Table of Contents
TL;DR ...are you kidding? What is important may never be shortened.
Intro
Before proceeding, allow me to frame whatever comes next by observing that (in my opinion) Game of Thrones is a cultural milestone. Is the best and most influential T.V. show of our time. So praising what needs to be praised:
+ The showrunners having initially recognized the quality of the original material and its author, and taking it to television with the unprecedented scale and quality they did so. Without them we'd never have Game of Thrones.
+ The crew;
+ Production quality, realism, attention to detail, and the sheer scale of it all;
+ Production quality, realism, attention to detail, and the sheer scale of it all;
+ High quality of visuals and cinematography;
+ High quality of believable special effects;
+ The score;
+ The fact that GoT pulled off the normalization of a realistic, believable, consistent fantasy lore containing dragons, magic, and ice zombies, while these things being peripheral to the core aspect of the story, which were the human characters living in the setting;
+ The fact that GoT brought to the fore and handled many issues of relevancy to the eyes of a worldwide audience watching a fantasy T.V. series. These issues included class inequality and struggle, power play and politics, human nature when facing difficult choices, all the while developing multiple strong female leads, developing a character with dwarfism as one of the most influential main characters, and in doing so also juggling potentially heavy, tabu and/or polarizing topics such as cruelty, torture, religion, death, incest, and so on, without falling into righteous moralization or getting stuck in prejudice, instead simply having it seen. It said: this is part of human nature, this is what's possible and what happens, now deal with it. Dealing objectively and sensibly with challenging matters and facing one's beliefs is important, placing and sustaining filters on top of those things no so much. In my mind, therefore, this was a positive aspect.
About Negative Feedback
You might say we should be appreciative of the gift this show was. And I am. At the same time, and without conflict of perspective, I also believe in learning from the present so the future can be improved or made better.
I disagree with any perspective that dismisses the negative feedback from GoT's audience on the grounds it's just hate, overthinking, or nitpicking. Negativity on the internet is somewhat expected and inevitable on this day and age - to an extent. There will always be disgruntled customers in any line of work - to an extent. But past a certain point it's presumptuous and disrespectful to just dismiss all negative feedback as mindless, entitled, or unimportant. It is important to learn from past situations, especially for art, which can strong influence the collective consciousness, and may affect future creative work.
For example, GRRM himself was impacted by the ending of Lost. Lost became a reference for him of how badly an influential show could be conducted and could end, and how much the audience could feel deflated, frustrated, and disappointed by it. This is but one example of a work of art influencing other creators, in this specific case of how things can go wrong.
The feedback of the audience to Lost's conclusion wasn't dismissed for being "negative". The ending is more or less universally accepted to have, indeed, been disappointing. If the audience feels angry or frustrated by a show, dismissing the reaction without at least some level of honest self-analysis, and trying to understand what's objectively going on, is deeply disrespectful. The audience is the customer, and assuming by default that the customer is entitled and spoiled, and doesn't know what they're talking about, isn't the best of policies.
The feedback of the audience to Lost's conclusion wasn't dismissed for being "negative". The ending is more or less universally accepted to have, indeed, been disappointing. If the audience feels angry or frustrated by a show, dismissing the reaction without at least some level of honest self-analysis, and trying to understand what's objectively going on, is deeply disrespectful. The audience is the customer, and assuming by default that the customer is entitled and spoiled, and doesn't know what they're talking about, isn't the best of policies.
The same goes with "overthinking". Overthinking happens when a show is inconsistent and is leaving too many gaps the viewer is asked to fill on their own. In other words, the viewer's goodwill is being stretched. So if you happen to believe I'm overthinking things, I respect your opinion, but I'll also kindly ask you to show yourself out. I'll be overthinking whatever the heck I want, and that's going to be just fine.
Finally, my intention with this text is not to bash the show in its entirety, or all of those involved in creating it. I think all of the crew, staff, actors etc. without exception did a work well beyond expectations, in my mind irreprehensible and beyond fault. Each and every criticism here presented are directed predominantly at plot points, the quality of writing, and the overall decisions and context that impacted on and affected said writing, based on the final product we were given on screen.
Being appreciative of something that was an overall positive thing, doesn't make me blind, and it doesn't make me not care. I don't mean to disrespect the show by expressing my thoughts on it. I'm doing it precisely because I care. So that being said, here are some less-positive annotations about the last season of Game of Thrones and how it ended.
The following relates mostly with the last season of Game of Thrones, mostly with the last 4 episodes. This also assumes you've already seen the episodes, and you have an idea of what's being discussed. Yes, it is a laundry list. I will be allowing myself to vent a bit, so yes, it's ranty. But, it's also a list of problems that as a whole, I think, paints a bigger picture of, or at least draws the attention to, something more than just 'an entitled audience complaining'.
My opinion.
Also, spoilers (all of it actually).
Classification of Issues:
0 - Unimportant - A thing that may be seen as a flaw, but isn't an issue "in the grand scheme of things".
1 - Passable/Nitpick - Fiction can never be completely "realistic". Also, humans aren't robots. So some mistakes or inconsistencies are to be expected, at some point. Even so, a large build-up of many small mistakes or inconsistencies can and will thwart your experience with a show. Perfection is a lot of small things done right, or so they say.
2 - Disappointing - A plot decision or aspect to the show that is questionable, dubious, or doesn't meet the show's standards, and sticks out like a sore thumb. If you're willing, you can stretch your mind to find a good explanation for it, or close your eyes and let it slide, provided you have the goodwill to do so. But, like before, one too many of these and they'll ruin the show for you.
3 - Problematic - A core or important element or mechanic is being handled incorrectly and/or from misguided intentions, and in doing so the identity, consistency, plot etc. of the show are being compromised.
4 - Absurd - The rules of the world are being broken to such an extent, that you're taken right out of what you're watching, challenging your willingness to suspend your disbelief.
5 - Dracarys! - No sharks have been jumped on Game of Thrones, however this comes close. The rules of everything and of all existence are under attack, along with you and your brain.
#1. Winter Has Come.
Has it? Couldn't tell.
At the end of season 7, as Jaime is leaving King's Landing we see snow falling, hinting at a change in weather. However, in season 8, while the cold was there and mentioned verbally, especially in Winterfell, it was certainly not portrayed to the extent you sensed the fabled extreme, dark Winter alluded to since the beginning of the series. The weather seemed fine. Even in Winterfell people were sharing meals outdoors, at night. In King's Landing the weather was actually quite sunny and clear.
Maybe it's a mild Winter, or perhaps it's just beginning. Still, for something that received that much build-up since the beginning of the series - the fabled Winter of the setting the story takes place in - it ended up not receiving much attention. The Winter of the show about Winter was largely ignored.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - "Winter is Coming" is the most recognizable phrase of the show, over time so commonly and repeatedly used by many characters - and it was just forgotten. This is not cause for the show's major issues, but definitely a reflection and symbol of them.
#2. Questionable Tactical Choices at the Battle of Winterfell
The way you can interpret this can vary. If you're willing to give the characters a pass, placing yourself in their shoes and making an effort to understand their in-story judgment and thinking, then some of these choices may come across as plausible, even if arguable to some extent.
If, on the other hand, you're expecting to see a battle portrayed true to the "period" i.e. a medieval-esque setting of corresponding common military practices, then the other end of the spectrum is to find some of these choices baffling and difficult to take at face value. Even if at no point in time a medieval power ever had to fight an army of zombies with fire-breathing dragons.
 |
| Initial alignment of the army of the living, Battle of Winterfell, S8E3. |
1. Standing outside of your walls! If you have a fortified location why would you ever fight outside of it? But let's for a moment assume "this needs to be done" for whatever reason, for example the army is too big and doesn't fit inside Winterfell. Or to incite an attack to avoid being waited by an army that doesn't have to eat.
2. Trebuchets in front of infantry! Bye-bye trebuchets. They could be firing throughout the battle. Maybe they didn't have enough room in the back or inside the city to fit them? Why would you spend the resources building trebuchets, to then waste them like that?
3. Obstacle/trench behind infantry! Obstacles are to slow down or impose limitations on the incoming enemy! Why would you not put your obstacle in front of the infantry, then meet the slowed down enemy with ranks of spears? And maybe keep firing the trebuchets towards the back of the massed, slowed-down enemy ranks? Are you actively trying to pin down your own infantry and preventing them from retreating?
4. Dothraki launching an initial charge into an unseen, unknown, unroutable enemy, without support. While tactically a horrible and face-palming decision, somewhat plausible given the Dothraki's unruly nature and fighting by charging disorderly, together with the fact they unexpectedly had their weapons set on fire by magical means.
But it's difficult to believe the Dothraki weren't ever told they would be making themselves fodder for an army that feeds off the dead. Also, without their arakhs being set on fire unexpectedly, their weapons would otherwise be completely ineffective. Would it be reasonable to think they could commit to at least try to make arakhs out of dragonglass for the Dothraki, as they had the time and resources to make so many other things with it? The pre-battle plan regarding the Dothraki deserved, at the very least, to be addressed in dialogue. All things considered, the Dothraki would have been of much better use to be convinced to be set loose on the sides of the clustered masses of wights, once those had engaged the front lines (holding true the assumption the dead would attack that way). At least marginally less horrible than an initial useless charge into their death. Even better would be to give them dragonglass-tipped arrows for them to fire in this flanking, if they could spare the resources. What resources are available is arbitrarily dictated by the plot anyway, so in the middle of these contrivances who's to say they would or wouldn't be able to do so?
The initial presence and positioning of the Dothraki basically equated to literally, explicitly, and purposefully, wasting them i.e. throwing their lives away, pointlessly, for no gain, with or without charge. As a result, the only thing we're left with, is assuming that the Dothaki were so stubborn and so unreachable that this was the only possible layout they accepted for the battle.
Ghost's presence is great, but unless his teeth are made of dragonglass he's simply going to be swarmed and killed by wights right away, like Summer was. Except he survives in the next episode.
 |
| Dothraki weapons (arakhs) being set alight by Melisandre, Battle of Winterfell, S8E3 |
5. Struggling to set the trench alight when Jon is sitting on the wall with Raeghal. You were sending runners with torches! Send a runner to Jon! Yell at Jon! He's right there! Probably because Jon being there was an ad-hoc decision by him that wasn't expected, and/or the others didn't know he was there due to the blizzard, and/or Jon couldn't see they were retreating and trying to lit the trench. But he could at least see clearly up to the trench. Couldn't he perceive what's going on in the rest of battle? This is maybe plausible.
My gripe here is that the Dyrwood portion of Winterfell is continuously treated as if it was very detached from the rest of the battle and not subject to the same rules, when that's really not the case.
6. Not completely crowding the top of the wall and meet incoming wights climbing it with polearms/spears/etc., so these could be cut down faster and have less of a chance to break through;
7. Others: no other defenses prepared on the wall, like burning oil, boiling onion soup, something, anything; not firing continuously at the masses of wights standing still next to the lit trench (saving your dragonglass arrows for a rainy day, are you?); placing top brass leadership right in the front row and without shield; the original plan not contemplating keeping both dragons - by far their best asset - continuously and systematically torching as many wights as possible (again, with wights clustered and slowed down by a properly positioned obstacle), WHILE keeping an eye out for the Night King. Committing to this during the battle was actually an excellent and logical decision by Dany. In particular wight giants could fall easily to dragon fire, but would wreck the infantry and stationary defenses if they got anywhere near them - as one ended up doing.
 |
| Drogon and Rahegal burning masses of wights with dragon fire, as seen from Arya and Sansa Stark from the wall, Battle of Winterfell, S8E3 |
Assuming the living didn't know everything there was to know about the dead and what to expect of them (yet they did - or could - because they had Bran), there were still tactical decisions that were a bit difficult to see. Placing your siege engines in front of the infantry means you'll lose their functionality the moment the enemy comes into contact with you. Only remotely plausible if you intended to use these from distance only, but that's a disputable intention. If you know the sheer size and mass of the enemy, why wouldn't you want to keep firing into them for as long as possible? Otherwise why would you spend the resources building them in the first place?
The trench was presumably meant to serve as a screen, that when "activated" would allow the living to retreat behind the walls when they made that call, halting the wights while they held the gates open. So if you make the effort to follow along with this logic, somewhere in here there's, maybe, a plausible reasoning. But wouldn't they also see how a flaming, impassable, pointy obstacle placed behind their lines would make it harder and not easier to achieve this, as it would severely hamper their own freedom of movement and possibility of retreat? The Unsullied infantry left to cover the retreat, which would be necessary anyway regardless of the placement of the obstacle, were predictably pinned between the enemy and their own trench, and left to die (that we can see or are left to interpret!). The point here is that this was foreseeable rather than unexpected and tragic.
Kudos to the portrayal of the synchronization and discipline of the Unsullied in showing them walking backwards in tight formation, as well as opening and closing ranks, to cover for a retreat that was planned for beforehand.
You can always argue we're looking at these things from the minds of a knowledgeable, nitpicky, and sharply aware audience, rather than as someone going through the thick of it. Or, maybe that the living didn't have any leaders with that much battle acumen or expertise. Still, I'd like to think much of the modern day viewership is intelligent and keenly aware to spot if and when certain elements in an otherwise realistic battle might come across as contrived, silly, or as "Hollywood-esque", existing mostly to serve purposes that are external to the battle itself. Most of these aspects come across as contrived and questionable, because they feel placed there to look cool and dramatic, rather than on the grounds of necessity and common sense.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing
#3. Any Reason to Assume the Dead Attack From the Front...
...as opposed to, for example, enveloping Winterfell, or attacking literally from any other side - like the Dyrwood part of the walls? Or have some forces attack an undefended parts of the wall? Or anything else at all? Why would they be convinced the dead would attack solely from the front - other than plot convenience?
 |
| War room preparations and layout of forces prior to the Battle of Winterfell, S8E2 |
Was it because the enemy came marching from that direction (King's Road) and would prefer simply to continue to plow through? Are they convinced the dead will be compelled to attack them whenever they present their forces to them? Maybe Bran saw this was what they intended to do? But was that a given? And even if they know what the Night King "wanted to do", would he not be able to adapt and make decisions on the fly, and adjust according to the situation, like he did when dealing with the trench? Also, are we meant to believe only the walls of the front can be breached, and not the ones surrounding the Dyrwood? Wights only start appearing in the Dyrwood (from ground level) once they're inside the castle, after having entered from the front.
Winterfell doesn't seem to have explicit natural barriers around it to prevent this, other than perhaps trees (seen during the Dothraki charge from Dany and Jon's point of view). Maybe I'm missing a terrain or obstacle constraint that makes the answer obvious. The other aspect to this equation is the trench. Throughout the battle, the only section of the trench that's shown is the one at the front of Winterfell where the battle is taking place. This trench is never shown to completely envelop the city or block access to its sides, even when lit - but we must assume it does, since in the battle plan (above) the trench does surround the city completely. But even so, what's preventing the dead from attacking other, less guarded points of the trench and sides of the city, at any moment, like they did with the front?
Assuming you need to place your army outside the walls, keeping the city at your back is a decent enough choice to prevent yourself from being surrounded. But wouldn't the dead in theory be able to spread out along the entirety of the city, or, focus on some other side, or on multiple sides, such as for example the walls around the Dyrwood, with at least a portion of them being able to bypass the army outside? One plausible explanation would be for the Night King to want to concentrate its attack in one location. But this still leaves open the possibility of attacks directed at any other location at any time during the battle.
Winterfell doesn't seem to have explicit natural barriers around it to prevent this, other than perhaps trees (seen during the Dothraki charge from Dany and Jon's point of view). Maybe I'm missing a terrain or obstacle constraint that makes the answer obvious. The other aspect to this equation is the trench. Throughout the battle, the only section of the trench that's shown is the one at the front of Winterfell where the battle is taking place. This trench is never shown to completely envelop the city or block access to its sides, even when lit - but we must assume it does, since in the battle plan (above) the trench does surround the city completely. But even so, what's preventing the dead from attacking other, less guarded points of the trench and sides of the city, at any moment, like they did with the front?
Assuming you need to place your army outside the walls, keeping the city at your back is a decent enough choice to prevent yourself from being surrounded. But wouldn't the dead in theory be able to spread out along the entirety of the city, or, focus on some other side, or on multiple sides, such as for example the walls around the Dyrwood, with at least a portion of them being able to bypass the army outside? One plausible explanation would be for the Night King to want to concentrate its attack in one location. But this still leaves open the possibility of attacks directed at any other location at any time during the battle.
 |
| Aerial view of Winterfell, with the Dyrwood section on the left. |
If I was the attacker, and if my high-value target happened to be Bran, and I knew Bran was in the largely undefended Dyrwood, would I not consider sending a million wights straight to the largely undefended walls around the Dyrwood? Then, I'd already be inside the city, past the walls, coming from within and behind a disorganized, out-of-formation force struggling to get back into the city, and trying to get past a poorly conceived trench. Or, a force pinned between part of own forces attacking from the front, and said trench. So no need to politely comply with what my opponent expects me to do, and come knock at the door to introduce myself first. If, on the other hand, I was the defender, could I be so sure that the wights would not scale up the walls of the Dyrwood also, to the extent I would place only a handful of archers surrounding my high-value target?
As stated in the previous point: the Dyrwood's section of Winterfell is treated as if it was detached from the rest of the battle and not subject to the same rules, when that's absolutely not the case.
The viewer is left to rely on his suspension of disbelief about this. The map before the battle in the Winterfell war room states the dead would attack from that direction, and that's played straight. We're simply told to accept it at face value that it will be so.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick - I'm willing to accept this fantasy battle needed some essential premises to be built from - similar to the need to fight outside the walls for example - even if those premises seem contrived.
#4. Beyond Absurd Plot Armor for Main Characters at the Battle of Winterfell...
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick - I'm willing to accept this fantasy battle needed some essential premises to be built from - similar to the need to fight outside the walls for example - even if those premises seem contrived.
#4. Beyond Absurd Plot Armor for Main Characters at the Battle of Winterfell...
...but lack thereof if it suits the plot.
- main characters on the front line receiving a
chargewave of undead, especially those with just a sword and without shield, are dead. Wait, they aren't? - main characters being swarmed by wights on the front line, on top of wall, on the courtyard, downed and/or with multiple wights hugging them, are dead. Wait, they aren't?
- Sam turns his back on an unchallenged wight and just runs away, he's dead. Wait, he isn't?
- Sam is supposedly not very courageous, and can't fight very well, and is laying down on the floor with multiple wights on top of him, he's dead. Wait, he isn't?
- wight swords going right through Jorah's armor. In the first seasons there was an immensely refreshing point of showing how bladed weapons (arakhs) wouldn't go through "metal armor", heavily subverting the typical T.V./movie trope metal armor doesn't matter - an example of an extraordinary subversion. But this realistic perspective was thrown out the window long ago. Every type of armor we see seems to be just some form of padded leather, that can be pierced by bladed weapons if enough force is applied (and when the plot demands it).
- Night King's spear shaft going through Theon's armor. Although some benefit of the doubt must be given due to the NK's strength.
- Near the end of the battle all the main characters are fighting swarms of wights on top of piles of corpses on the courtyard - with only a few added unnamed soldiers here and there just to not completely give the impression random soldiers all die, while main characters are magically protected by their, you know, plot armor.
 |
| Brienne of Tarth screaming as she's enveloped by wights, Battle of Winterfell, S8E3 |
You've established wights are lethal, fast, and apparently super strong. The unnamed character in the ice rescue episode that fell into a mass of wights got ripped apart instantly. Wights immediately slash throats and pierce you on contact. Even if they haven't weapons from having scaled up the wall, they would still tear into you.
After establishing this, you can't have wights surrounding and in physical contact with main characters and have them survive unscathed, and/or saved at the last moment by someone nearby, repeatedly. You can't have all of the main characters exposed to a physically ruthless enemy and have them left standing, while all other soldiers are being slaughtered. This is not just unrealistic, it's nothing short of absurd and completely breaks immersion (or rather, the viewer's willing suspension of disbelief).
In doing this, you're eroding the audience's willingness to care. This renders Jorah's death, otherwise tragic and valiant, lackluster. He died, not because the wights got to him, but because the plot said he would.
Related with the audience's perception that Game of Thrones wasn't "killing enough characters". This matter is not about number of characters slain, but how realistic and believable the things you're showing come across. Exposing main characters to extreme danger would lead them to die; if you wanted certain characters to survive, you needed to have them protected in a logical and fleshed-out manner. This point isn't just a peripheral annoyance, it relates directly with the identity of the show itself.
Grade: 4 - Absurd - As the title indicates.
#5. Characters Threatened by Impossible Odds, Cutting Away, Later Coming Back to Them in More Manageable Circumstances
#5. Characters Threatened by Impossible Odds, Cutting Away, Later Coming Back to Them in More Manageable Circumstances
- Jon Snow completely surrounded by wights when trying to approach the Night King. Wights are fast. He's not going to have space to even swing his sword. He's dead. Cuts away, then comes back to Jon. Wait, no, he's suddenly not that swarmed anymore.
- Multiple wights running towards the close contact with the Ironborn archers around Bran. Cuts away, then comes back to them. They're still shooting their arrows.
- Multiple wights storming Dany and Jorah, multiple approaching Dany. Cuts away, then comes back to them. They're still fighting, Dany's fine.
- Sam turning his back to an unchallenged wight who's just killed Ed, presumably it could easily run after and catch Sam if it wanted to. Cuts away, later we see Sam is okay.
