acharlie1377

@notnert427: The point I was making with the hypothetical is that any path except the one portrayed in the show would have resulted in Daenerys dying well before she could make it to Westeros. If she had been evil from the very start, she would have never been able to gain allies like the Unsullied, and would not have been able to survive past Qarth, since her dragons weren't full grown until season 3. The only way she makes it this far in the story is if she is adored and zealously followed by people, and the only way to have that make even a little bit of sense is to put her in these situations where she comes of as a liberator.

I said it before, but if you assume that Daenerys is a villian of the show--not evil, just a character who is bad for Westeros--the early seasons don't make any less sense. Some of the worst people in history are known for their charisma and their ability to get people to follow them--that's how we end up with people like Charles Manson and Jim Jones in real life. The important point being, Daenerys was not portrayed as heroic, she was portrayed as charismatic and able to get people to follow her. The fact that she helped people break their chains doesn't make her inherently better or worse, it just means she was able to amass a following that helped her on her quest to the throne. We see that as heroic, because she was helping good people, but all it means is she (a) doesn't like slavery, and (b) understands that she needs the support of the people to get her on the Iron Throne. Being against slavery is not a heroic ideal, even in the world of Westeros--it's more of a baseline test for human decency. Daenerys may be ruthless and cruel, but she was never pure evil.

You mentioned Dany was "one fucking note of entitled ambition"; if that's the one note you got from the 7 seasons of the show, I'm confused as to where the heroic part of her even comes in. Why assume the show is making her a heroic figure, if you don't buy her as one? Put another way, if the show is surrounding her with admiration, love, and respect, and you still aren't convinced that she's a benevolent ruler, isn't that a sign that she isn't one? You're saying that you never liked Dany as a kind ruler, regardless of how hard the showrunners shoved that narrative down your throat, but you were still surprised that she ended up not being a kind ruler. Where did the surprise come from, if you never believed the heroic narrative in the first place?

If you never believed or accepted that Dany was a hero, I'm not sure where our arguments split; it sounds like you never liked her as a hero, and I didn't either. And then when she turned out not to be a hero, even though you never liked her as a hero, you were surprised, because the thing you never believed ended up not being true... maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument, but that's kind of like being an atheist, and then feeling ripped off when you die and there's no afterlife. You assumed the show wanted you to think she was a hero, and then based off of that assumption, you got mad that the show "duped" you by pulling that last-minute twist. If you assume the show is just trying to write an engrossing narrative, though, and don't make assumptions about what they want and don't want you to think, would you have felt as betrayed by the show?

I think the issue is less with how much there is do to in an open world and how interesting it is to exist in that world. That's why I think Breath of the Wild was such a revelation; there isn't actually that many different things to do in the world, but just running around and seeing what's over the next hill is engrossing. On the other hand, a game like Assassin's Creed III has tons of stuff to do and tons of places to go, but I was never interested in being there. That's why Breath of the Wild and RDR2 can both be benchmarks for open world games, despite being hugely different games--both of them create a world that is inherently more interesting than other open world games.

I haven't played it, but I've heard a lot of good things about Wasteland 2. It's a veeery old-school RPG, similar to Divinity: Original Sin. I plan on picking it up on my Switch sometime soon (probably not the best place to play it, but I don't play games on my computer).

@nutter: What is the Yub Nub of Game of Thrones?

@barrock: Yeah, that does seem... dicey. I'm obviously a big fan of the show, but considering how well the showrunners have done with issues of race and gender on the show (which is not well at all), I'm not super optimistic they could do that high concept justice.

@barrock said:

I've made a lot of points about how some of the show's most ridiculous moments come from the early seasons, and how the books are not nearly the paragons of perfection that people make them out to be, so I'll just say this:

The creators of Game of Thrones are making a show about the Confederacy winning the Civil War? When did I miss this? Is this on HBO? I've literally never heard of this, and it sounds interesting--is this coming soon, or is it just in the idea phase?

@notnert427:Sorry if I offended; I don't want to make it sound like I'm somehow smarter than anyone because I think a different thing about a tv show than them. But your argument is "this was pulled out of thin air," and my argument is "no it wasn't"; the only way my argument is correct is if there's something to the show that you missed. It isn't a claim of superiority, it's a literally unavoidable consequence of my argument. In the same way you're offended because I'm dismissing your reading of the show, I could get offended because you are dismissing my reading of the show. That doesn't seem productive or fun, though; I don't think this is a test of who's smarter, I think it's a debate about the themes and storytelling of the show. So, as a blanket statement, I don't mean any of what I have said or what I might say in the future as offensive or insulting, and I apologize if I do offend or insult.

