Game of Thrones Season 8

[RedEye]

Tyrion explaining isn't a plot hole. What he is explaining is a plot hole, by definition, because he is explaining it.

If it wasn't a plot hole, if it was fully explained, the writers wouldn't feel the need to explain it, to fill in the plot hole.

The plot hole may be there only because most people are like me and aren't as smart as people like you and M2. But it's still a plot hole if it needs to be explained.

Hold on a second. Wasn't Tyrion just reiterating what already happened in previous seasons? That's just redundancy, which is a feature of most mainstream narrative culture and -- like it or lump it -- a crucial part of these long-form binge-worthy series like GoT where the audience is required to remember large amounts of information from episode to episode.

Anyone who was paying attention to Dany's story arc knew basically all that stuff already, and may even have taken some pleasure in hearing the two opposing interpretations of her actions laid bare as they were by Tyrion and Jon Snow.I can see other problems with what they did with Tyrion here, but I don't think a "plot hole" is an accurate way to describe what went wrong.

[757690]

Hold on a second. Wasn't Tyrion just reiterating what already happened in previous seasons? That's just redundancy, which is a feature of most mainstream narrative culture and -- like it or lump it -- a crucial part of these long-form binge-worthy series like GoT where the audience is required to remember large amounts of information from episode to episode. I can see other problems with what they did with Tyrion here, but I don't think a "plot hole" is an accurate way to describe what went wrong.

"And she grows more powerful and more sure that she is good and right. She believes her destiny is to build a better world for everyone. If you believed that...truly believed that...wouldn't you kill whomever stood between you and paradise?"

This isn't reiterating what already happened in previous seasons. It's explaining her motivation. Justifying why she changed so drastically, and became a sociopath. That's covering up a plot hole, and bad writing.

[RedEye]

This isn't reiterating what already happened in previous seasons. It's explaining her motivation. Justifying why she changed so drastically, and became a sociopath. That's covering up a plot hole, and bad writing.

I guess I'll disagree then, because almost everyone else I've talked to saw this development coming for nearly the entire time she's been a character. She's always needed various advisors to curb her baser instincts and nearly every event leading up to the finale foreshadowed some kind of breaking point ("breaking the wheel"): the merciless beheading of her best friend, the trauma of watching other cherished friends die in front of her, and her clear paranoia about Jon being the rightful heir. Now, we can argue about whether scorching 10,000 innocent people with Drogon might have been a bridge to far ... but in no way was her "breaking bad" moment a plot hole.

Most of the other debates I've seen about the writing have to do with whether or not the writing *earned* these moments, not about whether they had basic coherence. We know *why* Dany did ostensibly what she did; the turning point just happened very fast compared with the character development in other seasons.

That's my main gripe actually -- it just all happened too fast.

[NeilHamburger]

The fact that Tyrion explained it to Jon doesn't count as a "plot hole" and it WAS already fully explained via the story to viewers who'd been paying attention. Jon Snow, and apparently most viewers, were in denial.

In fact, I posted this prior to the last two episodes:



M2, among others, also nailed the plot because they were paying attention. In fact, if the writers had asked Tyrion to say the following, it would have been just as good:



It's been explained over and over.

I would have no problem if those were some of the early seeds, and you had a solid season or two of transition into her becoming the mad queen. I'm not opposed to her being the mad queen. I think they did a poor job of the transition. I think it was rushed and that a slow descent would've made the character much better. I think it would've been more realistic.

Also, it wasn't just that "we didn't like who she was killing". It was harsh punishment. But, it was to truly evil people. And in a real world sense I get it. But, in the GOT Universe that type of punishment for evil or bad deeds wasn't exclusive to Dany. Every character in the show from Jon sentencing a 10-year-old to death, to Ned beheading a man to Arya with her kill list had similar harsh judgments.

I think if you had another season where she transitions from harsh judgments against evil or enemy soldiers to harsh judgments that either harm or kill innocents and slowly begins to go mad it would've been great.


Also, how hilarious is it that the "nice" way of taking King's Landing is surrounding it so that no food can get in. Effectively starving the poor people (who would surely suffer first). LOL. I guess in that way Dany probably was less "mad" than Jon or Tyrion.

