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

[Liver and Onions]

I don't necessarily think the actors all should have read the books. I would if I were part of the cast, but I like reading. However, I like some kind of evidence that the creators, directors, and script writers have read and understood the books. Because right now I think they'd all fail a third grade test on reading comprehension. 

I've stated before that I personally don't see a quality drop in AFFC and ADWD and I'm enjoying the new installments as part of the journey. GRRM is not a speedy writer. I've read comics by artists who take their time and produce great works. I will wait for the creator to put out the best book they feel is possible. That said, I feel like the show would benefit greatly from more of GRRM's input, considering his background in television. And so I think the show as a whole should not have been produced until the books were finished or nearly so. Yes, GRRM was probably hoping to get the books done much faster. The show has the unfair advantage (no fault of its own) of being based on existing material, while the books have to come up with something new.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

7 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

I'll find out at the end of season 8.  I seriously doubt we'll get a book ending.

You're only validating the opinion many have, that the book praise is nothing but a reaction to Martin not being able to fulfil their/your expectations. It's like they see the show to be "ASOIAF done right".

But, as many have said, we can't say yet what's needed and what not. Either the case, even if people don't like Dorne, Martin just wont kill them all and make them disappear in the next book

Spoiler

Like it's probably the case with show Dorne, because none of the actresses has been seen in any other set after they filmed the Water Gardens scene.

 

7 hours ago, Darkstream said:

So why did they win an Emmy?

 

BTW, a few critics actually asked the same. Rolling Stone was one of those. They said (paraphrasing) "Why GoT won in their weakest season?". I wonder that too. I would have agreed with them winning in Season 3, for example.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

BTW, again, I also love how people state as fact "the bad parts of the book!", like there is a consensus. See? This is the kind of arrogance that the film is criticising, the praise the show gets over the books like if somehow, these books were in urgent need of being fixed.

Don't mistake "they needed to be adjusted for their screen adaptation" with "they needed someone to fix the mistakes Martin has done". This is what the press and critics say: "GOT is a better work than the books", without actually never telling us how is better. Saying "is more streamlined" is not a critic. It's an opinion.

Feast is a book in which the character development is huge. Just because we don't have big scenes of battles and backstabbings doesn't mean the book is bad. We see how many characters start to internally grow because they will be decisive parts on the endgame.

There is an overuse of cliffhangers? Yes.

There is an overuse of "oh, noes, this character is dead, wait, is actually alive!"? Yes.

There is an overuse of certain tropes or phrases? Yes.

But, why people judge the books for these bad parts and not for the good ones? As pointed out above, when you ask people what are their favorite chapters/storylines, they would likely tell you it's Jaime or Theon from these two books. "Oh, look how I hate this book for its flaws, it sucks! Aaah... but you love the book for the good things? LOL".

Feast and Dance are "bridge" books. They show the direct consequence of the development made in the previous books: we're seeing the players we didn't have and that have now entered the game: Dorne and Ironborn. Also, pretty much every storyline is now leaded into some other main storyline. We know where every character is going. Which proves that, everything had a purpose.

We can't say that in the show because that's not the purpose of the show. It's not about telling a story, just checking up milestones and trying to shock as many readers as they can, by using characters they made the audience love before. If tomorrow they decide that is shocking that Sansa will wake up to decide cut Jon's throat, they will make her do so. And it's as probable as Sansa also waking up to decide being a ninja or a nun or a Dothraki. They books show fans hate so much are so well outlined that we've pretty much already guessed where every storyline is going.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

39 minutes ago, JCRB's Honeypot said:

 

  Hide contents

 

BTW, a few critics actually asked the same. Rolling Stone was one of those. They said (paraphrasing) "Why GoT won in their weakest season?". I wonder that too. I would have agreed with them winning in Season 3, for example.

