Game of Thrones: 8.06 The Iron Throne

Now just one moment there Mr Turner - if the author forgets it's about the Starks vs Lannisters, is that really what it's about? Or are you just another disgruntled fan complaining you didn't get things just as you wanted them? ;)

Lol! To me, the first book Game of Thrones clearly established the main plot was about the Starks vs Lannisters and resolving that to address the issue of who would sit on the Iron Throne. That's why I got frustrated with each sequel creating an ever widening cast of characters that moved away from that central plot.

It was a relief for the TV series to draw it all back in, and was a big reason why I wanted to watch the final seasons. I've no complaints on how the series ended - I'm just glad to get some idea of how it all resolved. :)
 
Stark siblings vs who though? Stark siblings vs the Army of the Dead, which does after all consume almost all of Jon's arc and large swathes of Bran's? Stark siblings vs the Targs, which is the biggest part of their endings? Stark siblings vs themselves? I'd argue that's a huge part of it. Stark siblings vs the whole world? Maybe yeah.

Stark siblings vs the Lannisters is still a reasonable interpretation, but just because its about the Starks (well, Starks and Dany) doesn't mean its about them vs the Lannisters, or any other one particular threat. Particularly not when Martin made it so open ended.

I'm with you Peat.

Saying it was Stark v Lanister or just about the Starks is amazingly reductive and far too simplistic. It's the Game of Thrones not the Ballard of the Stark family.

(EDIT: Although I should state, I always think about this in terms of the books not the TV series.)
 
Adding (and running off at a wild tangent ;) ) to what Peat said above: for me the series failed its promise when they concluded the whole winter is coming bait in S8E3. I lost interest at that point and watched the remainder out of a sense of completion rather than investment. The prologue in S1E1 set that up*, not the politicking for the throne, not DRAGINZ, not the chance to change from a monarchy to a republic/democracy, but a simple promise of threat from the mysterious north.

In basic terms, they didn't deliver on that; not in scope, nor gravity. And the execution of the episode was shoddy and dingy, and full of ludicrous logic (the Dothraki dashing out into the dark was a contrivance just so the viewer could see their sword flames extinguish).

I could see it was rushed and oddly structured, but I'd not read any of the books and so had no expectations seeded from them, however I still felt something was amiss; whether that was the pacing or structure, or something else entirely beyond the premature ending of the NK storyline, I can't say.

It's not something I'd get angry about, but I suspect disappointment is maybe more damning than anger. And a lot of the anger that has been thrown by fans - eg the rage over the bottled water and coffee cup - was no doubt fuelled by their disappointment in this season, conflating the meta gaffs like leaving modern day beverages in-frame, with story weaknesses.

I never thought of it as a Starks v Lannister thing on the TV show; I was disabused of that when Ned got the chop and then later when the other 'pretty' Stark brother got murdered - certainly it drifted from S v L when Tyrion became darling of the fans, and Jamie became likable.

Just some thoughts from an amateur viewer.

pH

*I stopped wating GOT in S1 and twice in S2 and both times I got back on the wagon because of that prologue
 
I'm with you Peat.

Saying it was Stark v Lanister or just about the Starks is amazingly reductive and far too simplistic. It's the Game of Thrones not the Ballard of the Stark family.

(EDIT: Although I should state, I always think about this in terms of the books not the TV series.)

One of my favourite perspectives I've seen on GoT came from one of the New Statesman politics wonks and he thought it all basically came down to "What happens when the central authority disappears and leaves a vacuum of power". The phrase "Everything looks like a nail to a hammer" springs to mind and I think it misses a bunch of stuff, but it's still basically accurate on a lot of stuff going on, particularly the good side of the sprawl.
 
Lol! To me, the first book Game of Thrones clearly established the main plot was about the Starks vs Lannisters and resolving that to address the issue of who would sit on the Iron Throne. That's why I got frustrated with each sequel creating an ever widening cast of characters that moved away from that central plot.

It was a relief for the TV series to draw it all back in, and was a big reason why I wanted to watch the final seasons. I've no complaints on how the series ended - I'm just glad to get some idea of how it all resolved. :)

Hmmm... welp George , like the TV series, did set the Others and the Targaryen plot lines running in the first novel …. the first season of the show did a little of the Others stuff and followed the Targ story , in fact Season 1 Episode 10 ended with Daenerys.

I have read that GRRM set out on Song of Ice Fire to write to please himself, if that meant more characters than needed or more stories than needed t he didn't care. One thing that was a hook , in the books, GRRM is such a good story teller that , at least I, was charmed by each chapter.... tho by novel 5 , Dance of Dragons , I would read a chapter and later think, 'what was that all about', George got into some serious tap dancing in novels 4 and 5.
Now I am completely curious as to how GRRM meshes the Stark vs Lannister story with the Other's invasion with the Targaryen invasion it could be why novel 6 is the ship that has not sailed.
 
