Are people taking the wrong message from the failure of Game of Thrones' final season?

[Elfdart]

The premise of this thread is absurd. I haven't seen such a clownish misuse of the word failure since one of the Red Letter Morons claimed that since sixteen movies in human history earned more money than The Phantom Menace, the movie was a "failure".

I can't wait for the "Why was Avengers: Endgame such a failure?" thread.

[Darth Yan]

Game of Thrones was rushed towards the end. They needed more episodes in the final season.

[Ralin]

The premise of this thread is absurd. I haven't seen such a clownish misuse of the word failure since one of the Red Letter Morons claimed that since sixteen movies in human history earned more money than The Phantom Menace, the movie was a "failure".

I can't wait for the "Why was Avengers: Endgame such a failure?" thread.

Yes, the utter absurdity of thinking that a show that was widely watched and made a lot of money failed to provide a good or satisfying ending. You trolling or do you legit have some sort of beef with the idea of people arguing about whether stories were good?

[Vendetta]

Look we all know that commercial outcomes are the only way we can judge the success or failure of a dramatic presentation.

I'm sure the last season of Game of Thrones made HBO a lot of money, but that doesn't mean it was a well told conclusion, it means it was a highly anticipated one.

[Darth Yan]

Doesn’t she just pick someone at random for Barristans death not the guy who actually did it?

Given that the people who did it were anonymous masked terrorists who were by default criminals who would be executed in literally any city on Planetos for just being part of a rebellion, one more line on the rap sheet doesn't mean much now does it.

She also has a tendency to get pissy when people reject her, and was lobbying to conquer Westeros (which she had no real claim to) before the assassin tried to kill her. She has a very simple “if you oppose me you die” mentality that Jon and others don’t have

Again, there's no logical path between "get pissy" and "burn down half a city". And she was lobbying to conquer Westeros, just like half a dozen other characters who were not presented as fantasy sky hitler. None of these things are unique to Daenerys and none of them draw a logical path to where her character ends up, because the writers were incompetent and didn't know that was what you're supposed to do.

Jon does, in fact, execute a number of people, including a child, for opposing him in the mutiny at Castle Black. Killing people who oppose you when they take up arms or incite others to do so is how the world works in Game of Thrones, it's the whole reason any of the the events of the series happen.

Jon executed them after they murdered him and their reasons were FAR pettier (they didn't want to work with the Wildlings even though the Night's King was on the way). Dany takes people who had far better reasons (Doreah was tired of wandering in the desert)

More importantly some of the masters she crucified actively opposed the practice, she had to be talked out of burning cities to the ground and her entire reason for going for Westeros despite having Mereen was because she felt entitled to Westeros even though her family had been forced out. She also rants about "taking what's mine through fire and blood." She had admirable qualities but she had to be reigned in by advisors. Once those advisors either died or lost her confidence her darker nature took over.

[Gandalf]

Look we all know that commercial outcomes are the only way we can judge the success or failure of a dramatic presentation.

I'm sure the last season of Game of Thrones made HBO a lot of money, but that doesn't mean it was a well told conclusion, it means it was a highly anticipated one.

It was a commercial enterprise first and foremost, so why not use money made as a key metric? The show had a baked in audience that was going to watch it regardless, so it's in their interests to cut corners and roll some dice in the quest for awards.

[Elfdart]

Yes, the utter absurdity of thinking that a show that was widely watched and made a lot of money failed to provide a good or satisfying ending. You trolling or do you legit have some sort of beef with the idea of people arguing about whether stories were good?

The thread title and OP don't just state that TRR doesn't like the last season, but make an objective claim that the season was a "failure". The inability to notice or acknowledge the difference between "I didn't like it" and "It was a failure" is Red Letter Moron territory.

When I started a thread years ago about my distaste for No Country For Old Men, I didn't try to pass off my own likes and dislikes as objective fact; I didn't pretend to speak for anyone but myself; and I sure as shit didn't claim a movie that did well at the box office was some kind of "failure" just because I thought it was garbage.

[Ralin]

The thread title and OP don't just state that TRR doesn't like the last season, but make an objective claim that the season was a "failure". The inability to notice or acknowledge the difference between "I didn't like it" and "It was a failure" is Red Letter Moron territory.

When I started a thread years ago about my distaste for No Country For Old Men, I didn't try to pass off my own likes and dislikes as objective fact; I didn't pretend to speak for anyone but myself; and I sure as shit didn't claim a movie that did well at the box office was some kind of "failure" just because I thought it was garbage.

"Objective"is a loaded word to throw around here. Saying that the ending and last seasons of Game of Thrones were a failure with the pretty clear implication that he means it was bad because it failed to give a satisfying ending relative to all the build up and the good parts of earlier seasons, had dumb writing and was kinda sexist if you think about it isn't any more or less claiming his tastes are objective fact than you declaring that No Country for Old Men was tedious and stupid.

I find it pretty hard to believe you legit don't see that. It seems like you’re doing your usual shock jock routine because you for whatever reason don’t like the direction people’s criticism is going and are trying to dismiss everyone detracting it with some sort of galaxy brain “Heh, you dumbasses think that TV shows can be objectively bad :smug:” take.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The thread title and OP don't just state that TRR doesn't like the last season, but make an objective claim that the season was a "failure". The inability to notice or acknowledge the difference between "I didn't like it" and "It was a failure" is Red Letter Moron territory.

