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

[StepStark]

13 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

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.

I have no idea what RLM is, but I know how to recognize when someone doesn't have a reasonable answer to offer and starts directing discussion into something else. That's what you're doing here.

15 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

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

What kind of cop-out are you talking about?

I can bring up as many examples as you like. "Altered Carbon" was released few days ago, and its writing is aesthetically superb to the writing of GOT in every way. "Breaking Bad" is also easily better written aesthetically than GOT. Classics like "Sopranos" and "Wire" are obviously better written in every sense. "True Detective is another example. Even its second season, which was a ridiculous mess because the other sides of writing (logic most of all) completely failed, but aesthetically it was way better than GOT. And the first season of TD was simply brilliant in every way. "Mad Men" is one more example, and even "Boardwalk Empire" was aesthetically superb to GOT.

I'm not talking about all the shows that are better written than GOT, because that would take too much time. I'm just talking about shows that are way above GOT's league.

I don't know why are you even pursuing this line of discussion, since GOT is a show with lines like "What you need is a bad pussy". Are you sure you want to defend the aesthetic writing of that show?

25 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

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.

All that would help that one scene, but not the rest of that storyline. If you'd want to correct the entire storyline, you'd have to rewrite every scene in it the same way you'd rewrite the final trial scene. And that actually is absurd storyline, by definition. If a storyline where every scene has to rewritten isn't absurd, then what is?

[Pink Fat Rast]

3 minutes ago, StepStark said:

I have no idea what RLM is, but I know how to recognize when someone doesn't have a reasonable answer to offer and starts directing discussion into something else. That's what you're doing here.

Such a hack fraud thing to do...

 

3 minutes ago, StepStark said:

I can bring up as many examples as you like. "Altered Carbon" was released few days ago, and its writing is aesthetically superb to the writing of GOT in every way. "Breaking Bad" is also easily better written aesthetically than GOT. Classics like "Sopranos" and "Wire" are obviously better written in every sense. "True Detective is another example. Even its second season, which was a ridiculous mess because the other sides of writing (logic most of all) completely failed, but aesthetically it was way better than GOT. And the first season of TD was simply brilliant in every way. "Mad Men" is one more example, and even "Boardwalk Empire" was aesthetically superb to GOT.

I'm only familiar with Sopranos from that list, and some scenes from Breaking Bad; obviously HBO crime shows are only one valid direction to draw comparisons towards, among others.

Either way, probably more concrete comparisons (between dialogue parts, or whatnot) should be in order in order for this exchange to amount to something interesting - incl. for readers and observers. 

3 minutes ago, StepStark said:

I'm not talking about all the shows that are better written than GOT, because that would take too much time. I'm just talking about shows that are way above GOT's league.

I don't know why are you even pursuing this line of discussion, since GOT is a show with lines like "What you need is a bad pussy". Are you sure you want to defend the aesthetic writing of that show?

That line notoriously stands out as bad; it's become a frequent object of derision, as an example/pinnacle of how bad the Sand Snakes were; not the show in general.

However I can tell you something right now that you probably hadn't really thought about: the main, and most tangible problem with that line is that Tyene somehow assumes Bronn is some romantic "wants a good woman" type, when the viewer knows he's not, and she has no reason to think he is.

Him singing that song, if anything, points towards the opposite direction - and we know he was marrying Lollys mainly for status, and also that he doesn't have "one type of girl".


So you've got that confusion going on, which comes off as a cliche replacing a more nuanced and individual reality and character dynamic
+ the SSs have been introduced in a scene where they were talking to each other with a foreign accent, which, even if this amusingly happens to be Dorne's "regional accent" in this universe, is automatically perceived as a often derided movie cliche that has nothing to look for in GoT
+ poor fighting scene where they come off as lame amateurs while acting and being treated by the plot like badasses, other dodgy questionable bits like the slapping game, ruins the viewer's faith in whatever the creators are trying to pull here 

So now on top of that you've got a line that's said in some kind of semi-broken English (even if not strictly grammatically inaccurate, it's still a title that Furio could've written), and I believe saying "pussy" for the first time in the show - having already shattered the audience's willingness to perceive their speech patterns as a genuine regional thing and not something that sounds stupid and doesn't fit into the show right from their very introduction scene, it's now perceived as an out-of-genre anachronism and the whole thing crashes down.



Could that line have flown under different circumstances - if the SSs were shown to be talking in a foreign language to each other, "pussy" had already been convincingly said with a limey accent (thanks to Gatin from S6 for the damage control) a couple times, and Bronn were a romantic swashbuckler character or had presented himself in that way to the Dornishmen for a justified reason (certainly looks the part eh) and the fighting had been great (or replaced by assassin/gorilla attacks rather) and all the inbetween banter more wit to it?

Well why the fuck not - it's a generic line said by some foreign Spaniard character; by itself, it's really just neutral at worst. Only the context makes it awful.


 

3 minutes ago, StepStark said:

All that would help that one scene, but not the rest of that storyline.

I was talking about that scene.

The storyline is a different matter entirely.

3 minutes ago, StepStark said:

If you'd want to correct the entire storyline, you'd have to rewrite every scene in it the same way you'd rewrite the final trial scene. And that actually is absurd storyline, by definition. If a storyline where every scene has to rewritten isn't absurd, then what is?

You could completely replace this storyline with something else and the trial scene would've made even more sense - something with LF trying to play Sansa against Jon (as was implied from the S6 ending), and then maybe, optionally, trying to go after Arya when she starts interfering with her loyalty or something.


Also, LF's "endgame" shouldn't be this small-scale imo - confined to manipulating 2-3 leader characters in WF
Should've at the very least involved some more elaborate scheme incl. using his spies to manipulate minor houses in terms of loyalty or taxes or whatever it is that he does; LF has typically being more epic than Iago, but this was just some base level Iago horseshite; that alone already made it anticlimactic - the confused writing made it worse.


BUT, you know - to bring it back to aesthetics, the execution of those dialogue scenes ended up being good enough to make that storyline convincing in the moment; making the viewer wonder what's going on as opposed to just scoffing and throwing vegetables at the screen.
So it was better executed than parts of "The Door", which was a better storyline done unconvincingly (at times).

[StepStark]

45 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

I'm only familiar with Sopranos from that list, and some scenes from Breaking Bad; obviously HBO crime shows are only one valid direction to draw comparisons towards, among others.

Either way, probably more concrete comparisons (between dialogue parts, or whatnot) should be in order in order for this exchange to amount to something interesting - incl. for readers and observers.

Or you can compare the show to its actual source material. Is it allowed even? Am I going to be accused of "not realizing that books can't be translated to screen word-for-word"?

