MovieChat Forums > Game of Thrones (2011) Discussion > Daenerys didn't go mad

Daenerys didn't go mad

posted 6 years ago by DeusexMachina815 (36)
31 replies | jump to latest

The way I interpreted it, Daenerys didn't go mad. She was perfectly lucid. The massacre of King's Landing just exposed her for what she was: a tyrant. The speech she gives to her army in the finale is the same exact speech we've seen her give so many other times, we've seen them do their ritual with the speers before as well. We've seen that scene so many times before but now the scales have fallen from our eyes and we see it for what it was, while all those soldiers stomping their speers are still hearing Mhysa ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK78w86BOQ8 ) in their heads as she's speaking.
There are parallells to the real world here as well, a Great Leader giving a fiery speech to their fanatical followers and their followers responding with some sort of salute. Those similarities made Tyrion calling her out and throwing his Hand symbol away(and ending the spear-stomping) feel really satisfying. If only that had happened irl. The show (and to a lesser degree the books, where it's more ambiguous) made you feel like part of her movement, made the audience take part in the leader worshipping, as Tyrion pointed out (almost to the point of breaking the fourth wall) when he said "WE cheered her on" even though he wasn't there for most of it.
Daenerys' story was a cautionary tale about leader worship and autocracy. They didn't need to spend seasons showing her go mad like people are suggesting because she didn't go mad. She'd been groomed to think of herself almost as a god, as something more than human, someone who's above everyone and who gets to impose her vision for a better world on the rest of the world with fire and blood. As Tyrion and Jon touched upon, almost every human being in the world has a vision for a better world, what gives her the right to impose *hers* on everyone else? And what about everyone who doesn't share her vision? They don't get to choose. And that's where you get to the meaning of this story, what it was about all along.

As for Jon, I don't think his lineage was irrelevant, I think it served a purpose, it's just most of it is happening in his head with minimal dialogue and it will be clearer in the books (though we're never getting them, are we?). The story was building up to him being king. He was almost destined to be king. People were urging him to take the throne. But what happened in King's Landing was a wake up call.
Jon didn't just realize that Daenerys was a tyrant all along, he realized the throne and autocracy was evil. Drogon showing up, looking at him, burning the throne and then looking at him again as if saying "do you get it now?" right after he stabbed her just served to drive that point home. After that, Jon's happy to go live with the free folk beyond the wall.

I thought the finale was done brilliantly (water bottle be damned) and did a terrific job of addressing the twist in e5. It's actually bothering me now when they say "the writers" ruined Daenerys' character and that it should've ended with her on the throne or dying a heroic death or something.
What came before it this season wasn't done as well imo and was rushed af. The series should've been 9 or 10 seasons.
I also think the white walkers should have served a purpose and not just been instantly defeated as soon as they break through the wall (seriously, what did they even change? What impact did they have on the world?).
And I think Jon and Daenery's relationship will feel more real in the books (or would have) where they're lonely, emotionally damaged teenagers (I think they're 14 and 15 in ADwD?) and they'll be intensely attached to each other whereas in the show their relationship has been brushed over and they're both grown adults so Jon having to stab her didn't feel as tragic, and him initially going into denial and making excuses for her after what he just witnessed didn't make any sense and made him come off as unfathomably spineless.

[–] DeusexMachina815 (36) 6 years ago

gahd I wrote that humongous rant and no one even read it

[–] Atarimaster (442) 6 years ago

Ugh, sorry!
I read it and I really like it. I was beginning to see the Dany thing not unlike you do (see https://moviechat.org/tt0944947/Game-of-Thrones/5ce227774cd319019a52f3df/So-is-Dany-Crazy-Or-just-an-asshole?reply=5ce3299af8ae1d1ff874edea), only you put it much better. And more verbose. ;-)

[–] DeusexMachina815 (36) 6 years ago

Haha much more verbose. Glad I'm not alone :)

[–] susannah101 (131) 6 years ago

I read it, and thought it was magnificent!!

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

No, she didn't. She just went from benevolent tyrant to cruel and stupidly counterproductive tyrant without any valid reason.

And it would have been SO EASY to give her valid reasons! Just a couple of extra scenes! But nooooo, they had to rush through everything like HBO was giving them the boot after six episodes.

