ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Let's talk about Daenerys...
Game of Thrones is property of HBO, based on a novel by George R. R. Martin
Breaking Bad is property of AMC
The Sopranos is property of HBO
References:
Foreshadowing is Not Character Development: • Foreshadowing Is Not C...
Historical References:
www.theatlanti...
Script for The Bells references Robert Frost:
www.insider.co...
The Take with their own fantastic video essay on Daenerys:
• Game of Thrones Ending...
Something most non-readers don't know and some book readers seem to forget is the fact that Aerys a.k.a The Mad King also started out as a decent person/ruler.
1st people shouldn't have to read the books to get the show. It should stand on its own internal logic itself. 2nd the books are arguably a different story in the show with different characters (despite similar names) in different situations and the writers of the show broke from (not just ran out of but broke from) the books-something that likely was easier to do after GRRM left the show but the earlier points where they started to do it may have contributed to him leaving.
This is something I recently wrote elsewhere but seems to apply with on this topic.
"Characters such as Tyrion and Euron are flat out different characters in books and show. Book readers critical of GoT have noticed that for a long time and GRRM himself even acknowledged it in Euron's case this past summer-possibly because it was so obvious he realized he wasn't spoiling anything if he admitted it.
Since the earlier plan for season 8 itself was to have wildfire be what destroyed most of King's Landing and the writers of season 8 changed that it may be that Daenerys sets off the wildfire in the books-quite possibly on accident. Not something that would be impossible to do if a fire breathing dragon is doing battle in a town laced with wildfire."
The Mad King was torturing and burning innocent people long before he gave the order to destroy King's Landing. And he only gave the order to destroy the city as an enemy army was inside it and his side had clearly lost the war.
That is very different from season 8 Dany having just won the war. Even more illogical in the version of season 8 is that aired is that Cersei (someone Dany would want to punish) was portrayed as being ignored so season 8 Dany could supposedly go after random people in the streets.
I suspect the change the show writers made to season 8 was done for both shock value and in a poor attempt to cover a plot hole since season 8 Jon would be unlikely to agree to an assassination attempt over something season 8 Dany never wanted to happen (the destruction of the city by wildfire).
NO ONE forgot anything my dude. All people say is that the turn wasnt done right. People would have loved Dany tiurning villian if it was executed right. It simply was not
Dany doesnt do anything Robb, Jon, Stannis, Arya or Sansa did not
@@harish123az How was it not done right? She was an arse in the beginning, she was an arse in the end. The signs were there, her closest friends dying just triggered something that would've happened afterwards anyways.
@@MMAisTHEbestSPORT08 because EVERY main character displayed the same behavior at different times. When dany takes revenge for someone killing her baby and husband she is an arse, when arya or sansa does it, they are the bestest ever
Either hold everyone to the same standards or else drop the pretence
@@harish123az
Daenerys burned a witch for no reason, she killed many innocent masters, she treated hizdar like shit, she smiled and got turned on when khal Drogo was talking about raping innocent westerosi women, and killing innocent men and children in their stone walls. Daenerys was always a bad person.
I’m going to be honest, I never got the hatred and the claim that it never made sense. In my eyes her sense of violence always existed it was just fine to the traditional bad guys. For example, no one cried for the slavers because they were slavers.
Danny lost her dragons, her best friend, and her one true company. In a land she was told applauded her she was seen as a monster. She sacrificed everything for a dream and a vision that wasn’t real. If I was her, I’d loose it too. History is full of people who follow the same path. Like idk how someone says burning a city alive is out of character when she indiscriminately crucified people just because of the family they were born into
Easy, because it wasn't indiscriminate. It was of a specific group of people (slavers) to a specific amount (the number of slave children who were killed in similar fashion) as an attempt to punish a specific atrocity (the mass murder of slave children). The books and show are different in that she tries to incorporate others into picking which specific slave masters are to be executed while the show story does not-thus trying to avoid the biggest mistake in the show version of the situation.
It is clear in the show she thought slavering noble families of Meereen were all in on and agreed to/supported the atrocity of mass murdering children. Hizdar is literally the 1st person to tell her they were not. Had show Sir Barristan made his suggestion about trials earlier Hizdar's father may have lived.
I agree with you that things not turning out as planned can cause people to lose it-that is sometimes just part of being human and having emotions.
But that doesn't mean it was in character for season 8 Dany to ignore Cersei (yes Cersei was ignored if you what season 8 episode 5 carefully-it took a long time for Drogon to even reach the Red Keep and when he finally got there he flew off while most of it was still standing) to supposedly target random people on the street.
This is about the opposite of what happened with the actual Daenerys character in Meereen. In Meereen Daenerys saw the rulers of the city as guilty of something and pushed them but left common people and slaves (soon to be former slaves since she is ending it there) completely unharmed. Season 8 Dany is doing the opposite of what viewers have already seen Daenerys do.
Rather than build up to it events in Meereen are actually evidence contradicting season 8. And this is far from the only time season 8 is contradicted. Another clear example comes from bells. In season 2 Davos (who spent many years in King's Landing) said bells don't mean surrender in King's Landing. Events proved Davos to be correct. Since Stannis's failed attack on King's Landing was a major event for Tyrion it just makes it even more ridiculous that Tyrion would be saying this since he himself should know better. But perhaps that opens the argument viewing season 8 as a different story with different characters-even like Star Trek has a Mirror dimension.
@@pplr1 I agree it's rushed but I will never agree that this never made sense or came out of field. Danny was noble in her cause with Meeren but she still killed a whole bunch of people indiscriminately. There was still a mass of people crucified for actions they may not have committed. It's still the same authoritarianism it's just more "noble" in the aspect that the slavers are the traditional bad guys. When Danny got to King's Landing, she saw a system that was rooted where the common people were just as guilty as Cersei. The wheel can only exist if the people allow it and don't rise up to say otherwise. All Danny saw from history was good people, like Ned Stark, getting beheaded while people cheered. Moreover, she knew that she would be betrayed for Jon Snow because he wasn't the foreign queen. It's not crazy to see her actions when the people were complicit in the system that killed her family and treated her like a foreigner. Now, don't get me wrong she was and I don't agree with her burning a city. But, the difference in Slaver's Bay versus King's Landing was that in one she was emotionally bias (King's Landing) meaning she couldn't be impartial because all she ever heard was that people loved her. In Slaver's Bay, she could be more impartial and less emotionally complicated with it. Ergo, she wasn't going to burn it down. But when she's rejected by people who she's been told cheered her name, only to realize she doesn't have a home, after those same people killed her family and surrogate children burning it makes sense
@@johnfriedgen357 "but she still killed a whole bunch of people indiscriminately" I just pointed out that Daenerys didn't kill a bunch of people "indiscriminately" and why. Please reread what I wrote. If you disagree ask yourself how many slaves-not slave masters but slaves-did Daenerys have crucified outside Meereen in GoT? If the answer is 0 (it seems to be) then she was being discriminate. On to the point of if they "may not have committed" it at the time she ordered for the specific number of people in a specific group to be crucified she thought they were all in on it (all the members of that group supported the mass murder of children). Hizdar was the only person to mention some were not and that conversation happened afterwards.
"where the common people were just as guilty as Cersei" Season 8 Dany-whom I do not see as the same character as GoT seasons 1-7 Daenerys said the civilians who had been burnt were innocent and that Cersei "used their innocence as a weapon". So no, even season 8 Dany didn't call common people "as guilty as Cersei".
"Moreover, she knew that she would be betrayed for Jon Snow because he wasn't the foreign queen."
Daenerys was born in Westeros to a royal family whom had ruled there for centuries. That makes her rather not "foreign". Additionally the Northmen followed Jon but the rest of Westeros does not so most of Westeros would not see him as a local guy. On top of that Jon abdicated in favor of Daenerys which makes her the legit Queen even if Jon does have a claim (a notion in itself many in Westeros may find surprising or unbelievable because Jon was already known as "Ned Stark's bastard"). And to add even more on to that Cersei had managed to gain control without having a legit claim herself. So who is legit doesn't matter that much anymore and if it did then the legit person is Dany.
"she couldn't be impartial because all she ever heard was that people loved her"
Daenerys was critical of this very idea at the start of season 7. She did, however, have a more legit claim than Cersei as far as most people knew (including Jon at the time). Now since Cersei had already shown herself to be a cruel ruler who didn't care about the fate of the people she ruled over and had recently blown up one of the most important temples in Westeros it is not hard to see why the population of Westeros wouldn't be either neutral (don't care who rules) or welcoming to Daenerys (as an improvement over Cersei). So not only did Daenerys not start the war with Cersei in season 7 with the expectation of being cheered on by most people in King's Landing but she may have even gotten said cheers she was not expecting if the writers of season 8 had let things play out from the situation that had been created in seasons 1-7 of GoT.
"rejected by people" this didn't happen. If you rewatch season 8 you may notice King's Landing was burned before people even had the option of accepting or rejecting season 8 Dany.
The aired version of season 8 differs from the earlier plans for season 8 on why the city burns before this can happen. The aired version shows Dany supposedly going insane. The earlier plans for season 8 that were later changed instead had the wildfire getting lit (either during the battle or later when season 8 Dany flies directly to the Red Keep to burn it and Cersei-rather than much of King's Landing). And it was the mass of wildfire that had been spread out under King's Landing with the purpose of destroying the city (the Mad King's plan) that ruined King's Landing (a rather large city for the time) rather than 1 dragon just after it had won 2 battles and without any lunch or nap break.
Having come from Africa where most of the freedom fighters who liberated the continent from colonialism turned into dictators who ended up oppressing the very people they liberated I saw Danny ending coming a mile a way.
Exactly. There are no heroes in this story and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Doesn't mean some characters aren't better than others. Dany isn't super evil or psychotic but her naivety and self righteousness will lead her to inflict massive destruction. It's like giving atomic bombs to an emotional and self righteous teenager who sees the world as full of evil people and not expecting them to end up causing massive death and suffering.
Thank you for your real world thoughtfulness and my sympathies for the harsh experience that it came from. That said there is a difference between the actual Daenerys (seasons 1-7) and rebel leaders turned dictators in Africa. There is never any indication that if the people of Meereen voted in a Mayor or Governor Daenerys didn't like she wouldn't accept their decision regardless.
If they had and she refused to accept the outcome of the election that would be different (and match that many in Africa started rigging their own elections). But at no point do we see the actual character Daenerys say she will take back the ability of "the people" of Meereen to pick their rulers once she said she was giving it to them. Keep in mind that she respected the right of former slaves to make their own career decisions even when those decisions made her uncomfortable.
Rebels can turn into dictators. Sadly more than 1 has. However that doesn't always happen.
@@pplr1 dude, the people repeatedly refused her. Basically everywhere.
You'll see it once you annihilate the good guy/bad guy thing and just see people.
Even the Dothraki, from a Purely Cultural standpoint, refused to accept her.
She basically told them and their culture/religion to go fuck themselves.
Did she do it with shock and awe, putting the fear of God into people? Sure.
WMD's do that. It also helps that she speaks the language, is smoking hot, can't be burned cuz magic, and the WMD's in question are magical, so rare as to be thought extinct, sentient fire breathing behemoths.
People believe in cult leaders for a lot less.
@@thedappermagician6905 Lets double check some facts here.
1. "the people repeatedly refused her. Basically everywhere."
When the war between Cersei and Daenerys starts Dorn and The Reach support Daenerys as well as 1 of the 2 Greyjoy factions-and the other Greyjoy faction wanted to.
Plus Jon, who didn't bend the knee until Daenerys basically passed a test of character he had. Openly and initially acknowledged her as being better than Cersei. Thus even if people were neutral in the war between Cersei and Daenerys they see Daenerys as a better option.
Now a counterpoint to Jon may be Randyll Tarly-who was likely to fight for Lady Olenna but switched sides-but Jamie and Cersei had to play on his bigotry and then bribe him with a greater position to get him on their side. That probably won't work for most neutral people who end up having to pick a side because Cersei would run out of promotions to hand out. The 7 kingdoms doesn't have that many spare kingdoms to hand out, a couple but not many.
2. "Even the Dothraki, from a Purely Cultural standpoint, refused to accept her."
Yet they fight for her and even are changing their usual habits for her-heard of no taking of slaves by Dothraki after they started working for Daenerys nor do they put together a pile of heads for her in season 7 like they would Drogo in season 1.
Also her reforms of Dothraki ways are to prevent some of the harm to others-thus contradicting season 8's character assassination.
3. "WMD's do that"
Daenerys doesn't have WMDs. The dragons are like air support-impressive and important but not WMDs. She used them in season 7 during a battle and there were still 2 armies fighting after she started using them.
WMDs like nukes remove a battlefield (and any armies on it) from existing. Both her army and a sizable portion of the Lannister army continued to exist after the battle she used her dragons.
Instead of making assumptions about "good guy/bad guy" stuff which is basically repeating deceptive memes anyway deal with the facts and where they go.
@@pplr1 Righto so let's refine
1. Pardon, but I was speaking primarily of the Continent of Essos. Most in the Free Cities reject her, her claims, and her demands outright. They tolerate her at best or see her as a tool to plot and scheme.
Since your #2 point is blended in let's go there. The Dothraki leaders absolutely refused her. Before she was Khaleesi and even after, general soldiers did not see her as welcome. This continued throughout.
Your later point about her 'reforms' still fall into the ultimate trick of Daenerys. It is PRECISELY by someone thinking they know what is best that is the problem here.
Dany comes at a point of view that makes the claim that she knows what is ultimately good for everyone and if you don't believe her, you can die like the rest of the critics and detractors.
The Dothraki that follow her have literally seen what is essentially a miracle. They also respect strength but look what they did to Khal Drogo. And he was truly one of them.
Dany promised them bloodletting, combat, and land. Also she's got a freakin Dragon.
This is not acceptance. This is perceived mutually beneficial tolerance.
For those in Westeros, it is made explicit that many will not accept her especially those of the North.
Jon is Not the entire North and he even tells her that despite what he thinks she needs to get them to approve of her. She does absolute squat about this. She predicates her right to rule on the people loving her and expects people to love her by showing up with big guns and killing others.
Not once during the celebration after the long night did she grab a drink, sit with wildlings and chat. She only spoke with Sansa from a political maneuver. She was so used to people just showering her with praise and adoration that she became entitled.
It is continuously said about how wary the North is about everyone and Dragons/Targaryens in general.
And yes, Dragons ARE WMDs. WMD's can be launched by air support.
The term 'Air Support' is an extremely vague phrase. It can mean cover fire, patrol of airspace, reconnaissance, evacuation, basically anything.
Dany absolutely obliterated the Lannister and Tarly army in the Reach. Her attacks were tactical and well aimed but be rest assured she would have done far more damage had the Scorpion not been there, threatening to put bolts through Drogon.
Let me reiterate; she nuked Kings Landing and a Naval fleet. That is the meaning of Weapon of Mass Destruction. It just so happens her 'Air Support' can also be Ground Support(if it chooses), is sentient and can modulate how much damage it does based on personal whim or command from Big Momma D.
Lastly, because I missed this, she made business deals with the elite usurpers of House Martell and Olena of House Tyrell. That is not acceptance by the people whatsoever.
Dany was an exiled foreign national who came to do exactly what everyone feared.
We just have to deal with that.
Having just watched GOT all the way through for the first time, her actions at the end in no way conflict with how her character was established, not at all. It's pretty much on the money. This was just the point where she completely slipped the mask. She's a self-righteous, radical revolutionary with utopian delusions and an entitled absolute monarch with a messiah complex. She certainly had many good intentions at various points in the story, but her sense of morality is only one of convenience, not based on any real principle or dedication to universal ethics. She basically uses people to acheive her own ends and gets rid of anyone and everyone who gets in her way as soon as appealing to ideals don't work. When she's forced to choose between pursuing greater power and acting in the best interest of her people or simply doing the right and just thing, she choses her pursuit of personal power over being an ethical person every single time. She also almost always does good things only when it's in her interest to do so, when it has something to gain from it, and never for its own sake or if it would cost her something to do it. "If not love, let it be fear then" absolutely defines the nature of her interactions and relationships with others. Sure, she'll appeal to higher ideals to get people to join her cause or to give her what she wants, and I believe she herself believes them too, but almost as soon as that fails in any case to get her what she wants, she shows that she cares less about the ideals and more about simply getting what she wants, resorting to obscene acts of merciless brutality and cruelty, justified in the name of "the greater good." No amount of bodies are too high a price on the road to paradise.
She isn't a revolutionary at all, she literally wants to "make westeros great again" and go back to a gilded age where her imperialist family ruled everything from the backs of horrific war machines.
Well said!
"When she's forced to choose between pursuing greater power and acting in the best interest of her people or simply doing the right and just thing, she choses her pursuit of personal power over being an ethical person every single time." This is false. She actually repeatedly delayed or put her own goals at greater risk for the benefit of others. Jorah suggested forgetting about freeing slaves and just trying to take Westeros now that she had an army of UnSullied-she refused for the benefit of the slaves. Daario suggested she just kill all of Meereen's nobles and former slave masters to consolidate power and she refused. She stays in Meereen longer than she needs to both to be sure she is ready to try to rule Westeros and also protect the freedom the former slaves now instead of going right for Westeros again. Then when finally in Westeros she refuses to attack King's Landing directly in what is bad military planning by Tyrion but for the sake of the people (other than Cersei) who live in the city. Then when she is winning the war against Cersei after cleaning up one of Tyrion's military mistakes she puts the war on pause to go save The North and Westeros as a whole-again delaying her goals. Plus she doesn't even initially ask Cersei to send her own army to go fight the undead but simply wants a truce so she can go help Jon do it-that is asking a small amount and definitely increasing the risk to herself and her goals for the sake of others.
Your argument would be more impressive if it was correct on the facts (as portrayed in seasons 1-7 of GoT). Instead the facts contradict it.
