[TV/Books] Game of Thrones ***SPOILER Discussion***

[Berndorf]

I agree with most of what you're saying (aside from "it all went off the rails") - there was no way D&D could live up to what GRRM produced, especially if the circumstances are what your claim above (I'm not doubting you, just that you indicated you weren't sure yourself). D&D had tons of plot and story line to fuse together into an ending that was rushed, probably because of HBO. I thought it went well. Others didn't - and while I don't agree with the others who didn't, for the most part I respect their opinions on the matter.
.

I don't feel like it went off the rails completely but it just felt so rushed to me and it's like it had its good episodes but too many scenes if not entire episodes that left me feeling like they just wanted to get it over with. Plus a few loose ends that didn't really get explained such as who the god of fire is and his role in that world or a few others from earlier seasons. I feel like the show as a whole overall got worse as it went on after about season 3 or 4 though like I said it still had strong episodes here and there.

[RobertoCarlos]

I dont even agree that some stories ended well and that it was just rushed.

It was rushed AND bad.

Which story ended well?

Bran as king?

Jamie doing a 180 in character development?

Littlefinger and Varys the masterminds had totally pathetic endings with easily the most potential with the former starting the whole thing and the latter having a mystical backdrop that went no where.

Tyrion as I said earlier had his intelligence rating lowered to -50 and was a total wash of a arc.

Bronn being master of coin? I mean? do I really need to go on.

A lot of people say that Dany being mad is ok and fits. I disagree completely. Her character was genuinely interesting and they just turned her into her father and had some rather jarring hilter references. Like ok...

[Jastall]

I dont even agree that some stories ended well and that it was just rushed.

It was rushed AND bad.

Which story ended well?

Bran as king?

Jamie doing a 180 in character development?

Littlefinger and Varys the masterminds had totally pathetic endings with easily the most potential with the former starting the whole thing and the latter having a mystical backdrop that went no where.

Tyrion as I said earlier had his intellicence rating lowered to -50 and was a total wash of a arc.

Bronn being master of coin? I mean? do I really need to go on.

A lot of people say that Dany being mad is ok and fits. I disagree completely. Her character was genuinely interesting and they just turned her into her father and had some rather jarring hilter references. Like ok...

Oh yeah, Dany's Nuremberg rally in episode 6 was incredibly on the nose. All she lacked was for the Unsullied to start goose-stepping. It's just one of the scenes that make me think that, no, Dany's madness wasn't the logical conclusion of a chain of events, they just made her the lolevil final boss so they could wrap up the series as quickly as possible.

[Shadowferal]

Should have had Tyrion outfox the other clever manipulators in a stratagem that should have had everyones jaw dropping.

[Koriani]

I think that's one of the few problems with the ending that I agree with - the pacing. They definitely sped it up, but again, that comes down to the source material running dry. And Season 7's timeline is all over the place - people moved around too much, and too awkwardly, with bewildering results - the timeline around the fight where Dany lost the dragon to the NK is one example.

No - its directly and only related to the fact that D&D wanted to move on to Star Wars. They've copped to that themselves (article quoted several pages ago when you first entered the discussion). HBO green lit more seasons (D&D also admitted that) - they could have taken more seasons to make it NOT rushed - to play it out and explain it better - but they chose to rush it.

For some that 'rushing' is what destroyed the ending and the show for them. For you, clearly it did not.

Dany's tipping to madness is well documented throughout the entire series - as I've objectively shown. The fact that people still argue against it is exactly why so few people come to this thread to say how much they like it.

No - you haven't. You have shown the objective evidence that YOU feel shows her madness is well documented. The evidence, being that they are scenes in the show, yes, is objective. What you feel they are showing is YOUR opinion that they show that, and that its 'enough' for YOU. That is not objective - that's your opinion. I watch that same evidence and disagree that they showed it "well enough."

I agree with you that they showed some - but I 100% disagree that it was enough. I do believe that if they hadn't rushed it - they could have MADE it enough by yes, having more scenes where she's discussing her mindset and you see that decay set in and that shift in thinking - but they didn't. They could have had more discussions in there in the time they had left - showing the same thing - but they did not. It was enough for YOU - it was clearly not enough "evidence" for many others.

