"Fair Game: The critical universe around Game of Thrones".

[Meera of Tarth]

1 minute ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I think the difference is I have no attachment to any characters, and don't care if they are similar to their book counterparts. So I don't really mind if Jamie is comedic relief. I do care if the episode is too full of cheesy moments which are poorly shot and written.. that is something that I dislike. I felt like the last episode had far too many of those moments. The 'play' served very little purpose and wasn't entertaining, Dany's scene was bizarrely shot and written and was super cheesy. The big reveal of who created the WW was glossed over in a poorly filmed sequence. There was a lot to dislike IMO, the ending couldn't make up for it. 

But then I found the previous episode rather excellent. So it goes to show how subjective it all is.

 

yes it's subjective

but

the dialogues of the previous ones were not btter Imo.

example the sandsnakes. And let's no mention s5. I am writing with the mobile (sorry for my spelling and punctuation) and now I can't quote other parts but sandsankes and those two from Tyrion were really bad dialogue.

cheesy or not. That's the most subjective thing. I am very attached to some characters and I like when they develop; especially if they are not the same ones as always. Like in the first seasons; when we didn't know who the protagonists would be. Everyone had their place in the story and didn't serve the others. Example: Varys. So for me there were no cheesy scenes . On the contrary; they were very emotional.

as for when we discover the origin of the wws I think it was shot in that way on purpose. The same for Hodor's revelation. It was just different from what we are accostumed to.

 

[Primalsplit]

I agree with the subjectivity. I don't really care that much about characters, so don't really care about Jaime's journey that much.

I don't like Littlefinger's teleporter, dysfunctional political systems, going around moat cailin, things like shocking deaths just to make shock, unnecessarily changed dialogues and storylines from the books, Hollywood cliches, Saint Tyrion etc. It seems to me they have a lack of interest and respect for the source material; which simply offers them no benefits the way they make changes. The changes that offer them no time, production value or money advantages... My attitude changed after Barristan's death; for instance.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

5 minutes ago, Primalsplit said:

I agree with the subjectivity. I don't really care that much about characters, so don't really care about Jaime's journey that much.

I don't like Littlefinger's teleporter, dysfunctional political systems, going around moat cailin, things like shocking deaths just to make shock, unnecessarily changed dialogues and storylines from the books, Hollywood cliches, Saint Tyrion etc. It seems to me they have a lack of interest and respect for the source material; which simply offers them no benefits the way they make changes. The changes that offer them no time, production value or money advantages... My attitude changed after Barristan's death; for instance.

Fair enough, I think that most critics would be watching the show from a very different viewpoint to you, as would most people. Many wouldn't have read the books and even fewer would care much about any changes to the source material. There are even some who don't like the books or acknowledge their weaknesses.

 

[Desert Fox]

Do people honestly expect critics to judge the tv based on fidelity to the books? I understand why people in the book fandom do, but it's unreasonable to think that everyone else must do that too.

Most critics and tv viewers never will read the books. They don't give a single shit whether stuff is changed. 

The quality of an adaptation has nothing to do with its fidelity. Most adaptations only have a loose connection with the source. Hell look at HBOs other returning fantasy/drama The Leftovers. The author of the source book is conhead writer and they've still changed most characters and plot lines dramatically. 

Nobody other than a few thousand die hard fans cares that Tyrion doesn't rape a prostitute or that a extremely minor character uses two swords instead of one.

No serious reviewer sat there and criticized True Blood for "being fan fiction."  

Only crazies protested making Starbuck a girl in the remake of Battlestar. D&D could make Tyrion a buff 6'6" man and that still isn't reason to criticize the show.   

Fidelity doesn't matter. 

[Morky_Pep]

It's not book changes. I mean some readers are definitely upset about changes to the books, and that's okay. It's not a valid criticism of the show though. The big problems with the show are all in of itself. Sansa marrying Ramsey, Stannis burning Shireen, 20 good men, Dorne, Davos's motivations, Jamies character development, Dany's acquirement of the Dothraki. All these have nothing to do with the books. These are instances of sloppy writing. 