But yes, the books are aesthetically way superior to the show. Just compare the dialogue (well, you can't compare anything else, because the show doesn't have narration). I actually never understood why they didn't use more of the dialogue from the books. They probably thought that they can do better, which means that 1) they aren't able to recognize great dialogue when they see it, and 2) they have no idea how incompetent they are as writers.

50 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

BUT, you know - to bring it back to aesthetics, the execution of those dialogue scenes ended up being good enough to make that storyline convincing in the moment; making the viewer wonder what's going on as opposed to just scoffing and throwing vegetables at the screen.

Only... it wasn't? The execution of those dialogue scenes wasn't good enough. And if some viewers don't care about plot, logic and characterization, then sure, they could enjoy that storyline. But I'm not really one of them.

Maybe I forgot something, maybe there was some dialogue scene that was good enough. Maybe you can refresh my memory. Just please stop with miles-long replies. It's not that you couldn't say what you're saying with fewer words. At least, I hope you don't want me to quit this conversation because of how unreadable your replies are.

[Pink Fat Rast]

6 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Or you can compare the show to its actual source material. Is it allowed even? Am I going to be accused of "not realizing that books can't be translated to screen word-for-word"?

Sure, that's nice too.

6 minutes ago, StepStark said:

But yes, the books are aesthetically way superior to the show. Just compare the dialogue (well, you can't compare anything else, because the show doesn't have narration). 

Well - go on, then?!


 

6 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Only... it wasn't? The execution of those dialogue scenes wasn't good enough.

Not "good enough"? That sounds so.... degree-y.

What ever happened to the glorious "if there's a chink in the armor you're ded" from the earlier posts? 

6 minutes ago, StepStark said:

And if some viewers don't care about plot, logic and characterization, then sure, they could enjoy that storyline. But I'm not really one of them.

One of the core critics on here, Beardy the Wildling I believe, was all scoffing at how bad those scenes were - then they claimed Arya was potrayed as a flawless paragon badass or something.

So I pointed out the way she kinda started faltering when Sansa called her out on not doing anything to prevent Ned's death and then immediately went into defense mode - and guess what I got? Blank stares.
Turns out someone hadn't cared to pay enough attention to comment on the execution of anything lmao - are you not one of those either?

 

6 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Maybe I forgot something, maybe there was some dialogue scene that was good enough. Maybe you can refresh my memory. Just please stop with miles-long replies. It's not that you couldn't say what you're saying with fewer words. At least,

At fewest.

6 minutes ago, StepStark said:

I hope you don't want me to quit this conversation because of how unreadable your replies are.

I have no problems with people using excuses to quit on me lmao

Bet you didn't see this respose coming, eh? Lost your waaaaaaaaaarg

[StepStark]

1 hour ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Not "good enough"? That sounds so.... degree-y.

I was actually repeating the phrase you used. It flew over your head, it seems. Pity.

1 hour ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

What ever happened to the glorious "if there's a chink in the armor you're ded" from the earlier posts? 

I hope you are familiar with the concept of different standards for different competitions. Well, that's it. What applies to logic, doesn't necessarily applies to dialogue. You said it first. Aesthetics, remember?

1 hour ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

One of the core critics on here, Beardy the Wildling I believe, was all scoffing at how bad those scenes were - then they claimed Arya was potrayed as a flawless paragon badass or something.

So I pointed out the way she kinda started faltering when Sansa called her out on not doing anything to prevent Ned's death and then immediately went into defense mode - and guess what I got? Blank stares.
Turns out someone hadn't cared to pay enough attention to comment on the execution of anything lmao - are you not one of those either?

What do you think?

No, I'm not one of those people that go catatonic in front of your rock-solid argument. Because it's not rock-solid, actually. It actually proves once again how stupid was Littlefinger's ploy. Because yes, Sansa was a prisoner when she wrote that letter. In the matter of that letter she was as powerful as Arya was able to prevent Ned's execution. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY MAKING AN ENTIRE PLOTLINE AROUND THAT LETTER IS MORONIC! THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF SANSA'S SUPPOSED "GUILT" EMBODIED BY THAT LETTER IS DISMISSED WITH JUST ONE UNDENIABLY TRUE SENTENCE. WHY WOULD ANYONE EXPECT THAT THAT LETTER CAN CAUSE SOME SORT OF FEUD BETWEEN SANSA AND ARYA?

I used capital letters in case you want to laugh harder, because you seem to love to laugh at other people's posts.

1 hour ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

At fewest.

I have no problems with people using excuses to quit on me lmao

Bet you didn't see this respose coming, eh? Lost your waaaaaaaaaarg

I don't need excuse to quit on you. This is internet. Don't overthink what we're doing here.

That said, I do need a reason to continue this discussion with you. And it's hard to find those reasons if your posts are unnecessarily long to the point they're unreadable. That's all I was saying. Relax.

[Pink Fat Rast]

2 minutes ago, StepStark said:

I was actually repeating the phrase you used. It flew over your head, it seems. Pity.

Well I'm supposed to be using that phrase you see.

2 minutes ago, StepStark said:

I hope you are familiar with the concept of different standards for different competitions. Well, that's it. What applies to logic, doesn't necessarily applies to dialogue. You said it first. Aesthetics, remember?

It doesn't really apply to logic either - 8/10 correct conclusions is better than 2/10 correct conclusions, even if it's math.

2 minutes ago, StepStark said:

What do you think?

No, I'm not one of those people that go catatonic in front of your rock-solid argument.

More like "conspicuously don't reply (but then still act like they won after a few days, you know who you are lmao)", but I really meant "one of those that don't pay attention to the screen and then say Dumb&Dumber".

2 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Because it's not rock-solid, actually.

I don't think I've called anything "rock-solid" in this particular context - point was, a fellow Rock&Rawler of yours thought those scenes sucked but actually wasn't paying attention.

The implication was like, hey let's see what *you've* got then, you know

2 minutes ago, StepStark said:

It actually proves once again how stupid was Littlefinger's ploy. Because yes, Sansa was a prisoner when she wrote that letter. In the matter of that letter she was as powerful as Arya was able to prevent Ned's execution. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY MAKING AN ENTIRE PLOTLINE AROUND THAT LETTER IS MORONIC! THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF SANSA'S SUPPOSED "GUILT" EMBODIED BY THAT LETTER IS DISMISSED WITH JUST ONE UNDENIABLY TRUE SENTENCE. WHY WOULD ANYONE EXPECT THAT THAT LETTER CAN CAUSE SOME SORT OF FEUD BETWEEN SANSA AND ARYA?

It's entirely possible for this to be true, AND for Arya also having been depicted as a dumb Stark hothead in that scene.


Arya's defensive retort was that she "at least didn't betray the family", so there was a difference between standing in the crowd not daring to storm the stage, and actually sommitting a disloyal act "under duress" (duress which Arya deemed too mild or something).

