Jump to content
Tyrion1991

Dany the Mad Queen was a terrible idea

Recommended Posts

I viewed it as a lesson on how rigidity is not a valid way to live.

Inability to compromise creates conflict.

Religious fanaticism. Like the High Sparrow.

Unshakable belief in profecies. Stannis, Daenerys, Melisandre.

Lack of empathy.

Lust for power.

Being unable to sacrifice principles or honor.

If you tell me Daenerys bought into her own hype, I get it and I agree.

She also repeatedly gives a sense of not looking back, not settling, always forging ahead for good or bad.

Trying to explain everything away through birthright and ambition? 

How many times to we get 'There must always be a Stark in Winterfell?'

Was it all about 'don't fight for what you believe is yours?'

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

The character was enormously popular and iconic.

Yes, mainly because Emilia Clarke is so beautiful and charismatic. I really like her lot. She is funny, she has splendid facial expressions, she really brought live to Daenerys' character.

Further, a powerful young woman fits perfectly in the current politically-correct scenarios. Very many could identify with this pretty woman showing men their limits.

Thirdly, it was GRRM's clever disguise to let Daenerys treat evil men in a brutal way. He really brought up the worst in many of us: Many cherished her burning the Unsullied master alive, didn't moan about crucifying arbitrary master and so on. Many believed it to be bad-ass moments when she threatend the Thirteen with burning down Qarth and so on. 

But we should have noticed that feeding an arbitrary master to a dragon is not right, no matter what we think about slavery. We should have been warned early on that Jorah could just barely talk her out of burning down a city. That her pep-talk to the unified Dothraki about destroying stone houses, smashing people in iron, burning down cities and so was really what makes a good queen. And even Daario told her (and us) that she is a good conquerer, but not a good ruler.

It was all there. Not simple foreshadowing. Real character. Real dialogues, real scenes. I was sure it would turn out that way for quite a long time, many seasons -- and there are hundred youtube videos to prove that many understood Daenerys' arc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not completely convinced she's even mad. Considering the massive destruction at KL, it seems the other cities populations may be inclined to overthrow their prior leaders without Dany needing to even engage. Maybe she simply lit the fire under the feet of the rest of the populations.

Basically we needed to see what her next actions after Kings Landing were to make a judgment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

There’s a been a lot of half hearted defences of this story lately. Basically falling into “might have been good if given more time” and “well it was implied in earlier seasons ergo you can’t complain about it”.

 However it simply was never going to be a good choice of direction for the story. 

Firstly, it’s not actually an original or striking idea. There have been many, many stories in which a well meaning character goes mad with power. I mean this summer we’ll be seeing the second rendition of the Dark Phoenix saga. We have loads of evil superman tales like the Injustice game which dwell on “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. So the argument that had this been well done it would have been some ground breaking moment is simply not true. It’s as worn out a trope as any other. So this isn’t some sort of intellectual or cerebral story that I am just not comprehending.

An element of deception was used with the character. A lot of fantasy stories have a hero encounter some corrupting influence that pushes them towards a darker nature. Again, it’s not an original idea within fantasy. Almost always something they overcome. Frodo and the Ring. Rand al Thor and the Taint. Thomas in Magician with the dragon armour. It’s very common. However those stories are up front and present this as the case. You know that the character wrestles actively with the Daemons on their shoulders. Simply put this is not done with Daenerys until season 8 and by then our opinions have been too firmly established. What we see her do isn’t more violent than the other characters and there’s nothing to suggest she has an inner conflict and strives to be a good person. The show also heavily cast her actions as heroic both in the show and throughout its marketing. It’s not an accident people perceived her that way.

The turn relies upon fantasy tropes which we were promised would be jettisoned in the first season. I was told that we would be getting a Machiavellian world in which good people don’t get what they want for being good and being ruthless and pragmatic works. Take Robert Baratheon. He is a scathing satire on the idea of the reluctant King. A drunk, a buffoon and a man who has sent the Kingdom to ruin. Ned Stark, the noble intentions that end with him outplayed and out of his depth. This is a world away from the moral message of the ending. Instead we have the wicked power mad queen killed by the righteous man who chose duty over love. With a reluctant and wise King raised up to rule over a benevolent and peaceful realm. Jon getting to walk off into the sunset. It’s an absurd ending given the rules the show set itself in season 1.