You might argue that some of these are a complaint because I am tempered by my expectations from the novel. But I don't think so. Lets look at Jamie.  We have all this character growth in season 3, and now all that has gone down the drain and hes Cersei's lapdog again. It's like if Walter White stopped his decent into evil after season 3 and wanted to become a high school teacher again. People would freak out and call it out for what it is. Bad writing. 

The people who call out this show get ridiculed as book purists. This is not about the books, its about the show. 

[The Ned's Little Girl]

36 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

D&D could make Tyrion a buff 6'6" man and that still isn't reason to criticize the show.   

Fidelity doesn't matter. 

This is waaaaaaaay off base. In an adaptation of a series of books, fidelity to the source material does matter. If they're not going to tell the same story, they have no right to call it an adaptation.

And for the millionth time, it's not simply changing the plot - making the details different from the books - that is bothersome. It's that the show is not telling the story of the books, which it really ought to do if it is adapting those very books. If the show changed all the storylines, all the characters, all the events - but still made it be about the overarching themes that GRRM is writing about (the nature of power, the meaning of honor, etc.), then it would still be an adaptation of the books because it would still be about the same things that the books are about.

If Tyrion was changed to be a buff 6'6" man in the show, there is no way that character could be Tyrion Lannister. That character would never act and react to things the way the actual Tyrion Lannister from the books does. The "Tyrion Lannister" in the show actually does act like he's really a buff 6'6" man. It's jarring and weird - and it completely butchers the point of of why Tyrion Lannister was created in the first place.

That does matter (it matters a lot) and yes, it absolutely is a reason to criticize the show.

 

[Desert Fox]

Adaptation has nothing to do with fidelity. In fact some people don't like faithful adaptations because they are unnecessary. Why even bother making an adaptation if you are going to slavishly copy it.

You may personally like faithful adaptations, but that is your subjective taste. Not a universal truth.

24 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

If Tyrion was changed to be a buff 6'6" man in the show, there is no way that character could be Tyrion Lannister. That character would never act and react to things the way the actual Tyrion Lannister from the books does. The "Tyrion Lannister" in the show actually does act like he's really a buff 6'6" man. It's jarring and weird - and it completely butchers the point of of why Tyrion Lannister was created in the first place.

Of course, it wouldn't be the same character, but it doesn't have to be. Hell George "reimagined" Tyrion between the time he wrote the first 13 chapters and until the publishing of AGOT. He originally wasn't a dwarf, but a love interest for Ayra.

Starbuck is a good example. In the remake, the character is changed wildly. So is pretty much every character. And the show is better for it. Sometimes adaptations make changes that just make them worse.

The faithfulness of an adaptation is orthogonal to the quality of the adapted work.

I'm not saying you shouldn't discuss it, analogize it for faithfulness, etc. That can often be useful in interpreting the new work.  I'm just saying "this show sucks because it's not faithful" is, in my opinion, ignorant.

[Marcus Agrippa]

32 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

This is waaaaaaaay off base. In an adaptation of a series of books, fidelity to the source material does matter. If they're not going to tell the same story, they have no right to call it an adaptation.

And for the millionth time, it's not simply changing the plot - making the details different from the books - that is bothersome. It's that the show is not telling the story of the books, which it really ought to do if it is adapting those very books. If the show changed all the storylines, all the characters, all the events - but still made it be about the overarching themes that GRRM is writing about (the nature of power, the meaning of honor, etc.), then it would still be an adaptation of the books because it would still be about the same things that the books are about.

If Tyrion was changed to be a buff 6'6" man in the show, there is no way that character could be Tyrion Lannister. That character would never act and react to things the way the actual Tyrion Lannister from the books does. The "Tyrion Lannister" in the show actually does act like he's really a buff 6'6" man. It's jarring and weird - and it completely butchers the point of of why Tyrion Lannister was created in the first place.

That does matter (it matters a lot) and yes, it absolutely is a reason to criticize the show.

 

I don't if thats the case. I have been trying with my timeline of events to make ASOIAF work as a tv show and the meausre the budgetary contraints, the good news is that I would have a way to cut down on filming, but the bad news at the same time means that show would go on for a lot longer than GoT would be, You're def looking at 15 seasons, maybe 18. Anyway the cutdown would be one storyline a season past book 3 and book 3 would still be two seasons, IE all of dorne one season, all of the north, ect. The problem is that this would confuse the shit out of everyone. There would also be good and bad seasons. I could see people really hating a river lands season or a vale season, while the North and, ironically my verision of dorne would probably be popular.

