Jump to content

Rank your 2017 TV shows throughout the year


Corvinus85

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

My point is, perceived sexism isn't really something I use as a barometer of quality, in fact I think GoT has made so many ludicrous attempts to counter the sexism charge in the past few seasons that its gone completely the other way. Now every female is 'empowered' and strong, and most of the male characters are weak and pathetic. 

I don't know what even to say about your statement that sexism has nothing to do with quality of writing, I can only sigh in exasperation that someone actually believes that.

I fully agree that GoT seems to have been trying to refute that the writing is sexist post-S5 in a really ludicrous way. I find it funny though that you think that's a good defence of the show or the opposite of what was before, when it's really just as sexist, only in a different way. It's typical faux empowerment that's popular lately in entertainment, probably what some MRA guy complaining about "feminazis" thinks feminism is: just have all the women be violent murderous assholes and kill men (and each other) because that's what feminism is, right? Women on Top! Yay! D&D don't seem to know any other way to make a character, especially a female one, "empowered" except to make them all the similar kind of violent murderous assholes, and anyone who isn't one is proclaimed "weak". And men who aren't violent and vengeful enough are in particular considered too 'weak' to live. 

That's also how we get the awful wannabe "Strong Female Characters" (like Sand Snakes and Ellaria) that are one-dimensional and cliche, but since they fight and kill people, they're supposed to be "strong".

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

There are many things to criticise about the show, but most of the points you make about season 5 really just boil down to changes to book content and characters that you don't like. I've had that discussion so many times on the GoT boards and its plain for everyone to see. Stannis and Sansas storylines were simply more entertaining than their book versions, and both are miles better than anything the show is doing right now. 

Yeah, it's a funny quirk of mine - I don't like plots that throw all logic out of the window and require all the characters involved to suddenly start behaving like insane idiots with inexplicable motivations and contradict their earlier characterizations, just because the writers want to force an outcome that they think would be fun and cool to watch (like Sansa getting raped by Ramsay, or Stannis showing how he's eeeeevil and having all sorts of terrible things happen to him until he dies) but aren't able even to set it up in a logical way. Or even, in Sansa's S5 plot, don't serve any narrative purpose, other than being Shocking (TM). It's hard to believe a show actually had a filler rape storyline for a main character, but there it is. You could take out that entire nonsensical "Sansa Marriage Strike" plot out and nothing would change in terms of plot or character development, except you would have a much more coherent story where Sansa used her political skills to gain full support of the Vale lords and arrived with the Vale army to help Jon and avenge her family / get back her home. (To be fair, at least I can't say that Stannis S5 didn't have its purpose. It had one - to get rid of a character D&D hate and give his plot next season to characters they prefer. Creatively, it made sense, because D&D wanted it to happen.) And yes, the fact those are not original stories but essentially crackfics doing weird things to someone else's established characters, makes it even more annoying.

Now, if you find that type of ASOIAF crackfic entertaining and enjoyable, good for you. If that's your jam, I'm sure you could find plenty of online crackfics where Sansa is raped by one of the series' monsters, or hatefics where the author performs a full character assassination of a character they hate and then destroy and kill them off in the worst way they could think off. You don't even have to pay for subscription. Some of them may even manage more logical setups.

Quote

and both are miles better than anything the show is doing now

Yikes. Even I was not that harsh on the show.

Quote

If you want to hate on the show, watch it now, there is a lot to hate.

That may just be the worst sales pitch ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want this to turn into a GOT debate thread (since there are plenty of other threads out there for that), but I will note as someone who thinks season 5 is a very good season of television and who's rewatching it right now that many of the plotlines/arcs you list as "nonsensical" or as proof that the show is the worst ever work pretty well for me. Stannis in particular; sure, the reason he gets so desperate that he has to sacrifice Shireen is maybe not uber plausible, but I don't think it's any worse than him getting stuck in snow for half of ADWD and not getting a climax. I also think you're pretty much entirely missing the point if you think that plotline was meant to show Stannis was pure evi, @Annara Snowl; the constant of his character is that he is someone with high minded ideals but is so rigid, hungry to gain what he thinks belongs to him and what he thinks is right that he's able to be convinced to do pretty evil things. This is true from his first appearances in ACOK and Season 2, where he's portrayed as someone willing to forego morality, burn people alive, and kill his brother if it gets him closer to the iron throne, while also having many good qualities that Davos especially can bring out. Him sacrificing Shireen is pretty much the culmination of his arc and perfectly in character. I will be very surprised if it doesn't happen in the books too.

As for Sansa in Winterfell.. I think that it was a very smart way of making Sansa more central to the plot and combining storylines, but I agree that the execution left something to be desired, especially as the season goes on. Game of Thrones does have its problems with sexism and indulging in sadism, particularly in seasons 3-6 with the character of Ramsey, who could have used a lot less screen time (or at least a lot less screen time of him murdering/raping/torturing). The Jaime/Cersei rape of season 4 is another example. If this makes you not want to watch the show anymore, fair enough. But I think everyone can agree that Game of Thrones also does a lot well when it comes to gender, and that it has a lot of interesting, nuanced, female characters. And I think most people could also agree that the show isn't the only one with this problem (the books have it too, as early as Dany's second chapter in Game of Thrones). I think many people can also acknowledge that a show isn't for them without calling it the worst show ever, particularly when many others (critics, book and show-only fans, awards) disagree. I didn't particularly like Ozark Season 1, but I don't think it's a bad show; it's just not for me. I was disappointed overall with American Gods, but I can point to a lot of things I think it did well, and I can understand why people enjoyed it a lot more than I did.

