Television Vs. Book: Why'd They Make [Spoiler] Such A [Spoiler]?

[ElizaD]

I've already seen people post that maybe GRRM told D&D that Bran becomes KITN and not King of the Six Kingdoms, as if they would be stupid enough to not ask what happens to the Iron Throne or would choose to change the ending GRRM had in mind in order to put their unfavorite Bran on the throne. This will be the new Stannis burns Shireen and R+L=J denial.

I imagine that GRRM told D&D more than they told actors, but no wonder we're never getting the ending in book form. He can't write towards it in a way that would make more sense than the show, so he picks up sideplots to feel that some kind of progress is being made even when it doesn't bring the end of the job any closer. I know there's that GRRM quote about a child saving the world if need be and he's talked about how he ended up writing too many flashbacks for some characters, but even so Book King Bran (still young enough to need a regent for years) makes the scrapping of the five-year-gap seem even more disastrous.

[scarynikki12]

What was the third WTF thing? Shireen and Hodor are the first two. 

[Minneapple]

17 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

What was the third WTF thing? Shireen and Hodor are the first two. 

Jon killing Dany.

[nikma]

I also think GRRM has no idea how WW will be defeated in the books. That's why D&D created Night King. 

If he knew, I'm sure D&D would use his solution. 

Edited May 30, 2019 by nikma

[Danny Franks]

I'm sure that GRRM's rationale for Bran becoming king would be better than "who has a better story than Bran?"

Just like I'm sure that GRRM's build up to Dany being mad would be far more satisfying. Even if I still find the idea of a powerful woman being put down like a dog because 'that bitch crazy, yo!' extremely troubling.

Edited May 30, 2019 by Danny Franks

[Umbelina]

2 hours ago, nikma said:

I also think GRRM has no idea how WW will be defeated in the books. That's why D&D created Night King. 

If he knew, I'm sure D&D would use his solution. 

Oh, I think he has that long figured out, and it won't be over in one night, or only involve Winterfell.

I think his issues are mostly the ages of the characters, and the mess of Dany in Meereen.

I don't understand why the showrunners kept Tyrion's first wife a whore though, I really don't get that.  I still keep hoping that somehow Tyrion finds Tysha.  https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Tysha

Edited May 31, 2019 by Umbelina
d

[Umbelina]

5 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

I'm sure that GRRM's rationale for Bran becoming king would be better than "who has a better story than Bran?"

Just like I'm sure that GRRM's build up to Dany being mad would be far more satisfying. Even if I still find the idea of a powerful woman being put down like a dog because 'that bitch crazy, yo!' extremely troubling.

Yes, and there are SO many good reasons why Bran would be a good King for Westeros, but we got some bullshit nod to "writers" instead.  sickening really, and ridiculous that anyone sitting there even let Tyrion talk, let alone chose Bran because "he has a good story."

Good God.

Yes, we will understand a great deal more about Dany in the books (if they ever come) because, frankly, in the books?  To me she's already thisclose to a dangerous fanatic with a messiah complex.  Never good things in leaders, especially when they have nukes (dragons.)

[nikma]

5 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Oh, I think he has that long figured out, and it won't be over in one night, or only involved Winterfell.

Why you think that  he has that long figured out and why would D&D ignore his solution then, if they kept even the endgame of very minor character like Hodor the same?

And I'm not sure it can be more than one big battle in the books either if you consider what has to happen in TWOW and ADOS. There is no time for  more. 

9 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I don't understand why the showrunners kept Tyrion's first wife a whore though,

Because they needed Tyrion to love Jaime and a lot of fans would expect some kind of pay off with Tysha that would never happen. 

[nikma]

(I hope this is a good place for this post)

I agree with what Luke Nieto said here:

This may also explain why some people prefer the early seasons and I don't. I love dialogue, but it's not everything. The later seasons are much better at communicating story through an audiovisual medium, relying more on filmmaking and acting to tell the story, which I love.

As I said in another thread, the early seasons are like Harry Potter 1 and 2 in that way; their filmmaking is practical, plain, just a necessary vehicle to tell the story, which is mainly told in dialogue, since it's adapted from a text. Later seasons learned how to be a TV show.

And what Joe Magician‏ said:

I really do feel elements of the show are left out of analysis entirely because they're not dialogue. And that really misses the point of a visual medium. Costume, music, facial expressions and body language, scene construction, etc.

They all matter, they're all used to tell the story we're watching. But because we're a fandom that loves quoting passages of text at each other and parsing word choice from the books, these get pushed to the side. Dialogue is not the story.

Daenerys having Drogon's wings behind her as she wears black with red is far more effective at communicating how far gone she is than any character explaining it. Or the use of light of the seven before Dany started burning the city.

Edited May 30, 2019 by nikma

[Eyes High]

1 hour ago, Danny Franks said:

I'm sure that GRRM's rationale for Bran becoming king would be better than "who has a better story than Bran?"

I agree. We don't even know that Book Bran is elected, though. For all we know, he conquers his way to the throne the old-fashioned way. GRRM's statement about scrapping the time jump--"If a 12-year-old has to conquer the world, so be it"--seems in hindsight to be referring to Bran (...which is weird, because as of ADWD, he's what, eight? Nine?). A 12-year-old conquering the Seven Kingdoms may well be ludicrous, but no more ludicrous than Bran getting elected to rule a kingdom with millions of people on the basis of having a good life story, surely.

Quote

Just like I'm sure that GRRM's build up to Dany being mad would be far more satisfying. Even if I still find the idea of a powerful woman being put down like a dog because 'that bitch crazy, yo!' extremely troubling.

GRRM's track record with regnant female rulers in Westeros does not recommend him, though. Lysa? Crazy. Cersei? Crazy (as opposed to TV Cersei). Rhaenyra from the Dance of the Dragons? So crazy that they actually changed the royal succession laws to place female heirs behind all possible male heirs. (To be fair, in between Robert, Aerys, and Joffrey, the men aren't much better.) And of course the most glowingly described queen Westeros has ever known, beloved and wise and just and all that good stuff, was a mere queen consort (Alysanne). Supposedly her husband's most trusted advisor, but, well, yeah.

GRRM going the same route with Dany as he did with the others would be disappointing but I have to say not entirely shocking.

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

I don't understand why the showrunners kept Tyrion's first wife a whore though, I really don't get that.  I still keep hoping that somehow Tyrion finds Tysha.  https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Tysha

Someone on another board said that the writers said they scrapped the S4 reveal because they didn't think the audience would remember a one-off conversation from Season 1, but I suspect the real reason is what I said upthread. I think GRRM never told D&D what he planned to do with Tysha and whether or not Tyrion ever found her, so D&D decided to drop it altogether rather than come up with something on their own. Not that D&D will confirm it either way. They said that they will keep quiet about post-ADWD book/show changes (other than the three WTF moments), out of deference to GRRM.

