Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thursday is rant day remember... The vast majority of people reading this are cretins. It's because of you that Game of Thrones season 6 was considerably worse than all the other seasons. What made GOT great was its story telling diverged from the boilerplate Hollywood scripts that are rammed down our throats. That's why we emotionally invested in the characters. Then the books ran out... Season 6 was the usual boilerplate shite of clichés. - Tommen jumps out a window without even checking if his love died - yawn. - For the third time running, a battle was won by an approaching horse-back army that somehow weren't picked up by the scouts - double yawn - unlike Joffrey who got in some good rounds before dying, Ramsay dies at the first major hurdle - sigh - what significance did the red woman's necklace play into? All complete bollocks your honour. And the reason i hate 90% of you is because you praise the season and encourage more of this crap. No doubt season 7 will degenerate further because people won't unite and demand good stories. Because you've already emotionally invested in the characters through season 1-5, you overlook the gaping flaws in the season 6 story. You praise special effects over story telling, every single time. You probably still think avatar was a good film! The battle of the bastards wasn't good, it made absolutely no sense. In conclusion, I hold 90% of you responsible for the degeneration of the best TV series ever. I hope you are happy with yourselves. " Oh well, beautiful fanny btw  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Completely agree with you OP. Season 6 was utter shite and is the first season that hasn't had me on the edge of my seat waiting for the next episode. " The first episode was ok. Well the ending almost saved it. I thought "hmmm maybe we'll hear more of the back story from this old woman who probably witnessed the key events". Instead we get clichéd flash back type scenes with an actor who looks like Ned Stark was born aged 30. Frankly you deserve an arrow through the heart in front of your brother if you are too dumb to zig zag when running away from an archer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thursday is rant day remember... The vast majority of people reading this are cretins. It's because of you that Game of Thrones season 6 was considerably worse than all the other seasons. What made GOT great was its story telling diverged from the boilerplate Hollywood scripts that are rammed down our throats. That's why we emotionally invested in the characters. Then the books ran out... Season 6 was the usual boilerplate shite of clichés. - Tommen jumps out a window without even checking if his love died - yawn. - For the third time running, a battle was won by an approaching horse-back army that somehow weren't picked up by the scouts - double yawn - unlike Joffrey who got in some good rounds before dying, Ramsay dies at the first major hurdle - sigh - what significance did the red woman's necklace play into? All complete bollocks your honour. And the reason i hate 90% of you is because you praise the season and encourage more of this crap. No doubt season 7 will degenerate further because people won't unite and demand good stories. Because you've already emotionally invested in the characters through season 1-5, you overlook the gaping flaws in the season 6 story. You praise special effects over story telling, every single time. You probably still think avatar was a good film! The battle of the bastards wasn't good, it made absolutely no sense. In conclusion, I hold 90% of you responsible for the degeneration of the best TV series ever. I hope you are happy with yourselves. Oh well, beautiful fanny btw "Not everything in the world is bad  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmmm, a lot of it is because they think show watchers are complete morons so have to simplify and dumb down so many stories " But it's true. Most people can't distinguish between special effects and a logic storyline. What the f were you playing at Jon, after 3 episodes of struggling to pull together an army, you realise you don't need them and you can take on Ramsays army yourself? Because they will just stand by and let you kill him? Moron. And that wasn't even the dumbest part of the episode. Sansa would rather you die than actually mention, "oh yeah, few hundred horse back knights that could help you out back here" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmmm, a lot of it is because they think show watchers are complete morons so have to simplify and dumb down so many stories But it's true. Most people can't distinguish between special effects and a logic storyline. What the f were you playing at Jon, after 3 episodes of struggling to pull together an army, you realise you don't need them and you can take on Ramsays army yourself? Because they will just stand by and let you kill him? Moron. And that wasn't even the dumbest part of the episode. Sansa would rather you die than actually mention, "oh yeah, few hundred horse back knights that could help you out back here" " Well Jon's actions make sense with his character. And the Sansa stuff is probably to set up the drama in the North between her and Jon and Littlefinger getting involved | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thursday is rant day remember... I wish you wouldn't pussyfoot around just say what you mean The vast majority of people reading this are cretins. It's because of you that Game of Thrones season 6 was considerably worse than all the other seasons. What made GOT great was its story telling diverged from the boilerplate Hollywood scripts that are rammed down our