@pplr1 you truly are the most dedicated and annoying daenerys fanboy, huh?
@@lysander3459 I have seen him in so many comment sections lol I think he really belives that dany will come to life and touch him xD
This. You’ve articulated this so well. While Dany is sympathetic and an interesting character, people STILL justify her violence and think she’s purely good. That she’s a hero, and was never out for her own self-interests.
When GRRM reveals her fate in the books, it will be very similar. Dany’s lust for power and her self righteous violence will lead to her downfall.
Actually I think book Dany will be killed by the one person she showed mercy to.
YezenIRL How so? Interested to hear what you think.
Book Dany’s death will hit harder than the show, I think. The show really missed out on her most human moments - longing for the house with the red door, wanting to be safe and loved.
NocturnalMelody I think that in the books Dany will be killed by Jorah, and it will be more about jealousy than justice.
@@yezenirl6331 There is absolutely no way anyone other than Jon kills Dany in the books. No way. This is a song of ice and fire. Jon is ice, Dany is fire. They're the two mainest of the main characters and their stories completely dovetail into each other. Just for starters, the first lesson Jon learns in the Night's Watch is that he is NOT any more special than anyone else and the second lesson is that he should forgo his feelings to rationally evaluate the situation and work for the greater good. The first lesson Dany learns is that she IS more important and special than anyone else (she made dragons hatch!) and that she should pursue her goals singlemindedly.
Jon is definitely plunging that knife in the books as well as in the show.
SerbAtheist nope. I’m planning a video on this, but I’ve become quite convinced it’s not Jon in the books. D&D actually admitted that they came up with that scene.
No matter how hard you try, you will never make it make sense
WATCH ME
@@yezenirl6331 I bet you think battle of the bastards is the best episode.
@@tebourbi I literally hate that episode
I think the story of Dany is a metaphor for many people in real life. Plenty of us want to see a better world, yet simultaneously have feel-good vengeful impulses toward the various 'tyrants' in this world.
Personally, I've made a few Daenerys-like comments over the years on threads, concerning how to treat said tyrants. And I've heard a little bit of Dany in the comments of fellow advocates as well! So in a sense, Daenerys Targaryen is a parable for our own conflicting character traits.
But the people in King's Landing weren't tyrants. they were just peasants that were already being oppressed by one Tyrant (Cersei), and burned alive by another Tyrant (Dany)
@@odinsoutlaw7572 yes and in real life everyone's desires for self-righteous violence inevitably get turned upon 'innocent' people unless reigned in
Anger, even if for good reason, is one of those things people have to be careful not to get lost in. That said I think you may be putting more reflection into it than the show's writers. There is strong evidence the version of season 8 that aired was actually a change from earlier plans for season 8 where wildfire is what destroyed the city. Now the point about anger may still have been there since the show runners have (so far) not been that honest about how big and why they made changes to season 8 but there is an indication that the actress who played Dany was told when season 8 Dany takes off it is to roast Cersei-not the city.
It is either from using a dragon in the fighting against the Lannister army earlier or from lighting up the Red Keep with Cersei in it that the wildfire likely gets lit. Thus the unintended consequences of a city burning and an actual potential less about how anger and violence can have unintended consequences.
I suspect the show's writers (not GRRM since I argue the 2 became different stories) realized they created a problem for themselves since Jon would be unlikely to agree to an assassination attempt over something season 8 Dany never wanted to happen. So they decided to attempt to employ a heavy dose of character assassination on the latter as a way of covering up 1 plot hole only to create another.
Keep in mind I think that still was not their only mistake with season 8 (they made many). But their fixation on an assassination attempt caused them to miss something else that the evidence for had been laid earlier in the tv series. Season 8 Dany would not only not want the city to burn instead of Cersei (notice the version of season 8 that aired portrayed season 8 Dany as ignoring Cersei in order to supposedly target random people on the street-which is very different than how the actual character Daenerys would likely act in not just 1 but 2 different ways at once) but likely be horrified that her own actions caused it.
My biggest problem with season 8 is how rushed it feels. The episodes feel disjointed, a bunch of plot threads are either brushed off or completely ignored entirely. Characters aren't set up with enough time to develop properly. It's not just Dany. It's Varys, Tyrion, Jon, and Sansa. A lot of characters' distrust of Dany only makes sense AFTER the slaughter at King's Landing - not in the episodes before. Jon and Dany falling in love wasn't really developed properly, so every time it's referenced, it just feels weird. Dany goes from believing it's horribly contrived for Jon to be Aegon, given the sources, to suddenly believing it to be true within what seems to be around a day or two. Varys conducts his acts of subterfuge IN THE OPEN, despite being shown to be much more intelligent and cunning in the past (and don't get me started on how he was all for "Fire and Blood" until he suddenly wasn't with no apparent explanation). Jaime goes from being a man who broke his oath to protect Innocents to the line "I never really cared much for them, innocent or otherwise" with no real explanation. Why did Drogon melt the throne instead of the man who killed his mother (in the books, yes, dragons are shown and described to be incredibly intelligent. This is not true of the show)? And their handling of the Night King made me actually want to die.
I believe Dany going mad is her intended end. I believe Bran becoming king is his intended end. But I don't really think this was a good way to get either of them there, regardless of foreshadowing. In the books, Dany's inner struggle is easier to see; she is a POV character after all. I don't think it was portrayed well enough in the show for this ending to be satisfying.
I didn't want a happy ending. That's not GoT. I wanted a satisfying one. GoT was far too action-oriented in the later seasons, when I watched it for the characters, subterfuge, and political scheming. I just think season 8 was incredibly poorly written overall. Dany isn't even the worst of it. She's just the focal point because of how popular of a character she is.
Wow! 100% Agree
This! Thank you
Hey InaraOfTyria - If you think it was supposedly poorly written, which I seriously do NOT, you should try and make the effort to find the pieces that are in it on your own instead (like how Yezen here has clearly / smartly done) of just complaining like all the other whiners. I didn't feel it was rushed bcos I understood all the subtle plotting. I do wish it was full 10 episodes sure, but what I and others got was still very satisfying. Just cos you don't see them doesn't mean they're not there. Or rather they weren't told exactly how you preferred them. That does NOT in any way mean it's so-called bad writing. Actually what's really going on is people like you miss all the subtle beats that aren't explicitly spelled out. Just bcos you missed them does not mean it's bad writing. That's a fault on your part. There's a clear reason why others defend the final season bcos they were more astute and could piece things together. I know you people just wanna assume such people are just idiots and you dissatisfied ones are the real deal but seriously NO you're not.
"Characters aren't setup properly" - just what are you even talking about?? There's NO MORE setup that's needed. This is the final season ergo the final act, setups do NOT need to be done now... only further transitions and conclusions.
"Varys conducts his acts of subterfuge IN THE OPEN, despite being shown to be much more intelligent and cunning in the past" - this is UTTER nonsense that gets tossed around the stupid internet and people just absorb and believe it. Do you even remember the previous seasons? Varys ALWAYS does his conspiracy stuff with people in the open and there are always many scenes where Varys will just walk right up to someone and suggest / imply his plan! One example is Olenna Tyrell. In private yet STILL in open where they can be seen! It's LITTLEFINGER who does his stuff in the background and we never actually see him do it. He's the one, NOT Varys ffs!
"Jaime goes from being a man who broke his oath to protect Innocents to the line "I never really cared much for them, innocent or
otherwise" with no real explanation." - Again, you really can't see all the subtleness in the writing can you? You best go and this guy's
analysis of Jaime which was really spot on and he understood all the beats which MANY can't seem to notice. And you're another ignorant one who thought Jaime is someone who cares for the people. He never did, dude! And don't tell me he saved KingLánding bcos of them! He did it for his father - many make the mistake of thinking it's the former. And him not wanting to slaughter the castle with Blackfish (S6) was a direct influence from Brienne. I don't know where the (bad) fans ever got the idea that Jaime loves the people. He's been called Kingslayer for YEARS by the masses after killing the Mad King so why should he care for them! That's why his line "I never cared for the people, innocent or otherwise" makes PURE sense - but apparently MANY people have not been paying attention.
@@plisskenetic hahahahaha you call tis a rebuttal? you just outed yourself as a moron lmao
This wasn't just distrusting, Dany; this was shining a light on the fact that the North meant it when they said they wouldn't kneel to another outsider.
Northerners are clanish and very closed off to anyone who isn't their own or someone they were familiar with and approved of.
Dany was none of the above. I would agree with this argument had Dany dealt with the North for years, and they were still hesitant towards her, but this wasn't the case.
People think that everyone should have trusted Dany three minutes after meeting her.
Even in real life people with good intentions do awful things! “Hey! we’re gonna go liberate Vietnam” drops bombs on them! “Hey! we’re gonna go liberate Iraq!” -drops bombs on them, hey we’re gonna go kill this tyrant and avenge ourselves while sending a message to the rest of the world” drops bombs and drones on a village.
How do we think a suicide bomber is created in the first place? ..that’s a kid who grows up on a revenge mission after his family was burnt alive by the very same “liberators” who came to “save his people”
Daenerys is a mirror to the western world.
We were ok with her burning people in essos/ (the Middle East) she sacked Astapor and we only watched from her POV we never cared for the families of those masters or the innocent families of those former slavers she crucified , we never questioned why she was killing people who are born into a system NOT by choice. It was ok coz they were “bad men” But now when she came over and burnt Kingslanding (the west) everyone is in an uproar because it was actually intentionally done for us to see from their POV this time.
Some people just can’t handle Mirrors
only you're missing a key point here and I think it's delusional to think that what you refer to as "liberation" wasn't done out of good intentions from the beginning but rather to exploit those countries' natural resources and to expand territorial dominance.
Sol that is the key point ..Its delusional to think Dany ‘s “liberation” was done purely out of good intentions..
It is all some form of EXPLOITATION either way.
-Dany only freed the unsullied and freed slaves in-order to raise a following and raise an army, wage war and conquer another country. She had three weapons of mass destruction and wanted to conquer another country based on the colonialism of her lineage.
It might be noble to free slaves but in second glance it is NOT noble to use slaves to free slaves (even if you tell them they are now “free”)
Daenerys ‘s narrative fooled everyone including the audience, she cared more about taking back the iron throne,destroying her enemies and ANYONE who would stand in the way more than anything else.
Freeing slaves and breaking chains came second and that was just a self gratifying act inorder for her to feel good about herself , gain an army and followers. a superficial balance to her ruthless merciless, Narcissistic side .
The fire and blood side.
Sol so as “noble” as her liberation ideals seemed...her true intentions and her actions were always in the interest of Self.
@@tha_jet_king3537 And so she burned all the children the end
NIlk Tots yes she burns everyone in the end, women , men and children , her enemies ‘ soilders , her soldiers everyone and anything
3:23 Daenerys not condemning Drogo’s calls for rape and violence in one scene versus actively preventing it in another is not a great example of ethical inconsistency.
It’s simply showing her true colours. When in a room surrounded by bloodthirsty Dothraki soldiers chanting about destruction, she doesn’t say anything. But when she actually has the power to command the Dothraki to not harm innocents, she does this to the best of her ability.
Power does not corrupt, it reveals.
Daenerys not believing in a trial for the masters but insisting on holding one for the arrested son of harpy wasn’t an inconsistency either. She developed and listened to the advice of Ser Barristan, Ser Jorah and one of the masters (whom she married) and attempted to take on a more diplomatic approach to demonstrate the importance of the judiciary by holding said trial.
She executed Mossodor for killing him and thus preventing this. A foolish move but not really an inconsistency either.
lol no, power corrupts.
@@yezenirl6331 Unfortunately that's just not really true though. We see Daenerys being given large amounts of power throughout the show prior to Season 8, and she consistently uses it to do strive for noble aims. Whether that be ending slavery, or trying to protect common folk from being killed even as collateral damage.
And even when she makes mistakes in pursuit of these noble aims, (such as her initially hardline approach against the former slave-masters), she takes steps to compromise by re-opening the fighting pits and enforcing trials for the sons of harpy (both shit moves in the end)-even marrying into one of the noble houses despite their crimes.
In addition, she avoids surrounding herself with 'yes men' (one of the hallmarks of a corrupt leader), instead surrounding herself with advisors such as Ser Barristan Selmy, Tyrion Lannister and Hizdahr zo Loraq, and is more than happy to follow their advice even if said advice is actually pretty shit.
Speaking of which, even at the literal *height of her power* in early Season 7, with almost all of Westeros supporting her, she categorically ignores the wise advice of Olenna Tyrell and Yara Greyjoy to immediately besiege King's Landing with her dragons, as her desire is to take the city with as few innocent people killed in action as possible. So she instead opts to follow Tyrion's advice to try and starve out the city (the writers claimed that less people would be killed this way-lol)
Of course, this was a dumb move on her part since *she did* end up forcing the city to surrender in 8x05 using Drogon with very few civilian casualties. On a side note, the show's finale would also disagree with your argument here. Since it presents giving absolute power to an emotionless omniscient God-Emperor as the morally best conclusion.
The point here is that neither Daenerys' actions, nor even the writers themselves seem to agree with the idea that power corrupts. Which is why I cannot in good faith take it seriously here. I am sorry.
@@AdamNoizer I just think this is a sophomoric understanding of Dany’s character. I can’t have this debate with every commenter. The show did a lot wrong, but “Dany is a fundamentally good in every context and her being proclaimed as a messiah figure would never corrupt her” is a fundamental misunderstanding of everything the story has been saying since the beginning. You’re free to believe what you want, but I promise you it’s just not the story. Dany is defined by her context. GRRM is not playing the messiah trope straight.
Also anyone who thinks the ending is that Bran is a god emperor with absolute power didn’t get the ending at all. Take it from literally the only guy who predicted it lol
@@yezenirl6331 That's fair. For the record, I originally came across your channel via the discussion you had on EFAP and I thought you made some pretty fair points. (Particularly regarding the walk of shame being pretty misogynistic and other things-though I disagree that the idea that Dany considered herself to be messianic pre-season 8).
My issue here is the implied false dichotomy. I don't believe Dany is fundamentally good every context. She is flawed, and makes mistakes, both in the show and in the book. But this is an *extremely* far cry from deliberately murdering innocent people after they surrender to her.
It would be in character and logical for her to be perceived as a tyrant. It would be (debatably) in character and logical for her to become so preoccupied with seizing the throne that she accidentally or wilfully kills some innocent people as collateral damage to attain it during the siege. What is not in character for her is to win the battle, take the city and then go street by street murdering every civilian she sees for her own sadistic satisfaction post-surrender.
There were ways to make Dany's actions morally objectionable and grey. But I think the reason why the writers took this route was because they needed to make her so reprehensibly evil such that there could be no ambiguity that Tyrion and Jon were right in betraying and murdering her in the end. And I think that was just cowardly on their part.
@@AdamNoizer yea when I hear shit like this I just don’t think you or Lindsey or EFAP are even close to understanding of the story or the character of Daenerys. Some of that is likely the fault of the showrunners for places where they should have been more clear (and they certainly do handle Jon and Tyrion with kid gloves), but another part of that is internet fan culture that just placates to people’s fandom of the characters and validates their anger over not getting what they want.
But Dany perceiving herself as messianic was built up quite a bit. Her entire story is literally a reconstruction and deconstruction of the messiah narrative.
you, sir, are a criminally underrated youtuber who is due for some more viewers. I hope more people happen upon your content and enjoy it and learn from it as much as I have.
1000% agree with you!
Okay so let me say that I still don't agree Dany's downfall was well set up in S8. I also think you are correct in that the ingredients for her downfall were present.
My main issue comes from the how and the why she did what she did. So she says she did it because Cersei wanted to use mercy against her. That is 100% rational and I agree. What is not rational was her burning all of King's Landing rather than just the Red Keep which Dany knows she's there. If Cersei stuffed the Red Keep with civilians and Dany said fuck it and bulldozed her way through, it would be fine. If the people of KL had somehow turned on her proving that they will never love her then that's fine (although why would they? These people hate Cersei, the show runners created a situation where these people should be rolling out the red carpet for her). But that's not what happened, she took out her rage and frustration on people she knows are just as much victims of Cersei's hate as Missandei was and then explained it as "well Cersei made me do it." Even though she shouldn't even know if Cersei is dead since presumably Tyrion was the only one to find her body. Which again this would be great if someone actually called her out on this indicating that the writers were aware of the logical/ emotional inconsistency. But no one does and when put into the context of other things that doesn't make sense, it does feel more like a betrayal of character rather than a tragedy finally playing itself out
elevate07 her burning Kingslanding is not meant to be rational to us ..it’s rational to HER...and her rationale is that she is sending a message of fear throughout the 7 kingdoms and she has decided to rule through fear aswell as wiping the slate clean/starting over and making a better future for “future generations” , she thinks she is right as always and so HER way is the right way.
This is often the rationale of a tyrant and we have seen her use this same rationale of wiping out those who she thinks may some day defy her ( in smaller instances) the difference is all of those HUMANS were wearing the “bad guy” cloaks at the time and so not everyone questioned her actions.
Also notice how in past seasons she mass executed or collectively punished people based on defiance of her and not necessarily their occupation or who was directly involved or guilty of the accused crimes and so of course she was bound to burn an entire city she perceived as not showing HER the love she felt she deserves with little regard of innocence OR the actual tyrant (Cersei)
For Dany there is no guilty or innocent, there is only those who love and obey her and those who defy her or may some day oppose her. The latter are her enemy. What she does to Kingslanding is a character reveal of her true colours and HER megalomaniac rationale. It’s meant to reframe everything she claimed to stand for whilst carrying out questionable actions the entire series.
I there may be an explanation neither of you thought about. D and D were still playing around with the scripts and story while making season 8. In the earlier script Dany goes for the Red Keep to kill Cersei despite the human shields. If you look at the episode six talk with Jon that actually makes more sense in that context.
