|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jun 3, 2024 9:23:57 GMT
Short answer: people hate it for different reasons  Disclaimer: this is about the ending of the series, not about the accelerating slippage in writing quality which started around its middle point. What follows addresses the reasons why people who stayed until the end were disappointed and asserts they would have been even if the writing had kept to its original level. The story, as it unfolds in the TV series which claims to be aligned with the projected ending of the book series, subverts not one but three fairly common tropes. This is how it managed to disappoint three times as many people who had built expectations for a certain type of resolution. Trope subversion being a notorious hobby of the author, which was demonstrated several time in early seasons, it was only too easy to guess these would be subverted too, but there you go. Here are the three subverted expectations (plus one):
1] The White Walker peril is to be the final resolution point
Trope: petty disputes prevent self-serving people from seeing the real danger. Whistle blowers are first ignored, then proven right. The world will be saved if warnings are heeded or doomed otherwise. This is the unity trope: together we stand, divided we fall. Both outcomes are possible. Presented in the first episode, the big danger ought to have taken center stage quickly as the main driver of the story. Instead it remained a side plot for the whole of 7 seasons. This showed it was not the main plot point and therefore would not be part of the closing episodes. Those who believed it was all a childish fantasy story about fighting ice zombies with special swords, not a commentary of human behaviour, were the 1st disappointed party. 2] The throne must return to its rightful heir
Trope: the rightful king shall surprisingly return in time of need and resume a rightful rule. This is the conservative trope: a return to order ends the erring of men. Examples are the return of Odysseus in Homer or of Aragorn in The Lord Of The Rings. This one is both presented and subverted in the first episode: the heir to the overthrown dynasty sells his sister in exchange for help to invade his former homeland and remove the "usurping" king who happens to be the best friend of the protagonist. The audience is immediately made not to want "the return of the king". He dies in the course of the 1st season. Shortly after, the present king also dies and his succession becomes a matter of conflict. While some decide to support his brother as "the rightful king", this one is portrayed as someone most dislike. He is beaten and repelled at the end of the 2nd season. Clearly, this story makes a point of contesting the idea of hereditary monarchy. The penultimate season reveals that a beloved character is the secret heir to the old dynasty, presenting the "rightful trope" anew but the sold sister has become the open pretender so it really is just a new source of conflict. It takes no particular skill to guess this will not resolve harmoniously. This story is about the intricacies of choice, not about asserting the value of principles or glorifying the persistence of order by restoring the lost heir to anything. Those who didn't notice how honourable Ned and rightful Stannis had been slaughtered in earlier seasons were disappointed once again. As an aside, the story debunks the myth that the best rulers are the unwilling ones and the reason is simple: they dun wannit. 3] The system is to be reformed by a good ruler
Trope: a super-hero with a heart for justice will use super-powers to right wrongs and establish a new, modern order. This is the progressive trope: necessary use of violence makes the world better. It takes a full season of betrayals, murders and internal war in the homeland before the super-hero gets her super-power in the form of dragons abroad. At this point, the audience is ready to see her as the one to clean up the mess and burn the ice creatures. She does say she wants to "take what is hers with fire and blood" but most of the audience ignores the obvious red flag and the next ones, of which there will be many. Two further seasons are spent watching the would-be saviour come into her power and gather an army but then two more seasons are spent showing her trying and failing to learn to rule. She issues blanket judgements and shows a growing distaste for the people she rules. By the 6th season, it is clear that all she really can is obliterate opposition through fire. This is not going to be the story of a glorious revolution, more that of a bloody tyrant using the beliefs of her followers for her own purpose. Those who cheered for the overthrowing of everything established through saintly violence, those who believed in the cheesy propaganda music and misread all the impatience and spite displayed by their hero were left feeling betrayed, ridiculed and very angry. It seem this was the point of it all. Following leaders into their wars had been the bane of everyone for seasons and the last one was the worst, in a burst of genocidal madness which only real history had dared offer before. What a pity! And there was yet to be one further reason for disappointment: 4] The ending will make sense, right?
