Biggest show failures over Seasons 1-4

[Dragon in the North]

Thats pretty weak reasoning.

And it isnt some random people in your town that matter, its the entire audience. Critics, awards, everything. Bad writing means less recognition by the elites which does matter in Hollywood and definitely to HBO. This show would have more awards and recognition if D&D actually took the time and wrote a story that made sense.

Miodrag is right. It makes NO sense for Tyrion to risk everything and go see his father in the show. He very well could have ran into guards and he would have went right back to jail, Tyrion knows this as an intelligent man. Going back to see him was only something that he did out of anger and despair. It makes sense for an intelligent man to forget his wits in a time of emotional pain, but Tyrion going back in the show just doesnt add up.

Its not like it needed the Tysha scene, but it needed something to make sense so that Tyrion confronted Tywin but had nothing; thus its less realistic, thus wasnt as good as D&D thought it was going to be(Best episode ever according to them......no, no it was not D&D sorry. Had potential to be the best if you did it right, but you did not. You failed.)

GOT is universally acclaimed by critics and show watchers alike and have won several awards while being nominated for quite a bit more. The fact is that prestigious awards hate the fantasy genre and there is no way you could guarantee they would have won more if they gave a page to page adaptation.

Tyrion wanted the man dead who just tried to kill him. It's the most basic motive known to man and I am yet to see any Unsullied post, "What? Why would Tyrion want to kill his father? It makes no sense." Also, he was using the secret tunnels under the Red Keep that Varys had shown him, so running into guards was a nonexistent risk. You're right though, it wasn't as good as D&D thought and could have been much better. I am not contesting that fact, I am simply saying the scene isn't as far-fetched as book readers believe.

[Dragon in the North]

That the best you can do? Nothing more innovative than a textbook case of strawman argument?

I'm not trying to start anything, if that's what you're implying. I was only looking for clarification.

Are you saying there is no way to objectively determine which show is better, GoT or The Wire? Or, GoT vs. The Sopranos?

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's all a matter of opinion.

Hey, I have no idea why are people in general so compliant toward overrated stuff. Not just GoT, but also other shows and movies and books and whatnot. Some people are simply pleased too easily, I guess. Otherwise, there wouldn't be such thing as overrated. For example, were the unsullied complaining about Jaime's nonsensical murder of his cousin Alton? They haven't, and yet, it was a completely ridiculous scene. Were the unsullied complaining about the dreadful lines spoken by Talisa? Or about last season's showdown at Craster's and all its stupidity? Yara's failed attack on Dreadfort? Arya's quasi-philosophical lines a la "nothing is nothing"? And so on. And the answer is always: no, looks like they didn't mind it at all. They're probably not paying too much attention. GoT is a weekly entertainment to them, not something they necessary think about afterwards. I'm like that with certain movies and shows that manage to entertain me without invoking any deeper investment on my part.

As for your explanation of the TV scene, sorry, it doesn't work. Not really. How was Tyrion to have the last word? How did he plan to outsmart/defeat/whatever Tywin? Let's leave Shae out of the equation for now, because, after all, Tyrion didn't have a reason to expect her there: what did he want to gain by the confrontation with Tywin?

Yes, I've seen plenty of Unsullied complaining of Talisa/Robb romance and found it to be cheesy. I've also seen a few of them complain about the Dreadfort scene and how it was badly directed. They aren't mindless drones incapable of forming their own opinions. They have valid criticisms of the show and I wouldn't brush them off if I were you.

He wasn't thinking clearly, just like Book Tyrion. He was blinded by rage, as seen when he walked away from the staircase and down the hallway. You could see how pissed he was and how, like Book Tyrion, he allowed his emotions to fuel his actions, rather than reason.

[Miodrag]

I'm not trying to start anything, if that's what you're implying. I was only looking for clarification.

What I'm saying, not implying, is pretty obvious: you're arguing against something I never said. That's what strawman typically means.

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's all a matter of opinion.

Why are you arguing with me at all then? Why would you debate with anyone on anything if "it's all a matter of opinion"? What a discussion serves for, if, as you seem to be implying, objective values and truths don't exist or are unreachable?

Yes, I've seen plenty of Unsullied complaining of Talisa/Robb romance and found it to be cheesy. I've also seen a few of them complain about the Dreadfort scene and how it was badly directed. They aren't mindless drones incapable of forming their own opinions. They have valid criticisms of the show and I wouldn't brush them off if I were you.

