No, I find it mildly enjoyable. I just don't get the excitement over it. Well, I think I DO get it - but I don't share it.
Oh, maybe it does have a plot - I'm just not capable of detecting it, in that case.
It reminds me a lot of TWD, actually.
The world is a very, very cruel place - and bad shit happens to people over and over, and nothing ever goes anywhere - really.
I get that we're supposed to feel shocked and dismayed - but there's this thing called diminishing returns that certain writers would do really well to understand.
There's a reason Gandalf made an impact just by raising his voice and "grow" when Bilbo goes ring-happy at his home. That's because Tolkien doesn't have people slaughtering each other every 5 minutes. He understood the economy of impact.
When Ned Stark had his head chopped off, THAT made an impact. But most of what happens after that is less and less interesting. The Red Wedding was only interesting because it was so extreme as to be absurd. That's kinda what they have to top now to make an impact. It's too much, really.
Maybe it's just me, though.
I did manage to crack a smile when the young king got a serious stomach ache, I have to admit
You have to admit the friend zone situation with Jorah makes any scene he's in much more fun. It is a gift that keeps on enriching the show during the Daenerys segments.
How about that old western style let's-take-out-the-horse-and-not-the-rider-trick that was pulled off? Every episode must have at least one bad-ass warrior type dude doing something really bad-ass for shock value!
As for trying to lance a ground-based soldier with that amount of space to move freely and get out of the way wasn't exactly something a smart warrior would do.
He humiliated and impressed, very simple. The character isn't a "smart warrior", he's a show off, again very simple.
Yes, their finest warrior was a stupid moron trying to lance someone on foot with all the space in the world to move around. Which makes the whole thing as plausible as the rest of the ridiculously extreme characters in the show.
Very simple.
So the guy who was acting before his public, the guy who pissed before the fight to show his 'superiority', wasn't acting logically? Yeah, very strange.
As for plausibility, a completely alien culture to our own is being portrayed. How would you know what's plausible for them or not? Do you go "the elves are acting very implausible here" when you are watching fantasy?
He humiliated and impressed, very simple. The character isn't a "smart warrior", he's a show off, again very simple.
Yes, their finest warrior was a stupid moron trying to lance someone on foot with all the space in the world to move around. Which makes the whole thing as plausible as the rest of the ridiculously extreme characters in the show.
Very simple.
So the guy who was acting before his public, the guy who pissed before the fight to show his 'superiority', wasn't acting logically? Yeah, very strange.
As for plausibility, a completely alien culture to our own is being portrayed. How would you know what's plausible for them or not? Do you go "the elves are acting very implausible here" when you are watching fantasy?
Ehm, I'm pretty sure they're supposed to be human beings - or act exactly like human beings would.
Obviously, if you tell yourself they're aliens looking and generally behaving exactly like human beings - they might have a strange alien DNA thingy that makes them do supremely stupid things counter to their role.
I can't say that's been my impression of the show. To me, it seems like an attempt at a plausible medieval setting with a dash of fantasy thrown in. I could be wrong, but that's exactly what Martin is saying in that interview.
If you think the finest warrior of whatever culture is going to act like a complete moron when it comes to actual fighting, then that's fine.
that white walker was acting very weird, he should be dead and yet he is walking.
unrealistic pos, 2/10 would not bang
You should look into the concept of plausible behavior within a specific context.
Boromir being corrupted by the one ring is something that's 100% plausible given the nature of the setting. That's because magic and evil are part of the setting.
The best warrior of a foreign culture doing a very, very stupid thing in tactical terms just to provoke yet another "oooh" from the audience, is not. That's because it's clear that the people in GoT are not generally retarded when shock value is called for. If being retarded was some kind of established part of the setting - then it'd be another matter entirely. But it flips between very plausible and "harsh" behavior that I can believe and accept - and SUPREMELY obvious shock value moments. That makes it inconsistent and weak, to me.
But we don't have to agree. It's all good.
Martin doesn't understand human psychology, is all.
For instance, if you're the sort of person who gleefully and casually pushes a child out the window to his death - then you're not the sort of person who's likely to suddenly feel bad about what you're doing to other people. It means you have no empathy whatsoever and you're basically a psychopath. This whole redemption thing is a joke that has no basis in real human behavior.
It would be another matter if he killed that boy reluctantly and had real regrets - because human beings can do nasty things even when they're otherwise normal. But no, they had to have their "shock value" moment and a little joke about the things he does for love.
It's the sort of thing you look for when you care about plausible human behavior - and that's not what I'm getting from GoT.
Yes, their finest warrior was a stupid moron trying to lance someone on foot with all the space in the world to move around. Which makes the whole thing as plausible as the rest of the ridiculously extreme characters in the show.
Very simple.