Why did Return of the King win an oscar when Fellowship is clearly the better movie. Nobody thinks awards are for the best movie / tv show / music artist. How many oscar winners have actually been the best movie of the year, I can barely remember one where that was true.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

31 minutes ago, JCRB's Honeypot said:

BTW, again, I also love how people state as fact "the bad parts of the book!", like there is a consensus. See? This is the kind of arrogance that the film is criticising, the praise the show gets over the books like if somehow, these books were in urgent need of being fixed.

Don't mistake "they needed to be adjusted for their screen adaptation" with "they needed someone to fix the mistakes Martin has done". This is what the press and critics say: "GOT is a better work than the books", without actually never telling us how is better. Saying "is more streamlined" is not a critic. It's an opinion.

Feast is a book in which the character development is huge. Just because we don't have big scenes of battles and backstabbings doesn't mean the book is bad. We see how many characters start to internally grow because they will be decisive parts on the endgame.

There is an overuse of cliffhangers? Yes.

There is an overuse of "oh, noes, this character is dead, wait, is actually alive!"? Yes.

There is an overuse of certain tropes or phrases? Yes.

But, why people judge the books for these bad parts and not for the good ones? As pointed out above, when you ask people what are their favorite chapters/storylines, they would likely tell you it's Jaime or Theon from these two books. "Oh, look how I hate this book for its flaws, it sucks! Aaah... but you love the book for the good things? LOL".

Feast and Dance are "bridge" books. They show the direct consequence of the development made in the previous books: we're seeing the players we didn't have and that have now entered the game: Dorne and Ironborn. Also, pretty much every storyline is now leaded into some other main storyline. We know where every character is going. Which proves that, everything had a purpose.

We can't say that in the show because that's not the purpose of the show. It's not about telling a storsa, just checking up milestones and trying to shock as many readers as they can, by using characters they made the audience love before. If tomorrow they decide that is shocking that Sansa will wake up to decide cut Jon's throat, they will make her do so. And it's as probable as Sansa also waking up to decide being a ninja or a nun or a Dothraki. They books show fans hate so much are so well outlined that we've pretty much already guessed where every storyline is going.

You kind of invalidate yourself when you come out with rantish language like that. 

Anyway, you say there isn't a consensus, but actually if you look at the problems that the later two books often are accused of, plenty of people pick up on these weaknesses independently . It might not be a universal opinion, but it is actually pretty common amongst even fans of the books. That highlights a genuine weakness that you can't just dismiss. 

If you really disliked the books because you felt they were ponderous and slow and felt mostly like filler, then having the show skip over what you regard as filler would be regarded as 'fixing' that problem. 

You can turn around and say that character development is huge in Feast, but I could equally reply there are plenty of ways to do character development AND move a plot forward ( I also think you can do character development without your characters wandering around muttering the same phrase over and over)
 I see no genuine excuse for having 'bridge' books that are that long. Why would your bridge be so lacking in event and dramatic impetus on purpose? I'd argue you can do all those things and a good author wouldn't have needed two huge books to get there. 
 

 

[Hangover of the Morning]

I'm honestly not sure what to make of it but there's a clear overlap between i) people who loathe the show and criticise it mercilessly on every minuscule detail to the point of personally attacking the creators and accusing them of foul play, low IQ and some sinister secret agenda, going as far as claiming that those who think that the positives of the show outweigh the negatives are either dishonest, stupid or manipulated; and ii) people who worship every word GRRM wrote and are unable to handle criticism directed at his work (mainly the last two books) to the point of belittling and invalidating anyone who says anything negative about the books. 

TL;DR: Basically any other kind but extremely negative criticism of the show (once it surpassed the books) is biased and invalid and any kind of criticisms of GRRM's work comes from people who are either too impatient or too stupid to comprehend the brilliance of it. 

[HairGrowsBack]

34 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Why did Return of the King win an oscar when Fellowship is clearly the better movie. Nobody thinks awards are for the best movie / tv show / music artist. How many oscar winners have actually been the best movie of the year, I can barely remember one where that was true.

But then why do so many people shove the Emmy factor in our face as soon as we start criticizing the show ? Either it's worthless or it's not ; it can't be both.

