What was the fucking point

The point was to end it. It's pretty clear they had no other special idea, no special reveal to make. They just had to find a way to end this somehow. It just ended up being rushed and messy.

Naked people and fake blood to talk about at work.

What was his smirk when they chose him King? Seriously?

to make a bunch of money on current IPs and ensure a future of profitable IPs based off this source material.

>greedyjewhands.jpg

This.
It's GRRM's hateboner for humanity. According to him there's never been a successful ruler in human history because you need to be an ego-less, sexless cripple with mind control powers, world wide telepathy and the ability to see the future in order to devise a tax policy.

>first few seasons
>all about real politic
>last few seasons
>all about comic book nonsense and set piece battles and death
And then the throne goes to not only someone with zero powerbase but someone that wasn't even playing the game.

>What was his smirk when they chose him King? Seriously?
The revelation that he is not a fucking uncaring autist you fucking imbeciles.

Why?

>The point was to end it.
The point was Bran, and the Old God's ascent to power. And I guess they decided not making it obvious was part of the point.

To subvert expectations.

>what would happen
is that he'd get fucking killed immediately nobody wants someone omniscient ruling them

>Why?
Because it doesn't matter anymore. He has an iron grip. But also, the authors needed the audience have some hints.

Still 99.9999% of people are not getting it.

>is that he'd get fucking killed immediately nobody wants someone omniscient ruling them
Nobody in the show knows, just like 99.9999% of the audience, who saw far more and had far more reason to believe in whatever propaganda he put out.

I guess it really was... a game of thrones.

Humanity is not fit to rule humanity

>Nobody in the show knows,
*Except Tyrion. I think he is the only one who may know.

Game of Thrones is a mediation of what qualities make a successful ruler and rise to the top in a game of medieval realpolitik. Is it the cynical pragmatism of Tywin Lannister, or the admirable heroism like one such as Jon Snow. Possibly the stoic values exhibited by Stannis Baratheon? Or perhaps it is causing chaos and turning it to one's advantage like the plots of Petyr Balish.

The scene that best encapsulates this one here, which I would argue is probably the best in the entire series.

youtube.com/watch?v=doY0IjisBlk

Now that the series has concluded, I think we have our answers on what qualities makes one best suited to be king and best able to climb to the top on the Game of Thrones:

Magic powers.

Yes, stupendous magic powers like commanding giant dragons, or omniscience are the best qualities that you, the viewer, should cultivate if you want to succeed in the 'Game of Thrones' that is the world around you.

Good job, GRRM

Attached: game-of-thrones-bran[1].jpg (960x720, 52K)

so why would they agree to have some random stark cripple ruling them?
because "he'll be impartial lol, trust me"?

>Humanity is not fit to rule humanity
There are no morals in the show or the book. There is no moral in the ending or any other moment.

The Starks did not win because they are good. Bran did not win because he is good. He literally allowed/made King's Landing get sacked.

>so why would they agree to have some random stark cripple ruling them?
>because "he'll be impartial lol, trust me"?
1. He's a Stark. Has lots of relatives. Lots of support.
2. Tyrion and Bran play Bran off as not ambitious.
3. Create a system of government where all the lords can see themselves putting one of their own on the throne in a generation.

*Give the lords power to select the next king, possibly the illusion of power, much like Democracy makes the masses believe they are in control.

it's very much the kind of ending you come up with long before you've actually had to deal with the problems of making it work in practice.

it's a "ha ha this is really clever" ending that isn't even effectual as a real study of why humans make mistakes or do bad things.

in practice any ruler no matter how smart is going to have to deal with the fact that there isn't enough of everything and people breed like rabbits.

>It's GRRM's hateboner for humanity. According to him there's never been a successful ruler in human history because you need to be an ego-less,
The only reason people have problems with his work is because you are all searching for a message about morality. If you just accept that it is an interesting story where cause and effect makes sense, it's a lot more edifying than any false message.

Other shows give you some worthless contrived fake cause and effect to make you think a particular rigid, simplistic moral works in real life. There is absolutely no edification from that for the individual.

Maybe everyone thinking that good makes you win makes society more successful, but after a while people start to take advantage of those memes and those memes just lead to a group of dishonest assholes taking advantage of and replacing the non-corrupt moral fags.

This is what we are seeing in society. The right wing had moral positions but are hardwired by decades of propaganda to believe that if they merely prove themselves morally right, they will win.

>1. He's a Stark. Has lots of relatives. Lots of support.
He has The North, which is destitute and in ruins. The Riverlands is only slight better off. The Vale is the only one of the three with any real power remaining, and we are given no logical explanation why they are unquestionably loyal to the Starks instead of just using their influence to make The Starks their puppet. The Westerlands, Reach, Iron Islands and Dorne have no reason to support him. In fact, they should all demand secession right there. Or just claim it and leave, because there's fuck all the broke Starks can do about it. Why does the North get to do it but nobody else?
>2. Tyrion and Bran play Bran off as not ambitious.
Right and everybody just believes them, instead of seeing it as an incredibly obvious Stark power-grab.
>3. Create a system of government where all the lords can see themselves putting one of their own on the throne in a generation.
You mean a system of government where there's a civil war every time a king dies, like how this worked in real life?
Regardless, this council is complete and utter bullshit. There are no clear limitations on who gets to vote and we see a handful of random unnamed vassals alongside the major Lords Paramount. And Brienne, for whatever reason.
>"Uhhh, sure Sansa, my sister, of course you can secede"
Right then and there every single regional Lord should've seen the obvious nepotism and demanded independence.

