The smallest thing in the GOT finale that just drives me crazy!!!! SPOILERS

a reply to: DanDanDat

Again, we're not arguing about whether or not these are or are not things Dany was capable of or could have done, but the manner in which they cropped up.

It's a matter of storytelling, not anything else. Within the context of the story constraints, her actions were straining credulity, not because she did them, but because the manner of the doing was out of the bounds of what we had come to expect from that character so far in the story. It is entirely believable she *could* do that, but there needed to be setup to allow the viewer to see her heading in that direction.

You compare all her actions thus far and it's a game of "one of these things is not like the other." It's close enough, but it needs some scaffolding in the narrative.

I could just as easily be griping about Jaime going back to Cersei at the 11th hour too. That's another action that is similar. I said in my original post there were characters who did bizarre things with little support from the story.

a reply to: JustJohnny

What shocks me is that nobody saw Danerys' meltdown coming. It was hinted at for years. I think everyone is just upset that it wasn't fairy tale, and that it has come to an end.

a reply to: ketsuko

And just because I chose Dany as a character to discuss this issue on does not mean I'm super invested in her in particular.

I think she's an interesting character, yes, but Arya is my favorite, followed by Jon. I also have a soft spot for the smuggler knight in Stannis's army ... can't recall his name.

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: JustJohnny

What shocks me is that nobody saw Danerys' meltdown coming. It was hinted at for years. I think everyone is just upset that it wasn't fairy tale, and that it has come to an end.

Her meltdown was believable in the context of her familial history and circumstances, but if they wanted it then, they needed to start showing the signs of the mental stress in the character a lot sooner. That's why it was such a shock.

a reply to: ketsuko

That's my major gripe laid out in a nut shell.


It's not where they went, it's the rushed manner in which they got there..

Respectfully,
~meathead

a reply to: ketsuko

Again I'm am not a fan; I don't have a devotion for the character.

I have watched maybe 2/3rds of the episodes past season 3. She had taken many moraly questionable actions and the other characters in the show did question them.

I really don't understand how you can say her last action is not supported by her previous actions. She was never portrayed as a paragon of virtue; she has always been willing to do something wrong in the name of doing something great.

Even you are willing to come as far as saying "it's close".

As for Jaime; his love for Cersei always made him come back to her. Why wouldn't he do it again in her final hour? If anything grip about the fact that the writers didn't allow him to grow in the final hour. But that's the point of some drama; some times it's a tragedy.

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: JustJohnny

What shocks me is that nobody saw Danerys' meltdown coming. It was hinted at for years. I think everyone is just upset that it wasn't fairy tale, and that it has come to an end.

I agree; most of the critisum of this last season, besides that it was rushed, seems to stem from the characters not doing what a particular critic wanted them to do in the end. They built up a devotion for certain characters and after that the writers couldn't possibly live up to ALL the different expectations.

Compare this to a truly awful series finally to a equally critically acclaimed TV show like LOST. That did in fact throw $hit against the wall in the final episodes just to see what would stick.

I'm not a fan of GOT; I actually took pleasure in ribbing my close friends and family members who are fans about how certain aspects didn't make sense or how certain things were to predictable. So I'm not defending this last season because it makes me happy to do so; but because as far serious finallies go it was pretty good.

The Danerys story arch and ending where quite poetic for the entirety of the show. A better example of a rushed and not fully thought out portion of the show was the battle with the night king. The fact that winter was coming was making people $hit their pants for 8 seasons and when it finally came it was extremely anticlimactic... but than again how much can you really do with Zombies, they are a pore plot device no matter where you encounter them.

a reply to: DanDanDat

Let's put it this way:

If I'm writing a story and have a character who just lays eyes on a guy and then they hop into bed, it's abrupt and not entirely believable. I can explain it away by saying that the character has had relationships in the past, and that the guy in question is her "type". But, if this character has never in any way hinted previously that she's given to casual relationships like that, then the reader might be taken aback by it.

It isn't that it couldn't happen or that the character might not be that way or capable of it, but I haven't laid the groundwork in the story to get my readers to go there. And that's what I need to do before simply springing that level of thing on them.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DanDanDat

Let's put it this way:

If I'm writing a story and have a character who just lays eyes on a guy and then they hop into bed, it's abrupt and not entirely believable. I can explain it away by saying that the character has had relationships in the past, and that the guy in question is her "type". But, if this character has never in any way hinted previously that she's given to casual relationships like that, then the reader might be taken aback by it.

It isn't that it couldn't happen or that the character might not be that way or capable of it, but I haven't laid the groundwork in the story to get my readers to go there. And that's what I need to do before simply springing that level of thing on them.

That is an incorrect analogy.

You keep saying that they didn't lay the ground work for her final actions; but they most certainly did ... she had a whole class of people hung; she burnt men to death after they could no longer resist her and were at her mercy; she had good men put to death because they questioned her wisdom, and ect.