And no that isn't the only and exactly the reason people don't come to this thread to defend your (or their) points in favor of the show being 'brilliant'. Since I don't do what you do and speak for other people, I can tell you the reason *I* haven't joined in this discussion is your inability to take your opinion and see its an opinion - even though I actually agree with some of it. You are consistently spinning your opinion on the evidence as fact, when its not. And when you stooped to low blows to insult people who disagree with you that's when I knew I didn't want to jump in. Even though I don't find Season 7 and 8 the worst thing ever - and thought I might jump in with some of your more intellectual discussions - you started getting insulting and dismissive and insisting that all this 'evidence is proof I'm right and the rest of you are wrong' again and again - so there's no point in even trying to discuss.

Even when you say "ok I agree with you the pacing was off" and "I agree with you s7 timeline was all wonky and messed up" and "gee you make nice points" - you turn around and then undermine all that nice discussion with "but this is the evidence and its objective and I'm right and you're wrong" and you STILL feel that D&D were "brilliant" and "perfect" in how they ended the show - though clearly, by your own admission, it wasn't actually "perfect." If it was perfect the pacing wouldn't have been too fast and s7 jumping around wouldn't feel that way.

By your own words right there - you can acknowledge there were flaws with the last two seasons and "some people" make good points. What you fail to see is that those 'good points', those flaws you can 'see' how people see them - for some people that was enough to make them hate the journey. Even though for you it isn't enough to change your opinion that D&D were 'brilliant and perfect' on season 7 and 8. That's the difference of opinion - right there. For you its not enough to ruin it, for others, it was. And for some of us - it didn't ruin it - but neither do we feel it was 'brilliant', or even 'great'. You can't agree to disagree - because that's the best this is going to get when it comes to that part of the opinion.

That's why I've not come to the thread to join in on the positive discussion - not the other people arguing against you - but your tactics and spin to make 'objective evidence as to why xyz opinion is wrong' is a total turn off to joining in. Because no - you've proved no one's opinion wrong. You've supported your opinion with the evidence you feel makes your opinion fact - but it doesn't make it fact. Its just the evidence for *your opinion* and nothing else - and then you discredit what others are telling you is their evidence as to why they felt the last two seasons ruined the show for them (even when you agree with their view point).

You can break down every quote from every episode you feel is supportive of your 'objective' based 'truth' (of opinion). But that still won't make it anyone else's truth. The mechanics are all there. But what people take from every scene, from every line, from tone, from character interactions - is ALL subjective opinion.

[Ihavewaffles]

This guy is mad book is not prio project, myself I have given up...now, I just hope we get it this...decade..

now he does some game, elderly rings, something like that

[cubby]

Hold on now...

As I noted in the last post, these examples you've pointed to are hardly evidence of madness. When she wonders whether she should burn down the slaver cities, they're in the middle of a siege and under attack be the terrorist group that had tried to kill her in the arena. I would say it's perfectly reasonable for a young, inexperienced ruler to believe her options for diplomacy have been exhausted. She's frustrated that despite her attempts to make peace (marrying one of the masters and allowing the fighting pits to reopen) have done nothing to quell the insurrection. It's not madness for her to think her only recourse is to annihilate these enemies who clearly will never comply with her no-slavery rule. Tyrion convinces her that she only needs to kill a few of them and make a show of force with Drogon, and she apparently takes his advice quite willingly. That isn't a sign of madness.

Daenerys considering a more forceful use of her dragons for conquest isn't a sign of madness. It's what her NON-CRAZY ancestors did. The original Targaryens who conquered Westeros did so with fire and blood and they were not considered mad. Executing people is not a sign of madness when there's a reason for it, such as soldiers who have fought against her and not bent the knee. The reason Aerys was considered mad for burning people was because in his paranoia he would simply burn people he THOUGHT were conspiring against him. He made it torturous and took sick pleasure in it, like when he burned Ned's father while his brother was chained up to watch. Dany doesn't make her executions a sport.