I'd be interested to know, from those who've read both, whether Wheel of Time was in as much of a state when Branderson took over, or was the (slowly) approaching ending always more obvious?
 
I'd be interested to know, from those who've read both, whether Wheel of Time was in as much of a state when Branderson took over, or was the (slowly) approaching ending always more obvious?

It was both more complete and more obvious. They started by saying Sanderson had one book left to do and okay that turned into three, but they thought it would fit into one and even 3 out of 14 is proportionately less than 2 out of 7.

And while there was a lot of story left to write, it was relatively linear. The heavy use of prophecy meant the fans had guessed a lot of the highlights left to come, particularly the idea that it'd end with one gigantic battle, and the Wheel of Time was just in general a simpler story. Or at least, at this moment in time I think it's simpler. They're very similar in a lot of ways in terms of the basic notes - humble unprepared folk are thrust into the game of politics against a backlighting of the end of the world, and then the story follows everyone and gets unwieldy - but I think SoIaF has more emphasis on things falling apart and WoT has more emphasis on achieving unity, and that is a far less chaotic story. It also had a clearer emphasis of which of politics and supernatural threat had prime billing, and perhaps crucially, had a clearer cut division of good and evil; it had less character ambiguities to resolve.

However... while I believe it was both more complete and more obvious, I'm not sure how big a gap I'm talking. Completing the Wheel of Time was still a very big task, with a lot of stray plot arcs flopping around (I think they're about equal in terms of PoVs with arguable MC billing) and huge expectations. And I suspect that maybe the main difference between the two is that Sanderson realised he needed more space to do it properly and that B&W stuck to doing it in the minimum amount of space possible.
 
I'd be interested to know, from those who've read both, whether Wheel of Time was in as much of a state when Branderson took over

No, not really.

Peat summed it up rather well. Wheel of Time was obvious where it was heading, but it did take longer to get there than Robert Jordan originally planned -- as Brandon Sanderson soon discovered when he took over.

A better example would be Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen. He got to the point where his world and cast of characters had gotten so big that, instead of drawing out the story and wrapping up every plot line, he took a hatchet to the final book and chopped all the unresolved plots into a forced conclusion. I personally think that was a mistake, and I'm pretty sure GRRM is facing the same dilemma at this moment. The knots, as they are referred to.
 
Last edited:
A better example would be Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen. He got to the point where his world and cast of characters had gotten so big that, instead of drawing out the story and wrapping up every plot line, he took a hatchet to the final book and chopped all the unresolved plots into a forced conclusion.

I've not heard that before, though from what I read up to (the seventh book) it doesn't surprise me.
 
I don't recognise that description of the Malazan Book of the Fallen at all. It is a series that always alluded to a larger world with many things going on. It starts almost in the middle of a story and deliberately does not resolve all plots. The conclusion did not feel forced to me and much had been foreshadowed in earlier books.
 
I don't recognise that description of the Malazan Book of the Fallen at all. It is a series that always alluded to a larger world with many things going on. It starts almost in the middle of a story and deliberately does not resolve all plots. The conclusion did not feel forced to me and much had been foreshadowed in earlier books.
I agree, never really thought all plots would be resolved.
 
Am I the only one who wonders if Danerys is really dead?

I mean, it's not like we haven't seen a few characters resurrected in this story, including the man who killed her

Discuss (Please)
 
Nope, sorry the show writers wouldn't do that. They wanted an end. fullstop to the main story lines.
 
“No, listen,” she says, “I invested as a viewer and I have my favourite characters. And I’ve got a few of my own gripes. But I haven’t sat down drunkly with David [Benioff] and Dan [Weiss] yet.”

Benioff and Weiss are the two showrunners who adapted George RR Martin’s books and made one of the world’s most popular TV series.

What will she say when she has that drink?

“I will say I wanted a better death.”
Lena Headey: ‘I wanted a better death for Cersei’
 
Sons of Anarchy
The mere fact they did to Danny what they did to Jax Teller in the last season of Sons of Anarchy killed this series for me. Once again, HBO just had to slit the throat of a great series with a sewage pile of an ending. (I still say somebody needs to die for that trash Sopranos ending.:mad:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The mere fact they did to Danny what they did to Jax Teller in the last season of Sons of Anarchy
On the assumption that the ending of GoT was, more or less, the intended outcome of ASoIaF (as plotted in the early to mid '90s), they did to Jack Teller what they did to Dany....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads


Back
Top