Will Game of Thrones' finale suffer the same fate as Mass Effect 3's ending?

[Hawki]

But we could discuss

We probably should discuss

I'll not quibble semantics and interpretations too much.

Um...is this a post that you want responded to or not? Because I'm getting mixed messages.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Um...is this a post that you want responded to or not? Because I'm getting mixed messages.

Do whatever you like.

If you want to respond, I'll gladly read your response. I've just lost my confidence in the showrunners and their ability to take GoT to a satisfying conclusion based on the things I mentioned above (and quite a few others) that led to Story Collapse for me. If you enjoy the show still, then all the more power to you. But this same thing happened when I played ME3, I saw the narrative unravel before me as I played through the game, so that when I reached the end it was not so much a WTF-moment as it was a moment of apathetic shrugging and a muttered "It figures".

I was just being a bit tongue in cheek with that post, since I realize I come off as a scorned fangirl.

 

[Hawki]

Do whatever you like.

Oh, okay then. I-

I was just being a bit tongue in cheek with that post, since I realize I come off as a scorned fangirl.

Hell hath no fury like a fangirl scorned.

Except for a fanboy I guess.

Anyway:

But we could discuss how Euron had the majority of his fleet stolen from under him in S6E10 by Yara and somehow still conjures up a bigger fleet in what is essentially a few weeks at the most, on a bunch of islands that has no forests.

Is it stated that they take the majority of the fleet? I didn't get that impression. Looking up the wiki, it states the "best ships" (don't really remember that either) - I mean, if Yara and co. can steal the majority of the Iron Fleet, what do they need to flee the Iron Islands for? Impression I got was that they stole a portion of the fleet, but Euron's is still bigger, and is set to get bigger as more are constructed.

Now, you point out the lack of trees on the Iron Islands, and that's fair, though I doubt the Iron Islands have no wood whatsoever (I mean, they'd surely have some, considering that they need to get that wood from someplace other than the mainland). That said, Euron's declaration of cutting down every tree they can find is, in my mind, an example of "smart-stupid" writing - as in, a character doing a silly thing for good story reasons. Euron's got his eyes on conquest, and he's apparently willing to tear up his home and plunge the Ironborn into a war they have no guarantee of winning, after two failed attempts at rebellion by his brother. It's a form of character development, showing Euron to be obsessed with glory rather than practicalities. In essence, evidence of why Yara would make a better ruler, but the Ironborn can't let go of their superiority complex.

We could discuss the absolutely inane strategy that Team Dany decides to employ to justify the chance for the Lannisters to destroy them piecemeal, instead of just going with the original plan of dogpiling King's Landing with absolutely superior numbers. We could discuss the utter stupidity of not sending three dragons to just destroy the Red Keep, "justified" by the poor logic of "innocent people will die", as if that's not the logical end point of a prolonged siege of a city of King's Landing's size.

I actually like this plot thread. The idea of fighting with a hand behind your back does have roots, historically speaking, where a greater military power doesn't commit all its resources to a conflict for whatever reason. The Cold War is one such example - the US and USSR could basically steamroll any nation they wanted to, but didn't for various reasons I'm sure you can comprehend. King's Landing isn't a 1:1 comparison, but it does set up an interesting parallel between dragons and modern day super weapons (nukes come to mind, but you could apply the comparison to other forms of hardware). It's an interesting dynamic in the show that we haven't seen before - where one faction could steamroll another, but doesn't due to other concerns.

And as for those concerns, I can understand the rationale - the idea of WHAM ("Winning Hearts and Minds") in war. There isn't much reason for the people of Westeros to cry out for the return of Targaryen rule, since as bad as Cersei is, their memories are going to be situated on Aerys II. Taking King's Landing without blood isn't likely, but you could at least minimize it - even if the dragons focus on the Red Keep, that's not going to inspire confidence. As decided early on, their initial plan is to have Highgarden and Dorne focus on the siege, to give a sense of legitimacy to Dany having the throne - that she isn't just some foreign invader, that she has loyalists within Westeros itself.

Now, it doesn't work for Dany, but while I feel the pacing of events is rushed (Dorne, the Ironborn, and Highgarden being lost very quickly - a bit too quickly), the events in of themselves are fine.

We could discuss the utter stupidity of no one objecting to the widely considered illegitimate Queen somehow getting away with blowing up the supreme leader of a cult that was played up as more powerful then the combined forces of the Tyrell's and Lannister's without no one in that cult even trying to get even or rallying people against this heretical queen.

It's a weakness of Season 7 that it doesn't deal with this, but it does touch on it.

For one thing, where were the Faith Militant played up as being more powerful than the houses? It was established that they could easily be crushed by military means if the situation called for it, the problem was that the church had the hearts and minds of the people, not to mention Margarey and co. as prisoners.

But that aside, I can buy that the people of King's Landing would put up with Cersei, under the premise that they'd see Daenerys as a bigger threat. WHAM is a major plot point in Season 7, and this theme has been touched on in various works, from Animal Farm to StarCraft - tyrants are able to survive when they portray other tyrants as threats. So, while the people might hate Cersei, they could be more afraid of a Targaryen, Dothraki, and Unsullied invading. Euron mentions this to Yara when the citizens of King's Landing pelt her, Ellaria, and Tyne.

Like I said, Season 7 kind of drops the ball in this area, but I don't think it's a plot hole per se in regards to Cersei remaining in power.

We could discuss Jon's absolutely baffling decision to go to a hostile throne pretender with all of maybe 5 bodyguards and an advisor instead of doing the smart thing and parleying on neutral ground.

Don't see that as an issue. Guest Right is pretty sacred in Westeros, with Walder Frey being the exception to the rule. Even that aside, this feels like semantics. If Daenerys summons the King of the North, well, you go. Jon doesn't have time to haggle. He needs her dragons, needs them quickly, and needs to see the person with the dragons face to face.

