Okay, NOW Have We Seen The Most Wildly Unrealistic Thing Ever on GoT???

[The Fattest Leech]

@Yoren Luck that is a fair compare/contrast considering the show is supposed to be based on the books. But keep in mind, the two showeunners did not even know Sam was a POV chapter, even though they claim they read the source material and they admit they wanted to get to the red wedding. Hmmm, one of these things is not like the other. 

[Yoren Luck]

2 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

Because it's not their tale.  Although I do blame them for not following the source material available to them.  If they had done a more faithful adaptation of TWOW and ADOS then the show would have almost certainly been better.  With such wonderful source material available to them why did they have to go and do their own thing?!  Oh hang on a minute......

 

41 minutes ago, Lord Okra said:

This is the episode forum and only the show stuff is relevant to episodes.

The books are the books and the show is the show.

The show is based on the books but not bound to the books.  They change stuff so dragging in the books to criticize the show is just wrong.

It amounts to saying the show is bad because they didn't follow the books.  That's a book reader only issue.  The show is outstanding as a stand alone tv series.  It just is.  It will go down as a top 100 all time show, no doubt about it.

 

I was responding to the post above, which now in light of your post just makes my head spin.  Honestly I can't rectify in my mind how show defenders can on one hand excuse criticisms of the show because they are the result of the source material not being complete, and on the other hand say that people aren't allowed to criticize the show for not following the source material.  WHICH ONE IS IT?

I'm sorry for bringing book plot points into a show forum and i guess inadvertently making you read some of the source material.  I won't quote the books again, didn't realize that was an issue.

Also I want to say that I do not think the show is bad per se.  I enjoy watching the show for what it is, and I agree it makes for great television and will go down in history as a top show of all time.  These are not points I have ever commented against.  But it baffles me that so many continue to defend it unconditionally after such a noticeable drop in quality over the past few seasons.  It hasn't made it unwatchable, but there are so many plot holes now compared to the first few seasons, almost no characters have developed in any meaningful ways in two years, the political intrigue and devious planning/deception/trickery from early seasons is all but gone, and the pacing has ramped up to the point that things are moving from one major event to another to another with little else happening.  It was the minor details and minor events and world building and character development that made the show what it is, and now it is the massive battles and incredible CGI that seem to sustain that popularity.  That is fine, but I think there is plenty of room for criticism and I don't understand why people get so triggered when posters on this forum raise valid points about logical inconsistencies and plot holes in the show.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Yoren Luck]

54 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

@Yoren Luck that is a fair compare/contrast considering the show is supposed to be based on the books. But keep in mind, the two showeunners did not even know Sam was a POV chapter, even though they claim they read the source material and they admit they wanted to get to the red wedding. Hmmm, one of these things is not like the other. 

Honestly though almost everything they did up to the Red Wedding was pretty stellar in my book.  I wish they would have handed the reigns to other people to carry out the last few seasons since it seems like that getting to that shock moment was their own personal endgames for the story.  It is not uncommon for a show with many seasons to go through several showrunners.  Walking Dead has gone through a few and I'm sure I can think of a few more if I had to put my mind to it.  There would have been no shame in them walking away after that landmark moment in TV.

[Lord Okra]

33 minutes ago, Yoren Luck said:

 

 

I was responding to the post above, which now in light of your post just makes my head spin.  Honestly I can't rectify in my mind how show defenders can on one hand excuse criticisms of the show because they are the result of the source material not being complete, and on the other hand say that people aren't allowed to criticize the show for not following the source material.  WHICH ONE IS IT?

I'm sorry for bringing book plot points into a show forum and i guess inadvertently making you read some of the source material.  I won't quote the books again, didn't realize that was an issue.

