Game of Thrones begins....

[The Brain]

I don't think Martin cares about angry fans.

[KRonn]

I could go on, but you get the idea.  The last two seasons didn't just end limply, they betrayed all the previous seasons by making them worthless to the final resolution.  I liken it to the ROTK batle of the Pelennor Fields and batle of the Black gates, wherein all the heroes would have lived and been happy had they just stayed in bed and let Aragorn's army of the dead trivially wipe out every orc, troll, and oliphant  in existence.

Yep, good points and fleshes out how poorly the story line was put together. And if Martin ends it in a similar way then IMO his great saga suffers.

[viper37]

All of that is true, but trivial, in my mind, compared to the real problems:

1.  The Night King turned out to be a complete McGuffin.  Why did he even exist?  He had no motivations, no plan, except to be "the big bad."  All the stuff about his origins had zero point or consequences.

2.  The battle at Winterfell was completely unnecessary.  No one needed to die.  Put Arya in the tree, Bran at the bottom of the tree, and have Arya assassinate the Night King when he came to kill Bran.  All of the extraneous death and sacrifice was meaningless because the NK could easily be killed by stealth ninja Arya, and his entire army died with him.  Bran could easily have known this from his ability to know everything through time.

3.  Dani going insane and wiping out the city was completely unnecessary for the ending they had planned, was way over the top, and was contrary to her entire arc to that point.  Jon could still have felt forced to kill her just based on the fact that she was proposing unending war and would threaten his family.  It would have been far more poignant a decision for Jon if she was not bonkers and clearly needing to be put down.  She could have been true to her arc, and he to his, and the audience could have been weeping at the idea that he was forced by concern for his stubborn family to kill the woman he still loved and honored.

4.  Bran's story, after so much investment in time and show budget, had no point.  The fact that he was made king was ludicrous and the claim that it was because he suffered was entirely absurd given what others had gone through.  Bran never consciously made a single sacrifice; all the bad things that happened to him were the results not of his choices, but the choices of others.  if they were really choosing the monarch based on the criteria they claimed, Meera Reed would have been crowned.

5.  Jon's parentage made zero difference, yet was made the central mystery of the show.  If he had just been Ned's bastard, thing would have played out exactly the same.  It would have been trivially difficult to show Varys actually working behind Jon's back to make make Jon king, and being very effective at it, and so set up Jon's conflict of interest (he loves Dani and supports her bid for the throne, but his obligations to his vassals and allies, and the desire to avoid the impending civil war if an outsider lie Dani takes the throne, would have forced him towards taking the throne himself).  A huge buildup that ended with a fart.

5.  Clegainebowl was pure fan service and had no impact on the story at all.  All that buildup for a fight that no one else would ever even know happened.

I could go on, but you get the idea.  The last two seasons didn't just end limply, they betrayed all the previous seasons by making them worthless to the final resolution.  I liken it to the ROTK batle of the Pelennor Fields and batle of the Black gates, wherein all the heroes would have lived and been happy had they just stayed in bed and let Aragorn's army of the dead trivially wipe out every orc, troll, and oliphant  in existence.

half disagree with point 2, disagree on point 3, agree with the rest.  And disagree with your take on ROTK as well

[The Minsky Moment]

There were logical reasons for Bran to be named King, just not the reasons mentioned in the episode.

Other than that, I agree with grumbler's points.

[viper37]

There were logical reasons for Bran to be named King, just not the reasons mentioned in the episode.

Other than that, I agree with grumbler's points.

about #2 on his list:
There was a need for a diversion.  The wights needed to be occupied so the Night king would go on mostly alone (meaning, only with a few soldiers) so that Arya could surprise him.  As you have seen with Jon Snow trying to kill him, it does not work that well when there's thousands of soldiers surrounding him that you need to kill just to get to him, totally exhausted.

There was really a need for a battle at Winterfell.

How that battle was made though, I agree with everyone it was totally stupid.


About point #3: It's been foreshadowed since the begginning of the series that she wasn't exactly "gentle" and she had mood swings.  Even in the last season you could see how she was: a true leader would have waited for her troops to recover after a large battle, then launched her assault fully prepared on King's Landing.  She would have had scouts to survey the area, notice ships and high caliber-high precision ballistats on them

Again, it was badly done, totally rushed, but there's nothing extraordinary or surprising about how it ends with her character.

[The Brain]

They set up for a long time the question of how ruthless Dani was or could be. That question became totally irrelevant when she suddenly channeled Lt Calley all psycho for no known purpose when the battle was already won.

[crazy canuck]

There were logical reasons for Bran to be named King, just not the reasons mentioned in the episode.

Other than that, I agree with grumbler's points.

about #2 on his list:
There was a need for a diversion.  The wights needed to be occupied so the Night king would go on mostly alone (meaning, only with a few soldiers) so that Arya could surprise him.  As you have seen with Jon Snow trying to kill him, it does not work that well when there's thousands of soldiers surrounding him that you need to kill just to get to him, totally exhausted.

