What would you change about the show?

[Darkstream]

28 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

If it's a fact that the show is bad, why is it that only a small group of people on the internet were able to discover it? Why aren't critics, who are educated, trained, and are paid to determine the writing quality of a show, able to see what you see? It's because your opinion is different from theirs, which is perfectly ok. You need to be more respectful and accept that your opinion isn't the only one that matters.

Oh please, we've had this discussion before, and you refused to accept all of the reasons I gave you. I even gave you a quote from the former head of HBO who explained exactly how these bogus awards work, which you irrationally rejected. I really don't have the energy or interest in explaining this all to you again, just so you can deny it.

Quote

 

And like I said, I acknowledge the show has failings, but to me, the positives far outweigh the negatives. That's why GOT is a high quality show, imo. Normally, I would agree to disagree and simply drop it, but I don't think asking you to respect other people's opinions is asking too much.

I totally respect your opinion, that is why, allthough I completely disagree with you, I don't challenge you on the fact that it is a good show, based on the entertainment and enjoyment value that it provides you. If the goal of the show runners is to make a product that is entertaining to a large portion of viewers, then they have succeeded and it can be classified as a good program on that basis. 

But to claim it is a quality written program, judged by accepted litterary standards is a false claim, and ignores the facts, not just my opinion.

There are many shows that I personally do not like, and consider to be bad shows. Still, I can concede that they are well written works of literature dispite my subjective opinion. I cannot do that with GoT unless I ignore the cold hard facts.

[Dragon in the North]

39 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Oh please, we've had this discussion before, and you refused to accept all of the reasons I gave you. I even gave you a quote from the former head of HBO who explained exactly how these bogus awards work, which you irrationally rejected. I really don't have the energy or interest in explaining this all to you again, just so you can deny it.

Oh yes, that old conspiracy theory. It makes you wonder why every show simply doesn't do the same. 

40 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

I totally respect your opinion, that is why, allthough I completely disagree with you, I don't challenge you on the fact that it is a good show, based on the entertainment and enjoyment value that it provides you. If the goal of the show runners is to make a product that is entertaining to a large portion of viewers, then they have succeeded and it can be classified as a good program on that basis. 

But to claim it is a quality written program, judged by accepted litterary standards is a false claim, and ignores the facts, not just my opinion.

There are many shows that I personally do not like, and consider to be bad shows. Still, I can concede that they are well written works of literature dispite my subjective opinion. I cannot do that with GoT unless I ignore the cold hard facts.

The reason I consider GOT to be a good show is because I believe it to be high quality. Critics judge the show by literary standards and consider it to well written, so it's not a fact. It's your opinion that it's poorly written, nothing more. 

[Darkstream]

1 hour ago, Dragon in the North said:

Oh yes, that old conspiracy theory.

Oh come on, is that the best you can do? I'm sorry, but just brushing something off as a concpiracy theory is a very weak and unconvincing argument. If you don't think that money and politics is one of, if not the most influential factors in essentially every thing on this planet, then you are a very naive and gulllible person.

Why do you think that in this day and age, we still don't have efficient, eco friendly viehcles. Please don't tell me you buy the excuse that the technology just isn't there yet. I'm sure that if we can send a space craft to Mars, and manage to power a rover for several years on an alien planet, the technology is available to drive me to work and back. No, the reason we are still driving gas guzzling vehicles is because all of the company's that were making progress in these fields were victims to hostile takeovers by the large oil and gas companies. Squashed by money and politics.

And I'm sure that the American governments involment in the middle East is completely motivated by humanitarian initiatives, nothing to do with oil. 

I'm sorry, but the entertainment industry is certainly not immune to the influence of politics and deep pockets. in fact, I would say that it is one of the most influenced industries in this regard. So stick your head in the sand to this fact if you must, but it does not change the fact that these awards you hold in such high esteem are meaningless popularity contest, which often go to the highest bidder.

Quote

It makes you wonder why every show simply doesn't do the same. 

Who says that they don't attempt to? It really comes down to who has the deepest pockets, and who has the most to gain from buying these awards. It wouldn't make much sense to throw a bunch of money behind a show that doesn't share the same commercial success that Got does. However, a show that already has a large cultural following as Got does, has a lot to gain by winning these awards.

It makes you wonder why the seasons that were well written didn't win any awards. Well, no need to wonder, I'll tell you why. It's because the show didn't have the momentum and financial backing that it had in the seasons in which it did win. the only seasons that they did win these awards, are arguably the weakest seasons in the series, and this opinion is largely backed by your majority, who do like the show.

