Subverting Expectations: The Megathread - Or How Baby Dick Creators ‘Sort of Forgot’ What an Anti-Climax Is

[Trashfire Garbagefuck]

I feel like you need at least a 5 minute epilogue, 10 ideally. You're saying goodbye to like, what, 30 years of characters?

honestly that's all it would take to soften the blow. make the majority of the last episode an extended epilogue. show whats his name getting in the car with jolyne and they drive past people from original universe but they're happier. foo fighters is living a normal life as a human, dio's bastard sons dont have shit lives, etc. not even just for part six characters either. maybe they drive by a billboard for an actual polnareffland like he talked about. obviously show jotaro this time around, maybe show him smile one more time. though I'm not sure if I'd want to end it before we get his answer on blessing the marriage or actually show it. I kinda like it being unresolved in the original, but I'd love to see his reaction.

 

[Tasty Tatty]

Haven't yet read the whole thread, but I want to point out something funny about how the people in charge of GoT and even many readers have completely misread and misunderstood all this "subverted expectation" thing:

Take the first part of GoT. You have characters like Jaime and Tyrion. In any normal media written by someone who follows all clichés, the dwarf would be some bitter self while the handsome knight it's the good guy. When you read ASOIAF, you see all the opposite: the dwarf is the smart, well-read person and the handsome knight is the evil guy.

Except that soon goes back to "normal": Jaime turns out to be a good person who is compassionate, kind, romantic, and caring. His problem is that he lost his way after being disenchanted with the demands of a crazy king. But deep inside, he knows what's good and wrong and he wants to makes amends: in the meantime, he's saving maidens, helping the poor, and protecting the innocent: all things knights are supposed to be doing.

And Tyrion, after all the shit he went through, has become the bitter monster everybody expected him to be. He's definitely going to get better, but now, he's acting like a (npi) little shit even against people who try to help him.

They are playing the roles that characters like these would be playing in any other media that doesn't "subvert expectations".

The way in which these expectations are subverted are a bit more subtle and they exist for characters, not for actions. Jaime, for example, is an abused person. There is a lot of people who don't want to admit it because he's a man and Westeros is a patriarchal society, but even in patriarchal societies, some men can be abused. Brienne even tells him at some point that he abuses his sister and IICR, someone mentioned that Cersei is his whore. People see Jaime as the evil one because he's a man and he's the one perverting Cersei, when he's the one who is beaten, manipulated, belittled, and treated like shit by a crazy woman who won't even let him see his kids.

Many of the GoT audience expects to be shocked and they think this is the infamous expectations being subverted. But this is as random as some characters tripping down and breaking their neck and die. Martin doesn't do this: in the books, the Red Wedding wasn't a surprise, it was announced twice and many characters were quite obvious that they were planning someone. People got caught up reading and didn't see the many signs, but it was there. Which isnt' the same as Martin not announcing it would happen. Most things in ASOIAF had a very in-your-face foreshadowing that you can notice after the second reading.

Once the big shock in the show happened, the Red Wedding, the writers of the show realised they couldn't top this and decided to simply make the show about Bad Things Happening™ to the characters rather than good storytelling. They assumed that the audience would be more interested if they got Rickon Stark killed all of a sudden than us finding out Viserys Targaryen died for nothing as he was promised to a princess and was close to have the army he wanted.

 

[Gar For Archer]

Haven't yet read the whole thread, but I want to point out something funny about how the people in charge of GoT and even many readers have completely misread and misunderstood all this "subverted expectation" thing:

Take the first part of GoT. You have characters like Jaime and Tyrion. In any normal media written by someone who follows all clichés, the dwarf would be some bitter self while the handsome knight it's the good guy. When you read ASOIAF, you see all the opposite: the dwarf is the smart, well-read person and the handsome knight is the evil guy.

Except that soon goes back to "normal": Jaime turns out to be a good person who is compassionate, kind, romantic, and caring. His problem is that he lost his way after being disenchanted with the demands of a crazy king. But deep inside, he knows what's good and wrong and he wants to makes amends: in the meantime, he's saving maidens, helping the poor, and protecting the innocent: all things knights are supposed to be doing.

And Tyrion, after all the shit he went through, has become the bitter monster everybody expected him to be. He's definitely going to get better, but now, he's acting like a (npi) little shit even against people who try to help him.

They are playing the roles that characters like these would be playing in any other media that doesn't "subvert expectations".

The way in which these expectations are subverted are a bit more subtle and they exist for characters, not for actions. Jaime, for example, is an abused person. There is a lot of people who don't want to admit it because he's a man and Westeros is a patriarchal society, but even in patriarchal societies, some men can be abused. Brienne even tells him at some point that he abuses his sister and IICR, someone mentioned that Cersei is his whore. People see Jaime as the evil one because he's a man and he's the one perverting Cersei, when he's the one who is beaten, manipulated, belittled, and treated like shit by a crazy woman who won't even let him see his kids.

