StepStark

Emilia Clark was often ridiculed for her acting, but most probably she was just told to act so one-dimensionaly because D&D probably wanted her to be a big powerful woman all the time. But this season Dany is surrounded by her equals and Emilia is showing that she's not as bad as everyone was saying. She's not brilliant either, but she's easily superior to Lena Heady, whose acting is just terrible. In the negotiation scene she was literally chewing the scenery with her teeth, which is what she always does by the way, though this time it was more obvious exactly because she was acting opposite Emilia. Whatever you can say about Emilia's acting, she easily better than Lena. And to think that Lena is D&D's most favorite actors and that they changed Cersei, and therefore the entire main plot, just to accommodate Lena, that's simply mind-blowing.

D&D's writing was awful from the very beginning, but when many of us complained about it, show lovers were insulting us saying that we're just book purists and we don't understand television as medium. But yes, this show was always poorly written, because even in season one there were a lot of scenes invented by D&D and they were poorly done for the most part. Of course back then it wasn't as bad as it is today, because they still used a lot of book scenes too (though in a very underwhelming way), but in reality this show was never as good as fanboys were saying. And if you consider how insanely good the source material is, then the way in which D&D managed to fuck up the story is nothing short of spectacular. And that is the biggest spectacle of GOT. Oh, I gave this episode a 2. It was bad, bot not as bad as the previous two.

Of the current ones, The Last Kingdom is obviously and easily better. It has some pacing problems (I think that more episodes are needed per season), but the writing, dialogue and acting is superior to GOT. 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). True Detective season 1 was everyone's favorite and for a good reason. Nobody liked season 2, also for a good reason. Seasons aren't connected in any way, so you can watch season 1 and enjoy it, it's a complete story. The Missing is a pretty interesting drama, it's an English mystery series with Tcheky Karyo as the lead in both seasons. Not always but they usually manage to avoid cliches. Characters and the dialogue are just great in a very non-pretentious way. Of the past shows, Sopranos is a must-see. If you ask me, it is the best thing on TV in history. Some people prefer Breaking Bad or The Wire, but I don't agree with that at all. Still, both Breaking Bad and The Wire are very good and easily better than GOT, so I recommend both. Battlestar Galactica was love-hate thing for me, but all in all, even with all its faults, it's still much better than GOT. Even the silliest moments from Galactica are much less nonsensical than GOT's lowest. But here's a funny story. I didn't watch Sopranos on their original run, so when David Benioff said that GOT is going to be "Sopranos in Middle Earth", I didn't have an idea what he was talking about. But, because at that point I already read ASOIAF (except ADWD, which was still not out), what he said made me interested in Sopranos. All the hype about Sopranos back in their original run didn't make me interested in it, but this little comparison to ASOIAF did, because I was already in love with ASOIAF. And then I watched Sopranos and was instantly fascinated, and yes I saw some similarities with ASOIAF (brutal, dark, family values, father issues, mother issues, hypocrisy of the society), and I became double hyped for GOT. So it was a huge let-down for me from the beginning, even the first episode was disappointment, with that cheesy blue-eyed girl and with stupidly sexualized dialogue like when Tyrion and Sandor are discussing brothels, and especially with Dany's wedding night that was turned into rape for some reason. Even in its best days (or, more precise, its least bad days), GOT simply doesn't belong to the same universe as ASOIAF or Sopranos. So for me it's not about comparing GOT to other silly shows, which I don't watch anyway. but about comparing it to shows like Sopranos which were supposed to be inspiration to D&D (by their own words). And in that comparison GOT comes embarrassingly bad.

I never thought of it that way but it's so true! It really makes me less mad at myself for spending this much time on these boards. Sometimes I think that arguing for years about GOT is almost like a course in writing.

If there ever was an episode that deserved 1, it is this one. Nothing made any sense. I don't think there is a single scene in this episode that isn't outright stupid or at the very least based on some previous stupidity. I'm often tempted to rate an episode 1, but I usually rate them 2, even if I didn't like anything in them, because I always think that maybe it can go even worse. But I really don't think that it can get worse than this episode. Even for GOT standards, this was low.

