So, here's where I would disagree with you.
Prior to the last two seasons, the strength of this show has been the intricate plotting and the characters; the growth of the characters and the developments in the plot have felt earned. Even something "shocking" (say, the Red Wedding or Ned Stark at the end of S1) is not shocking in terms of the character or the developments, but was only shocking in terms of the viewer expectations of what should happen in a show.*
It gave the show a very "real" feeling; something which is uncommon, but the idea that this was an inhabited world, with characters and machinations that exist not just on the screen, but beyond it. Much like a good chili, the flavor came because it was allowed to sit for a while before serving up more plot developments.
This is not similar (IMO) to most movies, which suffer from unneeded bloat; movies are closer to the short story, while a good television series (today) can be the full novel.
Anyway, the issue I have had is that while I believe that this most recent episode was, standing alone, quite good, and while some of the character beats made perfect sense (incl. Dany's heel turn), it happened too quickly. There wasn't the deep and satisfying emotional payout I should feel from the development of a plot point that was character driven, as opposed to plot point that are simply plot-driven.
IMO.
*Arguably, the missteps before the last two seasons occurred when a line of plot and characters was introduced and not given proper time, such as Dorne.
Again, interesting because we have agreement and disagreement here.
I agree that the "simmer" (let's call it) of Game of Thrones has been essential to the cognitive workspace that viewers inhabit as they watch it unfold.
But for my part, (more food!) oversteeping something can lead to a bitter, wrong-noted product.
When I look at two of the primary character arcs that were just recently brought to climax, I feel like "more isn't better."
Cersei has been one of my favorite characters. I really liked the way her downfall exposed her core pathos.
Her entire life she gambled on the Lannister brand; her idea of the destiny, reach, canniness, and raw power of her family's legacy and approach (including shrewd, calculating cruelty). The delusion of her (and her family's) invincibility was slowly...and then SUDDENLY pulled back to her...piece by piece...until she was reduced to facing it as a scared child might.
You see that with a lot of people who perceive themselves as invincible (and the evidence of their life supports that idea). The cup of history overfloweth with that narrative when it comes to dictators and strongmen. Interestingly, Tiger Woods downfall has a nice parallel (apex athletes are the most strategically delusional creatures possible).
The suddenness of it was extremely potent for me. That is how it happens. Quick...brutal.
The same goes for Daenyrys. The latent villainy of her bloodline has been there from the beginning...it was a slow, back-and-forth journey to get to the precipice where she would soar away from those earthly shackles or plummet into the destiny she sought to avoid.
Its like "The Killing Joke." One bad day. That is all it takes. In my opinion, the suddenness of it...the potency of losing so much so quickly is what makes it more compelling...more visceral. And more relatable. I think most people in this world haven't lost a ton in a short span of time, so they don't realize how it undoes a person.
Anyway, I thought it was very well rendered precisely for its suddenness. Drawing it out (either temporally or via scene structure) wouldn't have enhanced it for me. It would have damaged it.