 

[Dragon in the North]

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

Oh come on, is that the best you can do? I'm sorry, but just brushing something off as a concpiracy theory is a very weak and unconvincing argument. If you don't think that money and politics is one of, if not the most influential factors in essentially every thing on this planet, then you are a very naive and gulllible person.

Why do you think that in this day and age, we still don't have efficient, eco friendly viehcles. Please don't tell me you buy the excuse that the technology just isn't there yet. I'm sure that if we can send a space craft to Mars, and manage to power a rover for several years on an alien planet, the technology is available to drive me to work and back. No, the reason we are still driving gas guzzling vehicles is because all of the company's that were making progress in these fields were victims to hostile takeovers by the large oil and gas companies. Squashed by money and politics.

And I'm sure that the American governments involment in the middle East is completely motivated by humanitarian initiatives, nothing to do with oil. 

I'm sorry, but the entertainment industry is certainly not immune to the influence of politics and deep pockets. in fact, I would say that it is one of the most influenced industries in this regard. So stick your head in the sand to this fact if you must, but it does not change the fact that these awards you hold in such high esteem are meaningless popularity contest, which often go to the highest bidder.

Who says that they don't attempt to? It really comes down to who has the deepest pockets, and who has the most to gain from buying these awards. It wouldn't make much sense to throw a bunch of money behind a show that doesn't share the same commercial success that Got does. However, a show that already has a large cultural following as Got does, has a lot to gain by winning these awards.

It makes you wonder why the seasons that were well written didn't win any awards. Well, no need to wonder, I'll tell you why. It's because the show didn't have the momentum and financial backing that it had in the seasons in which it did win. the only seasons that they did win these awards, are arguably the weakest seasons in the series, and this opinion is largely backed by your majority, who do like the show.

 

If winning awards all comes down to who has the most money, why didn't GOT win an acting emmy last year? Why haven't they won a golden globe for best drama? Unless you're suggesting the Crown, Bloodline, and Downton Abbey have more money than GOT. Oh wait, that can't be, or else Downton Abbey would have won best drama and best directing. How did Veep win best drama, but lost to Master of None for writing, if all they had to do was pay a few more bucks? Your argument doesn't make any sense. If what you're saying is true, one show would win an award in every category, but that isn't what happens. Not usually, anyway, and definitely not with GOT. It seems like people make this stuff up in order to justify their favorite show losing. That's the more rational explanation.

What does GOT have to gain by winning awards, besides ego? They're already a ratings power house, and a show doesn't even have to win awards to be popular. Look at NCIS. They don't need awards to grow ratings. Ratings have already been growing without them.

As to the bolded, competition from breaking bad probably was a factor. Maybe GOT was always the runner-up. With Breaking Bad ended, GOT became the front-runner.

[Nevets]

On the subject of awards, I have noticed that shows often win Emmys after they have been around for a time and have gained momentum.  This is often when they are on a downward slide.  This seems to have been the case with season 5, at least, which even some media outlets regarded as a particularly weak season, and that Peter Dinklage's performance, in particular, was lacking in s 5 after many good seasons.

For myself, I lost interest midway through s 5 due to irrational behavior, inconsistent characterization, and incoherent storytelling.  Also, as a Stark fan, I got frustrated with the Starks being made stupid and bad, and the whitewashing of the Lannisters.  I will cheerfully admit to being a fan of the books, which I had read long before the show came out.  While I may have had some complaints, I though the first 4 seasons were really quite solid, with a drop in quality for season 5.  I haven't seen s 6 so can't really comment on it.

[Darkstream]

6 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

If winning awards all comes down to who has the most money, why didn't GOT win an acting emmy last year? Why haven't they won a golden globe for best drama? Unless you're suggesting the Crown, Bloodline, and Downton Abbey have more money than GOT. Oh wait, that can't be, or else Downton Abbey would have won best drama and best directing. How did Veep win best drama, but lost to Master of None for writing, if all they had to do was pay a few more bucks? Your argument doesn't make any sense. If what you're saying is true, one show would win an award in every category, but that isn't what happens. Not usually, anyway, and definitely not with GOT. It seems like people make this stuff up in order to justify their favorite show losing. That's the more rational explanation.