Also I want to say that I do not think the show is bad per se.  I enjoy watching the show for what it is, and I agree it makes for great television and will go down in history as a top show of all time.  These are not points I have ever commented against.  But it baffles me that so many continue to defend it unconditionally after such a noticeable drop in quality over the past few seasons.  It hasn't made it unwatchable, but there are so many plot holes now compared to the first few seasons, almost no characters have developed in any meaningful ways in two years, the political intrigue and devious planning/deception/trickery from early seasons is all but gone, and the pacing has ramped up to the point that things are moving from one major event to another to another with little else happening.  It was the minor details and minor events and world building and character development that made the show what it is, and now it is the massive battles and incredible CGI that seem to sustain that popularity.  That is fine, but I think there is plenty of room for criticism and I don't understand why people get so triggered when posters on this forum raise valid points about logical inconsistencies and plot holes in the show.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't read the book passages or most of your post.

I'm just sick to death of book fans bashing the show.

The show is the show and the books are the books.

Half the complaints about the show are based on people bringing the books into the show characters.  We get this over and over again.  I pointed this out before.

Book readers have a hard time with plausibility because they are mixing the show with the books constantly or they are just hating cause they haters....of the show because it isn't how they want it to be.

It is old man.

Just leave the book plot points out of the show analysis.  I know, I shouldn't even attempt to ask but I won't stop.

 

[Cas Stark]

1 minute ago, Lord Okra said:

I didn't read the book passages or most of your post.

I'm just sick to death of book fans bashing the show.

The show is the show and the books are the books.

Half the complaints about the show are based on people bringing the books into the show characters.  We get this over and over again.  I pointed this out before.

Book readers have a hard time with plausibility because they are mixing the show with the books constantly or they are just hating cause they haters....of the show because it isn't how they want it to be.

It is old man.

Just leave the book plot points out of the show analysis.  I know, I shouldn't even attempt to ask but I won't stop.

 

No they aren't and they haven't been since at least season 4.  You can keep saying it, but it's not true.  The show can be ridiculed for its self, completely separate from the books and it is.

[Lord Okra]

4 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

No they aren't and they haven't been since at least season 4.  You can keep saying it, but it's not true.  The show can be ridiculed for its self, completely separate from the books and it is.

Sure it can.

But not by saying we needed a chain backstory or that Sansa was the mean one (books only basically) or that it is 2500 miles to Dragonstone.....

You have to be bringing book crap to the show in order to make these kinds of complaints because.....in show, the giants are seen with iron/steel and it is never stated that the wildlings can't make crappy iron chains.....and you never see Sansa really being mean to Arya in show......and you never hear about it being 2500 miles to Dragonstone in show.....nope it is portrayed as half that......

Bringing book stuff in to complain about the show.....it is all around us.

[Meera of Tarth]

4 hours ago, Cron said:

Great point.

And frankly, I'm not even sure those were any kind of normal ship chains (although someone with experience in such maters might easily correct me)  Those chains were HUGE.  I don't think they were ordinary anchor chains (but, again, maybe I'm wrong)

On a related note, did you wonder HOW they got the chains tied to or around the dragon, when the Army of the Dead apparently can't or won't go in water (which we've now seen twice, once at Hardhome and once Beyond the Wall)?

If somebody's got a theory on that, I'd love to hear it.

scuba diving

[Infeth]

Even if they didn't swim to Jon when the ice broke, that doesn't mean they can't dive with the chains and attach them to the dragon, even if they can't come back to the surface, why should the Night King care about the life of three random wights? They don't even need to dive with the chains, they can attach them to the dragon's head by dropping the chains in the water in a loop shape, then they just have to pull the two ends of the chain to pull the dragon.

And come on, where is the problem, you're just hating about an unimportant detail, they could have find thoses chains in Hardhome, at Craster or anywhere, who cares about that?

[Raksha 2014]

On 8/21/2017 at 1:00 AM, falcotron said:

If we're talking about time, did anyone notice Sansa saying it had been weeks since she'd seen Jon?

Are the writers really plotting this out so each episode takes place over about a week? So Cersei's "in a fortnight" wasn't a fluke; if it's 5 weeks for us since Jon left Winterfell, then it's 5 weeks for Sansa too? Does that mean that means between the seasons, there's 10 months where nothing happens (since the characters are still aging a year every season)?

