Talk:The Bells (Game of Thrones)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Mixed" Reviews?[edit]

Were the reviews really "mixed"? The reviews actually quoted in the article, at least, seem to uniformly savage the episode as terrible, though sparing a few words to praise acting and visual effects. The only positive statement in the entire "Reception" section here is a mention of "spectacular acting and stunning visual effects." And that comes from Lenika Cruz, whose bottom line is that this is "the worst Game of Thrones episode ever." If the reviews are really "mixed," someone should add information about reviews that were something other than abysmal. If the article's actual content about the reviews remains the same or similar, I would suggest that "mixed" be changed to "negative." --DavidK93 (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of positive reviews out there from notable critics, New York Times, Forbes, someone just needs to add them. It seems like so far everything added under Reception has been by someone who really hates the episode. “Mixed” is the proper rating. Benjamin7887 (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

They're just a few words in an article, but "spectacular acting and stunning visual effects" are pretty huge factors in whether people like a TV show. At least as heavy as whether characters do what's expected. It seems worse than it is now, because it's fresh. A year from now, people will have forgotten what the anticipation, revelation and disappoinment felt like. But even in a hundred years, people might stil appreciate spectacular acting and stunning (for the time) visual effects. Those don't go out of style like contemporary assumptions and hopes do.
No harm in repeating one "worst episode ever" line from someone, since it does capture a feeling of the moment. Or maybe attribute it to a general "some felt", with three citations. But so long as most critics like some parts and not others, "mixed" seems more honest to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:33, May 14, 2019 (UTC)
DavidK93, I removed "mixed reviews" and added a WP:Hidden note about it. It seems that editors are going by the Rotten Tomatoes score for that rating, even though this episode has the lowest Rotten Tomatoes score in the show's history, and the overwhelming majority of reliable sources are negative about the episode. The negative sources might state a few positive things here and there, but those sources are still negative. It is not up to us to state that "'mixed' is the proper rating"; that is WP:OR. We need a reliable source that states "mixed." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
As for viewers forgetting the disappointment they felt after watching this episode, and likely the series finale, I highly doubt it. The emotions they had at the time will fade, but the disappointment (no matter how faded) will remain for most. I never watched Lost (except for the first episode, I think), and people still talk about the huge disappointment they have at the decline of that show and how it ended. Same goes for Dexter, which I finally got around to finishing last year, and a number of other shows. And Game of Thrones is far bigger than any of those when it comes to commercial success and with regard to some of the praise it got in its earlier days. Granted, Lost was a pretty big show. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Disappointment is an emotion like any other, and it too shall pass. I didn't watch Lost and didn't finish Dexter, but I've watched this one closely and carefully enough to feel confident this episode will age well, once hindsighted viewers realize Tyrion, Jaime, Varys and Daenerys stayed true to their characters (as written, not inferred) after all.
More importantly, I don't think we've ever been required to find a review (or review of reviews) explicitly saying "mixed". Nor "positive" or "negative". That's not really how critics talk, and I can point you to many episodes that ignore this supposed OR violation. There's (at least) an unwritten rule on Wikipedia leaving this summary label to editorial judgment.