[Desert Fox]

36 minutes ago, Morky_Pep said:

It's not book changes. I mean some readers are definitely upset about changes to the books, and that's okay. It's not a valid criticism of the show though. The big problems with the show are all in of itself. Sansa marrying Ramsey, Stannis burning Shireen, 20 good men, Dorne, Davos's motivations, Jamies character development, Dany's acquirement of the Dothraki. All these have nothing to do with the books. These are instances of sloppy writing.

I'll agree that "Sansa marrying Ramsey" was pretty sloppy. Clearly the idea was that Sansa was being coerced by Littlefinger, but the show didn't even come close to selling it. That knocks the episode (I forgot which one) down a notch, but it doesn't invalidate the whole story line.

Dorne was downright terrible. And the corollary to the "faithfulness doesn't matter" argument, is that it doesn't matter that Dorne is a fucking mess in the books. It's on D&D to make sure what they put on screen is good and they totally failed here.

Davos's motivations are just fine. Davos and Jon are a good match, he's without a leader. It would illogical if Davos wasn't drawn to Jon. It was a little weird that Davos knew that it was possible to resurrect Jon. That threw me out of the scene.

Stannis burning Shireen was downright good in my opinion. They foreshadowed the shit out it for like 3 seasons. Some say the plot wasn't given enough time, and I agree, but that the major flaw in GoT. It's too much content packed into a single season. They need to be doing 15 episodes. They should have cut out more story-lines.

20 good men was a minor plot contrivance, but all shows and books use those. No different than ninja neo nazi assassins in Break Bad.

Jamies character development - there is only a problem with Jamies character development is if you (wrongly) assume it's 100% related to his relationship with Cersi. Jamie has grown as a character. Dorne sucked, but the only redeeming part was Jamie learning to negotiate and be reasonable instead of being brash and violent. The current arc is going to pit Jamie's love of his sister against his knew found morality and honor. If he chooses Cersi over the morality, I'll agree it's been a fucking waste. But if is tempted but does the right thing instead of what Cersi wants, I think it'll be a great development. Testing a characters growth is often a keypart of character development. Too many people here think Jamies development = dumping Cersi. That's not was I think GRRM intends.

What is the argument against Dany and the Dothraki?

[Morky_Pep]

3 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

I'll agree that "Sansa marrying Ramsey" was pretty sloppy. Clearly the idea was that Sansa was being coerced by Littlefinger, but the show didn't even come close to selling it. That knocks the episode (I forgot which one) down a notch, but it doesn't invalidate the whole story line.

Dorne was downright terrible. And the corollary to the "faithfulness doesn't matter" argument, is that it doesn't matter that Dorne is a fucking mess in the books. It's on D&D to make sure what they put on screen is good and they totally failed here.

Davos's motivations are just fine. Davos and Jon are a good match, he's without a leader. It would illogical if Davos wasn't drawn to Jon. It was a little weird that Davos knew that it was possible to resurrect Jon. That threw me out of the scene.

Stannis burning Shireen was downright good in my opinion. They foreshadowed the shit out it for like 3 seasons. Some say the plot wasn't given enough time, and I agree, but that the major flaw in GoT. It's too much content packed into a single season. They need to be doing 15 episodes. They should have cut out more story-lines.

20 good men was a minor plot contrivance, but all shows and books use those. No different than ninja neo nazi assassins in Break Bad.

Jamies character development - there is only a problem with Jamies character development is if you (wrongly) assume it's 100% related to his relationship with Cersi. Jamie has grown as a character. Dorne sucked, but the only redeeming part was Jamie learning to negotiate and be reasonable instead of being brash and violent. The current arc is going to pit Jamie's love of his sister against his knew found morality and honor. If he chooses Cersi over the morality, I'll agree it's been a fucking waste. But if is tempted but does the right thing instead of what Cersi wants, I think it'll be a great development. Testing a characters growth is often a keypart of character development. Too many people here think Jamies development = dumping Cersi. That's not was I think GRRM intends.

What is the argument against Dany and the Dothraki?