Trope (?): the ending makes bloody sense. If one followed the story, one can at least understand why it ends the way it does. Now, the first three tropes were intentionally subverted. The writers knew people's first expectations would be disappointed. It would make for interesting discussion, add value to the whole thing, maybe even teach a lesson. And it all sort of worked in spite of the dumbed down writing. But this didn't. The boy who can see and know everything but neither does or say anything was chosen to be king after someone said he was some sort of history book or had a silly fantasy adventure. It is not even clear what the argument was. No wonder Jon Snow decided to fuck off back north, Arya to go jump off the edge of the world and Sansa to have none of it. It looked like a twist for the sake of it. It said "Fuck You" instead of "The End".Maybe one should have seen it coming. So there is is. The four real reasons why people who watched to the end hated the ending. Those who saw the writing quality turn to junk in the 5th season either never made it there who were long past caring. |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jun 5, 2024 0:05:02 GMT
1 felt weird but I like it in retrospect. 2 and 3 also could have worked if handled better (Dany was no saint, but chasing innocent women and children with her dragon for no reason post-surrender made no sense). And 4 was a pretty straight forward cock up. Bran being king felt like an April Fool's joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jun 5, 2024 5:10:21 GMT
1 felt weird but I like it in retrospect. 2 and 3 also could have worked if handled better (Dany was no saint, but chasing innocent women and children with her dragon for no reason post-surrender made no sense). And 4 was a pretty straight forward cock up. Bran being king felt like an April Fool's joke. I believe subverting tropes is the principle of the book series and maybe even of Martin's work in general but I never read anything else by him. He makes you think you know the way through the woods only to take you along a wrong turn, bash your head unexpectedly and take all your valuable hopes. He did it several times (Ned, Renly, Stannis, Robb) and will do it again. Plot twists are his most precious thing. He admitted this when he said he no longer changes the story when people have guessed at it; which means he used to and would still like it not to happen. I knew early on that all the common expectations would be false. Fool me twice, shame on me. And it is a good thing to have in a book but it doesn't work for a TV audience. Not the same animal. They spend their time fantasising about their favourite characters just like Sansa wants to marry the Prince. The show was bound to let its fans down in terms of resolution. It would not end where they'd want it to end. And I wonder if King Bran will make sense in the book (if there is a book). Maybe it will be an April Fool's joke there too or, to put it in positive terms, an unsolved mystery left for readers to elucidate for themselves. I hope not but could see it happen. In the last book. When it comes out. At the end of time. |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jun 5, 2024 12:59:56 GMT
1 felt weird but I like it in retrospect. 2 and 3 also could have worked if handled better (Dany was no saint, but chasing innocent women and children with her dragon for no reason post-surrender made no sense). And 4 was a pretty straight forward cock up. Bran being king felt like an April Fool's joke. I believe subverting tropes is the principle of the book series and maybe even of Martin's work in general but I never read anything else by him. He makes you think you know the way through the woods only to take you along a wrong turn, bash your head unexpectedly and take all your valuable hopes. He did it several times (Ned, Renly, Stannis, Robb) and will do it again. Plot twists are his most precious thing. He admitted this when he said he no longer changes the story when people have guessed at it; which means he used to and would still like it not to happen. I knew early on that all the common expectations would be false. Fool me twice, shame on me. And it is a good thing to have in a book but it doesn't work for a TV audience. Not the same animal. They spend their time fantasising about their favourite characters just like Sansa wants to marry the Prince. The show was bound to let its fans down in terms of resolution. It would not end where they'd want it to end. And I wonder if King Bran will make sense in the book (if there is a book). Maybe it will be an April Fool's joke there too or, to put it in positive terms, an unsolved mystery left for readers to elucidate for themselves. I hope not but could see it happen. In the last book. When it comes out. At the end of time. Yeah, based on everything that came before I never seriously expected Jon or Dany to get the throne unless trapped together in an unhappy political marriage or something. Or Jon or singlehandedly take down the Night King in an epic sword fight or whatever. But if you subvert something, the thing you replace it with ought to make sense and alas, Bran demonstrated zero political or leadership savvy and did pretty much nothing to earn any kind of support from the major houses. I would love to read George make sense of it, but he'll probably never get there. But to your point, I do think audiences by and large "kind of forgot" the subversion angle was there. Or The Last Jedi poisoned the concept. That "Supercuts Delight" guy on YouTube just made an hour video bitching about season 5 and one of his main points was the anticlimax of Stannis' army getting defeated by cold weather but that's EXACTLY the kind of thing GRRM would do and simultaneously makes plausible sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jun 5, 2024 13:51:26 GMT
But to your point, I do think audiences by and large "kind of forgot" the subversion angle was there. Or The Last Jedi poisoned the concept. That "Supercuts Delight" guy on YouTube just made an hour video bitching about season 5 and one of his main points was the anticlimax of Stannis' army getting defeated by cold weather but that's EXACTLY the kind of thing GRRM would do and simultaneously makes plausible sense. Absolutely. Stannis was written to fail all along. I would bitch about Stannis' demise being dealt with too quickly, I wish we would have seen him struggle more, but everything was laid out in plain sight and people still refused to see it. When Melisandre told him he would betray everything and it would be worth it, in S2E10, I immediately knew he would indeed betray everything but it would not be worth it. |
|
Marendil
Sophomore
@marendil
Posts: 750
Likes: 301
 
|
Post by Marendil on Jun 5, 2024 18:22:00 GMT
1 felt weird but I like it in retrospect. 2 and 3 also could have worked if handled better (Dany was no saint, but chasing innocent women and children with her dragon for no reason post-surrender made no sense). And 4 was a pretty straight forward cock up. Bran being king felt like an April Fool's joke. The former was kind of a cop-out too. Having Dany dragon-strafe fleeing cityfolk for literally no rational reason implies she succumbed to the 'Targaryan madness' which was just silly in my view. Just having her assault the city and in the process of blowing down the walls or the Red Keep having a fire spread that ignited all the Wildfire Aerys placed underneath the city would have made the point that conquerors destroy en masse and that was a risk she was willing to take which anyone who'd been watching the show closely should not have been surprised by. Having watched her leave Astapor a smoldering ruin or threatening to raze Yunkai and Astapor to the ground before Tyrion talked her out of it, or for that matter the mass crucifixion of the masters of Mereen ought to have foreshadowed that sacking King's Landing was hardly beneath her. She was a conqueror, they do things like that and sometimes the fires burn out of hand and the Library of Alexandria is lost to the world, along with countless families.
