Wall Flower Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 10 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said: Do you not understand scale of destruction? Today in America, any civilian can walk into a store and buy an AR-15 and shoot 80 people in 2 minutes in a night club. If the psycho had walked in with a sword, he wouldnt have killed so many, so fast, and would have been overpowered. If he had reigned down a dragon on those people it would be even worse. It's the scale of destruction that one is capable of, with almost zero resistance possible. No one in this story can fly except Dany, no one has else has a dragon. She was always ready to seek vengence on Westeros, from Book 1. "But first she must conquer." Did you think that meant only hurting "the bad guys," like in an Indiana Jones film? It's hugely significant. It was a line that put her on the path of Saruman. If you destroy trees, you're the monster of the story, especially since they're religious sites. Trees doesnt have to be literal either it means, dragons are meant to destroy life. Well, I recall there being a lot more stuff after that. Its just a pattern of behavior. Sometimes she helps folks, sometimes she doesn't. We all have good sides and bad sides. Dany gave into her bad side. Get over it. Sansa didnt have dragons. They corrupt people because they're the most powerful weapons in this universe. Absolute power and all that. Good Queen Alysanne managed to have a dragon without suddenly taking a turn into madness and randomly immolating cities. Even Aerys only decided to blow up King's Landing when he was facing defeat and death. Dany's dragons were apparently easily killable until the writers decided that the remaining one was suddenly invincible. She went from risking her life and troops in the War for the Dawn to massacring civilians in three episodes. You'd already decided that Dany was the evilest, evil who ever evilled but for myself and others the story was not just unconvincing but even a bit offensive - armies of colour depicted as Nazi troops, two queens depicted as uncontrolled and having to be restrained by their reasonable, male advisers with one of them eventually having to be put down by her lover like a mad dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darryk Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 13 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said: Do you not understand scale of destruction? Today in America, any civilian can walk into a store and buy an AR-15 and shoot 80 people in 2 minutes in a night club. If the psycho had walked in with a sword, he wouldnt have killed so many, so fast, and would have been overpowered. If he had reigned down a dragon on those people it would be even worse. It's the scale of destruction that one is capable of, with almost zero resistance possible. No one in this story can fly except Dany, no one has else has a dragon. She was always ready to seek vengence on Westeros, from Book 1. "But first she must conquer." Did you think that meant only hurting "the bad guys," like in an Indiana Jones film? It's hugely significant. It was a line that put her on the path of Saruman. If you destroy trees, you're the monster of the story, especially since they're religious sites. Trees doesnt have to be literal either it means, dragons are meant to destroy life. Well, I recall there being a lot more stuff after that. Its just a pattern of behavior. Sometimes she helps folks, sometimes she doesn't. We all have good sides and bad sides. Dany gave into her bad side. Get over it. Sansa didnt have dragons. They corrupt people because they're the most powerful weapons in this universe. Absolute power and all that. There's a lot more and better foreshadowing in the books of her going mad queen, she even has delusional visions and such. I'm talking show only. If we're talking about the books I agree there's plenty to suggest she'll deteriorate, although it won't happen as fast and as stupidly as in the show. But if you just look at the show, they've built her up as a Saint throughout the series, not just the stuff she does but through the music they've used and the way the framed her, then suddenly went 180 in two episodes, and D+D's justifications for it in their interviews are weak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rose of Red Lake Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 On 6/30/2020 at 1:32 AM, Wall Flower said: Good Queen Alysanne managed to have a dragon without suddenly taking a turn into madness and randomly immolating cities. Even Aerys only decided to blow up King's Landing when he was facing defeat and death. She never USED them. Didn't you notice that? It's using the damn things, to constantly to solve your problems through violence and war, that is the issue. She also wasn't lusting after vengeance the entire time. Context. On 6/30/2020 at 1:32 AM, Wall Flower said: Dany's dragons were apparently easily killable until the writers decided that the remaining one was suddenly invincible. She went from risking her life and troops in the War for the Dawn to massacring civilians in three episodes. She said she was only there for Jon - not for the people. She didnt give a fuck about them. Her giving them a scare with Drogon was foreshadowing for how she'd treat people who wouldn't kneel. She also lacked complete self awareness of the situation she was in (the North's skepticism to a Targaryen conqueror). Sam showed more guilt and concern about stealing a book from a library than she did when she had to tell him about burning his family alive. I could go on. She was a disfigured person on the inside and this is why people were able to predict where this was going, and weren't surprised in the slightest. On 6/30/2020 at 1:32 AM, Wall Flower said: You'd already decided that Dany was the evilest, evil who ever evilled but for myself and others the story was not just unconvincing but even a bit offensive - armies of colour depicted as Nazi troops, two queens depicted as uncontrolled and having to be restrained by their reasonable, male advisers with one of them eventually having to be put down by her lover like a mad dog. We had plenty of male tyrants, in history and in fiction. I don't see any problems adding women into the bunch. Women can act just as shitty as men, and Cersei/Dany had enough contrasts that they weren't exactly the same person either. Also, create two violently-inclined women fighting tooth and nail over a throne, and this is what you get. Babying and softening how women are portrayed "just because they're women" is sexist. Dany isn't the only woman in this story so her corruption arc isn't the be all, end all say on what "women" are like anyway. Men of color as Nazi troops - lol. I thought it was more racist to show men of color bowing and scraping to a white woman who was manipulating them for her own gain. You'd hope GRRM would write in a storyline where the Dothraki shrug after they hear about her death or at least have some Unsullied rebel against her. I agree Jon killing her was tropey. Buffy did it better. But people were fine with Jaime killing Cersei and all the Nissa theories - that Jon would have to "save the world" by sacrificing her. The prophecy twist is that he'd be saving the world from her. The readers who weren't distracted by the fancy, shiny orgasmic descriptions of Azor Ahai as a savior, knew something like this was coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalinar Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 Daenerys going mad is not something that would "shock" the Readers, because there were plenty of thories in this manner even before the show. There are hints in the book for that. Not definitive, mind you, but still, it was allways a possibility. In the Show however, that came out of nowhere and was purposely done for shock values. Within two episodes she changes from saviour to the biggest Monster Westeros has ever seen. There were no hints, no nothing. The way she was portrayed through her acting, the direction, the camera, the music, was allways how heroes are portrayed. D&D went with this only to make a last "twist" at the end...which didn't work at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLightning Posted December 19, 2020 Share Posted December 19, 2020 On 6/30/2020 at 2:01 AM, Rose of Red Lake said: The Night King was an invented thing so I didn't really care much. I liked how the "big heroes" were useless, while the overlooked little girl saved the day. Its Tolkienesque. Most of the Stark fandom knew dragons would be useless anyway. Bran's role was pretty stupid though. I mostly agree but...please stop lmao Arya was not an overlooked little girl at that point of the story. Come on now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted December 19, 2020 Share Posted December 19, 2020 38 minutes ago, BlackLightning said: I mostly agree but...please stop lmao Arya was not an overlooked little girl at that point of the story. Come on now! Perhaps the Dead never were much of a threat, and The Night King was always vulnerable to some random peasant springing out of a tree on him. I expect it will turn out very differently in the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.