Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, that pragmatist in me sees it going like this: he finishes TWoW in the next year or so. He begins working in earnest on ADoS, but dies before he can finish it. Whoever is in charge of his estate commissions an author to use what was written and what notes exist to finish the book, and we eventually, many years down the road, get that as our conclusion. It's closer than the show, but it's not 100% GRRM.

Unless he wills that his unfinished notes get destroyed, like Terry Pratchett did.

[Solauren]

Alternate: It's already finished, he's just taking his time releasing it for his own amusement.

[The Romulan Republic]

Alternate: It's already finished, he's just taking his time releasing it for his own amusement.

Somehow, I doubt he'd pass up that much money just for the pleasure of trolling his fan base.

[Solauren]

Alternate: It's already finished, he's just taking his time releasing it for his own amusement.

Somehow, I doubt he'd pass up that much money just for the pleasure of trolling his fan base.

Drive up anticipation to drive up sales.

[The Romulan Republic]

The theory that Drogon destroyed the Iron Throne for symbolic reasons/because he understood that it had corrupted Danny is debunked by the script:

https://ca.ign.com/articles/2019/07/31/ ... nes-finale

With the final season of Game of Thrones earning a heap of Emmy nominations, the script to the series finale episode “The Iron Throne” has been made publicly available online. After giving the script a read, we found the answer to one of the more perplexing questions that came out of the final episode: why did Drogon melt the Iron Throne?

It’s been demonstrated that dragons are of high intelligence, but it seemed a stretch that the great beast would understand the importance of a geopolitical symbol and that his mother’s desire for it is what ultimately led to her demise. As it turns out, Drogon didn’t intentionally melt the throne. It was a complete accident.

The script, penned by showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, details how Drogon finds Jon over Daenerys’ dead body, becomes enraged, and readies a breath of fire. In that moment, we learn that “Drogon wants to burn the world but he will not kill Jon” and instead “He breathes fire on the back wall, blasting down what remains of the great red blocks of stone.” The script even clarifies that the Iron Throne was “not the target of Drogon’s wrath, just a dumb bystander caught up in the conflagration.”

So there you have it. It seems Drogon just wanted to vent his rage and the chair just happened to be in the way. Of course, while Drogon didn’t “mean” to destroy the Iron Throne, the showrunners clearly wanted to find a dramatic way of eliminating that object of power to symbolize the end of the “game of thrones

” that the characters had been embroiled in for years, so it was going to be destroyed one way or another. Are you pleased with how they did it? Let us know in the comments.

Yep, him toasting the Throne and not Jon is as random and vapid as it appeared at first glance, just like so much else in this finale.

Also, the Comic-Con panel, which several expected attendees dropped out of following an online campaign to heckle the cast and crew. And as much as I hate the show, I must say that that is potentially crossing a line, including a legal one, depending on exactly what sort of behaviour they were trying to instigate.

https://vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/0 ... rya-theory

Last month, when HBO first announced that some of the cast and crew of Game of Thrones would attend San Diego Comic-Con after a divisive final season, the network promised a stacked roster of talent, including creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss—along with Jacob Anderson (Grey Worm), John Bradley (Samwell Tarly), Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (Jaime Lannister), Liam Cunningham (Davos Seaworth), Nathalie Emmanuel (Missandei), Iain Glen (Ser Jorah Mormont), Conleth Hill (Varys), Maisie Williams (Arya Stark), Isaac Hempstead Wright (Bran Stark), and executive producer and frequent director Miguel Sapochnik. But after an ugly online movement to heckle the panel started gaining steam, Weiss, Benioff, Emmanuel, Glen, and Sapochnik all dropped out—most citing scheduling conflicts.

I'm torn between empathy at them for wanting to avoid possible harassment and irritation at people who blame actors for writing decisions, and the feeling that frankly, these chicken shits should have had the guts to stand up in front of their audience and justify their choices (even if I know that nothing good would have come of them trying to do so).

The remaining cast members who braved the crowd in San Diego’s Hall H on Friday were a somewhat defensive bunch. (Who can blame them?) The panel kicked off with an unprecedented call for civility from Comic-Con director of programming Eddie Ibrahim. Mostly answering softball “what if” questions from their moderator, the cast did manage to clear up one or two lingering mysteries from the controversial season eight.