Strawman again. I didn't say unsullied are "mindless drones incapable of forming their own opinions". And I definitely didn't brush anyone off. I was just replying to your argument that "none of the unsullied" criticized TV Tyrion. Basically, this is what I wrote: saying something's OK because some random group from somewhere doesn't have a single problem with it is a very poor argumentation. Especially because we were discussing something very palpable: the scene of the show we all watched. No need to invoke your or anyone's unsullied friends.

He wasn't thinking clearly, just like Book Tyrion. He was blinded by rage, as seen when he walked away from the staircase and down the hallway. You could see how pissed he was and how, like Book Tyrion, he allowed his emotions to fuel his actions, rather than reason.

See, that's what you get when you leave "unsullied friends" out: a true argument. Unfortunately for you, this argument of yours is pretty weak and not in correspondence with what was seen on screen. A minute ago Tyrion was in his cell, desperately waiting for the execution. A second ago he thanked his brother for saving him. And then he's suddenly - blinded by rage?! Does that sound believable to you? And no, what I saw when he walked down the hallway is not a man blinded by rage. In real life, I've seen quite a few people blinded by rage. None of them looked like Tyrion in that scene at all. If that's what Dincklage wanted/had to convey, he's done a very poor job. And then, and then, when he enters Tywin's chamber, is he blinded by rage? Of course he isn't! I mean, it's Shae who initiates the physical confrontation with him, not the other way around. He's essentially defending himself from her, this guy you say was blinded by rage.

Book Tyrion had a damn good reason to be overwhelmed by emotions in That.Particular.Instance. TV Tyrion had no such reason. Simple as that. And that's why you really can't say "He wasn't thinking clearly, just like Book Tyrion".

[Dragon in the North]

What I'm saying, not implying, is pretty obvious: you're arguing against something I never said. That's what strawman typically means.

Again, you have failed to clarify what you meant by your first post, so I'm just going to assume you were trolling.

Why are you arguing with me at all then? Why would you debate with anyone on anything if "it's all a matter of opinion"? What a discussion serves for, if, as you seem to be implying, objective values and truths don't exist or are unreachable?

I never meant to turn this into a debate, I was only giving my thoughts on the matter. In this particular argument, there is no correct answer. I think GOT is a great show, you obviously don't. Nether one of us is right or wrong. That's what opinion means.

Strawman again. I didn't say unsullied are "mindless drones incapable of forming their own opinions". And I definitely didn't brush anyone off. I was just replying to your argument that "none of the unsullied" criticized TV Tyrion. Basically, this is what I wrote: saying something's OK because some random group from somewhere doesn't have a single problem with it is a very poor argumentation. Especially because we were discussing something very palpable: the scene of the show we all watched. No need to invoke your or anyone's unsullied friends.

You claimed that the Unsullied only view GOT as entertainment and don't give much thought about it afterwards. This is a completely baseless assumption, so no, it was not a strawman.

See, that's what you get when you leave "unsullied friends" out: a true argument. Unfortunately for you, this argument of yours is pretty weak and not in correspondence with what was seen on screen. A minute ago Tyrion was in his cell, desperately waiting for the execution. A second ago he thanked his brother for saving him. And then he's suddenly - blinded by rage?! Does that sound believable to you? And no, what I saw when he walked down the hallway is not a man blinded by rage. In real life, I've seen quite a few people blinded by rage. None of them looked like Tyrion in that scene at all. If that's what Dincklage wanted/had to convey, he's done a very poor job. And then, and then, when he enters Tywin's chamber, is he blinded by rage? Of course he isn't! I mean, it's Shae who initiates the physical confrontation with him, not the other way around. He's essentially defending himself from her, this guy you say was blinded by rage.

How is it a weak argument? Tywin put him in prison, gave him a kangaroo trial and sentenced him to death, after a lifetime of abuse and neglect. When Tyrion was lying in his cell, his father sentencing him to death would have been the last thing he heard. I think you and I interpreted the scene differently, because to me, he looked mad as hell, which is plausible under the circumstances. People don't behave rationally 100% of the time. There are many variables that could lead someone into making an irrational and hasty decision without thinking of the consequences. For example, Tyrion steaming in his cell as he awaits his execution, thinking only of the man who put him there. Angry people make bad decisions in the spur of the moment and think irrationally. The lack of the Tysha reveal pissed off book readers because it's a change and an exclusion, not because it screwed up the show's logic. And I believe that the Unsullied views on the matter is important to this argument because they are more objective than book readers. No one, except book readers expecting Tysha, was confused by that scene and they didn't spot any inconsistency in Tyrion's character. Maybe you should consider that.

