"Non book readers" - Season 8 Episode 5 "The bells" - Spoilers post 2 forward

Bonzo Delaney

75 /80
Q64 is wrong it's the wrong pic of Podric
Or am I like everyone else and getting Gendry and himself mixed up
My bad they look very similar though in the later episodes

seligehgit

Good fun 65,left a few behind.:D

Stop moaning ffs

One more sleep.

Hope we can all be reasonable and keep a civil tongue after it

J. Marston

What title could Dany add to her bow now after her conquest of King's Landing? I was thinking something flashy like the Immolater of Innocents.

Tazzimus

BBQ queen of Westeros

J. Marston

Cooker of Children.

Sardonicat

Roaster of Men

Yester

About to die.

biggebruv

Just been rewatching season 7 tonight the amount of foreshadowing for s8 is very satisfying

Dany and Varys chat in episode 2 basically reveals exactly what happens in season 8 episode 5 between them

Olena tyrell telling Dany leaders rule with fear and to be a dragon not to listen to her adviser Tyrion

Sansa and little-finger have a great talk in episode 3 about being a leader and what to look out for regarding enemies which reveals why Sansa is exactly the way she is in season 8 towards dany

The red woman saying she will return just one more time to die which she did in s8 lol

People say this show is all about the spectacle and action now in seasons 7+8 yet I watched the first 3 episodes of season 7 back to back which had 3 hours running time and there was like 15 worth of action in total what the hell are people on about

TerrorFirmer

Very few people claimed S7 was all spectacle. Just that it was very rushed, and the scripting was weaker than previous seasons, and a little dumbed down. The best action sequence of the season, Kings Road, is only 10 minutes long. I'm sure a few people said it, but the vast majority of criticism I've read here, and elsewhere, in terms of the pure spectacle aspect, are referring exclusively to S8.

The other points are the "foreshadowing" debate about the turn in S8, but there's a difference between foreshadowing (indicating some impending degree of turn) and actual character development (earning the actual turn when the time comes). Some people seem entirely satisfied that the former negates the need for the latter.

Take Arya Stark. She's done some of the most disturbing, gruesome stuff in the show. If she suddenly did a character 180 and started killing innocent people, no-one would be shouting "foreshadowing!"

They'd probably say "But everything she did had a purpose or logic behind it, no matter how cruel". So did the previous action of Daenerys.

"But she crucified the masters of Mereen, and some of those were totally innocent!" Yes, collateral damage. Arya Stark murdered House Frey. Some of those were presumably innocent to some degree, also collateral damage in the pursuit of revenge.

Now, hypothetically, if they devoted time to developing Arya as a broken, emotionally detached person who's irrepairly changed/scarred by her gruesome road to vengence, you have a forumula of 'foreshadowing' + development = more credible outcome, for example.

With Daenerys they skipped the credible character development and relied entirely on foreshadowing which doesn't really fly with a huge amount of people. No one cares that she turned, it was predictable. They do care that S8 desperately needed more time to flesh out her turn from calculating and increasingly tyrant-like to full blown genocidal maniac.

I know some people are also saying "but she lost Missandei and her two children" but again, to most people, for a show as complex as Game of Thrones; a show in which brutal, terrible, horrible things happen repeatedly to multiple characters; that's also a cop-out explanation for a sudden decision to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

You don't have to agree and that's fine, if the show works for you, that's great. I'm not here to try and explain that you're wrong, just why you're wrong for making out that people who don't agree with you are missing something that only you are seeing.

We all see precisely what you've seen. We have all watched the show, some of us many times.

Is anyone else here really looking forward to some fan-made remaster of the last two seasons? I think someone will make a decent job out of it.

is_that_so

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

One more sleep.

Hope we can all be reasonable and keep a civil tongue after it

Indeed, take a look in the mirror afore you hit the keyboard!:D

leggo

See even the way that's described 'foreshadowing + development = credible' is formulaic and so, so boring. There aren't rules to art and, if there were, then we'd see everything coming a mile off. For me, when I look at if writing for stuff like this was good or not, I look at if they put the pieces into place beforehand, did we see it coming (you lose points if it's supposed to be a twist and we did), and did it make sense for the character. This ticks all of those boxes. Consider that, because of Varys, the entire realm now knows that Dany isn't the rightful queen. In a world where a man with a weaker claim (nephew of the king as opposed to daughter) has his claim supersede the better claim purely on the basis that he's a man, her having mercy in that instance could've been seen as a woman's weakness that could've been exploited, to the benefit of someone who's flat out rejected her again in this very episode. It was all there. It just was.

If you're going to say to me, "But it's all happening so fast now that it's tough to process and be emotionally ready when the time comes," I'd sympathise and maybe even agree a little. I'm fine with it personally, but I'd understand that view. If you're going to tell me it doesn't make sense or isn't within her character, and if you're going to cite the word 'character development', then yeah sorry it is a fair question to ask if you've been watching or don't understand what that means, given that a character literally doesn't develop if they act as they've always done. This IS her character developing. It's one of the most high profile acts of character development in television history. Saying that there's no character development only shows that you don't know what that means, and that's not an opinion or dig at anyone, it's just a fact. Anyone I know who writes or is involved in media is pulling their hair out over the exact same thing. Just yesterday I saw Stephen King tweeting about how into Dany's turn he was, for example. It's a really dumb thing to say but, because a very tiny percentage of the people who watch actually take time to learn about this stuff, the sense gets drowned out in the cacophony of noise.

Put it this way: I'm a wrestling fan and this week there's a lot of jokes about how Game of Thrones fans have become like wrestling fans. When a beloved character in wrestling turns heel, there's usually a backlash. We even joke about it on a podcast that I do: "Oh I'm not booing them because they want me to, I'm booing them because I don't like it!" When, obviously, you're not meant to like a person you liked turning bad. That's the point. But I listened to another wrestling podcast talking about GoT and they were laughing about how everyone is getting worked (tricked into buying into the storyline by giving a real emotional response). And it kinda reminds me of that a little tbh. Wrestling fans are used to this, it happens all the time. It's actually gas to see it happen elsewhere on such a huge stage.