Many of the GoT audience expects to be shocked and they think this is the infamous expectations being subverted. But this is as random as some characters tripping down and breaking their neck and die. Martin doesn't do this: in the books, the Red Wedding wasn't a surprise, it was announced twice and many characters were quite obvious that they were planning someone. People got caught up reading and didn't see the many signs, but it was there. Which isnt' the same as Martin not announcing it would happen. Most things in ASOIAF had a very in-your-face foreshadowing that you can notice after the second reading.

Once the big shock in the show happened, the Red Wedding, the writers of the show realised they couldn't top this and decided to simply make the show about Bad Things Happening™ to the characters rather than good storytelling. They assumed that the audience would be more interested if they got Rickon Stark killed all of a sudden than us finding out Viserys Targaryen died for nothing as he was promised to a princess and was close to have the army he wanted.

The thing that hurts GoT is that it starts out as this big, expansive world where there’s a ton of character subplots and bits and pieces of the overarching plot being revealed; in this sort of environment, you’re free to kill characters pretty freely because as far as the reader knows, nobody is really NECESSARY to the endgame. There isn’t even really one “main” story, just a bunch of different characters and subplots that have the potential to really go anywhere.

However, traditional story structure demands that you eventually build up to a main conflict, and this necessarily means paring down your cast as more and more different threads converge together. The smaller the cast gets, the more important the remaining individual characters become to the story, and consequently the less likely they’ll die before they’ve fulfilled their purpose in the plot or competed their character arc. This is best exemplified by Jon Snow being brought back from the dead, because by that point he is literally THE main character for which the entire series is named, core to BOTH main conflicts.

At the end of the day I don’t think there’s a “solution” to this for GoT. In order to be an engaging story, you need to build up to a big central conflict, but doing so means that some characters need to survive to serve the plot, even if “realistically” they should be dead.

 

[Gar For Archer]

I don't think the way Naruto went is "subverting expectations". The manga industry, while meritocratic, is also brutal. Many mangaka get their work published only to fail, but if it does succeed, now they're expected to keep on writing it for years. This was the case with Naruto, where Kishimoto had clearly had an idea that got really popular and he just had to keep going, in the process losing the themes and ideas that he originally had just in order to keep the whole thing going.

The only person that has arguably triumphed in both sales and quality is Oda with One Piece when it comes to these long-running manga series. There's a reason why aside from One Piece, most acclaimed anime have shorter manga runs. Naruto and Bleach for that matter were not made with that kind of longevity in mind, so Kishimoto just sat back, wrote whatever he could pull out if his ass, and later realized he'd written himself into a corner, so he pulled out more stuff out of his ass to make it work.

At least the action was cool.

Didn’t see this post earlier but nonetheless I have my 2c to add about One Piece: Oda originally envisioned it to be quite a bit shorter, but after actually starting to write it it really just started ballooning. Thing with One Piece though, is it’s narrative is PERFECT for arbitrarily adding in more content - just have them visit another island.

Honestly, One Piece is a master-class in long-form storytelling. I’m amazed at how it’s managed to stay consistent to its themes throughout its entire run, and I’m even optimistic for the ending because I think Oda clearly had a plan for what the One Piece actually IS from very early on in the manga. Based on long-running themes of discovering the past and uncovering lost history, it’s almost guaranteed at this point that the lost history of the world will be the key component of the One Piece, which will likely also include ordinary treasure and probably some sort of super weapon.

 

[Duncan Hills Coffee]

I think Oda clearly had a plan for what the One Piece actually IS from very early on in the manga. Based on long-running themes of discovering the past and uncovering lost history, it’s almost guaranteed at this point that the lost history of the world will be the key component of the One Piece, which will likely also include ordinary treasure and probably some sort of super weapon.

Oda also specifically stated that the One Piece isn't going to be some "friends we made along the way" nothingburger, so we don't have to worry about him pulling some shit where everyone wasted their time trying to get it.

 

[Absolute Brainlet]

Since we're talking about subverting expectations, I think it's time for me to shill Spooky's Jump Scare Mansion yet again, because I feel like it pulls this kind of thing off very well.
Now, while most (good) works use subversion of expectations as a narrative tool, this game goes all in just constantly fucking with the player, which is used both for comedic and horror effect.

Spoiler

The first moment that really showcases the horror side of this approach is the encounter with Specimen 2 at room 60. Until now, all you had to deal with are cute cardboard cutouts popping out of the walls and playing a random noise. And then you enter this room with a weird-ass green puddle, read the note and suddenly this slime monster climbs out of the puddle and starts gunning after your ass. It's a really effective way to introduce the first enemy in the game.
On the comedic side of the spectrum, we have the "gift" at room 250. Spooky shows up and says this supposed gift is "for your progress". So you tear it open and see a message saying "Look behind you!" You turn around, expecting yet another monster...

