) goes 1. throne room 2. movement beyond the realm 3. Drogo and son "perhaps waiting between the worlds". At any rate, the narrative fact is also that both Jon and Dany (and Arya) have "left the known world behind" in the end. Jon in going beyond the boundary of the north, Arya by going beyond the boundary to the west, Dany by dying. All said goodbye to Westeros.

What was going on in the minds of people years ago? I've yet to harness my ability to know the minds of others so I'll leave that to people who aren't me. The only meaningful information through which to formulate conclusions is the information conveyed through the narrative as is.

Edited by John Meta

Share this post


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

Like I said, I'm going by the actual information conveyed in the narrative. In the narrative, the premonition (concluded as such since it shows the throne room in the actual state of destruction in which Dany actually enters) goes 1. throne room 2. movement beyond the realm 3. Drogo and son "perhaps waiting between the worlds". At any rate, the narrative fact is also that both Jon and Dany (and Arya) have "left the known world behind" in the end. Jon in going beyond the boundary of the north, Arya by going beyond the boundary to the west, Dany by dying. All said goodbye to Westeros.

What was going on in the minds of people years ago? I've yet to harness my ability to know the minds of others so I'll leave that to people who aren't me. The only meaningful information through which to formulate conclusions is the information conveyed through the narrative as is.

I see the parallels. It still would have cleared it up if we got an actual shot of her entering as a final goodbye(and it probably would have been received better). Obviously we can't see the shows initial outline(as far as I know).

I still don't really get Danys thing with Drogo, he practically raped her and she developed a Stockholm Syndrome thing which she never recovered from. Guess it's better than being stabbed though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2019 at 9:39 PM, John Meta said:

Right, if you see my following replies the parallel is clear. She is at the Iron Throne, then moves through the gate in the Wall, where she finds the hut with Drogo. Her movement beyond the Wall is symbolic of leaving the world behind. She's moving "beyond the known" as does Jon in his epilogue; only Jon's movement is physical, Dany's movement is metaphysical. Both are moving to where they are supposed to be - free of the burdens of their destinies into a land "beyond the world" the "great unknown" as it were.

Asshai, then? Them dragons must be stirring for a reason, if you recall Bran's vision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 12:28 PM, John Meta said:

hen in the vision(premonition) we see after Dany encounters the Iron Throne, she turns to hear a baby crying (symbolic of birth) and Dany then, like Jon, moves "beyond the Wall" "beyond Westeros" "beyond the known world" - symbolic of death and moving to the afterlife "beyond the world". We're seeing both Jon and Dany moving "beyond the world" to a place where they are free of the burdens of their destinies, and to a place where they are "free" and where they belong. This is why Dany's "beyond the Wall" imagery is running parallel with Jon's beyond the Wall imagery - their destinies are that intertwined, even in epilogue form.

Many people are saying that her vision of Khal Drogo and her baby is a hint of the afterlife after she die s , but I remember interviews that it was a perfect opportunity to bring back Jason Momoa, whose interpretation of Drogo had captivated everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 2:29 PM, Moondancer said:

She moved away from them and turned to the north, the Wall. I guess this was made with different ideas for the ending in mind; 'twas only season 2, after all. 

These past weeks I've been wondering, if D&D knew Dany would turn evil, what was on their minds when they wrote the scene which are very different in the books? I think they didn't imagined Daenerys Will end as a bad guy, efore George told them in 2013.

In the show version she sees the Throne covered in snow or ash, doesn't get to touch it, and instead goes beyond the Wall. Many people are saying that her vision of Khal Drogo and her baby is a hint of the afterlife after she die s , but I remember interviews that it was a perfect opportunity to bring back Jason Momoa, whose interpretation of Drogo had captivated everyone.

In that time I interpreted the scene as that she Will never get to sit on the Iron throne and her "Destiny" lies in defeating the others along with Jon Snow who is represented with his association with the Wall ( in the books she sees the blue flower in a chunk of ice= Jon). She forsakes the game of thrones as the war against the dead is the most important menace for all life.

In the show we kinda got to see this, until the second Long Night became a Single Night and everyone reverted to playing politics.

But coming back to my musings, D&D couldn't have known this in 2012, or 2011 when they probably wrote and filmed season 2. Daenerys in the House of the Undying feels like a woman who Will sacrifice her life dream for serving a greater purpose. She is written as the hero with heroic actions. ASOS is probably the showrunners favorite book, or at least they must have read it a lot, scene adapting the Red Wedding was what got them interested in doing the series. And in ASOS is where Dany's has the prohetic dream about fighting the Others:

>>*That night she dreamt that she was Rhaegar, riding to the Trident. But she was mounted on a dragon, not a horse. When she saw the Usurper's rebel host across the river they were armored all in ice, but she bathed them in dragonfire and they melted away like dew and turned the Trident into a torrent. Some small part of her knew that she was dreaming, but another part exulted. **This is how it was meant to be**. The other was a nightmare, and I have only now awakened*.

This is probably what inspired to film their version of the visions, in an ambigous non spoilery way.