Most importantly, the worst Game of Thrones episode is still better than most episodes of good TV-budget TV, and light years beyond the best show from the typical canceled fall lineups. I can understand not calling the overall reception anything, but calling it "negative" is a straight-up lie, in the broader picture. Nobody's knocking the acting, staging, costuming, makeup, choreography, cinematography, score, lighting, sound effects or mixing. Just a trendy bug in this particular show's loudest fanbase about those "stupid" writers who "ruined" their collective pet theories. Even allowing for the possibility that these armchair bookers could have done a better job, that's still just one or two pieces of poorer-than-usual writing. Does that really put "The Bells" in (or near) the same tier as anything from Jessie or Jessie or Jesse? Or is it more like "The Long Night", masterfully produced to feel uncomfortable, upsetting, infuriating and interesting? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:13, May 15, 2019 (UTC)
I think that reviewers (including newer reviewers) will reenalyze this episode and the final episode that is to come, but I don't think that most critics are going to look back on this episode and say that it made sense for Daenerys to murder all of those people, even if it stayed true to her character in some respects per the threats she's made before. One thing to keep in mind is that Daenerys is likely the most popular character on the show since she was the one used as a protagonist and hero more than anyone else. It's no doubt why this episode has done so poorly on a critical and fan level. It's what I expected the reaction to be if the writers went this route. You can't build the series around a character like that, with so many feeling like they know the character and rooting for her every step (or just about every step) of the way, and expect the audience (meaning critics included) to cheer/be happy with the villain route the show decided to take. It's just a fact that viewers generally don't like such a switch, and they generally do want a happy ending or something similar to it. Even what they consider a proper bittersweet ending would be better to them. Like reviewers have noted, the writers could have had Daenerys fall from grace in a way that never tarnished her hero arc in such a devastating fashion as having her murder all of those innocents after she'd already won the war, but they chose to go with a fan theory (the Mad Queen) that has existed for years. Well, given how things played out and what the creators stated, Daenerys might not be mad (crazy); we'll see in the final episode what happens. But she is still a villain now. And it's not just that they turned her into a villain, even if a sympathetic one, it's how they did it...like a number of reliable sources make clear. Some critics would have been fine with her being a villain if done right. Turning Daenerys into a villain may very well have always been Martin's plan, but the writers didn't execute it properly.
As for "mixed," per WP:Verifiability, it's always been required that we have a reliable source supporting it. It's just that a lot of editors have neglected this, especially if a film or episode got a 50% rating, for example. But adding "mixed" has caused a number of problems when it comes to POV issues. Sometimes Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic disagree. Sometimes Rotten Tomatoes might indicate "mixed" while the sources are generally negative, as they are in the case of this Game of Thrones episode. Sometimes editors might add "mixed" to make the material seem more liked than it was/is. WP:Film has addressed the "mixed" issue a number of times, and has especially disagreed with "mixed to negative" and "mixed to positive" descriptions. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 35#Mixed response, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 48#Mixed to positive / Mixed to negative, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 57#Are "mixed" reviews called "negative" reviews?, and this. And on the WP:TV side, see Talk:Iron Fist (TV series)/Archive 1#"Mixed to negative" is unsourced. See how with the Fifty Shades of Grey (film) article, after further research, I saw that sources stated "generally negative" reviews more than ""mixed to negative"? And see how the Iron Fist (TV series) article stated "mixed" when using "mixed" was inaccurate? In that Iron Fist discussion, we can see that reliable sources needed to be provided just to get "mixed" changed to "generally negative." There are often reliable sources out there that have assessed the critical consensus for a topic, and that is what we should look to. And reception material is based on the story more than it is based on "acting, staging, costuming, makeup, choreography, cinematography, score, lighting, sound effects or mixing." We see that time and time again. A film can have the best choreography, cinematography, score, and lighting in the world and still receive mostly negative reviews, for example. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Aye, her plight was given the screentime and uplifting music normally reserved for the "good guy". And she took on a simple cyberlife of her own as a feminist icon. Given this, burning and crucifying men with lesser exposition and scarier music seemed like no big deal, or at least understandable. Serves a legitimate business owner right for providing her with the slaves she'd agreed to buy from him. Serves respected tribal leaders right for offering her a free place of veneration for life in a peaceful city (by Dothraki standards). Serves reputable vassals of the then-rightful queen right for not immediately committing treason out of adoration for a crazy-haired stranger on a dragon, and serves the father right for (correctly) appraising his own fat coward son as unfit to wield a sword or defend a castle.
