Jump to content

Dolorous Gabe

Members
  • Posts

    1,503
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dolorous Gabe

  1. 52 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

    I know what you're saying, but my point was actually the opposite. That Pep is great and all but operating on anything resembling a fair playing field (not even level, just a bit closer and without constant cheating) Klopp would have at least three titles. 

    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.

  2. On 6/11/2023 at 9:05 AM, AncalagonTheBlack said:

    Now that City have won their first CL, watch them win multiple CL's in next few years. I wouldn't be surprised if they do a treble again. 

    They have turned PL into a farmer's league of sorts, they will do the same to CL. So depressing. 

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

  3. 1 hour ago, baxus said:

    Out of all the teams in Europe, City are probably the least affected by injuries. Sure, their players do get injured, but their squad is so deep that it's no longer even news that they have close to half a billion worth of players on their bench. And you're saying Stones injury cost them? Come on man, let's be serious for a minute.

    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.

  4. 3 hours ago, baxus said:

    Yeah, poor City. They really need to sign some more 50+M€ defenders in the summer. I mean, there's such a lack of pricey defenders in that squad. Other than Stones and Dias who've been injured this season (oh, the horror), only Laporte, Walker and Mendy (I don't care that he's not playing this season, it's not as if rape charges fell out of the sky) cost over 50M€, with Ake signing at only 45M€ and Akanji not even making it to 20M€.

    I just hope they scrape together some funds to fix that gaping hole in their squad.

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

  5. 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.

  6. 59 minutes ago, Castellan said:

    What have you been doing? I hope you are well too.

    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" :lol:

  7. 1 hour ago, longest night said:

    This video thoroughly explains why I scored it 1/10, the worst episode of Game of Thrones.

     

     

    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

  8. 34 minutes ago, #teamNightking said:

    I keep seeing mention of these mysterious "flanks" of the undead horde. There weren't flanks. It was a massive overwhelming disorganized ocean of thousands upon thousands of fast moving undead. 

    It was hopeless 

    And cavalry being nearly worthless given the shock and awe value was completely useless against this foe. 

    Seriously right before the battle Daenerys should have said "Now go flank them!" 

    "Flank" wink wink being a code word for get the hell out of here so in case we win I still have an army albeit a small one. 

    The unsullied otoh have always been expendable ; )

    "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.

  9. 55 minutes ago, #teamNightking said:

    Cavalry are a specific tool used a specific way to be effective. Mainly they charge. The horse needs speed to crash into the foe. 

    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.

  10. 1 minute ago, #teamNightking said:

    No matter what they did it would have failed and been seen as moronic. What would have been nice is 5 minutes exposition in the war room discussing strategy and pros and cons. Some arguing. The lack of that annoys me. It would be interesting and very important. But no. We never get that. 

    And the show suffers for it. 

    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.

  11. 1 hour ago, #teamNightking said:

    The charge of the Dothroki makes sense all things considered. What else do you do with them?

    Take away their horses or put highly effective cavalry inside the castle? (Not to mention I don't think the Dothroki would agree to fight off their horses) No. 

    Put them behind infantry? No one does this. 

    Excuse them from the fight and save them for fighting Cersei? Pretty sure everyone else fighting would be all, "oh hell no!"

    Have them fight defensively from a fixed position? (The Army of the Dead was about to close in and charge) No. 

    Send them out in a flanking action? What's the point? They would have been swallowed up. 

    Or, use them in a charge (what they do best) and have them retreat back on their horses if necessary? 

    Keeping in mind no matter what they do they are all outnumbered about 10/3 and likely to die. 

    I don't have a problem with the charge and it provided an awesome visual. 

    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.

  12. 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

  13. 11 hours ago, Ser Quork said:

    An underwhelming start. 

    Good points:

    Interesting new opening credits that'll be worth watching.

    Two good scenes without dialogue (opening and closing scenes).

    Always like a bit of dragon CGI.

    John Bradley's scenes.

    Bad points:

    Poor dialogue.  Testicle jokes.  Tits and arse for no good reason.  Unfulfilling reunions. Pacing off.

    Telling us Sansa's smart rather than showing us (as she's been pretty dumb for seven seasons).

    Making all women, even Lyanna Mormont, snarky and petty.

    Dragon riding as comedy.

    Can't go better than 4/10.

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

  14. 28 minutes ago, Vibalist said:

    It would have been an honourable lie. You're trying to save the world.

    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.

  15. 35 minutes ago, Vibalist said:

    Except Ned often didn't tell the truth, because he recognized it was sometimes more honorable to lie.

