The problem with the whole Tarly situation was Randyll acted extremely out of character. More importantly, no one pointed out that Randyll had betrayed Olenna, his rightful liege. By that logic, Daenerys had the right to execute him.
@@Sam-xr8ne While that was a jerk move, (and kinslaying), Daenerys didn't know that at the time. She didn't even know Sam yet. Her right to execute Randyll was based on his treason against Olenna, her vassal. This would send the message that she protects (or avenges) her own.
For the reasons you've stated, it makes no sense for the Westerosi to be upset about Tarly's death. For modern people, senseless death is senseless death. She should have imprisoned or exiled him, but killing Tarly makes her no less insane than any other Westerosi lord.
In the books, Dani advisors like Dario and Skahaz try to convince her to kill children, to kill all the rich families in Meereen etc. She refuses to do it.
@@orsonlannister9847 Yup, people are saying that the sixth book won't be out until 2022, people even say that he won't work on part 2 of Fire and Blood until he finishes the seventh and final book, and who knows how long that will take. In fact, who knows if George R.R. Martin will live that much longer.
3:00 completely insane isn’t it. Remember in season 1 when Danny was horrified at the pillaging and raping of towns & tried to save a bunch of widows? EVEN though Jorah & her blood rider adviced her against it & where unbothered by the horrors? And Season 3 both Jorah and Barriston advised Danny to go to Westeros & bit to invade the cities of Slavers bay whereas Danny refused & insisted they had to save the slaves. And they comminuted to insist leaving Slavers bay for Westeros but Danny wanted to stay and do good. Also remember all of the bad advice Dario & Olenna give Danny to be brutal & violent that Danny constantly ignores. D&D once again making up & retconning none sense to try and justify their lazy bad writing
But they are super smart boys that know caring about anything and be willing to do things that are violent in the fight against injustice (I.e killing the slavers) is just a slippery slope to mass murdering people who look at you funny or....for just existing. It's so typical of their juvenile nihilist "edginess" they seem to think is so compelling and cool and smart.
Let me add something else, D&D said power corrupted Dany. Remember when Dany locked up her greatest source of power, her dragons that she loved. And why did Dany lock up her dragons, to protect the innocent. You couldn't make this BS up
When I watched the Tarley Roast scene I was completely unmoved. It seemed to me that Dany gave them absolutely all the mercy that she could possibly be expected to. Especially Dickkon. Didn't seem at all mad to me. Pretty fair, honestly.
@@kawadashogo8258 For me it's more that they claimed actions/scenes showed she was growing into a monster but when I watched those scenes they didn't seem remotely monstrous to me.... until the final, unexpected turn.... :(
Yup, D and D were trying to make excuses for their season 8 nonsense. And grabbing at scenes to try to excuse it even though those specific scenes may actually undermine rather than support their claims is part of it. They were likely hoping people wouldn't notice that executing Randyll Tarly would be considered sane within Westerosi society-especially as she offered him a chance to live and he did not extend that same chance to her ally Lady Olenna.
Idk if I would call a brutal execution fair but it was certainly justified. Jon's execution of Olly and the other traitors was more morally ambiguous than what Dany did.
the thing is how did it made her look to the people she concered there? Why do you think Tyrion looked in horror at it? Because he was sad over Tarlys demise? Yeah, sure he probably loved the guy . . . . no seriously, she styled herself as her father there. Westeros seas her as a foreing invader, bringing with her babarians and rapers and the first thing she does is burning defeated people alive . . . great job in showing your different, that you want to be a good ruler, that you are not as fickel and murder happy as your famously cruel and unjust father . . .
My own explanation for the resurrection of The Dothraki is that Bran resets reality at the end of each episode of season 8. All the amnesia is down to the same cause.
Which truly foreshadowed how evil and insane Ned was. Luckily heroic Joffrey took him out when Ned completely snapped and tried to usurp the throne and kill the royal family after hearing the bells that announced Robert's death...by executing him. Wait a minute, what was that last part... Aaaaaahhhhghrrr...*stopped functioning*
My favourite thing about the behind the scenes book was their logic behind not having Jon kill the NK. They were "tired of Jon always saving the day" Jon Snow, the man who literally never saved the day, made pretty much every situation he got into worse and constantly needed to be rescued. The guy who was so bad at saving the day that one time he needed to be rescued from being rescued. I have a suspicion the the writers didn't even watch their own show, just youtube hype and reaction videos lol.
And even if what they said was real, it is kinda fitting for this world/universe when you think about the power prophecies like Azor Ahai have. One of the biggest question in the books is, who is gonna be the Azor Ahai of the "modern" time. The show adapts this mystery to a certain degree, perfectly sets up Jon for this, everything is in place and they suddenly change their minds but kept the parts of it still in the show. I mean, Jon even killed his Nissa Nissa aka Dany, but after the whole thing went down. Its truly insane
Seriously, if Jon killed the NK him getting constantly shat on by life and failing at everything would at least be consistent with the prophecy. The Last hero (believed to be the Westerosi retelling of Azor Ahai)'s quest is a constant downward spiral, he literally fails until he has lost everyone and everything but himself before he presumably discovers a way to defeat the WW and save the day.
"Honor made you leave, and honor brought you back... I didn't say it was your honor." To say Jon always made the right decision, whether or not he was advised beforehand, is a flat out lie.
@@Borgcow A lot of people dont think it was Jon's decision, at least not conpletely. Benjin subtly manipulates him when his piss drunk and there also some evidence for Ghost/Bloodraven/FutureBran altering his behavior.
@@asddsdsssd woah wait, Benjen manipulates him too? I’ve never heard this take before, can you elaborate? Definitely seems like Leuwin manipulates him, possibly in conspiracy with Cat, and of course Ghost plays his part especially later in keeping him in the Nights Watch, both when Jon tries to escape and when he’s considering accepting Stannis’ offer to make him a Stark. Future Bran and Bloodraven could be involved instead/as well but Benjen seemed against it when he talks to Jon initially, and then as if to confirm that he’s kinda cold to Jon when with his Black Brothers. Still, regardless of whether Jon was manipulated into it, he had a choice, he made it, and it was a bad one
@@Borgcow don't bother it's bullshit. Benjin specifically tells him not to join and to wait until he's older. It's the maesters who talks Ned into allowing him to join. Benjin is never in favor for it only accepts it after the fact.
Dany locked up her dragons (her children) because she believed they were hurting innocent children. Yep. That's definitely something an evil person would do...🤨
I think they ruined the show because they fell in love with Lena. The show did not need Cersei past season 6. However, because they didn't plan for season 7 and 8, they had to waste season 7 trying to make Cersei a threat which distroyed the show. I bet if Cersei was a stark, Dan and Dave will suddenly remember there are angry people in the street of Kingslanding.
No, it’ll be like the Star Wars prequels. In 10 years the fans who “grew up with seasons 5-8” will make UA-cam videos declaring them secret masterpieces
I think the ending makes more sense if you swap out Cerci with young Griff. Danny's reason to assault king's landing being to 'liberate' the smallfolk is gone if Griff has already taken it and is loved by the people for being a fair and just monarch. From then on Danny is stuck with an army of foreign mercenaries and Dothraki screamers who are keen for a fight and won't be satisfied with "well let's go home lol" Danny can't really stop her own war machine without total victory. Based on Danny's character being as independent as she is I don't think she'll accept a marriage with Griff either.
I tend to think they swapped Dany and Aegon/ Joncon's ending out. I don't know if Dany will ever make it to King's Landing and the Bells and mercy/brutality is JonCons lesson.
Agree. Except I think its going to be Young Griff who rejects the marriage proposal to Dany. Dany has shown in the past that she's willing to marry for political gain.
I think what will happen is Young Griff takes out King's Landing after the Church is blown up with the Tyrells in it. Power vacuum helps to explain how he could just snipe out the Capital, especially with a rioting populace. When Daenarys lands, she is stumped. In either case both Young Griff and Jon Snow claim to be Targaryens, and I think she will see Young Griff, as the first claimant as legitimate, possibly until she meets Jon, then both will be declared illegitimate by her. The Faith is another consideration, they don't like incest. Either candidate is incest. With all of those factors in play, my personal favorite version of events is that Young Griff and Daenarys team up, and have a planned marriage alliance and take down King's Landing together. (The dragons burn large parts of the city here.) Young Griff is left behind to administer the Kingdom, while Daenarys skips up North, to bring the North to heel. Jon shows her the Undead, and she decides to help save this part of the Kingdom, contingent on the idea that the North will be reintegrated. In short, Jon and Daenarys win the battle in the North, both people lose a ton of important characters, and one dragon is killed somehow. Young Griff breaks the alliance during this, cementing an alliance with what remains of the Tyrells (likely Loras, could be a union with his gay commander forget his name). As Daenarys and Jon attack King's Landing the Dragonbinder horn and whatever else Euron plans pops off. The Dragon Daenarys is flying is mind controlled and starts to burn the city. Jon with his dragon attack Daenarys, resulting in Jons dragons death, and his assumed death. Daenarys has regained control of the dragon and now burns the Ironborn and Lannister forces indiscriminately. Jon turns out to have lived. He is distraught to see that the city is so heavily damaged, seeing that Daenarys had torched the city with Young Griff before as well. Seeing Daenarys dragon torch much of the city a second time he doesn't think anyone can handle the power of a dragon. Jon and Daenarys argue about what should be done going forwards. Daenarys has gone a bit extra crazy, due to seeing so many dead dragons and accuses Jon of being an illegitimate Targaryen. Jon ends up killing Daenarys on the spot. Jon likely dies too. Bran is doing things this whole time of some sort, and sets up an electoral monarchy for life. He is elected first king. There are definitely quite a few different ways it can go. It is also possible the great battle for King's Landing happens as Young Griff + Euron vs Daenarys before the Undead are even defeated, rather than two battles occurring. I do think that much of the writing for the book hinges on Young Griff, and the show was largely ruined by his VERY key plot points being gobbled up by other surrounding characters. Cersei will likely be dead before even 1/3rd of the way through the next book, for instance. A large part of the Daenarys vs Targaryen Claimants plots will surround what she thinks of the legitimacy of their claims.
@@meaganleckie3373 What about the church blowing up making a power vacuum, in both the faith and the Tyrells? Young Griff could easily take the city at that point and largely replace Cersei from the show from that point.
@@alecshockowitz8385 well considering the Tyrells are/were Targ loyalists they don't have to die for Aegon to take power. I personally think they're plotting behind the scenes to help that happen and Loras will be outside the city leading and army when Aegon shows up, possibly right on cue for the trial. I do see the Sept blowing up but I think the triggering event will be JonCon laying waste to the city. He learned from the battle of the Bells and has a constant thought that had Tywin led that army the town would have been decimated and Robert wouldn't have escaped. I think he's going to blow up the city (not purposely triggering the wildfire) in the process. The ruined city will then have a Greyscale outbreak or something to that effect because that has to be tied in. Either way I don't think Dany will ever make it to King's Landing. If you've never heard of the Exodus Theory check it out on Reddit. It posits instead of Daenarys coming to Westeros, Jon will travel to Braavos than inland to Essos and they'll meet up and plan the Battle for the Dawn pt. 2. It's really fun.
I think D&D liked the shock value of the story but not the themes that GRRM was going for. They kind of back themselves into a corner by cutting so much of the book material.
"Dany needed her advisors to coerce her to do the right thing" I seem to recall her ignoring her advisors lots of times in an attempt to be a good person. Protecting Lhazareen women from being raped even though it undermined her position among the Dothraki and those peasants couldn't help her attempt to head west to Westeros in any way. Giving the Unsullied their freedom after the sack of Astapor, risking the loss of a ready made army, instead of never giving them the option. Locking up her dragons, thus knowingly stunting their growth, because one of them killed one peasant child. Ffs, she even told Jon she was going to help kill the Night King BEFORE he told her he'd bend the knee when any lord of Westeros would of laughed in Jon's face and started constructing a new Wall south of the Neck. The best that detractors can point to in regards to Dany's 'madness' is; 1) Her executing patriarchs of the slaver families in Mereen who ordered over a hundred slaves to be crucified as a statement 2) Executing a treasonous lord and his heir who killed their rightful overlord Tywin Lannister did both of those things and was never called mad. He ordered and orchestrated the Red Wedding which killed many lords and heirs of the North as well as 1,000s of Northern soldiers. He also is infamous for destroying two houses because their lords insulted his house. The madness angle was just D&D wanting to end the story in a particular way and attempting to shoehorn Dany's character into a mold it didn't fit.
I think if she goes mad in the books it will be done far more gracefully if p.e. follows Quaithe's word and goes to the shadow Ashai etc there it might go coocoo or as it happens often in those books she might die and come back not quite the same in fact I'd like that coming back with fire magic and getting coocoo in the process.
the madness angle makes a lot of sense though they totaly fucked up the portrail. . . I fear for people will be enraged when grrm does a good job with it, people will be outraged all the same for they fucked it up so badly . . .
@@SingingSealRiana I don't think so if p.e. Lady Stoneheart is like a warning of what might happen to Danny , I don't think people would be outraged if it is done in a graceful way . The fact is that the show painted her as liberator constantly even in this scene where she burns the Dothraki Khals which are the rapists and bad but the show makes her leader of Dothraki where it wasn't only the leaders who attacked and kill innocent villagers , do slave trade with the slave cities and rape anything they could it was all the Dothraki it is in their whole culture of horse supremacy or something. That was conveniently left out in the episodes where she burns the Khals and gets all the Dothraki under her a little later next season she is a power hungry lady with an anger and while Tyrion actually does whatever he can to lose the war she does whatever she can to win it and we should think that this is crazy. The fact is in the show for many seasons Danny could do no wrong for the producers until the last season where she could do no right and after that they told us that we are complete morons because we didn't see the signs or foreshadowing in the previous seasons which was non existent and forgeting even their interviews in the previous seasons and how they talked about the character then. Nobody was pissed about how Breaking Bad characters were evolved to be more sinister by time the opposite everyone was thrilled to see more of it why it was done well. I believe if GRR Martin does it well people will like it.
@@annavafeiadou4420 actualy even in the show it was not an out of nowhere change, something was of with her quite early one, but expecting her to be awesome and the exitment over dragons made people overlook those warning signs. Like her obcesion with her titals makes her comparable with Joffrey who got a reprime from Tywin stating that if he needs to tell people, he does not truely hold them . . . but joffrey was a monster and dany tried very hard to do good, so people did not make the connection. Or her apathy in regards of her brothers death, yes he was cruel and all, but he raised her, she loved him for he was all she had and then she feels nothing . . . Lots of people defend her as perfect, state show dany is nothing like book dany and book dany would never ever do anything like that so yeah, I expect those to hate the twist on accossiation, even if it gets pulled of way more gracefuly
Ygritte killed his Dad, he was justified in what he did. So many people do this historical revisionism and forget that Ollie is an orphan partially because of Ygritte and entirely because of the wildlings
@@tripledigit4835 Exactly, many people would react the same way if they were Ollie. He watched his entire family, friends, and village get murdered, raped, and destroyed by Wildlings.
Omg I knew I couldn't be the only one who gets infuriated by the way Tyrion whispers "It's not yours to decide", or whatever exactly he says. It really makes my blood boil how he's forced to sound the second half of the season.
What's so evil about relying on others for morality? Yes, we should try to be moral of our own choice. However, morality usually concerns the treatment of others and who would know better how well you treat others than those other people themselves? You might think you're being nice to someone, but that person may feel harassed. Democracy is the political embodiment of this. Morality is not one single thing, not one certain philosophy. It's great to have a personal desire to do good and to be good, and think about your actions. However, there is nothing wrong with listening to friends, family, and advisors. D&D are insanely immature. They have a middle school mentality.
They literally bought their way into the writer role, they were unqualified for the position. These are the hacks who wrote X-Men Origins Wolverine, what else can I say.
