Game of Thrones getting a big head?

[zaphodbrx]

Okay, then I'll use your logic to defend the Mole's Town filler.

Q. Why didn't the NW warn Mole's town?

A. They didn;t have time. Okay, there are like five episodes between the initial raid and the Mole's town attack, but we don't know how long that is in time. The NW were busy doing other things like making a giant scythe.

Q. But there were already NW men at the brothel.

A. Who says they were NW men. Does the snow ever clarify that? Just because they wear black clothes and visit Mole's town? Isn't that a book assumption? Even if they were NW men, we can assume that they were nameless, clueless, brainless extras, and therefore don't count.

Q. What about the burping whore?

A. In show canon, there are only two songs in Westeros. So this is perfectly logical.

Want me to do Yara at the Dreadfort?

[Konradsmith]

His CV credited him as being Waynwood actually, though no one refers to him as that. Really there was nothing in the show to indicate he was anything more than a guard who got to talk.

Maybe they shouldn't have ended the scene where they did but it wasn't REALLY the worst "why didn't ___ do ___?" leap of logic in the show or even in the books for that matter. Maybe Sandor should have pried further and said, "The Arryn boy could pay for her! She's his cousin." to which Waynwood could say, "That urchin isn't a Lord's daughter. Get out of here." But we got what we got. It was a minor plot hole or at least a fill-in-your-own-explanation moment but I still liked that we got Arya laughing at Sandor and at life. I guess they should've tagged a reason for them to be let go afterwards but I can't blame them too harshly since there was a lot of other ground for the episode to cover.

EDIT: Re: zaphodbrx, there were no holes in the Mole's Town bit. Edd said the NW guys weren't supposed to leave CB but they went anyways. Like in book canon the Mole's Town folks likely heard but ignored the warning. The burping whore was just about further establishing the character as being scuzzy and to add to the general grimy atmosphere. I would've preferred her burping song to be identified as the Dornishman's Wife so 408 could bookend with Dornish poisonings but hey, you can't get everything. The scene itself was a good one with a pretty solid two minute long take from the alleyway outside the brothel until Gilly hears the owl sound. Then we got the raid sequence which was a lovely little action setpiece (Graves does those particularly well). Nothing wrong with it to my mind.

[igrewupinKL]

The problem i have with the bloody gate scene is that they actually just used it so audiences can think that arya may see sansa again without thinking about the consequences. Arya should have never got to the gate full stop.

No one should defend this scene. it was a) unnecessary b ) unexplained c) illogical. i would have rather they use that time for LSH or more Oberyn.

[Konradsmith]

Screentime doesn't work that way though. They don't show one scene instead of another. In fact given how short some of the episodes have been they could have shown the scenes you didn't like AND the ones you wanted to see. The choice of what to include and what not to include is made before they write the episodes, back when they outline the seasons. There isn't that kindof trade-off, except when they delete scenes but that doesn't really happen that often in GoT.

[igrewupinKL]

Screentime doesn't work that way though. They don't show one scene instead of another. In fact given how short some of the episodes have been they could have shown the scenes you don't like AND the ones you wanted to see. The choice of what to include and what not to include is made before they write it. There isn't that kindof trade-off, except in cases of things they shot that they've ten removed from episodes.

I understand how it works, however i'm sure they film more script then what makes the final cut, so more Oberyn would have been easy. LSH is another matter.

What i don't understand about the show overall is that they seem to want to rush things by only filming 10 episodes, only going for 50 mins and now squashing the series into 7 seasons when they could make so much money by even extending it over 1 more season.

I realise it is really expensive to produce but the amount they get back would be phenomenal. GOT is the most highly talked about show in the present and its off-season at the moment. Everyone talks about it and is always excited for next season. The popularity will just grow.

Extending each episode by only 10 minutes would make a world of difference. But in saying that, they still find ways for useless storylines and waste of time scenes in the already 50 min episode. I'm sure they would not use the time appropriately.