Edited to add: I get being pissed off by an adaptation when you're a major fan. When I was fourteen and watching The Two Towers for the first time in theaters my immediate reaction was "WHAT? Faramir lets Frodo go! The elves don't show up at Helm's Deep?!! Aragorn doesn't fall off a cliff! The movie should end after Shelob's Lair!" But I am very grateful that I can let go of that mentality now and enjoy adaptations for what they are: a seperate treatment of source material. I go back to The Two Towers now and think many of the changes make the movie stronger (ok, maybe not Aragorn falling off a cliff). I can love the ASoiaF books and Game of Thrones, and think the book does plotlines and characters better in some cases, and sometimes the show betters what's on the page. If some fans can remember that the books aren't a holy bible, that AFFC and ADWD would be impossible to translate to good TV as they're written (whether or not you think they're good books or not), and that we don't even know how closely the show follows GRRM's outline, they enjoy the show a lot more... or at least not react with such overwhelming hatred to it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:huh:

So, umm, there's an entire other forum for GoT specific discussion, analysis, praise, and rants. Anyone else wanna talk about, another show they saw this year?

There are literally 43 others I could talk with you about...well, make that 42--please, by the old gods and the new let's not bring up Iron Fist S1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, PetyrPunkinhead said:

:huh:

So, umm, there's an entire other forum for GoT specific discussion, analysis, praise, and rants. Anyone else wanna talk about, another show they saw this year?

There are literally 43 others I could talk with you about...well, make that 42--please, by the old gods and the new let's not bring up Iron Fist S1.

Well, I decided not to watch Iron Fist because of the terrible reviews, but I'm in the middle of watching The Defenders and can safely say he's a very silly character who's actor apparently only knows how to play him as being petulant and being really petulant. I'm really not sure why Marvel and Netflix chose him to have his own TV series/be in the Defenders. But I'm also confused why they seem to think The Hand is an interesting villain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Caligula_K3 said:

I don't want this to turn into a GOT debate thread (since there are plenty of other threads out there for that), but I will note as someone who thinks season 5 is a very good season of television and who's rewatching it right now that many of the plotlines/arcs you list as "nonsensical" or as proof that the show is the worst ever work pretty well for me. Stannis in particular; sure, the reason he gets so desperate that he has to sacrifice Shireen is maybe not uber plausible, but I don't think it's any worse than him getting stuck in snow for half of ADWD and not getting a climax. I also think you're pretty much entirely missing the point if you think that plotline was meant to show Stannis was pure evi, @Annara Snowl; the constant of his character is that he is someone with high minded ideals but is so rigid, hungry to gain what he thinks belongs to him and what he thinks is right that he's able to be convinced to do pretty evil things. This is true from his first appearances in ACOK and Season 2, where he's portrayed as someone willing to forego morality, burn people alive, and kill his brother if it gets him closer to the iron throne, while also having many good qualities that Davos especially can bring out. Him sacrificing Shireen is pretty much the culmination of his arc and perfectly in character. I will be very surprised if it doesn't happen in the books too.

Let's make this very simple:

Let's say Stannis is this super evil ambitious power hungry dude who'd do anything to gain the throne. So, because he's like this, he decides to... burn his only child and only heir in front of everyone?... Because that will help him gain the throne somehow?? Rather than, you know - destroy all support he has, since 1) why would anyone fight for a king who has no heir, and is unlikely to get one? 2) people are going to turn against someone who openly murders children and their own children especially, you know (even if kinslaying wasn't considered one of the biggest sins possible in Westeros, which it is).

Then there's also the fact that he did it because... Ramsay and his 20 Good Men destroyed his supplies and it snowed??!! This is also the guy who starved and used to eat rats rather than surrender when Mace Tyrell besieged Storm's End (and that's also a part of show Stannis' backstory).

You know what this plot reminded me most of? The South Park episode where the townsfolk decide to resort to cannibalism and eat Eric Roberts because they've been snowed in... for a few hours, and haven't eaten a thing since breakfast.

The point is not that they portrayed Stannis as evil, the point is that it's an incredibly idiotic plot. (Which D&D wrote because they hate Stannis and because they have a problem with writing logical character development and logical political decisions.)

No, Stannis cannot even theoretically do the same in the books, since, to burn Shireen, he'd have to first win the battle for Winterfell andsurvive. So either he dies fighting the Boltons, and never burns Shireen, or he is victorious, and burns Shireen for a completely different reason that has nothing to do with the battle. It's possible that Stannis will approve Melisandre burning Shireen in the books - but in a completely different context. I can see a tragic scenario where Mel believes that Stannis (who she thinks is Azor Ahai Reborn) needs to sacrifice his beloved daughter, the way AA sacrificed Nissa Nissa - the person he loved the most - in order to save the world from the Others and another Long Night. It probably wouldn't work, since Mel is wrong and Stannis is not Azor Ahai. That would be a really tragic story that would pay off Stannis' and Melisandre's stories, and it would be perfectly in character for both of them - Stannis would of course be incredibly reluctant and would hate doing it and it's the one thing that could break him emotionally, because Shireen is probably the only person in the world he actually loves, but he is stubborn and duty bound and would be willing to cross many lines to perform that duty. (Winning the throne would never be enough of an incentive; he was extremely reluctant to burn Edric Storm, his bastard nephew he didn't particularly care for, for that end, and in the end realized Davos was right to stop him from doing it.) Saying such a story and what we saw in S5 would be "the same" would be like saying that The Deer Hunter and The Room are the same movie, since both end with a guy committing suicide.

As for Sansa marrying Ramsay, that plot is illogical and idiotic on some many levels that I don't know how anyone ever could have approved of that plot in a sober state. I covered that in this Quora answer, which I'm linking so I wouldn't have to repeat all of it: https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-Boltons-care-that-Sansa-was-already-married-to-Tyrion-making-her-marriage-to-Ramsey-bigamous/answer/Ivana-Cvetanovic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, PetyrPunkinhead said:

:huh:

So, umm, there's an entire other forum for GoT specific discussion, analysis, praise, and rants. Anyone else wanna talk about, another show they saw this year?

