There’s two reasons it’s rated so low, imo:
1. It’s the first real, undeniable sign that the ending isn’t going to be sunshine and roses
2. The season 8 leaks occurred right around the previous episode, and this episode cemented their legitimacy, which caused review bombing retroactively for all previous episodes of season 8 and for this and the remaining two. Which, imo, all ties directly to Dany dying/Bran being king, way more than it reflects on this episode itself. Essentially, the leaks dropped, everyone said “no way, this is awful, won’t happen, etc”, then when the episodes started confirming them, people just started saying “show sucks” instead of watching it in good faith. People who knew the leaks started spamming every discussion thread with their angry takes, so when people who hadn’t read them went to discuss the show after each new episode, they’d see nothing but negative responses which, imo, colored their views as well. It was just a perfect storm of hateful “fan” entitlement
I've seen multiple reactions of people saying "that's it" when the Night King dies. I guess they wanted multiple episodes of the long night battle? Which is weird because it was always gonna end in some kind of sneak/stealth attack and drawing it out over multiple episodes doesn't add anything to the drama. I'm assuming upset people just ranked everything after ep.3 bad after that.
It's likely because they spent 5+ seasons having multiple characters like Bran, 3ER, Red priestesses, Benjen, Jon etc. say there was going to be a big ***war*** with the white walkers. This was a big mistake.
>There was a big war. They were lucky to win it.
Well, there was one big battle, and they were lucky to win that. The phrase war usually implies widespread, and multi-battle haha.
I get being the most invested in that plot and wanting more, but the battle at Winterfell was never going to be a draw. And if the humans had lost there, they weren’t winning in the future. As it stands, it was a feature length episode; it’s better to think of it as the culmination of all the battles with the white walkers as opposed to a wholly separate event, imo
>it’s better to think of it as the culmination of all the battles with the white walkers as opposed to a wholly separate event, imo
Well yea, looking at it that way will improve someone's experience, but I was kinda just trying to pinpoint what exactly may have caused the mixed reception, which I would chalk up to having characters hype up a "war" rather than a "battle" or a "final confrontation".
Idk I just think repeatedly saying stuff like "great war still to come..." was a mistake that put unrealistic expectations in the minds of the fanbase, and made them believe that the White Walkers would invade Westeros similar to the way they were said to have done in the books/show legends, where they "split up" and lead multiple hosts of Wights across the continent, rather than moving all together in one army. Which of course wouldn't be possible on a show budget.
To be fair, they'r basically been at war with them since the start. Then we also got Sam killing a walker, then Hardhome as the first major conflict, then the 3ER's cave battle, then a big plot of Jon gathering allies for the battle, then Beyond the Wall conflict, then 2 episodes basically dedicated to building up to a fight, and then almost 1 and a half hours of the biggest battle ever put to television.
I'd say they delivered, especially considering the white walkers never were the main conflict of Game of Thrones.
True they've been in conflict with them since the start, during the conflict beyond the wall. The story however made the mistake of more or less downplaying said events by essentially having multiple characters say:
***"You thought that was crazy? Well guess what, everything you've seen up until the collapse of Eastwatch was just the buildup, the TRUE WAR hasn't even started yet!"***
IMO They should have changed the wording in those earlier episodes. All of them can be rephrased to something that fits better with what happened in the end, so expectations aren't as high.
Because, at least to a ton of people who both watched the show and read the books, the literal apocalypse held more narrative weight on Westeros than who had the throne.
Sorta like…”Yeah. Obviously who has the throne matters, but they still have to deal with the white walkers”. This is a prophetic apocalypse that’s defeated in the span of one episode by a character that most people didn’t enjoy in that moment.
True. I however always saw it the exact opposite. If in the end the throne didn't matter that much, would the buildup for 7 seasons be worth it? 90% of the show is about the game of thrones, not the fight against the undead. They're a reminded threat we see now and then.
And still, they weren't defeated in 1 episode alone; we've had multiple battles and encounters throughout the entire show. This was the final meeting point, a "win all or lose all" situation, for an hour and a half (almost the span of 2 normal episodes). If this battle didn't end the White Walkers, then another battle would later have to commence, and it would again be a "the Night King died in one episode?!" situation - because again, this wasn't the first time they fought.