I just really hated that Dany scene. Her plan was so idiotic and it all just seemed so perfect. No khal tries to hurt her after the fire has started. What if the braziers were nailed to the floor , then she would be dead etc.  Also the Dothraki have been shown to hate magic but all of a sudden they are okay with a "witch" burning all their leaders and 100,000 of them bow down to her immediately. Cheesy as fuck imo.

As for the rest of the points, it seems you are bothered by the same things as I am, but just not to the same extent. The problem is I can't look at plotlines like Littlefinger's plan or Davos's motivations and continue to think that this show is as great as it used to be. I still like the show, but I see so many problems with it each week. It is hard not to criticize. For the people who enjoy it for what it is, thats fine. But my argument is that the writing is weak. Which it is. 

[Dolorous Gabe]

4 hours ago, Morky_Pep said:

It's not book changes. I mean some readers are definitely upset about changes to the books, and that's okay. It's not a valid criticism of the show though. The big problems with the show are all in of itself. Sansa marrying Ramsey, Stannis burning Shireen, 20 good men, Dorne, Davos's motivations, Jamies character development, Dany's acquirement of the Dothraki. All these have nothing to do with the books. These are instances of sloppy writing. 

You might argue that some of these are a complaint because I am tempered by my expectations from the novel. But I don't think so. Lets look at Jamie.  We have all this character growth in season 3, and now all that has gone down the drain and hes Cersei's lapdog again. It's like if Walter White stopped his decent into evil after season 3 and wanted to become a high school teacher again. People would freak out and call it out for what it is. Bad writing. 

The people who call out this show get ridiculed as book purists. This is not about the books, its about the show. 

This.

I'm not a book purist at all and completely understand that things need to be altered for the medium. I do think there are many unnecessary alterations that make the show far inferior in terms of storytelling. It is, however, just as easy to pick out criticisms of the show that are entirely irrespective of the books.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Jaime goes from Dorne to KL and sends back a letter

Sansa and Theon escape Ramsay

Jon gets stabbed and found by Davos

Fat Walda goes through the last months of her pregnancy...

...all of that happens at the same time.

Not to say that Gilly's baby is still a baby.

This has nothing to do with the books.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

3 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

(1) Adaptation has nothing to do with fidelity. In fact some people don't like faithful adaptations because they are unnecessary. Why even bother making an adaptation if you are going to slavishly copy it.

(2) You may personally like faithful adaptations, but that is your subjective taste. Not a universal truth.

(3) Of course, it wouldn't be the same character, but it doesn't have to be. Hell George "reimagined" Tyrion between the time he wrote the first 13 chapters and until the publishing of AGOT. He originally wasn't a dwarf, but a love interest for Ayra.

(1) An adaptation has to have something to do with fidelity, otherwise it's an original work not an adaptation. I cannot fathom why it's so hard for some people to understand this.

(2) Again, if it is going to claim to be adapting a series of books, it needs to do so. That does not mean a word-for-word representation of the books on the screen. The plot, the events, the happenings are the least important part of the novels; they're not even what the books are "about". The important parts are the themes, the questions and ideas that the author is exploring. What is honor and how does a person live an honorable life? What is power? Does all power corrupt and does absolute power corrupt absolutely? Is there a way to avoid negative fallout resulting from the exercise of power? How would a person behave when confronted by mutually-exclusive choices? And so much more that GRRM is writing into the books. Because exploring those questions are his reasons for writing them in the first place.

You know, themes. The thing that D&D said were for 8th grade book reports. Those are the things I wanted to see on the screen. Because those are what the books are about, not the plot.

(3) Except the "reimagined" Tyrion is the one that ended up on the pages that George actually wrote. And there are reasons why he wrote Tyrion the way he did. If the character was a different person - like a buff 6'6" guy - then he would not be facing the same dilemmas, the same moral complexities, the same alternatives in his life. He wouldn't be an adaptation of Tyrion Lannister unless he had those same things. Sure, they could make Tyrion have some other disability so the result of his struggles would be similar, but why not just do what was already written? It's an adaptation, after all.

 

3 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

I'll agree that "Sansa marrying Ramsey" was pretty sloppy. Clearly the idea was that Sansa was being coerced by Littlefinger, but the show didn't even come close to selling it. That knocks the episode (I forgot which one) down a notch, but it doesn't invalidate the whole story line.