Do you realize that you don't have to read, let alone comment on, subjects you dislike?

I see that you're still not ready to recognize the reality, but rather want to remain in your invented little world in which Brienne didn't beat Jaime decisively, Arya wasn't getting her butt kicked by Waif in literally every of their training sessions, and I hate the show just because I love the books. Not that you have any reasonable ground for these "convictions", but on the other hand, that's the nature of delusion - you don't actually need reasonable ground for what you chose to believe. Sorry for disturbing you, have a nice life, hope I'll never discuss anything with you any more.

Even if it was "subtle", what would be the point of it? From forever, training process is used in movies and TV to explicitly show improvements. Not subtly, but explicitly. But in reality, there was no subtlety there, just like there never is with D&D. We're talking about two guys who think that a girl stabbed recovering from the gut wound can run and jump through half a city like that, so good luck finding subtlety in any of their work. And also, no "defense capabilities" were on display there, and no "anticipating opponents moves". The only thing that was actually shown was that Arya managed to block some of Waif's strikes and that's it. And she also managed to hit Waif once, to which Waif responded by beating the crap out of Arya as never before. If that's development, then I don't know what isn't.

Fundamental part of my criticism? Where did you get that idea? That was no part of my criticism at all. In this entire discussion I didn't compare the show with the books, not only because it's not the subject, but also because it's not needed. The show is so stupid that I don't need to compare it to the books to show how stupid it is. And why would I compare a masterpiece like ASOIAF with a terrible fanfic that is GOT? Do you even realize the difference in quality between the two? The books are by far the best fantasy of modern times, possibly the only fantasy that elevated itself so much above the genre that it's legitimately considered a high-quality drama and also a social study and political intrigue. The show is written by two guys who think that abandoning Casterley Rock and leaving it to the enemy can be a brilliant strategic move by the Lannisters. That is a difference in class! Abandoning Casterley Rock is just monumentally nonsensical, nothing even remotely as ridiculous can be found in the books - and that's only one of the sea of examples of the show's utter stupidity. So why the hell would I even compare that absurdity to something as good as ASOIAF? That Benioff and Weiss have failed to remain true the project of the books is an understatement, as big as they come. They keep failing over and over again to remain true even to basic logic. Sorry but how can we have a discussion if you write something like this? Did you watch the scene at all? She beat Jaime easily, it was possibly Brienne's easiest fight in the entire show. It was ridiculous of course, but at that moment D&D needed Brienne to be this amazing and unstoppable fighter so she was. Now they need Arya to be amazing and unstoppable fighter and she is, even better than Brienne. It's all just random, just serving what D&D's childish story needs at any given moment and nothing else. If you need to misinterpret it as much as you just did, just in order to make some sense out of it, then do it, it's your right, but I have no desire to take part in any of it. We didn't see it actually. You "saw" it, probably the same way you "saw" that Brienne didn't radically outmatch Jaime, but that's just your reading into it. You're conveniently ignoring the sad truth that Arya's training in Braavos served just two things: 1) to show Arya's determination, and 2) to show how superior Waif is to Arya. And it's fair to say that point number 2 was much more emphasized, because at that point D&D needed Waif to be the big bad antagonist because in their simplistic understanding of the storytelling that's what Arya's arc in Braavos needed to be dramatic. Arya's "continuous improvement" you mention is not really an improvement, unless you think that learning (through hard beating) that occasionally you can block the opponent's strike is something that actually merits screen-time in a show that supposedly has barely enough time to cover all of its storylines. And not to mention that at you're misinterpreting again, because Arya managed to hit Waif just once, to which Waif responded by delivering her the hardest beating of them all. So no, there was no progress, because progress was never the point of Arya's "training" in Braavos. Aside from Arya's determination, which was shown a little, it was all about Waif's superiority, which D&D hoped will make for a bigger payoff at the end when Arya finally overcomes it. And it was a "payoff" of epic proportions, because their final showdown was universally criticized as pure rubbish. But now you conveniently want to see some progress of Arya in Braavos. Fine, show it to the rest of us, find any Braavos scene which can be seen as Arya's progress in a way that fighting progress is usually and logically defined, and then post a link to that scene so we can analyze it. Because sorry, but I have no intention of discussing your misinterpretations any more. Both of us probably have smarting things to do with our time.