Family of rich blonde aryans is so bad that the world can only find peace once they are all eliminated with the help of a refugee army from the east.

Sooooo... when should I start watching?

The real problem is that all the characters who had a developed outlook and personal philosophy were killed off in previous seasons, leaving the series with generic fantasy tropes like "girl ninja stabs the lich king", "beautiful queen dragonrider defeats everyone" and "i fooked tha queen".

Attached: latest[1].png (472x752, 498K)

the realm dude

Rebelling takes organization and time. People do not spontaneously organize. And any attempts to organize a rebellion are risky, leading to potential backlash.

And even if in the moment any particular group is weak, over time they will become very strong.

The Starks and their allies are strong, and the government type is a lot less centralized, removing much of the incentive to rebel.

You want to think it is bad to justify hating a great episode.

D&D's only mistake was thinking that the logic they were told about the show and the rationalizations in their head are going to be easily discovered by the people watching.

It's lazy writing.

>You mean a system of government where there's a civil war every time a king dies
No. That's not how it worked. They have an explicit organized successor straegy and the Holy Roman Empire lasted using that strategy for 1000 years.

>Right then and there every single regional Lord should've seen the obvious nepotism and demanded independence.
Her becoming independent does not in any way mean she wouldn't help keep Bran on the throne.

>The real problem is that all the characters who had a developed outlook and personal philosophy were killed off in previous seasons, leaving the series with generic fantasy tropes like "girl ninja stabs the lich king", "beautiful queen dragonrider defeats everyone" and "i fooked tha queen".
Stannis died because he was a champion of the Lord of Light, and the Lord of Light failed. This was a struggle between gods, as well as men. Sorry Stannis. Not you're fault.

Three Eyed Raven ending the whitewalker threat and becoming a god king

to string brainlets along who didn't realize there was no point to any of it after season 2 or so

retard

if i wanted to understand any of that i'd listen to JB Peterson about hierarchies and the enlightened individual, not some postmodern nihilistic bullshit some fatman came up with

fpbp

>The only reason people have problems with his work is because you are all searching for a message about morality
>begins to talk about moral decay
lol shut the fuck up teenager, the problem is the role of ambition on display. GRRM spends 23 years on a critique of motivation and his ultimate answer is castration, both of the sex and the ego. Why do you think Vyrs was the only person portrayed as capable of thinking past his dick? Because he didn't have one. Bran is GRRM's idea of an Übermensch but instead of Nietzsche's ideal of a post-individualist collective super-id we get a sucking black hole of crippled emotions and apathy in the face of the mass psyche and inevitability of predestination.

Using Tyrion as a mouthpiece, D&D basically spell out the thesis of the series:
>there's nothing more powerful than a good story
It's a masturbatory fantasy towards writers and history as a whole.

1. I don't think that Bran is actually sterile. I think him pushing Meera away so crudely, given his powers, was to inspire her to stop loving him and go away with his baby.

2. Littlefinger was a better player than Varys. Bran only won because he is or is affiliated with the old gods, who by the end had taken over the whole continent of Westeros.

>>there's nothing more powerful than a good story
>It's a masturbatory fantasy towards writers and history as a whole.
It's referring to propaganda, which was Bran's most powerful ability.

And the audience's hardwired embracing of simple tropes made them unable to believe that Bran is anything other than a simple autistic robot, and Dany was a good girl hero incapable of becoming bad, despite being Targaryan.

>was to inspire her to stop loving him and go away with his baby
They had sex and she got pregnant? I thought Bran couldn't get his dick up/

It was a fucking ball game.

>hurr durr let's see who wins the race

Cringe.

>Rebelling takes organization and time. People do not spontaneously organize
I'm not talking about rebellion, I'm talking about the various leaders right then and there saying "we want independence too."
>The Starks and their allies are strong
As I outlined above, not really. Only the Vale is strong, and we are given no explanation for why the Starks seem to be in charge of them instead of vice versa.
>the government type is a lot less centralized, removing much of the incentive to rebel
How is there any less incentive to rebel? "Our desired candidate didn't get the vote, but the winner was only supported by a bunch of weak houses. Let's just go to war to install him into power, claim they rigged the vote or some shit lol."
And like I said, the structure council and its members make no sense.
>Her becoming independent does not in any way mean she wouldn't help keep Bran on the throne.
Not sure how this pertains to what I was saying.

>>was to inspire her to stop loving him and go away with his baby
>They had sex and she got pregnant? I thought Bran couldn't get his dick up/
Bran is not an honest robot. If Sansa knew, she would have been much more easily turned against him, seeing him as a threat.

Bran had little incentive to send away Meera, a very dedicated ally who loved him. The point at which he sent away Meera, during all that danger, would have been the most irrational time.

epic nihilism

Don't watch TV dramas

>despite being Targaryan
to be fair, like 1/3 of that dynasty was peaceful under jaehaerys. the whole 'targaryan madness' deal is really overblown.

>I'm not talking about rebellion, I'm talking about the various leaders right then and there saying "we want independence too."
They had already pledged.

>As I outlined above, not really. Only the Vale is strong, and we are given no explanation for why the Starks seem to be in charge of them instead of vice versa.
They are all strong, and they've all been through war but most of them were related to the starks. In Bronn's case he is literally part of the new government.

