Game of Thrones failed to do even basic, cursory military research when it came to whether it was even plausible to have your cavalry as your main center flank. Hint: it is never a good use of...
Game of Thrones failed to do even basic, cursory military research when it came to whether it was even plausible to have your cavalry as your main center flank. Hint: it is never a good use of cavalry and generals who might try that shit on the field would find themselves at risk of mutiny or worse before the battle even began because everyone knew that isn't what cavalry are meant to do. To think anyone would forget that Jon has been bested in just about every battle he's ever been in, just to be saved by some Dues ex machina at the last minute is ludicrous with the seasoned veterans of sieges there alongside him.
I can agree that no battles in this last season made all that much sense and that all decisions were made for cinematic effect rather than realistic in-world reasons.
I found Mauler's videos to be a solid, detailed exploration of the stunning idiocy on full public display in the last three episodes. They are the best critiques I've seen since Plinkett's...
I found Mauler's videos to be a solid, detailed exploration of the stunning idiocy on full public display in the last three episodes. They are the best critiques I've seen since Plinkett's legendary teardown of the phantom menace.
I do think it's worth making the point that systematic inaccuracy in portrayals of warfare dilutes outrage when equal stupidities are proposed in real life, like randomly bombing Iran.
I do think it's worth making the point that systematic inaccuracy in portrayals of warfare dilutes outrage when equal stupidities are proposed in real life, like randomly bombing Iran.
Coming back hours later, I realize now I misread your comment. Sorry for the derp. It's absolutely worth pointing out the potential impacts of a show as widely anticipated as GoT was (so widely...
Coming back hours later, I realize now I misread your comment. Sorry for the derp.
It's absolutely worth pointing out the potential impacts of a show as widely anticipated as GoT was (so widely that unsubscribing from HBOGo after the finale would air was a regular joke). I was more commenting that the showrunners completely dropped any pretense of a well-researched or grounded story for the entire season, exacerbating the betrayal I felt about what was largely up until the battle of the bastards a consequence-driven plot. Somewhere along the way, the showrunners got so far out of depth that they had to have just said to themselves "Damn the consequences, this will look really cool" and thought the fans would forgive it. They were right, of course, until they were wrong.
I don't think any military general has ever proposed leaving missile launchers exposed to an undefended ground-based enemy attack, from the very direction you expect them to attack from.
I don't think any military general has ever proposed leaving missile launchers exposed to an undefended ground-based enemy attack, from the very direction you expect them to attack from.
Well what, you're going to play hammer and anvil with the bunch of white walkers? put your cav on the flanks, surround and route a bunch of undead? yeah no. To start with, I don't think they could...
Well what, you're going to play hammer and anvil with the bunch of white walkers? put your cav on the flanks, surround and route a bunch of undead? yeah no.
To start with, I don't think they could ever have flanked the white walkers, their line was way too long and would have forced the cav into a totally defenceless and cut off--communication wise--position.
Secondly you can't route a white walker, so what's the point of attacking from behind, the line is deep enough to where they just turn around and wreck face anyway.
The only possible way they could win was buy killing the king, the entire purpose of the defence of Winterfell was to delay the army long enough for a king killing to happen.
/thanks for indulging my need to play devils advocate here, I still think it was kinda stupid what they did but whatever.
That's not really an argument in favor of throwing them headlong at an enemy they can't see, fire-swords or no. That's an argument for playing extra conservative, as a siege, digging...
That's not really an argument in favor of throwing them headlong at an enemy they can't see, fire-swords or no. That's an argument for playing extra conservative, as a siege, digging fortifications and forcing the undead to come to fight over your fortification, with the cavalry in exposed wings waiting for a signal they can see to fight, if they're going to be called to fight at all (and it's a battle in which they literally might do more damage to your efforts with a shitty charge than with no charge at all because of the known factors of the enemy being able to raise the dead en masse).
The mentality in that battle has to be that every life is scared because any ally that falls risks becoming an enemy. Not only are you outnumbered, but you're facing an enemy that can turn your dead into their troops. Strategize like that's the known factors, because they are known. See also: Dragon.
I don't mind the advocacy, because this is the sort of topic that I happen to have some interest in, but I still don't think it defends what the showrunners made the best experienced characters in Westeros do in the most important battle of the entire show.
If anybody wants to know the reason that anybody would write an article like this, it's the last two paragraphs: Call me insensitive, but I think it's pretty ridiculous to expect a medieval...
