Jump to content

How would you rate episode 707?  

423 members have voted

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

    • 1
      27
    • 2
      26
    • 3
      25
    • 4
      26
    • 5
      31
    • 6
      24
    • 7
      34
    • 8
      58
    • 9
      67
    • 10
      105


Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, johndance said:

You do realize that this was taken from an actual battle that happened in history right? I don't have the name of it but it's been said several times by the director of the episode + D&D they based the mountain of dead bodies off of descriptions of actual battles that took place. 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JagLover said:

I think for the season I would split it into two parts

First part up until 10-15 minutes into Ep 5. Reasonably logical with the only questionable decisions how quickly Highgarden was taken and how Euron seemed to be omniscent. Opens with the Frey's being wiped out, has some character reunions, ends with the great Spoils of war and then aftermarth in the next episode. Maybe 8-9

Second part when Tyrions "plan" is unveiled and everyone says OK then, rather than tell him to stop drinking so much. This is also when D&D developed their winterfell "plot" with the false conflict and "cunning twist" when it was to trap LF all along. I would really struggle to rate this part. For how disappointed it made me feel considerable less than 5. 

I agree so much. I enjoyed the season right up until that point. There were still enjoyable parts after that but definetely a huge down slope. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, StepStark said:

I think that GOT is possibly the stupidest piece of television I've ever seen (although, I have to say that I successfully avoid nonsense like True Blood or Homeland, thanks to the fact that I watch almost everything with a time distance and after the buzz came down). But I don't think that GOT fans are stupid. People enjoy things for different reasons and I fully recognize that. And you seem to be articulate enough, so I have to ask you: how can you love True Detective and GOT at the same time? I'm genuinely curious, really. Because the way I see it, TD S1 is really among the best shows ever, right up there with The Sopranos, Breaking Bad and The Wire. How do you compare those dialogues and scripts, with lines like "It all comes to cocks at the end" and "His joke wasn't even good"?

And how do you compare TD with scenes like Battle of the Bastards? Like you, I think it was masterfully filmed, but it changes nothing of the fact that it was terribly written: just look at the video you posted, all three of them (Ramsay, Jon and Rickon) act completely unrealistically, because nobody with at least one brain cell would let go his prized captive right before the battle (Ramsay), or run in the only way Ramsay can actually hit you (Rickon), or charge alone into an entire army (Jon).

I've said many times on this forum that I fully recognize the fact that, storytelling wise, GOT has become less and less with every Season. But I've also said countless times that the amount of hate and criticism the Show gets around here is completely unfair.

The writing has become weaker, sure, but never on the levels you people talk about. You say Ramsay would never let go his prized captive. And I ask...why? Since when Ramsay fucking Bolton is someone who acts with calm and logic? Killing Rickon works masterfully well for the Boltons, by the way. You kill the last true male Stark (that he knows of), make Jon lose his mind, demoralize the enemy army, etc. It works for me.

Rickon could have run in zig zag? Sure, but that does not mean, in any way, that Ramsay wouldn't have shot him. Also...since when, under pressure, people act logiclly and rationally? He's a 12 year old boy in the middle of two massive armies who's trying to get to his brother as fast as he can, and behind him there's a fucking psycho shooting arrows at him. I understand your concerns with him running straight, but that's bad writing? No. Not a chance.

And charging into an entire army is exactly what someone with suicide instincts like Jon would do. And sorry, but since he was killed, Jon is suicidal. He does not want to live, at least not the way he did before. 7x06 made this pretty clear for me as well. He was willing to go against the NK and all the WW, and he did not only because the NK was going to kill Drogon and the gang, not because he was afraid or something. He cares about the life of others, not his own.

One of the biggest (if not the biggest) problems I have with your criticisms (and I'm not talking specifically about you, but people of this forum in general) is the fact that, for some reason, you all believe people always act rationally. And that's not true, plain and simple. 

And sure, the dialogues are nowhere near TD. Probably the weakest part of GOT. Still, way above the average. And I haven't watched a single Show with dialogues near the ones TD Season 1 had. That's why it was so unique.

