[SPOILERS thru S7] Where did the show go wrong?

[Rhodan]

10 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

 

Huh? That Tormund/Hound scene was awesome and hilarious, and hence = the opposite of poorly "wrought".

If you get uptight over people saying cock or twat, I don't know what you're doing with ASOIAF in the first place - go read Harry Potter instead, there's one instance where a ballsack is about to be mentioned and it's promptly interrupted.

Hey there's only one such instance in GoT (Ellaria and Hotah) too come think of it.

 

What is the first thing you think about when the word "stilted" is dropped - men talking about cocks, or forum posters getting uppity about men discussing cocks?

I would be simply glad if it was balanced by some intelligent writing.

 

10 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

 

 

 

Once again, here we have the reasonable view that when there's something in a plotline that doesn't make sense, it's drastically terrible cinema.

That's why TDK is a horrible movie, according to CinemaSins.


 

 

 

 There´s a difference about minor hiccup here and there and total abandoning of logic everywhere. TDK is, I would say, pretty accaptable. TDKR? Not so much.

[Pink Fat Rast]

3 hours ago, Rhodan said:

I would be simply glad if it was balanced by some intelligent writing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "intelligent writing" - are you specifically referring to all the other subjects that Sandor and Tormund have to discuss but didn't, or the way dicks and cocks could've been integrated into the dialogue?

I mean the other characters discussed other subjects in that episode and it wasn't about dicks, so not sure what you mean.

[Rhodan]

5 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "intelligent writing" - are you specifically referring to all the other subjects that Sandor and Tormund have to discuss but didn't, or the way dicks and cocks could've been integrated into the dialogue?

I mean the other characters discussed other subjects in that episode and it wasn't about dicks, so not sure what you mean.

Other characters I mean and I don´t think they sound any smarter. Boy, I really wish I could talk about the books.

[Pink Fat Rast]

17 minutes ago, Rhodan said:

Boy, I really wish I could talk about the books.

Why, you can though. None shall interfere, do as you please!

[Rhodan]

4 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Why, you can though. None shall interfere, do as you please!

To further elaborate on the previous point, complaining about vulgarisms would really be kinda irrational when it comes to something based on ASOIAF. But I think the simple reason why some people are still mentioning it is this. It might be sore thumb for them becouse it seems to them that this is only aera of dialogue where showrunners are "inventive/skillful".    

[Pink Fat Rast]

13 minutes ago, Rhodan said:

To further elaborate on the previous point, complaining about vulgarisms would really be kinda irrational when it comes to something based on ASOIAF. But I think the simple reason why some people are still mentioning it is this. It might be sore thumb for them becouse it seems to them that this is only aera of dialogue where showrunners are "inventive/skillful".    

But saying that GoT dialogue is only inventive when it's about British swearing and vulgarisms, is just as irrational - and it would imply that you think this was the *only* bit of good dialogue in the whole episode, or the at the very least the best; which didn't seem like that was your point either.


People here have been whinging about the "finger in the butt" prank from S6 for a year now, but I've never seen anyone imply that it was the "only funny bit" in all the Hound/BwB scenes, or the only bit of good writing involving Sandor in S6. Cause that'd be crazy right?

[Rhodan]

54 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

But saying that GoT dialogue is only inventive when it's about British swearing and vulgarisms, is just as irrational - and it would imply that you think this was the *only* bit of good dialogue in the whole episode, or the at the very least the best; which didn't seem like that was your point either.


People here have been whinging about the "finger in the butt" prank from S6 for a year now, but I've never seen anyone imply that it was the "only funny bit" in all the Hound/BwB scenes, or the only bit of good writing involving Sandor in S6. Cause that'd be crazy right?

 Or maybe they seem to be only scenes writers are in their element so to speak. Some of them could be maybe called good for what they are trying to accomoplish, of course not as gems of writing in general and I really think they wouldn´t be so much remembered if the rest of the screenplay seemed mature and sense making to the complainers. This is heavily subjective and probably not worthy further analysis.  

[Pink Fat Rast]

13 minutes ago, Rhodan said:

This is heavily subjective and probably not worthy further analysis.  