As for the children part, that's just laughable when they (including Tyrion) later determine that Bran not being able to have children is a GOOD reason to crown him king. Or could that have been another example of the writers just forgetting what they'd established in previous episodes, like what the bells mean.

They aren't evidence of madness encapsulating her then. It is evidence of the madness that is within her. It's entirely UNREASONABLE for anyone to burn a city to ashes because the leaders of that city attacked her. Vanquish her foes? Of course. Kill all the innocent children/women/men who didn't do anything. Not at all. Moreover, it's absolute direct evidence of her already turning towards her father's course early on.

The original Targaryens didn't but entire cities to ashes. They burned their enemy forces to ashes. The difference is the entire point here.

Her not being able to have children isn't an issue overall, as even Tyrion pointed out, succession can be done a different way. It's her reaction to it that's telling.

[starstationprofm]

Tyrion as I said earlier had his intelligence rating lowered to -50 and was a total wash of a arc.

He did manipulate Jon into killing Daenerys by using Sansa. He also got Jon out of King's Landing alive.

[cubby]

1. you using that comment at all is dismissive and disingenuous. whether it was directed at me or not.

Then people shouldn't come on here with bullshit hater posts. If they can be bothered to post non-contributory statements, I will sure as shit call them out. It's their statements that are disingenuous - not mine. I'm fully participating in a pages-long discussion/debate. Those fuckwits come on, shit post, then leave. I call those out every time.

I don't care if you don't like it - I just want to be sure you know it wasn't directed at you.

2. bolded - yes exactly. the moment they started changing timelines, plotlines, etc? sticking to the plotlines from the books stopped working, heck its why the scene between Cercei and Jamie at Joffrey's funeral ends up having a completely different feel from the one on the book. they made Jamie into a rapist in that scene. and then completely forgot about it, because in a book - it was not a rape. and I mean.. they pulled the same shit with Dani, but then still had her get all lovie dovey with Drogo... making it far more of a Stockholm syndrome relationship, but they just handwaved away the changes to their early interactions and characterizations. early seasons at least it was relatively minor. it gets worse as the show goes on.

also... this scene is from season 3. we get a small glimmer of what Jamie is really like, when his defensive armor of belligerence is stripped down from him and he allows himself to be vulnerable for a moment.

Neither video is working in the link you provided - but regardless.

My point is solid and backed multiple seasons examples. Even in 6.8 he was all for Cersei - not caring even if he catapulted babies. "All I want is Cersei". The evidence is solid - Jamie remained true to his character in the series. And you have yet to show anything past 6.8 that shows him turning away from his love of Cersei. He even tells Cersei he's going North to defend her and their baby.

he wrestles with having to make a difficult, in some ways impossible choice, knowing that it will ruin him, knowing this was the right choice and yet he still wrestles with breaking his oath. and it has NOTHING to do with Cercei. the whole arc they were setting up for him wasn't even redemption. it was him coming to terms with making a choice that he did and living with it. He shares this with Brienne in a way that he didn't even share with Cercei. because Brienne? he trusts. because Brienne? IS honorable.

You're literally, objectively wrong on this issue. And moreover, you're becoming your own enemy - disingenuous - because I'm giving you multi-season direct quotes and situations of him remaining true to Cersei. And you're ignoring them - completely.

edited to add. its possible to like something and still realize how flawed it is. just because you liked something, doesn't make it good.

Agreed. But it wasn't flawed, and it was good. You need to recognize that the opposite position of what you just said is also true: just because you don't like something doesn't mean it wasn't good.

I personaly very much enjoyed wonder woman 84. I also unironically love Dungeons and Dragons movie, the one with Jeremy Irons as a very hammy villain. neither of those movies are particularly good though and i do not have to justify my liking them by trying to explain away how they are "brilliant actualy" not really. I just had fun watching them and it was just fun enough to allow me to turn off my brain for a few hours. you may have loved GoT and that is fine. we all have our preferences and the lines we draw at how far we are willing to suspend our disbelief. but our subjective enjoyment =/= objective quality. and its the biggest issue with your arguments, honestly. well that and dismissing those that don't feel as you do as haters akin to trump supporters

You're right, people like what they like. But you're arguing GoT was bad at the end, and you can have that opinion all you want. But your reasons aren't backed by evidence in the story. If you just don't want to like it, that's fine - but if you're going to argue about why it's bad on a forum, expect push back.