Williams provided the most valuable moment of clarity when she debunked, without hesitation, the notion that Arya Stark had any help whatsoever in defeating the Night King in episode three. A flimsy (and frankly rather misogynistic) theory—based, I suppose, on the fandom’s expectation that Jon Snow might do something more useful in that battle beyond screaming at an undead dragon—proposed that Arya’s cousin had intentionally distracted Viserion in order to let Arya by. “NO,” Williams said. We can, of course, consider the Battle of Winterfell a team effort; after all, Melisandre did a hard night’s work. But the ultimate kill, here, goes to Arya and Arya alone.

Good. The final season is misogynist enough without taking Arya's big moment and giving credit to a man.

Meanwhile, Conleth Hill confirmed what many fans had suspected: Lord Varys was trying to poison Daenerys there at the end. (That’s why, if you recall, he asked a little serving girl at Dragonstone if the queen was eating, and said that they would “try again” later.) Hill went on to call Daenerys “cray-cray,” which won’t earn him any points with remaining Targaryen loyalists. The actor also took a curious and somewhat Trumpian stance on the outcry surrounding the final season, claiming that the “hate” it drew was led by the media, and that the loyal fans at SDCC proved that was the case.

It is deeply disheartening to me to see how a number of the cast, as well as of course the show runners, have attempted to defend this farce by spewing yet more misogynistic attacks on Daenerys's character. Its understandable that an actor would want to defend a role they'd invested so much time in, of course, but I can't help but think how every such comment from her long-time colleagues probably feels like a fresh stab in the back to Emilia Clarke, who was clearly deeply invested in her character.

Entertainment Weekly’s James Hibberd, who was moderating the panel, echoed this sentiment when he claimed that an interview he conducted with Hill, which painted the actor as dissatisfied with his character’s end, was blown out of proportion by other outlets.

Not having read said interview, I cannot comment.

Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, on the other hand, had a more sanguine attitude about the fandom’s relationship with the show’s ending. While he spoke out months ago against a very silly fan-generated petition that lobbied HBO to remake season eight, he also said that it was fine to dislike the show’s ending—just as long as the complaints about the show didn’t turn into personal attacks on its creators. Case in point: When the actor said that he thought Jaime’s death in the arms of his sister-lover, Cersei, was “perfect,” someone in the crowd shouted out “liar!” Coster-Waldau’s eyebrows shot up in response. The end of a show you love, he pointed out to the Hall H crowd, will always piss you off.

Wow.

Given that he previously got some negative press for trying to defend the scene where Jaime raped Cersei (saying that he didn't see it as rape), my sympathy is very limited.

To keep things as gentle as possible for the cast, the moderator mostly fed the actors “what if” questions during the hour-long panel. Would Arya and Gendry ever get together in the future? Williams said no; Arya is a “lone wolf” and would never be with a partner.

I personally feel that this is somewhat out of keeping with Arya's previously established character, in which her loyalty to family is a major factor. But at least she torpedoed Arya/Gendry.

What’s Grey Worm up to? Anderson said he’s building a Wakandan-esque society on Naath. (Watch out for the butterflies.)

Trying to steal the MCU's glory?

Would Brienne have taken Jaime back if he had survived and Cersei didn’t? Coster-Waldau said no, Jaime had too much baggage.

Not sure how I feel about him presuming to speak for another actor's character, when he's not the writer or director, but I'm glad he credits Brienne with not being a total doormat.

The panel also featured a smattering of self-aware jabs at some non-story-based controversies from season eight. When the cast took the stage, for example, there were coffee cups on the table in front of them, and a few actors took some joking sips. Later, John Bradley swore that one of the water bottles that snuck into the finale right behind his foot wasn’t his. He’s right-handed, he pointed out, and so the bottle would have been on the other side of his chair. Liam Cunningham, for his part, said that the other bottle that was by his foot wasn’t his either. The world may never know who was so thirsty that day.

But perhaps the biggest mood moment of the panel belonged to Jacob Anderson, who chose to pull a Spider-Man mask over his face rather than answer a question about why Grey Worm didn’t kill Jon Snow after Jon killed Daenerys. “Grey Worm was just tired of it all,” Anderson laughingly deflected through the mask. That’s the San Diego Comic-Con version of “no comment” if ever I’ve heard one.

