"FoReShAdOwInG iS nOt ChArAcTeR dEvElOpMeNt" - The Rationalization of Tyranny 

Exactly. There are no heroes in this story and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Doesn't mean some characters aren't better than others. Dany isn't super evil or psychotic but her naivety and self righteousness will lead her to inflict massive destruction. It's like giving atomic bombs to an emotional and self righteous teenager who sees the world as full of evil people and not expecting them to end up causing massive death and suffering.

Thank you for your real world thoughtfulness and my sympathies for the harsh experience that it came from. That said there is a difference between the actual Daenerys (seasons 1-7) and rebel leaders turned dictators in Africa. There is never any indication that if the people of Meereen voted in a Mayor or Governor Daenerys didn't like she wouldn't accept their decision regardless. If they had and she refused to accept the outcome of the election that would be different (and match that many in Africa started rigging their own elections). But at no point do we see the actual character Daenerys say she will take back the ability of "the people" of Meereen to pick their rulers once she said she was giving it to them. Keep in mind that she respected the right of former slaves to make their own career decisions even when those decisions made her uncomfortable. Rebels can turn into dictators. Sadly more than 1 has. However that doesn't always happen.

@@pplr1 dude, the people repeatedly refused her. Basically everywhere. You'll see it once you annihilate the good guy/bad guy thing and just see people. Even the Dothraki, from a Purely Cultural standpoint, refused to accept her. She basically told them and their culture/religion to go fuck themselves. Did she do it with shock and awe, putting the fear of God into people? Sure. WMD's do that. It also helps that she speaks the language, is smoking hot, can't be burned cuz magic, and the WMD's in question are magical, so rare as to be thought extinct, sentient fire breathing behemoths. People believe in cult leaders for a lot less.

@@thedappermagician6905 Lets double check some facts here. 1. "the people repeatedly refused her. Basically everywhere." When the war between Cersei and Daenerys starts Dorn and The Reach support Daenerys as well as 1 of the 2 Greyjoy factions-and the other Greyjoy faction wanted to. Plus Jon, who didn't bend the knee until Daenerys basically passed a test of character he had. Openly and initially acknowledged her as being better than Cersei. Thus even if people were neutral in the war between Cersei and Daenerys they see Daenerys as a better option. Now a counterpoint to Jon may be Randyll Tarly-who was likely to fight for Lady Olenna but switched sides-but Jamie and Cersei had to play on his bigotry and then bribe him with a greater position to get him on their side. That probably won't work for most neutral people who end up having to pick a side because Cersei would run out of promotions to hand out. The 7 kingdoms doesn't have that many spare kingdoms to hand out, a couple but not many. 2. "Even the Dothraki, from a Purely Cultural standpoint, refused to accept her." Yet they fight for her and even are changing their usual habits for her-heard of no taking of slaves by Dothraki after they started working for Daenerys nor do they put together a pile of heads for her in season 7 like they would Drogo in season 1. Also her reforms of Dothraki ways are to prevent some of the harm to others-thus contradicting season 8's character assassination. 3. "WMD's do that" Daenerys doesn't have WMDs. The dragons are like air support-impressive and important but not WMDs. She used them in season 7 during a battle and there were still 2 armies fighting after she started using them. WMDs like nukes remove a battlefield (and any armies on it) from existing. Both her army and a sizable portion of the Lannister army continued to exist after the battle she used her dragons. Instead of making assumptions about "good guy/bad guy" stuff which is basically repeating deceptive memes anyway deal with the facts and where they go.

@@pplr1 Righto so let's refine 1. Pardon, but I was speaking primarily of the Continent of Essos. Most in the Free Cities reject her, her claims, and her demands outright. They tolerate her at best or see her as a tool to plot and scheme. Since your #2 point is blended in let's go there. The Dothraki leaders absolutely refused her. Before she was Khaleesi and even after, general soldiers did not see her as welcome. This continued throughout. Your later point about her 'reforms' still fall into the ultimate trick of Daenerys. It is PRECISELY by someone thinking they know what is best that is the problem here. Dany comes at a point of view that makes the claim that she knows what is ultimately good for everyone and if you don't believe her, you can die like the rest of the critics and detractors. The Dothraki that follow her have literally seen what is essentially a miracle. They also respect strength but look what they did to Khal Drogo. And he was truly one of them. Dany promised them bloodletting, combat, and land. Also she's got a freakin Dragon. This is not acceptance. This is perceived mutually beneficial tolerance. For those in Westeros, it is made explicit that many will not accept her especially those of the North. Jon is Not the entire North and he even tells her that despite what he thinks she needs to get them to approve of her. She does absolute squat about this. She predicates her right to rule on the people loving her and expects people to love her by showing up with big guns and killing others. Not once during the celebration after the long night did she grab a drink, sit with wildlings and chat. She only spoke with Sansa from a political maneuver. She was so used to people just showering her with praise and adoration that she became entitled. It is continuously said about how wary the North is about everyone and Dragons/Targaryens in general. And yes, Dragons ARE WMDs. WMD's can be launched by air support. The term 'Air Support' is an extremely vague phrase. It can mean cover fire, patrol of airspace, reconnaissance, evacuation, basically anything. Dany absolutely obliterated the Lannister and Tarly army in the Reach. Her attacks were tactical and well aimed but be rest assured she would have done far more damage had the Scorpion not been there, threatening to put bolts through Drogon. Let me reiterate; she nuked Kings Landing and a Naval fleet. That is the meaning of Weapon of Mass Destruction. It just so happens her 'Air Support' can also be Ground Support(if it chooses), is sentient and can modulate how much damage it does based on personal whim or command from Big Momma D. Lastly, because I missed this, she made business deals with the elite usurpers of House Martell and Olena of House Tyrell. That is not acceptance by the people whatsoever. Dany was an exiled foreign national who came to do exactly what everyone feared. We just have to deal with that.

1st people shouldn't have to read the books to get the show. It should stand on its own internal logic itself. 2nd the books are arguably a different story in the show with different characters (despite similar names) in different situations and the writers of the show broke from (not just ran out of but broke from) the books-something that likely was easier to do after GRRM left the show but the earlier points where they started to do it may have contributed to him leaving. This is something I recently wrote elsewhere but seems to apply with on this topic. "Characters such as Tyrion and Euron are flat out different characters in books and show. Book readers critical of GoT have noticed that for a long time and GRRM himself even acknowledged it in Euron's case this past summer-possibly because it was so obvious he realized he wasn't spoiling anything if he admitted it. Since the earlier plan for season 8 itself was to have wildfire be what destroyed most of King's Landing and the writers of season 8 changed that it may be that Daenerys sets off the wildfire in the books-quite possibly on accident. Not something that would be impossible to do if a fire breathing dragon is doing battle in a town laced with wildfire." The Mad King was torturing and burning innocent people long before he gave the order to destroy King's Landing. And he only gave the order to destroy the city as an enemy army was inside it and his side had clearly lost the war. That is very different from season 8 Dany having just won the war. Even more illogical in the version of season 8 is that aired is that Cersei (someone Dany would want to punish) was portrayed as being ignored so season 8 Dany could supposedly go after random people in the streets. I suspect the change the show writers made to season 8 was done for both shock value and in a poor attempt to cover a plot hole since season 8 Jon would be unlikely to agree to an assassination attempt over something season 8 Dany never wanted to happen (the destruction of the city by wildfire).

NO ONE forgot anything my dude. All people say is that the turn wasnt done right. People would have loved Dany tiurning villian if it was executed right. It simply was not Dany doesnt do anything Robb, Jon, Stannis, Arya or Sansa did not

@@harish123az How was it not done right? She was an arse in the beginning, she was an arse in the end. The signs were there, her closest friends dying just triggered something that would've happened afterwards anyways.

@@MMAisTHEbestSPORT08 because EVERY main character displayed the same behavior at different times. When dany takes revenge for someone killing her baby and husband she is an arse, when arya or sansa does it, they are the bestest ever Either hold everyone to the same standards or else drop the pretence

@@harish123az Daenerys burned a witch for no reason, she killed many innocent masters, she treated hizdar like shit, she smiled and got turned on when khal Drogo was talking about raping innocent westerosi women, and killing innocent men and children in their stone walls. Daenerys was always a bad person.

Easy, because it wasn't indiscriminate. It was of a specific group of people (slavers) to a specific amount (the number of slave children who were killed in similar fashion) as an attempt to punish a specific atrocity (the mass murder of slave children). The books and show are different in that she tries to incorporate others into picking which specific slave masters are to be executed while the show story does not-thus trying to avoid the biggest mistake in the show version of the situation. It is clear in the show she thought slavering noble families of Meereen were all in on and agreed to/supported the atrocity of mass murdering children. Hizdar is literally the 1st person to tell her they were not. Had show Sir Barristan made his suggestion about trials earlier Hizdar's father may have lived. I agree with you that things not turning out as planned can cause people to lose it-that is sometimes just part of being human and having emotions. But that doesn't mean it was in character for season 8 Dany to ignore Cersei (yes Cersei was ignored if you what season 8 episode 5 carefully-it took a long time for Drogon to even reach the Red Keep and when he finally got there he flew off while most of it was still standing) to supposedly target random people on the street. This is about the opposite of what happened with the actual Daenerys character in Meereen. In Meereen Daenerys saw the rulers of the city as guilty of something and pushed them but left common people and slaves (soon to be former slaves since she is ending it there) completely unharmed. Season 8 Dany is doing the opposite of what viewers have already seen Daenerys do. Rather than build up to it events in Meereen are actually evidence contradicting season 8. And this is far from the only time season 8 is contradicted. Another clear example comes from bells. In season 2 Davos (who spent many years in King's Landing) said bells don't mean surrender in King's Landing. Events proved Davos to be correct. Since Stannis's failed attack on King's Landing was a major event for Tyrion it just makes it even more ridiculous that Tyrion would be saying this since he himself should know better. But perhaps that opens the argument viewing season 8 as a different story with different characters-even like Star Trek has a Mirror dimension.

