Recommended Posts

For some reason, I am relieved that the season is over.

 

I think part of it is pure internet saturation... everything has been GoT themed for weeks. I mean, it was great, but a break will be nice. Guess I am also fine with the stories coming to a new chapter - conclusion for many storylines and clarification of what happened.

 

Also;

 

Melisandre's exit was underwhelming. Maybe because Davos is such a sympathetic character, but she got away clean. I'm sure we'll see her again. GoT is kinda famous for characters not getting what they deserve (both good and bad).

Terrific season finale. I thought S6 was easily one of the best and certainly most satisfying.

 

Lots of great moments. Tyrion getting The Hand, Jon declared King of the North, Arya returns, and Cersei queen. As much as I hated Cersei, it seemed so nice to see her exact revenge.

  • Like 3
15 hours ago, Syanide said:

Easily my favorite season finale yet, and overall an incredibly well crafted episode. Can't believe how good this show is at sustaining interest, six years in and no signs of stopping.

Your mileage may vary and all that.

 

You guys are so happy I'm practically forced to offer my cynical view:

 

- everybody is putting those teleportation devices to good use;

- the music was overbearing, especially during the the whole initial King's Landing segment;

Spoiler

- while I could sort of kinda  believe Pycelle falling for a meeting with the king in a random cellar, Lancel's death was a stupid plot device to show simple-minded viewers that there's wildfire under the sept; presumably, the green flames and explosion weren't a giveaway;

- the little birds are also assassins, because reasons;

- Tommen's end was kind of predictable considering his relation with "the faith" and Margery; how convenient he was left all alone;

- did you guys catch Varys in Dorne? He was just leaving Meereen a moment ago;

- I hope that show Daario will be mostly written off now;

- the exchange between Dany and Tyrios was mind-numbingly mundane, but at least something happened in the end;

- Arya's scene looked forced to me and they also wanted to add Manderley's pies into the mix, but unlike in the books, it was done for just a little more shock value;

- Coldhands is just regular boring Benjen;

- Tower of Joy, sure why not, for the people that aren't interested in the books, although the actress playing Lyanna was a poor choice IMO as she's doesn't do justice to the character's beauty and because all I saw was the spoiled brat from Legends (series with Sean Bean).

- Lord Manderly is no fun; King in the North rehash;

- HOLY CRAP, VARYS IS IN MEEREEN.

Did you guys ever wonder where in the world is Varys? The answer of course, is everywhere.

13 minutes ago, Luc2k said:

Your mileage may vary and all that.

 

You guys are so happy I'm practically forced to offer my cynical view:

 

- everybody is putting those teleportation devices to good use;

- the music was overbearing, especially during the the whole initial King's Landing segment;

  Hide contents

- while I could sort of kinda  believe Pycelle falling for a meeting with the king in a random cellar, Lancel's death was a stupid plot device to show simple-minded viewers that there's wildfire under the sept; presumably, the green flames and explosion weren't a giveaway;

- the little birds are also assassins, because reasons;

- Tommen's end was kind of predictable considering his relation with "the faith" and Margery; how convenient he was left all alone;

- did you guys catch Varys in Dorne? He was just leaving Meereen a moment ago;

- I hope that show Daario will be mostly written off now;

- the exchange between Dany and Tyrios was mind-numbingly mundane, but at least something happened in the end;

- Arya's scene looked forced to me and they also wanted to add Manderley's pies into the mix, but unlike in the books, it was done for just a little more shock value;

- Coldhands is just regular boring Benjen;

- Tower of Joy, sure why not, for the people that aren't interested in the books, although the actress playing Lyanna was a poor choice IMO as she's doesn't do justice to the character's beauty and because all I saw was the spoiled brat from Legends (series with Sean Bean).

- Lord Manderly is no fun; King in the North rehash;

- HOLY CRAP, VARYS IS IN MEEREEN.

Did you guys ever wonder where in the world is Varys? The answer of course, is everywhere.

Maybe significant time (or enough time) passed between the various events.  You aren't given an exact indicator of time or when things are taken place in relation to other plot points  ... so yea.