But it's just a bunch of cutouts. That's literally it.

The game mixes these two atmospheres perfectly: on the surface, you have a mansion full of creepy monsters. But look a bit deeper and the humour aspect shows itself; from the notes in the new GL lab that basically say "I told Spook we need more funds for sedatives, but she just laughed and flew into the ceiling", to the monsters themselves being clear pastiches of famous horror media. But at the same time, the game frequently dials up the horror and shit just gets fucking crazy.

TL;DR: Spooky's loves subverting expectations as a means of mischievously fucking with your head and it does so perfectly.

 

[EmpireOfTheClouds]

I mean, the problem with subversion is that its often done by misunderstanding why it works and why it doesn't. Like I mentioned in my OP, subverting expectations is basically a magic trick. Its the difference between watching a magic show for babies and watching one for adults. Its a very difficult balance to strike, which is why it isn't typically attempted unless it is in a singular work. The more expansive the work, the harder it is to do. Because you have to replace audience expectations with something equivalent to what you took away.

You also have to realize too that being subversive has to actually tie in with the themes of the work. They big reason the Snoke-ing Swerve in TLJ doesn't work is because it's a cheaply forced in shock based on a few scattered lines about identity scattered throughout the previous 90 minutes of the movie.

You know what movie actually does that exact same thing, but does it PROPERLY?

Shazam.

Spoiler: Shazam is still a fairly recent movie so spoilers, I guess.

The big emotional climax of the film is when Billy, in a moment of developing strength, steals Shazam's staff back from Sivana, and uses it to turn his whole family into Shazam heroes.

Now anyone who has read the comics knows this happens in the comics. But you naturally have to justify it for the normies with zero knowledge of the comics. So, here's the reasons it works.

1. The biggest theme of the movie is family, ironically, for a movie about a kid who never had a proper family. Billy Batson has spent years searching for his mother who has abandoned him at a fair. So when Billy is adopted by the Vasquezes, he spends the whole movie blowing them off until he gets Shazam's powers in a moment of desperation of Shazam's part.

2. After he gets these powers, he spends most of Act II with Freddie Freeman, a crippled kid who.is obsessed with superheroes. However, Billy let's this get to his head. He promises to show up as "Red Cyclone" to fend off bullies who constantly pick on Freddie for being crippled. HOwever, he didn't, and a jealous Freddie calls him out on this.

3. Billy realizes that his real family is waiting for him when he visits his deadbeat mom and he realizes she gave him up on purpose. right after this, Sivana breaks in and abducts the kids. This is where recurring lines about "finding your true family" come into play. They escape Sivana and end up at a Christmas fair, where Sivana unleashes the Seven Deadly Sins.

This is where that subversion comes into play: it ties together the individual plot threads and character moments and brings them to their logical conclusion. Freddie, when he's a wizard, is no longer a cripple. Pedro, as a wizard, is handsome and buff, no longer fat. Sarah, a to-be college student with severe confidence issues, can now feel confident about herself. Darla clearly loves to bring brightness to people's day and can do that in a larger scale. And Eugene, a gamer, can do crazy shot in video games but IRL.

Not only is that a subversion that's well done, it's GOOD WRITING in general. it's not even anywhere as near as complex as I may be making it sound, either, which is why it's even more impressive.

So the point is that you can do the "subvert this expectations" thing on a simpler scale. The problem though is that it works better for Family Friendly capeshit and not a 40 year old sci-fi saga.

 

[Salt Water Taffy]

Let’s tell a hypothetical murder mystery to show why some plot subversions work and some don't. The mysterious and somewhat sickly Zachary throws a dinner party at his mansion and invites Alice, Bob, Clara, Daniel, Eliza, Frederick, and Gabrielle, all of whom are his mortal enemies who he’s been blackmailing. Later that night Zachary turns up dead of a gunshot wound. Alice, Bob, Clara, Daniel, Eliza, Frederick, and Gabrielle all have a motive and an opportunity but they all vehemently deny killing Zachary. The obvious solution is that one of the seven house guests killed him, and is currently lying to save their skin. Let’s try out two subversions. Number one: none of the house guests killed Zachary. Zachary, who was already dying of a terminal illness, decided to commit suicide with the hopes of pinning his death on one or more of his most hated enemies, dragging them down with him. Number two: None of the house guests killed Zachary because Hal the burglar decided to sneak in during the party to steal some of Zachary’s stuff. Zachary tried to confront Hal and he shot him in the face.

