How would you rate episode 410?

[sj4iy]

Agreed but this place a record of holding the show to an impossible level of scrutiny while giving every flaw in the books a pass.

Well, that's because the books are perfect and the show is blasphemy.

;)

[LordStoneheart]

A while back sj said everyone agreed Arya and Tywin was a good change.. gonna have to point out that it's actually a really bad change when you consider the depth. It diminishes both characters. Arya's post GoT arc was in a lot of ways about how she could survive by acting as a lowborn. The show's deviation made Arya's standout trait that she was highborn and worthy of Tywin's attention, and it turned Tywin into an idiot by having him very clearly say "you're a highborn northern girl, but whatevs. Bye. take care." The Real Tywin would not have been so idiotic as to ignore the opportunity of capturing a noble born northerner. I mean, look what he did to Jeyne Poole. Not a good change.

[Modesty Lannister]

A while back sj said everyone agreed Arya and Tywin was a good change.. gonna have to point out that it's actually a really bad change when you consider the depth. It diminishes both characters. Arya's post GoT arc was in a lot of ways about how she could survive by acting as a lowborn. The show's deviation made Arya's standout trait that she was highborn and worthy of Tywin's attention, and it turned Tywin into an idiot by having him very clearly say "you're a highborn northern girl, but whatevs. Bye. take care." The Real Tywin would not have been so idiotic as to ignore the opportunity of capturing a noble born northerner. I mean, look what he did to Jeyne Poole. Not a good change.

But, you heard our wisemen of the thread. The show is great, great, great. How dare you criticize it! Charles and Maisie looked so so great together. It was awesome. And you are nitpicking there. Who needs logic?The show is dealing with a magical world. Anything can happen. That's the appeal. The one thing that cannot happen is sticking to the books. That would be so predictable. Why would bookreaders watch the show then? There would be no surprises. This way they are constantly surprised. Mostly unpleasently, but who cares. Ratings are great. That's all that matters. If those nitpicking books' readers are unhappy, they can stop watching and wait for book no.6, sad bastards that they are. Meanwhile, show lovers will enjoy the show's sheer awesomeness. Yeah. D&D rock. They are so awesome. GRRM who?

[Green Knight]

But, you heard our wisemen of the thread. The show is great, great, great. How dare you criticize it! Charles and Maisie looked so so great together. It was awesome. And you are nitpicking there. Who needs logic?The show is dealing with a magical world. Anything can happen. That's the appeal. The one thing that cannot happen is sticking to the books. That would be so predictable. Why would bookreaders watch the show then? There would be no surprises. This way they are constantly surprised. Mostly unpleasently, but who cares. Ratings are great. That's all that matters. If those nitpicking books' readers are unhappy, they can stop watching and wait for book no.6, sad bastards that they are. Meanwhile, show lovers will enjoy the show's sheer awesomeness. Yeah. D&D rock. They are so awesome. GRRM who?

No one is saying the show is perfect. That is a specious retort you guys continue to throw out there whenever anyone defends the show. The show is DIFFERENT from the book! It will continue to be different from the book no matter how much you people stomp and winge. Get over it...

The one thing you show haters have yet to answer is why do you continue to watch? There are shows that I don't like so I simply don't watch them. I don't go to fan forums and endlessly crticize them.

[Modesty Lannister]

No one is saying the show is perfect. That is a specious retort you guys continue to throw out there whenever anyone defends the show. The show is DIFFERENT from the book! It will continue to be different from the book no matter how much you people stomp and winge. Get over it...

The one thing you show haters have yet to answer is why do you continue to watch? There are shows that I don't like so I simply don't watch them. I don't go to fan forums and endlessly crticize them.

No. You go to fan forums to tell other people what to do, which is highly arrogant, don't you think!?

[LordStoneheart]

Green Knight, I believe I have answered that but I'll repeat myself. I watch to explain the things that don't make sense (because the show is extremely bad at narrative) to my family and just a sliver of false hope that it will get better. It doesn't.