We can discuss the entirety of the Winterfell arc which goes nowhere (but in this case The Fandomentals [https://www.thefandomentals.com/winterhell-s7-retrospective-part-1/] got us covered [https://www.thefandomentals.com/winterhell-s7-retrospective-part-2/]) or the sudden turn of Arya's plot arc that is so weirdly handled that we can't be sure if we should consider her a dangerous psychopath or if we should be fistpumping her awesome when she murders every man of house Frey.

That, I agree with. Arya's arc is...weird. I don't even think she can be said to have an arc. I can theorize why she acts the way she does in Winterfell, but while I can guess what the writers were going for with her, I can't put any definitive idea behind it.

Also, Littlefinger. I mean, we know that Sansa's accusations against him are true, but how does she know that? And what happened to the person delivering the sentence in the north delivering the judgement? This isn't even brought up. That would be a nitpick, but it's one 'crack' in the Winterfell storyline out of many.

We could talk about Sam's arc, which goes nowhere and only serves as a convenient plot device to further the plots of other people. Which, if we want to talk about it, is exactly the problem with Bran's arc, having him be reduced to an exposition machine that conveniently knows secrets that needs to be known for the plot to advance.

Those are two different characters, so...

Sam: His arc is underplayed, but it exists. He goes to the Citadel, gets frustratd with the maesters, shows personal innitiative (Jorah, stealing the books), and basically becomes his own man, even quoting his father ("I'm tired about reading the accomplishments of greater men"). You're right in that he serves as a point of exposition, but while his arc isn't fleshed out enough, it still exists.

Bran: Where else was he going to go? The Three-Eyed Raven is basically a biological supercomputer that can see across time and space. Bran concluded his arc as soon as he fled the cave effectively. The entire arc of Bran has been getting to this point, so he can basically serve as the 'intel guy' of Team Stark. He's always been going down on this path.

We probably should discuss the utterly insipid plan and all the contrivances surrounding the "catch a white walker"-plot line and how it disrespects logic, time, distance and pretty much all the characterization of most people involved, all to convince a person that Team Dany should have put 6 feet under 8 episodes ago but didn't because the writers wanted the Lannisters around as big bads for the last season.

I've already discussed that at length, so you know where I stand. However, I disagree about the Lannisters being 'spared' for the reasons you say. The Lannisters are a wild card right now. One that still places the outcome of the story into question on various fronts.

We should probably also discuss the stupid shilling for Ramsay Bolton, his villain sue tendencies and how the plot bent over and broke so that his mustache twirling villainy could be played to the max, including breaking the characterization of other characters like Sansa and Stannis so that Ramsay could get his limelight.

I...really don't get what you're getting at here. Ramsey maybe goes beyond his usual villany in that he kills his father, but that's about it. Everything other than that is well in keeping with his usual actions. And as for Sansa and Stannis, I don't know what you mean about breaking characterization.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I actually like this plot thread. The idea of fighting with a hand behind your back does have roots, historically speaking, where a greater military power doesn't commit all its resources to a conflict for whatever reason. The Cold War is one such example - the US and USSR could basically steamroll any nation they wanted to, but didn't for various reasons I'm sure you can comprehend. King's Landing isn't a 1:1 comparison, but it does set up an interesting parallel between dragons and modern day super weapons (nukes come to mind, but you could apply the comparison to other forms of hardware). It's an interesting dynamic in the show that we haven't seen before - where one faction could steamroll another, but doesn't due to other concerns.

I'd be all for this parallel, if not for the fact that the whole thing as shown is more an idiot ball passed around Team Dany then it is an allegory to escalation of force. The problem is that the writers wants us to believe that using dragons to raze the Red Keep (ie. the seat of Lannister and Westerosian power) is this unforgivable massacre and a line that Dany doesn't want to cross. So the idea is to bring in an army from Dorne to besiege King's Landing. But as anyone with even a faint interest in medieval warfare knows, sieges end with either a massive slaughter when defenses are breached or a slow starvation of everyone behind the walls. The end result is still a lot of dead civilians in King's Landing. This is obvious and even an important plot point for Davos as a character, since he was knighted for helping to bring food into a starving besieged city. Except that plot point was relevant in Season 2 and 3 and the writers don't care about details anymore.

Exactly why the army of Dorne was needed when the Dothraki are apparently enough to besiege King's Landing a few episodes later is just another of those weird inconsistencies that season 7 run on...

And as for those concerns, I can understand the rationale - the idea of WHAM ("Winning Hearts and Minds") in war. There isn't much reason for the people of Westeros to cry out for the return of Targaryen rule, since as bad as Cersei is, their memories are going to be situated on Aerys II. Taking King's Landing without blood isn't likely, but you could at least minimize it - even if the dragons focus on the Red Keep, that's not going to inspire confidence. As decided early on, their initial plan is to have Highgarden and Dorne focus on the siege, to give a sense of legitimacy to Dany having the throne - that she isn't just some foreign invader, that she has loyalists within Westeros itself.

Sure, but when someone's dead it doesn't matter if it is from starvation or burning. The end result of attacking King's Landing is dead people, a lot of dead people. This is the main problem of going drama first when the first half of the show was details first. The show has acknowledged how miserable sieges are, yet now it is pretending as if a massive siege when winter is at your doorstep isn't this incredibly stupid thing that will have people on all sides dying of starvation.

It's a weakness of Season 7 that it doesn't deal with this, but it does touch on it.

For one thing, where were the Faith Militant played up as being more powerful than the houses? It was established that they could easily be crushed by military means if the situation called for it, the problem was that the church had the hearts and minds of the people, not to mention Margarey and co. as prisoners.

But that aside, I can buy that the people of King's Landing would put up with Cersei, under the premise that they'd see Daenerys as a bigger threat. WHAM is a major plot point in Season 7, and this theme has been touched on in various works, from Animal Farm to StarCraft - tyrants are able to survive when they portray other tyrants as threats. So, while the people might hate Cersei, they could be more afraid of a Targaryen, Dothraki, and Unsullied invading. Euron mentions this to Yara when the citizens of King's Landing pelt her, Ellaria, and Tyne.