I'm not saying that every single award is bought and payed for, or that having the most money is the sole factor in deciding who wins. My comment that the awards go to the highest bidder was hyperbole. I don't think that there is a representative from each show, sitting around with an auction card, bidding on the awards. Obviously, any greasing of the wheels would be underhanded and behind closed doors, and not something that would be practical, possible, or worth doing in order to win every award available. I mean, it would be quite obvious if every year, the show with the most financial backing swept the awards, no?

As well, concerning the acting awards, I would assume that they wouldn't put as much stock in individual awards. I'm sure HBO and the show runners are more concerned with the big awards that represent the production as a whole. I do believe that a lot of it does come down to stroking their own ego's, and winning best acting awards wouldn't do that for the big brass, dishing out the dough.  And as a matter of fact, there has been several documented instances that would suggest that d$d are not very respectful or appreciative of their crew. Why would they care about, or go out of their way to influence an award that doesn't directly benefit themselves? 

Whether you buy into the so called "conspiracy theory" that they are buying or bribing their way into these awards or not, there are other factors that have nothing to do with the quality of writing, which can influence who wins.

For anyone who hasn't seen it, this is the quote from the former head of HBO.

Quote

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.”

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

Now you can choose to ignore that if you want , I suppose, and speculate as to his motives for saying such things. Kind of wandering into the conspiracy theory territory yourself, I would say. But I find it hard to believe that someone in his position would just come out and completely fabricate all of this in a public statement. And to what ends? No one is going to take the Emmy away from the d's and give it to him because he made a statement as to the unlevel playing field surrounding the Emmys. I also find it hard to believe that if there was no truth to his statement, that he would not have been called out by someone in the industry that knows the truth of the matter.

Anyway, my point was not to criticize the the validity of the awards, but to point out that your assertion was a fallacy, and not proof of anything.

Quote

What does GOT have to gain by winning awards, besides ego? They're already a ratings power house, and a show doesn't even have to win awards to be popular. Look at NCIS. They don't need awards to grow ratings. Ratings have already been growing without them.

That's kind of touches on my point though. They weren't winning awards when there was basically nobody complaining about the writing, and it was generally accepted that the writing was quite exceptional. They only started winning awards after the show grew in popularity, and became a cultural phenomenon. Many people did start to notice that there was a decline in the quality of the show, yet that's when it started to win. This gives credence to the assertion that these awards are more of a popularity contest, than being awarded on merit.

And yes, I think ego is a huge part of it with these guys. Admittedly, only my opinion, and obviously I'm not in a position to make an definitive assessment as to this, but from what I've seen of d$d in many interviews and specials, my impression of them is that they are very arrogant, pompuss, and egotistical individuals. Again, only my opinion, and purely speculative, but I think that they are jealous of the acalades that GRRM receives, and feel like they are more deserving of credit for the success of the show than him. I feel like a lot of the changes that they have made are not made out of necessity, or for the benifit of the show, but as an attempt to distinguish their work from GRRM's, and to try and prove that their success is not just a result of riding on his coat tails. They feel like they are entitled to win these awards, and couldn't handle the criticism that they received. This was made quite obvious to me, by the classless display that Benioff directed towards his critics after winning his first Emmy.

https://out.reddit.com/t3_3ltyn7?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFkJSYvH.jpg&token=AQAAEFHTWFHR8mxydAs2hcLafH_GYbGDtPASjkn-2sI6fBRssyW8&app_name=mweb2x

 

Quote

As to the bolded, competition from breaking bad probably was a factor. Maybe GOT was always the runner-up. With Breaking Bad ended, GOT became the front-runner.

This is a good point, and I concede that this may have been a viable factor in why they may not have won during those seasons.

[Dragon in the North]

2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

I'm not saying that every single award is bought and payed for, or that having the most money is the sole factor in deciding who wins. My comment that the awards go to the highest bidder was hyperbole. I don't think that there is a representative from each show, sitting around with an auction card, bidding on the awards. Obviously, any greasing of the wheels would be underhanded and behind closed doors, and not something that would be practical, possible, or worth doing in order to win every award available. I mean, it would be quite obvious if every year, the show with the most financial backing swept the awards, no?

As well, concerning the acting awards, I would assume that they wouldn't put as much stock in individual awards. I'm sure HBO and the show runners are more concerned with the big awards that represent the production as a whole. I do believe that a lot of it does come down to stroking their own ego's, and winning best acting awards wouldn't do that for the big brass, dishing out the dough.  And as a matter of fact, there has been several documented instances that would suggest that d$d are not very respectful or appreciative of their crew. Why would they care about, or go out of their way to influence an award that doesn't directly benifit themselves? 