There are literally 43 others I could talk with you about...well, make that 42--please, by the old gods and the new let's not bring up Iron Fist S1.

Well, the discussion started because someone objected to GoT being placed lower than some other shows on one poster's list. If nobody had complained about other people's tastes and opinions and tried to convince everyone that GoT must be placed super high on everyone's list, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Funny, I'm just starting Iron Fist, the only remaining Marvel show I have to see before I get to watch The Defenders. I'm halfway through the first episode, too early to make any judgments. I know in advance that the Hand is going to be the villain, which, yeah, does not sound very promising. I liked Daredevil season 2, but they were my least favorite part by far (and so far my least favorite Marvel TV villains).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Caligula_K3 said:

Well, I decided not to watch Iron Fist because of the terrible reviews, but I'm in the middle of watching The Defenders and can safely say he's a very silly character who's actor apparently only knows how to play him as being petulant and being really petulant. I'm really not sure why Marvel and Netflix chose him to have his own TV series/be in the Defenders. But I'm also confused why they seem to think The Hand is an interesting villain.

I think if you read a synopsis of the Iron Fist S1 finale you'd be pretty good to go jumping into Defenders. Danny is a MUCH more tolerable character in this series--well until he does stupid Danny shit in the last few episodes.

4 hours ago, Annara Snow said:

Well, the discussion started because someone objected to GoT being placed lower than some other shows on one poster's list. If nobody had complained about other people's tastes and opinions and tried to convince everyone that GoT must be placed super high on everyone's list, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Funny, I'm just starting Iron Fist, the only remaining Marvel show I have to see before I get to watch The Defenders. I'm halfway through the first episode, too early to make any judgments. I know in advance that the Hand is going to be the villain, which, yeah, does not sound very promising. I liked Daredevil season 2, but they were my least favorite part by far (and so far my least favorite Marvel TV villains).

Damnit! Is this just trolling? I've got 44 shows on my list and you're all about the same two?!? *sigh* OK then...

Yeah, the Hand are pretty ineffective, but someone pointed out to me back in DDS2 that being incompetent is kinda the Hand's thing even back in the comic books. Kind of like Hydra or A.I.M. We get the origin of the Hand in Defenders & why they're all up in NYC, which I liked. But by the end of Defenders it's uncertain where that organization and their plans for NYC are. My guess is it'll be explored in IFS2, possibly DDS3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Caligula_K3 said:

I don't want this to turn into a GOT debate thread (since there are plenty of other threads out there for that), but I will note as someone who thinks season 5 is a very good season of television and who's rewatching it right now that many of the plotlines/arcs you list as "nonsensical" or as proof that the show is the worst ever work pretty well for me. Stannis in particular; sure, the reason he gets so desperate that he has to sacrifice Shireen is maybe not uber plausible, but I don't think it's any worse than him getting stuck in snow for half of ADWD and not getting a climax. I also think you're pretty much entirely missing the point if you think that plotline was meant to show Stannis was pure evi, @Annara Snowl; the constant of his character is that he is someone with high minded ideals but is so rigid, hungry to gain what he thinks belongs to him and what he thinks is right that he's able to be convinced to do pretty evil things. This is true from his first appearances in ACOK and Season 2, where he's portrayed as someone willing to forego morality, burn people alive, and kill his brother if it gets him closer to the iron throne, while also having many good qualities that Davos especially can bring out. Him sacrificing Shireen is pretty much the culmination of his arc and perfectly in character. I will be very surprised if it doesn't happen in the books too.

As for Sansa in Winterfell.. I think that it was a very smart way of making Sansa more central to the plot and combining storylines.

 

I agree, that is why these complaints about Sansa, Stannis , "Talisa!"and "Theon torture porn" ring so hollow.

D&D have outright said that Shireen burning comes straight from George. This will happen in the books. It was a shock, but it would have been a massive shock in the books as well; I would never have thought that Stannis would do that in the books. It was a shame his character arc ended in season 5 but apparently the truth of the matter is that his role is played out before the War against the Others begins in earnest.

Ramsay did to Jeyne Poole in the books what happened to Sansa in the show. It actually makes a great deal of sense to move this very dramatic event from a bit character like Jeyne Poole to a lead character in Sansa. It also brings her story back to relevance, back into the main story, instead of sitting out and doing nothing in the Vale for another season. By having Sansa be the person who undergoes this, D&D invest much more drama in her character, cut out an unnecessary character, and this dramatic sequence will have consequences for Sansa's character in the following seasons as well, which would not be the case for Jeyne Poole. No problems with her arc. 

Theon was tortured. Happens in the books as well. Ramsay is a cruel beast in the books, even worse than he is in the tv show. I do not understand this complaint at all, it is fully in character for Ramsay, Theon deserves it, and we are seeing it. We *should* be seeing this and I found it entirely satisfactory. In general I thought the interplay between Roose and Ramsay and Theon was superb.

On a final note, just watched the last two episodes of season 7. Truly incredible episodes. It flies by so fast and so much happens, but man it is memorable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Calibandar said:

I agree, that is why these complaints about Sansa, Stannis , "Talisa!"and "Theon torture porn" ring so hollow.

D&D have outright said that Shireen burning comes straight from George. This will happen in the books. It was a shock, but it would have been a massive shock in the books as well; I would never have thought that Stannis would do that in the books. It was a shame his character arc ended in season 5 but apparently the truth of the matter is that his role is played out before the War against the Others begins in earnest.

Ramsay did to Jeyne Poole in the books what happened to Sansa in the show. It actually makes a great deal of sense to move this very dramatic event from a bit character like Jeyne Poole to a lead character in Sansa. It also brings her story back to relevance, back into the main story, instead of sitting out and doing nothing in the Vale for another season. By having Sansa be the person who undergoes this, D&D invest much more drama in her character, cut out an unnecessary character, and this dramatic sequence will have consequences for Sansa's character in the following seasons as well, which would not be the case for Jeyne Poole. No problems with her arc. 