It is in general, but would require delving into specific lines and details etc. - maybe it belongs in this thread, maybe it doesn't I'm not sure.

But briefly back to the dicks, I wonder what ever happened to those "complainers" that took issue with Tormund being a homophobe for bashing Rattleshirt's head in? I mean clearly that was an example of the show endorsing homophobia, but I bet they must have really liked this newest scene with the cocks then.

[YoungGriff89]

On 1/14/2018 at 0:32 PM, Pink Fat Rast said:

Same thing can be said for a lot of the plotlines in S1-4, things were often quite slow-moving.

And their "limited budget" became apparent in S2 when they had to make battles take place off-screen - budget increased with each season and S4 was the first one with some proper big cinema spectacle,

Don't get your comment.
 

1st point - I'm exaggerating, but not much.  Especially for the characters I listed, there's nothing worth writing about in more than one sentence until episodes 9-10.  For seasons 1-4 you'd be pushing it to sum up each main character's storyline from episodes 1-8 in one accurate sentence.

To the 2nd point no problem.  I'm referencing a couple of things and I'll explain, I'm focusing solely on season four.  First thing to mention would be comments made on the season four blu-ray commentaries by Alex Graves about the Children more specifically, but I can see how it applies to other episodes Alex Graves directed (just as one example).  The limited budget isn't the bigger issue but for one example, the overhead shot at the beginning of the episode of Stannis's troops attacking the wildlings is one shot split in the middle and presented as two different shots because that's all the budget would allow.  It looks fine in the episode, but that is what it is because there was no more budget and that's directly from Alex Graves.  

The cheesy CGI skeleton fight and lack of consistency on the appearance of the Children of the Forest between seasons four and six are the result of no more budget for the season four finale, another thing taken directly from Alex Graves.  Jaime telling Tyrion about Tysha was scripted, but was not shot due to time restraints.  Brienne vs the Hound is made up of almost nothing but quick cuts (5 within one second at the beginning) and some shots that were supposed to be taking place in the same area and were obviously shot in several different places due to the lack of time to utilize the location where they were filming.  Etc.

I'm more talking about time restraints and how little time they actually have to do principle photography despite the year or so between each season.  The actual fight between the Mountain and Oberyn for another example is about two minutes long and is made up of almost nothing but cuts, some that are in accordance with the choreography and some are two different parts of the fight cut together and roughly transition from one move to the next (although this happens much more noticeably in Dorne in Season 5- Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken).  To be fair as you pointed out with season two this wasn't a new phenomenon to season four seeing as how battles were taking place off screen, but the type of things I've mentioned stuck out to me.  

[Lady Anna]

Regarding some users' posts about this being subjective and/or the show still being enjoyable:

Bad writing, or good writing for that matter, is not exactly a question of subjectivity. GOT being badly-written is not a question of subjectivity; it's pretty much a fact (same as ASOIAF being well-written). And if no one should say so, or analyse it, or reflect on it, then I guess critics and critical reviews of anything might as well not exist, not even by people on the internet.

I don't watch the show but I have no doubt that's it's still enjoyable to some degree. And that's fine! It's just terribly-written. The two things can coexist but just because something's fun that doesn't mean it's not mediocre or bad. Otherwise popularity and financial success would necessarily indicate high quality, and that's not always the case.

[Pink Fat Rast]

1 hour ago, Lady Anna said:

riting for that matter, is not exactly a question of subjectivity. GOT being badly-written is not a question of subjectivity; it's pretty much a fact (same as ASOIAF being well-written).

As implied by this following bit here:

1 hour ago, Lady Anna said:

mediocre or bad.

degrees matter a lot - and the writing in GoT should become a whole lot worse than it is right now, in order to qualify as "bad".

[Lady Anna]

1 hour ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

As implied by this following bit here:

degrees matter a lot - and the writing in GoT should become a whole lot worse than it is right now, in order to qualify as "bad".

Of course there's different degrees of good and bad lol, but I think ''badly-written'' covers the show's problems pretty well.

