On May 01 2019 05:15 FFGenerations wrote: jesus give it a rest lol probably we see more of bran next episode anyway jesus christ
Dear god I hope so. You can't tell me I suffered years of Bran's dull story for the grand realization of his character, was to be NK bait.
Hodor died for this?!
He didn't say anything because he knew he had won, and was just waiting for Arya to show up. At first I was angry, but now it all makes sense and it's pretty satisfying.
Not when it comes to art. Maybe if you are talking about a cutting board or a vacuum cleaner, we can draw a direct line between quality and enjoyment. But even then there is a factor of subjectivity. But there is no measurement of quality of a piece of art that is not directly linked to if people enjoy it. How that enjoyment is derived varies, but the enjoyment or satisfaction is critical to assessing the “quality” of art. Even the venue where the art is viewed or experiences impacts how people feel about that art and perceive it quality.
This is clearly not true. Firstly, why would enjoyment be the only criteria? Why not meaning, influence, proficiency, and all the other criteria we use for judging anything?
Secondly, while the specifics of what quality in art can be is hard to nail down, there is actually a huge amount of generally agreed common ground - if there wasn't, there'd be no way and no point in discussing anything. Examples of some consensus aesthetic facts:
Darth Vader is a brilliantly conceived villain. Radiohead's OK Computer is better than Pablo Honey. Stanley Kubrick's cinematography is excellent The Beatles are a better band than the Monkees. The Witcher 3 has better storytelling than most RPGs. Wilfred Owen is excellent at capturing the horror of war in his poetry.
For the episode, I really liked it. The incredible tension they built up throughout, and the release during that excellently soundtracked 8 minutes, allows me to look past the dodgy tactics, lack of any other major character death, and slightly abrupt end to the winter that has been coming for so long. I can't remember being so caught up in a bit of TV since the later Breaking Bad seasons.
On May 01 2019 03:34 Requizen wrote: [quote] 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.
You're being so pedantic here its insane. There is absolutely an objective component to quality of media. Just because it isn't a hard science doesnt mean that anything you can say about art is completely subjective.
You are saying you can measure the quality of human experience like someone measure average rain fall? Can we do this with music and paintings too?
I am not really being pedantic at all. Saying something is “objectively good” makes your read on the quality of the work look weak and unsure. It is like saying “I think” in front of an argument that should be a declarative statement. We all know there is no such thing as objectively good or objectively bad media. Some people enjoy trash. Other people are very picky about the films they watch. All their experiences are valid. Removing the word objectively makes your reads on the work stronger, not weaker.
The fact that you say "some people enjoy trash" already indicates that there is some form of objective criteria that makes something trash. No, quality is not directly measurable. But a notion of quality clearly exists.
How can it be objective if some people enjoy it and other so not? Some of those people think “trash” is good and meritorious. They would like more of the “trash” to be made so they can enjoy more of it. If it was “Objective” it would mean that there is one true perspective that is correct and all others are wrong. It is binary, devoid of nuance.
I think his point is that if you call one trash and the other one not trash.... you've kind of answered your own question.
I never said that my assessment of something being trash was objective. I have asserted that it is subjective. The thing that people enjoy can be both trash and not be trash at the same time. To go even further, I can could hold the viewpoint that the art in question is trash and worthy of being shown to the public at the same time. I, personally, could have two conflicting views of a piece of art and both of them could be completely valid and true at the same time.
"This is trash." "Yeah it is bad, I agree." "WOAH NOW I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS BAD ONLY THAT IT WAS TRASH."
I'm honestly not sure what it is you're trying to say. That subjective is subjective? Sure. But there's also plenty of things objective about storytelling. The former does not preclude the latter.
Because I don't use trash to describe things that are bad when I talk about movies, shows and music I like. Trash is a descriptor to describe the type of enjoyment I derive from the thing. Stranger Things is trash, for instance. But its really wholesome trash that I love. But its fucking trash. If the art were food, icecream and sweet tarts are trash.
So I know you were trying to be funny, but the reality is the meaning of the word trash in this context is subjective.
You heard it here first, "Hamlet" is worse than "50 shades of grey", because quality is a popularity contest and millions of housewives read the latter for fun and hate the former because they were forced to read it for English lit.
Can you guys take it to PM's i just wanna read about peoples opinions on the actual ep in question. You're clogging up the whole thread with ridiculous bickering.