@@pplr1 I agree it's rushed but I will never agree that this never made sense or came out of field. Danny was noble in her cause with Meeren but she still killed a whole bunch of people indiscriminately. There was still a mass of people crucified for actions they may not have committed. It's still the same authoritarianism it's just more "noble" in the aspect that the slavers are the traditional bad guys. When Danny got to King's Landing, she saw a system that was rooted where the common people were just as guilty as Cersei. The wheel can only exist if the people allow it and don't rise up to say otherwise. All Danny saw from history was good people, like Ned Stark, getting beheaded while people cheered. Moreover, she knew that she would be betrayed for Jon Snow because he wasn't the foreign queen. It's not crazy to see her actions when the people were complicit in the system that killed her family and treated her like a foreigner. Now, don't get me wrong she was and I don't agree with her burning a city. But, the difference in Slaver's Bay versus King's Landing was that in one she was emotionally bias (King's Landing) meaning she couldn't be impartial because all she ever heard was that people loved her. In Slaver's Bay, she could be more impartial and less emotionally complicated with it. Ergo, she wasn't going to burn it down. But when she's rejected by people who she's been told cheered her name, only to realize she doesn't have a home, after those same people killed her family and surrogate children burning it makes sense

​@@johnfriedgen357 "but she still killed a whole bunch of people indiscriminately" I just pointed out that Daenerys didn't kill a bunch of people "indiscriminately" and why. Please reread what I wrote. If you disagree ask yourself how many slaves-not slave masters but slaves-did Daenerys have crucified outside Meereen in GoT? If the answer is 0 (it seems to be) then she was being discriminate. On to the point of if they "may not have committed" it at the time she ordered for the specific number of people in a specific group to be crucified she thought they were all in on it (all the members of that group supported the mass murder of children). Hizdar was the only person to mention some were not and that conversation happened afterwards. "where the common people were just as guilty as Cersei" Season 8 Dany-whom I do not see as the same character as GoT seasons 1-7 Daenerys said the civilians who had been burnt were innocent and that Cersei "used their innocence as a weapon". So no, even season 8 Dany didn't call common people "as guilty as Cersei". "Moreover, she knew that she would be betrayed for Jon Snow because he wasn't the foreign queen." Daenerys was born in Westeros to a royal family whom had ruled there for centuries. That makes her rather not "foreign". Additionally the Northmen followed Jon but the rest of Westeros does not so most of Westeros would not see him as a local guy. On top of that Jon abdicated in favor of Daenerys which makes her the legit Queen even if Jon does have a claim (a notion in itself many in Westeros may find surprising or unbelievable because Jon was already known as "Ned Stark's bastard"). And to add even more on to that Cersei had managed to gain control without having a legit claim herself. So who is legit doesn't matter that much anymore and if it did then the legit person is Dany. "she couldn't be impartial because all she ever heard was that people loved her" Daenerys was critical of this very idea at the start of season 7. She did, however, have a more legit claim than Cersei as far as most people knew (including Jon at the time). Now since Cersei had already shown herself to be a cruel ruler who didn't care about the fate of the people she ruled over and had recently blown up one of the most important temples in Westeros it is not hard to see why the population of Westeros wouldn't be either neutral (don't care who rules) or welcoming to Daenerys (as an improvement over Cersei). So not only did Daenerys not start the war with Cersei in season 7 with the expectation of being cheered on by most people in King's Landing but she may have even gotten said cheers she was not expecting if the writers of season 8 had let things play out from the situation that had been created in seasons 1-7 of GoT. "rejected by people" this didn't happen. If you rewatch season 8 you may notice King's Landing was burned before people even had the option of accepting or rejecting season 8 Dany. The aired version of season 8 differs from the earlier plans for season 8 on why the city burns before this can happen. The aired version shows Dany supposedly going insane. The earlier plans for season 8 that were later changed instead had the wildfire getting lit (either during the battle or later when season 8 Dany flies directly to the Red Keep to burn it and Cersei-rather than much of King's Landing). And it was the mass of wildfire that had been spread out under King's Landing with the purpose of destroying the city (the Mad King's plan) that ruined King's Landing (a rather large city for the time) rather than 1 dragon just after it had won 2 battles and without any lunch or nap break.

I appreciated the perspective of the video, and I didn't expect Dany to end up on the Iron Throne, but I disagreed with it. Lindsay Ellis probably had the best explanation of why the GoT finale doesn't work, IMHO.

⁠@@dante6985I SAW Lindsay's video and I totally DISAGREE with her ignorant assessment, IMHO 😉

Actually I think book Dany will be killed by the one person she showed mercy to.

YezenIRL How so? Interested to hear what you think. Book Dany’s death will hit harder than the show, I think. The show really missed out on her most human moments - longing for the house with the red door, wanting to be safe and loved.

NocturnalMelody I think that in the books Dany will be killed by Jorah, and it will be more about jealousy than justice.

​@@yezenirl6331 There is absolutely no way anyone other than Jon kills Dany in the books. No way. This is a song of ice and fire. Jon is ice, Dany is fire. They're the two mainest of the main characters and their stories completely dovetail into each other. Just for starters, the first lesson Jon learns in the Night's Watch is that he is NOT any more special than anyone else and the second lesson is that he should forgo his feelings to rationally evaluate the situation and work for the greater good. The first lesson Dany learns is that she IS more important and special than anyone else (she made dragons hatch!) and that she should pursue her goals singlemindedly. Jon is definitely plunging that knife in the books as well as in the show.

SerbAtheist nope. I’m planning a video on this, but I’ve become quite convinced it’s not Jon in the books. D&D actually admitted that they came up with that scene.

Jon Snow would like to have a word with you.

I mean, she aleeady had power and dragons in meeren, but she did nor became a Tyrant, did she? She was a liberator even then, she did not hurt innocent people for fun...

​@@joaovictor_of The entirety of S5 would like a word with you...

@@farimer1232 Oh, really? When did she used her dragons to kill the common folk, exactly? From what I can recall, she *locked them up because one child died.*

João Victor Ferreira she also then fed those “locked up dragons” with *an innocent man just to send a message of fear* to those she suspected to be part of the sons of the harpy that killed ser barristan Selmy Here are the words she said in that scene “Who is innocent ? who is guilty ? Maybe I should let my Dragons decide!! So yes even back in season 5 she had very as to who was innocent or guilty of an accused crime , she punished those she deemed may some day oppose her . This was the point

She isn't a revolutionary at all, she literally wants to "make westeros great again" and go back to a gilded age where her imperialist family ruled everything from the backs of horrific war machines.

Well said!

"When she's forced to choose between pursuing greater power and acting in the best interest of her people or simply doing the right and just thing, she choses her pursuit of personal power over being an ethical person every single time." This is false. She actually repeatedly delayed or put her own goals at greater risk for the benefit of others. Jorah suggested forgetting about freeing slaves and just trying to take Westeros now that she had an army of UnSullied-she refused for the benefit of the slaves. Daario suggested she just kill all of Meereen's nobles and former slave masters to consolidate power and she refused. She stays in Meereen longer than she needs to both to be sure she is ready to try to rule Westeros and also protect the freedom the former slaves now instead of going right for Westeros again. Then when finally in Westeros she refuses to attack King's Landing directly in what is bad military planning by Tyrion but for the sake of the people (other than Cersei) who live in the city. Then when she is winning the war against Cersei after cleaning up one of Tyrion's military mistakes she puts the war on pause to go save The North and Westeros as a whole-again delaying her goals. Plus she doesn't even initially ask Cersei to send her own army to go fight the undead but simply wants a truce so she can go help Jon do it-that is asking a small amount and definitely increasing the risk to herself and her goals for the sake of others. Your argument would be more impressive if it was correct on the facts (as portrayed in seasons 1-7 of GoT). Instead the facts contradict it.

@pplr1 you truly are the most dedicated and annoying daenerys fanboy, huh?

@@lysander3459 I have seen him in so many comment sections lol I think he really belives that dany will come to life and touch him xD

WATCH ME

@@yezenirl6331 I bet you think battle of the bastards is the best episode.

@@tebourbi I literally hate that episode

@Daniel Jaramillo ill take 'eh" over some moron screaming that they "assassinated" her character

How so? What did she do that was so cruel before? Violence against evil people is good. Slavers deserve to die. The rapist Khals of the Dothraki deserved to die. And anybody else she killed she was either at war with, or betrayed by. Is Jon Snow cruel for killing all those wildlings attacking the wall? or for behead Janos Slynt? what about for killing Ser Allister, or Ollie? or even all the Bolton men he killed? The reason why it was so out of character for Dany to burn down King's Landing is because she burned down a city with millions of people that didnt do anything to her. She could have taken the city without killing tens of millions. The Lannister army had surrendered. Why not just kill Cersei? Its what Dany would have done earlier in the show. You know that, and I know that. You know how the writers meant to frame the final season. We're expected to believe that Rhaegal and Messandei being killed "made her snap" and kill 10 million innocent people. Dany was FAR from my least favorite character. Her ending just didnt make sense

Sigh, the same brain dead excuse being peddaled. Fan favorites Ned, Robb, Oberyn all didnt meet the ending people wanted. Yet people loved it! Why? Because it was done RIGHT Jon executed a literal boy, Robb made a young watcher who was forced to watch hang last so he could be mentally tortured, Ned executed an innocent man fleeing from the walkers. Sansa fed an unarmed prisoner to the dogs, Arya executed generations of a family and fed a man his own son But none of the had cruel streaks you guys! Dany turning villain would be an amazing twist if done RIGHT, it was not so people didnt like it, as simple as that But brain dead, low IQ people can keep repeating the same thing - YoU only HAte it BECausE she didnt get the ENDing yoU wanTED you GuYs!

She wasn’t a saint, absolutely no one was in GoT, it’s kind of the point of grey characters, even lovely ned stark or Jon snow killed many people, but just like them she never targeted civilians (men, women or children) dumb ass.

But the people in King's Landing weren't tyrants. they were just peasants that were already being oppressed by one Tyrant (Cersei), and burned alive by another Tyrant (Dany)

@@odinsoutlaw7572 yes and in real life everyone's desires for self-righteous violence inevitably get turned upon 'innocent' people unless reigned in

Anger, even if for good reason, is one of those things people have to be careful not to get lost in. That said I think you may be putting more reflection into it than the show's writers. There is strong evidence the version of season 8 that aired was actually a change from earlier plans for season 8 where wildfire is what destroyed the city. Now the point about anger may still have been there since the show runners have (so far) not been that honest about how big and why they made changes to season 8 but there is an indication that the actress who played Dany was told when season 8 Dany takes off it is to roast Cersei-not the city. It is either from using a dragon in the fighting against the Lannister army earlier or from lighting up the Red Keep with Cersei in it that the wildfire likely gets lit. Thus the unintended consequences of a city burning and an actual potential less about how anger and violence can have unintended consequences. I suspect the show's writers (not GRRM since I argue the 2 became different stories) realized they created a problem for themselves since Jon would be unlikely to agree to an assassination attempt over something season 8 Dany never wanted to happen. So they decided to attempt to employ a heavy dose of character assassination on the latter as a way of covering up 1 plot hole only to create another. Keep in mind I think that still was not their only mistake with season 8 (they made many). But their fixation on an assassination attempt caused them to miss something else that the evidence for had been laid earlier in the tv series. Season 8 Dany would not only not want the city to burn instead of Cersei (notice the version of season 8 that aired portrayed season 8 Dany as ignoring Cersei in order to supposedly target random people on the street-which is very different than how the actual character Daenerys would likely act in not just 1 but 2 different ways at once) but likely be horrified that her own actions caused it.

It is called bad writing/character assassination. The creator of this video got some things wrong (such as claiming Daenerys killed innocents while showing scenes of her executing or having executed people who were murderers thus not innocents). There is strong evidence the earlier plan for season 8 itself was for wildfire to wreck the city. The show runners have not really been open and honest about what changes they made to season 8 and why but I suspect the reason they removed wildfire from being the primary reason King's Landing burned in season 8 is because they were trying to cover the logic hole that Jon would likely wouldn't agree to an assassination attempt over something season 8 Dany never wanted to happen. Thus the show runners engaged in willful character assassination to cover 1 plot hole and ended up doing such a bad job that they created another. The character assassination was blatant and contradicts not just 1 but 2 patterns the actual character Daenerys came to operate by. The character Daenerys showed both that she was very willing to punish those she thought were guilty (she could be wrong but sincerely thought they were guilty) and that she tried to avoid harming those she felt were innocent and even tried to help them. Notice that in the city burning that took place in season 8 Cersei (guilty from season 8 Dany's POV) was ignored (it took a long time for Drogon to even reach the Red Keep and then he flew away while most it was still standing) meanwhile random people on the street (innocents) were supposedly targeted. So that really is breaking from the character in not just 1 but 2 ways at once.

Yeah she had a reason to kill people but it shows you her mindset is to always burn people when she should have kept the Tarly’s alive. Every advisor would’ve told her not to burn the tryrells alive. The difference at the end of season 8 is she doesn’t see the people of kings landing as her people. She said the people of mereen liberated themselves and kingslanding didn’t therefore they are her enemies.

