Cry baby book fans get over how the show ended already
Just because your fan theory’s did not match how tho show ended...
shareAGAIN, almost everything they did in Season 8 could have been fantastic, if they'd taken the time and not made a fucking incoherent chopped-up mess of it.
Everything except putting Bran on the throne, of course.
^Well said, perfect summary.
Almost everything in the final episode could have worked, the end of the characters could have been satisfying and a fitting conclusion; if they had developed it out and not made an incoherent mess of it; but I guess 'they kinda forgot about' fleshing things out properly but the audience certainly didn't forget it.
And yes, Bran absolutely should not end up on the throne; if GRRM goes that way with the end it needs to start being developed heavily in the next book. The show version it is a neck break twist that makes no sense what so ever since Bran has been developed as a completely detached memory bank with no desire or direction. Which is why he knows he can't be the ruler of anything because he wouldn't know or care what to do. Yet they make him king with the justification that "he has the best story" jesus christ what idiots.
Even putting Bran on the throne could have been worked out, if they'd fleshed it out, and established that the Lords of Westeros were basically taking power back to themselves and reducing the monarchy to a figurehead... and they picked the single most useless nobleman they could find to be the next king. And Tyrion's talk about "he has a story" was their way of putting this huge con over on the public.
But in terms of actually ruling or winning over the public... yes, "completely detached memory bank with no desire or direction" describes him beautifully, but "wierdo who creeps out his own loving sisters" would also do.
You are correct, nearly everything in fiction can work if the time is taken to actually flesh it out. I do not see how anyone can try to claim that D & D were not half checked out of this series when writing this last season.
I also like the idea of reducing the monarchy to a figurehead; but as you said in your other post, that is not quite how the War of the Roses ended and it would not seem like the direction for Westeros to go back to being a divided country. I mean I would have like for them to end it, if they could go any direction they wanted, with a state and federal republic system and dissolve the monarchy and nobility completely but in terms of history they are about 1 thousand years away from that.
>"wierdo who creeps out his own loving sisters"
lol yeah that works to. WTF was up with Bran anyway since season 6? The guy is a complete creep and is either the most evil character in the show or nothing more than a damaged harddrive that is stuck on playing his family members hidden homemade porn stash. his last few lines suggest the former, which makes the ending of Game of Thrones horrible as Littlefinger would have made a better king.
If the great lords wanted someone who the public will like, who "has a story", and who won't threaten their power, they should have gone with the officially legitimized Gendry. Who is immensely likeable, not too bright, and would have "the common touch" out the wazoo. Find him a good Hand and a Margarey 2.0 to keep him in line, and you've the great lord's idea of a perfect king!
Bran strikes people as either pathetic or creepy, yeah, he'll be real popular. And what about when he starts punishing people for crimes that only he knows about? Or using the military to deal with threats that only he can see? Sure, he'll be absolutely right about both, but to anyone who doesn't know about his powers he's going to look like Caligula sending his army to fight the ocean.
Gawd… how COULD the writers think that the audience would be okay with their pulling a king out of their asses and expecting us to not think about what would actually happen! They were so precise for so long, and now this.
>They were so precise for so long, and now this.
Ah not really, GRR Martin seems pretty precise in his characters and their motivation; I have to imagine even if Bran is king at the end the way it happens will make sense at least.
the other thread about: "At what point, did you realize show was going downhill?"
It does a pretty good job of pointing out the cracks in the writers abilities.
I have heard the rumor that the show's writers really did pull King Bran out of their asses, that GRRM's original outline had Jon as king. For what rumors are worth.
shareYeah hard to say when the books are not finished and the information is often unreliable. The actor that plays Bran says they got it from Martin, but who knows if he knows what he is talking about.
shareHe's the Three-Eyed Raven, of course he knows what he is talking about.
shareInteresting aspect to the Three-Eyed Raven abilities, it does not seem to include mind reading only seeing what actually happened. So if someone was lying or putting up a 'staged' performance the three-eyed raven would see it and might not be able to see through the pretense. He doesn't know everything, he just sees everything. Seeing something does not mean he understands it or knows everything; just like he didn't know that Rheagar and Lyanna were married until Sam told him.
shareTrue, but he might see the consequence/s of a future interaction which would give meaning to his vision.
share"...not too bright..."
Tywin already said that a stupid person would make a horrible king. Jon was an idiot too which is why he had no business on the throne. Why would you want a stupid person running the government? That makes no sense.
Bran may wear the crown, but Tyrion is running the kingdom.
Actually, I really wanted King Tyrion and Queen Sansa to end up ruling. I made a thread of my own about it!
