Game of Thrones

I agree and I look forward to that show. I thought they landed it and I was worried they wouldn’t. I felt like my investment was paid in full. Yes, I could nitpick, and I am sure I will, but I enjoyed just leaning into the spectacle.

I had made a few written predictions before the season began one of them that but I still gasped when it happened and that’s enough for me. I airpunched when and I cried when

I am looking forward to rewatching Tyrion’s speech. I couldn’t decide in the moment if it was Dinklage acting the hell out of it, or if the writing really was echoing Shakespearean verse. Certainly more heightened than the rest of the script.

I don't know, but I don't want to be the one to get hauled over the coals (or torched by a dragon) for spoiling things!

I couldn't remember how to do them but have added them now, though tbh anyone looking at this thread now must know what they're in for.

I thought the final episode was a bore. Some of it predictable. Considering how much they have rushed most of this season, I thought the final episode dragged on.

seeing as we had to wait 2 years for it, I was hoping for more.

You have to hand it to the writers. Just when you think the series can't get any stupider, they pull out all the stops like that.

It's a show called Game of Thrones in which everyone has been fighting for the throne for eight series. But in the end, a group gets together and someone says let's give it to some disabled kid with no experience or desire to lead, who most of us don't know, for absolutely no good reason, and everyone just shrugs and says yes. And then his sister says even though my brother is going to be King, I want our region to have independence. And all the other regions go yeah sure, no problem, because we wouldn't like our own independence. And let's let Davos and Brienne get a vote on the new King because they are characters the audience recognise even though they have no business being there. And Tyrion who was responsible for bringing the Dragon Queen to torch Westeros and the Dothraki who are probably pillaging the capital as this is happening can be the Hand even though he has got every decision wrong for the last three series.

This was a show which used to have guys pulling the strings like Littlefinger, Varys, Tywin, pre-brain tumour Tyrion. But now everyone has a double-digit IQ and knows they are in the last episode of a TV series and forgets about their own interests.

The idea that it's any kind of ending at all is ludicrous. Guaranteed civil war as soon as anyone with any ambition gets any position of power or influence, the throne has never been more vulnerable. Based on the established logic of the last series, if Bronn shows up to the next council meeting with his crossbow, he becomes King because that's all he has to do to get whatever he wants.

Predictions for the future of Westeros:

Yara, as Lord Reaper and ironborn, will be obliged to continue reaving. Who do they attack if it's all one big democracy? The democracy starts to weaken.

Sansa is quite inflexible now and will become a tyrant, and Bran will eventually either need to support his sister or bring Winterfell to heel.

Bronn's going to cause a civil war. I don't know how but he WILL. He'll probably go too far in his "fill the coffers using tarts!" economic plan and there will be hell to pay. One disagreement with Bran = crossbow bolt through Bran's chest = riots.

They did away with master of whispers as a post, but let's be real, how else do you keep tabs on an enormous continent without spies? Dorne will probably behave itself, but the aforementioned Iron Islands have a lifestyle to maintain, and who's to say Robin Arryn doesn't have some crazy streak inherited from Mummy...?

Unpack that for me. Is it that the word disabled is no longer a politically correct term? I guess not because you used it.

Or you think it's wrong to mention his disability because it's not relevant information? When referring to a scene in which his sister literally mentions it as relevant information? In a world in which it is desired that the King be very good at fighting? In a world in which, if you needed a reminder that our ethics and morality do not apply to their ideals of governance, in that exact scene, representative democracy is proposed as a form of government and everyone laughs their heads off?

Or it's that I called him a kid too? I would like to think you could tell I would have been just as condescending if Sansa or Gendry had bizarrely ended up on the throne, either of which would have made roughly as much sense as Bran, rather than that I have some rabid hatred of disabled people in positions of power. But perhaps it would it be okay if I called him a 'disabled guy?'

Enlighten me.

No way would Grey Worm let Jon Snow live after killing his Queen. No way would the Dothraki shrug and poodle off on a ship for new lands after the death of their Queen when they've followed her through continents and across the sea. The Unsullied and Dothraki are fighting men and there'd have been a riot. That's the big error for me on the last episode. Jon went to the Wall willingly in Series 1, how is it seen as a fitting punishment for killing the Queen?

I was going to re-watch from Series 1 (Sky must be running them again over the Summer, my box set having disappeared after a party at my house - bah!). But I might re-read the books instead and hope for George R R Martin to get of his arse and get another one out.

Disabled people is an acceptable term, the current government guidelines on inclusive language www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-communication/inclusive-language-words-to-use-and-avoid-when-writing-about-disability
(not political correctness) might be interesting for you.

My issue is that you reduce Bran to ‘disabled kid’ when he is an ancient and immensely powerful greenseer with enormous magical ability. He can perceive the past, present and future through visions and he can time travel. They’re in the burnt out ruins of the former seat of power, they know they no longer need someone who is ‘very good at fighting.’

Did you miss the bit where they kept taking about “breaking the wheel”?

A candidate who cannot have children breaks the cycle of inherited power. A candidate who doesn’t want to lead would make a change from someone who believes it’s their right.

The old white men laugh at the idea of participatory democracy. Do you not think that Tyrion's proposed solution is the first step on that journey though?

The wheel isn't broken because Tyrion, a character who has been wrong about everything for a long time now, hopes so. In the last series the fact Daenerys couldn't have children was a problem according to Tyrion, now it's great that Bran can't? Tyrion's proposed solution is the first step towards civil war every time the King dies because the succession is unclear. See: history.

The culture of an entire continent doesn't change because Tyrion makes a stupid speech and a fairly random panel of people, from which the interests of most of that continent aren't voiced, nod their heads.

Let's remember for one example from very recent history, what happened the last time a Dornish Prince was perceived to be too weak and pacifist. He got shanked by his sister-in-law who took power to popular acclaim and took up arms against the reigning house. So this new Prince is just going to go home and tell everyone they must accept being ruled from the capital when even the King's sister wouldn't and she got independence for her region? When he has probably the most well-rested army? At the very least he's declaring independence and then the whole thing starts to unravel.

I don't see how anyone could have watched all eight series and think that anything has meaningfully, lastingly changed on that ending. The best chance for stable government in the medium term was Daenerys when she had three dragons and could rule through her WMDs like her ancestors. That's irrespective of whether she would be a good ruler, but you can't be a good ruler if you can't maintain your grip on power.

The only way Bran is keeping that power structure in place is using his magical powers to implement a totalitarian state in which treason becomes a thought crime because Bran (unverifiably) sees people's treachery in visions of the future. Sounds great, what a happy ending, Team Stark forever. Except he chose not to use those powers to intervene meaningfully in the most important battle of all time in episode three or to prevent an enormous civilian atrocity in the previous episode? 

I like that you seem to think I don't understand the version of events portrayed by the show, rather than that I don't think it makes a lick of sense.