[Poll] How would you rate episode 505

[Modesty Lannister]

Nobody cares as absolutely nobody watching TV would find it believable that a guy, a king would marry someone he just fucked once, the night before, in the next morning, out of honor. So, they'd have to vastly rewrite the whole thing anyway.

Why? Do you have a single argument for that?

[ummester]

It's not my definition. It's the definition. Knowledge is not snobbery. Ignorance usually goes hand in hand with aggressive defence of one's faulty system of reference. In order to discuss anything, one has to adopt common terminology. It exists. It is there. It is taught in schools, art schools and universities. Art is a commodity and that is not to be mixed with commercial art. Now you are trying to weasel out by inventing your own definition as you go along. As for your assessment about Mona Lisa, it says a lot about you, so, as I said, your taste comes as no surprise.

The last paragraph's meaning escapes me. Probably because there is none.

The last paragraph is really simple, I don't see why you don't get it? The difference between reading a comprehensive list of dot points from a narrative, or the original narrative is generally only the emotional triggers contained in the narrative. Both can tell a story - a story is just the assembly of those dots points fleshed out with emotional triggers.

At the base level there is no difference between 1 painting and another, or one story and another - they are all just assembly's of similar things. You think knowledge is about appreciating something, I think it is about pulling things apart. If you pull something apart, you may ruin it but you will definitely understand it. If you only appreciate something, you may never understand it.

I'm not trying to weasel out. If you paint a painting for your own pleasure and never sell it, how would you term in as different to a painting you sell?

Edited May 15, 2015 by ummester

[jacksonbrowne]

Why? Do you have a single argument for that?

human nature.

[dannyk65]

human nature.

That's a great song.

[Modesty Lannister]

The last paragraph is really simple, I don't see why you don't get it? The difference between reading a comprehensive list of dot points from a narrative, or the original narrative is generally only the emotional triggers contained in the narrative. Both can tell a story - a story is just the assembly of those dots points fleshed out with emotional triggers.

At the base level there is no difference between 1 painting and another, or one story and another - they are all just assembly's of similar things. You think knowledge is about appreciating something, I think it is about pulling things apart. If you pull something apart, you may ruin it but you will definitely understand it. If you only appreciate something, you may never understand it.

I'm not trying to weasel out. If you paint a painting for your own pleasure and never sell it, how would you term in as different to a painting you sell?

Man ...

[Modesty Lannister]

human nature.

I said argument, not trolling.

[MakeThemBurn]

I give it a seven.

This is the first season where I've actually cared for Jon Snow. Oath-citing Jon from seasons 1 to 4 has fitted ill in a show that's supposed to be all about ruling. Really nice to see him take command. Having said that, the episode was a bit too heavy on the Wall and included a lot of scenes that were there just to give the actors something to do. Samwell Tarly has been irrelevant the entire season so they've decided to hook him up with the wildling woman. I find it ironic that people are complaining about the romance between Grey Worm and Missandei when the writers are doing the same thing with these two characters on the Wall.

Loving Boltons at the Winterfell and the reveal of Reek. However, from a character progression point of view, Sansa's begaviour makes no sense. She's supposed to be a calculating person who manipulates people with her virtue and good manners. Yet she's behaving like the stroppy cow she was in season 2. Ramsay is like Joffrey 2.0 and this would have been the perfect place to show how Sansa has learned to deal with monsters. But instead she's going "this is my home, not yours" on them.

I like Mereen but I feel like the writers are just coming up ways to show dragons. Drogon's return would have made a much bigger impact without the scene in the dungeon. It's obvious the show Dany has nothing to do with the book Dany but I wonder how they are going to explain her gaining control of her dragons. Her weakness was the reason she lost the control and her strength was the reason she gained it back. But here we have dragons gone wild without any reason. Are they relly just going to bring in Tyrion to make all things right?

Valyria. LOVED it. Felt so sorry for Jorah but that's Game of thrones for you. No happy endings.

[Dronuspk]

9/10. Highest this season.

This episode showed that Kings Landing is the weakest storyline now. Replace Danaerys with Arya and it would have been the first 10 in a long time for me.

#TheMannisIsComing

[ummester]

Man ...

Woman?

[roxWolfox]

Gave it a 10. This episode kept jabbing me in the feels. Aemon touching Jon's face. Sam's face when Stannis mentioned Daddy Tarly. Dany snarking all over the place. Jorah peeking at his arm. Especially loved the Bolton Dinner....I could watch that scene over and over again. Thank the Seven for YouTube! xD

[Unlady B]

A 7.

It didn't quite excite me but it was ok.

The rhoyne chapters are one of my fav parts in asoiaf, and was a little disappointed at how they cut and merged it with valyria, but it wasn't that bad (it could've been worse).

Kit Harington keeps surprising me in his acting, and I can say truthfully that the wall scenes aren't cringing anymore.

[jacksonbrowne]

Man ...

I said argument, not trolling.

You meant - assuming I was trolling, which I wasn't - that you have the sole permission to troll?

[Modesty Lannister]

You meant - assuming I was trolling, which I wasn't - that you have the sole permission to troll?

I never troll, which is evident from this thread. You have 14 posts and as far as I can see, it's mostly trolling or indignant disagreement with anyone who does not like the show you love. In the guidelines section of this forum, you can find tips on what to do in such cases. It would be great to take a look.

As for your defence of introduction of Talysa, it is obvious millions of people would believe and do believe a young teenager would fall for a young woman who tends his wounds for weeks as Jeyne Westering did in the books. Also, in the books, we find out that Jeyne was prompted to make out with Robb by her mother who made a deal with Tywin. That is an important link in a chain of events that led to the RW. The fact that Jeyne fell in love with Robb in the process adds to tragedy and the fact that she is still alive adds to suspense.

In the show, Robb falls in love with a hot Volantine nurse whom he saw twice on the battlefield. How realistic is that compared to what happened in the books? In the show, it is clumsily implied that she may be close to the Lannisters, but that path is rapidly abandoned in later episodes. So, we miss how meticulous Tywin's planning of the RW really was. And what do we gain from the fact that Talysa was Volentine and a foreigner? Nothing in terms of finding out more about Volantis. But, since Robb's bannermen object to Talysa, they look like bunch of xenophobic savages and the point of the plot that Robb was the one who actually went back on his kingly word, that he was the one at fault, not them, is pushed into the second plan and most viewers miss it. So, when readers object to alternations, they object for good reason.

And that was season 2 when such incidents were rare (I personally didn't mind introduction of Talysa much). Now, we have characters and their arcs altered so much that they have nothing to do with the books.

- Barristan Selmy died after crossing Essos, joining Daenerys and telling her a couple of not too revealing tales about her family. So what was his plot value in the show? Jaime Lannister described him as "the painter who paints in red", as "the best knight". The way he died negated all that. The show could have said goodbye to Barristan after Joffrey sacked him and nothing would have been different. We have no development of BS's arc. Zero. Just stupidly and unrealistically written death scene.

- Mance Rayder was underused from season 1. Show viewers almost missed his presence. Tormund had much more screen time and became more memorable. Then MR is burned and killed by JS. What was his purpose in the show? We could have had tribes of the north rushing south to save themselves all by themselves and the plot would have stayed exactly the same.

- Cersei Lannister is making some good political moves in the show instead of sinking into madness. She is said to love her children many times. Then she lets Tommen face the Faith Militant alone. How logical is that?

- Jaime Lannister - who is this man? His character varies from scene to scene. We don't know. In one scene he rapes Cersei. In the next he watches longingly while Brienne is leaving KL. What's going on? Is he evolving or does he have a split personality?

- Tyrion = St Tyrion. He can do no wrong apparently. Even when he kills two people. He tells us a story about his wife Tysha twice. So, we know all about it. And when the time comes to turn that story into a motive for a murder, nothing happens. So, he has no motive to kill Tywin. He just does. But, somehow it's ok.

- Sansa and LF - the arc has no logic. Why would LF try hard to place two heirs of two kingdoms (Sweetrobin and Sansa) into his household and under his control only to lose them both (Sweetrobin being left with the Royces, Sansa being left with the Boltons)? And do you think that characters change when they put on different clothes? Apparently in the show they do. Sansa made a new dress and she is "obviously" different. Please.

- Loras Tyrell is a knight who loved a guy so much he swore to celibacy after the guy's death and joined the KG. In the show he is a gay slut and a gay stereotype bordering offensive. Why? What are we gaining from this? What do we know about this guy after 5 seasons?

- Daenarys changes from Ned Stark to Mad King from one episode to the next. Why? What is her character? Who is she? Why is she doing what she is? We have no idea.

These were just some examples. It is obvious that D&D's favourite character was Tywin Lannister. They also love Tyrion, Arya and Cersei. They hate Jaime. They are totally indifferent to Sansa, Danereys and Jon Snow. They don't care for Dorne and they haven't read books 4 and 5. Being overambitious and not overly talented, they turned the books that captured tens of millions of readers all around the world into some pointless mishmash of inconsistent characters with no arcs who change from scene to scene. Now, their recipe for the show is simple - X minutes of nudity, Y minutes of violence, Z minutes of shock, D minutes of CGI and all the rest are fillers.

You cannot dispute any of this. You are of course more than free to like it. Just let others be equality free to dislike it, the author and his editor included.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Modesty Lannister

[Ran]

492 votes, 7.22 average, 8 median, 7.39 with top/bottom 5% removed.

[jacksonbrowne]

I never troll, which is evident from this thread. You have 14 posts and as far as I can see, it's mostly trolling or indignant disagreement with anyone who does not like the show you love. In the guidelines section of this forum, you can find tips on what to do in such cases. It would be great to take a look.

I've always found fascinating the need to accuse someone of being a troll for voicing differing opinions such as yours. I guess it's down to the tone of the forum what is generally considered trolling. But it feels much like discussing gospel with religious fanatics at times - with the entrenched dogmatic opinions of what God really meant when He wrote down those words on paper. It is also quite interesting that the opinions are so hardcoded that even God stating the opposite doesn't usually manage to change said opinions.

And I indulge yourself this one time discussing gospels with you. Robb Stark already WAS bound to an oath to one man. To establish he would break that oath for a woman he just met and happened to trip into sexual relations with the very next morning, to present that on the screen and convince anybody that is not already a true believer is a mighty hard task because that goes so hard against human nature, the very nature of the man described (he was already under oath so it destroys the suspension of belief that he would do such an inhhonorable thing to have sex with another on such a flimsy ground that was written in the book - it's probably doable but it requires half a season of setup just for THIS). Instead. We all have been in love. We all have fallen in love on the first sight with whom we deem as a perfect person. To seem THAT reciprocated is a devine feeling and it resonates. It is basic human nature and everyone believes it. It's not a coincidence that non-bookreades were going at "finally something good happened at Game of Thrones" when they saw the wedding at the end of Season 2.

Compared to that, the book scenario feels more like a plot contrievance, scenario that seems to be devised so that Robb can put himself into a position he can be killed off.

Now you can make that work on book where you can write pages and pages of why it did happen the way it did happen but on the screen you simply cannot convey such a complicated, far-fetched and illogical thought process so that people would actually believe the characters would do it and even root FOR the character to do it. And no, you can't convey it with a line or two of dialogue. There's a thing called "show, don't tell" and this applies here, the viewer needs to come to the conclusion his/herself and not be told what the scene is about.

[Modesty Lannister]

I've always found fascinating the need to accuse someone of being a troll for voicing differing opinions such as yours. I guess it's down to the tone of the forum what is generally considered trolling. But it feels much like discussing gospel with religious fanatics at times - with the entrenched dogmatic opinions of what God really meant when He wrote down those words on paper. It is also quite interesting that the opinions are so hardcoded that even God stating the opposite doesn't usually manage to change said opinions.

And I indulge yourself this one time discussing gospels with you. Robb Stark already WAS bound to an oath to one man. To establish he would break that oath for a woman he just met and happened to trip into sexual relations with the very next morning, to present that on the screen and convince anybody that is not already a true believer is a mighty hard task because that goes so hard against human nature, the very nature of the man described (he was already under oath so it destroys the suspension of belief that he would do such an inhhonorable thing to have sex with another on such a flimsy ground that was written in the book - it's probably doable but it requires half a season of setup just for THIS). Instead. We all have been in love. We all have fallen in love on the first sight with whom we deem as a perfect person. To seem THAT reciprocated is a devine feeling and it resonates. It is basic human nature and everyone believes it. It's not a coincidence that non-bookreades were going at "finally something good happened at Game of Thrones" when they saw the wedding at the end of Season 2.

Compared to that, the book scenario feels more like a plot contrievance, scenario that seems to be devised so that Robb can put himself into a position he can be killed off.

Now you can make that work on book where you can write pages and pages of why it did happen the way it did happen but on the screen you simply cannot convey such a complicated, far-fetched and illogical thought process so that people would actually believe the characters would do it and even root FOR the character to do it. And no, you can't convey it with a line or two of dialogue. There's a thing called "show, don't tell" and this applies here, the viewer needs to come to the conclusion his/herself and not be told what the scene is about.

Your complaints regarding the forum have nothing to do with me. You have moderators for that. Or you may state your opinion and wait for a flock of posters who will try to tear you to pieces and another flock who may come to your aid. We all go through that on this forum, so your wining seems pointless and misdirected.

As for Talysa plot, you said that it's totally realistic that Robb falls in love at first sight with woman X, but it's undoable if it's another girl. That makes absolutely no sense.

Are you saying there is something unorganic in the events that led to the RW in the books? That Jeyne Westering plot is unbelievable? That you KNEW the RW was coming?

