Game Thread SEASON 8, The End!

[SharpesTriumph]

Lol what? They’ve been building up to this for years. “I will take what’s mine with fire and blood.” Come on now.

She already had the thrown won, she murdered Innocents for no purpose. It was outside her character arc. She chained her dragons because they accidently killed one girl but for no reason burned hundreds of thousands? Maybe there is a story of how this could happen but we were never told any of it.

 

[Minstrel]

They were building towards "mad queen," but the way she broke with reality was way outside the scope of what they were driving towards and what was realistic.

They built to this through various events:

-Crucifying a hundred and something great masters. This was supposed to be justice for the slaves who were crucified, but she didn't carefully investigate to discover which ones were responsible. This isn't something that really makes her unsympathetic to audiences, because slave masters aren't sympathetic. But it's still a move in the tyrant direction--blindly committing acts of violence in the name of justice.

-Executing someone without a trial for the crime of executing someone without a trial. The sheer nature of "the rules of justice don't apply to me" is rather staggering.

-She has to be talked down several times from simply flying to King's Landing and burning her way to victory

-She burns the Tarlys because they won't submit to her as their rightful ruler, despite the fact that they've made vows to others. They've surrendered...they simply aren't willing to recognize her as their rightful ruler and there's no particular reason that they should. There's nothing normal about burning people to death in that scenario--they're prisoners of war, something that's happened many times in the story. An easy example is when Robb Stark took Jaime Lannister prisoner. Jaime didn't submit to Robb as his rightful ruler and Robb didn't simply execute him (or the other, less valuable prisoners).

-Less about violent madness, but still part of her progression towards being a tyrant of the type she supposedly hates: her entire claim revolves around who she is and who her father was. Yet, when someone comes along who's claim is superior to her own by her own rules--suddenly she feels threatened because...it was never really about claims and rules. She wants the throne.

Much of her problematic (to understate it) behavior is whitewashed by the fact that the people she's frying or murdering aren't particularly sympathetic or friendly people (Dickon Tarly possibly being the exception). So even though she's manifesting pretty terrible behavior, because she's killing people the audience doesn't like, she still seems like a protagonist within the normal bounds.

The precise turn of her madness seemed set properly when she said, "True mercy is making sure future generations are never held hostage by a tyrant"--i.e. that she's willing to burn up innocent people for the greater good. That turn of madness would have been within her character and been a logical conclusion to her progression. Instead we got, completely out of the blue, essentially "True mercy is just randomly killing innocent people because I'm angry about my life circumstances."

So, yes, the show has been setting up her "madness" for a while, but they botched the end point, giving her a madness that makes no sense.

 

[Pinwheel1]

She already had the thrown won, she murdered Innocents for no purpose. It was outside her character arc. She chained her dragons because they accidently killed one girl but for no reason burned hundreds of thousands? Maybe there is a story of how this could happen but we were never told any of it.

I don't think she felt she did have it won. I think that was tipping point. All the shit she went through only to come to the realization she would never sit on that iron thrown. Inevitably it would go to Jon regardless of his denial that he didn't want it. She basically had lost everything in a matter of weeks. She flipped out. If she wasn't sitting on that thrown....then she was going to make sure that there would be no thrown left for anyone to sit on.

 

[Natebishop3]

Was it obvious to other people that Varys was trying to poison Dany? I totally missed it.

 

[PCmor7]

They were building towards "mad queen," but the way she broke with reality was way outside the scope of what they were driving towards and what was realistic.

They built to this through various events:

-Crucifying a hundred and something great masters. This was supposed to be justice for the slaves who were crucified, but she didn't carefully investigate to discover which ones were responsible. This isn't something that really makes her unsympathetic to audiences, because slave masters aren't sympathetic. But it's still a move in the tyrant direction--blindly committing acts of violence in the name of justice.

-Executing someone without a trial for the crime of executing someone without a trial. The sheer nature of "the rules of justice don't apply to me" is rather staggering.