>How is there any less incentive to rebel?
Because they can prepare for a vote. They believe Bran will have no heirs. In any case, if they were going to rebel, no point in doing it publicly right away.

>Not sure how this pertains to what I was saying.
She is a powerful ally.

In addition, Lords don't necessarily lose by being outside a bigger organization. Any country that rebelled would be able to be attacked by any of the kingdoms still inside, while not being able to invade in retaliation.

>>despite being Targaryan
>to be fair, like 1/3 of that dynasty was peaceful under jaehaerys. the whole 'targaryan madness' deal is really overblown.
She was pushed to it. Intentionally. D&D even say that she could have not gone mad.

>They had already pledged.
Which made no sense. And is also meaningless.
>They are all strong
The North firstly lost the bulk of their manpower in the Riverlands. Then even more fighting the Ironborn. Then even more in the ensuing civil war to remove the Boltons/Karstarks (and Umbers?), who seemingly had the only army of any significance left in the North at that point. Which was destroyed. Then, they fought the army of the dead, which completely overran Winterfell where presumably the largest segment of any remaining Northern forces were stationed. So yeah, I'm not seeing how they have much power left.
The Riverlands were virtually razed by the Lannisters, the Freys were the only ones left with an army presumably as they were able to retain control of the region. God knows what happened to that army after the memegoblin killed all the leaders, but we are made to assume that the Riverlands were so weak that the Lannisters were able to easily keep it under control post-Frey while also dealing with much bigger threats elsewhere.
So I say again, the Vale are the only ones here with any power (and they still should've lost a fair bit of it fighting in The North), so it makes zero sense why they make no attempt to influence things and just follow around the Starks like a lapdog.
>Bronn's case he is literally part of the new government.
His "control" over the reach should also be meaningless without a strong monarchy to first enforce this. You're putting the cart before the horse here. I'm saying everyone going along with legitimising Bran as their King makes no sense, hence nobody should see Bronn as a legitimate Lord (of the fucking Reach) either.
>Because they can prepare for a vote.
And if the a powerful house loses the vote to an assorted coalition of weaklings?
>She is a powerful ally.
Well no, not really. But that wasn't my point, I'm saying her setting a precedence of secession should make the other lords want to follow suit.

>The only reason people have problems with his work is because you are all searching for a message about morality.

Not only it is pretty much objectivel impossible to write a story longer than a short story exploring a single specific idea without inserting a message about morality, Martin is not at all shy about the fact that he inserts mesages into his stories.

>If you just accept that it is an interesting story where cause and effect makes sense, it's a lot more edifying than any false message.

Except that we know for a fact that causes are deliberately constructed to reach the specific effect, not only because it is a fucking work of fiction, but because Martin himself also said that he constructs the story by making an elaborate diagram of plot events first. Cause and effect are reversed here, you brainlet. Characters and developments conform to outcomes Martin pretetermined. How he predetermined them? By thinking what he wants to tell the readers about the world.

>Which made no sense. And is also meaningless.
It's something that puts their honor at stake, and honor does mean something in the presence of others.

>The North firstly lost the bulk of their manpower in the Riverlands.
Stark allies everywhere. All strong.

>His "control" over the reach should also be meaningless without a strong monarchy to first enforce this.
What the fuck does this mean? He is in control. Maybe they will rebel. But you don't get a fucking instant rebellion.

>And if the a powerful house loses the vote to an assorted coalition of weaklings?
Then there may or may not be civl war.

>Well no, not really. But that wasn't my point, I'm saying her setting a precedence of secession should make the other lords want to follow suit.
They are not ambition robots. They were not prepared for this.

You are believing that this is all or nothing. If they would rebel it would be immediate. They always either will all rebel or none.

You're reaching for any reason to believe it is irrational. They are not gods. Even if it would be likely for them to win, it would be risky. And additionally organizing stuff takes time.

And there's another powerful reason not to rebel: if you stay in and stay loyal, you will be granted holdings from the people who rebelled.

People don't always leave or never leave or whatever. There's probabilities. They don't have perfect information. There's risk. They need time to think about it.

Maybe they should have said something about that not being fair.

But about "fairness" she argued that none of them had done anything to fight against the white walkers. And also with respect to "fairness" they had already pledged. Too late to make a "that's not fair" argument.

>objectivel impossible to write a story longer than a short story exploring a single specific idea without inserting a message about morality,
The problem is you trying to infer some message about morality from a certain cause and effect, even though in different circumstances that simple message wouldn't work.

>Except that we know for a fact that causes are deliberately constructed to reach the specific effect, not only because it is a fucking work of fiction, but because Martin himself also said that he constructs the story by making an elaborate diagram of plot events first. Cause and effect are reversed here, you brainlet. Characters and developments conform to outcomes Martin pretetermined. How he predetermined them? By thinking what he wants to tell the readers about the world.
There is a large leeway to make an interesting story within rational cause and effect. And he intentionally sets up situations where what seems like the clear simple good guy dies FOR NO REASON due to simple cause and effect.

The moral is that simple morals are irrelevant.

>Littlefinger better player than Varys.

Attached: 1556479887767.jpg (480x712, 33K)

>>Littlefinger better player than Varys.
Littlefinger only lost because he faced a god.

>Not only it is pretty much objectivel impossible to write a story longer than a short story exploring a single specific idea without inserting a message about morality
LMAO

in terms of the show yeah, they were both completely retarded but varys turned out to be more retarded

Arya is a god now I guess?