Like I said, Season 7 kind of drops the ball in this area, but I don't think it's a plot hole per se in regards to Cersei remaining in power.

Sure it is a plot hole. Everyone knows Cersei did it. This is obvious since Hot Pie mentions it casually to Arya. The Sparrows are still around, lots of their leaders are still around yet they are hardly acknowledged this season, despite the furor that should arise. Never mind that Cersei destroyed the most important site of the Church and killed all its' high ranking members in a country where religion is very serious business. There's no fallout from a move that should have people rallying against the usurper queen (remember how Cersei had to use Joffrey and Tommen as figureheads to retain her power, since the crown is still technically with the Baratheons and women are not in the lines of succession? Neither does the writers) and her heretical ways. The writers dropped this important plot line because it would have made it impossible for them to sweep the board and establish the three way dynamic in season 8.

Don't see that as an issue. Guest Right is pretty sacred in Westeros, with Walder Frey being the exception to the rule. Even that aside, this feels like semantics. If Daenerys summons the King of the North, well, you go. Jon doesn't have time to haggle. He needs her dragons, needs them quickly, and needs to see the person with the dragons face to face.

Guest rights are sacred in Westeros. But Dany is a) a Targaryen and b) someone who's never set foot in Westeros. She's part of a dynasty known for violent madness and, as you yourself point out, having a king that burned to death people for thrills. This woman is laying claim to all of Westeros and demands you negotiate with her. Sure, Jon needs her dragons but unless Jon is psychic he has no way of knowing that the woman who toppled 3 city-states and casually killed a lot of people back in Slaver's Bay is actually pretty benevolent and will be pretty fine with giving him some leeway in not immediately bending the knee and declaring her his new Queen.

It is not that the plot doesn't work out, it is that Jon is either terminally stupid or has read the script so he knows that he won't have to take precautions to avoid being roasted alive by a dragon for a Targaryens amusement.

Sam: His arc is underplayed, but it exists. He goes to the Citadel, gets frustratd with the maesters, shows personal innitiative (Jorah, stealing the books), and basically becomes his own man, even quoting his father ("I'm tired about reading the accomplishments of greater men"). You're right in that he serves as a point of exposition, but while his arc isn't fleshed out enough, it still exists.

I'll give you that, my problem is more that his plot moves glacially slow and that he, just like Bran, mostly exist at this point to enable other characters to go on their arcs. Sam is the "discover important info" exposition guy and while I think the Citadel arc is the one that has the clearest themes (knowledge doesn't exist outside of history and just hoarding it without using it is meaningless), it is also one of the least developed.

Bran: Where else was he going to go? The Three-Eyed Raven is basically a biological supercomputer that can see across time and space. Bran concluded his arc as soon as he fled the cave effectively. The entire arc of Bran has been getting to this point, so he can basically serve as the 'intel guy' of Team Stark. He's always been going down on this path.

I don't disagree with this. What I disagree with is how Bran spouts exposition not when it is plausible within the story but when it helps the writers make meaningful comparisons. Ie. the flight from the cave, when instead of making sure he survives he decides to do a little warging so that the show can intercut between the reveal that Jon is Rhaegar's and Lyssa's son and the sudden desire to talk to Sam (the guy he never met) about how Jon is actually a Targaryen so that the show can intercut that with Jon and Dany knocking boots so that the viewer can get the deeper meaning of how this is actually all totally legit Targaryen inbreeding, yo.

It is lazy and poor writing. The plot is resolving at a breakneck pace and the writers only seem able to brute force their way through to hit necessary plot points, which means that Bran, the guy who can't have a normal conversation with his sisters, casually starts talking to a random stranger about how his adoptive brother is totally the real heir to the Iron Throne and actually a Targaryen. It is character breaking like fuck and very bad writing.

I've already discussed that at length, so you know where I stand. However, I disagree about the Lannisters being 'spared' for the reasons you say. The Lannisters are a wild card right now. One that still places the outcome of the story into question on various fronts.

Yeah, and they only are so because the writers decided that Team Dany should totally fuck up their priorities, ignore sound military strategy (march divided, fight united) and then act like idiots so that the outmatched Lannisters could get a fighting chance to recover. I mean, that's a part from the fact that Cersei still retains the throne and has suffered no meaningful backlash from her destroying a holy site and murdering all the high ranking clergy (and several high ranking nobles to boot). The plot bends over backwards to acquiesce the writers desire to keep the Lannisters in the fight.

I...really don't get what you're getting at here. Ramsey maybe goes beyond his usual villany in that he kills his father, but that's about it. Everything other than that is well in keeping with his usual actions. And as for Sansa and Stannis, I don't know what you mean about breaking characterization.

Ramsay is evil, that's well established. The problem is that the writers are obviously infatuated with his status as villain and does everything in their power to reminds us that Ramsay is evil and totally badass (their words, not mine). So this guy can casually stab his father to death during a normal conversation in his office with no one raising an eyebrow at it (almost as if fratricide wasn't a mortal sin in Westeros, something that the show also established previously). But let's get to the character breaking part:

Ramsay rapes Jayne Poole in the books (marrying her as a bid to have her impersonate Arya to let Ramsay make a 'legitimate' claim to Winterfell). The writers considered this tidbit important enough that it had to survive to the show (notice how the actual detail important plot about gaining legitimacy is barely mentioned in the show), so Littlefinger decides to reveal to Ramsay that Sansa is alive and with him (never mind that the Lannisters wants her dead for the murder of Joffrey and that the Boltons serve the Lannisters) and that he can marry Sansa to Ramsay. Sansa actually asks what she gains out of this and it is handwaved with some bullshit about influencing the enemy from within and regaining Winterfell that way. This is not how succession works in GoT, the show has established that if a man marries a woman with a claim the claim passes to him and if he dies it is passed on to his family, not back to the woman he married. So basically, by marrying Ramsay Sansa stands to gain absolutely nothing and she passes away Winterfell to the Boltons. Yet Sansa agrees to Littlefingers inane bullshit scheme and marries Ramsay. All so that the show can let Sansa suffer more (thus destroying her character development in the previous season) and show us how totally evil Ramsay is. Sansa was supposed to have taken charge of her own destiny at the end of the previous season (thus why she did her Morrigan Cosplay) and that's instantly taken away so that she can go through that arc again, with some added suffering at the hands of Ramsay.