Edited by Ingelheim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the Rickon plot, is there is no reason the Umbers would have given Rickon to the Boltons in the first place, with the last known male Stark they can pledge him to marry one of their daughters and then they would become the de facto rules of the North.  The Northern lords would already hate the Boltons for their part in the RW, so no loyalty there.

I'm not sure GOT dialogue anymore is anything but maybe in the top half? it's certainly very rarely exceptional and has not been for a long time with a few exceptions, like the QOT/Jamie convo, which of course they still felt the need to cheapen by throwing in that Joff was a cunt...

I've been surprised by the level of professional criticism this season received, since the same types of plot holes have existed for years.  But, my guess is because the main backbones of this season:  wight hunt, Cersei parlay and Stark sisters were ALL extremely weak from a logical perspective that this caused more notice.  Apparently, critics were willing to overlook smaller plot holes and logic fails but when the entire arc of the season is built on plots that make no sense, they finally began to criticize the show in more significant way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ingelheim said:

I've said many times on this forum that I fully recognize the fact that, storytelling wise, GOT has become less and less with every Season. But I've also said countless times that the amount of hate and criticism the Show gets around here is completely unfair.

The writing has become weaker, sure, but never on the levels you people talk about. You say Ramsay would never let go his prized captive. And I said...why? Killing Rickon works masterfully well for the Boltons. You kill the last true male Stark (that he knows of), make the commander of the enemy army lose it, etc. It works for me. Rickon could have run in zig zag? Sure, but that does not mean, in any way, that Ramsay won't shoot him. Also...since when, under pressure, people act logiclly and rationally? He's a 12 year old boy, in the middle of two massive armies, who's trying to get to his brother as fast as he can. I understand your concerns with him running straight, but that's bad writing? No. Not a chance.

And charging into an entire army is exactly what someone with suicide instincts like Jon would do. And sorry, but since he was killed, Jon is suicidal. He does not want to live, at least not the way he did before. 7x06 made this pretty clear for me as well. He was willing to go against the NK and all the WW, and he did not only because the NK was going to kill Drogon and the gang, not because he was afraid or something. He cares about the life of others, not his own.

One of the biggest (if not the biggest) problems I have with your criticisms (and I'm not talking specifically about you, but people of this forum in general) is the fact that, for some reason, you all believe people always act rationally. And that's not true, plain and simple. 

And sure, the dialogues are nowhere near TD. Probably the weakest part of GOT. Still, way above the average.

I don't think anybody is saying people always act rationally. I think most criticism of character actions is one of character motivation and character arc. Some characters will naturally act more rationally than others but character actions on GoT seem to me to be driven more by what the show runners want to happen than by the motivations of the characters in question. Characters are shifted about and bent this way and that for the sake of nonsensical plot lines.

I agree with your comments about Rickon and Jon, although I would add this: I cannot understand why the Umbers delivered Rickon and Shaggydog to the Boltons in the first place (other than that the show runners needed that to happen) and the problem with Jon charging stupidly (you're right to suggest that was a plausible action for the character and situation) is that he not only survived the barrage of arrows raining down on him alone in the middle but came out of that without even a single scratch. Too often have they irreparably broken the suspension of my disbelief.

I strongly disagree that the dialogue in GoT is above average. At best, it is average (only because the worst examples of TV dialogue are so bad it hurts). It was occasionally very good in earlier seasons using GRRM's dialogue as a guide. I would say it is too often below average since S5. The weakest part is the storytelling, which is often abysmal. Character development and character arcs are hardly much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ingelheim said:

One of the biggest (if not the biggest) problems I have with your criticisms (and I'm not talking specifically about you, but people of this forum in general) is the fact that, for some reason, you all believe people always act rationally. And that's not true, plain and simple. 

Others already explained, it's not about always acting rationally. It's about not believing into absurd actions that never happen in real life. And Battle of the Bastards is perfect example of the later.

