• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Darkstream

  1. What would you change about the show?

    I would agree with both counts here. I thought the guy playing Euron was probably the worst casting to date on GoT. I'm not sure if I'd feel as strongly if I didn't have a preconceived notion of the character from reading the books, but either way, I thought he was just horrible. His acting immediately took me out of the scene, not that the script wasn't sufficient in doing that already as it was, and I didn't think he looked the part either. I couldn't help but thinking of a biker when I saw him. It's a good thing that he wasn't wearing the same jacket that Jaimie was in the castle stokeworth scene, when getting ready to set off on his dude bro trip with Bronn, I believe it was. Another casting I would change, or rather unchange, is the guy who plays Darrio. Im pretty sure I'm in the minority here, but I much preferred the actor who originally played the role.
  2. What would you change about the show?

    Fine, one more response, and then I'm done. No, the facts are that Got suffers from a multitude of flaws, ranging from gaping plot holes, inconsistencies in details and established in world rules and facts. Character inconsistencies and unplausable motives and actions. Non existent consequences for characters actions. Anachronistic dialogue and costume designs. The need for assumed off screen anachronistic technologies to explain the unfeasible time line... Just to name a few. The issues present in this show are endless. You admit that these flaws exist, and then wave them away with the declaration that you don't care, and that the good outweighs the bad. I'm sorry but that's not how an objective critique of a work of literature works. Like I said many times, you refuse to acknowledge the difference between your subjective opinion that it is a good show, and an objective analysis. And yes, my responses were lazy. I'm not going to waste my time typing out the numerous failings of the show considering that firstly, you are well aware of them, secondly they are well documented, repetitively all over this forum, and thirdly, just so you can just pick and choose what flaws you think matter. Just look at your response regarding Dorne. These scenes are arguably the worst thing I have ever seen come across my television screen. But oh no, those scenes don't count as criteria to judge the quality of the show on because you say so. These theories have nothing to do with my assertion that Got is a poorly written show. You are the one who brought up the awards, and tried to use them as evidence that the show can't be poorly written because they won some meaningless awards. Whether you believe these awards to be legit or not, your argument is still circular reasoning, which renders your point moot.
  3. What would you change about the show?

    Yeah sure, you keep telling yourself that. You clearly aren't interested in having an open minded discussion, and It's quite obvious that you'll stubbornly defend your position regardless of any compelling and factual arguments presented to the contrary. You really seem to have trouble distinguishing between subjective opinions and objective facts, and take it so far as to inserting your own personal definition of words to attempt to defend your precious show. The only defense you can come up with is to claim that everything is just my opinion, or a conspiracy theory. Claiming that something is just your opinion when challenging objective facts is a weak and flawed argument. And when all else fails, and your denial of the facts fails to hold up, you pull out the old, the good outweighs the bad card. Well fine, if the insurmountable number of flaws throughout every scene in the show doesn't bother you, and is outweighed by what you enjoy, then you have every right to claim that in your subjective opinion, GoT is a good show. It doesn't change the fact that these flaws have run rampant throughout the past few seasons, and when judged objectively, the writing in the show fails miserably. In my opinion, your scales are completely out of whack, and are in seriousness need of calibration. I grow weary of engaging in such pointless discussions with you, so this will be my final response on this matter. Have a nice day.
  4. What would you change about the show?

    And this is exactly what I mean when I say that you refuse to acknowledge the difference between objective facts and subjective opinions. You are defining quality by using subjective criteria. I am defining quality using objective criteria. Style and comfort are subjective, and going to be different for everyone. Some people are going to like a particular pair of shoes, and some are not. But If your shoe falls apart, and is unwearable, you can't say, oh well, in my opinion, they didn't fall apart, so I'm going to keep wearing them. I'm sorry but your understanding of what quality means is just strait up incorrect.
  5. What would you change about the show?

