Game of Thrones fans here?

[MU82]

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.

I haven't read one word in one of the books, but I'm guessing that a few heroes escaped improbable odds more than a few times in them, too.

[forgetful]

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.

Neither of those were that odd. They set up an alliance between Lannister and Tyrell significantly in advance to allow that to occur. They even had Loras wearing Renly's armor to lead to additional confusion (set up by the romance between the two and bad blood between Renly and Stanis). That was well set up.

So was Sansa and the Knights of the Vale. That was clearly indicated as set up by Little finger (also set up the alliance above). Sansa refused them initially, the show repeatedly indicated the tension of the situation when Jon and her fight over them not having enough men..."but those are all we got". Sansa then goes and gets the army pledged to fight for her through Littlefinger. Not odd, and clearly set up show wise, thought it was extremely good writing, acting, and scene setup.

I'll add another, Jon surviving the same battle. He survived by being trampled into the rest of the dead by his own men. He's nearly trampled to death. Believable, and highlights to Jon his own mortality and failures. Realistic, and brilliantly shot from a cinematography standpoint.

contrast:

Jorah magically going from fighting inside Winterfell, to appearing a quarter mile outside the gate (past a wall of freshly raised dead) to appear just in the knick of time to save Dany. It defies logic and had no plot support. Cool yes, consistent with his story arc, so he can get a clean death, yes, but pure deus ex machina.

There is a difference between escaping improbable odds, because of well set up plot points, and just for the sake of surviving.

[Hards Alumni]

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.

If you want to compare those situations that's fine.  Those are entire armies that were on the move.  I can easily get past that.  Its realistic.  The undead crashing through the armies, and then totally surrounding singled out main characters and being unable to kill them?  Ridiculous.

[MUBurrow]

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.

I think I agree with you here Pakuni - I actually don't see a ton of inconsistencies since Benioff and Weiss ran out of source material, but instead a pronounced shift in narrative focus.  But I also think that they have been skating on the reputation that the show earned by staying pretty faithful to the books through its first, what, six years or so? So from that standpoint, I do think there is a valid expectation that the character of the show would remain faithful to that, and criticism is valid when it doesn't. 

The Ringer podcast that Hards linked yesterday made the very good point - what was the last gut punch, shocking death that actually affected the audience? Maybe Oberon? At any rate, it was a death that was pulled from the books. And this isn't a criticism based on body count or bloodlust or just wanting shock purely for shock's sake. Its the confident writing that is willing to do that because it knows where its going. And to me that's whats missing since Benioff and Weiss outpaced the books - they strike me as playing it much safer, and to the extent they're taking risks, they're doing it with battle scenes and visual spectacle. And for folks that thought they had a more personal connection or fidelity to GRRM's material, that's disappointing.  Is that a fair expectation to put on them? Reasonable minds can certainly disagree on that.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I think I agree with you here Pakuni - I actually don't see a ton of inconsistencies since Benioff and Weiss ran out of source material, but instead a pronounced shift in narrative focus.  But I also think that they have been skating on the reputation that the show earned by staying pretty faithful to the books through its first, what, six years or so? So from that standpoint, I do think there is a valid expectation that the character of the show would remain faithful to that, and criticism is valid when it doesn't. 

The Ringer podcast that Hards linked yesterday made the very good point - what was the last gut punch, shocking death that actually affected the audience? Maybe Oberon? At any rate, it was a death that was pulled from the books. And this isn't a criticism based on body count or bloodlust or just wanting shock purely for shock's sake. Its the confident writing that is willing to do that because it knows where its going. And to me that's whats missing since Benioff and Weiss outpaced the books - they strike me as playing it much safer, and to the extent they're taking risks, they're doing it with battle scenes and visual spectacle. And for folks that thought they had a more personal connection or fidelity to GRRM's material, that's disappointing.  Is that a fair expectation to put on them? Reasonable minds can certainly disagree on that.

