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

[Mehrunes]

and that scene in a tower? taking something and pointing to it with, see foreshadowing is STILL. NOT. PROPER. CHARACTER. DEVELOPMENT. in fact - its yet another proof of the points I was making. DnD were "trying" to stick to major story beats whether they were earned or not. they did not in any way shape or form adopted to the changes THEY themselves made to the story and characters.

meh.

This is yet another example of the thing you mentioned earlier on, i.e. how Dumb and Dumber started changing the storylines but they did not adjust their writing to compensate for the changes. Because the scene in the tower is just foreshadowing and foreshadowing, as you just said yourself, does not substitute character development.

The thing is, there was such development in the books and they just cut it out. And that was Quaithe warning Dany about the three treasons that await her. Which, as the books went on, preoccupied her mind more and more. In A Dance with Dragons she was quite obsessed with it already, pondering if this or that thing she experienced was already one of the treasons, questioning how many are still ahead of her, suspecting her own advisors and so on.

That actually set her character on the path to become the Mad Queen down the road (though perhaps GRRM has even more planned in that department). Meanwhile other than the foreshadowing from six seasons earlier the show had "Oh noes, Cersei killed Missandei (but spared everyone else even though she could have killed them then and there)".

The even funnier part is that Quaithe was in the show but they just used her as an exposition dump for Jorah.

[Varodoc]

To be fair it was repeatedly said that she wanted to be different, the whole breaking the wheel part. It kinda implies "let's not kill all relatives of our opponents, get them on our side instead".

Sure, except that in the end that went nowhere. All the sacrifices she made in her quest to break the wheel were meaningless because she ultimately succumbed to madness and became just another cog in the wheel. And ironically she'll be remembered as just another claimant who killed tons of innocents for her claim to the throne. Which makes her whole Story meaningless.

So your argument would make sense if she did break the wheel, but in the end she just became another part of the wheel, because "Hurr durr she crucified 20 assholes once so that means she's willing to commit genocide hurr durr!!"

[Mehrunes]

This may have been answered already but in case it hasn't -

The ONLY reasoning we were ever given as to why D&D did what they did - was because Star Wars. They got the contract to do the last Star Wars movie and wanted to get to that so, even though HBO told them they had plenty of room to keep going - decided to wrap it up in Season 7/8 and do it the way they did it. I believe there are interviews where even D&D talk about this as the motivation to end the show; so they could free up their time for the new Big Deal. Which, I believe, they lost (?) but that was the original given motivation. :/

Not the last Star Wars movie. Their own Star Wars trilogy set during the Old Republic era. Though they were trying to rush GoT even before that. It's just before Star Wars it was due to their own idea for a show, i.e. a fan-wank for the Confederacy. And yes, their Star Wars trilogy has been cancelled.

[Tyris Flare]

Sure, except that in the end that went nowhere. All the sacrifices she made in her quest to break the wheel were meaningless because she ultimately succumbed to madness and became just another cog in the wheel. And ironically she'll be remembered as just another claimant who killed tons of innocents for her claim to the throne. Which makes her whole Story meaningless.

So your argument would make sense if she did break the wheel, but in the end she just became another part of the wheel, because "Hurr durr she crucified 20 assholes once so that means she's willing to commit genocide hurr durr!!"

Her turn into a villain could have been one of the best parts of the show if it wasn't bungled. It's a show about power, and power corrupts - that's the point. There is no such thing as a good monarch. (And aside, it was hilarious watching the people name their kids Daenerys lmao)

Stuff like this (and about a hundred other things) is exactly why so many fans did a hard turn on the show and the IP. Just absolutely squandered potential top to bottom.

And negativity bias ensures that 4 great seasons mean nothing if you shit the bed at the end.

[Wangming]

Her turn into a villain could have been one of the best parts of the show if it wasn't bungled. It's a show about power, and power corrupts - that's the point. There is no such thing as a good monarch. (And aside, it was hilarious watching the people name their kids Daenerys lmao)

Frankly her succumbing to madness had been obvious since the second book. It was just poorly paced. Aside from the Battle for Winterfell being one tactical error after another, one my 13 year old sister wouldn't make, the main flaw of the last season was that the pacing and the editing was off. Daenerys is okay, she is apeshit the next moment. Sansa promises to keel Jon's secret and spills the beans five minutes later. Aria just jumps out of a plothole to stab the Night King who is in the middle of the army when in the previous scene she was running form just three zombies. Grey Worm is angry and wants to kill Jon and Tyrion so he calls for a council of all the monarch that needed gods know how many weeks. And there is no explanation why he didn't just stab those two fuckers. Or why Daenerys just forgot about the enemy navy.

[Varodoc]

Her turn into a villain could have been one of the best parts of the show if it wasn't bungled. It's a show about power, and power corrupts - that's the point. There is no such thing as a good monarch. (And aside, it was hilarious watching the people name their kids Daenerys lmao)

Stuff like this (and about a hundred other things) is exactly why so many fans did a hard turn on the show and the IP. Just absolutely squandered potential top to bottom.

And negativity bias ensures that 4 great seasons mean nothing if you shit the bed at the end.

I will always hate this turn no matter how it's developed in the books (if they ever come out). What was the entire point of Daenerys' story then? Her story was supposed to show that your genetics don't define you. It was supposed to show that you are your own person and you can forge your own path in the world, you're not bound by your genetics or ancestry. And Daenerys showed this when she locked her dragons (nukes) because they killed one child, which even made her cry. This will always be a bad ending for Daenerys which invalidates her entire story.

I dare say that Daenerys was the most wasted character in the end, even more than the Night King. The Night King's story was also completely invalidated, because in the end he could have been killed by any generic assassin, but the Night King was just a DnD creation and was a mute antagonist, so even though what happened to him was a travesty at least he wasn't as iconic as Daenerys. Meanwhile Daenerys was indeed a main character, so for her to end in such a way was stupid. There's nothing else left to be said on the subject other than "best season ever!!!"

"Power corrupts", sure, but that message could have been driven home with Cersei too, who became increasingly crazier once she killed all her enemies and became queen. She was even set up as the mad queen when she destroyed the Vatican (nothing ever came out of it by the way).

[cubby]

I don't think cubby is posting in good faith here, as if he hasn't had the same points n them being refuted many times over in this over 29k post thread...
I'm sure there hundreds n hundreds of posts you can just copy-paste in answer to him, or just ignore the bait.

I'm trying to figure out why someone like you would post something like this - it's baffling to us why a person of your obvious character would try to smear someone they simply disagreed with - amazing debating abilities, my friend! Well done - making the world worse one post at a time.

