On June 14 2014 20:55 W2 wrote: These are the only saving graces of this show. 1. Peter Dinklage's character and acting 2. Director MacLaren who directed Breaking Bad 3. Any screenwriter outside of David Benioff & D. B. Weiss
Honestly the screenwriter duo is what is holding this show back. They are in over their heads and they know it. As a result all we get are shock tactics, employed for the sake of buzz and the resultant ratings. These latest episodes are full of blood, gore, torture, nudity and chitchats about "twigs and berries", all of which are completely unnecessary and are simply used to cover up poor script writing. Transitions were nonsensical and made me squirm. Developing plots were interrupted with irrelevant scenes discussing the most irrelevant details such as greyworm's genitalia. Peter Dinklage is forced to deliver a stupid monologue about beetles. Utter garbage.
Go back and watch the episodes NOT written by incompetent duo. Whoever you find, you'll notice it is a tier above anything these two can provide. As one of the most watched shows, GoT is the big league, and these screenwriters don't belong in it. It's gotten to the point where I'm watching just to know what happens so I can talk to others about it. My distaste outweighs my enjoyment...
Congratulations, you have just described every modern HBO show, ever. That's HBO's success formula, not anyone's poor writing.
This is going a bit out of hand. I hope I do not get a tempban or something for that, but I do know that the writers did add some things that were not in the books - and most of this is indeed garbage.
As someone who has not read the books - I doubt I could picture what was/wasnt in them, the show seems to be very complete and 99% of things fit very well IMO anyway.
Pretty much this. If I didn't see people complain that "this part wasn't in the book" I would have had no idea. I enjoy pretty much every episode as well. There are a couple boring ones, but what show doesn't have those?
On June 14 2014 20:55 W2 wrote: These are the only saving graces of this show. 1. Peter Dinklage's character and acting 2. Director MacLaren who directed Breaking Bad 3. Any screenwriter outside of David Benioff & D. B. Weiss
Honestly the screenwriter duo is what is holding this show back. They are in over their heads and they know it. As a result all we get are shock tactics, employed for the sake of buzz and the resultant ratings. These latest episodes are full of blood, gore, torture, nudity and chitchats about "twigs and berries", all of which are completely unnecessary and are simply used to cover up poor script writing. Transitions were nonsensical and made me squirm. Developing plots were interrupted with irrelevant scenes discussing the most irrelevant details such as greyworm's genitalia. Peter Dinklage is forced to deliver a stupid monologue about beetles. Utter garbage.
Go back and watch the episodes NOT written by incompetent duo. Whoever you find, you'll notice it is a tier above anything these two can provide. As one of the most watched shows, GoT is the big league, and these screenwriters don't belong in it. It's gotten to the point where I'm watching just to know what happens so I can talk to others about it. My distaste outweighs my enjoyment...
So what you're saying is outside of the 4 episodes Michelle MacLaren directed, the show has sucked monkey balls? Cool.
On June 14 2014 20:55 W2 wrote: These are the only saving graces of this show. 1. Peter Dinklage's character and acting 2. Director MacLaren who directed Breaking Bad 3. Any screenwriter outside of David Benioff & D. B. Weiss
Honestly the screenwriter duo is what is holding this show back. They are in over their heads and they know it. As a result all we get are shock tactics, employed for the sake of buzz and the resultant ratings. These latest episodes are full of blood, gore, torture, nudity and chitchats about "twigs and berries", all of which are completely unnecessary and are simply used to cover up poor script writing. Transitions were nonsensical and made me squirm. Developing plots were interrupted with irrelevant scenes discussing the most irrelevant details such as greyworm's genitalia. Peter Dinklage is forced to deliver a stupid monologue about beetles. Utter garbage.
Go back and watch the episodes NOT written by incompetent duo. Whoever you find, you'll notice it is a tier above anything these two can provide. As one of the most watched shows, GoT is the big league, and these screenwriters don't belong in it. It's gotten to the point where I'm watching just to know what happens so I can talk to others about it. My distaste outweighs my enjoyment...
Just go ahead and stop watching then. You'd be doing everyone a favor.
On June 14 2014 20:55 W2 wrote: These are the only saving graces of this show. 1. Peter Dinklage's character and acting 2. Director MacLaren who directed Breaking Bad 3. Any screenwriter outside of David Benioff & D. B. Weiss
Honestly the screenwriter duo is what is holding this show back. They are in over their heads and they know it. As a result all we get are shock tactics, employed for the sake of buzz and the resultant ratings. These latest episodes are full of blood, gore, torture, nudity and chitchats about "twigs and berries", all of which are completely unnecessary and are simply used to cover up poor script writing. Transitions were nonsensical and made me squirm. Developing plots were interrupted with irrelevant scenes discussing the most irrelevant details such as greyworm's genitalia. Peter Dinklage is forced to deliver a stupid monologue about beetles. Utter garbage.
Go back and watch the episodes NOT written by incompetent duo. Whoever you find, you'll notice it is a tier above anything these two can provide. As one of the most watched shows, GoT is the big league, and these screenwriters don't belong in it. It's gotten to the point where I'm watching just to know what happens so I can talk to others about it. My distaste outweighs my enjoyment...
Just go ahead and stop watching then. You'd be doing everyone a favor.
