Television Game of Thrones (TV) • The watch has ended

Dante said:
That's true by your own logic that the ultimate outcome is the most important thing. You introduced that argument in your previous post. I'm just echoing it.
Click to expand...
A hopeless situation brought about by bad writing was resolved by more bad writing. The ultimate outcome is thus rendered devoid of meaning.
 
Dante said:
That's exactly what happened.

We believed the attack was potent enough because that's what they'd proven in the league. Whilst the defence sat back, the gap between the forwards and the defenders got too big and we got picked off.

Jon Snow is the Sir Alex Ferguson of battlefield Generals.
Click to expand...

Well gotta say you had me there.
 
GhastlyHun said:
A hopeless situation brought about by bad writing was resolved by more bad writing. The ultimate outcome is thus rendered devoid of meaning.
Click to expand...
GRRM set the standard for meaninglessness with the Red Wedding. All of Rob Stark's victories up till that point counted for nothing.
 
Dante said:
They're incapable of apprecitating the show as a piece of cinema rather than a realisation of a larger narrative that they've previously read.
Click to expand...
Don't lump us all in that boat. I've read the books and adore the show.

But for some diehards who want an uber-faithful adaptation Arya would reach Braavos sometime around season 23 and Maisie Williams would be pushing 40.
 
Dante said:
GRRM set the standard for meaninglessness with the Red Wedding. All of Rob Stark's victories up till that point counted for nothing.
Click to expand...
Except these things happened for a reason, because other players were smarter than he was.
 
Shane88 said:
Don't lump us all in that boat. I've read the books and adore the show.

But for some diehards who want an uber-faithful adaptation Arya would reach Braavos sometime around season 23 and Maisie Williams would be pushing 40.
Click to expand...
Sorry, mate. I was responding to a post. I try to differentiate between the good ones (such as yourself) and the bad ones (the book wankers).
 
Dante said:
The Dothrakis are (were) the ultimate offensive force who had supreme confidence in themselves and who had never lost a battle. In hindsight, it was the wrong tactic. But in the moment, it would have made sense to anyone who had seen them fight.
Click to expand...

My key question on this; what was the desired outcome of the Dothraki charge? What did they think would happen?

Because unless the answer is "killing the Night King/defeating the WWs" then it was a pointless and stupid endeavour, since all of those Dothraki could just be reanimated into wights.

If the answer is "killing NK/defeating the WWs" then it begs the question of why they limited the attack to just the Dothraki, why not send all of your forces in as well, just to make sure?

Again - the above is referring purely to the Dothraki charge, not the overall battle.
 
Walrus said:
My key question on this; what was the desired outcome of the Dothraki charge? What did they think would happen?

Because unless the answer is "killing the Night King/defeating the WWs" then it was a pointless and stupid endeavour, since all of those Dothraki could just be reanimated into wights.

If the answer is "killing NK/defeating the WWs" then it begs the question of why they limited the attack to just the Dothraki, why not send all of your forces in as well, just to make sure?

Again - the above is referring purely to the Dothraki charge, not the overall battle.
Click to expand...
The Dothraki believed they could cut down the Wights and survive the battle, just like they always had done. The White Walkers/Night King would either be next on their list, or dealt with by their comrades.
 
Dante said:
The Dothraki believed they could cut down the Wights and survive the battle, just like they always had done. The White Walkers/Night King would either be next on their list, or dealt with by their comrades.
Click to expand...

And do you think that was the battle strategy, or a spur of the moment decision by the Dothraki? Your previous posts seem to suggest the former.
 
Dante said:
They're incapable of apprecitating the show as a piece of cinema rather than a realisation of a larger narrative that they've previously read.
Click to expand...
I wasn't like that with LoTR. I loved the books and had read them multiple times but accepted that the movies were a separate work of art and loved them for what they were.
 
Dante said:
Sorry, mate. I was responding to a post. I try to differentiate between the good ones (such as yourself) and the bad ones (the book wankers).
Click to expand...

I've only read one book. The shows until season 6 have been very good. They're still enjoyable but it's more about cinema and cool shots rather than having a deep or sensible plot.

You dont have to be a book reader to find that dothraki charge and jorah sponge armor parts just a little silly.
 
Fully Fledged said:
I wasn't like that with LoTR. I loved the books and had read them multiple times but accepted that the movies were a separate work of art and loved them for what they were.
Click to expand...
That's the point I'm making. You've read the LOTR books and know the story inside-out. Therefore, the action you see on screen from Peter Jackson is a reflection of the narrative already in your mind, rather than a new narrative which is adjunct to what you've previously read.

