“The fans had the wrong expectations!” - How legitimate is the argument?

[j9ac9k]

I think that when you subvert expectations it has to make narrative sense - it shouldn't be something out of left field where even after rewatching no one can figure out the clues. Plus, it's a device that needs to be used sparingly - if all you do is subvert expectations for every setup, that becomes the norm.

That's kinda how I ended up feeling about "The Sopranos" culminating with the ending, which was the ultimate, "You weren't expecting that, were you - nyah nyah!"

[Powerboy]

I think that when you subvert expectations it has to make narrative sense - it shouldn't be something out of left field where even after rewatching no one can figure out the clues. Plus, it's a device that needs to be used sparingly - if all you do is subvert expectations for every setup, that becomes the norm.

I know it's beating the proverbial dead horse but "The Last Jedi" has become the poster child for the "Subverting expectations" defense as joke. Or, as a friend of mine put it, after TLJ, whenever anyone starts to defend a movie with "It subverted...", he will snap, "Oh, shut the f*** up and get a real argument". It's the symbol now of subverting expectations for the sheer three-ring circus shock value of it with no narrative sense.

[godisawesome]

Most everything can be broken down to your age.


The older you are the harder it is to like new things.

When your 5, 10, 15, or 20 most everything you watch is life changing and the greatest thing...

Or at the very least by the time you hit 30 or 40 you cant remember all the utter trash you watched over the years.

Nostalgia is powerful and all the negativity nellies on this forum or the internet at large usually are older and living in the past.

4 year old me and 7 year old me had my mind blown by Keaton and his Batman films. How do we top those feelings.

Most of us would probably agree the best star wars is empire strikes back.

Worked with a 19 year old and the first star wars he saw in theaters was phantom menace.
It is his favorite star wars.


Watching The Flash tv series as a kid, as cheesy as it is, was awesome... yet some how I cant be bothered by CW Flash or these modern dc shows, even tho they are easily as well done and better done then say, Lois and Clark with Dean Caine...

Childhood allows us to enjoy a lot more material, a lot more things in life in general...

This is the single largest factor in why xyz project isnt as good as that old thing I like.

Of course some stuff just comes down to bad execution like those last couple seasons of himym...

I think od have to object that age has that much to do with most of the examples discussed here, in part because most of the ones we’ve talked about weren’t victims of nostalgia-shading - the backlash they experienced largely came from people who had loved the previous season, or even just the previous episode.

I mean, if a Star Wars fan loved The Force Awakens but hated The Last Jedi, can that really be nostalgia blinding them? If someone spent weeks watching HIMYM tell them a season-long story about Robin and Barney making it to marriage, can they be blinded by nostalgia when the next and last episode ditches that entire story element? If Game Of Thrones was seeing more and more people watch the show as it went in, can a two hiatus really be long enough for blinders to descend?

I feel that, while the “your expectations were wrong” argument *can* be accurate, it only really applicable on a case by case basis, and sometimes it’s rushed out by some people too proud to just say “resolving a cliffhanger is no cakewalk and endings are hard, okay?” instead.

Honestly, all three of those stories have some much more applicable explanation for the backlash beyond an argument over what the audience should have expected or not: HIMYM simply lasted far longer than the story it’s ending was originally intended for and grew larger than the message it wanted to end on, D&D *did not* sign on to write the ending to Martin’s book series for him and his storyline is notoriously dense and sprawling, and Rian Johnson was involved in neither the creative process behind TFA nor the process behind TROS to any appreciable extent, and so had no connection to what Abrams had done or to where Trevorrow was supposed to take the story in the end.

I think it’s just that, rather than admit to the difficulties and acknowledge flaws fans and critics see, claiming “expectation immunity” is more of a face-saving gesture that successful franchises would much rather incorporate into the narrative about the debate, since it can reinforce more supportive fans by telling them they’re watching the story the “right way,” instead of just enjoying a product that has flaws that don’t bother them particualrly, encouraging them to defend and consume the product more.

I know it's beating the proverbial dead horse but "The Last Jedi" has become the poster child for the "Subverting expectations" defense as joke. Or, as a friend of mine put it, after TLJ, whenever anyone starts to defend a movie with "It subverted...", he will snap, "Oh, shut the f*** up and get a real argument". It's the symbol now of subverting expectations for the sheer three-ring circus shock value of it with no narrative sense.