Shows that i drop and stop watching are ones that i find shitty or uninteresting. I think nope i'm not going to waste my time on this and thats the end of that.
I have however never dropped a show that has elicited similar feelings of extreme annoyance and frustration that he seems to be getting from GOT. He and every other poster ranting and whining about this or that aspect of GOT will watch it to it's very last season and episode, guaranteed.
On June 14 2014 20:55 W2 wrote: These are the only saving graces of this show. 1. Peter Dinklage's character and acting 2. Director MacLaren who directed Breaking Bad 3. Any screenwriter outside of David Benioff & D. B. Weiss
Honestly the screenwriter duo is what is holding this show back. They are in over their heads and they know it. As a result all we get are shock tactics, employed for the sake of buzz and the resultant ratings. These latest episodes are full of blood, gore, torture, nudity and chitchats about "twigs and berries", all of which are completely unnecessary and are simply used to cover up poor script writing. Transitions were nonsensical and made me squirm. Developing plots were interrupted with irrelevant scenes discussing the most irrelevant details such as greyworm's genitalia. Peter Dinklage is forced to deliver a stupid monologue about beetles. Utter garbage.
Go back and watch the episodes NOT written by incompetent duo. Whoever you find, you'll notice it is a tier above anything these two can provide. As one of the most watched shows, GoT is the big league, and these screenwriters don't belong in it. It's gotten to the point where I'm watching just to know what happens so I can talk to others about it. My distaste outweighs my enjoyment...
Thought it was a good episode. Maybe you just have different tastes?
On June 14 2014 17:53 FrogOfWar wrote: His role was much closer to that of Frodo than that of Gandalf, the only real difference being that he was older and had a family to care for. But he was the one going on a quest.
Just to remind you, Frodo was 100+ years old (120 or 150) when he started his trip... I don't think Ned Stark is that old... EDIT: He was actually 50+, Bilbo was 100+ years old.
If my memory serves me right, Frodo was 33 and Bilbo was 111.
On June 14 2014 17:53 FrogOfWar wrote: His role was much closer to that of Frodo than that of Gandalf, the only real difference being that he was older and had a family to care for. But he was the one going on a quest.
Just to remind you, Frodo was 100+ years old (120 or 150) when he started his trip... I don't think Ned Stark is that old... EDIT: He was actually 50+, Bilbo was 100+ years old.
If my memory serves me right, Frodo was 33 and Bilbo was 111.
Appendix B says Frodo was born in 2968 and Bibo's farewell feast was in 3001 (33 y.o.).
However, Frodo didn't actually leave Bag End until September of 3018 (50 y.o.). Fucking slacker
On June 14 2014 17:53 FrogOfWar wrote: His role was much closer to that of Frodo than that of Gandalf, the only real difference being that he was older and had a family to care for. But he was the one going on a quest.
Just to remind you, Frodo was 100+ years old (120 or 150) when he started his trip... I don't think Ned Stark is that old... EDIT: He was actually 50+, Bilbo was 100+ years old.
If my memory serves me right, Frodo was 33 and Bilbo was 111.
Appendix B says Frodo was born in 2968 and Bibo's farewell feast was in 3001 (33 y.o.). However, Frodo didn't actually leave Bag End until September of 3018 (50 y.o.). Fucking slacker
Book Frodo was 50 when he left, movie Frodo was 33... or shouldn't we mention the books?
Does the 'don't mention the books'-rule also apply to LOTR?
Honestly if someone is ever going to whine about LOTR spoilers they deserve to be spoiled.
On June 14 2014 17:53 FrogOfWar wrote: His role was much closer to that of Frodo than that of Gandalf, the only real difference being that he was older and had a family to care for. But he was the one going on a quest.
Just to remind you, Frodo was 100+ years old (120 or 150) when he started his trip... I don't think Ned Stark is that old... EDIT: He was actually 50+, Bilbo was 100+ years old.
If my memory serves me right, Frodo was 33 and Bilbo was 111.
Appendix B says Frodo was born in 2968 and Bibo's farewell feast was in 3001 (33 y.o.). However, Frodo didn't actually leave Bag End until September of 3018 (50 y.o.). Fucking slacker
Book Frodo was 50 when he left, movie Frodo was 33... or shouldn't we mention the books?
Does the 'don't mention the books'-rule also apply to LOTR?
Worth the risk! This could have been my once in a lifetime opportunity to cite Appendix B of the LOTR
On June 14 2014 17:53 FrogOfWar wrote: His role was much closer to that of Frodo than that of Gandalf, the only real difference being that he was older and had a family to care for. But he was the one going on a quest.
Just to remind you, Frodo was 100+ years old (120 or 150) when he started his trip... I don't think Ned Stark is that old... EDIT: He was actually 50+, Bilbo was 100+ years old.
If my memory serves me right, Frodo was 33 and Bilbo was 111.
Appendix B says Frodo was born in 2968 and Bibo's farewell feast was in 3001 (33 y.o.). However, Frodo didn't actually leave Bag End until September of 3018 (50 y.o.). Fucking slacker
Book Frodo was 50 when he left, movie Frodo was 33... or shouldn't we mention the books?
Does the 'don't mention the books'-rule also apply to LOTR?
Honestly if someone is ever going to whine about LOTR spoilers they deserve to be spoiled.
EPT