throats. That's why we emotionally invested in the characters. Then the books ran out... Season 6 was the usual boilerplate shite of clichés. - Tommen jumps out a window without even checking if his love died - yawn. - For the third time running, a battle was won by an approaching horse-back army that somehow weren't picked up by the scouts - double yawn - unlike Joffrey who got in some good rounds before dying, Ramsay dies at the first major hurdle - sigh - what significance did the red woman's necklace play into? All complete bollocks your honour. And the reason i hate 90% of you is because you praise the season and encourage more of this crap. No doubt season 7 will degenerate further because people won't unite and demand good stories. Because you've already emotionally invested in the characters through season 1-5, you overlook the gaping flaws in the season 6 story. You praise special effects over story telling, every single time. You probably still think avatar was a good film! The battle of the bastards wasn't good, it made absolutely no sense. In conclusion, I hold 90% of you responsible for the degeneration of the best TV series ever. I hope you are happy with yourselves. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thursday is rant day remember... I wish you wouldn't pussyfoot around just say what you mean The vast majority of people reading this are cretins. It's because of you that Game of Thrones season 6 was considerably worse than all the other seasons. What made GOT great was its story telling diverged from the boilerplate Hollywood scripts that are rammed down our throats. That's why we emotionally invested in the characters. Then the books ran out... Season 6 was the usual boilerplate shite of clichés. - Tommen jumps out a window without even checking if his love died - yawn. - For the third time running, a battle was won by an approaching horse-back army that somehow weren't picked up by the scouts - double yawn - unlike Joffrey who got in some good rounds before dying, Ramsay dies at the first major hurdle - sigh - what significance did the red woman's necklace play into? All complete bollocks your honour. And the reason i hate 90% of you is because you praise the season and encourage more of this crap. No doubt season 7 will degenerate further because people won't unite and demand good stories. Because you've already emotionally invested in the characters through season 1-5, you overlook the gaping flaws in the season 6 story. You praise special effects over story telling, every single time. You probably still think avatar was a good film! The battle of the bastards wasn't good, it made absolutely no sense. In conclusion, I hold 90% of you responsible for the degeneration of the best TV series ever. I hope you are happy with yourselves. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Completely agree with you OP. Season 6 was utter shite and is the first season that hasn't had me on the edge of my seat waiting for the next episode. The first episode was ok. Well the ending almost saved it. I thought "hmmm maybe we'll hear more of the back story from this old woman who probably witnessed the key events". Instead we get clichéd flash back type scenes with an actor who looks like Ned Stark was born aged 30. Frankly you deserve an arrow through the heart in front of your brother if you are too dumb to zig zag when running away from an archer. " Haha exactly! I was watching that and wondering how Jon could even see who it was, they were frigging miles away!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmmm, a lot of it is because they think show watchers are complete morons so have to simplify and dumb down so many stories But it's true. Most people can't distinguish between special effects and a logic storyline. What the f were you playing at Jon, after 3 episodes of struggling to pull together an army, you realise you don't need them and you can take on Ramsays army yourself? Because they will just stand by and let you kill him? Moron. And that wasn't even the dumbest part of the episode. Sansa would rather you die than actually mention, "oh yeah, few hundred horse back knights that could help you out back here" Well Jon's actions make sense with his character. And the Sansa stuff is probably to set up the drama in the North between her and Jon and Littlefinger getting involved " No they don't make bloody sense. He's not a complete idiot so he simply would have shouted: "zig zag you moron, he's got a bow and fecking arrow not a sniper rifle, if you change your trajectory after he's aimed then he can't hit you unless he's psychic. I can't believe I'm supposed to be related to someone this dumd" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmmm, a lot of it is because they think show watchers are complete morons so have to simplify and dumb down so many stories But it's true. Most people can't distinguish between special effects and a logic storyline. What the f were you playing at Jon, after 3 episodes of struggling to pull together an army, you realise you don't need them and you can take on Ramsays army yourself? Because they will just stand by and let you kill him? Moron. And that wasn't even the dumbest part of the episode. Sansa would rather you die than actually mention, "oh yeah, few hundred horse back knights that could help you out back here" Well Jon's actions make sense with his character. And the Sansa stuff is probably to set up the drama in the North between her and Jon and Littlefinger getting involved No they don't make bloody sense. He's not a complete idiot so he simply would have shouted: "zig zag you moron, he's got a bow and fecking arrow not a sniper rifle, if you change your trajectory after he's aimed then he