How would you rate episode 410?

[Metopheles]

Actually, from an Unsullied point of view this episode should also be lame. Arya going on a ship with children's birthday remix of King in The North?

We had a gal walking into fire and emerging Unburnt and covered in three dragons. Three frickin dragons!!!!!!!!

We had a gal walking towards a cheering crowd of people she just saved like Gandhi with three frickin dragons.

We had a gal sack a city with dragons and before that an epic awsum prophecy and then we have Ice Monsters.

And this should all be in shadow of this one? Not so much. This one was rubbish.

And the Marlboro advertisement of Arya riding on a white horse did not make it any better.

Sorry, the scene was nice and good done, but not as a fucking epic finale moment.

shove Bloodraven in that spot or Tywin Lannister, or Varys and Tyrion leaving, but not Arya on a disney ride boat.

[Frey Pentos]

Well, that is the difference between adaptation and fan fiction. You demonstrate that you don't distinguish between the two and/or don't care.

I assume we can both agree that you can't just film the books, page for page, so what would you be cutting out and changing to make the story fit into 10 50 minute episodes?

[Metopheles]

Pffft. You clearly see five lights where there are only four. :idea:

I don't get it.

[sj4iy]

I don't get it.

Star Trek: TNG. Probably one of the most famous lines in television XD

[Mr Fixit]

I don't get it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moX3z2RJAV8

[Metopheles]

I assume we can both agree that you can't just film the books, page for page, so what would you be cutting out and changing to make the story fit into 10 50 minute episodes?

hello? It worked fine the first two seasons. Just should have sticked to that manner and don't expand their imaginary second half of asos. they could have had done this second half in the first 4 or 5 episodes of this season. With or without having the previous season a bit faster.

So much useless crap put into this season.

[Cold-feet]

I'm usually ok with the show's deviations, but they really pissed me off this episode. No Tysha was inexcusable, and not ending the episode with LSH was severely disappointing. I was fine with pretty much everything else. The scene with The Hound and Arya was excellent. Daenerys locking up her dragons was my favorite scene of hers this season. I really loved the shot of Melisandre looking at Jon Snow. Unfortunately these scenes don't fully make up for what they left out.

I'll give it a 6/10.

[Metopheles]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moX3z2RJAV8

Star Trek: TNG. Probably one of the most famous lines in television XD

never heard of it..

can't be that famous then :P

Still, off topic! Stardestroyer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>enterprise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg_cwI1Xj4M

All I can think of recently when I see or hear anything about Stewart anywhere.

"I've seen everything." so amazing.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Metopheles

[Mr Fixit]

Still, off topic! Stardestroyer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>enterprise.

Somehow I knew you'd say that. :fencing:

[Ser Desmond Wine's Bane]

Personal anecdotes mean nothing. But critical consensus on different sites put it as a well-liked episode.

On the second part. I already said they hailed the episode. They did like. I liked it too.

On the first part... well. OK then. I will summarily disregard your anecdote about different sites as well.

In your opinion, maybe. But you can't say that they weren't spending enough time on characters at the while and then criticize them for spending time on characters like Sam and Gilly (who do become important later in the story). And anyone who didn't 'get' that the point of the Craster's Keep scene was to show Jon becoming a leader just wasn't paying attention. Seriously, it was pretty straight-forward. Karl TFL Tanner is pretty popular now for a show invention.

Please show me where I have ever criticised the Sam/Gilly story? Even in this post I clearly say I have no problem with the Mole's Town sequences. I can only ever remember defending it on these boards. My criticism is that it wasn't done well enough and there are many who apparently don't care about it.

My problem with Crasters is not with Jon, but with Bran. Although Jon not bothering to ask any of the survivors whether a cripple, a giant and two youths had been seen cannot be anything other than a head scratcher. Jon going to Crasters to clear out potential informers is actually a change I like. But they dropped the ball when they introduced the ulterior motive then took it no where and went back to the interminable 'there are 100,000 Wildings coming' scenes with never another mention of Bran.

