Jump to content
Plain, Simple Tailor

Who got the most screwed over

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Kajjo said:

Sometime it's the straw that broke the camel's back, but that means there already was a lot on the camels back. 

The show piled on a ginormous amount of stuff on the camel's back hoping it would look feasible why it broke in the end:

1. Unsuccessful relationship because of partner's possible issues with Auntcest (but not explained as such and left to viewers to interpret the way they want)

2. Jealousy over Wildlings' and Northeners' admiration of Jon (She is that worried about the opinions of Wildlings and the few Northeners who survived the Long Night, really? The same Northeners who received Good Queen Alysanne with the same frostiness, really? Wildlings, really? When there are 6 other more civilized kingdoms ?)

3. Death of Jorah

4. Loss of half her army

5. Death of Missandei

6. Death of Rhaegal (and Viserion, why not?)

If you need to throw this much stuff at it, then you clearly know that you've not built up the character to this point smoothly, but wait, wait, wait, we're not done yet

7. Finally, we have Jon Snow's blabbing about R+L=J, Sansa playing it smart and passing it on to Tyrion, Tyrion spilling it to Varys w/o telling Her Grace (seriously why is Tyrion even alive at this point, if you read Fire and Blood, council members have had their heads on spikes for far less) and Varys starting to actually plot full-time.

With such a shit crew working for her, Dany goes into battle and executes her plan to perfect precision, taking out the entire fleet, the entire Golden Company and all the men manning every single of scores of scorpions on the walls. All by herself. Before her army as much as nocked an arrow.

The war is won. 

The enemy starts to surrender.

Now the proverbial final straw that is supposed to break the back is supposed to make its appearance. And if I understood correctly, that is supposed to be .... no one cheering? (errr.... because they are hiding in their houses?) .... a Lannister Captain surrendered to Jon (errr.... because he was the nearest enemy commander? How exactly is he supposed to surrender to the Dragonlady sitting a good number of blocks away, high up on the city wall?)

Well in the end, she goes crazy and torches the smallfolk with Cersei still in the Red Keep. Oh, she did fly towards the Red Keep for a while before starting to torch a fleeing mixed crowd of civilians and Lannister guardsmen, but in the next shot, she is back near the city walls furthest away from the Red Keep systematically burning the city street by street .... errr if you go crazy I thought you just lash out at everything, not sure you are that systematic, going nearly left to right, hit the city wall, ok, let's turn around, go to the next street and go neatly right to left like I'm mowing a lawn.

To me this was just phenomenally horrendous story-telling on a catastrophical scale, especially after the dolts felt compelled to retcon Viserys's death as evidence she was bad. If any proof was still required that the donkeys had no idea about the universe their characters operated in, that alone was proof.

Please note, I have absolutely no issues with Dany's arc turning darker and darker in the books. It's going to be fascinating to read a master story-teller like George spin such a tragic tale. I (and clearly many others on this forum) feel hard done by two middle school dropouts on several illegal substances at the same time adapting a series based on fantastic source material and proceeding to make an utter dog's breakfast of it. Correction: No self-respecting dog, no matter how starving, would actually consider eating this breakfast.

The real foreshadowing in this show that many of us missed was that every time Dumbbell and Dingbat tried to move way from the source material they produced extremely unpleasant feces - in different colour, different smells, different volumes, different density, different viscosity, different species origin but always feces

The Dorne story line

The Wight Hunt

Both Dragonpit meetings

All the dialogue not from the books (e.g. a Proposal is what I'm proposing)

Tyrion as Hand in Mereen

Thenns as cannibals

Ramsay and his twenty good men

'Smalljon' Umber

Lyanna the 8 year battle commander

Teleporting

Re-spawning

Shame on those of us (myself included) for watching the monkey bollocks of the past 4-5 expecting an ending that would have evolved smoothly from the story being told. What were we thinking :bang: ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ser Hedge

Yes.  Personally, I expect to see Daenerys gradually break bad in the last two books.  I think that that has been set up in her final chapter of ADWD.  But, I expect to see it over two books, not in the last 100 pages of ADOS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

‘Smalljon' Umber

The Northern houses got so crapped on by the writers of the show.  They’re either willing to abandon long histories of loyalty to the Starks and sell them out (for reasons), or they’re too cowardly to get out of their castles and do anything to help the last living true heirs to winterfell and the north take back their seat (and the north) from a cartoonishly evil guy like Ramsay who none of them seem to care for or respect.  

