Originally posted by DJ RANN
For real. Feeling sorry for those in FL and GA right now.
We mainly worry about earthquakes and fires here.
We live on the Cumberland Plateau in Middle TN. We're pretty fortunate, natural disaster wise. Although there is an active fault line on the western border of TN, as I understand it, the biggest threat here, statistically speaking, would be a tornado. The family farm house we moved into last month does have a "half basement," which is the first time we've line in a home that would offer at least SOME real protection from a tornado, and that's comforting.
DJ RANN
Tornados aren't fun. I think TN gets them but I know OK and KY get them quite hard. The scary thing about them is how quick they hit and move; people can somewhat plan for hurricanes or tropical storm but a twister will just ing appeal like someone rubbed a lamp.
Do basements have ratings? Like can you get it inspected to see whether it holds up in a tornado?
Zoso
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
Tornados aren't fun. I think TN gets them but I know OK and KY get them quite hard. The scary thing about them is how quick they hit and move; people can somewhat plan for hurricanes or tropical storm but a twister will just ing appeal like someone rubbed a lamp.
Do basements have ratings? Like can you get it inspected to see whether it holds up in a tornado?
There is probably some type of rating/inspection system, but I confess I do not know the particulars of such a system, nor have we had our inspected/rated. The house we are in belonged to my late paternal grandparents, and was my paternal grandfather's parents' land before it was his. So, we are the fourth generation of the Baker family to live here. Considering that we literally had NO basement/storm shelter at the prior home, it's definitely an improvement, at least. Would it provide protection in, say, something like an EF4 or 5? Probably not, but it at least underground. The prior house would have required us to try to find a central room on the first floor, or, try to secure a place in the crawl space beneath the house, which is actually considered more dangerous, as the house could potentially shift off it's foundation and crush you in the crawl space. I'm 42, and though I have witnessed some bad spring/summer storms, including many with tornado warnings and/or "radar indicated" tornadoes, I have been fortunate to have never witnessed one in person...and I hope we never do.
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
You're literally just arguing for the pathetic sake of it now
Oh yes, I'm pretty much just doing it to piss you off. Much like when you come out with steaming bull and then declare you're deliberately "trolling". If you're going to patronise someone like PKC, I'll give you for it all day long.
quote:
One post ago you're trying to say he did in fact differentiate between good and successful.
I posted where he claimed both, in two different sentences and now you're trying to say "well it's a given as to what the intention was!". off.
Arf. You know, endlessly repeating "But he said both! He said both!" over and over and over doesn't in any way change anything I've said. I've never seen anyone cling to a busted argument so desperately.
quote:
Actually, you just didn't pay attention; I've mentioned everything from the costumes, to hair and makeup, to acting and performances, to writing content, to gratuitous and utterly unrealistic sex and violence as nothing other than a mechanism to appeal to a low information base......
I'm sure by your standards "the plot lines were as convoluted as they were daft, and mainly concluded with that person dying" or "I didn't realise they had peroxide dye in the middle ages" is highly thoughtful analysis. To me they read like something a deliberately contrarian 15 year old vomits out onto Twitter.
I've no interest in watching GOT because I don't watch any of these long-spanning TV shows. However, I obviously know many people who have watched it, many of whom are people whose opinion and taste I respect a considerable amount more than yours. As near as I've gathered, GOT started off extremely strongly when it was following George RR Martin's plotting, and gradually descended into rushed silliness once they overtook the books and the show's own writers had to do the heavy lifting.
It's quite possible if I watched it I would decide the general consensus is wrong, as I have with other widely acclaimed things like Blade Runner 2049. And if you actually have some well thought out reasoning to back up your opinion, I'd be interested in reading it. But all I've seen in this thread from you is patronising, badly argued tosh that deliberately ignores what PKC has written.
Lews
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
It doesn't and that's an odd way to try to frame the argument. Success (or lack therefore) of other movies they've been is just one of many indicators that the actors are . They got so much hype and a springboard platform from GoT that many actors never get and literally only one, maybe two have been in anything that didn't die horrifically (both critically and financially) at the box office. , a ton of their output was so bad that it went straight to DVD/streaming.
