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

[TickTickTick]

The thing with Jaime is that it's so incredibly sudden. End of S7 he ditches her, isn't shown longing for her unlike previous attempts, knights Brienne which is the culmination of their mutual respect as I saw it, fights the Walkers, so on and so forth. Then he... sleeps with Brienne, for whatever reason? And immediately after says he's a bad guy who wuvs Cercei, and spends the rest of his runtime either saying he wuvs her or dying in her arms. Nothing happened to visibly trigger this, no soul-searching was even implied, he just suddenly remembered that was where his character needed to end up and so sped back south.

I kind of disagree.

IMO, Cersei killing a dragon and the news arriving in Winterfell triggered this. How I understood it was: During his time in Winterfell he got to know Daenerys enough to judge that she'll spare Cersei. That she'll be banished to the East or will be allowed to stay in the court as some kind of a policital hostage, but she will give birth to their child and the Lannisters will live on.

This changes when he learns the news. At this point he realizes there's no way Cersei will be spared. He knows the extent of the rebeliant army and he's seen a dragon in action. He knows that death of one of the dragons will trigger Daenerys so much that she'll be ready to annihilate the whole capital in revenge.

So... what are his choices? Stay in Winterfell, in which case Daenerys would probably execute him anyway because she'd just hate Lannisters anyway. Travel to King's Landing and try to evacuate Cersei so that their child can be born and the Lannisters can survive. Or just die trying because his life would lose meaning anyway.

Yes, he seemed to be pissed at Cersei. Yes, she tried to kill him, twice. He even slept with Brienne. He still loved her for how many years he lived and that sudden realization that Cersei won't come out alive out of this kind of snapped his psyche.

Out of all weird choices for S8, Jaimie's arc makes the most sense to me, tbh. You just need to look at this keeping in mind Daenerys' history with the Lannisters and how long Jaimie was in love with Cersei.

[cubby]

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.

I know you don't. It's not collateral damage - it's "burning the city to ashes" vs a castle. Those are different sized things. There is a exceedingly valid distinction between the two. You mentioned before about disingenuous statements, and I hesitate to call you out here, but you literally just claimed that a city and a castle are not distinct.


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.[/QUOTE]
She burned people alive. She wanted to burn cities to ashes, but was talked out of it. If the slide to madness wasn't subtle we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with.

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.

Call it whatever you want - he burned his daughter at the stake. And watched. Something that seems "perfectly reasonable at the time" can still be batshit crazy. And if burning your daughter alive isn't crazy, well, maybe we're operating from different definitions.
He could have let his daughter go if he was worried she would be killed.

- - - Updated - - -

The thing with Jaime is that it's so incredibly sudden. End of S7 he ditches her, isn't shown longing for her unlike previous attempts, knights Brienne which is the culmination of their mutual respect as I saw it, fights the Walkers, so on and so forth. Then he... sleeps with Brienne, for whatever reason? And immediately after says he's a bad guy who wuvs Cercei, and spends the rest of his runtime either saying he wuvs her or dying in her arms. Nothing happened to visibly trigger this, no soul-searching was even implied, he just suddenly remembered that was where his character needed to end up and so sped back south. Same thing with Bronn who just shows up in Winterfell with his absolute unit of a crossbow, somehow sneaks to the Lannisters, sneaks out after threatening the both of them, and the next thing we know about him he's Lord of Highgarden and Master of Coin. Like, whu? Feels like there's half a dozen scenes missing to explain how the blazes that happened and why.

In general S8 had tons of moments where characters did nonsensical and/or totally rushed stuff to hurry what remained of their arcs along. That's just one reason it was so incredibly unsatisfying.

I would actually argue that sleeping with Brienne was the out of character thing for Jaime, not rushing back to Cersei. We know that Jaime never slept with anyone except Cersei his entire life, so if you're going to argue out-of-character actions from the series, Jaime jumping into bed with Brienne is a solid one.

Running back to Cersei was entirely justified, throughout the entire series, countless times.

[Mehrunes]

Which means she can do it. And you're confirming that she can. So she can sneak and she can jump. Not much too it. You're literally saying she can't do it and immediately after explaining precisely why she can.

By this logic Arya wasn't even necessary, because Theon should have killed him. He killed plenty of people earlier on in the show, which means he could do it. Because apparently the concept of various levels of proficiency in a given skill died in a ditch due to the fact it was convenient to your valiant defense of the show.

Because people bitch and moan about "how could Arya know the NK weak spot" when it literally doesn't exist in the series. That's the entire point, which you just bolstered. Her killing of the NK is just using a "cool" move, which had already been shown, to kill the head WW with valerian steel. There is nothing more to that kill.

It's funny that for all your sanctimony about how book writers are projecting their book knowledge onto the story (while completely missing @Witchblade77's point) you don't even know the show's story and contradict what the very same showrunners you ceaselessly shill for say about a given topic. And when it then gets pointed out to you, you quickly move the goalposts.

Could have jumped from a cart. If you look at the scene, she doesn't really even come in from that high.

Oh yeah, there were whole legions of those in the godswood in that scene.

You mean like Bran? Like Sansa/Theon? They aren't apologists, they are people trying to explain to haters why their points suggesting a "bad" ending aren't entirely correct. Or at least "grounded in reality".

