"Non book readers" - Season 8 Episode 5 "The bells" - Spoilers post 2 forward

Foxtrol

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

When she made those comments about returning cities to dirt, she was still at war with her enemies.

Her quote trying to get into Qarth - "When my dragons are grown, we will take back what was stolen from me and destroy those who have wronged me. We will lay waste to armies and burn cities to the ground."

When the merchants in Qarth won't give her ships, she says "I am Daenerys Stormborn of the blood of old Valyria and I will take what is mine, with fire and blood I will take it."

That isn’t war, that’s someone who is power hungry and can’t deal with not getting her way.

When she crucified the masters, she was still at war with her enemies.

Without trial, she indiscriminately crucified 163 men due to their social standing after she’d won the battle for the city because she was vengeful about what some masters did to the slaves.

Both would involve - or did involve - collateral damage, but they weren't killing and destruction for the sake of killing and destruction. Nothing, up to this point, was killing for the sake of it.

When she goes genocidal in E05, the entirely one-sided battle's already won.

She methodically torches the defences, Golden Company, Iron Fleet and a good portion of the Lannister forces effortlessly.

The Lannisters are so terrified they throw down their weapons rather than fight for what they recognise as a hopeless cause, and the entire civilian populace is fleeing in disorganised terror as the city falls into utter chaos.

I think she already had the 'fear' angle nailed down just fine.

Not to mention, the way it's portrayed in the show is clear as day not a calculated, rational thought out course of action.

Only when the bells ring incessently, does she see red and it's etched on her face, with perfect clarity, that she's totally lost the plot.

We’ll see how the last episode plays out. I’d hope there is some method to her madness, like what her comments in this episode point to, but it isn’t like she hasn’t been showed to have a terrible temper before so a fit of rage would also fit what she has showed us throughout the seasons.

The_Honeybadger

Foxtrol wrote: »

Do they sing the Rains of Castamere because they just burned their army and defenses? For all her dragons did so far it didn’t make the Lannisters, Greyjoys, the Iron Bank, or all the other enemies she made in Essos fear Dany, even when she was backed by a massive army.



The main weak writing point to me is how much flagging they did that she was going to burn the city and it still wasn’t enough for some.

She had the throne at that point, but she wanted to keep it. Call it silly but, as someone that thinks she should have stopped, I’ll ask again how does her maintaining the crown and ruling look like if she stopped when they rang the bell?

I think where we differ is in the definition of ‘burn the city’. Taking the city and wiping out your enemy by brutally burning them alive and being comfortable with all the collateral damage that comes with that is ‘burning the city’ in my eyes.

What you are saying is that she was sending a message to her remaining subjects and all who may oppose her by coldly wiping out the innocent civilian population as well. I’m not sure they built that up enough in Dany for it to be credible in the context of her character across the lifetime of the show to be honest, and I know it’s a fantasy adventure series. You think they did and it was logical.

I’ll leave it there and I’m happy to differ.

snotboogie

osarusan wrote: »

That was the bad guys killing the good guys...brutal, but you know they will pay for it in the end. They're already the bad guys.

This time it's the good guys, but it makes them a bit less good somehow, as no matter how vicious Cersei is, what's inside her isn't.

I always thought that her being pregnant was going to stop her from getting murdered by somebody, and so wondered how she would die.

There is no bad guys or good guys, from Danny’s perspective she has come to Westeros and has sacrificed one of her children, half of her armies along with her best friend and advisor to save the continent. Cersi first betrays her by not showing up to the battle she promised. Danny then finds out that her claim to the throne is threatened by her new Westerosi lover, who the people love and who can’t keep his claim a secret. Then Cersi kills her second child and kidnaps her next closest friend and advisor. Still Danny comes back to the negotiating table, only to be embarrassed and disrespected in the ultimate way. Then she catches one of her last remaining advisors conspiring against her before she even takes the throne. She has no allies left other than her armies and her dragon. If she stopped when the bells rang, she would be eaten up by Westerosi politics, the players of whom would see her as a soft, politically weak, illegitimate, foreign ruler. She did what she did partially because she was pushed right to the edge by Cersi and partially to establish the fear to rule over the rest of the continent. This isn’t a modern political drama, this show is set in a medieval like world where this sort of behavior won empires. The Mongols conquered most of the word by razing cities and leaving a similar outcome to what we saw in Kings Landing. While this isn’t the greatest story telling of all time, Danny’s actions are logical.

namloc1980

No matter how much people try to say it was foreshadowed laying waste to the entire city and torching its inhabitants after the battle was won and the city surrendered and soldiers layed down their arms, was not at all credible to the extent she did it.

TerrorFirmer

That's literally what collateral damage is. Innocent people being caught up in the destruction of one's enemies. It makes Daenery's ruthless and cold, but not mad. Cersei Lannister did the exact same thing - she blew up hundreds upon hundreds of innocent people in the Sept just to eliminate her enemies, but there was a logic to it, it wasn't killing for the sake of killing.