 

Edit:

@Syanideexplained it better. :)

 

@Luc2k FFS man, it's not teleportation. You can see Martell and Tyrell ships in the fleet, so it's either a time skip that allowed Varys to arrive to Meereen with the additional ships, or to join the fleet along the way (which would also mean they're practically in Westeros). You don't have to see every boring journey. That's what books are for! :p

 

On a similar note, one of the writers explained this a few episodes back. Different storylines don't necessarily match up exactly timeline wise during the course of an episode. I think while Jon was rallying the houses for support in the North, several weeks pass, while Arya is doing her thing in Braavos in the same episode, and several days pass. They mentioned that if they tried to match up everything in the same exact timeline, pacing would suffer, which is why it sometimes appears some characters travel faster than others, there are time skips, etc. All good imo.

 

The other stuff, you're nitpicking, but how could you not like the Tower of Joy scene? Like, that was one thing that to me was both completely unsuspenful, because it's the worst kept secret in the story, and it's also the strongest "Televisa Presenta" moment in the story, so I was completely not interested, but it ended up being my favorite moment from the episode.

  • Like 3
11 minutes ago, Luc2k said:

Your mileage may vary and all that.

 

You guys are so happy I'm practically forced to offer my cynical view:

 

- everybody is putting those teleportation devices to good use;

- the music was overbearing, especially during the the whole initial King's Landing segment;

  Hide contents

- while I could sort of kinda  believe Pycelle falling for a meeting with the king in a random cellar, Lancel's death was a stupid plot device to show simple-minded viewers that there's wildfire under the sept; presumably, the green flames and explosion weren't a giveaway;

- the little birds are also assassins, because reasons;

- Tommen's end was kind of predictable considering his relation with "the faith" and Margery; how convenient he was left all alone;

- did you guys catch Varys in Dorne? He was just leaving Meereen a moment ago;

- I hope that show Daario will be mostly written off now;

- the exchange between Dany and Tyrios was mind-numbingly mundane, but at least something happened in the end;

- Arya's scene looked forced to me and they also wanted to add Manderley's pies into the mix, but unlike in the books, it was done for just a little more shock value;

- Coldhands is just regular boring Benjen;

- Tower of Joy, sure why not, for the people that aren't interested in the books, although the actress playing Lyanna was a poor choice IMO as she's doesn't do justice to the character's beauty and because all I saw was the spoiled brat from Legends (series with Sean Bean).

- Lord Manderly is no fun; King in the North rehash;

- HOLY CRAP, VARYS IS IN MEEREEN.

Did you guys ever wonder where in the world is Varys? The answer of course, is everywhere.

No one, not a single person here forced you to share your view.   You chose to do it, don't even blame anyone else.  Perhaps others, such as myself, simply enjoy a good story.  Perfection is impossible and given the time and financial limits I believe they've done a reasonable job of bringing this show to TV. IMO

 

And please feel free to share your thoughts and opinions, but at the same time please refrain from the lectures.

  • Like 3

 @jjkusaf@Syanide While it's a decent explanation and the books had something similar, I find that the experience is too jarring with the ever increasing time lapses.

 

I already said that my main problem with this half of the Tower of Joy was the actress. She was nothing like how I imagined adult Lyanna and in Legends she played a character I didn't like (a clueless teenager). Simple as that.

 

@RazeLighten up, will you! It was a joke. Everyone here knows I'm the most cynical in this thread. And I'm puzzled as to how I was lecturing anyone?

Re: "Teleportation" time is not told linearly in Game of Thrones. Nor was it told linearly in the books either. GRRM once wrote a disclaimer to ward off accusations of such. Perhaps the TV show should put a disclaimer in front of every episode since I see these complaints everywhere these days. 

 

I had no problem with Varys being in Dorne and then on Dany's ship. Because I know that more than a day had passed between the two. Most likely weeks. Again, it is not a linear narrative in terms of time. 

  • Like 3
4 minutes ago, DeusProto said:

Re: "Teleportation" time is not told linearly in Game of Thrones. Nor was it told linearly in the books either. GRRM once wrote a disclaimer to ward off accusations of such. Perhaps the TV show should put a disclaimer in front of every episode since I see these complaints everywhere these days. 