This is an excellent example. This change does invalidate the whole story line.

The important thing about the story line here are the themes: how what happened to Sansa in the show would never actually happen to her. She has the magic last name and her birthright will confer power and status upon someone, therefore she is protected from ultimate harm (at least until she is married off to some guy and provides an heir, then she's dispensable). But nobody cares about or looks out for lowly Jeyne Poole, because she doesn't have any power or status to give that warrants any kind of protection or consideration from anybody.

It's also about Theon. What's the big whoop about Theon beginning to snap out of his personality disorder in order to help Sansa Stark? Arrogant, class-conscious Theon Greyjoy wouldn't need so much persuading to risk himself to rescue Sansa; that's pretty much a no-brainer. And as such, it doesn't represent any character development for him. The fact that he does risk himself to help powerless Jeyne Poole, who can't reward him in any material way beyond gratitude, and for the sole reason that she simply needs help, is HUGE for Theon.

Themes, again.

The Winterfell story line is not about "what happened", not about "girl gets married off to Ramsay and raped"; it's about the themes. But none of them were present in the story on the show. As a result, it was empty and shallow and a blatant butchering of the soul of the books.

tl;dr: They don't have to stick to the letter of the books and nobody expects them to do that. But if they're going to claim that they are adapting the books, then they need to convey at least the spirit of the books. But they're not doing that.

 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 hour ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

tl;dr: They don't have to stick to the letter of the books and nobody expects them to do that. But if they're going to claim that they are adapting the books, then they need to convey at least the spirit of the books. But they're not doing that.

 

Honestly I don't even think that is important. The ONLY thing that is important as to whether the show is good is whether it works on its own, as a show, within the confines of its own continuity. If you can go episode to episode and its enjoyable, and you want to know more and see more of the characters, and you leave the show feeling satisfied. Thats what makes it a good show or not.

Most people will not have read the books, so its importance is an adaptation is basically irrelevant to them. D&D could have decided to change every single element and theme of the books in order to make the show work and be the show they wanted to make. They are under no obligation to be precious about the books, nor should they. They absolutely need to change things, its impossible not to. Its an adaptation, which means adapting things.. changing things. 

You might think the books are about one thing, even in your post there are a number of points that are simply your interpretation of what is happening or what the themes are, rather than facts. But the show can be something else. 

As soon as people learn to accept the difference between the show and the books, they will end up able to add a little objectivity to their viewing experience, at the moment all I ever see is complaints about it not being the same as the books, which is a personal issue, not particularly valid.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

55 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Honestly I don't even think that is important. The ONLY thing that is important as to whether the show is good is whether it works on its own, as a show, within the confines of its own continuity.

Sorry, but I still disagree. Criticizing the show on the basis that they are mishandling the source material is perfectly valid. The show isn't a thing on its own; it's using GRRM's books, characters, world and plot events. Those elements invite comparison.

If D&D wanted their show to stand on its own, judged only on its own merits and not be compared to the books, then they had no business basing their show on an already-published book series. They should have just created their own story so they wouldn't be beholden to any other source material.

Arguing that a show which is based on someone else's creation has no obligation to its source material is ludicrous. If that's the case, then the show is ripping GRRM off and that ain't right.

 

[Primalsplit]

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Honestly I don't even think that is important. The ONLY thing that is important as to whether the show is good is whether it works on its own, as a show, within the confines of its own continuity. If you can go episode to episode and its enjoyable, and you want to know more and see more of the characters, and you leave the show feeling satisfied. Thats what makes it a good show or not.

Most people will not have read the books, so its importance is an adaptation is basically irrelevant to them. D&D could have decided to change every single element and theme of the books in order to make the show work and be the show they wanted to make. They are under no obligation to be precious about the books, nor should they. They absolutely need to change things, its impossible not to. Its an adaptation, which means adapting things.. changing things. 

You might think the books are about one thing, even in your post there are a number of points that are simply your interpretation of what is happening or what the themes are, rather than facts. But the show can be something else. 

As soon as people learn to accept the difference between the show and the books, they will end up able to add a little objectivity to their viewing experience, at the moment all I ever see is complaints about it not being the same as the books, which is a personal issue, not particularly valid.

