Daenerys 'Stormborn' Targaryen: The Breaker Of Chains, Mother Of Dragons Etc

[ursula]

45 minutes ago, rmontro said:

but it seems like we are only supposed to feel moral outrage when she does it. 

I mean, "army of killers*, rapers**, pillagers (and cannibals)" is pretty much a description of the wildlings. Yet somehow they aren't deemed scary when they are fighting for Starks. 

*As opposed to other armies who are made up of people who don't kill. **The Unsullied don't even have dicks. The anti-Dany logic is so ridiculous that you just have to laugh. 

[rmontro]

8 minutes ago, Zuleikha said:

Did Tyrion really think Cersei would do anything other than let people die while she hoarded food personally and tried to think of a way out?)

More likely, Tyrion wanted the slow starvation siege to give himself more time to talk Cersei into letting him find a way to save her.  Probably the same way we saw him try in the end, with the boat, only there wasn't enough time to pull it off.  

I wonder if Tyrion would have even cared about the smallfolk citizens of King's Landing, if it hadn't been for his family being in danger.

[Umbelina]

When did the Wildlings fight for the Starks?

They fought the Night King, but that wasn't for the Starks.

Stannis is dead, Tywin is dead, and those were the two most Dany-like characters on the screen.

Killing for justice or because custom required it (Jon hanging those guys) is very different that randomly choosing a group of strangers to kill, as Dany did in Essos.  Threatening to burn down whole cities to get her way was a sign that she was missing a few marbles, and she did it ALL THE TIME.  Pronouncing herself savior of the world would lead sane people to worry as well. 

None of the Starks killed anyone who wasn't proven guilty of murder, torture, or at the wall, guilty of an offense that custom required a death sentence.  Ayra was, in her training as a Faceless Man of course, but she left all of that behind, stopped being "no one" and became herself again.

I agree it's an ugly an violent world, and justice is brutal, but with the Starks, never more brutal than guilty had been (except Ned killing that guy who was running from WW.)

Dany had her dragon burn someone she didn't even know was guilty. 

There were other signs in the books as well, but for me, the largest warning sign was her messiah complex.  I couldn't trust someone like that, because I don't believe in them, and because I have always thought those kinds of people were dangerous.

Aside from all of that though?

An entire city surrendered.  She then murdered them, possibly millions of people.  She then announced Winterfell was next, and then THE WORLD.

Because Dany knows more than anyone in the WORLD?  Or hell, even in Westeros?  That is frightening. 

Her single mindedness in the beginning was one of her most awesome characteristics, and Emilia made her very lovable, and admirable.  As time continued though?  That same single mindedness resembled that fanatic she would become.

For me, that had already happened in the books, so the show version (though seriously poorly handled) was not a surprise.

1 minute ago, rmontro said:

More likely, Tyrion wanted the slow starvation siege to give himself more time to talk Cersei into letting him find a way to save her.  Probably the same way we saw him try in the end, with the boat, only there wasn't enough time to pull it off.  

I wonder if Tyrion would have even cared about the smallfolk citizens of King's Landing, if it hadn't been for his family being in danger.

Logically, Tyrion knew Cersei had to buy the only real army she had, and she would run out of money very soon, and when she did?  Her main army, the Golden Company, would leave.

The show decided against logic in this final season though.

[rmontro]

11 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

When did the Wildlings fight for the Starks?

They did fight with Jon against the Boltons.

[Umbelina]

2 minutes ago, rmontro said:

They did fight with Jon against the Boltons.

They fought for Jon, because he had fought for them.

That's not fighting for the "Starks" but for a guy who earned their loyalty.

(to me)

[Umbelina]

Holy cow, these deleted scenes would have made Dany's arc SO much better!

[Solace247]

5 hours ago, Umbelina said:

It was a TV show dudes.  Where people do take their clues about how we feel about characters from the WRITERS of said characters, and the EDITING choices of music and lighting and costume and camera angles.

So no, TV show alone?  I understand why people bought into the heroine shtick.

It's honestly hard for me to judge TV-only viewers responses to Dany.  In the books I started doubting Dany long ago, so on the show, of course I did as well, in spite of editing and all the rest.

I do think that implication of being condescending toward viewers who were rooting for Dany is annoying and insulting to show-only people.

I also think the message of "look at facts and deeds" rather than the press of "leaders" is a decent message.  However, that should have been done ON the show, not in interviews or "inside the episodes." 

I saw this scene both as condescending, as you mention above, and also as a short-hand tactic to hand-wave how utterly 180 Dany’s arc is from 8.03 to 8.06. It’s the writers saying: “See? There’s a clear and definite through-line to this subversive turn. We did it!”. And the inverted word-play of Tyrion was another short-hand for: “See? Tyrion really is clever.” I found the whole scene insulting.

2 hours ago, rmontro said:

By the way, I was thinking about how incredibly common it is in GRRM's world to burn cities to the ground.  How many cities do you suppose get burned in his books?  I know it's a lot of them.  Even Winterfell was burned by the Boltons. 

I'm not defending Dany's actions here, but it seems like we are only supposed to feel moral outrage when she does it.  Most actions take place through the incredibly cruel and barabaric lens of the middle ages, but for Dany we're suddenly supposed to don our politically correct modern sensibilities, as cued by all the slow motion scenes of women and children dying, along with the sad music.

I'd also add that Jon Snow killed a child, as did Missandre, and Theon killed children, and they got to die with the hero's edit.  

I will say that the image of Dany with the dragon wings (Drogon's) was pretty cool though.

