"Fair Game: The critical universe around Game of Thrones" - [Finally]

[JonCon's Red Beard]

The documentary is finally released! -

 

 

[thehandwipes]

5 hours ago, JCRB's Honeypot said:

The documentary is finally released! -

 

 

Well, from that clip, the production values were better than I'd expect from a fanmade film.  And I liked that they had what's his name talking about  ASOIAF and GOT as art.  I find that more compelling than whether Lena Headey read the books or does the media have groupthink.

But I'll wait to see how compelling the argument on this thread is before I decide whether to spend a dollar on this. 

[The fanny from hell]

17 minutes ago, thehandwipes said:

Well, from that clip, the production values were better than I'd expect from a fanmade film.  And I liked that they had what's his name talking about  ASOIAF and GOT as art.  I find that more compelling than whether Lena Headey read the books or does the media have groupthink.

But I'll wait to see how compelling the argument on this thread is before I decide whether to spend a dollar on this. 

I don't think it's such a good idea to judge the documentary on the future arguments of this thread. I mean, show lovers will be trolling all over it in no time, so come on.

As for me, I'll be watching later!

[thehandwipes]

1 minute ago, Fanny said:

I don't think it's such a good idea to judge the documentary on the future arguments of this thread. I mean, show lovers will be trolling all over it in no time, so come on.

I enjoy the controversy.

[RUSSELL BELL]

For what is worth. I liked it. A bit of a slog at some points as many of the points have been made on R&R threads but well worth the 69p.

That said, I'm a lover of the show and I see the flaws already but I didn't really leave hating the show or liking it less than I do. What I found most interesting though is that professional critics aren't very professional and never really have been. 

The point he made about True Detective being panned in its second season because it was awful and why Game of thrones wasn't panned in the same way I strongly disagree with. True Detective is a completely different beast and I would also argue that even season 5 of Game of Thrones at its worst wasn't anywhere near as unwatchable as True Detective.

I thought the interviewees that made the best points and seemed the most objective were Elio Garcia and Sasse. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

So I have endorsed this documentary by giving him my 69p, I feel bad for doing that, but I can't give my opinion if I haven't seen it. I will say that the maker of the documentary is pretty much a lunatic, like an uber ranter, but I have to give him a bunch of credit for allowing people to disagree with him in his own documentary and there are a number of sensible voices contained within it.

I made some notes as I watched it:

- Whether the actors should read the books has been done in the previous threads. I still maintain, much like was mentioned in the documentary, that reading source material that is contrary, or diverting to the show script isn't very helpful and could be confusing for an actor. 

- The film maker can't help but let his rantish tendencies out, making cases about things he feels are objectively bad, when really its just his personal opinion. The fight between Ned and Jamie in the first season wasn't well shot, but it was an enjoyable scene and everyone I've watched it with was on the edge of their seats. 

- He makes numerous statements that show a real lack of thought as to why changes are made or what alternatives he would put in place. Suggesting that Robb could be removed for a season because he didn't like the love story is pretty silly when the whole of the Red Wedding hinges on you caring that Robb gets killed. 

- His opinion is spoken as if fact. Saying that Cat isn't a complex or polarizing character in the show, his opinion, but its a fact apparently.
 He says that True Detective season 2 is indisputibly better than Game of Thrones, his opinion, that I would disagree with, but he states it as fact. ( He also uses an example to illustrate his point which actually shows his extreme lack of imagination, a common ranter trait)

- He consistently expects Game of Thrones to be the Wire or the Sopranos. It was never going to be that, despite how they were trying to sell it in the beginning. Firstly the Wire, as great as it was never that popular and developed more of a cult following, not a luxury Game of Thrones could afford with its massive budget (something entirely necessary to keep the story going, just see what happened with Carnivale). I love The Wire, but it simply doesn't attract or appeal to a general audience, its too dense, slow and gritty and most people don't want to deal with it. Game of Thrones has to be broader, and always has, since the first season.

- He wonders why HBO didn't want to deal with him, assuming its because he's too small. Surely the real reason is why would HBO want to put themselves in a documentary that is seemingly biased against them and is setting out to make them look bad, I don't doubt that anything they said in it would be twisted.

