Illogical events in both show and books.

[protar]

It doesn't matter. George in his writing (in a work where backstory is SIGNIFICANT to the entire state of the series) decided that he was going to create this implausible super hero like instance which therefore put a Mad King in place. That Mad King was instrumental in the start of the rebellion. So now in story, Selmy getting Aerys out of Duskendale is necessary for Robert becoming King, Eddard being Lord of Winterfell, Eddard and Catelyn being married, all the kids that resulted in that marriage, Jon being married to Lysa, Jamie being in the Kingsguard, Tywin not being Hand during the Rebellion allowing him to swoop in and get the Lannisters a huge piece of that pie, including Cersie marrying Robert, which places Jamie and Cersie together, and gets us king Joffrey and Tommen, among other things.

If Aerys dies in Duskendale none of that happens. If he is never in Duskendale, he doesn't go crazy. Point is, Duskendale was a more integral part of the story, even if it happened in the past. It's like saying Batman's parents being killed isn't important because it happened before the story started.

By comparison, 20 good men was an instant of a bad situation getting worse, and a decision that was already on the table being elected, and Stannis losing a battle he looked like he was going to struggle with anyways (and lets be real, he had an army full of sellswords, you don't need the good men scene to get them abandoned, and Stannis, Selyse, and Shireen would have died had they lost anyways. The biggest thing it actually effected was that Davos and Mel are at the Wall. That's the biggest effect of that whole thing. Stannis losing, dying, Shireen, Selyse dying, the sellswords leaving, all could have happened by merely losing a battle they weren't guaranteed to win. Mel and Davos being at the Wall was the biggest difference.

Compare that to everything that happened because Aerys got out of Duskendale.

 

In story yes. But externally, from an outside narrative perspective the Defiance of Duskendale is not that important. It serves to paint this legendary image of Barristan, not to serve as some key to Aerys. The Defiance isn't talked about until book 4? 5? And yet it isn't treated as any huge reveal, it's already accepted by the audience that Aerys was mad and we don't need an explanation for why. 

 

20GM is in the here and now and it's pivotal to the plot. And it's also infinitely more implausible than Barristan's rescue mission. That was amazing but possible. 20GM is just plain impossible. 

[protar]

The whole ridiculing of the 20 good men thing just seems childish to me. I'm a huge show fan and even when I was watching I was like "eh what? lol" then I got over it after 2 seconds and the first thought that came to my mind was: out of budget / time. The show is so massive that you kind of forgive these lapses, just like I forgave the fact that the wildling prisoners at Castle Black vanished into thin air, or the deserters in Stannis army.

 

Also regarding the 20 good men thing, we still don't know it was Ramsey that set the fires. There is a small chance that some magic was at play, if you recall in the scene Melisandre walks out of her tent and looks up in wonderment.

 

Well you've already made it clear that you're fine with the show being dumbed down to appeal to a wider audience (as if only dumb shows appeal to lots of people). So it's no surprise that you're willing to accept massive plot holes. 

 

Now it's one thing to forgive one or two lapses. But at this point every episode - I would wager every scene - has plot holes. Often huge ones. It's a matter of trust between the writers and the audience. In a good writer/audience relationship I (the audience) can trust that generally the writer is going to make an effort to be consistent and isn't going to "cheat". And in return the writer knows that I'm going to forgive the odd mistake so they don't have to be perfect. When the writers decide to do away with even basic continuity that symbiotic relationship is no longer there. It's not my job to explain the writer's plot for them. 

[LatrineDiggerBrian]

 

Well you've already made it clear that you're fine with the show being dumbed down to appeal to a wider audience (as if only dumb shows appeal to lots of people). So it's no surprise that you're willing to accept massive plot holes. 

 

 

No, actually I've never ever said this at all, so not sure where you're getting this from. imo, the show isn't dumbed down at all, but I understand that because of logistical reasons: time, money, etc. there are limitations on what they are able to accomplish.

 

 

Now it's one thing to forgive one or two lapses. But at this point every episode - I would wager every scene - has plot holes. Often huge ones. It's a matter of trust between the writers and the audience. In a good writer/audience relationship I (the audience) can trust that generally the writer is going to make an effort to be consistent and isn't going to "cheat". And in return the writer knows that I'm going to forgive the odd mistake so they don't have to be perfect. When the writers decide to do away with even basic continuity that symbiotic relationship is no longer there. It's not my job to explain the writer's plot for them. 

