Winter is Here

[maz89]

Yeah I thought it was a pretty good episode, though apparently it is the lowest rated episode in the entirety of Game of Thrones on Metacritc or Rotten Tomatoes or one of those other silly, bad sites.

Even Cleganebowl I think ended up being pretty decent, if only because I thought the bit with Sandor and Arya having that last talk was pretty good.

For me, the question is where Jon plays into next week. I see at least one of two things happening.

1) He turns on Dany and stabs her a la Jaime and the Mad King. Perhaps magical Azor Ahai shit is involved, though it seems unlikely to me.

2) Jon still things he can "fix" Dany and stays loyal to her. I think Arya comes to assassinate Dany (Out of a genuine desire to save innocent lives and not for revenge). Jon defends Dany and we get Arya vs. Jon. If this happens I don't know what happens next.

Yeah, I did like the last talk the two share. It's as if Sandor absorbs the revenge and hate in Arya for Cersei and takes it with him into the belly of the fire. For a moment, Arya looks like herself and then she experiences first-hand the horrors of the Mad Queen's slaughter.

If that second scenario plays out, you can expect that the next episode would be the lowest rated. People are not going to like the ending, lol.

[maz89]

Yeah I see a lot of people that say Jaime should have redeemed himself by killing Cersei.

I'll admit to thinking that was going to happen too, but thinking about it...Jaime showing he's a good person by killing a pregnant woman doesn't actually make much thematic sense.

Like I straight up see people online saying that Jaime's arc is completely invalidated because he didn't murder her, though I think the fact that he intended to talk her into ringing the bells and wanted to take her someplace quiet to live out the rest of the their lives does show that's he's not the same dude at the beginning of the show still.

Season 1 Jaime would have tried to assassinate Dany himself or something before the battle even started.

I mean, that was always one of the most popular theories and it looks like people had their hearts really set into it. I prefer the more balanced conclusion to his arc that we get here. He did redeem himself - he abandoned his sister to fight the undead, for the greater good - but, despite his self loathing, he still always loved her. No matter how hateful she is. No matter how aware of that fact he is. That never changed, and it is poetic that he may have evolved during the show (even though he didn't think so) but that one thing, his driving force, remained constant.

[Raxivace]

If that second scenario plays out, you can expect that the next episode would be the lowest rated. People are not going to like the ending, lol.

Honestly its the version of Game of Thrones I wish we had been getting more of from the beginning.

I think Arya vs. Jon would make some amount of sense. It would parallel what we just saw in Cleganebowl, and the idea of Arya killing Jon with Needle, the sword he gave her at the beginning of the show, seems kind of poetic.

The girl who serves the God of Death VS. the man who came back to life...

Of course I could be way off here.

[Raxivace]

I mean, that was always one of the most popular theories and it looks like people had their hearts really set into it. I prefer the more balanced conclusion to his arc that we get here. He did redeem himself - he abandoned his sister to fight the undead, for the greater good - but, despite his self loathing, he still always loved her. No matter how hateful she is. No matter how aware of that fact he is. That never changed, and it is poetic that he may have evolved during the show (even though he didn't think so) but that one thing, his driving force, remained constant.

Yeah we're in agreement it seems on Jaime.

After Game of Thrones I think I'm done with paying much attention to online speculation/theorizing for these popular tentpole shows like this or Lost because holy shit.

[maz89]

Honestly its the version of Game of Thrones I wish we had been getting more of from the beginning.

I think Arya vs. Jon would make some amount of sense. It would parallel what we just saw in Cleganebowl, and the idea of Arya killing Jon with Needle, the sword he gave her at the beginning of the show, seems kind of poetic.

The girl who serves the God of Death VS. the man who came back to life...

Of course I could be way off here.

I think the look Jon and Davos exchanged after Dany went loose was clear: Vary was right. So it'd be interesting if he still decides to stick his neck up for Dany against Arya/Sansa. He just might be stubborn enough to do something like that.

And of course, you're totally right on how we should just give up theorizing for shows like these (I remember Lost). I actually thought Littlefinger would come back for a while there and circulated that theory. As well as the theory that Drogon has 3 baby dragons. Alas, I have lost all credibility now.

[Raxivace]

No I don't mean giving up on theorizing itself or whatever (Though yeah much of it probably isn't fruitful), I mean more the online culture around it where people get mad and pissed and decide that its bad writing if their theory doesn't come true or if what they want to happen doesn't pan out. Soooooo much of it just reads of entitlement and nerdrage and I'm just done seeing it.

Like I had fun considering that weird "Littlefinger is still alive theory" but it didn't pan out. Oh well. I'm not going to go "BLAAAAH D&D ARE HACKS" over it, or because Jaime and Brienne didn't get together or whatever else. It's the attitude of these angry online people I'm sick of.

