(06-19-2019, 03:06 PM)Hell Rell Wrote: [ -> ]Dany was acting like Anakin Skywalker in her final moments. You can't be the "Breaker of Chains" and tell people they have no choice. She wasn't breaking the wheel so much as she was becoming it. Dany saw herself as the ultimate power. She could justify anything she did because she thought only she, and maybe Jon, knew what was good. That's a tyrant if I ever saw one.
Don't think I'm trying to defend the writing because I'm not but it was clear to me that's what they wanted to convey. They didn't make her look regal. They were trying to make her look more evil especially when they had the shot of Drogon's wings directly behind her. Her ideology was dangerous because she would no longer be willing to compromise with anyone that didn't agree with her. She was a revolutionary turned dictator.
Essos was different from Westeros. As bad as it is with the different class systems, the latter technically didn't have slaves. At least not officially. They didn't want her to be their great savior. The reason Jorah was exiled was Ned called for his head for selling people into slavery so he could provide his wife a life of luxury. Westeros already had lords they admired such as the Starks, Tyrells, Tullys, Arryns and Martells. The Baratheons and even Greyjoys had their loyal subjects as well.
Dany got most of the followers she got not because they thought she would make a great queen but for vengeance. Olenna and Ellaria followed her because they wanted revenge on Cersei and they most likely would've had no problem with her burning KL to the ground. Yara pledged to her for help in combating Euron. She too wanted Cersei to just attack the Red Keep as soon as she arrived. They didn't really have an idea of what her governing style would be like. They just wanted fire and blood to rain down on their enemies.
The North, Vale, and Riverlands actually cared about how they would be governed and didn't want Dany. Sansa held much more influence than her in these kingdoms and they all would've allied and fought for her.
What would have been the best way then? According to the protocols of the time, Dany was the rightful heir to the throne. Olenna and Ellaria certainly had their personal reasons for siding with Dany, but the point is this. They never would have if she hadn't had a legitimate claim to the throne.
As for the North, had Jon got up in front of the room and agreed with the consensus that he should be king of the North, he'd be the king. Sansa would have fallen into the background, and despite her influence, could do nothing about it. You saw her reaction when Jon was nominated. She was angry, despite the fact that Jon probably would probably would have made a very good king. Even when Bran, who according the story is the king to end all kings and was made so, who took a stand against him? Sansa. Instead of looking ahead to the future where there's one king to wisely rule them all, she refuses to acknowledge that his title should include the North.
If, as stated, Sansa has the allegiance of the North, certainly they would follow her guidance if she gave her allegiance to Bran. She did not. So she was not looking at who could rule wisely and objectively. She was only looking at herself to be made queen with no thought or consideration for the outcome. Isn't that is just as selfish and tyrannical as Dany's facade of Breaker of Chains?
In thinking about this fascinating subject, I wonder now if Dany and Sansa were two sides of the same dark coin. Both women pretty much took an instant dislike to one another, yet both have some issues in common.
(06-19-2019, 04:16 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]What would have been the best way then? According to the protocols of the time, Dany was the rightful heir to the throne. Olenna and Ellaria certainly had their personal reasons for siding with Dany, but the point is this. They never would have if she hadn't had a legitimate claim to the throne.
As for the North, had Jon got up in front of the room and agreed with the consensus that he should be king of the North, he'd be the king. Sansa would have fallen into the background, and despite her influence, could do nothing about it. You saw her reaction when Jon was nominated. She was angry, despite the fact that Jon probably would probably would have made a very good king. Even when Bran, who according the story is the king to end all kings and was made so, who took a stand against him? Sansa. Instead of looking ahead to the future where there's one king to wisely rule them all, she refuses to acknowledge that his title should include the North.
If, as stated, Sansa has the allegiance of the North, certainly they would follow her guidance if she gave her allegiance to Bran. She did not. So she was not looking at who could rule wisely and objectively. She was only looking at herself to be made queen with no thought or consideration for the outcome. Isn't that is just as selfish and tyrannical as Dany's facade of Breaker of Chains?
In thinking about this fascinating subject, I wonder now if Dany and Sansa were two sides of the same dark coin. Both women pretty much took an instant dislike to one another, yet both have some issues in common.
Jon was the rightful heir and not Dany. That's why she begged him not to tell anyone.
Although the rightful heir issue can be challenged since the Mad King was so crazy that the Targaryens were rightfully deposed. He wasn't so much betrayed as he was dealt with justly. Even a king can't do whatever he wants which characters who are supposed to be smart like Tyrion and Tywin knew along with many others. That's why the 300 year old Targaryen dynasty was toppled. They've had bad kings before but they also had dragons which Aerys didn't have. Aegon didn't get the seven kingdoms because of birthright. He wasn't even from Westeros. Aerys ruined it for the entire family.
