Author Topic: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)  (Read 413087 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1920 on: May 21, 2019, 09:22:37 PM »

Online tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8113
  • Tommy Points: 549
Quote
Agreed. I would love to see the Celtics either draft and stash a Euro,

Here ya go
Quote
The prophecy: In the House of the Undying in season 2, Dany has a vision of walking through the Red Keep’s throne room. The ceiling is broken open. Fans assumed the white particles falling into the room was snow and that winter had come to the south. In Sunday’s episode, Dany is finally taking King’s Landing and buildings are indeed being destroyed. But it’s not snowing. It’s raining ash from her dragon’s destruction. The season 2 scene is a vision of Daenerys taking King’s Landing only by becoming the “queen of the ashes.” In the same season she also literally declares, “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!”

The Mass Crucifixion: On the road to Meereen in season 4, Dany finds 163 slave children crucified. She decides to crucify 163 masters in retaliation without regard for their individual guilt or innocence. Ser Barristan advises her to be more merciful. Later, a son of one of the crucified men insists his father was actually a good man who lobbied against slavery and didn’t deserve his fate.

Revenge for Ser Barristan. Also in season 4, after Ser Barristan was killed by the terror group Sons of the Harpy. In response, Dany brings three masters to her dragonpit. All swear they have nothing to do with the rogue group. She burns one of them alive to send a message to the others. Was the man guilty? Innocent? We don’t know and Dany didn’t seem to mind not knowing.

]The Mass Burning: In season 6 in Vaes Dothrak, as punishment for taking her prisoner and refusing her demands, Dany burns all the khals alive and has the remaining Dothraki promise — echoing Khal Drogo in season 1 — that they’ll “kill my enemies in their iron suits and tear down their stone houses.”


Meereen Revenge Plan: Also in season 6, Dany returns to Meereen and finds the city under attack from the slave cities. This is her first instinct: “I will crucify the masters. I will set their fleets afire. I will kill every last one of their soldiers and return their cities to the dirt. That’s my plan.” Tyrion talks her out of it.

Burning the Tarleys: In season 7, Dany is given the choice of killing or imprisoning Lord Tarly and his son Dickon after a battle and decides to execute both against the advice of Tyrion.

King’s Landing Battle Plan: In season 8, Dany is repeatedly urged to not attack King’s Landing to overthrow Cersei. She never seems to be entirely against the idea, but rather agrees with her advisors that it’s rather poor public relations strategy.

 The show has pretty consistently shown that when Daenerys is angered she can rather quickly leap to “kill them all” as the best solution regardless of whether it’s entirely justified or not

https://ew.com/tv/2019/05/13/game-of-thrones-daenerys-mad-queen/

Quote
In Game of Thrones season 2, Daenery's handmaiden Doreah – a naïve, stupid girl – betrayed her with Xaro Xan Daxos – a wealthy man who seduced her with riches and a life of comfort away from the indentured servitude she faced working for Dany. In punishment for this offense, Dany locked her and Xaro inside his vault to die a slow death from starvation and probably madness if they didn’t murder-suicide themselves first. It made for great television and it’s doubtful anyone mourned either of those characters for long, but five seasons later Cersei did nearly the exact same thing with Ellaria and her daughter - and it was bone-chilling.

https://screenrant.com/game-thrones-daenerys-mad-queen-clues/

Quote
Daenerys offers one of her dragons in exchange for 8,000 Unsullied and the boys still in training (about 5,000). The offer is accepted

Daenerys meets with the Good Masters in a large plaza holding the entire force of Unsullied. She delivers Drogon and is given a scourge that symbolizes ownership of the Unsullied. Now their master, she orders them to kill all the Good Masters, soldiers, and slave overseers, spare the children, and free any slaves they find. After the sacking of the city is complete, she grants them their freedom and asks if they will fight for her as free men. After a few moments, they unanimously acclaim Daenerys as their leader and join her on her march.

Broke her agreement, did not free them out of goodwill but rather to get an army.

https://gameofthrones.fandom.com/wiki/Unsullied

So plenty of hints about the mad queen if you were looking at the plot and not her looks.  JK
The 163 crucified were Masters who benefited greatly from enslaving people.  Even if some of them objected to the crucifying of the slaves, they certainly weren't good men.  What was she going to do put all the masters on trial?  She could have just left the masters fate up to their slaves and she wouldn't have had a problem with the masters anymore.  Instead she takes a harsh middle ground, crucifying one master for every slave that was crucified.  Putting the masters and slaves on equal footing. 

Dany had tried to work with the masters after that but they supported the Sons of Anarchy and killed more of her men than just Ser Barristan.  Burning one master was harsh but he was most certainly not an innocent having gotten wealthy off of slaves. 

The Khals weren't innocents.  They had most certainly committed much brutality to rise to the level of Khal.  The Khals had taken Dany prisoner and were deciding her fate.  I believe were up to raping her and letting their horses rape her too when she called them on being not fit to rule and demanded they follow her.  When they obviously wouldn't, she killed them which was perfectly justified. 

