I can't wait for the "Why was Avengers: Endgame such a failure?" thread.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Moderator: Steve
Yes, the utter absurdity of thinking that a show that was widely watched and made a lot of money failed to provide a good or satisfying ending. You trolling or do you legit have some sort of beef with the idea of people arguing about whether stories were good?Elfdart wrote: ↑2019-09-04 02:31pm The premise of this thread is absurd. I haven't seen such a clownish misuse of the word failure since one of the Red Letter Morons claimed that since sixteen movies in human history earned more money than The Phantom Menace, the movie was a "failure".
I can't wait for the "Why was Avengers: Endgame such a failure?" thread.![]()
Jon executed them after they murdered him and their reasons were FAR pettier (they didn't want to work with the Wildlings even though the Night's King was on the way). Dany takes people who had far better reasons (Doreah was tired of wandering in the desert)Vendetta wrote: ↑2019-09-01 06:53pmGiven that the people who did it were anonymous masked terrorists who were by default criminals who would be executed in literally any city on Planetos for just being part of a rebellion, one more line on the rap sheet doesn't mean much now does it.
Again, there's no logical path between "get pissy" and "burn down half a city". And she was lobbying to conquer Westeros, just like half a dozen other characters who were not presented as fantasy sky hitler. None of these things are unique to Daenerys and none of them draw a logical path to where her character ends up, because the writers were incompetent and didn't know that was what you're supposed to do.She also has a tendency to get pissy when people reject her, and was lobbying to conquer Westeros (which she had no real claim to) before the assassin tried to kill her. She has a very simple “if you oppose me you die” mentality that Jon and others don’t have
Jon does, in fact, execute a number of people, including a child, for opposing him in the mutiny at Castle Black. Killing people who oppose you when they take up arms or incite others to do so is how the world works in Game of Thrones, it's the whole reason any of the the events of the series happen.
It was a commercial enterprise first and foremost, so why not use money made as a key metric? The show had a baked in audience that was going to watch it regardless, so it's in their interests to cut corners and roll some dice in the quest for awards.Vendetta wrote: ↑2019-09-05 01:24pm Look we all know that commercial outcomes are the only way we can judge the success or failure of a dramatic presentation.
I'm sure the last season of Game of Thrones made HBO a lot of money, but that doesn't mean it was a well told conclusion, it means it was a highly anticipated one.
The thread title and OP don't just state that TRR doesn't like the last season, but make an objective claim that the season was a "failure". The inability to notice or acknowledge the difference between "I didn't like it" and "It was a failure" is Red Letter Moron territory.
"Objective"is a loaded word to throw around here. Saying that the ending and last seasons of Game of Thrones were a failure with the pretty clear implication that he means it was bad because it failed to give a satisfying ending relative to all the build up and the good parts of earlier seasons, had dumb writing and was kinda sexist if you think about it isn't any more or less claiming his tastes are objective fact than you declaring that No Country for Old Men was tedious and stupid.Elfdart wrote: ↑2019-09-05 05:51pm The thread title and OP don't just state that TRR doesn't like the last season, but make an objective claim that the season was a "failure". The inability to notice or acknowledge the difference between "I didn't like it" and "It was a failure" is Red Letter Moron territory.
When I started a thread years ago about my distaste for No Country For Old Men, I didn't try to pass off my own likes and dislikes as objective fact; I didn't pretend to speak for anyone but myself; and I sure as shit didn't claim a movie that did well at the box office was some kind of "failure" just because I thought it was garbage.
Don't act all high and mighty about your "No Country For Old Men" take. I went back and re-read that thread. You aren't nearly as magnanimous as you are trying to make yourself out to be. You dismiss anyone that did like the movie as simply being an out-of-touch snob, a hack, or stupid. You aren't just someone humbly stating your opinion, you are someone who is so utterly convinced that their opinions ARE objective fact that the only possible reasons someone could disagree with your opinions is if they are stupid or just straight out lying. You say at one point that even a good shag couldn't "save" the movie; that really isn't much different from the language TRR is using.Elfdart wrote: ↑2019-09-05 05:51pm The thread title and OP don't just state that TRR doesn't like the last season, but make an objective claim that the season was a "failure". The inability to notice or acknowledge the difference between "I didn't like it" and "It was a failure" is Red Letter Moron territory.
When I started a thread years ago about my distaste for No Country For Old Men, I didn't try to pass off my own likes and dislikes as objective fact; I didn't pretend to speak for anyone but myself; and I sure as shit didn't claim a movie that did well at the box office was some kind of "failure" just because I thought it was garbage.
I mean, people can feel free to start another thread about the financial success of "Game of Thrones" and see how interesting that conversation ends up being. I don't understand the point of wandering into a discussion people are having about specific plot points and themes of a story and shouting "BUT IT MADE MONEY!!" It's like if people are having a discussion about the hypothetical historical ramifications of Hitler dying in 1936 and you just come in and shout "BUT WE WON THE WAR! U-S-A! U-S-A!" It's technically true, but it's pointless and obnoxious.
My biggest gripe with No Country was the character of Anton Chirgurgh. They tried to make him out into some kind of badass contract killer for hire for the cartels; but he didn't BEHAVE like an actual contract killer -- he killed people for no reason at all, and left behind badly contaminated crime scenes, which even with 1980s technology (fingerprints only) would have easily tripped up Anton.Elfdart wrote: ↑2019-09-05 05:51pm When I started a thread years ago about my distaste for No Country For Old Men, I didn't try to pass off my own likes and dislikes as objective fact; I didn't pretend to speak for anyone but myself; and I sure as shit didn't claim a movie that did well at the box office was some kind of "failure" just because I thought it was garbage.
Yeah. From the point of view of turning HBO a profit, the final season was a success. Not as big a one as it could have been if they hadn't pissed a bunch of fans off, maybe, but still a success (and some fans were always going to get pissed off).Ziggy Stardust wrote: ↑2019-09-06 10:19amI mean, people can feel free to start another thread about the financial success of "Game of Thrones" and see how interesting that conversation ends up being. I don't understand the point of wandering into a discussion people are having about specific plot points and themes of a story and shouting "BUT IT MADE MONEY!!" It's like if people are having a discussion about the hypothetical historical ramifications of Hitler dying in 1936 and you just come in and shout "BUT WE WON THE WAR! U-S-A! U-S-A!" It's technically true, but it's pointless and obnoxious.