Game of Thrones - Caution: contains spoilers & dragonsTV

[Dotini]

From my understanding the books are far too slow for me to get invested in.

The reader lives a thousand lives. The poor man who doesn't read lives only one.

 

[Jezza819]

There were signs, but she was mostly cruel to the leaders. She always tried to protect the innocent. She really went nuts when she burned the city. Up to that point she was still redeemable. She even could make a case for killing Varys for his betrayal. And even after the massacre I still thought redemption is still possible, because she arguably saved more people then she killed.

I think when she was asking Jon to help her do the right things for the people, or something like that, and he asked what if the people think something else is right (paraphrasing) and she said they don't get to choose. That told Jon she was unredeemable and had to be stopped.

 

[baldgye]

That told Jon she was unredeemable and had to be killed.

Which, is pretty silly. Given that she’s just killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people for no reason.

 

[Dotini]

I think when she was asking Jon to help her do the right things for the people, or something like that, and he asked what if the people think something else is right (paraphrasing) and she said they don't get to choose. That told Jon she was unredeemable and had to be stopped.

It's fantasy fun to solve differences of opinion on right and wrong with a dagger to the small, unarmed woman's heart. In our world today, we might only appeal to the Human Resources department.

 

[PocketZeven]

This was my problem with their treatment of her. I'd have liked to see more questionable stuff. The only thing that I saw that really warned about this was her insistence that people "bend the knee", including the Tarleys if you'll recall. I'd have liked to see more sheer oppression, burning people that refuse to bow. But I can accept that they just went short with it.

Thats a good example to point out. The Tarley's where the leaders and burning them was consistent in what she was doing earlier in the east, she spared the soldiers though (also consistent). If she burnt all those soldiers, then I would have believed that she was already walking a darker path. I certainly wouldnt have had mixed feelings about her death and to a lesser degree think she was redeemable.

I think when she was asking Jon to help her do the right things for the people, or something like that, and he asked what if the people think something else is right (paraphrasing) and she said they don't get to choose. That told Jon she was unredeemable and had to be stopped.

That exact moment didnt convince me. If she had said those people who choose something else will burn or feel her wrath, would have convinced me more. But "they dont get to choose" sounded redeemable to me. Also Jon using a sword to kill both her an himself would have been more convincing ending to me as well.

Jon only had to say who he really was and he would have been released. Also Sansa not reveiling his identity and fighting for his release or return as king or at least her brother besides her, just seemed off character. Tyrion keeping it a secret and respecting Jon's wish to willing to be king did seem in character.

edit: added text

 

[88GTA]

I think when she was asking Jon to help her do the right things for the people, or something like that, and he asked what if the people think something else is right (paraphrasing) and she said they don't get to choose. That told Jon she was unredeemable and had to be stopped.

Just like when Sam asked if they should involve everyone in the voting of a King and everyone laughed. "I'll ask my horse next!"

 

[Jezza819]

That exact moment didnt convince me. If she had said those people who choose something else will burn or feel her wrath, would have convinced me more. But "they dont get to choose" sounded redeemable to me.

That's the way I interpreted "they don't get to choose". I took it as choose as how I want it or it's Smore city again.

 

[andrea]

Sansa remains the smartest woman in Westeros, as she rebuilds Canada.

 

[Rallywagon]

I enjoyed this series quite a bit. I had read the bulk of the books before I knew the TV series was coming and was pretty apprehensive at first. I wasn't sure just how willing HBO, or any production company, would be to take on the harder elements of the books that helped make the series a stand out in the fantasy realm.
I have to say though, it became quite evident that once they outpaced the source material, they lost the GoT vibe. I feel like the writers and producer where way outside of their comfort zones and didn't have the skills to hold the story at the same level as Martin's work. Season 8 was rough until the last two episodes which I think finished off GoT HBO pretty well all things considered. I do also agree that it felt like they rushed to the end and did what should have been 2 seasons in one. Which I have to wonder, did HBO do this because they thought watchers were losing interest, HBO didn't want to continue paying the cost of making the show, or if they ran into contract issues with some main actors not looking to sign on for another season or two.
Clarke and Turner both appear to have some lucrative movie careers in the works and several of the other actors have other projects not acting related they are delving into.
In the end though, while the last two seasons were not so great, the last two episodes definitely put a good finish on the series as a whole. And I really hope that Martin does actually finish the story as well (as he continues to say he will) as that is really the arc I am most interested in.

