Spoilers Game of Thrones: The Final Season

[crookeddy]

The notion that someone who doesn't want power is thereby qualified is nonsense. It's true there are people who want power for fun and profit. But people who want to change things want power too. (The notion that motives can even be pure, much less that having mixed motives is a kind of evil in itself, is, sorry, childish at best.) Jon doesn't want to change anything. This is not a qualification for the throne. Cersei has it too! I can imagine Daenerys passing a law saying that no one can be compelled to marry their parents' choice. I can't imagine Jon even thinking of it. The only one apt to improve things has been shown to be Daenerys, which is exactly why the show hates her. Also, Jon is not a good choice because he is so easily manipulated, not least by Sansa. Somebody above thought the way he fell for Olly's treachery was a qualification for the throne?

The double standard for Daenerys and all other characters is extraordinary. The notion that Davos is a good man, when he has been pursuing claimants to the throne from the beginning is extraordinary. Gendry was one, kept in reserve, then taken up. Yeah, he's pissed about Shireen but he didn't have any problems with Stannis being a crazed fanatic who murdered his own brother. They notion that Tyrion is good when he murdered his own father with premeditation for the supposed crime of knowing (by supernatural means?) that even though Sansa disappeared he had nothing to do with Joffrey's murder, and Tywin would have forced him into a life at the Wall? Professor Zoom professes to believe that lex talionis isn't justice, but Tywin was basically murdered for being mean, not as a life for a life. Crookeddy would have been appalled, were any of it sincere. When Tyrion slighted Theon for feeling bad about a life as a hostage, it was the kettle calling the pot black.

Lol

 

[crookeddy]

Btw people really do dislike the last episode - it's the lowest rated of the series on IMDb. It's just the constant exaggeration over some kind of anger and repercussions that are bothersome to us.

Edit: something weird is going on with that score too, I've never seen this pattern. It was at 7.1 right after the episode, 7.8 the next day, and 6.6 now.... review bombing?

 

[crookeddy]

All three shows seem to have had difficulties with navigating their way to the end -- either because they had no clear end in mind (Lost and new BSG) or there is nothing except the most sketchy roadmap to a known end (GoT). In new BSG, I seem to recall there was a scene where Adama literally painted himself into a corner of his quarters with real paint and then sat on the floor sobbing. I expect that was an injoke by the writers about their situation at the time.

To me, GOT is not on the same level of messiness as the other 2. YMMV.

 

[eschaton]

It's just funny watching this season of GOT after DIS's second season. Because even though I liked Discovery's second season a lot more than the first, it was far more guilty of plot developments seemingly coming out of nowhere and thin and inconsistent characterization than Game of Thrones has been.

Maybe peoples expectations for the series has just built up to unrealistically high levels? I mean, it's clearly not "Peak TV" any longer, but it's still not really at the level of schlock yet either.

 

[crookeddy]

It's just funny watching this season of GOT after DIS's second season. Because even though I liked Discovery's second season a lot more than the first, it was far more guilty of plot developments seemingly coming out of nowhere and thin and inconsistent characterization than Game of Thrones has been.

Maybe peoples expectations for the series has just built up to unrealistically high levels? I mean, it's clearly not "Peak TV" any longer, but it's still not really at the level of schlock yet either.

It's still peak tv because it's the ending of a top 10 show of all time. And it was never going to have a good ending.

Trying to resist commenting on Discovery, because that will derail this thread forever.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Not wanting power doesn’t qualify you for power, but being willing to trade power for the best interests of the country does. (Or rather, not being willing to trade disqualifies you)

 

[DigificWriter]

It's just the constant exaggeration over some kind of anger and repercussions that are bothersome to us.

It's not "over-exaggeration".

People are very angry for very legitimate reasons, and it's almost guaranteed to have a negative 'ripple effect'.

Dismissing statements about that fact as "over-exaggeration" is an indicator of how callous you are about other people's reactions to things and is not a flattering look.

 

[crookeddy]

Dismissing statements about that fact as "over-exaggeration" is an indicator of how callous you are about other people's reactions to things and is not a flattering look.

You're one to talk!

 

[Scout101]

It's not "over-exaggeration".

People are very angry for very legitimate reasons, and it's almost guaranteed to have a negative 'ripple effect'.

Dismissing statements about that fact as "over-exaggeration" is an indicator of how callous you are about other people's reactions to things and is not a flattering look.

On the other hand, because YOU feel something does not make it a universal feeling. Even if you find people on the internet that hate something. You could literally name any topic and find a forum with people complaining about that topic; it's not a place filled with happy reviews and hugs...

Literally a week ago there was a fairly universal complaint about the lighting of an episode, and you dismissed it despite that, so I guess complaining on the internet only counts if it agrees with your opinion?

 

[crookeddy]

Exactly what kind of ending would have not pissed anyone off, but at the same time would have both made sense, and fit the tone of the show?

The show is kind of showing us why shows like Game Of Thrones are so rare - they backed themselves into a corner with the very thing that made them popular in the first place. A good ol' Kobayashi Maru no-win scenario for the writers. Much easier to write a traditional story.

 

[DigificWriter]

On the other hand, because YOU feel something does not make it a universal feeling. Even if you find people on the internet that hate something. You could literally name any topic and find a forum with people complaining about that topic; it's not a place filled with happy reviews and hugs...

Literally a week ago there was a fairly universal complaint about the lighting of an episode, and you dismissed it despite that, so I guess complaining on the internet only counts if it agrees with your opinion?

You're really going to compare complaints about something that was within viewers' power to fix - being unable to see things in The Long Night because of insufficient lighting and streaming compression - with complaints about something - crappy writing that some also view as racist and misogynistic - that viewers can't fix?

Talk about two completely nonequivalent issues.