Regarding the latter, I remember when the Vegas odds were posted and my first thought was 'are they even watching this show?' Then I realized the nature of the odds suggested that someone must have inside knowledge as I know enough about Vegas oddmakers (and the big bettors who can move the odds) to realize they don't put that kind of money out (or forgo it) without having a damn good reason to do so. Two people can keep a secret provided one of them is a corpse, and dozens of people must have known enough to realize Bran would be king in the end. As for why, I didn't quite get that part. Were they trying to suggest the Game of Thrones had finally led to a more rational system of ruling as if it had been affected by a Renaissance or something? Introducing a system which the Holy Roman Empire would hardly have found groundbreaking several hundred years before the War of the Roses (which was mostly the middle and latter part of the fifteenth century and was stated by GRRM as an inspiration for the books) doesn't really seem like much of a leap forward personally. That Bloodraven took the throne in a bizarre mystical conspiracy seems to me an more interesting interpretation, and my preference for that is meant to damn with faint praise.
|
|
Marendil
Sophomore
@marendil
Posts: 750
Likes: 301
|
Post by Marendil on Jun 5, 2024 18:46:09 GMT
1 felt weird but I like it in retrospect. 2 and 3 also could have worked if handled better (Dany was no saint, but chasing innocent women and children with her dragon for no reason post-surrender made no sense). And 4 was a pretty straight forward cock up. Bran being king felt like an April Fool's joke. I believe subverting tropes is the principle of the book series and maybe even of Martin's work in general but I never read anything else by him. He makes you think you know the way through the woods only to take you along a wrong turn, bash your head unexpectedly and take all your valuable hopes. He did it several times (Ned, Renly, Stannis, Robb) and will do it again. Plot twists are his most precious thing. He admitted this when he said he no longer changes the story when people have guessed at it; which means he used to and would still like it not to happen. I knew early on that all the common expectations would be false. Fool me twice, shame on me. And it is a good thing to have in a book but it doesn't work for a TV audience. Not the same animal. They spend their time fantasising about their favourite characters just like Sansa wants to marry the Prince. The show was bound to let its fans down in terms of resolution. It would not end where they'd want it to end. And I wonder if King Bran will make sense in the book (if there is a book). Maybe it will be an April Fool's joke there too or, to put it in positive terms, an unsolved mystery left for readers to elucidate for themselves. I hope not but could see it happen. In the last book. When it comes out. At the end of time. My suspicion is the uproar over D&D's ending forced GRRM to pretty much re-write or spend hundreds more pages explaining his ending, which D&D might well have had the bare bones of.
My guess is Bran represents something akin to a living embodiment of the Renaissance, which was in part Western Europeans re-discovering the great works of the Greeks. Bran is our 'memory' as per Sam, he can connect to the past and rediscover that which went before and was lost or forgotten.
Or something like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jun 5, 2024 23:23:05 GMT
1 felt weird but I like it in retrospect. 2 and 3 also could have worked if handled better (Dany was no saint, but chasing innocent women and children with her dragon for no reason post-surrender made no sense). And 4 was a pretty straight forward cock up. Bran being king felt like an April Fool's joke. The former was kind of a cop-out too. Having Dany dragon-strafe fleeing cityfolk for literally no rational reason implies she succumbed to the 'Targaryan madness' which was just silly in my view. Just having her assault the city and in the process of blowing down the walls or the Red Keep having a fire spread that ignited all the Wildfire Aerys placed underneath the city would have made the point that conquerors destroy en masse and that was a risk she was willing to take which anyone who'd been watching the show closely should not have been surprised by. Having watched her leave Astapor a smoldering ruin or threatening to raze Yunkai and Astapor to the ground before Tyrion talked her out of it, or for that matter the mass crucifixion of the masters of Mereen ought to have foreshadowed that sacking King's Landing was hardly beneath her. She was a conqueror, they do things like that and sometimes the fires burn out of hand and the Library of Alexandria is lost to the world, along with countless families.
Regarding the latter, I remember when the Vegas odds were posted and my first thought was 'are they even watching this show?' Then I realized the nature of the odds suggested that someone must have inside knowledge as I know enough about Vegas oddmakers (and the big bettors who can move the odds) to realize they don't put that kind of money out (or forgo it) without having a damn good reason to do so. Two people can keep a secret provided one of them is a corpse, and dozens of people must have known enough to realize Bran would be king in the end. As for why, I didn't quite get that part. Were they trying to suggest the Game of Thrones had finally led to a more rational system of ruling as if it had been affected by a Renaissance or something? Introducing a system which the Holy Roman Empire would hardly have found groundbreaking several hundred years before the War of the Roses (which was mostly the middle and latter part of the fifteenth century and was stated by GRRM as an inspiration for the books) doesn't really seem like much of a leap forward personally. That Bloodraven took the throne in a bizarre mystical conspiracy seems to me an more interesting interpretation, and my preference for that is meant to damn with faint praise.
