Tag Archives: Game of Thrones

GAME OF THRONES SPOILERS – A Yelp Review of Winterfell Kennels

Game of Thrones Spoilers if you haven’t seen Season 6 Episode 9 below.

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

S

Random text to keep spoilers from showing up in previews:

It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire. During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire’s ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet.

Pursued by the Empire’s sinister agents, Princess Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of the stolen plans that can save her people and restore freedom to the galaxy…

Okay, here are the spoilers:

A Yelp review of Winterfell Kennels

By Huge Black Dog

I’ve been a fan of the Winterfell Kennels since I was a puppy. I think they serve the best human south of The Wall. So I was quite concerned to hear that Chef Ramsay had been replaced.

Still, I wanted to give Chef Sansa a chance, and I’m glad I did! I came hungry, and was excited to see my food already prepared for me. There was no chasing down my food like I sometimes had to do with Ramsay’s dishes.

Chef Sansa had prepared a delectable Tied Up Man’s Bloody Face. Let me tell you, I’ve always dreamed of the Face Buffet at the House of Black and White, but I’ve never been able to make it to Braavos. It was amazing to be able to eat face here in Winterfell!

It smelled scrumptious. I took one lick, and I was in love. It was as if she had taken the essence of Chef Ramsay and distilled it into this one wonderful dish. Then the food tried to give me commands, which made it even better! Let me tell you, there’s nothing better than chowing into food that thinks it’s your master! It was still screaming as I ate its face. Even better, the face had been pre-tenderized for me.

In her first try, Chef Sansa managed to top Chef Ramsay’s signature dish, Live Fat Woman With Newborn Baby. This was the best human I’ve ever tasted!

I considered taking a star off for the long wait, but the food was so good that I couldn’t bring myself to do so.

Five stars, must try!

[Someone has asked a question about this review]

That does sound delicious! Can you tell me if the faces are filleted like they are at the House of Black and White?

A Bear

[Huge Black Dog has responded to this question]

No, the face was still attached to the skull. However, some of the bones were pre-broken. Personally, I like a bit of crunch when I’m eating faces.

Huge Black Dog

[A bear has responded]

The crunch is nice, but if you’ve never had a face fillet, you’re missing out. You have to try the House of Black and White some time.

A Bear

[Huge Black Dog has responded]

I’d love to, but it’s difficult for me to book passage to Braavos, because I’m a dog.

Huge Black Dog

Advertisements

On the Subjective Value of Art

On a Facebook thread I was participating in, someone asked me whether I thought there was an inherent value to a film beyond the audience’s reaction.

I found this to be such a bizarre question that it merits its own blog post.

To me, it seems obvious and self-evident that there’s no such thing as an intrinsic value to a piece of art. Artwork only has value to the extent that people value it. I can’t fathom what any other definition of artistic value would even mean.

There is, of course, no standard way to measure just how much an individual cares about a given work of art. But if there were, you could hypothetically add up how much each individual cares to get the precise total of what that artwork is worth.

If a lot of people care strongly about something, then that is a more valuable, and hence better, piece of art than something that a few people only vaguely care about.*

Note that there could be a piece of art that many people simply aren’t aware of, and would care about very strongly if they were exposed to it. Those are artworks that have the *potential* to be valuable. I would argue that the role of the critic is to steer people towards those works. (Or to steer them away from works that would be a waste of their limited time/attention/money, so they can instead focus on something they are more likely to enjoy.) But until a piece of art finds a broad audience, its value is limited to the people who have seen it and are thus able to value it.

When you are discussing “great” movies, you first have to define what you mean by “great.”  This is why I started my Movies We Still Care About series with an explanation of the definition I was using.

It would certainly be reasonable for someone to include obscure movies that people would love if only they knew about them in his definition of “great.”  (Even though I didn’t in my definition.)

But there are quite a few pieces of art, and film in particular, which are beloved by critics but rejected by mainstream audiences even after the audience is aware of them. At that point, it becomes silly to call these “great” movies. Rather, they are niche movies that only appeal to a limited demographic, with that demographic being “snooty film snobs.”

There’s nothing inherently wrong with niche movies. They are enjoyed by the people who enjoy them. Snooty film snobs are still people, and while their opinions shouldn’t count more than the average person, they also shouldn’t count less.

But it’s silly to proclaim that there’s something wrong with the majority of people who fail to share that niche taste.

A movie is great because people think it’s great. No other definition makes sense.

As to how you go about making a movie that people will think is great, that’s a much more complicated and difficult question. So difficult that the best filmmakers in the world will still fail most of the time.

But when they succeed, it sure is something special.

* Things get more complicated when you try to compare something that a smaller amount of people care about strongly to something that a larger amount of people care about weakly. What’s the aggregate value of an episode of NCIS compared to an episode of Game of Thrones? Without a clear way to measure how much people care about something, there’s no meaningful way to compare the 6 million people that are highly engaged with Game of Thrones to the 17 million people who are for the most part less engaged with NCIS. (Those are the US numbers for the most recent episodes.) Of course if you’re a Game of Thrones fan like me, you think Game of Thrones is obviously better than NCIS.  But it’s not so obvious why your opinion should count more than the larger number of people who watch NCIS and not Game of Thrones.