[jacksonbrowne]

Your complaints regarding the forum have nothing to do with me. You have moderators for that. Or you may state your opinion and wait for a flock of posters who will try to tear you to pieces and another flock who may come to your aid. We all go through that on this forum, so your wining seems pointless and misdirected.

As for Talysa plot, you said that it's totally realistic that Robb falls in love at first sight with woman X, but it's undoable if it's another girl. That makes absolutely no sense.

Are you saying there is something unorganic in the events that led to the RW in the books? That Jeyne Westering plot is unbelievable? That you KNEW the RW was coming?

Robb didn't fall in love in the books. He married her to preserve her honour after they, well, fucked. THIS is the unrealistic version.

And books are not the show, as I told you, you can't pages worth of inner monologue and drawn out complex reasoning shown in a scene or two. You could have voiceover but that then would be as shit as the voiceover in Outlander is.

[Ran]

I think it's clear Robb was in love with Jeyne, but it was the love of a 15-year-old in the throes of great events and hormones. His grief and her comfort would combine to make him feel love for her. I think it's pretty plain that they're both in love when Robb departs Riverrun, for example, and of course he also establishes it earlier when he entraps his mother before revealing his marriage to her.

So if the idea is, "Well, it's unrealistic to make the decision he did if he didn't love her," then I might agree, but it's clear enough that Robb understood himself to be in love with her. Even if it's "puppy love", for Robb it was love, and combined with everything else could explain his belief that he had to marry her, that it was the only proper choice.

One of the observations that Barbara Tuchman makes in A Distant Mirror is that much of the feuding and violence and occasionally inexplicable decisions witnessed in the Middle Ages can be understood by the fact that so many of them were young, sometimes as young as modern-day teenagers with all the reduced judgment capacity, inexperience, and hormone-derived emotion that that entails. GRRM's quite familiar with that book, and many others besides. The fact that someone may find some of the behavior of the past alien is not surprising, but not any sort of indictment.

Now, you say the Robb of the show is older, less hormonal, and so on. True enough. I'm not sure this necessitated their creating Talisa. They could have approached it in other, better ways, I think.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Ran

[jacksonbrowne]

I think it's clear Robb was in love with Jeyne, but it was the love of a 15-year-old in the throes of great events and hormones. His grief and her comfort would combine to make him feel love for her. I think it's pretty plain that they're both in love when Robb departs Riverrun, for example, and of course he also establishes it earlier when he entraps his mother before revealing his marriage to her.

So if the idea is, "Well, it's unrealistic to make the decision he did if he didn't love her," then I might agree, but it's clear enough that Robb understood himself to be in love with her. Even if it's "puppy love", for Robb it was love, and combined with everything else could explain his belief that he had to marry her, that it was the only proper choice.

One of the observations that Barbara Tuchman makes in A Distant Mirror is that much of the feuding and violence and occasionally inexplicable decisions witnessed in the Middle Ages can be understood by the fact that so many of them were young, sometimes as young as modern-day teenagers with all the reduced judgment capacity and hormone-derived emotion that that entails. GRRM's quite familiar with that book, and many others besides. The fact that someone may find some of the behavior of the past alien is not surprising, but not any sort of indictment.

Now, you say the Robb of the show is older, less hormonal, and so on. True enough. I'm not sure this necessitated their creating Talisa. They could have approached it in other, better ways, I think.

I am pretty sure they did not create Talisa for the sake of creating Talisa. The early iterations of the character even had a name Jeyne as GRRM has said, and it was him that suggested to change the name if the character was changed this much. I am sure they tried to make the Jeyne storyline work, if for nothing else following the books would be the easiest route to go but they probably found it as hard as I would find to effectively show a believable course of actions that would lead to this scenario to play out on the screen as it did in the books. We have to remember that we as book readers (yes, I've read all of them) are predispositioned to buy into and believe the scenarios we have already read in the books but the general viewership is something that is much harder to deal with.

And from the general viewership there has been no backlash from the entire Talisa debacle so they have been more or less successful.

[Ran]

Robb attacks the Crag. He takes an arrow in the shoulder from someone shooting from the walls. He gets to the wall... and finds Jeyne Westerling, the young Lady of the Crag, holding a crossbow, but forced to surrender the castle now that he and his men have gotten over the wall. She's bold, clever, fierce. She sees he's taken care of as he's honorable. They talk and get to know one another. He starts to find he wants her with him, and insists she's his guest when he returns to the riverlands. Everything can be exactly the same as in the show from that point on, to be honest with you.

I'm not really sure why they felt they had to go so very far afield, to the point where they invented a character who fell into the very same trap of poorly conceived "Disney medievalism" that GRRM decried in a season 1 interview with TIME. It was very strange.

Audience not caring is certainly a fair bar. Fairly low bar, as well, but still.