Why does the first subversion work so much better than the second one? Well, I already mentioned that Zachary was sickly. I didn’t say terminally ill, but that’s not a gigantic or implausible leap from “sickly”. Secondly, it was made clear that the house guests were his mortal enemies, so it made sense that he would do something to tear them down, even at the cost of his own life. This ending may not be the single most expected outcome but it still makes sense, thus it’s a perfectly serviceable subversion. Again, having one of the seven party guests be the killer isn’t the world’s worst ending, especially in this very vague nebulous version of events where all seven basically have an equal chance of being the killer, but in this ending the seven house guests are essentially red herrings, and by Zachary’s design and not the writer’s - he wants you to hate the house guests because he hates them. It’s almost better than just having one of the house guests kill him.

Now, let’s explain why the Hal solution doesn’t work nearly as well. Sure, it’s not the most impossible thing out there, people die in home burglaries fairly often. It’s not like Zachary was murdered by aliens in this otherwise realistic setting. But it’s still not a very satisfying answer. One problem is “gee, it sure was convenient that Hal broke in during the dinner party full of other people with motives to murder Zachary. That’ll sure save his skin!” Hal could have broken in at any time but he did so at just the right time so that the audience could waste their time considering seven other suspects. It feels contrived, as opposed to the first subversion which had a valid reason as to why Zachary turned up dead during the party. Second, Hal wasn’t mentioned during the intro to the story. He’s not a Chekov’s gun being fired in the third act, he’s a random agent of chaos. Third, Hal has no motive and Zachary has no reason to hate Hal besides him breaking into his house. Having random burglar Hal be the killer throws out everything set up in the first act, Alice, Bob, Clara, Daniel, Eliza, Frederick, and Gabrielle were a waste of time, Zachary’s illness ends up meaning nothing, and Hal choosing to break in during a dinner party feels like a contrived coincidence. The only thing the Hal solution has over Zachary killing himself or having any one of the house guests kill him is the sheer fact that no one would guess Hal because no one knows he exists until the end of the story. Most people would guess one of the seven house guests, but maybe somewhere, someone would guess the correct answer that Zachary killed himself to frame the guests. Your options are A) the obvious, unsurprising, but perfectly valid option (one of the guests), B) the surprising but still plausible solution that relies upon previously set up elements but someone maybe somewhere might have guessed it (Zachary killing himself), or C) the totally left field option that no one would ever guess in a million years but throws out basically the entire story for the sake of subversion (Hal)? Well, how far are you willing to chase surprise?

 

[Guts Gets Some]

When Neil Breen made that movie of TWO Neil Breens, I thought for sure "THIS TIME, HE'LL MAKE SENSE".

Thankfully, he again subverted my expectations. Fool me 4 times, shame on me.

 

[Honka Honka Burning Love]

Oda also specifically stated that the One Piece isn't going to be some "friends we made along the way" nothingburger, so we don't have to worry about him pulling some shit where everyone wasted their time trying to get it.

As I said in the One Piece thread we haven't had to worry about that for years. Whitebeard straight out stated that One Piece exists and it will shake the foundation of the world before he died.

 

[verissimus]

The thing that hurts GoT is that it starts out as this big, expansive world where there’s a ton of character subplots and bits and pieces of the overarching plot being revealed; in this sort of environment, you’re free to kill characters pretty freely because as far as the reader knows, nobody is really NECESSARY to the endgame. There isn’t even really one “main” story, just a bunch of different characters and subplots that have the potential to really go anywhere.

However, traditional story structure demands that you eventually build up to a main conflict, and this necessarily means paring down your cast as more and more different threads converge together. The smaller the cast gets, the more important the remaining individual characters become to the story, and consequently the less likely they’ll die before they’ve fulfilled their purpose in the plot or competed their character arc. This is best exemplified by Jon Snow being brought back from the dead, because by that point he is literally THE main character for which the entire series is named, core to BOTH main conflicts.

At the end of the day I don’t think there’s a “solution” to this for GoT. In order to be an engaging story, you need to build up to a big central conflict, but doing so means that some characters need to survive to serve the plot, even if “realistically” they should be dead.

Yeah, it's pretty amazing how for about 4 seasons people talked about how "none of the characters" were safe to the rest of the seasons where all of the characters they've built up have plot armor. I thoroughly despise every person that ever said that the show was "realistic" for killing off characters.

 

[Pokemonquistador2]

Yeah, it's pretty amazing how for about 4 seasons people talked about how "none of the characters" were safe to the rest of the seasons where all of the characters they've built up have plot armor. I thoroughly despise every person that ever said that the show was "realistic" for killing off characters.

