DANY'S TURN WAS EARNED ON THE SHOW

2»

Comments

  • Travis said:
    I think what happened with Dany was earned (perhaps expedited, but set up at least) and could have made sense, but it was executed poorly. Really, all they truly needed to do was articulate what she was thinking during the shot of her face before she started in on the massacre. I do agree that, though it was the extreme outcome, they did set the table effectively enough for her to do what she did, but clearly (as evidenced by the amount of controversy) they didn't articulate her propulsion well enough. Dave Chen said it well enough on this week's cast of kings. All they really needed to do was place that overlay of audio clips onto her face in the moment where she was deciding to do it and it would have made a ton more sense. They needed that thing if they were going to take it that far and have her kill EVERYBODY. That's the thing with this season though. Too many things un-articulated. Too many things rushed.  

    Like I said in a different thread. I came to understanding for Dany getting there, but it required a 20 minute conversation with my wife about the nature of rage to do it. Emilia Clark did her part (and did it incredibly well), but they didn't sell the moment for the result. You can call it holding the audience's hand, but look at the outcome. This was not the desired effect, having the moment be this polarizing. I get that there is a percentage of the fan base that was just going to hate this, but in a larger view I just think did a terrible job of articulating the moment. 
    I think this is a really fair criticism. We probably agree on most of the examples of places/ways the show has been overly-expedited, rushed, or inarticulate. It shouldn't require this much work to get there, and a split fan-base is a sign of something. I don't mean to make the case that D&D have done no wrong.

    I think part of my impulse for making this post was that, after listening to the instant take, 'poor articulation of the moment' is very fair criticism of this episode, and it's adjacent connective tissue, but hardly a fair basis for shoveling the entire show into the dumpster, declaring the past 7 seasons a total waste of personal investment, suggesting that D&D be stripped of all future projects, and, although joking-ish(?) that HBO should sue D&D for destroying the franchise. 

    The skin may be scarred towards the end here, but I believe the bones of the show are healthy, and not acknowledging that feels impetuous and unfair. 

    After all, a show with pretty skin but broken bones are far worse off. 
    Travisblue_sleeve
  • @letrbuck2006 Totally. I mean, there were ways that they could have accomplished it. That would have been one of them. They just didn't articulate the scene well enough, and honestly that simple tweak (or something akin to it) would have smoothed the reception incredibly. I think that as it was laid out you could still justify her burning down the keep and reeking a ton of carnage upon innocents in that area, but if you were going to go all "Dany burns the entire city" you needed to sell the moment better. Emilia did everything that you could ask of her there, but it wasn't enough to really spell out the process of what was about to happen. I mean, we're talking about killing everyone in the city, including all those innocent people and putting her own people at high risk. I get that a blind rage can do that in her situation and given everything that she's been through, but they needed to give the audience more.
    awookiee
  • LordByLordBy Utah
    If Varys got ravens out and Danny knew about that, it would be a significant catalyst.

    Maybe have her tell Tyrion that Jamie was apprehended AND would likely be executed before the battle (cruel, but not entirely unjustified given he’s the enemy’s general) which would be a step on the path to the massacre and also better explain Tyrion’s release of him and that it is sure to be a mortal move for Tyrion to make.

    Maybe a quiet voiceover narration of her thoughts while she’s staring at the keep and the bells are ringing (they know about Jon, they’ll never love me, he’ll never love me. BURN THEM ALL). Maybe that’s too heavy handed and you could do it with imagery.
    Travis
  • LordBy said:


    Maybe a quiet voiceover narration of her thoughts while she’s staring at the keep and the bells are ringing (they know about Jon, they’ll never love me, he’ll never love me. BURN THEM ALL). Maybe that’s too heavy handed and you could do it with imagery.
    I had the imagery thought too, and I'm a fan of it perhaps more than the voice-over. I'm not sure which is the best option, but I think something like that would have solved for a good portion of all of this.
  • Travis said:
    I think what happened with Dany was earned (perhaps expedited, but set up at least) and could have made sense, but it was executed poorly. Really, all they truly needed to do was articulate what she was thinking during the shot of her face before she started in on the massacre. I do agree that, though it was the extreme outcome, they did set the table effectively enough for her to do what she did, but clearly (as evidenced by the amount of controversy) they didn't articulate her propulsion well enough. Dave Chen said it well enough on this week's cast of kings. All they really needed to do was place that overlay of audio clips onto her face in the moment where she was deciding to do it and it would have made a ton more sense. They needed that thing if they were going to take it that far and have her kill EVERYBODY. That's the thing with this season though. Too many things un-articulated. Too many things rushed.  

    Like I said in a different thread. I came to understanding for Dany getting there, but it required a 20 minute conversation with my wife about the nature of rage to do it. Emilia Clark did her part (and did it incredibly well), but they didn't sell the moment for the result. You can call it holding the audience's hand, but look at the outcome. This was not the desired effect, having the moment be this polarizing. I get that there is a percentage of the fan base that was just going to hate this, but in a larger view I just think did a terrible job of articulating the moment. 
    I think this is a really fair criticism. We probably agree on most of the examples of places/ways the show has been overly-expedited, rushed, or inarticulate. It shouldn't require this much work to get there, and a split fan-base is a sign of something. I don't mean to make the case that D&D have done no wrong.

    I think part of my impulse for making this post was that, after listening to the instant take, 'poor articulation of the moment' is very fair criticism of this episode, and it's adjacent connective tissue, but hardly a fair basis for shoveling the entire show into the dumpster, declaring the past 7 seasons a total waste of personal investment, suggesting that D&D be stripped of all future projects, and, although joking-ish(?) that HBO should sue D&D for destroying the franchise. 

    The skin may be scarred towards the end here, but I believe the bones of the show are healthy, and not acknowledging that feels impetuous and unfair. 

    After all, a show with pretty skin but broken bones are far worse off. 
    Thanks! I agree that it's not at all an indictment of the full journey (not for me at least). Not even a little. Hell, I even still like this season. I kind of feel like it's a fundamentally different show now, beginning basically when the books ran out, but one I still enjoy a lot. I can see where people who are upset are coming from, mostly for that reason, but I still think it's one of the best productions being put on with an incredibly high level of performance and visual artistry. The writing can be clunky and I think they have problems selling a lot of the notes they try to hit, but even from that standpoint it's still a lot better than many other shows that I wouldn't dream of complaining about. I do think the bar has been set awfully high because of where they came from, but I personally just try to lean into enjoying the ride and mostly succeed a great deal.
    blue_sleeve
  • AnominalAnominal San Francisco Bay Area
    edited May 14
    Travis said:
    I think what happened with Dany was earned (perhaps expedited, but set up at least) and could have made sense, but it was executed poorly. Really, all they truly needed to do was articulate what she was thinking during the shot of her face before she started in on the massacre. I do agree that, though it was the extreme outcome, they did set the table effectively enough for her to do what she did, but clearly (as evidenced by the amount of controversy) they didn't articulate her propulsion well enough. Dave Chen said it well enough on this week's cast of kings. All they really needed to do was place that overlay of audio clips onto her face in the moment where she was deciding to do it and it would have made a ton more sense. They needed that thing if they were going to take it that far and have her kill EVERYBODY. That's the thing with this season though. Too many things un-articulated. Too many things rushed.  

    Like I said in a different thread. I came to understanding for Dany getting there, but it required a 20 minute conversation with my wife about the nature of rage to do it. Emilia Clark did her part (and did it incredibly well), but they didn't sell the moment for the result. You can call it holding the audience's hand, but look at the outcome. This was not the desired effect, having the moment be this polarizing. I get that there is a percentage of the fan base that was just going to hate this, but in a larger view I just think did a terrible job of articulating the moment. 
    I think this is a really fair criticism. We probably agree on most of the examples of places/ways the show has been overly-expedited, rushed, or inarticulate. It shouldn't require this much work to get there, and a split fan-base is a sign of something. I don't mean to make the case that D&D have done no wrong.