 

[crookeddy]

You're really going to compare complaints about something that was within viewers' power to fix - being unable to see things in The Long Night because of insufficient lighting and streaming compression - with complaints about something - crappy writing that some also view as racist and misogynistic - that viewers can't fix?

Talk about two completely nonequivalent issues.

It still angered people, and they presented their points of view, and you just dismissed them. Now you know what that feels like.

 

[Booji]

I'm honestly done talking about it.

So much for that idea...

 

[Ridcully]

Dracarys....burn baby burn.....

 

[137th Gebirg]

So much for that idea...

Yep. Promises, promises...

 

[StarMan]

re: Some of the ire over character conflict. Consider that for the vast majority of the series, Dany has been portrayed on the *right* side of the story – when her story was separate to the story threads in The Seven Kingdoms. Dany against her brother, The Warlocks of Qarth, the Slavers etc. She liberated many of the disenfranchised peoples of Essos. But, the Iron Throne - *her* Iron Throne – always loomed in her mind. Regardless, she was one of the good ones. Denying this is a bit silly given we have followed her journey from her POV the whole series.

Likewise with the Starks. Let’s go with Sansa. We’ve watched her journey from naïve “little bird” into the formidable woman she is today. She has always been a sympathetic character on the “right” side. Same can be said for Jon and Arya.

Then, come the last two seasons, two worlds collide. We end up with conflict between Jon & Dany, Sansa & Dany, and some have suggested character assassination. I personally love how it’s played out. These characters haven’t – like us - had a god’s eye view on the other characters throughout the series (except for Bran). Now that their stories are intertwined, it’s revealed the incongruities between what one of our protagonists wants over another. Previously, it would’ve be easy to know who to “root for”.

I don’t think Dany is acting out of character; she’s spent all this time pushing forward to get back to Westeros and when she finally does, she’s met with a less-than-rosy response. Likewise, I think Sansa is completely in character defending The North’s right to sovereignty to Dany after everything she’s been through and the blood spilled retaking it from The Boltons.

You DON'T have to go back and retroactively make Dany "bad" or "mad" to make the story work. If you do, you're removing all the shades of grey.

Just a thought…

 

[crookeddy]

re: Some of the ire over character conflict. Consider that for the vast majority of the series, Dany has been portrayed on the *right* side of the story – when her story was separate to the story threads in The Seven Kingdoms. Dany against her brother, The Warlocks of Qarth, the Slavers etc. She liberated many of disenfranchised peoples of Essos. But, the Iron Throne - *her* Iron Throne – always loomed in her mind. Regardless, she was one of the good ones. Denying this is a bit silly given we have followed her journey from her POV the whole series.

Likewise with the Starks. Let’s go with Sansa. We’ve watched her journey from naïve “little bird” into the formidable woman she is today. She has always been a sympathetic character on the “right” side. Same can be said for Jon and Arya.

Then, come the last two seasons, two worlds collide. We end up with conflict between Jon & Dany, Sansa & Dany, and some have suggested character assassination. I personally love how it’s played out. These characters haven’t – like us - had a god’s eye view on the other characters throughout the series (except for Bran). Now that their stories are intertwined, it’s revealed the incongruities between what one of our protagonists wants over another. Previously, it would’ve be easy to know who to “root for”.

I don’t think Dany is acting out of character; she’s spent all this time pushing forward to get back to Westeros and when she finally does, she’s met with a less-than-rosy response. Likewise, I think Sansa is completely in character defending The North’s right to sovereignty to Dany after everything she’s been through and the blood spilled retaking it from The Boltons.

You DON'T have to go back and retroactively make Dany "bad" or "mad" to make the story work. If you do, you're removing all the shades of grey.

Just a thought…

Yeah we've all explained this several times, but the hater(s) don't listen or even respond to these kinds of posts. They just hit and run over and over with the same nonsense.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I tend to think Tyrion's motive for killing his father was more than just revenge. I think he wanted to free himself and Jamie from his father's control.

Jamie tried to broker Tyrion's life by agreeing to be the lord of Castly Rock. I think Tyrion would have accepted that offer if it didn't bind Jamie to something.

The thing about Dany is that she's not as gray as the other characters. She's got competing white and black forces in her mind. She's gotten enough good advice to act on the white side the most often. But she feels every bit as entitled to the throne as her brother, and given the right moment she'd kill anyone in her way.

 

[Professor Zoom]

In the context that killing a Nazi is the same as killing a Nazi's victim.

Or killing a plantation owner is the same as killing a slave.

Except this plantation owner just murdered a baby.

The aesop of Mereen is a dark one but a clear one: Daenerys' mercy was wasted on the evil. Mereen would have only had peace by utterly destroying the Masters.

I like how you skip over the ACTUAL form of killing... Crucifixion isn't like chopping a head off or a firing squad. It's deliberately cruel and painful. And that's what she choose for execution.

Sorta like something Cersei would do.

Makes it hard to tell who is the crazy one.

But, if it's all about eye for an eye, revenge, blah blah, then, there's really no moral high ground, is there?

It would be considered a war crime if you crucified a Nazi. It's one of the reason why we put Nazis on trial... for crimes against humanity.

But, yeah, Daenerys just had no other options.... lol.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Much of the anger and frustration that is being expressed can be summed up in this way: turning characters against one another and having them behave as they have been does not feel "earned" because it is not consistent with previous seasons and completely "tanks" characters - the majority of them female - and character relationships that viewers have come to care about and invested their time and support in.

That's why it's "shit writing".

Certain posters here can continue to dismiss the anger and frustration as being "minimal" or "isolated", but it's real and is going to have a 'ripple effect'.

This post aged well....

People can defend this crap all they want, but it doesn't lessen the legitimacy of the backlash, and I'm honestly done talking about it.