Richard Baker
Sr Member
I think there is a chance the Iron Throne could be destroyed and the seven kingdoms just go their own way without a singular leader determining what happens to whom
Game of Thrones
- Thread starter Husker75
- Start date
I used to think Tyrion would be the last one standing and sitting the Iron Throne. I still think that may be true for the books. As for the show, I think its going to end with the tradition of an hierarchical monarchy coming to an end. I imagine it will be some sort of council that ends up in charge. Though I have no idea how exactly they'll set it up.
Analyzer
Master Member
As far as Martin's feeling on the TV Show vs book's ending...
George R.R. Martin Talks 'Game of Thrones' Ending, Says His Book Conclusion Won't Be That Different from the Show's
“I don’t think [showrunners] Dan [Weiss] and David [Benioff]’s ending is going to be that different from my ending because of the conversations we did have,” Martin said in a new interview with 60 Minutes, referring to a fateful multi-day conference in which he spilled the broad strokes of the ending back in 2013. “But there may be – on certain secondary characters, there may be big differences.”
"Martin never thought the show would catch up to his books, but he hit a snag writing The Winds of Winter, the sixth out of seven planned books in the series. Martin gave the showrunners his planned endings for each of the major characters, but as time has gone on and his writing progress has slowed, I’ve wondered if part of the delay was because he’d decided to rework some things in order to give his loyal book readers a different ending than the people who watch the show. But the fact that he says the Game of Thrones ending won’t be “that different” from his books essentially buries my theory."
George R.R. Martin Talks 'Game of Thrones' Ending, Says His Book Conclusion Won't Be That Different from the Show's
“I don’t think [showrunners] Dan [Weiss] and David [Benioff]’s ending is going to be that different from my ending because of the conversations we did have,” Martin said in a new interview with 60 Minutes, referring to a fateful multi-day conference in which he spilled the broad strokes of the ending back in 2013. “But there may be – on certain secondary characters, there may be big differences.”
"Martin never thought the show would catch up to his books, but he hit a snag writing The Winds of Winter, the sixth out of seven planned books in the series. Martin gave the showrunners his planned endings for each of the major characters, but as time has gone on and his writing progress has slowed, I’ve wondered if part of the delay was because he’d decided to rework some things in order to give his loyal book readers a different ending than the people who watch the show. But the fact that he says the Game of Thrones ending won’t be “that different” from his books essentially buries my theory."
ConvergencePro
Master Member
Tbh I don’t really think Martin has that much interest in finishing his books. Sure the show has gone different directions here and there but overall the direction has been more or less the same. I think hes just throwing the showmakers enough to finish his story and if he feels motivated enough will finish his own books at a later time if he so chooses
Monkey67
Sr Member
Ok, im going with the Golden company sacking King’s landing. Cersei paid off the whole crown family debt when banker showed up. The crown got the gold from maybe the sacking of a high garden & Lannister’s own private stock. Anyway her and the banker were talking about how she plans to get use the Golden company to win the war. The bankers said that they use them as well to get things back. So the bank doesn’t need a Lannister in power due to the funds being paid off. Thus they can back & fund a better and stronger team Incase dany needs a loan too. Because it will be hard to beat a queen that has 3 dragons ( they don’t know she lost one yet). Thus your investment is safe. If Cersei didn’t pay off the whole debt in one payment. The bank would be forced to back her army to make sure that their investment was protected.
So King landing will be in ruin due to those two groups going at it. The bank might just keep the iron throne for itself or install the Golden company in charge. They were the bastards back in the day. So now they got their throne and cash flow from the bank of coin.
So King landing will be in ruin due to those two groups going at it. The bank might just keep the iron throne for itself or install the Golden company in charge. They were the bastards back in the day. So now they got their throne and cash flow from the bank of coin.
Nth
Sr Member
He'd make a good new Mad King since he's already a crazy old man.
NOW THAT.... is an awesome idea. I would give dearly to see that happen.
Solo4114
Master Member
I have a sneaking suspicion that Tyrion will get a crossbow bolt to the chest this season, and that'll push Jamie to finally murder Cersei. Although, who knows. The show didn't actually use the "valonqar" bit from Cersei's visit with Maggie the Frog, so they may just ditch that altogether. All Maggie told her was that she wouldn't marry the prince, she'd marry the king, that the king would have 20 children, that she'd have 3, that gold would be their crowns, and gold their shrouds. And that was it. Then she just laughed at Cersei, and the flashback ended.