    I think part of my impulse for making this post was that, after listening to the instant take, 'poor articulation of the moment' is very fair criticism of this episode, and it's adjacent connective tissue, but hardly a fair basis for shoveling the entire show into the dumpster, declaring the past 7 seasons a total waste of personal investment, suggesting that D&D be stripped of all future projects, and, although joking-ish(?) that HBO should sue D&D for destroying the franchise. 

    The skin may be scarred towards the end here, but I believe the bones of the show are healthy, and not acknowledging that feels impetuous and unfair. 

    After all, a show with pretty skin but broken bones are far worse off. 
    When I heard they wanted to do their Confederate show, with the brief description I heard, it sounded like it was going to be like Man in High Castle but with the Civil War instead of WWII as the alternate history turning point. I didn't quite get the backlash becasue there were no details to rail against yet and I was interested in their show.

    I feel like their cumulative work past the books has shown that they are still pretty strong with small one on one conversations. Not always, but as a whole that is usually where I enjoy their work the most. 

    I have lost all faith in them being able to tell a complex story with nuance. To be able to build and pay off a long form story with a satisfying conclusion. 

    They might actually still do well with a Star Wars trilogy because those will be fairly self contained, and complex plotlines aren't expected. It will likely work to their strengths if they can get some consultants for battles.

    Any TV show they take on next I have lost all interest until its completed and I hear good reviews and then I'll  binge watch it.

    Similarly, I lost all faith with Damon Lindeloff after LOST, and it took Jim and A Ron never backing down on their praise of The Leftovers and the show to be completed before I finally caved in and checked it out. Now, I'm looking forward to his Watchmen show.

    I'm not writing D&D off forever, but I'm going to let other people screen their next work and wait for that feedback first before trying it. 
    Giovanni
  • AnominalAnominal San Francisco Bay Area
    edited May 14
    Except that if she had been pushed into choosing between burning innocents or withdrawing from battle and went with the path of mercy over wrath, there'd be just as strong a claim that that choice was set up in the story.

    It's not enough that she has character flaws. For us to accept this transition in her character, these flaws have to be triggered by something identifiable in the situation.

    We have seen nothing to suggest that Dany would kill people who have surrendered. We have seen a lot that suggests she's motivated by a desire to protect the vulnerable and enforce justice for crimes against humanity.

    If that is alll out the window now, we deserve to know why. Jon's claim on the throne isn't enough.
    I just don’t understand this. I see it as the inevitable escalation of everything her character has been about since day one.  She literally said that “mercy would not be my weakness anymore” so in that moment with the bells ringing, she’s probably replaying everything in her mind and decides “fuck all these people” And it was a bad decision. Which characters do sometimes in fantasy television shows. 
    The difference for me is that the line doesn't actually apply to what we saw. It wasn't an issue of give mercy or not. I would have loved if Cersei set it up human barriers like the show kept saying she would. That she forced small folk on the walls so Dany'd have to choose to destroy the people if she wanted to destroy the scorpions. If small groups of soldiers ran towards crowds of people to hide behind and she burned a hundred innocents to kill three who stood against her. 

    But we didn't get that. Instead two people got into a fight and one person is on their knees, and the person who decides to not grant mercy turns and punches the old man just trying to walk down the side walk. That's just random and has nothing to do with mercy.

    If Dany saw Jon in front when the soldiers threw down their swords. I get it. They're surrendering to him and not her. If she wants them to do more than just ring the bells and demands that they storm the castle and bring her Cersei's head or she burns them all. I get it. We didn't see the civilians helping the soldiers, trying to care for wounded, care for her enemies and so now they become her enemies. All we saw was them hide. 

    There are so many options they could have done to sell me on showing no mercy.

    But I think it might actually just be the coin flip that Varys mentioned in the beginning of the episode. That's the key line as the catch all no explanation needed.