[Derived Absurdity]

I've not been watching this season, obviously, but I've been hearing about what's happening, and you two are the only people online who don't want to burn the scriptwriters alive, so I'll ask a few questions:

1) Apparently all the White Walkers and the Night King were dispatched easily in one episode. Is that not problematic after building them up as this terrifying cataclysmic Final Boss for almost eight seasons straight? That seems extremely anti-climactic to me to say the least. Also, it doesn't seem like they're a climate change metaphor anymore, since climate change can't be solved that easily.

2) Do we even know what their deal was? What they even wanted? Who was the Night King and what did he want? This might have been answered in the four or so seasons I haven't watched admittedly.

3) Considering that they were basically defeated in a day (or whatever) and Cersei didn't even have to lift a finger to do it, doesn't that justify her original opinion that they were never a big deal in the first place and everyone was being silly for overreacting to them? In fact doesn't that justify the attitude pretty much the whole world in general had, since they never thought they were a big deal and it turns out that they were not, in fact, a big deal?

4) I guess Arya killed the Night King, or something. Why? Wouldn't it have made better sense for Jon do it, since the Night King was part of his story, not hers? Sort of like how Voldemort was Harry Potter's to kill and Darth Vader was Luke's to kill and whatnot. Arya was just some random girl. The Night King wasn't hers to kill, story-wise, it seems to me. Also it seems to reinforce the idea that he was never a big deal if he was able to be killed by some random teenager with a knife, lol.

JAQ!

[maz89]

No I don't mean giving up on theorizing itself or whatever (Though yeah much of it probably isn't fruitful), I mean more the online culture around it where people get mad and pissed and decide that its bad writing if their theory doesn't come true or if what they want to happen doesn't pan out. Soooooo much of it just reads of entitlement and nerdrage and I'm just done seeing it.

Like I had fun considering that weird "Littlefinger is still alive theory" but it didn't pan out. Oh well. I'm not going to go "BLAAAAH D&D ARE HACKS" over it, or because Jaime and Brienne didn't get together or whatever else. It's the attitude of these angry online people I'm sick of.

Oh, oh, yes, that makes way more sense. I 100% agree. I enjoy theorizing too and it can make shows like this more fun, but I also don't go from obsessing about something to completely denouncing it just because it didn't go my way or didn't conform to the arc I had in my mind. I've literally spent the last half hour reading comments online from people who disliked the most tiniest of details, and after reading your post, I'm reminded of why I should stop doing that. The entitlement is indeed off-putting. I really don't get why people can't just sit down and appreciate another perspective/take (perhaps the only one that matters at this point) without interrupting you and telling you about their fanfiction in which Jon and the NK battle it out before Bran wargs into a million birds to kill the undead or in which Jon, Arya, and Tyrion take turns at stabbing Cersei before Jaime lands the final blow and rides off into the sunset with Brienne or... in which Dany exercises restraint for the first time in her life. I mean, they'd really enjoy the show a lot more if they could do that.

[BruceSmith78]

The Night King was created by the Children of the Forest via some black magic as a weapon against humans, and he broke free from their control. He wanted to wipe the humans from the face of the earth, because that's basically what he was created to do, and he wanted to eliminate Bran as a crucial objective in that mission. This is due to the knowledge and memories that Bran possesses.

The Night King was on the verge of routing the combined strength of the North and all of Dany's forces, including 3 full grown dragons and a powerful sorceress, when Arya pulled a rabbit out of a hat and killed his ass. It wasn't easy and it didn't diminish the threat the Night King imposed.

In the books there is that sort of “promised one" prophecy that is similar to the Luke and Vader or Potter and Voldemort dynamic, but that doesn't exist in the show. There's no particular reason why Jon Snow should be destined to kill the Night King and not Arya, and Arya was not just a random teenager with a knife.

[Derived Absurdity]

The Night King was on the verge of routing the combined strength of the North and all of Dany's forces, including 3 full grown dragons and a powerful sorceress, when Arya pulled a rabbit out of a hat and killed his ass. It wasn't easy and it didn't diminish the threat the Night King imposed.

It still doesn't seem to right to me on a meta level that they/he were dispatched in an episode while barely making it past Winterfell, if they did. "Winter is coming" was this threatening, malevolent phrase hanging over everyone for the entire series. I always thought the entire continent of Westeros was basically going to pay for fucking around for so long on petty power plays while ignoring the real threat, and then the real threat would come and it would be too late. I thought that was kind of one of the overarching points of the series. It just seems really weird and anti-climactic to me... but I haven't seen the episode. I also don't want to be one of those people bitching because a show took a direction I didn't want it take.

In the books there is that sort of “promised one" prophecy that is similar to the Luke and Vader or Potter and Voldemort dynamic, but that doesn't exist in the show. There's no particular reason why Jon Snow should be destined to kill the Night King and not Arya, and Arya was not just a random teenager with a knife.

I'm talking about the meta level, not in the universe of the show. It would have made sense to have Luke and Vader face off even without a prophecy, because the latter was specifically the villain to the former and that's how stories work. It would have been underwhelming and anti-climactic for Chewbacca to come out of nowhere and stab Vader to death, or for Percy Weasley to kill Voldemort. Yet that seems to be what GoT did. The Night King was always Jon's enemy to defeat, even if he was introduced more recently; almost everything that happened to Jon was because of the Night King, directly or indirectly. What did the Night King ever do to Arya? What made him her villain to defeat more than Jon's?

