"Fair Game: The critical universe around Game of Thrones" - [Finally]

[Ran]

Please keep it civil folks. We'll  start handing out suspensions if necessary.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

44 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

Ironically I have seen a lot of criticism of the show in the press.  The problem for many is that a lot of the stuff the press is critical of also applies to the books, so they gloss over that criticism.  They are only interested in criticism that validates their own views.

This is probably the biggest criticism of the doc, that the whole premise it's built on is simply false. There are plenty of negative reviews, and they are critical of poor story telling or bits they find boring.

The difference is they don't critique the show in the way a ranter does which clearly causes outrage to ranters.

They don't spend hours discussing the ins and outs of the world of Westeros or have encyclopedic knowledge of all things ASOIAF. They watch the show for entertainment and judge it in the way your average viewer judges it

[Ser Gareth]

3 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

This is probably the biggest criticism of the doc, that the whole premise it's built on is simply false. There are plenty of negative reviews, and they are critical of poor story telling or bits they find boring.

The difference is they don't critique the show in the way a ranter does which clearly causes outrage to ranters.

They don't spend hours discussing the ins and outs of the world of Westeros or have encyclopedic knowledge of all things ASOIAF. They watch the show for entertainment and judge it in the way your average viewer judges it

Indeed.  From the last episode alone in the respected (ha!) broadsheet press.

"Yes, we've officially reached Mid-Season Lull. This wasn't a terrible episode –  the Hound is back ! – but The Broken Man was nonetheless Game of Thrones at its most cautious and meandering."

"Yes, she's been knifed and almost drowned – but it is going to take more than a stabby-stabby encounter with the Faceless Men to scrub Arya from the picture. You wonder why the show is even pretending that her survival is in question."

"With the truly riveting action unfolding south of the Wall and at King’s Landing, the Riverlands storyline looks like one massive placeholder on the part of show-runners David Benioff and DB Weiss. Thank goodness Jaime-Bronn  are on hand to make it all watchable."

"I’m not convinced the Faceless Men are that good at assassin training – all that endless wax on, wax off stuff, and they never bothered to throw in a few “how to hide from those who want to kill you rather than hanging out on bridges admiring the view” classes."

"it frustrates me that the writers have bungled Jaime’s arc so badly: he’s right back to season one which, while entertaining, doesn’t count as character development"

 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

3 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

Indeed.  From the last episode alone in the respected (ha!) broadsheet press.

"Yes, we've officially reached Mid-Season Lull. This wasn't a terrible episode –  the Hound is back ! – but The Broken Man was nonetheless Game of Thrones at its most cautious and meandering."

"Yes, she's been knifed and almost drowned – but it is going to take more than a stabby-stabby encounter with the Faceless Men to scrub Arya from the picture. You wonder why the show is even pretending that her survival is in question."

"With the truly riveting action unfolding south of the Wall and at King’s Landing, the Riverlands storyline looks like one massive placeholder on the part of show-runners David Benioff and DB Weiss. Thank goodness Jaime-Bronn  are on hand to make it all watchable."

"I’m not convinced the Faceless Men are that good at assassin training – all that endless wax on, wax off stuff, and they never bothered to throw in a few “how to hide from those who want to kill you rather than hanging out on bridges admiring the view” classes."

"it frustrates me that the writers have bungled Jaime’s arc so badly: he’s right back to season one which, while entertaining, doesn’t count as character development"

 

Exactly. Maybe these negative reviews are part of some grand northern conspiracy as well!!!

[Ser Gareth]

And from further afield.  This apparently untouchable show.  And it took me 5 mins to find these so it's not as if I had to research hard....

"the programme is basically a string of bloody or sexual - or both bloody and sexual - vignettes bound together in one hour slabs which start at a pedestrian pace and end with a shocking scene usually designed to make you want to recoil, hurl, or exclaim in vulgar fashion with an army of exclamation marks attached."

"At its worst it can appear to legitimise violent porn with a worrying predilection for using rape as a plot vehicle. The brutal rape scene involving Sansa revealed a certain ugliness at its core."