Edited May 30, 2019 by Eyes High

[Umbelina]

2 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

Someone on another board said that the writers said they scrapped the S4 reveal because they didn't think the audience would remember a one-off conversation from Season 1, but I suspect the real reason is what I said upthread. I think GRRM never told D&D what he planned to do with Tysha and whether or not Tyrion ever found her, so D&D decided to drop it altogether rather than come up with something on their own.

Yeah, I think that's the whole reason they left out the Faceless Man in the Citadel with Sam, and basically just gave Arya a great exit line and dropped the Faceless Men story.

This theory is interesting.  Damn, I really do want to read the books after all, most of the stories I'm interested in were not really in the show.

[Eyes High]

18 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Yeah, I think that's the whole reason they left out the Faceless Man in the Citadel with Sam, and basically just gave Arya a great exit line and dropped the Faceless Men story.

I won't bag on D&D too much for the admittedly inelegant way they resolved the FM story, because GRRM really wrote himself into a corner with that one. Book Arya obviously has to leave the FM at some point to return to Westeros to live her own life as Arya, but there's no way that the FM would let an acolyte who had pledged herself and who was privy to many of their secrets just waltz out of the organization without silencing her permanently, which it is easily within their power to do. I very much doubt GRRM's resolution of the issue will be any better or more logical than D&D's in the show, where Arya just quits and the FM call it even because she thwarted their murder attempt.

I do think in certain cases that GRRM's endgames for the main characters informed a lot of the book/show changes:

Book Sansa ending up as QITN explains why D&D were so anxious to get TV Sansa out of the Vale ASAP, and it also explains why they swapped her in for Jeyne in the Winterfell storyline.

Book Tyrion ending up as Hand (and effective ruler) explains why D&D took particular care to present TV Tyrion in a sympathetic and heroic light at all times.

Book Arya leaving Westeros forever explains why D&D were so focused on revenge as TV Arya's sole motivation (so that her rejection of it would be a defining turning point for the character).

Book Dany going full mad queen explains why TV Cersei was transformed from a crazy villainess to a savvy, worthy antagonist to serve as the catalyst for Dany's downfall.

Book Jon ending up with the NW (or leaving the Wall forever with the free folk, I'm not clear on that one) explains why the writers were so cavalier about the details of TV Jon's functioning post-resurrection, since he was always going to disappear into the ether at the end without fathering any children or anything of that nature.

...On the other hand, the decisions D&D took with respect to Bran make absolutely no sense in light of what we now know is his book endgame. 

Overall, I agree with @nikma's comment from the previous page that knowing the endgame makes all the storylines and characters from AFFC and ADWD feel even more pointless.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Eyes High

[Umbelina]

Oh yeah, I'm not slagging D&D on that story, or leaving it out of the Citadel really.

I am just fascinated by both, frankly, especially why there is a Faceless Man in the Citadel, and how that will play into the ending.

I honestly don't think Jaquen is Syrio, but that's also an interesting theory.

ETA

It just sounds like the FM have a bigger role to play in resolving everything, in the interesting way the books can provide.

Maybe they let Arya go DELIBERATELY to facilitate a goal of theirs, or one of their clients.  Maybe that's why Arya sails off into the unknown?  To evade the FM who probably would kill her (after she served her purpose is the above is true.)

Edited May 31, 2019 by Umbelina

[Umbelina]

1 hour ago, nikma said:

And I'm not sure it can be more than one big battle in the books either if you consider what has to happen in TWOW and ADOS. There is no time for  more. 

GRRM doesn't give a shit how much "time there is."  He's not shooting a movie, he is writing books.  If he can put in details of battles fought ages ago, he can certainly put another one in the book, ESPECIALLY when it involves his main "Big Bad."

He will never end the huge threat from beyond the wall in one night, or have it only happen to Winterfell.  Not a chance in hell of that.

1 hour ago, nikma said:

Why you think that  he has that long figured out and why would D&D ignore his solution then, if they kept even the endgame of very minor character like Hodor the same?

Magic is the easiest shit to figure out, because you make it up.  He wouldn't have included it before he knew how it worked.  It might morph a bit, or gain or lose powers, but he knows the end.

Hodor is far from minor.  Hodor is the first big explanation of Bran's powers.

Bran.  Who wins the Game of Thrones.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Umbelina

[Leila6]

This has just convinced me that I won’t be reading the rest of Martin’s books if they ever come out. While I’m sure Bran becoming king won’t be so silly and abrupt in the books as it was on the show, I absolutely loathe the idea that Westeros ends with a god/sorcerer king. I know it’s been done elsewhere in literature, but I personally think it’s a giant cop-out that sends a terrible, fatalistic message about humanity. And how does that demonstrate “the human heart in conflict with itself”? The TER doesn’t really have a heart of its own to contend with. Google isn’t exactly soulful.

[nikma]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

GRRM doesn't give a shit how much "time there is." 

When I said time I meant space in the books. We know from S6-8 how many things need to happen in the books. And he was even more characters and storylines. 

If he keeps his idea about only two more books I can't see how WW's invasion won't end in one big battle. At Winterfell. I think there is a reason why he named it that way. If he pushes for more books, we won't finish the story.

And again, if he knew how WW will be defeated in the books we would've seen that in the show. There was no reason for D&D to ignore that.

[Umbelina]

D&D's reason was they wanted to move on to Star Wars.  They were over this.

We disagree about "room" for the battle GRRM has been leading up to since the very first chapter in the very first book.

[nikma]

1 hour ago, Eyes High said:

ok Jon ending up with the NW (or leaving the Wall forever with the free folk, I'm not clear on that one) explains why the writers were so cavalier about the details of TV Jon's functioning post-resurrection, since he was always going to disappear into the ether at the end without fathering any children or anything of that nature.

And it also explains why they made him "dumb", why political side of his character was cut from the show. His destiny wasn't to rule, they made him "stupid" so we won't feel like Westeros missed great opportunity.

1 hour ago, Eyes High said:

...On the other hand, the decisions D&D took with respect to Bran make absolutely no sense in light of what we now know is his book endgame. 

Well the only way to makes sense of what they did is that they(like many of us) though that this was just stupid idea and they never even tried to make it work and they hoped people won't care that much. It feels like they never believed in this plot development. As Leila6 said, it's giant cop-out. GRRM whines about Aragorn's tax policy, but he puts a wizard on the throne at the end. What's Bran's tax policy? Lol

Or maybe D&D thought that fact that Bran was memory was enough. Humanity made many mistakes, so they should learn from the past and that's what Bran is. And one else wanted the throne. Except Edmure lol. So Bran is a symbol and not real ruler. Tyrion is the one who really rules. 

And I think a lot of people misinterpreted that line about "best story". It's not only about Bran's personal story, but about the fact that he knows everyone's story. He is like a good collection of books. Lol Collection of great stories.

