HBO's Game of Thrones

[MeatHookGekko]

Alright, time to take my gloves off.

The last season and a half of GOT was just plain rough. Well, my take on it.

The writing was all over the place and there were lots of clear plot holes / bizarre deviations from previous character development.

Like any other formerly well regarded series, I've always believed an excellent version of GOT existed for those last two seasons, they were just hidden underneath a complex set of factors that dragged it down. And "we" as the audience, never got to see this excellent version. In every "bad show", I still hold to the idea that a good show was somewhere within it. Like Wheel Of Time. I can't call that a good show. But I can see why, if you look at the individual parts were examined separately in concept, how someone would think it's a good idea to finance it and move forward.

In general, a big miss for GOT for those last two seasons was they just ran out of the good actors and sidelined the best actors they had left. No show should ask Kit Harrington, Sophie Turner, Maisie Williams and Emilia Clarke to carry it. They were serviceable in more limited situations in earlier seasons, but their flaws as performers became more clear as they got more limelight.

You could see the quality drop as soon as Charles Dance exited the show. Also Stephen Dillane.

I would have recast all the young actors after the third season. At least House Of The Dragon had the sense to do this. They didn't hold onto Milly Alcock and just recasted the role. Kit Harrington was perfectly fine as young Jon Snow. But the show would have been IMHO better off recasting to an older and physically larger actor for the later seasons. Same for Dany.

The Hound got a good exit arc from the last season. Everyone else? Not so much.

I do think the criticism would be easier for many to take if it was framed in terms of - GOT set the bar so high early, all we ask is they hold that same level to the end.

I mean if a show starts off with goofy plot contrivances, then that's how the show operates. I'm not asking Scrubs to be Grey's Anatomy. But you can't start Season 4 of Grey's Anatomy, and give people the tone from Scrubs. It just doesn't work that way.

GOT killed off A LOT of characters. My take is they didn't kill off enough of them. In the early seasons, when characters ran out of arc, they got killed. I liked the first Maester of Winterfell. But he ran out of rope eventually, and the show killed him off. Same with Maester Aeomen. By the end though, it seemed like D&D wanted to hold onto some people for fan service or they had nothing left in the writing bank to replace them.

Some people are upset because the early show had so much to love. People who want to hammer the critics should IMHO give that thought some consideration. Disappointment is not the same as hate. ( I think I've just explained all marriages after the four year mark...)

 

[lordnastrond]

- you realise that it's a tv show with only 10 hours per season? (And less after season 6) You don't see EVERYTHING they ever say after returning to winterfell. I'm sure they had a conversation offscreen about their dead brother, which is not necessary for us to see at that point because the time is better spent talking about characters we knew and loved like Ned Stark.

No they didn't because its not real. Its a TV show. What we see is all there is. If the show never bothered to have its characters react to an "important" death then that is a failure of the show. I shouldn't have to invent scenes to artificially create an emotional payoff for them.

- Jon charged in because he loved his brother. Jon has a big heart and if he didn't charge in, that would just not fit his character at all. Was it dumb from a military leader point of view? Yeah, so what.

So what, the point I made was to counter your claims that Jon won the BOTB and retook Winterfell - militarily he endangered his army by making an idiotic mistake.
Here is the scene where they establish how important it is that they don't abandon their position -

Was it in character? Yes. But has nothing to do with my point or your original claim I was responding to.

Sansa on the other hand, refused help from Littlefinger until the last minute and didn't even tell anyone about it. She did f@#k all, she sat on a horse while her stalker brought an army to win the battle for her.

Sansa tried to appeal to Jon that they needed more men to win the BOTB (she was right) and Jon angrily brushed her off and didn't even let her TALK about getting more allies.
here is the scene -

Sansa was the one who got Littlefinger involved and without him/his army Jon and everyone would be dead - thats the facts, so she didn't do "f@#k all" whether you like it or not SHE won the BOTB, not Jon.