    Giovanni
  • CodySoloCodySolo Xenia, OH
    edited May 15
    It seems to me that you are intuiting a lot to cover for shoddy writing, but at least admirably so.  I like your take on it but it would have realistically required an extra season of transitional material.  As it is we have Dany being willing to risk her life, her love's life, her dragons' lives, her whole entire chance at the throne in an attempt to do the right thing and fight the whitewalkers and one episode later going on a genocidal rampage because...she might not get the throne?  

    For me, I don't give the writers the credit to pull that off.  Just the sheer fact that they had Tyrion repeat the same bells line nine times should clue people off that this is now being written for the lowest common denominator.  


    ken haleAnominal
  • Questions for discussion / feedback from experts:
    How do Dany's actions play in the rest of Westeros?  What is the view of "rules of engagement" and "civilian casualties"?  It seems like, from what we've seen on the show, this sort of massacre would not only be tolerated, but encouraged and respected as a sign of strength.
    Obviously the producers were trying to shock us viewers by rubbing our face in the brutality. Would people have responded differently if the violence had been mostly shown at a distance, or off-screen?
    GoT is a show that has reveled in brutality of its world, and even celebrated it to some degree. I'm trying to understand why, in this case, it has provoked such a strong response.
  • I'm sorry, but nothing you said has swayed my opinion that what Dany did was earned. To me her choice was the most out of character choice she's made all series. You can certainly point to things as evidence, just like I could point to a list of things as contrary evidence. She is not the first character I've thought this about. The fact is the DDs haven't told a story that makes sense to me. You could say that about a lot of things in the show. A good portion of the fan base feels this way, including many of the critics and podcasters. I think it's an entirely justifiable opinion to feel like her turn was too quick. 

    So many show white knights keep saying people are unhappy with how things ended up, but that's not the case for me at all. I'm unhappy with the way they got there. 
  • All the ChickensAll the Chickens Birmingham, AL
    edited May 14
    The Capital Punishment (innocent people being executed) example A.Ron gave during the podcast today was just strange.

    I have to assume it's a rebuttal to people pointing out the man she executed in season 5, but to me what she did simply does not compare in any way to a man being accused of an actual crime, being given a trial, and being executed. 

    Here is what happened:
    -The Sons of the Harpy attack, killing Ser Baristan and wounding Greyworm
    -Dany, in her grief and anger, gathered up Hizdar and a few other Mereneese noblemen bros (who were not accused of being slave masters, so just stop there)
    -Dany says nothing of a specific crime, and simply scares them by talking about her dragons being hungry.
    -Dany then picks one of them out of the lineup, and has her dragons burn and eat him alive without saying shit to him or even accusing him of anything.
    -She does this as a fear tactic to get the others to talk, not as punishment (execution), and it fails miserably because none of them were guilty. SHE EVEN gets a crazy blood-lusty look on her face when she talking about how they might all be innocent and she should maybe let her dragons decide.

    I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Don't tell me that's comparable to innocent people who are tried for crimes and being wrongly convicted and executed as a punishment.

    Here is the scene: 
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpCocBknqWI
    SanguinePenguin
  • All the ChickensAll the Chickens Birmingham, AL
    edited May 14
    Oh and comparing to Jon Snow or Robb Stark executing people as part of his duty for actual crimes committed that cannot be denied, come on now. No one would give Dany shit for executing people who just murdered her or executing a man who just committed a war crime by killing children being held in her camp. I certainly didn't think that Dany was wrong for executing the young former slave guy who was her servant (sort of) that unlawfully killed the Sons of the Harpy guy that they were holding prisoner. It was something she had to do, as much as she hated it. But that's not an example I've ever used.

    No, it's been that almost every time there is a grey area where she has a choice in the matter and it's not her actual duty to kill these people, she's leaned into the dark side of the grey area.