    He didn't tell Robert about Jon being a Targaryen (hell, he didn't even tell Jon, or any of the other Starks), because it would have gotten Jon killed.

    He said he was a traitor before he was executed, as he knew this was the only way to save his daughters.

    The parallel the writers want to draw between Jon and Ned is based on a complete misunderstanding of Ned as a character. He knew how to play the game, he just didn't care to.
    Jon, on the other hand, is incapable of playing the game, because he's an idiot.

    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.

  16. 9 minutes ago, Ingelheim said:

    I've said many times on this forum that I fully recognize the fact that, storytelling wise, GOT has become less and less with every Season. But I've also said countless times that the amount of hate and criticism the Show gets around here is completely unfair.

    The writing has become weaker, sure, but never on the levels you people talk about. You say Ramsay would never let go his prized captive. And I said...why? Killing Rickon works masterfully well for the Boltons. You kill the last true male Stark (that he knows of), make the commander of the enemy army lose it, etc. It works for me. Rickon could have run in zig zag? Sure, but that does not mean, in any way, that Ramsay won't shoot him. Also...since when, under pressure, people act logiclly and rationally? He's a 12 year old boy, in the middle of two massive armies, who's trying to get to his brother as fast as he can. I understand your concerns with him running straight, but that's bad writing? No. Not a chance.

    And charging into an entire army is exactly what someone with suicide instincts like Jon would do. And sorry, but since he was killed, Jon is suicidal. He does not want to live, at least not the way he did before. 7x06 made this pretty clear for me as well. He was willing to go against the NK and all the WW, and he did not only because the NK was going to kill Drogon and the gang, not because he was afraid or something. He cares about the life of others, not his own.

    One of the biggest (if not the biggest) problems I have with your criticisms (and I'm not talking specifically about you, but people of this forum in general) is the fact that, for some reason, you all believe people always act rationally. And that's not true, plain and simple. 

    And sure, the dialogues are nowhere near TD. Probably the weakest part of GOT. Still, way above the average.

    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.

  17. 13 minutes ago, Ncgunner said:

    I rarely post, but I’m finding the discussion of the Season 7 finale pretty interesting.  I gave the episode a 4 – not god awful, but there were enough serious flaws that I simply couldn’t rate it any higher.  I guess I could argue that my rating is a bit generous, but I think I’ve started to grade on a bit of curve since the show moved the beyond books.  I’ve gotten used to the “turbo paced/character development light” approach that the show has adopted – and this episode was a “marginal” episode in that vein.

     

    There are plenty of posts identifying the episodes shortcomings, but a few of the things that gave me real problems –

     

    1.  The pointless unraveling of Sam’s story.  He leaves the Citadel in a huff after a year???  When he went there to be a master, did he think he was taking a correspondence course?  Becoming a master takes years and is effectively a lifetime commitments – but a few months in he throws up his hands and just leaves.  To make matters worse, this episode reduces him to a vehicle for ham-handed exposition.  The whole fireside chat, when Bran’s magic visions and Sam’s (well Gilly’s) coincidental discovery all come together, is as contrived as it could be.

     

    2.  The plot to kill LF.  I liked the idea of the Stark sister team-up and I liked the idea of taking in the ultimate schemer with a counter-scheme.   But all of the tension between the sisters is based on conversations they had when they were alone!!  So it makes no sense to believe that they were setting up LF.  So really, the only folks that were tricking were the audience.  That’s not clever – that’s just cheap.

     

    3.  I liked the Tyrion/Cersei scene, but they completely copped out by not showing the critical exchange in which Tyrion supposedly convinced Cersei to join the cause.

     

    4. Theon reprising the fight scene from Cool Hand Luke (poorly)

     

    There are more, but there were just too many “doh” moments for this to be anything other than a mediocre episode.

    Totally agree with all of this.

  18. 4 hours ago, StepStark said:

    Fargo season 1 was a revelation. I never liked the movie so I was skeptical at first, but it captured me from the start. But I didn't like the second season and I'm still to watch the third one (seasons are not really related).

    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.

  19. 2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

    So, if I were to use any show in comparison when rating the episodes from this season, it would be to that of Got in the first few seasons. While my ratings for the first 20-30 episodes would have varied from probably 6-9, and possibly one or two 10s, using that as a standard, I cannot justify giving any episodes from the past three seasons a rating any higher than a 1-2, with maybe the odd 3 in there.

    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.

  20. 3 hours ago, Kenton Stark said:

    Good storytelling is successful storytelling. The show is incredibly successful. They are accomplishing their goal. Different opinions are great. . An individual may disagree with the way its being done, they may have several ideas about improving it, but this is successful storytelling.

    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.

×
×
  • Create New...