She didn't have a clear cut reason? The whole season was about cutting her down. She expected the north to love her, but they were wary and disliked her for being a Targ. She expected Cersei to just hand over Missandei at her demand, but Cersei refused and killed her. She expected Jon to bend the knee happily, but he didn't until he knew she would be of use to him and the north. She expected conquering Westeros to be a breeze with her dragons, but it wasn't and she lost 2 of them in a short span of time due to her overconfidence. She 'went mad' because she had been going mad the whole season, stewing in her resenment of Westeros and its people. Finally, she lost it, and razed Kings Landing because the people were against her, as they had been, and as they always would be.

Still not an excuse for the nonsense and character assassination that was season 8. I'll add that Daenerys offered Randyll Tarly a chance to live even though his forces didn't offer the same to Lady Olenna-there is a decent chance Ned would've executed him then and there with out such an offer-arguably making Daenerys more merciful. Though I do think Ned would've spared Dickon who was probably feeling guilty over killing some of his hunting buddies (he mentioned that to Bron and Bron brushed it off with a comment about how gross people smell after they die rather than addressing the emotional impact of killing people Dickon knew and considered friends.

@@pplr1 even tywin knew to spare people who've surrendered lol

@@MayumiSaegusaShiba The same Tywin that was part of arranging the Red Wedding? Same Tywin that told an officer in his army that wanted to sleep that he "may even allow" him to wake from that sleep? Anyway, this was Daenerys being more merciful with Randyll Tarly and the forces under his command than he was with Lady Olenna and-judging by the dead bodies being looted-her troops. Randyll turned down not 1 but 2 offers to live after his army offered 0.

@@pplr1 Agree and also I'll add, yes Dany was brutal at times. Guess who else was? Nearly everyone else on this damn show. Arya killed how many innocent Frey's because they were connected to the Red Wedding? Jon Snow killed Janos Slynt, his 4 murder conspirators? The Hound, Jaime Lannister, on and on, all killed innocent people. Yet somehow Dany's firebombing makes sense because she was brutal too? People love to rationalize, and that's what this video is. I wish it worked but it just feels so contrived. Dany's not angry at the people of King's Landing. She's angry with Cersei. Does she go to Cersei right away? No. She just starts plowing peasants and half an hour later Cersei dies by falling bricks that Dany was unaware of. Odd, odd choices.

@@dante6985 We both agree on that. Judging from what we saw it was out of character both for innocents to be targeted and for Cersei to be ignored.

Daenerys (the actual character) mocks the notion in season 7 and said her brother was foolish to believe it. Mirri killed her husband (effectively since he was braindead at Mirri's hands) and unborn child. That is not being ungrateful but being a murderer of Daenerys's family. The people of King's Landing did not kill season 8 Dany's family and that 1 dragon burned down the city is itself a last minute change done from the earlier plans for season 8 itself where wildfire was the earlier reason most of the city was wrecked. This is not planning since season 1 but major last minute changes on a whim.

only you're missing a key point here and I think it's delusional to think that what you refer to as "liberation" wasn't done out of good intentions from the beginning but rather to exploit those countries' natural resources and to expand territorial dominance.

Sol that is the key point ..Its delusional to think Dany ‘s “liberation” was done purely out of good intentions.. It is all some form of EXPLOITATION either way. -Dany only freed the unsullied and freed slaves in-order to raise a following and raise an army, wage war and conquer another country. She had three weapons of mass destruction and wanted to conquer another country based on the colonialism of her lineage. It might be noble to free slaves but in second glance it is NOT noble to use slaves to free slaves (even if you tell them they are now “free”) Daenerys ‘s narrative fooled everyone including the audience, she cared more about taking back the iron throne,destroying her enemies and ANYONE who would stand in the way more than anything else. Freeing slaves and breaking chains came second and that was just a self gratifying act inorder for her to feel good about herself , gain an army and followers. a superficial balance to her ruthless merciless, Narcissistic side . The fire and blood side.

Sol so as “noble” as her liberation ideals seemed...her true intentions and her actions were always in the interest of Self.

@@tha_jet_king3537 And so she burned all the children the end

NIlk Tots yes she burns everyone in the end, women , men and children , her enemies ‘ soilders , her soldiers everyone and anything

Imagine having your entire people be called into a position where everyone is supposed to do seppuku when your leader dies. As if they'd actually jump on that.

lol no, power corrupts.

@@yezenirl6331 Unfortunately that's just not really true though. We see Daenerys being given large amounts of power throughout the show prior to Season 8, and she consistently uses it to do strive for noble aims. Whether that be ending slavery, or trying to protect common folk from being killed even as collateral damage. And even when she makes mistakes in pursuit of these noble aims, (such as her initially hardline approach against the former slave-masters), she takes steps to compromise by re-opening the fighting pits and enforcing trials for the sons of harpy (both shit moves in the end)-even marrying into one of the noble houses despite their crimes. In addition, she avoids surrounding herself with 'yes men' (one of the hallmarks of a corrupt leader), instead surrounding herself with advisors such as Ser Barristan Selmy, Tyrion Lannister and Hizdahr zo Loraq, and is more than happy to follow their advice even if said advice is actually pretty shit. Speaking of which, even at the literal *height of her power* in early Season 7, with almost all of Westeros supporting her, she categorically ignores the wise advice of Olenna Tyrell and Yara Greyjoy to immediately besiege King's Landing with her dragons, as her desire is to take the city with as few innocent people killed in action as possible. So she instead opts to follow Tyrion's advice to try and starve out the city (the writers claimed that less people would be killed this way-lol) Of course, this was a dumb move on her part since *she did* end up forcing the city to surrender in 8x05 using Drogon with very few civilian casualties. On a side note, the show's finale would also disagree with your argument here. Since it presents giving absolute power to an emotionless omniscient God-Emperor as the morally best conclusion. The point here is that neither Daenerys' actions, nor even the writers themselves seem to agree with the idea that power corrupts. Which is why I cannot in good faith take it seriously here. I am sorry.

@@AdamNoizer I just think this is a sophomoric understanding of Dany’s character. I can’t have this debate with every commenter. The show did a lot wrong, but “Dany is a fundamentally good in every context and her being proclaimed as a messiah figure would never corrupt her” is a fundamental misunderstanding of everything the story has been saying since the beginning. You’re free to believe what you want, but I promise you it’s just not the story. Dany is defined by her context. GRRM is not playing the messiah trope straight. Also anyone who thinks the ending is that Bran is a god emperor with absolute power didn’t get the ending at all. Take it from literally the only guy who predicted it lol

@@yezenirl6331 That's fair. For the record, I originally came across your channel via the discussion you had on EFAP and I thought you made some pretty fair points. (Particularly regarding the walk of shame being pretty misogynistic and other things-though I disagree that the idea that Dany considered herself to be messianic pre-season 8). My issue here is the implied false dichotomy. I don't believe Dany is fundamentally good every context. She is flawed, and makes mistakes, both in the show and in the book. But this is an *extremely* far cry from deliberately murdering innocent people after they surrender to her. It would be in character and logical for her to be perceived as a tyrant. It would be (debatably) in character and logical for her to become so preoccupied with seizing the throne that she accidentally or wilfully kills some innocent people as collateral damage to attain it during the siege. What is not in character for her is to win the battle, take the city and then go street by street murdering every civilian she sees for her own sadistic satisfaction post-surrender. There were ways to make Dany's actions morally objectionable and grey. But I think the reason why the writers took this route was because they needed to make her so reprehensibly evil such that there could be no ambiguity that Tyrion and Jon were right in betraying and murdering her in the end. And I think that was just cowardly on their part.

@@AdamNoizer yea when I hear shit like this I just don’t think you or Lindsey or EFAP are even close to understanding of the story or the character of Daenerys. Some of that is likely the fault of the showrunners for places where they should have been more clear (and they certainly do handle Jon and Tyrion with kid gloves), but another part of that is internet fan culture that just placates to people’s fandom of the characters and validates their anger over not getting what they want. But Dany perceiving herself as messianic was built up quite a bit. Her entire story is literally a reconstruction and deconstruction of the messiah narrative.

Wow! 100% Agree

This! Thank you

Hey InaraOfTyria - If you think it was supposedly poorly written, which I seriously do NOT, you should try and make the effort to find the pieces that are in it on your own instead (like how Yezen here has clearly / smartly done) of just complaining like all the other whiners. I didn't feel it was rushed bcos I understood all the subtle plotting. I do wish it was full 10 episodes sure, but what I and others got was still very satisfying. Just cos you don't see them doesn't mean they're not there. Or rather they weren't told exactly how you preferred them. That does NOT in any way mean it's so-called bad writing. Actually what's really going on is people like you miss all the subtle beats that aren't explicitly spelled out. Just bcos you missed them does not mean it's bad writing. That's a fault on your part. There's a clear reason why others defend the final season bcos they were more astute and could piece things together. I know you people just wanna assume such people are just idiots and you dissatisfied ones are the real deal but seriously NO you're not. "Characters aren't setup properly" - just what are you even talking about?? There's NO MORE setup that's needed. This is the final season ergo the final act, setups do NOT need to be done now... only further transitions and conclusions. "Varys conducts his acts of subterfuge IN THE OPEN, despite being shown to be much more intelligent and cunning in the past" - this is UTTER nonsense that gets tossed around the stupid internet and people just absorb and believe it. Do you even remember the previous seasons? Varys ALWAYS does his conspiracy stuff with people in the open and there are always many scenes where Varys will just walk right up to someone and suggest / imply his plan! One example is Olenna Tyrell. In private yet STILL in open where they can be seen! It's LITTLEFINGER who does his stuff in the background and we never actually see him do it. He's the one, NOT Varys ffs! "Jaime goes from being a man who broke his oath to protect Innocents to the line "I never really cared much for them, innocent or otherwise" with no real explanation." - Again, you really can't see all the subtleness in the writing can you? You best go and this guy's analysis of Jaime which was really spot on and he understood all the beats which MANY can't seem to notice. And you're another ignorant one who thought Jaime is someone who cares for the people. He never did, dude! And don't tell me he saved KingLánding bcos of them! He did it for his father - many make the mistake of thinking it's the former. And him not wanting to slaughter the castle with Blackfish (S6) was a direct influence from Brienne. I don't know where the (bad) fans ever got the idea that Jaime loves the people. He's been called Kingslayer for YEARS by the masses after killing the Mad King so why should he care for them! That's why his line "I never cared for the people, innocent or otherwise" makes PURE sense - but apparently MANY people have not been paying attention.

@@plisskenetic hahahahaha you call tis a rebuttal? you just outed yourself as a moron lmao

This wasn't just distrusting, Dany; this was shining a light on the fact that the North meant it when they said they wouldn't kneel to another outsider. Northerners are clanish and very closed off to anyone who isn't their own or someone they were familiar with and approved of. Dany was none of the above. I would agree with this argument had Dany dealt with the North for years, and they were still hesitant towards her, but this wasn't the case. People think that everyone should have trusted Dany three minutes after meeting her.

I couldn't be more agree, people are blind by their fanaticism

I mean, who raised her? Did no one ever come to the conclusion that she was more like her brother than she'd care to admit? Tyrion made the comment to Jon about them not being who people perceived them to be because of who their parents were. Tyrion is Tywin's twin in dwarf form and with more empathy. Sometimes, familial traits are handed down whether one wanted them or not. It's how one utilizes them, that's the difference.