And Arya's whole zeal was about family loyalty, not so much power to prevent things - this was even brought up in S1, how Sansa was supposed to be "loyal to Joffrey even when he's wrong".

So Arya was caught on a semi-hypocrisy that she hadn't been aware of and had nothing to respond to, but that argument still didn't destroy her main beef.

There were, however, more things Sansa could've and should've said in response - such as that "being stupid enough to believe them =/= betrayal", or that she only wore her best dress to his execution, because SHE THOUGHT JOFFREY WAS GONNA SPARE HIM, and this was directly in the context of having just begged him to spare his life while pledging loyalty to him in exchange.

Whether Sansa forgot to mention those things because she got really heated, or because of the flawed writing, isn't quite clear - there was a comparable moment in her S6 debate with Jon where she also abandoned a potentially valid argument line in favor of making some kind of angry snappy retort.
So maybe that IS her character trait, however when you end up forgetting to say something important in the heat of the moment, you tend to later go "why didn't I say that" and in both cases there was an opportunity to talk to Jon/Arya again and then add that thing that wasn't said - unless she had some motivation not to, like being really sulking and angry about the argument; didn't look like that though.



And how foolproof LF's plan was to use that to cause a rift between them? Well, it's entirely possible that it was completely a absurd and implausible gamble, while the sisters were still acting either sensibly or in accordance with their established personality. - or only to a given degree.

2 minutes ago, StepStark said:

I used capital letters in case you want to laugh harder, because you seem to love to laugh at other people's posts.

Not sure what the connection is between all caps and laughing harder though?

2 minutes ago, StepStark said:

I don't need excuse to quit on you. This is internet. Don't overthink what we're doing here.

You do, only if you think you do. Or feel, more like it.

2 minutes ago, StepStark said:

That said, I do need a reason to continue this discussion with you. And it's hard to find those reasons if your posts are unnecessarily long to the point they're unreadable. That's all I was saying. Relax.

There wasn't anything unreadable, and if you artbitrarily refuse to read the arguments there's a) less reason for me to post new arguments as you're requesting, and  less of a reason to take this exchange seriously.

 

[YoungGriff89]

5 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

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.)

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.

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

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.

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

I like DragonDemands but I get pretty skeptical of his presentation sometimes.  The main problem with show Dorne in his assessment is the fact that the whole thing was based on Dan and David wanting Indira Varma acting in this medieval castle because that was a dream of theirs since she was in Rome.  I think that's definitely a bonus for them, but I don't think that was the sole motivation for including Dorne, given the fact that Cersei had a daughter there and they couldn't really avoid it.  I think they had some obligation to George's endgame to include the Dornish along the way, and within the continuing trend of simplifying the show's storylines to appeal to a broader audience they just didn't know how to condense the complexities of the Queenmaker plot into a few episodes.  If I ran the show, my approach would be to just do it, but different artists have different prerogatives, it's important to note that directors, actors, writers, etc at the end of the day are just doing their job regardless of whether or not they are fans of the source material and care about staying true to books enough to take giant risks within an already complicated production.  Cutting Dornish laws on succession to disregard the role gender plays in inheritance could definitely implicate some misogynistic views from D & D, and I don't think they hold such views, so it was an interesting choice to cut a smart female empowerment arc when they're literally raping Sansa in the same episode as the Sand Snakes' biggest moment.  

Yeah No One is a great example of setting up plot twists and abandoning them what looks to me like the sake of getting an episode shot in time to meet a deadline.  DragonDemands I think did a great job pointing out all of the indicators that Jaqen was using Arya to set up the Waif and then in the next episode it was just like "nah."  Again, could be D & D off screen saying "that's too complicated just make it really Arya and not some set up" or they couldn't get Tom Wlaschiha scheduled every day necessary to film this arc, and just made up a new ending to get it done.

As far as Lost goes, different show and different writers.  I haven't seen it so I can't really comment much further.  If the DragonDemands is 100% right (and I don't know if it is) about the drama behind the scenes on Battle of the Bastards then I'm amazed that Sapochnik is coming back to direct multiple episodes this season.  I get that he needs to work and make a living, but if I were him I would want to avoid being under those guys a second time like the plague.  Their arrogance and their unwillingness to listen to my experience would put my career at risk too much for me to chance it since I'd be responsible for putting out the finished product.  Hopefully the longer wait between seasons stems in some way from them listening to directors and giving them adequate time to shoot the episodes. 

[Pink Fat Rast]

4 hours ago, YoungGriff89 said:

I like DragonDemands but I get pretty skeptical of his presentation sometimes.  The main problem with show Dorne in his assessment is the fact that the whole thing was based on Dan and David wanting Indira Varma acting in this medieval castle because that was a dream of theirs since she was in Rome.  I think that's definitely a bonus for them, but I don't think that was the sole motivation for including Dorne, given the fact that Cersei had a daughter there and they couldn't really avoid it.  I think they had some obligation to George's endgame to include the Dornish along the way, and within the continuing trend of simplifying the show's storylines to appeal to a broader audience they just didn't know how to condense the complexities of the Queenmaker plot into a few episodes.  If I ran the show, my approach would be to just do it, but different artists have different prerogatives, it's important to note that directors, actors, writers, etc at the end of the day are just doing their job regardless of whether or not they are fans of the source material and care about staying true to books enough to take giant risks within an already complicated production.  Cutting Dornish laws on succession to disregard the role gender plays in inheritance could definitely implicate some misogynistic views from D & D, and I don't think they hold such views, so it was an interesting choice to cut a smart female empowerment arc when they're literally raping Sansa in the same episode as the Sand Snakes' biggest moment.  

Yeah No One is a great example of setting up plot twists and abandoning them what looks to me like the sake of getting an episode shot in time to meet a deadline.  DragonDemands I think did a great job pointing out all of the indicators that Jaqen was using Arya to set up the Waif and then in the next episode it was just like "nah."  Again, could be D & D off screen saying "that's too complicated just make it really Arya and not some set up" or they couldn't get Tom Wlaschiha scheduled every day necessary to film this arc, and just made up a new ending to get it done.

As far as Lost goes, different show and different writers.  I haven't seen it so I can't really comment much further.  If the DragonDemands is 100% right (and I don't know if it is) about the drama behind the scenes on Battle of the Bastards then I'm amazed that Sapochnik is coming back to direct multiple episodes this season.  I get that he needs to work and make a living, but if I were him I would want to avoid being under those guys a second time like the plague.  Their arrogance and their unwillingness to listen to my experience would put my career at risk too much for me to chance it since I'd be responsible for putting out the finished product.  Hopefully the longer wait between seasons stems in some way from them listening to directors and giving them adequate time to shoot the episodes. 