[lancerman]

10 hours ago, HairGrowsBack said:

No, the fact is you don't know what the endgame is but you sure act like you do. 

And neither do you. The only difference is we know the author has been misjudging how long he will be able to get to his endgame and he has admitted to struggling to complete one of his more current storylines.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Just now, HairGrowsBack said:

But then why do so many people shove the Emmy factor in our face as soon as we start criticizing the show ? Either it's worthless or it's not ; it can't be both.

Because it winds you up. 

The worthiness of an emmy or not isn't really the point, the show is very popular and a lot of people really like it, and its worth noting that when you make blanket statements about it.

[HairGrowsBack]

2 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Because it winds you up. 

The worthiness of an emmy or not isn't really the point, the show is very popular and a lot of people really like it, and its worth noting that when you make blanket statements about it.

I said many people, not all --because I've seen this argument used a fair amount of times. Don't see how that makes it a blanket statement.

Popularity is good and all, and people are free to like what they want, but it is irrelevant to appreciating.the quality of the show.

6 minutes ago, lancerman said:

And neither do you. The only difference is we know the author has been misjudging how long he will be able to get to his endgame and he has admitted to struggling to complete one of his more current storylines.

Well, if he's struggling to get there, it means that he knows what "there" consists of.  He just isn't sure about the journey. So, he knows what will happen to these characters, but doesn't know in details how it will happen and what will lead to it.

[Good Guy Garlan]

17 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

You kind of invalidate yourself when you come out with rantish language like that. 

Anyway, you say there isn't a consensus, but actually if you look at the problems that the later two books often are accused of, plenty of people pick up on these weaknesses independently . It might not be a universal opinion, but it is actually pretty common amongst even fans of the books. That highlights a genuine weakness that you can't just dismiss. 

If you really disliked the books because you felt they were ponderous and slow and felt mostly like filler, then having the show skip over what you regard as filler would be regarded as 'fixing' that problem. 

You can turn around and say that character development is huge in Feast, but I could equally reply there are plenty of ways to do character development AND move a plot forward ( I also think you can do character development without your characters wandering around muttering the same phrase over and over)
 I see no genuine excuse for having 'bridge' books that are that long. Why would your bridge be so lacking in event and dramatic impetus on purpose? I'd argue you can do all those things and a good author wouldn't have needed two huge books to get there. 
 

 

Perfectly put. If you need two enormous tomes just as "bridges" and "set up", then clearly there's something wrong with your story, structurally speaking. And you know what's even more outrageous? Feast and Dance don't even set up the whole table. They left out two huge battles, two trials, and a myriad cliffhangers. They're half of a bridge, not even a full bridge. 

And the old strawman that only big battles and shocking backstabbings count as plot has got to end. That's frankly insulting, as it makes everyone who don't like Feast/Dance look like an ADHD-riddled philistine who's only in it for the big OMG moments and set pieces. That's not how it works. Plot movement does not equate physical action. One of the early Tyrion chapters in Storm features only a session of the Small Council, literally just people talking around a table, and yet it moves the plot forward more than a lot Brienne's walking around the Riverlands. 

There's nothing inherently wrong with character driven narratives, but it is jarring that Martin focuses on character development at the expense of plot in Feast and Dance after he masterfully juggled both in the first three novels.

And that's only scratching the surface of everything wrong with Feast and Dance. I truly encourage everyone to read, say, Dany's chapters in succession, and you'll see how with the exception of her last two chapters you'll be reading the exact same chapter, beat for beat. It's ridiculous. I encourage you to apply Vonnegut's advice to those books, about how a sentence in a story should further plot or character, otherwise it's superfluous. I encourage you to read Brienne's chapters, for example, and see how many extraneous details you could remove without affecting the story in the least. And I dare you to tell me how many characters truly have a complete character arc and storyline in Feast and Dance. 

[Hangover of the Morning]

26 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

You kind of invalidate yourself when you come out with rantish language like that. 