Or put another way: you know how we all look back at the ending of The Sopranos as one of the most iconic endings of all-time? Yeah, people hated it at first. It's my favourite show of all-time, so I remember the reaction like it was yesterday. Everyone was confused at first and thought their TV was broke. Then everyone yelled that it was a cop out and they were just 'afraid' to kill Tony (think about how stupid that sounds now looking back: the first instinct is often the worst). Then people started to wake up to how it was actually really clever, but the critics (as usual) were loudest and thought it had been 'ruined'. Now that we've all processed it, nobody says that anymore. I think this is similar. They've pulled a left turn when we didn't expect them to and people aren't happy. But that fades. The questions people are asking now aren't the questions you'll be asking when you think back in years to come, because by then you'll have processed it and seen that the pieces were, in fact, all there.

Stop moaning ffs

is_that_so wrote: »

Indeed, take a look in the mirror afore you hit the keyboard!:D

Last mirror I looked in cracked. I’ve to stay away from them

is_that_so

leggo wrote: »

See even the way that's described 'foreshadowing + development = credible' is formulaic and so, so boring. There aren't rules to art and, if there were, then we'd see everything coming a mile off. For me, when I look at if writing for stuff like this was good or not, I look at if they put the pieces into place beforehand, did we see it coming (you lose points if it's supposed to be a twist and we did), and did it make sense for the character. This ticks all of those boxes. Consider that, because of Varys, the entire realm now knows that Dany isn't the rightful queen. In a world where a man with a weaker claim (nephew of the king as opposed to daughter) has his claim supersede the better claim purely on the basis that he's a man, her having mercy in that instance could've been seen as a woman's weakness that could've been exploited, to the benefit of someone who's flat out rejected her again in this very episode. It was all there. It just was.

If you're going to say to me, "But it's all happening so fast now that it's tough to process and be emotionally ready when the time comes," I'd sympathise and maybe even agree a little. I'm fine with it personally, but I'd understand that view. If you're going to tell me it doesn't make sense or isn't within her character, and if you're going to cite the word 'character development', then yeah sorry it is a fair question to ask if you've been watching or don't understand what that means given that a character literally doesn't develop if they act as they've always done. This IS her character developing. It's one of the most high profile acts of character development in television history. Saying that there's no character development only shows that you don't know what that means, and that's not an opinion or dig at anyone, it's just a fact. Just yesterday I saw Stephen King tweeting about how into Dany's turn he was, for example. Anyone I know who writes or is involved in media is pulling their hair out over the exact same thing. It's a really dumb thing to say but, because a very tiny percentage of the people who watch actually take time to learn about this stuff, the sense gets drowned out in the cacophony of noise.

Put it this way: I'm a wrestling fan and this week there's a lot of jokes about how Game of Thrones fans have become like wrestling fans. When a beloved character in wrestling turns heel, there's usually a backlash. We even joke about it on a podcast that I do: "Oh I'm not booing them because they want me to, I'm booing them because I don't like it!" When, obviously, you're not meant to like a person you liked turning bad. That's the point. But I listened to another wrestling podcast talking about GoT and they were laughing about how everyone is getting worked (tricked into buying into the storyline by giving a real emotional response). And it kinda reminds me of that a little tbh. Wrestling fans are used to this, it happens all the time. It's actually gas to see it happen elsewhere on such a huge stage.

Or put another way: you know how we all look back at the ending of The Sopranos as one of the most iconic endings of all-time? Yeah, people hated it at first. It's my favourite show of all-time, so I remember the reaction like it was yesterday. Everyone was confused at first and thought their TV was broke. Then everyone yelled that it was a cop out and they were just 'afraid' to kill Tony (think about how stupid that sounds now looking back: the first instinct is often the worst). Then people started to wake up to how it was actually really clever, but the critics (as usual) were loudest and thought it had been 'ruined'. Now that we've all processed it, nobody says that anymore. I think this is similar. They've pulled a left turn when we didn't expect them to and people aren't happy. But that fades. The questions people are asking now aren't the questions you'll be asking when you think back in years to come, because by then you'll have processed it and seen that the pieces were, in fact, all there.

I do love these posts where anyone who "didn't see it coming all along" isn't the sharpest tool in the box! It's called good structure and that was really missing. There was no left turn or right turn, it was a way out of a narrative hole they'd dug themselves into. Show a little more of that conflict/descent into madness over a season, even a couple of episodes and it becomes "boring" but credible, and bordering on decent writing. I don't think there will be much about this in years to come, save GOT great up to season 5/6 but stay away from the last two.

leggo

is_that_so wrote: »

I do love these posts where anyone who "didn't see it coming all along" isn't the sharpest tool in the box! It's called good structure and that was really missing. There was no left turn or right turn, it was a way out of a narrative hole they'd dug themselves into. Show a little more of that conflict/descent into madness over a season, even a couple of episodes and it becomes "boring" but credible, and bordering on decent writing. I don't think there will be much about this in years to come, save GOT great up to season 5/6 but stay away from the last two.

Boring TV = bad TV. The very purpose of it is to entertain, not to tick people's OCD boxes to the point that each character decision is blatantly obvious before it happens. This reaction with the world discussing it* is preferable to your version of the show, which the world has just stopped watching because there's zero intrigue left in the character's decisions because they've been telegraphed for episodes.

*As long as it makes sense, which it does.

is_that_so

leggo wrote: »

Boring TV = bad TV. The very purpose of it is to entertain, not to tick people's OCD boxes to the point that each character decision is blatantly obvious before it happens. This reaction with the world discussing it* is preferable to your version of the show, which the world has just stopped watching because there's zero intrigue left in the character's decisions because they've been telegraphed for episodes.