[RedEye]

I would have no problem if those were some of the early seeds, and you had a solid season or two of transition into her becoming the mad queen. I'm not opposed to her being the mad queen. I think they did a poor job of the transition. I think it was rushed and that a slow descent would've made the character much better.

I think we are on the same page here. We understand what is supposed to happen to her and why, but it just seems like everything went into fast forward in seasons 7 and 8. Almost like the writers panicked without Martin's material to provide them with a solid framework.

[757690]

I guess I'll disagree then, because almost everyone else I've talked to saw this development coming for nearly the entire time she's been a character. She's always needed various advisors to curb her baser instincts and nearly every event leading up to the finale foreshadowed some kind of breaking point ("breaking the wheel"): the merciless beheading of her best friend, the trauma of watching other cherished friends die in front of her, and her clear paranoia about Jon being the rightful heir. Now, we can argue about whether scorching 10,000 innocent people with Drogon might have been a bridge to far ... but in no way was her "breaking bad" moment a plot hole.

First, if it happened too fast, that's a plot hole.

But her killing 10,000 innocent people being a bridge too far is exactly what everyone is complaining about. And that is exactly what Tyrion is justifying.

Very few people had a problem with her becoming darker, it's her becoming a sociopath that everyone has a problem with. Her character arc lead nowhere near that. And many see how it was handled as sexist. This is from Nerdist.com

"There is a world where Daenerys going rogue makes sense, but this isn’t it. This was an irresponsible, irrevocable undoing of an arc that enthralled and empowered a generation. And it sends a dangerous message: That women who seek power will piss it away the second their emotions kick in. The show might as well as have told us Dany was on her period."

[RedEye]

First, if it happened too fast, that's a plot hole.

But her killing 10,000 innocent people being a bridge too far is exactly what everyone is complaining about. And that is exactly what Tyrion is justifying.

I think maybe we're just arguing semantics at this point, but something happening too fast is not, in my book anyway, a "plot hole." It's perhaps a candidate for "poor character development" and "insufficient motivation", and certainly could be accused of "bad writing" by some, but no one was confused about *why* she was *supposed* to be doing what she was doing. There was a logic to the events; people just just didn't buy it.

[757690]

I think maybe we're just arguing semantics at this point, but something happening too fast is not, in my book anyway, a "plot hole." It's perhaps a candidate for "poor character development" and "insufficient motivation", and certainly could be accused of "bad writing" by some, but no one was confused about *why* she was *supposed* to be doing what she was doing. There was a logic to the events; people just just didn't buy it.

it is semantics. But a plot hole is something that is left unexplained, hence the use of the term "hole". Something is missing. Going too fast to fully explain everything leaves some things left unexplained, and thus, a hole in the plot. Most plot holes can be explained. They just weren't by the writer.

[RedEye]

Most plot holes can be explained. They just weren't by the writer.

Except in this case these elements were clearly explained. Over and over. For seasons. And then reiterated by Tyrion in that climactic scene with Jon. The purpose there, I thought, was to contrast the two prevailing interpretations of Dany's actions that would lead to the climax of the show -- and to lay out clearly the ambivalence of her motivations (was she justified or not?). Now, I do agree that it could have been orchestrated far better in the writing, and a more delicately balanced script could have sown the seeds of support for Jon's side of the argument far earlier and more subtly. But again, no one I have spoken to thinks that what happened was unexplained in any shape or form.

[SteelSD]

Tyrion explaining isn't a plot hole. What he is explaining is a plot hole, by definition, because he is explaining it.

If it wasn't a plot hole, if it was fully explained, the writers wouldn't feel the need to explain it, to fill in the plot hole.

The plot hole may be there only because most people are like me and aren't as smart as people like you and M2. But it's still a plot hole if it needs to be explained.

You've really outdone yourself on the circular logic there; i.e, that getting an explanation demands that a plot hole must exist because you believe that plot holes exist when you get an explanation. The fact that there were people who didn't understand what was actually going on doesn't mean that a plot hole was present. The whole "Dany might actually be tyrant" has been, for years, probably the worst kept GoT "secret" out there. As I said previously, if you weren't paying attention, that's on you; not the writers.

