Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
There's one point on the ending that no amount of taking their time and telling the story correctly will resolve, and that's that accepting the crown goes fundamentally against who Bran has been since the beginning of the show. I would have been okay with a reluctant king in Jon, because it would fulfill the prophecy, fire would have won out over ice, LRJ would have mattered, Varys would have a complete arc, Jon being a Targaryen raised by a Stark would have given us an emotionally satisfying end to the civil war by uniting the north and south in one person, and Jon had already proven himself to be caring and competent in a leadership role he didn't really want when he was at castle black.
Bran didn't just not want to be king, he expressed absolute disdain for the office of king. He repeatedly says that it doesn't matter who is king. Unless we're assuming that something happened to make this ending make sense, it just doesn't. If we are assuming that something happened to make this ending make sense, then it's incumbent on the show to show us what happened and they failed to do that.
I really don't think Bran as king is a bad ending but I would have really liked to see Sansa or Jon.
What made it bad for me was how quickly it was decided. "Lol who should be king?" "I dunno not me" "how about the crippled boy" "haha perfect, the end"
There should have been more talk leading up to it - not just the episode but the season as a whole. Nobody ever ponders who will take over when they win??
The last two seasons were so rushed. Things happening nonstop and I enjoyed the slow moments of that show as much as the action. It felt very Hollywood (in a bad way)
And do they honestly expect him to produce an heir? I know quadriplegic men have trouble with that and he also just has no interest in that, Bei the raven and all. It will basically end up with someone else anyway, maybe Jon after all.
That was one of the points made for Bran, that since he won't produce an heir that the new system of "The Lords Paramount, monarchs of newly seceded nations, and whoever happens to be at the meeting decide by consensus" will continue