3 hours ago, Ingelheim said:

Rickon could have run in zig zag? Sure, but that does not mean, in any way, that Ramsay wouldn't have shot him. Also...since when, under pressure, people act logiclly and rationally? He's a 12 year old boy in the middle of two massive armies who's trying to get to his brother as fast as he can, and behind him there's a fucking psycho shooting arrows at him. I understand your concerns with him running straight, but that's bad writing? No. Not a chance.

This is the smallest issue, but maybe the crucial one, so I'll start with Rickon. Yes, of course it's understandable if a young boy doesn't think straight in a dramatic situation. Only, it's not about rational thinking, but about instincts. If someone already shot 2-3 arrows at you, you're obviously going to look back if he's gonna fire again. Especially if the distance is increasing, as is the case here. So in a realistic situation, even someone who's panicking and not thinking rationally would instinctively look back and because of that he wouldn't be an easy target to hit. If Rickon just started running backwards, he'd be alive - in a realistic situation.

But of course, it's not impossible for someone as young as Rickon to complete loose his mind and do everything wrong. But how would Ramsay know that in advance? For Ramsay's plan to work, Rickon must act totally against his own instincts and reason. In any other case, if any instinct or reason of Rickon suddenly starts working, Ramsay's plan fails. Is it too much of a risk for anyone to take in Ramsay's place? Of course!

Now, you can say that Ramsay is not the most calm and logical person either. In fact, that's exactly what you are saying:

3 hours ago, Ingelheim said:

You say Ramsay would never let go his prized captive. And I ask...why? Since when Ramsay fucking Bolton is someone who acts with calm and logic?

It seems you misunderstood me here. I'm not saying Ramsay killing Rickon is unrealistic. That wouldn't be my first choice for Ramsay, but okay, he is sadistic (that much is established in the show at least), so it's not unbelievable that he'd kill Rickon. But the way he does it completely ridiculous. Two things: 1) It was filmed as a very elaborate plan by Ramsay, as something he planned in advance and in details. 2) At the same time, his plan depends on Rickon and Jon doing absolute worst for themselves. So in effect, it's a paradox. Eventually he got lucky, but in reality, Ramsay had no way of knowing that Rickon is going to be so easy as a target, and that Jon is going to ride himself and alone to catch Rickon.

The moment Ramsay lets Rickon run, there is at least 90 percent chance (I'd say 99 percent actually, but okay), that his plan is going to backfire and that Rickon is going to end in safety among Jon's forces. But he does it anyway. And in the end everything turns out exactly how Ramsay needed. That's a great leap of logic and something that is usually considered bad writing in courses and schools.

3 hours ago, Ingelheim said:

And charging into an entire army is exactly what someone with suicide instincts like Jon would do. And sorry, but since he was killed, Jon is suicidal. He does not want to live, at least not the way he did before. 7x06 made this pretty clear for me as well. He was willing to go against the NK and all the WW, and he did not only because the NK was going to kill Drogon and the gang, not because he was afraid or something. He cares about the life of others, not his own.

Last but not least, all Jon had to do was to yell Rickon to duck at the right moment! Jon is in a perfect position to see when's Ramsay firing his arrows, so he just has to warn Rickon. He has enough time (again, arrows are not bullets), and as you say he clearly cares for Rickon's life more than for his own. The way it was filmed, Jon could've saved Rickon easily - which makes Ramsay's entire plan even more absurd.

so you see, it's not about asking always for rational behavior, but this situation we're discussing requires several completely irrational decisions by three different individuals at the same sequence. That's too much by any measure. If things like this pass, than anything passes really. Anybody can write like that then.

In fact, it is like season 2 of True Detective.