*As long as it makes sense, which it does.

An awful lot of pretty dubious judgement on people in this. People make their own decisions about what entertains them, it doesn't make them wrong, stupid or prone to OCD. I'm a fan of good writing in anything, which was there in spades all the way up to Season 6. I thought the first two of this season were good but it's still falling off that cliff it fell off from Episode 4 onwards.

Stop moaning ffs

As with all art or entertainment your mileage may vary on how much you enjoy it or get out from it. Like anything else, GOT only stands up to so much scrutiny. It does minutiae and call back and tie ins across all the seasons really really well I think. Personally believe Dany was always going to end up this way and it’s been signposted well enough. Wouldn’t be too harsh on that. Even if you are, can we not all agree someone even the most noble, can breakdown in such a situation and go full meltdown. Especially when your destiny you’ve been obsessed with all your life is about to be taken away from you. As well as losing your loyalist friends and ‘children’. And everyone turning on you or at least you think they are turning on you.

I think / hope we’ll get something that speaks to that or explains it. At least I hope so for all those that weren’t happy with how it went down.

OneOfThem Stumbled

leggo wrote: »

See even the way that's described 'foreshadowing + development = credible' is formulaic and so, so boring. There aren't rules to art and, if there were, then we'd see everything coming a mile off.

There are rules to art. That is why there are schools of art.

Dany going mad was telegraphed by the show, so it's hardly a surprise. The meaning behind it is morally base. The shows says that Cersei was actually the good guy all along, and Dany was the villain all along (we just didn't know it). Jon was never a hero, Jamie was never capable of redemption, Tyrion was never smart, Grey Worm was never noble. The freeing of slaves was merely egotism on Dany's part, the Iron Throne never mattered other than having a sane and stable ruler, the war against the dead was a distraction.

Art not only has rules, art has meaning. Sometimes bad art can have good meaning. Sometimes good art can have bad meaning (The Death of Marat being a good example).

The Bells manages to do something impressive, it is bad art (albeit visually impressive) with bad meaning. It has taken M. Night Shyamalan a while to realise that people didn't like his films just because they had twists. When he put twists in his films, but didn't lay the groundwork for the twists, his name became synonymous with hack writing, as it should.

The Sopranos' ending annoyed people because of its lack of closure, though it stayed true to David Chase's vision of the entire show being an overlap of domesticity and organised criminality. A part of the problem with the Sopranos was that by the final scene it had nothing more to say... so in many ways... it just didn't. It might not have been particularly satisfying ending, but it was I suppose iconic, and certainly didn't destroy or even undermine any of the general messages relayed by the show up until that point.

Game of Thrones has had a lot to say on quite a lot of issues. Some of the key ones were that being "good" is not enough, that to survive you also have to be smart, but that being evil without being smart is equally perilous. It said that people can change, though they may carry that baggage with them, that debts ultimately must be paid, that blind faith is foolish, that power lies only where people believe it resides. Of these, Season 8 has said that none of these are true, except perhaps the one about blind faith.

TerrorFirmer

Most reasonable critics agree that it's still objectively good and entertaining TV, but have major fault with it. This is echoed by critical response to episodes E04 and E05; unless you think they're also all wrong and simply 'don't get it' either, or have other motives for being unimpressed with what we're being offered.

Saying that there's no character development only shows that you don't know what that means, and that's not an opinion or dig at anyone, it's just a fact. Anyone I know who writes or is involved in media is pulling their hair out over the exact same thing.

You mean like critics? Critics who were entirely fine with the first two episodes, generally on board with E03, but were far more critical of E04 and E05? You've trying to establish that this is because they're incapable of grasping what are allegedly objective facts?

I also write for a living by the way. You're not speaking for us all, and it certainly is not a fact.....that in itself is the only fact to be fair. Like everything else it's subjective.

See even the way that's described 'foreshadowing + development = credible' is formulaic and so, so boring. There aren't rules to art and, if there were, then we'd see everything coming a mile off.

Not necessarily. We didn't see the Red Wedding coming, but that was a rational outcome of both foreshadowing and character development, not to mention ultimately supremely shocking. No-one wanted it to happen, but it made perfect sense, was well-earned, in the moment and retrospectively.

Robb Stark could've been murdered far earlier, for showing a few weaknesses or making a few poor choices (foreshadowing), rather than repeatedly making terrible, and enormously flawed decisions over the course of a full season (character development).

Whether you wanted it or not, as S3 played out, Robb Stark very much earned his Red Wedding. Had he been murdered far sooner, and before pivotal character moments which he essentially sealed his own fate (a fact we appreciate much, much more on retrospective thinking) - he may have invited dissent, but I doubt anyone would agree that he brought it upon himself or have been fully on-board with his death.

That was the brilliance of GRRM. A brilliance I, and a lot of other people, feel is lacking since S6 or so, but particularly sorely lacking since the start of S7, and almost absent in S8. But look, that's a personal opinion.

Going back to Robb Stark and having earned his Red Wedding, many people do not feel that way about Daenery's, either in the moment, or with retrospective analysis. But, they're - including myself - finding themselves dismissed like they're simply not capable of 'getting it', or that they're missing vital elements of the narrative they weren't paying attention to, or didn't understand.

Many people, once again, think the turn is fine, but that it needed more episodes to chart a descent into madness and a detachment from previously held values (hot-headed conqueror willing to commit high-violence without overly due regard for collateral damage) to new values (willing to butcher as many of one million civilians as she can).

It doesn't mean you're wrong in thinking otherwise, or wrong for thinking the show both signposted and developed it absolutely perfectly, but you are wrong in claiming that certain things are facts rather than subjective opinion.