    Uhmm... I'm quite sure you are aware of the almost infinite number of critisisms that have been discussed to death regarding the decline in the quality of the show. You are a pretty prominent member of this forum after all, and I'm sure I've seen you in several discussions pertaining to this. Which critics are these? Are you talking about the ones who want to sell magazines, and are trying to increase the traffic to their websites? Are you talking about the critics who work for publications that benefit from having access to cast members and crew for interviews and such? Hmm...I wonder who d$d is more likely to grant access and interviews to. Do you think it's going to be to the guy who ripped apart their show and labeled them as no talent hacks, or do you think they might be more inclined to give access to the guy who praises their show, and gives them great reviews? I think the answer is quite obvious. And the fact is that over the last two or three seasons, there has been an ever increasing amount of critics who have called out GoT for the drastic decline in quality. I have read plenty of reviews by professional critics that have strongly critized the writing, and the decisions made by d$d. The fact that you seem to be unaware of these reviews and criticisms would support what I alluded to above...that a lot of the publications which have the integrity, and nothing to lose by writing an honest review, don't get the circulation or eminence as the ones that cater to what the majority wants to read.
  6. What would you change about the show?

    Oye, now I'm starting to think that you are just being willfully obtuse on this matter. To paraphrase a comment you yourself made, It seems like you are just making shit up because you don't want to admit that one of your favorite shows isn't as good as you believe it to be. With the first pair of shoes, which lasted a whole year, if a hundred people wear those particular shoes, they're going to last a full year for every one of those hundred of people. There is no variance here, because these shoes are being judged by objective qualities. Because these shoes are of higher quality, the results are going to be the same across the board. With the second pair, if a hundred people wear those shoes, perhaps only ten of those one hundred people are going to prefer the looks or comfort of them. Perhaps fifty of them, it's hard to say, because these are subjective standards that you are judging them by. Everyone is going to have a different take on the looks and comfort. But all hundred of them are going to be walking around bare feet in a couple of weeks, because although some of them like those shoes better, they are of a lower quality. That is not debatable, if one pair of shoes falls apart, and the other doesn't, then obviously the pair that didn't fall apart is a higher quality shoe than the other pair. I've got to run, busy at work, but will try to respond to the latter part of your post when I get the chance.
  7. What would you change about the show?

    Alright, that's cool. Well if that's the impression that you get from the guy, that's fine, you have every right to form your own opinion about him. I tend to believe what he is saying, especially seeing as it only confirms what I already believed to be the case. I didn't find anything he said to be very shocking or enlightening. And this is where I take issue with your argument. Quality is not subjective. If I buy two different pairs of shoes, and I wear them for the same amount of time each day, in the same conditions, but one pair falls apart after a couple weeks, while the other pair lasts me a full year, then obviously the pair that lasted me the whole year was a higher quality shoe than the pair that fell apart after a couple of weeks. That wouldn't be an opinion, that would be a fact based on discernable data. Now I could prefer the pair that fell apart. I might think that they were nicer looking, or felt that they were more comfortable for my particular feet, but those would be subjective opinion based on my own taste and the size and shape of my feet. That would not change the fact that they are inferior in quality. So you might enjoy watching GoT, it might entertain you, and you might not care, or be bothered by the fact that it doesn't meet what has been established and accepted as academic standards in literature. You might not even agree with what has been established as the rules of proper story telling. None of that would change the fact that Got does fail when judged by these standards. When you claim that Got is a quality show, you are basing that on what you feel are the qualities that make a good story, which makes it a subjective opinion. When I claim that it's a not a quality show, I'm basing it on what has been established and accepted by academic community as the fundamentals of good story telling, not by what I personally feel are the qualities of a good story, which makes it an objective assessment.
  8. What would you change about the show?

    First of all, you are putting words in my mouth, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't do so. Secondly, you seem to be under the impression that I've made a definitive statement that GoT strait up bribed someone in order to win their awards. That not what I'm asserting. I think it's a possibility, as it is in all aspects of life. I think you would find it difficult to find any industry or business where there wasn't some sort of corruption and underhanded business going on at some level, or at some point in time. That is just the world that we live in. What I'm saying is that there are a multitude of possible factors that can influence the results of these awards, that go beyond strictly the merits of quality writing. There is no doubt in my mind at all that money has a big role in it. There's really nothing in this world that doesn't essentially come down to money in the long run. It's what makes the world go round afterall. This isn't inclusive to just bribery and paying people off. This includes things such as marketing and promotion, as well as campaign teams, as Chris Albrecht pointed out are a big part of the Emmy process. I know you just want discard his staments (how convinient), and chalk it up to sour grapes, but you really have nothing to support your accusation that he is strait up lying about everything. I'm sure he was bitter about being snubbed, but that doesn't mean he made everything up. And to be honest, knowing the way things work in the world, I would find it a lot harder to believe that what he said is not true. The kinds of processes that he describes are prevalent in all walks of life. Besides, it's not just the network and the show producers who have a stake in who wins. Do you think that the academy wouldn't prefer a more prominent and commercially successful program to win their awards? Do you not think that the advertisers wouldn't prefer a show that has millions and millions of fans to win, than some low key production, that while being of high quality, has a lot smaller fan base? Do you not think that the popularity of the show couldn't influence things as well. How many viewers do you think these awards would draw if the most popular programs never won any awards? Sorry to harp on this, but if you think that these awards are strictly awarded due to merit, you are taking a very naive outlook on things. In my opinion it's inconceivable that there are not a multitude of factors that influence who the winners of these awards are. And thus to my original point that you seem to be avoiding, winning an Emmy is in no way proof that a show is a quality program, in regards to being a fundamentally sound piece of literature. That's not hard to accept at all, in fact I completely agree with that. I think it is very likely that many of the voters place their votes for the shows that they prefer, rather than voting for the most deserved shows. Thank you for pointing out another factor that can affect the outcome of these awards. Personal bais, I would say, certainly comes into play.
  9. What would you change about the show?