I've never understood why people fellate GoT over its "realism". A truly realistic show based on history in a time of scarcity and feudalism would be anticlimactic as hell, with people dropping willy nilly from toothaches and childbirth. Tons of time would be devoted to boring diplomatic meetings and the behind the scenes shit that was essential to keeping a kingdom running in the olde days. No one wants to see that. Even history series that are based on real life often truncate and rearrange events to make them flow more dramatically. Multiple people are combined into a single person. A character is totally altered from their real life counterpart to make them more of a foil to another character, etc. This is because works of entertainment ultimately have to entertain people. If people want to see a documentary, they'll watch a documentary.

GoT and other works of fiction that want to kill off characters for the sake of realism, have to do it carefully. If you kill off too many characters, your audience will wonder how the population manages to stay above replacement level, or why the people in a particularly death-prone area don't flee. If all of the characters you kill are strategically chosen to die because their deaths would be the most unexpected and tragic of all, it's going to look like you're some kind of edgelord writer who's just trying to shock people. If few to no people die (and the most popular characters suspiciously keep getting resurrected,) your work isn't going to seem realistic anymore. You can keep people on their toes and kill off narrative driving characters from time to time, but their deaths had better be set up and they'd better make sense within the universe. They'd better serve the story, not just be there so a bunch of critics and fanboys can say "This show is off the chain! Anyone can die at any time!"

 

[Secret Asshole]

Can't believe its been over a year and this thread is still going strong and GoT still is the star of this shit show and probably will be.

The thing that hurts GoT is that it starts out as this big, expansive world where there’s a ton of character subplots and bits and pieces of the overarching plot being revealed; in this sort of environment, you’re free to kill characters pretty freely because as far as the reader knows, nobody is really NECESSARY to the endgame. There isn’t even really one “main” story, just a bunch of different characters and subplots that have the potential to really go anywhere.

However, traditional story structure demands that you eventually build up to a main conflict, and this necessarily means paring down your cast as more and more different threads converge together. The smaller the cast gets, the more important the remaining individual characters become to the story, and consequently the less likely they’ll die before they’ve fulfilled their purpose in the plot or competed their character arc. This is best exemplified by Jon Snow being brought back from the dead, because by that point he is literally THE main character for which the entire series is named, core to BOTH main conflicts.

At the end of the day I don’t think there’s a “solution” to this for GoT. In order to be an engaging story, you need to build up to a big central conflict, but doing so means that some characters need to survive to serve the plot, even if “realistically” they should be dead.

I've never understood why people fellate GoT over its "realism". A truly realistic show based on history in a time of scarcity and feudalism would be anticlimactic as hell, with people dropping willy nilly from toothaches and childbirth. Tons of time would be devoted to boring diplomatic meetings and the behind the scenes shit that was essential to keeping a kingdom running in the olde days. No one wants to see that. Even history series that are based on real life often truncate and rearrange events to make them flow more dramatically. Multiple people are combined into a single person. A character is totally altered from their real life counterpart to make them more of a foil to another character, etc. This is because works of entertainment ultimately have to entertain people. If people want to see a documentary, they'll watch a documentary.

GoT and other works of fiction that want to kill off characters for the sake of realism, have to do it carefully. If you kill off too many characters, your audience will wonder how the population manages to stay above replacement level, or why the people in a particularly death-prone area don't flee. If all of the characters you kill are strategically chosen to die because their deaths would be the most unexpected and tragic of all, it's going to look like you're some kind of edgelord writer who's just trying to shock people. If few to no people die (and the most popular characters suspiciously keep getting resurrected,) your work isn't going to seem realistic anymore. You can keep people on their toes and kill off narrative driving characters from time to time, but their deaths had better be set up and they'd better make sense within the universe. They'd better serve the story, not just be there so a bunch of critics and fanboys can say "This show is off the chain! Anyone can die at any time!"

The main problem with series that kill off characters with regularity is that you basically lose the development of those characters. So once those characters die, the development, audience attachment and narrative impact they had fades. The more you do this, the more you compound the problem.

Honestly, this was hugely overblown in the show. In the books, its written from what are called 'Point of View' characters. These are characters that have an expansive impact on the story. The only one perma killed was Ned Stark. The other characters are relatively minor. Rob was never a PoV character and neither was Oberon. What the show failed to understand is that the novels have metric fuck tons of characters to throw on top of the corpse pile. And it did not fuck with the PoV characters generally, because they were integral to the plot.

Shows/Books that regularly do this (The Gaunt's Ghost series in 40k by Dan Abnett did this particularly badly and typically killed named characters within the last few pages with regularity to the point where I just stopped reading since I couldn't care less about the replacements) face this problem. And eventually, you just have to stop doing this because otherwise you are left without familiar characters for the audience. You can't have a two-three year relationship with a character, kill them off and expect that void to be filled.

That's the major problem. People will just eventually stop getting attached and start predicting who will die next. This is exactly what happened with GoT. People stopped caring about characters and basically were just predicting who was going to die. They stopped really caring about the plot.