If you'd bothered to read any of my posts, which you obviously haven't, you'd know I was posting from a place of sincerity. Something we are all sure you are not doing, but that's for another day.

- - - Updated - - -

I will always hate this turn no matter how it's developed in the books (if they ever come out). What was the entire point of Daenerys' story then? Her story was supposed to show that your genetics don't define you. It was supposed to show that you are your own person and you can forge your own path in the world, you're not bound by your genetics or ancestry. And Daenerys showed this when she locked her dragons (nukes) because they killed one child, which even made her cry. This will always be a bad ending for Daenerys which invalidates her entire story.

I dare say that Daenerys was the most wasted character in the end, even more than the Night King. The Night King's story was also completely invalidated, because in the end he could have been killed by any generic assassin, but the Night King was just a DnD creation and was a mute antagonist, so even though what happened to him was a travesty at least he wasn't as iconic as Daenerys. Meanwhile Daenerys was indeed a main character, so for her to end in such a way was stupid. There's nothing else left to be said on the subject other than "best season ever!!!"

"Power corrupts", sure, but that message could have been driven home with Cersei too, who became increasingly crazier once she killed all her enemies and became queen. She was even set up as the mad queen when she destroyed the Vatican (nothing ever came out of it by the way).

Just out of curiosity, if you were running the show (so to speak), how would you have ended her character? I always thought, in the GRRM universe, she was the ONLY person who couldn't win the throne, given the tragic nature of most characters, because she is one who had been seeking it since almost the beginning.

The NK story seems to have been partly D&D's desire to put a face on the White Walkers. Obviously, I buy the whole story line - but at some point he had to be killed, or the dead would win out - how would you have done it?

- - - Updated - - -

It's quite telling that you're using GRRM to shield Dipshit and Dumbfuck from criticism with "but he told them the ending!!1!" (never mind that he told them the ending in broad strokes, and later on clarified that what people know from the show is "an ending but no THE ending", but whatever), but when it comes to criticism like how the show should have taken longer you're desperately trying to hand-wave it away by trying to portray it as "bitterness without merit", you merrily ignore that GRRM himself commented multiple times that the show could have gone on much longer.

What these two morons left as their "legacy" is a dumpster fire that turned a once great show into an utter joke that barely anyone really talks about anymore. To the point that even the recent anniversary of the show didn't manage to make much of a splash in pop culture. The show went fine when they were still carried by GRRM's material, but once they ran out of it their ineptitude could no longer be hidden (though like @Witchblade77 mentioned, they made pointless changes to the story even before they ran out of the source material and then expected to end in the same spot as the book would because they were too lazy to adjust the story for the consequences of those changes to make sense).

And what came as a result of that? They cut entire storylines that they had no clue what to do with (like Dorne) with the grace of a doctor performing heart surgery with a machete, flip flopped hard on their own premises (one episode scorpions have laser precision even when they are on ships swayed by the waves, the other Dany can burn everything she wants with complete impunity even when faced with much more stable wall-mounted scorpions) and made the most flimsy excuses for their sloppy writing like "Dany kind of forgot about the enemy force she discussed with Varys earlier on in that same episode".

Which, you know, is why their careers are in a ditch right now, despite them rushing GOT so they could jump onto their new Star Wars project. Hollywood finally got wind of how incompetent they are when they are not utterly carried by the source material (given how their greatest achievements before GOT was X-Men Origins: Wolverine - i.e. a complete dreck in terms of writing - for David and sweet fuck all for Dan, it sure took them a while), but right now they are pretty much radioactive in the business.

Though the even bigger joke than the train-wreck they turned the show into is your defense of it. The claim that the later season weren't true to the characters is wholly without merit because the fantastic ending was true to the storyline of all the main characters? Fascinating. You should ping that memo to Jaime "I never cared about the innocents" Lannister. Who never cared about the innocents so neverly he broke his own knightly vows and ruined his reputation to protect the innocents from the Mad King. Or master schemer Varys who turned into a lobotomized caricature of himself and was plotting against Dany right in the open.

Or Littlefinger who, despite viewing Sansa as a mixture of a substitute for Catelyn and the daughter he could have had with her sold her to Ramsay, even when he knew nothing about him. Which GRRM himself stated that it was something Littlefinger would have never done. Oh, right. You only pay attention to GRRM's statements when it's convenient to the defense of the showrunners. I guess I caught D&D-itis and kind of forgot about the exact thing I already discussed in this very episode post.

And you can miss me with your sad "desperate cries because those people didn't get what they wanted" projection. The only specific want for the ending of GoT that I had was for Daenerys to die. Would you look at that, I got what I wanted. I still think the ending was trash, because I actually have standards.

You know my position/opinion on the show items you've mentioned, so I won't just repeat myself.

However, it's interesting that you mention D&D's (Dumb & Dumber, lol, nice) project getting "canceled". Disney didn't cancel the Star Wars project because of D&D, they did so for other reasons. And D&D we're given another "holy grail" project to run, Netflix's the Three Body Problem, as well as the 6-part series The Chair. And they just inked another deal, again with Netflix, to run The Overstory. You may not like them, but saying their careers are in a ditch right now is woefully and almost willfully uniformed.

- - - Updated - - -

Arya is built up as a killer of men, not monsters. Its out of left field not because she isn't competent, but because the show had pointed to the importance of others and it was just D&D trying to pull a sneaky on us. People are bitter about a lack of payoff with the Snow storyline and probably also a bitter about magic-fucking-soup, at least I am, that took me completely out of the Arya story because of how ridiculous it was. There was a lot of ridiculousness in the second half of this series.

Also regarding Varys, he "broke from his sneakiness" because D&D are incapable of writing clever characters. How could he do anything clever? Nope, he became a bumbling fool when the people writing him were not equal to writing anything better. I don't know why you defend the sloppy job they did, the only people out of time were the showrunners, rushing to end the thing hoping their shortcomings wouldn't become so obvious.

Foreshadowing doesn't cure crappy storytelling. They foreshadow plenty of things that go nowhere, as outlined in the earlier complaints on this page. The fail here isn't that the destruction wasn't properly illustrated as a possibility, but that the execution in the story leading to it was rushed and embarrassing.

She replaces Beric, the series chose to stick with him instead, which was probably for the best. There was some discussion of Lady Stoneheart earlier in the thread if you feel like doing some digging. People who spoke on it earlier know more than I do.

Regarding time, I think the show had to account for the actual passage of time as the show was produced, there's a lot of young characters not looking so young any more. I was curious about the dragon growth in the books so I've been reading up on that too. It seems more natural with the show's length of production but in the book Drogon was big enough to carry Dany while not even 2 years old. There is some mention of magic returning to the world that might explain their accelerated growth, who knows? There's a lot of text to comb through and nerdier nerds than me have spent more time on it.