You seem to not understand the extremities that killing countless innocent civilians is, solely based on some impulse, compared to killing the legitimate enemies even in a cruel way. Based on the analysis in the video and your comment here, everybody in the show who have done some violent killing before even if it was their enemy, from Ned Stark to John Snow, to Cersei, Jamy, heck even Tyrion could have burnt the city if they also had those dragons. Are you serious?

elevate07 her burning Kingslanding is not meant to be rational to us ..it’s rational to HER...and her rationale is that she is sending a message of fear throughout the 7 kingdoms and she has decided to rule through fear aswell as wiping the slate clean/starting over and making a better future for “future generations” , she thinks she is right as always and so HER way is the right way. This is often the rationale of a tyrant and we have seen her use this same rationale of wiping out those who she thinks may some day defy her ( in smaller instances) the difference is all of those HUMANS were wearing the “bad guy” cloaks at the time and so not everyone questioned her actions. Also notice how in past seasons she mass executed or collectively punished people based on defiance of her and not necessarily their occupation or who was directly involved or guilty of the accused crimes and so of course she was bound to burn an entire city she perceived as not showing HER the love she felt she deserves with little regard of innocence OR the actual tyrant (Cersei) For Dany there is no guilty or innocent, there is only those who love and obey her and those who defy her or may some day oppose her. The latter are her enemy. What she does to Kingslanding is a character reveal of her true colours and HER megalomaniac rationale. It’s meant to reframe everything she claimed to stand for whilst carrying out questionable actions the entire series.

I there may be an explanation neither of you thought about. D and D were still playing around with the scripts and story while making season 8. In the earlier script Dany goes for the Red Keep to kill Cersei despite the human shields. If you look at the episode six talk with Jon that actually makes more sense in that context. Now there is a recording of the computer effects people talking that came out not long ago. In it one of them mentioned how most of the fire burning King's Landing was supposed to be green but then they were told to change it to "not green" fire. That change involves a shift in how the city burns and arguably who is responsible and how much. Aegon Conqueror. The nonsense in episode 5 actually undoes the idea of ruling by fear. Cersei messed with Dany in public (on more than one occasion). Dany has to be seen as making Cersei suffer for it if she wants to rule by fear or even as a typical noble in Westeros. By ignoring Cersei-which is what is portrayed (Dany doesn't even send out a patrol of the UnSullied look for Cersei afterwards) Dany would be sending the message that people live longer and are given time to make escape attempts if they do mess with Dany than if they don't (many civilians). And burning King's Landing makes Dany weaker because she would have a weaker kingdom that just lost one of its biggest cities. So this is too stupid to match rule by fear. And no, I don't buy the idea Dany is just being inconsistent when it comes to dealing with innocent people dying. We have seen that burned bones of a kid hits her hard even if a dead guy she suspects does not. This lack of love claim is pretty stupid considering the beginning of season 7 where she points out that Viserys was a fool for thinking people toasted to him in secret. I'm sure she'd like love, but not having it won't surprise her nor drive her nutty. Seems like she could single out people pretty well in season 7 too. Every one of the enemy soldiers taken prisoner lived except the Tarly two. Poor Dickon was following his dad and possibly feeling guilty for killing his hunting buddies. Randyll Tarly was on a mission to get himself killed when her turned down not 1 but 2 ways to live (one of which didn't involve serving Daenerys)-especially after he and his forces offered Lady Olenna 0 chances to live. In that scene the "tyrant" Daenerys treated the prisoners from the Lannister army better than they treated her vassal (Lady Olenna) and her troops (pile of dead bodies Jamie walks past that Lannister troops may be looting) when they were taken prisoner. Also Daenerys made Meereen a democracy-not typical "tyrant" behavor.

@@pplr1 oh please drop the "d&d decided to make it last hour" already.

@@jsvvnt No. Especially not when there is evidence to show that is a realistic possibility. If you have evidence disproving that then have at it. But if the computer effects people are told to use wildfire to make the city burn and then later told to use "not wildfire" that indicates a change was made.

@@pplr1 let me guess you saw the dragon demands dude video... a person that loves to stalk d&d and even made bryan cogman (one of the writers that grrm likes and said that he was responsible for keeping "the canon" in the series) leave Twitter because he was being creep with him. but believe what you want, maybe someday you guys will get over that denial.

I appreciate the comment but idk if you got what I was saying at all…

@@yezenirl6331 I know criticisms suck, but so do "you just don't get it" thought stopping cliches. "People employ whataboutism to excuse Dany's tyrannical methods." I'm saying you're employing whataboutism to wave away valid criticism. People who disliked Dany burning KL aren't using "just whataboutism" to explain why it doesn't work. Our understanding of "who's the protagonist", "who's the antagonist" depends on characters having roughly the same moral rubric. Thus when someone makes the argument "Arya killed hundreds of innocent members of House Frey we're supposed to think it makes sense that Dany would torch Kings Landing because she killed slavers before in response to child crucifixion?" it isn't just whataboutism. It's breaking suspension of disbelief (as a viewer) because other characters have done much worse. Let's pretend they killed the Starks and Gendry and Arya decided to go on a killing spree in King's Landing to feel better. That was our ending. The signs were there, she'd killed innocents before. People pointing to The Hound and saying "he's murdered innocents but he didn't go on a killing spree" isn't just whataboutism, it's valid criticism because we haven't seen anything in either character which indicated a penchant for mass murder. In this violent, medieval world brutality is used routinely to obtain power. Dany expressed a desire to be a good ruler, grave dismay when a child was hurt by her "weapon," and kept herself in check by surrounding herself with advisors that dissented with her (probably the biggest hallmark of a corrupt leader being "yes men"). Given her actions (and other characters' actions) I still don't understand how people who argue her decision to burn King's Landing didn't make sense are "rationalizing tyranny."

@@dante6985 no I just don’t think this argument applies lol. No one is arguing that characters should be “judged” by a different moral rubric, but judging and understanding are very different things. And the show indeed has many shortcomings in terms of it’s failure to tell the story of Sansa and (especially) Arya’s darker turns. But your rationale is just kind of nonsensical to me because it seems to measure characters actions based on how violent or “morally bad” they are rather than based on how characters see themselves and their place in the world. So to ask why didn’t Arya, or Sansa, or the Hound, commit a similar atrocity to Dany isn’t just about measuring how “moral” or even how violent those characters have been. It’s a question of who they think they are. As violent or “morally bad” as Arya gets, she never entertains the same types of actions Dany does throughout the story. Not just because she doesn’t have dragons, but also because she doesn’t see herself as having the same right to exercise power over others as Daenerys does.

@@dante6985 I understand your 2nd statement more and agree with it. I think YezenIRL is trying to cover for using double standards for different characters. What also went unsaid in the discussion between the 2 of you is that the aired version of season 8 was not the earlier plan for it-the earlier plan being wildfire wrecks the city. I suspect the change was done to try to cover up other plot hole(s) such as Jon not being willing to do an assassination attempt over something that isn't what season 8 Dany wanted. But engaging in that discussion involves acknowledging the possibility that season 8 was not actually planned out from season 1 of GoT but something the show writers (not GRRM though he could still be doing so to this day for all we know since his books have not come out) played around with and made major changes to if there even was a plan in the 1st place. Now it is possible GRRM had an initial plan for what the show writers took part of and made into season 8. He was the writer that came up with wildfire and had it placed throughout the city in such a fashion the city was in danger of being destroyed by it. He also had successive rulers of that city engage in neglect by failing to remove the danger to the city-arguably even making it worse by having even more wildfire made after there was already enough to burn down King's Landing in the Mad King's time. So the show runners may have taken an idea GRRM came up with (that King's Landing may still burn at some point) and rehashed it into something very different with different reasons for how it happened also resulting in dramatic changes to why and likely the lesson(s) GRRM may have intended. Another major change the showrunners may have done (though this has less evidence to support it then that the earlier plan for season 8 was for wildfire to destroy it) is switch the timeline about when the Whitewalkers (Others in the books) are dealt with and how. If the books come out I would not be surprised to see Cersei's rule ended long before the issue of the Whitewalkers/Others is addressed.

@@pplr1 Regardless I want to acknowledge and show appreciation for YezenIRL for creating a video which raised some interesting discussion points. For a more comprehensive, literary analysis on why S8 *didn’t* work (without many insults to Dan Benioff and D.B. Weiss) I recommend Lindsay Ellis’s Game of Thrones videos. I haven’t heard about the earlier plan you’re speaking of. GRRM has spoken of his “gardening” approach to storytelling, meaning he plants seeds here and here, some of them he tends to, some of them he doesn’t (In other words, I don’t think even now he knows precisely what’s going to happen, or that that’s immutable, just that he has an idea of the mechanics, Euron does this, Dany probably does this in response, Jon does this, etc.) I agree about Cersei, I think Faegon’s going to be on the throne when Dany arrives to Westeros and Euron is going to take the place of the Night King as leader of the Others for all intents and purposes. Reading the book you figure there is no way Dany is going to end up on that throne, but Faegon as King - beloved by the people although he is probably not a true Targaryen - makes much more sense as a catalyst for Dany to commit war crimes then some Jon Snow / Cersei hijinks. …If we ever see a Dream of Spring.

I think she only ever really behaved benevolently when her advisors forced or convinced her to. Once she had the confidence to act on her own, she disregarded them and let her true nature rule the day.

Actually in a season six Inside the Episode 1 of the writers for GoT flat out said that Daenerys is not "insane" nor "a sadist" nor "her father". Also the earlier plan for season 8 itself was for wildfire to destroy the city. Meaning by 1 dragon was a change and not a plan built up to. Also the author of this video gets details wrong in his arguments. For example he misrepresents having the same standard for all characters rather than double standards for Daenerys as "Whataboutism". Whataboutism is dodging a question by bringing up a side topic to avoid addressing the original topic. People who point out other characters like Jon, Sansa, and Arya killed/executed people aren't using that to ignore that Daenerys killed/executed people. Just that they are portrayed as morally justified and sane when they do it while the author of this video (as a defender of season 8) and season 8 try to claim similar was a sign of madness and lack of morality for Daenerys. Don't forget Jon killed Janos (officially) simply for refusing to follow orders even as Janos was apologizing and promising to do whatever Jon wanted. Lady Olenna was executed and Randyll Tarly appears to have taken no prisoners after attacking her castle. In comparison Daenerys was more merciful because she offered Randyll Tarly a way to live after he denied that to her ally. Treating different characters very differently for doing very similar things is a double standard. Critics of season 8 are often quite willing to address that Daenerys killed/executed others head on. Just they can address that and that other characters killed/executed people with consistency while season 8 and its defenders do not. On some of the other things the video maker claimed are distortions or wrong as well. Daenerys deciding to punish slave masters for the atrocity of killing over 100 slave children is not exactly the sign of a terrible or insane person. Not only was the generally accepted punishment for murder execution but this was the mass murder of children that she trying to do justice for. Additionally this can go back to the double standards again as Sansa fed Ramsey to his own dogs as punishment for the some of the terrible things he did. The writers don't use that against her in season 8. Sansa killing Ramsey was for even more selfish reasons since Sansa was killing Ramsey in part out of personal revenge (what he did to her) while Daenerys is trying to punish former slave masters for the harm they did to others (less selfish). It is striking that the video author even said "Dany had executed helpless downtrodden people" (in minute 17) while showing Daenerys executing people who had each killed others. That is a major misrepresentation. In order, Mirri (for understandable reasons) killed Daenerys husband and unborn son, Daenerys didn't want to have the advisor (his name currently escapes me) executed that we see next but he murdered a prisoner who was still awaiting trial and thus committed murder (which the punishment is already established for), and the slave masters-especially those who supported having a mass murder of children-were far from "helpless and downtrodden". Now he followed up that by saying Daenerys had done collective punishment without trial yet the 1st situation someone suggested a trial to Daenerys she went with holding one making that criticism rather wrongheaded. Also the problematic nature of collective punishment itself was something Daenerys ended up dealing with later that season so it isn't like the problems with it were ignored or rationalized-the opposite in fact (with show Hizdar). Referring to using dragon in a battle as "ruthlessly burning people en mass to achieve a political goal" is a rather anti-Daenerys PR laden way to say used 1 of her dragons in a battle. It is killing people but killing people in a battle during a war isn't seen as murder. If one is to avoid double standards that either makes Daenerys not insane (like most other characters who are involved in a war are not insane) or it makes Ned Stark, Bobby B, Tyrion Lannister, Jon Stark, Sansa Stark, and more who were all part of fighting or arranging a battle insane or at the very least terrible people in moral thinking because they were all part of killing people in a battle or arranging it. The author of this video is getting things wrong or misrepresenting situations as well as engaging in double standards. And that all is without the lesser known but very important aspect of season 8 that the earlier plan for it was for wildfire to be what wrecked King's Landing and having only 1 dragon do it (after singlehandedly winning a battle against both a navy and an army) was actually a change. Meaning they weren't building to it over years but decided to stick it in after having a different plan. That is something that contradicts the claims Dany was supposedly always "mad" and people never noticed. I suspect the show writers did that change to season 8 for a combination of shock value and in a poor attempt to paper over some of the plot holes they made in season 8 that only made more plot holes. The specific plot hole they may have been attempting to deal with is that Jon would've been unlikely to agree to an assassination attempt in season 8 over something Dany never wanted to happen-the destruction of the city due to wildfire. The reason you probably didn't think of things this video claimed the way it did before is probably because you correctly understood those situations when you saw them while the maker of this video misrepresented them in the video. I noticed you tried to avoid double standards by saying "she was always "mad" but so is basically everyone in this story and anyone who's been through a lot." I'll disagree with you on if the characters were insane or "mad" but I'll give you credit for attempting to be consistent and not have double standards. But if you if you look over this video again and season 8 itself you may notice they both engaged in double standards. This video tries to trick people into believing season 8 has less problems than it does by engaging in those double standards itself and falsely writes off people noticing them as "whataboutism". You have more consistency and possibly more integrity than it does. Be careful about it tricking you.

