THIS is how it should have been done!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0mncEl4nVU&t=14s
Respect to the actors and characters at last!
I like the idea of alternative takes... but... this seems too much like fan service...
They want cool battles with nightking and such... but none of the crushing dissapointment of the dragon chick fulfilling her taliban destiny... they want the audience avatar to have seeded her with babies... lol... her army are literally slave eunuchs and she it's totally in her character to use WMDs (dragons)...
the idea that jamie would kill his sister and the love of his life (two of the most tragic and relatable characters in the series)... for some pesentry and taliban... lol
this, imo, is worse than the actual weak final season... it is worse, because it is clearly someone who has watched and obsessed over the show, but misses the actual themes and only focuses on the plot minutia and the "cool" bits... a idealistic childlike Lord of the Rings view of Throne Games... i.e. someone who watched the 160 hours of this show yet doesn't even appreciate the nature of monarchy and conquest...
This alternate ending makes the same mistake the existing ending did.. it resolved too much... tidied up too much...
The dramatic, internally consistent and true to the nature of Throne Games is to not give the audience what it wants... The ending should have been open ended, ambigeous, with loose ends for minor archs left hanging and several favourite characters crushed... This is the way you end it... The ending should leave the audience gobsmacked and then leave them to discuss with on another to process the meaning of the show... In real life throne games, you do not get closure...
It's an incredible show, it deserves a fitting ending...
imo...
George RR Martin is this you?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
i'd heard a lot of complaints about the ending, but i felt the resolution made a lot of sense in a realpolitik sort of way.
shareSame here. Dany’s utopianism going the way it always does - devolving into tyranny - was exactly right, and her fate was foreshadowed in her vision scene in S2, plus she lived up to her genetic destiny as a mad monarch.
Then, having the lords realise that democracy is the least worst option, and selecting the character least likely to be doomed to repeat history - because he knows all of it - to be the new king was inspired, unexpected and... wise.
very well said.
shareSpeaking as one of the loudest complainers... I don't have a huge problem with the overall arc of season 8. Having Dany go batshit, and having the Lords of Westeros deciding to install a puppet king and keep real power for themselves, is as reasonable an ending as any. Not the one I'd pick myself, but I could live with it.
IF they'd taken 2-3 more seasons and done a proper job of it, instead of having Dany go crazy in about two episodes! Seriously, the woman was under unbelievable stress from seasons 2-7, and through it all she stayed sane, and was ethical when she didn't think she had to be ruthless. Everything in S8 was done too fast and too sloppy, clearly whoever was making the decisions had stopped giving a rat's ass about the show, and wanted to get it over with and get out, rather than turning it over to someone who'd care about doing a good job.
Agreed except I don’t think the lords chose a ‘puppet king’, Bran’s wisdom, lack of ego and basic decency do make him the best choice for ruler. It would be hard to puppeteer him since he would be able to ‘see’ any potential machinations taking place.
shareLook, I have NO idea what the Lords of Westeros thought they were getting with Bran, other than no sons who'd want the throne for themselves... and obviously, neither did the show's writers! I mean, he could turn out be anything from a guy who's so far removed from normal humanity that he'll spend his reign sitting there with his eyes fogged over, or an omnescient god-king who'll rule for a thousand years. We have no idea how much the Council of Lords knows about his capabilities, we have no idea if Bran intends to rule himself or leave everything to his Small Council, we have no idea why they chose the unappealing Bran over the charming Gendry if they wanted a guy with "a story" they could sell to the public. All we know for sure is that he can't reproduce, the general public will dislike him even more than TV audiences, and that the council probably thought that naming him king would keep the North as part of the kingdom.
This is one of the biggest reason I hate S8 so very, very much, they made a complete mess of the whole
who's-king-at-the-end thing.
The point is that Bran will make the best choices as a ruler because he is wise - he knows what works and what doesn’t, and his lack of ego means he can be trusted not to fall into corruption or tyranny as Dany did. Choosing Bran as ruler is the smartest choice of the characters and the writers.
shareFirst, I'm not sure that Bran is wise, and second, it's utterly unbelievable that the Lords of Westeros would put a high value on having a wise ruler. Those people want a ruler who'll do what they want, not one with the wisdom to see through their bullshit!
