Craster's: The Definition of Filler

[Good Guy Garlan]

I'm sorry, Miodrag, but you're wrong. Adjusting the speed of a single motion (say, a swing of a sword) is perfectly normal and sometimes even necessary to make the entire action of the scene flow better

Let's say you're filming a chase secuence, which is the most basic example. The person who's running away is running at a perfectly good speed, nothing wrong with that. But then he has to open a door. He struggles with the door knob a few seconds, and then the entire flow of the scene is disrupted. You can speed the whole thing, but there's still going to be a noticeable gap there. So you have to speed up only that motion, only the few frames of the guy opening the door. That way he "catches up" so to speak, with the rest of the action.

It's the same thing with a fight scene. One guy doesn't swing his sword fast enough, so the sparring looks forced. So you just speed up that one swing to allow his sword to meet the other one faster and the flow looks more natural.

[Alaynsa Starne]

I still think it's very possible Coldhands is someone a viewer would recognize and they don't want to give away the game just yet.

This is super true. His face is hidden in the books, but that likely wouldn't translate well on-screen. In which case I still think that they need to explain how Bran will get there w/o a map where X marks the weirwood. Maybe a super fun BR dream/vision?

[sj4iy]

Why is it assumed that CH wasn't important just because he was cut? Is it not possible that D&D make mistakes as far as characters go? Was Ros important because she was added? Personally, I don't see how a ragtag group of kids and one direwolf are going to make it to BR plausibly w/o a guide. D&D might cover this by saying Jojen has like a map of where they need to go somehow conveniently stored in his Greenseeing powers, but how is that less of a Deus Ex Machina than CH? There are obviously differing opinions about the importance of some characters, that's fine. I'm not saying the books are perfect or that GRRM is infallible, but how can it be assumed then that D&D are infallible? The issue for me isn't that CH was cut, as many characters in a series this large are bound to be, but that content was added that has some necessary significance, but not enough ramifications or relevance to deserve the amount of time that was given to this filler arc, and perhaps CH (or something else) was cut as a result to make time for this.

I haven't seen anyone saying that D&D weren't infallible. I said that Coldhands wouldn't have been cut if he had further significance to the story. However, I do think that the content added here (Jon going to take care of the mutineers himself) is very significant to the story. It does several things:

1. Adds the drama of a possible Stark reunion (even though it didn't happen in the end)

2. Makes Bran choose to go North over staying with his brother

3. Sets up the fact that Jon's superiors are scheming to get rid of him because they fear what will happen if he is elected

4. Finally gives Jon Snow a chance to show his leadership quality...something he hasn't done until now

5. Closes an arc that started with Sam and Jon wanting to help the women at Craster's Keep and being unable to because of Mormont's orders

6. Gives the audience an exciting dose of action in an otherwise talkative episode

I agree that Locke's arc didn't quite work- but other than that, I think it was an improvement over what happened in the book. I am not saying they are better writers than Martin, or that that's always the case, but I think this worked better than adding Coldhands in would have.

[Khal-a-bunga]

The arc with Craster's Keep accomplished several things, important to both the narrative and the characters involved, so - by definition - it is not filler. Something is considered filler when it has no bearing on... Well, anything to do with anything. It could be lifted out of the story entirely, and nothing would have changed. This story line...

- Resolved the issue of the mutineers becoming 'allies' of the wildling army.

- Provided resolution (read: death) for one character who had been around since the first season (Rast), and two characters who had been around since the third season (Locke & Karl). Whether you liked that resolution or not is entirely subjective, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that it isn't filler.

- Showed that Jon is becoming a leader among his brothers, and that his time with the wildlings has provided the Watch with an invaluable benefit.

- Further fleshed out both Jojen & Meera's purpose (particularly the former), and firmly established that Bran's ultimate destination is the great weirwood tree both he and Jojen have seen in their respective visions.

- From a thematic stand-point, the fact that Bran uses Hodor (through his warging ability) to kill Locke will almost certainly come up again down the road.

- It answered the question that many had concerning what, exactly, was happening with Craster's sons.

This is all to say nothing of the fact that this arc provided some much-needed dramatic content to Bran's story line, as well as some great action.

On the topic of Coldhands: If he was important, he would've been included. Saying that the time spent on this arc could have been used to introduce and establish that character is a bit disingenuous. There's no 1:1 correlation there. I liked the change, and I liked that it set up another possible Stark reunion, but that it didn't keep them separate due to circumstances outside of their control. It gave Bran some true agency (since we all know how much this forum likes their buzz words). As for Jon 'giving up' on Bran - he didn't know, for a fact, that Bran was even there in the first place. It was just an assumption, based on the location of Craster's Keep.