If anybody wants to know the reason that anybody would write an article like this, it's the last two paragraphs:
While fans were obsessing over whether Dany had gone mad or whether Arya’s horse symbolized death or peace, the Trump Administration quietly began inching closer toward war with Iran. US public opinion polls have already been fielded testing American support for a saturation bombing strike on an Iranian civilian city in the event that the US finds itself in an intractable ground war unable to induce a surrender.
Pop culture can convey cautionary tales, and Game of Thrones has often done so. But the most popular show in history, known for its soberingly grisly portrayals of political violence, just whitewashed the implications of firebombing a civilian population. In so doing, it missed its chance to show American how terrible such an act would be for civilians on the other side and – if the enemy retaliated in kind – here at home.
Call me insensitive, but I think it's pretty ridiculous to expect a medieval fantasy television show to educate the public on checks notes the real life, modern horrors of firebombing. It's one thing to criticize GoT for failing to properly convey these ideas from a narrative perspective (i.e. wouldn't it have made for better drama if we saw more realistic consequences), but it's another thing entirely to have such serious political and educational expectations of the creators. That's just not fair.
Depicting the unvarnished, real life consequences of war and politics in a medieval setting is A Song of Ice and Fire's whole deal. George R.R. Martin set out to write an epic medieval fantasy...
but I think it's pretty ridiculous to expect a medieval fantasy television show to educate the public on checks notes the real life, modern horrors of firebombing.
Depicting the unvarnished, real life consequences of war and politics in a medieval setting is A Song of Ice and Fire's whole deal. George R.R. Martin set out to write an epic medieval fantasy that was grounded and gritty as a counter-point to the J.R.R. Tolkien style where everything is a bit gauzy and elides all the more horrific aspects of the story he's telling.
They've even justified a lot of the wanton rape scenes and sexuality by claiming it would be dishonest to depict this setting without them.
I agree with everything you've written, but I'm still not sure whether you agree with me, particularly: I agree with you that GoT has a precedent of depicting events this way, and from a narrative...
I agree with everything you've written, but I'm still not sure whether you agree with me, particularly:
It's one thing to criticize GoT for failing to properly convey these ideas from a narrative perspective (i.e. wouldn't it have made for better drama if we saw more realistic consequences), but it's another thing entirely to have such serious political and educational expectations of the creators.
I agree with you that GoT has a precedent of depicting events this way, and from a narrative perspective, I would have preferred a more gritty and grounded portrayal of Dany torching King's Landing. My whole point is that there's a difference between narrative expectations and political expectations, especially in a work of fiction.
For example, current tensions with Iran don't necessitate a realistic portrayal of firebombing to educate the public on the horrors of war in Game of Thrones. But a precedent of realistically portraying war and politics would. That's my own personal distinction between relevant criticism and nit-picking anyway.
These huge cultural events do have an emormous impact on people's mental models of the world, though. It sends powerful messages about the power of violence to fix things, what risks are...
to have such serious political and educational expectations of the creators [is] just not fair.
These huge cultural events do have an emormous impact on people's mental models of the world, though. It sends powerful messages about the power of violence to fix things, what risks are associated with it, and the odds of the 'good' and 'bad' people to survice a commander's warring and manouvres. No-one will consciously think of GoT when a nation is discussing going to war (or judging their leaders for just going ahead and attack somewhere). But shows like this sure as hell shape the implicit, unconscious view people have of how war, and armies, and violence work. And those views, assumptions, and associations shape a lot of people's reactions.
So I think it's actually quite reasonable to level a critique such as this. At the very least it's informative to read afterwards to correct the mental model that's been implated in your head.
I agree with you that the media we consumer influences our worldview. At the end of the day, GoT is one piece of media competing against literally every other piece of media a person might...
I agree with you that the media we consumer influences our worldview. At the end of the day, GoT is one piece of media competing against literally every other piece of media a person might interact with in addition to life experiences, memories, and everything else that can shape perspectives. So I'm skeptical of the degree that GoT's message about violence moves the worldview dial on its own.
But that's an entirely different discussion. Maybe "unfair" is the wrong word on my part. But there are literally infinite political obligations you could tack on to any creative work with this mindset. What GoT got wrong about sex: the spread of STDs. What GoT got wrong about prostitution: the social coercion of female sex labor. What GoT got wrong about climate change: it's not as simple as killing a Night King.
