Overview of Forum Ratings

[jentario]

I don't think it's fair to rate a season based on the average of all its episodes. Sometimes a season can be greater (or worse) than the sum of its parts. In my opinion, season 2 was greater than the sum of its parts (and so will season 4 in the end), while season 3 was weaker than the sum of its parts (too many slow episodes).

It would be much better to judge seasons in another rating poll once the season is over. Also, I think season 4's first half was stronger than the others (even though I thought the scene at Craster's ended up being- disappointingly- completely pointless and of course the Sept scene was a big issue). If Breaker of Chains wouldn't have mucked things up, I'm sure the ratings would agree with me.

[Ran]

I was talking about "Oathkeeper".

I think anyone who came out of "First of His Name" thinking that any genuine purpose was served by the Craster's storyline beyond marking time is fooling themselves. It's a genuine closed circle. Nothing has changed.

[Konradsmith]

Well I don't see how enjoying a sequence of television qualifies as fooling myself, but I'm going to bed so I'll take this no further.

[Sun]

Season 2 is overrated by these scores, imho. I wouldn't score S2 anything over a 6 at best, and probably lower.

It would be interesting to see if members scoring the show season by season, as opposed to ep by ep, would achieve numbers similar to the season averages we have here.

[Daske]

People also marked it up because of the divergence.

...

Sorry, but this is misleading. Some may have marked it up because of the divergence, but not just because it was a divergence. Whereas some were marking it down purely because it was a divergence, and said so (and some will not enjoy any divergence or near as dammit). And as someone said upthread the drop from the latter 'protest vote' will be greater than the increase from the former. But whatever, as you say it's interesting wherever you stand, different ways to interpret the data.

I think anyone who came out of "First of His Name" thinking that any genuine purpose was served by the Craster's storyline beyond marking time is fooling themselves. It's a genuine closed circle. Nothing has changed.

The 'purpose' was that it was entertaining (for most of us). Whether it was marking time or a closed circle has little bearing as long as it was engaging and good enough that we didn't worry any little flaws - that's why many of us watch GoT, for fun. And regardless Jon's standing amoung his peers has changed as a consequence, as has the reunion with Ghost, and Bran-Hodor's dynamic. Yes these could have been done other ways but that that doesn't mean nothing's changed in the way they did do it.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Daske

[jentario]

Well I don't see how enjoying a sequence of television qualifies as fooling myself, but I'm going to bed so I'll take this no further.

I enjoyed it, but not as much as I hoped to. I just thought that making Bran narrowly miss meeting Jon again is quite stupid, and carrying Locke all this way to just die like that was also weird. They could have had him fight Brienne before the end of the season, but they decided to do this... I agree with Ran for once. It was a closed circle, and it had some cool moments (Jon vs Karl for instance) but I would much rather have it lead somewhere. For instance, if Jon actually met Bran. Or if Locke figured out through Bran about Rickon and set off on another hunt. And in general, I would much rather have Coldhands save Bran than Jon and his company. It seemed like this was being built as a truly great deviation, but it served for nothing really. I guess it did build Jon as a leader, though. And gave Bran and Jojen a chance to be badass. But it does feel completely redundant now, which I feel could have been avoided.

EDIT: I feel like having both Jon and Bran involved in the Craster's Keep arc was a big mistake. They should have gone to either, and built it up that way with no silly near miss. Either Bran gets caught and is saved by Coldhands, or Jon attacks and everything is the same minus Locke and Bran. And even having these two take part in this storyline could have been done better if the fact that they are both there would have had more bearing than giving Bran a choice to not call out for Jon. It's too Queenscrowny for my taste. At the very least, they shouldn't have involved Locke in it- which was definitely entirely pointless (any mutineer could have taken Bran and run off with him only to die at Hodor's hands).

EDIT2: I was actually really looking forward to this deviation, and I am definitely not what one would call a purist.