- The sense of conspiracy is pretty bizarre in the doc. He pulls up the fact that a reviewer knew Eurons name despite it not being mentioned in the show. Pretty irrelevant seeing as he could have picked that up anywhere, and also didn't affect the scene at all. ( Interesting that the doc was delayed, yet seemed to have pushed so hard to get something from this season in there too). His one example of a press junket for reviewers was someone from Serbia!! Is that all he could get?

- He states that the show has never been critiqued in the mainstream media, except on sexual violence. Just go back to the previous threads and there were many many many examples of the show being reviewed reasonably poorly. Many positive reviews pull up the shitter bits of the show as well. His statement is simply untrue and this is where his whole case falls apart because he simply cannot prove what he is saying is true. He even includes D&D mentioning that the New York Times consistently pans the show, and yet glosses over it, in fact never bothers to even recognise this fact, preferring to get angry at how poor Jamies character is written.

- That social criticism is a lot stronger than any artistic criticism is totally understandble. When you discuss rape or sexism you are able to relate to people who don't even watch the show, many more people want to read about that than which storyline makes sense. I of course disagree with the guys opinion on Sansa's marriage ( it is his opinion, just to repeat) but if you see the reaction of the critics he was interviewing, they hadn't considered his points because they don't obsess of the show like he does
And why should they? Thats the whole point, they watch the show in the same way as the majority of viewers watch the show, and not the way he does, and thats entirely correct. What would be the point of reviewing shows in a way that your average person cannot relate to, or even understand. If the storyline makes sense to them then it makes sense to the vast majority of people who are watching the show and thats what is important.

The Salon woman even mentions that there are numerous 'loud voices' who want to discuss the social issues of the show because it suits them, this I would agree with, but thats because there is always a social element to every news story.


... so overall was it a good documentary? If I was to try and answer that question in the same way the doc tries to answer questions I would simply ask another question and then get angry and change the subject. But if I was myself I would say that no, it wasn't very good, there was nothing that was in it that wasn't revealed in the previously released footage. He pads out his hour and a bit with a lot of fluff about internet forums and Sansas rape, possibly because these are the things he cares about.

But if the central tenant of the doc is whether there is some conspiracy behind the reviews, and some reason why mainstream reviewers don't think in the same way as him, then he doesn't even come close to answering that question. He has no evidence except one Serbian reviewer who got a few gifts in the post (btw I've worked for a number of companies and this is a very common practice). He never shows any evidence for these positive reviewers, never shows any reviews, he never really meets any of the reviewers he talks about. He gets to the end of his documentary having revealed literally nothing. There was no insight, no new information. 

The only thing the documentary does is reveal his anger at the show, and mainly highlights how other people disagree with him, which actually I quite respect because he could have just done a total attack piece but allowed other more sensible commenters to have their say. I'd be interested to see what he actually thinks the documentary is even about or what it achieves, because its mostly rambling and incoherent and doesn't make a great case for anything. 


Ok it wasn't terrible overall and structurally it was decent, with a reasonable mix of commentators , but its mostly entirely devoid of evidence or revelations, its just a bunch of opinions of people who aren't experts on anything. The very definition of an internet documentary.

 

[StepStark]

@Channel4s-JonSnow

Funny enough, I agree with you about some points. The New York Times bit wasn't explained at all. I think it could have been, because Benioff didn't tell the truth, because TNYT doesn't really bash GOT every season. But that wasn't explained in the documentary so I think it's a failure. And I also think some of Sasse's points weren't challenged at all even though they were rather weak points. For example, Sasse says that GOT isn't a stupid show because most of the storylines aren't stupid, but that's a very weak argument and I think Miodrag missed the opportunity to expose it. The same happened in discussion about sexism, when Sasse says that the show isn't sexist but that some parts are. And Miodrag failed to nail him there either.