Darrin K Actually there have been multiple times when she did the morally right thing in spite of her advisors encouraging her to do the opposite. Attempting to give her advisors credit for her own internal mortality was a common and misleading meme put out by defenders of season 8. Let me mention some examples to prove it. Jorah suggested forgetting about ending slavery and just trying to attack Westeros, Daenerys refused for the sake of those slaves still in slavery. Daario suggested killing all the nobles and former slave masters in Meereen in order to consolidate power, Daenerys refused and said she is not a "butcherer". Tyrion tried telling her not to try to rescue Jon when Jon was off on a mission to capture an undead that Tyrion himself thought up. Had Daenerys not refused to follow Tyrion's advise at that point both Jon would be dead and there would be no attempt to make a truce with Cersei to go fight the undead before they killed everyone in The North. Daenerys made the decision to free slaves on her own without any advisor telling her to do so. There are also multiple and usually smaller decisions she made that helped other people that no advisor talked her into and certainly didn't "force" on her. Season 8 was a mess. It should be recognized as such. The writers themselves and a bunch of excuse makers for it tried to cover up just how bad a mess it was by coming up with that and other claims that are not true. A problem for those claims is if people actually rewatch earlier scenes/seasons they may notice those claims are false.

Well shes a Targaryens, they are known for their psychopathy.

sl9wdive A number (probably the majority) of Targaryens in the background of GoT were sane-so that isn't a good explanation in general. Also (as I already pointed out in an earlier and longer comment) the writers themselves already declared Daenerys to be sane back in season six. So that really doesn't explain or excuse season 8 in relation to her character in specific.

1000% agree with you!

paradox lol and how many times as she clearly shown that she cares for common folk?

Not this crap again

LyricalXilence am I wrong?

Oh please, these same arguments desperately defending the show were coming out throughout the entire season as it aired. By the end they died down as almost no one had the stomach to defend such a trash ending and now it's pretty much universally disliked among diehard and casual fans alike.

Morgan Guyer not as many times as she promised to burn cities to the ground and actually burnt people most of whom were not guilty of any crimes from seasons 1-7

No, that is an excuse pushed by season 8 and its defenders. Pretty villains have been done before and they are seen as villains. Daenerys actions (not just her looks) are some of the things that drew people to Daenerys. Freeing slaves, trying to help innocent people (especially when other rulers like Cersei didn't), trying to make the world a better place (such as requiring Yara to reform the GreyJoys to give up raping and pillaging in order to form an alliance with her) are all actions Daenerys took that people morally could approve of. That is one of the things that drew people to Daenerys. To claim it was just looks misrepresents the situation and-in a show as detailed as GoT used to be-the misrepresentation is quite likely not an accident but dishonest excuse making.

I wouldn’t say taboo. People wouldn’t take you seriously for having this stance, but I haven't seen anyone get angry at those who do.

You may be on to something

LOL!

Yep, and as for male audience it's mostly "I'd smash so idc"

@@Li_Tobler Are you playing CK3 AGOT? That why you came back to this old video :)

@@theshow946 haha good guess but no! Just rekindled my love for the book series (and some for the shows earlier seasons), started re-reading them preparing for Winds of Winter (hopefully, SOON!) and vacuum-sucking literally all the videos I've missed in those years XD

@@Li_Tobler Ok have fun rereading the books. I’m enjoying the CK3 mod 😁

They built it well enough, just not in the typical conventional way that majority are too accustomed to, which isn't a bad thing.

@@plisskenetic Bingo. Often From Software is accused of not having great stories in their work. Yet, under the surface, Bloodborne has one of the greatest stories I've ever experienced. It just wasn't told in the traditional way.

I think they got sloppy with everyones arc nearing the end. and probably more importantly, the entire arc of the existential threat of the army of the dead. resolving that with a fight seems lazy

After Ser Baristan's death, she gathered members of the ruling families. Daenerys burned a guy without proof. She immediately started rubbing up on Hizdahr. She was excited. It was pure Aerys

@@stacywhisenant6242 Omg! I wonder if they did that deliberately. Whenever the Mad King burned someone he'd get sexually aroused and go rape his wife.

@@gerardjagroo It's definitely deliberate. The lustful look in her eyes as people are being burned alive is unmistakable.

So you are saying she would be a better person if she approved of people killing each other simply for the sake of amusement then? Thats the context of that remark. Hizdar had used that she was willing to kill people to free slaves as an argument she should be agreeable to the idea of people fighting to the death in for the sake of amusement.

@@pplr1 that is such an obtuse argument that it is laughable. Hizdar was suggesting a way for the freed slaves to possibly earn some type of income cause the slaves are free, but the what. She never thought of the after. Good god dude just admit you are a Dany stan at this point.

@@jjh2456 You are aware former slaves can find other sources of income than killing each other for the sake of entertainment.. correct? Also if all they did was kill each other that results in many dead slaves rather than living out freer lives. Now it is funny you claim my earlier 100% correct statement is "obtuse". Did you not pay attention to what Hizdar was advocating for? Also it doesn't matter if I am a Hot Pie(or any other character)stan, what matters is if what I said in this case is correct or not-and it is correct.

Wouldn't go that far considering several people who take issue with it didn't care too much for her character.

The love for her is something I never felt or understood

She definitely has values, they are just secondary to her desires. And I’m really not the only one. A very large chunk of the audience did.

@@yezenirl6331 The thing is her killing before is nothing new in the universe of GoT. It's even seen as normal because even the noblest of characters such as Ned Stark, Tyrion, Jonh, Arya, comitted murder (to today's standards) in the name of justice against their enemies. Dany did the same with her dragons. But murdering innocent civilians based on an impulse? That's just too far. If you say that her deeds could show that she was definitely going to be like that in the end, that only means that everybody else was also going to turn into a genocidal murder because they also killed undeserving people before, even though they were their enemies. (John killed that kid in the North. But because of that, could you say that it means he also would definitely have burnt the city like Daenerys if he had a dragon to do so? Absolutely not. Ned? No. Arya? Nope. Tyrion? Nope. So why only Dany? Why only she was predisposed to go mad? The only reason is because of the foreshadowing from her father's story. That's all. There is no other reason whatsoever someone like her would have gone mad. Even her dad took many years before going insane. Dany? Just one episode, based on her bad mood! That's just ridiculous. There was no development leading to her completely losing her mind like that. It's like John Snow burning the city and then you come up to say that it was all obvious he would do that because he had killed a kid before. Or Tyrion because he had burnt people with huge fire before, or Arya because she had killed lots of people and smiled while doing so, so she would also have burnt the city like that. That's just nonsense. They all killed, but mostly enemies. But going against countless innocent civilians? Why only Dany? She wasn't even the one who had suffered the most in the series to justify her madness. There is no development leading to that at all.

@@julienckjm7430 Yet Dany is not mad, she is ruthless. She chose fear over love. Dany's turn had devleopment.

@@ianvera4299 Being ruthless and being genocidal are totally different. Everybody feared her already, there was no need to kill innocent civilians for more fear. If she just went ahead straight to Cersei and burnt the castle only, who wouldn't have feared her after that? There is nothing to suggest that she would have committed such act before towards civilians. No development to that outcome whatsoever, other than "her father wa mad then she will also get mad"

@@julienckjm7430 In this case, yes. Dany was making a point, she burned down the Tarlys and got a troop of soliders, if she burned down a city she would get the whole realm. Yet Dany blames the whole city, not cersei, hence why she feels betrayed. She literally burned Mirri after she got revenge for being raped by Dany's dothraki, its all about perspective. There was development.

Agreed with ya too man

z Haxeu here’s where I think you’re misunderstanding Daenerys (tv show) •she does NOT plan on winning their hearts AND •she does NOT burn Kingslanding for no apparent reason Daenerys has long given in to the fact that there is no love for her from the common people in Mereen or Westeros. Events , experiences and her nature drives her to decide to rule through FEAR. She burns Kingslanding for many reasons

@@tupimpacaterpillar3516 Actually, that's a fair point. That's most likely what D&D were going for when writing the script. Daenerys not just going mad, but choosing to rule through fear after seeing that she will never be loved like an actual Westerosi ruler could be (Jon Snow). The problem again was that it was done very poorly, we needed to see more of the dynamic between Jon, Dany and the common people, more of their "breakup" etc... All of this makes me wonder what could have been, if only GRRM had finished the books once the tv show started, and if only they got actual competent screenwriters to adapt them. We would have seen a probably very similar ending, just more consistent and satisfying.

