The show seems to be off the rails a bit in terms of quality. It’s watchable, but it’s not really GOOD.
As people have said upthread Jon Snow is only the “hero” because the show wants him to be–they have chosen to write him as absolutely stupid and unworthy.
For me The Battle of the Bastards was excruciating because they actively chose to write Jon that way when there were very easy ways to accomplish the same things narratively without making him look so bad.
Ooo, ouch. That seems chillingly plausible.
O.K., enough bitching. Does every thread about a show have to devolve into how terrible that show has become? It doesn’t matter which show the thread is about either. Every single thread about a TV show becomes a thread about how great the show used to be and how terrible it is now. Stop that.
Let’s see more warrentless speculation! Thank you.
Most reviews I’ve read seem to think, and I agree, that season 6 was very good. Better than season 5 and 2 for sure.
Well, since I’m on a roll…
This happens in the last scene of the series. We think everything is resolved, then Jaqen appears and kills Arya. And the last scene we see is the hall of faces, and the camera slowly zooms in and Arya’s face is on the wall. But the way the camera angle and the lighting is interacting, you could swear she was smiling. Fade to Black.
While I disagree with the praise for season 6 (Arya’s and Jon’s arcs were abysmal, Dorne was a mess again), there were some highlights:
Cersei’s revenge (I like the show’s incarnation of that character much better anyway, she is more comprehensible, and Lena gives her a dignity that the caricature of a human being in the books is missing),
“Hold the door!”, though opening the door for an all-encompassing time travel plot made me uneasy,
the Hound’s arc,
the gender-shift in power: in best “Game of Thrones”-tradition, this reversal isn’t a beacon of hope for a better world after patriarchal bounds are overcome, no, it’s an alarm signal. Because the driving force that moved the female players into their current position of power is revenge*.
The Queen of Thornes and the Sand Snakes are after it, Cersei got it and likely still craves more, and Daenerys’ goal of restitution has always been endangered by her thirst for punishment.
Much, maybe the survival of the people of Westeros will depend on their ability to overcome the injuries dealt to them in the past.
Sansa is the one puzzle piece that has not yet been moved into its place of power - which is interesting from that pov, too. The chance was there, so, why did the writers decide to shun her?
We have seen Sansa make a curious decision before the Battle of the Bastards, and afterward, she took an almost lustful revenge on her tormentor, which might indeed mean that Ramsay could be right: the same viciousness that drove him, might have also gotten a hold on her.
But maybe the writers decided to delay her ascent because they want her to be on of the characters that will learn to overcome the past to create a future.
Which brings me to her sister, who might not be able to do that.
While I think that Arya will play a major part in Littlefinger’s demise, I’d like to see him employ her for a while to further Sansa’s (well, his) goals.
When Arya and Littlefinger meet, he will have an opening: they met at Harrenhall, and while it was not entirely clear whether he recognized her, telling Arya that he did and kept it to himself would make her trust him just enough to start a … working relationship, if he gives her a chance to deal with another item on her list.
After watching for years I think the thesis statement for the show (and books) is we are watching a turbulent time in history in Westeros that if we were reading about it in a history book two hundred years later would end up being a handful of sentences. All the horror and misery (and occasional noble moment) is like a crucible burning away the old order and on the other side will be a better, more stable governance.
In the books, it doesn’t happen to Sansa. So the show’s treatment of her is worse than the books’.
Varys certainly seemed to be talking about and working towards a constitutional monarchy of some kind.
Talking about it? Maybe … could you jog my memory when he did that?
But I’m doubtful about the working toward it. Book- and show-Varys have worked toward a restoration of Targaryen rule. They were not known for their inclination to accept limits set by non-Targaryens.
And even though Daenerys has shown a remarkable disposition to listen to advisers, they are just that - chosen by her, heard by her, at her will ignored and dismissed.
If Varys had that much interest in a constitutional monarchy, he chose an odd champion [and Viserys would have been worse].
Wouldn’t Varys’ interests have been better served if he had steered the government of the Seven, well, Six Kingdoms toward more influence for the Council, the major Houses and the most important centers of commerce?
Due to Robert’s disinterest in politics, power had already spread around. The impending monetary crisis, caused by Robert’s overspending, would have given the Houses a wedge to insert themselves into such government processes - they could have formed a Westerosi version of the Magnum Concilium with some legislative powers over taxation and spending, for example.
From there, it’s still some way to go before a House of Lords is established and a longer one before you constitute a House of Commons, but it would have been a much better start to reform the government toward a constitution than ignite a full-blown war to make Westeros too weak and too dispirited to withstand conquest by a foreign army of savages.
I have never understood, why Varys’ actions have been met with so much sympathy. Sure, it was Littlefinger who fired the starting pistol for the war, but if he hadn’t been around, Varys would have had to do something similar eventually - and, as we know, the conspirators had their own plans to that effect … Littlefinger just got there first, before they were ready.