So far your examples for why the ending was bad don't add up. I'm showing you multiple seasons of examples from characters actions that justify their ending.

[Berndorf]

They aren't evidence of madness encapsulating her then. It is evidence of the madness that is within her. It's entirely UNREASONABLE for anyone to burn a city to ashes because the leaders of that city attacked her. Vanquish her foes? Of course. Kill all the innocent children/women/men who didn't do anything. Not at all. Moreover, it's absolute direct evidence of her already turning towards her father's course early on.

The original Targaryens didn't but entire cities to ashes. They burned their enemy forces to ashes. The difference is the entire point here.

Her not being able to have children isn't an issue overall, as even Tyrion pointed out, succession can be done a different way. It's her reaction to it that's telling.

I think one of the key differences when comparing Dany as a character to someone like her father who went mad and the actions he took is the age difference. Dany in the books starts out at age 13 or 14 I think while in the show at about 16. Girls who just went through puberty are not exactly known for their ability to control their emotions, make good decisions or run military campaigns. A man who is 70 on the other hand should be. That's part of her character which needs to be taken into account when she does rash things or immediately seeks vengeance because she feels that a great wrong has been committed against her or someone else that she takes personally. Otherwise, I think we could accurately say that roughly half of the teenagers in this world(probably more so teenage girls) suffer from madness. When what they really suffer from is teenage angst, naivety and hormones. Then when you also add in her upbringing, being essentially pawned off to a Doth'raki warlord and having all of this other drama going on I think that it makes more sense that Dany just reached her breaking point with all of it. The Targaryan madness may not even be the most sensible explanation for her primary character flaws whether we are strictly looking at the books or what she did in the show.

[cubby]

I don't feel like it went off the rails completely but it just felt so rushed to me and it's like it had its good episodes but too many scenes if not entire episodes that left me feeling like they just wanted to get it over with. Plus a few loose ends that didn't really get explained such as who the god of fire is and his role in that world or a few others from earlier seasons. I feel like the show as a whole overall got worse as it went on after about season 3 or 4 though like I said it still had strong episodes here and there.

I could not agree more. The last two seasons needed their full 10 episodes, and I would bet that another season could have been put in there as well. Definite loose ends - and some poorly done scenes as well. Even more, the last two seasons certainly weren't the same quality as the first six. As you and others have pointed once GRRM's material ran out, D&D were stuck with a rough outline and...nothing else. It was bound to suffer in some ways.

- - - Updated - - -

No - its directly and only related to the fact that D&D wanted to move on to Star Wars. They've copped to that themselves (article quoted several pages ago when you first entered the discussion). HBO green lit more seasons (D&D also admitted that) - they could have taken more seasons to make it NOT rushed - to play it out and explain it better - but they chose to rush it.

For some that 'rushing' is what destroyed the ending and the show for them. For you, clearly it did not.

Found a link - not sure if it's the same one. Interesting.

You make a good point, and I agree - thank you.

No - you haven't. You have shown the objective evidence that YOU feel shows her madness is well documented. The evidence, being that they are scenes in the show, yes, is objective. What you feel they are showing is YOUR opinion that they show that, and that its 'enough' for YOU. That is not objective - that's your opinion. I watch that same evidence and disagree that they showed it "well enough."

I agree with you that they showed some - but I 100% disagree that it was enough. I do believe that if they hadn't rushed it - they could have MADE it enough by yes, having more scenes where she's discussing her mindset and you see that decay set in and that shift in thinking - but they didn't. They could have had more discussions in there in the time they had left - showing the same thing - but they did not. It was enough for YOU - it was clearly not enough "evidence" for many others.