As for Stannis, this is the guy who's made a big deal about righteousness, duty and honor. It is the guy who knighted Davos and cut off his fingers at the same time, because Davos was still a thief. The guy who doesn't want to be king but is ready to go to war and die to maintain succession because it is expected of him. The guy who refused to sacrifice criminals to the Lord of Light and repeatedly passed over dishonorable ways of winning the war because honor and duty is everything to him. The guy who's established as perhaps the best strategist in all of Westeros and a loving dad. In the run time of two episodes Ramsay somehow manages to burn all his food, kill all his horses and get half of his men to desert by doing some kind of Rambo style commando attack (against the best strategist in Westeros), which in turn makes Stannis "be righteous and honorable" Baratheon sacrifice his only daughter to the Lord of Light and going on a utterly stupid attack on Winterfell with a decimated force and no preparation. Stannis in the show doesn't lose because he was outwitted, he loses because Ramsay has plot armor and writer's mandate and the writer decided to ignore all previous characterization of Stannis so that Ramsay could be propped up even more as totally radically evil and awesome.

The thing is, any of these things would have passed me by unnoticed if it was the only thing wrong or off. But they keep piling up. I've not even mentioned the weird way that GoT tells me Cersei is evil, yet her actions in the show are probably the most grounded and well-motivated of any character all the way up until she destroys the Sept of Baelor. The show wants us to think Dany is a rightful and just Queen out to break the cycle of violence and suffering. Yet it has the scene where she kills the two captured Tyrells in cold blood because they refuse to serve her. And the show seems to want me to think it is a fist pumping agency scene that shows how empowered and capable Dany is, not as a dark mirror of her Targaryen heritage and how she's just perpetrating the cycle.

For me, the Story Collapse is complete. I don't trust the writers anymore, because there are so many wall banger moments that I can no longer suspend my disbelief and trust the author. Just as with the Crucible plan in ME3, I just keep seeing the weird writing contrivances that has to be made for the story to come together.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I've long thought it's more likely to end up like Lost: a revolutionary phenomenon at first, but gradually sinking in quality until it ends in complete nonsense and half-assed attempts to tie the story somewhat together. Season 7 was so retarded that I'm going to watch the final season more out of obligation than anything else.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

My problem with Season 7 is how unbelievable rushed the romance between Jon and Dany was. And worse Jon ended up falling for her out of no where. And I think the whole mini plot of Dany finding out that Jon litirally died once and ressurected could have been done better.

 

[Callate]

Yes, there will be people disappointed by Game of Thrones' ending. (And probably people disappointed by the ending of A Song of Ice and Fire, the novels it sprang from, for that matter.)

And yes, there will probably be over-analysis on YouTube- because when is there ever not over-analysis of prominent media works on YouTube?

But, no, it will never be as bad as Mass Effect 3, which had people threatening lawsuits. GoT has been priming its viewers from the beginning with the idea that even the most prominent characters can die, thus inuring them against disappointment. The conclusion may fail to provide the sense of grandeur people would like to expect, it might allow "bad" characters to survive and "good" characters to perish, it may even make little sense from a logical or narrative standpoint. But the audience will just groan a little and move on. Probably while cheering every character they liked who actually managed to survive.

By contrast, in hindsight, ME did two very stupid things.

1. Its creators implied that every choice that players made (over the course of three games, remember!) would really matter in the conclusion, then gave a series of offerings that many derided as color-shifted variations of the same thing.

2. It set up a "suicide mission"- literally described as such- in ME 2, after having the protagonist come back from the dead, priming its players to believe that they could achieve victory through impossible odds.

And then, apparently, someone decided to pull the rug out from under the player base, undermining not only their expectations but arguably some of the basic underlying narrative themes.

In short, Game of Thrones has continually expressed that life will suck, and no one will be shocked to the bones if that carries through to the end. Mass Effect promised to cure cancer and then in the end was revealed to be selling fruit juice smoothies.

 

[Imre Csete]

That would require a twist ending where the curse that made the Others, taking the shape of Ned Stark, tells everyone that the Others were just protecting Westeros from greenseers changing the timeline.

Then after the credits, HBO tells you to buy the box set if you want the adventure to continue on the Blu-ray extra scenes.

 

[Hawki]

I'd be all for this parallel, if not for the fact that the whole thing as shown is more an idiot ball passed around Team Dany then it is an allegory to escalation of force. The problem is that the writers wants us to believe that using dragons to raze the Red Keep (ie. the seat of Lannister and Westerosian power) is this unforgivable massacre and a line that Dany doesn't want to cross. So the idea is to bring in an army from Dorne to besiege King's Landing. But as anyone with even a faint interest in medieval warfare knows, sieges end with either a massive slaughter when defenses are breached or a slow starvation of everyone behind the walls. The end result is still a lot of dead civilians in King's Landing. This is obvious and even an important plot point for Davos as a character, since he was knighted for helping to bring food into a starving besieged city. Except that plot point was relevant in Season 2 and 3 and the writers don't care about details anymore.

If the original plan to besiege King's Landing went forth, the onus would be on Cersei to surrender. That's different from using dragons to burn the place. Likewise, the use of Dorne and Highgarden would make it seem less like a foreign invasion to the average citizen. I'm not disputing that a long siege would result in deaths, but if Dany's aim is still to be seen as a new, better queen, I can still buy her non-fire approach.

Exactly why the army of Dorne was needed when the Dothraki are apparently enough to besiege King's Landing a few episodes later is just another of those weird inconsistencies that season 7 run on...

