Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About StepStark

  • Rank
    Council Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,067 profile views
  1. It is your privilege to believe whatever you want, but the show is garbage. Your refusal to accept it doesn't make the show any less terrible. As for the end, two talentless hacks got the (well paid) opportunity to mess with the source material they neither comprehend nor respect, and it amazes me that anyone might think that they're going to give the original story some ending. They're not capable of, and they don't seem interested even. The same result would be to give them, or anyone else who lacks any talent, to finish any story that is actually layered and complex and meaningful. Maybe GRRM won't manage to finish it himself, but D&D most certainly can never finish ASOIAF in any shape or form. It'd be as if you gave them to write the sequel to Macbeth. Maybe they'd be brazen enough to call it Macbeth Part Two, but it'd have nothing to do with the original play. What they're ending is their stupid show. Nothing less, and certainly nothing more. The only way one can think that they're finishing ASOIAF, is if one doesn't see any significant difference between the novels and the show so far. Now that's another matter completely, because the book series and the show differ in class, depth, logic, characterization, and so on. It's like comparing Goodfellas with Mickey Mouse, really.
  2. If this garbage of a show can ever be confused with the resolution of ASOIAF, then something's very wrong with this world.
  3. He's mentioned alright, but he's nothing like the NK from the show. In any case, it's interesting that from the book we know more about a legendary figure from he past, than we know from the show about what is arguably the main villain of the show (Night's King).
  4. None of your points is actually a plot hole. Some are examples of GRRM's flaws (relying on surprises too much), some are just your nitpicking, some are subjective preferences, but not a single plot hole. And it's funny, because after all those comments from you that people can't separate the show from the books, it is you who doesn't seem capable of separating the two when discussing the books (maybe because you didnt actually read them?) The thing that confuses you is that in the books The Others are never as near the Wall as in the show, and there's nothing to suggest that they're moving towards the Wall at this point. Are they waiting for something, or still gathering troops, or something else entirely, we have no idea. Because in the books we didn't get to see the Night King as in the show. What was he doing between Hardhome and the Wight Hunt is anyone's guess, but that's another problem the show created on its own. And since you love to bring the GRRM's initial "five years gap" plan, with that in mind it's even more obvious that the Others in the books obviously aren't even near the point of invasion the Seven Kingdoms. They're more than a week riding from the Wall. Not a small destination by any measure. And anyways, there's no indication that they are an army or something. For all we know, that could've been just a ranging party. Considering how horrified and terrified everyone in the story is when seeing the undead or resurrected or similar phenomenons (Stannis' shadow babies), it's not really a stretch. Again, this is just your speculation, probably based on the show more than on the books. In the books we absolutely have no idea what happened with Benjen and how the two other rangers got turned. Seems like a lot of raven activity for a very dubious and vague results. Which is how Mormont was thinking, so he decided to investigate further. In hindsight it's easy to say what he should've done, but at the time he had no idea what the hell is going on and he did make one of the logical choices. Maybe not the best or the safest, but certainly not illogical or unrealistic choice. He's a commander of an armed force, not of a raven squad. And he's a proud old man. Of course he's going to try to do his job before falling into panic mode and alarming the hell out of the Seven Kingdoms. Yeah, right. Because special envoys usually go around and show their special cargo to civilians. Are you kidding? Or you're just trying really hard to complain about everything, regardless of how legitimate the complaint may be? And why would they know? Once again, you're greatly misinterpreting the books, possibly because of the show confusion. You really didn't read the books, did you? Because that's not at all how it happens. And it's definitely not what Tyrion thinks and how he feels in that chapter. Even if that's how it is in the books, this is just nitpicking. Given how strong is the animosity between the Night's Watch and the wildlings, to the point that they still hate each others' guts even at the end of ADWD and after the wildlings were allowed to enter 7K, it's hardly surprising that Mance didn't opt for the totally diplomatic way. Yeah, in hindsight he probably should have, though his plan could've worked if Stannis didn't show up with his army, which Mance couldn't predict. And so on. The only legitimate complain is this: It is silly, but on the other hand it didn't affect the plot in any way. On the other hand, stupidities from the show are on another level. Just remember how this discussion started: by comparing the plot holes from the two mediums. And you didn't find a single plot hole, just one silliness, while on the other hand in the show wights run around carrying big chains.
  5. He said it in the Blu-ray commentary of the episode: http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Blackwater According to Martin's Blu-ray commentary, he didn't write the scene at the tavern before the battle between Bronn and Sandor Clegane. He enjoys this scene, but it was written by Benioff and Weiss. What huge plot holes? LOL! Again, your sounding like someone who didn't read the books but pretends he did, and he only read summaries on internet where he also found some common complaints of readers and he's now repeating them. Because you see, in the books everything about the Others does make sense, even the timeline. It doesn't in the show, where they changed things for no reason and now they can't explain what did the Night King do all this time.
  6. So? The original three book plan doesn't matter. For example Theon was not supposed to have his POV chapters in the original plan, but now he has and he's one of the most important characters. There is no meandering of the plot. You don't like the plot in AFFC and ADWD - fine. I do like it for the most part. But until it's revealed what is GRRM going to do with it (in TWOW), it's impossible to say was the plot meandering or not. Completely agree. I just think that the point of no return happened earlier, in season 6.
