"Fair Game: The critical universe around Game of Thrones".

[Dolorous Gabe]

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Honestly I don't even think that is important. The ONLY thing that is important as to whether the show is good is whether it works on its own, as a show, within the confines of its own continuity. If you can go episode to episode and its enjoyable, and you want to know more and see more of the characters, and you leave the show feeling satisfied. Thats what makes it a good show or not.

It doesn't work within the confines of its own continuity, that's one of the many criticisms of the show.

@Primalsplit is right that this "ONLY thing" you cited as important is only really related to pragmatism. Do you not watch a story unfold as essentially a work of art that should have some kind of meaning or artistic resonance (usually derived through themes)?

I mean, whether it worked "within the confines of its own continuity" or not is not what made The Wire, Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, Mad Men, or Deadwood so great. Above everything else, these shows were genuinely great because of the writing and the themes.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, JCRB's Honeypot said:

D&d aren't clear on what's the position about the books and show. They say it will be different, and then say they are folllowing to what Martin told them. So, it's impossible for books readers with more knowledged of the situation, to believe them. Like what happened to Shireen. They said "Martin told us!". That's their justification for the plot, despite in the books, it's impossible to happen as happened in the show.

...

Now, if they had said "we are taking a different role than the books, we don't know more than the readers bc we don't have more books!", then the sitation would be different. Yet, they chose the books. They can't complain now for ocmparisons.

The problem is, they have been clear:

Quote

“People are talking about whether the books are going to be spoiled – and it’s really not true,” Benioff said. “So much of what we’re doing diverges from the books at this point. And while there are certain key elements that will be the same, we’re not going to talk so much about that – and I don’t think George is either. People are going to be very surprised when they read the books after the show. They’re quite divergent in so many respects for the remainder of the show.”

Yes, they have attributed Shireen's burning and the Hodor reveal to Martin.  But that's it.  Did they mention Martin's input after Jon's resurrection?  After Stannis' defeat and the reveal about Mel?  After Dany's fireproof Dothraki crap?  Hell, even after the ToJ scene?  They've mentioned two things they got from Martin in almost a season and a half of clear deviation from the books.  With Shireen, I would agree that this was a clumsy way to try to abdicate responsibility for a horribly constructed storyline.  For Hodor?  Not so much. 

And them saying "we don't know more than the readers" would obviously be a lie.  What they do with that information is up to them; and since it's presumably vague on things that Martin has yet to write, it's going to tend to deviate more and more.  Which is exactly what they've said. 

My problem with D&D is Season 5.  My problem is they made some choices I wouldn't have made into streamlining the books.  My main problem is that I do not think they were particularly interested with finishing the series after they reached the Red Wedding, but that's my own perception.

What I don't have a problem with is the fact they want to get to the endgame as fast as possible.  That's not only good for their careers (which is frankly all you can expect from ANYBODY), historically it's also good for the show.  Please name a TV show that was of the same quality in Season 8 that it was in Season 1, or even Season 4?  It just doesn't happen.  Breaking Bad is my favorite show ever.  The last two-to-three seasons, are in my opinion, perfect.  But Seasons 1 and 2 were pretty damn pedestrian, and I would place good money if it continued Gilligan would run out of gas as well.  Hell, even the last season of the Wire sucked.  Is GoT on par with those two?  Nope.  But it's still better than 90% of the crap that's on TV, and that's only in terms of a traditionally scripted, non-reality sample.

Which brings me to my final point:  TV critics are not going to care about LF's magical traveling machine, or the timelines between what's happening with Jon's resurrection matches up with other parts of the show.  It's simply not on their radar, nor should it be.  Personally, I think the show sucked for most of Season 5, but it's gotten considerably better the past few episodes outside the travesty of a Kingsmoot.  But that's a book snob's opinion.  Thinking you're special for pointing out all the inconsistencies, anachronisms, or impossibilities in a show is a part of internet fandom, fine.  But expecting this to be the way in which most people not only watch, but evaluate, television shows?  It's ridiculous.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, LadySoftheart said:

 

  Hide contents

sorry I can't get this out of the quote thing.