-She has to be talked down several times from simply flying to King's Landing and burning her way to victory

-She burns the Tarlys because they won't submit to her as their rightful ruler, despite the fact that they've made vows to others. They've surrendered...they simply aren't willing to recognize her as their rightful ruler and there's no particular reason that they should. There's nothing normal about burning people to death in that scenario--they're prisoners of war, something that's happened many times in the story. An easy example is when Robb Stark took Jaime Lannister prisoner. Jaime didn't submit to Robb as his rightful ruler and Robb didn't simply execute him (or the other, less valuable prisoners).

-Less about violent madness, but still part of her progression towards being a tyrant of the type she supposedly hates: her entire claim revolves around who she is and who her father was. Yet, when someone comes along who's claim is superior to her own by her own rules--suddenly she feels threatened because...it was never really about claims and rules. She wants the throne.

Much of her problematic (to understate it) behavior is whitewashed by the fact that the people she's frying or murdering aren't particularly sympathetic or friendly people (Dickon Tarly possibly being the exception). So even though she's manifesting pretty terrible behavior, because she's killing people the audience doesn't like, she still seems like a protagonist within the normal bounds.

The precise turn of her madness seemed set properly when she said, "True mercy is making sure future generations are never held hostage by a tyrant"--i.e. that she's willing to burn up innocent people for the greater good. That turn of madness would have been within her character and been a logical conclusion to her progression. Instead we got, completely out of the blue, essentially "True mercy is just randomly killing innocent people because I'm angry about my life circumstances."

So, yes, the show has been setting up her "madness" for a while, but they botched the end point, giving her a madness that makes no sense.

Crucifying the grandmasters is the one thing that might go to the showrunners "foreshadowing" this side of Dany. But there are so many more examples when her better angels won out.

And it doesn't hold to say "well, she burned the Tarleys, she burned the khals." This isn't modern-day America. This is a medieval continent. If one is to say Dany's actions are a proof of her dark side, then the character of Ned Stark and Jon Snow, who also executed wrongdoers, also are to be questioned. Hey, Jon's a Targeryan, too; maybe he's mad. And Robb didn't execute Jaime because he was being used as a bargaining chip, a hostage ... another tool of medieval warfare and negotiations. Not killing Jaime isn't a sign that they are on higher plane emotionally or morally.

So I would say they didn't even do an effective job of setting it up. If one says they've been setting up her madness, they wouldn't have had her go through so many similar setbacks before only to come out stronger, and they wouldn't have other benevolent characters commit similar reactions throughout the show's run.

 

[Drttimmy]

Was it obvious to other people that Varys was trying to poison Dany? I totally missed it.

Probably his best moment in the show since.....? Too long. One of my favorite characters in the book and show thru the first 4 seasons.

 

[Minstrel]

And it doesn't hold to say "well, she burned the Tarleys, she burned the khals." This isn't modern-day America. This is a medieval continent.

I specifically addressed that burning to death prisoners of war isn't normal even for the world it takes place in. It wasn't even a normal execution--burning people to death is considered particularly cruel, which is a big reason why the Mad King was considered such a monster. Dickon Tarly is burned to death for the crime of standing with his father--it's pretty inconceivable that Ned or Jon or Robb would have done such a thing. Executing "wrong-doers" (like oath-breakers) is completely different. The Tarlys aren't wrong-doers--kneeling to Dany would make them oath-breakers. They're prisoners of war. If they hadn't surrendered, that would be different, but that isn't the situation.

And Robb didn't execute Jaime because he was being used as a bargaining chip, a hostage ... another tool of medieval warfare and negotiations. Not killing Jaime isn't a sign that they are on higher plane emotionally or morally.

I addressed this too, saying he didn't execute the less valuable prisoners of war he took either. This implies that while he'd like to trade Jaime, even if that weren't an issue he probably wouldn't have executed him just for not "kneeling." Let alone burned him to death.

 

[PCmor7]

I specifically addressed that burning to death prisoners of war isn't normal even for the world it takes place in. It wasn't even a normal execution--burning people to death is considered particularly cruel, which is a big reason why the Mad King was considered such a monster. Dickon Tarly is burned to death for the crime of standing with his father--it's pretty inconceivable that Ned or Jon or Robb would have done such a thing. Executing "wrong-doers" (like oath-breakers) is completely different. The Tarlys aren't wrong-doers--kneeling to Dany would make them oath-breakers. They're prisoners of war. If they hadn't surrendered, that would be different, but that isn't the situation.