[–] Darren (1342) 6 years ago

Exactly

She's always been an autocrat. And on the balance, she's been a fairly benevolent one. She's always had a tendency to deal a little too ruthlessly with those who've crossed her, disrespected her, betrayed her, or stood in her way, but the point Tyrion made in the finale was valid: she received approval for most of this because the people she meted out such harsh justice to were all far worse than she was. She also stood up for the oppressed and weak, freed slaves, and was genuinely heartbroken when one of her dragon's killed a little girl, so much so that the chained her beloved children in a crypt lest they kill more innocents.

Now ALL her benevolence just evaporates in an instant, and she kills tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent children, along with their parents? And worse, does so ABSOLUTELY needlessly -- the city has surrendered. Most of the Lannister army has surrendered. Perhaps it would have been justifiable to go torch the Red Keep if Cersei herself and forces there wouldn't surrender, but there is absolutely NO moral, ethical, political, or military justification to burn down the whole city. None. In fact, there's abundant reason not to for a would-be conqueror who wants to "liberate" the rest of the world: why should any city ever surrender to her again, now that they see what King's Landing got when it did? If they're gonna slaughtered anyway, might as well fight to the bitter end. She just made her intended job ten times harder.

They could have made a descent into madness work, but it absolutely had to be developed over time, and shown step by step. Something such an abrupt 180 degree change of character just destroys suspension of disbelief and takes you right out of the story.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

No, she didn't go mad, she went stupid! She had absolutely nothing to gain from torching King's Landing and much to loose, but the writers had apparently been told to stop trying to give anyone valid motives or making them seem intelligent.

I think they wanted the 180 degree change of character to be a surprise, but they really did botch it. She's lost friends and loved ones before and didn't go nuts, and she was acting the benevolent tyrant as late as the Battle of Winterfell. Sure, she's never pretended to be anything but a tyrant, because one-person rule is both her birthright and a political reality for anyone who has control of all the dragons in the world. But they really should have had her start with serving her ego over political necessities rather earlier, if they wanted the Big Bang to make sense. During the invasion of Westeros, she did some horrible things, but she never did a damn thing that any other claimant to the throne wouldn't have done, if they had her brains and her dragons.

What a disaster.

[–] prometheus1816 (1060) 6 years ago

The fans called Tywin Lannister a "cool character" because he was Tywin Lannister. However, they forgot he ordered the massacre of the Starks at the Red Wedding, wiped out House Reine, massacred people when he arrived at the gates of Kings Landing when they took it from the Targaryens. Then Robb's men during the various skirmishes. There are others who have done worse yet they consider Danaerys a tyrant?

Like you said Dany did nothing more than any other claimant has done. I would like to hope all this criticism has nothing to do with her being a woman..... That would really disappoint me if that is the issue. Dany went easy on the Lannisters during the Loot Train Attack. Her burning the Tarlys was due to their unwillingness to bend the knee, as they so happily did to Cersei when they helped wipe out House Tyrell.

This world is vicious and cruel. To make one set of rules for others and condemn Dany for playing by those same set of rules, it makes it clear it's due to that aforementioned thing I didn't want to mention before but might have to if this conversation keeps going on.

Fans keep saying about Sansa having gone through hell.... Sansa was a little shit during season one. I remember that scene when she told Septa Mordane she didn't care what she had to say. She was a cold little bitch. Dany never was like that. It took Ned to lose his head for Sansa to actually grasp what was happening to her, because certainly lying for Joffrey and losing Lady didn't make a dent in her. Dany by contrast didn't have a voice until a third of the way through season one. Her having to constantly battle Viserys and his insanity plus getting to know the Dothraki ways made her have to get up on life pretty quick while Sansa was still being a little shit.

