Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The show’s issue with Daenerys was with how quickly she went from Avenging but not necessarily full of ill intent to full on “burrrrrrn them aallllllll” pants on head woof woof wibble snivvet loopy.

I mean, throughout her time over the sour sea, we see someone who perhaps naive, isn’t necessarily a wrong’un. Certainly not compared to the total melts in Westeros.

When she executed the Tarleys, she let everyone who bent the knee live, despite them being Bannermen of her sworn foe. But we see a sudden abandonment of all restraint as soon as Missande is killed. And there’s no real reason given why she suddenly feels the need to change tack and annihilate those who have surrendered or are just civilians - her intended future subjects.

Imagine if TV Daenarys had stayed in Essos (?) instead of leaving for Westeros. She might have turned out to be an excellent ruler.

Quite possibly.

We do see the seeds of her nuttiness here and there, but the way it plays out is going from seedling to strapping Sequoia in around 3 seconds flat.

Torching the fleet, ballistae, Golden Company and Lannister troops? Sure. We’ve seen her be suitably ruthless in war and battle.

But as soon as the city signals it’s surrender, a point where there’s nothing left in Cersei’s tank? There’s no clear trigger for her ramping it up.

That is one of the several criticisms of the last season.

I still blame GRRM.

Showrunners could’ve done better, but end of the day they were hired to adapt, not to invent.

I’m increasingly convinced GRRM doesn’t know it ends, hence the ongoing delays to the next book.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I still blame GRRM.

Showrunners could’ve done better, but end of the day they were hired to adapt, not to invent.

I’m increasingly convinced GRRM doesn’t know it ends, hence the ongoing delays to the next book.

I agree wholeheartedly here. If GRRM knew how it was planned to end he would have told the people involved. JK Rowling telling Alan Rickman his character’s arc is a good example of this.

Aash wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly here. If GRRM knew how it was planned to end he would have told the people involved. JK Rowling telling Alan Rickman his character’s arc is a good example of this.

Another way to assume GRRM has no idea whats going on is that if you look at another "titan" of fantasy novel writing, and see that his Grand Arc/Story was able to be finished from beyond the grave due to the sheer insane amount of notes he had built up. . . . Yeah, from my understanding, Robert Jordan had told someone that the WoT series would be 12 books, and it would be 12 books even if the final one had to be 3000 pages (paraphrasing), which is a good thing that that Sanderson guy was entrusted by the Jordan Estate to finish the series off properly.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Ramsey had "style." despite being a hoffic person.....also he was not a coward like Joffrey - Joffrey was just a spoiled brat IMO not the psycopath that Ramsey was..

Daenerys was betrayed by pretty much everyone throughout her life and despite this was certainly no worse than any other ruler, in fact mostly better but of course she has to be judged in a different way to the male rulers - but we have had this discussion before. If she had followed the example of the first Targaryians to take control n Westros she would still be ruling but she had awful advisors and traitors to deal with. Her mercy mostly just resulted in betryal and pain....better a bit of Blood and Fire at the beginning....

She's no better than Cersei, who was also a ruler and who also suffered abuses. And yet Cersei is defined as a clear villain, unlike Daenerys. She's always been a tyrant, but disguised as a saviour and with a pretty face, which mislead a lot of people .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The show’s issue with Daenerys was with how quickly she went from Avenging but not necessarily full of ill intent to full on “burrrrrrn them aallllllll” pants on head woof woof wibble snivvet loopy.

I think that was the logical consequence of her being finally very close to get the kind of power she always desired, unlike before.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I still blame GRRM.

I mean, I blame GRRM for starting to write "A Song of Ice and Fire" in the first place.

I can't directly blame him for a bunch of his fanbase being a bunch of tossers, as demonstrated by their behaviour when Robert Jordan passed away - laughing at WoT fans for the story not being completed before he passed.

Still, as you pointed out, Brandon Sanderson was able to do so based off the notes left by RJ - at this rate, I don't think any more ASOIAF books will be published, and iff GRRM passes with the series unfinished, I'm not sure anyone will want to ghostwrite whatever is left, given the "fan" reaction to the end of the TV show...