But the instant it became woman-on-woman, I heard the immediate future of online outrage as clearly as I did when Melisandre burned one measly pseudoprincess for the good of all humanity: Kill that bitch, ask questions later!, it screamed. Nevermind that King's Landing was the still-beating heart of a system so vile it brought forth the goddamned Long Night, or that dragonfire puts citizens (and the spiders who would jealously guard them) out of their misery far more quickly and mercifully than horny Northern swordsmen ever could. Nevermind that she undoubtedly burned a lot of bad people in the mix, who would've continued to skirt justice under the old regime.
I'm not saying these feelings are wrong or stupid in 2019, decades after this unpopular decision was made. Cultural norms about what it means to be shat upon have certainly changed, especially online. If people feel a need for Wikipedia to repeatedly assure them that yes, "D&D" are the villain pulling the strings, not our fairweather fictional friend, far be from me to deny them a gathering place to heap focus on that one twist in that one thread of a de facto feature film (but bring a source, of course). All I'm saying is everything else is also very important. Religious folk illuminated manuscripts for the same reason war folk electrified sound waves and merchant folk colourized and animated our dreams; to give all people amusement and escapism, not just those lucky literate born with a preexisting imagination to fill in the blanks. So long as Game of Thrones remains an audiovisual presentation, I fear we must take the audio and visual experience into due consideration when dealing with overall reception.
Thanks for taking the time to explain the "mixed" thing. Far more complex history than I'd presumed, and I'll have to reread it a few times before I feel qualified to comment on it. You might very well have a damn good point there. Cheers to following policy and precedent, anyway, whichever policies and precedents we personally prefer. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, May 15, 2019 (UTC)
Yes, after Cersei killed Daenerys's best friend, people (men and women both) were saying "Kill that bitch, ask questions later!" and similar. But as we can see by what has developed with the Daenerys controversy (and reliable sources have called it a controversy), many (seemingly most) people were not expecting Daenerys to burn thousands of innocents without good reason. Even with good with reason, Daenerys burning up women and children, especially children, goes against her previous statements and actions, such as when she locked up her dragons after one of them killed a child.
As for "if people feel a need for Wikipedia to repeatedly assure them that yes, 'D&D' are the villain pulling the strings," I'm just following the reliable sources with WP:Due weight. While a few random people (vandals) have been making drive-by edits to vent their anger at the writers regarding this episode, there are a lot of places on the Internet they have vented more.
As for the "mixed" thing, you're welcome. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
In case you weren't just shifting the blame, I meant Daenerys was the bitch. Cersei just executed an invasive threat to the realm, same duty Ned would've fulfilled (though he'd use his own sword). Daenerys made plenty of previous statements about wanting to destroy King's Landing, as did her husband and brother. It's one thing to appease your Hand when he suggests letting everyone live, but another when you've just got done telling the same guy to never betray you again and he immediately releases your most valuable prisoner. Can't trust anyone, can't love anyone, good enough reason to start over with obedient Dothraki, Unsullied and other Eastern immigrants (children grow back) and send a message to others who would share Jon Snow's secret identity. Shock and awe, but not that surprising.