 

That's your opinion. When you make a huge deal out of every little thing, like Little Finger traveling to Kings Landing in only 2 episodes time. or Brienne sneaking through Moat Cailin, then of course you're probably going to think the show is full of plot holes. Fact of the matter is most people are reasonable and aren't obsessed with these "plot holes". And no, it's not because you're smarter than all the rest of us. It's because you're upset that the show isn't an exact carbon copy of the books.

[Toth]

That's your opinion. When you make a huge deal out of every little thing, like Little Finger traveling to Kings Landing in only 2 episodes time. or Brienne sneaking through Moat Cailin, then of course you're probably going to think the show is full of plot holes. Fact of the matter is most people are reasonable and aren't obsessed with these "plot holes". And no, it's not because you're smarter than all the rest of us. It's because you're upset that the show isn't an exact carbon copy of the books.

 

I know quite a lot of people who see plot holes as a problem that can greatly disturb one's ability to enjoy a story. I belong to those people. I also know quite a lot of people who don't see plot holes as a problem if they enjoy something by other qualities than it's plot. Those people see the flaws of GoTs writing and simply decide to not let them diminish their fun with it. But most of these people don't feel the urge to run around and try to tell other people it is "irrational" to point out plot holes and be upset with them or even to negate their existance despite them staring directly into one's face or even deride criticism with the antiquated "you're just a butthurt book-purist"-insult. protar never in any thread stated she wants an exact copy of the books. I did neither. And I have never seen anyone in the Rants and Rave threads to do so. I strongly believe she wants what every critic of the show wants: A coherent story in it's own right. That's what people unhappy with the show want to see, but go on, keep telling yourself that you know better what we want.

 

Just calm down. You don't need to defend every inch of that show. And keep that "do you feel smarter?"-accusation out of your posts, people might think you want to compensate something with that.

[lancerman]

The thing is it's not a plot hole. You just have to accept that the guys doing it were competent enough to pull it off even if it was improbable. A plot hole is something where because of other elements in the plot it is impossible. You can't explain it away with something like "Barristan or the 20 men were just hyper competent and succeeded where they should have failed).

By the same logic every James Bond movie is a plot hole because he should be failing most of the time. Maybe it's a contrivance if you really just can't get over the magnitude of the feat. But it's not a plot hole. And again some of these in the books have bigger contextual impacts than what is happening on the show.. Sorry I know people like to apologize for it, but Duskendale made Aerys crazy, a massive amount of the backstory hinges on Aery's being crazy and doing what he did to set up the whole series. We can say it's backstory, George wrote it. Once he decided Aerys goes crazy because of Duskendale it became a central event in the life of one of the most important (arguably the most important) character to the series set up. So to wash away an event that George wrote that is very central to the foundation of where the series begins and act like it isn't as important as a similar instance that in the long run resulted in a girl being burned and Davos and Mel going to the Wall is very dubious.

And it's telling when certain people are apologizing for things in the book or passing it off as minimal, when a lot of them are the same people who don't afford the show the same luxury and often go in the opposite direction.

[RedShirt47]

All tv shows (every single one of them) is riddled with plot holes, short cuts, tropes, archetypes (or stereotypes to some), short hand etc. It's the only way to make tv. Theatre, Cinema, Radio, Television, Opera - they all need a suspension of disbelief. When people are watching a play they can either enjoy the show for what it is or sit there grumbling about how silly men look wearing tinfoil armour riding broom-stick horses in front of painted canvas sunsets. If you're not willing to accept that you must compromise your sense of total reality then visual arts are not for you.

 

GoT is not perfect, Dorne proves this. But grumbling about 20 men in tinfoil armour sneaking into a camp is not going to achieve anything.

 

Name a show (any) and I bet we could pick it apart easily.

[Toth]

By the same logic every James Bond movie is a plot hole because he should be failing most of the time. Maybe it's a contrivance if you really just can't get over the magnitude of the feat. But it's not a plot hole. And again some of these in the books have bigger contextual impacts than what is happening on the show.. Sorry I know people like to apologize for it, but Duskendale made Aerys crazy, a massive amount of the backstory hinges on Aery's being crazy and doing what he did to set up the whole series. We can say it's backstory, George wrote it. Once he decided Aerys goes crazy because of Duskendale it became a central event in the life of one of the most important (arguably the most important) character to the series set up. So to wash away an event that George wrote that is very central to the foundation of where the series begins and act like it isn't as important as a similar instance that in the long run resulted in a girl being burned and Davos and Mel going to the Wall is very dubious.

 

By the same argumentation it is a story-breaking plothole that Azor Ahai/the last hero managed to rally troups and fight back the Others with a bit of Obsidian despite the Others having had Westeros up to the borders of Dorne in their firm grasp. It's extremely unlikely they managed it and this event not only influenced Aerys, but the entire of world of Planetos depended on that it was not swallowed by endless darkness. So you say that that breaks the current story we are reading completely?

