Game of Thrones Season 8 Final discussion thread! (Spoilers discussion included)

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for thehig1
#201 Posted by thehig1 (7284 posts) -

@Serraph105: its another example were fan theories are more entertaining and more coherent than the actaul show.

I thought it was similar with Mass Effect, the fans indoctination theory made more sense than what bioware went with, which was a deus Ex Machina space child.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#202 Posted by Serraph105 (33776 posts) -

@thehig1: Here's another question I have, what was the actual point of Melisandre being revealed as ancient? What purpose did that actually serve?

Avatar image for AFBrat77
#203 Posted by AFBrat77 (26708 posts) -

I think the finale was actually pretty good. In the beginning there were 8 Starks, 4 were killed in a bloody way, the other 4 got appropriate endings (I'm counting Jon as a Stark). Protagonist Tyrion was the biggest winner here.

That being said the 3 episodes prior were not great, and the season was the worst for the show.

However, Game of Thrones fans should have known a couple years ago it would be rushed. I would have done better writing this season, and I'm certain many others would to.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#204 Posted by R4gn4r0k (31020 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:

@thehig1: Here's another question I have, what was the actual point of Melisandre being revealed as ancient? What purpose did that actually serve?

What purpose did John snow resurrecting serve?

What purpose did Arya becoming a faceless one serve?

There are so many questions left unanswered, and I'm fine with that, not everything needs an answer.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#205 Edited by Serraph105 (33776 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:
@Serraph105 said:

@thehig1: Here's another question I have, what was the actual point of Melisandre being revealed as ancient? What purpose did that actually serve?

What purpose did John snow resurrecting serve?

What purpose did Arya becoming a faceless one serve?

There are so many questions left unanswered, and I'm fine with that, not everything needs an answer.

Arya did use it to kill Walder Frey and all of his men.

Jon did a lot with the rest of his life and time as a politically powerful person. Destroyed Ramsay's army, helped defeat the Night King, Killed Daenerys. It ended on a disappointing note, but his actions during his second chance at life made a big difference.

Avatar image for mandzilla
#207 Posted by Mandzilla (4085 posts) -

@watercrack445: Well it's definitely worth a watch so long as you temper your expectations for the final few Seasons. The first four are superb, such a shame it fizzles out at the final hurdle though.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#208 Posted by comp_atkins (35699 posts) -
@Serraph105 said:
@R4gn4r0k said:
@Serraph105 said:

@thehig1: Here's another question I have, what was the actual point of Melisandre being revealed as ancient? What purpose did that actually serve?

What purpose did John snow resurrecting serve?

What purpose did Arya becoming a faceless one serve?

There are so many questions left unanswered, and I'm fine with that, not everything needs an answer.

Arya did use it to kill Walder Frey and all of his men.

Jon did a lot with the rest of his life and time as a politically powerful person. Destroyed Ramsay's army, helped defeat the Night King, Killed Daenerys. It ended on a disappointing note, but his actions during his second chance at life made a big difference.

i thought the faces were poison to someone who is not truely no one.... isn't that why arya was blinded in the first place? now she gets to use them at will?

Avatar image for Macutchi
#209 Edited by Macutchi (6748 posts) -

i can't help feel the hysteria against the last season has resulted in a degree of rose tinted glasses for the earlier seasons. people get all misty eyed when referring to them as though all episodes are the pinnacle of tv entertainment quality.

there were some plot lines and characters in the early seasons that were interminably dull. they may, by and large, have been deeper, more consistent and well rounded, but some aspects, not loads by any stretch, but some were difficult to maintain interest in.

there were clearly a myriad of plot holes and anticlimatics in the last season but it had high points too. the long night and the bells episodes were amazing spectacles to behold that pretty much had me on the edge of my seat throughout. although there were plenty of moments that left me flat, i'm not jumping on the season 8 bandwagon of hate

Avatar image for Ovirew
#210 Edited by Ovirew (9034 posts) -

Sorry to bump an older thread, but it has been less than a month yet since the last post. I guess I just wanted to talk a bit more about GoT since a friend brought it up recently, and I've been thinking about (in the wake of that whole finale business), just what the moral or point of the entire series was, if there was one.