- Jorah hearing "Dragon noises" from distance, and being able to move around the battle scene off-screen on his own, safely, to later appear next to Dany outside the walls, presumably having fought waves of wights on his own to get there.
- Ghost surviving, even if scarred.
Doing it once or twice would probably not be noticeable; but doing it over and over will be. Also, Dany is not a fighter in any capacity. It was a bit of a stretch to see her plunge a sword into a wight, let alone having her to do so multiple times. Plausible considering dragonglass weapons are insta-kill to wights. Not absolutely inconceivable, but in a context with plenty of contrivances already, it adds up to them.
Grade: 3 - Problematic - Done often and cheaply.
#6. The Crypt
It wouldn't be inconceivable for everyone to miss they're about to face an enemy that raises the dead, and a crypt is a place to keep the dead. Fighting an undead army would have been a foreign event to them. But it's certainly difficult to think that no one thought of this at any point, given they had some time to prepare. There are many characters of sharp intellect present at Winterfell, and quite a few who are to be sent down to the crypts, among them none other than Tyrion, who's supposed to be one of the brightest. Nevertheless, played straight: all are caught by surprise as the dead are raised inside.
They were dealing with a magical, highly dangerous enemy. Since their armed forces were in the thousands, it would have been sensible and logic to have a few guards watching over those at the crypt, "just in case", to prevent against some unforeseen circumstance, for example a breach of the door during battle, etc. Otherwise any type of threat which would have free reign over those at the crypt. It would have been sad to having won the battle, only to walk inside the crypt and see everyone there to have perished.
The Night King raising the dead outside and inadvertently raising the ones at the crypt was a positive, consistent point.
They were dealing with a magical, highly dangerous enemy. Since their armed forces were in the thousands, it would have been sensible and logic to have a few guards watching over those at the crypt, "just in case", to prevent against some unforeseen circumstance, for example a breach of the door during battle, etc. Otherwise any type of threat which would have free reign over those at the crypt. It would have been sad to having won the battle, only to walk inside the crypt and see everyone there to have perished.
The Night King raising the dead outside and inadvertently raising the ones at the crypt was a positive, consistent point.
Quite weird to see wights busting through stone, when a wight couldn't break free from a wooden encasing in the previous season.
Despite the dead stalking the hallways, no main characters were harmed in the filming of this sequence. They were safely hidden behind corners.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick
#7. Why Would a Wight Giant Stop to Pick up a Girl?
Wights are one-dimensional. The giant would not give any type of special attention to Lyanna Mormont. Badass for sure, but at the expense of logic.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick - This is relative (like many others) due to how this point measures up against some other things on this list.
#8.'Stealth Level' for Arya
The issue here is not the 'stealth' part. It would be logical for Arya to move silently indoors, in order to avoid luring large numbers of wights in tight quarters, plus she's good at it. However, two other things stand out here. One is having wights casually patrolling the library while a battle is raging outside, almost as if they'd always been there haunting the place. How did these wights storm into the library from the outside, and go into such a 'calm', patrolling state?
The other aspect is having Arya go into a state of fear from a hit to the head. Granted, hitting your head while facing death surely isn't nice - but Arya went through an inordinate amount of training that involved intense psychological components, and withstanding a lot of far worse trauma, unwillingly and often at the risk of her life. Plus, just a moment ago she was efficiently and ruthlessly dispatching large numbers of wights on her own. So it's perplexing to see her go into a state of fear like this.
 |
| Arya Stark in the library with wights, during Battle of Winterfell, S8E3 |
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick - Cool? Or out of place? You decide.
#9. Rhaegal Falling to the Ground, but If He's Doesn't Die, Shouldn't He Have Been Swarmed by Wights...
...like Drogon was? Or did he take off but that wasn't shown? Or did he play dead? Is playing dead a valid strategy for dealing with wights?
Rhaegal disappeared from sight to have us surprised when showing him still alive in the next episode, only to then bring us back to the ground again with his "unexpected" death.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick
#10. Episode Being too Dark
This is a personal opinion. I wasn't too bothered by the episode being too dark, which I acknowledge it was. But Game of Thrones was always dark and full of terrors. You always had to dim the light in the room to watch it.
This was a deliberate choice made to help portray how the characters, submitted to those circumstances, would have experienced the battle. It would have been an extremely dark environment due to taking place during the night, maybe because of the magical weather effects accompanying the Night King, and, theoretically, for being Winter. I can get behind the cinematography choice, given it had at least some logic to it.
Honestly? I wish these were all the types of issues there were to Game of Thrones.
Grade: 0 - Unimportant
#11. Bran as the Target of the Night King
In the GoT's lore (or in the show at least) the Night King and the Three-Eyed Raven have a history together, mostly built-up in Bran's arc over time. It's established the two having fairly matching magical powers, making them a little like the king pieces on the chessboard the light-vs-dark magical battle. The Night King raises the dead to do his bidding, makes White Walkers, and has some control over the weather, apart from physical strength and, presumably, resistance (can only be destroyed in a certain way). His aim is presented as the extermination - and consumption - of all life.
The Three-Eyed Raven can access the memory of the world and past events, and can warg into animals and other beings, i.e. controlling without destroying them (in the books these powers are expanded further, such as him being able to skinchange into other animals). The Three-Eyed raven is the seer who watches over all, vowing for the existence of the world itself. His motivation is to protect life, and the memory of the world, beyond politics and power play.
 |
| Bran Stark being trained by his predecessor the Three-Eyed Raven (name unknown in the T.V. show) |
The Three-Eyed Raven and the Night King to some extent share each other's 'vision space', and can interact and affect each other from there. It's also established the Night King actively seeks the Three-Eyed Raven to kill him if he has the opportunity, leading us to believe they face each other as each other's mutual arch-nemesis. So, again, these two characters can be seen as the main opposing figures in the fight of light vs dark. They go beyond just two people duking it out: they literally represent absolute light and absolute dark in this world. The Night King surpasses (and is a representation of) death, so presumably is eternal and doesn't 'age' - and is eternally patient - while the Three-Eyed Raven both has some techniques that can prolong its lifetime, while also being carried on as a role, by having subsequent individuals taking over that mantle.
The Three-Eyed Raven may perhaps follow an unspoken "tradition" of being a character who's in some way impaired in mobility (inadvertently, or maybe not, representing the King piece in the chess board), Bran being in a wheelchair while the previous Three-Eyed Raven was infused in a tree - yet being free to roam the world with their vision, and in time as well. Both the Three-Eyed Raven and Night King in their own can surpass time and space, their perspectives, goals and objectives residing beyond the definitions of a single individual life perceived by a normal person.
However, by season 8 the show's Three-Eyed Raven wargs into flocks of ravens. And that's it.
Going by what the show's portraying about Bran, particularly in the last season, you're hard pressed to see Bran as someone able to affect, challenge, or threaten the Night King at all, in any way. You have to do the aforementioned mental exercise of abstracting from the current moment in the show, and focus on the previously built significance of the metaphorical aspects of the Three-Eyed Raven and the Night King, in order to remind yourself of each other's motivations. Because the show is doing nothing of the sort for you.
The reasoning given for the Night King wanting to go after Bran during the Battle of Winterfell is stated explicitly to the audience, and is almost purely symbolic/metaphorical: Bran is the memory of the World and the Night King wants to erase the world's memory. Plus, he's tried to do so before with other Three-Eyed-Ravens. But this dialogue is more or less added here to attempt to justify the premise of the Night King going after Bran. Yet absolutely nothing here implies or transmits neither a tangible, threatening factor from Bran to the Night King, nor anything justifying any particular sense of urgency for the Night King to go after Bran - and certainly not doing so while the battle is taking place. And definitely not to the extent the entirety of the battle plans and strategies revolve around getting to Bran.
In the context of a battle, Bran is extremely vulnerable. He's stranded in Winterfell, with nowhere to go. The only sense of urgency for the Night King would be the possibility of somehow letting Bran escape Winterfell during or after the battle. The only way this could take place, would be, maybe, for Bran to be taken by a dragon (?). Maybe. Otherwise, Bran is an immobile target that can be taken out at any point, provided the battle is lost by the living. The NK only has a realistic motivation to rush himself: if he thinks the battle may not be won, but he wants to take every opportunity he can get to get his hands on Bran. However, the show portrays the battle as being insurmountable for the living. Additionally, for the dead the battle is not won by defeating the opposing "king" (Bran); rather, the battle is won by the dead when everyone of the opposing side has fallen.
So that just leaves us with one other motivation left: the Night King's cockiness. The NK is presumably so full of himself, so dismissive of the living, that he exposes and risks his whole game plan just to enjoy a little piece of his cake, regardless of whatever else is happening around him.
 |
| A cocky Night King. |
Is Bran a Three-Eyed Raven in training, whose powers will eventually be able to be threaten the Night King in the future if he's left alive? Maybe - but the show says or conveys nothing of the sort. Is the Night King so frustrated and tired of chasing Three-Eyed-Ravens around across millennia that he's just obsessed over it, to the point of throwing all caution to the wind and seeking his own personal vendetta? Maybe - but the show never mentioned or implied the Night King was making his decisions in guiding his army specifically to go after Bran. The NK's main and sole goal and priority is to kill all of the living. This is what he was created for.
This is a wonky reasoning. If you go by the show alone, the reasons given as to why Bran is so important, and for the Night King's to prioritize him so much, and to the extent his caution is thrown out the window, are flimsy at best. Is the memory of the world going to matter anything if the dead are stampeding all over King's Landing? Will the survival of the Three-Eyed Raven matter anything at all, if the Night King kills everyone else? He's a thorn on the side, to be sure, but if the purpose is to kill all the living, and the Night King reaches a point where he can achieve that purpose, the Three-Eyed Raven's role failed and is moot, and he becomes a secondary, if juicy and satisfying, priority.
The battle is setup like a chess match with the Night King as the king of his side, and with Bran as having an equivalent importance on his - but that's precisely where it fails. Bran's value as a target is never really supported by what anything we see. The show is simply not doing a good enough job to portray why Bran is that crucial to the Night King. He may very well be - but we're asked to believe it is so, and not given much of a justification for it. This is, once more, a problem with the writing. The impression instead is "Bran is useless, yet all of the battle revolves around him". Nothing represents this better than having Bran randomly warging away during the battle, for no purpose or effect.
Grade: 3 - Problematic - This is a core element to the design of the battle, but also a crucial part of the lore and of the portrayal of two of the primary characters in the story, with perhaps the most impact on the Night King.
#12. The Night King Being Careless and Dramatic
This is a continuation of the previous point, and pertains to the idea of sustaining the entirety of the battle strategy on the premise the Night King wants to get to Bran (1) quickly and (2) by himself.
Even if the Night King's decision-making was focusing on Bran, and he was guiding his whole army up to where Bran was, plot-wise the Night King needed a reason to not be patient and wait, and instead show up and expose himself. Otherwise either we wouldn't have an episode, or, accepting the premise of the battle being that one-sided, the living would have zero chances of surviving or doing anything to the Night King. The alternative to defeat the army of the dead would be to just kill the entirety of the army (which, despite the show telling that's an impossible task, I can't help but think that could actually be feasible, if the living could just have made a few more logical choices for the battle: trench set up correctly, not throwing away the cavalry at the beginning, the two dragons used systematically, and so on). But anyway, knowing this is what the plot demanded, let's then go over the the justification given for the Night King to rush and expose himself.
The Night King was created in such a way he's the critical point of failure for his side: the King in the chessboard. He falls, everything he's ever worked for is automatically and instantly over.
If I'm the critical point of failure, and if I fall all my goals are instantly finished, regardless of how confident or arrogant I might be, I'm going to do everything in my power to stay the heck well clear and away from the action, no matter what it takes - especially if the enemy has weapons that can hypothetically take me down, in the specific way I can be taken down, making this particular enemy potentially dangerous. In these circumstances, if I'm ever going to expose myself and have things done by my own hands - which would be akin to using the King in the chessboard in an offensive role - I better have a damn good, strong reason to do so.
So is that reason present here?
The reasoning for the NK to walking up to Bran personally, with the battle still not over, essentially boils down to the NK being arrogant, confident, cocky. He's no longer treating the living as a threat. And this isn't entirely out of place, because Bran is the NK's arch-nemesis. But in the broad scheme of things, this is still wobbly reasoning.
His (stated) high value target, Bran, is a person in a wheelchair unable to fight or even flee. A single wight getting anywhere near Bran would end his life. A White Walker getting anywhere near Bran could do so as well. Wights have been previously close to getting to Bran (Hodor scene). Technically, the Night King could let everyone die to a wight avalanche and risk nothing - assuming the stated premise of the battle being impossible for the living. Alternatively, he could consider strafing the Dyrwood with Vyserion, as he seemed to have the chance to, having done it once to the front side of Winterfell (the Dyrwood isn't just impregnable to wights but also to dragons it seems). But if it really was important for the NK to take out Bran himself, he could leave Bran for last, and approach him when it was safe and no one else of the living was left standing, and cut him down himself, as he seems to favor doing.
Once the battle was won, with most of the dragonglass and Valyrian steel weapons out of the way (which makes this battle by far the most challenging one for the NK because of it) he could then raise thousands of dead from the fallen, and proceed to conquer the rest of the world easily, without any further significant challenge. Again, all of this is valid, if we are to believe the battle was going to be that one-sided.
You could argue that the Night King decided all of his actions as the battle progressed. That he decided to show himself and challenge the opposing dragons to lure them away so that they wouldn't do too much damage. And that when he got dismounted from Vyserion, he saw himself close to Bran and he made the decision to go to him on the spot. Fair enough. But this doesn't mean it was a given he had to. When he was on the ground, he could just as well go and raise grounded and helpless Rhaegal. He could have buggered off somewhere, and only show up later. My point being there's no logical reasoning to have designed the battle on the expectation the Night King would "have to" expose himself to go after Bran, during that battle.
It's just that this whole thing just feels out of character! That's not what the Night King is.
The NK is no longer human. He's something else entirely - or at least this is how the show built him. The Night King is essentially dark magic. He was made into a supernatural, inhuman force that doesn't speak, with purely evil motivations, representing something otherworldly and that transcends everything, including time, and death itself. The Night King is Ice: he's' cold, mysterious, ruthless, and calculating. He's utterly pragmatic. He's willing to wait hundreds of years until the conditions for his plan are met, without showing himself, or exposing himself to unfavorable circumstances, during that whole time. He spent countless years preparing and biding his time before attacking, until he was ready and he could.
 |
| The Night King |
So you're telling me the Night King is willing to risk it all because he's overconfident and wants to savor the moment? He's so overcome with his emotions that he just can't control himself? Now that he's built his army and crossed the wall, he "feels unstoppable". He's now a sassy Night King.
Is that it?
Is that what you're trying to sell here?
The Night King might have a purpose, and human-like emotions, but he's in a position of absolute power. The only aspect was at a disadvantage in the battle, was in dragon count. But even then, that's countered by his javelin-throwing skills, making him extremely dangerous to dragons, plus the fact he can't be killed by dragonfire. He was never in a position where he "had" to go after Bran.
The Night King wasn't coming to Winterfell for Bran. He wasn't searching the world for Bran. Nothing leads us to believe so. Bran wasn't his primary motivation. The NK was in the process of killing all who lived, and Winterfell was the next step of that warpath. Bran just so happened to be there, accompanying most of the forces of the living, which was just an added bonus. Bran was never the cake. He was, at most, the cherry on top of that cake.
The episode had a time limit - but the Night King didn't. HE could wait forever. The Night King had all the time in the world. He only rushed so that we could all be done with it within the limitations that were largely imposed by the writers. Consequently, all of this just resulted in one big contrivance, a rushing and forcing of things without much logic underneath. It was done simply for the sake of conducting the episodes how they were planned.
Even the NK needs to be acting out of character for this story to do something with itself.
Grade: 3 - Problematic - Relates with the previous point.
#13. The Night King Defeated in One Episode, and by Arya
While there was a specific justification for this, i.e. it was made in order to wrap up the series, surely you also understand this is not quite good enough from a story's point of view. This is why many reacted to this with some level of disbelief or incredulity.
I have nothing against the order by which villains - NK, Cersei - were handled. A faceless, ruthless, all-evil villain would unite all (or most) others to band together to defeat it, but later you'll still have to face each other once this common enemy is gone. The greatest enemy is not outside, but within: it's ourselves. So after we defeat the all-evil enemy, we're still going to have to deal with each other, i.e. with our own human nature. I get it. If they wanted to do this route, I have no qualms with it.
But the Nigh King's storyline took eight seasons to built and develop, including mythology, symbology, origin, past skirmishes, and some confrontations that always ended in oblivion for the living. The Night King and the White Walkers, the Big Bad beyond the wall, were always there in the show, in the background, alongside with all of its mythology. They were the boogeyman, the looming threat hovering over the horizon, threatening all who lived.
You can't have the Night King killed in one episode. And you can't have him killed by a magical ex machina that doesn't have anything to do with the mythology surrounding it. This can't be done to the scary big bad, and any self-respecting author would want to run from this like the plague. This also wasted the White Walkers themselves, fearsome and terror-inspiring fighters in their own right, who ended up being nothing but glorified background audience for the NK.
This is the same as cooking a perfect, elaborate meal for 12 hours, while having prepared and anticipated it for several more weeks before, for then to gulp the result in 2 seconds. Naturally you'll go: "wait, that was it?" It should be obvious why this shouldn't be done, without anyone having to trying to explain it or justifying why this should be that way. The threat is too difficult and too important to be dealt with so quickly, virtually in the first attempt. The threat is part of the world itself. The Night King and the White Walkers had two major confrontations with the main characters, one at Hardome, and one other when they went North to fetch a wight. But this was the first occasion the Night King broke down the Wall, had a dragon of his own, and his army was finally amassed and on the move.
 |
| Army of the dead breaching the Wall at Eastwatch, as seen on Game of Thrones seasion 7 finale, S7E7 |
Arya proving her mettle against such a primary threat was positive. It was satisfying to see her save the day, pulling off on the Night King the move she had used when sparring with Brienne (even if she used rule-breaking teleportation to do so). This accomplishment brought recognition for Arya, which was mentioned superficially, and probably could have been explored further to give the character validation and acknowledgment from others. But this fame is somewhat brushed off by Arya herself, who's always out of the limelight and planning to leave in the end. The reason Arya isn't comfortable with this notoriety, was because being famous is a bit of a contrivance with her desire for freedom and her identity as a stealth assassin. The type of fame she garnered for killing the Night King is in conflict with her character. This conflict could hypothetically be picked up upon by an astute show with a story to tell. But, instead it is largely ignored and not picked upon. We're about to end, so we won't be expanding further on characters' arcs
This leaves us with the fact that the Night King was not the best target for Arya, and vice-versa. Having Arya taking out the Night King, while certainly climatic and rewarding, was not the best fit for either one of them.
Then, if not Arya, who else could, and should, have killed the Night King?
Bran! Or at least, having him play a pivotal role in the battle and in its conclusion, because that's what he's meant to do. The Three-Eyed Raven is meant to be the direct opposing force to the Night King. Jon was also a contender to be involved somehow, since he's been spearheading the fight against the dead, and had direct contact with the Night King, and has had stare-downs with him before, twice.
Bran should have been shown doing something tangible and practical with his powers for his side for the battle, and throughout its duration. For starters, Bran should have informed everyone (explicitly, for the audience) that the Night King could only be killed with a Valyrian steel weapon to the chest. The way the show handled this was acting upon it but only implicitly, never mentioning how to kill the Night King. Then, Bran needed to use his available powers during the battle for meaningful purpose. He needed to constitute a tangible, practical threat to the Night King - this is how you had managed to convince us the Night King needed to come for Bran to make sure the battle would be won! Bran needed to have powers, and be shown using them, and constitute a credible threat to the NK. He could provide information of the NK's whereabouts, predict the his plans and anticipate his actions during the battle, seek him out and then warg into the dragons to have them gang up on the Night King's dragon. He could be shown messing with the NK in his 'vision space', for once, to get back at him. If you didn't want Jon to kill the NK and be a traditional hero, you could have Bran warg into someone with a Valyrian weapon, and have Bran, through another character, kill the NK.
Instead of having Bran basically be a glorified helpless cake for the NK, with no useful powers and no actual effect in the battle, thus giving the HK no essential reason to go after him so carelessly. You had Arya progress leaps and bounds in her skills from season 6 to season 7, by having her - relatively inexplicably, but with strong cool factor nonetheless - somehow acquire elite dueling skills, ninja stealth, and teleportation, essentially making her an assassin superhero. But for Bran, you gradually reduced him to twirling his eyes.
In all fairness, in S8E3, the Battle of Winterfell made the most out of the army of the dead. Throughout the episode the tension and uncertainty levels were through the roof. The threat of the dead was stretched to its maximum, released only by the climactic ending, when losing everything all but looked certain. Still, even acknowledging this, after all it's said and done we still end up with the same feeling: was that it? He's gone? For good? Is the NK not going to show up again at the end?
We come down once again to the fact the series had to be closed in season 8, and in six episodes. This is the primary restraint that resulted in this treatment of the show's Big Bad. But the army of the dead wasn't just "one enemy". It was a vast, looming terror threatening the world. This aspect of the show quite simply deserved better.
 |
| The King is dead. Long live the dead. |
Grade: 3 - Problematic - The threat of the Night King was a major part of the show as a whole. It isn't higher because the battle itself is treated with respect, and does what it needed to do.