I think "it was rushed" is perhaps the most valid, across audience critique we'll see. I'm a big fan and I certainly think it was rushed. I'm sure the people here on the "other side" would include that in their criticisms.

You're probably right about the lack of fruitful conversation regarding differences of opinion, but the questions you're asking could yield more interesting results.

I'm hoping it goes in that direction - we're all basically saying the same thing right now, repeating ourselves to some extent.

[Easo]

Sure, except that in the end that went nowhere. All the sacrifices she made in her quest to break the wheel were meaningless because she ultimately succumbed to madness and became just another cog in the wheel. And ironically she'll be remembered as just another claimant who killed tons of innocents for her claim to the throne. Which makes her whole Story meaningless.

So your argument would make sense if she did break the wheel, but in the end she just became another part of the wheel, because "Hurr durr she crucified 20 assholes once so that means she's willing to commit genocide hurr durr!!"

I thought the argument was that it was stupid for her to befriend potential rivals not that D&D made her go nuts because reasons. Read, are we arguing about whether the idea is bad (break the wheel) or the execution aka Season 8 was bad therefore this idea was bad?

[draynay]

"Power corrupts", sure, but that message could have been driven home with Cersei too, who became increasingly crazier once she killed all her enemies and became queen. She was even set up as the mad queen when she destroyed the Vatican (nothing ever came out of it by the way).

Ugh don't get me started on Cersei, she's one of the stupidest characters, basically Westeros Karen, yet they turned her into Michael Corleone shrewdly wiping out all her enemies in one bold stroke.

[Adamas102]

Yes, there was. I'm sorry you don't remember it, but the series built up her skills remarkably - and I'm seeing that again in the rewatch. The build up was for Arya's skills to sneak past the other dead to get at the NK. There was a shit ton of build up to her abilities, including sneaking silently and moving quickly. I'm sorry you can't see such an obvious thing in the entire series, but it's there, again and again. Over and over we see Arya's abilities in play and being built upon. Leading up to her skill set in getting to the NK, and then killing him.

You keep saying "the series does this perfectly", but often times don't explain further. Why are you completely ignoring the library scene where she has to be super careful when moving between bookshelves and tables that are only a few feet apart? Where does she learn to sprint while essentially becoming invisible to monsters and if she had this skill then why does she not use it to escape the library with the wights (a scene the audience sees vs a scene they don't)? Where does she learn the skill to jump 8ft into the air? Where does she learn to sword fight like she does with Brienne and where does she learn fancy knife tricks? All her training in Braavos was with staves. When she's running from the waif she isn't going super fast, she isn't being particularly acrobatic, she's bumping into people left and right, falling over baskets and rolling down stairs. She only kills the waif because she uses the darkness to her benefit, not because she's particularly skilled with the sword. Then she abandons her training and arrives in Westeros the following season with a completely new set of skills that were learned and perfected off screen. That's one of the reasons her killing the NK is a "what the fuck..." moment and not a "that was aweome" moment.

I'm not sure you read what you wrote very well - you're saying a method of killing the NK only existed in the show runners minds, and they mentioned it in an interview, once, but those facts never came out in the story line. That makes my point for me - not you. All we knew in the series, JUST from the series, was that dragon glass or Valerian steel killed white walkers, and killing a WW made every WW that was borne from them die as well. So killing the NK with dragon glass or Valerian steel was the only way to stop the army of the dead. It was never mentioned, and therefore never existed, that the NK had to be stabbed in a certain place. NEVER - in the series.
You've been fixated on where the NK was stabbed, and that has been irrelevant, because it was only that he was stabbed at all, not where, that mattered. Arya used a move she foreshadowed sparring with Brienne ("no one taught me") to kill the NK. It was pure coincidence that the placement of that stab coincides with the quote from above - because as you pointed out, no one knew about it, so in the series that kill requirement never existed.

We didn't know that dragon glass or Valyrian steel could kill the Night King. He clearly had abilities that typical white walkers didn't have. He wasn't created the way white walkers were, and white walkers weren't created the same way wights were. Why would anyone assume they knew how to dispatch him or what would happen if they did? It was a failure on the writer's part to setup his death. My guess is that GRRM's approach would have involved the more supernatural conclusion since that had been setup in the histories and legends that were mentioned both in the book and in the show (abandoned because D&D also didn't really like the fantasy stuff).

The reason I mention the specific way Benioff brought up is to highlight how shit a writer he is. That such a pivotal detail (in his mind) wasn't something they deemed necessary to setup on screen. It's kinda like the whole "well, I guess Dany forgot about the Iron Fleet" silliness. They have an idea for what they want on screen and then blunder about having the characters show up and do it, even if it doesn't really make sense. Again, back to D&D ruining the show once they ran out of source material that they could adapt directly from the book.

Still, regardless of where she had to stab him, Arya had no idea what her running out there would accomplish.

But not for killing the NK, the hero build up for taking the throne - hence all the discussion about Jon. Not any discussion about him specifically killing the NK.

No! 100% no. Melisandre didn't care about the throne. Her focus was always on finding the hero to oppose the Night King. Always. No one but Sam even knew about Jon's claim to the throne till the final season. The Lord of Light is the main supernatural opposition of the white walkers and that's who Melisandre worships. She was always looking for his champion and vague prophesies led her to first believe it was Stannis, and then believe it was Jon. Melisandre and the Lord of Light plot was all about the north and white walkers, not about the throne.

I am understanding - you're just not getting the bigger picture. Varys is about the realm, over and over again, his plots and rise in power are for the realm. And Dany threatens the realm - at least Varys thinks so.

Wrong. Objectively wrong. Varys has no idea if Dany will be a good or bad ruler. He VERY CLEARLY says this to Jon. Varys has gotten NO indication that she would even be a bad ruler based on what he has seen of her. When he talks with Tyrion he touts Jon's ability to draw people to him and that he's a war hero, and for some unknown reason doesn't realize that the very same could be said of Daenerys. His next best argument is that Jon is a man, as if the last three male monarchs' maleness made them good choices. Such absolute bullshit. He didn't have any issue supporting Dany in earlier seasons knowing she was a woman. Again, Varys' character was completely retconned in the final season to be a moron.

You're pretending that's the only quote that exists from Varys about Dany - and it's not. As the plot played out, she became more and more unstable, and Varys saw that, hence his sped up actions, to protect the realm and put Jon on the throne instead of her.

No, she didn't. She did nothing that suggested insanity. Now we're getting into the whole Daenerys debacle, though. Suffice it to say, there was zero indication she would go crazy, and certainly zero reason for the characters in the series to think she would make a bad queen until the horseshit that was "The Bells".