I agree with you that it's informative to read discussions on how these depictions might influence us—and people should read that sort of thing. But if you're going to levy it as direct film criticism, you should also consider the narrative necessity of the educational obligation you're claiming the film should have.
Well, yeah. Good points! This is why I watch big-budget entertainment with something of a double feeling [1]. It's entertaining, but at the same time I know it's strengthening an incorrect and...
[T]here are literally infinite political obligations you could tack on to any creative work with this mindset. What GoT got wrong about sex: the spread of STDs. What GoT got wrong about prostitution: the social coercion of female sex labor. What GoT got wrong about climate change: it's not as simple as killing a Night King.
Well, yeah. Good points! This is why I watch big-budget entertainment with something of a double feeling [1]. It's entertaining, but at the same time I know it's strengthening an incorrect and dangerous model of the world in my subconscious (system 1). And especially for the core elements of the story (here, struggle for power by means of force) we should expect as much realism as possible, I'd say.
The good thing is that stories can become better when you get these things right. See, for instance, Zeynep Tufekci's analysis (that what made the 8th season of GoT so different was exactly that it stopped taking sociological/political context seriously as a driver and impossible-to-ignore driver of they story/actions/character arcs).
It's the same difference between the first and second season of The Handmaid's Tale, I'd say (and why I don't really plan on watching the third one). It's also why The Wire is so good (a good story and a good representation of life). Same goes for many art house films. They are rich and riveting stories precisely when (and because) they try not to oversimplify or hand-waive around important aspect of how the world works but take their effects and constraints on the characters seriously.
[1] Is that an English expression, 'a double feeling'? Feels like a Dutchism.
Game of Thrones failed to do even basic, cursory military research when it came to whether it was even plausible to have your cavalry as your main center flank. Hint: it is never a good use of cavalry and generals who might try that shit on the field would find themselves at risk of mutiny or worse before the battle even began because everyone knew that isn't what cavalry are meant to do. To think anyone would forget that Jon has been bested in just about every battle he's ever been in, just to be saved by some Dues ex machina at the last minute is ludicrous with the seasoned veterans of sieges there alongside him.
I can agree that no battles in this last season made all that much sense and that all decisions were made for cinematic effect rather than realistic in-world reasons.
I found Mauler's videos to be a solid, detailed exploration of the stunning idiocy on full public display in the last three episodes. They are the best critiques I've seen since Plinkett's legendary teardown of the phantom menace.
I do think it's worth making the point that systematic inaccuracy in portrayals of warfare dilutes outrage when equal stupidities are proposed in real life, like randomly bombing Iran.
Coming back hours later, I realize now I misread your comment. Sorry for the derp.
It's absolutely worth pointing out the potential impacts of a show as widely anticipated as GoT was (so widely that unsubscribing from HBOGo after the finale would air was a regular joke). I was more commenting that the showrunners completely dropped any pretense of a well-researched or grounded story for the entire season, exacerbating the betrayal I felt about what was largely up until the battle of the bastards a consequence-driven plot. Somewhere along the way, the showrunners got so far out of depth that they had to have just said to themselves "Damn the consequences, this will look really cool" and thought the fans would forgive it. They were right, of course, until they were wrong.
I don't think any military general has ever proposed leaving missile launchers exposed to an undefended ground-based enemy attack, from the very direction you expect them to attack from.
Well what, you're going to play hammer and anvil with the bunch of white walkers? put your cav on the flanks, surround and route a bunch of undead? yeah no.
To start with, I don't think they could ever have flanked the white walkers, their line was way too long and would have forced the cav into a totally defenceless and cut off--communication wise--position.
Secondly you can't route a white walker, so what's the point of attacking from behind, the line is deep enough to where they just turn around and wreck face anyway.
The only possible way they could win was buy killing the king, the entire purpose of the defence of Winterfell was to delay the army long enough for a king killing to happen.
/thanks for indulging my need to play devils advocate here, I still think it was kinda stupid what they did but whatever.
That's not really an argument in favor of throwing them headlong at an enemy they can't see, fire-swords or no. That's an argument for playing extra conservative, as a siege, digging fortifications and forcing the undead to come to fight over your fortification, with the cavalry in exposed wings waiting for a signal they can see to fight, if they're going to be called to fight at all (and it's a battle in which they literally might do more damage to your efforts with a shitty charge than with no charge at all because of the known factors of the enemy being able to raise the dead en masse).