The general show-defending sentiment definitely seems to be that the show is perfect, using the guise of "books are a different medium, other people and critics like it!" What I'm sick of is show defenders acting like there aren't legitimate criticisms of the show.

here's one guy's take. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/no-right-answer/8994-Is-Game-of-Thrones-Overrated) I don't necessarily agree with him, but it's not just book fans that don't like the show.

Edited June 23, 2014 by LordStoneheart

[Ghost Story]

I think it's impossible to actually hate the show. I mean, the actors are great, the settings are even better. For me, it's sometimes hard to see characters behaving differently from what they're "supposed" to do and it's not so easy to see how arcs D&D created differently from the novels, will end up or lead up to superior happenings. But in the end it works just fine. I guess it's difficult for readers to accept that there has to be left out some important stuff for the show to work. You cannot put every detail Martin created in a show. But it the end it's sums up perfectly.

[Tolsimir]

You completely misread that whole sequence. Tywin was never on Tyrion's side. To the extent he wanted Tyrion to live, it was only to get Jaimie to give up being in the Kingsguard, and this is important: that only happens if Tyrion is found guilty. If Tyrion is found innocent, there is no need to deal with Jaimie and let Tyrion take the black. So Tywin always wanted Tyrion guilty, and always wanted Tyrion gone, the only question was whether he'd settle for Tyrion in a black cloak or if he would insist on Tyrion's head.

So no, Tywin was not, in any way, shape, or form, on Tyrion's side.

No think about where Tyrion stood at that moment, Tysha or no. Even though he was escaping with his life, he had just said goodbye to Jaimie forever, who, as far as he could tell, is the only person who ever loved him. He was looking at the rest of his life without money (after being able to buy his way into or out of anything for his entire life), on the run, a fugitive with nothing but a bounty on his head. Never to see his brother or anyone else he likes or loves ever again. Because his father plotted with his sister to arrange for him to get a death sentence for a crime he didn't commit, and Tywin knew it.

Yeah, I'd say there's plenty of reason for Tyrion to be feeling desperate, emotional, irrational, and looking at probably his last chance ever to confront his father, even without Tysha.

Obviously he wanted Tyrion dead, but because of Jaime he tried to save him. Just because Tywin wanted Tyrion dead his whole life, does not mean the trial was his fault. He had nothing to do with it. And Tyrion basically condemned himself when choosing trial by combat.

And Tyrion knew that his father wanted him dead his whole life, has he ever done anything about it? No. Why would he do something now, when his last friend saved his life? Why risk the ultimate gift from your last friend? In the books he had no friends left and nothing left to lose. If Jaime would not tell Tyrion about Tysha, do you think he would go after Tywin? There is a reason why that happens, because Martin needed something to send Tyrion over the edge.

I am not saying that the writers needed to replicate the Tysha story, but SOMETHING is missing and it makes one of the most important scenes a joke.

[Tolsimir]

I think it's impossible to actually hate the show. I mean, the actors are great, the settings are even better. For me, it's sometimes hard to see characters behaving differently from what they're "supposed" to do and it's not so easy to see how arcs D&D created differently from the novels, will end up or lead up to superior happenings. But in the end it works just fine. I guess it's difficult for readers to accept that there has to be left out some important stuff for the show to work. You cannot put every detail Martin created in a show. But it the end it's sums up perfectly.

You don't have to put in every detail fom the books. But if you change things atleast keep those changes in mind. Don't just completely change a character from episode to episode to sometimes fit your idea while following the book otherwise.

[LordStoneheart]

:agree: Jaime the Pancake is a good example of that.

[Green Knight]

I think it's impossible to actually hate the show. I mean, the actors are great, the settings are even better. For me, it's sometimes hard to see characters behaving differently from what they're "supposed" to do and it's not so easy to see how arcs D&D created differently from the novels, will end up or lead up to superior happenings. But in the end it works just fine. I guess it's difficult for readers to accept that there has to be left out some important stuff for the show to work. You cannot put every detail Martin created in a show. But it the end it's sums up perfectly.

Agree totally. I'm just happy to have a nice adaptation of my favorite books brought to life. Even if it is a bit different. I can still read the books and get the story as the author intended.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Green Knight

[Green Knight]

Green Knight, I believe I have answered that but I'll repeat myself. I watch to explain the things that don't make sense (because the show is extremely bad at narrative) to my family and just a sliver of false hope that it will get better. It doesn't.

