Anyone seen this? (F&B article from EW)

[RhaegoTheUnborn]

This is a F&B article done by EW, I believe they posted it today, Well anyways, as a reader of Fire & Blood (I LOVE IT!), I think this article uses it and GRRM's own writing to explain somewhat whats going on this season, which almost everyone seems upset with. What do you all think? Good explanations, or are they reaching to defend this season?

 

 

https://ew.com/tv/2019/05/17/george-r-r-martin-fire-and-blood-game-of-thrones-final-season/

 

Lol, forgot to post the link to the article.

[RhaegoTheUnborn]

Jeez, no one has any opinions on thiss? Did I post this in the wrong place?

[TimeKills]

I thought that the argument that dragons having different capabilities explained the quick death of Rhagael compared to Drogon's invincibility was very weak. One was hit several times by an oversized crossbow firing from a ship where the parabolic flight mechanics (of lack of ) suggest the unit had the range of miles and the accuracy of the person firing, in ability to predict sea, wind and Dragon movement, was superb. The second encounter with vastly more of the same oversized crossbow resulted in no hits whatsoever. If I had seen bolts bouncing off Drogon  whilst watched him glide slowly and steadily on burning runs right in front of the same magical equipment, I would have to agree that some Dragons have superior armour. All I saw was plot armour.

Otherwise I really enjoyed the article and other ideas set out. I still feel the girl who wanted to break chains is now suddenly Stalin in a blonde wig.

[SeanF]

19 minutes ago, TimeKills said:

I thought that the argument that dragons having different capabilities explained the quick death of Rhagael compared to Drogon's invincibility was very weak. One was hit several times by an oversized crossbow firing from a ship where the parabolic flight mechanics (of lack of ) suggest the unit had the range of miles and the accuracy of the person firing, in ability to predict sea, wind and Dragon movement, was superb. The second encounter with vastly more of the same oversized crossbow resulted in no hits whatsoever. If I had seen bolts bouncing off Drogon  whilst watched him glide slowly and steadily on burning runs right in front of the same magical equipment, I would have to agree that some Dragons have superior armour. All I saw was plot armour.

Otherwise I really enjoyed the article and other ideas set out. I still feel the girl who wanted to break chains is now suddenly Stalin in a blonde wig.

She and Rhaegal were taken by surprise.  Next time, she varied her tactics, and took Euron by surprise, by diving out of the clouds at a steep angle.

But, I accept it was absurd to make Qyburn's weapon more accurate than modern air defences, which have a very low strike rate.

[TimeKills]

Initially she dived from a steep angle, which I thought was excellent and would work well. But progressively the continual luck accumulated to avoid being hit by these super accurate, long range missiles got a little weird.

But the explanation may be that everyone ran away from their post. It looked as if there were no human figures around the scorpions on one impressive burn run along the castle wall.

And who could blame them!

 

[SeanF]

18 minutes ago, TimeKills said:

Initially she dived from a steep angle, which I thought was excellent and would work well. But progressively the continual luck accumulated to avoid being hit by these super accurate, long range missiles got a little weird.

But the explanation may be that everyone ran away from their post. It looked as if there were no human figures around the scorpions on one impressive burn run along the castle wall.

And who could blame them!

 

Yes.  Someone might have brought her down, had he stood at his post and sacrificed himself, but they were terrified once they saw people going up in flames.

Come to think of it, that's another reason for Dany's fury.  They tried to kill her, and now these filth think they can get away with surrendering! She's in a killing rage..

[Free Northman Reborn]

Come on, man. There were scores of ships. The dragon came in very low and slow over each one to burn it. It was exposed to all the other ships for far longer and at a much closer range than Rhaegal was when it was brought down at cruising altitude by three consecutive guided missiles.

The diving attack made sense for the first ship, but after that the scene became ridiculous.

[SeanF]

15 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Come on, man. There were scores of ships. The dragon came in very low and slow over each one to burn it. It was exposed to all the other ships for far longer and at a much closer range than Rhaegal was when it was brought down at cruising altitude by three consecutive guided missiles.