Jon Snow was killed and Rezzed in the book for more magical reasons (being a literal reincarnation of a mythical savior) but this is portrayed very poorly in the show and done with very little fanfare. But the problem still stands. You can't replace several years of audience attachment, plot development and things like that when characters just die. It leaves a void you cannot fill and you risk making your story about seeing who dies next, rather than the overall narrative and your audience just becomes completely detached.

 

[Gar For Archer]

Can't believe its been over a year and this thread is still going strong and GoT still is the star of this shit show and probably will be.





The main problem with series that kill off characters with regularity is that you basically lose the development of those characters. So once those characters die, the development, audience attachment and narrative impact they had fades. The more you do this, the more you compound the problem.

Honestly, this was hugely overblown in the show. In the books, its written from what are called 'Point of View' characters. These are characters that have an expansive impact on the story. The only one perma killed was Ned Stark. The other characters are relatively minor. Rob was never a PoV character and neither was Oberon. What the show failed to understand is that the novels have metric fuck tons of characters to throw on top of the corpse pile. And it did not fuck with the PoV characters generally, because they were integral to the plot.

Shows/Books that regularly do this (The Gaunt's Ghost series in 40k by Dan Abnett did this particularly badly and typically killed named characters within the last few pages with regularity to the point where I just stopped reading since I couldn't care less about the replacements) face this problem. And eventually, you just have to stop doing this because otherwise you are left without familiar characters for the audience. You can't have a two-three year relationship with a character, kill them off and expect that void to be filled.

That's the major problem. People will just eventually stop getting attached and start predicting who will die next. This is exactly what happened with GoT. People stopped caring about characters and basically were just predicting who was going to die. They stopped really caring about the plot.

Jon Snow was killed and Rezzed in the book for more magical reasons (being a literal reincarnation of a mythical savior) but this is portrayed very poorly in the show and done with very little fanfare. But the problem still stands. You can't replace several years of audience attachment, plot development and things like that when characters just die. It leaves a void you cannot fill and you risk making your story about seeing who dies next, rather than the overall narrative and your audience just becomes completely detached.

Yeah, pretty much this: Ned is the ONLY death in GoT that can really be considered “subverting expectations”, because you were specifically baited into thinking that he was going to be the hero and then his fucking head gets chopped off.

The Red Wedding was heavily foreshadowed (as I think someone else mentioned in this thread) and Oberon’s death basically exists to put a really shocking, yet fitting, end to his character arc as this guy who’s so arrogant and blinded by revenge that he thinks he can do anything. Aside from that I can’t even think of any deaths that were particularly shocking.

 

[Secret Asshole]

Well, Ned Stark was only in it for one Book and his death basically instigated every single thing that happened, so his death was basically the catalyst for the entire plot. That's what should happen when major characters die. But its very often not the case.

And yeah, in the books you knew Rob fucked up massively, it wasn't nearly as shocking.

 

[Trig.Point]

Well, Ned Stark was only in it for one Book and his death basically instigated every single thing that happened, so his death was basically the catalyst for the entire plot. That's what should happen when major characters die. But its very often not the case.

And yeah, in the books you knew Rob fucked up massively, it wasn't nearly as shocking.

In the TV series the Red Wedding was just motivated by malevolent scheming, in the books it was clear it was just the culmination of a series of bad decisions.

I watched the the battle of the bastards episode when it was first aired with some friends, when I pointed out that all those bolton men that were getting chopped down, were the same guys that had helped win all those battles for Rob Stark. It caused a bit of confusion (because in the first season Bolton men were never shown as part of the Stark army probably deliberately)

Anyway it's all Martin's fault, he couldn't keep to a schedule so those two dickheads took control.

 

[Salt Water Taffy]

Pretty much the only genre that can get away with really killing characters off at random are war stories, 'cause war is hell and all that jazz. For example, All Quiet on the Western Front kills off its lead Paul Baumer anti-climactically at the end of the book on a random, otherwise quiet day, and though we've followed him and cared about him to the end we find out he's so insignificant to the war at large that the situation report doesn't even acknowledge his loss (the titular "all quiet on the western front"), and for added tragedy it was only a month or so before the war ended. There, it's not a massive letdown, it's unrelentingly tragic. Then again, killing him so randomly is also not really "subverting expectations" within the confines of AQotWF. All the characters die out of the blue, and even though Paul's best buds last longer than the randos he's only barely invested in; yeah I guess that's technically plot armor but it heightens the tragedy if they bite it after not only Paul but also the reader has gotten attached to them. No one reading AQotWF is expecting it to end with Paul suddenly becoming superhumanly powerful and ending the war on his own. That would be the subversive ending. Paul dying randomly and unmourned isn't satisfying per se, but it's fitting and a stereotypically "satisfying" ending would have undermined the themes.

