Jon Snow has been made irrelevant

Cersei has spent the entire season staring out her balcony. Literally. ($500k/episode, whatta life Lena Headly!)

They've made Tyrion a moron.

Dany's a pawn to plot service.

These characters are all unrecognizable in service to tying up all the arcs on the show.

I get that it's fun, and it's still entertaining, but this season warrants being panned from a critical standpoint.

GBear4Life said:

---

Jon Snow has been made irrelevant

Cersei has spent the entire season staring out her balcony. Literally. ($500k/episode, whatta life Lena Headly!)

They've made Tyrion a moron.

Dany's a pawn to plot service.

These characters are all unrecognizable in service to tying up all the arcs on the show.

I get that it's fun, and it's still entertaining, but this season warrants being panned from a critical standpoint.

---

$500,000 an episode, when she only appeared in 3 episodes this season, is actually pretty low pay, especially for one of the biggest stars of the show. (Although I'm pretty sure she's making $1 million an episode.)

Her scenes took months to film.

(American) viewership for Lena's 3 episodes:

Episode 1: 17.4 million
Epiosde 4: 17.2 million
Episode 5: 18.4 million


The guy pictured below made $3 million for The Big Bang Theory's final 3 episodes, which aired in the past 10 days. And it only took 3 weeks to film.

One-hour series finale ratings: 18 million for 2 episodes
Penultimate episode ratings: 12.25 million

I'm not saying they don't deserve their salaries. Of course they do. But Lena Headey making only $500,000 an episode, given her importance in making Game of Thrones a success, is really not much. Even $1 million an episode is not much. Also screen time doesn't equate with work time. Game of Thrones' ratings are ridiculous. The Sopranos averaged 8 million viewers its final season.) Game of Thrones was a massive game-changer for HBO. And it wouldn't have been the same if the actress who played Cersei wasn't good in the role.

NO SPOILERS:

Game of Thrones' Is Going Out Fighting. So Will Its Audience

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/arts/television/game-of-thrones-season-8.html

bearister said:

---

NO SPOILERS:

Game of Thrones' Is Going Out Fighting. So Will Its Audience

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/arts/television/game-of-thrones-season-8.html

---

spoilers have been out for weeks on how the series and character arcs end...

I admittedly read the spoilers after ep 4 when I officially stopped caring about the characters due to progressively terrible writing, but it was still LOLOLOLOLOLOL to actually watch it go down.

D&D treated the last few seasons like GS treated Games 2 and 5 vs LAC.

Re the finale (and no spoilers so some of this is vague):

I thought there continued to be some plot holes (how do guys without certain anatomy continue to multiply in number, how do the horse riders who were wiped out in the Winterfell battle and are afraid of traveling on water continue to move around on ships, grow in number, etc. ), Nevertheless, I enjoyed the finale. I loved the scene where Dragon got rid of what they were fighting for. My dog felt much better after the last few scenes (he looks like a bigger version of Ghost). In the amount of time they had to wrap this up, the show runners covered most of the plot points in a reasonable way.

Add: thought camera work, lighting, and direction were all spot on.

wifeisafurd said:

---

... My dog felt much better after the last few scenes (he looks like a bigger version of Ghost).....

---

My Jack Russell has been going ape sh@t every Sunday all season. She tries to attack horses and dragons. We had to fence the TV off.

That was great. But weirdly best part was that John and Ghost were reunited. I had no idea how much I was waiting for that until it actually happened.

bearister said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

... My dog felt much better after the last few scenes (he looks like a bigger version of Ghost).....

---

My Jack Russell has been going ape sh@t every Sunday all season. She tries to attack horses and dragons. We had to fence the TV off.

---

That is hilarious. Our Great Pyrenees and your Jack Russel should have some play time together, Our Pyr constantly growled at the dragons, which from a dog his size is a little scary.

Left obviously wide open for another series spinoff or sequel in the future...kinda disappointed in the ending.

Thematically I thought the ending was totally appropriate. Making sure the most unambitious characters take hold of power seems like a very GRRM thing to do.

The execution was imperfect. Not so much this episode, but the big rush to get there. More episodes to allow these developments to breathe would have helped.

