He did go on the hunt with him. But I guess if a King says ‘wait here while I finish off this boar’ and then gets himself gutted, there’s not much Ser Barristan could do.
Here is the ultimate sum-up of my feelings about all of this:
But the statement was that Robin Arryn was the longest-serving head of his house. Jon had not been serving as the head of House Targaryen.
[quote=“TruCelt, post:642, topic:834204”]
Here is the ultimate sum-up of my feelings about all of this:
[/QUOTE]Yep, pretty much.
Have you seen the John Hughes ending to Game of Thrones?
I’m way late to the party, as I didn’t sign on for HBO until the season was over so I could binge it in a week. I know that there’s been a lot of squawking on the intertoobs, and I’m assuming there was a lot in this thread as well, but I for one really enjoyed S8 and had zero problems with the ending. Except for the fact that the dragon destroyed the entire city, but somehow the interior of the palace was magically resurrected at the very end. Episode 3 was a heart-pounder. I had to turn it off half way through and take a break.
This whole series has been epic. I went from someone who had no intention of ever watching even a singe episode, to being completely caught up in this world. I think I may have even convinced my wife to watch it, whenever I’m ready for a second airing. I really think that this is likely the best TV series to ever be produced up to this point, and that’s saying something. Kudos to HBO for staying with it, even though the production costs must have been enormous.
If your aim was to binge it in a week, why not sign up the last week of the season?
Your favorite lines from the TV show?: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=876821
Why do you care?
Since 2011, I watched virtually every episode of the series as they aired for all eight seasons…until the last episode. I was actually on a cruise when it aired, and when we got back I was catching up with work, moving my son out of his college dorm, helping him buy a car, etc. Then I was probably just stalling, because once I actually watched it, it would all be over, forever. (I still haven’t watched the last couple of episodes of Firefly for the same reason.) I managed to keep myself unspoiled first by being on a ship in the Caribbean with no internet, then simply avoiding all GOT discussion.
So with that as preface, I just watched the final episode exactly one month after it aired. Without reading a single post in this thread yet, my initial reaction is that it was more than a little anticlimactic, like most of the season. It wasn’t horrible, but also wasn’t great – overall just kind of “meh.” That also goes for the climax of the episode, Daenerys’s death. It was just “meh.” (And maybe Daenerys should have had a Queensguard, or been a little more suspicious of Jon…especially after his rejection of her in the previous episode.)
Why was Jon imprisoned by the Unsullied when they discovered that he had assassinated Daenerys instead of immediately executing him on the spot? After all, they were seen killing POWs earlier the same episode – would they really have left him alive for a second after finding him next to a pool of her blood?
When Sam proposed a democratic government, I was afraid for a second that it was actually going to be entertained seriously, which would have been completely unrealistic for Westeros as it has been presented in the series. The reaction of the lords to this proposal was dead on. However, the elected monarchy that they adopted wasn’t much better. I find it hard to believe that they would turn the throne over to a cripple with no army and no claim to the throne. It seems more likely that following Daenerys’s death it would turn into a series of wars and squabbles as the survivors fought for control of one or more of the kingdoms. Indeed, it seems unlikely that Sansa’s declaration that the North would be an independent kingdom wasn’t immediately followed by similar declarations by the Ironborn, Highgarden, Dorne, etc.
If one of the goals of the series was to show a gritty, more realistic portrayal of the standard medieval fantasy trope, then it basically failed at the end with this “happily ever after” ending for most of the characters.
Now I’ll go read everyone’s comments from the last month – I’m sure everything I just wrote has already been discussed to death. 
It mostly has. But not the “cripple with no army” bit, AFAICR. I would argue that Bran kind of implicitly has the army of the North behind him. But he was still a silly choice.
Because it struck me as odd, and aroused my curiosity. I assume you didn’t post something hoping no one would care about what you had to say? 
I agree that choosing Bran was not a good strategy for ensuring a stable monarchy for the future. However, in terms of real-world politics, it would have made sense for the lords to agree to this if their object was to secede in the future. But having more common sense than a Stark, they would not declare this publicly while still in King’s Landing. Having a weak ruler and central government would have been just fine with them.
