ground_control

4 hours ago, Titan of Bravos said:

Speaking of Cersei's impenetrable bodyguard, anyone else notice that he didn't step out in front of his liege when that wight was charging at her?

 

Bros before hos...

1/10 -- Greyscale + Missandrei pretty much killed it for me.  I'd like to see Jon make a smart choice -- he's already been killed once, and as his council pointed out, being stupid cost his brother his life also.  Or at least show him convincing the people he's arguing with some way other than just sounding like Cartman saying, "Respect my authority".  And can we please have the S01-04 Littlefinger back, the who stroked his....beard in private (or just with Varys in the room) instead of in open court.

In general, the dialog was below sub-par, and there was way to much exposition.  I actually liked the Theon/Yara/Ellaria scene, but the sand snake parts (and general lameness of the episode) really did leave me rooting for Euron.

I'd just like to point out that this thread is about rating S06E10 (Episode 610), not the season, and not the series as a whole.  If people liked (or disliked) *this* episode, attacking their opinions based on their prior rating history is an attack ad hominem (whether it's for consistently high or low votes).  It seems like every time a new rating thread opens for a new episode, some people want to continue debates from previous ratings threads (and re-use the same arguments).

It really sucks trying to read through such a long thread when much of it is filled with people telling other people how they should vote or what their vote "really" means about them (and realizing that I already read those comments last week).

Just sayin'.

A Gentleman's '2' -- After the first 20 or so mins, I thought it might be a 9 or 10, but once the episode hit the North and Mereen. all was lost.  Not only was the writing bad at a high (plot) level, but most of that actual dialog was painful as well.

Seriously, KitN instead of QitN?  Littlefinger just spelling out what he wants (when he pretty much made it clear in season 4, where Sansa was supposed to have become a player, but is still just getting played).  Mellisandre should have been axed (or burnt) around episode 2 when her purpose (resurrecting Jon Snow) was finished, not as the result of an implausible reveal from episode 9.  And letting murderers off with exile?  Not exactly what I think of as Northern justice.  Not that the death wasn't legal, as it was done by the King's command.  But, hey, whatevs, Davos can join Catelyn on CSI: The North.

Although I was glad to see fake Daario tossed aside (and cry) like the bitch he is (even if he kept the tears off camera).

4 hours ago, kinkyboy said:

Can't even blame the actors. Look what happened to Melissandre. I used to love her. Where is she gone? Sitting by the fire looking bored and depressed, she's completely destroyed as a character, worthless dialogs and presence. The same gradually happens with everyone this season. Tyrion isn't funny anymore, with Danny you can't get more repetetive, the feminist agenda, everything's predictable and written by some SJW dork. Watching this show pisses me off so much, 5 years of this great show and now to waste it like that??! And i'm not even that huge of a fan/book reader, I can't imagine how true fans feel watching this hollywood abomination.

I wasn't blaming the actors (as in docking points from the episode), I was trying to say that I think even they know how bad this season has been written and couldn't hide it every time.  That said, I liked the Dany/Yara bit, and don't see a lot of SJW-level feminism. Unfortunately, two of her strongest scenes this season (burning the Dothraki and turning her dragons loose on the slavers) were variants of previous scenes, so lose some impact (in addition to written much more poorly).

3/10 -- excellent cinematography, crap writing.  Gaping plot holes, too much teleportation, dialog generally atrocious, a lot of poor/bored delivery of dialog by the actors.

On the plus side, Yara hitting on Dany was priceless, as was Grey Worm's dispatching of the masters.

A gentleman's '1'.  Not sure which was worse, the writing or the direction, but I'm all for giving both to Sandor and letting him split the difference.

7/10

Best episode I've seen in a while (definitely this season).  Writing pretty weak, but well above what we've been getting lately (by which I mean since about season 4) -- I'm not a Cogman fan, but it's nice to see an episode mangled by someone who has read the books, even if the scenes should have been in last season (instead of the Dornish clusterF).

4/10

Mostly filler, some circus animal.  Too bad CH couldn't have shown up 2 minutes earlier and saved us from having to take a trip through the Ho Door last week.  While the play in Braavos (both weeks) is amusing, it feels like a waste of screen time, but it beats watching Arya barely get bruised by all the staffs to the face she's been getting.  Would like the High Sparrow to GTFO my lawn.  Sam scene was painful (but appropriately so); the best scene in the episode (+1 for Gilly's makeover).  Confused by Dany's scene -- thought she had the Dothraki at "Unburnt" two episodes ago.

If I gave every other episode I gave a '1' to a '10', a '1' still wouldn't be low enough to accurately distance this episode from them.  But if there was such a number, it would be pronounced 'Hodor'.