I actually take great solace in the fact that Disney has the track record it does firing creative teams they’re not happy with.  I dare D&D to start openly expressing their desire to move on to something else when they’re working on their second or third Star Wars film.  They’ll get their wish sooner rather than later I bet.  I don’t see them getting more than one out of the three planned films done before they’re out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, YoungGriff89 said:

The Northern houses got so crapped on by the writers of the show.  They’re either willing to abandon long histories of loyalty to the Starks and sell them out (for reasons), or they’re too cowardly to get out of their castles and do anything to help the last living true heirs to winterfell and the north take back their seat (and the north) from a cartoonishly evil guy like Ramsay who none of them seem to care for or respect.  

Yeah, what Smalljon did was so outrageously unrealistic. Most likely, he would simply have used Rickon to rally the rest of the North against Ramsay, and as insurance against the Jon Snow wildlings he was so worried about. Plus, the show made it like Smalljon was casually okay with parricide and the worst form of realpolitik, that's a pretty big departure from the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2019 at 11:12 AM, Beardy the Wildling said:

It's a tie between Jaime and Varys for me. Daenerys's mishandling may have been the most... explosive, but given a few extra episodes they might have been able to make a semi-decent transition (not good, but acceptable and bare-minimum sensible writing). They botched something that had the seeds (her ruthlessness and black-and-white morality against people who actually posed a threat) by not allowing them to organically grow into actual capriciousness and madness against innocents.

With Jaime, however, they actively fucked over years of development of to make him the complete opposite of even his early-season self (even pre-development, Jaime besmirched his honour to save King's Landing), and Varys... they had years to figure out what to do with him as an alternative to Aegon (given they were so desperate to drop the Aegon plot), but instead, they had him sit around doing precisely nothing. Before going out like an imbecile that made Ned Stark look crafty (at least Ned tried to secure the muscle before trying a coup). All Varys did of use was teleport to Dorne and rope in the Sand Snakes and Olenna, because we all know they had a fucking impact on Dany's campaign.

They tried to make viewers feel sorry for Varys, but in the end, who could feel sorry for him?

Trying to poison the person who had previously granted you a pardon for trying to poison her and her unborn child is about as despicable as it gets.  A swift death by dragon fire was a good deal better than he merited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

I disagree the emotional breakdown started from s8e1. Daenerys was still perfectly reasonable right till the war with the NK. Jon and dany were still a team then.

Well, I didn't say the breakdown started as early, but the camel's back was burdened more and more from that on. It was clearly shown to us how the Northern people rejected her. It was shown how angry and sad she was after the revelation of Jon's parentage and how the withdrawal of Jon's affections irritated her. That was a clear build-up of the psychological pressure that would eventuell lead to the breakdown.

Of course the breakdown occured as snapping. It was not a build-up of breakdown, but a build-up of the pressure that led to the breakdown.

17 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

Whatever you cite as build up from season 1, I can cite just as many instances of (if not more) of Daenerys' humanity and level headedness. 

Yes, and I agree that Daenerys shows that side, too. I simply don't understand why you don't see both sides of her.

18 hours ago, SeanF said:

The point being, it's nothing out of the ordinary for this world,

That is simply wrong. You are stubbornly focusing on single actions instead of wanting to see personality and character behind these action. Several persons can do the same or similar action for different reasons. Daenerys' personality is depicted as that of "she has a dragon inside". That's the point. And it was clearly visible from S1 onwards.

Please try to see her personality and do not compare single actions. See the greater picture.

Seasons 1-6 were very well done and depict her ambiguous personality very good. Daenerys wants the good but deep inside the vicious dragon always threatens to break through the surface. That's the point.

It is useless to discuss how fine you thought she was if we know that she wasn't And there were more than enough clues in the show.

 

Share this post


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

Well, I didn't say the breakdown started as early, but the camel's back was burdened more and more from that on. It was clearly shown to us how the Northern people rejected her. It was shown how angry and sad she was after the revelation of Jon's parentage and how the withdrawal of Jon's affections irritated her. That was a clear build-up of the psychological pressure that would eventuell lead to the breakdown.

Of course the breakdown occured as snapping. It was not a build-up of breakdown, but a build-up of the pressure that led to the breakdown.

