[Spoilers] Criticize without repercussion

[lojzelote]

32 minutes ago, The Scabbard Of the Morning said:

The biggest issue, even when the show had some good moments, is that none of the moment felt earned.  Jon's resurrection felt unearned because no price was paid (and I still don't get why Davos is the guy who pushes for it), Balon's death was unearned because Euron came out of nowhere and it's been too long since the leeches. Roose's death felt more like Roose being a total moron because the plot needed him to be. 

And for 2 episodes now the KL plot has not advanced one iota.

 

I give you Davos' motives, but I really doubt understand why people keep repeating that somebody should have died for Jon to rise up, since it already has been established that it's not the case. Mirri's words may have nice ring to them, but Thoros proved it's BS. Why should someone die for Jon if no one died for Beric? There's no reason to be wed to that idea.

If anybody should pay the price, then it's Jon himself, by losing himself the way Beric did, it shouldn't be some poor bystander's lifeblood.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

The not earned part for Jon is two fold.

Part 1:  Why try to revive him?  That's the main problem with the narrative here, Melisandre in season 3 is incredulous that Beric can come back from the dead, so we know she neither knows how to do it, nor believe it is really possible. Davos, who is painted as pretty much an agnostic, also should have no idea such a thing is possible, he also has had as far as we know one interaction with Jon, why is he so invested on Jon being not dead?   And that creates the unearned part 1: how do these people even get the idea that this is something that is possible, and why was Jon so important to them to try this impossible plan.  Neither is well explained. They just kind of decide to do it. 

Part 2: What you talked about, the price being paid.  That part I agree is not completely clear, the price might involve something that Jon will pay for himself, so I'll give the show a pass on that until we learn more.

It doesn't change the fact that because of Part 1, the entire scene felt unearned because the motivations of the people was involved in that scene handwaved in order to get them into the room. 

 

 

[williamwire]

I personally believe it should have been Roose that kill'd Ramsey in that scene.

It made no sense that Ramsey would make a move like that (killing Roose, Fat Walda, and the baby) given his circumstances.  But Roose learning he has a new son, would make a move to get rid of a untrustworthy upstart bastard. At least it would make sense and be actually surprising for the show.

http://williamwire.blogspot.com/2016/05/roose-should-have-killed-ramsey-instead.html

[Ser Quork]

2 minutes ago, williamwire said:

I personally believe it should have been Roose that kill'd Ramsey in that scene.

It made no sense that Ramsey would make a move like that (killing Roose, Fat Walda, and the baby) given his circumstances.  But Roose learning he has a new son, would make a move to get rid of a untrustworthy upstart bastard. At least it would make sense and be actually surprising for the show.

http://williamwire.blogspot.com/2016/05/roose-should-have-killed-ramsey-instead.html

Certainly would have been a surprise (as Ramsay getting rid of Roose et al was so obvious) and far more satisfying.  *sighs*  What could have been ...

[Prince of the North]

6 minutes ago, williamwire said:

I personally believe it should have been Roose that kill'd Ramsey in that scene.

It made no sense that Ramsey would make a move like that (killing Roose, Fat Walda, and the baby) given his circumstances.  But Roose learning he has a new son, would make a move to get rid of a untrustworthy upstart bastard. At least it would make sense and be actually surprising for the show.

http://williamwire.blogspot.com/2016/05/roose-should-have-killed-ramsey-instead.html

Amen.  Roose is the intelligent player, not Ramsay.  It was as if Roose's brain fell out or something - just walking into his assassination like that.  It was very inconsistent characterization.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

If you thought D&D would let Roose kill their Ramsay-Sue, you haven't been paying attention.

[Prince of the North]

1 minute ago, The Scabbard Of the Morning said:

If you thought D&D would let Roose kill their Ramsay-Sue, you haven't been paying attention.

Oh, certainly.  But I'm still gonna point it out

[Ravness]

18 hours ago, Minsc said:

I can not imagine how the scene could have been anything else.  There is practically no one that actually believed that Jon would stay dead.  One can have him suffer consequences for his actions or anything.

I'm wondering if my post was misinterpreted.