Whether you buy into the so called "conspiracy theory" that they are buying or bribing their way into these awards or not, there are other factors that have nothing to do with the quality of writing, which can influence who wins.

So, some awards are bought and paid for, but others aren't? That sounds convenient. If your favorite show wins, it's because they deserve it. If your favorite show loses, it's because the victor bribed the voters.

 

2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

For anyone who hasn't seen it, this is the quote from the former head of HBO.

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

Now you can choose to ignore that if you want , I suppose, and speculate as to his motives for saying such things. Kind of wandering into the conspiracy theory territory yourself, I would say. But I find it hard to believe that someone in his position would just come out and completely fabricate all of this in a public statement. And to what ends? No one is going to take the Emmy away from the d's and give it to him because he made a statement as to the unlevel playing field surrounding the Emmys. I also find it hard to believe that if there was no truth to his statement, that he would not have been called out by someone in the industry that knows the truth of the matter.

Anyway, my point was not to criticize the the validity of the awards, but to point out that your assertion was a fallacy, and not proof of anything.

There's no need to speculate his motives. They're staring me right in the face. To me, it sounds like that guy is upset that none of his shows were nominated for Emmys. He even implies there's something fishy going on at the golden globes. It reminds me of Donald Trump insisting that the American voting system is rigged. Isn't the more likely explanation is that Emmy voters simply preferred other shows? Why is that so hard to accept?

 

2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

That's kind of touches on my point though. They weren't winning awards when there was basically nobody complaining about the writing, and it was generally accepted that the writing was quite exceptional. They only started winning awards after the show grew in popularity, and became a cultural phenomenon. Many people did start to notice that there was a decline in the quality of the show, yet that's when it started to win. This gives credence to the assertion that these awards are more of a popularity contest, than being awarded on merit.

And yes, I think ego is a huge part of it with these guys. Admittedly, only my opinion, and obviously I'm not in a position to make an definitive assessment as to this, but from what I've seen of d$d in many interviews and specials, my impression of them is that they are very arrogant, pompuss, and egotistical individuals. Again, only my opinion, and purely speculative, but I think that they are jealous of the acalades that GRRM receives, and feel like they are more deserving of credit for the success of the show than him. I feel like a lot of the changes that they have made are not made out of necessity, or for the benifit of the show, but as an attempt to distinguish their work from GRRM's, and to try and prove that their success is not just a result of riding on his coat tails. They feel like they are entitled to win these awards, and couldn't handle the criticism that they received. This was made quite obvious to me, by the classless display that Benioff directed towards his critics after winning his first Emmy.

https://out.reddit.com/t3_3ltyn7?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFkJSYvH.jpg&token=AQAAEFHTWFHR8mxydAs2hcLafH_GYbGDtPASjkn-2sI6fBRssyW8&app_name=mweb2x

I admit, I tend to avoid interviews made by those two. The only interviews I've seen were the ones where they gave their interpretations for Sansa's and Stannis's characters, both of which I disagreed with. However, based on those two interviews,  I don't think they're egotistical at all. I just think they're trying to create the best tv show they possibly can. Awards are nice, but they aren't necessary. The show was already popular without them. 

As for your link,  either they're blowing off steam, or they're douche bags. I don't think I'm in a position to judge. I certainly have done stupider things than getting drunk and flicking off a camera.

[Darkstream]

11 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

So, some awards are bought and paid for, but others aren't? That sounds convenient. If your favorite show wins, it's because they deserve it. If your favorite show loses, it's because the victor bribed the voters.

First of all, you are putting words in my mouth, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't do so.

Secondly, you seem to be under the impression that I've made a definitive statement that GoT strait up bribed someone in order to win their awards. That not what I'm asserting. I think it's a possibility, as it is in all aspects of life. I think you would find it difficult to find any industry or business where there wasn't some sort of corruption and underhanded business going on at some level, or at some point in time. That is just the world that we live in.

