A Ghost of Someone Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 1 minute ago, Pink Fat Rast said: Your intelligence...... Snip.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Fat Rast Posted April 7, 2017 Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 16 minutes ago, Darkstream said: Hmm...Maybe you should try to heed some of your own advise. Seemed pretty simple to me. There's a difference between not comprehending clearly worded (and correct) arguments, and not comprehending confused delirious sentence snippets that make no sense - though there's also a similarity, in that it's your fault in both cases. Quote What a complete stance. I'm not gonna say you lost all your credibility with this reply, but I will say that you cemented your total lack of credibility with this reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Ghost of Someone Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Subject is show logic with particular ref to shireen's murder sacrifice by burning and as whether it made a difference or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Fat Rast Posted April 7, 2017 Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 3 hours ago, A Ghost of Someone said: Smoke and mirrors, along with masses of paid advertisers under the guise of critics and non bias journalists that drive the masses/herd in the direction or mentality they want them to go. Oh that's what it meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Ghost of Someone Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 The point is HBO uses it's resources to drown out realistic criticism for the illogical writing for this show. They have a huge media influence that drives a pack mentality, herding if you will, to promote this show as the greatest ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Fat Rast Posted April 7, 2017 Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, A Ghost of Someone said: The point is HBO uses it's resources to drown out realistic criticism for the illogical writing for this show. They have a huge media influence that drives a pack mentality, herding if you will, to promote this show as the greatest ever. k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstream Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Pink Fat Rast said: 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? No, I suppose your lack of comprehension on such a simple matter would make it pointless for you to listen. Quote 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 Not now, it always was. Now that I'm aware of your inability to decipher such comments, I'll be sure to denote these comments so you can catch them. Quote WHY DOESN'T PLANYTOS MAGIC WORK LIKE I THINK IT SHOULD Nah, the point is how Stannis precieves that it should work. Quote First, you're trivilializing the "bad weather" specifically so you can still have a point. You might think so, because the point is lost on you. Quote 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. Again, the point is lost on you. I'm fully aware of the legitimacy of the magic, it's really not all that ambiguous, as your comprehension levels seem to lead you to believe it is. The point is that Stannis believes in its legitimacy. Quote Well he did "buy" it, you can watch the scenes again. Really, that's your argument? Not even worth a rebuttal on my part. 1 hour ago, Pink Fat Rast said: There's a difference between not comprehending clearly worded (and correct) arguments, and not comprehending confused delirious sentence snippets that make no sense - though there's also a similarity, in that it's your fault in both cases. It's too bad you can't comprehend the difference between the two. I guess it was confusing for you, but even with my inability to comprehend simple things, I was able to decipher exactly what he meant. *The bolded is sarcasm, wouldn't want that to slip by you.* Quote I'm not gonna say you lost all your credibility with this reply, but I will say that you cemented your total lack of credibility with this reply. I'll give you that, I wasn't clear. The premise of your statement isn't what was bs. Your ignorant preception that it applies to GoT is what is bs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Fat Rast Posted April 7, 2017 Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 27 minutes ago, Darkstream said: No, I suppose your lack of comprehension on such a simple matter would make it pointless for you to listen. As long you keep pontificating without adding valid arguments to the mix, nothing's gonna change lol. Quote Not now, it always was. Now that I'm aware of your inability to decipher such comments, I'll be sure to denote these comments so you can catch them. You still missed the plot point, so whether you were facetious or serious matters precisely dick in this instance. As I just said Quote Nah, the point is how Stannis precieves that it should work. And why should he perceive the same way as you? He already has reasons not to - but then again, so do you. Quote You might think so, because the point is lost on you. Huh? The cold is connected to the FUCKING WINTER - it's easy to see how counteracting the WINTER could appear as less trivial to Stannis than killing some southern king; and to the sane viewer. How in the FUCK is "you might think so because the point is lost on you" supposed to refute this obvious fact? Quote Again, the point is lost on you. I'm fully aware of the legitimacy of the magic, it's really not all that ambiguous, as your comprehension levels seem to lead you to believe it is. The point is that Stannis believes in its legitimacy. It actually is ambiguous - the deaths of Robb and Joffrey came delayed, and through worldly circumstances that they caused themselves; Balon survived them all. On the other hand, the shadow demon was undeniable, and the weather warming up also followed directly after the sacrifice. The leeches were pretty much Mel going "ah... see, they died! whew" and Stannis believed it. So: 1) Stannis had less reason to believe it - since you're putting so much emphasis on what was or wasn't "smart" of him to think in S5. 