And while Littlefinger’s motivation might look worse than Varys’ - as it was totally self-centered - was it really?
Take a look at the Targaryens! They had no qualms to use WMDs to conquer and subdue. They followed an ideology that put them above all other (lesser) beings, and their customs made sure that they continued to be an alien presence on the continent they ruled and within the society they shaped*.
Their demise was inevitable once they ran out of those WMDs, and social inertia was slowly overcome by the demands of their rule on their subjects.
And Varys should be clever enough to know that a rule by a much diminished Targaryen presence could only be temporary, before another civil war is going to envelop Westeros once again.
Hmmm…That’s significantly worse than what I had in mind. I was picturing a scene of Jaqen in the house of black and white, hearing a noise, asking “Who’s here?”. And a shot of Arya entering the temple and saying : “no one”.
I think there was good and bad. The scenes of Arya in Braavos were terrible IMO. On the other hand, episode 10 blown my mind. Pretty much every single scene of the episode did. Easily the best of the whole series for me.
But indeed the directors seemed to be stumbling around and wandering aimlessly at times during this season. I hope that now that they’re going to tie all the loose ends, get rid of unneeded arcs, and concentrate on the resolution(s?) the show might flows more smoothly and naturally during the last two seasons. And I of course expect stunning scenes and more mind-blowing events.
So, even though I think the series erred a bit recently, I’m very optimistic about what we’re going to see now.
Presumably because he’s depicted as a sympathetic character who has people’s best interests in mind. Quite similarly to Danaerys, who free slaves and such, but starts with being totally in love with a man who is objectively one of the worst characters of the show (much worse than the hated Frey or Joffrey) before burning alive the person who brought justice, commits various injustices, isn’t motivated by the desire to improve the world but by her arrogant belief that she was born to be queen (again no better than the Lannisters, Boltons, etc…) and intend to achieve this purpose by unleashing hordes of blood-thirsty Dothrakis and children-burning dragons on Westeros, which is once again worse than what anybody else has done so far. You could have the exact same events depicted and make her appear as the greatest villain of the show with only a slight change of point of view.
Varys can appear to be a good guy by supporting her only because the writers swept under the carpet all the very serious issues of this choice.
And it’s exactly what he does in the book when he murders Kevan Lannister (sorry pal, under your rule the kingdom is going to become too peaceful and united, and I need chaos, and blood, and fire, to further my plans).
In one of the books he talks about the young male Targaryen who has been trained since boyhood for wise kingship, not autocracy. He had a similar scene with Tyrion in the last season of the show IIRC.
Ah, you mean young Griff aka Aegon aka the Blackfyre-pretender?
In the epilogue to “A Dance with Dragons” Varys tells Kevan Lannister:
“Tommen has been taught that kingship is his right. Aegon knows kingship is his duty, that a king must put his people first, and live and rule for them.”
This is, in a nutshell, Varys idea of a good king. But I can’t remember him talking about limiting the rights of the king by law and adding representatives of other political entities to the central government that hold legal or judicial power independently from the king.
But we know so little about the political structure of the Seven Kingdoms that we can’t even determine the extent and the limits of the legitimate powers of the Targaryen rulers or Robert’s. Were the rights of the crown vs the rights of the kingdoms codified? What about the rights of the people within those kingdoms?
More importantly, I have yet to see anyone state that a contract exists or existed - or should exist - that establishes the idea that law is above government.
The ideas of the High Sparrow went toward that direction but the foundation of those laws was the supreme authority of the gods over everyone, including the king, and not any kind of authority by the people.
There doesn’t seem to be much interest in establishing a Magna Carta. Not yet.
That’s what (and who) I was thinking of. I thought Varys took it further.
This isn’t obvious to me. When Roose talks to Lord Frey about the red wedding, in the following episode, he seems to say that he betrayed Robb because he was an incompetent leader. And earlier in the series, Roose repeatdly offers advices that are ignored by Robb.
So, no, I think that Roose Bolton (not necessarily his son) wouldn’t have betrayed Robb if he had thought him a competent king. And in any case, he couldn’t have if Robb had acted differently, and not offended lord Frey. In my opinion, Robb kept losing support and creating discontent (notably with Frey, Bolton and Karstark) and his demise was the direct result of his actions (whether his actions were justified or not is another matter).
Yes. A competent military mind but clueless in almost any other area - and definitely not a big picture guy.
Season 7: Is it wrong to hope for a future for those two kids? 
Though, it looks like one of them won’t make it.
BTW, this, ahem, romance(?) was one of the highlights of season 6 that I forgot to mention.
Tormound and Brienne could un-extinct the giants! And I never actually believed the Brie and Jaime’s bromance was anything but that-- a bromance.