As for when she got to Westeros, she got there with a full compliment of Dothraki blood riders. A full compliment of Unsullied. A host of her advisors, plus three fully grown dragons. She fought for the North as she went beyond the wall to rescue Jon and that group. And she did that selflessly and for her selflessness she lost the first of her dragons....her children. That she didn't go mad then shows she knew restraint. But it was only when she pulled into Wintertown/Winterfell the writing for her went into the toilet. Suddenly her confidence went out the window and she was this skittery little thing who suddenly was begging men for love. Daenerys Stormborn never had to beg. She didn't with Khal Drogo, Daario Nahris, nor anyone else. But suddenly she has to with Jon Snow. What I want to know is why? What was the aim of having her become this shadow of her former self and making her worse than the others I've mentioned who have done worse?

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

You know, perhaps the biggest difference between Tywin Lannister and Danerys Targaryan is that Tywin was played by a much better actor. That's why people like me think he's cool!

More in a few minutes.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

"That she didn't go mad then shows she knew restraint. But it was only when she pulled into Wintertown/Winterfell the writing for her went into the toilet. Suddenly her confidence went out the window and she was this skittery little thing who suddenly was begging men for love. Daenerys Stormborn never had to beg. She didn't with Khal Drogo, Daario Nahris, nor anyone else. But suddenly she has to with Jon Snow. What I want to know is why? "

I hate to keep harping on all the things they should have done... no, I don't. I LOVE harping on all the things they should have done in season 8! I won't shut up about them!

And one of the things they should have done was to make it clear that Danerys was absolutely bowled over by Jon, that this was the kind of life-changing staggering, can't-live-without-him kind of love that worries the hell out of her advisors. They wonder if she's throwing away the throne for a fancy man, wonder if she's really trying to save humanity or just does whatever this guy says because she's lost it... and when the relationship starts to fail she really *does* lose it. They really should have shown that the loss of the first dragon and the relationship with Jon were changing her from the coolly rational autocrat she'd been all these years.

And she really was cool and rational for years and years, the only time she lost her temper was when the Masters of Mereen crucified thousands of innocent children, and she regretted it later. She wasn't nice, she wasn't what we consider "good", but she was always always ALWAYS rational. Everything she did was because she'd thought out the risks and benefits, both her benevolent acts and the violent ones. Until seaons 8. Fuck 'em.

PS: Sansa was a chilly little bitch in season 1, and in season 8 she coolly took Jon Snow's throne away from him. That's her basic personality, a total bitch, but being sweet and nice is no way to go in Westeros.

[–] DeusexMachina815 (36) 6 years ago

I think the military justification was shock and awe, based on "it is fear then". As she said, she'd already given Cersei a chance to surrender and she chose to fight her. There was no formal agreeement that they'd get a second chance. The part about human shields made less sense but based on the rest I think shock and awe combined with rage after losing Rhaegal and Miss Sundae (yes, that is her name now) is the best explanation.
I think her benevolence came from her rigid idea of right and wrong (which she considered to be an objective moral authority). Her obsession, apparently more important than gaining the throne, was "breaking the wheel" and making the world a "better" place. The methods she considered acceptable in pursuit of this goal changed once it proved harder than she thought it'd be. That is my interpretation and I'm sticking to it (until I change my mind)

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

"I think the military justification was shock and awe, based on "it is fear then". "

She'd already generated all the fear she needed. She'd conquered the city, the populace had run to the bell towers to ring the surrender bells in defiance of the rulers, because they were all TERRIFIED, they were soiling themselves en masse because they had absolutely no defense against her and her dragon. And as I've said before her pattern is usually to generate just as much fear as she needed to achieve her ends, and once she's made a crispy example of someone she typically lets the witnesses and survivors live, with perfect confidence that they'll obey her after they've seen what she can do.

But the burning of King's Landing was both pointless and counterproductive. Pointless because the city had already surrendered, and counterproductive because of the example it set for the rest of Westeros. If she'd graciously accepted the surrender and started making nice with everyone who bent the knee, then other lords would be much quicker to accept the inevitable and bend the knee like Ned Stark's ancestor did the first time he saw the Targaryan dragons. But the regional lords will fight to the last man, against a general who kills people after they've surrendered. By burning a city that had given up and begged her to stop fighting, Danerys showed the rest of Westeros they had absolutely nothing to gain by bending the knee.

And that's why the whole scene was just bad, sloppy, poorly thought out writing.

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 6 years ago

The writers were so desperate to virtue signal that they forgot to make it make sense.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Virtue signal? Dany didn't get the throne and ends up being killed before she can throw the world into war. They definitely weren't sucking up to the progressive feminist crowd.