[Pink Fat Rast]

17 hours ago, YoungGriff89 said:

1st point - I'm exaggerating, but not much.  Especially for the characters I listed, there's nothing worth writing about in more than one sentence until episodes 9-10.  For seasons 1-4 you'd be pushing it to sum up each main character's storyline from episodes 1-8 in one accurate sentence.

I thought you were referring to the way you could describe the character arcs/journeys in each respective season in a from point A to point B kind of sense - in which case, the progression has been slow and small in most cases incl. the early seasons.

However you seem to be rather saying that the earlier seasons filled them with more interesting facets and whatnot - in which case, eh maybe haven't really examined it from that angle I think.
Certainly can't argue about it right now : )



 

17 hours ago, YoungGriff89 said:

To the 2nd point no problem.  I'm referencing a couple of things and I'll explain, I'm focusing solely on season four.  First thing to mention would be comments made on the season four blu-ray commentaries by Alex Graves about the Children more specifically, but I can see how it applies to other episodes Alex Graves directed (just as one example).  The limited budget isn't the bigger issue but for one example, the overhead shot at the beginning of the episode of Stannis's troops attacking the wildlings is one shot split in the middle and presented as two different shots because that's all the budget would allow.  It looks fine in the episode,

I dsiagree actually - how cheap do you have to be to reuse a special effect; especially one from the same fucking episode.

17 hours ago, YoungGriff89 said:

but that is what it is because there was no more budget and that's directly from Alex Graves.  

The cheesy CGI skeleton fight

I don't think the CGI looked cheesy, but there were problems with editing (quick cuts), pacing and tone (not scary enough, just kind of a nuisance) - also the animation choices: some of those skeletons were moving way too swashbuckler-y, evoking comparisons to PotC or Army of Darkness.
In all other cases they move like Romero zombies, wild vicious animals etc. - so it was mostly a design problem in that sequence.

People were actually complaining in the comments back then, about how they blew the budget on "some CGI skeletons" (they weren't very appreciative of them apparently - probably due to the reasons listed above, whether they were aware of it or not) and ended up being unable to portray the Raven properly, with creepy eyes and the tree growing through his face etc.

Wonder how that would've looked with S1 budget though? They probably would've reduced the wights to some creepy hands under the snow, and maybe they would've had the money for the 3ER, or maybe they still wouldn't - no idea tbh.

17 hours ago, YoungGriff89 said:

and lack of consistency on the appearance of the Children of the Forest between seasons four and six are the result of no more budget for the season four finale, another thing taken directly from Alex Graves.

That's well known, however I don't think their look in S4 was jarring to any extent - unsullied viewers wouldn't have suspected anything off in the first place, and the Initiated could've just counted it as a general lower-budget TV liimitation without really singling it out.

17 hours ago, YoungGriff89 said:

Jaime telling Tyrion about Tysha was scripted, but was not shot due to time restraints.

What?! That sucks - but at least they hadn't forgotten about it, that's better I think.

Although, what time constraints I have to wonder? What's a few extra lines in already existing scenes?

17 hours ago, YoungGriff89 said:

Brienne vs the Hound is made up of almost nothing but quck cuts (5 within one second at the beginning) and some shots that were supposed to be taking place in the same area and were obviously shot in several different places due to the lack of time to utilize the location where they were filming.  Etc.

I'm more talking about time restraints and how little time they actually have to do principle photography despite the year or so between each season.  The actual fight between the Mountain and Oberyn for another example is about two minutes long and is made up of almost nothing but cuts, some that are in accordance with the choreography and some are two different parts of the fight cut together and roughly transition from one move to the next

Ah, I'd have to rewatch the Brienne fight then - always remember it as very solid, while the Mountain fight (still solid of course) definitely had more quick cuts than I would've preferred.

17 hours ago, YoungGriff89 said:

(although this happens much more noticeably in Dorne in Season 5- Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken).

Well that one famously sucked - plus that wasn't just due to budget stuff, it was also because they were very limited in choreography and camera placement due to filming it in a sacred Unesco palace; they also originally planned to film it at night, but then they couldn't and so it ended up a poorly planned suck piece all in all.