The diving attack made sense for the first ship, but after that the scene became ridiculous.

Hitting Drogon is pretty cold comfort if you're burned alive in the process.  Burn a couple of ships, and most of the sailors will just want to escape.

[TimeKills]

The original article proposed varying Dragon capabilities and armour to explain the different outcomes between Rhaegal and Drogon.

It is reasonable to suggest that surprise ambush (very lax attitude from dragons) and subsequent change in tactics to the initial dive bomb from sun, also overwhelming fear acting on human would all have made a considerable difference. This is not what the article states.

so personally I cannot agree with the article's proposition. 

furthermore it is uncomfortable to think that I have to agree with Cersei on this!

it should have just taken a couple of good shots, almost easy, given proximity and predictable and repeated flight patterns, plus amazingly, frankly unbelievable, equipment capabilities.

And they already demonstrated it could be done from a moving ship.

I love the dragons and can even cope with magic weapons. it is the inconsistencies in the tv show I find difficult.

[Gendelsdottir]

I'm partway into Fire and Blood myself and enjoying it. Why though should it be necessary to use data points from the book to defend choices made in the show? Aren't we supposed to be treating the show as its own thing? What's shown on screen should be making sense on its own terms, not because it is supported in book canon.

[SeanF]

18 minutes ago, TimeKills said:

The original article proposed varying Dragon capabilities and armour to explain the different outcomes between Rhaegal and Drogon.

It is reasonable to suggest that surprise ambush (very lax attitude from dragons) and subsequent change in tactics to the initial dive bomb from sun, also overwhelming fear acting on human would all have made a considerable difference. This is not what the article states.

so personally I cannot agree with the article's proposition. 

furthermore it is uncomfortable to think that I have to agree with Cersei on this!

it should have just taken a couple of good shots, almost easy, given proximity and predictable and repeated flight patterns, plus amazingly, frankly unbelievable, equipment capabilities.

And they already demonstrated it could be done from a moving ship.

I love the dragons and can even cope with magic weapons. it is the inconsistencies in the tv show I find difficult.

Episode 4 was unrealistic.  You might just get lucky and hit a dragon once, but not three times. 

Episode 5 was realistic (insofar as a story with dragons can be) when you consider how inaccurate anti-aircraft fire really is.

[RhaegoTheUnborn]

1 hour ago, Gendelsdottir said:

I'm partway into Fire and Blood myself and enjoying it. Why though should it be necessary to use data points from the book to defend choices made in the show? Aren't we supposed to be treating the show as its own thing? What's shown on screen should be making sense on its own terms, not because it is supported in book canon.

 

 

Not when the entire thing is STILL based on Georges writing. It still shows in the opening credits. They've always based these characters on book counterparts with minor changes, or meshing two characters into one, ie Jorah & Jon Connington, almost. I dont think anyone can deny that mch the show as far as this season goes, and some of the decisions can easily be explained using various ASOIAF titles and companion books. How can we say, "well the first 4 seasons were based on the books, lets keep those 4 seasons and the books linked, but everything after is not mentionable when it comes to the books". I dont get that. Me personally I've always linked them. And regardless of how one feels about the later seasons, the lore has ALWAYS taken after the books, its not hard to see why. So since its based on the lore, its perfectly fair to use the lore from the books, that the show is based on to explain some of whats going on this final season and any before it. Thats the thing that still connects the show with the books, the LORE.

 

And clearly much of The Bells can be explained with F&B, I agree with everyone about the dragon thing though. But I accept it as it is. If you choose to disregard all explanations because to you, the show and books are completely two different entities, even though the show has ALWAYS taken after the books even in the later seasons ie. Illaria Martell, the Sandsnakes, and Prince Doran, go right ahead.

[Gendelsdottir]

11 minutes ago, RhaegoTheUnborn said:

... If you choose to disregard all explanations because to you, the show and books are completely two different entities, even though the show has ALWAYS taken after the books even in the later seasons ie. Illaria Martell, the Sandsnakes, and Prince Doran, go right ahead.