 

[Danoff]

Thats a good example to point out. The Tarley's where the leaders and burning them was consistent in what she was doing earlier in the east, she spared the soldiers though (also consistent).

Not until they bent the knee. And the Tarleys got that option too and didn't, and were killed for it. I'd have liked to see her kill more people for the sole sin of refusing to be ruled.

 

[PocketZeven]

Not until they bent the knee. And the Tarleys got that option too and didn't, and were killed for it. I'd have liked to see her kill more people for the sole sin of refusing to be ruled.

Yeah but the people and soldiers of kings landing were already surrendering and she chose to murder them anyway. What I meant her descent in madness would have been more believable if she burnt the complete Tarley army at that point. I found her sudden change in episode 5 too sudden. She was still mercifull up to that episode. She could have just burnt the red keep. Her burning the whole city is completely out of character up to that point. She took revenge on the murderers of her other dragon and she only had a vendetta left with Cersei. Why also kill all those innocent people, of which she clearly was aware of.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah but the people and soldiers of kings landing were already surrendering and she chose to murder them anyway. What I meant her descent in madness would have been more believable if she burnt the complete Tarley army at that point. I found her sudden change in episode 5 too sudden. She was still mercifull up to that episode. She could have just burnt the red keep. Her burning the whole city is completely out of character up to that point. She took revenge on the murderers of her other dragon and she only had a vendetta left with Cersei. Why also kill all those innocent people, of which she clearly was aware of.

Yea, I think the show didn't quite motivate this enough. But they did try to. They were trying to motivate a conflict, where you'd understand how Jon got caught up in it, and how he could have seen it coming. They leaned a little too far to one side for me, not quite motivating madness enough.

 

[Michael88]

SPOILERS (DUH)

Some weird things with the last episode, the unsullied seem to be able to replace their losses faster than the Nightking, I wonder how they got the mythical ability to reproduce like bacteria?

Also the unsullied did not tear Jon apart like warm bread after learning what he did? Really?

Besides my critics, maybe I am an evil man butI would have gone with Dany, all the power, glory and also family dismissed like that pains, it really pains. I still think Dany could have become a good conqueror and ruler with Jon's calming influence. But oh well.....

 

[Danoff]

Also the unsullied did not tear Jon apart like warm bread after learning what he did? Really?

The writers very clearly had some issues with this. It was a weird changeover in the script, jumping forward like a month to the part where all that stuff happened without us getting to see how it went down. I can see how it could have been written though, Grey Worm's character would have grown a little too in the process. To have him realize that the queen is gone and the dragon is gone, and the north army will crush the unsullied remaining if they don't have Jon and Tyrion to trade... I think that would have been a nice touch. Less killing and rage from him and more thinking, a little character growth, and no awkward changeover.

Unfortunately the writers let us down on that one and we have to feel like it was kluged. The entire unsullied role in the end was awkward.

Edit:

One place the writers didn't let us down was Bran's "I wouldn't have come all this way" line after saying he didn't want to be king. That's not a contradiction. Bran knew before leaving what would happen, and he made up his mind to accept. He's merely pointing out that this decision was already evident in the fact that he showed up.

 

[baldgye]

One place the writers didn't let us down was Bran's "I wouldn't have come all this way" line after saying he didn't want to be king. That's not a contradiction. Bran knew before leaving what would happen, and he made up his mind to accept. He's merely pointing out that this decision was already evident in the fact that he showed up.

That line;

I wouldn't have come all this way

​

Makes him the most evil and probably unfit King... yet they're all like, well obvs this was you all along /shrug...

This is not long after a war to oust the super evil Cerci and the newly killed newly anointed mentalist and mass murder Danny... yet he admitted to pulling the strings, relegating them to pawns in his 7D chess game. How can the rest of the characters be even remotely ok with this??
Tiyron literally went against his queen and he wanted nothing to do with her after she killed those people... but is totally fine with Bran, who killed them via-proxy??