Yara, Olenna, and Ellaria never cared about Dany's claim. They sided with her because she was the most powerful woman in the world and could deliver the vengeance they wanted.
Sansa just wanted the north to be independent. She asked for independence before the decision about Jon was made. She would've been happy for him to be King in the North and he would've returned to Winterfell had she gotten her way. She declined becoming queen when they wanted to depose Jon in season 7 and she was upset with him for giving up his title and bending the knee at the beginning of this season.
Sansa could've been happy with Bran as king but what happens after he dies? She wanted independence for the North indefinitely like they had for thousands of years. This ensures that and a lot of northerners have already fought and died for that independence. It's not just about what she wanted but the northerners in general. She was speaking for them.
Despite all of that, Dany and Sansa do have a lot in common and I thought it was mistake to make their relationship antagonistic and nothing else. I think they wrote from a standpoint of knowing that Sansa would be proven right about Dany all along and the antagonism would be justified. The main difference I see in them is Sansa being more cautious as opposed to Dany being more impulsive.
I think Jon would be a good king as long as he had someone else making most of the decisions. He became way too passive and reluctant. It good that he's not power-hungry but it would be nice to have someone who actually wants the job on some level. He marched his troops down to KL after just fighting the Great War to keep a promise to Dany instead of acknowledging what Sansa said about them needing rest and recuperation. He put them in immense danger just to please her. That's not someone I would want as king.
I thought the previous Three-Eyed Raven only lived as long as he did because he connected to the tree. I got the feeling he would die soon once he was separated from it.
I don't see the contradiction in Sansa's actions. Jon wasn't coming back so her accepting the crown isn't some type of hypocritical action. Tyrion told Jon that neither she nor Arya were happy with the decision to send him back to the NW. And it's good that someone is actually willing to accept the responsibility of ruling the north and the series tells us that she's adept at it. An independent nation can still choose their own monarch. They did the same with Robb and Jon.
Bran never took a crown and neither has Jon. Maybe Stark men are adverse to it?
I know Jon was the rightful heir. But the time period you're referring to with Ellaria and Olenna occurred years before the very last few episodes where Jon finds out he is the rightful heir. This is what I was getting to with Olenna and Ellaria. They may not have cared whether Dany was the rightful heir or not. They certainly had their own reasons for siding with her. But in the end, they believed her.
I thought Bran, as the three eyed raven, was granted a long life. Would Sansa even be alive at the time he dies?
I don't buy Sansa's statement for independence because the series made a point of showing her taking the crown. That is a contradiction in her words versus her actions.
Interestingly enough, we never saw Bran taking the crown.
Sorry, I goofed on my post.
(06-19-2019, 02:28 PM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:syscrash, again we seem to watch different stuff on the same screen. I saw Jon stab Deny in a roofless mostly intact throne room, while Arya was trying to help a peasant woman with her daughter get destroyed, running from common living quarters to common living quarters. I saw a totally destroyed city in all areas, not just the rich neighborhoods.
You ignore Cersi brought a large number of people from the common area into the Red Keep. So yes you would see the poor running in the streets. The privileged would have retreated inside most likely to their cellars. Remember the rich all had cool places where they could store their food.
Quote:What I saw was Deny, knowing Jon, to be the true heir to the throne, waiting to abdicate, the throne, to her for her to sit on it. Then, I saw, Jon stabbing her. She never got the chance, to sit on any throne, in disgust.
John never wanted the throne. He was never a threat. He was only a threat if the wheel stayed in place. The wheel to determines who leads. Remember her vision was to break the wheel. As for having a chance! She choose to address her followers on the steps, rather then hold court on the Throne. That is a significant difference. Also you say you only saw the roof gone. Consider she caused enough damage to cave in the basement. The Keep was destroyed. She was destroying what she saw as the root of the problem, the symbol of privilege. Consider, up to that point it was about sitting on the Throne. In the end she destroyed the Throne room. Also consider of all the attacks on the Red Keep. The writers singled out the attack on the window in the Throne room. They would not have filmed it that way if it was not important narrative.
Quote:Reality Check. Here is what I saw. A "high born" privileged family name, the Stark's, not only retain in control of the North, it was upgraded to an independent Kingdom, under the high born, Sansa Stark.
And that was the point. The madness was, thinking she could end control by the privileged. The irony was what they ended up with was the madness. The madness of doing the same thing and expecting a different result. That was shown in the council as we watched the conversation go from reform to personal interest. The thing we don't agree on and what you find as writer intent. Is you never consider the significant of how something filmed. You see the imagery for it's cinematic appeal. You see it from an emotional position. Where I realize There is never a scene filmed where the writers do not consider the message along with the emotional impact of the scene. But the biggest thing that should be consider. A film is a writers form of expression. It is a reflection of what they think and what they want to say. I something like GOT not only do you have the message, you have to story, and you have the mythology. The mythology defines the story structure. The story is used to deliver the message. Even though the story is not the message. I kid shows yes the story is the message but not in shows that are more art than function.
