"Non book readers" - Season 8 Episode 5 "The bells" - Spoilers post 2 forward

Foxtrol · 14-05-2019 09:39PM

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

If watching your tyrant queens army and defences get burned alive in front of you does not instill fear nothing will.

Do they sing the Rains of Castamere because they just burned their army and defenses? For all her dragons did so far it didn’t make the Lannisters, Greyjoys, the Iron Bank, or all the other enemies she made in Essos fear Dany, even when she was backed by a massive army.

I don’t think she was flagging or wavering and I listened and heard everything in the show just fine. I’m not all that bothered how it ends but I really found her going on that rampage when she finally had what she wanted a bit silly. You can pretend you have some higher understanding of the show if you like, it was plain weak writing for me, designed to create a shock factor and set up the ending where she is killed off by someone close to her, probably Jon as we all saw the shock on his face when she started burning the city.

It was entertaining none the less.

The main weak writing point to me is how much flagging they did that she was going to burn the city and it still wasn’t enough for some.

She had the throne at that point, but she wanted to keep it. Call it silly but, as someone that thinks she should have stopped, I’ll ask again how does her maintaining the crown and ruling look like if she stopped when they rang the bell?

TerrorFirmer · 14-05-2019 09:47PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

Do they sing the Rains of Castamere because they just burned their army and defenses? For all her dragons did so far it didn’t make the Lannisters, Greyjoys, the Iron Bank, or all the other enemies she made in Essos fear Dany, even when she was backed by a massive army.

The main weak writing point to me is how much flagging they did that she was going to burn the city and it still wasn’t enough for some.

She had the throne at that point, but she wanted to keep it. Call it silly but, as someone that thinks she should have stopped, I’ll ask again how does her maintaining the crown and ruling look like if she stopped when they rang the bell?

She wiped out the Golden Company and Iron Fleet in about 30 seconds.

Decimated Kings Landing's defences in the same time.

I think that would be enough to check the 'fear' boxes.

Iron Bank/Golden Company/etc underestimated the dragons prior to this because they had never seen them in action.

Bronn literally has a conversation with the specific topic with Jaime, and says something along the lines of "As soon as I saw that dragon in action, I knew your sister was ****ed".

Torching Kings Landing was simply a mechanism to alienate Daenerys entirely from her allies in one fell swoop and drive the final episode.

It's a grand plotline in theory, but it desperately needed more than just an episode to make credible sense.

osarusan · 14-05-2019 09:48PM

RickBlaine wrote: »

What about Robb's wife setting stabbed in her pregnant stomach multiple times??

That was the bad guys killing the good guys...brutal, but you know they will pay for it in the end. They're already the bad guys.

This time it's the good guys, but it makes them a bit less good somehow, as no matter how vicious Cersei is, what's inside her isn't.

I always thought that her being pregnant was going to stop her from getting murdered by somebody, and so wondered how she would die.

kerplun k · 14-05-2019 09:50PM

I think any criticism should lie squarely on D&D,
It kinda feels like they lost their passion for this towards the end of season 6 and ever since then it feels like they were given a bunch of bullet points from GRRM, and since then they’ve just focused all hitting those points so they can finish up and move into their next project.

Foxtrol · 14-05-2019 09:55PM

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

When she made those comments about returning cities to dirt, she was still at war with her enemies.

Her quote trying to get into Qarth - "When my dragons are grown, we will take back what was stolen from me and destroy those who have wronged me. We will lay waste to armies and burn cities to the ground."

When the merchants in Qarth won't give her ships, she says "I am Daenerys Stormborn of the blood of old Valyria and I will take what is mine, with fire and blood I will take it."

That isn’t war, that’s someone who is power hungry and can’t deal with not getting her way.

When she crucified the masters, she was still at war with her enemies.

Without trial, she indiscriminately crucified 163 men due to their social standing after she’d won the battle for the city because she was vengeful about what some masters did to the slaves.

Both would involve - or did involve - collateral damage, but they weren't killing and destruction for the sake of killing and destruction. Nothing, up to this point, was killing for the sake of it.

When she goes genocidal in E05, the entirely one-sided battle's already won.

She methodically torches the defences, Golden Company, Iron Fleet and a good portion of the Lannister forces effortlessly.

