Well no, he knows other people don't have honor. The show spends the first 3 episodes plus episode 5 establishing that Ned knows better. He and Catelyn talk about how the Lannisters are not to be trusted, he confronts Jaime about his lack of honor, he knows Jon Arryn died asking questions, he tells Arya they need to be careful here, he knows Robert is in debt to the Lannisters, and that's just a few examples. So it's not his honor that creates an issue, it's the massive contradiction the writers created in order to inorganically force a plot point. That is bad writing. I mean this guy knew the world was so unfair and cruel that he kept Jon Snow's true identity a secret forever, so that his life wouldn't be at risk. So every bad decision Ned makes isn't derived from his honor, but from the writers needing him to end up in the dungeons. Unfortunately most people aren't adequate at story analysis, it's simply not something they've learned, so they automatically jump to throwing around Ned's honor as enough justification for completely detailing a character's internal logic, because that's what the writers did. But if you actually dissect the story with a strong grasp of storytelling technique, it immediately falls apart as forced writer manipulation.

That's a cool Easter egg!

Thanks, glad you liked it! I definitely think the parallels are intentional as well, especially since there were some shots that were quite literally the same (I found these while editing and thought it was really cool). I'm quite excited for the future of this new trilogy, I think despite some issues I had with the plot, they set up a lot of interesting conflict between humans and apes. Also the visuals were fantastic as typical for this series.

@TrashTalkReverse I think despite the story being the weakest, it had the stromgest world building, and it was at the most vital point in the franchise too. For the establishing/launch movie of the next trilogy they expanded the world in more ways than the other 3 ever did. With specialized tribes of apes, novas, Raka and the Caesarian religion, new locations, and introducing the new human threat.

This movie definitely had to build a lot from scratch whereas the previous trilogy was essentially stripping more and more away from the human world. It's a different type of worldbuilding that's required, so this film definitely set up this new world pretty well.

Yeah I couldn't remember what happened with her so I guess I'll find out when I get to that episode.

It's a troll video just because it pointed out flaws that you ignored? No one's ignoring the world building of ape society; what they chose for the plot of the second half was just not a good idea. Roka taught Noa a little bit, sure, but they didn't actually get into Caesar's legacy which is about the importance of coexisting. It's obvious what Proximus's goal is, but it doesn't make him a good villain when he just wants to advance their civilization (or my reference to the Roman emperors mindset). This is all surface level examination. I still thought the movie was worth watching overall and the ending 5 to 10 minutes does a much better job setting up the rest of the series than the entire second half did. So I'm sorry if you're not interested in thinking critically about the media you consume and believe the first trilogy was about ape advancement and not coexistence. Now I'm wondering if you're trolling because there's no way YOU misunderstood the entire previous trilogy.

@@TrashTalkReverse Alright seems I stepped on some toes. First my fault for dismissing your opinion. Second I would continue discussing further but no point. Third critical thinking does not come from nitpicking details and flaws. It should be an IN DEPTH analysis of a story's entirety. I was just shocked you dismissed so much of the story or missed it, is all. Hence me thinking this is a Troll, but like I said if you truly have this opinion you got it.

@@keith333FACE all the criticisms did come from in depth story analysis, which allowed me to see why certain elements were either surface level or poorly crafted. Bad villains and bad plot are not nitpicky details. You only say I missed the story because I say certain parts were badly done and you think the opposite. When you see a different conclusion than your own, jumping to dismiss it as invalid without any analytical support really isn't the answer. Almost everything that happened from Mae revealing her truth all the way through the last bit of the film was convoluted and mostly pointless, and didn't really work thematically. Most importantly me criticizing this has nothing to do with liking the first trilogy, because those movies were well written and it's okay to acknowledge that this installment didn't live up to the standards set by those films.

lol that's what's interesting about this series, is that technically it was marketed as YA, which is teen fiction, and 11-13 year olds often read YA and everyone was reading it partly bc of the post Twilight love triangle stuff and also partly bc of the appeal I talk in this video about people wanting to see the survival stuff. But usually these readers aren't quite old enough to really see how the writer used that appeal to then examine deeper issues. I feel like that's something people realize maybe when they're at least around 16, 17, even 18 and more exposed to real world politics and things like that.