Anyway, you say there isn't a consensus, but actually if you look at the problems that the later two books often are accused of, plenty of people pick up on these weaknesses independently . It might not be a universal opinion, but it is actually pretty common amongst even fans of the books. That highlights a genuine weakness that you can't just dismiss. 

If you really disliked the books because you felt they were ponderous and slow and felt mostly like filler, then having the show skip over what you regard as filler would be regarded as 'fixing' that problem. 

You can turn around and say that character development is huge in Feast, but I could equally reply there are plenty of ways to do character development AND move a plot forward ( I also think you can do character development without your characters wandering around muttering the same phrase over and over)
 I see no genuine excuse for having 'bridge' books that are that long. Why would your bridge be so lacking in event and dramatic impetus on purpose? I'd argue you can do all those things and a good author wouldn't have needed two huge books to get there. 

I read AGoT-ASoS twice before I moved on to the books 4 and 5 and was utterly blown away on the re-read by the amount of detail that I missed initially and how many of the late-ASoS storylines were clearly set up from the get go. At that time I would willingly champion GRRM against all critics and would consider him one of the most ingenious storytellers of our time. 

Reading AfFC/ADwD was such a weird experience and it definitely took me awhile to get out of my ass and finally admit that not only am I not enjoying the books and that they are far from perfect anymore. It's not the action that's missing from the last book or even the plot progression, it's the "human heart in cofnlict with itself" that's mostly lacking.  

It's a hard thing to admit that something you love and have invested a lot of time in might not be perfect anymore and not live up to your expectations. However, it's completely insane to refuse to accept it's flaws and start viciously attacking anyone who dares to say otherwise in a fear that it might burst the bubble. It's a fine to think that AFfC/ADwD are strokes of genius and the best books ever to be written because everyone's enjoyments is subjective and thus everyone's personal opinion is perfectly valid, but it's unfair to claim that those who don't share that opinion are either not well read, stupid or can't comprehend it, thus shouldn't even have a saying on that matter. 

1 hour ago, JCRB's Honeypot said:

But, why people judge the books for these bad parts and not for the good ones?

Yet somehow you insist that people should only judge the show on the bad parts and not on the good ones. Double standard I guess. Most fans simply judge both the books and the show on both and are able to see the good as well as the flaw in boths . They're just not as vocal as the extreme minority. 

[lancerman]

5 hours ago, Valetudo said:

They have more books, but approximately the same page count. We can debate than having books that big may be an error, but that's not related to his writing speed.

Talking about popularity, the dark tower series sold 30 million books and Outlander 25 million. Not really obscure series.

Outlander published 8 books in 25 years, The Dark Tower 8 in 30, ASoIaF 5 in 20, that's approximately the same rythm.

So, because a writer did not finish his series, that means that GRRM will not finish his? Of course, it's a possibility, but how many other writers did finish theirs?

Yes, GRRM has been slower these last years, but wasn't that predictable considering the growing complexity of the books paired with a newfound worldwide superstar status?

GRRM is known for missing deadlines since he started writing. But until now, he still released his books, even if delayed. I never said that he would finish the series in the next two years, but I believe that he can do it in 10. If you don't have the patience to wait, you shouldn't have started to read them.

The Dark Tower isn't a good example. Stephen King rarely goes more than two years without having a book published. And there have been many instances where he's released 2 or 3 books in a single year. Stephen King released over 20 books since 1996. Books in that particular series weren't always one of them. To be quite frank, GRRM as an author was always going to be defined by this series, whereas King isn't who he is because of The Dark Tower series.

To be more blunt, when The Dark Tower became a priority to finish, he completed the last 3 from November to 2003 to September 2004.

Also none of the series mentioned have really have the same level of expectations as ASOIAF. The only comparison is Harry Potter at this point, and that was 7 books in 10 years and that was a similar situation where the adaptation started between the 4th and 5th book,

[lancerman]

52 minutes ago, HairGrowsBack said:

But then why do so many people shove the Emmy factor in our face as soon as we start criticizing the show ? Either it's worthless or it's not ; it can't be both.

