Pretty much everybody I've talked to has hated the ending and this season generally.
The petition reaching 1 million signatures is certainly interesting, it's not going to achieve anything but it really shows how many people had a visceral ticked off reaction to it.
Ultimately the writing has been on a doggak path for a while, if they didn't engage in pandering to the audience by inserting modern values into what is essentially a medieval society I think they might have been able to tell the story a bit more coherently and get to this ending in a satisfying way.
MajorTom11 wrote: I really don't think this is a vocal minority situation. What metric indicates most people loved this season? Reviewers? Public comments? Tweets? Fan pages? This page?
Cmon. I don't begrudge anyone who enjoyed it. I really don't. If anything, I envy them.
But pretending there is no problem, that it is merely a few industrious malcontents is the entertainment equivalent of '5 million illegal votes for Hillary by busses full of travelling democrats'. A baseless assertion with no evidence to back it up concocted to excuse the facts in front of us.
Easy.
Viewing figures.
Season 8 reached the largest audience for the whole series, and bizarrely, grew that week on week.
Given that’s what shows are made for, whether we like it or not, I doubt anyone involved gives much of a hoot about ratings.
I mean, compare to Friends. 10 seasons of trite nonsense, with a live audience so astounded by the human ability to like, walk through a door, would whoop and cheer at every such instance. It was crap. Crap of the highest order. Compare to its British contemporaries of the time. Spaced. Black Books. Father Ted. All works of genius. All ridiculously, and deeply funny. Yet Friends stomped them in the ratings, and made the money. It was widely syndicate outside its native land, and is still (inexplicably if you ask me) enjoyed to this day.
How do I feel about such obvious dross being that successful?
Quantity. That’s what the show makers are interested in. If you happen to get quality in there, great. But it’s not an essential ingredient for a successful show. If you’ve got high viewership, you can charge more for the ad slots, and flog the resultant show to more networks.
Azreal13 wrote: FWIW I think that pretty much everyone got an ending that they had earned/deserved/was appropriate and I look forward to the spin off show Voyage Of The Dawn Arya replete with talking gerbil.
I prefer "West of Westeros: The Voyages of Arrrrrya Stark".
I think I'd rather have "Westward Ho! Arya there yet?"
Azreal13 wrote: FWIW I think that pretty much everyone got an ending that they had earned/deserved/was appropriate and I look forward to the spin off show Voyage Of The Dawn Arya replete with talking gerbil.
I prefer "West of Westeros: The Voyages of Arrrrrya Stark".
I think I'd rather have "Westward Ho! Arya there yet?"
Crimson wrote: When a show which Rotten Tomatoes audience rating has been hovering around 90% for seven seasons suddenly drops below 40% then I don't think that it is unreasonable to surmise that something might have gone a tad wrong in the show making department...
No, is just manchildren being mad. Like The new Star Wars trilogy. They are hating it because potatoes, theres NO VALID criticism whatsoever.
.
There are plenty of valid criitiscms of TLJ - I don't think you get to decide what is and is not a valid reason why that film is bad.
I am disapointed by the end - in fact much of Season 7 and 8 but its done, I will remember the good stuff and think about how I would have liked it to end - it would not take that much to make it an ending I would have enjoyed.....
I've enjoyed the other seasons quite thoroughly. This was a hugely underwhelming and terribly paced (and actually rather boring) conclusion. I suppose it's better that it's at least done with.
This scene is just so awful. Jon has effectively been used & discarded by everyone. Bran-thing isn't even pretending to have a shred of emotion, admits Jon was essential just a pawn in some grand scheme with a half smirk. The Bran arc ending like this is just ominous. At least he didn't say he forgave Sansa.
I mean, compare to Friends. 10 seasons of trite nonsense, with a live audience so astounded by the human ability to like, walk through a door, would whoop and cheer at every such instance. It was crap. Crap of the highest order. Compare to its British contemporaries of the time. Spaced. Black Books. Father Ted. All works of genius. All ridiculously, and deeply funny. Yet Friends stomped them in the ratings, and made the money. It was widely syndicate outside its native land, and is still (inexplicably if you ask me) enjoyed to this day.
Commercial success =\= acclaim. When the question being posed is "did the viewers actually think the show was good", the number of people watching it doesn't matter, as there's plenty of reasons for why a person would continue to tune in for something they no longer like or care about. As an example, I loved episodes 4-6 and had an amazing time watching all three of them, doesn't change the fact that they were complete gutter trash with terrible writing and characterization. Schlock can still be entertaining, or feel mandatory to watch if you've invested 8 years into it already or if you're the type of person who cares about being current with the big social events, etc.
If you're interested in the critical reception of a movie or show, that's basically what review aggregate sites were designed for.
I think this is a bad take for sure. It was a very divisive season and I think a lot of people were very unhappy with it.
I personally didn't hate it... or love it. I was disappointed that I didn't get the exact ending I was hoping for, but as Thanos said, reality is often disappointing. They had so many disparate threads to try together it wasn't really possible to do so in a way that would have made everyone happy, and I think they also handicapped themselves right off the bat by reducing the episode count starting with Season 7.
Also, I don't see what happened to Tyrion as much of a punishment at all, really. Someone ITT said that his life is pretty much over and his only choice is to serve, but that has never been true for the Hand of the King. All of the previous hands had families and houses. Tyrion is free to start a family if he is so inclined and any heirs he produces would inherit (a somewhat diminished) Casterly Rock.
Yeah, Tyrion's fine and content. He's hanging out with Davos, as well as Bronn again, doing useful work and telling stories. He's content.
As much as I've been annoyed with the series, I for example, don't think it would end up on a Channel 4 "20 worst TV show endings" list show. But it MIGHT end up on the "20 MOST DISAPPOINTING TV show Endings" programme.
And I think that's the rub, even for the general public. Sure, it's not the OMG worst plot twist awfulness that some really passionate fans express.
But I do think that the vast majority of people, even casual viewers are disappointed by it. And it definitely won't be a thing of, "FROM THE CREATORS OF GAME OF THRONES" will end up being a big selling thing going forward. (Though they'll try, maybe?) but, yeah...
There was an article I saw that did well at summing up my own feelings I think. Meh or Eh
But I do think that the vast majority of people, even casual viewers are disappointed by it. And it definitely won't be a thing of, "FROM THE CREATORS OF GAME OF THRONES" will end up being a big selling thing going forward. (Though they'll try, maybe?) but, yeah...
I dunno. The final season in totality seems to have been received roughly 50/50 between fine/disappointing, anecdotally. I've seen a lot of gushing reviews of individual episodes, and some (but fewer) extremely-critical ones. The actual finale seems to have been enjoyed by more people than hated it, again anecdotally.
David Chase is still always 'creator of The Sopranos', and that final season's three-episode dream sequence and cut-off finale got far more consistent vitriol at the time from fans than GoT has.
Azreal13 wrote: Yep. GoT isn't unique in this regard.
-Show/Franchise becomes popular
- A percentage over invest
- Some of the over investors rage because things aren't going the way they think it should.
And I don't have a problem with people not liking the end, or people being unhappy that things didn't turn out they way they wanted (I wanted Clegganebowl to be a very different fight to what it was, but I ain't signing no bone-headed petition over it).
It's just that people seem to think that "I didn't like it!" = "This is bad!". If you don't like something all it means is that you didn't like it. It's somewhat self-centred to believe that everything you dislike is inherently of low quality.
I don't like Primaris Marines. I do think the models look great (floaty autocannon guys notwithstanding), and I'm not about to denigrate the miniatures (other than calling them out-of-scale Marines) just because I think they have no place in 40K.
Azreal13 wrote: Frankly it would have been all but impossible to have wrapped up and everybody be happy (and that isn't an invitation to write me an essay about how it would have happened if you were in charge, BTW.)
I also agree here. There's no way everyone was going to be happy with the ending, especially for something that has captured the world's attention to such a degree.
But it's the vitriol of the detractors I take issue with, because they're acting as if this is somehow new. I remember people bitching about how awful this show was Ned got a spear to the leg way back in season one. I remember not liking Season 5 much at all. Didn't sign any petitions...
Azreal13 wrote: FWIW I think that pretty much everyone got an ending that they had earned/deserved/was appropriate and I look forward to the spin off show Voyage Of The Dawn Arya replete with talking gerbil.
I prefer "West of Westeros: The Voyages of Arrrrrya Stark".
It's not bad because I don't like it.
I don't like it because it's BAD.
The show garnered such a huge fan base by being really good. It's not the fanbase's fault that the ending was badly written. You can't expect them to be happy that something they liked has been ruined.
When GW blew up the old world, did you blame the fans for not liking it?
I mean, compare to Friends. 10 seasons of trite nonsense, with a live audience so astounded by the human ability to like, walk through a door, would whoop and cheer at every such instance. It was crap. Crap of the highest order. Compare to its British contemporaries of the time. Spaced. Black Books. Father Ted. All works of genius. All ridiculously, and deeply funny. Yet Friends stomped them in the ratings, and made the money. It was widely syndicate outside its native land, and is still (inexplicably if you ask me) enjoyed to this day.
Commercial success =\= acclaim. When the question being posed is "did the viewers actually think the show was good", the number of people watching it doesn't matter, as there's plenty of reasons for why a person would continue to tune in for something they no longer like or care about. As an example, I loved episodes 4-6 and had an amazing time watching all three of them, doesn't change the fact that they were complete gutter trash with terrible writing and characterization. Schlock can still be entertaining, or feel mandatory to watch if you've invested 8 years into it already or if you're the type of person who cares about being current with the big social events, etc.
If you're interested in the critical reception of a movie or show, that's basically what review aggregate sites were designed for.
That's kind of my point though.
Season 8 has the highest viewing figures of the entire series. And episode by episode, those increased.
Does that mean it's therefore quality? Nope. See my comments about the abysmal Friends. But it does mean it's a success. And that's all the Bean Counters require.
Compel wrote: Yeah, Tyrion's fine and content. He's hanging out with Davos, as well as Bronn again, doing useful work and telling stories. He's content.
As much as I've been annoyed with the series, I for example, don't think it would end up on a Channel 4 "20 worst TV show endings" list show. But it MIGHT end up on the "20 MOST DISAPPOINTING TV show Endings" programme.
And I think that's the rub, even for the general public. Sure, it's not the OMG worst plot twist awfulness that some really passionate fans express.
But I do think that the vast majority of people, even casual viewers are disappointed by it. And it definitely won't be a thing of, "FROM THE CREATORS OF GAME OF THRONES" will end up being a big selling thing going forward. (Though they'll try, maybe?) but, yeah...
There was an article I saw that did well at summing up my own feelings I think. Meh or Eh
Yeah disapointment is my main feeling for this season - missed opportunities but oh well.
Some people think it needed mroe time but I think thats no excuse - I look at Avengers Endgame and see how many characters were done well in 3 hours and see the opposite in GoT.
Why they had to force a happy ending for the two main male characters the opposite for the main female lead is also a mystery.
Sure have her lover stab her in the heart but then let him burn or the Dothraki /Unsullied tear him apart not live happily ever after up north.
Same with Tyrion - oh no i get to be the most powerful person in the 6 kingdoms (*) - woe is me....
(*) Bran the Pointless is not going to do anything - hilarious hearing him described as "the storyteller" - he hardly speaks never mind tells stories.
The issue with comparing it to endgame is that GOT had more storylines to wrap up. If you look at Endgame everyone is basically part of the same major conflict, and the story is about their interaction with that conflict in GOT you had A lot more conflict and dynamics to wrap up so given that they did the last 2 Seasons as 13 Episodes after 6 seasons of 10 Episodes, things came across as rushed. It would have been akin to Marvel building up Thanos as a big threat, while having Hydra also in the picture, Then in Infinity war Thanos shows up is beaten and they move on to fight Hydra in Endgame, but during Infintiy war they hinted in the Civil War storyline between Cap and Iron Man. Then Endgame resolves the hydra storyline in the first hour, and finishes with Civil war in the second hour. IT takes time to properly wrap up existing story lines
There are definitely people complaining about about GoT who could be described as 'toxic fandom'. Give me the story and ending I want or I'm going to throw a tantrum like a child. Petitions to reshoot the whole season...how ridiculous. Grow up and realize that it isn't all about you, whether it's GoT, SW, or some other franchise. And don't name your daughters after fictional characters or anoint said characters as some kind of icon before you know their entire arc in the story, kids. Any devoted ASOIAF reader could have told you there was a distinct possibility Daenerys would end up crazy and skewered.
There are also those (like myself) who are fine with the broad arc of the story, but think the story could have been told better down the stretch. Personally, I really appreciate the work of all the creative professionals and actors on the show. Dinklage is a terrific actor who really brought it even when the script let him down. And we saw two lengthy action sequences with some amazing visuals and concepts. It's a damn shame that stuff was lost on so many people during this season because they were too busy scratching their heads over the story.
So who's to blame for the story failings? I think it has to be shared by both GRRM and the showrunners. GRRM did them no favors by failing to complete the next installment, and by leaving the last novel with an endless number of threads that needed to be addressed. The showrunners were in a heckuva pickle.
Still, the showrunners have to be the primary culprits. There were far too many 'unforced errors' on their part even considering their constraints. That summit scene at the arena is a prime example that gets worse and worse the more you think about and dig into it. Characters, established motivations, and even sense were tossed out the window too often in recent seasons in the name of driving the plot forward quickly to the next big thing. Big Things(TM) can still get you boffo ratings, but the show became almost a parody of what it was in earlier seasons. To be fair, it's hardly the first great TV series to experience that.
TL;DR - Fans aren't a homogeneous bunch, and there's blame to go around.
Thoroughly disappointed in that entire season.
Wont bother rehashing whats already been said about how woeful that last episode was. Bordering on downright cheesey in parts Really felt like the writers had given up and just wanted to finish things off lickity split which is depressing considering the highs earlier seasons had given us.