And I think the main point of GoT may have been one that was brought up in the last episode - "Love is the death of duty."

Throughout GoT we see characters suffer because they had duties that their love ultimately got in the way of. Rob because he loved someone who wasn't one of Frey's daughters. Jaime because he just couldn't love anyone other than his sister. I know that The Mountain didn't particularly love his kin, but he was willing to toss aside his duty to his Queen for a chance to kill The Hound, who gave up most of his life to brood over him.

Of course a lot of characters don't fit that mold. Stannis sacrificed his daughter for the chance to become King, and it was an utter failure. The Night King, I don't think it had a heart anymore with that piece of steel shoved into it, and it was still destroyed despite having no love. Maybe the opposite happened there, duty was the death of love for some characters.

I think Jon kind of fits both. He put his duty before Ygritte and she died as a result. He put his love of Daenerys before his duty to Winterfell and Westeros was threatened.

I'm not really sure what moral viewers were supposed to take with themselves if that's the case. Are they telling you to your duty first or your love first? If you love someone should you ultimately flip things on their head and put your duty first, and vice versa?

For whatever reason I picture that being the ultimate moral GRRM settled on for this series, since it seems to show up in a lot of the major plots. I'm just not sure what we should take from that, if anything.

Thoughts?

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#211 Edited by mrbojangles25 (43981 posts) -

@Ovirew said:

Sorry to bump an older thread, but it has been less than a month yet since the last post. I guess I just wanted to talk a bit more about GoT since a friend brought it up recently, and I've been thinking about (in the wake of that whole finale business), just what the moral or point of the entire series was, if there was one.

And I think the main point of GoT may have been one that was brought up in the last episode - "Love is the death of duty."

Throughout GoT we see characters suffer because they had duties that their love ultimately got in the way of. Rob because he loved someone who wasn't one of Frey's daughters. Jaime because he just couldn't love anyone other than his sister. I know that The Mountain didn't particularly love his kin, but he was willing to toss aside his duty to his Queen for a chance to kill The Hound, who gave up most of his life to brood over him.

Of course a lot of characters don't fit that mold. Stannis sacrificed his daughter for the chance to become King, and it was an utter failure. The Night King, I don't think it had a heart anymore with that piece of steel shoved into it, and it was still destroyed despite having no love. Maybe the opposite happened there, duty was the death of love for some characters.

I think Jon kind of fits both. He put his duty before Ygritte and she died as a result. He put his love of Daenerys before his duty to Winterfell and Westeros was threatened.

I'm not really sure what moral viewers were supposed to take with themselves if that's the case. Are they telling you to your duty first or your love first? If you love someone should you ultimately flip things on their head and put your duty first, and vice versa?

For whatever reason I picture that being the ultimate moral GRRM settled on for this series, since it seems to show up in a lot of the major plots. I'm just not sure what we should take from that, if anything.

Thoughts?

That's a very interesting thought.

Concerning Jon, I think he loved being honorable, loved being dutiful. This is all in regards to the show, btw, not the books (still reading those).

I think the things other people would have said "I'm done with duty/honor/service, I want to love a woman/man/power/wealth"--in other words, things they would have traded in for love of self--were merely obstacles and tests to Jon. I have no doubt he loved Ygritte, but she was at best a regretful distraction to him. I have no doubt that he loved Daenerys, too, but ultimately he valued his service to the realm more than her, and it resulted in a win. And because Jon did not love any singular, tangible thing, banishing him to the Wall at the end of the season was probably the best thing you could do for him.