Yes, and I agree that Daenerys shows that side, too. I simply don't understand why you don't see both sides of her.

That is simply wrong. You are stubbornly focusing on single actions instead of wanting to see personality and character behind these action. Several persons can do the same or similar action for different reasons. Daenerys' personality is depicted as that of "she has a dragon inside". That's the point. And it was clearly visible from S1 onwards.

Please try to see her personality and do not compare single actions. See the greater picture.

Seasons 1-6 were very well done and depict her ambiguous personality very good. Daenerys wants the good but deep inside the vicious dragon always threatens to break through the surface. That's the point.

It is useless to discuss how fine you thought she was if we know that she wasn't And there were more than enough clues in the show.

 

What takes place in Ep. 5 is not someone lashing out under pressure. You see her criss -crossing back and forth across the city, torching street after street, in an effort to maximise casualties. And doing so, even in preference to hitting the Red Keep. It's a deliberate atrocity.  But deliberate atrocities generally have a military purpose.  There is no military purpose in this case.  She's already destroyed her enemies.

Share this post


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

The show piled on a ginormous amount of stuff on the camel's back hoping it would look feasible why it broke in the end:

That's simply unfair. A lot of this stuff is not at all far-fetched, but well-integrated in the story-line, e.g. being upset about Jon's withdrawal and the loss of Jorah and half her army as part of the Great War is absolutely believable and not at all artifically added. Come on, give me that.

15 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

1. Unsuccessful relationship because of partner's possible issues with Auntcest (but not explained as such and left to viewers to interpret the way they want)

They showed that sufficiently well. Of course we are supposed to think along. I would be disappointed if not. And we did so in the very fine seasons 1-6, too. It's unfair to claim it was difficult to understand that Jon avoids her and she is distraught by the lack of his affections. We see this mulitple times after the revelation of parentage and that is more than enough. Please be fair. Reconsider this. It was shown. They don't have to hammer it in with any stupid dialogue.

15 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

2. Jealousy over Wildlings' and Northeners' admiration of Jon (She is that worried about the opinions of Wildlings and the few Northeners who survived the Long Night, really?

Oh yes, she is. We know that part of her personality very well from the early seasons: Daenerys dreams of "mhysa, mhysa" calls, she relishes in admiration of others, she wants to be center, to be adored, hailed, loved. She absolutely wants this and she is actually very much disappointed by the lack of it after the Great War.

They showed this very well and it connects very well with the long-ago mhysa scenes.

15 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

3. Death of Jorah

4. Loss of half her army

Very straight-forward and believable. Well-integrated. Nothing hammered in or artificial about it.

15 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

6. Death of Rhaegal (and Viserion, why not?)

Loss of Rhaegal was not focused on. They just wanted to get rid of him for whatever reason. I agree this scene was one of the bottom points of S8.

15 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

7. Finally, we have Jon Snow's blabbing about R+L=J, Sansa playing it smart and passing it on to Tyrion, Tyrion spilling it to Varys w/o telling Her Grace (seriously why is Tyrion even alive at this point, if you read Fire and Blood, council members have had their heads on spikes for far less) and Varys starting to actually plot full-time.

Nothing bad storytelling- wise about Sansa breaking her oath and playing intrigue against Daenerys. This plot is fine and focuses on Sansa having learned the game and North wanting not to bend the knee. And yes, it contributed to Daenerys' problems.

And that is bad for you? Really?

15 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

Now the proverbial final straw that is supposed to break the back is supposed to make its appearance. And if I understood correctly, that is supposed to be .... no one cheering?

You didn't understand correctly. It's not about the physical absence of cheering. Of course not.

It's about realising how hollow and empty the victory feels to her. No lover, no advisers, no one that will hail or love her. She will more or less rule an enemy people. 

She dreamed of mhysa scenes. Her personality wants to be loved, be hailed, be adored. She really want to be the good queen. Liberating the people and being loved for it. She wanted it to be great, to feel great,

And then, she sits on her dragon and realises that she had so much more back then when people loved her and will never have that feeling here in this new country what she was brainwashed into believing to be her home. It's not. 

I really can understand all these emotions and the inner hell for her. Can't you? Please be honest. 

Share this post


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

What takes place in Ep. 5 is not someone lashing out under pressure.

