Do you believe Game of Thrones is the best TV show ever?

[Meera of Tarth]

7 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

If people truly believed their was a drop in quality, they would stop watching the show. People don't voluntarily do things they don't enjoy. The ratings keep growing because the viewers like what D&D are doing.

Not really, because many people see parts of it, this is how the different numbers of audience differs depending on the episode. And in the case of imdb, why would people vote for the last two episodes (like 100000 persons) and then the rest of the 57 episodes only are rated by around 20000 or less? it's like 5 times more...

The rates are growing because people are invested in it and because the show has been popular, regardless if it is good or not. Maybe some people watched some seasons, then liked it and now are only watching it because they know the finales will be shocking enough to be satisfied with it. A lot of people like shocking moments and don't care about storytelling

A lot of people care about storytelling and keep watching it because they are invested in it.

And finally  alot people watch it casually because there is some action and it's entertaining. But these ones do not care at all about the story or its quality.

When one is bored at home at Sunday before having to go to work can watch anything there is on TV.

[Dragon in the North]

6 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Not really, because many people see parts of it, this is how the different numbers of audience differs depending on the episode. And in the case of imdb, why would people vote for the last two episodes (like 100000 persons) and then the rest of the 57 episodes only are rated by around 20000 or less? it's like 5 times more...

The overall ratings average has been growing, though. More and more people are watching the episode live.

 

6 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

The rates are growing because people are invested in it and because the show has been popular, regardless if it is good or not. Maybe some people watched some seasons, then liked it and now are only watching it because they know the finales will be shocking enough to be satisfied it. A lot of people like shocking moments and don't care about storytelling

A lot of people care about storytelling and keep watching it because they are invested in it.

And finally  alot people watch it casually because there is some action and it's entertaining. But these ones do not care at all about the story or its quality.

When one is bored at home at Sunday before having to go to work can watch anything there is on TV.

You can't prove any of that. Like, at all. I don't understand why people on this board keep trying to make up reasons for why so many people watch GOT when the probable and most likely reason should be so easy to grasp: they like watching it because they think it's good. Why is it so hard to accept that people have different opinions than you? I mean, I'm not a fan of the Big Bang Theory, but I don't begrudge it its high ratings. I just shrug my shoulders and move on.

[Meera of Tarth]

Just now, Dragon in the North said:

The overall ratings average has been growing, though. More and more people are watching the episode live.

 

You can't prove any of that. Like, at all. I don't understand why people on this board keep trying to make up reasons for why so many people watch GOT when the probable and most likely reason should be so easy to grasp: they like watching it because they think it's good. Why is it so hard to accept that people have different opinions than you?

Just as you can't prove the contrary. I know people who watch it because they are invested in the story and want to know the ending but don't like it anymore (overall) and others that like only the finales and are bored during the season when before they LOVED it.

I don't have examples of casual viewers around me but I'm sure there must exist, just as many people might be watching it because, as you mention, they like it. 

For me it is not hard to accept because I actually do it! I know people like it, but part of them must be casual viewers because then, how do you understand that finales are watched by more people than the other ones?

[Meera of Tarth]

6 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

The overall ratings average has been growing, though. More and more people are watching the episode live.

 

And that is because the show is popular and everyone talks about it not because it is better in quality.

//ETA: cgi is better, I must accept that.

 

[Dragon in the North]

5 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Just as you can't prove the contrary. I know people who watch it because they are invested in the story and want to know the ending but don't like it anymore (overall) and others that like only the finales and are bored during the season when before they LOVED it.

I don't have examples of casual viewers around me but I'm sure there must exist, just as many people might be watching it because, as you mention, they like it. 

 

So you know people who continue to watch but don't like it anymore. I know people who love every minute of every season and can't stop talking about it. Which group do you think represents the vast majority of viewers?

 

8 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

For me it is not hard to accept because I actually do it! I know people like it, but part of them must be casual viewers because then, how do you understand that finales are watched by more people than the other ones?

Casual fans are still fans.

[NutBurz]

24 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

Parties have to behave inexplicably for 2 seasons for events to work.

No, they don´t. Not any more "inexplicably" than the Red Wedding happening.

 

24 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

So you have people deciding to marry into their enemies family for revenge

Nope, not what happened. Sansa was fooled into believing she would be safe because she would be in Winterfell. She was fooled under the premisse that she could, with patience, make herself a network of secret alliances in order to, one day, have her revenge. Which is precisely what happened.

24 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

not holding the most vital fortress securing the edge of their realm,

What?

If you mean Bolton´s Moat Cailin against Littlefinger, you mean "hold" against your allies? Why would you do that?