@@TrashTalkReverse i forgot about hunger games franchise completely until the new one came out and read all the books. god so many things flew over my head. the best age to read them would be 16 to 18 like you mentioned. the marketing was indeed really interesting

That's just how it's edited. I didn't record the whole thing in one take. In my experience if I talk any slower or leave gaps in the edit, people click off the video.

Well no, it's actually very accurate to reality. Much of the rhetoric used is almost word for word. However, that's where the show gets stilted because their commentary is very surface level. It's just exactly repeating what they see happen in real life except with superheroes.

"Radical Right" Let's get that right. The show makes fun of BOTH sides that are radical. Let's stop trying to pretend the show is only making fun of one side. If you're butthurt about what was shown...then you might be a radical. If the shoe fits 🤷🏾‍♂️

Sure, that's part of it, but it was still a poor effort on the writer's part to justify that they made Jaime attack Ned to end episode 5 with a "shocking" cliffhanger that would force Ned to stay in Kings Landing. Jaime's dudes should already know not to interfere with his attacks, so there's no reason for that guy to have stabbed Ned through the leg when he knows his boss wouldn't approve. As Tywin said, attacking him was stupid. I buy that Jaime would be impulsive, but let's be real the only reason they had the guy interfere and make Jaime not finish the job was because killing Ned in episode 5 was not their goal, even though logically it would've made more sense for Jaime to have succeeded than for a random guy to stab Ned.

@@TrashTalkReversedisagree. Why would someone allow the son of their liege lord to risk his life in battle against the dude who supposedly killed Arthur Dayne?! That would be idiotic

​​@@TheRealHerbaSchmurba what are you talking about? If these dudes work for Jaime, they shouldn't be going against his wishes. It's not about protecting Jaime, that's not how the scene is written. It's written as if they needed Jaime to not kill Ned.

@@TrashTalkReverse i genuinely do not see it that way. They follow orders yes, but they are also their to serve as protection. If anything happens to him then it wont be good for them, especially if they are still alive and he is dead when it was like a 1v 15. You know how bad that would look if they allowed the son of their liege lord to die in 1v1 combat when they were all around to protect and ensure his safety? That just seems like an irrational choice. I get the issue of going against orders but they also have a duty to protect the son of Tywin. I wouldnt be surprised if Robb gave orders to not intervene in a fight and people of the north take it upon themselves to protect him not just because hes king but because hes the first born son of Ned Stark. They cant just allow him to risk his life.

​@@TheRealHerbaSchmurbaBut the scene isn't framed like they're protecting him. If you go back to episode 5, the moment was during a pause in the duel during which Jaime wasn't in any danger, and Ned was farther away and didn't have Jaime in some sort of lockdown position where he needed rescuing. Plus as we see in this episode, Jaime has a particular mindset about fighting, and it shows that doing things a certain way is important to him. So for his guy to not know this about Jaime is extremely unlikely, and for him to interfere with a one on one duel despite Jaime not being at risk of losing in that particular moment, is even more unlikely. If Ned had Jaime in his knees with his sword knocked out of his hands, that would be a different story. That's an instance in which it makes sense for the others to interfere. Also look at Jaime's immediate reaction in that scene when the guy stabs Ned. He's genuinely shocked and his fighting position is offensive, not defensive. It's all in the fight choreography and how it intersects with the writing of the scene.

Thanks! I'm glad it resonated with you. I knew when I first watched the show that it's not a show I would ever consider rewatching, and while objectively there are some good things that they do, overall making this video and having to go back through and re watch some of the footage made me really start to dislike what I was watching. Politically, I think they do a decent surface level job pointing out problems in American society, but it's not in depth critique or analysis nor will it ever be.