[–] MavKilledGoose (859) 6 years ago

I certainly didn't read that humongous rant, but the Mad Queen stuff rang false.

The aftermath also rang false. The finale was doshit. Daenerys says they have to move onto Winterfell and Dorne, even though the point of absolutely crushing the King's Landing was to instill fear (and besides, other kingdoms had already pledged fealty).

Tyrion also has to make an argument to Jon that Dany must go, as if he Ned Stark's spiritual heir should need convincing. Tyrion says, essentially, there's a slippery slope, and that she was always this person. Except Jon takes a liking to her in their first meeting because she's not storming King's Landing on account of sparing thousands of innocent lives. This was when she had three dragons, her full Dothraki horde, and 8,000 Unsullied (after the Battle of the Night King she lost 12,000 Unsullied, leaving her with only 25,000).

So, yeah, slippery slope, Tyrion asks Jon where the killing ends. Tyrion says that he's been a fool, and he celebrated her after she killed slavemasters because it's easy to rationalize killing slavemasters, but this puts her on a march to kill anyone she thinks deserves it. So what's his sage advice to Jon? MURDER THE BITCH. Jon's still hesitant, so Tyrion asks if he would've slaughtered non-combatants from atop a dragon. Jon says he's not sure. Tyrion says he KNOWS Jon would not.

Whoa, hold up. Tyrion, who once boasted about being an excellent judge of character but now says he's humbled and misread Daenerys... is not at all humbled when it comes to reading Jon? He now KNOWS she's a bad Targaryen and Jon's a good one? As far as this show is concerned, it'd be perfectly natural for Jon to murder her, go crazy, and then kill everyone. I apologize if this was mildly incoherent. The last season was pretty incoherent.

[–] EloraWood (158) 6 years ago

I read it and agree with you on most things. When she did what she did I first was sad but then it made complete sense and showed me my bias - and how beautifully the story was woven to make (most of us) cheer for her because we agreed with her goal and we despised Neds killers sitting on the throne etc (even more for the book readers because...well there is so much more to it). The psychology behind not just the characters but how it’s supposed to influence the reader was really well done.
I also wish that they would have taken more time; not given up on dialogue- but overall, I’m ok with it. Can appreciate all the work that went into it.
I do hope you are wrong about the books though. I still hope that we’ll get them sooner or later... hope always dies last :p

[–] Keelai (34858) 6 years ago

Good analysis. I agree with most of the OP's analysis about her. She was always a cruel, power hungry, sociopath with an oversized ego. But, I still think she eventually became mad too. Innocent people would've been killed by her, but probably not to the extent that it happened after her breakdown. She was also very irrational when Jon and Tyrion were trying to reason with her.

This youtuber did a great analysis of her before season 8 started and called the ending correctly re: the massacre of innocents. He basically says that Dany was always a complex villain - not a flawed hero.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2sIC9u_do

[–] DeusexMachina815 (36) 6 years ago

That's an interesting video!
Kiiiiiiiiinda concerned though when he describes the burning of the witch as a "scene most would agree felt like justice" I hope that's not true, that scene was horrifying. I've little enough faith in humanity as it is, without everyone thinking burning victims of war crimes alive for taking action against their victimisers (or burning anyone alive for any reason) is justice.

[–] Keelai (34858) 6 years ago

I guess there is an eye for an eye mentality. A cruel sentence for a cruel witch appears like justice to most. Notice how many fans wanted Cersei to suffer before dying because she was bad.

Bran was above that because he could forgive the man who crippled him.

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 6 years ago

Yeah I don't think she was all that mad either. She was corrupted by the power her dragon gave her. But the show never really addressed it. They should have had Jon kill Drogon to make a point about it and then see how it changes Daenerys.

[–] Atarimaster (442) 6 years ago

They should have had Jon kill Drogon

Chances are he would have died trying.
HOW should he have killed a dragon? He didn’t have one of the White Walker’s magic lances. The scorpions were all destroyed by Dany and Drogon, and if they would’ve missed ONE scorpion that Jon can use to kill Drogon, all people would go: "Ooooh, how convenient! Now THAT’S bad writing!"
Thoughout the seasons they made it clear that dragons are very, very hard to kill unless you’re the Night King or Supereuron, and it already was a flaw how easily Euron killed Rhaegal. No need to add another flaw.

