Game of Thrones Ending Poll WARNING SPOILERS!!!

So GOT finally ended and I got to watch the ending.

If you haven't seen it yet stop reading as there will be definitely be spoilers in this thread. It's impossible to discuss the ending without talking about the details.

It wasn't my ideal ending, but I generally liked it. It made sense. As for the series, sometimes I liked the book version, and sometimes I liked how they changed it for TV. Overall I think they did a great job with the TV series.

Just curious what you guys think. Let's poll!

 

If we look at the ending per se, its good.. The main problem that people have was that if you compare it to all the build up from seasons 1-7, the whole of season 8 feels lacking in comparison.

 

We've both been following GoT since it first premiered, and there are some mixed emotions there:

(Obviously... ALL THE SPOILERS!!!)

1. There was very little anyone could do to finish a series such as that and not have some negative element. When a show becomes that much a part of the Zeitgeist, ending it in any fashion is going to cause anxiety amongst its viewers. Unfortunately, GoT had that working against them.

2. You can very clearly see when the show surpassed the books in the way of content. Seasons 1 to 4 are clearly inspired by Martin's style of writing: The characters are organic, the plots move at the pace of a snail, and twists are both completely surprising and serve to push the story along. These are all hallmark signs of a pantser-style writer, which Martin has admitted to being. In many ways, Seasons 1 to 4 is like a soap opera, which is fine. It ends with Arya going to Braavos and all of us hoping to see some ass-whopping in Seasons 5. Seasons 5 to 8 are written with only Martin's notes, and fall into the traditional style of TV show writing: characters on a rigid development course, plots being considerably tighter, and twists being much more telegraphed. This is more of how a plotter-style writer works. The problem is that the two aren't really compatible. Seasons 1 to 4 feel like one show, while Seasons 5 to 8 feel like another. You could build an argument that Seasons 5 was kind of a mish-mash/transitory season, but that's splitting hairs.

3. While we understand the business decision to shorten Seasons 7 and 8, the creative decision to was not sound. Game of Thrones built itself on moving at a certain pace, and to give the writers credit they held it together for Seasons 5 and 6. But the final two seasons felt rushed, even if it was because they had "merged" storylines. Seasons 7 is only seven episodes, and yet it spans a considerable timeframe (it's not overnight to go from Meereen to Dragonstone). Season 8 is six episodes and consists of only two viable locations (Winterfell and King's Landing). The show was known for things happening along the road to further character development, and none of that happened.

4. Speaking of character development, in Seasons 7 and 8, some of it was subverted (we'll get to that word last) or ignored just to make the condensed writing work. Some characters had amazing arcs with incredible conclusions--we personally consider Theon Greyjoy's story to be one of the best. Some blatantly backpedaled to get the characters where the writers needed them--Jamie Lannister is a prime example (there are literally hundreds of other reasons he could have gone to King's Landing.) Tyrion, one of the best characters in the series, is purposefully dumbed-down to make him a counterpoint to Varys. The Hound goes from redemption to revenge, and apparently f**k Brienne of Tarth because she would have lopped Dany's head off at King's Landing.

5. Let's talk about the two queens. Cersei, for all her bloodshed and hatred, was a powerful character... one of the best if not the best in the series, and an amazing primary antagonist to the "good guys." How she died cheated the viewer and LOL'd in the face of the story's lore. She was told at an early age that she'd die at the hands of her brother (who she assumed to be Tyrion). In writing, that's called "creating a promise." When you break that promise, you betray your readers. The same holds true in television and film. One of her brothers (Tyrion or Jamie) needed to kill her... and she died via rocks. Now, some will say that Tyrion killed her by sending her and Jamie to the crypts to escape, but that is a cop-out. The intent was not murderous, and Tyrion advised against the burning of King's Landing. Ergo, Tyrion did not kill Cersei. When we were watching that episode, we kept expecting Jamie to mercy-kill Cersei instead of being buried alive. That would have been awesome. Nope. Rocks fall, everyone dies. Now for Dany. Yes, looking back, you do see the stage set for her heel turn; however, the problem again is the rushed state of Seasons 7 and 8. If you set up the timeline, the cracks in Dany's mental armor only become apparent in the latter half of Season 7. Not enough time to turn from the Break of Chains to the Burner of Babies. It was a good idea, just poorly executed.