Varys didn't have the opportunity with the Mad King, because he didn't have his influence at that time.

He most certainly did. He was Master of Whispers on the small council during Aegon's reign and he got there (after starting as a slave across the sea) by cultivating influence and a massive spy network.

King Robert wasn't doing anything worthy of needing to be removed (in the series King Robert has no problems with his kingdom, not like the Mad King at least - aside from the bastard issue with his children, and IIRC Varys left that alone - LittleFinger ).

Robert bankrupted the kingdom. Obviously that would be something that Varys would disagree with if he was for the good of the realm. And guess what? He was against it! He used his vast network to undermine Robert by having his friend Illyrio (the merchant who housed Dany and Viserys in season 1) look after the Targaryens. Did he try to have Robert assassinated? No, he played the long game while Robert was putting the country into the pocket of the Iron Bank and leaving over a dozen bastard children in his wake that could potentially lead to massive wars of succession later on.

It was only when Varys started to see the cracks in Dany that he made his moves. And he knew he had to act fast because once she was on the throne, he wouldn't be able to do anything, hence him breaking from his sneakiness to protect the realm - the one thing he always acted to protect.

That's pure bullshit since there was nothing to make Varys worry about Dany by that point in time. Especially not something to make him plot her assassination so hastily. It was WAY out of character for him.

I would love to step outside our conversation above and discuss these:

1. Timeline. I'm hearing from people (and the wiki fan site) that time is different in the books than in the series, and it could be a number of reasons. But in the series it seems a LOT of time passes - like a few years in even the first three or four seasons, but in the books Joffrey's wedding takes place in the same year as King Roberts death. In the books, how do they address the dragons - because they get demonstrably bigger each season, sparking the idea that years pass.

2. Little Finger. Why didn't he marry Sansa. I know the books play out that story line entirely different, but I don't know the details, and regardless, who the fuck would ever believe LF would give up Sansa. The only reasons I can think of would be that he couldn't marry her himself because he was her uncle, but marriage. OR that he gave her to Ramsay Bolton to create more chaos (chaos is a ladder).

3. Kat Stark - what happened to her in the books after she died. I read somewhere that she rose as the dead and led an army...of dead?

1. Eh, dragons are supernatural creatures that grow very quickly. There isn't much of a benchmark for them since it's mentioned that early Targaryen dragons were massive, while the ones that were born later in their reign barely grew larger than a dog. It's just something one has to suspend their disbelief on, and try hard not to think about the massive amount of food these creatures would need to eat to grow that large and that quickly.

2. Yeah, the show's versions of Sansa and Littlefinger also got really botched, but in this case it was actually D&D deviating from the books. They needed SOMEONE to be married off to Ramsay in order to bring the Theon, Ramsay, and Stanis branches together and rather than create the side character that DID get married to Ramsay they decided to just fill in with Sansa. Like I said in another post, I understand trimming the cast down for the adaptation, but this was a change that did harm to the development of established characters.

3. Beric transferred the power that kept resurrecting him over to her (dying in the process). She becomes the leader of a portion of Beric & Thoros' group, and tracks down and executes anyone associated with the Freys, Boltons, or Lannisters in the Riverlands.

[cubby]

(I answered in red below each of your responses - I hope that's ok, makes it easier to reference, etc - if it's not, shout and I'll remove and adjust)
(Also - loved your points below in the 1.2.3. part - we could just skip all this and move to that)

You keep saying "the series does this perfectly", but often times don't explain further. Why are you completely ignoring the library scene where she has to be super careful when moving between bookshelves and tables that are only a few feet apart? Where does she learn to sprint while essentially becoming invisible to monsters and if she had this skill then why does she not use it to escape the library with the wights (a scene the audience sees vs a scene they don't)? Where does she learn the skill to jump 8ft into the air? Where does she learn to sword fight like she does with Brienne and where does she learn fancy knife tricks? All her training in Braavos was with staves. When she's running from the waif she isn't going super fast, she isn't being particularly acrobatic, she's bumping into people left and right, falling over baskets and rolling down stairs. She only kills the waif because she uses the darkness to her benefit, not because she's particularly skilled with the sword. Then she abandons her training and arrives in Westeros the following season with a completely new set of skills that were learned and perfected off screen. That's one of the reasons her killing the NK is a "what the fuck..." moment and not a "that was aweome" moment.
She learned more skills that were shown in her training in the show. When she was running from the waif it was a different situation. She uses the darkness to her benefit - just like with the NK kill.

We didn't know that dragon glass or Valyrian steel could kill the Night King. He clearly had abilities that typical white walkers didn't have. He wasn't created the way white walkers were, and white walkers weren't created the same way wights were. Why would anyone assume they knew how to dispatch him or what would happen if they did? It was a failure on the writer's part to setup his death. My guess is that GRRM's approach would have involved the more supernatural conclusion since that had been setup in the histories and legends that were mentioned both in the book and in the show (abandoned because D&D also didn't really like the fantasy stuff).
Yes, we did in the show - because the NK is merely the top WW. The books obviously go into WAY more detail about the WW and the NK being more of a rumor than a tangible thing, so obviously the show/books are going to depart dramatically. Having the NK die from a DragonGlass/Valerian steel stab was obviously going to happen in some way - it was set up from season 3 onward (Sam killing the first WW).

The reason I mention the specific way Benioff brought up is to highlight how shit a writer he is. That such a pivotal detail (in his mind) wasn't something they deemed necessary to setup on screen. It's kinda like the whole "well, I guess Dany forgot about the Iron Fleet" silliness. They have an idea for what they want on screen and then blunder about having the characters show up and do it, even if it doesn't really make sense. Again, back to D&D ruining the show once they ran out of source material that they could adapt directly from the book.
I disagree. And the point overall really illustrates that the show had one set of facts going whereas other information, outside the show, had another. The whole thing with where the NK had to be stabbed specifically never made the show, so it literally didn't exist as something to be addressed, in the show. It's why Arya's kill of the NK works so well for me, and at the exact same time seems so shitty to you - because you knew about that NK kill detail, and the series itself didn't. I'll be perfectly honest here - had I know about that ahead of time, it would bug me as well. But as it is, Arya's NK was terrific, well built up, and justified in the sense that someone was going to have to do it - the NK couldn't win after all.

Still, regardless of where she had to stab him, Arya had no idea what her running out there would accomplish.
Sure she did. She was going to try and kill the NK. Theon failed. Arya didn't.