This part probably belongs more in the Star Wars forum... but I do feel like both The Force Awakens and Rogue One are just as, if not more, subversive than The Last Jedi.

They just also have more immediately rewarding substance to accompany their subversions.

Both those films don’t feature a Skywalker or Solo as the male or female lead, and actually make the central pairing a female protagonist primary lead and the male secondary protagonist a minority lead. TFA has Kylo totally invert Vader’s redemption by Luke by having him murder Han instead. Finn is a subversive character concept in an of himself - the nameless and faceless moon taking center stage instead of remaining part of the background. Rogue One flat-out kills off all its heroes, and actually made a good stab at having morally ambiguous heroes.

Meanwhile, TLJ clearly elevates Hamill above Boyega on the totem pole, seems to do the same with Driver in terms of narrative significance, and arguably subordinates Rey to Luke and Kylo’s stories as well. It’s also just as guilty of copying the OT as TFA - while TFA was ANH and ESB remixed, TLJ is ESB and ROTJ remixed. And while Luke’s story was that of a broken man delaying with his failures, TFA had already done that with Han... except his story actually benefitted the new characters and had a more accepted explanation for his brokenness.

I’m going to be honest, while I think there would be a legitimate gripe Rian Johnson might have with fans for being invested in potential answers he found boring, I don’t think there’s a really a defense in The Last Jedi for follow-up criticisms about why *his* answers weren’t that popular anyway.

[Menacer]

I think od have to object that age has that much to do with most of the examples discussed here, in part because most of the ones we’ve talked about weren’t victims of nostalgia-shading - the backlash they experienced largely came from people who had loved the previous season, or even just the previous episode.

I mean, if a Star Wars fan loved The Force Awakens but hated The Last Jedi, can that really be nostalgia blinding them? If someone spent weeks watching HIMYM tell them a season-long story about Robin and Barney making it to marriage, can they be blinded by nostalgia when the next and last episode ditches that entire story element? If Game Of Thrones was seeing more and more people watch the show as it went in, can a two hiatus really be long enough for blinders to descend?

I feel that, while the “your expectations were wrong” argument *can* be accurate, it only really applicable on a case by case basis, and sometimes it’s rushed out by some people too proud to just say “resolving a cliffhanger is no cakewalk and endings are hard, okay?” instead.

Honestly, all three of those stories have some much more applicable explanation for the backlash beyond an argument over what the audience should have expected or not: HIMYM simply lasted far longer than the story it’s ending was originally intended for and grew larger than the message it wanted to end on, D&D *did not* sign on to write the ending to Martin’s book series for him and his storyline is notoriously dense and sprawling, and Rian Johnson was involved in neither the creative process behind TFA nor the process behind TROS to any appreciable extent, and so had no connection to what Abrams had done or to where Trevorrow was supposed to take the story in the end.

I think it’s just that, rather than admit to the difficulties and acknowledge flaws fans and critics see, claiming “expectation immunity” is more of a face-saving gesture that successful franchises would much rather incorporate into the narrative about the debate, since it can reinforce more supportive fans by telling them they’re watching the story the “right way,” instead of just enjoying a product that has flaws that don’t bother them particualrly, encouraging them to defend and consume the product more.


This part probably belongs more in the Star Wars forum... but I do feel like both The Force Awakens and Rogue One are just as, if not more, subversive than The Last Jedi.

They just also have more immediately rewarding substance to accompany their subversions.

Both those films don’t feature a Skywalker or Solo as the male or female lead, and actually make the central pairing a female protagonist primary lead and the male secondary protagonist a minority lead. TFA has Kylo totally invert Vader’s redemption by Luke by having him murder Han instead. Finn is a subversive character concept in an of himself - the nameless and faceless moon taking center stage instead of remaining part of the background. Rogue One flat-out kills off all its heroes, and actually made a good stab at having morally ambiguous heroes.

Meanwhile, TLJ clearly elevates Hamill above Boyega on the totem pole, seems to do the same with Driver in terms of narrative significance, and arguably subordinates Rey to Luke and Kylo’s stories as well. It’s also just as guilty of copying the OT as TFA - while TFA was ANH and ESB remixed, TLJ is ESB and ROTJ remixed. And while Luke’s story was that of a broken man delaying with his failures, TFA had already done that with Han... except his story actually benefitted the new characters and had a more accepted explanation for his brokenness.

