Illogical events in both show and books.

[Khal Boner]

 

Which again - raises further questions. I can buy men deserting to Bolton after burning Shireen yes. But before? First of all why? What do they gain from this? 

 

They are bogged down in the snow. Trapped. Stuck. Dying slowly. It was the burning of Shireen that broke the storm.

[Bobby b's bobby]

 
They are bogged down in the snow. Trapped. Stuck. Dying slowly. It was the burning of Shireen that broke the storm.

So if they actually believe stannis has God on his side shoudnt they be loyal

[JagLover]

No Protar you don't need every detail explained as long as it's a reasonable possibility. It's like the people that complain about that scene in The Dark Knight where Batman jumps out the building and leaves Joker in a room full of people and call it a plot hole. The simple explanation is that he escaped before the cops got there.

We've seen in the show and the books that traitors can exist and be bought off. Is it plausible that a bunch of sell swords who later abandoned Stannis before the battle could be bought off? Yeah, we've seen betrayals happen dozens of times on the show. It's not like we got a full ledger for the Red Wedding planning process to accept that Roose and Walder would betray everyone like that. And we know half of Stannis' army isn't loyal.

its not as if we hadn't seen sellswords switch sides before either. 

 

Presumably people find what Dany did at Yunkai to be implausible.  

[Cas Stark]

Because why bother no one puts the show under any serious scrutiny especially compared to something like breaking bad or true detectives

 

And that's the truth of it right there.  GOT is held to a lesser standard.  The complaints about True Detective's plot are hilariously detailed when compared to the BS that is defended for GOT as being 'plausible' or you're just a stupid nerd asshole to have noticed these errors and plot holes.

[lancerman]

No Protar you don't need every detail explained as long as it's a reasonable possibility. It's like the people that complain about that scene in The Dark Knight where Batman jumps out the building and leaves Joker in a room full of people and call it a plot hole. The simple explanation is that he escaped before the cops got there.

We've seen in the show and the books that traitors can exist and be bought off. Is it plausible that a bunch of sell swords who later abandoned Stannis before the battle could be bought off? Yeah, we've seen betrayals happen dozens of times on the show. It's not like we got a full ledger for the Red Wedding planning process to accept that Roose and Walder would betray everyone like that. And we know half of Stannis' army isn't loyal. GRRM has unlimited time in his books and we still have little gaps like that, they have 10 hours a year to figure it out.

[Bobby b's bobby]

 
And that's the truth of it right there.  GOT is held to a lesser standard.  The complaints about True Detective's plot are hilariously detailed when compared to the BS that is defended for GOT as being 'plausible' or you're just a stupid nerd asshole to have noticed these errors and plot holes.

Yep this site is fairly civil but try complaining about got elsewhere and it ranges from books are for the lonely and sad too fuck you and your face.

[Khal Boner]

 

And that's the truth of it right there.  GOT is held to a lesser standard.  

 

If so much of the criticism wasn't petty, mindless nit picking or feminist virtue signalling then it might be possible to have more mature debate. 

[lancerman]

Wait are we now at the point where we are comparing the mystery show where every little detail in any given scene can be tied to the central mystery of the shows plot to Game of Thrones? The series where a war was fought because some guys kids had blonde hair instead of black?

[JagLover]

they have 10 hours a year to figure it out.

 Time is the biggest issue preventing the approach some would seem to prefer, which would be detail every single detail and plot choice.

 

The show keeps for the most part the POV system of the books. Characters like Ramsay or Stannis tend to be seen when interacting with other key characters. We don't see for example Stannis detailing his procedures for guarding the camp with his officers nor do we see Ramsay when he is not with Theon, Sansa or Roose.

 

in of themselves Stannis and ramsay are not main characters and yet the show is apparently supposed to spend ten to twenty minutes filling in the gaps because people cant imagine a number of plausible scenarios to explain what happened.

[protar]

No Protar you don't need every detail explained as long as it's a reasonable possibility. It's like the people that complain about that scene in The Dark Knight where Batman jumps out the building and leaves Joker in a room full of people and call it a plot hole. The simple explanation is that he escaped before the cops got there.

We've seen in the show and the books that traitors can exist and be bought off. Is it plausible that a bunch of sell swords who later abandoned Stannis before the battle could be bought off? Yeah, we've seen betrayals happen dozens of times on the show. It's not like we got a full ledger for the Red Wedding planning process to accept that Roose and Walder would betray everyone like that. And we know half of Stannis' army isn't loyal.

 

I've never said that we need every detail explained to us. But these are not mere details. These are major plot points. How big an event does it have to be for you to require D+D to explain it for us? Like would you have been fine if Ramsay had said "I just need twenty good men." and then next episode we cut to Stannis' army decimated? I mean after all, just use your imagination - clearly Ramsay snook into his camp, destroyed all the supplies and pushed Stannis to burning his daughter, which caused people to desert him but also lifted the storm so Roose could move in! We don't need to see that, you can't expect the show to hand hold you jeez!