Right now, there are two camps. One that identified the long-term foreshadowing present and understood that what happened always could be a reasonable outcome of a character arc. The other camp desperately wanted a character to follow fantasy storytelling convention (in a series that eschewed such convention at every turn) and want to blame the writers for their own failure to see what's been right in front of them for 8 seasons.

[Redsfaithful]

Right now, there are two camps. One that identified the long-term foreshadowing present and understood that what happened always could be a reasonable outcome of a character arc. The other camp desperately wanted a character to follow fantasy storytelling convention (in a series that eschewed such convention at every turn) and want to blame the writers for their own failure to see what's been right in front of them for 8 seasons.

I keep seeing defenders of the show who want the argument to be about whether the outcome was foreshadowed, and don't want to talk about whether the story and character development in the last two seasons was actually any good, which is understandable, since the ending to this was such a mess.

And the series absolutely did not eschew fantasy storytelling convention, are you a time traveler from like, 2014?

[757690]

Except in this case these elements were clearly explained. Over and over. For seasons. And then reiterated by Tyrion in that climactic scene with Jon. The purpose there, I thought, was to contrast the two prevailing interpretations of Dany's actions that would lead to the climax of the show -- and to lay out clearly the ambivalence of her motivations (was she justified or not?). Now, I do agree that it could have been orchestrated far better in the writing, and a more delicately balanced script could have sown the seeds of support for Jon's side of the argument far earlier and more subtly. But again, no one I have spoken to thinks that what happened was unexplained in any shape or form.

Her turning dark, and greedy for power was explained. Her becoming a sociopath and murdering tens of thousands of innocent people, including women and children, is not. And there is an ocean of difference between the two. In the former, she's becomes a standard tyrant. In the latter, she becomes Stalin/Hitler/Pol Pot. Are you really saying everyone you knew expected her to become Hitler?

[757690]

You've really outdone yourself on the circular logic there; i.e, that getting an explanation demands that a plot hole must exist because you believe that plot holes exist when you get an explanation. The fact that there were people who didn't understand what was actually going on doesn't mean that a plot hole was present. The whole "Dany might actually be tyrant" has been, for years, probably the worst kept GoT "secret" out there. As I said previously, if you weren't paying attention, that's on you; not the writers.

Right now, there are two camps. One that identified the long-term foreshadowing present and understood that what happened always could be a reasonable outcome of a character arc. The other camp desperately wanted a character to follow fantasy storytelling convention (in a series that eschewed such convention at every turn) and want to blame the writers for their own failure to see what's been right in front of them for 8 seasons.

1. "The fact that there were people who didn't understand what was actually going on doesn't mean that a plot hole was present." That is the very definition of a plot hole.
2. As said earlier, most people predicted she would become a tyrant. But I don't know anyone who predicted she would become a sociopath who murders entire cities of innocents.

[RedEye]

Her turning dark, and greedy for power was explained. Her becoming a sociopath and murdering tens of thousands of innocent people, including women and children, is not. And there is an ocean of difference between the two. In the former, she's becomes a standard tyrant. In the latter, she becomes Stalin/Hitler/Pol Pot. Are you really saying everyone you knew expected her to become Hitler?

I don’t see her as Hitler. This crime was not premeditated over months and months. It was a flip decision made at the last minute on the back of a dragon — rash and disastrous, evidence of her ultimate unfitness for rule. She has shown many hints of this for years. It could certainly have been handled more gradually, but there is no mystery here.

We’re really talking about interpretation of motivation here rather than lack of motivation. We are having a disagreement about her character — much like Jon and Tyrion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Larry Schuler]

757383 posted an insane Endgame spoiler and argued that it wasn’t a spoiler because if you hadn’t seen the movie you wouldn’t know it was an actual spoiler. If he felt like arguing that the year is currently 2014 or that the Reds jerseys are orange, he’d argue it until the very end of time with no shame or pause. Arguing that a plot hole is a plot hole because he said it’s a plot hole which is a plot hole is small time for him.