I always thought a Hiroshima approach would have made the most sense. Cersei refuses to surrender, Tyrion warns Dany about the wildfyre, and she makes the decision to go in with her dragons anyway and the combination levels the city. It's the kind of morally debatable thing the show had been known for before they needed an unambiguous reason for Jon to put Dany down like Old Yeller. But yeah, basically snapping after the city already surrendered and chasing children with her dragon for the lolz is something I can hardly even picture Ransay doing. As for Bran, the only argument they ever make is "Bran has the best story" (which in itself feels like a joke: Bran is notoriously one of the most skipped over characters in the books). Beyond that, I really don't know. I guess there's an argument to be made that Bran's objective dispassion makes him a good fit to rule as he won't be blinded by power or self interest, but it's not really fleshed out and Jon already demonstrated the same thing. Or, like you said, there's the sinister read where this clairvoyant, mind controlling creep played everyone and got the prize in the end, but it's not really played that way either. I've heard a character like this appears in the Dune books and is a villain, so perhaps GRRM writing the positive version of that is meant as a subversion. But whatever reasons GRRM intended to lay out to justify it didn't make it into the show or developed. I remember my brother skipped the last season, and after the final episode I asked him who he thought got the throne and he went through about 11 characters before he got to Bran. |
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jun 6, 2024 5:33:45 GMT
I always thought a Hiroshima approach would have made the most sense. Cersei refuses to surrender, Tyrion warns Dany about the wildfyre, and she makes the decision to go in with her dragons anyway and the combination levels the city. It was not about war taking its toll. Daenerys was no longer just a conqueror taking her fantasised property back, her followers had turned her into a self-proclaimed world renewer who took resistance as a stain of unworthiness. The Sons of the Harpy in Meereen had shown that replacing rulers was not enough, the people had to be of the right kind too. S5E09:Daenerys: One day your great city will return to the dirt as well. Hizdahr: At your command? Daenerys: If need be. Hizdahr: And how many people will die to make this happen? Daenerys: If it comes to that, they will have died for a good reason. This line announced exactly what would happen in King's Landing three seasons later and her stupid fans were all surprised, whining it was not in character. It was prepared too: S8E04 Daenerys: "Speaking to Cersei will not prevent a slaughter. But perhaps it's good the people see that Daenerys Stormborn made every effort to avoid bloodshed, and Cersei Lannister refused. They should know whom to blame when the sky falls down upon them." S8E05: "In Meereen, the slaves turned on the masters and liberated the city themselves the moment I arrived … Mercy is our strength. Our mercy towards future generations…" In the days before the battle, Tyrion speaks as if he expects the city to burn under dragon fire. He plans the ringing of the bells and Daenerys allows him to speak but never gives any sign of agreeing to it. We see insecurity on his face and disinterest on hers. Her plan already stands and she will have a short moment of hesitation when hearing the bells, then carry on with it. There is no "snapping", no suddenly "going mad" in that moment, it is the other way around. She overcame her last weakness. What we see is not an uncontrolled impulse, it is the first step of a broader cleansing plan, the seed of which goes back to her failure at ruling Meereen in S5. The even more difficult situation in the book and Daenerys' distaste for it all announce a similar turn there. It was not a story in which "shit happens", but one in which fools follow heroes to their loss. It was a story in which the audience was to be fooled and exposed. The ending was never going to be popular. |
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jun 6, 2024 8:09:39 GMT
My suspicion is the uproar over D&D's ending forced GRRM to pretty much re-write or spend hundreds more pages explaining his ending, which D&D might well have had the bare bones of. My guess is Bran represents something akin to a living embodiment of the Renaissance, which was in part Western Europeans re-discovering the great works of the Greeks. GRRM is writing The Winds Of Winter. That's not the ending so he has no need to change anything in it. Besides, I doubt he would anyway. He'll stick to his guns, supposing he ever gets there. We cannot tell what Bran will be in the books. In the show there is one last line of consistency, a continuation of the principle that the audience is being misled with false promises: King Bran's rule is no better than any of what came before. No one can make sense of it at face value. "Stories unite people", we are told, then the North secedes, proving they don't. The argument is brought by a criminal, a talker who's wiggled himself out of every situation with words and gets promoted to a position of power under a windy excuse: "he's going to spend his life repairing his mistakes". The idea of democracy is ridiculed then an oligarchy of powerful people chooses one of their own. The honourable Brienne and Pod are given servant roles, cutthroat Bronn is given financial power. Bran doesn't actually rule and the Small Council scene ends in telling a joke. Bran is no longer himself but the other Starks, the "good guys" of the story that the audience still likes, all remove themselves from this farce. After telling the story of feudal lords treating power as personal property and removing them by a genocidal idealist in the style of Lenin/Stalin/Hitler/Mao, Westeros enters an era of power by empty phrases and corrupt arrangements. King Bran presented with a nonsensical justification is just another blatant lie. Power doesn't really have to justify itself. Words are wind and fools listen. Could GRRM be going for such a nihilistic approach? Did he tell D&D the choice of Bran should not truly make sense? I wouldn't rule it out. |
|
Marendil
Sophomore
@marendil
Posts: 750
Likes: 301
|
Post by Marendil on Jun 6, 2024 18:41:51 GMT
The former was kind of a cop-out too. Having Dany dragon-strafe fleeing cityfolk for literally no rational reason implies she succumbed to the 'Targaryan madness' which was just silly in my view. Just having her assault the city and in the process of blowing down the walls or the Red Keep having a fire spread that ignited all the Wildfire Aerys placed underneath the city would have made the point that conquerors destroy en masse and that was a risk she was willing to take which anyone who'd been watching the show closely should not have been surprised by. Having watched her leave Astapor a smoldering ruin or threatening to raze Yunkai and Astapor to the ground before Tyrion talked her out of it, or for that matter the mass crucifixion of the masters of Mereen ought to have foreshadowed that sacking King's Landing was hardly beneath her. She was a conqueror, they do things like that and sometimes the fires burn out of hand and the Library of Alexandria is lost to the world, along with countless families.
