Pink Fat Rast

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Pink Fat Rast

  • Rank
    Landed Knight

Recent Profile Visitors

772 profile views
  1. Can I just ask, does it even make to rate whole seasons - or, hell, just even whole episodes? The quality and other aspects (amount of progression and whatnot) often vary strongly between the separate storylines - to such an extent, if I didn't know better from the credits I'd just have assumed that the directors (and possibly writers) are distributed among storylines and not episodes (or pairs of episodes rather). Then you've got cases like S5 where it starts out solid, and then takes a dive into wrongness and absuridty after the 1st 3rd or so - and not every plotline of course, just two or three of them. And the way the different threads are put together or intercut with each other is often very clunky and phoned in, so it literally feels like several movies cut together - not always of course, they tend to get particularly fancy in the episode finales and there are other exceptions, but still can't be ignored. It's like uh, it's like rating RoTJ or something - like, how do you really rate it with a single score? Doesn't really make much sense does it.
  2. No - they don'ta!
  3. Given how the practical importance of knowledge is already an established fact in this world - I wonder how absolute Randyll's scoffing attitude is in the first place: if he literally thinks all maesters etc. are useless, or he just doesn't like the way Sam considers it a pleasant alternative to losing weight and becoming a tough man. And if it's really that absolute, how much of a fucking fool he is for having that view, and must be considered this by his fellow noblemen. Has he ever heard of that wildfire incident from a few years back, for starters?? Or maybe he just views them as kind of servants? Necessary and useful, but not prestigious enough for a nobleman to pursue that path? At any rate, god forbid this old asshole might have a point here or there. I bet if Randyll says being really fat is unhealthy, other people would also be fools to start "citing" him?
  4. KILL EVERYONE NOW. Condone first degree necromancy. Turn the world into a giant iceberg.
  5. Yeah, this show's a fucking meme factory - constant quotations in all kinds of contexts (jokes, illustrating points etc.), characters and plot points are named and used as examples for things all the time. Definitely seems to WAAAAAY outshine other current competitors, such as MCU, new SW, or Hobbit (lol), the new Treks etc. in terms of cultural presence.
  6. Alright - this short selective response doesn't mean I won't reply to the other stuff later; it only serves a very specific illustrative purpose: Both Jon and Arya are depicted, in-universe, on purpose in the script, as flawed and reckless - they survive their hotheaded behavior due to luck, and other characters point out their flaws plenty of times. Why do you keep and keep ignoring this no matter how many times it's been pointed out already? And, before you go "Arya was supposed to be awesome in the S7 conflict and Sansa lame / treasenes kant", no - Arya was also stupid, show was clearly aware of as much. Would you not say that showRamsay is by and large a competent villain and Joffrey a whiny stupid idiot? The differing ways these 2 types of villains are perceived by audiences is well known and reaches way beyond GoT. Except he isn't buying into it - that's why he STOLE THE BOOKS BEFORE HE ESCAPED THE CITADEL. He wanted to find important, useful knowledge and not read useless HS diaries - with the ticking time bomb scenario being cited as the main reason for his impatience. These particular Maesters weren't taking his thing seriously enough, that's all that happened. His thing was btw the same from the moment he left CB - he didn't go to the citadel to go read about history a lot, he went there and was allowed to go there for that very specific purpose. Not a strong agent / hero doesn't mean she's a "lame" character or person in general, nothing in the show implied that. The only thing that was lame was buying into the abstract subversion-revenge plan, but that's naivity - lots of other "non-lame" characters have also shown naivity and were killed for it. She has more gentle and chivalrous moments in the show than "brutish man woman" moments - at the very least, the former doesn't come close to being outshined by the latter so you have no excuse. These were now 4-6 times of you *blatantly misrepresenting the show*. Why? And how good is your general position if it relies on constant falsehood. Did Ygritte shed her feminity to be awesome? No. The most illustrous, though not the only counterexample to this (by now) PRATT argument. And when parting with Cat she praised her for having a "woman's kind of courage". Definitely