[Miodrag]

@Dragon in the North

For someone who's accusing other people of trolling, your posting style too often looks too much like - trolling. Not to mention those parts that are plainly illogical and pure D&D apologia.

Again, you have failed to clarify what you meant by your first post, so I'm just going to assume you were trolling.

I didn't fail to clarify anything, because I wasn't trying to. I was just replying to your own trolling, which begun with your very wrong, but trollingly convenient "interpretation" of the word apologia. For your information, apologia means exactly what Kyrion described as the mentality of some posters on this site: defending the show is their number one priority. Whether they happen to agree with every decision D&D made or not is irrelevant and I never speculated on that, opposite to what you implied. What matters is that when someone else criticizes the show their first reaction is always to defend it, usually by derailing the discussion toward issues like the show's popularity, or, one of my favorites, by attacking "book purism" which is an ever convenient strawman, even it not present.

Posters like those pretty much exist everywhere on this forum, and even in this thread: you seem to be the prime example.

I never meant to turn this into a debate, I was only giving my thoughts on the matter. In this particular argument, there is no correct answer. I think GOT is a great show, you obviously don't. Nether one of us is right or wrong. That's what opinion means.

What I do fail to understand is what are opinions good for in your concept. It's simply impossible both of us are right. The show can't be both good and bad. Depending on the criteria we agree on, some kind of a conclusion on the true value of the show, or any other form of storytelling, can be reached. If popularity is the criteria, then GoT is an excellent show. If the financial success is the criteria, same thing. If the general buzz is the criteria, GoT could very well be in the league of its own at the moment. However, if what you recognize as the critical acclaim is the criteria, things don't look so simple any more, because vast majority of "reviews" are nothing but recaps with occasional comic reliefs and witty remarks. Considering how much HBO invested in the promotion of GoT and what lengths they're going every year in order to advertise it as The Show of the decade, I'm really not surprised at the easy approach many of the critics embraced in their "reviews". But, if placed under scrutiny, those "reviews" are obviously lacking, for a number of reasons. Lacking not because they disagree with me or anyone, but lacking in comparison with reviews of other shows by the same reviewers, and in comparison to some other more demanding reviewers, and in comparison to what TV reviews definitely should be. When the season starts, just read through "Nitpick without repercussion" threads that are started after each episode, and you'll see how much stuff those professional "reviews" fail to cover or address in any meaningful way, stuff that is otherwise pretty obvious for regular viewers that post in those threads. Even if we disregard occasional nitpicking (and in those not so often instances posters themselves are usually aware they're nitpicking and openly admit it, hence the ironical title for the threads), we're left with great many examples of poor storytelling that are never addressed in so-called "professional reviews".

And if the writing is the criteria, then, sorry to say, GoT is among the most poorly written shows in recent memory. And of course I mean the material exclusively added or changed by the showrunners, which is the true reflection of their talent and creativity. Between diamonds-returning Shae, money-returning whores, entire subplots that are completely nonsensical (Craster's, Yara at Dreadfort, Cat releasing Jaime, Amory Lorch, Qhorin, Ygritt in season 2) and any number of other elements or aspects that are ridiculous, GoT is nowhere near respectable shows both you and I mentioned.

But, you seem to be arguing that every opinion is as valid as any other. If that is the case, then what could be the point of any opinion? What would be the point of conflict of opinions? I honestly don't see the logic behind this relativism of yours.

You claimed that the Unsullied only view GOT as entertainment and don't give much thought about it afterwards. This is a completely baseless assumption, so no, it was not a strawman.

I did no such thing. What I said is that an unsullied who didn't have any problem with Tyrion's sudden and completely irrational decision to abandon the escape he otherwise craved so desperately, most probably doesn't pay too much attention to the show anyway. That is rather different than what you claim I was saying.