z Haxeu even if books managed to finish I think the show version of Daenerys would’ve still ended in the same way as we have seen. Book Dany and Show Dany will reach a similar conclusion but they are both different. Book Dany means well but she is internally troubled by her Targaryen side , she has hallucinations, has visions, she commits messier atrocities, she questions herself and she has internal dialogue of whether she is doing the right thing or not by the end of the 5th book we see her embrace her Targaryen/ darker side-to me which means she’s going to be even more brutal and literally mad in the coming books. Show version of Dany is more megalomaniac and politically ambitious and later develops wanting to be a liberator whilst her actions are actually pretty brutal and tyrannical-but the viewing audience turn a blind eye to these actions because “these are bad men”that she is burning and crucifying. Show Dany never questions her self in fact we see a look of satisfaction in her face whenever someone is dying or burning alive at her doing without really questioning wether that person was actually guilty as deserving of a cruel and unusual punishment 🔥. We see her satisfaction at people grovelling at her feet when she walks out of a fire -she literally develops a god complex right before our eyes but the viewers cheer her on -this juxtaposition that the fans were put onto was intentional from the show and many fell for the bait ..unfortunately the show is now being resented for this but if we really look back the set up and the ground work was laid through out the series that pointed to her doing what she does in Kingslanding which brings me to my next point about Ruling through Fear

z Haxeu despite people thinking she burns Kingslanding for “no apparent reason” let’s breakdown *what she going through* as well as *what she has done before according to her worst impulses* *What she’s done before according to her first impulses* : -We have see her lash out and threaten to burn cities to the ground when she doesn’t get her way -We have see her kill in order to send a message -She has burned and killed people who would oppose her /not necessarily just because they were slavers but because they were also the first line of opposition against her. E.g the Khals, the noble men. -We have seen her kill out of vengeance and not necessarily out of real justice and not even using morale or rationale that the people shes affecting might actually be innocent even if they are “bad” e.g the 163 masters she crucified, the man she fed to her dragons and The Tarleys. *What she is going through* -she has lost her best friends and her children to this place/Westeros -she feels betrayed by her closest advisors who were the ones who could hold back from her worst impulses -she discovers that everything she has built her identity around is a lie! Jon Snow is actually the true heir to the iron throne and she practically begs him to keep it a secret -everyone she has built her identity around ruling barely welcomes her in fact they don’t love her because all they know of her is “mad king’s daughter” its understandable she would rather rule over a new generation that fears her. As Ollena told her “they won’t follow you unless they fear you” Now comes the moment she’s ready to lash out based on what she has gone through , ready to unleash her vengeance on Cersei..BUT if those bells ring she cannot even fly to the red keep and destroy Cersei either ..that red keep / a symbol of everything that was taken away from her......Cersei has also used “innocent people” as a shield against Dany..the same people she feels do not love her ....the same people some of whom rebelled against her family and could one day oppose her. The bells ringing is actually a loose for Dany in her mind. A lose of control . She knows Cersei is watching. She knows none of these people actually love her and she has expressed “let be fear” to Jon, the bells ring And Dany follows her worst impulses no one and nothing is there hold her back , she does the one thing she has always been in control of 🔥🔥🔥 we have seen her make an example out of her enemies -she is setting an example and sending a message to the rest of Westeros and those who would oppose her as she burns Kingslanding and making way for “new generations” *LET IT BE FEAR* It’s a tragic ending for her and her quest for that iron throne. Other characters in GoT are flawed as much as Dany but the extent and the scale at which she unleashes her wrath boils down to her having dragons/weapons of mass destruction no one else has.

No. It was that pretty much anyone Daenerys killed in seasons 1-7 was killed for a clear and understandable reason, often because they killed someone else. Additionally Daenerys herself made clear she valued innocent lives and would either help or avoid trying to harm them. Thus season 8 portraying season 8 Dany as ignoring Cersei (a murderer) in order to supposedly target random people on the street (innocent) managed to break from the character in not 1 but 2 separate ways at once.

@@pplr1 I’ve seen you make this argument in other comments and you have been proven wrong. Truth is you have fallen for D&Ds and maybe GRRMs intent.

Nope. Her actions often supported her words. Also I've watched this video and it gets a lot of stuff wrong-but often wrong in a way that makes Daenerys look bad. Some of what this video maker claimed is either contradicted by watching GoT itself or watching some of the Inside the episode commentaries. I'm actually in the process of thinking over a comment to put down with regards to the video itself. One example I may use is how Daenerys frequently cuts back on the "scale" of death or social disruption. One example is the only person she fed to her dragons-it was from a pool of people most likely to be guilty of organizing attacks in her view (the usual suspects), only 1 of them died, and on top of all that it was arguably the less disruptive and deadly of 2 suggestions Daario came up with for her. The video claims the opposite of what actually happened in that situation in Meereen.

@@pplr1 cool👍

I'm just trying to be a counter balance to the 2000 anti-season 8 video essays on youtube.

Bolesław Breczko and some of the best and most thought provoking shows have long video essays explaining things too. Part of the magic;)

but it doesn’t “need” this video if you pay attention. most people clearly didn’t pay attention.

Was it?

@@yezenirl6331 Yes lol. Why would they let her in otherwise. She was desperate, probably very hungry and thirsty. Anger was the last resort... Whereas in King’s Landing she had already won the battle. The city was hers. Why would she kill all those people when the battle was won. It’s stupid.

@@adw8451 because King's Landing is just one city and she wanted to frighten the Seven Kingdoms into submission. As for Qarth, the threats didn't get her into the city. It wasn't even a good strategy.

@@yezenirl6331 Good so you are discounting the mad queen storyline through saying that she made a rational decision by burning King’s Landing and it wasn’t some ‘bells’ that pushed her over. Glad we agree on that she didn’t go mad.

@@adw8451 madness is subjective. I don't think Daenerys went mad. But her actions appear mad to people because of how horrific they are.

I mean everything in the books will be slightly different.

There is a good argument the books and show are different stories. There are times when D and D broke from the books in earlier seasons of GoT but those breaks got bigger as time went as GRRM (the author of the books) left the show. Characters such as Tyrion and Euron are flat out different characters in books and show. Book readers critical of GoT have noticed that for a long time and GRRM himself even acknowledged it in Euron's case this past summer-possibly because it was so obvious he realized he wasn't spoiling anything if he admitted it. Since the earlier plan for season 8 itself was to have wildfire be what destroyed most of King's Landing and the writers of season 8 changed that it may be that Daenerys sets off the wildfire in the books-quite possibly on accident. Not something that would be impossible to do if a fire breathing dragon is doing battle in a town laced with wildfire. Furthermore book Tyrion (whom GRRM acknowledged was/is a villain) may do something to talk or trick her into it. Which could make some sense since it is Tyrion (not book Daenerys) who has a personal grudge against the people controlling King's Landing (his family) and possibly the city itself since he saved it from being taken by Stannis only to be rejected later. Book Daenerys is smart for her age but still somewhat naive so Tyrion could certainly trick her. And he already laughed to himself that he talked FAegon into going on what he-book Tyrion-believed was a suicide mission in attacking Cersei. So book Tyrion believing he is costing other people their lives can be amusing to himself.

​@@yezenirl6331 wouldn't say slightly considering the show lacks specific characters from the books and the changes to certain characters.

She's not meant to look sympathetic here. She did it to terrify future opponents as she believes that's the only way she can hold onto power in Westeros and to vent her rage at the "evil" people who don't love her (which is consistent with her hostility towards people who view her with skepticism and suspicion).

Greg B I would believe that if it had been ~ written ~ into the script, but she didn’t say that, she kept talking about how they “liberated” those people, and how Daenerys killed them because “Cersei used them as a weapon against her.” they didn’t even say thats the reason she did it in the inside the episode part where D&D said she looked at the red keep and she saw it as a symbol of everything that was taken from her and she decided to “make it personal.”

Hans Baumbach - That factors into her not taking rejection well.

​@@Mr-Rinn she didn't really have chance to get rejected by the people of kings landing.

Ivy is Dead except Dany has always enjoyed violence.

@@yezenirl6331 Not true either. She finds it a necessessary evil, but she does not enjoy it. Even the Slave Masters, people who she despises, she has a tinge of remorse when cruxifying them, she had to keep telling herself it was for the children. She is not sadistic. I'll even give you that, her turn could have worked, if more time was spent actually building it instead of foreshadowing. Foreshadowing in this case is giving hints of what the story needs to happen and not what the characters would actually do.

Ivy is Dead that is called enjoying violence. She tells herself it’s for the children as a rationalization. This could not be clearer tbh, and anyone who does not see this is not clear eyed in their reading. Both the show and the books are clear on this despite what angry fans claim. Dany is continually shown to favor violent solutions (burning people alive), to be attracted to violent people (Drogo, Daario), and to need to be talked down from violent solutions (burning cities to the ground). A huge chunk of the fandom saw this and wrote about it extensively for years before the ending.

@@yezenirl6331 i mean, she did frown, put her glass down and felt bad, but sure, she was enjoying it. I'm not questioning her tendency towards violence, which she sometimes have, i am saying she is not a sadist, she was not her father, she never liked killing people, she kills, but it's not fun for her. I suppose we gonna have to agree to disagree.

Ivy is Dead that is later. She enjoys it in the moment but feels conflicted later. It’s right there in the passage. But again, I think you’re placing a false framework on the narrative because you don’t want to accept having been wrong about the character. Whether Dany “is a sadist” isn’t the question, and is a straw man designed to raise the threshold to a point where it is overly hard to prove. Countless other characters enjoy violence and display a tendency towards it, without being “sadists.” The question is whether she enjoys violence, which she absolutely does (at times). The question is also whether she has a tendency towards excessive violence, which she absolutely does. This is why the fandom lacks the ability not only to understand the show, but to understand GRRM’s work as well. There is an inability to see how good and evil are not static, but present forces within all characters. You are trying to draw a distinct line between Dany and her father. As though Dany is either full Aerys, or all of her violence is purely for the sake of justice and she takes no pleasure in it. But those dichotomies just aren’t clean like that. Arya is an avid perpetrator of violence, and she absolutely enjoys it. Does that make her a sadist? Does that make her Aerys? No, but the lines aren’t clear. Similarly, Dany’s relationship to violence is complex. She isn’t Ramsay or Cersei, but that doesn’t mean her heroism doesn’t dip into evil from time to time. The lines are blurred.

It wouldn't matter. If your mind is on a different track, nothing works. You ultimately view the message of the show as an attack on self and will embrace any justification to trash it. Think of the 'spawning Dothraki', despite being told quite clearly that 50% of the troops were lost. People simply chose to ignore this. Or the 'if Cersei moves just a few feet away' when the aerial shot clearly shows piles of rocks in all directions and indeed Tyrion climbing upon a giant long pile of rocks just to get to Cersei and Jaime. Or how people mocked 'I don't want it!' while at the same time cheering 'You know nothing, Jon Snow.' The point is to trash and bury GOT by all means necessary.

@@SerbAtheist no lol. have you read the books? most qualms are due to people who actually know the story and how much D2 changed it and disrespected the works and knowing what went down bts. there is no doubt they cut corners especially in the last couple seasons because they were done with the project after the red wedding. most rebutting *against* valid criticisms aren’t even examining the nuances to those criticisms or where they’ve truly originated. the dothraki and rocks talking points though are usually from the latter of those who just want to feel included and intelligent but as said have no clue why those criticisms have become reader + viewer based meme.

when bad things happen that are disappointing and you can’t do anything about it people often reduce it to some absurdist humor which quickly permeates. looking any bit past this form of coping mechanism, you’d see the swathes of substantiative data to back up any of the genuine distain and vitriol for D2 and the ultimate corruption of the source material.

I think Dany’s ruthlessness will not be her final moments in her arc. I think she’s going to go down a darker path but ultimately redeem herself in the Long Night.

You seem to not understand the extremities that killing countless innocent civilians is, solely based on some impulse, compared to killing the legitimate enemies even in a cruel way. Based on the analysis in the video and your comment here, everybody in the show who have done some violent killing before even if it was their enemy, from Ned Stark to John Snow, to Cersei, Jamy, heck even Tyrion could have burnt the city if they also had those dragons. Does it seem right or logical to you?

