Jump to content

Pink Fat Rast

Members
  • Content count

    472
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Pink Fat Rast

  • Rank
    Landed Knight

Recent Profile Visitors

1,004 profile views
  1. Pink Fat Rast

    Who will get to rule Dorne and the Reach in the end?

    The Night King will reach all the way to the Reach, establish his Night Reich and stick his Thorn into Dorne
  2. Pink Fat Rast

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

    GRRM said something in an interview that I found a bit disappointing - calling the political "war of the roses" plot in Westeros something that the characters "are preoccupied with" while "the real issues" i.e. the ice and fire, the Others and Daenerys, "go unnoticed as a result". Seemed to imply that the pol plots didn't have any major significance in the end, even though I expected them all to pay off somehow (i.e. by different characters still assuming different positions and goals in the finale that's infomed by their previous relations, and various religious beliefs perhaps as well) - but if they're not supposed to, then ehhhh, them all being disposed of by the mad queen who's then gonna be counterproductive when all the ghouls arrive kinda makes sense and something that could happen in the books. Or GRRM didn't mean it in the way it appeared, in which case of course none of that applies.
  3. Pink Fat Rast

    Make Armor For Daenerys

    Daenerys has plot arma and a big fucking arc
  4. Pink Fat Rast

    Book!Joffrey vs Show!Joffrey.

    Both greasey kants.
  5. Pink Fat Rast

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

    Ah ok, I'll go an catch up then - although he's actually the one I primarily had in mind when talking about "misrepresentation", as he kept mentioning how Benioff told that female interviewer to "watch something else if they didn't like [Sansa rape or some other specific controversy thing]", and then I watched the clip and it turned out to be an even mellower response to a general "so some people have a problem with the violence and perversion right?" question. Or something like that, not 100% sure about the specific details; although this one's plausible since John Bradley has used the same argument in some panel, and possibly a couple other actors. Cool name btw lol!
  6. Pink Fat Rast

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

    There's plenty famous examples of stories that employ exactly those tropes and still somehow succeed at being "believable in the moment". Why? Because the things that happen there appear natural to the mind, particularly imagination and false world models. Lots of people IRL have the sense of having "plot armor". Good vs. evil has a strong presence in our culture for religious reasons if nothing else, and some mastermind being behind all events is consistent with certain religious views and extreme conspiracy theories. Etc. . I haven't followed the most recent interviews, but it's very possible that D&D have said some absentminded bullshite at some point. However it's also possible they've been misinterpreted and said something more cogent, who knows.
  7. Pink Fat Rast

    Rant and Rave without Repercussions [S7 Leaks Edition]

    Ah, these ones sound interesting! Wasn't even expecting any videos on those bits. Gonna watch soon!
  8. Pink Fat Rast

    What is the role of Gendry?

    Well looks like the glossary's about to get a new entry then eh
  9. Pink Fat Rast

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

    Was a big BEAR
  10. Pink Fat Rast

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

    Less free time right now, lots of posts; gonna address later.
  11. Pink Fat Rast

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

    Too much philosophayy for mayyyy lmao I don't think getting lost in all this abstract principle talk is really productive, especially now that it's starting to go in circles; concrete discussion of the show material is ultimately where it's at, and your reply has left out all those bits so far. If the topic gets back to specifics, I'll probably respond to this post in that context.
  12. Pink Fat Rast