Glad you now agree that there is no connection between the success of other projects and GoT's writing, unlike your earlier contention:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
There was a really interesting analysis over on reddit a while back that demonstrated all but one of the major "stars" have been unable to capitalize on the success level of GoT and all of them had movies that underperformed, indicating that the shows success wasn't down to talent or writing (lol).
;)
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
I'm not going to even get in to this. GoT fans can't see how bad it is so I'll let you "enjoy" it (hint: the first episode had a graphic rape scene, the second had no less than three sex scenes including one how to turn your rapist in a lover...and then it just accelerated from there).
Did it just accelerate from there? That's not the data I've seen.
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
Ah, Rotten tomatoes, that bastion of critiquing accuracy.
my life :rolleyes:
RT gave Jurassic World a 77%
The Amazing Spider-Man got 72%
Sing got 73%
And wait for it:
Attack of the clones 65% Fresh rating.
In fact there's whole websites just dedicated to pointing out how how ing crap RT as an indicator of quality is, not least because it favors ardent fan base commercial vehicles so heavily.
I wish you'd do the tiniest bit of research before posting spoon fed graphics.
I wish you would realise you're spouting nonsense, as usual, but ah well.
I will say this simply, as I know you have problems following reason and logic:
Obviously RT, like Yelp and other collating reviewing platforms, has many problems and should be examined carefully. However, it still tells us something about the state of the world.
My point was not that RT said the show was great. My point was that RT emphasizes the plot as being great. As you say, RT is geared towards commercial vehicles. And RT stating the plot of GoT is great indicates that, to many people, the plot was why they liked GoT. I would think this is backed up by the thousands of people on Reddit and Vox and the New York Times and elsewhere writing theories about the plot for many years.
I am not arguing the plot was good; I am arguing many people thought the plot was good, and that is why they watched it. You are arguing people watched it for sexual reasons. I would like to know your evidence of this claim. Or are you simply spouting off nonsense, as usual, with nothing to back it up?
Lews
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
I suppose I should qualify one thing that I've not specifically stated here; I know some of the people that manage several of the people in the show. I'm not going in to detail here of all places but the overwhelming consensus is that they're pulling back from the massive rush/hysteria there was during the show, because simply put, they threw a ton of mud at the wall and none of it stuck. The show appealed to certain people in a certain way, and they capitalized on that heavily, and they pushed it so hard the last series turned in to unashamed dross even to the hardcore fan base.
You're going to see a lot less of these actors that have been shoved down our throats as "stars" and bar one or two, they'll disappear in to the B and C list over the coming years as the agents and managers won't put resources where they will not see a return. They know the actors involved were lucky to be part of a show that made bank but it wasn't because it was sterling performances or incredible art or thought provoking - it was because it was a product that successfully targeted an exploding group of people. The same people that are cool with playing several hours of video games and wait in line over night for new games. The same people that will be spoon fed 27 superhero movies and go see every single one in cinema and then buy the collectors edition blue ray box set.
And they're 30 or even 40 years old.
:stongue::stongue::stongue:
Hides in Shadow
Show that turd who's boss...Just grab ahold of something bite your lip and give it hell.
.....
JEO
Guys.. I'm sure RANN has worked on GoT some way or the other. He's got some insider insight that will turn the tide here.
Hides in Shadow
Yeah he was part of the production crew or something in his past former life.
DJ RANN
quote:
Originally posted by Lews
Glad you now agree that there is no connection between the success of other projects and GoT's writing, unlike your earlier contention:
Terrible argument, but I wouldn't expect less. They had both terrible writing and acting, but it also means they're not mutually exclusive from the the point I raised which is that it did well commercially despite ty writing and performances and makeup and costume.....and many other elements that go in to producing a half decent show. You seem not to be able to comprehend the distinction.
quote:
Originally posted by Lews
Did it just accelerate from there? That's not the data I've seen.
Scenes vs viewers? That's an incredibly obtuse metric becuase it doesn't take in to account the fact they actually had to calm down the sex scenes:
quote:
Out of all of the seasons, the first one featured the most amount of sex. Some of the standout moments included that shocking scene between Cersei Lannister (Lena Headey) and twin brother Jaime (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau); a sequence involving Littlefinger (Aidan Gillen) instructing two of his prostitutes in how to please clients visiting his brothel; and Khal Drogo (Jason Momoa) having rough (rape) sex with his new bride Daenerys Targaryen (Emilia Clarke) in the first episode.