I really enjoyed this episode. Tyrion finely made some good decisions, John and Ghost got reunited and pretty much everyone got what they deserved (if not what they wanted). Very satisfying. And I'm sure some will dislike it because yes, hatters gonna hat. But as someone who read the first book as soon as it was published 23 years ago and has been following this story arc through the books and TV show ever since, I'm content.

Sebastabear said:

---

I really enjoyed this episode. Tyrion finely made some good decisions, John and Ghost got reunited and pretty much everyone got what they deserved (if not what they wanted). Very satisfying. And I'm sure some will dislike it because yes, hatters gonna hat. But as someone who read the first book as soon as it was published 23 years ago and has been following this story arc through the books and TV show ever since, I'm content.

---

I would bet that they followed Martin's plot outline very closely for this ending. He could always change it if he ever finishes his books, of course, but generally this seems about in line with a satisfyingly unsatisfying GRRM story. No one is completely happy, and that's the point.

sycasey said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

I really enjoyed this episode. Tyrion finely made some good decisions, John and Ghost got reunited and pretty much everyone got what they deserved (if not what they wanted). Very satisfying. And I'm sure some will dislike it because yes, hatters gonna hat. But as someone who read the first book as soon as it was published 23 years ago and has been following this story arc through the books and TV show ever since, I'm content.

---

I would bet that they followed Martin's plot outline very closely for this ending. He could always change it if he ever finishes his books, of course, but generally this seems about in line with a satisfyingly unsatisfying GRRM story. No one is completely happy, and that's the point.

---

Agree. That ending had GRRM's fingerprints all over it. And I don't think he'll ever finish the original series in book form (I think he did just finish his story - just used a different medium).

Part of what made him fun to read was the crashing of conventions and how insanely unexpected some of the plot twists were. When the whole world knows how your story ends there's not much point in telling it.

Guessing he'll go with prequels (and maybe far future sequels) from here on out. I'd be pretty shocked if he ever penned another word using these particular characters.

Why didn't Drogon take his wrath out on Jon?
Because he thought the chair did it.

I'll say this. I'm ecstatic Sam got laughed out of the room with his democracy bull***** If GOT went down that road, I literally would've throw up.

I was secretly hoping edmure Tully was made king and it was later revealed he was some keyser soze character all along. That would've been the ultimate, "I don't give a F what you think" ending of all time. But you can't always get what you want.

But just like the characters in the show yearned for compromise, that's what d&d delivered with bran. Not amazing. Not awful. Whatever.

I think for me, when I signed up for GOT (way in the beginning) I thought I was signing up for something different. Something groundbreaking. Something that was going to break all convention.

And that's where I think a lot of fans are left disappointed with this season. We were promised a "breaking of the wheel". What we were given was predictability and cliche. Every character was given their appropriate ending. I guess for some that's satisfying. And that's fine. This was a fine ending if this were any other show.

But for me personally, that's not what I signed up for way back when I fell in love with this show with the cutting of poor ned's head. This was a tough world. A world where the good guys don't always win. A world of cruelty and ambition, jealousy and anger. This was a world built on complication and nuance. A world of depth where questions of morality, freedom, and justice were struggled with and often never quite resolved. But somehow the rules of that world were whisped away in one magic stroke where tension and consequence no longer exist. Where the vices of man just suddenly disappear so we can have an appropriate and satisfactory ending (tied up nearly in six episodes). A world once full of grey was reduced to a world of decidedly good and decidedly bad. And to me, a world of black and white will never be able to successfully tackle the real difficult questions.

A lot of shows can be good. But to truly be epic, you've got to break that wheel. And not search for compromise

ducky23 said:

---

But just like the characters in the show yearned for compromise, that's what d&d delivered with bran. Not amazing. Not awful. Whatever.

---

IMO this is exactly what GRRM's point was. That a reasonably satisfying ending doesn't come with one of the square-jawed heroes taking the throne (they are all too broken after fighting so many battles anyway) and not with one of the unscrupulous schemers taking it either (that would just be boring nihilism), rather with the "meh" compromise guy being placed there. It's an actual realistic take on what "progress" would look like in such a world.

Yes, I am assuming this is Martin's outlined ending, but I think it's a better assumption than thinking D&D came up with it on their own.

Hmm, so wow. Did Tony Soprano die in the diner or not?

sycasey said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

But just like the characters in the show yearned for compromise, that's what d&d delivered with bran. Not amazing. Not awful. Whatever.

