By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
KiigelHeart on 18 May 2019
Edit Thread
Hiku said:
KiigelHeart said:

And a word about Jamie's arc since it was brought up.

He was one of my favorite characters because he was so controversial. At first he seemed like a total scumbag but then we were introduced to a more sympathetic side of him. But he was still going back and forth a bit and his past actions were hard to forget. It's interesting so many viewers thought he would turn into a completely good man. 

Yeah, it's interesting how people thought his entire redemption arc wouldn't be disregarded, just because the people who wrote "Dany forgot about the Iron Fleet" didn't like that people figured out he would strangle Cercei.

Are you saying that their original plan was to make Jamie kill Cercei? If they really said that then it's dumb to change it. Is killing her the only way to successfully complete his redemption arc?

KiigelHeart said:

His ending was pretty much the only possible one. Well I expected him to kill Dany before going back to Cercei but still. It was obvious he'd return to her and try to save her. He always went back to her during the show. Then remember the line "we are the last of us". Jamie going back to Cercei was pretty much the same as the end of "The Last of Us". It wasn't the matter of choice, it was something he simply had to do. Just like Joel saving Ellie. A bond between lovers, a bond between siblings and she was carrying his child. The dude had a peculiar taste in women though.

Pretty sure it could have ended with him killing her and not throwing away his entire redemption arc.

Was there much else, besides the prophecy, to suggest Jamie would end up killing her though? Was this something that just had to happen to satisfy you?

Hiku said:
KiigelHeart said:

Interesting.. I don't know why at any point you thought this show is taking the "lesson learnt" route. Jon destroying the throne would be the most obvious ending and that's what I'd expect if GoT was like any other show. It would also be a bit lame considering it would be naive to think destroying the throne would lead to 7 Kingdoms to rule in autonomy.

You mean like how Arya's story arc ended with the lesson "Don't let revenge consume you." Etc?
Because story arcs that depict a problem are supposed to demonstrate a solution at the end.

And the problems with Targaryan rule has been emphasized heavily all throughout the series. So putting another Targaryan on the throne (hoping that this one doesn't go mad) would not make sense, the way the story has been presented to us so far.
We solved the problem of the mad Targaryan's by putting another Targaryan on the throne. Yay?

And you're right, it's not like any other show, because most of them focus on what makes sense. Dan & David only care about subverting expectations, no matter how dumb it is.

Well I was actually surprised her story arc ended with her letting go of revenge. At least Clegane's story ended the complete opposite way heh. But when it comes to Game of Thrones, I think many liked the show because of how unpredictable it is. So the solution may not be the happiest or smartest one. Would probably call it conclusion instead.

It's been hinted in the show why it would make sense to put Jon in the throne. While a Targaryan, he's never wanted to be the king and people tend to love him. And he doesn't seem to act out of his own interest and has always been almost completely good character. Would you consider it a braindead ending if this was to happen?

Not sure how you can say Dan&David only care about subverting expectations. Do you think every viewer has the same expectations? There's been lots of speculation and possible outcomes talked about.

Anyway, I'll get back to this thread after the finale.