Well, that's the pragmatic aspect of it. They're making the show to get dem moneyz and they seem to be succesful at that. I think everyone here knows this is the truth. Rather, we are discussing on what it should be, not what it is. Everyone has different expectations and our expectations certainly don't seem to be the expectations of majority. I get that. Most people just want to spend enjoyable 50-60 minutes. My point to it is, there is no need to please a certain type of people; when nearly all can be satisfied with not much effort.

If they would have been trying to be faithful and respectful to the source material (not word by word, but as a general idea), the people enjoying the show would not be displeased one bit compared to their current situation. It's wasted potential when you can include literary themes with the great aspects the show already has. There is no loss here. No extra resources spent. It's win-win. A good show with interesting insights (through themes), is simply superior than a simple good show. Same thing with the adaptational value. They bring pure upside, with zero or maybe minimal downside.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

10 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Sorry, but I still disagree. Criticizing the show on the basis that they are mishandling the source material is perfectly valid. The show isn't a thing on its own; it's using GRRM's books, characters, world and plot events. Those elements invite comparison.

If D&D wanted their show to stand on its own, judged only on its own merits and not be compared to the books, then they had no business basing their show on an already-published book series. They should have just created their own story so they wouldn't be beholden to any other source material.

Arguing that a show which is based on someone else's creation has no obligation to its source material is ludicrous. If that's the case, then the show is ripping GRRM off and that ain't right.

 

I agree with this, based in a simple notion.

D&d aren't clear on what's the position about the books and show. They say it will be different, and then say they are folllowing to what Martin told them. So, it's impossible for books readers with more knowledged of the situation, to believe them. Like what happened to Shireen. They said "Martin told us!". That's their justification for the plot, despite in the books, it's impossible to happen as happened in the show.

This, of course, affects the narrative. I understand that there is a high chance, in books, that Shireen gets indeed burned, and eventually, Davos will switch to Jon after Stannis probably dies. And I understand that the show will do the same. yet, they FORCED the narrative and made characters act OOC to achieve this.

We know they are saying their decisions are based on Martin's suggestions (the resolutions they said were given by him, around Season 3, when they realised the shows would get ahead of the books). So, it's impossible to simply separate show material from the books. Everything they do is based on those decisions.

Now, if they had said "we are taking a different role than the books, we don't know more than the readers bc we don't have more books!", then the sitation would be different. Yet, they chose the books. They can't complain now for ocmparisons.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

45 minutes ago, Primalsplit said:

Well, that's the pragmatic aspect of it. They're making the show to get dem moneyz and they seem to be succesful at that. I think everyone here knows this is the truth. Rather, we are discussing on what it should be, not what it is. Everyone has different expectations and our expectations certainly don't seem to be the expectations of majority. I get that. Most people just want to spend enjoyable 50-60 minutes. My point to it is, there is no need to please a certain type of people; when nearly all can be satisfied with not much effort.

If they would have been trying to be faithful and respectful to the source material (not word by word, but as a general idea), the people enjoying the show would not be displeased one bit compared to their current situation. It's wasted potential when you can include literary themes with the great aspects the show already has. There is no loss here. No extra resources spent. It's win-win. A good show with interesting insights (through themes), is simply superior than a simple good show. Same thing with the adaptational value. They bring pure upside, with zero or maybe minimal downside.

Very well said; thank you.

 

[Wendel Shoemaker]

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

at the moment all I ever see is complaints about it not being the same as the books, which is a personal issue, not particularly valid.

Most of the complaints I see on this forum are on the basis of the show, not that it's different from the books. People might add that they wish it was more like the books, or would have been better that way, but that doesn't devalue their criticism of something the show did poorly. 

I think we're all pretty good here at pointing out the issues with the show, but maybe could use some work with appreciating what it does well. 

 

[Mladen]

I have to say that, during Miodrag's years here, I wasn't the hugest fan of his overly antagonistic stance towards the show and I hate when the criticism turns into offending someone based on their product. But that said, the premise of the movie and the need to start the conversation about the misdirected criticism of GoT is something I will wholeheartedly support. There are so many things one can criticize, but the point is in doing so without resorting the usual so-called critique sharp tongue that involves usual nastiness. I hope I will have the time to see it ASAP.

Congrats to Miodrag and everyone who took part in it.