HosteenOsteen Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/arts/television/in-game-of-thrones-finale-a-breakdown-in-storytelling.html This article from the New York Times expresses the concerns many of us have raised. As the writer is a show-only viewer, I find it all the more compelling that they raise some of the issues that book-reader viewers have also raised...it seems the show runners might have made a commercial as well as an artistic mistake in some of the decisions they made......and that it is not just the hardcore book-fans who are upset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErasmusF Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Thanks for the link. The article raises a lot of good points about how the story has stalled both in the show and books. In the big picture, nothing happened this season, or at least that's the way it appears to the viewer. There is really nothing to anticipate in next season, and I think that is a major strategic flaw. The writers would probably do better at this point to say something foreshadowing Jon Snow's return. As it is, I am kind of "meh" about next season and I am more anticipating TWOW. Maybe if Tormund had made some sort of speech about the battle with the WW and what it means for Westeros, we would have some idea where the story is going. But I think the reader has the same problem as the viewer - they ended with a horrible cliffhanger that doesn't appear to have any resolution. I think there are a couple of things going on with the story. 1. GRRM reads websites, goes to fantasy/sci-fi festivals, and knows that a lot of people have figured out what is going on. He stated that he read online that a few people had pieced it all together. Now he's trying to write himself out of the trap he laid for himself with so much foreshadowing and symbolism. He can't quite find a way to provide value to the reader beyond what they may have already discovered online. I don't think he's trying to change the outcome of the story, but to reveal the facts in a way that would be new and interesting to the reader. And he just can't do it, because there are only so many pieces on the chess board at this point and they have all been moved. The combined consciousness of Deep Blue on the internet has run through pretty much all the possibilities. 2. Along with D&D, he is exploring some alternate concepts in the show. It may be that Jon is dead in the show and alive in the books. Or something along those lines. When they say they might end up in the same place, but take different roads, they may mean like... starting in New York - you go west, I go east, and we'll meet in Beijing. That different. He might be thinking, "Why bother to write the books with the same plot as the show?" Maybe even the Game of Thrones becomes entirely separable from the Song of Ice and Fire as stories, and the battle at the Wall becomes a totally distinct storyline from what happens in King's Landing in the show, whereas in the books we know they are intertwined. We don't have AWOIAF in the show. We don't have TPTWP. We don't have a lot of the chains that link the stories together. I am 95% sure that #1 is going on, because GRRM said internet speculation was an issue for him and he talked it through with his wife, who said not to worry about it, just to go along with the story as planned. If he's really holding all this up just so he can do some sort of M. Night Shamalan style twist, I think that's a shame, because people are tired of his twists. They are stupid and they suck. Tropes are tropes for a reason. Cliches are cliches for a reason. They are useful. Don't avoid them - embrace them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiram McDrogon Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 An interesting review - thanks for posting it, and thanks ErasmusF for noticing it further down the page and bumping it up. I'm not sure I'd say the reviewer is upset - perhaps it's more accurate to say that he's growing bored with the lack of progress towards an ending. He sees strong echoes of Lost, which I can totally agree with, although to be honest at this point in Lost's run it seemed to be more coherently moving towards an end than Game of Thrones is (it didn't turn out that way, of course). I liked Season 5 more than many other people on the forum, but I definitely share the article's concerns about the future of the show (and the books too, for that matter!). The final paragraph of the article:And “Game of Thrones” has been defined by that stretching [of the fictional time frame] — a lot happened in Season 5, but when you look at the overall framework, nearly all the characters are where they were when the season began. The usurping Boltons are still in Winterfell; Sansa is still on the run; Arya is still hiding in Braavos; the dragon queen Daenerys Targaryen and the sly dwarf, Tyrion, are still marooned in Essos; the Lannisters still occupy the castle in King’s Landing. This can be blamed on the show’s semidependent relationship with Mr. Martin’s novels, but viewers (like me) who haven’t read the books don’t care about that. The question is how much longer we’ll care at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 The "New York Times" has never given GOT a favourable review. They hated it right from the start, don't like "genre" shows (and presumably the books, too). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borodin Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 The "New York Times" has never given GOT a favourable review. They hated it right from the start, don't like "genre" shows (and presumably the books, too). But I thought critics loved Game of Thrones. Welp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughing Storm Reborn Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 when show only fans (oblivious to book character assassination) give a bad review... something is reeeeeealy wrong with the writters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Borodin; most reviewers are favourable, certainly in the earlier seasons and probably still true even now. However, this publication has always made it a point to disparage the show, the source material and the entire genre and its audience. D&D even once mentioned it in an interview, where the interviewer was listing some of the very positive reviews (for that season, I think S3 at the time) and one of the two said "and the New York Times thought it was shit". Laughing Storm Reborn; The New York Times have never been fans of the show, they absolutely hated S1. They are not show fans, they are not fans of fantasy period. It's not "serious" enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borodin Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Ahh, so it's "Well, they never liked it anyways. They have an agenda!" Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kobayashi Maru Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Maybe they hate the show maybe they don't but what they say is true....evryone is at standstill. If only Martin or the show have decided to end the show with at least half as many cliffhangers and proceed in some direction it would have been much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErasmusF Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Borodin; most reviewers are favourable, certainly in the earlier seasons and probably still true even now. However, this publication has always made it a point to disparage the show, the source material and the entire genre and its audience. D&D even once mentioned it in an interview, where the interviewer was listing some of the very positive reviews (for that season, I think S3 at the time) and one of the two said "and the New York Times thought it was shit". Laughing Storm Reborn; The New York Times have never been fans of the show, they absolutely hated S1. They are not show fans, they are not fans of fantasy period. It's not "serious" enough. Let's not conflate the NYT with their reviewers. They still run the stories, and I am not sure they're not just clickbating, trolling, etc. But that doesn't make their review inaccurate. How's that for litotes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ummester Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 They gave it a bad review for feeling like the season, overall, was treading water - good thing they haven't read the books :D Some of the complaints are stupid - Ramsay started in Winterfell and he's still in Winterfell - yea, he's not going anywhere until season 7 probably, what do they expect? We saw the Starks loose Witerfell in earlier seasons, it would be stupid to remove tension and have Ramsay out before the end of season 7. I think the New York Times would like it to be a 5 season show. And I can see the logic in that - everything can outstay it's welcome. 70 hours is a long time for a saga that climaxed 70% of it's plotlines 60% of the way in, the primary characters have already become boring because they are basically floating around waiting for thier end games. Perhaps it should only be a 6 season show? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Let's not conflate the NYT with their reviewers. They still run the stories, and I am not sure they're not just clickbating, trolling, etc. But that doesn't make their review inaccurate. They have different reviewers, but none of them were positive - for any season. Ummester wrote that they would want it to be a 5-season show, but their response has been such that they simply never wanted this show made at all. That does not mean they never have good points (the constant nudity in the show was something they hated from day1; S1 did contain that infamous "sexposition" scene, for example), but I wouldn't take a negative review from them as being representative for all the reviewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Agrippa Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 It depends- I find half the reviewers industry to be terrible anyway. Then you got stuff like IGN which are just general advertisments for whatever is popular. NY times is usually a waste of time to read for reviews entertainment. Good news source probably one of the top three in america but I would never go for them for entertainment or anything like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 It depends- I find half the reviewers industry to be terrible anyway. Then you got stuff like IGN which are just general advertisments for whatever is popular. NY times is usually a waste of time to read for reviews entertainment. Good news source probably one of the top three in america but I would never go for them for entertainment or anything like that. It's not their target audience. People buy the NYT to read serious, decently researched/investigated in-depth news. Not for entertainment news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeraAgnes Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 If the Mother Mercy finale would of showed Jon Snow's rebirth the negativities would be less. Like Season 1 where Danarys came out of the fire with her 3 dragons.. That was powerful and exciting for a finale. This season lacked character and plot development and the finale was all one big trailer for Season 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jet199 Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 It's fair criticism, none of the storylines will pay off until next season so casual watchers will probably assume the season end was the payoff. It's not a great way to write a show or to write a book but you can just about get away with it if you have a loyal following. The show seems to be getting the same criticism as AFFC and ADWD but D&D should have done more to correct those books faults rather than compound them. The trouble is that the more stories they tried to give a conclusion to the more they would be accused of spoiling the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Ghost- Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I think there are a couple of things going on with the story. 1. GRRM reads websites, goes to fantasy/sci-fi festivals, and knows that a lot of people have figured out what is going on. He stated that he read online that a few people had pieced it all together. Now he's trying to write himself out of the trap he laid for himself with so much foreshadowing and symbolism. He can't quite find a way to provide value to the reader beyond what they may have already discovered online. I don't think he's trying to change the outcome of the story, but to reveal the facts in a way that would be new and interesting to the reader. And he just can't do it, because there are only so many pieces on the chess board at this point and they have all been moved. The combined consciousness of Deep Blue on the internet has run through pretty much all the possibilities. George stopped reading websites in the 90's, according to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRLR Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/arts/television/in-game-of-thrones-finale-a-breakdown-in-storytelling.html This article from the New York Times expresses the concerns many of us have raised. As the writer is a show-only viewer, I find it all the more compelling that they raise some of the issues that book-reader viewers have also raised...it seems the show runners might have made a commercial as well as an artistic mistake in some of the decisions they made......and that it is not just the hardcore book-fans who are upset. I think a lot of people are just tired of the constant death of the "good guys" while they see Ramsay, et al not getting comeuppance at all. They're not even pretending to be gray anymore. Consider this. Cersei has done more atrocious things than Jon Snow ever did but even in her punishment, she was lauded and at the end, there's a possibility for her to get back at her enemies. The Stark family on the other hand, and the North for the most part, got nothing. Unlike in the books where there's actually a glimmer of hope there. You'd read people still being loyal to the Starks. They talk about the wolves coming again. In the show? Nada. And then they killed Jon Snow. Yes, it happened in the books but the motivations were different. Honestly, I bought the NW reasons in the book more than on the show. Me thinks D&D just butchered the Northern storyline so much because they're afraid of going too fantasy that they'll alienate their non-fantasy viewers. They're wrong but whatever. Unless, the book gets released before S6, I'm not going to be watching too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faint Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I suggest you go back and read the New York Time's review for season one, two, three and four. They have trashed the show from its very inception, including the very first episode. They are very fond of calling it a "genre" work in a disparaging manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 This is literally the exact same criticism many book critics gave AFFC and ADWD. It feels like stalling, bloating, and little real advancement despite a lot happening. Shouldn't be surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.