I get that people are divided on the subject and healthy debate is always welcome, but most people are being fairly good-natured about it, no matter how passionate the argument becomes.

Who knows, sometimes, healthy argument and in-depth discussion can lead to altered opinions on either side, and I've no doubt it's happened on both sides of the coin here on many occasions.

There's an enormous world of difference between "Look, I disagree, and here is why" and "You're objectively wrong and you just don't get it", regardless of the opinion.

I mean I could do that right now, I could say the exact same - anyone who doesn't get it is wrong, and somehow lacking in logical or intellectual thought processing to 'not get' what's wrong with the scripting driving the episode...but I wouldn't, and haven't, here or elsewhere.

biggebruv

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

There are rules to art. That is why there are schools of art.

Dany going mad was telegraphed by the show, so it's hardly a surprise. The meaning behind it is morally base. The shows says that Cersei was actually the good guy all along, and Dany was the villain all along (we just didn't know it). Jon was never a hero, Jamie was never capable of redemption, Tyrion was never smart, Grey Worm was never noble. The freeing of slaves was merely egotism on Dany's part, the Iron Throne never mattered other than having a sane and stable ruler, the war against the dead was a distraction.

Art not only has rules, art has meaning. Sometimes bad art can have good meaning. Sometimes good art can have bad meaning (The Death of Marat being a good example).

The Bells manages to do something impressive, it is bad art (albeit visually impressive) with bad meaning. It has taken M. Night Shyamalan a while to realise that people didn't like his films just because they had twists. When he put twists in his films, but didn't lay the groundwork for the twists, his name became synonymous with hack writing, as it should.

The Sopranos' ending annoyed people because of its lack of closure, though it stayed true to David Chase's vision of the entire show being an overlap of domesticity and organised criminality. A part of the problem with the Sopranos was that by the final scene it had nothing more to say... so in many ways... it just didn't. It might not have been particularly satisfying ending, but it was I suppose iconic, and certainly didn't destroy or even undermine any of the general messages relayed by the show up until that point.

Game of Thrones has had a lot to say on quite a lot of issues. Some of the key ones were that being "good" is not enough, that to survive you also have to be smart, but that being evil without being smart is equally perilous. It said that people can change, though they may carry that baggage with them, that debts ultimately must be paid, that blind faith is foolish, that power lies only where people believe it resides. Of these, Season 8 has said that none of these are true, except perhaps the one about blind faith.

Your missing the point there are no good guys or hero’s everyone has reasons for what they do that they believe in

It’s life about war and ruling which is always gonna get messy

I guess you could say I was always in danys camp which the show made it real easy to fall into my reaction when she started burning people was most like Jon snows “I cannot belive wtf she’s done” but the show has shown her dark side before but just never on this scale and when she’s been under this much mental pressure since being in Westeros

leggo

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

Dany going mad was telegraphed by the show, so it's hardly a surprise. The meaning behind it is morally base. The shows says that Cersei was actually the good guy all along, and Dany was the villain all along (we just didn't know it). Jon was never a hero, Jamie was never capable of redemption, Tyrion was never smart, Grey Worm was never noble. The freeing of slaves was merely egotism on Dany's part, the Iron Throne never mattered other than having a sane and stable ruler, the war against the dead was a distraction.

I definitely don't agree with your perception of the show there, and I definitely don't think that's the message 'the show' as a whole attempted, especially Cersei as 'the good guy'. That's a very black and white take on things. The show didn't apologise for Cersei's behaviour at all, it didn't offer her redemption, but it did let us choose whether to feel sympathetic for her or not as she died. To me, it was impressive that they managed to make it grey enough for that to happen. And yes, I did feel sympathy for her, and the love story with Jaime pulled me in in the moment. But if you didn't, they left it there for you to freely have that opinion unchallenged. It was pretty deftly done IMO.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

It doesn't mean you're wrong in thinking otherwise, or wrong for thinking the show both signposted and developed it absolutely perfectly, but you are wrong in claiming that certain things are facts rather than subjective opinion.

Right. And look, I'm with you on a lot of what you say in this post, but this is the crux of where we disagree. I actually think you're projecting onto me a little bit here because this is the exact issue I have with the criticism. This is where the Internet oh-so-often gets it wrong.

Saying "Dany's turn didn't make sense" (I know that's not the argument you're making, I'm using an example) is presenting opinion as objective fact. And it's objectively wrong. Her decision came upon hearing the bells ringing, the point at which Tyrion had pleaded with her to call off the attack. But Tyrion's counsel had steered her wrong before to the point that she had threatened his life if he failed her again. And with what she's been through yada yada yada, we've gone through this all before, no need to go around in circles. It made sense. I can point to eight seasons worth of evidence quite easily that would nudge us towards the conclusion that, if certain safeguards weren't in place, Dany would burn a city to the ground. Such as her threatening to burn cities to the ground in Qarth in season 2. If someone threatens to do something, then later does the thing they threatened to do, it objectively makes sense. They literally told us it was going to happen. We cannot claim to have been unprepared and, if we do, cannot reasonably claim that is the writers' fault.

Saying "I didn't like Dany's turn" is subjective opinion. And nobody can argue with it, I truly don't get why people online don't hide behind "I didn't like" a lot more. It makes their argument invincible. There is nothing I can say or do to force you to like it. You can't say The Sopranos ending wasn't iconic and a cultural milestone, but you can absolutely say you still don't like it. I may judge you a little privately, but I can do nothing about it.

What interests me, and I think people think I'm just argumentative or sensitive to criticism of stuff I like, is why people react in this different way towards significant cultural milestones like this. Why is there a need to start petitions and have your dislike of something validated and almost proven as legal fact, when the safety blanket of the invincible "I don't like..." argument is right there? Is it insecurity? Is it fear that they may not have understood it correctly and an overreaction to being left feeling momentarily stumped? Is it just that fans of theory-driven stories like this don't like having to let go of the endings they'd attached themselves to in their own imagination? Or what is it?