#14. Armies "Half Remain" / Troops Spawning out if Thin Air from One Episode to the Next
No. Just, no.
 |
| A shot at the end of the Battle of Winterfell (S8E3). Does it look like an army survived to you? |
In the end of the battle of Winterfell (S8E3) we're shown only a handful people still left alive, standing in the middle of piles of corpses, seen over multiple shots and angles. The battle was won, barely, from the brink of complete oblivion. Almost no one is left standing (or are we not being shown other parts of the battle?). Then, in the next episode (S8E4) the surviving characters are seen at the battle map stating that half of their armies survived.
Where did all those people come from? Were they buried under the piles of corpses? Were they all hiding in Winterfell's basement? Were they stored in some multidimensional space? The writers in the behind the scenes video even say "that's essentially the end of the Dothraki" about their charge at the beginning of the battle. So which is it?
I get it that in order for the plot to make sense further down the road, you need Dany to still have a considerable number of soldiers. But if you want a portion of the army to survive, then write it that way! Don't just go from showing a desperate, critical situation where very few survived and were lucky to have done so, to then jump to have thousands more troops marching and standing in formation in the next episodes! The fact that you've setup characters to explicitly count the remaining soldiers on screen this on-screen, is because you knew this would always come across as unbelievable, and was meant to alleviate that perception.
Grade: 5 - Dracarys! - Turns the show into a cartoon.
#15. Gendry "Rivers" Vs "Waters"
Gendry had been an unacknowledged bastard, so he was a "common person" with no last name - at least, that had been refered to by the show. If Gendry did have a last name, it would have been more likely/predictable that this would have been "Waters", as that's the bastard name used in the Crownlands (Baratheon). "Rivers" is the bastard's name used in the Riverlands (Tully). In any case, he only found out about who his father was through Melisandre, and would only have used, chosen, and/or referred to himself by such name, past that point.
The name Rivers does exist for bastards born in the Riverlands, so hypothetically it would have been something of a possibility for Gendry to have used or adopted the name, if being somewhat of a stretch. However nothing in the show mentions any of it, instead putting it out there without any further references, thus leaving the matter unclear.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick
#16. Coffee Cups and Water Bottles
Throughout 8 seasons of this show there were virtually no other mistakes of note of this kind. These types of small mistakes happen in movies and television, even after a few cycles of revision and editing. A couple of real-world bottles and cups is not important.
The only thing is that these things were a reflection of the major underlying issues with the show. You could say that Game of Thrones was quickly fading before our eyes, and these things were a 'physical', if you will, aspect to that.
Grade: 0 - Unimportant
#17. Dany Legitimizing Another Heir to the Throne
On first glance, this makes some sense, since you're legitimizing a house leader that then becomes allied to you. Gendry Baratheon becomes head of his house with Dany in power.
On the other hand, you're also directly legitimizing an heir to the ruling family - not just the one currently still technically sitting on the throne (Baratheon), but the one that usurped the throne from your family through armed conflict. So what you're actually doing, is making a heir that intrinsically has as much claim to the throne than yourself - which might have been a bastard, but nevertheless by your choice becomes fully legitimized once you ascend to power. Meaning you're potentially creating even more problems for your own claim, if not immediately at some point in the future. When you're already struggling with another person already having a stronger claim than your own!
Even if Dany thinks that way, being a Targaryen isn't a divine dispensation to rule over others. You have a claim because at one point your family ruled. But that means that if you're Baratheon, you have as much claim, if not more, than a Targaryen. Basically Dany was declaring herself an usurper to a new rightful heir. Only plausible if she's by this point so convinced of her destiny that she doesn't see another house's claim standing to her own.
Dany then comments with Tyrion (but also explicitly stating it to the audience) "See? I can be just as clever as you are." At that point, the only possibility to handle the contrivance would be to mention it, and justify or subvert why this wouldn't be a problem. But that doesn't happen. This is simply played straight, completely ignoring this intrinsic conflict that was created.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - More important than it looks. Dany is supposed to be caught up with her claim to the throne, and this is adding fuel to that fire - yet it's completely ignored and played straight. It's possible that being legitimized as Baratheon is fanservice for Gendry. Nothing against it, but needed to be brought about in a more logical manner.
#18. Jon's Heritage Taken as Fact Very Easily
Those closer to Jon (Sansa, Arya) would believe this right away without doubt, since it was coming from Sam and Bran. However, anyone not close to the Starks would have at least questioned the authenticity of the claim. These would include mainly Dany, Tyrion, and Varys, but, virtually everyone else.
No supporting justification was given for this claim to be taken by others as truth, at least as easily as they did. It was a reasonable, pertinent doubt at most. The only thing that could maybe be proved beyond doubt, would be Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark having married legally. But Jon being their son, while plausible, would be a suspicion, a hypothesis. It would be natural for others to wonder, for example, if this was a rumor being spread by the Starks as a power play, for them to get nearer to the throne, and/or to undermine Dany's claim and influence over Jon. Yet, as soon as everyone knows this, it is simply accepted as truth.
This natural suspicion is shown only once, coming from Dany, before the battle of Winterfell, when she hears it for the first time. She naturally and understandably asks Jon if he doesn't find strange that such an important claim is conveniently coming from his brother and best friend. However, all doubts are seemingly cast away with Jon's reply "I know it to be true Dany". And that's it. At which point they are interrupted by the battle itself, and when they come back to it, Dany seems to be on board with it being true (even if it was a challenge to her). And so does everyone else from then on when they listen to it.
This being accepted so easily by everyone was due to the time constraints of the story. Would come across as marginally more believable to the viewer had Bran's authenticity as a powerful Three-Eyed Raven been established, with him having had major influence in the battle for the living. Jon being able to ride a dragon could constitute proof he's a Targaryen, if we consider only Targaryens can ride dragons. However such 'rule' is never stated explicitly in the show. Dragons having special bonds with Targaryens is something that is only ever treated implicitly.
On the other hand, in the end Jon's heritage ends up not being that relevant, as he's cast away to the North once again. It served mostly to create tension between Jon and Dany and add pressure that would help her 'snap'.
Would have been better handled if the doubt had been allowed to creep in and brew, in a longer story told over more episodes. Dany wins the battle of King's Landing from Cersei, but then over time the doubt over Jon's heritage starts to set in as she sits on the throne, slowly undermining her claim to it.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick - Forced contrivance to steer the plot towards where it needed to go. Was handled with just enough subtlety so that in the end, all things considered, this detail became relatively passable and peripheral.
#19. Bronn Casually Waltzing Through Winterfell with a Crossbow
Seems implausible, or at least difficult, for Bronn to be have been able to pass through the gates of Winterfell, ninja his way trough the castle, and find the precise room Jaime and Tyrion were in, without being halted, or at least raising some eyebrows or being asked questions, especially with that crossbow in tow - either coming, or in the process of leaving. It's not outright impossible, of course, but as soon as you see him in Winterfell, you're left wondering how he managed to pull it off. Almost felt a stage actor walking onto set in a play, rather than a person walking into a room in a lived-in environment.
I could go at some length to try to come up with possible ways on how this could happen, but in all honesty, the show had to explain that for me, not let me to my own devices to try to guess.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick
 |
| Daenerys Targaryen with Unsullied and Dothraki troops at King's Landing, as seen on Game of Thrones' final episode (S8E6) |
Grade: 5 - Dracarys! - Turns the show into a cartoon.
#15. Gendry "Rivers" Vs "Waters"
Gendry had been an unacknowledged bastard, so he was a "common person" with no last name - at least, that had been refered to by the show. If Gendry did have a last name, it would have been more likely/predictable that this would have been "Waters", as that's the bastard name used in the Crownlands (Baratheon). "Rivers" is the bastard's name used in the Riverlands (Tully). In any case, he only found out about who his father was through Melisandre, and would only have used, chosen, and/or referred to himself by such name, past that point.
The name Rivers does exist for bastards born in the Riverlands, so hypothetically it would have been something of a possibility for Gendry to have used or adopted the name, if being somewhat of a stretch. However nothing in the show mentions any of it, instead putting it out there without any further references, thus leaving the matter unclear.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick
#16. Coffee Cups and Water Bottles
Throughout 8 seasons of this show there were virtually no other mistakes of note of this kind. These types of small mistakes happen in movies and television, even after a few cycles of revision and editing. A couple of real-world bottles and cups is not important.
The only thing is that these things were a reflection of the major underlying issues with the show. You could say that Game of Thrones was quickly fading before our eyes, and these things were a 'physical', if you will, aspect to that.
Grade: 0 - Unimportant
#17. Dany Legitimizing Another Heir to the Throne
On first glance, this makes some sense, since you're legitimizing a house leader that then becomes allied to you. Gendry Baratheon becomes head of his house with Dany in power.
On the other hand, you're also directly legitimizing an heir to the ruling family - not just the one currently still technically sitting on the throne (Baratheon), but the one that usurped the throne from your family through armed conflict. So what you're actually doing, is making a heir that intrinsically has as much claim to the throne than yourself - which might have been a bastard, but nevertheless by your choice becomes fully legitimized once you ascend to power. Meaning you're potentially creating even more problems for your own claim, if not immediately at some point in the future. When you're already struggling with another person already having a stronger claim than your own!
Even if Dany thinks that way, being a Targaryen isn't a divine dispensation to rule over others. You have a claim because at one point your family ruled. But that means that if you're Baratheon, you have as much claim, if not more, than a Targaryen. Basically Dany was declaring herself an usurper to a new rightful heir. Only plausible if she's by this point so convinced of her destiny that she doesn't see another house's claim standing to her own.
Dany then comments with Tyrion (but also explicitly stating it to the audience) "See? I can be just as clever as you are." At that point, the only possibility to handle the contrivance would be to mention it, and justify or subvert why this wouldn't be a problem. But that doesn't happen. This is simply played straight, completely ignoring this intrinsic conflict that was created.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - More important than it looks. Dany is supposed to be caught up with her claim to the throne, and this is adding fuel to that fire - yet it's completely ignored and played straight. It's possible that being legitimized as Baratheon is fanservice for Gendry. Nothing against it, but needed to be brought about in a more logical manner.
#18. Jon's Heritage Taken as Fact Very Easily
Those closer to Jon (Sansa, Arya) would believe this right away without doubt, since it was coming from Sam and Bran. However, anyone not close to the Starks would have at least questioned the authenticity of the claim. These would include mainly Dany, Tyrion, and Varys, but, virtually everyone else.
No supporting justification was given for this claim to be taken by others as truth, at least as easily as they did. It was a reasonable, pertinent doubt at most. The only thing that could maybe be proved beyond doubt, would be Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark having married legally. But Jon being their son, while plausible, would be a suspicion, a hypothesis. It would be natural for others to wonder, for example, if this was a rumor being spread by the Starks as a power play, for them to get nearer to the throne, and/or to undermine Dany's claim and influence over Jon. Yet, as soon as everyone knows this, it is simply accepted as truth.
This natural suspicion is shown only once, coming from Dany, before the battle of Winterfell, when she hears it for the first time. She naturally and understandably asks Jon if he doesn't find strange that such an important claim is conveniently coming from his brother and best friend. However, all doubts are seemingly cast away with Jon's reply "I know it to be true Dany". And that's it. At which point they are interrupted by the battle itself, and when they come back to it, Dany seems to be on board with it being true (even if it was a challenge to her). And so does everyone else from then on when they listen to it.
This being accepted so easily by everyone was due to the time constraints of the story. Would come across as marginally more believable to the viewer had Bran's authenticity as a powerful Three-Eyed Raven been established, with him having had major influence in the battle for the living. Jon being able to ride a dragon could constitute proof he's a Targaryen, if we consider only Targaryens can ride dragons. However such 'rule' is never stated explicitly in the show. Dragons having special bonds with Targaryens is something that is only ever treated implicitly.
On the other hand, in the end Jon's heritage ends up not being that relevant, as he's cast away to the North once again. It served mostly to create tension between Jon and Dany and add pressure that would help her 'snap'.
Would have been better handled if the doubt had been allowed to creep in and brew, in a longer story told over more episodes. Dany wins the battle of King's Landing from Cersei, but then over time the doubt over Jon's heritage starts to set in as she sits on the throne, slowly undermining her claim to it.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick - Forced contrivance to steer the plot towards where it needed to go. Was handled with just enough subtlety so that in the end, all things considered, this detail became relatively passable and peripheral.
#19. Bronn Casually Waltzing Through Winterfell with a Crossbow
Seems implausible, or at least difficult, for Bronn to be have been able to pass through the gates of Winterfell, ninja his way trough the castle, and find the precise room Jaime and Tyrion were in, without being halted, or at least raising some eyebrows or being asked questions, especially with that crossbow in tow - either coming, or in the process of leaving. It's not outright impossible, of course, but as soon as you see him in Winterfell, you're left wondering how he managed to pull it off. Almost felt a stage actor walking onto set in a play, rather than a person walking into a room in a lived-in environment.
I could go at some length to try to come up with possible ways on how this could happen, but in all honesty, the show had to explain that for me, not let me to my own devices to try to guess.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick
#20. Dany Being "Ambushed" at Sea and When up in the Air / Euron's Ultra-Accurate Sniping Bolts
Quite silly, as there's no way to miss a group of ships approaching at sea in clear weather, especially when you have an aerial view of your surroundings. Done purely for shock value, but without making any sense, in any way. In Game of Thrones later seasons, moving by sea counts as fast-travel - unless you get ambushed by another fleet.
First, you feel for Rhaegal - as the authors intended to. Then, you realize this was just silly, as it would be impossible to be ambushed by ships at sea. Also, scorpion shots aren't portrayed as being consistently that accurate, at least enough to land three solid hits repeatedly on a flying target. So you then realize you've been tricked by the writers into going though feels, and cheaply to boot. The technical term for this is 'bullshit'.
 |
| Daenerys Targaryen riding Drogon, overlooking Euron's fleet after having been 'ambushed' by them, S8E4. In this shot it's clear the opposing fleet is easily visible from the air. |
Grade: 4 - Absurd - The more you stop to think about this, the less sense it makes, and the less forgivable it becomes. But don't stop to think for too long, because you might get ambushed by the Iron Fleet.
#21. Dany "Kind of Forgot" the Iron Fleet!
When assessing the attack on Cersei on the battle map, Varys points out that the Golden Company had arrived on King's Landing, courtesy of the Greyjoy fleet. So they knew for a fact the Iron Fleet was there. This statement by the writers is not exactly true.
What could maybe be argued here - and perhaps a bit more logically that this rather unfortunate statement - was that Dany did not expect ships at sea to threaten her in any way, because of her dragons. It also didn't occur to her scorpions being mounted on ships, as this was a complete novelty. As a result she could have underestimated Cersei, and not be cautious enough.
I find completely plausible for Dany to be caught off-guard by scorpions mounted on ships, because that was unexpected. Countless battles in the real world were won out of the surprise effect, when one side had an idea before the other. And even if Dany had foreseen something of the sort, it would be debatable if scorpions were that much of a threat. Why? Because they wouldn't be expected to be that accurate shooting a flying target and from that distance - as was later 'proven' in Drogon's attack on King's Landing. And because, you know, how can a fleet get close enough at sea without you noticing?!
You could very well argue is that Dany needed to be more cautious simply because of the presence of a hostile fleet of unknown whereabouts, and not doing so was a glaring mistake. Even if (by logic) an enemy fleet could be detected by day and dealt with by dragons, they could still pose a threat by night, for example. Having said that, I still consider Dany's lack of care as plausible, understandable even.
The bulk of implausibility here is not so much Dany being forgetful, or not being careful enough, rather it's the scorpions being impossibly accurate on Rhaegal, and Euron's fleet somehow getting close to Dany's unnoticed. The severity of this point really comes down to the statement of the writers as it recorded in the behind-the-scenes video, which is justifying Dany's carelessness with a reason that is somewhat lacking in care and attention itself.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick - Statement aside, this situation carries both a lack of precaution that is highly objectionable, but also a somewht legitimate thought process from Dany, who would not expect an enemy fleet at sea to pose a threat of any kind to her.
#22. Drogon Can't Handle 11 Ships and Has to Back Away, Then Breezes Through Hundreds
In one episode three bolts are hyper-accurate to kill Rhaegal, on the next all the bolts in the world are useless against Drogon. In one episode Drogon can't handle a few ships and needs to back away, on the next easily proceeds to torch hundreds of them.
A few attenuating factors here. Drogon is maybe supposed to be stronger and healthy, while Raeghal is weakened, slower, and without a rider. So Raeghal would be flying slower and lower, and be that much easier to hit. The show does make a point of setting this premise, by showing Rhaegal struggling to take off. Drogon is supposedly better at avoiding all the bolts because he's healthy and he's being flown by Dany. Dany being ambushed by Euron caught her by surprise, but this gave her time to formulate a plan of attack and commit to it.
However, going into this much level of detail just feels as a convoluted way to justify the fact that dragons are either invulnerable or are bolt magnets according to what the plot demands.
 |
| Daenerys Targaryen riding Drogon attacking fleet outside King's Landing, S8E5 |
Grade: 4 - Absurd - Consistency is broken, cheaply, to serve the main plot.
#23. Caricature/Out of Character/Back to Square One Character: Bronn...
...mercenary-ing at face value at Winterfell, forcing something from Jaime and Tyrion when they can (in theory) take it away from him easily. Or simply lie to him just to talk themselves out of the immediate situation - which is totally what is implied Tyrion is doing "yes yes, you'll have Highgarden". But then, becoming Master of Coin and the actual Lord of Highgarden.
The scene at Winterfell felt ad-hoc. Bronn is a cutthroat mercenary, but this was played at face value, as if we'd never seen the character before (i.e. enters the scene, "cutthroat mercenary #1"), and having the character behaving in an unnecessarily antagonizing manner. If you're a mercenary walking into enemy territory, and you want to negotiate who pays you higher, would you be threatening your potential employees like this, especially since you knew them? Even with the intention to negotiate his price, Bronn would be using his crossbow mostly in a defensive stance, to parley while under the bidding of the enemy, to avoid being imprisoned or caught.
Not just this, but then having him get what he wanted in the end, again at face value, without any apparent resentment from Tyrion, or risk of being antagonized or betrayed for it.
These scenes with Bronn didn't have to be done this way at all, and I still don't understand the choices involved in them - other than Bronn's ending being likely about fanservice.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing
Not just this, but then having him get what he wanted in the end, again at face value, without any apparent resentment from Tyrion, or risk of being antagonized or betrayed for it.
These scenes with Bronn didn't have to be done this way at all, and I still don't understand the choices involved in them - other than Bronn's ending being likely about fanservice.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing
#24. Caricature/Out of Character/Back to Square One Character: Varys...
...openly discussing treason with Tyrion, but especially Jon.
Plausible if you think he was anticipating the burning of King's Landing, and was willing to go all out, put his own life on the line, to prevent it from happening. Also, with the little time it was given to the character, the show did invest in showing him sending out notes, and possibly implying a poisoning attempt of Dany. None of these went anywhere though.
Still, could there be a way for old Varys to carry this out - and maybe still get killed if the plot demanded it - but without blurting out betrayal like this? Another character becoming exaggerated because the show had to come to an end.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - Varys is trying to stop the burning of King's Landing. The desperation of the attempt allows some leeway for this contrivance, even if the show simply just wanted him dead before the end.
Still, could there be a way for old Varys to carry this out - and maybe still get killed if the plot demanded it - but without blurting out betrayal like this? Another character becoming exaggerated because the show had to come to an end.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - Varys is trying to stop the burning of King's Landing. The desperation of the attempt allows some leeway for this contrivance, even if the show simply just wanted him dead before the end.
#25. Caricature/Out of Character/Back to Square One Character: Jaime...
...going back to Cercei.
Let's say, for a moment, you want to portray Jaime not changing how he feels, despite all he's been through. You want to make the audience believe he's found a new way, but then he goes back to old Jaime, subverting... you know, the audience's expectations.
Even the way this is achieved is lackluster. Jaime makes the decision to leave the North when he hears news that Cercei had the jump on Dany. So any notion he's leaving the North for his feelings for Cersei is diluted, because what it looks like is that he's making a choice to avoid being affiliated with the losing side. Did this mean Jaime remains selfish and self-centered, fighting for survival, on top of his feelings for Cersei? Or was this simply because Jamie was reminded of his sister just by hearing others talking about her? So, he had forgotten about Cersei? This was handled in a disjointed and sudden manner, resulting in a shoddy and disappointing outcome, not just because of the character's choice in-story, but also because of how the whole thing was portrayed.
However, the background decision to throw away the entirety of Jaime's arc and going back to Cersei is debatable and can be contested on the grounds it just isn't a meaningful. Choices in life aren't always meaningful, of course - but writing a fictional story should follow some meaning. In particular, Jaime's arc of redemption and corresponding message were especially important to the story. The character came a very long way since he the smug, vain, self at the beginning. Throwing away his arc is dismissing the broader intentions the story had, and instead doing things just for the sake of surprising the audience, but without meaning. As a result, his ending comes across as meaningless.
One other detail that truly stands out as particularly shocking, in a sense perhaps even more than Jaime's arc, is him saying, "I never really cared about others, innocent or otherwise" (S8E5) - when Jaime was the Kingslayer to save innocent civilians of King's Landing. This statement was a flat out error. Apparently Jaime not just regressed as a character, but he went back to some place before the show even started, or to one he'd never been before.
 |
| Jaime Lannister opens up to Brienne of Tarth on how he became the Kingslayer, hot baths scene, Game of Thrones, S3E5 |
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - This one is subjective, depending on how you weight Jaime's arc being thrown away. In particular, Jaime saying he never cared for the innocents is a serious flaw, as it is in direct contradiction with one of the core premises the show had originally built. Unless this was the old, before-losing-hand, cocky Jaime for some reason posturing to Tyrion while imprisoned, which would still be a regression.