As for Jon being suicidal, sorry but no. First, Ramsay didn't watch episode 7x06, so he has no idea whether Jon is suicidal enough to do the stupidest thing or not. Second, he's "suicidal" from forever, in that, even in season one/book one he wants to avenge Ned's death although he knows what happens to deserters - only, that's not exactly suicidal, but more impulsive, just like this season. And third, Jon is repeating all the time that he's fighting for the living. He's the only one thinking like that. So to assume that he's suicidal is to assume a lot. It's much easier, and much more supported, that D&D simply don't know how to write him. They didn't know that in season 2 (first time they diverged significantly in his storyline), as evidenced by him being ridiculously captured by Ygritte. When he went to kill the mutineers in season 4, D&D couldn't even keep straight the number of watchmen he brought with himself. In season 5 they wasted all that time on Ollie. And this season they couldn't remember that Jon already knew that Bran is alive (though he also told nothing to Sansa last year, so at least they're "consistent" in that).

And here, let's place a bet. I bet you whatever you choose, that Jon's "suicide instincts" will never be addressed or unequivocally hinted at in the show ever. Not in a million years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but (to all) about the Rickon plot : it may (or may not) be a flaw. But even if it is a problem I think it is an acceptable one , as no show is perfect. There are other examples that are completely different, such as the wigh hunt, which are unacceptable in my opinion. I thin to give credit when is due (FoF 2 was exceptional in my opnion) and criticizing the major flaws..

However to say that

" I think that GOT is possibly the stupidest piece of television " 

is so out of proportion that you start to not even take in consideration. Look I am very vocal about my concerns but please let's not make unnecessary exaggerations...

 

Edited by King Louis II (KLII)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@StepStark I agree on a lot of stuff (though Rickon zig zag is not bothering me as much as the pure skill of Ramsey shooting, he should rather command an arrow SALVO) there is also one clash of logic with @Ingelheim said

* Jon charging at Ramsey because /suicide

* Jon caring more about others than himself

Which one is it then? Because after a minute of stare down (cliche as f*) with Ramsey he decides the best course of action is to charge and abandon all the plans they made for battle and in effect draws so many of HIS people (who really went out of their way to support him btw) forward and into early grave.

BoB for me was a really big disapointment. And even if I'm fine with Jon failing as general horrendously like that (I am not though), where are the consequences of his actions? 

Like, who in their right mind would still follow such commander? I'd desert, no doubt.

Edited by plastic throne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, King Louis II (KLII) said:

Sorry but (to all) about the Rickon plot : it may (or may not) be a flaw. But even if it is a problem I think it is an acceptable one , as no show is perfect. There are other examples that are completely different, such as the wigh hunt, which are unacceptable in my opinion. I thin to give credit when is due (FoF 2 was exceptional in my opnion) and criticizing the major flaws..

However to say that

" I think that GOT is possibly the stupidest piece of television " 

is so out of proportion that you start to not even take in consideration. Look I am very vocal about my concerns but please let's not make unnecessary exaggerations...

 

Okay Mr. Sensitive, first of all you should quote me in context. I clearly said it's possibly the stupidest piece of television I'VE EVER SEEN, which is a statement you can't assess objectively, since you have no way of knowing what shows I've seen so far in my life.

I also said that for one reason or another I do manage to avoid usual nonsense on TV. If you asked me before GOT what is the stupidest show you ever watched, I'd say it's Beverly Hills 90210. It's not my choice to watch it, but the girlfriend I dated back then used to love it, and there was still no internet at the time, so I could either watch with her or look out from her widow for a full hour. Needless to say, it was usually the former. And yes, I do think that GOT is stupider than Beverly Hills. For one, Beverly Hills never pretended to be anything but stupid show for teenagers, unlike GOT which takes itself as a serious Emmy contender and guess what, even Emmy considers them a serious Emmy contender, so yes, I'm reaffirming my position that just by that account Beverly Hills is much less stupid show. But even besides that, in Beverly Hills there is nothing even remotely as stupid as the wight hunt or Jaime&Bronn surviving Drogon without a scratch even. And last but certainly not least: Beverly Hills didn't have a great source material to draw from! Whatever nonsense they out on the screen, at least it was their nonsense and they didn't deface anyone else's story in the process.

Based on what I've seen from Beverly Hills 90210 (probably more than 20 episodes) and GOT (all 67 episodes), I'm certain of this: if I had a novel to be adapted, I'd choose BH writers over D&D! Easily! Any day! It's not even close!