How is it a weak argument? Tywin put him in prison, gave him a kangaroo trial and sentenced him to death, after a lifetime of abuse and neglect. When Tyrion was lying in his cell, his father sentencing him to death would have been the last thing he heard. I think you and I interpreted the scene differently, because to me, he looked mad as hell, which is plausible under the circumstances. People don't behave rationally 100% of the time. There are many variables that could lead someone into making an irrational and hasty decision without thinking of the consequences. For example, Tyrion steaming in his cell as he awaits his execution, thinking only of the man who put him there. Angry people make bad decisions in the spur of the moment and think irrationally. The lack of the Tysha reveal pissed off book readers because it's a change and an exclusion, not because it screwed up the show's logic.

If you stop for a second and think about what you're writing, I guess you yourself will see it doesn't make sense. Tywin put him in prison, you say. No, actually, Tywin didn't put him in prison, Cersei did. His father sentenced him to death, you say. No, actually, Tyrion was the one who demanded a trial by combat after Tywin agreed with Jaime he, Tyrion, will be spared.

But even that aside, saying "but it was an irrational decision so it can't be explained" is as weak an argument as they come. Competent storytellers never rely on such a weak reasoning. Because, you know, literally anything can be "explained" that way. If a character's abrupt irrationality is sufficient, then anything makes sense, which effectively means nothing makes sense.

And I believe that the Unsullied views on the matter is important to this argument because they are more objective than book readers. No one, except book readers expecting Tysha, was confused by that scene and they didn't spot any inconsistency in Tyrion's character. Maybe you should consider that.

Unsullied more objective than book readers? Are you for real? Not to mention that a moment ago you were saying every opinion is equally subjective/objective as any other opinion, but now, all of a sudden, unsullied viewers are more objective! Speaking of logical fallacies.

By the way, I know unsullied viewers that didn't understand what could possibly motivate Tyrion to abandon the escape and visit Tywin. Some of them were very dissatisfied, actually, because "Character changed his/her mind without any reason whatsoever other than it being convenient for the plot to venture into another potentially perilous situation that will turn out fine eventually" is among the oldest and most abused cliches in the history of motion pictures (not so much in literature, where it can't be as easily distracted from). And yes, without Tysha or any other reason that could possibly replace Tysha, Tyrion's irrationality at the absolute best looks like a mindless cliche. If the entire sequence doesn't look like a cliche, it's just because of how it ends (Tywin's death), and that, the ending, is really not something D&D should be credited for.

I don't see how could an unsullied viewer even begin to understand whose storytelling competence saved whatever could be saved in that scene, D&D's or Martin's. And you should definitely consider that.

[dsug]

We don't know for sure if Tyrion intended to kill Twyin when he first went there. He wasn't thinking clearly. He might have just wanted to tell him off. But then Shae was there and then....

[Miodrag]

We don't know for sure if Tyrion intended to kill Twyin when he first went there. He wasn't thinking clearly. He might have just wanted to tell him off. But then Shae was there and then....

To tell him off? Does that sound realistic to you? "I'm gonna stop by my father, who controls the realm and the penal system I'm actually escaping at the moment, just to tell him off" - that's not just irrational, that's both suicidal and unbelievably stupid.

By the way, I'm not saying you're wrong in your assumption. Nor that you're right, of course. I'm saying it's impossible to identify any mindset or thought-processing or whatever that inspired Tyrion to abandon his escape. Yours guess is probably as good as any, because D&D obviously didn't think it through when they decided to remove the Tysha reveal and not replace it with some other revelation/reason/whatever that pushes Tyrion over the edge.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Tyrion definitely was planning to use that crossbow. Or he could have expected to use it to defend himself (he definitely couldn't know in what vulnerable position his father was at the moment :lol:). The thing is that he brought it to face Tywin. Either he wanted answers, or he was planning to kill him or wanted him as a hostage or whatever. I can't remember if he had it after he killed Shae, but definitely, he was fed up with Tywin's shit (npi) and he faced him armed.

Whether he planned on using it to kill Tywin or not, Tywin's complete disregard for his son's feelings caused him to shot. End of story. He meant to as soon as he insulted Tysha. It wasn't a "oops!". Tyrion did what Tywin taught him: do as you promise. Tywin insulting Tysha was a catalyst for Tyrion's anger, not all of the years of abuse or humiliations, because Tysha was the only good think Tyrion ever had, and Tywin took it away. Tysha's being sent away was what formed Tyrion as the man he's nowadays.