My main opposition to your argument is that I don't think the show portrays Daenerys as heroic. It definitely shows other people treating her as heroic, and it spends a large amount of time on her character development. But a major strength of this show is that it largely avoids painting characters with a single brush of "hero" or "villain," or "good" or "evil." Most main characters are portrayed as flawed, and occasionally deeply cruel people, with their own ideals, goals, and morals. It's what made longer arcs like the war for the throne so interesting and different; there were multiple sides all fighting against each other, but none of them were made to feel more or less worthy than the others. Even characters like Cersei, Jaime, and Theon are given enough humanity to make people sympathize with them.

Daenerys is no different. I don't think she has ever been portrayed as pure evil, even in the latest episode; you can see the sadness and rage in her eyes as she's burning down buildings, and know that she still cares about people like Missandei and Jon. But I don't think the show ever wrote her as purely good, either; you even admitted that "she has been mostly laser-focused on her self-serving quest for the throne." And, I think it's safe to say the methods she uses to get there are extremely ruthless. So, our main disagreement is whether the show/books intentionally portrayed her journey for the first 6 seasons as heroic. You obviously think they did; I, on the other hand, think they didn't have a choice.

Let's say the show/books didn't put her in these heroic situations, and that the leaders and obstacles she faces aren't terrible people. How would she get to where she is now? She was only allowed into Qarth because Xaro Xhoan Daxos vouched for her, and he ended up being a terrible person. Even if we assume he vouches for her, but isn't doing it for ulterior reasons, her only way to get money for ships and an army would be to marry Xaro Xhoan Daxos; we already know she wouldn't do that, though, because she turns him down. So, assuming she even is allowed into Qarth and doesn't die (not a given at all), she's left with no money and no allies. Going further into the future, any city leader with two brain cells isn't about to let a Dothraki horde waltz through the gates, so she would never be allowed into a city peacefully, and she wouldn't be able to rely on slaves or oppressed peoples to rise up, because by assumption she is up against generally decent people. No one in Essos really knows who she is, it's unlikely she would be able to win with just a few young dragons and a small amount of Dothraki, and so she would inevitably die without ever making it back to Westeros--unless she went full villain.

This would obviously change the entire series drastically, but it's definitely possible; make Daenarys a force of evil, inexorably headed towards the seven kingdoms. But, this tyrant schtick only works with one or more fully grown dragons; otherwise, she's just a crazy person who will die talking about how fearsome she will be. With just her baby dragons, she wouldn't be able to conquer any cities, and so once again she dies without making it back to Westeros.

I don't think the show/books chose to portray her in a heroic light; I think that doing so was the only way to justify her making it from her position at the end of season 1 to her position now. Remember, even with all of these heroic situations, Daenerys only made it to Westeros with a heaping helping of plot armor; Xaro Xhoan Daxos lets her into Qarth, Daario Naharis kills his allies and pledges his life to her because she's hot, etc. Without those heroic situations, the number of lucky breaks and narrative nonsense required to keep her alive for this long would be insane. People had to flock to her in order for her to survive in the story, and that could only be accomplished by her saving these people in some way.

In summary, I don't think this was a "long con" by the show/books, and I don't think they portrayed her as a hero or as a villain. Her becoming a benevolent leader was also a plausible ending, since, as Varys and Tyrion have mentioned, she surrounded herself with advisors who would temper her worst impulses. But, regardless of how her story ended, I think her story had to begin with the exact same path--people rising up to follow her.

I never saw Daenerys in a heroic light until maybe season 7, and even then she almost forced Jon Snow to bend the knee before she helped him save the world. To me, she was always a cruel, ruthless, and short-sighted tyrant, who never considered that she should put the people ahead of her quest for the Iron Throne. To you (and a lot of others), she was clearly a heroic figure, and she didn't deserve the heel-turn in the latest episode. You obviously have a right to be annoyed, and I understand your viewpoint; I just don't think the show ever decided she was a hero.

@devise22: Yeah, the rushed feeling is inescapable. It's weird, though, I found a lot of parts in the first 6 or so seasons (the High Sparrow, the Dorne stuff, most Daenerys parts) tended to drag, and some plot points felt like they were needlessly expanded to fill the 10-episode runtime. It must be hard to find a good balance, especially as more and more plot points start spinning up and coalescing.

@deathstriker: You keep saying "Not even X would do what Dany did" like Dany is supposed to be a hero or a good person. My point is that that's a faulty assumption. She only seems like a good person throughout the show if you assume beforehand that she's a good person; otherwise, she's done some of the most gruesome and terrible things in the entire show. Even before season 8, she had killed or been directly responsible for more deaths than any other person in the show, and the number of people she let live after they defied her is one--and that's Jorah Mormont, a close friend. In the vein of "even X wouldn't do Y," even Cersei was ready to allow Ned Stark to take the Black after he confessed to treason, even though he directly staged a coup against her son. Can you see Dany doing the same thing in that position? The last time someone tried to rebel against her, she fed them to a fucking dragon.