Bran barely survived and got crippled for life while Sansa and Theon had their fall greatly dampened by the massive amount of snow next to the wall and still took quite a bit of damage. Great examples. Really comparable to what you were replying to.

On a side note, your later assurances that you're totes legit not disingenuous or obtuse are kinda damaged by the fact when faced with an opportunity to dismiss the whole apologist rhetoric you instead doubled down with "it's not apologists, it's MUH HATERS INSTEAD". And given the weird number disparity between these vile haters and you, this has immense "Am I out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong." vibes.

It's frustrating the lengths at which haters will continue to shit all over a great show with a terrific ending.
Love that you think they got fired from the Star Wars project. Let us know when you're ready for reality. I swear, some of the GOT-ending haters sound just like Trump supporters with their lying and twisting of facts.

So you're saying is that you're actually a Trump-supporting hater of the show and the bit you're doing here is just for the sake or irony? Interesting. Weird, but interesting.

Also, their Star Wars project got flat out cancelled. As did their Confederacy fan-wank. And for all these high stakes projects they were supposed to do they ended up doing a bunch of F-list projects for Netflix. Given their immense genius, it's a string of rather quaint coincidences, I'm sure.

Nice word. But no, I'm not. You're just reading WAY too much into the scene. She had the skills, she was a great choice for the kill (what do we say to death), and they forecasted the move in a previous episode.
Arya killing the NK was NOT a superpower - not sure where you got that idea, at all.

In the fact that the same goddamn episode saw her struggle with sneaking past a handful of wights, requiring her to methodically go from bookshelf to bookshelf in an enclosed area over the span of the multiple minutes, yet a few scenes later she sprints through an army in the span of mere seconds, as if she had cloaking tech.

Literally, behind the scenes. So no character knew about it, so the location didn't matter. The scene was fantastic. You don't have to like it, but don't read more into it than was there or provided.

Not being mentioned in the series is a point in my favor, not yours. The kill stroke was a coincidence - that you and those who know info outside the series are reading into it, rather than just the simple facts that happened. Recall - Arya's fight with Brienne where Arya did that move, exactly, previously. That's where it comes from, not from some unwritten, unknown, special kill move for the NK - which didn't even exist in the books.

Oh, yes. A character stabbing the universe's Satan in the one specific spot that can kill him by sheer coincidence is simply fantastic indeed. Sublime, even. The fact that Arya didn't know about Night King's weak spot and just so happened to stab him precisely there regardless by mere happenstance is truly in your favor because everyone knows there's no better storytelling that characters achieving fantastic feats, especially of the story-wrapping variety, through sheer dumb luck.

You calling out intellectual dishonesty is just a bullshit way to admit you make shitting arguments, and feel the need to lie in order to arrive at a conclusion.

Unlike you trying to portray them vile haters of god's gift to television as Trump supporters

I mean, I love lots of things this forum hates, like The Last Jedi and the 2nd and 3rd Matrix movies. But as someone aspiring to writing, and someone who's paid to write clearly and coherently (albeit in a technical area), D&D's writing was......very bad. Objectively.

Dany You probably kind of forgot about what good writing is, so your opinion is invalid or something.

And you know that D&D were hired on to three other projects past GoT, right? And, contrary to liars in this forum, there weren't "fired" from the Star Wars project (the project was canceled by Disney execs, after Solo failed). Moreover, D&D were given the keys to the kingdom with The Three Body project, along with two other projects.

Given how the Old Republic trilogy they were supposed to make was announced (as being in extremely early stages of development no less) was announced 18 fucking months after Solo's release (and was then cancelled two years after its release), the liar here is you. The movies that got cancelled because of Solo's performance were the anthology ones.

So you don't even know the history of the people you're "objectively" judging - you're literally calling out your own lies at this point. You say their writing is objectively bad, but don't know what D&D are doing now. You're so fucking arrogant in your ridiculously subjective and largely unfounded opinions.

This is a complete non-sequitur. @eschatological not knowing about their other projects doesn't make their statements about the pieces of their writing they were actually judging a lie by any meaning of the word. Especially since none of the shows they are making for Netflix had even been released yet (never mind that they are writers for only one of those and are producers for the rest), meaning there's nothing there to be judged yet. Unless you have some inside scoops, in which case please, do share.

Do you think Netflix hands out $200M deals to "objectively very bad writers"? Or can we put your ridiculous claim to bed now. Shout if you need more info about things you're talking about but can't be bothered to learn about.

Are you aiming for the peaks of irony here, or what? Also Netflix is totes legit frugal with their money. That's why it's 15 billions in debt. They have many shows that cost in the $100M+ range per season, some of which were flops like Get Down. But them spending $200M on people with name recognition split between at least four different shows they are making AND a stand-up special they directed is apparently insane amount of money for Netflix.

Have you looked at their resume before GoT? It was literally godawful. One of them helped write the X-Men Origins: Wolverine movie, which was so bad they sewed shut the mouth of Deadpool, a character notorious for his wisecracking. Benioff also wrote Troy, which was meh, at best.

In case of Dan it was flat out non-existent.