The character was enormously popular and iconic. It’s not an accident that the show really played this up in its marketing and on the screen up until the final three episodes. This suggests that they themselves knew that if they had her do some of the more questionable things she does in the books: her paranoia, the usurpers dogs, her three betrayals, some of the punishments she performs in Mereen. The shows Dany is heavily sanitised. There’s a bit in Storm of Swords where she has the Unsullied cut the cocks off all the rapists and fill a pot that’s so heavy it took two men to carry. I know the character has detractors in the show and the books. Iam friends with quite a few of the scum. But a lot of people did think it was quite novel to have her be a powerful hero and very much interpreted her story in that light. To decide at the 11th hour to switch gears was never going to work because Dany has never been sold as a moral lesson on why power is bad. Had they tried to sell her on those grounds she would never have been as popular.

Also, there really aren’t that many female characters like Daenerys. If you read Wheel of Time or Stormlight Archive, any fantasy really, there’s a general preference to put them in weird or supporting roles. Shallan being a magical DND rogue for example, or have them do extremely boring monotonous soft power stuff like Egwene. Often it’s just random stuff like “find the weather flute”. Never mind that if the only other fantasy thing you saw was Lord of the Rings. Because of this, you can’t really say that, like with Superman, it’s an oversaturated story if Dany just ends up winning. As stated earlier, I ve already seen the Dark Phoenix saga and I don’t need to see it done badly again. However seeing this Dragon Queen rise from nothing to takeover a Kingdom; that’s novel. Having her be Malificent is not.

It would have been far more rewarding to see the character brought to the precipice and turn away. This was what I assumed they would do because, IMO, the character had no agency in those episodes as it was just a deluge of misery for her. As it stands they did probably the worst ending they could have done. As in WW killing everyone was preferable to that ending.

 

I agree with you that her turning to the dark side was poorly executed, but I don't think it's a tired cliche when done right. A great example is Willow from Buffy The Vampire Slayer. For four seasons or so she was a stellar good guy, then her character begins to turn to the dark side in season 5, and eventually she becomes one of the most dangerous antagonists of the whole series in season 6. It's an even bigger flip than Danaerys' character but I don't think I ever heard one single fan of Buffy say the writers had ruined her character, even though at her worst Willow was probably more willing to commit acts of evil than even the plundering Danaerys. The writing team took all nuances of her character into consideration when developing Willow, and much like Danaerys, you can see hints of dark leanings in her character on a rewatch in earlier seasons.

The execution in The Bells was a big, big problem. It reduced everything to "Danaerys the bad guy now" in a cartoonist way. They did this through her outfits, the music, woeful dialogue and forcing Emilia Clarke to look like she was about to have a brain aneurysm at any any moment.

Btw, the dark phoenix saga was done well in the original comics and the 90s animated series.

Edited by Uilliam

Share this post


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

The show may be called Game of Thrones, but it’s based on a book series called A Song of Ice and Fire, and as in the books, the threat of the White Walkers have been built up since the very start, and for several seasons now we’ve seen Kit Harrington and others trying to make people understand that the petty squabbles of humans mean nothing when you have an apocalyptic threat breathing down your neck. To then have the White Walkers lose the first major battle after they’ve finally crossed the Wall, so that we can back to focus on the petty human squabbles is not only extremely anticlimactic but also ruins what could have been an important message for the viewer.

Another reason why it was a mistake is that D&D are terrible writers who haven’t been able to deal with the political aspects of the show after they ran out of material from Martin/chose not to adopt most of his last two books.

Nothing I've seen on here have convinced that there didn't need to be more build up to explain why Dany would end up destroying an entire city and massacre thousands if not tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

I can actually think of several worse reasons for wanting to be a ruler.

Also, I don't see why having Dany succeed or die a hero would contradict "the message of the story". I mean what is even "the message of the story"? If you use military might to force through societal changes you will succeed in Essos but fail in Westeros?

Executing the Tarly’s for refusing to bend the knee or take the black would not be seen as a big deal in Planetos. That Tyrion and Varys are concerned over this is just another case of terrible writing.