Was this the first time she burnt a whole city to the ground? Yes, she never did that before so if that's your argument I guess you are correct.

You say "it isn't that it couldn't happen" and "that the character might be that way" so if your willing to accept that the character "could" do these things why can't you get passed the fact that the character "did" do these things.

I can certainly understand if your real criticism is that you would have liked the story to have gone in a different direction; a direction where your favorite character won the day. That would be a personal preference I couldn't argue against. But to say writes didn't properly write the continuity that ended the story the way it did you are simply wrong.

Btw my personal preference would have found the story hollow had Danerys won the day. That would have been the most boring way to end the story.

a reply to: DanDanDat

And all of them had previously taken actions against her!

None of the people of King's Landing had. If they want to be in character, then she burns the castle where Cersei and her armies are.

She destroyed the Lannisters after giving them a chance to surrender, but she doesn't go rampaging across the countryside massacring the peasantry where many of the men at arms came from did she? Huh, no. She didn't.

I'm in no way saying the actions she took against the people who went against her were wonderful. They weren't, but they were against those who went against her directly. This time, they were not, and to explain that deviation with madness, while plausible, needs to be explained with more character development in the story than her ancestry which is about all we have.

Again, we're not debating the actions, but the justification - madness.

a reply to: DanDanDat

I didn't see her cry before burning the city. She looked angered. She was still angered that her best friend was murdered by Cerci's command, and because they also killed another of her dragons. Remember that the dragons are her kids.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Since your challenging me I will have to go rewatch.

But I do distinctly remember it. It was right when the people stated calling for the bell and when they rang it. At the time I thaught to my self that it was a bit cheesy. She was certainly very anger before and after that moment; but it looked to me that she was hesitating as the bell rang and I could sware she had tears in her eyes.

a reply to: ketsuko

As I said; if your grip is that this time she went to far and that you disliked seeing her go to far; I can't argue with that, its your personal preference.

But having her be a person who consistently pushes the moral envelope; always staying just on the safe side of "going to far" while she was doing her bad deeds for the greater good; and than at the climax of her existence having her faulter and go to far brings depth to the character. Miss stepping is a common human outcome when people walk the line between good and evil. She was always a complex character, that's what made her such a good character.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Since your challenging me I will have to go rewatch.

But I do distinctly remember it. It was right when the people stated calling for the bell and when they rang it. At the time I thaught to my self that it was a bit cheesy. She was certainly very anger before and after that moment; but it looked to me that she was hesitating as the bell rang and I could sware she had tears in her eyes.

youtu.be...

Ok after rewatching it was quite clear she was having a moment. Its actually quite long too making it clear what was going on. It's not something you can miss if you blink at the wrong time.

Her facial expressions do a complete 180 in this seen. It starts off shaky, tears in her eyes, bottom lip quivering. She already won by this point; there was no reason for her to be sad and in obvious agony. The wringing of the bell caused her to reevaluate what she was doing; and the inner struggle was ment to be felt by the audience. In the last seconds of the seen her demeanor completely changed. She had made the desition that "love was not enough" and than burnt the city because she felt it was the only way to bring about the greater good.

a reply to: JustJohnny>>> I was at best a casual fan. I thought the series had some interesting angles and characters and was done exceptionally well on a technical level. Some of the character arcs and story lines were kind of lame. But whatever the fans liked or didn't like of the finale can't begin to compare to the crapfest that Star Wars became. The movies just got worse and worse as they kept making them and the last few have been just awful. No story lines, just movies. They rehashed old plots, brought back and killed off beloved characters of the 70s and 80s, it was just painful. Just for some $$$ and to try to show they had the authority to screw with a beloved franchise. Even George Lucas wasn't that soulless although he lost his vision a long time ago. If GOT and SW are what passes for story telling these days, more proof that Hollywood is dead.

a reply to: dogstar23

For sure I have known she was the big bad for sure since the night king died, but suspected for years..


The big bad is always the most powerful chess piece.. that has been dany for a long time..

a reply to: DanDanDat

For sure..


The point of the books, the moral is “birthright rulership stinks”..


And that was dany a only justification

I was never a fan of the show until all the hype leading up to the final season. I got curious about two weeks before the final season started and ended up watching the first seven seasons before the final began. It is safe to say I liked it.

What I did not like were the last few episodes. The ending was anti-climactic and dead wrong. It was a huge disappointment for me. After all the character development and the story arcs converging there was a chance for a brilliant finale. But they missed it completely.

First on my list is that everyone was so quick to say Dany went full mad queen. I don't think she did. If you take the entire show in context her response to Cersei was exactly what it should have been. Dany conquered seven kingdoms. Each and every one was offered peace. Each and every one arrogantly refused her offer, Cersei being the worst. Not only did she refuse the offer of peace and kill one of Dany's children Cersei beheaded her best friend. That death had no purpose other than to show how cruel and evil she could be.