17 hours ago, YoungGriff89 said:

To be fair as you pointed out with season two this wasn't a new phenomenon to season four seeing as how battles were taking place off screen, but the type of things I've mentioned stuck out to me.  

What would you say about the Jaime vs. Ned fight btw? I've rewatched it a couple times and also felt like there was just a few too many cuts - haven't compared directly though.

[Pink Fat Rast]

18 minutes ago, Lady Anna said:

Of course there's different degrees of good and bad lol, but I think ''badly-written'' covers the show's problems pretty well.

I think that assessment is way over the top.

[StepStark]

1 hour ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

I think that assessment is way over the top.

It really isn't. You just like the show and don't want to admit how bad the writing is, but the writing in the show is very bad. Characters acting ridiculously and making moronic decisions although they aren't morons, that's what bad writing means. On top of that you have meandering plots on all sides that come to nothing eventually. So maybe you liked Littlefinger's trial because you like watching people taste their own medicine, and that's fine, but any analysis of that storyline will show that it was very poorly written in every way possible.

[Pink Fat Rast]

8 minutes ago, StepStark said:

It really isn't. You just like the show and don't want to admit how bad the writing is, but the writing in the show is very bad. Characters acting ridiculously and making moronic decisions although they aren't morons, that's what bad writing means.

No it doesn't - solid logic is only one aspect of "good writing", it's not the only one and often not even the main one.
 

Plus, this moronic ridiculousness that you're talking about isn't consistent throughout the (late) show, certainly not in its degree - for every instance of inexplicable obliviousness, there is another (give or take lol) where the writers explain the reasoning and give the characters a high level of self-awareness. 

Sometimes when some decision is made, they take care of justifying some particular aspects of the issue, but then neglect to take some other factor into account.

So all in all, sense&logic in this show is a very grey, uneven matter, certainly not pitch black - and the other, aesthetical aspects of the writing are mostly on the good side; so overall, no 2/10 from me lmao

8 minutes ago, StepStark said:

On top of that you have meandering plots on all sides that come to nothing eventually. So maybe you liked Littlefinger's trial because you like watching people taste their own medicine, and that's fine, but any analysis of that storyline will show that it was very poorly written in every way possible.

After watching that scene a couple times, I tried to imagine what a "complete", or "correct" version would look like, had they taken care to cover all the necessary bases in the dialogue - and I came to the unanmous conclusion that they ended up doing... about a half? Of what they should've done?

So it could've been way better, but t also way worse - and overall that certainly was one of the weaker, probably the dodgiest storyline of that season, so

[YoungGriff89]

1 hour ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

I thought you were referring to the way you could describe the character arcs/journeys in each respective season in a from point A to point B kind of sense - in which case, the progression has been slow and small in most cases incl. the early seasons.

However you seem to be rather saying that the earlier seasons filled them with more interesting facets and whatnot - in which case, eh maybe haven't really examined it from that angle I think.
Certainly can't argue about it right now : )



 

I dsiagree actually - how cheap do you have to be to reuse a special effect; especially one from the same fucking episode.

I don't think the CGI looked cheesy, but there were problems with editing (quick cuts), pacing and tone (not scary enough, just kind of a nuisance) - also the animation choices: some of those skeletons were moving way too swashbuckler-y, evoking comparisons to PotC or Army of Darkness.
In all other cases they move like Romero zombies, wild vicious animals etc. - so it was mostly a design problem in that sequence.

People were actually complaining in the comments back then, about how they blew the budget on "some CGI skeletons" (they weren't very appreciative of them apparently - probably due to the reasons listed above, whether they were aware of it or not) and ended up being unable to portray the Raven properly, with creepy eyes and the tree growing through his face etc.

Wonder how that would've looked with S1 budget though? They probably would've reduced the wights to some creepy hands under the snow, and maybe they would've had the money for the 3ER, or maybe they still wouldn't - no idea tbh.

That's well known, however I don't think their look in S4 was jarring to any extent - unsullied viewers wouldn't have suspected anything off in the first place, and the Initiated could've just counted it as a general lower-budget TV liimitation without really singling it out.

What?! That sucks - but at least they hadn't forgotten about it, that's better I think.