No! 100% no. Melisandre didn't care about the throne. Her focus was always on finding the hero to oppose the Night King. Always. No one but Sam even knew about Jon's claim to the throne till the final season. The Lord of Light is the main supernatural opposition of the white walkers and that's who Melisandre worships. She was always looking for his champion and vague prophesies led her to first believe it was Stannis, and then believe it was Jon. Melisandre and the Lord of Light plot was all about the north and white walkers, not about the throne.
Incorrect. She was all about Stannis merely being on the throne, until she saw the dispatch from Castle Black. Then she changed her tact. Episode 3.10 or 4.1.

Wrong. Objectively wrong. Varys has no idea if Dany will be a good or bad ruler. He VERY CLEARLY says this to Jon. Varys has gotten NO indication that she would even be a bad ruler based on what he has seen of her. When he talks with Tyrion he touts Jon's ability to draw people to him and that he's a war hero, and for some unknown reason doesn't realize that the very same could be said of Daenerys. His next best argument is that Jon is a man, as if the last three male monarchs' maleness made them good choices. Such absolute bullshit. He didn't have any issue supporting Dany in earlier seasons knowing she was a woman. Again, Varys' character was completely retconned in the final season to be a moron.
I'm sorry, but no, you are literally objectively wrong on this issue. When did Varys see people being burned alive by Dany? When did he tell Jon? When did Varys start to be brazen in his efforts to push her aside in favor of Jon? Varys knew Jon would be the better rules, AND had the better claim. Hence justifying his actions.

No, she didn't. She did nothing that suggested insanity. Now we're getting into the whole Daenerys debacle, though. Suffice it to say, there was zero indication she would go crazy, and certainly zero reason for the characters in the series to think she would make a bad queen until the horseshit that was "The Bells".
Yes, she did. I'm not sure how you could have missed all the signs. Everyone she ever loved taken from her. Jon threatening her claim on the throne. Her trusted advisers "betraying" her. Losing two of her Dragons. Tons more - stop ignoring my examples by just brushing them aside. There are literally dozens of points throughout the entire series, starting in season 1, where we see her sanity dripping away. At the end, it's a torrent. But it's a long play character development, not "rushed" or "unjustified". If you don't believe, which you clearly don't, go rewatch the series. I am doing that right now, and seeing it all again. "The Bells" was just the literal tipping point.

He most certainly did. He was Master of Whispers on the small council during Aegon's reign and he got there (after starting as a slave across the sea) by cultivating influence and a massive spy network.
He wasn't Master of Whispers during Aegon's reign in the series - only King Robert's. I'm almost certain of this, but not 100%.

Robert bankrupted the kingdom. Obviously that would be something that Varys would disagree with if he was for the good of the realm. And guess what? He was against it! He used his vast network to undermine Robert by having his friend Illyrio (the merchant who housed Dany and Viserys in season 1) look after the Targaryens. Did he try to have Robert assassinated? No, he played the long game while Robert was putting the country into the pocket of the Iron Bank and leaving over a dozen bastard children in his wake that could potentially lead to massive wars of succession later on.
Those issues were never brought up by Varys. In the series Varys starts talking about protecting the realm as his top priority only after King Robert is dead. Your point about the bastards is key - remember who told Ned Stark about the bastards? It wasn't Varys.

That's pure bullshit since there was nothing to make Varys worry about Dany by that point in time. Especially not something to make him plot her assassination so hastily. It was WAY out of character for him.
And I disagree - because there was plenty to worry (men burned alive, etc - see above) and he knew once she was on the throne he would have little in the way of influencing who sat there. It was entirely in his character to risk his life for the good of the realm.

There is no way I will convince you you're wrong, and you certainly aren't going to convince me of the same; so can we just agree to disagree? At the end of the day, it doesn't seem like any of us are going to change our minds. Which is fine. But how about we stop beating our heads against the wall, eh?

Let's go to a forward discussion instead.

1. Eh, dragons are supernatural creatures that grow very quickly. There isn't much of a benchmark for them since it's mentioned that early Targaryen dragons were massive, while the ones that were born later in their reign barely grew larger than a dog. It's just something one has to suspend their disbelief on, and try hard not to think about the massive amount of food these creatures would need to eat to grow that large and that quickly.

2. Yeah, the show's versions of Sansa and Littlefinger also got really botched, but in this case it was actually D&D deviating from the books. They needed SOMEONE to be married off to Ramsay in order to bring the Theon, Ramsay, and Stanis branches together and rather than create the side character that DID get married to Ramsay they decided to just fill in with Sansa. Like I said in another post, I understand trimming the cast down for the adaptation, but this was a change that did harm to the development of established characters.

3. Beric transferred the power that kept resurrecting him over to her (dying in the process). She becomes the leader of a portion of Beric & Thoros' group, and tracks down and executes anyone associated with the Freys, Boltons, or Lannisters in the Riverlands.

1. Good point - they can grow at any pace the authors want. I did keep thinking about the food issue, and how much they must need to grow.

2. I would have to agree with you here, as Littlefinger giving Sansa away, someone he saw as a little Kat, so to speak, didn't make much sense, even with his glorified goal of chaos (which, I've heard, is a ladder). I did like how it all came together in the Battle of the Bastards, but the LF/Sansa part never sat well with me. Especially after she basically gave herself to him in the Vale, when she "came clean" about LF's helping her.

3. Fuck, that would have been awesome. Kat was one of the strongest characters in the first three seasons, and her continuation would have been worth even Beric not lasting (I could listen to that guy speak all fucking day long, not sure why - him and Roose Bolton - I don't swing for guys, but fucking hell those two voices are like hearing kings speak from the past)

More things to consider:

4. What did you think of the dragon rising with the NK? Setting aside any other part, I thought that was a brilliant plot twist - and I would assume that came straight from GRRM. And that conversation between the guys hiking north to get proof of the WW was pretty good - probably easy to write, as well, but so dead on with a few zingers from minor subplots (like the Hound's relationship with Brienne vs the Redheaded Wildling).

5. Brienne's character was really bolstered as the series went on, ending in almost a main character status (not really, but caught somewhere in between, if that makes sense). How was she treated in the books?

6. I did enjoy Jon coming back to life, and "free" to eschew the Black's oaths. Nice little twist there - again, outside of other considerations that we disagree on, what did you think?

[Ihavewaffles]

They are making another show, maybe, 10k ships, dunno if it will include their falling civilization n the Valyrian invasion or start after.

Water magic...hmmm...vs fire magic (dragons)

n in westeros we have the night king that uses frost which basically is water magic too..can resurect people.

Melisandre, fire magic priestess, resurects jon snow

I wonder if the night king n the rhoynar borrow their magic from the same source/god, the enemy of r'hllor.

Doubt show will give any such answers.