Because you play a zero sum game. There is a difference between season 5 being the weakest season, and season 5 being worthless. Regardless of how merited the Emmy was, it would not have won if the consensus was that the season was worthless. It was a reflection that the voters as a whole viewed the show as quality television. The better argument would be that it's stronger seasons came up against stronger competition.

It's thrown in your face because a lot of the people that don't like the show seem to present it as objective fact that its bad, and things like this documentary show that there is a resentment over that not being the predominate opinion. So the Emmy ends up being the applicable counter. This is all just opinions, it's turned into a silly game of this indicator of an opinion means nothing, this does. And the fact that it's typically the side that dislikes the show that ends up coming up short in any traditional metric of the quality of the how (reviews, awards, viewership, public opinion) there is  a constant barrage of attempting to marginalize those. Like this documentary appears to be based on the conceit that their is something inherently unfair that critics like the show. There is a reason for that.

[HairGrowsBack]

22 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Because you play a zero sum game. There is a difference between season 5 being the weakest season, and season 5 being worthless. Regardless of how merited the Emmy was, it would not have won if the consensus was that the season was worthless. It was a reflection that the voters as a whole viewed the show as quality television. The better argument would be that it's stronger seasons came up against stronger competition.

It's thrown in your face because a lot of the people that don't like the show seem to present it as objective fact that its bad, and things like this documentary show that there is a resentment over that not being the predominate opinion. So the Emmy ends up being the applicable counter. This is all just opinions, it's turned into a silly game of this indicator of an opinion means nothing, this does. And the fact that it's typically the side that dislikes the show that ends up coming up short in any traditional metric of the quality of the how (reviews, awards, viewership, public opinion) there is  a constant barrage of attempting to marginalize those. Like this documentary appears to be based on the conceit that their is something inherently unfair that critics like the show. There is a reason for that.

I used worthless to qualify the Emmy awards as an indication of the show's quality, not the show itself.

I disagree that these are objective "metric of the quality" whatsoever. There are many reasons why would all of these elements rate the show positively, and even more examples of mediocre works being popular/ highly rated.

 

[Les Météores D]

1 hour ago, Hangover of the Morning said:

I'm honestly not sure what to make of it but there's a clear overlap between i) people who loathe the show and criticise it mercilessly on every minuscule detail to the point of personally attacking the creators and accusing them of foul play, low IQ and some sinister secret agenda, going as far as claiming that those who think that the positives of the show outweigh the negatives are either dishonest, stupid or manipulated; and ii) people who worship every word GRRM wrote and are unable to handle criticism directed at his work (mainly the last two books) to the point of belittling and invalidating anyone who says anything negative about the books. 

TL;DR: Basically any other kind but extremely negative criticism of the show (once it surpassed the books) is biased and invalid and any kind of criticisms of GRRM's work comes from people who are either too impatient or too stupid to comprehend the brilliance of it. 

Well said. 

I'm puzzled by people who believe that GRRM is a genius and ASOIAF a literary masterpiece. As for the Emmys, the Wire got snubbed til the end (although they threw a bone once), so their relevance is questionable. GRRM sure was happy to get one... and he deserved it.

[lancerman]

28 minutes ago, HairGrowsBack said:

I used worthless to qualify the Emmy awards as an indication of the show's quality, not the show itself.

I disagree that these are objective "metric of the quality" whatsoever. There are many reasons why would all of these elements rate the show positively, and even more examples of mediocre works being popular/ highly rated.

 

Definitively establish what is and isn't high quality no, because people are different. However if someone says they don't like the Godfather, they generally concede that they are in  the minority opinion and that their dislike is despite the common opinion. Even if you don't like it, you can still write that it is regarded as one of the greatest films ever.