Burning the Tarleys was brutal but it is explainable and Lord Tarley was far from an innocent.  He had also broken his oath to the Tyrells when he didn't follow them in supporting them in supporting Dany.  He could have chosen to be neutral but he actually fought against the Tyrells and destroyed their house.  Even so, Dany gave him the chance to support her and his son also had the option to support her.  As for taking them prisoner what was she going to do with all their men?  Show me the prisoner of war camps in GOT. 

Doreah wasn't stupid and naive.  She wasn't dupped and she wasn't an innocent.  She was conniving and betrayed Dany who had treated Doreah well.  The betrayal led several Dothraki being killed including Dany's other handmaiden and her dragons stolen.  If Dany hadn't been able to defeat the Warlocks, she would have been imprisoned for life in the House of the Undying.  I also had no issue with what Cersei did to Ellaria and her daughter.  Neither of them were innocent.  Whereas Ellaria killed Myrcella who most certainly was one of the few innocent characters in the show.     

At least you didn't mention, Dany's brother's death.  Who was one of the most vile characters and justly deserved his death.

I don't see anyone on here claiming Dany was good.  She's certainly did a lot of brutal things but until Episode 5 Kings Landing her actions were explainable and justifiable from her perspective and they were also balanced by her good actions.  They also weren't that brutal compared to some of the other brutality going on.  She wouldn't have rated high on the villain scale and her brutal actions most certainly weren't madness. 

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1921 on: May 21, 2019, 09:27:05 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Quote
There would have been fewer books and no HBO series if the books were predominantly focused on Jon.  Like I said I think the Jon Snow character is pretty bland, two dimensional and really didn't experience much growth.  The interesting part of his story was characters around him and the environment.

Your opinion, but the Jon parts of the books were the best.   He also fit the archetype of the hero the best.   He is also the Song of Fire and Ice and fulfilled the prophecy to become Azor Ahai and the Prince that was promised when he killed Dany.   I guess uniting the forces of man against the dead was pretty boring for you.

Less books would not have been bad, as book five meandered and lost momentum.  I found the Dany plots and false Aegon to be far more boring and easy to spot as obvious red herrings.
I'm pretty sure "false" Aegon isn't actually false in that he actually is the son of Rhaegar and Ellia.  In fact yesterday or today, Martin called him Aegon the 6th when talking about the books lending credence to that fact.  It could turn out to not be that way, but I'm not sure it really matters since it is pretty darn obvious that Jon is the prince who was promised whether Aegon is his half brother or an imposter I don't think matters all that much.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1922 on: May 21, 2019, 10:02:20 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
Quote
The 163 crucified were Masters who benefited greatly from enslaving people.  Even if some of them objected to the crucifying of the slaves, they certainly weren't good men.  What was she going to do put all the masters on trial?  She could have just left the masters fate up to their slaves and she wouldn't have had a problem with the masters anymore.  Instead she takes a harsh middle ground, crucifying one master for every slave that was crucified.  Putting the masters and slaves on equal footing.

Dany had tried to work with the masters after that but they supported the Sons of Anarchy and killed more of her men than just Ser Barristan.  Burning one master was harsh but he was most certainly not an innocent having gotten wealthy off of slaves.

The Khals weren't innocents.  They had most certainly committed much brutality to rise to the level of Khal.  The Khals had taken Dany prisoner and were deciding her fate.  I believe were up to raping her and letting their horses rape her too when she called them on being not fit to rule and demanded they follow her.  When they obviously wouldn't, she killed them which was perfectly justified.

Burning the Tarleys was brutal but it is explainable and Lord Tarley was far from an innocent.  He had also broken his oath to the Tyrells when he didn't follow them in supporting them in supporting Dany.  He could have chosen to be neutral but he actually fought against the Tyrells and destroyed their house.  Even so, Dany gave him the chance to support her and his son also had the option to support her.  As for taking them prisoner what was she going to do with all their men?  Show me the prisoner of war camps in GOT.

Doreah wasn't stupid and naive.  She wasn't dupped and she wasn't an innocent.  She was conniving and betrayed Dany who had treated Doreah well.  The betrayal led several Dothraki being killed including Dany's other handmaiden and her dragons stolen.  If Dany hadn't been able to defeat the Warlocks, she would have been imprisoned for life in the House of the Undying.  I also had no issue with what Cersei did to Ellaria and her daughter.  Neither of them were innocent.  Whereas Ellaria killed Myrcella who most certainly was one of the few innocent characters in the show.     

At least you didn't mention, Dany's brother's death.  Who was one of the most vile characters and justly deserved his death.

I don't see anyone on here claiming Dany was good.  She's certainly did a lot of brutal things but until Episode 5 Kings Landing her actions were explainable and justifiable from her perspective and they were also balanced by her good actions.  They also weren't that brutal compared to some of the other brutality going on.  She wouldn't have rated high on the villain scale and her brutal actions most certainly weren't madness.