Never gonna watch that show. As a channel that is interested in assessing the way our society evaluates media, it's important for me to objectively judge one of the most popular shows of our time. If you're not interested in these videos then you don't need to watch them.

You're not being rude, you're simply being presumptive and naive. I'm a writer who has worked in development in Hollywood, so I come from a developmental editing perspective, and I, like you, have also worked on novels. This video was part of a longer podcast episode in which I fully discuss the genre, and more conclusions are drawn there. If you're interested in what I would do to fix it, you're in luck because I actually plan on doing a rewriting Mockingjay video at some point. Also, I clearly did point out that the problem with Catching Fire is mainly pacing, therefore to fix it, you would need to streamline many of the scenes. I plan on doing a video about that in more detail later on as well to include the issue of repetition. Not every video needs to address every single topic or they would be several hours long and impossible to make. Also, I hope you realize that a world where criticism can't exist is not a world that culminates in better media or even a better society. If you're a writer, you really need to accept the concept of criticism, because if you ever reach the point where you get alpha readers, literary agents, editors, and publishers, you need to be prepared to hear things you don't want to. The true mark of a writer is someone who wants to make their work better. The true mark of an editor is someone who wants to make other people's works better. That's where I come from. I made this channel to disrupt the RU-vid film review ecosystem in which people don't actually understand how to analyze story and they spout random negative opinions without actually knowing what they're talking about. In fact, if you believe this analysis to be critical and nitpicky, you'd better stay away from all those big channels that tell you something is trash just because that's what they saw all the critics saying and purposely go out of their way to misunderstand something. Analysis and critical thinking are important so that our society progresses in a positive direction, so that we're not blindly consuming whatever Hollywood or the Big Five Publishing companies are putting out. Finding it weird that people make criticisms means you're probably not the right type of person to be in the creative space at all, especially since this suggests that someone could be promoting extremely negative stories to young audiences, such as "romance" writer Colleen Hoover, and according to you her hard work absolves her of any criticism. Edit: I forgot to mention this channel is also dedicated to praising content that deserves praise. People see in black and white, so this channel is for those who care about genuine story analysis, and not blindly hating or loving stuff.

The dialogue of characters like Effie or Caesar in the original films felt really natural while this film's Capitol dialogue is super contrived and doesn't feel in-universe, it feels like someone tried really hard to insert our world's dialogue into the film and then brushed it over with some weird amalgam of 1950s dialect and how older people think "young kids" talk. The story should have shown Snow taking an active role in shaping the games rather than handing off an assignment to Gaul and having her implement stuff. The stuff he came up with felt so bare minimum because of the way they were portrayed. It's not about volume, it's about execution. Also, the concept of the prize was unnecessary to begin with, and feels more like a shoehorned plot device because they couldn't figure out how to tell the story organically. I do believe a middle-aged Snow will be present in the next prequel, the one about Haymitch's games, so it'll be interesting to see how he's written there. But I disagree with the choices made for Snow's backstory and mentality. A story like this has more impact when the people in power are already in power to begin with because it emphasizes that those without power can't simply climb to the top. His origin story would've been stronger if the Snow family wasn't fallen from grace, and if his character arc wasn't simply him doing anything to gain power. The original series isn't about people doing anything for power, it's about propaganda and control, and how the Capital remains in charge by turning the districts against each other. This film does absolutely nothing to tie in with that or develop that theme apart from the very surface level decoration of them trying to get people to watch the games.

I haven't read the books in a long time, but beyond Katniss's monologues, I think the plot itself was adapted pretty closely from what I remember. That's where the bulk of the issue lies with Mockingjay, it's mostly just them going through the motions of this boring rebellion and it fails to really build on the established premise of the first two installments: distracting from the real problems with a facade of mercy. But also they didn't do a very good job with the characters in the two parts, and that's something I can't really remember from the books regarding how that was done so I'll have to re-read the books at some point.