That's exactly what running amok is about, after snapping. It occurs. 

I had preferred if she first had destroyed the Red Keep. That would have made more sense, I agree.

But snapping and killing people who are unable to love and admire her fits the psychology. See my previous comment.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SeanF said:

They tried to make viewers feel sorry for Varys, but in the end, who could feel sorry for him?

Trying to poison the person who had previously granted you a pardon for trying to poison her and her unborn child is about as despicable as it gets.  A swift death by dragon fire was a good deal better than he merited.

Well, he ended up vindicated because he read the script. It turns out all along Daenerys just wanted to play Death Race to the soundtrack of bells.

Share this post


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

But snapping and killing people who are unable to love and admire her fits the psychology. See my previous comment.

I seriously think if they'd have saved Rhaegal's death to be, say, after a false surrender (or a genuine surrender that Euron ruins with a scorpion while Rhaegal is a sitting duck) and followed by cheers of a crowd that obviously wants to know that dragons are mortal and they aren't all fucked would make the glove fit so much better.

At that point, Dany has every reason to see the civilians as ideological enemies due to her black and white thinking. All we needed is a small moment where she somehow switches the civilians of King's Landing from 'white' (innocent) to 'black' (enemies that deserve fire and blood). Them cheering the death of Rhaegal would be a simple and effective way to do it. Much better than seeing the red keep, getting triggered by (surrender) bells, and then strafing everywhere but the Red Keep.

Edited by Beardy the Wildling

Share this post


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

That's exactly what running amok is about, after snapping. It occurs. 

I had preferred if she first had destroyed the Red Keep. That would have made more sense, I agree.

But snapping and killing people who are unable to love and admire her fits the psychology. See my previous comment.

 

 

That's the part I find implausible.  Curtis Le May didn't firebomb Tokyo;. Caesar didn't exterminate the Helvetians;. Alexander didn't crucify the defenders of Tyre, because they just snapped.  In every case, it was done to break resistance on the part of others, or to destroy a people so completely that can never again be a threat.

People do kill others in a fit of fury when they snap, but not tens of thousands deliberately, over the course of several hours.  There's a point where you stop seeing red

I could accept it if (a) she had a habit of acting in this way towards people she defeated out of sheer spite  or  (b) there was a cruel military logic to it or (c) an event triggered it (eg a botched surrender )

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

I seriously think if they'd have saved Rhaegal's death to be, say, after a false surrender (or a genuine surrender that Euron ruins with a scorpion while Rhaegal is a sitting duck) and followed by cheers of a crowd that obviously wants to know that dragons are mortal and they aren't all fucked would make the glove fit so much better.

I agree, that would have been a much better story. We agreed on this long time ago already.

 

 

Share this post


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

Oh yes, she is. We know that part of her personality very well from the early seasons: Daenerys dreams of "mhysa, mhysa" calls, she relishes in admiration of others, she wants to be center, to be adored, hailed, loved. She absolutely wants this and she is actually very much disappointed by the lack of it after the Great War.

 They showed this very well and it connects very well with the long-ago mhysa scenes.

According to the show, House Tully and the Sands that were running Dorne ( not sure we can call them House Martell) had declared for Dany and incurred losses fighting for her. Why would their kin not welcome her? Most of all the Tullys whom she would be liberating from Lannisters. A few Valemen supposedly survived the short night - we had Royce come and remove half his pieces (where the deuces was he hiding during the battle btw ?) - wouldn't they let the Vale that there was indeed a supernatural threat that Dany flew out on her Dragon to confront, and as did her soldiers? We don't know the Riverlands won't welcome her. She is kin to the Blackwoods (the show skipped a generation, so Betha Blackwood is her grandmother) and House Darry was staunch for Targaryen. For that matter even Northeners would not have ignored her after the battle the way they did.

Shit story telling.

2 hours ago, Kajjo said:

It's about realising how hollow and empty the victory feels to her. No lover, no advisers, no one that will hail or love her. She will more or less rule an enemy people. 

:rofl:

2 hours ago, Kajjo said:

And then, she sits on her dragon and realises that she had so much more back then when people loved her and will never have that feeling here in this new country what she was brainwashed into believing to be her home. It's not. 

How does any of this tie in with her Hitler speech? If the emotions are as you describe, she can fly back to Mereen and Daario and her adoring freedmen. Where did this plan to conquer the world come from?

