Valetudo

I'm having the same problem, with the same user. Thanks for working on it, and congrats about forum stability this last week.

So why are guys giving it a 1 such obvious trolls? Giving it a 10 is "personal and subjective", and "an indication of enjoyment". Giving it a 1 is trolling What if someone gave it a 1 because, in his "personal and subjective" point of view, said person did not enjoy the episode? Doesn't that sounds like double standards? Everybody should feel free to rate the episode as it wants without being attacked for it.

You're doing exactly what we reproach the show of doing. Let's take an example: -a soldier kills a man during a war -a sadistic murderer kills a man for fun -an abused woman kills a man in self defense. In the 3 examples, the result is the same: a man is killed. Do you think it's the same story just because of that? The reasons and the goals behind the actions are important too.

And the way the found to show us 3ER transferring a massive amount of important knowledge to Bran was to have him showing Bran a vision of his dad leaving for the Eyrie???? Is that really the kind of useful information that you have to transmit at all costs? If they had at least shown us Bran having various short flashes of different memories before this particular one , I could be OK with the "transferring as much knowledge as possible while we still have time" approach. But that's clearly not what was shown on the show, only what was told by the producers to justify it. I gave this episode a 3

, it's a little too aggressive. And why not shades of orange instead, to blend with the background?

I started talking to you responding to one of your lines: The argument that this or that just isn't realistic cracks me up. None of this is realistic... Its fake, fantasy, fiction. I responded that a book/show being a work of fiction or fantasy didn't justify it to be unrealistic, giving two over the top examples to justify my point. Exaggerated examples that didn't make sense to make you understand that being fiction or fantasy doesn't excuse everything. You then responded telling me: That is no less realistic than Dragons, magic, wargs, & direwolves... I then responded that, in an SF/Fantasy world, these elements were believable and could even be considered as realistic, as long as they obeyed rules created by the author. I then gave you one example of something that could be seen as unrealistic in the books (the horse transforming into a dragon). What I was trying to say was that, even if dragons and direwolves are unrealistic to us, they are realistic in the books. They follow rules and are consistent. So brushing away all critics about the show not being realistic saying that "there are dragons and direwolves" is not a valid argument. We cannot excuse the faster than light travel times by saying "it's unrealistic but so are dragons", because dragons are a known entity in the books, but jetpacks or wormholes are not. Of course, this is a tough problem to resolve and I don't have a pre-made solution ready for you, but well, I'm not a writer of this show. If they really are trying to create a quality show, they have to think about these problems and try to resolve them, and we cannot excuse them when they are not consistent with it just because GoT is fantasy. We certainly wouldn't excuse these things on a show like The Wire or The Sopranos. I never said that any of my over the top examples happened in the show, quite the contrary. Hope you understand my point now.

Yeah, same thing here! I've posted some comments in random threads and have been personally attacked. I've started typing responses several times to comments I found ridiculous, but then I thought: "what's the point? You can't argue with people who don't listen." The Rant and Rave thread is really necessary. The problem is, show apologists are eager to troll on it, and then the thread is locked because some posters loose patience and respond to provocations. It just shows the difference in maturity when you see that nobody goes trolling the positive nitpicking thread.

@Gargarax You proposed a fan-fiction story yourself (Sansa going to WH), but still everything he finds to criticize you is that you're mad because they made changes from the books. Do you really need more proof to understand that he's not interested in discussion. My advice: use the ignore option, you'll do yourself a favor and myself too, since I'm still seeing his ridiculous posts when you quote them in your responses. No need to feed the trolls, let him troll all by himself.

1) I admit, James Bond was not my most judicious choice, but still. Even him wouldn't survive a 100m fall without any gadgets. 2) If you really believe that this is a series about magic, dragons, zombies and shapeshifting, I don't see why you could have liked the first book/season, since these elements are so small. So, if next week Sansa uses her magical necklace to kill Ramsey and escape flying on top of it, would you be OK with it? It's a show about magic after all, so why not?

This argument doesn't hold since D&D are "doing everything to fix the books", hence justifying the massive changes. You can't have it both ways.

First, back off with the personal attacks, we're not at the kindergarten. Saying that we shouldn't expect anything to be realistic because it's a work of fiction IS the strawman argument I was tackling with my examples. I never said the show did such things. Now if you have some understanding problems, think twice before posting offensive comments.

You must be new to any SF/fantasy books if you don't understand this: The first rule for such books is: It has to make sense. Yes, you can add extraordinary elements to your story, but these elements must obey some rules that you're creating yourself. Taking the dragons for example, the books clearly defined what they were (How they look, what are their defining characteristics (flying and breathing fire), how many time does it take for them to grow up, how long do they live, how big they are,...). If, in the next book, we're presented with a horse that transforms himself into a submarine dragon that shits gold, we're going to have a bad time trying to make sense of any of this. Having some "fantasy" elements into your story is not an excuse to bad writing So don't use it as an excuse to justify bad decisions, even if the believable option is more "boring" or "wouldn't made good TV".

Your argument cracks me up. Just because it's fiction doesn't mean that there are no rules anymore. Would you still like movies like James Bond if the actor was able to fall from a tower and land without being injured? Or TLotR if Frodo transformed himself int a fucking fire breathing giant that destroyed Sauron's army in the blink of an eye? This show was supposed to be "TLotR meets The Sopranos", not "The Transformers". It's clearly supposed to be minimally realistic, and that's what made it such a huge success in the first place. If we wanted to see crazy things, we'd stick with Fast and Furious or Narnia movies.

If you felt surprised by Sansa's rape scene, I understand why you may still enjoy the show. The thing is, Sansa's rape has been debated on this forum as soon as we had evidence that she was going to Winterfell this pre-season. It's not because something isn't from the books that it becomes "shocking", and it's not because it's "shocking" that it becomes "good TV".

I guess you really need to reread Danny's wedding chapter if you remember her crying in agony. If you're talking about her wedding on the show, just look at this thread from this forum http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/49152-book-tv-spoilers-dany-and-drogos-relationship/ You'll see that, unlike you're trying to say, a lot of people weren't happy of how that scene was filmed. Of course, the outrage was not the same as in this week episode, but you have to remember that this scene is from the first episode of the first season, so the fan base was a lot smaller.