The Lannisters are so terrified they throw down their weapons rather than fight for what they recognise as a hopeless cause, and the entire civilian populace is fleeing in disorganised terror as the city falls into utter chaos.

I think she already had the 'fear' angle nailed down just fine.

Not to mention, the way it's portrayed in the show is clear as day not a calculated, rational thought out course of action.

Only when the bells ring incessently, does she see red and it's etched on her face, with perfect clarity, that she's totally lost the plot.

We’ll see how the last episode plays out. I’d hope there is some method to her madness, like what her comments in this episode point to, but it isn’t like she hasn’t been showed to have a terrible temper before so a fit of rage would also fit what she has showed us throughout the seasons.

The_Honeybadger · 14-05-2019 09:57PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

Do they sing the Rains of Castamere because they just burned their army and defenses? For all her dragons did so far it didn’t make the Lannisters, Greyjoys, the Iron Bank, or all the other enemies she made in Essos fear Dany, even when she was backed by a massive army.

The main weak writing point to me is how much flagging they did that she was going to burn the city and it still wasn’t enough for some.

She had the throne at that point, but she wanted to keep it. Call it silly but, as someone that thinks she should have stopped, I’ll ask again how does her maintaining the crown and ruling look like if she stopped when they rang the bell?

I think where we differ is in the definition of ‘burn the city’. Taking the city and wiping out your enemy by brutally burning them alive and being comfortable with all the collateral damage that comes with that is ‘burning the city’ in my eyes.

What you are saying is that she was sending a message to her remaining subjects and all who may oppose her by coldly wiping out the innocent civilian population as well. I’m not sure they built that up enough in Dany for it to be credible in the context of her character across the lifetime of the show to be honest, and I know it’s a fantasy adventure series. You think they did and it was logical.

I’ll leave it there and I’m happy to differ.

snotboogie · 14-05-2019 10:10PM

osarusan wrote: »

That was the bad guys killing the good guys...brutal, but you know they will pay for it in the end. They're already the bad guys.

This time it's the good guys, but it makes them a bit less good somehow, as no matter how vicious Cersei is, what's inside her isn't.

I always thought that her being pregnant was going to stop her from getting murdered by somebody, and so wondered how she would die.

There is no bad guys or good guys, from Danny’s perspective she has come to Westeros and has sacrificed one of her children, half of her armies along with her best friend and advisor to save the continent. Cersi first betrays her by not showing up to the battle she promised. Danny then finds out that her claim to the throne is threatened by her new Westerosi lover, who the people love and who can’t keep his claim a secret. Then Cersi kills her second child and kidnaps her next closest friend and advisor. Still Danny comes back to the negotiating table, only to be embarrassed and disrespected in the ultimate way. Then she catches one of her last remaining advisors conspiring against her before she even takes the throne. She has no allies left other than her armies and her dragon. If she stopped when the bells rang, she would be eaten up by Westerosi politics, the players of whom would see her as a soft, politically weak, illegitimate, foreign ruler. She did what she did partially because she was pushed right to the edge by Cersi and partially to establish the fear to rule over the rest of the continent. This isn’t a modern political drama, this show is set in a medieval like world where this sort of behavior won empires. The Mongols conquered most of the word by razing cities and leaving a similar outcome to what we saw in Kings Landing. While this isn’t the greatest story telling of all time, Danny’s actions are logical.

namloc1980 · 14-05-2019 10:14PM

No matter how much people try to say it was foreshadowed laying waste to the entire city and torching its inhabitants after the battle was won and the city surrendered and soldiers layed down their arms, was not at all credible to the extent she did it.

TerrorFirmer · 14-05-2019 10:18PM

That's literally what collateral damage is. Innocent people being caught up in the destruction of one's enemies. It makes Daenery's ruthless and cold, but not mad. Cersei Lannister did the exact same thing - she blew up hundreds upon hundreds of innocent people in the Sept just to eliminate her enemies, but there was a logic to it, it wasn't killing for the sake of killing.

It still doesn't tally with Daenerys suddenly deciding to reduce Kings Landing to rubble and murder as many of its one million inhabitants as she can after the city has already surrendered and is paralyzed with fear of her dragon.

