Darkstream

Members
  • Content count

    2,676
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Darkstream

  1. Please note the bolded in points 2 & 4 https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeusExMachina&ved=0ahUKEwiU_uWxlPPVAhWo7IMKHTeoD3IQFghUMAM&usg=AFQjCNENanKSiiXz3axVJ0USmoSaXStKng
  2. Wrong, Danny was not in an unresolvable situation, she could have simply not walked into the fire. She also had premonitions telling her that she would be fine. You really don't have a clue what your talking about.
  3. I'm not picking and choosing, I already told you that I agree with the interpretation of "new" that Dolorous Gabe provided. I'll ask for the third time, where in the definition does it support what you claim? It doesn't, that's why you're ignoring the request, and resorting to ad hominem attacks. Yes, I'm so broken up over here about your ignorant, selective argument. I'm almost in tears. oh, poor ol' sensitive me. Oh, I know what it means. You would be right if we were discussing the original, archaic meaning. You do realize that in language, words and terms tend to evolve, and take on broader meanings over time? In modern language, the use of deus ex machina is not bound to the criteria that you propose. I've already addressed this, but you're to arrogant to actually read and acknowledge the points that someone is addressing you with. And you're to busy trying to belittle others for criticizing a show that you have a differing opinion of, and apparently, are too sensitive to accept the fact that these people don't like, and criticize something that you do like. If you provide something to back up your claim, I'll gladly admit that I'm wrong, but so far, all you've done is state that something is so, because you say it is. Sorry, but I'm not convinced by that. Believe me, I'm not too proud to admit when I'm wrong, and in fact, will admit right now, that I'm am probably one of the least educated members of this forum in the fields that are largely discussed here. If someone provides a legitimate argument against what I believe, I will use it as a means to learn and better my knowledge.
  4. Too bad that's not how I defined Benjin's case.
  5. Sure pal, and maybe you should stop telling me what I'm doing. It's quite arrogant, and completely false. And I'm so sorry for questioning the all knowing Lancerman, who cant back up his argument with anything but, because I said so.
  6. @Ashes Of Westeros I just noticed that when I quoted @lancerman it inserted your name into the quote box. The forum must be acting up again.
  7. Yes, and Cercei also sent him a letter commanding him to return to KL.
  8. Really, so Tywin had no way of knowing that KL needed his support, or where it was?
  9. Right, I'm using what's stated in the definition to define the phrase, your the one making shit up and claiming that what you say is the true definition. Again, point to where the definition says , "Deus ex machina is literally meant to invoke a god mechanism that is completely inserted into the story without any way to know it exists." Get over yourself, you don't get to dictate what something means.
  10. What the hell are you talking about? Are you Lancerman? And I wasn't complaining about that. Try paying attention, this isn't Got, where you need to actively not pay attention for anything to make sense.
  11. Try reading my post again. That's not what I said. You conveniently left out the relevant portion of my comment. Lakes that do not freeze solid in a region of year round subarctic temperatures did not exist in the world of GoT until they were needed to save the protagonist from an unresolvable situation. As for Benjin, I agree with @Dolorous Gabe's interpretation. The definition does not indicate what you claim to be the meaning of new. Please point to where it says, "Deus ex machina is literally meant to invoke a god mechanism that is completely inserted into the story without any way to know it exists." All it say is "some new event, character, ability or object." As I said, he was newly introduced into the scene/ episode/season unexpectedly, and from out of nowhere. And you'll notice that it says "The term has evolved to mean..." Your literal translation and interpretation is not valid when discussing a deus ex machina as it is used in modern times.
  12. No it doesn't. It is a new revelation that ice does not freeze solid in sub arctic temperatures. It is also an object that was introduced just in the nick of time to save Jon and company. If in a prior episode or scene, they had shown the group traversing an area with lakes all around, covered with thin ice, you would have a case. Same with benjin, he was newly introduced to the scene, episode, and even season, just for the purpose of unexpectedly and implausibly showing up to save Jon from an unresolvable situation. Now if they had shown Benjin in a previous scene or episode in the same vicinity, or perhaps having a vision of Jon and company on their quest, then again, you might have a case. You are ignoring the entire definition, and focusing on, and blowing way out of proportion and context, one single word of the definition.
  13. @lancerman is wrong, those are both cases of deux ex machina. The fact that Benjin has no way of knowing that Jon is there, and in trouble, and just happens to show up at the right place and time to save him is a Deus ex machina. The fact that there just happens to be a lake with an island, right at the spot and time that the heroes need it to be to avoid certain death, with implausibly thin ice, is a deux ex machina. Deus ex machina (Latin: [ˈdeʊs ɛks ˈmaː.kʰɪ.naː]: /ˈdeɪ.əs ɛks ˈmɑːkiːnə/ or /ˈdiːəsɛks ˈmækɪnə/;[1] plural: dei ex machina) is a Latin calque from Greek ἀπὸ μηχανῆς θεός (apò mēkhanês theós), meaning 'god from the machine'.[2] The term has evolved to mean a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the inspired and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability or object. Its function can be to resolve an otherwise irresolvable plot situation, to surprise the audience, to bring the tale to a happy ending, or act as a comedic device.