But in every other genre that sort of realism just isn't appreciated or even appreciable. Jumping genre to sports movies, so many tournaments end exactly as they are seeded - the #1 team steamrolls everyone beneath them, leading to an equally one-sided final game they win. But those tournaments don't get movies made about them. Yeah, it's realistic to have the #1 team win the tournament, but there's no stakes, or if there are stakes, they're too low to care about. A lot of sports movies are about the #16 team winning several upsets in a row to face the #1 team and the cost of losing the big game is the entire team folding forever. And, again, it's be realistic for the #16 team to get clobbered and then disband, that certainly happens IRL. But no one wants this underdog story to end with them losing everything. Yeah it's formulaic to have the #16 team win by a single point and win the championship and revitalize the program, but it's a satisfying ending. The only sports movie I can think of off the top of my head that doesn't end with the underdog team winning the big game is The Bad News Bears (which, notably, was not based on a true story - I imagine that if the same story had been a true story it probably wouldn't have gotten a movie made of it). Nevertheless, the ending is triumphant, since the fact that such a rag tag group even made it to finals at all was an accomplishment and the characters celebrate, with the indication that they'll try again next year. You could make an argument that this is another subversive ending that works - it subverts the classic "underdogs win the championship" trope in favor of a more realistic ending where they lose, but nevertheless it's not unsatisfying.

TLDR, a realistically gritty ending really only works if you go all the way with it and it satisfies some greater theme. There's nothing wrong with using a cliche but tried and tested ending, because those endings generally work for a reason.

Edit: Can't believe I thought about The Bad News Bears of all movies before Rocky.

 

[Duncan Hills Coffee]

But in every other genre that sort of realism just isn't appreciated or even appreciable. Jumping genre to sports movies, so many tournaments end exactly as they are seeded - the #1 team steamrolls everyone beneath them, leading to an equally one-sided final game they win. But those tournaments don't get movies made about them. Yeah, it's realistic to have the #1 team win the tournament, but there's no stakes, or if there are stakes, they're too low to care about. A lot of sports movies are about the #16 team winning several upsets in a row to face the #1 team and the cost of losing the big game is the entire team folding forever. And, again, it's be realistic for the #16 team to get clobbered and then disband, that certainly happens IRL. But no one wants this underdog story to end with them losing everything. Yeah it's formulaic to have the #16 team win by a single point and win the championship and revitalize the program, but it's a satisfying ending. The only sports movie I can think of off the top of my head that doesn't end with the underdog team winning the big game is The Bad News Bears (which, notably, was not based on a true story - I imagine that if the same story had been a true story it probably wouldn't have gotten a movie made of it). Nevertheless, the ending is triumphant, since the fact that such a rag tag group even made it to finals at all was an accomplishment and the characters celebrate, with the indication that they'll try again next year. You could make an argument that this is another subversive ending that works - it subverts the classic "underdogs win the championship" trope in favor of a more realistic ending where they lose, but nevertheless it's not unsatisfying.

That reminds me of the first time I saw the first Rocky and I was shocked when he lost. Growing up, I thought of Rocky as the guy who always won, the underdog that makes it out on top, but the first movie goes for a much more realistic approach. Rocky's an amateur going up against one of the top boxers, there's no way in hell he'd ever win. And I like that the movie acknowledged that; Rocky knew he couldn't win, but he wanted to "go the distance," to show what he was made of. It actually made the ending more powerful in my opinion because even though he lost, he still won in his own way and that was all that really mattered.

It's also interesting because the whole thing is kinda accidental if you watch Rocky and you're more familiar with the character as a pop culture icon. Rocky's probably the most famous sports film series, so you would expect him to win in every one. But no, in the first movie he doesn't even win. And it works in the movie's favor because it's so unexpected to a modern audience, but the movie also makes it clear that winning wasn't the point. It subverts modern expectations while also providing an emotionally satisfying conclusion.

 

[A Useless Fish]

But in every other genre that sort of realism just isn't appreciated or even appreciable. Jumping genre to sports movies, so many tournaments end exactly as they are seeded - the #1 team steamrolls everyone beneath them, leading to an equally one-sided final game they win. But those tournaments don't get movies made about them. Yeah, it's realistic to have the #1 team win the tournament, but there's no stakes, or if there are stakes, they're too low to care about. A lot of sports movies are about the #16 team winning several upsets in a row to face the #1 team and the cost of losing the big game is the entire team folding forever. And, again, it's be realistic for the #16 team to get clobbered and then disband, that certainly happens IRL. But no one wants this underdog story to end with them losing everything. Yeah it's formulaic to have the #16 team win by a single point and win the championship and revitalize the program, but it's a satisfying ending. The only sports movie I can think of off the top of my head that doesn't end with the underdog team winning the big game is The Bad News Bears (which, notably, was not based on a true story - I imagine that if the same story had been a true story it probably wouldn't have gotten a movie made of it). Nevertheless, the ending is triumphant, since the fact that such a rag tag group even made it to finals at all was an accomplishment and the characters celebrate, with the indication that they'll try again next year. You could make an argument that this is another subversive ending that works - it subverts the classic "underdogs win the championship" trope in favor of a more realistic ending where they lose, but nevertheless it's not unsatisfying.

