Game of Thrones Season 8

[757690]

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.

Okay, this is total bull**** and you know it.

This is what happened and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for posting outright lies about other posters.

In this thread, I made a joke after episode 3 that I couldn't believe they killed Tony Stark. It was a lame pun on his last name also being a last name in this series. I actually had not seen Endgame when I posted it, so I didn't know that Tony Stark died in Endgame. If there was a Banner family in GOT, I would have said I couldn't believe Bruce Banner died. No one would have known it was a spoiler for Endgame (including myself) until RedTeamGo yelled at me for posting a spoiler.
How can I post a spoiler for a movie I had not seen yet? It was RedTeamGo who made it a spoiler.

And Larry keeps making this false accusation, in this and other threads.

Seriously, what's your problem? If you have a problem with me, take it private. Stop posting lies you know are not true.

And as for plot holes, I write in the industry for a living, and have for 20 years. I have a movie coming out this summer. I think I know what a ****ing plot hole is.

[Larry Schuler]

Are you disproving my quoted post?

[757690]

Are you disproving my quoted post?

Dude, I like you, you're smart and clever. I just don't understand why you pull **** like this.

[Stray]

On the bright side it wasn't as terrible as Dexter's ending.

[puca]

Anyway, this is brilliant and I hope it's where the books go (lol we aren't getting books, but for sake of conversation) - I think they might because the argument is very persuasive.

My GoT theory I’ve been going on about for nearly a decade might be true

https://medium.com/@GeneticJen/spoil...e-cb8c9c8e894c

The "Bran is God and orchestrated everything" argument. The books have laid the groundwork and it would explain the ending - which we know Martin gave to these two idiots.

That was my theory as well. I agree with the writer that the books drop some major hints that there is much more to the Bran story than the show ever touched on. My biggest disappointment is that the show didn't go there. Perhaps this was by design as now the books can reveal the 'man behind the curtain'.

And if that is the case, I sort of feel sorry for the writers because they cannot defend themselves.

[RedEye]

That was my theory as well. I agree with the writer that the books drop some major hints that there is much more to the Bran story than the show ever touched on. My biggest disappointment is that the show didn't go there. Perhaps this was by design as now the books can reveal the 'man behind the curtain'.

And if that is the case, I sort of feel sorry for the writers because they cannot defend themselves.

Bran as “puppet master” makes a lot of sense and recasts the end of the show as a sort of new beginning. It also leaves some juicy details for the books so that GRRM doesn’t lose all his fire (and ice) and can write something that is complementary to (as opposed to redundant with) the series he contributed to for so long. It would really be a fascinating example of and allegory for the task of transmedia storytelling itself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheBigLebowski]

On the bright side it wasn't as terrible as Dexter's ending.

Again, I'm apparently the only person alive who liked it.

[RiverRat13]

LOL at "there are two camps - those of us who were smart enough to know what was coming and those of you rubes who were too dumb to get it."

As it's been stated by multiple people multiple times on here, Dany's turn wasn't surprising but it was rushed/unearned. I'll ask this again for those defending the show - before Episode 8.4, what did show Dany do that show Stannis Baratheon would not have?

[RiverRat13]

That was my theory as well. I agree with the writer that the books drop some major hints that there is much more to the Bran story than the show ever touched on. My biggest disappointment is that the show didn't go there. Perhaps this was by design as now the books can reveal the 'man behind the curtain'.

And if that is the case, I sort of feel sorry for the writers because they cannot defend themselves.

I hope it doesn't turn out that everything was preordained by Bran. That means that all of the decisions characters have made were not of their own agency and denigrates the incredible character development.

As far as Bran goes, the show struggled with all things magical/mystic. And that's okay. Looking back, part of my own failings as a show watcher was to expect everything that was canon in the books to be also canon in the show. That was never the case. I considered myself to be a book reader who was also a show apologist until Episode 8.4. I never complained about all of the "teleporting" in the sixth and seventh seasons and even overlooked most of the issues with Season 7 (and there are many). But that fourth episode this season was just bad writing and bad television. My biggest gripe is that they really needed the four extra episodes this season and should have cut out all the ridiculously stupid appeals to a better nature of Cersei that didn't exist. Those two revisions would have given more time to see Dany turn mad and to flush out the weight of Jon's parentage.

[M2]

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.