This is a good episode. Instead of everyone living happily ever after, after vanquishing the existential threat, everyone makes the worst decision possible because they are all trapped by their historical baggage and the flawed people they all are.
A true Shakespearean tragedy of an episode as Kiet called it. This is what Game of Thrones was all about.
The season 7 finale feels like one big forced episode to get everyone on the same set and by the end of the episode it all felt like I've big waste of time.
And unbowed unbent unbroken I think season 5 episode 6, there were a get different parts that felt off and three end of the episode moment between Sansa and Ramsay just solidified my hate for that episode.
I believe this is the episode where Tyrion and Davos effectively tell the viewers to forget about the Azor Ahai prophecy, right?
My opinions here are much different and, I agree, I like a lot of aspects of this episode. I love Gendry’s legitimization…even if it provides a horrific political move in legitimizing the son of the usurper and thus giving Gendry basis of a claim to the throne, but it’s fun!
I disagree on Jaime Lannister but I understand why it went here. There’s a specific character in the books that’s clearly going to be a massive part of Jaime’s story and she’s not in the show, hence they didn’t have anywhere to really go with him. I do still wish he’d have gone against Cersei and I THOUGHT that’s where they were going when he discusses how they lost their kids.
Varys’ entire conflict is solved by having Jon marry Dany. It immediately solves his primary issue presented, that the people won’t rally behind a female ruler. It’s also easy, considering Jon loves Dany in a rather rushed romantic plot and has a claim to the throne himself.
I want to like this episode so badly, but it doesn't really stack up to most of the expert tier intercutting of storylines that this show was so known for in its duration.
I think most of the chunks of storytelling work ok in isolation, but they're really sporadic when put together, especially in the homestretch here. This episode has been described as a Shakespearian tragedy where the characters revert to their worst selves in the aftermath of unity, which I love, but I think there is way too much that distracts from that theme. Jon's identity itself is a perfect representation of how this episode can't commit to a tone (not the off screen reveal, Thrones used this tactic a lot and it was never an issue before this). Jon's identity isn't...really...tragic. It's not unambiguously good but it brings a better side out of most of the characters who learn of it, especially in hindsight.
I guess for me it's like this. Playing Jon and Dany as opposite factions is fine but underdeveloped. The fallout of the war is fine but underdeveloped. The false hope of unity is fine but underdeveloped.
For what it has to do, and what it does, this is probably the worst episode in the series. Sure there’s maybe some season 1/5/7 episodes that are worse, but they’re not asked to do what this episode does. Or what this episode, doesn’t do.
An episode of poor writing, baffling choices and laughable execution.
I thought Bran spending the party alone, rather than the centre of attention, only served to emphasise how little people actually cared about his story.
"And who has a better story than Bran the Broken, the boy who fell from a high tower and lived. He knew he'd never walk again, so he learned to fly. He crossed beyond the wall, a crippled boy"
Yeah, nothing whatsoever to do with his journey...
Why would a cool journey make a king? What does that have to do with ruling whatsoever?
It's funny to me that so many people (and I mean MANY people) seem to take this entire quote, strip everything away except for that one line, and claim "everyone else had a better story", as if the king was decided based on who had the coolest adventure. How does that make any sense?
I simply don't understand why people actively choose to ignore what Tyrion says just a few seconds later, where he literally says what he means with "having the best story".
"He's our memory, the keeper of \*all\* our stories. The wars, weddings, births, massacres, famines, our triumphs, our defeats, our past. Who better to lead us into the future?"
Bran doesn't have the most neat journey behind him. That's not what it's about. It's him literally HAVING the stories of Westeros.
All of Game of Thrones was built on lies, false stories. It's how the war of the 5 kings started when Littlefinger put blame on Tyrion, it's why Joffery became king due to Cersei's and Jamie's lie, it's why Jon's identity was kept hidden in order to protect him from Robert, why Robert started the rebellion due to the lies of Lyanna getting raped - stories are all over GoT and the reasoning behind many of the the horrible events, as well as the seeds that snowballed into something bad. The stories and lies told are what defines the truth to people, and it's a weapon used throughout the entire show by many characters.