Varys was killed by dragon execution.

When you died is more important than how you died though...

>D&D are puppets of future AI and make humanity acceptant of an AI overlord
>GoT S5-8 was just an accelerationism project

were there any characters on this show that werent retarded?

Noooo what about muh twist? muh prophecies? and muh JonxDany?
Why Game of Thrones did you decide to be subversive??? This isn't the show I watched for the last 15 years!

>Arya is a god now I guess?
Are you serious man? You think that Arya defeated him?

Not the dude who pulled information out that Littlefinger couldn't possibly prepared for?

People wonder why Littlefinger was portrayed as acting like a little bitch in that moment.

It's because Littlefinger had prepared for everything -- except facing a literal god who knew shit Littlefinger rightly thought none of his opponents could have known.

>The problem is you trying to infer some message about morality from a certain cause and effect

The problem is that you cannot read and are babbling about causes and effects, even after having explained to you that in ASoIaF to even greater extent than usually in literature the sole cause of anything is writer's will and the message he wants to deliver.

>And he intentionally sets up situations where what seems like the clear simple good guy dies FOR NO REASON due to simple cause and effect.

Not even once Martin does that. Not. Even. Once. The Red Wedding only occurred because Robb was a slimeball, who not only decided to weasel out of his obligations, but also lied to Edmure to let him take the fall. Ned was stupid, for sure, but he would have lived if not for the fact that he decided to use his daughter as an expendable pawn in the attempt to bring down Lannisters. Jon gets shanked because he's willing to sacrifice others for his oaths, but not himself or his familu.

They subverted your expectations thinking there was any meaning

Good thing Star Wars is already dead.

Attached: Capture.jpg (371x950, 56K)

Isn't that the plot of Dune?

Spoil me the end user, please?

youtu.be/l3hTmUKR7LI

>did we see the same show?

Bran

>Not the dude who pulled information out that Littlefinger couldn't possibly prepared for?
Literally everybody in the courtroom saw Littlefinger betray and pull the knife on Ned, the place was pretty crowded. Even Catelyn knew that LF betrayed Ned when they met.

It's pretty retarded he didn't have some plan in mind when this information came to light desu.

>even after having explained to you that in ASoIaF to even greater extent than usually in literature the sole cause of anything is writer's will and the message he wants to deliver.
Then don't read literature because a contrived message is useless. GRRM doesn't send a simple stupid moral message. He portrays things realistically and you can learn from it BECAUSE it's not a faked cause/effect.

It's rigged the way he wants it to go, but he doesn't rig it to lead to simple morals always working. He surprises you and plays off the simple morals you demand to be enforced.

>The Red Wedding only occurred because Robb was a slimeball
What Robb did was one of the least immoral things anyone had done. It was dumb, not evil. It was a mistake far more than a moral failing.

>Ned was stupid, for sure,
Ned wasn't stupid, he was over his head, out of his element.

>Jon gets shanked because he's willing to sacrifice others for his oaths, but not himself or his familu.
He literally got killed because he brought in the wildlings to help.

You have a lot of stupid ideas you have gleamed from this.

You are reaching so hard to gleam morals from this show that it is almost comical.

Many made far more immoral decisions than these characters who you are justifying the death for.

In reality, in this show people die a lot. Being good doesn't save you just like it don't in real life.

Not retarded.
Just severely, violently autistic.

Attached: screen-shot-2019-04-14-at-10-24-39-pm-1555295128.png (1200x600, 794K)

>It's something that puts their honor at stake, and honor does mean something in the presence of others.
I don't remember the scene perfectly, but did Sansa not also say "Aye" before demanding independence? Either way, the fact that this was an option should mean at the absolute least the Iron Islands should demand independence.
Yara's terms with Dany was for an independent Iron Islands, now Dany is betrayed, she is pissed off, but she agrees NOT to be independent now??? Even though Bran is perfectly fine with secession?
Dorne too, mostly likely. Who's military has also been untouched. So they have the strongest bargaining position here. But our """"new Prince of Dorne"""" here does not have a single line of meaningful input.
Again, every single lord there should perceive this as nothing more than an egregious Stark power-grab. This act of granting independence from Bran is pure nepotism if he doesn't allow anyone else to. But nobody else even questions it?
>Stark allies everywhere. All strong.
I just explained very clearly why they aren't, and why The Starks being in charge of the coalition instead of The Vale makes no sense.
>What the fuck does this mean? He is in control.
Bronn is in control based only off a mandate from King Bran. And I'm saying few of the present Lords (and the vast majority of un-present) have a good reason to agree to King's Bran's legitimacy. What, did he already go to Highgarden, established his household, and had a chat to all of Highgarden's former vassals in which they all agree that it's a great idea to swear fealty to an illiterate sellsword? Either way, the way the Reach was dealt with in season 7 was awful.
>They are not ambition robots.
But they all robotically agree to have a random crippled kid from the North rule them all?
>You are believing that this is all or nothing.
You're the one who's just fine with it being "all". As in nobody on the council or presumably otherwise having any problems with these events.

It was bad writers that are D&D that destroyed this show. I still have faith in Martin's writings... I have to believe... I have to believe that reading these books as a kid, when my granny gave them to me during my MUH DRAGONS AND KNIGHTS phase.. does not end in such... vain... that it has triggered normies in such a way. I... I have to believe.... Deltoria quest, Tolkein.. Belgariad and The Malloreon... Among others I have read that are very decent fantasies... Martin has not destroyed this fucking series! THERE'S NO WAY!