At the end of the day, she was just as bad as those she claiming she was liberating people from.   I will wait for your rebuttal but I  don't think there is one for the comment that is based in logic. 

You can twist it any way you want but burning King's Landing and people who have surrendered is a merciless act of evil. 

The fact that you feel compelled to use the word justify tells all.   One justifies things that need rationalized because they do not fit when the norms of societal and you talk yourself into accepting them.  She was cruel and routinely killed people who did not submit to her rule or bend the knee.   God help you if you feel that  way in real life.

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1923 on: May 21, 2019, 10:20:12 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
You Dany apologists need to stop defending that mass-murdering evil psychopath.  THe only one worse than Dany is Bran for letting that LadyHitler commit her genocides without warning anyone.

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1924 on: May 21, 2019, 10:36:35 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
You Dany apologists need to stop defending that mass-murdering evil psychopath.  THe only one worse than Dany is Bran for letting that LadyHitler commit her genocides without warning anyone.
he cant see the future and plenty of people were around her to see what she was capable of. Tyrion, for example
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1925 on: May 21, 2019, 11:32:00 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
You Dany apologists need to stop defending that mass-murdering evil psychopath.  THe only one worse than Dany is Bran for letting that LadyHitler commit her genocides without warning anyone.

The show pretty much had Tyrion spell out Dany's story for the viewers. She started off with good intentions but due to a deep sense of entitlement and anger took more and more of an ends justify the means approach as her power grew. By Kings' Landing the ends and the entitlement had become one and the same - she had what she started off wanting but still craved more power for the sake of having more power, and could justify any atrocity as serving that "greater good".

But looking back, even her original good intentions were based on her rage against being powerless. Even her empathy was based in projecting the powerful denying her what was rightfully hers onto larger and larger groups of the powerless.

All in all, one of the more realistic villains in pop culture, even if the back half was much too rushed.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2019, 11:48:22 PM by fairweatherfan »

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1926 on: May 22, 2019, 01:00:49 AM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5515
  • Tommy Points: 549
You Dany apologists need to stop defending that mass-murdering evil psychopath.  THe only one worse than Dany is Bran for letting that LadyHitler commit her genocides without warning anyone.

The show pretty much had Tyrion spell out Dany's story for the viewers. She started off with good intentions but due to a deep sense of entitlement and anger took more and more of an ends justify the means approach as her power grew. By Kings' Landing the ends and the entitlement had become one and the same - she had what she started off wanting but still craved more power for the sake of having more power, and could justify any atrocity as serving that "greater good".

But looking back, even her original good intentions were based on her rage against being powerless. Even her empathy was based in projecting the powerful denying her what was rightfully hers onto larger and larger groups of the powerless.

All in all, one of the more realistic villains in pop culture, even if the back half was much too rushed.

With all due respect, I don't think any of this is accurate. Her good intentions were based off good intentions. Her empathy was based off empathy. She was kind towards those less fortunate because she saw herself in those people. Its okay to admit that she had redeeming qualities, it doesn't mean she should be forgiven for burning a city. But acting like her good acts were actually secretly rooted in evil is not at all how she was portrayed in the show, and not even close to the nuisanced character GGRM projects in the books.

She hasn't secretly been a villain this entire time and everybody just missed it, but even if she was  then its would still be terrible writing because about 90% of the audience didn't view her that way at all.

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1927 on: May 22, 2019, 01:24:33 AM »

Online tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8113
  • Tommy Points: 549
Quote
The 163 crucified were Masters who benefited greatly from enslaving people.  Even if some of them objected to the crucifying of the slaves, they certainly weren't good men.  What was she going to do put all the masters on trial?  She could have just left the masters fate up to their slaves and she wouldn't have had a problem with the masters anymore.  Instead she takes a harsh middle ground, crucifying one master for every slave that was crucified.  Putting the masters and slaves on equal footing.

Dany had tried to work with the masters after that but they supported the Sons of Anarchy and killed more of her men than just Ser Barristan.  Burning one master was harsh but he was most certainly not an innocent having gotten wealthy off of slaves.

The Khals weren't innocents.  They had most certainly committed much brutality to rise to the level of Khal.  The Khals had taken Dany prisoner and were deciding her fate.  I believe were up to raping her and letting their horses rape her too when she called them on being not fit to rule and demanded they follow her.  When they obviously wouldn't, she killed them which was perfectly justified.

Burning the Tarleys was brutal but it is explainable and Lord Tarley was far from an innocent.  He had also broken his oath to the Tyrells when he didn't follow them in supporting them in supporting Dany.  He could have chosen to be neutral but he actually fought against the Tyrells and destroyed their house.  Even so, Dany gave him the chance to support her and his son also had the option to support her.  As for taking them prisoner what was she going to do with all their men?  Show me the prisoner of war camps in GOT.