And no that isn't the only and exactly the reason people don't come to this thread to defend your (or their) points in favor of the show being 'brilliant'. Since I don't do what you do and speak for other people, I can tell you the reason *I* haven't joined in this discussion is your inability to take your opinion and see its an opinion - even though I actually agree with some of it. You are consistently spinning your opinion on the evidence as fact, when its not. And when you stooped to low blows to insult people who disagree with you that's when I knew I didn't want to jump in. Even though I don't find Season 7 and 8 the worst thing ever - and thought I might jump in with some of your more intellectual discussions - you started getting insulting and dismissive and insisting that all this 'evidence is proof I'm right and the rest of you are wrong' again and again - so there's no point in even trying to discuss.

Even when you say "ok I agree with you the pacing was off" and "I agree with you s7 timeline was all wonky and messed up" and "gee you make nice points" - you turn around and then undermine all that nice discussion with "but this is the evidence and its objective and I'm right and you're wrong" and you STILL feel that D&D were "brilliant" and "perfect" in how they ended the show - though clearly, by your own admission, it wasn't actually "perfect." If it was perfect the pacing wouldn't have been too fast and s7 jumping around wouldn't feel that way.

By your own words right there - you can acknowledge there were flaws with the last two seasons and "some people" make good points. What you fail to see is that those 'good points', those flaws you can 'see' how people see them - for some people that was enough to make them hate the journey. Even though for you it isn't enough to change your opinion that D&D were 'brilliant and perfect' on season 7 and 8. That's the difference of opinion - right there. For you its not enough to ruin it, for others, it was. And for some of us - it didn't ruin it - but neither do we feel it was 'brilliant', or even 'great'. You can't agree to disagree - because that's the best this is going to get when it comes to that part of the opinion.

That's why I've not come to the thread to join in on the positive discussion - not the other people arguing against you - but your tactics and spin to make 'objective evidence as to why xyz opinion is wrong' is a total turn off to joining in. Because no - you've proved no one's opinion wrong. You've supported your opinion with the evidence you feel makes your opinion fact - but it doesn't make it fact. Its just the evidence for *your opinion* and nothing else - and then you discredit what others are telling you is their evidence as to why they felt the last two seasons ruined the show for them (even when you agree with their view point).

You can break down every quote from every episode you feel is supportive of your 'objective' based 'truth' (of opinion). But that still won't make it anyone else's truth. The mechanics are all there. But what people take from every scene, from every line, from tone, from character interactions - is ALL subjective opinion.

At some point it's all subjective evidence - but it is evidence-based examples of my position. And while people can disagree about the interpretation of those examples, at least I'm providing them - which is really all you can do in a discussion on art. However, others aren't even providing that - which, when it comes to discussions like this, mean they are failing to make their point. Now, don't get me wrong, they and everyone can have their opinion/point and no one can take it away. But if you're in a conversation like this, and one person is using examples to back their opinion, the other "side" needs to as well. Otherwise we're just arguing feelings.

You seem to be misunderstanding my statements - all of this discussion is inherently subjective opinion. You're misunderstanding how I'm presenting my position. I'm using what's available to bolster my point. The Jaime and Dany examples, for instance, are examples from the show that I use to point out why I think my opinion is correct. But of course at the end of the day there is not objective right/wrong. I really don't want to get into some long-winded discussion on artistic opinions.

And you should also understand that others, on the "other side", have said that the entire series' ending is "objectively very bad writing" and "total shit". I notice you don't call those people out at all. Why aren't you doing that?

Good point about the flawed areas that everyone acknowledges making the journey for some overall bad. Seriously - I have to admit I hadn't considered that perspective.

Please link where I said it was "perfect". We'll all wait - if you don't, I'm assuming you're lying and will expect an apology.

- - - Updated - - -

I think one of the key differences when comparing Dany as a character to someone like her father who went mad and the actions he took is the age difference. Dany in the books starts out at age 13 or 14 I think while in the show at about 16. Girls who just went through puberty are not exactly known for their ability to control their emotions, make good decisions or run military campaigns. A man who is 70 on the other hand should be. That's part of her character which needs to be taken into account when she does rash things or immediately seeks vengeance because she feels that a great wrong has been committed against her or someone else that she takes personally. Otherwise, I think we could accurately say that roughly half of the teenagers in this world(probably more so teenage girls) suffer from madness. When what they really suffer from is teenage angst, naivety and hormones. Then when you also add in her upbringing, being essentially pawned off to a Doth'raki warlord and having all of this other drama going on I think that it makes more sense that Dany just reached her breaking point with all of it. The Targaryan madness may not even be the most sensible explanation for her primary character flaws whether we are strictly looking at the books or what she did in the show.