Attached: life.png (615x537, 325K)

>>did we see the same show?
Oh, you are mentally disabled. Nevermind.

>They subverted your expectations thinking there was any meaning
Yes, they did. What is the point of contrived meanings that don't exist in real life?

This is a joke but I did kind of come out of it with the message the G.R.R.M. and or D&D did kind of think humans were way too fucked up to manage themselves or live on their own, so some kind of AI running things would work out better. In this case, an Orwellian AI. It has no emotions or ambitions of its own.
All of the other forms of society and government showed turned not just to shit but into the worst kind of nihilistic, grimdark, gorey and horrible hellscapes imaginable. People are the problem An omniscient AI with no humanity is the solution. I don't really think it's so much a message or moral to the story but if you can pull a thought out of it on "what things should look like," that's it. I don't know if the idea is totally off-base, either.

Now that's its over and I know that the second half of the show sucks and the twink becomes the king and the man let kills the roastie, is this shit actually worth watching?

>is this shit actually worth watching?
no get a hobby/gf/second job instead

>in practice any ruler no matter how smart is going to have to deal with the fact that there isn't enough of everything and people breed like rabbits.

Actually the problem of overpopulation generally fixes itself.

The real problem for any ruler that cannot ever be solved institutionally but only worked out temporarily based on arrangements with specific people, is delegating power without having it taken from you, or, if you don't delegate, ending up as an assasination bait because you have no supporters, only servants.

>but did Sansa not also say "Aye" before demanding independence?
no

Also, Iron Islands are the most wrecked by civil war of all the holdings.

>I just explained very clearly why they aren't, and why
You were wrong. You didn't justify it. They all are powerful, they all have large populations constantly churning out more men.

>Bronn is in control based only off a mandate from King Bran.
You don't know that.

>But they all robotically agree to have a random crippled kid from the North rule them all?
Being ruled by what is perceived as a weak ruler makes you more likely to rebel?

>You're the one who's just fine with it being "all". As in nobody on the council or presumably otherwise having any problems with these events.
Being the only one in that moment to say nay, besides a relative, makes it suspicious if you have future plans.

>In this case, an Orwellian AI. It has no emotions or ambitions of its own.
This is why the Starks and Old Gods rule all of Westeros and Bran shows emotion over and over in the last episode.

All those dramatic pauses makes you look...retarded

S1-4 is unironically kino, and surprisingly self-contained (as self-contained as the show of said scope, at the time, could be).

>Now that's its over and I know that the second half of the show sucks and the twink becomes the king and the man let kills the roastie, is this shit actually worth watching?
Maybe it's better if you are spoiled by me telling you that Bran was not good the whole time. The gods are fighting amongst themselves. The Old Gods won.

That's cool... MY MAN. You still acted it out, despite thinking how.... retarded it was.

Attached: 1542690600174.gif (500x281, 564K)

Never said...I...'m not...retarted

Then we shall be... retarded together... brother.
One day... there shall be a cure. We shall... be born again. I... believe!

Attached: 1326151161868.jpg (336x400, 22K)

Stupid meme, but sums up the finale unfortunately.

youtube.com/watch?v=GkzWSvuILXM

>Then don't read literature because a contrived message is useless.

There are by definition no other messages in literature, so take your own advice.

>GRRM doesn't send a simple stupid moral message.

He absolutely does, but because he thinks himself too smart to send a simple message, his message ends up stupid.

Summed it up decently.

>What Robb did was one of the least immoral things anyone had done. It was dumb, not evil. It was a mistake far more than a moral failing.

Have you read the book? Deliberarely lying to your relative and closest ally so that HE and not you would have to fuck an ugly girl is a most definitely moral failing.

>Ned wasn't stupid, he was over his head, out of his element.

If a ruler is over his head, you know, ruling, he is stupid, but again, that alone would have not been enough to kill him.

>He literally got killed because he brought in the wildlings to help.

Have you read the book? He literally got killed because he decided to abandon his duty and run off to save his sister, sure, wildings caused friction, but there is a difference between "friction" and "assasination".

>You have a lot of stupid ideas you have gleamed from this.

You have a lot of stupid ideas that you have pulled out of your ass and imposed on the books, disregarding their actual narrative.

>Many made far more immoral decisions than these characters who you are justifying the death for.

And they have either died ironic deaths as a direct consequence of these decisions or will do so.

Stop with all the ellipses. Fucking faggot you sound like a boomer on Facebook

>all about comic book nonsense and set piece battles and death
It would still be fine if it had a satisfying epic conclusion, this was all just fucking lame

Good. Least I don't sound like a fucking faggot.

Too late for that bud

I don't think so, pal.

Swords-and-tits soap opera didn't have a point? Color me shocked!