[nikma]

1 minute ago, Umbelina said:

D&D's reason was they wanted to move on to Star Wars.  They were over this.

This makes no sense. They knew about shorter seasons years before they got Star Wars. 

And again if there is some great twist about WW from the books, they would use it, just like they used every twist GRRM gave them.

4 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

disagree about "room" for the battle GRRM has been leading up to since the very first chapter in the very first book.

I You can't put all of that in just two books without much faster pace. 

[Eyes High]

48 minutes ago, nikma said:

And it also explains why they made him "dumb", why political side of his character was cut from the show. His destiny wasn't to rule, they made him "stupid" so we won't feel like Westeros missed great opportunity.

In S8 I really felt the writers strongly pulling away from a Jon ruler endgame well before 8x06, thus his uselessness and passivity. Maybe if I'd been paying closer attention I would have seen the same thing in S7, but I was too busy paying attention to the S7 signs that Dany wasn't being set up to rule.

While I missed any possible signs before S8 that Jon was not going to rule, I did notice the writers leaning hard into the idea that Tyrion and Sansa were political masterminds--even when they seemed to hold beliefs or take actions that clearly contradicted that, like Tyrion's disastrous decisions as Dany's Hand in S7--and sure enough, they're the ones who end up ruling the South and the North at the end (if not in name as in Tyrion's case).

Quote

Well the only way to makes sense of what they did is that they(like many of us) though that this was just stupid idea and they never even tried to make it work and they hoped people won't care that much. It feels like they never believed in this plot development. As Leila6 said, it's giant cop-out. GRRM whines about Aragorn's tax policy, but he puts a wizard on the throne at the end. What's Bran's tax policy? Lol

Yes, that is certainly a valid point. D&D were never invested in Bran as a character, and it shows. The writing for that Bran/Tyrion/council scene was almost resentful. It's as if D&D were like "You want your canon ending, assholes? Here's your goddamn book endgame, even though it sucks balls. Don't blame us, we didn't come up with it. Like we would ever pick Bran, ha! Here's some wankery about the power of stories to rub it in. Suck on that."

To be fair, Bran as a soulless puppet king could be a show-only contrivance. Maybe Book Bran is all there as opposed to the robotic, detached version in the show and consciously and purposefully fights his way to the throne. Maybe Book Tyrion is less a ruler in all but name like Tywin was for Aerys and more of a traditional Hand.

...I'm very curious how Tyrion ends up as Bran's Hand in the books, although it puts a nice bow on the Stark/Lannister conflict that started the whole mess to have a Stark monarch and a Lannister Hand in the end, with the Targs and I assume the legitimate Baratheons (unless Book Edric is legitimized as TV Gendry was) cleared out of the way. In the books, unlike the show which was whittled down to about a cast of 20ish named characters, there are dozens of possible candidates Bran could choose from. I'd be very interested to see why he would choose Tyrion.

The (platonic) union of a Stark and a Lannister in a new monarchy could be GRRM's nod to the resolution of the Wars of the Roses. Instead of a literal marriage between claimants to the throne from two formerly warring houses, it's a political union between a Stark and a Lannister working together. Tyrion mused in ACOK that no marriage would reconcile the Starks and the Lannisters after everything, but maybe Tyrion and Bran's political "marriage" as monarch and Hand will.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Eyes High

[Dev F]

5 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I don't understand why the showrunners kept Tyrion's first wife a whore though, I really don't get that.

Because once they changed Shae's role in the story, Tysha's larger role became redundant. In the books, the point of Tysha's story is to explain how Tyrion's sense of romantic love got so fucked up that he couldn't tell that Shae was just a selfish gold-digger who would betray him at the first opportunity. But in the show, Tyrion doesn't have that problem, because show!Shae actually does love him. Which means that Shae gets Tysha's arc instead: she's Tyrion's true love whom his father turns (back) into a whore.

And once that's Shae's story, you don't need another story about how Tywin also turned Tyrion's previous true love into a whore. It's just a pointless duplication.

[ElizaD]

4 hours ago, nikma said:

And it also explains why they made him "dumb", why political side of his character was cut from the show. His destiny wasn't to rule, they made him "stupid" so we won't feel like Westeros missed great opportunity.

Well the only way to makes sense of what they did is that they(like many of us) though that this was just stupid idea and they never even tried to make it work and they hoped people won't care that much. It feels like they never believed in this plot development. As Leila6 said, it's giant cop-out. GRRM whines about Aragorn's tax policy, but he puts a wizard on the throne at the end. What's Bran's tax policy? Lol

I've hated GRRM's whining about Tolkien, so this made me lol too. Aragorn's backstory involved decades of gaining experience, but GRRM is so much more realistic and superior as a writer that he... solves the problem of government by putting a tweenaged god-king on the throne?

All this time spent posting and reading about how Jon and Dany have arcs about screwing up in order to learn how to rule as GRRM's answer to the Aragorn's tax policy question, only for Dany to get killed by a Jon who peaces out with the Free Folk and kingship to be given to Bran who's spent the post-ACOK books isolated from human society and all those pesky realistic concerns that Aragorn supposedly sucked at.

3 hours ago, Eyes High said:

In S8 I really felt the writers strongly pulling away from a Jon ruler endgame well before 8x06, thus his uselessness and passivity. Maybe if I'd been paying closer attention I would have seen the same thing in S7, but I was too busy paying attention to the S7 signs that Dany wasn't being set up to rule.

While I missed any possible signs before S8 that Jon was not going to rule, I did notice the writers leaning hard into the idea that Tyrion and Sansa were political masterminds--even when they seemed to hold beliefs or take actions that clearly contradicted that, like Tyrion's disastrous decisions as Dany's Hand in S7--and sure enough, they're the ones who end up ruling the South and the North at the end (if not in name as in Tyrion's case).

...I'm very curious how Tyrion ends up as Bran's Hand in the books, although it puts a nice bow on the Stark/Lannister conflict that started the whole mess to have a Stark monarch and a Lannister Hand in the end, with the Targs and I assume the legitimate Baratheons (unless Book Edric is legitimized as TV Gendry was) cleared out of the way. In the books, unlike the show which was whittled down to about a cast of 20ish named characters, there are dozens of possible candidates Bran could choose from. I'd be very interested to see why he would choose Tyrion.

The (platonic) union of a Stark and a Lannister in a new monarchy could be GRRM's nod to the resolution of the Wars of the Roses. Instead of a literal marriage between claimants to the throne from two formerly warring houses, it's a political union between a Stark and a Lannister working together. Tyrion mused in ACOK that no marriage would reconcile the Starks and the Lannisters after everything, but maybe Tyrion and Bran's political "marriage" as monarch and Hand will.