Not that I agree with him, but the point Graves is making is not so much that Dany is evil because she listens to her advisors for moral counsel, it's that she is the wrong choice to rule when compared with Snow because of what each character's primary and most consistent motivations are. Breaking it down, I think most people would agree that Jon Snow's primary motivators are: Family, honor, and duty. I think most people would agree that Dany's primary motivators are: Justice, progress, and birthright/destiny. At 8:50 Graves makes his assertion, eventually saying that "Danaerys is a character that prefers to do the right thing, so long as doing the right thing didn't undermine her own ambition or authority to rule (birthright/destiny)." When faced with these conflicting choices, Dany needs her advisors to steer her toward the moral choice, at least according to Graves. Contrast this to Snow, who has similar conflicts where he has to prioritize one motivator over the other, but since his motivators are all seemingly "good," his choices are all ultimately noble even if they end catastrophically. Granted, Preston gives examples to refute this take as well but I think he is a little obtuse in the way he addresses it.
The Tarlys were oathbreakers, they betrayed their liege lords, the Tyrells. And it's established many times on the show and in the books that oathbreaking is one of the worst crimes in Westeros. Also, Jorah advised against helping the slaves. Dany chose to ignore that advice.
Actually no. We're repeatedly hit with the phrase 'words are wind.' Sometimes we see people break major oaths without consequences. Other times we see them break minor oaths but face heavy consequences. Oaths themselves are weightless. What matters is the integrity of the people who swear the oaths, whether or not the people in power are willing to enforce them, and whether or not there are any circumstances which might convince people sympathize with the oathbreaker.
What's more perplexing is the Tarlys, and their liegelords the Tyrells, remained loyal to the Targaryens during Robert's Rebellion. Randyll was one of the most prominent loyalist generals. He bent the knee to Robert without issue. Why the f*ck would he all of a sudden be loyal to Cersei of all people!!?? It makes zero sense. Randyll wasn't completely morally rigid and inflexible like Stannis. Randyll had already shown himself to be a harsh but pragmatic lord.
@@GumaroRVillamil because from his perspective he also has an obligation to Cersei because she was on the Iron Throne. why do people forget this? Jaime's hot tub scene made this very clear. people have multiple obligations they are supposed to honor. if your king says to kill your father, do you follow it? Randyll Tarly had an oath to the Tyrell's as thei direct liege lord but he also has an oath to the king/queen of the Iron Throne aside from the politics behind why they sit there. from his perspective, Cersei is already sitting on the throne and ruling the 7 kingdoms despite the politics behind how she got there. if Randyll had joined Daenerys therefore committing treason against Cersei, and they lost then Randyll is now a traitor to Cersei. to him, it's the devil you know versus the devil you don't. he knows nothing about Daenerys as a person. he might not like Cersei, but at least he knows her and she's in closer proximity to get retaliation against him if he did treason against her and she wins Randyll remaining loyal to the Targaryens during the rebellion, as far as we know, is honoring the obligation to fight for whoever sits the Iron Throne just like the current situation. we have no idea how Randyll felt about the Mad King personally, so it's very possible he has no good view of him at all and fought for House Targaryen during the rebellion because that was his obligation and House Tyrell also fought for them. if Randyll had a negative view of the Mad King who was the last ruler from House Targaryen, to him he could be thinking why would I want the daughter of the Mad King who could herself be just as bad if not worse than Aerys or even Cersei also it wasn't as clear cut as the rebellion. House Tyrell fought for House Targaryen against Robert Baratheon. meaning House Tarly honored their obligation to the lord of the region and the king of the entire country. but the current situation has the lord of the region going against the "king" of the country. Rebellion = Florida and the Feds on the same side. Daenerys invading = Florida vs the Feds on opposing sides. as a resident of Florida, the choice isn't cut and dry
@@cyberninjazero5659 But the whole point is that it was never established that Dany is the kind of person who would suddenly just transform into Curtis LeMay and wipe out a city. Everything she had done up to that point was just normal monarch stuff but it was presented as tyrannical and insane because reasons even though plenty of other characters had done the same or worse and were treated like it's just fine and cool. It's like, with all the other characters, it's feudalism and monarchy and we've got to understand and respect that, but with Dany suddenly it's like, oh no she acts like a medieval ruler, she's a bloodthirsty fascist tyrant overriding democracy, we can't have an individual ruler making decisions on her own and waging a war for her claim on a throne and executing people who are waging open war against her. And then on that basis there's this leap to her just going apeshit and burning down a whole city, and it comes out of fucking nowhere. The whole basis of it is this ridiculous double standard where everyone else can act like kings and lords but if it's Dany, then it's bad and evil for a monarch to act like a monarch, and so it logically follows that if she's acting like a monarch she must want to just slaughter everyone in sight. The whole thing is stupid and nonsensical.
Part of what's so stupid about the last season is how after 8 years of warfare all of a sudden the show adopts this modern pacifist worldview, and you have people like Tyrion who once burned Stannis' army with wildfire and Varys who tried to arrange a Dothraki invasion of Westeros suddenly advising Dany that making war is evil and bad. All of a sudden you can only be either Gandhi or Chinggis Khan and there's nothing in between. If Dany acts like a perfectly normal medieval feudal ruler, then she must be a psychotic mass murderer because, by season 8, still having the medieval personality that everyone else had had in previous seasons is now a sign of madness and somebody who must want to slaughter whole cities (even if that entirely contradicts the way her character has been since the beginning of the show, always trying to minimize suffering whenever possible). There's no longer any room for complexity and degrees of scale here whatsoever; you're either a modern hippie pacifist or a genocidal tyrant.
@@kawadashogo8258 interesting point. I think the showrunners wanted to make the anti-war message that is at the foundation of the books, but after multiple seasons of war being mostly badass and accompanied by the good guys’ winning music and then not dealing with the consequences, it comes out of left field that all these people are now anti-war. I suppose that’s what they were going for when Tyrion sadly watches the end of that S7 battle he shouldn’t even have been at. That’s too little too late though, and Anti-war Varys is just insanely hypocritical
@@Borgcow Dany was an anti war message???, Did you not watch the battle of the bastards, all I saw was the glamorisation of war and Sansa feeding a prisoner of war to her dogs. So basically what your saying is, war is only okay if the Starks do it?
Tywin was one of the most evil and crule people in the story. What he did to Tysha. Ordered the mountain to r@pe and k!ll innocent people in the riverlands
While Tywin definitely wanted tighter control over Tommen it was still great advice. A monarch should always heed the consul of those that are experts in any given field.
@@ivanenfinger9331 yes, but I dunno about GREAT advice. Tywin didn’t try teaching Tommen how to pick a good adviser, just to listen to the ones he’s got- Tywin, and whoever else Tywin allows. Plus it strikes me as better real world advice than GoT advice. Varys advised Aerys to open the gates to Tywin himself and look how that went. In the show Tyrion advises Dany to basically lose the war. Stannis’ allies convinced him to leave the Red Woman at home during the Battle of the Blackwater. Until he teaches how to recognize a good advisor, Tywin’s advice is just self-serving
I always thought his plan from the beginning was to die before finishing the books. The central theme of the books being .... you never get the whole story cause folks die. 😁
F**k. Buy me a straight jacket cuz I'm going MAD if he doesn't finish. My older brother got me into ASOIAF on the 90s... I refuse to accept the D&D ending.
The gender thing was my top problem with the finale. The same show lauds the vengeful brutality displayed by Arya (who is more masculine presenting) but when Danny makes a perfectly logical decision to burn Lord Tarly after he refuses to bend the knee, she’s seen as evil. I mean she’s a conqueror and a queen. What else was she supposed to do?
The problem is not that she executed him, that was logical, but how, in a way that was cruel, and that is clashes horrably with her "Oh so mercyful" act. You can not conquer without a certain ruthlessness. But burning things to the ground is the last thing you should do if you want people to belive you are benevolent. Arya was never framed as thinking of herself as careing, so we do not expect ot of her. If Dany wanted to be seen as a good ruler, a ruler of the people, she should have got that she can not just say that or not even that, she must demonstrait that. Thats the difference between her and Jon, Jon does not expect people to follow him blindly for whatever reason, he fights for them, he proves himself and that following him is their best chance. SHe on the other hand burns people who defend their home from invadors and claims they betraied her for she is their rightful ruler . . . . . Jon is in no way perfect and god he has corpses in his basment to, but their styl of ruleing is extreamly different. Both do and have every right to kill someone who stabed them in the back, but he understood and was willing to deal with haveing to convince people who started out in opposition to him while she . . . just burned everything. Lord Tarly really was not the problem, but killing him without a trial and in a very painful way was terrible for her image, especialy for she burned the still quite young Dickon with him, effectivly ending the line without a second thought. That was not calculated, that was rash, she knew nothing of them . . . she also burned a lot of food in the same swoop which was especialy with winter comeing wasteful in a way they can not effort!
I disagree, ASOIAF has the them of “gender and the patriarchy”and its negative influence on men and women appear often. Having Daenerys treated differently for similar acts compared to Male characters in similar positions could of highlighted this theme in the show. The problem is Dan and Dave are morons who don’t know how to do this in a satisfying manner
@@SingingSealRiana I agree with some of your points. It was a poor strategic decision to burn the food and supplies. She could have used those. I’m pretty sure D&D just did that for a “cool scene” which was dumb. But when it comes to her mercy, she’s shown many times over that she’s merciful to those she seeks to protect. Not to those who oppose her. She’s actually acted like any other effective conqueror who was actually able to maintain their grasp on power. However her soft femininity comes with a presupposition of mercy even when it clashes with her ambitions. And that isn’t comparable to Jon or Robb. They never intended to conquer and rule. Burning by dragon sends a message. And she only turned to that option after the (come over to my side, I’m nicer than Cersei) angle failed to work. Mostly because of Tyrion’s terrible advice, but still.
She shouldn't have let Dickon get burned with his dad. Not even Walder Frey was dumb enough to let Edmure Tully die at the red wedding. What she was supposed to do was dispossess the Tarlys of their land and had it over to the next most powerful regional lord that supports her. People in Westeros not liking Danny should be expected, she's invading and torching their lands shortly after the war of the 5 king's, the realm is weary of war and winter is coming.
Did everyone forget the pregnancy foreshadowing for Daenerys in season 7 episode 7 at the dragon pit? Then in season 8 they abandon that plot, I personally believe they switched roles between Cersei and Daenerys for the final season, because Lena Heady admitted that her miscarriage scene got cut and they chose to keep her pregnant. Cersei would've went insane if she miscarried because that would've meant that maggy the frog was correct and I think D&D saw that fans could predict that cersei would go mad and that jaime would have to kill her so they chose to subvert expectations and make Daenerys go mad instead of Cersei.
Thank you for that thought and even more for the reminder. If "foreshadowing" was supposed to mean something then why doesn't it for other issues which actually aren't character breaking if they happen?
Did the Dothraki leave? No, the guys whose EVERY CONVERSATION ON SCREEN WAS ABOUT RAPING are just going to wander around this defenseless country and find all these widowed women and just practice some soul searching. Not raping.
Also Dany made them all her bloodriders, so technically they would be honourbound to avenge her or die trying, then follow her to the grave. And maybe not all of them would have followed through on it, but there are *tens of thousands of them,* at minimum.
Best honeypot I could think of was even though Dany died she wanted them to stop the raping, and since she wasn’t just their Khaleesi but some kind of God Queen after the whole fire thing, they took it to heart even after death and it became part of their idea of honor going forward… …that’s as honeyed as I can get that pot, though
The funniest thing about this comment is its not an exaggeration at all. I literally can not remember one dothraki line that doesn't involve some reference to rape.
Jon's decision to let in the wildings is pragmatic in a way as he doesn't want the army of the wights growing larger. He did not communicate it very well of course lol But I feel like not only is it the morally right thing to do but also pragmatic as well in ways. Daenerys never does anything cruel in the books that has no purpose. She seems to actually be pretty self aware compared to other leaders we see on page or in planetos history.
I think older members of the nights watch would rather fight undead Wildlings rather than live with Wildling. It wouldn't matter if a bard like Merillion told the Night's Watch higher up in song, they still hate the Wildling more than the Others.
@@angellover02171 That is the point. hatred for the living can trigger the end of the world. Letting the wilding cross was the most practical thing, as Edwin says, Jon was not able to communicate it well, nor explain the danger involved in leaving them on the other side of the wall. Jon's biggest failure as a leader is that Jon hopes / believes the world will have his perspective. Like Ned and his ideal of honor. He wasn't able to get his hands dirty in making the concessions feel motivated. He just hopes that everyone sees the world as he does.
It is pragmatic, but most people who would know it’s a good decision are gone. Most people in the watch on the wall when Jon gets killed hadn’t ever seen a wight before.
@@angellover02171 for sure. They lost a lot of good men at craster’s and the fist, a lot of good men who could’ve backed up the decision, but at the same time, the old bear might not have made the decision as Jon because Jon actually spent time with them. Hard to say, but, at least, in Mormont’s time, there were a lot of people who could see the logic in the decision. That said though, letting the wildlings in was only one factor in Jon getting stabbed. His last little announcement where he decides to go fight Ramsay was really the nail in his coffin. It was one thing when he was trying to protect the realm from the others, but when he decided to abandon the watch to kill Ramsay it was pretty much him telling all his men that he was going to break his vows.
If anyone showed signs of sociopathy, it was Sansa. She was basically Little finger II. When Rickon was captured she insisted that they had to fight to get him back, then after Jon committed himself and thousands of others to doing that, she complained about all Jon's advisors and was like, "Don't be stupid, we'll never get Rickon back. Oh, and we need to wait for more men!" After all the northerners who were going to join them already had, but she said nothing about Littlefinger's army laying in wait off to the side, and only brought them into it after the wildlings had been reduced to almost nothing.. Then there was her inclination to strip children of their ancestral homes after that very thing had been done to her.
Mate, this is the most ridiculous one sided analysis/characterization of Sansa I ever heard/read 😂😂😂 Don‘t get me wrong, I cannot stand her in the first book, she gets better though, but this is just hate for hate reason in your comment! Don‘t pretend you ever had a positive feeling towards her, cause all you wrote is just propagandizing and turning every situation against her!
@Michèl Morio Then describe how he’s wrong, because everything he said was accurate. Also, Sansa was far more likable in season one compared to the final three. It’s like attempts to “empower” female characters these days makes them poor leaders and sociopathic.
I agree. Forget Rickon as heir to the North. He was her little brother. Even if Ramsay is evil incarnate, at least try to save him. After he'a dead, we never hear his name again.
@@vanguardian2864 Totally. It's a neoliberal mindset: minority groups are systematically oppressed by elites. Rather than address those problems directly, let's empower a few token minorities into elite status and cheer them on. Women are still horribly oppressed, but hey, there's one or two really powerful women that are just as cruel and vengeful as powerful men, let's idolize them!