So the guy who was acting before his public, the guy who pissed before the fight to show his 'superiority', wasn't acting logically? Yeah, very strange.
As for plausibility, a completely alien culture to our own is being portrayed. How would you know what's plausible for them or not? Do you go "the elves are acting very implausible here" when you are watching fantasy?
Ehm, I'm pretty sure they're supposed to be human beings - or act exactly like human beings would.
Obviously, if you tell yourself they're aliens looking and generally behaving exactly like human beings - they might have a strange alien DNA thingy that makes them do supremely stupid things counter to their role.
I can't say that's been my impression of the show. To me, it seems like an attempt at a plausible medieval setting with a dash of fantasy thrown in. I could be wrong, but that's exactly what Martin is saying in that interview.
If you think the finest warrior of whatever culture is going to act like a complete moron when it comes to actual fighting, then that's fine.
We simply don't agree.
So a Western man's behaviour is completely plausible/logical for an Asian? Both are humans.
As for acting like a moron, that's exactly what I think one of their best warriors would do. The opposing side is being led by a woman, a joke for that culture, and he was clearly sent by his superiors to make a point (humiliating the enemy).
So the guy who was acting before his public, the guy who pissed before the fight to show his 'superiority', wasn't acting logically? Yeah, very strange.
As for plausibility, a completely alien culture to our own is being portrayed. How would you know what's plausible for them or not? Do you go "the elves are acting very implausible here" when you are watching fantasy?
Ehm, I'm pretty sure they're supposed to be human beings - or act exactly like human beings would.
Obviously, if you tell yourself they're aliens looking and generally behaving exactly like human beings - they might have a strange alien DNA thingy that makes them do supremely stupid things counter to their role.
I can't say that's been my impression of the show. To me, it seems like an attempt at a plausible medieval setting with a dash of fantasy thrown in. I could be wrong, but that's exactly what Martin is saying in that interview.
If you think the finest warrior of whatever culture is going to act like a complete moron when it comes to actual fighting, then that's fine.
We simply don't agree.
So a Western man's behaviour is completely plausible/logical for an Asian? Both are humans.
As for acting like a moron, that's exactly what I think one of their best warriors would do. The opposing side is being led by a woman, a joke for that culture, and he was clearly sent by his superiors to make a point (humiliating the enemy).
When it comes to core human behavior - yes. The best Japanese warrior would not be a moron in tactical terms and the best American warrior would not be a moron in tactical terms. That's not a cultural thing.
If it's cultural to lance people on foot that can easily avoid it - then they should at least establish how so.
As I said, if you think it's exactly what he would do - that's fine.
For instance, Martin had a point about knights fighting with honor being at a disadvantage against people without honor. That's something I can believe, even if he likes to exaggerate and shock at the same time.
We simply don't agree about this and I have no problem with that.
Sin317-"im 31 years old and still surprised at how much shit comes out of my ass actually ..."
SteamDRM-"Call of Duty is the symbol of the true perfection in every aspect. Call of Duty games are like Mozart's/Beethoven's symphonies"
deadpoetic-"are you new to the cyberspace?"
Martin doesn't understand human psychology, is all.
For instance, if you're the sort of person who gleefully and casually pushes a child out the window to his death - then you're not the sort of person who's likely to suddenly feel bad about what you're doing to other people. It means you have no empathy whatsoever and you're basically a psychopath. This whole redemption thing is a joke that has no basis in real human behavior.
Have you read the books? Chapters in the books are dealt with from the characters POV, so whilst what you say is true for the series, the books are wildly different. The series does a poor job of giving motivations for why the characters do what they do, probably because the source-material has internal monologues and internalised emotions.
To elaborate on your example, in the books it's quite clear Jaime does what he does to protect his and Cersei's relationship. In this sense, it's like a lover killing an abusive husband or parent - the act of killing doesn't mean the murderer has no feelings, or doesn't feel bad. It's just, this is what needs to be done. The scene in the TV series, though, was less explicit about the reasons, and played it for shock value without elaborating.
In the later books, Jaime asks another character to do something. It's something that only someone who has empathy and guilt would ask, and is essentially the redemptive moment for him. Whether it'll happen in the series is debatable, though.
Tl;dr - Don't judge the story based on the HBO series. Read the books (or just the first two), and then come back here and complain. If you still don't like it, fair fair, but the series is almost at the point where it's taking the piss now.
Pixieking
----------
ASUS P8P67 Evo - Intel i7 3770k - 2X4GB GSkill RipJaws X DDR3 1600 - HIS 7950 IceQ - Creative XtremeMusic Soundcard - NZXT Phantom 530 - Thermaltake Toughpower XT 675 - Win7 x64
Casus have you read his interview I posted? It's long but it gives a bit of an insight to his line of thought.
I personally don't like what he wrote about Tolkien, seems he kinda missed the point, but nevertheless it's a good read...