Ah well back to watching Chernobyl.
It's just that people seem to think that "I didn't like it!" = "This is bad!". If you don't like something all it means is that you didn't like it. It's somewhat self-centred to believe that everything you dislike is inherently of low quality.
It's pretty much a fact of life on Dakka, the hate here for some subjects gets so hyperbolic and vicious that I figure anyone who did like the show just doesn't bother posting here. In the tab next to this, I've got another forum open, where the consensus on the finale is more-or-less the same, but there's about 10% of the overblown stop-liking-what-I-don't-like nastiness.
My thought of the day -- Daenerys' heel turn didn't feel 'right' to some people not because she had avoided extreme actions, but because in between extreme actions she was measured, seemed to have some moral boundaries, and lacked an aura of menace and darkness. Making her more situationally ruthless than someone inclined to senselessly murder children (not that there can be any sense in that). More Tywin Lannister than Aerys the Mad.
So was the fault there in the writing, Clarke's performance, the direction she received, or in the casting of Emilia Clarke?
"Why did this thing happen? Because the plot required it it"
=Poorstory telling. I.E. We wanted dragonfire exploding stone all over the shop and lots of dragon on people violence!
The plot develops because things happen not the other way round so from that perspective its a failure from my viewpoint...
When GW blew up the old world, did you blame the fans for not liking it?
After a fashion, yes. WHFB wasn't selling enough for their tastes, so they reworked the whole thing, and relaunched it to ultimately greater success.
Again though, why was it not selling? Did WHFB fans just wake up one day and think "welp, that's that, I will no longer buy things for this game" in mass numbers for no reason whatsoever? Of course not, it wasn't selling because GW's own bungled mismanagement drove people away. That's not the fault of the people they drove away, and replacing it with a more mass-market product(that was also flopping like a live trout on a dock for months until they also started fixing all the company's attitude problems, lest we forget) doesn't alter that.
gorgon wrote: My thought of the day -- Daenerys' heel turn didn't feel 'right' to some people not because she had avoided extreme actions, but because in between extreme actions she was measured, seemed to have some moral boundaries, and lacked an aura of menace and darkness. Making her more situationally ruthless than someone inclined to senselessly murder children (not that there can be any sense in that). More Tywin Lannister than Aerys the Mad.
So was the fault there in the writing, Clarke's performance, the direction she received, or in the casting of Emilia Clarke?
I think it was an issue of being rushed. As Tyrion pointed out, throughout the series she was ruthless, it was just with people we considered bad people. Reflecting on her in between times she was often surrounded by people who loved/worshiped her, she would do a terrible thing, liberate people and they would be grateful, fall to their knees in thanks/awe etc.
She assimilates to the Dothraki culture, then when Drogo dies she burns the witch, and walks out of the funeral pyre with 3 dragons, those remaining with her are awed that she not only survives but thrives.
Then she frees the slaves, kills the masters and they worship her as Mysha (mother)
She burns the Khals, and walks out of the fire, and in their culture that worships strength she has slain all of their strongest proving her worth, and then mounts a Dragon.
Easier to remain measured when you are being lauded for your deeds, then when people are skeptical.
Compare that to her time in Westeros.
She Burns the Loot Train, kills some of the leadership, and people kneel to her in fear.
She rides her dragons north, to save Jon and he falls for her
Cersei betrays her (for which she has killed most)
Heads north with Jon to a cold reception from the people and leadership
She is key to defending Winterfell - but is still not loved by the people
Heads south and people retreat from her into the safety offered by her enemy.
SO I think part of it is that she does better as the beloved savior than the tolerated ally.
There was an article I saw that did well at summing up my own feelings I think. Meh or Eh
And I submit that one sign a pivot hasn't worked is the fact that the show's architects had to try to explain it in a "behind the episode" interview. Also reeking of flop sweat: An on-screen character (Tyrion) spending a chunk of the finale retroactively re-framing Dany's history and motivations. Monologue as retcon; that's fun.
Yeah, as I said, that was very, very hamfisted and obvious. Trying to explain so hard that "She was always gonna turn mad!" feel something a writter that does know his writting isn't organic would do.
And at this point, all the "It was obvious she was gonna turn mad, you where just soooo simple to see it!" is becoming very tedious. Because as many have pointed out, is not the foreshadowing (Foreshadowing IS not character developement, people) , it is how it was done.
I wish I'd been moved in some way when Jon killed Dany, but my interest in that scene petered out as soon as it appeared Jon was never going to directly ask her about why she ignored the bells of surrender. Sure, those two danced around the subject, but as a whole, the show has seemed more interested in reverse-engineering Dany into being a Big Bad and shoving her into the Deserves to Die category than in making her choices reverberate with tragic poignance. Jon + Dany, despite the show's exertions, has never been a thing. Dany's heel turn could have been great, but it wasn't; it could have driven some of the best TV storytelling of all time, but it didn't. Possibly the only emotional moment that worked in the finale involved Drogon expressing grief for his mother.
The show also hammered home the bad things happen to good people and good deeds are not rewarded. Dany learnt from that
Once as a young girl and wife she was horrified by her husbands warriors sacking a town and gang raping women - but by the time she reaches Westros she has learnt that weakness = death or worse.
Then her trusted advisors keep on and on about being restrained and not destroying the Red Keep, not using her dragons - and just as before - weakness = death of allies and friends.
When she cuts loose - everything works out fine - the lesson is repeated again and again for her. Also remember that all those that she truly trusts - the free slaves, Dothraki and Unsullied have NO problems with anything she does includuing burning Kings Landing - in fact Missendrie's last words are prophetic.
I didn't enjoy them killing her off but for me what made it really dispapointing was then forcing a happy ending for Jon and Tyrion down our throats. The Show runners sould have showed some balls and killed 'em all.
And where exactly does all this Bran is the living memory and story teller come from - dude hardly speaks and then its usually fortune cookie crap. Bron tells more stories than he does,.
To me though the jump in her development happened in season 5-6. Look at her attitudes prior to being attacked in the arena by the Sons of the Harpy and after being taken by the Dothraki.
Before the attack she is trying to make things work as a ruler, giving concessions to the population, caring about her people, "in love" with Dario.
When she returns from killing the Khals, she is mostly cold and calculating with a few tender moments like when she makes Tyrion hand. She comes back wanting to burn the other slave cities. Then sails to Westeros, and every other word out of her mouth is bend the knee.
For me that is where I saw more disconnect with her than the final turn. It did look like they were pulling her back to being more stable with the romance with Jon, though why they didn't (other than plot convenience.) ever discuss a marriage alliance prior to sailing North, struck me as odd. I can see Dany not agreeing to it, but why not have someone at least bring it up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: The show also hammered home the bad things happen to good people and good deeds are not rewarded. Dany learnt from that
Once as a young girl and wife she was horrified by her husbands warriors sacking a town and gang raping women - but by the time she reaches Westros she has learnt that weakness = death or worse.
Then her trusted advisors keep on and on about being restrained and not destroying the Red Keep, not using her dragons - and just as before - weakness = death of allies and friends.
When she cuts loose - everything works out fine - the lesson is repeated again and again for her. Also remember that all those that she truly trusts - the free slaves, Dothraki and Unsullied have NO problems with anything she does includuing burning Kings Landing - in fact Missendrie's last words are prophetic.
I didn't enjoy them killing her off but for me what made it really dispapointing was then forcing a happy ending for Jon and Tyrion down our throats. The Show runners sould have showed some balls and killed 'em all.
And where exactly does all this Bran is the living memory and story teller come from - dude hardly speaks and then its usually fortune cookie crap. Bron tells more stories than he does,.
I did feel like the end was a lot of fan service.
You are absolutely right on "her people' not caring about her burning kings landing, or rather not being appalled by it. The Dothraki freaking love that she did it. Missandi definitely called for it, I think she was upset that people were not thankful to her queen, as evidenced in the crypts during the battle of winterfell,
IT is also true that most of the time she has been better off not listening to her advisors and cutting loose.
Bran being the memory was mentioned during the battle of winterfell prep. What threw me was why does being the 3 Eyed Raven mean anything to the lords who were not at Winterfell? Like why is Yara not just like "He's the what now?" As to stories, yeah not shown too much on screen. I have to assume he related some of the stories to say his sisters prior to the Littlefinger Trial.
So building on my thoughts about Daenerys now that there have been some responses...
I think the showrunners did lay groundwork for Daenerys' turn. But those were usually resigned to the Big Stuff Happening(TM) moments. The turn would have felt more organic had there been more darkness in some of the quiet times. Subtle thing, but I think it would have helped had, say, some of the romantic moments been punctuated with a slightly dark off-note. Something that makes Jon (and the audience) say 'hmm'.
To me, that starts to bring in the performance and direction as part of the problem. Clarke didn't know her character was going to turn and that's okay (although it would have had to have helped IMO). But the directors could have asked her to try this line or that line in a different manner. It might also be that Emilia Clarke just can't deliver those kinds of subtleties. There are actors on the show who could definitely pull that off, but her natural performance seems to trend sweet and light.
I certainly think the writers made blunders, but the show is more than a script and the work of many more than two people. If Daenerys' turn doesn't feel organic (and I agree that it doesn't even as I knew it was a strong possibility), then there's blame to go around.
I had the thought earlier that an episode or two might have actually made it better. - Probably setting it around 'Last Hearth.'
The thing I found with Dany, was it was a sudden jump. Sure, there were hints of a road there and a possible path, like Tyrion-the-voice-of-the-showrunners called out. But it didn't feel natural.
It just felt like:
Noone:
Varys: "I'm worried that Dany's nuts."
Next episode:
*Dany goes nuts*
You could potentially pace things out... Have things as in-universe justifiable excuses (playing into Tyrion's point, and Jon's naivety.)
For example, start off with some collateral damage. There's a battle, maybe it's the Cavalry riding to intercept some low level White Walkers as they break through the gate.
The soldiers are mixing things up with the dead and are losing. Dany does a 'danger close' - Lots of northmen are shown visibly dying horrifically, alongside a lot of the undead. However, it allows the rest of the army to retreat.
A justifiable result. Horrible, but justifiable.
The Siege of Last Hearth.
Last Hearth falls, the gates fall, the keep falls. It's filled with children and people...
The White Walkers do their arm raising thing. The dead start slowly rising, the wave of them getting closer and closer to the hall containing hundreds of civilians.
Dracarys.
They would have been more enemies to fight at Winterfell. She had no choice.
Part of it might be a result of the medium. If Dany had made her turn over the course of 30-40 minutes of a movie, it might have felt more organic (not that it would have been, it's just the way we expect things to go with the time). With tv, and the way we watch it (at least this series, where every episode is watched as it comes out), time seems to unfold differently. I wonder if this season would play out differently if watched more like a movie.
The other element that occurs to me is Jon asks Tyrion if he was right to knife her and even Tyrion seems still not sure - "ask me in ten years"
Given that nothing is seen to change in the kingdoms except the faces around the table was he right? I assume the slavers will retake Meerem and start back up as before. Sansa is building her power base - I am sure Dorn and the other rulers will do the same. The game begins again - nothing has changed.
After all you can't make an empire and change the world without burning a few cities.......Now if Dany could still not have children - could she have even built a sustainable empire or was she always going to be Alexander the Great at some point. Would she have had to purge the Dothraki at some point to make her brave new world or at least destroy everything about their current culture.
Personally amongst the Jon Snow/Tyrion etc love in scenes I would have liked them to reference her reuniting with Drogo as she saw in her vision of a burned kings landing?
re time - the show is actualy very bad at telling you time has passed - it often does but there is little to no indication that it does.
Again, that time dilation might be down to medium. And expectations based on earlier seasons. I wouldn't have preferred a little subtitle that said "four months later" after some shots. It was unclear about time passing for about four seconds into a scene.
Two lines, one from GoT, the other from Wargames...
"When you play a game of thrones, you either win, or you die"
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play"
Gordon Shumway wrote: Again, that time dilation might be down to medium. And expectations based on earlier seasons. I wouldn't have preferred a little subtitle that said "four months later" after some shots. It was unclear about time passing for about four seconds into a scene.
That I very much agree on! Just a quick time framing.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Again, that time dilation might be down to medium. And expectations based on earlier seasons. I wouldn't have preferred a little subtitle that said "four months later" after some shots. It was unclear about time passing for about four seconds into a scene.
Jon comes across Greywurm executing people in the streets. Says he’s going to go have a talk with the queen about that behavior and leaves with Greywurm doing his thing in the background. Next scene Jon walks thru the parade grounds, up a flight a stairs, and there’s Greywurm at the top. It’s like what the hell? Are there two of you? Did you sprint down a side street as soon as I turned a corner? Did you steal the ancient teleportation jutsu passed down thru the lines of Nightwatch messenger boys?
Gordon Shumway wrote: Again, that time dilation might be down to medium. And expectations based on earlier seasons. I wouldn't have preferred a little subtitle that said "four months later" after some shots. It was unclear about time passing for about four seconds into a scene.
Jon comes across Greywurm executing people in the streets. Says he’s going to go have a talk with the queen about that behavior and leaves with Greywurm doing his thing in the background. Next scene Jon walks thru the parade grounds, up a flight a stairs, and there’s Greywurm at the top. It’s like what the hell? Are there two of you? Did you sprint down a side street as soon as I turned a corner? Did you steal the ancient teleportation jutsu passed down thru the lines of Nightwatch messenger boys?
I actually laughed at that scene, and if it was some kind of "joke" I could have forgive it. But no. The show just had lost any pretension of internal coherence.
MDSW wrote: ...Grey Worm needs to die... I am starting a petition!!!
I was pleased he survived
Although would have been good to have him turn up with Jon and Tyrion's head in a bag and chuck it at the feet of the motley collection of wannabee lords as a leaving present and then walk out - cut to the Unsullied and and the Dothraki loading their ships to head home.
