Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ran

[Poll] How would you rate episode 510?

How would you rate episode 510?  

1,157 members have voted

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

    • 1
      189
    • 2
      58
    • 3
      75
    • 4
      53
    • 5
      79
    • 6
      68
    • 7
      98
    • 8
      161
    • 9
      170
    • 10
      203


Recommended Posts

Or the nuanced nature of the characters.

GRRM has said he is not interested in white hat/black hat characters and that Jon himself will become more grey, and not through death, (in the sample chapter of Winds, wasn't Jon running from something-of course it didn't give what form he was in).

Even Thorne, who in the book is elsewhere, I would be willing to bet he wouldn't have sanctioned the murder of Jon, which these guys don't get as we're hit over the head with white hat/black hat characters.

Much of what GRRM writes is influenced by Faulkner and "conflicts of the heart," as stated by the author himself, as well as history, (Cersei's walk of shame is based on Jane Shore, mistress of Edward IV. His brother, Richard III had her turned out).

GOT is basically about "War of the Roses" with dragons.

and for a true fan, you clearly have a very loose grip on what GRRM has said, and what chapters he has released.

as for the rest of the post, well thats the beauty of a book. You can out any interpretation you like it- i suppose the sentence linking Faulkner to the wars of the roses made sense in your head, but damned if it does when you wrote it down.

Again there is a firm trend that the one most offended by the show are the ones who thought late GRRM is "Great Literature"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't you hear the people that like the show are only dazzled by special effects and kills and boobs. Only the people that hate the show and watch it every week crying about how it's not like the book and say it doesn't make sense (but then when they try to explain it fall flat and keep going down their rabbit holes) understand true artistic merit.

And everyone who quit the show didn't post in the threads the next week.

honestly i am kinda glad that the season is over, because i couldn't resist coming in here to discuss while it was on, but the book taliban in here leave me with sour taste in my mouth. Looking forward to 9 months just having the odd chat with normal people who without exception love the show if they have watched it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no hyperbole there, oh no. It must be weird to see the huge number eating the soylent green, while only the special snowflakes like you can truly discern real art and storytelling. What a burden carrying the knowledge among the sheeple....

OR, mad idea altogether , but might you and the other trufans be lacking perspective?

Yeah and see you next year while the wait for the messiah goes on...

But YOU are the one who's being arrogant in your opinion. You liked the episode? Fine. Some tv critics liked it? Swell. I, and MANY OTHERS on this site have expressed our dislike. According to you, we are all "overinvested emotionally immature fans who can't cope with artistic re-interpretation." That seems pretty arrogant and obnoxious to me. Go like what you like. Don't presume your opinion has any more validity than mine.

And stop posting too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But YOU are the one who's being arrogant in your opinion. You liked the episode? Fine. Some tv critics liked it? Swell. I, and MANY OTHERS on this site have expressed our dislike. According to you, we are all "overinvested emotionally immature fans who can't cope with artistic re-interpretation." That seems pretty arrogant and obnoxious to me. Go like what you like. Don't presume your opinion has any more validity than mine.

And stop posting too.

hey posting here sure is irrational, i get that, i mean i am metaphorically wading into the pit where the book taliban of the world have clustered, literally every one of them, while there is a wide world of normal people who i would have much more fun conversing with.

What can i say, i like a bit of conflict. But i'll move on to some other sport in a week or two, whereas your irrationality is a core feature, by the looks of things.....

Edited by God-Emperor of Yi Ti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, I am not Preston Jacobs. But it's funny how we brought up a few of the same points. Then again, the flaws in this episode/season were pretty obvious.

Listen I've seen a few of his videos. It doesn't shock me that someone who reads WAY too much into the books and comes up with a bunch of overthought theories that are so convoluted and make so little sense to the point that none of them have a chance of happening, and sticks to ironclad ideas he concocted with no basis to back them up to support his theories, would be one of the people trying to nitpick the hell out of the episode.

Just off the top of my head Stannis having a plan even though he most likely dies at Winterfell. That because the they didn't show Brienne's sword go through Stannis he didn't die. Shireen's burning means nothing even though it happens in the books and most likely has the same purpose. That Brienne happened to run into Stannis (when all season everybody knew he was coming to Winterfell). That the battle that took place in an open field surrounded by woods, might have in fact spilled off into those woods.

