Feologild

What would you change about the show?

117 posts in this topic

On 14.3.2017 at 7:45 PM, chongjasmine said:

The nudity.

I think there is too much of it.

There is never too much nudity :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, T and A said:

There is never too much nudity :P

A matter of different opinions, I guess. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alot of season 5

The Sansa-Ramsey story was mainly for shock value(I know they needed a replacement for Jeyne Poole)

The Stannis story arc-It make no sense to have him killed Shireen(a king is useless without an heir). If king's blood is needed, give Shireen a small cut on the finger.I know that the showrunner hate Stannis, but it was plan dumb to do.

killing off Selmy- good character and one of few likeable allies Dany had

not having Shireen meet Wun Weg-it was a good scene in the book

cutting out Strong Belwa- a better character than Daario.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the little character tweaks from the books that I would have liked to see portrayed accurately on the show. For example:

Tyrion's bitterness.

Jorah's smarm. 

Cersei not being the beautiful disaster she is supposed to be.

The ambiguity of people's true intentions being simplified for the show.

I get why these changes were made, to make for an easier adaptation but still....

To flip the coin I'm glad the show aged the characters because reading the story as it unfolds, knowing the ages of the characters, veers between discomfort and disbelieving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to be annoyed that there was no Manderley stuff in season 5, but it it gave a bigger relief for season 6 as it made season 5 seem very isolating for Sansa. Which was much better her being there then being in the Vale, but overall I would of liked to of seen more manderleys and then come to the rescue in the Botb. I would of liked to have had Roose for a bit longer too.

Edited by Jack.Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit, out of everything, I was very, very dissatisfied with the whole Dorne subplot. I appreciate the show had to limit where they went with only a handful of episodes a season, but that was disappointing.

All of the other events I would have changed was relatively minor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, King Behind The Wall said:

10 season of 13 episodes each, just like GRRM always wanted. Covering all POWs, if not every chapter.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes 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?

That's a moot point, as the quality of GoT drastically plummeted after only three seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

That's a moot point, as the quality of GoT drastically plummeted after only three seasons.

That's your opinion, shared by the minority, so not a moot point at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

That's your opinion, shared by the minority, so not a moot point at all.

Count me in, along with the plenty of others, that has seen this show take a rapid swirl around the bowl after season 3. The D's got to their shocking moment, and it all went haywire. Not good :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

That's your opinion, shared by the minority, so not a moot point at all.

As you well know, my complaints with the show are based on the fundamental aspects of story telling, not on subjective opinions on whether it is enjoyable to watch. And as I am fully aware that you refuse to acknowledge these failings of the show, which are not my opinions, but facts, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

As you well know, my complaints with the show are based on the fundamental aspects of story telling, not on subjective opinions on whether it is enjoyable to watch. And as I am fully aware that you refuse to acknowledge these failings of the show, which are not my opinions, but facts, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I fully admit that the show isn't perfect. No show is. And your complaints against the show are opinions, not facts. It's important to distinguish the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

I fully admit that the show isn't perfect. No show is. And your complaints against the show are opinions, not facts. It's important to distinguish the two.

You see, you claim that it's important to distinguish between the two, yet you fail to do so. I have many, many, many complaints about the show that are my subjective opinion, and those are the reason that I don't like the show. That doesn't change the fact that the show fails miserably when it comes to the fundamental aspects of telling a story, based on accepted academic standards of literature, which is the reason I objectively claim that it is a poorly written show.

It's quite easy to admit that a show is not perfect, as you say, none are. I'm not asserting that it's not perfect, that is very obvious. I'm saying that it completely fails as a comprehensive story that stands on its own as a work of literature.

Edited by Darkstream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

You see, you claim that it's important to distinguish between the two, yet you fail to do so. I have many, many, many complaints about the show that are my subjective opinion, and those are the reason that I don't like the show. That doesn't change the fact that the show fails miserably when it comes to the fundamental aspects of telling a story, based on accepted academic standards of literature, which is the reason I objectively claim that it is a poorly written show.

It's quite easy to admit that a show is not perfect, as you say, none are. I'm not asserting that it's not perfect, that is very obvious. I'm saying that it completely fails as a comprehensive story that stands on its own as a work of literature.

Yes, no show is perfect because all them fail in the fundamental aspects of storytelling one way or the other. That's why quality is subjective. It all comes down to whether the positives outweigh the negatives. That all depends on the individual. You clearly don't grasp the difference between fact and opinion like you claim that you do. If it was a fact that GOT was a badly written show, it wouldn't be critically acclaimed, it wouldn't have won awards for best drama and best writing, and it wouldn't be as popular as it is. Those all come from the opinions of individual people. Look, hate the show if you want, but don't say it being a bad show is a fact. I certainly would never say it's a fact that it's a good show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

 If it was a fact that GOT was a badly written show, it wouldn't be critically acclaimed, it wouldn't have won awards for best drama and best writing, and it wouldn't be as popular as it is. 

This is circular reasoning, and frankly, a load of :bs:

Like I said,  I am fully aware that you refuse to acknowledge these failings, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dragon in the North said:

That's your opinion, shared by the minority, so not a moot point at all.

I'm from the minority that thinks it started to be bad in the first eps of s5....when it took its own route and deviated from the books. (although s6 is better thn s5)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

This is circular reasoning, and frankly, a load of :bs:

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.

 

18 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Like I said,  I am fully aware that you refuse to acknowledge these failings, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

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.

Edited by Dragon in the North

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

I'm from the minority that thinks it started to be bad in the first eps of s5....when it took its own route and deviated from the books. (although s6 is better thn s5)

Season 5 was my least favorite season, but I still enjoyed it a lot. Season 6, though, has become my second favorite, after season 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.