One last thing - whatever happened to all the fanatical prirestess of the Lord of Light? Maybe Drogon is off to see them about the resurection of his mother. Can but hope.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Again, that time dilation might be down to medium. And expectations based on earlier seasons. I wouldn't have preferred a little subtitle that said "four months later" after some shots. It was unclear about time passing for about four seconds into a scene.
Jon comes across Greywurm executing people in the streets. Says he’s going to go have a talk with the queen about that behavior and leaves with Greywurm doing his thing in the background. Next scene Jon walks thru the parade grounds, up a flight a stairs, and there’s Greywurm at the top. It’s like what the hell? Are there two of you? Did you sprint down a side street as soon as I turned a corner? Did you steal the ancient teleportation jutsu passed down thru the lines of Nightwatch messenger boys?
I actually laughed at that scene, and if it was some kind of "joke" I could have forgive it. But no. The show just had lost any pretension of internal coherence.
The editing there was unfortunate. IIRC, the showrunners also directed that episode.
One last thing - whatever happened to all the fanatical prirestess of the Lord of Light? Maybe Drogon is off to see them about the resurection of his mother. Can but hope.
Of course!!! Jurnn Snerr had it done to him, so why not Dany!
I think the showrunners sent the Red Priests(-esses), R'hllor, the Great Other, Azor Ahai, The Prince who was Promised, Valonqar, Three Betrayals, and more off to the land of Welostinterest.
gorgon wrote: I think the showrunners sent the Red Priests(-esses), R'hllor, the Great Other, Azor Ahai, The Prince who was Promised, Valonqar, Three Betrayals, and more off to the land of Welostinterest.
The show regularly skipped over this stuff. Most notably when they showed the Valinqar scene and deliberately left out the Valinqar part. Honestly, the only reason most people are even aware they exist is because fans keep inserting them to support their fan theories.
One last thing - whatever happened to all the fanatical prirestess of the Lord of Light? Maybe Drogon is off to see them about the resurection of his mother. Can but hope.
Of course!!! Jurnn Snerr had it done to him, so why not Dany!
...Boy, will she wake up pi$$ed...
and still has a Dragon
I think the showrunners sent the Red Priests(-esses), R'hllor, the Great Other, Azor Ahai, The Prince who was Promised, Valonqar, Three Betrayals, and more off to the land of Welostinterest.
It was wierd how they dropped in some of this stuff (maybe GRM insisted they did so) and then did not bother to use them
eg- rather than treading water for most of season 7 they could have used them to build Dany's dark side - having her as a object of worship for the cult of the Lord of Light would have rang serious warning bells, with the church of the seven crippled they could have been a whole new dark power in the kingdoms which would have made melisandre's presence at the (pointless) battle of Wintefell just part of a growing relgious movement. Have dany at first not be happy about them, but grow to accept and embrace their worship as part of her "destiny".
Anyone notice how little dialogue there has been this season?
Its mostly been action and not character talking or even interacting.
It feel very disjointed from a relationship view for the character.
There was quite abit in the non battle episodes - before and after the Battle of Winterfell - some of it was not great but agree like much of the season it was very uneven.
gorgon wrote: I think the showrunners sent the Red Priests(-esses), R'hllor, the Great Other, Azor Ahai, The Prince who was Promised, Valonqar, Three Betrayals, and more off to the land of Welostinterest.
The show regularly skipped over this stuff. Most notably when they showed the Valinqar scene and deliberately left out the Valinqar part. Honestly, the only reason most people are even aware they exist is because fans keep inserting them to support their fan theories.
I'd say that they downplayed some, but the PTWP was definitely a thing in earlier seasons. Aemon and Melisandre (as recently as season 7) both talk about it. Then the writers ignored it at the Winterfell endgame because they had a kewl idea for Arya. Even though their finish line had Daenerys and Jon playing the roles of Nissa Nissa and Azor Ahai.
The PTWP does have some importance to the story, because it was a key motivator for Rhaegar. Of course, it's certainly possible that they 'saved' that material for prequel series and such.
gorgon wrote: I think the showrunners sent the Red Priests(-esses), R'hllor, the Great Other, Azor Ahai, The Prince who was Promised, Valonqar, Three Betrayals, and more off to the land of Welostinterest.
I've been mulling over this the past few days letting my thoughts settle. And tbh I think I liked the ending of this less than BSG or mass effect 3. Thing is, though I had problems with those endings too, at least I felt something. In GoT all I felt was bitterness, lack of emotional impact. The chris stuckmann review just reinforced all my thoughts on this.
The Ending felt 'hollow' and 'unearned'. The Ending of all these characters aren't very worthy of their endings. Jon Going north, makes some sense, but he felt like the best possible person to lead the north instead of Sansa. Sansa's plot line has been a bit of a downer for me especially when she implied she got that way and was proud she did because of her torture and psychological manipulation by people and that she is happy about that... Um what?
Jon's storyline felt neutered and unappealing, Jon did one big thing this season and thats about it. He had very few lines and little to no interaction with his heritage. If he had revealed to grey worm : "I am the Queen's Cousin." and instead of him being exiled but Arya would've added some weight to it and would've allowed Jon to have at least a nice ending. Arya feths off anyway so her going into exile would've made more sense as her punishment, she is exiled from all seven kingdoms and grey worm is happy with that. And fufilling her last prophesy of killing someone with green eyes...
Tyrion becoming hand makes sense but feels unearned. It should've been jon making that speech on behalf of tyrion, "We've lived under the rule of kings undetermined by lesser men."
Sansa scedeing in the end with the north made some sense but the iron islands and dorne are probably wondering "Why can't we?"
They should instead of allowed the North to stay but would govern themselves entirely and could have a queen and king, but instead act as an ally instead of a kingdom directly under the King of the Seven Kingdoms.
They should've addressed the elephant in the room that Tyrion is now Defacto Lord of Casterly Rock and Warden of the West. But they didn't.
Bronn being master of coin makes little sense considering he was a mercenary with no formal education. If anything it would made more sense to have been MASTER OF WAR.
The book at the end was stupid and unneeded, could've literally been, "The Maesters are working on a new work of the recent tragedies."
"It will be an interesting read when they finish it."
"The Song of Ice and Fire," Sam sings, "A tale worth telling."
End no need for that stupid dialogue.
Have a scene with Meera Reed and Bran Stark. Cause SHe deserves thanks or at least some acknowledgement in the script.
Something with Daario seeing the body of Dany delivered to him and a hint of that dany comes back to life and she is now with her true lover. This would satisfy a lot of plots and would give some credence to the lord of light. But she decides not to rule and goes to her house of the red door and tree. Home if you will. (Someone suggested this)
The unsullied arrive in Naath and all die because they arrive during the day.
Dorthraki would stay in westeros they wouldn't go back across the narrow sea.
The face of westeros and would change completely.
I guess what i am trying to say. This needed more time in the cooker there is no excuse for having 6 episodes in a TV series and trying to rush it. This felt super rushed that has almost two and a half years in development.
I think Jon's ending is better if he denies his birthright and *chooses* to go north out of disgust, shame and sorrow, instead of losing all agency at the hands of less consequential characters.
Now, it could be that GRRM intends for Jon's fate to parallel that of Daenerys -- that he's neutered and discarded once deemed both no longer useful and too dangerous to keep around. That'd make the whole story about the tragic end to the Targaryen family, and that would be fine too IMO. But then I'd think you'd want to at least mention his bloodline and make that part of the characters' discussion around his fate...?
Again, I think we have GRRM's finish line but a lead-up invented by the showrunners, and so it's not quite clear what the story is really about in the end.
Again, I think we have GRRM's finish line but a lead-up invented by the showrunners, and so it's not quite clear what the story is really about in the end.
I get the feeling from recent books that GRRM isn’t sure what the story is about anymore either. At the very least it feels like he isn’t sure how good or valid his original plan was in the decades since it was envisioned. I’m curious if it’s a duke nukem situation, where trying to develop ahead of an ever evolving audience has caused so many revamps that it just never gets done.
His plot threads are definitely trending toward Gordian knot status. Although I don't like many decisions made by the showrunners...they were presented lot of challenges and probably didn't have enough good answers from the architect.
Asherian Command wrote: The Ending felt 'hollow' and 'unearned'. The Ending of all these characters aren't very worthy of their endings. Jon Going north, makes some sense, but he felt like the best possible person to lead the north instead of Sansa. Sansa's plot line has been a bit of a downer for me especially when she implied she got that way and was proud she did because of her torture and psychological manipulation by people and that she is happy about that... Um what?
Jon's storyline felt neutered and unappealing, Jon did one big thing this season and thats about it. He had very few lines and little to no interaction with his heritage. If he had revealed to grey worm : "I am the Queen's Cousin." and instead of him being exiled but Arya would've added some weight to it and would've allowed Jon to have at least a nice ending. Arya feths off anyway so her going into exile would've made more sense as her punishment, she is exiled from all seven kingdoms and grey worm is happy with that. And fufilling her last prophesy of killing someone with green eyes...
Tyrion becoming hand makes sense but feels unearned. It should've been jon making that speech on behalf of tyrion, "We've lived under the rule of kings undetermined by lesser men."
Sansa scedeing in the end with the north made some sense but the iron islands and dorne are probably wondering "Why can't we?"
They should instead of allowed the North to stay but would govern themselves entirely and could have a queen and king, but instead act as an ally instead of a kingdom directly under the King of the Seven Kingdoms.
They should've addressed the elephant in the room that Tyrion is now Defacto Lord of Casterly Rock and Warden of the West. But they didn't.
Bronn being master of coin makes little sense considering he was a mercenary with no formal education. If anything it would made more sense to have been MASTER OF WAR.
The book at the end was stupid and unneeded, could've literally been, "The Maesters are working on a new work of the recent tragedies."
"It will be an interesting read when they finish it."
"The Song of Ice and Fire," Sam sings, "A tale worth telling."
End no need for that stupid dialogue.
Have a scene with Meera Reed and Bran Stark. Cause SHe deserves thanks or at least some acknowledgement in the script.
Something with Daario seeing the body of Dany delivered to him and a hint of that dany comes back to life and she is now with her true lover. This would satisfy a lot of plots and would give some credence to the lord of light. But she decides not to rule and goes to her house of the red door and tree. Home if you will. (Someone suggested this)
The unsullied arrive in Naath and all die because they arrive during the day.
Dorthraki would stay in westeros they wouldn't go back across the narrow sea.
The face of westeros and would change completely.
I guess what i am trying to say. This needed more time in the cooker there is no excuse for having 6 episodes in a TV series and trying to rush it. This felt super rushed that has almost two and a half years in development.
Lots of good stuff here and mostly agree - Although I think they went down the GRM rabbit hole in Season 7 and wasated an awful lot of time setting up plot strands that they then did not want or could not pursue.
I don't understand why the Unsullied die in daylight in naath? Am I missing a joke or story element?
If he had revealed to grey worm : "I am the Queen's Cousin."
Grey Worm would not have given a crap - one of the worst elements of that episode was that he had absolutely no reason not to slaughter Tyrion and Jon and then go straight to Naath - he has no interest or care for Westros - why did he stay at all?. Having him send their heads to the council whilst he and his men set sail for warmer climes would have been more in keeping with the supposed gritty /dark element that alot of people claim GOT was about.
Bran the silent "storyteller" is a very bad choice of king..
Electing Bran as king seems odd to me. I mean, shouldn't they form a Republic in that case, or everyone splits off to form their own kingdom? They north go to secede, so why not everyone else? The Queen of the Seven Kingdoms is dead with no heir, the Iron Throne is destroyed and King's Landing is a smoldering, lifeless ruin. Bran being elected as king of a dead kingdom with no throne makes no sense.
Why did Drogon melt the throne? Also, are Danny and all of her followers cretins? She just burned a city to the ground, and she calls them liberated. And then she acts surprised that Tyrion (who supposed to stop her from being a tyrant) and Jon betrays her. Like, I get what they are going for, but holy gak was it heavy handed and made of stupid.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Electing Bran as king seems odd to me.
I mean, shouldn't they form a Republic in that case, or everyone splits off to form their own kingdom? They north go to secede, so why not everyone else? The Queen of the Seven Kingdoms is dead with no heir, the Iron Throne is destroyed and King's Landing is a smoldering, lifeless ruin. Bran being elected as king of a dead kingdom with no throne makes no sense.
Why did Drogon melt the throne? Also, are Danny and all of her followers cretins? She just burned a city to the ground, and she calls them liberated. Like, I get what they are going for, but holy gak was it heavy handed and made of stupid.
There is no way in all seven hells that Dorn or the Iron Islands would accept the North being able to be independent and not them.
Something with Daario seeing the body of Dany delivered to him and a hint of that dany comes back to life and she is now with her true lover. This would satisfy a lot of plots and would give some credence to the lord of light. But she decides not to rule and goes to her house of the red door and tree. Home if you will. (Someone suggested this)
The unsullied arrive in Naath and all die because they arrive during the day.
Dorthraki would stay in westeros they wouldn't go back across the narrow sea.
Oh yeah, I was wondering what's with Daario. Didn't the Dothraki leave with the unsullied though? If they are just hanging around in Westeros that's going to cause some problems. What's with that wildling exodus at the end? Are they implying that Jon is going to live with them and become the Wildling king or something? Because that would be cool.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Electing Bran as king seems odd to me. I mean, shouldn't they form a Republic in that case, or everyone splits off to form their own kingdom? They north go to secede, so why not everyone else? The Queen of the Seven Kingdoms is dead with no heir, the Iron Throne is destroyed and King's Landing is a smoldering, lifeless ruin. Bran being elected as king of a dead kingdom with no throne makes no sense.