The general show-defending sentiment definitely seems to be that the show is perfect, using the guise of "books are a different medium, other people and critics like it!" What I'm sick of is show defenders acting like there aren't legitimate criticisms of the show.

here's one guy's take. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/no-right-answer/8994-Is-Game-of-Thrones-Overrated) I don't necessarily agree with him, but it's not just book fans that don't like the show.

LordStoneheart,

I don't have a problem with legitimate criticisms. It the endless nitpicking when something differs from the book story that get me. It's the over the top, mean spirited, disrespect and vitriolic nature of the posts that some of these people make towards the show's producers.

Seriously, if they are that unhappy, why bother watching? I think it's just what I said before. Children who can't get their way throwing a fit. . .

[LordStoneheart]

GK, my problem with show defenders is that they don't seem to understand or at the very least admit that not only is the "nitpicking" a legitimate criticism, but that often the deviations change whole character dynamics that are basically completely contradictions of the books that the show is supposedly "based" on.

Case in point, Tyrion and Cersei Lannister. They don't exist in the show, at least not the characters from the books. Their show imitations are so far off that they might as well be renamed. This is frustrating because it shows obvious favoritism on part of the showrunners, biased towards these two Lannisters. Similiarly, they are giving extremely mixed signals about Jaime. S1 - make him ultimate dickhead, shoving Bran as if it was a light decision versus book where he was rather frustrated. Cut to S2 where while still arrogant they began to humanize him more. A good thing, and it lead nicely into S3 where at this point in the novels most people begin to like Jaime... all that was done rather well IMO, like the Brienne tub scene.... then cut to S4 where they basically reversed his character back to S1 status, making light of Sansa's situation, raping Cersei, and later giving in to her whereas in the books he does the opposite, refusing her which many fans take to be one of the final stages in his "redemption," not being swayed by his sister anymore.

Overall, I like the show. But "overall" honestly doesn't cut it when it comes to vast media entertainment, or anything really. "Overall, I like this meal, except for the moldy pieces, but the good parts were great..." the showrunners chose to make this show, and that comes with taking the criticism that comes their way. There's obviously a problem when the controversies make such a wave in pop culture (as in, Jaime's rape of Cersei made major news outlets and for a while had its own dedicated section on Wikipedia, as does the omission of Lady Stoneheart for now.)

I'll say this endless times but it won't get through to show fans who are too sensitive to hear any and all criticisms. I will praise the show and its deviations when they're done well and will lambast it when it makes no sense, is added for shock value, or is obvious bias or lack of understanding from the writers.

[sj4iy]

No one is saying the show is perfect. That is a specious retort you guys continue to throw out there whenever anyone defends the show. The show is DIFFERENT from the book! It will continue to be different from the book no matter how much you people stomp and winge. Get over it...

The one thing you show haters have yet to answer is why do you continue to watch? There are shows that I don't like so I simply don't watch them. I don't go to fan forums and endlessly crticize them.

Thank you. I've actually made my fair share of complaints about the show, but I always judge the show on its own merits instead of constantly comparing it to the books. "Not being like the books" is NOT in and of itself a problem. But yes, I will criticize the show when it does something wrong.

[sj4iy]

GK, my problem with show defenders is that they don't seem to understand or at the very least admit that not only is the "nitpicking" a legitimate criticism, but that often the deviations change whole character dynamics that are basically completely contradictions of the books that the show is supposedly "based" on.

How condescending. I understand very well what nitpicking is. And it CAN be legitimate criticism if it really does affect the storyline of the show. However, again...being different from the books is not in and of itself a problem. The show is and always was going to be different. It was never going to be 100% the same, and anyone who was expecting that has their expectations set incorrectly.

Nitpick the show on the mistakes it makes concerning the story and plot it's telling. Nitpick the books on the mistakes it makes concerning the story and plot IT'S telling. But they are not, and never will be, the same thing.