I voiced my concerns at the time that not enough was being done to create tension about this very real threat and to build the dramatic tension that would lead to this crucial battle in the overall story. Far better to have Jon involved in skirmishes (such as Crasters) and Bran+Co attempting to work their way past the scouts and hunters of the Wildlings. There would even have been plenty of opportunity for Bran+Co to be captured and use the whole Brandor sequence - but with the added benefit of building the tension for the Ep 9 content.

And I just showed that it was ridiculous well covered with nearly two episodes worth of material in just this season alone. What else did they need to add to 'cover it' better?

.

Answered in part above.

Well, why not gripe every time GRRM delays something? It's because he's writing a book series, and not everything is going to come up. They are halfway through the show...things aren't going to be necessary at the exact same time they were in the books.

I agree completely on that. Splitting the ASoS in the way they did meant that some stories had to be stretched in order to have them coincide dramatically near the end of the season. I have no problems with changes when done well. In fact I don't want to see the show faithful to the books - Brienne's endless wanderings is something I can definitely do without. Not all the changes have been done well.

I have no idea what the 'GRRM gripe' bit is about.

[Metopheles]

Somehow I knew you'd say that. :fencing:

Hey you have to chose.

I am sure that the next Star Wars movie will be crap and the recent Star trek ones were kinda pretty good, even though not at all like Star Trek should be, but considering the original ones, Star Trek is pretty bad and Star Wars is just a major breakthrough. Star Trek is visually and from acting not that good, but it convinces with the worlds..and the general story I guess. But lila backgrounds and cardboard sets is just a bit weak. Or fights with humanoid lizards.

And the physics of the Enterprise just wouldn't work. Those engines would break off once they would start.

In that matter Star Wars just wins :P

But in their original idea and premise, they are both somewhat equal. The idea of human alien contact on a peaceful basis changed many conceptions and expanded the world view of a generation. Before that if there even was an alien theme in movies or TV, it was always hostile and xenophobic. An humans leaving earth on a ship to search for life and other cultures, this is awesome and a truly great idea anyway.

(Have I united the two everhating fronts of Star Wars fans and trekkies?) :)

[sj4iy]

On the second part. I already said they hailed the episode. They did like. I liked it too.

On the first part... well. OK then. I will summarily disregard your anecdote about different sites as well.

By personal anecdotes I mean "people I know" used an an authority on the subject. I could do the same, but it doesn't mean anything. Critical consensus on aggregate sites like RT are better indicators of how the the episode was received overall.

Please show me where I have ever criticised the Sam/Gilly story? Even in this post I clearly say I have no problem with the Mole's Town sequences. I can only ever remember defending it on these boards. My criticism is that it wasn't done well enough and there are many who apparently don't care about it.

My problem with Crasters is not with Jon, but with Bran. Although Jon not bothering to ask any of the survivors whether a cripple, a giant and two youths had been seen cannot be anything other than a head scratcher. Jon going to Crasters to clear out potential informers is actually a change I like. But they dropped the ball when they introduced the ulterior motive then took it no where and went back to the interminable 'there are 100,000 Wildings coming' scenes with never another mention of Bran.

Eh, they could haven, but it wasn't necessary to me. I'm not really sure the women, with as traumatized as they were, would have told him anything, anyway. It doesn't do anything to further their storylines. My only real problem with the CK storyline was that Locke's death was anticlimatic, and then Roose says "Eh, haven't heard from him so he's probably dead" like 5 episodes later. Locke was a great character last season, but not so much this season. I liked the Sam/Gilly angle, but I didn't care for the Molestown addition, because it made no sense to me that they wouldn't have warned them to get out because the Wildlings were raiding the villages in the area. But really, those were my only gripes this season concerning the Wall. I did like the addition to Bran's storyline, though, because it desperately needed some drama (even if Locke was a bit of a dud).

I voiced my concerns at the time that not enough was being done to create tension about this very real threat and to build the dramatic tension that would lead to this crucial battle in the overall story. Far better to have Jon involved in skirmishes (such as Crasters) and Bran+Co attempting to work their way past the scouts and hunters of the Wildlings. There would even have been plenty of opportunity for Bran+Co to be captured and use the whole Brandor sequence - but with the added benefit of building the tension for the Ep 9 content.