We're all familiar with the concept of the unreliable narrator, but GRRM seized upon the concept of the unreliable reader (which the show then converted into the unreliable viewer). Dating back to Tolkien, we've had these fantasy archetypes hammered into us. They're hard-wired into us, and this story messes with almost every single one of them. The noble protagonist who does the right thing gets his head chopped off. The heroic young commander who never lost a battle loses the war at a wedding. Heroic quests constantly go wrong. The climactic battle against the ultimate evil isn't the climactic battle, and most people aren't even aware it happened. The young hero/heroine who came from nothing becomes a tyrant rather than a benevolent monarch.

In the case of Dany, I suspect if people do what BuckeyeRed27 did and rewatch some episodes from earlier seasons, they'll see where the show was hiding this in plain sight.

[NeilHamburger]

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.

Man, you are one arrogant person. There are also plenty of people who see the events of the past but don't feel they did a good enough job with the transition into madness. Nice job being totally condescending to everyone who has a different view than yours though. I bet you're loads of fun to be around.

Also, just a helpful tip. Very rarely when dealing with complex issues are things as simple as you make them seem. You act like others were too ignorant to see, but your own statement reflects ignorance to complexities and how different people can interpret situations and actions.

[Redsfaithful]

In the case of Dany, I suspect if people do what BuckeyeRed27 did and rewatch some episodes from earlier seasons, they'll see where the show was hiding this in plain sight.

holy God there were "Mad Queen" theories back before there was a show even, when are you going to get that being the ending isn't the issue people have?

- - - Updated - - -

We're all familiar with the concept of the unreliable narrator, but GRRM seized upon the concept of the unreliable reader (which the show then converted into the unreliable viewer). Dating back to Tolkien, we've had these fantasy archetypes hammered into us. They're hard-wired into us, and this story messes with almost every single one of them. The noble protagonist who does the right thing gets his head chopped off. The heroic young commander who never lost a battle loses the war at a wedding. Heroic quests constantly go wrong. The climactic battle against the ultimate evil isn't the climactic battle, and most people aren't even aware it happened. The young hero/heroine who came from nothing becomes a tyrant rather than a benevolent monarch.

The books mess with conventions, the show really and truly did not. When you realize the Stark children are the protagonists, collectively, you start seeing it was extremely conventional, down to Ned Stark being murdered.

Whether the books end up completely mirroring that, who knows, I doubt it would be as clumsy or handled in a way that undermines everything that came before, but you never know.

[WildcatFan]

Nerd entertainment is weird, man. Viewers all think their way is the "right" way to present a story they had no ownership of in the first place. Star Wars, Avengers, Game of Thrones—it's all series of stories told by their own creators the way they want to tell them.

Maybe Bran becoming king was their way of saying that all rulers are flawed, that you'll never have a perfect king or queen, so you might be wise to choose one who sees the bigger picture. It subverted the idea of a rightful heir, which goes against everything the main characters concerned themselves with for eight years.

Or maybe that's just my own interpretation. Maybe it was in celebration of Ned Stark, still probably the most virtuous character in the series, showing that acting rightly can actually bring about good down the road in spite of a deeply cynical world. It's justified that his surviving children are leading Westeros into a new era in the North, the West, and the six kingdoms.

Maybe it meant something else, and creators can tell their stories any damn way they please.

[757690]

We're all familiar with the concept of the unreliable narrator, but GRRM seized upon the concept of the unreliable reader (which the show then converted into the unreliable viewer). Dating back to Tolkien, we've had these fantasy archetypes hammered into us. They're hard-wired into us, and this story messes with almost every single one of them. The noble protagonist who does the right thing gets his head chopped off. The heroic young commander who never lost a battle loses the war at a wedding. Heroic quests constantly go wrong. The climactic battle against the ultimate evil isn't the climactic battle, and most people aren't even aware it happened. The young hero/heroine who came from nothing becomes a tyrant rather than a benevolent monarch.

In the case of Dany, I suspect if people do what BuckeyeRed27 did and rewatch some episodes from earlier seasons, they'll see where the show was hiding this in plain sight.

It’s good for your characters to act in surprising manners. But they must always be true to their character arch that you developed.

Imagine if at the end of Breaking Bad Walter snaps and goes to an elementary school and murders all the children there. The show has plenty of clues that he would become the villain, but there no signs that he would murder innocent children. I mean, the outrage would be overwhelming.

[marcshoe]

To quote some Tweedy guy:

And if the whole world's singing your songs
And all you're paintings have been hung
Just remember what was yours is everyone's from now on
And that's not wrong or right
But you can struggle with it all you like
You'll only get uptight