    I'm not saying that every single award is bought and payed for, or that having the most money is the sole factor in deciding who wins. My comment that the awards go to the highest bidder was hyperbole. I don't think that there is a representative from each show, sitting around with an auction card, bidding on the awards. Obviously, any greasing of the wheels would be underhanded and behind closed doors, and not something that would be practical, possible, or worth doing in order to win every award available. I mean, it would be quite obvious if every year, the show with the most financial backing swept the awards, no? As well, concerning the acting awards, I would assume that they wouldn't put as much stock in individual awards. I'm sure HBO and the show runners are more concerned with the big awards that represent the production as a whole. I do believe that a lot of it does come down to stroking their own ego's, and winning best acting awards wouldn't do that for the big brass, dishing out the dough. And as a matter of fact, there has been several documented instances that would suggest that d$d are not very respectful or appreciative of their crew. Why would they care about, or go out of their way to influence an award that doesn't directly benefit themselves? Whether you buy into the so called "conspiracy theory" that they are buying or bribing their way into these awards or not, there are other factors that have nothing to do with the quality of writing, which can influence who wins. For anyone who hasn't seen it, this is the quote from the former head of HBO. http://variety.com/2016/tv/awards/starz-chief-outlander-power-emmys-1201827698/ Now you can choose to ignore that if you want , I suppose, and speculate as to his motives for saying such things. Kind of wandering into the conspiracy theory territory yourself, I would say. But I find it hard to believe that someone in his position would just come out and completely fabricate all of this in a public statement. And to what ends? No one is going to take the Emmy away from the d's and give it to him because he made a statement as to the unlevel playing field surrounding the Emmys. I also find it hard to believe that if there was no truth to his statement, that he would not have been called out by someone in the industry that knows the truth of the matter. Anyway, my point was not to criticize the the validity of the awards, but to point out that your assertion was a fallacy, and not proof of anything. That's kind of touches on my point though. They weren't winning awards when there was basically nobody complaining about the writing, and it was generally accepted that the writing was quite exceptional. They only started winning awards after the show grew in popularity, and became a cultural phenomenon. Many people did start to notice that there was a decline in the quality of the show, yet that's when it started to win. This gives credence to the assertion that these awards are more of a popularity contest, than being awarded on merit. And yes, I think ego is a huge part of it with these guys. Admittedly, only my opinion, and obviously I'm not in a position to make an definitive assessment as to this, but from what I've seen of d$d in many interviews and specials, my impression of them is that they are very arrogant, pompuss, and egotistical individuals. Again, only my opinion, and purely speculative, but I think that they are jealous of the acalades that GRRM receives, and feel like they are more deserving of credit for the success of the show than him. I feel like a lot of the changes that they have made are not made out of necessity, or for the benifit of the show, but as an attempt to distinguish their work from GRRM's, and to try and prove that their success is not just a result of riding on his coat tails. They feel like they are entitled to win these awards, and couldn't handle the criticism that they received. This was made quite obvious to me, by the classless display that Benioff directed towards his critics after winning his first Emmy. https://out.reddit.com/t3_3ltyn7?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFkJSYvH.jpg&token=AQAAEFHTWFHR8mxydAs2hcLafH_GYbGDtPASjkn-2sI6fBRssyW8&app_name=mweb2x This is a good point, and I concede that this may have been a viable factor in why they may not have won during those seasons.
  10. What would you change about the show?