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

    Ebert rated movies like 2/4 stars or 3/4 stars, as do most critics - are you sayiing they treated movies like math too? It's not about "precise" numbers and percentages - it's about the fact that in math and science etc., the "if there's an error throw the whole thing in the garbage" approach makes sense in some situations, while in film criticism it doesn't really make sense. I wasn't talking about "internal logic" - read again. Oh, I guess I was just talking under the assumption that he always was gonna kill him. Wasn't that how it was in the book version? Was Tywin gonna let him go - and was Tyrion gonna not shoot him if he hadn't said wherever whores go? Not if human irrationality is an important element of your story - and especially not if the particular kind of irrationality is established and makes sense as a character trait. However in this case, if he was always gonna kill him it's not even that irrational. He acted emotionally and irrationally when he "threw his life away he threw it away" at the trial - as pointed out by Jaime, and admitted by Tyrion. Jaime specifically even said "thought you were a pragmatist(?) - thought you wouldn't lose your life for pride" and all Tyrion has to say in response is "at least it felt really good didn't it". Making himself look suspicious with the cup there, also wasn't very smart but that's obviously much more excusable. That was in 1.10, Joffrey had just needlessly beheaded Eddard and the North was declaring war on him. Jon and Jeor both knew Joffrey was a cunt by that point. Cersei's never been a psychopath on the level of Joffrey, or been considered to be that by anyone - or well, at least Carol hasn't but that's who we're talking about here anyway. I'm pretty sure Jon wasn't at war with the South at that point - Daenerys was, and Jon hadn't bent his knee yet. (Although the plot did have some confusion with KL sending a Lannister army after the Boltons - however, Roose's warnings didn't really come true and I don't think they ever said what KL was gonna do once the Boltons were defeated by the Starks/NW; or maybe I forgot something?) Wait, did Sansa remind him that Cersei was psychotic? She was warning him against leaving the North for Dragonstone, and earlier she had warned him about how clever Ramsay was - I don't remember any opportunity for her to warn Jon about Cersei? At any rate, no; Cersei is nowhere as psychotic and evil as Ramsay or Joffrey - maybe "crazier" in some sense, but nowhere as malevolent; mainly motivated to maintain her power and avenge slights on her own turf. (UNLESS she's still crazy about killing Sansa for poisoning Joffrey - not sure if she still is or whether that's been brought up at any point, I think that's another thing that's been forgotten about.) And she hasn't wronged Jon or the Starks to any degree comparable to what those 2 did, so overall much more acceptable as an uneasy ally. I think it's just generally assumed that they'll "come with Winter" - also they've just witnessed them roll over Hardhome and gaining momentum with ever more corpse soldiers, + as Stannis kept pointing out (and then demonstrated in action), winter itself makes everything more difficult as well. However I don't know anything about "no time" being a deciding factor in going with the wight hunt plan - it COULD'VE been a factor if they were juggling around the idea of putting some corpses north of the Wall, but obviously that hasn't been addressed Not "bloodless", but keeping bloodshed at a necessary minimum / not hurting anyone other than soldiers which might be difficult in an all-out city sack with WMDs and warrior rapists. Not sure what the problem with that is - there wasn't any reason to expect Westeros to be as stubborn as the Slavers; those were defending their centuries long traditions, which clearly wasn't the case here. Trying a less aggressive approach made sense? That's definitely the single most relevant plot hole on your list: Daenerys being that much more powerful than Cersei on the one hand, and being concerned over her interfering or taking back won territories on the other. That's a murky contradiction that should've been resolved in some piece of dialogue - but, the basic premise of wanting her on board rather than trying to fight them all the time, still makes sense; which makes it easy to imagine said contradiction being easily resolved with some kind of "if she keeps resisting, esp. if somehow strategically adapts to the dragons, it'll cost us 20% of strength - we can't afford to be concerned about that all the time" or whatever. Then: Cersei wasn't the only one they were trying to convince, there were others present in the room - incl. of course Jaime. If she crazily decides to ignore the zombie army, chances are others won't (and, surprise, Jaime doesn't). Yes, but plot holes can be compensated (to an extent) by other justifications: 1) The questionable political reasons (as you just summed up) all still happen in a context in which there's been a long expectations of the South finally facing the WW threat in some dramatic fashion - most probably by being warned about it beforehand, ignoring and then getting rolled over, or being warned, convinced and then adapting their behavior; probably at some point in the story where the invasion/Winter is about to become real. So now comes the dramatically satisfying pay-off to that - with roughly half the logic in tact, and the other half leaving things to be desired. 2) The questionabl tactic (of not letting corpses come to life spontaneously right outside the door) is in line with the mental image that's been drawn by confirmed, shown fact vs. an it-is-known assumption. 3) The local plot holes in the actual quest - same story. Yes, "this" story; a lot of other stories aren't exclusively driven by consistent in-universe rules - often structure is the main determining factor of what's going to happen. Those can still be done well or done badly, depending on other criteria. The thing is, if GoT starts turning into that kind of storytelling, or starts showing elements of it here and there, I've no problem with switching gears - and most movie/TV critics out there who don't only review "this is our grounded realistic response to all your trope fantasy fare" films, are doing just that when they give high ratings to all these R&R-condemned episodes. And then all the angry "well you're just fanboys / bribed / hypnotized by pretty colors like 5 year olds" justifications they come up with, well, they don't raelly capture the reality there do they. Well, you said that "logic was the main factor", and that "if the logic has chinks in it you can throw the whole thing in the garbage" - and then you wondered whether a more nuanced, accurate approach was "even useful". Maybe you've got some cognitive dissonance going there and only half your brain disagrees with me, I'm not really sure at this point That depends on lots of factors - however the main one is that if I wanted to actually assess the quality of your post, give it a rating of sorts, then no I couldn't pull that kind of move. And when it comes to "discarding a show right off the bat", well there can be all sorts of reasons for that, not just plot holes - someone could entirely go "fuck HoC because of Kevin Spacey", and then go watch Voyager and have no problem with the entire premise being based off a plot hole; at least not too much of a problem - reasonable reaction Well the "spectacle" that you mentioned would be one aspect ouf ot several - however you're already aware of one, so this new sentence makes no sense I didn't say "they were good because they weren't atrocious" - I said "they were good while I was expecting atrocious"; in an alternate universe where the execution had been worse, I could've entirely said "they were quite atrocious, but I was expecting even more atrocious". She does explain it to Sansa, and the viewers already know - no clue what you're talking about here; but case in point, it's a very well done creepy threat -> fake-out scene, even though it makes no sense - or, rather, it's confusing what's going on Arya's head there, and never cleared up. This is btw a good point to bring up what essentially amounts to a good piece of advice to aspiring hack writers: if you add: 1) mystery, ambiguity and/or twists to your storyline, and_ 2) make it all convincing and believable with the acting and dialogue quality etc., you can get away with a lot more poorly thought-out nonsense and still keep your viewers or readers on board. Just how it is; idealists might not like it, but oh well.
  13. Pink Fat Rast

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

    Lol I didn't notice anything, but I don't have any problems with being insulted - thing is, on this board, I'd have to wear it like a badge of honour either way or else
  14. Pink Fat Rast

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

    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. 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. !) "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. He still had a motivation i.e. anger at Tywin. Yes, that was lame we've already established that 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. 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 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 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. 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". 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).
  15. Pink Fat Rast

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

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