Oops , Got that wrong T.V !

[Daske]

... I do think a foreign saviour liberating an enslaved people is questionable. And portraying this as a heroic act even more so. I just wish they had done this scene in a more neutral way and toned it down a bit.

....

This happened at the end of the Second World War in the concentration camps. And that was obviously the right thing for the foreign army to do.

[Minisa]

This happened at the end of the Second World War in the concentration camps. And that was obviously the right thing for the foreign army to do.

But when making a movie about WWII would you portray the Allies as heroic? Would you glorify them? I don't really want to discuss WWII here, but if your answer is yes, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Minisa]

How is it questionable to portray the liberation of slaves as a heroic action?

It is a heroic action.

Others have written on this much better than I ever could, so I'll just link you to this essay which talks about problems with Daenerys' storyline and I agree with this very much. So in case you are interested, here you go: http://feministfiction.com/2013/05/02/daenerys-as-the-white-savior/ (It's not what the title may indicate. And it talks about a tumblr post which is linked in the beginning and also raises some intersting points but it's not necessary to read that one in order to understand the other.)

They made "King in the North" a big "YES!" moment, and that was far less heroic and significant.

It's not a heroic moment but a very significant one. Robb is chosen to be king. He doesn't conquer the North he is chosen by the North. However that doesn't mean I'm not critical about Robb, quite the contrary actually.

And why the heck would you tone down a big dramatic scene in a TV show? Portraying it as "neutral"? How? And why?

By making it look more natural an less choreographed. Less crowd surfing and more intimacy? Sometimes less is more. Daenerys does have good intentions. She means well with these people. But the imagery in that scene didn't reflect that at all for me. It just felt wrong to me. Also there were a lot of critical reactions to the scene and rightfully so I think. Just to clarify: Were you completely happy with this scene or do you feel that some criticism (not mine necessarily) could be justified?

Do you have an idea of what would make a better climax and final scene of the season?

I was looking forward to Lady Stoneheart. An ending connected to magic like the birth of the dragons and the white walkers. But maybe it would have been too soon? Hoping for this in season 4.

[Daske]

But when making a movie about WWII would you portray the Allies as heroic? Would you glorify them? I don't really want to discuss WWII here, but if your answer is yes, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Most soldiers were brave, many died horribly, and the defeat of nazism and the end of the death camps was a triumph of good vs evil (or as near as you can get to that in real-life). That's not the same as gloryfying war or ignoring the cost in human lives and suffering (on both sides), which is I guess what you are hinting at. If I was liberated I would see the Allies as heroes, and I wouldn't care what country they were from. And from old footage I think that is how many of those liberated saw it too.

On your wider point, they are going to explore the consequences, they just haven't got there yet. If every character explored every possible outcome of every possible course of action before they did it then we would have no character development, no arcs, no stories! What you are asking for will unfold in time.

[Minisa]

Most soldiers were brave, many died horribly, and the defeat of nazism and the end of the death camps was a triumph of good vs evil (or as near as you can get to that in real-life). That's not the same as gloryfying war or ignoring the cost in human lives and suffering, which is I guess what you are hinting at. So yes, we have to disagree. If I was liberated I would see the Allies as heros, and from old footage I think that is how many of those liberated saw it too.

Fair enough. I can respect that. I could never see someone who commited acts like the Dresden bombings or the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as truely heroic which is why I'm strongly opposed to seeing the Allies this way, but I do respect your opinion a lot.

On your wider point, they are going to explore the consequences, they just haven't got there yet. If every character explored every possible outcome of every possible course of action before they did it then we would have no character development, no arcs, no stories! What you are asking for will unfold in time.

Hopefully you are right. Maybe it is too soon to be complaining. But knowing what's going to come made the ending scene especially seem like such an odd choice.

[King of the Road]

Fair enough. I can respect that. I could never see someone who commited acts like the Dresden bombings or the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as truely heroic which is why I'm strongly opposed to seeing the Allies this way, but I do respect your opinion a lot.

Maybe not the men who gave the orders but those soldiers flying the bombers were simply doing their jobs and we should hold nothing against them. Casualty rates in bomber command were extraordinary but those guys kept going up anyway. The memorial to Bomber Command was long overdue.

[Annara Snow]

Fair enough. I can respect that. I could never see someone who commited acts like the Dresden bombings or the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as truely heroic which is why I'm strongly opposed to seeing the Allies this way, but I do respect your opinion a lot.