In fact, after seeing what they did to ASOIAF, D&D would be my last choice for adaptation ever. Seriously, I'd rather give it to True Blood writers, even though I couldn't even finish the entire first episode of that show (because I'm completely uninterested in vampires). Baywatch? You bet! At least they are aware their writing is cheap, so maybe they'd at least try to stay faithful to the source material, unlike D&D who obviously deluded themselves into thinking they are superior to Martin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, plastic throne said:

@StepStark I agree on a lot of stuff (though Rickon zig zag is not bothering me as much as the pure skill of Ramsey shooting, he should rather command an arrow SALVO) there is also one clash of logic with @Ingelheim said

* Jon charging at Ramsey because /suicide

* Jon caring more about others than himself

Which one is it then? Because after a minute of stare down (cliche as f*) with Ramsey he decides the best course of action is to charge and abandon all the plans they made for battle and in effect draws so many of HIS people (who really went out of their way to support him btw) forward and into early grave.

BoB for me was a really big disapointment. And even if I'm fine with Jon failing as general horrendously like that (I am not though), where are the consequences of his actions? 

Like, who in their right mind would still follow such commander? I'd desert, no doubt.

Oh I agree. Just to add, I said that Rickon is the least of my complaints. That entire sequence is without logic, especially including Sansa, whose "reasoning" (can't write it without irony, don't want to give too much credit to D&D) entirely escapes me: she was the one pressuring Jon to fight with Boltons to save Rickon and retake Winterfell, then all of a sudden she gave up on Rickon and took him for dead, and then she ran away only to return with the Vale army she kept as a secret all that time. What a line of thinking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gave it a 9. The good stuff was very good and the bad stuff wasn't too bad. The wight hunt will continue to be the biggest plot gap in this show because there's no real way to turn your brain off for it. You have to play a lot of mental gymnistics to make it work. Hopefully, now that they have reached the end of this season, the final season is pretty straightforward and I can finally move on from this fandom and forum :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

I've been surprised by the level of professional criticism this season received, since the same types of plot holes have existed for years.  But, my guess is because the main backbones of this season:  wight hunt, Cersei parlay and Stark sisters were ALL extremely weak from a logical perspective that this caused more notice.  Apparently, critics were willing to overlook smaller plot holes and logic fails but when the entire arc of the season is built on plots that make no sense, they finally began to criticize the show in more significant way.

 

Then they aren't the same type of plotholes?

I have defended the show for years, because past issues have in the end usually been minor stupidities or even just changes resulting from the medium. Even the disaster that was Dorne was a minor problem, because Dorne doesn't matter to the main plot (as evidenced by this season where it just vanishes from the plot with no-one noticing).

With the Wight hunt and Winterfell travesties they are destroying the main plot and suggesting they don't know how to end this story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JagLover said:

Then they aren't the same type of plotholes?

I have defended the show for years, because past issues have in the end usually been minor stupidities or even just changes resulting from the medium. Even the disaster that was Dorne was a minor problem, because Dorne doesn't matter to the main plot (as evidenced by this season where it just vanishes from the plot with no-one noticing).

With the Wight hunt and Winterfell travesties they are destroying the main plot and suggesting they don't know how to end this story. 

If they don't know how to end this story - as they obviously don't - then Dorne is probably a very big problem, because in the original story (the books) Dorne will most probably play a very important role, which is something show lovers denied all these years, saying that "GRRM told D&D the endgame and they know what is important and what isn't". Lady Stoneheart is potentially another big problem, if she is important for the story, and I'd much sooner have trust in GRRM (who obviously finds her very important) than in D&D (who don't).

That's about importance. About pure stupidity, the wight hunt is certainly up there at the top, but many of their earlier shenanigans aren't much better: blowing up the Sept (without any consequence), Sansa marrying Ramsay, "where are my dragons", death of Mance, burning of Shireen (the last two are also pretty important for the story)...