The GoT show is half-and-half, which is where the issue arises.

In fact, the last few pages of this thread have perfectly illustrated the problems I'm decrying. There are two main issues I take with the way the certain dense book readers approach the show.

The first is that they fail to watch the show as a piece of cinema. For example, there was a criticism about the White Walkers not joining the fight. But why would they join when their forces are already winning the battle? It's made clear at Hardhome that they have a tendancy to standby on the sidelines and watch. Also, we see the Night King raise his hand to direct his troops. The implication is that the White Walkers observe in order act as puppet masters. From a film theory point-of-view, that's good scriptwriting as it avoids overly verbose exposition but still explains their relative inaction. But when book readers complain about the lack of clarity, they come at it from the perspective of 'bad writing' because things aren't explicitly explained as they would be on the page. In other words, they criticise the show for not being the book. Hence 'book wankers'.

The second is that those same book readers reference situations that happened exclusively in the books. For example, somebody above mentioned that the Unsullied had beaten the Dothraki in battle. But that never happened on the show and a quick Google proves that. The Battle of Winterfell was perfectly in keeping with the TV narrative of the Dothraki being the best offensive force on the planet. Indeed, for me as a show-only watcher, I was half expecting another 'Battle of the Bastards'-style melee betweent the Dothraki and the undead. I certainly was not expecting to see every single flame get extinguished. The HBO version has never given me a reason to think otherwise. Again, there are those who criticise the show for not being the book. Hence, 'book wankers'.

I totally understand criticisms about the show itself. I agree that it was too dark (though if I wanted to be generous, maybe that was a cinematography choice to convey disorientation). I also agree that the show's dialogue has become increasingly simplistic (presumably to cater to the international audience). All of that, and more, are valid reasons to have a go at D&D. But if the show stands alone, judge it by its own merits rather than expecting it be a book.
 
Dante said:
That's the point I'm making. You've read the LOTR books and know the story inside-out. Therefore, the action you see on screen from Peter Jackson is a reflection of the narrative already in your mind, rather than a new narrative which is adjunct to what you've previously read.

The GoT show is half-and-half, which is where the issue arises.

In fact, the last few pages of this thread have perfectly illustrated the problems I'm decrying. There are two main issues I take with the way the certain dense book readers approach the show.

The first is that they fail to watch the show as a piece of cinema. For example, there was a criticism about the White Walkers not joining the fight. But why would they join when their forces are already winning the battle? It's made clear at Hardhome that they have a tendancy to standby on the sidelines and watch. Also, we see the Night King raise his hand to direct his troops. The implication is that the White Walkers observe in order act as puppet masters. From a film theory point-of-view, that's good scriptwriting as it avoids overly verbose exposition but still explains their relative inaction. But when book readers complain about the lack of clarity, they come at it from the perspective of 'bad writing' because things aren't explicitly explained as they would be on the page. In other words, they criticise the show for not being the book. Hence 'book wankers'.

The second is that those same book readers reference situations that happened exclusively in the books. For example, somebody above mentioned that the Unsullied had beaten the Dothraki in battle. But that never happened on the show and a quick Google proves that. The Battle of Winterfell was perfectly in keeping with the TV narrative of the Dothraki being the best offensive force on the planet. Indeed, for me as a show-only watcher, I was half expecting another 'Battle of the Bastards'-style melee betweent the Dothraki and the undead. I certainly was not expecting to see every single flame get extinguished. The HBO version has never given me a reason to think otherwise. Again, there are those who criticise the show for not being the book. Hence, 'book wankers'.

I totally understand criticisms about the show itself. I agree that it was too dark (though if I wanted to be generous, maybe that was a cinematography choice to convey disorientation). I also agree that the show's dialogue has become increasingly simplistic (presumably to cater to the international audience). All of that, and more, are valid reasons to have a go at D&D. But if the show stands alone, judge it by its own merits rather than expecting it be a book.
Click to expand...

That is a fine post.
 
Fully Fledged said:
So you don't watch the show? Or are you talking about yourself too?
Click to expand...

Nah I watch the show and it's fine. I just laugh at the fact that any criticism of the show is written off as 'BOOK READERS". The show was never as good as the books (nothing ever is) but it used to be great, you don;t have to read a book to know it has dropped in quality horribly. In fact I'm fine with it and just enjoying it for what it is regardless of how shite it has become. The only book reader thing for me is to angry at GRRM for the fact that the show is likely the only ending I'll ever know. However me reading the books has nothing to do with me knowing the show has deteriorated badly.

Edit: as for your post about LOTR, that was also a weak adaption but at least felt consistent throughout. Game of Thrones has fallen badly because the show runners have only served the popular characters.
 