Regarding the latter, I remember when the Vegas odds were posted and my first thought was 'are they even watching this show?' Then I realized the nature of the odds suggested that someone must have inside knowledge as I know enough about Vegas oddmakers (and the big bettors who can move the odds) to realize they don't put that kind of money out (or forgo it) without having a damn good reason to do so. Two people can keep a secret provided one of them is a corpse, and dozens of people must have known enough to realize Bran would be king in the end. As for why, I didn't quite get that part. Were they trying to suggest the Game of Thrones had finally led to a more rational system of ruling as if it had been affected by a Renaissance or something? Introducing a system which the Holy Roman Empire would hardly have found groundbreaking several hundred years before the War of the Roses (which was mostly the middle and latter part of the fifteenth century and was stated by GRRM as an inspiration for the books) doesn't really seem like much of a leap forward personally. That Bloodraven took the throne in a bizarre mystical conspiracy seems to me an more interesting interpretation, and my preference for that is meant to damn with faint praise.
I always thought a Hiroshima approach would have made the most sense. Cersei refuses to surrender, Tyrion warns Dany about the wildfyre, and she makes the decision to go in with her dragons anyway and the combination levels the city. It's the kind of morally debatable thing the show had been known for before they needed an unambiguous reason for Jon to put Dany down like Old Yeller. But yeah, basically snapping after the city already surrendered and chasing children with her dragon for the lolz is something I can hardly even picture Ransay doing. As for Bran, the only argument they ever make is "Bran has the best story" (which in itself feels like a joke: Bran is notoriously one of the most skipped over characters in the books). Beyond that, I really don't know. I guess there's an argument to be made that Bran's objective dispassion makes him a good fit to rule as he won't be blinded by power or self interest, but it's not really fleshed out and Jon already demonstrated the same thing. Or, like you said, there's the sinister read where this clairvoyant, mind controlling creep played everyone and got the prize in the end, but it's not really played that way either. I've heard a character like this appears in the Dune books and is a villain, so perhaps GRRM writing the positive version of that is meant as a subversion. But whatever reasons GRRM intended to lay out to justify it didn't make it into the show or developed. I remember my brother skipped the last season, and after the final episode I asked him who he thought got the throne and he went through about 11 characters before he got to Bran. I think you might be on to the reason they shot it the way they did, with Daenerys strafing the smallfolk, it to be horrific enough it could justify Jon killing the woman he professed his love to.
I think Tyrion meant Bran's narrative of 'crippled as a boy he went beyond the Wall at the most perilous time and came back to help save the World' was the best and easiest to sum up. I agree it was one of the ones I was least interested in, I didn't miss him the year he was out of it.
I'm not sure who they mean in regarding Dune, I only got as far as 'God Emperor' and that ended my interest in the series. I thought the main character there was basically a villain, though I liked him as kid in an earlier book when he was more...normal.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jun 6, 2024 18:52:43 GMT
I always thought a Hiroshima approach would have made the most sense. Cersei refuses to surrender, Tyrion warns Dany about the wildfyre, and she makes the decision to go in with her dragons anyway and the combination levels the city. It's the kind of morally debatable thing the show had been known for before they needed an unambiguous reason for Jon to put Dany down like Old Yeller. But yeah, basically snapping after the city already surrendered and chasing children with her dragon for the lolz is something I can hardly even picture Ransay doing. As for Bran, the only argument they ever make is "Bran has the best story" (which in itself feels like a joke: Bran is notoriously one of the most skipped over characters in the books). Beyond that, I really don't know. I guess there's an argument to be made that Bran's objective dispassion makes him a good fit to rule as he won't be blinded by power or self interest, but it's not really fleshed out and Jon already demonstrated the same thing. Or, like you said, there's the sinister read where this clairvoyant, mind controlling creep played everyone and got the prize in the end, but it's not really played that way either. I've heard a character like this appears in the Dune books and is a villain, so perhaps GRRM writing the positive version of that is meant as a subversion. But whatever reasons GRRM intended to lay out to justify it didn't make it into the show or developed. I remember my brother skipped the last season, and after the final episode I asked him who he thought got the throne and he went through about 11 characters before he got to Bran. I think you might be on to the reason they shot it the way they did, with Daenerys strafing the smallfolk, it to be horrific enough it could justify Jon killing the woman he professed his love to.
I think Tyrion meant Bran's narrative of 'crippled as a boy he went beyond the Wall at the most perilous time and came back to help save the World' was the best and easiest to sum up. I agree it was one of the ones I was least interested in, I didn't miss him the year he was out of it.
I'm not sure who they mean in regarding Dune, I only got as far as 'God Emperor' and that ended my interest in the series. I thought the main character there was basically a villain, though I liked him as kid in an earlier book when he was more...normal.