Honestly, nearly all of Dany’s actions were framed as kick-ass until she hit Westeros. Then, all of a sudden, her advisors are whispering in darkened rooms, clutching their pearls, waxing on about 21st century ethics in a time of medieval warfare. Targeted flames bad, prolonged starvation good. If I didn’t know D&D had gotten GRRM’s bullet points earlier, I would have thought it was at this point that they found out about Dany’s endgame, that’s how ridiculous the discussions surrounding the war became, and for what? To plant the seeds of her villainy? Please. To keep Cersei around sipping wine in season 8? Probably.

Too bad their version of descent into villainy consisted of repeatedly listening to a negligent hand and impotent master of whispers until they conspire behind her back which then drives her crazy in the SECOND TO LAST EPISODE OF ALL TIME. Also, FASCISM. You can’t forget to include that sweet, sweet, Fascist Imagery(tm).

Edited May 25, 2019 by Solace247
Shortened quotes

[rmontro]

5 hours ago, Umbelina said:

It's honestly hard for me to judge TV-only viewers responses to Dany.  In the books I started doubting Dany long ago

I will admit that book Dany is presented somewhat less sympathetically than TV Dany.  And Emilia Clarke brought a lot of warmness to the role.

59 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Holy cow, these deleted scenes would have made Dany's arc SO much better!

I don't know if it helps Dany out so much.  ANY filling in of the storyline would be an improvement, but I still don't like her turning into Hitler.  Oh, she got pushed into the corner at a party, boo hoo I guess I'll go murder some children?  Um, no.

And Varys is sitting there eyeballing her feeling lonely, why didn't he go give her some company instead of giving her the stink eye.  What a useless advisor.  

Anyway, like I said, I don't know if it helps Dany out so much, but it does add in a lot to the story as a whole, Jorah being alive and all.  Gendry speaking out for Dany along with Yara at the council.  And that video explains what's going on with Jon at the end, which was something of a major mystery to me.  

31 minutes ago, Solace247 said:

Honestly, nearly all of Dany’s actions were framed as kick-ass until she hit Westeros. Then, all of a sudden, her advisors are whispering in darkened rooms, clutching their pearls, waxing on about 21st century ethics in a time of medieval warfare. .

Yeah, not only is Dany's turn sudden, the turn of the people around her are also ridiculously fast.  She doesn't as much turn as her advisors start whispering about her turning behind her back.  And also the way she is presented by the show itself changes abruptly.  

I think D&D thought they were serving up another brilliant twist, but they mucked this one up good.

[ursula]

On 5/24/2019 at 9:11 PM, rmontro said:

I will admit that book Dany is presented somewhat less sympathetically than TV Dany.

Can someone explain this to me? Because I've seen this brought up and I've never understood it.

In the TV show, Dany locks up Xaro and Doreah, feeds her enemies to her dragons, executes her own loyalist, forces Hizdahr to marry her and kills his "innocent" father. She needs Tyrion to tell her not to kill Jorah for spying on her. 

None of these happen in the books. Instead in the books, Dany is ineffective because she's not ruthless enough. On Selmy's advice, she practices the Westeros method of keeping highborn children as hostages (Theon) but she's made friends with all of them and can't bring herself to harm them. She is personally treating plague victims in the middle of a siege, manages to maintain a frenemy relationship with Xaro, has managed to keep all her Dothraki inner circle (except Doreah who died of starvation in the Red Waste) alive. She was willing to forgive Jorah until he made it impossible by not apologizing and trying to "Nice Guy" her. (Jorah in the books isn't gallant Iain Glen but a pervert old enough to be her grandfather.)

And that's not even talking about how animated and lively book!Dany is. The show pretty much dropped this after season 1. Book!Dany isn't stately or aloof. She laughs, plays, jokes around. (It helps that unlike the show that killed off all the POCs, all her Dothraki friends are still alive.) Selmy found it hard to believe she was Daenerys Targaryen because he was expecting someone more regal (exact words). She's intelligent and a strategist. The show gives all Dany's ideas and thoughts to the (white) men around her to articulate. Needless to say, Dany threatening Qarth - a stupid ridiculous arc - never happened in the books.

And if that's too much to go over, compare her first ride between books and TV. In the TV show, she's under attack and Drogon sweeps in to save her. In the books, (after an incident where Dany saved Tyrion without him realizing it), Drogon is the one who's lured in by bloodshed and starts attacking people... Dany vaults over the barricade to put herself between him and his victim and whips an angry dragon (he's mad that she tried to chain him up) until he backs down. She rides away with him because he's being circled around to be killed. As someone on Tumblr described it: that was a straight up superhero moment for Dany and the TV show turned it into a damsel being rescued. 

So yeah, when people say that the books write Dany as less sympathetic and the TV show play up her hero side... I've gotta to ask and excuse my French but what the heck are they reading?

Edited May 31, 2019 by ursula
so.many.typos.😬

[Brn2bwild]

2 hours ago, ursula said:

Can someone explain this to me? Because I've seen this brought up and I've never understood it.

In the TV show, Dany locks up Xaro and Doreah, feeds her enemies to her dragons, executes her own loyalist, forces Hizdahr to marry her and kills his "innocent" father. She needs Tyrion to tell her not to kill Jorah for spying on her. 

None of these happen in the books. Instead in the books, Dany is ineffective because she's not ruthless enough. On Selmy's advice, she practices the Westeros method of keeping highborn children as hostages (Theon) but she's made friends with all of them and can't bring herself to harm them. She is personally treating plague victims in the middle of a siege, manages to maintain a frenemy relationship with Xaro, has managed to keep all her Dothraki inner circle (except Doreah who died of starvation in the Red Waste) alive. She was willing to forgive Jorah until he made it impossible by not apologizing and trying to "Nice Guy". 