Theon was tortured. Happens in the books as well. Ramsay is a cruel beast in the books, even worse than he is in the tv show. I do not understand this complaint at all, it is fully in character for Ramsay, Theon deserves it, and we are seeing it. We *should* be seeing this and I found it entirely satisfactory. In general I thought the interplay between Roose and Ramsay and Theon was superb.

On a final note, just watched the last two episodes of season 7. Truly incredible episodes. It flies by so fast and so much happens, but man it is memorable.

Not that shit again??!! People are still using those crappy excuses after they've been completely destroyed 1000 times?
I have no energy or time to write anything new (and why, I've said it all before):

(including in my post right on this very page:

 

Quote


Let's make this very simple:

Let's say Stannis is this super evil ambitious power hungry dude who'd do anything to gain the throne. So, because he's like this, he decides to... burn his only child and only heir in front of everyone?... Because that will help him gain the throne somehow?? Rather than, you know - destroy all support he has, since 1) why would anyone fight for a king who has no heir, and is unlikely to get one? 2) people are going to turn against someone who openly murders children and their own children especially, you know (even if kinslaying wasn't considered one of the biggest sins possible in Westeros, which it is).

Then there's also the fact that he did it because... Ramsay and his 20 Good Men destroyed his supplies and it snowed??!! This is also the guy who starved and used to eat rats rather than surrender when Mace Tyrell besieged Storm's End (and that's also a part of show Stannis' backstory).

You know what this plot reminded me most of? The South Park episode where the townsfolk decide to resort to cannibalism and eat Eric Roberts because they've been snowed in... for a few hours, and haven't eaten a thing since breakfast.

The point is not that they portrayed Stannis as evil, the point is that it's an incredibly idiotic plot. (Which D&D wrote because they hate Stannis and because they have a problem with writing logical character development and logical political decisions.)

No, Stannis cannot even theoretically do the same in the books, since, to burn Shireen, he'd have to first win the battle for Winterfell andsurvive. So either he dies fighting the Boltons, and never burns Shireen, or he is victorious, and burns Shireen for a completely different reason that has nothing to do with the battle. It's possible that Stannis will approve Melisandre burning Shireen in the books - but in a completely different context. I can see a tragic scenario where Mel believes that Stannis (who she thinks is Azor Ahai Reborn) needs to sacrifice his beloved daughter, the way AA sacrificed Nissa Nissa - the person he loved the most - in order to save the world from the Others and another Long Night. It probably wouldn't work, since Mel is wrong and Stannis is not Azor Ahai. That would be a really tragic story that would pay off Stannis' and Melisandre's stories, and it would be perfectly in character for both of them - Stannis would of course be incredibly reluctant and would hate doing it and it's the one thing that could break him emotionally, because Shireen is probably the only person in the world he actually loves, but he is stubborn and duty bound and would be willing to cross many lines to perform that duty. (Winning the throne would never be enough of an incentive; he was extremely reluctant to burn Edric Storm, his bastard nephew he didn't particularly care for, for that end, and in the end realized Davos was right to stop him from doing it.) Saying such a story and what we saw in S5 would be "the same" would be like saying that The Deer Hunter and The Room are the same movie, since both end with a guy committing suicide.

As for Sansa marrying Ramsay, that plot is illogical and idiotic on some many levels that I don't know how anyone ever could have approved of that plot in a sober state. I covered that in this Quora answer, which I'm linking so I wouldn't have to repeat all of it: https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-Boltons-care-that-Sansa-was-already-married-to-Tyrion-making-her-marriage-to-Ramsey-bigamous/answer/Ivana-Cvetanovic

 

and re: Sansa, here, if people are too lazy to click on the link:

 

 


 

Quote

 

The explanation Littlefinger gave on the show was that the marriage was not valid and could simply be ignored becauase it was never consummated. That’s the Watsonian (in-universe) explanation.

This, of course, makes absolutely no sense. There is a good reason why marriages don’t work like that in the books, and why they never worked like that in real life European medieval societies (and I’m not aware of any society where it works like that). If a marriage was not consummated, it simply meant it would be much easier to get it annulled - but you needed to apply to the Church to get it annulled. In Westeros, that means that Sansa could apply to the High Septon to annul her marriage (which is a bit tricky at the moment as she’s in hiding, what with being wanted for regicide, and Cersei wanting her head… at least in the books; in the show, Sansa is completely blase about telling everyone and their mother who she is, and the Lannisters don’t seem to care). But the show wants us to think that a marriage ceremony performed by the High Septon doesn’t mean a thing and can simply be ignored, on someone’s word that the couple hadn’t slept together. In a feudal society, where marriages and the legitimacy of children are incredibly important, because inheritance of lands and titles is completely dependent on those things. Imagine if people went around Westeros getting married and then simply ignoring these marriages and marrying again whenever they felt like it: “I swear, on my honor, we didn’t sleep together” (and who would know if that’s true or not?). Somehow I don’t think that would work…

Now, the real answer to your question is the Doylist one: the Boltons didn’t care that Sansa was already married because the show runners Benioff and Weiss were really, really determined to take Sansa out of her own book storyline, which takes place in the Vale, and shove her into the role of Jeyne Poole from the books, even if it didn’t make any sense. They wanted to put Sansa in the position to get raped and abused by Ramsay Bolton in her own home, Winterfell, because they thought that would make awesome TV - and to do that, they didn’t care how many hoops they had to jump through and how much they had to tweak logic, common sense, and the characterizations of multiple characters (Sansa, Littlefinger, Roose).