I was really just referring to the background info and interviews that he compiled; when it comes to his conclusions and interpretations and all the "this was just to show off the actors; they're not even fictional characters anymore!" talk, I'd definitely be skeptical about that lol


As for Sapochnik, well seems like it's a surprise to DragonDemands as well; however, I've no idea what's going on in his mind and haven't read any interviews, but I'm guessing he just believes in their common artistic vision and what they can do with those upcoming scenarios.
I think he probably understands that D&D weren't malicious or narcissistic when they were ignoring his advice, but rather just inexperienced and idealistic - probably watched too many Trek episodes where everyone goes "but that's impossible!", and then Picard or Janeway say "you must find a way" and that motivates the crew to invent new science lol;
plus, for all the risks of "the production falling apart", you certainly can't tell that from the finished episodes - ended up just fine, and Sapochnik still enjoys a great reputation for those episodes and action sequences; maybe he thinks his skills and D&D's unconstrained idealism is just the right combination to create really cool stuff.

There's probably less "bad blood" in there than DragonDemands would like there to be, but I've really no idea either way.

[StepStark]

6 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

It doesn't really apply to logic either - 8/10 correct conclusions is better than 2/10 correct conclusions, even if it's math.

What the hell are you even talking about? Logic can actually be proved wrong (or right), but dialogue simply can't. You cannot evaluate dialogue the same way you evaluate the logic of a story. That's just common sense. You specifically said:

8 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

What ever happened to the glorious "if there's a chink in the armor you're ded" from the earlier posts? 

That implies that you don't actually understand the need to apply different standards to different sides of a single story. Once again for the record: logic of a story can be broken and if it is then it's practically impossible to fix it later on, but dialogue can't be "broken" and even the worst, cheesiest dialogue ever can follow logic or characters' personalities. So "chink in the armor" standard (which is not glorious in itself, but I guess it can look that way if you completely forgot about it and other posters have to remind you of it) doesn't apply to the specific piece of dialogue you mentioned.

Just a suggestion: maybe instead of desperately trying to nitpick my posts you should try to understand them. Again, I don't think any of this is nuclear physics, so it shouldn't be hard to understand. But you have to try.

6 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

I don't think I've called anything "rock-solid" in this particular context - point was, a fellow Rock&Rawler of yours thought those scenes sucked but actually wasn't paying attention.

The implication was like, hey let's see what *you've* got then, you know

What makes you think that I missed that implication? LOL!

And I know that you didn't call anything "rock-solid". Not everything I say is a repetition of your words. Relax man, seriously. You're not on trial here. Not even the show is. No need to "defend" it so apprehensively.

6 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Whether Sansa forgot to mention those things because she got really heated, or because of the flawed writing, isn't quite clear

I'm afraid it is. As even your post clearly suggests, there are numerous ways for Sansa to explain herself and refute Arya's accusations. Which means that Littlefinger's plan needs all this to be successful: 1) Arya mustn't think about any of the excuses Sansa maybe had to write the letter while she was imprisoned by Lannisters, and 2) Sansa mustn't say any of the numerous legitimate excuses for the letter. In any other scenario, Littlefinger's plan not only fails but terribly backfires.

Now that is terrible writing. Just compare that to book Littlefinger who never puts himself in a situation from which he can't talk his way out. No matter how big a gamble he takes, even if it fails he's always just one good excuse away from safety. But here, in the show, he's actually powerless once his plan fails, because he has no excuse for introducing the letter as something Sansa wanted him to hide. But then again, he also painted himself in the corner in season 4 when he totally depended on Sansa's testimony which he couldn't influence in any way at all. So D&D are incapable of writing a logical, coherent and intelligent Littlefinger even when all they have to do is adapt him from the page.

So it "isn't quite clear", right? Like, really, what is the reason for all that absurdity in Littlefinger's actions in the show? Is it writers' obvious incompetence, or is it maybe that they couldn't find a peach, or maybe storms forced them to change the shooting schedule, or maybe they didn't want the story to crumble down under the weight of too much info? What a mystery!

(For the record, I was ironic, it's not mystery at all.)

6 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

There wasn't anything unreadable, and if you artbitrarily refuse to read the arguments there's a) less reason for me to post new arguments as you're requesting, and  less of a reason to take this exchange seriously.

To quote a famous philosopher: I have no problem with people using excuses to quit on me.

[Pink Fat Rast]

4 hours ago, StepStark said:

What the hell are you even talking about? Logic can actually be proved wrong (or right), but dialogue simply can't. You cannot evaluate dialogue the same way you evaluate the logic of a story. That's just common sense. You specifically said:

That implies that you don't actually understand the need to apply different standards to different sides of a single story. Once again for the record: logic of a story can be broken and if it is then it's practically impossible to fix it later on, but dialogue can't be "broken" and even the worst, cheesiest dialogue ever can follow logic or characters' personalities. So "chink in the armor" standard (which is not glorious in itself, but I guess it can look that way if you completely forgot about it and other posters have to remind you of it) doesn't apply to the specific piece of dialogue you mentioned.

Just a suggestion: maybe instead of desperately trying to nitpick my posts you should try to understand them. Again, I don't think any of this is nuclear physics, so it shouldn't be hard to understand. But you have to try.

A logical argument can consist of 10 consecutive conclusions, and if only 1/10 is wrong the logic is "broken" - that doesn't mean the 9/10 being valid stops mattering, considering a 9/10 argument is still a hell of a lot better than one that only got 2/10 conclusions correctly.

So degrees and shades of grey matter both in logic and dialogue, that's the main point here.

4 hours ago, StepStark said:

I'm afraid it is. As even your post clearly suggests, there are numerous ways for Sansa to explain herself and refute Arya's accusations. Which means that Littlefinger's plan needs all this to be successful: 1) Arya mustn't think about any of the excuses Sansa maybe had to write the letter while she was imprisoned by Lannisters, and 2) Sansa mustn't say any of the numerous legitimate excuses for the letter. In any other scenario, Littlefinger's plan not only fails but terribly backfires.

Now that is terrible writing. Just compare that to book Littlefinger who never puts himself in a situation from which he can't talk his way out. No matter how big a gamble he takes, even if it fails he's always just one good excuse away from safety. But here, in the show, he's actually powerless once his plan fails, because he has no excuse for introducing the letter as something Sansa wanted him to hide. But then again, he also painted himself in the corner in season 4 when he totally depended on Sansa's testimony which he couldn't influence in any way at all. So D&D are incapable of writing a logical, coherent and intelligent Littlefinger even when all they have to do is adapt him from the page.

So it "isn't quite clear", right? Like, really, what is the reason for all that absurdity in Littlefinger's actions in the show?

I was talking about Sansa's behavior (and Arya's too), not Littlefingers - in fact I made a very clear distinction between the two, saying it was entirely poissible for one to be valid and LF still be absurd.

