Dante
Average bang
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.BOOK READERS!!!
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.BOOK READERS!!!
A hopeless situation brought about by bad writing was resolved by more bad writing. The ultimate outcome is thus rendered devoid of meaning.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.
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.
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.
GRRM set the standard for meaninglessness with the Red Wedding. All of Rob Stark's victories up till that point counted for nothing.A hopeless situation brought about by bad writing was resolved by more bad writing. The ultimate outcome is thus rendered devoid of meaning.
Don't lump us all in that boat. I've read the books and adore the show.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.
Except these things happened for a reason, because other players were smarter than he was.GRRM set the standard for meaninglessness with the Red Wedding. All of Rob Stark's victories up till that point counted for nothing.
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).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.
Rob was stupider than the other players were.Except these things happened for a reason, because other players were smarter than he was.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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).
So you don't watch the show? Or are you talking about yourself too?ILLITERATE SHOW WATCHERS!!
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.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.
Cinema-illiterate book readers.ILLITERATE SHOW WATCHERS!!
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.
So you don't watch the show? Or are you talking about yourself too?
feck. What a post.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.
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.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.
Give it a go, but leave the books until after you've watched the series.So, should I start watching this? Seems like a popular, well loved series
Give it a go, but leave the books until after you've watched the series.
So, should I start watching this? Seems like a popular, well loved series
Yeah. I could add more but...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.
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.
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'.
Where does everyone think it started going wrong?
I'm glad I read.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.
Yeah but books help you make to write good and stuff.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.
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.