Constructive criticism for D&D

[Dalpha]

>Too many cliches and tropes like the whole candle thing.

>Too many awkward coincidences

>Fight scenes don't look realistic anymore( Jorah does a somersault, really?)

>Lazy writing. (Ramsay pulls of ninja moves? How did all those fires start at the same time?)

I really hope they read this, and fix the problems. If you have any specific things you want to say, list them.

We already have threads for critique, but they're paragraphs long. Just list them in a simple, short answer.

[titanx5]

Perhaps they should read the books again and understand the characters a little better

Relying on shocks to keep interest

Oversimplifying the plot

Like OP said to many coincidences

Lazy writing

Making characters into black and white

Giving to much time to weaker characters (like Olly, SS, among others why not rather give some more time to Doran for example you have some fantastic actors like Siddig, Pryce, Dillane, Hinds so USE THEM!!)

Allowing their own biasm of characters to change the plot

There are probably others that I cant think about now

[boojam]

>Too many cliches and tropes like the whole candle thing.

>Too many awkward coincidences

>Fight scenes don't look realistic anymore( Jorah does a somersault, really?)

>Lazy writing. (Ramsay pulls of ninja moves? How did all those fires start at the same time?)

I really hope they read this, and fix the problems. If you have any specific things you want to say, list them.

We already have threads for critique, but they're paragraphs long. Just list them in a simple, short answer.

Does that extend to all episodes?

Can you give a more quantitative analysis?

Action scene ... for instance what was bad about the Hardhome action sequence?

[apovsic]

Action scene ... for instance what was bad about the Hardhome action sequence?

WW killed Thenn with no hesitation, but when he could cleanly killed Jon he instead throw him across the room. Twice.

[RGBeyondAsshai]

-Read the books AND watch the previous seasons of your own show so you can be consistent with your characters and not return them to season 1 factory settings after they have spent years suffering, growing, changing. There is a lot of story, and it's easy to get lost if you don't pay attention the way viewers/readers do. Do your homework.

-We only get 10 episodes a season, don't let yourself get so excited about one or two things (Hardhome, WoS) that you rush through and skimp on everything else.

-If you are going to add a new location, make sure there is a reason for it...in THAT season, not some distant someday. (Dorne)

There's more but I'll stop now. :)

[Cashless Society]

The cut to the 4 horsemen really takes you out of the scene doesn't it?

[TheKingoftheSevenKingdoms]

PLAN OUT THE ENTIRE SERIES NOW. NOT LATER. NOW. YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS FROM SEASON 2 IN ORDER TO REDUCE PLOT INCONSISTENCIES.

Poor writing and lack of research into real medieval military strategies and tactics.

Stay true to the characters and dont change them to suit the current plot.

More grey characters

Give screentime to the characters that matter

Actually make the storylines go somewhere at the end of the season

Make consequences of characters experiences and actions present on the show (looking at Sansa's rape)

Focus more on character development (scene of Brienne's explanation of loyalty to Renly was great)

Don't let your bias of characters weaken the story. Give those scenes to other writers to Cogman or Hill or even GRRM who actually like the characters

If you're going to have tits on screen, make it work in the plot and not gratuitous.

Actually remember that people do not love this season just on shock value. People like this show because of the political maneuvering, epic battles, character interaction, atmosphere, tension, location, special effects. There was an aura of sophistication and good writing from season 1-4. What the hell happened D&D?

Increase presence of direwolves. Where the fuck was Ghost when Jon was being stabbed? Where's Nymeria? At least mention a wolf pack hunting in the riverlands during a Braavos scene or something.

Build up the northern lords and southern lords more. the only lords we really know are the big 7, Karstark, Bolton, Freys, Reed, Cassel, Stokeworth and...that's it. Blackwoods? Brackens? Daynes? Manderlys? Dustins?

