Valetudo

I'm having the same problem, with the same user. Thanks for working on it, and congrats about forum stability this last week.

So why are guys giving it a 1 such obvious trolls? Giving it a 10 is "personal and subjective", and "an indication of enjoyment". Giving it a 1 is trolling What if someone gave it a 1 because, in his "personal and subjective" point of view, said person did not enjoy the episode? Doesn't that sounds like double standards? Everybody should feel free to rate the episode as it wants without being attacked for it.

You're doing exactly what we reproach the show of doing. Let's take an example: -a soldier kills a man during a war -a sadistic murderer kills a man for fun -an abused woman kills a man in self defense. In the 3 examples, the result is the same: a man is killed. Do you think it's the same story just because of that? The reasons and the goals behind the actions are important too.

And the way the found to show us 3ER transferring a massive amount of important knowledge to Bran was to have him showing Bran a vision of his dad leaving for the Eyrie???? Is that really the kind of useful information that you have to transmit at all costs? If they had at least shown us Bran having various short flashes of different memories before this particular one , I could be OK with the "transferring as much knowledge as possible while we still have time" approach. But that's clearly not what was shown on the show, only what was told by the producers to justify it. I gave this episode a 3

, it's a little too aggressive. And why not shades of orange instead, to blend with the background?

I started talking to you responding to one of your lines: The argument that this or that just isn't realistic cracks me up. None of this is realistic... Its fake, fantasy, fiction. I responded that a book/show being a work of fiction or fantasy didn't justify it to be unrealistic, giving two over the top examples to justify my point. Exaggerated examples that didn't make sense to make you understand that being fiction or fantasy doesn't excuse everything. You then responded telling me: That is no less realistic than Dragons, magic, wargs, & direwolves... I then responded that, in an SF/Fantasy world, these elements were believable and could even be considered as realistic, as long as they obeyed rules created by the author. I then gave you one example of something that could be seen as unrealistic in the books (the horse transforming into a dragon). What I was trying to say was that, even if dragons and direwolves are unrealistic to us, they are realistic in the books. They follow rules and are consistent. So brushing away all critics about the show not being realistic saying that "there are dragons and direwolves" is not a valid argument. We cannot excuse the faster than light travel times by saying "it's unrealistic but so are dragons", because dragons are a known entity in the books, but jetpacks or wormholes are not. Of course, this is a tough problem to resolve and I don't have a pre-made solution ready for you, but well, I'm not a writer of this show. If they really are trying to create a quality show, they have to think about these problems and try to resolve them, and we cannot excuse them when they are not consistent with it just because GoT is fantasy. We certainly wouldn't excuse these things on a show like The Wire or The Sopranos. I never said that any of my over the top examples happened in the show, quite the contrary. Hope you understand my point now.

Yeah, same thing here! I've posted some comments in random threads and have been personally attacked. I've started typing responses several times to comments I found ridiculous, but then I thought: "what's the point? You can't argue with people who don't listen." The Rant and Rave thread is really necessary. The problem is, show apologists are eager to troll on it, and then the thread is locked because some posters loose patience and respond to provocations. It just shows the difference in maturity when you see that nobody goes trolling the positive nitpicking thread.

@Gargarax You proposed a fan-fiction story yourself (Sansa going to WH), but still everything he finds to criticize you is that you're mad because they made changes from the books. Do you really need more proof to understand that he's not interested in discussion. My advice: use the ignore option, you'll do yourself a favor and myself too, since I'm still seeing his ridiculous posts when you quote them in your responses. No need to feed the trolls, let him troll all by himself.

1) I admit, James Bond was not my most judicious choice, but still. Even him wouldn't survive a 100m fall without any gadgets. 2) If you really believe that this is a series about magic, dragons, zombies and shapeshifting, I don't see why you could have liked the first book/season, since these elements are so small. So, if next week Sansa uses her magical necklace to kill Ramsey and escape flying on top of it, would you be OK with it? It's a show about magic after all, so why not?

This argument doesn't hold since D&D are "doing everything to fix the books", hence justifying the massive changes. You can't have it both ways.