But overall I liked it. You keep talking about some conspiracy that is hinted at but not proved, but that's not the impression I got. Ana, Serbian journalist, openly says that among journalists GOT is promoted much stronger than any other show and she supports it with her own experience. And then you have Verne Gay, from Newsday, who says some totally crazy things. He openly says that he's going to support GOT no matter what. He admits that he's not objective when it comes to GOT. That surprised even me, and I never trusted the so-called critical acclaim for this show. I think that it's clear that the media treats GOT differently than other shows, and those two statements prove it. The documentary doesn't call it a conspiracy, but the mutual interest that works for both sides, the media and HBO. That point was made quite clearly.

And I have to go back to actors once again. Just like before, you're saying that he insists that actors have to read the books, but that's not the case. His issue is with their ridiculous excuse, and not with the fact that they didn't read. And he clearly says that.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

59 minutes ago, StepStark said:

@Channel4s-JonSnow

Funny enough, I agree with you about some points. The New York Times bit wasn't explained at all. I think it could have been, because Benioff didn't tell the truth, because TNYT doesn't really bash GOT every season. But that wasn't explained in the documentary so I think it's a failure. And I also think some of Sasse's points weren't challenged at all even though they were rather weak points. For example, Sasse says that GOT isn't a stupid show because most of the storylines aren't stupid, but that's a very weak argument and I think Miodrag missed the opportunity to expose it. The same happened in discussion about sexism, when Sasse says that the show isn't sexist but that some parts are. And Miodrag failed to nail him there either.

 

I too would have liked there to have been more discussion on this because I think Sasse is the most sensible person in the documentary,, and I think he's right that anyone claiming GoT is stupid is coming up with a weak argument, and the same with the sexism. If Miodrag had tried to argue against, against someone who was even reasonably clued up like the webcam guy was I think he would have come off as irrational as he does in most of his own documentary.

 

 

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

@Channel4s-JonSnow
 

 You keep talking about some conspiracy that is hinted at but not proved, but that's not the impression I got. Ana, Serbian journalist, openly says that among journalists GOT is promoted much stronger than any other show and she supports it with her own experience. And then you have Verne Gay, from Newsday, who says some totally crazy things. He openly says that he's going to support GOT no matter what. He admits that he's not objective when it comes to GOT. That surprised even me, and I never trusted the so-called critical acclaim for this show. I think that it's clear that the media treats GOT differently than other shows, and those two statements prove it. The documentary doesn't call it a conspiracy, but the mutual interest that works for both sides, the media and HBO. That point was made quite clearly.

 

I don't know Verne Gay, nor do I know Newsday. However he doesn't come off as representative of a typical critic at all. He simply comes off as a fanatical fan who loves the show. His liking of the show doesn't help the docs argument at all because Gay loves the show because he's a fanatic and not because there is some corporate motive to his reviews. If they found a critic who wrote reviews because they were told to write reviews one way then he might have a point, but they didn't find anyone outside of some Serbian woman who got a night out and a few gifts. 

That the media feeds off of major shows success is hardly news, but the documentary doesn't find a single shred of evidence to suggest there is any direct link between that and the reviews. Everything is hearsay and opinion, and not from especially knowledgable sources. Like I said, he doesn't even show these positive reviews, nor does he show the negative ones. Everything we are meant to believe simply because he says its true, he presents zero evidence for anything.

 

 

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

@Channel4s-JonSnow

 

And I have to go back to actors once again. Just like before, you're saying that he insists that actors have to read the books, but that's not the case. His issue is with their ridiculous excuse, and not with the fact that they didn't read. And he clearly says that.

This was covered by Sasse, that their excuse is generally to keep it simple and not drag out a big conversation about it. He mentions the fantatical, unreasonable response of many book fans, evidenced by this forum, and trying to stay away from inciting their ire is probably a good idea, especially when everything anyone from the show says in public is pulled out of all proportion.

[StepStark]

9 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I too would have liked there to have been more discussion on this because I think Sasse is the most sensible person in the documentary,, and I think he's right that anyone claiming GoT is stupid is coming up with a weak argument, and the same with the sexism. If Miodrag had tried to argue against, against someone who was even reasonably clued up like the webcam guy was I think he would have come off as irrational as he does in most of his own documentary.

