If you pause the episode at 1:14:35 you can see Bilbo Baggins on the background in Arya's ship

I didn't like episode 5 at all and I wasn't too keen on the finale. But the more I think on it and the entire series as a whole the more I'm changing my mind and thinking I quite like how it ended.

The only things that I really would change is Daenerys' questionable motivations for the last two episodes. If they changed it around and we could actually understand why she felt such an atrocity was necessary, then the tragic ending to her story would hit a lot harder. If she did something that was so terrible the others felt like they had to kill her, but her actions could be understood and not boil down to "Bitch be crazy."

Game of thrones was always at it's best when there were no outright villains, and everyone had their own complex motivations and there was no good or bad side. If they had manoeuvred the story in a way to make Daenerys not an outright antagonist, but given everyone a reason to think her death a necessity Jon killing her would have been a perfect ending.

If Daenerys did some unspeakable but justifiable act for the greater good, and Jon was forced to kill her for how terrible it was, that would have been perfect in my opinion.

Also make the Episode 5 battle a bit less one-sided so it didn't feel so anti-climatic and I think now I would have been very satisfied with how it ended

Dorne is by far the most different of the seven kingdoms. It's the only realm colonized by the Rhoynar and the only one which adopts cognatic succession.

Both Dorne and the Iron Islands are also the only realms mostly or entirely devoid of weirwood trees, and thus where Bran would have no power at all.

The fact the other regions are powerless and destroyed by civil war is exactly the sort of situation where independence would make sense, not the opposite. Since no one wants to be tied to a realm facing levies for public works, heavy taxation and economic decline.

The rushed and premature way they handled the romance between Jon and Dany and then dared to make such a big thing out of it makes the whole Anakin-Padme prequels romance thing look Shakespearean in comparison

Definitely going to read the books when they're finished as I imagine it'll all be handled a lot better there. Assuming they ever are finished. Haven't read any of them yet cause I know I wouldn't be able to bare waiting years for the final book.

I don't want this to be a long argument, so i will only answer once.

1. Drogon not killing Jon the instant he sees he killed her mother is absurd, and Drogon instead burning the iron throne is just for symbolistic plot reasons....Dragons don't care about politics FFS!! Drogon is a brutal and primal animal, over protective as shown every time in the series. Daenerys burned an entire city because her loved ones were killed. How is Drogon, a animal, not going to kill the one who killed his mother??!?!?. Now, the reasonable thinking is that a dragon is going to have more sensible thinking than a human like Daenerys and think "yeah..., i understand why you did it, and fuck the iron throne, it's the real enemy!!". Come on...

2. You saying that "it won't be such a big deal" it's so strange for me. As a spaniard that have seen all my life how we can't govern ourselfs naturally and respect each other for the benefit of the whole because nationalists want one thing, right want another thing, left another thing, etc...each looking for their own interests. I'm pretty convinced in a realistic situation the Iron Islands or Dorne won't accept the North being independent when they wanted the same for a long period of time than the North. The fact that Bran as a Stark is King is obviously an advantage of the interest of the North. Is the only one who won't deny the North being indepent in any circumstaces. There was a reason during medieval times like Game of Thrones is based why realms were united under one ruler. It was because it meant peace between those realms. It meant stability. If one realm suddenly has an advantage over others, why they should still accept being ruled by the King in KL??, and if they can be independent too whenever they want, then what's the point of the Kingdom??. Going back to everyone by themselves again?? This is again an example of looking at the past (or something mirroring how it was our historical past) with present glasses. This goes against the very nature the show stablished from the beginning and more imporant, what GRRM has always wanted to tell. And besides...., most of that council barely knows who is Bran. You don't give the keys of the house to a person you barely know, and because another one that you barely know tells you to do that.

3. That "character making a rational choice" i guess is Greyworm. Why would you see as a rational choice leaving to others decide if the person who killed your loved Queen goes free when she was the legitimate Queen in your own eyes in the first place??? Did Sansa and Arya give the same "rational choice" to Petyr Baelish in season 7?? Did they brought back this person to the Vale to be judged??? No. it was executed inmediately and none of the audience protested because it was obviously the bad guy, right??. Was Ramsay judged too?? In Greyworm's eyes, Tyrion and Jon are the bad guys. They are traitors, and regicides. In no way any follower of a killed king/queen would allow those people to live, more so if there is no other power to avoid that. And of course the Unsullied and Dothraakis would have fought against all Westeros if necessary, have you not been watching the series from the start or what??. They are warriors, they like to fight, it's their only porpuse and they loved their queen. Greyworm was their leader. It won't be the first time a military acceded to power (or at least tried) in the story of mankind....

Everything in the last episode looked cheap and easy. And Song of Ice and Fire, and the first seasons of Game of Thrones were never cheap and easy. This ending is just .... like a betrayal.

The books will probably give better insight into each characters minds and what they are thinking compared to a show or movie so I would agree on this point.  As to Martin finishing the books well, hopefully it will be in our lifetime.

Well Jon is a Targaryen after all. Can't say I really understand the connection the family seems to have with dragons but it became apparent when Jon first met Drogon and he stroked his head (to Daenerys' surprise) without getting his hand bitten off that he had a connection to Drogon too due to his bloodline. Him being a Targaryen is why I assume he wasn't killed by Drogon.

I believe you have to take it that the writers are trying to show and tell you that Dragons are little more complex than the primal brutal animals you believe them to be.  They may only have been protective of Dany not because she is their mother or anything of that sort but because she is a Targaryen.  Since Jon has the same heritage, Drogon did not kill him. After Dany is dead, Jon is the last of the line so No, I believe Drogon would not kill him because his allegiance is to Jon heritage.

You could be hit by a bus just walking down the street, do not jinx yourself.