See the above point. Dorne besieging King's Landing is one thing - Dorne's still part of the Seven Kingdoms. The Dothraki aren't, and have a fearsome reputation in Westeros.

Sure, but when someone's dead it doesn't matter if it is from starvation or burning. The end result of attacking King's Landing is dead people, a lot of dead people. This is the main problem of going drama first when the first half of the show was details first. The show has acknowledged how miserable sieges are, yet now it is pretending as if a massive siege when winter is at your doorstep isn't this incredibly stupid thing that will have people on all sides dying of starvation.

See the above points.

Again, I'll reiterate, I'm not disputing that a long siege could result in the deaths of innocents, just that I can appreciate the rationale to avoid using the dragons. And as for starvation, we've only seen that being an issue in the Riverlands and the North (technically the Reach as well, but only because of the Lannister/Tarly armies living off the land). King's Landing seems to be doing alright for itself by this stage in the show (as opposed to Season 2, when the Lannisters were outnumbered before the Tyrells joined them). It's established mid-series that they have grain stores for three years (I think?) Either way, hunger hasn't been shown to be an issue for the Crownlands for quite some time.

Sure it is a plot hole. Everyone knows Cersei did it. This is obvious since Hot Pie mentions it casually to Arya. The Sparrows are still around, lots of their leaders are still around yet they are hardly acknowledged this season, despite the furor that should arise. Never mind that Cersei destroyed the most important site of the Church and killed all its' high ranking members in a country where religion is very serious business. There's no fallout from a move that should have people rallying against the usurper queen (remember how Cersei had to use Joffrey and Tommen as figureheads to retain her power, since the crown is still technically with the Baratheons and women are not in the lines of succession? Neither does the writers) and her heretical ways. The writers dropped this important plot line because it would have made it impossible for them to sweep the board and establish the three way dynamic in season 8.

How do we know the Sparrows are around or their leaders? Every major Sparrow character is either dead, or in Unella's case, being tortured. Sure, there may be some fanatics about, but their leaders are dead, and if they are still around, we haven't seen them.

On the subject of fallout, I agree that it's glossed over, I just disagree that everyone would see Cersei as the worse threat when compared to Daenerys. As for her crowning, I know how figureheads work and line of succession, but at this point in time, Cersei is really the only one with any kind of claim to the throne. A very tenuous claim, but with the Baratheons gone, she's the closest blood relative to Jeoffrey/Tommen.

Guest rights are sacred in Westeros. But Dany is a) a Targaryen and b) someone who's never set foot in Westeros. She's part of a dynasty known for violent madness and, as you yourself point out, having a king that burned to death people for thrills. This woman is laying claim to all of Westeros and demands you negotiate with her. Sure, Jon needs her dragons but unless Jon is psychic he has no way of knowing that the woman who toppled 3 city-states and casually killed a lot of people back in Slaver's Bay is actually pretty benevolent and will be pretty fine with giving him some leeway in not immediately bending the knee and declaring her his new Queen.

It is not that the plot doesn't work out, it is that Jon is either terminally stupid or has read the script so he knows that he won't have to take precautions to avoid being roasted alive by a dragon for a Targaryens amusement.

Obviously Jon has no way of knowing what will happen. This plot point is brought up again and again. It's a calculated risk on his part, and he's done plenty of risks in the past (e.g. saving the Wildlings). Whatever the Targaryens could do to him, being raised as a wight is far worse. Also, Jon's always been a stickler for honour.

You can point out how reckless his actions are, and yes, they are reckless. The characters point them out as reckless. But it's in keeping with Jon's character up to this point.

I don't disagree with this. What I disagree with is how Bran spouts exposition not when it is plausible within the story but when it helps the writers make meaningful comparisons. Ie. the flight from the cave, when instead of making sure he survives he decides to do a little warging so that the show can intercut between the reveal that Jon is Rhaegar's and Lyssa's son and the sudden desire to talk to Sam (the guy he never met) about how Jon is actually a Targaryen so that the show can intercut that with Jon and Dany knocking boots so that the viewer can get the deeper meaning of how this is actually all totally legit Targaryen inbreeding, yo.

Don't know if you're snarking there, but while the end reveal is incredibly rushed, I saw it more as a tragedy rather than 'legitimizing' the pairing. As in, on one hand, Jon's found someone he can be proud to serve and proud to love (I'm not fond of DanyxJon, but that's another issue). It's intercut by the reveal of his parentage though. So while the music being used in the scene is soothing, the actual context is, in my mind, quite tragic.

It is lazy and poor writing. The plot is resolving at a breakneck pace and the writers only seem able to brute force their way through to hit necessary plot points, which means that Bran, the guy who can't have a normal conversation with his sisters, casually starts talking to a random stranger about how his adoptive brother is totally the real heir to the Iron Throne and actually a Targaryen. It is character breaking like fuck and very bad writing.

If we're referring to the plot rapidly unfolding, then yes, I agree. However, I don't agree that Bran talking to Sam is out of character. He isn't a stranger, they met at the Wall seasons back. And Bran, at this stage, is without many social niceities. Him talking to people randomly isn't out of the ordinary, when he can barely interact as a normal human being with anyone.

Yeah, and they only are so because the writers decided that Team Dany should totally fuck up their priorities, ignore sound military strategy (march divided, fight united) and then act like idiots so that the outmatched Lannisters could get a fighting chance to recover. I mean, that's a part from the fact that Cersei still retains the throne and has suffered no meaningful backlash from her destroying a holy site and murdering all the high ranking clergy (and several high ranking nobles to boot). The plot bends over backwards to acquiesce the writers desire to keep the Lannisters in the fight.

Not sure how they're acting like idiots. The Lannisters can help them in the fight against the Army of the Dead. But the Lannisters are still screwed in the long run. By the war's end, as long as Dany has one dragon, they're fucked. As long as she still has her Dothraki and Unsullied (and all sides take proportional losses), the Lannisters are still fucked. The Golden Company could change that, but Dany has no way of knowing about that. Even if Dany knocks the Lannisters out now, she'd still need to maintain a force in the Crownlands in addition to marching on the Wall.

