EPT[TV] HBO Game of Thrones - Page 1752
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
Notably Failure IS a payout. But Bran didn't fail, he didn't succeed, he just did nothing at all. If his storyline ended in the cave by him becoming the 3 eyed raven and us never hearing from him again, but knowing that he's watching through the weirwoods that would be more of a payout than what we've gotten. But instead they've spent a large amount of time moving him back to Winterfell for just... nothing. Sure Jon is Aegon, but we don't care that Jon knows it. We have no reason to care and it seems unlikely to lead to any meaningful difference. Jon defying Dany as King in the North vs rightful heir to the Iron Throne is a mostly marginal distinction at this point and one that would just as well have been served by Samwell (and/or Howland Reed) or even just Bran-through-a-weirwood. | ||
|
Aocowns
Norway6070 Posts
On May 01 2019 02:17 Plansix wrote: Yes. That is what monarchy is. It is a hard limitation on how high a person can climb on the ladder. Littlefinger was able to climb that ladder and gain the limited real power allowed in that system. But there were always hard limits that he refused to accept or maybe just didn't believe existed due to his climb to where he was. yes there's a limit as in he cant become emperor or a legitimate king?? why do you only accept that position as real power. As we've seen on numerous occasions, people actually have power OVER the king and the emperor, if only because this person is weak power exists outside the absolute top dog and he had more of it than most, if less than some, and he had the abiulity to gain more than most, if again, less than some | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 01 2019 02:27 Aocowns wrote: yes there's a limit as in he cant become emperor or a legitimate king?? why do you only accept that position as real power. As we've seen on numerous occasions, people actually have power OVER the king and the emperor, if only because this person is weak power exists outside the absolute top dog and he had more of it than most, if less than some, and he had the abiulity to gain more than most, if again, less than some He can’t even rule over the Vale, despite being older than Robin and the husband of the former Lady who ruled the Vale(though her son). That is how hard the limitations on the power he could have. Even though he married into nobility, he has no ability to govern like the members of the family he married into can. Even if he managed to kill them all and be the only member of that family left, he still would have no claim to that House. Monarchy as a form of government is a fundamentally broken system, but the way it maintained itself was by limiting who could hold title, land and who could enter that system. | ||
|
VHbb
689 Posts
On May 01 2019 02:26 Logo wrote: Of course you can write anything you want, but Bran without a payoff isn't clever misdirection or playful subversion, it's bad writing. Notably Failure IS a payout. But Bran didn't fail, he didn't succeed, he just did nothing at all. If his storyline ended in the cave by him becoming the 3 eyed raven and us never hearing from him again, but knowing that he's watching through the weirwoods that would be more of a payout than what we've gotten. But instead they've spent a large amount of time moving him back to Winterfell for just... nothing. Sure Jon is Aegon, but we don't care that Jon knows it. We have no reason to care and it seems unlikely to lead to any meaningful difference. Jon defying Dany as King in the North vs rightful heir to the Iron Throne is a mostly marginal distinction at this point and one that would just as well have been served by Samwell (and/or Howland Reed) or even just Bran-through-a-weirwood. Let's agree to disagree  I didn't say it's clever misdirection or playful subversion, I just think his character does not need to have some kind of ultimate meaning on top of just becoming the 3 eyed raven, to have some meaning. (and I would argue that Bran did succeed) | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On May 01 2019 02:46 VHbb wrote: Let's agree to disagree I didn't say it's clever misdirection or playful subversion, I just think his character does not need to have some kind of ultimate meaning on top of just becoming the 3 eyed raven, to have some meaning. (and I would argue that Bran did succeed) You can enjoy it for what it is, but from a storytelling and narrative composition standpoint, having a storyline that goes on for so long just to trail off and peter out is the sign of a bad writer. Compare him directly to Theon. Theon had an excellent conclusion to his character and story arc, even though he had little to no impact on the world at large nor the overall plot of the story. He was there, we saw him interact with various people, grow as a character, and reach a satisfying conclusion. Bran honestly barely developed as a character. Other than learning his crazy mutant powers and meeting the 3ER, what was the point of his story? Why did we spend hours and hours traveling with him, Hodor, and the Reeds? Why should we, as the audience, care about him coming back to Winterfell if all he's going to do is sit in a chair and stare listlessly at the wall? It's objectively poor writing, even if you are subjectively ok with it. | ||