[Miodrag]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFH6lXJ6c4k

That's just one example but it's an extremely common technique used in action films. This lame argument of yours shows me that you don't really know that much about film. You are just making stuff up to justify your irrational hatred of this show. There is no basic theory of film making that you describe, film making is all about manipulating the screen and trying to hide that manipulation from the audience. I say this as a somebody who minored in film in college, and somebody who has been a serious cinephile for years.

Here's another scene that mixes a variety of slow motion, normal speed, and sped up footage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4jz1yaGFms

Listen, before you start calling me names and judging me, perhaps you should learn to read posts you reply to properly. I think I explained the difference between the examples you provide, and what D&D did in the show. What you're providing are the examples of using screen-manipulation in "artful manners". Meaning, a viewer is supposed to realize the screen was manipulated. And yes, that is very common in movies. I never denied that. The "Avengers" example is even better for this discussion, because it's not as open a manipulation as these examples you provided, but, on the other hand, it isn't dependent on viewers not realizing some manipulation took place. Meaning, you can know action scenes from "Avengers" were somewhat sped-up, and still enjoy those scenes. Just like, to get back once more, everybody was aware Chaplin's walk was sped-up, and there was no problem at all.

What D&D did is a rather different thing, because once you realize they manipulated the screen, the scene looks ridiculous, cheap, artificial. It can't help, because various fragments of the same scene are showed in different speeds. If a viewer doesn't realize it, no problem. If a viewer realizes it, well, than it's a huge problem. And that is why nobody ever did anything similar. Nobody with any knowledge about movie-making, that is.

That's the best I can explain in English. I don't think it's too hard to understand it, even without my explanation. Manipulation viewers may realize = legitimate. Manipulation viewers aren't suppose to realize = very bad. Your examples and "Avengers" and every other screen manipulation falls into former. GoT falls into latter. Do the math. And calm down a little, OK?

ETA: Sorry if you're not a lady, as I assumed because of your avatar.

[sj4iy]

Listen, lady, before you start calling me names and judging me, perhaps you should learn to read posts you reply to properly. I think I explained the difference between the examples you provide, and what D&D did in the show. What you're providing are the examples of using screen-manipulation in "artful manners". Meaning, a viewer is supposed to realize the screen was manipulated. And yes, that is very common in movies. I never denied that. The "Avengers" example is even better for this discussion, because it's not as open a manipulation as these examples you provided, but, on the other hand, it isn't dependent on viewers not realizing some manipulation took place. Meaning, you can know action scenes from "Avengers" were somewhat sped-up, and still enjoy those scenes. Just like, to get back once more, everybody was aware Chaplin's walk was sped-up, and there was no problem at all.

What D&D did is a rather different thing, because once you realize they manipulated the screen, the scene looks ridiculous, cheap, artificial. It can't help, because various fragments of the same scene are showed in different speeds. If a viewer doesn't realize it, no problem. If a viewer realizes it, well, than it's a huge problem. And that is why nobody ever did anything similar. Nobody with any knowledge about movie-making, that is.

That's the best I can explain in English. I don't think it's too hard to understand it, even without my explanation. Manipulation viewers may realize = legitimate. Manipulation viewers aren't suppose to realize = very bad. Your examples and "Avengers" and every other screen manipulation falls into former. GoT falls into latter. Do the math. And calm down a little, OK?

Perhaps you should 'learn to read'...he never called you names.

[Miodrag]

I'm sorry, Miodrag, but you're wrong. Adjusting the speed of a single motion (say, a swing of a sword) is perfectly normal and sometimes even necessary to make the entire action of the scene flow better

Let's say you're filming a chase secuence, which is the most basic example. The person who's running away is running at a perfectly good speed, nothing wrong with that. But then he has to open a door. He struggles with the door knob a few seconds, and then the entire flow of the scene is disrupted. You can speed the whole thing, but there's still going to be a noticeable gap there. So you have to speed up only that motion, only the few frames of the guy opening the door. That way he "catches up" so to speak, with the rest of the action.

It's the same thing with a fight scene. One guy doesn't swing his sword fast enough, so the sparring looks forced. So you just speed up that one swing to allow his sword to meet the other one faster and the flow looks more natural.

It is not normal. You can repeat it million times, but the fact remains nobody does that. There are action scenes wherever you look, and nobody does it GoT way. It is wrong, and if you don't see why, just watch the damned scenes again. Because of what they did the sparing looks forced, not the other way around.

[Miodrag]

Perhaps you should 'learn to read'...he never called you names.

You're moderating now, too? Good to know.

[Colonel Green]

You're moderating now, too? Good to know.

That's in no way a response to the substance of what was noted.

[The Dragon has three heads]

The moaner strikes again...

[Good Guy Garlan]

It is not normal. You can repeat it million times, but the fact remains nobody does that. There are action scenes wherever you look, and nobody does it GoT way. It is wring, and if you don't see why, just watch the damned scenes again. Because of what they did the sparing looks forced, not the other way around.