I’m going to be honest, while I think there would be a legitimate gripe Rian Johnson might have with fans for being invested in potential answers he found boring, I don’t think there’s a really a defense in The Last Jedi for follow-up criticisms about why *his* answers weren’t that popular anyway.

My point was if you were 7 when HIMYM started by the time it ended youd still be young and not a huge critic... you would just love the ride of the series.

Same with force awakens or the last jedi. If u are 7, 8 or 9 you arent viewing these films and judging them on the level you describe.


Sorry bro your old. Thats why my 19 year old friend has extremely fond memories of phantom menace upon its release. He was a tiny kid. And now even tho he is 19 he is blinded by the nostalgia of what is basically unanimously agreed to be a horrible star wars movie.

But you still have a valid point, its not that the complaints arent valid...

Its that 10 year olds arent making them

[Will Evans]

I think od have to object that age has that much to do with most of the examples discussed here, in part because most of the ones we’ve talked about weren’t victims of nostalgia-shading - the backlash they experienced largely came from people who had loved the previous season, or even just the previous episode.

I mean, if a Star Wars fan loved The Force Awakens but hated The Last Jedi, can that really be nostalgia blinding them? If someone spent weeks watching HIMYM tell them a season-long story about Robin and Barney making it to marriage, can they be blinded by nostalgia when the next and last episode ditches that entire story element? If Game Of Thrones was seeing more and more people watch the show as it went in, can a two hiatus really be long enough for blinders to descend?

I feel that, while the “your expectations were wrong” argument *can* be accurate, it only really applicable on a case by case basis, and sometimes it’s rushed out by some people too proud to just say “resolving a cliffhanger is no cakewalk and endings are hard, okay?” instead.

Honestly, all three of those stories have some much more applicable explanation for the backlash beyond an argument over what the audience should have expected or not: HIMYM simply lasted far longer than the story it’s ending was originally intended for and grew larger than the message it wanted to end on, D&D *did not* sign on to write the ending to Martin’s book series for him and his storyline is notoriously dense and sprawling, and Rian Johnson was involved in neither the creative process behind TFA nor the process behind TROS to any appreciable extent, and so had no connection to what Abrams had done or to where Trevorrow was supposed to take the story in the end.

I think it’s just that, rather than admit to the difficulties and acknowledge flaws fans and critics see, claiming “expectation immunity” is more of a face-saving gesture that successful franchises would much rather incorporate into the narrative about the debate, since it can reinforce more supportive fans by telling them they’re watching the story the “right way,” instead of just enjoying a product that has flaws that don’t bother them particualrly, encouraging them to defend and consume the product more.


This part probably belongs more in the Star Wars forum... but I do feel like both The Force Awakens and Rogue One are just as, if not more, subversive than The Last Jedi.

They just also have more immediately rewarding substance to accompany their subversions.

Both those films don’t feature a Skywalker or Solo as the male or female lead, and actually make the central pairing a female protagonist primary lead and the male secondary protagonist a minority lead. TFA has Kylo totally invert Vader’s redemption by Luke by having him murder Han instead. Finn is a subversive character concept in an of himself - the nameless and faceless moon taking center stage instead of remaining part of the background. Rogue One flat-out kills off all its heroes, and actually made a good stab at having morally ambiguous heroes.

Meanwhile, TLJ clearly elevates Hamill above Boyega on the totem pole, seems to do the same with Driver in terms of narrative significance, and arguably subordinates Rey to Luke and Kylo’s stories as well. It’s also just as guilty of copying the OT as TFA - while TFA was ANH and ESB remixed, TLJ is ESB and ROTJ remixed. And while Luke’s story was that of a broken man delaying with his failures, TFA had already done that with Han... except his story actually benefitted the new characters and had a more accepted explanation for his brokenness.

I’m going to be honest, while I think there would be a legitimate gripe Rian Johnson might have with fans for being invested in potential answers he found boring, I don’t think there’s a really a defense in The Last Jedi for follow-up criticisms about why *his* answers weren’t that popular anyway.

Han was used like that because he’s not a https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...ryBreakerPower like Luke has.