Place events in your season accordingly. Last season, cut the craster's keep conflict, have Jon and a party scout against Mance's army and build up the tension of the enormous wildling army amassed, have the White Walkers kill the guys at Crasters in order to illustrate how dangerous they are early, the Battle at Castle Black should have been during episode 5, Stannis comes in to episode 6, he offers Jon Winterfell episode 8, election begins episode 9 and the result of Jon Snow is an endpoint in the finale. Boom. Now you have more time in Season 5 to sow dissent in the Night's Watch - build up Bowen Marsh, Allister, Olly, whoever.

[jugdesh258]

WW killed Thenn with no hesitation, but when he could cleanly killed Jon he instead throw him across the room. Twice.

Lol.... that is the Terminator move. In every movie he grabs main target ie John Connor and throws him across the room instead of instantly snapping of the neck

[Aemon's counsel]

I won't be contributing meaningfully to this thread as I'm so fed up with the show that I'd find it a struggle to make any constructive criticism, but I just wanted to say that I think this is a great idea for a thread and there have been lots of really good suggestions so far that really cut to the heart of where the show has gone wrong since S3.

It's interesting to read people's generalised analysis of the show's problems, rather than their specific nitpicks as most other threads focus on.

[Humble AK]

I really hope they read this, and fix the problems. If you have any specific things you want to say, list them.

D & D do not read online opinions about the show. I believe they stopped doing that at around season 2.

I can't really blame them either. Most of the criticism of the show has not been constructive criticism, but the product of very entitled arm-chair producers who have a very specific and highly unrealistic idea of what the show should be, and brook no allowance for any deviation of their idea. And people are perfectly willing to express their disapproval in a corrosive, sociopathic way. People have literally expressed joy at the thought of members of the cast and crew getting raped, tortured and/or murdered. Not just random posters either. I mean look at the Rant and Rave threads to get an idea of the form in which opinions are stated. Those people are not mentally healthy. Why would anyone listen to them?

Also, consider the success of the show. If I were running a show, and the response of a small demographic was that my show sucked and ruined the books because of deviations, and yet my show met with unprecedented critical and commercial success because of my approach, I wouldn't pay heed to those criticisms. And year after year Thrones is showered with glory. If my show was constantly on the top ten list of best shows of the year of most critics' list, regularly nominated or won prestigious awards for excellence, I wouldn't pay attention to what Random Internet Guy A or his like minded cohorts said either.

As far as criticisms of the nudity and sexual violence goes, I think D &D recognize the hypocritical and disingenuous nature of those criticisms. People claim that the nudity is gratuitous and meant for titilation - well, so is much of the violence. You don't actually need to show on-screen a knife going into a person's eye, or intestines flopping out of a person's belly. Shows that explore the theme of violence have been around for a long time, but you didn't see that sort of thing in '40's films. But people are way more accepting of violence over nudity. Also, the books are far more explicit and have more frequent scenes of sex and nudity. Sure, the show adds its own share of nudity, but it removes a ton of it from the books (Tyrion constantly fucking Shae in the books and Dany with one tit always hanging out in books two and parts of five, to name just two examples).

Speaking of more in the books, the books feature significantly more sexual violence. There was even a person who tabulated a comparative count of book versus show on sexual violence, and the books were several time higher in count. Yes, the show added some sequences of sexual violence not in the books, but again, the show removed many such sequences too.

Side point: something that bothers me. When people criticize the "added" rape scene of Dany and Drogo. Getting sold into slavery at 13 (or 16 in the show) is not going to result in a romantic lovemaking session with your owner just because he's considerate enough to play with your boobs first. And in the books Drogo still rapes Dany later on, as it's mentioned that he visits her on following nights and has her even when she doesn't want to have sex.

Anyway, the criticism of sexual violence. I don't think that the creators share the opinion that rape of women should have this sanctified position in storytelling that it must be treated with far more respect and care, than any other narrative device, period. Rape of women is a horrible thing, but so are the other forms of violence portrayed in this show. In our world there are numerous female victims of rape and they have their triggers, but there are numerous victims of all sorts of violence and horrible shit portrayed in movies and shows, and many of them have their triggers. And the argument that one affects perhaps more people than the others is a silly argument for special status. Just because heart disease is the number one killer doesn't mean we should focus only on that and just ignore other causes of death like cancer.

