Feologild

What would you change about the show?

117 posts in this topic

23 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

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. 

 

This shoe analogy has gotten out of hand and I no longer understand what it has to do with the show. All I'll say is that the integrity of the shoe is only one aspect of the shoe. Its artistic design and wearability are other aspects used to determine its quality. If those don't hold up, the quality drops. If I don't like the particular pair of shoes, I'm not going to wear them. I'd rather keep spending money on shoes I like and am comfortable wearing, even if they eventually fall apart, than wear shoes that I detest. 

Edited by Dragon in the North

Share this post


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

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

You haven't been able to prove that all. All you've done was give shoe analogies and post crazy theories about how awards are rigged and how critics would lie in their reviews so they could continue to have access to a show they apparently hate. All of this without proof, I might add. You're going to have to do a lot better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

As for the bolded, the latter three seasons have been well received as well.

But they were nowhere near the same quality as the first three. For example, there was no crapfest like Dorne in first three seasons. Dorne is one of the most compelling plots in the books. Removal of key characters such as Arianne due to shortage of time led to Dorne becoming an unintentional joke on screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree KBTW. It was a mistake I fear, leaving out Dorne. However, they would have had to have twice as many episodes per season - which I am sure no one would be disappointed in.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, King Behind The Wall said:

But they were nowhere near the same quality as the first three. For example, there was no crapfest like Dorne in first three seasons. Dorne is one of the most compelling plots in the books. Removal of key characters such as Arianne due to shortage of time led to Dorne becoming an unintentional joke on screen.

All of that is  your opinion. Seasons 4 and 6 were my favorite seasons. As for Dorne, I agree, it was bad, but I thought it was bad in the books, too. I'm not alone in thinking that, either. Dorne is such a small part of the show that it doesn't take away my enjoyment of it.

Share this post


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

You haven't been able to prove that all. All you've done was give shoe analogies and post crazy theories about how awards are rigged and how critics would lie in their reviews so they could continue to have access to a show they apparently hate. All of this without proof, I might add. You're going to have to do a lot better than that.

  

Yeah sure, you keep telling yourself that. 

You clearly aren't interested in having an open minded discussion, and It's quite obvious that you'll stubbornly defend your position regardless of any compelling and factual arguments presented to the contrary. You really seem to have trouble distinguishing between subjective opinions and objective facts, and take it so far as to inserting your own personal definition of words to attempt to defend your precious show. The only defense you can come up with is to claim that everything is just my opinion, or a conspiracy theory. Claiming that something is just your opinion when challenging objective facts is a weak and flawed argument. 

And when all else fails, and your denial of the facts fails to hold up, you pull out the old, the good outweighs the bad card. Well fine, if the insurmountable number of flaws throughout every scene in the show doesn't bother you, and is outweighed by what you enjoy, then you have every right to claim that in your subjective opinion, GoT is a good show. It doesn't change the fact that these flaws have run rampant throughout the past few seasons, and when judged objectively, the writing in the show fails miserably. In my opinion, your scales are completely out of whack, and are in seriousness need of calibration.

I grow weary of engaging in such pointless discussions with you, so this will be my final response on this matter. Have a nice day.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2017 at 7:48 PM, Nevets said:

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.

Emmy's definitely reward shows past their prime for their past glories. But in Game of Thrones case, I think it's just that the competition has gotten easier. Season 4 is arguably the shows quality peak but it was up against the final season of Breaking Bad.

I think it should have lost to Mad Men in Season 5, but the general non-book fan audience doesn't consider S5 or S6 to be a drastic step down from S1-4. Season 5 only suffers when you compare it to the books. It's still a pretty damn good season of television.

I didn't read the books until after S5 and I regarded it better than S2 and roughly on par with S3. Dorne stuff was terrible even for a non-book reader, but it was only one plot line among ~8 main storylines. I though Stannis's stuff was a slightly rushed (1 or 2 more episodes stuck in the snow would have aided the story I think), but overall a very good storyline.

After reading, I'm not sure my views changed much. Book Dorne is pretty awful, but D&D changed it and didn't make it better, that is on them. I don't see why they even included it in the first place. Stannis's downfall isn't part of the books that have been finished. I don't have any huge problem with combining Sansa and fAyra. I liked having Tyrion meet Dany. I don't get why Barristan was killed off. Seems like a waste, but Book Barristan is boring. I think the show should have kept Barristan around to give Tyrion a foil in S6.

The biggest problem S5 is that the first half is dreadfully boring. But S2 and S3 have the same problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, King Behind The Wall said:

But they were nowhere near the same quality as the first three. For example, there was no crapfest like Dorne in first three seasons. Dorne is one of the most compelling plots in the books. Removal of key characters such as Arianne due to shortage of time led to Dorne becoming an unintentional joke on screen.

Season 4 is the shows best IMO. Dany's S2 arc is pretty much a crapfest like Dorne S5. As is Theon's S3 torture porn arc.

Dorne is pretty awful in AFFC/ADWD. The show somehow made it worse. But it still sucked.