I actually did watch the scenes on Youtube. Guess what? There's really nothing that jumps out as clunky or clumsy, so I think you're just seeing what you expect to see.

You obviously don't have to believe me when I say it, but speaking as a film major (though I'm just an intern at this point) I can tell you this technique is as common as it gets.

In fact, I remember when you first published your critique of the "speeding catastrophe" and no one agreed with you then (as far as I remember) and no one is agreeing now. What does that tell you?

Also, I have to say it, with so many noteworthy and arguable points to criticize in this show, you focus on the speeding up of a single frame in an action secuence shot more than two years ago? Jeez

[Miodrag]

That's in no way a response to the substance of what was noted.

But, this definitely is the time to leave all you fine gentlemen. I've been down this road too many times. It's pointless to continue this discussion. Some of you are evidently disturbed I'm talking about an obvious embarrassment of the show. You'd rather argue with me all day long, instead of checking out the scenes yourself, or checking my claims that it is never to be done that way, just like it never was.

I actually did watch the scenes on Youtube. Guess what? There's really nothing that jumps out as clunky or clumsy, so I think you're just seeing what you expect to see.

You obviously don't have to believe me when I say it, but speaking as a film major (though I'm just an intern at this point) I can tell you this technique is as common as it gets.

In fact, I remember when you first published your critique of the "speeding catastrophe" and no one agreed with you then (as far as I remember) and no one is agreeing now. What does that tell you?

Also, I have to say it, with so many noteworthy and arguable points to criticize in this show, you focus on the speeding up of a single frame in an action secuence shot more than two years ago? Jeez

Yeah, a technique is so common, it's never used actually. What does that tell you? All those examples you and other posters are listing, aren't the same thing I'm talking about. And, since you're a film major, just ask your teachers about those two scenes. Let's see what they're going to say. I mean, one of us is definitely seeing what he expects to see, and perhaps your teachers can indicate who is. In the meantime, goodbye.

[Colonel Green]

But, this definitely is the time to leave all you fine gentlemen. I've been down this road too many times. It's pointless to continue this discussion. Some of you are evidently disturbed I'm talking about an obvious embarrassment of the show. You'd rather argue with me all day long, instead of checking out the scenes yourself, or checking my claims that it is never to be done that way, just like it never was.

You were the one who accused someone else of calling you names, when that did not happen.

I did look at the scenes. I see nothing wrong with it; nor, apparently, did anyone else who watched them.

[iknownothingjonsnow]

You were the one who accused someone else of calling you names, when that did not happen.

I did look at the scenes. I see nothing wrong with it; nor, apparently, did anyone else who watched them.

I think we can all agree that accusing someone of trolling is tantamount to calling him a name (namely, a troll).

I thought the sword fight in 1.05 was superior to any action we've seen in Season 4, so whatever blasphemy they committed I personally wish they'd recreate it. I had trouble following the fights at both Craster's and the inn due to the choreography, blocking, and editing. If there was a speed issue, I didn't notice it.

[Colonel Green]

I thought the sword fight in 1.05 was superior to any action we've seen in Season 4, so whatever blasphemy they committed I personally wish they'd recreate it. I had trouble following the fights at both Craster's and the inn due to the choreography, blocking, and editing. If there was a speed issue, I didn't notice it.

I agree, I've not been a fan of the fight choreo this seasons so far.

[Addam of Hull]

I think we can all agree that accusing someone of trolling is tantamount to calling him a name (namely, a troll).

I thought the sword fight in 1.05 was superior to any action we've seen in Season 4, so whatever blasphemy they committed I personally wish they'd recreate it. I had trouble following the fights at both Craster's and the inn due to the choreography, blocking, and editing. If there was a speed issue, I didn't notice it.

I think shooting the fight at Craster's as a night scene wasn't the greatest idea they've had. The lack of light makes it difficult to distinguish characters, especially since pretty much everyone is wearing black.

[StrollofShame]

Why so? New actor + make up (probably walking dead style) along with CGI and you can't recognise anything. Plus having him completelly cut from the show usually means that he won't have an important role in the next 2 books (if any at all)... Why should we get a spoiler like that?

I admit I do not get this desperation to have Coldhands in the show. If he had been recognizable as ANYONE, this information would have been delivered by now in the books. His purpose in the books is pretty much served...he got the kids to Bloodraven. Why do so many think he has any other function? What, in the story, would lead ANYONE to think he is of any future importance? If he WERE of any "endgame" importance, he would have been introduced in the show either before now, or in last night's episode. Coldhands is not going to be introduced in the show, and he has served his purpose in the books. Anything else regarding him is book fan projection and wishful thinking. I know you thought he was cool. It's over now. Move past it, please!

[I'm_Tim]

Kudos to everyone for completely owning Miodrag. It was a fun read.

[Koi No Yokan]

Well this thread got interesting!

[Khal Porno]

The definition of butthurt.