I've only seen the first two seasons but the sheer amount of discussion this episode has elicited has me seriously wanting to check it out.
Not worth it IMO
I've only seen the first two seasons but the sheer amount of discussion this episode has elicited has me seriously wanting to check it out.
It actually does.None of that explains why she would start massacre innocents after already winning. It makes no sense why she would ignore Cersei and focus on innocents. The massive backlash shows the writing didn't work. Nobody is buying she would do this
It actually is character development. You just choose to not accept it because it's not the most bestest delivery of it. Like, would you say Tony's character development over the MCU isn't character development because he is reacting to things that happen to him or his circumstance? Probably not. The same goes for basically every other character ever created. No need to single out Dany.Notice how those are all things that happen TO Dany, rather than Dany's character choosing to make more and more extreme decisions as things progress.
"Bad things happen to this person" isn't character development
Yes, but she was always shown to have a darker side with darker instincts. Its been a running theme for her character. The only thing that kept it in check was her friends and advisers surrounding her. She had nobody left to check those impulses
Notice how those are all things that happen TO Dany, rather than Dany's character choosing to make more and more extreme decisions as things progress.
"Bad things happen to this person" isn't character development
Hers to rule over, yes. Nothing had ever been showed in any of the episodes that would lead us to believe she wanted the common folk dead. In the very same episode, she claimed to want to remove the tyrant thoroughly to ensure that future generations did not have to endure their rule.
Can't be ruled by a tyrant if you're dead.'I want to free people people from tyrants.'
~30 minutes later
*burns all the people.
That's one way to do it i guess.
Like a third of the show is ultimately about white walkers lmao
Yes, but she was always shown to have a darker side with darker instincts. Its been a running theme for her character. The only thing that kept it in check was her friends and advisers surrounding her. She had nobody left to check those impulses. Combine that darker nature with all of the adversity and things that have happened to her and she just snapped. She has danced along the edge of dark and crazy for years. Just like her father did. She finally just went over the edge. Just like her father did. The Mad Queen. Daughter of the Mad King.
I mean, to be fair, you could say that about Ned and Robb as well. The show did a great job at subverting expectations early on. Those moments felt better because they had better written material to draw on as opposed to some notes hastily scrawled on a bar napkin about how everything ends. But there are definitely story arcs in the good seasons that don't get the closure we would want either.Rewatching the show is gonna be awkward:
- Oh yeah, that storyline, that led nowhere...
- Ah, that storyline! Yep, also led nowhere.
- Oh man, I really like the way this character is developing! Oh yeah, but it led to nothing
She never actually cared for them if you think about it. The Unsullied and Dothraki are used as tools to claim the Iron Throne. She only freed those cities because it was advantageous for that goal. The ones who cared were her advisers but they're kind of gone and it's just Tyrion who she believes is both-sideing. It's hard to argue she cared for people at all. She was just too hyperfocused on the Iron Throne. Like, when she came to the North it kind of showed just what she is: a bully who will leverage what she has so she can make a race for the Throne and nothing more. Dany only helped against the Night King, not because he'd kill everyone, but because she'd have no throne if he lived. She then got a nice prize package which was the North vowing to fight for her.When did she ever display darker instincts towards innocents and common folk? I may just be forgetting over 70+ episodes, but in my mind she was always compassionate to the plight of the downtrodden. That was a core theme of her character as I saw it.
I hate Dany with a passion, and the ratings are deserved, in terms of the writing though.
No, it actually isn't character development. Bad stuff happening to a character is something that can prompt character development, but it is not, in itself, character development. To use your example, Tony getting captured by Not-ISIS isn't character development. Him changing his worldview due to seeing the consequences of his warmongering is. What your essentially arguing is that Dany had all the prompts she needed to become more hostile, more aggressive, more uncompassionate, and yeah, sure, if we had her deciding to do more and more wrathful things, THEN we might have accepted her going nuclear on KL.It actually is character development. You just choose to not accept it because it's not the most bestest delivery of it. Like, would you say Tony's character development over the MCU isn't character development because he is reacting to things that happen to him or his circumstance? Probably not. The same goes for basically every other character ever created. No need to single out Dany.
This is the most spot on description I've seen so far.
When did she ever display darker instincts towards innocents and common folk? I may just be forgetting over 70+ episodes, but in my mind she was always compassionate to the plight of the downtrodden. That was a core theme of her character as I saw it.
I just don't understand why they're rushing it... isn't it making money hand over fist?? If there was any show that could negotiate more time to end properly, it's fucking GoT..