First of all, concerning Rickon... how is admitting the truth wrong? He was lost at this point, he was actually lucky to die quickly, it could have been THAT much worse if you know Ramsay! He had no reason to keep him a alive, he didn‘t need a hostage cause he could easily beat them from what he knew! He could have send them his head without even meeting them before the battle... Of course she is optimistic in the beginning, at that point, she thinks the Stark name will rally the North against the oppressing and cruel Bolton’s cause all she knew was the North remembers, loves the Stark and had great respect for Ned, enough to go to war for him, twice, why not for his children too?!?Well, meeting with the Mormonts and Glovers, they are amongst the fiercest and most loyal Stark bannermen, well, they got 60 something men from bear island and nothing from the Wolfswood, some other lords arguing that Ramsay supported them against the Iron Born, others fearing Ramsay too much or already sacrificed enough/too much in Robb’s war... I will see the person who wouldn’t loose optimism! Oh, before we forget, did I mention the Karstarks and Umbers declared for Ramsay, the 2 largest and powerful houses after the Bolton’s and Manderlys in the North? So they got a couple of hundred Northmen and a few thousand indisciplined Wildlings (Stannis managed to defeat tens of thousands of them with just 2500-4000 men, so yeah, I wouldn‘t put a single coin on them... the North also defeated them every time they managed to come South of the Wall over the Last few thousand years)! So yes, waiting and get more men was the right thing to do! They have more mouths to feed and it’s Winter, let them waste the few stored stuff they have! Not telling Jon about the Knights of the Vale is the only criticism I can give her! Coming to the knights of the Vale... what would have happened, if they appeared much earlier or were there from the beginning of the battle? Ramsay would have just taken his whole army into Winterfell, manned the walls and rained arrows on them while they would have to storm the battlements... good chance with Cavalry and without siege weaponry! You can have ten times the numbers and get still slaughtered! You presume she waited too long to sacrifice as much as possible of Jon’s men? What if they really just arrived that moment? They camped around the Neck when they wrote each other, a few hundred miles south, not in the neighboring valley! Don‘t believe thousands of knights on horses can wait that long WITHOUT MAKING NOISE on a hill, waiting for an appropriate moment so Jon is almost wiped out to intervene... thousands of horses are loud as fuck and chainmail and plate aren‘t either made to infiltrate the battlefield... Ramsay and Jon AND their armies should have heard and felt this massive cavalry army riding there before they can see them! Such amount of horses create a thunderous sound and shaking, remember the Dothraki that encircled Dany at the end of season 5? 😉 You didn‘t even consider that the knights just made it, to you, they just waited on Sansa’s command till only and handful of Jons companions are left! Coming to the children... well, as a Lord, you have to inspire loyalty... and and have a tool to punish disloyalty! Their families didn‘t only disobey, they actively fought on the other side! While it’s true that it’s not the fault of these children, our modern view doesn‘t apply to this feudal society! Why should others fought for you and not defy you, when there is no punishment, no reward? Tell me one example in history where it was good a child ruled? „Whoe to you, O land whose king is a youth“... that’s not only a biblical reference, but a wisdom! Lands suffered while ruled by lords/kings that weren‘t of age, cause the people around them in offices manipulate them, they misuse the powers they got until they become of age! Like Cersei did, like the councils did for Aegon III in the books, even to the Starks that happened! Henry VI. Is a real world example, though he had also other problems... And to be honest, who thinks those 2 children, btw their lands are closest to the wall, should build the second defense line while FACING THE APOCOLYPSE?!? That’s not only stupid, but irresponsible to your subjects! And honestly, a Major Lord/King owns these lands anyways, these Minor houses are just installed to rule the land more effective, it actually isn‘t really theirs! The Karstarks descended from a younger son of house Stark who got granted lands by his father or elder brother, they built the fortress Karholt and later fugitive called the Starks from Kar-holt, the Kar-Starks... a responsible and wise ruler would have taken their lands or at least large parts, and given them to loyal but not so powerful bannermen to govern and administrate them for a certain amount of time, let’s say 5-10 years! If they proof their loyalty, they get back their lands and your other loyal lords got also compensated for their loyalty/service cause they profited for some time of these lands! Such fair bargains and signs secure the inner peace, not overpowering advantageously one side for the disadvantage of the other
Re: melting of the throne: it really was random. The script of the last episode was shown onlinr and it said something along the line of the throne being in the line of fire of Drogon's firey breath, like an innocent bystander. So no, Drogon didn't melt a symbol.
Not only did John need his friends to stop him from deserting the Watch, he needed a blacksmith to tell him that the other boys on the watch didn't have a maester-at-arms to teach them how to fight so that he would actually stop humiliating them, most of the time John seems pretty lost about what to do tbh, clearly dumb and dumber didn't give a ounce of interest to the source material
Why are people acting like Jon wanting to desert The Watch was bad lol? For all the talk of how all this weird feudal customs don't really matter and is actually harmful people loooove to make it seem like Jon deserting the band of rapists and thieves he was manipulated into joining as a 14 year old boy is bad lmao. To go help his brother instead fight a war in his father's name is the bad thing to do and he was stupid for wanting to do that. What?! It seems much more logical than staying at The Wall at that point in time that's for sure. Of course he knew he could be executed if he got caught why do you think he was running lol. Keep in mind leaving The Wall to go bang prostitutes is common and accepted. Once again when Jon started at The Wall he was a young teenage boy it's not uncommon being cocky and arrogant with his ability at that age especially if he is actually talented. Is Jon "humiliating" them really so bad? It's how you learn if you know nothing about swordfighting the master at arms teaching you is going to be a little bit humbling possibly humiliating and you'll take some bruises and cuts along the way, it's all in the process of learning. The new recruits of the Night's Watch were just salty Jon was better than them Jon was right about that. Jon wasn't the master at arms it's Alliser's job to be teaching the recruits not Jon he should be explaining what Jon is doing right and teaching the recruits how to do it. Noye literally got mad at Jon for existing "You see boy you grew up in a castle and these other boys are very stupid and can't learn anything from failure, Thorne hates everyone and doesn't teach just insults so YOU need to teach them your skills instead of training." Jon IS a flawed character and not particularly smart either but people really go to great lengths to make him look stupid in situations where he was being completely normal and inoffensive. How is Jon holding back on every single opponent he trains against good for him? If all the Night's Watch sucks at fighting that's a problem of the Watch not Jon. It's a feudal society acting like a farmer wouldn't also know how to swing a sword decently well is kinda silly you don't need a master at arms training to be a good fighter.
@@Lin_Eileen yeah I don't understand the point of bringing that up in relation to...what exactly? like is the point that Jon is bad at honoring an oath? I don't get it.
@@b1bbscraz3y Desertion is a morally grey thing at best even regardless of oaths. You're betraying your brothers in arms and endangering all of their lives when you just up and leave. People's lives are depending on you. That's why its a bad thing to skip out on the military you're a part of, and almost every army throughout history punished it with death or serious bodily harm.
everyone needs teachers, needs to grow up, lern, develope the ability to regard a situation from a different perspective. The difference between Dany and jon there is that he always had teachers, mentors people who loved him and helped him sorting such messes out, while Dany had people who wanted to use her instead which will most likely lead to her snaping/falling sooner or later. No one is awesome just out of themselfs, everyone is a mirror of their teachers and experiences.
It seems strange like you guys touched on that when cersi was blowing up the Tyrell's and clergy and anyone else close to them. Tyrion was still trying to protect her. Yet he was upset about Dany killing actual combatants in a war after they refused to bend the knee. His own father had babies killed when he liberate kingslanding from the mad king. Seems there is just this double standard for her that makes no sense at all.
They should have had a montage of Dany and Jon going around asking for support after they defeated the night king and all the nobles refusing it. So at least that way when they get to kings landing she could have been already pissed.
It doesn't surprise me that they think it's that black and white. Also (in the books, so far) Dany listens a lot to other character's advice while Jon only explains to his men what he himself has decided after the fact. His intentions are often noble and his decisions necessary (like borrowing money to buy food), but it's very different from Mormont's style of leadership. Tbf it's been a while since I read the books but that's how I remember it.
@@bethaofhouseblackwood234 this isn't a critique of Dany, it was defense of Dany. My point was about how Jon is according to D&D the best candidate for the throne bc he did the right thing without needing counsel, while Dany, according to D&D, had to be "kept back" by Tyrion and the others. I think that's wrong, Dany's first instinct was always to help but she listens to counsel before making a decision and tries to do her best. Meanwhile Jon (as lord commander) isolates himself and decides things before speaking to the other higher ups in the watch, and in the end his decisions get him killed. So, Jon "not needing counsel" makes him fail. While Dany listening to advice has served her well so far, aside from being forced to compromise too much.
I recently saw a comment that I really like that says they should have ended the show ambiguous where Dany wins her and Jon take the throne but she is left wondering if the Starks are out to get her. It ends with Jon saying something to her that has double meaning and she looks as he leave the room and she stares at the audience that she might not be all there and it ends.
@@TheLastSoundNL You could argue there was no escaping it. No matter when, how, or with who the Wildlings going south of the wall puts them on a path of do or die. They aren't the type to bend the knee and assimilate easily and nearly everywhere will view them as savages/invaders. Even if they won with Mance at the wall they still would have faced protracted war in the north with winter on the way. No matter what warfare they faced a Bolton controlled "south" and White Walker controlled north means costly war.
Carmine comes up with great ideas! I see why Preston podcasts with him! I love his idea of Dany losing herself when she loses dragons. I would put it the other way round: part of the dragon's spirit enters her mind like a dying warg, making her more brutal and dragon-like.
@@ahandsomecheese There's no point in fighting you, you just made a ridiculous statement and added no context to back up that ridiculous statement. And please don't talk about the books, I don't believe you've read a book in your life
I wish the show would have gone into the climate issues of Westeros (long summers, long winters). I thought that’s a huge part of the overarching narrative of ASOIAF. I also expected a scene of Dothraki and Unsullied being ravaged by their first experience of true winter. But whatever. I’ll wait for the books.
Wait. They seriously didn't have any metaphors in mind when the dragon melted down the iron throne? I used to think I was being unfair assuming the showrunners were as dumb as bricks but now I'm starting to think I gave them too much credit. George cannot finish twow soon enough...
I personally don't believe they always planned on her going mad because in the 'After Inside Episode' to season 7 episode 5 and D&D said that her choice DIDN'T MAKE HER THE MAD KING! Also why have her postpone her quest for the throne to help Jon fight the dead if she never cared about human life she could've just burned Kings Landing in season 7 and stayed south and left Jon on his own.
That is a very good point. That you for making it. I was thinking of when season six had an Inside the Episode where they said Daenerys wasn't "insane", nor a "sadist", nor "her father". But doing similar in season 7 may help re-enforce the point.
I always assumed that Greyworm was a stand-in for the military junta that takes over established power. This is why it made sense to me that he takes control after Danny is murdered and then no sense when he transfers his power to the council/Bran without much negotiation (not to mention just standing there without bodyguards). Do you think GRRM/the showrunners had something similar in mind or was I completely off track? Love your work, best regards!
“Fuck Ollie he was annoying” as if he wasn’t a literal child who witnessed his whole village and parents raided and slaughtered by cannibalistic wildlings and was pressured into taking part in the coup by a bunch of grown men.
Dont forget that her men wanted to take down the killed child slave's bodies but she told them no. She wanted to look at the horror to remind herself of the evil she was fighting.,
Sansa sabotaged a good ending, telling everyone that Jon Snow was the real heir to the throne. Keeping that secret and waiting till they marry and take the throne together could have been the best solution.
And best for The North as well since a favored North could have benefitted from supplies from the rest of the kingdoms if there is a problem like a food shortage.
Also Sansa ruin the chance for house stark to get dragon riders via jon deany children can you Imagine how powerful house stark could have been jon as king Sansa ruling the north and dragon riders
How much does this need to be stressed?! Sansa did what the NORTH WANTED. They did NOT WANT DANY. These people made it painfully obvious they didn't want her! When.Jon and Sansa try to rally the houses in season six we learn exactly WHY some houses were hesitant. They didn't want another Robb. Sansa took the words and listened to them...Jon didn't. She warned him about the North's reaction and she's ignored. Lord Glover stayed in his own castle REFUSING to go to Winterfell because of Jon's broken oath. After reading his raven she explains that Lord Royce said, he'd stand behind Jon, The King In The North. Lyanna Mormont called out Jon's broken oath....in front of everyone!! Lordt this irks my soul because many of you are purposely being obtuse woth a severe case of tunnel vision. Understand that each house had its own journey that didn't include Dany, the North/Starks, happens to be one of them. Their need for independence didn't fall off because Dany entered the chat. They've wanted their independence since Ned's execution and they openly and rebelliously named Robb king. This has nothing to do with Dany. This has everything to do with them and what they've craved for a long time.
It was Jon fault if he didnt want the throne why go and blab out bein Aegon Targaryen and I dont Think GRRM is gonna name 2 brothers Aegon that is just stoopid.
I think the logic of melting the Iron Throne is literally just “The show is called Game of Thrones and it’s ironic that the last thing that happens is the physical throne over which all these wars were fought has been destroyed.” Yes, the is then followed by a new king being chosen, because the creators are careless with anything thematic, but I’m sure someone in the room said “It’s called Game of THRONES, what happens to the THRONE”
1. the character of tyrion made me want to throw my tv away - man I got so pissed off with him. he really thought he was doing something! 2. why would D&D write that drogon burning the iron throne is to be some metaphor of burning the monarchy…only to have 2 monarchs in westeros… 3. why would the northern army not follow bran STARK as their monarch but would follow sansa? just because they want independence? the north is a volatile place - how will that work economically for them?
The way I interpreted what D&D tried to do with Dany (& failed miserably) was to paint her as a character who only did the good & righteous actions because: A) she's been told by her closest associates that Targaryens are the true royalty; B) Her supporters encouraged her that she IS the power she keeps acquiring throughout the show, whether its becoming a Khaleesi, mother of dragons, liberator of slaves, mother of the people or Queen of Westeros. Missandei even affirmed Dany that she ignores her advisors because SHE sees a better choice. C) Her closest friends & supporters kept telling her she's the right ruler because of her good & caring heart (which, again is mostly due to what was established in A & B) Every time 1 of her closest supporters died, or betrayed her, she snapped. She only thrived through interpersonal encouragement & being openly beloved by the people. Westerosi people never grew to love her, which was a failed assumption by Jon, mainly because how uninvolved the rest of Westeros was in the White Walker crisis. All she could hope for was Jon, who stopped engaging in their love due to his newly discovered connection to her family, which was the baseline of her entitlement. Her only felt consolation out of an abusive childhood was to become a ruler of the people who she wished to see her as the right choice to rule them. When she realized they didn't see her that way, she clean-slated the board & then enforced herself onto them, trying to reason it with how she achieved her position despite her abusive childhood, & tried to win Jon back, her only love left, by suggesting that he had a similar childhood. She argues that their upbringing is proof that they deserve the position of power to do the right thing. In short, I think D&D tried to show that Dany is only capable of commanding people & seeking love for herself, because without those 2, she'd revert back to S1 Ep1 Dany. the plot would've been sound if the dialog matched, but instead the characters all talked like they were mentally stuck in S6 finale.
Dany's childhood was much, much nicer than 99/100ths of everyone else in Essos or esteros, so there's no reason to center an analysis around that. However, Dany did grow up learning that the current monarchs in King's Landing (AND their trusted advisors) had spent more than a decade trying to murder her and her family, since before she as born, in fact. This was an official state policy, not just a royal whim, which makes her desire to conquer and/or raze Westeros not only rational, but also fair and just: a matter of self defense.
But that's not how her story arc went though. Khal Drogo wanted that for her, sure, but that goal died with him. But again, it was Drogo, not her. Her goals were mainly sparked through her supporters. & no, that desire is def not fair nor rational since by the time Tyrion joined it was no longer the point, given how the major perpetrators of the rebellion all died by the time she set sail for Westeros, & it was about whether she can blame their heirs while demanding to forget about her father. Self defense was certainly not what happened at the end.
@@DancingViru where do you think her character arc is going in the books I mean she has a messianic complex she thinks she's the greatest person ever and she dislikes slavery like a few others guys (Darth vader, Hitler), and her personality changes to the setting. Of course she's going to become bad in the end
The Dothraki would become a warrior aristocracy like in our world's Bulgaria (turkic nomads ruling over slavic farmers and eventually fusing into one culture)
Power doesn’t corrupt, power reveals. Power enables you to act without restraint, to be who you truly are on the inside. Whether it’s the most compassionate of angels, the cruelest of demons, or another man among many. We saw who Dany is with power. For many years we saw who she was. They wanted an ending they couldn’t have with the character they created, so they had to break her character along with everyone else’s.
Not Telling Since the books aren't out yet nobody (outside of possibly GRRM) knows how her arc will end. But I think it is a distinct possibility she will sacrifice herself to help Jon deal with the White Walkers. The books already set up a story where a guy made a magic sword at the expense of keeping his wife alive-the story said her soul went into the sword. If there is a Jon stabbing Dany moment many (including me) expect it won't be to save Westeros from her but to save Westeros from the White Walkers. Tyrion may want King's Landing to burn and may still talk or even trick book Daenerys into doing that-perhaps even tricking her into setting off the remaining wildfire by telling her to use dragonfire where he knows some of it is stashed. Book Daenerys doesn't hate King's Landing, but book Tyrion may see it as his own revenge against a city he defended and then was disrespected afterwards.