2) His belief in the leeches' effects was still tied to his trust in Melisandre, and she just told him the leeches wouldn't work - which wasn't the hardest thing to believe, because, well, see first paragraph. Quote Really, that's your argument? Not even worth a rebuttal on my part. Well when your argument consists of denying clear plot points, then yeah that's all I need to say in response. Quote Your ignorant preception that it applies to GoT is what is bs. No that wasn't BS either - it's entirely possible for GoT to completely fail the higher standard of realism and consistency while still excelling at the default movie standard; it'd be hilarious if objected to that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byfort of Corfe Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 18 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said: Awww... are you sure those 2 things are the only things "masking" the "sloppy writing"? Need I remind you that the only (substantial) reason people complain about this show in the first place, is because it's failing to live up to its own claims and ambitions of consistency, realism and complexity - had it just been sold as a "fantasy show", people would be laughing at all the inappropriate plot hole criticism and it would be considered a great genre show all around. And mere "CGI and marketing" are nowhere near enough to create a great show - feel free to list all the factors that would go into that, I doubt they'll fit on 10 fingers lmao So don't watch since it is all beneath all of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstream Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 13 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said: As long you keep pontificating without adding valid arguments to the mix, nothing's gonna change lol. Yeah right, you want to deny the difference between an objective and a subjective analysis, you make condescending remarks in regard to other people's comprehension levels, just because they don't agree with your illogical arguments, and I'm the pompous one? Sure buddy, get over yourself. You claim that it doesn't matter if a story has plot holes as long as some flashy payoff scene has dramatic tension and invokes an emotional response. Thats the most asanine and ignorant argument I've read to date on this subject. Any talentless hack, without much effort, could write an isolated scene that has a dramatic effect or stirs an emotional reaction from the audience. That has nothing to do with the quality of writing. If there are plot holes, inconsistencies, and logic defying motives and decisions being made in order to move the story to said scene, then that is bad writing. Period. If you showed the Red Wedding scene to someone who has never watched the show, it would invoke an emotional response in them. How is that in any way, an indication as to the quality of writing throughout the story? That's just ignoring the flaws, and falsely attributing a sensationalist scene's effect to the writing. Keep denying the facts, if that's what you need to do in order to comfort yourself to the fact that you enjoy a poorly written show, it's really not going to change anything. Like I said, I gave you the chance to prove me wrong after the initial impressions you gave in the other thread, but obviously that was a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Fat Rast Posted April 7, 2017 Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 22 minutes ago, Darkstream said: Yeah right, you want to deny the difference between an objective and a subjective analysis, you make condescending remarks in regard to other people's comprehension levels, just because they don't agree with your illogical arguments, and I'm the pompous one? Sure buddy, get over yourself. What do you know about "objective and subjective analysis", you're just some ranter fanboy lmao Quote You claim that it doesn't matter if a story has plot holes as long as some flashy payoff scene has dramatic tension and invokes an emotional response. It doesn't matter (much) by default, unless the story claims to have no plot holes wie oftdenn noch Quote Thats the most asanine It's spelled "asinine". Quote and ignorant argument I've read to date on this subject. Any talentless hack, without much effort, could write an isolated scene that has a dramatic effect or stirs an emotional reaction from the audience. No, a talentless hack would do all those things badly or fail altogether. Quote That has nothing to do with the quality of writing. The quality of writing is what keeps it from being uninvolving, unintentionally funny, hackneyed or whatever other ways a dramatic scene can fail - of course "writing" isn't the only factor in that, unless it's book. Quote If there are plot holes, inconsistencies, and logic defying motives and decisions being made in order to move the story to said scene, then that is bad writing. Period. The only reason logic matters so much in GoT to begin with, is precisely because GRRM and D&D and everyone else and said "we're doing a serious, realistic, grounded, intelligent story that's different from all those illogical ones" - generally speaking, logic doesn't matter that much in movies. Quote If you showed the Red Wedding scene to someone who has never watched the show, it would invoke an emotional response in them. How is that in any way, an indication as to the quality of writing throughout the story? Huh? It would indicate that the scene was done well, it wouldn't say anything about the bits that "someone" hasn't seen lmao Quote That's just ignoring the flaws, and falsely attributing a sensationalist scene's effect to the writing. Stop throwing around words like "sensationalism" m8 you don't even know what that means Quote Keep denying the facts, if that's what you need to do in order to comfort yourself