S08.E06: The Iron Throne

[JunebugWA]

14 hours ago, RoberTee said:

I'm just gonna pretend this was the last episode:

"Seeing his Mother dead, Drogon goes on a grieving rage and burns the Throne Room, Jon included. The Iron Throne melts. Suddenly, through the fire, comes Jon Snow, aka Aegon Targaryen, naked (mirroring Daenerys at the end of season 1, reborn from the flames). Drogon, knows "fire cannot kill dragon" so he turns his back on Naked Jon/Aegon, takes Daenerys body and flies away. As he leaves, we see Grey Worm at the door, who just realized what happened. Grey Worm and Naked Jon/Aegon have an epic fight amongst the flames in the Throne Room, and Naked Jon/Aegon ends up killing him, not without giving him a chance to surrender first. A bleeding Naked Jon/Aegon leaves the Throne Room and is assisted by Davos. "What have you done?!", he shouts. Naked Jon/Aegon asks for Arya. She arrives. "I was brought back for a reason... And now my watch has ended." Naked Jon/Aegon dies in Arya's arm, who cries over her brother's body. This scene is intercut with scenes of Ghost, still in Winterfell, howling. Cut to Bran, in the Godswood, hearing Ghost and realizing what happened. He's emotionless. Cut to Sansa, in the Great Hall, sheding a single tear. Cut to the Godswood again but now Bran's chair is empty. The camera lingers on the Old Tree, suggesting that now that the world is safe at last, he officially became the Three Eyed Raven and merged with the tree. Cut again to Arya holding Dead Naked Jon/Aegon, and then Drogon crossing the Narrow Sea, with Daenerys, arriving to Essos." Some time later Tyrion assembles a Council Meeting to decide who will rule the Seven Kingdoms. Since the last Targaryen are dead, so should the Seven Kingdoms, which were united by the Aegon the Conqueror. So it's fit to break them apart after the death of the last Aegon Targaryen. The North will be ruled by Sansa Stark; the Iron Islands will be ruled by Yara Greyjoy; The Westerlands will be ruled by Tyrion Lannister; The Reach will be ruled by Samwell Tarly; the Stormlands will be ruled by Gendry Baratheon; Dorne will be ruled by whomever is there already; and Dragonstone will be given to Davos Seaworth. Arya sails west anyway. Brienne becomes Queensguard to Sansa. The show ends with a raven (is it Bran?) flying over Westeros, watching each Kingdom try to rebuild itself after the horrors of the war. The raven then goes beyond the wall, we see the wildings, Tormund, Ghost... The raven keeps flying north, where there's pretty much nothing more than darkness. As the screen starts fading to black, we see two blue eyes. THE END."

I actually like this ending - you should have been the writer for this last season. Make more sense that what D&D came up with. 

[Lady S.]

3 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I don't think the Dothraki and Unsullied speak the same language.   

I don't think she was speaking the same to both groups, hence why she addressed them separately. 

[ShellsandCheese]

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Traveller519 said:

I think the remaining Night's Watch will be more of a general police force of the far north, as Tyrion says, a place for the bastards and broken things to go.

Well, if that's the case, Bran should have been sent to The Night's Watch and not made King. :) Tyrion's not even trying to make sense anymore, LOL.

[FierceCritter]

21 hours ago, Drogo said:

He was screaming.
"Have you been down there?!  Have you seen?!  CHILDREN, little children, BURNED!"

The way she sounded- either like 1) a realistic leader who had no intention of trying to make everyone happy (and becoming the most popular dead person around in the process- TM Bronn) or 2) a tyrant - lies mainly in the difference between those who liked Daenerys and those who didn't.

I loved Daenerys, and she sounded like a tyrant to me.

"They don't get to choose."

Sealed it for me.

[AnnaL]

On 5/19/2019 at 10:50 PM, dramachick said:

Loved the ending! The Starks finally came out on top! Yay!

I was a little bit worried for Jon, but when they said he was going to the Night's Watch I knew he would be okay because there wasn't any Night's Watch, just free folk living beyond the wall doing their own thing.

I have thought about this for a couple of days. 

We know that Grey Worm and Yara pushed for a fit punishment for Jon, probably they wanted to execute him for killing Daenerys. Sansa had mentioned that there were thousand of northmen outside of the city ready to fight if they touched Jon. So there had to be a concession. I thought what about Tyrion? well, technically he didn't kill Daenerys so it was Jon who needed the harder punishment. 

Jon could have pushed for lenience by proclaiming his birth but I don't think he wanted that. I watched the episode twice and nobody mentioned that Jon was half Targaryen so maybe all parts involved agreed to keep it silent because Jon asked for it. I mean it would make sense. The people of Westeros probably hated Daenerys guts after she torched the city so knowing that Jon was half T would have not gone well. 