"However what programmes has or will GoT inspire? Just a series of gruesome top 10s."

"As the series continues to achieve critical acclaim for its plotting, high production value and performances, my own interest has waned. This first happened around the time of the third season premiere. I had begun to grow disappointed with the Khaleesi character, our mother of dragons. To see her rise from passive, abused wife to the leader of arguably the most vicious people in the “Thrones” world was an awesome feat. But it’s hard to continue to root and sympathize with a character whose only distinguishing acts as of late revolve around being the white liberator of slaves."

"Joffrey the sociopathic sadist, for example, is a character who, for four seasons acts as the quintessential villain. While the "Game of Thrones" writers could have used his deplorable behavior as an opportunity to showcase how one becomes such a way, they never bother to complicate his character. He’s bad and the fans hate him for it."

"In the “Game of the Thrones” world there’s always an underdog, a young girl, a cripple, a man who trusts too much. At the same time, there’s always someone who looks suspiciously good naked, a tyrant of a father, a religious zealot. Sometimes, the show makes it hard to look beyond stereotypes and preconceived expectations — the manipulation."

[SerProle]

26 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

And from further afield.  This apparently untouchable show.  And it took me 5 mins to find these so it's not as if I had to research hard....

"the programme is basically a string of bloody or sexual - or both bloody and sexual - vignettes bound together in one hour slabs which start at a pedestrian pace and end with a shocking scene usually designed to make you want to recoil, hurl, or exclaim in vulgar fashion with an army of exclamation marks attached."

"At its worst it can appear to legitimise violent porn with a worrying predilection for using rape as a plot vehicle. The brutal rape scene involving Sansa revealed a certain ugliness at its core."

"However what programmes has or will GoT inspire? Just a series of gruesome top 10s."

"As the series continues to achieve critical acclaim for its plotting, high production value and performances, my own interest has waned. This first happened around the time of the third season premiere. I had begun to grow disappointed with the Khaleesi character, our mother of dragons. To see her rise from passive, abused wife to the leader of arguably the most vicious people in the “Thrones” world was an awesome feat. But it’s hard to continue to root and sympathize with a character whose only distinguishing acts as of late revolve around being the white liberator of slaves."

"Joffrey the sociopathic sadist, for example, is a character who, for four seasons acts as the quintessential villain. While the "Game of Thrones" writers could have used his deplorable behavior as an opportunity to showcase how one becomes such a way, they never bother to complicate his character. He’s bad and the fans hate him for it."

"In the “Game of the Thrones” world there’s always an underdog, a young girl, a cripple, a man who trusts too much. At the same time, there’s always someone who looks suspiciously good naked, a tyrant of a father, a religious zealot. Sometimes, the show makes it hard to look beyond stereotypes and preconceived expectations — the manipulation."

Are these all from one review? I'd be pretty interested in reading the originals if each snippet is actually from a different review.

I'm not sure how much 'further afield' you had to look, but I'd like to find that field lol. I had to do quite a bit of googling to find anything critical of the show. In english. And I went looking because I just simply couldn't believe what I was watching, how poor it had become. All the reviews I was used to reading were so gushing it was ridiculous. I stopped reading them because they lost credibility for me. I went looking for someone who put time into expressing why things had headed downhill and it certainly took me a lot longer than a few minutes to find those voices. Not ranters, just thoughtful essays that paid attention to what was on the screen, not the hype.

[thehandwipes]

2 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

Indeed.  From the last episode alone in the respected (ha!) broadsheet press.

"Yes, we've officially reached Mid-Season Lull. This wasn't a terrible episode –  the Hound is back ! – but The Broken Man was nonetheless Game of Thrones at its most cautious and meandering."

"Yes, she's been knifed and almost drowned – but it is going to take more than a stabby-stabby encounter with the Faceless Men to scrub Arya from the picture. You wonder why the show is even pretending that her survival is in question."

