The books are better. The show is more like a soap opera with expensive effects and cartoonish gore, although it was a fun social watch when the hype still existed.
The show is alright. It's just a melodrama about fantasy aristocrats killing each other. It's not very emotionally complex or whatever.
The last season of the Game of Thrones has prompted public outcry and culminated in a petition (signed by almost 1 million outraged viewers) to disqualify the entire season and re-shoot a new one. The ferocity of the debate is in itself a proof that the ideological stakes must be high.
The dissatisfaction turned on a couple of points: bad scenario (under the pressure to quickly end the series, the complexity of the narrative was simplified), bad psychology (Daenerys’ turn to “Mad Queen” was not justified by her character development), etc.
One of the few intelligent voices in the debate was that of the author Stephen King who noted that dissatisfaction was not generated by the bad ending but the fact of the ending itself. In our epoch of series which in principle could go on indefinitely, the idea of narrative closure becomes intolerable.
It is true that, in the series’ swift denouement, a strange logic takes over, a logic that does not violate credible psychology but rather the narrative presuppositions of a TV series. In the last season, it is simply the preparation for a battle, mourning and destruction after the battle, and of the battler itself in all its meaninglessness – much more realistic for me than the usual gothic melodramatic plots.
Season eight stages three consecutive struggles. The first one is between humanity and its inhuman “Others” (the Night Army from the North led by the Night King); between the two main groups of humans (the evil Lannisters and the coalition against them led by Daenerys and Starks); and the inner conflict between Daenerys and the Starks.
This is why the battles in season eight follow a logical path from an external opposition to the inner split: the defeat of the inhuman Night Army, the defeat of Lannisters and the destruction of King’s Landing; the last struggle between the Starks and Daenerys – ultimately between traditional “good” nobility (Starks) faithfully protecting their subjects from bad tyrants, and Daenerys as a new type of a strong leader, a kind of progressive bonapartist acting on behalf of the underprivileged.
The stakes in the final conflict are thus: should the revolt against tyranny be just a fight for the return of the old kinder version of the same hierarchical order, or should it develop into the search for a new order that is needed?
The finale combines the rejection of a radical change with an old anti-feminist motif at work in Wagner. For Wagner, there is nothing more disgusting than a woman who intervenes in political life, driven by the desire for power. In contrast to male ambition, a woman wants power in order to promote her own narrow family interests or, even worse, her personal caprice, incapable as she is of perceiving the universal dimension of state politics.
The same femininity which, within the close circle of family life, is the power of protective love, turns into obscene frenzy when displayed at the level of public and state affairs. Recall the lowest point in the dialogue of Game of Thrones when Daenerys tells Jon that if he cannot love her as a queen then fear should reign – the embarrassing, vulgar motif of a sexually unsatisfied woman who explodes into destructive fury.
But – let’s bite our sour apple now – what about Daenerys’ murderous outbursts? Can the ruthless killing of the thousands of ordinary people in King’s Landing really be justified as a necessary step to universal freedom? At this point, we should remember that the scenario was written by two men.
Daenerys as the Mad Queen is strictly a male fantasy, so the critics were right when they pointed out that her descent into madness was psychologically not justified. The view of Daenerys with mad-furious expression flying on a dragon and burning houses and people expresses patriarchal ideology with its fear of a strong political woman.
The final destiny of the leading women in Game of Thrones fits these coordinates. Even if the good Daenerys wins and destroys the bad Cersei, power corrupts her. Arya (who saved them all by single-handedly killing the Night King) also disappears, sailing to the West of the West (as if to colonise America).
The one who remains (as the queen of the autonomous kingdom of the North) is Sansa, a type of women beloved by today’s capitalism: she combines feminine softness and understanding with a good dose of intrigue, and thus fully fits the new power relations. This marginalisation of women is a key moment of the general liberal-conservative lesson of the finale: revolutions have to go wrong, they bring new tyranny, or, as Jon put it to Daenerys:
“The people who follow you know that you made something impossible happen. Maybe that helps them believe that you can make other impossible things happen: build a world that’s different from the shit one they’ve always known. But if you use dragons to melt castles and burn cities, you’re no different.”