 

Seriously, one unlikely, but well explained stunt in the backstory of a bookseries in no way excuse another even more unlikely and completely unexplained stunt in a TV-show.

[RedShirt47]

The thing is it's not a plot hole...

I agree, it's more of a short cut. a small force could harry a large force and through guerrilla tactics impede them. This is a standard warfare strategy. But the show can't show lots of small hit and run assaults et al. They show one attack with some fiery moments for good tv.

They could show Littlefinger leaving Winterfell, then at Moat Caillan, Then in The Riverlands, and in the crownlands. Have his journey take half a season. More realistic but terrible tv. Short cuts are needed. Audiences understand this and suspend their disbelief for a while - within limits of course.

[Pyat>Daenerys]

You're the one being illogical here. It's not like they would've walked in as a group of twenty. They likely snuck in one at a time at different locations, and then once in, just blended in with the men already there.

As for the horses, they didn't set the horses on fire, or kill them directly they set the stables on fire, which subsequently burned and killed the horses. Did you actually watch the scene? Because we specifically see the tents where the horses are going up in flames first, followed by a co-ordinated burning of several other tents/areas (food stores, seige weapons, etc...)

 

Do you actually understand what you are talking about? Once again burning something should alert everyone because of all the smoke and fire. And do you think horses stay still and let themselves burn? If they would sense the smoke the whole stables would be a madhouse of horses, trying to break free and running away. The whole camp should be up at the first sign of a smoke. In the show they realize everything is burned after it is already done, and everyone got away. This could only have worked if the whole Stannis army was comatose.

[protar]

That's your opinion. When you make a huge deal out of every little thing, like Little Finger traveling to Kings Landing in only 2 episodes time. or Brienne sneaking through Moat Cailin, then of course you're probably going to think the show is full of plot holes. Fact of the matter is most people are reasonable and aren't obsessed with these "plot holes". And no, it's not because you're smarter than all the rest of us. It's because you're upset that the show isn't an exact carbon copy of the books.

 

If you want to debate with someone and then tell the other person what they think, do everyone a favour a go debate with yourself.

 

I won't lie, I'm upset that the show has changed so much from the books. Not that it isn't exactly like the books, but that in many cases it is the exact opposite (thematically) of the books. But that isn't why I complain about the plot holes. I complain about them because they make it so the show doesn't stand on it's own. A poor adaptation needn't be poor entertainment. Frozen is a terrible adaptation of The Snow Queen, but it's a good film. But GoT does not stand on it's own because of the sheer quantity of plot holes. There isn't just one or two any more, there's loads every single episode. Almost every scene has some logical inconsistency. And these aren't super obscure things, these are things which anyone who puts even the slightest bit of scrutiny into the show can see. If the shock deaths and nude scenes entertain you despite the complete lack of internal consistency then that's fine by me. Enjoy. Don't pretend it's good writing though. 

[Pyat>Daenerys]

The thing is it's not a plot hole. You just have to accept that the guys doing it were competent enough to pull it off even if it was improbable. A plot hole is something where because of other elements in the plot it is impossible. You can't explain it away with something like "Barristan or the 20 men were just hyper competent and succeeded where they should have failed).

By the same logic every James Bond movie is a plot hole because he should be failing most of the time. Maybe it's a contrivance if you really just can't get over the magnitude of the feat. But it's not a plot hole. And again some of these in the books have bigger contextual impacts than what is happening on the show.. Sorry I know people like to apologize for it, but Duskendale made Aerys crazy, a massive amount of the backstory hinges on Aery's being crazy and doing what he did to set up the whole series. We can say it's backstory, George wrote it. Once he decided Aerys goes crazy because of Duskendale it became a central event in the life of one of the most important (arguably the most important) character to the series set up. So to wash away an event that George wrote that is very central to the foundation of where the series begins and act like it isn't as important as a similar instance that in the long run resulted in a girl being burned and Davos and Mel going to the Wall is very dubious.

And it's telling when certain people are apologizing for things in the book or passing it off as minimal, when a lot of them are the same people who don't afford the show the same luxury and often go in the opposite direction.

 

The Barristan rescue and the 20GM are in no way comparable. One is a very hard task, deemed virtually impossible by most. The other is literally impossible in every way and treated like no big deal by everyone.

 

And James Bond is impossible yes. The gadgets, the goons always missing, jokes in serious situations etc... The new Bonds were the first one to even attempt any sort of serious drama or realism (+ Living Daylights maybe?). GOT on the other hand is supposed to be a serious drama, with gritty realism. It should be better then James Bond. But the show invents bs like this and has Arya Stark revealing herself to guards who just let her go... Are you implying GOT is just a pulpy fun action adventure, which does not need to make any sense?