Well, he's barely in the show, so that would have been out of nowhere. It was bad writing to ignore the Vale so much and then use the Vale army as a deux ex machina for Jon's war against Ramsay and ignore Sweetrobin's role in that. Even in the books, he is a minor character. Maybe he'll grow to play a bigger role in the books to come (if they do).
i love the idea that as each dragon dies dany goes deeper into madness. it parallels dany's destruction of KL with cersei blowing up the sept after losing marcella.
The difference is that Cersei was always a murderous psychopath (even as a child she pushed her friend down a well to her death), but Dany never showed any such tendencies before.
@@kawadashogo8258 Dont get me wrong, I agree completely, it was never shown to us that Dany is a cruel murdered capable of KL. If (and thats a big if) this is done correctly in the books, I anticipate a showing of decent into madness being heightened with each subsequent dragon death.
Remember that line from the finale "do you think our house words are marked upon us the moment we are born" Yeah that's pretty much how Dan and Dave viewed the characters
In the show at least at Astapor she was giving up a dragon to the masters to buy the unsullied to the despair of Jorah and Barriston What she didn’t tell anyone was her plan to have drogon burn the master holding his leash after she had received the whip so the unsullied would do her bidding of freeing the slaves and killing the masters and their guards
Even the red pilled lnCels who yells Mary Sue and WAAAAAHMEN every time they see a female character breathe competently Even they found Dany's instant evil turn to be insane
Henry V was called a hero after winning the Battle of Agincourt, despite killing all the French nobles who survived the battle. At that time it was normal to keep the surviving lords and nobles alive to gain ransoms for them. Henry just had them executed. Sure the French have probably vilified him but they def don't consider him mad.
Dany was going to become evil it's like the hitler story that's what george was doing it's a political message thing why does she even want to become queen because her big bro said so like what???
@@nottelling4876 Jesus Christ you are stupid. Why does anyone want to be King or Queen? Stannis, Robb, Jon, Bran, Sansa are also evil according to you? When has she ever done something prior to season 8 that is comparable to the Holocaust?
Ollie was part of the assassination of Jon Snow, that’s why he was hung. Him no longer being annoying was just a bonus. Not sure if that part was addressed further on but I’ll probably be too lazy to edit this
That's too smart for D&D. Yeah, people in Westeros might think that way. But the audience should see the difference and the show should communicate that their class shouldn't determine if it's acceptable or not.
Even if we were to pretend that the books never existed, the authors of Fire Can't Kill a Dragon actually implied that Ms. "Every slave is a reason we have to free Mereen" somehow needed to be told that by Jorah Mormont, the only advisor who was right next to her at the time and once told her he was a slaver himself
Yup. Its called excuse making. The author of Fire Can't Kill a Dragon was trying to do that for season 8 when it came out and was getting deserved criticism. I'd hoped the book would be better than that since people generally paying for it. You're point is totally correct in that sometimes Daenerys had better morals than her advisors and had to point out to them why something should or shouldn't happen for moral reasons.
The problem is not that their explanations are confusing, contradicting and generally unsupported by evidence from earlier in the story - it's that a piece of art/media/content should speak for itself and not require any dumb behind the scenes / extra content. If you have to supplement your work with explanations to clarify, YOU'RE DOING A BAD JOB.
21:00 also this pretty much happens in England when the vikings invaded. They decided they wanted to settle down in the lands and farm. why cant the dothraki decide they want to settle down on this free real estate.
The inclusion of Jenny's Song before the Second Battle for the Dawn was D&D's concession that "there's something there" in the Song of Ice and Fire -- which they no longer cared to struggle to figure out. But they wanted to summon those old ghosts anyway, before they made a pigs breakfast of everything
Lol all of DoD is about the people around Daenerys in Meereen trying to convince her to kill hostages, torture suspects, and open the fighting pits. Arguably these are all the wrong thing to do, and even when she agrees to the latter two she regrets those decisions or hates them.
Good point. In the show Dario even encourages her to just kill all of Meereen's nobles-Daenerys refused. Daenerys is sometimes more moral than her advisors.
Olly betrayed and actively and willingly participated in the murder of his commander. In a medieval setting it would be weird if he WASN'T executed. I think he's supposed to be like 12 or 13 (?) so he would definitely be treated as an adult in this situation. He's a sworn man of the Night's Watch anyway.
how did you think her story was going to end she has like no personality a messiah complex like hitler, she wants to rule the world for like no reason she thinks she's a god and how is this going to end with her like becoming jesus christ come back come on man
@@asoiaf5763 gtfo of here with that Jon has no personality. Jon is constantly grappling with himself over if what he's doing is the right thing. Before he becomes Lord Commander, and especially after. Good writing is all about the human heart in conflict with itself, jeeze, wish I could remember where I first I heard that. It seems like you who hasn't read the books. Dany is definitely foreshadowed to do something bad by the end of the story too, and she does have a God complex in the books. A lot of her story is about her losing faith in others and gaining it in herself and there are elusions to her having a god-like element to her, at least in the eyes of those around her, though she definitely suffers from her own inner turmoils as well. Now I definitely don't agree with that guy about her having no personality, she is a very strong character and is a lot of fun to read about.
Dany with the Tarly’s is very different to Jon and the mutineers. Dany makes her decision based on their unwillingness to pledge fealty to her. It’s a binary choice of with me or against me. It’s all about her. She’s completely unwilling to forgive. Tyrions appeal is basically a claim that the loyalty to their previous oaths is noble and ought to be enough to allow them an opportunity to pledge loyalty to the realm by taking the black. Jon was trying to broker peace between the nights watch and the wildlings. He did this with a commitment to his oath and a willingness to forgive the wildlings. He was murdered by people betraying their oaths. So his only option really is to hang or behead them. He doesn’t have the option of sending them to the wall. They were already at their last chance. In short dany has first time offenders who are loyal when she has a suitable alternative punishment. Jon is punishing repeat offenders who are proving they are disloyal while they are on their last strike.
Congratulations on discovery what fuedalism is. It is an all or nothing bend the knee or die system. They refused the Nights Watch before it was even offered also they are already oath breakers as they betrayed their own Liege Lords. They literally chose the fire.
I reckon Dany going crazy would’ve made sense if someone TRIED to shoot her and Drogon AFTER the bells are sounded. That fits perfectly and makes Jon’s choice the more difficult, and also makes it a parallel event to Jon killing his murderers: Daenerys cannot trust the citizens, the bells rung, they called for peace, she was about to grant it, and then someone tried to betray the trust by shooting Drogon. Drogon dodges it and Daenerys feels pushed over the edge.
Are we forgetting that Bran can put ideas in peoples heads and no one can block him out. No one can keep secrets from him. Literally everyone that would stand in his way to the throne were demoralized, dead, or left. As soon as Bran made it to Winterfell it was over. He took over Dani and Jon's stories and culled it to suit him.
Would be fine if this was intentional on the part of the writers, but it's not. With later-seasons GOT, what you see is what you get, there's nothing else beneath the surface. Theories like this, while cool, are really just attempts by the audience to fill in the holes left by shitty writing. It's the audience trying to do the writers' job for them after the fact, except we don't get paid for it.
i don’t really get the comparison to Jon executing Ollie. He literally murdered Jon lol. the tarlys just tried to kill Dany and were oathbreakers (like tons of other people)
The Tarlys were oathbreakers (Lady Olenna was their liegelord) and Ned Stark would've had Randyll Tarly's head for that. Additionally the military force under Randyll's command seems to have taken no prisoners-even executing Lady Olenna herself with no other option for her. This makes Daenerys more merciful than Randyll where he turned down not just 1 but 2 options to live and never offered any to Lady Olenna.
Preston is a really smart guy I love listening to him talk about this stuff. He's right on with how sexual markets work when there are no men, every time he brings this up a lot of insecure virgins get upset and it's hilarious. For the guy's telling him " why would women want to be with a savage? "" lol they don't know women very well.
Would you like to explain it to me? I'd rather be alone than with someone that would want to hurt me. The only women that might be willing to be with the Dothraki are the Wildlings.
Regarding not giving Dany a better reason/trying to follow the plot points of an unwritten book: It's not a good excuse to say they were adhering to a plot point if it doesn't make sense for the story they have been telling. Who cares if they are hitting bullet points and being a faithful adaptation to the end of a story we haven't seen... If the story doesn't stand on its own, it's not going to win points for making a choice that makes less sense because "that's what will happen in the books." There were plenty of times in earlier seasons where they tweaked characters & motivations and plot points away from what they were in the books. They coulda shoulda made decisions based on the story they were telling, not the unwritten books they were adapting.
Executing Ollie was dumb, there was dozens of conspirators and Jon executes a small boy. Of course, Alliser and Ollie were the only named characters involved so that's why Jon killed them in a narrative sense, but still.
@16:25, you use the phrase “screwed the pooch.” Fun fact for fellow Americans, they don’t use this phrase in the UK. So if you use it across the pond, you might get some uncomfortable looks from others thinking you’re a perv.
"You cant just invent a Northern Army out of nowhere!" Preston, ohh my sweet summer child, despite that the Dothraki and the Unsullied had losses of at least 85% in S08E03, D&D can do everything!
Ugh, even the showrunners' best and most forced explanation still makes no sense. Plus even if we assume Danny was pitch black evil and everything was foreshadowed, she still had goals and motivations. WTH did she ignore Cersei to focus on burning down the city for 15 minutes straight, are we supposed to assume that was just bloodlust? Sadism? The Mad King had lost the war and wanted to go down in a blaze of glory while taking out a chunk of his enemies and punishing the city he felt had betrayed him, and fuck me I can relate to that. Danny made less sense than the Mad King did in the finale.
Hey Preston and Carmine, awesome video as usual. Sorry I’m about to get a little off-topic: I had a theory that popped into my head last night when I was rereading: Do you think that perhaps Brandon Stark(the heir) could be paralleled in Harry(the heir)? They’re both swarthy douchebags who dishonor women at a tourney. The point I think George would be making is that Ashara’s experience at Harrenhall was more like Sansa’s will be with Harry in that she fell for the handsome, confident man from Winterfell but he turned out to be a fucking creep. Perhaps this could explain some of Ned’s guilt, the baby Jon Snow, and why Ashara might have thrown herself from the tower. Definitely the scene where Sansa picked out Harry from amongst the other boys that arrived puts me in mind of all the Starks at Harrenhall. Anyway just a thought. Please continue to ruin almost all other theory crafting for me(I can only watch yours and a few other channels at this point lol). Peace
The problem with the whole Tarly situation was Randyll acted extremely out of character. More importantly, no one pointed out that Randyll had betrayed Olenna, his rightful liege. By that logic, Daenerys had the right to execute him.
not to mention threatening to kill Sam the rightful heir to house Tarly.
I have been screaming this for years
@@Sam-xr8ne While that was a jerk move, (and kinslaying), Daenerys didn't know that at the time. She didn't even know Sam yet. Her right to execute Randyll was based on his treason against Olenna, her vassal. This would send the message that she protects (or avenges) her own.
There’s also the fact that Randyll Tarly served mad king Aerys himself in Robert’s Rebellion.
For the reasons you've stated, it makes no sense for the Westerosi to be upset about Tarly's death. For modern people, senseless death is senseless death. She should have imprisoned or exiled him, but killing Tarly makes her no less insane than any other Westerosi lord.
In the books, Dani advisors like Dario and Skahaz try to convince her to kill children, to kill all the rich families in Meereen etc. She refuses to do it.
Until she got to King's Landing.
@@dreamguardian8320 she hasn't reached KL in the books
@@summer-turtle That's because George R.R. Martin hasn't finished the book series yet. There's still two more to go.
@@dreamguardian8320 really?
@@orsonlannister9847 Yup, people are saying that the sixth book won't be out until 2022, people even say that he won't work on part 2 of Fire and Blood until he finishes the seventh and final book, and who knows how long that will take. In fact, who knows if George R.R. Martin will live that much longer.
Dothraki are like Orcs from 40k, and grow from spores, so they repopulate very quickly.
Lmao
So by this Logic the Northerners are the most orc like???
Orkrathki
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH indeed
Dothraki are a pest.
3:00 completely insane isn’t it. Remember in season 1 when Danny was horrified at the pillaging and raping of towns & tried to save a bunch of widows? EVEN though Jorah & her blood rider adviced her against it & where unbothered by the horrors?
And Season 3 both Jorah and Barriston advised Danny to go to Westeros & bit to invade the cities of Slavers bay whereas Danny refused & insisted they had to save the slaves. And they comminuted to insist leaving Slavers bay for Westeros but Danny wanted to stay and do good.
Also remember all of the bad advice Dario & Olenna give Danny to be brutal & violent that Danny constantly ignores.
D&D once again making up & retconning none sense to try and justify their lazy bad writing
But they are super smart boys that know caring about anything and be willing to do things that are violent in the fight against injustice (I.e killing the slavers) is just a slippery slope to mass murdering people who look at you funny or....for just existing.
It's so typical of their juvenile nihilist "edginess" they seem to think is so compelling and cool and smart.
Let me add something else, D&D said power corrupted Dany. Remember when Dany locked up her greatest source of power, her dragons that she loved. And why did Dany lock up her dragons, to protect the innocent. You couldn't make this BS up
When I watched the Tarley Roast scene I was completely unmoved. It seemed to me that Dany gave them absolutely all the mercy that she could possibly be expected to. Especially Dickkon. Didn't seem at all mad to me. Pretty fair, honestly.
Indeed. Dany is portrayed as a monster if she does literally anything at all other than completely roll over for her enemies.
@@kawadashogo8258 For me it's more that they claimed actions/scenes showed she was growing into a monster but when I watched those scenes they didn't seem remotely monstrous to me.... until the final, unexpected turn.... :(
Yup, D and D were trying to make excuses for their season 8 nonsense. And grabbing at scenes to try to excuse it even though those specific scenes may actually undermine rather than support their claims is part of it. They were likely hoping people wouldn't notice that executing Randyll Tarly would be considered sane within Westerosi society-especially as she offered him a chance to live and he did not extend that same chance to her ally Lady Olenna.
Idk if I would call a brutal execution fair but it was certainly justified. Jon's execution of Olly and the other traitors was more morally ambiguous than what Dany did.
the thing is how did it made her look to the people she concered there? Why do you think Tyrion looked in horror at it? Because he was sad over Tarlys demise? Yeah, sure he probably loved the guy . . . . no seriously, she styled herself as her father there. Westeros seas her as a foreing invader, bringing with her babarians and rapers and the first thing she does is burning defeated people alive . . . great job in showing your different, that you want to be a good ruler, that you are not as fickel and murder happy as your famously cruel and unjust father . . .
My own explanation for the resurrection of The Dothraki is that Bran resets reality at the end of each episode of season 8.
All the amnesia is down to the same cause.
Remember when Neds opening scene was him executing someome? Yeah...
Which truly foreshadowed how evil and insane Ned was. Luckily heroic Joffrey took him out when Ned completely snapped and tried to usurp the throne and kill the royal family after hearing the bells that announced Robert's death...by executing him.
Wait a minute, what was that last part...
Aaaaaahhhhghrrr...*stopped functioning*
@@sherlocksmuuug6692 lmao
Also Ned was going to execute Jorah for practicing slavery. But Dany executing slavers is evil and makes her insane.
@@sherlocksmuuug6692 damn lannister propoganda be like
@@faisalkamal4319 To be fair, the entirety of ASOIAF/GOT is a Lannister propaganda
My favourite thing about the behind the scenes book was their logic behind not having Jon kill the NK. They were "tired of Jon always saving the day"
Jon Snow, the man who literally never saved the day, made pretty much every situation he got into worse and constantly needed to be rescued. The guy who was so bad at saving the day that one time he needed to be rescued from being rescued.
I have a suspicion the the writers didn't even watch their own show, just youtube hype and reaction videos lol.