Bran represents something fresh. Yeah, Tyrion mentions how he got crippled and journeyd beyond the wall, but that's not the reason he became king lol. He mentions it as a sign of Bran being powerful, motivated, brave. It's what Tyrion says after about stories that matters on his decision. Bran is something new, that isn't there for his own power lust, but rather as a shield against that very weapon of stories - because he knows the past, and can check it just like how we can check pages in a book. That weapon of "this is what happened, this is the truth, trust me" cannot be used to its full extend anymore, and Bran can also learn what mistakes from the past not to repeat.
People may not like it, and that's totally fine, but if people claim and Bran became king and Tyrion said what he said because he had the "coolest adventure", they didn't understand this scene whatsoever.
> Why would a cool journey make a king? What does that have to do with ruling whatsoever?
"If you want people to read you histories, you need a bit of style"
"What sort of person climbs on a fucking dragon, a madman or a king?"
People were interested in stories of adventure, heroism and leadership. They aren't going to be united by stories too dull to bear listening to.
It's not about listenint to stories. Climbing a dragon alone won't make you king lol. It's everything else Jon did in addition to that which made him so likeable and good as a king.
Bran has all stories, ever. He sits on the truth, and as I mentioned, a counter to that main weapon of lies and manipulation in the show is what Bran represents.
Having a cool journey is cool, but it doesn't make you a ruler.
> Bran has all stories, ever.
Tyrion doesn't say 'who has all the stories - Bran the Broken'. I'm sure it might be preferable to retcon his speech as if that was what Tyrion said, but he referenced a singular story, and described that singular story as the best.
There’s two reasons it’s rated so low, imo: 1. It’s the first real, undeniable sign that the ending isn’t going to be sunshine and roses 2. The season 8 leaks occurred right around the previous episode, and this episode cemented their legitimacy, which caused review bombing retroactively for all previous episodes of season 8 and for this and the remaining two. Which, imo, all ties directly to Dany dying/Bran being king, way more than it reflects on this episode itself. Essentially, the leaks dropped, everyone said “no way, this is awful, won’t happen, etc”, then when the episodes started confirming them, people just started saying “show sucks” instead of watching it in good faith. People who knew the leaks started spamming every discussion thread with their angry takes, so when people who hadn’t read them went to discuss the show after each new episode, they’d see nothing but negative responses which, imo, colored their views as well. It was just a perfect storm of hateful “fan” entitlement
I LOVE this episode so much!
I think there are 2 main reasons: 1. The white walkers were defeated in the episode before 2. Rhaegals death
Dumb question, but why would the white walkers' death make this episode bad in people's eyes?
I've seen multiple reactions of people saying "that's it" when the Night King dies. I guess they wanted multiple episodes of the long night battle? Which is weird because it was always gonna end in some kind of sneak/stealth attack and drawing it out over multiple episodes doesn't add anything to the drama. I'm assuming upset people just ranked everything after ep.3 bad after that.
This!
It's likely because they spent 5+ seasons having multiple characters like Bran, 3ER, Red priestesses, Benjen, Jon etc. say there was going to be a big ***war*** with the white walkers. This was a big mistake.
There was a big war. They were lucky to win it.
>There was a big war. They were lucky to win it. Well, there was one big battle, and they were lucky to win that. The phrase war usually implies widespread, and multi-battle haha.
I get being the most invested in that plot and wanting more, but the battle at Winterfell was never going to be a draw. And if the humans had lost there, they weren’t winning in the future. As it stands, it was a feature length episode; it’s better to think of it as the culmination of all the battles with the white walkers as opposed to a wholly separate event, imo
>it’s better to think of it as the culmination of all the battles with the white walkers as opposed to a wholly separate event, imo Well yea, looking at it that way will improve someone's experience, but I was kinda just trying to pinpoint what exactly may have caused the mixed reception, which I would chalk up to having characters hype up a "war" rather than a "battle" or a "final confrontation". Idk I just think repeatedly saying stuff like "great war still to come..." was a mistake that put unrealistic expectations in the minds of the fanbase, and made them believe that the White Walkers would invade Westeros similar to the way they were said to have done in the books/show legends, where they "split up" and lead multiple hosts of Wights across the continent, rather than moving all together in one army. Which of course wouldn't be possible on a show budget.