The Vale looks even more like Sansa's Meereen now: the training stage where she learns politics, except since it's in Westeros she can gain longterm allies and reputation there. I hated the torture porn element of the Jeyne plot in the books too, but in theory making the North both the training stage and the final one for Sansa now looks like a decent adaptational choice. The execution was just flawed. People go on and on about how smart characters like Tyrion, Varys and Littlefinger suffered once the show passed the books, but Sansa did too since she never got a coherent plot that would have shown that she had joined the top tier of plotters. We just told about it, which worked well enough for me when it came to showing her as interested in and respected for the day to day management of Winterfell. I guess in that sense the buildup was there for her becoming QITN over Jon when the need for inspiring heroics was over: he didn't want it and he was never responsible for the daily grind of dealing with the lords that Sansa took charge of.

I like the idea of this as a political marriage version of the Wars of the Roses. For me this series was about the Starks and the Lannisters, so despite predicting a Targaryen restoration for years I'm becoming more and more OK with the key points of the ending, even if my ideal world would probably have been Sansa as queen of a free North and Jon on the Iron Throne.

I'm seeing a lot of people posting that season 8 should have been the war against the NK and season 9 the war against Cersei/Dany's breakdown. While nothing might have fixed the "smart characters" problem, I do feel that conversation-heavy seasons building up to the climaxes we got in 8x03 and 8x05-06 would have made this ending feel, if not like seasons 1-4, then at least as emotionally earned and epic as 6x09-10.

[nikma]

I don't think there was enough material to make WW's invasion last 6 or even 10 episodes. To have multiple battles with them would be boring and too expensive. Especially since we saw them in action in Hardhome, the Door and Beyond the Wall before 803.

At the end everything had to end in one big climatic battle. I don't see how anything else could work, unless they wanted to turn this show into TWD. 

Maybe E1--3 of this season could have been E8-10 of S7. And then we would have 6 episodes in S8 for Cersei vs Dany and Dany's downfall. But tbh I'm not sure even that wouldn't be boring. 

I thinl what would make everything really work in almost perfect way would be just one more 80 minutes episode in S8 post E3 and they should have made Daenerys killing Tarlys less morally grey. She should be just cruel there and kill them without giving them any other options. 

Edited May 31, 2019 by nikma

[benteen]

I'm sure Bran does become King although D&D did a piss poor job of showing it and keeping him off-screen for an entire season was inexcusable. 

I have no doubt that the war against the dead will encompass all of Westeros and leave the land a waste.  I think whatever GRRM has planned (which we'll never see), they will have to defeat the White Walkers the other way.  Not with a video game cheat code of "Kill one and the rest will fall."

Quote

And it also explains why they made him "dumb", why political side of his character was cut from the show. His destiny wasn't to rule, they made him "stupid" so we won't feel like Westeros missed great opportunity.

Cutting Jon's political side was a mistake.  It did make him look weak and dumb.  Plus it was one of his more interesting traits.

Though I don't think Jon was a perfect leader.  He was visionary and the kind of leader the Night's Watch desperately needed.  But for all his talk about learning his father's lessons, it was clear to me that he HEARD some of his father's lessons but didn't learn anything.  That lesson from Ned about having to be someone's Lord first instead of his friend is a good one but Ned also would set a seat aside at the family dinner table for a different servant and listen to them as they spoke.  Ned wouldn't have turned down Grenn and Pyp's dinner invitation. 

Jon also foolishly pushed away people loyal to him, leaving himself vulnerable.  Jon was 100% right that after 8,000 years, it was time to make peace with the Wildlings against their common enemy but made no real effort to try to convince those under him of it.  These are people who have fought the Wildlings for decades and he didn't take that into account.  Finally, Jon falls into the category of a character (like Mike on Better Call Saul) who thinks he's always right and everyone who has a different opinion is an idiot.  Now, in the Night's Watch, he happens to be right but it's still an arrogant attitude to have and goes back to him not trying harder to convince others as to WHY he is right.  Jon is the visionary leader the Night's Watch needs but disregards a lot in the process.  Far from a perfect leader.

[nikma]

I still think there is no time in ADOS for AOTD to be all over Westeros. He would need at least one more book for that.

Tyrion and Dany have to meet. He has to become her Hand. They have to end conflict in Meereen, sail for Westeros. She has to meet Jon, fall in love with him, defeat AOTD, burn KL and then she will be killed by Jon.

And this is just Dany's storyline in the next two books. What about Jon? And  Stannis vs Boltons? How will Myrcella die in the books? Tommen? What will happen with LSH, Aegon? How and when will Sansa move north? How will Arya end her storyline in Braavos? What will happen with Euron's attack on Oldtown? What will Cersei do? What will happen with High Sparrow and Doran? How will Bran leave the cave? What will happen with him? What will happen with Rickon? 

So many things need to happen in only 2 books. I really don't see room for a very long war against AOTD.

But if we really get TWOW next year as GRRM said, we will get the sense of pacing. So we will see.

[Eyes High]

12 hours ago, Dev F said:

And once that's Shae's story, you don't need another story about how Tywin also turned Tyrion's previous true love into a whore. It's just a pointless duplication.

The Tysha revelation was also important because it nuked Tyrion's relationship with Jaime, so it wouldn't have been pointless duplication. The writers wanted Jaime to reconcile with Tyrion fairly easily in S8, which wouldn't have been possible if the Tysha revelation had happened.

9 hours ago, ElizaD said:

I've hated GRRM's whining about Tolkien, so this made me lol too. Aragorn's backstory involved decades of gaining experience, but GRRM is so much more realistic and superior as a writer that he... solves the problem of government by putting a tweenaged god-king on the throne?

All this time spent posting and reading about how Jon and Dany have arcs about screwing up in order to learn how to rule as GRRM's answer to the Aragorn's tax policy question, only for Dany to get killed by a Jon who peaces out with the Free Folk and kingship to be given to Bran who's spent the post-ACOK books isolated from human society and all those pesky realistic concerns that Aragorn supposedly sucked at.

To be fair, Tyrion ends up as Hand even though he was Hand way back in ACOK and spends ASOS through ADWD doing other stuff (and I'm not sure that Tyrion being Dany's Hand is from the books, either), and Bran did get a stint at ruling in ACOK.

But yes, you have a good point about the Aragorn thing. If GRRM had included the five year time jump, Bran and Tyrion would have presumably spent the intervening five years having visions and fucking around in Essos (respectively), which is not exactly the sort of preparation you might expect for the endgame king and Hand.

Quote

The Vale looks even more like Sansa's Meereen now: the training stage where she learns politics, except since it's in Westeros she can gain longterm allies and reputation there. 

It kind of makes sense, though. Bran won't remain in that cave and Arya won't remain in Braavos, so why would Sansa remain in the Vale? It seems to have been her training ground, just like Bran and Arya's stints in the far North and in Braavos.

