Like I said, Tywin did thousands times more than what she did. She's insignificant, the opposite of a God. She will be killed quickly, and forgotten quickly. She will be nothing more than a "remember the time when a dragon attacked King's Landing?". That's it. 99% of Westeros won't even know her name.

And "complex character" doesn't describe what happened in the episode, at all. There was no depth or complexity in the massacre, just "here, she's mad and became a villain".

But hey, if you even defend the stones C4 explosions, then I guess it's useless to keep talking about this. A bit more and you will say stuff like "Jaime had a great ending for his redemption arc" or "Arya totally has reasons to be the only one resisting dragon fire". It's actually nice that it doesn't take a lot to make you happy with it!

That was my original theory, because I don't think putting another Targaryan, even if they're half Stark, would be the "lesson learnt" in all of this.
But then I got to Season 8, Episode 3, and 4, and realized exactly what kind of writing I'm up against here. I don't expect them to prioritize reason over subverting expectations.

and instead of them killing her second dragon for shock purposes in the previous episode, they killed it this episode just prior to ringing the bell. 

Seriously, the writers are hacks.

Duh, of course she will be forgotten quickly if she's killed in the next episode. Now if she takes the throne, which she believes is her destiny, then it's just a beginning of  her reign as a godlike ruler. It's a bit funny how you're trying to downplay her burning the city that has never fallen before and destroying an army and Iron Fleet in a matter of minutes.

Tywin surely was a powerful, intelligent, feared and respected man. I still don't get why you're bringing him up. Him not obsessed of taking the throne or being some sort of savior also made him a better tactician and politic. But he was also just a man, not a dragon king :P

There's complexity in the massacre, sufficient depth is debatable. Just read Angelus' post again. If you still take the "ooo she wasn't kissed by her boyfriend so she torched it all" stance then I don't know what to tell you. At least you're watching the episodes again, I'm sure you'll find out why so many fans were expecting her to turn mad. She threatened to burn cities down before, including King's Landing during later season.

I don't remember defending C4 explosions but yeah I do find stuff like that nitpicking. I wrote a more detailed post of what I liked about the episode and how they executed the mayhem. I used to do this nitpicking stuff when watching movies when I was younger but these days I try to look much deeper for themes and stuff. It doesn't have anything to do with being easily pleased, it's more about focusing different things. Speaking of dragon fire, technically every movie where characters storm into burning buildings or in this case, standing close to dragon fire would kill you. The hot air will burn your lungs so you can't breathe anymore. 

Interesting.. I don't know why at any point you thought this show is taking the "lesson learnt" route. Jon destroying the throne would be the most obvious ending and that's what I'd expect if GoT was like any other show. It would also be a bit lame considering it would be naive to think destroying the throne would lead to 7 Kingdoms to rule in autonomy.

Yeah I agree the quality of story has been worse since they ran out of bookmaterial. But I think it's also because GRRM didn't do himself favors setting up so many plot lines the way he did. I think there's a reason he hasn't continued his story and it's because he's struggling with it himself too. 

As far as I know, the show will have an ending GRRM outlined for writers. So take it or leave it. Books should, of course, have a more detailed buildup. 

It would be an obvious trigger for the audience but it would wreck the tone of the events. 

They surrender, there's silence and relief.. then boom a surprise shot killing the dragon sending her to rampage. Sounds like a staple from any other show ever made lol. Yes it would've perhaps lead to better reviews but at the cost of the scene.

You seem really good at explaining things and finding deeper meanings to stuffs. Could you please explain to me why Cersei didn't kill them all when they were standing right in front of her in Ep. 4? I mean, they were standing roughly at 150 meters away from the scorpions. And just on the episode before we saw those said scorpions shooting at ships that were way further than that.

And please, oh please don´t tell me that that is nitpicking.

That was a parley, you dont kill people at a parley.

In real life I could buy that explanation. But tell me, at which point have Cersei, Euron and Qyburn shown any kind of honor?

In fact, Cersei had hated Tyrion all her life; had tried to kill him multiple times (hiring an assassin just recently to do so) and now that she had him right in front of her, she suddenly had a change of heart?.

And that is without taking into consideration the fact that she had been told by a witch that a younger brother would kill her so SHE HAD EVERY REASON TO BE SCARED OF TYRION AT THAT POINT.

Maybe the scorpions just can't aim downwards

After all, they were built to shoot things out of the sky.

Nope. You can clearly see them aiming downwards at the beginning of the scene.  And let´s not forget that they were used against ships a couple of episodes ago. Besides, at the distance they were, I´m pretty sure regular arrows would have done the job just fine.

I don't remember them actually being pointed downwards, but I'll take your word for it lol. Though they certainly wouldn't be aimed downwards during ship to ship combat. That's either a level shot, or aimed with a slight arc, depending on the distance.