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

[Vernon Roche]

On ‎25‎/‎05‎/‎2016 at 4:21 PM, Morky_Pep said:

The people who call out this show get ridiculed as book purists. This is not about the books, its about the show. 

You're right, they do, its a familiar argumentative tactic where people just insult people's character or insinuate their motives aren't fair. To be completely fair, I've seen the term "Unsullied" tossed around by "book purists" too to belittle people and attempt to delegitimise their arguments as well.

[Ser Gareth]

Just now, A Bong of Ice and Fire said:

There were some repetitions, but the reek rhymes were cool.  (Didn't like "nuncle", though.). Overall I felt GRRM's prose was excellent in the last 2 books.  The writing for the first 3 books was more simplistic, though still very good.  I also love be the atmospheric world-building of the last 2 books.

I think the main problem people have is the wait between books.  I'm sure AFfC and ADwD will fit contextually into the overall story very well.  They may not be as conclusive as many would like, but I still think they're a joy to read.  

But to each his own!

The problem is it's bad story telling to keep adding characters at this stage of the series.  I was actually angry reading the new Arienne sample chapter as it was a case of here we go again.

The story now should be a freight train hurtling towards its conclusion at breathtaking speed.  It's far from that.  As you wrote, he is still world building indicating the story has barely started.

The pacing of the story has become horrible and introduced a load of unfixable plot holes (The Others invasion being the biggest and the apathy of the real to it even though years have passed and by now every Lord in Westeros would have had word they'd returned and yet no one is even talking about it).

Sadly after the great pacing and story telling of the first three novels the story is now broke and the biggest indicator of that is GRRM is struggling to write it.  And by continually adding new characters and subplots he is merely making it worse for both himself and the majority of the readers.

[lancerman]

11 hours ago, Maid So Fair said:

They read the books well before starting working on the show and then had another four years to think it through before they got anywhere near AFFC/ADWD. How is that sudden?!

Changes had to be made - but they had years and years to plan this out. 

These are the things I mean when I say people don't appreciate the differences between making a show and writing a book in their criticisms. When you say they had years to plan it out, what it really means is they had years where they had a strict timeline to go over a book, do a generalized plot for each episode of the season, have writers draft scripts for those episodes, edit those scripts, do the logistics for production, hire actors, work with set designers, all the travel to get everything in place, work with set designers, get everything in place for the directors to have his visualization of the material shot, work within any variables, shoot scenes many times over, add special effects, edit, all while working within budget and deadlines. Then any promotional work HBO has them do.

They spent those years planning out how they were just going to get each season done. It's a monumental task and you can tell it is with how much they always wanted to end it in 7 seasons citing how much work it took.

They likely never had any serious discussions about what they were going to do when they caught up to the books until it was apparent GRRM wasn't going to finish the books and they were starting to prepare for material where they couldn't rely on the source material to see where it was going.

[lancerman]

58 minutes ago, HairGrowsBack said:

It's funny because GRRM seems to think differently. But what does he know, he's just the guy writing these books.

GRRM also thought he'd get ADWD out about a year after AFFC.

GRRM also thought he had a huge head start on the show and told anybody who would listen not to worry about the show catching up to the books.

GRRM also thought the next book would get released back in October, then December.

GRRM also wrote the Mereen plot, then admitted that it became a disaster that he had no idea of how to get out of.

 

[Ser Gareth]

On 25 May 2016 at 4:08 AM, Darkstream said:

I realize you bring this up with a negative intent, but it is a true and valid point that just supports the issue being tackled in this film. There are thousands upon thousands of complaints criticizing the show, but the media and the masses still bury their heads in the sand to it. So thanks for pointing that out.

 

Those that complain shout the loudest.

Those that truly hate the show don't watch the show and certainly don't talk about the show.

It is interesting to note the most popular show threads posting wise are those that are hyper critical of the show.  It is even more interesting to note that when assessing the individual episodes ratings thread that usually 70% of the ratings are 7 out of 10 or above.  It is interesting to note that the next most popular rating is usually 1 out of 10.