Why did Drogon melt the throne? Also, are Danny and all of her followers cretins? She just burned a city to the ground, and she calls them liberated. Like, I get what they are going for, but holy gak was it heavy handed and made of stupid.
There is no way in all seven hells that Dorn or the Iron Islands would accept the North being able to be independent and not them.
Exactly. As soon as Sansa chirped up the Dornish rep and Miss IronBorn wazzerface should have gone "oh, we can do that? We want out", and then everyone else wants out, and that should have been the end of the Seven Kingdoms. I mean, who's going to stop them? There's no Lannister or King's Landing army anymore, so anyone wanting the crown isn't going to be able to fight for it, and the Unsullied sure as hell aren't going to help anyone who's not Danny.
Also, why in the blue hell did Grey Worm not slit Jon Snow's dumb throat the second he killed Danny? Grey Worms ENTIRE BLOODY CHARACTER has been unswerving loyalty to Danny, he's literally been brainwashed into being loyal to whoever holds the whip.
Once Job stabs Dany I donlt think a single scene makes any sense.
Grey Worm would have butchered Jon and Tyrion mintues after Jon confesed to what he did, a much more powerful scene would have been the juxtaposition of sending their heads in a sack to the gathered "great and good" - cut back to him and his men boarding their ships. Then the unseemly squabling of the remaining nobles, the meeting breaking up in recrimination and anger as they all seek the crown of whats left..
What are thousands of bored, angry Dothraki doing? The Unsullied are happy to sail away, the Dothraki will see weakened peoples and cut a swath across whats left of the Kingdoms and who is going to stop them?
Apparently Kings Landing regens as effectively as the Unsullied, Northerners and Dothraki do - certainly the red keep is fixed pretty damn quickly - how - with money from where. Are they not massively in debt to the Iron bank?
Jamie the Good - well Jamie the guy who drops a child to his apparent death - with a quip. Who raped his sister, etc etc.
Bran the story teller (who never bothers to do so) will just be seen as a puppet of his sister who is building her power base - Dorne and the Iron Islands would break way in the same way. Yeah I get that apparently he is sceeming sod who does not care who dies but to those not part of hs direct family I guess they just think - we can get rid of him easily enough
So is he actually the super schemer who destroyed Jon and Dany so he could be king and or does he really not care about anything anymore? Is a disinterested king the right one for for a number of shattered, indebted kingdoms that look weak to anyone left with an army - hello Dothraki.
Bron in charge of coin was amusing but it won't be in a few months when he sods off with what he can get.
Yeah, if you think about it realistically, Jon murdering Danny should actually do more damage to society than letting her have her Lawful Stupid Evil moments. If he were smart he'd agree to be her king and use her love of him to try to temper her madness. Jon is not smart. For a Targ he's a true Stark - all honor and heart but no brains.
Bronn being in charge of coin was stupid. Funny, but stupid. He should have been Master of War or something, but NOT in charge of finances. That is a recipe for disaster. Jon could have been pardoned as soon as Grey Worm buggered off. You'd think Sansa would try to talk Bran into doing that, but whatever. Davos being lord of ships actually makes sense, so good on the writers for that, though you'd think that a Master of Laws would have been the first seat to be filled considering how its a new system of government.
Also, where are they supposed to be based? Isn't King's Landing a smoldering ruin filled with damaged masonry? Wouldn't installing the new seat of power there be very, very dumb? Since we're on that note, Danny is most certainly a cretin for destroying the city she wanted to occupy. That's like, Conquest 101.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, if you think about it realistically, Jon murdering Danny should actually do more damage to society than letting her have her Lawful Stupid Evil moments.
If he were smart he'd agree to be her king and use her love of him to try to temper her madness. Jon is not smart. For a Targ he's a true Stark - all honor and heart but no brains.
Bronn being in charge of coin was stupid. Funny, but stupid. He should have been Master of War or something, but NOT in charge of finances. That is a recipe for disaster.
Jon could have been pardoned as soon as Grey Worm buggered off. You'd think Sansa would try to talk Bran into doing that, but whatever.
Davos being lord of ships actually makes sense, so good on the writers for that, though you'd think that a Master of Laws would have been the first seat to be filled considering how its a new system of government.
Also, where are they supposed to be based? Isn't King's Landing a smoldering ruin filled with damaged masonry? Wouldn't installing the new seat of power there be very, very dumb? Since we're on that note, Danny is most certainly a cretin for destroying the city she wanted to occupy. That's like, Conquest 101.
Yep Honor did not help save the people in Kings Landing - not telling his sister as she asked, sorry begged him not to and staying in her bed would have helped more than his brush off. But nope - Jon is his step fathers son = the kingdom can fall but my honour will not.....
meh - thre were some (occassional) good moments in a weak season. On to the next show - there are plenty better - rather enjoyed the Expanse recently.
Sister? Are you talking about Danny? Danny is his aunt, not sister.
Danny is his father's sister, making Jon her nephew.
I mean, its not great but we're not talking about Jaime tier incest, more like Emperor Claudius tier.
Fun fact - apparently, Avunculate marriages (between Aunt and Nephew, or Uncle and Niece), were actually quite common and not that frowned upon, and today is still permitted in Australia, Russia, Argentina, Canada and Finland.
Historically non-sibling incest was common even in prudish western societies as much as 100 years ago. There were usually rules to it, like only marrying a woman from your mothers side and vice versa but it’s only really recently that anyone about 3rd cousin or closer became off limits.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Sister? Are you talking about Danny? Danny is his aunt, not sister.
Danny is his father's sister, making Jon her nephew.
I mean, its not great but we're not talking about Jaime tier incest, more like Emperor Claudius tier.
Fun fact - apparently, Avunculate marriages (between Aunt and Nephew, or Uncle and Niece), were actually quite common and not that frowned upon, and today is still permitted in Australia, Russia, Argentina, Canada and Finland.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Sister? Are you talking about Danny? Danny is his aunt, not sister. Danny is his father's sister, making Jon her nephew. I mean, its not great but we're not talking about Jaime tier incest, more like Emperor Claudius tier.
Fun fact - apparently, Avunculate marriages (between Aunt and Nephew, or Uncle and Niece), were actually quite common and not that frowned upon, and today is still permitted in Australia, Russia, Argentina, Canada and Finland.
So yeah...it would have probably been fine for Jon and Danny to get hitched in (well, European, dunno about Westeros ) medieval society.
Jon telling Sansa after Dany begged him not to.
Ah pardon, misread it. Yeah, that was a dick move. The fact that she didn't immediately execute him like she did with Varys should have been a hint to him that she really doesn't want to kill him (like Tyrion said. Tyrion has a track record of being wrong these days, holy gak), which gives him a bit of power over her. Which he didn't use. Because Jon is dumb.
I swear, the writers' took the "You know nothing, Jon Snow" line and interpreted it to mean "you are dumb, Jon Snow", and just impregnated his character with stupid.
Has anyone bothered to point out that the show started going downhill in s2 and the endgame was ruined by s5?
In s2 Asha Greyjoy was renamed Yara because apparently viewers would confuse her and Osha...how many scenes do they have together?
Jeyne Westerling was replaced by Talisa and Robb went from mirroring his father's actions (marrying out of duty and honor) to marrying a commoner out of love.
The best change is arguably that Tywin was present at Harrenhal a great deal more and he had very good scenes with Arya.
Lady Stoneheart was removed which changed everything. Beric died to resurrect her so he wouldn't have appeared in any of the final 3 seasons. Lady Stoneheart would have likely been responsible for killing off the Freys instead of Arya so Arya wouldn't have been turned into a psychotic killer that feeds a man his own sons or somehow manages to poison and kill off an entire family.
Young Griff/Aegon Targaryen was removed and he likely would have been the one to seize control of the south instead of Cersei which means Daenyrs would have been facing off against a false Targaryen/Blackfyre/her own true kin instead of Cersei.
Marwen the Mage was axed along with the entire Citadel conspiracy storyline.
Euron in the show was a bastardized, neutered composite character of book Euron and Victarion. Book Euron was considerably more menacing and Victarion clearly had some small role to play.
The Faceless Men infiltrating the Citadel was also cut out.
Honestly, they kind of had to cut stuff out otherwise they'd need 13 damn seasons to get through the first few books and then a near decade long hiatus because there are so many unconnected but they were brought up and now need to be resolved plot threads actually finishing the story would be impossible.
I like the books, but there's a lot of really pointless and unnecessary stuff in them (and this is coming from someone who loved the way the Malazan books meandered through PoV characters not advancing the plot one iota).
LordofHats wrote: Honestly, they kind of had to cut stuff out otherwise they'd need 13 damn seasons to get through the first few books and then a near decade long hiatus because there are so many unconnected but they were brought up and now need to be resolved plot threads actually finishing the story would be impossible.
I like the books, but there's a lot of really pointless and unnecessary stuff in them (and this is coming from someone who loved the way the Malazan books meandered through PoV characters not advancing the plot one iota).
I think they could do it ten, ten episode seasons without cutting out the most plot relevant content. The bigger problem is that without a resolution already written the books look like they're only halfway or two-thirds finished at best. Also, we don't know what is and what isn't necessarily pointless because without a resolution we don't know how everything ties in together. "Everyone" thought fAegon and LSH were pointless until seasons 7 and 8 were finished and then suddenly realized that both were critical to an ending that made sense. The Citadel conspiracy and Faceless Men stuff probably ties in as well. I'm not sure how the Dornish Prince and Victarion going to Mereen tie in though...unless Victarion's arc was loosely replaced with Asha/Yara going to Mereen and honestly, Dorne was basically dropped from the show after s6 for all intents and purposes.
Also consider that things that dominated the season 6 plotline and parts of season 5 had no basis in the books. We don't know where the Sparrow plotline is going or how significant it will be. Arya's training will probably be completely different. Daenyrs may not even have anything to do with the Dothraki anymore.
More and more I just want a few small satisfying changes. In addition to more time developing these story beats that shouldn't have fallen as flat as they did (most were very much telegraphed, if only D&D could have told them better). My ideal final episode would be more or less the same, but Grey Worm is present when Jon stabs Daenerys and Grey Worm attacks Jon in retribution, slowly getting the upper hand and defeating Jon, disarming him. Before grey Worm can finish him, Drogon lands and screeches about his mother's death just as in live, Grey Worm backs off and decides to leave Jon's fate to Drogon (thinking him assuredly dead) who blasts Jon and the Iron Throne behind him. Throne melts just as in live, but nekkid flame-bathed Aegon Targaryan emerges from dragonflame untouched to Grey Worms anger/annoyance, but deed is done and Drogon flies off w/ Danny's body as in live. With no Danny to betray and Jon the heir apparent, Tyrion and others intend to name him King at the council meeting but Jon completely and absolutely REFUSES the crown, exiles himself to the north beyond the wall (possibly taking mantle of King beyond the Wall) and specifically leaves the lords/ladies of Westeros to determine a new and better king. Tyrion blathers on just as in the final episode, and names Bran. Bran shuts down Sansa's independent nation BS, but acknowledges the North as a semi-independent state with their own king-reagents and queen-reagents subservient ONLY to the absolute authority of the crown, blah-blah-blah 7 kingdoms remain but North is effectively independent without technically being a separate kingdon. When Sansa protests, Bran shuts her the F down again pointing to their diminished households and promising provisions to see them through Winter. Sansa 'accepts this", while showing to the viewer that she is thinking long-term and independance in fuure (possibly MUCH farther future long after the Starkss). Bran then generally does Bran crap, scenes of Bronn and Brienne and Tyrion arguing etc.
But in the final shot shows Bran looking in a mirror, where he smiles exquisitely to himself and admits out loud that "Chaos is indeed a ladder", cementing what he wanted all along: His own control of the thronw. It shows that Bran the Broken knowingly sacrifieced thousands if not millions of lives on the one and only, THE exact timeline that let he himself ascend the throne.Eespecialy since three-eyed ravens live for a very, VERY looooong time...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Basically, I want exactly what we got, just with a little more context and a lot more finesse
I just finished watching the season. It just felt so horribly rushed. I was kind of expecting Dany to go psycho but because it was so compressed in time that it felt weird, then the final episode of tying up loose ends just felt awkward, forced and often illogical.
They would have done better if they’d just ended at Jon killing Dany then call it the end and let fans guess how things wrap up (not saying they should have done that, just it would have been better than the half episode they gave trying to tie up those loose ends).
They should have spent a few seasons working through all that happened and spent more time on the writing. Ideally would have been better if GRRM actually finished with the books before the end so that they had something to work from.
Its mostly been action and not character talking or even interacting.
It feel very disjointed from a relationship view for the character.
The fact is that GoT writers are not very good. It has always been the case that whenever they had ventured outside of what GRRM has laid down for them, the results ain't great. It has been that way from very beginning, not just last few seasons. Series became ever crappier as they had less and less Martin-written material to rely on. Particularly they seemed to have problems writing very intelligent, scheming characters like Tyrion, Varys and Littlefinger.
It is obvious that many of the problems of the last two season are due to extreme compression. They squeezed like 25 episodes worth of stuff for 13 episodes. It's bound to hurt the presentation. Many of the arcs were resolved either too quickly or poorly. Still, I think the fanbase is too hard on the showmakers in this. You can't expect to keep this sort of show running forever. Principal actors will eventually want to move to other things, this is not like a sitcom where you just write someone out or wrap up things within an episode. As I understand, many of the GoT cast were quite burnt out for the show towards the end.
Despite the obvious issues with Season 8 (episode 4 was particular stinker), I still liked the ending. It was quite fitting. Frankly, many people seemed to be hoping for more fairytale-ish ending. This is a story where surprise twists, character deaths and subverting of expectations is the norm. Queen Dany or King Jon??? Oh no, we have one more twist for you, it's King Three-Eyed Raven. Don't like it? Too bad, this is what you signed up for. Hey, even LotR actually had bittersweet ending.
