The Donald Trump of broadcasting?
It’s weird how people retrospectively judge actions when watching this show.
Anyone that meets an unpleasant end did something stupid, or acted out of emotion.
I guess if I walk out of my house and a meteorite hits me, I’m an idiot, right?
Apart from the Waif I think the only one of the others that you list that we’d normally say acted out of emotion was Robb, but even then I’d say the emotional part was marrying someone he loved, not trusting Walder Frey. And it was the latter that was the proximate cause of his death.
As for the dumb decisions thing, pretty much every major character has been facing the wrong end of a sword at one time or another.
Even, say, Littlefinger who everyone seems to regard as “playing the game” correctly, has taken plenty of risks with people who could have killed him without a second thought, and done some things in plain sight that only needed to be seen by one person for the whole gig to be up (e.g. moon door murder).
I’m not saying every character is equally smart. All I’m saying is that most of the characters are weak, squishy humans, and sometimes a minor error, or indeed no real error at all, is all it takes to die.
And if an honorable character dies, they didn’t necessarily do wrong; not everyone’s objective is to win “the game”.
You understand that all of this criticism is exactly because it’s normally a good show, and we’re all shocked by the depature, right?
Plus… your comment is pretty silly anyway. The Big Bang Theory is the highested rated show on TV, and The Walking Dead is the highest rated show on cable.
So not only is no one making any argument related to ratings, nor are they saying the show is shitty in general, but the point you’re making to attempt to counter both of those straw men doesn’t even do so.
He was the leader. No need for any more reason than that. If it was the temple they objected to why leave it up? The Hound gave the reason why the fighters would be back. Then they returned. Why read into it more than what the writers provided as exposition?
It’s not like they were going to back up a couple of 18 wheelers. They raped and pillaged what they could carry.
The show and the books both show how miserable and hopeless life was for the common people of a region when war ravaged the countryside in this type of era. All the Armies involved needed provisions and plunder. It didn’t matter what banner you fly, if they need what you have they will take it and you probably won’t survive.
No need to speculate that there is an ultra-militant branch of the Brotherhood. These were fighting men who found a soft target and acted outside of orders. They are caught and have to pay the price to maintain order. Think Bardolph in Henry V.
No, not right. I’ve been reading these threads since the first season, and every one has lots of self-important experts moaning on how shitty that episode was. If it isn’t somebody who craps all over the parts that aren’t Blackwater Bay or Hardhome or titties and dragons, it’s somebody else who fancies themselves a TV critic, picking apart the writing or directing or whatever. So don’t give me the departure malarkey, this is just more of the same; different voices, same refrain. It’s television, people; not fucking Shakespeare.
That’s not true. Find me one episode of the series besides “Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken” that has this much negativity surrounding it.
It’s basically exactly Shakespeare.
Why should I bother? You will just say it isn’t the same, and we’ll go back and forth for a couple pages, arguing over subjective opinions with no resolution. I said what I feel, and I stand by it. You, of course, are entitled to a different point of view.
I dunno, not sure if there’s much evidence to support that they’re simply members of the Brotherhood who have turned to common bandits as opposed to members who have taken their worship of R’hllor way too far, watching the scene again, Lemoncloak leaves on an ominous “Stay safe. The night is dark and full of terrors,” which is a R’hllorian…R’hllorist? Er, follower of the Red God phrase.
The Hound later scolds Ray for greeting them with “Seven save you, friends” by saying “They don’t believe in your seven, they’re from the Brotherhood, they follow the Red God.” And as mentioned, they make a point of hanging septon Ray from the incomplete sept and Beric later says “They attacked a nearby sept and murdered the villagers,” so I think they attack was definitely motivated by religion rather than just banditry.
It’s not diminishing my enjoyment, but…
We’ve got a bunch of characters who wander for 5 years and get back to where they were (physically or otherwise) without having learned anything, achieved anything or acquired anything.
What was the point of Arya’s wanderings? So now she’s heading back to Winterfell. She could’ve done that in Season 2.
And Dany is now in Mereen with a Dothraki horde behind her. She had a Dothraki horde at the end of Season 1.