The question remains, what about the NW? what is there to watch? I think it was a clever decision made to appease the Unsullied, Dotrakies and Ironborn. I am also positive that Sansa and Bran will figure something out to pardon him, after all they are family. Even with a pardon I think that Jon will stay with the Free Folk but his leadership will benefit them by opening trading routes and organize themselves better. If anything relationships between the North and the FF will be more fluid under Sansa and Jon and that is a win. 

 Yara wasn't there to fight against the NK so she probably thinks the NW still exists, Unsullied and Dotraki do not know any better and once they are back in Essos they are never coming back, it was a very expensive endeavor. Jon will mainly stay up North but IMO he will visit Winterfell quite a bit, if anything just to promote the FF best interest. I am sure if Arya ever visits WF, she would want to see Jon, same with Bran. It is not an ideal situation but it is better than having Jon executed. 

[RoberTee]

Regarding Tyrion not being mentioned in the Archmaester book... I guess it made for a good joke but:

- he was imprisoned by Catelyn Stark, officially starting the war between the North and the Capital;

- he was acting Hand of the King to King Joffrey I;

- he was accused of murdering his King and was found guilty for it, in a trial that started a war between Dorne and the Capital;

- he killed his own father, the Head of one of the greatest Houses in Westeros;

- he was Hand of the Queen to Queen Daenerys I, when she invaded Westeros and burned down King's Landing;

- he was accused of treason and later was the first to elect King Brandon I;

- he was Hand of the King to King Brandon I. 

How in Seven Hells does a book about the History after Robert's death does not mention Tyrion Lannister? Is virtually impossible. It's not like he was a background player, like Littlefinger or Varys, or even Olenna or Jorah Mormont. He was upfront and directly influenced most of the biggest events during this part of Weterosi history. Also he's the last living member of an historical Great House and Lord of Casterly Rock. 

Another proof that D&D go for cheap jokes instead on narrative sense. And no, it wasn't even a good joke. 

[FierceCritter]

20 hours ago, PopTart16 said:

And so is Jon. In my head I've made an ending where Jon and Drogon find each other again.

Oh, I love this idea. Thank you.

[Lady Iris]

41 minutes ago, AnnaL said:

Her dress was awesome.   I am looking for a full shot of it because it just might be my favorite outfit yet, where she is concerned.   Liked the hair too.

I saw an article yest, might've been on Buzzfeed, about her dress. That each Stark family member was represented in someway on it. It was a nice read.

I'm not as wrecked about the ending as a lot of people. It's always sad when a beloved show we've invested years into ends and maybe on not so satisfactory a note. But I liked it.

I don't understand why this final season had to be so jam packed. Maybe if it was spread out over a few more eps it wouldn't have felt so rushed.

When I think about it, Dany did say, quite early on that she'd take what was hers by fire and blood. I thought she was just talking a good game but turns out she really meant it.

I haven't read the books because I refuse to start until they're finished. I really do feel for all the people that have been waiting eons for them but at least there's a chance there for it to all be explained properly and satisfactorily enough. At least.

[Ottis]

37 minutes ago, taanja said:

Her speech was in a language no one there understands! (Besides the Dothraki and Unsullied obviously) Certainly Jon or Ayra and even Tyrion to an extent -- DO NOT speak or understand! We only know what she was blathering about because TPTB helpfully supplied subtitles.
The populous of Kings landing speak the "common tongue" and if anyone was there to listen -- they wouldn't have a clue what she was saying!

That has nothing to do with my point. I mean, none of the characters listening to her speech knows who Hitler is, either. The allusion to Hitler propaganda speeches/rallies was for the viewer, not the characters. The show created a setting that resembled something that existed IRL. My point was that it was no accident.

I really wish the argument over Dany would stop. Her descent into madness was hinted at in season one and shown throughout every season, and the show's mythology more than foreshadowed it. Her arc was the only one that actually made sense, and built on what was done before.  Now, did the shift go downhill fast this season? Sure, and so did everything else. But that's a pacing issue, not a story issue, for Dany. 

All the complaining over Dany masks the real issues with this season, and gives the producers and actors something to shoot down. 

Edited May 21, 2019 by Ottis

[RoberTee]

31 minutes ago, JunebugWA said:

I actually like this ending - you should have been the writer for this last season. Make more sense that what D&D came up with. 

And all it took me to write this outline was 15 minutes and a glass of wine at 3 in the morning. I'm guessing D&D only had 10 minutes... 

[Drogo]

12 minutes ago, RoberTee said:

Regarding Tyrion not being mentioned in the Archmaester book... I guess it made for a good joke but:

13 minutes ago, RoberTee said:

Another proof that D&D go for cheap jokes instead on narrative sense. And no, it wasn't even a good joke. 

I thought it was funny. 

More or less, it tells us that the history books and stories these people have spent their lives studying and repeating for their children are probably all bullshit - the real heroes behind all of the fantastic events remain mostly unknown.

[Bryce Lynch]

7 minutes ago, Drogo said:

I thought it was funny. 

More or less, it tells us that the history books and stories these people have spent their lives studying and repeating for their children are probably all bullshit - the real heroes behind all of the fantastic events remain mostly unknown.

