Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Ran

How would you rate episode 410?

How would you rate episode 410?   1,079 members have voted

  1. 1. What's your rating from 1-10, with 10 being the highest/best

    • 1
      60
    • 2
      21
    • 3
      23
    • 4
      27
    • 5
      62
    • 6
      76
    • 7
      122
    • 8
      179
    • 9
      248
    • 10
      259

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

1,392 posts in this topic

I think as an actor you should have..a role with a name.


Kent never ever had a real role, but as extras I guess, as he has credits but no names to them.


Man he will be an actor perhaps in one show, but not in GOT. This doesn't count as an actor that role. He had some tiny lines and acted, well he may not be an extra from the trial who shouts rhubarb, but he is not a real actor. He had an extra role in it that was slightly more perhaps, but not more.


I wouldn't even call the two whores of Salladhor anything more than idk..side people. They had no real lines.


But, I know nothing, according to rmholt :D


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're a talker

Says the guy with 10x as many posts as me who (it appears) had the thread unlocked just so he could reply to me...seriously, if you want to stop this conversation, stop attacking me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think as an actor you should have..a role with a name.

Kent never ever had a real role, but as extras I guess, as he has credits but no names to them.

Man he will be an actor perhaps in one show, but not in GOT. This doesn't count as an actor that role. He had some tiny lines and acted, well he may not be an extra from the trial who shouts rhubarb, but he is not a real actor. He had an extra role in it that was slightly more perhaps, but not more.

I wouldn't even call the two whores of Salladhor anything more than idk..side people. They had no real lines.

But, I know nothing, according to rmholt :D

Everybody should have a dream...however, you might want to reconsider whether a crusade to replace a well-known industry-standard term (extra -- meaning somebody with no speaking lines) with your own highly personal definition (subjective quantification of line size) is worth the time.

BTW, there is already a term for what you are trying to call Kent (as he appeared in GoT) -- "glorified extra". Just say that and everybody will know what you mean without having to argue about what his actual actor's guild status is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody should have a dream...however, you might want to reconsider whether a crusade to replace a well-known industry-standard term (extra -- meaning somebody with no speaking lines) with your own highly personal definition (subjective quantification of line size) is worth the time.

BTW, there is already a term for what you are trying to call Kent (as he appeared in GoT) -- "glorified extra". Just say that and everybody will know what you mean without having to argue about what his actual actor's guild status is.

I think glorified extra sounds so derogatory, that's why I didn't really use it.

And I don't have a crusade for that term, I just don't wanna be called the moron who doesn't get it.

And the goatherd is not an actor yet for that tiny line. Just like the mom from the milk commercial isn't one.

Perhaps, as we give each other subtle insults covered in advise here, you should use a little less arrogance in your posts(That is usually my part, the arrogance one :lol: )

^that was sarcasm..kinda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think glorified extra sounds so derogatory, that's why I didn't really use it.

And I don't have a crusade for that term, I just don't wanna be called the moron who doesn't get it.

And the goatherd is not an actor yet for that tiny line. Just like the mom from the milk commercial isn't one.

Perhaps, as we give each other subtle insults covered in advise here, you should use a little less arrogance in your posts(That is usually my part, the arrogance one :lol: )

^that was sarcasm..kinda

I wasn't trying to be either subtle or insulting...a little smug/superior, maybe, but nothing [intended] to be actually uncivil. So, sorry if it came out like that.

And yes, "glorified extra" is derogatory. But it means *exactly what you are saying*, and that's *why* it's considered derogatory. Unless you think that saying "he is not a real actor" about somebody that is, in fact, a real actor isn't offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't trying to be either subtle or insulting...a little smug/superior, maybe, but nothing [intended] to be actually uncivil. So, sorry if it came out like that.

And yes, "glorified extra" is derogatory. But it means *exactly what you are saying*, and that's *why* it's considered derogatory. Unless you think that saying "he is not a real actor" about somebody that is, in fact, a real actor isn't offensive.

I so love this conversation right now.

You're a cool guy, I really mean that.

Have you seen "Extras" from Gervais? You should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, the guy was an actor paid to do a job. Whether he did a good job is up for debate, but I think we're long past that now.



Personally, I thought they portrayed that scene extremely well, whatever he looked or sounded like, and that we finally saw Emilia act with emotion...something she hasn't done very much of this season. She has lost control of everything in just a couple of episodes, and will be very vulnerable come next season.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^sorry, but THAT is the kind of comment that takes away someone's credibility. Not when someone banters over a job description, but when someone is so biased by something that he makes up some weird lies and statements that do not at all fit into reality.


"finally saw Emilia act with emotion".




Able to defend a glorified extra over ten pages and able to drag a glorious actress through the dirt.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^sorry, but THAT is the kind of comment that takes away someone's credibility. Not when someone banters over a job description, but when someone is so biased by something that he makes up some weird lies and statements that do not at all fit into reality.

"finally saw Emilia act with emotion".

Able to defend a glorified extra over ten pages and able to drag a glorious actress through the dirt.

