Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article are solely those of the author and do not represent those of, nor should they be attributed to, CCN.com.
By CCN.com: Despite snot-nosed viewers of the fantastic “Game of Thrones” finale carrying digital pitchforks and torches to HBO HQ, the episode pulled in 19.3 million viewers– the most of any episode this season.
Check out this chart: Those numbers haven’t been seen on network TV in more than a decade, and they exposed “Game of Thrones” haters for what they are: pretentious liars.
Warning, there are spoilers ahead.
The audacity of the show’s creators to deliver the only endings in the “Game of Thrones” finale that could have made sense drove viewers into bloodcurling screams across the internet. The reason is that they lack imagination, and having their expectations subverted is taboo.
The lunatic writers over at “Wired,” as well as the oh-so-superior hive mind of the internet, were primarily complaining about the shrewd move of Bran being selected as king.
The reason why is Bran can see into past and future, and can, therefore, predict what will happen! There’s nobody better for the job or anyone who is more powerful. Couple that with the fact that Bran doesn’t want the job, and that makes Bran an outstanding choice for it.
Why listen to people about the “Game of Thrones” finale who rave that having barely noticeable coffee cups and water bottles in two shots are somehow indicative of the season being “slapdash and inconsiderate?”
Maybe someone should explain to these buffoons that it took months to shoot the season and every other detail, as always, was faultless.
None of Wired’s writers paid any attention to the careful character development that occurred over eight seasons. Only a dopey “woke” writer would say that Tyrion didn’t deserve to be Hand because he was “a straight white male who kept screwing up.”
Tyrion screwing up is the result of his character, wanting to see the best in everyone, even a megalomaniac like his Queen. Moreover, as Bran said, it’s more of a sentence– Tyrion must fix everything he helped break.
So obtuse are these critics that they criticize Drogon’s melting of the Iron Throne in the “Game of Thrones” finale. Whether Drogon was intelligent enough to know the throne was the reason for his mother’s death or, more likely, that it was just a metaphorical result of Drogon’s mournful and angry scream, doesn’t matter.
If that’s what they’re complaining about in the “Game of Thrones” finale, we’ve spent too much time on them already.
This is what happens when audiences get snookered into believing standard television and feature film structure are the only ways to tell a story. They expect a startling set piece as a climax, with a third act twist. There’s a reason many shows hew to that structure – because it is tremendously satisfying.
Yet GoT finale viewers forget that the series has literary roots. Even though George Martin had not finished the books, the pacing and development of the show was literary in the extreme.
That also means a literary finale, in which the two big set pieces are not crammed into the final hour, and loose ends tied off in the last ten minutes.
It means playing out the Battle of Winterfell in episode three, and the slaughter of King’s Landing in episode five, and then wrapping up the loose ends in a full 72-minute episode.
Skeptical? Observe the greatest story ever told: “Lord of the Rings.” Did either the book or movies end with Frodo chucking the ring into Mt. Doom? No. There’s a bounty of material on the back-end that ties off all the stories.
There will not be a surge of HBO cancellations because of the GoT finale, any more than people will abandon Hollywood. A disgruntled media is merely fanning the flames of discontent sparked by lazy audiences.
The Game of Thrones finale was fascinating and unexpected, and an unparalleled feat of storytelling that delivered the only endings it could, and in deeply satisfying fashion.
Last modified: July 2, 2020 8:29 PM UTC