 

But the same critics (and many viewers, apparently)  don't have a problem with Game of Thrones lack of logic (within the show) that is at a far, far more pervasive and deeper level than anything that BB or THe Wire EVER did. Why aren't people noticing that Gilly's baby hasn't aged or the timeles of 6.01 were all out of whack? If David Simon had ever said that Omar was in a different timeline from Stringer and Avon do you think critics would have accepted that? How about the heist episode of BB, when people were calculating the rates of flow of various chemicals? Is it just that GoT is fantasy so people think anything goes? But if it's fantasy so the fact that one woman can get married, get pregnant, give birth and get murdered all while another woman's child seems to age about two months, and that's fine, then I don't think that one can argue that the show's frequent depiction of sexual violence is "realistic because it was like that in medieval times." If you are going to praise the show for its realism, then maybe be realistic about distances and ages and so on. If it's "just" fantasy so none of it matters, then you can't say "oh this violence is realistic why are people so upset?

Also, The Wire and Breaking Bad really were better than 90% of TV and they still weren't immune from exactly the type of criticism that you say is irrelevant to GoT. As for currently airing shows, The Americans is head and shoulders above any season of GoT and part of why is both careful attention to detail and a focus on characters and thematic coherence. If it were just about spy shenanigans, it would be a far poorer and less rewarding show.

 

Ok, let's take Breaking Bad - because I have a hard time rewatching the Wire since it's so damn depressing.  If BB was held up to this standard, the molasses-style timeline of the first 5 seasons really would not hold up to scrutiny.  All of that happening in a year?  Without spoiling too much, the issues of his chemotherapy, Jane, somehow building a solid business with Badger and Skinny Pete as your main dealers, and Hank's inability to connect the dots until he's on the shitter are patently unrealistic.  Once Walt celebrates 51, it gets even worse in terms of "consistency" as types of "dues ex machina" plot devices that permeate critiques of GoT.

But anyway, I agree with you that those shows were unquestionably better than GoT.  I just don't think they were help up to any higher scrutiny than GoT.  I also assume Americans is much better than GoT from everything I've heard from people I respect, just haven't gotten around to it yet.  I guess my main point is why does everybody care so much if GoT gets somewhat of a pass?  Are you saying the show is abjectly, and objectively, horrible?  If so, I disagree.  If you're simply saying the show is maybe in the 70th to 80th percentile rather than the 90th as critics (or I) currently place it, it just seems much ado about nothing.

[TheKitttenGuard]

2 hours ago, Primalsplit said:

Well, that's the pragmatic aspect of it. They're making the show to get dem moneyz and they seem to be succesful at that. I think everyone here knows this is the truth. Rather, we are discussing on what it should be, not what it is. Everyone has different expectations and our expectations certainly don't seem to be the expectations of majority. I get that. Most people just want to spend enjoyable 50-60 minutes. My point to it is, there is no need to please a certain type of people; when nearly all can be satisfied with not much effort.

If they would have been trying to be faithful and respectful to the source material (not word by word, but as a general idea), the people enjoying the show would not be displeased one bit compared to their current situation. It's wasted potential when you can include literary themes with the great aspects the show already has. There is no loss here. No extra resources spent. It's win-win. A good show with interesting insights (through themes), is simply superior than a simple good show. Same thing with the adaptational value. They bring pure upside, with zero or maybe minimal downside.

How are you certain that being "faithful" will keep the audience?

Several of the criticism of is that the show has been slow.  How will adding more material not make the show slow or slower?

 

The solutions are always simple or explain by simple will (if they really wanted to do <blank>  they could).  

The show is catering to please a more general audience.  A certain type of fan is what you want the show cater to.

What does literary themes has to do with a tv show?

[lancerman]

15 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Ok, let's take Breaking Bad - because I have a hard time rewatching the Wire since it's so damn depressing.  If BB was held up to this standard, the molasses-style timeline of the first 5 seasons really would not hold up to scrutiny.  All of that happening in a year?  Without spoiling too much, the issues of his chemotherapy, Jane, somehow building a solid business with Badger and Skinny Pete as your main dealers, and Hank's inability to connect the dots until he's on the shitter are patently unrealistic.  Once Walt celebrates 51, it gets even worse in terms of "consistency" as types of "dues ex machina" plot devices that permeate critiques of GoT.

But anyway, I agree with you that those shows were unquestionably better than GoT.  I just don't think they were help up to any higher scrutiny than GoT.  I also assume Americans is much better than GoT from everything I've heard from people I respect, just haven't gotten around to it yet.  I guess my main point is why does everybody care so much if GoT gets somewhat of a pass?  Are you saying the show is abjectly, and objectively, horrible?  If so, I disagree.  If you're simply saying the show is maybe in the 70th to 80th percentile rather than the 90th as critics (or I) currently place it, it just seems much ado about nothing.