And that's not even talking about how animated and lively book!Dany is. The show pretty much dropped this after season 1. Book!Dany isn't stately or aloof. She laughs, plays, jokes around. (It helps that unlike the show that killed off all the POCs, all her Dothraki friends are still alive.) Selmy found it hard to believe she was Daenerys Targaryen because he was expecting someone more regal (exact words). She's intelligent and a strategist. The show gives all Dany's ideas and thoughts to the (white) men around her to articulate. Needless to say, Dany threatening Qarth - a stupid ridiculous arc - never happened in the books.

And if that's too much to go over, compare her first ride between books and TV. In the TV show, she's under attack and Drogon sweeps in to save her. In the books, Drogon is the one who's lured in by bloodshed and starts attacking people... Dany vaults over the barricade to put herself between him and his victim (saving Tyrion without realizing it) and whips an angry dragon (he's mad that she tried to chain him up) until he backs down. She rides away with him because he's being circled around to be killed. As someone on Tumblr described it: that was a straight up superhero moment for Dany and the TV show turned it into a damsel being rescued. 

So yeah, when people say that the books write Dany as less sympathetic and the TV show play up her hero side... I've gotta to ask and excuse my French but what the heck are they reading?

I agree.  I always though Book Dany was more compassionate, which is why I couldn't believe we were supposed to see "foreshadowing" that the character was going to turn bad all along.  Because in the books, she didn't lock anyone in a vault to die in Qarth, and I'm sure she won't just set the khals on fire to free herself from the Dothraki because in the books she's not fireproof.  I always felt D&D had Dany burn so many things because they lacked creativity to have her escape some other way.  Burning stuff became sort of her "get out of jail free" card.

No doubt George RR Martin has a cleverer route for her to overcome the Dothraki in Book 6 that will lead to essentially the same result.  

[rmontro]

3 hours ago, ursula said:

Can someone explain this to me? Because I've seen this brought up and I've never understood it.

You make some valid points, so I guess I was mistaken.  I wasn't thinking of any particular harsh deeds or whatnot, I just found the TV version to be more inspiring.  Maybe I fell victim to the inspiring music and Emilia Clark's poignant portrayal.   Maybe because the book version is further behind in her story, so it's less complete.

She just seems to be less of a central character in the books, maybe because there are more characters that take up the space, so she naturally gets a smaller percentage of the story.  She's not even in the fourth book at all.  She's obviously still a central character, she just seems a little less so.

You mentioned the scene in the fighting pit at Mereen.  She's less in control of her dragon, so the TV show is more of an inspiring moment, Drogon comes down and roasts the bad guys and rescues his mother.  But, as you point out, she's actually more heroic in the book, because she's more in danger, and more concerned with saving people.

[GraceK]

Also, David and Dan are actually pretty incompetent writers. Check out Wolverine X-men origins for proof.

i was doing a rewatch today actually and if you watch Daenerys arc from seasons 1-5, when you have GRRRM source material, you can see the brilliance and where it is going. She is slowly climbing to power, through conquering. The Mysha scene in particular is especially jarring, because she is seen as a goddess, and she is smiling while her dragons soar above. We are lead to believe that this is an uplifting amazing moment, but if you look at it objectively, it is terrifying. Yes, she is benevolent, yes, she is good hearted, yes, she has good intentions, but she also feels she has a divine purpose. That she what she decides is correct. She is a messiah figure, and she sweeps into countries and takes over.  Her will is God. She listens to advisors, yes, but when something bad happens, she retaliates with dragons. 🤷🏻‍♀️ 

The arc that has been built for her , IMO has been someone who has achieved so much power she feels she is above it. She feels she has a destiny to conquer the world, ala Julius Ceasar, and in her Ferver to make the world better, some people have to die. And that’s her tragedy. She is for the “ greater good”. A zealot. 

She’s not evil. She’s not Hitler. She’s a Melisandre with Dragons.

and the problem is that d and d aren’t capable of telling that story. They went with “ oh she went dark? Cool. Let her snap at bells cause Of her Targaryen genes !! Cool! 

A slow descent into Tyranny because power corrupts? Good intentions can lead to terrible things? Consistent betrayal and heartache can make you paranoid? Nah...that’s not interesting!! Let’s have you just be a crazy bitch! 😂😌😌

Edited May 25, 2019 by GraceK

[Solace247]

7 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Logically, Tyrion knew Cersei had to buy the only real army she had, and she would run out of money very soon, and when she did?  Her main army, the Golden Company, would leave.

The show decided against logic in this final season though.

You know what else Tyrion knew of? A secret passage into the Red Keep—one he himself used to meet in secret with Jamie. The same one he described to Jamie last as an escape route. Why dragonfire or a siege when you can sneak a team of soldiers or Arya into the Keep itself? These last two seasons have gutted the characters, arcs, and plots. How is that even possible???

[GraceK]

5 hours ago, ursula said:

Can someone explain this to me? Because I've seen this brought up and I've never understood it.

In the TV show, Dany locks up Xaro and Doreah, feeds her enemies to her dragons, executes her own loyalist, forces Hizdahr to marry her and kills his "innocent" father. She needs Tyrion to tell her not to kill Jorah for spying on her. 

None of these happen in the books. Instead in the books, Dany is ineffective because she's not ruthless enough. On Selmy's advice, she practices the Westeros method of keeping highborn children as hostages (Theon) but she's made friends with all of them and can't bring herself to harm them. She is personally treating plague victims in the middle of a siege, manages to maintain a frenemy relationship with Xaro, has managed to keep all her Dothraki inner circle (except Doreah who died of starvation in the Red Waste) alive. She was willing to forgive Jorah until he made it impossible by not apologizing and trying to "Nice Guy". 