Did they ever confirm how much of what is happening, if anything, is based on conversations with Martin about what he may have envisioned for certain characters?  I know Benioff and Weiss had that conversation with him. 

In a way, I like that they subverted expectations by not having any major characters die last episode.  I do expect some gut-punches over the next three episodes, however. 

[forgetful]

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.

I know you are using sarcasm, but honestly, don't be. That is what I find weird about arguments on here. People seem to take the stance that:

The show runners handled everything perfectly because I enjoy the show (yeah not mutually exclusive concepts), so criticisms of the show creation are totally unfounded.

It is both possible to love the show, and the books, but find criticism in how it was filmed/written etc. I'm a film buff from the standpoint of the art of filming, writing, scene selection, and music. I also love books from the standpoint of the art of writing.

There are some films I watch, and books I read, for pure entertainment value. I don't care if they have crappy cinematography etc. It is just plain fun. There are other books I read/films I watch, for the pure art of it.

Game of thrones was unique. It was so brilliantly done from an art standpoint, and brilliantly enjoyable from a just plain fun standpoint. And, the aspects were brilliantly intertwined (not easy to do). Usually when you try to intertwine them it does not work well, either the "plain fun" crowd doesn't get the art, or the "plain fun" aspects dilute the scene/art quality. The show has suffered a bit with the latter. A few examples (aided by rewatching).

1. After rewatching, the darkness of this episode was brilliant from an art standpoint. The use of shadows and lighting was very well done, and created a unique and eerie feeling. From a "plain fun" standpoint, it made it harder for a casual audience to follow along.

2. Episode 3 had some of the most amazing use of music in the shows history. Maybe outdoes the use of music in Westworld (where it is also brilliantly used).

3. For the plain fun crowd, Jorah magically showing up, the Winterfell crypt scenes, an army of undead decimating and entire army, but being unable to kill a few isolated and surrounded people, and others distracted from the art aspects. This episode didn't have too much that disrupted from the art, but many previous episodes have.

I continue to love GoT from a great show standpoint, but it has lost some its art value over the past two seasons. Some aspects like the music, still are going strong. The closing music was so brilliant in the last episode (as was the last shot of Melisandre dying). It doesn't make it less enjoyable, but it could still be better. I criticize the elements that could be improved.

[Pakuni]

If you want to compare those situations that's fine.  Those are entire armies that were on the move.  I can easily get past that.  Its realistic.  The undead crashing through the armies, and then totally surrounding singled out main characters and being unable to kill them?  Ridiculous.

I guess we'll agree to disagree.
I find a single person escaping a sticky situation far less improbable than entire armies showing up just in the nick of time .... and to the utter surprise of the opposing army, which in no way would have scouts looking out for massive gatherings of troops in close proximity.

[Pakuni]

I think I agree with you here Pakuni - I actually don't see a ton of inconsistencies since Benioff and Weiss ran out of source material, but instead a pronounced shift in narrative focus.  But I also think that they have been skating on the reputation that the show earned by staying pretty faithful to the books through its first, what, six years or so? So from that standpoint, I do think there is a valid expectation that the character of the show would remain faithful to that, and criticism is valid when it doesn't. 

The Ringer podcast that Hards linked yesterday made the very good point - what was the last gut punch, shocking death that actually affected the audience? Maybe Oberon? At any rate, it was a death that was pulled from the books. And this isn't a criticism based on body count or bloodlust or just wanting shock purely for shock's sake. Its the confident writing that is willing to do that because it knows where its going. And to me that's whats missing since Benioff and Weiss outpaced the books - they strike me as playing it much safer, and to the extent they're taking risks, they're doing it with battle scenes and visual spectacle. And for folks that thought they had a more personal connection or fidelity to GRRM's material, that's disappointing.  Is that a fair expectation to put on them? Reasonable minds can certainly disagree on that.

Everything you write here is fair and I agree with a bunch of it (though not necessarily that the character of the show has shifted as dramatically as some seem to think).
My main contention here is not that the showrunners are above reproach or criticism, but that much - not all - of the criticism revolves around the same kind of fan service that critics decry, they just want a different kind of fan service. And, also of course, that it's silly to call someone stupid because they enjoyed an episode you didn't.

One point about "gut punch" deaths ... I think outside perhaps Arya and maybe Daenys, there are no eligible candidates for gut punch deaths by this point in the series. Would anyone have been shocked if Jon or Tyrion or Jamie or Brienne died Sunday night? Saddened, sure, but not shocked.  The show has trained its viewers to accept and expect such deaths to the point that they can no longer be truly shocking. To the contrary, viewers speculate endlessly and craft theories and scenarios about who's next, depriving any element of real surprise, and some actually get mad or disappointed or decry the lack of realism when main characters aren't killed off. Hard to feel a gut punch in those circumstances.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Everything you write here is fair and I agree with a bunch of it (though not necessarily that the character of the show has shifted as dramatically as some seem to think).
My main contention here is not that the showrunners are above reproach or criticism, but that much - not all - of the criticism revolves around the same kind of fan service that critics decry, they just want a different kind of fan service. And, also of course, that it's silly to call someone stupid because they enjoyed an episode you didn't.

One point about "gut punch" deaths ... I think outside perhaps Arya and maybe Daenys, there are no eligible candidates for gut punch deaths by this point in the series. Would anyone have been shocked if Jon or Tyrion or Jamie or Brienne died Sunday night? Saddened, sure, but not shocked.  The show has trained its viewers to accept and except such deaths that they can no longer be truly shocking. To the contrary, viewers speculate endlessly and craft theories and scenarios about who's next, depriving any element of real surprise, and some actually get mad or disappointed or decry the lack of realism when main characters aren't killed off. Hard to feel a gut punch in those circumstances.

I would not have been surprised if Brienne or Tormund had died in the last episode.  I would have been very surprised if Jon, Tyrion, Jamie, Sansa, or even The Hound bit it because of what is to come in the last 3 episodes. 

[MU82]

People seem to take the stance that:

The show runners handled everything perfectly because I enjoy the show (yeah not mutually exclusive concepts), so criticisms of the show creation are totally unfounded.

It is both possible to love the show, and the books, but find criticism in how it was filmed/written etc.

I am arguing nothing different.

Nor have I claimed anybody handled anything "perfectly."

And, while we watched it, my wife and I discussed some of the less believable stuff -- a discussion that was possible because there was so little dialogue in this episode. For example, we thought it ridiculous that the Dothraki were immediately decimated while a zillion zombies couldn't kill Jorah and Dany.

But we also were highly entertained.

Then again, we were/are entertained by "24" and "Stranger Things" and "Ozark" and "Friday Night Lights" and many other quality shows of yesteryear and today that take some leaps of faith.

And, of course, it cracks me up that folks demand "realism" from a show that features good dragons, a bad dragon, people being brought back to life to do good, zombies being brought back to life to do bad, a woman who can survive a fire that burns everybody else to a crisp, a ton of magic, etc.

Hey, I would never say somebody else isn't entitled to his or her view on any of this. All I say is that I'm entertained.

That it apparently bugs more than a few people (not you) that I have the temerity to be entertained by this season also cracks me up.

[Jockey]

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.

Couldn’t agree more.

However, even as I think there is a lot of nitpicking going on, I gotta give credit as both sides have put some very well written arguments in this thread. Enjoyable to read.

[mu03eng]

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.

[Hards Alumni]

I am arguing nothing different.

Nor have I claimed anybody handled anything "perfectly."

And, while we watched it, my wife and I discussed some of the less believable stuff -- a discussion that was possible because there was so little dialogue in this episode. For example, we thought it ridiculous that the Dothraki were immediately decimated while a zillion zombies couldn't kill Jorah and Dany.

But we also were highly entertained.

Then again, we were/are entertained by "24" and "Stranger Things" and "Ozark" and "Friday Night Lights" and many other quality shows of yesteryear and today that take some leaps of faith.

And, of course, it cracks me up that folks demand "realism" from a show that features good dragons, a bad dragon, people being brought back to life to do good, zombies being brought back to life to do bad, a woman who can survive a fire that burns everybody else to a crisp, a ton of magic, etc.

Hey, I would never say somebody else isn't entitled to his or her view on any of this. All I say is that I'm entertained.

That it apparently bugs more than a few people (not you) that I have the temerity to be entertained by this season also cracks me up.

Its as if you just type whatever you're thinking without reading anything anyone else has said.

[MU82]

Its as if you just type whatever you're thinking without reading anything anyone else has said.

If you say so.

Looking forward to Episode 4.

[JWags85]

I know you are using sarcasm, but honestly, don't be. That is what I find weird about arguments on here. People seem to take the stance that:

The show runners handled everything perfectly because I enjoy the show (yeah not mutually exclusive concepts), so criticisms of the show creation are totally unfounded.

It is both possible to love the show, and the books, but find criticism in how it was filmed/written etc. I'm a film buff from the standpoint of the art of filming, writing, scene selection, and music. I also love books from the standpoint of the art of writing.

There are some films I watch, and books I read, for pure entertainment value. I don't care if they have crappy cinematography etc. It is just plain fun. There are other books I read/films I watch, for the pure art of it.

Game of thrones was unique. It was so brilliantly done from an art standpoint, and brilliantly enjoyable from a just plain fun standpoint. And, the aspects were brilliantly intertwined (not easy to do). Usually when you try to intertwine them it does not work well, either the "plain fun" crowd doesn't get the art, or the "plain fun" aspects dilute the scene/art quality. The show has suffered a bit with the latter. A few examples (aided by rewatching).

1. After rewatching, the darkness of this episode was brilliant from an art standpoint. The use of shadows and lighting was very well done, and created a unique and eerie feeling. From a "plain fun" standpoint, it made it harder for a casual audience to follow along.

2. Episode 3 had some of the most amazing use of music in the shows history. Maybe outdoes the use of music in Westworld (where it is also brilliantly used).

3. For the plain fun crowd, Jorah magically showing up, the Winterfell crypt scenes, an army of undead decimating and entire army, but being unable to kill a few isolated and surrounded people, and others distracted from the art aspects. This episode didn't have too much that disrupted from the art, but many previous episodes have.

I continue to love GoT from a great show standpoint, but it has lost some its art value over the past two seasons. Some aspects like the music, still are going strong. The closing music was so brilliant in the last episode (as was the last shot of Melisandre dying). It doesn't make it less enjoyable, but it could still be better. I criticize the elements that could be improved.

BRAVO.  Spot on.

Part of what made GoT so amazing and "different" was GRRM is a crazy, twisted old loon.  So many of the happy ever after or standard fantasy constructs were gone.  Your fav character in the lead credits of the show could be killed at any moment.  Not even at the end of an episode or season or epic sequence.

The show once it got past the books lost a lot of that.  "Evil" characters vanquished, heroes surviving against all odds.  It got too serving of the viewer IMO.

I still love the show, its appointment viewing for me every week.  Its just different

[Vander Blue Man Group]

BRAVO.  Spot on.

Part of what made GoT so amazing and "different" was GRRM is a crazy, twisted old loon.  So many of the happy ever after or standard fantasy constructs were gone.  Your fav character in the lead credits of the show could be killed at any moment.  Not even at the end of an episode or season or epic sequence.

The show once it got past the books lost a lot of that.  "Evil" characters vanquished, heroes surviving against all odds.  It got too serving of the viewer IMO.

I still love the show, its appointment viewing for me every week.  Its just different

As it began moving toward the end of the show don't you start expecting some comeuppance for the bad guys?  For example, Ramsey's fate was completely earned.  As much as viewers loved the fact that anyone could die at any time, continuing to lose characters people care about can become tiresome and also begin to lose some of its impact. 

I haven't read the books but from what I understand the most recent ones paled in comparison to his earlier work.  That's just based on what I've read about them, though.   

[CTWarrior]

BRAVO.  Spot on.

Part of what made GoT so amazing and "different" was GRRM is a crazy, twisted old loon.  So many of the happy ever after or standard fantasy constructs were gone.  Your fav character in the lead credits of the show could be killed at any moment.  Not even at the end of an episode or season or epic sequence.

The show once it got past the books lost a lot of that.  "Evil" characters vanquished, heroes surviving against all odds.  It got too serving of the viewer IMO.

I still love the show, its appointment viewing for me every week.  Its just different

I'm in the minority, as someone who likes good people to come out OK and bad people to get their comeuppance in my entertainment.  (I'm still pissed 40 or 50 years after first seeing It's a Wonderful Life that Potter didn't get his, SNL notwithstanding).  So I like it better like this.  When Ned Stark died, my first thought was, "Why am I watching this if they're gonna kill all the people I like?"  I really liked Jorah and Lyanna Mormont.

Unrelated quick question.  I thought the Night King could only raise from the dead those whose death he was responsible for.  By that I mean the people/animals he killed himself, or the Whitewalkers he turned killed or any people the Wights killed.  Was that wrong, since he raised long dead Starks?  Or was he or his "killing lineage" responsible for the death of the Starks that did rise?

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I'm in the minority, as someone who likes good people to come out OK and bad people to get their comeuppance in my entertainment.  (I'm still pissed 40 or 50 years after first seeing It's a Wonderful Life that Potter didn't get his, SNL notwithstanding).  So I like it better like this.  When Ned Stark died, my first thought was, "Why am I watching this if they're gonna kill all the people I like?"  I really liked Jorah and Lyanna Mormont.

Unrelated quick question.  I thought the Night King could only raise from the dead those whose death he was responsible for.  By that I mean the people/animals he killed himself, or the Whitewalkers he turned killed or any people the Wights killed.  Was that wrong, since he raised long dead Starks?  Or was he or his "killing lineage" responsible for the death of the Starks that did rise?

I'm definitely not as knowledgeable as some here but my thought is Jon assumed the Night King could only raise the dead whose death he or his army was responsible for because that is what he had seen first hand multiple times.  Clearly, this appeared not to be that case and that he could raise any dead.  Maybe within a certain proximity?  I'd doubt the that the Starks raised in the crypts had all been killed by white walkers. 

[JWags85]

As it began moving toward the end of the show don't you start expecting some comeuppance for the bad guys?  For example, Ramsey's fate was completely earned.  As much as viewers loved the fact that anyone could die at any time, continuing to lose characters people care about can become tiresome and also begin to lose some of its impact. 

I haven't read the books but from what I understand the most recent ones paled in comparison to his earlier work.  That's just based on what I've read about them, though.   

I'm in the minority, as someone who likes good people to come out OK and bad people to get their comeuppance in my entertainment.  (I'm still pissed 40 or 50 years after first seeing It's a Wonderful Life that Potter didn't get his, SNL notwithstanding).  So I like it better like this.  When Ned Stark died, my first thought was, "Why am I watching this if they're gonna kill all the people I like?"  I really liked Jorah and Lyanna Mormont.

I have no issue with "comeuppance".  Ramsey Bolton's downfall was great, and it happened after he took his pound of flesh in gruesome fashion.

And I would have no issue with the Night King being defeated either.  However, you have this glorious, violent, horrific battle that was an absolute massacre and failure for the "good guys" until Arya came like Lebron with the chasedown block.  Yet in that battle you only lost 2 key good guys?  One of whom was a beloved yet minor character (Lyanna) and the other who was more or less destined for a tragic fate defending his love/queen/Khalessi?  It was just all too cute and "wow, amazing how well that worked out".  Just my opinion.  Again, I'd expect it out of most shows, just not GoT 

[UWW2MU]

I'm sad I missed this discussion, work has been too busy to jump in.