By that time ADWD has already come out where Daenerys Targaryen tendencies are heightened and is where she decides to forget about the fragile peace that is never stable in Meeren, and remembers that her is the path of Fire and Blood. Dragons plant no tres and all that. This is the part where many book fans have pointed out , that Dany Will begin her unraveling towards her endpoint in the series, which is being the Mad Queen.

So the showrunnes either didn't care for Daenerys character progression in the last published book or didn't quite read the book and interpreted the text. In 2013 , with a season 3 already written, George tells them in 2013 she Will become evil and Will burn KL. They already had written several scenes about her violence prone state of my mind, but never developed the "madness" aspect , which book Dany was very well preocupied about it (having the taint). They leave this aspect about her 'till the very end which is why the story felt rushed and devoid of natural progression.

So my theory is , that like many many fans , they never saw it coming, and after George revelation, delayed it as much as they could , which is why season 8 Danerys feels incosistent with her own persona in the previous seasons. The snippets shown to explain her madness to how she reacted to Viserys death are non important, there is no way they knew in season 1 Dany Will become the final villain. It was a bad attempt to justify the very very late turn of events. It should have been an organic progression and not a twist or their beloved subverted expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 3:55 PM, Techmaester said:

Thinking about the ending, I don't know if I agree with them intending her to die in the throne room when the HOTUD scene was filmed but they made Jon's ending be consistent with it.

If she was to die I think it was to be north of the wall but it got changed to fit. I think maybe her battle with Cersie was supposed to happen first but everything got rewritten.

In the show versión (2012) she sees the Throne covered in snow or ash, doesn't get to touch it, and instead goes beyond the Wall. 

In that time I interpreted the scene as that she Will never get to sit on the Iron throne and her "Destiny" lies in defeating the others along with Jon Snow who is represented with his association with the Wall ( in the books she sees the blue flower in a chunk of ice= Jon). She forsakes the game of thrones as the war against the dead is the most important menace for all life.

Then in 2013 George tells them how the story ends and the infamous 3 holy shit moments, the final being Jon kill Dany.

D&D couldn't have known this in 2012, or 2011 when they probably wrote and filmed season 2. Daenerys in the House of the Undying feels like a woman who Will sacrifice her life dream for serving a greater purpose. She is written as the hero with heroic actions.

Share this post


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

In the show versión (2012) she sees the Throne covered in snow or ash, doesn't get to touch it, and instead goes beyond the Wall. 

In that time I interpreted the scene as that she Will never get to sit on the Iron throne and her "Destiny" lies in defeating the others along with Jon Snow who is represented with his association with the Wall ( in the books she sees the blue flower in a chunk of ice= Jon). She forsakes the game of thrones as the war against the dead is the most important menace for all life.

Then in 2013 George tells them how the story ends and the infamous 3 holy shit moments, the final being Jon kill Dany.

D&D couldn't have known this in 2012, or 2011 when they probably wrote and filmed season 2. Daenerys in the House of the Undying feels like a woman who Will sacrifice her life dream for serving a greater purpose. She is written as the hero with heroic actions.

I agree, I think she decided to leave the throne. Not that it was taken from her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like the horse at the end of E05, it meant nothing, just a cool looking scene for Drogon taking the body off into the sunset. That's all it was, I wouldn't think too much into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/29/2019 at 5:48 PM, Moondancer said:

Asshai, then? Them dragons must be stirring for a reason, if you recall Bran's vision. 

Not Asshai or anywhere in the known world, but in the afterlife - in the same place as Drogo and her child.

On 5/29/2019 at 10:41 PM, AlaerysTargaryen said:

In the show versión (2012) she sees the Throne covered in snow or ash, doesn't get to touch it, and instead goes beyond the Wall. 

In that time I interpreted the scene as that she Will never get to sit on the Iron throne and her "Destiny" lies in defeating the others along with Jon Snow who is represented with his association with the Wall ( in the books she sees the blue flower in a chunk of ice= Jon). She forsakes the game of thrones as the war against the dead is the most important menace for all life.

Then in 2013 George tells them how the story ends and the infamous 3 holy shit moments, the final being Jon kill Dany.

D&D couldn't have known this in 2012, or 2011 when they probably wrote and filmed season 2. Daenerys in the House of the Undying feels like a woman who Will sacrifice her life dream for serving a greater purpose. She is written as the hero with heroic actions.

There are things we cannot know (e.g. what the show writers knew beforehand, what was on their mind writing the season 2 vision, how the books might play out, etc.) and there are things we know i.e. the narrative information conveyed by the show. Actual meaning can only be found in the things we know. What we know about the vision is that Dany arrives at the Iron Throne, then she goes beyond the Wall, then she is with Drogo and her child. Looking at that as a "roadmap" of Dany's future it reads: Dany arrives at the Iron Throne, then she is killed (exit movement through the gate of the world), then she is in the afterlife (same place as Drogo and child). That's the only interpretation I can see that is consistent with the information that we do know. As for the information that we cannot know, the sky is the limit. Imagination and speculation can take us anywhere. BUT, according to the knowns, Dany is in the afterlife in the vision.