Its interesting now how much they will decide to nerf Dany's alliance after the victory over the NK. Will she be a clear underdog like John was vs Ramsy, or maybe just slightly behind Cersei army or maybe even approximately equal, since, in the next trailer she was pretty confident that she is going to win the final war
On May 01 2019 20:21 M2 wrote: Its interesting now how much they will decide to nerf Dany's alliance after the victory over the NK. Will she be a clear underdog like John was vs Ramsy, or maybe just slightly behind Cersei army or maybe even approximately equal, since, in the next trailer she was pretty confident that she is going to win the final war
I wonder if cleganebowl will happen because cersi doesnt want to fight the dragons and declares trail by combat. Thinking that qyburns mountain is unbeatable. Then the hound takes up arms against him (possibly defeats him) and cersi goes back on her word and tries to kill them all anyway
On May 01 2019 20:21 M2 wrote: Its interesting now how much they will decide to nerf Dany's alliance after the victory over the NK. Will she be a clear underdog like John was vs Ramsy, or maybe just slightly behind Cersei army or maybe even approximately equal, since, in the next trailer she was pretty confident that she is going to win the final war
I wonder if cleganebowl will happen because cersi doesnt want to fight the dragons and declares trail by combat. Thinking that qyburns mountain is unbeatable. Then the hound takes up arms against him (possibly defeats him) and cersi goes back on her word and tries to kill them all anyway
I think Cersei's downfall will mirror the Tower of Joy events - The Mountain will guard the path to her chambers. Several protagonists will die fighting him. The Hound will be the one to kill him. Once they reach Cersei, she will die in labor, giving birth to a stillborn boy.
Well the complicating factor would be that pain is a major limitation on feats of strength, so if zombie Mountain doesn’t feel pain anymore, he’ll definitely be stronger than his mortal counterpart.
Oh my god i hope there won't be any "cleganebowl" fanservice, i don't think it makes any sense for the characters either anymore. The mountain is a dumb zombie, how can there be any cathartic moment when the consciousness of the mountain is completely gone?
On May 01 2019 21:52 M2 wrote: For what I understood qyburns mountain is just mountain strong, but with less intellect and uglier, he did not receive steroids or something
I took it more as he cant be killed, or have his performance reduced by wounds. Theres a scene where a faith of the seven solider hits him with a spiked club and it even pierces his breastplate something that would probably deeply wound the real mountain but zombie mountain didnt even flinch.
On May 01 2019 21:58 The_Red_Viper wrote: Oh my god i hope there won't be any "cleganebowl" fanservice, i don't think it makes any sense for the characters either anymore. The mountain is a dumb zombie, how can there be any cathartic moment when the consciousness of the mountain is completely gone?
Thats why i think it might be a trail by combat, thats about the only way to get a clean 1v1, and i doubt anyone wants to fight the mountain more than the hound
I'm fairly confident there will be. There needs to be some kind of "payoff" to have a zombie mountain running around for like 4 seasons without doing literally anything. Cleganebowl is super hyped up by the fans and will make for an amazingly hype but very stupid scene, so it is definitely going to happen lol.
On May 01 2019 21:52 M2 wrote: For what I understood qyburns mountain is just mountain strong, but with less intellect and uglier, he did not receive steroids or something
I took it more as he cant be killed, or have his performance reduced by wounds. Theres a scene where a faith of the seven solider hits him with a spiked club and it even pierces his breastplate something that would probably deeply wound the real mountain but zombie mountain didnt even flinch.
On May 01 2019 21:58 The_Red_Viper wrote: Oh my god i hope there won't be any "cleganebowl" fanservice, i don't think it makes any sense for the characters either anymore. The mountain is a dumb zombie, how can there be any cathartic moment when the consciousness of the mountain is completely gone?
Thats why i think it might be a trail by combat, thats about the only way to get a clean 1v1, and i doubt anyone wants to fight the mountain more than the hound
Well but i am saying that narratively i don't see why this would be cathartic, the mountain is basically something like a wight at this point, how can it be satisfying to kill him in a state like this, when there isn't really any interaction between them possible, etc. It would feel really shallow imo.
On May 01 2019 22:06 KadaverBB wrote: I'm fairly confident there will be. There needs to be some kind of "payoff" to have a zombie mountain running around for like 4 seasons without doing literally anything. Cleganebowl is super hyped up by the fans and will make for an amazingly hype but very stupid scene, so it is definitely going to happen lol.
Well i definitely see that part, i think it might be even likely that it happens. But i really don't see any emotional impact at this point, unless they change how the mountain functions now.
On May 01 2019 03:55 Plansix wrote: [quote] 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.
You're being so pedantic here its insane. There is absolutely an objective component to quality of media. Just because it isn't a hard science doesnt mean that anything you can say about art is completely subjective.
You are saying you can measure the quality of human experience like someone measure average rain fall? Can we do this with music and paintings too?