It still doesn't tally with Daenerys suddenly deciding to reduce Kings Landing to rubble and murder as many of its one million inhabitants as she can after the city has already surrendered and is paralyzed with fear of her dragon.

Her enemies are already decisively defeated. Kings Landing is the capital and seat of the Iron Throne. By razing the city and murdering it's inhabitants, she's effectively signed her own death warrant and ensured she will never, ever be accepted as any kind of leader without herself becoming a tyrant....and even then her reign would lean completely on one dragon. Not very tenable.

You could argue that she cracks knowing that Westeros will only accept Jon Snow as the legitimate heir and will never view her as the 'savior' she considered herself for so long, and thus decides to cement power through pure terror, convinced she's still doing so for the 'greater good' (as alluded to the comments she made to Jon...suspiciously Hitler/Stalin-esque).

Which might have been credible if we had a 10 episode season charting her gradual descent into unhinged madness and desperation, cleverly and intricately crafted over that time, but we don't, and as it is it just doesn't really work and isn't very convincing.

J. Marston

Meaningless really but I wonder what the actual death toll is.

The_Honeybadger

snotboogie wrote: »

There is no bad guys or good guys, from Danny’s perspective she has come to Westeros and has sacrificed one of her children, half of her armies along with her best friend and advisor to save the continent. Cersi first betrays her by not showing up to the battle she promised. Danny then finds out that her claim to the throne is threatened by her new Westerosi lover, who the people love and who can’t keep his claim a secret. Then Cersi kills her second child and kidnaps her next closest friend and advisor. Still Danny comes back to the negotiating table, only to be embarrassed and disrespected in the ultimate way. Then she catches one of her last remaining advisors conspiring against her before she even takes the throne. She has no allies left other than her armies and her dragon. If she stopped when the bells rang, she would be eaten up by Westerosi politics, the players of whom would see her as a soft, politically weak, illegitimate, foreign ruler. She did what she did partially because she was pushed right to the edge by Cersi and partially to establish the fear to rule over the rest of the continent. This isn’t a modern political drama, this show is set in a medieval like world where this sort of behavior won empires. The Mongols conquered most of the word by razing cities and leaving a similar outcome to what we saw in Kings Landing. While this isn’t the greatest story telling of all time, Danny’s actions are logical.

The mongols were a brutal regime taking new territories, not done in civil war involving their own people who incidentally were not resisting. Not comparable.

Virtually all her political enemies were already dead and the remnants of that system could be easily eradicated giving her total power.

What she did made no sense, she should have been elated to have taken the city so easily. The simple explanation was it was done for tv to throw a huge plot twist in there leading in to the final episode. There doesn’t need to be some complex psychological or political explanation for it, it’s a tv show.

Mokuba

Foxtrol wrote: »

Her quote trying to get into Qarth - "When my dragons are grown, we will take back what was stolen from me and destroy those who have wronged me. We will lay waste to armies and burn cities to the ground."

When the merchants in Qarth won't give her ships, she says "I am Daenerys Stormborn of the blood of old Valyria and I will take what is mine, with fire and blood I will take it."

That isn’t war, that’s someone who is power hungry and can’t deal with not getting her way.

Without trial, she indiscriminately crucified 163 men due to their social standing after she’d won the battle for the city because she was vengeful about what some masters did to the slaves.

We’ll see how the last episode plays out. I’d hope there is some method to her madness, like what her comments in this episode point to, but it isn’t like she hasn’t been showed to have a terrible temper before so a fit of rage would also fit what she has showed us throughout the seasons.

This post is cherrypicked nonsense, similar to how people used the retconning of Melisandre and Arya in Season 3 to justify how it was all planned.

because she was vengeful about what some masters did to the slaves.

The way you word it, it's like they were mean to the slaves. They crucified the same amount of slaves! She asked the slaves to point out their oppressors and they did. A common theme in her arc has been the protection of slaves and the punishing of those responsible. She has used the same methods that the slavers used against the slaves and this is presented as a justified taste of their own medicine. While Barristan advised against it and Hizdahr claimed his father was innocent, it certainly wasn't dwelt upon and the masters were immediately painted as an evil threat killing innocents through the Sons of the Harpy. A terrorist organisation. Later the same masters went back on their promise to abolish slavery and attacked Dany and her people.

You still cannot give me one example of where they telegraphed them killing innocents because she did not kill any innocents. And if you say the Tarly's - She was at war. They were generals in her enemies army and refused to bend the knee. They refused to go to the wall. So she killed them. The same as literally any other ruler would have done.

• Jon Snow killed Janos for disobeying an order! - See he is crazy it was foreshadowed!
• Ned Stark killed a Nights Watch deserter who was telling the truth and refused to listen to him! Crazy!
• Arya Stark killed an innocent stableboy and an innocent sick girl - Crazy!

namloc1980

J. Marston wrote: »

Meaningless really but I wonder what the actual death toll is.

Pretty sure it was mentioned by Jaime that the city population was around 500,000.

how come the dragon got all super-powered with its flame in this episode - basically exploding buildings all over the shop.