Although, what time constraints I have to wonder? What's a few extra lines in already existing scenes?

Ah, I'd have to rewatch the Brienne fight then - always remember it as very solid, while the Mountain fight (still solid of course) definitely had more quick cuts than I would've preferred.

Well that one famously sucked - plus that wasn't just due to budget stuff, it was also because they were very limited in choreography and camera placement due to filming it in a sacred Unesco palace; they also originally planned to film it at night, but then they couldn't and so it ended up a poorly planned suck piece all in all.

What would you say about the Jaime vs. Ned fight btw? I've rewatched it a couple times and also felt like there was just a few too many cuts - haven't compared directly though.

It sounds like you’ve done your homework on the atrocity that is show Dorne.  I’m in film school and I’ve akways been a nerd about the craft of film making so I want to get it out there I’m really not trying to be condescending in my responses.  I think in the Wolf and the Lion (also directed by Alex Graves) the Jaime and Ned fight was good.  I don’t think there were too many cuts and the geography of the scene was consistent throughout.  The white walkers/ wights were in season one and they looked fine for the budget then, obviously their roles were much smaller.  The obvious solution to the Tysha problem was have Jaime tell Tyrion about it before the trial by combat, instead of the beetle story.  

I say time constraints, overall I’m referring to the ratio of prep time to filming time and the effect this has on the Human Resources who are putting all the pieces together.  A lot goes into even a few lines of dialogue.  Memorizing lines, make up, breaks, prepping a set, setting up lighting, setting up audio capture, blocking, resets after each take, etc.  Busting Tyrion out of his jail cell was probably an all day shoot for Nikolaj and Peter and given the size of that episode I can understand why what was prioritized was prioritized.  Plus it was season one last time Tysha was mentioned and for most people that’s an obscure reference to throw out in the season four finale since they hadn’t built up to it being a lie more recently.  In the books we have the character’s thoughts and in film you have to tell the story utilizing only what you can point a camera at.  

The choreography of the Brienne and Hound fight is solid, it’s the fact that it was pieced together from shots taken in several different locations (and different times of day/ weather conditions) due to I think a geyser or a small volcano or something, I need to re-watch the commentary.  The issue with that fight is mainly the eye tracing and motion vector, if you’re not familiar with those things then they’re both describing ways of characters moving coherently within a scene in a way that is smooth and natural to the audience.  If in one shot Brienne is on Sandor’s right and swinging at him from the right and the next shot picks up with her now on the left then your eye is forced to do too much scanning of the screen.  

The more I really think about it, I think the show runners cause a lot of the problems by demanding spectacle over substance and over-complicating an already complicated production.  Is it cool to shoot the show on several different continents with different crews?  Yes.  Is it necessary?  Absolutely not, and honestly looking at the Dorne example and the Brienne vs the Hound example, the show probably would have been less gimmicky but benefitted from utilizing more sound stages and more filming locations that weren’t so exotic.  

But now I’m getting out of technical issues behind the scenes and more into writing sections by Benioff and Weiss and we’ve beaten that horse nearly to death I think.  

[Pink Fat Rast]

34 minutes ago, YoungGriff89 said:

It sounds like you’ve done your homework on the atrocity that is show Dorne.  I’m in film school and I’ve akways been a nerd about the craft of film making so I want to get it out there I’m really not trying to be condescending in my responses. 

I mainly know this from DragonDemands and some other secondary sources who did the homework - not taking the credit for that one lmao

(Btw as an aside, I wouldn't agree that that the entirety of "show Dorne" was an atrocity - I think that fight scene was an atrocity, and probably half of the Snake material in S5;
the rest of good TV, but probably with more plot holes than some of the other storylines lol.)

Quote

I think in the Wolf and the Lion (also directed by Alex Graves) the Jaime and Ned fight was good.  I don’t think there were too many cuts and the geography of the scene was consistent throughout.  The white walkers/ wights were in season one and they looked fine for the budget then, obviously their roles were much smaller.  The obvious solution to the Tysha problem was have Jaime tell Tyrion about it before the trial by combat, instead of the beetle story.  

