Dolorous Gabe

Well hello there I hope Castellan is okay. I will make an attempt at playing whilst I act like a hermit in preparation for my hernia operation in December.

If Pep had gone to United or Chelsea instead of City he'd had have won just as many trophies for those clubs. Football hasn't been played on anything resembling a fair playing field in multiple decades.

Only Pep is responsible for this and that ends as soon as he leaves in 2025. It'll be wide open after that.

It's simply an observation that Arsenal dealt better with losing Jesus, Tierney and Partey for a part of the season than City did losing Dias, Stones and Walker for part of the season. That is evident by Arsenal continuously being on top. There was a sense that opponents could smell blood when our back line had Akanji and Ake at centre back and Rico Lewis involved. I'm not criticising them, they did well when needed. But it would be foolish to deny that you'd rather attack those three than Dias, Stones and Walker. All I'm trying to say is that it seems premature for people on here to be dismissing Arsenal now given how well they've dealt with injuries throughout this season. They've risen to every challenge.

Jeez, you completely misread the intent of my comment. It was meant to compliment Arsenal on handling their injuries better.

I give Arsenal more chance than you guys do. They've handled some big injuries throughout the season and although the West Ham comeback was alarming, I think the Liverpool comeback is little to be concerned about. It was Anfield and a big game. The fact you went two goals up shows what a good side you have even accounting for Liverpool's difficulties this season. It's City that didn't handle injuries well. It's no coincidence that we are looking stronger now that Dias and Stones are fit. Stones has been consistently amazing for years now but he doesn't get enough credit because he spends so much time injured. Pep will need them both IMO and history suggests if they play every game as fixtures build up at least one of them will pick up another injury. For this reason I suspect either of them could be rested at times. I see more twists and turns yet to come.

To be honest I just haven't signed in since the last game ended. Although I can add to the list of medical situations some of us seem to have been having. I have a hernia and a heart condition, so that's fun! Two bad episodes of SVT (which I'm aware sounds like I'm talking about some kind of Law & Order spinoff TV series) a couple months ago, during which I had a heart rate consistently around 220bpm for about 4-5 hours each time. They had to forcibly slow it down with a fun drug called adenosine, which they have to warn you could cause a momentary "sense of impending doom"

Hello Acrophobes Looks like a super game you're having here. Hope you're all well.

Absolute tripe!

Thank you, this was wonderful A comment on the video made me laugh out loud: "the night is dark and full of terr... ible writing" "the episode is dark and full or errors" is also hilarious

"it was hopeless" is not an excuse for the moronic suicide charge. If there were no flanks, please do let me know where Jon and Dany were watching from! For there to be no flanks the undead would have to be charging from every direction, not just the north. Coming into the wight army from the east and the west would be coming into the battle from the flanks. Then at least you've got the Unsullied and the Dothraki fighting them together and they can retreat into WF if/when necessary.

Well obviously. But the timing of the charge and the choice of what they charge at is what's important. Why sacrifice the entire horde on a kamikaze charge when you could have the Dothraki charge into the flanks of the undead as they attack the Unsullied? At least they're in the vicinity of the castle so can more easily retreat when that becomes the sensible move. I don't think anyone with any sense sends off a cavalry charge without a plan to support the attack, undead or otherwise. At the very least it has to be a decoy for something.

We can agree there on the bolded. That's why I think it would have made sense for Jon to suggest such a tactic (since he has already seen it work in battle) in that scene had they properly written it. A failed plan that was at least a decent idea would not have been seen as moronic. The Dothraki charge was never close to a decent idea.

We've already seen the value of trapping the opposition forces in the BotB, so it would have made complete sense for Jon to suggest letting the Unsullied do their thing first to halt the Undead charge and then having the Dothraki attack from each side of the undead forces. Would that have succeeded? Probably not. Would it have been smarter than what they did? Without a shadow of a doubt. The charge idea they went with was moronic however many bad alternatives you offer.

Someone remembered how to write half decent dialogue! Probably because it wasn't being used to tell the story due to the fact that there was none being told. The show has used dialogue too often to cheaply tell the story and for exposition when these should mostly be told visually. The dialogue in this episode felt much more organic, less forced. Still a myriad issues but the dialogue was such a pleasant surprise that I feel quite positive about it. 7/10 My best rating in a very long time

Exactly my thoughts, right down to the 4/10 mark.

Not to Ned Stark it wouldn't. He would have a big problem with telling such a bald-faced lie. It's nothing like anything Ned lied about. "Promise me, Ned" If he gives his word on something, he keeps to it even if it haunts him.

You're not wrong about Ned's willingness to tell an honourable lie or keep an important secret if needed but Ned would undoubtedly have agreed with Jon's decision not to lie to Cersei in that moment. That would not have been an honourable lie. The parallel between Jon and Ned in this situation is perfectly reasonable.

I don't think anybody is saying people always act rationally. I think most criticism of character actions is one of character motivation and character arc. Some characters will naturally act more rationally than others but character actions on GoT seem to me to be driven more by what the show runners want to happen than by the motivations of the characters in question. Characters are shifted about and bent this way and that for the sake of nonsensical plot lines. I agree with your comments about Rickon and Jon, although I would add this: I cannot understand why the Umbers delivered Rickon and Shaggydog to the Boltons in the first place (other than that the show runners needed that to happen) and the problem with Jon charging stupidly (you're right to suggest that was a plausible action for the character and situation) is that he not only survived the barrage of arrows raining down on him alone in the middle but came out of that without even a single scratch. Too often have they irreparably broken the suspension of my disbelief. I strongly disagree that the dialogue in GoT is above average. At best, it is average (only because the worst examples of TV dialogue are so bad it hurts). It was occasionally very good in earlier seasons using GRRM's dialogue as a guide. I would say it is too often below average since S5. The weakest part is the storytelling, which is often abysmal. Character development and character arcs are hardly much better.

Totally agree with all of this.

A generous 3. The stupidity was even stronger than usual in this one.

Intriguing. I loved the movie and loved Season 2 of the series. S2 I felt was the best thing I've seen since Breaking Bad ended. I had major issues with both S1 and S3 of Fargo, although I did enjoy both overall. For the record, I'm inclined towards The Wire as the best TV series I've ever seen. Deadwood is IMO up there alongside The Sopranos, The Wire and BB. The only thing arguably against that is the fact it remains unfinished. I agree with you that at its best GoT was never on that level but GRRM's groundwork gave it the hooks, characters and story to gather followers. I remember watching S1 of GoT and thinking that I must read the book.

This, very much so. Although I do think the odd episode since S4 can get as high as a 6 (7 is perhaps arguable in the cases of Hardhome and The Spoils of War). My average rating since then is probably in the region of 4/10.

Can you really not name one successful thing that you don't like? Popularity doesn't necessarily equate to quality. GoT broke through a wall surrounding public consciousness - I would argue on the strength and hooks of the first three books - into the realm of cultural phenomenon, a place where everybody tunes in because nobody wants to miss out when everyone else is talking about it. As a result, most people don't care about the storytelling. They care about the talking points. This is why GoT gets away with such nonsensical and slapdash storytelling. The majority of viewers don't give a shit as long as there's something to talk about and they're blinded to its flaws due to its position in the realm of cultural phenomenon.

I can't quite decide whether to give it 3/10 or 2/10 Characters seem to do things and say things simply for the benefit of the audience now. Nothing is grown organically or told in an interesting way.