Dante said:
That's the point I'm making. You've read the LOTR books and know the story inside-out. Therefore, the action you see on screen from Peter Jackson is a reflection of the narrative already in your mind, rather than a new narrative which is adjunct to what you've previously read.

The GoT show is half-and-half, which is where the issue arises.

In fact, the last few pages of this thread have perfectly illustrated the problems I'm decrying. There are two main issues I take with the way the certain dense book readers approach the show.

The first is that they fail to watch the show as a piece of cinema. For example, there was a criticism about the White Walkers not joining the fight. But why would they join when their forces are already winning the battle? It's made clear at Hardhome that they have a tendancy to standby on the sidelines and watch. Also, we see the Night King raise his hand to direct his troops. The implication is that the White Walkers observe in order act as puppet masters. From a film theory point-of-view, that's good scriptwriting as it avoids overly verbose exposition but still explains their relative inaction. But when book readers complain about the lack of clarity, they come at it from the perspective of 'bad writing' because things aren't explicitly explained as they would be on the page. In other words, they criticise the show for not being the book. Hence 'book wankers'.

The second is that those same book readers reference situations that happened exclusively in the books. For example, somebody above mentioned that the Unsullied had beaten the Dothraki in battle. But that never happened on the show and a quick Google proves that. The Battle of Winterfell was perfectly in keeping with the TV narrative of the Dothraki being the best offensive force on the planet. Indeed, for me as a show-only watcher, I was half expecting another 'Battle of the Bastards'-style melee betweent the Dothraki and the undead. I certainly was not expecting to see every single flame get extinguished. The HBO version has never given me a reason to think otherwise. Again, there are those who criticise the show for not being the book. Hence, 'book wankers'.

I totally understand criticisms about the show itself. I agree that it was too dark (though if I wanted to be generous, maybe that was a cinematography choice to convey disorientation). I also agree that the show's dialogue has become increasingly simplistic (presumably to cater to the international audience). All of that, and more, are valid reasons to have a go at D&D. But if the show stands alone, judge it by its own merits rather than expecting it be a book.
Click to expand...
feck. What a post.
 
kidbob said:
Nah I watch the show and it's fine. I just laugh at the fact that any criticism of the show is written off as 'BOOK READERS". The show was never as good as the books (nothing ever is) but it used to be great, you don;t have to read a book to know it has dropped in quality horribly. In fact I'm fine with it and just enjoying it for what it is regardless of how shite it has become. The only book reader thing for me is to angry at GRRM for the fact that the show is likely the only ending I'll ever know. However me reading the books has nothing to do with me knowing the show has deteriorated badly.

Edit: as for your post about LOTR, that was also a weak adaption but at least felt consistent throughout. Game of Thrones has fallen badly because the show runners have only served the popular characters.
Click to expand...
LOTR is consistent because you have something to consistently compare it to. GoT gives you a crutch for 4 seasons and then takes the crutch away. As a show-only watcher (and a cinephile), that doesn't bother me because I never used the crutch in the first place.

I don't believe the quality has dropped horribly, since my experience has never been coloured by a parallel experience with the books.
 
Dante said:
That's the point I'm making. You've read the LOTR books and know the story inside-out. Therefore, the action you see on screen from Peter Jackson is a reflection of the narrative already in your mind, rather than a new narrative which is adjunct to what you've previously read.

The GoT show is half-and-half, which is where the issue arises.

In fact, the last few pages of this thread have perfectly illustrated the problems I'm decrying. There are two main issues I take with the way the certain dense book readers approach the show.

The first is that they fail to watch the show as a piece of cinema. For example, there was a criticism about the White Walkers not joining the fight. But why would they join when their forces are already winning the battle? It's made clear at Hardhome that they have a tendancy to standby on the sidelines and watch. Also, we see the Night King raise his hand to direct his troops. The implication is that the White Walkers observe in order act as puppet masters. From a film theory point-of-view, that's good scriptwriting as it avoids overly verbose exposition but still explains their relative inaction. But when book readers complain about the lack of clarity, they come at it from the perspective of 'bad writing' because things aren't explicitly explained as they would be on the page. In other words, they criticise the show for not being the book. Hence 'book wankers'.

The second is that those same book readers reference situations that happened exclusively in the books. For example, somebody above mentioned that the Unsullied had beaten the Dothraki in battle. But that never happened on the show and a quick Google proves that. The Battle of Winterfell was perfectly in keeping with the TV narrative of the Dothraki being the best offensive force on the planet. Indeed, for me as a show-only watcher, I was half expecting another 'Battle of the Bastards'-style melee betweent the Dothraki and the undead. I certainly was not expecting to see every single flame get extinguished. The HBO version has never given me a reason to think otherwise. Again, there are those who criticise the show for not being the book. Hence, 'book wankers'.