Yes, it's tiring when show lovers keep denying even the most obvious examples of the show's stupidity. Then why was the entire scene filmed as if Brienne and Pod and Littlefinger (and possibly Sansa) are fascinated with the swordsmanship Arya displayed in the sparing?

Actually, she went from somewhere around D to A+ but we didn't see any of the progress. In literally every practice session she was humiliated by the Waif, but then suddenly (in narrative terms) she was able to kill the Waif and now she's equal to Brienne. How did she ended with such skills? Was she a natural super-talent for sword fighting just waiting to be revealed? Did she improve because of fanatical dedication? Was some other factor like warging maybe involved? No idea about any of that, because the show actually didn't explain in any way how did Arya become a master of sword fighting. Because the most important part of her training (improving) was never shown on screen. Because D&D didn't think it's important. Because they're bad storytellers. But that's not what I was talking about. Even in worst fighting movies, training montages show some significant progress. That's almost always the point of the montage. There never was a case of some fighter becoming better by constantly being beaten by his tutor. My youth coincided with the "golden age" of terrible fighting movies, and I was tragically exposed to many of them, with Van Damme and Seagal, and I don't remember a single one where someone improved while constantly being heavily beaten by a more experienced fighter and without even once holding his own. Even the stupidest of those movies did it better than D&D. Yes, at the very least they should have done that, considering how much screen-time they devoted to Arya's inferiority to Waif.

There are supernatural forces in ASOIAF but I wasn't talking about them. I was specifically talking about superhuman abilities, which is not the same thing. Asking a deity to resurrect someone is not superhuman ability, especially when priests themselves say that they have no idea why the deity even listened. And no, Gregor's strength isn't supernatural either. She can be Superman for all I care, but that's not relevant to what I'm saying: we never saw Arya even beginning to approach Waif's league. All was saw was Arya constantly getting beaten by Waif. That's one of the most stupid tropes in storytelling, that you can get better only by being constantly beaten. You don't, or otherwise all the local schmucks would grow into ferocious fighters. Whoever practiced anything knows that it doesn't work like that. And of course, this being GOT everything was even more blown out of proportions so Arya was literally getting her ass handed to her by Waif in literally every scene. Until suddenly she was able to kill her, but even that was not seen on screen. And now she suddenly can defeat Brienne. That kind of storytelling is as bad as it gets. First, you're mixing books with the show. Brienne in the books is very different from D&D's Brienne. Second, everyone and Arya consider Brienne to be world-class swordsman and not just a "determined student". Master of arms can be considered a determined student but Arya wants someone more challenging and she outright says so. All of that means that everyone, even Arya and Brienne, think that Brienne is exactly what D&D were portraying her as in the previous six seasons: a swordsman who still didn't meet her match, either in practice or in real combat, while directly killing more individuals than any other fighter in the story. So in effect you're trying to defend D&D from themselves here. We saw a lot of training to develop Arya. But we didn't see her actually develop. Which means that conclusions you're drawing are yours, and not presented in the show. You're filling the blanks for D&D. That's your right, but not something that puts D&D in favorable light as storytellers. Quite the contrary, I'm afraid,