But Jon might make a decent king, as long as he left most of the ruling to a smart person who's good at politics. If King Jon ever overruled his Hand, it'd be to do some thing decent and honorable, and the people and a lot of the lords would respect that. Of course if another Littlefinger came along he'd be up poop creek, but King Jon might get lucky there. Maybe.
And I was talking about Gendry in the post you were replying to anyway, King Gendry might make a passable figurehead who let others rule, a better one than Bran anyway.
I refer to Tywin who gave king-to-be Tommen a lesson on what makes a good king. The answer was wisdom. Jon and Gendry both lacked wisdom. Bran has knowledge since he's the 3-eyed raven and can share it with Tyrion whose intelligent in his own right. Also, the public like the Starks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doY0IjisBlk
Sansa was more about fighting for the North and representing them rather than sitting on the Iron Throne. She did get the North independence.
Jon will be happier helping to lead the Wildlings and can keep them on friendly terms with the rest of the continent
Gendry doesn't know how to be a lord let alone a king.
D&D rushed the Bran decision which hurt the ending.
Not all kings do their own ruling, Bran wont, Gendry wouldnt, Jon wouldn't do it all. Some kings, such as Tommen, look good in public (which is more that Bran could ever do) and let people like Tywin and Margarey do the actual ruling, which in my book qualifies as wisdom of a sort. If the beginning of wisdom is to know your own Iimitations, Tommen had a start.
Tyrion and Sansa would do their own ruling and do it well though. Pity the writers didnt give them a shot, but there we are.
Bran knows almost everything because of his power and can consult with Tyrion to make sure the decisions are correct. "Looks good in public" is shallow and the reason why Tywin treated his intelligent son so poorly.
Sansa and Dany were ignorant at first but became wiser through their experiences. Tommen was a child who may have become a good king with experience if Cersei hadn't interfered.
I'm not sure why you would want a stupid king. The whole point of breaking the wheel and voting for a king/queen is to get the best one for the job.
You weren't watching the show closely. Tyrion already said that he was hated by the people. Sansa was more interested in ruling only the North. Jon never wanted it. Gendry proposed to Arya because he was afraid of ruling his new House by himself. He would be stumbling in the dark.
The "writers" are GRRM. You have to pay attention to who the characters actually are and not what you want them to be. GRRM is treating them as if they are real instead of just characters in a book/TV show/movie.
You're right about Tyrion and Sansa and Gendry of course, and in my fantasy version of the finale I had Jon abdicating because he loathed the idea of ruling. But because I have nothing better to do at the moment, I'm going to argue that while being wise or intelligent is not absolutely necessary for a king, looking good in public, or rather, appealing to the public, IS an indispensable duty.
And it's not that I actually want a stupid king, but I do say that the system is set up to allow for stupid kings and a government can run very smoothly under one. That's the problem with inheritance by primogeniture, it's random, and it's going to land people who are dumb or lazy or batshit on the throne, as has happened both in real life and in Westeros. That's why the office of Hand of the King exists, so there's someone there to do all the things a king doesn't want to do, or can't do. Things apparently worked just fine as long as Robert Baratheon was out partying and Jon Arryn was actually running the government, the people liked Robert and a smart and competent person was doing the gruntwork of actually governing.
And it is necessary that the people like or respect the king, whether he leaves everything to the Hand or not, that is the "looking good" part of the job I mentioned above and the part Bran will have a huge amount of trouble with. Bran is mega-creepy on a personal level these days, and for all his powers and wisdom, I can't see the general populace thinking anything of him but "Mad King 2.0". In fact in the past I've argued that Tommen could have made an excellent king, as long as he stayed handsome, well-mannered, and passive, and left the actual ruling to his grandfather and wife. Tywin was right, if he could have gotten Cersei out of the way, everything would have been hunky-dory.
And I hate to keep bringing up where S8 went wrong (no I don't, I won't shut up about it), the whole "Breaking the Wheel" conference was so rushed that it was NOT made clear that Bran was made King because he was wise, or because the lords thought he was actually the best man for the job. No, according to the filmed dialogue they made him king because he "had a story", that is, they thought the public would like him, nobody said that he was wise or brilliant or that they respected him. They didn't take the time to establish WHY the Lords chose Bran, or whether any of them intended to obey him or not, which leaves the possibility that they thought of him as a figurehead and planned to keep the real power for themselves. I hate the idea of King Bran all around, but with a little time and exposition they could have made the idea... less ridiculous.
"...problem with inheritance by primogeniture, it's random..."
That is why they replaced it with a Council vote.
"the office of Hand of the King exists, so there's someone there to do all the things a king doesn't want to do, or can't do. "
Two problems: a good advisor can be overruled by a bad King; a bad king can create havoc.
Examples:
If bad King Robert wasn't a drunk, he would've lived long enough for Ned to tell him of Cersei's betrayal allowing him to divorce her (and sent to a nunnery) and legitimizing Gendry as his true heir. That would've prevented a civil war.