(My apologies if this line of thought has been posted already … I just caught up with this week’s and couldn’t wait to sift through 5 pages before posting my brilliant insight.)
Well, I’m not sure if that’s exactly fair. Arya has had all that faceless men training (although I’m here merely hoping that this will come to something), and Dany now has fully grown dragons (well, one at least, it seems they still can’t figure out what to do with the other two since Tyrion ‘freed’ them), plus acquired some valuable lessons in leadership, such as that you can’t just waltz somewhere, overthrow centuries old stable (if abhorrent) systems, and have anything just be fine (not that most people explicitly need to be taught that lesson, mind).
Yeah, this could’ve been compressed down somewhat (to a lot), but saying that nothing happens is putting it too harshly.
Right from the beginning when Yellow Cloak asks, “You got any horses?” that seems like a religious conflict to you? it seemed totally like they were sizing up their opposition and what they could get from them. A little while later the Hound explains that they have food and woman and some steel to take. You are cherry picking the dialogue that fits a faction conflict but ignores most of the dialogue.
They came across people building a sept (seven sided, so it’s obvious what they’re building), are greeted by a man wearing a seven-pointed star pendant and greeted with a religious statement, it’s not unreasonable to assume that they know the faith of those they are attacking, the statements I quoted make it obvious that it is a factor in their decision. To be fair maybe they robbed some stuff too, I don’t think it was only a religious thing.
I agree with this perspective.
I would like that. 
If the writers had left their motivation up to our imagination then psychically figuring out what was in their heads would be needed. Luckily the writers provided dialogue to keep that from being necessary. The Hound as the resident expert on the motivations of hard men provides it. No other explaination is stated. You really think that an unstated religious motivation is what was intended instead of what the writers specifically provided to us? What they want is stated at 3:57 in the clip. What was shown on the screen to make you think that these guys were particularly religious?
You should bother because you made the claim, so you should defend it.
In any case, your claim is so generic that it can’t be right. You’re essentially saying that no episode is particularly bad, and no episode can be particularly bad, because you can dismiss all criticism of “oh yeah, someone criticizes something about every episode, therefore this massive backlash from lots of people is exactly equivelant” - your attitude is sneering and condescending (“it’s just tv, it’s not Shakespeare”) and your view allows no nuance. It dismisses all criticism.
The fact that their fellow Lord of Light followers promptly hanged them for their actions rather strongly supports the “they’re just bandits” theory.
Loach touched on this, but it’s important to restate that the Seven Kingdoms - and from what we can tell, the whole world as we have been given the ability to see it - is basically a free-for-all and there is no rule of law outside of major cities and maybe not even there. That is a very well established fact by now, supported by the Hound’s statements and the kangaroo justice meted out by the Lord of Light’s band of dudes.
Actually, it’s well beyond established fact; it’s the central theme of the story, and has been stated by a dozen or more characters and demonstrated in fifty ways; strength lies in the exercise of force and nothing else matters. In the world of Game of Thrones, there is no real police force, no real justice system, no fairness. If Smith has a sword and Jones doesn’t, Smith will soon have Jones’s stuff. Practically from the beginning of the series it has been shown again and again that the common people have nothing and can be killed as someone pleases. What did Jory Mormont tell Danaerys when she said something flowery about how the people of Westeros wanted her back? “All they want is a good harvest” or something like that.
The world of Game of Thrones isn’t a civilization, it’s a jungle, a remarkably nihilistic world. When the thin vereen of civilization is taken away everyone starts killing and raping.
Actually, the driving factor determining the pace of the show (and the books, though I know they don’t exist) is the one you mentioned: it takes time to realistically get from something that hatched from what looked like a smaller than ostrich egg to an animal large enough to fly around carrying a human and terrorizing armies/cities. And the parallel need for the Stark children to age up to the point that they’d be seen as believable drivers of the events affecting entire countries.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have shown less of it. Like, one montage of Arya getting whacked with a stick would’ve been quite enough, for instance.
I assumed it was Valyrian for “Grey Worm”.