I'm glad to finally see the criticism of the show, but it should've happened long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

The problem with the Rickon plot, is there is no reason the Umbers would have given Rickon to the Boltons in the first place, with the last known male Stark they can pledge him to marry one of their daughters and then they would become the de facto rules of the North.  The Northern lords would already hate the Boltons for their part in the RW, so no loyalty there.

I'm not sure GOT dialogue anymore is anything but maybe in the top half? it's certainly very rarely exceptional and has not been for a long time with a few exceptions, like the QOT/Jamie convo, which of course they still felt the need to cheapen by throwing in that Joff was a cunt...

I've been surprised by the level of professional criticism this season received, since the same types of plot holes have existed for years.  But, my guess is because the main backbones of this season:  wight hunt, Cersei parlay and Stark sisters were ALL extremely weak from a logical perspective that this caused more notice.  Apparently, critics were willing to overlook smaller plot holes and logic fails but when the entire arc of the season is built on plots that make no sense, they finally began to criticize the show in more significant way.

 

Regarding the Umbers.  This is the show, the books are the books.  I think a lot of people who have read the books automatically think the motivations for their TV counterparts should be the same as the books.  But this has never been a 100% faithful adaptation and some things simply aren't that important.  To appease book readers maybe they should have had a Karstark hand him over but what's in a name really?

The dialogue has definitely changed since they can longer paraphrase or adopt lines from the book.  I quite enjoy some of it even though it's obvious such conversations would never take place in the books.  E.g. the Usual Suspects style of interaction between the "Go Get a Wight Adventure Party" was excellent dialogue but was out of place in AGOT?  Most of it was IMO.  That said it was also very akin to the type of conversation that Bronn & Hound had in the Blackwater episode and that dialogue was written by GRRM himself.

I think it's become "cool" to be overly critical of the show and the media usually follow (or try to) what is cool.  Flipping it on its head I thought the praise the show got in the early seasons was completely over the top too.  Probably again because it was cool to like the show.

As for plot holes and logic fails, almost every story has them but especially stories set in fantastical worlds.  A lot of things happen conveniently in both the books and in the show.  But it's that convenience that moves (or should move!) the plot on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

That said it was also very akin to the type of conversation that Bronn & Hound had in the Blackwater episode and that dialogue was written by GRRM himself.

He didn't. It was confirmed that D&D wrote that scene, even though it was Martin's episode.

2 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

As for plot holes and logic fails, almost every story has them but especially stories set in fantastical worlds.

So we should be okay with any plot hole? LOL!

2 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

A lot of things happen conveniently in both the books and in the show. 

You do realize that there is a difference between Jorah accidentally seeing Tyrion in a Volantin brothel (the books) and Tyrion being appointed as ruler of Meereen until Dany's back? The former is a convenience authors probably can't avoid completely in epic stories of this scale. The later is just stupid beyond belief.

Oh, and there's this: people do meet each other in unexpected and remote places even in real life, but I've never heard of a town or a city that was handed over to a complete stranger who just came into it. Countless towns and cities throughout history found themselves suddenly without a ruler, but from what I know none of them ever appointed a total stranger like Tyrion to rule. So no, convenient things from the books and the show can't be compared in any reasonable way, mostly because what you call "things that happen conveniently" is actually utter nonsense and absurdity in the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JagLover said:

Then they aren't the same type of plotholes?

I have defended the show for years, because past issues have in the end usually been minor stupidities or even just changes resulting from the medium. Even the disaster that was Dorne was a minor problem, because Dorne doesn't matter to the main plot (as evidenced by this season where it just vanishes from the plot with no-one noticing).

With the Wight hunt and Winterfell travesties they are destroying the main plot and suggesting they don't know how to end this story. 

That's a huge assumption. I think Dorne will matter in the end game, or at least be around for it. D&D are trying to simplify things IMO. There are many things that the show chooses not to do because they don't feel it's important but that doesn't mean it isn't in the books. I honestly think this griff/young griff story will be important in the books, obviously doesn't exist in the show (maybe we can assume it's merged with Jon's character?). 