My credibility? People have been arguing for pages about whether an actor with a small but important part in the show should 'count' as an actor, and have even made fun of his looks and his voice. It's ridiculous.

I actually point out an actual concern that many people have had this season about Emilia Clarke (and I am NOT the only one who has thought that about her stiff acting) and you jump on me. I haven't dragged her through the dirt by pointing out that her acting this season hasn't been as good as her acting was in seasons' past...it's a valid criticism. But people HAVE been dragging that poor actor through the dirt with various insults to his looks, voice and status in the show.

Edited by sj4iy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Emilia Clarke was better in previous seasons because they didn't simply treat her character's material like it was an afterthought. Iain Glen was better in previous seasons too when they treated Jorah as more than a prop that occasionally spouts plot points to the audience. In other words, they had more to work with. But the writing can't possibly play a role in any of these things because D&D are the best showrunners and writers of all time.


Edited by Caerl Targaryen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iain was pretty lame in some scenes. In the first season he was amazing. Clarke is always exactly like she should be. Emotions when needed, cold when needed. It's just blind hate against a character or actor that makes people say she did a bad job at acting.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Emilia Clarke was better in previous seasons because they didn't simply treat her character's material like it was an afterthought. Iain Glen was better in previous seasons too when they treated Jorah as more than a prop that occasionally spouts plot points to the audience. In other words, they had more to work with. But the writing can't possibly play a role in any of these things because D&D are the best showrunners and writers of all time.

And of course, I didn't say any such thing. On the contrary, I agree that she wasn't given much to work with, but that still doesn't completely absolve her of some cringe-worthy line delivery this season while walking around very slowly and deliberately. "I will do what queens will do- I will rule" was one of the worst this season. Basically, she did better when she was sacking things. But then she becomes queen and tries to seem regal.

Jorah deserved more screentime, but he had no problematic acting that I can recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metopheles,

That's not true at all. I have been very supportive of Clarke's performance in the series up to this season. Something is off, IMO, and I'm sure there are others reacting in a similar way.

Edited by Rantonio Valencia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Emilia Clarke was better in previous seasons because they didn't simply treat her character's material like it was an afterthought. Iain Glen was better in previous seasons too when they treated Jorah as more than a prop that occasionally spouts plot points to the audience. In other words, they had more to work with. But the writing can't possibly play a role in any of these things because D&D are the best showrunners and writers of all time.

She was good in season 1 and season 3; wobbly in season 2 and to me has been completely wooden in all but about 1 minute of her screen time this season. I haven't noticed any drop in Glen, but then he has hardly had much to work with this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metopheles,

That's not true at all. I have been very supportive of Clarke's performance in the series up to this season. Something is off, IMO, and I'm sure there are others reacting in a similar way.

Really?

To me I think she was perfect. Just the way a real person would be. I abhor the extreme theatrical stuff when people are way too emotional and way too over the top perfect emotional. That's not reality then.

Sure such is nice to watch, but not always my taste.

And Emilia always did great. Her delivery of the "Let the priests argue over good and evil, slavery is real!" line was great, and the Hazzea scene was also great. Normally a Hollywood flick would have made her wail stupidly, but the shaking and holding back tears was just right.

I think she is just right and real when she plays.

Insecure and not sure whether she should show emotions or be cold, just like Dany in the books..or like I understand and see her.

But these endless comments always directed at her and Harington for apparently being bad actors / or bad in their role, that is just childish and wrong. Not directed at you, I never saw you talking about them, but overall, there are way too many attacks against them without any base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?

To me I think she was perfect. Just the way a real person would be. I abhor the extreme theatrical stuff when people are way too emotional and way too over the top perfect emotional. That's not reality then.

Sure such is nice to watch, but not always my taste.

And Emilia always did great. Her delivery of the "Let the priests argue over good and evil, slavery is real!" line was great, and the Hazzea scene was also great. Normally a Hollywood flick would have made her wail stupidly, but the shaking and holding back tears was just right.

I think she is just right and real when she plays.

Insecure and not sure whether she should show emotions or be cold, just like Dany in the books..or like I understand and see her.

But these endless comments always directed at her and Harington for apparently being bad actors / or bad in their role, that is just childish and wrong. Not directed at you, I never saw you talking about them, but overall, there are way too many attacks against them without any base.

Jon Snow is my favorite character, but I will be the first to say that Kit Harington didn't have a great 2nd or 3rd season...the writing didn't help him at all, what with them focusing more on Ygritte, but he also had problems himself. I think he did much, much better this season. Clarke did her best work in season 1, had some issues in season 2, and had a really good season 3. But this season has been her weakest, for whatever reason. She did well in her last two episodes, but since she took Meereen, she's just felt stiffer in her acting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon Snow is my favorite character, but I will be the first to say that Kit Harington didn't have a great 2nd or 3rd season...the writing didn't help him at all, what with them focusing more on Ygritte, but he also had problems himself. I think he did much, much better this season. Clarke did her best work in season 1, had some issues in season 2, and had a really good season 3. But this season has been her weakest, for whatever reason. She did well in her last two episodes, but since she took Meereen, she's just felt stiffer in her acting.