[maz89]

Plus one to everything Bruce astutely said. I'll take a stab as well.

I've not been watching this season, obviously, but I've been hearing about what's happening, and you two are the only people online who don't want to burn the scriptwriters alive, so I'll ask a few questions:

1) Apparently all the White Walkers and the Night King were dispatched easily in one episode. Is that not problematic after building them up as this terrifying cataclysmic Final Boss for almost eight seasons straight? That seems extremely anti-climactic to me to say the least. Also, it doesn't seem like they're a climate change metaphor anymore, since climate change can't be solved that easily.

2) Do we even know what their deal was? What they even wanted? Who was the Night King and what did he want? This might have been answered in the four or so seasons I haven't watched admittedly.

3) Considering that they were basically defeated in a day (or whatever) and Cersei didn't even have to lift a finger to do it, doesn't that justify her original opinion that they were never a big deal in the first place and everyone was being silly for overreacting to them? In fact doesn't that justify the attitude pretty much the whole world in general had, since they never thought they were a big deal and it turns out that they were not, in fact, a big deal?

4) I guess Arya killed the Night King, or something. Why? Wouldn't it have made better sense for Jon do it, since the Night King was part of his story, not hers? Sort of like how Voldemort was Harry Potter's to kill and Darth Vader was Luke's to kill and whatnot. Arya was just some random girl. The Night King wasn't hers to kill, story-wise, it seems to me. Also it seems to reinforce the idea that he was never a big deal if he was able to be killed by some random teenager with a knife, lol.

JAQ!

1. The actual battle lasted one episode but it didn't feel anti-climactic to me. The story about the undead effectively began with the first episode, and the focus of the recent seasons was increasingly towards them. So, overall 70 episodes dealing with the looming threat of the Night King and three for the petty people stuff afterwards - GoT's bread and butter - isn't a bad mix.

The climate change metaphor still fits IMO - it was not solved that easily as it required the unconventional, ground-breaking unity of a large number of disparate groups of people and it also resulted in mass casualties.

2. Their single-minded pursuit is to destroy the world and they want to start with Bran as he is the world's "memory" as the Three Eyed Raven, a position he is made to adopt in season 6. The undead were always envisioned as an evil "force of nature", and in the story they were created originally by the Children of the Forest in a bid to protect themselves against the First Men IIRC (but that back-fired because the undead wanted to kill everything, including their creators). Going back to the metaphor, the undead situation is akin to how climate change can totally fuck us up and take us back to a dead world where we lose all of our progress (aka Bran) if we let it.

3. Well, they were a big deal but Cersei's position was meant to illustrate how myopic people can be even in the face of obvious doom. Just because "good" people were able to save the world doesn't mean the dumb idiots protecting their petty interests were right. Cersei had no idea if the North would be able to stop the undead. She just knew they would die first and that was enough for her. She reasoned that if dragons couldn't stop the army of the undead, there was no way her armies would be able to.

4. Judging by what Bruce said, it looks like the "promised one" prophecy is developed differently in the books. On the show, it is emphasized that the prophecy does not mention the gender of the savior. There was early foreshadowing in S2 that Arya would have a role to play in the battle against the undead, and GoT has always kind of gone against fantasy tropes - characters who appear to be destined for heroic shit end up falling short and characters who appear to be heading towards some kind of classic epic show-down do not get it. Without going into too much detail, let's just say Arya is certainly not a random teenager with a knife and instead someone who earns the kill.

[maz89]

It still doesn't seem to right to me on a meta level that they/he were dispatched in an episode while barely making it past Winterfell, if they did. "Winter is coming" was this threatening, malevolent phrase hanging over everyone for the entire series. I always thought the entire continent of Westeros was basically going to pay for fucking around for so long on petty power plays while ignoring the real threat, and then the real threat would come and it would be too late. I thought that was kind of one of the overarching points of the series. It just seems really weird and anti-climactic to me... but I haven't seen the episode. I also don't want to be one of those people bitching because a show took a direction I didn't want it take.

I think that's what most of us thought would/should happen. In a way, it is anti-climactic (although probably not so much for GoT), but the evil force were always going to be defeated. GRRM has said he was always more interested in what would happen afterwards. I'd like to know if your thoughts change after you see the episodes.

I'm talking about the meta level, not in the universe of the show. It would have made sense to have Luke and Vader face off even without a prophecy, because the latter was specifically the villain to the former and that's how stories work. It would have been underwhelming and anti-climactic for Chewbacca to come out of nowhere and stab Vader to death, or for Percy Weasley to kill Voldemort. Yet that seems to be what GoT did. The Night King was always Jon's enemy to defeat, even if he was introduced more recently; almost everything that happened to Jon was because of the Night King, directly or indirectly. What did the Night King ever do to Arya? What made him her villain to defeat more than Jon's?