That's all entirely possible - and you make an interesting point.

What's really interesting is that throughout the entire show she continually says "I'm not my father". In prose, having someone continually claim something over a long period of time only to become the very thing they denied is a tragic ironic ending. I see her fall to madness as that. Along with she was literally the only person who couldn't get the throne - as she was the most obvious choice from Season 1.

Jon, imo, should have gotten the throne. That would have sorted with the other tragic or ironic endings we saw throughout the show.

[Adamas102]

They aren't evidence of madness encapsulating her then. It is evidence of the madness that is within her. It's entirely UNREASONABLE for anyone to burn a city to ashes because the leaders of that city attacked her. Vanquish her foes? Of course. Kill all the innocent children/women/men who didn't do anything. Not at all. Moreover, it's absolute direct evidence of her already turning towards her father's course early on.

The original Targaryens didn't but entire cities to ashes. They burned their enemy forces to ashes. The difference is the entire point here.

I'd still say it's a big stretch to call that madness. Ruthless? Yes. Razing an entire city is certainly something Tywin would do (similar to what he encouraged during the sacking of King's Landing) and he's regarded as a cold yet brilliant strategist rather than a crazy person. Aegon Targaryen absolutely would do it as well, as evidenced by the burning of Harrenhal where he roasted everyone in the castle alive after one man refused to surrender thinking the massive walls would keep them safe, and he's regarded as a great conqueror. Given the world of GoT, it's not madness or unreasonable to put an entire city to the sword in order to defeat your enemies.

Again, the examples are simply Dany TALKING about taking extreme measures to defeat her enemies when the odds appear to be against her. The reason none of these moments work as foreshadowing for what she does in the end is because the situation is completely different then. She NEVER talks about burning cities that have surrendered to her, and all of her actions throughout 7 seasons show her to be kind and benevolent to the common people. That's why her actions in that episode are so out of left field. You're basically taking a few WORDS here and there (spoken out of frustration and often when her life is in peril) and ignoring her ACTIONS throughout the entire series.

[cubby]

I'd still say it's a big stretch to call that madness. Ruthless? Yes. Razing an entire city is certainly something Tywin would do (similar to what he encouraged during the sacking of King's Landing) and he's regarded as a cold yet brilliant strategist rather than a crazy person. Aegon Targaryen absolutely would do it as well, as evidenced by the burning of Harrenhal where he roasted everyone in the castle alive after one man refused to surrender thinking the massive walls would keep them safe, and he's regarded as a great conqueror. Given the world of GoT, it's not madness or unreasonable to put an entire city to the sword in order to defeat your enemies.

I would agree that any single example is a big stretch. But the point is that there are multiple examples of her trending towards that madness. And in regards to Aegon, he burned a castle, not a city - and yes, I realize that there are innocents in a castle - but it's much different than a city.

Again, the examples are simply Dany TALKING about taking extreme measures to defeat her enemies when the odds appear to be against her. The reason none of these moments work as foreshadowing for what she does in the end is because the situation is completely different then. She NEVER talks about burning cities that have surrendered to her, and all of her actions throughout 7 seasons show her to be kind and benevolent to the common people. That's why her actions in that episode are so out of left field. You're basically taking a few WORDS here and there (spoken out of frustration and often when her life is in peril) and ignoring her ACTIONS throughout the entire series.

But I'm not - I'm showing a consistent trend, through her actions and words, towards a madness. And that ongoing, brewing madness is foreshadowed by her actions, her words, and the constant "i'm not my father" statements (I can explain that further if you want - but it's more a writing tool). Tyrion has to reel her in time and again from burning people alive, or cities, and as time progresses, she slowly starts to become her father.