So criticisms like the above, that are hypocritical or totally bizarre and misinformed, would contribute to D & D just disregarding what people say online. And with them having trusted their instincts and it having paid off this far into the game, I don't see them changing.

[messem]

WW killed Thenn with no hesitation, but when he could cleanly killed Jon he instead throw him across the room. Twice.

The Thenn attacked the Walker. Jon didn't. He was looking for "something". We know it was dragonglass. The WW didn't.

I didn't like the scene in Hardhome for another reason. The army of the dead is to powerful. They are to fast and to wild. The only ones fighting them succesfully were Jon, Tormund and that Danish chick. They should have overrun Hardhome within five minutes. And while we are at it, in the beginning the fence around Hardhome protected the people within its perimeters from the "magic ice fog". Everybody on the side died. Let me repeat, a wooden fence protects from White Walker magic.

[Aemon's counsel]

As far as criticisms of the nudity and sexual violence goes, I think D &D recognize the hypocritical and disingenuous nature of those criticisms. People claim that the nudity is gratuitous and meant for titilation - well, so is much of the violence. You don't actually need to show on-screen a knife going into a person's eye, or intestines flopping out of a person's belly. Shows that explore the theme of violence have been around for a long time, but you didn't see that sort of thing in '40's films. But people are way more accepting of violence over nudity. Also, the books are far more explicit and have more frequent scenes of sex and nudity. Sure, the show adds its own share of nudity, but it removes a ton of it from the books (Tyrion constantly fucking Shae in the books and Dany with one tit always hanging out in books two and parts of five, to name just two examples).

Speaking of more in the books, the books feature significantly more sexual violence. There was even a person who tabulated a comparative count of book versus show on sexual violence, and the books were several time higher in count. Yes, the show added some sequences of sexual violence not in the books, but again, the show removed many such sequences too.

Side point: something that bothers me. When people criticize the "added" rape scene of Dany and Drogo. Getting sold into slavery at 13 (or 16 in the show) is not going to result in a romantic lovemaking session with your owner just because he's considerate enough to play with your boobs first. And in the books Drogo still rapes Dany later on, as it's mentioned that he visits her on following nights and has her even when she doesn't want to have sex.

Anyway, the criticism of sexual violence. I don't think that the creators share the opinion that rape of women should have this sanctified position in storytelling that it must be treated with far more respect and care, than any other narrative device, period. Rape of women is a horrible thing, but so are the other forms of violence portrayed in this show. In our world there are numerous female victims of rape and they have their triggers, but there are numerous victims of all sorts of violence and horrible shit portrayed in movies and shows, and many of them have their triggers. And the argument that one affects perhaps more people than the others is a silly argument for special status. Just because heart disease is the number one killer doesn't mean we should focus only on that and just ignore other causes of death like cancer.

So criticisms like the above, that are hypocritical or totally bizarre and misinformed, would contribute to D & D just disregarding what people say online. And with them having trusted their instincts and it having paid off this far into the game, I don't see them changing.

Most of the criticisms of the sexual violence in GoT isn't that it exists. It's that its poorly handled. The show unknowingly wrote, shot and edited a scene that was undeniably rape, and then claimed that it was consensual sex. The show bent over backwards in terms of plot logic to make the allegedly newly-'empowered' Sansa marry Ramsey and then be raped by him, *and* framed it through Theon's eyes, as though rape is an awful thing for a man to witness rather than an awful thing for the victim.

The show has faltered in so many different ways over the last two seasons, but if there's one aspect of the criticism they should absolutely listen to, its their treatment of female characters and rape. They really are incredibly insensitive and stupid when it comes to those two things.