But touching on what D&D could've known in 2011/12, I'd also propose that they very well could've known that Dany would be killed in the end. I say this because I predicted it way back then as a possibility. This was based on several things that I did know at the time. Such as that the "destructive forces" were "ice and fire" and of the characters, Dany was clearly "fire". Couple this with the fact that I knew Martin was wanting to subvert the trope of "evil is ugly" and a prediction that Dany would be one of the "evil* destructive forces" was viable. If I could propose that, surely D&D could've had the same line of reasoning.

I'd also propose that, even if they didn't know it, or ponder the possibility, at the time, a common method of writing an ending is by looking at the beginning and aligning the two. In other words, when D&D came to write the closing arc for Dany, they could simply look back at that vision (of which they had no intentions at the time) and interpret it according to what was happening in the present, then write the ending to mirror the beginning. This happens all of the time in writing episodic stories - looking at the beginning and mirroring the present through that retroactive lens.

At any rate, the story of the show is over, and now we have the information conveyed by that story. That's the only information that we can use to draw meaningful understanding. And in that understanding, we have a vision of Dany's future which goes: throne room to beyond the wall, to Drogo and child.

*edit: I use the word "evil" here but Martin is subverting the usual "black/white" of the nature of motivation in the scope of ethics. I don't think it's quite right to use the word "evil" when describing Dany (or, the Night King, for that matter). I think she is a person with good intentions doing what she believes must be done, spurred onto the path by the tragedy that befalls her in Westeros. 

In fact I would propose that the ice and fire of the Night King and Dany come to pass in a form of mirroring of events. Consider that the Night King was a man who did not want to become what the Children of the Forest made him to be. They did this by stabbing him in the heart with a black shard. Afterward, he became an weapon of destruction with no emotions (ice). In the same sense, Dany did not want to become the "queen of the ashes" that the Men made her to be. They did this (Westeros) by stabbing her in the heart with a black shard (rejection causing loss of love and friendship/counsel). Afterward she became a weapon of destruction filled with extreme emotion (fire). Dany and the Night King were both then released from their suffering by a dagger in the heart.

I know people like to label her "villain/evil" because she did something they won't justify (killing the people in King's Landing) but there are people who would certainly justify what Dany did at King's Landing (the ends justify the means) and there are people who would not justify any violence that Dany (or, anyone in the story) has done. The point being that Dany's actions don't necessarily indicate "villain" anymore than any military's action can be called incontrovertible "villainy" by anyone.

The most we can say is that Dany becomes as much an antagonist to Jon Snow as the Night King.

Edited by John Meta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2019 at 1:23 AM, CrypticWeirwood said:

Nothing changes plot-wise if Dany's cooling corpse had been left where it lay.

Nor, apparently,  when spirited away to parts unknown by Drogon.

Therefore this happened for reasons outside the show's plot.

Why?

The alternative to Drogon flying away with Dany's corpse would be for Drogon to burn Jon.

Share this post


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

The most we can say is that Dany becomes as much an antagonist to Jon Snow as the Night King.

No, we can say something more than that.

We can say that Dany becomes as much a threat to Westeros as the Night King.

At least, that's what we're supposed to take from it. I don't exactly buy it though. It's not an existential threat in the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

No, we can say something more than that.

We can say that Dany becomes as much a threat to Westeros as the Night King.

At least, that's what we're supposed to take from it. I don't exactly buy it though. It's not an existential threat in the same way.

When I say "all we can really say" about Dany, I mean to say, in the objective/incontrovertible sense. She's an antagonist to Jon Snow at the end. The word "threat" is kind of like "villain" - depends on your point of view. It's subjective. A person may say Dany was not a threat to Westeros, but that she was a threat to the "old ways" but that the "new ways" were not threatened by her at all. It's an "ends justify the means" kind of thing.

What I mean is that, a person may say Dany is a "villain" because what she did at King's Landing can't be justified. But another person might say that what she did can be justified because "the ends justify the means" (for example). So a person can say whatever the may about Dany but "we" (meaning, as a whole people, taking into account varying ideologies existing among all different people) can't say anything (objective/incontrovertible) about the character of Dany except that she became an antagonist to Jon Snow. Antagonist, not carrying any ethical characteristics - but just, a story element in opposition which must be overcome.

Note that, I'm just meaning to make my own words as clear as possible when I say these things. It's not that I would disagree with the spirit of what you say here, but that I just want my position to be as clear as possible when talking about ideas that are inherently tied to relative systems of ethics. If that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You live up to your name John, I don't like where the show went and piercing through the heart could have been something besides physically killing her(as you pointed out, her heart was pierced by blackness but it could have been pierced again by Jon in the same way saving her)

I think you made a correct assessment of the Night King/Dany with regards to the show runners(and maybe martins) vision but they went with physically kill instead of saving her through the same process in which she turned "bad". It was clearly a missed opportunity and IMO gave the wrong message to solving what was fundamentally an emotional problem. 

It would have been more significant of an ending to have him "pierce her heart" with some type of emotional connection, resulting in her flying off with drogon while still alive and then replaying the ending scene from HotUD leaving how she got there ambiguous. Thus she is released in the same way the "bad" version of her was created. 

Edited by Techmaester

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

×