Given the high levels of sex and nudity, the programme makers had to initially hire porn stars because they couldn’t find actors willing to perform the daring scenes. Sahara Knite, who is Britain’s first Muslim female adult star, featured in season one, while fellow UK porn artist Maisie Dee had a role in season two’s The North Remembers.
Season four was the second naughtiest run of the series, with the most nudity and sex, this may partly have been thanks to the steamy moments between Oberyn Martell (Pedro Pascal) and his lover Ellaria Sand (Indira Varma). In the books the character of the Red Viper is said to enjoy the company of both sexes and this is alluded to in the TV series.
In terms of the episodes themselves, the first-ever episode of Game of Thrones was one of the naughtiest in the history of the programme. While this instalment consists pretty much of just female nudity, this starts to change as the show progresses.
Second place was the third episode of season five called High Sparrow, there were scenes in a brothel in Volantis as well as Tommen Baratheon (Dean Charles Chapman) and Margaery Tyrell (Natalie Dormer) consummating their marriage. There are a total of 10 nude scenes in this episode there is also an appearance of male nudity, marking a small shift.
Please do go on explaining how this show didn't increase over time (season 5 coming in second place for the most sex) wasn't just about porn with dragons n' swords, and how sex scenes weren't a driver for production and audience base?
It literally increased from a graphic rape scene in the first episode a peak overall in season 5 with season 5 having nearly peak levels too.
....Which is when their audience figures peaked, until season 8.
How's that for ing backing up :stongue:
quote:
Originally posted by Lews
I wish you would realise you're spouting nonsense, as usual, but ah well.
I will say this simply, as I know you have problems following reason and logic:
Obviously RT, like Yelp and other collating reviewing platforms, has many problems and should be examined carefully. However, it still tells us something about the state of the world.
My point was not that RT said the show was great. My point was that RT emphasizes the plot as being great. As you say, RT is geared towards commercial vehicles. And RT stating the plot of GoT is great indicates that, to many people, the plot was why they liked GoT. I would think this is backed up by the thousands of people on Reddit and Vox and the New York Times and elsewhere writing theories about the plot for many years.
" am not arguing the plot was good; I am arguing many people thought the plot was good, and that is why they watched it. You are arguing people watched it for sexual reasons. I would like to know your evidence of this claim. Or are you simply spouting off nonsense, as usual, with nothing to back it up?
How does you brain even function to let you breath in sequence?
You posted up RT as some kind of measure that it "had great plots/writing" and I point out to you in no uncertain terms that RT is a pile of e in critical terms specifically geared to favorably promote commercially popular vehicles.....
....which you later concede as absolutely correct :wtf:
...but somehow say that becuase a rabid fan base thought it has good plots, it must be true?
Right.
New York times you say?
quote:
"Game of Thrones is boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half ... [It] serves up a lot of confusion in the name of no larger or really relevant idea beyond sketchily fleshed-out notions that war is ugly, families are insidious, and power is hot. If you are not averse to the Dungeons & Dragons aesthetic, the series might be worth the effort. If you are nearly anyone else, you will hunger for HBO to get back to the business of languages for which we already have a dictionary." —The New York Times
How about from the editor of Vox?
quote:
Yet looking at Game of Thrones through the lens of the soap opera is a useful way to examine the show’s strengths and its weaknesses. It helps explain why the show sometimes feels so formless, so wedded to huge moments....
In a show reliant on pure serialization, stories move too slowly to really test characters against a wide variety of problems. Thus, most of the nuance is down to the performer. You can even see this on Game of Thrones, where Emilia Clarke, who is good at certain things and not great at others, has mostly turned Daenerys into a series of struts and shouts. (The nadir of this was the show’s second season, in which she kept yelling, “Where are my dragons?!”)
And I mean, , that's Vox, not Roger Ebert or Maltin ....who called his review "Dragons, Politics and Dorks - The New Sunday Nights on HBO)".
The New Yorker actually refused to review it altogether.