[jugdesh258]

Just one thing if Stannis isn't alive.

Why do they allow Brienne to have justice when few else get such opportunity. Did D&D think TV viewers were rooting for Brienne like we are watching disney.

I suspected that the pink letter in the book was true and stannis was finished. So in this scenario, D&D borrows his death for this stupid scene. Brienne kindof struggles a bit in the book and is always day late from seeing Arya or Sansa.

Sentencing speech so phony since everyone knows Renly not true king. Renly only serves as Briennes Ideal man or king for which she compares to Jaime as his stock rises. The whole who really is a True Knight deal

[Primalsplit]

Go to your University professors and ask them to slap you. Gotta start from basics first.

[Humble AK]

Most of the criticisms of the sexual violence in GoT isn't that it exists. It's that its poorly handled. The show unknowingly wrote, shot and edited a scene that was undeniably rape, and then claimed that it was consensual sex. The show bent over backwards in terms of plot logic to make the allegedly newly-'empowered' Sansa marry Ramsey and then be raped by him, *and* framed it through Theon's eyes, as though rape is an awful thing for a man to witness rather than an awful thing for the victim.

The show has faltered in so many different ways over the last two seasons, but if there's one aspect of the criticism they should absolutely listen to, its their treatment of female characters and rape. They really are incredibly insensitive and stupid when it comes to those two things.

I don't buy the argument that because a character is empowered they need to stay empowered because that's traditionally how it's done. I'm fine with someone going from victim, to asserting themselves as someone who won't be a victim, to later finding out, no, they are still a victim. That happens far more often in real life than some artificial character arc where the victim becomes, through the crucible of their circumstances, a powerful force in their country - which almost never happens.

I'm fine with the Jaime rape too. He's a bad person. Even trying to redeem himself he does bad things. Just because someone decides that they are going to be a better person doesn't mean that they are suddenly always a better person, without still making bad decisions. In fact, I will say that has never, ever happened in reality. Even people on their supposed redemptive arcs do bad things.

And naturally there would be disagreements among the crew and cast and audience on what constitutes rape, because no one has a perfect idea of what constitutes rape. Rape, even in modern times is difficult to adjudicate because it's so murky. By modern standards, consent is important, but what is consent? What if Cersei didn't consider it rape? She may have vocalized no, but still wanted to have sex, ultimately. Maybe that was simply the dynamic of their relationship. If neither participants consider an act rape, but a third uninvolved party opines that it must be according to the third party's personal definition of rape, does the third party's opinion negate the opinion of those who actually participated in the act? What if both of the participants consent, then later on one of them changes their mind? Is there a statute of limitations for when one party can change their mind? Say the victim considers an encounter consensual, then forty years later decides it's not. Does that make the supposed perpetrator a rapist?

There are so many factors that go into this issue that of course there's no universal agreement. So when a show tackles the issue of rape head-on, that will generate different opinions, even among those producing the content. I'm sure cast and crew also disagree whether Tywin was justified in the Red Wedding too. These are not black and white issues.

Anyway, I don't think the creators should or will heed criticisms of sexual violence. They may heed criticisms of Dorne though.

[WSmith84]

I'm fine with the Jaime rape too. He's a bad person. Even trying to redeem himself he does bad things. Just because someone decides that they are going to be a better person doesn't mean that they are suddenly always a better person, without still making bad decisions. In fact, I will say that has never, ever happened in reality. Even people on their supposed redemptive arcs do bad things.

The thing about the Jaime rape though is that it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the character. Jaime Lannister may well be prepared to do many many awful things, including murdering an innocent child. But he would never, not even at his darkest point, rape a woman, especially the woman he loves. Just because a character is evil, does not mean that they are prepared to carry out all acts of evility. Some things are off of the table, even to an evil person. Not that I think Jaime is a wholly evil character.