Oh indeed. Toxic fans are unnecessary.

 Blackie wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Ramsey had "style." despite being a hoffic person.....also he was not a coward like Joffrey - Joffrey was just a spoiled brat IMO not the psycopath that Ramsey was..

Daenerys was betrayed by pretty much everyone throughout her life and despite this was certainly no worse than any other ruler, in fact mostly better but of course she has to be judged in a different way to the male rulers - but we have had this discussion before. If she had followed the example of the first Targaryians to take control n Westros she would still be ruling but she had awful advisors and traitors to deal with. Her mercy mostly just resulted in betryal and pain....better a bit of Blood and Fire at the beginning....

She's no better than Cersei, who was also a ruler and who also suffered abuses. And yet Cersei is defined as a clear villain, unlike Daenerys. She's always been a tyrant, but disguised as a saviour and with a pretty face, which mislead a lot of people .

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The show’s issue with Daenerys was with how quickly she went from Avenging but not necessarily full of ill intent to full on “burrrrrrn them aallllllll” pants on head woof woof wibble snivvet loopy.

Guess we did watch very different shows....

Daenerys IS a saviour to those she frees from slavery in Essos, she acts like or often better every other ruler in her world - yes you can try and hold her to an absurd standard but only if you do for everyone else. I think you forget or willfully ignore how bad the villans in this show were if you compare the to them. By your standards who was not a villan in the show?

If she had not listened to those advisors who would betray her in the end and "been the Dragon" as she was told to be she would have taken Kings Landing on arrival, established her dynasty as her ancestors did and ruled a peaceful kingdom,

The Wall was apparently safe until she had to go and save the idiot Snow (again - all he ever did was loose battles and wait for somone to save him) and lost her Dragon so it could be turned and used agauinst the Wall

She was seldom rewarded for kindness and mercy - usually the opposite but burning / killing people always worked....

It was badly written but by the time she burnt Kings Landing - she had lost two of her "children", her best friend, her lover had betrayed her, her advisors had turned traitor, this and other acts made her becoem what they had feared she might be.

The Dragons, the Dothraki and the Unsullied remained loyal and together in a decently written show would have slaughtered and burned their way through Westros in revenge and there was nothing left to stop them.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I still blame GRRM.

Showrunners could’ve done better, but end of the day they were hired to adapt, not to invent.

I’m increasingly convinced GRRM doesn’t know it ends, hence the ongoing delays to the next book.

Thats fair - I think it will never be done. I actually enjoyed Fire and Blood but just highlighted how bad the last few books were.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Aash wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly here. If GRRM knew how it was planned to end he would have told the people involved. JK Rowling telling Alan Rickman his character’s arc is a good example of this.

Another way to assume GRRM has no idea whats going on is that if you look at another "titan" of fantasy novel writing, and see that his Grand Arc/Story was able to be finished from beyond the grave due to the sheer insane amount of notes he had built up. . . . Yeah, from my understanding, Robert Jordan had told someone that the WoT series would be 12 books, and it would be 12 books even if the final one had to be 3000 pages (paraphrasing), which is a good thing that that Sanderson guy was entrusted by the Jordan Estate to finish the series off properly.

Jordan and his wife were good friends with Sanderson. They had planned for this ahead of time, as they knew he wasn't going to be able to complete it in time. When Sanderson came in to finish the last book, he read through the notes and realized that he had tied off all the ends of the stories, but in order to fit it in one book he would have to cut out a lot of that.

3 books later, he finished it. In incredible time while putting his own even more insane project on hold. (The Cosmere will feature 30+ Novels in the end, I believe)

GRRM doesn't do that. He doesn't really keep notes or plans. Hell, he gets grumpy when you even remind him he has a book series. The guy doesn't know what he is doing or how to end it. Just like Rothfuss, who is now teasing that he will actually finally release his third book. You know, now that his money dried up and being a youtube personality/streamer isn't paying off.