Not sure how that follows - there was no diversion with the Night King approached - the battle was over.  All his commanders were with him surrounded by their army - he walked forward from that.  Just as he would have if there had been no battle and the good guys just left Bran by the tree with Arya waiting in the wings.

About point #3: It's been foreshadowed since the begginning of the series that she wasn't exactly "gentle" and she had mood swings.  Even in the last season you could see how she was: a true leader would have waited for her troops to recover after a large battle, then launched her assault fully prepared on King's Landing.  She would have had scouts to survey the area, notice ships and high caliber-high precision ballistats on them

I think you are missing Grumbler's point.

[viper37]

Not sure how that follows - there was no diversion with the Night King approached - the battle was over.  All his commanders were with him surrounded by their army - he walked forward from that.  Just as he would have if there had been no battle and the good guys just left Bran by the tree with Arya waiting in the wings.

Is it easier to sneak on 10 people or 10 000 people?

It's the same principle as Aragon in front of the black gates, they needed to have Sauron's eye focused on them, not on Frodo or he would fail.

The battle is till raging on, they're still fighting the whights.  The Night's king attention is distracted because there is a battle going on, and he thinks he's about to win.

Again, it could and should have been handled a lot better, but to say having a battle at Winterfell was pointless, I disagree with that.  The assassin needed to sneak on the Nightking, she can't do that if she has to fight a thousand of undead corpses like Jon Snow.

I think you are missing Grumbler's point.

The way I understand it is that he thinks it's stupid because Dani suddenly, out of nowhere, snapped.  I'm arguing it wasn't out of nowhere.

[grumbler]

Is it easier to sneak on 10 people or 10 000 people?

Arya didn't "sneak on" anyone. She left the library, and then materialized next to the Night King.  In the not-stupid version I propose, she doesn't have to sneak or dematerialize/materialize at all - she's already in the tree.

It's the same principle as Aragon in front of the black gates, they needed to have Sauron's eye focused on them, not on Frodo or he would fail.

I have no idea what "principle" here is "the same."  In RotK, Aragorn was pretending that he had the ring, so that Sauron would go all-out against him to retake it (though Jackson never understood that, so Aragorn's - and Sauron's - actions in the movie were stupid).

The battle is till raging on, they're still fighting the whights.  The Night's king attention is distracted because there is a battle going on, and he thinks he's about to win.

There's no evidence the Night King was distracted in any way.  The battle was in the pursuit phase, and the night king and his lieutenants were focussed on Bran.

Again, it could and should have been handled a lot better, but to say having a battle at Winterfell was pointless, I disagree with that.  The assassin needed to sneak on the Nightking, she can't do that if she has to fight a thousand of undead corpses like Jon Snow.

Again, she didn't "sneak on" anyone, and if she's in the tree, she just has to jump.  In the show, the wights are used to kill Bran's escort.  If there was no escort, the wights would have had no role.

The way I understand it is that he thinks it's stupid because Dani suddenly, out of nowhere, snapped.  I'm arguing it wasn't out of nowhere.

Every major character had "mood swings" and yet we would have been pissed off had Jon, or Tyrion, or Sansa suddenly decided to wipe out an entire city that had just surrendered.  Tyrion did kill Shea and his father, but immediately regretted it.  Dani killed a million people and just went SS with her costume.

But my larger point was that Dani's heel turn was not only dumb, but counter-productive to the kind of story this was.  The writers could have had Jon forced into killing Dani without it, because she could have not gone insane and she'd still present him with the conundrum of what to do when his love wants to war forever and is going to attack his own family because they won't bend the knee.  The show would have been a lot better and the ending much more bittersweet had Jon's decision not been so easy.

[viper37]

Arya didn't "sneak on" anyone. She left the library, and then materialized next to the Night King.  In the not-stupid version I propose, she doesn't have to sneak or dematerialize/materialize at all - she's already in the tree.

about 10 minutes passed between the time she left the library and the time she was in the forest.  Long enough time to run over there.

I have no idea what "principle" here is "the same."  In RotK, Aragorn was pretending that he had the ring, so that Sauron would go all-out against him to retake it (though Jackson never understood that, so Aragorn's - and Sauron's - actions in the movie were stupid).

There's no ring here.  Only an army defending the 3-eyed crow.

By that same logice, the Night King could simply have bypassed the army and went straight for Bran.

There's no evidence the Night King was distracted in any way.  The battle was in the pursuit phase, and the night king and his lieutenants were focussed on Bran.

Again, she didn't "sneak on" anyone, and if she's in the tree, she just has to jump.  In the show, the wights are used to kill Bran's escort.  If there was no escort, the wights would have had no role.

She sneak passed everyone and got into striking distance to the Night King.

Had there been 10 000 whights there, she couldn't have done it.  So there was a need for a battle.

