Game of Thrones fans here?

[Cheeks]

Oh you got internet'd bro.  Thats a video from England during the 2016 Euros. They've been superimposing videos for memes into it for almost 3 years.

Many of my issues were explained by others here.  I just particularly hated the main "warriors".  Jamie, Brienne, Tormund, etc... being absolutely OVERRUN by the wights for a few hours and somehow surviving.  Hell, even Sam's worthless azz survived.  That was just the kind of lazy storytelling you expect out of a cliche war movie, not ruthless GoT.

Also interesting, though not critical to the plot, one of the only times we've ever truly seen Varys show emotion or fear.  He was clearly terrified.

Thanks

[Hards Alumni]

Maisie Williams on finding out she kills the Night King (as reported by Entertainment Weekly):

"I immediately thought that everybody would hate it; that Arya doesn't deserve it. The hardest thing is in any series is when you build up a villain that's so impossible to defeat and then you defeat them...it had to be intelligently done because otherwise people are like, "well, [the villain] couldn't have been that bad when some 100-pound girl comes in and stabs him.'"

Well said.

res ipsa loquitur

[forgetful]

I hope you don't take this as a slight, but I've noticed that a lot of the criticism of GoT over the years comes not so much from the story the series is telling, but the story it's not telling. And a lot of that comes from people who've spun theories online about where they think the story is going or should go, and then are critical because the TV series isn't telling the story they want to see, i.e. fan service to that (relatively) minority group of viewers.

Edit: not that it's happening here, but Game of Thrones may be the only series in history that gets criticized by its fans for not killing off enough of their favorite characters.

At least for me, my small problems with GoT, has nothing to do with theories spun online.

It has to do with the world and stories GRRM created in the books, and how the show violated core tenets of the actual world. Most of this deals with the Night King's story arc.

I really don't have a preference on how it ends, it just needs to be internally consistent with the world of Ice and Fire. The story of wanting to kill Bran to end the "memories of man" just isn't consistent. That's a bit disappointing from a World of GRRM standpoint. It really has nothing to do with online theories.

I personally wouldn't be surprised (as I mentioned before), if this whole story becomes false in the prequel. I also wouldn't be surprised if Bran ends up bad at the end of this. Melisandre suggest Bran is one of the Night King's generals in the books, and everything around the 3-eyed crow/Bloodraven suggest they are part of the God of Darkness (e.g. the Great Other).

That said, I understand why they did that from a show standpoint. I love the show. Think it is well done. Personally, I think there could be some improvements, like having an extra season, like I suggested before, but also understand why that is not the case. I said it last season and this, the issues with plot points are because they are a little rushed timeline wise and need to tie up a lot of lose ends, too much gets left unanswered.

Like what happened to Crastors babies that were turned to others without dying? Are they still around? Where are they? What is their purpose? and so many more.

[jesmu84]

https://twitter.com/notdred/status/1122842150377590790?s=19

This is great

[Galway Eagle]

Lowest rated episode on rotten tomatoes since season 5 with 78% average is 94%

[mu03eng]

At least for me, my small problems with GoT, has nothing to do with theories spun online.

It has to do with the world and stories GRRM created in the books, and how the show violated core tenets of the actual world. Most of this deals with the Night King's story arc.

I really don't have a preference on how it ends, it just needs to be internally consistent with the world of Ice and Fire. The story of wanting to kill Bran to end the "memories of man" just isn't consistent. That's a bit disappointing from a World of GRRM standpoint. It really has nothing to do with online theories.

I personally wouldn't be surprised (as I mentioned before), if this whole story becomes false in the prequel. I also wouldn't be surprised if Bran ends up bad at the end of this. Melisandre suggest Bran is one of the Night King's generals in the books, and everything around the 3-eyed crow/Bloodraven suggest they are part of the God of Darkness (e.g. the Great Other).

That said, I understand why they did that from a show standpoint. I love the show. Think it is well done. Personally, I think there could be some improvements, like having an extra season, like I suggested before, but also understand why that is not the case. I said it last season and this, the issues with plot points are because they are a little rushed timeline wise and need to tie up a lot of lose ends, too much gets left unanswered.

Like what happened to Crastors babies that were turned to others without dying? Are they still around? Where are they? What is their purpose? and so many more.

The problem is that novels and TV shows are two very different story telling mediums so you can't really compare the two. I mean if you want Bran to go into severe narrator voice and explain the NK motivations and origins for an episode or 3, you could get there but that seems boring as hell to me.

[brewcity77]

"There will come a day after a long summer when the stars bleed and the cold breath of darkness falls heavy on the world. In this dread hour a warrior shall draw from the fire a burning sword. And that sword shall be Lightbringer, the Red Sword of Heroes, and he who clasps it shall be Azor Ahai come again, and the darkness shall flee before him."

What?  Based on what evidence at all?

She led the people against the darkness, Beric was brought back 6 times so he could save Arya, prophecies aren't always literal.

[Galway Eagle]

She led the people against the darkness, Beric was brought back 6 times so he could save Arya, prophecies aren't always literal.

They just threw prophecy out the window. There's no rationale, even if you're using symbolism, for Arya based off the prophecy. Nothing wrong, but the writers should've said in the post interviews they decided to go a different direction or they felt the prophecy didn't necessarily mean defeating the night king personally but bringing everyone together

[Hards Alumni]

They just threw prophecy out the window. There's no rationale, even if you're using symbolism, for Arya based off the prophecy. Nothing wrong, but the writers should've said in the post interviews they decided to go a different direction or they felt the prophecy didn't necessarily mean defeating the night king personally but bringing everyone together

Exactly.  I have no problem with Arya being AA or any of the three prophecies fulfilled.  I have a problem with how lazy the writing was to get us there.

The problem is that novels and TV shows are two very different story telling mediums so you can't really compare the two. I mean if you want Bran to go into severe narrator voice and explain the NK motivations and origins for an episode or 3, you could get there but that seems boring as hell to me.

Harry Potter did the Deathly Hallows story in under three minutes, and it was brilliant.  Bran doesn't have to narrate anything either.  Sam went to the Citadel to forge his chain, but also to learn as much as he could about the Others.  Bran and Sam and Tyrion as a group could have put their three knowledge bases together to discuss something about them for 3 minutes, and it would have been just fine.

[Coleman]

Exactly.  I have no problem with Arya being AA or any of the three prophecies fulfilled.  I have a problem with how lazy the writing was to get us there.

Harry Potter did the Deathly Hallows story in under three minutes, and it was brilliant.  Bran doesn't have to narrate anything either.  Sam went to the Citadel to forge his chain, but also to learn as much as he could about the Others.  Bran and Sam and Tyrion as a group could have put their three knowledge bases together to discuss something about them for 3 minutes, and it would have been just fine.

Not to mention this was an 83 minute episode. And there is no cap on how long they are. If they wanted to go 100 minutes, HBO would let them. There is plenty of time to tell whatever story they want in whatever way they can think of. The "TV shows are different" doesn't really hold up. This is not a standard 42 minute network cable TV show with commercials. These could be full length films for each episode if they wanted (that's actually what we were promised a year or two ago, so much for that). There's really no excuse.

[Pakuni]

At least for me, my small problems with GoT, has nothing to do with theories spun online.

It has to do with the world and stories GRRM created in the books, and how the show violated core tenets of the actual world. Most of this deals with the Night King's story arc.

I really don't have a preference on how it ends, it just needs to be internally consistent with the world of Ice and Fire. The story of wanting to kill Bran to end the "memories of man" just isn't consistent. That's a bit disappointing from a World of GRRM standpoint. It really has nothing to do with online theories.

I personally wouldn't be surprised (as I mentioned before), if this whole story becomes false in the prequel. I also wouldn't be surprised if Bran ends up bad at the end of this. Melisandre suggest Bran is one of the Night King's generals in the books, and everything around the 3-eyed crow/Bloodraven suggest they are part of the God of Darkness (e.g. the Great Other).

That said, I understand why they did that from a show standpoint. I love the show. Think it is well done. Personally, I think there could be some improvements, like having an extra season, like I suggested before, but also understand why that is not the case. I said it last season and this, the issues with plot points are because they are a little rushed timeline wise and need to tie up a lot of lose ends, too much gets left unanswered.

Like what happened to Crastors babies that were turned to others without dying? Are they still around? Where are they? What is their purpose? and so many more.

This is all fine and your points are well taken. But keep in mind that most of us show viewers didn't first read the books and it really doesn't matter to us whether the TV show aligns perfectly with what Martin created in the novels. While some of you mock the "Fan service" of the TV show, you're demanding your own type of fan service from the showrunners. That matters not at all to most viewers. And that doesn't, as some would have you believe, make us stupid or incapable of critical thought.

Re: The Crastor babies became white walkers, and hence would have been killed when the Night King died. This, like Arya's exact movements leading up to her leaping out at the NK, is not something I felt I needed to have my hand held through.

[Galway Eagle]

This is all fine and your points are well taken. But keep in mind that most of us show viewers didn't first read the books and it really doesn't matter to us whether the TV show aligns perfectly with what Martin created in the novels. While some of you mock the "Fan service" of the TV show, you're demanding your own type of fan service from the showrunners. That matters not at all to most viewers. And that doesn't, as some would have you believe, make us stupid or incapable of critical thought.

Re: The Crastor babies became white walkers, and hence would have been killed when the Night King died. This, like Arya's exact movements leading up to her leaping out at the NK, is not something I felt I needed to have my hand held through.

Right but you became a fan of the show because of the publicity it got for staying true to the books. Unless you started watching randomly and continued to watch and not like it until they brought Jon back and then thought it got good from there?

I only read the books since I moved to Galway so it's not like I've been hounding them to stick to the books since the beginning but there's a point where you have to admit they backtracked on a lot of what was set up even if you aren't a book reader. They could have not added those elements from the books but they did and should be held accountable to them tie up the loose ends

[Pakuni]

Right but you became a fan of the show because of the publicity it got for staying true to the books. Unless you started watching randomly and continued to watch and not like it until they brought Jon back and then thought it got good from there?

Nope. I've watched the show from the first episode, having never heard of the books at that point.
Why would someone start watching a TV show because it stayed true to books they've never read? That would be weird.

I only read the books since I moved to Galway so it's not like I've been hounding them to stick to the books since the beginning but there's a point where you have to admit they backtracked on a lot of what was set up even if you aren't a book reader. They could have not added those elements from the books but they did and should be held accountable to them tie up the loose ends

I guess this is where we differ. I'm just not seeing this great schism you speak of, or how they've "backtracked" on a lot of what was set up. Could you cite some specific examples of how the showrunners have backtracked? And by that I mean, I don't want examples of where you disagree with their narrative choices ... actual examples of backtracking.

[Galway Eagle]

Nope. I've watched the show from the first episode, having never heard of the books at that point.
Why would someone start watching a TV show because it stayed true to books they've never read? That would be weird.

I guess this is where we differ. I'm just not seeing this great schism you speak of, or how they've "backtracked" on a lot of what was set up. Could you cite some specific examples of how the showrunners have backtracked? And by that I mean, I don't want examples of where you disagree with their narrative choices ... actual examples of backtracking.

To the first paragraph I meant the writing that hooked you and general culture on the show was based on the books. Didn't mean you were watching directly because of the books.

I'll do the backtracking list Thursday or Friday as it's exams over here. Backtracking may not be the best term but you'll understand more what I mean when I put together my list.

Also not just to you but everyone, did any of you think the Jon yelling at the dragon scene served any purpose whatsoever? It was ridiculous 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Not to mention this was an 83 minute episode. And there is no cap on how long they are. If they wanted to go 100 minutes, HBO would let them. There is plenty of time to tell whatever story they want in whatever way they can think of. The "TV shows are different" doesn't really hold up. This is not a standard 42 minute network cable TV show with commercials. These could be full length films for each episode if they wanted (that's actually what we were promised a year or two ago, so much for that). There's really no excuse.

An exposition, even a short one, would not have fit well in that episode.  And how do we know there's wont be more explanation before the series ends?

[jesmu84]

Showrunners have a tough path to walk.

I love the "characters in rooms talking" episodes and scenes. Other viewers want all action. Other viewers want strict Canon (even with parts unyet written by Martin). Others want the prophecy/story to play out based on whatever theory they like best

Tough situation.

Love the show. Possibly the last epic show that no one will binge watch

[JWags85]

Lowest rated episode on rotten tomatoes since season 5 with 78% average is 94%

Sounds about right.  It was a beautifully shot episode.  The scene with the Dothraki being lit with fire was breathtaking.  And it was entertaining.

My main gripes became exacerbated when people breathlessly started talking about it was the best episode, best episode of a show ever, all this nonsense.  It felt like people who started watching the show from Season 7 onwards.

[forgetful]

This is all fine and your points are well taken. But keep in mind that most of us show viewers didn't first read the books and it really doesn't matter to us whether the TV show aligns perfectly with what Martin created in the novels. While some of you mock the "Fan service" of the TV show, you're demanding your own type of fan service from the showrunners. That matters not at all to most viewers. And that doesn't, as some would have you believe, make us stupid or incapable of critical thought.

Re: The Crastor babies became white walkers, and hence would have been killed when the Night King died. This, like Arya's exact movements leading up to her leaping out at the NK, is not something I felt I needed to have my hand held through.

There is a difference between fan service (pandering to desires of fans) and being true to the universe created by the author.

But I wholly agree with you regarding the show vs. the book. That's why I really enjoy the show; I do my best to separate them.

Re. Castor babies. That doesn't fit the narrative of the show or the book. If that is the real explanation, it is sloppy writing for the sake of a cool seen where a babies eyes turn blue.

I think that we will still see white walkers/night king. There is an emphasis on balance in the world GRRM created. That applies to balance between the Great Other, and R'hllor. Winter and Summer, Darkness and Light, and Death and Life. Destroying one completely, would suggest there is no longer a balance.

[forgetful]

Showrunners have a tough path to walk.

I love the "characters in rooms talking" episodes and scenes. Other viewers want all action. Other viewers want strict Canon (even with parts unyet written by Martin). Others want the prophecy/story to play out based on whatever theory they like best

Tough situation.

Love the show. Possibly the last epic show that no one will binge watch

For those wanting tragedy. Wait for episode 5. It will be more tragic than episode 3.

[Hards Alumni]

This is all fine and your points are well taken. But keep in mind that most of us show viewers didn't first read the books and it really doesn't matter to us whether the TV show aligns perfectly with what Martin created in the novels. While some of you mock the "Fan service" of the TV show, you're demanding your own type of fan service from the showrunners. That matters not at all to most viewers. And that doesn't, as some would have you believe, make us stupid or incapable of critical thought.

Re: The Crastor babies became white walkers, and hence would have been killed when the Night King died. This, like Arya's exact movements leading up to her leaping out at the NK, is not something I felt I needed to have my hand held through.

You're not listening to me at all.  I don't expect the show to be faithful to the books at all.  If that were the case, I would not have watched the show at all!  What I do expect is that the narrative is consistent with the world that had been created over the last decade.  If the writers introduce plots and prophecies and then just disregard them because they are difficult to wrap up, then its fair to call out their bad writing.  If a character who is surrounded by enemies would have died in seasons 1-6, but is somehow immune to death at this point... we get to call out bad writing as well... Right?

Look, if you're going to have the characters get overwhelmed by enemies, then they should probably die.  I'm fine if they live, but make it believable.  Make it consistent with the universe created.  Otherwise, screw it.  Make Mellisandre turn into a big dragon or something else as equally stupid.  People would have lost their damn minds if something, "sO cOoL" had happened.  It also would have been, "unexpected'.  But it has no precedent, and it wouldn't have been part of the universe.  So it would have been bad writing too.

[Pakuni]

Re. Castor babies. That doesn't fit the narrative of the show or the book. If that is the real explanation, it is sloppy writing for the sake of a cool seen where a babies eyes turn blue.

It definitely fits in the narrative of the show, maybe both. In fact, don't Craster's wives refer to the White Walkers as "Craster's sons."
From a GoT wiki:
In the episode "Oathkeeper" the fate of Craster's sons is revealed when a White Walker riding an undead horse takes the last son of Craster and carries him towards a shattered mountain in the Lands of Always Winter.
Once inside, the White Walker approaches an icy altar ringed by large icy spikes and places the baby upon the altar. In the distance, a group of thirteen black-garbed White Walkers are revealed to be viewing the proceedings from afar. One of them breaks from the middle of their number and approaches the altar, stopping to regard the human child for a moment before gently gathering him in its arms. The baby immediately calms, staring into the face of the White Walker. It places its index finger upon the baby's cheek, causing the child's eyes to slow turn to icy, depthless blue and his skin to grow pale, transforming him into another White Walker.


As for the books, I haven't read them, but according to the GoT wiki:
In the A Song of Ice and Fire novels, Craster's wives are convinced that the baby boys given by Craster to the Others are, in turn, transformed into new Others. However, no such event has ever been witnessed in the books so far.
Craster's wives do say that they believe that the infant sons that Craster gave the Others as sacrifices were turned into new White Walkers - but it wasn't clear if this is what actually happens, or if it was just the wild suspicion of Craster's frightened, isolated wives. When Samwell is told to flee with Gilly and her newborn son, Gilly urges that if he doesn't "they" will come for him. When he asks who "they" are, another wife says: "The boy's brothers...Craster's sons. The white cold's rising out there, crow. I can feel it in my bones. These poor old bones don't lie. They'll be here soon, the sons."
Confirmation of what exactly happens to Craster's sons has not occurred in the books yet.

So, while we can't say for certain that's what happens in the books, it's appears to be the only possibility mentioned so far. Unless the wiki is wrong, which is always possible.