I addressed this too, saying he didn't execute the less valuable prisoners of war he took either. This implies that while he'd like to trade Jaime, even if that weren't an issue he probably wouldn't have executed him just for not "kneeling." Let alone burned him to death.

Again, I think you are trying to measure Dany by modern-day U.S. standards rather than what one would expect in medieval Europe or the GRRM world. There's no Geneva Convention in that world. What happened to the Tarleys would have been perfectly normal ... if horrific to us ... in that world. Dickon fought in that battle, fought in the previous battle of Highgarden, killed people in those battles. Dany gave both he and his father the opportunity to bend the knee; that might make them oath-breakers, but it's not like that was uncommon either, if not particularly encouraged. They weren't normal foot soldiers. They were enemy commanders.

Execution is execution. Whether you are beheading them, shooting them with arrows, drowning them, flaying them, burning them at the stake.

 

[Natebishop3]

Again, I think you are trying to measure Dany by modern-day U.S. standards rather than what one would expect in medieval Europe or the GRRM world. There's no Geneva Convention in that world. What happened to the Tarleys would have been perfectly normal ... if horrific to us ... in that world. Dickon fought in that battle, fought in the previous battle of Highgarden, killed people in those battles. Dany gave both he and his father the opportunity to bend the knee; that might make them oath-breakers, but it's not like that was uncommon either, if not particularly encouraged. They weren't normal foot soldiers. They were enemy commanders.

Execution is execution. Whether you are beheading them, shooting them with arrows, drowning them, flaying them, burning them at the stake.

I think the problem for me is not that she's going mad and becoming a villain.... it's that lazy fucking HBO didn't give it enough time to make it plausible.

They spent two fucking episodes sitting around chatting before the Battle of Winterfell. Two wasted episodes. I could understand maybe one episode for the chatting and the buildup, but two? When there's only six episodes in the season? That's just lazy and cost saving.

They needed to build this up more. I'm sure GRRM ultimately has her turning bad, but I know he's going to dedicate like 2k pages to it. This was just silly.

 

[PCmor7]

I think the problem for me is not that she's going mad and becoming a villain.... it's that lazy fucking HBO didn't give it enough time to make it plausible.

They spent two fucking episodes sitting around chatting before the Battle of Winterfell. Two wasted episodes. I could understand maybe one episode for the chatting and the buildup, but two? When there's only six episodes in the season? That's just lazy and cost saving.

They needed to build this up more. I'm sure GRRM ultimately has her turning bad, but I know he's going to dedicate like 2k pages to it. This was just silly.

Yeah, and I think I've written that somewhere. Maybe it wasn't here.

To my way of thinking, they didn't do enough to set up this turn. It's really more of a swerve. It'd almost make more sense if she was just playing a role all along.

It seems for everyone saying they were foreshadowing this for years, everything they post can at least be held in question, and the amount of times Dany did something exactly opposite to a predisposition of madness outweigh those.

It was lazy writing. That's the big problem. Even if they laid the groundwork, the showrunners tore down the groundwork they laid time after time.

 

[Natebishop3]

Yeah, and I think I've written that somewhere. Maybe it wasn't here.

To my way of thinking, they didn't do enough to set up this turn. It's really more of a swerve. It'd almost make more sense if she was just playing a role all along.

It seems for everyone saying they were foreshadowing this for years, everything they post can at least be held in question, and the amount of times Dany did something exactly opposite to a predisposition of madness outweigh those.

It was lazy writing. That's the big problem. Even if they laid the groundwork, the showrunners tore down the groundwork they laid time after time.

The whole season has felt like a fucking Cliff Notes.

 

[Scalma]

Probably his best moment in the show since.....? Too long. One of my favorite characters in the book and show thru the first 4 seasons.

I honestly didn’t appreciate him until he started appearing less and less. I also miss Olenna. The politics in the earlier seasons kind of made the show.

 

[Minstrel]

Again, I think you are trying to measure Dany by modern-day U.S. standards rather than what one would expect in medieval Europe or the GRRM world. There's no Geneva Convention in that world. What happened to the Tarleys would have been perfectly normal ... if horrific to us ... in that world.