And even if what they said was real, it is kinda fitting for this world/universe when you think about the power prophecies like Azor Ahai have. One of the biggest question in the books is, who is gonna be the Azor Ahai of the "modern" time. The show adapts this mystery to a certain degree, perfectly sets up Jon for this, everything is in place and they suddenly change their minds but kept the parts of it still in the show. I mean, Jon even killed his Nissa Nissa aka Dany, but after the whole thing went down. Its truly insane
Jon save the day, more like Jon was saved every time last a damsel in distress every season
Seriously, if Jon killed the NK him getting constantly shat on by life and failing at everything would at least be consistent with the prophecy. The Last hero (believed to be the Westerosi retelling of Azor Ahai)'s quest is a constant downward spiral, he literally fails until he has lost everyone and everything but himself before he presumably discovers a way to defeat the WW and save the day.
@@sherlocksmuuug6692 …but we know he doesn’t defeat them cuz they’re still around
Depends on how you view saving the day.
"Honor made you leave, and honor brought you back... I didn't say it was your honor." To say Jon always made the right decision, whether or not he was advised beforehand, is a flat out lie.
Yeah, like joining the nights watch in the first place! Terrible decision that just so happened to be critical to saving the world
@@Borgcow A lot of people dont think it was Jon's decision, at least not conpletely. Benjin subtly manipulates him when his piss drunk and there also some evidence for Ghost/Bloodraven/FutureBran altering his behavior.
@@asddsdsssd woah wait, Benjen manipulates him too? I’ve never heard this take before, can you elaborate? Definitely seems like Leuwin manipulates him, possibly in conspiracy with Cat, and of course Ghost plays his part especially later in keeping him in the Nights Watch, both when Jon tries to escape and when he’s considering accepting Stannis’ offer to make him a Stark. Future Bran and Bloodraven could be involved instead/as well but Benjen seemed against it when he talks to Jon initially, and then as if to confirm that he’s kinda cold to Jon when with his Black Brothers. Still, regardless of whether Jon was manipulated into it, he had a choice, he made it, and it was a bad one
@@Borgcow don't bother it's bullshit. Benjin specifically tells him not to join and to wait until he's older. It's the maesters who talks Ned into allowing him to join. Benjin is never in favor for it only accepts it after the fact.
@@wisdommanari6701 agreed, I’ve never seen anything to suggest otherwise, but I could have missed half of it 😆
Dany locked up her dragons (her children) because she believed they were hurting innocent children. Yep. That's definitely something an evil person would do...🤨
Well they are out of control, misbehaving teenagers...
@@Richard_Nickerson FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THE HUMANS ARE EVIL !!!!!1 - Drogon Skywalker
I think they ruined the show because they fell in love with Lena. The show did not need Cersei past season 6. However, because they didn't plan for season 7 and 8, they had to waste season 7 trying to make Cersei a threat which distroyed the show. I bet if Cersei was a stark, Dan and Dave will suddenly remember there are angry people in the street of Kingslanding.
@@UltraRadCentrist Drogon Sky'white'walker?
she barely really trained them before they got that big. they were "wild" for a reason
I will never tire of content dunking on the last few seasons of the show.
I remember saying that in 2020 and it still holds up haha
No, it’ll be like the Star Wars prequels. In 10 years the fans who “grew up with seasons 5-8” will make UA-cam videos declaring them secret masterpieces
@@Kasey_Barkle This seems like a depressingly likely scenario
@@Kasey_Barkle season 4 and 5 weren't 25 years apart bro I can't see that happening
F those two goof balls forever....
I think the ending makes more sense if you swap out Cerci with young Griff. Danny's reason to assault king's landing being to 'liberate' the smallfolk is gone if Griff has already taken it and is loved by the people for being a fair and just monarch.
From then on Danny is stuck with an army of foreign mercenaries and Dothraki screamers who are keen for a fight and won't be satisfied with "well let's go home lol"
Danny can't really stop her own war machine without total victory.
Based on Danny's character being as independent as she is I don't think she'll accept a marriage with Griff either.
I tend to think they swapped Dany and Aegon/ Joncon's ending out. I don't know if Dany will ever make it to King's Landing and the Bells and mercy/brutality is JonCons lesson.
Agree. Except I think its going to be Young Griff who rejects the marriage proposal to Dany. Dany has shown in the past that she's willing to marry for political gain.
I think what will happen is Young Griff takes out King's Landing after the Church is blown up with the Tyrells in it.
Power vacuum helps to explain how he could just snipe out the Capital, especially with a rioting populace.
When Daenarys lands, she is stumped. In either case both Young Griff and Jon Snow claim to be Targaryens, and I think she will see Young Griff, as the first claimant as legitimate, possibly until she meets Jon, then both will be declared illegitimate by her.
The Faith is another consideration, they don't like incest. Either candidate is incest.
With all of those factors in play, my personal favorite version of events is that Young Griff and Daenarys team up, and have a planned marriage alliance and take down King's Landing together. (The dragons burn large parts of the city here.)
Young Griff is left behind to administer the Kingdom, while Daenarys skips up North, to bring the North to heel. Jon shows her the Undead, and she decides to help save this part of the Kingdom, contingent on the idea that the North will be reintegrated.
In short, Jon and Daenarys win the battle in the North, both people lose a ton of important characters, and one dragon is killed somehow.
Young Griff breaks the alliance during this, cementing an alliance with what remains of the Tyrells (likely Loras, could be a union with his gay commander forget his name).
As Daenarys and Jon attack King's Landing the Dragonbinder horn and whatever else Euron plans pops off. The Dragon Daenarys is flying is mind controlled and starts to burn the city. Jon with his dragon attack Daenarys, resulting in Jons dragons death, and his assumed death.
Daenarys has regained control of the dragon and now burns the Ironborn and Lannister forces indiscriminately.
Jon turns out to have lived. He is distraught to see that the city is so heavily damaged, seeing that Daenarys had torched the city with Young Griff before as well. Seeing Daenarys dragon torch much of the city a second time he doesn't think anyone can handle the power of a dragon.
Jon and Daenarys argue about what should be done going forwards.
Daenarys has gone a bit extra crazy, due to seeing so many dead dragons and accuses Jon of being an illegitimate Targaryen.
Jon ends up killing Daenarys on the spot. Jon likely dies too.
Bran is doing things this whole time of some sort, and sets up an electoral monarchy for life. He is elected first king.
There are definitely quite a few different ways it can go. It is also possible the great battle for King's Landing happens as Young Griff + Euron vs Daenarys before the Undead are even defeated, rather than two battles occurring.
I do think that much of the writing for the book hinges on Young Griff, and the show was largely ruined by his VERY key plot points being gobbled up by other surrounding characters. Cersei will likely be dead before even 1/3rd of the way through the next book, for instance. A large part of the Daenarys vs Targaryen Claimants plots will surround what she thinks of the legitimacy of their claims.
@@meaganleckie3373 What about the church blowing up making a power vacuum, in both the faith and the Tyrells?
Young Griff could easily take the city at that point and largely replace Cersei from the show from that point.
@@alecshockowitz8385 well considering the Tyrells are/were Targ loyalists they don't have to die for Aegon to take power. I personally think they're plotting behind the scenes to help that happen and Loras will be outside the city leading and army when Aegon shows up, possibly right on cue for the trial. I do see the Sept blowing up but I think the triggering event will be JonCon laying waste to the city. He learned from the battle of the Bells and has a constant thought that had Tywin led that army the town would have been decimated and Robert wouldn't have escaped. I think he's going to blow up the city (not purposely triggering the wildfire) in the process. The ruined city will then have a Greyscale outbreak or something to that effect because that has to be tied in. Either way I don't think Dany will ever make it to King's Landing.
If you've never heard of the Exodus Theory check it out on Reddit. It posits instead of Daenarys coming to Westeros, Jon will travel to Braavos than inland to Essos and they'll meet up and plan the Battle for the Dawn pt. 2. It's really fun.
I assume they were just making some excuses to save face. They just can't admit they rushed it thinking they'd still get that sweet juicy disney deal.
Thats 100% what it comes down to in the end. Its impossible to find reason or logic in season 8 because ultimately there is none.
I think D&D liked the shock value of the story but not the themes that GRRM was going for. They kind of back themselves into a corner by cutting so much of the book material.
"Whatever, the writers were a bunch of failures." -Preston Jacobs
They should have rushed it even more. Do a Code Geass so that so many crazy shit happens that people don't notice it.
@@CaptainBagman Like how trump told so many crazy things that you kind of just went numb to it? That might have worked.
"Dany needed her advisors to coerce her to do the right thing" I seem to recall her ignoring her advisors lots of times in an attempt to be a good person. Protecting Lhazareen women from being raped even though it undermined her position among the Dothraki and those peasants couldn't help her attempt to head west to Westeros in any way. Giving the Unsullied their freedom after the sack of Astapor, risking the loss of a ready made army, instead of never giving them the option. Locking up her dragons, thus knowingly stunting their growth, because one of them killed one peasant child. Ffs, she even told Jon she was going to help kill the Night King BEFORE he told her he'd bend the knee when any lord of Westeros would of laughed in Jon's face and started constructing a new Wall south of the Neck.
The best that detractors can point to in regards to Dany's 'madness' is;
1) Her executing patriarchs of the slaver families in Mereen who ordered over a hundred slaves to be crucified as a statement
2) Executing a treasonous lord and his heir who killed their rightful overlord
Tywin Lannister did both of those things and was never called mad. He ordered and orchestrated the Red Wedding which killed many lords and heirs of the North as well as 1,000s of Northern soldiers. He also is infamous for destroying two houses because their lords insulted his house.
The madness angle was just D&D wanting to end the story in a particular way and attempting to shoehorn Dany's character into a mold it didn't fit.
You.. are correct sir.
I think if she goes mad in the books it will be done far more gracefully if p.e. follows Quaithe's word and goes to the shadow Ashai etc there it might go coocoo or as it happens often in those books she might die and come back not quite the same in fact I'd like that coming back with fire magic and getting coocoo in the process.
the madness angle makes a lot of sense though they totaly fucked up the portrail. . . I fear for people will be enraged when grrm does a good job with it, people will be outraged all the same for they fucked it up so badly . . .
@@SingingSealRiana I don't think so if p.e. Lady Stoneheart is like a warning of what might happen to Danny , I don't think people would be outraged if it is done in a graceful way . The fact is that the show painted her as liberator constantly even in this scene where she burns the Dothraki Khals which are the rapists and bad but the show makes her leader of Dothraki where it wasn't only the leaders who attacked and kill innocent villagers , do slave trade with the slave cities and rape anything they could it was all the Dothraki it is in their whole culture of horse supremacy or something. That was conveniently left out in the episodes where she burns the Khals and gets all the Dothraki under her a little later next season she is a power hungry lady with an anger and while Tyrion actually does whatever he can to lose the war she does whatever she can to win it and we should think that this is crazy. The fact is in the show for many seasons Danny could do no wrong for the producers until the last season where she could do no right and after that they told us that we are complete morons because we didn't see the signs or foreshadowing in the previous seasons which was non existent and forgeting even their interviews in the previous seasons and how they talked about the character then. Nobody was pissed about how Breaking Bad characters were evolved to be more sinister by time the opposite everyone was thrilled to see more of it why it was done well. I believe if GRR Martin does it well people will like it.
@@annavafeiadou4420 actualy even in the show it was not an out of nowhere change, something was of with her quite early one, but expecting her to be awesome and the exitment over dragons made people overlook those warning signs.
Like her obcesion with her titals makes her comparable with Joffrey who got a reprime from Tywin stating that if he needs to tell people, he does not truely hold them . . . but joffrey was a monster and dany tried very hard to do good, so people did not make the connection.
Or her apathy in regards of her brothers death, yes he was cruel and all, but he raised her, she loved him for he was all she had and then she feels nothing . . .
Lots of people defend her as perfect, state show dany is nothing like book dany and book dany would never ever do anything like that so yeah, I expect those to hate the twist on accossiation, even if it gets pulled of way more gracefuly
“Being annoying is not an executable offense “ true but still made me laugh
"Because Fuck Ollie" 🤣😂🤣
@@wisdommanari6701
I still mourn him.
Arya's brother in spirit.
Ygritte killed his Dad, he was justified in what he did.
So many people do this historical revisionism and forget that Ollie is an orphan partially because of Ygritte and entirely because of the wildlings
@@tripledigit4835 Exactly, many people would react the same way if they were Ollie. He watched his entire family, friends, and village get murdered, raped, and destroyed by Wildlings.
Would you NOT execute Ollie if he killed you first?!?
Omg I knew I couldn't be the only one who gets infuriated by the way Tyrion whispers "It's not yours to decide", or whatever exactly he says. It really makes my blood boil how he's forced to sound the second half of the season.
LOL, especially when it was exactly his decision to make
Preston jokes about that part that Grey Worm shoulda knifed him in the throat on the spot for that line.
Woulda been much more fitting.
What's so evil about relying on others for morality? Yes, we should try to be moral of our own choice. However, morality usually concerns the treatment of others and who would know better how well you treat others than those other people themselves? You might think you're being nice to someone, but that person may feel harassed. Democracy is the political embodiment of this.
Morality is not one single thing, not one certain philosophy. It's great to have a personal desire to do good and to be good, and think about your actions. However, there is nothing wrong with listening to friends, family, and advisors.
D&D are insanely immature. They have a middle school mentality.
"Themes are for 8th grade book reports" yeah d&d are still in middle school, they obviously haven't passed their 8th grade literature class
They literally bought their way into the writer role, they were unqualified for the position. These are the hacks who wrote X-Men Origins Wolverine, what else can I say.
@@mschell8022 Did they really buy their way in? I mean they kinda were the ones who really kick started the idea for the show to begin with right?
@@alecshockowitz8385 Yes they did check out what the channel DragonDemands has researched about their "career". They're spoiled rich kids.
Not that I agree with him, but the point Graves is making is not so much that Dany is evil because she listens to her advisors for moral counsel, it's that she is the wrong choice to rule when compared with Snow because of what each character's primary and most consistent motivations are.
Breaking it down, I think most people would agree that Jon Snow's primary motivators are:
Family, honor, and duty.
I think most people would agree that Dany's primary motivators are:
Justice, progress, and birthright/destiny.
At 8:50 Graves makes his assertion, eventually saying that "Danaerys is a character that prefers to do the right thing, so long as doing the right thing didn't undermine her own ambition or authority to rule (birthright/destiny)." When faced with these conflicting choices, Dany needs her advisors to steer her toward the moral choice, at least according to Graves.
Contrast this to Snow, who has similar conflicts where he has to prioritize one motivator over the other, but since his motivators are all seemingly "good," his choices are all ultimately noble even if they end catastrophically.
Granted, Preston gives examples to refute this take as well but I think he is a little obtuse in the way he addresses it.
All the Dothraki were danys blood riders so now they have to off themselves.
But they'll immediately resurrect, so there's not much point in it.
Ah but technically wouldn’t they have to kill Jon and Tyrion to avenge her and THEN kill themselfs?
Jon and Tyrion should be dead, Dany made all the dothraki her bloodriders, that means they take revenge for their khalessi.
@@aryasuperstark9599 sounds like we agree again!
@@Richard_Nickerson yourselve
The Tarlys were oathbreakers, they betrayed their liege lords, the Tyrells. And it's established many times on the show and in the books that oathbreaking is one of the worst crimes in Westeros.
Also, Jorah advised against helping the slaves. Dany chose to ignore that advice.
Actually no. We're repeatedly hit with the phrase 'words are wind.' Sometimes we see people break major oaths without consequences. Other times we see them break minor oaths but face heavy consequences. Oaths themselves are weightless. What matters is the integrity of the people who swear the oaths, whether or not the people in power are willing to enforce them, and whether or not there are any circumstances which might convince people sympathize with the oathbreaker.
What's more perplexing is the Tarlys, and their liegelords the Tyrells, remained loyal to the Targaryens during Robert's Rebellion. Randyll was one of the most prominent loyalist generals. He bent the knee to Robert without issue.
Why the f*ck would he all of a sudden be loyal to Cersei of all people!!?? It makes zero sense. Randyll wasn't completely morally rigid and inflexible like Stannis. Randyll had already shown himself to be a harsh but pragmatic lord.