  14. I think the term your looking for is devil's advocate.
  15. And the ice situated in the freezing cold north conveniently breaking just after the m7 passed by and were about to be swarmed by an army of the undead. ...not that that should've worked as a Deus ex machina, as we later in the episode find out that wights in fact can scuba dive.
  16. Sorry, I don't buy it. It's not that easy to take out a dragon. Aegon conquered the entire continent with a miniscule army and just three dragons. If Danny can't swoop in with a surprise attack, and roast the Red Keep, then her dragons are pretty useless.
  17. And there you have it. You certainly are a class act. ETA: Oops, forgot this part: Aren't you?
  18. And you have to ignore all aspects of proper story telling, common sense, and logic to defend this crap. Which is a stupid and contrived excuse made up by the show runners to force in their even stupider Wight napping expedition. How convenient that Danny, in every past instance that she unleashed her dragons on her enemies, was able to control the dragonfire with pin point accuracy, decimating her enemies without a single case of friendly fire happening. But of course, she is unable to fly into KL, and target just the Red Keep.
  19. You know full well that several of us in this thread think the show sucks, but still watch it. Only a complete moron would post a passive aggressive statement calling someone a moron for doing something, when they are aware that the person they are addressing fits said criteria, and not think that it is an insulting, personal attack. Are you a complete moron? Do you see how that works now? So, if your not a complete moron, you should agree that you owe @Cas Stark and the rest of us morons an apology.
  20. Whether she trusted LF or not - which she should be quite weary of trusting ANYONE, considering she had just been betrayed by all of the people she trusted in KL - she would have never agreed to be a pawn in such a stupid and risky plan that would make her a hostage to her enemies; You know, the exact same traumatic situation she just got out of. Even if she did trust LF as you claim, a more plausible response from her would have been something like: "Although I trust you, and am great full for all you've done to help me, there is no fucking way in Seven Hells I'm going to be a pawn married off to my enemies again, come up with another plan." But you can't have that, because d&d wanted to have their disturbing and shocking scene, so they throw all logic out the window in order to force in what to them "creatively made sense, because they wanted it to happen."
  21. It doesn't make sense that Sansa would agree to LF's plan - especially considering the ordeal she had just endured in KL. When a character makes a decision not based on what that character would do in the situation, but based on the fact that the show runners want to have her raped, that is bad, contrived writing.
  22. I don't deny that. I don't even deny that it is a great show for what it is. If a program appeals to millions of people, and they enjoy watching it, then said program can be considered a great, successful show. What it is not, is a quality written show judged by literary standards; that is just a strait up fact. I'm not sure why people who enjoy the show are so resistant in admitting this. I don't see anything wrong with someone loving a poorly written show, if it has other aspects to it that they enjoy. If one is confident in their view that a show is good, then why do they need to deny what that show really is? They should be able to accept it for what it is, and not be threatened by the legitimate criticisms that it receives. I'm not sure what you mean, or are trying imply with this statement.
  23. Well you know what I'm sick of? I'm sick of show defenders constantly coming to a forum designed for the sole purpose of discussing a book/TV program, and bitching and whining about others who have a differing opinion than them. I'm sick of people coming here and constantly repeating the same old lame ass straw man arguments in defence of the show. Yeah, it's true that in comparison to the books, the show is inferior in every way except for having a visual aspect. But it's also true that the show is, from a purely writing aspect, and judged as a stand alone production, complete and utter garbage; Absolutely riddled with plot holes, inconsistencies, implausible scenarios, contrived circumstances, awfully crude dude-bro dialogue, Deus ex machina, and clichéd and predictable outcomes. But who gives a f**k that I'm sick about that? It is my choice that I come to this forum and participate in these discussions, so I have no right to bitch about these things. Defend your precious show if you must, but save us all the annoying agony of reading you cry about other people's complaints. If you don't like to hear the truth about a show that you are clearly in denial about, then either stay away from this forum, or at least, stick to the fan-boy appreciation threads; Don't participate in a thread that is specifically about the ridiculousness of the show.
  24. Oh good, so you agree that even though they are professional writers, getting paid a lot of money to write a story, they are unable to do so competently unless someone else actually writes it for them.
  25. Oh, if only I had a copper groat for every time I thought that and was proven wrong by d&d.