I'm not sure about Sasse being the most sensible. His argument really is weak. He's saying that the show can be called stupid only if all the storylines are stupid, but that's not how it works. Sasse's statement is absolute because nothing can be considered stupid then, because you can find something that isn't stupid in almost anything. I'm surprised he didn't ask Sasse that. And the same goes for sexism. "Not all elements are sexist and therefore the show isn't sexist" isn't a solid argument. And actually, Sasse was uncomfortable whenever he was confronted with a counter opinion, which is why I find it odd that he didn't challenge him more.

 

9 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I don't know Verne Gay, nor do I know Newsday. However he doesn't come off as representative of a typical critic at all. He simply comes off as a fanatical fan who loves the show. His liking of the show doesn't help the docs argument at all because Gay loves the show because he's a fanatic and not because there is some corporate motive to his reviews. If they found a critic who wrote reviews because they were told to write reviews one way then he might have a point, but they didn't find anyone outside of some Serbian woman who got a night out and a few gifts. 

That the media feeds off of major shows success is hardly news, but the documentary doesn't find a single shred of evidence to suggest there is any direct link between that and the reviews. Everything is hearsay and opinion, and not from especially knowledgable sources. Like I said, he doesn't even show these positive reviews, nor does he show the negative ones. Everything we are meant to believe simply because he says its true, he presents zero evidence for anything.

Then we have to disagree on what it means to make a point. Newsday's praise is quoted in GOT promotional videos all the time so it's not irrelevant what their TV critic says. I too never heard of this Verne Gay guy before this documentary, but that doesn't make him irrelevant. And I checked him after watching it, and he wrote that GOT was the best show in 2015. But for me the most interesting thing is that he openly admits that he's not objective when it comes to GOT. Again, I don't know what did you expect, but that was quite surprising and along with Ana's statement it puts some light on so-called critical acclaim.

 

9 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

This was covered by Sasse, that their excuse is generally to keep it simple and not drag out a big conversation about it. He mentions the fantatical, unreasonable response of many book fans, evidenced by this forum, and trying to stay away from inciting their ire is probably a good idea, especially when everything anyone from the show says in public is pulled out of all proportion.

But that's a straw man argument. This forum is not unreasonable and fanatical, at least not toward the show. And no actor was ever attacked for not reading the books, so if they were afraid of how are the fans going to react, then they feared for no reason and they lied for no reason.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

9 minutes ago, StepStark said:

I'm not sure about Sasse being the most sensible. His argument really is weak. He's saying that the show can be called stupid only if all the storylines are stupid, but that's not how it works. Sasse's statement is absolute because nothing can be considered stupid then, because you can find something that isn't stupid in almost anything. I'm surprised he didn't ask Sasse that. And the same goes for sexism. "Not all elements are sexist and therefore the show isn't sexist" isn't a solid argument. And actually, Sasse was uncomfortable whenever he was confronted with a counter opinion, which is why I find it odd that he didn't challenge him more.

 

Well hes not really making an argument, he's stating something. If challenged I'm pretty sure he could easily back up what he's saying. I also don't think the show is stupid, I see a number of genuinely stupid shows out there and GoT isn't one of them. He also said that there were some sexist characters in the show, but that doesn't mean the show is sexist. I'd also back him on that. I don't see him being uncomfortable, but if he was its probably because he was trying to not be emotional when responding. 

 

11 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Then we have to disagree on what it means to make a point. Newsday's praise is quoted in GOT promotional videos all the time so it's not irrelevant what their TV critic says. I too never heard of this Verne Gay guy before this documentary, but that doesn't make him irrelevant. And I checked him after watching it, and he wrote that GOT was the best show in 2015. But for me the most interesting thing is that he openly admits that he's not objective when it comes to GOT. Again, I don't know what did you expect, but that was quite surprising and along with Ana's statement it puts some light on so-called critical acclaim.

The whole documentary hinges on there being some ulterior motive for the lack of criticism for the show. Its trying to draw a connection between the money the show is throwing around and the media outlets it can buy. Verne is completely outside of that, he's just a fanboy who loves the show. He's not being paid to love the show, he just loves it. That bares no relevance to the point the documentary is trying to make. All its saying is there are a bunch of people who love the show more than the people who made the film. It doesn't even try and examine why that is in any depth other than some people want entertainment.