I totally understand criticisms about the show itself. I agree that it was too dark (though if I wanted to be generous, maybe that was a cinematography choice to convey disorientation). I also agree that the show's dialogue has become increasingly simplistic (presumably to cater to the international audience). All of that, and more, are valid reasons to have a go at D&D. But if the show stands alone, judge it by its own merits rather than expecting it be a book.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I could add more but...
 
Dante said:
That's the point I'm making. You've read the LOTR books and know the story inside-out. Therefore, the action you see on screen from Peter Jackson is a reflection of the narrative already in your mind, rather than a new narrative which is adjunct to what you've previously read.

The GoT show is half-and-half, which is where the issue arises.

In fact, the last few pages of this thread have perfectly illustrated the problems I'm decrying. There are two main issues I take with the way the certain dense book readers approach the show.

The first is that they fail to watch the show as a piece of cinema. For example, there was a criticism about the White Walkers not joining the fight. But why would they join when their forces are already winning the battle? It's made clear at Hardhome that they have a tendancy to standby on the sidelines and watch. Also, we see the Night King raise his hand to direct his troops. The implication is that the White Walkers observe in order act as puppet masters. From a film theory point-of-view, that's good scriptwriting as it avoids overly verbose exposition but still explains their relative inaction. But when book readers complain about the lack of clarity, they come at it from the perspective of 'bad writing' because things aren't explicitly explained as they would be on the page. In other words, they criticise the show for not being the book. Hence 'book wankers'.

The second is that those same book readers reference situations that happened exclusively in the books. For example, somebody above mentioned that the Unsullied had beaten the Dothraki in battle. But that never happened on the show and a quick Google proves that. The Battle of Winterfell was perfectly in keeping with the TV narrative of the Dothraki being the best offensive force on the planet. Indeed, for me as a show-only watcher, I was half expecting another 'Battle of the Bastards'-style melee betweent the Dothraki and the undead. I certainly was not expecting to see every single flame get extinguished. The HBO version has never given me a reason to think otherwise. Again, there are those who criticise the show for not being the book. Hence, 'book wankers'.

I totally understand criticisms about the show itself. I agree that it was too dark (though if I wanted to be generous, maybe that was a cinematography choice to convey disorientation). I also agree that the show's dialogue has become increasingly simplistic (presumably to cater to the international audience). All of that, and more, are valid reasons to have a go at D&D. But if the show stands alone, judge it by its own merits rather than expecting it be a book.
Click to expand...

Take. A. Bow.
 
Dante said:
The second is that they reference situations that happened exclusively in the books. For example, somebody above mentioned that the Unsullied had beaten the Dothraki in battle. But that never happened on the show and a quick Google proves that. The Battle of Winterfell was perfectly in keeping with the TV narrative of the Dothraki being the best offensive force on the planet. Indeed, for me as a show-only watcher, I was half expecting another 'Battle of the Bastards'-style melee betweent the Dothraki and the undead. I certainly was not expecting to see every single flame get extinguished. The HBO version has never given me a reason to think otherwise. Again, there are those who criticise the show for not being the book. Hence, 'book wankers'.
Click to expand...

I've never read the books but I always viewed the Vale Knights as the best offensive force on the planet .. just from basic knowledge of medieval military tactics.

Heavy, armoured cavalry with lances vs unarmoured cavalry with arakhs = only one winner. Heavily armoured cavalry was the meta for every Medieval European state.

I wasn't expecting every flame to get extinguished and them to die in about 10 seconds flat (that was dumb) but did you honestly see that charge and think it was going to be potentially successful? I thought maybe it'd look a success for a bit and they'd sweep through the first lines before being totally overrun. It was always obvious (to me at least) that it was a stupid plan which would only end one way.
 
Where does everyone think it started going wrong? For me it was the last episode of Season 6 - even though it's one of my favourites. Jon becomes King in the North and Cersei flips the chess board over. Dany is finally on her way to Westeros, but she's too overpowered. She has Dorne, The Reach and the Iron Fleet on her side as well as her own ships, the Dothraki and the Unsullied.

The question is; why do all of these alliances need to come so quickly, why does Cersei feck herself so quickly and why does Jon get so much authority? They were all cinematic as feck, granted, but they backed the writers into a corner for Season 7 in the same way that they did with The Long Night. With Dany's story you now have one army (Cersei/Winterfell) against an overwhelming force (Dany/Army of the Dead). At that point anything you try to do to tip the balance of power is going to seem contrived - much like the sudden change in weather and Ramsay's 20 Good Men in Season 5 that takes Stannis' massive army and turns it on his head.