And that's not even talking about how animated and lively book!Dany is. The show pretty much dropped this after season 1. Book!Dany isn't stately or aloof. She laughs, plays, jokes around. (It helps that unlike the show that killed off all the POCs, all her Dothraki friends are still alive.) Selmy found it hard to believe she was Daenerys Targaryen because he was expecting someone more regal (exact words). She's intelligent and a strategist. The show gives all Dany's ideas and thoughts to the (white) men around her to articulate. Needless to say, Dany threatening Qarth - a stupid ridiculous arc - never happened in the books.

And if that's too much to go over, compare her first ride between books and TV. In the TV show, she's under attack and Drogon sweeps in to save her. In the books, Drogon is the one who's lured in by bloodshed and starts attacking people... Dany vaults over the barricade to put herself between him and his victim (saving Tyrion without realizing it) and whips an angry dragon (he's mad that she tried to chain him up) until he backs down. She rides away with him because he's being circled around to be killed. As someone on Tumblr described it: that was a straight up superhero moment for Dany and the TV show turned it into a damsel being rescued. 

So yeah, when people say that the books write Dany as less sympathetic and the TV show play up her hero side... I've gotta to ask and excuse my French but what the heck are they reading?

Omg thank you for saying this. 

[Umbelina]

In the deleted scenes above?  ALL of this makes so much more sense.  (not just finale, scenes leading to the finale)

Yara and Gendry are insisting about Jon going to the wall, out of loyalty to Dany.  There is more of a fight at "Tyrion's trial."

Dany feels very guilty for not listening to Jorah and Sansa about resting the troops, and she feels responsible for her dragon's death and the capture of Mel because she refused to listen and rest the troops and her wounded dragon.

She doesn't just snap because she feels she's lost Jon, she also sees how happy Jorah is with his people, and fears she has lost him as well.  Mel and Grey Worm also tell her they are leaving when this is over.

Her feelings of being completely alone keep building until she makes the choice of "fire and blood." 

Edited May 25, 2019 by Umbelina

[GraceK]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

In the deleted scenes above?  ALL of this makes so much more sense.  (not just finale, scenes leading to the finale)

Yara and Gendry are insisting about Jon going to the wall, out of loyalty to Dany.  There is more of a fight at "Tyrion's trial."

Dany feels very guilty for not listening to Jorah and Sansa about resting the troops, and she feels responsible for her dragon's death and the capture of Mel because she refused to listen and rest the troops and her wounded dragon.

She doesn't just snap because she feels she's lost Jon, she also sees how happy Jorah is with his people, and fears she has lost him as well.  Mel and Grey Worm also tell her they are leaving when this is over.

Her feelings of being completely alone keep building until she makes the choice of "fire and blood." 

Why did they feel this was not worth keeping in? They lengths they went to screw her character over for shock value is disgusting. Apparently she’s not allowed to be a human being anymore. I’m so angry about this whole season that it really leaves a bitter taste over the series as a whole.

Edited May 25, 2019 by GraceK

[Umbelina]

1 minute ago, GraceK said:

Why did they feel this was not worth keeping in? They lengths they went to screw her character over for shock value is disgusting.

Honestly, all I can think of is "more emmy scenes for Peter."

Seriously.  He talked longer and more than anyone else on screen in the finale, and then he walked around a ton looking pensive.  It was ridiculous.

This would have been so much more palatable as initially planned.

[Solace247]

49 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Honestly, all I can think of is "more emmy scenes for Peter."

Seriously.  He talked longer and more than anyone else on screen in the finale, and then he walked around a ton looking pensive.  It was ridiculous.

This would have been so much more palatable as initially planned.

That is honestly all I thought though the entire series finale. Man, they’re really leaning on PD to sell this shit sandwich. He’s a shell of his former character—has been since season 6 at least. He’s a 21st century insert in an already ridiculous and inconsistent storyline. Tyrion sad-face just made me to punch him. He is the literal embodiment of failing upwards. Oh, sorry, he wears his hand pin as a heavy burden.

His admonishing speech to Jon? Bullshit. His even getting a chance to lead and speechify in front of that ‘council’? Bullshit. His meta speech about stories? Bullshit. I hate when people use this turn of phrase, but I’m gonna use it anyways—this season’s writing was an insult to the audience. INSULT, I SAY!

I know some are saying only a few episodes were needed to sell this Daenerys turn, or an extra season, but I think this needed to be seeded in season 6. Toss Cersei to the curb in season 7. Daenerys’ whole ideology developed off-screen—and don’t tell me it’s on the cutting-room floor. In my opinion, they had to gut every major character to even attempt sell this trajectory: Jon, Varys, Tyrion, Sansa, and Arya, all had to be twisted, edited, or truncated to get to this point. Missandei has to be removed completely, except to die, apparently. Jorah had to argue in Tyrion’s defence because he learns, apparently—where the evidence for that is, I have no fucking clue. Whatever, let me be hyperbolic—this is writing is practically negligent.

Edited May 25, 2019 by Solace247

[GraceK]

It’s even more jarring on rewatch. The Tyrion from season 4 who murdered his father and girlfriend and has such a toxic relationship with Cersei and was put in trial and betrayed by everyone he saved becomes a pacifist who is purely for the people and is consistently trying to save Cersei?????? Jon who was going to kill Mance in his own tent? Who was able to lie and fight dirty with gin alley guy is suddenly Ned Stark plus Jesus? Even Ned Stark wasn’t as snowflake as Jon became. I’m really still salty guys sorry, I’m just repeating myself now 🤬

[MarySNJ]

19 hours ago, Solace247 said:

That is honestly all I thought though the entire series finale. Man, they’re really leaning on PD to sell this shit sandwich. He’s a shell of his former character—has been since season 6 at least. He’s a 21st century insert in an already ridiculous and inconsistent storyline. Tyrion sad-face just made me to punch him. He is the literal embodiment of failing upwards. Oh, sorry, he wears his hand pin as a heavy burden.

