Game of Thrones Season 7 EP6 (Beyond The Wall) Review [Spoiler: It Sucked]

Game of Thrones Season 7 EP6 (Beyond The Wall) Review [Spoiler: It Sucked]

🎙 Quinn's Ideas 👥 1.0M 📅 August 21, 2017 ⏱ 10 min 👁 105K 📄 opinion experte 🧭 2026-08-26
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

Game of ThronesBeyond the Wallreviewplot holeswriting quality

Summary

The video is a critical review of Game of Thrones Season 7 Episode 6, ‘Beyond the Wall’. The reviewer, Quinn, begins by acknowledging the episode’s visual strengths, such as the White Walker design and the bear fight, but then launches into a detailed critique of the episode’s logical inconsistencies. He points out several major plot holes: the unrealistic timeline for a raven to reach Daenerys and for her to fly back, the fact that the water didn’t freeze despite the extreme cold, the inexplicable weakness of the wights compared to previous episodes, and the convenient survival of characters like Tormund. He also criticizes the decision to kill Benjen in a seemingly pointless way, the Night King’s choice to kill Viserion instead of Drogon, and Jon Snow’s refusal to get on the dragon. The review extends to character issues, particularly Arya’s threatening behavior towards Sansa and the forced romance between Jon and Daenerys. Quinn concludes that the show has devolved from a complex political drama into a shallow, action-oriented spectacle, and gives the episode a 2 out of 10, his lowest rating for the series.

184 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The video’s value lies in its detailed and passionate critique of the episode’s narrative logic. The reviewer, a self-proclaimed book reader, argues that the show has abandoned the internal coherence that made it great, citing specific examples of plot armor, convenient timing, and character decisions that defy established rules. The argumentation is structured, moving from general praise to specific criticisms, and is supported by references to earlier episodes and the books. However, the critique is subjective and lacks external evidence, relying on the reviewer’s interpretation of the source material. The use of a mock fan argument adds a rhetorical flourish but may detract from the seriousness of the analysis.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The review is based on the reviewer’s knowledge of the books and the show, but no external sources are cited. The title accurately reflects the content and the reviewer’s opinion. The video’s description includes links to the reviewer’s Fiverr, Patreon, and social media, but these are not scientific sources. The critique is internally consistent but does not engage with any counterarguments or alternative interpretations. The reviewer’s passion is evident, but the lack of citations weakens the overall rigor.

202 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the content: a critical review of the episode, with the spoiler warning and the author's negative opinion clearly stated.

Quality & Reliability

6/10

The review is a subjective critique based on the reviewer's expertise in the source material (books) and the show. It identifies specific plot holes and inconsistencies, but lacks external sources or citations to support claims. The argumentation is coherent and well-structured, but the score reflects the absence of verifiable references.

Key Moments

Cited Sources

  • Fiverr: Record an epic narration — Service offered by the reviewer, not a source for the critique.

Concurring Sources

  • Game of Thrones Wiki — A fan wiki that documents episodes and characters, useful for verifying plot details.

Dissenting Sources

  • Game of Thrones Season 7 Episode 6 Review: Beyond the Wall — IGN gave the episode a positive review, praising its action and character moments, contrasting with the negative critique in the video.

Contribution & Novelties

The video provides a detailed, fan-based critique of a popular TV show, highlighting specific narrative inconsistencies. It contributes to the discourse on the show’s declining quality, particularly in comparison to the source material. The reviewer’s passion and knowledge of the books add depth to the analysis.

Pour aller plus loin :

  • A Song of Ice and Fire — The book series that the show is based on, providing the original narrative and world-building.
  • Plot hole — A concept central to the review’s critique.
  • Internal consistency — The principle that the show’s logic should be coherent within its own rules.

99 words

Radar Profile

The radar profile shows moderate scores across all dimensions, with a slight emphasis on information quantity over technical depth. This reflects a passionate but subjective critique that is well-argued but lacks external validation.

Reliability 5/10

💬 Très négatif. Sur les 30 commentaires analysés, la grande majorité exprime une déception et une frustration envers l'épisode, partageant les critiques du vidéaste sur les incohérences et la baisse de qualité de l'écriture.