Also I really liked cinematography in these last episodes. This season had many quite awesome visuals and cuts. It was at its best, very epic, even when the writing wasn't always up to snuff.
But thankfully his strength is being able to know anything. Past, future or present. And he’s barely into his Teens.
When you need a long period of peace and stability to rebuild numerous kingdoms, and possibly rework your economic model? I can think of no one better.
Indeed, not being emotional as a leader is a massive, massive leg up. All his acts will be inherently dispassionate.
If someone reports a crime or a land grab etc, Bran the Broken can simply see the truth. He’ll also be able to see Assassination attempts in advance.
He’s pretty much destined to have a long and beneficial rein.
And that’s exactly what Westeros needs right now. A man without any emotion is fundamentally incorruptible. Any big decision that lands upon his lap can be analysed with predictive vision.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sure, the way Tyrion pitched him was weak. But if I could vote for a omniscient Premiere, with no stake in what they saw? You goddamn better believe they’re getting my vote.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: But thankfully his strength is being able to know anything. Past, future or present. And he’s barely into his Teens.
When you need a long period of peace and stability to rebuild numerous kingdoms, and possibly rework your economic model? I can think of no one better.
Indeed, not being emotional as a leader is a massive, massive leg up. All his acts will be inherently dispassionate.
If someone reports a crime or a land grab etc, Bran the Broken can simply see the truth. He’ll also be able to see Assassination attempts in advance.
He’s pretty much destined to have a long and beneficial rein.
And that’s exactly what Westeros needs right now. A man without any emotion is fundamentally incorruptible. Any big decision that lands upon his lap can be analysed with predictive vision.
Is that what he is really? Cos at the moment it looks like he is a psycopath who has manipulated friends, allies and family, shruged at the deaths of tens of thousands all so he can sit on a throne that he claims to care nothing about?
So if Bran can see the future, can alter it and is not a bad guy- why did he allow the last two seasons to happen - why allow everyone to die at Winterfell when he knew he just eneded Arya in a tree.
When did he gain telepathy?
When did he ever use his gift to ebenfit someone other than himself.
If he is not the bad guy and is simply Bran the broken who "mostly lives in the past" I give him six months before he is killed and shattered, in debt likely starving kingdoms return to civil war.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: But thankfully his strength is being able to know anything. Past, future or present. And he’s barely into his Teens.
When you need a long period of peace and stability to rebuild numerous kingdoms, and possibly rework your economic model? I can think of no one better.
Indeed, not being emotional as a leader is a massive, massive leg up. All his acts will be inherently dispassionate.
If someone reports a crime or a land grab etc, Bran the Broken can simply see the truth. He’ll also be able to see Assassination attempts in advance.
He’s pretty much destined to have a long and beneficial rein.
And that’s exactly what Westeros needs right now. A man without any emotion is fundamentally incorruptible. Any big decision that lands upon his lap can be analysed with predictive vision.
Is that what he is really? Cos at the moment it looks like he is a psycopath who has manipulated friends, allies and family, shruged at the deaths of tens of thousands all so he can sit on a throne that he claims to care nothing about?
So if Bran can see the future, can alter it and is not a bad guy- why did he allow the last two seasons to happen - why allow everyone to die at Winterfell when he knew he just eneded Arya in a tree.
Bran is not Thanos. Three-Eyed Raven has quite limited powers. Could he have stopped Dany destroying the city by warning the others? It's a stretch, and it might have led to something worse. Basically, he was doing what Strange did in Infinity War - pick up the best possible future shown.
He can see at least *a* future. And it could be, going on the show alone, that he can see multiple, and goes for the least worse option, manipulating events just so to get there.
He is indeed utterly emotionless. That, in a leader, is not an inherently bad thing. Any decision he makes isn’t coloured by ego, desire, wrath etc.
And there’s nothing wrong in doing a Dr Strange.
What Dany did was objectively horrific. She could, and arguably should, have done is just torch The Red Keep. Nothing and no-one could’ve done a bad thing about it.
But....what if Bran saw somehow intervening would only lead to more widespread destruction? What if Dany’s excess of wrath hasn’t played out in King’s Landing, and was used on pretty much everyone else? Better than a couple of hundred thousand suffer injustice, than millions. It was Dany going full on Tonto that saw Jon put and end to her.
So, the Three Eyed Raven is neither benevolent (despite my earlier assertion, which was erroneous) nor malevolent. Bran, as ‘the host’ has a decent moral compass. And all we’ve seen so far is him using it for the collective good - even when it means massive casualties.
As I said, Tyrion’s selling of Bran to the others was weak. But, when us the audience actually consider, he’s a mighty fine candidate.
Bran...all-knowing, emotionless, and theoretically pragmatic. Bran is the Skynet of the Seven Kingdoms. He will eventually realize the only way to save the Seven Kingdoms is to remove all of the people infecting it.
(Terminator theme begins playing) You done fethed up.
Same way he is described as the greatest most important story teller, because he never does?
The relationship between Jon and Dany was twisted by him at a pivotal moment and it just so happens that then Mr nice guy ends up king once those peices are removed from the board?
Hmm ok, not at all suspicious.
Why are we assuming that Bran - the emotionless, gitfted with powers from an alien race is the good guy?
What tells us this in the shown narrative?
Again when has he ever used his powers to save others?
Right so:
no rage - or care for others or anything
no hate or compassion for others.
Yeah either he is the big bad or the remaining nations are fethed big time.
The Skynet annology is pretty good.
Bran, as ‘the host’ has a decent moral compass. And all we’ve seen so far is him using it for the collective good - even when it means massive casualties.
When and how did he do this on screen?
The problem with Tv Bran is that we don;t know what or why he does anything, he never seems to do anything that matters, never tells anyone anything that matters - even for us as viewers seeing the big picture - he does and says nothing. He really is Bran the Pointless. maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong, but we have absolutely nothing to base anything on. The only thing he has done is save himself by killing a friend, a devoted friend.
The underlying presumption of the actions undertaken by Varys, Tyrion, and Jon over the course of Game of Thrones’ final few episodes is that Daenerys is in some sense unstable, as reflected by her willingness to harm the civilian population of King’s Landing.
But this simply isn’t true.
Daenerys has an objective — to induce the Lords of Westeros to bend the knee and acknowledge her supremacy — and her attack on King’s Landing in “The Bells” was well-calibrated to achieve that objective. She had previously offered Queen Cersei the opportunity surrender, and Cersei refused — packing the city with civilians and ringing it with air defenses that pose a lethal threat to Drogon, Daenerys’s one remaining dragon. A combination of skilled piloting and poor marksmanship allowed Daenerys to overcome the city’s air defenses, destroy the Golden Company, and induce the Lannisters to attempt to surrender.
If Daenerys had simply allowed King’s Landing to surrender without consequences only after she evaded its air defenses, then every other recalcitrant lord in the Seven Kingdoms would have incentive to resist her. After all, it only takes a lucky shot or two to bring down the dragon — and the Queen riding him — and if she manages to burn your scorpions, you can always just surrender.
The Breaker of Chains can be legitimately faulted for not explaining the strategic logic of her actions to key subordinates before the battle began. But in her defense, those same key subordinates had spent the previous days spreading treasonous talk about Jon Snow being the rightful heir to the Iron Throne, so she can perhaps be forgiven for not fully taking them into her confidence.
Making an example of King’s Landing was a harsh decision. It was a cruel decision. And it’s certainly a decision whose morality one could question. But it wasn’t a “crazy” decision or the act of a Mad Queen — it was a rational calculation based on a clear-eyed assessment of the strategic situation.
The whole article is more about how the idea of elective monarchy doesn't work, which wasn't quite as interesting to me as the above take, that what she did was more of an Ender-like move to win all the fights that would come after as well.
The underlying presumption of the actions undertaken by Varys, Tyrion, and Jon over the course of Game of Thrones’ final few episodes is that Daenerys is in some sense unstable, as reflected by her willingness to harm the civilian population of King’s Landing.
Of course if she had ignored their advice in episode one of Season 7 - everything would have been fine.
My problem is not that Dany was wrong to burn Kings Landing - its perfectly justifiable in the context of both her world and the equivalent period of our own but it was against her own character. The rapid, complete merciless and brutal destruction of the enemy forces was ALL her and I would have been fine with her (to Tyrion and Jons hypoctritical horror) ordering the death of all Lannister and mercenary forces that surivived.
Burning the entire city was just not her, as effective and understandable as it was.
Yep, a fast-forwarded massive character change is just poor writing.
In general I found the whole "ohhh, Danny is the new Cersei!" thing pretty blatant and telegraphed. First time we see her she's in white...now she's in black...ohhhhh deep and interesting! It was really ham-fisted for a story device.
Burning down the city would have felt more justified if the fight had been harder, her forces had suffered heavy losses or some (more) of her close advisors had died. But she breezed through defences shockingly easily, in fact the whole much-anticipated fight was over in about 3 minutes. So she should have been jubilant and overjoyed, not vengeful.
It's again, the problem with compression and trying to squeeze too much into the very limited time. Also, I question the wisdom to concentrate quarter of the screentime in Ep. 5 for Arya who did nothing there. I was expecting a big fleet battle but instead Drogon Death starred entire fleet in 30 seconds. I guess Cersei can be excused to miss that!
As for Bran, he did not step up (figuratively) and declare himself king. Tyrion made argument for that, using his judgement that Bran was a good guy and would be a capable ruler. Bran simply announced that he had known it would happen. We of course can't KNOW if Tyrion was right, but that goes with every ruler.
Yep, if it had been a slow noticeable burn through two or three seasons to where she finally cracks, and goes nuts...it would have been okay. Even seeing far more "wait, what!?" from her loyal companions would have been good TV. Seeing Grey Worm torn between avenging Missandei and obeying orders and not wanting to murder random people would have been a nice touch. Instead they hit the "bad guy" switch on too many characters.
Danny was expressing genuine remorse a couple of episodes prior when she found out she'd burned Sam's dad and brother...but...flaming entire crowds of women and children comes pretty easy it seems.
Backfire wrote: Burning down the city would have felt more justified if the fight had been harder, her forces had suffered heavy losses or some (more) of her close advisors had died. But she breezed through defences shockingly easily, in fact the whole much-anticipated fight was over in about 3 minutes. So she should have been jubilant and overjoyed, not vengeful.
It's again, the problem with compression and trying to squeeze too much into the very limited time. Also, I question the wisdom to concentrate quarter of the screentime in Ep. 5 for Arya who did nothing there. I was expecting a big fleet battle but instead Drogon Death starred entire fleet in 30 seconds. I guess Cersei can be excused to miss that!
As for Bran, he did not step up (figuratively) and declare himself king. Tyrion made argument for that, using his judgement that Bran was a good guy and would be a capable ruler. Bran simply announced that he had known it would happen.
We of course can't KNOW if Tyrion was right, but that goes with every ruler.
Thing is Tyrion does not know anything about him, there is no interaction between them other than a couple of conversations where Bran confirms he is not interested in the current world. yeah I agree they skipped on so much (mostly due to wasting the entire Season 7).
The whole story telling crap comes from knowwhere - bran never does it, its never shown on screen or even alluded to beyond a couple of characters suddnely declaring out of the blue that he, just is to crowbar him into the ongoing narrative.
We also have the whole "I saw this coming" about being King, which does imply that his manipulation of Jon's true heritage is part of his plan?
I didn’t quite get what’s going on with the nightswatch now. They sent Jon back there as if it’s all returned to normal, but supposedly any wildlings left north of the wall would be dead, or ones that came south for the battle and decided they like it better up north anyway, and the Nightwatch itself would be wiped out from those various battles and with the night king gone their original purpose is also finished.
Maybe the writers play too much total war where legendary lords and armies just regen after an idle turn or two, lol.
Those two guys Jon marched back to the North with WERE the Night Watch I wondered a bit about that too. Presumably White Walkers are gone and Free Folk are friendlies now. I suppose there might be like some bandits or something to guard against, but...
Backfire wrote: Those two guys Jon marched back to the North with WERE the Night Watch I wondered a bit about that too. Presumably White Walkers are gone and Free Folk are friendlies now. I suppose there might be like some bandits or something to guard against, but...
whats the point then? The Nights Watch might as well be defunc.
We also have the whole "I saw this coming" about being King, which does imply that his manipulation of Jon's true heritage is part of his plan?
But Sam found about it independently, no? So it would have happened regardless of Bran.
Tyrion's argument for Bran seemed somewhat thin, for sure, given the limited interaction they have had. Starks had no claim for..err...Molten Throne. If Jon, last known Targaryen, was disqualified due to his murdering the queen (admittably it would set a poor precedent), then why not Gendry who is acknowledged son of the former king? Though Tyrion's argument seemed to be that blood heritage was obsolete way of determining the ruler and thus Baratheon or Targaryen heritage no longer mattered as the monarch would be elected by Lords. Which is really very poor way to determine succession and likely to promote instability, but lets not get to there.
Curious that he preferred Bran, not Sansa. Though undoubtely he is right, Sansa comes across very power-hungry. Guess he knew his ex-wife!
Saw this on Imgur, and I have to say, if they did it on purpose maybe someday the GoT writers will come up with something better?
Spoiler:
Or maybe GRRM deserves a little credit? That's some pretty classic irony, right in line with old Norse songs and sagas actually. People in those almost always ended their journey's in a way that seemed opposite to their expectations.
On March 21st 2019, weeks before the final season of Game of Thrones was set to air, Emilia Clarke penned a personal essay for the New Yorker. [ link here: tiny.cc/emilia ] In it, she opened up about the serious health struggles she experienced in the early stages of filming for the show, and how she fought through pain, fear and exhaustion to give her all to each performance. Her revelation came as a huge shock; to know that in season 2, while Daenerys was leading her khalasar across the bleak Red Waste and fiercely fighting for her life at the gates of Qarth, Emilia was similarly fighting for hers.