As far as the ending in the books and the ending in the shows goes, here's my bet.
1. The broad strokes are the same. Jon and Dany come together. R+L=J. The Night's King is defeated, the Lannisters are overthrown.
2. Any of the major characters who die in the show will die in the books. So, Jon, Dany, Cersei, Jamie, Tyrion, Bran, Sansa, and Arya are on that list. The rest are fungible (e.g., Brienne, Tormund, Jorah, The Hound, etc.).
3. The show has, as far back as Season 2, already changed the fate of various minor characters, such as people on Arya's list, Brienne's journey around the Crab bay or whatever it was, the death of Barristan Selmy (who's still alive in the books), etc., etc. Jorah is currently functioning as some kind of hybrid between Barristan Selmy and Jon Connington, and there's no "fAegon" in the show. I suspect that Martin's story will be much more circuitous, will have character behavior be much more "earned" and feel less abrupt in comparison to the show, and that likewise any ending he writes will probably feel more grounded and less like the accusations of "fan service" that the show has had leveled at it.
The "fan service" criticism, I think, is due more to the fact that the show is now very rushed and isn't taking the time to develop characters sufficiently to justify their behavior. They just...do stuff because it's the stuff that needs to be done, and although it satisfies the fans, narratively it isn't as well-supported as it should be. For example, Jon and Dany fall in love. Really? Based on what? Based on how much time together? Jon and Dany fall in love because they're "supposed" to fall in love, but the show hasn't demonstrated why their attraction and love is happening at all, other than the fact that (1) they're both very attractive people, and (2) they're...uh....supposed to end up together? So it feels like fan service. By contrast, if the show took the time to have their relationship together grow in a more realistic, believable fashion, the "fan service" complaint would be less of an issue.
Now, I'm sure some people would still complain it's fan service, merely because it provides a satisfactory and happy ending, but I think that's because people assume that to be edgy and surprising, you have to simply do the opposite of traditional heroic story structure, and, well, that's just dumb. It falls into what I consider the "Whedon trap."
When Joss Whedon started his career, his shows were revolutionary and groundbreaking. Main characters died! All the time!! But that was only shocking and surprising because we were squarely in an era where main characters almost always had "hero shields" especially in genre shows. So, killing main characters was surprising! It was daring! It was shocking! And then he kept doing it. Over, and over, and over, and over. Not only that, but he regularly would bring characters together romantically, and then break them apart, usually through some kind of trauma. Again and again.
The ultimate impact of this is that "shocking" deaths are no longer shocking. They instead become expected, and people start doing "death pools" or "character death bingo" and the like. We're seeing that now with Game of Thrones -- people are betting on which characters are going to die, and are often assuming the worst for many of the main characters. Moreover, they assume that the story must end in a sad manner or at least a bittersweet manner, simply because an actual happy ending will be such a departure from what's come before. And they criticize the show for hewing too closely to traditional fantasy epic structure, where the heroes win and save the day.
But honestly, I think that this has been Martin's plan all along. He's still doing fantasy, but he's trying to do it in a more realistic fashion. But the thing is, "realistic" doesn't mean "everything ends on a down note and the heroes lose." It just means that if the heroes win, it has to come at a cost, that it has to be earned, and that it has to make sense in context and not just happen because that's what happens in heroic epic fantasy.
As far as the ending in the books and the ending in the shows goes, here's my bet.
1. The broad strokes are the same. Jon and Dany come together. R+L=J. The Night's King is defeated, the Lannisters are overthrown.
2. Any of the major characters who die in the show will die in the books. So, Jon, Dany, Cersei, Jamie, Tyrion, Bran, Sansa, and Arya are on that list. The rest are fungible (e.g., Brienne, Tormund, Jorah, The Hound, etc.).
3. The show has, as far back as Season 2, already changed the fate of various minor characters, such as people on Arya's list, Brienne's journey around the Crab bay or whatever it was, the death of Barristan Selmy (who's still alive in the books), etc., etc. Jorah is currently functioning as some kind of hybrid between Barristan Selmy and Jon Connington, and there's no "fAegon" in the show. I suspect that Martin's story will be much more circuitous, will have character behavior be much more "earned" and feel less abrupt in comparison to the show, and that likewise any ending he writes will probably feel more grounded and less like the accusations of "fan service" that the show has had leveled at it.