Exactly. If it was scrutinized the same way Game of Thrones was, you'd hear nonstop complaints that

-the timeline of the show makes no fucking sense and couldn't feasibly happen

-that Walt could openly work with some of the most incompetent people ever and get away with it

-that so many people in Gus' compound worked saw Walt, but somehow after the entire business is destroyed nobody rats on the guy cooking meth.

-that Gus goes into a druglords compound virtually unprotected and drugs them all and not one of them can grab a gun and put a bullet in him

-that Walt's big grand plan for a finale was hoping  he lived long enough at the hideout to have his rigged car blast the safehouse apart, and that if he did do that he would be able to shield Jesse in time? Get real  that was fanservice to the nines.

-You think Dany and Tyrion have plot armor? Count the amount of times someone leaves Walt alive just long enough for him to slide his way out of a situation.

Not to mention this is the show that is consistently called the greatest show ever, and those critiques were just scratching the surface.

[The fanny from hell]

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

-that Walt's big grand plan for a finale was hoping  he lived long enough at the hideout to have his rigged car blast the safehouse apart, and that if he did do that he would be able to shield Jesse in time? Get real  that was fanservice to the nines.

Just off the top of my head: Walt didn't intend to save Jesse until he met him there.

LOL.

BTW, Breaking Bad was scrutinized like hell. That it got a free pass for everything like GoT is patently false.

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Fanny said:

Just off the top of my head: Walt didn't intend to save Jesse until he met him there.

Well, then your head needs refreshing.  Walt immediately asks, and challenges, Jack about Jesse.  It's the only way he can buy time to set off the M60.  Didn't just 'meet' him there.

[The fanny from hell]

Just now, dmc515 said:

Well, then your head needs refreshing.  Walt immediately asks, and challenges, Jack about Jesse.  It's the only way he can buy time to set off the M60.  Didn't just 'meet' him there.

I haven't rewatched the Finale, but I remember well that Walt's feeling towards Jesse didn't change until he saw the extent of the degradation he was submitted to. It was all in the body language of the actors. That his hatred for Jesse was only a bullshit excuse to get inside Jack's headquarters doesn't change change what I said. His motivation was to wipe Jack and his band out, Jesse didn't matter in his plans.

AAAAAAAAAANYWAY... I think it's clear why the thread started deviating toward Braking Bad, but let's not derail it by going further.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Fanny said:

AAAAAAAAAANYWAY... I think it's clear why the thread started deviating toward Braking Bad, but let's not derail it by going further.

Agreed. 

Spoiler

Still, wasn't about getting inside Jack's HQ at all, you're remembering it wrong

 

[Primalsplit]

Please, can everyone stay on topic? I don't know what happens in some other shows and I care even less. We don't exactly need to compare, so I see no point in doing so.

11 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

How are you certain that being "faithful" will keep the audience?

Several of the criticism of is that the show has been slow.  How will adding more material not make the show slow or slower?

 

The solutions are always simple or explain by simple will (if they really wanted to do <blank>  they could).  

The show is catering to please a more general audience.  A certain type of fan is what you want the show cater to.

What does literary themes has to do with a tv show?

What you seem to assume is, by being faithful; they exclusively need to add more. Not modify or not enhance.

I do not like to insult people, but when people insist on not reading or not thinking; I have to call them on their lack of intellectual capacity. So consider yourself objectively insulted. Because you are not doing those. Until you do so, you will not have my respect. But nevertheless I will do my best to explain to you with an example:

Take for instance the dialogue before the fight at Tower of Joy. The actors are already there. They already do fighting. Scene is hired. Whole crew is there. There is no cost difference between the two:

....

-Where's my sister?

-I wish you in the wars to come. And now it begins.

-Nooouu. Now it endss.

Fight proceeds and it turns out Ned Stark did not defeat Dayne "honorably" as he boasted.

-----

...

-Maces Tyrell bent the knee in Storm's End. I was certain you would be among them.

-Our knees don't bend easily. (dons helm) We swore a vow. And now it begins.

-(with sadness), No. Now it ends.