In the context of a fantasy story that fancies itself as "gritty" and "realistic" and "quality drama", it can mean a lot. That's why Martin drew the line long time ago: he's writing about a human heart in conflict with itself. He quoted that Faulkner's line great many times. And that means precisely that humans are the essence of ASOIAF. Everything else can be more or less magical (dragons, the Others, seasons), but humans remain realistic, because what makes them human remains realistic, things like emotions and desires and fears and like that. They can become something else, like Beric, Cat and Gregor after they're resurrected, but as long as they're humans they're defined by their humanity. The only exception is Dany surviving Drogo's pyre and remaining the same, and there's also Bran whose transformation has to be further explained (Jon will most likely be something along the lines of Beric and LSH), and Melisandre who is also a mystery though evidently human. There are few things that aren't human, like warging and green-seeing, but so far none of them replaced or negated characters' humanity and also didn't play significant roles in the story (more in the characters' developments). I think that this line is very obvious in the books which is why the books are so popular among readers that aren't necessarily into fantasy but are into realism and historical accuracy. And because of that it's easy to imagine what would be stupid in the books. The show went the other way and you're right, in the show it isn't possible to find a common measure of stupid. That's how poorly written stories usually look like. And about the fight itself, again: I don't have a problem with a smaller or less experienced swordsman beating the opponent, and I don't have a problem with Arya becoming such a swordsman, but I have a problem with Arya becoming such a swordsman without even so much as a prior hint at her improved skills. On the contrary, everything we saw from Arya until now indicates that she's still far from a world-class swordsman: she was constantly beaten by the Waif (at least when they weren't fighting in the dark), so the "time passing" argument doesn't really stand. You can't show Rocky constantly getting beaten by other boxers, but then suddenly able to be equal to world champion, and just say that the time passed and he just got better. If I have to imagine that kind of transformation all by myself, then it's bad writing. And please stop with odd interpretations of the actual scene. Brienne is a world-class swordsman in the show (in the books too, but in the show she beat The Hound) and we're reminded of that at the beginning of the fight, in fact that is the whole reason Arya wants to practice with her and not with anyone else. And it's simple really: either scene makes sense, or Arya does. You can't have it both ways. If the scene makes sense, meaning Brienne is a world-class fighter and she isn't holding back in the fight, then Arya doesn't because until that moment there was nothing to even indicate that Arya grew into a highly skilled swordsman. But if you want Arya to make sense, meaning either Brienne isn't that good in direct combat (even though she beat The Hound!) or she was holding back, then the scene is totally pointless. And for what it's worth, I wasn't bothered too much by that scene. After Arya's stay in Braavos, nothing in her arc can really bother me, just like nothing can actually interest me.

I don't know why is it so hard for you to understand something so simple. No, I didn't say that Arya is a spoiled child because she needs protection. I say that Arya would be a spoiled child if she didn't realize how superior to her Brienne actually is. Because if what you're saying is true, then not only that the scene was filmed very wrongly, but also Arya is then delusional enough to think that she can spar equally with someone who clearly outmatches her in every possible way. If you fail to understand even this, I'm afraid I'll have to give up, because it probably can't be said in simpler terms.

What's apple and orange is my post and your reply. You're talking about Brienne, but I was talking about Arya. So, not about Brienne and her concern, but about Arya who carelessly insists on sparing with someone twice her size. Oh, and I was half joking, but the way, just to show how ridiculous is that interpretation of the scene. And also, FYI, in sparing both opponents usually restrain themselves in order not to physically injure the other one. That's why sparing is different from a real fight. But if you... I don't know... watch the scene in question, you'll see that Brienne didn't look at all as if she was restraining herself, quite the contrary, the way it was filmed it looked as if she was swinging in full force.

I hope it's not my poor comprehension again, but you seem to had a change of heart. Earlier you were arguing that Arya held her own against Brienne and that it's as understandable as Syrio's last stand. But now it looks like you're saying that Arya in fact didn't hold her own against Brienne, but it was Brienne who chose to expose herself to ridicule rather than hurt Arya (which pretty much makes Arya some sort of unreasonable child like Joffrey only she isn't fascinated with crossbows but with swords). Which was it? Can you pick one, please? They are mutually exclusive so you have to choose, sorry. It doesn't matter to me which one, because both explanations are totally illogical. @darmody already proved why your newest version doesn't make sense: it simply wasn't filmed like that. But if you insist, then please explain: if you're right, what was the point of that scene? To show that Arya is... not as good as Brienne? That Brienne can do with her as she pleases? That Arya has no idea of her own limits? And now seriously, why is it so hard to admit that the scene was actually stupid and illogical? Why go through all the denial and engage in mental gymnastics that make no sense at all, why do all that instead of simply admitting to yourself that something D&D wrote is actually stupid?