6. Now, Season 8. It was an unfortunate design choice to split the plot in two, with episodes 1 to 3 about the Night King and episodes 4 to 6 about the Iron Throne. Yes, yes, we know that it's always been about the Iron Throne, but the reality is that Season 8 feels like two different seasons, and it suffers for that. There is always, absolutely always, another way to do things, and had Seasons 8 found a way to combine the two storylines for at least the first five episodes of Seasons 8, and the final one was about the fallout, that would have been much better. Game of Thrones (we feel like we'ew repeating ourselves) was built on the idea of simultaneous storytelling, that is exactly what Season 8 was not.

7. Finally, the show set itself up to fail by these two words: subverting expectations. Nedd Stark's execution was amazing. The Red and Purple Weddings were amazing. The death of Jon Snow was amazing. Yes, you can subvert expectations at the right moment and create genuine joy in your viewers. But when your entire franchise is built on wondering if someone is going to cut someone else's head off instead of knight them, you can't win. It's impossible for a viewer to go into a long-running show without some sort of expectations. No matter what you tell them, they will expect something. And when all you have to deliver is one twist after another, the twists become the norm and lose their impact. Then you do non-twists to keep it fresh, and soon that loses its impact. Before you know it, the only reaction the masses feel is a disappointment. Game of Thrones was never going to deliver its full impact in its final moments because it had set up the audience to not accept anything.

So the final verdict? Did we like how Game of Thrones ended? Yes, we liked the last 30 minutes. What we don't like is how it got there.

 

"I asked Dave and Dan about who they thought was Jon Snow's father. When they gave me the right answer, I knew they were the right people for the job."

-George R R Martin.


me: *laughs in hindsight*

 

I felt it got botched pretty bad up to Danny's murder to the rest of the episode.

Greyworm was full anti-west by this point. Same with Drogon (lol). But he clearly despised Jon Snow and Tyrian.

Now I'll admit, Danny's love for Jon was real but so was her new ALL-IN approach to being sole leader of the world (can't have that with Jon next to her). So maybe off camera they had their argument about Jon Snows future in the winners circle which would have been an incredible scene to recapture some old Danny being logical again. B
w
he had to unarm for Tryian...yet not for Danny...that did not make sense.

That lead to the uncomfterble counsel of Elrond thing with somehow Tyrian taking center part.

Brandon the Broken?

Nights Watch?

- From here the ending goes on fairly well. But that gap I laid out is what really ruined my expectations.

 

I found it okay, but the fact they laughed at the idea of democracy was abit foreseeable. And that it indeed happened like this, was disappointing.
They should have made some indications, that Bran's plan could be, to prepare society for democracy. Then it would actually make sense, that Bran accepted after all the position as the king.
But yea, it was fine.

 

I thought it was okay. Are we talking final episode, or just last season?

I felt that the last season was the weakest overall, but I didn't "hate" it as such. I've been "around the houses" a few times, and in my experience, TV shows rarely end particularly well. Classic examples are things like The X Files in the 90s, which kinda just peetered out; I'm sure it had an ending but not that many people actually watched it, or if they did, they were probably lost by many of the episodes leading up to it.

So as a result, I kinda wasn't expecting anything mindblowing, and ultimately, that's what we got. An ending which was watchable, but not particularly great, and certainly not the show's high point.

The only thing I genuinely hated was how, in one of the last scenes, the characters are shown a book written by an in-universe character, called "A Song of Ice and Fire", which is a chronicle of the events of the story. This was a needless nod to Tolkien; it just felt very "fan-service-y" and I wouldn't have included it.

 

Agreed. We both rolled our eyes on that one. Especially with Tyrion not even being mentioned. We could see Dave and Dan at the writing's table going "LOL isn't that funny?!" and the rest of the writing team being all -nods and just wants it over-.