Jon absolutely did more than anyone, he killed a ridiculous amount of people with his skill in combat, he talked his army of wildlings into fighting with him and they said yes because he is a good man who inspired them. Without them, and him, winterfell would not have been retaken.

He is one man, and no matter how good he was - did he win the battle? did he turn the tide? his army were slaughtered and was about to be finished off when Sansa and her allies arrived and saved them.
Do you see how few wildlings/etc are left here before Sansa and Littlefinger arrive?
Sansa won the BOTB - YOU might not like it, but thats the facts.

He also demolished Ramsay in a 1v1

Inconsequential - he is one man. Cool scene but by then the Battle had been won by the Vale's forces. Same could have been accomplished by 10 soldiers v 1 Ramsey.

- That's because he knew exactly what the Lords would say and he knew they were wrong and that he needed Dany and her dragons to win. The Lords are all pretty clueless on the dead until season 8, Jon knew it was all that mattered because if they weren't ready they would end all life.

Moving the goalposts. You said Jon deserved to be King in the North, I said that he absolutely didn't because he immediately surrendered Northern independance. Whether he was right to do so is another issue.
A good king would have explained and consulted them anyway - to just do so unilaterally is what makes Jon a poor king and we see the proof in the Northern lords begin discussing replacing him with Sansa.

- Jon assembled the army's to fight the dead.

His biggest contribution was convincing Dany (as I have already said) but he didn't do this alone, other characters joined in convincing her and it wasn't something ONLY HE could have done.

Jon was at the center of the battle at hardhome.

which was a massacre.
Yes he witnessed the NK power, but so did others.

Jon got them dragon glass.

It was Sam who discovered Dragon Glass kills White Walkers/wights.

Jon warned everyone he could about the dead.

Yes he did, as did Melisandre, Sam, Tormund and other characters.
Also Jon wasn't the only guy who survived Hardhome.

Without him, there literally would have been ZERO defense and no army to fight the dead.

Not true.

He was on his dragon killing wights and waiting for his chance to take out the night king because he knew that the battle against the dead was unwinnable unless they killed the night king. What's the best chance at taking him out? By getting him in the sky with his dragon, which he tried to do

And failed.
Its your claim that he lead the battle and your implication that without him they would have failed. I merely pointed out that the result would have been largely the same.

- seriously, did you even watch season 6?

You keep turning a little nasty with your comments and there is no need for it.

If Jon stayed dead, wildlings never fight Ramsay's army. The Knights of the Vale would be the only army. They won because Ramsays army was already cut down a significant amount by the wildlings.

No, if you watch the episode its clear that the wildlings are easily outclassed in the battle and that the majority of the Bolton army is intact. the Knights did the majority of the work. This is just like when someone claims they "loosened the lid" for you, its nonsense.

If The Knights of the Vale outnumbered Ramsays army, he never would have met them in the open like he did with the wildlings. He would have just stayed in the castle.

Resulting in a siege which they would win.

He met Jon's army because he thought they had no chance of winning.

Which they didn't. Jon doesn't get credit for his bad decisions being rectified by other characters doing the smart thing FOR him.

Sansa did f@*k all.

Utter nonsense. The Knight say in the next season that "The Knights of the Vale rode for YOU my Lady" not Jon Snow (they make a point of saying they are loyal to her and not Jon, that they only showed up at the BOTB for her not Jon).
Without Sansa = no Knights = no victory = Jon and all the Wildlings dead, Winterfell belongs to the Boltons.

- Ridiculous. I've already explained how without Jon there would have been NOBODY READY FOR THE DEAD. It would have been an extinction event.

No you ASSERT it, you do not EXPLAIN it.

- Arya was there because of Jon retaking winterfell. Arya only got a shot at taking him out, and only knew how to take him out, because Jon came back to life.

This is clutching at straws now.

How hard is this to understand???