 

 

15 minutes ago, StepStark said:

But that's a straw man argument. This forum is not unreasonable and fanatical, at least not toward the show. And no actor was ever attacked for not reading the books, so if they were afraid of how are the fans going to react, then they feared for no reason and they lied for no reason.

I think you are pretty clouded if you cannot see the unreasonable fantatical element of this forum. I've been on a few forums in my time, on a variety of subjects and this is by far the more fanatical of the lot. I disagree its a strawman as well, its a perfectly valid answer.

 

[Joe Pesci]

3 hours ago, StepStark said:

@Channel4s-JonSnow

Funny enough, I agree with you about some points. The New York Times bit wasn't explained at all. I think it could have been, because Benioff didn't tell the truth, because TNYT doesn't really bash GOT every season. But that wasn't explained in the documentary so I think it's a failure. And I also think some of Sasse's points weren't challenged at all even though they were rather weak points. For example, Sasse says that GOT isn't a stupid show because most of the storylines aren't stupid, but that's a very weak argument and I think Miodrag missed the opportunity to expose it. The same happened in discussion about sexism, when Sasse says that the show isn't sexist but that some parts are. And Miodrag failed to nail him there either.

Even funnier, I agree with you on most of the same points. There was plenty of setup but little to no follow through in this documentary, which really hurts when you're trying to go against the grain of the popularity of the show and prove your view against it. He makes his statements but fails to see them through to validate them when the opportunity was there for him to score points on Sasse by a counter argument. I don't see Sasse's points on the show being sexist/stupid as weak though, it really boils down to each person's threshold of how much of those aspects affect their viewing of the show. I don't think the show is sexist or stupid on the whole, but there are certainly parts of it that are, and I think that is a valid statement.

3 hours ago, StepStark said:

@Channel4s-JonSnow

And I have to go back to actors once again. Just like before, you're saying that he insists that actors have to read the books, but that's not the case. His issue is with their ridiculous excuse, and not with the fact that they didn't read. And he clearly says that.

I thought there would be a larger emphasis on the actors not reading the books in this from the trailer. I can understand his view on what he thinks of their reasons, but to be honest it's a no win situation for them no matter what they say. They don't want to come off as disrespectful to GRRM by saying they don't want to read the books, so it's really about the only way to answer. Could they be honest and say they don't want to read them? Yes, but it doesn't make much sense because it would probably cause unnecessary drama for all involved as there would inevitably be backlash from it. Sprawling fantasy epics just aren't for everyone, and if that view was taken prior to including this in the documentary, I think the whole section of the film could've been removed as it really is a kind of trivial thing imo. Yes it is the source material for the show they are on, and I think the main actors should've read them, but I'm not losing any sleep over it if they haven't or don't read them.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

I think one of the points of the doc. was to put some critics on the spotlight, which did happened. Some were somehow scared to say anything negative about the show. "Yes, it has failures, but...". That "BUT" is the point. They don't care the show is bad even though they know it. They know clearly the show lacks so many things, but they aren't able to put it in words to say "yes, the show isnt' as good as people think".  Why? Someone did say she couldn't say anything bad at all. Some other looked like his family was kidnapped by HBO.

[StepStark]

1 hour ago, Joe Pesci said:

Even funnier, I agree with you on most of the same points. There was plenty of setup but little to no follow through in this documentary, which really hurts when you're trying to go against the grain of the popularity of the show and prove your view against it. He makes his statements but fails to see them through to validate them when the opportunity was there for him to score points on Sasse by a counter argument. I don't see Sasse's points on the show being sexist/stupid as weak though, it really boils down to each person's threshold of how much of those aspects affect their viewing of the show. I don't think the show is sexist or stupid on the whole, but there are certainly parts of it that are, and I think that is a valid statement.

But it's Sasse who makes illogical claim, not Miodrag. Sasse says that it's not valid to say that the show is stupid because not all storylines are stupid. That is a weak argument for any story. It's not that he doesn't think the show is stupid, but he says that it's not a valid criticism. I'm surprised Miodrag didn't pursue that further. He was generally nicer to them than I expected, and I think the doc would be stronger if he pushed them some more.