Wikipedia definitely isn't the worst online community for this grief, and that's good. But still, we're helping put across the idea that Daenerys was more helplessly following real-world orders than making in-universe decisions herself. That's bad (but still understandable). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, May 16, 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't shifting blame. You stated, "But the instant it became woman-on-woman, I heard the immediate future of online outrage as clearly as I did when Melisandre burned one measly pseudoprincess for the good of all humanity: Kill that bitch, ask questions later!, it screamed." I was thinking of the moment Cersei killed Daenerys's best friend the episode before. Fans were cheering Daenerys on, saying how she should burn it all. Like I stated above, "I don't think that most critics are going to look back on this episode and say that it made sense for Daenerys to murder all of those people, even if it stayed true to her character in some respects per the threats she's made before." And "people were not expecting Daenerys to burn thousands of innocents without good reason." Critics and viewers have a point when they state that the show portrayed her as unwilling to harm innocents even without the counsel of her advisors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess they were kind of pissed at Cersei, too. But not like this. The last time I recall Daenerys saving anyone without a prodding was that kind witch who returned the favour by saving her Khal. Then she was burned alive for the crime of being glad the Stallion Who Mounts the World now wouldn't. You think a modern audience would stand by her if they knew that happened? Mirri Maz Duur, gone too soon, not better or worse than anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, May 16, 2019 (UTC)
Huh? The modern audience did stand by Daenerys for burning that witch who essentially killed her Khal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Neigh! That witch killed the Khal's horse, upon the Khaleesi's request. Only death can pay for life, and she tried to give him extra horsepower. Was forthright in warning her that nobody must enter the tent. So what does her trusted bear friend and renowned slave trader do, but carry a pregnant woman and his own dumb ass right on in. So instead of the spirit of a horse, Drogo has the mind of a fetus. Daenerys decides she knows better than some dumb baby about its right to life, and she kills him. Call it mercy, call it murder, call it abortion, but call the killer Daenerys Stormborn, Mother of Dragons. It's possible Mirri killed him the first time with her "medicine", but even if she did, it was in the same spirit of projected compassion; she figured he'd be "better off" not slaughtering the innocent (as would his twisted dragonspawn).
I know 2011 audiences liked it, I was there. Dragons, graphic violence and boobies! I was more wondering about kids these days. The ones who hopped on after the rise of fourth-wave feminism, social justice warriors and the Islamic State (Muath al-Kasasbeh, gone too soon, not better or worse than anyone). I'm not exactly "hip" with any of that jazz, but I think we're meant to side with any woman who accuses a roving band of notorious horselords of gang-raping her and her family now, not blame the victim. Sweet Dany was a foreign fucking terrorist with a history of mental illness, domestic abuse and revenge fantasies before she had cute wittle baby dwagons. If the history of progressivism progresses at the rate it has, the majority will accept this new world order by Tuesday morning.
I've almost given up hope of anyone ever crediting the dude who saved the world with a flaming sword during the Long Night as Azor Ahai, though. I can see the "stupid writers" getting shit for making it "too obvious", if they're forced to explain how Storm's End is salty "because the sea". What the hell kind of ending is that? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, May 16, 2019 (UTC)
Today's audience would still be for the Daenerys who killed that witch. We know this because of all the new fans the show has received via word of mouth. The show and Daenerys (because she was usually the primary protagonist, one presented as a hero/savior, the audience was on a journey with) gained new fans every day, month, and year. Many people got their family and friends into the show. I got my sister -- the second oldest (who recently turned 30) -- into the show just last year; well, times before...I'd already suggested she watch the show. After a second try of actually sitting down and watching it past the first two episodes, she was hooked and quickly became a Daenerys fan. My youngest sister (who is in her early 20s and is someone certain people would label a social justice warrior and as being a part of that fourth-wave feminism) quickly became a Daenerys fan years ago, after I'd gotten her into the show. As far as I know, my youngest brother is a Daenerys fan, but I got the impression that he is more so a Jon Snow fan. I didn't get him into the show; he discovered it on his own and would watch with his wife. They are in their early/mid-20s. My other brother, who is older than my younger brother (he's in his 30s), keeps saying he doesn't want to watch the show; he doesn't want to "listen to too many people with British accents." I've tried to explain to him that their accents are not annoying, that he can understand what they are stating without it being distracting, and that a number of the characters do not have that accent. I've explained that the show is the kind of action-adventure show he would like, that it's not just fantasy. But still, he refuses. I think he will come around eventually. Anyway, we see just how much Daenerys's power as a protagonist has affected reception to her villain arc. Take some time to watch this "Foreshadowing Is Not Character Development" YouTube video. It does a very good job of explaining why so many people have had a hard time buying Daenerys as a villain. The narrator of that video doesn't make it about being upset at the notion of Daenerys being a villain. It's focused on how it was executed.