Doreah wasn't stupid and naive.  She wasn't dupped and she wasn't an innocent.  She was conniving and betrayed Dany who had treated Doreah well.  The betrayal led several Dothraki being killed including Dany's other handmaiden and her dragons stolen.  If Dany hadn't been able to defeat the Warlocks, she would have been imprisoned for life in the House of the Undying.  I also had no issue with what Cersei did to Ellaria and her daughter.  Neither of them were innocent.  Whereas Ellaria killed Myrcella who most certainly was one of the few innocent characters in the show.     

At least you didn't mention, Dany's brother's death.  Who was one of the most vile characters and justly deserved his death.

I don't see anyone on here claiming Dany was good.  She's certainly did a lot of brutal things but until Episode 5 Kings Landing her actions were explainable and justifiable from her perspective and they were also balanced by her good actions.  They also weren't that brutal compared to some of the other brutality going on.  She wouldn't have rated high on the villain scale and her brutal actions most certainly weren't madness.

At the end of the day, she was just as bad as those she claiming she was liberating people from.   I will wait for your rebuttal but I  don't think there is one for the comment that is based in logic. 

You can twist it any way you want but burning King's Landing and people who have surrendered is a merciless act of evil. 

The fact that you feel compelled to use the word justify tells all.   One justifies things that need rationalized because they do not fit when the norms of societal and you talk yourself into accepting them.  She was cruel and routinely killed people who did not submit to her rule or bend the knee.   God help you if you feel that  way in real life.
Please. It is a show.  Did you not read?  I said her Episode 5 Kings Landing action wasn't justifiable or explainable from her perspective. There was nothing mad about it.  It was evil and made no sense from her character's perspective.  Her prior brutal actions weren't directed against innocents as you and others are trying to portray.  Maybe Martin will do a better job of setting it up in the rest of the books.

Hate to break it to you but submit and bend the knee or die is the norm for the GOT environment and the norm for most of human history.   Ned Stark killing the Night Watch deserter fleeing the White Walkers was a brutal act.  Ned Stark would have killed Jorah for selling some poachers to a slaver.  Wonder what Ned Stark's justice on the poachers would have been?  Death?  Loss of a hand?  Certainly not prison.  Jon Snow killing all of the traitors including Olly, a kid who'd seen his family butchered by Wildlings, was a brutal act.  Where's the clamoring for why Jon didn't just lockup Olly?   

By the way, I have read the books although it has been several years.  I'll point out again that in the books Dany was 13 when she was sold to Khal Drogo.  Imagine if the TV show had portrayed her as a 13 year old at the beginning. 

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1928 on: May 22, 2019, 01:33:11 AM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
You Dany apologists need to stop defending that mass-murdering evil psychopath.  THe only one worse than Dany is Bran for letting that LadyHitler commit her genocides without warning anyone.

The show pretty much had Tyrion spell out Dany's story for the viewers. She started off with good intentions but due to a deep sense of entitlement and anger took more and more of an ends justify the means approach as her power grew. By Kings' Landing the ends and the entitlement had become one and the same - she had what she started off wanting but still craved more power for the sake of having more power, and could justify any atrocity as serving that "greater good".

But looking back, even her original good intentions were based on her rage against being powerless. Even her empathy was based in projecting the powerful denying her what was rightfully hers onto larger and larger groups of the powerless.

All in all, one of the more realistic villains in pop culture, even if the back half was much too rushed.

With all due respect, I don't think any of this is accurate. Her good intentions were based off good intentions. Her empathy was based off empathy. She was kind towards those less fortunate because she saw herself in those people. Its okay to admit that she had redeeming qualities, it doesn't mean she should be forgiven for burning a city. But acting like her good acts were actually secretly rooted in evil is not at all how she was portrayed in the show, and not even close to the nuisanced character GGRM projects in the books.

I mean that's exactly what I'm saying. She was symbolically freeing herself, it got muddled up with her thirst for power, and liberation steadily turned into conquest.

She hasn't secretly been a villain this entire time and everybody just missed it, but even if she was  then its would still be terrible writing because about 90% of the audience didn't view her that way at all.

I don't think she was a villain the whole time, just that the seeds of her eventual villainy were always there, including in what were initially her best qualities. Villain's probably not even a great word for it, though it's where she wound up. Despite the rushed parts it was overall a really strong portrayal of idealistic motives being corrupted by self-interest and power.


Amen.  The anti-Dany folks on here apparently can't understand a complex character which is why I guess they gravitate to Jon Snow. 

Lol are we already into outgroup labels and stereotypes? I'm not anti-Dany at all, hers was one of the better character arcs in the end. And like almost everyone else she was a better character than Jon Snow, who got to do a lot of cool stuff but was consistently one of the least interesting parts of a lot of interesting situations. Jon really only approached being compelling the first time he had to choose between love (Ygritte) and duty (the Night's Watch/North), and we all knew which way he was gonna go.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 02:04:48 AM by fairweatherfan »

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1929 on: May 22, 2019, 01:43:08 AM »

Online tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8113
  • Tommy Points: 549
You Dany apologists need to stop defending that mass-murdering evil psychopath.  THe only one worse than Dany is Bran for letting that LadyHitler commit her genocides without warning anyone.