You are being intensely condescending and there is no need for it.
You can have a debate without being nasty.

Jon coming back changed everything. Let's say Jon stayed dead: Ramsay still owns Winterfell

And Sansa is at Castle Black and has the ability to call her Knights to fight for her - allowing her to take Winterfell.
Numbers for the BOTB is the same minus 2000 Wildlings that got slaughtered due to Jon's own incompetence in abandoning their position.
So hay! We are now up 2000 wildlings + 1 giant for the fight against the NK, probably down a few more of the Knights but certainly not 2000 given that they would lay siege to Winterfell and not meet Ramsey in an open field.

Arya is off trying to murder Cersei

Arya returns to Winterfell for the same reason - she hears from Hot Pie that Sansa has taken Winterfell and is now Queen in the North. She would return no matter which of her siblings rules there - its her home and her family has it back.

and nobody even has a clue who the Night King is, apart from Tormund and the wildlings

And the rest of the Nights Watch, and Stannis and his Red Priestess.

who nobody would even talk to without Jon leading them.

This is the first thing that IS unique to Jon Snow is his bond with the Wildlings.
Now they weren't exactly pivotal to the final outcome, but it is true that no other wanted/could make an alliance with the remains of the Free Folk.

Arya played her part, but she was able to play that part because of everything Jon had done.

No. You are ascribing FAR too much agency to Jon Snow here, she was there and did what she did through her own agency and the will of R'hllor who made it so by having Dondarrion sacrifice himself so she and Melisandre could meet.
Hell, LITTLEFINGER had more to do with Arya killing the NK than Jon did by virtue of bringing the Catspaw dagger with him to Winterfell.

- Again, already answered in my several points above what Jon did. And how without him, nobody would even stand a chance or have any clue what to do.

Again this is a massive overstatement at least and just outright untrue at worse. Characters knew who the NK was, the threat he represented, assembled their armies and were prepared to defeat him without Jon's influence.

- Jon Snow is an underdog. Just because he eventually, after six seasons, finally had good things happen to him like becoming king in the North doesn't take that away. He won that title because he was the underdog. He defied expectations and became far more than the ******* of winterfell through courage, bravery and sheer will. He never gave up. And he lost it all and ended up exiled at the end for the same reasons. Rocky Balboa became heavyweight champion of the world at the end of Rocky II, and he's literally the greatest underdog in cinematic history.

You misunderstand me here. My point is that Jon stops being an underdog - not because he rises above - that is a classic part of the underdog trope, but rather because he rises above through no agency of his own. He is rewarded for his bad decisions. Things just "work out" for him with no real input from himself. Wins the BOTB despite undermining their strategy because Sansa turns up and saves him. Is made KITN despite not winning the BOTB, expressing a wish to be KITN, or demonstrating any political skill whatsoever. Isn't killed for killing Dany because Tyrion gave a speech. etc etc.
If Jon's tactical knowledge won the BOTB, if he was the one who united the North through political skill then he would be a worthy KITN, if he killed the NK then he would have fulfilled his long built character arc, if he was the one to address the council and convince them (mostly Grey Worm) to spare him then those would all be HIS victories thorugh HIS agency and he would be an underdog triumphant.
But he didn't. It was given to him and once a character has success given to them through no agency of their own then they are no longer an underdog.
Early seasons Jon was an underdog because he himself earned his own victories.

 

[lordnastrond]

The last season and a half of GOT was just plain rough. Well, my take on it.

The writing was all over the place and there were lots of clear plot holes / bizarre deviations from previous character development.

Like any other formerly well regarded series, I've always believed an excellent version of GOT existed for those last two seasons, they were just hidden underneath a complex set of factors that dragged it down. And "we" as the audience, never got to see this excellent version. In every "bad show", I still hold to the idea that a good show was somewhere within it. Like Wheel Of Time. I can't call that a good show. But I can see why, if you look at the individual parts were examined separately in concept, how someone would think it's a good idea to finance it and move forward.