[Humble AK]

The thing about the Jaime rape though is that it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the character. Jaime Lannister may well be prepared to do many many awful things, including murdering an innocent child. But he would never, not even at his darkest point, rape a woman, especially the woman he loves. Just because a character is evil, does not mean that they are prepared to carry out all acts of evility. Some things are off of the table, even to an evil person. Not that I think Jaime is a wholly evil character.

I disagree. I think it's totally in his character, in both show and books. For the record, I consider the scene between Cersei and Jaime in both versions to be sexual assault. As I posted before, there's no all encompassing definition of consent and sexual assault so I think there's certainly room for disagreement, but that's my position.

In the book Jaime did not penetrate Cersei without her consent, but he did everything else. He completely disregarded her resistance the entire time, not even giving it the barest consideration. Of course, the human mind is not static, so it's not out of the question for Cersei to change her mind; but you really couldn't reasonably expect that, even if that is historically the pattern of their sexual interplay. I mean, he's trying to fuck a mother in front of their dead son. That's an exceptional situation, and I think the expectation that she'll change her mind is ridiculous, regardless of any previous dynamic. But I don't even see that Jaime gave it even this much thought: he was going to fuck her, whether she resisted or not - it just so happened in the books she decided she wanted it, eventually. So even though he didn't penetrate her against her will, the attitude was certainly there and he did sexually assault her against her consent.

And I find the position that just because a person loves, or believes they love, another person they are beyond raping them to be pattenly absurd. That shit happens a lot.

So totally in Jaime's character. The character's attitude in the show and books was exactly the same. The only difference is that that attitude obviously paid off for Jaime in the books (keep forcing a woman until she decides she wants it). But who knows? Cersei didn't seem that traumatized in the show. Maybe she decided she wanted it after all in the show too - so like the books, but the resistance took a little longer to overcome.

Edit: Also, this might get mentioned, so I want to preemptively address it. In show and books Jaime is depicted as being against rape. To this I will say that just because someone disapproves of rape generally, doesn't mean they can't be hypocritical about it. Rapists can be hypocrites too. Someone can be 100 percent passionately against rape, and then one day find themselves in the heat of lust and be unable to hold back when a woman says no. That happens a lot too.

Edit: And let me add one more point, which has been an important oversight. If someone is forcing another person into sex, and shows no indication that they care about their victim's consent, if the victim after a while seems into it or expresses that it's okay, that shouldn't in my mind constitute consent. Maybe they are just trying to expedite their rape and get it over with. Maybe they are trying to make it less painful. Not that Jaime cares.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

The thing about the Jaime rape though is that it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the character. Jaime Lannister may well be prepared to do many many awful things, including murdering an innocent child. But he would never, not even at his darkest point, rape a woman, especially the woman he loves. Just because a character is evil, does not mean that they are prepared to carry out all acts of evility. Some things are off of the table, even to an evil person. Not that I think Jaime is a wholly evil character.

This is really just you putting your own modern mentality onto things. Why would rape be any better or worse to Jamie than killing, where is it suggested that he is ok with killing children but not ok with raping women? I don't see that at all in book or tv show. Jamie is maybe so likable that you imagine hes beyond raping anyone. But I don't see it. Plus in medieval times would rape be seen as the terrible crime it is now? I don't think so, it was pretty commonplace.

For what its worth, I don't think Jamie is a rapist either.

[Toth]

@Humble AK: First of all, your reasoning is good and I really, really appreciate to see someone defending a decision in the series with solid arguments instead of the usual routine of discrediting the critics I have seen so often from either die-hard show-defenders or obvious trolls. Your arguments are sound and while I disagree with the conclusion you draw, I agree with many of your points. But this makes exchanging different views upon a subject fun!

If we go by the books I think the scene in the sept was meant to be taken as how the usual routine of their relationship went. Everything about it screamed that it was wrong and it should read as being disgusting. It is a major turning point for both the audience and Jaime to realize that his idealized picture of their lovely relationship is only a product of his head and that he acts very destructive in his lust for her while she doesn't she much more in him like a mirror image of herself as a man which was shattered after his tour with Brienne.

