Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

VictariousReturneth

Were you satisfied with the Castle Black battle getting a whole episode to itself?

Recommended Posts

Or did you want it the same as it was in the books, with a long siege spanning multiple episodes [but not being the main setting/only storyline for those episodes]?



If so, how many episodes would you have wanted devoted to the war? Too many and it would get repetitive. Too few and it would beg the question; ''what is the point?''



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watchers on the Wall was good, it just didn't suit to have to wait 8 episodes for it. i would've preferred to get it in ep 7 to leave more room to finish Jon's ASOS arc. Or another option would've been to stretch it over two episodes, ep 7 and ep 9. ep 7 would have the battle of castle black, ep 9 Mance's attack, Jon treating beyond the wall and stannis' arrival. ep 10 is the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was rubbish.



20 minutes of filler up front.



Boring old hollywood action as usual ( all the named characters are unstoppable bosses )



Constant lift moving up and down was really not credible ( esp. being powered by a kid ).



Ended on a really bad point.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boring old hollywood action as usual ( all the named characters are unstoppable bosses )

Ygritte, Thorne, Tormund, Styr, Slynt, Grenn and Pyp were all stopped pretty well I would say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a bad idea.



First of all I don't really care for Jon Snow that much and Kit's portrayal has made me dislike him even more. I think he is one of the worst actors on the show. Also the dialog on that episode was really bad. I remember a cringeworthy scene where Jon and Sam were talking about sex and it seemed to last forever. Plus it had nothing to do with what was about to be shown. They also wasted valuable time with Sam and Gilly who are just so boring to me as a couple and individually.



I also agree with the "hollywodization" of the battle. I felt like I was watching one of those big budget films with ridiculous scenes that make no sense. I liked Ygritte's death better in the book too. It was more heartfelt and not as artificial.



Overall I think they could have made a better job even in just one episode but not when they insist on making up stuff that has no relevance with the main plot and adding ridiculous dialog that leads nowhere.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or did you want it the same as it was in the books, with a long siege spanning multiple episodes [but not being the main setting/only storyline for those episodes]?

If so, how many episodes would you have wanted devoted to the war? Too many and it would get repetitive. Too few and it would beg the question; ''what is the point?''

In the last half of SoS the set piece was the Battle for Wall (at Castle Black). So making it a set piece in S4 was a logical choice.

For anyone now familiar with the ten hour constraint (really many minutes less than that) it was clear the assault from the south had to be combined with the assault from the north.

So it worked out fine.

I do not know why an episode HAS to be one hour (actually less) on HBO (when they show movies of any length all day long and that causes no scheduling problems).

So even tho I don't have the complaints others do about Stannis's rescue , those few minutes could have been at the end of episode 9.

E10 could of had a little more wrap time at Castle Black, would have worked fine.

(E10 was longer than a standard episode , by about 10 min., why put that into E9?)

As for 'Hollywooded up', can any of the posters name a sword and spear battle on film or TV that was not?

In recent times I can think of one inovation , the battle in Gaul at the beginning of Ridley Scott's GLADIATOR. Even that one seemed one seemed oddly hyped by the use of siege engines and the use of cavalry in a way the Roman army didn't really do, no matter Scott framed it well , had the Testudo formation (is that the first movie to ever do that? can't remember another) and proper chaos. Scott fumbled on his next ancient battles in Kingdom of Heaven , Robin Hood and recently in Exodus.

I remember that back in 1960 Stanley Kubrick tried to do something innovative with the big battle at the end of Spartacus but ran out of time and money.

(For modern warfare there have been some innovative approaches , HBO's BAND OF BROTHER and THE PACIFIC, I was impressed with Spielberg's SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, there is a much older film called PORK CHOP HILL which has an unusual battle set in the Korean War.)

The assault on the gate by the giants and mammoth was unique. Only wish HBO who DID loosen the purse strings on season 4 had gone for more giants and mammoths as in the book.