Watch the video. If you have and this is what you're still coming away with then idk how to help you. She CRUFICIED nobles without a trial, including anti-slavery reformers. She executed innocent nobles without a trial. She then executed a slave, who worshiped her and supported her before anyone else did, for killing a pro-slavery terrorist without a trial. She burned alive an elderly women and healer for killing khal drogo, an infamous slaver and rapist who butchered her, her people and her family over and over. She executed prisoners of war for not pledging fealty. She looted an innocent city, destroying it and dooming its citizens. As the video mentioned, she has a history of UBER VIOLENCE WITHOUT A TRIAL WITH COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT. She consistently fantasized about siezing her bloodright by any means necessary, of "returning home" with an unstoppable army of slaver rapists and taking her throne "with fire and blood". Then she got interested in liberating people, so all her barbaric actions were excused because she was doing it for a good cause. Then she lost 2 of her dragons(her children), lost her best friend and was betrayed by her advisors and saw that the people didn't love her. Her insane entitled violence obsessed mind imploded, after going so far and losing so much she saw the people didn't love her and did what was entirely on track for her to do. She burned those who didn't obey.

@@j.a.6310: 99% of people are obedient order-following sheep who rationalize tyranny and totalitarianism in real life; of course they will do the same when presented with it on TV.

Look what they did to her. They killed her next to last dragon and best friend, she had just lost Jorah, and on top of it all she found out the truth about who Jon is and that the people of Westeros don’t like her. She feels like she can’t trust anyone. All the ingredients were there for her decision, but I do think given only 6 episodes it could have been laid out better. Like how instead of taking out Cersei first or soon after she starts burning the city, she instead targets everyone but her, and therefore allowing her plenty of time to escape should she have chosen so. Cersei also needed to have something to do besides just staring out the window the entire time. I got that she was in shock but damn, do something besides just waiting for your turn to be barbecued. I also think that we needed more dialogue from Dany to help us understand her thinking more. A few lines of dialogue wasn’t really enough. But basically her thinking was along the lines of “if I can’t have you, no one will.” Her motivations from the very beginning of the show in setting out to take back her family’s throne has stemmed from her desire to have a home and sense of purpose. To be loved, to belong. She’s never had any of that. The only family she had was her asshole brother, so she really didn’t have a family. She doesn’t set out to burn KL and rule through fear, she comes to that decision when she realizes that everything she’s been through has been for nothing. Jon is the true heir, and they love him. Not her. It would just be a matter of time before they pressed his claim once word got out. And she had no real support.. Would she have made the same decision had most of her loved ones not been killed off by her enemies? Probably not. She would have still given them a chance, listen to her advisors, do things to help form a bond of trust and love between her and the people. But they were killed off. She had no one. She wasn’t loved. She was angry, grieving, and she needed revenge. She realized that fear was the only thing she had left to assert her rule.

​​@@Renee-zy6oyhe only people who loved Jon were his own men; same with her.

Peak line

Zach and her violence is typically depicted as glorious or extremely Justified and it has no negative effect on her overall personality.

Eltharion 21 I think Arya needed to go through that experience of trying to save people’s lives and then finding the white horse amongst the rubble while Dany was burning Kingslanding. For lack of better words this was her therapeutic redemption moment where she finally decided to turn away from succumbing to her vengeful side and choosing Life rather than Death especially since she also chose to take Sandor’s advice to turn away. Wether she’s left as a sane person we do not know for sure but she lived because she adapted. Many cases Dany could’ve done the same and listened to her advisors but unfortunately she paid the price of her choices and falling into her darker Targaryen side

Wisdom Manari' the effects and shift on Arya ‘s personality is highlighted or hinted when she meets Hotpie again in the pub in season7 , he notices she’s different and even asks “Arya what happened to you” Daenerys’s earlier acts of violence at Slavers Bay when she sacks Astapor or when she burns the Khals alive are also depicted as powerful , glorious and justified since they were all “bad men”

@@tha_jet_king3537 If Daenerys listened to her advisors then Jon, Tormund, Jorah, the Hound and possibly a few more would dead (Tyrion said don't help them), Drogos Dothraki would've gotten more raping done (Jorah discouraged Daenerys from trying to protect women), A lot of people would still be slaves (Jorah again), and every noble in Meereen would be dead so Daenerys could take their money (Daario's suggestion and she refused by saying she was not a "butcherer"). I'm sure there are more but Daenerys's advisors actually encouraged her to do the immoral thing pretty often and it is to her credit she ignored them.

I think it's safe to say Arya would also not have been a particularly good ruler.

It seems you don’t really understand what Daenerys wants.

Oh, she got her vengeance. Her vengeance on the people for not loving her and being grateful to her like they ought.

I have to echo YezenIRL... you don't understand Dany's motivation one bit. Going after Cersei would make sense if Dany was a sincere advocate of some of the causes she championed, like the end of slavery, the welfare of the people, the revenge for Missandrei or even merely to restore the Targ dynasty. But Dany is none of the sort. Dany is above all a ruthless psychopath who gets off on adoration and power. Her ultimate goal is not MERELY to get the Iron Throne, but to get the mind of every soul in Westeros. And if she can't do it with love, like she did in Mereen, she will do it with fear. She even says as much. With the burning of civilians she absolutely wanted to send a message to all that no one ever f*** with her again and that the only proper course of action towards her is absolute obedience. It's exactly the kind of unpredictable and bloodthirsty ruthlessness that dictators across the ages have used to stay in power.

@@BexMatthies Daenerys episode 4 "The poeple of KL doesn't know we saved them, Cersei made it sure, we cannot except them to view us as liberators." Also Dany haters "ShE bUrNeD ThEm bEcAuSe ShE wAnTeD tO bE WoRShiPpEd", please.... Enough of this nonsense

@@yezenirl6331 And you do? Based on your replies on other comments, you seem to think you know everything.

I'm 100% agree with you

What exactly are the pieces that Grrm set up that weren't represented in the show? Didn't the show follow pretty much the same plot points up to season 5?

'It's a portrayal of essentially two different characters with the same name played by the same actress.' Nope. It's a portrait of a psychopath and the mask she is wearing. Masterfully done. 'the overwhelming majority of her screentime was dedicated to showing her as a kind, merciful ruler who detested hurting innocents.' Yeah, the 'Dany NOT foreshadowed' video has a grand total of 15 or so moments that make her look benevolent. You could easily come up with that many moments that make her look violent, vain or selfish within a single season. Not to mention that every single one of these 'oh Dany is so good' moments are either pathetically meager, negated afterwards (chains dragons so they don't munch on humans... few episodes later feeds a human to these dragons!) or extremely self-serving. 'And then you have Arya. A character who, by all counts, was shown to be far more evil and sociopathic and willing to kill innocents than Dany ever was. ' How many innocents did Arya kill? More importantly, did the show celebrate Arya's turn or steer her away from revenge?

mrwho995....Great comments. Especially: ..."the overwhelming majority of her screentime was dedicated to showing her as a kind, merciful ruler who detested hurting innocents......So sure, you can pick out plenty of scenes to justify Dany's turn. But you can also pick out plenty of scenes to paint Dany's turn as completely ridiculous and contrived. As many people have.....Dany: schizophrenic leaps from hero to meglomaniac so huge the inertia could kill you".......Thank you for this.

Actually is is good you mentioned being selfish. One of the things this video leaves out-likely because it conflicts with the narrative the video maker is pushing-is that Daenerys has repeatedly not been selfish. Jorah encouraged her to stop her efforts to end slavery in Slaver's Bay and instead go for Westeros. She refused for the sake of those who were still slaves-a decision that delayed her goals (such as the getting the 7 kingdoms) and put her means to get them (her army of UnSullied) at risk. When she was confronted with evidence her dragons killed an innocent person (a child) she-despite the emotional pain it caused her to do so-chained up all of the dragons she could get her hands on to ensure the safety of common people in her lands. When slave masters offered her all the gold she could want and a free navy to get to Westeros if she would just stop freeing slaves she refused for the sake of the slaves. Now she did show some selfishness in the last situation because she held on to the sample of gold the slavers brought to offer her but it was a small amount in comparison to what they were offering and she turned that down for the sake of other people. Part of the reason people came to notice and have some respect for Daenerys is because she repeatedly showed there were times and situations where she-despite being leader with some power-would make a selfless choice for the sake of other people rather than herself. As a side note-but an important one-evidence has come out the earlier plans for Season 8 had wildfire being the primary reason most of King's Landing burned. The writers for the show then changed things after those plans were already made. That means that rather than being something that was actually developed to in the show the season 8 decision to have 1 dragon burn a large city after having fought 2 battles and without any rest or lunch break was actually not what was being built to earlier.

Who gives excuses for these actions? No one! That's the point. Everyone else has to atone for what they've done but for some reason when it comes to Dany a zillion excuses are made.

@@janellejulianajoy Because there was no reason for dany to do it. This is like arya killing bran after she killed the night king. Her real enemy is drinking wine in the red keep,and she is killing everybody except her

@@aswing2706 No reason? have we watched the same show?

@@aswing2706 The point is she did it. I can say Stannis was ooc when he sacrificed his own daughter but that doesn't negate the fact that he did it.

@@janellejulianajoy The person responsible for the death of my child and best friend is sitting right there. But no,let's burn everyone other than her.

Many male characters slaughter innocence.

Because her last name is Targaryens

Pravin S she is judged by a different standard because she is a Targaryen and she is the only character who had 3 weapons of mass destruction. This is reasonable judgment and well earned considering her lineage, her nature and nurture. Besides various characters who threatened or did cruel things went through their own form of retribution , suffering, or died by the end..the ones that didn’t die it is because they realised they had to adapt. Everyone had reasons.. so did Daenerys.

@@tupimpacaterpillar3516 Oh yeah Arya really learned not to force cannibalism on people. :rolls eyes: And Daenerys does not have 3 weapons of mass destruction, what she has is akin to black powder not the A bomb. And the Targaryens are just like any other ruthless house in Westeros they just happen to have dragons, but that doesn't negate the cruelty of the Lannisters or Martell's,

LyricalXilence no one is excusing anyone lol so the whataboutism is a bit futile , though the fact is no other character has those sort of weapons of mass destruction while vying for the throne while declaring themselves as liberator and is from a long line of incest and madness....totally puts her in a whole different bracket for scrutiny...it’s meant that way. The only ones who come close are Cersei and Stannis ..and well things didn’t turn out well for them either. 🔥 And NO the Targaryens are very different to everyone else. ( that’s why they get to have their own origin story /prequel -House of The Dragon before everyone else ) ....as for Arya Ofcourse she craaazy! Though her turn came / she adapted after listening to Sandor Clegane’s advise (unlike Dany who didn’t listen to her advisors) further more that white horse surviving the rubble meant a lot to her -she chose LIFE after that rather than vengeance and death and went on to sail west.... like I said those who survive GoT are the ones who change or adapt

LyricalXilence p.s if you understand GRRM’s work and his outlook on war and power you’ll understand that the dragons are living fire breathing metaphors for nuclear weapons ..not just gun powder 🙄 lol the fast rapid mass destruction that accompanies dragonfire makes them akin to heavy bombers with nuclear payloads. This is especially true when the objective is to ride a winged beast into battle, like an F15 or a B-52 pilot riding a nuclear bomb Refer to the mass destruction of Kingslanding , Astapor, Slavers bay, Field of Fire

MissMillsonxx exactly! The script of the episode contains what’s going through her head and it’s basically the asinine explanation dan wiess gave in the disastrous inside the episode. Ned Stark would be chopping heads off until he couldn’t hold Ice anymore. Also they have utterly revealed themselves at the Austin film festival as a amateurs who admitted to not understanding the characters. Not hyperbole.