Yeah, she had those things happen to her. It made her do things she was already capable of because the show has shown time and time again she's got a god complex who uses people. She developed into who exactly she is. Her being nice before was her advisers keeping that complex at bay.No, it actually isn't character development. Bad stuff happening to a character is something that can prompt character development, but it is not, in itself, character development. To use your example, Tony getting captured by Not-ISIS isn't character development. Him changing his worldview due to seeing the consequences of his warmongering is. What your essentially arguing is that Dany had all the prompts she needed to become more hostile, more aggressive, more uncompassionate, and yeah, sure, if we had her deciding to do more and more wrathful things, THEN we might have accepted her going nuclear on KL.
But we didn't.
So no character development.
I guess part of the issue was that the crunch was self-imposed. HBO, the cast, etc would have been fine continuing onward another season or two. D&D didn't want to. In fact they wanted more crunch. I think people give leeway when a studio is breathing down an artist's neck to get something done, but are less inclined when the studio would hand them a blank check if they wanted.Add the crunch of trying to fit it all into 8 seasons (and 8 episodes this season), I just don't see why people expected some revelation.
David and Dan wanted to wrap it up so they could move on to other projects, but HBO was very much in favor of keeping it going. So it's all on D&D.
Wasn't there a massive gap between seasons the time too? I mean as soon as you see them lopping off episodes to shorten the season you know you're in trouble.David and Dan wanted to wrap it up so they could move on to other projects, but HBO was very much in favor of keeping it going. So it's all on D&D.
Critarks vs Stannisters?
Just for posterity, I'm gonna point out that you just completely reversed your argument, in that this is now no longer character development but her inner character being revealed. She didn't develop into this, she was always a depraved psychopath and she was only just pretended to be kind and empathic to fool....????Yeah, she had those things happen to her. It made her do things she was already capable of because the show has shown time and time again she's got a god complex who uses people. She developed into who exactly she is. Her being nice before was her advisers keeping that complex at bay.
So, yeah, you're wrong.
Actually no, because both of those led somewhere. Ned's and Robb's death are both major moments in the show that set many things into motion. Those only led to nothing ultimately if you follow the echoes their deaths left because those end up at these final episodes where all build-up to things is just thrown in the wind. Also, it's not true that their deaths came out of nowhere, both were actually pretty well telegraphed beforehand, you just have to look a bit harder for the hints, but they're there.I mean, to be fair, you could say that about Ned and Robb as well. The show did a great job at subverting expectations early on. Those moments felt better because they had better written material to draw on as opposed to some notes hastily scrawled on a bar napkin about how everything ends. But there are definitely story arcs in the good seasons that don't get the closure we would want either.
But did it subvert your expectationsNo, of course I didn't expect any of that, because that is all fucking stupid.
Join us in the leaks thread, we have chicken wingsNormally I'd be annoyed by all the blatant teasing regarding the finale, but after this episode, don't even care anymore lol
If it were telegraphed from a mile away, people wouldn't be upset.Really enjoyed it personally. The big twist was telegraphed from a mile away, so I'm shocked that others are shocked. For the complaints about characters "teleporting" from one side of the map to other -- do we really need to see what happened to them along the way? Is that minutia really germane to the plot as a whole?
Those are different though. Those story lines ended as a direct consequence of their character's actions (Ned trusting Littlefinger, and Rob choosing the wrong woman).I mean, to be fair, you could say that about Ned and Robb as well. The show did a great job at subverting expectations early on. Those moments felt better because they had better written material to draw on as opposed to some notes hastily scrawled on a bar napkin about how everything ends. But there are definitely story arcs in the good seasons that don't get the closure we would want either.
This is a great post.Out of curiosity am I expected to just click some random YouTube video to give revenue to someone making a wacky face in their thumbail?
Arya should have gotten to Cersei before Jamie. Killed her. Then looked Jamie in the eyes and said, "2 to 1" then walked away.Some people hate bad endings and when characters they like(even when they shouldn't) die. I thought the episode was amazing.
If that moment had cut straight to her destroying the Red Keep, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Her wanting to unleash dragon fire on her enemies has been a thing for years, and she was often talked down. In that most vulnerable moment and with advisors around, I'd argue it even would have made sense for her to raze the Red Keep after the Lannister forces surrendered. Those civilian around the castle die in the collateral damage, but I don't think that would have like a character assassination of DannyI think this sums up my thoughts on the matter. It's been evident that she's a conqueror for some time now. Choosing to burn women and children with dragon fire is some next level shit.