Or some choice cuts form my favourite, The Guardian, no less:
"Gratuitous sex, brutal slaughter and a disembowled deer brighten up this episode"
"Expect stabbings and stand-offs as an epic battle takes over this penultimate episode that would have been great fun to watch … if only the plot made sense"
Honestly, It's painful to watch you try to understand that popular doesn't mean good or well made.
There's over 10m people out there who genuinely believe the earth is flat and have conventions and forums dedicated to proving this. They sell tons of tickets to these events. That doesn't mean it's good science. It just means there's a bunch of idiots who believe in it. They have their own reddit subs too. Just like those who believe places like RT's reviews mean that GoT plotlines were "great".
Lews
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
Terrible argument, but I wouldn't expect less. They had both terrible writing and acting, but it also means they're not mutually exclusive from the the point I raised which is that it did well commercially despite ty writing and performances and makeup and costume.....and many other elements that go in to producing a half decent show. You seem not to be able to comprehend the distinction.
What argument did I make, there? I asked you to explain your earlier statement that a financial analysis of other films made by main stars of GoT has some type of connection to the writing of GoT. You said that, in the post I quoted. Then you later say there is no connection. I was pointing that out. I was not really arguing anything, just demonstrating that you're an idiot?
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
Scenes vs viewers? That's an incredibly obtuse metric becuase it doesn't take in to account the fact they actually had to calm down the sex scenes:
Please do go on explaining how this show didn't increase over time (season 5 coming in second place for the most sex) wasn't just about porn with dragons n' swords, and how sex scenes weren't a driver for production and audience base?
It literally increased from a graphic rape scene in the first episode a peak overall in season 5 with season 5 having nearly peak levels too.
....Which is when their audience figures peaked, until season 8.
How's that for ing backing up :stongue:
Yes, they tamed down the sex scenes, and viewership continued to go up... Almost as if, people were not watching because of the sex scenes? They were watching for other reasons?
And, uh, their audience figures did not peak in season 5?
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
How does you brain even function to let you breath in sequence?
You posted up RT as some kind of measure that it "had great plots/writing" and I point out to you in no uncertain terms that RT is a pile of e in critical terms specifically geared to favorably promote commercially popular vehicles.....
....which you later concede as absolutely correct :wtf:
...but somehow say that becuase a rabid fan base thought it has good plots, it must be true?
Where did I say it had good plots? Where did I say that RT proved GoT had great writing? Please quote me.
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
Right.
New York times you say?
How about from the editor of Vox?
And I mean, , that's Vox, not Roger Ebert or Maltin ....who called his review "Dragons, Politics and Dorks - The New Sunday Nights on HBO)".
The New Yorker actually refused to review it altogether.
Or some choice cuts form my favourite, The Guardian, no less:
"Gratuitous sex, brutal slaughter and a disembowled deer brighten up this episode"
"Expect stabbings and stand-offs as an epic battle takes over this penultimate episode that would have been great fun to watch … if only the plot made sense"
Honestly, It's painful to watch you try to understand that popular doesn't mean good or well made.
There's over 10m people out there who genuinely believe the earth is flat and have conventions and forums dedicated to proving this. They sell tons of tickets to these events. That doesn't mean it's good science. It just means there's a bunch of idiots who believe in it. They have their own reddit subs too. Just like those who believe places like RT's reviews mean that GoT plotlines were "great".
Where did I say that popularity is connected to quality? And, again, where did I say that GoT's plot was great?
Something is certainly painful here, Rann, but it isn't anything I've said.
DJ RANN
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Oh yes, I'm pretty much just doing it to piss you off. Much like when you come out with steaming bull and then declare you're deliberately "trolling". If you're going to patronise someone like PKC, I'll give you for it all day long.
You think this is a surprise? How cute. Why do you think I'm still posting in this thread? Because I think I'm going to get through to you after actually having quoted the person in question - twice - which you then side stepped and didn't want to revisit.
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Arf. You know, endlessly repeating "But he said both! He said both!" over and over and over doesn't in any way change anything I've said. I've never seen anyone cling to a busted argument so desperately.