[Tyris Flare]

I will always hate this turn no matter how it's developed in the books (if they ever come out). What was the entire point of Daenerys' story then? Her story was supposed to show that your genetics don't define you. It was supposed to show that you are your own person and you can forge your own path in the world, you're not bound by your genetics or ancestry. And Daenerys showed this when she locked her dragons (nukes) because they killed one child, which even made her cry. This will always be a bad ending for Daenerys which invalidates her entire story.

I dare say that Daenerys was the most wasted character in the end, even more than the Night King. The Night King's story was also completely invalidated, because in the end he could have been killed by any generic assassin, but the Night King was just a DnD creation and was a mute antagonist, so even though what happened to him was a travesty at least he wasn't as iconic as Daenerys. Meanwhile Daenerys was indeed a main character, so for her to end in such a way was stupid. There's nothing else left to be said on the subject other than "best season ever!!!"

"Power corrupts", sure, but that message could have been driven home with Cersei too, who became increasingly crazier once she killed all her enemies and became queen. She was even set up as the mad queen when she destroyed the Vatican (nothing ever came out of it by the way).

Yeah I don't really see it as a turn. I mean for one, one of the major themes of the series beyond just "power corrupts" is that people who crave power are bad in the first place. She craves power from the very beginning. She wants to rule. Even with noble intentions or a "righteous" ideology, that can destroy people.

I don't think it invalidates her story at all. I would say it is the best storyline possible, actually, assuming it wasn't so rushed and bungled in the TV show. It is brilliant to get the audience supporting a sympathetic character only to realize that she has inevitably turned into the exact thing she was fighting to destroy, because that is what is required to succeed in a broken world.

One of the supposed pillars of ASoIAF that is supposed to be its "hook" is that it is a deeply cynical universe where ruthlessness is rewarded and honor gets you killed. Starks die because they are honorable suckers. Jon is the hero of the series specifically because he doesn't want power, but even then he is sabotaged (at least in the TV show) by his indecision. There are no heroes and no happy endings. The world is cold and brutal and depressing and that's the point.

I feel like if someone doesn't like the Dany storyline, they are objecting to the nihilistic nature of Martin's universe. Which is a completely valid criticism, imo, but her story is consistent with the world he created where the good guys never win.

[cubby]

Yeah I don't really see it as a turn. I mean for one, one of the major themes of the series beyond just "power corrupts" is that people who crave power are bad in the first place. She craves power from the very beginning. She wants to rule. Even with noble intentions or a "righteous" ideology, that can destroy people.

I don't think it invalidates her story at all. I would say it is the best storyline possible, actually, assuming it wasn't so rushed and bungled in the TV show. It is brilliant to get the audience supporting a sympathetic character only to realize that she has inevitably turned into the exact thing she was fighting to destroy, because that is what is required to succeed in a broken world.

One of the supposed pillars of ASoIAF that is supposed to be its "hook" is that it is a deeply cynical universe where ruthlessness is rewarded and honor gets you killed. Starks die because they are honorable suckers. Jon is the hero of the series specifically because he doesn't want power, but even then he is sabotaged (at least in the TV show) by his indecision. There are no heroes and no happy endings. The world is cold and brutal and depressing and that's the point.

I feel like if someone doesn't like the Dany storyline, they are objecting to the nihilistic nature of Martin's universe. Which is a completely valid criticism, imo, but her story is consistent with the world he created where the good guys never win.

I couldn't agree more with the above. Given the entire storyline, she was really the only person who couldn't ascend to the throne - given she chased after it from almost the very beginning (I think her transition was just as her brother was in his final days before the Golden Crown).

Also, and this is WAY out of left field, is there any conversation to be had with Bran becoming the King being akin to a kind of Artificial Intelligence taking over ruling people? I know that at the very least that's an enormous stretch, but his omnipotent knowledge of all things people have done is VERY loosely similar to how right now the "internet never forgets" and where we're headed as a society with AI.

[Adamas102]

Eh, I kinda enjoy going back and analyzing these things.

She learned more skills that were shown in her training in the show. When she was running from the waif it was a different situation. She uses the darkness to her benefit - just like with the NK kill.

Case in point for bad writing: if you show or reference training on screen, then that should determine what a character can and can't do. Saying "she learned more skills than were shown" just makes it all meaningless since you can then have a character do ANYTHING and just use the excuse "well, we just didn't SEE her learn it". I can buy her improving her sword fighting skills since they made a point of her not throwing Needle into the river in Braavos and kept it to practice, but if we SEE Arya running and jumping and sneaking with only the skill of a teenage girl with decent reflexes, then they CANNOT suddenly have superpowers when it's convenient for the plot.

Yes, we did in the show - because the NK is merely the top WW. The books obviously go into WAY more detail about the WW and the NK being more of a rumor than a tangible thing, so obviously the show/books are going to depart dramatically. Having the NK die from a DragonGlass/Valerian steel stab was obviously going to happen in some way - it was set up from season 3 onward (Sam killing the first WW).

We see in the show that the Night King was an adult that was created by the children of the forest with a specific ritual, and we see that the white walkers are created by the Night King as babies with a very different ritual. As such, there really is no reason to assume that what affects a white walker will affect the Night King.

If anything, the whole "stabbed in the dragon glass" thing would actually make things better since it folds in more of the supernatural way in which he was created. I didn't know about that detail until a year after the show had ended so it was not a factor in why I disliked that scene. If all they needed to do was poke him then they should have just posted more archers in the trees. It's just so mundane when the whole show was building up to a confrontation between the supernatural forces of light and dark.

Incorrect. She was all about Stannis merely being on the throne, until she saw the dispatch from Castle Black. Then she changed her tact. Episode 3.10 or 4.1.

The very first scene where both Stannis and Melisandre are introduced is on the beach where she gives him the Lightbringer sword which is tied to the legends of the hero that would fight against the darkness. Stannis is a pragmatic man so he doesn't really care and is just using her and her magic to take the throne, but Melisandre is ALWAYS focused on finding the hero that was promised who would ultimately oppose the white walkers. At the time she might not know that the fight was already coming from the north, but she was never concerned with the throne of Westeros.

Yes, she did. I'm not sure how you could have missed all the signs. Everyone she ever loved taken from her. Jon threatening her claim on the throne. Her trusted advisers "betraying" her. Losing two of her Dragons. Tons more - stop ignoring my examples by just brushing them aside. There are literally dozens of points throughout the entire series, starting in season 1, where we see her sanity dripping away. At the end, it's a torrent. But it's a long play character development, not "rushed" or "unjustified". If you don't believe, which you clearly don't, go rewatch the series. I am doing that right now, and seeing it all again. "The Bells" was just the literal tipping point.