It's so dumb and so bad, it seems pretty clear they only chose Bran to be some sort of plot twist, but because the plot has made zero sense for 2 seasons now it's just another dumb thing in GoT that we all accept..

 

[Dotini]

That line;

​

Makes him the most evil and probably unfit King... yet they're all like, well obvs this was you all along /shrug...

This is not long after a war to oust the super evil Cerci and the newly killed newly anointed mentalist and mass murder Danny... yet he admitted to pulling the strings, relegating them to pawns in his 7D chess game. How can the rest of the characters be even remotely ok with this??
Tiyron literally went against his queen and he wanted nothing to do with her after she killed those people... but is totally fine with Bran, who killed them via-proxy??

It's so dumb and so bad, it seems pretty clear they only chose Bran to be some sort of plot twist, but because the plot has made zero sense for 2 seasons now it's just another dumb thing in GoT that we all accept..

Magic, the supernatural and the paranormal are indelibly part of the fantasy genre. Yes, we all condemn these things in the real world, and so do the Maesters of the Citadel in the fantasy world of the Song of Ice and Fire. Except Samwell Tarly, the new Archmaester, has no problem with Bran. The issues of warging, the future affecting the past, the hive mind etc. do remain to be better explored in the novels.

 

[88GTA]

Spoiler

I'm not sure if the writer's did this on purpose but there are a few ways to interpret what happened with Bran.

Was Bran behaving in the best interest of his family? All of the Stark children survived so maybe that was his goal? He helped defeat the Night King and save the living. He helped to unify 6 of the 7 kingdoms.

Was Bran being evil and selfish? Bran could essentially be more corrupt than Dany and Cersei if he was using his knowledge and abilities just to get himself on the throne. He told Jon his true identity to cause rifts between Jon and Dany, Sansa, Tyrion, Varys, et al. He allowed Dany to melt King's Landing presumably so he could rule over it. He knew Jon would be banished and seemed fine with it. I'm leaning more towards this side because of his sarcastic line.

To me, that line tells the audience that Bran has always known his goal was to rule and everything he had done was working towards it. The last words he says to Jon are "You were always where you were supposed to be." So Jon goes to hell and back, loses a lover, gets killed, then gets brought back to life, helps to slaughter King's Landing, kills his aunt who he loved and to top it all off gets banished. Thanks bro.

And also, why does Bran need a Hand or any other advisory board? Surely he knows of any plots, past, current and future. He knows who will rule next and can influence it. Hopefully the author can elaborate much more in the book ending.

 

[baldgye]

Ref Bran being king...

The last 3 Eyed Raven lived to be over 1000 years old!

 

[Imari]

Makes him the most evil and probably unfit King... yet they're all like, well obvs this was you all along /shrug...

Except that he believes fate is immutable, and maybe in this universe it is. There's no such thing as evil and unfit to him, there's things that happen and things that don't. He's not working towards anything, he's watching events happen in the way that he knows that they have to happen. Which is presumably why he has that gormless look on his face all the time.

It's a very absolutist version of causality, but taken literally there's nothing about it that makes his behaviour notably evil or otherwise. He did the things that he did because those were the things that happened.

 

[baldgye]

Except that he believes fate is immutable, and maybe in this universe it is. There's no such thing as evil and unfit to him, there's things that happen and things that don't. He's not working towards anything, he's watching events happen in the way that he knows that they have to happen. Which is presumably why he has that gormless look on his face all the time.

It's a very absolutist version of causality, but taken literally there's nothing about it that makes his behaviour notably evil or otherwise. He did the things that he did because those were the things that happened.

Which makes sense, but the other characters have very clearly expressed how they define evil.
If Bran really is responsible for all of the events of the show since becoming a grand wizard (as one would assume after said line), then why would they be ok with Bran being a mass ruthless mass-murderer?

If you compare him to Varys, Varys was always morally on the fence but he did it for the people. Bran on the other hand did it entirely for himself and his own power!

 

[Danoff]

It's a very absolutist version of causality, but taken literally there's nothing about it that makes his behaviour notably evil or otherwise. He did the things that he did because those were the things that happened.

I think realizes he has some level of control, but not much. So he plays it very carefully.