What I'm saying is that there are a multitude of possible factors that can influence the results of these awards, that go beyond strictly the merits of quality writing. There is no doubt in my mind at all that money has a big role in it. There's really nothing in this world that doesn't essentially come down to money in the long run. It's what makes the world go round afterall. This isn't inclusive to just bribery and paying people off. This includes things such as marketing and promotion, as well as campaign teams, as Chris Albrecht pointed out are a big part of the Emmy process. I know you just want discard his staments (how convinient), and chalk it up to sour grapes, but you really have nothing to support your accusation that he is strait up lying about everything. I'm sure he was bitter about being snubbed, but that doesn't mean he made everything up. And to be honest, knowing the way things work in the world, I would find it a lot harder to believe that what he said is not true. The kinds of processes that he describes are prevalent in all walks of life.

Besides, it's not just the network and the show producers who have a stake in who wins. Do you think that the academy wouldn't prefer a more prominent and commercially successful program to win their awards? Do you not think that the advertisers wouldn't prefer a show that has millions and millions of fans to win, than some low key production, that while being of high quality, has a lot smaller fan base?

Do you not think that the popularity of the show couldn't influence things as well. How many viewers do you think these awards would draw if the most popular programs never won any awards?

Sorry to harp on this, but if you think that these awards are strictly awarded due to merit, you are taking a very naive outlook on things. In my opinion it's inconceivable that there are not a multitude of factors that influence who the winners of these awards are.

And thus to my original point that you seem to be avoiding, winning an Emmy is in no way proof that a show is a quality program, in regards to being a fundamentally sound piece of literature.

Quote

 

There's no need to speculate his motives. They're staring me right in the face. To me, it sounds like that guy is upset that none of his shows were nominated for Emmys. He even implies there's something fishy going on at the golden globes. It reminds me of Donald Trump insisting that the American voting system is rigged. Isn't the more likely explanation is that Emmy voters simply preferred other shows? Why is that so hard to accept?

That's not hard to accept at all, in fact I completely agree with that. I think it is very likely that many of the voters place their votes for the shows that they prefer, rather than voting for the most deserved shows. Thank you for pointing out another factor that can affect the outcome of these awards. Personal bais, I would say, certainly comes into play.

[Dragon in the North]

13 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

First of all, you are putting words in my mouth, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't do so.

Sorry, that was not my intention. I'm just trying to get a better sense of your argument.

 

15 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Secondly, you seem to be under the impression that I've made a definitive statement that GoT strait up bribed someone in order to win their awards. That not what I'm asserting. I think it's a possibility, as it is in all aspects of life. I think you would find it difficult to find any industry or business where there wasn't some sort of corruption and underhanded business going on at some level, or at some point in time. That is just the world that we live in.

What I'm saying is that there are a multitude of possible factors that can influence the results of these awards, that go beyond strictly the merits of quality writing. There is no doubt in my mind at all that money has a big role in it. There's really nothing in this world that doesn't essentially come down to money in the long run. It's what makes the world go round afterall. This isn't inclusive to just bribery and paying people off. This includes things such as marketing and promotion, as well as campaign teams, as Chris Albrecht pointed out are a big part of the Emmy process. I know you just want discard his staments (how convinient), and chalk it up to sour grapes, but you really have nothing to support your accusation that he is strait up lying about everything. I'm sure he was bitter about being snubbed, but that doesn't mean he made everything up. And to be honest, knowing the way things work in the world, I would find it a lot harder to believe that what he said is not true. The kinds of processes that he describes are prevalent in all walks of life.

Besides, it's not just the network and the show producers who have a stake in who wins. Do you think that the academy wouldn't prefer a more prominent and commercially successful program to win their awards? Do you not think that the advertisers wouldn't prefer a show that has millions and millions of fans to win, than some low key production, that while being of high quality, has a lot smaller fan base to win?

Of course it's possible that GOT won its awards via bribes. Anythings possible. I just don't think it's very likely, and I've seen no proof to the contrary. As for Chris Albrecht, he doesn't sound very credible, especially since he went after the Golden Globes in a similar manner. When none of his shows won, his response was, "What does that mean? I have no idea." It clearly means that the voters felt other shows were more deserving. 

 

21 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

And thus to my original point that you seem to be avoiding, winning an Emmy is in no way proof that a show is a quality program, in regards to being a fundamentally sound piece of literature.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make at all. My position has always been and will always be that quality is subjective. It's determined by individual opinions. I was just pointing out that if your claim that GOT was factually a badly written show was correct, professional critics and award voters would have picked up on it.

[King Behind The Wall]

16 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

I disagree. I think 7-8 seasons is what is required to tell a compelling story. Can you think of a single show that's managed to maintain its quality after 7 seasons?

