So did Shireen's sacrifice postpone winter or not?

[Pink Fat Rast]

I've no idea what any of that means

[A Ghost of Someone]

BS hype pushes this show as something wonderful despite large plot holes and characters making way more than an average mistake or decision and all to get to a special scene that the creators set as highlights of the episode and or the season. 

[Dragon in the North]

I think Shireen's sacrifice only dealt with the pre-winter snow storm that had Stannis's army trapped. Whether or not it delayed the arrival of winter isn't brought up in the show.

[Dragon in the North]

23 hours ago, Ser Yorick Ampersand said:

OP thinks Shireen was killed for the plot.

There is no plot.

Of course the show has a plot. It's, more or less, the same as the book's plot. When a king dies, powerful families fight over his throne while ignoring the approaching threat to the North.

[Pink Fat Rast]

25 minutes ago, A Ghost of Someone said:

BS hype pushes this show as something wonderful despite large plot holes and characters making way more than an average mistake or decision and all to get to a special scene that the creators set as highlights of the episode and or the season. 

Most genre storytelling is done that way - setpieces, messages etc. are designed and connected, with only as much logic as the monkey brain requires.
The qualities of such works are self-evident to viewers and don't require "BS hype" to "sell" it to them.

Logic and all that starts mattering once the genre work starts making according claims: that it's "hard SF", or "realistic", or "intelligent", then plot holes increasingly start to matter.

=>Audiences don't need "hype" to tell them that this is a really good show, and plot holes and character mistakes don't prevent it from being a really good show - however they do prevent it from achieving some (not all) of the higher standards it claims to aspire to.

You in your fervor seem to completely lack this sane middleground as you think a show either has no plaht holes or it's good and doesn't rely on hype.

[Pink Fat Rast]

4 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

I think Shireen's sacrifice only dealt with the pre-winter snow storm that had Stannis's army trapped. Whether or not it delayed the arrival of winter isn't brought up in the show.

I think the possibility is kinda implied, or "implies itself", by the fact that BoB looks much more summerer than the 1st one.

[Dragon in the North]

1 hour ago, A Ghost of Someone said:

Huge budget and the HBO time Warner media juggernaut that creates massive buzz has a major impact on this show's perception in the public eye. This has carried the show through the downright lazy writing. This is especially true n regards to how apparently D&D wanted to create a scenario to have Shireen burned to death and then, the very next season have an army camp there at the same spot before being at the walls of winterfell by noon the next day. Either they do not care of are really stupid.

No, people have not been duped, tricked, or otherwise bamboozled into watching the show. People like the show because they genuinely believe it to be good. You don't have to agree with this opinion, but you should, at the very least, respect it. I don't believe that is asking for too much. Thank you.

[Dragon in the North]

2 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

I think the possibility is kinda implied, or "implies itself", by the fact that BoB looks much more summerer than the 1st one.

Maybe. It's been a while since I've seen the season 5 finale. You may be on to something, but it's possible the decreased snow may also be due to the lingering effects of Shireen's sacrifice.

[Pink Fat Rast]

I'd add that when people talk about "writing", they tend to forget that there's different layers to "writing" which can often be of very different quality.

For example, larger plotting can be bad, but dialogue and tension arcs done well.
Logic can be missing, but actions, events and dialogue written in such a way that it distracts from the holes rather than call attention to them.
Dialogue scenes can be artificially contrived and constructed in order to move a certain plot along, but at the same time be crisp and charismatic in all the ways called for.
The writing within episodes can be good, but not hold together when put... together.


So to say GoT has "bad writing" with "good budget" is a riot - the writing is quite excellent in many ways, but very sloppy in others; obviously not all scenes and plotlines are of the same quality, too;
for instance, the writing and acting in the Bran storyline this season have failed to distract from the stupidities contained therein - enhanced them, really.

[Pink Fat Rast]

9 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

Maybe. It's been a while since I've seen the season 5 finale. You may be on to something, but it's possible the decreased snow may also be due to the lingering effects of Shireen's sacrifice.

Why "but" and "also", that's exactly what I was on about

[Darkstream]

2 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

<snip>

And that's how you do reasonable criticysm.

No, I wouldn't call that a reasonable criticism. That would be a subjective criticism, which is perfectly fine and valid. If that's what you personally prioritize as important to you in a story, you have every right to do so. I have never, nor would I ever challenge you on that. However, your argument does not hold up when objectively analysing the writing based on accepted literary standards. This was the subject of the whole ing debate I had with DitN in the thread in which you said you skipped my comments. I'm not going to engage in the same debate here. If you care to know my stance on this, you can go and read my comments there. 

2 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

<snip>

As the guy who just yesterday admitted to "not paying attention cause it's a chore to", no wonder your perspective's a bit skewed.

Well, if you can't tell the difference between a faceticious comment, or are going to use it as a basis to disregard my argument, I can only assume that you are grasping at straws.

Quote

Those issues were addressed - Stannis brought up leeches and then Melisandre said that wouldn't do anything.

<snip>

Only that does not make any sense. Burning a few leeches has the power to assassinate four Kings, but is not an option to forestall some bad wheather? That's just ridiculous, and Stannis is not going to buy that there is not some other option, and submit to burning his daughter that easily. It was not Mellisandra that convinced him, it was d$d's script that convinced him.