She speaks often of the inspiration and source of strength that Dany has been for her over the past ten years, and she is not alone. Emilia’s incredible Emmy-worthy acting and dedication to her character has inspired thousands and, as each season passed, we fell more and more in love with Dany. We rooted for her through trauma and hardship. We watched her triumph over her enemies and struggle with responsibility of rule. We saw her grapple between the urge for revenge, and the need for justice. And even at the very end, when things took a tragic turn for Daenerys Stormborn, Emilia still made us feel pity for the little girl who only ever wanted to return to her home.
This fundraiser began in r/freefolk, the same subreddit the now-infamous petition originated from. Since the tongue-in-cheek nature of that petition has flown over a lot of peoples' heads, to the point that it's prompted backlash from some of the cast, we wanted to show that Game of Thrones fans appreciate the hard work of the incredible cast & crew despite their constraints. Any disappointment we felt with the conclusion of the series was not in them, but rather in the potential that was lost due to the rushed pace of storytelling.
And so, as a gesture of love and support from the fandom to the entire cast & crew - but also particularly to the woman who poured her very soul into her character, who delivered passionate speeches in High Valyrian and Dothraki in between questioning her very mortality, and inspired so many of us with her resilience - I am setting up this page as a public support of her charity, SameYou.
#ThankYouEmilia for bringing Daenerys to life. Thank you Lena, Nikolaj, Peter, Gwendoline, Jacob, Nathalie, Alfie, Kit, Sophie, Maisie, Isaac, Liam, Iain, Conleth, Kristofer, Pilou, Rory and the rest of the cast. Thank you to all the crew, the special effects departments and set designers, costume designers and casting, musicians and technicians, the camera crew, the stunt co-ordinators, the long list of people who've devoted themselves to giving everything they could to lift this juggernaut of a series to its lofty levels of success and attention. You all deserve to be recognised. Thank you.
Very noble goal started by people from R/freefolk.
We also have the whole "I saw this coming" about being King, which does imply that his manipulation of Jon's true heritage is part of his plan?
But Sam found about it independently, no? So it would have happened regardless of Bran.
Tyrion's argument for Bran seemed somewhat thin, for sure, given the limited interaction they have had. Starks had no claim for..err...Molten Throne. If Jon, last known Targaryen, was disqualified due to his murdering the queen (admittably it would set a poor precedent), then why not Gendry who is acknowledged son of the former king? Though Tyrion's argument seemed to be that blood heritage was obsolete way of determining the ruler and thus Baratheon or Targaryen heritage no longer mattered as the monarch would be elected by Lords. Which is really very poor way to determine succession and likely to promote instability, but lets not get to there.
Curious that he preferred Bran, not Sansa. Though undoubtely he is right, Sansa comes across very power-hungry. Guess he knew his ex-wife!
Bran pushed Sam to do it before the battle, to begin the break of burgeoning alliance betwen Dany and Jon at a dangerous time, if it had happend later, say when they were in the South, would it have had the same impact.....it works if if he is the bad guy and looking to destroy threats to his ascension, knowing Arya will kill his only other enemy.
The council electing him is just horrible - Tyrions speech just makes no sense - "Yeah we should ignore bloodlines but Bran is a Stark so qualifies"... he tells stories (well he doesn;t but we are told he does, whatever happened to show don;t tell) - so does Tyrion and lots of others - in fact pretty much everyone but Bron Why is Tyron and Jon even still alive. Why does Dorne (like the most powerful nation left) nod it through, we donlt want a king but a queen in the north is fine. Where are the Librarian people. No mention of crushing debt to the Iron Bank, no mention of rebuilding costs from somewhere - in fact the entire political element of GOT is ignored in favour of a few cheap laughs and lets give everything to the Starks."
As you say the succession question is brushed aside despite it likely to become the number one problem in the future. Adoption of heirs has worked in the past but it has also lead to the same problems as bloodlines - power corrupts.
I don't get it, why are they giving an actress who already makes a lot of money more money?
I donlt think they are? Isn;t it for her chosen charity?
please note that this is a FUNDRAISER for the CHARITY SameYou. Not a “counter petition”.
I just finished off the last series, I was inspired by a recent visit to the GoT exhibition in Belfast.
It could have used a little more time, but I enjoyed the broad brushstrokes and thought it was a decent ending.
Having had a bit more time to think; I really like how they ended Jamie's story.
They didn't turn him into a cartoon villain, he retained the ability to be kind, honorable and brave, but he remained ruthlessly committed to the Lanister family and Cersei up until the very end.
Kroem wrote: Having had a bit more time to think; I really like how they ended Jamie's story.
They didn't turn him into a cartoon villain, he retained the ability to be kind, honorable and brave, but he remained ruthlessly committed to the Lanister family and Cersei up until the very end.
Nope they did that to Dany instead.
Jamie is interesting though (and a female fan favourite despite throwing childen our of windows and raping his sister.....) - did he really redeem himself?
gorgon wrote: Despite all the 'big stuff happening' of the past couple seasons, it's interesting how so much landed on 'nothing really changes or matters'.
Well it really is just a War of the Roses (except the White Walkers). except for the peasants getting caught in the crossfire, its strictly a "welcome to the new boss. He's the same as the old boss," affair.
gorgon wrote: Despite all the 'big stuff happening' of the past couple seasons, it's interesting how so much landed on 'nothing really changes or matters'.
Well it really is just a War of the Roses (except the White Walkers). except for the peasants getting caught in the crossfire, its strictly a "welcome to the new boss. He's the same as the old boss," affair.
Unfortunately, due to the bad writing of the last few seasons, I don't think we can tell if that's Martin's goal or just the writers not realizing that they've just set everything up to immediately fall apart again.
Could be either, really. It may be GRRM's finish line and message. And it'd be perfectly valid. But I suspect he'd take a different path to getting there so that plot threads don't end up at 'never mind'. 'Never mind' is a different thing than commentary on the value of stability or cycles repeating.
Bran pushed Sam to do it before the battle, to begin the break of burgeoning alliance betwen Dany and Jon at a dangerous time, if it had happend later, say when they were in the South, would it have had the same impact.....it works if if he is the bad guy and looking to destroy threats to his ascension, knowing Arya will kill his only other enemy.
The council electing him is just horrible - Tyrions speech just makes no sense - "Yeah we should ignore bloodlines but Bran is a Stark so qualifies"... he tells stories (well he doesn;t but we are told he does, whatever happened to show don;t tell) - so does Tyrion and lots of others - in fact pretty much everyone but Bron Why is Tyron and Jon even still alive. Why does Dorne (like the most powerful nation left) nod it through, we donlt want a king but a queen in the north is fine. Where are the Librarian people.
Think Sam represents them? Yea it's weird they let North to have independence and not Dorne, which had much stronger tradition of independence, they actually had special privileges even under Targaryen rule. It feels like feelgood moment cooked up for Starks. Like they needed any.
I think Tyrion's case for Bran is good one, though it was not very well presented. First, they likely want new monarch to be from one of the major families so he'll have authority and continuity. Problem is, most of the major families are gone. Jon and Tyrion are unacceptable for Dany's old army. Gendry is too unknown, same for Edmure, Arya and Yara, and whoever they had from Dorne and Vale (is Robin still alive?). There doesn't seem to be Tyrrells left. So it is basically just Bran and Sansa. From those, Bran is preferable as he is male, was not involved in any of the nastiness and comes across as less power hungry than Sansa. And most importantly, he (allegedly) can't produce a heir, which fits right into Tyrion's system where monarchs would be elected. Other candidates would likely produce heirs and would be tempted to arrange them as their successor, thus defeating Tyrions vision right away.
Elective Monarchies are a recipe for disaster though. The next few decades will see lords conspiring and blackmailing each other to get votes and to put who they want on the throne. If there isn't a civil war in the next few years I'm called bs.
Its just not a viable long term system of government, and most Elective Monarchies end up becoming hereditary, as all it takes is for one family to gain enough power to ensure that they always get elected. See: The Habsburgs
Tyrion should know this, he's seen how nobles will conspire and plot with one another to gain power, and that giving them a choice is a bad idea. Especially since one house, Highgarden, is the source of most of the food in the Kingdom. Which means whoever controls Highgarden controls the votes. All hail King Bronn's dynasty.
They should have formed a republic, split the kingdom (is there a point in having a Seven Kingdoms anymore? There's no central army and King's Landing is in ruins), or forced Jon to become king after Grey Worm left.
It seems the writers wanted to think that a Elective Monarchy is a form of progress, but its actually an unstable form of government that was usually used by early civilizations, until they got it all together and came up with more long term solutions.
The wheel wasn't broken, just tilted a little.
True "progress" and "wheel breaking" would have taken the form of a republic, with the major houses ruling the nation together and making sure that no house is more powerful than another. Its a much more viable solution than an Elective Monarchy, which is more "winner takes all"
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Elective Monarchies are a recipe for disaster though. The next few decades will see lords conspiring and blackmailing each other to get votes and to put who they want on the throne. If there isn't a civil war in the next few years I'm called bs.
Its just not a viable long term system of government, and most Elective Monarchies end up becoming hereditary, as all it takes is for one family to gain enough power to ensure that they always get elected. See: The Habsburgs
Tyrion should know this, he's seen how nobles will conspire and plot with one another to gain power, and that giving them a choice is a bad idea. Especially since one house, Highgarden, is the source of most of the food in the Kingdom. Which means whoever controls Highgarden controls the votes. All hail King Bronn's dynasty.
They should have formed a republic, split the kingdom (is there a point in having a Seven Kingdoms anymore? There's no central army and King's Landing is in ruins), or forced Jon to become king after Grey Worm left.
It seems the writers wanted to think that a Elective Monarchy is a form of progress, but its actually an unstable form of government that was usually used by early civilizations, until they got it all together and came up with more long term solutions.
All true, but maybe Tyrion can be excused for not knowing better. We know based on our historical examples that elective monarchies aren't very workable, but in Westeros such system had never been in place before. Free Cities maybe had something similar going, perhaps Tyrion had or should have read about them.
Hereditary monarchy of Westeros had provided some spectacularly bad examples in recent memory, so Tyrion surely reasoned that any change would be an improvement.
Bran pushed Sam to do it before the battle, to begin the break of burgeoning alliance betwen Dany and Jon at a dangerous time, if it had happend later, say when they were in the South, would it have had the same impact.....it works if if he is the bad guy and looking to destroy threats to his ascension, knowing Arya will kill his only other enemy.
The council electing him is just horrible - Tyrions speech just makes no sense - "Yeah we should ignore bloodlines but Bran is a Stark so qualifies"... he tells stories (well he doesn;t but we are told he does, whatever happened to show don;t tell) - so does Tyrion and lots of others - in fact pretty much everyone but Bron Why is Tyron and Jon even still alive. Why does Dorne (like the most powerful nation left) nod it through, we donlt want a king but a queen in the north is fine. Where are the Librarian people.
Think Sam represents them?
Yea it's weird they let North to have independence and not Dorne, which had much stronger tradition of independence, they actually had special privileges even under Targaryen rule. It feels like feelgood moment cooked up for Starks. Like they needed any.
I think Tyrion's case for Bran is good one, though it was not very well presented. First, they likely want new monarch to be from one of the major families so he'll have authority and continuity. Problem is, most of the major families are gone. Jon and Tyrion are unacceptable for Dany's old army. Gendry is too unknown, same for Edmure, Arya and Yara, and whoever they had from Dorne and Vale (is Robin still alive?). There doesn't seem to be Tyrrells left. So it is basically just Bran and Sansa. From those, Bran is preferable as he is male, was not involved in any of the nastiness and comes across as less power hungry than Sansa. And most importantly, he (allegedly) can't produce a heir, which fits right into Tyrion's system where monarchs would be elected. Other candidates would likely produce heirs and would be tempted to arrange them as their successor, thus defeating Tyrions vision right away.
Sam is House Tully at that point isn't he? - although again why his family is there and none of the others is just cos Sam, gotta have Sam. Guess he contonues to get super special treatment and stays Head of House hold and head of the library etc etc.
Bran is a dangerously thin plaster even the (far better) way you present it and yeah it just another Starks Win moment. Civil war number 2 round the corner as soon as anoyone can rebuild enough to fight.
Dorne - does it still have an army as lots came with the Sand Sankes? If not expansion from them coming up and liekly meet to fight it out with Sansa advancing South in a year or two whilst Bran wanders aroud the pastand Tyrion still fails to make the hard descisions and the small council falls apart.
Iron bank might even pay Dorne to get its money back.
Isn't the Iron Islands an elective monarchy? Like people said Tyrion doesn't have our historical examples.
I think an expectation that the series was going to propose a solution to civil wars in general is a bit much, we haven't worked that one out in real life!
The story had to end the War of Five Kings with all sides bloody, exhausted and desperate for peace.
Unfortunately they don't really explain why Dorn, The Vale or the Dolthraki would want to end the fighting since they haven't really suffered in the war to the extent of the others.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Elective Monarchies are a recipe for disaster though. The next few decades will see lords conspiring and blackmailing each other to get votes and to put who they want on the throne. If there isn't a civil war in the next few years I'm called bs.
Its just not a viable long term system of government, and most Elective Monarchies end up becoming hereditary, as all it takes is for one family to gain enough power to ensure that they always get elected. See: The Habsburgs
Tyrion should know this, he's seen how nobles will conspire and plot with one another to gain power, and that giving them a choice is a bad idea. Especially since one house, Highgarden, is the source of most of the food in the Kingdom. Which means whoever controls Highgarden controls the votes. All hail King Bronn's dynasty.
They should have formed a republic, split the kingdom (is there a point in having a Seven Kingdoms anymore? There's no central army and King's Landing is in ruins), or forced Jon to become king after Grey Worm left.