[Dragon in the North]

The problem i have with the bloody gate scene is that they actually just used it so audiences can think that arya may see sansa again without thinking about the consequences. Arya should have never got to the gate full stop.

No one should defend this scene. it was a) unnecessary b ) unexplained c) illogical. i would have rather they use that time for LSH or more Oberyn.

I thought the scene was more like the beetle scene in that it gave us a glimpse into Arya's mind, like the beetle scene did for Tyrion, and allowed us to see how she was slipping even further into the darkness. I mean, I have Unsullied friends and they never thought that Arya and Sansa would meet. I'm not saying that I liked it, but it had a reason. In fact, all of D&D's scenes serve a purpose and I don't know why people keep saying the showrunners should stop adding scenes that are pointless, because each scene serves a point, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. For example, the one inconsistency that I can't get over is that the Karstarks made up half the northern army. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean I don't see what D&D were trying to do. They were trying to make Robb's plight to Walder Frey even more desperate and made it so he absolutely needed the Freys to carry on his campaign. It just didn't work for me.

[igrewupinKL]

I thought the scene was more like the beetle scene in that it gave us a glimpse into Arya's mind, like the beetle scene did for Tyrion, and allowed us to see how she was slipping even further into the darkness. I mean, I have Unsullied friends and they never thought that Arya and Sansa would meet. I'm not saying that I liked it, but it had a reason. In fact, all of D&D's scenes serve a purpose and I don't know why people keep saying the showrunners should stop adding scenes that are pointless, because each scene serves a point, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. For example, the one inconsistency that I can't get over is that the Karstarks made up half the northern army. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean I don't see what D&D were trying to do. They were trying to make Robb's plight to Walder Frey even more desperate and made it so he absolutely needed the Freys to carry on his campaign. It just didn't work for me.

I'm not comparing it to the book logic. at all. and i wish people would stop assuming that. It made no sense in the context of the show to let arya go. The scene itself when i first watched it was shallow. The girl has murdered people, i don't think laughter got us any deeper into her psyche, she was laughing at the Hound's misfortune.

[Dragon in the North]

I'm not comparing it to the book logic. at all. and i wish people would stop assuming that. It made no sense in the context of the show to let arya go. The scene itself when i first watched it was shallow. The girl has murdered people, i don't think laughter got us any deeper into her psyche, she was laughing at the Hound's misfortune.

She's murdered men who have caused her harm personally. This was something else. Her aunt was dead, and she couldn't care less. I mean, I know she really didn't know her but still. This may have been her last living relative.

[igrewupinKL]

it still didn't make sense for her to just leave without question

I don't think its because she didn't 'care' its that nothing effects her now that she's lost most of her family.

[Dragon in the North]

it still didn't make sense for her to just leave without question

I don't think its because she didn't 'care' its that nothing effects her now that she's lost most of her family.

That's a good point too. As for the guards, we don't exactly see what transpired after Arya's laughter. I will be extremely disappointed if, at the very least, Littlefinger never hears that a girl claiming to be Arya Stark showed up at the Gate. Then I would agree that it is a plot hole.

[Konradsmith]

Then LF can say to the guards (like Jim Broadbent in Hot Fuzz), "You incompetent FLATFOOTS!"

[Tolsimir]

Meh, something messed up my quotes gonna make a new post.

[Tolsimir]

I don't think the quality of every show or book is the same...but my opinion is heavily influenced by my own tastes. So is everyone else's. So yes, it is absolutely impossible to be objective about whether a show or book is good or not.

So in the same sentence you say that we can't be objective about the quality of a show and that not every show is of the same quality? Then please, do tell me how we can determine which show is good if we can't be objective about it.

The twilight movies aren't critically acclaimed and aren't nominated for prestigious awards every year.

Irrelevant to my point.

