Game of Thrones Season 8

srjclone

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2014
11,913
11,245
113
Downtown Minneapolis
Right, but he was told not to do that if the bells rang. So did he need orders or was he thinking for himself? Seems like he did both on different occasions.
The Messandei death messed Grey Worm up, I didn't think it would go to the extent of killing Lannister soldiers by execution, but the scene where he took his shot at the Lannisters while he had it was not shocking to me.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: isufbcurt

Trice

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2010
6,892
11,245
113
The Messandei death messed Grey Worm up, I didn't think it would go to the extent of killing Lannister soldiers by execution, but the scene where he took his shot at the Lannisters while he had it was not shocking to me.

Right, which made intuitive sense at the time. But then the queen to which he'd been loyal forever was also murdered, and the argument is that he didn't kill Jon himself because he's trained only to take orders and never act on his own.

Except that at a recent pretty crucial moment he ignored orders and acted on his own. Thus the question about why he didn't just kill Jon too.
 

CyOps

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2010
4,565
1,728
113
Lincoln
I've seen this reasoning brought up numerous times today, but Grey Worm was instructed to stop if the bells were rung. When they were, he paused before continuing to fight. Unless I'm mistaken he did not interact with Dany at any point. So it seems like he was acting on his own.

Same with the Lannister soldiers, if that was the immediate aftermath of battle as it appeared to be.
I don't remember Dany telling Grey Worm to stop if the bells were rung. It seemed like she had given him the orders as he described to Jon when killing the Lanister soldiers.
 

srjclone

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2014
11,913
11,245
113
Downtown Minneapolis
Right, which made intuitive sense at the time. But then the queen to which he'd been loyal forever was also murdered, and the argument is that he didn't kill Jon himself because he's trained only to take orders and never act on his own.

Except that at a recent pretty crucial moment he ignored orders and acted on his own. Thus the question about why he didn't just kill Jon too.
Fair, but to that point, he did not act on his own. Or at least that is how I portrayed it. He had stopped and the fighting calmed until the bells started ringing, and once he heard Dany take off on Drogon and start burning everything, That was his queue that the fight wasn't over til all of her enemies were dead. He wanted to do it because of the pain he felt for losing Messandei, but needed that extra push to take him over that edge. Like I said earlier, I didn't think he'd go to the extreme of executing helpless Lannisters, but I did understand the steps to getting there.
 

Trice

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2010
6,892
11,245
113
Fair, but to that point, he did not act on his own. Or at least that is how I portrayed it. He had stopped and the fighting calmed until the bells started ringing, and once he heard Dany take off on Drogon and start burning everything, That was his queue that the fight wasn't over til all of her enemies were dead. He wanted to do it because of the pain he felt for losing Messandei, but needed that extra push to take him over that edge. Like I said earlier, I didn't think he'd go to the extreme of executing helpless Lannisters, but I did understand the steps to getting there.

Yep, I get it. And it's really not a huge deal, but it does seem to be another instance of a character acting a bit out of character in service of advancing the story to its completion.

Long story short: IMO it's fair to ask why Grey Worm just didn't kill Jon himself. Hell, in a regular length season maybe we get a scene showing Jon's capture or surrender.

But no big deal.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: aobie and srjclone

jdoggivjc

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2006
59,528
21,043
113
Macomb, MI
Yep, I get it. And it's really not a huge deal, but it does seem to be another instance of a character acting a bit out of character in service of advancing the story to its completion.

Long story short: IMO it's fair to ask why Grey Worm just didn't kill Jon himself. Hell, in a regular length season maybe we get a scene showing Jon's capture or surrender.

But no big deal.

It's completely fair to ask why Grey Worm didn't kill Jon, and I feel like I gave a reasonable explanation as to why he didn't. Whether you choose to accept it is up to you. As you said - no big deal.
 

Cyclonepride

Thought Police
Staff member
Apr 11, 2006
96,839
58,085
113
53
A pineapple under the sea
www.oldschoolradical.com
I feel like she's been on that edge the whole way, seeing where she starts out makes us sympathetic to her though. I think some people saw in her what they wanted to see (a more pure of heart ambition) and for those people the ending is very bad. Yet because she was a flawed hero it's not nice and neat to deal with what Jon did.