Edited May 8, 2014 by jentario

[Frey Pies]

The 'purpose' was that it was entertaining (for most of us). Whether it was marking time or a closed circle has little bearing as long as it was engaging and good enough that we didn't worry any little flaws - that's why many of us watch GoT, for fun. And regardless Jon's standing amoung his peers has changed as a consequence, as has the reunion with Ghost, and Bran-Hodor's dynamic. Yes these could have been done other ways but that that doesn't mean nothing's changed in the way they did do it.

Not to mention that it gave us the best sequence Jojen has had so far. For some reason, and others will probably disagree, the "you'll know" became one of the most poignant and heartbreaking lines from the show for me. I though it had the best delivery out of any line in the series (along with "I saw you die today", also by Jojen in the same episode). Thomas Brodie Sangster killed it.

Agreed. Oathkeeper, too, was a really good episode, one of my favourites actually. Cogman was up to the task, us usual. Give that man more episodes! I do agree though that First of His Name was solid, but no more. For me personally, the weakest episode of the five aired so far.

I think the reason Oathkeeper got such low reviews was because some fans were outraged by the divergences and the fact that they didn't know what was going to happen in the scenes. I don't get how that's bad though :/ D&D know what they're doing, and it made for extremely riveting television.

[Ran]

Am I talking to the breeze? Noted that people had other issues that weren't tied primarily, or even at all, with the divergences.

[Daske]

Am I talking to the breeze? Noted that people had other issues that weren't tied primarily, or even at all, with the divergences.

Par for the course isn't it? Been that way for four seasons. Why would lower votes from fans who didn't like some scenes count towards this season's drop-off but lower votes from fans who don't like changes period not count towards this season's drop-off? (especially when these are often going to be the same people and there have been such big changes this year). It's all tied up together isn't it? Not just as simple as this season isn't as good, especially when it doesn't seem to reflected in the wider fandom outside this board.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Daske

[ground_control]

Sorry, but this is misleading. Some may have marked it up because of the divergence, but not just because it was a divergence. Whereas some were marking it down purely because it was a divergence, and said so (and some will not enjoy any divergence or near as dammit). And as someone said upthread the drop from the latter 'protest vote' will be greater than the increase from the former. But whatever, as you say it's interesting wherever you stand, different ways to interpret the data.

I never used the term "protest vote" and that was absolutely NOT what I was discussing. A "protest vote" would be not liking what the average vote is and artificially voting lower (or higher) in order to move the average closer to your "true" value.

I was discussing the observation that a *true* extreme negative weighs more heavily than a *true* extreme positive opinion if both voters usually give substantially positive ratings.

Ran gives us both the raw average and an average with the 5% most extreme votes removed. Hopefully that removes most (if not all) impact from "protest voters" or people whose genuine opinion is "not book = trash just 'cause not book".

[~DarkHorse~]

Wow, I think Season 4 has been the best so far.

I think people are getting too harsh and judging episodes by the accuracy they hold to the books rather than their quality/entertainment value.

My unsullied friend finds Bran more interesting since the Craster's keep storyline and Jon leading the attack contributes to him becoming LC, rather than just getting elected mainly because of cunning Sam. This 'filler' was entertaining, more so than Jon moping around at the wall and only getting his 'Badass pants' on with the Wildling attack and Bran and Jojen showing some backbone with 'I saw you die tonight' and warging into Hodor. It added to the story, not weakened it.

I bet the ratings will be completely different for unsullied.

Edited May 8, 2014 by ~DarkHorse~

[Ran]

Someone with more mathematical accumen than I is welcome to take the raw data and provide some other ways of normalizing it. I suppose one approach might be to normalize using standard deviation -- people voting 10 are closer to the means of 7-8 we see compared to people voting 1-2, and so perhaps a flat 5% +/- isn't reasonable. But... yeah, more maths required than what I am willing or able to do.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Ran

[DarkAndFullOfTurnips]

Someone with more mathematical accumen than I is welcome to take the raw data and provide some other ways of normalizing it. I suppose one approach might be to normalize using standard deviation -- people voting 10 are closer to the means of 7-8 we see compared to people voting 1-2, and so perhaps a flat 5% +/- isn't reasonable. But... yeah, more maths required than what I am willing or able to do.