I am not really being pedantic at all. Saying something is “objectively good” makes your read on the quality of the work look weak and unsure. It is like saying “I think” in front of an argument that should be a declarative statement. We all know there is no such thing as objectively good or objectively bad media. Some people enjoy trash. Other people are very picky about the films they watch. All their experiences are valid. Removing the word objectively makes your reads on the work stronger, not weaker.
The fact that you say "some people enjoy trash" already indicates that there is some form of objective criteria that makes something trash. No, quality is not directly measurable. But a notion of quality clearly exists.
How can it be objective if some people enjoy it and other so not? Some of those people think “trash” is good and meritorious. They would like more of the “trash” to be made so they can enjoy more of it. If it was “Objective” it would mean that there is one true perspective that is correct and all others are wrong. It is binary, devoid of nuance.
I think his point is that if you call one trash and the other one not trash.... you've kind of answered your own question.
I never said that my assessment of something being trash was objective. I have asserted that it is subjective. The thing that people enjoy can be both trash and not be trash at the same time. To go even further, I can could hold the viewpoint that the art in question is trash and worthy of being shown to the public at the same time. I, personally, could have two conflicting views of a piece of art and both of them could be completely valid and true at the same time.
"This is trash." "Yeah it is bad, I agree." "WOAH NOW I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS BAD ONLY THAT IT WAS TRASH."
I'm honestly not sure what it is you're trying to say. That subjective is subjective? Sure. But there's also plenty of things objective about storytelling. The former does not preclude the latter.
Because I don't use trash to describe things that are bad when I talk about movies, shows and music I like. Trash is a descriptor to describe the type of enjoyment I derive from the thing. Stranger Things is trash, for instance. But its really wholesome trash that I love. But its fucking trash. If the art were food, icecream and sweet tarts are trash.
So I know you were trying to be funny, but the reality is the meaning of the word trash in this context is subjective.
You heard it here first, "Hamlet" is worse than "50 shades of grey", because quality is a popularity contest and millions of housewives read the latter for fun and hate the former because they were forced to read it for English lit.
There is a nice paper from David Hume about that. He basically agrees with you: there is objective quality to the arts, we know instinctively that Shakespeare is better than Dan Brown and that it has nothing to do with taste or popularity, but he also says that finding a fixed criteria is essentially impossible and that we cannot seem to make it into a science.
He introduces the concept of the “true critique”, someone with enough knowledge and experience who can be trusted with saying what is what. It’s not very satisfactory, but you guys are trying to crack one of the hardest problems of aesthetics.
Even though it sounds kind of elitist, I think Hume’s position is, if not totally convincing, a good compromise. It just happens that no one serious about his stuff and armed with the necessary knowledge will put Bieber songs above Beethoven late string quartets, argue against the fact that Van Gogh is a great painter, or compare favourably Twilight against Barry Lindon because they are simply absurd propositions. So, his advice is, just listen to people who really know the field
It's basically the same issues that arise as with morality. It's humans, living beings, that experience things through their brains and put their thoughts forward, trying to make sense of the world, whether it's about nature or society.
You can probably start some discussion of merit regarding aesthetics by bringing up our core psychological structures that have survived through evolution, what makes us human and how those are reflected in art. But to make a qualitative statement about a book or a painting akin to a scientific law is very difficult. But what are your measurements and how to you measure them? Amount of symbolic elements? Using themes that are core values of the human condition? Weaving everything together? Do you get some kind of modifier depending on which culture brings the work forward, or to which cultures the work speaks to?
It's incredibly complex to distill these things into something concrete, simply because there are too many relations to be considered while it's all just a fuzzy thing in the first place. We'd basically have to hard solve cellular biology -> physiology, human biology and psychology -> society in that order before we can actually make claims about this. And boy, are we far from it.
On May 01 2019 21:58 The_Red_Viper wrote: Oh my god i hope there won't be any "cleganebowl" fanservice, i don't think it makes any sense for the characters either anymore. The mountain is a dumb zombie, how can there be any cathartic moment when the consciousness of the mountain is completely gone?
Completely disagree. Cleganebowl is one of the few things remaining that still carries hype for me.
Gregor in both the show and books was already pretty much devoid of any humanity considering his many acts of cruelty, where he just serves as an arm of the Lannisters. Being an empty shell that takes orders isn't far off from who he was as a man. It further contrasts with Sandor as well who developed even more of a moral compass after abandoning the Lannisters.
Also, there's still plenty of satisfaction in having Sandor fight his brother. Gregor scarred him so deeply that he's still terribly afraid of fire. It's not so much the man he'd be slaying, but his past.
EPT