I have no need for the show to follow the books, they have steadily gone down different paths as the seasons progressed.   That being said, if something is in the show, I believe it should be adhered to.  So for all the foreshadowing, prophecies, and sense that the “real” war is the living vs dead and not the throne… I have to say that how it all came about last night didn’t feel very fulfilling.  A lot of that got ignored in how the NK was killed.   

Arya killing the NK was an excellent decision in some regards because she’s been training for this the entire series.  Unfortunately though, it ignores a lot of plot points building up to it.  This is why I was pretty solidly convinced she would not be the one to kill the NK. 

Also, Melisandre ended up being pretty pointless along the way, except to bring Jon back.   I actually wish she wasn’t the source of Jon came back because then you can say she was a severely flawed character (flawed person, not flawed in the writing) the whole time.  But this would fall into the “fan service” category, which I have no expectations that a show should make decisions based on how I think the story should, so I can easily overlook this part.  The only parts I have trouble overlooking are those that do a 180 on common themes that have held for the last near-decade of shows.

So anyway, I enjoyed the episode…  but it did leave me feeling a bit similar to how I felt after the conclusion of How I Met Your Mother when suddenly in the finale the show wasn’t about how he met their mother….


Final note: I thought the darkness was good choice in terms of cinematography.  It’s not their fault people don’t have their TVs set up properly!   If nothing else, viewers could just jack up the contrast/brightness.  But let this be a lesson next time you buy a tv and get razzle dazzled by the bright shiny tv’s in the store without actually researching what makes a tv good. 

[Pakuni]

Final note: I thought the darkness was good choice in terms of cinematography.  It’s not their fault people don’t have their TVs set up properly!   If nothing else, viewers could just jack up the contrast/brightness.  But let this be a lesson next time you buy a tv and get razzle dazzled by the bright shiny tv’s in the store without actually researching what makes a tv good.

FWIW, the cinematographer has put some of the blame on HBO for the way it compressed the images.
Also, my TV handles blacks well, so I didn't find the episode too dark for my liking.

[UWW2MU]

Here is a good article that laments some of what I'm referring to.   It speaks of the changes to some of the most cunning and plot driving characters once the show writers no longer had Martin for source material.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/30/18522060/game-of-thrones-got-season-8-hbo-final-melisandre-tyrion-lannister-long-night-prophecies-tactics

[CTWarrior]

Also, Melisandre ended up being pretty pointless along the way, except to bring Jon back.   I actually wish she wasn’t the source of Jon came back because then you can say she was a severely flawed character (flawed person, not flawed in the writing) the whole time.  But this would fall into the “fan service” category, which I have no expectations that a show should make decisions based on how I think the story should, so I can easily overlook this part.  The only parts I have trouble overlooking are those that do a 180 on common themes that have held for the last near-decade of shows.

Melisandre was mostly an exposition character, but she had a great final episode.  If you couldn't figure it out on your own, you now know why Beric kept getting brought back from the dead, and she let everyone know that Arya is the one who was going to take care of NK, which actually was counterproductive for the episode. However, she was the impetus for Arya going after the Night King.  Plus she got the Dothraki sword fire going, and later got the fire moat (or whatever they called it) started when it appeared it would not happen.  Both times she gave the defenders of Winterfell (and the audience) hope, and both times the hope was dashed by two of the best visuals of the episode, the powerful Dothraki army being snuffed out so quickly and the wights lying over the fire to build a passageway through the fire. 

Probably a better final episode than she deserved after what she did to Stannis' daughter.

[Mr. Sand-Knit]

Isnt the show ultimately just meant to be entertaining?? So why do so many of you not allow it to be?

[UWW2MU]

I can just picture some of you in a book club... whenever someone questions why a writer made a decision that they made, suddenly you would bark at them asking why they'd dare question anything about the writing!

 

You can enjoy entertainment while also discussing what you liked/didn't like.