The show pretty much had Tyrion spell out Dany's story for the viewers. She started off with good intentions but due to a deep sense of entitlement and anger took more and more of an ends justify the means approach as her power grew. By Kings' Landing the ends and the entitlement had become one and the same - she had what she started off wanting but still craved more power for the sake of having more power, and could justify any atrocity as serving that "greater good".

But looking back, even her original good intentions were based on her rage against being powerless. Even her empathy was based in projecting the powerful denying her what was rightfully hers onto larger and larger groups of the powerless.

All in all, one of the more realistic villains in pop culture, even if the back half was much too rushed.

With all due respect, I don't think any of this is accurate. Her good intentions were based off good intentions. Her empathy was based off empathy. She was kind towards those less fortunate because she saw herself in those people. Its okay to admit that she had redeeming qualities, it doesn't mean she should be forgiven for burning a city. But acting like her good acts were actually secretly rooted in evil is not at all how she was portrayed in the show, and not even close to the nuisanced character GGRM projects in the books.

She hasn't secretly been a villain this entire time and everybody just missed it, but even if she was  then its would still be terrible writing because about 90% of the audience didn't view her that way at all.
Amen.  The anti-Dany folks on here apparently can't understand a complex character which is why I guess they gravitate to Jon Snow. 

When Drogon killed the shepherd's child, Dany was distraught.  She chained up the other two dragons.  A villain wouldn't have given one thought about it and certainly would not have chained up the dragons.  A villain would have made a deal with the slavers in Yunkai and Meereen not wasted resources on overthrowing them.  A villain would have killed Jon at the earliest opportunity after he revealed his Targaryen heritage.   

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1930 on: May 22, 2019, 02:03:58 AM »

Online tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8113
  • Tommy Points: 549
You Dany apologists need to stop defending that mass-murdering evil psychopath.  THe only one worse than Dany is Bran for letting that LadyHitler commit her genocides without warning anyone.

The show pretty much had Tyrion spell out Dany's story for the viewers. She started off with good intentions but due to a deep sense of entitlement and anger took more and more of an ends justify the means approach as her power grew. By Kings' Landing the ends and the entitlement had become one and the same - she had what she started off wanting but still craved more power for the sake of having more power, and could justify any atrocity as serving that "greater good".

But looking back, even her original good intentions were based on her rage against being powerless. Even her empathy was based in projecting the powerful denying her what was rightfully hers onto larger and larger groups of the powerless.

All in all, one of the more realistic villains in pop culture, even if the back half was much too rushed.

With all due respect, I don't think any of this is accurate. Her good intentions were based off good intentions. Her empathy was based off empathy. She was kind towards those less fortunate because she saw herself in those people. Its okay to admit that she had redeeming qualities, it doesn't mean she should be forgiven for burning a city. But acting like her good acts were actually secretly rooted in evil is not at all how she was portrayed in the show, and not even close to the nuisanced character GGRM projects in the books.

I mean that's exactly what I'm saying. She was symbolically freeing herself, it got muddled up with her thirst for power, and liberation steadily turned into conquest.

She hasn't secretly been a villain this entire time and everybody just missed it, but even if she was  then its would still be terrible writing because about 90% of the audience didn't view her that way at all.

I don't think she was a villain the whole time, just that the seeds of her eventual villainy were always there, including in what were initially her best qualities. Villain's probably not even a great word for it, though it's where she wound up. Despite the rushed parts it was overall a really strong portrayal of idealistic motives being corrupted by self-interest and power.
That's a lot different take than LarBrd and the other anti-Dany folks on here.  Dany certainly had plenty of faults with pride being a big one.  She certainly took brutal actions but until episode 5 destruction of Kings Landing they were in character and were not notably brutal compared to others in GOT. 

Brutal actions run the gamut and are sometimes necessary.  Dropping two atomic bombs on Japan was a horrific act which predominantly affected innocent civilians but it was necessary to end World War 2.  The people who ordered it and did it weren't villains. 

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1931 on: May 22, 2019, 06:11:34 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
Quote
That's a lot different take than LarBrd and the other anti-Dany folks on here.  Dany certainly had plenty of faults with pride being a big one.  She certainly took brutal actions but until episode 5 destruction of Kings Landing they were in character and were not notably brutal compared to others in GOT.

Brutal actions run the gamut and are sometimes necessary.  Dropping two atomic bombs on Japan was a horrific act which predominantly affected innocent civilians but it was necessary to end World War 2.  The people who ordered it and did it weren't villains.

The winners write history who is to say what society will say of them down the road.    I agree with the bomb decision but the difference is here and it is a big one, is that King's Landing had surrendered and the Japanese did not until the bomb broke their will to survive.   We would have never dropped that bomb if they had gave up.    So your example falls short and is not a good comparison given that fact.