    Maybe it's fair to say that everything she has done is not nearly enough evidence that she would commit this particular atrocity, even with all of the other new grief and stress triggers surrounding her now, but these A.Ron comparisons to lighten her characters actions in retrospect are just falling flat to me.
  • adampasz said:
    Questions for discussion / feedback from experts:
    How do Dany's actions play in the rest of Westeros?  What is the view of "rules of engagement" and "civilian casualties"?  It seems like, from what we've seen on the show, this sort of massacre would not only be tolerated, but encouraged and respected as a sign of strength.
    Obviously the producers were trying to shock us viewers by rubbing our face in the brutality. Would people have responded differently if the violence had been mostly shown at a distance, or off-screen?
    GoT is a show that has reveled in brutality of its world, and even celebrated it to some degree. I'm trying to understand why, in this case, it has provoked such a strong response.
    Which show are you referring to?  I mean, they could have done better to show some political fallout from the Red Wedding but I never got the impression everybody in-universe was just ok with that.  We've seen outrage expressed at much smaller acts of civilian-targeting, like when Ned ordered the Mountain arrested for terrorizing smallfolk.  Hell, everybody's STILL pissed at Dany's dad and he only burned a few dozen political prisoners.  There's no way this is supposed to be seen as tolerable or respectable in Westeros.
  • Look, if the Simpsons could see this coming TWO YEARS AGO it really isn't a heel turn or even a surprise.  

    https://nypost.com/2019/05/14/the-simpsons-predicted-this-game-of-thrones-twist-2-years-ago/

    All the ChickensTeresa from Concord
  • An even better article on the Simpsons predicting the GoT future, with the entire Serfsons bit embedded.

    https://people.com/tv/the-simpsons-predicted-game-of-thrones-twist/

  • If everyone expected Dany to burn the city down it would've been anticlimactic.  I'm not saying that's cool, I just think it was purposely done in a way to keep the shock value in tact... true to GoT form.  They deliberately didn't make it obvious.  That said, they failed to make it realistic.  It's not believable that after victories against the Night King and Cersei that she would still burn the city down.  It makes no sense.
    ken haleGiovanni
  • mcp6842 said:
    If everyone expected Dany to burn the city down it would've been anticlimactic.  I'm not saying that's cool, I just think it was purposely done in a way to keep the shock value in tact... true to GoT form.  They deliberately didn't make it obvious.  That said, they failed to make it realistic.  It's not believable that after victories against the Night King and Cersei that she would still burn the city down.  It makes no sense.

    Well it made sense to me.

    YMMV.
    CeciliaM
  • mcp6842 said:
    If everyone expected Dany to burn the city down it would've been anticlimactic.  I'm not saying that's cool, I just think it was purposely done in a way to keep the shock value in tact... true to GoT form.  .
    My problem with this approach as a consumer of tv is that shock value can be well and good, but what truly makes a show great is bringing the audience with you and showing a journey. Say everything is playing out the same, but you add some visual or audio component to articulate Dany's thoughts in that moment before she launched. The audience is still in complete anticipation wondering what it all adds up to. You get the same, or perhaps a better build on tension on the moment and then you get the most extreme outcome. Probably more extreme than you imagined, but you're in on the process. I feel like every time they go for shock without clear narrative it just gets them into trouble. Rhaegal's death was the same. Sure, it really grabs you in the moment but you take a step back and it's a leaky boat. Same thing with the Battle of Winterfell. You witness a totally catastrophic death toll, but turns out it was just about half of the force. 