Not at all! I've read the boxed set, the Dunk & Egg stories, and am now into Fire and Blood as I said. I am grateful for the depth, nuance & richness the prose lends to my enjoyment of the show. As I've said elsewhere in this forum, characters such as Bronze Yohn Royce and Lady Anya Waynwood are - once I have read about them - real people with a place and purpose, and not just set dressing in a Sansa scene.

But that isn't really my point. My point is that the show, if it's going to be any good, should stand as a coherent entity on its own. It should have internal consistency. Viewers should not be scratching their heads and asking themselves, "What the hell did I just see?" They should not have to watch DVD extras, behind-the-scenes commentary, or to search out print publications and websites to make sense of it.

If Game of Thrones, the TV series, represents only part of an overall entity, insofar as portions of it are inexplicable except by reference to books or whatever, that's successful marketing, but not successful storytelling.

[Gertrude]

37 minutes ago, RhaegoTheUnborn said:

And clearly much of The Bells can be explained with F&B, 

 

3 minutes ago, Gendelsdottir said:

My point is that the show, if it's going to be any good, should stand as a coherent entity on its own.

I couldn't agree more with Gendelsdottir. I don't even think you have to have read F&B to get the very broad themes that the article mentions. We get it. It's not that it doesn't have an explanation, it's that the show did it poorly. You can make it work when you look at all the pieces, but it didn't happen organically. The solution (Mad Queen) was given to us and the work to get there wasn't fully shown. 

[Ser Hedge]

On 5/18/2019 at 1:26 PM, Gendelsdottir said:

Viewers should not be scratching their heads and asking themselves, "What the hell did I just see?" They should not have to watch DVD extras, behind-the-scenes commentary, or to search out print publications and websites to make sense of it.

The above is just plain bad story telling, or story telling by imposters who know they're not upto it, and try to weave a "The Emperor's new clothes" vibe around it, "oh didn't you know it was foreshadowed aeons ago", or "it is known", or just leave it ambiguous and wing it in the interviews.

FaB is quite interesting though and it's fun to speculate about Book.Dany's future arc now we know more about Dragon-riding Targaryens than we did before, but we should not have to look it up to understand what happened in the show, unless those incidents were quoted in-show some time back (and very little was)

[SansaJonRule]

Great article. I think it does make some good and valid points. I can't wait to read F&B.

[Stark_in_Winterfell]

On 5/18/2019 at 5:49 AM, RhaegoTheUnborn said:

Jeez, no one has any opinions on thiss? Did I post this in the wrong place?

Everyone is sleeping it off.

[Gendelsdottir]

Still awake here. FWIW, I *did* like the EW article,  @RhaegoTheUnborn. I'm not up to the part in Fire and Blood where Ulf & Hugh ride Vermithor & Silverwing, but I am looking forward to it.

[RhaegoTheUnborn]

I see the points being made about how the show and publications should be separate entities. I get it, but still think the lore is too similar to truly separate, but I can't deny good points when I see them..I'll just agree to disagree on that specific note. I also agree that this season, the writers didn't do a great job at connecting the dots with a lot of character arcs, but I still think this season was good, not great but good. Which in itself, is ehh, as a final season should be awesome when its going out. But yeah, I'm up to the Dance Of The Dragons part of F&B, the book has some boring pages, but I think Aegon THe Conqueror, Jaeharys & Akysanne, & DOtD, are the best parts of the book.

[JohnWyatt]

On 5/18/2019 at 1:28 AM, SeanF said:

She and Rhaegal were taken by surprise.  Next time, she varied her tactics, and took Euron by surprise, by diving out of the clouds at a steep angle.

But, I accept it was absurd to make Qyburn's weapon more accurate than modern air defences, which have a very low strike rate.

A part that bugs me is that on the BTS episode, they said Dany 'kind of forgot' about the Iron Fleet, which sounds ludicrous and denies that Dany and the dragons would have seen the ships before they were in range.