can't hit you unless he's psychic. I can't believe I'm supposed to be related to someone this dumd" " Well he's emotional and very family oriented, so he would try and save his brother. Also gives him bonus points with the surviving Wildlings. And Sansa said earlier Ramsay will try to manipulate him, just spoon feeding the audience lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmmm, a lot of it is because they think show watchers are complete morons so have to simplify and dumb down so many stories But it's true. Most people can't distinguish between special effects and a logic storyline. What the f were you playing at Jon, after 3 episodes of struggling to pull together an army, you realise you don't need them and you can take on Ramsays army yourself? Because they will just stand by and let you kill him? Moron. And that wasn't even the dumbest part of the episode. Sansa would rather you die than actually mention, "oh yeah, few hundred horse back knights that could help you out back here" Well Jon's actions make sense with his character. And the Sansa stuff is probably to set up the drama in the North between her and Jon and Littlefinger getting involved No they don't make bloody sense. He's not a complete idiot so he simply would have shouted: "zig zag you moron, he's got a bow and fecking arrow not a sniper rifle, if you change your trajectory after he's aimed then he can't hit you unless he's psychic. I can't believe I'm supposed to be related to someone this dumd" Well he's emotional and very family oriented, so he would try and save his brother. Also gives him bonus points with the surviving Wildlings. And Sansa said earlier Ramsay will try to manipulate him, just spoon feeding the audience lol" And Sir Davos is there saying "don't do it" because there is actually more than one person on the planet that seriously considers charging an army on their own. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmmm, a lot of it is because they think show watchers are complete morons so have to simplify and dumb down so many stories But it's true. Most people can't distinguish between special effects and a logic storyline. What the f were you playing at Jon, after 3 episodes of struggling to pull together an army, you realise you don't need them and you can take on Ramsays army yourself? Because they will just stand by and let you kill him? Moron. And that wasn't even the dumbest part of the episode. Sansa would rather you die than actually mention, "oh yeah, few hundred horse back knights that could help you out back here" Well Jon's actions make sense with his character. And the Sansa stuff is probably to set up the drama in the North between her and Jon and Littlefinger getting involved No they don't make bloody sense. He's not a complete idiot so he simply would have shouted: "zig zag you moron, he's got a bow and fecking arrow not a sniper rifle, if you change your trajectory after he's aimed then he can't hit you unless he's psychic. I can't believe I'm supposed to be related to someone this dumd" Well he's emotional and very family oriented, so he would try and save his brother. Also gives him bonus points with the surviving Wildlings. And Sansa said earlier Ramsay will try to manipulate him, just spoon feeding the audience lol And Sir Davos is there saying "don't do it" because there is actually more than one person on the planet that seriously considers charging an army on their own. " What was he supposed to do, stand and watch lol? He wouldn't be King in the North if he did that. Not that he was thinking like that, Sansa said earlier that he's Rickon is dead, and Jon didn't listen, he still wanted to save him because that's who he is. Show runners still spoon feeding us haha | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmmm, a lot of it is because they think show watchers are complete morons so have to simplify and dumb down so many stories But it's true. Most people can't distinguish between special effects and a logic storyline. What the f were you playing at Jon, after 3 episodes of struggling to pull together an army, you realise you don't need them and you can take on Ramsays army yourself? Because they will just stand by and let you kill him? Moron. And that wasn't even the dumbest part of the episode. Sansa would rather you die than actually mention, "oh yeah, few hundred horse back knights that could help you out back here" Well Jon's actions make sense with his character. And the Sansa stuff is probably to set up the drama in the North between her and Jon and Littlefinger getting involved No they don't make bloody sense. He's not a complete idiot so he simply would have shouted: "zig zag you moron, he's got a bow and fecking arrow not a sniper rifle, if you change your trajectory after he's aimed then he can't hit you unless he's psychic. I can't believe I'm supposed to be related to someone this dumd" Well he's emotional and very family oriented, so he would try and save his brother. Also gives him bonus points with the surviving Wildlings. And Sansa said earlier Ramsay will try to manipulate him, just spoon feeding the audience lol And Sir Davos is there saying "don't do it" because there is actually more than one person on the planet that seriously considers charging an army on their own. What was he supposed to do, stand and watch lol? He wouldn't be King in the North if he did that. Not that he was thinking like that, Sansa said earlier that he's Rickon is dead, and Jon didn't listen, he still wanted to save him because that's who he is. Show runners still spoon feeding us haha" By all means run (ride) and save him, but feel free to shout some friendly advice when you see a loved one being a complete idiot!