The mentality in that battle has to be that every life is scared because any ally that falls risks becoming an enemy. Not only are you outnumbered, but you're facing an enemy that can turn your dead into their troops. Strategize like that's the known factors, because they are known. See also: Dragon.
I don't mind the advocacy, because this is the sort of topic that I happen to have some interest in, but I still don't think it defends what the showrunners made the best experienced characters in Westeros do in the most important battle of the entire show.
If anybody wants to know the reason that anybody would write an article like this, it's the last two paragraphs:
Call me insensitive, but I think it's pretty ridiculous to expect a medieval fantasy television show to educate the public on checks notes the real life, modern horrors of firebombing. It's one thing to criticize GoT for failing to properly convey these ideas from a narrative perspective (i.e. wouldn't it have made for better drama if we saw more realistic consequences), but it's another thing entirely to have such serious political and educational expectations of the creators. That's just not fair.
Depicting the unvarnished, real life consequences of war and politics in a medieval setting is A Song of Ice and Fire's whole deal. George R.R. Martin set out to write an epic medieval fantasy that was grounded and gritty as a counter-point to the J.R.R. Tolkien style where everything is a bit gauzy and elides all the more horrific aspects of the story he's telling.
They've even justified a lot of the wanton rape scenes and sexuality by claiming it would be dishonest to depict this setting without them.
I agree with everything you've written, but I'm still not sure whether you agree with me, particularly:
I agree with you that GoT has a precedent of depicting events this way, and from a narrative perspective, I would have preferred a more gritty and grounded portrayal of Dany torching King's Landing. My whole point is that there's a difference between narrative expectations and political expectations, especially in a work of fiction.
For example, current tensions with Iran don't necessitate a realistic portrayal of firebombing to educate the public on the horrors of war in Game of Thrones. But a precedent of realistically portraying war and politics would. That's my own personal distinction between relevant criticism and nit-picking anyway.
These huge cultural events do have an emormous impact on people's mental models of the world, though. It sends powerful messages about the power of violence to fix things, what risks are associated with it, and the odds of the 'good' and 'bad' people to survice a commander's warring and manouvres. No-one will consciously think of GoT when a nation is discussing going to war (or judging their leaders for just going ahead and attack somewhere). But shows like this sure as hell shape the implicit, unconscious view people have of how war, and armies, and violence work. And those views, assumptions, and associations shape a lot of people's reactions.
So I think it's actually quite reasonable to level a critique such as this. At the very least it's informative to read afterwards to correct the mental model that's been implated in your head.
I agree with you that the media we consumer influences our worldview. At the end of the day, GoT is one piece of media competing against literally every other piece of media a person might interact with in addition to life experiences, memories, and everything else that can shape perspectives. So I'm skeptical of the degree that GoT's message about violence moves the worldview dial on its own.
But that's an entirely different discussion. Maybe "unfair" is the wrong word on my part. But there are literally infinite political obligations you could tack on to any creative work with this mindset. What GoT got wrong about sex: the spread of STDs. What GoT got wrong about prostitution: the social coercion of female sex labor. What GoT got wrong about climate change: it's not as simple as killing a Night King.
I agree with you that it's informative to read discussions on how these depictions might influence us—and people should read that sort of thing. But if you're going to levy it as direct film criticism, you should also consider the narrative necessity of the educational obligation you're claiming the film should have.
Well, yeah. Good points! This is why I watch big-budget entertainment with something of a double feeling [1]. It's entertaining, but at the same time I know it's strengthening an incorrect and dangerous model of the world in my subconscious (system 1). And especially for the core elements of the story (here, struggle for power by means of force) we should expect as much realism as possible, I'd say.
The good thing is that stories can become better when you get these things right. See, for instance, Zeynep Tufekci's analysis (that what made the 8th season of GoT so different was exactly that it stopped taking sociological/political context seriously as a driver and impossible-to-ignore driver of they story/actions/character arcs).
It's the same difference between the first and second season of The Handmaid's Tale, I'd say (and why I don't really plan on watching the third one). It's also why The Wire is so good (a good story and a good representation of life). Same goes for many art house films. They are rich and riveting stories precisely when (and because) they try not to oversimplify or hand-waive around important aspect of how the world works but take their effects and constraints on the characters seriously.
[1] Is that an English expression, 'a double feeling'? Feels like a Dutchism.