In general, a big miss for GOT for those last two seasons was they just ran out of the good actors and sidelined the best actors they had left. No show should ask Kit Harrington, Sophie Turner, Maisie Williams and Emilia Clarke to carry it. They were serviceable in more limited situations in earlier seasons, but their flaws as performers became more clear as they got more limelight.

You could see the quality drop as soon as Charles Dance exited the show. Also Stephen Dillane.

I would have recast all the young actors after the third season. At least House Of The Dragon had the sense to do this. They didn't hold onto Milly Alcock and just recasted the role. Kit Harrington was perfectly fine as young Jon Snow. But the show would have been IMHO better off recasting to an older and physically larger actor for the later seasons. Same for Dany.

The Hound got a good exit arc from the last season. Everyone else? Not so much.

I do think the criticism would be easier for many to take if it was framed in terms of - GOT set the bar so high early, all we ask is they hold that same level to the end.

I mean if a show starts off with goofy plot contrivances, then that's how the show operates. I'm not asking Scrubs to be Grey's Anatomy. But you can't start Season 4 of Grey's Anatomy, and give people the tone from Scrubs. It just doesn't work that way.

GOT killed off A LOT of characters. My take is they didn't kill off enough of them. In the early seasons, when characters ran out of arc, they got killed. I liked the first Maester of Winterfell. But he ran out of rope eventually, and the show killed him off. Same with Maester Aeomen. By the end though, it seemed like D&D wanted to hold onto some people for fan service or they had nothing left in the writing bank to replace them.

Some people are upset because the early show had so much to love. People who want to hammer the critics should IMHO give that thought some consideration. Disappointment is not the same as hate. ( I think I've just explained all marriages after the four year mark...)

Completely agree my man.
I don't hate the show, I'm just disappointed.
They had something great and in some mad rush to the finish, impatience, and poor decisions they crashed it into the ground.

 

[lordnastrond]

Time to "take your gloves off"?

If this offended you it wasn't my intention - I mean't in the sense that I was about to write an absolute wall of solid text to argue my point.
Next time I'll just use the "hold on to your butts" meme from Jurassic Park.

 

[MeatHookGekko]

I don't hate the show, I'm just disappointed.
They had something great and in some mad rush to the finish, impatience, and poor decisions they crashed it into the ground.

If I am going to be fair about it all, George RR Martin didn't exactly leave D&D in a great spot. Who knows the behinds the scenes politics and chaos inflicted there. Who knows how many times GRRM promised them more information and then probably gave them absolutely nothing. Who knows the bizarre demands some of the older main cast gave them towards the end.

I can only speak to my observations and experiences - heavily artistic types are usually a massive PITA to be around and deal with on the regular.

I'm not giving a blanket defense of D&D here, I'm just saying failure typically has many fathers, it's not an orphan.

I'm personally a big believer in, if you can't give the same quality, give spectacle instead. Lots of *** and violence. The film, 2012, with John Cusack, was a patently stupid movie from a plot standpoint. But it knew it was a ridiculous kind of movie. It was basically disaster ****. Just things blowing up and being destroyed. And they kept doing it. Set piece after set piece. And that's OK.

Personally I would have preferred, if S8 of GOT couldn't give good writing and a tightly well formed narrative, then just give us lots of dragon battles, lots of sword play, lots of cinematic kills, lots of hot chicks getting railed over the Iron Throne.

If you can't be thoughtful, at least be fun. ( Again, I keep explaining why marriages fail )

 

[HMC117]

The last season and a half of GOT was just plain rough. Well, my take on it.

The writing was all over the place and there were lots of clear plot holes / bizarre deviations from previous character development.