I didn't want to spoil this but I might as well add that Arya has a pretty important arc in season 4 and 5 where she trains with the Faceless Men to become a masterful silent killer. By the start of season eight, NK was a threat to pretty much everyone in the North, even if Jon was spearheading the campaign. There IS a brief confrontation between Jon and NK, btw, but it doesn't go as expected (or maybe it does!). Ignoring that, it's important to note that apart from the early Jon/NK showdowns, there is also the very important NK/Bran connection. One could argue that the reason Arya gets a jump on the NK at all is because of Bran himself (and his magical foresight, the power of the weirwood tree, etc).

[Derived Absurdity]

I don't remember that foreshadowing in S2, but I know about The Faceless Men. Calling her a "random teenager" was hyperbole I guess.

Anyway thanks for responding Bruce and maz.

[Raxivace]

Yeah I generally agree with what maz and Bruce said.

However I don't agree with the climate change metaphor being effective because defeating climate change in real life is not about simply the nations of the world coming together in peace (Something that will never, ever happen to begin with). It's about consuming less electricity, about using less hairspray, about producing less, dumping waste less, burning down forests less etc. All that kind of shit we do day to day to make our lives more convenient. We just take it for granted, and we've kind of ignored the cost despite warnings for years from scientists. Even it our society drastically changed all of this shit tomorrow, so much damage has already been done. Future generations aren't going to look kindly on us, if they're even around, and tbh they'll have pretty good reason to hate us.

The idea of the alliances in Game of Thrones being equivalent to the sheer inconceivable changes we'd need to bring about in the real world just doesn't sit well with me. I don't know much clearer I can make this point: its not simply a monster for that we can kill. Its ourselves we need to change, and not just one or two or ten or twenty thousand of us. It's on a global scale.

Anyways this isn't really a problem with Season 8 in my eyes or even one with Season 7. I think it's something that's just been kind of off to me about the whole show, though you could probably go back as far to the source material in the books (Which, to be fair, those first couple were written in a very different time period than we're in now and therefore reflect an older understanding of these things).

[maz89]

Hmm, I don't know, the more I think about it at a macro level (without getting into little details etc), the more I think that it holds. For eg, if consuming less electricity and protecting forests are examples of real-world actions that can only result from changing ourselves, the equivalent action in the world of GoT... would be to destroy the evil force of nature, that is the NK... who is literally a blue, sinister reflection of man. The "monster being killed" element has to be seen metaphorically.

I do think the show puts effort into the idea that late-game alliances in GoT were game-changing, but I can understand where you're coming from when you say that equivalent in the real world just wouldn't happen, i.e. major governments all miraculously banding together to make the environment their number one priority, starting with a crack down against profit seeking, ruthless corporations hiding behind their environmentally friendly public personas. Your point that the climate change metaphor would only have worked if the undead DID emerge victorious is an understandable view, but I also don't think the the metaphor necessarily has to be about the idea of totally 100% eliminating global warming. It could just be about the necessity of people at a large scale (in GoT's world, Dany and the North was pretty much global scale, lol) banding together to recognize the error of our ways (that fundamental internal shift) and slowing down the damage to the environment. Even if we could accomplish something close to that today, it would be a victory.

In any case, if GoT is "optimistic" about the idea of us curbing the effects of climate change, it is only for the sake of its cynical commentary on the ruling class and nature of power, built on the idea that even if by some miracle many, many smart people managed to get together and save the world, we're still fucked. I guess this is why metaphor ain't an issue for you.

[Derived Absurdity]

Also, I didn't want to talk about this, but whatever: what has Dany ever done in the show that would make what she just did last episode be a natural or logical progression of her character? I realize the show has portrayed her as far more violent and impulsive than the books ever did, but never as unambiguously, straightforwardly, irredeemably evil. Your mileage may vary, but there was always a logic, either rational or emotional, to the things she did. She was always portrayed as basically a decent person with a large unfortunate streak of megalomania, extreme entitlement, and self-righteous; to think that foundation would lead naturally to pointlessly burning thousands of innocent people alive is kind of lulzy to me.

[Raxivace]

Hmm, I don't know, the more I think about it at a macro level (without getting into little details etc), the more I think that it holds. For eg, if consuming less electricity and protecting forests are examples of real-world actions that can only result from changing ourselves, the equivalent action in the world of GoT... would be to destroy the evil force of nature, that is the NK... who is literally a blue, sinister reflection of man. The "monster being killed" element has to be seen metaphorically.

Is he really a reflection of "man" though? It's the Children of the Forest who created him- despite being made from a human, he seems more like a warped version of their values, what with the big corpse symbols and stuff he scatters throughout the land. The very concept of humanity itself is what he was even trying to erase through his attempt to kill Bran- nature is a bit more indifferent.

