Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fire breathing dragons, white walkers, giants, children of the forest, trees that cry blood, people who can warg into animals, a woman who can't be burned by fire, and THIS is what you choose to find unbelievable?
Neither Jamie, nor Bronn are any of the above. They have been depicted as human in every respect. Now we are to believe they are super human, with superior breath holding skills. Ok, I get it.
I promise you, 99% of viewers had no confusion whatsoever. Bronn saved Jaime by pushing him into the river, and then pulled him out. They aren't pondering details about river current flow, or depth, or anything. It was a dramatic scene, and worked. The typical viewer doesn't need exposition on all this. It's a great story, well-told, superbly acted, and it's enjoyable by anyone who can rise above the nitpick level.
It's just like the travel distance issue. You can either waste viewer's time (and it's *very* limited at this point) bogged down in the details, or just let the story flow. Do we really care about how long it took to get to The Wall, or around Westeros? I'm starting to sound like a broken record--GRRM made us spend hundreds of pages in these details, and as a result, the books suffered.
One can say "Wow, they made it to the Wall quickly", and either move on, or waste time arguing how it was possible. And if that's what makes one happy, great. I love to discuss details, and dive deep into a show, but I also understand (IMHO) what's worth losing sleep over.
If it's important to the story, they will tell us.
This is where Breaking Bad will always be far above the quality of Game of Thrones.
In good science fiction, the writer establishes a world where the natural laws are different and things which cannot happen in reality, may happen within that created world. That way the reader has an idea of what is and isn't possible within this theoretical world.
Bad science fiction is when the writer violates the established rules, whether for convenience, out of laziness or forgetfulness.
Those here who keep posting the "oh just let the art flow over you" are the ones who apparently aren't bothered when the writer violates his or her own established realities. Then there are those of us who find this sort of thing annoying because we recognize that it is writer...laziness/forgetfulness etc.
So, for the folks here who keep posting the "just go with the flow" reactions when criticism is leveled, you are being seen by the others as someone with lower standards. Why you wish to be seen this way, again and again, eludes me.
If you don't enjoy this sort of reality check critiquing, skip over those posts and don't respond. Talk about something else, but quit wasting your time lecturing others simply because you are less demanding when it comes to your science fiction.
In good science fiction, the writer establishes a world where the natural laws are different and things which cannot happen in reality, may happen within that created world. That way the reader has an idea of what is and isn't possible within this theoretical world.
Bad science fiction is when the writer violates the established rules, whether for convenience, out of laziness or forgetfulness.
I haven't noticed any instances in GoT of the internal "rules" being broken. Some of the rules are thus far mysterious (e.g. how do the red priests bring people back? how is the return of dragons linked to a resurgence in magic use?), but not internally contradictory as far as I've seen.
There have been a few concrete factual errors, such as the melting point of gold. I think that's going to happen occasionally in any long-running series.
What they have been doing is glossing over details such as travel methods, where materiel is coming from, which timelines are simultaneous, etc. That's not so much an error as a deliberate choice on the part of the showrunners, for better or for worse. I think the average viewer is clever enough that they (for example) know Jon didn't teleport from Dragonstone to the Wall, even if there's no scenes of him traveling, or of what was happening in the meantime, or a screen card reading "two weeks later." We can just infer the journey was uneventful. They're clearly going for momentum over minutia. It wouldn't be great storytelling, IMO, to just disappear a lead character for a few eps while he traveled, or to waste screen time showing them slogging along through the slush.
Take the Lord of the Rings trilogy of movies as an example. At the beginning of the series, they made a point of showing maps, showing the characters traversing different terrains, arriving and leaving every location, etc. By the end it was like BAM ARAGRON JUST MATERIALIZED OUTSIDE SAURON'S GATE. Firstly, they can do this because they're established the geography already, so the audience can mentally fill in the journey, and secondly, it's desirable to do this, because as you approach the climax of the story the pace generally speeds up and expository details drop by the wayside.
I haven't noticed any instances in GoT of the internal "rules" being broken. Some of the rules are thus far mysterious (e.g. how do the red priests bring people back? how is the return of dragons linked to a resurgence in magic use?), but not internally contradictory as far as I've seen.
There have been a few concrete factual errors, such as the melting point of gold. I think that's going to happen occasionally in any long-running series.
What they have been doing is glossing over details such as travel methods, where materiel is coming from, which timelines are simultaneous, etc. That's not so much an error as a deliberate choice on the part of the showrunners, for better or for worse. I think the average viewer is clever enough that they (for example) know Jon didn't teleport from Dragonstone to the Wall, even if there's no scenes of him traveling, or of what was happening in the meantime, or a screen card reading "two weeks later." We can just infer the journey was uneventful. They're clearly going for momentum over minutia. It wouldn't be great storytelling, IMO, to just disappear a lead character for a few eps while he traveled, or to waste screen time showing them slogging along through the slush.
Those sorts of things have not been my complaints. I get annoyed with things like their showing Bronn emerging with Jamie on the opposite bank from where they went into the water. Or the show expecting us to believe that no one at the Black Castle would have bothered sending a raven to Winterfell with the news that Brandon had turned up alive. Or that Euron Greyjoy could slip an entire fleet in among Yara's ships without it being detected. Or Euron using a ship under sail to ram another ship.
Those weren't "deliberate choices", they were goofs.
Those sorts of things have not been my complaints. I get annoyed with things like their showing Bronn emerging with Jamie on the opposite bank from where they went into the water. Or the show expecting us to believe that no one at the Black Castle would have bothered sending a raven to Winterfell with the news that Brandon had turned up alive. Or that Euron Greyjoy could slip an entire fleet in among Yara's ships without it being detected. Or Euron using a ship under sail to ram another ship.
Those weren't "deliberate choices", they were goofs.
With the exception of your first item, I tend to agree. Interesting plot holes.
It would make perfect sense to swim for the opposite bank in those circumstances.
Ooooh, what do we have here? The Go-With-the-Flow'ers vs the Stick-to-the-Internal-Rule'rs? Funny, but I appreciate both viewpoints. I, too, am usually a stickler for those already established internal rules to be adhered to, out of respect for the story, and for the viewer's intelligence. I've griped about stories breaking those rules in other threads. But GoT has developed an inner logic of its own (as the producers have mentioned), and that is the increasing speed of the storyline, something that (to a writer) ends up setting its own pace. They realized they actually didn't have enough material for two whole seasons, but only for 1 1/2. So you abbreviate the travel time, etc., counting on the audience to focus on the actual core scenes rather than doing it the GRRM way, feeling obliged to describe every detail in the name of fictional realism.
So as for Star Trek I will scream and holler if the writers play tricks with their self-established physical laws. In GoT, meh, just get to the essentials already! As Astrohip remarked, the vast majority of viewers don't notice any discrepancies, and the series was really not created for us GoT nerds--right? We just have fun treating it like an alternative, consistent universe.
(Just please don't let Ghost turn up as a White 4-legged Walker, that's all I ask!)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As Astrohip remarked, the vast majority of viewers don't notice any discrepancies, and the series was really not created for us GoT nerds--right? We just have fun treating it like an alternative, consistent universe.