Actually, I said the exact opposite, in that I liked how they were expanding the storylines to show Jon's progression to LC. I think that by being in 8 out of 10 episodes, they kept the issue fresh in viewers' minds. They warned of it every week, and they showed the Wildling raids. Sure, they could have shown the Northern army moving closer, but I don't know that it would have been necessary.

Still, I don't know how adding 5-10 minutes to the Wall storyline REALLY would have helped it. If anything, they could have changed some of the things that were already in it to improve it, but lack of time wasn't the problem.

I agree completely on that. Splitting the ASoS in the way they did meant that some stories had to be stretched in order to have them coincide dramatically near the end of the season. I have no problems with changes when done well. In fact I don't want to see the show faithful to the books - Brienne's endless wanderings is something I can definitely do without. Not all the changes have been done well.

I have no idea what the 'GRRM gripe' bit is about.

I meant that I see a lot of people who get upset that someone or something wasn't in a certain episode- you may not have been, sorry if I misunderstood. But one thing that pissed me off SO MUCH in ADwD was following Tyrion all the way to Meereen only for Dany to leave it before he got there. So even the author does it, too.

Edited June 20, 2014 by sj4iy

[Caerl Targaryen]

If you read my post, you would know that I pointed out that I liked that they kept that detail and did not change it to just 50 grown men.

I did read your post. It wasn't clear to me.

[sj4iy]

Hey you have to chose.

I am sure that the next Star Wars movie will be crap and the recent Star trek ones were kinda pretty good, even though not at all like Star Trek should be, but considering the original ones, Star Trek is pretty bad and Star Wars is just a major breakthrough. Star Trek is visually and from acting not that good, but it convinces with the worlds..and the general story I guess. But lila backgrounds and cardboard sets is just a bit weak. Or fights with humanoid lizards.

And the physics of the Enterprise just wouldn't work. Those engines would break off once they would start.

In that matter Star Wars just wins :P

But in their original idea and premise, they are both somewhat equal. The idea of human alien contact on a peaceful basis changed many conceptions and expanded the world view of a generation. Before that if there even was an alien theme in movies or TV, it was always hostile and xenophobic. An humans leaving earth on a ship to search for life and other cultures, this is awesome and a truly great idea anyway.

(Have I united the two everhating fronts of Star Wars fans and trekkies?) :)

...I liked both?

[Metopheles]

...I liked both?

Just as I do. And we both like Avatar-the Last Airbender, so we have great taste and don't limit ourselves to one thing.

But if one thing suddenly pretends to be an adaptation, even if it is not anymore...well then I can't appreciate it anymore as an adaptation.

If they were to cut all the plot points and bring something completely new..perhaps I like it. Depending on if I will like the story. I will then no longer criticize it on points as being a bad adaptation, I will then criticize it as an quasi original work. Praise good stuff, loathe bad stuff.

If we take the Star Trek reference here: Into Darkness can hardly be called an adaptation of Wrath of Khan. It has certain plot points that are the same, and made a terrific story out of it, but it is more or less a horrible adaptation. (Even if it is a great film, but the show didn't look great recently)

[sj4iy]

Just as I do. And we both like Avatar-the Last Airbender, so we have great taste and don't limit ourselves to one thing.

But if one thing suddenly pretends to be an adaptation, even if it is not anymore...well then I can't appreciate it anymore as an adaptation.

If they were to cut all the plot points and bring something completely new..perhaps I like it. Depending on if I will like the story. I will then no longer criticize it on points as being a bad adaptation, I will then criticize it as an quasi original work. Praise good stuff, loathe bad stuff.

If we take the Star Trek reference here: Into Darkness can hardly be called an adaptation of Wrath of Khan. It has certain plot points that are the same, and made a terrific story out of it, but it is more or less a horrible adaptation. (Even if it is a great film, but the show didn't look great recently)

It's not pretending. It is. Adaptations can be tight or loose, but they are still adaptations.

You can call it a bad adaptation if you want to- but it's still an adaptation. The Last Airbender was a HORRIBLE adaptation...but it was still an adaptation.