[LatrineDiggerBrian]

 

I know quite a lot of people who see plot holes as a problem that can greatly disturb one's ability to enjoy a story. I belong to those people. I also know quite a lot of people who don't see plot holes as a problem if they enjoy something by other qualities than it's plot. Those people see the flaws of GoTs writing and simply decide to not let them diminish their fun with it. But most of these people don't feel the urge to run around and try to tell other people it is "irrational" to point out plot holes and be upset with them or even to negate their existance despite them staring directly into one's face or even deride criticism with the antiquated "you're just a butthurt book-purist"-insult. protar never in any thread stated she wants an exact copy of the books. I did neither. And I have never seen anyone in the Rants and Rave threads to do so. I strongly believe she wants what every critic of the show wants: A coherent story in it's own right. That's what people unhappy with the show want to see, but go on, keep telling yourself that you know better what we want.

 

Just calm down. You don't need to defend every inch of that show. And keep that "do you feel smarter?"-accusation out of your posts, people might think you want to compensate something with that.

 

I say it's irrational because it seems more driven by anger and bias than actual rational / logical thought. I say this because I see people regularly insulting Dan and Dave (in their posts, sigs, and screen names), gossiping about cast members, hijacking every single thread, nitpicking the minutest of details, calling people names, and then going off and forming a thread where no one can disagree with them. It seems less rational and more akin to a child screaming and stomping around after they didn't get what they wanted. 

 

And the reason I make the "do you feel smarter?" statement is because people have literally come out and said show watchers are simpletons who are easily amused by violence, nudity, and shocking moments. Regarding compensating, I would say people who are making those statements might be the ones who are compensating.

[LatrineDiggerBrian]

 

If you want to debate with someone and then tell the other person what they think, do everyone a favour a go debate with yourself.

 

I won't lie, I'm upset that the show has changed so much from the books. Not that it isn't exactly like the books, but that in many cases it is the exact opposite (thematically) of the books. But that isn't why I complain about the plot holes. I complain about them because they make it so the show doesn't stand on it's own. A poor adaptation needn't be poor entertainment. Frozen is a terrible adaptation of The Snow Queen, but it's a good film. But GoT does not stand on it's own because of the sheer quantity of plot holes. There isn't just one or two any more, there's loads every single episode. Almost every scene has some logical inconsistency. And these aren't super obscure things, these are things which anyone who puts even the slightest bit of scrutiny into the show can see. If the shock deaths and nude scenes entertain you despite the complete lack of internal consistency then that's fine by me. Enjoy. Don't pretend it's good writing though. 

 

Emmy voters, critics, and 99% of fans think it's good writing. But I guess they're all just mindless idiots who don't understand good writing and characterization. 

[Toth]

 

I say it's irrational because it seems more driven by anger and bias than actual rational / logical thought. I say this because I see people regularly insulting Dan and Dave (in their posts, sigs, and screen names), gossiping about cast members, hijacking every single thread, nitpicking the minutest of details, calling people names, and then going off and forming a thread where no one can disagree with them. It seems less rational and more akin to a child screaming and stomping around after they didn't get what they wanted. 

 

And the reason I make the "do you feel smarter?" statement is because people have literally come out and said show watchers are simpletons who are easily amused by violence, nudity, and shocking moments. Regarding compensating, I would say people who are making those statements might be the ones who are compensating.

 

When there are whole Essays available which clearly detail all the flaws in the narrative of GoT by applying rational thought to the series, it's the complete opposite of what you imply we are doing here. Go on. Read the essays on gotgifsandmusing, go on. I totally agree to 95% of the flaws she points out, so you get a very good idea for why we keep insisting the plot holes are there.

 

Maybe some people say that you are easily amused by violence, nudity and shocking moments, most of them do in anger I admit that. But I say only that the majority of people are entertained by a well directed high quality TV series and uncaring about plot holes. You most certainly said yourself you are uncaring about plot holes above, so you belong to that group. I just find it baffling that you tell us that straight-faced and then proceed to declare it has none, which is utter nonsense.

 

Emmy voters, critics, and 99% of fans think it's good writing. But I guess they're all just mindless idiots who don't understand good writing and characterization. 

 

Emmy voters, critics and an unspecified percentage of viewers (not necessarily all fans) think it is good entertainment. Good entertainment doesn't necessarily mean good writing. There is a difference. A difference you continue to ignore each time you pull out your appeal-to-popularity-fallacy.