  7. He didn't. It was confirmed that D&D wrote that scene, even though it was Martin's episode. So we should be okay with any plot hole? LOL! You do realize that there is a difference between Jorah accidentally seeing Tyrion in a Volantin brothel (the books) and Tyrion being appointed as ruler of Meereen until Dany's back? The former is a convenience authors probably can't avoid completely in epic stories of this scale. The later is just stupid beyond belief. Oh, and there's this: people do meet each other in unexpected and remote places even in real life, but I've never heard of a town or a city that was handed over to a complete stranger who just came into it. Countless towns and cities throughout history found themselves suddenly without a ruler, but from what I know none of them ever appointed a total stranger like Tyrion to rule. So no, convenient things from the books and the show can't be compared in any reasonable way, mostly because what you call "things that happen conveniently" is actually utter nonsense and absurdity in the show.
  8. If they don't know how to end this story - as they obviously don't - then Dorne is probably a very big problem, because in the original story (the books) Dorne will most probably play a very important role, which is something show lovers denied all these years, saying that "GRRM told D&D the endgame and they know what is important and what isn't". Lady Stoneheart is potentially another big problem, if she is important for the story, and I'd much sooner have trust in GRRM (who obviously finds her very important) than in D&D (who don't). That's about importance. About pure stupidity, the wight hunt is certainly up there at the top, but many of their earlier shenanigans aren't much better: blowing up the Sept (without any consequence), Sansa marrying Ramsay, "where are my dragons", death of Mance, burning of Shireen (the last two are also pretty important for the story)... I'm glad to finally see the criticism of the show, but it should've happened long time ago.
  9. Oh I agree. Just to add, I said that Rickon is the least of my complaints. That entire sequence is without logic, especially including Sansa, whose "reasoning" (can't write it without irony, don't want to give too much credit to D&D) entirely escapes me: she was the one pressuring Jon to fight with Boltons to save Rickon and retake Winterfell, then all of a sudden she gave up on Rickon and took him for dead, and then she ran away only to return with the Vale army she kept as a secret all that time. What a line of thinking!
  10. Okay Mr. Sensitive, first of all you should quote me in context. I clearly said it's possibly the stupidest piece of television I'VE EVER SEEN, which is a statement you can't assess objectively, since you have no way of knowing what shows I've seen so far in my life. I also said that for one reason or another I do manage to avoid usual nonsense on TV. If you asked me before GOT what is the stupidest show you ever watched, I'd say it's Beverly Hills 90210. It's not my choice to watch it, but the girlfriend I dated back then used to love it, and there was still no internet at the time, so I could either watch with her or look out from her widow for a full hour. Needless to say, it was usually the former. And yes, I do think that GOT is stupider than Beverly Hills. For one, Beverly Hills never pretended to be anything but stupid show for teenagers, unlike GOT which takes itself as a serious Emmy contender and guess what, even Emmy considers them a serious Emmy contender, so yes, I'm reaffirming my position that just by that account Beverly Hills is much less stupid show. But even besides that, in Beverly Hills there is nothing even remotely as stupid as the wight hunt or Jaime&Bronn surviving Drogon without a scratch even. And last but certainly not least: Beverly Hills didn't have a great source material to draw from! Whatever nonsense they out on the screen, at least it was their nonsense and they didn't deface anyone else's story in the process. Based on what I've seen from Beverly Hills 90210 (probably more than 20 episodes) and GOT (all 67 episodes), I'm certain of this: if I had a novel to be adapted, I'd choose BH writers over D&D! Easily! Any day! It's not even close! In fact, after seeing what they did to ASOIAF, D&D would be my last choice for adaptation ever. Seriously, I'd rather give it to True Blood writers, even though I couldn't even finish the entire first episode of that show (because I'm completely uninterested in vampires). Baywatch? You bet! At least they are aware their writing is cheap, so maybe they'd at least try to stay faithful to the source material, unlike D&D who obviously deluded themselves into thinking they are superior to Martin.