"With the truly riveting action unfolding south of the Wall and at King’s Landing, the Riverlands storyline looks like one massive placeholder on the part of show-runners David Benioff and DB Weiss. Thank goodness Jaime-Bronn  are on hand to make it all watchable."

"I’m not convinced the Faceless Men are that good at assassin training – all that endless wax on, wax off stuff, and they never bothered to throw in a few “how to hide from those who want to kill you rather than hanging out on bridges admiring the view” classes."

"it frustrates me that the writers have bungled Jaime’s arc so badly: he’s right back to season one which, while entertaining, doesn’t count as character development"

 

 

1 hour ago, Ser Gareth said:

And from further afield.  This apparently untouchable show.  And it took me 5 mins to find these so it's not as if I had to research hard....

"the programme is basically a string of bloody or sexual - or both bloody and sexual - vignettes bound together in one hour slabs which start at a pedestrian pace and end with a shocking scene usually designed to make you want to recoil, hurl, or exclaim in vulgar fashion with an army of exclamation marks attached."

"At its worst it can appear to legitimise violent porn with a worrying predilection for using rape as a plot vehicle. The brutal rape scene involving Sansa revealed a certain ugliness at its core."

"However what programmes has or will GoT inspire? Just a series of gruesome top 10s."

"As the series continues to achieve critical acclaim for its plotting, high production value and performances, my own interest has waned. This first happened around the time of the third season premiere. I had begun to grow disappointed with the Khaleesi character, our mother of dragons. To see her rise from passive, abused wife to the leader of arguably the most vicious people in the “Thrones” world was an awesome feat. But it’s hard to continue to root and sympathize with a character whose only distinguishing acts as of late revolve around being the white liberator of slaves."

"Joffrey the sociopathic sadist, for example, is a character who, for four seasons acts as the quintessential villain. While the "Game of Thrones" writers could have used his deplorable behavior as an opportunity to showcase how one becomes such a way, they never bother to complicate his character. He’s bad and the fans hate him for it."

"In the “Game of the Thrones” world there’s always an underdog, a young girl, a cripple, a man who trusts too much. At the same time, there’s always someone who looks suspiciously good naked, a tyrant of a father, a religious zealot. Sometimes, the show makes it hard to look beyond stereotypes and preconceived expectations — the manipulation."

Do you have links for any of these?  They seem like good reads and would further bolster your argument.  Thank you in advance.

[Desert Fox]

This TV show is still well above average. You can argue that it a bad or faithless adaptation all you want. You can argue that the books are way better. You can argue that the show would be better if it didn't stray off the books. But it that doesn't really matter to mainstream critics. They are only judging it based on tv standards.

The show has great production quality, great acting, great directing and cinematography. HBO shows almost always have that because their in-house production team is the best in the business. Just having this gets you above the average schlock on tv.

It also has great characters that GRRM created. The show has trouble doing character development (because it doesn't/can't spend enough time with each character). But just having characters like Tyrion, Arya, Jon etc, makes it better than most TV out there.

The overall plot has still mostly been GRRMs. Sure the writers have fucked some of it up, but it's still well above average. Look at most TV shows. They either have one fairly simple plot or a mess of shorter plots with little consistency or impact with each other.

It's not as good as Fargo, Better Call Saul, and the Americans. But it also doesn't get as good of reviews. It got better reviews that True Detective S2, Vinyl, Homeland, Walking Dead, etc. because it's a better show.

I really think some people lose perspective and are judging the show based on what they think a perfect adaptation would be rather than against it's peer shows. That's why people like documentary filmer can't understand why the show doesn't get bad reviews. Because it's not a bad show.

[lancerman]

3 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

This is probably the biggest criticism of the doc, that the whole premise it's built on is simply false. There are plenty of negative reviews, and they are critical of poor story telling or bits they find boring.

The difference is they don't critique the show in the way a ranter does which clearly causes outrage to ranters.