See this is the HUGE problem with using this reasoning to try to pass off Dany's insane actions as "foreshadowed". All characters in the series, Jon included, suffered many losses of friends and family. All the main characters had gone through incredibly traumatic events. Most of the main characters had been betrayed by people close to them. Jon raged out on Ramsay after the Battle of the Bastards but no one was like "ooof better not give THIS guy any power, what if he loses another family member?". Jon would rather execute a child rather than show any mercy, but he's cool. Arya became a cold-blooded serial killer, but she's cool. Sansa fed a restrained prisoner to dogs, but she's cool. The Hound murdered women and children, but he's cool.

Daenerys didn't burn people for fun like the Mad King did. She executed prisoners of war (and unlike Sansa, actually gave them the choice to save their lives). Dany lost her beloved Drogo and was betrayed by Jorah before she reached Westeros and she didn't go crazy. She didn't go crazy after losing her first dragon, or even after losing her second dragon. She had normal reactions of shock, grief, and anger when she lost the dragons and other people close to her, but no bouts of madness.

Singling out Dany as the only character in the entire show to go so insane she would do a 180 degree flip on everything she had worked for up to that point is pretty problematic with hints of misogyny. She doesn't have anger issues like her brother Viserys did, she doesn't have the paranoid delusions her father did. Her Targaryen ancestry doesn't mean she will definitely succumb to madness (lest we forget that Jon is also a Targaryen and no one seemed to worry about his sanity). The unsaid reasoning is that Jon is a strong man that can deal with loss and move on, but Dany is a woman and as such prone to hysterics when things don't go her way.

For fuck's sake, the Boltons were well known for flaying people alive and leaving them on display, and yet they were still allowed to remain one of the great houses of the North, and were welcomed as strong allies when Robb marched south. Dany using her dragons to defeat armies and execute military prisoners (after giving them a fair chance to change their allegiances) is in no way the worst thing the Westerosi have seen.

Dany hadn't shown ANY signs of such unmitigated madness and rage that would drive her to murder countless innocent people. She'd made it past many hurtful losses since all the way in season 1, and the idea that she'd suddenly snap when she'd succeeded in her goal with a quick and decisive victory is absolutely ludicrous.

He wasn't Master of Whispers during Aegon's reign in the series - only King Robert's. I'm almost certain of this, but not 100%.

Unfortunately, 100% wrong. Varys was on the small council during Aegon's reign. Jaime references it when he's in the bath with Brienne, explaining that both him and Varys warned Aegon not to let Tywin into the city because it would lead to the sacking of King's Landing. In season 7 Daenerys questions Varys himself about his time serving her father.

Those issues were never brought up by Varys. In the series Varys starts talking about protecting the realm as his top priority only after King Robert is dead. Your point about the bastards is key - remember who told Ned Stark about the bastards? It wasn't Varys

And I disagree - because there was plenty to worry (men burned alive, etc - see above) and he knew once she was on the throne he would have little in the way of influencing who sat there. It was entirely in his character to risk his life for the good of the realm.

You can disagree, but you're wrong. If you're rewatching the series you'll eventually get to the season 7 conversation he has with Dany. He's pretty open about his dislike of Robert and SPECIFICALLY SAYS "I had a choice, your grace. Serve Robert Baratheon or face the headman's axe". He didn't risk his life because that's not in his character, instead saying what he needed to say to stay alive while conspiring against Robert by keeping Dany and her brother alive.

He says that Dany is the best chance the realm has for peace, and NOTHING between that scene and Varys' treason should make him believe otherwise. Jon's claim to the throne seems to be the only thing that convinces Varys' to go against Dany, which is out of character for someone who claims they're not for any king or queen but for the people. Risking his life is out of character, choosing someone who has been resurrected by magic is out of character, siding with Jon only because of his claim is out of character.

More things to consider:

4. What did you think of the dragon rising with the NK? Setting aside any other part, I thought that was a brilliant plot twist - and I would assume that came straight from GRRM. And that conversation between the guys hiking north to get proof of the WW was pretty good - probably easy to write, as well, but so dead on with a few zingers from minor subplots (like the Hound's relationship with Brienne vs the Redheaded Wildling).

5. Brienne's character was really bolstered as the series went on, ending in almost a main character status (not really, but caught somewhere in between, if that makes sense). How was she treated in the books?

6. I did enjoy Jon coming back to life, and "free" to eschew the Black's oaths. Nice little twist there - again, outside of other considerations that we disagree on, what did you think?

4. Visually it was pretty cool, but I don't think GRRM had that in mind. In the books there's a subplot about a magical horn that can bring down the wall. As for the excursion of main characters to go capture a zombie, I thought that was a pretty silly plan but was just an excuse to get these named characters interacting with each other.

5. She's a POV character in the books so yeah she's a main character.

6. Despite it having not happened yet in the books (he had just been stabbed), everyone pretty much expects this. As I'm sure you've surmised by now with these conversations, Book Jon is being set up as a far more pivotal character than he ended up being in the show. Martin isn't going to drop what is arguable the MAIN character of the story just for shock value.

[Witchblade77]

This is yet another example of the thing you mentioned earlier on, i.e. how Dumb and Dumber started changing the storylines but they did not adjust their writing to compensate for the changes. Because the scene in the tower is just foreshadowing and foreshadowing, as you just said yourself, does not substitute character development.

The thing is, there was such development in the books and they just cut it out. And that was Quaithe warning Dany about the three treasons that await her. Which, as the books went on, preoccupied her mind more and more. In A Dance with Dragons she was quite obsessed with it already, pondering if this or that thing she experienced was already one of the treasons, questioning how many are still ahead of her, suspecting her own advisors and so on.

That actually set her character on the path to become the Mad Queen down the road (though perhaps GRRM has even more planned in that department). Meanwhile other than the foreshadowing from six seasons earlier the show had "Oh noes, Cersei killed Missandei (but spared everyone else even though she could have killed them then and there)".

The even funnier part is that Quaithe was in the show but they just used her as an exposition dump for Jorah.

so much this.