She did have some good qualities at times but that was to throw you off the mad queen narrative when in fact, it was Martin's plan all the time.   I wager the downturn is worse in books and more drastic.

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1932 on: May 22, 2019, 06:49:24 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Quote
The 163 crucified were Masters who benefited greatly from enslaving people.  Even if some of them objected to the crucifying of the slaves, they certainly weren't good men.  What was she going to do put all the masters on trial?  She could have just left the masters fate up to their slaves and she wouldn't have had a problem with the masters anymore.  Instead she takes a harsh middle ground, crucifying one master for every slave that was crucified.  Putting the masters and slaves on equal footing.

Dany had tried to work with the masters after that but they supported the Sons of Anarchy and killed more of her men than just Ser Barristan.  Burning one master was harsh but he was most certainly not an innocent having gotten wealthy off of slaves.

The Khals weren't innocents.  They had most certainly committed much brutality to rise to the level of Khal.  The Khals had taken Dany prisoner and were deciding her fate.  I believe were up to raping her and letting their horses rape her too when she called them on being not fit to rule and demanded they follow her.  When they obviously wouldn't, she killed them which was perfectly justified.

Burning the Tarleys was brutal but it is explainable and Lord Tarley was far from an innocent.  He had also broken his oath to the Tyrells when he didn't follow them in supporting them in supporting Dany.  He could have chosen to be neutral but he actually fought against the Tyrells and destroyed their house.  Even so, Dany gave him the chance to support her and his son also had the option to support her.  As for taking them prisoner what was she going to do with all their men?  Show me the prisoner of war camps in GOT.

Doreah wasn't stupid and naive.  She wasn't dupped and she wasn't an innocent.  She was conniving and betrayed Dany who had treated Doreah well.  The betrayal led several Dothraki being killed including Dany's other handmaiden and her dragons stolen.  If Dany hadn't been able to defeat the Warlocks, she would have been imprisoned for life in the House of the Undying.  I also had no issue with what Cersei did to Ellaria and her daughter.  Neither of them were innocent.  Whereas Ellaria killed Myrcella who most certainly was one of the few innocent characters in the show.     

At least you didn't mention, Dany's brother's death.  Who was one of the most vile characters and justly deserved his death.

I don't see anyone on here claiming Dany was good.  She's certainly did a lot of brutal things but until Episode 5 Kings Landing her actions were explainable and justifiable from her perspective and they were also balanced by her good actions.  They also weren't that brutal compared to some of the other brutality going on.  She wouldn't have rated high on the villain scale and her brutal actions most certainly weren't madness.

At the end of the day, she was just as bad as those she claiming she was liberating people from.   I will wait for your rebuttal but I  don't think there is one for the comment that is based in logic. 

You can twist it any way you want but burning King's Landing and people who have surrendered is a merciless act of evil. 

The fact that you feel compelled to use the word justify tells all.   One justifies things that need rationalized because they do not fit when the norms of societal and you talk yourself into accepting them.  She was cruel and routinely killed people who did not submit to her rule or bend the knee.   God help you if you feel that  way in real life.
Please. It is a show.  Did you not read?  I said her Episode 5 Kings Landing action wasn't justifiable or explainable from her perspective. There was nothing mad about it.  It was evil and made no sense from her character's perspective.  Her prior brutal actions weren't directed against innocents as you and others are trying to portray.  Maybe Martin will do a better job of setting it up in the rest of the books.

Hate to break it to you but submit and bend the knee or die is the norm for the GOT environment and the norm for most of human history.   Ned Stark killing the Night Watch deserter fleeing the White Walkers was a brutal act.  Ned Stark would have killed Jorah for selling some poachers to a slaver.  Wonder what Ned Stark's justice on the poachers would have been?  Death?  Loss of a hand?  Certainly not prison.  Jon Snow killing all of the traitors including Olly, a kid who'd seen his family butchered by Wildlings, was a brutal act.  Where's the clamoring for why Jon didn't just lockup Olly?   

By the way, I have read the books although it has been several years.  I'll point out again that in the books Dany was 13 when she was sold to Khal Drogo.  Imagine if the TV show had portrayed her as a 13 year old at the beginning.
You keep bringing up things as comparisons that aren't comparable.  Breaking the law and being punished for it are not the same thing as not bending the knee to an invading force of barbarians and former slaves commanded by someone with dragons that has a penchant for burning people alive.  Remember everywhere Dany went she was the invader.  She was the one destroying cities.  She wasn't defending her home from invaders like the people she was defeating.  It was entirely unreasonable to expect people in that situation to bend the knee. 

Her being 13 is much of the point though.  That is part of the reason she acts the way she does.  She was a child.  It is the same reason Robb Stark returned from war with a wife.  He was a kid.  Kids aren't fully developed and do things they shouldn't all of the time.  For Dany, being told her whole life that she was special and then for special things to start happening to her, she started to believe that only she knew what was right and anyone that stood in her way was the enemy.  It is why she could justify everything she did, consequences be [dang]ed. 