#26. Caricature/Out of Character/Back to Square One Character: Tyrion....
...never able to pull off a single clever/effective decision, once there was no more surce material for him.
This might sound harsh. It could be argued it was the first time Tyrion was outside the context of his family, advising someone not related to that more familiar scenario, and in trying to become accomplished and prove himself, he failed at everything he tried to do. The show lessens this somewhat by being self-aware (although it's still not an excuse): it is mentioned in the finale explicitly, where Tyrion says he's not going to be King because he thought he was right, but always ended up being wrong.
The issue is that this character was supposed to be about smarts: the ability to use his intellect, out of the necessity to devise ways to cope with, and overcome, the obstacles and difficulties of his life and of a world that rejected him. But from the moment Tyrion left King's Landing this trait was less and less effectively explored, used, or conveyed - even if it was regularly alluded to. As the seasons advanced Tyrion was largely simplified, and perhaps somewhat converted, into a character whose primary focus and attribute was compassion for the population of King's Landing and for his siblings. This simplification felt largely as an injustice to a character who had such a long and troubled arc, and went through so much ordeal and difficult choices.
This might sound harsh. It could be argued it was the first time Tyrion was outside the context of his family, advising someone not related to that more familiar scenario, and in trying to become accomplished and prove himself, he failed at everything he tried to do. The show lessens this somewhat by being self-aware (although it's still not an excuse): it is mentioned in the finale explicitly, where Tyrion says he's not going to be King because he thought he was right, but always ended up being wrong.
The issue is that this character was supposed to be about smarts: the ability to use his intellect, out of the necessity to devise ways to cope with, and overcome, the obstacles and difficulties of his life and of a world that rejected him. But from the moment Tyrion left King's Landing this trait was less and less effectively explored, used, or conveyed - even if it was regularly alluded to. As the seasons advanced Tyrion was largely simplified, and perhaps somewhat converted, into a character whose primary focus and attribute was compassion for the population of King's Landing and for his siblings. This simplification felt largely as an injustice to a character who had such a long and troubled arc, and went through so much ordeal and difficult choices.
 |
| Tyrion Lannister's trial with Tywin Lannister in background, S4E6 |
When Tyrion finally did put forth meaningful reasoning with tangible impact right near the end of the show, he served only to speak on behalf of the show's authors explicitly explaining plot points to the audience, and to justify the choices leading up to the new King, which itself came across as fairly bland and unconvincing.
Kudos to the moment Tyrion says to Jamie he was the only one who didn't treat him like a monster and they embrace. This was truly touching and well written. This scene was a throwback to Jaime liberating Tyrion from prison so he could escape King's Landing.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing
#27. Caricature/Out of Character/Back to Square One Character: Bran...
...has a fair share of powers as the Three-eyed Raven, namely access to knowledge of everything that ever happened, but also of warging into other beings and even people. However, by the end of the series Bran's reduced to just warging into flocks of ravens - or simply flipping his eyes while not doing much at all. Even when those skills could hypothetically be very helpful, such as in the Battle of Winterfell for example.
More on Bran later.
 |
| Bran Startk witnessing the wedding of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark using his vision (S7E7) |
Grade: 2 - Disappointing (Excluding Bran's ending) - Bran is, or should be, a central character, with whom the show had spent significant screen time to portray him becoming the Three-Eyed Raven. Sadly he was always severely misused in the final season, other than being bait for the Night King. Presumably the series didn't want to excessively bank on his abilities so that he would grow overpowered, so he was largely made into a bland, detached, inconsequential figure instead. Unfortunately, this meant all of the investment the show made on him was simply ignored.
#28. Caricature/Out of Character/Back to Square One Character: Jon
Jon's participation in the last season is largely reduced to running, fighting and yelling, and answering to everything with "I don't want it", and "she's my queen". Even after Dany burning King's Landing, when Jon is speaking with Tyrion who's imprisoned, he's still defending her on the grounds she's the Queen.
I'm exaggerating and being overly simplistic. But so was Jon's portrayal.
This is partially done to subvert expectations, but also to not add up to Jon's already significant list of achievements, which would later press that much more on his claim to the Throne.
More on Jon later.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick (Excluding Jon's ending) - Jon's monotone portrayal wasn't necessarily severe on its own, because Jon had achieved quite a lot already by the time this season arrives. He was a central character, aligned with Dany's forces, and would therefore always be at the forefront of proceedings, but not necessarily delivering the final blow in every situation, also as there were so many other main characters alongside him. His role in major events depended on where the plot wanted to go with him. Unfortunately, Jon being portrayed in this uni-dimensional tone and not having major impact during the season - apart from riding Rhaegal during the battle of Winterfell, and, of course, Dany's death - was a sign of things to come.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick (Excluding Jon's ending) - Jon's monotone portrayal wasn't necessarily severe on its own, because Jon had achieved quite a lot already by the time this season arrives. He was a central character, aligned with Dany's forces, and would therefore always be at the forefront of proceedings, but not necessarily delivering the final blow in every situation, also as there were so many other main characters alongside him. His role in major events depended on where the plot wanted to go with him. Unfortunately, Jon being portrayed in this uni-dimensional tone and not having major impact during the season - apart from riding Rhaegal during the battle of Winterfell, and, of course, Dany's death - was a sign of things to come.
#29. Caricature/Out of Character/Back to Square One Character: The Hound
While it's not always clear what makes the character tick, unlike the last season's writing would have you believe, the Hound's sole purpose in life was not to obtain revenge from his brother. However this is set this up by having the Hound say only one thing would make him happy (his revenge), which was done solely to promote Cleganebowl.
The only other reference to the idea was his brief interaction with his brother at the dragonpit the season before. But apart from this reference, such an objective wasn't present in the Hound's mind as a pressing matter up until that point, such as for example the hit list was for Arya.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick
#30. Jon Not Saying Goodbye to Ghost (S8E4)
Ghost was beside Jon all the way throughout the show and much of his arc, and was next to him when he died. Would Jon's character feel in such a way for Ghost that he didn't go to pet him when leaving him, just broodingly stare?
The real issue here was that this wasn't a choice made for the story. It wasn't because of "being more powerful that way", as the writers claim. It was because of the fabled CGI costs. But, even the pretext of "CGI costs" actually means little: what it actually represents, is priority: the Direwolves were never a priority for them to invest in. Or, to put it more simply: they didn't care. Then, Jon also seemed to not care - as much as he "should", or he would be expected to.
The authors probably were thinking Jon was going back to the North in the end, and would maybe see Ghost there. They may or may not have edited in the Ghost petting scene of the last episode. But none of these are really valid excuses for this.
The authors would have been searching for points of connection with the audience, for said audience to hold their investment in the story. The Direwolves in general, and Ghost in particular, were a blatant opportunity to do exactly that, one that ironically just completely went over the writer's heads right until the end.
 |
| Ghost with Jon, S6E1 |
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - Quite rough because of consistency and the "feels" factor.
#31. The Sea Is a Fuzzy Space Where Anything Can Happen (If the Plot Demands It)
Much of Dany's forces and entourage survive and carry on after being ambushed by Euron's fleet, but Missandei is cherry-picked to be taken hostage by Cersei. Presumably this would something to do with her being told to go to the dinghy by Grey Worm?
Euron is bloodthirsty, and a maniac. If Euron's fleet had the jump on Dany's and clearly overpowered them as it seems to be portrayed, wouldn't he have closed down on the survivors and eliminated them? Or was it an even skirmish instead? Dany's entourage (and apparently her troops) seem to all survive and reach shore more or less safely, except for Missandei.
In this ambush Tyrion is apparently about to be hit by a mast falling towards him, then we cut away, and in the next shot he's unharmed, arriving at the beach (magical off-screen time).
The ambush itself can be included here.
During the battle of King's Landing, Euron just happens to swim to the precise spot, with the precise timing, when and where Jaime was arriving at the Red Keep, him and no-one else, conveniently setting up a fight between them. On this note, their fight comes across as forced, based only on the grounds of Euron's character being a bloodthirsty maniac and disliking Jaime's competition.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing
#32. Cersei Wants Tyrion Dead - She Commits to this by Sending Bronn to Assassinate Them - so It's Questionable for Her to Halt the Archers at the Walls
Cersei may have wanted to hear what Tyrion had to say as envoy of Dany. But she could easily have given the order to shoot Tyrion, along with killing Missandei, after the parley was done and over - in fact this was a perfect opportunity to do so. Cersei had "halted" when facing the possibility of killing Tyrion before, the last time they met. To see her do so twice, and after having decided to have him killed, comes across as not the most natural option, therefore forced. Unless the scene with Bronn being hired to assassinate the Lannister brothers is the piece of this puzzle that shouldn't be there instead...
It is also difficult to watch this scene and not think that Cersei could, and would, simply shoot Dany and her Unsullied committee out of existence, right then and there, given the amount of firepower she had on the walls. The reason we're thinking this, is because we're expecting to see realism from the show, as we'd originally been accustomed to.
 |
| Daenerys Targaryen and committee standing outside King's Landing to parley with Cersey, with Drogon in background (S8E4) |
As the ruthless and conniving daughter to the person who ordered the red wedding, it would actually be quite fitting for Cersei to attempt this, or at least be tempted to. That would be character development. If Dany's life ended at that moment, the war would have pretty much been over, or at least it was the single most important enemy figure taken out. One reasonable explanation for Cersei's restraint, both for Dany and for Tyrion, could maybe be the possibility of Drogon retaliating, if Dany came under attack. Or maybe you can say Dany was out of range of the archers and scorpions on the walls - but, no she wasn't. In any case, this respectful etiquette in the exchange was played straight, with the possibility seemingly never crossing Cersei's mind (that we can infer).
On a side note, the amount of Unsullied soldiers seen on screen is just about the maximum number of soldiers I would have expected to have survived the Battle of Winterfell, tops. If that was the case, then this would have been a realistic scene, possibly used to portray how much Dany had lost in the North, and how much in the back foot she was in comparison to Cersei. Alas, we see in further episodes that this is not the case - Dany has thousands more of Unsullied troops (spawned out of nowhere).
If this scene was meant to drive home the idea Dany's numbers are depleted, and have the audience believe Cersei has a fighting chance, then that's a double sin, because that's achieved at the expense of the writers breaking the rules once again in the next episodes, both by creating thousands of Unsullied appear out of nowhere, and also by having Dany evading a million bolts with her dragon, single-handedly making the battle a no-contest. In other words, if there was this intention, it was carried out by outright cheating the audience.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick - By this point the continued piling up of incongruousness one after the next makes each new issue feel as more and more detrimental, as the show stumbles its way towards its end. Still, this is certainly not as serious if compared to some other things.
#33. Euron Ignoring Tyrion Knew Cersei Was Pregnant...
...without even questioning it. Ignored for the convenience of the plot "i.e. Euron is just crazy and he's not paying attention". But doing no favors to logic.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick
#34. The Crew in Euron's Ship are Supposed to Be Mutes
They seem to speak just fine.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick
#35. Lannister Soldier Saying "Fire" When Shooting a Scorpion
Gunpowder doesn't exist, so the word "Fire" couldn't be associated with shooting in any way.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick - Small mistake #1, small mistake #2, small mistake #3...
#36. Scorpions Mounted Only On the Walls, and Only Facing Outward
Most of the inside of King's Landing seemed completely vulnerable and exposed, not covered by the scorpions on the walls. If Dany/Drogon happened to want to bypass the city's walls and simply fly high enough, they could have accessed the exposed city's core, and/or, especially, the Red Keep and Cersei herself. Further, throughout the attack none of the scorpions on the walls seemed to be able to change direction they were facing. They were only ever pointing outward!
A dragon can, you know, fly. You can't make an enemy dragon politely engage your walls from the outside only, and close to the ground. These factors meant the city's anti-dragon defenses, while numerous and intimidating, came across as strangely ineffective in being able to protect the city as a whole and its exposed core.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick
#37. Dany's Descent into Madness Not Transmitted Properly
If you have a different take, that's fine. What follows is my opinion.
 |
| Slaver Kraznys mo Nakloz being burned by Drogon, S3E4 |
The show's aim for Dany, presumably indicated by GRRM, was: Dany, no longer bound by the benevolent influence of Jorah and Tyrion, with fading support around her, and continually driven to the edge in continually losing who she loved at the hands of her enemies, chose to rely solely on fear to cement her grip on the throne. The idea is that Dany felt the Lannister's surrender was not enough, that they hadn't lost enough, that victory and submission came too easily and too quickly. And soon afterwards she wouldn't have support from anyone in her right to rule. And that led her to commit fully to violence and genocide, as a strategy of fear. The clues for this throughout the show consisted in this aspect to the character always being there from the start: a relative insensitivity and tendency towards resorting to extreme violence, such as burning her enemies alive, crucifying them, even watching her brother die and not being particularly moved by it.
The author's perspective is that the audience is cheering for Dany when they perceive the target of her wrath to be "evil", but placing this attitude in a more complicated setting would then shift the audience's interpretation of it - instead of changing of Dany's core nature itself. Tyrion explicitly tells this reasoning to Jon when imprisoned - and in doing so, laying it word for word for the audience to hear. The message here was that embracing violence for the eradication of problems was always an intrinsic part of the character, and could be turned against anyone or anything the character could see as standing against her wishes. That behavior seemed like a welcome breath of fresh air when dealing with simplistic slavers and "savage" Dothraki Kahls, but could be at odds when in a relatively less "simplistic" environment. Taking away the positive influences around her keeping her worst tendencies in check, she'd become unhinged and free to resort to that true nature.
If this was the idea for Dany, I have nothing against it in principle. It's a choice for the character. Dany's journey was filled with black-and-white, simplistic morality "bad-person-kill" - even acknowledged in-story - and the question would always be: how would that morality fit into Westeros, where everything was more in tones of grey, where things were less simple and characters were often both good and evil? The author wants us to look at this overly simplistic sense of morality when applied to a more modern, complex, "real world". Look at the nature of the actions themselves, before judging by yourself if those at the receiving end of them seem to be deserving of them or not. And if the end goals are justified by the means to achieve them.
 |
| 163 Great Masters crucified along the streets of Meereen by Daenerys Targaryen, Game of Thrones, S4E4 |
You might argue Dany's actions were always there.
But they were always directed at those in charge, at the individuals making the decisions, never at the innocent below them. The most direct and natural equivalent of these situations, i.e. taking this "template" from Dany's past in Essos, and bringing it onto her present moment in King's Landing, would be for Cersei herself to be targeted, not the civilian population. The slavers, masters, and rulers were punished without compassion. But the slaves, poor and helpless, those at the very bottom and without power, were always helped, with compassion, even if this didn't benefit Dany directly, other than gaining their love.
At no point is show's Dany doing these things for the purposes of gaining the love of the population. She was always motivated by a sense of justice, for its own sake. When rulers, masters, and the wealthy and powerful were being ruthless and merciless towards who they ruled over, Dany would meet that behavior inflicting on the masters, on behalf of those who were powerless to do so. Even if those actions are extreme and merciless themselves, arguably making Dany as bad as those she fought. But at no point is she portrayed as someone inflicting this punishment for the purposes of achieving an end. She's acting out of her own sense of justice. This is, at least, how show's Dany is portrayed. It is a black-and-white, chaotic and destructive sense of justice, but in that sense of justice the "white" part is always clearly identified: those at the lowest end of society.
The true issue with the show regarding Dany becoming mad, was convincingly portraying her giving up on this sense of mercy and justice towards the weak, which was ALSO a prevalent trait and motivating factor throughout her journey, and have her target the innocent, for whom she had always fought for.
As a character Dany is vindictive, and could hypothetically target the general population of King's Landing, if she perceived them to have betrayed her or not support or love her, regardless of what she did. You could attempt to have the character believing she needed to get on the throne to save the world, believing herself to be a divinely-ordered and destined savior of the masses, then have her believe that suceeding at getting to that role implying her needing to target the masses, or some of them. It's this I believe the show was going for.
The first time we're presented with the fundamental contrast intended for Dany, is when the Tarlys are executed in the aftermath of the battle of the Goldroad (S7E5). The logic of the choice Sany presents to them is maybe iffy: join me or die. There isn't much "choice" in it. And if they submitted their loyalty to Dany would have been frail at best, as said loyalty hadn't been earned yet at all. However, presumably over time their loyalties could have been gained by warming up to them, or alternatively imposed by fear - even if this contrasted with Dany's closest members of her entourage, predominantly connected to her by love. But the way this was presented was still consistent with the character, because she was addressing nobility and leardership. Further, Dany is for the first time arriving on Westeros, to the land she actually wants to rule over, so she's pressed to make a strong statement and impact. You are either with me, or you are standing against me, so you die. Here's the black and white mindset - even if somewhat heavy-handed - now taking place in Westeros.
 |
| Dickon and Randyll Tarly, in the aftermath of The Battle of the Goldroad, Game of Thrones S7E5 |
However, at no point does the show convey the justification for Dany seeing the population of King's Landing as her enemy, and/or standing against her, and/or as a means to a goal.
By the end of the series, you've built up tension on the character, and led her to a dark place, from where her desperate nature could sprout forth. You had the fuel. But you still needed the spark to ignite it: you needed to justify Dany targeting the innocent. Dany never behaved towards the innocent other than on their behalf. And she certainly wouldn't attack innocents for a purpose, unless they could be construed as standing against Dany.
At the siege of King's Landing, that justfication wasn't the surrender. If Dany wanted to act out of vengeance as King's Landing surrendered, she would have gone for Cercei directly, who was the one who betrayed her by not assisting them at Winterfell, ambushed her at sea killing Raeghal, and killed Missandei in front of her. Cersei was the natural object of Dany's rage. Dany could have gone straight for Cersei on the Red Keep, who was right there in sight, and this would have easily been the most natural retaliatory reaction for Dany to have, given how the story was being told. The show actually teased this, by showing the Red Keep in plain sight as she lifts off with Drogon, and by making a first flying pass without attacking the streets. This is because Dany going forth to execute Cersei after she surrendering was what would be normal at that point. But the option of turning on civilians was unsupported. The show was teasing the audience with what was normal and organic to happen, then it exchanged it for something abnormal, that was not.
During her attack on King's Landing, there's a moment when Dany is torching the Red Keep with Drogon. But this came long after she began attacking the city itself, and the show give no cues of any kind she's explicitly trying to target Cersei. In other words, at no point are we given reason to believe Dany is going after Cersei herself. By what we're shown, Dany literally didn't care about Cersei at all, she was targeting the civilians only, and parts of the city, indiscriminately. This absence of focus would easily give Cersei opportunity to escape, which she indeed tried to, and only didn't succeed primarily because of Cleganebowl.
 |
| Daenerys Targaryen on Drogon flying over King's Landing with the Red Keep ahead of them, Game of Thrones S8E5 |
You wanted to have Dany go mad? Dany could inadvertently kill civilians while blind in her rage to burn Cercei first. For example, portions of the Red Keep falling on top of civilians crushing them (as it was portrayed anyway); wildfire caches (left by her father but Dany didn't know existed) blowing up inadvertently as she was using fire to destroy the Red Keep (as it was portrayed anyway). In a desperate attempt to save her life Cersei could have gone into the middle of the population, using them as a shield to ward off Dany from killing her (as it was portrayed anyway) promting Dany to then say "my wrath can't be contained by mercy" and torching Cersei along with civilians.
Then, either shown later in the mid to long-term or alternatively portrayed right away, this would then lead the population of civilians of King's Landing to turn on Dany (believing her to be worse than Cersei). Maybe King's Landing starts supporting Jon for the throne instead once they knew who he was. Maybe Varys is conspiring to make it happen. And that could, then, finally, eventually, lead Dany to turn on the population of King's Landing for their lack of support. If that's where the story wanted to go.
Having this come from a position where Dany was getting to the nobility FIRST, rather than from a position of Dany going for the civilians straight away. One thing leading to another, organically, from what is normal for the character to do at each step of the way. And NOT jumping straight to Dany going for the civilians first.
This would probably have been a more convincing route. But for that, once again, more time was needed, but also, and perhaps more importantly, sensible writing. While still somewhat forced and rushed, even very minor tweaks could have brought this situation out of the realm of incongruity onto that of actual plausibility. So very close, yet so very far.
Going strictly by what the show is trying to portray, would Dany's reasoning "Cercei used their innocence as a weapon against me" lead to Dany targeting the weapon but not Cersei herself? Was Dany attempting to punish Cersei by targeting civilians she used as a shield? This wouldn't make sense, as Cersei was anything but compassionate towards the population of King's Landing. Was Dany attempting to show Cersei she wouldn't be controlled by mercy, and in defyance giving up on that mercy? This was most likely the intended idea behind her falling into madness. But, it was poorly executed.
Nothing in the story leads us to see Dany's reaction of targeting civilians as something the character would do. The story shows emotion but doesn't ease itself into having this result in a critical moral failure of the character. As a result, Dany's turn comes across not just as forced, or even heavy-handed, but really as ludicrous, coming out of nowhere.