Its been said by both the showrunners and GRRM that he told them how it would end. Now I'm not sure he knows hot to get to the end especially with all the extra plots in the book but he does have a destination in mind. The problem with Daenerys was the difference between the book Danny and show Danny and after all that time with show Danny we got slammed with the worst of what book Danny had been leading to.

Not trying to defend GRRM but the worst of the problems are on the showrunners.

Oooh, another one.

Pinhead

Especially/only when portrayed by Doug Bradley. Not only is he a real presence on screen, but he was the articulate villain in a time of cheapo slasher flicks.

And we even get actual character development across the original trilogy. Hellbound we find out there are rules (Desire, not actions opening the box, so the Lass is spared). Hell on Earth, due to Kirsty’s actions those rules no longer apply, and we see more of his inventive cruelties.

Sure the plots behind him are a bit ropey, but what a truly fantastic antagonist. Not to mention he has some of my favourite dialogue in any movie.

If we’re looking for a villain/antagonist with charisma and charm, David Bowie’s Goblin King in Labyrinth is worth mentioning.

Aash wrote:
If we’re looking for a villain/antagonist with charisma and charm, David Bowie’s Goblin King in Labyrinth is worth mentioning.

those trousers are still disturbing mind...

Jerram wrote:
Its been said by both the showrunners and GRRM that he told them how it would end. Now I'm not sure he knows hot to get to the end especially with all the extra plots in the book but he does have a destination in mind. The problem with Daenerys was the difference between the book Danny and show Danny and after all that time with show Danny we got slammed with the worst of what book Danny had been leading to.

Not trying to defend GRRM but the worst of the problems are on the showrunners.

Book Dany has been turned into a lovesick soppy girl no longer capable of making her own descisions.....whilst he focusses on every minor nobody he can invent.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
GRRM doesn't do that. He doesn't really keep notes or plans. Hell, he gets grumpy when you even remind him he has a book series. The guy doesn't know what he is doing or how to end it. Just like Rothfuss, who is now teasing that he will actually finally release his third book. You know, now that his money dried up and being a youtube personality/streamer isn't paying off.

I've written more in 3 years than GRRM has in 30.

I say this a lot to people on other forums that are more about writing than Dakka, and I don't say it to brag. I say it to highlight how little GRRM has actually written in the past 30 years (a lot less than you already think). By almost any comparison it's actually surprising.

Sanderson has insane output by any measure. The only writer who even comes close that I know of and read is Stephen King and even there I think Sanderson publishes more frequently now than King does. Both of them are bad comparisons though because they have insane output for writers. I prefer to point at writers like Stephen Erikson and James Corey, both of whom imo blow Martin out of the water in terms of how good they are as writers and actually managed to finish their epic book series in about 10 years whereas Martin has been at it since the mid-90s. At this rate, Sanderson is going to finish the Stormlight Archives before Martin finishes Game of Thrones and that series is going to take another fifteen years at the rate Sanderson is going at the least.

I increasingly look at the idea of the next Game of Thrones book in the same category as the third book in Rothfuss' Kingkiller Chronicle; it's never coming and the author treats people asking about it like it's something to endure rather than conclude.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
GRRM doesn't do that. He doesn't really keep notes or plans. Hell, he gets grumpy when you even remind him he has a book series. The guy doesn't know what he is doing or how to end it. Just like Rothfuss, who is now teasing that he will actually finally release his third book. You know, now that his money dried up and being a youtube personality/streamer isn't paying off.

I've written more in 3 years than GRRM has in 30.

I say this a lot to people on other forums that are more about writing than Dakka, and I don't say it to brag. I say it to highlight how little GRRM has actually written in the past 30 years (a lot less than you already think). By almost any comparison it's actually surprising.

Martin's a weird guy, who honestly doesn't seem to have much of a grasp on how anything works.

