being positioned as an existential threat, then having less staying power than Ramsey fucking Bolton.
He was an existential threat, and it took the version of a superhero movie where everyone used their powers to stop him. It took the largest army ever assembled, two dragons, Sam's knowledge of how white walkers can be killed, Gendry's weapon-making, the Lord of Light's ability to turn all the swords into fire and to light the trenches, Bran warging into the ravens to find The Night King and be the homing device to the weirwood so that the trained assassin, Arya Stark, could deliver the final blow to kill The Night King and the entire army.
It was a nonstop battle for 80 minutes.
RE: RE: My other main issue with the show is the Night King Â
being positioned as an existential threat, then having less staying power than Ramsey fucking Bolton.
He was an existential threat, and it took the version of a superhero movie where everyone used their powers to stop him. It took the largest army ever assembled, two dragons, Sam's knowledge of how white walkers can be killed, Gendry's weapon-making, the Lord of Light's ability to turn all the swords into fire and to light the trenches, Bran warging into the ravens to find The Night King and be the homing device to the weirwood so that the trained assassin, Arya Stark, could deliver the final blow to kill The Night King and the entire army.
It was a nonstop battle for 80 minutes.
Why did the Night King expose himself to personally go after Bran?
Agreed. And when Dany learned of Jon's lineage which made him the rightful heir to the throne, what did she do? Did she offer to step aside and throw her support to Jon since he was the rightful heir to the throne that belonged to her family? No, she begged him to lie and to keep it a secret because it could get in the way of her taking the throne-- a throne that she has no rightful claim to.
It helped turn her mad because he was always going to be an existential threat and that she could never trust him no matter what he said because of her own paranoia and insecurity.
Additionally, revealing his lineage offers an explanation as to why Drogon didn't try to kill him at the end. Perhaps drogon had no interest in killing a fellow Targaryen-- the last of the Targaryens.
And, if nothing else, revealing his lineage created worthwhile intrigue for the fans. It allowed him to interact and ride dragons.
It was also classic dramatic irony. The audience knew something and it created enjoyable suspense and tension to see how that would evolve and what the results would be. It's like the audience knowing that there is a bomb with a timer in a building. The bomb doesn't have to go off for it to be important or consequential.
It might just be a book thing but it is probably a movie thing too. But Dany's core is not just power acquisition although that's how i manifested. At her core was the legitimacy question. The Barathions and Starks stole her birthright. She was the *legitimate* ruler and the Robert was a usurper. In fact, she was perfectly okay (initially) that Viserys was the real entitled ruler. So much so that she grudgingly married Khal Drogo. Yes, she became more and more obsessed with acquisition but it was always to make it back to KL to assume what was rightfully hers. That's what has always made my uncomfortable with her reaction to Jon. Her intrinsic value system *should* have made her step aside because the very same issue which caused her to become who she was, was trumped by Jon's birthright.
RE: RE: RE: My other main issue with the show is the Night King Â
being positioned as an existential threat, then having less staying power than Ramsey fucking Bolton.
He was an existential threat, and it took the version of a superhero movie where everyone used their powers to stop him. It took the largest army ever assembled, two dragons, Sam's knowledge of how white walkers can be killed, Gendry's weapon-making, the Lord of Light's ability to turn all the swords into fire and to light the trenches, Bran warging into the ravens to find The Night King and be the homing device to the weirwood so that the trained assassin, Arya Stark, could deliver the final blow to kill The Night King and the entire army.
It was a nonstop battle for 80 minutes.
Why did the Night King expose himself to personally go after Bran?
Bran as King? Really Bran who isn't even a stark and can't be head of Winterfell
Bran isn't a Stark?
That is what Bran has basically said. It is so stupid. Can't be lord of Winterfell, but King sure why not.
He didn't say he couldn't be Lord of Winterfell. He said he didn't want to be Lord of Winterfell. He said he didn't want much of anything any more.
But why does that prevent him from being aware, or acting with the motivation to ultimately end up on the iron throne after the battle against The Night King and Dany going south?
Why do you assume that everyone else is capable of lying, or of acting in their own interest, and Bran/Three-Eyed Raven isn't?
Really you are saying he lied about wanting to be Lord of Winterfell ruler of the north who they kept making Kings and Queens up there for his self interest? Come on now.
Agreed. And when Dany learned of Jon's lineage which made him the rightful heir to the throne, what did she do? Did she offer to step aside and throw her support to Jon since he was the rightful heir to the throne that belonged to her family? No, she begged him to lie and to keep it a secret because it could get in the way of her taking the throne-- a throne that she has no rightful claim to.
It helped turn her mad because he was always going to be an existential threat and that she could never trust him no matter what he said because of her own paranoia and insecurity.
Additionally, revealing his lineage offers an explanation as to why Drogon didn't try to kill him at the end. Perhaps drogon had no interest in killing a fellow Targaryen-- the last of the Targaryens.
And, if nothing else, revealing his lineage created worthwhile intrigue for the fans. It allowed him to interact and ride dragons.
It was also classic dramatic irony. The audience knew something and it created enjoyable suspense and tension to see how that would evolve and what the results would be. It's like the audience knowing that there is a bomb with a timer in a building. The bomb doesn't have to go off for it to be important or consequential.
It might just be a book thing but it is probably a movie thing too. But Dany's core is not just power acquisition although that's how i manifested. At her core was the legitimacy question. The Barathions and Starks stole her birthright. She was the *legitimate* ruler and the Robert was a usurper. In fact, she was perfectly okay (initially) that Viserys was the real entitled ruler. So much so that she grudgingly married Khal Drogo. Yes, she became more and more obsessed with acquisition but it was always to make it back to KL to assume what was rightfully hers. That's what has always made my uncomfortable with her reaction to Jon. Her intrinsic value system *should* have made her step aside because the very same issue which caused her to become who she was, was trumped by Jon's birthright.
I think she was becoming more and more radicalized by her own message; the obsession and the quest itself kept building and building, and as she did things like walk through the fire and turn stones into dragon eggs, she was not just going to be Queen because of birthright, but because of destiny. The birthright legitimized and validated her question. And so when Jon's truth was revealed, I think her belief in her destiny was the winning emotion.
Really you are saying he lied about wanting to be Lord of Winterfell ruler of the north who they kept making Kings and Queens up there for his self interest? Come on now.
I think the argument (which isn't remotely supported by the show, IMO) is that Bran's ultimate goal the entire time was to be King and that the entire time he's been taking steps to position himself for that role. His seeming lack of desire to be Lord of Winterfell made it more likely that everyone else would support his "nomination" as King.
RE: RE: My other main issue with the show is the Night King Â
He was an existential threat, and it took the version of a superhero movie where everyone used their powers to stop him. It took the largest army ever assembled, two dragons, Sam's knowledge of how white walkers can be killed, Gendry's weapon-making, the Lord of Light's ability to turn all the swords into fire and to light the trenches, Bran warging into the ravens to find The Night King and be the homing device to the weirwood so that the trained assassin, Arya Stark, could deliver the final blow to kill The Night King and the entire army.
It was a nonstop battle for 80 minutes.
If it's a superhero movie, then it's like Avengers: Endgame being the first movie instead of the finale. The "existential threat" lasted one battle. Afterwards, major parts of the superheros were then felled by Euron Greyjoy. Does that mean he was bigger than an existential threat?
Bran as King? Really Bran who isn't even a stark and can't be head of Winterfell
Bran isn't a Stark?
That is what Bran has basically said. It is so stupid. Can't be lord of Winterfell, but King sure why not.
He didn't say he couldn't be Lord of Winterfell. He said he didn't want to be Lord of Winterfell. He said he didn't want much of anything any more.
But why does that prevent him from being aware, or acting with the motivation to ultimately end up on the iron throne after the battle against The Night King and Dany going south?
Why do you assume that everyone else is capable of lying, or of acting in their own interest, and Bran/Three-Eyed Raven isn't?
Really you are saying he lied about wanting to be Lord of Winterfell ruler of the north who they kept making Kings and Queens up there for his self interest? Come on now.
I never said he lied about not wanting to be Lord of Winterfell. Plus, being King and being Lord of Winterfell are two completely different outcomes.
For a bit now, there is a thought on Bran that he was full of knowledge of all history with some understanding of being a seer and that he remained passive in several instances so as to not affect how other people acted so as to not mess up their timeline and change what would otherwise happen.
What the finale may suggest is that it may not have been Bran being in a dispassionate existence which would ultimately lead to an outcome where he ended up the King. Instead, it's also possible that perhaps Bran (and the Three Eyed Raven) may have overtly acted in furtherance of ending up with him on the iron throne. That it was all part of a much larger, and longer end game.
Of building up Jons history, and his true identity...then no one cared to mention it when they are picking a new leader. No one thought of him as an option. Hes the actual King, or should be. I would have been ok if they had offered it and he turned it down, but why didnt someone at least mention it?
If you buy the idea that a societal change away from a basically Feudal system had to be initiated, Jon/Aegon could not possibly have become King. That would be perpetuating the old, failed system and is the antithesis of social change.
Maybe so. But no one said a word about it. Thats my issue. I didn't need Jon to be king.
Didn't need to be mentioned because it was no longer germane. The whole course of the show from the 1st Episode illustrated just how destructive the "Game" was and why it need a push toward a different system.
I'm surprised this post above is not getting more attention on BBI. Joey spoils the main plots for the series final episode almost 6 hours before it airs.
LOL....that's LeSean McCoy level trolling right there!
RE: RE: RE: My other main issue with the show is the Night King Â
He was an existential threat, and it took the version of a superhero movie where everyone used their powers to stop him. It took the largest army ever assembled, two dragons, Sam's knowledge of how white walkers can be killed, Gendry's weapon-making, the Lord of Light's ability to turn all the swords into fire and to light the trenches, Bran warging into the ravens to find The Night King and be the homing device to the weirwood so that the trained assassin, Arya Stark, could deliver the final blow to kill The Night King and the entire army.
It was a nonstop battle for 80 minutes.
If it's a superhero movie, then it's like Avengers: Endgame being the first movie instead of the finale. The "existential threat" lasted one battle. Afterwards, major parts of the superheros were then felled by Euron Greyjoy. Does that mean he was bigger than an existential threat?
Thethreat of The Night King and the White Walkers have existed since the first scene of the entire series. It's not as if there haven't been dramatic interactions with TNK and white walkers all through the series.
Ending the series with the battle against the dead would have been terrible because the show wasn't ultimately about that. It was always about the problems of man and the competing factions within them as they all destroyed each other vying for power. The Night King was an existential threat in the sense that it was the most dangerous possible threat and something that was a threat to all of man and yet, despite that, some factions were so consumed with power that they ignored the threat and decided not to face it.
The ones that did face it were able to destroy it (due to a superheroic effort) and when you save the world, the world keeps spinning and so there is an aftermath.
but it still fits. "I can't be the Lord of Winterfell because I'm going to be King of Westeros"
We are assuming that he was the only completely honest character because he is the Three Eyed-Raven, whatever that means-- as if he's some sort of mindless robot.
Why couldn't he be saying what he needed to say to influence everyone else in the game of thrones?
I'm surprised this post above is not getting more attention on BBI. Joey spoils the main plots for the series final episode almost 6 hours before it airs.
LOL....that's LeSean McCoy level trolling right there!
We should applaud Joey and tell him he is the man for his great foresight.
couldn't have transitioned out of their showrunning roles if they were so fatigued by the saga and/or distracted by their Star Wars commitment.
It's not unprecedented for a showrunner (even a co-creator) to leave a series before it ends. One of the most prominent examples, of course, is Larry David leaving Seinfeld. But there have been others.
If it meant resolving the series properly, they should have done it, even if it delayed production. The fans waited almost two years for the final six episodes anyway.
but it still fits. "I can't be the Lord of Winterfell because I'm going to be King of Westeros"
We are assuming that he was the only completely honest character because he is the Three Eyed-Raven, whatever that means-- as if he's some sort of mindless robot.
Why couldn't he be saying what he needed to say to influence everyone else in the game of thrones?
The bending over backwards to make sense of Bran is hilarious to me today. All of these theories go against the entire character of Bran for 7 seasons and 5 episodes. But the audience is supposed to somehow export this grand scheme of Bran's to become king.
I'm surprised this post above is not getting more attention on BBI. Joey spoils the main plots for the series final episode almost 6 hours before it airs.
LOL....that's LeSean McCoy level trolling right there!
We should applaud Joey and tell him he is the man for his great foresight.
Can't give him credit, he didn't say Sansa was going to be the Queen of the North.
I'm surprised this post above is not getting more attention on BBI. Joey spoils the main plots for the series final episode almost 6 hours before it airs.
LOL....that's LeSean McCoy level trolling right there!
I'm surprised this post above is not getting more attention on BBI. Joey spoils the main plots for the series final episode almost 6 hours before it airs.
LOL....that's LeSean McCoy level trolling right there!
We should applaud Joey and tell him he is the man for his great foresight.
Can't give him credit, he didn't say Sansa was going to be the Queen of the North.
I think we know that was always a given. He also didn’t say Dany would be offed because everyone knew that was a given too. No, Joey gave us all the non-givens, that required one of profound intellect with great analytical abilities.
Of building up Jons history, and his true identity...then no one cared to mention it when they are picking a new leader. No one thought of him as an option. Hes the actual King, or should be. I would have been ok if they had offered it and he turned it down, but why didnt someone at least mention it?
If you buy the idea that a societal change away from a basically Feudal system had to be initiated, Jon/Aegon could not possibly have become King. That would be perpetuating the old, failed system and is the antithesis of social change.
Maybe so. But no one said a word about it. Thats my issue. I didn't need Jon to be king.
Didn't need to be mentioned because it was no longer germane. The whole course of the show from the 1st Episode illustrated just how destructive the "Game" was and why it need a push toward a different system.
But that's from a viewer's perspective. The people actually *in* the story don't realize any of that. They've got millennia that says, no matter if it's bloody, this is the way to go. Their actions act with enlightenment for which there is no real foundation.
I don't think it had anything to do with fatigue. A good article I posted earlier in the thread basically described the shortcomings of the last 2 seasons as a result of the underlying writing style. GRRM basically used a sociological style that allowed him to build up the characters and allow viewers/readers to understand their actions, particularly when they are conflicted. For example, through the early parts of the show Cersei is evil, but you feel like she's doing everything she does to protect her children and their power (even blowing up the sept is in this vein). Or as Dany lovers have pointed out, all of her "evil" actions were in support of the downtrodden and against "evil".
D&D (and in a more general regard, Hollywood) use a more psychological style which is somewhat viewed as everything is black & white or good vs evil. It's far more character centric approach.
but it still fits. "I can't be the Lord of Winterfell because I'm going to be King of Westeros"
We are assuming that he was the only completely honest character because he is the Three Eyed-Raven, whatever that means-- as if he's some sort of mindless robot.
Why couldn't he be saying what he needed to say to influence everyone else in the game of thrones?
The bending over backwards to make sense of Bran is hilarious to me today. All of these theories go against the entire character of Bran for 7 seasons and 5 episodes. But the audience is supposed to somehow export this grand scheme of Bran's to become king.
Laughable.
You say it was against Bran's nature. What was Bran's nature? The show starts with him as a boy wanting to be a knight, getting crippled, and then becoming a mystical being who can see the past, present, and future.
It's not bending over backwards. Bran knew things and saw things with supernatural ability. The question I have is whether he knew he would end up on the throne and just existed for it to happen, or if he wanted it to happen and acted the way he did in furtherance of it. It's also possible that by he, I mean the Three Eyed Raven. I wish they spent more time explaining Bran being the Three Eyed Raven, and whether the Three Eyed Raven has its own agenda.
All we know is that the Three Eyed Raven was a human who lived among the Children of the Forest, the original rulers of Westeros and creators of The Night King to defend themselves from the First Men.
I don't think it had anything to do with fatigue. A good article I posted earlier in the thread basically described the shortcomings of the last 2 seasons as a result of the underlying writing style. GRRM basically used a sociological style that allowed him to build up the characters and allow viewers/readers to understand their actions, particularly when they are conflicted. For example, through the early parts of the show Cersei is evil, but you feel like she's doing everything she does to protect her children and their power (even blowing up the sept is in this vein). Or as Dany lovers have pointed out, all of her "evil" actions were in support of the downtrodden and against "evil".
D&D (and in a more general regard, Hollywood) use a more psychological style which is somewhat viewed as everything is black & white or good vs evil. It's far more character centric approach.
The article explains it far better than I could. Link - ( New Window )
It was a good article. I still prefer my own variant which is that they went from a writer of books (with the object being creative and making novel (NPI) art) to writers of tv (with the object of making fans/viewers feel a certain way and using time-tested tropes).
but it still fits. "I can't be the Lord of Winterfell because I'm going to be King of Westeros"
We are assuming that he was the only completely honest character because he is the Three Eyed-Raven, whatever that means-- as if he's some sort of mindless robot.
Why couldn't he be saying what he needed to say to influence everyone else in the game of thrones?
The bending over backwards to make sense of Bran is hilarious to me today. All of these theories go against the entire character of Bran for 7 seasons and 5 episodes. But the audience is supposed to somehow export this grand scheme of Bran's to become king.
Laughable.
You say it was against Bran's nature. What was Bran's nature? The show starts with him as a boy wanting to be a knight, getting crippled, and then becoming a mystical being who can see the past, present, and future.
It's not bending over backwards. Bran knew things and saw things with supernatural ability. The question I have is whether he knew he would end up on the throne and just existed for it to happen, or if he wanted it to happen and acted the way he did in furtherance of it. It's also possible that by he, I mean the Three Eyed Raven. I wish they spent more time explaining Bran being the Three Eyed Raven, and whether the Three Eyed Raven has its own agenda.
All we know is that the Three Eyed Raven was a human who lived among the Children of the Forest, the original rulers of Westeros and creators of The Night King to defend themselves from the First Men.
Yet, we have no indication that he wanted to rule anything or that he had any ability to do so before he became king. And, after he became king the only thing we know is that at the first opportunity he took a side project (looking for Drogon) that was at best incidental to ruling Westeros and absented himself from further discussion on the actual kingdom. If he had planned this from the getgo, I would have expected more ambition or at least more engagement. I mean, it's pretty clear that Tyrion will be the de facto king and winner on GoT.
It was a good article. I still prefer my own variant which is that they went from a writer of books (with the object being creative and making novel (NPI) art) to writers of tv (with the object of making fans/viewers feel a certain way and using time-tested tropes).
That's essentially what they're saying, though I'd go as far as to say even among book writers, GRRM's ability to "transform" characters from good to evil or to make you feel sympathy for evil characters (e.g. Cersei's walk of shame) is exceptional. Lots of books are a lot more black and white than ASOIAF.
I don't think it had anything to do with fatigue. A good article I posted earlier in the thread basically described the shortcomings of the last 2 seasons as a result of the underlying writing style. GRRM basically used a sociological style that allowed him to build up the characters and allow viewers/readers to understand their actions, particularly when they are conflicted. For example, through the early parts of the show Cersei is evil, but you feel like she's doing everything she does to protect her children and their power (even blowing up the sept is in this vein). Or as Dany lovers have pointed out, all of her "evil" actions were in support of the downtrodden and against "evil".
D&D (and in a more general regard, Hollywood) use a more psychological style which is somewhat viewed as everything is black & white or good vs evil. It's far more character centric approach.
The article explains it far better than I could. Link - ( New Window )
Thank you for posting that - I think there's a lot of truth in it. I immediately thought of the wire having been a similarly sociologically driven story and how they changed a huge chunk of the main cast every season but the story stuck together vs. just turning the show into cops vs. bad guys.
that Wired covers here is that the show switched writing styles from that of pantsters into plotters.
Here are a couple choice paragraphs of the interesting read
Quote:
The problem is that the writing has changed, and it's changed in a way that breaks important rules the show had previously set for itself. I think I know why.
It all comes down to how stories are crafted, and for that, we need to start with two different types of writers: plotters and pantsers. Plotters create a detailed outline before they commit a word to the page. Pantsers prefer to discover the story as they write it—flying by the seat of their pants, so to speak. Both approaches have their advantages. Since plotters know the story in advance, it's easier to create tight narratives with satisfying conclusions. But that amount of predestination can sometimes make characters feel like cogs in service of the story. Pantsers have an easier time writing characters that live and breathe. They generate the plot by dropping a person with desires and needs into a dramatic situation and documenting the results. But with the characters in charge, pantsers risk a meandering or poorly paced structure, and they can struggle to tie everything together.
Quote:
George R.R. Martin describes this distinction in terms of architects and gardeners. He's firmly among the latter. He plants character seeds and carefully guides their growth, and when the show was directly adapting his A Song of Ice and Fire series, the approach paid off. It's why every emotional beat and fair-in-hindsight surprise landed with such devastating weight: The terrible things that happened to these characters happened because of earlier choices they'd made. Those ever-blooming stories were a boon to the showrunners, who had their pick, but they're also the reason the narrative momentum of the books slowed over time.
After the first major plot arc resolved in the third book, A Storm of Swords (seasons 3 and 4), Martin planned to skip the story ahead five years. But he couldn't make the gap in action feel true to the characters or the world, so he eventually decided to write his way through those five years instead. Knowing the bridging material wasn't ever going to be as gripping as the central conflicts, he compensated by planting more seeds in more corners of his already complex world. And once he had them, he couldn't prune them back without their resolutions feeling abrupt or forced. Worse, some of his idle characters were taking the opportunity to grow in the wrong directions, pulling away from the ending he had in mind for them. Soon, the garden was overgrown, the projected length of the series kept expanding, and the books stopped coming.
For the next couple seasons, showrunners David Benioff and D. B. Weiss tried to take over management of Martin's sprawling garden, simplifying and combining character arcs with mixed results. Then, with the start of season 7, they shifted their focus from telling the unfolding story of an entire world to concluding a particular tale set within it. They gave themselves a fixed endpoint—13 episodes to the finale, and no more.
In so doing, the showrunners moved as far to one end of the plotter/pantser continuum as Martin is to the other. They weren't trying to resolve every character arc or pay off every last bit of world-building. They knew the destination Martin had in mind, they understood the dots they had to connect to get there, and they wanted to maximize fan entertainment along the way. Then, presumably, they asked themselves questions. What big set pieces did they want to deliver? What surprises could rival the greatest twists of the show? Which of the remaining conflicts would yield the best drama, and which onscreen pairings would bring the most emotion? What did they think we, the audience, wanted to finally see before it was all over? It was a Game of Thrones bucket list. And once they had that list, they needed to maneuver the characters into place.
Yet, we have no indication that he wanted to rule anything or that he had any ability to do so before he became king. And, after he became king the only thing we know is that at the first opportunity he took a side project (looking for Drogon) that was at best incidental to ruling Westeros and absented himself from further discussion on the actual kingdom. If he had planned this from the getgo, I would have expected more ambition or at least more engagement. I mean, it's pretty clear that Tyrion will be the de facto king and winner on GoT.
That's only "clear" because they never revealed anything about Bran's character/motivation. Maybe one of the spinoffs will (somehow)?
As for Drogon, I'd guess Bran's concerned because if someone managed to control Drogon, it would make them extremely powerful. But that's just a guess since we know nothing about Bran...
but it still fits. "I can't be the Lord of Winterfell because I'm going to be King of Westeros"
We are assuming that he was the only completely honest character because he is the Three Eyed-Raven, whatever that means-- as if he's some sort of mindless robot.
Why couldn't he be saying what he needed to say to influence everyone else in the game of thrones?
The bending over backwards to make sense of Bran is hilarious to me today. All of these theories go against the entire character of Bran for 7 seasons and 5 episodes. But the audience is supposed to somehow export this grand scheme of Bran's to become king.
Laughable.
You say it was against Bran's nature. What was Bran's nature? The show starts with him as a boy wanting to be a knight, getting crippled, and then becoming a mystical being who can see the past, present, and future.
It's not bending over backwards. Bran knew things and saw things with supernatural ability. The question I have is whether he knew he would end up on the throne and just existed for it to happen, or if he wanted it to happen and acted the way he did in furtherance of it. It's also possible that by he, I mean the Three Eyed Raven. I wish they spent more time explaining Bran being the Three Eyed Raven, and whether the Three Eyed Raven has its own agenda.
All we know is that the Three Eyed Raven was a human who lived among the Children of the Forest, the original rulers of Westeros and creators of The Night King to defend themselves from the First Men.
I'm actually unsure of how to answer this because the writers have done such a horrifyingly bad job of developing Bran's character. It's actually worse to me now that we know he ends up as King.
But are we supposed to believe that Bran knew that Dany would murder a million people but it was part of his scheme to become King?
Idk, I'm finding it hard to put into words, but overall I'm just so confused as to how all the Bran pieces led here. It makes no sense to me.
My buddy brought this up and it makes sense. He thinks that The Lord of Light/Three Eyed Raven are connected somehow and that ill be the link in the books that the show did not have. Who knows.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: thanks for the clarification Â
Yet, we have no indication that he wanted to rule anything or that he had any ability to do so before he became king. And, after he became king the only thing we know is that at the first opportunity he took a side project (looking for Drogon) that was at best incidental to ruling Westeros and absented himself from further discussion on the actual kingdom. If he had planned this from the getgo, I would have expected more ambition or at least more engagement. I mean, it's pretty clear that Tyrion will be the de facto king and winner on GoT.
That's only "clear" because they never revealed anything about Bran's character/motivation. Maybe one of the spinoffs will (somehow)?
As for Drogon, I'd guess Bran's concerned because if someone managed to control Drogon, it would make them extremely powerful. But that's just a guess since we know nothing about Bran...
Drogon is the most powerful creature in the realm who just showed the physical ability to level an entire fleet and destroy all of Kings Landing with ease.
I think it would make sense that going forward, Kings Landing / the Realm would want to keep tabs on it.
Also, Bran forcing Tyrion to fix everything he broke and rebuild the city has a nice "Bran the Rebuilder" ring to it.
We're spednign so much time on Bran's "planning" Â
seemingly because we are caught up on his foresight. But in the show I don't recall them spending all that much time on his foresight abilities. Mostly he's looking backwards. Even the NK in the weirwood was more a plot based on what Bran felt the NK would be motivated to do, rather than his divination of what he would do.
I'm actually unsure of how to answer this because the writers have done such a horrifyingly bad job of developing Bran's character. It's actually worse to me now that we know he ends up as King.
But are we supposed to believe that Bran knew that Dany would murder a million people but it was part of his scheme to become King?
Idk, I'm finding it hard to put into words, but overall I'm just so confused as to how all the Bran pieces led here. It makes no sense to me.
My buddy brought this up and it makes sense. He thinks that The Lord of Light/Three Eyed Raven are connected somehow and that ill be the link in the books that the show did not have. Who knows.
In the writers' defense, GRRM doesn't seem to know how to land this plane or connect the dots, either. I mean, it's a 7 book series and books 1-5 were published in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2005, 2011.
I only read the first book, but who knows what GRRM told D&D about Bran.
battle with the NK Bran and Tyrion had a sit down, just the 2 of them. Last night made me think that Bran laid out the entire scenario to Tyrion. This may have been the reason Tyrion's plans suddenly started to back fire. Was it deliberate to get this ending? Tyrion sold out Varys who was campaigning to have Jon become king. Tyrion basically convinced Jon to kill Dany. It was Tyrion who recommended Bran to the council to be king. Also knowing the outcome it would make sense Bran would not accept ruling the north since he knew he would be king.
that timeline doesn't mean too much. He had a ton of material to start, which is why the first 3 came out in quick succession. The first break was between 3-4 and then again between 4-5. But they started talking about the TV project back in 2006 so who knows how much that threw off everything. And once the show became a hit, the focus was gone (and I can't blame him either, its a cash cow, he's travelling, he's likely exhausted, and he's not a young man anymore).
Had there been no show i'm guessing the books would have been done by now.
The production team learned a lot from their mistakes. Â
he basically wrote the first 3 books at the same time and it was basically the publishing schedule (and probably some final editting) that had them released 2 years apart.
Likely of combination of factors contributing to the delays in the final 2 books, the biggest being (IMO) trying to satisfactorily wind down all of the threads he's developed in the first 5 books. Keep in mind their are even more threads in the books then the show (e.g. Lady Stoneheart, the other Targaryen, (unbutchered) Dorne, more in-depth Greyjoy storyline, etc).
1. For those bitching about Bran saying he could never be lord or anything and then taking the throne. He knew the entire time how it would play out when he was north of the wall with Meera after escaping the army of the dead. In his visions they show the Sept blowing up and Dany flying over King's Landing on Drogon. He turned down Winterfell because he knew how the events would play out.
2. Tyrion being hand is extremely fitting. He was always great at it and cares about the people rather than just power. He definitely made mistakes the last two seasons, but clearly emotion played a role in that because he was dealing with his family. The scene where he finds Jamie and Cersei dead was one of the best scenes in the episode.
3. Having Jon be sent to the wall was the only way to avoid another war. Clearly they never intended on him actually serving in the Watch, if there even is one at this point. He gets to live out his days north of the wall where he was happiest in his life with Igritte.
Was it perfect? Of course not. It is basically impossible to end of a show of this magnitude and popularity with everyone being pleased. They definitely should have done two 10 episode seasons for 7 and 8 rather than just the 13, and even though it was bittersweet, I was generally satisfied with the conclusion.
RE: The production team learned a lot from their mistakes. Â
1. For those bitching about Bran saying he could never be lord or anything and then taking the throne. He knew the entire time how it would play out when he was north of the wall with Meera after escaping the army of the dead. In his visions they show the Sept blowing up and Dany flying over King's Landing on Drogon. He turned down Winterfell because he knew how the events would play out.
2. Tyrion being hand is extremely fitting. He was always great at it and cares about the people rather than just power. He definitely made mistakes the last two seasons, but clearly emotion played a role in that because he was dealing with his family. The scene where he finds Jamie and Cersei dead was one of the best scenes in the episode.
3. Having Jon be sent to the wall was the only way to avoid another war. Clearly they never intended on him actually serving in the Watch, if there even is one at this point. He gets to live out his days north of the wall where he was happiest in his life with Igritte.
Was it perfect? Of course not. It is basically impossible to end of a show of this magnitude and popularity with everyone being pleased. They definitely should have done two 10 episode seasons for 7 and 8 rather than just the 13, and even though it was bittersweet, I was generally satisfied with the conclusion.
Other than being rushed I enjoyed the season much easier than bitching about something I can’t change anyways but I would of preferred an ending that bran shows he has the makings to be the evil mastermind especially after the why do you think i came this far comment. It was there but they went with the birth of democracy ending which makes sense in the future evolution of society.
Also peter Dinklage was awesome as usual I do hope he gets another Emmy
is that if the showrunners knew Bran was going to be the ultimate Slay Kang, they should have spent more time with him. There was an entire season in which he didn't show up! (To be fair, I'm not 100% positive they knew by that time, but if they did, they could have given him a few stray scenes here or there. Or maybe showed his descent from person to Three-Eyed Raven!)
He was an existential threat, and it took the version of a superhero movie where everyone used their powers to stop him. It took the largest army ever assembled, two dragons, Sam's knowledge of how white walkers can be killed, Gendry's weapon-making, the Lord of Light's ability to turn all the swords into fire and to light the trenches, Bran warging into the ravens to find The Night King and be the homing device to the weirwood so that the trained assassin, Arya Stark, could deliver the final blow to kill The Night King and the entire army.
It was a nonstop battle for 80 minutes.
Quote:
being positioned as an existential threat, then having less staying power than Ramsey fucking Bolton.
He was an existential threat, and it took the version of a superhero movie where everyone used their powers to stop him. It took the largest army ever assembled, two dragons, Sam's knowledge of how white walkers can be killed, Gendry's weapon-making, the Lord of Light's ability to turn all the swords into fire and to light the trenches, Bran warging into the ravens to find The Night King and be the homing device to the weirwood so that the trained assassin, Arya Stark, could deliver the final blow to kill The Night King and the entire army.
It was a nonstop battle for 80 minutes.
Why did the Night King expose himself to personally go after Bran?
It helped turn her mad because he was always going to be an existential threat and that she could never trust him no matter what he said because of her own paranoia and insecurity.
Additionally, revealing his lineage offers an explanation as to why Drogon didn't try to kill him at the end. Perhaps drogon had no interest in killing a fellow Targaryen-- the last of the Targaryens.
And, if nothing else, revealing his lineage created worthwhile intrigue for the fans. It allowed him to interact and ride dragons.
It was also classic dramatic irony. The audience knew something and it created enjoyable suspense and tension to see how that would evolve and what the results would be. It's like the audience knowing that there is a bomb with a timer in a building. The bomb doesn't have to go off for it to be important or consequential.
Quote:
In comment 14449873 shockeyisthebest8056 said:
Quote:
being positioned as an existential threat, then having less staying power than Ramsey fucking Bolton.
He was an existential threat, and it took the version of a superhero movie where everyone used their powers to stop him. It took the largest army ever assembled, two dragons, Sam's knowledge of how white walkers can be killed, Gendry's weapon-making, the Lord of Light's ability to turn all the swords into fire and to light the trenches, Bran warging into the ravens to find The Night King and be the homing device to the weirwood so that the trained assassin, Arya Stark, could deliver the final blow to kill The Night King and the entire army.
It was a nonstop battle for 80 minutes.
Why did the Night King expose himself to personally go after Bran?
Because he's a pervert?
Quote:
Bran as King? Really Bran who isn't even a stark and can't be head of Winterfell
Bran isn't a Stark?
Quote:
In comment 14449884 Mr. Bungle said:
Quote:
In comment 14449868 Amtoft said:
Quote:
Bran as King? Really Bran who isn't even a stark and can't be head of Winterfell
Bran isn't a Stark?
That is what Bran has basically said. It is so stupid. Can't be lord of Winterfell, but King sure why not.
He didn't say he couldn't be Lord of Winterfell. He said he didn't want to be Lord of Winterfell. He said he didn't want much of anything any more.
But why does that prevent him from being aware, or acting with the motivation to ultimately end up on the iron throne after the battle against The Night King and Dany going south?
Why do you assume that everyone else is capable of lying, or of acting in their own interest, and Bran/Three-Eyed Raven isn't?
Really you are saying he lied about wanting to be Lord of Winterfell ruler of the north who they kept making Kings and Queens up there for his self interest? Come on now.
Quote:
In comment 14449868 Amtoft said:
Quote:
Bran as King? Really Bran who isn't even a stark and can't be head of Winterfell
Bran isn't a Stark?
By his own statements. He isn't anything anymore.
Oh except King... sure he will take that. So stupid.
Quote:
Agreed. And when Dany learned of Jon's lineage which made him the rightful heir to the throne, what did she do? Did she offer to step aside and throw her support to Jon since he was the rightful heir to the throne that belonged to her family? No, she begged him to lie and to keep it a secret because it could get in the way of her taking the throne-- a throne that she has no rightful claim to.
It helped turn her mad because he was always going to be an existential threat and that she could never trust him no matter what he said because of her own paranoia and insecurity.
Additionally, revealing his lineage offers an explanation as to why Drogon didn't try to kill him at the end. Perhaps drogon had no interest in killing a fellow Targaryen-- the last of the Targaryens.
And, if nothing else, revealing his lineage created worthwhile intrigue for the fans. It allowed him to interact and ride dragons.
It was also classic dramatic irony. The audience knew something and it created enjoyable suspense and tension to see how that would evolve and what the results would be. It's like the audience knowing that there is a bomb with a timer in a building. The bomb doesn't have to go off for it to be important or consequential.
It might just be a book thing but it is probably a movie thing too. But Dany's core is not just power acquisition although that's how i manifested. At her core was the legitimacy question. The Barathions and Starks stole her birthright. She was the *legitimate* ruler and the Robert was a usurper. In fact, she was perfectly okay (initially) that Viserys was the real entitled ruler. So much so that she grudgingly married Khal Drogo. Yes, she became more and more obsessed with acquisition but it was always to make it back to KL to assume what was rightfully hers. That's what has always made my uncomfortable with her reaction to Jon. Her intrinsic value system *should* have made her step aside because the very same issue which caused her to become who she was, was trumped by Jon's birthright.
I think she was becoming more and more radicalized by her own message; the obsession and the quest itself kept building and building, and as she did things like walk through the fire and turn stones into dragon eggs, she was not just going to be Queen because of birthright, but because of destiny. The birthright legitimized and validated her question. And so when Jon's truth was revealed, I think her belief in her destiny was the winning emotion.
Really you are saying he lied about wanting to be Lord of Winterfell ruler of the north who they kept making Kings and Queens up there for his self interest? Come on now.
I think the argument (which isn't remotely supported by the show, IMO) is that Bran's ultimate goal the entire time was to be King and that the entire time he's been taking steps to position himself for that role. His seeming lack of desire to be Lord of Winterfell made it more likely that everyone else would support his "nomination" as King.
He was an existential threat, and it took the version of a superhero movie where everyone used their powers to stop him. It took the largest army ever assembled, two dragons, Sam's knowledge of how white walkers can be killed, Gendry's weapon-making, the Lord of Light's ability to turn all the swords into fire and to light the trenches, Bran warging into the ravens to find The Night King and be the homing device to the weirwood so that the trained assassin, Arya Stark, could deliver the final blow to kill The Night King and the entire army.
It was a nonstop battle for 80 minutes.
If it's a superhero movie, then it's like Avengers: Endgame being the first movie instead of the finale. The "existential threat" lasted one battle. Afterwards, major parts of the superheros were then felled by Euron Greyjoy. Does that mean he was bigger than an existential threat?
Quote:
In comment 14449891 Amtoft said:
Quote:
In comment 14449884 Mr. Bungle said:
Quote:
In comment 14449868 Amtoft said:
Quote:
Bran as King? Really Bran who isn't even a stark and can't be head of Winterfell
Bran isn't a Stark?
That is what Bran has basically said. It is so stupid. Can't be lord of Winterfell, but King sure why not.
He didn't say he couldn't be Lord of Winterfell. He said he didn't want to be Lord of Winterfell. He said he didn't want much of anything any more.
But why does that prevent him from being aware, or acting with the motivation to ultimately end up on the iron throne after the battle against The Night King and Dany going south?
Why do you assume that everyone else is capable of lying, or of acting in their own interest, and Bran/Three-Eyed Raven isn't?
Really you are saying he lied about wanting to be Lord of Winterfell ruler of the north who they kept making Kings and Queens up there for his self interest? Come on now.
I never said he lied about not wanting to be Lord of Winterfell. Plus, being King and being Lord of Winterfell are two completely different outcomes.
For a bit now, there is a thought on Bran that he was full of knowledge of all history with some understanding of being a seer and that he remained passive in several instances so as to not affect how other people acted so as to not mess up their timeline and change what would otherwise happen.
What the finale may suggest is that it may not have been Bran being in a dispassionate existence which would ultimately lead to an outcome where he ended up the King. Instead, it's also possible that perhaps Bran (and the Three Eyed Raven) may have overtly acted in furtherance of ending up with him on the iron throne. That it was all part of a much larger, and longer end game.
Quote:
In comment 14449413 halfback20 said:
Quote:
Of building up Jons history, and his true identity...then no one cared to mention it when they are picking a new leader. No one thought of him as an option. Hes the actual King, or should be. I would have been ok if they had offered it and he turned it down, but why didnt someone at least mention it?
If you buy the idea that a societal change away from a basically Feudal system had to be initiated, Jon/Aegon could not possibly have become King. That would be perpetuating the old, failed system and is the antithesis of social change.
Maybe so. But no one said a word about it. Thats my issue. I didn't need Jon to be king.
Didn't need to be mentioned because it was no longer germane. The whole course of the show from the 1st Episode illustrated just how destructive the "Game" was and why it need a push toward a different system.
I'm surprised this post above is not getting more attention on BBI. Joey spoils the main plots for the series final episode almost 6 hours before it airs.
LOL....that's LeSean McCoy level trolling right there!
Quote:
He was an existential threat, and it took the version of a superhero movie where everyone used their powers to stop him. It took the largest army ever assembled, two dragons, Sam's knowledge of how white walkers can be killed, Gendry's weapon-making, the Lord of Light's ability to turn all the swords into fire and to light the trenches, Bran warging into the ravens to find The Night King and be the homing device to the weirwood so that the trained assassin, Arya Stark, could deliver the final blow to kill The Night King and the entire army.
It was a nonstop battle for 80 minutes.
If it's a superhero movie, then it's like Avengers: Endgame being the first movie instead of the finale. The "existential threat" lasted one battle. Afterwards, major parts of the superheros were then felled by Euron Greyjoy. Does that mean he was bigger than an existential threat?
Thethreat of The Night King and the White Walkers have existed since the first scene of the entire series. It's not as if there haven't been dramatic interactions with TNK and white walkers all through the series.
Ending the series with the battle against the dead would have been terrible because the show wasn't ultimately about that. It was always about the problems of man and the competing factions within them as they all destroyed each other vying for power. The Night King was an existential threat in the sense that it was the most dangerous possible threat and something that was a threat to all of man and yet, despite that, some factions were so consumed with power that they ignored the threat and decided not to face it.
The ones that did face it were able to destroy it (due to a superheroic effort) and when you save the world, the world keeps spinning and so there is an aftermath.
He didn't say he couldn't be Lord of Winterfell. He said he didn't want to be Lord of Winterfell. He said he didn't want much of anything any more.
Actually, he did say that.
"I can never be Lord of Winterfell, I can never be lord of anything. I'm the Three-Eyed Raven."
We are assuming that he was the only completely honest character because he is the Three Eyed-Raven, whatever that means-- as if he's some sort of mindless robot.
Why couldn't he be saying what he needed to say to influence everyone else in the game of thrones?
Quote:
Gets sent to the wall, Bran is King, Arya splits.
I'm surprised this post above is not getting more attention on BBI. Joey spoils the main plots for the series final episode almost 6 hours before it airs.
LOL....that's LeSean McCoy level trolling right there!
We should applaud Joey and tell him he is the man for his great foresight.
It's not unprecedented for a showrunner (even a co-creator) to leave a series before it ends. One of the most prominent examples, of course, is Larry David leaving Seinfeld. But there have been others.
If it meant resolving the series properly, they should have done it, even if it delayed production. The fans waited almost two years for the final six episodes anyway.
We are assuming that he was the only completely honest character because he is the Three Eyed-Raven, whatever that means-- as if he's some sort of mindless robot.
Why couldn't he be saying what he needed to say to influence everyone else in the game of thrones?
The bending over backwards to make sense of Bran is hilarious to me today. All of these theories go against the entire character of Bran for 7 seasons and 5 episodes. But the audience is supposed to somehow export this grand scheme of Bran's to become king.
Laughable.
Quote:
In comment 14448867 Joey in VA said:
Quote:
Gets sent to the wall, Bran is King, Arya splits.
I'm surprised this post above is not getting more attention on BBI. Joey spoils the main plots for the series final episode almost 6 hours before it airs.
LOL....that's LeSean McCoy level trolling right there!
We should applaud Joey and tell him he is the man for his great foresight.
Can't give him credit, he didn't say Sansa was going to be the Queen of the North.
Quote:
Gets sent to the wall, Bran is King, Arya splits.
Joey is the BBI - 3 eyed raven -
Who is going to win the NFC East this year Raven?
I'm surprised this post above is not getting more attention on BBI. Joey spoils the main plots for the series final episode almost 6 hours before it airs.
LOL....that's LeSean McCoy level trolling right there!
Quote:
In comment 14449958 NYG27 said:
Quote:
In comment 14448867 Joey in VA said:
Quote:
Gets sent to the wall, Bran is King, Arya splits.