While Rey and Finn were the POV characters in TFA, we now have to go deep in the lore in TLJ, and find out how things got to this point. The biggest reveals of TFA was that Luke was missing and that the villain was revealed as Han and Leia’s son.

Now in TLJ, Rey is still the POV and through her we find out the why of those reveals.

Rian used Fin as a POV in the side story for why the Resistance is necessary in the galaxy.

[godisawesome]

My point was if you were 7 when HIMYM started by the time it ended youd still be young and not a huge critic... you would just love the ride of the series.

Same with force awakens or the last jedi. If u are 7, 8 or 9 you arent viewing these films and judging them on the level you describe.


Sorry bro your old. Thats why my 19 year old friend has extremely fond memories of phantom menace upon its release. He was a tiny kid. And now even tho he is 19 he is blinded by the nostalgia of what is basically unanimously agreed to be a horrible star wars movie.

But you still have a valid point, its not that the complaints arent valid...

Its that 10 year olds arent making them

I think I’d agree with the idea that the younger you are, the easier you are to impress... but it feels a bit disingenuous to argue that’s material to the argument. I mean, at the same time that arguing that young people are easier to please and interest in a story is true in many cases (though not all, given how demographics sometimes show interest skewing older on ostensibly successful products), you’ve also got wildly successful films that appeal more to older crowds and still rake in young kid money.

TLJ and TROS reportedly saw a somewhat older audience as the Sequel Trilogy unfolded, as well as a shrinking one... meanwhile, the MCU exploded in younger demographics and continued to do so as time went on. Game of Thrones also raked in more and more young viewers arguably all the way until the end... but ended flat, and with consensus being that it’s weaker ending than the story it belonged to. HIMYM won its “too many” seasons with a younger crowd, and ended right when it’s rating started to just barely dip because it wasn’t getting new guys to watch it.

Han was used like that because he’s not a https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...ryBreakerPower like Luke has.

While Rey and Finn were the POV characters in TFA, we now have to go deep in the lore in TLJ, and find out how things got to this point. The biggest reveals of TFA was that Luke was missing and that the villain was revealed as Han and Leia’s son.

Now in TLJ, Rey is still the POV and through her we find out the why of those reveals.

Rian used Fin as a POV in the side story for why the Resistance is necessary in the galaxy.

I still got to disagree with this, though I’m going to tie it in to multiple other franchises we’re talking about here.

TLJ doesn’t just have some dubious answers to TFA’s questions, character arcs, and cliffhangers, it also just plain executes it’s answers badly. There’s nothing about Luke’s Story Breaking Power that prevents him from being useful to Rey’s story: he could still train her, the information he gives her could still have far more substance to it to explain her out-of-character actions in TLJ, or he could simply not absorb more of the story than her when he’s ultimately just going to die at the end fo the story - she’s the main character for this Trilogy, so ultimately she matters more than him for this Trilogy. We also already know why the Resistance is necessary, because TFA did a much better job of it already: their first scene was them committing a war crime at Kylo’s orders, then they murdered an entire Star System - the problem with Finn’s story is that it neither has the ambition of his personal arc in TFA (which is damn good, frankly), nor the ambition for the external story he’s telling compared to TFA... and again, Finn is supposed to be the male lead for this Trilogy, not Luke, and he’s supposed to carry through to the next film, and he was constructed to be part of a complimentary set with Rey... and he got replaced with Kylo in that role by TLJ, which required forcing Rey into an uneven parasitic narrative with him and an objectively abusive relationship the films were trying to praise.

Giving an answer is necessary. Giving that answer that way? Not really.

Same thing with HIMYM and Game Of ThroneS.

Though I will say I think this hits at a disagreement between either creators and the audience or just creators and other creators.

HIMYM had to deal with the fact that the story they told over their last two seasons neither benefitted nor gelled with the ending the creators had envisioned when they started the show - if the audience interpreted the story the “wrong way,” that’s because the last two season were substantial evidence against the ending. Game of Throne had to deal with losing the nuance and careful pre-planning that Martin had provided in the early seasons *and* a substantially smaller window to try and wrap things up - if the audience wasn’t taking the rewards the shows was offering for long term investment, it’s because the “meal” the show was providing was clumsier, had less depth, and was somewhat bland in weird areas than previous “meals.”