[cubby]

(responding in red within your quotes)

By this logic Arya wasn't even necessary, because Theon should have killed him. He killed plenty of people earlier on in the show, which means he could do it. Because apparently the concept of various levels of proficiency in a given skill died in a ditch due to the fact it was convenient to your valiant defense of the show.
There is no logic to what you're saying here. Arya killing him was mildly justified - Jon would have been the better choice. Theon dying to protect Bran was spot on. It's telling you don't understand the difference - and more evidence of your shit posting. But we're having fun here, so let's keep going.

It's funny that for all your sanctimony about how book writers are projecting their book knowledge onto the story (while completely missing @Witchblade77's point) you don't even know the show's story and contradict what the very same showrunners you ceaselessly shill for say about a given topic. And when it then gets pointed out to you, you quickly move the goalposts.
I don't know the show's story? You're adorable. Can you please stop lying and shit posting - it's not helping the discussion. No goalposts were moved, and I routinely admit when I'm wrong or learn something new.

Bran barely survived and got crippled for life while Sansa and Theon had their fall greatly dampened by the massive amount of snow next to the wall and still took quite a bit of damage. Great examples. Really comparable to what you were replying to.
Right? It's almost like they were different things? Thanks for showing I was right. Weird for you to be helpful.

On a side note, your later assurances that you're totes legit not disingenuous or obtuse are kinda damaged by the fact when faced with an opportunity to dismiss the whole apologist rhetoric you instead doubled down with "it's not apologists, it's MUH HATERS INSTEAD". And given the weird number disparity between these vile haters and you, this has immense "Am I out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong." vibes.
What dark hell are you even talking about here? Holy fuck - do you even understand what you just said?

So you're saying is that you're actually a Trump-supporting hater of the show and the bit you're doing here is just for the sake or irony? Interesting. Weird, but interesting.
This would be an example of your continued and unhelpful shit posting. Shout if you're confused about anything - we're here to help.

Also, their Star Wars project got flat out cancelled. As did their Confederacy fan-wank. And for all these high stakes projects they were supposed to do they ended up doing a bunch of F-list projects for Netflix. Given their immense genius, it's a string of rather quaint coincidences, I'm sure.
And why was it canceled again? I can't remember...oh wait, that's right, I literally posted why. Yet more of your shit posting and lies if can't be bothered to read simple links within the very thread you're posting and quoting on. D&D left for Netflix, which is why their Star Wars trilogy was canceled - along with Confederate. They weren't fired. I'm assuming you're as ignorant of the other facts as this, so I'll let you read up and get some learnin' under your belt. Let us know if you need help remembering reality - again, we're here to help.

In the fact that the same goddamn episode saw her struggle with sneaking past a handful of wights, requiring her to methodically go from bookshelf to bookshelf in an enclosed area over the span of the multiple minutes, yet a few scenes later she sprints through an army in the span of mere seconds, as if she had cloaking tech.
Weird, it's almost like she was in different environments when she was sneaking, and different things were going on, isn't it? Like indoors and being hunted is different than outdoors and the WW being distracted.
You fucking suck at this by the way. Totes' for the laughs though (did I do that right? )

Oh, yes. A character stabbing the universe's Satan in the one specific spot that can kill him by sheer coincidence is simply fantastic indeed. Sublime, even. The fact that Arya didn't know about Night King's weak spot and just so happened to stab him precisely there regardless by mere happenstance is truly in your favor because everyone knows there's no better storytelling that characters achieving fantastic feats, especially of the story-wrapping variety, through sheer dumb luck.
The show never said he had to be stabbed there to die. How fucking ignorant of the series are you?

Unlike you trying to portray them vile haters of god's gift to television as Trump supporters
Just the ones that have trouble with facts and reality - such as yourself. You'll notice that other, very nice conversations on this topic are going on around you and those like you. And even more significant, I personally reached out to those that were constructively contributing because I enjoy their input and feedback, and wanted to make sure they knew they weren't included in that categorization.
Notice how you didn't the message? Sort of theme for you in life, eh?

Dany You probably kind of forgot about what good writing is, so your opinion is invalid or something.
More of your adorable shit-posting. Thanks for showing everyone your true colors.

Given how the Old Republic trilogy they were supposed to make was announced (as being in extremely early stages of development no less) was announced 18 fucking months after Solo's release (and was then cancelled two years after its release), the liar here is you. The movies that got cancelled because of Solo's performance were the anthology ones.
You mean I learned something and changed my view? You should try that sometime.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[RobertoCarlos]

It's pretty easy to defend a great series that finishes well. Which has been clearly the case with Game of Thrones.

Says the guy who answers questions like this.

Clearly just here to shit post/stir

[starstationprofm]

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

No one of them had any right. And Bran was rightful heir to Winterfell for all everyone there knew.

Come to think of it, Bran was the closest male relative Jon had so he's actually Jon's heir.

[RobertoCarlos]

No one of them had any right. And Bran was rightful heir to Winterfell for all everyone there knew.

Yeah the emotionless demi god is the rightful king because he has the best story.

Which apparently tyrion knows somehow. I guess they caught up together off screen about it.

[starstationprofm]

Yeah the emotionless demi god is the rightful king because he has the best story.

Which apparently tyrion knows somehow. I guess they caught up together off screen about it.

Demi god or not he's still Jon's heir and the heir to Winterfell.

[RobertoCarlos]

Demi god or not he's still Jon's heir and the heir to Winterfell.

But sansa declared winterfell seperate from the kingdom.