Paddy Cow

Foxtrol wrote: »

In the world of GoT, how is taking out defences and rendering her enemy helpless instilling fear? You’re dealing with the likes of the Lannisters and what they did in the Rains of Castamere, what Robert and friends did to her family, or how her own family conquered and ruled.

What Tywin did was just as bad. He didn't just kill his enemy, he took out everyone and they constantly played that stupid song to remind everyone for generations.

Foxtrol

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

I think where we differ is in the definition of ‘burn the city’. Taking the city and wiping out your enemy by brutally burning them alive and being comfortable with all the collateral damage that comes with that is ‘burning the city’ in my eyes.

What you are saying is that she was sending a message to her remaining subjects and all who may oppose her by coldly wiping out the innocent civilian population as well. I’m not sure they built that up enough in Dany for it to be credible in the context of her character across the lifetime of the show to be honest, and I know it’s a fantasy adventure series. You think they did and it was logical.

I’ll leave it there and I’m happy to differ.

That's fair enough, though I would have liked to see you backing yourself up on an attempt to clarify how you felt Dany could have maintained the throne if she stopped when the bells rang.

Paddy Cow

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

The signposting that she has a tendenacy to be cruel, merciless and increasingly willing in the later seasons to accept massive collateral damage?

........

Another victim of this rushed season.

Dany was always going to go full Targaryen. The only victim was the plot, which was rushed. If we'd had a few more episodes to see her descent into madness, the end result would've been the same. I initially liked Dany but grew to dislike her because of her sense of entitlement over the throne and desire to get it at any cost. I've had my criticisms of this series but her becoming the Mad Queen didn't surprise me. I'm more annoyed at Tyrion and Jon becoming fools who blindly followed her because "she is my Queen" :rolleyes:

Foxtrol

Paddy Cow wrote: »

What Tywin did was just as bad. He didn't just kill his enemy, he took out everyone and they constantly played that stupid song to remind everyone for generations.

That's my point, people are saying destroying Cersei's defences and the Golden Company should have been enough to elicit enough fear to rule when you look at their history it isn't anything in the GoT world.

The_Honeybadger

Foxtrol wrote: »

That's fair enough, though I would have liked to see you backing yourself up on an attempt to clarify how you felt Dany could have maintained the throne if she stopped when the bells rang.

Why wouldn’t she maintain it? She still had her army, her dragon, and all her political challengers are dead? The only person with a better claim has no interest in it, and incidentally in all likelihood will now kill her due to her actions.

What would you like me to clarify?

snotboogie

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

The mongols were a brutal regime taking new territories, not done in civil war involving their own people who incidentally were not resisting. Not comparable.

Virtually all her political enemies were already dead and the remnants of that system could be easily eradicated giving her total power.

What she did made no sense, she should have been elated to have taken the city so easily. The simple explanation was it was done for tv to throw a huge plot twist in there leading in to the final episode. There doesn’t need to be some complex psychological or political explanation for it, it’s a tv show.

Most of Danny’s army is foreign. She grew up abroad, she is not ethnically Westerosi. It’s not a classic civil war. Besides in the Khans wars with China much of their army were Chinese and their leaders were born and raised in China. The Mongols raized many a city in Western China because of the perceived treachery of their leaders.

Danny would have needed to work with the political establishment of Kings Landing and the seven kingdoms to get anything done after she took the city. The establishment would not have been wiped out bar a few at the very top. She would have needed to play the Westerosi political game from a weak position, with no allies she can trust and against support for a local legitimate formidable rival.

is_that_so

snotboogie wrote: »

Danny would have needed to work with the political establishment of Kings Landing and the seven kingdoms to get anything done after she took the city. The establishment would not have been wiped out bar a few at the very top. She would have needed to play the Westerosi political game from a weak position, with no allies she can trust and against support for a local legitimate formidable rival.

Her position wasn't weak and she had a whole stack of allies but seemed to imagine she didn't. It is weakened now by her choices and could be terminal.

Paddy Cow

Foxtrol wrote: »

That's fair enough, though I would have liked to see you backing yourself up on an attempt to clarify how you felt Dany could have maintained the throne if she stopped when the bells rang.

Dany herself never had any plan. She was fixated on getting the throne and that was it. Tyrion tried to bring up succession in season 7 and she was having none of it. She knew she couldn't have children so what was the point of her taking the throne, only for her line to die anyway?

I think her madness started when she found out the usurper Robert Baratheon tried to assassinate her and Drogo promised to take the thone. Before that she always thought Viserys was the one to take it but with his death she found a passion for power. After she lost her child and Drogo, taking the throne was the force that drove her. She tried to convince herself and others that she was coming to Westeros to free the people but once she got there she realised it wasn't like Essos. People weren't enslaved and didn't really give a sh!t who was on the throne. Jorah had tried to warn her of this but she wouldn't listen.

After saving the North, she thought they would love her, much like they did in Essos when she freed cities but people gravitated towards Jon, her new found rival. She tried to win favour by legitimising Gendry but again, no one really cared. By the time everything went down in KL with Missandei, Varys plotting against her and in her eyes, Jon betraying her, she was like "**** the lot of them, I'll show them who's boss". And she did.