It also meant that one of the best things about Game of Thrones - the political maneuvering - was absent from Season 7 even though that would have been way more interesting than the simple Dany's Army versus Cersei's Army that we got and it would have also meant we wouldn't have had enough time for that dire Beyond the Wall episode (which also served no purpose. You don't need to write a reason how the Night King gets through the wall. Just use the mark Bran received as the "breaking of the magic" of the wall).

But anyway, back on track. I have a baby at my feet so apologies if all this seems disjointed. Right, feck, back on track... You could have the alliances fractured at the start of the season with Dorne being independent, the Reach with a weak agreement with Cersei (with Lady Olenna investigating what happened at the Sept, granted it's a tricky one but Cersei could argue that her own Uncle was killed in the blast as well. Tommen would need to still be alive, at least to start...). The Greyjoys could be putting out feelers trying to figure out where they fit and who they might ally with. One by one Cersei starts to lose her allies as the Season focuses on various power moves and skirmishes between Dany and Cersei. Jon can still do what he does, trying to earn everyone about the Night King, only for it to fall on deaf ears until he finally persuades Dany, if only slightly.

As the war approaches it looks like Dany will take King's Landing and - then SURPRISE!!! - we warned you it would happen and now it's gonna happen. Winter descends on Westeros, and I'm not just talking about it being jumper and hat weather.

Season 8 now becomes about Dany's struggle between desire and duty. For Jon it's about where he fits in a world where his lineage poses a massive problem for not just his Queen but also his brothers in the North. For Cersei she now has a chance to try and reclaim some land and power during all of the chaos, feeding off scraps and having to admit that she might not be as strong as she thought she was.

I'm not saying that it's perfect, but don't forget that all go this, and I'll say it again, means that we never have to see Jon go "hurr durr I'll go get you a zombie teeheehee".
 
Way I see it, the Dothraki were first line of defence / attack and therefore always likely to be wiped out first. Better to have them wiped out 100 yards from the castle having wiped a few of the dead out, as opposed to being ten yards from the castle and swallowed in a swarm of zombies.

The charge was worth it for this shot alone, though:
maxresdefault.jpg
 
Another reason cavalry is useless against wights is because wights don't feel fear.

A mass cavalry charge scares the shit out of normal soldiers. They break, they run, they don't stay in formation.

Wights don't give a feck.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
Where does everyone think it started going wrong?
Click to expand...

Hasn't been the same for me since Tyrion killed Tywin and fled King's Landing. King's Landing was the centre of the political intrigue which made the show so unique for me, and those two dominated proceedings there and left a gap that Cersei hasn't been able to fill on her own. Didn't help that the very next season saw the Dorne debacle.
 
Books are bad, they make you look like a Poindexter, they're full up with words, they make you a book wanker, Eboue wants you to read 52, they trick you into learning stuff, they stop you watching good cinema like Hollyoaks and Hannah Montana, they make me angry, Hitler wrote a book, reading is for book wankers. What do we say to reading books? Not too day.
 
dumbo said:
Books are bad, they make you look like a Poindexter, they're full up with words, they make you a book wanker, Eboue wants you to read 52, they trick you into learning stuff, they stop you watching good cinema like Hollyoaks and Hannah Montana, they make me angry, Hitler wrote a book, reading is for book wankers.
Click to expand...
I'm glad I read.
 
dumbo said:
Books are bad, they make you look like a Poindexter, they're full up with words, they make you a book wanker, Eboue wants you to read 52, they trick you into learning stuff, they stop you watching good cinema like Hollyoaks and Hannah Montana, they make me angry, Hitler wrote a book, reading is for book wankers. What do we say to reading books? Not too day.
Click to expand...
Yeah but books help you make to write good and stuff.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
The WW threat is 100% over IMO. There's no way they'll do all that and then bring it back with only 3 episodes to go, I'd be shocked.
Click to expand...

The immediate threat might be over but I don’t think the WW story is over. I think it will be revealed that Bran is still connected somehow.
 
Pexbo said:
The immediate threat might be over but I don’t think the WW story is over. I think it will be revealed that Bran is still connected somehow.
Click to expand...

Doubt it. Maybe some connection but I think their threat is pretty much extinct and they'll wanna move on from that storyline pretty quickly to focus on the living.

There's not really enough episodes left to properly explore the white walkers and their motives, so I think the show writers are happy leaving them as this big mysterious threat that the heroes vanquished.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.