Like any other formerly well regarded series, I've always believed an excellent version of GOT existed for those last two seasons, they were just hidden underneath a complex set of factors that dragged it down. And "we" as the audience, never got to see this excellent version. In every "bad show", I still hold to the idea that a good show was somewhere within it. Like Wheel Of Time. I can't call that a good show. But I can see why, if you look at the individual parts were examined separately in concept, how someone would think it's a good idea to finance it and move forward.

In general, a big miss for GOT for those last two seasons was they just ran out of the good actors and sidelined the best actors they had left. No show should ask Kit Harrington, Sophie Turner, Maisie Williams and Emilia Clarke to carry it. They were serviceable in more limited situations in earlier seasons, but their flaws as performers became more clear as they got more limelight.

You could see the quality drop as soon as Charles Dance exited the show. Also Stephen Dillane.

I would have recast all the young actors after the third season. At least House Of The Dragon had the sense to do this. They didn't hold onto Milly Alcock and just recasted the role. Kit Harrington was perfectly fine as young Jon Snow. But the show would have been IMHO better off recasting to an older and physically larger actor for the later seasons. Same for Dany.

The Hound got a good exit arc from the last season. Everyone else? Not so much.

I do think the criticism would be easier for many to take if it was framed in terms of - GOT set the bar so high early, all we ask is they hold that same level to the end.

I mean if a show starts off with goofy plot contrivances, then that's how the show operates. I'm not asking Scrubs to be Grey's Anatomy. But you can't start Season 4 of Grey's Anatomy, and give people the tone from Scrubs. It just doesn't work that way.

GOT killed off A LOT of characters. My take is they didn't kill off enough of them. In the early seasons, when characters ran out of arc, they got killed. I liked the first Maester of Winterfell. But he ran out of rope eventually, and the show killed him off. Same with Maester Aeomen. By the end though, it seemed like D&D wanted to hold onto some people for fan service or they had nothing left in the writing bank to replace them.

Some people are upset because the early show had so much to love. People who want to hammer the critics should IMHO give that thought some consideration. Disappointment is not the same as hate. ( I think I've just explained all marriages after the four year mark...)

What. Lol. I have never once heard anybody say that the acting was bad. Even if someone hated the final seasons, pretty much everyone agreed that the acting was still great. They recast the roles halfway through HOTD because there was a huge time jump. There wasn't in GOT. They grew as their characters did. Jon Snow, Arya, Sansa and Dany were all perfectly cast. And the fans loved their performances and their characters. Seriously baffled by this argument.

 

[HMC117]

No they didn't because its not real. Its a TV show. What we see is all there is. If the show never bothered to have its characters react to an "important" death then that is a failure of the show. I shouldn't have to invent scenes to artificially create an emotional payoff for them.

So what, the point I made was to counter your claims that Jon won the BOTB and retook Winterfell - militarily he endangered his army by making an idiotic mistake.
Here is the scene where they establish how important it is that they don't abandon their position -

Was it in character? Yes. But has nothing to do with my point or your original claim I was responding to.

Sansa tried to appeal to Jon that they needed more men to win the BOTB (she was right) and Jon angrily brushed her off and didn't even let her TALK about getting more allies.
here is the scene -

Sansa was the one who got Littlefinger involved and without him/his army Jon and everyone would be dead - thats the facts, so she didn't do "f@#k all" whether you like it or not SHE won the BOTB, not Jon.

He is one man, and no matter how good he was - did he win the battle? did he turn the tide? his army were slaughtered and was about to be finished off when Sansa and her allies arrived and saved them.
Do you see how few wildlings/etc are left here before Sansa and Littlefinger arrive?
Sansa won the BOTB - YOU might not like it, but thats the facts.

Inconsequential - he is one man. Cool scene but by then the Battle had been won by the Vale's forces. Same could have been accomplished by 10 soldiers v 1 Ramsey.

Moving the goalposts. You said Jon deserved to be King in the North, I said that he absolutely didn't because he immediately surrendered Northern independance. Whether he was right to do so is another issue.
A good king would have explained and consulted them anyway - to just do so unilaterally is what makes Jon a poor king and we see the proof in the Northern lords begin discussing replacing him with Sansa.