Westeros’s population and economy had been decimated by years of war, and no one would have been in a position to initiate a conflict just then. But they could have gone back to their own realms and done whatever they pleased while ignoring the throne. If they wanted to declare independence, the best strategy would be to return to their own realms, build up their armies, and do it once they felt they were strong enough.
(Incidentally, giving Highgarden to Bronn, an adventurer with no connection whatsoever to the place, while having Bronn sit on the Small Council in King’s Landing seems like a recipe for The Reach to secede. If he were based at Highgarden, maybe Bronn could have enforced his rule if he had some loyal troops. But he couldn’t have done so from King’s Landing.)
I learned from IMDb yesterday that “The Iron Throne” set a record for HBO viewership that had stood since “For All Debts Public and Private,” the season 4 premiere of The Sopranos, aired in 2002.
Interesting, Knead. I’m a little surprised the high water mark was season 4.
Colibri, good points, especially about Highgarden.
Interesting discussion on the KCRW show/podcast “The Business”, about how other networks assumed GoT was a lock for the Best Drama Emmy, so they kept their own prestige dramas out of its way and released them just after the recent deadline to be included for this year. Now some are wondering if this is a miscalculation in light of the negative reaction to this season, while others still think it will pull a kind of “Green Book” style win. We shall see! (Although even if it does still win, that won’t prove that stronger shows couldn’t have defeated it had they not been held back.)
Very good points. So much for Tyrion’s plan for a stable future for the Six Kingdoms. Tyrion’s “punishment” to spend his life as Bran’s Hand cleaning up his past mistakes seems destined to end in disaster for the realm.
Also a good point. Why would the populace and lesser lords in The Reach have any loyalty to Bronn?
The only reason that Westeros had been united in the first place was because the Targaryens had dragons as weapons of mass destruction. It’s actually surprising that they could have kept their Empire united for more than a century after their dragons had died out.
But Bran may have an ace up his sleeve (as he always seems to). At the Small Council meeting he said he was trying to find Drogon. Once he does, he can just warg into him and he’ll have the firepower he needs to keep the Kingdom united.
It also occurs to me that his enemies can never keep any plots against him secret, no matter what precautions they take. That might be as much of an advantage as having dragons.
No one could take him by surprise. Probably.
Bran may have been a poor choice for a ruler, but not because he’s weak - rather, he’s a bad choice because he’s potentially far too strong. Bran can see the past and the present, and sometimes the future. He will know if anyone is plotting against him. He will be able to see enemy movements long before the enemy can see his. He can basically know anything about anyone. That makes him incredibly dangerous.
Consider that the whole thing could easily have been a setup for the Three Eyed Raven take power. He should have known about Euron’s surprise fleet that killed Rhaegol. He had a vision of Daeneris’s dragons wiping out King’s Landing. He could have told people and stopped her, and saved thousands of lives. But he didn’t. He just let it all happen, and then implied that he traveled to King’s Landing because he already knew he would be appointed King.
So now everyone has to hope that Bran is fundamentally good and incorruptible and has good judgement, because if he doesn’t he’ll be a hell of a tyrant. But he’s not Bran - he’s the Three-Eyed-Raven, and no one really understands what his goals are. So by all means, let’s give him all the power! And we already have evidence that he’ll allow many people to die to further his ends.
The real lesson was not learned - that you should put your faith in laws, and not men. If you give your leader ultimate power because you think he’s ‘good’, either you will get a nasty surprise, or you have to hope that the ‘good’ leader doesn’t die and leave the Kingdom and all the power to a bad one.
I have to say I’m warming up to Tyrion’s idea of giving Highgarden to Bronn. Whatever else he is, Bronn comes from the smallfolk, and knows what it is to go hungry. Highgarden controls the vast majority of food production in the Six Kingdoms. He is far more likely than any other candidate to keep the smallfolk in mind and see that they get their share of food when times are hard.
The only other one who might is Sam, and he wouldn’t be hard enough to protect the shipments and see that they are distributed as intended.