First, back off with the personal attacks, we're not at the kindergarten. Saying that we shouldn't expect anything to be realistic because it's a work of fiction IS the strawman argument I was tackling with my examples. I never said the show did such things. Now if you have some understanding problems, think twice before posting offensive comments.

You must be new to any SF/fantasy books if you don't understand this: The first rule for such books is: It has to make sense. Yes, you can add extraordinary elements to your story, but these elements must obey some rules that you're creating yourself. Taking the dragons for example, the books clearly defined what they were (How they look, what are their defining characteristics (flying and breathing fire), how many time does it take for them to grow up, how long do they live, how big they are,...). If, in the next book, we're presented with a horse that transforms himself into a submarine dragon that shits gold, we're going to have a bad time trying to make sense of any of this. Having some "fantasy" elements into your story is not an excuse to bad writing So don't use it as an excuse to justify bad decisions, even if the believable option is more "boring" or "wouldn't made good TV".

Your argument cracks me up. Just because it's fiction doesn't mean that there are no rules anymore. Would you still like movies like James Bond if the actor was able to fall from a tower and land without being injured? Or TLotR if Frodo transformed himself int a fucking fire breathing giant that destroyed Sauron's army in the blink of an eye? This show was supposed to be "TLotR meets The Sopranos", not "The Transformers". It's clearly supposed to be minimally realistic, and that's what made it such a huge success in the first place. If we wanted to see crazy things, we'd stick with Fast and Furious or Narnia movies.

If you felt surprised by Sansa's rape scene, I understand why you may still enjoy the show. The thing is, Sansa's rape has been debated on this forum as soon as we had evidence that she was going to Winterfell this pre-season. It's not because something isn't from the books that it becomes "shocking", and it's not because it's "shocking" that it becomes "good TV".

I guess you really need to reread Danny's wedding chapter if you remember her crying in agony. If you're talking about her wedding on the show, just look at this thread from this forum http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/49152-book-tv-spoilers-dany-and-drogos-relationship/ You'll see that, unlike you're trying to say, a lot of people weren't happy of how that scene was filmed. Of course, the outrage was not the same as in this week episode, but you have to remember that this scene is from the first episode of the first season, so the fan base was a lot smaller.

Like I tried to show with my examples of ratings, these are extremely variable in time. Right now, we're to close to the release to have numbers that aren't biased by hype, public recognition, advertising... If 10 years from now these numbers stay the same, then we could use them as a valid argument. Remember Lost, Dexter or even How I met your Mother? These series also had great ratings when they were "cool", not so much now. I'm not here to define what "quality" is, but since you asked, I'll give you some things that I think every storytelling work should have: -Logic: SOD doesn't excuse everything. It's one thing to excuse fast travels, it's quite another to excuse plot holes. -Characterization: You can't have your characters having multiple 180 turns just because it serves your plot. Sadly, season 5 is failing in these categories. It's my last response because this thread is not were we should talk about this.

But a vast majority of book readers found it believable! Well, I watch TV and would have found it believable, so your point is invalid. Or are you telling me that TV watchers are some kind of sub-species with no brain that can only understand that he dumped the Frey marriage because Talisa is HOT?

Well, when were the books released again? People of the 21st century seemed to have no problems in understanding that situation. But now that it's on TV, it's just moronic?

This debate is turning into something pathetic. Are you discussing quality or critical/popular acclaim? these two things are different! A few posts back someone was comparing 2001: a space odyssey to contact, saying that contact was less boring. Is that what defines quality? Does that turn it into a better movie? So Fast and Furious 7 must be one of the best, right? Then, we have the Amazon or metacritics rates, again, that's not synonym with quality. Remember when Avatar launched? It was acclaimed by a lot of viewers and critics as the best movie of all time. Now, it's not even in IMDB's top 250 list. On the other hand we can look at Blade Runner, a flop when released, that is now considered by a lot of people as one of the best movies. All that to say that these ratings are wind, massively influenced by hype.

If the ratings go from 1 to 10, why should we be limited to rate it in the 5 to 10 range? And comparing it to other shows doesn't prevent that. It all comes with the expectations you have for each show. I'm certainly not asking a Family guy episode the same things I demand of a GoT one, but they may end with the same rating.