The attack on a 700 ft wall has never been done TV or film that I know of , so that was different.

I don't know why Mance didn't send 10,000 Wildlings to scale the wall, if he had 100,000 warriors ! I can't remember from the books.

Speaking of Sword and Creature battles, I saw HOBBIT:BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES other day, didn't find much new there compared the big battles in LORD OF THE RING films.

Those were not quite typical 'Hollywood' battle scenes would you say zaphodbrx and olenna123 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the best episodes in all 4 seasons for me. When I watched the ending I too thought "anti-climatic!!" but it was justified because Stannis showing up would've robbed the glory of the Night's Watch defending of the Wall. Stannis got his moment in the next episode and everyone I know loved that moment aswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Constant lift moving up and down was really not credible ( esp. being powered by a kid ).

I'm pretty sure its counter-weighted and geared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Battle of Castle Black was brilliant but the Battle at the Wall was a joke. Barely a hundred wildlings running to the gates, massive wrecking ball that would compromise the stability of the wall and is useless if they went a couple of hundred meters either side. The giants were cool but the defenders on the wall loosing a handful of hours through the episode was terrible.



The Magnar of Thenn vs Jon was really good. GOT always put everything in to one-on-one duels.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this the best battle ever produced for TV?

I would say the battle scenes in HBO's BAND OF BROTHERS and THE PACIFIC were bigger in scale, and very well done, feature film quality.

Actually THE PACIFIC was 9 years later than BAND , CGI VFX had improved even more so the battle scenes looked a theatrical production, fine series.

With BLACKWATER and CASTLE BLACK ... I can't say I have ever seen a TV sword and shield battle done as well. They had more money to spend on battle of Castle Black so a little more variety.

It's not Pete Jackson Lord of the Rings or Hobbit stuff, but then that kind of scale is lost unless you are watching it on a 500 in plasma screen!

The show's FX house Pixomondo does a good job , they subcontract some of the stuff out.

They do a good job of crowd 'multiplication', which is a standard technique in CGI films now.

I do wonder since Alex Graves directed both E9 and E10 if they will cut them together as one , to make a ~ 2 hour movie, they could.

Still the episodes should translate well to IMAX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved that they dared give the Wall a whole episode.



My only complaint with that episode (apart from not enough Ghost !!!) is that it should have taken place in episode 7, so the last three episodes of season 4 could have focused on the remaining of Storm.



As for 'Hollywooded up', can any of the posters name a sword and spear battle on film or TV that was not?




Braveheart and Kingdom of Heaven battles are deeply down-to-earth.



And I now some people will disagree with me, but I find the battles scenes of Vikings damn well executed (very brutal, but always clear and not over the top).



In modern warfare, the most immersive war-movie I've seen is Black Hawk Down.




Those were not quite typical 'Hollywood' battle scenes would you say zaphodbrx and olenna123 ?




Little men in gold vs little men in silver.



Some of the most dumbasses strategic moves ever (still not over the elves jumping over the dwarf perfect shield-wall just to end up crushed between the orcs and the dwarves).



And so much other things made this movie one of the worst (hand down) battle movie I've ever seen. By trying to put zillion CGI details in each of his shots, PJ completely lost it.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for 'Hollywooded up', can any of the posters name a sword and spear battle on film or TV that was not?

Speaking of Sword and Creature battles, I saw HOBBIT:BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES other day, didn't find much new there compared the big battles in LORD OF THE RING films.

Those were not quite typical 'Hollywood' battle scenes would you say zaphodbrx and olenna123 ?

I don't know why you keep bringing up this "innovation" concept as if for a battle scene to be good or realistic it needs to be done in a completely groundbreaking way that hasn't been done before. That's not true. Having scenes that make absolutely no logical sense is gonna hurt the quality of your product.

And I don't know why you're talking about the Hobbit films but I think they are complete crap. As another poster said they are also full of nonsensical things and completely unrealistic battle scenes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×