[Darkstream]

2 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

In the same way that including an exhaustive discussion between Jon and Alliser in s5e9 wouldn't have prevented the Jon stabbing - so your view that they "damned logic just so they could do the burning" is inherently backwards.

And why do you think was the RW written the way it was? In broad strokes, it was for the same reason: the emotional impact it would receive.
It wasn't a natural consequence of the logic and geography of Westeros - it was created for emotional and dramatic impact and story structure etc., and then the logic and geography were written around it; apparently more impeccably than here.

I don't even understand your point here, or the relevance to the subject being discussed.

ETA: It sort of seems like you are trying to say that two wrongs equal a right.

[A Ghost of Someone]

57 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Most genre storytelling is done that way - setpieces, messages etc. are designed and connected, with only as much logic as the monkey brain requires.
The qualities of such works are self-evident to viewers and don't require "BS hype" to "sell" it to them.

Logic and all that starts mattering once the genre work starts making according claims: that it's "hard SF", or "realistic", or "intelligent", then plot holes increasingly start to matter.

=>Audiences don't need "hype" to tell them that this is a really good show, and plot holes and character mistakes don't prevent it from being a really good show - however they do prevent it from achieving some (not all) of the higher standards it claims to aspire to.

You in your fervor seem to completely lack this sane middleground as you think a show either has no plaht holes or it's good and doesn't rely on hype.

I am not a monkey.

[A Ghost of Someone]

Whether this or any other show is fantasy or sci ft genre  shouldn't excuse decisions that are so obviously ilogical based in the world or world's the stories are told and presented. Shireen's murder is a prime example of nonsense which is only amplified by the following season's return to the scene of the crime. 

[Pink Fat Rast]

54 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

I don't even understand your point here, or the relevance to the subject being discussed.

ETA: It sort of seems like you are trying to say that two wrongs equal a right.

What two wrongs, what right?

If you have trouble understanding simple things maybe you shouldn't be boasting about your "rational criticisms" and calling people apahlagists all the time

[Pink Fat Rast]

12 minutes ago, A Ghost of Someone said:

Whether this or any other show is fantasy or sci ft genre  shouldn't excuse decisions that are so obviously ilogical based in the world or world's the stories are told and presented. Shireen's murder is a prime example of nonsense which is only amplified by the following season's return to the scene of the crime. 

As I said, "logic" isn't particularly important by default - it only becomes important if the movie claims it places value on logic, but only in terms of how well it lives up to that particular claim.

I said nothing about "whether fantasy or sf"

[Pink Fat Rast]

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

No, I wouldn't call that a reasonable criticism. That would be a subjective criticism, which is perfectly fine and valid. If that's what you personally prioritize as important to you in a story, you have every right to do so. I have never, nor would I ever challenge you on that. However, your argument does not hold up when objectively analysing the writing based on accepted literary standards. This was the subject of the whole ing debate I had with DitN in the thread in which you said you skipped my comments. I'm not going to engage in the same debate here. If you care to know my stance on this, you can go and read my comments there. 

Yea... I noticed.

Well,

What, so I'm supposed to listen to you pontificate something about "objective literary-objective standards" to me while you keep having trouble reading text and hearing dialogue, and I objectively make far more sense than you?

if you can't tell the difference between a faceticious comment, or are going to use it as a basis to disregard my argument, I can only assume that you are grasping at straws.

Oh, the part where I corrected you on a plot point and you then said you couldn't be bothered to pay attention was "facetious" now? Well, it was still correct considering you were wrong about said plot point
 

Only that does not make any sense. Burning a few leeches has the power to assassinate four Kings, but is not an option to forestall some bad wheather? That's just ridiculous,

WHY DOESN'T PLANYTOS MAGIC WORK LIKE I THINK IT SHOULD

First, you're trivilializing the "bad weather" specifically so you can still have a point.
Secondly, whether the leeches worked or not is actually more ambiguous - Stannis etc. attributed the 2 deaths to the leeches (that were meant for 3), but viewers debating over what kind of fictional magic "makes more sense" shouldn't.

and Stannis is not going to buy that there is not some other option, and submit to burning his daughter that easily. It was not Mellisandra that convinced him, it was d$d's script that convinced him.

Well he did "buy" it, you can watch the scenes again.

[Darkstream]

21 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

What two wrongs, what right?

If you have trouble understanding simple things maybe you shouldn't be boasting about your "rational criticisms" and calling people apahlagists all the time

 

2 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

I've no idea what any of that means

Hmm...Maybe you should try to heed some of your own advise. Seemed pretty simple to me.

Just when I began to think I might have missed judged you, and I could have a mature discussion with you, your true colors show through again. Oh well.

24 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

As I said, "logic" isn't particularly important by default - it only becomes important if the movie claims it places value on logic, but only in terms of how well it lives up to that particular claim.
 

What a complete stance. 

[A Ghost of Someone]

34 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

As I said, "logic" isn't particularly important by default - it only becomes important if the movie claims it places value on logic, but only in terms of how well it lives up to that particular claim.

I said nothing about "whether fantasy or sf"

Well Ian McShane did say this show was just  "tits and dragons".

[Pink Fat Rast]

3 minutes ago, A Ghost of Someone said:

Well Ian McShane did say this show was just  "tits and dragons".

Your intelligence represents RRRRR accurately.