Gargarax

Who's condescending and intellectually superior now ... Yes, I do think it's quite a literary accomplishment. I'm not saying it's Shakespeare or Dickens or Faulkner. But it ticks a lot of boxes of what makes good storytelling - a lot of boxes. The show doesn't tick one. No, we'll never agree. You'll keep claiming stuff that you then avoid backing up - you've done it for four pages in this forum. You evade critical questions and just keep asserting the same unsupported assumptions. Clearly, it's a waste of time for the two of us to discuss any further. If I want nonversations, I'd still rather watch Game of Thrones.

You are entitled to that opinion - but it's really not more than that: a subjective opinion that you have refused to provide a good source for, although you claim there are tons of great essays in the net. I've studied and taught literature for over 15 years now, and fail to see the flaws you see. I've read a lot of stuff by literture-savvy people on GoT, who come to different conclusions that you, based on objective, criteria. The whole Martin hate is also uncalled for. Gaiman had it right: Martin's not your bitch. He is not obliged to finish the books within certain amount of time; if he feels like having other project on the side, good for him. Do I wish he would work on TWOW more often? Sure. Do I think it was a mistake to push for the TV series without finishing first? I do. But it was a pretty human decision; he's not the youngest anymore and probably liked the idea of seeing one of his works put onto the screen; it's not like that opportunity comes along often. Could Martin have forseen that once D&D go off the source material, the show's plot would become so incredibly bad? How could he have? Nobody expected the show ever to fall that low after S1. There is no indication that TWOW will never be out. I'm fine waiting another five years, if necessary. If is nearly as great a piece of literature as AFFC and TWOW was (read them combined, it's a revelation - all pacing weakness odd jumps disappear), it will be worth the wait. Working fast on any piece of art, particularly literature, can damage quality. The show has lost it's chance to have any meaningful legacy, Martin still has that chance.

Okay, I agree, this is well done, and impressive production value for a TV series. Still, as examples for tracking shots, I would go with True Detective or the opening of "The Revenant". And I agree, True Detective S1 is a fabulous example for camera work in general - clearly better than GoT in my opinion.

I still don't know why you think their opinions are being dismissed. 1. Quality in storytelling has nothing to do with opinion - see all analogies above. 2. Please become aware of your double standards; dismissing the opinion of book fans is just as stupid as dismissing those of Unsullied - you are doing yourself what you criticise in others, which is just as pathetic. Your demographics argument is a good point, though - this is the only thing that gives the show a hint of "cultural phenomenon". As for your predictions: I would bet a lot of money things are not gonna happen in even remotely a similar way in the books as they happen in the show show. Say about the later books of the series what you will, but Martin makes very few mistakes with plot development, plot points and characters arc, while the shows fails epically most of the time. Even if LF dies in WF, being sentenced to death by Sansa, the circumstances will be entirely different and the similarity superficial at best. I will eat my hat if Arya passes the sentence - nothing in Martin's universe would make this even remotely likely. D&D have outright admitted that they made that nonsensical shit up to create a bit of tension in WF. I would be surprise if even 1 in 5 plot points would be from Martin's outline.

Interesting, thanks! I agree that the dragons are great, I also like them better than Smaug. Sound and Set Design are great as well, no question. I'm not sure about the camera work and Montage, but I'll have a look at the scenes you suggested. I can't remember any tracking shots that came near the chase scene in S3 of "Black Sails" or the raid in S1 of "True Detective", but maybe I remember badly.

You can't laugh and not give an answer. I'm seriously interested in examples. I know the show has great CGI - but only compared to other shows. Any example from recent movies would be as valid an example as GoT's CGI. So ... what scenes are you thinking of?

I'm curious - teaching what exactly? I use the Dracarys scene from S3 to teach different types of shots and how they can be used effectively to help tell the story. I haven't seen any scenes since S3 that I thought were good examples of camera work, montage, lighting or any other technical category. But maybe I have overlooked something while trying to make sense of the script that will only ever be taught as a negative example

1. None of the critical analyses are mainly about nitpicks. On a plot level, almost nothing makes any sense at all. Sansa's and Arya's story in Winterfell this season is straightforward nonsensical. If this story was a novel, no serious publisher in the world would print it. None. Nobody says you can't enjoy the show, nobody. Saying it's a well-written show is what some people take issue with. Nobody cares about the fact that the show has deviated from the books, people care because it deviates and did it so very very badly. 2. Popularity never implies quality. Most pop songs have been listend to more often than Mozart's work, and nobody in their right mind would say they are better. "Transformers" has had much more success than Tarkovsky's "Stalker", although the first is trash and the second is art. GoT has had many more viewers than "The Wire", altough "The Wire" should probably get a Nobel Prize for TV, while GoT should not even win Emmys outside the technical categories. The popularity argument is no more than a fallacy.