The travel times have always been implausible and inconsistent in the show, and even in the books, but somehow it's more annoying to realize they actually have a rule they're following that guarantees implausible travel times, instead of just not paying enough attention.

 

I think Sansa also said that she has not heard anything from Jon since he left Winterfell - which seems to me the height of stupidity on Jon's part.  I'm surprised there aren't five or six Stark bannermen and Littlefinger banging on Sansa's door with demands that she marry one of them and make him King of the North, since Jon must be dead or oblivious to the North's needs.  

 

[Maid So Fair]

2 hours ago, Infeth said:

Even if they didn't swim to Jon when the ice broke, that doesn't mean they can't dive with the chains and attach them to the dragon, even if they can't come back to the surface, why should the Night King care about the life of three random wights? They don't even need to dive with the chains, they can attach them to the dragon's head by dropping the chains in the water in a loop shape, then they just have to pull the two ends of the chain to pull the dragon.

And come on, where is the problem, you're just hating about an unimportant detail, they could have find thoses chains in Hardhome, at Craster or anywhere, who cares about that?

You mean attach them to the head in a loop shape by ... lifting the head of a massive dragon underwater? Sounds straightforward!

Honestly, this didn't particularly bother me, just another silly moment. I'm just baffled why they had this moment at all - surely the NK could have raised the dragon while still in the water. It's not like he had to touch every single wight before. You could have easily had Viserion open his eyes underwater or, for a cool scene, fly out of the water himself. The entire chain nonsense could have been easily avoided.

[Darkstream]

8 hours ago, Lord Okra said:

I didn't read the book passages or most of your post.

I'm just sick to death of book fans bashing the show.

The show is the show and the books are the books.

Half the complaints about the show are based on people bringing the books into the show characters.  We get this over and over again.  I pointed this out before.

Book readers have a hard time with plausibility because they are mixing the show with the books constantly or they are just hating cause they haters....of the show because it isn't how they want it to be.

It is old man.

Just leave the book plot points out of the show analysis.  I know, I shouldn't even attempt to ask but I won't stop.

 

Well you know what I'm sick of?

I'm sick of show defenders constantly coming to a forum designed for the sole purpose of discussing a book/TV program, and bitching and whining about others who have a differing opinion than them.

I'm sick of people coming here and constantly repeating the same old lame ass straw man arguments in defence of the show. Yeah, it's true that in comparison to the books, the show is inferior in every way except for having a visual aspect. But it's also true that the show is, from a purely writing aspect, and judged as a stand alone production, complete and utter garbage; Absolutely riddled with plot holes,  inconsistencies, implausible scenarios, contrived circumstances, awfully crude dude-bro dialogue, Deus ex machina, and clichéd and predictable outcomes.

But who gives a f**k that I'm sick about that? It is my choice that I come to this forum and participate in these discussions, so I have no right to bitch about these things. Defend your precious show if you must, but save us all the annoying agony of reading you cry about other people's complaints. If you don't like to hear the truth about a show that you are clearly in denial about, then either stay away from this forum, or at least, stick to the fan-boy appreciation threads; Don't participate in a thread that is specifically about the ridiculousness of the show.

[Ser Gareth]

7 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Oh good, so you agree that even though they are professional writers, getting paid a lot of money to write a story, they are unable to do so competently unless someone else actually writes it for them.

Depends on their remit really.  If their remit is to make their employer and themselves a load of money then they are doing something right.  If their remit was to create high art then they wouldn't have touched ASOIAF in the first place.

[Maid So Fair]

3 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

Depends on their remit really.  If their remit is to make their employer and themselves a load of money then they are doing something right.  If their remit was to create high art then they wouldn't have touched ASOIAF in the first place.

So, as a TV viewer, you don't care how well a show is written as long as it's making the network a lot of money? You must love TV adverts and cash-grab sequels.