And I really don't know that Bran is wise or caring, as we understand the terms, I don't know how much he cares about everyday events and regular people, he's so far off in his own world. And he would definitely make decisions based on information that only he knows, and again, I have no idea how much the Lords know about his powers as they never bothered to put that in the slapdash script for the last episode, so a lot of what he does is going to seem inexplicable and crazy to the normal humans around him. And if you know anything about human politics, you know how disastrously that'd work in any kind of real world.
No, Jon, Tyrion, or Jamie should have ended up as king, with Tyrion or Jamie as Handoftheking, and Bran as special advisor to the Small Council.
Bran is wise, the wisest, because he knows all of history and therefore will not be ‘doomed to repeat it’, and his lack of ego means he won’t get drunk with power.
The Lords had seen what the ‘game of thrones’ had cost them - endless vying for domination, bloodshed and tyranny and, just like Western Civilisation did, they decided to give democracy (of a sort) a try. They too had wisened up a bit.
First, rule by aristocracy or nobility isn't democracy, it's oligarchy. Which has been the first step to democracy for some societies, and I could accept that as part of a decent ending if they'd make a proper job of it.
Second, the Lords were indeed sick of seeing wannabe tyrants fight over the throne, so they dealt with the problem by taking most of the power away from the monarchy and keeping it for themselves. Not exactly the sort of people who'd value wisdom in a king, you know? What they'd want in practical terms is a king who'd look good and do what they say, which would make the charming and uneducated Gendry their ideal king. But he'd be fertile.
Third: Bran may be wise, and he may be free of ego, but his wisdom isn't the sort that is of a lot of use to a king. A king has to spend all day adjudicating disputes, balancing power, and placating egoes... and Bran wouldn't deal with all that like a normal human. He'd deal with all that like someone who knows that Lord Whatsit was doomed to die in a year so he needn't be taken into account, or that a merchant fleet would be destroyed by a storm in five years and bankrupt the Iron Bank, all of which would pay off in 1-5 years but would seem inexplicable or offensive in the present. Which is exactly what a king who has lost most of his power to the nobility can't be.
It was absolutely CRIMINAL of the writers to include nothing about what the Council expected from Bran, whether they'd trust him to rule with his far sight or thought he'd be their puppet, but we weren't even told whether they know about his powers! But on the balance I think they'd rather have a puppet king than a far-sighted one they can trust, like I said, their response to the War of Five Kings and Two Queens was to end by taking all the power for themselves. Trusting Bran would mean returning power to the monarchy, and that's not what they're after.
Hence why I said ‘democracy (of a sort)’, yes it’s not the full blown representative democracy that Sam suggested but it’s the next best thing, and a far cry from the anti-democratic rule that had hitherto not been successful.
The lords agreed to set aside their squabbling for power and elect the most suitable person to be king - Bran, who is the best chance for peaceful coexistence. Gendry would be far more likely to fall into corruption.
Bran is the ultimate decision maker. All of the previous rulers, including power-thirsty psychopaths like Tywin and Cersei had to deal with the minutia of bureaucracy and they managed, perhaps they had advisors, perhaps they delegated where effective - it’s perfectly possible that Bran could do the same. And again, with his omnipotent eyes Bran would be able to make the wisest choices in all areas.
If he’s not charismatic enough then he can have a spokesperson handle the PR, Tyrion perhaps.
Clearly they were after returning power to the monarchy because that’s what they chose, and it was the sensible choice after seeing the catastrophe of the endless ‘game of thrones’, just as Western Civilisation came to the same conclusion.
It was the smartest choice of the characters, and the writers.
In a perfect world Bran might make the ideal king, as you describe, but this is Westeros we're talking about! In Westeros politics is violent, Machiavellian, ruthless, and gives full flower to the worst of human nature.
The Lords of Westeros dealt with the problem of warring monarchs by taking most of the power away from the monarchy and giving it to themselves, which means they're going to be the last people in the world to let a king make decisions based on visions only he can see. Especially if he won't tell them exactly what he sees because it's not good for them to know, they're not what you call trusting people.
Gotta go, or I'd go on about what a hash they made of a potentially interesting ending. I suppose the King Bran thing could have worked if they'd put a little more effort into it, maybe let us know whether that council of Lords had any clue that Bran had unusual powers. For all we know, they made him king because he was the one high-ranking nobleman around who was known to be infertile.
