Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ran

[Poll] How would you rate episode 506

How would you rate episode 506?  

768 members have voted

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

    • 1
      139
    • 2
      42
    • 3
      60
    • 4
      51
    • 5
      69
    • 6
      67
    • 7
      96
    • 8
      131
    • 9
      56
    • 10
      57


Recommended Posts

Has that ever happened? Has a show ever lost significant audience and then gained it back in later seasons? That seems somewhat unlikely to me.

good question. how many multi season adaptations of a work with a defined ending have there been?

most tv show run out of core plot as they proceed or get more preposterous.

I cant be sure obviously but the next season is bound to be more exciting to a casual viewer and conclusion bound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8/10, primarily because Dorne was awkward. Bronn sold it the best, but poor guy is selling weak sauce (not his fault). Myrcella makes a lovely Cersei/Jaime daughter, but besides looks, she's not a thing like the devious young Cersei we saw at the start of the season.



Loved everything else. Mormont and Tyrion could have their own show just shooting the breeze. That hall of faces was magnificent. Sansa would probably be horrified by any lovemaking with any guy, and managed to pull the one monster worse than Joff. (Seriously that thing Qyburn's working on would have probably been gentler and more humane.)


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went back and watched the last 2 episodes of season 4 with my girlfriend last night, and the battle scenes in those episodes were EPIC. Contrast that to the random garbage in Dorne last night, with the horrific acting, stupid story line in general, and the absolutely ridiculous and empty character of the Sand Snakes (power rangers as someone else said earlier) in general. Forget about Sansa, as bad as that is. The episode was boring, the battle scenes were comical and the show has definitely taken a turn for the worse. Arya and Jorah and Tyrion were at least 10 minutes of watchable TV. I enjoyed the first few episodes to an extent, even though some of it was trash. I didn't mind the Sons of the Harpy scene, even with Selmy being killed, it was a good battle. This episode was just bad. I don't see how anyone who has either watched the show and read the books or just watched the show could give it above a 5.


Edited by LastDragonLives

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arya and Jorah and Tyrion were at least 10 minutes of watchable TV.

Washing corpses, sweeping, and stupidly reacting to your mentor = watchable TV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A sock puppet is a sock puppet.

While you clearly have been a staple of this forum for years.

I don't understand how it's even possible that those who enjoy the show get more enraged and offensive at criticism of it by random people on the internet than those who despise it get at the butchering of some of their favorite books????

Edited by Facebookless Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this show wants to do is taunt you. Villains are always winning.. for example, Bronn is well liked.. and instead of giving him a proper sendoff (losing in an epic fight) we're going to possibly watch him die an agonizing death to some poison from a ridiculous Dorne Bratz doll.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The existence of fantasty elements does not mean that a series cannot have realism. It boggles my mind how many people can say that on a fan forum for a series of fantasy novels, and it makes me realise that the reason the show continues to get praise is because people literally think the books are boobs and dragons and nothing more.

The key is internal consistency. When a series introduces fantasy elements it must still have logic and consistency. For example dragons work a certain way, we know a fair bit about their behaviour and biology. If that knowledge is contradicted, then there is a lack of internal consistency. Martin puts a lot of effort into building a consistent world, and to telling us about politics, military strategy etc. He takes a quasi-historical approach to the series, drawing upon the real middle ages to make his world more believable. The fantastic can only be believed if it is grounded in reality.

When discussing "realism", I think people want the world to have consistent rules, whatever those rules are. If you say dragons exist in the world that's fine, but unless you explain why some people take months to travel the same path that others can travel in one scene then it breaks emersion. If you explain it by saying they can teleport then that's fine too. You probably then need to explain why everyone doesn't teleport though. Likewise if characters behave in ways that make no sense, that's a problem whether it's a fantasy world, science fiction, or historical film. The reason the show is popular in the first place is because it is based on books where the characters behave in "believeable" ways relative to the situations they are placed in. The show has increasingly been putting characters in situations that make no sense and having characters behave in ways that aren't particularly believeable. I think that is the focus of most complaints about "realism" in a fantasy show.

1) I admit, James Bond was not my most judicious choice, but still. Even him wouldn't survive a 100m fall without any gadgets.

2) If you really believe that this is a series about magic, dragons, zombies and shapeshifting, I don't see why you could have liked the first book/season, since these elements are so small.