So that would make him king in the north.

But they have a queen because wokeness also crippled this show

[cubby]

Says the guy who answers questions like this.

Clearly just here to shit post/stir

I'm not sure you even understand what that means. You might not LIKE my answers, but they are thorough and well reasoned - with detailed examples and long, on-going conversations with various people about the subject. THAT's not shit posting - that's debating and arguing.

Now, if you swoop in here and post like you did, with just one liners, well, you get what you give, eh? And you got it. Get it?

[RobertoCarlos]

I'm not sure you even understand what that means. You might not LIKE my answers, but they are thorough and well reasoned - with detailed examples and long, on-going conversations with various people about the subject. THAT's not shit posting - that's debating and arguing.

Now, if you swoop in here and post like you did, with just one liners, well, you get what you give, eh? And you got it. Get it?

how can I like your answers when you dont even answer them.

[cubby]

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

Bran was an odd choice. Jon surviving was way weird. Tyrion influencing the who would be king actually made a lot of sense. Tyrion could easily have gotten Bran's full story - that's not a stretch of any imagination.

- - - Updated - - -

how can I like your answers when you dont even answer them.

You don't have to like my answers - IIRC we actually disagree on just about everything re this series.

Not answered them? Help me out here, I thought I had. Could you repeat them and I will. Sorry I missed them initially.

[RobertoCarlos]

Bran was an odd choice. Jon surviving was way weird. Tyrion influencing the who would be king actually made a lot of sense. Tyrion could easily have gotten Bran's full story - that's not a stretch of any imagination.

The original question was actually what was the point of bringing Jon back/ his whole arc to just be a side character to dany.

Why was tyrions/litterfingers/vary's intelligence thrown in the gutter when they had so much potential with their story lines

[cubby]

The original question was actually what was the point of bringing Jon back/ his whole arc to just be a side character to dany.

I didn't see Jon as a side character after he was brought back (when you say brought back, you mean rezzed by the Red Witch, right?). He convinced everyone that the dead needed to be fought. He organized the Night King stand in Winterfell. And then stopped the mad queen. I saw him as a pivotal main character the entire time, arguably THE main character.

Why was tyrions/litterfingers/vary's intelligence thrown in the gutter when they had so much potential with their story lines

I've argued continually that their intelligence wasn't thrown in the gutter. Tyrion continued to give good advice even if he was bad with the military strategy. LF admitted in show he didn't know Ramsay at all, hence marrying her off to the Boltons to control two great Houses (vale and bolton). Varys was always about the realm, not himself. His actions were rushed, but he was running out of time, and had been quietly questioning Dany's leadership almost the moment they returned to Dragonstone.

I posted more detailed analysis previously - but I'm happy to elaborate. However, I don't think I posted in a quote to you. I can add more analysis if you want. But at the end of the day we should also we're not going to agree.

[Adamas102]

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

I think you're still confusing enjoying something with whether or not it can be described as objectively bad. As I've said before, you're are certainly free to enjoy the series. However, if its narrative structure and character development was sloppy (something that a rushed ending alone will do) then it can certainly be an example of objectively bad writing.

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.

Keeping his oaths MEANT going against Cersei. I mentioned several decisions that Jaime made that were against Cersei's wishes, and some of those were part of his oath to Catelyn. He thought it more important to keep his oath to a dead woman than to do anything and everything that Cersei demanded. His oath to Cat, his meeting Brienne, his losing his hand, and his elevation to leader of the Kingsguard were all events that built his arc from selfish, jaded thug to honorable knight.

Losing his hand is a MAJOR moment for his character. His sword fighting ability was pretty much what he defined himself by. It completely changes his outlook on life, and it's part of what allows him to see that he has more value than just being a killer.

It IS objectively bad if you copy/paste a character and then 2/3rds of the way through the story suddenly change his motivations. Jaime up till season 6 IS book Jaime. He follows pretty much all the same character beats and one would assume has the same motivations for doing so. It isn't till those later seasons when D&D kept injecting lines about him doing anything for Cersei that he stopped being book Jamie and abandons his established arc. Like I said, it makes for a lot of contradictions in the narrative, and when he ends the series with lines like "I'm hateful" and "I never really cared about them anyway" that makes the character that was established in the earlier seasons no longer make sense. If he was always a hateful person that didn't care about anyone but Cersei, Brienne would be raped and dead, and he'd still have his right hand.

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.

Addressed below...

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.

That IS bad writing. It's setup with no payoff. If Arya was always meant to kill the NK with no real help from Jon, then spending time on Jon's narrative is wasteful. Subverting expectations (which is the only reason D&D decided to go with Arya) isn't good writing in and of itself. Subverting expectations is easy. You write in such a way to point readers to a certain conclusion and then you purposefully do something else. A good twist needs to have meaning. Neither Arya's nor Jon's stories were made better by Arya killing the NK. The only purpose was to 1. have a "cool" scene that audiences weren't expecting and 2. remove a character from the story. Arya had stabbed plenty of people before. She didn't change or learn anything about herself after killing the NK. It was just another stabby stab for her. THAT is bad writing.

I know you don't. It's not collateral damage - it's "burning the city to ashes" vs a castle. Those are different sized things. There is a exceedingly valid distinction between the two. You mentioned before about disingenuous statements, and I hesitate to call you out here, but you literally just claimed that a city and a castle are not distinct.
She burned people alive. She wanted to burn cities to ashes, but was talked out of it. If the slide to madness wasn't subtle we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with.