Probably. Lord knows he "didn't want it, he never has" so he had no personal reason to do it. I just wish Bran, you know, helped. His new powers in s6 were really interesting, but then he sat around for two seasons making weird comments. I think it WAS the God Emperor. I haven't read the Dune books myself. |
|
Marendil
Sophomore
@marendil
Posts: 750
Likes: 301
|
Post by Marendil on Jun 6, 2024 19:04:38 GMT
My suspicion is the uproar over D&D's ending forced GRRM to pretty much re-write or spend hundreds more pages explaining his ending, which D&D might well have had the bare bones of. My guess is Bran represents something akin to a living embodiment of the Renaissance, which was in part Western Europeans re-discovering the great works of the Greeks. GRRM is writing The Winds Of Winter. That's not the ending so he has no need to change anything in it. Besides, I doubt he would anyway. He'll stick to his guns, supposing he ever gets there. We cannot tell what Bran will be in the books. In the show there is one last line of consistency, a continuation of the principle that the audience is being misled with false promises: King Bran's rule is no better than any of what came before. No one can make sense of it at face value. "Stories unite people", we are told, then the North secedes, proving they don't. The argument is brought by a criminal, a talker who's wiggled himself out of every situation with words and gets promoted to a position of power under a windy excuse: "he's going to spend his life repairing his mistakes". The idea of democracy is ridiculed then an oligarchy of powerful people chooses one of their own. The honourable Brienne and Pod are given servant roles, cutthroat Bronn is given financial power. Bran doesn't actually rule and the Small Council scene ends in telling a joke. Bran is no longer himself but the other Starks, the "good guys" of the story that the audience still likes, all remove themselves from this farce. After telling the story of feudal lords treating power as personal property and removing them by a genocidal idealist in the style of Lenin/Stalin/Hitler/Mao, Westeros enters an era of power by empty phrases and corrupt arrangements. King Bran presented with a nonsensical justification is just another blatant lie. Power doesn't really have to justify itself. Words are wind and fools listen. Could GRRM be going for such a nihilistic approach? Did he tell D&D the choice of Bran should not truly make sense? I wouldn't rule it out. My guess is he 'writes ahead' and the goes back and fills in the gaps and when it doesn't jibe right he ends up re-writing more and more. The last page of 'Feast for the Crows' includes an explanation of why it took longer for that book to come out than the three previous; he claims he actually wrote two books and the second would be published a year later. That was summer 2005, it was spring 2006 that D&D approached him about making an HBO series out of it, needless to say the book he'd supposedly already written didn't come out that summer, it wouldn't be published until 2011 instead. That suggests to me that knowing he was going to have an HBO series he decided to re-write good portions of the fifth book knowing there was a decent shot the whole thing might be filmed someday and he is aware of the difference between the two mediums being an accomplished screen-writer as well.
I think the uproar over the ending might well have caused him to again re-write vast portions of the story, and whatever else he might be GRRM is a meticulous plotter thus whatever ending he's envisioned he'll be sure the sixth book lays the groundwork.
"Stories unite people", we are told, then the North secedes, proving they don't.
Heh, that's a good one. |
|
Marendil
Sophomore
@marendil
Posts: 750
Likes: 301
|
Post by Marendil on Jun 6, 2024 19:24:21 GMT
I think you might be on to the reason they shot it the way they did, with Daenerys strafing the smallfolk, it to be horrific enough it could justify Jon killing the woman he professed his love to.
I think Tyrion meant Bran's narrative of 'crippled as a boy he went beyond the Wall at the most perilous time and came back to help save the World' was the best and easiest to sum up. I agree it was one of the ones I was least interested in, I didn't miss him the year he was out of it.
I'm not sure who they mean in regarding Dune, I only got as far as 'God Emperor' and that ended my interest in the series. I thought the main character there was basically a villain, though I liked him as kid in an earlier book when he was more...normal.
Probably. Lord knows he "didn't want it, he never has" so he had no personal reason to do it. I just wish Bran, you know, helped. His new powers in s6 were really interesting, but then he sat around for two seasons making weird comments. I think it WAS the God Emperor. I haven't read the Dune books myself. I don't think D&D knew what to do with Bran. My guess is they got the bare bones of an ending from GRRM but didn't know how to fill in the gaps. I think if Bran is to be king in the end you'll see Bran much better developed and better justification for his crown. I wouldn't put it past GRRM to do something else entirely as well, even if he initially planned to make Bran king and told D&D that.
An argument could easily be made the main character in the original was a villain as well. I suspect the lion might consider him so, at least by the second book.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jun 6, 2024 19:42:46 GMT
Probably. Lord knows he "didn't want it, he never has" so he had no personal reason to do it. I just wish Bran, you know, helped. His new powers in s6 were really interesting, but then he sat around for two seasons making weird comments. I think it WAS the God Emperor. I haven't read the Dune books myself. I don't think D&D knew what to do with Bran. My guess is they got the bare bones of an ending from GRRM but didn't know how to fill in the gaps. I think if Bran is to be king in the end you'll see Bran much better developed and better justification for his crown. I wouldn't put it past GRRM to do something else entirely as well, even if he initially planned to make Bran king and told D&D that.
An argument could easily be made the main character in the original was a villain as well. I suspect the lion might consider him so, at least by the second book.
The obvious answer would have been for his powers to be used against the Others, which besides being something for him to do would be instrumental in the houses' decision to make him king. But alas. Paul? Yeah, he basically turns to gthe dark side in that second Dune movie. I think I heard the God Emperor was the author responding to people who didn't get that Paul was the bad guy. |
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jun 7, 2024 11:16:11 GMT
I think I heard the God Emperor was the author responding to people who didn't get that Paul was the bad guy. It seems like writing for idiots has always been difficult  |
|
Marendil
Sophomore
@marendil
Posts: 750
Likes: 301
|
Post by Marendil on Jun 7, 2024 18:35:22 GMT
I don't think D&D knew what to do with Bran. My guess is they got the bare bones of an ending from GRRM but didn't know how to fill in the gaps. I think if Bran is to be king in the end you'll see Bran much better developed and better justification for his crown. I wouldn't put it past GRRM to do something else entirely as well, even if he initially planned to make Bran king and told D&D that.