Ramsay is evil, that's well established. The problem is that the writers are obviously infatuated with his status as villain and does everything in their power to reminds us that Ramsay is evil and totally badass (their words, not mine). So this guy can casually stab his father to death during a normal conversation in his office with no one raising an eyebrow at it (almost as if fratricide wasn't a mortal sin in Westeros, something that the show also established previously).

I can admit it's stretching it, but Ramsey's already in the company of people who betrayed Robb Stark. It's a stretch, but not a character-breaking stretch. Ramsey's been shown to not fully appreciate the big picture from the outset, given how he tortures Theon, suggested attacking the Night's Watch directly, and has slaughtered Ironborn who surrendered...TWICE. Him killing his father isn't too out of the ordinary for me. I get the sense that once he was legitimized by his father, he became far more willing to indulge his darker impulses.

Ramsay rapes Jayne Poole in the books (marrying her as a bid to have her impersonate Arya to let Ramsay make a 'legitimate' claim to Winterfell). The writers considered this tidbit important enough that it had to survive to the show (notice how the actual detail important plot about gaining legitimacy is barely mentioned in the show),

It's pretty clearly mentioned IIRC.

so Littlefinger decides to reveal to Ramsay that Sansa is alive and with him (never mind that the Lannisters wants her dead for the murder of Joffrey and that the Boltons serve the Lannisters) and that he can marry Sansa to Ramsay. Sansa actually asks what she gains out of this and it is handwaved with some bullshit about influencing the enemy from within and regaining Winterfell that way. This is not how succession works in GoT, the show has established that if a man marries a woman with a claim the claim passes to him and if he dies it is passed on to his family, not back to the woman he married. So basically, by marrying Ramsay Sansa stands to gain absolutely nothing and she passes away Winterfell to the Boltons. Yet Sansa agrees to Littlefingers inane bullshit scheme and marries Ramsay. All so that the show can let Sansa suffer more (thus destroying her character development in the previous season) and show us how totally evil Ramsay is. Sansa was supposed to have taken charge of her own destiny at the end of the previous season (thus why she did her Morrigan Cosplay) and that's instantly taken away so that she can go through that arc again, with some added suffering at the hands of Ramsay.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't have misgivings about this arc, but I can appreciate the rationale behind Littlefinger's plan - at this point in time, there's a strong chance that Stannis will take the North. If he does, and defeats the Boltons, Sansa is in a place of power. You point out the marriage stuff, but at this point in time, marriage seems to be treated fast and loose - no-one cares about Sansa being forced to marry Tyrion, do you think the North will care if Sansa reneges on her marriage to Ramsay? Also, the idea of influencing the Boltons from within - again, it's an idea that backfires spectacuarly, but again, there is a rationale behind it. Sansa is going to have far more support from the people than the Boltons.

As for Sansa's character development/lack of it, I'm mixed on it here. I mean, I could discuss it at length, but I've been on the fence for Sansa's arc here for awhile now.

As for Stannis, this is the guy who's made a big deal about righteousness, duty and honor. It is the guy who knighted Davos and cut off his fingers at the same time, because Davos was still a thief. The guy who doesn't want to be king but is ready to go to war and die to maintain succession because it is expected of him. The guy who refused to sacrifice criminals to the Lord of Light

He did?

Don't recall that. But he seemed happy to let Melissandre burn those who wouldn't convert to her new religion.

and repeatedly passed over dishonorable ways of winning the war because honor and duty is everything to him.

Um, where?

Also, assassinating Renly, hiring pirates, hiring mercenaries...not exactly "honourable" courses of action.

The guy who's established as perhaps the best strategist in all of Westeros and a loving dad. In the run time of two episodes Ramsay somehow manages to burn all his food, kill all his horses and get half of his men to desert by doing some kind of Rambo style commando attack (against the best strategist in Westeros), which in turn makes Stannis "be righteous and honorable" Baratheon sacrifice his only daughter to the Lord of Light and going on a utterly stupid attack on Winterfell with a decimated force and no preparation. Stannis in the show doesn't lose because he was outwitted, he loses because Ramsay has plot armor and writer's mandate and the writer decided to ignore all previous characterization of Stannis so that Ramsay could be propped up even more as totally radically evil and awesome.

Okay...no.

First (and this is a fallacy I've seen people fall into in other medias), if a character who's described as a master strategist is defeated, it doesn't invalidate their position as master strategist. If John Doe is described as an uber, but is beaten by Jane Doe, it doesn't mean that John Doe is worth nothing, it just proves that Jane beat John, and therefore Jane is pretty good as well.

But as for Stannis's march on Winterfell, you're selling the whole thing short, as:

-It's established, and stated outright in the following season, that Stannis has terrible luck. Him marching on Winterfell ASAP is a pretty sound move - has to beat winter, has to press his claim. However, his army gets snowed in, which results in lower supplies, lower morale (in an army composed mainly of mercenaries), and other issues. If it wasn't for Stannis getting snowed in, Ramsay wouldn't have the opportunity he did.

-Ramsay decimating Stannis's supplies isn't poor writing. It's hit home in conversations that (paraphrased) "the Northeners know the North better than we ever will." Ramsay, in theory, has better experience in operating in winter, and defeats Stannis through a tactical strike, only allowed for by appaling conditions. This isn't selling Stannis short. It does establish Ramsay as being a capable commander, but Stannis being capable and Ramsay being capable aren't mutually exclusive.

-Stannis marching on Winterfell at this point is the wrong move, but we know that from being armchair generals. Stannis is in a sore state right now. If he retreats, he loses. If he goes on, there's a chance, however slight, that he could still win. It fits in with his character, to take on the odds, regardless of how long they might be - he doesn't kowtow to Renly, even when he's outnumbered. He presses his attack on King's Landing, even after losing a portion of his fleet. He presses south, because he has to keep moving. But also of note, he's shown not to be in sound mind at this point in time - he's sacrificed his daughter (which, in theory, does alleviate the snows, least if you believe in that sort of thing), lost his wife, Melissandre's gone, and he's already had victory snatched away from him once. Stannis is sold as being a capable commander, but even the most capable of commanders are going to have their limits.