Like this- :O

>You didn't justify it.
I did justify it logically, based on what we're told and what we see. The North's armies by the end of the battle of the bastards are annihilated. And that's not the end of it. Do you not remember in season 7 where they are so desperate for manpower to fight the army of the dead that they start enlisting women and children? And then that rag-tag remaining force is once again decimated by the army of the dead. This is something that takes generations to recover from, not a couple of seasons.
And in the Riverlands, we are made to assume that they are so weak that Lannisters were able to easily suppress them despite the Freys all dying, while simultaneously dealing with bigger threats to the south.
Oh and an additional complaint - we have absolutely zero idea what is (or what has been) happening with the Westerlands.
>Being ruled by what is perceived as a weak ruler makes you more likely to rebel?
What kind of a question is that? A weak ruler is undoubtedly more likely to be rebelled against as opposed to a strong one.
Regardless, it wouldn't even necessarily be rebellion at that point as Bran has already set a precedence of allowing secession.
>Being the only one in that moment to say nay
So your argument is peer pressure? Only the immediate relatives of the Starks should agree to this, and even that's tenuous. Like I said, the Vale should be the ones spearheading that alliance as they're the ones with the most power remaining. Dorne, the Iron Islands, the Westerlands (whoever's was in charge there), the Reach (whoever was in charge there prior to everyone unanimously agreed that Bronn would be great) and the Stormlands (whoever was in charge there before the non-existent authority of the crown decided Gendry was in charge) have no reason to agree to these terms, which, once again, appear to be an absolutely egregious Stark power-grab from their perspectives.

>Deliberarely lying to your relative and closest ally so that HE and not you would have to fuck an ugly girl is a most definitely moral failing.
OMG yes. That it's so fitting that they all get massacred for that "moral failing".

The justifications you guys are using are so flimsy that literally everyone, by your logic, deserves to be massacred in some vicious way.

It is hilarious.

>He literally got killed because he decided to abandon his duty
And thousands get killed for literally doing their duty.

He got killed by a rival faction. Not because he was immoral, but because the faction existed and he didn't properly prepare for it.

The real message is that Jon is missing certain skillsets.

>And they have either died ironic deaths as a direct consequence of these decisions or will do so.
The moral "failings" are often much less powerful than other character's "moral failings" who survive much longer.

Take Jaime fucking Lannister, for example.

Of course you can cherry pick some paticular cause and effect and say it is due to morality, but none of the characters are simple good characters in the first place.

Except perhaps Sam, and he is rewarded for being so darn good by being cucked.

Jorah is rewarded for his absolute loyalty by dying for a soon-to-be-mad queen.

Theon is forced to die by Bran. Why? Because he went back to help.

oops, missed one
>You don't know that.
By what other possible authority could Bronn have established himself as Lord of the Reach? Please explain

>The North's armies by the end of the battle of the bastards are annihilated.
Somehow they regenerated after the battle with the dead. I don't know how the authors justified that but we are presented with a large northmen army somehow. And that's the context in which they make the decisions they do.

>What kind of a question is that? A weak ruler is undoubtedly more likely to be rebelled against as opposed to a strong one.
No because the ruler being weak often goes along with the ruled being left alone. If the ruler is not demanding much there's no reason to rebel. You're getting the implied protection of the greater realm, and even protection from it, in exchange for little.

>So your argument is peer pressure?
If one person displays disloyalty, other's see an opportunity in taking their lands.

Look. Bran is depicted as being a mastermind who set this up. D&D chose to rush the season and not explain everything. They totally should have, but didn't. All we have is a scene that is justifyable, but not justified, leaving the audience to try to justify it or not.

Not a good idea for their careers.

>By what other possible authority could Bronn have established himself as Lord of the Reach? Please explain
Powerful people who supported him. Once again don't assume "instant rebellion" as a result. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. But Bronn is good at intimidating people, so it's not unbelievable.

>we are presented with a large northmen army somehow
When? No shots ever show more than a couple of hundred and no larger number is ever referenced by my memory.
>No because the ruler being weak often goes along with the ruled being left alone.
You're conflating a ruler being a strong with a ruler demanding too much. Of course there is a tyrannical extreme, but that doesn't mean the opposite is ideal. A weak ruler is simply seen as an opportunity for exploitation.
>If one person displays disloyalty
You're acting like there's some great precedence for a Stark to control the 7 kingdoms. This is not something that people should fear appearing disloyal to, this is something they should find bizarre from the get-go.
> leaving the audience to try to justify it
Which is what you're trying to do, I know. All I've been doing is demonstrating why every single set-up here is built on shaky foundations.
Saying "the Starks must be powerful because everyone acts as if they were" is circular reasoning. Everything we've seen so far tells us that the Starks are destitute and virtually powerless.

so by your own logic Ilyn Payne was the one who defeated ned stark, and not just a killer doing his job

>When? No shots ever show more than a couple of hundred and no larger number is ever referenced by my memory.
Didn't Sansa say 10s of thousnads of northmen?

>You're conflating a ruler being a strong with a ruler demanding too much. Of course there is a tyrannical extreme, but that doesn't mean the opposite is ideal. A weak ruler is simply seen as an opportunity for exploitation.
A strong ruler will tend to reach for more, a weak ruler tend to reach for less. These lords can wait and see what is demanded of them.

>You're acting like there's some great precedence for a Stark to control the 7 kingdoms. This is not something that people should fear appearing disloyal to, this is something they should find bizarre from the get-go.
It is definitely a new order, but one that fundamentally better for them.

>All I've been doing is demonstrating why every single set-up here is built on shaky foundations.
Scenes justify actions. Leaving out any number of scenes will force people to come up with justifications. There's always a way to get from point a to point b.

And the point b we saw is believable.

>so by your own logic Ilyn Payne was the one who defeated ned stark, and not just a killer doing his job
Varys and Littlefinger had a very famous scene tallking about this.