I think what you've provided is close enough to accurately conclude how the fans here responded to the episodes.

Unfortunately I think as the story progresses, D&D will continue to diverge from the book plot more and more, especially for the AFFC and ADWD material, and that'll continue to be reflected in lower scoring by the westeros.org community. I understand your (and many other people's) misgivings about some of the invented plots this season (And agree with most of it), but overall I think it has been a considerably stronger season thus far than S3 and S2. I do think D&D have a chance at getting purist communities like this more on board with invented scenes and plots through the seasons 5 and 6 since a lot of those books had slow-moving, sometimes boring plotlines that dragged on a bit too much. The trick is maintaining logical consistency within their invented arcs, as well creating plots that enrich the story rather than just taking up time.

Another important factor will be to move the characters forward developmentally. As in Tyrion can't be an amazingly nice guy the whole time, Dany must eventually show more of a struggle and ineptitude, Cersei should evolve into a less sympathetic, crazier version of herself. I think they've done a good job with Jon Snow and Jaime thus far, as far as character development goes, and it's quite necessary because after 5-6 years of the characters all being the same, the show will grow a bit stale and falter, I think. I hope after the extreme situations most of the main characters go through by the end of Season 4 that we start to see another side or struggle for these characters. One of the reasons Brienne (In the books) is a bit of a boring character for me is because she's been the same the whole time, she'll never really surprise you or do anything that makes you question her character. I hope the show doesn't transform everyone into a Brienne-type.

[PatrickStormborn]

I agree with the general consensus that, so far, season 4 looks stronger than season 3... But that's definitely with the benefit of hindsight. Episodes 1 and 3 of season 3 were both strong, and episodes 4 and 5 were some of the best received episodes of all time on this board. Season 4 has been more consistent, but none of the episodes reach the heights of And Now His Watch is Ended or Kissed By Fire, IMO.

But luckily, even with continued weak deviations to the source material, the rest of this season looks to be stronger than the latter half of season 3, so I think in the end it will rate either above season 3 or just marginally below it, depending on how strong the latter episodes are. I expect the finale to be one of the best rated on this site if they stick closely to the source material (or at least sticking to the themes and ideas presented in the books if not the content itself), but the overall rating of the season will depend on how many strong episodes there are, not how consistent the season is. Season 1 had 6 episodes rating above 8.5; season 2 had 2; season 3 had 3; season 4 currently has none, but the finale will almost definitely hit 10, and perhaps episodes 6, 8 and 9 may reach it, although I don't think any of them will quite hit the 9 mark (the battle at the Wall might if it's impressive, but I just don't think it will be as fun to watch as Blackwater).

[K-26dp]

I was talking about "Oathkeeper".

I think anyone who came out of "First of His Name" thinking that any genuine purpose was served by the Craster's storyline beyond marking time is fooling themselves. It's a genuine closed circle. Nothing has changed.

There were also important character beats that are likely to have payoffs. Most importantly, I think it gave a weight to the Bran Party's mystical journey that I don't think the show really had the opportunity to explore before. Those scenes could have been handled out in the woods somewhere, but the threat presented by the mutineers allowed that the story to breathe.

It also first establishes in a heated moment not only Bran's ability to take control of Hodor, but establishes the moral implications of such, given Kristan Narin's able handling of the moment.

Finally, it also allowed Jon Snow his first command. In the book, Jon was looked on as a LC contender because of his de facto command of the Castle Black defense in the wildling seige. We don't know if he's going to have that opportunity given the presence of Alliser Thorne and Janos Flynt as Castle Black early. The raid on Craster's Keep establishes Jon's leadership bone fides.