So, no, I don't buy the argument here. It seems to rest on the assumption that Stannis can do no wrong, is infalliable, and anyone triumphing over him is just poor writing...forgetting that Stannis was already defeated at Blackwater, and was out-thought there as well. Nothing is wrong with Stannis's plan there per se, he just doesn't account for events which are outside his control (the wildfire and the Tyrells joining in).

The thing is, any of these things would have passed me by unnoticed if it was the only thing wrong or off. But they keep piling up. I've not even mentioned the weird way that GoT tells me Cersei is evil, yet her actions in the show are probably the most grounded and well-motivated of any character all the way up until she destroys the Sept of Baelor.

Being "evil" and having "grounded" motivations aren't mutually exclusive.

I wouldn't call Cersei either, and I don't think the show wants us to see Cersei as "evil." Characters call her that, because calling someone "evil" is a simple way of describing them for people who can't/won't appreciate the intricacies. Again, we have the benefit of an omnipotent view on events.

The show wants us to think Dany is a rightful and just Queen out to break the cycle of violence and suffering. Yet it has the scene where she kills the two captured Tyrells in cold blood because they refuse to serve her. And the show seems to want me to think it is a fist pumping agency scene that shows how empowered and capable Dany is, not as a dark mirror of her Targaryen heritage and how she's just perpetrating the cycle.

Um...okay...

I never got the sense that the show wants us to think this. Oh sure, characters say this, and it leaves us open to think that, but it's hardly definitive. Dany could make the world a better place, but could also fall back on her darker impulses. The scene where she burns the Tarlys (not Tyrells, Tarlys) isn't meant to be a "fist pumping" scene (in my mind), it's a scene that shows us that Dany has made a potentially bone-headed move. Tyrion says this, Varys says this, and nothing in the scene suggests that this is a bona fide good action. Up until this point, Dany's a fairly dynamic character, with pros and cons - lots of characters have said pros and cons.

My problem with Season 7 is how unbelievable rushed the romance between Jon and Dany was. And worse Jon ended up falling for her out of no where. And I think the whole mini plot of Dany finding out that Jon litirally died once and ressurected could have been done better.

I'm not fond of the romance either, but I can appreciate the rationale behind it.

On Jon's side of things...well, Dany's hot. Minor point, but it's a fact, and even pointed out. But beyond that, I can understand why Jon might fall for her. Jon's used to a world where rulers act in a certain way. Last Targaryen he knew of killed his grandfather (person who thought was his grandfather). After that, we get Robert Baratheon (incompetent), Joffrey (kills his 'father'), and a string of pretender kings that play their 'game' while he's fighting the battle that matters at the Wall. So, here comes Dany, who seems a bit different from those other rulers (has dragons, wants to avoid using them), and puts her own life at risk to save his. Danerys, up to this point, is a pretty atypical ruler from Jon's perspective. Also, since they're blood relations, there's also the argument that they have an instinctual attraction of sorts.

On Dany's side...this is a bit more iffy, since Dany's had one husband, one arranged husband, one knight who has the hots for her, and one lover...yet Jon is "true wuv" right now? Best I can come up with is that Jon is atypical of the people she's known. He's the King in the North, yet willing to put his own life at risk for the greater good, and is alligned with her to the extent that he can't even lie to Cersei about standing down. And again there's the idea of 'instinctual attraction.'

Like I said, I'm not particuarly fond of the pairing, mainly because of how rushed it is. In another show this would be fine, but JonxYgritte was fleshed out over two seasons, DanyxDaario fleshed out over 3-4, and Jorah's been pining for Dany since day 1. But in the scope of one season, Jon and Dany go from people sniping at each other to engaging in bedsheet diplomacy.

Um, okay. 0_0

 

[jklinders]

What I have seen so far indicates a likelihood of GRRM having written himself into a corner not unlike what Bioware did.

Whether he can write himself out of it is up for debate, it likely accounts for the slowing pace of his writing though because we are entering Deus ex Machina territory or bleak ass all characters die.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

Some of my favorite endings have been the "Rocks fall, everyone dies" endings. A good ending doesn't necessarily mean that everyone lives happily ever after....or even that everyone lives. Given everything that has been going on in Westeros, a TPK ending strikes me as one of the most appropriate endings.

As Scalphunter once said: Should have listened to your Hellfire Club boyfriend. He had it pegged--TOGETHER, you had a chance. Alone--Too bad. Westeros doesn't strike me as a place that will band together in time to be able to effectively throw back the invasion.

 

[jklinders]

Some of my favorite endings have been the "Rocks fall, everyone dies" endings. A good ending doesn't necessarily mean that everyone lives happily ever after....or even that everyone lives. Given everything that has been going on in Westeros, a TPK ending strikes me as one of the most appropriate endings.

As Scalphunter once said: Should have listened to your Hellfire Club boyfriend. He had it pegged--TOGETHER, you had a chance. Alone--Too bad. Westeros doesn't strike me as a place that will band together in time to be able to effectively throw back the invasion.

As long as Circe lives, Westeros will be divided. She needs to go for the living to have a chance against the walkers.

 

[COMaestro]

That, I agree with. Arya's arc is...weird. I don't even think she can be said to have an arc. I can theorize why she acts the way she does in Winterfell, but while I can guess what the writers were going for with her, I can't put any definitive idea behind it.

Arya's entire character arc since watching Ned die has been vengeance. It's why she made her list of people, and I have a feeling that she's going to check everyone off her list before the end of the series. Because of this, I have no doubt Cersei will die by the series finale, one way or another (I would say by Jamie, due to the prophecy, but the show omitted the part about the valonqar, so the showrunners may go a different way). I rather expect all three houses (Stark, Lannister, Targaryen) to essentially be wiped out by the end, as that would definitely deliver on the "bittersweet" ending that has been hinted at.