His admonishing speech to Jon? Bullshit. His even getting a chance to lead and speechify in front of that ‘council’? Bullshit. His meta speech about stories? Bullshit. I hate when people use this turn of phrase, but I’m gonna use it anyways—this season’s writing was an insult to the audience. INSULT, I SAY!

I know some are saying only a few episodes were needed to sell this Daenerys turn, or an extra season, but I think this needed to be seeded in season 6. Toss Cersei to the curb in season 7. Daenerys’ whole ideology developed off-screen—and don’t tell me it’s on the cutting-room floor. In my opinion, they had to gut every major character to even attempt sell this trajectory: Jon, Varys, Tyrion, Sansa, and Arya, all had to be twisted, edited, or truncated to get to this point. Missandei has to be removed completely, except to die, apparently. Jorah had to argue in Tyrion’s defence because he learns, apparently—where the evidence for that is, I have no fucking clue. Whatever, let me be hyperbolic—this is writing is practically negligent.

This. The character turns were poorly developed and almost whiplash inducing in Dany's case. 

19 hours ago, GraceK said:

It’s even more jarring on rewatch. The Tyrion from season 4 who murdered his father and girlfriend and has such a toxic relationship with Cersei and was put in trial and betrayed by everyone he saved becomes a pacifist who is purely for the people and is consistently trying to save Cersei?????? Jon who was going to kill Mance in his own tent? Who was able to lie and fight dirty with gin alley guy is suddenly Ned Stark plus Jesus? Even Ned Stark wasn’t as snowflake as Jon became. I’m really still salty guys sorry, I’m just repeating myself now 🤬

I feel you. I had a long conversation with my daughter and her friends at a camping trip this weekend and went on and on and on about all the things that I think went wrong this season...Even though they agreed with much of it I’m sure they’re sorry they brought it up. I am still salty. 

[GraceK]

What really gets me Is that the only reason they had Daenerys come back to Westeros, show wise,  was not for her to rule as Queen or visit her ancestral home or meet her last living family but to fight the Night King and kill people like Cersei , and for Varys and Tyrion to make way for House Stark without them getting their hands dirty in the process.

They literally used her, her dragons and her armies to fight the war of Westeros, made her a villain out of nowhere and had her lover kill her when she is most vulnerable, when she thought he loved her.

Now that all the major villains are out of the way  what did they do? Killed Dany the first chance they got and funny enough it’s Tyrion, who murdered his own lover, blew up an army with wildfire, murdered his unarmed father on the privy, and who was ready to give Cersei her 200th chance even after all the horrible things she had done, who manipulated Jon to kill her. Jon, who would have been dead three times over if Dany didn’t save him personally, out of love for him. Just like Ygritte saved him out of love. And what did he ever give them back, the two women who loved him the most? Heartache and death. That’s all. Even Sansa saved his life. And he gave up the north after she suffered for it. He’s worthless to the women in his life. 

Her dragons? Two of them are dead and third flew away with her mother’s dead body with no closure whatsoever.

Her army? Well now the war is over no need to stay in Westeros anymore, so they are now leaving, convenient enough, right?

So going by the show, her only purpose was to take all the hard hitting bullets of criticism and at the same time keep clearing the way for the Starks abs Tyrion  to rule after her.

She should have stayed out of the war and chilled in Essos with her people. Have NK kill everyone in Westeros.  Its what they deserve. They didn’t deserve her.

Edited May 26, 2019 by GraceK

[rmontro]

59 minutes ago, GraceK said:

Now that all the major villains are out of the way  what did they do? Killed Dany the first chance they got and funny enough it’s Tyrion, who murdered his own lover, blew up an army with wildfire, murdered his unarmed father on the privy, and who was ready to give Cersei her 200th chance even after all the horrible things she had done, who manipulated Jon to kill her.

If it had been Cersei who had burned down the city, do you think Tyrion would be conspiring to murder her?  Highly doubtful.  He'd be all "I know she wants to save her baby".  And I doubt if we would have gotten all those slow motion shots of women and children suffering had Cersei done it either.  Too bad Daenerys wasn't pregnant so Jon would have had to kill his unborn child along with her.  Anyway, Cersei should be responsible as well, she never gave any order to ring the bells to surrender.

I don't want to use the language, so I will just refer you back to Jason Mamoa's reaction while watching the finale.  He said it better than I can.

[RobertDeSneero]

Daenerys was right: King’s Landing had to burn

 

Quote

If Daenerys had simply allowed King’s Landing to surrender without consequences only after she evaded its air defenses, then every other recalcitrant lord in the Seven Kingdoms would have incentive to resist her. After all, it only takes a lucky shot or two to bring down the dragon — and the Queen riding him — and if she manages to burn your scorpions, you can always just surrender.

The Breaker of Chains can be legitimately faulted for not explaining the strategic logic of her actions to key subordinates before the battle began. But in her defense, those same key subordinates had spent the previous days spreading treasonous talk about Jon Snow being the rightful heir to the Iron Throne, so she can perhaps be forgiven for not fully taking them into her confidence.

Making an example of King’s Landing was a harsh decision. It was a cruel decision. And it’s certainly a decision whose morality one could question. But it wasn’t a “crazy” decision or the act of a Mad Queen — it was a rational calculation based on a clear-eyed assessment of the strategic situation.

[Maximum Taco]

On 5/24/2019 at 11:36 PM, ursula said:

Can someone explain this to me? Because I've seen this brought up and I've never understood it.

In the TV show, Dany locks up Xaro and Doreah, feeds her enemies to her dragons, executes her own loyalist, forces Hizdahr to marry her and kills his "innocent" father. She needs Tyrion to tell her not to kill Jorah for spying on her. 