The witch was not trying to help Khal Drogo or Daenerys; we saw this via her responses to what had been done. The writers wrote it so that the audience would clearly support Daenerys, who had helped the witch. The witch was understandably bitter, but the writers wrote it so that what she did to Khal Drogo would not be celebrated by the audience. Daenerys was not presented as victim-blaming. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I watched that foreshadowing video yesterday. Weird. I see where he's coming from (and so where like-minded people are), but my mind's just not like that. It's Yanny and Laurel all over again, perhaps. The two people I can talk about this show offline (a few others are waiting to binge) both figured she'd do what she did, and neither because she "went Mad Queen". There's nothing "crazy" about razing a city, especially the capital, as part of a foreign invasion. Literally erases memories of the old ruler and inspires lasting fear among the next generation. It's certainly cruel and ruthless, but as Bronn "foreshadowed" to Jaime, all great and respected dynasties are born of some mighty scoundrel like that. We're just lucky on Earth that people with nukes have trustworthy and/or loving support networks to chain them down (and the two that don't at least have each other).
And of course she wasn't presented as a victim-blamer, she just happened to hold a rape (and pillage) victim responsible for ending the suffering of the leader of the Army of Horse Rape (and Pillage), and burned her alive for that reason. This cruel act literally and metaphorically hatched her whole "arc" (I hate that word now) toward doing what she promised her khal she would indeed do to her enemies. Small detail, but telling to some.
Anyway, tell your other brother the Hulkster says British people sound cool, brother! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, May 16, 2019 (UTC)
LOL, I will. And that video was in my "recommended for you" feed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Google and Bran may seem like they "see the future", but it's just ridiculously easy to predict anything about anyone when you consider everything everyone has ever done, all at once. Watching this series in any particular order, humanity will never fully understand. Even if we superimposed every episode on top of the next, it'd still be incomprehensible darkness and constant noise. On the bright side, it'd only take 82 minutes to see all of it, and the ending would be the clearest part (though it'd be the version that ends with Melisandre dying). I'd watch that, if modern technology has what it takes to encode it. (Was that the video you were already going to watch next, by any chance?) InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding Melisandre, people were far angrier with Stannis. He's the one who made the decision to burn his own daughter. I have to state that it's a scene that definitely upset me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, even Qyburn (allegedly) finds the sound of burning children unpleasant. But that snow wasn't going to melt itself. If it makes you feel better, she's dead now and death in Westeros (reportedly) isn't better or worse than anything, just nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:40, May 16, 2019 (UTC)
How can you be so heartless, LOL? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I've seen the things we do for love. Get stabbed by wedding guests, stabbed by pirates, stabbed by wights. I'm a cold little bitch, and I guess that's why I'm still alive. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, May 16, 2019 (UTC)

@DavidK93: - I've added more positives about the episode. starship.paint (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC) And I added some material on some fans being okay with the episode. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Cersei's arc[edit]

Thomasamuse, regarding this and this, like I stated, I'm not seeing that it's WP:Due for Cersei to have her own section in the article. Daenerys has one because most of the sources focus on her. Some are quite clear that the Daenerys arc was especially criticized. Some more Cersei material can be added to the "General" section, but she doesn't need her own section. Furthermore, this The Atlantic source you added is about how Game of Thrones failed Cersei in general. It is not specifically about this episode (although it touches on this episode). You should consider adding "how Game of Thrones failed Cersei in general" material to her Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I re-added this piece. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it OK...[edit]

that the reception section is now thrice as long as the plot section? Most people care most about the plot and the cast in any movie or series... --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

ExperiencedArticleFixer, see MOS:PLOT, WP:TVPLOT and MOS:REALWORLD. We are supposed to keep the plot material under a certain length. Generally anyway. Our articles should mostly be built on real-world information. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Understood, but boring. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
It's looking a lot like a WP:QUOTEFARM. And these aren't short sentences, either, some are trying to be flowery. Anybody down for condensing this into one key point per paragraph, with paraphrasing and "succinct quotes" only for the things Wikipedia's voice can't say another way itself? I can understand longer quotes in an encyclopedia from respected and notable critics, but when they're just regular Internet writers, it feels more like we're just yoinking bits of their content to have it, like any other fair-use aggregator.