I don't understand why people are trying to give these guards personalities. The fact is, we don't know their thoughts, their ambitions, how intelligent they are, etc. All we know is that they are not diplomats, lords, or politicians. Their soldiers. They follow orders. They were ordered to guard the Gate, and that's what they did. The Hound is not threatening anyone, and they have no reason to attack him. The Arryns and the Lannisters are not friends or allies. In fact, it is widely believed in the Vale that the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn, so they certainly don't owe them any favors. You say it's illogical for them to let them go. Well, how is it logical for a random guard to suddenly come up with the idea to seize a child with the hope that their next lord, whoever that may be, could use her as a political tool.

''The hound is not threatening anyone''- The guards don't know him personally, they only know his reputation. Which is that of a ruthless killer. Not to mention there's a bounty on his head and anyone with a bit of sense would try to capture him.

''The Arryns and the Lannisters are not friends or allies''- So what? I don't see how this prevents them from atleast questioning the validity of this Arya Stark that just presented herself at the gates. I mean, Arya and the Hound have nothing to do with the Lannisters. Are you just assuming that if the Lannisters find out Arya is in the Vale they would declare war on them? And how would the guards even come to this conclusion before atleast detaining them? Was their first reaction ''Oh shit it's Arya Stark, better let her go so the Lannisters won't kill me.''??

''Well, how is it logical for a random guard to suddenly come up with the idea to seize a child with the hope that their next lord, whoever that may be, could use her as a political tool''- It's not even that THEY have to come up with it. It's just natural that a highborn person is of value in Westeros. You don't just let them slip through. I mean, this is the same show where even the mutineers at Craster's knew that highborns have value (which was bad writing by itself, since beyond the wall nobody really cares about that) and somehow the guards at the Vale didn't? Again, the only reasoning for this can be that they are braindead.

[Pecan]

Personally, I feel like the show doesn't deviate enough from the books. For the most part, what I see is a fairly straightforward adaptation that follows the major events in the books, but doesn't delve deeply enough into the characters (especially non-POV characters) and completely fails in showing us the backstory of the Targaryen dynasty and the events leading up to Robert's Rebellion. In season 1 or 2, for instance, I would have liked to see a day in the life of Lord Baelish, or something like that - some sort of story structure that brings the viewer inside the head of Littlefinger and explores him as a character. Similarly, I think the show completely fails to tell us who the Boltons are and their history and historic rivalry with the Starks in the North. [subbing out Tywin for Roose in Harrenhal was an example a deviation gone wrong, in my opinion.] Really, what was needed, for viewers to understand who the Boltons are (and Roose in particular), was for Roose to have his own mini-arc, which would have to be made up to some extent since the books only show him through other character's POV's. But without that character development, the Bolton betrayal at the Red Wedding loses some of it's impact.

But the lack of backstory is what's really hurting, in my opinion. I asked a show-watcher last week if he had any idea who Jon Snow is and why his story is important, but the guy had no clue. I asked him if he understood who the "mad king" was and he had no idea.

Anyway, just my $.02.

[igrewupinKL]

Personally, I feel like the show doesn't deviate enough from the books. For the most part, what I see is a fairly straightforward adaptation that follows the major events in the books, but doesn't delve deeply enough into the characters (especially non-POV characters) and completely fails in showing us the backstory of the Targaryen dynasty and the events leading up to Robert's Rebellion. In season 1 or 2, for instance, I would have liked to see a day in the life of Lord Baelish, or something like that - some sort of story structure that brings the viewer inside the head of Littlefinger and explores him as a character. Similarly, I think the show completely fails to tell us who the Boltons are and their history and historic rivalry with the Starks in the North. [subbing out Tywin for Roose in Harrenhal was an example a deviation gone wrong, in my opinion.] Really, what was needed, for viewers to understand who the Boltons are (and Roose in particular), was for Roose to have his own mini-arc, which would have to be made up to some extent since the books only show him through other character's POV's. But without that character development, the Bolton betrayal at the Red Wedding loses some of it's impact.

But the lack of backstory is what's really hurting, in my opinion. I asked a show-watcher last week if he had any idea who Jon Snow is and why his story is important, but the guy had no clue. I asked him if he understood who the "mad king" was and he had no idea.

Anyway, just my $.02.