    I'm not saying that you're not right, but I think these sorts of conveniences, short cuts, and lacks of clarity do get in the way of it being the best show it can be rather than improving the product with shock and awe. Still a great show, but this is a really frustrating trend.
  • edited May 14
    ken hale said:
    adampasz said:
    Questions for discussion / feedback from experts:
    How do Dany's actions play in the rest of Westeros?  What is the view of "rules of engagement" and "civilian casualties"?  It seems like, from what we've seen on the show, this sort of massacre would not only be tolerated, but encouraged and respected as a sign of strength.
    Obviously the producers were trying to shock us viewers by rubbing our face in the brutality. Would people have responded differently if the violence had been mostly shown at a distance, or off-screen?
    GoT is a show that has reveled in brutality of its world, and even celebrated it to some degree. I'm trying to understand why, in this case, it has provoked such a strong response.
    Which show are you referring to?  I mean, they could have done better to show some political fallout from the Red Wedding but I never got the impression everybody in-universe was just ok with that.  We've seen outrage expressed at much smaller acts of civilian-targeting, like when Ned ordered the Mountain arrested for terrorizing smallfolk.  Hell, everybody's STILL pissed at Dany's dad and he only burned a few dozen political prisoners.  There's no way this is supposed to be seen as tolerable or respectable in Westeros.
    The show has dedicated tons of time to chronicling atrocities committed by Joffrey and Ramsey (and many other lesser characters).  The sense I've alway gotten was that many people around them were OK with it -- or at least resigned to it as a norm.
  • mcp6842 said:
    If everyone expected Dany to burn the city down it would've been anticlimactic.  I'm not saying that's cool, I just think it was purposely done in a way to keep the shock value in tact... true to GoT form.  They deliberately didn't make it obvious.  That said, they failed to make it realistic.  It's not believable that after victories against the Night King and Cersei that she would still burn the city down.  It makes no sense.

    Well it made sense to me.

    YMMV.
    Well it didn't make sense to me either. You are right, everyone has an opinion and I don't think anyone's should be discounted just because you don't agree. 
  • Giovanni said:
    mcp6842 said:
    If everyone expected Dany to burn the city down it would've been anticlimactic.  I'm not saying that's cool, I just think it was purposely done in a way to keep the shock value in tact... true to GoT form.  They deliberately didn't make it obvious.  That said, they failed to make it realistic.  It's not believable that after victories against the Night King and Cersei that she would still burn the city down.  It makes no sense.

    Well it made sense to me.

    YMMV.
    Well it didn't make sense to me either. You are right, everyone has an opinion and I don't think anyone's should be discounted just because you don't agree. 

    Oh I'm not discounting opposing viewpoints. Obviously a lot of people didn't think Dany going "burn them all" made sense, and they are entitled to that opinion (YMMV means "your mileage may vary" and was meant as "to each his own") I'm cool with people having differing outlooks on the show. How boring would it be if it was a predictable ending that surprised no one and outraged no one?
    adampasz
  • Giovanni said:
    mcp6842 said:
    If everyone expected Dany to burn the city down it would've been anticlimactic.  I'm not saying that's cool, I just think it was purposely done in a way to keep the shock value in tact... true to GoT form.  They deliberately didn't make it obvious.  That said, they failed to make it realistic.  It's not believable that after victories against the Night King and Cersei that she would still burn the city down.  It makes no sense.

    Well it made sense to me.

    YMMV.
    Well it didn't make sense to me either. You are right, everyone has an opinion and I don't think anyone's should be discounted just because you don't agree. 

    Oh I'm not discounting opposing viewpoints. Obviously a lot of people didn't think Dany going "burn them all" made sense, and they are entitled to that opinion (YMMV means "your mileage may vary" and was meant as "to each his own") I'm cool with people having differing outlooks on the show. How boring would it be if it was a predictable ending that surprised no one and outraged no one?
    I want implying you personally were discounting people's opinions. Alot of posters are though.

    The problem is that it's very subjective, either it worked for someone or it didn't (think about whether you think a piece of art is pretty). Maybe we'll even find out next week why Dany decided to do it, but until then it's all conjecture one way or the other. 
    SanguinePenguin
  • edited May 14
    Dany did something that the audience did not want her to do.  This is why it is shocking.  I think this is what GRRM is getting at.  GRRM is not writing about good vs clear evil; more that, real people make good and bad decisions in war.   