And a lot of time we "arbitrarily switch back and forth" between our voice and "the voice of the writers", creating what some call a "jarring effect" that can make audiences wonder whether certain "snippets are being used in their intended context" or were just chosen because they "say what [the reader] is already reading".
No offense to everyone who chipped in to it, but reading the entire collection to the end is a bit difficult, I find. Anybody else try? Am I just a lazy reader? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, May 16, 2019 (UTC)
It's no different than all of the other Game of Thrones articles that present a bunch of quotes. See Breaker of Chains or The Long Night (Game of Thrones). Same goes for just about all of the reception sections in other television show articles and in film articles. It's why I disregard the WP:QUOTEFARM essay when it comes to reception sections. But I am for paraphrasing when we can, except for when the quote gets the point across better. As for the "these aren't short sentences, either, some are trying to be flowery." I wasn't trying for that at all. I went for summarizing the points and paraphrasing when needed, and there is so much to summarize. These sources have written so much on this topic. I've also kept the different points together, such as moving a pacing piece to the "Several critics criticized the pacing of events." paragraph. As for we "arbitrarily switch back and forth" between our voice and "the voice of the writers", I wouldn't state that it is "arbitrarily," not always anyway. Switching like that is also common in writing, but I understand that it can be done too much and/or poorly. I'll go ahead and see if I can paraphrase the section more and clean up the switching. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, good points. Do what you can, but also do what you want. I'll probably stay away from touching anymore of that section (I might have a subconscious conflict of interest, thanks to the subject matter). May do a bit more with the Plot, but not today. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, May 16, 2019 (UTC)
OK, I lied. I added Harry Strickland, his horse, Nora and whoever Nora's kid was supposed to be. 132 bytes, but I think our readers deserve to know they took part. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:43, May 16, 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I made this edit (followup edit here). I understand what you mean about arbitrary switching. Per WP:LIMITED, enough of the words can be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Later, I'll see if anything else, such as the fans' reactions, can be paraphrased without losing important context. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Rush of Daenerys's villain arc or hints regarding it[edit]

Delfino319, regarding this, why do you think we should include that material? There is no need to repeat the "rushed" aspect yet again and the section is already big enough as it is. That the series hinted at her potential madness over the course of the show is also already covered in the first paragraph, where a reviewer relays that he understood that the show had been "building toward Daenerys becoming the Mad Queen" and that the plot could have worked. Plus, this article is specifically about the episode. I've already included material about the writers building up to her villain status at the Daenerys Targaryen article. If you want to add "Daenerys's turn made sense on a thematic level" to the section in this article, we could add it (that one line, such as "[so and so] said it made sense on a thematic level, given her previous brutal behavior") in the first paragraph. But I see no need for another paragraph on Daenerys's villain arc. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure an entire new paragraph like I initially suggested is warranted, but as I mentioned in the post on your talk page, I think the idea of "thematic success versus development failure" is key to understanding the negative reception of this episode. I worry that the way the "Daenerys Arc" subsection currently reads feels like an oversimplification. Perhaps one solution would be to restructure the subsection so that criticisms about "betraying Dany's character" and criticisms about "rushed storytelling" are more clearly segregated? We could even use the sentence "while it was universally agreed that the character development was rushed, some critics noted that Daenerys' turn made sense on a thematic level" to transition from one argument to the next. Again, it's important to note that not everyone has a fundamental problem with evil Dany, I think this is a crucial distinction that is unique to an adaptation completing before the source material and we'd be remiss not to explore it here.