D&D's job is to simplify things for the audience and heck, they could have taken GRRM's ending and went, we can't do that and changed it. Or based their ending off of it. We all talk about how GRRM told them the ending, that's nice, are they doing it though? I haven't read one way or the other on that and probably won't till the show ends.

Personally, and this is just me, I think we are getting a different ending to the show than the books. I think the show is setting up for a happy ending with maybe a few sad moments in it, but generally happy (Jon and Danny having a kid, no idea if they both live, and having their child rule the seven kingdoms and "break the wheel"). I don't see that happening in ASOIAF.

The prediction stuff is obviously just all guesses by me and could be wrong but in the books I am willing to bet Dorne plays some major roles still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

Regarding the Umbers.  This is the show, the books are the books.  I think a lot of people who have read the books automatically think the motivations for their TV counterparts should be the same as the books.  But this has never been a 100% faithful adaptation and some things simply aren't that important.  To appease book readers maybe they should have had a Karstark hand him over but what's in a name really?

The dialogue has definitely changed since they can longer paraphrase or adopt lines from the book.  I quite enjoy some of it even though it's obvious such conversations would never take place in the books.  E.g. the Usual Suspects style of interaction between the "Go Get a Wight Adventure Party" was excellent dialogue but was out of place in AGOT?  Most of it was IMO.  That said it was also very akin to the type of conversation that Bronn & Hound had in the Blackwater episode and that dialogue was written by GRRM himself.

I think it's become "cool" to be overly critical of the show and the media usually follow (or try to) what is cool.  Flipping it on its head I thought the praise the show got in the early seasons was completely over the top too.  Probably again because it was cool to like the show.

As for plot holes and logic fails, almost every story has them but especially stories set in fantastical worlds.  A lot of things happen conveniently in both the books and in the show.  But it's that convenience that moves (or should move!) the plot on.

 

My criticism of the Umbers has nothing to do with the books.  The show set up that the Boltons married Sansa to secure their hold on the NOrth, therefore, anyone who had a male Stark would be able to usurp the usurping Boltons, because they had the last true born son of Ned Stark.  Therefore, giving Rickon to the Boltons and getting nothing in return is stupid.  It's the basic point of logic that whomever has a Stark son is going to be able to muster support from the rest of the North.  This is what the show set up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

Regarding the Umbers.  This is the show, the books are the books.  I think a lot of people who have read the books automatically think the motivations for their TV counterparts should be the same as the books.  But this has never been a 100% faithful adaptation and some things simply aren't that important.  To appease book readers maybe they should have had a Karstark hand him over but what's in a name really?

The dialogue has definitely changed since they can longer paraphrase or adopt lines from the book.  I quite enjoy some of it even though it's obvious such conversations would never take place in the books.  E.g. the Usual Suspects style of interaction between the "Go Get a Wight Adventure Party" was excellent dialogue but was out of place in AGOT?  Most of it was IMO.  That said it was also very akin to the type of conversation that Bronn & Hound had in the Blackwater episode and that dialogue was written by GRRM himself.

I think it's become "cool" to be overly critical of the show and the media usually follow (or try to) what is cool.  Flipping it on its head I thought the praise the show got in the early seasons was completely over the top too.  Probably again because it was cool to like the show.

As for plot holes and logic fails, almost every story has them but especially stories set in fantastical worlds.  A lot of things happen conveniently in both the books and in the show.  But it's that convenience that moves (or should move!) the plot on.

 

This is a show based on the books though. The motivation for a characters tv counterparts don't have to be the same but to be a decent show they have to make sense. Besides what other posters have said regarding holding the last male heir to the Winterfell, the show didn't set it up to make any sense. Yes, they could have used the Karstarks instead of the Umbers- it still wouldn't have made it necessarily a smart move but it would have given them a logical motive. There is any number of ways they could have presented a logical motive for the Umbers to hand over Rickon but they didn't , which is what people are complaining about. 

As to the "To appease book readers maybe they should have had a Karstark hand him over but what's in a name really?" 