The show rushed her decent into madness, but it was always there.  The seeds of it were always there.  And everything she did was for the purpose of ascending to the throne (by you know invading and destroying her enemies).  Even her time in the east was calculated to ascend to the throne.  To get the Unsullied she had to destroy the masters, but she knew she could never just stay there with the other cities in slaver's bay because they would never leave her alone.  She needed to take them out as well.  And she couldn't have just gone to Westeros at that point with just the Unsullied and her still very small dragons.  She would have been wiped out easily.  By taking out the masters in the other cities, her troops grew, her power grew, and most importantly her dragons grew.  To conquer the world, she had to have fully grown dragons.  But her leadership all through out the East was questionable.  Heck she even abandoned Mereen and left others in charge while she went off with Drogon.  Dany was a great conquistador, but a terrible ruler.  In large part because she was 13 when special things started happening and she never had a proper upbringing of a typical ruler.  She didn't ever really learn about the gray areas.  To her everything was black and white.  You with her or against her.  That is what shaped her world view and that is why she was always destined to end up exactly where she did. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1933 on: May 22, 2019, 08:23:02 AM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30893
  • Tommy Points: 3765
  • Yup
Quote
The 163 crucified were Masters who benefited greatly from enslaving people.  Even if some of them objected to the crucifying of the slaves, they certainly weren't good men.  What was she going to do put all the masters on trial?  She could have just left the masters fate up to their slaves and she wouldn't have had a problem with the masters anymore.  Instead she takes a harsh middle ground, crucifying one master for every slave that was crucified.  Putting the masters and slaves on equal footing.

Dany had tried to work with the masters after that but they supported the Sons of Anarchy and killed more of her men than just Ser Barristan.  Burning one master was harsh but he was most certainly not an innocent having gotten wealthy off of slaves.

The Khals weren't innocents.  They had most certainly committed much brutality to rise to the level of Khal.  The Khals had taken Dany prisoner and were deciding her fate.  I believe were up to raping her and letting their horses rape her too when she called them on being not fit to rule and demanded they follow her.  When they obviously wouldn't, she killed them which was perfectly justified.

Burning the Tarleys was brutal but it is explainable and Lord Tarley was far from an innocent.  He had also broken his oath to the Tyrells when he didn't follow them in supporting them in supporting Dany.  He could have chosen to be neutral but he actually fought against the Tyrells and destroyed their house.  Even so, Dany gave him the chance to support her and his son also had the option to support her.  As for taking them prisoner what was she going to do with all their men?  Show me the prisoner of war camps in GOT.

Doreah wasn't stupid and naive.  She wasn't dupped and she wasn't an innocent.  She was conniving and betrayed Dany who had treated Doreah well.  The betrayal led several Dothraki being killed including Dany's other handmaiden and her dragons stolen.  If Dany hadn't been able to defeat the Warlocks, she would have been imprisoned for life in the House of the Undying.  I also had no issue with what Cersei did to Ellaria and her daughter.  Neither of them were innocent.  Whereas Ellaria killed Myrcella who most certainly was one of the few innocent characters in the show.     

At least you didn't mention, Dany's brother's death.  Who was one of the most vile characters and justly deserved his death.

I don't see anyone on here claiming Dany was good.  She's certainly did a lot of brutal things but until Episode 5 Kings Landing her actions were explainable and justifiable from her perspective and they were also balanced by her good actions.  They also weren't that brutal compared to some of the other brutality going on.  She wouldn't have rated high on the villain scale and her brutal actions most certainly weren't madness.

At the end of the day, she was just as bad as those she claiming she was liberating people from.   I will wait for your rebuttal but I  don't think there is one for the comment that is based in logic. 

You can twist it any way you want but burning King's Landing and people who have surrendered is a merciless act of evil. 

The fact that you feel compelled to use the word justify tells all.   One justifies things that need rationalized because they do not fit when the norms of societal and you talk yourself into accepting them.  She was cruel and routinely killed people who did not submit to her rule or bend the knee.   God help you if you feel that  way in real life.
Please. It is a show.  Did you not read?  I said her Episode 5 Kings Landing action wasn't justifiable or explainable from her perspective. There was nothing mad about it.  It was evil and made no sense from her character's perspective.  Her prior brutal actions weren't directed against innocents as you and others are trying to portray.  Maybe Martin will do a better job of setting it up in the rest of the books.

Hate to break it to you but submit and bend the knee or die is the norm for the GOT environment and the norm for most of human history.   Ned Stark killing the Night Watch deserter fleeing the White Walkers was a brutal act.  Ned Stark would have killed Jorah for selling some poachers to a slaver.  Wonder what Ned Stark's justice on the poachers would have been?  Death?  Loss of a hand?  Certainly not prison.  Jon Snow killing all of the traitors including Olly, a kid who'd seen his family butchered by Wildlings, was a brutal act.  Where's the clamoring for why Jon didn't just lockup Olly?   