    Oh come on, is that the best you can do? I'm sorry, but just brushing something off as a concpiracy theory is a very weak and unconvincing argument. If you don't think that money and politics is one of, if not the most influential factors in essentially every thing on this planet, then you are a very naive and gulllible person. Why do you think that in this day and age, we still don't have efficient, eco friendly viehcles. Please don't tell me you buy the excuse that the technology just isn't there yet. I'm sure that if we can send a space craft to Mars, and manage to power a rover for several years on an alien planet, the technology is available to drive me to work and back. No, the reason we are still driving gas guzzling vehicles is because all of the company's that were making progress in these fields were victims to hostile takeovers by the large oil and gas companies. Squashed by money and politics. And I'm sure that the American governments involment in the middle East is completely motivated by humanitarian initiatives, nothing to do with oil. I'm sorry, but the entertainment industry is certainly not immune to the influence of politics and deep pockets. in fact, I would say that it is one of the most influenced industries in this regard. So stick your head in the sand to this fact if you must, but it does not change the fact that these awards you hold in such high esteem are meaningless popularity contest, which often go to the highest bidder. Who says that they don't attempt to? It really comes down to who has the deepest pockets, and who has the most to gain from buying these awards. It wouldn't make much sense to throw a bunch of money behind a show that doesn't share the same commercial success that Got does. However, a show that already has a large cultural following as Got does, has a lot to gain by winning these awards. It makes you wonder why the seasons that were well written didn't win any awards. Well, no need to wonder, I'll tell you why. It's because the show didn't have the momentum and financial backing that it had in the seasons in which it did win. the only seasons that they did win these awards, are arguably the weakest seasons in the series, and this opinion is largely backed by your majority, who do like the show.
  11. What would you change about the show?

    Oh please, we've had this discussion before, and you refused to accept all of the reasons I gave you. I even gave you a quote from the former head of HBO who explained exactly how these bogus awards work, which you irrationally rejected. I really don't have the energy or interest in explaining this all to you again, just so you can deny it. I totally respect your opinion, that is why, allthough I completely disagree with you, I don't challenge you on the fact that it is a good show, based on the entertainment and enjoyment value that it provides you. If the goal of the show runners is to make a product that is entertaining to a large portion of viewers, then they have succeeded and it can be classified as a good program on that basis. But to claim it is a quality written program, judged by accepted litterary standards is a false claim, and ignores the facts, not just my opinion. There are many shows that I personally do not like, and consider to be bad shows. Still, I can concede that they are well written works of literature dispite my subjective opinion. I cannot do that with GoT unless I ignore the cold hard facts.
  12. What would you change about the show?

    This is circular reasoning, and frankly, a load of Like I said, I am fully aware that you refuse to acknowledge these failings, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
  13. What would you change about the show?

    You see, you claim that it's important to distinguish between the two, yet you fail to do so. I have many, many, many complaints about the show that are my subjective opinion, and those are the reason that I don't like the show. That doesn't change the fact that the show fails miserably when it comes to the fundamental aspects of telling a story, based on accepted academic standards of literature, which is the reason I objectively claim that it is a poorly written show. It's quite easy to admit that a show is not perfect, as you say, none are. I'm not asserting that it's not perfect, that is very obvious. I'm saying that it completely fails as a comprehensive story that stands on its own as a work of literature.
  14. What would you change about the show?

    As you well know, my complaints with the show are based on the fundamental aspects of story telling, not on subjective opinions on whether it is enjoyable to watch. And as I am fully aware that you refuse to acknowledge these failings of the show, which are not my opinions, but facts, we'll have to agree to disagree.
  15. What would you change about the show?

    That's a moot point, as the quality of GoT drastically plummeted after only three seasons.
  16. Aside from the fact that the premise of your question is flawed, as I don't believe it's true that all of the gay characters are cool or macho, it does seem like a silly question to me. I really don't see where your curiosity on this particular topic is coming from. Unless I am missing something, and you can give me a non prejudicial reason why gay characters shouldn't be portrayed as cool or macho, I think this is a non issue. Also, I must add that I find it somewhat ignorant of you to assume that the author must be gay himself, in order to write such characters. I mean, I don't assume that GRRM is a pychopathic, torturing, murderer, just because some of his characters are. Sorry, just a petty nitpick, that my distain for the show will not allow me to let slide, but it is only in d$d's abomination of an adaption that Salladhor Saan is portrayed as a black man. In the books, he is a Lyseni, whom are fair skinned. And before anyone mis-interperates, or attempts to twist the meaning in my comment, I do not have a problem with the show portraying Salladhor as a black man, my problem is with any details of the show being confused with the books.
  17. Too much nudity