Listen I get things like finding Olly annoying. That's fine. He was clearly just the show runners avatar for how people would turn on Jon. Him existing doesn't not make sense though. Brienne following Sansa to Winterfell after she made a big deal about fulfilling her oath doesn't not make sense. Ellaria who was going against her Prince's back not caring for the life of his heir might be cold and people might not like that Ellaria is more cold hearted in the show. It doesn't not make sense. If anything in Dorne at all didn't make sense it was both Jamie and the Snakes having a horrible plan to get to Myrcella.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many great moments on the show, can't even list them all, but it has been amazing to see it come to life. I'm so grateful for HBO and D&D and all the cast and crew, and most of all the fans (of the show), who have demonstrated that fantasy can garner a popular audience.

I do hope they have a plan for the endgame. I'm concerned they only have 20 episodes left, and so much ground to cover. Hope it's well thought out and that George has provided them with a roadmap for what's to come. WAFO, I suppose.

here here, i am thankful that they are putting a great story on screen, and have beaten a path for others to follow.

John Snow always comes back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But YOU are the one who's being arrogant in your opinion. You liked the episode? Fine. Some tv critics liked it? Swell. I, and MANY OTHERS on this site have expressed our dislike. According to you, we are all "overinvested emotionally immature fans who can't cope with artistic re-interpretation." That seems pretty arrogant and obnoxious to me. Go like what you like. Don't presume your opinion has any more validity than mine.

And stop posting too.

The thing is, not everyone, but A LOT of the people complaining about the show are doing things like constantly calling D&D idiots and hacks (when that would never fly with GRRM on here), accuse them of having a rape obsession when with the exception of one rape (Jamie and Cersie) they all had some basis in the books AND often times were tamed down and mostly cut out, accuse them of having nonsensical plots when generally it really just comes down to not liking the changes, and accuses people of only liking the show because of special effects, boobs, blood, and shock points.

Most of the complaints generally come down to subjective opinion and they all almost deal with deviation from the novels. Hard not to see a pattern there.

Edited by lancerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But YOU are the one who's being arrogant in your opinion. You liked the episode? Fine. Some tv critics liked it? Swell. I, and MANY OTHERS on this site have expressed our dislike. According to you, we are all "overinvested emotionally immature fans who can't cope with artistic re-interpretation." That seems pretty arrogant and obnoxious to me. Go like what you like. Don't presume your opinion has any more validity than mine.

And stop posting too.

Actually I am one of those who think the books are much better, but thinking that some of the overreaction by some of the purists is totally unjustified is no irrational nor impolite. Thought the episode was a 9+, it was damn good and overall quite true to the books. Those who give it qa very low rating would never of liked any adeptation asany adeptation would not of matched what they saw in their minds. Sorry but grow up and learn to appreciate that the show is the best adaptation of any written work that could have been made. It's not perfect and some decisions the show runners made were problematical but overall it's both a great TV show in and of itself and quite faithful to the spirit of th books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen I've seen a few of his videos. It doesn't shock me that someone who reads WAY too much into the books and comes up with a bunch of overthought theories that are so convoluted and make so little sense to the point that none of them have a chance of happening, and sticks to ironclad ideas he concocted with no basis to back them up to support his theories, would be one of the people trying to nitpick the hell out of the episode.

Just off the top of my head Stannis having a plan even though he most likely dies at Winterfell. That because the they didn't show Brienne's sword go through Stannis he didn't die. Shireen's burning means nothing even though it happens in the books and most likely has the same purpose. That Brienne happened to run into Stannis (when all season everybody knew he was coming to Winterfell). That the battle that took place in an open field surrounded by woods, might have in fact spilled off into those woods.

Listen I get things like finding Olly annoying. That's fine. He was clearly just the show runners avatar for how people would turn on Jon. Him existing doesn't not make sense though. Brienne following Sansa to Winterfell after she made a big deal about fulfilling her oath doesn't not make sense. Ellaria who was going against her Prince's back not caring for the life of his heir might be cold and people might not like that Ellaria is more cold hearted in the show. It doesn't not make sense. If anything in Dorne at all didn't make sense it was both Jamie and the Snakes having a horrible plan to get to Myrcella.

And I'm not saying this ep was the worst thing ever put on tv. I simply started by saying I couldn't understand how people could vote this a ten. Your response was full of fbombs and complete dismissals of valid arguments about whatever criticisms I and others have.

Agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no hyperbole there, oh no. It must be weird to see the huge number eating the soylent green, while only the special snowflakes like you can truly discern real art and storytelling. What a burden carrying the knowledge among the sheeple....

OR, mad idea altogether , but might you and the other trufans be lacking perspective?