more weight to that moment, than to something barked at Podrick - yet you insist on emphasizing the less serious bit, in order to push your agenda. Or not just "emphasize", you act like it's the only piece of information on Brienne's views about women lol Someone else here when called out on that very thing, used the excuse of "well that was early season and now doesn't count lol" - well, since when has everything from the early seasons been erased from canon again? Hey you know what's not consistent? These two mutually contradicting bolded parts So either "the show has consistently" or "the late seasons unlike the early seasons" - make up your mind, and clear up all those other confusions and misapprehensions while you're @ it. More poor arguments that don't support the conclusion they claim to support: There can be a difference between a patriarch's attitude towards his daughters and his wife - when God created "the patriarch", he didn't just draw one model and then pasted it all over geography and history: there are variations. So, not an inconsistency per se. Also, he didn't call her a good woman FOR talking back to him - he said because she's a good woman (for other reasons presumably having to do with her person or birth family/status). Can't just get anything right? While it's not been brought up by anyone in the show as far as I can think, and definitely should've - the implication that she has more wildfire all over the place, can't be discounted and makes this a specific unique case. 1) Their "sexism" isn't Gorean - they have women as spiritual authorities which even the Khals obey (after first appointing them of course lol). 2) Their acceptance of a ruler who burned down their holy place, depends entirely on their specific religious views which haven't been discussed. It didn't "magically go from A to B" - it was B all along, Doran was simply unaware of it due to having lost touch in his ivory tower. This was clearly spelled out in the show. That's the realistic thing that would've happened in a supernatural stealth assassin scenario eh? Her not being spotted while wearing a M:I mask is the universe bending over backwards to make her correct? Maybe Jaqen should've been spotted and killed in Harrenhalmao No they wouldn't because they're on her side - which is actually the more grimdark scenario than the one you're suggesting, since that would mean they'd be on Doran's side (the gentle good guy's that is). Dorne's been established as less sexist in both show and book, so what applies to Dorne doesn't apply to main Westeros - other contrasts such as Ironborn also exist. What, Balon would've told Yara to gtf out of the room and wait outside with a sandwich while the men talked? Well no, "this isn't Winterfell, boy" - they're fine with a woman leading raids and talking back to some men, although not with outright ruling as it happens. And obviously Ironborn =/=> Dorne ;D Aye - that very well may be. But none of your examples support this conclusion - they don't support the claimed inconsistency (due to being exceedingly sloppy with the plot specifics), and even if there was an inconsistency that still wouldn't mean the reason for the violence wouldn't be "realism" or whatnot - because realism, guess what, can also be applied inconsistently: applied when it's applied, and forgotten about the other half of the times. So, as long as you keep clinging to all these falsehoods, your credibility will remain at the current low - that obviously doesn't mean your other points shouldn't necessarily be addressed anyway; not that you get absolutely everything wrong, just a whole lot.
  7. Ah, these ones sound interesting! Wasn't even expecting any videos on those bits. Gonna watch soon!
  8. Well, as it turns out I'm fantastically unfamiliar with Woody Allen - the only movie of his that I'm aware of right now is the one where Cate Blanchett plays a neurotic sister protgaonist of some stable woman or something. Although I think he only directed that one. So Dustin Hoffman apparenly has done some harassment at some point, and he also starred in a romantic comedy that featured the so-called "romantic comedy behavior", called the Graduate. Was that him also endorsing the practice of spending weeks annoying your love interest who's moved to another university? One example that can be examined. Ah, romantic comedies, yes. It all comes down to how literal the message is supposed to be, or whether it's supposed to be applied to the population. Do porn movies about TV repairmen also "imply that TV repairmen accept different forms of payment" or is it just a schlock scenario people like to watch? Not everything in Tv is meant literally - first you have to understand that, and then you can start examining particular works on whether or not they were meant literal, or to what extent.