We've enough data on these type of TV/movie events that we can now see it coming ahead of time. It was either at the start of this or the Book thread, but I specifically said "Whatever happens, people are going to be fuming." And the same can be said tomorrow, I guarantee you. We have ZERO idea what's going to happen on tonight's episode, for all we know they're going to make everything right in 80 minutes of the most perfect episode of television you've ever seen. But we can guarantee right now that people will be pissed about something and looking to validate that anger through extreme hot takes, online petitions, memes, whatever it will be. There's no point arguing with this, you and everyone else reading knows it's the case. That almost objectively proves that this outrage is regardless of circumstance or the substance of the show. I'd love to fully understand why that is.

OneOfThem Stumbled

biggebruv wrote: »

Your missing the point there are no good guys or hero’s everyone has reasons for what they do that they believe in

No, nobody believes in anything at this point, and the show has gone to some trouble to show this. Dany has just "gone mad", she wasn't burning people to obtain obedience, or fear, or vengeance, she was doing it simply because she is an agent of chaos, she has become nothing more than a device for the last series of events in the show.

Sure we've had people who before delighted in chaos, like Littlefinger, who saw that he could personally profit by destabilising established power, because he started off so weak in life that any change was likely to be beneficial for him. This clearly isn't the same thing.

I really felt that there were significant problems with season 6 in terms of the way it resolved events. The show always said it wasn't about good versus evil, but that was exactly what the Battle of the Bastards became. Roose was an evil man, but he was a smart one. He didn't kill someone if doing so could jeopardise him. Ramsay though, was a different matter, he was chaotic evil. There was no reasons for his actions other than the fact that he did whatever he felt like. However, that wasn't the reason why he failed in the show. His downfall was simply because he was evil, and even if the good guys behave like idiots, they have to win, because good should triumph over evil. I think this was the first time that the show undermined its central tenet (which, incidentally, was the first time they were writing events that have not yet transpired in the books). I mean it was okay, you could ascribe Ramsay's defeat simply to unfortunate circumstance on his part (that he was just "unlucky") and move on, but it signaled a change in the way themes were handled by the show.

Stop moaning ffs

Went down a YouTube rabbit hole last of people live watching and reacting to the episode. Their poor faces when Dany turns. It’s hysterical you should have a look

The White Wolf

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Went down a YouTube rabbit hole last of people live watching and reacting to the episode. Their poor faces when Dany turns. It’s hysterical you should have a look

I'm always dubious about those reaction videos. :P I've been gauging the reaction of fans of the show (but not super fans) over the last week and they've all generally hated Dany's turn.

I only watch a few channels related to the show including Alt Shift X and In Deep Geek. Those poor two lads always try their best to keep emotion out of it but even they can't stop frustration simmering in their last few videos.

Paddy Cow

Bonzo Delaney wrote: »

75 /80
Q64 is wrong it's the wrong pic of Podric
Or am I like everyone else and getting Gendry and himself mixed up
My bad they look very similar though in the later episodes

When I saw Gendry had a buzz cut this season I thought it was really bizarre and out of place. Then I read that he was sick of getting mistaken for Pod so he went for the extreme cut to distinguish them

I got 67/80. I didn't know Ramsey almost played Jon Snow. He was down to the final two in auditions!

Stop moaning ffs

Maybe she was afraid of Bran turning into the new night king so burned them all to stop him having an army in her kingdom


Man I need to stop watching mad videos on YouTube

Loafing Oaf

Bonzo Delaney wrote: »

75 /80
Q64 is wrong it's the wrong pic of Podric
Or am I like everyone else and getting Gendry and himself mixed up
My bad they look very similar though in the later episodes

Not seeing this at all: to me, Gendry looks like a boyband member turned film star; Pod is more Ronan Mullen without the glasses.

I got a respectable 72, stupidly missed two of the castles. Loved some of the spoof answers: Pycelle = games maester, Mark Gatiss plays Howard from the Halifax.:D

TerrorFirmer

I don't wish to go down the rabbit hole of the Daenery's argument over again, but I think most critics of the show - and I think it's extremely important to say that to be critical, does not mean that you think it's crap, or devoid of high entertainment value - would agree that the crux of the issue is the increasingly weak writing since around S6.

OneOfthemStumbled touched on it perfectly in his above example with the direction the show started to move in at the end of S6.

Game of Thrones used to be a show about a ruthless 'game' which rewarded those who knew how to play it best - rules that were also applicable to the wider world and relevant to everyone; it was never about good versus bad, right and wrong, noble and dishonorable, and so on.

Bad things happened good people, good things happened bad people - and the opposite of both was equally possible and frequently true, but ultimately and most importantly, most actions, and most of the significant milestones throughout the show, were clear consequences of prior actions.

Whether we liked it or not, Ned earned his execution, Robb his Red Wedding, Joffrey practically begged for his own murder, the Viper was entirely his own undoing, etc. All outcomes and actions completely justified and well-signaled to extreme satisfaction by the scripting.

Then from S6 in particular, plot armor just suddenly becomes a thing. Main cast members repeatedly survive outrageously implausible situations, not because there's any logical reasoning to it, or that they've earned it, but because the writers simply need them to survive.

As was mentioned above, elements of luck and chance are entirely realistic and have been in GOT since it's inaugural season to be fair. No-one has an issue with some plot conveniences. They are the cornerstone of all mediums of storytelling, GOT as a show and the books it is based on included.

So a creeping degree of implausibility in S6 - say, Battle of the Bastards - wasn't any sort of an issue for me.

But it's simply stretched way, way beyond the realm of reasonable credibility in later seasons. It was the reason I had such a mixed reaction to some elements of S7 and to S8 since the Battle of Winterfell - loved E02, for example.

