Kenton Stark

9 hours ago, Gargarax said:

Thanks for your answer! I agree with you up to a point - though there are masterpieces in film and literature that will never find a big audience, and there are commercially successful blockbusters (Transformers comes to mind) that are shit in almost every regard. But I guess it's true that something that is very successful and liked by many must do something well. I always like a food analogy to explain my problem: millions of people buy Big Macs and like eating them, myself included, but by no culinary standard is this "good food"

I think with GoT that's not the story though, but the spectacle. It has dragons and battles, that are well done for a TV-show, and while "Hardhome" left me cold emotionally, I admit I quite enjoyed the action, the setting and the atmosphere. If the show was truly boring, I wouldn't be watching it still. I criticise it because I think it could be so much the better show if the writers cared for their characters as much as they do for the penis jokes and the spectacle. They have such a huge budget, some really talented actors and a great fictional world to tell their story in - this shows on the screen, and this I think you really can enjoy - just why, why don't they invest a bit more in the scripts.

Again, I'm understand that many people really love the show and are not bothered by what bothers me - that's fine with me. I kind of got back at you (maybe a bit too harshly, sorry) because in these threads we who give a critical rating sometimes get irrationally angry reactions, which I find deplorable. I like reading different opinions, because they give me something to think about.

That is a very well thought out and intelligent post. What you said is very reasonable. The Big Mac analogy was great. In my mind the show could do certain things better. My pet peeve is the lack of Direwolves importance. But I guess I'm comparing it to what else is available on TV, not to what I think it could be.

I can't think of anything else on TV that comes close to entertaining me or making me want an episode to last longer than GOT does.

Based on your criteria if I understand it correctly, I have a better understanding of why you might give it a negative rating. I can totally respect that.

 My ratings are comparing it against other available and similar mediums. So in my rating system (there have been very few shows in the history of television that compare to the top three episodes of any GOT season IMHO) I'm basically comparing it to other shows and their individual episodes that I would rather watch. Does that make sense?

No worries about getting back at me on your response. I don't think you said anything out of line. Besides, I'm old, thick skinned and battle harden. 

17 hours ago, Darkstream said:

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you there. Sure, the show is successful, but that is not indicative of good story telling. 

Do you honestly think the show would be as popular as it is if they had a substantial smaller budget to work with? Would as many people tune in if there were no CGI dragons or battle scenes? If they didn't have amazingly elaborate sets, and beautiful locals to film their story at?

A large majority of viewers tune in for the spectacle that is GoT, not because of the quality story.  Would you say that movies like the Transformers are telling a good story, or programs like Jersey shore and the Kardashiawhatevers? All very popular and successful programs.

You make some good points. Just curious, what other shows would you say are much better than GOT? Again, I'm comparing apples to apples. The show will never be as good as the books. I'll agree, I wish the show was closer to the books and could definitely be improved. But as I stated above, I can't remember ever looking forward to watching a TV show as much as GOT and that's really my measuring stick.

13 hours ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

Can you really not name one successful thing that you don't like?

Popularity doesn't necessarily equate to quality.

GoT broke through a wall surrounding public consciousness - I would argue on the strength and hooks of the first three books - into the realm of cultural phenomenon, a place where everybody tunes in because nobody wants to miss out when everyone else is talking about it. As a result, most people don't care about the storytelling. They care about the talking points. This is why GoT gets away with such nonsensical and slapdash storytelling. The majority of viewers don't give a shit as long as there's something to talk about and they're blinded to its flaws due to its position in the realm of cultural phenomenon.

you are correct Popularity does not necessarily equate to quality. Yes the show could be better. But again, I can't remember ever anticipating, enjoying and looking forward to the next episode of any other show as much as I do GOT. I compare it with other show, not with what it could be.  If I compared it to what it could be, then yes I would rate it lower.

If you compare the greatest QB of all time to what he could have been versus other QBs then he will be rated lower. But compared to all other QBs he was a 10/10.

The greatest baseball hitters of all time( Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Willie Mayes, Hank Aaron, Jeter, etc)  would be less than a 4/10 because they failed to be as good as they could have been more than 60% of the time. No hitter ever averaged .400 for his career. But compared to all other baseball players in history those guys are a 10/10.

On ‎8‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 3:48 PM, Gargarax said:

Forgive me, but I don't think you understand much about storytelling or fiction if you make statements like that. A good story is above all a plausible story, which means that characters act, react and speak plausibly. Realism within a work of fiction means that what happens must follow all laws at work in this fictional world. Of course the author can make character say anything, but every character is a construct that builds up in the mind of the reader/viewer, and whatever the do or say next has to fit tat construct.

Critical viewers are not smug, they simply have other expectations than you have. Expectation as to how the passing of time is handled (nobody wants to see travelling, but there are many other ways to suggest Eastwatch is not a hour's travel from Dragonstone).

Apply your argument to another topic and you'll see how silly it is: Does it make sense to say that everybody who doesn't like Trump's politics should just shut up, that you can either agree with him or say nothing at all? Stupid, right, for the same reason it's stupid here. If people like something, there will and should be a discourse around why they like it, and if the disklike it, there should be a discourse there as well.

Being critical of the show is not at all bad for me, it's actually the opposite. There is no other show that has taught me more what poor storytelling is than Game of Thrones, and as I teach literature and occasionally film, discussing the show's flaws makes me better at my job. I even use scenes as examples of how not to tell something (though I also use some good scenes as positive examples).

I have no problems with people who like this show - good on you! Live and let live. Doing the opposite - making angry comments about people who's opinion differs from your own – seems pretty immature to me and contributes to the bad atmosphere in these threads so much more than the often well-explained criticism of the show.

I respect your opinion. My statement was directed more towards negative people in general. Again, if someone doesn't like Trump's policies they should voice their opinion because its real world stuff that impacts real people.

This is  fictional show. I wasn't angry when I made my post. Just stating my opinion. If the show was as bad as some people consistently rate it , the show wouldn't be so popular. However, if I came across as attacking an individual, rather than a general negative mind set, that was not my intention. You've certainly given me something to think about, especially how my comments could be perceived.

Good storytelling is successful storytelling. The show is incredibly successful. They are accomplishing their goal. Different opinions are great. . An individual may disagree with the way its being done, they may have several ideas about improving it, but this is successful storytelling.

I know some people want to be smug and be negative about everything, but really?

So fire breathing dragons, Ice demons that create and control zombies,  a fire god that allows his servants to raise people from the dead are all good, but everything else ( like the TV series only showing you  relevant character interaction not the boring time it takes the to travel) is so unrealistic if bothers you?!?

or when someone says "Character X would never say that or Character Z would never do that"/ They are fictional characters and do and say exactly what the creators of the fictional medium decide what they should do or say

relax and enjoy the show or don't watch it, that type of negativity is bad for you

8-The whole Cat thing was stupid unless they have something big planned around it later. Which could happen.

QOT was amazing. the way Marg acted so casual when Sansa confirmed Joff was a monster was a great bit of subtle acting, she's not sweating it.

The Breine and Jamie fight was very lame, have some real martial artist train these people if they are going to be some of the greatest fighters in Westros

Hate Talissa and the way the show is destroying Robb's character.

Theon scenes were good

Did anyone else catch Jojen's comment. "I SAW it" talking about the rebellion. Maybe Jojen seeing the rebellion and possibly the TOJ incident will give Bran and us some much needed info. Like J=R+L, how Howland saved Ned or if N+W=J. What do you guys think?