With GOT you have critics praising it most of the time, the high end award shows giving it trophy's and nominations every season, and the public having an overwhelming positive reception. If you were going to write a Wikipedia article on the show, when it came to reception, you would start off with something like "the show has had extremely positive reception from fans and critics" then maybe a few paragraphs down talk about the dissenting opinions. So by all the usual indicators we have historically used to judge whether a show in general is good or bad, it passes with flying colors.

As far as the Emmy, many  people would dispute who won a particular Emmy. I don't think you find many people who would say that an Emmy at the very least isn't a decent indicator of whether something is good or not. That doesn't make them the end all be all, but it is an indicator.

[DMC]

4 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

That is my view do to the very personal nature the attacks get towards the showrunners.  Their intelligence and personal morales are attacked in a very vicious matter.  It is one thing to not like what they do.  That you do not like means they are horrible people is completely wrong but is very acceptable on this forum.

This is the most off-putting aspect of these endless arguments to me.  There is plenty to criticize about the shows, but the prevailing wisdom of the enthusiasts of this doc is quite apparently that D&D are at once talentless hacks, shameless misogynists, money grubbing sell-outs, and (the kicker) somehow manipulating both their cast and the media for some nefarious purpose.

If that's what you think, fine.  But to do so and in the same breath complain that people only judge the bad parts of AFFC/ADWD and ignore the good parts is breathtakingly hypocritical and a quite undeniable double standard.  I very much agree that the notion the show is better than the books is ridiculous.  But one's argument loses any credibility if the position is of the "D&D have ruined literally every storyline and monkeys could write a better script" flavor.

As for AFFC/ADWD, I think it's hard to argue the books presented considerable difficulties in adaptation (and were very frustrating IRT not finishing most of the character arcs).  At the same time, it's also hard to argue the show did a poor job in doing so regardless of the books' content, obviously with Dorne but with Dany/Meereen as well.  If one can agree on those two points, I don't really see the point in arguing the minutiae between the show and the books any further.  Just as I don't see why people care so much if some critics are saying the show is better than the books; and it baffles me that anyone would invest considerable time and effort "studying" why this is happening.

[Darkstream]

  5 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

 

Quote

That is my view do to the very personal nature the attacks get towards the showrunners.  Their intelligence and personal morales are attacked in a very vicious matter.  It is one thing to not like what they do.  That you do not like means they are horrible people is completely wrong but is very acceptable on this forum.

 

I would argue that most personal attacks addressed towards d&d are a direct result of the arrogant and disrespectful comments made by them, not in response to the show. If d&d are going to make asinine comments (themes are for...creatively it made sense...etc.), that support the criticism they recieve, make smug  comments about wanting to kill a character off just because an actor questioned a decision of theirs, give the finger to anyone who criticizes them, and on and on, then the insults are warranted and they brought them on themselves. 

[Ser Gareth]

51 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

This is the most off-putting aspect of these endless arguments to me.  There is plenty to criticize about the shows, but the prevailing wisdom of the enthusiasts of this doc is quite apparently that D&D are at once talentless hacks, shameless misogynists, money grubbing sell-outs, and (the kicker) somehow manipulating both their cast and the media for some nefarious purpose.

If that's what you think, fine.  But to do so and in the same breath complain that people only judge the bad parts of AFFC/ADWD and ignore the good parts is breathtakingly hypocritical and a quite undeniable double standard.  I very much agree that the notion the show is better than the books is ridiculous.  But one's argument loses any credibility if the position is of the "D&D have ruined literally every storyline and monkeys could write a better script" flavor.

As for AFFC/ADWD, I think it's hard to argue the books presented considerable difficulties in adaptation (and were very frustrating IRT not finishing most of the character arcs).  At the same time, it's also hard to argue the show did a poor job in doing so regardless of the books' content, obviously with Dorne but with Dany/Meereen as well.  If one can agree on those two points, I don't really see the point in arguing the minutiae between the show and the books any further.  Just as I don't see why people care so much if some critics are saying the show is better than the books; and it baffles me that anyone would invest considerable time and effort "studying" why this is happening.

Great post!