|
|
Post by Millennium on May 21, 2019 22:49:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 21, 2019 23:24:49 GMT -5
I think many people just aren't familiar with the classic dramatic forms.
As I explained earlier, it was clear they were setting this up as a tragedy. Dani is the primary tragic figure, whose obsession with "breaking the wheel" is her virtue-that-in-excess-becomes-a-flaw. Under the right circumstances she could have had a triumphant happy ending, but because this was a tragedy she was pushed into a place where a happy ending became impossible. Once she allowed herself to become convinced that it was necessary to destroy the city in order to "liberate" it, she had to die.
She was Julius Caesar, while Jon Snow was Brutus, Caesar's loyal friend who murders him because he loved Rome even more. In the end, Brutus "fell on his sword". Jon was similarly punished -- exiled for life. Grey Worm was Mark Antony, Caesar's loyal friend who wanted him to declare himself emperor. The analogy breaks down a bit after that, because nobody quite fits the roles of Cassius or Octavian. But still, you can see the tragedy playing out.
Bran becoming King is a little like Fortinbras becoming King of Denmark at the end of Hamlet. Everybody else was too compromised, so it was basically a neutral outsider who ended up being chosen. Cersei is dead, Jamie is dead, Dani is dead, Jon killed her so he's exiled. Jon can't end up King after being the one who killed the hero. Someone has to kill the hero, because the hero has to die, but that person can't end up rewarded for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 22, 2019 1:00:20 GMT -5
I think many people just aren't familiar with the classic dramatic forms. As I explained earlier, it was clear they were setting this up as a tragedy. Dani is the primary tragic figure, whose obsession with "breaking the wheel" is her virtue-that-in-excess-becomes-a-flaw. Under the right circumstances she could have had a triumphant happy ending, but because this was a tragedy she was pushed into a place where a happy ending became impossible. Once she allowed herself to become convinced that it was necessary to destroy the city in order to "liberate" it, she had to die. She was Julius Caesar, while Jon Snow was Brutus, Caesar's loyal friend who murders him because he loved Rome even more. In the end, Brutus "fell on his sword". Jon was similarly punished -- exiled for life. Grey Worm was Mark Antony, Caesar's loyal friend who wanted him to declare himself emperor. The analogy breaks down a bit after that, because nobody quite fits the roles of Cassius or Octavian. But still, you can see the tragedy playing out. Bran becoming King is a little like Fortinbras becoming King of Denmark at the end of Hamlet. Everybody else was too compromised, so it was basically a neutral outsider who ended up being chosen. Cersei is dead, Jamie is dead, Dani is dead, Jon killed her so he's exiled. Jon can't end up King after being the one who killed the hero. Someone has to kill the hero, because the hero has to die, but that person can't end up rewarded for it. Bran isn't a neutral outsider. He's a Stark and he is the three-eyed raven, and living memory as described and advocated by Tyrion. And as far as the analogy, Brutus had no claim to the throne, as Jon Snow did. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 22, 2019 1:20:16 GMT -5
I think many people just aren't familiar with the classic dramatic forms. As I explained earlier, it was clear they were setting this up as a tragedy. Dani is the primary tragic figure, whose obsession with "breaking the wheel" is her virtue-that-in-excess-becomes-a-flaw. Under the right circumstances she could have had a triumphant happy ending, but because this was a tragedy she was pushed into a place where a happy ending became impossible. Once she allowed herself to become convinced that it was necessary to destroy the city in order to "liberate" it, she had to die. She was Julius Caesar, while Jon Snow was Brutus, Caesar's loyal friend who murders him because he loved Rome even more. In the end, Brutus "fell on his sword". Jon was similarly punished -- exiled for life. Grey Worm was Mark Antony, Caesar's loyal friend who wanted him to declare himself emperor. The analogy breaks down a bit after that, because nobody quite fits the roles of Cassius or Octavian. But still, you can see the tragedy playing out. Bran becoming King is a little like Fortinbras becoming King of Denmark at the end of Hamlet. Everybody else was too compromised, so it was basically a neutral outsider who ended up being chosen. Cersei is dead, Jamie is dead, Dani is dead, Jon killed her so he's exiled. Jon can't end up King after being the one who killed the hero. Someone has to kill the hero, because the hero has to die, but that person can't end up rewarded for it. Bran isn't a neutral outsider. He's a Stark and he is the three-eyed raven, and living memory as described and advocated by Tyrion. And as far as the analogy, Brutus had no claim to the throne, as Jon Snow did. This is why people hate lawyers (and engineers). No analogy is perfect. But I argue Bran was pretty much as neutral of an outsider as possible. They spent two seasons slamming us with "I'm not a Stark anymore; I'm the three-eyed raven" and "I don't want anything, I just observe everything". So he's as neutral as it gets, unless they pick Hot Pie to be the next King. Whether Jon had a claim to the throne was irrelevant. He didn't kill Dani because he had a claim to the throne. Like Brutus, he killed Dani because even though he loved her, he thought she was too dangerous to live. Cassius killed Caesar because he wanted power, but Brutus killed Caesar to save Rome. In the same way, Jon did not kill Dani to gain power, but rather to save the people of Westeros from her "liberation". |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 22, 2019 1:43:54 GMT -5
Bran isn't a neutral outsider. He's a Stark and he is the three-eyed raven, and living memory as described and advocated by Tyrion. And as far as the analogy, Brutus had no claim to the throne, as Jon Snow did. This is why people hate lawyers (and engineers). No analogy is perfect. But I argue Bran was pretty much as neutral of an outsider as possible. They spent two seasons slamming us with "I'm not a Stark anymore; I'm the three-eyed raven" and "I don't want anything, I just observe everything". So he's as neutral as it gets, unless they pick Hot Pie to be the next King. Whether Jon had a claim to the throne was irrelevant. He didn't kill Dani because he had a claim to the throne. Like Brutus, he killed Dani because even though he loved her, he thought she was too dangerous to live. Cassius killed Caesar because he wanted power, but Brutus killed Caesar to save Rome. In the same way, Jon did not kill Dani to gain power, but rather to save the people of Westeros from her "liberation". No, Jon Snow was talked into killing Danaerys by Tyrion (a smooth talking lawyer btw). Tyrion knew that Jon had a conscience. An easy score. To accept Bran as neutral is illogical prima facie (ask Sansa). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2019 13:24:12 GMT -5
The story makes more sense if Tyrion WANTED to be Hand (and de facto King). If that was the case, he played the game perfectly at the end AND he gets Bran as his very own Google Search. Every ruler needs a good resource like that.