D&D are obviously making HBO a lot of cash, but that's hardly a reason to make them immune them from criticism about their writing. Otherwise all criticism of anything popular would be invalid. If their strength is as producers and not as writers they have more than a big enough budget to hire a competent screenwriter.  In fact, their insistence on micromanaging everything themselves is resulting in an inferior product.

[Ser Gareth]

Just now, Maid So Fair said:

So, as a TV viewer, you don't care how well a show is written as long as it's making the network a lot of money? You must love TV adverts and cash-grab sequels.

D&D are obviously making HBO a lot of cash, but that's hardly a reason to make them immune them from criticism about their writing. Otherwise all criticism of anything popular would be invalid. If their strength is as producers and not as writers they have more than a big enough budget to hire a competent screenwriter.  In fact, their insistence on micromanaging everything themselves is resulting in an inferior product.

Let's be absolutely clear here.

Fictional TV is about entertainment.  One person's idea of entertainment can differ from another.  The more popular a TV show is the more entertained people are (otherwise it wouldn't be popular).  The TV show is insanely popular and the viewing figures have grown since the seasons have rolled by.  So they've actually increased during the period of this "terrible" writing.

A lot of book purists don't like the show.  I get that.  But most people who watch the show aren't book purists.  There are comparatively very few book purists.  The book purists may not be entertained but millions of others around the world are.

I know the book purists like to try and be intellectually superior.  I first read AGOT in 1998 and whilst I liked the early seasons of the show (mainly for bringing the tale to a wider audience) I wasn't keen on the adaptation.  But even though I wasn't keen on it I was never arrogant (like calling TV viewers Unsullied or lording over them that I knew more than they did) and I completely understand that you simply cannot accurately transpose a book to TV and people be interested.  TV and movie plots have to be far more in your face and aggressive than books.

What really yanks my chain more than anything is the sheer hypocrisy displayed and that's what I rail against.  The Battle of Blackwater episode is the prime example of this.  Many people on this forum rate it as their best ever episode for one reason and one reason only.  GRRM wrote it.  Had D&D wrote it exactly the same as GRRM had?  Those same people would nit pick against it or call it an awful episode.  Ironically for me was the moment that drove home that the TV show will never get anywhere near as good as the books.  I thought it was a poorly done episode and GRRM was the one who had wrote it.  The awful dialogue dick swinging between Bronn and the Hound was as bad as anything that we've seen in the entire series.  Stannis personally storming the walls displaying massive emotional ego was also really jarring for me and nothing like his book character.  At that point I realised the constraints and that even GRRM had to "sex" up characters to make them more appealing for TV.

The show is far from perfect.  It's great entertainment but it's not intriguing story telling anymore.  But then as we're near the end of the story, it shouldn't be intriguing anymore anyway.  It should be action.  The people I know (including my wife) who haven't read the books don't care about logistics or gaps in logic.  They're still at the edge of their seats with excitement.  They're entertained.  And as the primary purpose for the show is to entertain?  I'd say the show runners are doing a very good job.

[Darkstream]

10 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

Depends on their remit really.  If their remit is to make their employer and themselves a load of money then they are doing something right.

I don't deny that. I don't even deny that it is a great show for what it is. If a program appeals to millions of people, and they enjoy watching it, then said program can be considered a great, successful show. What it is not, is a quality written show judged by literary standards; that is just a strait up fact.

I'm not sure why people who enjoy the show are so resistant in admitting this. I don't see anything wrong with someone loving a poorly written show, if it has other aspects to it that they enjoy. If one is confident in their view that a show is good, then why do they need to deny what that show really is? They should be able to accept it for what it is, and not be threatened by the legitimate criticisms that it receives. 

10 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

If their remit was to create high art then they wouldn't have touched ASOIAF in the first place.

I'm not sure what you mean, or are trying imply with this statement.

[plastic throne]

7 hours ago, Yoren Luck said:

I was responding to the post above, which now in light of your post just makes my head spin.  Honestly I can't rectify in my mind how show defenders can on one hand excuse criticisms of the show because they are the result of the source material not being complete, and on the other hand say that people aren't allowed to criticize the show for not following the source material.  WHICH ONE IS IT?