Fight proceeds and it turns out Ned Stark won thanks to Reed, as he told Bran.

-----

The difference is not in the cost nor time. It is not about adding or subtracting anything. There is no difference for the general audience the show caters to. On the other hand; for some people who want to find a meaning in a story or those who want to see a faithful adaptation; the change is pure upside. Because it does not try to shit on Ned Stark's honorable image, nor make him an edgy teenager. The meaning of the scene does not change where those man are committing suicide for their reputational honor and the fact that Ned wants to avoid this unnecessary bloodshed.

What's funny is, there is also a theme in the GoT version of the scene. It is that honorable people might not be as honorable as you might think, or they might not have been honorable all along. If you liked this notion, than you also like themes yourself. I think it is also not a bad theme for that matter, nor badly executed. D&d went for their own choices in themes. Which is not a bad thing in itself. I would just prefer if they would make their own stories for that though. This last note is purely my own opinion. I don't know whether it should be considered moral or not.

----

And lastly, your last question "What does literary themes has to do with a TV show." Well, because we consider it as a form of Art that uses the story method. Stories actually try to tell you something through their themes. I know your definition of a story is more along the lines of a chain of events that happen which is to please the recipient. I don't think that's a wrong definition either. But for it to be considered art, it needs to have a meaning (and beauty I think). There are many debates about what makes an art, so everyone has a different definition because it's definition is based on subjectivity. For you, a TV show is not necessarily an art. Many people here, treat it as a work of art and an adaptational art. There is obviously no universal truth to both claims, but this is a field where we can keep things in a standard where we please. You can do so as you please and we can do so as we please. So your question what does a TV show do with a literary theme, actually loses meaning. Because for us, it does have something to do.

Also I think; stories with a theme are better than ones without when everything else is equal.

...

Maybe you might say that, so if everything is subjective; then why are we discussing it in the first place? I would say that, there is a point in such discussions. Because I think subjectivity itself actually has objective elements in it. What we like is subjective, but we humans are ourselves our objectively constructed. Our emotions, our desires has an evolutionary and anecdotal base, which are based on objective measures themselves. The difference mainly lies on our experiences and anecdotes that make us somewhat different in preferences. But I think someone who does not know the taste of themes, will come to understand it when it is experienced. I think this is a matter that is more up to debate. I just want to point out that, beauty is not simply in the eye of the beholder. We give the subjectivity factor way too much credit than it deserves. That's how we end up with abomination called modern art, that no one truly likes but pretends to like. Hey it's art because we can't disprove that it is not beautiful in an objective way, right?

What I'm saying is, discussions of what makes a good art, story etc. have their usefulness. So going too much with the "hey it's subjective" way will lead us into a dead end called the abomination street. I don't know why I bothered to answer a question that was not even asked though.

[TheKitttenGuard]

1 hour ago, Primalsplit said:

Please, can everyone stay on topic? I don't know what happens in some other shows and I care even less. We don't exactly need to compare, so I see no point in doing so.

What you seem to assume is, by being faithful; they exclusively need to add more. Not modify or not enhance.

I do not like to insult people, but when people insist on not reading or not thinking; I have to call them on their lack of intellectual capacity. So consider yourself objectively insulted. Because you are not doing those. Until you do so, you will not have my respect. But nevertheless I will do my best to explain to you with an example:

Take for instance the dialogue before the fight at Tower of Joy. The actors are already there. They already do fighting. Scene is hired. Whole crew is there. There is no cost difference between the two:

....

-Where's my sister?

-I wish you in the wars to come. And now it begins.

-Nooouu. Now it endss.

Fight proceeds and it turns out Ned Stark did not defeat Dayne "honorably" as he boasted.

-----

...

-Maces Tyrell bent the knee in Storm's End. I was certain you would be among them.

-Our knees don't bend easily. (dons helm) We swore a vow. And now it begins.

-(with sadness), No. Now it ends.

Fight proceeds and it turns out Ned Stark won thanks to Reed, as he told Bran.

-----

The difference is not in the cost nor time. It is not about adding or subtracting anything. There is no difference for the general audience the show caters to. On the other hand; for some people who want to find a meaning in a story or those who want to see a faithful adaptation; the change is pure upside. Because it does not try to shit on Ned Stark's honorable image, nor make him an edgy teenager. The meaning of the scene does not change where those man are committing suicide for their reputational honor and the fact that Ned wants to avoid this unnecessary bloodshed.