The venn diagram of pure hearted, selfless and brave characters of this story has 2-4 people.

I’d liken it to Walter White a bit. He started as a likable sympathetic figure (due to cancer and his initial motivations) and you still felt that way when he went far beyond what that justified (though it was a bit more clear that you shouldn’t).
 
  • Winner
Reactions: HFCS

im4cyclones

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2010
3,850
532
113
Ames, IA
So Bran was appointed for life? Then the great houses (whoever that is at that time) will pick the next “king”? Doesn’t that seem ripe for squabbles and rebellion?

What if they appoint someone who turns out to be terrible?

Seems tenuous at best. Especially when you get past the first generation of nobles. They’ll make it work because they chose it. But what about Gendry’s future son?
 

SpokaneCY

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
13,294
8,486
113
Spokane, WA
Right, which made intuitive sense at the time. But then the queen to which he'd been loyal forever was also murdered, and the argument is that he didn't kill Jon himself because he's trained only to take orders and never act on his own.

Except that at a recent pretty crucial moment he ignored orders and acted on his own. Thus the question about why he didn't just kill Jon too.

I thought the general consensus was lazy writing.
 

isutrevman

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2007
7,372
9,948
113
36
Ames, IA
So Bran was appointed for life? Then the great houses (whoever that is at that time) will pick the next “king”? Doesn’t that seem ripe for squabbles and rebellion?

What if they appoint someone who turns out to be terrible?

Seems tenuous at best. Especially when you get past the first generation of nobles. They’ll make it work because they chose it. But what about Gendry’s future son?

All that was already happening. It might happen again as you described, but it's not like it will be worse than the old system. They might select someone who is terrible. They wont be worse than Joffery,
 
  • Agree
Reactions: coolerifyoudid

ThatllDoCy

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2009
17,991
11,143
113
52
Minneapolis, MN
www.katchllc.com
I suppose if there is one time that I'm surprised that Grey Worm doesn't take out Jon it's when they're all leaving King's Landing - the Unsullied for Naath; Jon for The Wall. But once again, as much as he wants to, all he can do is stare daggers. He is under orders not to kill Jon and can't bring himself to think for himself and make the kill.

I would have loved to have seen Jon and Grey Worm duel.
 

ThatllDoCy

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2009
17,991
11,143
113
52
Minneapolis, MN
www.katchllc.com
She took out Viserys (ok, it was Drogo that did that, but she could have intervened and Drogo would have listened to her. She had gained his respect by that point - which was the whole reason why Viserys got killed in the first place).

When Viserys wielded a weapon in Vaas Dothrak he was a dead man by their law. There was nothing that Dany or anyone else could have done. It is why Drogo killed him with molten Gold, You cannot carry a weapon in the city, and to do it is punishable by death no exceptions.

All you are stating is Dany surviving against people who were trying to take her dragons or eliminate her.

If anyone who kills their enemies is capable of going Mad and burning entire cities you can extend this logic to a lot of characters, but saying Dany "took out" Viserys by having him wed Khal Drogo against her will is a real head scratcher. Viserys took himself out, or Ilyrio did it by Counciling him to sell his sister to a Dothraki horse lord.

I thought the show did a poor job of executing this Dany into a villain twist. I'm fine with her burning King's Landing, but there are ways it could have been done to make sense. As it is, they just did not sell me on it. There is foreshadowing of all characters being both good and bad, and I can see Dany doing it, just not in these circumstances.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: State43 and alarson

ThatllDoCy

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2009
17,991
11,143
113
52
Minneapolis, MN
www.katchllc.com
She seemed about as...rational as Luke...err...Darth Vader seemed after he slaughtered everyone at the Jedi temple, including Padawan "younglings", and then rationalized it right to Padme's face.

If that is the standard of writing we are looking for, then well done I guess and they got the right guys to continue it. Game of Thrones was at least acted well. The guy who played young Vader ruined it for me. Just awful.