Don't make assumptions about whether I defend Martin over everything - I don't. Basically, you have ignored most arguments made on the last two pages (although I do appreciate your thoughts on why AFFC is flawed, even if they are without any examples and highly subjective). That's the problem with some ardent show defenders: You don't even try to give evidence for your claims - which is why the interesting critical discourse is in the hands of show critics, who care enough to write insightful essays and produce hours of podcast analysis. It would be so great to have a constructive dialogue somewhere, but no, show snobs (let's introduce that term) prefer to ignore critical discussions as booksnobbery.

I dare you to provide one link to such a piece.

Being bemused by something totally understandable, that has been explained well a zillion times in these threads, is why some posters seem to think you are trying to come across as intellectually superior. I'll gladly tell you why I watch it although I dislike the majority of scenes: Because it's interesting to disect something that doesn't work and by doing so find out why it doesn't. I have a better understanding of storytelling by seeing how GoT does it badly, and I can actually use GoT in teaching to explain how not to tell a story. Seeing GoT fail at storytelling is enlightening and enriching, which seems to me just as valuable a reason to watch it as simply being entertained by it is. I agree that posters who criticise those who rate high can be annoying - but you are doing the same bloody thing. It's just as petty.

Are you sure this description really means something? It could be applied to Orwell's 1984, to Shakespeare's King Lear, to Dicken's Great Expectations - and it would be just as true or untrue discribing those. Is it possible that what you describe, is, what was it called ... fiction? Forgive my sarcasm - but really, I'd love to read a serious piece on why the show-writing is good or Martin's writing is bad. I'd gladly read that, with an open mind and with interest. What I don't want to read are subjective statements about how AFFC is bad because nothing happened (which is what the usual criticism often comes down to). To compare book dialogue and show dialogue and come away with the conclusion that both can be criticised for being "unrealistic" seems so absurd to me that discussing it does not seem worth the time.

The problem is: I haven't read a single serious analysis of AFFC or ADWD that showed me why it's flawed. I have read plenty of great essays that showed what a great and literary book AFFC is (By the way: read the two combined and it's a masterpiece). And it's the same with the show: There are great analyses of academic quality that show why the show is flawed, but I haven't yet read a single thorough defense of the showthat was based on objective criteria. Maybe that's my bubble, but I'd really like somebody to post a link to a site where the positive reactions to the show are discussed as in-depth as the critical reactions are. And yes, somebody who tells critical voices to leave the thread, because they spread negativity, is whining. I don't want to defend the few posters who rate episodes a 1 based on very selective criteria. But the people who spread negativity here are mostly those who can't deal with the fact that some people like the show less than they do, and feel the need to attack those people and push them into Rant&Rave thread. This is quite simply immature and silly. I'm perfectly fine with people with people hating shows I like - so why can't you be as well?

Thanks for this post, I couldn't agree more. I usually like a food analogy to explain the same. Sometimes a greasy burger from a fast food chain is a satisfying meal: Sometimes I prefer the greasy burger to a fancy alternative. But never would I say that a burger is by any objective standard great food. It will always be garbage, no matter how much I enjoy it. If GoT didn't pretend to be more than enjoyable escapist fantasy, I might like it more. But it does, and it needs to be called out for it. It's perfectly okay to enjoy watching it - but saying it tells a well-written story is an insult to storytelling. Just like somebody who makes a greasy burger will never be a chef in anybody's book, the writers of GoT will never be considered real writers by anybody who the slightest clue about the art of writing stories.

5/10. Tought one to rate. It was clearly better than last week. The best thing were clearly the sets - the Dragonpit in particular was gorgeous. And there were moments that gave me what I had missed on GoT for quite a while, like the snow falling on Kings Landing and Jaimie witnessing it. Jon talking to Theon was almost acceptable dialogue again, and almost a good character moment. And the CGI was quite alright again, and more atmospheric than last week. Overall, it was really quite a beautiful episode. However, this didn't change the fact that plotwise, it didn't make any more sense than the episodes before. It became even more clear that there was no reason for the meeting in KL, since Cersei has no army that is worth such a long delay. The winterfell plot introduced one of the most unearned twists in the series so far. And what's with the dick jokes - it's getting so ridiculuous it makes immersion impossible. Who finds that funny. No really, who? And Theon immune to crotch-kick-pain - who writes shit like this into a major TV show? If the writing was bad, the direction was worse. I think the dragonpit scene was probably directed by the camera guy ("now Euron get up and insult Tyrion - go") - they did stuff that I wouldn't let a highschool drama production get away with. Euron was fucking terrible - this is not a bad actor, but he was unconvincing like no one else. He wasn't the only one, though. There was no chemistry between Jon and Danaerys - they seemed to have sex out of boredom. Arya was terrible. Littlefinger's plea felt so unmotivated, but then Aidan Gillen hasn't had anything to work with for more than two seasons now. Conclusion: Visually enjoyable with some good moments, but such an awful script and such ininspired acting and directing that I was still majorly disappointed.