Consequently, Jon kills out of love (saving the cursed woman from herself, as the old male-chauvinist formula says) the only social agent in the series who really fought for something new, for a new world that would put an end to old injustices.
So justice prevailed – but what kind of justice? The new king is Bran: crippled, all-knowing, who wants nothing – with the evocation of the insipid wisdom that the best rulers are those who do not want power. A dismissive laughter that ensues when one of the new elite proposes a more democratic selection of the king tells it all.
And one cannot help but note that those faithful to Daenerys to the end are more diverse – her military commander is black – while the new rulers are clearly white Nordic. The radical queen who wanted more freedom for everyone irrespective of their social standing and race is eliminated, things are brought back to normal.
Daenarys was a "progressive bonapartist" when she was fighting and abolishing the slaver cities, but in Westeros where slavery didn't exist and even some primitive form of bourgeois property was developing, she just became another warlord
In fact, Jorah Mormont's backstory is proof that slavery is outright outlawed in Westeros, and even feudalists will be punished for it
Both Ned and Robb are entitled douchebags that help cause the ruin of their families along with a massive war that causes untold suffering
Catelyn is also pretty cruel and indifferent to the consequences of her actions
The rest have complex character developments where they turn from shitheads into nuanced people
>>34302>One of the few intelligent voices in the debate was that of the author Stephen King who noted that dissatisfaction was not generated by the bad ending but the fact of the ending itself.
common Stephen King dogshit take
I go to nazi rallies every weekend btw if that matters.
>>34302>And one cannot help but note that those faithful to Daenerys to the end are more diverse – her military commander is black – while the new rulers are clearly white Nordic. The radical queen who wanted more freedom for everyone irrespective of their social standing and race is eliminated, things are brought back to normal.
Dany is depicted as progressive for this, also Grey Worm leaves to free slaves in the Summer Isles
The Lannisters are more obviously shitheads, while the Starks are more hypocritical
The problem isn't that Dany is progressive and diverse, it's that she's a liberal who doesn't care for realpolitik and actually wielding power. She moves on to the next place before things get challenging. Yeah, she goes and topples slave societies, but she doesn't replace them with anything, meaning that eventually (and probably not long) things will mostly go back how they were.
Catelyn's a good mom; cares about her kids and just wants to see everyone safe. Only thing you can really get mad about is hating on Jon but that's understandable given the time period.
Robb's a kid who just wants to avenge his father and see his sisters safely back home and got way in over his head.
Ned mistakenly believed Cersei to be smarter than she actually was and tried to spare her and her kids from being collateral damage.
It's abundantly clear that the Starks literally do nothing wrong and just get repeatedly betrayed and destroyed due to their enemies' plot armor and Martin wanting them to suffer. If you have any other reading then you're just seething.
She replaced them with anarchy; the highest and most progressive stage of society.
Anon, you just delayed Winds of Winter by another year.
Never + 1 is still Never. It's not going to come out. Just accept it and stop guzzling copium. Martin will die of a heart attack and then his half finished notes will be hastily compiled into two quick cash grab conclusion novels shat out by a team of third rate ghostwriters managed by one of his family members promising to "end it properly" just like how Dune stopped with canon entries after Herbert died and the series passed on to his son who made 10 billion retcons. Winds of Winter will be received alright because it's 75% complete anyways but since Martin never did anything for a Dream of Spring it'll be just as bad as GOT S8 and then we can finally rest easy knowing the book series ending was just as bad as the TV show ending.
What do you even expect? That they constantly live together in happiness and that's it? The central theme of the entire story is the leap from idyllic childhood order into the chaos of history. Their enemies don't have "plot armour", just a lack of naivety and the realization that power needs to be actively maintained.
Also the Starks are politically disadvantaged because even though they have a highly skilled military, their province is sparsely populated and probably doesn't have a lot of arable land, which means they can't be continuously mobilized for longer than a season, or they starve back home, which is why Robb begins to fail in his war.