It could have been funny, but it just didn't make sense. 

Besides being Hand of the King to Joffrey during the Battle of Blackwater and Hand of the Queen to Daenerys, he was convicted of assassinating King Joffrey and was known to have murdered Twyin Lannister.

His arrest by Catelyn Stark was also one of the key flashpoints in starting the War of the Five Kings.  

He might have been portrayed as a "twisted demon monkey", but he would definitely be mentioned.  

Edited May 21, 2019 by Bryce Lynch

[ShellsandCheese]

 

 

1

15 minutes ago, Ottis said:

I really wish the argument over Dany would stop. Her descent into madness was hinted at in season one and shown throughout every season, and the show's mythology more than foreshadowed it. Her arc was the only one that actually made sense, and built on what was done before.  Now, did the shift go downhill fast this season? Sure, and so did everything else. But that's a pacing issue, not a story issue, for Dany. 

All the complaining over Dany masks the real issues with this season, and gives the producers and actors something to shoot down. 

Eh. I disagree. Dany's storyline and how it was handled in episodes 2-6 are a huge part of seasons eights issues. Lots of things have been foreshadowed on this show that never came to pass and foreshadowing is not character development. Everything about Dany's storyline this final season was rushed and sloppy.    

Edited May 21, 2019 by ShellsandCheese

[MrWhyt]

3 hours ago, Ottis said:

That has nothing to do with my point. I mean, none of the characters listening to her speech knows who Hitler is, either. The allusion to Hitler propaganda speeches/rallies was for the viewer, not the characters. The show created a setting that resembled something that existed IRL. My point was that it was no accident.

I really wish the argument over Dany would stop. Her descent into madness was hinted at in season one and shown throughout every season, and the show's mythology more than foreshadowed it. Her arc was the only one that actually made sense, and built on what was done before.  Now, did the shift go downhill fast this season? Sure, and so did everything else. But that's a pacing issue, not a story issue, for Dany. 

All the complaining over Dany masks the real issues with this season, and gives the producers and actors something to shoot down. 

I wouldn't even call it madness, it was ruthlessness combined with an unbending belief that she was right.

edited to add:

The pacing is clearly a result of GRRM laying out landmarks and D&D going straight from A to B to C whereas GRRM would wander around a bit, meander to and fro, twirl in place for some time, flit towards C, dart away and finally maybe stepping close to B.

Edited May 21, 2019 by MrWhyt

[Drogo]

5 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Besides being Hand of the King to Joffrey during the Battle of Blackwater and Hand of the Queen to Daenerys, he was convicted of assassinating King Joffrey and was known to have murdered Twyin Lannister.

His arrest by Catelyn Stark was also one of the key flashpoints in starting the War of the Five Kings.  

He might have been portrayed as a "twisted demon monkey", but he would definitely be mentioned.  

Right so its absence means that the history they've all "known" their whole lives is more than likely 100% fictional/bullshit. 

[RoberTee]

10 minutes ago, Drogo said:

I thought it was funny. 

More or less, it tells us that the history books and stories these people have spent their lives studying and repeating for their children are probably all bullshit - the real heroes behind all of the fantastic events remain mostly unknown.

The point is Tyrion was never behind anything. How do you talk about Joffrey's death, a major turn in the story, without mentioning Tyrion? 

Littlefinger, Varys, Jorah, Grey Worm, Davos, Brienne... These are unknown players! Not Tyrion Lannister, the Head of one of the greatest Houses in Westeros and Hand to three different monarchs. 

[Bryce Lynch]

3 minutes ago, MrWhyt said:

I wouldn't even call it madness, it was ruthlessness combined with an unbending belief that she was right.

I think it was either a descent into madness or evil or both.  Based upon her last conversation with Jon, I'd say she was raving mad.  No rational person could believe she was "liberating" innocent people by burning them to ashes. 

They could have written this SO with so much more intelligence and complexity.  If she had done some horrific, but "necessary" to win the Iron Throne, or achieve other objectives, her sanity might be the subject of great debates.  

Say, Cersei had 10,000 women and children in the Red Keep as human shields and Dany torched them all with Cersei, because she didn't believe she could count on winning any other way.  That would be awful, but it was at least be for some arguably rational but morally wrong reason. 

Then, imagine Sansa and the North rebelled against her and she burned every castle in the North along with its inhabitants. That might not necessarily be the work of a mad woman, but of an evil, driven tyrant.  

The torching of the innocent people of KL, AFTER the battle was won, was totally unnecessary and actually made it more difficult for her to achieve her objectives, so I don't think it can be seen as rational evil, but must be viewed as madness.  

[Tyro49]

Bran is actually a figurehead king, which might well be the best thing for Westeros now. The council might well decide they need a secondary group of advisers to keep up with the actual day-to-day running of the kingdoms - perhaps a small parliament of sorts - and what about city and town councils for local affairs? Those might actually be elected?