Now there is a recording of the computer effects people talking that came out not long ago. In it one of them mentioned how most of the fire burning King's Landing was supposed to be green but then they were told to change it to "not green" fire. That change involves a shift in how the city burns and arguably who is responsible and how much.
Aegon Conqueror. The nonsense in episode 5 actually undoes the idea of ruling by fear. Cersei messed with Dany in public (on more than one occasion). Dany has to be seen as making Cersei suffer for it if she wants to rule by fear or even as a typical noble in Westeros. By ignoring Cersei-which is what is portrayed (Dany doesn't even send out a patrol of the UnSullied look for Cersei afterwards) Dany would be sending the message that people live longer and are given time to make escape attempts if they do mess with Dany than if they don't (many civilians). And burning King's Landing makes Dany weaker because she would have a weaker kingdom that just lost one of its biggest cities. So this is too stupid to match rule by fear.
And no, I don't buy the idea Dany is just being inconsistent when it comes to dealing with innocent people dying. We have seen that burned bones of a kid hits her hard even if a dead guy she suspects does not.
This lack of love claim is pretty stupid considering the beginning of season 7 where she points out that Viserys was a fool for thinking people toasted to him in secret. I'm sure she'd like love, but not having it won't surprise her nor drive her nutty.
Seems like she could single out people pretty well in season 7 too. Every one of the enemy soldiers taken prisoner lived except the Tarly two. Poor Dickon was following his dad and possibly feeling guilty for killing his hunting buddies. Randyll Tarly was on a mission to get himself killed when her turned down not 1 but 2 ways to live (one of which didn't involve serving Daenerys)-especially after he and his forces offered Lady Olenna 0 chances to live. In that scene the "tyrant" Daenerys treated the prisoners from the Lannister army better than they treated her vassal (Lady Olenna) and her troops (pile of dead bodies Jamie walks past that Lannister troops may be looting) when they were taken prisoner.
Also Daenerys made Meereen a democracy-not typical "tyrant" behavor.
@@pplr1 oh please drop the "d&d decided to make it last hour" already.
@@jsvvnt No. Especially not when there is evidence to show that is a realistic possibility. If you have evidence disproving that then have at it. But if the computer effects people are told to use wildfire to make the city burn and then later told to use "not wildfire" that indicates a change was made.
@@pplr1 let me guess you saw the dragon demands dude video... a person that loves to stalk d&d and even made bryan cogman (one of the writers that grrm likes and said that he was responsible for keeping "the canon" in the series) leave Twitter because he was being creep with him. but believe what you want, maybe someday you guys will get over that denial.
I've never thought of dany this way. But I agree..she flip flops between being benevolent and tyrannical. I personally relate to her alot wanting to be better for myself and others yet feeling the need to take out my more volitle emotions on others as some form of release. Though unlike me and most people dany had very destructive resources at her disposal and she felt justified in many ways. I think her story is very sad and brutal yet necessary. In way she was always "mad" but so is basically everyone in this story and anyone who's been through a lot.
I think she only ever really behaved benevolently when her advisors forced or convinced her to. Once she had the confidence to act on her own, she disregarded them and let her true nature rule the day.
Actually in a season six Inside the Episode 1 of the writers for GoT flat out said that Daenerys is not "insane" nor "a sadist" nor "her father". Also the earlier plan for season 8 itself was for wildfire to destroy the city. Meaning by 1 dragon was a change and not a plan built up to. Also the author of this video gets details wrong in his arguments. For example he misrepresents having the same standard for all characters rather than double standards for Daenerys as "Whataboutism".
Whataboutism is dodging a question by bringing up a side topic to avoid addressing the original topic. People who point out other characters like Jon, Sansa, and Arya killed/executed people aren't using that to ignore that Daenerys killed/executed people. Just that they are portrayed as morally justified and sane when they do it while the author of this video (as a defender of season 8) and season 8 try to claim similar was a sign of madness and lack of morality for Daenerys. Don't forget Jon killed Janos (officially) simply for refusing to follow orders even as Janos was apologizing and promising to do whatever Jon wanted. Lady Olenna was executed and Randyll Tarly appears to have taken no prisoners after attacking her castle. In comparison Daenerys was more merciful because she offered Randyll Tarly a way to live after he denied that to her ally.
Treating different characters very differently for doing very similar things is a double standard. Critics of season 8 are often quite willing to address that Daenerys killed/executed others head on. Just they can address that and that other characters killed/executed people with consistency while season 8 and its defenders do not.
On some of the other things the video maker claimed are distortions or wrong as well.
Daenerys deciding to punish slave masters for the atrocity of killing over 100 slave children is not exactly the sign of a terrible or insane person. Not only was the generally accepted punishment for murder execution but this was the mass murder of children that she trying to do justice for.
Additionally this can go back to the double standards again as Sansa fed Ramsey to his own dogs as punishment for the some of the terrible things he did. The writers don't use that against her in season 8. Sansa killing Ramsey was for even more selfish reasons since Sansa was killing Ramsey in part out of personal revenge (what he did to her) while Daenerys is trying to punish former slave masters for the harm they did to others (less selfish).
It is striking that the video author even said "Dany had executed helpless downtrodden people" (in minute 17) while showing Daenerys executing people who had each killed others. That is a major misrepresentation. In order, Mirri (for understandable reasons) killed Daenerys husband and unborn son, Daenerys didn't want to have the advisor (his name currently escapes me) executed that we see next but he murdered a prisoner who was still awaiting trial and thus committed murder (which the punishment is already established for), and the slave masters-especially those who supported having a mass murder of children-were far from "helpless and downtrodden".
Now he followed up that by saying Daenerys had done collective punishment without trial yet the 1st situation someone suggested a trial to Daenerys she went with holding one making that criticism rather wrongheaded. Also the problematic nature of collective punishment itself was something Daenerys ended up dealing with later that season so it isn't like the problems with it were ignored or rationalized-the opposite in fact (with show Hizdar).
Referring to using dragon in a battle as "ruthlessly burning people en mass to achieve a political goal" is a rather anti-Daenerys PR laden way to say used 1 of her dragons in a battle. It is killing people but killing people in a battle during a war isn't seen as murder.
If one is to avoid double standards that either makes Daenerys not insane (like most other characters who are involved in a war are not insane) or it makes Ned Stark, Bobby B, Tyrion Lannister, Jon Stark, Sansa Stark, and more who were all part of fighting or arranging a battle insane or at the very least terrible people in moral thinking because they were all part of killing people in a battle or arranging it.
The author of this video is getting things wrong or misrepresenting situations as well as engaging in double standards.
And that all is without the lesser known but very important aspect of season 8 that the earlier plan for it was for wildfire to be what wrecked King's Landing and having only 1 dragon do it (after singlehandedly winning a battle against both a navy and an army) was actually a change. Meaning they weren't building to it over years but decided to stick it in after having a different plan.
That is something that contradicts the claims Dany was supposedly always "mad" and people never noticed.
I suspect the show writers did that change to season 8 for a combination of shock value and in a poor attempt to paper over some of the plot holes they made in season 8 that only made more plot holes.
The specific plot hole they may have been attempting to deal with is that Jon would've been unlikely to agree to an assassination attempt in season 8 over something Dany never wanted to happen-the destruction of the city due to wildfire.
The reason you probably didn't think of things this video claimed the way it did before is probably because you correctly understood those situations when you saw them while the maker of this video misrepresented them in the video.
I noticed you tried to avoid double standards by saying "she was always "mad" but so is basically everyone in this story and anyone who's been through a lot." I'll disagree with you on if the characters were insane or "mad" but I'll give you credit for attempting to be consistent and not have double standards. But if you if you look over this video again and season 8 itself you may notice they both engaged in double standards.
This video tries to trick people into believing season 8 has less problems than it does by engaging in those double standards itself and falsely writes off people noticing them as "whataboutism".
You have more consistency and possibly more integrity than it does. Be careful about it tricking you.
Darrin K Actually there have been multiple times when she did the morally right thing in spite of her advisors encouraging her to do the opposite. Attempting to give her advisors credit for her own internal mortality was a common and misleading meme put out by defenders of season 8. Let me mention some examples to prove it. Jorah suggested forgetting about ending slavery and just trying to attack Westeros, Daenerys refused for the sake of those slaves still in slavery. Daario suggested killing all the nobles and former slave masters in Meereen in order to consolidate power, Daenerys refused and said she is not a "butcherer". Tyrion tried telling her not to try to rescue Jon when Jon was off on a mission to capture an undead that Tyrion himself thought up. Had Daenerys not refused to follow Tyrion's advise at that point both Jon would be dead and there would be no attempt to make a truce with Cersei to go fight the undead before they killed everyone in The North.
Daenerys made the decision to free slaves on her own without any advisor telling her to do so. There are also multiple and usually smaller decisions she made that helped other people that no advisor talked her into and certainly didn't "force" on her.
Season 8 was a mess. It should be recognized as such. The writers themselves and a bunch of excuse makers for it tried to cover up just how bad a mess it was by coming up with that and other claims that are not true. A problem for those claims is if people actually rewatch earlier scenes/seasons they may notice those claims are false.
Well shes a Targaryens, they are known for their psychopathy.
sl9wdive A number (probably the majority) of Targaryens in the background of GoT were sane-so that isn't a good explanation in general. Also (as I already pointed out in an earlier and longer comment) the writers themselves already declared Daenerys to be sane back in season six. So that really doesn't explain or excuse season 8 in relation to her character in specific.
As someone who just got done binging through the whole series for the first time I was pissed initially when Dany torched Kings Landing. But I realised that all the build up and motivation was already there. I think the thing most people were hung up on was just having certain shit explored a bit more thoroughly as most people saw her heel turn as a result of Jon's true identity and her getting no love in westeros, but it was in the making for a long time.
After Ser Baristan's death, she gathered members of the ruling families. Daenerys burned a guy without proof. She immediately started rubbing up on Hizdahr. She was excited. It was pure Aerys
@@stacywhisenant6242 Omg! I wonder if they did that deliberately.
Whenever the Mad King burned someone he'd get sexually aroused and go rape his wife.
@@gerardjagroo It's definitely deliberate. The lustful look in her eyes as people are being burned alive is unmistakable.
I don’t totally agree with you about how well they built her arc, but I enjoyed the video and thought you presented your points very well.
They built it well enough, just not in the typical conventional way that majority are too accustomed to, which isn't a bad thing.
@@plisskenetic Bingo. Often From Software is accused of not having great stories in their work. Yet, under the surface, Bloodborne has one of the greatest stories I've ever experienced. It just wasn't told in the traditional way.
I think they got sloppy with everyones arc nearing the end. and probably more importantly, the entire arc of the existential threat of the army of the dead. resolving that with a fight seems lazy
I feel like you might be one of the only TH-camrs I watch who is able to acknowledge the shortcomings of the show while still exploring the story in an interesting way. I had a lot of problems with some of the story decision making, but I really feel like Dany's arc is not one of them. I said to my friends I think it's one of the few things they did well story wise and got my head figuratively screamed off 😂
I firmly believe most people who say her character development was rushed or doesn't make sense are just using the show's other problems to excuse the fact that her turn was heartbreaking for them.
Wouldn't go that far considering several people who take issue with it didn't care too much for her character.
Her quote “Someone else’s reason” just shows how narcissistic she is. No-one else has a valid perspective.
So you are saying she would be a better person if she approved of people killing each other simply for the sake of amusement then? Thats the context of that remark. Hizdar had used that she was willing to kill people to free slaves as an argument she should be agreeable to the idea of people fighting to the death in for the sake of amusement.
@@pplr1 that is such an obtuse argument that it is laughable. Hizdar was suggesting a way for the freed slaves to possibly earn some type of income cause the slaves are free, but the what. She never thought of the after. Good god dude just admit you are a Dany stan at this point.
@@jjh2456 You are aware former slaves can find other sources of income than killing each other for the sake of entertainment.. correct? Also if all they did was kill each other that results in many dead slaves rather than living out freer lives. Now it is funny you claim my earlier 100% correct statement is "obtuse". Did you not pay attention to what Hizdar was advocating for?
Also it doesn't matter if I am a Hot Pie(or any other character)stan, what matters is if what I said in this case is correct or not-and it is correct.
"The only thing that people like more than a hero is to see a hero fall, fail, die trying. Why bother?"
- Daenerys
Peak line
This great video should be widespread-shared to all those who think her burning of King's Landing supposedly made no sense.
A lot of her actions get ignored by fans simply because she’s good looking and a woman
No, that is an excuse pushed by season 8 and its defenders. Pretty villains have been done before and they are seen as villains. Daenerys actions (not just her looks) are some of the things that drew people to Daenerys. Freeing slaves, trying to help innocent people (especially when other rulers like Cersei didn't), trying to make the world a better place (such as requiring Yara to reform the GreyJoys to give up raping and pillaging in order to form an alliance with her) are all actions Daenerys took that people morally could approve of.
That is one of the things that drew people to Daenerys.
To claim it was just looks misrepresents the situation and-in a show as detailed as GoT used to be-the misrepresentation is quite likely not an accident but dishonest excuse making.
I just think there should have at least been more dialogue to explain what people’s thoughts were. I think they took “show, don’t tell.” too literally. Telling with dialogue and character interaction works too.
It wouldn't matter. If your mind is on a different track, nothing works. You ultimately view the message of the show as an attack on self and will embrace any justification to trash it. Think of the 'spawning Dothraki', despite being told quite clearly that 50% of the troops were lost. People simply chose to ignore this. Or the 'if Cersei moves just a few feet away' when the aerial shot clearly shows piles of rocks in all directions and indeed Tyrion climbing upon a giant long pile of rocks just to get to Cersei and Jaime. Or how people mocked 'I don't want it!' while at the same time cheering 'You know nothing, Jon Snow.' The point is to trash and bury GOT by all means necessary.
@@SerbAtheist no lol. have you read the books? most qualms are due to people who actually know the story and how much D2 changed it and disrespected the works and knowing what went down bts. there is no doubt they cut corners especially in the last couple seasons because they were done with the project after the red wedding. most rebutting *against* valid criticisms aren’t even examining the nuances to those criticisms or where they’ve truly originated. the dothraki and rocks talking points though are usually from the latter of those who just want to feel included and intelligent but as said have no clue why those criticisms have become reader + viewer based meme.
when bad things happen that are disappointing and you can’t do anything about it people often reduce it to some absurdist humor which quickly permeates. looking any bit past this form of coping mechanism, you’d see the swathes of substantiative data to back up any of the genuine distain and vitriol for D2 and the ultimate corruption of the source material.
I like this video.
I appreciate its unique perspective.
But I whole-heartedly don't agree with it.
One of its central fallacies is applying real-world adages to fictional media.
Specifically the moral adage: whataboutism that applies to the real world but not media.
IRL, people use unjust sentences (a woman killed someone in a car accident and got no jail time) to say Ross Ulbricht's life sentences (or whoever's sentence they disagree with) is unjust. That's whataboutism.
You're saying whataboutism applies to Game of Thrones, that we can't judge Dany by the standards we judge Arya, Jon, the Hound, etc.
But we absolutely can. These characters all live in a medieval, barbaric, violent world. If all the other characters and leaders were basically Samwell, then there would be reason for us the audience to see Dany as unnecessarily harsh - and her actions would seem more coherent. But because this is a fictional world were leaders routinely give barbaric, violent sentences, we as viewers don't recognize that as particularly abnormal, and that's the fault of the show creators.
Saying whataboutism applies to Dany is kind of like saying "Show don't tell" applies to real life.
E.g. I want to tell my wife our son is afraid of the dark.
Tell: Honey, Michael is afraid of the dark.
Show: Honey, tonight as I switched off the light and left the room, Michael tensed. He huddled under the covers, gripped the sheets, and held his breath as the wind brushed past the curtain!
The first is much more efficient, and heck, requires no inference, but the second sure is better for a writer communicating "afraid of the dark".
Our suspension of disbelief depends on characters being judged by roughly the same moral rubric presented in the media (it's just that Sansa killed Ramsay by dogs, it's just (or not grievously unjust) that Arya killed all of House Frey, etc). Whataboutism should not be used to hand wave away any criticisms of Dany, it doesn't apply to fictional narrative believability.
I appreciate the comment but idk if you got what I was saying at all…
@@yezenirl6331
I know criticisms suck, but so do "you just don't get it" thought stopping cliches.
"People employ whataboutism to excuse Dany's tyrannical methods."
I'm saying you're employing whataboutism to wave away valid criticism.
People who disliked Dany burning KL aren't using "just whataboutism" to explain why it doesn't work.
Our understanding of "who's the protagonist", "who's the antagonist" depends on characters having roughly the same moral rubric.
Thus when someone makes the argument "Arya killed hundreds of innocent members of House Frey we're supposed to think it makes sense that Dany would torch Kings Landing because she killed slavers before in response to child crucifixion?" it isn't just whataboutism.
It's breaking suspension of disbelief (as a viewer) because other characters have done much worse.
Let's pretend they killed the Starks and Gendry and Arya decided to go on a killing spree in King's Landing to feel better. That was our ending. The signs were there, she'd killed innocents before.
People pointing to The Hound and saying "he's murdered innocents but he didn't go on a killing spree" isn't just whataboutism, it's valid criticism because we haven't seen anything in either character which indicated a penchant for mass murder.
In this violent, medieval world brutality is used routinely to obtain power. Dany expressed a desire to be a good ruler, grave dismay when a child was hurt by her "weapon," and kept herself in check by surrounding herself with advisors that dissented with her (probably the biggest hallmark of a corrupt leader being "yes men"). Given her actions (and other characters' actions) I still don't understand how people who argue her decision to burn King's Landing didn't make sense are "rationalizing tyranny."