[Lady Fevre Dream]

Tyrion definitely was planning to use that crossbow. Or he could have expected to use it to defend himself (he definitely couldn't know in what vulnerable position his father was at the moment :lol:). The thing is that he brought it to face Tywin. Either he wanted answers, or he was planning to kill him or wanted him as a hostage or whatever. I can't remember if he had it after he killed Shae, but definitely, he was fed up with Tywin's shit (npi) and he faced him armed.

Whether he planned on using it to kill Tywin or not, Tywin's complete disregard for his son's feelings caused him to shot. End of story. He meant to as soon as he insulted Tysha. It wasn't a "oops!". Tyrion did what Tywin taught him: do as you promise. Tywin insulting Tysha was a catalyst for Tyrion's anger, not all of the years of abuse or humiliations, because Tysha was the only good think Tyrion ever had, and Tywin took it away. Tysha's being sent away was what formed Tyrion as the man he's nowadays.

I still cannot find a very valid reason for ShowTyrion to have gone up to Tywin's chambers in the first place. ShowTyrion is entirely too well adjusted, as well as intelligent, to have taken that extra walk in the first place. There was no incentive to do this at all. He didn't just lose his best protector and friend, Jaime. He didn't find out the lie of the nonwhore who did love him, and without mind blowing incentive.........there is too much risk and too little reason for going to Tywin's chambers in the first place. Without the......nothing left to lose, ie Jaime, ie most of the delusions his life was built on thanks to the Tysha lie.................Show Tyrion is just too smart, too well adjusted to bother endangering his escape as well as his life, IMO

[Mister Stoneheart]

My biggest disappointment with the show, as Fevre discussed above in relation to Tywin and Tyrion, is that D&D are fairly successful in knocking off the 'what' on their bullet list of the show. What happens--Tyrion is freed, Tyrion confronts Shae, Tyrion kills her, Tyrion kills his Dad.

They seem to be less interested in the 'why'. Why does Jaime release Tyrion? Why does Tyrion confront his father? Why does Tyrion kill him and Shae?

The 'what' (happens) is neatly ticked off. The 'why' is left wanting.

[dsug]

I think a big part is Shae. In the books, Shae is just some hoe Tyrion fools around with. In the show, they are legitimately in love. Tywin threatened to kill her, turned her against him, and then slept with her. Tyrion is rightfully more than a little pissed about that.

[Le Cygne]

But he had just killed her himself, so...

[JonCon's Red Beard]

But he had just killed her himself, so...

Tywin made him kill her :dunno:

[Le Cygne]

My biggest disappointment with the show, as Fevre discussed above in relation to Tywin and Tyrion, is that D&D are fairly successful in knocking off the 'what' on their bullet list of the show. What happens--Tyrion is freed, Tyrion confronts Shae, Tyrion kills her, Tyrion kills his Dad.

They seem to be less interested in the 'why'. Why does Jaime release Tyrion? Why does Tyrion confront his father? Why does Tyrion kill him and Shae?

The 'what' (happens) is neatly ticked off. The 'why' is left wanting.

Yes, this. And they also switch the 'who' too easily, too. Because the 'why' is about the 'who'...

[Krusty Kraken]

The Asha /Yara rescue thing makes no fucking sense, and it's completely pointless, also, how can the ironborn make an attack on the Dreadfort when it's on the other side of Westeros? It does not fit with Theon remembering who he is at the end of ADWD at all too...

[YouSnowNothing]

It's a toss-up for me which is more bizarre - Asha's inconsequential attack on the dreadfort, only to be scared off by dogs(!), or Bran's poorly directed fight with fantasy RPG skeletons. Both stand out to me as Big Lipped Alligator Moments, and would be fighting for worst scene in the series if it weren't for THAT Jaime/Cersei scene.

I'm going to go slightly left-field with the show's biggest failure and say that it's the pacing and structure of season four.

[TheWeepingKnight]

The Asha /Yara rescue thing makes no fucking sense, and it's completely pointless, also, how can the ironborn make an attack on the Dreadfort when it's on the other side of Westeros? It does not fit with Theon remembering who he is at the end of ADWD at all too...