[MU82]

After reading every comment here, I feel so silly to be enjoying this season. I should be screaming about how very, very disappointed and disillusioned I am.

Anyhoo, I haven't read this theory about who ascends to the crown after Sersei meets her doom (though it probably has been espoused by somebody either here or elsewhere):

What if it's Gendry, with Arya as his bad-arse queen? He is Robert's rightful heir, and haven't folks been talking about a royal Baratheon/Stark union forever?

Maybe that can only happen if either Jon/Dany both die or if Jon/Dany agree to it for some reason, or (more likely because I'm not a super-deep-overthinker when it comes to GoT) maybe I'm missing something that would make it impossible.

[Warrior Code]

An exposition, even a short one, would not have fit well in that episode.  And how do we know there's wont be more explanation before the series ends?

Right? This wasn't the final episode.

[Pakuni]

You're not listening to me at all.  I don't expect the show to be faithful to the books at all.  If that were the case, I would not have watched the show at all!  What I do expect is that the narrative is consistent with the world that had been created over the last decade.  If the writers introduce plots and prophecies and then just disregard them because they are difficult to wrap up, then its fair to call out their bad writing.  If a character who is surrounded by enemies would have died in seasons 1-6, but is somehow immune to death at this point... we get to call out bad writing as well... Right?

So you're suggesting no one got out of an improbable situation in the first six seasons.
Tywin showing up just in the nick of time to save the day in Blackwater doesn't ring familiar?
Sansa somehow gets the Knights of the Vale to the Battle of the Bastards just as all seemed lost for Jon and his men?
Sorry, but heroes escaping improbable odds is not an invention of the showrunners, or something that goes against the tenents of the novels.

[forgetful]

It definitely fits in the narrative of the show, maybe both. In fact, don't Craster's wives refer to the White Walkers as "Craster's sons."
From a GoT wiki:
In the episode "Oathkeeper" the fate of Craster's sons is revealed when a White Walker riding an undead horse takes the last son of Craster and carries him towards a shattered mountain in the Lands of Always Winter.
Once inside, the White Walker approaches an icy altar ringed by large icy spikes and places the baby upon the altar. In the distance, a group of thirteen black-garbed White Walkers are revealed to be viewing the proceedings from afar. One of them breaks from the middle of their number and approaches the altar, stopping to regard the human child for a moment before gently gathering him in its arms. The baby immediately calms, staring into the face of the White Walker. It places its index finger upon the baby's cheek, causing the child's eyes to slow turn to icy, depthless blue and his skin to grow pale, transforming him into another White Walker.


As for the books, I haven't read them, but according to the GoT wiki:
In the A Song of Ice and Fire novels, Craster's wives are convinced that the baby boys given by Craster to the Others are, in turn, transformed into new Others. However, no such event has ever been witnessed in the books so far.
Craster's wives do say that they believe that the infant sons that Craster gave the Others as sacrifices were turned into new White Walkers - but it wasn't clear if this is what actually happens, or if it was just the wild suspicion of Craster's frightened, isolated wives. When Samwell is told to flee with Gilly and her newborn son, Gilly urges that if he doesn't "they" will come for him. When he asks who "they" are, another wife says: "The boy's brothers...Craster's sons. The white cold's rising out there, crow. I can feel it in my bones. These poor old bones don't lie. They'll be here soon, the sons."
Confirmation of what exactly happens to Craster's sons has not occurred in the books yet.

So, while we can't say for certain that's what happens in the books, it's appears to be the only possibility mentioned so far. Unless the wiki is wrong, which is always possible.

There is a lot more in the books/lore of Westeros. I could go on and on about how the show is inconsistent (with itself) and how it is also inconsistent with the books, including on this topic, where the Castor's sons angle is internally inconsistent with both, but it doesn't really serve a point, and we will spiral into absurdity.

The reality is, the show often resorted to plot points for the purpose of creating a "cool scene" e.g. Castor's baby, that really had no purpose in the story, and was internally inconsistent with other aspects, or a blatant example of deus ex machina. That is fine, the show can do that, and general fans will simply think "that was cool". But from a writing standpoint, and lore standpoint it is pointless and incorrect. I still love the show regardless.

I'll repeat, that I'm pretty certain that HBO will use these internal inconsistencies, explaining it away as written histories often get lore wrong (this being a written history re. Sam), to justify rewriting the lore of the Night King, White Walkers, and the Starks in their prequel.

I mean after all, GRRM stated in 2015, that the Night King may not even really exist anymore, and that the likelihood he survived to the current era is as likely as Lann the Clever (Tyrion) and Bran the Builder still being alive.