I guess you got me wrong if you believe that I'm OK with the woman nudity. I think it is as bad as their portrayal of Loras. If you read my complete opinion of the episode, I also criticize the Mereen brothel scene where we see girls naked just because ... boobs! It just happens that the conversation as been more directed to Loras's case. I wish to believe that it's because he's a more important character than a slave prostitute and not because he's a guy and not a girl. I had the same problem last year with their portrayal of Oberyn and Ellaria for example, and I think I've said so in a previous post. Yes, Loras has scenes that are not about his sexuality, but Ros also had some. It is not by having some minor scene where he is not being presented on a sexual perspective that his portrayal ceases to be one sided. Really, if you think about Ros, do you first think of her as the lieutenant of LF or as the omnipresent whore of Westeros? The same applies to Loras. It is sad, when we know the sacrifices they have to make in order to compact everything into so few screen time, to have to waste time on characters that are so one dimensional and so different of the vision GRRM had of these characters, just because D&D believe that the audience is too dumb to understand that a character can be many things at the same time. (to be clear, this isn't about last episode Loras's scene that I understand will be important for the progression of the story, but for his portrayal in general.) Sadly, their portrayal of different characters seems to me to have become just that, one dimensional. Today, the rage concerns Loras's character, but I'm sure I will be as vindictive when they show us the bad-ass/strong/avengers Sand Snakes, if the reviews of the first 4 episodes are indicative of the final result.

You see that in the first sex scene between Loras and olivar on season 3? Well, that's more than I sow in it. To me, it seemed a typical bad movie sex scene, with the cringe worthy "I would like to see you spar with a worthy opponent" followed by the two of them having sex. I wasn't talking about last episode scene, that was, as I've said in the previous post, justified.

Yeah. Everything that made the show so good in the first place is being dumbed down. It seems that instead of keeping the good things they've done in the past (characters portraits and relationships) and cutting the bad (sexposition), they're doing the opposite.

Exactly what I think. Some people are trying to make it look like it's perfectly normal and that we don't like it because we don't like gays. That doesn't make any sense.

I understand that showing him in a sex scene is not the same thing as portraying him as gay and I've not said so. But if you believe that D&D are not trying to emphasize his sexual orientation, then you're being a little naive in my opinion. I'll try to prove my point comparring book Loras to show Loras. On the books, Loras as a strong relation with Renly. After his death, he decides to stop having romantic relations (when the sun has set no candles can replace it). On the show, during season 1 an 2, we see him having the same relation with Renly. There are sex scenes between them that seemed very normal and in place in the story. In season 3, after Renly's death, we see him in a dinner scene with his sister, Joffrey and Cersei and then at Sansa's wedding where he has an awkward discussion with Cersei after their marriage has been arranged. Like before, totally normal scenes. But in between, we saw him having sex with his sparring partner (Olivar), then having a dialogue with Sansa about brooches. On season 4, he appear on the purple wedding where he has a discussion with Jaime, preceded by a long intense stare at Oberyn. On these seasons, he is also the subject of various gay jokes between other characters ( a sword swallower through and through). Why do you think D&D added these scenes (sex with olivar, talk about brooches, stare with Oberyn)? Was it to add something to the character? Was it to advance the plot? No. They were added to remember the audience that yeah, he's gay. It's the same problem we had last year with the way they portrayed Oberyn as the brothel living kind of guy. This is not something I'm projecting because I'm uncomfortable with homosexuality. As a matter of fact, one of my best friend is gay and also find these scenes ridiculous. For the last episode scene, I understand that it was necessary as a way to go on with the plot. But it was so criticized because people (and I'm certainly not alone thinking it) are tired of it. It would have been the same if Loras was portrayed as a macho man and you'd replace Olivar by a female prostitute and his talk about brooches by a talk about boobs. The problem is not that Loras is gay. The problem is that most of his screen time ( and everytime he is talked about by someone else) revolves around it. Imagine if Tyrion was only defined by his relation with Shae. When you say that people may like that he's gay, then you are being homophobic. Do you like Melissandre because she's straight? That doesn't make any sense. We like or dislike a character for what he/she is, not for his/her sexual orientation. And the thing is, show Loras isn't much at all,apart from being that guy that has sex with other guys.