A city and a castle are distinct. Burning down a castle full of innocent civilians vs burning down a city full of innocent civilians is only distinct if you think killing civilians is perfectly fine up until a certain point. I personally don't think either is reasonable, but I also don't think it's reasonable to hang a 15 year old kid who was manipulated by older men, or murder a bunch of people and cook them into pies for a bit of revenge cannibalism.

Again, it's all about what the goal is. Killing civilians by burning a city to the ground IS collateral damage if your aim is to defeat the enemies within that city. That's why there's such a big difference between these supposed examples (which is apparently all you have) and what Dany does at the end of the series.

An argument can be made that burning people alive is taboo in Westeros, but that's not an indication of madness. Ned had a sword, Jon had a rope, Arya had a knife, and Dany had dragons. They each used the tools they had to execute people they thought deserved it. Dany had no less cause than anyone else in the series to put people to death, so those actions cannot be considered a sign of madness unless you're going to apply that same rule to everyone else who brutally killed people rather than showing mercy.

Call it whatever you want - he burned his daughter at the stake. And watched. Something that seems "perfectly reasonable at the time" can still be batshit crazy. And if burning your daughter alive isn't crazy, well, maybe we're operating from different definitions.
He could have let his daughter go if he was worried she would be killed.

I'm not sure you know what "madness" means in this context. The Mad King had serious mental problems and suffered from paranoid delusions, believed things that were unbelievable, and did cruel and irrational things as a result of that madness. He was certifiably insane. Dany shows no hints of insanity until those final episodes where she "liberates" the city by burning it. Her threats and actions before that point all had actual, legitimate purpose.

Maybe D&D did consider those other scenes as foreshadowing, but if so then that just solidifies the argument that they don't understand the setting or these characters or what madness means.

[Jastall]

I kind of disagree.

IMO, Cersei killing a dragon and the news arriving in Winterfell triggered this. How I understood it was: During his time in Winterfell he got to know Daenerys enough to judge that she'll spare Cersei. That she'll be banished to the East or will be allowed to stay in the court as some kind of a policital hostage, but she will give birth to their child and the Lannisters will live on.

This changes when he learns the news. At this point he realizes there's no way Cersei will be spared. He knows the extent of the rebeliant army and he's seen a dragon in action. He knows that death of one of the dragons will trigger Daenerys so much that she'll be ready to annihilate the whole capital in revenge.

So... what are his choices? Stay in Winterfell, in which case Daenerys would probably execute him anyway because she'd just hate Lannisters anyway. Travel to King's Landing and try to evacuate Cersei so that their child can be born and the Lannisters can survive. Or just die trying because his life would lose meaning anyway.

Yes, he seemed to be pissed at Cersei. Yes, she tried to kill him, twice. He even slept with Brienne. He still loved her for how many years he lived and that sudden realization that Cersei won't come out alive out of this kind of snapped his psyche.

Out of all weird choices for S8, Jaimie's arc makes the most sense to me, tbh. You just need to look at this keeping in mind Daenerys' history with the Lannisters and how long Jaimie was in love with Cersei.

But that happens after? Jaime leaves for Cercei's side earlier in episode 4 when he, Brienne and the rest of Team Dany are still in Winterfell celebrating, and the episode (almost) ends with the Iron Fleet 360 no scoping the dragon as Dany arrives at Dragonstone while forgetting about the Iron Fleet. You have your events out of order I'm afraid.

[cubby]

I think you're still confusing enjoying something with whether or not it can be described as objectively bad. As I've said before, you're are certainly free to enjoy the series. However, if its narrative structure and character development was sloppy (something that a rushed ending alone will do) then it can certainly be an example of objectively bad writing.

Rushing something isn't objectively bad writing, and that's essentially what you're arguing here. I disagree that the narrative structure and character development were sloppy. Rushed doesn't mean sloppy - and in this case the rushed ending wasn't sloppy.

Keeping his oaths MEANT going against Cersei. I mentioned several decisions that Jaime made that were against Cersei's wishes, and some of those were part of his oath to Catelyn. He thought it more important to keep his oath to a dead woman than to do anything and everything that Cersei demanded. His oath to Cat, his meeting Brienne, his losing his hand, and his elevation to leader of the Kingsguard were all events that built his arc from selfish, jaded thug to honorable knight.

Losing his hand is a MAJOR moment for his character. His sword fighting ability was pretty much what he defined himself by. It completely changes his outlook on life, and it's part of what allows him to see that he has more value than just being a killer.

It IS objectively bad if you copy/paste a character and then 2/3rds of the way through the story suddenly change his motivations. Jaime up till season 6 IS book Jaime. He follows pretty much all the same character beats and one would assume has the same motivations for doing so. It isn't till those later seasons when D&D kept injecting lines about him doing anything for Cersei that he stopped being book Jamie and abandons his established arc. Like I said, it makes for a lot of contradictions in the narrative, and when he ends the series with lines like "I'm hateful" and "I never really cared about them anyway" that makes the character that was established in the earlier seasons no longer make sense. If he was always a hateful person that didn't care about anyone but Cersei, Brienne would be raped and dead, and he'd still have his right hand.