Flip side of that same coin is that equally, people die because the plot needs them to do so, without any overly convincing argument from the scripting, and very often clashing with prior established behavior/actions of character in question.

Stuff just started happening because it needed to, rather than it being properly earned. Which is grand for - and even true of - most TV productions, but we are talking about Game of Thrones.

"Why or how did that happen?" wasn't something I had to ask much of Game of Thrones in the first 4 or 5 seasons as the groundwork is there; now, it's like, the answer to the question, which needs to be asked far more is "It just did."

Dialogue falls off a cliff; previously intricate characters become one dimensional, others become irrelevant background noise; some are downright relegated to the dungeons of idiocy.

Look at Tyrion - goes from being one of the smartest, politically astute men in Westeros to a fool whose only role since S5/S6 seems to be constantly making poor choices simply to drive the plot.

He doesn't fail in spite of his intelligence which would be entirely fine; he fails because the plot needs him to fail via the straightest and most simple line of sight: he's dumb and incapable of grasping the truth behind anything anymore.

Who else got imprisoned in the dungeon of idiocy after book material ran dry? Littlefinger and Varys spring to mind straight off the bat.

That is what changed once the show ran out of material, but started becoming particularly evident in S7.

It lost all of it's incredibly rich, multi-layered plotting and became a largely single-threaded predictable game of good versus bad with a token sprinkling of unpredictable elements that has little baring on the overarching narrative.

None of this makes it 'bad'. None of it means the show doesn't have its merits, isn't entertaining, isn't the most visually spectacular thing on TV, et. al.

I enjoyed S7 personally though I feel a bit let-down by the rushed pace and more simplified storytelling. But it's just gotten much worse with S8 and it's bothering a lot of people.

To me, it's a combination of rushed final seasons, lack of source material, writers who clearly wanted to prioritize never-before-seen-on-TV levels of visual spectale, and perhaps, in the end, just a clear desire to move on rather than be shackled to their creation for another 5 years.

Understandable on most counts, but it needed more time to breathe and organically move towards this exact same conclusion we're getting to do itself justice.

Foxtrol

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Very few people claimed S7 was all spectacle. Just that it was very rushed, and the scripting was weaker than previous seasons, and a little dumbed down. The best action sequence of the season, Kings Road, is only 10 minutes long. I'm sure a few people said it, but the vast majority of criticism I've read here, and elsewhere, in terms of the pure spectacle aspect, are referring exclusively to S8.

The other points are the "foreshadowing" debate about the turn in S8, but there's a difference between foreshadowing (indicating some impending degree of turn) and actual character development (earning the actual turn when the time comes). Some people seem entirely satisfied that the former negates the need for the latter.

Take Arya Stark. She's done some of the most disturbing, gruesome stuff in the show. If she suddenly did a character 180 and started killing innocent people, no-one would be shouting "foreshadowing!"

They'd probably say "But everything she did had a purpose or logic behind it, no matter how cruel". So did the previous action of Daenerys.

"But she crucified the masters of Mereen, and some of those were totally innocent!" Yes, collateral damage. Arya Stark murdered House Frey. Some of those were presumably innocent to some degree, also collateral damage in the pursuit of revenge.

Now, hypothetically, if they devoted time to developing Arya as a broken, emotionally detached person who's irrepairly changed/scarred by her gruesome road to vengence, you have a forumula of 'foreshadowing' + development = more credible outcome, for example.

With Daenerys they skipped the credible character development and relied entirely on foreshadowing which doesn't really fly with a huge amount of people. No one cares that she turned, it was predictable. They do care that S8 desperately needed more time to flesh out her turn from calculating and increasingly tyrant-like to full blown genocidal maniac.

I know some people are also saying "but she lost Missandei and her two children" but again, to most people, for a show as complex as Game of Thrones; a show in which brutal, terrible, horrible things happen repeatedly to multiple characters; that's also a cop-out explanation for a sudden decision to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

You don't have to agree and that's fine, if the show works for you, that's great. I'm not here to try and explain that you're wrong, just why you're wrong for making out that people who don't agree with you are missing something that only you are seeing.

We all see precisely what you've seen. We have all watched the show, some of us many times.

This bolded paragraph is so hypocritical of the rest of your post, where you state as fact that there was only foreshadowing and not character development when it came to Dany.

leggo

Again, I don't disagree with a lot of your points in a vacuum. It's just that eventually you have to allow leeway for the story to be rounded off. If you're mapping out a story from point A to Z and you know the endpoint needs to have this, this and this in place for a satisfying ending, then yeah, certain elements of realism has to be curtailed and we need to stop holding the show to this impossibly high standard. Joffrey, Oberyn, Tywin...ultimately, as great as those characters were, it's easy to kill them off in unpredictable ways because you have room to play with it and their role doesn't figure into the endgame. But if you try apply that standard towards the whole show, I'm guessing you run into the same problem GRRM is now and aren't able to finish the story without making sacrifices. Because you run into the wall that this world with dragons, zombies and witches isn't real and moving the pieces around the board with the logic of "What would actually happen in this scenario?" provides an unsatisfying ending, no matter which way you go. So I'm happy to give them artistic licence to bend the rules in order to supply a more entertaining conclusion.

For example: Jaime and Euron ending up on the same beach. It's an absurd coincidence, no argument there. But, having worked in writing yourself: do you really think they didn't know and discuss that in the writer's room? Genuinely? Not one of these fine minds who gave us the same episodes you speak highly of realised the same thing we did? Of course they did! And of course other options were batted around. But decisions have to be made and ending things in a satisfying way has to be the priority at this stage. So do you do the 'realistic' thing of having a big character like Euron burned by dragonfire like the hundreds of others on the ships and walls? Or do you bend the rules and have a satisfying ending for a character many will want to see get his comeuppance, in the process giving Jaime one last triumphant moment? Do you have them bump into each other en route to the throne room, like they did, and get slack for being unrealistic? Or do you sacrifice that moment where Jaime and Cersei see each other again and have it become about Euron vs Jaime because that's a more realistic endpoint for them to bump into one another? No matter which way they go now, there are positives or negatives and they're going to catch slack.