@@GumaroRVillamil because from his perspective he also has an obligation to Cersei because she was on the Iron Throne. why do people forget this? Jaime's hot tub scene made this very clear. people have multiple obligations they are supposed to honor. if your king says to kill your father, do you follow it? Randyll Tarly had an oath to the Tyrell's as thei direct liege lord but he also has an oath to the king/queen of the Iron Throne aside from the politics behind why they sit there. from his perspective, Cersei is already sitting on the throne and ruling the 7 kingdoms despite the politics behind how she got there. if Randyll had joined Daenerys therefore committing treason against Cersei, and they lost then Randyll is now a traitor to Cersei. to him, it's the devil you know versus the devil you don't. he knows nothing about Daenerys as a person. he might not like Cersei, but at least he knows her and she's in closer proximity to get retaliation against him if he did treason against her and she wins
Randyll remaining loyal to the Targaryens during the rebellion, as far as we know, is honoring the obligation to fight for whoever sits the Iron Throne just like the current situation. we have no idea how Randyll felt about the Mad King personally, so it's very possible he has no good view of him at all and fought for House Targaryen during the rebellion because that was his obligation and House Tyrell also fought for them. if Randyll had a negative view of the Mad King who was the last ruler from House Targaryen, to him he could be thinking why would I want the daughter of the Mad King who could herself be just as bad if not worse than Aerys or even Cersei
also it wasn't as clear cut as the rebellion. House Tyrell fought for House Targaryen against Robert Baratheon. meaning House Tarly honored their obligation to the lord of the region and the king of the entire country. but the current situation has the lord of the region going against the "king" of the country. Rebellion = Florida and the Feds on the same side. Daenerys invading = Florida vs the Feds on opposing sides. as a resident of Florida, the choice isn't cut and dry
Preston-senpai, when are we getting our 1000 World complete retrospective? :3
UwU
THIS
Pretty please?
Pretty Pretty Meris please?
Word
Bruh, I just rewatched the Tuff stuff and got really nostalgic for that entire series.
I just hate how the show and many people who defend Dany’s ending act as if her actions are abnormal within her universe or even our own.
Those same people will usually say Tywin is amazing.
@@cyberninjazero5659 But the whole point is that it was never established that Dany is the kind of person who would suddenly just transform into Curtis LeMay and wipe out a city. Everything she had done up to that point was just normal monarch stuff but it was presented as tyrannical and insane because reasons even though plenty of other characters had done the same or worse and were treated like it's just fine and cool. It's like, with all the other characters, it's feudalism and monarchy and we've got to understand and respect that, but with Dany suddenly it's like, oh no she acts like a medieval ruler, she's a bloodthirsty fascist tyrant overriding democracy, we can't have an individual ruler making decisions on her own and waging a war for her claim on a throne and executing people who are waging open war against her. And then on that basis there's this leap to her just going apeshit and burning down a whole city, and it comes out of fucking nowhere. The whole basis of it is this ridiculous double standard where everyone else can act like kings and lords but if it's Dany, then it's bad and evil for a monarch to act like a monarch, and so it logically follows that if she's acting like a monarch she must want to just slaughter everyone in sight. The whole thing is stupid and nonsensical.
Part of what's so stupid about the last season is how after 8 years of warfare all of a sudden the show adopts this modern pacifist worldview, and you have people like Tyrion who once burned Stannis' army with wildfire and Varys who tried to arrange a Dothraki invasion of Westeros suddenly advising Dany that making war is evil and bad. All of a sudden you can only be either Gandhi or Chinggis Khan and there's nothing in between. If Dany acts like a perfectly normal medieval feudal ruler, then she must be a psychotic mass murderer because, by season 8, still having the medieval personality that everyone else had had in previous seasons is now a sign of madness and somebody who must want to slaughter whole cities (even if that entirely contradicts the way her character has been since the beginning of the show, always trying to minimize suffering whenever possible). There's no longer any room for complexity and degrees of scale here whatsoever; you're either a modern hippie pacifist or a genocidal tyrant.
@@kawadashogo8258 interesting point. I think the showrunners wanted to make the anti-war message that is at the foundation of the books, but after multiple seasons of war being mostly badass and accompanied by the good guys’ winning music and then not dealing with the consequences, it comes out of left field that all these people are now anti-war. I suppose that’s what they were going for when Tyrion sadly watches the end of that S7 battle he shouldn’t even have been at. That’s too little too late though, and Anti-war Varys is just insanely hypocritical
@@Borgcow Dany was an anti war message???, Did you not watch the battle of the bastards, all I saw was the glamorisation of war and Sansa feeding a prisoner of war to her dogs. So basically what your saying is, war is only okay if the Starks do it?
Dan and Dave: MAN MAKE GOOD
WOMAN BAD NEED CONTROLLING MAN
me: you guys sure we can't go over this script one more time
"If your bitch starts acting up, just kill em"
-Dan & Dave, experts in writing female characters
Read the title.. went from 😡 to 🥺
I know right, he got me so bad at first glance.
Remember when Tywin told Tommen that a wise king will listen to his advisors? That wasn't about maintaining power, that was Tywin being super moral!
Weirdly, there is a certain logic to the idea that if Dany is a bad guy, Tywin must be a good guy 😆
Tywin was one of the most evil and crule people in the story.
What he did to Tysha. Ordered the mountain to r@pe and k!ll innocent people in the riverlands
@@lostcinema5189 thanks for explaining the joke!
While Tywin definitely wanted tighter control over Tommen it was still great advice. A monarch should always heed the consul of those that are experts in any given field.
@@ivanenfinger9331 yes, but I dunno about GREAT advice. Tywin didn’t try teaching Tommen how to pick a good adviser, just to listen to the ones he’s got- Tywin, and whoever else Tywin allows. Plus it strikes me as better real world advice than GoT advice. Varys advised Aerys to open the gates to Tywin himself and look how that went. In the show Tyrion advises Dany to basically lose the war. Stannis’ allies convinced him to leave the Red Woman at home during the Battle of the Blackwater. Until he teaches how to recognize a good advisor, Tywin’s advice is just self-serving
I'm gonna be real butthurt if GRRM doesn't finish the series and we're left with the show to wrap it up.
I always thought his plan from the beginning was to die before finishing the books. The central theme of the books being .... you never get the whole story cause folks die. 😁
That's definitely what's going to happen.
You better stock up on Preparation H then, because he'll never finish it. He painted himself into a corner imo.
F**k. Buy me a straight jacket cuz I'm going MAD if he doesn't finish. My older brother got me into ASOIAF on the 90s... I refuse to accept the D&D ending.
@@corrinecorrina213 Yep, we all need to go buy a tub of lube. Lots of butt hurt to go around for us ASOIAF fans.
The gender thing was my top problem with the finale. The same show lauds the vengeful brutality displayed by Arya (who is more masculine presenting) but when Danny makes a perfectly logical decision to burn Lord Tarly after he refuses to bend the knee, she’s seen as evil. I mean she’s a conqueror and a queen. What else was she supposed to do?
The problem is not that she executed him, that was logical, but how, in a way that was cruel, and that is clashes horrably with her "Oh so mercyful" act. You can not conquer without a certain ruthlessness. But burning things to the ground is the last thing you should do if you want people to belive you are benevolent. Arya was never framed as thinking of herself as careing, so we do not expect ot of her.
If Dany wanted to be seen as a good ruler, a ruler of the people, she should have got that she can not just say that or not even that, she must demonstrait that.
Thats the difference between her and Jon, Jon does not expect people to follow him blindly for whatever reason, he fights for them, he proves himself and that following him is their best chance. SHe on the other hand burns people who defend their home from invadors and claims they betraied her for she is their rightful ruler . . . . .
Jon is in no way perfect and god he has corpses in his basment to, but their styl of ruleing is extreamly different. Both do and have every right to kill someone who stabed them in the back, but he understood and was willing to deal with haveing to convince people who started out in opposition to him while she . . . just burned everything.
Lord Tarly really was not the problem, but killing him without a trial and in a very painful way was terrible for her image, especialy for she burned the still quite young Dickon with him, effectivly ending the line without a second thought. That was not calculated, that was rash, she knew nothing of them . . . she also burned a lot of food in the same swoop which was especialy with winter comeing wasteful in a way they can not effort!
Not conquer, not be a queen, and not burn people alive when they're helpless and in your power
I disagree, ASOIAF has the them of “gender and the patriarchy”and its negative influence on men and women appear often. Having Daenerys treated differently for similar acts compared to Male characters in similar positions could of highlighted this theme in the show. The problem is Dan and Dave are morons who don’t know how to do this in a satisfying manner
@@SingingSealRiana I agree with some of your points. It was a poor strategic decision to burn the food and supplies. She could have used those. I’m pretty sure D&D just did that for a “cool scene” which was dumb. But when it comes to her mercy, she’s shown many times over that she’s merciful to those she seeks to protect. Not to those who oppose her. She’s actually acted like any other effective conqueror who was actually able to maintain their grasp on power. However her soft femininity comes with a presupposition of mercy even when it clashes with her ambitions. And that isn’t comparable to Jon or Robb. They never intended to conquer and rule. Burning by dragon sends a message. And she only turned to that option after the (come over to my side, I’m nicer than Cersei) angle failed to work. Mostly because of Tyrion’s terrible advice, but still.
She shouldn't have let Dickon get burned with his dad. Not even Walder Frey was dumb enough to let Edmure Tully die at the red wedding.
What she was supposed to do was dispossess the Tarlys of their land and had it over to the next most powerful regional lord that supports her.
People in Westeros not liking Danny should be expected, she's invading and torching their lands shortly after the war of the 5 king's, the realm is weary of war and winter is coming.
Did everyone forget the pregnancy foreshadowing for Daenerys in season 7 episode 7 at the dragon pit? Then in season 8 they abandon that plot, I personally believe they switched roles between Cersei and Daenerys for the final season, because Lena Heady admitted that her miscarriage scene got cut and they chose to keep her pregnant. Cersei would've went insane if she miscarried because that would've meant that maggy the frog was correct and I think D&D saw that fans could predict that cersei would go mad and that jaime would have to kill her so they chose to subvert expectations and make Daenerys go mad instead of Cersei.
Thank you for that thought and even more for the reminder. If "foreshadowing" was supposed to mean something then why doesn't it for other issues which actually aren't character breaking if they happen?
Did the Dothraki leave? No, the guys whose EVERY CONVERSATION ON SCREEN WAS ABOUT RAPING are just going to wander around this defenseless country and find all these widowed women and just practice some soul searching. Not raping.
Also Dany made them all her bloodriders, so technically they would be honourbound to avenge her or die trying, then follow her to the grave.
And maybe not all of them would have followed through on it, but there are *tens of thousands of them,* at minimum.
Best honeypot I could think of was even though Dany died she wanted them to stop the raping, and since she wasn’t just their Khaleesi but some kind of God Queen after the whole fire thing, they took it to heart even after death and it became part of their idea of honor going forward…
…that’s as honeyed as I can get that pot, though
The funniest thing about this comment is its not an exaggeration at all. I literally can not remember one dothraki line that doesn't involve some reference to rape.
Jon's decision to let in the wildings is pragmatic in a way as he doesn't want the army of the wights growing larger. He did not communicate it very well of course lol But I feel like not only is it the morally right thing to do but also pragmatic as well in ways. Daenerys never does anything cruel in the books that has no purpose. She seems to actually be pretty self aware compared to other leaders we see on page or in planetos history.
I think older members of the nights watch would rather fight undead Wildlings rather than live with Wildling. It wouldn't matter if a bard like Merillion told the Night's Watch higher up in song, they still hate the Wildling more than the Others.
@@angellover02171 That is the point. hatred for the living can trigger the end of the world.
Letting the wilding cross was the most practical thing, as Edwin says, Jon was not able to communicate it well, nor explain the danger involved in leaving them on the other side of the wall. Jon's biggest failure as a leader is that Jon hopes / believes the world will have his perspective. Like Ned and his ideal of honor. He wasn't able to get his hands dirty in making the concessions feel motivated.
He just hopes that everyone sees the world as he does.
It is pragmatic, but most people who would know it’s a good decision are gone. Most people in the watch on the wall when Jon gets killed hadn’t ever seen a wight before.
@@MightyPinecone yeah if Mormont hadn't been killed and he made the same order I don't think he would've been questioned.
@@angellover02171 for sure. They lost a lot of good men at craster’s and the fist, a lot of good men who could’ve backed up the decision, but at the same time, the old bear might not have made the decision as Jon because Jon actually spent time with them. Hard to say, but, at least, in Mormont’s time, there were a lot of people who could see the logic in the decision. That said though, letting the wildlings in was only one factor in Jon getting stabbed. His last little announcement where he decides to go fight Ramsay was really the nail in his coffin. It was one thing when he was trying to protect the realm from the others, but when he decided to abandon the watch to kill Ramsay it was pretty much him telling all his men that he was going to break his vows.
If anyone showed signs of sociopathy, it was Sansa. She was basically Little finger II. When Rickon was captured she insisted that they had to fight to get him back, then after Jon committed himself and thousands of others to doing that, she complained about all Jon's advisors and was like, "Don't be stupid, we'll never get Rickon back. Oh, and we need to wait for more men!" After all the northerners who were going to join them already had, but she said nothing about Littlefinger's army laying in wait off to the side, and only brought them into it after the wildlings had been reduced to almost nothing..
Then there was her inclination to strip children of their ancestral homes after that very thing had been done to her.
Mate, this is the most ridiculous one sided analysis/characterization of Sansa I ever heard/read 😂😂😂
Don‘t get me wrong, I cannot stand her in the first book, she gets better though, but this is just hate for hate reason in your comment! Don‘t pretend you ever had a positive feeling towards her, cause all you wrote is just propagandizing and turning every situation against her!
@Michèl Morio Then describe how he’s wrong, because everything he said was accurate. Also, Sansa was far more likable in season one compared to the final three. It’s like attempts to “empower” female characters these days makes them poor leaders and sociopathic.
I agree. Forget Rickon as heir to the North. He was her little brother. Even if Ramsay is evil incarnate, at least try to save him. After he'a dead, we never hear his name again.
@@vanguardian2864 Totally. It's a neoliberal mindset: minority groups are systematically oppressed by elites. Rather than address those problems directly, let's empower a few token minorities into elite status and cheer them on. Women are still horribly oppressed, but hey, there's one or two really powerful women that are just as cruel and vengeful as powerful men, let's idolize them!
First of all, concerning Rickon... how is admitting the truth wrong? He was lost at this point, he was actually lucky to die quickly, it could have been THAT much worse if you know Ramsay! He had no reason to keep him a alive, he didn‘t need a hostage cause he could easily beat them from what he knew! He could have send them his head without even meeting them before the battle...
Of course she is optimistic in the beginning, at that point, she thinks the Stark name will rally the North against the oppressing and cruel Bolton’s cause all she knew was the North remembers, loves the Stark and had great respect for Ned, enough to go to war for him, twice, why not for his children too?!?Well, meeting with the Mormonts and Glovers, they are amongst the fiercest and most loyal Stark bannermen, well, they got 60 something men from bear island and nothing from the Wolfswood, some other lords arguing that Ramsay supported them against the Iron Born, others fearing Ramsay too much or already sacrificed enough/too much in Robb’s war... I will see the person who wouldn’t loose optimism! Oh, before we forget, did I mention the Karstarks and Umbers declared for Ramsay, the 2 largest and powerful houses after the Bolton’s and Manderlys in the North?
So they got a couple of hundred Northmen and a few thousand indisciplined Wildlings (Stannis managed to defeat tens of thousands of them with just 2500-4000 men, so yeah, I wouldn‘t put a single coin on them... the North also defeated them every time they managed to come South of the Wall over the Last few thousand years)!
So yes, waiting and get more men was the right thing to do! They have more mouths to feed and it’s Winter, let them waste the few stored stuff they have!
Not telling Jon about the Knights of the Vale is the only criticism I can give her!
Coming to the knights of the Vale... what would have happened, if they appeared much earlier or were there from the beginning of the battle? Ramsay would have just taken his whole army into Winterfell, manned the walls and rained arrows on them while they would have to storm the battlements... good chance with Cavalry and without siege weaponry! You can have ten times the numbers and get still slaughtered! You presume she waited too long to sacrifice as much as possible of Jon’s men? What if they really just arrived that moment? They camped around the Neck when they wrote each other, a few hundred miles south, not in the neighboring valley!