-And my nitpicks of the show this season include:

Molestown slaughtered for no discernible reason

Locke's ill-thought out plan to kill Bran Stark and his anticlimatic death

The sheer amount of time we spend in Tyrion's cell- characterization is fine, but we seriously spend more time there than we do with about half of the characters

-My nitpicks of the book it followed this season:

Mance's terrible, terrible battle strategies against a small group of old and crippled NWmen when he had 100k men at his disposal

Jon being put in command when he just returned from desertion, is seriously injured and 17 years old

Coldhands, the elk-riding deus ex machina

I may be a 'show defender' simply because I like the show and think that people here are too harsh on it, but it doesn't mean I like everything about the show. I also enjoy the books, but don't like everything about them, either, so I don't know what category you would want to put me in. Really, I just like to think of myself as someone who can separate the two and criticize them fairly as two separate entities. If that makes me a show apologist or defender, so be it. But I would defend the books to the same extent as the show if I felt people were being unfairly harsh on them, so I'm an equal-opportunity apologist and critic.

Edited June 23, 2014 by sj4iy

[Green Knight]

How condescending. I understand very well what nitpicking is. And it CAN be legitimate criticism if it really does affect the storyline of the show. However, again...being different from the books is not in and of itself a problem. The show is and always was going to be different. It was never going to be 100% the same, and anyone who was expecting that has their expectations set incorrectly.

Nitpick the show on the mistakes it makes concerning the story and plot it's telling. Nitpick the books on the mistakes it makes concerning the story and plot IT'S telling. But they are not, and never will be, the same thing.

-And my nitpicks of the show this season include:

Molestown slaughtered for no discernible reason

Locke's ill-thought out plan to kill Bran Stark and his anticlimatic death

The sheer amount of time we spend in Tyrion's cell- characterization is fine, but we seriously spend more time there than we do with about half of the characters

-My nitpicks of the book it followed this season:

Mance's terrible, terrible battle strategies against a small group of old and crippled NWmen when he had 100k men at his disposal

Jon being put in command when he just returned from desertion, is seriously injured and 17 years old

Coldhands, the elk-riding deus ex machina

I may be a 'show defender' simply because I like the show and think that people here are too harsh on it, but it doesn't mean I like everything about the show. I also enjoy the books, but don't like everything about them, either, so I don't know what category you would want to put me in. Really, I just like to think of myself as someone who can separate the two and criticize them fairly as two separate entities. If that makes me a show apologist or defender, so be it. But I would defend the books to the same extent as the show if I felt people were being unfairly harsh on them, so I'm an equal-opportunity apologist and critic.

I think we are peas in a pod. That is the point I've been trying to make all along. They are two SEPERATE stories. Criticize away on each individual story's merit. There are things I like about the show and things I dont like. The book story is far better. It has finite detail and intricacies that could never effectively be presented on screen. But the book story is far from perfect as well.

Imho AFFC was awful. I can't take the endless journeying everybody seems to be doing without ever reaching any sort of satisfying conclusion. It is a snore fest. Dance of D's wasn't as bad but not nearly as good as the first three either. I'm hoping the next one will pick up the original vibe again.

[I am a Dragon]

<snip>

Good post. I don't have any problems with changes but I feel this season in particular (and Dany's arc in S2) made a lot of changes that had little to no logic behind them. "Only Cat" and Stoneheart being removed didn't bother me but the Craster's arc added nothing but a fight scene and another reunion tease. The only thing that came from it was John spitting in Styr's face. The change to have both CB battles at once was logical and worked brilliantly IMO. Asha attacking the Dreadfort did not. My problem is that they expend time and budget on stories that amount to nothing/very little and then use their lack of time/budget to justify leaving out other storylines.

My nitpicks this season:

Locke's kidnapping Bran (like you said) and the whole Craster's arc.

Beetle convo and generally wasting Tyrion's cell time instead of using it to reintroduce Tysha or give some Tywin backstory.

No Kevan

Brienne vs Hound felt extremely unnecessary.

Rorge and Biter - I mean, Biter just jumps on Sandor and gets his neck snapped while Rorge stands around waiting for Arya to kill him.

Stannis being so passive at the IB.

How anticlimatically Dany takes Mereen. We could have had a proper siege in place of Dreadfort and Craster's battles.