Every single negative response to the Dany part of this episode is predicated on the idea that Dany was supposed to be the hero, and the showrunners did her wrong. But why is she a hero? If Cersei crucified a bunch of slavers along the Kingsroad, would she be given the same courtesy? When she obliterated the High Sparrow and eliminated a dangerous sect of religious radicals, was she considered the people's champion? Hell no! She was branded a goddamn lunatic, because that's what she is. Dany's actions throughout seasons 2-7 are marked by all of her enemies dying, and her demanding that people submit to her. She might have freed all the slaves, but she never said people were free to challenge her rule; like all tyrants, she considers her power to be absolute, and not subject to question. Even in earlier seasons, her advisors say that she picks them to "temper her worst impulses." Her nature is there throughout the entire show, mentioned even by her closest friends as something she can manage with the advice of smart people; in seasons 7 and 8, she loses her faith in them, and her nature finally runs unchecked.

If you look at Dany as a villain, starting from square one, her story doesn't make any less sense. It just changes from a hero's journey to the rise of a charismatic, ruthless, and powerful leader, hellbent on making themselves the undisputed ruler of the entire world. Saying she couldn't be a villain because she did something that helped out people is like saying Stalin couldn't be a villain because he improved Russia's economy. The good should not outweigh or overshadow the bad.

@deathstriker:Just because you and some youtubers didn't see it doesn't mean nobody saw it; there are numerous people on this forum who agree that Dany's ruthlessness had been a part of the show since the beginning. I understand why her turn would seem sudden if your view of her is as a heroine, and I don't think you're getting upset for a random reason; that said, you can't say a joke is unfunny just because you didn't get it, and you can't say the show made this stuff up on the spot just because you didn't see it coming.

If Dany was so evil this whole time why would she chain her dragons when one of them killed one kid? Why free slaves and the unsullied when she could've used them and gotten to Westeros faster and easier? Why fight to keep the fighting pit closed? Dany was a good person, flawed, but good given the show's universe. Arya and Dany are about equally murderous, neither one would destroy a populated city. The show could've made Dany bad, but it should've been there for seasons. Most fans feel it abruptly happened last episode. The show didn't earn it nor work for it.

One could argue that the reason her dragons killed children for no reason is that they inherited her ruthlessness; further, I never said she didn't have a heart, only that she has a history of being brutal towards anyone who opposes her. Regarding the other points, she does those things because they're the ideals she has; she doesn't believe in slavery, she doesn't believe in the fighting pits. But even there, you can see she doesn't necessarily have the people's best interests at heart; even after being freed, some former slaves wanted to continue to fight, because it was all they knew how to do, and they would be jobless otherwise. Dany refused to accept this, and the only reason she reopened the fighting pits was because her lover told her she should.

And besides, my whole point is that her "goodness" is due to the fact that up to this point, we've only seen her fighting in situations that put her in a good vs. evil scenario; when she crucifies slave owners and feeds nobles to dragons, it's seen as a heroic act. But she isn't doing it because it's what's best for the people, she's doing it because it's what she wants. She didn't have to feed a random nobleman to her dragons while the others watched, but she did it anyways because she's a remorseless person. It's like how Alistair Thorne kind of redeems himself in the siege against the Wall; his dickishness and bigotry don't matter in that moment, because it aligns with the right thing to do, which is defend the Wall. Similarly, you appreciate Littlefinger when the army of the Vale saved Jon Snow in Bastardbowl, because his self-serving nature finally aligned with the "good guys" for once, but you don't think that makes him a good person. It's the same way with Dany; we're led to believe that she's good because she's on the right side of these things, and it makes us ignore the terrible things she does along the way.

I also don't accept that Arya and Dany are even remotely the same level of murderous. At her absolute cruelest, Arya poisoned an entire room of Frey soldiers, because they were the ones who killed her family. Meanwhile, Dany has committed more heinous acts in every single season, starting with the literal crucifixion of every single slaver in Mereen (I think it was Mereen?) Arya has also never killed just for the sake of it, while Dany fed a nobleman to a dragon, in front of his fellow nobles, when all she needed to do was scare them.

I'd disagree that Robb betrayed the north. The Freys and Boltons would've betrayed him sooner or later, so it didn't really matter to me. Jamie didn't rape Cersei, it was just a rough and awkward sex scene. I believe the showrunners came out at the time and said that wasn't their intent. Stannis was just Mel's puppet on the show for the most part.

Regardless of what you call it, I don't think you can call Robb's decision in character; he made a promise to another prominent lord, and then reneged on the promise because he found an attractive woman. The fact that you don't care about that out-of-character decision, but do care about this out-of-character decision, is part of a thing that really bothers me about reactions to this season. Earlier seasons are treated as infallible television, where all mistakes made are minor and can be looked past, whereas the more recent seasons are called straight garbage because the writers are somehow both (a) being too predictable and (b) pulling random bullshit just to surprise the audience, which are two contradictory problems. You might not be doing this, and if you're not I apologize; I just get annoyed that this season is being compared to some imagined, flawless show that people describe the first few seasons as.