24 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

and fighting for one of the people who orchestrated the deaths of their loved ones at the Red Wedding

who is also a northerner, in possession of the strongest army in the region, with a couple of strong alliances, and fighting against Wildlings.

So, yeah...

24 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

 It's that there are no consequences for Jaime's actions

Considering he "almost" witnessed his "niece" being "kidnapped", his actions proved quite justified. Moreover, it was part of Doran´s plan to look complacent towards the Lannisters, and his own fault that he didn´t include such popular and dangerous people in his plan as the Sand Snakes.

 

24 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

and apparently killing your lover/father's beloved family for revenge rewards you with political legitimacy.

It´s funny, because we don´t even know what the average Dornish knows about the circumstances of his death (and however cool it would be for world-building, it´s probably not necessary). Who´s to say anyone but those guards even know what happened? It´s clear, however, that his personal guard was not that much in love with him, and I have to believe he would do something in the way of selection as to try and have the most loyal men guarding him that closely.
 

26 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

 It's that it's one long awkward scene of Tyrion trying to make his coworkers more outgoing.

Important for character development wheter you like it and realise it or not.

27 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

 There are a couple interesting scenes that do have potential, but that potential is ultimately wasted (former slaves debating slavery with Tyrion, until one of them just agrees with him and tells him how smart he is

It has to be shown how they come to accept him as someone who knows what he´s doing.

30 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

Daario constantly talking about the new world Dany is building and how he wants to see it, but Daario actually being placed in the position to make that world a reality

so what?

30 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

 It's the people of a culture deciding to worship someone as a goddess for breaking all the laws of their culture, when they already have been shown to despise witchcraft.

Standing calmly and unscathed in the middle of a giant pyre that would boil a man from the inside if he tried to breath, after slaughtering every single one of the strongest warriors among them is less withcraft and more godlike.

What do you suppose they should do? Run towards the pyre to attack her? All she has to do is step inside. She´s also not really threatening them, so why would they run? Would you? If you saw a girl effortlessly standing in the middle of an entire house burning, would you really not just stand there in awe?

37 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

 It's that they're a terrible parody of the absolute worst things an atheist would ever believe of a church, and used in an incredibly heavyhanded manner.

??????

Did you read the books? The faith as an institution is pretty terrible way before the High Sparrow, which is the only reason why the High Sparrow even became anything.

40 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

 It's that after stopping the stick ONE TIME (and promptly being beaten after doing so), she's suddenly able to kill the Waif while wounded, and the whole WTF that was that storyline after she left the HoBaW.

This was pretty terrible. I´m still hoping for signs of a better explanation.

41 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

It's that he dies under a laughably ridiculous set of circumstances flip him from the superior power in the region to a rag tag band destined for failure at the hands of Ramsay, the greatest badass who ever was or ever will be.

Ramsey was barely a factor in Stannis´ demise. Any kid in his place would have done everything he did right the same way he did, some people just overestimate him because they intimally find him cool because he´s a sociopath.

I don´t like Stannis´ death either, but not because I think it´s ridiculous bad-writing, only because I wish it was done differently. I can´t say it doesn´t make any sense, it does make some sense.

Even because, who can really have an informed opinion regarding how likely and honorable and broken lord is to burn his own daughter in order to maybe win a war? I can´t say I´ve ever been in a similar position.

47 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

 It's that they don't hold up on their own.

Most of them do, yes sir.

[Meera of Tarth]

7 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

So you know people who continue to watch but don't like it anymore. I know people who love every minute of every season and can't stop talking about it. Which group do you think represents the vast majority of viewers?

 

I don't know we could make a poll with a representative group of population and ask them.

I won't affirm anything except that better quality than before  (in terms of script or characterisation) is not the reason they are here.

[Meera of Tarth]

12 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

Casual fans are still fans.

I can't agree with that. If you watch only one or two episodes you can be called a fan. A fan follows the story. You have to watch all the episodes or almost all.

I watched only two episodes of "Supergirl" and 4 of "Arrow" and I don't consider myself to be a fan,  even if I liked it.

[A Ghost of Someone]

I geuss it depends on Genre. Then again, after having read the books it makes me view the show more critically. If I had not read them, I might be more of a fan.

[Darkstream]

45 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

I've never seen either of those shows, so I can't speak for their quality, but unless they've also received critical acclaim and emmy wins, it's a moot point.

Well no, if you are going to assert that because GoT receives high ratings it's a quality show, it's not a moot point. These shows receive high ratings as well, and I can assure you that these are not quality shows. 