The threads where people can rip the show apart have been set up in a manner so that those who hate the show can sound off and no one is allowed to challenge them.  Positive threads aren't set up in the same manner and those who hate the show are allowed to rant and rave across any thread they like.

I would definitely say if there truly is an agenda here, it would be a small minority of people who love the books, but hate the show, doing their utmost to try and persuade the comparatively silent majority who like the show to start hating it in an effort to get it cancelled.  Which despite their frustrations is never going to happen.

[A Bong of Ice and Fire]

45 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

The problem is it's bad story telling to keep adding characters at this stage of the series.  I was actually angry reading the new Arienne sample chapter as it was a case of here we go again.

The story now should be a freight train hurtling towards its conclusion at breathtaking speed.  It's far from that.  As you wrote, he is still world building indicating the story has barely started.

The pacing of the story has become horrible and introduced a load of unfixable plot holes (The Others invasion being the biggest and the apathy of the real to it even though years have passed and by now every Lord in Westeros would have had word they'd returned and yet no one is even talking about it).

Sadly after the great pacing and story telling of the first three novels the story is now broke and the biggest indicator of that is GRRM is struggling to write it.  And by continually adding new characters and subplots he is merely making it worse for both himself and the majority of the readers.

I disagree that it's bad storytelling to add in the extra players (Dornish, Ironborn, etc.).  It's much more realistic that the game of thrones and power will attract more players.  The major conflicts that are happening now in GRRM's world would naturally draw in more than just a few major houses or regions.

I like that we see a more global view of the big game.  Sure, a Starks vs. Lannisters type narrative (like in book 1) is more streamlined and easier to write and read, but I don't think it's more realistic.  

In the end I'm sure I'll be glad we got so much more of the world in the last 2 books.  GRRM's world is going to live forever in popular culture (video games, board games, etc.). Better that it's more expansive and interesting than less.

It's also good to have a deeper mythology and deeper lore.  Essos is rich with cool lore.

Just one man's opinion, as Sir Davos might say. 

[Ser Gareth]

1 minute ago, A Bong of Ice and Fire said:

I disagree that it's bad storytelling to add in the extra players (Dornish, Ironborn, etc.).  It's much more realistic that the game of thrones and power will attract more players.  The major conflicts that are happening now in GRRM's world would naturally draw in more than just a few major houses or regions.

I like that we see a more global view of the big game.  Sure, a Starks vs. Lannisters type narrative (like in book 1) is more streamlined and easier to write and read, but I don't think it's more realistic.  

In the end I'm sure I'll be glad we got so much more of the world in the last 2 books.  GRRM's world is going to live forever in popular culture (video games, board games, etc.). Better that it's more expansive and interesting than less. 

Just one man's opinion, as Sir Davos might say. 

We didn't need them in detail.  In AFFC we heard Davos was dead.  That was far more thrilling and mysterious than the Davos chapters in ADWD!  It can often be better to not see in detail what is going on.

I don't think the series will be completed mainly because of all the new plots.  So he has built the world but won't finish the story.  And so the show will become canon.  And once the show is done?  Only the fanatical book readers (of which I am one) will bother to continue to read the novels.  No one else will care about ASOIAF or the world it is set in.

[Dolorous Gabe]

15 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

The problem is it's bad story telling to keep adding characters at this stage of the series.  I was actually angry reading the new Arienne sample chapter as it was a case of here we go again.

The story now should be a freight train hurtling towards its conclusion at breathtaking speed.  It's far from that.  As you wrote, he is still world building indicating the story has barely started.

The pacing of the story has become horrible and introduced a load of unfixable plot holes (The Others invasion being the biggest and the apathy of the real to it even though years have passed and by now every Lord in Westeros would have had word they'd returned and yet no one is even talking about it).

Sadly after the great pacing and story telling of the first three novels the story is now broke and the biggest indicator of that is GRRM is struggling to write it.  And by continually adding new characters and subplots he is merely making it worse for both himself and the majority of the readers.