    Moreover, Dany & Drogon did exactly the thing she and Khal D promise that would do to King' Landing.  
    adampasz
  • adampasz said:
    ken hale said:
    adampasz said:
    Questions for discussion / feedback from experts:
    How do Dany's actions play in the rest of Westeros?  What is the view of "rules of engagement" and "civilian casualties"?  It seems like, from what we've seen on the show, this sort of massacre would not only be tolerated, but encouraged and respected as a sign of strength.
    Obviously the producers were trying to shock us viewers by rubbing our face in the brutality. Would people have responded differently if the violence had been mostly shown at a distance, or off-screen?
    GoT is a show that has reveled in brutality of its world, and even celebrated it to some degree. I'm trying to understand why, in this case, it has provoked such a strong response.
    Which show are you referring to?  I mean, they could have done better to show some political fallout from the Red Wedding but I never got the impression everybody in-universe was just ok with that.  We've seen outrage expressed at much smaller acts of civilian-targeting, like when Ned ordered the Mountain arrested for terrorizing smallfolk.  Hell, everybody's STILL pissed at Dany's dad and he only burned a few dozen political prisoners.  There's no way this is supposed to be seen as tolerable or respectable in Westeros.
    The show has dedicated tons of time to chronicling atrocities committed by Joffrey and Ramsey (and many other lesser characters).  The sense I've alway gotten was that many people around them were OK with it -- or at least resigned to it as a norm.
    I don't know, Ramsey was a special case and even then Roose tried to get him to keep the twisted shit like Reek kinda quiet.  Joffrey, publicly, didn't do much aside from humiliate Sansa in court.  Killing all Ned's people was portrayed as putting down a rebellion and the heads weren't exactly on display in the street.  Public perception of Joffrey generally seems to be that he was a weakling but not evil, as seen in the play in Essos, for example.  The Red Wedding is by far the most dishonorable act of murder by the Lannisters, and like I said it hasn't been shown as anything less than shocking in Westeros.  There's no way Dany's act is seen as respectable.
    rkcrawf
  • MurderbearMurderbear Cold Spring, Ky
    Moreover, Dany & Drogon did exactly the thing she and Khal D promise that would do to King' Landing.  
    Ding ding ding! And it's been a very very long time since I've watched Season 1 but I wanted to look this scene up for context. Just look at how much she is getting off on him talking about all this destruction. https://youtu.be/1-6_WRDROdM
    rkcrawf
  • edited May 15
    Dany did something that the audience did not want her to do.  This is why it is shocking.  I think this is what GRRM is getting at.  GRRM is not writing about good vs clear evil; more that, real people make good and bad decisions in war.   

    Moreover, Dany & Drogon did exactly the thing she and Khal D promise that would do to King' Landing.  
    That only thing that shocked me was how much of a shit job the writers did. 
  • Moreover, Dany & Drogon did exactly the thing she and Khal D promise that would do to King' Landing.  
    Ding ding ding! And it's been a very very long time since I've watched Season 1 but I wanted to look this scene up for context. Just look at how much she is getting off on him talking about all this destruction. https://youtu.be/1-6_WRDROdM
    The Defense rests their case. She didn’t go “Mad Queen.” She went full Dothraki!! Yeah, I am thinking Emilia is playing that scene as if she’s more than cool with raping, killing, pillaging, and burning (and eating babies)!

    Next time someone complains about a character’s fate not being narratively satisfying bc of the D’s, bring up Drogo dying from tetanus. 


    Murderbear
  • rkcrawf said:
    Moreover, Dany & Drogon did exactly the thing she and Khal D promise that would do to King' Landing.  
    Ding ding ding! And it's been a very very long time since I've watched Season 1 but I wanted to look this scene up for context. Just look at how much she is getting off on him talking about all this destruction. https://youtu.be/1-6_WRDROdM
    The Defense rests their case. She didn’t go “Mad Queen.” She went full Dothraki!! Yeah, I am thinking Emilia is playing that scene as if she’s more than cool with raping, killing, pillaging, and burning (and eating babies)!

