Game of Thrones begins....

[Gups]

I thought the battle scenes were generally dreadful.  Particular lowlights were the ridiculous mounds of bodies, the super disciplined shield wall manoeuvre executed while the wildlings just stood around and watched and the nick of time attack by the knights of the vale in which they knock over the Bolton forces (all armed with pikes) like dominos. 

Mound of bodies: 8000 soldiers on the field, near all concentrated in one spot and archers firing constantly.  You are expecting no bodies?
Shield wall: if you're an untrained wildling (and that is a mistake from Jon, he was on the other side, and he said it: "discipline beats numbers 9 out 10 times", and he has neither the discipline, neither the numbers) facing this shield wall, how do you react exactly?  You can't flank them, they sort of surround you.
The spearmen: how do you think the phalanx of ancient times were defeated?  Infantry on one side, cavalry flanking them from the rear.  One rank has the shield, the other have the spears.  If you turn around to defend against a sudden cavalry charge, you leave your other side open to infantry attack that can remove the shield from the bearers.
 

Eh? Who said "no bodies"? These were mounds of bodies- they looked about 10 foot high.  I'm really no expert on medieval warfare but I can't see how this happens on an open field.

My complaint about the shield wall is the way it was formed with zero interference from the enemy who are just standing around watching like its the trooping of the colour.

[Berkut]

The firing arrows into your own troops kind of bothered me as well, but on the other hand I've always thought that Ramsay was a ridiculous character anyway.

Nobody would follow that guy. The way he acts is in direct contradiction to the social structure he exists in, which is based on loyalty, charisma, honor, and structure. People don't tolerate lords who just butcher everyone else, at least not openly. You have to have some ability to instill some sense of loyalty in your followers, they have to *like* you at some level, especially if you do NOT have the social status granted by birth to lean on. Joffrey can get away with being a piece of shit (oh wait, no he can't, he get killed for being a piece of shit that nobody liked) for a while. Ramsay could not.

The idea that any of these lords would follow an obvious psychopath is ridiculous - but if you can grant that they will follow him after he spends his free time randomly torturing women and others, after he just kills any number of people including his own father just because, then fuck it? Why not believe they will keep following him after he orders his archers to kill your own brothers and cousins and friends.

[Grey Fox]

Jon is a bad tactician, we knew that. Thormund states, in the episode, that he has never seen them fight & he does not know about encirclement tactics.

You are all a bunch of grognard wondering why 12th century low Count doesn't know about strategic warfare that he has no way to know about or as yet to be invented.

The show has gone thru countless moments teaching the audience that the only good strategist in the world is Tyrion.

[Berkut]

Jon is a bad tactician, we knew that. Thormund states, in the episode, that he has never seen them fight & he does not know about encirclement tactics.

You are all a bunch of grognard wondering why 12th century low Count doesn't know about strategic warfare that he has no way to know about or as yet to be invented.

The show has gone thru countless moments teaching the audience that the only good strategist in the world is Tyrion.

I don't think that is true at all.

The problem isn't that nobody is a good strategist, it is that there are plenty of people who are supposed to be good who turn out to be morons because the writers care more about creating completely false tension than they do about telling a good story with consistent narratives. It doesn't even matter that some people are supposed to be great tacticians, because we know that the writers will just make them idiots as needed to serve their needs. Or brilliant (as in this case - there was never any reason to believe that Ramsay was some kind of brilliant battle commander, but no problem - he is now).

Jon is supposed be a good strategist/tactician. He is certainly experienced leading men in combat. Tywin was considered one of the best, and Jamie as well. Rob was certainly supposed to be surprisingly good, and he even beat Jamie.

Hell, that is a *great* example in fact, now that I think on it. They didn't feel a need to create some fake sense of imminent defeat every time Rob got in a battle, and nobody looks back on those shows and says "Gosh, that sucked! It would have been so much better if Rob had been about to die EVERY SINGLE TIME and then got saved by some external force swooping in at the last minute!" The early seasons battle stories were well done, and made sense, because the battlers served a need to tell a particular story, not a need to create drama and tension because the guy writing the story didn't know how to do so otherwise.

Of course, that was when they were aligning with Martin's story, rather than being off on their own.

I don't mind that the show has gone its own way - that pretty much had to happen. I don't mind that they've gotten rid of many characters, for example. Indeed, I think they've actually done a pretty good job in how they handled much of the things that had to happen to make this work on screen.

What bugs me is that the writing in many cases has been lazy and reverting back to standard Hollywood lowest denominator *boring* because it is just doing the same old boring shit that has been done over and over and over again. It is Hollywood Epic Story Telling 101, and hits all the same 1-2-3-4 touchpoints you see in all of these. Focus on action over story, the need to create tension for its own sake, etc., etc.

[Berkut]

BTW, all my bitching doesn't change the fact that I love this show and look forward to every new episode like Sunday at 9pm is fucking Christmas.

[grumbler]

Berkut, I don't disagree with anything you are saying (though I'd disagree to some extent with the vehemence with which you put your points), but I am not sure that the writers for the show know of any other way to write than the whole "mounting tensions, near-disaster, resolution of the conflict" mode.  I do like your alternative suggestion of the other Houses betraying Ramsay Bolton at the height of the battle and having Littlefinger show up right when he is no longer needed.  However, I am somewhat convinced that the showrunners got a scare when they realized that Martin's complex plots were leading the show towards an ever-expanding scope and cost, and they over-reacted by just snipping a bunch of story lines (Dorne, The Faceless Men, Blackfish, Cleganebowl, etc) without any real explanation of why and how those elements were supposed to play out.