Quote

I like the idea of this as a political marriage version of the Wars of the Roses. For me this series was about the Starks and the Lannisters, so despite predicting a Targaryen restoration for years I'm becoming more and more OK with the key points of the ending, even if my ideal world would probably have been Sansa as queen of a free North and Jon on the Iron Throne.

I like it, too, despite also predicting some sort of Targ restoration, because the idea of the Starks and Lannisters finally setting aside their differences and working together to heal Westeros is very appealing to me. Bran appointing Tyrion as his Hand is a lovely payoff to the kindness Tyrion showed him in AGOT (designing the saddle), although in the books it may well be something more sinister, like Book Tyrion manipulating spaced-out demigod Bran onto the throne so that he can rule from the shadows.

Quote

I do feel that conversation-heavy seasons building up to the climaxes we got in 8x03 and 8x05-06 would have made this ending feel, if not like seasons 1-4, then at least as emotionally earned and epic as 6x09-10.

I feel as if the reason 6x09 and 6x10, which weren't all that well written either, are so warmly regarded compared to 8x03 and 8x05-8x06 is that they gave the general audience what they wanted. They wanted the High Sparrow gone and Cersei to come out on top (done). They wanted Sansa to get her revenge on Ramsay (done). They wanted Jon's parentage confirmed and Jon as the KITN (done and done). They wanted Dany to finally haul ass to Westeros (done). They wanted Tyrion to be Dany's Hand (done). They wanted Arya to get revenge against Walder Frey (done). We talk about fanservice, but 6x09-6x10 were pure fanservice.

8x03, 8x05 and 8x06 thwarted those expectations and desires again and again and again. The general audience wanted the dragons to prove decisive against the NK (nope). They wanted Jon to kill the NK (nope). They wanted huge character deaths in the big NK battle (nope). They wanted Jon's siblings to accept Dany after her sacrifices against the NK (nope). They wanted Jon and Dany to take down Cersei and rule together (biiiiiig nope on that one). And they wanted a ruler who, well, was anyone but Bran (nope). While S8 had its fair share of writing problems, it's hard to tell where the pure outrage at fans being denied what they wanted and expected stops and the legitimate criticisms begin.

3 hours ago, benteen said:

I'm sure Bran does become King although D&D did a piss poor job of showing it and keeping him off-screen for an entire season was inexcusable. 

I'm sure as well, and while I've stood up for a lot of book/show changes and generally given D&D the benefit of the doubt, the writing for TV Bran given his endgame is, just as you said, inexcusable.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Eyes High

[nikma]

10 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

I feel as if the reason 6x09 and 6x10, which weren't all that well written either, are so warmly regarded compared to 8x03 and 8x05-8x06 is that they gave the general audience what they wanted.

That's true. Quality of writing was consistent in the last 4 seasons.  But S8 didn't give fans what they wanted.

And the fact that even professional critics thought that Eastwatch and Beyond the Wall were so much better than Last of the Starks and The Bells is laughable. This shows that they reacted emotionally to the last season. 

[Umbelina]

He won't have to show battle after battle as "Winter" moves south.  The devastation left behind will be a huge part of the problems, and characters can interact about that.

Not a chance the Winter stops in one night, let alone stops at Winterfell.

It could easily be one big battle after skirmishes, but honestly, it is more likely to a be very one sided with the WW winning and growing until the final battle where humans win.

[Maximum Taco]

15 hours ago, nikma said:

And again, if he knew how WW will be defeated in the books we would've seen that in the show. There was no reason for D&D to ignore that.

It's because they changed this storyline. 

D&D introduced the Night King, George never did, and he doesn't seem likely to. When you introduce a main powerful antagonist there needs to be a confrontation with him, and when he's defeated most of the time that signals victory for the good guys. 

George doesn't really write that way, a big bad villain embodied in one being. The White Walkers/Others in the books don't feel like they have a directed purpose or actual tactics. Whenever we see them they are much more dispassionate and unfeeling. They don't leave cryptic marks in the snow with dismembered bodies, or smirk at the good guys or posture by raising the dead in front of them and in the end I doubt they will show up personally to dispatch their enemies because they are like "delicious cake" sitting in front of them when it's a huge tactical disadvantage to do so. 

The White Walkers in the books are different then the White Walkers in the show in so many ways, so I have to imagine they'll be defeated in a much different way. Personally I'm expecting a less then complete victory for the side of humanity in the books, the Others will be pushed back, but not entirely eradicated like in the show, and therefore there will be a reason for Jon to rejoin the Night's Watch instead of D&D's moronic reasoning that "Bastards need a place to go too."

Edited May 31, 2019 by Maximum Taco

[Eyes High]

31 minutes ago, Maximum Taco said:

It's because they changed this storyline. 

D&D introduced the Night King, George never did, and he doesn't seem likely to. When you introduce a main powerful antagonist there needs to be a confrontation with him, and when he's defeated most of the time that signals victory for the good guys. 

George doesn't really write that way, a big bad villain embodied in one being. The White Walkers/Others in the books don't feel like they have a directed purpose or actual tactics. Whenever we see them they are much more dispassionate and unfeeling. They don't leave cryptic marks in the snow with dismembered bodies, or smirk at the good guys or posture by raising the dead in front of them and in the end I doubt they will show up personally to dispatch their enemies because they are like "delicious cake" sitting in front of them when it's a huge tactical disadvantage to do so. 

The White Walkers in the books are different then the White Walkers in the show in so many ways, so I have to imagine they'll be defeated in a much different way. Personally I'm expecting a less then complete victory for the side of humanity in the books, the Others will be pushed back, but not entirely eradicated like in the show, and therefore there will be a reason for Jon to rejoin the Night's Watch instead of D&D's moronic reasoning that "Bastards need a place to go too."

There's no NK in the books, D&D have made it clear that Arya killing the NK was their idea, and the idea of killing the WWs killing the wights they created seems like an idea of D&D's, but I'm not convinced that the way it plays out in the books will be all that different. Remember this from the EW cover story from November 2018:

Quote

Author George R.R. Martin, whose series of novels forms the basis for Thrones, had revealed to the duo the broad strokes of how his Song of Ice and Fire saga secretly ends, including a description of an epic final battle that’s been teased from the show’s very first scene. 

At the very least, we can conclude that in the books there will be some sort of final showdown at Winterfell that results in victory for the living.

[Maximum Taco]

7 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

Remember this from the EW cover story from November 2018:

Quote

Author George R.R. Martin, whose series of novels forms the basis for Thrones, had revealed to the duo the broad strokes of how his Song of Ice and Fire saga secretly ends, including a description of an epic final battle that’s been teased from the show’s very first scene. 

At the very least, we can conclude that in the books there will be some sort of final showdown at Winterfell that results in victory for the living.