Share this post


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

  Yeah sure, you keep telling yourself that. 

You clearly aren't interested in having an open minded discussion, and It's quite obvious that you'll stubbornly defend your position regardless of any compelling and factual arguments presented to the contrary. You really seem to have trouble distinguishing between subjective opinions and objective facts, and take it so far as to inserting your own personal definition of words to attempt to defend your precious show. The only defense you can come up with is to claim that everything is just my opinion, or a conspiracy theory. Claiming that something is just your opinion when challenging objective facts is a weak and flawed argument. 

And when all else fails, and your denial of the facts fails to hold up, you pull out the old, the good outweighs the bad card. Well fine, if the insurmountable number of flaws throughout every scene in the show doesn't bother you, and is outweighed by what you enjoy, then you have every right to claim that in your subjective opinion, GoT is a good show. It doesn't change the fact that these flaws have run rampant throughout the past few seasons, and when judged objectively, the writing in the show fails miserably. In my opinion, your scales are completely out of whack, and are in seriousness need of calibration.

I grow weary of engaging in such pointless discussions with you, so this will be my final response on this matter. Have a nice day.

What facts? You haven't used facts to support your arguments, you've used theories. Theories without providing proof to support them. Did you expect me to take your word for it? That's not how this works. If you want me to take your theories seriously, you need to provide indisputable facts to defend your case.

I'm trying to have an open minded discussion with you, but you're not giving me anything to work with, only an analogy about shoes. I asked specifically what you mean by the fundamentals of good storytelling and how GOT fails to meet these fundamentals, but all you said was to look at the criticisms made at the show from one forum. This was a lazy response, especially considering I've admitted the show has flaws, but so do every other show. If these flaws keep GOT from being high quality, then no show can be considered high quality.

Share this post


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

What facts? You haven't used facts to support your arguments, you've used theories. Theories without providing proof to support them. Did you expect me to take your word for it? That's not how this works. If you want me to take your theories seriously, you need to provide indisputable facts to defend your case.

I'm trying to have an open minded discussion with you, but you're not giving me anything to work with, only an analogy about shoes. I asked specifically what you mean by the fundamentals of good storytelling and how GOT fails to meet these fundamentals, but all you said was to look at the criticisms made at the show from one forum. This was a lazy response, especially considering I've admitted the show has flaws, but so do every other show. If these flaws keep GOT from being high quality, then no show can be considered high quality.

The show has been VERY poorly plotted since parts of season 4.....where characters actions do not make sense within the story the show has been telling....there are huge continuity issues in terms of sometimes basic things that apologists have to do create huge, intricate back stories in order to justify.  I would also say the casting itself has dropped in quality, the guy playing Euron is awful and hugely miscast.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

The show has been VERY poorly plotted since parts of season 4.....where characters actions do not make sense within the story the show has been telling....there are huge continuity issues in terms of sometimes basic things that apologists have to do create huge, intricate back stories in order to justify.  I would also say the casting itself has dropped in quality, the guy playing Euron is awful and hugely miscast.  

Again, that is your opinion, not shared by everyone. You may hate show Euron, but I know people who love him. Neither of you is right, neither of you is wrong, because quality is subjective.

Share this post


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

Again, that is your opinion, not shared by everyone. You may hate show Euron, but I know people who love him. Neither of you is right, neither of you is wrong, because quality is subjective.

Then why bother to ask for reasons or facts if the response is that it's opinion.  I think that it IS a fact that the show has been poorly plotted and full of continuity errors, but if you try hard enough you can create some rationale for it, even if said rationale isn't in the show, LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

 

Fine, one more response, and then I'm done.

Quote

What facts? You haven't used facts to support your arguments, you've used theories.

No, the facts are that Got suffers from a multitude of flaws, ranging from gaping plot holes, inconsistencies in details and established in world rules and facts. Character inconsistencies and unplausable motives and actions. Non existent consequences for characters actions. Anachronistic dialogue and costume designs. The need for assumed off screen anachronistic technologies to explain the unfeasible time line... Just to name a few. The issues present in this show are endless.

You admit that these flaws exist, and then wave them away with the declaration that you don't care, and that the good outweighs the bad. I'm sorry but that's not how an objective critique of a work of literature works. Like I said many times, you refuse to acknowledge the difference between your subjective opinion that it is a good show, and an objective analysis.

And yes, my responses were lazy. I'm not going to waste my time typing out the numerous failings of the show considering  that firstly, you are well aware of them, secondly they are well documented, repetitively all over this forum, and thirdly, just so you can just pick and choose what flaws you think matter. Just look at your response regarding Dorne. These scenes are arguably the worst thing I have ever seen come across my television screen. But oh no, those scenes don't count as criteria to judge the quality of the show on because you say so. :rolleyes:  

Quote

Theories without providing proof to support them. Did you expect me to take your word for it? That's not how this works. If you want me to take your theories seriously, you need to provide indisputable facts to defend your case.