Dany's turn is so abrupt, so sharply built, that it simply wasn't there. The footage showed it, but the story didn't. Emilia Clarke was essentially forced to resort to thread dangerously close to overacting, just to try to "fill the gaps" and convincingly convey something the story just didn't have, and something which would otherwise not be the most natural progression for the character. This is without any disrespect whatsoever to Clarke, who did the absolute best she could with what she was given.
Killing innocents was just inconsistent with Danny's character, angry or not angry, broken or not broken, with or without in-story explanation. The character is a strong-willed fighter for the masses, the poor, and the innocent. It's an incongruity to see her snap, with that snap resulting in her killing civilians. No matter how much hints and clues to this given throughout the story, the "this" just wasn't there. The reason for the actors and audience to feel this reaction to be completely unexpected from Dany, was because it was.
Grade: 3 - Problematic - The single most important plot point of the story, forced like a hammer through a keyhole. Yet, surprisingly close to having been possible with some plausibility, had some minor tweaks been made - on the writing stage. If only we didn't have to spent so much screen time with Arya...
#38. Arya's Sanctity Run
Arya follows the burning of King's Landing (S8E6) from up close, as a point-of-view on the ground, as the destruction and death toll on the civilian population unfolds. A significant portion of the episode's runtime is spent with Arya, from the moment she tries to leave King's Landing to the moment she eventually leaves. This sequence was made in the same style to the long, continuous first-person shots the show had done before, most notably with Jon in the Battle of the Bastards and with Bronn in the Battle of the Goldroad / Loot Train Attack, this time following Arya, on this occasion interspaced with other scenes elsewhere.
Arya's character is spared from remaining bound to a perspective of saviorism. That paradigm would probably be complicated for the show to sustain morally, as Arya, along with Dany, was also built around ruthless elimination of her enemies, in her case always played straight and celebrated. So Arya is instead sent through the lesson that revenge is self-destructive and not worth to be hold on to (even if at the dragonpit meeting later we see assassin Arya threatening Yara Greyjoy). She turns her back, figuratively, to revenge as a life goal after hearing it from Hound, at which point she turns back, literally, to attempt to leave King's Landing. This sequence follows immediately afterwards.
This sequence is meant for Arya to realize life is more important than death, consolidating her intended character progression of leaving revenge behind, and replacing her desire for vengeance from evil with a desire for protection of the innocent. While seeking to evade the destruction, she tries to save several civilians but fails, being the sole survivor in her immediate vicinity, at which point she leaves on a white horse, an ending that appears to carry spiritual/symbolic tones (next point in the list) .
This was what was intended.
However, as the whole scene is unfolding, the only thing I can focus is the absurdity of Arya's magical plot armor protecting her, so she can bear witness the scene yet survive it at the end without a scratch.
She's subject to the same hazards as everyone else is, and she's fleeing along in the midst of crowds, yet she manages to dodge and avoid every single brick, explosion and flame everyone else is falling victim to. Dragon fire burns all others around her, but there's always a corner for her to hide where said fire can't reach. She's under falling debree, knocked out, and awakes covered in blood and ash, but all is superficial. Not that I want to see Arya suffer. It's just that I can see right through all of the scene and what it's for.
There are already sufficient points of view showing the audience what's happening. There's already Tyrion and Jon on the ground. Plus the show is already showing civilians being burned, without needing characters to witness it. There isn't any additional necessity to hammer home that innocent civilians are suffering, and that suffering is bad! There is no need for Arya to be there, let alone spend so much time with her.
Furthermore, while a fair and morally sound principle to be sure, in my opinion Arya's rejection of revenge feels far more like a watering down of yet another character, rather than something earned and chosen out of necessity. The edge and bite the character was built upon are just taken away "revenge is not worth Arya; okay Sandor" with no real sense of payoff or justification for it, other than the show conveying a moral lesson to the audience. Together with the apparent symbolical /otherworldly tones of the sequence, the show almost portrays Arya as a white hero or saint (she's already a heroine, but she's being 'cleansed' now), except this feels bland rather than logical. This progression could have made sense and been made natural, had the show have more time to tell how Arya forgave and let go of the Lannisters having killed her father and wolf, ordering the red wedding, and all the rest of the cruelty and injustice she and her family were subjected to throughout her life. Alas, there was no such time. This is my opinion (more on this aspect when discussing the ending later).
Because of these reasons, the entirety of the sequence(s) with Arya in the streets of King's Landing falls flat and feels completely superfluous, and cheap, from within a context meant to be highly shocking and dramatic. In a sense Arya shouldn't be there at all, let alone the show spending so much time with this sequence.
Grade: 3 - Problematic - Because this sequence is part Arya's chosen arc progression, which is questionable, because it is part of the broader aspect of Dany's turn, for which it is not necessary, and because it is occupying invaluable real estate, that could have been used for something FAR more useful - such as portraying Dany's turn more carefully - when most of the excuses for lack of consistency and writing quality revolving around lack of time. The existence of this sequence, and spending any meaningful amount of time on it, undermines the legitimacy of that excuse.
#39. Arya and The White Horse
The white horse Arya finds - which looks to be the same the same horse ridden by the leader of the Golden Company (although it could just be lack of budget for more horses at this point) - seems to carry a magical or symbolic interpretation, as it seems otherwise unlikely for the horse to have survived unscathed in an environment comprehensively razed by a fire-spewing dragon, and with everything else around it torched beyond recognition.
Also, Arya is then seen riding the white horse, presumably out of the city (S8E5), and the episode comes to a close. But in the next and final episode (S8R6) we see her again back inside the city. So... I guess she went back into the city and let the horse go?
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick - If this carries a meaning I just didn't understand... 5 - Dracarys! if this actually refers to a biblical passage in Game of Thrones!!!!!
#40. Death by Rubble Not a Fitting Ending for Cersei
Grade: 3 - Problematic - The single most important plot point of the story, forced like a hammer through a keyhole. Yet, surprisingly close to having been possible with some plausibility, had some minor tweaks been made - on the writing stage. If only we didn't have to spent so much screen time with Arya...
#38. Arya's Sanctity Run
Arya follows the burning of King's Landing (S8E6) from up close, as a point-of-view on the ground, as the destruction and death toll on the civilian population unfolds. A significant portion of the episode's runtime is spent with Arya, from the moment she tries to leave King's Landing to the moment she eventually leaves. This sequence was made in the same style to the long, continuous first-person shots the show had done before, most notably with Jon in the Battle of the Bastards and with Bronn in the Battle of the Goldroad / Loot Train Attack, this time following Arya, on this occasion interspaced with other scenes elsewhere.
Arya's character is spared from remaining bound to a perspective of saviorism. That paradigm would probably be complicated for the show to sustain morally, as Arya, along with Dany, was also built around ruthless elimination of her enemies, in her case always played straight and celebrated. So Arya is instead sent through the lesson that revenge is self-destructive and not worth to be hold on to (even if at the dragonpit meeting later we see assassin Arya threatening Yara Greyjoy). She turns her back, figuratively, to revenge as a life goal after hearing it from Hound, at which point she turns back, literally, to attempt to leave King's Landing. This sequence follows immediately afterwards.
 |
| Arya Stark in King's Landing, Game of Thrones S8E5 |
This sequence is meant for Arya to realize life is more important than death, consolidating her intended character progression of leaving revenge behind, and replacing her desire for vengeance from evil with a desire for protection of the innocent. While seeking to evade the destruction, she tries to save several civilians but fails, being the sole survivor in her immediate vicinity, at which point she leaves on a white horse, an ending that appears to carry spiritual/symbolic tones (next point in the list) .
This was what was intended.
However, as the whole scene is unfolding, the only thing I can focus is the absurdity of Arya's magical plot armor protecting her, so she can bear witness the scene yet survive it at the end without a scratch.
She's subject to the same hazards as everyone else is, and she's fleeing along in the midst of crowds, yet she manages to dodge and avoid every single brick, explosion and flame everyone else is falling victim to. Dragon fire burns all others around her, but there's always a corner for her to hide where said fire can't reach. She's under falling debree, knocked out, and awakes covered in blood and ash, but all is superficial. Not that I want to see Arya suffer. It's just that I can see right through all of the scene and what it's for.
There are already sufficient points of view showing the audience what's happening. There's already Tyrion and Jon on the ground. Plus the show is already showing civilians being burned, without needing characters to witness it. There isn't any additional necessity to hammer home that innocent civilians are suffering, and that suffering is bad! There is no need for Arya to be there, let alone spend so much time with her.
Furthermore, while a fair and morally sound principle to be sure, in my opinion Arya's rejection of revenge feels far more like a watering down of yet another character, rather than something earned and chosen out of necessity. The edge and bite the character was built upon are just taken away "revenge is not worth Arya; okay Sandor" with no real sense of payoff or justification for it, other than the show conveying a moral lesson to the audience. Together with the apparent symbolical /otherworldly tones of the sequence, the show almost portrays Arya as a white hero or saint (she's already a heroine, but she's being 'cleansed' now), except this feels bland rather than logical. This progression could have made sense and been made natural, had the show have more time to tell how Arya forgave and let go of the Lannisters having killed her father and wolf, ordering the red wedding, and all the rest of the cruelty and injustice she and her family were subjected to throughout her life. Alas, there was no such time. This is my opinion (more on this aspect when discussing the ending later).
Because of these reasons, the entirety of the sequence(s) with Arya in the streets of King's Landing falls flat and feels completely superfluous, and cheap, from within a context meant to be highly shocking and dramatic. In a sense Arya shouldn't be there at all, let alone the show spending so much time with this sequence.
Grade: 3 - Problematic - Because this sequence is part Arya's chosen arc progression, which is questionable, because it is part of the broader aspect of Dany's turn, for which it is not necessary, and because it is occupying invaluable real estate, that could have been used for something FAR more useful - such as portraying Dany's turn more carefully - when most of the excuses for lack of consistency and writing quality revolving around lack of time. The existence of this sequence, and spending any meaningful amount of time on it, undermines the legitimacy of that excuse.
#39. Arya and The White Horse
 |
| Arya finds a white horse in King's Landing as the city is being attacked by Drogon, S8E5 |
The white horse Arya finds - which looks to be the same the same horse ridden by the leader of the Golden Company (although it could just be lack of budget for more horses at this point) - seems to carry a magical or symbolic interpretation, as it seems otherwise unlikely for the horse to have survived unscathed in an environment comprehensively razed by a fire-spewing dragon, and with everything else around it torched beyond recognition.
Running the risk of coming across as thick, I'm not quite sure what exactly was the simbology with this horse. The girl Arya was trying to save was holding a white horse figurine, and then when the girl dies the white horse manifests? But what is that supposed to mean? Was it the spirit of the girl? Was it a throwback to something from Arya's past?
Please do not tell me the white horse alludes to the biblical passage, "I looked, and there before me was a pale horse, its rider was named Death...", with Arya being Death. That would be a real world symbology. Game of Thrones has its own symbology and prophecies, and it absolutely doesn't need a real world one hammered into its own world, thank you very much, especially when those it already has are being ignored, broken, and thrown out the window. So no. I just refuse to believe any author, anywhere in the world, would be so crass, and cringe-worthy, to the point of doing anything of the sort. Therefore, I'm then assuming the white horse was meant to represent something else entirely, and I just couldn't understand what it was.
Also, Arya is then seen riding the white horse, presumably out of the city (S8E5), and the episode comes to a close. But in the next and final episode (S8R6) we see her again back inside the city. So... I guess she went back into the city and let the horse go?
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick - If this carries a meaning I just didn't understand... 5 - Dracarys! if this actually refers to a biblical passage in Game of Thrones!!!!!
#40. Death by Rubble Not a Fitting Ending for Cersei
Cersei was one of the main villains, throughout the story always deeply invested in despicable deceit, conniving, and betrayal - while also a character of power and strength, and a main female lead. If, on top of this, the show is setting up Cersei to be the final adversary, why would they then choose a note of softness and sentimentality for her sending off? The audience is expecting some type of pay-off, matching the traits of the character - not a reconciliation with her love interest with compassionate, sentimental notes. You wouldn't give her this kind of ending, for the same reason you wouldn't give the Night King the treatment he was given.
Several other ways to go about this - pretty much any of them to be honest. Jaime could be made to realize his sister's craziness - maybe in another move of desperation of hers to blow up more of King's Landing - and then kill her, subverting expectations, repeating history (his Kingslayer role) while not regressing his character. Still, in terms of payoff for the audience, Arya would probably be a ideal match to assassinate Cersei (and instead of the Night King). This would likely be the most fulfilling of all possible endings for both characters.
 |
| Cersei Lannister. |
Grade: 2 - Disappointing
#41. Conspicuously Unconvincing Rubble
In the serie's finale (S8E6) Tyrion goes down to check on Jaime and Cercei, only to find they had perished. In inspecting the scene and looking at the disposition of the rubble on the floor, did you notice how, if Jaime and Cersei just stood in a different spot, they would have completely avoided any falling debree? Also, they weren't deeply encased in rubble, rather laying just under the surface. Tyrion had to pick up just a few bricks to uncover them.
This is not meant as insensitive. It's just that the way this is portrayed is strangely unconvincing, to the point it almost reads as if Jaime and Cersei may still be alive, or that maybe they could, or would, have survived, when that's not the case at all.
 |
| Tyrion Lannister over the bodies of his brothers Jaime and Cersei, Game of Thrones finale, S8E6 |
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick
#42. Cersei's Pregnancy Goes Nowhere
Cersei's preagnancy served a few purposes. One of them could be giving one added reason for Jaime to go back to her. Another was to give Tyrion something to use to try to reach out to Cersei and her more compassionate side. Cersei's only redeeming feature as a character was the love for her children. Perhaps, since she no longer had children, the authors wanted to humanize Cersei, and have the audience be more compassionate towards her - perhaps feeling more for her given her ending?
In-story, the child was briefly setup as a way to tie down Euron's loyalty, in the eventuality their side won. If it had happened, it woud be a repetition of what had happened with Robert Baratheon, having Baratheon kids with Cersei but those kids being fathered by Jaime. So if you notice, this bit is actually very aligned with the character.
In the end though, the impression we're left regarding Cersei's preagnancy was that, much like with many other elements of the plot, it was just one more thing that meant relatively little, and ended up leading nowhere. Cercei's death held little emotional impact, and this also affected everything else to her, preagnancy included.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick
#43. Grey Worm Teleporting Ahead of Jon to Top of Staircase
Let's just assume Drogon picked up Grey Worm and threw him onto the top of the staircase.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick
#44. Arya: "I Know a Killer When I See One"
Interpretation 1: Arya is saying Dany has become corrupted with no chance of return. She's now evil in nature.
Interpretation 2: No shit Arya. What were the telltale signs you saw?
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick
#45. Dany: from Jon You're Heir to the Throne and That's a Problem, to Let's Rule Together My Love (So You Can Stab Me)
Dany is extremely caught up in not being as loved as Jon, and in Jon having a better claim to the throne, to the extent she herself never even considers pairing with him whenever they're dealing with their relationship - even though, despite the sleeping-with-your-aunt thing, the scenario of Jon and Dany ruling together would be a compromising solution where everyone would get what they ever wanted. Tyrion and Varys bring this possibility up between themselves, only to dismiss it right away, citing the North wouldn't take it the aunt thing, and Dany would be too powerful for Jon to control. The Jon+Dany scenario is shot down by the show, in an effort to convince the audience a peaceful resolution simply isn't possible.
Only after going mad and murdering everyone, Dany then casually turns to Jon and says "Rule with me now my love!" She's mad, so now she's free to share the throne with Jon? Is this Dany thinking "well, no one will be alive to dislike me and like you more, so I can do whatever I want"?
It stays in the air that the events leading to of Dany's break could have been averted had Jon and Dany openly speaking with each other ruling together, which they had plenty of opportunity to. It is extremely difficult, forced, a contrivance, to believe this possibility had never crossed the mind of at least one of them, and they never brought it to the table, both before but especially after they find Jon is Aegon Targaryen and a direct heir to the throne.
Plausible, if this was far from both Dany and Jon's minds because of Dany having the motivation to rule only on her own, and Jon not wanting nor thinking about the throne while being weirded out by sleeping with his aunt. But then again less plausible, if you consider the two supposedly loved each other, in which case surely it would be a possibility that at least one of them at least bringing up the idea.
I'm not implying the two ruling together was the ideal solution, only that in-lore it was a natural and realistic possibility, and would have been brought up by the two characters at some point. And was not, solely for the sake of keeping them divided and strained, so Dany could turn mad. The moment Dany finally came up with a joint ruling to Jon felt inconsistent and forced, created only so Jon could approach her and end her life, when she's conveniently all alone, without any protection.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - Unnecessary, artificially-created tension that was in place to serve the plot, then suddenly ignored, again to serve the plot.
#46. And Then, Daenerys Targaryen Just... Dies.
A character built up over 7-8 seasons, exiled, coming from nothing, traumatized, abused, clawing her way back to power and relevancy, commands dragons and armies of men, becomes a powerful female lead by her own merit, abruptly goes mad, then essentially offers herself to be killed. Suddenly thinking for some reason Jon would finally drop in her arms without reservation, and without ever crossing her mind he could be guarded towards her, questioning or disagreeing with her actions (which he just said he was), and could have reasons to engage in ill intent towards her. Maybe this behavior was because "she was mad". Or infatuated with the throne.
Then she's stabbed and... dies. "End of Game of Thrones".
Grade: 2 - Disappointing
Only after going mad and murdering everyone, Dany then casually turns to Jon and says "Rule with me now my love!" She's mad, so now she's free to share the throne with Jon? Is this Dany thinking "well, no one will be alive to dislike me and like you more, so I can do whatever I want"?
It stays in the air that the events leading to of Dany's break could have been averted had Jon and Dany openly speaking with each other ruling together, which they had plenty of opportunity to. It is extremely difficult, forced, a contrivance, to believe this possibility had never crossed the mind of at least one of them, and they never brought it to the table, both before but especially after they find Jon is Aegon Targaryen and a direct heir to the throne.
Plausible, if this was far from both Dany and Jon's minds because of Dany having the motivation to rule only on her own, and Jon not wanting nor thinking about the throne while being weirded out by sleeping with his aunt. But then again less plausible, if you consider the two supposedly loved each other, in which case surely it would be a possibility that at least one of them at least bringing up the idea.
I'm not implying the two ruling together was the ideal solution, only that in-lore it was a natural and realistic possibility, and would have been brought up by the two characters at some point. And was not, solely for the sake of keeping them divided and strained, so Dany could turn mad. The moment Dany finally came up with a joint ruling to Jon felt inconsistent and forced, created only so Jon could approach her and end her life, when she's conveniently all alone, without any protection.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - Unnecessary, artificially-created tension that was in place to serve the plot, then suddenly ignored, again to serve the plot.
#46. And Then, Daenerys Targaryen Just... Dies.
A character built up over 7-8 seasons, exiled, coming from nothing, traumatized, abused, clawing her way back to power and relevancy, commands dragons and armies of men, becomes a powerful female lead by her own merit, abruptly goes mad, then essentially offers herself to be killed. Suddenly thinking for some reason Jon would finally drop in her arms without reservation, and without ever crossing her mind he could be guarded towards her, questioning or disagreeing with her actions (which he just said he was), and could have reasons to engage in ill intent towards her. Maybe this behavior was because "she was mad". Or infatuated with the throne.
Then she's stabbed and... dies. "End of Game of Thrones".
Grade: 2 - Disappointing
#47. Drogon Kills the... Chair
 |
| Jon/Aegon, with Drogon melting the Iron Throne, S8E6 |
The Iron Throne is the One Ring. The throne corrupts all who seek it, and drive them to madness, out of their lust for power. So the throne in the end is the cause for all of this story, and has to be melted away. Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones. I get it.
Jon is a Targaryan. So Drogon has a magical connection with Targaryans, and that's the reason Drogon turns away from Jon and doesn't burn him. Okay, plausible enough.
But can anyone explain to me why is Drogon murdering the chair? Are you telling me Drogon, unable to vent on Jon, destroys what he thinks is the thing that caused Dany's fall, which is wanting the throne, and being corrupted by it? Are you saying Drogon was an actual sentient person capable of abstract thinking, and of discerning the inherent value and consequences of a lifelong goal? Is that what you're saying?
Not completely out of whack, if you (make an effort to) consider dragons are portrayed as intelligent beings and having some kind of telepathic connection with their Targaryen riders - which is how dragons behave based on the rider's mental commands, and how they know someone's a Targaryen in the first place. Ghost can be made to abide to other 'owners' and follow other objectives detached from Jon. So, presumably, and with some goodwill, Daenerys constantly thought of getting to the Iron Throne, always had the image in her mind, and then Drogon made the abstract association that reaching her dream had killed her. Or she had this thought as she was losing her life. Maybe they were thinking, "if we can't have the throne, no one else will".
Or, Drogon really just hates chairs. Or, he was now traumatized by pointy things. Or, he vented to the side of Jon, randomly. These explanations are actually as good if not better than the ones above.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick
#48. How Was King's Landing Rebuilt so Quickly?
Harrenhal is lived in, and is still wrecked.
 |
| The castle of Harrenhal, burnt by dragonfire from the dragon Balerion, three hundred years into the show's past. |
Grade: 4 - Absurd - I didn't know how to grade this, so I graded it according to how I felt. Even if you make poor or dubious choices for the characters and telling a bad story, you absolutely cannot break the world the story is taking place in.