I'm not saying there won't be a battle at Winterfell, it's a central location in both the show and the books, and obviously a place of significance.

I just doubt it'll be a "kill the boss, win the game" type of battle. 

Edited May 31, 2019 by Maximum Taco

[nikma]

54 minutes ago, Maximum Taco said:

It's because they changed this storyline. 

D&D introduced the Night King, George never did, and he doesn't seem likely to.

But that's the point. D&D introduced the Night King in S4 (the first season they wrote afer that big meeting with GRRM) because GRRM gave them no information about the way WW will be defeated in the books, so Night King became that plot device.

If GRRM had any idea about WW's defeat in the books, we would get that in the show. 

As long as he doesn't finish the books this myth that GRRM knows what he is doing and there is some great plan for everything will live, I don't know if it's even in his interest to finish the books at all.

But for me, ASOIAF is one big mess, and GRRM only has very vague ideas about some plot developments in the future and nothing else. 

54 minutes ago, Maximum Taco said:

The White Walkers in the books are different then the White Walkers in the show in so many ways, so I have to imagine they'll be defeated in a much different way. Personally I'm expecting a less then complete victory for the side of humanity in the books, the Others will be pushed back, but not entirely eradicated like in the show, and therefore there will be a reason for Jon to rejoin the Night's Watch instead of D&D's moronic reasoning that "Bastards need a place to go too."

Don't think so at all. WW will be destroyed in the books as well, and Jon's endgame is not to rejoin the Night's Watch, but to rejoin Free Folk, and that can't happen if WW still exist. 

Edited May 31, 2019 by nikma

[Maximum Taco]

49 minutes ago, nikma said:

But that's the point. D&D introduced the Night King in S4 (the first season they wrote afer that big meeting with GRRM) because GRRM gave them no information about the way WW will be defeated in the books, so Night King became that plot device.

If GRRM had any idea about WW's defeat in the books, we would get that in the show. 

I'm not sure this is the case. 

Several times D&D have known where a story is going and have decided to just go their own way. Lady Stoneheart was supposed to be a thing, and that was supposed to set off a confrontation between Brienne and Jaime. Instead they decided to just have them meet and fuck in the North. fAegon was supposed to be a thing, and he is clearly supposed to have a confrontation with Dany at some point. Instead they just decided to extend Cersei's storyline to a season of her drinking while pregnant and looking out a window. 

I don't think it's unreasonable that George told them his plan for the White Walkers and D&D just decided that it wasn't compelling or feasible for TV and they were gonna go their own way. 

[nikma]

3 minutes ago, Maximum Taco said:

Several times D&D have known where a story is going and have decided to just go their own way.

Only when they don't have enough material from GRRM like with LSH or Aegon. 

They cut Aegon because removing Cersei, a character you have 5-6 seasons of emotional investment in and a top-notch actress playing to replace with another character who they need to establish on their own because there is no book materrial for him is a bad idea.

fAegon removes any reason for the vast majority of the cast to care who sits on the Iron Throne because unlike Cersei, he has done nothing to wrong them. 

He introduces a massive, convoluted backstory for no other reason than to justify his existence.

He cripples Jon's arc because being the second living son of Rhaegar changes almost nothing. He removes the conflict point between Jon and Dany because neither have a claim.He removes the conflict point between Dany and Tyrion because Tyrion is no longer going to be fighting his family. If he is a Blackfyre, he requires a massive amount of exposition for literally no other reason than a surprise twist. He turns secret Targs into a meme and makes you wonder if Targaryans ever actually die in Westeros

11 minutes ago, Maximum Taco said:

I don't think it's unreasonable that George told them his plan for the White Walkers and D&D just decided that it wasn't compelling or feasible for TV and they were gonna go their own way. 

The only reason to ignore his plan is if it's somethin really bad. But I don't think he has any plans. If he had real  plans his story would've been finished long time ago. He only has ideas of plot points. 

[Umbelina]

1 hour ago, Maximum Taco said:

I'm not sure this is the case. 

Several times D&D have known where a story is going and have decided to just go their own way. Lady Stoneheart was supposed to be a thing, and that was supposed to set off a confrontation between Brienne and Jaime. Instead they decided to just have them meet and fuck in the North. fAegon was supposed to be a thing, and he is clearly supposed to have a confrontation with Dany at some point. Instead they just decided to extend Cersei's storyline to a season of her drinking while pregnant and looking out a window. 

I don't think it's unreasonable that George told them his plan for the White Walkers and D&D just decided that it wasn't compelling or feasible for TV and they were gonna go their own way. 

I don't know if GRRM told them the plan for the WW or not, it does seem likely, since it's a pretty major story...but maybe they weren't that interested in that part of things.  Or, as you point out, it might not have been compelling enough for D&D in a visual medium, or required too many "Bran just tells us about them" scenes.

I do think the GRRM has, and has always had, logic and story, and outcomes for the magical elements of this story.  Deciding how to convey all of those within the story might be a bit problematic, but he knew the answers before he began writing those parts.  It's one of his peeves about fantasy writers, so it's very hard for me to believe he doesn't know the magical elements backwards and forwards.

It's also possible that the reason he fought so hard for Lady Stoneheart is that she is connected to the presentation or core of those magical answers, or at least some of them.

His other characters or story can be in constant fluctuation obviously, and his tangents, or many of them at least, should have been put in other books, which he seems to be doing now.   He "gardens" on that side, which is why he's so stuck in Meereen and with Dany.

I'm not sure about the NK, and if he exists or not in GRRM's tale.  I don't really care.  I think it's all to get the Kingdoms of Westeros and the Wildlings to work together to bring down the biggest threat to all of their worlds, and it certainly does seem to be a metaphor for climate change.  I expect Bran to be central to all of this.

For a time at least, the humans and religions and all the Gods they believe in will unite to defeat the Big Bad.  Exhausted, what's left of them probably will have something vaguely related to the ridiculous "Tyrion gives a speech" ending in the show.  They will gather, they will decide to stop warring on each other, and to cooperate in the rebuilding, the feeding of the humans left alive, the survival of the human race.

They will probably choose Bran to lead, because Bran's gifts will be key to resolving the WW issues,  and they know he only cares about the survival of the human race.

As for the defeat of the WW?  They may simply be driven back or convinced to return to the far North and sleep again.  THAT may be tied into the death of all the dragons, or not.

Jon will go back to the wall for real, because the NW will still be needed, and he probably does kill Dany, either before or after the end of the WW.  Perhaps Dany refused to "join" with others and insisted on ruling, or really does burn KL (likely.)  I'm just not sure when that happens.  It works both before and after the resolve of the WW, but probably works better before.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Umbelina
y

[nikma]

14 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

For a time at least, the humans and religions and all the Gods they believe in will unite to defeat the Big Bad.  Exhausted, what's left of them probably will have something vaguely related to the ridiculous "Tyrion gives a speech" ending in the show.