45 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

 

I tried finding it, but couldn't see any mention of it anywhere. A link would be appreciated.

http://variety.com/2016/tv/awards/starz-chief-outlander-power-emmys-1201827698/

“Look, I was part of the team that invented how to campaign for Emmy awards. Trust me, it’s not a level playing field. I spent eight years inside the TV Academy working it. And it took a lot of money, and there’s a certain momentum that goes along with that.”

50 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

What results, exactly? Is it so hard to believe critics like something that you don't?

I'm not saying that someone can't like something that I don't. On the contrary, unlike what NutBurz would have you believe, I don't have a problem with someone liking GoT, and I don't look down on anyone that enjoys watching it for what it is. There are a lot of aspects to the show which are great, and I can understand why people like it, but to claim that the writing is not sub par is absurd and disingenuous. 

[Dragon in the North]

49 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Well no, if you are going to assert that because GoT receives high ratings it's a quality show, it's not a moot point. These shows receive high ratings as well, and I can assure you that these are not quality shows. 

I actually listed 4 things: cult status, critical acclaim, high ratings, and emmy wins. But none of that matters, because I wasn't trying to imply that it proves GOT is quality television. Quality is subjective and depends on the opinions of the individual. I was only arguing that most viewers don't agree that there was a drop in quality and that the vast majority of fans are liking what D&D are doing.

 

50 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

http://variety.com/2016/tv/awards/starz-chief-outlander-power-emmys-1201827698/

“Look, I was part of the team that invented how to campaign for Emmy awards. Trust me, it’s not a level playing field. I spent eight years inside the TV Academy working it. And it took a lot of money, and there’s a certain momentum that goes along with that.”

1. He's the head of Starz, not HBO as you claimed

2. He sounds butthurt that his network wasn't nominated for anything.

3. He even implies that there is something fishy about the Golden Globes when his network went home empty handed. Sounds to me like he's making stuff up to cover up his loss.

58 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

There are a lot of aspects to the show which are great, and I can understand why people like it, but to claim that the writing is not sub par is absurd and disingenuous. 

That's a matter of opinion. Most disagree with you, or else the show wouldn't be popular.

[Dragon in the North]

1 hour ago, Meera of Tarth said:

I can't agree with that. If you watch only one or two episodes you can be called a fan. A fan follows the story. You have to watch all the episodes or almost all.

I watched only two episodes of "Supergirl" and 4 of "Arrow" and I don't consider myself to be a fan,  even if I liked it.

By casual fans, I'm talking about the type of people who don't consider GOT must see television and don't tune in the night an episode airs, but still watches it when they can, whether it be the next day or they wait until the weekend, etc.

[Meera of Tarth]

1 minute ago, Dragon in the North said:

By casual fans, I'm talking about the type of people who don't consider GOT must see television and don't tune in the night an episode airs, but still watches it when they can, whether it be the next day or they wait until the weekend, etc.

I think that if they watched it entirely they can be called normal fans, no matter if they don't do it when it is aired, but I see your point.

[Dragon in the North]

1 minute ago, Meera of Tarth said:

I think that if they watched it entirely they can be called normal fans, no matter if they don't do it when it is aired, but I see your point.

Fair enough.

[Darkstream]

17 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

I actually listed 4 things: cult status, critical acclaim, high ratings, and emmy wins. But none of that matters, because I wasn't trying to imply that it proves GOT is quality television. Quality is subjective and depends on the opinions of the individual. I was only arguing that most viewers don't agree that there was a drop in quality and that the vast majority of fans are liking what D&D are doing.

Whether you think a show is enjoyable is subjective, but the quality is not subjective. There are several objective academic standards that can be used to judge the quality of a work of literature. GoT fails miserably when judged by these standards. 

 

17 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

1. He's the head of Starz, not HBO as you claimed

No, I claimed he was the former head of HBO.

Albrecht is the former Chairman and CEO of HBO.^[4][5] He spent 22 years at HBO and was credited for ushering in the “Golden Age” of television with hit series such as “The Sopranos,” “Sex and the City,” “Deadwood,” “Six Feet Under,” “Entourage,” “Band of Brothers” and “The Wire.”^[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Albrecht

 

17 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

2. He sounds butthurt that his network wasn't nominated for anything.

3. He even implies that there is something fishy about the Golden Globes when his network went home empty handed. Sounds to me like he's making stuff up to cover up his loss.

Well you can deny it all you want. So how about that palace I have for sale, are you interested? Seriously, if you don't think that everything in this world is influenced by money and politics, then you have been living under a rock. Money is power my friend, and when you have loads of it, you control whatever you want. 