Baelish revealing how he planned the deaths of Joffrey of Jon Arryn so early in the season (not a major nitpick but I feel it would have added a lot of weight to his final scene with Lysa)

Arya and Sandor telling almost everyone who they are but not the farmer.

Emilia Clarke's "acting abilities" (I know they can't recast her at this point but still...)

Jon still not warging. I don't care so much about Arya's wolf dreams being cut but Jon being a warg seems quite important.

Imho AFFC was awful. I can't take the endless journeying everybody seems to be doing without ever reaching any sort of satisfying conclusion. It is a snore fest. Dance of D's wasn't as bad but not nearly as good as the first three either. I'm hoping the next one will pick up the original vibe again.

I fully agree. Apart from Cersei's chapters, I really didn't enjoy Feast. Brienne is by far the worst PoV since Cat IMO.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Laoch

[Miodrag]

Show-lovers' frustration is understandable to a certain extent, because it is an unusual for a show this popular to receive this much criticism, especially on fan sites. With other shows, people who criticize them aren't too interested in posting their criticism, and, on top of that, sooner or later that do loose an interest in watching the show. That's why discussions about other shows are, probably, way different than discussions about GoT, and why GoT-lovers are encountering a sort of criticism fans of other shows usually don't.

This is a completely different case, however, because of the source material. If not for the books, I'd quite watching the show long time ago (and, if I may add, nothing in the world would force me to read them, because I'd have no reason to think they're any better than the show that is often described as a "faithful adaptation"). But I did read them, which naturally inspires my interest in the show, even though I thoroughly dislike it. And honestly, show-lovers' frustration, however understandable, should never be an excuse for blatant apologia of D&D. Labeling any book vs. show comparison as "nitpicking" or "book-purism" is a very poor taste. Familiarity with the source material should be a blessing, not a curse. Of course that omission of Tysha is going to be discussed, and it should be. Why not? Even if you like the show version, what's wrong in questioning would it be even better with Tysha as a background story that sets Tyrion's fury in motion?

Why the hell would any book reader ignore Tysha, who happens to be an integral part of ASOIAF universe? Because D&D failed to realize her importance?! Because D&D didn't know how to include her in the final episode, I'm supposed not to talk or think about her?! That stance is pure D&D apologia.

Also, have to add that the show suffers from many things that have nothing to do with a comparison to the books, but with a comparison to other shows. Brienne and Sandor never meet in the books. I mean, they possibly do, but she doesn't recognize him and the two of them never speak. So when they meet and have an exchange in the show, it's not some book scene I'm going to compare that exchange with, but exchanges of that kind in other shows and movies. And, have to say, Brienne/Sandor is way more similar to those moronic Lost or Prison Break scenes, in which characters look like they are actually trying to misunderstand each other (which is the most frequent Hollywood cliche for building the "tension" in a way the plot demands it), than to anything in The Wire or The Sopranos.

For what it's worth, I don't post on show-centered sites a la WiC. They made it clear very early on that the show is their main focus and primary concern, while the books are a distant second. Regardless of how much I disagree with what people post there, and I couldn't disagree more, I respect their general interest in the show and feel no need to disturb it in any way. But Westeros is something completely different. Expecting the books to be ignored here is simply disingenuous - not to mention that, even on its own, the show is a very disappointing one and bellow HBO standards from several years ago.

[sj4iy]

Good post. I don't have any problems with changes but I feel this season in particular (and Dany's arc in S2) made a lot of changes that had little to no logic behind them. "Only Cat" and Stoneheart being removed didn't bother me but the Craster's arc added nothing but a fight scene and another reunion tease. The only thing that came from it was John spitting in Styr's face. The change to have both CB battles at once was logical and worked brilliantly IMO. Asha attacking the Dreadfort did not. My problem is that they expend time and budget on stories that amount to nothing/very little and then use their lack of time/budget to justify leaving out other storylines.

My nitpicks this season:

Locke's kidnapping Bran (like you said) and the whole Craster's arc.

Beetle convo and generally wasting Tyrion's cell time instead of using it to reintroduce Tysha or give some Tywin backstory.