For example, this happened early in his career:
https://screenrant.com/dungeons-dragons-game-thrones-githyanki-race-dying-light/
Basically, someone used a race (githyanki) that he came up with, the Fiend Folio ages ago (with an interim version in WD, back in the day when there was general RPG material in it). Now the article doesn't go into it, but as I understood the story, the reason Martin never pursued any legal action at the time, was because he was under the impression that since TSR published the race in the Fiend Folio, it meant the IP was theirs, because they had printed the most recent book with the word 'githyanki' in it. This obviously makes no sense, but.. well.

Second funny story is the word processor story
https://www.cnet.com/news/george-r-r-martin-writes-with-a-dos-word-processor/
See, the thing is, apparently Martin has never worked out that you can simply turn off autocorrect, so his editor and publisher somehow have to deal with the fact that they're getting crap turned in on a 40 year old file format and just have to deal with that (why they put up with it in the beginning is beyond me, you'd think that would get a 'feth no, redo it on something usable'

 Mr Morden wrote:


Daenerys IS a saviour to those she frees from slavery in Essos, she acts like or often better every other ruler in her world - yes you can try and hold her to an absurd standard but only if you do for everyone else. I think you forget or willfully ignore how bad the villans in this show were if you compare the to them. By your standards who was not a villan in the show?

If she had not listened to those advisors who would betray her in the end and "been the Dragon" as she was told to be she would have taken Kings Landing on arrival, established her dynasty as her ancestors did and ruled a peaceful kingdom,

The Wall was apparently safe until she had to go and save the idiot Snow (again - all he ever did was loose battles and wait for somone to save him) and lost her Dragon so it could be turned and used agauinst the Wall

She was seldom rewarded for kindness and mercy - usually the opposite but burning / killing people always worked....

It was badly written but by the time she burnt Kings Landing - she had lost two of her "children", her best friend, her lover had betrayed her, her advisors had turned traitor, this and other acts made her becoem what they had feared she might be.

The Dragons, the Dothraki and the Unsullied remained loyal and together in a decently written show would have slaughtered and burned their way through Westros in revenge and there was nothing left to stop them.

Realistic rulers from a universe that was inspired by medieval reigns are all somehow villains, yes.

Daenerys liberated people just to get an army or loyal servants, she thought that was the best way to get power and rule, she never did anything out of her heart. She never considered friends or something more people like Dario, Jon o Missandei who were just servants or lovers to her. There's a scene in season 2 which IMHO defines her completely: when the mage killed some of the dothraki and stole the dragons, Daenerys rushes into the room, among the other bodies finds her most loyal servant dead and couldn't care less, she's only worried about the dragons as without them she'd lose all her power. I knew she would have become the mad queen since then .

At least Cersei had his brother as someone who truly loved. And she lost actual children, not just puppies . Jon betrayed Daenerys because at some point he saw her for what she really was.

I didn't like the last two seasons becuase I though they were poorly portrayed and rushed, but thematically the show was good till the end.

The non villains in the series were the free people who lived beyond the wall (Nightwatch was definitely closer to be defined as villains than them!), and a few characters. Probably just Arya, Sansa, Sam and a few others, certainly Tyrion who was not a hero but definitiely not a villain either. Also Jon, who was even killed by traitors, and yet he never wanted power but to do the right thing. Even Winterfell and the north was nothing more than an average medieval-style kingdom, ruled by tyrants. Ned used to behead guys for minor "crimes". Which was appropriate, during middle ages every ruler was a tyrant.

Can't say anyting about the novels, I only watched the show.

Totally disagree in all respects

You mean the "loyal servant" who betrayed her - that one?
She is worried about the Dragons as they are her children - emotionally (like modern people who see their pets as children-substitutes)- especially since Dany can no longer have children as she was...oh yeah betrayed by someone she tried to help - its a major theme throughout the show. She does good things - usually gets punished - kills people - works well.
Tyrion was happy for people to be killed on his behalf and by Danaerys /Dragons in Merrem - Watched them and did not bat an eyelid. He only had misgivings when his own family was involved.
Cersei did not even blink when Tommen threw himself out of the window....