I agree that a lot of people were basically just waiting for the "when" when it came to his resurrection. But how they went about doing it just seemed a bit rushed. Why Davos? The man who was wary of Melisandre's magic suddenly wants her to bring Jon Snow back to life? What exactly made him think to do that rather than just proceed to burn the body as one normally would? Unless I missed something?

[Ser Quork]

1 minute ago, Ravness said:

I'm wondering if my post was misinterpreted.

I agree that a lot of people were basically just waiting for the "when" when it came to his resurrection. But how they went about doing it just seemed a bit rushed. Why Davos? The man who was wary of Melisandre's magic suddenly wants her to bring Jon Snow back to life? What exactly made him think to do that rather than just proceed to burn the body as one normally would? Unless I missed something?

Nope, you didn't miss anything.  The writers, however, missed giving Davos any rationale for doing anything he's done so far this season.

[Prince of the North]

55 minutes ago, Ravness said:

I'm wondering if my post was misinterpreted.

I agree that a lot of people were basically just waiting for the "when" when it came to his resurrection. But how they went about doing it just seemed a bit rushed. Why Davos? The man who was wary of Melisandre's magic suddenly wants her to bring Jon Snow back to life? What exactly made him think to do that rather than just proceed to burn the body as one normally would? Unless I missed something?

Yep.  I was especially amused that Melisandre seemingly forgot that she could even attempt such a thing until she was reminded about it by Davos, of all people

[JonStarkIII]

On 5/2/2016 at 4:36 AM, Bastard of the Dreadfort said:

Roose deserved better. But so do all brilliant characters when written by hacks like D&D. I guess I'm just used to it by now.

I too am bothered by the recastings. It takes me out also. The first thing I noticed was the 3-eyed raven... they didn't even try to give him long hair and a beard like the last guy. I thought it might be like the matrix where in visions, people appear differently than they do in real life. But no, just the exact same guy sitting among tree roots. No red eye, nothing. The most uncreative interpretation of Bloodraven ever. And as for that child of the forest... Ugh. Worst recasting ever. But it has been done before (the Mountain in Season 2). This new child looks like she's 30 years old acting like a kid. Maybe D&D are once again doing damage control from people saying the last girl to played Leaf was a horrible actress.

I don't know. We're talking about the creativity of a small group of people with a multi million dollar budget. They are going to do whatever they're going to do, and no amount of discussion online by true fans is ever going to change that.

This episode to me was the confirmation that you either accept the changes, or not. Regardless, there's nothing we can do about it. I used to have passion for this show, but now I feel drained and try my best to just accept and enjoy it.

 

 

I agree.....hate the recastings....and will miss Roose alot....what a cool cucumber he was.

[Low Sparrow]

Here's a man (Davos), who, on the topic of religion, when asked by one of his sons, said something to the effect of he believes in "Stanis." The man who raised him from nothing, gave him land and title, and created a future for his family and his heirs. A "fair" man who he owes everything to.

David (B)onehead and David (W)anker at least got that part right and used it in the series.

Davos now resurfaces this season and finds out Jon Snow, a man with whom he has no relation, owes nothing to, and has no connection whatsover to is dead, and presumably, that his God (Stanis), is likely dead, and his body is missing. Were even Hodor watching, he'd presume that Davos would now grab Mel by hair and drag her across the entire North until Stanis or his body were found ... and not give a rat's ass what happens to Snow.

Expecting just a hint of consistency, that wouldn't even leave a Hodor scratchin' his head is not being a book snob/purist.

The scene where Tyrion confirms Missandei is viewed as a "friend" by the Dragons is another glaring example of this. One scene later, the question is made moot by Abott & Costello descending into the dragon pit without her. Yes, this scene was likely shot on a different day, but still, in the same location with the same actors.

They have obviously hired a person whose job it is to keep a visual consistency for makeup and wardrobe at their location, as I don't believe we've witnessed the hairstyle or costume of an actor changing regularly between cuts. Who's job is it to ensure some logical continuity takes place from scene to scene, much less episode to episode?

There is no excuse for this ... well, except maybe one

Saint Do No Wrong Tyrion the Holy

 

 

 

[David Selig]

I laughed when Sansa told Theon "We just have to reach Castle Black". Yeah, no biggie, what with Bolton's men chasing you during winter and it being hundreds of miles of away.