Then again, Jon could’ve tried to whine Drogon to death. Probably would’ve worked.

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 6 years ago

You can kill anything when they don't know you are a threat. People were complaining so hard that Drogon survived. Nobody complained that a dragon was killed too easily. Not quite sure where you're coming from here.

[–] Atarimaster (442) 6 years ago

So, and with what kind of weapon would he have killed Drogon?

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 6 years ago

You have no imagination.

[–] Atarimaster (442) 6 years ago

And you’re avoiding to answer my question.

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 6 years ago

No you're right. Dragons can't be killed. Its just impossible. A dragon died by crazy logic. Dany attacked the fleet in broad daylight because there was nothing to be feared. :)

[–] Atarimaster (442) 6 years ago

I never said "impossible" but "very, very hard". That’s a difference.
And of course, those scorpions were a threat. We (the audience) did know that since Qyburn showed how the arrow penetrated a dragon’s skull. And Dany knew that since Drogon was hurt by a scorpion in the Reach. The flaw that I saw was that Eurons fleet was able to adjust the scorpions, aim and shoot three arrows without Dany (who was right besides Rhaegal) even seeing the fleet. Even with two islands to "hide" the fleet that was quite unbelievable.

But on the subject of Jon killing Drogon, that even doesn’t matter a bit because Jon had no scorpion.
You come up with a "better solution" but refuse to point out how it could have actually worked.

Regarding the post that you apparently edited at the same time as I was writing my reply:

> People were complaining so hard that Drogon survived.
> Nobody complained that a dragon was killed too easily.

Yes, I know a lot of people complained about that. And I always saw it just the other way round. So what?

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 6 years ago

It all goes back to bad writing. An excellent comparison is Avengers Infinity War. While Tony, Strange and Spider-Man were stuck in space, the Avengers on earth knew exactly what needed to be done. They had to destroy the Mind Stone. Even if it meant Wanda had to kill the person she loved she was still going to destroy that stone to prevent Thanos from being all-powerful. She didn't know about the time stone but thats not on her. But the point is people made that decision because it was obviously what people would do in that situation.

I get it that Drogon is probably too difficult for Jon Snow to kill single handed. But the overall point here is they didn't even address it. There was all this talk of will she or won't she become the Mad Queen. And then "oh look she is. But is she really? Ehh maybe. We don't know for sure." They never addressed the real problem. Its fine if they had a scene where they tried to kill Drogon and failed. Its fine even if they only had a discussion about it and decided it was easier to kill Dany. But we got none of that. Not a single addressing of the real issue which is anyone who controls a dragon is likely to be just as "Mad" as Dany or her father because that kind of power is corrupting.

So the people are safe until Drogon finds a new mother who will probably fall into the same trap unless someone figures out that Drogon is the problem. Except nobody will ever figure out Drogon is the problem because the writers decided not to include that as a plot point. LOL. Its such a derp fest of an ending.

[–] ColdOfWinter (147) 6 years ago

I'm not sure the show is referencing madness the same way we might view it in reality. The mad King is called mad but the only reference to his actually being mad was his growing paranoia, and his willingness to burn his own citizens before he would be overthrown. These are all characteristics of an evil tyrant as well.

[–] Batty67 (358) 6 years ago

I thought much of the OP "diatribe" was pretty reasonable. But there WERE warning flags that Dany was going to "lose it" if she got hit with anymore treachery and defiance, as she was over and over and over again. And she did. I think a "minor meltdown" would have been plausible, say she burned the Red Keep to rubble after their surrender, or killed lots of prisoners. But weaving back and forth over the city and killing tens of thousands of innocents had a massive WTF factor associated with it. As in virtually everything, Cersie's breathtakingly self-centered motives and "all or nothing" bets broke Dany's perhaps tenuous grip on remaining benevolent. In other words, Dany snapping completely seemed like a possibility, and maybe even inevitable, but the massive acceleration TO IT was simply rushed and weak.