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm in the 90% bracket. Loved the season. Very eager for the 7th! 1) Will John Snow sit cosy in winterfell or go north to the white walkers or south to kings landing? 2) Will Daenerys get her clothes off again? 3) Will Daenerys go for kings landing or go off on another distraction. 4) Rumours about the three dragon riders true? 5) Will the red lady jump in my bed? " Get out  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And good storytelling 101: ramsay should have won, or at least survived the battle of the bastards. When two characters have a fued, it should build to a fever pitch rather than end at the first encounter. If ramsay won the first battle but Jon survived, then Jon should win the second encounter (albeit indecisively) which would lead to an epic final battle better the two - guaranteed to break viewing records. " I think the point was more Ramsay v Sansa than Ramsay against Jon | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And good storytelling 101: ramsay should have won, or at least survived the battle of the bastards. When two characters have a fued, it should build to a fever pitch rather than end at the first encounter. If ramsay won the first battle but Jon survived, then Jon should win the second encounter (albeit indecisively) which would lead to an epic final battle better the two - guaranteed to break viewing records. I think the point was more Ramsay v Sansa than Ramsay against Jon " Either way, they could have built it more. It's pro wrestling 101, never give a conclusion at the first battle when you could make the audience buy three rickets to three events | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And good storytelling 101: ramsay should have won, or at least survived the battle of the bastards. When two characters have a fued, it should build to a fever pitch rather than end at the first encounter. If ramsay won the first battle but Jon survived, then Jon should win the second encounter (albeit indecisively) which would lead to an epic final battle better the two - guaranteed to break viewing records. I think the point was more Ramsay v Sansa than Ramsay against Jon Either way, they could have built it more. It's pro wrestling 101, never give a conclusion at the first battle when you could make the audience buy three rickets to three events " if Ramsay had won there still wouldn't be a second battle. And if wrestling is where you're setting the standard ... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone gonna try and defend the 'cooking children into a pie' bs- hmmm never seen that before, what an original idea. Someone should make a musical, tv series and south park episode about that. " Frey pies is straight out of the book lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think we should all spend 5 minutes of our day to block or send hate mail to all the people on this thread who said they enjoyed the battle of the bastards: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/lounge/525724" Phew! I had a lucky escape on that one, just as well as I get enough hate mail as is! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And good storytelling 101: ramsay should have won, or at least survived the battle of the bastards. When two characters have a fued, it should build to a fever pitch rather than end at the first encounter. If ramsay won the first battle but Jon survived, then Jon should win the second encounter (albeit indecisively) which would lead to an epic final battle better the two - guaranteed to break viewing records. I think the point was more Ramsay v Sansa than Ramsay against Jon Either way, they could have built it more. It's pro wrestling 101, never give a conclusion at the first battle when you could make the audience buy three rickets to three events if Ramsay had won there still wouldn't be a second battle. And if wrestling is where you're setting the standard ... "Ramsay wins but Jon / Sansa survives. It's like he hits Jon with a steel chair when the referee isn't looking to win. It's a win but not decisive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone gonna try and defend the 'cooking children into a pie' bs- hmmm never seen that before, what an original idea. Someone should make a musical, tv series and south park episode about that. Frey pies is straight out of the book lol" For shame! OK, how about "let's attack a city defended by fire breathing dragons with wooden ships"... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think we should all spend 5 minutes of our day to block or send hate mail to all the people on this thread who said they enjoyed the battle of the bastards: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/lounge/525724 Phew! I had a lucky escape on that one, just as well as I get enough hate mail as is! "All you have to do is say "i like Sansa" and I do not hold myself accountable for my actions... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And good storytelling 101: ramsay should have won, or at least survived the battle of the bastards. When two characters have a fued, it should build to a fever pitch rather than end at the first encounter. If ramsay won the first battle but Jon survived, then Jon should win the second encounter (albeit indecisively) which would lead to an epic final battle better the two - guaranteed to break viewing records. I think the point was more Ramsay v Sansa than Ramsay against Jon Either way, they could have built it more. It's pro wrestling 101, never give a conclusion at the first battle when you could make the audience buy three rickets to three events if Ramsay had won there still wouldn't be a second battle. And if wrestling is where you're setting the standard ...