I doubt D&D have the competence (or they simply don't care) to truly handly everything with Reek/Theon in ADWD. His arc in Season 2 was utterly laughable (why the hell do have the make him an utter embarrasment who gets humiliated every single scene he's in!?), Season 3... errggghhh. And considering how Winterfell looks in Season 5, I don't expect any wonderful, beautiful directing to maked up for the horrendous writing either. And Jeyne is apparently gone another massive guttering of Theon's arc. Allen's performance is fine though I never seen Theon at all in his performance.

I'm likely going to find it actually hilarious with how terrible it is going to get with all the terrible deviations (Hardhome, the stupidity of Daenerys' arc, the bad dialogue of Tyrion/Varys, the bad directing and acting, painful show writer dialogue). Oh that was present throughout all the other Seasons, but this? Kicking it up tenfold. I'm going to have a blast laughing at Season 5.

[TheWeepingKnight]

It's a toss-up for me which is more bizarre - Asha's inconsequential attack on the dreadfort, only to be scared off by dogs(!), or Bran's poorly directed fight with fantasy RPG skeletons. Both stand out to me as Big Lipped Alligator Moments, and would be fighting for worst scene in the series if it weren't for THAT Jaime/Cersei scene.

I'm going to go slightly left-field with the show's biggest failure and say that it's the pacing and structure of season four.

It's utterly baffling that one of the most brilliant scenes in the series (arriving at Bloodraven's cave) was put together by begging for money and as a result was barely even memorable yet they wasted money on those fucking stupid, embarrasing skeletons that were totally unnecessary. Not that we should be surprised, the directors have constantly failed whenever adapting the eerie, scary scenes from the books by reducing them to either cliche horror clicks (the prologue adaption from Will's POV), laughable sequences (Sam slaying the Other) and silly action flicks like with the spooky scary skeletons. Quite telling that D&D thought The Children was THE episode that would ge them big respect from other writers. An absolute mess of an episode.

[TheWeepingKnight]

There's also this rubbish of episode 9 having to have some big event. Ned's execution and Blackwater made sense as that would be the most necessary episode to adapt them with the finale covering the remaining chapters though after that? The Red Wedding would have happened earlier than episode 9 and the siege of the Wall/battle of Castle Black was a desperate attempt to emulate their success with Blackwater 2 year prior. As oppose to placing events where they work best, there's some arbitrary quota that must be fulfilled.

[Dragon in the North]

I didn't fail to clarify anything, because I wasn't trying to. I was just replying to your own trolling, which begun with your very wrong, but trollingly convenient "interpretation" of the word apologia. For your information, apologia means exactly what Kyrion described as the mentality of some posters on this site: defending the show is their number one priority. Whether they happen to agree with every decision D&D made or not is irrelevant and I never speculated on that, opposite to what you implied. What matters is that when someone else criticizes the show their first reaction is always to defend it, usually by derailing the discussion toward issues like the show's popularity, or, one of my favorites, by attacking "book purism" which is an ever convenient strawman, even it not present.

In effort to return this discussion a little more civil, I apologize if any of my posting sounded like trolling. I assure you, that was not my intent. When I posted that I didn't think that there were any D&D apologists on this forum and you responded with "Oh, my sweet summer child" without offering any other explanation, I wanted clarification. I am not defending the show at any cost and it's wrong to say otherwise. This is one instance where I disagree with you, and that's it. I don't care if people don't like the show and only step in if I disagree with some of their claims.

What I do fail to understand is what are opinions good for in your concept. It's simply impossible both of us are right. The show can't be both good and bad. Depending on the criteria we agree on, some kind of a conclusion on the true value of the show, or any other form of storytelling, can be reached. If popularity is the criteria, then GoT is an excellent show. If the financial success is the criteria, same thing. If the general buzz is the criteria, GoT could very well be in the league of its own at the moment. However, if what you recognize as the critical acclaim is the criteria, things don't look so simple any more, because vast majority of "reviews" are nothing but recaps with occasional comic reliefs and witty remarks. Considering how much HBO invested in the promotion of GoT and what lengths they're going every year in order to advertise it as The Show of the decade, I'm really not surprised at the easy approach many of the critics embraced in their "reviews". But, if placed under scrutiny, those "reviews" are obviously lacking, for a number of reasons. Lacking not because they disagree with me or anyone, but lacking in comparison with reviews of other shows by the same reviewers, and in comparison to some other more demanding reviewers, and in comparison to what TV reviews definitely should be. When the season starts, just read through "Nitpick without repercussion" threads that are started after each episode, and you'll see how much stuff those professional "reviews" fail to cover or address in any meaningful way, stuff that is otherwise pretty obvious for regular viewers that post in those threads. Even if we disregard occasional nitpicking (and in those not so often instances posters themselves are usually aware they're nitpicking and openly admit it, hence the ironical title for the threads), we're left with great many examples of poor storytelling that are never addressed in so-called "professional reviews".