ST ID was also an adaptation. Maybe not a great one, but still- it was an adaptation.

Edited June 20, 2014 by sj4iy

[SerJeremiahLouistark]

How screwed up am I that the saddest part of the entire season to me was when the dragons were locked up?

[Metopheles]

It's not pretending. It is. Adaptations can be tight or loose, but they are still adaptations.

You can call it a bad adaptation if you want to- but it's still an adaptation.

ST ID was also an adaptation. Maybe not a great one, but still- it was an adaptation.

I call that "loosely based on" or "using characters and locations from xy"

These are things, I just don't know the term.

I, Robot is like that. It uses things and plot points from all of the works of Asimov.

[sj4iy]

I call that "loosely based on" or "using characters and locations from xy"

These are things, I just don't know the term.

I, Robot is like that. It uses things and plot points from all of the works of Asimov.

"Inspired by" is different from an adaptation. It means you're telling a different story, but have elements that you borrowed from another story. An adaptation means that you have a story in one medium that you are transcribing to another.

The second Harry Potter movie is an example of a great adaptation that isn't a very good movie. It was so staunch in following all of the plot points bit by bit that it completely forgot to be a movie. It felt more like a reading of the book.

The third Harry Potter movie was not as good of an adaptation as the second movie, but it was a much, much better film. It flowed better and had more drama and build up.

"The Watchers on the Wall" was very loose with its material, but it made a great episode.

This is why I don't hold it against writers or filmmakers when they don't follow things word for word, part for part. I want it to feel like a movie or a tv show...I don't want it to feel like the book.

Edited June 20, 2014 by sj4iy

[Ser Desmond Wine's Bane]

By personal anecdotes I mean "people I know" used an an authority on the subject. I could do the same, but it doesn't mean anything. Critical consensus on aggregate sites like RT are better indicators of how the the episode was received overall..

Yep, and I did not attempt to use it as an authority, only that using an overall appeal rating answers a very different question. The question I asked them had nothing to do with overall reception as I demonstrated.

Eh, they could haven, but it wasn't necessary to me. I'm not really sure the women, with as traumatized as they were, would have told him anything, anyway. It doesn't do anything to further their storylines. My only real problem with the CK storyline was that Locke's death was anticlimatic, and then Roose says "Eh, haven't heard from him so he's probably dead" like 5 episodes later. Locke was a great character last season, but not so much this season. I liked the Sam/Gilly angle, but I didn't care for the Molestown addition, because it made no sense to me that they wouldn't have warned them to get out because the Wildlings were raiding the villages in the area. But really, those were my only gripes this season concerning the Wall. I did like the addition to Bran's storyline, though, because it desperately needed some drama (even if Locke was a bit of a dud).

Locke was a character change I am hugely in favour of. I always thought Hoat would be difficult to sell to a TV audience and with Noah Taylor the change worked exceptionally well. It is such a shame they were incapable of bringing the story to a very satisfactory conclusion.

Still, I don't know how adding 5-10 minutes to the Wall storyline REALLY would have helped it. If anything, they could have changed some of the things that were already in it to improve it, but lack of time wasn't the problem.

And I don't see how the Missandei/Grey Worm adds anything to advancing the story either. Or to put it another way, that pairing is a thought provoking examination of what life post slavery and mutilation can mean. It is a demonstration that they can actually do characterisation in an interesting way. Such a shame this effort wasn't similarly applied elsewhere.

I meant that I see a lot of people who get upset that someone or something wasn't in a certain episode- you may not have been, sorry if I misunderstood. But one thing that pissed me off SO MUCH in ADwD was following Tyrion all the way to Meereen only for Dany to leave it before he got there. So even the author does it, too.

Yeah I don't actually have a problem with no LSH other than I feel it would have made a killer scene to be a season finale - so a lost opportunity. Similarly with 'Only Cat'... for me it was a line that showed that at that moment Baelish acted without self control - he let his personal passions be seen through a crack in the shroud. 'Only your sister' felt as if the shroud was firmly in place, but I didn't derate either episode on those fronts. However, Jaime and Cersei reconciling and the lack of Tysha-driven motivator for Tyrion were issues for me.