Total agreement. I know they can still have the moment with Stannis in the next episode, and it would still technically follow the battle's chronology (it takes place over a day and a half, I believe), but they already changed so many logistics in the battle, it doesn't make any fucking sense for Stannis not to ride in like a badass at the end of the episode and save the day. Doing it next week pretty much kills the momentum and impact it would have if it had happened tonight.

Interesting enough, the film was originally called the comic book title All You Need Is Kill then they switched it to We Mortals Are and then they decided on Edge of Tomorrow. Out of all three, Edge of Tomorrow is probably the most marketable, the other two sound like bad translations in a video game.

I was uninterested in seeing it after I read the script last year but with all the good things I'm hearing, I'll check it out sometime in the next week or two.

What does everyone think Rickon's purpose will be in the end game? There's been no reason at all for his existence so far. It has to amount to something... right?

This.

No, it's not just you. I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with D&D's handling of any sort of morally grey or ambiguous characters like Jaime or Stannis. They seem hellbent on making Daenerys the only "good" character on the show and that annoys the shit out of me.

It's not that it isn't a high art masterpiece, it's that the action sequences are constructed like shit. I am all for giant robots destroying one another, but if I can't tell what the fuck is going on because of incomprehensible editing and shakycam, I'm not going to enjoy it.

It's a giant fucking monster created as a byproduct of mankind's destructive nature. How is it not inherently dark?

That's not the "they" I'm talking about. I understand the idea that every work is a product of its time. The "they" I'm talking about are the ones who inject their own ideology into everything, with total disregard if it's even relevant. They're not looking at it from "society does this, the show is reflecting/critiquing that"; they're looking at it from "I have these ideas about society, why doesn't this show?", that's the lazy criticism I'm referencing. Hypothetically, and this is a strawman but it perhaps better illustrates my point, could you imagine a scenario where someone ripped apart Breaking Bad because it didn't cater towards their identity or beliefs like this?

"Why weren't there any characters with a fursona? This show is oppressive, disparaging, and most of all, shit."

It doesn't get any lazier than that. All you're doing is bitching that a piece of fiction wasn't written with your values in mind. It means nothing in regards to the actual quality.

Fair enough, but I would expect any smart, cognizant female to understand that doesn't mean stories of men as told by men are inherently bad. I would also expect them to realize that a show written by men about men many not necessarily follow their priorities, demands and representative expectations. Most importantly, I currently expect any alleged journalist or critic to articulate their problems with any given media without using words like "phil-bro-sophical".

I got linked to a couple of articles today. I was not pleased. I know it's against the grain of the political leanings of the board, but I don't really give a shit, I gotta stand on my soapbox for a minute. Here are the articles:

Complaining about the lack of positive women on the show, while ignoring that every man on the show is a piece of trash, and complaining about the lack of focus on women, while ignoring the purposefully male centric nature of the show, is so ideologically selfish I can't even begin to comprehend it. This would be like me complaining about the lack of positive men and male focus in Sex and The City. This show paints a negative portrait of everyone in society and is very much a dissection of masculinity and old American values. "Critiques" like this are missing the point so much that they might as well be writing about an entirely different series. The fact that trash like this is considered criticism, rather the delusional ramblings of a self-centered and self-righteous lunatic, is an insult to the work film critics and theorists dedicated their lives to refining over the past century.

"Phil-bro-sophical"? How can any self-respecting publication allow utter nonsense like that to remain unedited before posting? There's a reason the reputation for journalism gets worse every single year. This is not journalism, this is a disgrace.