GOt is not like the other shows. In fact, the situation is opposite. GOT is suffering from too much compression. Characters is being driven (read jetpack-ed) from one place to another due to lack of time. GRRM is writing the story in its entirety for good reasons. First three seasons were well received because there was minimal compression and they were faithful to the source material.

[Jack.Stark]

I love the books and would take 20 episodes a season , but it's just not possible . I've liked every season so far but there certain things I would change . There are certain things I would change in the book also. People forget that normal show watchers get confused about who's who as it is now . It's just too big of a world and book to cram everyone in . I would be included in that too until I read the books .

Some of the book changes totally make sense to me and I prefer them on tv. Something's haven't worked , like Dorne but overall the show is a masterpiece .

With regards to awards etc, if we ignore them for a minute and just see how they've been regarded by critics , including independent ones , we see that it's universally critally aclaimed . I'm no expert but I've studied creative writing at university level and think the writing is brilliant . Is it perfect ? No. But the majority of it is excellent . One thing you would expect to be better than a book writers , is th dialogue , but Martins dialogue is exceptional and they don't seem to have matched that in some parts.

It would be interesting to see how many people thought the writing was bad and isn't a book reader , just a show watcher with no bias.

[Darkstream]

3 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

Sorry, that was not my intention. I'm just trying to get a better sense of your argument.

Alright, that's cool.

3 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

 

Of course it's possible that GOT won its awards via bribes. Anythings possible. I just don't think it's very likely, and I've seen no proof to the contrary. As for Chris Albrecht, he doesn't sound very credible, especially since he went after the Golden Globes in a similar manner. When none of his shows won, his response was, "What does that mean? I have no idea." It clearly means that the voters felt other shows were more deserving. 

Well if that's the impression that you get from the guy, that's fine, you have every right to form your own opinion about him. I tend to believe what he is saying, especially seeing as it only confirms what I already believed to be the case. I didn't find anything he said to be very shocking or enlightening.

3 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

 

That wasn't the point I was trying to make at all. My position has always been and will always be that quality is subjective. It's determined by individual opinions. I was just pointing out that if your claim that GOT was factually a badly written show was correct, professional critics and award voters would have picked up on it.

And this is where I take issue with your argument. Quality is not subjective. 

If I buy two different pairs of shoes, and I wear them for the same amount of time each day, in the same conditions, but one pair falls apart after a couple weeks, while the other pair lasts me a full year, then obviously the pair that lasted me the whole year was a higher quality shoe than the pair that fell apart after a couple of weeks. That wouldn't be an opinion, that would be a fact based on discernable data.

Now I could prefer the pair that fell apart. I might think that they were nicer looking, or felt that they were more comfortable for my particular feet, but those would be subjective opinion based on my own taste and the size and shape of my feet. That would not change the fact that they are inferior in quality.

So you might enjoy watching GoT, it might entertain you, and you might not care, or be bothered by the fact that it doesn't meet what has been established and accepted as academic standards in literature. You might not even agree with what has been established as the rules of proper story telling. None of that would change the fact that Got does fail when judged by these standards.

When you claim that Got is a quality show, you are basing that on what you feel are the qualities that make a good story, which makes it a subjective opinion.

When I claim that it's a not a quality show, I'm basing it on what has been established and accepted by academic community as the fundamentals of good story telling, not by what I personally feel are the qualities of a good story, which makes it an objective assessment.
 

[Feologild]

On 14.3.2017 at 7:45 PM, chongjasmine said:

The nudity.

I think there is too much of it.

Really ?

 

I think people are exettarating it. There is no wear near as much nudity or sex as people claim.

[Dragon in the North]

4 hours ago, Darkstream said:

And this is where I take issue with your argument. Quality is not subjective. 

If I buy two different pairs of shoes, and I wear them for the same amount of time each day, in the same conditions, but one pair falls apart after a couple weeks, while the other pair lasts me a full year, then obviously the pair that lasted me the whole year was a higher quality shoe than the pair that fell apart after a couple of weeks. That wouldn't be an opinion, that would be a fact based on discernable data.

Now I could prefer the pair that fell apart. I might think that they were nicer looking, or felt that they were more comfortable for my particular feet, but those would be subjective opinion based on my own taste and the size and shape of my feet. That would not change the fact that they are inferior in quality.

