Why Game of Thrones season 7 has been the worst so far
Game of Thrones – once a visionary television shhow with a fantastic storyline, complex characters and CGI to drool over – in its seventh year, has turned into what one can only describe as somewhat visually appealing garbage.
The seventh season has been the weakest so far in a show that has meandered away from George RR Martin's book, A Song of Ice and Fire’s plot, because at this point, there really isn’t a book they can follow, unlike in previous seasons when they chose not to follow the fantasy novel.
Everything about GoT season seven has been half-hearted, hasty, sloppy and just plain annoying. From Jon Snow, to Daenerys to Sansa to Arya, all the characters we once loved have now turned into bad caricatures of themselves, continuing an unnecessary existence marinated in bad writing. That’s perhaps why George RR Martin has not seen a single season seven episode so far.
There are too many things that are wrong with the David Benioff and DB Weiss production, but let us look at what ticked us off the most this season.
The show’s pace
A show that was once known for its painstaking attention to detail, thanks to unparalleled global success and the laziness that comes with it, has now succumbed to its own greatness and taken a turn for the worse. The show makers know all too well that the audience will watch it no matter what they do to the plot, and with that goes away the incentive to improve.
This season has been hasty and fast-paced — and in the bad way. King in the North Jon Snow travels from Winterfell to Dragonstone in a matter of hours. Kingslayer Jaime Lannister reaches King’s Landing from Dorne further South in no time. In the latest episode, Baratheon bastard Gendry manages to run to the Wall and send a raven to Mother of Dragons Daenerys, who then rides her children (dragons) to north of the Wall and destroys wights, all in the time it would take the water to freeze in Westeros’ notorious winter, with subzero temperatures.
Where is the build-up the show so wonderfully achieved in the initial seasons? A Vox article argues: “Now that we’re this deep into the series, we don’t really need to establish who these characters are. We know. We’ve been with them all along. Now, what matters is plot, and the plot’s needs require flitting from location to location, just to keep up. Time is still passing for the characters in the same way, but the amount of it we need to see to follow the story has greatly decreased.”
But that really does not explain the logical inconsistencies the show makers have been indulging in when it comes to time and geography — and logic.
Actor Aidan Gillen, who plays the role of Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish, told the New York Times, "There’s a lot of story still to tell. But a lot of this is what people have been waiting to see happen, and alliances people have been hoping for, for so long. No matter how you pace it, it’s probably going to seem like it’s happening pretty fast."
"But the audience has to always feel they’re privy to intimate moments. There was a beautiful moment in last night’s episode with Daenerys and Jon Snow — it’s great to see her show that vulnerability again. Despite the breakneck pace of development, it’s important for the makers to take their time with those moments."
Making excuses for the show’s shoddy writing with, “No matter how you pace it, it’s probably going to seem like it’s happening pretty fast” seems like the only thing one can do at this point.
The show’s lack of evil
Game of Thrones was a dark show when it started. It had evil, but not the conventional fairytale fantasy evil that is always juxtaposed with the righteous and the valiant. No. Game of Thrones was more about moral ambiguity, nuance and shades of grey. And it wasn’t just the crust of the characters, but the show itself. There was little mercy, and less empathy for characters. The operational word here is “was”. All that has changed now.
Maybe we have got used to the brutality of the show and how easily it kills off characters, but the show has turned vanilla. That is to say Game of Thrones has moved from the cruelty of humans, which is fascinating, because there is no absolute good and evil, to the cruelty of the supernatural, which frankly moves beyond the spectrum of conscience.
White Walkers and dragons are not human, hence they can be however evil we choose to imagine. And humans joining hands and forgetting their own differences at the sight of a bigger, superhuman enemy, is just some weak tea.
Gwilym Mumford, in a fantastic op-ed in The Guardian, writes, “...at this stage it is a different show to the one we were initially sold: more conventional, closer to the fantastical tales of knights and sorcerers Martin’s books seemed to be subverting. (It does seem notable that GoT’s drift towards neatness has come at the exact point the show went beyond the source material).”
The show makers are obviously tidying things up. They have, after all, only a handful of episodes left to conclude the saga. But is it worth it, especially if the show has managed to lose that one essence that separated it from all fantasy drama? Nope.
Deus ex machina
Deus ex machina, which is Latin for “god from the machine”, is an unexpected power or event saving a seemingly hopeless situation, especially as a contrived plot device in a play or novel. Game of Thrones — that had us once sold on the “reality” quotient of a mythical fantasy, because it had no happy endings and bad things happened to good people, as much as they did to bad people — has now started resorting to dei ex machina, to save Jon Snow, Winterfell and the show’s ratings.
It started last season. The Vale’s army saved Jon in the "Battle of The Bastards". Before that, it was a red priestess and her magic. This time, it was a dragon with Daenerys riding it, followed by an Uncle Benjen galloping on a horse. Why is the show so hell-bent on saving Jon Snow? He’s a good character. He’s the true blue hero in a world that used to be filled with only deceitful people. But that does not at all mean that he needs saving. In fact, his death would feel more natural, given how reckless he is.
Why did Jaime need saving from nothing short of dragon fire? Why did Ser Jorah suddenly need saving from a terminal illness? And were their deaths even remotely compensated by Game of Thrones’ desire to remain dark, by killing off Benjen Stark and Thoros of Myr? No. These are all weak plot points devised to salvage a weak storyline that is literally headed nowhere.
Character(development)less
It is hard to remember the last time a show, book or movie discarded the character arcs they worked so hard to build. Sansa and Arya’s bickering makes less than zero sense. Arya is not supposed to be motivated by petty emotions anymore. She is supposed to have a one-track mind filled with thirst for vengeance — and vengeance alone. But it would seem that sibling rivalry can come in the way of something so primal.
Why is Jon decisive and stubborn throughout the whole season, but suddenly turns into a pile of mush at the end of the last episode, when he bends the knee (metaphorically). It can't be that he was suddenly overcome with newfound love for life that caused a paradigm shift, after all, the man has literally died before.
Perhaps, the only character that retains some of her defining traits is Cersei. She is still vengeful. She is still cunning. But not the rest. They all look like caricatures of themselves from season one, when there was little to them to begin with.
As a Los Angeles Review of Books piece says, "This show is no longer Game of Thrones; it’s now a tribute to Game of Thrones, like the point in classic rock band’s career where you really, really, really don’t want to hear any new songs (Euron) because the only reason anyone is paying for tickets is to hear retreads of the old favorites."