Ramsay wins but Jon / Sansa survives. It's like he hits Jon with a steel chair when the referee isn't looking to win. It's a win but not decisive. "But no one would fight for Jon for this battle, who would then fight for him when he already lost before? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone gonna try and defend the 'cooking children into a pie' bs- hmmm never seen that before, what an original idea. Someone should make a musical, tv series and south park episode about that. Frey pies is straight out of the book lol For shame! OK, how about "let's attack a city defended by fire breathing dragons with wooden ships"... " that doesn't matter cos they were always gonna lose | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think we should all spend 5 minutes of our day to block or send hate mail to all the people on this thread who said they enjoyed the battle of the bastards: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/lounge/525724 Phew! I had a lucky escape on that one, just as well as I get enough hate mail as is!
All you have to do is say "i like Sansa" and I do not hold myself accountable for my actions..."But I don't like Sansa. I like Davos. Davos could take me Monday to Saturday and twice on Sunday | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And good storytelling 101: ramsay should have won, or at least survived the battle of the bastards. When two characters have a fued, it should build to a fever pitch rather than end at the first encounter. If ramsay won the first battle but Jon survived, then Jon should win the second encounter (albeit indecisively) which would lead to an epic final battle better the two - guaranteed to break viewing records. I think the point was more Ramsay v Sansa than Ramsay against Jon Either way, they could have built it more. It's pro wrestling 101, never give a conclusion at the first battle when you could make the audience buy three rickets to three events if Ramsay had won there still wouldn't be a second battle. And if wrestling is where you're setting the standard ...
Ramsay wins but Jon / Sansa survives. It's like he hits Jon with a steel chair when the referee isn't looking to win. It's a win but not decisive.
But no one would fight for Jon for this battle, who would then fight for him when he already lost before?"Do you work for HBO or something? Look the horsemen could arrive but only just enough to even out the battle to a stalemate and both sides retreat and come back tomorrow. Jon's forces are depleted but some of Ramsays quit in disgust that he shot arrows at his own men. Two smaller armies fight again on the next day... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think we should all spend 5 minutes of our day to block or send hate mail to all the people on this thread who said they enjoyed the battle of the bastards: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/lounge/525724 Phew! I had a lucky escape on that one, just as well as I get enough hate mail as is!
All you have to do is say "i like Sansa" and I do not hold myself accountable for my actions...
But I don't like Sansa. I like Davos. Davos could take me Monday to Saturday and twice on Sunday "I like his accent, sometimes I feel like I'm watching biker grove on LSD | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And good storytelling 101: ramsay should have won, or at least survived the battle of the bastards. When two characters have a fued, it should build to a fever pitch rather than end at the first encounter. If ramsay won the first battle but Jon survived, then Jon should win the second encounter (albeit indecisively) which would lead to an epic final battle better the two - guaranteed to break viewing records. I think the point was more Ramsay v Sansa than Ramsay against Jon Either way, they could have built it more. It's pro wrestling 101, never give a conclusion at the first battle when you could make the audience buy three rickets to three events if Ramsay had won there still wouldn't be a second battle. And if wrestling is where you're setting the standard ...