@@dante6985 no I just don’t think this argument applies lol. No one is arguing that characters should be “judged” by a different moral rubric, but judging and understanding are very different things. And the show indeed has many shortcomings in terms of it’s failure to tell the story of Sansa and (especially) Arya’s darker turns.
But your rationale is just kind of nonsensical to me because it seems to measure characters actions based on how violent or “morally bad” they are rather than based on how characters see themselves and their place in the world.
So to ask why didn’t Arya, or Sansa, or the Hound, commit a similar atrocity to Dany isn’t just about measuring how “moral” or even how violent those characters have been. It’s a question of who they think they are.
As violent or “morally bad” as Arya gets, she never entertains the same types of actions Dany does throughout the story. Not just because she doesn’t have dragons, but also because she doesn’t see herself as having the same right to exercise power over others as Daenerys does.
@@dante6985 I understand your 2nd statement more and agree with it. I think YezenIRL is trying to cover for using double standards for different characters. What also went unsaid in the discussion between the 2 of you is that the aired version of season 8 was not the earlier plan for it-the earlier plan being wildfire wrecks the city. I suspect the change was done to try to cover up other plot hole(s) such as Jon not being willing to do an assassination attempt over something that isn't what season 8 Dany wanted.
But engaging in that discussion involves acknowledging the possibility that season 8 was not actually planned out from season 1 of GoT but something the show writers (not GRRM though he could still be doing so to this day for all we know since his books have not come out) played around with and made major changes to if there even was a plan in the 1st place.
Now it is possible GRRM had an initial plan for what the show writers took part of and made into season 8. He was the writer that came up with wildfire and had it placed throughout the city in such a fashion the city was in danger of being destroyed by it. He also had successive rulers of that city engage in neglect by failing to remove the danger to the city-arguably even making it worse by having even more wildfire made after there was already enough to burn down King's Landing in the Mad King's time.
So the show runners may have taken an idea GRRM came up with (that King's Landing may still burn at some point) and rehashed it into something very different with different reasons for how it happened also resulting in dramatic changes to why and likely the lesson(s) GRRM may have intended.
Another major change the showrunners may have done (though this has less evidence to support it then that the earlier plan for season 8 was for wildfire to destroy it) is switch the timeline about when the Whitewalkers (Others in the books) are dealt with and how. If the books come out I would not be surprised to see Cersei's rule ended long before the issue of the Whitewalkers/Others is addressed.
@@pplr1 Regardless I want to acknowledge and show appreciation for YezenIRL for creating a video which raised some interesting discussion points. For a more comprehensive, literary analysis on why S8 *didn’t* work (without many insults to Dan Benioff and D.B. Weiss) I recommend Lindsay Ellis’s Game of Thrones videos.
I haven’t heard about the earlier plan you’re speaking of. GRRM has spoken of his “gardening” approach to storytelling, meaning he plants seeds here and here, some of them he tends to, some of them he doesn’t (In other words, I don’t think even now he knows precisely what’s going to happen, or that that’s immutable, just that he has an idea of the mechanics, Euron does this, Dany probably does this in response, Jon does this, etc.)
I agree about Cersei, I think Faegon’s going to be on the throne when Dany arrives to Westeros and Euron is going to take the place of the Night King as leader of the Others for all intents and purposes. Reading the book you figure there is no way Dany is going to end up on that throne, but Faegon as King - beloved by the people although he is probably not a true Targaryen - makes much more sense as a catalyst for Dany to commit war crimes then some Jon Snow / Cersei hijinks.
…If we ever see a Dream of Spring.
This is definitely the direction the books are taking, but I think they'll do it in a way that furthers her hypocritical dichotomies without making some of the overwrought mistakes the show made, like suddenly deciding that everyone in Westeros has a modern Western code of morality. This wouldn't be some exceptional war crime by Westerosi standards. It'll be the ultimate conclusion of her story, but instead of pushing her into a pure black baddy, it'll stratify her shades of grey into an even more confusing palette of good and bad. The ultimate expression of GRRM's idea that good and bad exist within everybody; Dany has both the most benevolent heart, the most pure and genuine impulses for good and peace, and the most ruthless propensity for violence and wanton evil existing at the exact same time inside of a single person.
I think Dany’s ruthlessness will not be her final moments in her arc. I think she’s going to go down a darker path but ultimately redeem herself in the Long Night.
You seem to not understand the extremities that killing countless innocent civilians is, solely based on some impulse, compared to killing the legitimate enemies even in a cruel way. Based on the analysis in the video and your comment here, everybody in the show who have done some violent killing before even if it was their enemy, from Ned Stark to John Snow, to Cersei, Jamy, heck even Tyrion could have burnt the city if they also had those dragons. Does it seem right or logical to you?
You have some of the best analysis of Thrones on TH-cam. Good job. I like how you're not one of those "season 8 was garbage" people. I've seen way worse things that GoT's season 8. The Star Wars Holiday Special scarred me for life:D
Yeah the audience definitely downplayed it. And even many TH-cam critics downplayed it. Including Grace Randolph who I like, but I saw the signs early on And hearing accusations from the fans of character assassination we’re not only unfounded they were asinine. I think Sociologists should definitely study this, because I think it’s a really good way to explain the cult of personality. And why people support tyrants in the modern world. Now granted The dragon queen is fiction (thank God), but I think that’s why she’s the perfect case study. Because she doesn’t exist or have a political party makes for the perfect allegory.
You may be on to something
My biggest problem with the ending is not Daenerys using extreme violence to get what she want.
Well... Actually it is.
Dany didn't use extreme violence to get what she wants, she just started burning innocents.
If she would have turned straight to the red keep to go after Cersei, I would understand, but she doesn't do that, she focuses on civilians .
She actually gave Cersei the oppurtunity to escape.
What happened in the ending is that she chose to rather burn down civilians than get her vengeance.
It seems you don’t really understand what Daenerys wants.
Oh, she got her vengeance. Her vengeance on the people for not loving her and being grateful to her like they ought.
I have to echo YezenIRL... you don't understand Dany's motivation one bit.
Going after Cersei would make sense if Dany was a sincere advocate of some of the causes she championed, like the end of slavery, the welfare of the people, the revenge for Missandrei or even merely to restore the Targ dynasty. But Dany is none of the sort. Dany is above all a ruthless psychopath who gets off on adoration and power. Her ultimate goal is not MERELY to get the Iron Throne, but to get the mind of every soul in Westeros. And if she can't do it with love, like she did in Mereen, she will do it with fear. She even says as much.
With the burning of civilians she absolutely wanted to send a message to all that no one ever f*** with her again and that the only proper course of action towards her is absolute obedience. It's exactly the kind of unpredictable and bloodthirsty ruthlessness that dictators across the ages have used to stay in power.
@@BexMatthies Daenerys episode 4 "The poeple of KL doesn't know we saved them, Cersei made it sure, we cannot except them to view us as liberators." Also Dany haters "ShE bUrNeD ThEm bEcAuSe ShE wAnTeD tO bE WoRShiPpEd", please.... Enough of this nonsense
@@yezenirl6331 And you do? Based on your replies on other comments, you seem to think you know everything.
I watched the video and I wish to write a response, sorry in advace for the novel, also sorry for the possible grammar/spelling/syntax mistakes, English isn't my first language.
I see the points you're making and I think they're definitely good, and I agree with the fact that this was the ending Daenerys was always going to have. She was meant from the start to loose the moral battle she was fighting all along and go "mad" in the end. However, I think the way she'll get there in the books is going to be vastly different in the sense that it will make complete sense. I actually haven't read them yet, but I've already heard that she is even more violent.
The problem with the show, is that they literally rushed the last seasons, and made so many jumps that the ending fell completely flat, hence the dissapointment of so many fans, me included. Example : you argue that Dany destroying King's Landing is in character for her, and I think you're only partly right. She indeed has been acting similarly throughout the show, however, for all these examples, it had a clear purpose, like when she executes those who have betrayed her, or conspired against her. It makes sense because she needs to be feared and respected, if she doesn't execute them it would send a message that she is weak and can be taken advantage of. That kind of ruthlessness is in character, that kind of ruthlessness doesn't make the fanbase explode in anger and dissapointment.
Now let's talk about the destruction of Kings Landing. During the battle, it is clear that her and Drogon will be victorious as their firepower is just too great. The defenses are heavily outmatched, so they surrender. Meaning she has already conquered the city when the bells sing, but she decides to burn King's Landing anyway. For no apparent reason other that she is mad. This act of her had no build up. Being tough with her ennemies isn't the same as burning alive millions of innocent westerosi, that btw she plans on winning the hearts. She gains nothing from this at all, on the contrary, she antagonizes herself in front of the entire continent, she kills what would be many valuable prisoners, she destroys what she claims is hers by right of inheritance (The countless structures her glorious ancestors built before her, although that doesn't even end up being the case since the Red Keep seems to build it self back up just in time for Bronn the master of coin to join the coucel in the Tower of the hand ), she renders the city completely defenseless and at the Mercy of outside forces, on top of the fact that she murders millions of innocent poor people that she swore to save all these seasons ago, and the list goes on.
Now, you see that I'm not arguing against the fact that this was the ending that was supposed to happen from the start, I actually had a similar theory in my head for how her arc was going to end, but it still didnt make sense in the show, because once Dumb & Dumber had to take over the story entirely, they couldn't rely on GGRM to keep somewhat of a consistent narrative. Instead they rushed the last 4 seasons, they rushed especially Daenerys, who needed much more time to develop. We needed to see more of her love story and parting with Jon once she learned of his legacy, needed to see more of how losing her closest friends affected her (Jorah, Missandei, and of course her Dragons), talking about Dragons, they also needed so much more developement, we need to care about all these things and relate to her in order to understand her descent to madness (I don't think one soul really cared when her Dragons died the same way they did when Jorah died...)
Instead we get countless laughable inconsitencies, characters coming back for no good reasons other than fan pandering, a clusterfuck of a timeline, no time to expose anything, and we're left with an ending that falls completely flat and is very unstatisfying for very true and valid reasons. You see a lot of the ppl who defend that ending say that the reason the "haters" are dissapointed is because "ThEy HaVeN'T bEeN pAyInG aTtEnTiOn" and that the story was never meant to have a sweet ending, which makes no sense considering they all fell in love with this show for the very reason that it was realistic and ruthless when it came to the fate of the characters and the story (Ned Stark, The Red Wedding etc), so they HAVE been paying attention. Actually I would argue that the ending ends up being very sweet, with all the Stark children (who have always been the real good guys) alive and well in positions of power.
Anyway, your video actually made me question some of my beliefs and I appreciate your attempt and defending the show and giving another view among the thousands of negative reviews, but it's still a lost cause for me, Game of Thrones had the worst ending to a tv series ever in entertainment history and that will never change for me, the more I think about it the more entrenched I get in this belief.
z Haxeu here’s where I think you’re misunderstanding Daenerys (tv show)
•she does NOT plan on winning their hearts
AND
•she does NOT burn Kingslanding for no apparent reason
Daenerys has long given in to the fact that there is no love for her from the common people in Mereen or Westeros.
Events , experiences and her nature drives her to decide to rule through FEAR.
She burns Kingslanding for many reasons
@@tupimpacaterpillar3516 Actually, that's a fair point. That's most likely what D&D were going for when writing the script. Daenerys not just going mad, but choosing to rule through fear after seeing that she will never be loved like an actual Westerosi ruler could be (Jon Snow).
The problem again was that it was done very poorly, we needed to see more of the dynamic between Jon, Dany and the common people, more of their "breakup" etc...
All of this makes me wonder what could have been, if only GRRM had finished the books once the tv show started, and if only they got actual competent screenwriters to adapt them. We would have seen a probably very similar ending, just more consistent and satisfying.
z Haxeu even if books managed to finish I think the show version of Daenerys would’ve still ended in the same way as we have seen.
Book Dany and Show Dany will reach a similar conclusion but they are both different.
Book Dany means well but she is internally troubled by her Targaryen side , she has hallucinations, has visions, she commits messier atrocities, she questions herself and she has internal dialogue of whether she is doing the right thing or not by the end of the 5th book we see her embrace her Targaryen/ darker side-to me which means she’s going to be even more brutal and literally mad in the coming books.
Show version of Dany is more megalomaniac and politically ambitious and later develops wanting to be a liberator whilst her actions are actually pretty brutal and tyrannical-but the viewing audience turn a blind eye to these actions because “these are bad men”that she is burning and crucifying. Show Dany never questions her self in fact we see a look of satisfaction in her face whenever someone is dying or burning alive at her doing without really questioning wether that person was actually guilty as deserving of a cruel and unusual punishment 🔥. We see her satisfaction at people grovelling at her feet when she walks out of a fire -she literally develops a god complex right before our eyes but the viewers cheer her on -this juxtaposition that the fans were put onto was intentional from the show and many fell for the bait ..unfortunately the show is now being resented for this but if we really look back the set up and the ground work was laid through out the series that pointed to her doing what she does in Kingslanding which brings me to my next point about Ruling through Fear
z Haxeu despite people thinking she burns Kingslanding for “no apparent reason” let’s breakdown *what she going through* as well as *what she has done before according to her worst impulses*
*What she’s done before according to her first impulses* :
-We have see her lash out and threaten to burn cities to the ground when she doesn’t get her way
-We have see her kill in order to send a message
-She has burned and killed people who would oppose her /not necessarily just because they were slavers but because they were also the first line of opposition against her. E.g the Khals, the noble men.
-We have seen her kill out of vengeance and not necessarily out of real justice and not even using morale or rationale that the people shes affecting might actually be innocent even if they are “bad” e.g the 163 masters she crucified, the man she fed to her dragons and The Tarleys.
*What she is going through*
-she has lost her best friends and her children to this place/Westeros
-she feels betrayed by her closest advisors who were the ones who could hold back from her worst impulses
-she discovers that everything she has built her identity around is a lie! Jon Snow is actually the true heir to the iron throne and she practically begs him to keep it a secret
-everyone she has built her identity around ruling barely welcomes her in fact they don’t love her because all they know of her is “mad king’s daughter” its understandable she would rather rule over a new generation that fears her. As Ollena told her “they won’t follow you unless they fear you”
Now comes the moment she’s ready to lash out based on what she has gone through , ready to unleash her vengeance on Cersei..BUT if those bells ring she cannot even fly to the red keep and destroy Cersei either ..that red keep / a symbol of everything that was taken away from her......Cersei has also used “innocent people” as a shield against Dany..the same people she feels do not love her ....the same people some of whom rebelled against her family and could one day oppose her.
The bells ringing is actually a loose for Dany in her mind. A lose of control . She knows Cersei is watching. She knows none of these people actually love her and she has expressed “let be fear” to Jon, the bells ring And Dany follows her worst impulses no one and nothing is there hold her back , she does the one thing she has always been in control of 🔥🔥🔥
we have seen her make an example out of her enemies -she is setting an example and sending a message to the rest of Westeros and those who would oppose her as she burns Kingslanding and making way for “new generations”
*LET IT BE FEAR*
It’s a tragic ending for her and her quest
for that iron throne. Other characters in GoT are flawed as much as Dany but the extent and the scale at which she unleashes her wrath boils down to her having dragons/weapons of mass destruction no one else has.
Here is the thing, Selyse's attitude might look superficially out of character but is plausible under the circumstances.
She is a mother, there is her only child, being burned alive. There is a ground for the twist to fall on.
Dany's turn doesnt. She went from "I'm not here to be Queen of the Ashes" and wanting to help, to literally burning innocents alive.
They tried to fix this by inserting Tyrion's speach to Jon, but it falls flat because it came after she is already burned the city down. That does not recontextualize Dany, it ignores years of character development, because that's what those 2 morons wanted to do, to shock us, story be dammed.
Ivy is Dead except Dany has always enjoyed violence.
@@yezenirl6331 Not true either.
She finds it a necessessary evil, but she does not enjoy it.
Even the Slave Masters, people who she despises, she has a tinge of remorse when cruxifying them, she had to keep telling herself it was for the children.
She is not sadistic.
I'll even give you that, her turn could have worked, if more time was spent actually building it instead of foreshadowing.
Foreshadowing in this case is giving hints of what the story needs to happen and not what the characters would actually do.
Ivy is Dead that is called enjoying violence. She tells herself it’s for the children as a rationalization. This could not be clearer tbh, and anyone who does not see this is not clear eyed in their reading. Both the show and the books are clear on this despite what angry fans claim. Dany is continually shown to favor violent solutions (burning people alive), to be attracted to violent people (Drogo, Daario), and to need to be talked down from violent solutions (burning cities to the ground). A huge chunk of the fandom saw this and wrote about it extensively for years before the ending.
@@yezenirl6331 i mean, she did frown, put her glass down and felt bad, but sure, she was enjoying it.
I'm not questioning her tendency towards violence, which she sometimes have, i am saying she is not a sadist, she was not her father, she never liked killing people, she kills, but it's not fun for her.
I suppose we gonna have to agree to disagree.
Ivy is Dead that is later. She enjoys it in the moment but feels conflicted later. It’s right there in the passage.
But again, I think you’re placing a false framework on the narrative because you don’t want to accept having been wrong about the character. Whether Dany “is a sadist” isn’t the question, and is a straw man designed to raise the threshold to a point where it is overly hard to prove. Countless other characters enjoy violence and display a tendency towards it, without being “sadists.” The question is whether she enjoys violence, which she absolutely does (at times). The question is also whether she has a tendency towards excessive violence, which she absolutely does.
This is why the fandom lacks the ability not only to understand the show, but to understand GRRM’s work as well. There is an inability to see how good and evil are not static, but present forces within all characters. You are trying to draw a distinct line between Dany and her father. As though Dany is either full Aerys, or all of her violence is purely for the sake of justice and she takes no pleasure in it. But those dichotomies just aren’t clean like that. Arya is an avid perpetrator of violence, and she absolutely enjoys it. Does that make her a sadist? Does that make her Aerys? No, but the lines aren’t clear.