You weren't paying attention again.

 

4 hours ago, StepStark said:

To quote a famous philosopher: I have no problem with people using excuses to quit on me.

But you see it's for masters that techneyque - you're not ready.

[StepStark]

2 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

A logical argument can consist of 10 consecutive conclusions, and if only 1/10 is wrong the logic is "broken" - that doesn't mean the 9/10 being valid stops mattering, considering a 9/10 argument is still a hell of a lot better than one that only got 2/10 conclusions correctly.

So degrees and shades of grey matter both in logic and dialogue, that's the main point here.

But we're not talking about logical arguments here, aren't we? We're talking about television show, which is not really the same thing I'm sure you'll agree. If the catalyst for an entire storyline is absurd and illogical, then the rest of the story is inevitably illogical too. Certain points may seem logical in isolation, but in context even they are absurd and illogical. In your example, perhaps Arya's confrontation with Sansa as depicted in the show might be realistic in terms of their personalities - but under entirely different circumstances and for entirely different reasons. But since the confrontation in the show happened only because both Arya and Sansa reacted in the most moronic way - until they inexplicably came to their senses when the plot needed them to - then it's inevitably illogical too.

You cannot say that Arya was written logically in that confrontation (if she actually was at all), when for the confrontation to even happen she needed to act completely out of character and absurdly as she did.

If you insist on shades and degrees, well I don't know, maybe you are right in a way that it'd be even worse if not even a single line of dialogue was logical or sane. And in that sense, GOT really could be worse. I don't think anything useful can come from that line of thinking, but if that's your consolation, okay then.

[Pink Fat Rast]

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

But we're not talking about logical arguments here, aren't we? We're talking about television show, which is not really the same thing I'm sure you'll agree.

Yes, and in a television show logic matters even less than in logic class.

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

If the catalyst for an entire storyline is absurd and illogical, then the rest of the story is inevitably illogical too.

Well it's based off of an absurd premise - but from then on, you can either keep piling on nonsense, or keep things consistent: the latter being an example of better writing than the former.

So differences and gradations still keep existing.

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

Certain points may seem logical in isolation, but in context even they are absurd and illogical.

And if something seems logical in isolation, that's a plus and contributes positively to the overall/average quality.

 

 

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

In your example, perhaps Arya's confrontation with Sansa as depicted in the show might be realistic in terms of their personalities - but under entirely different circumstances and for entirely different reasons.

Well, it could've been UNrealistic in terms of their personalities, which then would've been worse.

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

But since the confrontation in the show happened only because both Arya and Sansa reacted in the most moronic way - until they inexplicably came to their senses when the plot needed them to - then it's inevitably illogical too.

Now you're getting confused here - which elements and how many of them are you distinguishing here?

You described their confrontation as "realistic", but now they "reacted in a moronic way" - are you referring to the same thing here or different things?


I was talking about the confrontation scene on the one hand (arguably consistent behavior with their personalities - and yes, not the brightest in both cases), and the way this is all LF's scheme (largely absurd).
Also, just because individual scenes with Arya and Sansa work, or this one in particular at least, doesn't mean they work in combination or fit together - that's yet another aspect. 

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

You cannot say that Arya was written logically in that confrontation (if she actually was at all), when for the confrontation to even happen she needed to act completely out of character and absurdly as she did.

Wait are you saying Sansa was acting consistently and Arya didn't, or what now?

Are you referring to the scene, or the previous one where she gets the letter from the room?
Either way, it's not necessarily out of character - at least it's arguable.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

If you insist on shades and degrees, well I don't know, maybe you are right in a way that it'd be even worse if not even a single line of dialogue was logical or sane. And in that sense, GOT really could be worse. I don't think anything useful can come from that line of thinking, but if that's your consolation, okay then.

It's more useful than your approach, in the same way that a reasonable social safety net is more useful than killing all the rich people and distributing their money; 
and not merely "more useful", but also superior in many other ways.

[StepStark]

24 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

And if something seems logical in isolation, that's a plus and contributes positively to the overall/average quality.

Where did you get that idea? You're seriously confusing TV criticism with algebra.

Context is what matters. I'd say that it's the most important thing in any storytelling, but in a series it's especially important because context is what connects parts of the story together. If something works in isolation, it doesn't mean it will work in the context. Anything can work in isolation. Any ridiculous idea can work in isolation. Could Arya killing Sansa work in isolation? It might. Arya is killing people big time in the show and she's not the most forgiving character ever, so why not, right? Even the scene itself could've been written competently. But in the context it'd be terrible.

The truth is that by disregarding context you're just desperately trying to defend D&D's writing talent, but you're actually just displaying your fanboyism. And okay, it's your right to be their fanboy, but there's nothing useful in that "approach" of yours. Almost anything can be defended that way because you're effectively abandoning even the idea of a criteria. Because hey, even 2/10 is better than 1/10, and also 1/10 is better than 0/10, and also 0/10 is better than 0/30. There's no end to that. If that's useful, I guess somebody would've used it by now in serious analysis, but call me uninformed but I've never heard of such a method. Trying to find something good at all costs is equally ridiculous as trying to find something bad at all costs.

[Pink Fat Rast]

20 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Where did you get that idea? You're seriously confusing TV criticism with algebra.

No, you were the one who confused TV with mathematics - my response to you was that even in math, one broken chain can still be better than another by virtue of having a bigger percentage of correct conclusions.

And if that's the case in math, and science, etc. it's certainly the case with movies - but you tried judging a movie like science paper, except in a way even science papers aren't judged (at all times).

20 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Context is what matters. I'd say that it's the most important thing in any storytelling, but in a series it's especially important because context is what connects parts of the story together. If something works in isolation, it doesn't mean it will work in the context. Anything can work in isolation. Any ridiculous idea can work in isolation. Could Arya killing Sansa work in isolation? It might. Arya is killing people big time in the show and she's not the most forgiving character ever, so why not, right? Even the scene itself could've been written competently. But in the context it'd be terrible.

Yes, and there's a huge difference if it's written competently or not, as well.

20 minutes ago, StepStark said:

The truth is that by disregarding context you're just desperately trying to defend D&D's writing talent,

I'm not "disregarding" context, I'm regarding everything - you're the one who's disregarding something.

20 minutes ago, StepStark said:

but you're actually just displaying your fanboyism.

No, that's what a reasonable stance on things looks like from where you are

20 minutes ago, StepStark said:

And okay, it's your right to be their fanboy, but there's nothing useful in that "approach" of yours. Almost anything can be defended that way because you're effectively abandoning even the idea of a criteria. Because hey, even 2/10 is better than 1/10, and also 1/10 is better than 0/10, and also 0/10 is better than 0/30. There's no end to that.