Joffrey started the war by killing Ned.
The Mad King was going to kill King's Landing's citizens until stopped by Jamie.
Tommen was a young weak king who allowed the High Sparrow to keep his wife and mother imprisoned by not having his soldiers fight.
A good-looking king means little since most people won't ever see him. No TV. People just want food in their bellies and security to be content. A good king makes that happen.
I agree about the rushed ending. My interpretation of "had a story" (narrative?) is re: "Sapiens" book.
Basically, humans use stories to get large numbers of people to unite and cooperate for achieving common goals. For instance, the Founding Fathers created a story about democracy in order to create a new type of government and unite people around the idea. The apostles told stories about Jesus to spread Christianity.
Bran, the Broken is an inspirational story of hope, family, nation and achievement? I may be wrong, but that's how I interpreted it.
"Two problems: a good advisor can be overruled by a bad King; a bad king can create havoc."
Well yes, but there's absolutely no indication that the Council of Lords had solved any such problems with their new system of electing kings rather than just going with primogeniture. I mean electing a king who seems decent might be a good start, but power corrupts, some mental illnesses don't show until later in life, and sociopaths are good at looking sane and normal. So a king made by appointment rather than inheritance could turn out to be bad and in office for life, same as the old system.
So as presented, the show failed to show that the new system is any likelier to produce good kings than the old, and it also failed to show that there was any mechanism in place to deal with bad ones. So that's yet another problem with the rushed pace, there was no sense that there would be any improvement in the government of Westeros.
It's nice that some of the fans like the idea of King Bran, but I can't. The king really does deal with the public, being seen on the streets of King's Landing or accepting petitions or judging miscreants, and I can't see Bran being thought of as anything but Mad King 2.0.
Similar voting systems are appointments of popes and supreme court justices who remain for life. They both appear to work out well.
A good suggestion would be a system of removal by x-number of Lord votes if the king becomes incompetent.
Bran acts a bit spacey, but he's a nice-looking kid. Most people don't live in King's Landing and their exposure to him is extremely limited if at all.
Another thing is that many people follow the old gods religion which Bran represents. I'd think that alone would get him some respect.
A medieval king doesn't need the same type of public support as a modern day president. Don't starve them and they're happy. Most peasants dealt more with the lords in their regions than a king, anyway. The lords collected taxes, slept with their wives and took a percentage of their agriculture since the land belonged to the lords. New Lord Gendry will have more problems than Bran.
BTW, I understand why people have a problem with Bran since D&D didn't explain it very well. I still like voting for the best instead of a roll of the die choice. I'm just waiting for the book to do a better job.
"Similar voting systems are appointments of popes and supreme court justices who remain for life. They both appear to work out well."
Uh, look up "Borgia Popes" before you say that system works well.
"Another thing is that many people follow the old gods religion which Bran represents. I'd think that alone would get him some respect."
I believe that the worship of the Old Gods was far more common in the North than in any of the other six kingdoms, and the North became independent as Bran was made king. So his religion would be a problem for devout Sevenists, if any are left and not embarrassed to be seen in a Sept.
But yeah, the biggest problem AGAIN, is that the King Bran thing just wasn't fleshed out enough to have any hope of flying. It's not clear whether anyone there but Sansa has any clue about Bran's powers, it's not clear if they think he's wise or retarded, it's not clear if they plan to obey him. I mean I don't like the idea of King Bran on the surface, but I suppose they could have sold it to me if they'd taken the trouble to fill things out. I don't think I'll ever understand why they didn't even try.
> I believe that the worship of the Old Gods was far more
> common in the North than in any of the other six kingdoms
I agree. Remember when Jon was about to take his vows the the Night’s Watch, he was the only one among the newbies who believed in the Old Gods (Sam only tagged along).
> It's not clear whether anyone there but Sansa has any
> clue about Bran's powers
Tyrion did, he even mentioned in his speech that Bran became the Three Eyed Raven. Since nobody asked "What the fuck is a Three Eyed Raven" we can *assume* that the other Lords have been told in the meantime.
However, that’s no proof, and of course we don’t know (because *grrrrr* we haven’t been told) if they plan to make it public that the new King has special powers.
It's not a perfect system, but it works pretty well. I like the idea of removal if there's a serious issue. Maybe that'll be mentioned in the books.
It was also unrealistic for everyone to be in complete agreement about Bran and Sansa especially without any debate. I'm focusing on what GRRM was trying to do and I plan to read his books which is the reason why I don't have a problem with Bran. But, I agree that the meeting needed to be fleshed out more.
Tyrion didn't elaborate about his story of Bran, the Broken. I'm sure he'll create a story which will portray Bran as a hero.