Her enemies are already decisively defeated. Kings Landing is the capital and seat of the Iron Throne. By razing the city and murdering it's inhabitants, she's effectively signed her own death warrant and ensured she will never, ever be accepted as any kind of leader without herself becoming a tyrant....and even then her reign would lean completely on one dragon. Not very tenable.

You could argue that she cracks knowing that Westeros will only accept Jon Snow as the legitimate heir and will never view her as the 'savior' she considered herself for so long, and thus decides to cement power through pure terror, convinced she's still doing so for the 'greater good' (as alluded to the comments she made to Jon...suspiciously Hitler/Stalin-esque).

Which might have been credible if we had a 10 episode season charting her gradual descent into unhinged madness and desperation, cleverly and intricately crafted over that time, but we don't, and as it is it just doesn't really work and isn't very convincing.

J. Marston · 14-05-2019 10:21PM

Meaningless really but I wonder what the actual death toll is.

The_Honeybadger · 14-05-2019 10:31PM

snotboogie wrote: »

There is no bad guys or good guys, from Danny’s perspective she has come to Westeros and has sacrificed one of her children, half of her armies along with her best friend and advisor to save the continent. Cersi first betrays her by not showing up to the battle she promised. Danny then finds out that her claim to the throne is threatened by her new Westerosi lover, who the people love and who can’t keep his claim a secret. Then Cersi kills her second child and kidnaps her next closest friend and advisor. Still Danny comes back to the negotiating table, only to be embarrassed and disrespected in the ultimate way. Then she catches one of her last remaining advisors conspiring against her before she even takes the throne. She has no allies left other than her armies and her dragon. If she stopped when the bells rang, she would be eaten up by Westerosi politics, the players of whom would see her as a soft, politically weak, illegitimate, foreign ruler. She did what she did partially because she was pushed right to the edge by Cersi and partially to establish the fear to rule over the rest of the continent. This isn’t a modern political drama, this show is set in a medieval like world where this sort of behavior won empires. The Mongols conquered most of the word by razing cities and leaving a similar outcome to what we saw in Kings Landing. While this isn’t the greatest story telling of all time, Danny’s actions are logical.

The mongols were a brutal regime taking new territories, not done in civil war involving their own people who incidentally were not resisting. Not comparable.

Virtually all her political enemies were already dead and the remnants of that system could be easily eradicated giving her total power.

What she did made no sense, she should have been elated to have taken the city so easily. The simple explanation was it was done for tv to throw a huge plot twist in there leading in to the final episode. There doesn’t need to be some complex psychological or political explanation for it, it’s a tv show.

Mokuba · 14-05-2019 10:33PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

Her quote trying to get into Qarth - "When my dragons are grown, we will take back what was stolen from me and destroy those who have wronged me. We will lay waste to armies and burn cities to the ground."

When the merchants in Qarth won't give her ships, she says "I am Daenerys Stormborn of the blood of old Valyria and I will take what is mine, with fire and blood I will take it."

That isn’t war, that’s someone who is power hungry and can’t deal with not getting her way.

Without trial, she indiscriminately crucified 163 men due to their social standing after she’d won the battle for the city because she was vengeful about what some masters did to the slaves.

We’ll see how the last episode plays out. I’d hope there is some method to her madness, like what her comments in this episode point to, but it isn’t like she hasn’t been showed to have a terrible temper before so a fit of rage would also fit what she has showed us throughout the seasons.

This post is cherrypicked nonsense, similar to how people used the retconning of Melisandre and Arya in Season 3 to justify how it was all planned.

because she was vengeful about what some masters did to the slaves.

The way you word it, it's like they were mean to the slaves. They crucified the same amount of slaves! She asked the slaves to point out their oppressors and they did. A common theme in her arc has been the protection of slaves and the punishing of those responsible. She has used the same methods that the slavers used against the slaves and this is presented as a justified taste of their own medicine. While Barristan advised against it and Hizdahr claimed his father was innocent, it certainly wasn't dwelt upon and the masters were immediately painted as an evil threat killing innocents through the Sons of the Harpy. A terrorist organisation. Later the same masters went back on their promise to abolish slavery and attacked Dany and her people.

You still cannot give me one example of where they telegraphed them killing innocents because she did not kill any innocents. And if you say the Tarly's - She was at war. They were generals in her enemies army and refused to bend the knee. They refused to go to the wall. So she killed them. The same as literally any other ruler would have done.