Right, I'm saying that it hasn't been normal within that world. Prisoners of war aren't summarily executed (let alone burned to death) within that world. In that world, prisoners of war aren't required to bend the knee or else be killed, at least until the war is over. While the war is still ongoing and they still have liege lords, they're generally permitted to remain loyal to their lords, but they remain prisoners if so.

 

[trailblazer18]

New theory: Cersei is a Targaryan (blonde hair, use of wildfire to burn them all, etc..) and will rise from the ashes like a phoenix. She will destroy those who took everything from her and take her place back on the Iron Throne! That is bittersweet, right?

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Dany is going to die.
However, if you think that's bittersweet, bittersweet does not mean what you think it means.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

I liked much of the latest episode, but part of me thinks it's worse than episode 3 (and that's saying a lot).

If you're going to be queen "to help people", you don't go on a rampage that will take the kingdom decades to recover from - no matter how "mad" you are.

#StupidStarWarsAllOverAgain

 

[hoopsjock]

New theory: Cersei is a Targaryan (blonde hair, use of wildfire to burn them all, etc..) and will rise from the ashes like a phoenix. She will destroy those who took everything from her and take her place back on the Iron Throne! That is bittersweet, right?

Weren't there some theories that Tyrion was going to turn out to be Targaryen? I think they were fueled during an episode when he went into the area where the dragons were chained up and the dragons were chill with him. What if Dany sentences him to death and burns him like Varys but he doesn't die?

Cersei died because of the Red Keep collapsing on her, not fire. I think that would be kind of a weird way to explain her living.

 

[hoopsjock]

Can Bran warg into the dragon? That would've been badass if it showed Dany going crazy and trying to burn the city but her dragon refused to spray fire upon the innocent people and then at the end it shows that Bran warged into him. It would possibly save Bran's character from being completely useless other than to show the audience past events. Or when all seems lost at the end Bran wargs into the dragon and kills all the unsullied/dothraki (how are there any left other than Greyworm?) and either eats Dany or they are able to "arrest" her since she has no army or dragons to protect her. It wouldn't change the fact that her turning mad seemed out of character but it would be pretty cool.

Do you guys think that Dany is going to die in the last episode or end up with the throne but it being completely worthless? If she dies how would you predict it to happen (please no one answer that knows the ending)? Aria could kill Greyworm and take his face. Tyrion could stab her in the back and become the new "Kingslayer". I don't think she'd get close enough to Jon to let him have a chance to.

Speaking of Jon, what happens to him? Does Dany kill him? Does he retire north of The Wall? Does he end up on the throne at the end?

If there still is a throne, who will be sitting on it when all is said and done? Dany? Jon? Sansa? Tyrion? Is it possible that anyone other than those 4 could be the one? If Dany and Jon both die wouldn't the rightful heir be Gendry, lol? Now that he has been legitimized as a Baratheon wouldn't he technically be the last living person with a lineage claim for the throne? I think that would be kind of lame for it to turn out that way but what if he and Aria do then get married so Gendry and Aria are King and Queen and they have babies and all that after she took The Hound's advice not to let vengeance consume her. That's not my prediction but it seems like something just crazy enough for George RR Martin to do.

 

[Natebishop3]

People have been begging for HBO to remake this season..... that obviously will never happen.

I want an alternate timeline where King Robert doesn't die, Westeros isn't plunged into war, and then Dany comes over with her armies and we see a proper fight.

And then they have to stop fighting because the NK has passed the wall, sacked Winterfell, and now their combined remaining forces have to march north to kill the pointy headed mofo.

 

[hoopsjock]

People have been begging for HBO to remake this season..... that obviously will never happen.

I want an alternate timeline where King Robert doesn't die, Westeros isn't plunged into war, and then Dany comes over with her armies and we see a proper fight.

And then they have to stop fighting because the NK has passed the wall, sacked Winterfell, and now their combined remaining forces have to march north to kill the pointy headed mofo.

Well, if George RR Martin ever finishes the books we'd have an alternate ending that way. Wouldn't quite be as extreme as yours but he doesn't have to follow the path of the show.