Arya: The Assasin and killer.
Sansa: Betrayed her borther, fed a tied up man to wolves (yeah he desrved it but she did it and watched - what else will she do in the future), schemed her way to be a Queen (and I like her) - Sansa is the closest character to Dany - abused and betrayed she becomes a strong queen who does what she needs to do to survive and prosper. I don;t understand how you can not see the similarities between them
Sam: Betrayed his oath, deserted the wall....got let off by his mate....when others have their head cut off as you say be Ned
Jon: Killed the woman he said he loved,

Even Winterfell and the north was nothing more than an average medieval-style kingdom, ruled by tyrants. Ned used to behead guys for minor "crimes". Which was appropriate, during middle ages every ruler was a tyrant.

Tyrants with responsabilities - at least the good ones. To me that does not make them villains but we have compltely different views and thats cool

They were mastiffs, not wolves. If not mastiffs, some other type of large domestic dog. Yes, I know it's a nit-picky observation.

 Mr Morden wrote:


You mean the "loyal servant" who betrayed her - that one?

No. Irri was the character's name. She never betrayed Daenaerys. Her other servant betrayed her (Doreah? IIRC). There a scene in which Daenerys found her dead, along with other fallen dothraki and had no reaction at all. Except a moment later she becomes angry about her dragons being missing. Which were not just "children" to her, they were her primary key to get what she wanted. Several other characters that became "close" to her like Missandei, Grey Worm, Daario, etc... never betrayed her. Jorah did but also redeemed himself. From Jon she demanded obedience, unlike him who never asked anything from people he loved. None of those characters were actually loved by Daenerys.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Cersei did not even blink when Tommen threw himself out of the window....

She is in fact a true villain. A great one. When Tommen killed himself she realized the she had already lost him.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Arya: The Assasin and killer.

She only killed to survive or out of revenge though. Countless protagonists and heroes from literature, comics, movies, tv series etc.. are driven by the desire to avenge some dead family members. She killed only "bad guys", no collateral damage. She even spared the Hound while Daenerys never spared anyone as her only motivation was seeking absolute power.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Sansa: Betrayed her borther, fed a tied up man to wolves (yeah he desrved it but she did it and watched - what else will she do in the future), schemed her way to be a Queen (and I like her) - Sansa is the closest character to Dany - abused and betrayed she becomes a strong queen who does what she needs to do to survive and prosper. I don;t understand how you can not see the similarities between them

She never pursposefully "betrayed" her father or brother, unless I missed something. She didn't keep a secret to protect his brother (and everyone else except the mad queen actually) and to stop a tyrant, she did the right thing. Unlike Daenerys she only killed or contributed to get killed only those characters that were openly hostile to her. Not entire cities just to get things done quickly or to satisfy her bloodlust. The two characters had a lot in common, indeed, except how they got shaped by the events that happened around their lives. I'm talking exclusively about the tv show, not the novels.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Sam: Betrayed his oath, deserted the wall....got let off by his mate....when others have their head cut off as you say be Ned
Jon: Killed the woman he said he loved,

An oath that he was forced to take, in which he never believed. He did to make what he thought it was the right thing, not for personal interest. The Nightwatch was a gang of convicts or rejects who abused the free people. Jon killed the woman he said he loved not out of rage, jelousy or to take her power. He did it to save countless lives from a ruthless tyrant. He killed a woman that was nothing else than a wicked tyrant at that point. It's Daenerys who betrayed him, as she refused to let him take the throne of house Targaryen which he deserved being the legitimate heir.

One of the best aspect of GoT is that very few characters are actual "good guys". Not all of them are also actual villains though.

I’m gonna have to defend Sansa.

When she starts out, she’s a starry eyed, molly coddled waif of a girl who grew up believing she’d marry the Prince and live happily ever after.

Except….she instead becomes a Pawn for a great many people.

Yet over her character’s journey? She remains loyal to The North and it’s peoples. The scene where it’s revealed she outmanoeuvred Little Finger is pitch perfect for me.