Jon Snow killed Janos for disobeying an order! - See he is crazy it was foreshadowed!
Ned Stark killed a Nights Watch deserter who was telling the truth and refused to listen to him! Crazy!
Arya Stark killed an innocent stableboy and an innocent sick girl - Crazy!

namloc1980 · 14-05-2019 10:40PM

J. Marston wrote: »

Meaningless really but I wonder what the actual death toll is.

Pretty sure it was mentioned by Jaime that the city population was around 500,000.

14-05-2019 10:43PM

how come the dragon got all super-powered with its flame in this episode - basically exploding buildings all over the shop.

Paddy Cow · 14-05-2019 10:43PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

In the world of GoT, how is taking out defences and rendering her enemy helpless instilling fear? You’re dealing with the likes of the Lannisters and what they did in the Rains of Castamere, what Robert and friends did to her family, or how her own family conquered and ruled.

What Tywin did was just as bad. He didn't just kill his enemy, he took out everyone and they constantly played that stupid song to remind everyone for generations.

Foxtrol · 14-05-2019 10:47PM

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

I think where we differ is in the definition of ‘burn the city’. Taking the city and wiping out your enemy by brutally burning them alive and being comfortable with all the collateral damage that comes with that is ‘burning the city’ in my eyes.

What you are saying is that she was sending a message to her remaining subjects and all who may oppose her by coldly wiping out the innocent civilian population as well. I’m not sure they built that up enough in Dany for it to be credible in the context of her character across the lifetime of the show to be honest, and I know it’s a fantasy adventure series. You think they did and it was logical.

I’ll leave it there and I’m happy to differ.

That's fair enough, though I would have liked to see you backing yourself up on an attempt to clarify how you felt Dany could have maintained the throne if she stopped when the bells rang.

Paddy Cow · 14-05-2019 10:48PM

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

The signposting that she has a tendenacy to be cruel, merciless and increasingly willing in the later seasons to accept massive collateral damage?

........

Another victim of this rushed season.

Dany was always going to go full Targaryen. The only victim was the plot, which was rushed. If we'd had a few more episodes to see her descent into madness, the end result would've been the same. I initially liked Dany but grew to dislike her because of her sense of entitlement over the throne and desire to get it at any cost. I've had my criticisms of this series but her becoming the Mad Queen didn't surprise me. I'm more annoyed at Tyrion and Jon becoming fools who blindly followed her because "she is my Queen" :rolleyes:

Foxtrol · 14-05-2019 10:49PM

Paddy Cow wrote: »

What Tywin did was just as bad. He didn't just kill his enemy, he took out everyone and they constantly played that stupid song to remind everyone for generations.

That's my point, people are saying destroying Cersei's defences and the Golden Company should have been enough to elicit enough fear to rule when you look at their history it isn't anything in the GoT world.

The_Honeybadger · 14-05-2019 10:51PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

That's fair enough, though I would have liked to see you backing yourself up on an attempt to clarify how you felt Dany could have maintained the throne if she stopped when the bells rang.

Why wouldn’t she maintain it? She still had her army, her dragon, and all her political challengers are dead? The only person with a better claim has no interest in it, and incidentally in all likelihood will now kill her due to her actions.

What would you like me to clarify?

snotboogie · 14-05-2019 10:53PM

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

The mongols were a brutal regime taking new territories, not done in civil war involving their own people who incidentally were not resisting. Not comparable.

Virtually all her political enemies were already dead and the remnants of that system could be easily eradicated giving her total power.

What she did made no sense, she should have been elated to have taken the city so easily. The simple explanation was it was done for tv to throw a huge plot twist in there leading in to the final episode. There doesn’t need to be some complex psychological or political explanation for it, it’s a tv show.

Most of Danny’s army is foreign. She grew up abroad, she is not ethnically Westerosi. It’s not a classic civil war. Besides in the Khans wars with China much of their army were Chinese and their leaders were born and raised in China. The Mongols raized many a city in Western China because of the perceived treachery of their leaders.