Climax of the story is Daenerys burning KL, becoming "villain" and being killed. WW are not the final enemy. Daenerys is. 

16 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

They may simply be driven back or convinced to return to the far North and sleep again. 

I would really love to see anyone write a scene that is not ridiculous, where they  negotiate with the WW, they agree to return north of thr Wall and sleep.

It's was all just one big misunderstanding. WW are nice guys and they will return to their homes to just sleep. The end.

18 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

It's one of his peeves about fantasy writers, so it's very hard for me to believe he doesn't know the magical elements backwards and forwards.

Just like Aragorn's tax policy and learning how to rule. But he still put a wizard on the throne. 

[Umbelina]

We just disagree.

Dany is just another power hungry entitled wanna be RULER.

The Big Bad that could wipe out all of humanity is the threat of the WW, or "climate change." 

In comparison, Dany is a footnote in history. 

[nikma]

Yeah, but GRRM wants his Scouring of the Shire. And he said that theme of his story is "human heart in conflict with itself". That has to play a role in the climax of the story, WW are just enemies, there is no internal conflict there. 

But that's what you get with Daenerys, Jon and Tyrion at the end of story if you remove WW earlier. Constant internal conflict. Love and duty. Family, honor, power, all these great themes  that made this story great and that GRRM loves so much. 

And also the message is that humans are the biggest monsters, not some ice demons. Removing WW earlier and making the final conflict between Daenerys and everyone else makes the story much deeper thematically. Otherwise what is the theme of the story? We should unite and save the world?  "Avengers assemble"? Where is human heart in conflict with itself there?

[Umbelina]

Humans probably have something to do with why the WW (climate change) is happening.

There will be plenty of conflict between the various humans, especially their "leaders" various ambitions.  Finding a way to put all that aside to combat a threat that will kill ALL of them will be rife with conflict, and intrigue.

We know Jon kills Dany.  We know Bran is chosen as King.  We know the WW are defeated.  We know Jon returns to the NW.  We probably know Sansa is Queen of the North, and that Arya sails off into the unknown.  (maybe evading the Faceless men?)

After that, it's still conjecture, especially the whens and whys of it all. 

Perhaps, for example, the humans make a truce and join together, with Bran's crucial abilities to defeat the WW freezing the earth and making everyone walking dead zombies.  Dany though?  Refuses unless she's in charge, or refuses to believe, or whatever, her sole focus is to win that Iron Throne.  She burns KL, because while that is not something we KNOW for sure, IMO, it's certainly been foreshadowed enough.

Dany must be stopped because the real threat is coming, and she just killed a million people who could have been used in some way to help defeat the Big Bad.  Maybe the PTWP or Azor Ahai https://gameofthrones.fandom.com/wiki/Azor_Ahai figures into all of this as well, and that's why Jon stabs Dani in the heart. 

There are many ways this could all go down, but the only way that makes sense in choosing Bran as King, AND in having Jon return to lead the Night's Watch?  Nearly has to be because of the Big Bad (climate change) and the devastated countryside (from WW damage.)  Just like climate change, if it were to be stopped, going back to old ways of doing things would bring it right back.

I also think the Eyrie will be key, with their vast food stores and rather easily defended castle.  Although, maybe that's why Dany decides to burn?  That could work as well.

If a Dragon lives, I don't think the Big Bad dies either, and there is no reason for Jon to go back to the wall if it all couldn't happen again.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Umbelina
not "elected"

[nikma]

There is no Big Bad. That's not the story GRRM is telling. It's story about power, family, love, duty and human heart in conflict with itself. It's not about ice demons and saving the world from them. They are minor part of the 5 books we have, because they are not the point. The point is what was the point even in AGOT. And it will be in ADOS. Humans and their internal struggles and pseudo-political conflicts.

GRRM won't turn his story into zombie apocalypse in the end. That's too simple. There is no human drama in WW's invasion, beacuse every human drama feels petty and pointless in those circumstances.

And he will write his Scouring of the Shire. Which means the war will continue after WW are gone. Just like it was in LOTR.

[Umbelina]

Except "zombies" are, IMO, a metaphor for climate change.

So, a very real issue, presented in a magical way, and most definitely the "big bad" of both ASOFAI and the real world.

It will never go away, and it will defeat the human race unless various countries (Kingdoms) put aside their differences and fight it, sacrifice for it.

You don't think it interesting but I do, and if anything, it provides more human interaction than stupid wars for the Iron Throne.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Umbelina

[nikma]

If the war for the throne is stupid that undermines the whole story, because 95% of story in the books is about politics. So then the whole story is pointless.

This story is not about climate change, it's about very human drama and relationships. WW won't be the climax if the final book, it was clear the moment GRRM said he wants his version of the Scouring of the Shire.

[Umbelina]

20 minutes ago, nikma said:

If the war for the throne is stupid that undermines the whole story, because 95% of story in the books is about politics. So then the whole story is pointless.

This story is not about climate change, it's about very human drama and relationships. WW won't be the climax if the final book, it was clear the moment GRRM said he wants his version of the Scouring of the Shire.

There is very real human drama and a lot of politics involved in saving the human race.  The throne itself is unimportant.

There is no greater possible "scouring of the shire" than the devastation Winter and WW will bring to Westeros.

We simply disagree about the focus of the story.

It's never been about Dany, or Stannis, or Tywin, or any of the others willing to murder as many innocents as they feel like in order to "win" the throne.  It's not called "The Game of Thrones" except in the first book.   If anything, they are only present to show the greed, futility, evilness, and idiocy of wars for a throne.

It's a story of Fire and Ice.  Using elements of magic because it's a fantasy will tell a more important story than someone's ass in a chair. 

Bran is chosen King.  He doesn't win the throne through pointless and devastating wars.  He wins because he only cares about the survival of the human race, and that probably has to do with defeating the greatest threat to the human race. 

Anyway, who knows, GRRM could be writing a stupid story about traditional anti war stuff, I just don't think so.  Bran winning the throne is proof of that.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Umbelina

[nikma]

33 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

There is no greater possible "scouring of the shire" than the devastation Winter and WW will bring to Westeros.

That's not the point of scouring.

But as I said, good thing for GRRM is that he will never finish the books and he can preserve this myth that he is a great writer and all the blame will fall on D&D for everything people dislike about the endgame. 

So point of story can be whatever you want it to be, because the ending will never be written. No one is right or wrong as long as GRRM is not doing his job.

He is genius and D&D are hacks. And why would he do anything to change that? 

Edited May 31, 2019 by nikma

[Umbelina]

Well, we have significant clues now.  The biggest clue is that Bran is King.  The second biggest clue is that Jon is back at the Night Watch, so there is still a need for a Night's Watch.

I've never thought he would finish though, I've been saying that since a year after the last book finally arrived. 