---

IMO this is exactly what GRRM's point was. That a reasonably satisfying ending doesn't come with one of the square-jawed heroes taking the throne (they are all too broken after fighting so many battles anyway) and not with one of the unscrupulous schemers taking it either (that would just be boring nihilism), rather with the "meh" compromise guy being placed there. It's an actual realistic take on what "progress" would look like in such a world.

Yes, I am assuming this is Martin's outlined ending, but I think it's a better assumption than thinking D&D came up with it on their own.

---

For the record, I'm fine with bran as king. Again, I thought that decision was whatever.

For me, I honestly don't really care who ends up on the throne. That's not what's important to me.

ColoradoBear said:

---

Hmm, so wow. Did Tony Soprano die in the diner or not?

---

See that's an amazing ending.

I would point you to this.

https://masterofsopranos.wordpress.com/1147-2/

It goes frame by frame and explains the entire ending. Read that and you tell me that d&d put as much thought into their finale as chase does with the final scene of the sopranos

That's chase saying 'I don't give a F what the average viewer thinks of my ending.' But to him, that ending was meticulous and perfect even though maybe .01% will truly appreciate it.

sycasey said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

But just like the characters in the show yearned for compromise, that's what d&d delivered with bran. Not amazing. Not awful. Whatever.

---

IMO this is exactly what GRRM's point was. That a reasonably satisfying ending doesn't come with one of the square-jawed heroes taking the throne (they are all too broken after fighting so many battles anyway) and not with one of the unscrupulous schemers taking it either (that would just be boring nihilism), rather with the "meh" compromise guy being placed there. It's an actual realistic take on what "progress" would look like in such a world.

Yes, I am assuming this is Martin's outlined ending, but I think it's a better assumption than thinking D&D came up with it on their own.

---

It's weird...

There are two main camps when it comes to Jon Snow:

--There's the fighter who overcame so much adversity who seemed like the hero of the show who was destined to take the throne. He's the natural charismatic leader of of men.

--There's the mediocre guy ("Stupid Jon Snow") who constantly makes bad decisions and who has to constantly be bailed out (by Uncle Benjen, Sansa, Daenerys, etc.). He's the guy who fails up.


But because he keeps surviving, looks morally pure and looks the part, it just seemed like a foregone conclusion he would end up on the Iron Throne.To both sides.

And he would ascend to the throne if this weren't a George R.R. Martin story.

It's funny that so many people in my sports timeline expected Jon Snow to get the throne.

I see parallels in Jon Snow and Ned Stark. But it's odd that the Jon Snow fans who were thrilled to see Ned get punished for betraying the king are shocked when Jon is punished for betraying the queen.

I saw too many people wonder why the Unsullied had control of Jon Snow's fate, as if they were irrelevant.

I also saw too many people say he was the rightful heir to the throne.

Picture this: Jon Snow kills the Queen, and Jon -- without a dragon to back him up --- tells the Unsullied that he had to kill her because she was evil and he is, in fact, the rightful heir to the throne. You think they're going to buy it? HAHAHAH! Anyways, I'm surprised he wasn't executed right away.

okaydo said:

---

I see parallels in Jon Snow and Ned Stark. But it's odd that the Jon Snow fans who were thrilled to see Ned get punished for betraying the king are shocked when Jon is punished for betraying the queen.

---

When did Ned betray the king? And which viewers were thrilled with his punishment?

ducky23 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

But just like the characters in the show yearned for compromise, that's what d&d delivered with bran. Not amazing. Not awful. Whatever.

---

IMO this is exactly what GRRM's point was. That a reasonably satisfying ending doesn't come with one of the square-jawed heroes taking the throne (they are all too broken after fighting so many battles anyway) and not with one of the unscrupulous schemers taking it either (that would just be boring nihilism), rather with the "meh" compromise guy being placed there. It's an actual realistic take on what "progress" would look like in such a world.

Yes, I am assuming this is Martin's outlined ending, but I think it's a better assumption than thinking D&D came up with it on their own.

---

For the record, I'm fine with bran as king. Again, I thought that decision was whatever.

For me, I honestly don't really care who ends up on the throne. That's not what's important to me.

---

I guess I'm not totally buying your premise here. The show did break the wheel, it actively introduced a new method for picking a king. How many people predicted Bran as the person who would be picked? Was that actually the ending you thought you were going to see?