Dany wanted to unite the seven kingdoms in peace so no one would suffer the ills of slavery and the like ever again. A noble cause to be sure. However, in Meereen as soon as Dany left the people went back to the old ways. Dany gave them a smackdown for it but also learned a lesson. She showed them a bit of mercy and got burned for it. She was not going to make that mistake again.

Dany grudgingly accepted Tyrion's suggestion of waiting for the bells to ring indicating the armies of Kings Landing had surrendered. The bells did ring, but Dany was not going to let Cersei push the war as far as she did, murder one of her children, and her best friend, only to say "Oops" at the last moment and walk away unharmed. Dany had to make an example of Kings Landing so no other realm would make the same mistakes or slide back into the old ways as soon as Dany left. Dany herself said that this generation would suffer so that future generations would not have to.

Then Bran was chosen as leader of the seven kingdoms. Or six as it turned out. Poor little Sansa, desperate to be the queen of anything, refused to take a knee to her own brother instead proclaiming the North will remain independent. Why would the other six realms not do the same? Clearly, all one need do is object to the rule of Bran and declare their independence. But they did not. This ending was forced, unnatural and felt completely fabricated and unrealistic.

The way I see it Jon should not have murdered Dany but instead agreed to rule by her side. Jon and Dany together possessed all the qualities of the perfect ruler. Varys saw that potential and surely he would have confided in Tyrion, if Tyrion had not figured it out for himself already. Jon should have known that. And Jon, to whom the word honor is everything, would not commit treason and murder his own queen, let alone the woman he loved. Having been a victim to treason himself, it was simply not who he was.

Other changes I would have made were that Lady Brianne would have cried for a moment when Jaime left her, but then regrouped and knocked him on his ass. Not for leaving her but for making her cry.

Sansa, when handing Ramsey his fate, should not have used the hounds. Instead, she should have appeared to him with an executioner on hand, and with a fitting nod to Theon shouted, "Off with his heads!" That would have been glorious.

There is so much more I would have done differently, but these were the main points I wanted to make.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Your forgetting the moral of the story is that hereditary monarchy sucks..

From that angle nothing dany did was justified..

All of it was based on her “right to rule” which was nonsense from the start in theory and doubly so since Jon was the rightful heir.

So her claim was totally suspect..


George just did a great job of making us ignore that fact.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Then Bran was chosen as leader of the seven kingdoms. Or six as it turned out. Poor little Sansa, desperate to be the queen of anything, refused to take a knee to her own brother instead proclaiming the North will remain independent. Why would the other six realms not do the same? Clearly, all one need do is object to the rule of Bran and declare their independence. But they did not. This ending was forced, unnatural and felt completely fabricated and unrealistic. 

1) The other six kingdoms don't have a long history of wanting to be independent. All the people of the north consistently stood against foreign rule, not just Sansa. And it wouldn't matter to them if a Sark was ruling from Westeros; they didn't want to be ruled over by anyone.

They didn't just blindly make John their king because he was a Stark; many of them didn't want to support John but instead wanted their individual lands to be independent with in the north kingdom. John had to work to unite them; and even than it was always tenuous.

Sansa might have been abrasive and power hungry; but it's not plausible that the North would "bend the knee" to Westeros.

You say that the ending was forced (I agree); but a north that just gladly bends to feign rule would have just been more forced narrative.

2) Many, if not all, the remaining rulers of the six kingdoms where put in place as Dany rose to power. They are all natural allies and in some cases good friends. It would not have made sense for any of them to turn away from each other. Also unlike the north their individual societies where already well adapted to being ruled from Westeros; some like the Dorn may have come to dislike the Lannisters but they never showed preference to pulling away from Westeros. Again Sansa and the North do not fit this model it makes sense that they pushed for independence.

And that indepence does not make them enemies; I was left with the distink impression that the North and Sansa would work cooperatively with Bran and the Six kingdoms; they just wanted the satisfaction of not being ruled over. "On paper" the north may be independent, in practice all seven kingdoms are united.

The way I see it Jon should not have murdered Dany but instead agreed to rule by her side. Jon and Dany together possessed all the qualities of the perfect ruler. Varys saw that potential and surely he would have confided in Tyrion, if Tyrion had not figured it out for himself already. Jon should have known that. And Jon, to whom the word honor is everything, would not commit treason and murder his own queen, let alone the woman he loved. Having been a victim to treason himself, it was simply not who he was. 

There was no way Dany would share power with Jon; her desire to rule, established from the very beginning of the series, was her fatal flaw. The writers would not have been true to her character if they ignored this in the end in order to make GOT a love story... it's not.

Who Jon was ... from the beginning of the series... is a man who willingly sacrifices himself for what he thinks is right and just, even at great pains to himself. Killing a tyrant, even one that he loved with all his heart and pledged his loyalty too, is perfectly with in character.