Don‘t believe thousands of knights on horses can wait that long WITHOUT MAKING NOISE on a hill, waiting for an appropriate moment so Jon is almost wiped out to intervene... thousands of horses are loud as fuck and chainmail and plate aren‘t either made to infiltrate the battlefield... Ramsay and Jon AND their armies should have heard and felt this massive cavalry army riding there before they can see them! Such amount of horses create a thunderous sound and shaking, remember the Dothraki that encircled Dany at the end of season 5? 😉 You didn‘t even consider that the knights just made it, to you, they just waited on Sansa’s command till only and handful of Jons companions are left!
Coming to the children... well, as a Lord, you have to inspire loyalty... and and have a tool to punish disloyalty! Their families didn‘t only disobey, they actively fought on the other side! While it’s true that it’s not the fault of these children, our modern view doesn‘t apply to this feudal society! Why should others fought for you and not defy you, when there is no punishment, no reward? Tell me one example in history where it was good a child ruled? „Whoe to you, O land whose king is a youth“... that’s not only a biblical reference, but a wisdom! Lands suffered while ruled by lords/kings that weren‘t of age, cause the people around them in offices manipulate them, they misuse the powers they got until they become of age! Like Cersei did, like the councils did for Aegon III in the books, even to the Starks that happened! Henry VI. Is a real world example, though he had also other problems...
And to be honest, who thinks those 2 children, btw their lands are closest to the wall, should build the second defense line while FACING THE APOCOLYPSE?!? That’s not only stupid, but irresponsible to your subjects! And honestly, a Major Lord/King owns these lands anyways, these Minor houses are just installed to rule the land more effective, it actually isn‘t really theirs! The Karstarks descended from a younger son of house Stark who got granted lands by his father or elder brother, they built the fortress Karholt and later fugitive called the Starks from Kar-holt, the Kar-Starks... a responsible and wise ruler would have taken their lands or at least large parts, and given them to loyal but not so powerful bannermen to govern and administrate them for a certain amount of time, let’s say 5-10 years! If they proof their loyalty, they get back their lands and your other loyal lords got also compensated for their loyalty/service cause they profited for some time of these lands! Such fair bargains and signs secure the inner peace, not overpowering advantageously one side for the disadvantage of the other
ser Jorah literally adviced Danny many times against freeing the slaves and the unsullied.
Whispering is always used in television and movies to make a sense seem more important than it really is. Trailers are full of unnecessary whispering.
Re: melting of the throne: it really was random. The script of the last episode was shown onlinr and it said something along the line of the throne being in the line of fire of Drogon's firey breath, like an innocent bystander. So no, Drogon didn't melt a symbol.
Not only did John need his friends to stop him from deserting the Watch, he needed a blacksmith to tell him that the other boys on the watch didn't have a maester-at-arms to teach them how to fight so that he would actually stop humiliating them, most of the time John seems pretty lost about what to do tbh, clearly dumb and dumber didn't give a ounce of interest to the source material
Good points, thank you.
Why are people acting like Jon wanting to desert The Watch was bad lol? For all the talk of how all this weird feudal customs don't really matter and is actually harmful people loooove to make it seem like Jon deserting the band of rapists and thieves he was manipulated into joining as a 14 year old boy is bad lmao. To go help his brother instead fight a war in his father's name is the bad thing to do and he was stupid for wanting to do that. What?! It seems much more logical than staying at The Wall at that point in time that's for sure. Of course he knew he could be executed if he got caught why do you think he was running lol. Keep in mind leaving The Wall to go bang prostitutes is common and accepted.
Once again when Jon started at The Wall he was a young teenage boy it's not uncommon being cocky and arrogant with his ability at that age especially if he is actually talented. Is Jon "humiliating" them really so bad? It's how you learn if you know nothing about swordfighting the master at arms teaching you is going to be a little bit humbling possibly humiliating and you'll take some bruises and cuts along the way, it's all in the process of learning. The new recruits of the Night's Watch were just salty Jon was better than them Jon was right about that.
Jon wasn't the master at arms it's Alliser's job to be teaching the recruits not Jon he should be explaining what Jon is doing right and teaching the recruits how to do it. Noye literally got mad at Jon for existing "You see boy you grew up in a castle and these other boys are very stupid and can't learn anything from failure, Thorne hates everyone and doesn't teach just insults so YOU need to teach them your skills instead of training." Jon IS a flawed character and not particularly smart either but people really go to great lengths to make him look stupid in situations where he was being completely normal and inoffensive. How is Jon holding back on every single opponent he trains against good for him? If all the Night's Watch sucks at fighting that's a problem of the Watch not Jon. It's a feudal society acting like a farmer wouldn't also know how to swing a sword decently well is kinda silly you don't need a master at arms training to be a good fighter.
@@Lin_Eileen yeah I don't understand the point of bringing that up in relation to...what exactly? like is the point that Jon is bad at honoring an oath? I don't get it.
@@b1bbscraz3y Desertion is a morally grey thing at best even regardless of oaths. You're betraying your brothers in arms and endangering all of their lives when you just up and leave. People's lives are depending on you. That's why its a bad thing to skip out on the military you're a part of, and almost every army throughout history punished it with death or serious bodily harm.
everyone needs teachers, needs to grow up, lern, develope the ability to regard a situation from a different perspective. The difference between Dany and jon there is that he always had teachers, mentors people who loved him and helped him sorting such messes out, while Dany had people who wanted to use her instead which will most likely lead to her snaping/falling sooner or later.
No one is awesome just out of themselfs, everyone is a mirror of their teachers and experiences.
It seems strange like you guys touched on that when cersi was blowing up the Tyrell's and clergy and anyone else close to them. Tyrion was still trying to protect her. Yet he was upset about Dany killing actual combatants in a war after they refused to bend the knee. His own father had babies killed when he liberate kingslanding from the mad king. Seems there is just this double standard for her that makes no sense at all.
17:17 I too also love it when Preston does the "you have to choose" and "it's not your decision" quotes in a funny voice.
Tywin was never really lauded as a hero… he was feared and respected.
This is like dissecting a turd to see if the corn or peanuts have broken down.
Underrated comment
Still better than the "OC"
@@allthe1 I dunno, I never watched the OC finale so I’m going to have to reserve judgement
@@Borgcow I approve of your restraint. Tbh I'd like to go back and unwatch all of seasons 5 and up. Worst TV experience up to this day
@@allthe1 let’s do one better and go back and make them un-film it! 😅
They should have had a montage of Dany and Jon going around asking for support after they defeated the night king and all the nobles refusing it. So at least that way when they get to kings landing she could have been already pissed.
I don't know I mean it's so obvious she was going to be evil like this false savior trope like hitler or the anti christ but it was done badly dang
@@nottelling4876
Yea no she’s not going to evil, if so then provide evidence that says she is worse than Jon and Tyrion.
It doesn't surprise me that they think it's that black and white. Also (in the books, so far) Dany listens a lot to other character's advice while Jon only explains to his men what he himself has decided after the fact. His intentions are often noble and his decisions necessary (like borrowing money to buy food), but it's very different from Mormont's style of leadership. Tbf it's been a while since I read the books but that's how I remember it.
Dany did the same, she traded with others and her main reason was to keep her people fed, did you forgot about that ???
@@bethaofhouseblackwood234 And I said Jon's decisions were noble and necessary.
@@Voldemartha And so were Danys.
@@bethaofhouseblackwood234 this isn't a critique of Dany, it was defense of Dany. My point was about how Jon is according to D&D the best candidate for the throne bc he did the right thing without needing counsel, while Dany, according to D&D, had to be "kept back" by Tyrion and the others. I think that's wrong, Dany's first instinct was always to help but she listens to counsel before making a decision and tries to do her best. Meanwhile Jon (as lord commander) isolates himself and decides things before speaking to the other higher ups in the watch, and in the end his decisions get him killed. So, Jon "not needing counsel" makes him fail. While Dany listening to advice has served her well so far, aside from being forced to compromise too much.
I recently saw a comment that I really like that says they should have ended the show ambiguous where Dany wins her and Jon take the throne but she is left wondering if the Starks are out to get her. It ends with Jon saying something to her that has double meaning and she looks as he leave the room and she stares at the audience that she might not be all there and it ends.
"Jon saved the wildlings" huh? more like, he helped to wipe them out, in the show for sure
But then saved the survivors. But then got them slaughtered.. then led them back beyond the wall.
Lol ! Have yo seen the "Hardhome" episode ?
Exactly, Jon wiped them out later, helping Jon's fight for northern independence
Exactly the thing Mance said outright to Jon, he didn't want to happen, Jon did himself. What a hero that Jon Snow!...
@@TheLastSoundNL You could argue there was no escaping it. No matter when, how, or with who the Wildlings going south of the wall puts them on a path of do or die. They aren't the type to bend the knee and assimilate easily and nearly everywhere will view them as savages/invaders. Even if they won with Mance at the wall they still would have faced protracted war in the north with winter on the way. No matter what warfare they faced a Bolton controlled "south" and White Walker controlled north means costly war.
Carmine comes up with great ideas! I see why Preston podcasts with him! I love his idea of Dany losing herself when she loses dragons. I would put it the other way round: part of the dragon's spirit enters her mind like a dying warg, making her more brutal and dragon-like.
Video Title: Why Dany was Evil
Me: *cocks gun*
Video Title: According to showrunners
Me: *slowly puts gun away* proceed
Lol
Same, I was ready to pull the shotgun out.
Dany is evil from book 1, fight me
@@ahandsomecheese There's no point in fighting you, you just made a ridiculous statement and added no context to back up that ridiculous statement. And please don't talk about the books, I don't believe you've read a book in your life
Dany worship is cringe
I wish the show would have gone into the climate issues of Westeros (long summers, long winters). I thought that’s a huge part of the overarching narrative of ASOIAF. I also expected a scene of Dothraki and Unsullied being ravaged by their first experience of true winter. But whatever. I’ll wait for the books.
Wait. They seriously didn't have any metaphors in mind when the dragon melted down the iron throne? I used to think I was being unfair assuming the showrunners were as dumb as bricks but now I'm starting to think I gave them too much credit. George cannot finish twow soon enough...
I personally don't believe they always planned on her going mad because in the 'After Inside Episode' to season 7 episode 5 and D&D said that her choice DIDN'T MAKE HER THE MAD KING! Also why have her postpone her quest for the throne to help Jon fight the dead if she never cared about human life she could've just burned Kings Landing in season 7 and stayed south and left Jon on his own.
That is a very good point. That you for making it. I was thinking of when season six had an Inside the Episode where they said Daenerys wasn't "insane", nor a "sadist", nor "her father". But doing similar in season 7 may help re-enforce the point.
I always assumed that Greyworm was a stand-in for the military junta that takes over established power. This is why it made sense to me that he takes control after Danny is murdered and then no sense when he transfers his power to the council/Bran without much negotiation (not to mention just standing there without bodyguards). Do you think GRRM/the showrunners had something similar in mind or was I completely off track? Love your work, best regards!
Betting the actress wife of Dan or Dave is really glad she didn’t get a part in got 😂
Amanda Peet… gotta be the least GOT-type actor.
@@JJJJJVVVVVLLLLL ive seen on interviews she had really wanted a role..
Probably not so much after seasons 6, 7 an 8
@@ComradeCommissarYuri well, that all makes sense after all. I shouldn’t assume
“Fuck Ollie he was annoying” as if he wasn’t a literal child who witnessed his whole village and parents raided and slaughtered by cannibalistic wildlings and was pressured into taking part in the coup by a bunch of grown men.
Dont forget that her men wanted to take down the killed child slave's bodies but she told them no. She wanted to look at the horror to remind herself of the evil she was fighting.,
Keep doing these with Carmine, having a dialogue for these kinda topics fits way better and is much more memorable.
My favorite day in the week is when there is a new Preston video. And Saturday.
Sansa sabotaged a good ending, telling everyone that Jon Snow was the real heir to the throne. Keeping that secret and waiting till they marry and take the throne together could have been the best solution.
And best for The North as well since a favored North could have benefitted from supplies from the rest of the kingdoms if there is a problem like a food shortage.
Also Sansa ruin the chance for house stark to get dragon riders via jon deany children can you Imagine how powerful house stark could have been jon as king Sansa ruling the north and dragon riders
How much does this need to be stressed?! Sansa did what the NORTH WANTED. They did NOT WANT DANY. These people made it painfully obvious they didn't want her! When.Jon and Sansa try to rally the houses in season six we learn exactly WHY some houses were hesitant. They didn't want another Robb. Sansa took the words and listened to them...Jon didn't. She warned him about the North's reaction and she's ignored. Lord Glover stayed in his own castle REFUSING to go to Winterfell because of Jon's broken oath. After reading his raven she explains that Lord Royce said, he'd stand behind Jon, The King In The North. Lyanna Mormont called out Jon's broken oath....in front of everyone!!
Lordt this irks my soul because many of you are purposely being obtuse woth a severe case of tunnel vision. Understand that each house had its own journey that didn't include Dany, the North/Starks, happens to be one of them. Their need for independence didn't fall off because Dany entered the chat. They've wanted their independence since Ned's execution and they openly and rebelliously named Robb king.
This has nothing to do with Dany. This has everything to do with them and what they've craved for a long time.
It was Jon fault if he didnt want the throne why go and blab out bein Aegon Targaryen and I dont Think GRRM is gonna name 2 brothers Aegon that is just stoopid.
I think the logic of melting the Iron Throne is literally just “The show is called Game of Thrones and it’s ironic that the last thing that happens is the physical throne over which all these wars were fought has been destroyed.”
Yes, the is then followed by a new king being chosen, because the creators are careless with anything thematic, but I’m sure someone in the room said “It’s called Game of THRONES, what happens to the THRONE”
This is probably the most accurate explanation
1. the character of tyrion made me want to throw my tv away - man I got so pissed off with him. he really thought he was doing something!
2. why would D&D write that drogon burning the iron throne is to be some metaphor of burning the monarchy…only to have 2 monarchs in westeros…
3. why would the northern army not follow bran STARK as their monarch but would follow sansa? just because they want independence? the north is a volatile place - how will that work economically for them?
If dragons were really more intelligent than humans, they could have shown this long before
And why tf would Sansa want independence from her own brother who was pretty much chill with her the whole time?
Yaaaay! Seeing this ready to be watched put a smile on my face and lifted me from a slummy mood! Thank you
PJ IS BACK FOMOS
The way I interpreted what D&D tried to do with Dany (& failed miserably) was to paint her as a character who only did the good & righteous actions because:
A) she's been told by her closest associates that Targaryens are the true royalty;
B) Her supporters encouraged her that she IS the power she keeps acquiring throughout the show, whether its becoming a Khaleesi, mother of dragons, liberator of slaves, mother of the people or Queen of Westeros. Missandei even affirmed Dany that she ignores her advisors because SHE sees a better choice.
C) Her closest friends & supporters kept telling her she's the right ruler because of her good & caring heart (which, again is mostly due to what was established in A & B)
Every time 1 of her closest supporters died, or betrayed her, she snapped. She only thrived through interpersonal encouragement & being openly beloved by the people.
Westerosi people never grew to love her, which was a failed assumption by Jon, mainly because how uninvolved the rest of Westeros was in the White Walker crisis. All she could hope for was Jon, who stopped engaging in their love due to his newly discovered connection to her family, which was the baseline of her entitlement.
Her only felt consolation out of an abusive childhood was to become a ruler of the people who she wished to see her as the right choice to rule them. When she realized they didn't see her that way, she clean-slated the board & then enforced herself onto them, trying to reason it with how she achieved her position despite her abusive childhood, & tried to win Jon back, her only love left, by suggesting that he had a similar childhood. She argues that their upbringing is proof that they deserve the position of power to do the right thing.
In short, I think D&D tried to show that Dany is only capable of commanding people & seeking love for herself, because without those 2, she'd revert back to S1 Ep1 Dany.
the plot would've been sound if the dialog matched, but instead the characters all talked like they were mentally stuck in S6 finale.