Glad I finally got you to admit it. He did say both. Please explain again how he "didn't mean that" though :p
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I'm sure by your standards "the plot lines were as convoluted as they were daft, and mainly concluded with that person dying" or "I didn't realise they had peroxide dye in the middle ages" is highly thoughtful analysis. To me they read like something a deliberately contrarian 15 year old vomits out onto Twitter.
Simply becuase the show really doesn't deserve thoughtful analysis. Do you not get that? I'm not going to express how it's a meditation on the horrors of war, or reflect on it's poignant narrative of family dysfunction
...becuase it's ing not, and it ing doesn't have any.
Do you understand the reason I'm not doing some in depth and eloquently worded yet thoughtful critique is that it doesn't ing deserve it? In my mind it would be like looking for depth in an episode of the teletubbies. They're both made for kids, albeit at different ages.
(The New Worker actually refused to review it on that basis - it wasn't worth their pages space apparently).
And of course, you won't take my word for it so here's a Copy and paste from my response to Lews pathetically trying to argue it wasn't about sex and swords:
quote:
Given the high levels of sex and nudity, the programme makers had to initially hire porn stars because they couldn’t find actors willing to perform all the daring scenes. Sahara Knite, who is Britain’s first Muslim female adult star, featured in season one, while fellow UK porn artist Maisie Dee had a role in season two’s The North Remembers.
In terms of the episodes themselves, the first-ever episode of Game of Thrones was one of the naughtiest in the history of the programme. While this instalment consists pretty much of just female nudity, this starts to change as the show progresses.
Second place was the third episode of season five called High Sparrow, there were scenes in a brothel in Volantis as well as Tommen Baratheon (Dean Charles Chapman) and Margaery Tyrell (Natalie Dormer) consummating their marriage. There are a total of 10 nude scenes in this episode there is also an appearance of male nudity, marking a small shift.
They literally had to hire porn stars becuase even the relatively unknown actors wouldn't do the scenes they had planned. How many shows do you watch that have that level of sex? and Dragons? and Sorcery?
And as I also said, here's some revoiews from people that actually matter:
New York Times
quote:
"Game of Thrones is boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half ... [It] serves up a lot of confusion in the name of no larger or really relevant idea beyond sketchily fleshed-out notions that war is ugly, families are insidious, and power is hot. If you are not averse to the Dungeons & Dragons aesthetic, the series might be worth the effort. If you are nearly anyone else, you will hunger for HBO to get back to the business of languages for which we already have a dictionary." —The New York Times
Wall Street Journal
quote:
We’re back to the familiar favorites of the infantile, e.g. spurting blood and gore, bastard sons, evil vixens, blond nymphets, quasi-lesbian action, crude talk among men about their private parts, incest, rough couplings, and more random bare breasts than any other contender in the adolescent-boy-action-show contest this month.
Washington Post
quote:
'Game of Thrones' can be a big stein of groggy slog ... [It's] deadly serious about its thees and thous — a fantasy trope that pop culture has been mocking since Dungeons & Dragons emerged from the basement rec-room to invent Google. "
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I've no interest in watching GOT because I don't watch any of these long-spanning TV shows. However, I obviously know many people who have watched it, many of whom are people whose opinion and taste I respect a considerable amount more than yours. As near as I've gathered, GOT started off extremely strongly when it was following George RR Martin's plotting, and gradually descended into rushed silliness once they overtook the books and the show's own writers had to do the heavy lifting.
It's quite possible if I watched it I would decide the general consensus is wrong, as I have with other widely acclaimed things like Blade Runner 2049. And if you actually have some well thought out reasoning to back up your opinion, I'd be interested in reading it. But all I've seen in this thread from you is patronising, badly argued tosh that deliberately ignores what PKC has written.
Wait what? You don't like "long spanning TV shows?
Which great TV shows aren't Long spanning? I mean, some of the best TV in the last 20 years is 5 seasons or more; The Americans, Dexter, Breaking Bad, House of Cards, Homeland, Luther, The X Files, The Wire, Band Of Brothers.....
Or do you just not like TV in general?
Tbh, I think you should have just curbed your analysis when you admitted that you haven't seen it, instead of saying "people i know and trust" liked it.
People I know and trust like ty comedies like friends and bad food like McD's. But they also can recognise GoT as the steaming pile of prepubescent mockery of a show that it is.