I agree. I don't really have an issue with show Oberyn but I certainly couldn't say I think he is more fleshed out. More obvious (for good reasons, since books dont always translate directly onto screen) perhaps, but he is essentially the same man - family, check. Revenge, check. Passionate, check. Fierce, check. Can't honestly think of anything the show has done to flesh him out more.

Agreed.

Book Oberyn: Mad, bad, and dangerous to know

Show Oberyn (Shoberyn?): Mad, bad, and dangerous to know

Most of season 4 had pretty weak writing, so people calling out Oberyn as a special case confuses me. If I was going to say show Oberyn was "more fleshed out", it would be relative to other characters in the show, not relative to book Oberyn.

As far as the number of brothel scenes, as I've said before: we have a new character known (in the books) as a sexually adventurous man who frequents brothels, and an empty brothel set (since the character most associated with it is in the Vale this season). I'd agree that the writers were "lazy" and focused a bit too much on Oberyn's sexy side (as a % of dialog), but they didn't ignore his other sides.

Also, I appreciated that they didn't interpret his bisexuality as making him feminine (as I'd argue the show did with Renly's and Loras's homosexuality).

I think glorified extra sounds so derogatory, that's why I didn't really use it.

And I don't have a crusade for that term, I just don't wanna be called the moron who doesn't get it.

And the goatherd is not an actor yet for that tiny line. Just like the mom from the milk commercial isn't one.

Perhaps, as we give each other subtle insults covered in advise here, you should use a little less arrogance in your posts(That is usually my part, the arrogance one :lol: )

^that was sarcasm..kinda

I wasn't trying to be either subtle or insulting...a little smug/superior, maybe, but nothing [intended] to be actually uncivil. So, sorry if it came out like that.

And yes, "glorified extra" is derogatory. But it means *exactly what you are saying*, and that's *why* it's considered derogatory. Unless you think that saying "he is not a real actor" about somebody that is, in fact, a real actor isn't offensive.

I think as an actor you should have..a role with a name.

Kent never ever had a real role, but as extras I guess, as he has credits but no names to them.

Man he will be an actor perhaps in one show, but not in GOT. This doesn't count as an actor that role. He had some tiny lines and acted, well he may not be an extra from the trial who shouts rhubarb, but he is not a real actor. He had an extra role in it that was slightly more perhaps, but not more.

I wouldn't even call the two whores of Salladhor anything more than idk..side people. They had no real lines.

But, I know nothing, according to rmholt :D

Everybody should have a dream...however, you might want to reconsider whether a crusade to replace a well-known industry-standard term (extra -- meaning somebody with no speaking lines) with your own highly personal definition (subjective quantification of line size) is worth the time.

BTW, there is already a term for what you are trying to call Kent (as he appeared in GoT) -- "glorified extra". Just say that and everybody will know what you mean without having to argue about what his actual actor's guild status is.

You're a talker

Says the guy with 10x as many posts as me who (it appears) had the thread unlocked just so he could reply to me...seriously, if you want to stop this conversation, stop attacking me.

It's like you know me better than I know myself. So I guess you are best qualified to address that creepy thought.

I see no need to repeat my opinion of the performance or his appearance. He seems like a good actor and a nice person. If he's reading this I hope he's just laughing at the disdain of him and his work.

Not sure what you mean by a "creepy thought" -- you're coming across as very hostile and aggressive towards anybody who doesn't toe your party line, and I'm just calling you on it.

And just to be clear, I've never seen the Darren Kent in anything else (of which I'm aware), and I didn't say I thought he was a bad actor, I just disliked his performance in this particular role. Just like while I don't dislike Michael Huisman as an actor, I think he makes a horrible Daario.

As to his looks, I said they put me off, and I explained why -- I wasn't trying to persuade anybody to agree with me and I don't care if everybody else disagrees with me, I just don't want people trying to "prove" that my subjective reaction was objectively "wrong". I saw what I saw, and while discussions now may affect my current outlook, they can't change what I already experienced (you only get one chance to make a first impression).

As to "disdain", I'm not the person calling Kent a glorified extra. Kent's own site promotes him as having a "unique look", so I'd hope that he realizes that that isn't always a plus. I'd also hope that people realize that makeup, wardrobe, lighting, and camera angle make large contributions to how a character is seen in a movie, and that I've gone to a lot of trouble in my posts to focus on the character (as presented by the show), and not the actor personally.

If he is reading this, I'd hope he wouldn't laugh at people giving their honest opinion, or think that not liking a specific performance is "disdain".

I can tell a man from a woman, a useful skill

One man is not all men. I've never been wrong when it mattered.

But I am curious why you seem to be taking this so personally. I haven't acted like anybody is wrong for liking the actor's performance, so it's kind of creepy to have somebody come at me with a raging hard-on just because I didn't.

Sorry for not recognizing the difference between looking feminine and looking like a female.