Yeah for me I kinda saw it as the movie trying to be like no one trait is better than another, we need all traits, and showing this through the idea that "divergents" or "free thinkers" are dangerous but this premise is super surface level and has nothing to do with the rest of the series

The show has always been political, as some of the quotes in my video show, Eric Kripke has been influenced by Trump from the beginning. Also in the video with Antony Starr I clipped above he mentions how directly ripping off an existing person would ruin the character. I think the issue you're seeing with Homelander is rather a story issue: it feels like he's simply not very present this season compared to previous ones. He doesn't have much of an impact on the story because Sage is doing all the legwork, and The Boys are dealing with personal issues mostly very separately from the external threat of Sage's plan rather than weaving in their issues with a more concrete external threat.

Oh wow, I didn't know that, but it makes a lot of sense. I wonder if she eventually became interested enough in the world to do the two prequels she's just done (including the haymitch one that's coming soon) or if these were because she was pressured to revive a successful franchise.

@@TrashTalkReverse she said that she usually writes out of will when she has something to say, and since katniss' story has been concluded for over 10 years i can only guess the two prequels have been written to send a message rather than because of public pressure, especially since it was stated that SOR will delve further into the use of propaganda, media narratives and "the easiness with which the many are governed by the few," which has been a prominent and very real issue in recent months.

I haven't read the books since 2012 so at some point I might consider giving them a second look. I think the first film does a really good job of conveying the grim tone and the uncertainty of it all so even without her first person narration, just the way it's filmed really takes us into what she may be experiencing. But the rest of the films had a different director and told the story a different way so we don't get that same effect. And yes splitting Mockingjay was a terrible idea, though I never liked the book, it would've been much more bearable as just one film rather than a two parter.

Sure, that's fair, Erin Moriarty's acting in that scene was really good and helps to sell it. For me the issue was 1, the shifter doesn't really have a purpose for existing other than being Annie's mirror essentially and doesn't really have a personality beyond the snarky dialogue and therefore not really a reason to dissect Annie like in that scene, 2, the actual dialogue was really unbearable and badly written as they wanted to tell us Annie's internal struggles in one scene rather than showing us over the course of the season, and 3, this one scene and the shifter's death were essentially supposed to be the entire culmination of Annie's character arc which to me is really lazy to have Annie fight someone who literally looks like her to convey internal conflict and this makes it so she doesn't actually have to work to solve her issue.

Yeah I think the contrast works fine, I just don't think there needs to be this constant default to presenting love stories or even growth arcs for the protagonist as a love triangle

@TrashTalkReverse 100 present agree. The worst is in fantasy when it's between the prince and a commoner, and somehow the prince always comes out on tip (probably because readers want to see the self insert character end up a queen).

​@@Elizabeth-hc3miyep that's another reason I hate triangles, because the person in the middle ends up with the wrong person and usually this happens because the writer is living out or creating a fantasy where the main girl has multiple guys interested in her rather than exploring themes and character journeys

I like that Katniss couldn't give a rats about the triangle. People just latched onto it and it became one of the main hypes of the series maybe partially because of Twilight, but in another sense maybe because it's more socially acceptable than hyping up a death battle movie featuring kids

I don't think splitting deathly hallows was unnecessary at all, there's no way they could've crammed all that into one movie. Also I don't think the hunger games failed overall since it still made a strong lasting impression. The "failure" in the title is from my full podcast episode on the failure of YA dystopia as a genre, this is excerpted from that and I talk about a bunch of YA dystopia stuff and why the genre fizzled out.

Lmao yeah I figured if people really wanted to know what it said then they would pause it, better than keeping the screen on the same frame for too long

Thank you so much!

Not only is this video about the movies and not the books, but I think I understand quite a bit more than you given that I'm not the one glorifying bad storytelling just because the message is good. But thanks for checking out the video!

Thanks for your support!

Well no, I think you misunderstood because it's not personal revenge. It's to make sure that their new president wasn't someone who used the same violence as those who came before her. Prim is a victim of that violence, which leads Katniss to the conclusion (in addition to other Coin actions) that Coin needs to be stopped.