Similarly, Dany’s relationship to violence is complex. She isn’t Ramsay or Cersei, but that doesn’t mean her heroism doesn’t dip into evil from time to time. The lines are blurred.
I'm one of the people that openly acknowledges that Dany is a tyrant and I still support her 😅 Everyone wants an omelet, but she was the only one willing to crack those eggs to give it to everyone. You don't just find out you're impervious to fire and hatch 3 dragons if you don't have a destiny.
It kills me that her saying "they don't get to choose" was the final straw for Jon, when not 5 minutes later we're presented with a handful of privileged assholes laughing and saying "they don't get to choose." Never mind that every single one of them would be soldiers in the Night King's army if not for Dany. But, maybe saving everyone from the Long Night was her destiny and she fulfilled it. Idk.
I think fans grew to love kings landing and Westeros. So when dany burns down slavers and Dothraki and Mary, etc fans were more ok with it. But when it came to a land and people fans cared about it suddenly started to hurt where it didn’t before. Basically it’s Dany can burn down everyone she wants just as long as it isn’t me.
No. It was that pretty much anyone Daenerys killed in seasons 1-7 was killed for a clear and understandable reason, often because they killed someone else. Additionally Daenerys herself made clear she valued innocent lives and would either help or avoid trying to harm them. Thus season 8 portraying season 8 Dany as ignoring Cersei (a murderer) in order to supposedly target random people on the street (innocent) managed to break from the character in not 1 but 2 separate ways at once.
@@pplr1 I’ve seen you make this argument in other comments and you have been proven wrong. Truth is you have fallen for D&Ds and maybe GRRMs intent.
She never killed Without reason. Also the things she said in the gates of Qarth was to get in through the door.
Was it?
@@yezenirl6331 Yes lol. Why would they let her in otherwise. She was desperate, probably very hungry and thirsty. Anger was the last resort... Whereas in King’s Landing she had already won the battle. The city was hers. Why would she kill all those people when the battle was won. It’s stupid.
@@adw8451 because King's Landing is just one city and she wanted to frighten the Seven Kingdoms into submission. As for Qarth, the threats didn't get her into the city. It wasn't even a good strategy.
@@yezenirl6331 Good so you are discounting the mad queen storyline through saying that she made a rational decision by burning King’s Landing and it wasn’t some ‘bells’ that pushed her over. Glad we agree on that she didn’t go mad.
@@adw8451 madness is subjective. I don't think Daenerys went mad. But her actions appear mad to people because of how horrific they are.
Bobby B was right, all the targs had to go. If only Ned had listened…
Always come back to this every once in while , send this to hbo buddy maybe they can promote it …more people need to watch this, you really understood this character
What doesn't make sense to me is that even though dany did horrible things before she did them either believing they'll get her what she wants or for the sake of revenge or what she believed to be justice but in the bells she got what she wanted, the city surrendered, and if she wanted revenge she could've burned just the red keep with Cersei in it but no she killed people who did nothing to her and their deaths couldn't benefit her in any way, so why did she kill them if they are not the source of her anger or an obstacle to her goal at that point , why would she want them dead what's in it for her
I think compared to the unsullied, bloodriders and 'freed' slaves of Mereen, Yunkai etc even Missandei, Jorah who accepted her as their leader, liberator, a godly and motherly figure who almost always knew what was good for them and actually worshipped and loved her for it (a big stroke for her ego and validation to the fact that she is sth extraordinary), was quite the opposite with the ppl of westeros. They did not care for her, neither loved her or opposed Cerceis rule of KL. They did not mourn the downfall of the Targaryen dynasty, they even feared her or did not want her there as she formerly stated.
I believe she saw them as part of the problem she wanted/needed to get rid of as well as send a message throughout the seven kingdoms: that anyone who defies her or does not welcome her rulership will meet the same fate as Cercei and her shield of "innocent" ppl.
Just my two cents, even tho this question was over a year ago 😅
@@dildem6442 yeah, but those cities did so after she liberated them the people of kings landing didn't get a choice.
She was lying to herself, and to us.
Nope. Her actions often supported her words. Also I've watched this video and it gets a lot of stuff wrong-but often wrong in a way that makes Daenerys look bad. Some of what this video maker claimed is either contradicted by watching GoT itself or watching some of the Inside the episode commentaries. I'm actually in the process of thinking over a comment to put down with regards to the video itself. One example I may use is how Daenerys frequently cuts back on the "scale" of death or social disruption. One example is the only person she fed to her dragons-it was from a pool of people most likely to be guilty of organizing attacks in her view (the usual suspects), only 1 of them died, and on top of all that it was arguably the less disruptive and deadly of 2 suggestions Daario came up with for her. The video claims the opposite of what actually happened in that situation in Meereen.
@@pplr1 cool👍
This is a great video!
There’s so much reactionary anger to how S8 panned out, and I really like how you’ve shown the genius of this twist. I’d agree that it felt like some links were missing, but most coverage of it hasn’t shown how much of it works like you did. Quite a lot does, going back to the start of her story.
I love you, can I say that? The title of this video? Everything I needed. I can't even have proper discourse about GOT anymore online (let alone on this particular subject or Bran) without being told 'get lost,' among other [petty, squabbling, alarming] things. For simply holding the view that Daenerys was always going this route. I just thank you for putting this subject out there, and like this. I hope more people will come to see this as it is and not for what it isn't. True analysis without aggression.
Indeed!!
Yesssss I think we finally found a safe space
Sounds like you only talk to jerks.
But then again the show has shit writing so I wouldn't pretend you guys are always reasonable either.
The God you never knew “you guys.” NICE. My comment has nothing to do with the show writing here. My overall points are that I appreciate the video and that when I want proper conversation with other fans, I don’t often get it. If I don’t have the same exact reaction about Daenerys as others around me, or on a basic forum, I get obliterated. A ‘friend’ of mine actually stopped talking to me because I view Daenerys’ outcome differently. That’s truly all it took; she flaked when I spoke my opinion and I haven’t heard from her since.
I like this guy’s videos because he’s discussing the presented art-whether for better or worse-without being aggressive and with excellent points. Very reasonably so too.
The God you never knew where is the righting crap, it’s funny how we can rant and rave about game of thrones and George R R Martin but your so quick to talk about a short season
OH MY GOODNESS YEZENIRL. Once again this video fails me in the way ALL of your others do: it’s at least an hour TOO short. I could legit listen to you discuss GOT & ASOIAF on the daily. For hours. *sigh*
Super grateful for what we get though! Another thoughtful installment. THANK YOU for this fine work.
This video finally gave me a closure to GoT I needed. Thank you man!
I appreciate your take on this. While it’s easy to be hyperbolic, you’re extremely well thought out and articulate. And I like how your video essay comes back after most hot takes have cooled
How about Stannis burning own daughter ?? Or Littlefinger gives Sansa to Boltons?? This is still good writings like season 8??
Who gives excuses for these actions?
No one!
That's the point. Everyone else has to atone for what they've done but for some reason when it comes to Dany a zillion excuses are made.
@@janellejulianajoy Because there was no reason for dany to do it. This is like arya killing bran after she killed the night king.
Her real enemy is drinking wine in the red keep,and she is killing everybody except her
@@aswing2706 No reason? have we watched the same show?
@@aswing2706 The point is she did it. I can say Stannis was ooc when he sacrificed his own daughter but that doesn't negate the fact that he did it.
@@janellejulianajoy The person responsible for the death of my child and best friend is sitting right there. But no,let's burn everyone other than her.
True, except there was development. Most of the series it was subtle and it later seasons it was not so subtle.
This is kind of weird, but I think that reading Joe Abercrombie's "The First Law"-trilogy and watching the 90's "Berserk" anime several years before I watched the final season of GoT provided a sort of mental "immunity" to the season 8 outrage that spread across the fandom. I say this as both those stories involve characters who make choices in the climax that cause you to re-evaluate their all their previous actions in light of the new revelation provided by said decision.
Yes except D&D are shit writers who's writing is inconsistent and nonsensical.
@@wisdommanari6701 'Shit writers' wrote one of the biggest shows in history which you followed for 8 seasons. Sure, have your opinion on S8, but this petty childish outrage about how D&D are all of a sudden THE WORST WRITERS EVAH is complete bull.
@@SerbAtheist Yep but problém were present already in sesons 5. Just because something is big and goes for long does not make it good. All shounen mangas are prime example of this.
To be fair Griffith was set-up waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than Daenerys after all there was whole Golden Age arc for that. And as for Bayaz well I love First law trilogy, but some things did not make any sense in the end either. (especially how Bayaz master plan was build on absolute coincidences and things completely outside of his influence)
Yeah, but you also don't see people being confused and or feeling betrayed about what happened in berserk.
Great video. Should be more popular than the original Foreshadowing is not character development video. That phrase was a cope.
I feel you on the foreshadowing statements going around.
Dany has made comments, multiple times, about destroying things if she has to in order to get to where she believes she belongs.
That's not foreshadowing.
Sansa stating that she wanted to be Joffrey's Queen, in season one only, made her power hungry. Though she's never revisited this topic, and was quite happy when their betrothal was broken, she's still soo power hungry because of a few comments she's said seven seasons ago?
The hypocrisy, I tell you.
I will tell you another hypocrisy.
Sansa and jon are justified for taking back winterfel from ramsay because their ancestors built it and was their home for centuries.
But daenerys can not take back red keep which was built by her ancestor aegon where her family lived for 300 yeas,because her family was dethroned lol
@@aswing2706 her father broke the implied contract of a liege lord. He burned people without trial. The entire Targaeryn dynasty is based on the right of conquest. They invaded. They inbred to madness time and time again. They lost by conquest of a cadet branch (Baratheon). It is very reminiscent of the war of the Rose where the Plantagnets lost the crown of England in battle. Daenerys is ill equipped for ruling. She's great at conquest.
@@stacywhisenant6242 How do you think the Starks got to rule the north. Ever heard of the rape of 3 sisters? They killed everybody who did not want them as king. Started war against Bolton's for north. Pushed the children of the forest who were the real owners of land and built a wall there
@@aswing2706
There is a big difference.
One. Sansa and Jon didn't make the declaration; their people did. They asked it of Robb in season/book one before it was brought to the table again in season six. The North had long been very frustrated with not being independent. They were done the moment Robert's Rebellion started with their lord's death and his son by the King. Ned and Robert's friendship is the only thing that made them feel a bit better and kept the peace between them and the crown. Robert is murdered, and Joffrey takes the throne, and his first action? Executing Ned.
The North? We're done. Period. This was in the last episode of season one, and their declaration seems to have gotten lost within the fandom.
Case in point? Jon and Sansa want the North back when many seem to have selective memory loss when I'm quite sure they cheered when Jon was named King in season six.
I haven't come across many who feel that Dany wanting to take Westeros back was plain wrong because of how her family was removed in the first place.
I have come across TONS who feel the North has no right to ask for independence because Dany helped during the long night.
That's the hypocrisy I'm speaking of. Dany helping was helping herself in the long run. Many seem to forget that Jon was meeting with many to help protect the realm, not Winterfell. He didn't single Dany out because she had dragons; he asked everyone because they would all potentially die otherwise.
What makes one different than the other? Why does Dany outright deserve it, but the North has to grin and bare it as if they haven't just fought to restore the Stark name long before Dany did a thing in Westeros?
Two. Time. If we are going to be technical about it, the Targaryen reign has nothing on the length of time the North was free before they were forced to bow. Hundreds of years for the Targaryen dynasty.
Thousands for the North.
With this fandom, it's all hypocrisy and biased illogical thinking because if I took my cues from many fans, I wouldn't know a person's name outside of those in Dany's entourage. After all, according to many, their stories aren't necessary. They become relevant when they need to be blamed or tediously compared to Dany.
Just wanna say I miss your analysis and I hope you bring it back for other things. It’s the only good reading of the show I’ve seen on youtube
I'm not a Dany fan at all and I do agree that this is where she is headed in the books but I disagree that this was properly done in the show. This is going to be an essay and I apologize in advance for that.
1. Your example of Selyse
You say it re-contextualizes the character but... Does it? Maybe this is just me but it was obvious from the jump that this woman was just using Rholler to feel important and empowered since her life was one huge disappointment. No scene better exemplifies this than the scene in the room with all her dead sons. Personally, I wasn't surprised at all when she tried to stop the execution.
2.Your argument on Dany.
You're just doing what the other video did... taking examples that fit your notion of the arc. Yes, she's very obviously a hypocrite and she has instances of great cruelty and kindness. So really what we have to ask ourselves is who is Dany at her core? Is she really capable of the mass slaughter (i.e BURNING THEM ALIVE) of innocent men, women, and children, after they have already surrendered? I would argue no (at least not at that point in the narrative), and if you want to convince me of that you need to do more than have her kill morally questionable people who have harmed her or sought to harm her and show me scenes of her saying she'll burn cities to the ground while posturing to enemies (YES, Hizdhar is still an enemy).
This is why they needed time to show a more steady decline. As it stands she goes from like a 4/5 on the dictator scale to an 11 in the span of a couple episodes. Breaking Bad is the perfect example of how to do it RIGHT and unlike GOT because they paced Walt's transition to Heisenberg well. (as an aside I think another difference is that Walt was always a egotistical asshole, that aspect of him was just magnified over time whereas I don't think the Dany we meeting in the first episode is a egotistical dictator). You touch on this aspect but I think miss crucial nuance:
"Dany has previously taken pleasure in killing" - her lifelong abuser who just threatened to rip out her child. Not equal to innocent men women and children she didn't know in a city that had surrendered.
"She had executed helpless, downtrodden people." - Mirri Maz Dur who knowingly killed her unborn child. Mossador who used vigilante justice to murder someone. Not equal to innocent men women and children she didn't know in a city that had surrendered. Obviously you can go back a forth over if the killings of Mirri Maz Dur and Mossador are morally justified or not but they are not even close to on the level with what she did in KL.
"She had invoked collective punishment without trial." - On slavers who had committed mass murder of children. Not equal to innocent men women and children she didn't know in a city that had surrendered. Again, you can discuss the morality but again it is not on the level of what she did in KL where there is no moral argument.
"She had been driven by anger into killing a man to send a message." - Not at all on the same level of mass murder of innocents (again, including CHILDREN).
"She had shown a clear desire to burn cities to the ground." - She's posturing to her enemies. Before KL when did she ever actually do that? She took Yunkai without any bloodshed because she didn't want to harm innocents.
"She had ruthlessly burned people alive en masse to achieve political goals." OK this one is just disingenuous. They were SOLDIERS who were actively trying to kill her and had not surrendered. Not at all equal to killing civilians after they have surrendered.
Honestly, the fact that this seemed rushed to millions of people (including professional critics) says something. What is more likely, that they ALL didn't get it or that the writing to get to this point was clumsy and not well paced?
MissMillsonxx exactly! The script of the episode contains what’s going through her head and it’s basically the asinine explanation dan wiess gave in the disastrous inside the episode. Ned Stark would be chopping heads off until he couldn’t hold Ice anymore. Also they have utterly revealed themselves at the Austin film festival as a amateurs who admitted to not understanding the characters. Not hyperbole.
@@skaggster9733 the issue is that Dany at her very worst has needed some sort of moral justification for killing anybody. Some kind of reason associated with something active that she thought that was immoral, such as possibly supporting the sons of the harpy, She said that the choice was kneel or die with the tarlys, and after that battle, she didn't kill any of the soldiers. That was the last morally ambiguous thing she did until season 8 episode 5, everything between those two points was heroic. There could have been more times where she did something that wasn't morally justified. Yes, dany does believe in a black and white world, but I don't understand what the justification for her killing children and other innocents is. What have they done? She has never hurt anybody for doing nothing. Tarlys defied her, the slavemasters were likely supporting the sons of the harpy who were actively murdering people, mirri killed her husband and unborn child. Yes there was a justification on Mirri's part because of the fact that she had been raped already and eventually the boy would be the stallion who mounts the world, but that's been dany's rationale up until this point where she just kills whoever she wants without some kind of active crime that they have committed
Retroactive foreshadowing or foreshadowing that implies it is realistic to go from idealistic to murdering defenseless women and children by the truckload in a short span of time with little impetus or need isnt character development or at least not remotely believable or satisfying character development
I dare say that how come Arya didn’t go “Mad” even though it was clearly foreshadowed and although revenge was her entire goal, she still should have logically became mad. I don’t care that Sandor convinced her to turn back after wanting to kill Cersei, it was incredibly stupid because Arya miraculously had a change in heart even though she made it her plan to kill Cersei and brutally murdered dozens of people and even cooked a few.
GerardxB well Arya basically did go mad. But she had friends and family to pull her back. Daenerys lost everyone, and also her ambition and capacity for damage was far greater than Arya’s.
@@yezenirl6331 Wrong, she still had Jon, her lover, and Tyrion, her trusted advisor, supporting her.
@Loki Jaxson That is not "betrayal" in the slightest. Also, Dany apparently forgot about this when she asked Jon to rule with him. Also, Tyrion literally did everything he could for her and even sold Varys out. And how does any of this justify murdering babies?
@Loki Jaxson If that is the explanation, it goes against Dany's entire character and everything she literally stood for. What "tendencies"? She always killed enemies, not babies.
@Loki Jaxson When was this? What are you talking about?
Jorah came to save her from vas dorthrak ..what was her motivation of going back inside just to burn all the Khals when she already had a chance to escape??
Why did she burn a man alive and have him eaten when she knew theres a high chance of him being innocent and she said “maybe I should let my dragons decide”
Why did she burn Dickon Tarley and his father when they had already yielded? ( this one is easy but the answer is also part of the point)
Why did she have 163 people crucified when some of them were innocent? (or atleast less than guilty) she had no proof that each individual committed a crime.