But my larger point was that Dani's heel turn was not only dumb, but counter-productive to the kind of story this was.  The writers could have had Jon forced into killing Dani without it, because she could have not gone insane and she'd still present him with the conundrum of what to do when his love wants to war forever and is going to attack his own family because they won't bend the knee. 

Dani was always cruel to her perceived ennemies.  What's problematic is that it was too subtle during the last 2 seasons.  But I wouldn't say burning people alive is "nice".

The show would have been a lot better and the ending much more bittersweet had Jon's decision not been so easy.

Nah, that part was fine.  It wouldn't have been bittersweet had he killed her for any other reason.  That's the only part that was good.

[Valmy]

Dani was always cruel to her perceived ennemies.  What's problematic is that it was too subtle during the last 2 seasons.  But I wouldn't say burning people alive is "nice".

Not really. If anything she politically screws up by trying to be too nice...at least in the books. I mean I guess compared to 21st century hippies she is cruel, in the world of ASoIaF she isn't by any reasonable comparison to her contemporaries. Again, though, that is in the books.

[HVC]

Was the crucifying in the books or only the tv show?

[Valmy]

Was the crucifying in the books or only the tv show?

Oh that happened but there is a context and she leaves lots of them alive, which then leads to a rebellion against her rule. She talks tough and takes hostages to stop the rebels but then cannot bring herself to actually hurt them.

But she leaves the slavers and nobles alive in the other cities and they march on Meereen forcing her to compromise.

Basically her soft heartedness makes everything a clusterfuck. I have seen no evidence she is especially cruel, quite the contrary she is trying to be different and do the right thing in a very unjust world. Now maybe all this shit eventually teaches her to be a monster but that has not happened yet.

This is in addition to her always trying to protect people the world normally preys upon going back to Game of Thrones (the book)

So, again, the whole idea she is especially cruel is laughable....at least in the books. I haven't watched much of the show, at least past season 2.

[crazy canuck]

Was the crucifying in the books or only the tv show?

Oh that happened but there is a context and she leaves lots of them alive, which then leads to a rebellion against her rule. She talks tough and takes hostages to stop the rebels but then cannot bring herself to actually hurt them.

But she leaves the slavers and nobles alive in the other cities and they march on Meereen forcing her to compromise.

Basically her soft heartedness makes everything a clusterfuck. I have seen no evidence she is especially cruel, quite the contrary she is trying to be different and do the right thing in a very unjust world. Now maybe all this shit eventually teaches her to be a monster but that has not happened yet.

This is in addition to her always trying to protect people the world normally preys upon going back to Game of Thrones (the book)

So, again, the whole idea she is especially cruel is laughable....at least in the books. I haven't watched much of the show, at least past season 2.

It was the same way in the show - hence many little girls being named after her irl.

I wonder how many people have applied for name changes.

[grumbler]

about 10 minutes passed between the time she left the library and the time she was in the forest.  Long enough time to run over there.

I have no idea how you are judging time in the episode, but so what?

There's no ring here.  Only an army defending the 3-eyed crow.

You clearly are missing my point entirely.  I'll just leave that there, since I don't think it is explicable to you.

By that same logice, the Night King could simply have bypassed the army and went straight for Bran.

yes.  that's the point.  The entire episode leading up to the confrontation between Bran and the Night King was unnecessary.  Clearly, the Night King's flunkies couldn't kill Bran, or they'd have done it long before the NK arrived there.  So the only confrontation that mattered was between NK and Bran+Arya.  Everyone else (including wights and White Walkers) could have been a million miles away as far as that confrontation was concerned.

She sneak passed everyone and got into striking distance to the Night King.

Had there been 10 000 whights there, she couldn't have done it.  So there was a need for a battle.

The show demonstrated differently.  Every good guy bar Bran in the vicinity was dead after the NK killed Greyjoy, and it made no difference.  Arya didn't sneak past anyone.  She just materialized.  In my plan, no bullshit plot armor was needed for her.  She would be in the tree, ready to jump down on the NK and then kill him exactly as in the show.  No one else was needed.

Dani was always cruel to her perceived ennemies.  What's problematic is that it was too subtle during the last 2 seasons.  But I wouldn't say burning people alive is "nice".

I have no idea what argument this is trying to advance.  We know that something hit by dragonfire explodes (see Dani's attack on King's landing), so getting burned by dragonfire is the equivalent of being shot with, say, a 105mm shell.  It's quick.  Jon, on the other hand, executed his enemies by putting a noose around their neck and kicking away the supports, so he could watch them dangle and choke to death (when he didn't give them to his sister so they could be eaten alive by dogs).  Dani didn't kill any kids before King's Landing.  Jon did.

So, you are making an argument for Jon, not Dani, to take a heel turn.  That would have been a terrific ending.  But it doesn't support your approval of the show's ending.

Nah, that part was fine.  It wouldn't have been bittersweet had he killed her for any other reason.  That's the only part that was good.

I disagree, for reasons I have fully laid out, and you haven't come close to refuting.  The reason he killed her was bullshit ad hoc plotting that wrecked the premise of the show.