Game of Thrones's ending was lousy.
It simply didn't make sense. The show worked to hold viewer's attention by a combination of everything that stories and TV use. At it's core though, it's about the characters and their development. The audience gets to see twists and turns that astonish and often leave us feeling raw. We keep watching, even when an outcome is painfully unpleasant because therein lies a hidden universal truth that was right in front of us that we didn't see because we didn't want to believe it.
Bran's being pushed from the window was one of the first big jaw-droppers. How can Jaime Lannister be so heartless? Because what Bran saw could obviously compromise everything that the Lannister's, as a family, value. Their entire lineage would be in question as well as their right to power. It was surprising at the moment, but it made sense immediately as well. This was the kind of story-telling that set the pace.
Ned Stark's beheading at the end of the first season sent a "buckle your seatbelts" message in that the show demonstrated how the song of ice and fire plays by it's own rules. Ned was the central protagonist and the most prominent actor. He was a man of honor. He was as pure a 'good guy' in the show as 'good guys' in GoT get. We all expected a typical Hollywodd crowd pleaser of a savior swooping in at the last minute to save the protagonist(which we saw plenty of in the last season). Part of the audience's mind was saying, "It looks grim for Neddy but, nooooo he can't die. He's the hero of the story!" However, we all know how doing the right thing and preserving one's honor in no way guarantees one's survival. In fact, in the real world, it often threatens it. Ned Stark was poking around asking dangerous questions to dangerous people. He was tasked with the reins of power to fix what was wrong and he chose to ignore strategic advice in a 'do the right thing' fixed sort of mindset. His death was shocking but his survival would have made less sense. The audience knew this on a deep and fundamental level. Again, we chose to ignore the truth in hopes that the creator would break the rules of human behavior in order to preserve our sensitivities. We were wrong again.
This kind of appaulling bold use of characters is risky. However, our interest survived because there are so many characters to identify with, each viewer could find something to remain attached to. Our attention endured because an unpredictable story that reveals useful wisdom on life, as well as impressive acting, dialogue, special FX all set in a popular genre easily kept us addicted.
I could go on in this tangent covering each hair-raising event but, I don't need to. We connected the dots. Joffrey died, and we applauded but, c'mon, why would someone so brash, naive, and disliked be allowed to rule the world?
How could Oberyn have lost his cool so completely, been so cocky, and gotten away with defeating the undefeatable?
How could Jon Snow have kept following in his father's(Ned Stark's in this case) footsteps without meeting a bunch of pointy ends?
How could Danaerys decide to be the bigger person after her best girlfriend was decapitated in front of her while basically issuing her father's words "burn them all"? Who really believed that her ascent to power was fueled by an inherent desire to do the right thing? She wanted power like everyone else. Free the slaves, be the world-mother, reclaim what should have been, and burn her enemies was just her branding.
So now we're to the ending. I'm not talking about Jon Snow's fate. I'm talking about the fate of the iron throne. This felt like a quick wrap-up. Mostly, I'm pointing fingers at Bran's admission that his entire journey of becoming a warg or greenseer or time-travelling super psychic, was all so he could sit on the throne. Why?
Why did Bran want it? He already had power. He stated that he really doesn't "want" things anymore. Anger and sadness don't surface in him like they did before. We believed it because Bran had the most magical and mystical journey of anyone in the show. He's the one with all the magical powers. He's seen some shit and we can easily believe that he resigned himself to a life of living in the past in order to defend the world's memory.
Bran's decision wasn't in line with his character. We didn't see this side of him before. Double-edged phrasing aside, if there was any regarding Bran being king, we didn't see Bran develop a mad lust for power just to have power. But we did, at the very very end, see him admit that this was all part of his master plan. Before that one little flash, we only saw him renounce titles and positions of power with reasoning that was in alignment with Bran.
You may argue, he's still human, and this is Game of Thrones. You play the game or you die. Tyrion is still alive. Jon is still alive. Either could have made moves to take the throne. Those two who admittedly saw themselves as potentially good rulers. Not Bran though.
Game of Thrones had a lousy ending because we we're left with extreme actions without motivation. Sorry, I thought Bran had become wise. Apparently not so much. Apparently, he thinks that power, like everyone else foolishly does until they grasp it, is an ends in itself.
Power by definition is a means. It allows one to do things that it otherwise couldn't. Maybe Bran needs a few more sleigh rides through the 'real North' before he really becomes the sage that the audience was mislead to believe.
I obviously didn't like the emotional sting that came with Bran casually rolling into power, but the only truth I gathered from it was, I guess, the true moral of the story. George R R Martin is a best selling author with a really expensive show on HBO. You don't get there with artist integrity and good writing alone. That, in the end, is the final lesson of Game of Thrones. No one, by right or morality or even ability, truly earns the throne.
One more thing. Why did Drogon burn the iron throne? Jon's got Targaryen blood so maybe he had some instinctive nature not to toast him but, still, why? I've read about 10 different pages on "Game of Thrones Ending Explained" and it's become clear to me that nobody knows what the hell. IGN, HollywoodReporter, and many others offer summaries and descriptions, not explanations.
You get things like: Drogon burned the throne because the story came full circle just like a dragon formed the iron throne.
OK...but that's not an explanation. That's not cause and effect. That's just postulating that the author's intention was to tell a cyclical story.
Why does flappy burny dragon lizard brain understand symbolism and human societal structures of power, all of the sudden?
Again, the only message I can conclude is if you're watching mainstream cinema or TV, and you brought along things like your mind, your hopes and your heart, then you're likely to identify with Theon Greyjoy.