Certainly, although if that had been considered too early (with Tyrion then proceeding to boil inside for the next 2 episodes - his face expressions during the the TbC certainly would have to be completely different), they still could've squeezed that into the later scenes.


Hell, it could've just been brought up in the Tywin scene - Tyrion already hated him for that even with the false version of the story.

I think Tywin should've reminded him of how he was gonna send him to the Wall and it was Tyrion who made that difficult for him - that would've made it believable that he wasn't really gonna kill him.
Tyrion would get like a pause, but then he'd remember Tysha and shoot him.

Two versions of that would be possible, either a straightforward, stoic "Yes, I acknowledge by stupidity during the trial; but you know what else I was having in mind...";
or, Tyrion would get like a pause of uncertainty, but then he'd more or less suddenly go "this is for raping my wife" and then Tywin would die with this shocked expression of incredulity (kind of when Sawyer killed Tom(?) in Lost); 
Tyrion's noble revenge motivation for having his wife raped, would end up being just slightly tainted by the context in which it came up: trying to distract from Tywin being right about him acting stupid.

Just a bit of interesting nuance, and would've hardly taken up an additional minute. Oh well.

Quote

I say time constraints, overall I’m referring to the ratio of prep time to filming time and the effect this has on the Human Resources who are putting all the pieces together.
A lot goes into even a few lines of dialogue.  Memorizing lines, make up, breaks, prepping a set, setting up lighting, setting up audio capture, blocking, resets after each take, etc.  Busting Tyrion out of his jail cell was probably an all day shoot for Nikolaj and Peter and given the size of that episode I can understand why what was prioritized was prioritized.

Maybe, I'm not an expert in this; would some additional (and alternate!) dialogue lines, shot without any new fancy camera angles, really be such a strain on the production though?

Also D&D and all the other behind scenes have been known to seriously bullshit about their reasons and causes for doing something the way they did - most prominently the Jaime/Cersei rape scene, which was shot as rough and consensual, but then ended up being edited like a rape scene, and then D&D proceeded to make really well-spoken, thoughtful statements about how that rape scene made sense and was a valid artistic decision.

Another example: Maisie Williams, regarding the chase in "No One", was notable quoted as saying how she was part of the creative process because she "knew Arya really well and how she'd move in that situation".
Well, turns out what she really mainly did was tone down the even more absurd flips and fancy choreography that they originally had designed for her - because it was a bit weird with the stabbing injuries and whatnot.


So my point being, if they simply just forgot to film that dialogue or had some other reason that they later decided was stupid, it's entirely plausible that they simply went on record and said it was "due to time limitations".

Of course it still could be true, so whatever

Quote

 Plus it was season one last time Tysha was mentioned and for most people that’s an obscure reference to throw out in the season four finale since they hadn’t built up to it being a lie more recently.  In the books we have the character’s thoughts and in film you have to tell the story utilizing only what you can point a camera at.  

Well in LOST, Sawyer suddenly shot Tom for "abducting Wald" and that hadn't been mentioned for several seasons; granted that was a really big S1 cliffhanger - then again, this was a really memorable prolonged scene and the beginning of Tyrion and Shae's relationship;
in fact may have been her 1st scene even.

Quote

The choreography of the Brienne and Hound fight is solid, it’s the fact that it was pieced together from shots taken in several different locations (and different times of day/ weather conditions) due to I think a geyser or a small volcano or something, I need to re-watch the commentary.  The issue with that fight is mainly the eye tracing and motion vector, if you’re not familiar with those things then they’re both describing ways of characters moving coherently within a scene in a way that is smooth and natural to the audience.  If in one shot Brienne is on Sandor’s right and swinging at him from the right and the next shot picks up with her now on the left then your eye is forced to do too much scanning of the screen.  

The more I really think about it, I think the show runners cause a lot of the problems by demanding spectacle over substance and over-complicating an already complicated production.  Is it cool to shoot the show on several different continents with different crews?  Yes.  Is it necessary?  Absolutely not, and honestly looking at the Dorne example and the Brienne vs the Hound example, the show probably would have been less gimmicky but benefitted from utilizing more sound stages and more filming locations that weren’t so exotic.  