I mean.. in a books Dany and Cercei even mirror each other with how much they are consumed with those prophecies of doom they both received. if I remember correctly, in a show they didn't get to the part of Cercei dying to valonqar, right? which adds so much subtext that was missing in a show, both as far as Jaimie's character (who is technically the younger twin) AND Tyrion, whom she hates regardless, but that prophesy gives it more weight..

and with Dany, as you have mentioned.... obsessing over that prophecy goes a long way to show her gradual descent into darkness. the show Dany is portrayed as a pretty different character from book Dany in many ways, and lack of that little additional paranoia stoked by Quaithe is a part of that. so that flip of a switch in the last season feels entirely unearned... even if they had taken, I don't know... 2 seasons instead of like what... 2 episodes, sorta? they could have still pulled it off. but they didn't. they chose not to.

this show is just so much wasted potential. so many wasted characters... I keep thinking about Sansa that is alternately told to us to be shrewd and supposedly sets up Littlefinger with Arya, playing a long game to catch him offguard... but then instead of using information about Jon's parentage for a long game, to her advantage.. she just blabs about it? is she or is she not shrewd? I mean.. she used to be. back when she survived King's landing on her wit's alone, playing submissive loyal girl, undermining Jeoffrey in a way that pushed him into a corner of his own ego.

sigh... honestly this whole debacle just makes me sad. it didn't ruin the promise of the story for me. but its definitely not a show that I would ever rewatch... and I rewatch shows and movies pretty habitually.

[Varodoc]

Yeah I don't really see it as a turn. I mean for one, one of the major themes of the series beyond just "power corrupts" is that people who crave power are bad in the first place. She craves power from the very beginning. She wants to rule. Even with noble intentions or a "righteous" ideology, that can destroy people.

I don't think it invalidates her story at all. I would say it is the best storyline possible, actually, assuming it wasn't so rushed and bungled in the TV show. It is brilliant to get the audience supporting a sympathetic character only to realize that she has inevitably turned into the exact thing she was fighting to destroy, because that is what is required to succeed in a broken world.

One of the supposed pillars of ASoIAF that is supposed to be its "hook" is that it is a deeply cynical universe where ruthlessness is rewarded and honor gets you killed. Starks die because they are honorable suckers. Jon is the hero of the series specifically because he doesn't want power, but even then he is sabotaged (at least in the TV show) by his indecision. There are no heroes and no happy endings. The world is cold and brutal and depressing and that's the point.

I feel like if someone doesn't like the Dany storyline, they are objecting to the nihilistic nature of Martin's universe. Which is a completely valid criticism, imo, but her story is consistent with the world he created where the good guys never win.

Except that there was a happy ending anyway Literally the only ones who got a bad ending were the villains (Littlefinger, Night King, Lannisters, and then Daenerys). So it's not like the "Nihilistic viewpoint of GRRM" would have been objected if Daenerys got a happy ending where she became queen or simply returned to Essos to rebuild Valyria there.

How can you say that the "good guys never win" when that's literally what happened? The Starks (good guys) all won, even the dead ones. Catelyn won because Sansa became queen and Jon was exiled, Robb won because the North was granted independence, Eddard won because Littlefinger, Cersei, and the rest were punished for their crimes, and now obviously an omniscient Stark sits on the figurative Iron Throne...

[Witchblade77]

Except that there was a happy ending anyway Literally the only ones who got a bad ending were the villains (Littlefinger, Night King, Lannisters, and then Daenerys). So it's not like the "Nihilistic viewpoint of GRRM" would have been objected if Daenerys got a happy ending where she became queen or simply returned to Essos to rebuild Valyria there.

How can you say that the "good guys never win" when that's literally what happened? The Starks (good guys) all won, even the dead ones. Catelyn won because Sansa became queen and Jon was exiled, Robb won because the North was granted independence, Eddard won because Littlefinger, Cersei, and the rest were punished for their crimes, and now obviously an omniscient Stark sits on the figurative Iron Throne...

Brienne was formally knighted AND became a Lady commander of Kingsguard (though at least she is one of the few of the new council that is qualified more or less), Bron got a title, lands AND is a master of coin for some reason, Tyrion is now head of the Lannisters, lord of Casterly rock AND hand to the king, the ultimate fuck you to the rest of his family especially Tywin, even Cercei in theory got a happy ending, cause even though she died, she died in the arms of the one person who genuinely cared for her and the one person other then her children that she had any measure of care for herself. Arya goes off to have her adventures as she has always dreamed, while also supported by her family, Jon's exile is actualy something he has chosen and wanted at this point, Sam and Gilly get to have their happy life with their child and Sam is finally respected by people around him rather then being a butt of the jokes, seems like no more white walkers EVER, I mean... the ending of the series overall is so sickeningly sweet it makes my teeth ache.

the good guys in D&D's GoT win so definitely and decisively, that "if you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention" claim few seasons down is a height of irony now. they simply decided that Daenerys was supposed to be a bad guy, and so they treated her accordingly. in their very ham-fisted fashion.

[Varodoc]

Brienne was formally knighted AND became a Lady commander of Kingsguard (though at least she is one of the few of the new council that is qualified more or less), Bron got a title, lands AND is a master of coin for some reason, Tyrion is now head of the Lannisters, lord of Casterly rock AND hand to the king, the ultimate fuck you to the rest of his family especially Tywin, even Cercei in theory got a happy ending, cause even though she died, she died in the arms of the one person who genuinely cared for her and the one person other then her children that she had any measure of care for herself. Arya goes off to have her adventures as she has always dreamed, while also supported by her family, Jon's exile is actualy something he has chosen and wanted at this point, Sam and Gilly get to have their happy life with their child and Sam is finally respected by people around him rather then being a butt of the jokes, seems like no more white walkers EVER, I mean... the ending of the series overall is so sickeningly sweet it makes my teeth ache.

Yeah honestly if you want a bittersweet ending go play Mass Effect or something, that game literally plays a sad sob piano music at the end.

Not Game of Thrones, that was literally playing a cheerful adventurous music at the end There was nothing bitter about it.

I mean, I guess that Daenerys Hitler's death was bitter for Jon Snow, but literally everyone else didn't care or rejoiced that the tyrant was dead.

[Witchblade77]

Yeah honestly if you want a bittersweet ending go play Mass Effect or something, that game literally plays a sad sob piano music at the end.

Not Game of Thrones, that was literally playing a cheerful adventurous music at the end There was nothing bitter about it.

I mean, I guess that Daenerys Hitler's death was bitter for Jon Snow, but literally everyone else didn't care or rejoiced that the tyrant was dead.

heck, Jon seems to have gotten over her death quickly enough, and I mean, when he is walking among the wildlings he is barely holding back smile and it still shows through - Jon, who is the champion brooder of Westeros looks positively giddy.

and honestly... its kinda of the big part of the issue i have with the narrative in the later seasons, but especially last two. we've gone from complex, multifaceted characters where even people who genuinely want to do good, be good, still make choices that may not be the most honorable, or good, people who are trying to work towards positive goals, but have to be ruthless on the way there, people who have to make complicated choices where there is no true right or wrong answer.... to these one note characters that are either good guys or bad guys. its... blah.