That's right, and I see it with professional critics as well. They go on and on how much hey LOVED something, without ever explaining why it should or shouldn't be respected as a piece of art. Critics in the past were much better because they weren't afraid to critique something that is popular (if anything, sometimes they were too harsh on something because it's popular, which is also biased of course), but also because they were more thorough and more knowledgeable. Today it's all about one's feelings and about how something made us feel.

Comprehension problem? Don't flatter yourself, you're not that deep. In fact, it's you who's misunderstanding other people, or you just don't think too much about what you say. But people generally accept Syrio's fight because Syrio was established as one of the world's best swordsmen. How can anything even resembling that criteria be applied to Arya, who was never seen bettering anyone in sword fight? Even her win against the Waif is not seen directly. But all of a sudden she's equal in sparing with one of the best fighters in Westeros! And you're saying that Syrio's fight is somehow supposed to help us understand that? And yes, I read Foldedpencil's post, but sorry to say it doesn't make much sense either. First, just because someone somewhere managed to overcome opponent's advantage in skill, it doesn't mean that now every underdog can win and we just have to accept it. And second, the entire point of the scene was to show us that Arya is now actually equal to Brienne. There was no element of surprise (except maybe at the beginning), or any other extraordinary circumstances, it was a clear "fight" that ended in a draw. If you failed to understand that, then it's maybe you who should think about your comprehension.

But aren't 10s for this episode also unrealistic? If 1 means what you say it means, then 10 means that the episode had no faults, and therefore I can only ask a similar question: "How can anyone love all of it?" Even the battle itself, which I enjoyed very much and totally unexpectedly (I don't think I ever enjoyed anything in GOT as much as this battle), wasn't without logical fallacies, and not to mention the rest of the episode which was cringe worthy for the most part. Maybe it's because I'm older than most of other posters here, but I see rating differently: when there is a scale against which you're measuring something, it requires at least some objectivity. A scale is an attempt to quantify something, and quantities are objective by nature. Admittedly, rating a show is a tricky task because it's trying to quantify the quality, but I don't think that it's meant to be devoid of objectivity.

So, you're saying that Arya is now equal to Syrio? And you don't have a problem with that?

Are you flirting with me? LOL!!! If you are, don't, I'm not interested really. Oh I'm so sorry, I obviously missed the forum rule that says it's you who's deciding who's important enough to post here. Well, you also didn't write a successful show, but that didn't stop you from worshiping every nonsense D&D put on screen and pretending that you "understand" the writing as a process.