|
VHbb
689 Posts
There's no big rulebook of good and bad writing that you consult before deciding if you like a story or not.. we have different views of how a story can be written, and that's ok | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On May 01 2019 03:02 VHbb wrote: why do you have to objectively convince me that I should not enjoy something I'm ok with? There's no big rulebook of good and bad writing that you consult before deciding if you like a story or not.. we have different views of how a story can be written, and that's ok No one is telling you you can't like it, I'm saying it's bad writing in this one plot line and story arc. It's ok to like bad writing, there's a lot of trashy stuff that I enjoy as well. There is definitely such a thing as objectively good and bad writing. There's a reason the greats are the greats and trashy paperbacks are a dime a dozen. This isn't the most egregiously bad story in the world, but it is far from the level of story we've seen in the very same show. D&D fairly obviously don't know what to do with Bran's character and the Long Night story in general, so they just made an ending that hastily tied things up while leaving a lot of trailing plots hanging, unfulfillingly. As someone who has followed both the shows and the books, it's extremely hard to get over all this buildup that has had more than a decade behind it just peter out with little to no conclusion. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
Subverting things without having a clear understanding of why and how it will change the outcome isn't a skill. Now nothing of this means you are not allowed to enjoy things which don't follow these techniques, but there is a reason they exist in the first place. If you are interested in stuff like that i would recommend john truby's "the anatomy of story" , it's a fairly well structured first look into some of these techniques. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On May 01 2019 03:27 Plansix wrote: People should avoid using the word “objectively” when talking about personal enjoyment or critiquing any sort of art. It does not make your argument stronger and can imply a basic misunderstanding of critical theory and the purpose of critiquing art as a persuasive argument. The goal of critique is never to convince anyone that a particular reading is the “right” reading. If you read criticism of narrative in movies and books, they don’t talk about good or bad writing. Writing is effective or ineffective. Focused or scattered. Good or bad is insufficient to describe if the writing serves the work. Sure let's call it ineffective writing then if that makes you happier, it's basically the same though. | ||
|
VHbb
689 Posts
I'm just saying that if a character arc does not end up in culminating final meaning, I'm ok with it Bran character arc is meaningful to me, even if he didn't warged into a dragon, or if he didn't have an active role in the last battle; the fact that he became the 3 eyed raven is the conclusion of the arc (which incidentally tells much more than just Bran's story of course) Sure, I also can enjoy trashy media end stories I just don't think this is "trash" or meaningless.I have the impression that hardcore GoT fans (especially coming from the books) want to have every aspect of each character solidly tied together towards the end meaning of the show. I'm ok if Bran's role in this show is to become the living memory of human lore, and put the pieces in place which lead to the killing of the Night King, and that's it, he does not have to do much more to have its place in the story. Mostly because he didn't just do these things, we saw through his story much of the lore of the white walkers and the children of the forest, he developed from being a stark boy climber to a non-human creature, and I enjoyed the story that went with it. | ||
|
Warri
Germany3208 Posts
On May 01 2019 03:02 VHbb wrote: why do you have to objectively convince me that I should not enjoy something I'm ok with? There's no big rulebook of good and bad writing that you consult before deciding if you like a story or not.. we have different views of how a story can be written, and that's ok Not a rulebook for you as a watcher, but there are certainly "guidelines" for the creators. There's a reason most stories are similar in structure, hero's journey etc, pretty common knowledge. The problem with this episode is that they ignored those guidelines. Bran doing completely nothing with his warging is like an unused chekov's gun. And so is Azor Ahai, or the prophecy as a whole, which for the whole 7 seasons led us to believe that either Dany or Jon will be the chosen ones, but alas, it was Arya who was never shown even a single time that her storyline has a connection to the walkers and is not just a "revenge against everyone who harmed daddy and mommy". | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On May 01 2019 03:27 Plansix wrote: People should avoid using the word “objectively” when talking about personal enjoyment or critiquing any sort of art. It does not make your argument stronger and can imply a basic misunderstanding of critical theory and the purpose of critiquing art as a persuasive argument. The goal of critique is never to convince anyone that a particular reading is the “right” reading. If you read criticism of narrative in movies and books, they don’t talk about good or bad writing. Writing is effective or ineffective. Focused or scattered. Good or bad is insufficient to describe if the writing serves the work. Alright, then the writing ineffectively brought conclusion to a storyline that was page 1 in 1996 and ineffectively utilized a character that has taken up hours of screentime by having him do nothing against the exact threat that he was built up to stand against. It made the entirety of Bran's arc effectively pointless by having him do nothing he was aiming to do in the only storyline in this web that he's connected to, and effectively left us with half a dozen story threads that will never be answered until GRRM writes the actual conclusion to them. Objectively bad is quicker to write, though. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On May 01 2019 03:34 VHbb wrote: I have the impression that hardcore GoT fans (especially coming from the books) want to have every aspect of each character solidly tied together towards the end meaning of the show. Far from it. Arya is most interesting when her only goal is revenge. She didn't care about the throne, she didn't care about the war, or the Long War, or succession. She cared about killing those that wronged her. She was extremely interesting without having to be a macguffin that killed the Night King. Theon is an extremely rich character. We went from thinking nothing of him, to hating him, to feeling for him, to hoping for him, to cheering for him, to crying for him. He had no goal in the long run other than redemption. The Hound just wants to be a better person and face his demons in the form of his Brother. If his conclusion doesn't change the outcome of the series, but he finds peace before the end, then that's a good freaking character arc. Randomly dropping an arc or changing the themes/characters halfway through for no reason is just silly. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On May 01 2019 03:34 VHbb wrote: yes thanks, I'm not saying there are no rules to writing a story I'm just saying that if a character arc does not end up in culminating final meaning, I'm ok with it Bran character arc is meaningful to me, even if he didn't warged into a dragon, or if he didn't have an active role in the last battle; the fact that he became the 3 eyed raven is the conclusion of the arc (which incidentally tells much more than just Bran's story of course) Sure, I also can enjoy trashy media end stories I just don't think this is "trash" or meaningless.I have the impression that hardcore GoT fans (especially coming from the books) want to have every aspect of each character solidly tied together towards the end meaning of the show. I'm ok if Bran's role in this show is to become the living memory of human lore, and put the pieces in place which lead to the killing of the Night King, and that's it, he does not have to do much more to have its place in the story. Mostly because he didn't just do these things, we saw through his story much of the lore of the white walkers and the children of the forest, he developed from being a stark boy climber to a non-human creature, and I enjoyed the story that went with it. But we keep getting a lot of Bran after he becomes the 3 Eyed Raven including parts where we are really supposed to care what happens to him. Like I am fine with him ending as "being the 3 eyed raven", but then we have a lot of time of him fleeing back to Winterfell, him at Winterfell, him being the main foil for the Night King, and so on. All that extends past the arc we had for him. His story is stretched out, if it was told in isolation of the other characters you'd be wondering why this part exists at all. | ||
zatic
Zurich15313 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9104 Posts
| ||
|
VHbb
689 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 01 2019 03:34 Requizen wrote: Alright, then the writing ineffectively brought conclusion to a storyline that was page 1 in 1996 and ineffectively utilized a character that has taken up hours of screentime by having him do nothing against the exact threat that he was built up to stand against. It made the entirety of Bran's arc effectively pointless by having him do nothing he was aiming to do in the only storyline in this web that he's connected to, and effectively left us with half a dozen story threads that will never be answered until GRRM writes the actual conclusion to them. Objectively bad is quicker to write, though. And wrong, since the quality of narrative and prose are subjective. In the world of critique of, the only incorrect take is that one point of view is the “true” point of view. The use of the word objectively is anathema to the discussion of art and applying critical theory to works of media. | ||
| ||