We see in his confused face, like a lizard someone just tried to suckle speaks volumes. Like all her tormentors, so confident he has the measure of her, never noticing a backbone of finest steel growing all the same.

She takes her licks. She learns her lessons. And she wins. Absolutely, 100% wins.

She ends up Queen of the North by popular decree. She betrays no-one for the sake of power. She sees her little brother declared King, further cementing the security of her own rule. And most importantly, with the execution of Little Finger, ably demonstrates she is not someone to be trifled with.

She accepts Danny’s aid, but no more. No bending of the knee. No comprising of her values and loyalties. She ultimately uses Danny and Jon.

Sansa won. Hands down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, yes she ultimately oversaw the deaths of thousands of North Men. That true.

But not because of her own vanity. The battle against the Night King’s forces was inevitable. By her alliance with Danny, she saved the North.

And by allowing her Bannermen to March South to take King’s Landing? She ultimately freed The North. None of those lives were spent for petty vanity or petty feuds.

That is the difference between a hero and a tyrant.

I think out of all of them I disliked Sansa the most, partly cos our Soph can't act but mostly because she pulled a Sherlock towards the end of the writers giving her flawless foresight (double if you add in Bran) and just pulling wins out of thin air with no set up

I think Sansa finally figured out what Littlefinger had taught her over the years - use your little birdies to gather info for you that you can use against your enemies. She surely did not come up with all of the determinations on her own. However, it has been sometime since I watched the show...

Daenerys never spared anyone as her only motivation was seeking absolute power.

Gross, inacurate and frrankly hilariously wrong version of the character. Laughable in fact.

Why did she stop Drog's men raping women, save the slaves, often show mercy in many ways.....

But yeah if you want to distort and twist everything she ever did to fit your very specifc narrative...then I guess you would see her as a villian....

I didn't even watch the last season of the show but just from arguments about it I've gleamed two things;

People willfully chose to ignore one of Daenerys' tried and true character traits everytime; he unrelenting drive to right great wrong and her viciousness towards anyone she relegates to the position of abuser.

One half chooses to ignore that Daenerys, despite a certain born to power hauntiness, had noble aspirations. She did not aspire to be a tyrant but then again, I think a lot of tyrants don't.

The other half chooses to ignore that Daenerys for all her virtues was quick to judge and execute, and further had little regard for the consequences of her actions past the immediate achievement of a goal.

The way her character ended makes sense if you bother to take her as a whole. She became so obsessed with fixing what was broken in the world, she became the person breaking it.

I think this makes Danny a hero or a villain depending on how you look at her, and in a way it maybe makes her a great villain. She's a lot like Gul Dukat, albeit not quite as ably written. She was a deeply flawed person who was charming enough and noble enough when she wanted to be that it was easy to overlook how bad her flaws could be if they ever overtook her.

That’s the fundamental problem; if you do the elevator pitch for the end of GoT (which is probably all the show runners got out of Martin), it’s generally fine. But because the show runners refused the additional season, the whole thing is waaay too rushed. Rather than a slow descent into tyranny, which could definitely evolve out of some of her previous actions, you effectively have Daenerys turn round in one episode and be “I’m evil now”. It feels totally unearned and contrived.

 Mr Morden wrote:


But yeah if you want to distort and twist everything she ever did to fit your very specifc narrative...then I guess you would see her as a villian....

Mine.... and the show producers . She's definitely a villain in the last season, especially the last episodes, without any doubt. Even her dragon recognized that, sparing Jon Snow. What I'm arguing is that the path she ended up wasn't sudden and unexpected but the logical consequence of how she was shaped by the events during the entire story. She wasn't always evil but eventually that's what she became. Anakyn Skywalker wasn't evil and yet it turned into an iconic villain.

I appreciated how she evolved, and in my defense I have to admit that Daenerys' storyline on Essos was always the most boring ones IMHO and the worst part of the story, I just wish she had more time on screen as the mad queen.

Of note on GoT showrunners - They wanted to finish with 8 so they could move on and do other things.

Neither of them have done that and 1 of them is an Executive Producer on two GoT spinoffs.