None of these happen in the books. Instead in the books, Dany is ineffective because she's not ruthless enough. On Selmy's advice, she practices the Westeros method of keeping highborn children as hostages (Theon) but she's made friends with all of them and can't bring herself to harm them. She is personally treating plague victims in the middle of a siege, manages to maintain a frenemy relationship with Xaro, has managed to keep all her Dothraki inner circle (except Doreah who died of starvation in the Red Waste) alive. She was willing to forgive Jorah until he made it impossible by not apologizing and trying to "Nice Guy". 

And that's not even talking about how animated and lively book!Dany is. The show pretty much dropped this after season 1. Book!Dany isn't stately or aloof. She laughs, plays, jokes around. (It helps that unlike the show that killed off all the POCs, all her Dothraki friends are still alive.) Selmy found it hard to believe she was Daenerys Targaryen because he was expecting someone more regal (exact words). She's intelligent and a strategist. The show gives all Dany's ideas and thoughts to the (white) men around her to articulate. Needless to say, Dany threatening Qarth - a stupid ridiculous arc - never happened in the books.

And if that's too much to go over, compare her first ride between books and TV. In the TV show, she's under attack and Drogon sweeps in to save her. In the books, Drogon is the one who's lured in by bloodshed and starts attacking people... Dany vaults over the barricade to put herself between him and his victim (saving Tyrion without realizing it) and whips an angry dragon (he's mad that she tried to chain him up) until he backs down. She rides away with him because he's being circled around to be killed. As someone on Tumblr described it: that was a straight up superhero moment for Dany and the TV show turned it into a damsel being rescued. 

So yeah, when people say that the books write Dany as less sympathetic and the TV show play up her hero side... I've gotta to ask and excuse my French but what the heck are they reading?

It's because in the books everyone wants Dany to be ruthless and effective. Book Dany is smart and passionate and willing to give up everything for peace, including her own happiness, because that is what a good ruler would do. She tries things and they don't work because she has never ruled a city before, and she doesn't realize who can be trusted and who cannot. 

But many fans complain that she does little in ADwD but govern and moon over Daario. Never mind that ADwD is Dany's most important arc, and where she is actually discovering what type of ruler she wants to be, the majority of readers just don't care about that because all they want is fire and blood and tits and dragons. "Get to Westeros Dany!" they scream as they are forced to read another chapter about Dany hating Hizdahr and lusting after Daario without picking up on the subtext that is trying to be laid down. 

So they gave them an effective, ruthless Dany in the TV Show, someone who smites her enemies with the powers of a god, and forgets them just as quickly, never thinking about them again. This Dany doesn't really deal with failure ever, because when she fails she just kind of moves on with no consequences and no regrets, new allies falling in to replace the old ones who died, new resources falling in to replace the ones she squandered. Now people see her and she's cold, and ruthless and borderline psychopathic. She's hard to identify with and easy to vilify. It's a shame, honestly. 

Edited May 27, 2019 by Maximum Taco

[tabularasa]

When I see all the videos on the youtube from previous seasons when she wanted revenge, I'm like "oops, I'd like to exact revenge on my enemies too". It's so sexist. Does anyone feel the same? So many people wronged me and I'd love to tell them they will pay for what they did. I'm powerless though so I'm saying this to myself and dreaming. Maybe I'm mad like Dany too..

[Umbelina]

For those interested in Dany, this is a very thorough examination of her family history...and interesting.

A couple of quick points:

• Targaryens were a relatively minor family on Valeria
• Most other families and dragons were killed in the Doom, but Dany's family survived, pushing them to the top of the power struggle
• Not all Valerians could ride dragons
• Valerians in general perfected (not invented) slavery on a mass scale, to work in their mines, they invaded and enslaved many for this purpose
• Valerians conquered or founded many areas of Essos before eying Westeros (not Bravos)
• This also covers her dad, her brother, and both the rise and fall of their time in Westeros, an an in depth examination of Aery's decent into madness (he was not always nuts)

Edited May 29, 2019 by Umbelina
sp

[Umbelina]

This is shorter, and much less informative, but does talk a bit more about dragons.

[Constantinople]

VOX: Daenerys was right: King’s Landing had to burn - Westeros would’ve been better off with her on the Iron Throne.

[rmontro]

57 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

VOX: Daenerys was right: King’s Landing had to burn - Westeros would’ve been better off with her on the Iron Throne.

I'm still confused as to why I'm supposed to care about the people of King's Landing.  It's like the show suddenly grew a conscience 72 episodes in.

How about Jon Snow killing Daenerys?  I'm suprised no one has complained about this being inappropriate male on female violence.  If he had punched her in the mouth, people would probably be screaming, but since he "only" stabbed her it's okay?  Maybe they should have had Arya do it after all.  I mean if the ending is going to stink, they might as well go all the way with it.

[Umbelina]

Aegon’s Conquest: how did Daenerys' ancestors take Westeros?

[PatsyandEddie]

Jon killing Dany had nothing to do with male on female violence IMO. We’ve never seen Jon be violent towards any woman. He had a choice to make in order to stop the path of destruction he saw her heading down. He gave her a quick death with a dagger into the heart. He didn’t stab her in the back. Yes, he kissed her but not only as a way to get close to her  . He loved this woman and wanted her to know that. At the end, he gave her one more chance to see her error but she couldn’t or wouldn’t. 

If she had been a man, Jon would have killed him as well but without another chance or the kiss. 

[Minneapple]

Jon killing Dany was supposed to be like Buffy killing Angel, but it just didn't carry the same emotional weight. When Buffy killed Angel, you really believed she made the ultimate sacrifice to save the world. And she did it on a fraction of HBO's budget too.