They don't spend hours discussing the ins and outs of the world of Westeros or have encyclopedic knowledge of all things ASOIAF. They watch the show for entertainment and judge it in the way your average viewer judges it

The problem is the critics critique the show for gratuitous rape scenes. The "ranters" or whatever you want to call them, criticize that it was Sansa who got raped and not Jeyne.

Because when it really comes down to it, the criticism they have is that it's taking liberties with the source material.

[dsug]

Ohhh this is too funny. Notice how those who enjoy the show have never done anything remotely as obnoxious and attention-seeking as this. This guy is literally so salty that he made a fucking documentary, and then expected people to pay for it. 

Show fans just watch the show and nerd out together. It's the bizarre group of obsessive haters who have to make a fuss about it all the time. 

[lancerman]

1 minute ago, dsug said:

Ohhh this is too funny. Notice how those who enjoy the show have never done anything remotely as obnoxious and attention-seeking as this. This guy is literally so salty that he made a fucking documentary, and then expected people to pay for it. 

Show fans just watch the show and nerd out together. It's the bizarre group of obsessive haters who have to make a fuss about it all the time. 

If he used realistic critiques that other critics have brought up, it would have been fine. More extreme, but fine. It's the premise is that is flawed.

The main critique that there was some conspiracy that critics were giving the show a pass because he doesn't like it and they gave it favorable reviews.

To prove the point of the documentary he would need to quantify that there was this largely accepted standard that all critics hold every show to. Then prove that Game of Thrones was judged by separate standard. Then prove their was malicious or deceptive intent. Which was a bold task anyways because we already know that critics hold different materials to different standards. Also he would always have trouble reconciling that with the overwhelming positive public reception the show gets from fans. So at some point is everyone just lying about their fandom of the show to make you look stupid and protect it?

[Desert Fox]

I should email him and ask why True Detective and Vinyl flopped. Must have cut back on the payolla.

[good girl]

49 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

I should email him and ask why True Detective and Vinyl flopped. Must have cut back on the payolla.

The bribes required to keep Game of Thrones highly rated in season 5 were so steep HBO couldn't afford to bribe the press for other shows. And those Emmy's don't come cheap either...

[The fanny from hell]

Well, the price of all that good publicity and all those Emmy's is still peanuts compared to the ASOIAF-esque pay Wall of 1$ that prevented most of the hijackers of this thread from actually watching it.

Eventually I think Miodrag will be fine with it being uploaded to youtube or something, and reaching more people. Particularly those on the fence about the show, not the stans.

[RoamingRonin]

41 minutes ago, Fanny said:

Well, the price of all that good publicity and all those Emmy's is still peanuts compared to the ASOIAF-esque pay Wall of 1$ that prevented most of the hijackers of this thread from actually watching it.

Eventually I think Miodrag will be fine with it being uploaded to youtube or something, and reaching more people. Particularly those on the fence about the show, not the stans.

There is no thread hijacking. The majority of the discussion is coming from those that watched it. 

[Neds Secret]

7 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

Indeed.  From the last episode alone in the respected (ha!) broadsheet press.

"Yes, we've officially reached Mid-Season Lull. This wasn't a terrible episode –  the Hound is back ! – but The Broken Man was nonetheless Game of Thrones at its most cautious and meandering."

"Yes, she's been knifed and almost drowned – but it is going to take more than a stabby-stabby encounter with the Faceless Men to scrub Arya from the picture. You wonder why the show is even pretending that her survival is in question."

"With the truly riveting action unfolding south of the Wall and at King’s Landing, the Riverlands storyline looks like one massive placeholder on the part of show-runners David Benioff and DB Weiss. Thank goodness Jaime-Bronn  are on hand to make it all watchable."

"I’m not convinced the Faceless Men are that good at assassin training – all that endless wax on, wax off stuff, and they never bothered to throw in a few “how to hide from those who want to kill you rather than hanging out on bridges admiring the view” classes."