We're not talking about the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Dresden but about the act of liberating the concentration camps. Was that, in itself, a good and highly significant action? Were the people who were liberated happy to be liberated?

Likewise, we're talking about whether the action of liberating slaves - which actually leads to Daenerys being regarded as a messiah/savior by the slaves and freed slaves in the book - should be portrayed as a highly significant, good and heroic moment. I know I felt "hell yes" when she was liberating the slaves in the book, and it's clear that the absolute majority of slaves are portrayed feeling the same way (not just then but later as well), rather than thinking that they were better off remaining slaves, or thinking that they would prefer someone with dark hair or a native of Essos to liberate them. Maybe that's just me, but I I didn't begrudge Daenerys for not thinking "oh well, I'm too blonde and too Westerosi to free those slaves, I'm better off going to conquer Westeros, sorry slaves, I hope that there's someone else who will free you, I don't want to be meddlesome"...

That doesn't mean that liberating slaves will solve all the problems and that everything will be peachy; we know what comes in the books and that Daenerys learns how difficult it is to follow through on that act. The abolition of slavery in the USA didn't make everything peachy for the African Americans, either, and it took about a century for them to get anywhere near equal rights, but I doubt there are many people who will say that the abolition of slavery was wrong.

They aren't going to make every grand moment in the series all about the problems that will follow. That's what next seasons are for.

It's not a heroic moment but a very significant one. Robb is chosen to be king. He doesn't conquer the North he is chosen by the North. However that doesn't mean I'm not critical about Robb, quite the contrary actually.

And it was played like a big "hell yeah!" moment with rising music and all - and resulted in things like people making "King in the North" T-shirts. They didn't foreshadow that things are going to go terribly wrong for Robb - they thankfully left that to the next seasons. I'm sure that Jon becoming the LC of the NW will be played in the "Hell yeah!" way, too in the season 4 finale, and that they won't be hinting at the wildlings/old NW tensions in that same scene or foreshadowing Jon getting stabbed by his own men.

I was looking forward to Lady Stoneheart. An ending connected to magic like the birth of the dragons and the white walkers. But maybe it would have been too soon? Hoping for this in season 4.

It would have certainly been too early. Catelyn got killed only in the previous episode. I would rather expect to see it in the season 4 finale.

[Minisa]

Maybe not the men who gave the orders but those soldiers flying the bombers were simply doing their jobs and we should hold nothing against them. Casualty rates in bomber command were extraordinary but those guys kept going up anyway. The memorial to Bomber Command was long overdue.

I just think we should refrain from glorifying anyone. Not calling someone a hero doesn't mean I see them as a "villain". People aren't truely good or truely evil.

And that's how I see most characters in the books too.

We're not talking about the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Dresden but about the act of liberating the concentration camps. Was that, in itself, a good and highly significant action? Were the people who were liberated happy to be liberated?

Of course! I do understand one would be happy to be free especially after being enslaved/imprisoned/etc. But I think when talking about the Allies you can't just focus on the good things and glorify them, you have to talk about the bombings too. If you call someone a hero doesn't that mean they have to be completely blameless of any crime. I don't think I could ever make someone out be a true hero.

Likewise, we're talking about whether the action of liberating slaves - which actually leads to Daenerys being regarded as a messiah/savior by the slaves and freed slaves in the book - should be portrayed as a highly significant, good and heroic moment. I know I felt "hell yes" when she was liberating the slaves in the book, and it's clear that the absolute majority of slaves are portrayed feeling the same way (not just then but later as well), rather than thinking that they were better off remaining slaves, or thinking that they would prefer someone with dark hair or a native of Essos to liberate them. Maybe that's just me, but I I didn't begrudge Daenerys for not thinking "oh well, I'm too blonde and too Westerosi to free those slaves, I'm better off going to conquer Westeros, sorry slaves, I hope that there's someone else who will free you, I don't want to be meddlesome"...

So my problem was it did seem a bit like the white saviour trope. I did have this feeling in the books as well because I believe a revolution should start from within and not by an foreign force. BUT I see your point. And isn't that why they should have toned it down? After she held her speech, she descended from that rock she was standing on and people started touching her. And after that comes the imagery I dislike so much. When she is somewere in the middle the freedmen lift her up above them and they circle her with the Unsullied whom she freed some episodes ago standing in formation. It just looks so wrong to me. Iirc she was riding a horse in the books. But I would have considered her walking among the freedmen an improvement to the books. Why lift her up, why show the scene from above? I'm not criticising the freedmen or Daenerys, I'm criticising whoever coreographed this scene.