The Sequel Trilogy is kind of funny, because I really *do* think there were some major disagreements in priorities between the various creative forces that worked against each other - Abrams and Kasdan produced a $2.1 Billion dollar success that was geared towards establishing Finn and Rey as the main characters, with Kylo as a supporting antagonist and the OT characters in supporting roles in a film that lovingly tried to recapture the OT perception in pop culture, then Johnson and LFL produced a $1.4 Billion dollar smaller success that was focused on Luke and Kylo as leads, with Rey and Finn as more supporting audience members and a general more hipster art student approach to the film, then Abrams came back and teamed with LFL to try and blend the ideas together for a “mere” $1 Billion dollar film that tried to match Rey and Kylo equally.

The Sequel Trilogy’s box office take is profitable, but it’s also objectively weaker and waning compared to both its own start and the “new Star Wars” - the MCU. And a lot of that had to do with TLJ making decisions without thinking them through, sacrificing a lot of momentum and goodwill from TFA for very little long-term payoff - I mean, just as an example, Luke’s story is not going to invigorate the youth demographic by design, and then he dies, so what’s the benefit in the next film for his storyline? Nothing, that’s what.

[WebLurker]

I know it's beating the proverbial dead horse but "The Last Jedi" has become the poster child for the "Subverting expectations" defense as joke. Or, as a friend of mine put it, after TLJ, whenever anyone starts to defend a movie with "It subverted...", he will snap, "Oh, shut the f*** up and get a real argument". It's the symbol now of subverting expectations for the sheer three-ring circus shock value of it with no narrative sense.

Sounds like your friend is the one who needs a real argument.

[David Walton]

Though I will say I think this hits at a disagreement between either creators and the audience or just creators and other creators.

HIMYM had to deal with the fact that the story they told over their last two seasons neither benefitted nor gelled with the ending the creators had envisioned when they started the show - if the audience interpreted the story the “wrong way,” that’s because the last two season were substantial evidence against the ending.

Just curious, how do you believe the last seasons were evidence against the ending?

I've never gone back and rewatched, but I felt like story-wise, it gelled just fine. Main problem was them dragging their feet to get to the end and the last two seasons not being as funny. So maybe it hurt the finale in the sense that fans felt like they were 'suffering' to get to the end and thus felt more invested in their expectations than the journey by that point.

[DrNewGod]

Most everything can be broken down to your age.


The older you are the harder it is to like new things.

When your 5, 10, 15, or 20 most everything you watch is life changing and the greatest thing...

Or at the very least by the time you hit 30 or 40 you cant remember all the utter trash you watched over the years.

Nostalgia is powerful and all the negativity nellies on this forum or the internet at large usually are older and living in the past.

4 year old me and 7 year old me had my mind blown by Keaton and his Batman films. How do we top those feelings.

Most of us would probably agree the best star wars is empire strikes back.

Worked with a 19 year old and the first star wars he saw in theaters was phantom menace.
It is his favorite star wars.


Watching The Flash tv series as a kid, as cheesy as it is, was awesome... yet some how I cant be bothered by CW Flash or these modern dc shows, even tho they are easily as well done and better done then say, Lois and Clark with Dean Caine...

Childhood allows us to enjoy a lot more material, a lot more things in life in general...

This is the single largest factor in why xyz project isnt as good as that old thing I like.

Of course some stuff just comes down to bad execution like those last couple seasons of himym...

Ummm...no. I'm getting dangerously close to social security eligibility, and I'm willing to at least try things on their own terms.

AOS wasn't what I would have done or wanted, but I thoroughly enjoyed the first few seasons. Arrow was �� not what I expected, but I enjoyed it for quite a while. I loved that Phase One of the MCU so clove to the heart of the original comics, and remain disappointed Phase Two didn't build to a Masters of Evil story, but I've really liked what The House That Feige Built gave us.

So, my ancedote doesn't disprove your thesis, but your contention is not generalizable. Some of us codgers can handle new things.

[godisawesome]

Just curious, how do you believe the last seasons were evidence against the ending?

I've never gone back and rewatched, but I felt like story-wise, it gelled just fine. Main problem was them dragging their feet to get to the end and the last two seasons not being as funny. So maybe it hurt the finale in the sense that fans felt like they were 'suffering' to get to the end and thus felt more invested in their expectations than the journey by that point.