These theories have nothing to do with my assertion that Got is a poorly written show. You are the one who brought up the awards, and tried to use them as evidence that the show can't be poorly written because they won some meaningless awards. Whether you believe these awards to be legit or not, your argument is still circular reasoning, which renders your point moot.

Edited by Darkstream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

Then why bother to ask for reasons or facts if the response is that it's opinion.  I think that it IS a fact that the show has been poorly plotted and full of continuity errors, but if you try hard enough you can create some rationale for it, even if said rationale isn't in the show, LOL.

But you didn't provide any reasons or facts. You provided vague criticisms without going into any detail or giving examples. I could throw those criticisms at any other show, but without the evidence to support it, I'd be wasting my time.

Share this post


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

Fine, one more response, and then I'm done.

No, the facts are that Got suffers from a multitude of flaws, ranging from gaping plot holes, inconsistencies in details and established in world rules and facts. Character inconsistencies and unplausable motives and actions. Non existent consequences for characters actions. Anachronistic dialogue and costume designs. The need for assumed off screen anachronistic technologies to explain the unfeasible time line... Just to name a few. The issues present in this show are endless.

You admit that these flaws exist, and then wave them away with the declaration that you don't care, and that the good outweighs the bad. I'm sorry but that's not how an objective critique of a work of literature works. Like I said many times, you refuse to acknowledge the difference between your subjective opinion that it is a good show, and an objective analysis.

Look at my response to Cas Stark. Throwing criticisms at the show without giving details or examples isn't going tot cut it. And yes, I admit there are flaws, and I never said I don't care. I focus more on the positive aspects of a show than the negative ones. If the negatives begin to overshadow the positives and dampen my enjoyment of the show, then that's when I stop seeing it as high quality. You continue to overlook one of my arguments, which is that every show has flaws. If flaws and imperfections stop GOT from being high quality, then no show should be considered high quality.

 

9 hours ago, Darkstream said:

And yes, my responses were lazy. I'm not going to waste my time typing out the numerous failings of the show considering  that firstly, you are well aware of them, secondly they are well documented, repetitively all over this forum, and thirdly, just so you can just pick and choose what flaws you think matter. Just look at your response regarding Dorne. These scenes are arguably the worst thing I have ever seen come across my television screen. But oh no, those scenes don't count as criteria to judge the quality of the show on because you say so. :rolleyes:  

If you're not prepared to properly support your argument with examples from the show, then why bother making your arguments in the first place? Right now, you're asking me to take you at your word, but that's not how discussions work. You need to make me believe you and accept your side of the argument, but you're not even attempting to do that. As for the bolded, of course you can judge the show based on any criteria you want. That's the whole point of my argument. Quality is subjective. If you want to hate the show because of Dorne or for any other reason, that's your prerogative and I will always respect that.

 

9 hours ago, Darkstream said:

These theories have nothing to do with my assertion that Got is a poorly written show. You are the one who brought up the awards, and tried to use them as evidence that the show can't be poorly written because they won some meaningless awards. Whether you believe these awards to be legit or not, your argument is still circular reasoning, which renders your point moot.

After you tried to assert that it was a fact that GOT was a bad show, I was simply using critics and award voters to show that if it was such a fact, these professionals would have picked up on it. You then proceeded to try and discredit them, but you failed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

  I would also say the casting itself has dropped in quality, the guy playing Euron is awful and hugely miscast.  

 

I would agree with both counts here. I thought the guy playing Euron was probably the worst casting to date on GoT.  I'm not sure if I'd feel as strongly if I didn't have a preconceived notion of the character from reading the books, but either way, I thought he was just horrible. His acting immediately took me out of the scene, not that the script wasn't sufficient in doing that already as it was, and I didn't think he looked the part either. I couldn't help but thinking of a biker when I saw him. It's a good thing that he wasn't wearing the same jacket that Jaimie was in the castle stokeworth scene, when getting ready to set off on his dude bro trip with Bronn, I believe it was.

Another casting I would change, or rather unchange, is the guy who plays Darrio. Im pretty sure I'm in the minority here, but I much preferred the actor who originally played the role.

Edited by Darkstream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

But you didn't provide any reasons or facts. You provided vague criticisms without going into any detail or giving examples. I could throw those criticisms at any other show, but without the evidence to support it, I'd be wasting my time.

My reasons and facts are in dozens if not hundreds of posts on the rant and rave and show episode threads.  As are those of other show critics.  I am not going to relitigate here Stannis being in walking distance from Winterfell, which only took Sansa/Brienne a couple of days to get to the Wall from WF, or the abject illogic of Sansa/Ramsay, Arya and the Hound announcing their true identities at the Vale and then walking away, Dorne or any of the other plot holes, logic fails and continuity lapses, because I've been there, done that.  There is always an excuse, as I said, a non filmed back story, or some reason why these failures are explained away.

PS to Darkstream:  I also liked Daario I better, Daario II is a better actor but so blah, another white guy with brown hair like everyone else on the show.  I thought the Euron casting was really poor and had actually thought it was so underwhelming they would recast him as they have done so many, many times before.  

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.