I suppose you could argue that well its the fault of the First Men (Or whoever they were called, I can't remember the specifics) for going to war with the Children of the Forest to begin with, causing them to retaliate by creating the White Walkers. Again I feel this harms the metaphor by making the Walkers such an indirect result of the human's actions- its the Children's science experiment that goes wrong.

Thinking about it I guess Dany is supposed to be more of a "global" represtation than I initially gave credit for since she has the Unsullied and the Dothraki, though perhaps I'm just too willing to forget most of the stuff in Essos ever happened lol.

Anyways, it's really only on this metaphorical level that I really have a problem with the whole Walker plotline- the actual battle scenes and adventuring and such about them I enjoyed greatly. There is some stuff I wonder back on though, like the guy north of the Wall who offered his children up to the NK, presumably to live peacefully. Kind of odd in retrospect.

[Raxivace]

Also, I didn't want to talk about this, but whatever: what has Dany ever done in the show that would make what she just did last episode be a natural or logical progression of her character? I realize the show has portrayed her as far more violent and impulsive than the books ever did, but never as unambiguously, straightforwardly, irredeemably evil. Your mileage may vary, but there was always a logic, either rational or emotional, to the things she did. She was always portrayed as basically a decent person with a large unfortunate streak of megalomania, extreme entitlement, and self-righteous; to think that foundation would lead naturally to pointlessly burning thousands of innocent people alive is kind of lulzy to me.

Decent people don't start imperialistic conquests on the basis of their last name. She's been a bad person from the beginning, who uses thin justifications/rationalizations about saving people or whatever when its her own ego she's striving to serve.

Like part of her own MO is burning people alive for god's sake. That's a horrifying, torturous way to kill people. Normal people don't do uncool and bad things like that. Hell she's talked other times in prior seasons about just wanting to straight up burn entire cities like she did in S8E5.

So we take this already unstable person, have her come to Westeros and lose most of her advisors (One of whom was beheaded in front of her), find her last remaining advisor to be incompetent, had two of her dragons (Children) killed, find out that the man she loves has a better claim to the throne than she does (Something that was the entire basis of her identity before), that said man doesn't love her anymore and won't even have sex with her, and learn that despite all of her sacrifices that the people of Westeros still love that man more than her. That really fucks her up.

What she later says is that she'll rule through fear now since she can't rule by getting the people to love her more than they do Jon, and between that and the repressed rage from the above coming out its not hard to see why she does what she did, especially to the people of King's Landing who she doesn't view as particularly innocent to begin with for siding with Cersei, who was a Lannister and those damn Lannisters helped kill her father, fuck 'em.

[BruceSmith78]

Yeah, aside from burning people alive every other season, she also crucified fifty plus people. I said it before in this thread, but given a choice between being crucified or incinerated, light me up with dragon fire please. She also knew her dragons liked to eat people after a shepherd brought her the charred bones of his son, and aside from locking them up for a little while, she didn't give much of a shit. She later bragged about it, telling Sansa that her dragons eat “whatever they want."

She didn't trust anything Tyrion told her anymore. His advice had failed her time and time again, he's a Lannister, and she likely had already learned he had freed Jaime by then, so she may have thought the bells were just a trap and as soon as she showed mercy she'd get fucked over.

Combine that with all the shit Rax mentioned that led to her deciding she would have to rule through fear rather than love, and it's easy to see this being a natural part of her character arc.

[BruceSmith78]

"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."

"I am not your little princess. 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."

"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."

^ actual quotes from Dany in seasons 2 and 3

[Gendo]

As shared on Facebook by Chuckles...

[Derived Absurdity]

You could also pick a bunch of quotes from her where she says point-blank that she's not going to murder a bunch of innocent people and that she cares about innocent lives. "Burn cities to the ground" doesn't imply she's going to go block by block and indiscriminately torch a bunch of peasants. "Burn cities to the ground" always sounded me to me as destroying the power structures of all the people she's chosen to be on her kill list. Their palaces and keeps and pyramids and whatnot. Not indiscriminate, purposeful mass murder of civilians.

Every time she's done something immoral it was as a response to someone doing something morally depraved or to someone who posed a direct threat to her and people she cared about. Whatever you may think of all those, I still think there's a gargantuan moral chasm between crucifying a bunch of slavers or burning someone who killed her husband and unborn child and what she pulled last episode, both in intentions and effects.

A lot of characters on this show have done horrific things. Arya murdered a bunch of people just because of their last names and baked them into pies. Jon hung a kid. Theon gave the green light to killing two children. Ned Stark executed some guy just because he was scared of a bunch of ice zombies. Jaime pushed a kid out a window. Tyrion strangled someone and burned a bunch of people alive. The Queen of Thorns poisoned a kid. Sandor Clegane slew a kid in cold blood. (Jesus Christ, what is with this show and kids?) But I would give the serious side-eye to anyone who suggests that any of these actions would naturally lead to deliberate mass murder of a bunch of innocent civilians for no reason. Yes, obviously, they could, it opens up the possibility, but you need to do the actual legwork to show the character progression. Did they do that with Dany? How she could go from crucifying slavers (which, btw, wasn't that only in retribution for them crucifying a bunch of children? Isn't that kind of an important detail?) to what she just did?