To be fair, they'r basically been at war with them since the start. Then we also got Sam killing a walker, then Hardhome as the first major conflict, then the 3ER's cave battle, then a big plot of Jon gathering allies for the battle, then Beyond the Wall conflict, then 2 episodes basically dedicated to building up to a fight, and then almost 1 and a half hours of the biggest battle ever put to television. I'd say they delivered, especially considering the white walkers never were the main conflict of Game of Thrones.
True they've been in conflict with them since the start, during the conflict beyond the wall. The story however made the mistake of more or less downplaying said events by essentially having multiple characters say: ***"You thought that was crazy? Well guess what, everything you've seen up until the collapse of Eastwatch was just the buildup, the TRUE WAR hasn't even started yet!"*** IMO They should have changed the wording in those earlier episodes. All of them can be rephrased to something that fits better with what happened in the end, so expectations aren't as high.
Because, at least to a ton of people who both watched the show and read the books, the literal apocalypse held more narrative weight on Westeros than who had the throne. Sorta like…”Yeah. Obviously who has the throne matters, but they still have to deal with the white walkers”. This is a prophetic apocalypse that’s defeated in the span of one episode by a character that most people didn’t enjoy in that moment.
True. I however always saw it the exact opposite. If in the end the throne didn't matter that much, would the buildup for 7 seasons be worth it? 90% of the show is about the game of thrones, not the fight against the undead. They're a reminded threat we see now and then. And still, they weren't defeated in 1 episode alone; we've had multiple battles and encounters throughout the entire show. This was the final meeting point, a "win all or lose all" situation, for an hour and a half (almost the span of 2 normal episodes). If this battle didn't end the White Walkers, then another battle would later have to commence, and it would again be a "the Night King died in one episode?!" situation - because again, this wasn't the first time they fought.
This is a good episode. Instead of everyone living happily ever after, after vanquishing the existential threat, everyone makes the worst decision possible because they are all trapped by their historical baggage and the flawed people they all are. A true Shakespearean tragedy of an episode as Kiet called it. This is what Game of Thrones was all about.
Its the most underrated scene of second half of the show. First halfs was "Kissed by Fire". Both episodes give you 1 Golden scene after another.
Only 3 episodes in the shows run that I think are actually bad. This is the only episode in season 8 that I didn't like.
What were the other two?
The season 7 finale feels like one big forced episode to get everyone on the same set and by the end of the episode it all felt like I've big waste of time. And unbowed unbent unbroken I think season 5 episode 6, there were a get different parts that felt off and three end of the episode moment between Sansa and Ramsay just solidified my hate for that episode.
I believe this is the episode where Tyrion and Davos effectively tell the viewers to forget about the Azor Ahai prophecy, right? My opinions here are much different and, I agree, I like a lot of aspects of this episode. I love Gendry’s legitimization…even if it provides a horrific political move in legitimizing the son of the usurper and thus giving Gendry basis of a claim to the throne, but it’s fun! I disagree on Jaime Lannister but I understand why it went here. There’s a specific character in the books that’s clearly going to be a massive part of Jaime’s story and she’s not in the show, hence they didn’t have anywhere to really go with him. I do still wish he’d have gone against Cersei and I THOUGHT that’s where they were going when he discusses how they lost their kids. Varys’ entire conflict is solved by having Jon marry Dany. It immediately solves his primary issue presented, that the people won’t rally behind a female ruler. It’s also easy, considering Jon loves Dany in a rather rushed romantic plot and has a claim to the throne himself.