Again - what you're describing is not in the series. The honorable knight issue was never address, solely as that, in the series. Therefore, just in the series, he remained true to his character. And I know you're going to say that's why the character arc is bad, because he starts out as the book character and then betrays that in the series - but you have to understand they he never was this book character in the series.

I think the issue you're always going to justifiably butt up against is that you know Jaime from the books, and it would be impossible to set aside all of that character building from the books and just look at him through the series. Because in the series Jaime is someone who changes after his had is lost, but only to the oathkeeper portion, not some honorable knight doing all these gloriously honorable deeds. In the series, again, he continually shows that he's only about Cersei - he also keeps his promises, hence the trip north to fight the dead.

Let's try this from a different tact - where are you seeing those honorable actions by Jaime in the series that demonstrate the change in character arc?

That IS bad writing. It's setup with no payoff. If Arya was always meant to kill the NK with no real help from Jon, then spending time on Jon's narrative is wasteful. Subverting expectations (which is the only reason D&D decided to go with Arya) isn't good writing in and of itself. Subverting expectations is easy. You write in such a way to point readers to a certain conclusion and then you purposefully do something else. A good twist needs to have meaning. Neither Arya's nor Jon's stories were made better by Arya killing the NK. The only purpose was to 1. have a "cool" scene that audiences weren't expecting and 2. remove a character from the story. Arya had stabbed plenty of people before. She didn't change or learn anything about herself after killing the NK. It was just another stabby stab for her. THAT is bad writing.

No, it's not. And we'll continue to disagree on this point. Arya killing the NK was a little out of left field, but still justified, as I've pointed out with concrete examples of actions and words from the series. Her killing the toughest kill in the land was an example of her culminating her abilities. No one else could do it, so she did it.


A city and a castle are distinct. Burning down a castle full of innocent civilians vs burning down a city full of innocent civilians is only distinct if you think killing civilians is perfectly fine up until a certain point. I personally don't think either is reasonable, but I also don't think it's reasonable to hang a 15 year old kid who was manipulated by older men, or murder a bunch of people and cook them into pies for a bit of revenge cannibalism.

Again, it's all about what the goal is. Killing civilians by burning a city to the ground IS collateral damage if your aim is to defeat the enemies within that city. That's why there's such a big difference between these supposed examples (which is apparently all you have) and what Dany does at the end of the series.[/quote]
And I disagree. Burning a castle full of soldiers to win, and some collateral damage will happen. Burning a city full of innocents with some soldiers in it is literally the opposite.

An argument can be made that burning people alive is taboo in Westeros, but that's not an indication of madness. Ned had a sword, Jon had a rope, Arya had a knife, and Dany had dragons. They each used the tools they had to execute people they thought deserved it. Dany had no less cause than anyone else in the series to put people to death, so those actions cannot be considered a sign of madness unless you're going to apply that same rule to everyone else who brutally killed people rather than showing mercy.

It's another subtle indication of madness. And at least in the series, only the crazies did it. Putting people to death is not the issue. It's how she did, and how quickly she did it in some cases.

I'm not sure you know what "madness" means in this context. The Mad King had serious mental problems and suffered from paranoid delusions, believed things that were unbelievable, and did cruel and irrational things as a result of that madness. He was certifiably insane. Dany shows no hints of insanity until those final episodes where she "liberates" the city by burning it. Her threats and actions before that point all had actual, legitimate purpose.

Maybe D&D did consider those other scenes as foreshadowing, but if so then that just solidifies the argument that they don't understand the setting or these characters or what madness means.

And Dany has those mental issues as well - they are not nearly as prevalent and are slow burning because she is so much younger than her father was at the time of his decline. Her tipping over isn't going to be any one great big "YEP, THAT'S IT" - a good story telling gives you the clues as the story moves forward. And we're given plenty of foreshadowing throughout the entire series, as I've pointed out several times.

[Witchblade77]

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.





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.



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.



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.



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.

oh wow. dude....


also, you should be able to click on the videos to watch them on youtube. first one is Jamie in season 3 talking to Brienne in a bathing house. second is Jamie in season 7 LEAVING Cercei after she stops him from gathering the promised army to go to the north. and the fact that they have him say "I don't give a fuck about people" while his whole arc starts with him MAKING A CHOICE TO BREAK HIS OATH AS KINGSGUARD because he cannot chose to be responsible for deaths of so many people? writers forgot again, I guess... or something something, this is jamie now, despite his development to the contrary? I don't even know your justifications are so thin..

the fact that you cannot, will not even try to see beyond "but it says it here, so it doesn't matter what it shows multiple times elsewhere" is.. both frustrating and sad. many of us have been showing you examples of why the ending and many other actions of the characters do NOT add up, contradictory to their own actions in prior seasons and so on... but you are doing an equivalent of "lalalala" can't hear you.

you are the definition of subjective, trying to pretend to be objective.

I'm tired. you have tired me out. i don't care enough about this shark jumping show to keep arguing. no, you didn't win. I'm just tired of beating my head against the wall of denial.