If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all?

Rather than ending with the customary audience Q&A, the moderator merely shut the panel down, and the cast exited the stage. Would the crowd get all the Game of Thrones answers they so craved? To quote Williams’s favorite line from the show: “Not today.”

While perhaps understandable under the circumstances, the fact that they refused audience questions speaks volumes about the response to the show's finale, and the inability of its creators to defend it.

Still, credit at least to those on the panel for having the guts to show up, unlike the most guilty parties, the show runners themselves.

[Darth Yan]

Dany being crazy was built up from day 1.

[TheFeniX]

By the same token, Danny being capable of being a just ruler was also setup from day 1. Or, at least, not destroying her one true goal in literally burning King's Landing to the ground. Which is cool because, like a lot of action movies, they seemingly took care of years of damage in a few weeks. But hey, let's just cut to the scene of them all shooting the shit about "where'd that dragon go" in the Small Council Chamber. Homes just kind of stop burning on their own when the populace is currently too afraid to leave said burning homes for fear of being murdered/raped/both.

But I digress: Like a lot of GoTs characters, in earlier seasons, she had rather simple motivations complicated by circumstances. She had moments of mercy, moments of viciousness, all kinds. Just as anyone can say "well, a couple times she did <X really bad thing>," you can say "Well, a couple times she did <X measured action>."

For a specific example of me having issue with her character in later seasons was the execution of the traitor Varys. The entire scene is played out like "WOW, SHE SO CRAZY" <Scary music and "knowing looks" intensifies> when the execution is entirely justified as he tried to poison her as well as stir up action against her. Ned chopped a dudes head off for fleeing his oath. Jon did the same. These scenes are played as "grim, but necessary: make your own judgements."

But man, Danny burns a guy who calls her a fake Queen and another guy trying to off her and the show seems to be screaming: MAD QUEEN with the presentation.

Sidenote: Also, I'm still laughing at the idea the writers bailed SO HARD on the Sand Snakes storyline, they couldn't be bothered to explain what happened to a major character in Ellaria Sand/Dorne. Not even a "we found two corpses in Dornish garb in a collapsed section of the dungeon." Even the Blackfish got a "shot while resisting arrest" one-liner.

[The Romulan Republic]

Here's the thing: The whole "THE SIGNS WERE THERE FROM DAY ONE" bullshit with Daenerys is just that: bullshit.

Daenerys at the start of the series had no interest in ruling at all. She was just a frightened child who wanted to live her life in peace. She only became really interested in the throne after she got out from under Viserys's thumb and got a taste of power as Khaleesi, and after Robert's assassins tried to kill her and her unborn child, and especially after Drogo died and the universe taught her the lesson that the only way she could protect herself and others was to take power for herself. So this was not some innate, inborn trait, some inevitable "Targaryen madness" like the apologists like to pretend (except for all the sane male Targaryen characters nobody objects to). And even then, her ruthlessness was extended entirely, or nearly entirely, toward monsters like slavers, or toward enemy soldiers. Not the mass murder of civilians.

"B-b-b-b-but she wasn't upset enough when her brother was killed! You know, the one who beat and molested her and sold her off to be a warlord's sex slave. Clearly there's SOMETHING WRONG WITH HER."

"But she killed slavers and enemy soldiers!" Yeah, 'cause that's no different at all from mass murdering surrendering civilians. Its not like our male heroes ever kill people in battle or execute traitors and criminals...

"But she abandoned Mereen!" Well, actually, she left troops under one of her deputies there in the show, after thoroughly crushing the slavers.

"But all she cares about is power!" Yeah, which is why she put off taking the throne to go help Jon Snow in the North- after which the Northern xenophobes basically spat on her for saving their skins, and THEY were portrayed as the good guys here.

Sure, you could have had Daenerys go down a dark path, becoming more and more obsessed with the throne, more and more ruthless, and eventually becoming a complete monster. But they spent way too much time building up Danny as a hero, a reformer, even a feminist icon for that. Her choosing not to burn King's Landing and seize the throne in season seven felt like it should have been a turning point- but then she reverses course in the last moment, seemingly validating the views of her critics who think that she's unfit to rule because she doesn't have a penis, and basically pandering to Danny-bashers while reiterating tired old sexist cliches about mad queens and women being too emotional or unstable to be trusted with power. Sure, people can backslide, and Daenerys was under a lot of pressure- but did we really need yet another story about how women are unfit to rule, using one of the most iconic female leads of a generation no less? Especially when the final thing that pushes her over the edge into premeditated, cold-blooded mass murder seems to be "my boyfriend broke up with me"? Culminating in said ex-boyfriend then having to kill her for the greater good and getting off scot-free for it?

If they really were planning to make her the Mad Queen all along, then they spent seven and a half seasons basically baiting Daenerys fans so they could yank the rug out from under them, as thought to say: "Hey women, you thought we were going to give you a progressive, strong female lead? HAH-HAH, turns out she's mad, and the guys who thought you need to have a dick to rule were right all along! Serves you right suckers, now know your place!"

Its a slap in the face to the fans, the character, and Emilia Clarke, who should win a fucking Emmy just for remaining professional while the character she gave ten years of her life to was unceremoniously destroyed, instead of phoning it in like I probably would have done in her place.


And this isn't even getting into the implied equation of mental illness with evil in the Mad Queen narrative.

[Darth Yan]

Uh no. You're being silly. I posted that comment from Darth Wong on another thread. Dany has consistent tendency to decide that if someone pisses her off she will kill them horribly no matter the reasons and she doesn't care if she's called out (the guys she kills as a tantrum for Barrison were not necissarily involved and she even said when confronted with the fact that at least one of the masters was actually benevolent "eh I don't care". That's not even getting into the fact that THAT was random."

https://www.inverse.com/article/55831-w ... 0-examples


She also was HAPPY when Drogon announced his intentions to go to westeros and rape and kill everything for her and from the moment she was in Qarth she said "I'll take what I want through fire and blood." Even the house of the undying vision showed ASH rather than snow.

She did the bare minimum in Mereen and her saving the North can be seen as self interest or her throwing a hissy fit that not everyone is bowing to her.

She had NO claim to Westeros. Her people had been expelled, she EVERYTHING she needed to settle down.

You drank the kool aid and failed to see the warning signs. You built her up as some messiah and ignored her dark side (or excused it because it was directed against other assholes)

[TheFeniX]

I also want to point out hard laughs at the idea that Jon and Bran would make good kings because they don't want to rule, which the show pushed really REALLY hard the last couple episodes. King Robert didn't want to rule either, worked out great, right? Seriously, what a bunch of dumbshits. I rolled my eyes every damn time they repeated this dumbshit idea when it's proved wrong in the first season of the show.

If Bran DOES end up being a good king it would be because HE'S A FUCKING WIZARD THAT CAN SEE HISTORY, both future and past.

Culminating in said ex-boyfriend then having to kill her for the greater good and getting off scot-free for it?

I just want to point out, I literally spit coke out of my mouth at the idea Grey Worm just fucking let Jon off with the promise he would take "The Black" again when he has no reason to respect that part of Westerosi culture (especially since the White Walkers are all dead) nor even believe Jon would stick with it since he broke his oath once already. Talk all you want about "he died and was brought back," but once again: you'd be arguing technicalities with a man who had the two most important women in his life murdered in a country he doesn't even want to be in, and probably hates, along with it's inhabitants. It's pretty mind-bogglingly bad writing and, so I go to my default, done purely for audience gratification.

I like Tyrion and Jon, but they should have both been hanging from the battlements of, what's left of, King's Landing. I mean... just imagine the shitshow if Ramsey was caught and locked up and Jon/Sansa was just "You were a big meanie, now... TAKE THE BLACK!" It's WoW-tier fantasy writing.

If they really were planning to make her the Mad Queen all along, then they spent seven and a half seasons basically baiting Daenerys fans so they could yank the rug out from under them, as thought to say: "Hey women, you thought we were going to give you a progressive, strong female lead? HAH-HAH, turns out she's mad, and the guys who thought you need to have a dick to rule were right all along! Serves you right suckers, now know your place!"

It's just what happens when you have to cut through all your grand-standing "written to win Emmy's" scenes of "knowing looks" and "makes you think, DOESN'T IT!?" dialog and actually HACK OUT an ending.

The Small Council scene was supposed to be one of those "it's all back to normal, the more things change, the more they blah blah." But all I could remember was the ending of "When Aliens Attack" on Futurama when Fry says (something like) "That's why people watch TV: by the end of the episode, everything is back to normal." and it pans out and half of New New York is still on fire.

See, that shit was funny. The GoTs ending was both boring AND insulting.

[The Romulan Republic]

I also want to point out hard laughs at the idea that Jon and Bran would make good kings because they don't want to rule, which the show pushed really REALLY hard the last couple episodes. King Robert didn't want to rule either, worked out great, right? Seriously, what a bunch of dumbshits. I rolled my eyes every damn time they repeated this dumbshit idea when it's proved wrong in the first season of the show.

If Bran DOES end up being a good king it would be because HE'S A FUCKING WIZARD THAT CAN SEE HISTORY, both future and past.

Well, I have my own theories about Bran.

I just want to point out, I literally spit coke out of my mouth at the idea Grey Worm just fucking let Jon off with the promise he would take "The Black" again when he has no reason to respect that part of Westerosi culture (especially since the White Walkers are all dead) nor even believe Jon would stick with it since he broke his oath once already. Talk all you want about "he died and was brought back," but once again: you'd be arguing technicalities with a man who had the two most important women in his life murdered in a country he doesn't even want to be in, and probably hates, along with it's inhabitants. It's pretty mind-bogglingly bad writing and, so I go to my default, done purely for audience gratification.

Forget Grey Worm for a moment- why did Drogon not roast him then and there?

Personally, I headcanon it as Bran possessing them both to keep his puppet brother alive.

Seriously, "Dark Lord Bran" makes that entire shit show of a season better.

I like Tyrion and Jon, but they should have both been hanging from the battlements of, what's left of, King's Landing. I mean... just imagine the shitshow if Ramsey was caught and locked up and Jon/Sansa was just "You were a big meanie, now... TAKE THE BLACK!" It's WoW-tier fantasy writing.

Honestly, despite everything, I don't blame Jon (although it would certainly be in character for Drogon and Grey Worm to do so). Jon took the logical choice under the shitty, out of character circumstances given to him by killing Daenerys. His only real mistake, of telling Sansa about his identity, is still more Sansa's fault than his- she's the one who violated her oath to him and spilled his secret for political gain (fuck Sansa-seriously, just fuck Sansa- and fuck Littlefinger- he won in the end, by making Sansa into another of himself).

But yeah, lazy, ill-thought out writing, meant to pander to the fans without even keeping it straight which group of fans they wanted to pander to, so everybody ended up pissed.

It's just what happens when you have to cut through all your grand-standing "written to win Emmy's" scenes of "knowing looks" and "makes you think, DOESN'T IT!?" dialog and actually HACK OUT an ending.

Oh God, if those fuckers win an Emmy for best drama or writing I will be fucking pissed. They want to give out Emmys, give one to Emilia Clarke because a) she did legitimately good work, and b) she deserves some compensation for what they did to her character. And give one to Ramin Djawadi, because the music stayed good right to the end. The visuals were good too.

I mean, this was always a show I watched more for the visuals, music, and acting than for the writing. The final season just kind of drove that point home.

The Small Council scene was supposed to be one of those "it's all back to normal, the more things change, the more they blah blah." But all I could remember was the ending of "When Aliens Attack" on Futurama when Fry says (something like) "That's why people watch TV: by the end of the episode, everything is back to normal." and it pans out and half of New New York is still on fire.

See, that shit was funny. The GoTs ending was both boring AND insulting.

Again, the ending is so much better if its all the culmination of the manipulations of the Dark Lord Bran, or rather the Three-Eyed Raven, whether as part of some long term "necessary evil" goal (because he can see the future) or just for personal power. Its still cynical as fuck, maybe even more so, but its less random and perhaps more self-aware of its cynicism.

[Darth Yan]

Dany wasn’t ruined. Rushed maybe but no. Contrary to what you think Dany was ALWAYS going to go bonkers.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.invers ... 0-examples

She was happy when Drogo announced he was going to kill and rape, she wanted the throne back even before the assassin came calling, she made a show of “I will claim what I want through fire and blood”, when she learned some of her crucifixtion victims didn’t do the crimes she decided “eh I don’t care” she went to Westeros even though there was no reason.....

Dany wasnt ruined.

[TheFeniX]

Forget Grey Worm for a moment- why did Drogon not roast him then and there?

I have no idea the drives/motivations of dragons. They are smart, but was he smart enough to know that Jon killed Danny? Or care about avenging her death once she was dead? Dogs are smart and can be trained to do things way over their paygrade, but they protect "their own" in the moment. They WILL remember the general build of an attacker and maybe act aggressively towards similar people of those who've "wronged" them, but they don't bother with revenge. They attack current and possible threats. When faced with a (not screaming for help) dead master and the guy who might have killed him/her, they may just sit by the master's side and howl.... or breath fire if they could.

CERTAIN animals can make the logical jump and can understand revenge/retribution. Pretty sure Crows can and some other birds, primates, and dolphins. Maybe GoT dragons can. They are supposed to be smart. But just being smart in one area doesn't mean you're on a human level of understanding/motivation. So, taking the scene at face value, and the rest of the show: Dragons seem to be like dogs. Revenge doesn't motivate them: only protection.

It's also highly likely it was really shitty writing because they just wanted a cool scene, but with the caveat of "Jon can't die."

She was happy when Drogo announced he was going to kill and rape, she wanted the throne back even before the assassin came calling, she made a show of “I will claim what I want through fire and blood”, when she learned some of her crucifixtion victims didn’t do the crimes she decided “eh I don’t care” she went to Westeros even though there was no reason.....

So.. she's your average chicken-hawking congressperson?

[Darth Yan]

Don’t be cute. I’m saying that Dany going nuts wasnt derailing. She always had a potential for violence and going through the loss of her children seeing that people didn’t want her, finding out that the guy she just met and fallen in love with has a better claim to what she’s wanted her whole life, feeling let down by her advisors and allies were just the final straw.

[The Romulan Republic]

Don’t be cute. I’m saying that Dany going nuts wasnt derailing. She always had a potential for violence and going through the loss of her children seeing that people didn’t want her, finding out that the guy she just met and fallen in love with has a better claim to what she’s wanted her whole life, feeling let down by her advisors and allies were just the final straw.

The problem is the show also built her up as a hero, and a feminist icon at that, and season seven and the first half of season eight were set up to show her moving in the opposite direction, learning to put the good of the people ahead of her personal ambitions. And then in the last few episodes there's a sudden about-face, which happens to fit with some very old misogynistic tropes. Fans have every right to feel that there was a bait and switch there.

[Darth Yan]

Except when it’s been foreshadowed all along its not an about face. She could have swung either way but her downfall had nothing to do with her gender.

[The Romulan Republic]

Except when it’s been foreshadowed all along its not an about face.

It is when they had spent the last season and a half moving her in the other direction .

She could have swung either way but her downfall had nothing to do with her gender.

Except that they took a character who had become a symbol of reform and of female empowerment, and turned her into a monster, while trying to justify it partly with old misogynist tropes about women being too emotional or unstable to be trusted with power.

Context matters here.

[Ralin]

Has it occurred to you that if people read the aristocratic woman who was convinced that she was entitled to rule a country she'd never lived in, frequently bragged about how she was going to burn her enemies alive, created an army out of super-soldier slaves and added a bunch of titles to her name emphasizing that she was the Messiah as a feminist icon that might say more bad things about the feminists watching the show than the way she was written?

[Vendetta]

Don’t be cute. I’m saying that Dany going nuts wasnt derailing. She always had a potential for violence and going through the loss of her children seeing that people didn’t want her, finding out that the guy she just met and fallen in love with has a better claim to what she’s wanted her whole life, feeling let down by her advisors and allies were just the final straw.

As I said in the other thread, foreshadowing is not character development.

There still needs to be a well developed reason for the specific acts Daenerys took.

"She's the mad queen it doesn't have to make sense" is not an answer, it's a cop out for idiot writers who can't be bothered, we the audience have to understand, based on what we've been shown about the character to that point, why it makes sense to her in that moment to burn down King's Landing.