 

[PCmor7]

The Tarlys aren't wrong-doers--kneeling to Dany would make them oath-breakers. They're prisoners of war. If they hadn't surrendered, that would be different, but that isn't the situation.

It just dawned on me, but the Tarlys already were oathbreakers. They broke an oath to House Tyrell, which was supporting Dany, to support Cersei's claim to the throne.

So they not only were oathbreakers. They were traitors.

 

[Minstrel]

It just dawned on me, but the Tarlys already were oathbreakers. They broke an oath to House Tyrell, which was supporting Dany, to support Cersei's claim to the throne.

So they not only were oathbreakers. They were traitors.

That's not clear. They had multiple oaths--both to Highgarden as well as the Crown. Highgarden supporting a rebel probably doesn't oblige the Tarlys to break their oath to the Crown.

 

[PCmor7]

That's not clear. They had multiple oaths--both to Highgarden as well as the Crown. Highgarden supporting a rebel probably doesn't oblige the Tarlys to break their oath to the Crown.

LOL. You are reaching now. So they have multiple oaths to different sides so they aren't oathbreakers. That's very convenient. That definition makes oathbreaking absolute and impossible at the same time.

Like I said, oathbreaking happens at the drop of a hat in this series. You want it both ways now to support your argument.

 

[Minstrel]

LOL. You are reaching now. So they have multiple oaths to different sides so they aren't oathbreakers. That's very convenient. That definition makes oathbreaking absolute and impossible at the same time.

That's hardly reaching. The Crown is the highest loyalty. Every ruler demands that. The paramount house in their region is their secondary oath. This was common in our world to, in feudal times. A count may owe allegiance to his duke, but not over his king or queen. If the duke then supports a rebel cause, the count's loyalty is not to join the duke in revolt (though, obviously, he could if he also supports the revolt) but to the monarch.

They didn't have "oaths to multiple sides." They had oaths to two parties, until one party (Highgarden) broke their oath (to the Crown). At that point, the Tarlys ethically (by the standards of that world, but also by ours in a different era) only had an oath to the Crown.

 

[PCmor7]

That's hardly reaching. The Crown is the highest loyalty. Every ruler demands that. The paramount house in their region is their secondary oath. This was common in our world to, in feudal times. A count may owe allegiance to his duke, but not over his king or queen. If the duke then supports a rebel cause, the count's loyalty is not to join the duke in revolt (though, obviously, he could if he also supports the revolt) but to the monarch.

They didn't have "oaths to multiple sides." They had oaths to two parties, until one party (Highgarden) broke their oath (to the Crown). At that point, the Tarlys ethically (by the standards of that world, but also by ours in a different era) only had an oath to the Crown.

You are picking what suits you at this point. They have conflicting oaths. The Tarlys had oaths to the Targeryans, then the Baratheons, then the Lannisters, but they also had one to the Tyrells. You first say they are oathbreakers if they go with Dany, then the oaths are unclear, now you say their oath is to the crown first.

Your argument is as changeable as the Tarleys' oath.

DRACARYS!

 

[Minstrel]

You are picking what suits you at this point. They have conflicting oaths.

I explained how they don't. You're welcome to provide some counter-logic, but just saying "No, they're conflicting" isn't really an argument.

And yes, oaths to rulers that were vanquished and replaced have gone by the wayside. That's never been considered "oath-breaking"--in that world, or ours. Oath-breaking involves breaking faith with a (lawful) lord or monarch that still exists as lord or monarch. Once the Targaryens were destroyed, no one owed them fealty.

You first say they are oathbreakers if they go with Dany, then the oaths are unclear, now you say their oath is to the crown first.

The first and third things are consistent. They have an oath to the Crown first, which is why they'd be oath-breakers if they joined Dany. The second thing, it being unclear, I realized was wrong as I worked through the logic in my post. It isn't unclear--they had two oaths, but one superceded the other. If keeping oaths was important, they correctly prioritized their oath to the Crown, as that's always the highest loyalty demanded.

 

[Natebishop3]

Well, if George RR Martin ever finishes the books we'd have an alternate ending that way. Wouldn't quite be as extreme as yours but he doesn't have to follow the path of the show.