There is a lot of sloppy writing, I agree.  I am hoping that the writing and plotting will pick back up once the showrunners feel more comfortable with the story they have left to tell in the episodes they have left.  That might not happen, though; remember that Peter Jackson had the entire LotR trilogy already written out for him, and he didn't understand key elements of the story (like the fact that Aragorn was doing everything he could to make Sauron believe that he, Aragorn, had the Ring and was using it).

Agree that, flawed as it is, it is still a great show.  Production values remain high even when the writing lets the story down.

[Martinus]

So, is Cersei going to blow up King's Landing next week?

[grumbler]

So, is Cersei going to blow up King's Landing next week?

She will do something that kills Tommen.  The question is:  will the death be accidental, or deliberate?

[Habbaku]

No.  She's going to blow up the Great Sept.  Blowing up the entire city doesn't help her, but nuking the High Sparrow and his followers will, at least short term.

[viper37]

The firing arrows into your own troops kind of bothered me as well, but on the other hand I've always thought that Ramsay was a ridiculous character anyway.

Nobody would follow that guy. The way he acts is in direct contradiction to the social structure he exists in, which is based on loyalty, charisma, honor, and structure. People don't tolerate lords who just butcher everyone else, at least not openly. You have to have some ability to instill some sense of loyalty in your followers, they have to *like* you at some level, especially if you do NOT have the social status granted by birth to lean on. Joffrey can get away with being a piece of shit (oh wait, no he can't, he get killed for being a piece of shit that nobody liked) for a while. Ramsay could not.

The idea that any of these lords would follow an obvious psychopath is ridiculous - but if you can grant that they will follow him after he spends his free time randomly torturing women and others, after he just kills any number of people including his own father just because, then fuck it? Why not believe they will keep following him after he orders his archers to kill your own brothers and cousins and friends.

Joffrey wasn't killed by a vassal.

I'm pretty sure there are lots of example of cruel, sadistic lords in history who got away with shit for a while.  All his antics were tolerated before he became a full lord, to a certain extent.  His father wasn't recognized as a kind man, though we don't know the specifics, only what Caytlin Stark says of him, and his banner.

His bastardiness is no longer an issue once his father recognizes him as his heir and the King legitimizes him.  That's like William the Conqueror, technically a bastard, who still became King or England after eliminating his opponents on the battlefield and repressing the North of England.

[Gups]

BTW, all my bitching doesn't change the fact that I love this show and look forward to every new episode like Sunday at 9pm is fucking Christmas.

Me too but I suspect if they'd been this sloppy early on in the series I would not have invested so heavily

[The Minsky Moment]

Nobody would follow that guy. The way he acts is in direct contradiction to the social structure he exists in, which is based on loyalty, charisma, honor, and structure. People don't tolerate lords who just butcher everyone else, at least not openly. You have to have some ability to instill some sense of loyalty in your followers, they have to *like* you at some level, especially if you do NOT have the social status granted by birth to lean on. Joffrey can get away with being a piece of shit (oh wait, no he can't, he get killed for being a piece of shit that nobody liked) for a while. Ramsay could not.

True to a point - i.e. even hypothetically had Ramsey won the battle it's hard to see him prospering long-term.  But in the short term, it's plausible that he succeeds because of the completely disordered situation in the North, the huge power vacuum left by the fall of the Starks and the ironborn raids, and the fact that Ramsey has the backing of the crown, the title of WotN, and alliance with the Lannisters and Freys.  The show makes it clear that those northern houses that support him are doing so not because they are big fans of Ramsey but because of separate agendas of their own; most the houses appear to be taking the Glover approach of waiting and seeing without exposing themselves to losses.

[The Minsky Moment]

Jon is supposed be a good strategist/tactician. He is certainly experienced leading men in combat.

He's still pretty young/inexperienced, and successfully defending a castle isn't the same as leading a field army.
Anyway, it seems like his plan was sound, his error was letting emotions get the better of him, which is not exactly out of character, nor unknown in the annals of history.

[Berkut]

Jon is supposed be a good strategist/tactician. He is certainly experienced leading men in combat.

He's still pretty young/inexperienced, and successfully defending a castle isn't the same as leading a field army.
Anyway, it seems like his plan was sound, his error was letting emotions get the better of him, which is not exactly out of character, nor unknown in the annals of history.

Translation: He was a moron, an Ramsay out thought him.

You are agreeing with me here. My point is that the character of Jon was intended to be a pretty bright guy who was something of a natural leader of soldiers.

Certainly if they had written this in such a way that Jon beat Ramsay by out-thinking him, we would not all be sitting here saying "Oh man, that makes no sense! Jon is just a kid, no way he could beat Ramsay!"

His plan was fine, but plans don't matter if the moment the fight starts you just do exactly what the other guy obviously wants you to do. my beef isn't that what he did was not believable, it is that it was shitty writing.

[LaCroix]

jon got baited in the books. minsky is right, jon lets his emotions run wild sometimes.

"natural leader of soldiers" doesn't mean he always picks the best strategy. he can lead men, and men look up to him. that's all.

my beef isn't that what he did was not believable, it is that it was shitty writing

lol