Yeah and see you next year while the wait for the messiah goes on...

You seem to be the one having the melt down.

As others have pointed out, you are free to like the show for your own reasons, just as those of us who found it lacking are entitled to our own opinions.

Martin has been quite open on his influencers- other great authors such as Faulkner, (whom he directly references as an inspiration for what he writes, as well as history, (there you go, the link, sorry you had trouble with that), such as Cersei's walk of shame and her historical counterpart, Jane Shore who at least got to wear her chemise.

The Targaryens equal the Plantaganets, and tDoD equal "the War of the Roses."

D&D have been quite open about what motivates them- ratings and notoriety. They were on the record for wanting to do GOT just to do the Red Wedding, not because they were interested in "conficts of the heart."

I really cannot fathom what possible difference to you it makes if no one likes the show. If you said you hated the books, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care. :dunno:

Edited by Alia of the knife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing ASOIAF to Faulkner. Classic.

No one is comparing ASOIAF to Faulkner instead GRRM has often quoted Faulkner's the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about. GRRM's characters in the books have exactly this dilemma so as opposed to St. Tyrion on the show we have a flawed character who is in essence good but lost and tragic.

Edited by teej6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing ASOIAF to Faulkner. Classic.

"I have always agreed with William Faulkner. He said the human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about. I've always taken that as my guiding principle, and the rest is just set dressing. I mean, you can have a dragon, you can have a science fiction story set on a distant planet with aliens and starships, you can have a western about a gunslinger, or a mystery novel about a private eye, or even literary fiction- and ultimately you're still writing about the human heart in conflict with itself. So that's the the way I try to approach this this thing. And while I've worked within a genre, I've never liked to be bound by them. " -George R. Martin, The Atlantic interiviewed by Rachael Brown, July 2011.

Not getting the reference- classic.

Edited by Alia of the knife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be the one having the melt down.

As others have pointed out, you are free to like the show for your own reasons, just as those of us who found it lacking are entitled to our own opinions.

Martin has been quite open on his influencers- other great authors such as Faulkner, (whom he directly references as an inspiration for what he writes, as well as history, (there you go, the link, sorry you had trouble with that), such as Cersei's walk of shame and her historical counterpart, Jane Shore who at least got to wear her chemise.

The Targaryens equal the Plantaganets, and tDoD equal "the War of the Roses."

D&D have been quite open about what motivates them- ratings and notoriety. They were on the record for wanting to do GOT just to do the Red Wedding, not because they were interested in "conficts of the heart."

I really cannot fathom what possible difference to you it makes if no one likes the show. If you said you hated the books, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care. :dunno:

as i said, i have rather irrationally come to the place on earth with the highest concentration of show haters. Kind of like a visit to Bedlam. The difference is i can leave.

Edited by God-Emperor of Yi Ti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are few that have called them pedophiles and perverts. That would get the banhanmer if directed at King George.

[MOD]

If you have seen such posts please use the report function to identify them.

[/MOD]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is comparing ASOIAF to Faulkner instead GRRM has often quoted Faulkner's the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about. GRRM's characters in the books have exactly this dilemma so as opposed to St. Tyrion on the show we have a flawed character who is in essence good but lost and tragic.

Yep. Here you go:

I've always agreed with William Faulkner—he said that the human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about. I've always taken that as my guiding principle, and the rest is just set dressing. I mean, you can have a dragon, you can have a science fiction story set on a distant planet with aliens and starships, you can have a western about a gunslinger, or a mystery novel about a private eye, or even literary fiction—and ultimately you're still writing about the human heart in conflict with itself. So that's the way I try to approach this thing.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/07/george-rr-martin-on-sex-fantasy-and-a-dance-with-dragons/241738/

Goddamnit. Constantly getting :ninja: 'd.

Edited by Night'sQueen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I have always agreed with William Faulkner. He said the human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about. I've always taken that as my guiding principle, and the rest is just set dressing. I mean, you can have a dragon, you can have a science fiction story set on a distant planet with aliens and starships, you can have a western about a gunslinger, or a mystery novel about a private eye, or even literary fiction- and ultimately you're still writing about the human heart in conflict with itself. So that's the the way I try to approach this this thing. And while I've worked within a genre, I've never liked to be bound by them. " -George R. Martin, The Atlantic interiviewed by Rachael Brown, July 2011.

Not getting the reference- classic.

you are the one making a linkage with Faulkner when all GRRM is stating is what he ( and most other decent writers) do

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  

×