If you view the last series through the lens of "How does Thrones end, but keep it as realistic as it was when main characters were killed off, tie up all loose ends and keep every bit of character development intact?" then you're going to be disappointed 100% of the time. Don't believe me? Get GRRM drunk and ask him why he really can't finish the last two books! If you view it as "How do they wrap all of this up entertainingly?" while accepting that it's a near-impossible task (a task GRRM himself set out to try make impossible when first writing the books) and artistic licence will have to be used then, for me, it becomes "Huh. They're actually doing a pretty decent job when you consider the options!"

Foxtrol

leggo wrote: »

For example: Jaime and Euron ending up on the same beach. It's an absurd coincidence, no argument there. But, having worked in writing yourself: do you really think they didn't know and discuss that in the writer's room? Genuinely? Not one of these fine minds who gave us the same episodes you speak highly of realised the same thing we did? Of course they did! And of course other options were batted around. But decisions have to be made and ending things in a satisfying way has to be the priority at this stage. So do you do the 'realistic' thing of having a big character like Euron burned by dragonfire like the hundreds of others on the ships and walls? Or do you bend the rules and have a satisfying ending for a character many will want to see get his comeuppance, in the process giving Jaime one last triumphant moment? Do you have them bump into each other en route to the throne room, like they did, and get slack for being unrealistic? Or do you sacrifice that moment where Jaime and Cersei see each other again and have it become about Euron vs Jaime because that's a more realistic endpoint for them to bump into one another? No matter which way they go now, there are positives or negatives and they're going to catch slack.

What makes this sort of complaining worse for me is how many much more unlikely coincidences drive the narrative throughout the show, including the GRRM material, and the same complainers are perfectly fine with. Taking unlucky Tyrion for example, happening across Catelyn Stark in an inn on the Kings road and then on the other side of the world being noticed by Jorah in a brothel. Somehow those are perfectly understandable pieces of writing, but the Jamie and Euron running into each other, through the only entrance to the Red Keep, is a go to scene to show how poor the writing has become.

Bonzo Delaney

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Not seeing this at all: to me, Gendry looks like a boyband member turned film star; Pod is more Ronan Mullen without the glasses.

I got a respectable 72, stupidly missed two of the castles. Loved some of the spoof answers: Pycelle = games maester, Mark Gatiss plays Howard from the Halifax.:D

I'd agree with your analogy of the two actors but in s8 Podric is going for the serious boy band look

The White Wolf

Foxtrol wrote: »

What makes this sort of complaining worse for me is how many much more unlikely coincidences drive the narrative throughout the show, including the GRRM material, and the same complainers are perfectly fine with. Taking unlucky Tyrion for example, happening across Catelyn Stark in an inn on the Kings road and then on the other side of the world being noticed by Jorah in a brothel. Somehow those are perfectly understandable pieces of writing, but the Jamie and Euron running into each other, through the only entrance to the Red Keep, is a go to scene to show how poor the writing has become.

Well the show put in the leg work on Tyrion's and Jorah's convergence to be fair. One can be ultra cynical if they want by saying their meeting was still extremely unlikely but then again if that's your argument you might as well stop watching television altogether.

Given you mentioned Euron and Jaime's unlikely clash there was a great Reddit post I saw a few days ago that compared Davos' shipwreck in season 2 to Euron's shipwreck in season 8 under similar circumstances; long story short, it's possibly the best illustration of how D&D have faltered without the source. Google it if you're interested.

is_that_so

Foxtrol wrote: »

This bolded paragraph is so hypocritical of the rest of your post, where you state as fact that there was only foreshadowing and not character development when it came to Dany.

I think the point here is that there are some who see foreshadowing as the only arbiter of events in this episode and don't much care about whether there was plot development or not.

TerrorFirmer

Foxtrol wrote: »

This bolded paragraph is so hypocritical of the rest of your post, where you state as fact that there was only foreshadowing and not character development when it came to Dany.

No, that's my argued opinion. I didn't say anywhere "that is fact".

On a discussion board I generally take everything anyone says as opinion, I don't expect them to preface every single point made with "Well in my opinion...."

It's taken as a given that it's their viewpoint no matter what way their opinion falls.

I only raised it in relation to a previous post because the words "that is a fact" were explicitly expressed.

Anyway, on your point Leggo I do absolutely appreciate many of those points, I don't agree on all of them but some are entirely valid.

Big difference with GRRM is that if the show has a hundred spinning plates to set down, he's got ten thousand.

The show's actively been trying to divest itself of loose threads but knowing GRRM he's probably still meandering, expanding and moving sideways in many respects rather than starting his descent into the end game.

Rather than go into a big spiel about it, I think the real fundamental problem is still simply lack of time given the constraints the show runners set upon themselves from the end of S6.

Too many spinning plates in play for 13 episodes to do it the justice earned by the preceding 60 episodes.

As you say no one will, or would've been, 100% on board with the ending of a show that had so many chess pieces on the board, but I would wager two seasons of ten episodes would have fixed a great deal of what's perceived to be so wrong with this season.

And honestly I do indeed find myself internally questioning some of the creative consultation behind certain plot points in exactly that fashion....I think Thrones is slightly different in that unlike most shows it's more of an echo chamber with just two primary writers who don't have a support writing staff, just guest writers.

This wasn't an issue while they were working from, and doing a stellar job of adapting, source material.

I mean if we take A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms, that to me felt more like proper Game of Thrones, with meaningful character interaction that wasn't simply driving the next breakneck plot point and the only very decent dialogue driven scenes of this season. It's not written by Benioff/Weiss and to me is an example of why the show needed both a writing staff to assist their scripting and more time to flesh out it's end game.