Brian Herbert should really be raped to death.
The Lannisters have insane plot armor and luck throughout the war in order to make the Starks lose. George deliberately tilted the scales in their favor consistently. Too lazy to point out all the bullshit they get away with but one of the most egregious examples is Edmure winning a battle forcing Tywin to retreat and then Tywin's retreat turns into a reinforcement of King's Landing to withstand Stannis so even their defeats turn into victories. Another example would be Melisandre showing up just in time to murder Renly and transform Stannis into a simp thereby splitting Baratheon unity and removing one of the biggest obstacles to the Lannisters almost immediately. Bad luck once or twice is excusable but George wanted to masturbate furiously to Starks getting destroyed and so the series loses its appeal after rereads because you can see how hard the author is rushing everything to a foregone conclusion.
>>34436>The Lannisters have insane plot armor and luck throughout the war in order to make the Starks lose. George deliberately tilted the scales in their favor consistently.
It's not plot armor when they live in much more fertile lands with tons of gold mines. That's like saying that England had "plot armor" because even though they are a small island in Europe they managed to dominate most of the world at some point - the Lannisters are modelled after the English, by the way. >Edmure winning a battle forcing Tywin to retreat and then Tywin's retreat turns into a reinforcement of King's Landing
Stannis' forces were already weakened by the siege and since Tywin couldn't win against Robb in open battle he turned on King's Landing cause if that city falls he knows he is done for. And it was already established that Tywin has a great mind for strategy and long-term thinking, while Robb was brave but I believe in the books he is not even an adult. >splitting Baratheon unity and removing one of the biggest obstacles to the Lannisters almost immediately.
Agree on this a little bit, the shadowbaby was a bit of a plot device. But how exactly did that help the Lannisters? Now both armies were united under a much more experienced commander (Stannis). >Bad luck once or twice is excusable but George wanted to masturbate furiously to Starks getting destroyed and so the series loses its appeal after rereads because you can see how hard the author is rushing everything to a foregone conclusion.
He wanted to pull a twist that would shock the readers, but it is anything but rushed, and besides Tyrion the Lannisters aren't even POVs until book three.
It feels cheap now because now every writer and screenwriter wants to do a gritty twist like that so it became common.
Well he managed to put his family on the throne which suggests he's competent.
That's because he was lucky enough to capitalize on the aftermath of the Battle of the Trident and Aerys' desperation for troops
Joffreys and Tommens claims on the throne are based precisely on not being Lanisters.
Well, successful people often make their own luck.>>34459
Yes but they are controlled by the Lannister queen and their real parentage is popularly rumoured.
*queen mother I guess
I never read the books so IDK how good the writing is but I can tell that the GOT seasons that were heavily based on his work were a shitload better than the ones that weren't.
>>34460>Yes but they are controlled by the Lannister queen
Cersei very much fails in controlling her offspring. Tywin claims to defend his legacy, but dynasty sitting on the throne is Baretheon. Not to mention, Tywins actions ensured everybody despises Lannisters. And what is his plan for Castely Rock inheritance? Hopping that his son who consistently rejects idea of Tywins legacy suddenly has change of heart? All of his plans work by accident only. He openly rebelled against king and avoided getting smacked by collective might of all 6 other kingdoms only by Roberts death. He would had been steamrolled by Reach and Stormlands if it wasnt for Stannis and his shadow assassins. He kept getting outmaneuvered by a teenage boy, only managing to win by incidental internal strife among Northern lords.>>34461
The decline of quality is also fans fault. Fucking Hardhome is one of the highest rated episode of the show, just because it had a bad drawn out action scene. Oh, and the Battle of Bastards has the highest rating, on par with Red Wedding. Fucking slop-gobblers. They are the ones that made it clear to showrunners that they will eat anything as long as it has lots of people smacking swords with each other, and meaningless "funny" banter, so that is what the show became.