And it’s not like that’s the only thing that didn’t make sense about Sansa marrying Ramsay. You could also ask a bunch of other questions, such as:

Why was Roose Bolton OK with alienating the Lannnisters by marrying his son to a wanted fugitive accused of Joffrey’s murder, when his very position in the North depends on them and they are the reason why he even got it? How come he only remembered that was a problem in season 6?

If it was so important for Roose to placate the Northern lords with that marriage, why were there no Northern lords at the wedding? Kind of defeats the purpose.

And if the Boltons could summon that huge army that suddenly appeared out of nowhere at the end of season 5 to defeat Stannis (really, where did it come from?), then why did Roose even bother trying to placate the Northern lords?

If the Northern lords (or some of them) are loyal to the Starks, why didn’t they show any kind of interest or reaction to what was going on with Sansa? Where were they during season 5?

Why did Littlefinger decide to give Sansa to the Boltons? Even if he doesn’t care about her at all on the personal level (which we’re not supposed to think), why waste such a valuable political pawn, whom he made so much effort to get out of KL and under his control, when there was absolutely no benefit to him in that marriage? He simply gave Sansa away for nothing.

What was LF’s plan, anyway? If he wanted to get Winterfell and the North, why not raise an army in the Vale, and/or appeal to the Northern lords, to fight for a real, legitimate, living Stark to get her birthright? If he wanted to marry her off for political benefit, why not marry her to his other pawn, her little cousin Robin Arryn, Lord of the Vale? If the Vale lords weren’t already ready to fight for Sansa, they sure would be then.

Why did LF send Roose Bolton a message revealing that he was betraying the Lannisters and harboring a wanted kingslayer, without any fear that Roose would do the logical thing and immediately alert Cersei about LF’s treason?

How come someone with so many spies and resources as LF, who makes sure he has all sorts of information, had no idea what Ramsay was like, something that everyone in the North knew, what with Ramsay flaying, raping, torturing and murdering openly?

Why exactly did Cersei summon LF to King’s Landing so urgently? (Other than the Doylist answer: “Because LF needed to leave Sansa alone so she could be raped.”) Why did LF leave Sansa alone? Where were the guards from the Vale that should have been with her?

What was LF trying to do with Cersei? So we’re supposed to think that he told her about Sansa’s marriage to discredit the Boltons - but since she didn’t check anything (or else she would have found out that LF was seen travelling witth Sansa), he could have simply lied about it without putting Sansa in danger. And then he immediately arranged Cersei’s arrest, so… that was completely pointless?

Is the show version of Littlefinger a complete idiot?

And the million dollar question: why the heck did Sansa agree to marry into the family of the murderer of her mother and brother? Why did she say yes after Littlefinger gave her a two minute speech about “revenge”? How was she going to achieve that revenge? By delivering herself to her enemies, making herself legally obliged to obey Ramsay Bolton as her husband and practically be his property, putting herself under the power of the Boltons, and legitimizing their rule over Winterfell? What was the plan for that revenge? Was there ever a plan?

How come Sansa only realized that this made no sense in season 6?

Also, why didn’t Sansa notice or make sure she knew where she was travelling with LF, before they got to the North - a journey that must have taken weeks, at least?

Why was Sansa so OK with random people at an inn knowing who she is? Was she not afraid of getting arrested and brought to King’s Landing for trial and execution?

And if she’s not afraid and not in hiding… why does she even need Littlefinger? She has leverage over him in the show, the Vale lords know who she is and are supportive of her, she can use her Stark name to get support of the Northern lords to fight the Boltons and claim her birthright, she could have also offered Stannis an alliance… You know what’s the one thing that was not only not going to increase her political capital, but could have destroyed her reputation among the Northern lords? Agreeing to marry into the family of Robb’s murderer.

Was show Sansa simply supposed to be another total idiot, and a weakling who does whatever LF tells her to? But in that case, why did they portray her as “empowered” and a “player” at the end of season 4? Or what was the sassiness and weird costume change all about?

…All these obvious questions were ignored or handwaived on the show. Because Benioff and Weiss really wanted to make Sansa Ramsay’s rape victim, and didn’t care how contrived and illogical a storyline they had to write for that to happen.

 

and other people have summed it all up in detail - why the storyline is not just idiotic on the in-universe level, but terrible storytelling.

This article really sums it all up, including destroying the "but it happens to Jeyne Poole!" argument (which, really, you can only use if you also completely misunderstood the Jeyne Poole plot and the purpose of her character)::

http://www.therainbowhub.com/jeyne-poole-and-bad-storytelling-why-we-need-to-stop-making-excuses-for-gratuitous-rape-scenes/

As she says: "Jeyne Poole and Sansa Stark are not interchangeable rape dolls. Their stories are not the same."

And here's some more in detail, by people who actually watched every damn episode of the last 3 seasons, twice:

http://gotgifsandmusings.tumblr.com/post/121872735796/unabashed-book-snobbery-3-got-s5s-10-most

http://gotgifsandmusings.tumblr.com/post/120615659516/lets-revisit-why-sansas-being-raped-and

https://www.thefandomentals.com/winterhell-season-5-retrospective/

And here's yet another:

Sansa (episode 6) https://pawntoplayer.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/unbroken-unbent-unbroken-unbowed-unbowed-unbent/

Another good point: "When show apologists say that the difference between Ramsay’s wedding nights in the book and in the show is no big deal, they miss the point because they ignore the narrative logic. Ramsay’s wedding night in the show could be tantamount to this hypothetical situation: Theon and Jeyne escaped Winterfell and Stannis’ forces captured them, but then, for some reason, Jeyne agrees to marry Clayton Suggs and, to her horror, he brutalizes her on their wedding night. That would mean that Jeyne’s escape from Ramsay was actually ineffective in a narrative sense and that, after the author manipulated the readers for a while into thinking she’s on her way to some sort of salvation, she just ends up in the same place as in Winterfell."