See I don't look at it the same way you do. To me it looks like GRRM was attempting to tell two 'trilogies'. Much of what was set up in AGOT is resolved by the end of ASOS. The problem for GRRM has been in the transitional phase between the first 'trilogy' and the second 'trilogy'. Now, that he has failed to find the perfect way to transition into the second 'trilogy' is of course on George himself. It was an ambitious undertaking and it got the better of him. He settled for a compromise he knows isn't ideal but he decided it was simply the best he could make out of an impossible situation (of his own making).

The result is problematic but not without artistic merit. You may not like the repeated mantras but George used these for thematic purposes. It's no coincidence that these all come in ADWD, just as it's no coincidence that he focuses a lot on female characters in AFFC. That said, I do think a good editor could have restructured what George wrote and cut out some chapters (just have Quentyn turn up in Meereen in Dany's POV having been established by Doran's reveal is one piece of cutting I would advocate) to create one lengthy book split into two with a linear narrative.

And in this reading of it, it makes sense to establish new players who have a role in the second 'trilogy' at this stage of the story.

1 minute ago, Ser Gareth said:

We didn't need them in detail.  In AFFC we heard Davos was dead.  That was far more thrilling and mysterious than the Davos chapters in ADWD!  It can often be better to not see in detail what is going on.

I don't think the series will be completed mainly because of all the new plots.  So he has built the world but won't finish the story.  And so the show will become canon.  And once the show is done?  Only the fanatical book readers (of which I am one) will bother to continue to read the novels.  No one else will care about ASOIAF or the world it is set in.

I loved the Davos chapters in ADWD. Even the one on Sweetsister with Godric Borrell. It contributed to the impression that Ned Stark is still influencing the Northern narrative long after his death thanks to the little tale Borrell told about RR.

[A Bong of Ice and Fire]

 

8 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

We didn't need them in detail.  In AFFC we heard Davos was dead.  That was far more thrilling and mysterious than the Davos chapters in ADWD!  It can often be better to not see in detail what is going on.

I don't think the series will be completed mainly because of all the new plots.  So he has built the world but won't finish the story.  And so the show will become canon.  And once the show is done?  Only the fanatical book readers (of which I am one) will bother to continue to read the novels.  No one else will care about ASOIAF or the world it is set in.

I disagree. I loved the Davos chapters in ADwD. They were fun and world-expanding.  

I'm also sure that plenty of people will care GRRM's world.  The scope, history, and lore of it rival Tolkien's world, not too mention GRRM's world is more interesting.  I think it will be no less relevant in the world of popular culture than Tolkien's world.  ASoIaF is the greatest fantasy epic by far since The Lord of the Rings.  It matters!

[Boarsbane]

16 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

We didn't need them in detail.  In AFFC we heard Davos was dead.  That was far more thrilling and mysterious than the Davos chapters in ADWD!  It can often be better to not see in detail what is going on.

I don't think the series will be completed mainly because of all the new plots.  So he has built the world but won't finish the story.  And so the show will become canon.  And once the show is done?  Only the fanatical book readers (of which I am one) will bother to continue to read the novels.  No one else will care about ASOIAF or the world it is set in.

Since when do the readers start dictating what is needed? It's his story, if you don't like parts of it then fine but don't act like you know it better than him by saying this and that wasn't needed. 

[Liver and Onions]

The term "Unsullied" for show-only viewers was, I believe, not intended to be disparaging, but rather to say they hadn't yet seen the soul-scarring moments as the book readers. That's how I read the term back in the beginning. I now see the term "shownly" as a shorthand term for viewers who haven't read the books. 

I love the Davos chapters in ADWD. And it might be because they're newer than the others, but I find I reread AFFC and ADWD more often than the others. There are definitely readers who enjoy the expanded world and are eager to see what each character contributes, while others feel the new faces drag the plot down and muddy the waters. It seems to be an "agree to disagree" kind of thing. The show itself will never be the ending for the books, because it has different people in charge. I'm actually in no rush to get to the ending, because I know once I read the last words I'll reach back to my bookshelf and pick up AGOT again.