I agree that they're stuck in a difficult place in some aspects and have to weigh up staying true to characters and their own narrative, and delivering on another level, what they think people want to see, especially with such a narrow window in which to work.

Hence their commendable and character true dedication to Jaime and Cersei, versus the ridiculous Jaime/Euron sideshow, and to a lesser degree, Cleganebowl presented like a violent, spectacle driven Star Wars encounter.(not taking away from it either).

Anyway. As you say this could all be framed some what differently when the next episode unfolds and retrospectively certain aspects of what I had issues with might be lessened.

Foxtrol

The White Wolf wrote: »

Well the show put in the leg work on Tyrion's and Jorah's convergence to be fair. One can be ultra cynical if they want by saying their meeting was still extremely unlikely but then again if that's your argument you might as well stop watching television altogether.

What leg work? As far as I remember we didn't hear from Jorah from the time Dany banished him out until he coincidentally ended up in the same brothel as Tyrion a fair distance away from Meereen.

My argument isn't that I have a problem with the Jorah and Tyrion meeting, it is that it is ultra hypocritical to be fine with all the other much more coincidental meetings and then try to use the coincidence of Jamie and Euron's meeting as something to beat the writers with.

Given you mentioned Euron and Jaime's unlikely clash there was a great Reddit post I saw a few days ago that compared Davos' shipwreck in season 2 to Euron's shipwreck in season 8 under similar circumstances; long story short, it's possibly the best illustration of how D&D have faltered without the source. Google it if you're interested.

It was posted earlier on the thread and to me it is a very poor argument against the writers (when to me there are plenty of valid ones to make). Firstly, there isn't a rule to what happens to people when their ship gets blown up. There could be currents that could take you either direction and a key thing being that Euron would want to swim towards KL while Davos would want to swim away from a) the Wild Fire and b) what looked like a failed attack on KL.

For GRRM it suited his story to have Davos end up on a rock away from KL, given that he wanted to reunite him with Stannis to continue his story for the next few books, while with D&D they have one episode left and needed to finish his story, I'm sure no one wants to randomly cut away on the episode tonight to Euron on a rock.

If anything someone surviving by swimming to land is much more likely than someone ending up on a rock far enough from the battle and being found by a friend from the side that lost. If anyone 'forced' their writing to me it was GRRM, if roles were reversed and D&D came up with that ridiculous Davos escape for Euron people would lose their minds.

Foxtrol

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

No, that's my argued opinion. I didn't say anywhere "that is fact".

On a discussion board I generally take everything anyone says as opinion, I don't expect them to preface every single point made with "Well in my opinion...."

It's taken as a given that it's their viewpoint no matter what way their opinion falls.

I only raised it in relation to a previous post because the words "that is a fact" were explicitly expressed.

In your posts today your'e acting like a martyr one minute, repeatedly claiming that posters are making out that people who don't like it aren't 'getting it', while in the same post pretty much saying that people that saw this developing in Dany's character and earning this turn since season 1 don't 'get' the difference between character development and foreshadowing. The hypocrisy is acting hurt while dishing out the same thing yourself.

Jamiekelly

D&D are terrible writers. That is all that needs to be said.

Foxtrol

is_that_so wrote: »

I think the point here is that there are some who see foreshadowing as the only arbiter of events in this episode and don't much care about whether there was plot development or not.

And there are others who see this as Dany's character developing over 8 seasons rather than it being 8 seasons of 'foreshadowing' and a flick of the switch in this episode.

Stop moaning ffs

Sorry but I can’t read anyone who voted in that pathetic petitions posts seriously cos they ‘wouldn’t be satisfied until B&W’s future works are derailed’. I mean come on.

is_that_so

Foxtrol wrote: »

And there are others who see this as Dany's character developing over 8 seasons rather than it being 8 seasons of 'foreshadowing' and a flick of the switch in this episode.

We all see things in different ways but really best not to go hinting that either group is wrong as a validation of your own view.

The White Wolf

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Sorry but I can’t read anyone who voted in that pathetic petitions posts seriously cos they ‘wouldn’t be satisfied until B&W’s future works are derailed’. I mean come on.

Could be worse.....could be a keyboard warrior afraid to quote the post you're having a dig at.

J. Marston

I like this version...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGWSfFeLV8Q

Grayditch

The White Wolf wrote: »

Could be worse.....could be a keyboard warrior afraid to quote the post you're having a dig at.

Stop moaning ffs

The White Wolf wrote: »

Could be worse.....could be a keyboard warrior afraid to quote the post you're having a dig at.

Nah thread derailment and shining any kind of light of such deluded entitled idiocy is counter productive

Foxtrol

is_that_so wrote: »

We all see things in different ways but really best not to go hinting that either group is wrong as a validation of your own view.

That was my point, despite how some posts are suddenly trying to act like the victim, no side is being 'dismissed' or told they are wrong.

It is however a basic fact that there are certain scenes that took place in the show. I think most of us accept this and just place a different meaning, justification, or importance to them. There are a group of people who just flat out refuse to accept that they exist or have any relevance to a discussion and these folk aren't being 'dismissed' when questions are raised about opinions that ignore facts.

Foxtrol

The White Wolf wrote: »

Could be worse.....could be a keyboard warrior afraid to quote the post you're having a dig at.

Could be worse.... could be a keyboard warrior who makes a snarky comment to avoid responding to another poster who asked them a question :rolleyes:

The White Wolf

Foxtrol wrote: »

Could be worse.... could be a keyboard warrior who makes a snarky comment to avoid responding to another poster who asked them a question :rolleyes:

There was nothing to respond to pal.

Paddy Cow

The White Wolf wrote: »

There was nothing to respond to pal.

I'm not your pal :pac: