(SPOILERS) Criticise Without Reprecussion

[Winter's Breath]

I almost could not finish the episode. 

Why two pointless scene where someone gives terms of surrender that everyone knows would be impossible? When did Theorn and Asha acquire steam ships to travel a year long voyage in a few days? What happened to the hundreds of people between Moat Catlin and Winterfel who would have seen the Vale knights marching north? How did John learn how to weave Saidin to protect him from the arrows and horses? 

All of the dialog actually was quite bad.

John: If he was smart he would stay inside the walls of Winterfel, and wait us out

Davos: Thats not his way. He knows the north is watching. if the other houses sense weakness on his part, they'd stop fearing him. He cant have that. His's fear is his power. 

As if staying behind a 100 foot high wall as your besiegers starve and freeze is a bad, cowardly decision. Come on. These are northmen– they understand the ferocity of winter and are not stupid. They would cheer the smart commander who makes tactically sound decisions, not loose respect for them.

Also, Why Danny, would you give up part of Westeros for 100 ships? Theon and Asha are beggars at your doorstep. Pardon them for not fighting for your father, their sworn king. Promise not to kill them and keep them as leaders of the iron islands as reward for bringing ships and men. But do not let them break the Iron islands off. Your are their leige lord– by giving you support they are only doing their duty. 

 

I'll grant that the cinematography of the battle was beautiful. Yet no similar battles would have a mound of bodies, or a shield wall only five men deep that is somehow unbreakable. Large battles with capable commanders are fought over very large areas, as both sides seek to flank and out maneuver each other. So how come both sides just ran at each other headlong? 

 

Lastly, John, WTF did you do to your hair? You'r a fuk'n north man, not a sellsword. 

 

The show is no longer Game of Thrones, with subtly and foreshadowing and intrigue. This episode was violence for the sake of entertainment. If I want to see that I can watch a Marvel movie. 

 

The only plus was that Ramsey is finally dead. 

 

[LadyDoom]

6 minutes ago, Tyche said:

Nice, I was logged out before I could finish my post... Well, many things I disliked have already been mentioned but the things I hated the most were:

- Ramsay not getting any repercussions for being a coward. No men deserting him? Yeah, he was killed but that's what he got for everything he has done before. His men didn't betray him. Do I smell some Northern loyalty?

- Sansa being angry about not being included discussing tactics. You're a big girl, empowered and you have agency, your big brother does not have to ask for your opinion, just give it. Also, why does she think she has any right to discuss with them if she keeps crucial information hidden?! (Even if nobody else knew it at this point) This way it appeared as if she kept the information hidden OUT OF SPITE! *sobs* 'why are you not including me?' *sobs* 'well then, die, I guess'

 

That! I really hate that too. 

Also I hate how before the fight Umber shouts the north is ours or something like that. it was far more compelling than the silence on the other side, I mean if you know nothing about the show and just tune in that scene, you'd probably think the heroes are the ones shouting the north is theirs.

It's like Ramsay doesn't get any deserters because I think they really want to be there, doesn't matter if he has no honor or no courage no mercy and if their ancestors had been loyal to the Starks for centuries. 

[tormund's beard]

1 minute ago, teemo said:

 "I legitimately started to tear up once Jon began to charge Ramsey's army, and then his own army followed. One of the most epic moments I've ever experienced in any television show or film."

this is just wrong, the most epic moment and for sure cavalry charge is the charge of the rohirrim on the return of the king.

[Stag_legion]

5 hours ago, Forlong the Fat said:

Ok. The show portrays a battle consistent with historic reports of a a similar battle. Not good enough for you because you think there weren't enough people in your estimation.

 

Any reasonable person knows where your head is. 

Which historic battle??

You mean what they say in the "inside the episode". They are talking out of their ass. The battle between Rome and Carthage (battle of Cannae) did not play out in this ridiculous manner. In that battle they managed to surround the roman army because of Calvary circled back  and planned  retreat in the Carthaginian infantry center.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae#/media/File:Battle_cannae_destruction.png

You would have to be a real moron to let infantry surround you like the show. OF course that is just what happened, everyone one just watches while they get surrounded.

The entire episode didn't have an ounce of historical authenticity.

[The Bear]

4 hours ago, Florina Laufeyson said:

Go ahead and care that much about fight numbers, i dont care. I find it kinda meaningless to nitpick that, but whatever. Im not even mad about that. Bitch all you like. But im really disgusted about how much fucking riffing on feminism goes on each week in these threads. Its gross and offensive. 

Because it's not feminism. D&D are pushing a skewed and silly version of 'feminism' that is frankly insulting to women, whether they identify as feminists or not.

Rape as empowerment is a trope frequently present in media written by men. They think that if a woman is raped or otherwise sexually assaulted it gives them a reason to be angry and vengeful and upgrade into a badass. They think that having a woman say she wants to 'fuck the tits off' another woman is somehow empowering because she's showing her sexual freedom. They sometimes use a woman's sexual agency as shorthand for negative traits such as being deceptive (Cersei, Shae, Sand Snakes). Frequently when women are talking to other women on the show it's about men (fathers, husbands, the patriarchy).

The show is really quite sexist when it's trying to be progressive. People are tired of the ham-fisted way they push their female empowerment message (that really, when examined, isn't female empowerment at all). I don't think that's anti-feminist. I don't think I've seen anyone here be anti-women in their complaints or anti-equality. What I do see is women saying that they don't want to be seen in the same light that the show portrays so-called powerful independent women. It pushes the idea that feminism is looking down on men and showing them up.

George's books manage to examine feminist issues without pushing an agenda or being sexist. It's not too much to ask for the show do to the same.
 

[LulaMae Barnes]

Just now, teemo said:

TITS

DRAGONS

Aaaah, yes - I forgot - the magical formula: boobs, dragons....but constant cock jokes & bad pussies too

[Tyche]

9 minutes ago, LadyDoom said:

That! I really hate that too. 

Also I hate how before the fight Umber shouts the north is ours or something like that. it was far more compelling than the silence on the other side, I mean if you know nothing about the show and just tune in that scene, you'd probably think the heroes are the ones shouting the north is theirs.

It's like Ramsay doesn't get any deserters because I think they really want to be there, doesn't matter if he has no honor or no courage no mercy and if their ancestors had been loyal to the Starks for centuries. 

Yeah, why even bother mentioning multiple times how Ramsay's cowardice will come back at him if it doesn't? They set it up and did nothing with it...

[Forlong the Fat]

4 minutes ago, Stag_legion said:

Which historic battle??

You mean what they say in the "inside the episode". They are talking out of their ass. The battle between Rome and Carthage (battle of Cannae) did not play out in this ridiculous manner. In that battle they managed to surround the roman army because of Calvary circled back  and planned  retreat in the Carthaginian infantry center.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae#/media/File:Battle_cannae_destruction.png

You would have to be a real moron to let infantry surround you like the show. OF course that is just what happened, everyone one just watches while they get surrounded.

The entire episode didn't have an ounce of historical authenticity.

The discussion from which you plucked this comment was quite clear. People were questioning the mounds of bodies portrayed in the episode and I pointed out that historical accounts of the Battle of Agincourt described mounds of bodies higher than a man. There are other parallels as well. But of course no one actually meant it to be a historically accurate battle. It's a fantasy show. They meant to portray elements that occurred in historical battles. 

[teemo]

I know some people that say 90% of the reason they watch the show is for the tits.  I just don't get this.  You have to watch a shitty show to see boobs?  I know a guy who just re-watched the entire series of True Blood even though he hated it the first time just for the boobs.  I mean...can't you Google this stuff?  Or watch a quality show with tits??  I like boobs, but damn, not going to dedicate like 40+ hours to a bad show just to see boobs now and then!  

[Forlong the Fat]

19 minutes ago, Banjo said:

Do you not get what this thread is about? What are you even doing here, all the other threads are open. When a thread is clearly marked about criticism and you try to come and defend every point like your salary depended on each episode, I mean whats the point?

The poster asked a question (why Jon didn't kill Ramsay at a Parley) and I provided an answer. Do people on this thread not want accurate answers to their questions?

[kuf]

By the way,props to Ramsay for relieving John from the embarassment of trying to give an Aragorn type of speech to his soldiers-he might had lost half his army right then and there.

[LulaMae Barnes]

2 minutes ago, teemo said:

I know some people that say 90% of the reason they watch the show is for the tits.  I just don't get this.  You have to watch a shitty show to see boobs?  I know a guy who just re-watched the entire series of True Blood even though he hated it the first time just for the boobs.  I mean...can't you Google this stuff?  Or watch a quality show with tits??  I like boobs, but damn, not going to dedicate like 40+ hours to a show just to see boobs now and then!  

It's weird and annoying at once. They should just watch porn instead - most of those have better plots than this show by now anyway ;o)

I know a lot of people who downright reject ever touching the books, but love the show - because Kelly C. and boobs, and Kelly C.'s boobs. They know exactly when an actress gets naked - but they can't even remember the main character's name. Only "Khalessi" - that they always remember. I cannot discuss the show with them anymore....it's so sad.

[Tyche]

6 minutes ago, kuf said:

By the way,props to Ramsay for relieving John from the embarassment of trying to give an Aragorn type of speech to his soldiers-he might had lost half his army right then and there.

This.

Thought he might give a speech judging from the preview. I'm glad it didn't happen. That's the guy who will lead the battle against the WW......

Did anybody else notice how Tyrion had to explain to Daenerys nonverbally the concept of a handshake... But the women are in power and she's a queen, so it's okay to depict her as super dense.

[Bastard of the Dreadfort]

Why can't Rickon have one line? Hell, forget that, a single word? Does it cost so much for HBO to pay Art Parkinson to scream "JON! SAVE ME!" while running? Or does adding to dramatic tension extend beyond their budget this season?

[The Bear]

2 hours ago, Rubicante said:

I didn't find anything overly offensive with this episode.  A few nitpicks, but nothing compared to the number of nitpicks we will have for next week's episode.  I'll save my energy for then.  My main problems were, as most people have already mentioned...

1. Davos finding the stag.  I'm pretty sure Shireen was holding it when tied to the stake.  There is no way that stag remains in tact after being lit on fire.

2. Davos finding the stag implies that Stannis' camp was just outside of Winterfell.  So why exactly couldn't Stannis move forward again if he was already there?

3. Everything about Sansa just bothered me in this episode.  I hate her condescending attitude.  When she said "Don't you want to hear what I think?" in regards to the battle, Jon should have replied "Nope.  You're the dip shit who agreed to marry Ramsay in order to somehow get revenge for our family.".  And her not telling Jon about potential help from the Vale is inexcusable.

This one isn't really a nitpick, but seeing the Umbers on the side of Ramsay Bolton, and being proud of being on Ramsay's side, makes my ass ache.

The stag surviving the flames is one thing I'm not going to nitpick. There have been many cases of people holding something while immolated and the thing in their hand remained partially or even fully in tact even though it was flammable. Off the top of my head I can think of a suicide that was solved because they found the lighter in the woman's hand. It was perfectly in tact. Her palm was also unburned because her hand had been curled around the lighter. If Shireen had been tightly clutching the stag while she burned it could have survived, although not in its entirety because it was slightly too big to be completely contained within her hand. I noticed one of the antlers was missing, but it should have been more damaged than that.

The real issue with the stag is Davos finding it less than a day's journey from Winterfell when the whole point of burning Shireen was so they could make it there.

[teemo]

3 minutes ago, LulaMae Barnes said:

It's weird and annoying at once. They should just watch porn instead - most of those have better plots than this show by now anyway ;o)

I know a lot of people who downright reject ever touching the books, but love the show - because Kelly C. and boobs, and Kelly C.'s boobs. They know exactly when an actress gets naked - but they can't even remember the main character's name. Only "Khalessi" - that they always remember. I cannot discuss the show with them anymore....it's so sad.

I really want to strangle people who say Khaleesi.  It was kind of understandable at the beginning of the show, but it's season fucking six now....you are the most obvious Unsullied in the world if you are still saying Khaleesi.  

[LulaMae Barnes]

Rickon dying was so unneccessary - and seeing him do so was even worse. Why show this - though showing us the final fight of the Blackfish or Arya defeating the Waif-like charater were too much? Why bring him back for just to be killed off without uttering a single word during both episodes that he was seen?

Did anyone else think, the way he died looked somewhat (very) similar to Ygritte's death?

[The Boastful Knight]

11 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Because it's not feminism. D&D are pushing a skewed and silly version of 'feminism' that is frankly insulting to women, whether they identify as feminists or not.

Rape as empowerment is a trope frequently present in media written by men. They think that if a woman is raped or otherwise sexually assaulted it gives them a reason to be angry and vengeful and upgrade into a badass. They think that having a woman say she wants to 'fuck the tits off' another woman is somehow empowering because she's showing her sexual freedom. They sometimes use a woman's sexual agency as shorthand for negative traits such as being deceptive (Cersei, Shae, Sand Snakes). Frequently when women are talking to other women on the show it's about men (fathers, husbands, the patriarchy).

The show is really quite sexist when it's trying to be progressive. People are tired of the ham-fisted way they push their female empowerment message (that really, when examined, isn't female empowerment at all). I don't think that's anti-feminist. I don't think I've seen anyone here be anti-women in their complaints or anti-equality. What I do see is women saying that they don't want to be seen in the same light that the show portrays so-called powerful independent women. It pushes the idea that feminism is looking down on men and showing them up.

George's books manage to examine feminist issues without pushing an agenda or being sexist. It's not too much to ask for the show do to the same.
 

Thank you. Couldn't have said it better myself. If you want to write good female (or male) characters, just write them as people, as GRRM has always said. It's not that hard (well, it is hard to do well, but you get the point). What D&D is doing is overcompensating, because they got heavy criticism in tha past for being sexist (when in reality, I think they're simply just really bad writers, who don't know how to write interesting or compelling characters so they resort to what they've seen in other stuff). So they think if they put in more dicks and men getting cut in their crotches by women or other men, it will be allright, because then men will have it equally bad. But that won't change anything if they continue to use the same old sort of standard TV writing conventions. Like in this episode, where Jon doesn't get hit by an arrow despite not having a shield, armour, or helmet. I guess they think if they put in a non conventional scene (Rickon dying, although it is expected in GoT at this point), then Jon having plot armour will be okay. It doesn't work like that, unfortunately they don't seem to know that.

[Low Sparrow]

Argh! Only a few minutes in and I have to beat myself over the head for still watching. Sansa in the preview says "we have to take back Winterfell and we have to save Rickon" .... a few minutes in, an "empowered" Sansa is saying Rickon is as good as dead, we can't save him.

Then, she's scolding Jon for not seeking her advice on Ramsay's war tactics. Sorry to be blunt, but the only advice she can really offer is on Ramsay's horrific concept of marriage. All arcs utterly contradictory and stupid.

To all the fanbois who shout "purist" to anyone who questions the show ... really???? Does expecting a mere sixty seconds of noncontradictory sense make one a purist?

PS: Why the hell is Rickon now taller than Ramsay?

[The Boastful Knight]

1 minute ago, Low Sparrow said:

Argh! Only a few minutes in and I have to beat myself over the head for still watching. Sansa in the preview says "we have to take back Winterfell and we have to save Rickon" .... a few minutes in, an "empowered" Sansa is saying Rickon is as good as dead, we can't save him.

Then, she's scolding Jon for not seeking her advice on Ramsay's war tactics. Sorry to be blunt, but the only advice she can really offer is on Ramsay's horrific concept of marriage. All arcs utterly contradictory and stupid.

To all the fanbois who shout "purist" to anyone who questions the show ... really???? Does expecting a mere sixty seconds of noncontradictory sense make one a purist?

PS: Why the hell is Rickon now taller than Ramsay?

Good question. The kid who plays Rickon is 14 now, when even in the show he's supposed to be what, 8 or 9? Maybe that's why. It's an unavoidable issue when you employ kid actors, so I don't really blame them. I highly prefer it to recasting (of which there are tons of already).