One brilliant example that's commonly forgotten in the Sports movie genre is Rocky. It ends exactly how it should have: Apollo Creed defeats Rocky Balboa at the end of that movie. It's a fact that seems to be forgotten.

Then again, the story in that case wasn't really about sports, was it? It was about struggling to become better being its own reward.

Edit: Damn, I'm apparently not the only one that thought about Rocky, here. Does this count as being ninja'd?

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Let’s tell a hypothetical murder mystery to show why some plot subversions work and some don't. The mysterious and somewhat sickly Zachary throws a dinner party at his mansion and invites Alice, Bob, Clara, Daniel, Eliza, Frederick, and Gabrielle, all of whom are his mortal enemies who he’s been blackmailing. Later that night Zachary turns up dead of a gunshot wound. Alice, Bob, Clara, Daniel, Eliza, Frederick, and Gabrielle all have a motive and an opportunity but they all vehemently deny killing Zachary. The obvious solution is that one of the seven house guests killed him, and is currently lying to save their skin. Let’s try out two subversions. Number one: none of the house guests killed Zachary. Zachary, who was already dying of a terminal illness, decided to commit suicide with the hopes of pinning his death on one or more of his most hated enemies, dragging them down with him. Number two: None of the house guests killed Zachary because Hal the burglar decided to sneak in during the party to steal some of Zachary’s stuff. Zachary tried to confront Hal and he shot him in the face.

Why does the first subversion work so much better than the second one? Well, I already mentioned that Zachary was sickly. I didn’t say terminally ill, but that’s not a gigantic or implausible leap from “sickly”. Secondly, it was made clear that the house guests were his mortal enemies, so it made sense that he would do something to tear them down, even at the cost of his own life. This ending may not be the single most expected outcome but it still makes sense, thus it’s a perfectly serviceable subversion. Again, having one of the seven party guests be the killer isn’t the world’s worst ending, especially in this very vague nebulous version of events where all seven basically have an equal chance of being the killer, but in this ending the seven house guests are essentially red herrings, and by Zachary’s design and not the writer’s - he wants you to hate the house guests because he hates them. It’s almost better than just having one of the house guests kill him.

Now, let’s explain why the Hal solution doesn’t work nearly as well. Sure, it’s not the most impossible thing out there, people die in home burglaries fairly often. It’s not like Zachary was murdered by aliens in this otherwise realistic setting. But it’s still not a very satisfying answer. One problem is “gee, it sure was convenient that Hal broke in during the dinner party full of other people with motives to murder Zachary. That’ll sure save his skin!” Hal could have broken in at any time but he did so at just the right time so that the audience could waste their time considering seven other suspects. It feels contrived, as opposed to the first subversion which had a valid reason as to why Zachary turned up dead during the party. Second, Hal wasn’t mentioned during the intro to the story. He’s not a Chekov’s gun being fired in the third act, he’s a random agent of chaos. Third, Hal has no motive and Zachary has no reason to hate Hal besides him breaking into his house. Having random burglar Hal be the killer throws out everything set up in the first act, Alice, Bob, Clara, Daniel, Eliza, Frederick, and Gabrielle were a waste of time, Zachary’s illness ends up meaning nothing, and Hal choosing to break in during a dinner party feels like a contrived coincidence. The only thing the Hal solution has over Zachary killing himself or having any one of the house guests kill him is the sheer fact that no one would guess Hal because no one knows he exists until the end of the story. Most people would guess one of the seven house guests, but maybe somewhere, someone would guess the correct answer that Zachary killed himself to frame the guests. Your options are A) the obvious, unsurprising, but perfectly valid option (one of the guests), B) the surprising but still plausible solution that relies upon previously set up elements but someone maybe somewhere might have guessed it (Zachary killing himself), or C) the totally left field option that no one would ever guess in a million years but throws out basically the entire story for the sake of subversion (Hal)? Well, how far are you willing to chase surprise?

The mystery genre is a special case since it should theoretically be solvable by the audience, but is plagued with twist endings that are impossible to predict for the average reader. So both endings sucks unless there are clues that make it possible to decide.
I'd recommend watching Murder by Death, which is a 44 year old film that has an absolute fantastic ending that dunks on the idea.