I'm surprised this post above is not getting more attention on BBI. Joey spoils the main plots for the series final episode almost 6 hours before it airs.
LOL....that's LeSean McCoy level trolling right there!
We should applaud Joey and tell him he is the man for his great foresight.
Can't give him credit, he didn't say Sansa was going to be the Queen of the North.
I think we know that was always a given. He also didn’t say Dany would be offed because everyone knew that was a given too. No, Joey gave us all the non-givens, that required one of profound intellect with great analytical abilities.
Quote:
In comment 14449823 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 14449413 halfback20 said:
Quote:
Of building up Jons history, and his true identity...then no one cared to mention it when they are picking a new leader. No one thought of him as an option. Hes the actual King, or should be. I would have been ok if they had offered it and he turned it down, but why didnt someone at least mention it?
If you buy the idea that a societal change away from a basically Feudal system had to be initiated, Jon/Aegon could not possibly have become King. That would be perpetuating the old, failed system and is the antithesis of social change.
Maybe so. But no one said a word about it. Thats my issue. I didn't need Jon to be king.
Didn't need to be mentioned because it was no longer germane. The whole course of the show from the 1st Episode illustrated just how destructive the "Game" was and why it need a push toward a different system.
But that's from a viewer's perspective. The people actually *in* the story don't realize any of that. They've got millennia that says, no matter if it's bloody, this is the way to go. Their actions act with enlightenment for which there is no real foundation.
D&D (and in a more general regard, Hollywood) use a more psychological style which is somewhat viewed as everything is black & white or good vs evil. It's far more character centric approach.
The article explains it far better than I could.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
but it still fits. "I can't be the Lord of Winterfell because I'm going to be King of Westeros"
We are assuming that he was the only completely honest character because he is the Three Eyed-Raven, whatever that means-- as if he's some sort of mindless robot.
Why couldn't he be saying what he needed to say to influence everyone else in the game of thrones?
The bending over backwards to make sense of Bran is hilarious to me today. All of these theories go against the entire character of Bran for 7 seasons and 5 episodes. But the audience is supposed to somehow export this grand scheme of Bran's to become king.
Laughable.
You say it was against Bran's nature. What was Bran's nature? The show starts with him as a boy wanting to be a knight, getting crippled, and then becoming a mystical being who can see the past, present, and future.
It's not bending over backwards. Bran knew things and saw things with supernatural ability. The question I have is whether he knew he would end up on the throne and just existed for it to happen, or if he wanted it to happen and acted the way he did in furtherance of it. It's also possible that by he, I mean the Three Eyed Raven. I wish they spent more time explaining Bran being the Three Eyed Raven, and whether the Three Eyed Raven has its own agenda.
All we know is that the Three Eyed Raven was a human who lived among the Children of the Forest, the original rulers of Westeros and creators of The Night King to defend themselves from the First Men.
D&D (and in a more general regard, Hollywood) use a more psychological style which is somewhat viewed as everything is black & white or good vs evil. It's far more character centric approach.
The article explains it far better than I could. Link - ( New Window )
It was a good article. I still prefer my own variant which is that they went from a writer of books (with the object being creative and making novel (NPI) art) to writers of tv (with the object of making fans/viewers feel a certain way and using time-tested tropes).
Quote:
In comment 14449982 PaulBlakeTSU said:
Quote:
but it still fits. "I can't be the Lord of Winterfell because I'm going to be King of Westeros"
We are assuming that he was the only completely honest character because he is the Three Eyed-Raven, whatever that means-- as if he's some sort of mindless robot.
Why couldn't he be saying what he needed to say to influence everyone else in the game of thrones?
The bending over backwards to make sense of Bran is hilarious to me today. All of these theories go against the entire character of Bran for 7 seasons and 5 episodes. But the audience is supposed to somehow export this grand scheme of Bran's to become king.
Laughable.
You say it was against Bran's nature. What was Bran's nature? The show starts with him as a boy wanting to be a knight, getting crippled, and then becoming a mystical being who can see the past, present, and future.
It's not bending over backwards. Bran knew things and saw things with supernatural ability. The question I have is whether he knew he would end up on the throne and just existed for it to happen, or if he wanted it to happen and acted the way he did in furtherance of it. It's also possible that by he, I mean the Three Eyed Raven. I wish they spent more time explaining Bran being the Three Eyed Raven, and whether the Three Eyed Raven has its own agenda.
All we know is that the Three Eyed Raven was a human who lived among the Children of the Forest, the original rulers of Westeros and creators of The Night King to defend themselves from the First Men.
Yet, we have no indication that he wanted to rule anything or that he had any ability to do so before he became king. And, after he became king the only thing we know is that at the first opportunity he took a side project (looking for Drogon) that was at best incidental to ruling Westeros and absented himself from further discussion on the actual kingdom. If he had planned this from the getgo, I would have expected more ambition or at least more engagement. I mean, it's pretty clear that Tyrion will be the de facto king and winner on GoT.
Seven kingdoms were not enough, she wanted the whole world
It was a good article. I still prefer my own variant which is that they went from a writer of books (with the object being creative and making novel (NPI) art) to writers of tv (with the object of making fans/viewers feel a certain way and using time-tested tropes).
That's essentially what they're saying, though I'd go as far as to say even among book writers, GRRM's ability to "transform" characters from good to evil or to make you feel sympathy for evil characters (e.g. Cersei's walk of shame) is exceptional. Lots of books are a lot more black and white than ASOIAF.
D&D (and in a more general regard, Hollywood) use a more psychological style which is somewhat viewed as everything is black & white or good vs evil. It's far more character centric approach.
The article explains it far better than I could. Link - ( New Window )
Thank you for posting that - I think there's a lot of truth in it. I immediately thought of the wire having been a similarly sociologically driven story and how they changed a huge chunk of the main cast every season but the story stuck together vs. just turning the show into cops vs. bad guys.
Here are a couple choice paragraphs of the interesting read
The problem is that the writing has changed, and it's changed in a way that breaks important rules the show had previously set for itself. I think I know why.
It all comes down to how stories are crafted, and for that, we need to start with two different types of writers: plotters and pantsers. Plotters create a detailed outline before they commit a word to the page. Pantsers prefer to discover the story as they write it—flying by the seat of their pants, so to speak. Both approaches have their advantages. Since plotters know the story in advance, it's easier to create tight narratives with satisfying conclusions. But that amount of predestination can sometimes make characters feel like cogs in service of the story. Pantsers have an easier time writing characters that live and breathe. They generate the plot by dropping a person with desires and needs into a dramatic situation and documenting the results. But with the characters in charge, pantsers risk a meandering or poorly paced structure, and they can struggle to tie everything together.
After the first major plot arc resolved in the third book, A Storm of Swords (seasons 3 and 4), Martin planned to skip the story ahead five years. But he couldn't make the gap in action feel true to the characters or the world, so he eventually decided to write his way through those five years instead. Knowing the bridging material wasn't ever going to be as gripping as the central conflicts, he compensated by planting more seeds in more corners of his already complex world. And once he had them, he couldn't prune them back without their resolutions feeling abrupt or forced. Worse, some of his idle characters were taking the opportunity to grow in the wrong directions, pulling away from the ending he had in mind for them. Soon, the garden was overgrown, the projected length of the series kept expanding, and the books stopped coming.
For the next couple seasons, showrunners David Benioff and D. B. Weiss tried to take over management of Martin's sprawling garden, simplifying and combining character arcs with mixed results. Then, with the start of season 7, they shifted their focus from telling the unfolding story of an entire world to concluding a particular tale set within it. They gave themselves a fixed endpoint—13 episodes to the finale, and no more.