It seems the writers wanted to think that a Elective Monarchy is a form of progress, but its actually an unstable form of government that was usually used by early civilizations, until they got it all together and came up with more long term solutions.
The wheel wasn't broken, just tilted a little.
True "progress" and "wheel breaking" would have taken the form of a republic, with the major houses ruling the nation together and making sure that no house is more powerful than another. Its a much more viable solution than an Elective Monarchy, which is more "winner takes all"
The writers injected their own politics into the story and it crashed and burned because of it.
Kroem wrote: Isn't the Iron Islands an elective monarchy? Like people said Tyrion doesn't have our historical examples.
I think an expectation that the series was going to propose a solution to civil wars in general is a bit much, we haven't worked that one out in real life!
The story had to end the War of Five Kings with all sides bloody, exhausted and desperate for peace.
Unfortunately they don't really explain why Dorn, The Vale or the Dolthraki would want to end the fighting since they haven't really suffered in the war to the extent of the others.
Yep, there is now nothing to stop the Dothraki rampaging around exactly as they do on Esos - and now as they are all Dany's Bloodriders they have her to avenge......another element ignored in the stampede to give a happy ending to Tyrion, Sam and the Starks.
The Knights of the Vale are I think the only standing army still in the five kingdoms? Disregard the northerners as they are efectively militia and need to return home - whats left of them.
Dorne - no idea - I thought they lost a fair bit with Eurons teleporting stealth fleet but I imagine they did nto nring their entire army over.
Mr Morden wrote:Sam is House Tully at that point isn't he?
Tarly. House Tarly are based in the Reach, near Highgarden, which puts Sam lower in perceived status than Bronn. House Tully are the dominant house of the Riverlands, represented by Edmure.
although again why his family is there and none of the others is just cos Sam, gotta have Sam. Guess he contonues to get super special treatment and stays Head of House hold and head of the library etc etc.
Probably because he's earned it. He's a qualified Maester, the head of a noble family, a member of the Night's Watch (now disbanded), and was one the defenders of Winterfell. He has as much right to be there as anyone else, even more than some (Edmure, Robin, Yohn Royce).
As for why he gets to be both (and maybe not even both - perhaps Gilly is acting as the lord of Horn Hill (Tarly seat of power)), he has the support of the King. King makes the rules. Besides, I don't really think I've seen anywhere that a person can't be both. I mean, we clearly have cases of people being both Hand of the King and the head of their houses, and the same with other Small Council positions.
Bran is a dangerously thin plaster even the (far better) way you present it and yeah it just another Starks Win moment. Civil war number 2 round the corner as soon as anoyone can rebuild enough to fight.
Bran's a decent choice. Young, psychic abilities, strong house - he's a better candidate than most Westerosi rulers. I do agree that Tyrion's line of "he's got a great story to tell" is badly written though.
I was surprised that no-one even questioned the North seceding. I don't have an issue with the North leaving, it was probably for the better (the North wouldn't have rejoined, not after their "independence"), but I am surprised that kingdoms like Dorne and the Iron Islands didn't also ask or demand the same. Dorne, as far as I gather, actually got shafted by the Iron Fleet, and lost nearly all of their military power, which is why we don't see any Dornish actually fighting against Cersei in the sack of King's Landing.
Same with the Greyjoys, although I think they had more troops. Regardless, both of those sides should have tried for independence. I can see the Dornish getting nowhere (no army, and with Bronn commanding the Reach, I imagine he'd be rather callous with any Dornish coming over the Red Mountains), but the Greyjoys probably should have had their freedoms. Sansa should have supported their claim (what with her opinions of Theon before his death), as well as Grey Worm (if he even cared), due to it being what Daenerys promised them.
Iron bank might even pay Dorne to get its money back.
Didn't the Iron Bank get all their money back? The attack on the baggage train was to disrupt further supplies and extra money, not the actual debt money, wasn't it?
I thought they had to take out a whole new loan to get the Golden Company?
On Super Special Sam: (sorry got wrong House name!) its really just because he is the authors avatar
He broke his vows and ran away from the Library
Its a minor House - Edmure is a Major House and doesn;t he also have an intact military.
Defenders of Winterfell - amusing way to describe his actions
Night Watch- true but was allowed to run away from that as well.
Without Jon his constant protector who thre even knows who he is
I guess he does fit the role of court jester/fool.
Bran (as a Stark) tips the power balance heavily to the North - he immedately showed that by nodding through his sisters power grab which will have been noted for what it was by everyone.
No heir means trouble - no matter what they say about electors.
The Ironborn are now very weak - Yara had what three ships she stole from Euron and their crews. There might be some surivivors from Dany's ship BBQ as well.
Dorne lost whatever the Sand Snakes brought with them but I was never clear if that was even a large part of their military or was in charge of what over there?
However if both had just said - fine - we are also independant - who could have stopped them - Bran could have said some fortune cookie crap but thats about it. He has no army, his powers seem to consist of looking smug and turning into a flock of ravens
Sam having a seat is because he did nominally ‘bad’ things, but for beneficial reasons.
He didn’t leave Oldtown because Hard Work Is Hard. He stole the books and legged it because he found crucial information which gave Jon, The North and therefore Westeros as a whole (possibly the entire world?) at least a glimmer of a fighting chance. And because those teaching him were clearly hidebound. So used to learning from the past, they forgot to look to the future.
Dunno how it’s portrayed in the books, as I’ve not read them. I’m pretty much convinced GRRM is either not inclined or not particularly interesting in wrapping up now. But in the show, that’s Samwell’s arc.
He is a genuinely Good Man, sentenced to the Night’s Watch by his Dad because he wasn’t some butch manlyman. Jon could see he was there for pathetic reasons. Maester Aemon and Lord Commander Mormont saw the same, and that he was best suited supporting and learning from the former.
Perhaps he is GRRM’s Five Tissue Fantasy. But he still serves a purpose, and his character arc works.
Kroem wrote: Isn't the Iron Islands an elective monarchy? Like people said Tyrion doesn't have our historical examples.
I think an expectation that the series was going to propose a solution to civil wars in general is a bit much, we haven't worked that one out in real life!
The story had to end the War of Five Kings with all sides bloody, exhausted and desperate for peace.
Unfortunately they don't really explain why Dorn, The Vale or the Dolthraki would want to end the fighting since they haven't really suffered in the war to the extent of the others.
Yep, there is now nothing to stop the Dothraki rampaging around exactly as they do on Esos - and now as they are all Dany's Bloodriders they have her to avenge......another element ignored in the stampede to give a happy ending to Tyrion, Sam and the Starks.
The Knights of the Vale are I think the only standing army still in the five kingdoms? Disregard the northerners as they are efectively militia and need to return home - whats left of them.
Dorne - no idea - I thought they lost a fair bit with Eurons teleporting stealth fleet but I imagine they did nto nring their entire army over.
Yea exactly, the North seemed to fight endless battles against the Lanisters, the Barathions, the Freys, the Greyjoys and the living dead (along with internal conflicts) and still have an army at the end of it so I'm sure Dorne can scrape an army together!
Especially as Daenerys had an agreement with Yara about the ironborn being independent.
But I guess Dumb and Dumber "kinda forgot about this" too...
And Tyrion was super against that, but didn't tell word when Sansa took her independance. And for what now her brother is king ?
Why do the wildwings, after thousands of years of trying to get in, now they are finally in and have good lands, just go back North ?
Are they implying ice and snow is melting during this close up on the grass Noth of the wall ?
Why is there still a Night Watch ?
Why does everyone keeps obeying the unsullied once they left for their butterfly island instead of getting John back ?
Why is Sam a maester when he didn't even finish his formation ?
What was the point of the whole Bran arc and story and why is he such a nemesis to the Night King ? Do we really need a prequel to know that...
Why did they destroyed Jaime's arc ?
Etc
Etc
Still, it's over after almost a decade, it's weird !
Farewells, Game of Thrones !
Well, Sam could have returned and finished his training.
Its certainly possible that the North is experiencing some warming with the Night King gone, and the Wildlings were only coming down to escape the Night King. So without that threat they are free to return home.
It'll probably be quite long. He's quite young even without considering the bonus to longevity for being the 3 Eyed Raven.
Which does not bode well for his successor actually. Nobody alive will actually be present when they have to elect the next king. There will have been no tradition of elections to uphold, so you'll probably have wars over the succession anyway. Except unlike the past, in the future the wars will happen every time there is a new monarch rather than just when a dynasty is overthrown. At least with hereditary monarchs you can end up with long periods of stability. Elective monarchies will have massive instability every time the king croaks.
Just look at the Holy Roman Empire. Perhaps the most cutthroat politics that ever existed, and all over a title that often carried no real power in and of itself because of the fractured nature of the empire. Imagine the discord over a title that would hold real power.
You can only see the future if you are looking for it and if you spend all your time "in the past" and the future how do you get anything done in the present.
Its fine if you are going to just sit in a tree for centuries but a King does normally have to do something even if just for ceremony.
Bron has risen from mere mercenary to Master of Coin and Highgarden - why would he not go for the throne.
Mr Morden wrote: Its a minor House - Edmure is a Major House and doesn;t he also have an intact military.
From what I understood over the seasons Edmure's house and land is also pretty devastated. There seems to be constant fighting in the Riverlands since season 1-2 and their army gets severely beaten(?) the first time(when Robb was still alive they had this conversation that Edmure had very few soldiers left to help Robb). Then Edmure gets whatever soldiers he brings probably massacred at his Red Wedding. Then his uncle(?) rebels or has already rebelled and seems to be leading a reasonably successful band/army that fight the Lannisters, who are all taken captive and who knows what happened with them after that. Must be quite depleted by the time Edmure finally gets control over the Riverlands.
Of course they might suffer from the same case of respawn-itis as the Lannisters, the North and the Unsullied.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
godardc wrote: Are they implying ice and snow is melting during this close up on the grass Noth of the wall ?
Yeah, I guess its supposed to mean that "winter is over'' sort of thing, which is horrible when you think it through. Is winter over because the night king died? Didn't winter just start before? They build up and hyped winter for years and then its over and done in what, 4 months or so? Are they implying that now there won't be a winter, does Westeros not have seasons without a night king?
I felt like this was more of a agreement to get Jon off and away to the North, placate Grey Worm with all basically understanding there would be no Night's Watch. Or the guy bound by duty and honor to be a total moron all 8 seasons suddenly says feth it to duty and honor to hang out with Tormund (understandable )
godardc wrote: Why does everyone keeps obeying the unsullied once they left for their butterfly island instead of getting John back ?
I thought they aren't interested in getting him back. He is basically a threat to both Bran and Sansa on their thrones and related to the person who just a few weeks ago burned a ton of people to death. Better have him stay up north where he can do no damage.
Also, exiling Jon back to the Night’s Watch helps maintain some small sliver of stability, as the standard ‘well, what are we going to do with you’, when Death seems a bit much? Send them to The Wall.
Lance845 wrote: Bran could always hang out inside of a tree and become effectively immortal like the last 3 eyed raven. His reign might be perpetual.
Nah, with this bunch, he's dead in a year, tops. They are as bad as the Russian boyars of Ivan's time. This will continue until the Revolution comes.
Libertie! Egalitie! Fraternitie!
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Also, exiling Jon back to the Night’s Watch helps maintain some small sliver of stability, as the standard ‘well, what are we going to do with you’, when Death seems a bit much? Send them to The Wall.
So send the criminals to the north to their own fortress where they are armed and trained..........and have no actual purpose - yeah that will end well.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Also, exiling Jon back to the Night’s Watch helps maintain some small sliver of stability, as the standard ‘well, what are we going to do with you’, when Death seems a bit much? Send them to The Wall.
So send the criminals to the north to their own fortress where they are armed and trained..........and have no actual purpose - yeah that will end well.
Just because the wildlings are currently peaceful doesn't mean they always will be.
Remember that all of the tribes only came together under Mance out of necessity to not die. There is no reason to think that they won't fragment again without that existential pressure and that some of them will look to the south as a possible opportunity.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Also, exiling Jon back to the Night’s Watch helps maintain some small sliver of stability, as the standard ‘well, what are we going to do with you’, when Death seems a bit much? Send them to The Wall.
So send the criminals to the north to their own fortress where they are armed and trained..........and have no actual purpose - yeah that will end well.
Just because the wildlings are currently peaceful doesn't mean they always will be.
Remember that all of the tribes only came together under Mance out of necessity to not die. There is no reason to think that they won't fragment again without that existential pressure and that some of them will look to the south as a possible opportunity.
Good way to make them hostile is to have armed criminals as border guards......wasn;t that one of the problems before the show started, and now there is no great mythical threat, no tradition or command structure to give them any purpose or temper them.
The North is supposed to be severely depopulated as well, they might need some giant blooded settlers. Although didn't they only come south because of the dead and the Walkers - although is their anything left alive to hunt north of the wall?
I imagine any criminals in the next few years would be sold as slaves or more likely put to work rebuilding - although Kings Landing and the Red Keep seem to regenerate as quikcly as Northerners, Unsullied and Dothraki.
But seeing as the North is now independent its a two birds, one stone scenario. The threat of a brawl with whatever criminals they ship up there and the Wildlings will keep the North in check in regard to southern expansion and the south gets rid of their problematic elements.
As for the north of the wall, I doubt the walkers put in enough effort to wipe everything out, maybe even some human survivors up there. Wouldn't be worth it to run down every animal or even person. Even after they break down the wall they don't sweep west or east, just south it seems.
Fair point but then why would Sansa allow them to ship armed criminals to her lands - does the Night Watch now answer to her and if not she will quickly demand it will.
I could see Sansa offering any Wildling raiders free passage down south as well, maybe a small tax on their loot.
The walkers did spend months wondering around up north doing nothing so maybe they were killing everything!
I see Nights Watch becoming more like a police force, somewhat equivalent to Canadian Rangers, rather than a defence force. Of course the quality of the personnel is somewhat counterproductive to that role.