And her obsession with having people love her, is a sign of a narcissist. Jon never wanted to be loved. When he was Lord Commander he made choices that he knew people wouldn't like but he did it for the greater good. Dany thought she could swoop in and "save" people and then they would have undying gratitude. Anyone fit for power and ruling knows that's not how it works. Tyrion saved KL but knew the people would never know or "love" him. Dany's approach to ruling has been off from the start and a reflection of her state of mind.

The_Honeybadger

snotboogie wrote: »

Most of Danny’s army is foreign. She grew up abroad, she is not ethnically Westerosi. It’s not a classic civil war. Besides in the Khans wars with China much of their army were Chinese and their leaders were born and raised in China. The Mongols raized many a city in Western China because of the perceived treachery of their leaders.

Danny would have needed to work with the political establishment of Kings Landing and the seven kingdoms to get anything done after she took the city. The establishment would not have been wiped out bar a few at the very top. She would have needed to play the Westerosi political game from a weak position, with no allies she can trust and against support for a local legitimate formidable rival.

Ah come off it her people were royalty in Westeros and she had a legitimate claim to the throne. You’re clutching at straws there.

Was the political establishment not the council, virtually all of whom were now dead? As we didn’t really get an insight in to what replaced them I’m assuming Cersei was controlling everything towards the end. Also now dead. She could have easily put her own people in charge and if she was going to be the righteous leader she aspired to be she would soon have a content people with no cause to rebel.

Paddy Cow

One other thing. There was an episode where Joffrey threw a tantrum and Tywin send him to bed and then said to Tyrion "any man who has to say, I am the King, is no true King". How many times has Dany said "I am the Queen", as if that's enough to get people to trust, respect and accept her?

J. Marston

namloc1980 wrote: »

Pretty sure it was mentioned by Jaime that the city population was around 500,000.

That was 20 years ago though. Tyrion says there's a million people in King's Landing now. I'm wondering how many out of a million perished.

ziedth

Paddy Cow wrote: »

One other thing. There was an episode where Joffrey threw a tantrum and Tywin send him to bed and then said to Tyrion "any man who has to say, I am the King, is no true King". How many times has Dany said "I am the Queen", as if that's enough to get people to trust, respect and accept her?

That's actually a very good point

Nalz

glasso wrote: »

how come the dragon got all super-powered with its flame in this episode - basically exploding buildings all over the shop.

Shīt writing, that's how

threeball

Another episode that was all over the place. Yes a decent spectacle in a one off viewing but given all that went before it was rubbish.

Jamie kills mad king to save millions dying. Goes north to fight for the living leaving Cersei and his unborn child behind, yet decides he never really cared for the people in this episode.

In the battle of winterfell they had two dragons and faced 100,000 Wights yet only took out about 10,000 despite ample opportunity. Down in kingslanding Dany wipes out and entire city and 1,000,000 people in less than 20mins.

The Golden company may as well have been the Bubba Gump company for all the use they were.

Cersei stands staring out the red keep window yet it's the last place Dany attacks.

The only thing it did well was to leave the cliff hanger of who kills Dany in the next episode, Jon, Tyrion or Arya. Arya has her big kill so it's most likely Jon. Tyrion will be in her sights for releasing Jamie.

Foxtrol

Mokuba wrote: »

This post is cherrypicked nonsense, similar to how people used the retconning of Melisandre and Arya in Season 3 to justify how it was all planned.

People are saying it is out of character for Dany and then pointing to a few of the many situations where Dany has been barbaric or previously threatened to do exactly what she followed through on in this episode is cherrypicking?

The way you word it, it's like they were mean to the slaves. They crucified the same amount of slaves! She asked the slaves to point out their oppressors and they did. A common theme in her arc has been the protection of slaves and the punishing of those responsible. She has used the same methods that the slavers used against the slaves and this is presented as a justified taste of their own medicine. While Barristan advised against it and Hizdahr claimed his father was innocent, it certainly wasn't dwelt upon and the masters were immediately painted as an evil threat killing innocents through the Sons of the Harpy. A terrorist organisation. Later the same masters went back on their promise to abolish slavery and attacked Dany and her people.

That was the whole misdirection. We saw things from her perspective and just accepted the barbaric things she did because the show presented the people as 'deserving it'. Even when issues with her actions, like the ones you noted, were raised we shrugged them off like Dany did.

You still cannot give me one example of where they telegraphed them killing innocents because she did not kill any innocents.

Sure my examples, a few of many, of her stating she was going to do exactly what she did in KL isn't telegraphed enough? Did you think she was all talk? You must have seen her as a very weak character, so full of pathetic bluster. I'm sure when she said she'd 'burn their cities to the ground' she really meant 'burn their defenses and part of their army'.

I think the key here who you deem as 'innocents' and that you believe that is what was driving her. Personally I'm not pro crucifying, feeding to dragons, burning anyone without some form of trial, not just because they're from a certain social standing or won't follow me.