[Bryce Lynch]

4 minutes ago, Drogo said:

Right so its absence means that the history they've all "known" their whole lives is more than likely 100% fictional/bullshit. 

Meh.  I can see Tyrion's role being distorted (like in Lady Crane's play) but I can't see him being left out.  He murdered the King (as far as history knows) and the Hand of the King.   He's getting mentioned.  

[Uncle JUICE]

4 minutes ago, MrWhyt said:

I wouldn't even call it madness, it was ruthlessness combined with an unbending belief that she was right.

An interesting question the show could have kept us asking all the way until she's murdered in the throne room...if in fact this was competently executed as a story choice. I love this show with all my heart, for real, but we have to look at it warts and all. I just in no way believe they did a good job of foreshadowing her turn, and I think they recognized it, because they put all those quotes about it in the previously on. They asked the previously on to do the work they should have been doing for a while. What foreshadowed her turn to madness so well that we could have seen it coming and still felt like it made sense? 

• Burning the Tarlys? They were traitors and cost her an important ally and leverage, plus were given options to not get burned. People want to quibble over the method of execution, as if the result is any different.
• Burning the khals? They were going to rape her to death. They told her so. 
• The guy in Mereen she let the two dragons burn? She was facing an insurrection.
• Kriz Kraz McHizHaz the Unsullied merchant, who mutilated children and made these psychologically damaged men murder other children for fun? What fate did he deserve? Full payment?
• Imprisoning Xoro Zarandoqsos in Qarth? 

The most insane things she did were all sane sounding advice that turned out to be terrible. For example, it's insane to listen to anyone who said "Whatever you do, don't fly to a teetering King's Landing right away and get them to surrender today with our full army and three full grown dragons." It's insane to listen to someone who says "Let's go grab one of those wights and THAT will convince this queen the threat is for real." It's insane to listen to someone who says "Cersei loves her children, therefore she will surrender." It's bonkers to think "This is an enjoyable pleasure flight" while flying into hostile waters where there could be an ambush. 

[Uncle JUICE]

5 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I think it was either a descent into madness or evil or both.  Based upon her last conversation with Jon, I'd say she was raving mad.  No rational person could believe she was "liberating" innocent people by burning them to ashes. 

They could have written this SO with so much more intelligence and complexity.  If she had done some horrific, but "necessary" to win the Iron Throne, or achieve other objectives, her sanity might be the subject of great debates.  

Say, Cersei had 10,000 women and children in the Red Keep as human shields and Dany torched them all with Cersei, because she didn't believe she could count on winning any other way.  That would be awful, but it was at least be for some arguably rational but morally wrong reason. 

Then, imagine Sansa and the North rebelled against her and she burned every castle in the North along with its inhabitants. That might not necessarily be the work of a mad woman, but of an evil, driven tyrant.  

The torching of the innocent people of KL, AFTER the battle was won, was totally unnecessary and actually made it more difficult for her to achieve her objectives, so I don't think it can be seen as rational evil, but must be viewed as madness.  

I can't like this post enough, but this part alone is worth writing a scene where you could really engage the viewer in this question AND do some of the madness legwork. She could have gotten FURIOUS with the council and said essentially "You're telling me that she has surrounded herself with thousands of innocent women and children and I can't go burn them down? THEY ARE THERE BECAUSE YOU TOLD ME TO WAIT. BECAUSE I FOLLOWED YOUR ADVICE. BECAUSE I DIDN'T TAKE MY DRAGONS THERE ON MY SECOND DAY AND DEMAND SURRENDER. THIS IS YOUR DOING...." awkward silence "And now I have no choice left before me. I've paid a steep price for my own indecision, I take that responsibility now as the queen...and now Cersei will pay as she hears the screams of those she's sworn to protect. She will hear them and see what I do to her castle, her city if I have to. And the last thing she will see is [titles list] sentencing her to burn as have all my enemies before me. MAKE NO MISTAKE: I didn't want a war. YOUR ADVICE AND SCHEMES AND PLANS GAVE ME ONE. And now I will win it."

Ruthless unbowed conviction that she's always been right? Or the cracks in sanity starting to shudder? I admit it's rough, but it's an outline, a 'treatment' that can easily be fleshed out. 

[Cattie]

1 hour ago, Drogo said:

They didn't understand what she said in Dothraki or Valyrian.  They were making assumptions based on her tone and the crowd's response to what she was saying. 

"I can't justify what happened, I won't even try.  But the war is over now."
"Is it?  When you heard her talking to her soldiers, did she sound like someone who's done fighting?"

And they clearly understood when she mentioned Winterfell and Lannisport and rightly concluded she wasn’t talking about making a friendly visit.

[VCRTracking]

The comparison to Lawrence of Arabia makes me understand it better now. The Bells was her "NO PRISONERS!!" moment. The difference though is Lawrence didn't have dragons and he was also effectively dealt with by the leaders of the victorious countries at the end of the war who put him out to pasture.