What's funny is, there is also a theme in the GoT version of the scene. It is that honorable people might not be as honorable as you might think, or they might not have been honorable all along. If you liked this notion, than you also like themes yourself. I think it is also not a bad theme for that matter, nor badly executed. D&d went for their own choices in themes. Which is not a bad thing in itself. I would just prefer if they would make their own stories for that though. This last note is purely my own opinion. I don't know whether it should be considered moral or not.

----

And lastly, your last question "What does literary themes has to do with a TV show." Well, because we consider it as a form of Art that uses the story method. Stories actually try to tell you something through their themes. I know your definition of a story is more along the lines of a chain of events that happen which is to please the recipient. I don't think that's a wrong definition either. But for it to be considered art, it needs to have a meaning (and beauty I think). There are many debates about what makes an art, so everyone has a different definition because it's definition is based on subjectivity. For you, a TV show is not necessarily an art. Many people here, treat it as a work of art and an adaptational art. There is obviously no universal truth to both claims, but this is a field where we can keep things in a standard where we please. You can do so as you please and we can do so as we please. So your question what does a TV show do with a literary theme, actually loses meaning. Because for us, it does have something to do.

Also I think; stories with a theme are better than ones without when everything else is equal.

 

If you look through the boards, the overwhelming complaints are what was cut out or left out.  So, the reason I think that having a more faithful adaption is having more material because that is the main complaint of people when it comes to the show, what has been cut out, and you did with the TOJ.

We do not know if they shot the additional dialogue. Hypothetically, you had two scene with one being closer to the books.  Now, the scene that is closer to the books is just not that good in comparison.  Do you show it because it is closer to the books or do you go for what will be better for the TV? 

 Ned did win thanks to Reed in the show.  It is we know that Reed did not make Ned win in an "honorable" fashion. Also, Bran did not say his father told him he won.  He just stated he heard the story "a thousand time". There would of been some story of Ned and Dayne and Bran will fill in the space that his father defeated Arthur Dayne in completely honorable way.  

We do not know about the TOJ in the books beside a few paragraph from Ned's fever dream.  We have no details of the actually fight so you immediately fill-in what you want and criticize show for doing things differently.

 I have a higher appreciation for Television as a art form then you and the people who love to attack the show.  That you think TV should do literary themes shows what you think of TV as an art form.  Any themes the show address should be ones of television since it is a TV show.

 

 

[Dolorous Gabe]

31 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

I have a higher appreciation for Television as a art form then you and the people who love to attack the show.  That you think TV should do literary themes shows what you think of TV as an art form.  Any themes the show address should be ones of television since it is a TV show.

Interesting statement but I very much disagree.

I think storytelling themes are universal regardless of the medium. The only difference is how each medium communicates the themes.

[TheKitttenGuard]

21 minutes ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

Interesting statement but I very much disagree.

I think storytelling themes are universal regardless of the medium. The only difference is how each medium communicates the themes.

Well, there are plenty of storytelling themes examine on GOT.  The poster stated explicitly in a prior post that the show need to explore literary themes which I disagree with.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 hour ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

If you look through the boards, the overwhelming complaints are what was cut out or left out.  So, the reason I think that having a more faithful adaption is having more material because that is the main complaint of people when it comes to the show, what has been cut out, and you did with the TOJ.

We do not know if they shot the additional dialogue. Hypothetically, you had two scene with one being closer to the books.  Now, the scene that is closer to the books is just not that good in comparison.  Do you show it because it is closer to the books or do you go for what will be better for the TV? 

 Ned did win thanks to Reed in the show.  It is we know that Reed did not make Ned win in an "honorable" fashion. Also, Bran did not say his father told him he won.  He just stated he heard the story "a thousand time". There would of been some story of Ned and Dayne and Bran will fill in the space that his father defeated Arthur Dayne in completely honorable way.  

We do not know about the TOJ in the books beside a few paragraph from Ned's fever dream.  We have no details of the actually fight so you immediately fill-in what you want and criticize show for doing things differently.

 I have a higher appreciation for Television as a art form then you and the people who love to attack the show.  That you think TV should do literary themes shows what you think of TV as an art form.  Any themes the show address should be ones of television since it is a TV show.