I knew somebody was going to say that, but it doesn't matter what the book are called, we are talking about the show here, not the books. The authors of the show could have decided to change the core thematic compared to the books (and from what i know, i really don't think they did), it would be within their prerogatives as showrunners... a lot of adaptations do it.
Anyway... Yes, Jon Snow is right when he says that the white walkers threat is more important than who is on the throne... but he is right within the world he inhabits... he is not talking about the show.
William Faulkner said "the only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself". The white walkers, while being a big threat within the show universe was never going to be the theme of the show, just like Emperor Palpatine is not what Star Wars is about, and Sauron is not what the Lord of the Ring is about.
When i said that birthright and ambitions were the worst reasons to rules, may be it was not the best way to phrase it... let me rephrase it: "birthright and ambition are not good reasons to rule" so yes, you can find worst reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that these are bad reasons. As for what is the message of the story? Well, let me say it again "BIRTHRIGHT AND AMBITION ARE NOT GOOD REASONS TO RULE".... should i say it again? i guess you will, once again, put your hands over your hears and scream "NAH NAH NAH I AM NOT HEARING!"... And what about Essos? Well... in Essos she was not about birthright and ambition, and in Essos she was doing something positive, she was freeing slaves.... she already had a dark side, and she had it since season 1, but she was bringing something good to the peoples of Essos... As soon as she came to Westeros she was no longer about freeing anybody, she was just about "i want the throne of my father, everybody has to bend the knee before me".

 

Share this post


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

Btw, the dark phoenix saga was done well in the original comics and the 90s animated series

I made a comment earlier about that weird mashup, Last Stand.

I was more moved by Wolverine killing Jean as she was in the process of starting to destroy the world than what happened in front of the Iron Throne.

Make it painful, introduce emotional conflict. 

Love for her? Didn't see it.

He killed her for 'love', but love of his family.

If it'd been the other way around?

Tyrion monologuing about Sansa and Arya, Jon refusing, hesitating, and then, to force him to see the necessity of the act: "what about all the other innocents?"

That would be duty, duty to the world, over love.

Share this post


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

 

I agree with you that her turning to the dark side was poorly executed, but I don't think it's a tired cliche when done right. A great example is Willow from Buffy The Vampire Slayer. For four seasons or so she was a stellar good guy, then her character begins to turn to the dark side in season 5, and eventually she becomes one of the most dangerous antagonists of the whole series in season 6. It's an even bigger flip than Danaerys' character but I don't think I ever heard one single fan of Buffy say the writers had ruined her character, even though at her worst Willow was probably more willing to commit acts of evil than even the plundering Danaerys. The writing team took all nuances of her character into consideration when developing Willow, and much like Danaerys, you can see hints of dark leanings in her character on a rewatch in earlier seasons.

The execution in The Bells was a big, big problem. It reduced everything to "Danaerys the bad guy now" in a cartoonist way. They did this through her outfits, the music, woeful dialogue and forcing Emilia Clarke to look like she was about to have a brain aneurysm at any any moment.

Btw, the dark phoenix saga was done well in the original comics and the 90s animated series.

We get the start of Daenerys's turn to  cruelty and tyranny in this series, and you get its fiery end.  But, there's a big gap in the middle.  Burning the Khals or the Tarlys doesn't fill that gap in the middle.  I'm not familiar with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but turning someone who was been built up as good ( but with a cruel streak and a massive sense of entitlement) into a person who will incinerate tens of thousands of women and children needs to be developed over a couple of seasons.

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Kajjo said:

It's not just about foreshadowing, it is about how her character was depicted in all seasons, even the very good S1-S4.

I call this BS. It's so well depicted that several main characters are flabbergasted during the table reading; Kit H. is about to burst into tears…

Emilia said approx. "it came from nowhere" in interviews… 

As for the Starks:  there's not a single place in the world where you can see more than one Stark at a time. They are scattered all over Planets. Talk about a "pack"!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

I call this BS. It's so well depicted that several main characters are flabbergasted during the table reading; Kit H. is about to burst into tears…

Emilia said approx. "it came from nowhere" in interviews… 

As for the Starks:  there's not a single place in the world where you can see more than one Stark at a time. They are scattered all over Planets. Talk about a "pack"!