Based on the answers to these questions and all her character development from seasons 1-7 and the trauma she went through in s8 why and how did I know she’s going to burn down Kingslanding along with its people before I saw episode 5 ??
It’s time to look back and accept Dany for what she has always been instead of making excuses for what she could’ve been.
i dunno
why would Arya poisoned the rest of the Freys after she killed the Walder Frey? i mean they all just followed their leader
why would Jon Snow beheaded Janos Slynt? or why did he hanged Olly and the others?
why would Sansa let Ramsey got butchered by his dogs? he was already a prisoner
Robert Selagon sure I’ll help you understand:
*Jon*
the men who stabbed Jon Snow including Olly committed *Mutiny* a crime punishable by death according to law of the land NOT according Jon’s own law!
Janos slynt deliberately disobeyed his Lord Commander and disrespected him . He was warned prior.
( Dany punished people according to her own sense of justice which was wrong most of the time and not according to the law of the land- by her sort of rationale Jon would’ve mass murdered the nightswatch instead of the men who were directly responsible for murdering him)
*Arya*
She’s just as crazy! She wanted to exact her vengeance on the Freys for the red wedding since she was a little girl , she mass murders all of them..no one excuses her for this. She was just as wrong as any other morally ambiguous character. Characters who don’t adapt or change in GoT die in the end. We see Arya take The Hound’s advise , we see her trying to save the innocents while Dany was burning Kingslanding , we see how that white horse surviving the rubble meant so much to her. These are the moments Arya adapts and turns away from vengeance and death and decides for Life and she goes west of Westeros instead of being an assassin.
*Sansa*
Ramsey was taken prisoner. Sansa did not kill him. Jon did not kill him. Sansa simply reunited her rapist with his own dogs. She did not command them to kill him. He could’ve commanded his own dogs to not kill him and he’d still be alive as prisoner .
It is therefore his own fault for not feeding those dogs and his fault for training them to eat people. He reaped what he sowed.
simple
@@tupimpacaterpillar3516 if it's that simple then why we were dealing with this backlash? Those examples were justified just like you said and the fans accepted them, but a lot were not happy with Dany's? Why is that?
Robert Selagon there is a lot of backlash about Dany because every villain is a hero of their own story, it is meant to be that way right from the start. This is How GRRM writes his books and that’s why his books are actually very niche.
Viewers were practically groomed into falling in love with her and seeing only from her Point Of View. We fell in love with the idealistic potential of what she could’ve been while we excused and ignored what she actually was and what she did🔥 A lot of people say it was “rushed” and it “needed more time” I’d bet those same people would still complain even if there was 2+ more seasons of Dany they’d say “oh they dragged this out , they assassinated her character slowly and painfully”
when we look under the surface or even just rewatch this story we see the set up, the development of her doing what she did to Kingslanding has always been there all the way through.
Despite my love for Dany’s character I did not let her POV blind side me , she was always a bit off for me and I knew when it came to believing she was right she will burn a city with innocent people in it. I was just waiting for it to happen 😢 either that or the moment she would change her mindset entirely and adapt.
She didn’t change. The moment s7 and 8 were announced to be the Finale I knew either Dany or Cersei was going burn the city all because of the evidence I had seen along both their journeys.
To me both were different sides of the same coin.
The three of them could not possibly have escaped the entirety of the Dothraki Nation.
This is great. And you're completely right in my opinion. The ingredients are there. The execution was just off. And not only in the last season, but from far earlier on. The story itself is fine in principle.
You make sense. But if the show needs 20 min video essay explaining main chartacter actions than i don't think it's good writing
I'm just trying to be a counter balance to the 2000 anti-season 8 video essays on youtube.
Bolesław Breczko and some of the best and most thought provoking shows have long video essays explaining things too.
Part of the magic;)
but it doesn’t “need” this video if you pay attention. most people clearly didn’t pay attention.
I completely disagree with the video but I respect the time and thought put into it.
I think Dany's character was awfully written. The problem isn't that her bloodlust wasn't set up; it was. The problem is that her character was so inconsistent and such a vehicle for mindless fan service that those moments of setup were completely drowned out. They were nothing more than tiny little nuggets of setup so D&D could say 'see, this was always going to happen!' when the overwhelming majority of her screentime was dedicated to showing her as a kind, merciful ruler who detested hurting innocents. The character was borderline schizophrenic, completely behest to the narrative whims of the writers and their desire to create 'epic' moments. So sure, you can pick out plenty of scenes to justify Dany's turn. But you can also pick out plenty of scenes to paint Dany's turn as completely ridiculous and contrived. As many people have.
The thing is, this isn't a good portrayal of 'the human heart in conflict with itself'. It's a portrayal of essentially two different characters with the same name played by the same actress. The Dany we saw for 7 seasons had her struggles, but they were narrative struggles, and her inner conflict was at best a tertiary plot thread.The problem is that these two sides of Dany weren't interwined at all, and did not paint the picture of an actual character.
This is the result of D&D trying to get their cake and eat it too. They wanted the big epic moments but didn't want there to be an moral ambiguity to them at all because that'd make them less epic. So they scattered in some lines here and there instead.
And then you have Arya. A character who, by all counts, was shown to be *far* more evil and sociopathic and willing to kill innocents than Dany ever was. But those scenes weren't supposed to make us question Arya either: we were supposed to root for this psychopathic, genocidal mass murderer because she was 'badass'. It's this that makes "Dany's turn was set up!" even harder to swallow.
All that said, regardless of the setup that *was* there, none of it was even close to sufficient to justify Dany's decision to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people for no reason.
It could have worked with significantly better writing. The pieces were there, set up by GRRM. But D&D did an utterlly horrific job of doing it properly, at almost every point prioritising big scenes and epic moments over coherent characterisation, consistent moral narrative, or long-term character arcs.
I'm glad you brought up Breaking Bad. Because that is an *excellent* , perhaps the *perfect* example of how Dany's story could have been done right. *That* was how you show the human heart in conflict with itself; and ironically it sort of *was* what I said above: two different characters played by the same actor. The difference is that the two 'sides' of Walt always felt just like that: two sides of the same person. You could feel and undertsand his struggle, his motivations, his decisions, as his character evolved over time. And no, it wasn't linear either: it had a trajectory, for sure, but there were plenty of bumps and reversals along the way. Compare that to Dany: schizophrenic leaps from hero to meglomaniac so huge the inertia could kill you, but for the most part a very static 'good guy' throughout almost the entire run of the show, followed by a sudden, narratively unjustified turn right at the end.
Dany and Walter White serve as excellent examples on opposite ends of the spectrum of how to write complex characters. Dany, on how to do it terribly, and Walt on how to do it masterfully.
I'm 100% agree with you
What exactly are the pieces that Grrm set up that weren't represented in the show? Didn't the show follow pretty much the same plot points up to season 5?
'It's a portrayal of essentially two different characters with the same name played by the same actress.'
Nope. It's a portrait of a psychopath and the mask she is wearing. Masterfully done.
'the overwhelming majority of her screentime was dedicated to showing her as a kind, merciful ruler who detested hurting innocents.'
Yeah, the 'Dany NOT foreshadowed' video has a grand total of 15 or so moments that make her look benevolent. You could easily come up with that many moments that make her look violent, vain or selfish within a single season. Not to mention that every single one of these 'oh Dany is so good' moments are either pathetically meager, negated afterwards (chains dragons so they don't munch on humans... few episodes later feeds a human to these dragons!) or extremely self-serving.
'And then you have Arya. A character who, by all counts, was shown to be far more evil and sociopathic and willing to kill innocents than Dany ever was. '
How many innocents did Arya kill? More importantly, did the show celebrate Arya's turn or steer her away from revenge?
mrwho995....Great comments. Especially: ..."the overwhelming majority of her screentime was dedicated to showing her as a kind, merciful ruler who detested hurting innocents......So sure, you can pick out plenty of scenes to justify Dany's turn. But you can also pick out plenty of scenes to paint Dany's turn as completely ridiculous and contrived. As many people have.....Dany: schizophrenic leaps from hero to meglomaniac so huge the inertia could kill you".......Thank you for this.
If the show is trying to tell me that her being ruthless with her enemies and having a clear legal code that they chose to break and then had to suffer the consequences of is 'a sign of her insanity', then almost every single character in game of thrones is insane, because they've all been complicit in ruthless violence towards their enemies, and even then, without the benefit of attempting to be anywhere near fair or just. Sansa instigated a man being eaten alive by ravenous dogs. Arya killed off an entire house, CARVED UP THEIR BODIES, BAKED THEM INTO PIES AND FED THEM TO THEIR FATHER, Tyrion murdered his ex-girlfriend and killed his father because his wittle feelings got hurt, and remember the battle with stannis, 'those are brave men out there, let's go kill them!' then proceeded to burn people alive with wildfire, Jon hanged the men who had tried to kill him, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE LAW, even when one of them was a child, in season one ned stark cut off the head of a man escaping from the undead because he'd 'deserted the nights watch'. 🥴 well I guess all of these people are just InSAnE. Look at the violence. Look at the tyranny of requiring people to obey laws. Look at how mean they were when fighting wars. Look at how angry and bitter and vengeful some of the characters became. Guess they're allllll f**ing crazy.
I don’t get the comparison with Arya….Arya wasn’t the one vying to rule over people , proclaiming worthy ideals and talking about breaking the wheel. Arya was clearly going down a dark path but she too had a turn ..the difference was hers was for the better when she unlike Daenerys decided to listen to her advisor about turning back - Sandor Clegane
@@tupimpacaterpillar3516 the comparison is what arya did was equally if bit more vicious.
Great analysis! I’m so tired of seeing videos that just blatantly bash everything about got and its characters. Your channel is a breath of fresh air, keep up the great work
Hey InaraOfTyria - If you think it was supposedly poorly written, which I seriously do NOT, you should try and make the effort to find the pieces that are in it on your own instead (like how Yezen here has clearly / smartly done) of just complaining like all the other whiners. I didn't feel it was rushed bcos I understood all the subtle plotting. I do wish it was full 10 episodes for kicks sure, but what I and others got was still very satisfying. Just cos you don't see them doesn't mean they're not there. Or rather they weren't told exactly how you preferred them. That does NOT in any way mean it's so-called bad writing. Actually what's really going on is people like you miss all the subtle beats that aren't explicitly spelled out. Just bcos you missed them does not mean it's bad writing. That's a fault on your part. There's a clear reason why others defend the final season bcos they were more astute and could piece things together. I know you people just wanna assume such people are just idiots and you dissatisfied ones are the real deal but seriously NO you're not.
"Characters aren't setup properly" - just what are you even talking about?? There's NO MORE setup that's needed. This is the final season ergo the final act, setups do NOT need to be done now... only further transitions and conclusions.
"Varys conducts his acts of subterfuge IN THE OPEN, despite being shown to be much more intelligent and cunning in the past" - this is UTTER nonsense that gets tossed around the stupid internet and people just absorb and believe it. Do you even remember the previous seasons? Varys ALWAYS does his conspiracy stuff with people in the open and there are always many scenes where Varys will just walk right up to someone and suggest / imply his plan! One example is Olenna Tyrell. In private yet STILL in open where they can be seen! It's LITTLEFINGER who does his stuff in the background and we never actually see him do it. He's the one, NOT Varys ffs!
"Jaime goes from being a man who broke his oath to protect Innocents to the line "I never really cared much for them, innocent or
otherwise" with no real explanation." - Again, you really can't see all the subtleness in the writing can you? You best go and this guy's
analysis of Jaime which was really spot on and he understood all the beats which MANY can't seem to notice. And you're another ignorant one who thought Jaime is someone who cares for the people. He never did, dude! And don't tell me he saved KingLánding bcos of them! He did it for his father - many make the mistake of thinking it's the former. And him not wanting to slaughter the castle with Blackfish (S6) was a direct influence from Brienne. I don't know where the (bad) fans ever got the idea that Jaime loves the people. He's been called Kingslayer for YEARS by the masses after killing the Mad King so why should he care for them! That's why his line "I never cared for the people, innocent or otherwise" makes PURE sense - but apparently MANY people have not been paying attention.
9:35 that sounds like “Season 8”
Daenerys
i love how all the salty dany stans disliked this video, eventhough youre spitting nothing but facts WITH evidence
The only problem with the end is that it was a bit rushed and D & D were kind of tired of the job. I guess that in better hands, the Daenerys story arc would have been very satisfying. And I have no hope for the books.
speaking of the burning of Shereen this is where I no longer called Stannis The mannis .No from that point on he is a villain screw the idea of being complicated , or he had his reasons you don't burn lil girls .
Do I think Daenerys will burn King's Landing in the books. Yes.
Do I think it will happen the same was as the show. No
I mean everything in the books will be slightly different.
There is a good argument the books and show are different stories. There are times when D and D broke from the books in earlier seasons of GoT but those breaks got bigger as time went as GRRM (the author of the books) left the show. Characters such as Tyrion and Euron are flat out different characters in books and show. Book readers critical of GoT have noticed that for a long time and GRRM himself even acknowledged it in Euron's case this past summer-possibly because it was so obvious he realized he wasn't spoiling anything if he admitted it.
Since the earlier plan for season 8 itself was to have wildfire be what destroyed most of King's Landing and the writers of season 8 changed that it may be that Daenerys sets off the wildfire in the books-quite possibly on accident. Not something that would be impossible to do if a fire breathing dragon is doing battle in a town laced with wildfire.
Furthermore book Tyrion (whom GRRM acknowledged was/is a villain) may do something to talk or trick her into it. Which could make some sense since it is Tyrion (not book Daenerys) who has a personal grudge against the people controlling King's Landing (his family) and possibly the city itself since he saved it from being taken by Stannis only to be rejected later.
Book Daenerys is smart for her age but still somewhat naive so Tyrion could certainly trick her. And he already laughed to himself that he talked FAegon into going on what he-book Tyrion-believed was a suicide mission in attacking Cersei. So book Tyrion believing he is costing other people their lives can be amusing to himself.
@@yezenirl6331 wouldn't say slightly considering the show lacks specific characters from the books and the changes to certain characters.
[Not linear arcs but torn between two opposing ideals] 👍
I agree the ingredients are there, but from that line about her revenge to the masters, we see she is impulsive. I think if one of the dragons, one if the characters died DURING the battle and the battle wasn't such a slaughter from the beginning then it would be explained.
WTF. No, the ingridients are not there. Daenerys is no more cruel than many make characters.
Many male characters slaughter innocence.
Why apologize, or justify your criticism of Dany? Everyone has a different perspective. And to be honest, Dany was the author of her own demise.
It happenednin season 8, which is the last episode of season 7 expanded into a season. Originally the will make Dany goes mad in the last episode. Still a bad writing.
love seeing dany fans cope. They are the worst.
I have no idea if it was a great twist to the plot or not, it might have been made better or it might not. I just feel like season 8 dropped significantly in quality and I can't really explain why; I couldn't like it in the same way. I believe it has to have something to do with the fact that the show wasn't based on any book-material anymore but rather scripted for-TV material.
It’s just because it’s so damn fast paced. If they gave it 12 episodes I think it would’ve been incredible
Someone should show this to Lindsay Ellis.
Lindsay Ellis may not be perfect but she got more facts correct (a smaller number wrong) as they relate to the GoT storyline than the much shorter video here did. Now both videos came out before some of the evidence was made public an earlier plan for season 8 itself was to have the city be destroyed by wildfire so they could be forgiven for not mentioning that. But with that criticism laid against both Lindsay Ellis still made the better film. If you want an example of this film getting something wrong notice at the end where the narrator is saying Daenerys had killed "helpless downtrodden people" while showing people that the character Daenerys and elevated to positions of status and trust before they killed other people-thus they are far from "helpless".
From there it actually keeps getting worse as the narrator lists things that are either wrong or half-truths told in a misleading way. Nobody suggested trials for the slave masters Daenerys thought supported and carried out the mass murder of slave children. The 1st situation Sir Barristan suggested holding a trial for someone Daenerys went with it-thus making the criticism wrongheaded or even deceptive.
Also "ruthlessly burning people en mass" is a pretty misleading way to say used her dragon in a battle. Killing a bunch of enemy soldiers in a battle and during a war is not something that is supposed to indicate a character is about to massacre civilians who are unarmed and not fighting. If that were the case every character who was a leader during a war or battle in GoT would supposedly be expected to do so including Jon Snow (who is actually presented as being a moral guy). That deceptive framing and double standards rather actually going over details to see if things were missed.
Edit: I almost forgot to mention the guy who was fed to the dragon and called "innocent" by the narrator. The character Daenerys was told by 2 separate people she had made her advisors that the group of people he was 1 of were arranging the Sons of the Harpy attacks. So proclaiming him innocent is actually very misleading on the narrator's part.
She started out wanting to set a horde of rapists and murderers onto Westeros because she felt she was owed. The concept of her noble cause came afterwards and ultimately proved to be a thin veneer that shattered when she realised the people of Westeros did not want the offspring of a mad tyrant to rule them. She was refused and as a consequence that facade came crumbling and out stepped another mad Targaryen.
It's a feudal society most people have a concept of entitlement. It was first her brother's idea to invade Westeros she inherited it after mind you Robert tried to have her killed. She had the support of the iron Islands, Dorn, the reach, and the North and the stormlands what are you talkin about?
@@wisdommanari6701 north, Wester land , river land , Vale was in support of Jon and sansa . Highgarden Lord was not selected till that time .
The portion of the audience which was dumb enough to buy into the positive characterization of her malicious tendencies throughout the seasons are the ones who downplayed these signs. The shows writers did their best to cloud her vicious and violent nature and dupe these people. They set up this expectation despite the obvious reality that the only thing which kept Dany from being the monster her lineage implies and inspires were her advisors, who she came to completely ignore the more this went on as she became more sure of herself and the rightness of her cause. It was a seasons long struggle of reasonable people trying to keep this horrible woman in check as she showed more and more of her true nature at every turn.
