Game of Thrones TV extravaganza

GorillaGrody wrote: Just going to drop this article here and back out of the room. blogs.scientificamerican.com/observation...-thrones/?redirect=1

She's great and I agree with this take. Her twitter and tear gas book is great too.

disgustipater wrote: Just a random thought:

Wouldn’t John be ineligible for the throne since he renounced all claims when he joined the Night’s Watch? Or is all tradition/institutional law out the window at this point?

The obvious take on a lot of this, I believe, is that the oath explicitly ends once you die. He died, therefore it's over.

Ah yes. Now that you mention it, I think that was explicitly mentioned in the show.

And now my watch has ended...with me completely satisfied.

Now I'll have to avoid the fan circles forever so I don't have to listen to them bitch about it ruining their lives. Its just a fucking tv show.

I still don't like how they handled Daenerys' heel turn, but as TV finales go ... that one was pretty good. Satisfying in all the right ways, leaving our characters in interesting places, where we can imagine them continuing their lives, just without us there to watch anymore. That's my favorite kind of TV finale (see Star Trek: The Next Generation or Cheers as other good examples of this approach).

I swear, for a moment there, when Sam stood up and proposed his idea that everybody in Westeros should get to choose their ruler ... I really thought we were going to get the First Republic of Westeros, and I was very excited. That got shot down pretty fast though. Bummer. Power to the people, Sam!!

I'm sad to think that there is no work meeting or conference that I will ever attend in my entire career that will be as fun as the Small Council meetings in King's Landing.

I'm trying to remember a single bit of American popular culture written or produced since the woman's suffragist era in which

That was one of the most cynical jokes in the entire show, and it DID make me laugh (WHILE I was audibly making fun of Sam’s sincere, stuttery attempt to fashion democracy from the ashes), but it really swerves the show into a strange ideological lane (metaphors). Like, what are they advocating for here—a group of inbred elites that steer the new wheel? I’m not sure we should trust the wheeling of writers who are (just a guess) autonomously steered to meetings in Teslas while they high-five each other for coming up with new plot ideas for a new show about black suffering.

JonathanVolk wrote: Like, what are they advocating for here—a group of inbred elites that steer the new wheel?

I think that's literally what they're voting for when it comes to who gets to write television stories. Like, didn't you get the impression that each of the remaining Starks was less "meeting their destiny" so much as they were "retiring to a ranch house in Boca Raton, voting Biden or Trump in next election, haven't decided yet"?

I was just glad they didn't take Sam up on his offer. The last season has sucked enough, so why pile more suck on top of it.

For me, there was entirely too much, "Who the hell is that guy?" at the meeting.

The more I think about the last episode, and the last season, the more disappointed in it I am. They didn't bother to earn anything, starting in S7. You can see how they got where they got, but way too much of it was, "Tell, not show."

JonathanVolk wrote: That was one of the most cynical jokes in the entire show, and it DID make me laugh (WHILE I was audibly making fun of Sam’s sincere, stuttery attempt to fashion democracy from the ashes), but it really swerves the show into a strange ideological lane (metaphors). Like, what are they advocating for here—a group of inbred elites that steer the new wheel? I’m not sure we should trust the wheeling of writers who are (just a guess) autonomously steered to meetings in Teslas while they high-five each other for coming up with new plot ideas for a new show about black suffering.

Take this with a grain of salt, as I'm the guy who teaches a class on the political economy of the books, but I think what they're doing here makes sense when you consider that the series is based on the war of the roses and I'm not sure Martin is trying to tell some sort of inspiring, rousing ending. The show and books are *dismal* normatively. That doesn't mean you have to like that or think this narrative result is good, but what they're presenting here is the process/idea of a more limited crown that is still undemocratic. So a fantasy UK's historical experience basically. In the UK's case, that was first limited by other nobles and tax paying elites (e.g. london merchants), but progressively over time the house of lords and commons took more and more direct control of policy. e.g. parliament vs. the crown in the civil war, then the glorious revolution in the late 1600s which straight up replaced the king and established parliamentary veto over crown decisions, royal adherence to sets of rules, etc.

I see this as a historical development allegory. Does that mean you should be happy they went that direction, since it's fiction and anything can be done? No. But I don't see Martin "advocating" anything here necessarily by showing this negotiated non-democratic ending to an exhausting, chaotic war. I think it is supposed to frustrate and disappoint you that after so much suffering and people advocating for the small folk they get nothing, just a reduction and break up of the King's power to other elites. I mean, the entire book a Feast for Crows is predicated on the idea that it doesn't matter which elite is in charge, what banner the force is flying, it's just going to suck for regular people. The Brotherhood without banners and people from Fleabottom may as well not exist in this ending---in fact, most of the flea bottom poor are dead from the dragon attack. I'm not sure if that's good or bad storytelling to you, but from Martin's perspective (I have no idea what the showrunners think; they've botched the last couple seasons bad enough I don't really know if I want to know) if this is how it ends I think it's pointed and intentional. On the other hand, I come from a books background where the sociology and political economy are so much farther forward in the narrative that this read makes more sense; I'm not sure how I'd feel if I'd only seen the character-based show.

re: Jeb

I cringed when Sam recommended a democratic Westeros as it was way too much wish fulfillment, but it is odd that no one pointed out that the Night’s Watch or Greyjoys have practiced it in limited forms.

I think it's fantastic. I don't mind the sociological to psychological shift, because it's the finale. A true sociological story would never wrap up satisfyingly and realistically. We've been watching this for 9 years. Give me my pay off.

Joebot wrote: What frustrates me is that they have Bran, the Three-eyed Exposition Machine, sitting RIGHT THERE. It would have been very effective to have Bran flashback to some of these critical points in Westeros history, like maybe the Mad King roasting Ned's father alive, or Jamie choosing to kill the Mad King and save the people of King's Landing. Show us some of this stuff! Instead ... Bran sits in his chair and stares and says cryptic bullshit. Why bother introducing his abilities, only to not do a goddamn thing with them? He's a built-in flashback-generating storytelling device! USE HIM! So stupid.

You are absolutely correct. But what I think stopped HBO from doing this was a desire to have an entire spin-off prequel series that then would have to be at least somewhat constrained by these flashbacks. So they did the absolute minimum they had to, Tower of Dawn, making of the Night King, and Hodor IIRC.

I just wish they had inverted the Cersei bit with the Night King. Make Dany go crazy on KL with her full army and then require Jon, Tyrion, and the rest to be FORCED to work with her to stop the NK at Winterfell. It would have given them more time to have Dany go mad, given more time for all the backstage shenanigans with Varys and Tyrion, and Jon could have just let Dany die in battle or something, dramatic and tragic instead of just sorta out of the blue. The North would have won but been bloodied, Danys forces would have been in a much more precarious position, Bran's "abilities" would have been on display to more Lords and fresh on their minds, then entire ending would have made more sense IMHO. Sansa pulling the North out of the Seven Kingdoms as a "reward" for their sacrifice would have made more sense as well. Anyway, just a substitution of event order but I think it would have made everything feel more earned.