P.S. the irony of netflix is that they absolutely do give money to everyone and everything. they are kinda know for greenlighting just abut anything that comes their way, and then letting directors do their thing. its kind of a thing that is known about netflix originals that there is no reliable yardstick of whether its going to be amazing, breathtakingly shitty or anything in between. because they have all of the above and CONTINUE to greenlight all of the above. so them giving $200 mil to show runners with mixed record? is very much in character for Netflix. it does not somehow confirm that the writers they gave it to, are good.

[Adamas102]

Again - what you're describing is not in the series. The honorable knight issue was never address, solely as that, in the series. Therefore, just in the series, he remained true to his character. And I know you're going to say that's why the character arc is bad, because he starts out as the book character and then betrays that in the series - but you have to understand they he never was this book character in the series.

I think the issue you're always going to justifiably butt up against is that you know Jaime from the books, and it would be impossible to set aside all of that character building from the books and just look at him through the series. Because in the series Jaime is someone who changes after his had is lost, but only to the oathkeeper portion, not some honorable knight doing all these gloriously honorable deeds. In the series, again, he continually shows that he's only about Cersei - he also keeps his promises, hence the trip north to fight the dead.

Let's try this from a different tact - where are you seeing those honorable actions by Jaime in the series that demonstrate the change in character arc?

Ummm, what? It's an adaptation. He is the book character until D&D ran out of material and started taking it upon themselves to determine the trajectory of the character. The reason it was done poorly is because their either forgot, didn't understand, or didn't care about the trajectory that was set when they were adapting the character from the book almost scene for scene.

I understand that things change when you're adapting a work from one medium to another, but losing the core motivation and arc of a main character is a failure no matter how you cut it. If they'd been doing something like adapting the basic story to another setting or something like that, then that could make sense because they're making it their own from the get go. However, they were doing a very good, faithful adaptation for the first several seasons. That HAS to be taken into account with how the character is handled later on.

Again, how can he be "only about Cersei" when he's acting against her behind her back for almost the entire series? His desire to keep his oath to Catelyn by sending Brienne after Sansa is explicitly out of line with Cersei's scheming. Also, going to fight at Winterfell was not a promise HE made so it has nothing to do with "oathkeeping". Nor is it simply to defend Cersei and her child because frankly that's just silly. Even Jaime is smart enough to know that he alone isn't going to make a difference. He goes to Winterfell because it's the right thing to do, to fight for the living with all the other people willing to make a stand.

As for Jaime's honorable actions:
1. Killing the Mad King - This is of course prior to the events of the show, but it's important because it sets up his character. He states at least twice in the show the contradiction between keeping his oath to protect the king vs saving the innocent, and it's pretty obvious which one he values more. Being saddled with the mantle of Kingslayer when he knows he did the right thing is what leads him to become such a cold and jaded individual. At his core, Jaime WANTS to do the right thing, but this experience sours his taste for it.
2. Being forced to make an oath to Catelyn Stark - This is important because up to that point in the story he'd been hammered with the titles of Kingslayer and Oathbreaker, surrounded by people who never expected him to take a vow seriously. It was important to him that she would entrust him with an oath to keep. This is the beginning of his arc as it starts to give him new purpose. It's his second chance to prove that he CAN uphold an oath and be a good person, and even after Catelyn is dead he still honors that vow.
3. Standing up for Brienne - Sure, he didn't know he'd be maimed for it, but sticking his neck out for someone he barely knew, who was not part of his family and technically was sworn to his enemy's forces is a big step. Even in the show he's shown to be struggling with the decision as he listens to the men take her into the darkness before finally speaking up.
4. Negotiating with Edmure - I know you like to bring up this scene because of something Jaime says in it, but the simple fact that he even tries to negotiate and bring about a peaceful resolution is a big step for the character. At the start of the series he's a warrior, always happy to cross steel in battle. Not only is peaceful negotiation a change in his character, it's also a continuation of his oath to Catelyn to not go to war with the Tullys. No one else knows about this oath, so it's entirely his desire to remain honorable that leads him to keep to that oath. As for the threat he makes about the baby and the trebuchet, he never follows through and it does bring about the peaceful resolution that he'd been seeking so I'll count it in the "good" column.
5. Allowing Olenna a painless death - Again, directly opposing Cersei's wishes, but by this point Jaime is no longer her pawn and will act according to a more honorable code rather than acquiesce to her ruthlessness. At the beginning of the story he's willing to push a child to his death for Cersei without remorse, now he isn't even willing to execute an enemy under Cersei's orders and instead goes with a more merciful approach.
6. Charging Daenerys and Drogon alone - One of my favorite scenes. He knew he was charging into certain death, but with his soldiers falling around him he makes the decision to give his life to try to end the war with a decisive strike. Any notion that Jaime will do anything to be with Cersei goes out the window in this scene. He isn't thinking about her when he makes the decision to charge, he's looking around at his troops.
7. Joining the fight in the North - As I explained above, this had nothing to do with a promise he made or to protect Cersei. It was part of his personal growth as a character. One who chooses to stand for a cause rather than stand with Cersei.

No, it's not. And we'll continue to disagree on this point. Arya killing the NK was a little out of left field, but still justified, as I've pointed out with concrete examples of actions and words from the series. Her killing the toughest kill in the land was an example of her culminating her abilities. No one else could do it, so she did it.