[Chaos Theory]

 Thinking about it and talking it over with my dad who was a bigger fan then I was the only thing that didn’t really work was the end.  I liked Dany attacking Kings Landing because it makes sense for the character.  Like it or not the character and story was always heading for that ending.  Westeros never needed anyone to break their chains and she was nothing but a tyrant crushing another tyrant.  Innocents be damned.    What I didn’t like  was there  was too clean and easy an ending.  I would keep the show as is up until Dany gives her big “free the world” speech but I would have the Starks and the North take it for the threat it is and gather forces with everyone who fears Dany.   Have the show end with both sides getting ready for a new battle.  Dany on one side. The Starks on the other.   Maybe even have Jon Snow  standing in the middle trying to decide what side he is on. 

Edited May 21, 2019 by Chaos Theory

[Francie]

3 hours ago, Constantinople said:

I don't know where people get this idea that "Breaking the Wheel" means people are free to do whatever they want. Nor does it mean people are free to choose what laws they'll obey, or they're free to ignore or overthrow the government, any more than it means that today. No society has or can operate that way, so I don't know why this expectation has been placed on Daenerys.

The only time Daenerys mentioned breaking the wheel was in the context of the nobility not mistreating the commoners.  That's it. It just means that, ideally, the Pyps of the world won't be exiled to the Wall because they won't give a lord a blow job, and the nobility will think of their subjects as people, not dogs and horses.
 

"I am not a politician. I am a queen."

By "breaking the wheel," Dany meant that she was going to be an autocrat. A benevolent autocrat, but an autocrat, all the same.  She intended on taking a sufficient amount of power away from the highest of the  noble families so that they would not be able to launch an attack against her or otherwise threaten her sovereignty. 

[AnnaL]

On 5/20/2019 at 12:23 PM, TVbitch said:

I feel for those poor folks who have to listen to BRAN give speeches. Pack a lunch people, cuz those will be ungodly slow and monotone. 

So Drogon gets woke and melts the throne. He was fine torching innocents in the streets, but now he's gonna let Jon live and calmly leave. What the fuck was Jon's plan if Drogon went apeshit and started killing everyone? He had none, of course. 

Bran accepting the throne: "Why do you think I came all this way?!" Oh you, how cheeky, but um, if you knew in advance, maybe you could have given everyone a heads up about the massacre. Just saying.

IIRC Bran can't alter the future. He was reminded of that several times by the 3ER when he was in training. He can't change the past or the future, he is a mere observer. He is like the receiver of memories. 

Bran probably knew as one of his visions shows Drogon flying above KL but I doubt he was allowed to intervene and change it. 

I thought his look at Tyrion in WF was weird, suspicious looking but he never said a word to Tyrion about it, he probably knew that Tyrion would be his Hand, but again he is not allowed to interfere or change anything. 

[MJ Frog]

9 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

The comparison to Lawrence of Arabia makes me understand it better now. The Bells was her "NO PRISONERS!!" moment.

Yes, I took it as an illustration of good intentions paving the road to hell. I just didn't buy that she had gotten there yet -- they didn't show us enough of her thought process for me to believe that she would blow everybody up.

[DigitalCount]

Regarding the speech: Jon reacted in very much the way I'd expect someone who doesn't understand the language but hears the tone and a recognizable word or two to react.

[Constantinople]

1 hour ago, RoberTee said:

How in Seven Hells does a book about the History after Robert's death does not mention Tyrion Lannister? Is virtually impossible. It's not like he was a background player, like Littlefinger or Varys, or even Olenna or Jorah Mormont. He was upfront and directly influenced most of the biggest events during this part of Weterosi history.

"Tyrion" even has a prominent part in the Game of Thrones play that Arya watched in Braavos, so much so that "Tyrion" is "credited" with things he didn't do (Ned's execution).

[taanja]

On 5/20/2019 at 12:04 AM, Cheezwiz said:

I could be retconning, but do you think that Drogon understood what he had done on behalf of his mistress was terribly wrong? I

No.

[Constantinople]

20 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

The comparison to Lawrence of Arabia makes me understand it better now. The Bells was her "NO PRISONERS!!" moment. The difference though is Lawrence didn't have dragons and he was also effectively dealt with by the leaders of the victorious countries at the end of the war who put him out to pasture.

That explains a lot

I found the second half of Lawrence of Arabia tedious in the extreme

[Lady S.]

[catrox14]

53 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

d.  No rational person could believe she was "liberating" innocent people by burning them to ashes.  

I didn't have the impression that is what she was saying. She said before she was freeing future generations from Cersei Lannister. She ordered all Lannister loyalists to be executed. She considered the Innocents killed to be Cersei's doing by placing them amongst the soldiers or vice versa. Either way IMO, Dany saw those as a cost  if war. I'm not saying she is right. And I'm not saying that mad her a mad woman either really. She was a ruthless queen bent on winning. I just don't know if that made her insane per se. It could have been a much better look into the dangers of unchecked power if the writers had opted for at least one more episode.