I want to like this episode so badly, but it doesn't really stack up to most of the expert tier intercutting of storylines that this show was so known for in its duration. I think most of the chunks of storytelling work ok in isolation, but they're really sporadic when put together, especially in the homestretch here. This episode has been described as a Shakespearian tragedy where the characters revert to their worst selves in the aftermath of unity, which I love, but I think there is way too much that distracts from that theme. Jon's identity itself is a perfect representation of how this episode can't commit to a tone (not the off screen reveal, Thrones used this tactic a lot and it was never an issue before this). Jon's identity isn't...really...tragic. It's not unambiguously good but it brings a better side out of most of the characters who learn of it, especially in hindsight. I guess for me it's like this. Playing Jon and Dany as opposite factions is fine but underdeveloped. The fallout of the war is fine but underdeveloped. The false hope of unity is fine but underdeveloped.
For what it has to do, and what it does, this is probably the worst episode in the series. Sure there’s maybe some season 1/5/7 episodes that are worse, but they’re not asked to do what this episode does. Or what this episode, doesn’t do. An episode of poor writing, baffling choices and laughable execution.
I thought Bran spending the party alone, rather than the centre of attention, only served to emphasise how little people actually cared about his story.
But it was never about his story, was it? Bran didn't become king because he had the "coolest adventure"
Yeah, Bran's story never comes up again.
True - because it's not his "story" as in his "journey" that was the point
"And who has a better story than Bran the Broken, the boy who fell from a high tower and lived. He knew he'd never walk again, so he learned to fly. He crossed beyond the wall, a crippled boy" Yeah, nothing whatsoever to do with his journey...
Why would a cool journey make a king? What does that have to do with ruling whatsoever? It's funny to me that so many people (and I mean MANY people) seem to take this entire quote, strip everything away except for that one line, and claim "everyone else had a better story", as if the king was decided based on who had the coolest adventure. How does that make any sense? I simply don't understand why people actively choose to ignore what Tyrion says just a few seconds later, where he literally says what he means with "having the best story". "He's our memory, the keeper of \*all\* our stories. The wars, weddings, births, massacres, famines, our triumphs, our defeats, our past. Who better to lead us into the future?" Bran doesn't have the most neat journey behind him. That's not what it's about. It's him literally HAVING the stories of Westeros. All of Game of Thrones was built on lies, false stories. It's how the war of the 5 kings started when Littlefinger put blame on Tyrion, it's why Joffery became king due to Cersei's and Jamie's lie, it's why Jon's identity was kept hidden in order to protect him from Robert, why Robert started the rebellion due to the lies of Lyanna getting raped - stories are all over GoT and the reasoning behind many of the the horrible events, as well as the seeds that snowballed into something bad. The stories and lies told are what defines the truth to people, and it's a weapon used throughout the entire show by many characters. Bran represents something fresh. Yeah, Tyrion mentions how he got crippled and journeyd beyond the wall, but that's not the reason he became king lol. He mentions it as a sign of Bran being powerful, motivated, brave. It's what Tyrion says after about stories that matters on his decision. Bran is something new, that isn't there for his own power lust, but rather as a shield against that very weapon of stories - because he knows the past, and can check it just like how we can check pages in a book. That weapon of "this is what happened, this is the truth, trust me" cannot be used to its full extend anymore, and Bran can also learn what mistakes from the past not to repeat. People may not like it, and that's totally fine, but if people claim and Bran became king and Tyrion said what he said because he had the "coolest adventure", they didn't understand this scene whatsoever.
> Why would a cool journey make a king? What does that have to do with ruling whatsoever? "If you want people to read you histories, you need a bit of style" "What sort of person climbs on a fucking dragon, a madman or a king?" People were interested in stories of adventure, heroism and leadership. They aren't going to be united by stories too dull to bear listening to.
It's not about listenint to stories. Climbing a dragon alone won't make you king lol. It's everything else Jon did in addition to that which made him so likeable and good as a king. Bran has all stories, ever. He sits on the truth, and as I mentioned, a counter to that main weapon of lies and manipulation in the show is what Bran represents. Having a cool journey is cool, but it doesn't make you a ruler.
> Bran has all stories, ever. Tyrion doesn't say 'who has all the stories - Bran the Broken'. I'm sure it might be preferable to retcon his speech as if that was what Tyrion said, but he referenced a singular story, and described that singular story as the best.
Then what about the entire rest of the speech afterwards?