And it doesn't because the show does not establish a version of the character who would make that decision or give them a reason to do so.

When Daenerys has been betrayed by people before, she has exacted her retribution on the people who did it. There has been no progression between that character and one who would burn down half a city for the same stimulus, and that needs to exist for the writing not to be bad.

[Darth Yan]

Has it occurred to you that if people read the aristocratic woman who was convinced that she was entitled to rule a country she'd never lived in, frequently bragged about how she was going to burn her enemies alive, created an army out of super-soldier slaves and added a bunch of titles to her name emphasizing that she was the Messiah as a feminist icon that might say more bad things about the feminists watching the show than the way she was written?

Pretty much. It’s like Aung San Syu Kai. People were shocked when she turned out to be a racist bitch who ignored the suffering of the rohiynga when if you looked at her background it wasn’t that shocking

[TheFeniX]

Don’t be cute. I’m saying that Dany going nuts wasnt derailing. She always had a potential for violence and going through the loss of her children seeing that people didn’t want her, finding out that the guy she just met and fallen in love with has a better claim to what she’s wanted her whole life, feeling let down by her advisors and allies were just the final straw.

Yes, and like I said: when burning a traitor and assassin, the entire scene is played to make you think Danny is going insane when any other character in her position should have (and sometimes did) perform an execution, just sans Dragon-fire. Jon even did it because Slint just wouldn't follow orders. Didn't lock him up, didn't... I don't know.. flog him? Just BAM, off with his head.

Now, you weren't supposed to like Slint, but I never got the impression the scene was meant to tell me "YEA! FUCK THAT GUY! Here you go FANS, we're giving <character you don't like> his comeuppance." They weren't preaching at me, they were just showing me the thing. If I wanted to cheer, then cheer. If I was like "I dunno if this is the best solution," then that was up to ME to answer. But HOLY SHIT the scenes involving Danny, the music, the camera work, the <knowing looks intensifies> is nothing but "bitches be CRAZY, right?"

I don't even care to argue the specific act of burning down KL or her gender (since Littlefinger had this SAME <act like a dumbshit to move story along> deal that lead to his death. But ALL this shit adds up to "sprint to the finish." In a show that dealt with everything, we can't even get a decent line of how they got control of the fire in KL when something similar almost burned the entirety of London to the ground. The looting, the murders, the rapes. Assassins taking advantage of all the armies just bailing on KLs? NOPE: Small Council Scene, EVERYTHING BACK TO NORMAL.

Maybe if I didn't feel the show was MANIPULATING me into thinking Danny was going crazy rather than just.... you know.. SHOWING me she was going crazy, I wouldn't call the last couple seasons of GoTs out for the (albeit high-production value) generic "Drama TV Show" it became.

Minor sidenote: 2(?) seasons of both weaponizing vaginas (read: wombs) and female characters being boy crazy and flipping out when they get turned down. uuuuuuuuuuuuuugh.

As I said in the other thread, foreshadowing is not character development.

This is a pretty god-damn succinct comment that sums up what people are saying.

[Ralin]

Yes, and like I said: when burning a traitor and assassin, the entire scene is played to make you think Danny is going insane when any other character in her position should have (and sometimes did) perform an execution, just sans Dragon-fire. Jon even did it because Slint just wouldn't follow orders. Didn't lock him up, didn't... I don't know.. flog him? Just BAM, off with his head.

All true. Though that said, how many other characters recruited someone who gave them an impassioned speech about how they would totally turn on them if they thought they'd gone crazy or were bad for the people? Which was treated as admirable and IIRC she more or less said that's how he should see things.

[TheFeniX]

All true. Though that said, how many other characters recruited someone who gave them an impassioned speech about how they would totally turn on them if they thought they'd gone crazy or were bad for the people? Which was treated as admirable and IIRC she more or less said that's how he should see things.

Specifically? None. But Jon attempted to make nice with the assholes when he became Lord Commander and Stannis had every right to execute Davos (like... twice?) and didn't due to circumstance, his personal feelings, and that Davos WAS still loyal to Stannis (something not outright stated, but Stannis seemed to understand that in his own way).