    I must agree with you both on the awkwardness that can occur while watching with other people. My complaint isn't so much the amount of nudity, but the context in which it is presented. The problem with the d's is they are just trying to hit a nudity quota, instead of it being a natural part of the story telling. Basically, if enough scenes don't call for nudity to meet their quota, they hire a bunch of extras to play naked whores in the background. It's just nudity for the sake of nudity. One of the first scenes that my wife (who doesn't watch the show, or read the books) walked into the room while I was watching Got was the infamous Littlefinger brothel scene. Needless to say, it was a very awkward moment.
  18. Danerys is Ned Stark's bastard daughter

    As a matter of fact, I'm going to raise the stakes. If this turned out to be true, I would relinquish my self appointed styling as Lord Commander of the GRRM's gaurd, and pledge my services to d$d, with the declaration that they are the finest story tellers that there is, ever was, and ever will be. And for anyone who is familiar with my stance on the show and the d's, you know that would be far more painful for me than castration.
  19. Danerys is Ned Stark's bastard daughter

    Huh? So Aegon the Conquerer, all of his descendants, and all of his ancestors were half Starks? OK, this whole hidden identity theme has officially ran way too rampant. If this had a chance of being true, I would snip my berries, and toss them onto a brazier. Life as an eunuch would be much more enticing than finding out this was so.
  20. The Starks and the Children

    Oh Lady Blizzardborn, are you attempting to get me in trouble? A set up like that...I'm finding it very difficult to restrain myself. I kid of course Lord Varys. Sure, you have driven me batty in the past with what I would consider to be your bias stubbornness, but you are alright in my books, and I do enjoy reading what you have to say.
  21. Why is Jon Snow the favourite Stark (usually)?

    Wow, you really do have trouble comprehending what people say to you. I'll try again. I'm sorry, but you don't have the right to tell me what I'm allowed to respond to on a public forum. Like I said, if you cannot handle the scrutiny that comes with posting inaccurate and bias comments, then you shouldn't post them on a public discussion board. I never said anything rude or inappropriate to you. If you find the truth, and getting called out on your bs offensive, that is your issue, not mine.
  22. Why is Jon Snow the favourite Stark (usually)?

    I'm sorry, but you don't have the right to tell me what I'm allowed to respond to on a public forum. Like I said, if you cannot handle the scrutiny that comes with posting inaccurate and bias comments, then you shouldn't post them on a public discussion board. I never said anything rude or inappropriate to you. If you find the truth, and getting called out on your bs offensive, that is your issue, not mine.
  23. Why is Jon Snow the favourite Stark (usually)?

    I have read what you wrote and the wording in my response is perfectly acceptable. Your response is the one which is offensive and out of line. Now take a look at the response that @The Weirwoods Eyes gave. She posted an intelligent, mature, and convincing argument to counter the assertion that I made. Reading her comment's on the matter, I have to admit that I may be wrong, and perhaps Jon is more attractive than I had originally thought. Your responses continually avoid addressing any points brought up by me or other posters that challenge you, and more often than not, contradict what is stated in the text. Perhaps you are the one that should read what is being said to you, and try to word your responses in a more applicable, and less offensive manner.
  24. Why is Jon Snow the favourite Stark (usually)?

    Excuse me!! What kind of a ridiculous and absurd remark is that? I really don't appreciate you making such an unfounded and frivolous accusation towards me. If you cannot handle the scrutiny that comes as a result of the biased and factually incorrect comments that you constantly make, then perhaps you should consider not posting them in a public forum. And just because you cannot adequately defend your position on a particular matter, that does not give you the right to make offensive accusations in order to deflect from your ineffectual arguments. Please do try to refrain from such classless and desperate tactics. It really doesn't help your case at all.
  25. Why is Jon Snow the favourite Stark (usually)?

    Again, positing your subjective opinion (or more aptly, your desire and wish) as fact. As far as one can make a claim on such a subjective matter, according to the text, as BRANDON GREYSTARK pointed out, Jon is not considered to be noticeably handsome.