[Bryce Lynch]

4 hours ago, Constantinople said:

"Tyrion" even has a prominent part in the Game of Thrones play that Arya watched in Braavos, so much so that "Tyrion" is "credited" with things he didn't do (Ned's execution).

Right.  If anything, Tyrion's role  as the "twisted demon monkey" would probably be exaggerated.   He not only murdered Joffrey and Tywin (well that one he did) and Ned, he probably tricked Dany into burning innocent people in KL.    

4 hours ago, DigitalCount said:

Regarding the speech: Jon reacted in very much the way I'd expect someone who doesn't understand the language but hears the tone and a recognizable word or two to react.

Yes. I took it that Jon didn't understand the words Dany was saying, but knew they were not good.   

Tyrion probably understood some of it.  But, his Valyrian is a bit nostril.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Bryce Lynch

[iMonrey]

Quote

It meant something.  It's the reason he is still alive and not fried to a crisp by Drogon.  Drogon knew that Jon was a Targ. I don't see anybody else who might have killed Dany and survived facing the dragon.

As many have already noted, Dragons have killed Targaryens before. And not all Targaryens are "the dragon," as evidenced by Visery's death by scalding. My read on that scene was pretty basic. Certainly Drogon was rearing up to destroy what killed Dany and it certainly looked like it was going to be Jon, and then he turned and burned the Iron Throne instead. I didn't think it was all that subtle, really. Drogon understood it was ultimately the Iron Throne that killed Dany. If not for her obsession over getting it, she'd still be alive. "This. This is the reason she's dead."

Fans can, of course, choose to believe Drogon didn't burn Jon because he's a Targaryen but there's no narrative support for this in any of the dialogue. Certainly Jon expected to be burned. 

Quote

. That was just -- say what? The dragons have always been portrayed as big lumbering beasts--instinctual but not especially bright. To assign it motive and logical thought??? Just no. (but the silly dragons are/were the least favorite part of the show for me.)

What makes you say they've always been portrayed as big lumbering beasts? They've always shown a psychic connection to Dany. How else did Drogon even know she'd been killed? When Tyrion unchained two of the dragons in Mereen, didn't they both seem to understand what he was doing? They even lowered their heads so he could unlock their collars. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say Drogon understood Dany better than anyone.

Quote

At this point it doesn’t really matter if Sansa gets knocked up by a particularly well-hung stable boy, and spits out a little bastard nine months later; all Sansa has to do is take a page out of Dany’s playbook a la Gendry, and abracadabra!  - said bastard is now declared by the Queen to be a legitimate Stark, and heir to all the family holdings.

Sansa doesn't strike me as someone who'd have a bastard child (not by choice, anyway). Traditionally, even among the highborn, the children take their father's surname even when their mother is of higher rank. Queen Victoria's children, for example, took their father's name, not hers. The idea that a husband to Sansa would take the Stark name seems overly modern to me even if it's technically possible.

[Bryce Lynch]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

I didn't have the impression that is what she was saying. She said before she was freeing future generations from Cersei Lannister. She ordered all Lannister loyalists to be executed. She considered the Innocents killed to be Cersei's doing by placing them amongst the soldiers or vice versa. Either way IMO, Dany saw those as a cost  if war. I'm not saying she is right. And I'm not saying that mad her a mad woman either really. She was a ruthless queen bent on winning. I just don't know if that made her insane per se. It could have been a much better look into the dangers of unchecked power if the writers had opted for at least one more episode.

But, that was not a rational way to view the innocent women and children.  I could see her ordering all the soldiers who surrendered slaughtered.   That would also be wrong, but at least they had fought against her and she could argue she was sending a message to other soldiers who would defy her.   The innocent children she murdered never defied her.  

[Dame sans merci]

12 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

As many have already noted, Dragons have killed Targaryens before. And not all Targaryens are "the dragon," as evidenced by Visery's death by scalding. My read on that scene was pretty basic. Certainly Drogon was rearing up to destroy what killed Dany and it certainly looked like it was going to be Jon, and then he turned and burned the Iron Throne instead. I didn't think it was all that subtle, really. Drogon understood it was ultimately the Iron Throne that killed Dany. If not for her obsession over getting it, she'd still be alive. "This. This is the reason she's dead."

Fans can, of course, choose to believe Drogon didn't burn Jon because he's a Targaryen but there's no narrative support for this in any of the dialogue. Certainly Jon expected to be burned. 

What makes you say they've always been portrayed as big lumbering beasts? They've always shown a psychic connection to Dany. How else did Drogon even know she'd been killed? When Tyrion unchained two of the dragons in Mereen, didn't they both seem to understand what he was doing? They even lowered their heads so he could unlock their collars. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say Drogon understood Dany better than anyone.

Sansa doesn't strike me as someone who'd have a bastard child (not by choice, anyway). Traditionally, even among the highborn, the children take their father's surname even when their mother is of higher rank. Queen Victoria's children, for example, took their father's name, not hers. The idea that a husband to Sansa would take the Stark name seems overly modern to me even if it's technically possible.