The last season devoting itself to Barney and Robin’s nuptials is waaaaay too much investment in what the show wanted too be a false lead red herring, and basically cemented the ultimate problem with the show’s intended and already somewhat but dubious twist ending - that we were supposed to be watching a show about Ted and Robin’s on again and off again relationship.

You’re basically matching a high concept ending with a twist unveiled in a fairly shallow manner with a pair of red herrings that, frankly, have more substance than your high concept ending. The red herring has 24 episodes dedicated to its premise being plausible and even something to be hoped for. The ending they made kind of needed meandering episodic content before it; the romantic intentions of the finale (as in the type of drama it is, not necessarily the binds between character) are not designed to handle being countered by arguably more believable and fleshed out story elements.

It’s similar to the reason why in Arthurian fiction, if you want Lancelot and Guinevere’s relationship to be soemthing the audience is supposed to desire and buy-in on, you don’t dedicate infinitely more time to Arthur and Guinevere and Lancelot and Elaine. Now, you *can* do that... but it’s tricky and requires nuance. Slamming a reset button on character development for the sake of a pre-planned ending is a bad move.

Honestly, it’s a bit like the issues with TLJ and TFA, though applied in reverse - instead of having an ending in mind they’d accidentally walked away from with red herrings that were stronger than what they’d intended the answer to be, the second act of the Sequel Trilogy finds itself undermined by much greater substance in the previous entry that it ignored for whatever reason. It’s operating under the principle that Rey could find Kylo sympathetic after a few dialogue exchanges when the substance of their interactions in total makes that a laughable premise, and believes it has a bold subversive philosophy when TFA is actually just as subversive... but more substantial (like Han being broken like Luke is, but actually doing something for the new characters and having a better reason for breaking.)

Or for a better comparison, think about how Jaime’s arc in GOT’s last season versus his dying with Cersei. His arc’s momentum and structure supports the idea he’s grown beyond her, which clashes horrifically with the sheer pathetic way his relapse is portrayed.

You can most definitely do the things these stories wanted to do, but there’s an egregious imbalance in terms of how the red herrings and “audience expectations” come off as more believable than the insubstantial and more concept-based answers the creators wanted. It’s a bit like writing a paper that teases a thesis, unveils a very tight counterargument to its thesis, but then fails to actually supply its own argument.

It would be a bit like an argument that goes “People often ask about whether or not the Chiefs might repeat as AFC West Champions. Sure, they have a returning Super Bowl MVP quarterback who also won MVP his first year before, a returning monster of a receiving corps, returning pass rushers who gelled at the end of the year with the defensive scheme, and a Hall of Fame bound coach... but the Broncos will win it instead.”

I mean, I actually like Drew Lock and have higher expectations for the Broncos than the Raiders or the Chargers, but that argument needs some substantial evidence and explanation before it can be working thesis, and actually needs to address the counterargument about the Chiefs before it can be an argument.

[LordMikel]

I guess it's a legit argument. The biggest thing I heard about GOT was "Ohhh they kill anybody on that show! You think somebody is gonna live and then bam! They dead! sick yo!!" And it's like okay why would you think a show like that would give a satisfying ending?

I remember watching the first episode of AOS and ppl were saying "There wasn't enough character development and it's like yeah it's just the first episode, Calm down. So yeah I think a lot of criticisms these days do come down to wrong expectations or just not knowing what storytelling is. Like ppl value shock or swerve over a solid story.

I was discussing this with a friend. GOT is all about "killing characters you like." But that truly wasn't what it was about and I think the writers missed that. By the final season, it actually needed to be about, who lives. The best example, Lyanna Mormont. She is like 12 and dies in the battle of Winterfell. That was just, "Oh we are killing her for impact." But there wasn't any impact from her death. It wasn't surprising, it was fairly bland. Now if she had lived because her men revered her so and kept her safe throughout the battle, falling to a one, and just as she herself is about to die is when Arya kills the Night King, saving her as she watches the undead fall before her. That would have been great.

[godisawesome]

I was discussing this with a friend. GOT is all about "killing characters you like." But that truly wasn't what it was about and I think the writers missed that. By the final season, it actually needed to be about, who lives. The best example, Lyanna Mormont. She is like 12 and dies in the battle of Winterfell. That was just, "Oh we are killing her for impact." But there wasn't any impact from her death. It wasn't surprising, it was fairly bland. Now if she had lived because her men revered her so and kept her safe throughout the battle, falling to a one, and just as she herself is about to die is when Arya kills the Night King, saving her as she watches the undead fall before her. That would have been great.