    Next time someone complains about a character’s fate not being narratively satisfying bc of the D’s, bring up Drogo dying from tetanus. 


    This this this(above)...now imagine Jon Snow getting off on someone saying the things Kal Drogo said, you can’t even picture it because it’s not in how they wrote his character...

    So...if Jon Snow had burnt Kings Landing to the ground, THAT WOULD BE an example of a change that wouldn’t make sense, maybe that’s some perspective that will help 
    rkcrawfMurderbearSanguinePenguin
  • AnominalAnominal San Francisco Bay Area
    edited May 15
    rkcrawf said:
    Moreover, Dany & Drogon did exactly the thing she and Khal D promise that would do to King' Landing.  
    Ding ding ding! And it's been a very very long time since I've watched Season 1 but I wanted to look this scene up for context. Just look at how much she is getting off on him talking about all this destruction. https://youtu.be/1-6_WRDROdM
    The Defense rests their case. She didn’t go “Mad Queen.” She went full Dothraki!! Yeah, I am thinking Emilia is playing that scene as if she’s more than cool with raping, killing, pillaging, and burning (and eating babies)!

    Next time someone complains about a character’s fate not being narratively satisfying bc of the D’s, bring up Drogo dying from tetanus. 


    This this this(above)...now imagine Jon Snow getting off on someone saying the things Kal Drogo said, you can’t even picture it because it’s not in how they wrote his character...

    So...if Jon Snow had burnt Kings Landing to the ground, THAT WOULD BE an example of a change that wouldn’t make sense, maybe that’s some perspective that will help 
    Oh but it would! He was always a bastard and never got to sit with the rest of the kids. His natural reaction to bullies was to be and even bigger bully. He was forced to kill someone he respected immensely just to keep his secret. He broke his oaths when it suited him, and he was raised by the Lord of Light! He was *meant* to burn everything to the ground. Notice how he only did it after he learned he was a Targaryen. He had a lot of character development in his arc but it's meant to come full circle after he gains clarity. To return back to his natural instincts after he finally learns his place in the world. Because it all made sense to him now why he is so good at killing. That's why he had to tell Dany. That's why he had to tell Sansa. Because he was the truth. They might not have shown it on screen, but you could see that's what was in his head. That he is the true dragon.

    (That was actually a lot easier to make up a justification by picking and choosing than I thought. I of course wouldn't believe any of if it actually happened.)
  • I have no problem with Daenerys going mad. I have a problem with how they did it. Foreshadowing is not the same as character development. You can’t just have everyone around Dany talk about the Targaryen madness and then have her do cruel irrational things after building her up as someone who can be short tempered and willing to deny mercy to her enemies, but at the same time has a very strong sense of justice, is compassionate and kind and puts the people first always. One thing that annoys me a lot too about this version of the “Mad Queen” is that it’s so incredibly vague and shallow. Okay she’s mad which means in our modern medical terms that she has a mental disorder, but which one??
    Since Aerys and Viserys are based on characters in the books, their “madness” makes sense from a psychological point of view: King Aerys obviously was schizophrenic, he heard voices, confused reality and fantasy and thought if he burned everyone he’d turn into a dragon. I think Viserys being narcissistic speaks for itself (“I am the dragon! I want my crown!” selling his own sister to get an army etc). They could have let Dany be her father’s daughter and develop schizophrenia. In the books I believe it is quite possible that she becomes schizophrenic since in one of her most recent chapters she hears voices. But in the show, they didn’t go with that, so schizophrenia is off the table for show Dany. For show Dany, I could have imagined her “madness” to be choleric, meaning that she loses her temper when being (in her eyes) provoked and doing cruel and irrational things out of anger. I would have accepted to see her burn the city to the ground after Cersei had Missandei killed in front of her eyes. Releasing her anger without thinking in the most terrible manner. But that’s not what happened either. She just went nuts unprovoked and killed innocent people without even trying to go after the person she was really angry at. 
    Anominal
Sign In or Register to comment.