Quote:Dany initially wanted to be the great liberator but she elevated herself to the status of a goddess which is why she cracked.
Danny never once was seen wearing or acting regal. When she took Meereen her outfit was inspired by the unsully. Then it became more Dortraky when she went to Dragon stone. Then the coat dress where Wildling inspired when she went up north. Where as with Cersi and Sansa they both wore gowns and acted Regal.
Danny was the one character that made a point of never forgetting where she came from and what she had been through. Cersi and Sans wanted to erase their pass.
Yea, Ok, whatever. I guess I must have missed the scene where they showed the rest of us the detailed blueprints of RK and the privileged housings of the rich.
To me, it wouldn't seem right that Bran would be the Three Eyed Raven, yet only have some of the characteristics of the raven. I assumed that he would have a long life.
(06-19-2019, 07:46 PM)Hell Rell Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see the contradiction in Sansa's actions. Jon wasn't coming back so her accepting the crown isn't some type of hypocritical action. Tyrion told Jon that neither she nor Arya were happy with the decision to send him back to the NW. And it's good that someone is actually willing to accept the responsibility of ruling the north and the series tells us that she's adept at it. An independent nation can still choose their own monarch. They did the same with Robb and Jon.
Sansa is sitting on a council who's supposed to be determining the fate of the seven nations (for lack of a better term). But when it comes down to one king ruling all of the nations, she flat out rejects rule for the North. I know she cites that that's the way it's always been, but then why sit in on a council and basically agree with the rest of the nations being under one rule. To me, that's hypocritical.
I didn't get the impression that Sansa was for an independent North.
(06-20-2019, 04:29 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]To me, it wouldn't seem right that Bran would be the Three Eyed Raven, yet only have some of the characteristics of the raven. I assumed that he would have a long life.
(06-19-2019, 07:46 PM)Hell Rell Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see the contradiction in Sansa's actions. Jon wasn't coming back so her accepting the crown isn't some type of hypocritical action. Tyrion told Jon that neither she nor Arya were happy with the decision to send him back to the NW. And it's good that someone is actually willing to accept the responsibility of ruling the north and the series tells us that she's adept at it. An independent nation can still choose their own monarch. They did the same with Robb and Jon.
Sansa is sitting on a council who's supposed to be determining the fate of the seven nations (for lack of a better term). But when it comes down to one king ruling all of the nations, she flat out rejects rule for the North. I know she cites that that's the way it's always been, but then why sit in on a council and basically agree with the rest of the nations being under one rule. To me, that's hypocritical.
I didn't get the impression that Sansa was for an independent North.
Sansa went to the council with the intention of freeing Jon. That was her whole purpose for being there. She didn't know they were going to decide on a new king at that very moment.
Sansa doesn't need to speak for the rest of Westeros. She's there representing the north and only wants to speak for and do right by them. Her declaring independence isn't what's unbelievable about that scene. It's nobody else demanding it, especially Yara and the new prince of Dorne. Though I suppose this new elective monarchy means that someone from one of the other kingdoms can be voted king one day and they still get protection from the king so there's incentive to stay.
Besides, Sansa has been for an independent north for the last couple of seasons. Her animosity with Daenerys was about that first and foremost. She was upset with Jon for the bending the knee.
(06-20-2019, 08:32 PM)Hell Rell Wrote: [ -> ]Sansa went to the council with the intention of freeing Jon. That was her whole purpose for being there. She didn't know they were going to decide on a new king at that very moment.
Sansa doesn't need to speak for the rest of Westeros. She's there representing the north and only wants to speak for and do right by them. Her declaring independence isn't what's unbelievable about that scene. It's nobody else demanding it, especially Yara and the new prince of Dorne. Though I suppose this new elective monarchy means that someone from one of the other kingdoms can be voted king one day and they still get protection from the king so there's incentive to stay.
Besides, Sansa has been for an independent north for the last couple of seasons. Her animosity with Daenerys was about that first and foremost. She was upset with Jon for the bending the knee.
Who said any of them knew that a decision was going to be made to crown a new king at that moment? That's a moot point. What I'm saying is that if Sansa was merely there for Jon, the minute the discussion of a new king came up, she would have backed off. She didn't. She remained and therefore, was considered part of the council. She agreed with their decision that Bran should be king for all of the nations except for the fact that she changed the proposal by exempting the North.
Comparing Sansa to the forefathers of our country, I just don't see her as a true seeker of independence. Those who seek independence seek it for all and stand by its virtues. When Sam proposed the common folk ruling, Sansa didn't stand up and state that was the route to go. She didn't even do that for the North, and I'm not saying she has to.