Sure, but mainly 8/10 is better than 2/10, and you're trying to push some kind of bullshite system where anything short of 10/10 might as well be 0/30.

Which, I told you, is an approach that makes more sense in like math or something - but even then there are situations where the degree of validity in an invalid argument is considered.
With movies, that's the default, if not sole correct approach.

20 minutes ago, StepStark said:

If that's useful, I guess somebody would've used it by now in serious analysis, but call me uninformed but I've never heard of such a method.

Yes you have, that's why movies full of plot holes keep getting average, good or even great reviews - in fact you've probably already complained about the positive ratings for GoT, and if not you then others sure have.

And what's "serious analysis" to you exactly, anyway? Is ConfusedMatthew whining how "here's a plot hole therefore this movie sucks" serious analysis to you - or something that's just like it?

20 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Trying to find something good at all costs is equally ridiculous as trying to find something bad at all costs.

What "costs" are you talking about? I'm not paying any costs, I'm not even squinting.

[Pink Fat Rast]

On 27.11.2017 at 8:52 PM, Tagganaro said:

I'm hopeful the show will address the whole Frozen Lake thing again...as you said the only way it makes sense is if the NK was trying to lure the dragons there.  It would do a lot to answer the lingering questions I have over that whole episode and why it seemed so amateurish, rushed, and made not a lick of sense. 

Can I just ask what you mean by it being "rushed"? I've seen various people say that, but imo the show's always been "rushed" and had problems with pacing - too few scenes per storyline, always jumping around back&forth between different locations, often without much grace or regard for structure/rhythm/etc., like spearing a pig; not always, but a lot of the times.

So you can only really compare it to the other 1 location episodes, and (to its detriment) 7.6 wasn't really purely that - kept cutting to WF which sucked.


So the question is, in what way does that episode stand out in the series as "rushed"?

[Pink Fat Rast]

On 8.12.2017 at 8:42 AM, Ser Maverick said:

There's really something unique to hate about all the past three seasons. I personally disliked s5 the most because there was nothing even remotely interesting about the Sparrows, Harpies, Sand Snakes, or Olly. I'm somewhat surprised they didn't lose viewers after that because even casual viewers I talked to thought those storylines slowed the series way down.

The Sparrows were the main central plot of KL; the Harpies the main central plot of Essos;
Olly represented the downside of making peace with Tormund etc. and served as a reminder of what the wildlings had done - making peace with the wildlings was the main central plot of the Wall.... plot.

Can anyone explain to me how it makes any sense to say the main storyline of a show slowed the show down?

[StepStark]

2 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

No, you were the one who confused TV with mathematics - my response to you was that even in math, one broken chain can still be better than another by virtue of having a bigger percentage of correct conclusions.

And if that's the case in math, and science, etc. it's certainly the case with movies - but you tried judging a movie like science paper, except in a way even science papers aren't judged (at all times).

No man, you misunderstood everything. In fact, I specifically said that different sides of writing should be evaluated differently, but that logic is one of the writing sides that can be approached rationally, because something is logical or isn't logical. And because logic of any story is very important and extremely fragile, if it's broken it can very hardly (if at all) be fixed back. As for D&D, they never even tried to fix it back.

That doesn't mean that illogical story can't have good dialogue or interesting characters or something. In theory, it can. But I doubt very much that that happens often. Authors who can't even keep the logic of their story straight, almost always aren't capable of inventing layered characters or writing deep dialogue.

And that's especially true for stories that are based on illogical premise. It's one thing when the logic of a story breaks in the final act. Sadly that's often the case with modern shows and movies, and that's bad too, but not nearly as bad as starting a story from illogical place. For example, Tyrion abandoning his escape from dungeon for no reason didn't make sense, because Tysha was left out, but up to that point his storyline in that season wasn't illogical. What happened in WF in season seven is much worse, because the logic was broken at the very beginning (or thereabout), because only a moron would even try to pit Arya and Sansa against each other, and especially in such a ridiculous way. Just like the entire wight hunt is ridiculous from the very start, and it'd therefore be ruined even if episode 6 didn't have all those plot holes.

That's my whole point. No math in it, just evaluation of how big a break in logic is and where does it occur in the story's timline. You on the other hand are constantly using numbers. Doesn't that tells you something?

2 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Sure, but mainly 8/10 is better than 2/10, and you're trying to push some kind of bullshite system where anything short of 10/10 might as well be 0/30.

That's evidently not true. Where did you get that idea? Strawman, much?

But anyway, what is so good about those scenes with Sansa or Arya? How did that storyline earn 8 out of 10 on your scale? This theoretical back and fort with you can last to no end, so let's get to the specifics. Because on specific examples you'll see how irrelevant your "method" is.

[Pink Fat Rast]

On 11.12.2017 at 3:40 PM, Krishtotter said:

I personally feel Season 5 gets unfairly maligned, primarily owing to the (literally unbearable-to-watch) Dorne scenes and the jarring changes to Sansa's storyline (in choosing to conflate her with Jeyne Poole from the books and marrying Ramsay Bolton). 

Otherwise, the dialogue was still on point (snappy, witty); the show remained character-driven; the political machinations were intriguing (I actually liked the High Sparrow and depictions of religious fundamentalism, which fit the medieval setting like a glove) etc. 

I started to have some more serious misgivings in Season 6 (the way in which Jon's resurrection was handled, for instance) but overall still enjoyed the show immensely, particularly BoB and Winds of Winter (a corker of a finale in my honest assessment).

Season 7...now that was the definition of trainwreck. Characterisation and consistency went out the window. The plot (or, rather, the husk of a plot) made little-to-no-sense. The dialogue reached unbelievably terrible lows - all those silly, juvenile references to "cocks, dicks and penises" in an attempt to elicit cheap humor to compensate for poorly wrought character interactions. I could wax lyrical about its pitfalls relative to what came before but will spare you all the boredom.

Please do - so far the only concrete thing you've said was that saying "cock" and "dick" is juvenile and immature (but in the previous seasons apparently that counted among the "snappy witty dialogue"), so I hope your further elaborations make a bit more sense than that.


 

On 11.12.2017 at 3:40 PM, Krishtotter said:

Needless to say, S7 didn't really feel quite like GoT/ASOIAF in the same way as seasons 1-4 or even 5-6, in a lot of places. There was this overall amateurishness and stilted quality to the writing which did not impress me in the least. 

What redeemed S7 (just) were roughly three episodes (four of them were dreadful. Just dreadful, especially Eastwatch & that heinous monstrosity 'Beyond the Wall' with the Wight hunt nonsense): the third, 'The Queen's Justice' while a bit flat in places had scenes in it that I found well-acted and competently written (i.e. Cersei tormenting the Sand Snakes and Olena Tyrell, the Queen of Thorns' "tart-tongued" exit from the show).