Were there not moral shades of grey in this ending? The guy who was built up as the "hero" (Jon Snow) doesn't get the throne, he goes off to the wilderness after having to murder his lover (who had also been built up as a strong audience-identification figure). It seems to me in that final council that no one got exactly what they wanted. There was not an obvious "winner."

I think the series had problems the last two seasons, but I don't think it failed on presenting moral complications and nuance.

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

---

okaydo said:

---

I see parallels in Jon Snow and Ned Stark. But it's odd that the Jon Snow fans who were thrilled to see Ned get punished for betraying the king are shocked when Jon is punished for betraying the queen.

---

When did Ned betray the king? And which viewers were thrilled with his punishment?

---

He confessed to betraying King Joffrey.

Ned's beheading signaled this was a different kind of show, one that it was willing to kill off main characters, which made it a thrilling show. (And made it a disappointing one when it stopped doing that.)

Ok, I misunderstood you to be saying Ned was legitimately punished for betraying a legitimate king. A realistic consequence for Jon would have been immediate execution by fire or spear. The exile was a political compromise to avoid further bloodshed, not something that was required; after all, that is still a society governed by rule of men (the current king), not the rule of law. As soon as the Unsullied and Dothraki die at Naath (from the butterflies), Jon will and should be pardoned.

sycasey said:

---

I guess I'm not totally buying your premise here. The show did break the wheel, it actively introduced a new method for picking a king. How many people predicted Bran as the person who would be picked? Was that actually the ending you thought you were going to see?

Were there not moral shades of grey in this ending? The guy who was built up as the "hero" (Jon Snow) doesn't get the throne, he goes off to the wilderness after having to murder his lover (who had also been built up as a strong audience-identification figure). It seems to me in that final council that no one got exactly what they wanted. There was not an obvious "winner."

I think the series had problems the last two seasons, but I don't think it failed on presenting moral complications and nuance.

---

It sounds to me from the quotes below he's saying (I could be misreading him) that perhaps the only way an ending to GOT could be seen by him as really nuanced and sophisticated is if (1) almost all the characters were revealed by the end to be morally gray (not clearly leaning to good or evil; with fairly even good and bad motivations), and (2) the consequences to all these gray characters were also all ambiguously gray (no happily ever afters), or mostly cruelly brutal. In other words, there are no decidedly good or bad guys, so the only intellectually satisfying resolution is either no resolution at all, or everybody gets their heads chopped off, zombie frozen, or burned to a crisp.

Quote:

---

I was secretly hoping edmure Tully was made king and it was later revealed he was some keyser soze character all along. That would've been the ultimate, "I don't give a F what you think" ending of all time. But you can't always get what you want.

---

Quote:

---

But for me personally, that's not what I signed up for way back when I fell in love with this show with the cutting of poor ned's head. This was a tough world. A world where the good guys don't always win. A world of cruelty and ambition, jealousy and anger. This was a world built on complication and nuance. A world of depth where questions of morality, freedom, and justice were struggled with and often never quite resolved. But somehow the rules of that world were whisped away in one magic stroke where tension and consequence no longer exist. Where the vices of man just suddenly disappear so we can have an appropriate and satisfactory ending (tied up nearly in six episodes). A world once full of grey was reduced to a world of decidedly good and decidedly bad. And to me, a world of black and white will never be able to successfully tackle the real difficult questions.

A lot of shows can be good. But to truly be epic, you've got to break that wheel. And not search for compromise

---

The compromising of grayness (ethically and causally) is supposedly the compromising of reality itself and intellectual integrity. One problem with this view is that the reality is some have given themselves to evil ends or evil means to stated ends, and others have risked themselves to good ends at personal cost with mostly good means despite some mixed motivations. Another problem is that many "difficult questions of morality, freedom, and justice" have black and white answers. Think of the answers to many issues which were deemed controversial in our human past but today enjoy widespread agreement. If lack of resolution over these ultimate questions were a true sign of depth and sophistication, we'd still be little better today than savage tribes lacking clear moral guidance. Assuming from the start and in perpetuity that our tough remaining questions of today will remain gray (as some sign of intellectual, sophisticated nuance) guarantees failure of dedicated reasoning, civilized discourse, and progress itself. Or is this required grayness only for a "dark ages" feudal medieval society?