In the books, Night's King was not the first Other, so who knows if the White Walker threat is truly over.
I think the south might be a bit too far for wildlings to walk to pillage. The neck between the north and south might be easily patrolled for raids anyway.
I think the walkers were killing everything in the years up to breaching the wall. But honestly how many people would be able to live up north anyway? As wights are slower I doubt they would catch faster animals. Unless they link arms across the continent people and animals can get away. Between the season 1 opening and the fall of the wall there were still significant groups of people up north surviving for years.
As for the walker threat being over, it seems to be the TV show is going that way. The NK was the first one and like some vampire pyramid all his 'kids' exploded. Maybe the books will just have them as a periodic threat.
I can see the night's watch still being necessary to combat wildling raids, especially now there is a massive great hole in Hadrians wall! It saves the Northmen the men and coin necessary to maintain a permanent garrison there at least.
The Whitewalkers ending was really weird, I was expecting something more involved than one episode to defeat them after all that buildup.
Kroem wrote: I can see the night's watch still being necessary to combat wildling raids, especially now there is a massive great hole in Hadrians wall! It saves the Northmen the men and coin necessary to maintain a permanent garrison there at least.
The Whitewalkers ending was really weird, I was expecting something more involved than one episode to defeat them after all that buildup.
What raids? Jon literally invited the Wildlings to live south of wall.
Kroem wrote: I can see the night's watch still being necessary to combat wildling raids, especially now there is a massive great hole in Hadrians wall! It saves the Northmen the men and coin necessary to maintain a permanent garrison there at least.
The Whitewalkers ending was really weird, I was expecting something more involved than one episode to defeat them after all that buildup.
What raids? Jon literally invited the Wildlings to live south of wall.
Which added to the weirdness of it. Even before the Others started creating problems the Wildlings seemingly wanted to get south of the wall, now they have an opportunity and they just go back north?
BaconCatBug wrote: So... What's the deal with the kids the Night Walkers take? I guess they subverted our expectations about expecting subplots to be wrapped up!
Thats how new White Walkers are made. So presumably they all died when the Night King got killed too just like the rest of the goonies.
Kroem wrote: I can see the night's watch still being necessary to combat wildling raids, especially now there is a massive great hole in Hadrians wall! It saves the Northmen the men and coin necessary to maintain a permanent garrison there at least.
The Whitewalkers ending was really weird, I was expecting something more involved than one episode to defeat them after all that buildup.
What raids? Jon literally invited the Wildlings to live south of wall.
Which added to the weirdness of it. Even before the Others started creating problems the Wildlings seemingly wanted to get south of the wall, now they have an opportunity and they just go back north?
Well yea but the grass is always greener. They saw how bad it was south of the wall with everyone killing everybody about who kneels to whom, and so decided north of the wall was better.
Just becasue they don't want to live south of the wall doesn't mean they won't raid though, talking things from the soft southerners is always going to be an enticing prospect for an enterprising wildling after all!
Tormund just deciding they didn't want to stay was silly anyway, what happened to the clans getting together to decide things?
Kroem wrote: Isn't the Iron Islands an elective monarchy? Like people said Tyrion doesn't have our historical examples.
I think an expectation that the series was going to propose a solution to civil wars in general is a bit much, we haven't worked that one out in real life!
The story had to end the War of Five Kings with all sides bloody, exhausted and desperate for peace.
Five Kings was a serious underestimate. In the end wasn't there like six kings (7 if you count Mance) and three or four queens?
Iron Islands held Kingsmoot when succession was unclear, I think. Not after every king. Any way, Moot they held after Balon died was first in many centuries.
It was a pretty big list if you count all the separate revolts claiming to be king/queen/independent.
Mance(questionable)
Stannis
Robb
Jon
Balon
Euron
Renly
Joffrey
Tommen
Cercei
Dany
Does the coup in Dorne count, can't remember if they immediately jumped on board with Dany. Feels like Yara doesn't because she never really went independent after Euron defeated her. Sansa really only crowning herself after it was done so maybe not either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kroem wrote: Tormund just deciding they didn't want to stay was silly anyway, what happened to the clans getting together to decide things?
To be fair they made it seem like those few dozen wildlings were what was left after the NK got done in.
Renly's position seemed to be that Stannis was cold and didn't care about people... which to be fair is true. But Renly also seemed delusionally self-absorbed. Of course, that anyone supported Renly at all tells you the only real rule of a medieval claim to the throne.
Do you have enough men at arms to back up your claim?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Out of those vying for the Throne, I’ll never understand Renly’s Claim.
Even if the truth about Cersei’s kids was proven, it’s still Stannis that’s next in line.
Is there more in the books to explain that?
Being of the right bloodline is enough - hell even being married to the right member of a royal bloodline is enough - have a read through the Britsh Royal family and all the various branches of trees and whole new trees.
The Barathons are usurpers so always uncertain about passing it down for a few generations.
Also might makes right - if you have a vague claim as most of the major families in Westros will do you just fight, bribe, coerce and bluff your way to the throne. religion sometimes plays a part but thw writters gave up on that thrread after they blew up their equivalent of the vatican.
An oligarchy didn't break the wheel it created a new one, probably worse than before, everyone will have their own agendas and the entire culture is screwed if there is a major war and the king dies.
I get wanting to 'select' a king. But do they really need a king? What about a constitutional monarchy? A parliament of lords? Or maybe a Senate similar to rome? We rushed so much, I am guessing that from what i know about the countries in this world that : Dorne and the Iron Island will secede because the north was allowed to.
This ending is so bizzare. Its hilarious how they didn't think through "wait if the north leaves what is the point of the others staying?"
Then we have the point of "Why did the night king die?"
If most of the world had not seen the white walkers how would they even know it existed? Very few consequences and other important background objects were explored at all!
Its so damn puzzling!
Even if i think "Oh bran will be a great king."
I still come back to the thought of:
"Umm what happens to the rest of the country then?"
we have little to no context or idea of what is going on in the country.
An oligarchy didn't break the wheel it created a new one, probably worse than before, everyone will have their own agendas and the entire culture is screwed if there is a major war and the king dies.
I get wanting to 'select' a king. But do they really need a king? What about a constitutional monarchy? A parliament of lords? Or maybe a Senate similar to rome? We rushed so much, I am guessing that from what i know about the countries in this world that : Dorne and the Iron Island will secede because the north was allowed to.
This ending is so bizzare. Its hilarious how they didn't think through "wait if the north leaves what is the point of the others staying?"
Then we have the point of "Why did the night king die?"
If most of the world had not seen the white walkers how would they even know it existed? Very few consequences and other important background objects were explored at all!
Its so damn puzzling!
Even if i think "Oh bran will be a great king."
I still come back to the thought of:
"Umm what happens to the rest of the country then?"
we have little to no context or idea of what is going on in the country.
All true
I think they just had a bucket list of things they had to finish with (some from GRM) and just did it.
So Bran is King cos Bran is king
Dany becomes the evil villain because she does
Very little makes anysense but "it doesn't really matter as the show is ending" and so and so on.
This is Game of Thrones. Bran's reign will probably end with him dying of tetanus, or food poisoning. If GRR Martin writes it, definitely food poisoning, lol.
An oligarchy didn't break the wheel it created a new one, probably worse than before, everyone will have their own agendas and the entire culture is screwed if there is a major war and the king dies.
I get wanting to 'select' a king. But do they really need a king? What about a constitutional monarchy? A parliament of lords? Or maybe a Senate similar to rome? We rushed so much, I am guessing that from what i know about the countries in this world that : Dorne and the Iron Island will secede because the north was allowed to.
This ending is so bizzare. Its hilarious how they didn't think through "wait if the north leaves what is the point of the others staying?"
Then we have the point of "Why did the night king die?"
If most of the world had not seen the white walkers how would they even know it existed? Very few consequences and other important background objects were explored at all!
Its so damn puzzling!
Even if i think "Oh bran will be a great king."
I still come back to the thought of:
"Umm what happens to the rest of the country then?"
we have little to no context or idea of what is going on in the country.
All true
I think they just had a bucket list of things they had to finish with (some from GRM) and just did it.
So Bran is King cos Bran is king
Dany becomes the evil villain because she does
Very little makes anysense but "it doesn't really matter as the show is ending" and so and so on.
One needs to look to the rough take on English History that forms the backbone of GoT setting.
At the start, there’s an Absolute Monarchy, determined solely by Conquest or Bloodline.
Those are pretty crap as it turns out. Inbreeding is rampant to keep bloodlines pure. It can also mean political wrangling to secure advantageous marriages.
Bran being an Elected King is kind of their Magna Carta moment, after a fashion. Suddenly, the monarch relies on popular support from the Barony. They’ll be the ones to select the next ruler from among their number. Whilst far from perfect, that instantly makes the old political machinations somewhat defunct. Olenna (Gods rest her, she was one tough old bat) could no longer just throw her money and Grand Daughter at whomever she felt was the most eligible bachelor and have success.
Instead, the shape of the game changes. It becomes about wider cooperation. Seeking the Good Of The Realm, not the Knob Of The Right Bloke. If your preferred option is seen to be wise, ruthless and compassionate in the right mix for the prevailing conditions, you’ve got at least a shoe-in. Crucially, it means you risk alienating certain families (those with a vote) at your own peril.
It’s a very different political atmosphere. By all means it’s one a clever person can navigate to their own advantage. But the Master Players Of Old, and their playbooks just went right out the window.
That all helps build the period of stability so desperately needed, even before you factor in Bran knowing everything for the rest of his natural life.
Sure, sooner or later the flaws will be exposed. But not for a generation or two. In terms of medieval history, that’s a surprisingly long time. Seriously. Go back and look at the history of English Monarchy. Even post Magna Carta, it was Bloodline or Conquest.
Hell, that crapshoot continued into the 20th Century, when Queen Victoria’s ‘not a bad plan on the face of it’ to create a Grand Dynasty went horribly, horribly wrong. Directly leading to the wider mess we’re in today.
I’ll leave off here, because once again I risk getting too political. The bits I’ve mentioned, worth reading up on And yes, I’ve probably missed out significant bits.
Bran really doesn't know everything even if everything is pre-determined - in which case he can't do anything anyway because its goign to happen - so really is Bran the Pointless
If its not (which seesm to be the case) the very best he can know is the most likely events and then try and twist it to suit himself like an Eldar Farseer.
However any time he spends looking at one point / part of time/space is time not spent in the real world or looking at a different point/place/person at the same time - he is highly limited as its shown so far. Especially if he remains obessed with looking back in time.
IF (and its a big IF) the remaining kingdoms remain united under Bran (and there is no reason for them to do so). Also Bran does not rule over Sansa.
The other issue is that unlike Magna Carta (which itself was ignored by both sides and quickly repealed by the Church) there is no treaty here, no written legal or binding agreement for anyone to use later. The realm was carved up by those that remained in power (or had power) in the traditional way - in this case the victorious North took both the Ruling position over everyone else and itself became independant. Possibly the worst way to unite everyone.....
The game is just the same in any case even if they carry on with it, there is nothing about the good of the land etc, its who can influence/bribe/coerce/threaten whom.
Even knowing what is going to happen, without being able to influence it, is a solid super power.
And knowing that means one can influence the events after.
Example.
Bran can only see A future. Despite what we saw on screen.
If the future is fixed? You will still know that. You’ll know it, and can directly or indirectly have your revenge.
Yet what we saw on screen doesn’t support a Fixed Future outcome. Whilst I’ll happily agree it’s poorly executed, there are hints. In the first episode of S9, Bran is sat out in the cold in Winterfell. Someone (Sam, I think?) asks ‘dude. Cold! Bran’s answer is ‘it’s where I have to be’. Mainly to greet Jamie ‘reason for Bran’s crippy legs’ Lannister.
Everything we see of Bran as the Three Eyed Raven is suggestive of a partially mutable future. Hence my very early comment (pages back to fair) that he simply guided events to the Least Worst Outcome.
Because whilst Bran can see multiple futures, he appears to solely focus on those he can directly influence. Which is a pretty smart use of time travel gubbins, when you think about it. Forces one down a specific set of outcomes.
The specifics of Bran's abilities, his storyline, and his path to the throne are giant head-scratchers and presumably will be until GRRM gives us his version.
So much for the showrunners 'spoiling' GRRM's ending. I think interest in the next two books is higher than ever now.
gorgon wrote: The specifics of Bran's abilities, his storyline, and his path to the throne are giant head-scratchers and presumably will be until GRRM gives us his version.
So much for the showrunners 'spoiling' GRRM's ending. I think interest in the next two books is higher than ever now.
Not for me - the last two books were so bad I was pretty meh and given that this is also the ending for the books - that has destroyed any remaining interest.
Not that I believe they are or will even be written - he will continue to focus on other stuff and likely now the prequal series.
I saw yesterday that, once again, he's announced his involvement in another creative project that'll likely interfere with is writing.
At this point I think it's fair to say that the procrastination is quite possibly deliberate, most likely because of fears (real or imagined) that he can't possibly deliver.
Azreal13 wrote: I saw yesterday that, once again, he's announced his involvement in another creative project that'll likely interfere with is writing.
At this point I think it's fair to say that the procrastination is quite possibly deliberate, most likely because of fears (real or imagined) that he can't possibly deliver.
It's highly possible, yes. It's not like he's avoiding telling stories about that world. He's just not completing THIS story.
Azreal13 wrote: I saw yesterday that, once again, he's announced his involvement in another creative project that'll likely interfere with is writing.
At this point I think it's fair to say that the procrastination is quite possibly deliberate, most likely because of fears (real or imagined) that he can't possibly deliver.
His main issue is that he's created way too many individual story lines to cohesively resolve them all. He's gotten a grand story together, but maybe too grand of a cast. His notes are probably a terrible jumble.
)