So you're saying there was no good acting (or writing) in BYtW - i.e. that dreadful monstrositey?

On 11.12.2017 at 3:40 PM, Krishtotter said:

'The Spoils of War' was just so visually stunning, left me on the edge of my seat and had me very excited. The finale had a really good scene between Tyrion and Cersei, as well as between Cersei and Jaime. It also tied up loose plot ends (i.e. regarding Jon's paternity and right to the throne) and ended on another visually stunning note with the Wall collapsing courtesy of the Night King riding an undead Viserion spewing out blue fire.

So is it your stance that BYTW had nothing that was visually impressive - i.e. ice dragon with blue fire weas great, normal dragon with yellow fire burning humans was great, but normal dragon burning zombies with yellow fire was bad?

On 11.12.2017 at 3:40 PM, Krishtotter said:

A bit crazy and very blockbusterish compared to the intricate fantasy political drama of earlier seasons but I can't deny, I did very much enjoy those three episodes.

Huh? It's not like the whole show's been nothing but politics and now suddenly there's epic spectacle - it's always been a part of it, and the budget+scale has been steadily growing.

On 11.12.2017 at 3:40 PM, Krishtotter said:

The show always 'looks spectacullar', in terms of the production values, which is a boon and considerable advantage in its own right- but unfortunately that, in itself, doesn't adequately cover up for clunky dialogue and plotting. 

Bot not 7.6, right? 

On 11.12.2017 at 3:40 PM, Krishtotter said:

IMHO Season 5 and 6 were nowhere near the abysmal travesties that so many frequent commentators on this forum depict them as being. But Season 7, no disagreement there. Just terribly, lazily written in many respects (with little finesse or attention to detail, timing issues, pacing all over the place etc.), the episodes (or rather parts of episodes) I've alluded to excepting of course. 

I happen to think the pacing's always been all over the place in this show.

On 11.12.2017 at 3:40 PM, Krishtotter said:

The ending to the series in S8 will essentially be based directly on the GRRM outline D&D are privy to. I have a certain faith it will be "good" for this reason but I'm not terribly optimistic about how well it can be executed. Should the worst mistakes of S7 get regurgitated all over again, the Season will be blah, apart from the special effects and visual display (which is always top-notch, better than anything else on TV).

Oh - even including 7.6? You said 7.7 was good because of that, but 7.6 was dreadful and monstrous. I'm confused...

On 11.12.2017 at 3:40 PM, Krishtotter said:

If they strive for a similar quality to S6, however, then it could end "ok" - not like seasons 1-4 in quality but not shambolic either, perhaps even passably 'worthy' as a conclusion to what came before in earlier seasons. 

I live in hope. 

Sure, cool.

[Pink Fat Rast]

On 11.12.2017 at 3:40 PM, Krishtotter said:

I personally feel Season 5 gets unfairly maligned, primarily owing to the (literally unbearable-to-watch) Dorne scenes and the jarring changes to Sansa's storyline (in choosing to conflate her with Jeyne Poole from the books and marrying Ramsay Bolton). 

Otherwise, the dialogue was still on point (snappy, witty); the show remained character-driven; the political machinations were intriguing (I actually liked the High Sparrow and depictions of religious fundamentalism, which fit the medieval setting like a glove) etc. 

I started to have some more serious misgivings in Season 6 (the way in which Jon's resurrection was handled, for instance) but overall still enjoyed the show immensely, particularly BoB and Winds of Winter (a corker of a finale in my honest assessment).

Season 7...now that was the definition of trainwreck. Characterisation and consistency went out the window. The plot (or, rather, the husk of a plot) made little-to-no-sense. The dialogue reached unbelievably terrible lows - all those silly, juvenile references to "cocks, dicks and penises" in an attempt to elicit cheap humor to compensate for poorly wrought character interactions. I could wax lyrical about its pitfalls relative to what came before but will spare you all the boredom. Needless to say, S7 didn't really feel quite like GoT/ASOIAF in the same way as seasons 1-4 or even 5-6, in a lot of places. There was this overall amateurishness and stilted quality to the writing which did not impress me in the least. 

What redeemed S7 (just) were roughly three episodes (four of them were dreadful. Just dreadful, especially Eastwatch & that heinous monstrosity 'Beyond the Wall' with the Wight hunt nonsense): the third, 'The Queen's Justice' while a bit flat in places had scenes in it that I found well-acted and competently written (i.e. Cersei tormenting the Sand Snakes and Olena Tyrell, the Queen of Thorns' "tart-tongued" exit from the show). 'The Spoils of War' was just so visually stunning, left me on the edge of my seat and had me very excited. The finale had a really good scene between Tyrion and Cersei, as well as between Cersei and Jaime. It also tied up loose plot ends (i.e. regarding Jon's paternity and right to the throne) and ended on another visually stunning note with the Wall collapsing courtesy of the Night King riding an undead Viserion spewing out blue fire. A bit crazy and very blockbusterish compared to the intricate fantasy political drama of earlier seasons but I can't deny, I did very much enjoy those three episodes. The show always 'looks spectacullar', in terms of the production values, which is a boon and considerable advantage in its own right- but unfortunately that, in itself, doesn't adequately cover up for clunky dialogue and plotting. 

IMHO Season 5 and 6 were nowhere near the abysmal travesties that so many frequent commentators on this forum depict them as being. But Season 7, no disagreement there. Just terribly, lazily written in many respects (with little finesse or attention to detail, timing issues, pacing all over the place etc.), the episodes (or rather parts of episodes) I've alluded to excepting of course. 

The ending to the series in S8 will essentially be based directly on the GRRM outline D&D are privy to. I have a certain faith it will be "good" for this reason but I'm not terribly optimistic about how well it can be executed. Should the worst mistakes of S7 get regurgitated all over again, the Season will be blah, apart from the special effects and visual display (which is always top-notch, better than anything else on TV). If they strive for a similar quality to S6, however, then it could end "ok" - not like seasons 1-4 in quality but not shambolic either, perhaps even passably 'worthy' as a conclusion to what came before in earlier seasons. 

I live in hope. 

Oh, wait, turns out I've already replied to your post on p7

whoops

[Pink Fat Rast]

59 minutes ago, StepStark said:

No man, you misunderstood everything. In fact, I specifically said that different sides of writing should be evaluated differently, but that logic is one of the writing sides that can be approached rationally, because something is logical or isn't logical. And because logic of any story is very important and extremely fragile, if it's broken it can very hardly (if at all) be fixed back. As for D&D, they never even tried to fix it back.

It wasn't about whether it can be fixed back, but about what percentage of the plot was broken (i.e. logically) - and you said that if some percentage was broken then it was all broken and sucked and fuck nuance it's useless;
obviously I had to object. 