@@TrashTalkReverse Katniss voted FOR the hunger games so it wasn't about the games. It was because : 1. she knew Coin will eventually kill her - because Coin was afraid of her. 2. After talking with Snow, she realized that Coin was responsible for bombing her own people and killing Prim - so we have revenge 3. All of that showed her that Coin is just obsessed with Power just like Snow.

She voted for the games so that she wouldn't piss off Coin. She didn't actually want the games. This is the girl who in the first book/movie refused to kill Peeta because she knew the games' purpose so there's no reason for her to support the games now. If she killed Coin as revenge for Prim, then why wouldn't she have killed Snow as revenge for all the lives he was indirectly responsible for, such as Rue? Killing Coin, especially in that public way, was quite literally to stop the cycle of violence. Of course Katniss is angry about Prim, but it's about much more than that, otherwise she could've killed her in secret. It was about showing everyone that Coin was leading them down a similar path to Snow and therefore she needed to be stopped before another cycle of oppression could begin.

@@TrashTalkReverse although I disagree with your narration, one thing is certain she didn't intend to kill Coin, only when she saw her on that balcony, she probably realized that Coin is just a other Snow, Andy why Jill the old man who is already in grave, while you can kill new one.

Katniss voted for the games just so she could be the one to kill coin (it was the long game). I don’t think coin killed primm intentionally but she was willing to accept any collateral damage to get what she wanted. That being said I haven’t seen or thought about these movies since they came out so I could totally be remembering wrong 😂

although in the last book, the point is that the revolution happens around her. and the final mission she went on (and where half her firends and her sister died) was pointless and didn't help anyone in the war.

Hey thanks so much! Well I did just get started so hoping for great things down the line!

The romance in this movie was definitely a huge misstep. It came off like bad fanfiction. I think there was an urge to create a primary female character to remind the audience of Katniss and giving the main character a love interest in keeping with YA tropes and it just didn't play well with what the story should have been.

Yeah I definitely understand the thematic purpose of these love triangles, but the same character struggles can exist without it being romantic. I think having Gale as a love interest for Katniss was pretty unnecessary since they already had such a long history together and he was practically family. Teresa I think would've worked better for Thomas's struggle if she literally was family. It seems to me that the reason these were crafted as love triangles was basically to pull in audiences who get super into shipping.

@@TrashTalkReverse that is fair and I think that’s why the idea of Katniss “choosing” Peeta takes the whole series because she has to decide that herself and she starts to see it and the end of Catching Fire and throughout Mockingjay both pre and post hijacking. I think that’s why theories exist in a similar vein for Newt/Thomas and how Katniss might have ended up with Johanna Mason if both Peeta and Gale had died. Such is what happened to Thomas when Newt/Teresa finally died off, he eventually accepted Brenda because she was the only one left that cared for him in that way (also TDC book ending I think) Similarly to Peeta/Katniss, my understanding is that Thomas would have eventually accepted feelings for Newt if he had not died much like how he ultimately accepted Brenda in the epilogue of TDC. I do compare these combinations because I have seen in fanfiction and even came up with a thought experiment of my own where if the main characters of hunger games and maze runner were swapped to their counterparts (Katniss/Thomas Peeta/Newt) the plot would be mostly unchanged and that is why these tropes work so well when done right imo

The chemistry between the boys in general is so good. Thomas, newt, minho, frypan, it's like we're following this squad from the beginning to the end and they've been through everything together so they feel like a found family.

@@TrashTalkReverse found family works too, you could say the same about the new family relationship of Peeta/Katniss and Haymitch and possibly Effie being like a post mockingjay family for the epilogue since prim is Kia and Mrs Everdeen is once again Mia although this time she is not there even physically. I am actually working on a triple epilogue story where the survivors of death cure and mockingjay wake up in Alola and Galar respectively and eventually get to meet up. Act 3 major characters deaths are reversed via Giratina and the Distortion World.