I think it's possible the ending will be the same..... but how we get there will be very different.

 

[Drttimmy]

Well, if George RR Martin ever finishes the books we'd have an alternate ending that way. Wouldn't quite be as extreme as yours but he doesn't have to follow the path of the show.

I have no doubt Ice and Fire will end differently than Game of Thrones, with the living vs the wights being the primary storyline and given much more emphasis than it's given in the show. Martin may be verbose on paper, but he doesn't waste words. He's referenced the legend of Azor Ahai and Nissa Nissa too many times, for it not to play out in the final two books. Who represents those characters will be fun to find out, but more importantly, I think it's the promise or fore-warning that ultimately the final game of thrones showdown will be between the new Azor Ahai vs wightwalkers or light vs darkness or fire vs ice - as the book saga is named. I get why the show isn't choosing to go that path, as from a production stand point it's cost prohibitive to carry out over several episodes or a full season.

Both Martin and the showrunners say the book/show endings are bittersweet, but I think they'll be bittersweet for different reasons. For Martin and books, the Azor Ahai legend may be foretelling that Jon Snow will have to sacrifice his love or wife - Dany - in order to defeat the whitewalkers. There doesn't have to be betrayal or resentment between Dany and Jon Snow for this to happen, and she may even embrace or bless her sacrifice. It could be a real tearjerker. Obviously, that's not really the situation in the show, as there's likely no remaining love between them at this point, and Dany is no longer a protagonist in the story and probably going to be portrayed as an enemy for the viewers to root against. So, some other protagonist will likely have to be sacrificed to make it bittersweet. I'd guess Jon or Tyrion. Whoever is left, will be king and grant the North their independence. Maybe Jon will be king and grant the North their sovereignty, but must stay in Kings Landing as king of six kingdoms to keep the deal in place. And that would be bittersweet for Jon, since he loves his snow. I'm not sure what part Bran plays in all this. Maybe he goes back to the cave, melds into that tree and is the 3 eyed raven. That's a somewhat sad ending for the little boy who wanted to be a knight so badly. Aria may stay with Jon and be his silent hand who does the dirty work while Davos is the hand for show. Brienne is named to the Kingsguard. Sansa runs the North. I guess that's everyone who is left.

 

[Minstrel]

I have no doubt Ice and Fire will end differently than Game of Thrones, with the living vs the wights being the primary storyline and given much more emphasis than it's given in the show. Martin may be verbose on paper, but he doesn't waste words. He's referenced the legend of Azor Ahai and Nissa Nissa too many times, for it not to play out in the final two books. Who represents those characters will be fun to find out, but more importantly, I think it's the promise or fore-warning that ultimately the final game of thrones showdown will be between the new Azor Ahai vs wightwalkers or light vs darkness or fire vs ice - as the book saga is named. I get why the show isn't choosing to go that path, as from a production stand point it's cost prohibitive to carry out over several episodes or a full season.

Both Martin and the showrunners say the book/show endings are bittersweet, but I think they'll be bittersweet for different reasons. For Martin and books, the Azor Ahai legend may be foretelling that Jon Snow will have to sacrifice his love or wife - Dany - in order to defeat the whitewalkers. There doesn't have to be betrayal or resentment between Dany and Jon Snow for this to happen, and she may even embrace or bless her sacrifice. It could be a real tearjerker.

I've been thinking that Azor Ahai may not be a person at all, but rather the Night's Watch. In their vow, they say things like:

"I am the sword in the darkness"
"I am the fire that burns against the cold"
"I am the light that brings the dawn"

All sentiments that wouldn't be out of place with the Azor Ahai legend.

Plus, as part of joining the Watch, all the men forsake taking wives. That may be the symbolic Nissa Nissa sacrifice.

 

[Stumptown14]

As soon as Danny went bonkers and started destroying the capitol city i started thinking about what happens next. Whats the next move of any tyrant? To dispach anybody who has a claim to the throne and could become a threat to your rule. Sinse there is only one episode left in the whole series, I'm pretty darn sure danny is going to kill Jon and maybe gendry too in it for treason or some other made up offence.

It would be cool if tyrion becomes the mad queen killer. That would be poetic justice.