:agree:

This is what i've been trying to say. Its not that there are changes, it HOW they make the changes. Sometimes its better not to go by the book but the creators of the series seem confused as to when they should or shouldn't go with the books (in some cases)

Eg. the hound and Arya had a different dynamic in the show, but they made him die the same way- arya leaves him alive like the books. it didn't feel right in the show

[Beric175]

@Tolsimir: you ask how we can say what shows are objectively good or not. You can't because taste and hence quality is subjective. You can only say that to YOU PERSONALLY the show does not live up to its potential but there is no absolute quantifiable fact as to its quality because even if a movie or show has lapses in logic or continuity it can still get a lot of people to enjoy it. I mean if I Watch an awful Star Trek episode does that mean that the whole show is awful? I got bored with Breaking Bad during season 3 because I don't care about scumbag drug dealers so to me it's nothing special. That does not mean that the show is objectively bad. The closest you can get to judging the quality of the show is by looking at the overall consensus of all viewers and so far the majority of people watching Game of Thrones enjoy it a lot. This is where the idea of the purists comes from: they dislike the film because they are wedded to the books first and while that's valid, a film or show should be judged separately from the book as its own entity. You can have a totally faithful adaptation like Stephen King's the Shining that totally sucks when there is a completely awesome film version made by Stanley Kubrick that deviates significantly from the book.

[sj4iy]

:agree:

This is what i've been trying to say. Its not that there are changes, it HOW they make the changes. Sometimes its better not to go by the book but the creators of the series seem confused as to when they should or shouldn't go with the books (in some cases)

...I don't see how they can be 'confused'. They might make a bad choice, but that doesn't mean they don't understand what they are doing. Basically, I think the only people getting 'confused' are the viewers, because the writers know exactly why they made the choice they did while the viewers may not always understand.

Eg. the hound and Arya had a different dynamic in the show, but they made him die the same way- arya leaves him alive like the books. it didn't feel right in the show

...it was pretty much exactly the same. How did it not 'feel' right when she leaves him dying both times?

[Relic]

But the lack of backstory is what's really hurting, in my opinion. I asked a show-watcher last week if he had any idea who Jon Snow is and why his story is important, but the guy had no clue. I asked him if he understood who the "mad king" was and he had no idea.

Anyway, just my $.02.

That's an example of the producers not giving their audience enough credit and/or a sign that the lowest common denominator can't be assed to remember shit from 17 episodes previous. One or the other but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the show is being simplified to encourage a wider audience to participate in a weekly ritual around the television screen. Your points about not deviating enough are interesting. I like your ideas in regards to character development, like showing a day in the life of Littlefinger, IF they stick with the original premise of that character's personality and ability (a premise that is intended by GRRM for specific reasons) instead of turning them into mostly clueless nitwits or White Knights of Valor. "Don;t call her a whore!!!...even tho i just killed her for being a whore...." or this gem "Knowledge is power you insestual whore"... "Nope, POWER IS POWER BITCH"

That scene still makes me cringe. I realized the show wasn't going the way i wanted it to go when they skipped Ned's Tower of Joy dream in season one, that that scene from season two was a true turning point for me. It was mostly all downhill from there.

[Relic]

...it was pretty much exactly the same. How did it not 'feel' right when she leaves him dying both times?

I love how you started arguing that everything is subjective when your own views were called into question, but when someone says something YOU don't agree with suddenly its not so subjective anymore. Stop the charade and tell us the truth. Your walls at home are covered in GoT posters, right?

[Le Cygne]

And it's interesting that simplifying things is not helping with the confusion. In fact, it causes more confusion, basic character motivation is stripped from the stories. To go back to my example, the audience was pulling for Jaime to be, as Brienne stated in the books, not the man he once was, but oh, well, looks like he is the same man after all.

These characters don't stop and reflect, they just keep moving forward, and when they move forward in the oddest of ways, it's confusing. There's no depth to these characters, they live in the moment. The past is forgotten as soon as it's no longer on screen.