[rmontro]

15 minutes ago, Minneapple said:

Jon killing Dany was supposed to be like Buffy killing Angel, but it just didn't carry the same emotional weight. When Buffy killed Angel, you really believed she made the ultimate sacrifice to save the world. And she did it on a fraction of HBO's budget too.

Yeah, I'm really confused as what Kit Harrington was trying to do at the end.  I couldn't get a read on what it was he was supposed to be feeling, other than the obvious.  He just looked kind of constipated all the time. 

Maybe it's not his fault, maybe it was the directors.  Wouldn't surprise me, because I've never had any beef with his acting before.  Here I just didn't buy whatever it was they were trying to sell.  I guess that he loved Dany, but I never felt that after the aunt reveal.  The ending sounds like it should have been this beautiful, tragic, horrible scene, but it just never came off that way.  Maybe just another victim of the rushed ending. 

[PatsyandEddie]

I thought Emilia and Kit played that scene beautifully. Eye of the beholder and all that.  

[rmontro]

13 hours ago, PatsyandEddie said:

I thought Emilia and Kit played that scene beautifully. Eye of the beholder and all that.  

Fair enough, but it wasn't only that scene.  He seemed to be a befuddled mess over the last several episodes.

[TigerLynx]

If Sansa is Queen Elizabeth, is Dany Lady Jane Grey or Mary Queen of Scotts?

I didn't like what they did with Dany in the end, but I thought D&D mucked up just about every character's arc.

[Minneapple]

On 5/31/2019 at 12:28 PM, PatsyandEddie said:

I thought Emilia and Kit played that scene beautifully. Eye of the beholder and all that.  

Well, it's not just the scene itself. Joss wrote a true love story for Buffy and Angel that was properly developed, so Buffy killing Angel was hugely tragic. I never felt that was true for Jon and Dany. It took Buffy an entire half-season to build up the nerve to kill Angel. Jon decided to kill Dany after a three-minute Tyrion speech and Arya telling him, "she's a killer," which, well, duh.

But also with the scene itself, Kit and Emilia did fine, but again -- the spectacle of Drogon burning the Iron Throne became a bigger deal than Jon killing Dany.

[rmontro]

I heard some discussion today on a podcast, sorry I never ever learned what the name of it was.  Anyway, they were saying that maybe the prophecy about the prince to was promised was about Jon Snow saving the world from Dany, not the Night King.  In other words, the great dark threat was Dany, not the Night King.  

I don't think that works out at all.  That prophecy was associated with the Lord of Light, and Missandre dissipated after the Night King was vanquished, so I think the prophecy clearly had to do with the Undead threat.  Jon Snow pretty much organized the defense against the wights, so I have no problem saying he fulfilled the Prince who was Promised thing (however loosely).

They also talked about Drogon carrying Daenerys' body off to some red priests who would resurrect her, and she would become the Night Queen.  This theory about her being revived has been passed around before, although this is the first time I've heard it involve red priests.  Possible, I suppose.  I'm not fond of the idea of turning Dany into the Night Queen, but just about any ending would be better than the crappy one they gave her.

[Humbugged]

On 6/1/2019 at 5:30 PM, TigerLynx said:

If Sansa is Queen Elizabeth, is Dany Lady Jane Grey or Mary Queen of Scotts?

I didn't like what they did with Dany in the end, but I thought D&D mucked up just about every character's arc.

She is Mary Stuart and her ancestors James III (VIII of Scotland) and Bonnie Prince Charlie) who grew up believing the Jacobite myth of the awaited Queen/King Across the Water .In Mary's case her mother giving the crown away to the French (a bit like Jon bending the knee without consulting the Northerners who had named him King ) ,burning people at the stake ,exiling them and then stacking her court with Frenchman and using French troops to enforce her will left her daughter a poisoned chalice by the time Mary arrived back in Scotland proclaiming herself Queen of the 3 Kingdoms which she herself then Royally fucked up  .Her grandson and great-grandson then turned out to be religious zealots - one who started a serious of civil wars that ended with him being a head shorter because he didn't like how his subjects north of Wall #1 ( Hadrian's Wall is the famous one - Antonine's Wall the less famous stretched from the Clyde to the Forth ) prayed ,and his son who simply cut the ears off of people who went to convecticles .And her last male line descendants ended up living in exile on the charity of the Kings of France and then the Popes .

By the way it's Mary Queen of Scots ( Scotts is brand of porridge oats)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Crazy Dany was probably not crazy but as others have said had drank her own kool aid and sunk into zealotry . The closest example to her is probably not a Hitler or Stalin but Maximilien Robespierre who started out with reasonable intentions but ended up with his views on virtue and that only he knew what that was (see Dany and Jon and her view on what is good and only she gets to decide ) while he ordered the deaths of thousands of people who didn't stack up .

[Nashville]

1 hour ago, Humbugged said:

By the way it's Mary Queen of Scots ( Scotts is brand of porridge oats)

By the same same token I have to keep telling folks my ancestors were Scots-Irish, not Scotch-Irish; Scots is (partly) who we are, Scotch is what we drink. 😉 

1 hour ago, Humbugged said:

Crazy Dany was probably not crazy but as others have said had drank her own kool aid and sunk into zealotry . The closest example to her is probably not a Hitler or Stalin but Maximilien Robespierre who started out with reasonable intentions but ended up with his views on virtue and that only he knew what that was (see Dany and Jon and her view on what is good and only she gets to decide ) while he ordered the deaths of thousands of people who didn't stack up .

Dany’s version: “You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found - extra crispy.”

[Humbugged]

8 hours ago, Nashville said:

By the same same token I have to keep telling folks my ancestors were Scots-Irish, not Scotch-Irish; Scots is (partly) who we are, Scotch is what we drink. 😉 

And also what we eat - in the spirit of honesty I say this as I am about to sit down to Scotch Pies for my dinner .