People surmised that this was setting up Littlefinger's ascent to the Iron Throne, and then he dies, by... Arya Starks dagger skills. /s

>When? No shots ever show more than a couple of hundred and no larger number is ever referenced by my memory.
Also, I just realized this. Maybe they don't actually know how many Northmen there are.

And to a larger point. Maybe there is quite a lot of imperfect information at this point.

I don't blame people for not coming up with these justifications. It's D&D's responsibility to make their scenes make sense.

>by... Arya Starks dagger skills. /s
dem skills, he was on his knees
yas kweeeeen

I think the plot of Dune is that the future is what we make it, even though total control is impossible. Life is chaos.

why do omega males love this shhow so much?

1/2
>Powerful people who supported him
I'd love to hear this hypothetical scenario. So an army (of Northmen I guess) marched all the way down through the Reach, kicked out whoever (god knows who) was occupying Highgarden, and kindly explained to all the various vassals of the region that this illiterate mercenary (who presumably isn't even from The Reach, and was a leader in the army that just invaded them last season) is now in charge of them all. And what, this army is so powerful that not a single House of the most populous and powerful Kingdom lifts a finger to challenge this ridiculous demand?
And disregarding that, this was a coerced agreement Tyrion made in private when his authority came from Dany. But everyone's on the new coalition that replaced her is fine with this? A realistic ending for Bronn would be for him to be quietly executed because he's a completely untrustworthy turncloak that has fought against basically everyone in charge at the moment, to whom they "owe" an essentially impossible promise.
The fact that you actually defend this particular character ending which was clearly tacked on as pure fan-service because Bronn pulls in ratings, indicates to me that you aren't really willing to look at this set-up critically, and are just defending this sloppy mess for the sake of it.
>Didn't Sansa say 10s of thousnads of northmen?
Don't remember. If so, then this is another ass-pull and retarded DABID writing. Like I said, I'm explaining to you why none of this makes sense based on what we've seen previously. This is the same as justifying Arya killing the NK because it was """"set-up"""" 10 minutes earlier in the same episode.
>A strong ruler will tend to reach for more, a weak ruler tend to reach for less.
You're conflating again. A strong ruler simply enforces the rules he has set out consistently. A weak one doesn't, and will be therefore be seen as exploitable.

>100 year ongoing show that would eventually result in a conclusion that ruins rewatching it because you know how it all ends
It's always like that. There are no satisfying endings here

2/2
>It is definitely a new order, but one that fundamentally better for them.
This is something only the viewer would extrapolate. Again, the various Lords should see this as a blatant Stark power-grab.
>Scenes justify actions. Leaving out any number of scenes will force people to come up with justifications.
Yes, and DABID has left out about two seasons worth. They have turned it into a two-location show with everything other than Winterfell and King's Landing having zero influence or consequence. They have destroyed any sense of distance, time or scale and left us with a series of disjointed, jarring scenes which make no sense based on previously established scales of power and motivations.

>And what, this army is so powerful that not a single House of the most populous and powerful Kingdom lifts a finger to challenge this ridiculous demand?
Why would anyone give a trueborn shit about that? Waste of energy.

>was occupying Highgarden
We have no idea what the situation was. They handled that off-screen.

Obviously a lot of shit is being handled off screen.

>Again, the various Lords should see this as a blatant Stark power-grab.
Most of the lords are closely related to the Starks. So why would they object to the change?

Yes the viewer doesn't know shit about an elective monarchy and how vassals would vastly prefer it.
>Didn't Sansa say 10s of thousnads of northmen?
>Don't remember. If so,
Could have been a lie. A bluff. An exaggeration.

>which make no sense based on previously established scales of power and motivations.
It's not that they make no sense, it's that we didn't see it play out. Big mistake by D&D.

>mfw Dothraki just live in Kings Landing now after attacking it and raping some of the people

Attached: images(5).jpg (232x325, 7K)

David also wrote 25th Hour, Troy and Stay which are all pretty kino films.

The true anomaly is that D.B. Weiss had no prior experience in the industry before GoT and the only other thing he did during the course of the series was write one episode of It's Always Sunny with David.

Attached: interesting.webm (400x300, 441K)

Forget about my Bronn point, I fucked that up. Obviously he didn't have a holding by the time they had the council.

My bad. So Bronn wasn't a player at the time.

>Waste of energy.
Yeah, real waste of energy caring that an illiterate gutter-born mercenary is your new boss.
>They handled that off-screen.
IE, it wasn't handled.
>Most of the lords are closely related to the Starks.
3/9 of Westeros' major regions are tied to the Starks. And again, the region with most power left should be Dorne, followed by the various Reach lords who were inexplicably uninvolved with the Tarly/Tyrell dispute. Then the Vale.
You could count Gendry as a fourth, but I stand by this as being almost as ridiculous as Bronn's position. At this point in time even more so, as he is already sitting on the council, presumably representing the Stormlands, before a stable crown has even been formed to instate him as ruler there. Or what, did Dany already sort all that out and send him to Storm's End with a military escort during her one-day rule of King's Landing? Do you see what I mean when I say they've destroyed any sense of time, distance and scale?
>Could have been a lie. A bluff. An exaggeration.
Sure, besides my point anyway. The Starks should logically have precious little military power left regardless.
>it's that we didn't see it play out.
Well the fact that it would've taken a series of dumb contrivances for it to play out as it presumably did means it doesn't make sense.
Yeah, like I've said, the way they've dealt with the separate regions is laughable.
I stand by my "realistic" ending for Bronn where whoever's in charge executes him quietly.