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson
chiv wrote:
thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found.
Martin doesn't understand human psychology, is all.
For instance, if you're the sort of person who gleefully and casually pushes a child out the window to his death - then you're not the sort of person who's likely to suddenly feel bad about what you're doing to other people. It means you have no empathy whatsoever and you're basically a psychopath. This whole redemption thing is a joke that has no basis in real human behavior.
Have you read the books? Chapters in the books are dealt with from the characters POV, so whilst what you say is true for the series, the books are wildly different. The series does a poor job of giving motivations for why the characters do what they do, probably because the source-material has internal monologues and internalised emotions.
To elaborate on your example, in the books it's quite clear Jaime does what he does to protect his and Cersei's relationship. In this sense, it's like a lover killing an abusive husband or parent - the act of killing doesn't mean the murderer has no feelings, or doesn't feel bad. It's just, this is what needs to be done. The scene in the TV series, though, was less explicit about the reasons, and played it for shock value without elaborating.
In the later books, Jaime asks another character to do something. It's something that only someone who has empathy and guilt would ask, and is essentially the redemptive moment for him. Whether it'll happen in the series is debatable, though.
Tl;dr - Don't judge the story based on the HBO series. Read the books (or just the first two), and then come back here and complain. If you still don't like it, fair fair, but the series is almost at the point where it's taking the piss now.
I've read the first book, yeah - but that was a long time ago.
Oh, I fully understand Jamie's motivation - and it's not the act of killing (or trying) that's the problem. It's how he casually trivializes the act and makes a joke about it.
I admit I don't remember the details from the book - but the TV show certainly doesn't make itself seem very consistent.
I'm talking about the show, primarily. If the books are better - that's great. But I can't just assume that the guy greenlit a show which essentially destroys the plausibility of the characters and their motivation. That would be an odd choice for him, since he likes to go on about not wanting to do the show unless it was absolutely right.
Last edited by Casus on Fri, 25th Apr 2014 21:24; edited 1 time in total
Casus have you read his interview I posted? It's long but it gives a bit of an insight to his line of thought.
I personally don't like what he wrote about Tolkien, seems he kinda missed the point, but nevertheless it's a good read...
Yeah, I read most of it.
I understand what he's trying to do - and I do think he's a great writer for certain things. He's very detail oriented - and he's very good at dialogue and stuff like names.
I just don't think he's in the same league as Tolkien at all - but then again, I'm a huge Tolkien fan.
In the end, it comes down to personal prefences, though. As always.
But it irks me a bit that he keeps mentioning Tolkien and puts it down in that subtle two-faced way. Just let it be and talk about your own work.
I'm talking about the show, primarily. If the books are better - that's great. But I can't just assume that the guy greenlit a show which essentially destroys the plausibility of the characters and their motivation. That would be an odd choice for him, since he likes to go on about not wanting to do the show unless it was absolutely right.
Yeah, the thing is... Personally, I felt the post he made about the Jaime/Cersei Rape scene on his LJ was so very, very, wishy-washy. Hang on...
Reading that, it implies he's not all that involved with the show. Which makes me think that, for all his "I want the show done right," he's less interested in it than he makes out. Whether that's true or not, I don't think what happens in the show is all that important to him in the wider scheme of things, considering the wealth of changes they've made (to scenes, motivations, timelines).
The books are well-worth reading past the first, btw, and I always say to people that the first book is the worst, so you're already over the most boring one.
Pixieking
----------
ASUS P8P67 Evo - Intel i7 3770k - 2X4GB GSkill RipJaws X DDR3 1600 - HIS 7950 IceQ - Creative XtremeMusic Soundcard - NZXT Phantom 530 - Thermaltake Toughpower XT 675 - Win7 x64
I'm talking about the show, primarily. If the books are better - that's great. But I can't just assume that the guy greenlit a show which essentially destroys the plausibility of the characters and their motivation. That would be an odd choice for him, since he likes to go on about not wanting to do the show unless it was absolutely right.
Yeah, the thing is... Personally, I felt the post he made about the Jaime/Cersei Rape scene on his LJ was so very, very, wishy-washy. Hang on...
Reading that, it implies he's not all that involved with the show. Which makes me think that, for all his "I want the show done right," he's less interested in it than he makes out. Whether that's true or not, I don't think what happens in the show is all that important to him in the wider scheme of things, considering the wealth of changes they've made (to scenes, motivations, timelines).
The books are well-worth reading past the first, btw, and I always say to people that the first book is the worst, so you're already over the most boring one.
he mostly acts as an advisor to the show, only a few eps were directed and overseen by him personally, battle of blackwater bay comes to mind as one of these.
i havent read the books, the seemingly general opinion that a feast for crows is numbingly boring and hardly moves the story forward kept me away, would you say the same of it?
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