[Cas Stark]

 

If so much of the criticism wasn't petty, mindless nit picking or feminist virtue signalling then it might be possible to have more mature debate. 

 

Again, True Dective has been criticized soundly by critics for it's murky plot and for people having to work to figure out what's going on.  Yet, GOT, not a peep of criticism from the critics for totally IMPLAUSIBLE BS that went on plotwise last season as well as glaring errors, and sorry, the necklace is a glaring error since they created an entire scene and plot around it.  It has nothing to do with debate on forums, it has to do with critics not expecting or caring that GOT plot holds up.

[Khal Boner]

 

Again, True Dective has been criticized soundly by critics for it's murky plot and for people having to work to figure out what's going on.  Yet, GOT, not a peep of criticism from the critics for totally IMPLAUSIBLE BS that went on plotwise last season as well as glaring errors, and sorry, the necklace is a glaring error since they created an entire scene and plot around it.  It has nothing to do with debate on forums, it has to do with critics not expecting or caring that GOT plot holds up.

 

Maybe the critics don't share your criticisms.

[lancerman]

Wait are we now at the point where we are comparing the mystery show where every little detail in any given scene can be tied to the central mystery of the shows plot to Game of Thrones? The series where a war was fought because some guys kids had blonde hair instead of black?

[JagLover]

 

If so much of the criticism wasn't petty, mindless nit picking or feminist virtue signalling then it might be possible to have more mature debate. 

This  

 

Take out overblown hysteria surrounding (barely there) sexual violence and nit picking over trivia and you would remove a great chunk of the debate.

[A_Cornered_Wolf]

Wait are we now at the point where we are comparing the mystery show where every little detail in any given scene can be tied to the central mystery of the shows plot to Game of Thrones? The series where a war was fought because some guys kids had blonde hair instead of black?

 

This is 'moving the goal posts.'  We are talking about plot holes, illogical events in the books and shows.  Game of Thrones should be held to the same standards any other quality TV show is in regards to its writing consistency and logic, otherwise you are giving it a pass because 'GoT'.  Genre is not relevant, and by moving the goal posts and claiming you can look at GoT with less scrutiny than other shows you estabilish it closer to the realm of action-adventure 80s show, ala Xena or Hercules.  Its either good TV that is well written and consistent, and measuring it against the same standards other shows are measured against is correct or it is not up the standard of good television.

[Cas Stark]

 

Maybe the critics don't share your criticisms.

 

That's obvious, otherwise they would have criticized the gaping plot holes, errors and flaws of GOT in a similar manner as they criticize other prestige dramas, but they don't.  And it isn't because GOT doesn't have these errors, flaws and plot holes, it's because critics are holding it to a different standard.

 

There is no point in getting into the LF plan for Sansa and how utterly and totally stupid it is in the show, because I've already seen the lame excuses that people conjure up to make it not stupid, but they remain excuses and show apologia.

[JagLover]

A show can be both well written and consistent and only imply reasons for some events and not provide full detail. In fact I would often expect this from a show aimed at an audience of greater intelligence who don't need everything handily spelled out to them.

 

It should be held to the same standards as other quality fare but with a recognition there are far more characters and locations so there will inevitable be less time devoted to each.  

[Cas Stark]

A show can be both well written and consistent and only imply reasons for some events and not provide full detail. In fact I would often expect this from a show aimed at an audience of greater intelligence who don't need everything handily spelled out to them.

 

It should be held to the same standards as other quality fare but with a recognition there are far more characters and locations so there will inevitable be less time devoted to each.  

 

Sure.  But GOT doesn't do that.

 

What may I ask was the 'implied' reason that Arya and the Hound were able to show up at the Vale gate and announce their true identities, with the Hound having a bounty on his head and being easily recognizable, having been recognized already in the show by at least one total stranger, and walk away?

[lancerman]

Cas you are criticizing the lighting, and the necklace which is glorified trivia that you'd almost have to freeze frame to figure out.

People are going ham on 20 good men but giving Barristan's super spy mission a pass. Either we except that both are instances of hyper competence or they are not.

It's not remotely the same.

[Khal Boner]

 

That's obvious, otherwise they would have criticized the gaping plot holes, errors and flaws of GOT in a similar manner as they criticize other prestige dramas, but they don't.  And it isn't because GOT doesn't have these errors, flaws and plot holes, it's because critics are holding it to a different standard.

 

There is no point in getting into the LF plan for Sansa and how utterly and totally stupid it is in the show, because I've already seen the lame excuses that people conjure up to make it not stupid, but they remain excuses and show apologia.

I feel you overstate the problems and if they were as obvious as you say then the critics would pick up on them. What we have constantly seen with GOT is book purists going mental at every change, big or small, to each characters storyline. Some just find it impossible to treat the show as a separate entity. I'm pretty sure if you had never read the books these 'gaping' plot holes wouldn't seem so gaping. A fair criticism of GOT would be that despite the flaws and occasional mistakes it's still damn good television.