Depicting it as a rape in the show might have been able to drive the point further home, since the consent was ambivalent at best in the books as well. But I think the main problem most of the people have is that the producers and the way the characters treated it in the show made it look like it was perfectly consensual sex. It seemed to be no big thing bot for Cersei and Jaime, heck they do it even again in the White Tower. Nothing was really gained from that scene. My point is that the problem doesn't lie in the deviation itself but in that it is treated as if this deviation never happened. It was the same thing with Dany in season 1, really. Her not being raped in her wedding knight and him instead treating her fairly gentle was the main cause for Dany warping her shitty reality to picture Drogo as a loving husband and the way he treats her after he got her consent as absolutely normal. If he had never ever cared for her consent, I do believe she would have been scared shitless for the rest of her marriage and never developed the feelings she got in the end. But in the she show their weird pseudo-romance still happened despite Drogo never acquiring her consent and raping her repeatedly. They showed a rape, but the characters snapped back into book canon thereafter, treating it as if it never happened. And this is what all the complains basically boil down to! A serious lack of continuity which also affects so delicate and controversial themes like rape. If you depict rape in a show, you must treat it in a properly serious manner and not forget it the very next scene.

*coug* And then there is also the problem that Jaime has basically no consistent character since he arrived in King's Landing. So it is very difficult to say what exactly currently is in-character for him, since he never estranged from Cersei and completely abandoned his atonement-arc.

I also wouldn't call it hypocritical when people call the show out for its depiction of sex and violence and the combination of both by stating that there is even more violence depicted in the books. Quantity doesn't really matter (even if I have to admit that I myself am personally very annoyed that watching GoT is like watching very bad fetish porn more often than not). The only question is how they portay it and the difference between how GRRM approaches such a subject (very carefully and his main interest seems to be exploring how it affects all people involved) and how D&D approach it (to generate cheap shock effects or fanservice) is pretty glaring. And the way D&D treat their beloved brothel scenes (seriously, how often have we seen a brothel-visit of a POV-character in 5 books combined? One which ends with sex I mean...), clearly shows they like to let naked girls present themselves for no other reason than titilliation. This might add to the series' success in headlining sex and violence, but the way they treat both their characters and their extras make it just look cheap and doesn't add anything to the narrative. And this is another important criticism of why they just can't focus on more important stuff if they can waste time with this.

I don't buy the argument that because a character is empowered they need to stay empowered because that's traditionally how it's done. I'm fine with someone going from victim, to asserting themselves as someone who won't be a victim, to later finding out, no, they are still a victim. That happens far more often in real life than some artificial character arc where the victim becomes, through the crucible of their circumstances, a powerful force in their country - which almost never happens.

But here's the problem when you write fiction: You can let bad things happen to your characters, but if you want to tell a good story, you need both a cause and a consequence for it. Sansa getting victimized in King's Landing had clear political causes outside of Sansa's influence, but storytellingwise it helped not only to break her naiviety, but also let develop the ability to clearly read people like Joffrey and Cersei and start to manipulate them with her courtesy. Of course at first just to avoid getting harmed by their tempers, but as soon as she got out of King's Landing her whole story revolves around how she learns to use her abilities to join the Game of Thrones and turn the tables on those who want to use her. With politics! With intrigue! With badass mindgames! This is all Sansa's character arc is about. You might call it unrealistic if you want to stick to a nihilistic view that all her struggles should be meaningless and all her growth should become pointless. But now be truly honest to yourself: Would it be a good story if everything everyone does will be in vain? Sure enough, this is what they did to Sansa... and they even (likely without knowing) pushed Sansa into the skin of Jeyne Poole in way which makes it look like they are punishing the character for even daring to break out of her victimized role. And this is just so wrong in so many places...

[marsyao]

Focus less on exotic foreign locations and fancy wardrobe, sot that you can save money and time to focus on characters and stories