  11. Others already explained, it's not about always acting rationally. It's about not believing into absurd actions that never happen in real life. And Battle of the Bastards is perfect example of the later. This is the smallest issue, but maybe the crucial one, so I'll start with Rickon. Yes, of course it's understandable if a young boy doesn't think straight in a dramatic situation. Only, it's not about rational thinking, but about instincts. If someone already shot 2-3 arrows at you, you're obviously going to look back if he's gonna fire again. Especially if the distance is increasing, as is the case here. So in a realistic situation, even someone who's panicking and not thinking rationally would instinctively look back and because of that he wouldn't be an easy target to hit. If Rickon just started running backwards, he'd be alive - in a realistic situation. But of course, it's not impossible for someone as young as Rickon to complete loose his mind and do everything wrong. But how would Ramsay know that in advance? For Ramsay's plan to work, Rickon must act totally against his own instincts and reason. In any other case, if any instinct or reason of Rickon suddenly starts working, Ramsay's plan fails. Is it too much of a risk for anyone to take in Ramsay's place? Of course! Now, you can say that Ramsay is not the most calm and logical person either. In fact, that's exactly what you are saying: It seems you misunderstood me here. I'm not saying Ramsay killing Rickon is unrealistic. That wouldn't be my first choice for Ramsay, but okay, he is sadistic (that much is established in the show at least), so it's not unbelievable that he'd kill Rickon. But the way he does it completely ridiculous. Two things: 1) It was filmed as a very elaborate plan by Ramsay, as something he planned in advance and in details. 2) At the same time, his plan depends on Rickon and Jon doing absolute worst for themselves. So in effect, it's a paradox. Eventually he got lucky, but in reality, Ramsay had no way of knowing that Rickon is going to be so easy as a target, and that Jon is going to ride himself and alone to catch Rickon. The moment Ramsay lets Rickon run, there is at least 90 percent chance (I'd say 99 percent actually, but okay), that his plan is going to backfire and that Rickon is going to end in safety among Jon's forces. But he does it anyway. And in the end everything turns out exactly how Ramsay needed. That's a great leap of logic and something that is usually considered bad writing in courses and schools. Last but not least, all Jon had to do was to yell Rickon to duck at the right moment! Jon is in a perfect position to see when's Ramsay firing his arrows, so he just has to warn Rickon. He has enough time (again, arrows are not bullets), and as you say he clearly cares for Rickon's life more than for his own. The way it was filmed, Jon could've saved Rickon easily - which makes Ramsay's entire plan even more absurd. so you see, it's not about asking always for rational behavior, but this situation we're discussing requires several completely irrational decisions by three different individuals at the same sequence. That's too much by any measure. If things like this pass, than anything passes really. Anybody can write like that then. In fact, it is like season 2 of True Detective. As for Jon being suicidal, sorry but no. First, Ramsay didn't watch episode 7x06, so he has no idea whether Jon is suicidal enough to do the stupidest thing or not. Second, he's "suicidal" from forever, in that, even in season one/book one he wants to avenge Ned's death although he knows what happens to deserters - only, that's not exactly suicidal, but more impulsive, just like this season. And third, Jon is repeating all the time that he's fighting for the living. He's the only one thinking like that. So to assume that he's suicidal is to assume a lot. It's much easier, and much more supported, that D&D simply don't know how to write him. They didn't know that in season 2 (first time they diverged significantly in his storyline), as evidenced by him being ridiculously captured by Ygritte. When he went to kill the mutineers in season 4, D&D couldn't even keep straight the number of watchmen he brought with himself. In season 5 they wasted all that time on Ollie. And this season they couldn't remember that Jon already knew that Bran is alive (though he also told nothing to Sansa last year, so at least they're "consistent" in that). And here, let's place a bet. I bet you whatever you choose, that Jon's "suicide instincts" will never be addressed or unequivocally hinted at in the show ever. Not in a million years.
  12. No, it never happened like that. D&D read about dead bodies making problems for those who are still fighting on the battlefield, which is realistic of course, but then they came up with the wall of piled bodies, which is just absurd. You do realize the difference between realistic, historical and logical fact, and something that is blown out of every proportion to the point of absurdity? And of course, as incompetent as they are, D&D even used that absurd wall of bodies as a plot point, which traps Jon and his army. Totally ridiculous on every level.
  13. Not to mention those piles of dead bodies on the battlefield. Just unbelievably stupid, really.
  14. I think that GOT is possibly the stupidest piece of television I've ever seen (although, I have to say that I successfully avoid nonsense like True Blood or Homeland, thanks to the fact that I watch almost everything with a time distance and after the buzz came down). But I don't think that GOT fans are stupid. People enjoy things for different reasons and I fully recognize that. And you seem to be articulate enough, so I have to ask you: how can you love True Detective and GOT at the same time? I'm genuinely curious, really. Because the way I see it, TD S1 is really among the best shows ever, right up there with The Sopranos, Breaking Bad and The Wire. How do you compare those dialogues and scripts, with lines like "It all comes to cocks at the end" and "His joke wasn't even good"? And how do you compare TD with scenes like Battle of the Bastards? Like you, I think it was masterfully filmed, but it changes nothing of the fact that it was terribly written: just look at the video you posted, all three of them (Ramsay, Jon and Rickon) act completely unrealistically, because nobody with at least one brain cell would let go his prized captive right before the battle (Ramsay), or run in the only way Ramsay can actually hit you (Rickon), or charge alone into an entire army (Jon).
  15. I'm pretty sure that you didn't even read the books. All your points about them are just copy-paste of the most common complaints some readers have already been posting for years (like the one about Martin losing control of the story - no he didn't, but that's not an argument you're qualified in any way to participate in, mostly because you'd have to read ASOIAF first). And I'm also pretty certain that nobody would reread not one but two books he strongly disliked the first time. So you can just drop the act. You obviously don't know much about storytelling or literature or art in general ("high art can be really boring"), all you do is repeating things other people already said without even realizing their meaning. And on top of everything, you're mocking other posters who clearly know a lot more about literature and TV than you ever will, which is just pathetic.
  • Create New...