[Dragon in the North]

36 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Whether you think a show is enjoyable is subjective, but the quality is not subjective. There are several objective academic standards that can be used to judge the quality of a work of literature. GoT fails miserably when judged by these standards. 

What standards are those, if I might ask?

 

36 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

No, I claimed he was the former head of HBO.

Sorry, my mistake.

 

36 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Well you can deny it all you want. 

 

He's an unreliable source. That's the simple truth to it. Albrecht used to be the head of HBO and was responsible for "The Wire." Why was "The Wire" constantly snubbed by the Emmys then if all Albrecht had to do was throw some money around?

[Darkstream]

56 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

What standards are those, if I might ask?

The same standards that my English teacher used to grade my creative writing assignments. Unfortunately, my argument that I liked the projects that I handed in, didn't get me the A+ that I was looking for.

Here are some questions that can be objectively answered to determine the quality of a work of literature.

Does the plot make sense? Does it progress in a plausible and logical manner? Are there gaping plot holes in nearly every scene? Does one have to look to outside sources to explain what or why something is happening?

Has the sequence of events been presented in a linear and/or understandable and logical sequence? Has the passage of time between events been properly represented or explained?

Is the continuity of previously established facts, dialogue and so forth maintained throughout the story? Are the established in-universe laws and rules maintained throughout, or do they fluctuate in accordance to meet the needs of the narrative?

Is the characterization realistic and consistent? Do the characters actions and motivations seem plausible and conform to that of the established traits of said character, or do they make illogical decision for the purpose of moving the plot from point a to b? Do they, unless intentionally and within relation to the story been inflicted with a personality disorder or sickness, show signs similar to that of a person with schizophrenia, whose personality changes according to what's needed for the plot? Or, do the characters develop sudden amnesia, and then miraculously shake off this debilitation once it suits the needs of the plot?

Quote

He's an unreliable source. That's the simple truth to it. Albrecht used to be the head of HBO and was responsible for "The Wire." Why was "The Wire" constantly snubbed at the Emmys then if all Albrecht had to do was throw some money around?

Right, someone who has worked in the business for more than twenty two years, and has first hand experience campaigning for Emmy awards is not a reliable source? Like seriously, you couldn't get a more reliable source than this.

[NutBurz]

27 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Does the plot make sense?

Yes.

27 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Does it progress in a plausible and logical manner?

Yes.

28 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Are there gaping plot holes in nearly every scene?

No.

28 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Does one have to look to outside sources to explain what or why something is happening?

No.

28 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Has the sequence of events been presented in a linear and/or understandable and logical sequence?

Yes.

28 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Has the passage of time between events been properly represented or explained?

this is just hilarious.

[Darkstream]

Does one have to look to outside sources to explain what or why something is happening?

3 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

No.

That's funny, because you seem to spend an awful lot of time and effort making stuff up to defend the plot in GoT. It's too bad all of your explanations aren't a part of the actual show.

[Dragon in the North]

 

40 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

The same standards that my English teacher used to grade my creative writing assignments. Unfortunately, my argument that I liked the projects that I handed in, didn't get me the A+ that I was looking for.

Here are some questions that can be objectively answered to determine the quality of a work of literature.

Does the plot make sense? Does it progress in a plausible and logical manner? Are there gaping plot holes in nearly every scene? Does one have to look to outside sources to explain what or why something is happening?

Has the sequence of events been presented in a linear and/or understandable and logical sequence? Has the passage of time between events been properly represented or explained?

Is the continuity of previously established facts, dialogue and so forth maintained throughout the story? Are the established in-universe laws and rules maintained throughout, or do they fluctuate in accordance to meet the needs of the narrative?

Is the characterization realistic and consistent? Do the characters actions and motivations seem plausible and conform to that of the established traits of said character, or do they make illogical decision for the purpose of moving the plot from point a to b? Do they, unless intentionally and within relation to the story been inflicted with a personality disorder or sickness, show signs similar to that of a person with schizophrenia, whose personality changes according to what's needed for the plot? Or, do the characters develop sudden amnesia, and then miraculously shake off this debilitation once it suits the needs of the plot?

Those may be your teacher's qualifications for determining the quality of a work of art, but they aren't the official qualifications. There is no mathematical formula for determining the quality of something, and that's because quality is subjective. 

 

41 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Right, someone who has worked in the business for more than twenty two years, and has first hand experience campaigning for Emmy awards is not a reliable source? Like seriously, you couldn't get a more reliable source than this.

He has reason to lie. That makes him an unreliable resource.