[protar]

 

Emmy voters, critics, and 99% of fans think it's good writing. But I guess they're all just mindless idiots who don't understand good writing and characterization. 

 

How many times do you need to be told that appeal to popularity/authority is a weak and fallacious argument? People are analysing and scrutinising the show and pointing out exactly how nonsensical it is and you're just responding with "well loads of people like it so it must be good!" I would be certain that you're a troll by now if not for the sadly very large quantity of people who actually believe that rubbish. 

 

People just straight up aren't scrutinising the show. Probably because of its genre. The focus of critics and general audiences is on the shocking events, not consistency. 

[Pyat>Daenerys]

 

Emmy voters, critics, and 99% of fans think it's good writing. But I guess they're all just mindless idiots who don't understand good writing and characterization. 

 

The writing is bad and the characterization is inconsistent with constant white washing. No amount of emmy nominations or critics can change that. It wouldn't be half as bad if they didn't already have source material with excellent writing and well rounded characters available.

[LatrineDiggerBrian]

 

When there are whole Essays available which clearly detail all the flaws in the narrative of GoT by applying rational thought to the series, it's the complete opposite of what you imply we are doing here. Go on. Read the essays on gotgifsandmusing, go on. I totally agree to 95% of the flaws she points out, so you get a very good idea for why we keep insisting the plot holes are there.

 

 

There are essays and documentaries available that claim 9/11 is an inside job. Doesn't make the conspiracy anymore valid then it already is.

 

 

Maybe some people say that you are easily amused by violence, nudity and shocking moments, most of them do in anger I admit that. But I say only that the majority of people are entertained by a well directed high quality TV series and uncaring about plot holes. You most certainly said yourself you are uncaring about plot holes above, so you belong to that group. I just find it baffling that you tell us that straight-faced and then proceed to declare it has none, which is utter nonsense.

 

 

 

I never said I was uncaring about plot holes. I absolutely do care about ridiculous plot holes in shows and movies and when they're really bad they'll ruin the whole thing for me. I just don't see GoT as having major plot holes that bother me, and the ones that it does have I can excuse because they're mainly due to the limitations of the production. 

 

Emmy voters, critics and an unspecified percentage of viewers (not necessarily all fans) think it is good entertainment. Good entertainment doesn't necessarily mean good writing. There is a difference. A difference you continue to ignore each time you pull out your appeal-to-popularity-fallacy.

 

Critics universally praise the show for being well written. Emmy's don't just reward "good entertainment", they reward great art including writing, acting, directing, and anything associated with production values. That's why GoT is nominated for "Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series". 

[LatrineDiggerBrian]

 

How many times do you need to be told that appeal to popularity/authority is a weak and fallacious argument? People are analysing and scrutinising the show and pointing out exactly how nonsensical it is and you're just responding with "well loads of people like it so it must be good!" I would be certain that you're a troll by now if not for the sadly very large quantity of people who actually believe that rubbish. 

 

People just straight up aren't scrutinising the show. Probably because of its genre. The focus of critics and general audiences is on the shocking events, not consistency. 

 

It's an absolutely relevant argument when a show gets universal praise from critics, awards voters, and fans. Especially when you're saying it's essentially just big dumb entertainment. Big dumb entertainment doesn't get universal critical praise and award nominations. Hence why your previous argument about Transformers and Fast and Furious was invalid. 

 

Maybe they're not scrutinizing the show through the lens of someone who is extremely passionate about the books like you are?

[LatrineDiggerBrian]

 

The writing is bad and the characterization is inconsistent with constant white washing. No amount of emmy nominations or critics can change that. It wouldn't be half as bad if they didn't already have source material with excellent writing and well rounded characters available.

 

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I disagree.

[TheTowerOfJoy]

Do you actually understand what you are talking about? Once again burning something should alert everyone because of all the smoke and fire. And do you think horses stay still and let themselves burn? If they would sense the smoke the whole stables would be a madhouse of horses, trying to break free and running away. The whole camp should be up at the first sign of a smoke. In the show they realize everything is burned after it is already done, and everyone got away. This could only have worked if the whole Stannis army was comatose.

Horses are hobbled and/or hitched and are therefore stationary. You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

We literally see when the fires start at the stables, and then within a few seconds of that fire being set, we see another 15-20 fires pop up at other tents. This is perfectly logical. All 20 "good men" clearly had torches or fire making flint/steel and an accelerant (small bottle of oil would be sufficient). When they see the stables go up (and everyone is looking in that direction) they douce a tent with the accelerant and set their own individual fires. Then in the ensuing chaos, they blend into the crowd and make their way out of the camp.

There's nothing even difficult about it at all.