Which makes sense, but the other characters have very clearly expressed how they define evil.
If Bran really is responsible for all of the events of the show since becoming a grand wizard (as one would assume after said line), then why would they be ok with Bran being a mass ruthless mass-murderer?

If you compare him to Varys, Varys was always morally on the fence but he did it for the people. Bran on the other hand did it entirely for himself and his own power!

I don't think Bran had a way to stop Dani without sacrificing all of humanity to the Night King. He needed her that far, but the rest of the way was problematic. He is not at all on the fence about telling Jon his true heritage, in fact he was emphatic that it should happen just before the Night King arrives. But he tells Jon "it's your choice" as to whether or not to tell his sisters his true identity. This I think is not him manipulating Jon, it's him saying "it works out the same either way". Dani was already on the path to destruction at that point, it was simply a matter of how events unfolded.

I don't believe Bran could control Drogon while he was with Dani, not entirely sure he can control Drogon when he's not. There's nothing to suggest that Bran could have stopped Dani at all. There's especially nothing to suggest that Bran could have threaded the needle and stopped her from going crazy and sat her on the iron throne as a healthy well-adjusted leader, and I think that would have been more evident in the books as well, where her foreshadowing would undoubtedly be stronger.

So Bran is playing it as it lay. There's no way out of Dani destroying King's landing, but since Jon knows his identity (and knew it at just the right time, when it was too late for Dani to back out of fighting the zombies), Dani won't solidify her throne. Bran ends up being King, which he doesn't care about, but doesn't care enough about to refuse.

 

[baldgye]

He is not at all on the fence about telling Jon his true heritage, in fact he was emphatic that it should happen just before the Night King arrives. But he tells Jon "it's your choice" as to whether or not to tell his sisters his true identity. This I think is not him manipulating Jon, it's him saying "it works out the same either way". Dani was already on the path to destruction at that point, it was simply a matter of how events unfolded.

Isn't it "the same either way" because that plot thread amounted to basically nothing and Jon Snow could have been killed by the army of the dead and Arya could have killed Danny as the faceless man/master assassin for massacring all of Kingslanding?

I'm personally not entirely sure why Jon Snow survived the Battle of the Bastards, other than do a bit of shagging he's been basically worthless and his legacy as a Targaeron amounts to basically nothing.

I don't believe Bran could control Drogon while he was with Dani, not entirely sure he can control Drogon when he's not. There's nothing to suggest that Bran could have stopped Dani at all. There's especially nothing to suggest that Bran could have threaded the needle and stopped her from going crazy and sat her on the iron throne as a healthy well-adjusted leader, and I think that would have been more evident in the books as well, where her foreshadowing would undoubtedly be stronger.

I mean, there is basically no real explanation of his powers and abilities, he seems to have pretty good knowledge of how events play out. He smirked at the Nightking before Arya Hero'd her way in off screen, suggesting he knew how it would go.
He can foresee many things yet failed to warn anyone that the Iron Fleet and Cerci had scorpions with the strength of ICBM's... or indeed offer any tactical support what so ever, which could made it so that Melissa isn't killed and Danny didn't snap and go ape ****...

 

[Danoff]

Isn't it "the same either way" because that plot thread amounted to basically nothing and Jon Snow could have been killed by the army of the dead and Arya could have killed Danny as the faceless man/master assassin for massacring all of Kingslanding?

I think Bran knows that Jon survives and the Night King doesn't. Maybe Arya could have taken out Dany, but then how do we know what happens? Jon severs his link with the Starks and becomes his own Mad King? Arya could only have taken out Dany after the battle at King's Landing. If Bran asked her to do it beforehand, I'm not entirely convinced she would (or even could). While Cersie is living? While Cersie is on her list? While Jon loves her? Similarly, Bran could not have asked Jon to do it. Jon needed to see her go mad before he could possibly have betrayed her.

I'm not sure whether Bran cares who does it after Dani destroys the city. Jon, Arya, whatever. For all we know, Jon was the cleanest option.

I'm personally not entirely sure why Jon Snow survived the Battle of the Bastards, other than do a bit of shagging he's been basically worthless and his legacy as a Targaeron amounts to basically nothing.