1 hour ago, Joe Pesci said:

I thought there would be a larger emphasis on the actors not reading the books in this from the trailer. I can understand his view on what he thinks of their reasons, but to be honest it's a no win situation for them no matter what they say. They don't want to come off as disrespectful to GRRM by saying they don't want to read the books, so it's really about the only way to answer. Could they be honest and say they don't want to read them? Yes, but it doesn't make much sense because it would probably cause unnecessary drama for all involved as there would inevitably be backlash from it. Sprawling fantasy epics just aren't for everyone, and if that view was taken prior to including this in the documentary, I think the whole section of the film could've been removed as it really is a kind of trivial thing imo. Yes it is the source material for the show they are on, and I think the main actors should've read them, but I'm not losing any sleep over it if they haven't or don't read them.

But there never was any backlash! Was anyone attacked for not reading the books? A lot of actors obviously don't read them and nobody's attacking them for that. I think that one of the screenwriters from the first season also didn't read the books, Vanessa something, and she talked about it in interviews, and nobody attacked her for that. So it's a false claim that they are afraid. If they are afraid, they are idiots. If they aren't afraid, they are hypocrites. I'm sick of people letting them of the hook just because they are actors. They are adults, they should behave responsibly, which means that they shouldn't treat fans like morons.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

8 minutes ago, JCRB's Honeypot said:

I think one of the points of the doc. was to put some critics on the spotlight, which did happened. Some were somehow scared to say anything negative about the show. "Yes, it has failures, but...". That "BUT" is the point. They don't care the show is bad even though they know it. They know clearly the show lacks so many things, but they aren't able to put it in words to say "yes, the show isnt' as good as people think".  Why? Someone did say she couldn't say anything bad at all. Some other looked like his family was kidnapped by HBO.

Out of all the millions of critics in the world he managed to dredge up one obscure woman from Serbia. That was it. 

He alluded to some behind the scenes shenanigans about corporations colluding with each other to give Game of Thrones good reviews, but he didn't have any evidence to back it up. I waited for the whole documentary for him to say something worthwhile, but he didn't manage it. He had nothing of any worth to pull out to back up his claims. 

He cannot consider for a moment that people can like the show. He cannot understand that some people are not bothered by the same things he is. He cannot get his head round the possibility that people can see occasional flaws in a show and still love it. THAT to me is the interesting part of the documentary, his mental state. The actual content was pretty much empty.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Just now, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Out of all the millions of critics in the world he managed to dredge up one obscure woman from Serbia. That was it. 

 GoT was (or is, can't remember now) filmed on Serbia. Did you even listened to her testimony? He wouldn't be able to find one single critic from Serbia that didn't like the show. What a way to miss the point.

Just now, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

He alluded to some behind the scenes shenanigans about corporations colluding with each other to give Game of Thrones good reviews, but he didn't have any evidence to back it up.

I waited for the whole documentary for him to say something worthwhile, but he didn't manage it. He had nothing of any worth to pull out to back up his claims. 

He cannot consider for a moment that people can like the show. He cannot understand that some people are not bothered by the same things he is.

But people ARE bothered by the same things he is. People said they are. They just can't say it aloud. They hold their tongues on the critics.

Just now, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

He cannot get his head round the possibility that people can see occasional flaws in a show and still love it. THAT to me is the interesting part of the documentary, his mental state. The actual content was pretty much empty.

I think he haven't watched the same documentary. Or maybe, you have very odd glasses. The point is not about whether you like it or not. It's about how the media treat it. The doc. was lacking a few things? Yes, I admit it. I even made those comments to Miodrag himself. Yet, the point is clear: the media is indifferent to GoT flaws despite it's their job. Not the watchers. I watch a lot of shows that are a hot mess and I love them nevertheless. And sometimes, those mistakes I can't even notice them until it's the critical press telling me "look, the show did this wrong". I barely see anyone from press calling on Littlefinger's magical device of transportation, for example. It's all fans.

[HairGrowsBack]

9 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Out of all the millions of critics in the world he managed to dredge up one obscure woman from Serbia. That was it. 

 

I'm sorry but this is a weak argument. Are journalists in Serbia any less professional or concerned ?