There is precedent in universe for women retaining their own surnames: normally that's related to women who marry into royalty not being part of the succession and retaining their name (eg. Cersei remains a Lannister, Margaery remains a Tyrell), but we also have cases like Tywin's sister Genna who continues to go by Lannister after her marriage, presumably as it's a more notable house than that of her husband (a Frey). That suggests something similar could take place with a man marrying into the Stark family.

But I don't believe we've ever had any firm rules released on this. 

Edited May 21, 2019 by Dame sans merci

[Lady S.]

2 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Sansa doesn't strike me as someone who'd have a bastard child (not by choice, anyway). Traditionally, even among the highborn, the children take their father's surname even when their mother is of higher rank. Queen Victoria's children, for example, took their father's name, not hers. The idea that a husband to Sansa would take the Stark name seems overly modern to me even if it's technically possible.

The exceptions to tradition would be when the wife's house is in danger of dying out and is much more prestigious than the husband's. It's really not as modern as it's being made out to be. The north having its first female ruler would be a much bigger deal than her forefathers' name being allowed to live on with her children.

[RealReality]

4 hours ago, Constantinople said:

I don't know where people get this idea that "Breaking the Wheel" means people are free to do whatever they want. Nor does it mean people are free to choose what laws they'll obey, or they're free to ignore or overthrow the government, any more than it means that today. No society has or can operate that way, so I don't know why this expectation has been placed on Daenerys.

The only time Daenerys mentioned breaking the wheel was in the context of the nobility not mistreating the commoners.  That's it. It just means that, ideally, the Pyps of the world won't be exiled to the Wall because they won't give a lord a blow job, and the nobility will think of their subjects as people, not dogs and horses.
 

I don't think anyone would say that breaking the wheel means you can do whatever you want because you never can, even in our modern society.  I don't see where anyone placed this expectation on Dany, but the fact is that SHE sold herself as a different type of ruler that would break the wheel.

It's on HER to define what that means and how she is going to do it.  Thus far, for the people of Kings Landing it's meant being even worse off than they were under cersei.  And one of the most absurd things anyone in charge can do is paint themselves as something revolutionary and different.....and have no exact idea of what that means besides being able to burn people alive cause you gots a fancy dragon.

Something revolutionary might have been what Sam had come up with.  But all Dany seemed to have was more of what cersei was selling....follow my rules, which I alone have the power to determine, bend the knee, stay out of my way and maybe I don't burn you alive.....maybe.

Edited May 21, 2019 by RealReality

[proserpina65]

2 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

doubt that was the intent of the idiot writers. 

I think that was exactly their intent.  And I don't think the writers were idiots.  I found most of this season worked just fine.

2 hours ago, ShellsandCheese said:

Well, if that's the case, Bran should have been sent to The Night's Watch and not made King. :) Tyrion's not even trying to make sense anymore, LOL.

I think he was referring to Jon as a broken thing, because he's not a bastard.

[HunterHunted]

1 hour ago, Drogo said:

I thought it was funny. 

More or less, it tells us that the history books and stories these people have spent their lives studying and repeating for their children are probably all bullshit - the real heroes behind all of the fantastic events remain mostly unknown.

It's the apotheosis of one of Martin's themes--you can't trust the official story or the history books. And this has been the theme since the first episode when Robert went to the crypt in Winterfell to lament the rape and murder of his beloved Lyanna to which Ned gives a sheepish look. Lyanna wasn't kidnapped. She wasn't raped. She wasn't murdered. And she never loved Robert.

We see this theme reiterated again when Brienne updates Jaime's page in the White Book. She was far kinder than he deserved and shaded it in a way that treated Jaime most favorably.

[RealReality]

5 hours ago, Constantinople said:

I can understand why a ruler of the Seven Kingdoms wouldn't want to grant independence to the North because then all of the other kingdoms should be clamoring for it too.

But once the North is independent, I'm not sure why they'd want the North back. I'm not sure what it has to offer despite being as large as the other 6 kingdoms put together. I don't recall the show having any natural resources of particular value or that weren't available in the South, nor is it a heavily populated area.

They could want the north back simply to discourage thoughts of independence among the other six kingdoms.  Or to make absolutely sure that the north wouldn't mount a campaign against any of the other kingdoms. 

Or maybe the north has some natural resource no one has needed up until a new ruler takes over and they decide they don't want to trade with the north but would rather just take it back.

Or some leader just decides that he'd prefer seven kingdoms to six.

Sansa has some breathing room because bran is on the throne.  But she can't know about the next guy...though 3ER may live a long long time, I don't know.  

[Drogo]

59 minutes ago, HunterHunted said:

Robert went to the crypt in Winterfell to lament the rape and murder of his beloved Lyanna to which Ned gives a sheepish look. Lyanna wasn't kidnapped. She wasn't raped. She wasn't murdered.

Speaking of...

Watch Baelish's face when Sansa says Lyanna was kidnapped and raped.