Roose's death was really dumb. Roose isn't nearly dumb enough to go meet Ramsay alone at this moment. And why would the Bolton men follow Ramsay the bastard after he killed his father, brother and stepmother (nobody is dumb enough to believe his story)? Makes no sense.

[Linivh]

Hello, all. I haven't signed into this forum in over ten years. In some kind of meta-irony, the travesty of Jon's resurrection has brought me back.

Forgive me, as it's been a while since I read the books. But was that not the most pointless, poorly written, possibly story-destroying way they could have handled it?

What is the point of Jon's resurrection? Obviously, in the show, it was handled as little more than another "Whoa, cool! Shock value, LOL!" moment.

But in the books, there are very specific plot-relevant reasons we expect Jon's resurrection, right? Specifically, because 1) being resurrected under the right circumstances would make him fulfill some of the prophecies like Azor Ahai, and 2) dying would absolve him of his oath to the Night's Watch, thus freeing him from the story role of "Lord Snow" to become Jon Stark/Targaryen/whatever.

I realize, on the show, we didn't get the nuance of all the prophecies, but I feel like those circumstances fulfilled hardly any of the prerequisites for Jon to be Azor Ahai, et cetera. Wasn't there supposed to be "smoke and salt", at a minimum?

And since Jon was never given the Night's Watch burial--"And now his watch is ended"--and no new Lord Commander has been chosen, he's just going to go right back to the same role he had before, right?

All this is ignoring the obviously illogical decision to make Davos obsessed with bringing Jon back to life (WTF!? Why would magic-hating Davos even come up with that idea, much less go along with it, and be buddy-buddy with Mel?). Ignoring all the illogical crap surrounding the actual resurrection, the very resurrection itself appears to serve no purpose whatsoever. Honestly, what the hell was the point of it at all?

This show was awesome in Season 1. I even have fond memories of Season 2 (Blackwater), but even there they were making changes and creative decisions that led us to the boring cheese-fest we have today. Ever since the Red Wedding it's been really downhill. Granted, those haven't been the best sections of the books either, but all the problems from AFFC and DwD have been amplified by the show rather than remedied.

Really frustrated. I might become a regular again just for these threads!

[Guess who's back]

On 5/2/2016 at 7:20 PM, TheLastLibrarian said:

Saint Tyrion freeing the dragons is the biggest 'deus ex-machina' moment in the history of the show

Care to explain? 

[Ruhail]

1 hour ago, Linivh said:

Hello, all. I haven't signed into this forum in over ten years. In some kind of meta-irony, the travesty of Jon's resurrection has brought me back.

Forgive me, as it's been a while since I read the books. But was that not the most pointless, poorly written, possibly story-destroying way they could have handled it?

What is the point of Jon's resurrection? Obviously, in the show, it was handled as little more than another "Whoa, cool! Shock value, LOL!" moment.

But in the books, there are very specific plot-relevant reasons we expect Jon's resurrection, right? Specifically, because 1) being resurrected under the right circumstances would make him fulfill some of the prophecies like Azor Ahai, and 2) dying would absolve him of his oath to the Night's Watch, thus freeing him from the story role of "Lord Snow" to become Jon Stark/Targaryen/whatever.

I realize, on the show, we didn't get the nuance of all the prophecies, but I feel like those circumstances fulfilled hardly any of the prerequisites for Jon to be Azor Ahai, et cetera. Wasn't there supposed to be "smoke and salt", at a minimum?

And since Jon was never given the Night's Watch burial--"And now his watch is ended"--and no new Lord Commander has been chosen, he's just going to go right back to the same role he had before, right?

All this is ignoring the obviously illogical decision to make Davos obsessed with bringing Jon back to life (WTF!? Why would magic-hating Davos even come up with that idea, much less go along with it, and be buddy-buddy with Mel?). Ignoring all the illogical crap surrounding the actual resurrection, the very resurrection itself appears to serve no purpose whatsoever. Honestly, what the hell was the point of it at all?

This show was awesome in Season 1. I even have fond memories of Season 2 (Blackwater), but even there they were making changes and creative decisions that led us to the boring cheese-fest we have today. Ever since the Red Wedding it's been really downhill. Granted, those haven't been the best sections of the books either, but all the problems from AFFC and DwD have been amplified by the show rather than remedied.