I’d say that the dead actually still mattered as much as the living; the issue with both is you have to make the previous story worth it.

You can totally kill a beloved character right when they “should” get to experience peace or get their “just reward,” but you have to tone it right. For instance, I would have been fine with more known characters dying at Winterfell if they got something suitable to their story’s weight there - I’d even have accepted Jon’s second death if he was doing something like slaying Wight!Viserion to clear the way for Arya towards the Night King, or Dany dying in battle with her last word being “Dracarys...” to Drogon, triggering a rampage that saves the day, or Arya killing the Night King, but dying in the process.

There’s stuff later that could have made beloved characters dying work as well. Dany’s madness feels like it could have been fixed with just one or two minor changes - like some poor sod killing Rhaegel in Kjngslanding while Jon’s riding him and right after the bells ring, so that we get a moment that really pushes her over the edge and into Mad Queen territory. Jaime returning to Cersei would fit his story a lot more if he were waiting in front of a wildfire cache she was insanely seeking to ignite out of spite and despair, and wound up strangling her the way the prophecy in the book suggested, and perhaps dying by her last actions instead of just being crushed by rubble.

The heroes who did survive honestly suffered more in the Tv series from not getting enough story for their survival - Sansa successfully pulling off the coup of becoming Queen of the North and winning their independence is something that honestly would have deserved an episode itself, and Jon killing Dany is something that kind of requires a full episode to really lead to. Their decision to shorten everything up arguably cost them in the climax and resolution phase of their story, which is why it didn’t live up to its potential.

[David Walton]

The last season devoting itself to Barney and Robin’s nuptials is waaaaay too much investment in what the show wanted too be a false lead red herring, and basically cemented the ultimate problem with the show’s intended and already somewhat but dubious twist ending - that we were supposed to be watching a show about Ted and Robin’s on again and off again relationship.

You’re basically matching a high concept ending with a twist unveiled in a fairly shallow manner with a pair of red herrings that, frankly, have more substance than your high concept ending. The red herring has 24 episodes dedicated to its premise being plausible and even something to be hoped for. The ending they made kind of needed meandering episodic content before it; the romantic intentions of the finale (as in the type of drama it is, not necessarily the binds between character) are not designed to handle being countered by arguably more believable and fleshed out story elements.

I get that, but my takeaway was a bit different. I felt like the fleshing out of Barney and Robin's relationship worked in the finale's favor. To my mind, the relationship was a very meaningful step in both character's development, even though it didn't work out.

For Barney, it put him on the path toward wanting a committed relationship and a family, which was apparently a setup for the spinoff that never happened.

For Robin, it showed that Ted was the only viable relationship for her, but only after they'd gotten older.

That's why seeing Barney and Robin's relationship end in a time lapse fashion worked for me, personally.

[Powerboy]

Sounds like your friend is the one who needs a real argument.

Why? Because he had the audacity to point out that a movie subverts expectations simply to subvert expectations in a way that makes no sense because the director just likes subverting expectations?

[stargazer01]

Sometimes fans have their very own unrealistic expectations, like when they insist some character should turn gay and fall in love with the other person of the same sex. This happens in the Supergirl show with Kara and Lena. Some fans insist they are in love.. However, in the story, Kara has never expressed any romantic feeling for Lena. Kara, however, fell in love and slept with Mon-El. And has had more romances with other males. This has become an obsession for this fans, and the show will be ruined if it never happens.

There are other kind of expectations fans have based on the story and how the characters act and develop. It's why many can't accept Dany tuned evil and killed so many innocents the way it happened in the final season of GOT. It wasn't earned or honest development because she was shown to be a more compassionate person. The show had to turn Jon so cold with her so that Dany had no other option but give up to her worse impulses. That's a terrible story. What happened to those baby comments she had with Jon in Season 7? It felt like real foreshadowing, but the writers completely ignored it to subvert expectations. They did, but in a really bad way with most of the characters, IMO. I can totally understand the hate.

Some expectations make a lot of sense, and others are just illogical based on the story we are being told and characters and their history.