[StepStark]

2 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Out of all the millions of critics in the world he managed to dredge up one obscure woman from Serbia. That was it. 

He alluded to some behind the scenes shenanigans about corporations colluding with each other to give Game of Thrones good reviews, but he didn't have any evidence to back it up. I waited for the whole documentary for him to say something worthwhile, but he didn't manage it. He had nothing of any worth to pull out to back up his claims. 

He cannot consider for a moment that people can like the show. He cannot understand that some people are not bothered by the same things he is. He cannot get his head round the possibility that people can see occasional flaws in a show and still love it. THAT to me is the interesting part of the documentary, his mental state. The actual content was pretty much empty.

Are you sure you watched it? He directly says that HBO didn't do anything against the law, so he's not even hinting at some conspiracy. But what's shown is one professional reporter saying that GOT is promoted stronger than any other show, and one professional critic who says that he doesn't care about reasons and arguments. and Elio speaks about other reporters that he witnessed acting a HBO's friends. And also that filmmaker agrees that critics are not to be too trusted.

You're talking about some conspiracy, but it's only you. Few weeks ago, when we were discussing the trailer, you also talked about some "conspiracy theory". But there's nothing to support what you're saying. Nobody but you talks about conspiracy. As I see it, it is about media being biased, and that point is very clear in the doc. There is a big difference between that and conspiracy.

[StepStark]

2 minutes ago, HairGrowsBack said:

I'm sorry but this is a weak argument. Are journalists in Serbia any less professional or concerned ?

HBO obviously considered her important enough to invite her to those events, but show-lovers don't think her testimony is legit. LOL!

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

3 minutes ago, JCRB's Honeypot said:

 GoT was (or is, can't remember now) filmed on Serbia. Did you even listened to her testimony? He wouldn't be able to find one single critic from Serbia that didn't like the show. What a way to miss the point.

 

Its filmed all over Europe. He managed to find one woman. Just one woman. 

 

3 minutes ago, JCRB's Honeypot said:

 

But people ARE bothered by the same things he is. People said they are. They just can't say it aloud. They hold their tongues on the critics.

 

Who is? Mainly a tiny number of people on internet forums. Vast majority of people don't feel the same. Thats the point he is, and you are, unable to fathom.

 

 

5 minutes ago, JCRB's Honeypot said:

 

I think he haven't watched the same documentary. Or maybe, you have very odd glasses. The point is not about whether you like it or not. It's about how the media treat it. The doc. was lacking a few things? Yes, I admit it. I even made those comments to Miodrag himself. Yet, the point is clear: the media is indifferent to GoT flaws despite it's their job. Not the watchers. I watch a lot of shows that are a hot mess and I love them nevertheless. And sometimes, those mistakes I can't even notice them until it's the critical press telling me "look, the show did this wrong". I barely see anyone from press calling on Littlefinger's magical device of transportation, for example. It's all fans.

My point is the media view it in the same way as most people view it. They like it, some see its flaws, but mostly they like it. They aren't watching it with the same obsessive eye as people on here as they view it as mild entertainment and don't have the same level of investment in the show. Why should they bring up all the silly nitpicks that feature on this site

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

7 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Are you sure you watched it? He directly says that HBO didn't do anything against the law, so he's not even hinting at some conspiracy. But what's shown is one professional reporter saying that GOT is promoted stronger than any other show, and one professional critic who says that he doesn't care about reasons and arguments. and Elio speaks about other reporters that he witnessed acting a HBO's friends. And also that filmmaker agrees that critics are not to be too trusted.

You're talking about some conspiracy, but it's only you. Few weeks ago, when we were discussing the trailer, you also talked about some "conspiracy theory". But there's nothing to support what you're saying. Nobody but you talks about conspiracy. As I see it, it is about media being biased, and that point is very clear in the doc. There is a big difference between that and conspiracy.

Hes suggesting there is a reason for the good reviews. He doesn't consider that those reviews could be because they liked it. He suggests there is some other reason at play.. He discusses deals with media companies and gifts. Hes talking about a conspiracy to make game of Thrones look good. What documentary were you watching