By the way, I have read the books although it has been several years.  I'll point out again that in the books Dany was 13 when she was sold to Khal Drogo.  Imagine if the TV show had portrayed her as a 13 year old at the beginning.
You keep bringing up things as comparisons that aren't comparable.  Breaking the law and being punished for it are not the same thing as not bending the knee to an invading force of barbarians and former slaves commanded by someone with dragons that has a penchant for burning people alive.  Remember everywhere Dany went she was the invader.  She was the one destroying cities.  She wasn't defending her home from invaders like the people she was defeating.  It was entirely unreasonable to expect people in that situation to bend the knee. 

Her being 13 is much of the point though.  That is part of the reason she acts the way she does.  She was a child.  It is the same reason Robb Stark returned from war with a wife.  He was a kid.  Kids aren't fully developed and do things they shouldn't all of the time.  For Dany, being told her whole life that she was special and then for special things to start happening to her, she started to believe that only she knew what was right and anyone that stood in her way was the enemy.  It is why she could justify everything she did, consequences be [dang]ed. 

The show rushed her decent into madness, but it was always there.  The seeds of it were always there.  And everything she did was for the purpose of ascending to the throne (by you know invading and destroying her enemies).  Even her time in the east was calculated to ascend to the throne.  To get the Unsullied she had to destroy the masters, but she knew she could never just stay there with the other cities in slaver's bay because they would never leave her alone.  She needed to take them out as well.  And she couldn't have just gone to Westeros at that point with just the Unsullied and her still very small dragons.  She would have been wiped out easily.  By taking out the masters in the other cities, her troops grew, her power grew, and most importantly her dragons grew.  To conquer the world, she had to have fully grown dragons.  But her leadership all through out the East was questionable.  Heck she even abandoned Mereen and left others in charge while she went off with Drogon.  Dany was a great conquistador, but a terrible ruler.  In large part because she was 13 when special things started happening and she never had a proper upbringing of a typical ruler.  She didn't ever really learn about the gray areas.  To her everything was black and white.  You with her or against her.  That is what shaped her world view and that is why she was always destined to end up exactly where she did.

In short: just Dany being Dany
Yup

Re: A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)
« Reply #1934 on: May 22, 2019, 09:22:44 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
You Dany apologists need to stop defending that mass-murdering evil psychopath.  THe only one worse than Dany is Bran for letting that LadyHitler commit her genocides without warning anyone.

The show pretty much had Tyrion spell out Dany's story for the viewers. She started off with good intentions but due to a deep sense of entitlement and anger took more and more of an ends justify the means approach as her power grew. By Kings' Landing the ends and the entitlement had become one and the same - she had what she started off wanting but still craved more power for the sake of having more power, and could justify any atrocity as serving that "greater good".

But looking back, even her original good intentions were based on her rage against being powerless. Even her empathy was based in projecting the powerful denying her what was rightfully hers onto larger and larger groups of the powerless.

All in all, one of the more realistic villains in pop culture, even if the back half was much too rushed.

With all due respect, I don't think any of this is accurate. Her good intentions were based off good intentions. Her empathy was based off empathy. She was kind towards those less fortunate because she saw herself in those people. Its okay to admit that she had redeeming qualities, it doesn't mean she should be forgiven for burning a city. But acting like her good acts were actually secretly rooted in evil is not at all how she was portrayed in the show, and not even close to the nuisanced character GGRM projects in the books.

I mean that's exactly what I'm saying. She was symbolically freeing herself, it got muddled up with her thirst for power, and liberation steadily turned into conquest.

She hasn't secretly been a villain this entire time and everybody just missed it, but even if she was  then its would still be terrible writing because about 90% of the audience didn't view her that way at all.

I don't think she was a villain the whole time, just that the seeds of her eventual villainy were always there, including in what were initially her best qualities. Villain's probably not even a great word for it, though it's where she wound up. Despite the rushed parts it was overall a really strong portrayal of idealistic motives being corrupted by self-interest and power.
That's a lot different take than LarBrd and the other anti-Dany folks on here.  Dany certainly had plenty of faults with pride being a big one.  She certainly took brutal actions but until episode 5 destruction of Kings Landing they were in character and were not notably brutal compared to others in GOT. 

Brutal actions run the gamut and are sometimes necessary.  Dropping two atomic bombs on Japan was a horrific act which predominantly affected innocent civilians but it was necessary to end World War 2.  The people who ordered it and did it weren't villains.
Nah she was literally evil.  Broken mentally from day 1.  Blame childhood trauma, but ultimately she was ladyhitler under the guise of a savior and Aegon should have stabbed her far earlier.  Actually, the realm would have been better off had the Baratheons got a hold of her as a baby.  If Bran wasn't such a dingdong, he'd do like his great grandson did in "Avengers Endgame" and use his powers for a timeheist where he goes back in time and ends this crap before it began.