Scots is also the language and even if most people in the US don't know it they probably know 1 poem  written in Lallans (Lowland Scots) and sing it on New Year's Eve ( even if selective editing has changed part of the meaning)

Edited June 18, 2019 by Humbugged

[rmontro]

Over a month later and I'm still angry about the ending.  It's very similar to the ending of the Hunger Games stories, except that in Hunger Games it actually worked.

[Luckylyn]

Foreshadowing is not character development 

There were some traits in Dany that would have made her going bad make sense but the path to get her there didn’t support the outcome.  They rushed when they didn’t have to and twisted things to hit set plot points quickly rather than take the time to build up to it.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Luckylyn

[tabularasa]

I still stand by Dany and hate Jon. Cersei died in arms of Jamie who loved her so much and Dany got killed without talking to her. I literally often in life feel like Dany (minus the dragons, beauty, lineage) so maybe it's why it still hurts. No one but her dragon mourns her. And Jon was her downfall. 

[rmontro]

5 hours ago, tabularasa said:

I still stand by Dany and hate Jon.

I don't hate Jon (I'm pretty close to that emotion with Sansa though).  But I feel like I invested in the Dany character and the storyline betrayed me.  No, it wasn't a surprise - it was heavily foreshadowed.  But I was hoping (against hope, apparently), that they were going to surprise us and take it in a different direction.  But nope, they made her the villain and went with the Mad Queen story. 

It still sickens me, because I feel we were manipulated into rooting for Dany and her dragons, just so they could hit us with some big shock ending that wasn't a shock at all.  They actually went in the most predictable direction, which was extremely lame.

[Callista]

4 hours ago, rmontro said:

I don't hate Jon (I'm pretty close to that emotion with Sansa though).  But I feel like I invested in the Dany character and the storyline betrayed me.  No, it wasn't a surprise - it was heavily foreshadowed.  But I was hoping (against hope, apparently), that they were going to surprise us and take it in a different direction.  But nope, they made her the villain and went with the Mad Queen story. 

It still sickens me, because I feel we were manipulated into rooting for Dany and her dragons, just so they could hit us with some big shock ending that wasn't a shock at all.  They actually went in the most predictable direction, which was extremely lame.

I can't understand why some people think we (those of us who believed in Dany) should have seen the foreshadowing. Dany's character was complex and could have gone either way (good or bad).  Just because she committed violent acts in the past didn't mean she would automatically choose evil in the end, because she also did a lot of good; and that's why we didn't see her acts of violence/vengeance as automatic foreshadowing . After all, a character like Arya was also violent and vengeful for much of her story, yet she chose redemption in the end. So why is it hard for some people to understand that we also believed Dany could choose a better path in the end?

[tabularasa]

12 minutes ago, Callista said:

I can't understand why some people think we (those of us who believed in Dany) should have seen the foreshadowing. Dany's character was complex and could have gone either way (good or bad).  Just because she committed violent acts in the past didn't mean she would automatically choose evil in the end, because she also did a lot of good; and that's why we didn't see her acts of violence/vengeance as automatic foreshadowing . After all, a character like Arya was also violent and vengeful for much of her story, yet she chose redemption in the end. So why is it hard for some people to understand that we also believed Dany could choose a better path in the end?

Exactly this. Characters killed many, enjoyed the act, Arya is a prime example. Suddenly though she goes from revenge list, killing the only thing she knows to being a traveler.

With Dany and her being hellbent on breaking the wheel.. and then we have the council and the bro talk already. I'm sorry but someone might think I'd be prone to violence and depression based on my occasion mood swings. 

[rmontro]

On 7/1/2019 at 3:54 AM, Callista said:

I can't understand why some people think we (those of us who believed in Dany) should have seen the foreshadowing. Dany's character was complex and could have gone either way (good or bad).

Let's face it, all the characters were complex, and all the characters committed both good and bad acts.  So for people to say that Dany's bad turn was inevitable, I don't agree with that at all.  She was presented as a hero, defender of the weak, and freer of slaves at almost all times.

A lot of the foreshadowing was in all the talk about how she didn't want to end up like her father, the Mad King, and the repeated discussions about "every time a Targaryen is born, flip a coin".  But again, that's not character development.  I read Fire and Blood by GRRM, and there is an atrocity on practically every page (and not all committed by Targaryens, even though the book deals with their history).  The point is GRRM's world is a violent and barbaric place, so to hold Dany's actions to a different standard seems disingenuous to me.

Several of the characters committed terrible acts but were granted redemption arcs.  But Dany never got one since Jon Snow killed her first.

What irritates me is when people say that people upset with Dany's turn "weren't paying attention".  Because even though there was foreshadowing, she was overwhelmingly presented as a hero, IMO.  And even though she could be brutal, her actions were usually justified, or no worse than other events that were commonly taking place in Westeros.

Edited July 2, 2019 by rmontro

[slf]

Dany was the defender of the weak and freer of slaves when it benefited her, when it got her what she wanted. She needed to think of herself a certain way - a liberator - rather than acknowledge that she was just a foreign invader, conquering nations for the sole purpose of assembling her own kingdom.

[Umbelina]

On 7/1/2019 at 8:29 PM, rmontro said:

Several of the characters committed terrible acts but were granted redemption arcs.  But Dany never got one since Jon Snow killed her first.

Who were they?  What did they do?  How were they redeemed?

This was mass genocide.  Tywin probably comes closest in the books, but he died a perfect death.

4 hours ago, slf said:

Dany was the defender of the weak and freer of slaves when it benefited her, when it got her what she wanted. She needed to think of herself a certain way - a liberator - rather than acknowledge that she was just a foreign invader, conquering nations for the sole purpose of assembling her own kingdom.

Exactly.