I mean, in GoT, only the crazy people burn their enemies alive. Stannis did it and he was fucking nuts at the end. Dany as well. And I'm not saying that killing your enemies is "madness" - clearly that needs to be done. But the "good" rulers do it "humanely", beheadings and such.

[Berndorf]

Should have had Tyrion outfox the other clever manipulators in a stratagem that should have had everyones jaw dropping.

He should have had something besides mostly just continually getting outwitted and being content to be Dany's lapdog over the final 1.5 seasons.

[Mehrunes]

littlefinger not being aware of what kind of shitheads Boltons are is bullcrap and betrayal of his character. littlefinger would absolutely know. he was either lying or writers forgot... again.

It was a betrayal of his character so severe that even GRRM commented that it's something LF would have never done. Then again, as I pointed out before, cubby seems to give a damn about GRRM's statements only if they vindicate the showrunners (and even then still has to bend over backwards like they did with the part about GRRM telling them the ending in broad strokes).

[cubby]

It was a betrayal of his character so severe that even GRRM commented that it's something LF would have never done. Then again, as I pointed out before, cubby seems to give a damn about GRRM's statements only if they vindicate the showrunners (and even then still has to bend over backwards like they did with the part about GRRM telling them the ending in broad strokes).

No, I don't. Why do you feel the need to lie in your posts? It's pretty interesting that's all you have to offer. I love your shitposts on me - they are hysterical. Abandoning reality and clarity for little zingy points - hope they make you feel good, they sure as shit don't help in this discussion. And that's before the fact that you're lying.

Where is that quip about GRRM comment re LF and Sansa?

[Adamas102]

Agreed. But it wasn't flawed, and it was good. You need to recognize that the opposite position of what you just said is also true: just because you don't like something doesn't mean it wasn't good.

There are a lot of solid arguments for why the series ended badly, and not just as a matter of "well, I didn't like it". The way the narrative is structured and how characters are presented can indeed by objectively bad.

For instance, Jamie started the series true to his character in the books, but then D&D added a couple lines in the later seasons which as you've pointed out essentially invalidated his entire character arc. That is objectively bad character development. It leads to a number of contradictory scenes and ends with the character backtracking on everything they've been doing up until that point.

I've already pointed out how Dany's arc was a failure, but I'll condense it down. Having a character ACT a certain way for 99% of their presence in the narrative, and then do something that is completely opposite those actions is evidence of bad writing. Pointing to a few phrases but no actions and saying "she went mad because she was always crazy deep inside" without having a clear inciting incident is not good character development.

Having a long running narrative track (Jon and the White Walkers), but resolving it by bringing in a character that had nothing to do with that narrative track (Arya) is bad writing. It might feel like payoff to you if you're only looking at it from the perspective of Arya, but as a result almost all of Jon's story line is essentially invalidated.

You've already admitted that the last couple seasons were rushed. That is a pretty big flaw for a show like this that started out so character driven. Strategic characters like Tyrion an Varys didn't have the time to be strategic anymore. Characters that used to be proactive, like Jon and Cersei, suddenly had nothing to do. Side characters that had outgrown their usefulness, like Euron, Greyworm, and Bronn, still had to get screen time to bring those threads to a conclusion, but that was even less time to properly develop and conclude the main characters.

[RobertoCarlos]

He did manipulate Jon into killing Daenerys by using Sansa. He also got Jon out of King's Landing alive.

The unsullied especially greyworm letting Jon go was another plot hole not the work of tyrion. Just like for some reason he got to name bran as king even though he had no right. Service for the crowd favourite nothing more

[Adamas102]

I would agree that any single example is a big stretch. But the point is that there are multiple examples of her trending towards that madness. And in regards to Aegon, he burned a castle, not a city - and yes, I realize that there are innocents in a castle - but it's much different than a city.

I don't think that's a valid distinction. Is collateral damage reasonable when fighting against an enemy that won't surrender or is it not? If this is a world where killing a few hundred civilians can be part of a valid strategy, then I don't think it's a sign of madness to extrapolate that out to a stronger or more entrenched enemy.