It seems they tried, what with a bunch of horrible things happening to her in like three episodes, but nothing she went through this season was worse than anything she went through the first few seasons.

[maz89]

But in the first few seasons, when anything came in her way, she DID use murder to get what she wanted. It's just that we were okay with her playing judge, jury and executioner because, like you said, those guys she killed were usually asshole slavers and they deserved it. Sure, she 'tried' to make the world a better place, but what she was also doing was consolidating power and winning support to solidify her claim to the Iron Throne - just as anyone with a lust for power and an overriding sense of self-entitlement would. She played the game to win; she ruled with love because she didn't need to resort to fear. Plus, her advisers kept her worst impulses in check. So how did you really expect her to react to the realization that she's not the rightful heir to the throne, destroying her claim? That it is the man for whom she paused her war against Cersei who is the last living male Targaryen who IS also loved and revered and would be accepted by the people of Westeros? To the horror of seeing Cersei not only cheat her her in their peace treaty but also double back to kill her children and closest adviser? Cersei was always going to bring out the worst in her, make Dany think that she could only trust herself, make her believe that her "mercy" for King's Landing was a weakness that Cersei was exploiting. So she had none for the people of King's Landing who did not revolt against the tyrant queen while they had the chance. In her warped head, they all needed to know what she was capable of. She didn't have time to rule and win their hearts, did not have time to deal with revolutionaries. Not like that ever worked for her in Mereen, anyway. I mean, it would have been ridiculously out of character for her to relinquish her claim without putting up a fight, no?

[Raxivace]

I don't think Dany would have even killed those slavers had they all pledged undying loyalty to her.

Like you know who else was an asshole slaver? Jorah Mormont. Weird how he doesn't have to burn, especially when he practiced slavery in a nation where it was already outlawed.

[maz89]

Exactly, Dany has been flexible with those who worship her. She has no mercy for those who refuse to bend the knee. I'm just so surprised that people didn't see this coming and are blaming poor writing. The show has definitely struggled with time compression stuff, but Dany's disillusionment and reaction are totally in line with her character. Hasn't this always been an outcome we all discussed at some point?

[maz89]

Hmm, I don't know, the more I think about it at a macro level (without getting into little details etc), the more I think that it holds. For eg, if consuming less electricity and protecting forests are examples of real-world actions that can only result from changing ourselves, the equivalent action in the world of GoT... would be to destroy the evil force of nature, that is the NK... who is literally a blue, sinister reflection of man. The "monster being killed" element has to be seen metaphorically.

Is he really a reflection of "man" though? It's the Children of the Forest who created him- despite being made from a human, he seems more like a warped version of their values, what with the big corpse symbols and stuff he scatters throughout the land. The very concept of humanity itself is what he was even trying to erase through his attempt to kill Bran- nature is a bit more indifferent.

I suppose you could argue that well its the fault of the First Men (Or whoever they were called, I can't remember the specifics) for going to war with the Children of the Forest to begin with, causing them to retaliate by creating the White Walkers. Again I feel this harms the metaphor by making the Walkers such an indirect result of the human's actions- its the Children's science experiment that goes wrong

Yeah, if the white walkers were nature's (Children of the Forest) response to man's destruction of the environment, it was a very incompetent response, lol. Maybe there's something there about how nature was doomed to respond in the way that it did, like an inevitability because it was unable to handle man's innate evil.

I guess we will learn more about all of this in that prequel they're making set 5000 years before GoT.

[BruceSmith78]

Ned killed because it was his duty and the law of the land. He took no pleasure in it. The same could mostly be said for Jon. Sandor killed because he was ordered to do it, and although he didn't seem to show any remorse, he also didn't seem to savor it either. Jaime threw a kid out a window because he thought he was protecting Cersei, and he didn't like doing it. Arya is a sick, sadistic bitch, and if she went into a rage and mass murdered a bunch of innocents, I wouldn't think it was completely out of character.

Dany didn't kill the witch because she was grieving for her child or Drago. She killed the witch because she wanted to be a badass (it's why she took the stone eggs into the fire, she somehow knew they'd hatch and she'd have pet dragons). She didn't crucify those guys because they crucified children or had slaves. She did it to prove a point. She wanted everyone to know how chingon she was. She didn't burn and slaughter the masters of the Unsullied because she wanted to free slaves. She wanted an army. She didn't burn the Dothraki leaders alive in their tent because they raped and pillaged and enslaved people. She did it because she wanted their warriors. She didn't burn Sam's brother and father alive because she couldn't take prisoners. She did it because they refused to bend the knee.

Dany always had a look of extreme satisfaction when she killed, like she savored the fuck out of that shit. She always had some stupid way of justifying her kills, like she was freeing slaves or retaliating for kids being crucified, but that was bullshit. She did it to say, “don't fuck with me." Burn cities to the ground always struck me as an expression of power and vengeance and wrath. It wasn't directed at power structures or specific buildings, it was just, “Fuck those people, they're defying me and now they gotta burn."