So you might enjoy watching GoT, it might entertain you, and you might not care, or be bothered by the fact that it doesn't meet what has been established and accepted as academic standards in literature. You might not even agree with what has been established as the rules of proper story telling. None of that would change the fact that Got does fail when judged by these standards.

When you claim that Got is a quality show, you are basing that on what you feel are the qualities that make a good story, which makes it a subjective opinion.

When I claim that it's a not a quality show, I'm basing it on what has been established and accepted by academic community as the fundamentals of good story telling, not by what I personally feel are the qualities of a good story, which makes it an objective assessment.
 

I cannot agree with this. Quality is subjective. If you find one pair of shoes more comfortable and prefer it to another, it's because you believe it to be of higher quality. Why would you prefer something that you think is inferior? 

When I say GOT is a quality show, I'm basing it on the high quality writing, visual effects, acting, set designs, story structure, etc. You continue to say that GOT fails in what is established and accepted by the academic community as the fundamentals of good story telling. I keep waiting for you to go into more detail, explaining what these fundamentals are and why GOT fails to meet them, but you never do. All I can say is that if these fundamentals were so accepted by the academic community, professional critics would be aware of them and would have called GOT out for not meeting them.

[Dragon in the North]

5 hours ago, King Behind The Wall said:

GOt is not like the other shows. In fact, the situation is opposite. GOT is suffering from too much compression. Characters is being driven (read jetpack-ed) from one place to another due to lack of time. GRRM is writing the story in its entirety for good reasons. First three seasons were well received because there was minimal compression and they were faithful to the source material.

All shows are capable of overstaying their welcome, no matter how good it initially was. They're telling a compressed story, yes, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Look at GRRM. His books have become a bloated mess with no end in sight. A compelling and concise story is sometimes the better way to go. As for the bolded, the latter three seasons have been well received as well.

[Darkstream]

1 hour ago, Dragon in the North said:

I cannot agree with this. Quality is subjective. If you find one pair of shoes more comfortable and prefer it to another, it's because you believe it to be of higher quality. Why would you prefer something that you think is inferior? 

Oye, now I'm starting to think that you are just being willfully obtuse on this matter. To paraphrase a comment you yourself made, It seems like you are just making shit up because you don't want to admit that one of your favorite shows isn't as good as you believe it to be.

With the first pair of shoes, which lasted a whole year, if a hundred people wear those particular shoes, they're going to last a full year for every one of those hundred of people. There is no variance here, because these shoes are being judged by objective qualities. Because these shoes are of higher quality, the results are going to be the same across the board.

With the second pair, if a hundred people wear those shoes, perhaps only ten of those one hundred people are going to prefer the looks  or comfort of them. Perhaps fifty of them, it's hard to say, because these are subjective standards that you are judging them by. Everyone is going to have a different take on the looks and comfort. But all hundred of them are going to be walking around bare feet in a couple of weeks, because although some of them like those shoes better, they are of a lower quality. That is not debatable, if one pair of shoes falls apart, and the other doesn't, then obviously the pair that didn't fall apart is a higher quality shoe than the other pair.

I've got to run, busy at work, but will try to respond to the latter part of your post when I get the chance.

[Darkstream]

14 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

When I say GOT is a quality show, I'm basing it on the high quality writing, visual effects, acting, set designs, story structure, etc. You continue to say that GOT fails in what is established and accepted by the academic community as the fundamentals of good story telling. I keep waiting for you to go into more detail, explaining what these fundamentals are and why GOT fails to meet them, but you never do.

Uhmm... I'm quite sure you are aware of the almost infinite number of critisisms that have been discussed to death regarding the decline in the quality of the show. You are a pretty prominent member of this forum after all, and I'm sure I've seen you in several discussions pertaining to this.

Quote

All I can say is that if these fundamentals were so accepted by the academic community, professional critics would be aware of them and would have called GOT out for not meeting them.

Which critics are these? Are you talking about the ones who want to sell magazines, and are trying to increase the traffic to their websites? Are you talking about the critics who work for publications that benefit from having access to cast members and crew for interviews and such? Hmm...I wonder who d$d is more likely to grant access and interviews to. Do you think it's going to be to the guy who ripped apart their show and labeled them as no talent hacks, or do you think they might be more inclined to give access to the guy who praises their show, and gives them great reviews? I think the answer is quite obvious.