But there is a difference between those two questions. Chicken and lamb thing is really all about tastes and nothing else, and so is the question of which show do you LIKE more, Breaking Bad or GOT. But the first question is not about taste, or at least, not entirely about taste. You may like Beyonce's songs, but would you ever say that she's better than Mozart? Even if you don't like Mozart at all, I don't think you would. And that is because there is certain understanding of what is objectively better between the two. Well the same goes for TV shows. Decade ago, Lost was the most popular show in the world, but nobody really thought that it is as good as Sopranos or The Wire, even though obviously much more people liked it than The Wire (Sopranos was also very popular). I interpret the question very differently. To me, "How do you rate this episode?" is not the same as "How did you like this episode?", but more like "How objectively good do you think this episode was?" I never said that GOT is the only popular nonsense in the world, and your examples couldn't be better. Yes I do think that LOTR is highly overrated, precisely because there is nothing even remotely realistic about it (on the other hand, it was never meant to be realistic, so it probably fulfilled its purpose). Superman and the rest of superhero universe is just outright silly in every way imaginable. But again, maybe it was always meant to be silly and to serve just for fun. But GOT shouldn't be that and it's not sold as that. It's sold as "clever and realistic and gritty fantasy", and that means that silliness and nonsense of the Superman type shouldn't be found there. And yet, the show's crowded with nonsense of all kinds. Not really. While Superman's disguise is simply ridiculous, as a logical obstacle it could be easily remedied with a better disguise (a beard, a wig, maybe even a mask), and the story would be improved without being significantly changed. On the other hand, how can you improve Tyrion's "arc" in the show in the last two seasons? From his meeting with Dany onward, it's one stupidity after another. Not only that she didn't have any reason to accept him as adviser at all, but so far he didn't produce a single piece of useful advice to her. Quite the contrary, everything he did turned to disaster. But she's still keeping him as her Hand. Is she an idiot? Is he? Are they both? The answer to at least one of these questions has to be "yes" if we think about it logically, and yet, neither Dany nor Tyrion are supposed to be seen as idiots. And you can't remedy his "arc" unless changing it completely. What about Sansa marrying Ramsay? In what universe can something like that be logical? In not a single one. And again, there is no remedy to that situation, unless you change it completely and leave Sansa out of Ramsay's reach. What about Arya's time in Braavos? How is it possible that she learned from FM how to be much better than they are? How is it possible that they just let her go, if they are what they say they are (a lethal and very expensive order of highly skilled assassins)? None of that makes any sense, and once again, you can't improve it without changing it completely. I can go on and on, but the point is that GOT is second to none when it comes to sheer nonsense. It's really frustrating when you as a viewer must constantly suspend your disbelief while watching something. It's like Barman vs Superman, the movie: people didn't have a problem with usual silliness that is essential to both characters' existence, but when, on top of everything, the movie kept throwing more and more nonsense, especially the infamous Marta scene. There's only so much nonsense one can take. I never questioned that. How much are you going to enjoy Dany and Tyrion is up to you and nobody else. But if we're discussing the logic of that, then yes, there are huge problems, and they are objective.

I don't see what any of this has to do with what I posted. I only said that, essentially, subjective feelings aren't a good basis for analysis or discussion. I didn't say that objectivity is simple or clear cut. And in that sense, I agree with your questions here, I guess. Now this is a part I usually have problem with, because you're mixing subjective with objective. When you ask "Did it make us think?", the answer to that question has to be objective, or at least trying to be objective, because you're asking in the name of "us", and not in the name of yourself. But then you go on and talk about how much you enjoyed the episode, which is highly subjective. I'm not saying that I have a perfect formula for separating subjective from objective, but at the very least I don't think subjective feelings should be elevated to objective judgement. And anyway, it's okay to like something that isn't objectively as good as it realistically could be. I don't understand why people who like the show have to go around and constantly force other people to agree that GOT is some sort of masterpiece. If you have to keep saying out loud that you are a king, you aren't much of an authority, are you? But how could you know that? You don't have a problem with stupidity in the show, and okay, you don't have to, but maybe these people do have a big problem with the stupidity in the show and that's why they're rating it 1. It really doesn't have to be because of their "expectations from the books", maybe it's because of their expectations from any story to make sense. And sorry to say, GOT often doesn't make any sense at all, and you can't expect of everyone to be as tolerant about it as you are.

Congratulations on epic misunderstanding of what the strength of the story should be (and is in the books). FYI, in a story with dragons and zombies the dialogue actually MUST be realistic for the entire story to be considered a good drama. Wheel of fortune? Seriously? LOL! This is priceless! Where did you learn logic, dude? "If you have a problem with the show's stupidity, go watch wheel of fortune" - that is what you're essentially saying! Do you even realize the absurdity of that comment? Please, just explain to me where is the logic in that! Pretty please! Oh and don't be so intimidated yet, we only started.

Are you actually trying to make sense of that ridiculous scene? Courageous effort, no doubt. Guards: "Nasty girl, we're so annoyed by you that we're going to give you all the relevant information while we simultaneously insult and threaten you!" Good luck with rationalizing that.