  9. I guess in the show that turned out to be a naive fantasy just like the prince thing from S1 - just believing LF, the master player, and marrying the Boltons to somehow subvert them from within and having illusions of devious power; another lesson learned? But that's just an interpretation, as that whole arc is quite confused. Are you saying the execution of that rapesploitation plot was uninspired? Cause the notion of "learning how to manipulate from a master manipulator" isn't necessarily much more interesting - all depends on the execution. 1) And what a flop SW turned out to be, repeating the same story again right? 2) Rape revenge movies are mostly about the lone survivor becoming a sadistic killer and hunting the rapists down one by one - or a hero man avenging the woman. WAY more difference than merely "guns or swords", but I was being a bit facetiously pedantic with the genre titles anyway. Wait, wai wai wait - why does "A is what happened in this plot" suddenly become "and this applies A is the only thing that can ever happen in any plot"? The whole S6 is about her wanting to "take back their home" and also revengekill Ramsay - it's not like anyone contemplating "hm, how do I get over this rape, oh I guess the only way to achieve that goal would be to kill Ramsay - a means to the end which is getting over the rape". No, defeating him was THE goal, so you're not making any sense. Yes but in a different genre than what you're claiming Braveheart or Boudica Warrior Queen come to mind - it's war movies. Yeah... and? Well, you take what you can get. I'm sure most tyrants would also prefer being like Voldemort, being more powerful than your underlings - however they have to contend with simply getting enough people to voluntarily follow them, and are technically at their mercy the whole time; but that illusion of individual power is apparently good enough to derive satisfaction from; and this is still better than the kind of justice most people get in a society - which is by having the state punish the attacker. Participating oneself, in a ritualistic scenario that conveys an illusion of individual power is better - actually being a superhero and capturing and defeating the offender all by yourself is best, but she wasn't as lucky. That whole part was obviously confusing, I'm glad you're more willing to delve into the details now though. No that's just more of your sloppy reading comprehension, to which you'll then admit in the near future (which is the past now). Spiderman vs. Got was a contrast, fyi. Wait, Ridley Scott now also did something perverted to someone? When did that come out? Huh? I said here are points 1)-3) where a greyzone between rape and non-rape is possible - and here's 4), where there's desire/enjoyment combined with refusal, which may ba a moral greyzone of sorts, but NOT A RAPE GREYZONE BECAUSE RAPE IS DEFINED BY CONSENT. I made it so explicit and clear, even with all those numbers and all - clearly distinguished between 1-3) and 4), confirming and agreeing with a post that said "enjoyment without consent is still rape" - and you still managed to confuse everything. The only movie that I'm aware of him greenlighting was Good Will Hunting, I've no idea what kinds of movies he produced or greenlit, and whether he was or wasn't too busy showering in front of women to also bother to include fat showering fetishes into the movies that he didn't create by produced. Maybe you have insight on those details?
  10. That was only in 1.2-9, and even then it was less about suspicions and more about "wow she's stupid / what a bitch to side with Joffrey". During that period, she was less sympathetic or admirable than Arya - mostly because Arya only admired deserving idols (Syrio, Ned) and could tell that Joffrey was a royal prick; whereas Sansa was completely delusional about her idol, and kept lashing out at the wrong people the whole time. So that's if you wanna argue that she was portrayed as less sympathetic "due to wanting girly things like wear a dress and marry a prince" LOL After that, can't really think of any instance where what you're describing applied - not anywhere in KL (after Ned's arrest), not anywhere in the Bolton plot. If anything, the part where she starts working together with LF (the part that you're saying is the way it's supposed to be), collaborating with that devious deviant who betrayed her family, was the closest she came to that in S1-4 - but, again, had to play a role, was out of options. Aaaaaand, a bit of something was implied about resenting Jon for taking credit for the battle - but that's ultimately not where the story went. She wasn't "more in the wrong" (in fact rather less in the wrong) than Arya in that confrontation scene, where Arya was mostly making stupid accusations based off the way Sansa was acting at KL before they parted. And the only parts where it looks like her loyalties might shift, have to do with having LF as a mentor - but it's always rather weak, and doesn't pay off ultimately. Well, that's true. The actor quipped about that as well. It can be both, and that phrasing can be a humorous way to describe the serious thing that you're looking for. Those are cliches already. They also said Stannis was about "ambition" which was inconsistent with the show. They're absent-minded half the time and phone in many of their interviews, give or take. However, the your attention skills leave a lot to be desired as well.
  11. They don't endorse it as themselves - what they do in fiction depends on how "daring" they want to be, how much or little afraid they are of people projecting (or trying to projefct) that onto his person, etc. Going all out and, as "the narrator", say "I endorse this horrible shit that is happening here right now"? Probably not that frequent, sure. But then, considering the context you're arguing this in: scumbags trying to mask themselves as decent, like all those Weinsteingate people, they might abstain from that as well if they'd prefer not becoming suspicious (and then people actually finding something due to the increased focus). So again, no major difference in that regard.