More shit story telling.

2 hours ago, Kajjo said:

That's simply unfair. A lot of this stuff is not at all far-fetched, but well-integrated in the story-line, e.g. being upset about Jon's withdrawal and the loss of Jorah and half her army as part of the Great War is absolutely believable and not at all artifically added.

Sansa behaving like a high school senior with attitude is not integrated with anything. That's another thing they threw in to make it believable (in their minds) that she went over the edge. The Dany smirk in E1 when the Northeners run away from the Dragons is not something we have seen before either, even when she was dealing with slavers. All of S7, the Ds were fan servicing Dany (with the exception of the Tarly bonfire) and come S8, it was like "How do we make her bad/mad ?" and they threw the kitchen sink at her repeatedly in E1, 2 and 4 as 'build up'. Then she 'snaps' in E5 just after calmly winning a great victory single handedly that would have made Aegon the Conqueror proud. Oh, but that's not all.

In E6, she gives a Nürnberg speech about conquering the entire world whether they have slaves or not, whether she has a claim on the territory or not. Just something completely mental from nowhere. Clearly, those visuals are to drive in to the most casual fan "Hey, Yo, she crazy gettit?"

If that's not George's original story turned into a steaming pile of shit, I don't know what is.

:bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang:

 

Share this post


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

That's exactly what running amok is about, after snapping. It occurs. 

I had preferred if she first had destroyed the Red Keep. That would have made more sense, I agree.

But snapping and killing people who are unable to love and admire her fits the psychology. See my previous comment.

 

 

I find it weird to play armchair psychologist for a fictional character, but Dany did not seem to feel any remorse or regret for burning down innocent people. I find it hard to believe she snapped. It seemed as though she knew what she was doing, and didn't care because it got her the IT. It seemed as though she wanted to instill that fear in her enemies, do as I say or get burnt alive.

And this characterization does not fit the way she was portrayed for 7.5 seasons. 

Share this post


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

I find it weird to play armchair psychologist for a fictional character, but Dany did not seem to feel any remorse or regret for burning down innocent people. I find it hard to believe she snapped. It seemed as though she knew what she was doing, and didn't care because it got her the IT. It seemed as though she wanted to instill that fear in her enemies, do as I say or get burnt alive.

Yes, with have both aspects here: "Let it be fear!" and "snapping"

There was a deliberate part to the actions, but there was also a clearly displayed moment of turning mad.

Afterwards, she does not show any remorse. That is true. She is fine with what she did. At least it appears so. Psychologically, this is note rarely seen after extreme measures. The human mind accustoms itself with what it did.

18 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

 And this characterization does not fit the way she was portrayed for 7.5 seasons. 

Again, I don't see this black-and-white rejection at all. She was threatening with "burning down" all the time. She never had mercy with enemies. 

The point is that the people she once wanted to rule as mhysa-queen rejected her and now they are more or less people that have to be subordinated. Daenerys always showed this bend-or-die attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

According to the show,

Come on, play fair.

Do you see the point of Daenerys wanting the mhysa-feeling instead of feeling rejected or ignored? Yes or no?

33 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

Where did this plan to conquer the world come from?

She started the "free all" motive back in Astapor, Yunkai, Meereen. Nothing new. Not inconsistent at all.

She wanted to rules Westeros because baby-Dany was brainwashed into believing it was her right and people would actually want her. Now she realised its simply no true. Birthright gone. People don't want her. No mhysa in Westeros.

Please accept this point. It is so clear.

35 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

Sansa behaving like a high school senior with attitude is not integrated with anything.

While Sansa was never my favorite in this show, what do you mean exactly? Because she doesn't bend her knee to a forein usurper? Because she speaks up for the North? That's bad? Really?

38 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

In E6, she gives a Nürnberg speech about conquering the entire world whether they have slaves or not, whether she has a claim on the territory or not.

So what? She did not have ANY claim to Yunkai, Astapor or Meeren either. She just conquered and "freed" the cities. So, nothing new. If you are so much against conquering "without claim" (isn't conquerin always without claim?) then why didn't you moan back then in early seasons?

As you write, she won the battle easily on her dragon, finally doing what she wanted to do all the time. First day in Westeros, she wanted to get King's Landing. Only her advisers talked her out of it. She could have had all three dragon, solved the Iron Throne issue straigt ahead with less losses and still had enough time to join the Northern forces. Daenerys now thinks she knows what to do. She feels powerful and is full of hate, after having to accept there will by no mhysa.