Westeros politics had been tyrannical and violent etc, which is why they’ve decided to try democracy and choose a wise leader who will put an end to all that, it’s a paradigm shift to a better form of government, the same made by Western Civilisation.
If they’re not united under a wise king then the lords will just vie for power leading to the same catastrophe they’ve just witnessed. They realise it’s time to submit to a wise ruler who will ensure peace and prosperity.
It seemed obvious to me that Bran’s capabilities were legendary, certainly Tyrion who suggested him as king knew of them. I’ve no doubt the lords elected him primarily on that basis.
Goodness, that's an optimistic take on the ending!
In real-life England, which Westeros is vaguely based on, the violence and tyranny continued for centuries *after* the signing of the Magna Carta and the beginnings of democracy. That's just how people interacted, it took centuries for them to learn any other way, and the Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses came *after* the Magna Carta and not before.
But that was England, where people believed in the Divine Right of Kings, in Westeros the Seven Kingdoms were only united because people believed that a Targaryan on a dragon could melt their castle and fry their army. Frankly, with the show ending with a weakened monarchy and the seccession of the North, it's likely that the future of Westeros involves less central rule and more independence for the Sev.. Six Kingdoms, and the eventual loss of central rule. Hopefully there will be less warfare and more cooperation between the lords of the various kingdoms, because they're all now invested in making sure there are no more tyrant kings, and nothing unites humans like a common enemy.
So really... letting a wise and far-seeing king do the ruling doesn't fit anywhere into what we've seen of the council's plans! And since the show's writers didn't give us a clue what the Council expected from Bran, or even let us know if they had a clue about his powers... well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. We just don't have enough information to get a clear picture of the future of Westeros, because the last episode didn't give us enough.
Representative democracy and electing the wisest possible ruler is the natural end-point of a civilisation that has grown tired of bloodshed and tyranny, so the ending made perfect sense to me on every level - which was a pleasant surprise since I’d heard the ending was a disaster.
There were pacing and logic issues in the final seasons but they got the important stuff right.
Again, the ending did NOT show representative democracy, it showed something that looked a lot more like oligarchy than democracy! The only mention of democracy in the whole show was when Danerys abandoned Mereen and said that the people should choose their own leaders, and since she went batshit tyrant shortly afterwards nobody's going to regard her eccentric democratic experiment seriously.
Honestly, you not only don't seem to understand the show, you don't know much about human history either. Nations don't automatically progress towards democracy, if they did, most of the world's countries would be democracies but they aren't - not even among powerful and developed nations. No, democracy is a rare and valuable thing and we all need to protect it from those that find it inconvenient, and I see no indication that Westeros is guaranteed to head in that direction.
The classic Westeros solution to excess fire and blood is to decide that "If *I* become king, I can stop all the war and bloodshed and make everything okay! Call up the troops, we're marching on King's Landing!".
The ‘classic Westeros solution’ has been transcended by a more enlightened system, which is democracy (of a sort - I qualified this earlier - yes it’s lords voting instead of people at this stage but it’s headed in the direction of democracy, it’s representative insofar as the lords represent the people and the king represents the lords)
The fact that many real nations still haven’t evolved into democracies doesn’t change the fact that it’s the best system.
For the lords to devolve back to infighting, tyranny and bloodshed would defeat the point of the show - which was the ultimate failure of the ‘game of thrones’ in which the throne was finally melted and replaced by a peaceful and enlightened political system - democracy.
We do agree that democracy is far and away the best form of government, but as far as the showrunner's intentions... look, if you think they had any point to make you haven't been paying attention! By the end the only point they wanted to make was "Let's finish this mess and haul ass for some Disney Star Wars money... now what ending would really surprise those idiot fans?".
Look, I'm ready to drop this subject. We're speculating wildly because those dickhead showrunners gave us nothing sensible about the future of Westeros, and neither of us is going to convince the other of anything. There's really no point to more wild speculation.
I can agree that they rushed the final two seasons and 8 has many problems, but I’m very satisfied with the big decisions - having Daenerys turn full genocidal utopianist and for the surviving powers to wise up, try out democracy (of a sort) and elect Bran, the wisest of all, king... all felt surprising yet inevitable, which I found intellectually and emotionally satisfying.
If that wasn’t to your taste, fine, we can agree to disagree and close this discussion.
[deleted]