#49. The Dothraki Aren't on a Rampage Trying to Kill Everyone on Sight
It's now a changed and peaceful world, with everyone getting along merrily and living in their stone houses. It that it? The Dothraki are handling everything pretty well, after just being promised to go on more rampaging by their queen, then having their queen murdered.
How have they not elected new Khals and went on a rampage? Have they calmly settled in the city they've just conquered? Do the they acknowledge the social and political structure of the houses and lords of Westeros, enough to withhold from violence? Are they still aligned with the Unsullied? Is Grey Work in charge of the Dothraki?
Wasn't it true that whoever kills the Khal become the new Khal? Wouldn't that apply to a Khaleesi?
If you wanted to say "we all now live at peace in a new world, including with the Dothraki", you better have a good justification for how and why it is so.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - You have a team of mass-murderers hanging around in your capital with no supervision that they acknowledge. They raid and pillage as a way of life. They're also eternal enemies to the Unsullied. You can't just hand-wave the elements of the show away. You need to explain how the Dothraki are just standing there peacefully.
#50. Grey Worm Not Killing Jon Right Away
So Grey Worm had the acumen to not kill Jon in order to not start a war with the Starks and the rest of Westeros? The same Grey Worm who, just a moment ago, was killing enemies who had already surrendered, and then was slaughtering kneeling Lannister soldiers after the battle was over, fueled by the loss of Missandei? For political and due process reasons? When did the Unsullied or Grey Worm grew enough political savvy, to pay attention or even care about that? Or the Dothraki? It's actually extremely difficult to conceive Grey Worm having the presence of mind to react with anything else than murdering intent the moment he realized Jon had killed Dany.
The justification for Grey Worm of the Unsullied to not execute Jon on sight with him having killed Dany isn't laid out properly. In the very least, it forces us to stretch our own imagination to try to understand how that could be, when, again, it's the show's job to do so, especially for this specific point.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - A relatively small detail, but a very baffling one that leads to the final sequence, and the decision of who was going to be King.
#51. Jon Is Not at the Meeting Because...?
Presumably Grey Worm felt Jon had incurred in a great wrongdoing (betrayal) and he needed to see the rest of Westeros acknowledge that, if they wanted to prevent a war with the Unsullied? So supposedly Grey Worm is enforcing a position of power here. But was not bringing Jon helpful in that regard? Plus, Grey Worm brought Tyrion in the quality of his prisoner, then basically let him dictate the whole ruling system of Westeros...
Jon's presence is simply too strong: he's technically the character with the best claim to the throne, both within the world setting, and of the show: in a story with multiple heroes, he essentially became the main one.
The plot doesn't want Jon to be King, but the reasons assembled to justifying so are simply not good enough. So in-story he's stated to be expected, his presence demanded, but refused by Grey Worm.
I'm not saying Jon should be King, strictly that he has one of the better if not the best claim, therefore if you don't want him on the Throne you need to sustain it properly.
Jon is not at the meeting because his presence there would raise even more questions, and create even more contrast, in the eyes of the audience - risking exposing the chosen ending for Jon and Bran as even more baffling and difficult to explain. If you're saying the King must be chosen by a good story, you definitely don't want Jon standing right there. You want his presence as far from your mind as possible. Also, it would be difficult for all of the other characters to simply act dismissive of Jon, the way they do, because most of them are actually family and/or close friends. Plus, if you're letting Tyrion speak and have so much influence on the proceedings when he's a prisoner of the Unsullied, it would be difficult to justify Jon not being allowed the same type of participation.
Ironically, having Jon at the meeting would probably provide more clarity and closure to whichever ending they wanted to achieve, as that would have all the characters participating in the decision-making, having to deal with, and justify, why and how they had to disregard Jon's heritage.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - Jon was kept away from the scene because the plot contrivances would come across as even more egregious and shocking to the audience had him been there.
#52. Where Did Edmure Tully Come From?
Where's he been? Wasn't he imprisoned? He's a Lord? Not without foundation, it's just his appearance out of nowhere on a council of the most important people in Westeros is, well, sudden. But I suppose we're on a 'need to know' basis. Never mind me, trying to make sense of what I'm seeing.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick
#53. Tyrion Is a Prisoner on Trial, Decides the Fate of Westeros
Wasn't it true that whoever kills the Khal become the new Khal? Wouldn't that apply to a Khaleesi?
If you wanted to say "we all now live at peace in a new world, including with the Dothraki", you better have a good justification for how and why it is so.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - You have a team of mass-murderers hanging around in your capital with no supervision that they acknowledge. They raid and pillage as a way of life. They're also eternal enemies to the Unsullied. You can't just hand-wave the elements of the show away. You need to explain how the Dothraki are just standing there peacefully.
#50. Grey Worm Not Killing Jon Right Away
So Grey Worm had the acumen to not kill Jon in order to not start a war with the Starks and the rest of Westeros? The same Grey Worm who, just a moment ago, was killing enemies who had already surrendered, and then was slaughtering kneeling Lannister soldiers after the battle was over, fueled by the loss of Missandei? For political and due process reasons? When did the Unsullied or Grey Worm grew enough political savvy, to pay attention or even care about that? Or the Dothraki? It's actually extremely difficult to conceive Grey Worm having the presence of mind to react with anything else than murdering intent the moment he realized Jon had killed Dany.
The justification for Grey Worm of the Unsullied to not execute Jon on sight with him having killed Dany isn't laid out properly. In the very least, it forces us to stretch our own imagination to try to understand how that could be, when, again, it's the show's job to do so, especially for this specific point.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - A relatively small detail, but a very baffling one that leads to the final sequence, and the decision of who was going to be King.
#51. Jon Is Not at the Meeting Because...?
Presumably Grey Worm felt Jon had incurred in a great wrongdoing (betrayal) and he needed to see the rest of Westeros acknowledge that, if they wanted to prevent a war with the Unsullied? So supposedly Grey Worm is enforcing a position of power here. But was not bringing Jon helpful in that regard? Plus, Grey Worm brought Tyrion in the quality of his prisoner, then basically let him dictate the whole ruling system of Westeros...
Jon's presence is simply too strong: he's technically the character with the best claim to the throne, both within the world setting, and of the show: in a story with multiple heroes, he essentially became the main one.
The plot doesn't want Jon to be King, but the reasons assembled to justifying so are simply not good enough. So in-story he's stated to be expected, his presence demanded, but refused by Grey Worm.
I'm not saying Jon should be King, strictly that he has one of the better if not the best claim, therefore if you don't want him on the Throne you need to sustain it properly.
Jon is not at the meeting because his presence there would raise even more questions, and create even more contrast, in the eyes of the audience - risking exposing the chosen ending for Jon and Bran as even more baffling and difficult to explain. If you're saying the King must be chosen by a good story, you definitely don't want Jon standing right there. You want his presence as far from your mind as possible. Also, it would be difficult for all of the other characters to simply act dismissive of Jon, the way they do, because most of them are actually family and/or close friends. Plus, if you're letting Tyrion speak and have so much influence on the proceedings when he's a prisoner of the Unsullied, it would be difficult to justify Jon not being allowed the same type of participation.
Ironically, having Jon at the meeting would probably provide more clarity and closure to whichever ending they wanted to achieve, as that would have all the characters participating in the decision-making, having to deal with, and justify, why and how they had to disregard Jon's heritage.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - Jon was kept away from the scene because the plot contrivances would come across as even more egregious and shocking to the audience had him been there.
#52. Where Did Edmure Tully Come From?
Where's he been? Wasn't he imprisoned? He's a Lord? Not without foundation, it's just his appearance out of nowhere on a council of the most important people in Westeros is, well, sudden. But I suppose we're on a 'need to know' basis. Never mind me, trying to make sense of what I'm seeing.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick
#53. Tyrion Is a Prisoner on Trial, Decides the Fate of Westeros
If you consider Tyrion the smart for a moment, it's not the most implausible of all things by all means. In a way, certainly badass and paying respect to the character's intellect. But, again, also one more thing that seems contrived and "meant to happen", adding to the pile of all the others. We're almost at the end of the show though.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick - Giving a pass to the character, as this is one step away from actually being cool (if it had been believable).
#54. What's the Point of Sam Suggesting Democracy?
Another nod to the audience.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick
#55. How Are the Unsullied Going to Start a House?
The Unsullied are eunuchs. In Sansa's mind Bran couldn't be King because he couldn't father children. How would the Unsullied ever form a house? How are lords of the Unsullied "house" going to be chosen? Are the Unsullied going to be lords and rule over peasantry, collect taxes, and do all of that? Or are some going to be lords while others are out in the fields farming? Would all the original members not die off within one generation? How would they work around that? Is this a societal overhaul? How are all of these things going to function? And are the Unsullied really interested in doing any of that?
Also, are all the Unsullied going to Naath, or is it just Grey Worm? If the Unsullied are leaving, does Jon still have to be sent to the North?
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - Jon's fate is made to hinge on the Unsullied's stance, and nothing else. The Unsullied's presence in Westeros, and their political weight, needed to be more fledged out.
#56. The Power of a Good Story
What a great idea! Want to know another good story?
Jon Snow went from bastard to Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, was betrayed and killed by his own for brokering peace with the wildlings, then was resurrected, then fought the Battle of the Bastards and won, then went became King of the North, found out he was the long-lost son of a love story between the Targaryen prince and the Stark girl who was promised to Robert Baratheon who started a war because of her, and whose true identity had to be kept a secret by Ned Stark who was his uncle and was keeping a promise to his sister, then was forced to kill his lover who became mad, for the good of the realm.
But I guess Jon's busy right now.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - It's not that the idea in itself is faulty, but it was brought up only as a justification - and a poor one at that - to have Bran on the throne.
#57. The Council Agreeing to Choose A King, and that King Being Bran
Most of the Lords of Westeros know little of Bran. They're not acquainted with any of his magical powers or what they mean, or with his personal story for that matter. Religiously and culturally they're not affiliated, nor are they bound to be, with the myths and attributes of the old gods from where Bran acquired his abilities - they would even be apalled by it, or outright against it, on religious grounds alone. To portray them as acknowledging Bran's powers without question, and simply being fine with him on the throne, is quite difficult to believe. This could have possibly been a different case had Bran's powers established on-screen, and be more relevant when battling the Night King. But still. Some of these figures weren't even involved in the fight against the Night King.
Bran has no claim to the throne, or much of any political relevancy in any way. These individuals have no special reason to trust Bran Stark to be King. Even to the Starks themselves, Bran is a recently returned figure, often difficult to read and interact with on a personal, human level. Outside of the Stark family, and to the rest of the lords of Westeros, Bran would at best be considered a strange, detached, handicapped person, of unknown character and with unknown interests, agendas, and affiliations. They wouldn't associate Bran being dispassionate as equating to him being a good ruler - nor would they ever care about that. Actually, Bran comes across as being subservient to Sansa. So to the eyes of the other lords of Westeros, to give the position to Bran could very easily risk placing at the helm a robotic figure who can easily be controlled by Sansa, effectively leaving Sansa ruling over Westeros.
Yet they simply go along with Bran being King, because they're being told he has a good story, by the prisioner on trial who was Hand to the genocidal Targaryen Queen, brother to the Lannisters and "the Imp" who's supposed to be generally hated and/or despised by most. Some of the lords in this meeting got to know Tyron a little bit better as they dealt with Dany, but at no point in the story were any of the lords of Westeros in general given substancial reason to feel otherwise towards Tyrion himself.
For all of the reasons above, going along with actively choosing a King, and Bran being that King, is just bonkers.
You're bypassing the rationale of each of those figures supposedly having strong vested interests in retaining their kingdom's and their personal power, disputing said power with others, and acquiring more power if and whemever possible. Why would they ever agree to simply hand over the keys to the realm, and to a person they barely know and has no claim on the throne? What is so different in the world that the nobles now just simply go along with everything they're being spoon-fed in this meeting, as opposed to being focused in power and intrigue?
Grade: 3 - Problematic - Again, it's not that the reasoning behind choosing a King, or even "having a good story" being the deciding factor, are necessarily faulty per se. Rather, it's how the whole idea was brought up, how it was accepted, and who was chosen based in it, that was portrayed in an very unconvincing and outlandish manner.
#58. Bran: from "I'm not Even Bran Stark", to "Why Do You Think I Came?"
All Bran has ever said up until that point that he was too detached from reality and from an identity to ever become lord. He didn't want to be lord, can't be Bran, can't be Stark. He said it clearly, multiple times. But then he can be King? Justified (hand-waved rather) by Bran saying "I don't want to be King either" to Tyrion while suggesting him to be the Hand. So he does have the choice to care or not care, be aloof or focused, be present or not present, depending on what he wants?
Absurd, and the most out-of-character response conceivable. Essentially, with this one line (which happens to be the series' finale) you're saying characters don't need to make sense. Ironically, had Bran been portrayed as a powerful and reasonably grounded character, as he should have, he would have actually been a valid candidate to be King. But because Bran was portrayed exactly in the opposite sense, this was nothing short of absolutely bonkers.
Unless - given it's revealed Bran has agency and choice after all - you start questioning his motivations. Unless you start wondering, if this what Bran had been working towards this whole time, carefully selecting what to reveal and how to intervene in situations up until this point, so we could reach this specific outcome. And that, quite frankly, would be opening a whole new can of worms, because it implies Bran knowing about a whole lot of situations beforehand that could have been avoided if he wanted to.
Unless - if this was/is part of GRRM's intended ending, and to some extent that ending incorporates the idea or possibility that the entity known as the Three-Eyed Raven had been purposefully acting to walk himself into power all along. The Three-Eyed Raven comes from, and is aligned with, the old gods and the Children of the Forest, so he wouldn't necessarily be particularly compassionate towards human beings in general, or Westerosi population in particular. This would place all of Bran's "you were where you needed to be" lines in a whole different light - one of indifference, seeing individuals as disposable tools and means to an end, and not much else.
I don't think the writers consciously intended to portray that - yet, I can't help but feel a reasonable doubt. In any case, just the fact the doors for this type of reasoning can be opened with relative ease, is a testament to how absurd the ending felt - or how poorly it was carried out, whichever one applies.
Grade: 4 - Absurd - Doubly critical because this is the actual ending of Game of Thrones. If this just so happens to be part of GRRM's suggested ending (for the show and/or the books) and Bran being on the throne implies the Three-Eyed Raven getting himself to power through less than forthcoming means, then this needed to be made more explicit in the show, at least enough to come across as an actual possibility - as opposed to coming out of nowhere, as it seems to be the case.
#59. Sansa: Instead of Casting My Vote, the North Will Be Independent!
Others: wait, was that an opt...
The fact this suggestion by Sansa is simply agreed upon without any sort of contest or opposition by the other Lords, bends the established ways of the world. The meeting essentially results in the Starks taking over Westeros, and everyone else being okay with it.
Plausible to the extent Sansa and the Starks already held a core of sympathizers/alliances at this meeting - the Vale represented by Yohn Royce and Robin Arryn, The Riverlands by Edmure Tully, arguably the Stormlands by Gendry, plus Sam, Brienne, Davos (if these even had a vote?) - as well as, perhaps, having the battle with the Night King fought and won at Winterfell. Plus this proposition coming after all others having just given the nod to Bran becoming King.
On the other hand, difficult to see Dorne and the Ironborn being fine and dandy with this, enough to not react or express themselves against it in any way - both having an history of being rebellious and independent, and the latter having been promised by Dany they'd be an independent kingdom.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - Eyebrow raising because you'd expect at least some opposition to the idea! The thought of Sansa having the nerve to pull this off makes it somewhat funny, unintentionally, since this was meant as triumphant moment for her and the North.
#60. Why Is There Still a Night's Watch?
"So that you can go back to where you started, Jon. Lolz."
This is more about the show's handling of this, not so much if, in fact, it could be plausible or not for the Night's Watch to still exist.
Could it be possible for the Night's Watch, and the Wall itself for that matter, to retain their function and meaning? Well, they could, if for example the rest of Westeros remains suspicious of the wildlings, even after they came to good terms with the Night's Watch itself, and helped fight the dead. All things going back to normal, the wildlings are probably not going to be seen in good terms by the rest of Westeros. Presumably - because we don't really know what things still apply in Westerosi reality anymore. Westeros seems to be a pretty transformed place right now, where the lords are perfectly open to revolutionary political ideas, and where even the Dothraki wander the streets of a magically rebuilt King's Landing, all smiles and glitter.
On the other hand, antagonizing the wildlings would throw away the diplomatic progresses Jon had achieved at great cost to him. It would also dismiss the lands the wildlings were offered to live in. The ending seems to suggest the wildlings are returning North of the Wall again - but this is nonetheless strange since all they ever wanted was to come live south of the wall.
The writers knew the audience would ask this. So Jon asks if there's still a Night's Watch. But the justification we get from Tyrion is that a place is still needed for criminals and broken men. Essentially the matter is hand-waved away, the actual answer consisting of, "because".
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - As it stands, a contrivance solely for the purposes of serving a "now you go away" ending for Jon.
#61. The Meeting Itself
This is more about the show's handling of this, not so much if, in fact, it could be plausible or not for the Night's Watch to still exist.
Could it be possible for the Night's Watch, and the Wall itself for that matter, to retain their function and meaning? Well, they could, if for example the rest of Westeros remains suspicious of the wildlings, even after they came to good terms with the Night's Watch itself, and helped fight the dead. All things going back to normal, the wildlings are probably not going to be seen in good terms by the rest of Westeros. Presumably - because we don't really know what things still apply in Westerosi reality anymore. Westeros seems to be a pretty transformed place right now, where the lords are perfectly open to revolutionary political ideas, and where even the Dothraki wander the streets of a magically rebuilt King's Landing, all smiles and glitter.
On the other hand, antagonizing the wildlings would throw away the diplomatic progresses Jon had achieved at great cost to him. It would also dismiss the lands the wildlings were offered to live in. The ending seems to suggest the wildlings are returning North of the Wall again - but this is nonetheless strange since all they ever wanted was to come live south of the wall.
The writers knew the audience would ask this. So Jon asks if there's still a Night's Watch. But the justification we get from Tyrion is that a place is still needed for criminals and broken men. Essentially the matter is hand-waved away, the actual answer consisting of, "because".
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - As it stands, a contrivance solely for the purposes of serving a "now you go away" ending for Jon.
#61. The Meeting Itself
 |
| "The most powerful people in Westeros", dragonpit meeting in Game of Thrones' last episode (S8E6) |
Who is coordinating this? Who called this meeting? Sansa? The Unsullied? Who's in charge? Who's deciding what's to do and what's important?
Where are all the soldiers, guards, servants, bodyguards, and all other entourage of all of these big shots at this meeting?
Were they aware they'd be choosing a King? Isn't the idea of choosing a King a novelty? And they're down to it, just like that? Because Tyrion was convincing?
Are you certain those are ALL the "most" powerful people that were required to make this decision? No one was left out? No one else needed to participate in choosing of a new King?
Yohn Royce and Robin Arryn both represent the Vale. Do they get two separate votes at the meeting? Is the meeting reflective of character importance/influence rather than actual holdings and political power?
Arya, Brienne, and Davos are sitting at the meeting alongside heads of major houses in seemingly equal importance. Brienne and Davos aren't heads of major houses and don't represent anyone. If these get to vote, are there really no other individuals of similar status in Westeros that should also be at this meeting?
Gendry seems to be at the meeting as head of house Baratheon and lord of Storm's End. But he was only legitimized by the Queen who's no longer living and who barely got near the throne, who burned through King's Landing, and who also barely knew him. Was he unanimously accepted as Baratheon without contest?
Where did the Westeros we know go? The interests, the greed, the desire for power and relevancy, the rivalry, the scheming? Are these things gone? Why are they all not clawing at each other's throats for power? Does really no one else want to be king? Are they all interested in having a King rather than being one?
Well I guess I'm just overthinking.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - This scene represents the whole change of paradigm of the entire world of Westeros. The normality of the Game of Thrones we knew was brought up, and waved away, mostly with Edmure's attempt to be King. And that's it. It would probably take a few more episodes, if now a whole season, to accurately portray in any convincing manner what's going on here, in this one scene alone.
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - This scene represents the whole change of paradigm of the entire world of Westeros. The normality of the Game of Thrones we knew was brought up, and waved away, mostly with Edmure's attempt to be King. And that's it. It would probably take a few more episodes, if now a whole season, to accurately portray in any convincing manner what's going on here, in this one scene alone.
#62. Lifeless Sets
I can't evade the feeling both the meeting at the dragonpit and the new small council felt barren. All we had was the few remaining, surviving characters having a casual conversation.
Maybe I''m being unfair. It's just the impression I got. Tonally there was something off. This is the finale, which needed to be done right, and still convey a sense of lived-in world heading towards its own future.
Where's the protection and entourage for the leaders at the dragonpit? Where are the guards, servants, the necessary background? Where's the new King's Guard - or is it just Brienne and Pod? Is it because there's not many people left in King's Landing? But then, who repaired, rebuilt, and cleaned up the place then? The Dothraki?
Regarding the small council, you could argue those meetings were always private and never had an audience to them. But you could just as easily have someone there other than main characters, for example guards, someone opening and closing the door, a servant passing by while a main character walks through a corridor, etc.
 |
| Scene from Game of Thrones S6E7, "The Broken Man". Notice how just a few guards/extras in the background makes all the difference in bringing a set to life and conveying a world lived in. |
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick - I'm being apologetic with this because I want to ensure I'm not direspecting the actors and crew, who are completely exempt of any and all fault. Still, while this is a nitpick, it's one that probably reflects the underlying issues with the show and its ending.