But it sure did seem like Tyrion sincerely did not want the job.
And I'd buy the whole tragedy storyline if they had done a better job defining who Dany was and what she wanted. I still say the biggest problem was that GoT always valued plot (and twists) more than it valued understandable characters (with depth). I do think the actors did a pretty amazing job with what they were given.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 22, 2019 17:15:22 GMT -5
And I'd buy the whole tragedy storyline if they had done a better job defining who Dany was and what she wanted. I think they did plenty of that, actually. I think people just overlooked certain aspects of her character. For eight seasons she's been BURNING PEOPLE ALIVE and everybody ignored it because they were all "bad people" -- slavers, barbarians, traitors, etc. But this was a part of her character, and she showed it over and over again, all the way back to when she was perfectly fine with having her brother killed by molten gold. People were aghast at her supposed "heel turn", but when you really think about her character as it was shown to us, this was a logical extension of what we've seen before. She had previously been extremely ruthless with her enemies, and she counted as her enemies anyone who did not show her what she considered to be the proper respect. The people of King's Landing didn't show her the respect she deemed proper, so they got the same thing that the masters got, Euron's sailors got, the Tarlys got, Varis got, the Khals got, etc. If she had just burned up the surrendered Lannister army and not the town civilians, would it have been more morally acceptable? I think not, and yet viewers would have reacted very differently to it. Basically I'm saying that just because you didn't recognize this aspect of her character does not mean they hadn't developed it and demonstrated it. (And not just you. When I first watched ep 5 I was all "WTF?!". But as I thought a little bit more about the Dani who had been revealed to us over the years, I started to realize that this was in fact the same character. It was just an extension of traits we've seen before.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2019 17:50:57 GMT -5
I think it was poorly done, if that's the case. AND I don't think that was what the writers had in mind at the time. I think she was presented as the heroine of the series -- maybe unjustifiably so, as you say -- but I think that was the intent. And then they changed their mind in order to bring the thing to some sort of conclusion.
Just for instance, there was absolutely no reason for her to head North and fight the zombie horde before taking out Cersei. But she did, because, we were led to believe, she had some sort of moral compass. Tyrion believed it. Jon believed it.
What pushed her over the edge? On screen, it sure as hell looked like it was Missandei's death. She lost her army (we thought), Jorah and Missandei.
Just watch that scene I posted about her vision and tell me she was not being presented as a sympathetic character, someone they wanted you to root for. For her to go all Hitler on us WAS a heel turn. And I don't think they built the case for it. As it was, many people think she went mad, which I don't think was what they wanted you to think at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2019 17:55:02 GMT -5
And what the hell was the point of her birthing dragons and being impervious to fire if we were not to think she was some sort of supernatural being? Heck, same thing with Jon's death.