Yes, all of that could have been handled differently, but clearly the writers wants to give more screentime to the Bran Party and Jon despite the source material not really having anything here. It's a closed loop, but I disagree that it didn't serve any purpose besides marking time. If nothing else, it gave the "good guys" a brief, but clear win.

[Frey Pies]

I agree with the general consensus that, so far, season 4 looks stronger than season 3... But that's definitely with the benefit of hindsight. Episodes 1 and 3 of season 3 were both strong, and episodes 4 and 5 were some of the best received episodes of all time on this board. Season 4 has been more consistent, but none of the episodes reach the heights of And Now His Watch is Ended or Kissed By Fire, IMO.

Exactly. Season 3 had a really strong first half, but was bogged down with its second half. The problem was, instead of escalating and becoming more eventful over time, it actually entered a lull period halfway through. Season 4 has just been building up and up and the way in which D&D is doing it is extremely impressive.

After Kissed by Fire and And Now His Watch is Ended, I had no doubt that Season 3 would be the greatest season television had ever seen. However, the problem was that the only two memorable episodes of the second half were Second Sons (not as good as those other two) and The Rains of Castamere (best episode so far).

With Season 4, episodes 6,8,9 and 10 are all almost guaranteed to be exceptional, and 7 too can be extremely good depending on what they include in it.

[Daske]

I never used the term "protest vote" and that was absolutely NOT what I was discussing. A "protest vote" would be not liking what the average vote is and artificially voting lower (or higher) in order to move the average closer to your "true" value.

I was discussing the observation that a *true* extreme negative weighs more heavily than a *true* extreme positive opinion if both voters usually give substantially positive ratings.

Ran gives us both the raw average and an average with the 5% most extreme votes removed. Hopefully that removes most (if not all) impact from "protest voters" or people whose genuine opinion is "not book = trash just 'cause not book".

My apologies, yes a bit different I think. My example would be I'm watching the show with a friend and both rate it say a 7 up until Craster's. I like the added story so pump it up to an 8 (+1). However, my friend hates 'D&D fanfiction butchery' so he drops it down to a 4 (-3) as he is just fed up with it all. Protest vote is maybe not quite the correct word, but I mean overly exaggerating a negative to voice displeasure rather than based on merit (or lack of it) alone.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Daske

[MrsManderly]

Non-mathematically, it seems to me that one thing which may be affecting the numbers is that the book reading population (presumably the vast majority of the Forum) is probably grading more harshly as the seasons advance.

The first season impressed everyone with its great production values, (overall) excellent casting and just how fabulous it was to see everyone's beloved books put to screen in a thoughtful and (mostly) cannon-faithful way.

As the seasons advance, this "warm glow" factor has worn off and people now expect the show to deliver, so they are less tolerant of faults (or perceived faults) like the mishandled sept scene, the Night's King "spoiler" and the Craster's Keep/Locke/Bran off-piste sequence.

[AlienTwo]

I am definitely way out of step with the majority on this site.

I agree... Season 2 was my least favorite, but I have been loving season 4. Loving.

[The hairy bear]

Daske,

Another example would be me, watching the show with a friend and both rate it say a 7 up until Craster's. I hate the added story so pump it down to an 6 (-1). However, my friend loves 'D&D innovation' so he rises it to a 10 (+3) as he is just fed up with it all.

We all can say that most people that disagrees with us overstate their ratings, and therefore the average should be closer to what we believe. However, if we are not able to back it with something it's a moot point.

The first season impressed everyone with its great production values, (overall) excellent casting and just how fabulous it was to see everyone's beloved books put to screen in a thoughtful and (mostly) cannon-faithful way.

As the seasons advance, this "warm glow" factor has worn off and people now expect the show to deliver, so they are less tolerant of faults (or perceived faults) like the mishandled sept scene, the Night's King "spoiler" and the Craster's Keep/Locke/Bran off-piste sequence.

I agree completely.