Stannis: https://pawntoplayer.wordpress.com/2015/06/10/how-many-children-did-scarlett-ohara-burn/

Dorne: https://pawntoplayer.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/what-shireen-was-to-stannis-dorne-was-to-benioff-and-weiss/

These were all written during season 5, so they didn't even know what we now know for sure: Sansa's rape for a filler storyline. Try to wrap your head around that. They actually wrote a rape storyline for a main character as filler. It served absolutely no purpose and changed nothing to her story. Did she need to be raped to be "empowered" (ugh)? Nope. That's a terrible trope in itself, but in this case, the show told us she was already 'empowered' and a 'player' at the end of season 4. Did she need to be raped to have a reason to want to defeat the Boltons and have her revenge on them? Hell no. Since, you know, the betrayal and murder of her family was more than enough reason. Did the show meaningfully explore Sansa's trauma, a la Jessica Jones? Nope.  Did her marriage to Ramsay change anything in the political story? Nope. She could have just rallied the Vale lords in season 5 and come to Jon's aid with the Vale army, which would have made hell of a lot more sense. 


They didn't know what to do with Jaime and Sansa in season 5, so they gave Jaime a trashy dumb Ishtar-like B action movie/buddy comedy, and they gave Sansa a trashy and illogical rape storyline. Because of course, you give a guy a dumb action plot, and the girl gets to be raped because "well, we don't know what to do with her, and it will be shocking and entertaining!"...

These guys (one of them a book fan, the other not) have also summed most of it up in this podcast: http://whydoyoucare.fm/s02e05
I love the way they laugh and point out: "You want revenge? Don't marry your enemies!" - something that should be glaringly obvious...

Also, a really good summary of how badly Sansa has always been written on the show (it was written after 5.6):

http://gotgifsandmusings.tumblr.com/post/119391541235/why-sansa-really-kneeled-how-sexism-shaped-sansa

And here's an overall review of the show by people who have seen every episode even of the last seasons, twice:

https://www.thefandomentals.com/game-of-thrones-101/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/09/2017 at 10:30 AM, Calibandar said:

D&D have outright said that Shireen burning comes straight from George. This will happen in the books. It was a shock, but it would have been a massive shock in the books as well; I would never have thought that Stannis would do that in the books. It was a shame his character arc ended in season 5 but apparently the truth of the matter is that his role is played out before the War against the Others begins in earnest.

I see, so context is irrelevant is it? If it happens in the books, it will happen with much higher stakes and it won't happen because Stannis is "ambitious" as the show runners claim. Stannis is not ambitious in the books. He sees fighting for his rightful claim as his duty to the realm more than anything else (there's also a lot of bitterness over his treatment by his brothers). Stannis in the books is going to battle for Winterfell whilst Shireen is at The Wall. I have to wonder how exactly Stannis will end up both losing in the battle of Winterfell AND burning Shireen before the War against the Others.

Then there's the problem with how contrived Stannis' downfall was. Notice how characters and armies are travelling around with such ease now. That wasn't the case for Stannis was it? I personally cannot even nearly suspend my disbelief to accept that Ramsay's 20 Good Men could - in an insane blizzard in the dark of night - locate ALL the supplies in the camp, then simultaneously set them ALL on fire - in an insane blizzard in the dark of night - with no modern inventions for starting fires. And not only that, they announce that all the horses are either dead or disappeared before Mel rides away on one and they also announce that they have no food despite all these dead horses they could eat. This is sloppy storytelling and amateurish writing.

Also, having that scene with Stannis telling Shireen the story of stopping the spread of her greyscale earlier on in S5 only for the season to pan out that way was simply cheap shock-value writing.

On 05/09/2017 at 10:30 AM, Calibandar said:

Ramsay did to Jeyne Poole in the books what happened to Sansa in the show. It actually makes a great deal of sense to move this very dramatic event from a bit character like Jeyne Poole to a lead character in Sansa. It also brings her story back to relevance, back into the main story, instead of sitting out and doing nothing in the Vale for another season. By having Sansa be the person who undergoes this, D&D invest much more drama in her character, cut out an unnecessary character, and this dramatic sequence will have consequences for Sansa's character in the following seasons as well, which would not be the case for Jeyne Poole. No problems with her arc. 

Look, I can see how people who want the plot to move at the expense of intelligent character development might view it this way. But no, this whole storyline butchered Theon's character arc and Sansa's character arc.

But leaving that aside (because you're clearly not going to agree), let's take your line of reasoning further. What exactly did Sansa do in S5? She was coerced into marrying Ramsay, then locked in a room and raped nightly for ages, tormented by a monster. And ultimately, she relied upon Theon snapping out of it to kill Myranda so they could jump off the incredibly high wall of WF into a snow drift that might maybe possibly have saved them but most certainly wouldn't prevented many broken bones. And that was it. Personally, I'd have been a lot more interested in seeing the storyline that is suggested by the preview Alayne chapter from TWOW in the Vale. That seems infinitely more interesting than what we were given in Winterhell S5.

You know what would have been more interesting if they so wanted to converge storylines a bit more? They could have done a version of the brilliant White Harbor chapters from ADWD. They could have had LF and Sansa go there looking to get backing from the Manderlys to retake the North in the Stark name. They could have had a very interesting sequence full of plots and counter-plots.

On 05/09/2017 at 10:30 AM, Calibandar said:

Theon was tortured. Happens in the books as well. Ramsay is a cruel beast in the books, even worse than he is in the tv show. I do not understand this complaint at all, it is fully in character for Ramsay, Theon deserves it, and we are seeing it. We *should* be seeing this and I found it entirely satisfactory. In general I thought the interplay between Roose and Ramsay and Theon was superb.

The actors are all very good.

However, there is absolutely no reason why we should see the torture of Theon by Ramsay. It was torture porn that was taking up time from the story. And no, Theon doesn't deserve it. Nobody deserves that. Poetic justice can never be in the form of torture. I find it quite appalling that someone can find that satisfying.