It's like they just forgot all about those storylines -- what I was saying about abandoning the magic/supernatural. They had to end the thing and this is what they came up with.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 22, 2019 18:21:12 GMT -5
I think it was poorly done, if that's the case. I won't defend them. I question some of their pacing. Perhaps they just didn't have enough episodes to work with, but why a whole S8E1 that was basically just "Dani comes to Winterfell"? It felt wasted. S8E2 was fantastic. Classic "night before the battle" stuff. S8E3 was confusing. I think it was supposed to be confusing, to communicate the chaos and confusion of a massed battle in the dark, but it also left the viewer wondering what happened and why it happened. S8E4 was bad. Unexplained ambush. Unexplained jump from ambush to standoff outside KL. Shocking but stupid execution of Missandei (why give up a super valuable hostage like that?). If this had been stretched out by another episode, it would have given them time to build up more of a "will she or won't she?" vibe regarding the destruction of KL. S8E5 is mainly what we are arguing about. Was it properly set up or was it bad writing and a gimmick ending? S8E6 was either too short or too long -- They didn't *have* to cover everything they did, but having covered it then they didn't give it enough explanation. Night's Watch? Why not independence for all the kingdoms? The Unsullied went to Naarth, but what about the Dothraki? How will everyone survive the winter after war has destroyed so much of the food supply? If Jon told Grey Worm what he had done, how did Grey Worm not kill him on the spot? And yet, if he didn't tell him, how did he know? Where were the wildings going? Why was Jon with them? Is "Arya the explorer" a spinoff series or what? I think Dani was presented as the heroine of the series -- maybe unjustifiably so, as you say -- but I think that was the intent. And then they changed their mind in order to bring the thing to some sort of conclusion. Tragic hero. Heroine with a flaw that will lead to her downfall. A moral person whose sense of morality actually led her to immoral acts. A crusader, in both the good and bad senses of the word. A complex character whose complexity was shown but not lampshaded, so people tended to overlook it because of the cool factor. It was cool when she deliberately set fire to the Khal meeting house and walked out of it alive. It was cool when she walked out of the fire naked with three live dragons, but remember that she burned someone alive to do it. It was awesome when she said "drakarys" and had her dragon burn that offensive and insulting "master" when she bought the Unsullied, but remember she essentially cheated him (sold him a dragon that she had no intention of actually giving up) and then burned him alive. When the Red Woman and Stannis burned his daughter alive, it was horrifying. So why was Dani given a pass for it over and over and over again, with hardly a question about it until finally she burned the Tarlys? And even then it was just kind of shrugged off until we saw how Sam reacted to the news that his unbeloved father and his beloved brother had been burned alive as prisoners after they had surrendered. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2019 18:37:03 GMT -5
I am probably in the minority here, but I still thought E3 was great -- and I liked the two episodes leading up to it.
As for the rest, you could be right. Where I see a poorly written character with incomprehensible motivations, you see a much more complex one. I do think Clarke was very good, regardless.
It sure doesn't help when the story is told over such a long period of time, with such long breaks in between seasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on May 22, 2019 19:13:25 GMT -5
I think they did plenty of that, actually. I think people just overlooked certain aspects of her character. For eight seasons she's been BURNING PEOPLE ALIVE and everybody ignored it because they were all "bad people" -- slavers, barbarians, traitors, etc. But this was a part of her character, and she showed it over and over again, all the way back to when she was perfectly fine with having her brother killed by molten gold. I don't see why burning someone alive is really any worse than a slow painful death from getting stabbed in the gut. Or strangulation via poison. Or plenty of other manners of death. And of course it makes a difference whether the people being killed are bad people, or innocent victims. She never gave them the chance to show her respect. not this viewer. I would have objected to it just as much. Well, less magnitude of objection because the magnitude of the attrocity would have been less than massacring an entire city that was in the midst of surrendering. But objecting never-the-less. |
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on May 22, 2019 19:22:00 GMT -5
As it was, many people think she went mad, which I don't think was what they wanted you to think at all. I disagree. I think it intentionally paralleled her father's madness. Not saying I think it was good writing. But I think it was in fact intentional. And what the hell was the point of her birthing dragons and being impervious to fire if we were not to think she was some sort of supernatural being? Heck, same thing with Jon's death. It's like they just forgot all about those storylines -- what I was saying about abandoning the magic/supernatural. They had to end the thing and this is what they came up with. Supernatural doesn't mean immortal. Also, she didn't birth dragons. She only incubated their eggs. There was nothing supernatural about Jon's death. Getting stabbed five or so times in the gut and chest quite naturally leads to death. His resurrection was supernatural, sure. As was Berric Dondarion's numerous resurrections. But it was the act of resurrection itself that was supernatural, it doesn't mean that either Jon or Berric were supernatural themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 22, 2019 19:43:08 GMT -5
Also, she didn't birth dragons. She only incubated their eggs. It was very clearly stated that other people had tried repeatedly to incubate dragon eggs, and all had failed. The fact that it worked this time supposedly had to do with her burning the healing woman alive, "trading life for life". And it's still not clear it would have worked if Dani herself had not also been in the fire. A recently killed man, a live woman who died in the fire, a live woman who had recently miscarried but didn't die in the fire, and three dragon eggs. Somehow out of that mix the dragons were born, Dani survived, and all the rest was burnt to ashes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2019 19:44:22 GMT -5
Didn't say she was immortal. I just think we were led to believe she and Jon were supernatural for a reason, that they were destined for more than they ended up with.
She was the mother of dragons. The eggs don't hatch without her.
Again, Jon's resurrection, like Dondarion's, was for a reason. As it turned out, it seems the only reason was so that he could be there to kill Dany. Say what?
I don't think Dany was mad and I don't think the writers wrote it that way. We'll just have to disagree about that. Furthermore, I still think the fact you were cheering for her death is a great example of how they screwed up the story.
|
|