Maybe I'm crazy, but he seems to have known more than he let on.

[Constantinople]

50 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Sansa doesn't strike me as someone who'd have a bastard child (not by choice, anyway). Traditionally, even among the highborn, the children take their father's surname even when their mother is of higher rank. Queen Victoria's children, for example, took their father's name, not hers. The idea that a husband to Sansa would take the Stark name seems overly modern to me even if it's technically possible.

The Austrian Habsburgs did it in the 18th century when there were no more male heirs.

The current Dukes of Northumberland did it.  Their original name was Smithson, but changed it to Percy when the 1st Duke of Northumberland (3rd creation) married the Baroness Percy in 1740 (Percy being and old noble family from Northern England that dated back to the Middle Ages)

I'm sure there are other examples

[sistermagpie]

5 hours ago, Drogo said:

Exactly.  And not just in GOT society: we're free but there are laws and law enforcement officers that keep us in line and ensure the strong aren't taking advantage of the weak. 

Lighting up the whole city is still a hard sell, but her general "Follow the rules or get fucked" philosophy doesn't make her a tyrant; it makes her a ruler. 

It heard Bran the Broken was the new king and sailed off with the Dothraki.  Poison water be damned.

3 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

There was a hierarchy in Westeros that Dany did not invent, and that had existed for thousands of years.  There were Great Lords who bent the knee to Kings and Queens, Lords who bent the knee to Great Lords, Kings and Queens and commoners who bent the knee to their Lords, the Great Lords and the Kings and Queens.  

Of course Dany claimed she wanted to break that wheel, though, it was never quite clear what that meant.   

1 hour ago, Francie said:

"I am not a politician. I am a queen."

By "breaking the wheel," Dany meant that she was going to be an autocrat. A benevolent autocrat, but an autocrat, all the same.  She intended on taking a sufficient amount of power away from the highest of the  noble families so that they would not be able to launch an attack against her or otherwise threaten her sovereignty. 

This last quote is exactly how I understood it. She was getting rid of the petty tyrants so that she alone would rule, and that was freedom because she knew what was good for the people and so it would be good. It seems like a really common temptation for people in power. Like every cop show on US TV seems to have police that are frustrated by laws and we're supposed to cheer when they start beating people up and torturing them and otherwise trampling on their civil rights because the cop knows what's right. 

Dany's view is similar. Families like the Starks would just get in the way of the good she was trying to do, good that the people would of course welcome because it's best for them. 

Plus, conquering was her thing. In the past she never had to stop because the IT was her alleged goal, but every conquering high led to the feeling she was invincible and should conquer more.

56 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Sansa doesn't strike me as someone who'd have a bastard child (not by choice, anyway). Traditionally, even among the highborn, the children take their father's surname even when their mother is of higher rank. Queen Victoria's children, for example, took their father's name, not hers. The idea that a husband to Sansa would take the Stark name seems overly modern to me even if it's technically possible.

I agree with others that it's not really that modern. There have been times in history where it's been done and this is definitely, imo, a time when it would be. Iirc, the book Cecelia by Frances Burney has a whole plot thing that depends on the heroine's father having made it a provision of her inheritance that her husband has to take her last name, which was a trend at the time.

Re: Dany's speech, I was thinking that not only would most people not understand what she was saying they also wouldn't hear it since she was just one umiked person shouting over a great distance.

[enoughcats]

2 hours ago, MrWhyt said:

if the destruction of KL (and we don't even know how much was destroyed)

We did see the dragon, off in the distance, following the grid pattern of the streets methodically, as if he were a Google earth photo taker being pulled behind a non-descript car.

[Law Mom]

People keep saying that Dany’s extermination of innocent people and soldiers who had surrendered happened after the war had ended and that this is what makes her evil or a tyrant. I say it makes her mad because in her mind the battle had not ended at all. These people were still the enemy because they allowed themselves to be ruled by Cersei. They should have deposed her, you see. The fact they just let themselves live under Cersei’s thumb makes them complicit in her oppression, and therefore they are just as bad as the oppressor--and deserve to die. It’s a victim-blaming mentality and completely irrational to a normal person, but it makes sense in Dany’s delusional mind. I believe that had she returned to Essos, when she came across a slave town, she would just eliminate it. No masters, no slaves, no slave mentality. Just goodness.

[VCRTracking]

[UNOSEZ]

4 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

LOL!  If Bronn got Highgarden for merely not killing the Hand, how much should Meera be owed for dragging Bran around and protecting him all those years?  She should at least get The Twins.  

Meera is gonna peace out... Get on a boat and somehow bump into Arya 

[OldButHappy]

2 hours ago, FierceCritter said:

23 hours ago, PopTart16 said:

And so is Jon. In my head I've made an ending where Jon and Drogon find each other again.

Oh, I love this idea. Thank you.

My favorite ending was invented by the man on the Nerdest podcast:

Drogo finds Dany dead with Jon; Jon walks to the throne, sits, and commands Drogo:

“Dracarys”

Poof.