#63. Brienne, Don't Flip the Page Without the Ink Dryi...
... oh no!
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick
#64. Sam Becoming Grand Maester
(Assuming that's his implied role/function shown in the final episode.)
I'm all up for rooting for Sam. But is he "certified" to be Grand Maester? I'm certain Sam saw enough, and went through enough, to warrant recognition from the Maester's Order to some extent. On the other hand, he did
Was there some process by which Sam was given a pass to be a Maester? Or is this an informal position special to him that he was allowed to have? And wouldn't there be an issue with Sam still technically being under oath to the Night's Watch, which still exists apparently, an oath which is made for life, and which, even being a maester, would bind him to only serve a castle of the Night's Watch? Also, wouldn't there be a massive issue for both oaths with Sam being with Gilly and having children? Both require celibacy and would forbid Sam from taking no wi... oh well!
Let's say for a moment this is not absolutely, incredibly impossible. Sam's role in the battle against the Night King, as well as proximity to the other characters could, hypothetically and with some persuasion, warrant him becoming a "Maester-in-training" and/or a pass from the Night's Watch, of some description. Hypothetically. I mean, that's what's shown on screen. Still, as a character, Sam for sure deserved for this process to be explained to the audience, so he could be given due recognition and acclaim - as opposed to just plop him in the small council in some robes without further explanation, which is nice, but nothing more.
Otherwise, far too important rules and the due process of the world are being omitted way too casually here.
 |
| Small council at King's Landing, Game of Thrones finale (S8E6) |
Grade: 2 - Disappointing - Great recognition to the character, but you're casually completely bypassing the world's rules and integrity to do so, again.
#65. Brienne Becoming Lord Commander of the Kingsguard
Brienne made an oath to Sansa, so she would be with her in the North. Given how oaths are vital to her, it's difficult to see her at the capital instead - even if it's to become Commander of the Kingsguard.
Brienne is at the capital to write Jaime's achievements in the book, and also as recognition to her character. Still, if she was offered the position Lord Commander, if she was willing to accept it, and if she was released from her oath by Sansa - all of these plausible - a scene showing it wouldn't hurt. As it stands though, to have her be in this position with an oath saying otherwise feels jarring.
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick - Not impossible by any means, but once again not bothering to show the necessary steps taken to reach this moment makes it seem strange.
#66. Podrick Being Part of the Kingsguard
(Assuming this to be the case due to how he's geared.)
So Pod is now better at fighting. Some time has passed, he's trained with Brienne. Fine. But is he really good enough to be part of the Kingsguard? Part of the King's personal elite guard assigned to protect him?
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick - No.
#67. A Song of Ice and Fire
Nod to the audience, obviously. If there's one real world reference worth placing into the story, it would probably be this one, referencing the real-workd books at the end, LotR-style. However, this suffers due to the presence of all other nods and contrivances throughout the season and even in this episode alone. Fan service and addressing the audience need to be implemented with restraint, in a measured and careful manner. It's perfectly fine and funny if done correctly, but becomes silly and obnoxious, not to mention it breaks the fourth wall, if done too often. To say this restraint was lacking towards the end of Game of Thrones would be an understatement.
Also, Tyrion is not in it. Played for laughts, but jokes aside Tyrion is too much of an important character with strong impact in world events to be dismissed like this, even in-story. Maybe it's a play on the writers also not knowing what to do with Tyrion's character, and wished they could just ignore him?
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick - Hypothetically functional nod to the books in the real-world, if not for the presence of so many other contrivances and real world references.
#68. Ending and Main Characters' Arcs
Grade: 1 - Passable/Nitpick - Hypothetically functional nod to the books in the real-world, if not for the presence of so many other contrivances and real world references.
#68. Ending and Main Characters' Arcs
I will give that the ending was to some extent pleasant, in the sense outright evil didn't triumph. The story ends in a positive, uplifting note, with the world at peace and with the Stark children, at the center of the narrative throughout, with the most development, as well as recognition, freedom, influence, and effective power. Their endings are somewhat fitting: Sansa at least staying in power, and at home in the North; Arya at least being free to roam; Jon at least going back to where he had felt at least somewhat fulfilled, which was at the far North with the wildlings, and with Ygritte. And of course, Bran as King of of the Six Kingdoms. So it was a "good" ending, I suppose. At least there's that.
But while there was an attempt at innovation in the finale, such by having a King being chosen, or by having Arya sail the sea like Nymeria, etc., overall many of the characters in Game of Thrones had been made into caricatures of themselves, regressing them to how they began, or acting out of character completely. Jaime going back to Cersei. Tyrion as a beacon of compassion. Grey Worm regressing to "unsullied mode" - understandable given he'd lost his love, but then not killing Jon for murdering his Queen. Varys openly discussing treason. Bronn having an ad-hoc scene were he was outright hostile to Jaime and Tyrion. There was no particular satisfaction in character arcs that "went back to the beginning", or having characters reduced to caricatures of themselves. That felt as if nothing much of what happened in the series mattered a great deal.
Arya giving up on her assassin ways on the (moral) grounds revenge isn't worth it and would have her end up like Sandor. (Arya also had momentarily regressed completely into a scared child after taking a blow to the head in the Winterfell battle.) By giving up her ethos, and the way this was done, Arya ended up blandly surrendering what she had spent her whole life training for, and at great cost, while also giving up on the character traits and motivations that made her powerful, surprising, and different, for the sake of a moral dismissal of revenge. Yes, revenge is toxic. But whose morals are those: of our world, or theirs? A much more logical progression would be for Arya to remain watching over her world to some capacity, searching for injustice and unfairness, and covertly acting whenever she detected those things. A morally grey and risky choice, one binding Arya to thread ever so closely to self-corruption and moral failure, but one that would fit her well - as opposed to simplifying her into a "clean" and watered-down state, an universal hero that only kills pure evil and sets out on a cruise trip afterwards. This was a "meh" crossing of the finish line for Arya.
 |
| Arya Stark goes on a voyage by sea to esplore what's west of Westeros, Game of Thrones' finale, S8E6 |
Jon going back to Night's Watch when he had transcend it with aplomb while having earned the right to do so (even if just to allow him to go North to be free).
Jon did nothing else but to care for the interests of his people, and of all people, including when he was King in the North, including when he killed his love. He wasn't suddenly betrayed (other than by Sansa), he wasn't deceived, he wasn't manipulated. He just needed to be sent to the Wall because... the Unsullied might be mad? The Unsullied, who a few days ago weren't even in Westeros, and can't have children, and don't have any particular notion of class, or houses, or hierarchy, other than being led by Grey Worm? The Unsullied who, despite their fame, are almost certainty going to be seen as strange foreigners by everyone else? The Unsullied, who shouldn't be there because they all died at the battle of Winterfell?
Jon is an actual, legitimate heir to the Throne, with a legitimate name, presumably holding power and weight to eyes of the other nobles - more so than any political weight house-less Unsullied would ever have. The reasoning for this is the flimsiest of them all, particularly when the show ends with essentially the Starks in power, and in a show specialized in intricate politics, power play, weights and balances, assassins ex machina, and otherwise clever and/or influential characters finding solutions to have their way. If the logic for picking the new King is a good story, no one had a better one than Jon. In Jon's journey he was always considered a bastard his whole life continuously shunned for it, this journey leading up to a dramatic reveal of his true identity. Despite the implied freedom to leave the Seven/Six Kingdoms and live exiled up North, Jon Snow is made to regress back to the bastard he was at the start, and sent to the Night's Watch, exactly like his story had begun. This was not a fitting finale, because he was no longer that bastard.
The character was a King, both inherited and earned, in several different ways. Not that he needed to end up as the King at the capital, or that we couldn't have departed from a system of inheritance. But taking away the character's possibility of making his choices, his agency, condemning him to be an eternal victim, to such an extreme extent and because of a barely justifiable reasoning, was a difficult pill to swallow. Jon's ending is arguably a "good" one - but not one that he chose himself.
Would this be GRRM's intentions for Jon's ending? Would Jon be deprived of his agency and sent back to the Wall like he had started the story, and escape north of it? Only time will tell. But if so, this needed to be better fledged out and carried out in a logical consistent manner, to hold its own weight and bear legitimate impact - as opposed to the contrived and incongruent way it was done.
The only reasonable ending was Sansa's. While there was logic for her to be Queen at the capital, Sansa endured great suffering there, as well throughout all of the time spent away from home. So there's some sense of satisfaction having her coming back to the North and be acknowledged as the true ruler there. She's more at home and identified with the North than maybe Jon could be, and on top of it, ruling over an independent kingdom. The scene of all bending to her as she passed were therefore satisfactory and fulfilling in this regard. Sansa is finally completely independent, even from the intrigues in the South, and wise and mature enough to carry on being that way.
Even if Sansa had been the one who broke her promise to Jon by revealing his identity, which seeded chaos between him and Dany and further undermined her claim to the throne, indirectly leading to Jon killing Dany and having him sent to the Wall. Sansa reached her position of power by employing the same strategies of those she suffered from, namely disinformation and intrigue. While it wasn't her intended purpose, her actions directly resulted in gains for her, while in great losses for Jon. So there is a hint of darkness in her ending.
Mind that expectations of having Sansa on the 'main' throne would still be valid. By the end Sansa's essentially running the show and bossing everyone around, including Bran the King. You can't have children Bran. Your child-maker doesn't work Bran. Sit down uncle. The North shall remain free Bran. Can I have my makeup touched up please? Fetch me a coffee, will you? Jokes aside, it could be argued Sansa ends up with a strong influence not just over the North, but over all of Westeros as well.
Jon did nothing else but to care for the interests of his people, and of all people, including when he was King in the North, including when he killed his love. He wasn't suddenly betrayed (other than by Sansa), he wasn't deceived, he wasn't manipulated. He just needed to be sent to the Wall because... the Unsullied might be mad? The Unsullied, who a few days ago weren't even in Westeros, and can't have children, and don't have any particular notion of class, or houses, or hierarchy, other than being led by Grey Worm? The Unsullied who, despite their fame, are almost certainty going to be seen as strange foreigners by everyone else? The Unsullied, who shouldn't be there because they all died at the battle of Winterfell?
Jon is an actual, legitimate heir to the Throne, with a legitimate name, presumably holding power and weight to eyes of the other nobles - more so than any political weight house-less Unsullied would ever have. The reasoning for this is the flimsiest of them all, particularly when the show ends with essentially the Starks in power, and in a show specialized in intricate politics, power play, weights and balances, assassins ex machina, and otherwise clever and/or influential characters finding solutions to have their way. If the logic for picking the new King is a good story, no one had a better one than Jon. In Jon's journey he was always considered a bastard his whole life continuously shunned for it, this journey leading up to a dramatic reveal of his true identity. Despite the implied freedom to leave the Seven/Six Kingdoms and live exiled up North, Jon Snow is made to regress back to the bastard he was at the start, and sent to the Night's Watch, exactly like his story had begun. This was not a fitting finale, because he was no longer that bastard.
The character was a King, both inherited and earned, in several different ways. Not that he needed to end up as the King at the capital, or that we couldn't have departed from a system of inheritance. But taking away the character's possibility of making his choices, his agency, condemning him to be an eternal victim, to such an extreme extent and because of a barely justifiable reasoning, was a difficult pill to swallow. Jon's ending is arguably a "good" one - but not one that he chose himself.
Would this be GRRM's intentions for Jon's ending? Would Jon be deprived of his agency and sent back to the Wall like he had started the story, and escape north of it? Only time will tell. But if so, this needed to be better fledged out and carried out in a logical consistent manner, to hold its own weight and bear legitimate impact - as opposed to the contrived and incongruent way it was done.
 |
| Jon Snow / Aegon Targaryen is sent to the Night's Watch, Game of Thrones' finale, S8E6 |
The only reasonable ending was Sansa's. While there was logic for her to be Queen at the capital, Sansa endured great suffering there, as well throughout all of the time spent away from home. So there's some sense of satisfaction having her coming back to the North and be acknowledged as the true ruler there. She's more at home and identified with the North than maybe Jon could be, and on top of it, ruling over an independent kingdom. The scene of all bending to her as she passed were therefore satisfactory and fulfilling in this regard. Sansa is finally completely independent, even from the intrigues in the South, and wise and mature enough to carry on being that way.
Even if Sansa had been the one who broke her promise to Jon by revealing his identity, which seeded chaos between him and Dany and further undermined her claim to the throne, indirectly leading to Jon killing Dany and having him sent to the Wall. Sansa reached her position of power by employing the same strategies of those she suffered from, namely disinformation and intrigue. While it wasn't her intended purpose, her actions directly resulted in gains for her, while in great losses for Jon. So there is a hint of darkness in her ending.
Mind that expectations of having Sansa on the 'main' throne would still be valid. By the end Sansa's essentially running the show and bossing everyone around, including Bran the King. You can't have children Bran. Your child-maker doesn't work Bran. Sit down uncle. The North shall remain free Bran. Can I have my makeup touched up please? Fetch me a coffee, will you? Jokes aside, it could be argued Sansa ends up with a strong influence not just over the North, but over all of Westeros as well.
 |
| Sansa Stark hailed as Queen of the North, Game of Thrones' season, S8E6 |
The 'original' GoT was a show where scenes, while realistic and carefully crafted with labor, didn't need sizeable special effects to create long-lasting impact in the audience. Towards its end, the thrill of the episodes was not longer about the next impactful, amazing, and shocking twist that was going to happen. Rather, the emphasys fell upon the story, and the characters, if they were well portrayed, and what would happen to them. Sadly, we never got to see the same uniquely crafted, poignant, realistic storytelling, fully expanded by big-budget special effects and large-scale set-pieces, marrying the two together as we had all hoped it would happen. We did get to enjoy both - but not the two at the same time.
The issue with this, is that it often doesn't matter how the story starts, but how the story ends.
 |
| Ned Stark execution scene, Game of Thrones S1E9 |
Grade: 3 - Problematic - A crummy ending that is equal parts serviceable, incongruent, weakly sustained, poorly written, and at points outright absurd. The ending manages to avert catastrophe. But the show, the story, the characters, everyone involved in it, and the audience, deserved better.
Let me be fair and say that some of the writing was touching, clever, and inspired, at points. At points, later seasons did feel like the "original" GoT.
Sam saying Jon "you gave up the crown for your people; can she do the same?" (S8E1), leading the audience to a valid line of questioning, contrasting the nature of the characters of Jon and Dany. Pulling off many main characters converging on the same location, meeting up at Winterfell before the battle with the Night King (S8E2), in a believable, well-paced, harmonious manner. Several exchanges between Varys and Tyrion. Touching moment between Jaime and Tyrion as the latter says the former was the only one ever had (S8E4).
Attention to detail still remained high throughout, at least in certain aspects. Undead Vyserion losing bits and parts of its body and face from fighting the other dragons, then leaking blue fire everywhere. Jon moving the Targeryan symbol around the map after the battle of Winterfell (but, was he unconsciously that identified with being a Targeryan already? If that was the intention, then it was out of character). The portrayal of "fallen" Dany with matching make-up. Dany setting off wildfire caches in King's Landing, remnants of her father's original intentions, thus completing/fulfilling her father's desires. Many shots and sequences in the finale accompanying, and or callbacks to, initial sequences from the initial season, such as Dany manifesting the vision she had of the Iron Throne in the initial seasons, or Jon leaving the Black Fort going beyond the Wall.
Quality of Cinematography throughout. So many scenes and shots visually off the charts. Just, wow (no irony this time).
Cinematography conveying metaphor. Examples: Tyrion speaking to Dany with the background of the Dragon's head on the wall, the Dragon's ear in front of his mouth, as if saying he's now speaking to the dragon (S8E5); Drogon's wings opening behind Dany, as if saying Dany is now the dragon (S8E6).
Conceivable, in-lore innovation. Setting arahks then the trench on fire, using fire magic. Beric's and Toro's flaming swords, which were simplified lore-wise but worked well, with exceptionally high cool factor. Effective and solid within-episode pacing. The battle of Winterfell, despite bending consistency rules, was extremely effective at inducing tension and uncertainty until the very end. The previous episodes were also solid and consistently paced, as a build-up for that battle.
Flawless portrayal of dragons. Balanced use of magic throughout. The intricate opening credits. The largest and most relalistic battle sequences to ever be featured on television. Plenty of legitimately funny and badass moments. A lot of things done right.
 |
| Drogon burning undead wights with blizzard in background, Battle of Winterfell, S8E3 |
 |
| Drogon and Raeghal above clouds, Battle of Winterfell, S8E3. |
 |
| Cleganebowl, S8E5 |
 |
| Arya Stark at King's Landing, S8E5 |
Cinematography conveying metaphor. Examples: Tyrion speaking to Dany with the background of the Dragon's head on the wall, the Dragon's ear in front of his mouth, as if saying he's now speaking to the dragon (S8E5); Drogon's wings opening behind Dany, as if saying Dany is now the dragon (S8E6).
 |
| Tyrion Lannister preparing to speak to Daenerys Targaryen with sculpted dragon head in backdrop, S8E5 |
Conceivable, in-lore innovation. Setting arahks then the trench on fire, using fire magic. Beric's and Toro's flaming swords, which were simplified lore-wise but worked well, with exceptionally high cool factor. Effective and solid within-episode pacing. The battle of Winterfell, despite bending consistency rules, was extremely effective at inducing tension and uncertainty until the very end. The previous episodes were also solid and consistently paced, as a build-up for that battle.
Flawless portrayal of dragons. Balanced use of magic throughout. The intricate opening credits. The largest and most relalistic battle sequences to ever be featured on television. Plenty of legitimately funny and badass moments. A lot of things done right.
The Challenge of Finishing the Story, and Criticism
The task of bringing things to an end and closing the story was a very difficult one, both for the books and for the T.V. show. It was something even GRRM himself was, and supposedly still is, struggling with. That was perhaps the one attribute that gave rise to this ordeal. The challenge of properly closing this sprawling, intrincate series necessitated a careful and measured approach, probably, maybe, one with GRRM closely involved - but, definitely, not in a scenario where the showrunners made themselves isolated, writing on their own, bearing the brunt of that responsibility. But for that, it would have been necessary for one to analyse the situation in a honest manner.
All of this is pure speculation. I don't have any particular details or intel on this. This is strictly how I think things happened.
The showrunners were tasked with distilling and adapting the original material to the TV show, which they largely did successfully and brilliantly as long as they had access to said source material to work from. In their afaptation D&D used some techniques coming from the original writing and/or needed for its adaptation, which to a large extent were a differentiating factor and what brought the show success. These included things such as the foreshadowing, expectation subversion, breaking common TV and storytelling tropes, shocking the audience, callbacks to the past, veiled messages from the writer, and so on.
As they started approaching the end of GRRM's material, and especially more visibly once this material ran out, and they had to write things on their own, they oscillated between following GRRM's views, and doing their own thing. I think this was always there, in one way or another. When writing on their own, and/or filling in any gaps of things that existed in the show but not in the books and vice-versa, they naturally continued to utilize those same techniques. One one hand, they wanted to convey a sense of consistency, as well as honoring what the show had previously achieved. On the other, perhaps they felt that falling back onto the show's tried-and-true elements could atone for some of the liberties/deviations they were having to take elsewhere, or to to help getting messages across that they weren't sure on how to as well.
In Game of Thrones, there was a lot of praise, but also a lot of criticism involved. The audience raved about the show and tended to acclaim GRRM for the good things, but when D&D tried to do the same things and those turned out to be not to great, maybe they received flak instead of praise. Maybe there was a tendency for the audience to credit GRRM for the good stuff, but when things didn't work they blamed D&D instead. This became more intense especially once they were writing completely without source material, and it was just D&D going on their own, so to speak.
That's not to say this was purely the bias of the audience, and was completely undeserved. I think part of the equation was that D&D were simply not as adept as writing on their own. Their merit is being attuned to the screen and how it works, and so they worked much better when focusing just on adapting from a good foundation of source material. In any case, any cracks would become more clear as the rift between adapting material, and writing from scratch, grew. This was always going to be a challenge, and not one unheard of. Other fictional shows and series before GoT had also experienced the situation of reaching the end of the original content from which they were adapted, and having to carry on without it. Plus, Game of Thrones had become a worldwide phenomenon, and with it, a lot of exposure and criticism was going to be placed on it no matter what everyone did.
In the middle of the storm, a number of other things also contributed to the ordeal. I imagine that initially D&D wouldn't be thinking the show would be as successfull as it was, or would take the proportions it did. Over time they grew exhausted, not only from the hard labor involved, but also of the incessant criticism of the audience, which only grew over time. D&D would have also grown rustrated with GRRM himself, for seemingly not publishing material at a fast enough rate, and/or not displaying the willingness to do so, to accompany the show's pace. Which sentenced them to eventually run out of material.
One more aspect to this, which I may or may not be right about, is that D&D likely felt stuck between the need to keep up with show's quality coming from GRRM's source material, and successfully pulling off their own things. They likely felt stuck between honoring it and GRRM's vision, and wanting to throw certain things out the window and do things their own way, much like apprentices who admire their mentor but at the same time wanting to prove themselves and escape his rules, timing, and limitations. But since they'd always have to come from the premises of the original material, as well as the standards of quality the show had established, they could neither completely escape the comparisons with the original author, nor succeed at making the show their own. Everything we saw on screen was a result, on some level, of this push-pull.