An argument could easily be made the main character in the original was a villain as well. I suspect the lion might consider him so, at least by the second book.
The obvious answer would have been for his powers to be used against the Others, which besides being something for him to do would be instrumental in the houses' decision to make him king. But alas. Paul? Yeah, he basically turns to the dark side in that second Dune movie. I think I heard the God Emperor was the author responding to people who didn't get that Paul was the bad guy. Bran could definitely been more proactive with his powers and amounted to more than bait.
I've not seen the second one yet, though I did see the first one and thought they did a fine job of it. My interest in Dune books diminished entirely in 1984 when I read 'God Emperor' and saw the Lynch movie which was a huge disappointment. I did see a foreign adaptation in the form of a mini-series around the turn of the century with William Hurt which I thought was pretty good, but I've not actually read any of the books in forty years. What I remember is probably more from that mini-series (which covered 'Dune Messiah' and 'Children of Dune' as well) than anything Herbert wrote, but I'm struggling to recall why anyone would consider Paul a villain in the original. In the first book he was more or less a victim of the machinations of the Emperor and the Harkonnens, robbed of his home, father and surrogate planet and basically left out in the desert to die. I seem to recall the book more or less ended with the showdown with the Emperor and the duel with Feyd-Ruatha, I don't see much to convince me he was the villain of the piece...until you get to Messiah and the whole Jihad nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jun 7, 2024 18:44:07 GMT
The obvious answer would have been for his powers to be used against the Others, which besides being something for him to do would be instrumental in the houses' decision to make him king. But alas. Paul? Yeah, he basically turns to the dark side in that second Dune movie. I think I heard the God Emperor was the author responding to people who didn't get that Paul was the bad guy. Bran could definitely been more proactive with his powers and amounted to more than bait.
I've not seen the second one yet, though I did see the first one and thought they did a fine job of it. My interest in Dune books diminished entirely in 1984 when I read 'God Emperor' and saw the Lynch movie which was a huge disappointment. I did see a foreign adaptation in the form of a mini-series around the turn of the century with William Hurt which I thought was pretty good, but I've not actually read any of the books in forty years. What I remember is probably more from that mini-series (which covered 'Dune Messiah' and 'Children of Dune' as well) than anything Herbert wrote, but I'm struggling to recall why anyone would consider Paul a villain in the original. In the first book he was more or less a victim of the machinations of the Emperor and the Harkonnens, robbed of his home, father and surrogate planet and basically left out in the desert to die. I seem to recall the book more or less ended with the showdown with the Emperor and the duel with Feyd-Ruatha, I don't see much to convince me he was the villain of the piece...until you get to Messiah and the whole Jihad nonsense.
Spoilers for the second Dune movie, but it's made clear Paul knows the prophesy is bullshit but uses his chosen one messiah persona to manipulate the sand tribe (forgot their names). He also breaks Zendaya's heart by suddenly entering himself into political marriage. |
|
|
|
Post by jon snow loves sansa on Jun 8, 2024 2:07:18 GMT
Short answer: people hate it for different reasons Disclaimer: this is about the ending of the series, not about the accelerating slippage in writing quality which started around its middle point. What follows addresses the reasons why people who stayed until the end were disappointed and asserts they would have been even if the writing had kept to its original level. The story, as it unfolds in the TV series which claims to be aligned with the projected ending of the book series, subverts not one but three fairly common tropes. This is how it managed to disappoint three times as many people who had built expectations for a certain type of resolution. Trope subversion being a notorious hobby of the author, which was demonstrated several time in early seasons, it was only too easy to guess these would be subverted too, but there you go. Here are the three subverted expectations (plus one):
1] The White Walker peril is to be the final resolution point
Trope: petty disputes prevent self-serving people from seeing the real danger. Whistle blowers are first ignored, then proven right. The world will be saved if warnings are heeded or doomed otherwise. This is the unity trope: together we stand, divided we fall. Both outcomes are possible. Presented in the first episode, the big danger ought to have taken center stage quickly as the main driver of the story. Instead it remained a side plot for the whole of 7 seasons. This showed it was not the main plot point and therefore would not be part of the closing episodes. Those who believed it was all a childish fantasy story about fighting ice zombies with special swords, not a commentary of human behaviour, were the 1st disappointed party. 2] The throne must return to its rightful heir
Trope: the rightful king shall surprisingly return in time of need and resume a rightful rule. This is the conservative trope: a return to order ends the erring of men. Examples are the return of Odysseus in Homer or of Aragorn in The Lord Of The Rings. This one is both presented and subverted in the first episode: the heir to the overthrown dynasty sells his sister in exchange for help to invade his former homeland and remove the "usurping" king who happens to be the best friend of the protagonist. The audience is immediately made not to want "the return of the king". He dies in the course of the 1st season. Shortly after, the present king also dies and his succession becomes a matter of conflict. While some decide to support his brother as "the rightful king", this one is portrayed as someone most dislike. He is beaten and repelled at the end of the 2nd season. Clearly, this story makes a point of contesting the idea of hereditary monarchy. The penultimate season reveals that a beloved character is the secret heir to the old dynasty, presenting the "rightful trope" anew but the sold sister has become the open pretender so it really is just a new source of conflict. It takes no particular skill to guess this will not resolve harmoniously. This story is about the intricacies of choice, not about asserting the value of principles or glorifying the persistence of order by restoring the lost heir to anything. Those who didn't notice how honourable Ned and rightful Stannis had been slaughtered in earlier seasons were disappointed once again. As an aside, the story debunks the myth that the best rulers are the unwilling ones and the reason is simple: they dun wannit. 3] The system is to be reformed by a good ruler
Trope: a super-hero with a heart for justice will use super-powers to right wrongs and establish a new, modern order. This is the progressive trope: necessary use of violence makes the world better. It takes a full season of betrayals, murders and internal war in the homeland before the super-hero gets her super-power in the form of dragons abroad. At this point, the audience is ready to see her as the one to clean up the mess and burn the ice creatures. She does say she wants to "take what is hers with fire and blood" but most of the audience ignores the obvious red flag and the next ones, of which there will be many. Two further seasons are spent watching the would-be saviour come into her power and gather an army but then two more seasons are spent showing her trying and failing to learn to rule. She issues blanket judgements and shows a growing distaste for the people she rules. By the 6th season, it is clear that all she really can is obliterate opposition through fire. This is not going to be the story of a glorious revolution, more that of a bloody tyrant using the beliefs of her followers for her own purpose. Those who cheered for the overthrowing of everything established through saintly violence, those who believed in the cheesy propaganda music and misread all the impatience and spite displayed by their hero were left feeling betrayed, ridiculed and very angry. It seem this was the point of it all. Following leaders into their wars had been the bane of everyone for seasons and the last one was the worst, in a burst of genocidal madness which only real history had dared offer before. What a pity! And there was yet to be one further reason for disappointment: 4] The ending will make sense, right?