Quote

That doesn't mean that illogical story can't have good dialogue or interesting characters or something. In theory, it can. But I doubt very much that that happens often.

It happens MOST OF THE TIME in fact - because good dialogue, interesting characters, emotion and aesthetics/structure are values that most storytellers strive for with most of their works;
whereas logic/plausibility is mostly an additional value that a portion of those works take on - just like scientific accuracy only matters in "hard SF", while "soft SF" plays loose with it. 

Quote

Authors who can't even keep the logic of their story straight, almost always aren't capable of inventing layered characters or writing deep dialogue.

!) "Layered" and "deep" aren't a requirement for "good" characters or dialogue - just to make that one clear.

2) That's hardly true, because stories often follow rules that almost require the disregard of logic - magical thinking, imagination/dream patterns, aesthetic structure; symbolism, characters and the conflicts they engage in "representing" different ideologies in conflict with each other, and all kinds of fancy psycho stuff like that.

Sometimes we, irl, believe that rl also works according to such rules; but obviously there's no place for them in a materialistic universe - and stories that claim to "follow logic", "lack plot holes" etc., are striving for realism in a materialistic universe.

So that's why your point is fundamentally misguided.


 

Quote

And that's especially true for stories that are based on illogical premise. It's one thing when the logic of a story breaks in the final act. Sadly that's often the case with modern shows and movies, and that's bad too, but not nearly as bad as starting a story from illogical place. For example, Tyrion abandoning his escape from dungeon for no reason didn't make sense, because Tysha was left out, but up to that point his storyline in that season wasn't illogical.

He still had a motivation i.e. anger at Tywin.

Quote

What happened in WF in season seven is much worse, because the logic was broken at the very beginning (or thereabout), because only a moron would even try to pit Arya and Sansa against each other, and especially in such a ridiculous way.

Yes, that was lame we've already established that

Quote

Just like the entire wight hunt is ridiculous from the very start, and it'd therefore be ruined even if episode 6 didn't have all those plot holes.

The idea of presenting a wight to the Crown/South, makes complete sense - at the very least it has the full backing of S1 and its more complete book equivalent.


The idea of getting that wight by capturing one, has one fundamental flaw - it's already been established that corpses come to life spontaneously beyond the wall, so all you'd need to do was to plant fresh corpses there and wait.

Factors that weaken this... factor, and hence make it less of a problem for the story:
1) They don't have any corpses lying around since they always burn them; and producing new ones has logistical problems
1a) Digging up graves from south of the wall could be an idea - however it's a rather new idea you'd have to think of first, it's not an established idea that's floating around on the surface of most viewers' mind.
2) Spontaneous reanimation has in fact never been shown on screen - it's unknown how reliable it is, or how long it takes.
I'm pretty sure not even any testimonies have been heard of it happening.
It exists in viewers' heads as a general rule everyone's aware of, but not as a vivid fact that's been directly confirmed to happen.
2a) It hasn't really been a thing in the show since S2, and certaily not S4 - and since has been "overwritten" in the viewers' heads by the much more vivid and real image of the WWs actively resurrecting the dead somewhere very far from the Wall.

The less present, vivid, and real an ignored alternative solution is in the viewer's mind, the less severe of a plot hole it is - and in this case, not very present or vivid, hence not as severe.

However, dialogue still could've and should've been included to cover those bases as well - preferably not just dialogue but also attempts at doing something else first, but, you know.
Things that could've happened:
a1) characters starting to question whether spontaneous reanimation is even real - the wildlings gradually coming to the realization that no, they've never actually seen it happening; it's always been evil dead returning from some creepy place, like Bruni
a2) Tormund etc. confirming that yes, happened all the time - some little man tried to put a sword through his heart; dropped dead, then just rose up again and tried again. Now buried in the woods in several places.
They just so happen to have fresh corpses - or they dig up some from the south. Put them on the other side - not working.
They start wondering if maybe the NK changed the rules that day and now it doesn't work anymore.
Decide they can't all just sit around and wait - leave one group behind just in case, the main one embarks on the journey.

So then you'd have a virtually identical adventure, except that:
-the ignored issues would now be covered, which makes it better
-if they were covered in ways that don't have their own plot holes, even better!


Same episode; same stakes; same everything - only difference is, an easier alternative route they could've taken has been addressed; an alternative route that WASN'T at the mental forefront at the time, hence its negative impact on the premise was limited.

The other plot holes, same story.

Quote

That's my whole point. No math in it,

I didn't say you "used math" for your evaluation of the plot - I compared the "percentage of nonsense (vs. elements that did make sense)" in a storyline to the "percentage of nonsense" in a logical argument chain or math equation or whatever; the point was that if 60% percent make sense, and 40% don't, both the following things are true:
1) The accuracy of the overall argument is broken.
2) It deserves credit for containing more sense than nonsense - such as in the form of a 60% score on RT, a C- minus grade, or what have you.

You were struggling with the 2) concept, that's why I was talking about it  

 

Quote

just evaluation of how big a break in logic is and where does it occur in the story's timline.

Now that's better - because earlier you said something to the effect of "doesn't matter how big it is, if there's a break then everything's lost and we all should jump from a bridge".

Glad you're agreeing now

Quote

You on the other hand are constantly using numbers. Doesn't that tells you something?

Why is me using numbers bad, but you "evaluating how big" is ok?

Well actually I don't use "numbers" when evaluating a script, I also merely evaluate how big - so it's cool.

 

 

Quote

That's evidently not true. Where did you get that idea? Strawman, much?

Huh? No, you strawmanned me when you said I was hairsplitting over whether it's 2/10 or 1/10

My original objection was "the writing isn't bad enough to qualify as 'bad'", remember? And 2/10 is a score for "bad".

Quote

But anyway, what is so good about those scenes with Sansa or Arya? How did that storyline earn 8 out of 10 on your scale?

It's the weakest in the season and I don't think I ever gave anything a concrete score, incl. "8/10".

Not sure about "so" good, but:
-the individual scenes were well made and believable (the sisters more than LF)
-because information was being kept from the audience esp. with regards to what was going on inside Arya's head (and then it turned out even more information had been kept off-screen), it's hard to pin the contradictions down - and because the execution is believable, you're on board with the scenario and feel like trying to understand what went on there (even though you know better already).

I wasn't cringing at the screen like I'd been expecting from the leaks - the execution was good enough at concealing the underlying stupidity/emptiness; 
and in movies that don't aspire to be particularly logical or realistic, concealing and distracting from the plot holes is often more important than actually having none (or at the very least is an acceptable alternative).

Quote

This theoretical back and fort with you can last to no end, so let's get to the specifics. Because on specific examples you'll see how irrelevant your "method" is.