@@skaggster9733 the issue is that Dany at her very worst has needed some sort of moral justification for killing anybody. Some kind of reason associated with something active that she thought that was immoral, such as possibly supporting the sons of the harpy, She said that the choice was kneel or die with the tarlys, and after that battle, she didn't kill any of the soldiers. That was the last morally ambiguous thing she did until season 8 episode 5, everything between those two points was heroic. There could have been more times where she did something that wasn't morally justified. Yes, dany does believe in a black and white world, but I don't understand what the justification for her killing children and other innocents is. What have they done? She has never hurt anybody for doing nothing. Tarlys defied her, the slavemasters were likely supporting the sons of the harpy who were actively murdering people, mirri killed her husband and unborn child. Yes there was a justification on Mirri's part because of the fact that she had been raped already and eventually the boy would be the stallion who mounts the world, but that's been dany's rationale up until this point where she just kills whoever she wants without some kind of active crime that they have committed

Lindsay Ellis may not be perfect but she got more facts correct (a smaller number wrong) as they relate to the GoT storyline than the much shorter video here did. Now both videos came out before some of the evidence was made public an earlier plan for season 8 itself was to have the city be destroyed by wildfire so they could be forgiven for not mentioning that. But with that criticism laid against both Lindsay Ellis still made the better film. If you want an example of this film getting something wrong notice at the end where the narrator is saying Daenerys had killed "helpless downtrodden people" while showing people that the character Daenerys and elevated to positions of status and trust before they killed other people-thus they are far from "helpless". From there it actually keeps getting worse as the narrator lists things that are either wrong or half-truths told in a misleading way. Nobody suggested trials for the slave masters Daenerys thought supported and carried out the mass murder of slave children. The 1st situation Sir Barristan suggested holding a trial for someone Daenerys went with it-thus making the criticism wrongheaded or even deceptive. Also "ruthlessly burning people en mass" is a pretty misleading way to say used her dragon in a battle. Killing a bunch of enemy soldiers in a battle and during a war is not something that is supposed to indicate a character is about to massacre civilians who are unarmed and not fighting. If that were the case every character who was a leader during a war or battle in GoT would supposedly be expected to do so including Jon Snow (who is actually presented as being a moral guy). That deceptive framing and double standards rather actually going over details to see if things were missed. Edit: I almost forgot to mention the guy who was fed to the dragon and called "innocent" by the narrator. The character Daenerys was told by 2 separate people she had made her advisors that the group of people he was 1 of were arranging the Sons of the Harpy attacks. So proclaiming him innocent is actually very misleading on the narrator's part.

Indeed!!

Yesssss I think we finally found a safe space

Sounds like you only talk to jerks. But then again the show has shit writing so I wouldn't pretend you guys are always reasonable either.

The God you never knew “you guys.” NICE. My comment has nothing to do with the show writing here. My overall points are that I appreciate the video and that when I want proper conversation with other fans, I don’t often get it. If I don’t have the same exact reaction about Daenerys as others around me, or on a basic forum, I get obliterated. A ‘friend’ of mine actually stopped talking to me because I view Daenerys’ outcome differently. That’s truly all it took; she flaked when I spoke my opinion and I haven’t heard from her since. I like this guy’s videos because he’s discussing the presented art-whether for better or worse-without being aggressive and with excellent points. Very reasonably so too.

The God you never knew where is the righting crap, it’s funny how we can rant and rave about game of thrones and George R R Martin but your so quick to talk about a short season

Yes except D&D are shit writers who's writing is inconsistent and nonsensical.

@@wisdommanari6701 'Shit writers' wrote one of the biggest shows in history which you followed for 8 seasons. Sure, have your opinion on S8, but this petty childish outrage about how D&D are all of a sudden THE WORST WRITERS EVAH is complete bull.

@@SerbAtheist Yep but problém were present already in sesons 5. Just because something is big and goes for long does not make it good. All shounen mangas are prime example of this.

To be fair Griffith was set-up waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than Daenerys after all there was whole Golden Age arc for that. And as for Bayaz well I love First law trilogy, but some things did not make any sense in the end either. (especially how Bayaz master plan was build on absolute coincidences and things completely outside of his influence)

Yeah, but you also don't see people being confused and or feeling betrayed about what happened in berserk.

GerardxB well Arya basically did go mad. But she had friends and family to pull her back. Daenerys lost everyone, and also her ambition and capacity for damage was far greater than Arya’s.

@@yezenirl6331 Wrong, she still had Jon, her lover, and Tyrion, her trusted advisor, supporting her.

@Loki Jaxson That is not "betrayal" in the slightest. Also, Dany apparently forgot about this when she asked Jon to rule with him. Also, Tyrion literally did everything he could for her and even sold Varys out. And how does any of this justify murdering babies?

@Loki Jaxson If that is the explanation, it goes against Dany's entire character and everything she literally stood for. What "tendencies"? She always killed enemies, not babies.

@Loki Jaxson When was this? What are you talking about?

i dunno why would Arya poisoned the rest of the Freys after she killed the Walder Frey? i mean they all just followed their leader why would Jon Snow beheaded Janos Slynt? or why did he hanged Olly and the others? why would Sansa let Ramsey got butchered by his dogs? he was already a prisoner

Robert Selagon sure I’ll help you understand: *Jon* the men who stabbed Jon Snow including Olly committed *Mutiny* a crime punishable by death according to law of the land NOT according Jon’s own law! Janos slynt deliberately disobeyed his Lord Commander and disrespected him . He was warned prior. ( Dany punished people according to her own sense of justice which was wrong most of the time and not according to the law of the land- by her sort of rationale Jon would’ve mass murdered the nightswatch instead of the men who were directly responsible for murdering him) *Arya* She’s just as crazy! She wanted to exact her vengeance on the Freys for the red wedding since she was a little girl , she mass murders all of them..no one excuses her for this. She was just as wrong as any other morally ambiguous character. Characters who don’t adapt or change in GoT die in the end. We see Arya take The Hound’s advise , we see her trying to save the innocents while Dany was burning Kingslanding , we see how that white horse surviving the rubble meant so much to her. These are the moments Arya adapts and turns away from vengeance and death and decides for Life and she goes west of Westeros instead of being an assassin. *Sansa* Ramsey was taken prisoner. Sansa did not kill him. Jon did not kill him. Sansa simply reunited her rapist with his own dogs. She did not command them to kill him. He could’ve commanded his own dogs to not kill him and he’d still be alive as prisoner . It is therefore his own fault for not feeding those dogs and his fault for training them to eat people. He reaped what he sowed. simple

@@tupimpacaterpillar3516 if it's that simple then why we were dealing with this backlash? Those examples were justified just like you said and the fans accepted them, but a lot were not happy with Dany's? Why is that?

Robert Selagon there is a lot of backlash about Dany because every villain is a hero of their own story, it is meant to be that way right from the start. This is How GRRM writes his books and that’s why his books are actually very niche. Viewers were practically groomed into falling in love with her and seeing only from her Point Of View. We fell in love with the idealistic potential of what she could’ve been while we excused and ignored what she actually was and what she did🔥 A lot of people say it was “rushed” and it “needed more time” I’d bet those same people would still complain even if there was 2+ more seasons of Dany they’d say “oh they dragged this out , they assassinated her character slowly and painfully” when we look under the surface or even just rewatch this story we see the set up, the development of her doing what she did to Kingslanding has always been there all the way through. Despite my love for Dany’s character I did not let her POV blind side me , she was always a bit off for me and I knew when it came to believing she was right she will burn a city with innocent people in it. I was just waiting for it to happen 😢 either that or the moment she would change her mindset entirely and adapt. She didn’t change. The moment s7 and 8 were announced to be the Finale I knew either Dany or Cersei was going burn the city all because of the evidence I had seen along both their journeys. To me both were different sides of the same coin.

The three of them could not possibly have escaped the entirety of the Dothraki Nation.

It happenednin season 8, which is the last episode of season 7 expanded into a season. Originally the will make Dany goes mad in the last episode. Still a bad writing.

I think compared to the unsullied, bloodriders and 'freed' slaves of Mereen, Yunkai etc even Missandei, Jorah who accepted her as their leader, liberator, a godly and motherly figure who almost always knew what was good for them and actually worshipped and loved her for it (a big stroke for her ego and validation to the fact that she is sth extraordinary), was quite the opposite with the ppl of westeros. They did not care for her, neither loved her or opposed Cerceis rule of KL. They did not mourn the downfall of the Targaryen dynasty, they even feared her or did not want her there as she formerly stated. I believe she saw them as part of the problem she wanted/needed to get rid of as well as send a message throughout the seven kingdoms: that anyone who defies her or does not welcome her rulership will meet the same fate as Cercei and her shield of "innocent" ppl. Just my two cents, even tho this question was over a year ago 😅

​@@dildem6442 yeah, but those cities did so after she liberated them the people of kings landing didn't get a choice.

I don’t get the comparison with Arya….Arya wasn’t the one vying to rule over people , proclaiming worthy ideals and talking about breaking the wheel. Arya was clearly going down a dark path but she too had a turn ..the difference was hers was for the better when she unlike Daenerys decided to listen to her advisor about turning back - Sandor Clegane

​@@tupimpacaterpillar3516 the comparison is what arya did was equally if bit more vicious.

I feel like people might be misrepresenting those comments.

I don't get how them saying they wanted to make a show that NFL players and mothers could watch and follow alongside fantasy geeks is a bad thing.

@@yezenirl6331 it was terribly misconstrued. Watchers on the Wall has the actual audio and what they actually said was nowhere near as arrogant as the Twitter feed had portrayed and nothing controversial.

@@Outdafakeonz Can you send me a link? That's what I figured when I saw it on the feed. If there were ever going to be a hypothetical D&D smoking gun, I don't think it'll be D&D calling themselves bad writers.

@RheyaRu!z I kinda hate season 6 and 7 so no. I just don't think people are being fair. When people called S6E9 and S6E10 two of the best episodes of television of all time, I thought D&D were absurdly overrated. Now that people call season 8 the worst ending in the history of television I think they are underrated. People need to find a nice middle ground.

He has passion and contempt. He really wants to prop up season 8. Thing is in parts of this video gets details wrong in his effort to do so. Details he tried to use as part of his justification-meaning it is not correct. In some of his discussions with me where I brought up that someone found strong evidence that the version of season 8 that aired was merely a last minute change (the earlier plans for season 8 itself had wildfire rather than 1 dragon being the reason most of King's Landing was wrecked) his response was to treat the person who found some of the evidence with contempt rather than address it. Now there are plenty of people who were angry with the show writers of season 8. But many of them did not start with anger at it but detail why that anger develop-thus listing off the reasons that brought them to that emotion. So it is not merely an emotion but there is both reason and passion behind its formation among many.

Also more recently an example of yezenirl showing contempt for who and what disproves him comes from the discussion between him and AdamNoizer in the comments below. What yezen did is a classic switch to ad hominem attacks were he insults both the person at points made while trying to avoid addressing them. To AdamNoizer's credit he is polite throughout the discussion and stayed focused on specific issues. yezenirl's final responses were to complain of "when I hear shit like this" claim the other person would never "understand" merely for disagreeing with him and say his points were "sophomoric" despite that they were made with more detail and reasoning than what yezen provided in the discussion.

@@pplr1 The ending is a masterpiece. Disney consumers cant understand that.

@@Batist13 "The ending is a masterpiece" of incompetence, poor logic, and general bad writing. Finished it for you.

@@pplr1 You just don't understand GoT. You are a passive consumer, unable to see the satire and philosophy behind this story. What do you know about writing, cinema and ancient tragedy ? Not much.