His biggest contribution was convincing Dany (as I have already said) but he didn't do this alone, other characters joined in convincing her and it wasn't something ONLY HE could have done.

which was a massacre.
Yes he witnessed the NK power, but so did others.

It was Sam who discovered Dragon Glass kills White Walkers/wights.

Yes he did, as did Melisandre, Sam, Tormund and other characters.
Also Jon wasn't the only guy who survived Hardhome.

Not true.

And failed.
Its your claim that he lead the battle and your implication that without him they would have failed. I merely pointed out that the result would have been largely the same.

You keep turning a little nasty with your comments and there is no need for it.

No, if you watch the episode its clear that the wildlings are easily outclassed in the battle and that the majority of the Bolton army is intact. the Knights did the majority of the work. This is just like when someone claims they "loosened the lid" for you, its nonsense.

Resulting in a siege which they would win.

Which they didn't. Jon doesn't get credit for his bad decisions being rectified by other characters doing the smart thing FOR him.

Utter nonsense. The Knight say in the next season that "The Knights of the Vale rode for YOU my Lady" not Jon Snow (they make a point of saying they are loyal to her and not Jon, that they only showed up at the BOTB for her not Jon).
Without Sansa = no Knights = no victory = Jon and all the Wildlings dead, Winterfell belongs to the Boltons.

No you ASSERT it, you do not EXPLAIN it.

This is clutching at straws now.

You are being intensely condescending and there is no need for it.
You can have a debate without being nasty.

And Sansa is at Castle Black and has the ability to call her Knights to fight for her - allowing her to take Winterfell.
Numbers for the BOTB is the same minus 2000 Wildlings that got slaughtered due to Jon's own incompetence in abandoning their position.
So hay! We are now up 2000 wildlings + 1 giant for the fight against the NK, probably down a few more of the Knights but certainly not 2000 given that they would lay siege to Winterfell and not meet Ramsey in an open field.

Arya returns to Winterfell for the same reason - she hears from Hot Pie that Sansa has taken Winterfell and is now Queen in the North. She would return no matter which of her siblings rules there - its her home and her family has it back.

And the rest of the Nights Watch, and Stannis and his Red Priestess.

This is the first thing that IS unique to Jon Snow is his bond with the Wildlings.
Now they weren't exactly pivotal to the final outcome, but it is true that no other wanted/could make an alliance with the remains of the Free Folk.

No. You are ascribing FAR too much agency to Jon Snow here, she was there and did what she did through her own agency and the will of R'hllor who made it so by having Dondarrion sacrifice himself so she and Melisandre could meet.
Hell, LITTLEFINGER had more to do with Arya killing the NK than Jon did by virtue of bringing the Catspaw dagger with him to Winterfell.

Again this is a massive overstatement at least and just outright untrue at worse. Characters knew who the NK was, the threat he represented, assembled their armies and were prepared to defeat him without Jon's influence.

You misunderstand me here. My point is that Jon stops being an underdog - not because he rises above - that is a classic part of the underdog trope, but rather because he rises above through no agency of his own. He is rewarded for his bad decisions. Things just "work out" for him with no real input from himself. Wins the BOTB despite undermining their strategy because Sansa turns up and saves him. Is made KITN despite not winning the BOTB, expressing a wish to be KITN, or demonstrating any political skill whatsoever. Isn't killed for killing Dany because Tyrion gave a speech. etc etc.
If Jon's tactical knowledge won the BOTB, if he was the one who united the North through political skill then he would be a worthy KITN, if he killed the NK then he would have fulfilled his long built character arc, if he was the one to address the council and convince them (mostly Grey Worm) to spare him then those would all be HIS victories thorugh HIS agency and he would be an underdog triumphant.
But he didn't. It was given to him and once a character has success given to them through no agency of their own then they are no longer an underdog.
Early seasons Jon was an underdog because he himself earned his own victories.