Thing is: Varys talks a big game, but most of his whinging is finally shown to be counter-productive and (IMO) self-serving. HE doesn't feel Dany is the right fit for the job and he's correct if only due to luck and his own backstabbing (another push on Dany: she can't trust anyone). His explanations for WHY she isn't fit and Jon is are terrible. Even if he was right, murdering her isn't going to make anyone fall in line behind Jon and there's no good reason Jon (and others) would survive Grey Worm's purge (The Unsullied and Dothraki aren't going to follow Jon) as he would have every right to believe all of them were involved.

So, The Northmen and Dany's army slaughter each other, Cersei wins the day?

This is the problem with the final seasons: explicitly simple cause and effect in a show that was anything but. And Varys is exposed as a cut-rate Littlefinger, albeit working and doing shitty things for some nebulous notion of "good," rather than specifically to better his own lot. Varys is damn near a plot coupon at this point just to push Danny the rest of the way over the edge. No surprise if the actual Varys was dead and replaced with a faceless man because, like Littlefinger, he's making moves, when he's in no position to, that don't further his goals only the overall plot of the show.

Question: Who is Varys even sending letters to? There's no one fucking left. The Starks were already behind Jon/Sansa. The Ironborn (as useless as they are) obv HATE the Starks, claims to Targy blood don't mean shit to them. And then there's....... The Dornish? There's literally NO ONE right here and now to challenge Danny: let her win, play the long-game. But he acts like getting the word out about Jon's claim is SUPER IMPORTANT and has to be done now now now now, before Danny cements her claim.

But that's dumb: her claim was GRANITE because they FINALLY show how much of an overwhelming force Danny's army is. Something I've been saying for over a year. And it's HER army, something also shown in the end. One way or the other: they would have had to deal with that army if not for the just.... fucking MORONIC cop-out they pulled at the end.

[Vendetta]

But that's dumb: her claim was GRANITE because they FINALLY show how much of an overwhelming force Danny's army is. Something I've been saying for over a year. And it's HER army, something also shown in the end. One way or the other: they would have had to deal with that army if not for the just.... fucking MORONIC cop-out they pulled at the end.

Also Jon's alleged claim is worthless because on the one hand there's a document of unprovable origin and on the other there's the fact that he looks like a Stark and quacks like a Stark and has a grand total of zero dragons.

[TheFeniX]

Also Jon's alleged claim is worthless because on the one hand there's a document of unprovable origin and on the other there's the fact that he looks like a Stark and quacks like a Stark and has a grand total of zero dragons.

I love it because fans forget things (Hell, I forget things and/or what order they happened in). But I was laughing so hard because my wife "facebooks" or whatever when we watched it. And everyone in her group was talking about "claim" and blah blah blah. But you would think the writers would keep from making a joke out of their own show. Like, a piece of paper and the word of a maester is all he needs when fighting Danny for "claim." Worked great for Ned, right? He walked right into Cersei's "office" (or whatever), wounded, with few guards, and said "here's some paper, put Stannis in charge" and she totally didn't have all his doods killed and him thrown in the dungeon, thus starting a huge war......

Thing is and I have no idea why this is SO HARD for "real die-hard FANS" to understand: claim means SHIT. GoT even flat out says this. The Targys just flew dragons in Westeros and said "we own this now, assholes." Rob just walked in and took the throne, because he had an army. The whole war of the kings had spats about "who has the bigger army" and "who is more popular." No one gave a shit about "claim" outside "Danny has a name, people might rally around her." No one is afraid of a name, they are afraid of the doods with weapons who follow that name...... also dragons.

"He has the stronger claim." That this phrase, at THIS point in the show, came out of an educated characters mouth, was something they thought was WORTH discussing with everything they know is just.... eye rolling. Rob sat on the throne for over 20 years, was a shitty king (but kept the people happy), and no one gave a damn. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in ALL the blah blah blah between people trying to kingmake "Danny vs Jon: GO," I don't recall them ever saying "how do we deal with her huge fucking army and OH YEA DRAGONS!

One again, correct if wrong, but I don't recall anyone pointing out how, at this point in the war, Varys trying to kill Danny was MONUMENTALLY moronic and did NO ONE any good except Cersei.