Tywin is famed for his political maneuvers, not being a military commander
The joke was that the other retard completely missed the entire point of Ned and Robbs stories and their relation to the broader themes, and was regurgitating the pre-chewed slob that was the television show.
Check yourself, before you wreck yourself.
Checked. And yeah you're correct it is a soap opera, it is nihilistic and it is poorly written drama. That being said the initial seasons were actually compelling, grim stories of a fictional late-medieval society and had an interesting set of characters and stakes, the problem is that this became wildly popular and the inflowing money let the show writers sit back, relax and not bother trying and going off in inane directions.
>>34464>Tywin is famed for his political maneuvers<Spends Roberts rebellion siting in his castle and then joins the side that already won, even though the insane king fucking hated him and suspected him to be traitor, which he confirmed by refusing his call to arms in the first place
Unchallenged mastermind.<have member of Martell family brutally murdered, ensuring generations-long blood feud, in order to get on the good side of a guy who had just forgiven his open enemies no-strings-attached.
Unparalleled genius.<Declare war on two of the great houses, one of which is headed by the Hand of the King, and also kings best friend.
those were just social experiments they were just pranks bro
Why was Joffrey instantly made king? Why didn't the Council put him under a regent, even if it had to be Cersei?
>>34479>Why didn't the Council put him under a regent, even if it had to be Cersei?
It was Cersei. She was a regent for Joffrey and Tommen, for a while.
I mean, one of them is already released and filiming the second season currently
The Dunk and Egg based spinoff was also being written but the strike has delayed it
everyone likes HoTD tho so anon was right the spin offs were cool
It's mediocre, the only reason it seems good is that the natural comparison point is the final season of GoT. I didn't like it, it had off-putting and occasionally incongruent characters, tasteless exploitation for the sake of spectacle and the most intriguing figure (the crab-loving pirate king) got killed off before we even got to know him. I have no idea what 'everyone' thinks though, AFAIK nobody I know has watched it. I don't think it has a lot of appeal honestly and I'm rather skeptical about the longevity of HBO's George Martin Cinematic Universe.
GoT had much more exploitation, remember all those brothel scenes for which they hired porn stars? HotD didn't exploit their sex scenes as much besides one scene in the first episode. If you are being put off by some icky characters you are not gonna like anything GRRM has written - I honestly even think the characters are written a tad better than in GoT because they are more grey. The Starks were so clearly the good guys, the Lannisters the bad ones, and Daenerys and Jon could do nothing wrong.>I'm rather skeptical about the longevity of HBO's George Martin Cinematic Universe.
Unless it's abysmal like the new Star Trek shows people will watch it regardless. If are worried about HBO slashing it, then be worried for every HBO show because they do tend to do that. I'm assuming The Last of Us getting cancelled after next season because the hype took a nosedive after the 3rd episode.
I did not care about HoTD until after it came out, the only reason why I even bothered to give it a try was that I wanted some fantasy series to wash away bad taste left by watching Rings of Power, and turns out, it was pretty OK. It retains some of the sins of latter GoT season, particularly consequenceless violence to make the show more gritty (seriously, the whole show is about feudal families and bloodlines, why are members of the great houses murdering each other in what amount to a one-scene gag?). I feel like its carried by performances more than story, natural consequence of being a prequel whose end is pre-determined I suppose.
I think it's biggest weakness is that we basically only get to see King's Landing. But it looks great, much more polished than GoT.
>>34529>why are members of the great houses murdering each other in what amount to a one-scene gag
Which one?>>34524>Random connection to hecking unwholesome season 8
Channers love being trite morons as always
This show was so ass
HBO cancels every other show it has after the 2nd season, but kept this demented Harry Potter ass shit going for 8 seasons
It's five thick books plus the unfinished ones.
All of those words, and yet it's the most boring story ripped off from a few historical events with dumb fantasy shit added
>>34548>books are…LE BORING
of course they are zoom zoom. why don't you turn on the fortnite and let actual non-NPCs discuss things(14c, try not to flame so much on /alt/)
Unique IPs: 16