- Rickon's death was important in terms of the plot at that very moment. It was just another dead Stark and a way of making us feel like all hope is lost, as usual. We didn't need to see Arya react a season later.

- I literally said it was a bit stupid from a military leader point of view, this is a drama series. Jon thinks with his heart.

- Lol. Sansa could have EASILY told him about Littlefinger and the Knights of the Vale. She had several episodes to do so. She was just dumb.

- Sansa did not "get littlefinger involved" he got himself involved because he fancied her and he wanted more power. Sansa was just the one who made the secret and late decision to finally accept his help. She did f@*k all and definitley did not win the battle of the *******s. Jon and the wildlings cut down a large number of Ramsays army. The Knights of the Vale provided backup when they most needed it. I find it funny that you keep praising Sansa when she was the most hated character in the final two seasons.

- Jon beating Ramsay when he had just a crappy shield and Ramsay had a bow and arrow showed everyone in the open what a beast

- Again with the "Jon's only contribution", no. Again, if Jon dead, nobody retook winterfell, nobody warned everyone about the night king, nobody would visit Dany and try to get help and they definitley wouldn't succeed if they tried, which they wouldn't because nobody at winterfell would give a s#@t when they got that letter from Sam. Jon made it All happen.

- "Not true"? Its absolutley 100% fact and I explained why as well. I'm not even bothering to finish reading the rest if you can't be bothered to even read my explanations and why it is a fact that without Jon, nobody would have done anything to stop the dead. You speak "utter nonsense".

 

[ZE_501]

- the characters themselves don't care about Rickon - how do I know that? Because they never acknowledge his death beyond Jon Snows 10 second reaction during the BOTB. Sansa, Arya and the other Starks don't even mention him when they catch up together.

That's sloppy writing (some may call it 'expedited') but fair.

- Jon charged into battle foolishly after taking Ramsey's bait and forced his army to give up their position to save him, yes he fought on the field - but its not like he did more than anyone else, Sansa won the battle with her army from the Vale.

Although the back and forth has been very entertaining, you're making sense. Jon's character began as one thing and they kind of dropped the ball in the end -- a combination of fan service and an inability to match Martin's narrative depth.

Yes, he acted like a 'hero' but in Martin's GoT heroes do stupid things and get themselves killed. In D&D's GoT we get absolutely thrilling scenes but maybe we shouldn't think too hard about them. Two different approaches.

- you realise that it's a tv show with only 10 hours per season? (And less after season 6) You don't see EVERYTHING they ever say after returning to winterfell. I'm sure they had a conversation offscreen about their dead brother, which is not necessary for us to see at that point because the time is better spent talking about characters we knew and loved like Ned Stark.

This is a slippery slope. Star Wars fans do this all the time to excuse poor writing, by theorizing and filling in blanks that the writers missed. But a miss is a miss, IMO.

The last season and a half of GOT was just plain rough. Well, my take on it.

The writing was all over the place and there were lots of clear plot holes / bizarre deviations from previous character development.

Yep. Of course we were rooting for certain characters and outcomes, but the execution kind of fell apart.

The Hound got a good exit arc from the last season. Everyone else? Not so much.

You think so? I found his final scenes anticlimactic and dissatisfying.

Disappointment is not the same as hate. ( I think I've just explained all marriages after the four year mark...)

Agreed on both counts LOL.

No they didn't because its not real. Its a TV show. What we see is all there is. If the show never bothered to have its characters react to an "important" death then that is a failure of the show. I shouldn't have to invent scenes to artificially create an emotional payoff for them.

100%

He is one man, and no matter how good he was - did he win the battle? did he turn the tide? his army were slaughtered and was about to be finished off when Sansa and her allies arrived and saved them.

Self-evident. Easy to be swept away by epic scenes of Snow drawing his sword and facing a cavalry charge alone, but ... he was an *****. A brave damn *****.