Danny would have needed to work with the political establishment of Kings Landing and the seven kingdoms to get anything done after she took the city. The establishment would not have been wiped out bar a few at the very top. She would have needed to play the Westerosi political game from a weak position, with no allies she can trust and against support for a local legitimate formidable rival.

is_that_so · 14-05-2019 10:57PM

snotboogie wrote: »

Danny would have needed to work with the political establishment of Kings Landing and the seven kingdoms to get anything done after she took the city. The establishment would not have been wiped out bar a few at the very top. She would have needed to play the Westerosi political game from a weak position, with no allies she can trust and against support for a local legitimate formidable rival.

Her position wasn't weak and she had a whole stack of allies but seemed to imagine she didn't. It is weakened now by her choices and could be terminal.

Paddy Cow · 14-05-2019 10:59PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

That's fair enough, though I would have liked to see you backing yourself up on an attempt to clarify how you felt Dany could have maintained the throne if she stopped when the bells rang.

Dany herself never had any plan. She was fixated on getting the throne and that was it. Tyrion tried to bring up succession in season 7 and she was having none of it. She knew she couldn't have children so what was the point of her taking the throne, only for her line to die anyway?

I think her madness started when she found out the usurper Robert Baratheon tried to assassinate her and Drogo promised to take the thone. Before that she always thought Viserys was the one to take it but with his death she found a passion for power. After she lost her child and Drogo, taking the throne was the force that drove her. She tried to convince herself and others that she was coming to Westeros to free the people but once she got there she realised it wasn't like Essos. People weren't enslaved and didn't really give a sh!t who was on the throne. Jorah had tried to warn her of this but she wouldn't listen.

After saving the North, she thought they would love her, much like they did in Essos when she freed cities but people gravitated towards Jon, her new found rival. She tried to win favour by legitimising Gendry but again, no one really cared. By the time everything went down in KL with Missandei, Varys plotting against her and in her eyes, Jon betraying her, she was like "**** the lot of them, I'll show them who's boss". And she did.

And her obsession with having people love her, is a sign of a narcissist. Jon never wanted to be loved. When he was Lord Commander he made choices that he knew people wouldn't like but he did it for the greater good. Dany thought she could swoop in and "save" people and then they would have undying gratitude. Anyone fit for power and ruling knows that's not how it works. Tyrion saved KL but knew the people would never know or "love" him. Dany's approach to ruling has been off from the start and a reflection of her state of mind.

The_Honeybadger · 14-05-2019 11:01PM

snotboogie wrote: »

Most of Danny’s army is foreign. She grew up abroad, she is not ethnically Westerosi. It’s not a classic civil war. Besides in the Khans wars with China much of their army were Chinese and their leaders were born and raised in China. The Mongols raized many a city in Western China because of the perceived treachery of their leaders.

Danny would have needed to work with the political establishment of Kings Landing and the seven kingdoms to get anything done after she took the city. The establishment would not have been wiped out bar a few at the very top. She would have needed to play the Westerosi political game from a weak position, with no allies she can trust and against support for a local legitimate formidable rival.

Ah come off it her people were royalty in Westeros and she had a legitimate claim to the throne. You’re clutching at straws there.

Was the political establishment not the council, virtually all of whom were now dead? As we didn’t really get an insight in to what replaced them I’m assuming Cersei was controlling everything towards the end. Also now dead. She could have easily put her own people in charge and if she was going to be the righteous leader she aspired to be she would soon have a content people with no cause to rebel.

Paddy Cow · 14-05-2019 11:04PM

One other thing. There was an episode where Joffrey threw a tantrum and Tywin send him to bed and then said to Tyrion "any man who has to say, I am the King, is no true King". How many times has Dany said "I am the Queen", as if that's enough to get people to trust, respect and accept her?

J. Marston · 14-05-2019 11:25PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Pretty sure it was mentioned by Jaime that the city population was around 500,000.

That was 20 years ago though. Tyrion says there's a million people in King's Landing now. I'm wondering how many out of a million perished.

ziedth · 14-05-2019 11:26PM

Paddy Cow wrote: »

One other thing. There was an episode where Joffrey threw a tantrum and Tywin send him to bed and then said to Tyrion "any man who has to say, I am the King, is no true King". How many times has Dany said "I am the Queen", as if that's enough to get people to trust, respect and accept her?