Harington is a perfect actor, but DD have no idea how to portray Jon Snow. But that can't be blamed on them (poor writing though and overused in the show this season), as Jon lives only in his head and that is pretty hard to portray (even if Dune did a great job in portraying the thoughts of characters through voice overs. they should do that once in a time)

Clarke is always spot on. Her stiffness in Qarth and Meereen is what it should be. That is when she has to act like upper class and be bureaucratic or whatever. In season one she is a dothrakhi leader and in 3 she is a conqueror, so she can be totally different. In Qarth, where she is show wise in a queue the whole time or filling out insurance papers (you get the image), she has to be played and annoyed. In Meereen she has to be regnal and more stiff. She is a ruler now, not a passionate conqueror that can burn what she doesn't like.

You can't say she is unemotional or plays bad or stiff, when she is supposed to be that way.

It's the same overreaction that Kristen Stewart gets. It's her character and her role. Believe me, I have met tons of people that are in real life with that kind of attitude the whole time.

It's not bad acting, it's being in character.

Next you say Charles Dance was stiff and emotionless as Tywin Lannister or Roose Bolton for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harington is a perfect actor, but DD have no idea how to portray Jon Snow. But that can't be blamed on them (poor writing though and overused in the show this season), as Jon lives only in his head and that is pretty hard to portray (even if Dune did a great job in portraying the thoughts of characters through voice overs. they should do that once in a time)

Clarke is always spot on. Her stiffness in Qarth and Meereen is what it should be. That is when she has to act like upper class and be bureaucratic or whatever. In season one she is a dothrakhi leader and in 3 she is a conqueror, so she can be totally different. In Qarth, where she is show wise in a queue the whole time or filling out insurance papers (you get the image), she has to be played and annoyed. In Meereen she has to be regnal and more stiff. She is a ruler now, not a passionate conqueror that can burn what she doesn't like.

You can't say she is unemotional or plays bad or stiff, when she is supposed to be that way.

It's the same overreaction that Kristen Stewart gets. It's her character and her role. Believe me, I have met tons of people that are in real life with that kind of attitude the whole time.

It's not bad acting, it's being in character.

Next you say Charles Dance was stiff and emotionless as Tywin Lannister or Roose Bolton for that matter.

No. There's a difference between "what they should be like" and "what they are like". You can say "Emilia is supposed to do this" and "the writers don't know how to portray Jon", but the truth is, neither Kit nor Emilia have done well when they have been handled weaker material to work with. Charles Dance and Sean Bean, both very talented and veteran actors, could have played their material very straight-forward and without any nuance. Yet both of them owned their roles and made their characters incredibly likable. Tywin Lannister wasn't evil, but he most definitely wasn't a good man. Ned Stark was a good man and very honorable, but very conflicted about what his sense of duty was doing to his family.

The writers have portrayed Jon the way he is written in the books...quiet, contemplative, and sullen. That means that Kit has to act through looks more than words, and this was a struggle for him in seasons 2 and 3...I'm sure that his ankle injury during season 3 didn't help at all. But he really found his feet in season 4, and he's much more expressive with his eyes and body language than he was in season's past. He's really growing into the role, which is what anyone would want to see, and while I've never been overly critical of his portrayal of Jon Snow, I think he's much, much better this season than he was in seasons past.

Clarke had more to sink her teeth into in the first season, and did really well. But this season was just not good for her. She wasn't acting naturally at all, and it didn't come off natural. There's a difference between acting regally and acting stiffly...and she didn't make that distinction. Again, though...she's a relatively young actress without a lot of experience behind her.

Kristen Stewart is an abomination to acting. She's just terrible, and isn't even near the level of any of the actors in GoT. Kit and Emilia completely blow anything she has ever done out of the water. This pretty much summed up my feelings on Kristen Stewart:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvo5_Zi-Yxs

"Shovel Face (Robert Patterson) must transform her from a human who can't act into a vampire who can't act."

Basically, I don't get why you would extrapolate my feelings about two actors into the show to mean that I would feel the same about every other actor ever. I judge based on individual performances, not the characters they play. And I also said both have had their high and low points in the series, so it's not as if I'm saying that they are bad actors altogether. Just that both have had their problems. It's not at all a damning statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course, I didn't say any such thing. On the contrary, I agree that she wasn't given much to work with, but that still doesn't completely absolve her of some cringe-worthy line delivery this season while walking around very slowly and deliberately. "I will do what queens will do- I will rule" was one of the worst this season. Basically, she did better when she was sacking things. But then she becomes queen and tries to seem regal.

Jorah deserved more screentime, but he had no problematic acting that I can recall.

I don't believe I said you said any such thing. My post was a general response to the Emilia Clarke hate. Hence the lack of a quote.

Also, TV Jon Snow is almost nothing like his book counterpart.

Edited by Caerl Targaryen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0