  12. We were talking about their S7 encounters - the rape was from S5. You've completely jumped subjects now, maybe because you have more of a point about whatever nonsense they said about S5. Not as early as S1E2? I said you should criticize them accurately and coherently, and not by talking nonsense and keep talking the same nonsense after being corrected at least twice. I told you - twice. I value correct criticisms over wrong ones, and a lot of what tends to be said on Rock&Rawll, threads like this one, Gotgifsmusings or Dragondemands videos is bafflingly wrong. Third time I'm telling you now, but next post you'll still be claiming I "reject any criticism". Do you think that kind of behavior diminishes your credibility or enhances it lmao
  13. Oh, "wouldn't affect film" as in "getting rid of scumbags wouldn't reduce scumbag content" - not "scumbags never affect movies with their iideas". Fine then, ok. Well - many scumbags carry a mask of decency, often going out of their way to appear as virtuous and moral; as a diversion tactic, or to placate their conscience etc. And many good people like writing messed up fantasy. So if you removed the scumbags, you'd get a bit less of the sanctimonious stuff, and a bit less of the scummy stuff - wouldn't necssarily change the landscape that much. Plus, 2), the way I understood it, the percentage of those sex perverts when measured against comparable celebrities in general, is rather low - so maybe it wouldn't be noticeable to begin with. What's acceptable to show or not (and, in connection to that, what assholes have to do to slip their evil messsages through without rousing suspicions) mostly depends on trends, shifting public attitudes etc. - so when things got significantly dirtier after the Hays Code went away, that doesn't mean more assholes started making movies; it's just that transgressive or unvirtuous content became more accepted in general. I then criticised the latter stance for neglecting to take into account how said dark topics are portrayed. Having "proper morals" in reality, doesn't really affect what kind of fantasy you're willing to write, or like consuming - romanticized, sanitized abuse, stories that try to make you root for an evil protagonist, all those things are entirely on the table. If they aren't sufficiently "responsible", they might even forget to go out and say "this is definitely not how you should look at RL", or just assume everyone already understands it - however, generally a useful thing to do and avoids misunderstandings.
  14. "Alright, I mispresented you when I claimed you said thing A. Still, your argument is essentially that thing A" You just can't stop doing it can you?
  15. If your satire premise about "unintentional lessons drawn from the show" don't actually have to be "drawn from the show", then your satire doesn't work as criticisms of the show and I have no interest in this thread. Obviously I'm doubting that though. No she's not - still plenty of good character traits. There's plenty worse than her, as the saying goes. Part time. The Sansa threat was a fake-out and based on zealous family loyalty (to the extent it was serious to begin with), and most of those Freys if not all partook in the RW - killing a few innocents in a group full of scumbags isn't that bad by GoT standards, and it's been criticized by characters before when Daenerys did it to the slavers. How many people go around yelling how DON'T YOU SEE KALEY C IS PORTRAYED AS THIS ELF LIKE FEMINIST MORAL PARAGAON AND LOOK WHAT SHE'S DOING!!1" even though the show clearly hasn't portrayed those actions of her as morally right? Are you one of them by any chance? And last time I've checked, some people on here (it happened while you were away, but they were all from your camp) complained about her only killing the men and sparing the women - even though the women were almost certainly innocent, based on everything that's been shown. So, you people over there, make up your minds you know. No, you're not - Arya is portrayed as being in the wrong in that scene, as she has been many times before. At the VERY LEAST a balanced image is being presented - this whole "show is saying Arya is supercool heroic and Sansa is lame" nonsense only exists inside your head, and you've already been evidence to the contrary; so clearly something you want to believe really bad. No you're not - Brienne doesn't hate feminity (has a dissonant attitude towards it at worst), and Brienne/Arya have feminine counterexamples in Ygritte, Karsi, Margaery, and even the Sands, various others. Sansa is portrayed in a bad light, I repeat, ONLY INSIDE YOUR HEAD. I've already made all these exact points to @Annara Snow - and guess what, stops posting for a while and then comes back completely oblivious, claiming some kind of victory. Just like you will now. How do I know this? Well couple weeks ago, you made all these over the top points about HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT ARYA IS WRITTEN AS A DEEP PHILOSOPHICAL MOUTHPIECE WITH PHRASES LIKE NOTHING IS NOTHING??, I debunked them, you didn't respond and now you're back claiming the same horse****e as if nothing happened.