 

[CaitSeith]

At the end of the day, the backlash depends on the fans as much as on the work itself. So, what are the fans' expectations at this moment?

 

[Hawki]

What I have seen so far indicates a likelihood of GRRM having written himself into a corner not unlike what Bioware did.

I don't think Martin has written himself into a corner per se.

I can appreciate with Mass Effect, when the first game sold the Reapers as being an unstoppable foe, the later games had to come up with some means of evening the odds, and that doesn't always go down well from a writing perspective, especially since the McGuffin of choice isn't even introduced until the third game (contrast that with Lord of the Rings - Sauron is shown as being unstoppable, but the One Ring being his Achilles heel is established as being as such from early on in Book 1).

AsoIaF isn't really in a corner in my mind - rather, it's suffered from bloat from Book 4. Books 1-3 progress sequentially and at a decent pace. Book 4 basically stops everything dead, introduces all new plot threads (Sparrows, Dorne, etc.), and doesn't resolve either of them within its narrative. Book 5 is a bit better, but is still introducing new elements (e.g. the Griff/Aegon pot thread). I'm sure that Martin has a general idea of how things will end, it's simply a matter of getting all of his plot threads to that point. Now imagine having to do that when you're writing books approaching 1000 pages in length, and doing so under the gaze of a rabid fanbase.

That, I agree with. Arya's arc is...weird. I don't even think she can be said to have an arc. I can theorize why she acts the way she does in Winterfell, but while I can guess what the writers were going for with her, I can't put any definitive idea behind it.

Arya's entire character arc since watching Ned die has been vengeance. It's why she made her list of people, and I have a feeling that she's going to check everyone off her list before the end of the series. Because of this, I have no doubt Cersei will die by the series finale, one way or another (I would say by Jamie, due to the prophecy, but the show omitted the part about the valonqar, so the showrunners may go a different way). I rather expect all three houses (Stark, Lannister, Targaryen) to essentially be wiped out by the end, as that would definitely deliver on the "bittersweet" ending that has been hinted at.

That's Arya's arc, I'm just not sure how Season 7 fits in with it.

Even in Season 7, Arya has some clear goals. Kills Walder Frey, heads to King's Landing, heads back to Winterfell after talking with Hot Pie, etc. Then...something happens, and I've no idea what. I can't rationalize her behaviour with Sansa. I can think of the following options:

-Arya's 'damaged' by her experiences and has become colder and more callous as a result...except she's shown to be able to interact with Hot Pie normally, and can keep her cool when wiping out House Frey.

-Arya and Sansa have always had a rocky relationship so that's coming to the fore...except they're older now, and surely Arya can understand that bigger things are at stake, not to mention that she's matured. If this is the rationale, then it makes her come off as a brat.

-Arya is suspicious of Sansa and wants to gauge her loyalty...except Sansa has done nothing major to jeprodize that loyalty (her letter being written under duress is perfectly understandable, despite what Arya might say), and Arya doesn't really do anything with it bar prod Sansa, and then get to be executioner for Petyr, and any doubts/acceptance of loyalty is never mentioned again.

So, yeah. Arya has an arc from wild girl to assassin, but Season 7 really botches it in my eyes.

As for the houses, I'm sure that at least one will be left standing. I get that it'll have a bittersweet ending, but that's going a bit too far into "and then they all died, the end" territory. As I've mentioned, I'm actually betting on Cersei winning (at least in the show).

 

[TheFinish]

With the TV Show, I think the backlash (which is inevitable) will be bigger, due to an obviously bigger audience, but more due to writing choices (who dies, who lives, what happens) than un-met player expectations and retcons, which is basically what happened with ME 3. Not that I care, because the show is sewer crap, and has been sewer crap for quite a while. D&D can't write worth a dingitty damn.

As for the books? Assuming Martin lives to finish them (which I hope, but increasingly doubt), they'll probably turn out ok. If he does die and someone else picks up the torch, who knows.

 

[fix-the-spade]

I forsee millions upon millions of videos on youtube disecting every single detail of why the conclusion sucked.

That will happen regardless, there are people who think the ending of Return of the Jedi is bad, you can't please everyone.

But a Mass Effect 3 scale backlash is unlikely since Game of Thrones tells a linear story. The biggest part of the ME3 backlash was that it took all of the divergin stories told up to that point and funnelled them into one ending where the same 3 options were presented to all, which all resulted in the same ending bar the colour of the explosion.

With Mass Effect 3 it was an opportunity for Bioware to cut loose, it was expressly the end of Shepard's story so they could have don anything. What they did was demonstrate the effect of a lack of budget and a lack of time, delivering something not only at odds with the series up to that point but also unfinished.

Game of Thrones will end somehow, happy, sad or a mixture of both it will probably be somewhat fitting. Unless it is objectively bad or insultingly lazy like Mass Effect 3's ending it won't earn the same universal scorn. My preferred ending is for the White King and his zombie dragon to slaughter everyone, then go back north of The Wall to set the whole thing in motion again.

 

[Hawki]

My preferred ending is for the White King and his zombie dragon to slaughter everyone, then go back north of The Wall to set the whole thing in motion again.

Night King.

Also, if they do slaughter everyone, what's there to set in motion again? The White Walkers have come before, but they didn't win then. If they win now, there's no reason to head back North and then march o na dead world.

 

[dscross]

Well, I didn't like GoT all the way through, sooooooo...... Any ending is great with me. As long as it ends, I'm all good.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

You know guys when I said "Mass Effect 3's ending" I didn't mean Game of Thrones finale will have an ending very similar to Mass Effect 3's (A starchild appears to Jon or Dany)

I meant Mass Effect 3 in terms of sheer backlash, Game of Thrones could have an ending that will be just as bad if not worse than Mass Effect 3's backlash.