I'm sorry for bringing book plot points into a show forum and i guess inadvertently making you read some of the source material.  I won't quote the books again, didn't realize that was an issue.

Also I want to say that I do not think the show is bad per se.  I enjoy watching the show for what it is, and I agree it makes for great television and will go down in history as a top show of all time.  These are not points I have ever commented against.  But it baffles me that so many continue to defend it unconditionally after such a noticeable drop in quality over the past few seasons.  It hasn't made it unwatchable, but there are so many plot holes now compared to the first few seasons, almost no characters have developed in any meaningful ways in two years, the political intrigue and devious planning/deception/trickery from early seasons is all but gone, and the pacing has ramped up to the point that things are moving from one major event to another to another with little else happening.  It was the minor details and minor events and world building and character development that made the show what it is, and now it is the massive battles and incredible CGI that seem to sustain that popularity.  That is fine, but I think there is plenty of room for criticism and I don't understand why people get so triggered when posters on this forum raise valid points about logical inconsistencies and plot holes in the show.

 

Listen, your post was one of the best I've read in a while on all accounts, even supported by actual text from the book. I enjoyed it a lot.

So please, do post and ignore all those who say you shouldn't just because something you said goes against their interpretation. Forums are for debate and show forums are the only forums where you can talk about the show in correlation to source material, to the books.

[Being Daenerys Targaryen]

17 hours ago, Lord Okra said:

This goes to my "plot hole" thing....this all may be explained in a future episode which would make all these complaints about this or that unjustified.  We need to see the entire plot (the whole story) before we can come back and say.....this doesn't work or that doesn't work or this is a plot hole or that is a plot hole.

Until we get the entire story, we really can't claim there are plot holes or that something doesn't make sense.....because the plot hole may be filled in at a future time or it may make sense after a future episode.

Oh Oui!

[Being Daenerys Targaryen]

17 hours ago, Lord Okra said:

It appears they were waiting there for the ice to freeze back over.

The wights realised that... But the White Walkers are more intelligent than them... Plus He brings the storm... That's why I'm saying, one answer could easily open another door to two more questions... I really don't know what to think about that...

[Being Daenerys Targaryen]

17 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

Also, in a ep. from an earlier season the Night King touches the ground and it looks like the ground is cracking and breaking up.  In the earlier shot when the NK scatters the ravens, his entire army is on the lake around him yet the ice holds.  It's possible, as you said, that maybe he wanted them stranded there for days

yes... That is the episode called "the door" I think...? When The Night's King touched Bran in the vision and then went to the cave... Just in front of the cave, he touched the ground and it started cracking... I said exactly the same thing in this thread... That in Bran's spying, the ground looked harder... When why did it look so thin when Jon&Co arrived there? If it has been winter for a long time because we know that it was already snowing beyond the wall... That place has always been cold... Why would the icy ground be so weak and thin? instead of being very think? And I said why did they show us the cracking in this episode if in the end they kept running and it wasn't really important? Surely, they wanted us to question ourselves about that... Or, it must be another BIG joke just like the Conspiracy in season 6 (The North Remembers). 

 

18 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

It would lend some evidence into the NK being a greenseer/skinchanger (maybe the strongest that has ever lived) and hence why the CotF could not control him.

I think there still are things we don't know about the Night King... People think he is just an icy fella walking around and scarying people... They are intelligent... There must be a reason why he can see Bran... Not just because he touched Bran... But how was he able to touch Bran in the First place? 

[Being Daenerys Targaryen]

19 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

then also.....do wights swim? Because some of them were scared during 24hours...but then someone must have done an underwater job with the chains tied to the dragon's head...right?

Were they scared? They just didn't want to fall... But if you watch it again, the wight that attacked The Hound came out of the water (because Clegane broke the ice to get rid of him). But that wight came out and caught Tormund's leg... So I assume they can swim...