 

I had no problem with Varys being in Dorne and then on Dany's ship. Because I know that more than a day had passed between the two. Most likely weeks. Again, it is not a linear narrative in terms of time. 

Maybe Daenerys loaned Varys one of her dragons. HBO just didn't have the budget for the CGI. :) 

 

um...no...the whole non-linearity makes more sense.

 

18 minutes ago, Luc2k said:

 @jjkusaf@Syanide While it's a decent explanation and the books had something similar, I find the experience is too jarring with the ever increasing time lapses.

 

I already said that my main problem with this half of the Tower of Joy was the actress. She was nothing like how I imagined adult Lyanna and in Legends she played a character I didn't like (a clueless teenager). Simple as that.

 

@RazeLighten up will you, it was a joke. Everyone here knows I'm the most cynical in this thread. And I'm puzzled as to how I was lecturing anyone?

You tone in this post and your earlier responses indicate that maybe you should be the one to lighten up.

From you remarks - "Lancel's death was a stupid plot device to show simple-minded viewers that there's wildfire under the sept; presumably, the green flames and explosion weren't a giveaway; "

Could easily be taken as lecturing along with the name-calling, really not necessary.

And an earlier episode referred to the mad king putting wildfire under King's Landing to destroy the entire city, it was interesting that Cersei used this.

 

Long live Queen Cersei!

 

Edited by Raze

@DeusProtoOddly enough it didn't bother me in the books and I don't remember any disclaimers. Maybe the transition was more gradual and characters didn't cross storylines so fast.

 

@RazeBelieve me I'm light most of the time although I do get passionate about the things that bother me most and, as it happens, Lancel's scene was the one that got me this time. Why would he follow a child beneath the city when he was ordered to get Cersei? When he saw the child, he sent the 2 with him to get others, to what end exactly? How would they know he decided to play hide and seek in the tunnels? The whole scene was too artificial, to show the barrels of wildfire and how it ignited. Why not leave it as mild mystery and then BOOM?

 

Unless the writers of the show are reading this, I wouldn't take it as lecturing. As for the name-calling, not referring to anyone in particular, but if you happened to have read the books, you'd notice that some of the mysteries in the story are not directly spelled out like in the show. Presumably, they conduct screenings and among those participating, there are people that have trouble grasping the finer details or just don't stand mysteries for long. Examples of this would be the poisoned necklace that killed Joffrey and this episode's wildfire.

 

Anyway, as a whole, I found the episode OKish, if boring at times (Dany & Tyrion). It certainly didn't have as many problems as the previous one.

Edited by Luc2k

@Luc2kthank you for the response.  I do understand the level of passion someone can have and some of the various plot gymnastics can be very irritating.  For example, the ships must be powered by wildfire turbine generators (secretly, of course).   ;) 

Anyone else feel like Arya's scene was completely jarring? It's like they forgot to put it in until the last minute.

 

That aside, what a lovely episode! Nothing too over the top, somewhat predictable but at least Sam got a send off rather than a Boat. 

Though I believe this has been a rumor .... looking at a confirmed 13-15 total episodes over the next two seasons (so the next two seasons will be under the usual 10-episodes)

Quote

WEISS: Like President Obama, we want to leave while all the people watching this show are really into it. Get out at a high point and not have it be, well thank god that’s over.

 

BENIOFF: It’s two more seasons we’re talking about. From pretty close to the beginning, we talked about doing this in 70-75 hours, and that’s what we’ll end up with. Call it 73 for now. What Dan says is really true, but it’s not just trying not to outstay your welcome. We’re trying to tell one cohesive story with a beginning, middle and end. As Dan said, we’ve known the end for quite some time and we’re hurtling towards it.

More at Deadline (spoilers of course for past episodes)

Quote

Explanation for people covering great distances:

Excerpt from ‘A Storm of Swords’:

“A Song of Ice and Fire is told through the eyes of characters who are sometimes hundreds or even thousands of miles apart from one another. Some chapters cover a day, some only an hour; others might span a fortnight, a month, half a year. With such a structure, the narrative cannot be strictly sequential; sometimes important things are happening simultaneously, a thousand leagues apart.”

To those on time travelling and teletransportation devices. :rolleyes: 

  • 3 weeks later...
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!