But now I’m getting out of technical issues behind the scenes and more into writing sections by Benioff and Weiss and we’ve beaten that horse nearly to death I think.  

I'll definitely check out the Brienne sequence again and try to keep these things in mind.


As for their decisions, a lot of the mistakes / biting off more than they managed to chew etc., were entirely avoidable - it turns out they were a bit arrogant/disorganized at times and weren't listening to their directors, the way wise showrunners should.
So Sapochnik and those other guys kept telling them "we can't do this complex scene in that time window and on that location", and they just kept saying "nah you'll find a way", and ended up running into difficulties.

However those specifics aside, I think it's a bit easy to forget at times that they're essentially doing 2 things now with GoT:
1) A now free "adaptation" of not yet released book sequels; a continuation of what originally was an adaption of already released books to which those sequels haven't yet been released; in short, trying to "do GoT properly".
But also:
2) Running the currently biggest TV show on air and HBO's flagship; certainly being somewhere at the helm of the "emancipating TV to cinema level" if not outright the Number 1, and now really trying to make what could qualify as a worthy cinematic successor to LOTR.

2) is unqeustionably a worthy cause and might be a justification for some of those decisions; of course only as long as the editing doesn't get so chappy that it starts looking like crap though, otherwise you'll end up bragging about filming in an exotic IRL palace and then fly straight back to the TV backseat.

Decisions.gif

[StepStark]

59 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

No it doesn't - solid logic is only one aspect of "good writing", it's not the only one and often not even the main one.
 

Plus, this moronic ridiculousness that you're talking about isn't consistent throughout the (late) show, certainly not in its degree - for every instance of inexplicable obliviousness, there is another (give or take lol) where the writers explain the reasoning and give the characters a high level of self-awareness. 

Sometimes when some decision is made, they take care of justifying some particular aspects of the issue, but then neglect to take some other factor into account.

So all in all, sense&logic in this show is a very grey, uneven matter, certainly not pitch black - and the other, aesthetical aspects of the writing are mostly on the good side; so overall, no 2/10 from me lmao

I don't think it's possible to write a good story if it isn't logical. It doesn't have to follow real life logic, but it has to have its own logic and follow it, or break it at some point but then that becomes the focus just like any logic break necessarily would. Story that doesn't have or doesn't follow its own logic cannot be approached in reasonable manner. If authors don't have to follow logic, then nothing's wrong.

Stories like that maybe can be enjoyed by some viewers, but so is porn.

The argument that the logic is uneven is absurd. It doesn't work like that. Logic is solid if it isn't broken, but once it's broken it doesn't matter if it wasn't broken everywhere. You really need only one break for the logic to fail. And in GOT there are much more than one break, for sure. Much more.

And about aesthetics, that really depends on subjective taste. Because maybe you didn't watch movies or shows with higher aesthetics and you think GOT is aesthetically great. But I watched movies and shows that are much more competently written in terms of aesthetics, and compared to them GOT is pure rubbish. But okay, as I said it's subjective, which is why aesthetics can't really be argued on internet. But logic can, and that is why logical side of writing is so important. Because if they aren't even able to preserve the logic of the story that is already written for them (in the books), then it doesn't seem likely that their writing is aesthetically good, even if you happen to like it.

59 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

After watching that scene a couple times, I tried to imagine what a "complete", or "correct" version would look like, had they taken care to cover all the necessary bases in the dialogue - and I came to the unanmous conclusion that they ended up doing... about a half? Of what they should've done?

So it could've been way better, but t also way worse - and overall that certainly was one of the weaker, probably the dodgiest storyline of that season, so

The only complete or correct "version" would be to change everything. Because in that storyline nothing makes any sense at all. But none of the other storylines is better actually. Is there a storyline in season 7 that makes sense? I don't think there is. So that one is far from being the only one that is absurd.

But it definitely is absurd to the max. Why would Littlefinger even try to pit Arya and Sansa against each other? He was established in previous season as someone who wants Iron Throne for himself, and for that goal he actually needs The North and Starks as strong as possible, because they along with the Vale are his only allies. Why would he even try to weaken The North by triggering bloodshed between two sisters? And fine, let's say he wanted to do that for some reason, but then isn't he more competent than that? How is it possible that someone who was capable of causing real war between Lannisters and Starks can't cause the same thing between two girls?