Blaming the audience for the show runners whitewashing and simplifying literally everything..?
@@NotoriousMinion people will believe what they want to believe. If you were under the impression that the Queen with an army of slaves, barbarians and dragons was supposed to be the good guy, that's your fault. Dany is literally Sauron.
@@SCHMALLZZZ You employ a funny use of the word ‘literally’. Literally everyone in the story has an army of slaves, the levies that make up an army don’t have a choice my friend. That’s the medieval world, you are sworn to your lord and have no say in the matter. This isn’t a story about good guys/bad guys, that’s not GRRM’s intention. He has literally criticized the very notion of good/evil present in LOTR and strives to get away from that. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the story and themes present in his work.
I'm gonna say this... Season 8 writing is bullshit. Does Daenerys burning King's Landing make any sense given what was happening earlier in the show logically? No. Are there ways in which Daenerys would burn King's Landing? Yes. You mentioned both Jon's and Daenerys' inner conflicts, what you forgot to notice is that they can be resolved while coexisting. Jon can only find the resolution in Daenerys, and Daenerys can only find it in Jon. What would make sense was Rhaegal gets shot down near the sea while Jon was riding on top of him while Daenerys was attacking from the other side. Daenerys thinking Jon is dead becomes fully enraged to the point she doesn't give a shit about anything, just like Aemon foreshadowed.
A lot of people brought up that solution on Reddit and it actually doesn’t improve the story at all, it’s just more familiar to media. Temporary insanity due to the sudden loss of a loved one is a commonly tread trope.
That wasn’t the idea behind Dany burning down KL, and it definitely won’t be when George writes it in his novels. The burning of KL is presented as the natural conclusion of Dany’s worldview and sense of self. She decides to burn KL to strike fear into the hearts of any future opposition. It’s a decision which is simultaneously mad and rational, which is why it’s a fitting conclusion for her character.
Getting mad all the sudden because it looked like Jon died is just an outburst.
Sigh* was having a good debate with someone on here and they literally rage quite and deleted the their comment section 😆 This is how you know how great of a character Daenerys Targaryen is. People get into their feelings and ignore all the evidence presented by the story and on this video of who and what she actually was most of the time. They would rather stick to their own idealistic “NOT MY DANY” point of view of what she could’ve been. Oh well!
Shout out to Frank Lee;-)
Martin trolled the hell out of the fandom.
The problem wasn't that she turned into a tyrant, she's always toed that line. The problem is that it felt incredibly rushed and inexplicable, she went from good to evil in like 2 episodes. If they had actually taken a whole season to really break the character over their knee's and build up her psychosis that would have been one thing. But she goes from "I want to free the people" to "blood for the blood god" with all the subtley and grace of a wrestling heel turn.
2 episodes? You need a rewatch
@@ianvera4299 Yes 2 episodes that is how long they soent establishing her heel turn after putting her on a pedastal with the shows framing kiddo.
@@JohnCena-ew1mf She was always going down this path, kiddo.
@@ianvera4299 She wasn't not by the framing of the show. In the books people constantly question her decisions and she does too but in the show everything always works out for the best and its framed like a good thing with triumphant music following all of her actions. Then all of sudden out of nowhere she murders an entire city of people because of two episodes of bad things happening to her. I understand you lot have difficulty thinking for yourself but do try not to just mindless copy my rhetoric kiddo.
@@JohnCena-ew1mf The books are incomplete and many book readers can already see her downfall. That is sorta the whole point of the framing of the show, we cheer on a tyrant since she's killing all the "right people" that we excuse her behavior. Dany became a self righteous dictator that slowly was corrupted by the Iron throne. I understand you have a weird complex that doesn't allow people calling you out, but try to get off that high horse and maybe you wont come off as an a******.
6:00 Dany didnt choose to be born into this scenario either.
True. We also need to understand Dany’s circumstances.
Most of the plot points in season 7-8 would have worked and been satisfying had they doubled the seasons and doubled the episodes. The entire last two seasons were just too rushed, thanks to D&D and also our fault too, because of the people giving George shit to finish his books pronto, he stepped down as co writer in Season 5.
Imagine if every major plot point in season 8 lasted a season? Because that's what it needed. Imagine if George had stayed with HBO & D&D and written his ending for the screen?
Because that's what it needed.
I think they could have done it in exactly that number of episodes they did if they hadn't fucked season 6 into pure fanservice. Everyone wants to shit on season 7-8 when it's really season 6 that failed to set up the endgame.
@@yezenirl6331 The death of Barristan Selmy in early season 5 was when I realised that this wasn't George's story anymore.
@@jimmyallgood781 Yeah it isnt GRRM story, it actually has an ending.
@@yezenirl6331 Fan service? I think in retrospect Season 6 is downward brilliant. This little bit of fanservice totally set up the audience to have the rug of Dany the liberator be completely pulled from under them.
Of course, I'm not going to imply it was anything but a happy accident. The mounting popularity of GOT and its catapulting into the mainstream around this time put incredible pressure on D&D to be at least a little bit fan servicy and the big battles of Sapochnik were always a bit of a tonal outlier. I'm extremely glad they stuck to their guns regarding the ending.
You might be giving the showrunners too much credit given their recent comments :)
I feel like people might be misrepresenting those comments.
I don't get how them saying they wanted to make a show that NFL players and mothers could watch and follow alongside fantasy geeks is a bad thing.
@@yezenirl6331 it was terribly misconstrued. Watchers on the Wall has the actual audio and what they actually said was nowhere near as arrogant as the Twitter feed had portrayed and nothing controversial.
@@Outdafakeonz Can you send me a link? That's what I figured when I saw it on the feed. If there were ever going to be a hypothetical D&D smoking gun, I don't think it'll be D&D calling themselves bad writers.
@RheyaRu!z I kinda hate season 6 and 7 so no. I just don't think people are being fair. When people called S6E9 and S6E10 two of the best episodes of television of all time, I thought D&D were absurdly overrated. Now that people call season 8 the worst ending in the history of television I think they are underrated. People need to find a nice middle ground.
VERY well done..... 👌👌👌
I binged watched GoT S1-6 just before s7 aired so I had all her development fresh during the last seasons which made the bells more passable. My biggest problem with GoT S8 was the Long Night letdown and Bran the Broken.
Funny thing.. evidence came out that the earlier plan for season 8 itself was for most of King's Landing to burn down due to wildfire-something that is hardly unthinkable since the Mad King had wildfire spread through the city for that purpose and nobody bothered to remove it-with Tyrion and Cersei even adding to the amount of wildfire laying around. So there may not actually have been development but a last minute change done for shock value and-I suspect-to cover up a plot hole (thus creating another) since Jon would be unlikely to agree to an assassination attempt over something Season 8 Dany never wanted to have happen.
The difference between Selyse and Daenaerys is that Selyse arc took course over several seasons while Daenaerys went mad queen in like 3 episodes.
With Selyse it may have been planned out. With season 8 Dany it was a last minute change likely done for shock value. Don't forget that strong evidence already came out the earlier plan for season 8 itself was for wildfire to be what wrecks King's Landing. To change that to 1 dragon likely in need a lunch after winning 2 battles essentially alone shows changes were done on a whim rather than well thought-thus planned-out.
No. Daenerys’s arc has always been leading up to this. The bad people she punished were intended that way to fool you into rooting for her. It’s perfect bait and switch. Can’t accept that? Then you don’t understand the realism and the fact that people can actually be like this in real life, only without dragons.
servantoftheone9866 It is ironic a claim of "realism" is put forwards by someone encouraging for the evidence to be ignored. The evidence is already out. The earlier plan for season 8 itself was for most of King's Landing to burn due to wildfire. I wonder if similar claims are made about it supposedly "always" being the plan for Arya to do in the Night King even though the foreshadowing and story buildup was of a coming Jon vs Night King fight.
@@pplr1you can literally see the wildfire casks going off while Danny is burning it down...
@@sudanemamimikiki1527 Only as a side effect of the yellow-orange fires that are already burning-not as the primary fire. Look at most of the city and the buildings burned yellow-orange not green. The earlier plans for season 8 actually involved the reverse. An artist was commissioned to draw art based on season 8 early on (before D and D changed what they did in relation to wildfire) and in his piece of art all (not a few) of the flames on a burning building were green-thus wildfire.
The artists note for the piece even mentions "wildfire" that "interrupts" a battle. In the version of season 8 that aired no wildfire interrupted any of the battles we saw. Those few wildfire explosions we saw were simply those batches of wildfire burning as the rest of the city burned rather than being what was burning so much of the city.
The special effects people even acknowledged the scene where Jon called a retreat in King's Landing was initially planned as a "wildfire shot" and then that was changed to "not" a "wildfire shot".
So no, the earlier plan for season 8 was not for Dany to waste time burning most of the city when she could've gone for Cersei instead. Speaking of season 8 Dany and Cersei.. There was an interview with the actress that played season 8 Dany and she mentioned that Dany flew off to "kill her"-presumably to kill Cersei after the bells were ringing. That is very different from ignoring "her". Likely the interview was done before D and D told her about their changes (if they told her at all).
It is suspected that this interview was part of the Inside the Episode that HBO was too embarrassed to air for episode six of season 8. Perhaps HBO thought that people would catch that and realize a some changes had been made from what would have been a still very flawed but at least somewhat more logical plan for season 8.
Her development as a villain was spot on, the only reason people didn't see it is because they got caught up in her megalomania. Just like the soldiers of Napoleon they worshipped her, right up to the point she marched her sanity off the egde of the cliff
Napoleon is a good comparison for Dany.
@@yezenirl6331 indeed, like Napoleon convinced himself he was fighting for the values of the revolution, all the while completely subverting them
Sorry, have to double click on it. Something that more or less and validates your entire argument is the city surrendered. Is Kings Landing had continued to defy her and she burned down the city as a reprisal to that I would agree. But they surrendered. They had stopped fighting and had given up and accepting her rule. She is neither being threatened, being challenged, or anything. She had two finitive Lee one. The soldiers lay down their weapons and arms and everyone had surrendered. That is why It makes no sense that is why it is beyond the Realms of her character..
That is specifically the point. It's unnecessary violence.
"Walter White did it all for his family."
@@yezenirl6331 exactly what she did while she was fighting an Insurgency was wrong, and what stuff she talked while she was ruling over a tentative peace was another thing. This was completely different. Categorically different
Wisdom Manari' yeah it seems as though we have to write the script for d&d in order to have this make sense because there is very little reason for a lot of this
It is NOT beyond the means of this character to extract revenge. Dany was avenging her two dragons, Jorah and Missandrei (being fully aware she could have taken KL without losing any of this!) as well as sending a clear message to everyone in Westeros to never EVER dare to defy her.
No need to overanalyze it. Most people saw her as a kick-*ss chick doing her thing. They tell us that when you watch reactions. Plus adding their modern day political views, they overlooked the earlier signs of her actual self. You could see the writing develop more to appease modern views as the seasons went on.
I have been looking forward to this one. Nicely done ser!!
Thank you for getting it and Great Work!
The video that you mocked with your title wasn't "rationalizing tyranny" lol It was criticizing the way it condensed her downward spiral into like... four episodes?
This is exactly my point though. It wasn't condensed into 4 episodes. The downward spiral was happening the whole time, people were just rationalizing it. There were just 4 episodes where you couldn't rationalize anymore.
Except it was a constant downward spiral from season 1; me and several of my friends predicted she'd end up batshit crazy back then already.
@@hoon_sol I predicted it too. Still didn't feel gradual enough.
The fact of the matter is this: The last two Seasons were a rush job. And it affected several character arcs. Her's stood out the most, but I would say the same thing about Jamie Lannister and Sansa's arcs, as well.
It wasn't where she wound up, but how sloppily written her descent in those final two Seasons were, that ended up being the problem.
@@jakecorenthose2901:
It was completely gradual, from the very first seasons.
And no, the last seasons weren't rushed at all, they were paced very well; that's something the unconscious masses have been bleating about forever, but which has zero basis in reality.
Nothing was sloppily written about it at all, it all went exactly as many people (including me) had expected it to go all along.
@@hoon_sol Okay. I'm glad to know that you don't think there was a dip in quality after Season 4 at all. lol
This was a good video! You made some great points but only for this charter. The writing was still pretty bad and inconsistent, I guess it's just about perspective. Can you plz make Sansa storyline make sense?!?!! I need to feel like I didn't waste 100 hours of my life 😭
You didn't. The only wasted hours were season 8. But that is a mistake I and at least some wouldn't blame you for since few people expected it to be that bad.
Let's see... I'll assume there is no need to go over her story up until the point she kills Ramsey, so what about Sansa afterwards:
How did her experiences affect her? What lessons and conclusions did she draw from it all?
Well, the first lesson was what happens when you abandon those closest to you. This is symbolized in the moment she told a lie to spare Joffrey, which directly resulted in Lady being killed. A direwolf are symbols of their owners sense of self, so it is very telling that Sansa was the first to lose hers (go and check out where, how and why others lose their direwolves). In other words, she was not being true to herself, all thanks to her infatuation with Joffrey. So then what would be Sansa's attitude after all of this: fierce allegiance to her original true family, to the North. That is why she becomes more passionate about defending the North and its interests than any other Stark. She is in essence, regaining her sense of self by being a tireless advocate for her realm.
The second lesson was that of being vulnerable and of being used. I don't think this needs much explaining, but the whole point is that it heightened her desire to protect and look out for the vulnerable, and, having lost the desire or perhaps even the ability to have children thanks to her first sexual experiences being with Ramsey, it is almost as if she regards the people of the realm as her children. You can see her throughout S8 already acting as a leader of sorts, making sure people are prepared as well as possible for the Battle of Winterfell.
The third lesson Sansa learned was a master's course in scheming and spotting the bad intentions of others, all thanks to the ultimate scheming duo: Cersei and Littlefinger. Sansa has learned to evaluate the intentions of others, and be mistrustful of the sort of people who hide bad intentions with a front. Daenerys very much fits the bill. Daenerys makes a pathetic, almost amateurish, attempt to schmooze with Sansa in S8E4 and it is expressly rebuffed. Sansa sees Dany's thirst for power and mistrusts her intentions, all the while seeing how much Jon is ensnared into this.
It is apparent Dany has no intention of threating the North as anything but her colony and Jon as anything but her puppet. What little trust she had of Dany completely evaporated when her reasonable advice for the troops to rest was rebuffed, showing just how little Dany cares for the people under her in her relentless obsession with securing power. Well, what would you do in this situation?
Sansa told Tyrion about the lineage because she saw it as the only hope of freeing Jon from the influence of Daenerys.
11/10 best take I've seen all year
I think Dany fans have been reading too much "Carrie" and love watching bad people suffer the worst things imaginable... when GOT actually warns against this.
I'd argue critics of season 8-Dany fans or not-have been both reading the books and, if nothing else, paying attention to GoT seasons 1-7 so they realized season 8 is contradicted by (rather than supported) GoT as a whole. Not just with season 8 Dany but also Varys and if bells in King's Landing even mean surrender (season 2 clearly says and shows the answer is no.)
By the way he wanted to engage with her. Dany didn’t want it in the beginning. Hizdar offered himself.
Daenerys was a tyrant. Plain and simple. Was glad that Jon, the only character with absolute integrity put an end to her.
I mentioned this elsewhere but it seems worth repeating here.: The character assassination started earlier in season 8 than 2 episode but it still is out of character. Keep in mind she actually was liberator (freed slaves, established that former slaves in Meereen had rights that even she-the ruler-wouldn't violate, and then started to transition the place into a democracy) not a tyrant. The writers made things worse by changing their earlier plans for season 8.
The earlier plan for season 8-in spite of its character assassination in more subtle ways-was to have King's Landing get wrecked by wildfire. But then the writers (for reasons they have yet to be open about) decided to have it be burned down on purpose (yes mix a fire breathing dragon doing battle and a city laced with wildfire and it is not hard to see how a disaster can happen on accident).
She was always portrayed as the saviour, no matter her actions, so the complete change in tone for the last season didn't make sense. The misrepresentation in the earlier seasons is to blame for this, of course. Too many simps needed to be appeased to make her a convincing character, and her story interesting.
Actually season 8 is the screwup (in many ways). And the burning of King's Landing by dragonfire was a change from wildfire-which was the earlier plan. The writers changed their own plans for season 8 and made more plot holes rather than less. Season 7 had flaws but season 8 is much more ridiculous.
mereen was presented in such a boring way when it shouldve been the biggest indication of her future as a character. mhysa IS a master.
mydaisymyonly If Meereen is the biggest indicator in the show for Daenerys the people in Westeros should want her to rule even more. When Daenerys leaves in season six she has ended slavery, established that people have some level of rights (without using the word), Meereen itself has a growing economy plus is being transitioned to a democracy where the "people" will "pick" their "rulers". So far from being a new "master" Daenerys ends up giving common people in Meereen more in the way of freedoms and political say than they likely ever had before in their lifetimes.
There's nothing wrong with Dany's character, the problem is with the last few seasons.
The use of Lindsay Ellis’ video thumbnail is quite amusing to me, also these are similar arguments to what you brought up on efap, so props for consistency
Lindays analysis was on point.
@@shawn6745 Nah she and her commie sjw fanbase are just mad that le epic feminist liberator was actually a bad guy. As they've spent a decade denying all her crimes.
@@j.a.6310 don't know if I would say deny considering she brought them up in her video.
@@fightingmedialounge519 Sorry. Not "denying" they happened, just denying they were crimes and justifying them. Justification, obfuscation, deflection has always been a form of denial and used by deniers.
@@j.a.6310 even that's not really the whole truth considering she does point out the brutality of them(with most not even being called crimes in this video).
Honestly, book Daenerys and show Daenerys are two completely different characters. Book Dany wouldn't (in her current state, and, I believe, her future state) set fire to a city that has surrendered, or any group that has surrendered. Show Dany full would.