As for criticizing the show, I'm not watching it anymore myself. I always waited for the DVDs for previous seasons, anyway. I find the criticisms of the show interesting from a sociological perspective, an examination of pop culture. 

[Desert Fox]

I love the arrogance of creating a documentary because you think there must be a conspiracy  to give good reviews to a show don't like just because you don't like it. I'm actually going to buy it so i can laugh maniacally at it.

[Winter's Cold]

The difference between the first three books and the latter two is that most if not all of the chapters in the first three books are considered good while few in the latter two are. I never hear particular chapters from the first three singled out the way they are in the latter two. Instead readers typically refer to their favorite characters or scenes in the first three and their favorite chapters in the latter two. 

For instance, a typical response to a thread critical of ADWD, would be to praise the Theon, Davos or Jon chapters. For AFFC, the Jaime chapters are usually praised. The implication involved in these defenses is that the other chapters in the book were mediocre to terrible which was definitely not the case for the first three books. That's why those books are downright disappointments for a lot of readers. 

[Darkstream]

3 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

Those that complain shout the loudest.

Those that truly hate the show don't watch the show and certainly don't talk about the show.

Would you like to try and support your statement as I know for a fact that it's not true. Or maybe you would just like to tell me what I think and feel, by your statement it seems you know that better than I do. 

3 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

 

It is interesting to note the most popular show threads posting wise are those that are hyper critical of the show.  It is even more interesting to note that when assessing the individual episodes ratings thread that usually 70% of the ratings are 7 out of 10 or above.  It is interesting to note that the next most popular rating is usually 1 out of 10.

Well you may find it interesting, but I'm a little puzzled as to what your point is. would you like to clarify?

 

3 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

The threads where people can rip the show apart have been set up in a manner so that those who hate the show can sound off and no one is allowed to challenge them.  Positive threads aren't set up in the same manner and those who hate the show are allowed to rant and rave across any thread they like.

Again, a completely false statement.

 I would direct your attention to The positive (gasp!) GoT discussion thread (Spoilers)

I tell you what, why don't you go on over to that thread and start ranting about how bad the show is, and start challenging other posters opinions and we'll see how that goes for you. Oh wait, you already have posts in there, I guess that  means you are flat out lying in order to support your agenda. Now you gone done and shown your true colors, I'll be sure to value anything you say from this point on.

3 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

I would definitely say if there truly is an agenda here, it would be a small minority of people who love the books, but hate the show, doing their utmost to try and persuade the comparatively silent majority who like the show to start hating it in an effort to get it cancelled.  Which despite their frustrations is never going to happen.

I would definitely say that your post supports the notion that people who love the show are in denial,  constantly refute legitimate criticism and put forth false assertions to support their agenda.

 

[Dragon in the North]

32 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

I would definitely say that your post supports the notion that people who love the show are in denial,  constantly refute legitimate criticism and put forth false assertions to support their agenda.

In denial about what? That it's a bad show? That's a completely subjective opinion. That it's not perfect? I've already accepted the fact that GOT is not perfect, no television show is. How I define quality is whether the positives outweigh the negatives. For me, GOT has many more great scenes than they have bad ones.

[Darkstream]

1 hour ago, Dragon in the North said:

In denial about what? That it's a bad show? That's a completely subjective opinion. That it's not perfect? I've already accepted the fact that GOT is not perfect, no television show is. How I define quality is whether the positives outweigh the negatives. For me, GOT has many more great scenes than they have bad ones.

No, in denial of the valid criticisms of the show. 

I agree, evaluating art/literature is subjective, and you are not wrong to say that GOT is a good show based on your personal feelings and the reasons you stated, but there are also objective means by which one can judge a work of literature. Most legitimate criticism of GOT (ie: plot, characterization, continuity, etc.) is often dismissed with the notion that anyone who does not like the show is a book purist and only criticizes the show because it's not the same as in the books. Take a look at the episode rating threads. Despite all these undeniable flaws in the show, a majority of people rate it a ten, and a lot of them call anyone that gives a rating of a one a troll. If you judge objectively, there is no way you can give GOT a ten. If you judge subjectively, then a vote of one should not be disputed. This is the denial that I'm talking about. As for the critics, they can enjoy the show on a personal level, but it is their job to critique GOT from an objective point of view. I don't believe most people's complaint is that it is a popular show, more so that it is critically acclaimed, and has won awards for aspects of the show that, objectively speaking, it did not deserve.