And your problem with the writing, so far as I understand it, was that nobody in the room assumed he was there for goat money. He had the bones in his arms; they were even wrapped in a cloth like a baby. He was also crying as he spoke. Would you assume he was holding a goat?

In any case, this is nitpicking at its finest. Who cares whether or not anybody assumed they were goat's bones, beyond it being a deviation from the novels? How does that hurt the scene in any way? If you're this diligent in looking for flaws, almost any scene will fall apart.

The difference is between "looking feminine" and *being*, not *looking like*, a female. I didn't think I saw a feminine man, I thought I saw an actual female.

And I'm not nitpicking when I say that the show scene did not have the same impact on me as the book scene -- it's just a fact. I'm not looking for (as in hoping to find) flaws, but I won't pretend they don't exist when I see them. In fact, part of my disappointment with *this* scene was because of how good of a job the show did setting the stage in an earlier episode (when Dany hears the first complaints about her dragons eating goats). So when the show failed to capitalize on that setup, I was disappointed.

wait...now Gwyneth Paltrow playing a woman playing a man....

and Darren Kent(think that is the bloke) playing a man...a poor man with a hunger ridden face...looks like a woman because Gwyneth Paltrow looked like him when she played a man?

Isn't that then the other way round? That Gwyneth looks like a man..when she plays a man..because she looked like a man (Kent) when he played a...man ?

I am confused right now.

I was using Gwyneth Paltrow (a woman playing a man) to illustrate what I thought I saw in the scene -- a male character that was being played by a female. That the actor really is a male is irrelevant to what it *looked like* to me. Basically, the character just "didn't look right" to me and that's the best way i can describe it.

If it's less confusing, you can think of it as a combination of the character looking a bit too feminine and the beard looking fake in the scene (or at least when the character first comes on camera).

When you're complaining that an extra looked like a drag queen, then you're looking too hard.

I wasn't complaining. Somebody said that this guy didn't disappoint anybody, I was just correcting him.

It was true when I wrote it. This is the first post I've seen against it.

His twitter profile sells his distinctive appearance. Extras don't have lines. They don't have scenes. The don't play parts at critical plot points, to address later comments. Extras form Fermat spirals for Dany to crowd surf.

Women don't have beards.

1) It wasn't true when you wrote it, you just didn't know it was false. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

2) I didn't refer to him as an 'extra' -- while I didn't like him in this role/scene, I'm not trying to be rude to him personally

3) Women may not have beards, but women dressing as men might use fake beards...

I have nothing against the guy, I just didn't like him in this role.

This is called "looking too hard to find something wrong".

No, it's called "stating my opinion about something I watched".

Honestly, I never knew a man seeming to be a bit small of build equalled being 'feminine' in some people's minds? After all, who could tell much about the father's appearance, masculine or feminine, undert that all consuming turban and the robes. It is disheartening to read such things, I agree.

I thought the entire segment of the father bringing his daughter's remains to Dany chaining the dragons was actually, surprisingly, one of the better parts of the episode.

I didn't say feminine, I said female. The chaining of the Dragons was good, the part in the throne room was the part I didn't like.

Wow…it's posts like these that make me want to run away from this forum and never look back. The scene disappointed you because the actor looked too feminine?

I didn't say that the actor look "feminine", I said that he looked like a female pretending to be a male, i.e., in drag. Basically, he reminded me of Gwenyth Paltrow as Viola in Shakespeare in Love (when she dressed like a man to get a part in Romeo and Ethel).

And no, the actor being "off" was not the only reason I didn't like the scene...as I clearly said, I thought the writing was bad as well. And the rest of the cast in the scene weren't on their A-games, which is usual when the writing is bad, which (this season) describes almost every scene in Mereen.

And sorry if my finding an actor not looking the part lowering my appreciation for a scene you apparently liked drives you away from these forums, but if you aren't open to reading disagreeing opinions, running away and not looking back seems like a good plan for you to try.

Book readers were anticipating this scene big time. It's difficult to nail a scene that book readers want to see done right but he disappointed no one. Even you aren't bashing his performance.

Both he (specifically) and this scene in general disappointed me. I seriously thought the father was a woman in drag or somebody getting a sex change, so I found it hard to believe that Dany & co. accepted him as the child's father. But, bad casting/wardrobe/acting aside, I was more annoyed by the writers failing to have *somebody* assume that he was there for goat money. You know, like what was done to great effect in the book, and even set up in a previous episode. Ofc, that's only one of many times (including several this episode) that the writers of one episode failed to connect the dots from previous episodes.

It's ok if *you* (and others) personally liked the actor and the scene, just don't say that the actor disappointed *no one*.

Is there a point to this verbosity of yours? I'd say it's severely misplaced and, dare I say, wasted.

Sometimes just saying "I disagree" doesn't adequately convey the extent to which I disagree, so additional verbiage is necessary, and thus not "misplaced" or "wasted".