Trope (?): the ending makes bloody sense. If one followed the story, one can at least understand why it ends the way it does. Now, the first three tropes were intentionally subverted. The writers knew people's first expectations would be disappointed. It would make for interesting discussion, add value to the whole thing, maybe even teach a lesson. And it all sort of worked in spite of the dumbed down writing. But this didn't. The boy who can see and know everything but neither does or say anything was chosen to be king after someone said he was some sort of history book or had a silly fantasy adventure. It is not even clear what the argument was. No wonder Jon Snow decided to fuck off back north, Arya to go jump off the edge of the world and Sansa to have none of it. It looked like a twist for the sake of it. It said "Fuck You" instead of "The End".Maybe one should have seen it coming. So there is is. The four real reasons why people who watched to the end hated the ending. Those who saw the writing quality turn to junk in the 5th season either never made it there who were long past caring. I still can't believe that some fans were shocked by Daenerys' decision to burn down King's Landing and her descent into madness. There were so many warning signs throughout the show. She basically hinted at her intentions in every season. What did these fans expect? Did they think she would take King's Landing by spreading flowers and cheering everywhere? While I understand that she is a fictional character, it's really disheartening when fans defend her actions and try to justify the burning of innocent people and children. If any other character did that on the show, the backlash would have been immense. I was truly disgusted by those fans, and I had to take a break after that. Another thing that baffled me was Arya killing the Night King instead of Jon Snow. Love them or hate them, the White Walkers were a significant part of Jon Snow's story, and then they had Arya, who was much younger than Jon, take out the Night King. It felt wrong and ridiculous. Arya should have died after Daenerys attacked King's Landing. Seeing her dead could have given Jon more reason to turn against Daenerys, especially considering the missed opportunity of a romantic relationship between Sansa and Jon, which could have made Daenerys even more jealous and unstable. Love can drive people to do crazy things, and I believe Jon was the only person she truly loved, ultimately leading to her betrayal. Unfortunately, the timid and cowardly writers didn't do the story justice. |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jun 25, 2024 13:17:16 GMT
1 felt weird but I like it in retrospect. 2 and 3 also could have worked if handled better (Dany was no saint, but chasing innocent women and children with her dragon for no reason post-surrender made no sense). And 4 was a pretty straight forward cock up. Bran being king felt like an April Fool's joke. I believe subverting tropes is the principle of the book series and maybe even of Martin's work in general but I never read anything else by him. He makes you think you know the way through the woods only to take you along a wrong turn, bash your head unexpectedly and take all your valuable hopes. He did it several times (Ned, Renly, Stannis, Robb) and will do it again. Plot twists are his most precious thing. He admitted this when he said he no longer changes the story when people have guessed at it; which means he used to and would still like it not to happen. I knew early on that all the common expectations would be false. Fool me twice, shame on me. And it is a good thing to have in a book but it doesn't work for a TV audience. Not the same animal. They spend their time fantasising about their favourite characters just like Sansa wants to marry the Prince. The show was bound to let its fans down in terms of resolution. It would not end where they'd want it to end. And I wonder if King Bran will make sense in the book (if there is a book). Maybe it will be an April Fool's joke there too or, to put it in positive terms, an unsolved mystery left for readers to elucidate for themselves. I hope not but could see it happen. In the last book. When it comes out. At the end of time. I agree that a subversion of tropes seems to be Martins stand by. I’m not sure where the line is but there is a line where the subversion of expectations hinders the enjoyment of the plot…and both his books and the show wound up getting to this point for me. One big specific moment in the books is when a Martell comes to offer an alliance to Dany, and she says no. It was an easy hook to get Dany to Westeros 5 books in but Martin has some other plan and that whole angle just found up feeling like a waste of time and excitement as a reader. In the show there were many points like this where the thing you wanted to happen wouldn’t, but then the thing that should logically happen ALSO wouldn’t…so you were left with results you could not get excited about nor reason why. Such as Bran becoming King of the Six Kingdoms. |
|