The story unfolds very differently without Jon and his lineage. In most scenarios I can envision they end up with a mad ruler. I guess the Gods wanted Bran and the council and this was how they orchestrated it. Jon's lineage was the crack that prevented Dany from solidifying her rule. It's a woven plot thread, and if you pull it, the story unfolds totally differently.

I mean, there is basically no real explanation of his powers and abilities, he seems to have pretty good knowledge of how events play out. He smirked at the Nightking before Arya Hero'd her way in off screen, suggesting he knew how it would go.
He can foresee many things yet failed to warn anyone that the Iron Fleet and Cerci had scorpions with the strength of ICBM's... or indeed offer any tactical support what so ever, which could made it so that Melissa isn't killed and Danny didn't snap and go ape ****...

He needed Dany to have fewer dragons, or she wouldn't be as easy to overthrow. He needed her to be losing it, or she'd end up the mad queen and an unstoppable tyrant over the entire world. His goal was to stop Dany AND the Night King, and he was pinched between those two since he needed her for the Night King.

Edit:

You're supposing there's a happy ending with Dany, I think we're supposed to realize that is a non-starter. Her destroying King's Landing was bad, but there was no way to stop it without sitting an unstoppable tyrant on the throne.

 

[baldgye]

I think Bran knows that Jon survives and the Night King doesn't. Maybe Arya could have taken out Dany, but then how do we know what happens? Jon severs his link with the Starks and becomes his own Mad King?

In the last few episodes it's clearly laid out that Danny is the nutty one and Jon is the rational one. This is categorically laid out by Vayris

The story unfolds very differently without Jon and his lineage. In most scenarios I can envision they end up with a mad ruler. I guess the Gods wanted Bran and the council and this was how they orchestrated it. Jon's lineage was the crack that prevented Dany from solidifying her rule. It's a woven plot thread, and if you pull it, the story unfolds totally differently.

Does it? The story ends with Danny dead and the Starks spread across the whole world. If Jon dies earlier in the story, how does that actually change the end of the show?

If Bran is this all-seeing emotionless wizard that can live for a thousand years, how is that better than Cerci's rule? If Danny hadn't gone mad why would she have gone mental? If Bran was her hand he could have guided her and the world could have had a powerful charismatic ruler that the other half of the world loved.... rather that a crippled emotionless mute, in a world that treats dwarfs as sub-human monsters.

 

[Danoff]

In the last few episodes it's clearly laid out that Danny is the nutty one and Jon is the rational one. This is categorically laid out by Vayris

I don't know how Jon would have handled Arya killing Dany. I laid out one scenario, where Jon ends up killing Arya accidentally and then killing himself. It doesn't matter though, as this only unfolds after KL is destroyed.

Does it? The story ends with Danny dead and the Starks spread across the whole world. If Jon dies earlier in the story, how does that actually change the end of the show?

Dany rules.

If Bran is this all-seeing emotionless wizard that can live for a thousand years, how is that better than Cerci's rule?

I don't know that Bran lives for a thousand years. Do you? There's nothing to suggest that Bran is cruel, and certainly Cersei was.

If Danny hadn't gone mad why would she have gone mental?

Dany was an unstable leader for the whole show (and that was supposed to be more clear). GRRM even stated that her dragons were destruction, and you can't rule as a destroyer.

If Bran was her hand he could have guided her and the world could have had a powerful charismatic ruler that the other half of the world loved....

I don't know why you suppose that that's even a possible outcome.

 

[baldgye]

I don't know why you suppose that that's even a possible outcome.

Because, from the show while she was always a bit aggressive, she's no more aggressive and ruthless than anyone else. The only part in the show in which she snaps is when Melissa dies and Jon Snow decides not to **** his Aunt. If this was averted there is nothing (in the show) to suggest she's snap. Not only that but during the show she's actively shown as good.

I don't know that Bran lives for a thousand years. Do you? There's nothing to suggest that Bran is cruel, and certainly Cersei was.

All I know is that the last 3 Eyed Raven lived for a thousand years, but the show basically abandons all of its lore in season 5. But who's to say he wouldn't?
Bran (its suggested) allowed Danny to sack Kingslanding by burning people alive... that's pretty ****ed up.