 

talk about BS.... Kit Harrington crying during the table reading has nothing to do with him not liking the ending... and you know how i know this? because if it was the case then you would have never seen this, they wouldn't have put in in the making of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a completely thematically fitting choice for me to have Dany do what she did in episode 5. The corrupting nature of power is what the show has been about from the beginning, and although the pacing was rushed, I'm not even someone who believes the execution was flawed. This part of Dany's character has been there from season 2, and there were many times in seasons 4-6 where her actions were morally uncomfortable, but got a pass because she was punishing/killing slavers. Once season 7 hit and she got to Westeros and it was clear that she was uncompromising about getting the throne, with her advisors constantly having to ask her not to burn King's Landing or burn alive POWs, the shift was all the more clear. And it would have been a major cop out, in my opinion, to have her remain the "good guy."

If anything, I thought Tyrion's speech in the finale was weak because it spelled it all out too explicitly. I thought the writers had done a good job of showing Dany's decision-making without needing Tyrion to tell the audience. But if there's one thing that speech (and her dialogue in The Bells and the Finale) should clear up, it's that although "madness" is an easy way for the Westerosi to understand Dany, it doesn't explain what was actually going on hin her head: an increasing sense of self-righteousness and belief in her own destiny, at all costs, along with a conscious decision to rule with fear rather than through love.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

I call this BS. It's so well depicted that several main characters are flabbergasted during the table reading; Kit H. is about to burst into tears…

Emilia said approx. "it came from nowhere" in interviews… 

As for the Starks:  there's not a single place in the world where you can see more than one Stark at a time. They are scattered all over Planets. Talk about a "pack"!

 

"It came out of f**king nowhere" is on a par with Isaac saying "I thought it was a joke" when he saw the script making Bran the King.

Share this post


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

The show may be called Game of Thrones, but it’s based on a book series called A Song of Ice and Fire, and as in the books, the threat of the White Walkers have been built up since the very start, and for several seasons now we’ve seen Kit Harrington and others try to make people understand that the petty squabbles of humans mean nothing when you have an apocalyptic threat breathing down your neck. To then have the White Walkers lose the first major battle after they’ve finally got past the Wall, so that we can go back to focusing on the petty human squabbles is not only extremely anticlimactic but also ruins what could have been an important message for the viewer.

Another reason why it was a mistake is that D&D are terrible writers who haven’t been able to deal with the political aspects of the show after they ran out of material from Martin/chose not to adopt most of his last two books.

Nothing I've seen on here have convinced that there didn't need to be more build up to explain why Dany would end up destroying an entire city and massacre thousands if not tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

I can actually think of several worse reasons for wanting to be a ruler.

Also, I don't see why having Dany succeed or die a hero would contradict "the message of the story". I mean what is even "the message of the story"? If you use military might to force through societal changes you will succeed in Essos but fail in Westeros?

Executing the Tarly’s for refusing to bend the knee or take the black would not be seen as a big deal in Planetos. That Tyrion and Varys are concerned over this is just another case of terrible writing.

Executing prisoners was brought up in Season Two when Lord Boton suggested it to Robb. Robb told him he would not execute prisoners, so in show verse, it was certainly something that was considered wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, beeeeeen said:

I knew somebody was going to say that, but it doesn't matter what the book are called, we are talking about the show here, not the books. The authors of the show could have decided to change the core thematic compared to the books (and from what i know, i really don't think they did), it would be within their prerogatives as showrunners... a lot of adaptations do it.

Oh, they've definitely changed George’s story to the point the core thematic has gone out the window and the characters no even resembles their book counterparts, and that's why George’s ending (i.e. I actually believe that Bran's ascension to king and Dany’s fall are actual plot point from him) no longer works, so they should have come up with something else that would’ve made more sense within their story.

Quote

Anyway... Yes, Jon Snow is right when he says that the white walkers threat is more important than who is on the throne... but he is right within the world he inhabits... he is not talking about the show.

?????????? The White Walkers ended up being a huge joke, so as far as the show is concerned Cersei actually made the right call by simply going back on her word and waiting out the storm. Heck the WWs might not even have been able to cross the Wall in the first place if Jon&Dany hadn't decided that they needed to convince her to join them.