By that logic why always let Danaerys have dragons? Just call her Arya & then Arya can have dragons. It doesn't make any sense. 

I for one am not upset when the show deviates from the books, especially now when we have no books to deviate from. I get irritated when the show plot makes no sense, is completely out of character for what that character would do, has plot holes, etc. This isn't being overly critical of the show at all IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/30/2017 at 3:52 PM, johndance said:

You do realize that this was taken from an actual battle that happened in history right? I don't have the name of it but it's been said several times by the director of the episode + D&D they based the mountain of dead bodies off of descriptions of actual battles that took place. 

Piles of bodies have occured on several battle field, from Hannibal to Caesar to Agincourt and even during the American Civil War. However they NEVER reached the height of that of the Battle of Bastards which is hugely exaggerated and almost caricatural…

The main inspiration for the tactic of BoB is the Battle of Cannae, 216 BC, where the Carthaginians leaded by Hannibal destroyed a huge Roman army (with the famous pincer movement that Jon Snow tries to explain to Tormund).

Edited by Nowy Tends

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2017 at 11:52 PM, johndance said:

You do realize that this was taken from an actual battle that happened in history right? I don't have the name of it but it's been said several times by the director of the episode + D&D they based the mountain of dead bodies off of descriptions of actual battles that took place. 

The Carthaginian defeat of the Roman Republic at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BCE was their inspiration.

It's a very loose inspiration, though. In real life, here's what happened:

1) Rome was reeling from 2 shocking losses in the previous two years of the 2nd Punic War, so massed their biggest ever army at that time, estimated at 70,000-90,000.

2) Seeing they outnumbered Carthage, whose numbers were 40,000-50,000, they bunched up tightly. At this time Romans normally moved into battle in their maniple tactic (groups of 120 legionaries arranged in 3 lines, with gaps between each maniple. From a bird's-eye view it looked like an elongated checkerboard). However, they removed the gaps they normally left in their columns to assist with moving on the battlefield because they decided to use a brute force push instead.

3) Carthage's commander, Hannibal Barca, spotted that the maniples no longer had the ability to maneouver easily, so he placed his weakest forces in the centre and told his stronger forces on the wings to hold at all costs, while telling the centre they could give ground whenever they needed to.

4) The two armies charged at one another.

5) Rome easily began to push the centre back - but crucially, they did not make any headway on the flanks.

6) Carthage's cavalry swept Rome's from the field. This was common and usually Rome incurred the losses in cavalry with superior heavy infantry.

7) The tightly-packed Romans were now exposed on three sides: the centre and each wing, because of how far forward their centre was and how the Carthaginians hadn't given any ground on the flanks. Only their rear was now clear.

8) The Carthaginian cavalry charged at, and hit the Roman rear.

9) Hannibal ordered all forces to press toward the centre of the Roman army (now completely encircled) at the same time.

10) The Romans were too close together for any given legionary to defend himself. Carthage's forces would stab, press forward, and keep squeezing. Some legionaries made efforts to slash their wrists or bury themselves beneath the crush to suffocate, rather than wait for the time to pass while they were slaughtered.

11) All told, less than 10,000 Roman forces escaped, with about another 10,000 captured (as valuable hostages) and the remainder killed. Rome, as a region, lost 1/5 of its working-age male population in that battle.

12) Carthage awaited Rome's surrender. Unfortunately for them, a Roman motto was: "You're not beaten until you accept defeat," and Rome kept fighting. Initially, they used Fabian tactics (which were, in fact, invented during that war as a response to Hannibal) before Publius Cornelius Scipio (better known by the cool name Scipio Africanus) volunteered to lead Rome's invasion of Hispania. It was a job nobody else wanted, as it was a virtual death sentence, so it was a complete shock to all when he won stunning victories, then went on to invade North Africa. He defeated Hannibal convincingly at the Battle of Zama, ending the 2nd Punic War at the cost of reducing Rome's population by 17% over the war's nearly 20 year period.

13) Nobody made a wall out of a pile of dead bodies.

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

×