And if you say the Tarly's - She was at war. They were generals in her enemies army and refused to bend the knee. They refused to go to the wall. So she killed them. The same as literally any other ruler would have done.

Literally, really? If you want one ruler then Sam clearly says Jon wouldn't and I don't see any evidence to the contrary.

It seems pretty clear that general practice in Westeros is to hold surrendered family members of the great houses hostage until they come to an agreement or the war ends. Can you point to all the summary executions we've seen minutes after surrender for any reason, ignoring asking them to change sides? You've got Stannis to Mance (who isn't a member of a great house) and even he gave Mance some time in a cell to think it over.

• Jon Snow killed Janos for disobeying an order! - See he is crazy it was foreshadowed!
• Ned Stark killed a Nights Watch deserter who was telling the truth and refused to listen to him! Crazy!
• Arya Stark killed an innocent stableboy and an innocent sick girl - Crazy!

Maybe ease up on the beer/caffeine there.

NuMarvel

threeball wrote: »

Jamie kills mad king to save millions dying. Goes north to fight for the living leaving Cersei and his unborn child behind, yet decides he never really cared for the people in this episode.

In between these acts, he pushes a 10 year old to what he'd hoped would be the child's death and butchers Ned Stark's men. And that's just Season 1.

Jaime is not the altruistic golden boy some people are making him out to be.

threeball

NuMarvel wrote: »

In between these acts, he pushes a 10 year old to what he'd hoped would be the child's death and butchers Ned Stark's men. And that's just Season 1.

Jaime is not the altruistic golden boy some people are making him out to be.

That doesn't change the fact he defended the people on more than one occassion but like most people when push comes to shove he put himself first.

Foxtrol

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

Why wouldn’t she maintain it? She still had her army, her dragon, and all her political challengers are dead? The only person with a better claim has no interest in it, and incidentally in all likelihood will now kill her due to her actions.

What would you like me to clarify?

Because pretty much all she has left is a dragon.The army loyal to her is basically gone, her allied houses are dead aside from a handful of ship, her advisers are dead or she feels betrayed her, she doesn't even have the best claim to the throne and that word is out, her chance to marry Jon looks gone (and he betrayed her in her eyes), Jon's family looks to have it out for her and want independence for the North, the people see her as a foreign invader and prefer Jon and even Cersei over her.

Every city she touched in Essos turned into a complete disaster despite having no clear political challengers, even more so when she left each of them, and those where cities who the majority treated her like a saviour and she had an army of unsullied supported by the second sons.

Getting the bell to ring didn't mean she had 'won' and definitely didn't mean she had any power to keep it.

Paddy Cow

OneEyedORourke wrote: »

I would have preferred if Cersei had a more gruesome death - but I suppose there are only so many ways they could kill a pregnant woman that would be deemed acceptable.

Cersei's death was not how I expected it ..... as this is a non book readers thread I'm going to spoiler tag the rest because it pertains to the books.

In the books, part of the prophecy Cersei heard from the witch as a child, was that she would die in tears with the hands of the Valonqar around her neck (this was left out of the show). Valonqar means "little brother" so Cersei took that to mean Tyrion would try to strangle her, which is another reason for her to hate him. As the series went on, people started to believe that it was Jamie that would kill her.

I was convinced last week that was why Jamie was so desperate to get to Cersei - he could see how hateful she was and wanted to put a stop to the war. For me, Jamie killing Cersei would've completed his redemption arc and at first I was so confused when he comforted her and declared his love. It seemed so unfair that such a hateful b!tch got to die in the arms of her lover. I thought that if Jamie didn't kill her then she should've been captured, tortured and brutally killed for all the pain and suffering she brought on the world. Or at least died broken and alone in the Red Keep.

On reflection I realise I was wrong. For one thing, as someone else pointed out, she was pregnant with his child so why would he kill her? Looking back at his story, everything he has done, has been to get back to Cersei. He was never going to have a happy ever after with Brienne. I never saw the two of them as lovers and I think he only slept with her so that she was no longer a virgin.

Cersei died as prophesied, just not the way we predicted. We thought her little brother would be strangling her. Instead he had his hands around her neck so that he could look into her crying eyes and comfort her and they both died together. It was the one time the show subverted expectations and got it right. Their death was more about Jamie than Cersei, who was going to die anyways. The audience wanted Jamie to be a good person but he knew what he was. When he said to Brienne "Cersei is hateful and so am I", he might as well have broken the fourth wall.

Him choosing to die with Cersei is what he wanted and that's his redemption for all the sh!tty things he did in his life.

Because non-book readers don't know about that part of the prophecy, Cersei's death and Jamie's reason for being with her probably feel flat but for me it makes sense.

Teddy Daniels

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Cersei's death was not how I expected it ..... as this is a non book readers thread I'm going to spoiler tag the rest because it pertains to the books.

In the books, part of the prophecy Cersei heard from the witch as a child, was that she would die in tears with the hands of the Valonqar around her neck (this was left out of the show). Valonqar means "little brother" so Cersei took that to mean Tyrion would try to strangle her, which is another reason for her to hate him. As the series went on, people started to believe that it was Jamie that would kill her.