The "fan service" criticism, I think, is due more to the fact that the show is now very rushed and isn't taking the time to develop characters sufficiently to justify their behavior. They just...do stuff because it's the stuff that needs to be done, and although it satisfies the fans, narratively it isn't as well-supported as it should be. For example, Jon and Dany fall in love. Really? Based on what? Based on how much time together? Jon and Dany fall in love because they're "supposed" to fall in love, but the show hasn't demonstrated why their attraction and love is happening at all, other than the fact that (1) they're both very attractive people, and (2) they're...uh....supposed to end up together? So it feels like fan service. By contrast, if the show took the time to have their relationship together grow in a more realistic, believable fashion, the "fan service" complaint would be less of an issue.
Now, I'm sure some people would still complain it's fan service, merely because it provides a satisfactory and happy ending, but I think that's because people assume that to be edgy and surprising, you have to simply do the opposite of traditional heroic story structure, and, well, that's just dumb. It falls into what I consider the "Whedon trap."
When Joss Whedon started his career, his shows were revolutionary and groundbreaking. Main characters died! All the time!! But that was only shocking and surprising because we were squarely in an era where main characters almost always had "hero shields" especially in genre shows. So, killing main characters was surprising! It was daring! It was shocking! And then he kept doing it. Over, and over, and over, and over. Not only that, but he regularly would bring characters together romantically, and then break them apart, usually through some kind of trauma. Again and again.
The ultimate impact of this is that "shocking" deaths are no longer shocking. They instead become expected, and people start doing "death pools" or "character death bingo" and the like. We're seeing that now with Game of Thrones -- people are betting on which characters are going to die, and are often assuming the worst for many of the main characters. Moreover, they assume that the story must end in a sad manner or at least a bittersweet manner, simply because an actual happy ending will be such a departure from what's come before. And they criticize the show for hewing too closely to traditional fantasy epic structure, where the heroes win and save the day.
But honestly, I think that this has been Martin's plan all along. He's still doing fantasy, but he's trying to do it in a more realistic fashion. But the thing is, "realistic" doesn't mean "everything ends on a down note and the heroes lose." It just means that if the heroes win, it has to come at a cost, that it has to be earned, and that it has to make sense in context and not just happen because that's what happens in heroic epic fantasy.
Analyzer
Master Member
I really think they should have done at least on more season, or at least had the season 7 and 8 as full 10 episode seasons at the very least. It's just the the show runners have made it clear they wanted to be done with it. I know Martin has made comments that he wished the show would have gone for a few more seasons as well.
Setting the tone, Martin has said in interviews years ago that he describes the ending as "bittersweet".
That's why I assume something tragic between Jon and Dany story happens, but of course, they don't have to necessarily die for it to be "bittersweet" either
Analyzer
Master Member
True, it is fairly vague
Welp, just gettin' ready for the weekend:
Strikerkc
Sr Member
I still don't get how people are attached or invested in any of these characters. the story has clearly panned out for seven seasons that the cast was simply crammed with so many "important" characters, so they could be constantly killed off. The story gets told regardless of who's in it. So why worry?
Toadmeister
Sr Member
I bet your a lot of fun at parties...
Strikerkc
Sr Member
My bad, I'm lame cause I'm able to enjoy a show for what it is and not get worked around the axle, instead of getting upset when it isn't what I came up with in my own head
firesprite
Master Member
My bad, I'm lame cause I'm able to enjoy a show for what it is and not get worked around the axle, instead of getting upset when it isn't what I came up with in my own head
Yeah, but that's not what you said. You said you didn't understand how people could be invested in these characters. The characters are the point. They're what makes Game of Thrones special, standing out amongst all the other fantasy properties out there.
Strikerkc
Sr Member
You're equating a character being well written and well acted with being a character you have to be invested in.
When a well written and well acted character is removed from the story, for the sake of the story, why must I feel the rest of the story is diminished?
The story is not called "Ned", or "Frey", or "Tywin". It's called game of thrones. The only "character" they could take out middle of things that would diminish the story, is the concept of someone sitting on the throne
When a well written and well acted character is removed from the story, for the sake of the story, why must I feel the rest of the story is diminished?
The story is not called "Ned", or "Frey", or "Tywin". It's called game of thrones. The only "character" they could take out middle of things that would diminish the story, is the concept of someone sitting on the throne