 

 

Anyhow, in order to keep with the actual purpose of this thread:

  1. Bojack Horseman S4
  2. The Handmaid’s Tale S1
  3. Black Mirror S3
  4. The Expanse S2
  5. American Gods S1
  6. Orphan Black S5
  7. The Americans S5
  8. Better Call Saul S3
  9. Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt S3
  10. Fargo S3
  11. Orange Is The New Black S4
  12. House Of Cards S5
  13. A Series Of Unfortunate Events S1
  14. Game Of Thrones S7
  15. The Defenders S1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last thing I'll say about Game of Thrones in this thread, I swear, because I do feel bad for others who want to talk about other shows:

If there's one form of Game of Thrones criticism I find least convincing, it's the "when this happens in the books it'll be so much better, because it'll happen like this and this and this!" Look, maybe Shireen's burning will be better handled in the books. It's definitely possible; George is a talented writer and when he avoids his worst impulses he can craft great tragic scenes and storylines. But we don't know what'll happen in the next book. At this point, we've been waiting on resolutions to some cliffhangers and plotlines for twelve years. It's nice that you all have fan theories about how this will all happen, but none of us actually know, and I find presumptions that these stories will automatically be better to be unfounded. These books have their own flaws too, particularly AFFC and ADWD, and there's something to be said for the show's willingness to cut out the unimportant characters and side-plotlines and stick with the main characters, even if sometimes the showrunners miss the landing (as they do with Sansa in the second half of season 5). But I guess we'll see if we ever get TWoW...

On a side note, I think I may just completely disagree with some of you about Stannis' character, in response to the arguments that Stannis is not at all ambitious in the books, or that he won't kill Shireen because he doesn't want to be seen as a kinslayer. He loves Shireen beyond doubt and probably won't want to kill her in the books either, just like in the show. That's what makes the whole thing tragic. Stannis is a complex character, not an evil one, even if he can do evil things under Melisandre's influence and because of his own desperation. But... as of midway through ACoK, we learn that Stannis is very willing to kinslay if it gets him an army and gets rid of a usurper. He's also very willing to burn his nephew alive, and that's when he's not even that desperate. Sure, Stannis sees ruling the kingdom as his duty, but he's equally driven by bitterness and slights and what he views as his "rights." That's ambition to me, in the same way that Dany is ambitious.

(But I definitely agree that the Theon torture porn is the low point of the series. It's so unnecessary and repetitive).

Ok, that's it from me, I promise. All I can say at this point is that Game of Thrones is one of the best television series I've ever seen, flaws and all, and I'm amazed it's remained so consistent in quality throughout seven seasons (even if it's gotten worse at some things, it's gotten better at others). I'm also grateful that after 15 years, I'll finally have some closure on this story.

As for Defenders... I just watched the fourth episode and it's getting better, thankfully. It's not great quality, but I'll take good quality. And Iron Fist works much better when he's comic relief and the butt of all jokes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Caligula_K3 said:

The last thing I'll say about Game of Thrones in this thread, I swear, because I do feel bad for others who want to talk about other shows:

If there's one form of Game of Thrones criticism I find least convincing, it's the "when this happens in the books it'll be so much better, because it'll happen like this and this and this!" Look, maybe Shireen's burning will be better handled in the books. It's definitely possible; George is a talented writer and when he avoids his worst impulses he can craft great tragic scenes and storylines. But we don't know what'll happen in the next book. At this point, we've been waiting on resolutions to some cliffhangers and plotlines for twelve years. It's nice that you all have fan theories about how this will all happen, but none of us actually know, and I find presumptions that these stories will automatically be better to be unfounded.

So then we shouldn't be saying things like "I'm sure this will happen in the books, too", eh? Especially when it's even theoretically impossible for book Stannis to burn Shireen for the reasons he did in the show and in that kind of situation.
We may not know what it would be like, or if it will even happen, but we most definitely know that what happened in the show won't happen in the books - because it can't.

Quote

These books have their own flaws too, particularly AFFC and ADWD, and there's something to be said for the show's willingness to cut out the unimportant characters and side-plotlines and stick with the main characters...

Yes, like Bronn, Ellaria and the Sand Snakes. Or Oly and Myranda.

Oh, wait... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Finally finished OITNB S5 last week. Yikes, what a mess.  It's definitely going somewhere in the bottom 10 series of 2017 for me. 

Also, on my next list update I'll be moving Rick & Morty up to either the #2 or #1 spot. I've rewatched all of S3 and most of the other two seasons this past week and they get better with each viewing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, PetyrPunkinhead said:

Finally finished OITNB S5 last week. Yikes, what a mess.  It's definitely going somewhere in the bottom 10 series of 2017 for me. 

Also, on my next list update I'll be moving Rick & Morty up to either the #2 or #1 spot. I've rewatched all of S3 and most of the other two seasons this past week and they get better with each viewing. 

Oof, I'm sorry to hear that about OITNB. I watched the first two seasons a while back and loved them, and was looking forward to watching the rest at some point. Might be a good call to stop before season five then...

I finished The Defenders... I thought it was pretty bad. Some of it was very fun, particularly in the first few episodes that the heroes get together, but The Hand is an atrocious villain, a lot of it was very sloppy, and the mystical elements of the plot never felt right with three out of the four heroes being very grounded, street-level heroes. This was also a problem for me in Daredevil season 2. Oh well. I hope Daredevil season 3 and Jessica Jones season 2 (and the Punisher too, I suppose) can rebound from the mess Marvel-Netflix has become.

Up next: still continuing to re-watch Game of Thrones slowly, and will probably also finally check out Legion and Rick and Morty season 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, PetyrPunkinhead said:

Finally finished OITNB S5 last week. Yikes, what a mess.  It's definitely going somewhere in the bottom 10 series of 2017 for me. 