And the fact is that over the last two or three seasons, there has been an ever increasing amount of critics who have called out GoT for the drastic decline in quality. I have read plenty of reviews by professional critics that have strongly critized the writing, and the decisions made by d$d. The fact that you seem to be unaware of these reviews and criticisms would support what I alluded to above...that a lot of the publications which have the integrity, and nothing to lose by writing an honest review, don't get the circulation or eminence as the ones that cater to what the majority wants to read.

[Dragon in the North]

13 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Oye, now I'm starting to think that you are just being willfully obtuse on this matter. To paraphrase a comment you yourself made, It seems like you are just making shit up because you don't want to admit that one of your favorite shows isn't as good as you believe it to be.

With the first pair of shoes, which lasted a whole year, if a hundred people wear those particular shoes, they're going to last a full year for every one of those hundred of people. There is no variance here, because these shoes are being judged by objective qualities. Because these shoes are of higher quality, the results are going to be the same across the board.

With the second pair, if a hundred people wear those shoes, perhaps only ten of those one hundred people are going to prefer the looks  or comfort of them. Perhaps fifty of them, it's hard to say, because these are subjective standards that you are judging them by. Everyone is going to have a different take on the looks and comfort. But all hundred of them are going to be walking around bare feet in a couple of weeks, because although some of them like those shoes better, they are of a lower quality. That is not debatable, if one pair of shoes falls apart, and the other doesn't, then obviously the pair that didn't fall apart is a higher quality shoe than the other pair.

I've got to run, busy at work, but will try to respond to the latter part of your post when I get the chance.

And this is exactly what I mean when I say quality is subjective. To you, a quality shoe is one that lasts a long time. However, if I don't find the shoes to be comfortable, or if I think the shoes are ugly, I'm not going to wear them. Even if the shoes last a life time, if I'm not happy with them, I would never consider the shoes to be high quality. 

[Dragon in the North]

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

Uhmm... I'm quite sure you are aware of the almost infinite number of critisisms that have been discussed to death regarding the decline in the quality of the show. You are a pretty prominent member of this forum after all, and I'm sure I've seen you in several discussions pertaining to this.

Yes, I'm aware of the criticisms directed at the show from members of this board. That doesn't mean I agree with all of them, and for the ones I do agree with, so what? I'm never 100% satisfied with any television show I watch. I always have criticisms. Whether or not I determine a show to be high quality depends on if the positives outweigh the negatives. For GOT, that's definitely the case.

 

58 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Which critics are these? Are you talking about the ones who want to sell magazines, and are trying to increase the traffic to their websites? Are you talking about the critics who work for publications that benefit from having access to cast members and crew for interviews and such? Hmm...I wonder who d$d is more likely to grant access and interviews to. Do you think it's going to be to the guy who ripped apart their show and labeled them as no talent hacks, or do you think they might be more inclined to give access to the guy who praises their show, and gives them great reviews? I think the answer is quite obvious.

And the fact is that over the last two or three seasons, there has been an ever increasing amount of critics who have called out GoT for the drastic decline in quality. I have read plenty of reviews by professional critics that have strongly critized the writing, and the decisions made by d$d. The fact that you seem to be unaware of these reviews and criticisms would support what I alluded to above...that a lot of the publications which have the integrity, and nothing to lose by writing an honest review, don't get the circulation or eminence as the ones that cater to what the majority wants to read.

I'm talking about critics who are paid exclusively to critique television. shows. I don't suppose you have proof to support your argument in the first paragraph. If you don't have proof, can you please stop bringing your claims to me. I'm not interested in your conspiracy theories.

As for the second argument, I'll have to take a look. All the reviews I've read are from sources I trust, and they praise the show every year. Of course, you have to be careful and tell where the review is coming from, because anyone could write a review and post it on the internet these days. 

[Darkstream]

36 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

And this is exactly what I mean when I say quality is subjective. To you, a quality shoe is one that lasts a long time. However, if I don't find the shoes to be comfortable, or if I think the shoes are ugly, I'm not going to wear them. Even if the shoes last a life time, if I'm not happy with them, I would never consider the shoes to be high quality. 

And this is exactly what I mean when I say that you refuse to acknowledge the difference between objective facts and subjective opinions. You are defining quality by using subjective criteria. I am defining quality using objective criteria. Style and comfort are subjective, and going to be different for everyone. Some people are going to like a particular pair of shoes, and some are not. But If your shoe falls apart, and is unwearable, you can't say, oh well, in my opinion, they didn't fall apart, so I'm going to keep wearing them.

I'm sorry but your understanding of what quality means is just strait up incorrect.