Share this post


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

Come on, play fair.

Do you see the point of Daenerys wanting the mhysa-feeling instead of feeling rejected or ignored? Yes or no?

She started the "free all" motive back in Astapor, Yunkai, Meereen. Nothing new. Not inconsistent at all.

She wanted to rules Westeros because baby-Dany was brainwashed into believing it was her right and people would actually want her. Now she realised its simply no true. Birthright gone. People don't want her. No mhysa in Westeros.

Please accept this point. It is so clear.

While Sansa was never my favorite in this show, what do you mean exactly? Because she doesn't bend her knee to a forein usurper? Because she speaks up for the North? That's bad? Really?

So what? She did not have ANY claim to Yunkai, Astapor or Meeren either. She just conquered and "freed" the cities. So, nothing new. If you are so much against conquering "without claim" (isn't conquerin always without claim?) then why didn't you moan back then in early seasons?

As you write, she won the battle easily on her dragon, finally doing what she wanted to do all the time. First day in Westeros, she wanted to get King's Landing. Only her advisers talked her out of it. She could have had all three dragon, solved the Iron Throne issue straigt ahead with less losses and still had enough time to join the Northern forces. Daenerys now thinks she knows what to do. She feels powerful and is full of hate, after having to accept there will by no mhysa.

Even if the people of Kings Landing aren't putting out the bunting in celebration, they're willing to fall on their hands and knees before her, once  she 's won.  She's made her point.  They're terrified of her.  She's got the fear she wants.

So, why the leap to genocide?  People don't carry out genocide because they just snap at the sound of bells. Rulers don't burn down the most valuable piece of real estate in the world, their ancestral home, just to show that they can.

It's as if Henry Tudor decided to burn London to the ground for having supported Richard III. Leaving aside the morality, it would be act of a complete idiot.  And Dany is certainly not a complete idiot.

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


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

Yes, with have both aspects here: "Let it be fear!" and "snapping"

There was a deliberate part to the actions, but there was also a clearly displayed moment of turning mad.

Afterwards, she does not show any remorse. That is true. She is fine with what she did. At least it appears so. Psychologically, this is note rarely seen after extreme measures. The human mind accustoms itself with what it did

If this was a deliberate attack by Dany, how exactly did she snap? Snapping is by definition not deliberate. Dany, up until episode 5, was never portrayed as being cruel enough to kill civilians for the heck of it. The city had surrendered, she did not need to torch it.

And if she suddenly turned mad in episode 5, it's is just sloppy writing. Wasn't cersei supposed to be the mother of madness. The show did not need a second mad queen.

1 hour ago, Kajjo said:

Again, I don't see this black-and-white rejection at all. She was threatening with "burning down" all the time. She never had mercy with enemies. 

How were people of KL her enemies? Cersei and the Lannister army were her enemy. And the army had surrendered. Why kill civilians and an army that has surrendered? Dany was never that ruthless and cruel in 7 seasons. Ascribing it to 'madness' is just bad writing.

1 hour ago, Kajjo said:

The point is that the people she once wanted to rule as mhysa-queen rejected her and now they are more or less people that have to be subordinated. Daenerys always showed this bend-or-die attitude.

But the city had surrendered. How did the people reject her? KL had bent the knee, but she torched it anyway.

Edited by Apoplexy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

If this was a deliberate attack by Dany, how exactly did she snap? Snapping is by definition not deliberate. Dany, up until episode 5, was never portrayed as being cruel enough to kill civilians for the heck of it. The city had surrendered, she did not need to torch it.

And if she suddenly turned mad in episode 5, it's is just sloppy writing. Wasn't cersei supposed to be the mother of madness. The show did not need a second mad queen.

How were people of KL her enemies? Cersei and the Lannister army were her enemy. And the army had surrendered. Why kill civilians and an army that has surrendered? Dany was never that ruthless and cruel in 7 seasons. Ascribing it to 'madness' is just bad writing.

But the city had surrendered. How did the people reject her? KL had bent the knee, but she torched it anyway.

I see HBO are promoting an awful poster that includes *the Sons of the Harpy* as among her victims on the road to the Iron Throne.

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

×