I am amazed that anyone was able to finish it. After such powerful, poignant last season, the first two episodes looked atrocious. And that is when I decided that this season never happened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2017 at 3:09 PM, Caligula_K3 said:

Oof, I'm sorry to hear that about OITNB. I watched the first two seasons a while back and loved them, and was looking forward to watching the rest at some point. Might be a good call to stop before season five then...

I finished The Defenders... I thought it was pretty bad. Some of it was very fun, particularly in the first few episodes that the heroes get together, but The Hand is an atrocious villain, a lot of it was very sloppy, and the mystical elements of the plot never felt right with three out of the four heroes being very grounded, street-level heroes. This was also a problem for me in Daredevil season 2. Oh well. I hope Daredevil season 3 and Jessica Jones season 2 (and the Punisher too, I suppose) can rebound from the mess Marvel-Netflix has become.

Up next: still continuing to re-watch Game of Thrones slowly, and will probably also finally check out Legion and Rick and Morty season 3.

Tough call on dropping out of OITNB. I think S3 & S4 are both great, especially S4. S5 though, just...no.

Have you seen the new Punisher trailer with Metallica's "One"? If not, go watch it now on youtube. That trailer alone is better than the entirety of S1 of Iron Fist and 1/3 of The Defenders. Truth and not alternative facts!

Also, you are in for a real treat with both Legion S1 and R&M S3. 

On 9/17/2017 at 6:09 PM, Risto said:

I am amazed that anyone was able to finish it. After such powerful, poignant last season, the first two episodes looked atrocious. And that is when I decided that this season never happened. 

Agreed about OITNB S4. I think they stretched the riot premise waaay too long. That should've been a half season arc at most. I really was done with the season around episode 5 or 6, but I managed to force my way through the rest of S5 over the course of a week or so. There were a few really great character moments though...

I dug seeing Piper propose. Frieda was also solid gold this season. Her flashback along w/ Red's and Taystee's were the highlight of the season--three shinning diamonds amid a wasteland of garbage and horse manure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to think I watch too much TV, but reading this thread I am now convinced I don't watch enough.

2017 has given a few things that were pretty interesting (in very rough order)

  1. Fargo
  2. Better Call Saul
  3. Inside no. 9
  4. Episodes
  5. Norsemen
  6. American Vandal
  7. Big Little Lies
  8. American Gods
  9. The Handmaid's Tale
  10. Glow
  11. The Deuce (just 2 episodes in)
  12. Odd Mom Out
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll do another update, before the start of the fall shows. Looking at my list, next year will be quite different, with a number of shows having ended, been cancelled, simply not gonna be returning next year, or I'm just done with them.

  1. Black Sails - ended; excellent show with a good combination of action, drama, and a story full of twists and turns; strong performances by the main actors, as well; I will miss it.
  2. The Expanse
  3. Legion
  4. Sense8 - so this was cancelled by Netflix, but then they came back and said they will end it with a 2-hour movie, or something; some people are still hoping a final season will happen; either way, I'm not sure we'll even get anything next year, and if we get just the 2-hour movie, I might not put it on my list.
  5. The Last Kingdom
  6. Agents of SHIELD
  7. Grimm - ended; a fun show, that I know I'm putting way too high on my list, but I enjoyed it immensely, and I will miss this one, as well 
  8. The Defenders - this is only in bold, because I don't think next season will happen next year, but I have every intention of returning to it. I did not find it as bad as most people here.
  9. Star Wars Rebels
  10. House of Cards - considering giving up on this, but may return for one more season
  11. Homeland - I think I'm done; the last season wasn't bad, and it ended in a way that kinda makes me curious about what might happen next, but really, this show should have ended 2-3 seasons ago
  12. iZombie
  13. Killjoys
  14. Game of Thrones
  15. Iron Fist - like The Defenders, I don't know if this is returning next year, but I'm invested in these shows enough that I'll keep watching; maybe it will be better
  16. Sherlock - this won't be returning next year, if ever; this past season was quite disappointing
  17. Elementary - considering giving up on this; it has become stale
  18. Dark Matter - cancelled... just when it was getting better; fucking SyFy
  19. The Walking Dead - I'll probably watch the upcoming season, but it will probably be the last for me
  20. The Blacklist - I'm done with this one; it's no longer interesting, and it's a revolving door of essentially the same plots
  21. Arrow
  22. Brooklyn-99
  23. Designated Survivor - I'm done with this one; interesting premise, weak execution
  24. The Strain - ended; it had its moments, but all the good it had was vastly outweighed by one of the worst kid characters ever, along with other silly stuff
  25. Supergirl
  26. Legends of Tomorrow
  27. The Flash
  28. The Big Bang Theory - 10 seasons is enough for me; it has lost much of its humor
  29. Taboo - whether this was cancelled or not, I will not be returning; considering who the main actor was, this was the biggest disappointment, so far, this year

For the fall shows - currently watching Outlander, so that will be on my list. I will give Star Trek Discovery a try, which is greatly dependent on its premiere, because I will not be signing up for CBS All Access, unless the premiere has me hooked. Since I'm a sucker for superhero shows, as it can be clearly seen from my list :P, I will give a try to Marvel's Inhumans (not hopeful at all) and The Gifted (not too hopeful). Mr. Robot is returning in October, but I'm skeptical about this one, too. The fall show I'm most excited for is Stranger Things 2.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Corvinus said:

Taboo - whether this was cancelled or not, I will not be returning; considering who the main actor was, this was the biggest disappointment, so far, this year

OMG, I was so angry about Taboo.  It was a big Tom Hardy wank-fest.  

Speaking of which, I'm surprised that Ozarks hasn't had more of a mention.  I had issues with it for the same reason as Taboo, but most people really enjoyed it.  

 

Also, I know it doesn't technically fit here, but I only discovered the show in 2017..... Fleabag 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...