That's actually a very good point

Nalz · 14-05-2019 11:29PM

glasso wrote: »

how come the dragon got all super-powered with its flame in this episode - basically exploding buildings all over the shop.

Shīt writing, that's how

threeball · 14-05-2019 11:41PM

Another episode that was all over the place. Yes a decent spectacle in a one off viewing but given all that went before it was rubbish.

Jamie kills mad king to save millions dying. Goes north to fight for the living leaving Cersei and his unborn child behind, yet decides he never really cared for the people in this episode.

In the battle of winterfell they had two dragons and faced 100,000 Wights yet only took out about 10,000 despite ample opportunity. Down in kingslanding Dany wipes out and entire city and 1,000,000 people in less than 20mins.

The Golden company may as well have been the Bubba Gump company for all the use they were.

Cersei stands staring out the red keep window yet it's the last place Dany attacks.

The only thing it did well was to leave the cliff hanger of who kills Dany in the next episode, Jon, Tyrion or Arya. Arya has her big kill so it's most likely Jon. Tyrion will be in her sights for releasing Jamie.

Foxtrol · 14-05-2019 11:41PM

Mokuba wrote: »

This post is cherrypicked nonsense, similar to how people used the retconning of Melisandre and Arya in Season 3 to justify how it was all planned.

People are saying it is out of character for Dany and then pointing to a few of the many situations where Dany has been barbaric or previously threatened to do exactly what she followed through on in this episode is cherrypicking?

The way you word it, it's like they were mean to the slaves. They crucified the same amount of slaves! She asked the slaves to point out their oppressors and they did. A common theme in her arc has been the protection of slaves and the punishing of those responsible. She has used the same methods that the slavers used against the slaves and this is presented as a justified taste of their own medicine. While Barristan advised against it and Hizdahr claimed his father was innocent, it certainly wasn't dwelt upon and the masters were immediately painted as an evil threat killing innocents through the Sons of the Harpy. A terrorist organisation. Later the same masters went back on their promise to abolish slavery and attacked Dany and her people.

That was the whole misdirection. We saw things from her perspective and just accepted the barbaric things she did because the show presented the people as 'deserving it'. Even when issues with her actions, like the ones you noted, were raised we shrugged them off like Dany did.

You still cannot give me one example of where they telegraphed them killing innocents because she did not kill any innocents.

Sure my examples, a few of many, of her stating she was going to do exactly what she did in KL isn't telegraphed enough? Did you think she was all talk? You must have seen her as a very weak character, so full of pathetic bluster. I'm sure when she said she'd 'burn their cities to the ground' she really meant 'burn their defenses and part of their army'.

I think the key here who you deem as 'innocents' and that you believe that is what was driving her. Personally I'm not pro crucifying, feeding to dragons, burning anyone without some form of trial, not just because they're from a certain social standing or won't follow me.

And if you say the Tarly's - She was at war. They were generals in her enemies army and refused to bend the knee. They refused to go to the wall. So she killed them. The same as literally any other ruler would have done.

Literally, really? If you want one ruler then Sam clearly says Jon wouldn't and I don't see any evidence to the contrary.

It seems pretty clear that general practice in Westeros is to hold surrendered family members of the great houses hostage until they come to an agreement or the war ends. Can you point to all the summary executions we've seen minutes after surrender for any reason, ignoring asking them to change sides? You've got Stannis to Mance (who isn't a member of a great house) and even he gave Mance some time in a cell to think it over.

Jon Snow killed Janos for disobeying an order! - See he is crazy it was foreshadowed!

Ned Stark killed a Nights Watch deserter who was telling the truth and refused to listen to him! Crazy!

Arya Stark killed an innocent stableboy and an innocent sick girl - Crazy!

Maybe ease up on the beer/caffeine there.

NuMarvel · 14-05-2019 11:51PM

threeball wrote: »

Jamie kills mad king to save millions dying. Goes north to fight for the living leaving Cersei and his unborn child behind, yet decides he never really cared for the people in this episode.

In between these acts, he pushes a 10 year old to what he'd hoped would be the child's death and butchers Ned Stark's men. And that's just Season 1.

Jaime is not the altruistic golden boy some people are making him out to be.

"Non book readers" - Season 8 Episode 5 "The bells" - Spoilers post 2 forward

Comments