Being criticised is a very hard place to be in. D&D constantly felt they couldn't be acknowledged for their own merits, while not knowing how to deal or escape from GRRM's and the show's early references and standards. At some point, I'm certain that in their eyes the interpretation was, "no matter what we do, these guys (the audience) will never be satisfied". And from there they went, "there's no way to keep them satisfied, this is all hate, we'll get it regardless of what we do, so we'll just carry on and do things as we like". D&D decided to do GoT their way, thinking and behaving under the premise that "we can do this just as well".
As they started approaching the end of GRRM's material, and especially more visibly once this material ran out, and they had to write things on their own, they oscillated between following GRRM's views, and doing their own thing. I think this was always there, in one way or another. When writing on their own, and/or filling in any gaps of things that existed in the show but not in the books and vice-versa, they naturally continued to utilize those same techniques. One one hand, they wanted to convey a sense of consistency, as well as honoring what the show had previously achieved. On the other, perhaps they felt that falling back onto the show's tried-and-true elements could atone for some of the liberties/deviations they were having to take elsewhere, or to to help getting messages across that they weren't sure on how to as well.
In Game of Thrones, there was a lot of praise, but also a lot of criticism involved. The audience raved about the show and tended to acclaim GRRM for the good things, but when D&D tried to do the same things and those turned out to be not to great, maybe they received flak instead of praise. Maybe there was a tendency for the audience to credit GRRM for the good stuff, but when things didn't work they blamed D&D instead. This became more intense especially once they were writing completely without source material, and it was just D&D going on their own, so to speak.
That's not to say this was purely the bias of the audience, and was completely undeserved. I think part of the equation was that D&D were simply not as adept as writing on their own. Their merit is being attuned to the screen and how it works, and so they worked much better when focusing just on adapting from a good foundation of source material. In any case, any cracks would become more clear as the rift between adapting material, and writing from scratch, grew. This was always going to be a challenge, and not one unheard of. Other fictional shows and series before GoT had also experienced the situation of reaching the end of the original content from which they were adapted, and having to carry on without it. Plus, Game of Thrones had become a worldwide phenomenon, and with it, a lot of exposure and criticism was going to be placed on it no matter what everyone did.
In the middle of the storm, a number of other things also contributed to the ordeal. I imagine that initially D&D wouldn't be thinking the show would be as successfull as it was, or would take the proportions it did. Over time they grew exhausted, not only from the hard labor involved, but also of the incessant criticism of the audience, which only grew over time. D&D would have also grown rustrated with GRRM himself, for seemingly not publishing material at a fast enough rate, and/or not displaying the willingness to do so, to accompany the show's pace. Which sentenced them to eventually run out of material.
One more aspect to this, which I may or may not be right about, is that D&D likely felt stuck between the need to keep up with show's quality coming from GRRM's source material, and successfully pulling off their own things. They likely felt stuck between honoring it and GRRM's vision, and wanting to throw certain things out the window and do things their own way, much like apprentices who admire their mentor but at the same time wanting to prove themselves and escape his rules, timing, and limitations. But since they'd always have to come from the premises of the original material, as well as the standards of quality the show had established, they could neither completely escape the comparisons with the original author, nor succeed at making the show their own. Everything we saw on screen was a result, on some level, of this push-pull.
Their Approach
Being criticised is a very hard place to be in. D&D constantly felt they couldn't be acknowledged for their own merits, while not knowing how to deal or escape from GRRM's and the show's early references and standards. At some point, I'm certain that in their eyes the interpretation was, "no matter what we do, these guys (the audience) will never be satisfied". And from there they went, "there's no way to keep them satisfied, this is all hate, we'll get it regardless of what we do, so we'll just carry on and do things as we like". D&D decided to do GoT their way, thinking and behaving under the premise that "we can do this just as well".
But in doing so - for any practical purposes, and to the extent we can appreciate the final result - they weren't completely honest and willing to face the music. This is my take on it. They weren't fully honest about how well their choices were capable of honoring Game of Thrones the T.V. show. Are we really up to the task? Are we capable of doing this right? Are we capable of accompanying GRRM's vision to the extent we match his vision? Are we able to do GoT justice? While they no doubt performed this analysis on their own, and there were a ton of forces, interests and factors in the background playing a role in this story, ultimately D&D chose to shut down to the outside, simply dismissing the negative feedback as hate, and carrying on doing their thing.
Where they reacted this way, they lacked humility. They missed the chance to self-analyze in such a way that would allow them to perform better course corrections, at least to a meaningful extent (other than last-minute edits and on-the-knee reactions to the audience's feedback). Had they managed to keep themselves objective and open-minded, maybe they could have done some things differently.
Maybe they could have asked for GRRM's more involved help, in a limited capacity, so that the most important arcs could be better conveyed. Maybe they could have asked for another writer, or writers, to help them emulate GRRM's ideas, or review their scripts (I don't know if they did do this). Maybe having their writing go through a panel of writers to obtain feedback from a knowledgeable and objective source first, would allow them to detect incongruencies and contrivances - perhaps the most sensible option. Or maybe they could have chosen to pass the baton to someone passionate and willing enough, whom they trusted to complete the show. Which I'm sure was an option on the table, or at least on their minds, at some point. But I do think they missed the chance to look honestly into themselves and say, "we're good at some things, but maybe we're not as talented as writers as we thought, or perhaps we're not up to the task, or perhaps we're too tired. Maybe we need help" and make the necessary adjustments depending on that evaluation.
Maybe they could have asked for GRRM's more involved help, in a limited capacity, so that the most important arcs could be better conveyed. Maybe they could have asked for another writer, or writers, to help them emulate GRRM's ideas, or review their scripts (I don't know if they did do this). Maybe having their writing go through a panel of writers to obtain feedback from a knowledgeable and objective source first, would allow them to detect incongruencies and contrivances - perhaps the most sensible option. Or maybe they could have chosen to pass the baton to someone passionate and willing enough, whom they trusted to complete the show. Which I'm sure was an option on the table, or at least on their minds, at some point. But I do think they missed the chance to look honestly into themselves and say, "we're good at some things, but maybe we're not as talented as writers as we thought, or perhaps we're not up to the task, or perhaps we're too tired. Maybe we need help" and make the necessary adjustments depending on that evaluation.
It's too easy to pass judgment from the outside. D&D are human beings, and human beings make dubious decisions, or, just plain mistakes. It's our nature and it's absolutely unavoidable. Mistakes are part of learning. It's also exceedingly easy to place judgment in retrospect. It's far more challenging to see things clearly, as we're in the think of it ourselves, and while the final product hasn't come out yet.
D&D had the full pressure of an observing world placed on their careers, their reputation, their everything. I'm sure they cared deeply about their work. I'm sure they were as concerned as GRRM about not catering too much to the audience that they'd lose the identity and control of the narrative. And I don't know what I'd do differently if I were in their shoes. But to the extent D&D failed to acknowledge in an honest manner their own merits, they weren't being honest with themselves, with the audience, and with the show they themselves had created. So, together with genuine, meticulous, and deliberate caring for the final product, there was also a fair bit of lack of humility, and consequently of respect, in their approach.
Apart from the contrivances and questionable choices of the series, I think this is where the bulk of the 'negativity' from the audience comes from. I think it corresponds to the unwillingness of the listener in being honest in their self-evaluation, and carrying on what they're doing, without truly getting what's going on - or wanting to. When you're saying something and the other person isn't listening, you're going to speak louder.
The hate wasn't all because the audience was being mean and impossible to satisfy. A part of it was because D&D simply weren't being as good at emulating the same quality of the original material and writing, and they also weren't willing to acknoweldge it. They didn't have to be as good writers as the original - no one said they should. But, for one reason or another, they submitted themselves to that very responsibility, and so they were judged for it. Nevertheless, it is unavoidable how even entertaining the thought of assuming you're able to write just as well as the original author, to the point you're willing to submit yourself to the same expectations and measurements of quality, has strong notes of direspect and dismissal of the skills and role of the writer.
It needs to be said D&D were placed in a position of having to write on their own, if they wanted to continue with Game of Thrones, and to continually come under constant pressure and criticism all the while they'd be doing so. But that's a responsibility the writer has to bear. So in choosing to moving forward in this manner, regardless of why, it became theirs the responsibility of carrying the burden.
Ending the Story as Soon as Possible
D&D felt increasingly cornered. They weren't able to rely on, nor did they want to be controlled by, an increasingly hostile audience. They weren't able to rely on GRRM, who wasn't responsible for the show and didn't "have" to write material for it, yet whom they were pressed to emulate. They were out of source material, other than perhaps GRRMs broad strokes and indications for the ending. And they probably rejected the idea to pass on the show to someone else, out of a sense of responsibility - it would be a different show - but maybe also because they felt doing so would be an admission of failure (it wouldn't be if handled right, but the criticism had taken its toll). And so they were caught in the corner, pressed and pushed not to fail, while drained and running out of fresh ideas.
So their reaction was to get to the end of the show as soon as possible, as fast as possible. They were exhausted, not just of the show but of the pressure around it, and didn't want to stay trapped in it any more than they needed or wanted to be. Getting to the finish line was a form of protection, self-defense: they'd still be leading their show, but avoid exposing themselves too much more to criticism, by reaching the end as quickly as they could. Also, maybe they wanted to "let's get to it already" with the show's big battles and confrontations it was leading to, after so much time "waiting", i.e. spent on careful character development and intrincate storytelling. So the showrunners were now aiming directly at those conclusions, writing the show planning and setting them up. But the more they did so, the consistency of the previous settting started being overlooked, bent, or outright broken, in order to achieve this. GoT soon found itself madly dashing towards a finish line while stumbling and falling apart more and more along the way. It wasn't a trainwreck, but the train did arrive missing a few pieces, wheels, cargo, and a lot of the passengers. And at the wrong station.
Certainly that it was satisfying to finally see the spectacular and realistic-looking conclusions appear on screen, an accomplishment in and of itself. But as consistency and logic were being bypassed or ignored in order to do so, this ended up pulling the carpet of consistency from under the show's feet. As the large-scale confrontations grew in spectacularity, conversely the meaning and caring afforded by the audience to them gradually faded.
By the end of GoT, most characters were simplified or diluted, rules of consistency were ignored, nothing made sense, or had to. Ravens and dragons could travel the continent overnight. Armies could spawn out of thin air. Wights were lethal and rip you apart on contact, but only if weren't a named character. Scorpion bolts could hit true and repeatedly, but only if the plot demanded it, otherwise they would all miss. The Dragon Queen had a response out of rage and desperation, but one that made little natural sense given her character build-up. Perhaps it was the intended ending, and a logical one if afforded the correct timing - but not how it was portrayed. Bran had the power of omniscience, but would only use it if the script demanded him to. Either he was too disconnected to not use any power in an impactful manner, remaining a purely observational character - or suddenly he was willing to become King.
Everything felt like a caricature, a world falling apart as it dashed towards its end, like a sprinting wight that swallowed a shard of dragonglass. There was too much of a lessening of distance between the show and the perspectives, assessment of value, and mindset, of the real world, as if the carefully painted world of GoT was dissolving in front of our eyes. We were one step away from bringing Ned Stark back, making Ed Sheeran the King, and casually having characters break the fourth wall, just for the same of one more nod to the audience. The coffee cups and plastic bottles were just a small, visible symptom of the sizeable erosion of the show's energy.
In a sense I'm glad this final season lasted just 6 episodes. If there were to be more, the risk would be for things to be worse.
It would be unrealistic and unfair to say D&D didn't care. They were committed and meticulous. And they succeeded in at least carrying the show all the way though. They had to deal with a situation that by nature would always be difficult regardless, in part caused by the original author's struggles to finish his own books, in part due to the immense pressure and criticism placed on them. Anyone of us standing in D&D's shoes, coming under pressure and criticism for the same things, would have struggled with the situation, and would probably have something similar things - if not far worse. Having said that, the final result is not just dissapointing and disjointed, but at points carries an abject lack of respect for itself. And it's hard to meet this lack of respect with compassion and a positive approach.
One thing is someone making a mistake in earnest, fully owning and committing to the responsibility for his craft. Another is making the same mistake with lack of integrity being present.
Individuals always deserve compassion and understanding - but not the lack of integrity itself. Lack of integrity shouldn't be treated with compassion (at least in the first instance, or while it exists). Lack of integrity must be handled for what it is, which is to be placed under the light of objective scrutiny, so lessons can be learned, and avoiding the same situations in the future can be made possible or easier. Things need to be treated by their name and for what they are. Game of Thrones may have been "just a T.V. show", but it was also a work of art of cultural landmark proportions, with matching stakes and importance. It needed a corresponding level of respect in its treatment, which was not acknowledged to its fullest. The decline and the finale of GoT were not "fine". Any perspective that sees or believes it to be so, or that it's not important enough to warrant such criticism, with all due respect is not acknowledging the lack of integrity present in it, and as such is giving it a pass.
Anyone who writes needs to consider not just what they want or like to write, but also how the audience will receive their work, and what effects said work is intended to have on them. And while this may or may not be achieved successfully, this is a responsibility of the writer to bear, for better or worse. The showrunners' lack of integrity was in taking on the mantle of writing, yet not owning this responsibility, or not observing it fully, to the extent they should have. If you don't want this responsibility, don't be writers then.
Writing is a legitimate and highly specialized skill - a statement that goes without saying and is, or should be, self-evident. Writing isn't just about correctly placing one word after the next, or describing one character walking from one location to the other. Writing encompasses many complex and layered elements beneath the hood, as well as the author submitting himself to be judged for his final work. You don't just write (professionally) for yourself: it's a service to others. You're continually striking a balance between what you want, and how the audience will receive it. And the craft itself certainy isn't deserving of a couple fellows walking into it saying we can do this just as good if not better as this other guy - even if they can recognize good writing when they see it. If you think you can and you aspire to it that's fine. But you have to prove yourself first while owning the burden, i.e. pay your dues. Not doing so is naive, silly, stupid. It's the same as the food critic saying he can cook just as well if not better than the chef. Thinking this way to any serious extent is dismissive of the trade itself, and disrespectful to all those who abide by its rules.
Say what you want, and what you must, of GRRM. You might say he's lazy, disrespectful, lacking motivation, and so forth. You might say all of this was caused by his lack of writing speed. But one thing he's never going to do, is to put out something he thinks doesn't live up to his own standards. For better or worse, he'd rather never publish anything at all, than to put out something he's not proud of, or when it doesn't feel right to him. The weight and complexity of the story might have gotten the better of him. I don't know, I hope not, we'll see - but that's because of the responsibility he's taken on his shoulders. He could just as well publish something, just for the money and to finish the story. But he didn't. Because, at least up until now, he's aligning with his responsibility as a writer. In this sense, he's in integrity. He's the term of comparison, in this matter also.
If D&D weren't able to handle the situation properly, it was their responsibility to acknowledge it - as opposed to undeservedly presuming themselves to be up to the task as writers, while pushing out a lackluster product to relieve them of their misery.
Acknowledging Lack of Integrity If and When Present
It would be unrealistic and unfair to say D&D didn't care. They were committed and meticulous. And they succeeded in at least carrying the show all the way though. They had to deal with a situation that by nature would always be difficult regardless, in part caused by the original author's struggles to finish his own books, in part due to the immense pressure and criticism placed on them. Anyone of us standing in D&D's shoes, coming under pressure and criticism for the same things, would have struggled with the situation, and would probably have something similar things - if not far worse. Having said that, the final result is not just dissapointing and disjointed, but at points carries an abject lack of respect for itself. And it's hard to meet this lack of respect with compassion and a positive approach.
One thing is someone making a mistake in earnest, fully owning and committing to the responsibility for his craft. Another is making the same mistake with lack of integrity being present.
Individuals always deserve compassion and understanding - but not the lack of integrity itself. Lack of integrity shouldn't be treated with compassion (at least in the first instance, or while it exists). Lack of integrity must be handled for what it is, which is to be placed under the light of objective scrutiny, so lessons can be learned, and avoiding the same situations in the future can be made possible or easier. Things need to be treated by their name and for what they are. Game of Thrones may have been "just a T.V. show", but it was also a work of art of cultural landmark proportions, with matching stakes and importance. It needed a corresponding level of respect in its treatment, which was not acknowledged to its fullest. The decline and the finale of GoT were not "fine". Any perspective that sees or believes it to be so, or that it's not important enough to warrant such criticism, with all due respect is not acknowledging the lack of integrity present in it, and as such is giving it a pass.
Anyone who writes needs to consider not just what they want or like to write, but also how the audience will receive their work, and what effects said work is intended to have on them. And while this may or may not be achieved successfully, this is a responsibility of the writer to bear, for better or worse. The showrunners' lack of integrity was in taking on the mantle of writing, yet not owning this responsibility, or not observing it fully, to the extent they should have. If you don't want this responsibility, don't be writers then.
Writing is a legitimate and highly specialized skill - a statement that goes without saying and is, or should be, self-evident. Writing isn't just about correctly placing one word after the next, or describing one character walking from one location to the other. Writing encompasses many complex and layered elements beneath the hood, as well as the author submitting himself to be judged for his final work. You don't just write (professionally) for yourself: it's a service to others. You're continually striking a balance between what you want, and how the audience will receive it. And the craft itself certainy isn't deserving of a couple fellows walking into it saying we can do this just as good if not better as this other guy - even if they can recognize good writing when they see it. If you think you can and you aspire to it that's fine. But you have to prove yourself first while owning the burden, i.e. pay your dues. Not doing so is naive, silly, stupid. It's the same as the food critic saying he can cook just as well if not better than the chef. Thinking this way to any serious extent is dismissive of the trade itself, and disrespectful to all those who abide by its rules.
Say what you want, and what you must, of GRRM. You might say he's lazy, disrespectful, lacking motivation, and so forth. You might say all of this was caused by his lack of writing speed. But one thing he's never going to do, is to put out something he thinks doesn't live up to his own standards. For better or worse, he'd rather never publish anything at all, than to put out something he's not proud of, or when it doesn't feel right to him. The weight and complexity of the story might have gotten the better of him. I don't know, I hope not, we'll see - but that's because of the responsibility he's taken on his shoulders. He could just as well publish something, just for the money and to finish the story. But he didn't. Because, at least up until now, he's aligning with his responsibility as a writer. In this sense, he's in integrity. He's the term of comparison, in this matter also.
If D&D weren't able to handle the situation properly, it was their responsibility to acknowledge it - as opposed to undeservedly presuming themselves to be up to the task as writers, while pushing out a lackluster product to relieve them of their misery.
D&D will be writing Star Wars next. They'll be largely free from an original author in doing so, yet in an already established Universe, with its own well-known set of rules and mithology. If you notice, this is more or less the same type of scenario. This may or may not result in failure, and in yet another wave of disappointment, this time on a different franchise. Or, D&D may very well have learned some things from their experience with GRRM and GoT, and bring new innovative elements onto to an Universe that doesn't have them. Or, maybe a bit of both will happen. Only time will tell.
However, I do feel they'll have to work hard to avoid the label of being amazing at adapting an original body of work onto screen, but being equally adept at butchering said original body of work without mercy, when they have to write on their own from it.
However, I do feel they'll have to work hard to avoid the label of being amazing at adapting an original body of work onto screen, but being equally adept at butchering said original body of work without mercy, when they have to write on their own from it.
Final Thoughts
Am I frustrated because my favorite fantasy show didn't turn out the way I personally wanted to?
No.
I don't care about that. I'm not the writer. I'm the audience.
I'd be fine, if my dislikes would be confined to reasons within the story. The issue is disliking the show or parts of it for reasons external of it.
The only thing I was disappointed by, was the fact that in the middle of this story - not the GoT's script, but the context of the series' creation as a whole - there was lack of integrity.
The show setting itself expectations so high that it couldn't meet, as an argument is largely moot. It's a deflection. Yes, there were high expectations. But where the show failed for the most part, was in maintaining and respecting its own previous standards of quality, while being generally unwilling to recognizing it and handling it appropriately.
There's a side of the audience raging about GoT's problems, and then another side appreciative of the show and willing to give it a break. Well, I'm with both. One doesn't need to be separated from the other, nor spoil the other's perspectives and experience. I think the show should be appreciated and praised. But I also believe lack of integrity shouldn't be given a pass, as there will usually be something to learn from it.
The show setting itself expectations so high that it couldn't meet, as an argument is largely moot. It's a deflection. Yes, there were high expectations. But where the show failed for the most part, was in maintaining and respecting its own previous standards of quality, while being generally unwilling to recognizing it and handling it appropriately.
There's a side of the audience raging about GoT's problems, and then another side appreciative of the show and willing to give it a break. Well, I'm with both. One doesn't need to be separated from the other, nor spoil the other's perspectives and experience. I think the show should be appreciated and praised. But I also believe lack of integrity shouldn't be given a pass, as there will usually be something to learn from it.
Towards the end of GoT I felt nothing special. I discovered, to my disappointment, I no longer particularly cared about the characters. The lackluster final seasons and the show's ending left a bittersweet taste, like finishing a good meal with a sub-par desert. I'm not sure this was what GRRM meant by a "bittersweet ending", or if that's what Ramsay meant with "if you think this has an happy ending you haven't been paying attention". But that's nonetheless a curious and meta turn of events: we did have a bittersweet ending - just not becasue of reasons within the story, but from outside of it.
Game of Thrones is the best, most groundbreaking, most influential show of our time. And it remains being so, despite its final seasons. Still, I can't help but feel its influence and legacy, built on the back of a brilliant source material, was let down towards the end. And that's a shame, shame, shame.
. . .