Really frustrated. I might become a regular again just for these threads!

Wow thats a long time. Welcome back. Hope us freshies can keep you entertained. 

[TepidHands]

Despite what you might read, Linivh,  we're not a bunch of "salty haters." We're disappointed and, like you said, frustrated with this adaptation. 

[Florina Laufeyson]

The only things i wasnt big on this episode were these: 

Bloodraven, as much as i ADORE Max Von Sydow, has two eyes. Im really scratching my head over that.

Seastone Chair being redubbed Salt Throne (ill show em a Salt Throne, lmao) and Damphair not really explaining well enough why Asha cant sit it. He just calls Kingsmoot and thats it. Audiences are probably wondering wtf law hes talking about.

Davos using the word "miracles" to describe Mel's abilities. Him going to her doesnt bother me at this stage. I do find it weird hes not blaming her for Stannis' demise, but he does give off a vibe of absolute desperation. So i could suspend my disbelief. "miracles" was really fucking pushing it though.

[AstronautMargaery]

I've noticed while I was reading comments on Jon Snow's ressurection made by show fans, they're just rooting for their favourite character. They couldn't care less if it doesn't make sense (Davos' pep talk) . They want Tyrion, Dany and Jon to win and that's all and the TV Show is giving them that. It's not about THE game of thrones, it's about the character they like "surviving" the odds and not being killed by the genius-mad GRRM (not D&D).

It's okay to like a character, but what makes me sad is the fact that the TV show became devoid of content, just to be about the supposed underdogs winning in the end because they were improved to the public like them.

[Lady Fevre Dream]

1 hour ago, Linivh said:

Hello, all. I haven't signed into this forum in over ten years. In some kind of meta-irony, the travesty of Jon's resurrection has brought me back.

Forgive me, as it's been a while since I read the books. But was that not the most pointless, poorly written, possibly story-destroying way they could have handled it?

What is the point of Jon's resurrection? Obviously, in the show, it was handled as little more than another "Whoa, cool! Shock value, LOL!" moment.

But in the books, there are very specific plot-relevant reasons we expect Jon's resurrection, right? Specifically, because 1) being resurrected under the right circumstances would make him fulfill some of the prophecies like Azor Ahai, and 2) dying would absolve him of his oath to the Night's Watch, thus freeing him from the story role of "Lord Snow" to become Jon Stark/Targaryen/whatever.

I realize, on the show, we didn't get the nuance of all the prophecies, but I feel like those circumstances fulfilled hardly any of the prerequisites for Jon to be Azor Ahai, et cetera. Wasn't there supposed to be "smoke and salt", at a minimum?

And since Jon was never given the Night's Watch burial--"And now his watch is ended"--and no new Lord Commander has been chosen, he's just going to go right back to the same role he had before, right?

All this is ignoring the obviously illogical decision to make Davos obsessed with bringing Jon back to life (WTF!? Why would magic-hating Davos even come up with that idea, much less go along with it, and be buddy-buddy with Mel?). Ignoring all the illogical crap surrounding the actual resurrection, the very resurrection itself appears to serve no purpose whatsoever. Honestly, what the hell was the point of it at all?

This show was awesome in Season 1. I even have fond memories of Season 2 (Blackwater), but even there they were making changes and creative decisions that led us to the boring cheese-fest we have today. Ever since the Red Wedding it's been really downhill. Granted, those haven't been the best sections of the books either, but all the problems from AFFC and DwD have been amplified by the show rather than remedied.

Really frustrated. I might become a regular again just for these threads!

It, the show...the story...........really, really has turned into a travesty all around, hasn't it?  Like you, I enjoyed season 1, much of 2 (though, saw the issues), was a bit ehh on some of season 3 (the RW, among other things, could have been so much better) and on and on and on.....the disappoint comes.

I wasn't around here ten years ago, but hope you do pop back.  It's always nice to see different takes on this travesty.  I may do one of my first full throttle rereads for the first time in a year.  I spot reread, here and there, but the start of this season, (and enough time away from the books, LOL) has lead me to really miss the actual characters and story.