I think it's unwise to be too sure about what characters would "never" do in a future state. Daenerys takes a very dark turn at the end of book 5, forgetting the name of the little girl Drogon had burned. She is likely to treat Volantis, Pentos, and KL very harshly.
Do you really think Martin would choose a character with the sur name Targaryen and ethnicity of Valyrian, both based on the concept and word "Aryan" not be Hitler? Martin isn't an imbecile, he created chose those words on purpose.
@@yezenirl6331 That's true. I don't believe *just yet* that she'd go full Kings Landing on a city of innocents that have surrendered because she had random PTSD about bells. I'm fully prepared for her to burn Volantis, or - specifically - the inner city within the Black Walls, and some innocents would likely die in the crosshairs. She could definitely burn Pentos after Illyrio's betrayal, but I don't see enough there just yet that I'm convinced she'd do it. Just get to Westeros, gurl.
Honestly, each time I watch an analysis on show Dany, I'm torn again. I do, however, think David Lightbringer's full video on book Dany vs show Dany makes an excellent case for her _not_ doing what she did to Kings Landing in the show, in the books, and that she's not as much of a tyrannical psychopath in the books as she is in the show. Still love watching Daenerys videos though, your's included ☮️
@@SCHMALLZZZ Mmm, there's definitely something there, though we got that with Viserys, and many other Targaryen monarchs. They're a whole dynasty, so yes, I do think there's something to what you're saying. Book Dany just isn't there yet, for me. I don't know if you've watched it yet or not, but David Lightbringer's full video on book Dany vs show Dany is a brilliant analysis of the character, and definitely gives a great insight into the current state of Daenerys in the books. ☮️
I agree they are different characters. Just like book Tyrion and show Tyrion are different characters and book Euron and show Euron are different characters. An issue here is that neither book or show Daenerys would burn the city at this point. Book Daenerys is somewhat insane (hearing voices) but is currently too nice while show Daenerys was actually headed down a different path. Plus there is the wildfire angle that came out long after season 8 aired where the earlier plan for season 8 itself was for wildfire to wreck King's Landing. The show writers still have not explained why they made that change but there is strong evidence that it both was a change and that they decided to make after they had put together their earlier plans for season 8.
Show Daenerys is harsher than book Daenerys but 2 repeated patterns with her is that she both is (1) very willing to punish those she sees as guilty and (2) tries to help or at least avoid harming those she sees as innocent.
So when season 8 King's Landing happens it is character breaking in not 1 but 2 ways at 1 time. Season 8 Dany supposedly goes after random innocent people on the street while ignoring a very guilty Cersei to do it. Yes Cersei was ignored. If you watch carefully it takes a long time for Drogon to reach the Red Keep and once he finally does he flies away from it while most of it is still standing and Cersei still alive-that is ignoring Cersei.
I suspect what happened is the show writers for season 8 really wanted to have a scene of season 8 Jon stabbing Dany but realized Jon wouldn't do it over something Dany never wanted to have happen-there is no point in season 8 where she said she wanted King's Landing to burn via wildfire or otherwise.
But there is a logical way to see how a firebreathing dragon taking part in a battle with in a city loaded with wildfire may set it off on accident.
So I suspect season 8's writers realized they had a plot hole and instead of trying to come up with something that made more sense instead of Jon agreeing to an assassination attempt they just decided to ramp up the character assassination in the hopes it that would paper over their problems-instead they created more logic and plot flaws for themselves by doing it.
When season 8 1st came out I thought they were trying to follow a plan of GRRM's from the books but I believe that less now.
But we may never get the books so we don't know for sure.
What is interesting is that more than 1 person who examines the books pointed out that they expect the wildfire under King's Landing to have greater impact than it did in GoT-regardless of if you count season 8 as being part of the same story as seasons 1-7 GoT and I do think there is a sane argument for not considering season 8 as part of GoT due to all the times seasons 1-7 contradicts rather than point towards season 8.
And it isn't just the out of character comments and actions by multiple characters but Davos himself in season 2 mentioned that bells don't mean surrender in King's Landing. Events showed Davos was correct in season 2 and showed it quite clearly during a major event.
So it is not a small logic flaw for season 8 to suddenly claim bells mean surrender now and they are so important in doing so that an episode will be named after them.
The show writers lost track of their own show.
Getting back to the books an interesting book theory is that book Daenerys somehow sets off the wildfire and does a great deal of damage to King's Landing. Daenerys doesn't hate King's Landing but she is advised by Tyrion and book Tyrion may actually have a spiteful reason to want to see King's Landing burn considering that he saved it earlier and sees himself as rejected afterwards. So book Tyrion may talk or trick Daenerys into doing something that sets off the wildfire and thus does great damage to King's Landing.
But the book story doesn't end there. At some point later book Daenerys may willingly sacrifice herself to help Jon deal with the Others-maybe to help make a magic sword.
Now these are book theories which means they are educated guesses but still guesses.
Getting back to the show YezenIRL is actually wrong in some of his criticisms of Daenerys. For example, the 1st time anyone suggested having a trial Daenerys agreed to hold a trial. This was Sir Barristan discussing what to do with the captured Son of the Harpy.
So criticizing her for not having trials to prove the guilt of people she already (even if partly mistaken) thinks is guilty is actually an inaccurate/unfair criticism since she agrees to hold a trial the 1st time someone suggests it. Perhaps show Sir Barristan should've come up with the idea earlier-it may have saved show Hizdar's father.
But that is show Hizdar, book Hizdar is more of a deceptive weasel that is secretly lying to book Daenerys and trying to undermine her attempts to end slavery-plus ins't book Hizdar's mom 1 of the leaders in the Son's of the Harpy?
As with some other characters like Euron and Tyrion I think there is a decent argument book Hizdar and show Hizdar are different characters.
Now even if GRRM was planning to do a season 8 ending and season 8 GoT's writers were really following his plans (which I don't believe anymore) that we have different characters in the books and show in different situations in the books and show perhaps means there should be different endings in the books and show. But that is just a logic argument for me.
I doubt the show writers were even following their own earlier plans let alone GRRM's when they made season 8.
Hey, I saw the debate with Mauler and all them.
You were treated very poorly, and I found myself appalled by the way they and their listeners treated you and your arguments.
The internet needs more people like you, who seriously engage with stuff and don’t just bash things out of emotion.
I just watched that video and you were treated fine. They even asked you at the end if you were treated fine and you offered no contention. Now you're agreeing with fans acting like the only reason you lost that debate was because you were treated poorly. You rationalised some good arguments but it wasn't enough to contest that the GoT ending was rushed and underdeveloped. I mean being a fan of only the show, i've decided to read the books to get the REAL story in GRRM's words because I was so disappointed with the finale.
I was even still on board with episode 3's end because I thought the lore about the night king would be explored a bit more through Bran having visions or some other medium because the ending of White Walkers was so quick and unfulfilling.
@@jojo_n_dat7325 Yezen definitely did not acquit himself well in the debate, I never said he did. But I felt the way the listeners and the other debaters treated him was most unbecoming
@@lordinvictus793 Sure that's your opinion, and on the medium which I watched Yezen he said he was happy with how they treated him. He got a lot of speaking time and his rationalisation of Danaery's character was an excellent character study. I wasn't sold on her doing it in the show but when they do it in the book, I feel like i'll appreciate it much more due to his contribution in that debate. His debate wasn't in vain because you reached a few people enough to appreciate the ending, but not the execution. I don't think you'll sway people through citing season 1 episodes to appreciate or buy the ending but you'll illuminate the overall message and takeaway allowing people to further enjoy the books when they're released.
@@jojo_n_dat7325I think he was just trying to be polite, because the listeners were shouting "begone Yezen!" over and over again. In the Real World, if someone asks if you offended them-most people will say no even if they are offended or slighted due to politeness and not furthering or creating conflict.
Yezen's problem was that his points were somewhat scrambled and he often stumbled in responding to counter points.
I'm of the opinion he was treated badly, I never said he actually won the debate or acquitted himself well in it.
@@lordinvictus793 I mean, my followup would be was he treated badly by the other debaters or the live chat which can be ignored during the argument? If it's the livechat, sure he was treated badly but I think they allow everyone in their chat to say what they want without censoring because they appreciate free speech more than censoring for offense. It's their platform and if you were really offended, you could voice it. In actuality, he said he didn't mind the live chat voicing their opinions as he feels everybody is entitled to their opinions. I'm taking him on his literal words not your inference because one has objective proof.
For someone who wasn't on his side I appreciated his argument and believe he asserted himself well, but not well enough if you're arguing for the isolated show. He also lost me when he said he had emotional investment in Bran and wanted him to be king.
Oh look ripping off a far superior TH-camr but not shocking coming from the gatekeeping soy boy of the fandom.
This video misses the argument completely
no, it doesn't. there were people who were actually defending daenerys' later actions. the foreshadowing was real, the handling of dany's turn was just bad
@@saint_gales yeah that’s the point
Excellent video and very well crafted
By their own admission, they didn't know the ending until they were filming season 3; so the idea that they were planting seeds for Dany's turn in seasons 1 + 2 is false. I think you're projecting there.
Still, I think you're right about this working in the books where the foreshadowing will be stronger, and I appreciate the courage to make something a lot of the community won't agree with, so good on you.
They knew part of the ending the whole time. They've said this several times.
Ikilledjohnny *Dany’s vision of burnt down Throne Room with ash and snow falling is in season 2 in the House of the undying* ..she then goes out and meets Drogo and their baby..a strong indication of her death
So the showrunners always knew..Martin would’ve told them about Daenerys before they even started season 1 ..it was just a secret , her arc and the arc of the 7 waring kingdoms towards king Bran the broken are the focal points and moral of ASOIAF
They definitely knew about Dany and Bran endings before even starting.
(They confirmed they always knew about King Bran at the Emmys)
D&D didn’t need to know, or be doing any foreshadowing in seasons 1 and 2. They were following GGRM’s script, and HE always knew where Dany was going.
@@odile8701 That's circuitous logic, especially considering after season 4 George was so discouraged by his creative differences with D&D that he stopped writing for the show. They threw out several POV characters and invented the Night King based on a historic figure from the Night's Watch and George has already said there's not going to be a Night King in the books, so the idea that you can draw a straight line between seasons 1 and 8 and say they were being consistently faithful doesn't seem to fly.
Ikilledjohnny I didn’t say you could draw a line from seasons 1 through 8. My comment was refuting that D&D couldn’t have been planting seeds that far back, since they likely didn’t know exactly where everything was heading. I’m simply stating that the foreshadowing and building of Dany’s character back then was all thanks to GRRM. D&D has nothing to do with her, or what was being foreshadowed, or anything else. They were working purely off of what George was doing. He didn’t start having problems with them until the show went on, when it became more and more obvious that they didn’t understand anything he was trying to do once left to their own devices.
Everyone who disliked the ending understands very well that Dany (and Stannis and many others) are willing to use extreme violence to accomplish their goals and defeat their enemies.
The problem is that burning KL accomplishes no goals and defeats no enemies. The battle was over, KL was already hers, she had full control over every life in the city. She has no reason to burn the city at this point, and so it makes no sense.
The goal it accomplishes isn’t meant to be immediate but long term. It’s about instilling fear. The show is very clear about that.
@@yezenirl6331 Burning a city unnecessarily instills the wrong kind of fear. A strict law and order leader will be respected, someone who mass murders for no clear reason will be treated like a madman and rebelled against. Why obey a ruler who might kill you (or your whole city) when you've done nothing wrong?
And look at the results, she was immediately treated like she is mad and must be stopped, and was dead within 24 hours. Maybe it makes sense if the writers' intention was for Dany to be an idiot who thought this would be an effective strategy for her.
@@bobdonda I didn’t say her reason was politically correct. I just said she had a rationale and the show was clear about that.
@@yezenirl6331 It wasn't clear to me or to a huge percentage of the viewers. We had no idea what she was trying to accomplish by burning the city and the show never answers it, all we have are a variety of different fan theories.
Having one of the most impactful storyline developments of the show be left unexplained is not just poor storytelling, it's a literal lack of storytelling. They didn't clearly tell the story of why it happened. We shouldn't have to guess and make fan theories about why she might have done it.
I enjoyed your video and it's probably right about what GRRM intended for the character. But it's very weird that the writers had Dany defeat all of her enemies and take the city, and then burn it unnecessarily once she had already won.
Your video's existence proves the problem with the writing... we don't have TH-cam videos helping people to understand why Tony Soprano had Phil Leotardo killed, or why Walter White killed the Nazis. Those shows told us why they did it and showed us what they had to gain from it, and no one was left wondering why.
@@bobdonda I don’t think it was unclear, I think people were so turned off by the things that were happening in the last season they started trying not to understand them. The show did a lot of things wrong, and I’m even considering finally doing a video on where the show actually derailed each character. But to me Dany’s motives and rationale in season 8 were very obvious at every single moment.
Honestly they messed up Dany’s story in the last two episodes of season 6. If those episodes had been done right everything after would have made more sense to people.
I wanted to add something to what you so eloquently put forward in this video. It is important to understand that when the Bells ring in Kings Landing signaling the surrender of Kings Landing, Dany is all alone sitting on the back of Drogon. There is nobody there to advise her to keep her worst impulses in check. Dany personally suffered great personal losses with the death of two of her dragon's, Missandei, Jorah Mormont, and being rejected by Jon Snow due to their lineage.
The surrender of Kings landing triggered a deep rage that Dany had tried valiantly to hold back, but when those bells rang that rage flooded out because to her psyche this was a hollow victory. She was Queen of a land that did not like or really want her as their ruler, her one true love Jon Snow had rejected her, and she had lost so many people that were very close to her. In that state, such a victory would seem and feel like hollow justice for all that she had to endure in conquering Westeros. In a situation like that where one feels truly alone, then it should not come as much of a surprise that Danaerys felt justified in burning down Kings Landing. Hell, Greyworm had suffered far less than Dany and yet he felt equally justified in executing prisoners. That is the brilliance of the writing. Tyrion said earlier in the series that Dany shouldn't want to become the Queen of Ashes. At the end, she truly was the Queen of Ashes.
Actually the bells in season 8 ringing are one more example of a screwup in the writing and that the writers forgot and are contradicted by seasons 1-7 of GoT. In season 2 Davos (who spent many years in King's Landing) said bells don't mean surrender in King's Landing and then events prove him correct. While I'm sure effort went into making this video but it also also has some important errors or gets things wrong.
For example, its maker said "Dany had executed helpless downtrodden people" (in minute 17) while showing Daenerys having people be executed. That would be a valid point except each of the people being executed had been seen as being involved in killing of other people or some cruel act. So rather than innocent-something implied with "helpless and downtrodden"-they are not.
To go through them in order start with Mirri who (for understandable reasons) killed Daenerys's husband and unborn son, Daenerys didn't want to have the her advisor we see executed next but he murdered a prisoner who was still awaiting trial and thus committed murder himself (for which the established punishment was execution), and the slave masters-especially for those who supported having a mass murder of children-were far from "helpless and downtrodden".
But getting those wrong is potentially not the worst thing in the video. That is when he tried to dismiss criticism of double standards in season 8 as "Whataboutism" when they were not. Whataboutism is dodging addressing an issue by mentioning some side issue as a distraction. That is very different from directly addressing an issue with a level of consistency.
If Jon, Sansa, and Arya are allow able to kill or execute others (sometimes in brutal or harsh ways) for betrayal, being enemies in a war, or just plain revenge while still being sane or morally acceptable then the same applies to Daenerys. Not to is to engage in double standards.
EDIT: I go on for a good bit further now with added details but if you don't have the time what I wrote above can be a short version and consider below further details to support it. Sorry if it also seems a bit repetitve. END EDIT.
People critical of the aired version of season 8 and how it tried to handle season 8 Dany and the excuses put forwards for it point out, correctly, that plenty of characters killed or executed other people and are not proclaimed to be insane or morally compromised for it.
If it is ok for Jon to execute people who betrayed him then it should be for Daenerys as well. Don't forget Jon cut Janos's head off for what was officially disobeying orders even as Janos was apologizing and promising to do whatever Jon wanted going forwards. In comparison Mirri betrayed Daenerys's trust by killing both her husband (braindead) and unborn child.
Now Mirri had motivation to do it including that she had been raped by Drogo's men and her village destroyed. But it was still betraying Daenerys's trust because Daenerys was the one to elevate her to the status of court doctor during Daenerys's attempts to do something better for the women whom Drogo would've let be raped before they were sold off into slavery without Daenerys intervening. At the point Mirri was executed both Mirri and Daenerys had reasons for doing what they did-that is good or at least decent writing.
But back to consistency or rather inconsistency. The aired version of season 8 has major logic flaws and engages in double standards. Jon, Sansa, and Arya have all killed people-sometimes in cruel or gruesome ways-in seasons 1-7 yet neither their morality nor sanity is put into question by season 8. Only season 8 Dany's is. That is double standards not whataboutism.
Also Tyrion's comment about not wanting to be Queen of the Ashes touches on why the aired version of season 8 is both illogical and character assassination. The actual character Daenerys repeatedly both said and showed she wanted to help or at least avoid harming innocent people. There are deeds to go with the words so it isn't like she was lying about that.
Daenerys also showed she was very willing to punish those she thought were guilty. Season 8 Cersei both betrayed her promises to and messed with Dany in a very public way. So season 8 Dany should have public (sending a message) and personal reasons to be rally sure she had revenge on Cersei.
Yet season 8 Dany is portrayed as ignoring Cersei (just look at how long it took Drogon to even reach the Red Keep and once he finally got there he flew away not long after while most of the Red Keep was still standing). And this was to supposedly go after random people on the street-innocents whom the actual character Daenerys has already shown she would want to avoid harming. So this is arguably character assassination in 2 ways at once.