UPDATE: Also I noticed you highlighted the positive reception to her villain arc on her main page but not for this episode. Don't you think the positive reception might warrant a mention here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delfino319 (talkcontribs)

Delfino319, I was just about to reply on my talk page, but I see that you just replied here as well. In the future, it would be best to simply take the matter to the article's talk page. I'd already started the section here and pinged you to it. Not sure why you went to my talk page first. Anyway, like you stated on my talk page, "A lot of critics/fans have complained that what Dany does in The Bells 'betrays her character' or 'is the antithesis of GOT' and what have you." I know that you disagree with that, but most of the sources relay that. Yes, some relay that having Daenerys be the villain could have worked, but they still state that the story ultimately didn't work because Daenerys wasn't yet at a believable villain state. The consensus is that it didn't make sense. In the end, the reason that the arc didn't make sense to many is indeed because Daenerys was built up as a good and moral person for seven seasons and there was insufficient time for the audience to buy her as a villain. The clues (for those that believe in them anyway) throughout the show's history and foreshadowing done in season 8 weren't enough. That is what the section is relaying.
The "didn't make sense" and "not enough time" aspects are intertwined. This is why Zack Beauchamp of Vox argued that "in the past, Daenerys's cruelties have had a sort of logic to them" because she killed people who "committed crimes deserving of punishment" and Samwell Tarly's father and brother because they "refused to submit to her rule," but that "there was no reason" for Daenerys to "target civilians who posed no threat to her." This is why he said that although he understood that the show had been "building toward Daenerys becoming the Mad Queen" and that this route could have worked, "its execution was sloppy and rushed" and "it felt as if Daenerys had become a monster simply because the show needed her to become a monster, not because it was paying off a thoughtfully developed character turn." It's why this "Game Of Thrones: Dany Was Always A Mad Queen (We Just Didn't Want To Admit It)" Screen Rant source states what it states. So I don't see a need to artificially separate the "didn't make sense" and "not enough time" aspects. I'll go ahead an add the Myles McNutt piece so that it has better context and fits. I might add an additional piece noting that turning Daenerys into a villain could have worked. The "turning Daenerys into villain could have worked" aspect will likely needs its own paragraph since the first paragraph is big enough as it is and I don't see that anything in the section needs cutting. The text needs to be focused on the episode, not on how Daenerys has been built up over the seasons (you know, other than the "good and moral" aspect that critics mention as reasons for viewers not buying Daenerys as a villain). That "built up over the seasons" material is for the Daenerys Targaryen article.
As for the "Villain arc" section in the Daenerys Targaryen article, like I noted at that talk page, I don't think that these two sections should copy each other much. The section in her Wikipedia article is about her villain arc and not solely about what she did in this episode. This means that it includes information on the buildup to that episode as well. That episode is just an aspect of the matter, although it's the biggest aspect. The episode article is specifically about what happened in this episode. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Update: Okay, I added more to the section with this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it reads much better now, thanks for putting up with me about this hahaha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delfino319 (talkcontribs)

Delfino319, in the future, please remember to sign your posts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
And you're welcome. Thanks for making me see that the section needed that aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Petiton[edit]

Flyer22 Reborn & other editors, the petition is included in the season 8 page as well, do we want it on both? I personally think it belongs on the season 8 page more than this specific page (even though the anger is due to this episode), as it encompasses all of season 8 rather than just a remake of say, the episode, but I'm down for it being on either and/or both. QueerFilmNerdtalk 02:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't include it at all, given the widespread derision it's received as another example of entitled fandom. The Last Jedi's article doesn't mention the similarly pathetic petition/crowdfunder to remake the film as well. But hey ho, I suppose if reliable sources just keep repeating dumb fan behaviour for clicks, I suppose it's allegedly notable. Alientraveller (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, like I stated with this edit, we usually don't include petition material because it usually goes nowhere and is trivial. I noted that I would see what others think. So thanks for starting a talk page discussion on it. This one has gotten a lot of significant media attention, and it was created specifically because of this episode; so I don't mind it being in this article at this point in time. It can be validly mentioned in both articles. If, after some time (like months from now), keeping WP:Recentism in mind, it seems best to remove it as trivial, we can obviously do that. But by that time, others might want to keep it as sort of a historical aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