And if the writing is the criteria, then, sorry to say, GoT is among the most poorly written shows in recent memory. And of course I mean the material exclusively added or changed by the showrunners, which is the true reflection of their talent and creativity. Between diamonds-returning Shae, money-returning whores, entire subplots that are completely nonsensical (Craster's, Yara at Dreadfort, Cat releasing Jaime, Amory Lorch, Qhorin, Ygritt in season 2) and any number of other elements or aspects that are ridiculous, GoT is nowhere near respectable shows both you and I mentioned.

But, you seem to be arguing that every opinion is as valid as any other. If that is the case, then what could be the point of any opinion? What would be the point of conflict of opinions? I honestly don't see the logic behind this relativism of yours.

But who gets to choose the criteria for what makes a good show?

I did no such thing. What I said is that an unsullied who didn't have any problem with Tyrion's sudden and completely irrational decision to abandon the escape he otherwise craved so desperately, most probably doesn't pay too much attention to the show anyway. That is rather different than what you claim I was saying.

I was wrong about the mindless drone bit, so I'm sorry. But saying that the Unsullied don't pay attention to the show is still a baseless assumption.

If you stop for a second and think about what you're writing, I guess you yourself will see it doesn't make sense. Tywin put him in prison, you say. No, actually, Tywin didn't put him in prison, Cersei did. His father sentenced him to death, you say. No, actually, Tyrion was the one who demanded a trial by combat after Tywin agreed with Jaime he, Tyrion, will be spared.

But even that aside, saying "but it was an irrational decision so it can't be explained" is as weak an argument as they come. Competent storytellers never rely on such a weak reasoning. Because, you know, literally anything can be "explained" that way. If a character's abrupt irrationality is sufficient, then anything makes sense, which effectively means nothing makes sense.

Tywin was the face of the trial and could have ended it if he wanted to, but he kept the trial going, knowing his son was innocent. The deal Tywin made with Jaime was garbage. Tyrion was never going to survive on the Wall. As for the irrational argument discussion, why does Book Tyrion get a pass for behaving irrationally? Because of Tysha? So it's ok for Tyrion to make a completely irrational decision with the Tysha reveal but not when his father sentenced him to die for a crime he didn't commit?

Unsullied more objective than book readers? Are you for real? Not to mention that a moment ago you were saying every opinion is equally subjective/objective as any other opinion, but now, all of a sudden, unsullied viewers are more objective! Speaking of logical fallacies.

By the way, I know unsullied viewers that didn't understand what could possibly motivate Tyrion to abandon the escape and visit Tywin. Some of them were very dissatisfied, actually, because "Character changed his/her mind without any reason whatsoever other than it being convenient for the plot to venture into another potentially perilous situation that will turn out fine eventually" is among the oldest and most abused cliches in the history of motion pictures (not so much in literature, where it can't be as easily distracted from). And yes, without Tysha or any other reason that could possibly replace Tysha, Tyrion's irrationality at the absolute best looks like a mindless cliche. If the entire sequence doesn't look like a cliche, it's just because of how it ends (Tywin's death), and that, the ending, is really not something D&D should be credited for.

I don't see how could an unsullied viewer even begin to understand whose storytelling competence saved whatever could be saved in that scene, D&D's or Martin's. And you should definitely consider that.

But what you're claiming isn't an opinion. When you say you didn't like the scene, that's an opinion. But then you go a step further and proclaim that the scene doesn't make sense and goes against Tyrion's state of mind. The Unsullied are more objective because they don't have the books to constantly think about when they're watching the show. What they see on the screen is the only version of events they know, so they are better at deciding whether scenes work or not. Maybe there are Unsullied who were confused by Tyrion abandoning his escape, but, personally, I haven't spoken to any, so I'll take your word for it. And I don't know what you mean by that last line.