Quote

William Faulkner said "the only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself".

You can write about humans dealing with apocalyptic threat, while also including some human drama.

Quote

The white walkers, while being a big threat within the show universe was never going to be the theme of the show, just like Emperor Palpatine is not what Star Wars is about, and Sauron is not what the Lord of the Ring is about.

No one is saying that ASOIAF/GOT is ultimately about the Others/White Walkers, but they represent the overarching antagonistic force within the story, just as the Empire was for Star Wars or Sauron and his armies were for LotR, and should have been dealt with in a satisfying manner instead of simply being reduced to an anticlimactic failure. Setting aside ones differences to fight a greater threat was a theme until D&D suddenly throw it out the window, but who cares about themes anyway. They’re just for 8th grade book reports according to D&D.

Quote

When i said that birthright and ambitions were the worst reasons to rules, may be it was not the best way to phrase it... let me rephrase it: "birthright and ambition are not good reasons to rule" so yes, you can find worst reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that these are bad reasons. As for what is the message of the story? Well, let me say it again "BIRTHRIGHT AND AMBITION ARE NOT GOOD REASONS TO RULE".... should i say it again? i guess you will, once again, put your hands over your hears and scream "NAH NAH NAH I AM NOT HEARING!"...

Well, you're certainly acting hysterical...

But anyway, I don’t agree with the premise that ambition is something inherently negative. That is just a stupid Hollywood trope.

Also, for a show that is supposedly all about showing us that “birth right and ambition are the worst reasons to want to rule” (according to you), they sure decided to have it end on a strange note, considering that the North is still a hereditary monarchy and the monarch of the 6 kingdom is still elected by noblemen - and women who have ascended to this position for hereditary reasons.

Quote

And what about Essos? Well... in Essos she was not about birthright and ambition, and in Essos she was doing something positive, she was freeing slaves.... she already had a dark side, and she had it since season 1, but she was bringing something good to the peoples of Essos... As soon as she came to Westeros she was no longer about freeing anybody, she was just about "i want the throne of my father, everybody has to bend the knee before me".

 

And how does that make any sense to you. Wouldn’t the show’s version of Dany be more concerned with improving the lives of the small folk of Westeros who are practically slaves in all but name instead of… you know… burning them all to a crisp?

Edited by Einheri

Share this post


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

Executing prisoners was brought up in Season Two when Lord Boton suggested it to Robb. Robb told him he would not execute prisoners, so in show verse, it was certainly something that was considered wrong. 

Set against such acts as hanging a 12 year old, feeding a man his own children in a pie, gouging out a man's eyes, or feeding a man to his own hounds (all acts which have been carried out by the good guys in this series) executing enemy prisoners who refuse to take an oath of allegiance to you is pretty small beer (it's the sort of thing that people like Edward IV or Henry VII did).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SeanF said:

We get the start of Daenerys's turn to  cruelty and tyranny in this series, and you get its fiery end.  But, there's a big gap in the middle.  Burning the Khals or the Tarlys doesn't fill that gap in the middle.  I'm not familiar with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but turning someone who was been built up as good ( but with a cruel streak and a massive sense of entitlement) into a person who will incinerate tens of thousands of women and children needs to be developed over a couple of seasons.

The gap in the middle is due to bad writing. I think there's unequivocal agreement that dumb and dumber lack the smarts to write anything near Martin's level. The heel switch of willow wasn't a problem in Buffy the vampire slayer because the writing quality was vastly superior to GoTs later seasons.

Ideally, what I suspect will happen in the books is a Julius Caesar like situation, where Danaerys attains a huge degree of power and her advisors conspire to assassinate her. That wouldn't necessarily involve a mad queen scenario and could position Danaerys as more of a grey character, possibly even a victim. This could have been the case in the show, too, but there's a league of difference between Dumb and dumber's so called storytelling and Julius Caesar, one of Shakespeare's finest works. I doubt they've even read it.

Edited by Uilliam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

20 minutes ago, Uilliam said:

Julius Caesar, one of Shakespeare's finest works. I doubt they've even read it.