[Derived Absurdity]

Well, you're pretty convincing. I guess Dany was evil from the start.

I mean, that's depressing. No nuance, no growth, no progression, nothing. Just an evil psycho bitch from the first episode to the last.

[BruceSmith78]

Fuck growth. Fuck progression. Why are those things important? There was nuance, though. She fooled a bunch of characters on the show into believing she was good with her thinly veiled justifications, and a fuck ton of fans revered her as a hero. Her character had you fooled, apparently, and millions of others. There's an online petition that had 500,000 signatures yesterday asking HBO to remake the season. There's a fan theory that Bran warged into Drogon and controlled him because it's easier to believe that weird, creepy Bran is evil than our heroic Dany.

It was just so satisfying to see slavers and child killers and rapists die horrible deaths, we didn't really stop to think about why Dany did what she did, or if we should really be cheering this on. We just cheered. Then the show pulled back the curtain and said, “This is your hero, motherfuckers," and the message to me was, be careful when you glorify violence, and be careful who you call your heroes. I thought it was effective, and not really something I've experienced in a film or TV show before.

Everybody who loved Dany hated it, but I thought it was great.

[Derived Absurdity]

Well, Breaking Bad did that. But I agree, if that's what GoT was doing, then more power to it. It's cool that the only three people in the world happy with this season just happen to all be here.

I hope she wouldn't have fooled me so much if I had done the proper thing and not rage quit after the fourth season. I only barely know what anyone's been doing since then, although the signs of her evil were obviously clear before that. I would probably be saying smarter things right now about this if I had actually continued watching, and not kept comparing show Dany to book Dany the entire time. I should probably marathon this entire show at some point after it ends so I can put everything into perspective, and try to be objective and just pretend the books don't exist while I do it. This episode probably won't come off as very surprising after that.

[Faustus5]

I'm lucky in that I had just finished catching up on all the old episodes when I saw S8E5, and Danny's arrogance and inclination towards fiery death and destruction as a first choice were all fresh in my mind, so her "heel turn" wasn't much of a surprise and seemed perfectly consistent.

[BruceSmith78]

I don't think I ever cheered much for Walter White, and I don't remember ever feeling like I was supposed to cheer for him or like him, so Breaking Bad didn't do that for me.

[maz89]

@DA, I will say there was definitely nuance, and there was hope. I, along with many others, always held out hope that Dany would be able to draw the line when she was really, truly tested (as we knew she would be, going against Cersei). That she would show mercy and patience at the point when she held all the cards and absolute power. That she wouldn't ever stop 'trying' to do the right thing to secure her claim to the throne. We kept hoping this despite the fact that the show kept coming back to the conversation about whether Dany was truly different from all the others. It kept warning us. The people who followed from Essos certainly felt she was because she saved them from bad people (even though, like I said, the stuff in Mereen showed she could never really eliminate the bad people revolutionaries and bring stability to the region after she 'saved' it), but her advisers always spoke about her stubborn, violent, unforgiving streak. The biggest wake-up call was in mid-season 7 when she burned both Sam's brother and father for not bending the knee, in an effort to instill fear in the other prisoners, who promptly then kneeled down. Dany's ruthless approach was always a kind of an open secret; yet we, the audience, hoped anyway. Now most of us seem to be in denial and want HBO to give us a feel-good ending (lol).

People didn't like the episode because, as Bruce said, it was depressing, especially to those who had rooted for Dany from the start and to those who had built her up as some kind of symbol for feminism. These people wanted a traditional, straight story of a woman with (relatively) high moral standards who defies all odds and destroys the evil, sadistic queen (these same people were annoyed that Cersei was given such an easy death, and that Jaime 'ruined' his redemption arc). But that was never going to happen. This is where the story was always heading; it was always meant to make you reflect and think twice about the "heroes" who promise to fix all wrongs in the world (at least initially) but only after they're given their birth-right to rule.

I really do not expect GRRM to change this development in the books. The NK story, maybe, but I'd definitely be shocked if GRRM did not keep Dany's disillusionment arc, given how well it fits into GoT's wheelhouse.

Btw, I love Breaking Bad but I always thought its ending was a little too... neat. Ref: Sopranos on how to leave an audience thinking and reflecting.

[maz89]

I don't think I ever cheered much for Walter White, and I don't remember ever feeling like I was supposed to cheer for him or like him, so Breaking Bad didn't do that for me.

Exactly, the ending was really just kind of "meh" for me.

[Derived Absurdity]

You people are starting to persuade me that GoT has been handling Dany's whole character arc/progression better than Breaking Bad handled Walt's.

Walt's justification for being a psychopath was providing relief for his family, but that was obvious bullshit from the first season, and after that it was just a slow, steady, predictable progression of him becoming more and more what he already was (a psychopath). Dany, meanwhile, managed to convince a whole lot of people of her justification the entire time even though she was doing things that were objectively worse, so when she finally did something unjustifiable it came as a complete shock even though it was predictable and within-character. It also made the audience question itself, I guess... even though they don't seem to be doing that.