But in speaking about independence and then subjecting the North to the rule of a queen, is she really that different from Dany? Dany considered herself the Breaker of Chains. Seems to me she's speaking of independence. But yet Dany also stated her people had no choice. Sansa supposedly is looking for independence in the North, but yet subjects them to the rule of a queen. If the North is under the rule of a queen, where is their freedom of choice?
(06-21-2019, 04:27 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]Who said any of them knew that a decision was going to be made to crown a new king at that moment? That's a moot point. What I'm saying is that if Sansa was merely there for Jon, the minute the discussion of a new king came up, she would have backed off. She didn't. She remained and therefore, was considered part of the council. She agreed with their decision that Bran should be king for all of the nations except for the fact that she changed the proposal by exempting the North.
Comparing Sansa to the forefathers of our country, I just don't see her as a true seeker of independence. Those who seek independence seek it for all and stand by its virtues. When Sam proposed the common folk ruling, Sansa didn't stand up and state that was the route to go. She didn't even do that for the North, and I'm not saying she has to.
But in speaking about independence and then subjecting the North to the rule of a queen, is she really that different from Dany? Dany considered herself the Breaker of Chains. Seems to me she's speaking of independence. But yet Dany also stated her people had no choice. Sansa supposedly is looking for independence in the North, but yet subjects them to the rule of a queen. If the North is under the rule of a queen, where is their freedom of choice?
The decision for a new king still matters to the north because it's still a part of Westeros even if it's an independent kingdom. Sansa can still deal with other nations by choice which she most likey will seeing that her brother is king and cousin and uncle are the Lord's of the Vale and Riverlands. She still has allies and other kingdoms.
You expected Sansa to seek for Westeros to become a modern day America even though the show is set in a medieval world. They only had Sam say that so he could be laughed at. Westeros is going to take baby steps before it can become a true democracy.
Sansa is different from Dany because she's not threatening people to become queen. Her being a Stark helps as it did for Jon and Robb but the northerners decided to make them their kings. I'm certain Sansa didn't declare herself queen as well.
That's where the North's freedom of choice came in. They chose their monarch. It has been stated throughout the series how much they liked the rule of the Starks. Stannis wanted to legitimize Jon for this very reason because he knew the north was much more likely to listen to him rather than himself.
Sansa still needs to rule justly. She won't have blind loyalty throughout the nation. She can be overthrown if they feel there's a better choice just like they were thinking of making her their queen while Jon was away.
Ultimately, independence in this case means the north won't be beholden to whomever sits on the throne and won't have to pay taxes. They have the monarch they want and not the one that's forced upon them. There will undoubtedly be problems in the future but the series ended here so there's not much else to go on. I actually think the rest of kingdoms are in more trouble.
(06-21-2019, 09:32 AM)Hell Rell Wrote: [ -> ]Ultimately, independence in this case means the north won't be beholden to whomever sits on the throne and won't have to pay taxes. They have the monarch they want and not the one that's forced upon them. There will undoubtedly be problems in the future but the series ended here so there's not much else to go on. I actually the rest of kingdoms are in more trouble.
Actually, using your own argument that this is medeival times, Sansa would never dare, ever bring anything of the kind up. But speaking of taxes, there's no doubt in my mind that the North has been collecting them from their people for quite some time. They couldn't have a monarchy if they didn't.
The other thing that makes a monarchy a practical aspect for the North is its location. It's remote and a monarchy ensures there's an on-site rule in place. I very much doubt that Sansa would allow any independence. It would be much too radical based on the time frame in which the series takes place.
That was a good observation, and something I hadn't thought of.
(06-21-2019, 09:32 AM)Hell Rell Wrote: [ -> ]That's where the North's freedom of choice came in. They chose their monarch. It has been stated throughout the series how much they liked the rule of the Starks. Stannis wanted to legitimize Jon for this very reason because he knew the north was much more likely to listen to him rather than himself.
Let's just say the leaders of these various provinces liked the rule of the Starks and the room was full of the leaders. Any leadership who detested the Starks wouldn't have made an appearance. Neither would the common folk. So, all told, the leaders who showed up liked the Starks, and so what occurred in that room was the decision maker for leadership. It was not freedom of choice because not all got to make that freedom of choice.
(06-21-2019, 09:32 AM)Hell Rell Wrote: [ -> ]Sansa is different from Dany because she's not threatening people to become queen. Her being a Stark helps as it did for Jon and Robb but the northerners decided to make them their kings. I'm certain Sansa didn't declare herself queen as well.
I can't comment either way on this because we have no idea what Sansa did in order to become queen and what her punishment for treason was once she was on the throne.
Question: Should Jon have been put to death for treason?