So, if next week Sansa uses her magical necklace to kill Ramsey and escape flying on top of it, would you be OK with it? It's a show about magic after all, so why not?

i find i have the same response for all these comments...realism isn't as important to me while reading watching fantasy...

you mean using her necklace or some other talismen to do magic like many a character in your other example LotR

that is just so it is a story about magic so i am pretty much ok with anything...

just my opinions...fell free to continue to disagree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how anyone can say that the show's decline is due to the books, when they're only following the very broad strokes of the book's plot at this point.

well they have obviously decided (with the exception on sansa) to not go past the books.

and felt the need to incorporate at least some of dorne when frankly they should have just sent jamie as an upfront ambassador and cut the sandsnakes completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone? Almost EVERYONE still thinks it's well made television. Pretty much all the people thinking it's NOT quality television mostly are basically the Sparrows of ASOIAF online community.

My dear summer child, have you read any reviews? Several newspapers (e.g. The Atlantic) who reviewed the early episodes of this season positively voiced clear criticism. Websites like The Mary Sue decided to no longer promote the show, the actor who played Barristan practically admitted on Twitter he didn't like where the show was going, as was, for example, Martin's UK publishers. "Book purists" have made long, convincing, informed arguments why the show fails as an adaptation and is badly written. These are things people can give evidence for. Nobody says you can't enjoy this - but just because you enjoy this, it doesn't mean it's actually good. But somehow, because the show is popular, critics are somehow fanatics - such a stupid, stupid argument. For every non-book reader who still likes the show I can show you a non-book reader who doesn't. So don't make absurd statements like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well they have obviously decided (with the exception on sansa) to not go past the books.

and felt the need to incorporate at least some of dorne when frankly they should have just sent jamie as an upfront ambassador and cut the sandsnakes completely.

I couldn't agree more! While O Martell was a crucial part of season 4 no one cares about him anymore..(nor did many at the time) he didnt show up til season 4 and nothing was said about his sand snakes.. so why bother even putting them in.. from the scene that Bronn and Jamie were galloping through the grass to the skip-ta-loo into the WG and the "psst, psst! let's chat" to the miserable fight scene it's all just proof that the entire production of the show has gotten careless and lazy. The show has been amazing but now half way through season 5 it's clear proof that it's a fact that Season 3 was the peak and everyone should just lower their expectations.

Someone said earlier "Game of True Blood" ain't that the truth

The Sansa rape was over the top.. we've already seen her have to get dropped off at her birthplace.. where her entire dead family lived.. to live with the people responsible for killing them... to marry into that family.... we've already seen her get it rubbed in her face over dinner.. again and again.. we've already seen enough (be reminded) to feel badly for her.. now you want to add a rape scene.. one that was pulled from thin air and added to the show for what purpose?

Answer: To get everyone talking about the show while applying as minimal effort as possible.

The only thing that would somewhat justify this scene is if it's what it takes for Reek to grab a sword and kill Ramsay right now

Edited by abacabb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, well I have not voted yet as I wanted to take some time to really think about this. I also wanted to get a little more information. My vote is a no vote. I am going to explain why, I have been on this forum for years and their have been many a thread talkiin about rape. I don't take part in them for various reasons, it is my personal choice.

Now this episode really comes down to the last scene and it is the rape of a character, Sansa Stark. Sansa is replacing Jeyne Poole. The question of the scene did not come down to Jeyne or Sansa for me, it came down to purpose. Why? That was the question I had. Now the show is an adaptation, that is not a book reader comment, that is D&D and HBO, they call it an adaptation. But this was not an adaptation from the books, this was the full removal of her story arc, to manufacture a rape scene with with Sansa. It does not really further her story or plot, but instead removed it as a whole to create this scene. From what I have read from D&D and Sophie Turner it was for Sympathy and shock.

Let me say I am not a fan of rape as plot device used to generate empowerment of any character. On a rare occassion it can work, it can generate talkinig points, but is that why they did this? Just a little perspective, imagine if instead of Jon going to the wall he ad been captured by Gregor and the wall arc was removed so Jon could be raped by Gregor. Is that an adaptation? Does that make any sense for his story? Shocking? Yes, it would be. Good story telling, an honest adaptation? No, not at all.

So it came down to purpose, well I don't need to be told Ramsey is a bad guy or that Sansa has suffered. That is obvious on the show. The reason everyone was like OMG Sansa and the Boltons is because the we all know the Boltons are pieces of shit. The generral reaction the Boltons getting their hands on anyone is oh fuck.

For me I don't feel D&D were trying to create a honest talking point, I think they were using rape as a device to generate shock because for them shock equals ratings in most cases. Not all but most, Bran out the window, Ned losing his head, the Red Wedding, the death of Oberyn. So when I looked for an answer I looked at some comments from the actors, and D&D, and basically got my answer. But to further it, I looked at Tyrion, and why not? They did bring him up right before she was raped. Tyrion had a scene heavily changed when he is in the Brothel in Volantis. It's a very dark scene, and a very abussive scene. It was changed to a very charming and gentle Tyrion scene. Why? Because Tyrion is very popular on the show and often considered the star, and they don't want to ruin that so the scene was heavily changed. Because people not liking Tyrion would probably be bad for ratings. It's not sympathetic shock for Tyrion in this case. With Sansa it was rape used to generate shock and sympathy for a already abused and sympathetic character.

I don't see the scene as any sort of adaptation to Sansas story, I don't like the use of rape to generate shock for ratings, and I never really found a good purpose for the scene or the removal of her Vale story arc, and I really do not like rape used as a plot device to create empowerment as if it was the only option to do that. I know the world is brutal and I know the books are brutal, and I know rape occures in the books. But again they added a new rape scene for the express purpose of shock for what appears to be ratings. I say that because I compare it to the way they changed Tyrions story to remove that dark moment, and the fact that D&D often look at shock for ratings.

That is really all I have to say about it, no vote for me, I can't justify it and it is not meant to take away from the actors, this is about the writers and producers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.precisely. this season was always going to be tough given the (to put it at its mildest) major wheelspinning of the last two books. for the casual viewer its duller than season 4, imagine if they had the whole cast of characters from the last two books dropped on them!

That's nonsense. Are we supposed to pretend every single episode of The Wire or The Sopranos or whatever you consider the pinnacle of good TV had a main character raped, another one murdered, an epic battle and a bunch of CGI dragons flying around so that the viewers would stay interested?

You can EASILY make an entire season just out of Cersei's shenanigans in KL, and make it some of the best TV ever made. And the same is even true for Dany in Meereen. But for that you need to be able to tell a STORY about CHARACTERS, not move cardboard cutouts along a series of plot points with bro-bonding, cock jokes and pointless fight scenes to glue the whole thing together.

Edited by Facebookless Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Classics of fantasy literature, but not of all literature." - okay say no more, I get it: You're a genre snob. Lots of people are, I think it's part of why GoT is not held up to the scrutiny of other shows. The show surpasses the extremely low expectations people have of fantasy, so they don't expect anything more and don't look any deeper.

ASOIAF may do none of that for you, but the books have certainly inspired me, and changed my world. The books are incredibly deep, you could write a dissertation on each POV character. And ultimately the books are really good. For me that is the only true measure of a classic: Quality. If the story is no good, all the philosophical depth in the world is meaningless.

:agree:

As somebody who studied literature at university for many years, I absolutely agree - they are far more than just good fantasy books. I'm rereading Orwell's 1984 at the moment, which is considered one of the big literary classics of the 20th century, and while still being a great book, it's main characters aren't developed half as well as Martin's standard secondary character. Also in terms of narrative technique, characterisation through internal monologue and chapter structure, Martin is up there with the big boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dear summer child, have you read any reviews? Several newspapers (e.g. The Atlantic) who reviewed the early episodes of this season positively voiced clear criticism. Websites like The Mary Sue decided to no longer promote the show, the actor who played Barristan practically admitted on Twitter he didn't like where the show was going, as was, for example, Martin's UK publishers. "Book purists" have made long, convincing, informed arguments why the show fails as an adaptation and is badly written. These are things people can give evidence for. Nobody says you can't enjoy this - but just because you enjoy this, it doesn't mean it's actually good. But somehow, because the show is popular, critics are somehow fanatics - such a stupid, stupid argument. For every non-book reader who still likes the show I can show you a non-book reader who doesn't. So don't make absurd statements like that.

My dear patronizing poster with Conleth Hill's picture for his avatar, here are some latest broad strokes scores of reviews.

Episode 4: "Rotten Tomatoes scored this episode at 100% based on 30 reviews, stating "An episode that benefits from the intricate plotting of the previous three, "Sons of the Harpy" balances bloody action with illuminating character interplay."

Episode 5: ""Kill the Boy" was received positively. Mike Hogan of Vanity Fair said that the creative team "just keeps cranking up the tension,"[6] while Joshua Yehl of IGN rated the episode 8.4/10 and wrote that the season "reaches its midway point with refreshed plot-lines and a rare moment of fantasy beauty."[7] Christopher Orr of The Atlantic called the episode "superb" and described it as "crisply written, directed and performed."[8] On Rotten Tomatoes, all 28 critic reviews collected were positive. The site gave the episode an average rating of 8.1/10.[9]"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean there's pure hating and there's pure stupid. One might well induce another. Loras donned a pretty long beard in the interrogation scene. Have any idea how long beards grow or do you think Loras got bored in prison and bribed the guard for some Krazy Glue to add something interesting to his chin?

The amount of critique the show gets here that is simply 'moronic' is so big that it undermines any and every valid point there can be made to the show. But hey, continue that and I might even find the whole sandsnakes thing somewhat okay.

The problem is, though, that while a few days pass at the wall (Stannis announcing his departure within a fortnight some time before), a raven flies to the Eerie and a rider brings the letter to Winterfell. And if a month has passed since Loras went to prison, Mance should long be back from Bravos. There is no logic in time, sorry.

But people don't complain about stuff like that - they complain, for example, about there being no logical reason for Sansa to go to Winterfell - not one. You may say her not doing anything would have been boring, but that misses the point. As a writer, you have to come up with logical plot - otherwise you're not a writer worthy of writing for a show like this. Luckily for them, the internet is full of people like you who insult us book purists for pointing that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, though, that while a few days pass at the wall (Stannis announcing his departure within a fortnight some time before), a raven flies to the Eerie and a rider brings the letter to Winterfell. And if a month has passed since Loras went to prison, Mance should long be back from Bravos. There is no logic in time, sorry.

But people don't complain about stuff like that - they complain, for example, about there being no logical reason for Sansa to go to Winterfell - not one. You may say her not doing anything would have been boring, but that misses the point. As a writer, you have to come up with logical plot - otherwise you're not a writer worthy of writing for a show like this. Luckily for them, the internet is full of people like you who insult us book purists for pointing that out.

Really? How about "My dear lady Sansa, you are of course in no obligation to go to Winterfell but should you choose to do so I can no longer offer you my support". Perhaps said nicer. Whaddaya think will happen to a highborn castle princess in fancy clothes wondering around in wilderness? She didn't have THAT many options.

Oh and people complain about EVERYTHING. If it's not in the gospels they complain. Some of them make sock puppets just to come to complain.

Edited by jacksonbrowne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dear patronizing poster with Conleth Hill's picture for his avatar, here are some latest broad strokes scores of reviews.

Episode 4: "Rotten Tomatoes scored this episode at 100% based on 30 reviews, stating "An episode that benefits from the intricate plotting of the previous three, "Sons of the Harpy" balances bloody action with illuminating character interplay."

Episode 5: ""Kill the Boy" was received positively. Mike Hogan of Vanity Fair said that the creative team "just keeps cranking up the tension,"[6] while Joshua Yehl of IGN rated the episode 8.4/10 and wrote that the season "reaches its midway point with refreshed plot-lines and a rare moment of fantasy beauty."[7] Christopher Orr of The Atlantic called the episode "superb" and described it as "crisply written, directed and performed."[8] On Rotten Tomatoes, all 28 critic reviews collected were positive. The site gave the episode an average rating of 8.1/10.[9]"

Okay, so I tell you episode 6 received negative criticism and you counter by posting reviews of other episodes? Care to explain your point? Look at what Vanity Fair or the Atlantic say about E06.

Also note that reviewing something that is "trending" negatively is something mainstream newspapers and magazines won't do, because they have much to lose. Take reviews with a grain of salt and read between the lines as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so I tell you episode 6 received negative criticism and you counter by posting reviews of other episodes? Care to explain your point? Look at what Vanity Fair or the Atlantic say about E06.

Also note that reviewing something that is "trending" negatively is something mainstream newspapers and magazines won't do, because they have much to lose. Take reviews with a grain of salt and read between the lines as well.

So when you agree with the reviews they are right and when you don't they have papers to sell? Funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say it wasn't still being watched a lot. But it's simply a fact that it's ratings are the lowest it's been in a long time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones#Viewer_numbers

For the first time in the show's history episodes are getting lower ratings than episodes of previous seasons. That doesn't mean it still isn't doing very well. But it is undeniably in decline at the moment.

Season comparison 2014/2015 on the same dates:

Ratings May 13th, 2014

GAME OF THRONES

HBOM

9:03 PM

6399

3.4

BREAK

HBOM

9:52 PM

3415

1.8

NBA PLAYOFFS- ROUND 2 L

TNT

8:00 PM

4501

1.7

May 4, 2014

GAME OF THRONES

HBOM

9:03 PM

7155

3.9

REAL HOUSEWIVES ATLANTA

BRVO

8:00 PM

4289

1.9

WATCH WHAT HAPPENS LIVE

BRVO

9:30 PM

3923

1.7

May 12th, 2015

GAME OF THRONES

HBOM

9:03 PM

6559

3.5

NBA PLAYOFFS- ROUND 2 L

TNT

8:30 PM

5030

1.9

REAL HOUSEWIVES ATLANTA

BRVO

8:00 PM

2588

1.1

May 11th, 2015

1

GAME OF THRONES-04/26

HBOM

3.5

4.7

1.2

34%

2

TEEN MOM SSN 5-04/20

MTV

1.0

1.9

0.9

90%

3

LIP SYNC BATTLE-04/23

SPIKE

0.8

1.7

0.9

113%

In any sense of the word that is called crushing the opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×