 

 

As usual I think you are correct here. Any themes in the show version should be judged purely on the show, not going back to the books and trying to find themes and seeing if they apply to the show, or going crazy because they don't apply to the show. It just shows a gross ignorance of the adaptation process to constantly bemoan the fact that your favourite elements have been changed, or some theme is lost.

First and foremost the show is trying to get the story out in the most satisfying, efficient way they can ( you can argue if they are doing it well, but that is what they are attempting to do), far lower down the prioritiy list is getting everyones favourite supposed interpretation of the books themes in there and keeping things the same. When you make changes, then inevitably someone is going to get upset. 

Just judge the show on its own merits, everyone will be far happier.

[Dolorous Gabe]

2 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Just judge the show on its own merits, everyone will be far happier.

You do realise this means you cannot use a perceived weakness in books 4 and 5 as a way to explain season 5's awfulness, right? It goes both ways.

Personally, I think you can judge it both in comparison with the books and on its own merits and find it severely wanting in either analysis.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 minute ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

You do realise this means you cannot use a perceived weakness in books 4 and 5 as a way to explain season 5's awfulness, right? It goes both ways.

Personally, I think you can judge it both in comparison with the books and on its own merits and find it severely wanting in either analysis.

I disagree. They are two entirely different arguments. 

One is : Judge the show on its own, is it consistent within its own universe and themes, not with the books. Don't complain that it isn't the same as the books or that it hasn't followed through on themes of the books, or they have destroyed characters from the books.

Second one is: Understand that the show has had to use the books as a source for its material, and other than completely making stuff up, any structural problems from the book would logically follow through into the show. Its entirely legitimate to argue that seasons 5 problems partly stem from the decisions Martin made with his books. As I say, the only other option is to simply not use anything from those books and just make stuff up, which actually happened more often in season 5.

[Desert Fox]

No, I think you have to judge the show totally on its own*. The writers had the option of modifying S5 even further from the books to solve the problems. Hell they could have just skipped it all. 5x01 "One year later . . ."

But S5 wasn't all that bad. Dorne is probably the single worst plot the show ever did, but was it like the 10th most important plot on the show.

 

* but I don't mean to belittle GRRMs story's contribution to the show quality. The show heavily relied on it and the shows success is imo, mostly GRRMs doing. I also think most bookfans don't realize GoT was a pretty faithful adpation through s1-4 an only went off book because they ran out of runway. If TWOW and ADOS were out, D&D would be back to mostly just following books with the occasional medium deviation.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

2 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

 

* but I don't mean to belittle GRRMs story's contribution to the show quality. The show heavily relied on it and the shows success is imo, mostly GRRMs doing. I also think most bookfans don't realize GoT was a pretty faithful adpation through s1-4 an only went off book because they ran out of runway. If TWOW and ADOS were out, D&D would be back to mostly just following books with the occasional medium deviation.

I don't think they made the changes they did in season 5 because they 'ran out of runway', it might be part of the issue, but its obvious to most that season 5 would need to be altered rather radically from the books were it to work in the current format. The argument should really be that they should have changed a lot more, and been beholden to the books. But that again is a very easy argument to make when you don't have to suddenly write a whole bunch of material.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

We got back to discuss books vs show like this is the purpose of the film

Anyway, people keep saying that if GoT5 sucks is because the source. Yet, many reviewers keep saying "The show is doing better than the books, because the books are boring".

Anybody else notices the contradiction?

I mean, what is exactly the improvement from the books? People have complained forever that Brienne's plot is boring, that she does nothing. What she does in Season 5? Nothing. What has she done so far in Season 6? Nothing. She's just around, meeting people that is convenient for the plot she meets, EXACTLY WHAT SHE DOES in book 4.

So, these critics are pretty much saying "instead of having Brienne travelling to Westeros for one whole book, we have her travelling the North for one whole season... which is better because in the book, is boring". ermasdasdasdasd, what?

 

[TheKitttenGuard]

I do think much of the criticism that is based on adaptation that is used on these boards should not be viewed as mainstream.  

I do think there is "validity" in it but is not mainstream and should not be.

The Mainstream is including a vast, vast majority that have not read the books.  They will not have a interest and will not be helpful.  

I think what is done on these boards is similar is other fansites to various intensity.

I think the documentary and the type of criticism will be better served to discuss as something more common.

The documentary and the project appears to want to advocate a uniqueness as related to GOT which I disagree with.