And I could go on and on but you get the point. It was disaster of a sotryline, and not only because of logical failures but also because of Benioff and Weiss's "aesthetics".

[Pink Fat Rast]

7 minutes ago, StepStark said:

I don't think it's possible to write a good story if it isn't logical. It doesn't have to follow real life logic, but it has to have its own logic and follow it, or break it at some point but then that becomes the focus just like any logic break necessarily would. Story that doesn't have or doesn't follow its own logic cannot be approached in reasonable manner. If authors don't have to follow logic, then nothing's wrong.

Stories like that maybe can be enjoyed by some viewers, but so is porn.

The argument that the logic is uneven is absurd. It doesn't work like that. Logic is solid if it isn't broken, but once it's broken it doesn't matter if it wasn't broken everywhere. You really need only one break for the logic to fail. And in GOT there are much more than one break, for sure. Much more.

Oh, you're an adherent of the New Enlightenment school of thought as practiced by the snarky internet film critic movement between the later '00s and early '10s, eh?

Well, no better way to dispell oneself of such notions, than to start watching RLM in chronological order - with time and patience, you'll understand.

7 minutes ago, StepStark said:

And about aesthetics, that really depends on subjective taste. Because maybe you didn't watch movies or shows with higher aesthetics and you think GOT is aesthetically great. But I watched movies and shows that are much more competently written in terms of aesthetics, and compared to them GOT is pure rubbish. But okay, as I said it's subjective, which is why aesthetics can't really be argued on internet. But logic can, and that is why logical side of writing is so important. Because if they aren't even able to preserve the logic of the story that is already written for them (in the books), then it doesn't seem likely that their writing is aesthetically good, even if you happen to like it.

Wow - this cop-out reply makes Cop Cop look like Cop Dog; maybe some examples should be brought up?


 

7 minutes ago, StepStark said:

The only complete or correct "version" would be to change everything. Because in that storyline nothing makes any sense at all. But none of the other storylines is better actually. Is there a storyline in season 7 that makes sense? I don't think there is. So that one is far from being the only one that is absurd.

But it definitely is absurd to the max. Why would Littlefinger even try to pit Arya and Sansa against each other? He was established in previous season as someone who wants Iron Throne for himself, and for that goal he actually needs The North and Starks as strong as possible, because they along with the Vale are his only allies. Why would he even try to weaken The North by triggering bloodshed between two sisters? And fine, let's say he wanted to do that for some reason, but then isn't he more competent than that? How is it possible that someone who was capable of causing real war between Lannisters and Starks can't cause the same thing between two girls?

And I could go on and on but you get the point. It was disaster of a sotryline, and not only because of logical failures but also because of Benioff and Weiss's "aesthetics".

I'm talking less about the Sansa vs. Arya plot here, as the trial very quickly became about LF's previous games catching up with him - this newest S7 one actually least of all, for better or for worse.

So in that sense, there simply were more bases to cover, as I said - more things LF could've said in his defense; things Sansa would've then shot back in response; then, as a possible conclusion, it would end with LF only being left with a "I did it for the realm / to survive" justification, and that's where Bran would bring back his Chaos speech;
elaborate (elsewhere or in this scene, maybe both) why they're all listening to a weird psychic now.

If he had to contribute to this trial, it shouldn't have been just some relatively unimportant detail in the middle of it, that was one major mistake.
Another major mistake was Sansa repeating her accusations from S6's Molestown scene, without LF going "I thought we already settled that in Molestown" and then repeating the same things that convinced her the previous time.
Then there was the thing with Sansa using LF's lessons of "always seeing the worst possible motive" against him - so there's that cynical approach vs. what LF would call a reasonable, balanced approach; elaborate more on that instead of just "no you killed Lysa to take power in the Vale" with no retort from LF.

Lots of things that could've improved it, but in many cases it'd be more about adding more lines, than completely rewriting the existing ones.