When I started a thread years ago about my distaste for No Country For Old Men, I didn't try to pass off my own likes and dislikes as objective fact; I didn't pretend to speak for anyone but myself; and I sure as shit didn't claim a movie that did well at the box office was some kind of "failure" just because I thought it was garbage.

Don't act all high and mighty about your "No Country For Old Men" take. I went back and re-read that thread. You aren't nearly as magnanimous as you are trying to make yourself out to be. You dismiss anyone that did like the movie as simply being an out-of-touch snob, a hack, or stupid. You aren't just someone humbly stating your opinion, you are someone who is so utterly convinced that their opinions ARE objective fact that the only possible reasons someone could disagree with your opinions is if they are stupid or just straight out lying. You say at one point that even a good shag couldn't "save" the movie; that really isn't much different from the language TRR is using.

Pull your head out of your ass, you hypocritical oaf. Either contribute directly to the discussion or fuck off.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It was a commercial enterprise first and foremost, so why not use money made as a key metric? The show had a baked in audience that was going to watch it regardless, so it's in their interests to cut corners and roll some dice in the quest for awards.

I mean, people can feel free to start another thread about the financial success of "Game of Thrones" and see how interesting that conversation ends up being. I don't understand the point of wandering into a discussion people are having about specific plot points and themes of a story and shouting "BUT IT MADE MONEY!!" It's like if people are having a discussion about the hypothetical historical ramifications of Hitler dying in 1936 and you just come in and shout "BUT WE WON THE WAR! U-S-A! U-S-A!" It's technically true, but it's pointless and obnoxious.

[MKSheppard]

GOT S8 really could have used a few more episodes to set things up.

Yes, we got longer episodes, but episode breaks themselves form natural thematic "chapters".

Having two extra episodes to be inserted:

After the Great Battle at Winterfell
After the initial showdown outside King's Landing between Danerys and Cersei

would have improved S8 by providing extra pacing and development; instead of the RUSH RIGHT INTO THINGS that we got.

[MKSheppard]

When I started a thread years ago about my distaste for No Country For Old Men, I didn't try to pass off my own likes and dislikes as objective fact; I didn't pretend to speak for anyone but myself; and I sure as shit didn't claim a movie that did well at the box office was some kind of "failure" just because I thought it was garbage.

My biggest gripe with No Country was the character of Anton Chirgurgh. They tried to make him out into some kind of badass contract killer for hire for the cartels; but he didn't BEHAVE like an actual contract killer -- he killed people for no reason at all, and left behind badly contaminated crime scenes, which even with 1980s technology (fingerprints only) would have easily tripped up Anton.

from my old No Country Thread:

He kills a cop in the station, then drives the cops car and kills a random bystander for his car (oh man, that guy was retarded; a cop car stops me, and out steps someone who isn't in a uniform and lacks grooming standards, I'm driving away like hell), then goes on and kills a motel-full of mexicans, kills a hotel clerk, shoots up a hotel room; and then proceeds to riddle a random guy in a truck with bullets, etc.

All that put together would have elicted a huge response from the police forces in the area, texas rangers, et al, even possibly the FBI and ATF.

A true contract killer avoids killing randoms as it increases the risk of detection. You could argue that Anton was a sociopath attracted to killing, but high level sociopaths can still form complex cause/effect chains and perform risk avoidance.

Much for the same reason, I can't stand AVATAR; specifically because of the statement: "We built roads, but they didn't use them."

[Solauren]

You could also argue that he was sent by them because he made big public messes. He's a weapon of intimidation. You send him, he does damage, and the next guy that pisses you off, you threaten to send him against.

[The Romulan Republic]

It was a commercial enterprise first and foremost, so why not use money made as a key metric? The show had a baked in audience that was going to watch it regardless, so it's in their interests to cut corners and roll some dice in the quest for awards.

I mean, people can feel free to start another thread about the financial success of "Game of Thrones" and see how interesting that conversation ends up being. I don't understand the point of wandering into a discussion people are having about specific plot points and themes of a story and shouting "BUT IT MADE MONEY!!" It's like if people are having a discussion about the hypothetical historical ramifications of Hitler dying in 1936 and you just come in and shout "BUT WE WON THE WAR! U-S-A! U-S-A!" It's technically true, but it's pointless and obnoxious.

Yeah. From the point of view of turning HBO a profit, the final season was a success. Not as big a one as it could have been if they hadn't pissed a bunch of fans off, maybe, but still a success (and some fans were always going to get pissed off).

But measuring artistic success by viewing numbers is basically just an Appeal to Popularity. Of course, many will argue that you can't objectively measure artistic success. But I would propose at least two possible measures:

1. Did the show achieve its own goals? Ie, did it convey the message, mood, or conclusion that it set out to. Clearly, the show wanted the audience to perceive Daenerys as a mad woman and a villain. They wanted a "bittersweet" ending. And they presumably wanted a conclusion that would be generally satisfying to the fan base. By that standard, they achieved at best mixed success- the final season, and in particular the last three episodes, are extremely divisive among the fandom, and probably the single most divisive thing by far is whether the series did justice to Daenerys's character.

2. Was the show consistent with itself/internally consistent. Consistency is important to a narrative. Some people may place more emphasis on it than others, but there has to be some basic degree of internal coherency, generally, in a narrative for it to make sense, or be worth investing in.

By this measure, I would contend that the final season was an abject failure- there were numerous inconsistencies and poorly-justified reversals in plot, characterization, and theme.