So, I guess GoT had good storytelling? Better than Breaking Bad? Wow. I wouldn't have guessed that.

[Raxivace]

A solid ending IMO. On a non-spoilery note I just realized this episode that the Targaryen house symbol is basically a wheel itself.

I guess the implication is that Jon will become the new King Beyond The Wall now? It seemed like everyone was following him at the end.

I do wonder with the Starks seeming to control everywhere (Bran the Six kingdoms (His wheelchair itself is basically a throne now come to think of it), Sansa the North, Jon has Beyond the Wall, and Arya flying her house flag on her ship almost gives off expansion or colonization vibes) if this ending isn't quite as happy as it seems on the surface. Even if things are somehow good for the next generation, have we only seen a new dynasty set up? Though I suppose we are seeing the early steps of democracy coming to Westeros, despite the jokes about horses getting votes or whatever.

[BruceSmith78]

When Tyrion started talking to Jon in his cell about all the people Dany slaughtered in Esseros, and how everyone cheered her on because those people were scum, it felt Iike he had read my posts in this thread. Specifically, reply #228.

It was a good ending. I'm glad Jon Snow didn't end up king (maybe he is king beyond the wall though). He really does know nothing.

[Raxivace]

Yeah that whole scene really reminded me of the stuff that you, Maz and I had been saying in this thread.

I will say that while I thought the the "lol Bran warged into Drogon" theories were silly it does seem like there was a little more going on with him than I thought, what with the "Why do you think I came down here?" line.

[maz89]

I liked the ending too. Bittersweet, as GRRM promised. And yeah, it did seem as though Tyrion and Jon dissected what Dany did the same way we did. It felt a bit obvious to me at first (I thought much of emotional power of episode 5 lied in the unsaid) but I suppose it wasn't obvious to Jon, who functions in a way similar to the stupefied audience for whom Dany was the queen. It still really stung to see Dany get killed the way she did, and then to see Drogon weep, burn down the throne and take her away. Some truly beautifully shot scenes there.

I understand Yara didn't want to chime in on Sam's idea because she knew it'd be pointless with this group, but why didn't she ask for independence the way Sansa did? I also thought it was amusing Grey Worm tells Tyrion to stfu but then lets him run the show, select a king and get a cool job, lol. And the other high profile prisoner is sent to the Wall, courtesy of Bran, who he knows is Jon's true home. What do you think stopped Grey Worm from killing Jon and Tyrion before the others showed up? A royal pardon for their war crimes? Davos? Waiting for Dany's allies to show up and help them decide? Anyway, this seriously was Tyrion's episode, the last Lannister and the one pulled the strings to usher in the new era.

@Rax, that's an interesting way to see it. The Starks are indeed everywhere. Has the wheel been broken? I liked Tyrion's "ask me again in ten years" line. Good to see Jon was plagued with self-doubt, although he seems to be at home when he turns around to survey the wildlings following him beyond the wall at the end. Anyway, his killing of Dany confirms his fulfillment of the Azor Azhai prophecy?

Can they scrap the prequel and make a show about Arya's adventures instead?

[Raxivace]

I think Grey Worm probably didn't execute Jon already because of Sansa's army + the Northmen who were already in King's Landing.

It could also be that without Dany's orders his ability to act on his own is a bit stunted.

I'm not sure why the Iron Islands people didn't proclaim independence either. Maybe they're just cool with Bran?

[Faustus5]

It felt a bit obvious to me at first (I thought much of emotional power of episode 5 lied in the unsaid) but I suppose it wasn't obvious to Jon, who functions in a way similar to the stupefied audience for whom Dany was the queen.

I definitely think this was the show-runners talking to the audience through Tyrion. Spot on.

[BruceSmith78]

Yeah, I thought the people who were still ignoring all the signs that Dany had always been evil and she didn't just become evil in 2 1/2 episodes would hear Tyrion's explanation and come around, but that was asking too much apparently.

Rax, I assume with Bran you're referring to the idea that he might have a touch of prescience. I think this was hinted at previously with his comments to Jaime and the fact that he gave the dagger to Arya at the same tree where she would save his life. He probably had a bit of that Melisandre prescience where you can see some of what's to come, but it's murky and easily misinterpreted.

[maz89]

Yeah, I thought the people who were still ignoring all the signs that Dany had always been evil and she didn't just become evil in 2 1/2 episodes would hear Tyrion's explanation and come around, but that was asking too much apparently.

Yeah, the signs were all there of her potential to go down that path (at the same time, I don't think she was outright-plain-vanilla-evil). People are just quite lazy and don't want to do the work. They want every laborious detail of every single plot point explained to them. That is the only way to explain their obsession with the silliest things. I mean I just saw a meme that questioned why Jon didn't hide in the bushes for a week and come out after the Unsullied left.