To be honest, these issues and talking points could have been made mute by good writing, which the last two seasons lack. I don't have an issue with the ending, but the last two seasons jump all over the place in time and locations that almost nothing makes sense. So even when you're confronted with an ending, it's hollow because non of the characters represent anything like the characters we've grown to know over the last however many years.

 

[Danoff]

Because, from the show while she was always a bit aggressive, she's no more aggressive and ruthless than anyone else. The only part in the show in which she snaps is when Melissa dies and Jon Snow decides not to **** his Aunt. If this was averted there is nothing (in the show) to suggest she's snap. Not only that but during the show she's actively shown as good.

I'm with you. The show didn't motivate Dany's fall from grace enough. They tried, I can see how they made the attempt, but it wasn't enough. I think going in to the final episodes it would have been better if you had really felt her instability. And worried about which way she'd turn. The part where she's sitting there, staring at the vulnerable city on her dragon, you're supposed to be feeling like she's sitting on a knife edge, ready to fall to either side, and you're not supposed to know how that's going to go. I think for most of us (myself included) it seemed so out of character for her to fall to the side that she did that we were kinda blindsided by it. I'd have preferred for her to be more understandable, and that's on the writers of the show.

All I know is that the last 3 Eyed Raven lived for a thousand years, but the show basically abandons all of its lore in season 5. But who's to say he wouldn't?
Bran (its suggested) allowed Danny to sack Kingslanding by burning people alive... that's pretty ****ed up.

I think Bran had no choice. It was either allow the Night King to destroy the world, or allow Dany to destroy a city.

To be honest, these issues and talking points could have been made mute by good writing, which the last two seasons lack. I don't have an issue with the ending, but the last two seasons jump all over the place in time and locations that almost nothing makes sense. So even when you're confronted with an ending, it's hollow because non of the characters represent anything like the characters we've grown to know over the last however many years.

I hear you, and I agree with this to some extent. More about Bran would have been helpful, I felt his plot line in particular was hard to follow, and it turns out it was pretty important so that's a major failing.

The show is not perfect, I'm not trying to defend it from all criticism. I'm picking at very specific criticisms.

 

[Dotini]

Daenerys Targaryen is a warning to feminists!

 

[baldgye]

On the subject of how D&D wrote regarding female characters;

Spoiler: rude words

I have to say on reflection, I was mostly really bummed out about how the Dragons where dealt with.
They where teased from day 1 as this mythical monster that once ruled. Then when Danny produced three of her own and they grew it was like... oh **** how are these rude bois gona change the world!?

There was an excitement in getting to see them mostly fully grown (or at least huge) dragons in combat. Then, the writers kind of **** the bed and seemingly didn't know how to deal with one side having three super weapons. So Cerci gets anti-dragon missles and the Nightking just takes one in the pre-season 8, dumbest episode in the show.

Ok, so we have super-weapon balance (to some extent), yet in combat the Dragons never really fight each other and the white dragon just dies when the Nightking is killed while growling at Jon Snow... in the following episode the missiles just insta kill one of the dragons, then following that the only remaining dragon just auto kills all of the sam-sites and flies off....

That's all we got, three dragons, one shatters, one is insta-killed for no logical or narrative reason and the other just leaves.... imagine how Dragon's would affect the massively complex political world of Seasons 1-3. Such a waste.

 

[Danoff]

On the subject of how D&D wrote regarding female characters;

Spoiler: rude words

I don't remember the show saying that Dany was unfit to rule because she couldn't have children, or saying that Bran's main qualification was a lack of ability to produce offspring. In fact Sansa brought up his infertility as a problem.

Dany's entire claim to the throne was based on birthright. Her whole character was predicated on her superiority over others. Bran had no claim to the throne. He was merely chosen as a means to keep the peace. Ultimately the show rejected Dany's entire arc as flawed, and for good reason. Tyrion supported Dany's worldview, that you rule by birthright, because you were born powerful (and have dragons), and that the world needed a benevolent power-born person to rule. And Tyrion saw one problem with that, which was what happens when that person dies.

But Tyrion made a mistake, and the show is acknowledging that and rejecting birthright, power, and the desire to rule.


Edit:

That complaint is literally just "the show changed its mind" (which it did) and because it changed its mind in favor of a person with the genitalia I do not prefer, I don't like it. Such crap.