In this, he was much like his adoptive father Eddard. However, Eddard seemed to be almost stubborn and unwilling to mold and adapt his sense of honor and duty for the greater good, which ultimately got him killed. Eddard thought that playing by old rules in an evolving game would work, and it did not. Jon, however, played the game while still keeping his integrity. I wouldn't call Jon "morally grey" because that generally comes with sinister undertones, but he was definitely adaptable. Old rules would have had him killing the Wildlings, but ultimately he saw them as a tool to be used ('for the realm") so he decided not to. There were multiple instances when he wanted to leave the Night's Watch, but when simply reminded "you took an oath" he was like "Hey youre right, I will stay". Even after being made Lord Commander, being killed by traitor-brothers of the Night's Watch, venturing back to Winterfell where he easily could have been king of the north (and was, in title), I still feel like he was thinking "I am part of the Night's Watch still" and loyal to them and his oath.

I am reading the books right now and I am at the part where Jon embedded himself with the Wildlings, and his internal dialogue is always questioning himself over duty, faking being loyal to the Wildlings, but then genuinely loving a Wildling woman and marveling at their independence (they almost seem like an alien species to him). He never forgets his place; he is enough of a human to feel bad about it, but he also has the strength and integrity to remember he has a job to do.

Ultimate moral? I can't say. I think "service to the greater good" is probably the moral here. Either that, or don't mess with the Stark kids. Let's look at the key survivors here:

  • Arya: she was generally looking out for herself, but also served the greater good by ridding Westeros of terrible people, and ultimately having a worthy goal (kill the Queen).
  • Jon: always loyal to the realm and willing to bend his oaths and honor to do it, though not to the breaking point.
  • Sansa: initially too dumb to really be aware of what was going on, she was still raised a Stark and therefore had a sense of duty. This started out as "marry noble, make noble babies" sort of blind loyalty but after constant abuse and being misled I think she grasped the bigger picture and found a cause in the North. At the end of the series, I think she thinks of herself as a steward of the north moreso than as its ruler. She wants the people to be free of the other six kingdoms
  • BBronn: now, Bronn might seem like an odd addition to a list of people that are loyal, but he had his own sense of code, honor. Bronn never did anything despicable, he was simply a loyal employee. He did good work for Tyrion, one could easily say that the reason Tyrion was a shining example of the only good Lannister is because Bronn kept him alive. While Bronn did change allegiences once or twice, it was never for subjective reasons; it was simply because people paid him more. Bronn was the common-sense of the series imo. You could argue he survived the series due to some sort of instinct, though I like to think the show creators let him live because he contributed to the realm.
  • Tyrion: said above, the only good Lannister. While he was a drunk and whore fiend, he was also incredibly intelligent, kind, and sensitive. And he always had the people on his mind, he had a soft spot for the underdogs, the poor, the dirty. His main concern since siding with Daenerys was that she not ruin King's Landing. Always a "for the realm" character he was.
  • Podrick, Ser Davos, Grey Worm, Samwell, Tormund Giantsbane, Brienne: again, all characters that never forgot their place, their oath, their loyalty. They stuck to their guns. Some of them might not have been likable, some might not have had grand importance but instead smaller things, but they all were consistent.

It almost feels like GRRM and the show creators did the series, they had this end goal and when a character did something that was not in their code, they were killed for it.

Avatar image for Ovirew
#212 Posted by Ovirew (9034 posts) -

@mrbojangles25: Thanks for the response! That is also a good point, that characters may have been sticking to their personal code of honor and when they died it was due to no longer adhering to it. I would really have to sit and think about this more, but as I've never read the books I wouldn't know if this runs any deeper than it does in the show.

It might be about surviving characters sticking to their service, or contributing to the greater good of the realm. I'm not entirely sure that all of those characters were concerned about the greater good though.

While I'm not sure that the Three-Eyed Raven is an entirely good character, I think its survival and ascension to King contributes to the realm of a post-GoT Westeros, or at least it keeps everything at relative peace.