Ramsay wins but Jon / Sansa survives. It's like he hits Jon with a steel chair when the referee isn't looking to win. It's a win but not decisive.
But no one would fight for Jon for this battle, who would then fight for him when he already lost before?
Do you work for HBO or something?
Look the horsemen could arrive but only just enough to even out the battle to a stalemate and both sides retreat and come back tomorrow.
Jon's forces are depleted but some of Ramsays quit in disgust that he shot arrows at his own men. Two smaller armies fight again on the next day... "I'm pretty sure the Vale had more men than Ramsay did so idk how there'd be a stalemate when Ramsay is fighting on two sides. Do Jon and Ramsay just stop and say "same time tomorrow?" I don't think anyone would be brave enough to 'quit'. A few flayed deserters would put an end to that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And good storytelling 101: ramsay should have won, or at least survived the battle of the bastards. When two characters have a fued, it should build to a fever pitch rather than end at the first encounter. If ramsay won the first battle but Jon survived, then Jon should win the second encounter (albeit indecisively) which would lead to an epic final battle better the two - guaranteed to break viewing records. I think the point was more Ramsay v Sansa than Ramsay against Jon Either way, they could have built it more. It's pro wrestling 101, never give a conclusion at the first battle when you could make the audience buy three rickets to three events if Ramsay had won there still wouldn't be a second battle. And if wrestling is where you're setting the standard ...
Ramsay wins but Jon / Sansa survives. It's like he hits Jon with a steel chair when the referee isn't looking to win. It's a win but not decisive.
But no one would fight for Jon for this battle, who would then fight for him when he already lost before?
Do you work for HBO or something?
Look the horsemen could arrive but only just enough to even out the battle to a stalemate and both sides retreat and come back tomorrow.
Jon's forces are depleted but some of Ramsays quit in disgust that he shot arrows at his own men. Two smaller armies fight again on the next day... I'm pretty sure the Vale had more men than Ramsay did so idk how there'd be a stalemate when Ramsay is fighting on two sides. Do Jon and Ramsay just stop and say "same time tomorrow?"
I don't think anyone would be brave enough to 'quit'. A few flayed deserters would put an end to that "Can't believe nobody has said this yet but... You know nothing Jon snow | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And good storytelling 101: ramsay should have won, or at least survived the battle of the bastards. When two characters have a fued, it should build to a fever pitch rather than end at the first encounter. If ramsay won the first battle but Jon survived, then Jon should win the second encounter (albeit indecisively) which would lead to an epic final battle better the two - guaranteed to break viewing records. I think the point was more Ramsay v Sansa than Ramsay against Jon Either way, they could have built it more. It's pro wrestling 101, never give a conclusion at the first battle when you could make the audience buy three rickets to three events if Ramsay had won there still wouldn't be a second battle. And if wrestling is where you're setting the standard ...
Ramsay wins but Jon / Sansa survives. It's like he hits Jon with a steel chair when the referee isn't looking to win. It's a win but not decisive.
But no one would fight for Jon for this battle, who would then fight for him when he already lost before?
Do you work for HBO or something?
Look the horsemen could arrive but only just enough to even out the battle to a stalemate and both sides retreat and come back tomorrow.
Jon's forces are depleted but some of Ramsays quit in disgust that he shot arrows at his own men. Two smaller armies fight again on the next day... I'm pretty sure the Vale had more men than Ramsay did so idk how there'd be a stalemate when Ramsay is fighting on two sides. Do Jon and Ramsay just stop and say "same time tomorrow?"
I don't think anyone would be brave enough to 'quit'. A few flayed deserters would put an end to that
Can't believe nobody has said this yet but...
You know nothing Jon snow "I know more than everyone else m9 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have a confession to make.... my name is LeggyLady and I have never seen Game of Thrones "you play Pokemon Go, so it's forgiven | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"well I thought it was a well made documentary but not as good as the survival show " the walking dead " "60% of viewers seem to think it's set in the past | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
