Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ran

[Poll] How would you rate episode 505

How would you rate episode 505?  

558 members have voted

  1. 1. What's your rating from 1-10, with 10 being the highest/best

    • 1
      25
    • 2
      16
    • 3
      12
    • 4
      20
    • 5
      36
    • 6
      51
    • 7
      94
    • 8
      109
    • 9
      136
    • 10
      57


Recommended Posts

Anything that is sold, or makes a profit, is commercial. Anything that is creative, or involves artisans, of any kind, can be classified as art, can't it? Popular entertainment would still be commercial art, wouldn't it? The wiki article apparently has multiple issues and requires citation.

The Illiad is darker than Troy because the resolution was less hopeful, the herosim less pronounced and more people died in it. Dark, negative - not positive or hopeful.

If society is positive about itself, hopeful of positive stories and films will appeal. When society is negative about itself, or doubts its direction, hopeless or negative stories appeal. Sometimes, art, stories, films, whatever can be out of sync and drive change - but not as often as something that is in sync can profit.

No, Commercial art is advertisement. Mad Men (Donald Draper and his creative gang) are dealing with commercial art in all media. Andy Warhol worked as a commercial artist for a company, before he became an artist. Do get basic definitions straight.

How can you compare something you never read? Mind-blowing arrogance/ignorance. And these dark opposed to positive qualifications are too childish and shallow to comment on.

How does a society get positive or negative? Do share you profound and well researched thoughts on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Commercial art is advertisement. Mad Men (Donald Draper and his creative gang) are dealing with commercial art in all media. Andy Warhol worked as a commercial artist for a company, before he became an artist. Do get basic definitions straight.

How can you compare something you never read? Mind-blowing arrogance/ignorance. And these dark opposed to positive qualifications are too childish and shallow to comment on.

How does a society get positive or negative? Do share you profound and well researched thoughts on that.

So, from what you are writing, you are basically an artistic snob?

When I have sold a piece of art I have completed, I consider it a commercial transaction and that my art has become commercial at that stage, regardless of what the art was, or what your definition claims. A painting on a billboard and the Mona Lisa are the same thing, when we remove interpretation and emotional bias.

You can make an assessment on an abridged version - it may not be as complete an emotional assessment as you can on the full version, but it can take all the relevant information into account. A statement of facts, produced for a court, is still a narrative in the broadest sense.

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. The only episode of his that was actually great was Kissed by Fire, and a lot of that was the strength of the material he was adapting.

His season 2 episode was really overrated. It was good in comparison to D&D's episodes, of course, because he actually seems to respect the source material. But he's not a particularly good writer, and it shows.

... Which is why D&D need to stop promoting their assistants and actually hire qualified writers. But why would they want anyone who'd challenge them when they can just hire sycophants? They're Cersei, LOL.

Again. Mind boggles. Why is "respecting the source material" an automatic stamp of absolutey quality? What if the source material is garbage? Why aren't the book fans all yelling for Darkstar? "Dorne is nothing without Darkstar!! How can they leave out Darkstar???" Where is the agony there?

And respecting the source material, again, was it Bryan Cogman that got the show made? You think GRRM gave them a go and came onboard to write, mind you, working essentially UNDER D&D there? You don't think there's a healthy dose of mutual respect going on there? They got made things that was considered unfilmable, in a genre HBO didn't want to touch with a ten foot pole, got both critics to love it AND got also people that do not fall into the "nerd" category to love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again. Mind boggles. Why is "respecting the source material" an automatic stamp of absolutey quality? What if the source material is garbage? Why aren't the book fans all yelling for Darkstar? "Dorne is nothing without Darkstar!! How can they leave out Darkstar???" Where is the agony there?

And respecting the source material, again, was it Bryan Cogman that got the show made? You think GRRM gave them a go and came onboard to write, mind you, working essentially UNDER D&D there? You don't think there's a healthy dose of mutual respect going on there? They got made things that was considered unfilmable, in a genre HBO didn't want to touch with a ten foot pole, got both critics to love it AND got also people that do not fall into the "nerd" category to love it.

Lol, ok, take my post out of context. I said his episode in season 2 was better than D&D's episodes because it was more in line with the books, and the plots and characterisation in the books are better than in the show. Unless you think Talisa and "where are my dragons?!" were the highlight of season 2, of course.

Perhaps D&D truly respect and love the source material. But their writing of the series does not indicate this.

To reiterate... I thought Cogman's season 2 episode was overrated, but it benefited from sticking more closely to the books than D&D's episodes. Had he written an episode with more deviations and show-only plots, it would not have been praised as much as it was. He's good at adapting material from the books because he seems to be a pretty big fan of them. But I don't think he's a particularly good writer.

ETA: And no, I don't think there's a healthy dose of mutual respect between GRRM and D&D. Maybe at the beginning, but certainly not now that we're halfway through season 5. Because that's just not how life is, and it's not how people are. I'm sure there is some respect, but I'm also sure there's some resentment, some dislike, some regret, and ultimately some arrogance.

The fact that GRRM has barely referred to the show since the season 5 premiere speaks volumes, especially in comparison to his attitude only last year.

Edited by PatrickStormborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, ok, take my post out of context. I said his episode in season 2 was better than D&D's episodes because it was more in line with the books, and the plots and characterisation in the books are better than in the show. Unless you think Talisa and "where are my dragons?!" were the highlight of season 2, of course.

Perhaps D&D truly respect and love the source material. But their writing of the series does not indicate this.

To reiterate... I thought Cogman's season 2 episode was overrated, but it benefited from sticking more closely to the books than D&D's episodes. Had he written an episode with more deviations and show-only plots, it would not have been praised as much as it was. He's good at adapting material from the books because he seems to be a pretty big fan of them. But I don't think he's a particularly good writer.

Again, that's you because you probably can cite vast segments of the book by heart. Not being slave to the source material doesn't always show the lack of respect to said source material. Nobody except the extreme diehard Tolkienists remember Peter Jackson as a guy that destroyed Lord Of The Rings. No, the general public remembers him as the guy that did a monumental task of taking something considered unfilmable and made it into a critically and comercially acclaimed, thus vastly successful artistic endeavour. Without which there would be NO Game Of Thrones here for us to bitch about.

Regarding the whole Talisa situation... the Westerling saga wasn't THAT much better and a teenager guy that falls to a hot foreigner chick makes allot more sense on screen than a teenager guy marrying a random chick he just met out of 'onor 'cause said chick gave him a bandage and he happened to drunkenly fuck her. On TV to audience that are, well, people, of 21st century, it's just moronic.

Edited by jacksonbrowne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate is turning into something pathetic.



Are you discussing quality or critical/popular acclaim? these two things are different!



A few posts back someone was comparing 2001: a space odyssey to contact, saying that contact was less boring.


Is that what defines quality? Does that turn it into a better movie? So Fast and Furious 7 must be one of the best, right?



Then, we have the Amazon or metacritics rates, again, that's not synonym with quality.



Remember when Avatar launched? It was acclaimed by a lot of viewers and critics as the best movie of all time. Now, it's not even in IMDB's top 250 list.


On the other hand we can look at Blade Runner, a flop when released, that is now considered by a lot of people as one of the best movies.



All that to say that these ratings are wind, massively influenced by hype.


Edited by Valetudo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, that's you because you probably can cite vast segments of the book by heart. Not being slave to the source material doesn't always show the lack of respect to said source material. Nobody except the extreme diehard Tolkienists remember Peter Jackson as a guys that destroyed Lord Of The Rings. No, the general public remembers him as the guy that did a monumental task of taking something considered unfilmable and made it into a critically and comercially acclaimed, thus vastly successful artistic endeavour. Without which there would be NO Game Of Thrones here for us to bitch about.

Regarding the whole Talisa situation... the Westerling saga wasn't THAT much better and a teenager guy that falls to a hot foreigner chick makes allot more sense on screen than a teenager guy marrying a random chick he just met out of 'onor 'cause said chick gave him a bandage and he happened to drunkenly fuck her. On TV to audience that are, well, people, of 21st century, it's just moronic.

Yes, because expecting the show to have a bit more integrity than "WHERE ARE MY DRAGONS?!" and other stupid decisions is just book purism, right.

Lol, the Talisa situation was completely ridiculous. In the books, Robb and Jeyne had a teenage romance, because funnily enough they were both teenagers. He slept with her partly because he thought his brothers were dead and partly because Jeyne's mother was manipulating her. He married her out of a mixture of feelings: compassion, duty, societal pressure, love.

In the show, he threw away his betrothal because someone better came along. But keep delluding yourself that it had to be changed because 21st century audiences are too stupid to understand anything more than passion. :) Unfortunately that's a really baseless and unpersuasive argument and immediately establishes that the show is a dumbed down rendition of the books - so it doesn't even defend the show against my criticisms LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, that's you because you probably can cite vast segments of the book by heart. Not being slave to the source material doesn't always show the lack of respect to said source material. Nobody except the extreme diehard Tolkienists remember Peter Jackson as a guy that destroyed Lord Of The Rings. No, the general public remembers him as the guy that did a monumental task of taking something considered unfilmable and made it into a critically and comercially acclaimed, thus vastly successful artistic endeavour. Without which there would be NO Game Of Thrones here for us to bitch about.

Regarding the whole Talisa situation... the Westerling saga wasn't THAT much better and a teenager guy that falls to a hot foreigner chick makes allot more sense on screen than a teenager guy marrying a random chick he just met out of 'onor 'cause said chick gave him a bandage and he happened to drunkenly fuck her. On TV to audience that are, well, people, of 21st century, it's just moronic.

Well, when were the books released again?

People of the 21st century seemed to have no problems in understanding that situation. But now that it's on TV, it's just moronic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the whole Talisa situation... the Westerling saga wasn't THAT much better and a teenager guy that falls to a hot foreigner chick makes allot more sense on screen than a teenager guy marrying a random chick he just met out of 'onor 'cause said chick gave him a bandage and he happened to drunkenly fuck her. On TV to audience that are, well, people, of 21st century, it's just moronic.

I guess you totally missed the subplot that Tywin was behind the whole thing in an effort to drive a wedge between the Freys and the Rob Stark....Just another setting of the Red Wedding Stage....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you totally missed the subplot that Tywin was behind the whole thing in an effort to drive a wedge between the Freys and the Rob Stark....Just another setting of the Red Wedding Stage....

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

But a vast majority of book readers found it believable!

Well, I watch TV and would have found it believable, so your point is invalid.

Or are you telling me that TV watchers are some kind of sub-species with no brain that can only understand that he dumped the Frey marriage because Talisa is HOT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

cause that never happens in real life...or on other TV shows.... I mean on Turn the main character certainly did not marry the intended of his brother for honor... Totally unbelievable... :shocked:

Edited by Mourneblade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

You mean the same audience who believed Pod would be refunded by prostitutes? Lol.

Robb did something in character (something D&D don't understand, apparently). A simple line of dialogue with him asking what his father would have done would have made it clear to the audience exactly why he was marrying Jeyne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you discussing quality or critical/popular acclaim? these two things are different!

A few posts back someone was comparing 2001: a space odyssey to contact, saying that contact was less boring.

Is that what defines quality? Does that turn it into a better movie? So Fast and Furious 7 must be one of the best, right?

That was a different thread.

Define quality? I bet you will find that it is abstract, or based on individual interpretation.

And that is one of the main points that this argument heads towards - claiming you know what quality is, for anyone other than yourself, is snobbish. The only indicators we can rely on beyond our personal assessments are group ratings, exactly as listed on places like IMDB or metacritic, profits, viewing numbers and so on.

How do they pick the Lord Commanders of the Nights Watch?

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the same audience who believed Pod would be refunded by prostitutes? Lol.

Robb did something in character (something D&D don't understand, apparently). A simple line of dialogue with him asking what his father would have done would have made it clear to the audience exactly why he was marrying Jeyne.

It was also totally unbelievable that he would execute one of his allies over his honor because that ally killed of a couple of Lannisters... Oh wait..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

god just ignore that guy. Or report him.



This thread is supposed to rate the show. Rate. Not worship it and accept everything it does.



We are objective critics here. We know the source material, the ingredients. Now we rate how the cook made the meal with it.


We shouldn't accept that he forgot the potatoes, burned the noodles and changed the pork with squid and made a hollandaise instead of gravy.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

god just ignore that guy. Or report him.



This thread is supposed to rate the show. Rate. Not worship it and accept everything it does.



We are objective critics here. We know the source material, the ingredients. Now we rate how the cook made the meal with it.


We shouldn't accept that he forgot the potatoes, burned the noodles and changed the pork with squid and made a hollandaise instead of gravy.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a different thread.

Define quality? I bet you will find that it is abstract, or based on individual interpretation.

And that is one of the main points that this argument heads towards - claiming you know what quality is, for anyone other than yourself, is snobbish. The only indicators we can rely on beyond our personal assessments are group ratings, exactly as listed on places like IMDB or metacritic, profits, viewing numbers and so on.

How do they pick the Lord Commanders of the Nights Watch?

Like I tried to show with my examples of ratings, these are extremely variable in time. Right now, we're to close to the release to have numbers that aren't biased by hype, public recognition, advertising...

If 10 years from now these numbers stay the same, then we could use them as a valid argument. Remember Lost, Dexter or even How I met your Mother? These series also had great ratings when they were "cool", not so much now.

I'm not here to define what "quality" is, but since you asked, I'll give you some things that I think every storytelling work should have:

-Logic: SOD doesn't excuse everything. It's one thing to excuse fast travels, it's quite another to excuse plot holes.

-Characterization: You can't have your characters having multiple 180 turns just because it serves your plot.

Sadly, season 5 is failing in these categories.

It's my last response because this thread is not were we should talk about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I tried to show with my examples of ratings, these are extremely variable in time. Right now, we're to close to the release to have numbers that aren't biased by hype, public recognition, advertising...

If 10 years from now these numbers stay the same, then we could use them as a valid argument. Remember Lost, Dexter or even How I met your Mother? These series also had great ratings when they were "cool", not so much now.

I'm not here to define what "quality" is, but since you asked, I'll give you some things that I think every storytelling work should have:

-Logic: SOD doesn't excuse everything. It's one thing to excuse fast travels, it's quite another to excuse plot holes.

-Characterization: You can't have your characters having multiple 180 turns just because it serves your plot.

Sadly, season 5 is failing in these categories.

It's my last response because this thread is not were we should talk about this.

I don't know exactly what part of the forum and overarching book vs show discussion is supposed to take place in.

Season 5, to me, seems to have a lower narrative quality than seasons 1-4 also. But the issue is I read the books before watching this season and this changed my perspective - so I am aware my perspective has a bias it did not have when unsullied. I am also aware that books 4 & 5 would not adapt well to TV after Seasons 1-4 of GoTs.

I generally regret reading the books before seeing the show finish now, because it leaves me unable to determine which I think is better storytelling. I see positives and negatives in both. I should have watched the show first and then read the books if and when they are complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, from what you are writing, you are basically an artistic snob?

When I have sold a piece of art I have completed, I consider it a commercial transaction and that my art has become commercial at that stage, regardless of what the art was, or what your definition claims. A painting on a billboard and the Mona Lisa are the same thing, when we remove interpretation and emotional bias.

You can make an assessment on an abridged version - it may not be as complete an emotional assessment as you can on the full version, but it can take all the relevant information into account. A statement of facts, produced for a court, is still a narrative in the broadest sense.

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.

Edited by Modesty Lannister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...