Dany's childhood was much, much nicer than 99/100ths of everyone else in Essos or esteros,
so there's no reason to center an analysis around that.
However, Dany did grow up learning that the current monarchs in King's Landing
(AND their trusted advisors)
had spent more than a decade trying to murder her and her family,
since before she as born, in fact.
This was an official state policy, not just a royal whim,
which makes her desire to conquer and/or raze
Westeros not only rational, but also fair and just:
a matter of self defense.
But that's not how her story arc went though. Khal Drogo wanted that for her, sure, but that goal died with him. But again, it was Drogo, not her. Her goals were mainly sparked through her supporters.
& no, that desire is def not fair nor rational since by the time Tyrion joined it was no longer the point, given how the major perpetrators of the rebellion all died by the time she set sail for Westeros, & it was about whether she can blame their heirs while demanding to forget about her father. Self defense was certainly not what happened at the end.
@@DancingViru where do you think her character arc is going in the books I mean she has a messianic complex she thinks she's the greatest person ever and she dislikes slavery like a few others guys (Darth vader, Hitler), and her personality changes to the setting. Of course she's going to become bad in the end
Themes? What themes? You seem to forget ~ "Themes are for eighth-grade reports!" - D&D
The Dothraki would become a warrior aristocracy like in our world's Bulgaria (turkic nomads ruling over slavic farmers and eventually fusing into one culture)
Power doesn’t corrupt, power reveals. Power enables you to act without restraint, to be who you truly are on the inside. Whether it’s the most compassionate of angels, the cruelest of demons, or another man among many. We saw who Dany is with power. For many years we saw who she was.
They wanted an ending they couldn’t have with the character they created, so they had to break her character along with everyone else’s.
Yup.
in the books she is going to become evil though how do you think her character arc is going to end
Not Telling Since the books aren't out yet nobody (outside of possibly GRRM) knows how her arc will end. But I think it is a distinct possibility she will sacrifice herself to help Jon deal with the White Walkers. The books already set up a story where a guy made a magic sword at the expense of keeping his wife alive-the story said her soul went into the sword. If there is a Jon stabbing Dany moment many (including me) expect it won't be to save Westeros from her but to save Westeros from the White Walkers.
Tyrion may want King's Landing to burn and may still talk or even trick book Daenerys into doing that-perhaps even tricking her into setting off the remaining wildfire by telling her to use dragonfire where he knows some of it is stashed. Book Daenerys doesn't hate King's Landing, but book Tyrion may see it as his own revenge against a city he defended and then was disrespected afterwards.
Sweetrobin not becoming the king of Westeros is still one of the largest plot holes of the finale.
Well, he's barely in the show, so that would have been out of nowhere. It was bad writing to ignore the Vale so much and then use the Vale army as a deux ex machina for Jon's war against Ramsay and ignore Sweetrobin's role in that.
Even in the books, he is a minor character. Maybe he'll grow to play a bigger role in the books to come (if they do).
i love the idea that as each dragon dies dany goes deeper into madness. it parallels dany's destruction of KL with cersei blowing up the sept after losing marcella.
The difference is that Cersei was always a murderous psychopath (even as a child she pushed her friend down a well to her death), but Dany never showed any such tendencies before.
@@kawadashogo8258 Dont get me wrong, I agree completely, it was never shown to us that Dany is a cruel murdered capable of KL. If (and thats a big if) this is done correctly in the books, I anticipate a showing of decent into madness being heightened with each subsequent dragon death.
@@obviouslyPSM Personally , I think is a shit ended for her.
Remember that line from the finale "do you think our house words are marked upon us the moment we are born"
Yeah that's pretty much how Dan and Dave viewed the characters
In the show at least at Astapor she was giving up a dragon to the masters to buy the unsullied to the despair of Jorah and Barriston
What she didn’t tell anyone was her plan to have drogon burn the master holding his leash after she had received the whip so the unsullied would do her bidding of freeing the slaves and killing the masters and their guards
I'm fairly sure being annoying in a medieval setting is actually a capital offense.
Why do people still care about that? GOT was never ASOIAF's canon anyway lol
Because it mass traumatized book fans and we're never going to get over our anger.
@@mschell8022 Also cause the books might never get finished in which case GOT's ending is all we'll ever get.
Even the red pilled lnCels who yells Mary Sue and WAAAAAHMEN every time they see a female character breathe competently
Even they found Dany's instant evil turn to be insane
Henry V was called a hero after winning the Battle of Agincourt, despite killing all the French nobles who survived the battle. At that time it was normal to keep the surviving lords and nobles alive to gain ransoms for them. Henry just had them executed. Sure the French have probably vilified him but they def don't consider him mad.
Dany was going to become evil it's like the hitler story that's what george was doing it's a political message thing why does she even want to become queen because her big bro said so like what???
@@nottelling4876
Jesus Christ you are stupid. Why does anyone want to be King or Queen? Stannis, Robb, Jon, Bran, Sansa are also evil according to you? When has she ever done something prior to season 8 that is comparable to the Holocaust?
Crazy how I subscribed 6 years ago and you're still my favourite youtuber
Back are we and
Read the finale script, Preston. If the throne is explicitly said to be a happy accident in the script that’s what it is
Dany wasn’t evil. On the contrary the characters who were in the books they made very likeable like Tyrion and The mountain
Are you saying they made The Mountain likeable in the show? Not really. He was barely shown at all, but he was depicted as cruel.
Do you mean the Hound?
dany has no personality in the story and no reason to become the queen it's like a political message from martin but the showrunners did it badly
@@nottelling4876 Again , I don't know what books you've been reading, Dany has plenty of personality. The character with no personality is jon
Ollie was part of the assassination of Jon Snow, that’s why he was hung. Him no longer being annoying was just a bonus. Not sure if that part was addressed further on but I’ll probably be too lazy to edit this
Is it a class thing, ollie a nobody, at the wall, no one will care what happens to him, but a lord, you cant punish a lord like that
That's too smart for D&D. Yeah, people in Westeros might think that way. But the audience should see the difference and the show should communicate that their class shouldn't determine if it's acceptable or not.
Even if we were to pretend that the books never existed, the authors of Fire Can't Kill a Dragon actually implied that Ms. "Every slave is a reason we have to free Mereen" somehow needed to be told that by Jorah Mormont, the only advisor who was right next to her at the time and once told her he was a slaver himself
Yup. Its called excuse making. The author of Fire Can't Kill a Dragon was trying to do that for season 8 when it came out and was getting deserved criticism. I'd hoped the book would be better than that since people generally paying for it. You're point is totally correct in that sometimes Daenerys had better morals than her advisors and had to point out to them why something should or shouldn't happen for moral reasons.
The problem is not that their explanations are confusing, contradicting and generally unsupported by evidence from earlier in the story - it's that a piece of art/media/content should speak for itself and not require any dumb behind the scenes / extra content.
If you have to supplement your work with explanations to clarify, YOU'RE DOING A BAD JOB.
21:00 also this pretty much happens in England when the vikings invaded. They decided they wanted to settle down in the lands and farm. why cant the dothraki decide they want to settle down on this free real estate.
I now await Dothraki and random Reacher women fanfics now...
50 Shades of Frey
@@Borgcow frey's are dead and are worse than dothraki
@@Borgcow Frey's are in the Riverlands
He was sitting on the horse with this girl who was a servant of house Tyrell
@@faisalkamal4319 yeah, balls deep in the Riverlands, amirite?
The inclusion of Jenny's Song before the Second Battle for the Dawn was D&D's concession that "there's something there" in the Song of Ice and Fire -- which they no longer cared to struggle to figure out. But they wanted to summon those old ghosts anyway, before they made a pigs breakfast of everything
Lol all of DoD is about the people around Daenerys in Meereen trying to convince her to kill hostages, torture suspects, and open the fighting pits. Arguably these are all the wrong thing to do, and even when she agrees to the latter two she regrets those decisions or hates them.
Good point. In the show Dario even encourages her to just kill all of Meereen's nobles-Daenerys refused. Daenerys is sometimes more moral than her advisors.
Olly betrayed and actively and willingly participated in the murder of his commander. In a medieval setting it would be weird if he WASN'T executed. I think he's supposed to be like 12 or 13 (?) so he would definitely be treated as an adult in this situation. He's a sworn man of the Night's Watch anyway.
I was heart broken when Daenerys turned evil in the end. I can't believe George R.R. Martin would break all of the GOT fans hearts like that.
He's arguably doing the fans even dirtier by never finishing the books to at least show a well executed descent into madness. Lmfao
how did you think her story was going to end she has like no personality a messiah complex like hitler, she wants to rule the world for like no reason she thinks she's a god and how is this going to end with her like becoming jesus christ come back come on man
@@nottelling4876 I think your talking complete nonsense and you clearly ain't read the books. No personality? , no that's Jon snow
@@asoiaf5763 gtfo of here with that Jon has no personality. Jon is constantly grappling with himself over if what he's doing is the right thing. Before he becomes Lord Commander, and especially after. Good writing is all about the human heart in conflict with itself, jeeze, wish I could remember where I first I heard that. It seems like you who hasn't read the books. Dany is definitely foreshadowed to do something bad by the end of the story too, and she does have a God complex in the books. A lot of her story is about her losing faith in others and gaining it in herself and there are elusions to her having a god-like element to her, at least in the eyes of those around her, though she definitely suffers from her own inner turmoils as well. Now I definitely don't agree with that guy about her having no personality, she is a very strong character and is a lot of fun to read about.
Dany with the Tarly’s is very different to Jon and the mutineers.
Dany makes her decision based on their unwillingness to pledge fealty to her. It’s a binary choice of with me or against me. It’s all about her. She’s completely unwilling to forgive. Tyrions appeal is basically a claim that the loyalty to their previous oaths is noble and ought to be enough to allow them an opportunity to pledge loyalty to the realm by taking the black.
Jon was trying to broker peace between the nights watch and the wildlings. He did this with a commitment to his oath and a willingness to forgive the wildlings. He was murdered by people betraying their oaths. So his only option really is to hang or behead them. He doesn’t have the option of sending them to the wall. They were already at their last chance.
In short dany has first time offenders who are loyal when she has a suitable alternative punishment.
Jon is punishing repeat offenders who are proving they are disloyal while they are on their last strike.
Congratulations on discovery what fuedalism is. It is an all or nothing bend the knee or die system.
They refused the Nights Watch before it was even offered also they are already oath breakers as they betrayed their own Liege Lords.
They literally chose the fire.
I reckon Dany going crazy would’ve made sense if someone TRIED to shoot her and Drogon AFTER the bells are sounded. That fits perfectly and makes Jon’s choice the more difficult, and also makes it a parallel event to Jon killing his murderers: Daenerys cannot trust the citizens, the bells rung, they called for peace, she was about to grant it, and then someone tried to betray the trust by shooting Drogon. Drogon dodges it and Daenerys feels pushed over the edge.
The problem is the writing in general. Neither Dany nor Tarly were very consistent in their actions.
Preston, will you do a video where you give your thoughts on the House of the Dragon teaser?
Yes it's on carmine channel
Are we forgetting that Bran can put ideas in peoples heads and no one can block him out. No one can keep secrets from him. Literally everyone that would stand in his way to the throne were demoralized, dead, or left. As soon as Bran made it to Winterfell it was over. He took over Dani and Jon's stories and culled it to suit him.
Would be fine if this was intentional on the part of the writers, but it's not. With later-seasons GOT, what you see is what you get, there's nothing else beneath the surface. Theories like this, while cool, are really just attempts by the audience to fill in the holes left by shitty writing. It's the audience trying to do the writers' job for them after the fact, except we don't get paid for it.
Loved the theory that he turned the Mad King mad because he knew of he did they would make him king. Cue evil laugh.
Carmine in every show: "I'm not a feminist but..."
Carmine is way more woke than he likes to admit 😂
More like Preston explaining how the show doesn’t make sense, and then Carmine says: ‘Well, to be fair...’
i don’t really get the comparison to Jon executing Ollie. He literally murdered Jon lol. the tarlys just tried to kill Dany and were oathbreakers (like tons of other people)
the tarlys aren't oathbreakers
The Tarlys were oathbreakers (Lady Olenna was their liegelord) and Ned Stark would've had Randyll Tarly's head for that. Additionally the military force under Randyll's command seems to have taken no prisoners-even executing Lady Olenna herself with no other option for her. This makes Daenerys more merciful than Randyll where he turned down not just 1 but 2 options to live and never offered any to Lady Olenna.
Preston is a really smart guy I love listening to him talk about this stuff. He's right on with how sexual markets work when there are no men, every time he brings this up a lot of insecure virgins get upset and it's hilarious. For the guy's telling him " why would women want to be with a savage? "" lol they don't know women very well.
But you DO know women, Vincent! What a stud you are, bro!
Would you like to explain it to me? I'd rather be alone than with someone that would want to hurt me. The only women that might be willing to be with the Dothraki are the Wildlings.
@@angellover02171 lol omg nobody said hurt, don't take things so seriously.
@@EveryAllman sorry mate forgot the UA-cam comment section was for only saying mean spirted shit.
@@vincentmontgomery839 the Dothraki rape women all the time. That would hurt 🤕. You didn't answer my question, instead you deflected.
Regarding not giving Dany a better reason/trying to follow the plot points of an unwritten book: It's not a good excuse to say they were adhering to a plot point if it doesn't make sense for the story they have been telling. Who cares if they are hitting bullet points and being a faithful adaptation to the end of a story we haven't seen... If the story doesn't stand on its own, it's not going to win points for making a choice that makes less sense because "that's what will happen in the books."
There were plenty of times in earlier seasons where they tweaked characters & motivations and plot points away from what they were in the books. They coulda shoulda made decisions based on the story they were telling, not the unwritten books they were adapting.
I hate that they made the two main female characters batshit crazy..
Executing Ollie was dumb, there was dozens of conspirators and Jon executes a small boy. Of course, Alliser and Ollie were the only named characters involved so that's why Jon killed them in a narrative sense, but still.
@16:25, you use the phrase “screwed the pooch.”
Fun fact for fellow Americans, they don’t use this phrase in the UK. So if you use it across the pond, you might get some uncomfortable looks from others thinking you’re a perv.
"You cant just invent a Northern Army out of nowhere!" Preston, ohh my sweet summer child, despite that the Dothraki and the Unsullied had losses of at least 85% in S08E03, D&D can do everything!
I absolutely hate the way Roy Dotrice pronounces the names in the audiobooks. They're so bad and don't really make sense.
And they are not consistent. Even sometimes in the same chapter.
Pee-tire.
Ugh, even the showrunners' best and most forced explanation still makes no sense. Plus even if we assume Danny was pitch black evil and everything was foreshadowed, she still had goals and motivations. WTH did she ignore Cersei to focus on burning down the city for 15 minutes straight, are we supposed to assume that was just bloodlust? Sadism?
The Mad King had lost the war and wanted to go down in a blaze of glory while taking out a chunk of his enemies and punishing the city he felt had betrayed him, and fuck me I can relate to that. Danny made less sense than the Mad King did in the finale.
Hey Preston and Carmine, awesome video as usual. Sorry I’m about to get a little off-topic:
I had a theory that popped into my head last night when I was rereading: Do you think that perhaps Brandon Stark(the heir) could be paralleled in Harry(the heir)? They’re both swarthy douchebags who dishonor women at a tourney. The point I think George would be making is that Ashara’s experience at Harrenhall was more like Sansa’s will be with Harry in that she fell for the handsome, confident man from Winterfell but he turned out to be a fucking creep. Perhaps this could explain some of Ned’s guilt, the baby Jon Snow, and why Ashara might have thrown herself from the tower. Definitely the scene where Sansa picked out Harry from amongst the other boys that arrived puts me in mind of all the Starks at Harrenhall.
Anyway just a thought. Please continue to ruin almost all other theory crafting for me(I can only watch yours and a few other channels at this point lol).
Peace
In 10 years the fans who “grew up with seasons 5-8” will make UA-cam videos declaring them secret masterpieces. Like the Star Wars prequels
Fans didn't even need to wait that long.