In so doing, the showrunners moved as far to one end of the plotter/pantser continuum as Martin is to the other. They weren't trying to resolve every character arc or pay off every last bit of world-building. They knew the destination Martin had in mind, they understood the dots they had to connect to get there, and they wanted to maximize fan entertainment along the way. Then, presumably, they asked themselves questions. What big set pieces did they want to deliver? What surprises could rival the greatest twists of the show? Which of the remaining conflicts would yield the best drama, and which onscreen pairings would bring the most emotion? What did they think we, the audience, wanted to finally see before it was all over? It was a Game of Thrones bucket list. And once they had that list, they needed to maneuver the characters into place.
https://www.wired.com/story/game-of-thrones-plotters-vs-pantsers/ - ( New Window )
Yet, we have no indication that he wanted to rule anything or that he had any ability to do so before he became king. And, after he became king the only thing we know is that at the first opportunity he took a side project (looking for Drogon) that was at best incidental to ruling Westeros and absented himself from further discussion on the actual kingdom. If he had planned this from the getgo, I would have expected more ambition or at least more engagement. I mean, it's pretty clear that Tyrion will be the de facto king and winner on GoT.
That's only "clear" because they never revealed anything about Bran's character/motivation. Maybe one of the spinoffs will (somehow)?
As for Drogon, I'd guess Bran's concerned because if someone managed to control Drogon, it would make them extremely powerful. But that's just a guess since we know nothing about Bran...
Quote:
In comment 14449982 PaulBlakeTSU said:
Quote:
but it still fits. "I can't be the Lord of Winterfell because I'm going to be King of Westeros"
We are assuming that he was the only completely honest character because he is the Three Eyed-Raven, whatever that means-- as if he's some sort of mindless robot.
Why couldn't he be saying what he needed to say to influence everyone else in the game of thrones?
The bending over backwards to make sense of Bran is hilarious to me today. All of these theories go against the entire character of Bran for 7 seasons and 5 episodes. But the audience is supposed to somehow export this grand scheme of Bran's to become king.
Laughable.
You say it was against Bran's nature. What was Bran's nature? The show starts with him as a boy wanting to be a knight, getting crippled, and then becoming a mystical being who can see the past, present, and future.
It's not bending over backwards. Bran knew things and saw things with supernatural ability. The question I have is whether he knew he would end up on the throne and just existed for it to happen, or if he wanted it to happen and acted the way he did in furtherance of it. It's also possible that by he, I mean the Three Eyed Raven. I wish they spent more time explaining Bran being the Three Eyed Raven, and whether the Three Eyed Raven has its own agenda.
All we know is that the Three Eyed Raven was a human who lived among the Children of the Forest, the original rulers of Westeros and creators of The Night King to defend themselves from the First Men.
I'm actually unsure of how to answer this because the writers have done such a horrifyingly bad job of developing Bran's character. It's actually worse to me now that we know he ends up as King.
But are we supposed to believe that Bran knew that Dany would murder a million people but it was part of his scheme to become King?
Idk, I'm finding it hard to put into words, but overall I'm just so confused as to how all the Bran pieces led here. It makes no sense to me.
My buddy brought this up and it makes sense. He thinks that The Lord of Light/Three Eyed Raven are connected somehow and that ill be the link in the books that the show did not have. Who knows.
Quote:
Yet, we have no indication that he wanted to rule anything or that he had any ability to do so before he became king. And, after he became king the only thing we know is that at the first opportunity he took a side project (looking for Drogon) that was at best incidental to ruling Westeros and absented himself from further discussion on the actual kingdom. If he had planned this from the getgo, I would have expected more ambition or at least more engagement. I mean, it's pretty clear that Tyrion will be the de facto king and winner on GoT.
That's only "clear" because they never revealed anything about Bran's character/motivation. Maybe one of the spinoffs will (somehow)?
As for Drogon, I'd guess Bran's concerned because if someone managed to control Drogon, it would make them extremely powerful. But that's just a guess since we know nothing about Bran...
I think it would make sense that going forward, Kings Landing / the Realm would want to keep tabs on it.
Also, Bran forcing Tyrion to fix everything he broke and rebuild the city has a nice "Bran the Rebuilder" ring to it.
I'm actually unsure of how to answer this because the writers have done such a horrifyingly bad job of developing Bran's character. It's actually worse to me now that we know he ends up as King.
But are we supposed to believe that Bran knew that Dany would murder a million people but it was part of his scheme to become King?
Idk, I'm finding it hard to put into words, but overall I'm just so confused as to how all the Bran pieces led here. It makes no sense to me.
My buddy brought this up and it makes sense. He thinks that The Lord of Light/Three Eyed Raven are connected somehow and that ill be the link in the books that the show did not have. Who knows.
In the writers' defense, GRRM doesn't seem to know how to land this plane or connect the dots, either. I mean, it's a 7 book series and books 1-5 were published in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2005, 2011.
I only read the first book, but who knows what GRRM told D&D about Bran.
Had there been no show i'm guessing the books would have been done by now.
Link - ( New Window )
Likely of combination of factors contributing to the delays in the final 2 books, the biggest being (IMO) trying to satisfactorily wind down all of the threads he's developed in the first 5 books. Keep in mind their are even more threads in the books then the show (e.g. Lady Stoneheart, the other Targaryen, (unbutchered) Dorne, more in-depth Greyjoy storyline, etc).
The one thing I guessed correctly though was brienne would finish jaime’s page. Kinda funny how quick that was shot down lol
2. Tyrion being hand is extremely fitting. He was always great at it and cares about the people rather than just power. He definitely made mistakes the last two seasons, but clearly emotion played a role in that because he was dealing with his family. The scene where he finds Jamie and Cersei dead was one of the best scenes in the episode.
3. Having Jon be sent to the wall was the only way to avoid another war. Clearly they never intended on him actually serving in the Watch, if there even is one at this point. He gets to live out his days north of the wall where he was happiest in his life with Igritte.
Was it perfect? Of course not. It is basically impossible to end of a show of this magnitude and popularity with everyone being pleased. They definitely should have done two 10 episode seasons for 7 and 8 rather than just the 13, and even though it was bittersweet, I was generally satisfied with the conclusion.
Three straight weeks of a fuck-up. Fuckin' A
2. Tyrion being hand is extremely fitting. He was always great at it and cares about the people rather than just power. He definitely made mistakes the last two seasons, but clearly emotion played a role in that because he was dealing with his family. The scene where he finds Jamie and Cersei dead was one of the best scenes in the episode.
3. Having Jon be sent to the wall was the only way to avoid another war. Clearly they never intended on him actually serving in the Watch, if there even is one at this point. He gets to live out his days north of the wall where he was happiest in his life with Igritte.
Was it perfect? Of course not. It is basically impossible to end of a show of this magnitude and popularity with everyone being pleased. They definitely should have done two 10 episode seasons for 7 and 8 rather than just the 13, and even though it was bittersweet, I was generally satisfied with the conclusion.
Other than being rushed I enjoyed the season much easier than bitching about something I can’t change anyways but I would of preferred an ending that bran shows he has the makings to be the evil mastermind especially after the why do you think i came this far comment. It was there but they went with the birth of democracy ending which makes sense in the future evolution of society.
Also peter Dinklage was awesome as usual I do hope he gets another Emmy