I was convinced last week that was why Jamie was so desperate to get to Cersei - he could see how hateful she was and wanted to put a stop to the war. For me, Jamie killing Cersei would've completed his redemption arc and at first I was so confused when he comforted her and declared his love. It seemed so unfair that such a hateful b!tch got to die in the arms of her lover. I thought that if Jamie didn't kill her then she should've been captured, tortured and brutally killed for all the pain and suffering she brought on the world. Or at least died broken and alone in the Red Keep.

On reflection I realise I was wrong. For one thing, as someone else pointed out, she was pregnant with his child so why would he kill her? Looking back at his story, everything he has done, has been to get back to Cersei. He was never going to have a happy ever after with Brienne. I never saw the two of them as lovers and I think he only slept with her so that she was no longer a virgin.

Cersei died as prophesied, just not the way we predicted. We thought her little brother would be strangling her. Instead he had his hands around her neck so that he could look into her crying eyes and comfort her and they both died together. It was the one time the show subverted expectations and got it right. Their death was more about Jamie than Cersei, who was going to die anyways. The audience wanted Jamie to be a good person but he knew what he was. When he said to Brienne "Cersei is hateful and so am I", he might as well have broken the fourth wall.

Him choosing to die with Cersei is what he wanted and that's his redemption for all the sh!tty things he did in his life.

Because non-book readers don't know about that part of the prophecy, Cersei's death and Jamie's reason for being with her probably feel flat but for me it makes sense.

thats not how i remember the words

~Rebel~

Foxtrol wrote: »

Without trial, she indiscriminately crucified 163 men due to their social standing after she’d won the battle for the city because she was vengeful about what some masters did to the slaves.

See, this is a great example of early steps towards a more brutal mindset - but what people want is further emotional development from this.

Her going mad is not a problem. The signs were all there for it to be the eventual choice. But they rushed the story (same as they did almost every aspect of the show) and didn't allow for continuous, consistent growth and change.

Just about all your points are based in plot, and story, but what people are annoyed over is character from a more close, intimate point of view. Who she is, and the way she sees the world, seen through her actual actions. We saw lots of violence, but there was always, always a justification, and a greater good for the subjects at its core.

For why people are upset, you have to think about the person, not the plot. This was like a successful, pragmatically ruthlessly effective but also compassionate general coming home from war, and then shooting up a school full of kids.

That is an emotional change so vast it cannot just come out of the blue like that. All violence is not created equal.

Foxtrol wrote: »

That's fair enough, though I would have liked to see you backing yourself up on an attempt to clarify how you felt Dany could have maintained the throne if she stopped when the bells rang.

I would actually say doing what she did is the one way she absolutely guarantees she can't maintain the throne.

You can rule by fear, as long as a balance is maintained. Cersei and Joffrey ruled by fear, for instance, by setting the precedent that if you fuck with them in any way, they will fuck you up. But for the most part, people are allowed to go about their business.

Dany guaranteed that someone would assassinate her before long, as she set the precedent that she's just gonna randomly kill innocent people without reason or provocation. You don't need to do something wrong for her to ruin your life. I mean, her Dad got taken down for being unpredictable and crazy enough for the kingdom to rise against him, and he never did anything even close to what she did.

She is now queen of a city in which every single inhabitant has a friend, or family member that she burned alive for no reason. Every chambermaid, every soldier, every chef, every stableboy. She's put herself in an ultimately untenable position.

The_Honeybadger

Foxtrol wrote: »

Because pretty much all she has left is a dragon.The army loyal to her is basically gone, her allied houses are dead aside from a handful of ship, her advisers are dead or she feels betrayed her, she doesn't even have the best claim to the throne and that word is out, her chance to marry Jon looks gone (and he betrayed her in her eyes), Jon's family looks to have it out for her and want independence for the North, the people see her as a foreign invader and prefer Jon and even Cersei over her.

Every city she touched in Essos turned into a complete disaster despite having no clear political challengers, even more so when she left each of them, and those where cities who the majority treated her like a saviour and she had an army of unsullied supported by the second sons.

Getting the bell to ring didn't mean she had 'won' and definitely didn't mean she had any power to keep it.

You’re trying to build it up in to something that it just isn’t. Her actions will get her killed in the end and that is what it’s all about, setting the scene for next week.It was never going to end well for her, it was just a matter of how and this is the way they have gone with it, all we need to find out next week is who actually kills her. While we have certainly seen a dark side to her they really have only made rushed attempts to bring this unhinged character out over a couple of shows.

Even given all of what you mention above mass genocide does not really solidify her position to any great degree. It’s not like she has solved her issues. People are going to be terrified of her and her dragon in particular regardless.

Paddy Cow

Teddy Daniels wrote: »

thats not how i remember the words

I only had my memory to go on and I've googled the words to refresh it and they say "When your tears have drowned you, the valonqar shall wrap his hands about your pale white throat and choke the life from you." I'm so conflicted now. I was convinced last week Jamie would kill her but made peace with how it worked out. I actually liked how they died.