No Kevan

Brienne vs Hound felt extremely unnecessary.

Rorge and Biter - I mean, Biter just jumps on Sandor and gets his neck snapped while Rorge stands around waiting for Arya to kill him.

Stannis being so passive at the IB.

How anticlimatically Dany takes Mereen. We could have had a proper siege in place of Dreadfort and Craster's battles.

Baelish revealing how he planned the deaths of Joffrey of Jon Arryn so early in the season (not a major nitpick but I feel it would have added a lot of weight to his final scene with Lysa)

Arya and Sandor telling almost everyone who they are but not the farmer.

Emilia Clarke's "acting abilities" (I know they can't recast her at this point but still...)

I fully agree. Apart from Cersei's chapters, I really didn't enjoy Feast. Brienne is by far the worst PoV since Cat IMO.

I agree with you on most of those. I did enjoy the fight at Craster's Keep between Jon and Karl 'the fookin' legend' Tanner, just because it offered us a chance to see Jon make a really, really awesome kill XD I also enjoyed the fight between Brienne and the Hound because really, ANYTHING that gives Brienne something interesting to do is a huge improvement on the book XD But I completely agree with you about Mereen and Clarke's acting...something was just really off this season with her. She was very stilted and terse. She was speaking deliberately slow and without emotion in an attempt to sound 'royal', but it just came off as 'I'm having trouble with my lines.' Honestly, the best parts of Mereen this year were Jorah's banishment (real acting!) and Daario...as amazed as I am to say about the latter. He actually really convinced me that he was Daario, and that he was just as much of a playboy and fighter as he was supposed to be, while not as flamboyant as the last guy.

But for me, the highlights exceeded the lowlights by quite a lot. Oberyn was pure magic- hot damn, I never thought I would like him THAT much. He stole every single scene he was in, and I will never forget his death. I was also stunned by episode 9 and the sheer SCALE of it. It was amazing in every way, and it was so, so much fun to watch from beginning to end. And it really was fun- I felt like I was watching the battle of Helm's deep again for the first time, which is astounding for a tv show with a fraction of the budget. And of course, the last episode was just hit after hit after hit for almost 70 minutes, it just didn't quit. I just think that, when all is said and done, and despite the occasional misstep, people will look on this season like they look on ASoS and think "wow, that was some amazing television".

I do have high hopes that the writers can really improve on the next books with how they've left everything standing. By moving some characters' stories forward and holding others back, I think they've left enough 'big moments' to breeze though 10 episodes next year. And I think they will have a huge advantage just by recombining AFFC and ADWD, simply because they should have been together all along. So I look forward to it.

[boojam]

*applause*

Awesome job compiling all of those stats, btw. Really interesting to see how people are worried about the 10-episode limit...I think we'll see if it really becomes a problem next season when they recombine (yay) the next two books.

It must be hard for HBO , I know they spent 100 million (part of that BBC and others money) on 12 episodes of ROME ... but got bitten so bad the BBC dropped out and season 2 was shortened to 10.

Of course HBO did get a surprise from DVD sales but I don't know how one can anticipate that.

So risking 60 million on that first season was chancy for HBO... still they structured things such that if the show went bust ... well 10 episodes was not too bad a write off.

Now its Catch 22, contracts are written, all production planning is framed around 10, and it would be a big knot to cut from a biz stand point, if the show climbs again I can see Time Warner with enough gold in their chests to restructure ... but probably not going to happen.

Dave and Dan complain they are over their heads with 10 episodes but I would like to hear what Bruno Heller has to say about that , he and his 6 producers were ready to forge ahead with 4 seasons (and maybe 5) of 12 episodes... but even the movie extension of ROME never happened.

Still, I think I have said this 5 or 6 times, why does an episode have to be , generally , packed into ~60 min. ?

Might have to add more resources (and more money) to do 10 , say 70 or even 80 min. episodes, but seems plausible to me.

Dave and Dan would need more help, but are they against that?

HBO really have a fixed time slot for the show and re-runs? ... When HBO shows 90 min. to 3 hours movies in irregular time slots?

Edited June 23, 2014 by boojam