to the fact that you enjoy a poorly written show, it's really not going to change anything. Denying what "facts"? I thought I had described all the "facts" better than you ever could, what with all that dozing off during the show Quote Like I said, I gave you the chance to prove me wrong after the initial impressions you gave in the other thread, but obviously that was a mistake. Stop pretending like you're above me rather than beneath - you just came out and said, black on white, that you think logic is the only challenge in writing. I repeat: you just came out and said, black on white, that you think logic is the only challenge in writing. It'd be hilarious if the other RRRRRRRers turned out to share the same laughable views, then we could just dismiss that whole annoying segment of Asoiaf's fan culture all the quicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstream Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 8 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said: Stop throwing around words like "sensationalism" m8 you don't even know what that means Definition of sensationalism for English Language Learners : the use of shocking details to cause a lot of excitement or interest That's exactly what I mean. Nice try m8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Fat Rast Posted April 7, 2017 Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 Yeah but that's only in application to world news - because under that definition, most fiction ever written (that contains "unpleasant" content) qualifies as "sensationalism". Which is why no one in their right mind says that Also I guess you're stumped as far as the other points go, eh? In fairness, who wouldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstream Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 9 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said: Yeah but that's only in application to world news - No, its most prominently used in reference to the media, not exclusively. Quote because under that definition, most fiction ever written (that contains "unpleasant" content) qualifies as "sensationalism". You obviously don't understand what it means. Not surprising. Quote Also I guess you're stumped as far as the other points go, eh? In fairness, who wouldn't be. You can tell yourself that if it makes you feel better about yourself. The truth is, I'm done with the ridiculous crap that you spew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Fat Rast Posted April 7, 2017 Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 If you can't tell the difference between news kind of "media" and movies kind of "media" then you're truly lost. m9 Quote You can tell yourself that if it makes you feel better about yourself. The truth is, I'm done with the ridiculous crap that you spew. No, the truth is that you're stumped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstream Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstream Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Ok, here is another one for you to deny, in an attempt to backtrack on the foolish remarks you make. sensationalism [sen-sey-shuh-nl-iz-uh m] noun subject matter, language, or style producing or designed to produce startling or thrilling impressions or to excite and please vulgar taste. the use of or interest in this subject matter, language, or style:The cheap tabloids relied on sensationalism to increase their circulation. Please point to where it says this applies exclusively to world news. You do realize that in the English language, many words have multiple meanings and usages, don't you? I suppose you think that tabloids are world news, it would explain where your knowledge comes from. Here is another, notice it says especially in journalism, implying that this is the predominant use, not the exclusive use. sen·sa·tion·al·ism senˈsāSHənlˌizəm/ noun 1. (especially in journalism) the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement. "media sensationalism" You're wrong, obviously you are too insecure to admit it. Just like with your precious show. Deal with it m8. And another thing, you sure do criticise others a lot for making typos and spelling errors, for someone who is constantly making errors themself. Something that is unnecessary, and against forum rules. Just goes to show what you need to resort to, as your actual arguments don't hold up. Anyway, I'm done with you. This will be my last response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Fat Rast Posted April 7, 2017 Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 8 minutes ago, Darkstream said: Ok, here is another one for you to deny, in an attempt to deny the foolish remarks you make. Please point to where it says this aplys exclusively to world news. You do realize that in the English language, many words have multiple meanings and usages, don't you? sensationalism [sen-sey-shuh-nl-iz-uh m] noun subject matter, language, or style producing or designed to produce startling or thrilling impressions or to excite Yes, and most fiction is designed to produce thrilling impressions and excite, which is why it's stupid of you to use the term. Didn't I just tell you that exact same thing? Why did it fly over your head the 1st time, and why is it gonna fly over your head now, too? the use of or interest in this subject matter, language, or style:The cheap tabloids relied on sensationalism to increase their circulation. I suppose you think tabloids qualify as world news? It would explain where most of your knowledge comes from. Anyway, I'm done with you, this will be my last response. Tabloids are bad "world news" because they print to excite, rather than to inform as proper "world news" do. Fiction that exists to excite isn't bad fiction because that's its purpose to begin with. Therefore it makes sense to use "sensationalism" in reference to news, but doesn't when talking about movies. You're unbelievably dense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.