That doesn't mean that liberating slaves will solve all the problems and that everything will be peachy; we know what comes in the books and that Daenerys learns how difficult it is to follow through on that act. The abolition of slavery in the USA didn't make everything peachy for the African Americans, either, and it took about a century for them to get anywhere near equal rights, but I doubt there are many people who will say that the abolition of slavery was wrong.

They aren't going to make every grand moment in the series all about the problems that will follow. That's what next seasons are for.

Completely agree with this.

[The Crow's Third Eye]

I just think we should refrain from glorifying anyone. Not calling someone a hero doesn't mean I see them as a "villain". People aren't truely good or truely evil.

And that's how I see most characters in the books too.

Of course! I do understand one would be happy to be free especially after being enslaved/imprisoned/etc. But I think when talking about the Allies you can't just focus on the good things and glorify them, you have to talk about the bombings too. If you call someone a hero doesn't that mean they have to be completely blameless of any crime. I don't think I could ever make someone out be a true hero.

So my problem was it did seem a bit like the white saviour trope. I did have this feeling in the books as well because I believe a revolution should start from within and not by an foreign force. BUT I see your point. And isn't that why they should have toned it down? After she held her speech, she descended from that rock she was standing on and people started touching her. And after that comes the imagery I dislike so much. When she is somewere in the middle the freedmen lift her up above them and they circle her with the Unsullied whom she freed some episodes ago standing in formation. It just looks so wrong to me. Iirc she was riding a horse in the books. But I would have considered her walking among the freedmen an improvement to the books. Why lift her up, why show the scene from above? I'm not criticising the freedmen or Daenerys, I'm criticising whoever coreographed this scene.

Completely agree with this.

I assume you mean a leader from within, and plots made by the slaves etc, rather than the pit fighters rising up and slaying there masters where Jorah and Barristan infiltrate Meereen?

[Minisa]

I assume you mean a leader from within, and plots made by the slaves etc, rather than the pit fighters rising up and slaying there masters where Jorah and Barristan infiltrate Meereen?

Yes! Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[Seneti]

Sansa was not almost entirely naive and silly until she got out of KL. if you see her that way, then your views probably match D&D's, so of course you're going to like the way they wrote her in season 3.

But even if you just watch the show, why is Sansa so much more mature in season 2 than in season 3?

Yes, I see her that way. Emphasis on the words "almost entirely" - she did have her bright moments and she did improve gradually with every book. But leaving KL was - at least in my perception - the catalyst that really helped her evolve.

I will not presume to say if my views match D&Ds or not, since I have no insight into what exactly they think of Sansa.

Also, I did NOT say that I liked the way they wrote her in season 3, because - newsflash! - I did not. Neither did I hate it. I was mostly okay with it, though, except for the whole "will they let me invite my traitor family to the wedding" thing, which literally made me facepalm with the words "someone shoot the writers" on my lips. Please do not put words into my mouth. Thank you.

And I do not only watch the show. I started with the show and finished season 1 just before I finished AGOT. I was done with the books way before I finished season 2, so while my perception of season 1 and AGOT may be biased, the rest is not. I consider both works related entities in their own right, like two siblings raised far apart from each other.

And the way they will write her in season 4. Littlefinger, U R so awesome, please give me tutelage so I won't be entirely naive and silly anymore.

Agreed.

I do not think that this will happen. I think Sansa's head-in-the-clouds, suck-at-GOT days were officially ended by a combination of the red wedding and a few memorable events yet to come: her escape from KL, Littlefinger being too friendly with her and his cold-blooded murder of Lysa. I fully expect season 4 to be Sansa's big wake-up call.

The real challenge of season 4/5 in regards to the relationship between Sansa and Baelish will be to show her fascination with his excellence at playing the GOT, while maintaining her caution and mistrust towards his creepy advances. This is, IMO, the most important part of Sansa's story: her growing understanding that there's a very, very fine line between too much and too little trust (both in people and in stories/the world). This is where most players fail. Some trust too much (e. g. Ned, Robb, Renly, Jaime) and some too little (e. g. Cersei, Joffrey, Doran, Viserys). The most successful ones walk that fine line and know when to fold (e. g. Varys, Baelish, Olenna, Tyrion).