If those are the actual words it blows my theory out of the water and leaves me feeling empty. I was convinced last week that Jamie was going to kill her. There was no question in my mind. When he didn't, I didn't like it but I could explain it.

I know we're in the wrong thread to be discussing this but now I can see why everyone is so p!ssed off. A little brother was supposed to choke the life out of her and neither did.

Totally my bad and I take the shame

Ardillaun

Thought Dany was going to catch it from the scorpions and go down in flames pronto. Her Liverpoolesque turnaround there was a bit of a surprise to me and I'd have preferred something like fog or a moonless night to explain such a jump in form. Even a brief discussion about the tactical uses of dive-bombing beforehand might have been better. The subsequent destruction of the city was curiously prolonged given how many story lines had to be sorted out but, along with Jaime and Cersei's reunion, it did add some nuance to the good guys/bad guys dichotomy that GoT has fallen into a fair bit and recalled so many disasters from Pompeii to Hiroshima. What were the numerous spurts of green flame from the houses all about?

fash

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Cersei's death was not how I expected it ..... as this is a non book readers thread I'm going to spoiler tag the rest because it pertains to the books.

In the books, part of the prophecy Cersei heard from the witch as a child, was that she would die in tears with the hands of the Valonqar around her neck (this was left out of the show). Valonqar means "little brother" so Cersei took that to mean Tyrion would try to strangle her, which is another reason for her to hate him. As the series went on, people started to believe that it was Jamie that would kill her.

I was convinced last week that was why Jamie was so desperate to get to Cersei - he could see how hateful she was and wanted to put a stop to the war. For me, Jamie killing Cersei would've completed his redemption arc and at first I was so confused when he comforted her and declared his love. It seemed so unfair that such a hateful b!tch got to die in the arms of her lover. I thought that if Jamie didn't kill her then she should've been captured, tortured and brutally killed for all the pain and suffering she brought on the world. Or at least died broken and alone in the Red Keep.

On reflection I realise I was wrong. For one thing, as someone else pointed out, she was pregnant with his child so why would he kill her? Looking back at his story, everything he has done, has been to get back to Cersei. He was never going to have a happy ever after with Brienne. I never saw the two of them as lovers and I think he only slept with her so that she was no longer a virgin.

Cersei died as prophesied, just not the way we predicted. We thought her little brother would be strangling her. Instead he had his hands around her neck so that he could look into her crying eyes and comfort her and they both died together. It was the one time the show subverted expectations and got it right. Their death was more about Jamie than Cersei, who was going to die anyways. The audience wanted Jamie to be a good person but he knew what he was. When he said to Brienne "Cersei is hateful and so am I", he might as well have broken the fourth wall.

Him choosing to die with Cersei is what he wanted and that's his redemption for all the sh!tty things he did in his life.

Because non-book readers don't know about that part of the prophecy, Cersei's death and Jamie's reason for being with her probably feel flat but for me it makes sense.

For me, this was Jaime's happy ending: dying in the arms of the woman he loved, dying at the time of his choosing, coming into the world together, leaving the world together etc. That is a pretty reasonable ending for a grey not black and white character. For me it feels like that was a proper GRRM story line that somehow managed to live through the D&D abomination.

Nalz

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

You’re trying to build it up in to something that it just isn’t. Her actions will get her killed in the end and that is what it’s all about, setting the scene for next week.It was never going to end well for her, it was just a matter of how and this is the way they have gone with it, all we need to find out next week is who actually kills her. While we have certainly seen a dark side to her they really have only made rushed attempts to bring this unhinged character out over a couple of shows.

Even given all of what you mention above mass genocide does not really solidify her position to any great degree. It’s not like she has solved her issues. People are going to be terrified of her and her dragon in particular regardless.

Exactly. Great summary of what is the main flaw re Danys storyline.

Jaimes, Tyrions, Aryas and to a slightly lesser degree Cerseis, were almost as bad.

Sigh

turbbo

Nalz wrote: »

Exactly. Great summary of what is the main flaw re Danys storyline.

Jaimes, Tyrions, Aryas and to a slightly lesser degree Cerseis, were almost as bad.

Sigh

Nah! if they dragged the Dany turns bad storyline out it would make less sense Jon Tyrion et al would have turned on her way earlier before they got to KL, and it would take a lot of the plot twists out and slow the pace down too much. My main gripe is the way Drogon was able to destroy everything in the last episode and was tits on a bull before that.

Loafing Oaf

Ardillaun wrote: »

Thought Dany was going to catch it from the scorpions and go down in flames pronto. Her Liverpoolesque turnaround there was a bit of a surprise to me and I'd have preferred something like fog or a moonless night to explain such a jump in form. Even a brief discussion about the tactical uses of dive-bombing beforehand might have been better. The subsequent destruction of the city was curiously prolonged given how many story lines had to be sorted out but, along with Jaime and Cersei's reunion, it did add some nuance to the good guys/bad guys dichotomy that GoT has fallen into a fair bit and recalled so many disasters from Pompeii to Hiroshima. What were the numerous spurts of green flame from the houses all about?