But I'm not - I'm showing a consistent trend, through her actions and words, towards a madness. And that ongoing, brewing madness is foreshadowed by her actions, her words, and the constant "I'm not my father" statements (I can explain that further if you want - but it's more a writing tool). Tyrion has to reel her in time and again from burning people alive, or cities, and as time progresses, she slowly starts to become her father.

I mean, in GoT, only the crazy people burn their enemies alive. Stannis did it and he was fucking nuts at the end. Dany as well. And I'm not saying that killing your enemies is "madness" - clearly that needs to be done. But the "good" rulers do it "humanely", beheadings and such.

What actions? All you've pointed at is words. Saying "I'm not my father" isn't a writing tool to try to suggest the opposite. When she says it, she means it. And at no point does she do anything like what her father did in his madness. Saying you're going to burn your enemies to the ground in their cities is not madness. Burning your own city after you've easily and successfully won the battle to take it IS madness because it serves no logical purpose. There is no connection, either in action or words, to bring Dany from one point to the other in a way that makes any sense.

Also, Stannis is not crazy. He allows a terrible thing to be done out of sheer desperation, but he's completely sane at the time. He has seen literal magic being done by Melissandre so it's perfectly reasonable to believe her at that time. His armies are on the verge of collapse and he knows he and his family will likely be killed when he's defeated, so it's an extreme last ditch effort. Horrible, but not a sign of madness. Also, burning his daughter doesn't happen in the books (yet) so that could also be a D&D fabrication.

[cubby]

There are a lot of solid arguments for why the series ended badly, and not just as a matter of "well, I didn't like it". The way the narrative is structured and how characters are presented can indeed by objectively bad.

Some other posters would disagree with your sentiment.. @Koriani you going to jump in here and do the same here you did to me?

For instance, Jamie started the series true to his character in the books, but then D&D added a couple lines in the later seasons which as you've pointed out essentially invalidated his entire character arc. That is objectively bad character development. It leads to a number of contradictory scenes and ends with the character backtracking on everything they've been doing up until that point.

But he didn't - not exactly. His honor issue was with being an oathkeepter - that what he did was honorable. But at the same time, in the series at least, he was always dedicated to Cersei - with absolutely no indication of delineation from that track. He wasn't becoming some entirely different person in the series after he lost his hand. He was humbled, of course, but not in a dramatic character change.
So his returning to Cersei in the end made perfect sense because of his character development throughout the series. You're saying it's "objectively bad" character development, when in point of fact it's not, because you're basing that on something that didn't happen in the series - only in the books.

I've already pointed out how Dany's arc was a failure, but I'll condense it down. Having a character ACT a certain way for 99% of their presence in the narrative, and then do something that is completely opposite those actions is evidence of bad writing. Pointing to a few phrases but no actions and saying "she went mad because she was always crazy deep inside" without having a clear inciting incident is not good character development.

And I've shown, almost conclusively, where her arc was entirely justified. With numerous examples and analysis from those examples. Her willingness to burn people and cities to ashes shows it.

Having a long running narrative track (Jon and the White Walkers), but resolving it by bringing in a character that had nothing to do with that narrative track (Arya) is bad writing. It might feel like payoff to you if you're only looking at it from the perspective of Arya, but as a result almost all of Jon's story line is essentially invalidated.

It's not bad writing. However, I would have to agree, Jon killing the NK would have been better - especially given the narrative track. Arya doing had some justification, but not nearly as much as Jon.

You've already admitted that the last couple seasons were rushed. That is a pretty big flaw for a show like this that started out so character driven. Strategic characters like Tyrion an Varys didn't have the time to be strategic anymore. Characters that used to be proactive, like Jon and Cersei, suddenly had nothing to do. Side characters that had outgrown their usefulness, like Euron, Greyworm, and Bronn, still had to get screen time to bring those threads to a conclusion, but that was even less time to properly develop and conclude the main characters.

They lost their source material. And wanted out - rushed for me is a very legitimate critique.

As an aside, I thought Bronn's ending was fantastic - that scene with him and Jaime and Tyrion was spot on.