Valar Morghulis

[RobertDeSneero]

9 hours ago, Umbelina said:

He won't have to show battle after battle as "Winter" moves south.  The devastation left behind will be a huge part of the problems, and characters can interact about that.

Not a chance the Winter stops in one night, let alone stops at Winterfell.

It could easily be one big battle after skirmishes, but honestly, it is more likely to a be very one sided with the WW winning and growing until the final battle where humans win.

There is enough in the books for people to have theories about the significance of Winterfell.  There could be something magical hidden there that is necessary to defeat the Others.  Winterfell may have been built specifically to conceal it.  If there is to be some sort of final battle, Winterfell is as good a place as any to have it.  It's probably the logical place.

Imagine if there was some link between Bran Stark and Brandon the Builder and Winterfell is named because it is where Bran remembers winter being stopped and he is somehow in the past as BtB or in his head the way he was in Hodor's in the show.

[bijoux]

Personally, I have no problem with there being a Night Watch even if there are no White Walkers. The Watch was founded because of them, yes, but they weren’t the reason it was still standing thousands of years since they first showed up. The only person who still believed in them at the beginning of the story in some way was Old Nan and no one was listening to her. Yet people still got sent there or went freely for reasons. I don’t see that just stopping. Plus, the Watch might have an influx of new recruits on the heels of this. One, young impressionable dudes might find it cool now. Two, some may go because they’d be counting on shelter and food, not something they necessarily have at this point in time after what had happened. 

[John Potts]

6 hours ago, bijoux said:

I have no problem with there being a Night Watch even if there are no White Walkers.

Also, the Others were defeated in the last Long Night and still came back, so who's to say they won't again? And the existence of the Westerosi equivalent of the French Foreign Legion is a good way of disposing of unwanted men (in actual Medieval times, this might be achieved by going on crusade or joining the church, depending on the period).

[Umbelina]

Quote

In the interview, Martin acknowledges the similarities between today’s fight against climate change and the fight in Westeros.

“There’s a certain parallel there,” Martin explained. “The people in Westeros are fighting their individual battles over power and status and wealth. And those are so distracting them that they’re ignoring the threat of ‘winter is coming,’ which has the potential to destroy all of them and to destroy their world.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/george-r-r-martin-fan-theory-climate-change_n_5bc65d17e4b0a8f17ee6eb0f 

There is more at the NYT including this.  I don't think there is any doubt that the WW are a metaphor for Climate Change, and that is a huge part of the story GRRM is trying to tell.

While petty power wars go on in Westeros (and in our world,) a threat that can destroy the human species is growing.  While the individual stories of the fanatically power mad humans in the story are interesting?  They are not the most important issue. 

I think that Bran is chosen as King because he is instrumental is "saving the world" itself, he has no political ambitions or need for personal power or wealth, his only focus is saving the human race, and quite possibly other life on earth, animals, plants, all of it.

Furthermore, I do think Jon goes "to the wall" because the threat will still exist (as it does in our world) but is held at bay by some humans making the correct choices to keep it at bay.

Martin told the Times: 

But while we’re tearing ourselves apart over this and expending so much energy, there exists this threat of climate change, which, to my mind, is conclusively proved by most of the data and 99.9 percent of the scientific community. And it really has the potential to destroy our world. And we’re ignoring that while we worry about the next election and issues that people are concerned about, like jobs. Jobs are a very important issue, of course. All of these things are important issues. But none of them are important if, like, we’re dead and our cities are under the ocean. So really, climate change should be the number one priority for any politician who is capable of looking past the next election. But unfortunately, there are only a handful of those. We spend 10 times as much energy and thought and debate in the media discussing whether or not N.F.L. players should stand for the national anthem than this threat that’s going to destroy our world.

I think it must be quite difficult to blend those two themes, but that is obviously what he is attempting to do.  That is why I don't believe that there is some simple solution such as Ayra or Jon plunging the right dagger into the right guy to end the threat to humanity.  It's also why I don't believe that there is a simple fool proof one time only solution that solves the WW problem forever, just as there is no one time solution for climate change.

Meanwhile Dany is still fucking up in Meereen as a young teenager, and Bran is still gaining the skills to become all knowing, which may be more scientific anthropologist that Wikipedia/Google in the end.

ETA

Obviously D&D just wanted a great TV show and didn't give a shit about overall themes, or the kind of real world issues GRRM is trying to incorporate or tell in metaphor, so of course the show itself focused primarily on epic battles and epic characters.  Still, their rush to finish was a failure. 

They could have ignored the deeper theme GRRM has while still telling a believable, complete, and epic tale of the same old same old "War is Bad!" with very cool characters.  I feel they failed at that too unfortunately, by ignoring logic in favor of CGI, by telling instead of showing (Jon loves Dany!) and by unexplained and ignored time issues, among other things.  They wanted shocking moments, and subversion, and lots of CGI.  Subversion only works when backed by common sense and logic though. Having most of the cast eating stupid pills for so long was a fail.

Edited June 1, 2019 by Umbelina

[Constantinople]

On 5/31/2019 at 11:24 AM, Eyes High said:

I feel as if the reason 6x09 and 6x10, which weren't all that well written either, are so warmly regarded compared to 8x03 and 8x05-8x06 is that they gave the general audience what they wanted. They wanted the High Sparrow gone and Cersei to come out on top (done). They wanted Sansa to get her revenge on Ramsay (done). They wanted Jon's parentage confirmed and Jon as the KITN (done and done). They wanted Dany to finally haul ass to Westeros (done). They wanted Tyrion to be Dany's Hand (done). They wanted Arya to get revenge against Walder Frey (done). We talk about fanservice, but 6x09-6x10 were pure fanservice.

I disagree Cersei's Season 6 story was fan service.
But if it was, they at least laid the foundations for it, and her behavior was consistent with the character
At the end of Season 5 Cersei was released pending further charges, but if she been found guilty of those charges she would have been executed. There is no way Cersei would let that hapen.
Not a problem since her champion, the Mountain, would almost certainly defeat anyone else in trial by combat
The Sparrow finally gloms on to the flaw in his plan when he sent Lancel and a bunch of other sparrows to take Cersei back to the Sept. Lancel says there will be violence unless she comes peacefully. Cersei refuses, one of the Sparrows attacks the Mountain and is promptly gutted like a fish
Shortly afterwards Tommen, no doubt prompted by the High Sparrow, prohibits trial by combat (convenient no?)
Now Cersei is backed into  corner.  This is when she is most dangerous and most ruthless (such as what happened to Ned Stark in Season 1).
Cersei asks Qyburn to investigate a rumor she heard (from Jaime).  Qyburn tells her, onscreen, that the rumor is true.
Then comes the destruction of the Sept. Getting rid of the Tyrells and Uncle Kevan was just a bonus from her perspective.