"it frustrates me that the writers have bungled Jaime’s arc so badly: he’s right back to season one which, while entertaining, doesn’t count as character development"

 

Sadly I think the writers are not good at writing about how the faceless men train their apprentice assassins.  The writers also managed to have a trainee (the waif) no one seemingly more advanced than Arya who seems to still be very much a someone who seems to be very jealous of Arya and totally. WANTS to kill Arya, 2 attributes that  Jaquen seems to  be attempting to train out of Arya are exhibited by the Waif but Jaquen seems to be ok with the waif having her own agenda, it's inconsistencies like this in the writing that I hope are addressed in the Doco because I wonder why the mainstream media miss such glaring errors of logic in the reviews. Having said this I am going to go and watch it, Au revoir !

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

6 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

I should email him and ask why True Detective and Vinyl flopped. Must have cut back on the payolla.

Well exactly, there are thousands of shows out there, most made by huge multimillion dollar corporations, with connections to other huge multimillion dollar corporations. And yet many shows flop, many shows get poor reviews. If there was some way of manipulating reviews for everyone over a long term then it would be happening all the time. 

----

Anyway I think that the Doc brought up a number of interesting issues and questions, but none of which were the ones the maker intended. I kind of wish he'd gone and explored topics like 

- why is something that is so popular so hated by a select few? What is it about popularity that gives people a sense of superiority and smugness when they don't like it. Does being able to see details that other people don't make us feel special and what is it that causes us to obsess over these things.

- The culture of internet discussion is very interesting, because of how different it is to real life. A board like this for instance is like a petrie dish of ideas, someone will come up with a problem they have and it will grow and suddenly everyone is repeating it as if it were something they came up with. Thats not someone particular to this forum either, the internet as a whole works that way. But what is it about internet discussion that created such anger in someone that they made this documentary. I think that is interesting.

- The nature of fandom, the tribalism of it. This guy clearly feels his identity is tied up with GRRMs work and takes this stuff pretty personally, otherwise why make a documentary. 

- Geek Culture. What is going on in our lives that we have the time and energy to spend talking about this stuff, and making documentaries about it. Shouldn't we all be doing something a bit more worthwhile! 

[StepStark]

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Well exactly, there are thousands of shows out there, most made by huge multimillion dollar corporations, with connections to other huge multimillion dollar corporations. And yet many shows flop, many shows get poor reviews. If there was some way of manipulating reviews for everyone over a long term then it would be happening all the time. 

So, maybe that Serbian journalist was telling the truth? Maybe GOT is promoted much stronger than any other show? Maybe that is why GOT gets all those good reviews where other shows get critiqued if they're bad?

That is not conspiracy talk, by the way. I'll repeat again, you were the one who came up with "conspiracy talk" accusations weeks before the doc. And I called you on it back then, and you couldn't support your accusations back then, and you can't support them now. And as I said, it's a lie that New York Times attacks the show all the time. Just read their review of the last episode.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Just now, StepStark said:

So, maybe that Serbian journalist was telling the truth? Maybe GOT is promoted much stronger than any other show? Maybe that is why GOT gets all those good reviews where other shows get critiqued if they're bad?

That is not conspiracy talk, by the way. I'll repeat again, you were the one who came up with "conspiracy talk" accusations weeks before the doc. And I called you on it back then, and you couldn't support your accusations back then, and you can't support them now. And as I said, it's a lie that New York Times attacks the show all the time. Just read their review of the last episode.

I don't really understand what you are not getting. The documentary is pointing fingers that there is an unexplained reason why GoT is getting good reviews, other than it being good. It mentions the connection between corporations and tries to find a reason. Thats the conspiracy right there. 

What are you not understanding?

[StepStark]

Just now, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I don't really understand what you are not getting. The documentary is pointing fingers that there is an unexplained reason why GoT is getting good reviews, other than it being good. It mentions the connection between corporations and tries to find a reason. Thats the conspiracy right there. 

What are you not understanding?

Me? I think you are misunderstanding something. Conspiracy is who killed Kennedy, for example. This is about influence on the media. And it's clearly stated that way in the documentary.