>Yeah, real waste of energy caring that an illiterate gutter-born mercenary is your new boss.
It is.

>IE, it wasn't handled.
If it could conceivably be handled then you just have to assume it was.

>Do you see what I mean when I say they've destroyed any sense of time, distance and scale?
What do you think "leaving out scenes" leads to? Of course.

>The Starks should logically have precious little military power left regardless.
Impossible for anyone to know that.

>3/9 of Westeros' major regions are tied to the Starks.
That's huge. As if everyone else is going to just suddenly unify.

>Well the fact that it would've taken a series of dumb contrivances for it to play out as it presumably did means it doesn't make sense.
No, it's just that you're not very imaginative.

>I stand by my "realistic" ending for Bronn where whoever's in charge executes him quietly.
I agree that Tyrion should have had him killed. But it's possible that Tyrion would have preferred him to someone he doesn't know.

To get subverted

>It is.
No, really, I'm pretty sure all the highborn lords of The Reach would not be happy with this.
>If it could conceivably be handled then you just have to assume it was.
Like I said, if we don't see it happening, and if it would've taken some dumb plot contrivances to make it happen, then it doesn't make sense.
>As if everyone else is going to just suddenly unify.
Which is my point? Of course they're not going to unify, they'd fragment off.
>you're not very imaginative.
Oh I see, I just have to IMAGINE 15,000 well-armed Northern troops materialising from thin air after they could only pull together a glorified skeleton crew to hold off the army of the dead. I just have to IMAGINE all the Reach lords being fine with Bronn being their new boss. I just have to IMAGINE Yara completely changing her mind and deciding she doesn't want independence despite her hating the current regime even more than the one she demanded independence from. I just have to IMAGINE the Riverlands somehow having relevant military power yet being effortlessly suppressed by the Lannisters off-screen. I just have to IMAGINE how Edmure didn't starve in the Frey dungeons and regained control of Riverrun. I just have to IMAGINE why the Stormlands haven't been brought up since season fucking 2.
Right. Stop making excuses for this shitty writing.

>No, really, I'm pretty sure all the highborn lords of The Reach would not be happy with this.
They can be stupid, rebel, get crushed, and then replaced. Or maybe there will be an organized rebellion eventually. There won't be an organized rebellion instantly.

>Like I said, if we don't see it happening, and if it would've taken some dumb plot contrivances to make it happen, then it doesn't make sense.
You don't really know. You're sort of asking me to essentially write a book showing something occur or else it couldn't happen. You're not going to get that, not because it couldn't happen, but because no one is going to spend the effort.

Lots of crazy things happened in the show that made sense, only given the scenes we saw.

>Which is my point? Of course they're not going to unify, they'd fragment off.
They would have to unify to safely declare independence. But that's stupid anyway because they have little reason to declare independence.

You're assuming that everyone wants independence above all. In fuedal systems people are allowed a large degree of autonomy.

>Oh I see, I just have to IMAGINE 15,000 well-armed Northern troops
No you just have to imagine someone lying about it and other people not having imperfect information.

>I just have to IMAGINE how Edmure didn't starve in the Frey dungeons and regained control of Riverrun
Arya didn't kill everyone in that castle you retard.

>I just have to IMAGINE why the Stormlands haven't been brought up since season fucking 2.
Because they rushed the series you numpty. You cannot assume that everything that happens off screen is thus going to conspire to wreck what happens on screen.

>I just have to IMAGINE how Edmure didn't starve in the Frey dungeons and regained control of Riverrun.
Also what if Arya freed them?

This is the problem with what you are doing. You are saying that you're merely correctly identifying impossible things, while in reality you're assuming that if it needed to happen but didn't happen on screen, it didn't happen.

Get a life

Have sex

>They can be stupid, rebel, get crushed
This line of argument was from you assuming Bronn had control of the Reach prior to the council, so you can disregard this.
>no one is going to spend the effort.
That's the problem. No effort. Like I said, two location show.
>They would have to unify to safely declare independence
Not really, all it takes is one (most likely Dorne or Iron Islands) of them saying: Uhhh, okay, so the North gets to be independent, so why not us? What's Bran gonna do, refuse them? Why?
>No you just have to imagine someone lying about it and other people not having imperfect information.
There is no way the North could've concealed the fact that their manpower has been devastated by all their consecutive wars.
>Arya didn't kill everyone in that castle you retard.
Then what? The remaining stewards of the castle just let him go? Arya killed them all as well? The Riverlands were still under Lannister control at that point. In fact they presumably still were up until the end of episode five. So conceivably he could've been freed between episodes as the northern "army" marched through to King's Landing, reinstated at Riverrun, and taken with the council. Alright, I'll concede that, but it just adds to the tally of things that contribute to the extremity of the "two-location show" phenomenon.
>You cannot assume that everything that happens off screen is thus going to conspire to wreck what happens on screen.
We're given no explanation. That's the problem. And when you try to assume what happened, logic issues arise. When you have to make up a series of contrivances in your head to explain an important plot development that was given no explanation by the writers, I think I am justified in saying simply "it didn't make sense."
On top of that, it's just jarring to see plot points that were left open seasons ago come back for the final episode all neatly tied-up off-screen. It's terrible storytelling.

>the things I wanted to happen didn't happen
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH SHIT SHOW