As I explained before, it only makes sense if you're viewing the story through Arya's perspective and hers alone. If this story was called Arya Stark instead of Games of Thrones and the whole army of the dead thing was just a background subplot then yeah it would make sense because the story just revolves around Arya getting good at killing things. If the Night King is "the toughest kill in the land" and only Arya could do it, then no one else really has any use from season 7 onward. We don't need Jon to kill Dany because Arya can do it. We don't need an army to defeat Cersei because Arya can do it.

If Arya was the only person who could kill the Night King and it was so important to the story then why is it never really addressed afterwards? Why does no one stop to think "hey, this girl is magic and can kill anything" why don't we save our armies and just send her to kill Cersei, a woman she is already determined to kill? Or did no one question what happened to end the battle? Did no one wonder why there were hundreds of wights all ringed around the Godswood? That's even more proof that picking Arya for the kill was a bad idea because D&D didn't know what to do with it afterwards. Armies just regenerated over night and the plot moved on as if nothing had really mattered.

I've seen people argue some weird head canon that Dany HAD to be the one to defeat Cersei herself for her claim to be legitimate, seemingly forgetting that the big war that set the stage for the series ended with Jaime assassinating the king and Robert marching in later to take the throne. Or that Jon would have stopped Arya from doing it as if letting her infiltrating the Red Keep would be any more dangerous than manning a wall against an unbeatable undead horde.

And I disagree. Burning a castle full of soldiers to win, and some collateral damage will happen. Burning a city full of innocents with some soldiers in it is literally the opposite.

I mean, you're simply ignoring the definition of what collateral damage is just because the magnitude is different. Since Dany is only ever shown to be concerned with defeating the enemies that fight against her, ANY civilian casualties of her strategies are collateral damage, whether it's one civilian or a thousand. It isn't until season 8 that she seems to start grouping in civilians as enemies through complicity, and by then it's too late to be introducing these ideas.

It's another subtle indication of madness. And at least in the series, only the crazies did it. Putting people to death is not the issue. It's how she did, and how quickly she did it in some cases.

And Dany has those mental issues as well - they are not nearly as prevalent and are slow burning because she is so much younger than her father was at the time of his decline. Her tipping over isn't going to be any one great big "YEP, THAT'S IT" - a good story telling gives you the clues as the story moves forward. And we're given plenty of foreshadowing throughout the entire series, as I've pointed out several times.

I think I see the issue here. You're referring to symbolism where there is none. ASoIaF/GoT isn't a story of symbolism and subtle clues or foreshadowing. Sorry, but that's just you projecting your own beliefs on the setting. Maybe D&D wanted to add a few subtle "clues" here and there to have their endings make sense, but that's also more proof that they didn't understand the books they were adapting.

Burning is somewhat taboo in Westeros (which is only a small portion of the setting), but that doesn't mean it's a sign of madness. It doesn't matter that only "the crazies" do it in the story because it's not meant to be a symbol. It's simply a tool. Dany has dragons so that's her tool, just as most people in Westeros use swords and axes to do their dirty work. That she did it quickly is irrelevant as well because almost no one gets a trial in Westeros before execution.

And no, Dany is not shown to be paranoid or delusional to the extent that it would be classified as insanity. And no, there's no such thing as foreshadowed insanity. A character is either insane or they aren't. Even the series makes it clear that "Targaryen Madness" is a result of inbreeding (but not something that affects all members of the family). Aerys might have suffered from this sort of affliction, or it could have also been a result of his age and health*. There's no subtle symbolism, just real world genetic disorders and degenerative diseases.

If she was suffering from genetic abnormalities brought on by Targaryen inbreeding then she'd have been unstable all along, but that clearly wasn't the case. She was often kind, calm, and strategic. Her bouts of anger were well within reason for a young queen who was beset by many enemies. Dany threatening to ruthlessly destroy her enemies with little regard for collateral damage isn't madness, it's valid strategy that many other characters in the series would have adopted if they had dragons. There was also no inciting incident for an episode of temporary insanity. She'd weathered losses galore and been victorious several times before, so in that moment with the bells there was no real reason for her to go insane unless they'd made note that bells are somehow a trigger for her.

EDIT*: Reading up a bit more about Aerys, there was an inciting incident that caused his sanity to crack. He was captured and held prison for half a year by rebels during his reign. THAT makes sense. Winning your big battle with almost no casualties does not.

[Jastall]

If she was suffering from genetic abnormalities brought on by Targaryen inbreeding then she'd have been unstable all along, but that clearly wasn't the case. She was often kind, calm, and strategic. Her bouts of anger were well within reason for a young queen who was beset by many enemies. Dany threatening to ruthlessly destroy her enemies with little regard for collateral damage isn't madness, it's valid strategy that many other characters in the series would have adopted if they had dragons. There was also no inciting incident for an episode of temporary insanity. She'd weathered losses galore and been victorious several times before, so in that moment with the bells there was no real reason for her to go insane unless they'd made note that bells are somehow a trigger for her.

Funny part is, they literally say that's what happens in a behind the scenes feature. The bells make her go mad because it reminds her that those same bells rang when her family was routed from the city. Which, yes, happened before she was even born so I've no idea how her mind could possibly make that connection, but it's what does make her flip on the genocide switch according to the directors. No, this wasn't the least bit foreshadowed by the show at all or even hinted at afterwards so it definitely comes across as a total asspull, the same with Dany just forgetting the Iron Fleet exists towards the end of episode 4.