[The fanny from hell]

My experience in certain small TV-related blog:

- A series that is ending its run this year: 90% complaints in the weekly threads, most of them by disillusioned genuine fans. No one's calling names to each other.

- Game of Thrones: about 50% complaints, most of the complainers are called "book purists" whether they even read the books or not, basically are told to "shut up and let us enjoy the show without harping on the negatives each week", "X or Y character is so badass, how can you not appreciate the show?", etc.

Disgusting double standard. This documentary is needed.

[Dragon in the North]

44 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

No, in denial of the valid criticisms of the show. 

I agree, evaluating art/literature is subjective, and you are not wrong to say that GOT is a good show based on your personal feelings and the reasons you stated, but there are also objective means by which one can judge a work of literature. Most legitimate criticism of GOT (ie: plot, characterization, continuity, etc.) is often dismissed with the notion that anyone who does not like the show is a book purist and only criticizes the show because it's not the same as in the books. Take a look at the episode rating threads. Despite all these undeniable flaws in the show, a majority of people rate it a ten, and a lot of them call anyone that gives a rating of a one a troll. If you judge objectively, there is no way you can give GOT a ten. If you judge subjectively, then a vote of one should not be disputed. This is the denial that I'm talking about. As for the critics, they can enjoy the show on a personal level, but it is their job to critique GOT from an objective point of view. I don't believe most people's complaint is that it is a popular show, more so that it is critically acclaimed, and has won awards for aspects of the show that, objectively speaking, it did not deserve.

Well, then I owe you an apology. I misunderstood what you were saying. I agree with most of this. I have no problem with people criticizing the show, even if I do disagree with it. Personally, I hate the word book purist, and show apologist for that matter, and feel it doesn't add anything to the debate. I also don't care how people rate an episode. Whether it's a one or a ten is all a matter of personal preference and enjoyment. 

[Darkstream]

6 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

Well, then I owe you an apology. I misunderstood what you were saying. I agree with most of this. I have no problem with people criticizing the show, even if I do disagree with it. Personally, I hate the word book purist, and show apologist for that matter, and feel it doesn't add anything to the debate. I also don't care how people rate an episode. Whether it's a one or a ten is all a matter of personal preference and enjoyment. 

No problem.  

[Good Guy Garlan]

6 hours ago, Boarsbane said:

Since when do the readers start dictating what is needed? It's his story, if you don't like parts of it then fine but don't act like you know it better than him by saying this and that wasn't needed. 

What? Readers and critics have every right to say what they think should or should not have been a part of a story. And have, ever since literature existed. And it's not dictating, it's not acting they know better than the author. It's called literary criticism, pure and simple, and it's comments like yours that show what a muddled and warped perspective some people have on the field. Better authors that Martin have had this kind of criticism. Like, one of my favorite novels, Wiseblood, includes a subplot that critics argued (and still do) should've been cut out from the final version, and while I disagree with that notion, critics have every right to their opinion. 

Do you seriously think there's a difference between saying "I don't like this" and "I don't think this was needed"? Why should there be a limit to criticism? Where does arrogance fit in? Is it truly arrogant to criticize a text put forth into the world with the purpose of being criticized? I can easily say that I wholeheartedly believe that a lot of Feast, mostly sections of Brienne's and Sam's chapters are transparent filler. Could Martin prove me somewhat wrong by writing that, I don't know, Kojja Mo or Nimble Dick are Azor Ahai Reborn? Sure, but why would that negate the criticism? I could just as easily say that the way Martin revealed Nimble Dick as Azor Ahai was anticlimactic or clumsy or what have you. 

And this right here is why this whole enterprise is so hypocritical. The books are for some reason impervious to criticism, but the show is fair game for being endlessly nitpicked into oblivion and beyond?