Explosions of caches of wildfire, presumably placed there by Aerys Targaryen (Dany's dad) as part of his unfulfilled plan to burn down King's Landing as his enemies closed in. Although as it turned out the Mad King was only in the halfpenny place in pyromania stakes compared to his dragon-riding daughter.

http://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/05/232516/green-fire-game-of-thrones-wildfire-mad-king-daenerys

yourdeadwright

Hadn't it been mentioned many times that one Dragon was enough to take out a City ,

Also people saying the turn around in Dragon skills but didn't the other Dragon only get hit and die because he was already severely injured in the battle with the Knight king,

turbbo

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Hadn't it been mentioned many times that one Dragon was enough to take out a City ,

Also people saying the turn around in Dragon skills but didn't the other Dragon only get hit and die because he was already severely injured in the battle with the Knight king,

That's a good point. Hadn't thought about that.

maximoose

yourdeadwright wrote: »

didn't the other Dragon only get hit and die because he was already severely injured in the battle with the Knight king,

He was miraculously sniped while they were casually flying along, don't see how that had any bearing on it

turbbo

maximoose wrote: »

He was miraculously sniped while they were casually flying along, don't see how that had any bearing on it

Yeah good counter argument - it wasn't obvious from watching that he was impeded - maybe if that was the case then the last episode would be a lot more convincing.

Tazzimus

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Hadn't it been mentioned many times that one Dragon was enough to take out a City ,

Also people saying the turn around in Dragon skills but didn't the other Dragon only get hit and die because he was already severely injured in the battle with the Knight king,

He was killed because they needed to get rid of him. Two dragons would have been even more one sided than it already was.

It would have made more sense if he was killed in this episode and that made Dany go all mad king.
Maybe take a bolt in the initial attack from Euron like Drogon did from Bronn, then when she attacks KL, Rhaegal is killed by one of the Scorpions and she decides to BBQ the whole city in a fit of rage.

yourdeadwright

maximoose wrote: »

He was miraculously sniped while they were casually flying along, don't see how that had any bearing on it

Surely hitting it when your unexpected would be the best way to go about killing a dragon ?

First hit only hurt him but because of his injuries from the previous battle he did not react quick enough or couldn't fly freely enough to get out of the way of the next shot that went through his neck and killed him ,

I cant see why anyone has massive issue with it,

If you not looking or expecting an attacker its pretty easy to miss one coming ,

maximoose

yourdeadwright wrote: »

First hit only hurt him but because of his injuries from the previous battle he did not react quick enough or couldn't fly freely enough to get out of the way of the next shot that went through his neck and killed him ,

I cant see why anyone has massive issue with it,

I don't have massive issue with it, but the bold is just massive supposition on your part. There's nothing to suggest this, neither dragon tries to avoid anything. He just gets nailed.

He was killed because they needed to get rid of him

All there is to it IMO.

facehugger99

Tazzimus wrote: »

It would have made more sense if he was killed in this episode and that made Dany go all mad king.
Maybe take a bolt in the initial attack from Euron like Drogon did from Bronn, then when she attacks KL, Rhaegal is killed by one of the Scorpions and she decides to BBQ the whole city in a fit of rage.

I would have been fine with the Night's King killing him - anyone but Captain Jack Sparrow.

yourdeadwright

maximoose wrote: »

I don't have massive issue with it, but the bold is just massive supposition on your part. There's nothing to suggest this, neither dragon tries to avoid anything. He just gets nailed.


They clearly said he was injured and needed time to rest, ?

Do you really want everything spelled out for you that happens on the show?

Did you want a character to say after he was killed " well you see he was injured remember so it made him an easier target "

dsmythy

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Hadn't it been mentioned many times that one Dragon was enough to take out a City ,

Also people saying the turn around in Dragon skills but didn't the other Dragon only get hit and die because he was already severely injured in the battle with the Knight king,

That dragon also wasn't Drogon. Wasn't ridden at the time. Wasn't expecting anything (the dragon at least didn't know). Was injured.

Not saying all this to excuse the writing but there were some differences between dragons as they faced scorpions. Dany obviously decided that flying straight at them after they already got the first shot in was not an option either. Hence the coming from where the sun shines and doing some actual thoughtful aerial maneuvering.

maximoose

yourdeadwright wrote: »

They clearly said he was injured and needed time to rest, ?

Great! Doesn't affect his death though

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Do you really want everything spelled out for you that happens on the show?

What a leap

Did you want a character to say after he was killed " well you see he was injured remember so it made him an easier target "

If you watch the first 40 seconds of this and honestly take away from it that he only dies because of some impairment, there's no point arguing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVcMJ7rM1UU

yourdeadwright

maximoose wrote: »

Great! Doesn't affect his death though



What a leap



If you watch the first 40 seconds of this and honestly take away from it that he only dies because of some impairment, there's no point arguing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVcMJ7rM1UU

Your right a big whole in his wing there would cause no harm at all to his ability to manoeuvre in the sky ,