ColoradoBear said:

---

Hmm, so wow. Did Tony Soprano die in the diner or not?

---

No, he bought the Marble Orchard on the crapper, like The King.

I liked the final episode, it was good but not great. Bran as King makes some sense, but at the end of the series the Starks really performed quite the coup. Bran ends up as king, Sansa is Queen of the north, and Jon goes beyond the wall to lead the Wildlings (the new King Beyond the Wall?), all while Arya begins to explore new territories. The Starks massively expanded their domain by the end of the series.

Also, does anyone kind of think Bran is not so moral or just. Once he became the Three-Eyed Raven, he is apathetic and dispassionate, often times it is hard to tell if he cares about people at all. Also, he presumably was able to see the entire final season before they played out, and yet he allowed everyone to be sacrificed at Winterfell prior to Arya killing the Night King. He did nothing to stop the slaughter of King's Landing. He basically used Cersei's plan of letting everyone else destroy each other and the innocent, while he hangs back knowing one day he'll be King. Then, he doesn't care to even run the kingdom as he'd rather warg around than actually solve problems. I'd predict several kingdoms try to break away and declare their independence much like Sansa and the North within five years.

Finally, kudos to Drogon for being the most observant and intelligent character in the series and for destroying the symbol of power which inspired greed, envy, and destruction throughout the realm.

BulaBear3cubs said:

---

Left obviously wide open for another series spinoff or sequel in the future...kinda disappointed in the ending.

---

Supposedly (Steven King tweet), Ayra has a spin-off and there is a prequel. The show runners for GOT will not be involved with either. They are moving on to a new show named "Confederate."

sycasey said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

But just like the characters in the show yearned for compromise, that's what d&d delivered with bran. Not amazing. Not awful. Whatever.

---

IMO this is exactly what GRRM's point was. That a reasonably satisfying ending doesn't come with one of the square-jawed heroes taking the throne (they are all too broken after fighting so many battles anyway) and not with one of the unscrupulous schemers taking it either (that would just be boring nihilism), rather with the "meh" compromise guy being placed there. It's an actual realistic take on what "progress" would look like in such a world.

Yes, I am assuming this is Martin's outlined ending, but I think it's a better assumption than thinking D&D came up with it on their own.

---

For the record, I'm fine with bran as king. Again, I thought that decision was whatever.

For me, I honestly don't really care who ends up on the throne. That's not what's important to me.

---

I guess I'm not totally buying your premise here. The show did break the wheel, it actively introduced a new method for picking a king. How many people predicted Bran as the person who would be picked? Was that actually the ending you thought you were going to see?

Were there not moral shades of grey in this ending? The guy who was built up as the "hero" (Jon Snow) doesn't get the throne, he goes off to the wilderness after having to murder his lover (who had also been built up as a strong audience-identification figure). It seems to me in that final council that no one got exactly what they wanted. There was not an obvious "winner."

I think the series had problems the last two seasons, but I don't think it failed on presenting moral complications and nuance.

---

When I say break the wheel, I'm not talking about what happens plot wise. Who the hell cares.

I'm talking about breaking the wheel of tv. Being so revolutionary that you change the course of television. (Like sopranos)

GOT was revolutionary. It will change the course of television. But not thanks to the last season.

Also just because there was no obvious winner doesn't mean there were shades of gray. I'm talking more of the characters. By the last season, nearly every character was largely seen as either entirely good or entirely bad. For instance, I think if they had more time, dany's arc would have been more interesting if there was more grey (like legitimate reasons for doing the things she did) rather than painting her as a complete lunatic monster. Think about how much better Jon killing dany would have been if she were slightly more gray. No one cares if Jon kills dany cause no one has any sympathy for her anymore. And the decision to kill her is strictly a good/bad decision.

I would argue Jamie is a great example of a grey character in early episodes. But because of the speed of the last season, Janie comes off as more bipolar than anything. First going one way and then abruptly changing directions to go another is not grey, it's bad writing

wifeisafurd said:

---

BulaBear3cubs said:

---

Left obviously wide open for another series spinoff or sequel in the future...kinda disappointed in the ending.

---

Supposedly (Steven King tweet), Ayra has a spin-off and there is a prequel. The show runners for GOT will not be involved with either. They are moving on to a new show named "Confederate."

---

Confederate is basically dead, but not officially. Too controversial. And they're working on a Star Wars.