Sheik who?? Sorry, haven't studied Arabic literature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Einheri said:

Oh, they've definitely changed George’s story to the point the core thematic has gone out the window and the characters no even resembles their book counterparts, and that's why George’s ending (i.e. I actually believe that Bran's ascension to king and Dany’s fall are actual plot point from him) no longer works, so they should have come up with something else that would’ve made more sense within their story.

?????????? The White Walkers ended up being a huge joke, so as far as the show is concerned Cersei actually made the right call by simply going back on her word and waiting out the storm. Heck the WWs might not even have been able to cross the Wall in the first place if Jon&Dany hadn't decided that they needed to convince her to join them.

You can write about humans dealing with apocalyptic threat, while also including some human drama.

No one is saying that ASOIAF/GOT is ultimately about the Others/White Walkers, but they represent the overarching antagonistic force within the story, just as the Empire was for Star Wars or Sauron and his armies were for LotR, and should have been dealt with in a satisfying manner instead of simply being reduced to an anticlimactic failure. Setting aside ones differences to fight a greater threat was a theme until D&D suddenly throw it out the window, but who cares about themes anyway. They’re just for 8th grade book reports according to D&D.

Well, you're certainly acting hysterical...

But anyway, I don’t agree with the premise that ambition is something inherently negative. That is just a stupid Hollywood trope.

Also, for a show that is supposedly all about showing us that “birth right and ambition are the worst reasons to want to rule” (according to you), they sure decided to have it end on a strange note, considering that the North is still a hereditary monarchy and the monarch of the 6 kingdom is still elected by noblemen - and women who have ascended to this position for hereditary reasons.

And how does that make any sense to you. Wouldn’t the show’s version of Dany be more concerned with improving the lives of the small folk of Westeros who are practically slaves in all but name instead of… you know… burning them all to a crisp?

First, you don't know how much they've changed G.R.R Martin's story thematics, yes they have changed a lot of details, removed some storylines, combined some characters, "butchered" some others (i am not using this word in a pejorative way, but i think everybody will agree that, for example, show Euron has nothing to do with book Euron... i am not saying it's a bad thing, nor i'm saying it's a good thing, but yeah, show Euron is nowhere near as interesting as his book counterpart) but the thematic may have been perfectly respected by Benioff and Weiss... or not... i don't know yet, and you don't either, and anyone who pretend otherwise is just disingenuous.
The White Walkers did not end up being a joke, they were a threat, something that made the "game of throne" pointless in the eyes of any sensible character within the show, but this great war was not what the show was about, that's it. The show was about mankind, about what peoples do to other peoples, how the power corrupt us, what is a good ruler, what is not... the white walkers were basically the writers telling us "ok, in an ideal world, all these conflicts about who is on the throne would be forgotten and people would unit because there is something that threaten us all... unfortunately, mankind is not perfect, and once the threat will be done with, they will start again their little game of power"
Yeah "ambition is bad" is a "trope" but where the show was clever with that trope, is that it used two versions of it, a classical one, with Littlefinger, and a more subtle one with Daenerys. Everybody could see that Littlefinger was only driven by his ambition, but few peoples saw that Daenerys was too, because we were caught in her messiah complex.
And yeah, despite the show telling us that birthright is wrong, the show ended with Sansa ruling the north, and i see no problem with that... Tyrion understood what was wrong with birthright, Tyrion had a lot of discussion with Varys that helped him to... Sansa had not... Not everything has to end well, after all it was supposed to be a bittersweet ending...
And finally, in Essos, Daenerys was doing good things, but it was not really for good reasons, she was not, in the beginning, driven by the will to make the world a better place. Remember season 1, she is with her Khalassar and she doesn't mind them pillage villages, yes, she asks them not to rape and kill every women, but that's it... When Drogo talks about killing westerosis and destroy their houses, she doesn't seem to be disgusted at the idea... What happen then is that she frees the unsullieds, not because she wants to free them, but because she needs an army and cannot pay for it. After that, when she realises that her soldiers love her because she freed them, she start freeing other peoples, slaves, mainly because she loves being loved... and in Essos, she gains the support of those who follow her... until she comes to westeros, where she does nothing to gain the love and support of the peoples, she just demands it, because she is blinded by her birthright. And that's her downfall, she thinks peoples should love her when they have no reason to, quite the opposite, she is coming with dragons, with foreign armies, and with a claim based on her father, who was the Mad King...
Daenerys should have stayed in Essos, where she had something to offer

Share this post


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

 

Executing the Tarly’s for refusing to bend the knee or take the black would not be seen as a big deal in Planetos. That Tyrion and Varys are concerned over this is just another case of terrible writing.