As long as we don't link to the petition itself, I don't mind. Wikipedia is not an advocate. Matters not if the cause is clearly lost regardless. I don't really see the point of tacking on three nearly identical sources when the most recent would suffice, but I don't hate it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: - we can't link to the petition. I tried. Change.org is apparently blacklisted. starship.paint (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that was because of all of the people always trying to link to their or someone else's non-notable petition. This one is not notable in terms of the WP:Notability guideline, but it's notable enough (in general terms) to be mentioned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe anyone's opinion as to the merits of the petition should impact the decision on whether to include it. It seems worthy of inclusion to me because it represents the scale of the fan backlash and has been picked up by multiple news outlets. However, it may make sense to only include it in the season 8 page and not here, given that the petition was created before the episode aired and refers to the season as a whole, even though it only picked up steam after this episode. CMSPhys (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It's the sheer number of signatures that makes this key. It wouldn't be important is 1000 people signed it, but it's surely going to break 1,000,000 soon, if it hasn't already. starship.paint (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Harry Strickland and his horse[edit]

I see all mention of the only known member (and captain) of the Golden Company is unpopular enough to keep disappearing. That's somewhat understandable, he looks weird and barely talks. But he's the first named character to die in this battle, and Grey Worm's first kill all season (wights don't count). Plus, his horse shows up later in the paragraph with Arya, and if I didn't know better, I'd figure it either came from nowhere or was already in the city during the firestorm, somehow faring better than stone buildings. It's reading things like that that encourage people to believe this show makes no sense. What say you? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, May 18, 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - is your point the horse or the man, or both? We don't know if it's the same horse. I put Strickland back in, but not his horse. It's at 395 words if you want to add his horse in. The last sentence can probably be cut a bit. starship.paint (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
It was about both, but if I had to choose, it's more important to introduce the horse, since she comes back later and he doesn't. The horse has already done more than we've seen him do all season, even if we don't see her again (which seems unlikely). I'll try to think of a way to get her in while leaving him out (he's not even mentioned in his debut episode, after all), but it's going to be tricky.
And yes, we know it's the same horse because "he's seen riding it at the beginning of the episode." Same body, anyway, which has historically been good enough for us to keep calling Bran "Bran". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:58, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
Well, maybe it's just the same horse actor, y'know? starship.paint (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Could be, could be. I removed 72 bytes while adding a few things, but may have cut something you'd rather keep. Why don't you think it's ultimately important that Davos smuggled Jaime? Treason is treason, no? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:52, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
All those edits you pinged me in seem fine. I'll maintain that Jon did have his men fall back to save them from friendly fire, but won't press the matter. It does sound a bit weird in a medieval setting, yet was the shortest way I could think to say it (if it ever even needed saying at all). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
I've lengthened Arya's ending somewhat. I don't have the heart to explain why the bell tower and stampede are more important than I thought they were yesterday, but I think we might all agree tomorrow that we didn't quite see her "barely escape". More just rode "off into the sunset", which is a bit too on the nose, so I called it "toward the horizon". I left "experiences the destruction of King's Landing firsthand" unchanged, which could still mean a lot of things to a lot of people. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: - given the ending, what do you think about cutting the last paragraph? starship.paint (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know about "cutting", but maybe slicing, dicing and paring. Still fairly important to know she almost died a few times and was saved again en route to that tiny scar on her forehead (blading?). Maybe remove the "experiences the destruction of King's Landing firsthand" and leave the part explaining what that was supposed to mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:59, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
"Toward the horizon" became "out of the city". Now she rides "away". Doesn't get shorter, truer or more open-ended than that. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:31, May 21, 2019 (UTC)