You misunderstand me here. My point is that Jon stops being an underdog - not because he rises above - that is a classic part of the underdog trope, but rather because he rises above through no agency of his own. He is rewarded for his bad decisions. Things just "work out" for him with no real input from himself.

Drogon doesn't incinerate him because .... ???????

You can hand-wave about Targaryen blood and so on but it was a weird outcome.

If I am going to be fair about it all, George RR Martin didn't exactly leave D&D in a great spot. Who knows the behinds the scenes politics and chaos inflicted there.

Agreed.

I'm not giving a blanket defense of D&D here, I'm just saying failure typically has many fathers, it's not an orphan.

Insert totally inappropriate jokes that all violate the forum CoC here.

If you can't be thoughtful, at least be fun. ( Again, I keep explaining why marriages fail )

I'm more than a little disturbed that I've been coming to the same conclusions on this marriage thing.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Failure has many fathers.

Interesting saying... though it seems more like blame.

 

[MeatHookGekko]

Failure has many fathers.

Interesting saying... though it seems more like blame.

My friend, you may have a point there.

 

[R_R_X]

I have laid GoT to rest (show and books) and haven't discussed it much since the show ended but seeing this thread get a lot of activity I'll throw in my two cents and say George R. R. Martin was as much blame as Dan and David, he will never finish the books and likely never had a fully-fledged idea of what the ending would be.

 

[Sidewinder]

What. Lol. I have never once heard anybody say that the acting was bad. Even if someone hated the final seasons, pretty much everyone agreed that the acting was still great. They recast the roles halfway through HOTD because there was a huge time jump. There wasn't in GOT. They grew as their characters did. Jon Snow, Arya, Sansa and Dany were all perfectly cast. And the fans loved their performances and their characters. Seriously baffled by this argument.

I agree! What a horrible take. Had no issues with the casting, it was the writing that let the show down that last season.

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

Everything was fine except for the writing the last three seasons

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

I have laid GoT to rest (show and books) and haven't discussed it much since the show ended but seeing this thread get a lot of activity I'll throw in my two cents and say George R. R. Martin was as much blame as Dan and David, he will never finish the books and likely never had a fully-fledged idea of what the ending would be.

I’ve come to the point where I don think Martin will ever put out another book

 

[R_R_X]

I’ve come to the point where I don think Martin will ever put out another book

Me too and even if he somehow manages to finish "The Winds of Winter" I think "A Dream of Spring" will remain just that, a dream.

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

Me too and even if he somehow manages to finish "The Winds of Winter" I think "A Dream of Spring" will remain just that, a dream.

I still have the PO alert for Winds set on Amazon still, but it’s been believe it when I see it for what…going on 10 years now?

 

[R_R_X]

I still have the PO alert for Winds set on Amazon still, but it’s been believe it when I see it for what…going on 10 years now?

12 years this July...

 

[ZE_501]

12 years this July...

Whoa ... yeah I'd bet on nothing more forthcoming.

Having not read the books I don't even know where they're at right now ... do they just go on and on the way real life does, albeit with new issues and different players, or was there some overarching Big Bad to defeat that just hasn't been done yet?

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

Whoa ... yeah I'd bet on nothing more forthcoming.

Having not read the books I don't even know where they're at right now ... do they just go on and on the way real life does, albeit with new issues and different players, or was there some overarching Big Bad to defeat that just hasn't been done yet?

the book content ended at season 5. The last three seasons, HBO literally winged it

 

[ZE_501]

the book content ended at season 5. The last three seasons, HBO literally winged it

Ah okay ... I knew they were winging it and chalked up some of their failure (relatively speaking) to that, but I hadn't realized just how much was left to tell in the novels.

While it's been long enough he may have a lot of manuscript (I don't know how he works besides very very slowly) I think the television series and more money plus advancing age may have derailed him.