 

Yeah kind of, they could still keep them as prisoners, at least the son if not father, or at least they could behead them, burning is too harsh. Even Jon stopped Mance Rayder's burning execution by shooting him through the heart with an arrow.

 

Edited by RYShh

Share this post


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

Set against such acts as hanging a 12 year old, feeding a man his own children in a pie, gouging out a man's eyes, or feeding a man to his own hounds (all acts which have been carried out by the good guys in this series) executing enemy prisoners who refuse to take an oath of allegiance to you is pretty small beer (it's the sort of thing that people like Edward IV or Henry VII did).  

nobody ever said that Daenerys was the only character that shows crualty in Got.... Arya is pretty f****ed up....
But only Daenerys has dragons and the power to murder thousands of peoples in a few minutes....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Nowy Tends said:

I call this BS. It's so well depicted that several main characters are flabbergasted during the table reading; Kit H. is about to burst into tears…

Emilia said approx. "it came from nowhere" in interviews… 

As for the Starks:  there's not a single place in the world where you can see more than one Stark at a time. They are scattered all over Planets. Talk about a "pack"!

 

She said she didn't see it coming. And that's exactly the point of the arc - we see Dany through her own eyes and devotees while in Essos (in the books as well), so we don't see things coming and we will see the bad things coming too late in the books as well, when she starts doing same things suddenly to people we have connection with. And so it seems sudden. This happens all the time - how often did we hear "He was such a nice guy, we never saw this coming" about people who should have raised all kinds of red flags?

The New Yorker:

Quote

 

Now that it’s all over, I want to get your reaction to the fate of your character, Daenerys. Are you disappointed? Were you surprised? Have you taken note of the feminist criticism of this?

I read these scripts coming on to two years ago now. When I did, I took a very long walk around London in a daze, not quite knowing how to digest the news. Now, finally, people are going, “Oh, now we understand why this season hit you hard.” I had no idea what to expect for this last season. I hoped for some juicy things to get into, as I always do for each season, but I didn’t see this coming. Throughout the show, there have been these glorious moments of Daenerys taking on a very strong role in a battle or in a decision to be made. There were these wonderful moments when she takes control, and it’s really liberating and beautiful. She frees people, she kills the baddies, and it feels good.

And, I must admit, I was sitting tentatively on that chair thinking, How long is this going to last? Everyone was saying, “Isn’t she great? She’s our savior, Mhysa.” It’s been beautiful and amazing, but I’ve been looking over my shoulder the entire time while everyone else gets a more human—for want of a better word—story line. They do good things. They do bad things. They do silly things. They do brilliant things. They fall in love. They break hearts. Daenerys has quite consistently had this road to salvation, and she’s been sitting atop a very safe mountain.

I remember the boys—our writers and showrunners—telling me that Daenerys’s arc is that of Lawrence of Arabia. I watched “Lawrence of Arabia,” and I was, like, “Great, cool. He’s brilliant. He survived, and it’s wonderful.” But then you remember how that movie ended, with Lawrence’s disintegration. I didn’t quite put those two things together. Or maybe I didn’t want to see it coming because I care about Daenerys too much.

 

She even in other interviews mentions surprising notes on how she should play some scenes in earlier episodes that did not go together with her perception (Entertainment Weekly):

Quote

 “There’s a number of times I’ve been like: ‘Why are you giving me that note?’” Clarke says. “So yes, this has made me look back at all the notes I’ve ever had.”

 

Just as an exercise: Do you think if Davos Seaworth was with Dany and we saw her in his chapters... But we saw Mel in her POV... Would their perception be the same? After all Mel helped prevent a major bloodshed with just a bit of magic and she was burning traitors and survived her death with a bit of magic... And did all to fight against the great Evil.

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

×