Reviewing Second Sons

[Miodrag]

You're lumping in people who like the show and defend it because they like it as "apologists" who just don't get that it's not good.

No, apologia isn’t not getting that something isn’t good. Not getting is not getting. Apologia is when one’s basically not interested in actual quality, but only in defending the product. Theoretically, one can get that something isn’t good, but still denying it’s faults because of some agenda or something. And the agenda doesn’t have to be vile or ill-intended. Hypothetically, maybe there doesn’t have to be an agenda. However, with many of the show-apologists I get the feeling they have some agenda, whether they’re aware of it or not.

If you or anyone else is really offended by the term “show-apologist”, I’ll stop using it, because it isn’t my intention to insult anyone. I thought the term was going to be taken the same way as “book-purist” is. For what it’s worth, I have no problem being called a book-purist, since I believe ASOIAF is among rarest achievements that actually deserve their purists.

Don’t know about the other critics, but I find the opportunity to discuss GoT to be a precious one, because it’s very rare to have this rich source material to compare it with this many hours of adaptation. There are many movie adaptations, but this is a much higher level, if for nothing else, than for the pure length of it. Also, ASOIAF itself is an unparalleled phenomenon in a way: something truly captivating and rewarding is being created as I’m reading it, so to speak. Hence, I find it hard to resist any attempt at analyzing it, and an adaptation is – by it’s very definition – one way to look/analyze source material. So, even if I keep being disappointed in the TV show, and I am by all means, it’s still refreshing to see what from the original story HBO thought worth taking, and what HBO thought should be altered. Yes, I follow all the explanations they offer for their creative choices; I just don’t buy majority of those explanations, since they really aren’t convincing.

So, you can see that by watching GoT I’m not suffering at all, even though I really don’t like it. But, I honestly don’t understand why is my dislike – even if it’s extreme – so disturbing for a show fan. Once again, when ADWD came out, I was delighted with it, but many readers were harshly criticizing it for a number of reasons. Like really harsh: there were no prisoners there. None of the criticism, however, lessened my enjoyment. On the contrary, through discussions with some of the critics, I actually came to love ADWD even more than I did, because arguing their remarks made me see how weak those remarks were (in my opinion, at least; and not all of them, of course; few of them I even share). That’s why I’m never offended by novel-hate, and why I don’t get the fury from show fans.

P.S. And I really don’t know a more proper term than apologia, for the lengths some show fans went in defending some HBO’s choices. For example, “Pod the Sex Deity” scene: posters all over the internet were claiming it’s some kind of a hidden plot by Littlefinger/Tyrion/whoever. Not saying you did that, but I honestly believe anyone who tried to justify that scene should think once more about the health of his/her commitment to the show.

[Khal Porno]

Your position though that "apologists" (and that is clearly meant to be derogatory, unlike "purists") KNOW that Game of Thrones is bad and defend it anyway is completely subjective and incorrect. I love the show, because it is an excellent show. The things about it that you find to be of poor quality are merely your interpretation in comparison to the book series which you are an intense fan of, because either it was a change you didn't like or it wasn't "as good" as you thought it was in the books.

None of the changes in adaptation have bothered me (although there are a few things I would have done differently), and in some cases I have enjoyed them. As I've said before here, Robb's story in the books was my personal biggest disappointment, so I've enjoyed seeing it fleshed out on the show and I liked the character Talisa and their relationship, whereas in the books I felt nothing either way about Jeyne Westerling and Robb's paragraph about how he married her didn't mean anything to me either way, it was just exposition.

However, if Talisa really WAS this unforgivable poorly written character that people keep saying she is (and it's fine if you don't like her), I definitely would NOT like her and that story, or at least I would acknowledge that it wasn't very good - although I wouldn't let it ruin the show for me like it has for so many here. I have no patience for that kind of thing, which is why I don't give stuff like Iron Man 3 or Skyfall a pass for it, even though I very much wanted to love those movies.

As far as you not suffering by watching Game of Thrones when you don't like it - you complain about it vehemently and are obviously offended over it, so obviously you ARE suffering. It just strikes me as totally bizarre that people will consume something they don't like. If I go to a restaurant and the food doesn't taste good, I don't eat there again even if they serve my favorite type of food. And I definitely wouldn't go there week after week. It just makes no sense to me. Unless people just enjoy being outraged (which I guess is an actual phenomenon).

As far as the Pod vs. The Hookers scene went - I don't really know why people thought it was some big plot by Littlefinger (people assume that kind of stuff about everything anyway), it just struck me as a throwaway scene played for humor to break the tension of an otherwise heavy-handed episode, and it made me laugh and that was it. Yes it was cheesy that the hookers returned the money, but big deal? It was just a throwaway joke concerning a minor character. I don't understand why people acted like it was a sign of the apocalypse.

EDIT: Anyway this isn't the purpose of this thread so we should probably discuss it elsewhere.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

Youe reaction makes no sense. You treat a piece of complex art as though it's monolithic. A TV show is a combination of many aspect, from writing, to acting, to directing, to cinematography, to set and costume design, to music composition, to lighting... etc.

So it's not a binary choice of either I like it or I hate it, it's entirely possible to like certain aspect of the show and continue to be annoyed by certain other aspects of the show, so I will watch it for the parts I enjoy, but why should that stop me from critiquing the parts I don't like?

To use your restaurant example. What if I love the steak at this restaurant but find the service less than satisfactory? Why should I stop going back for the steak? But should that mean I can't comment on the poor service? So yes, I will continue to go back for the food, and I will continue to critique the service, and I don't need you to tell me to stop going if I hate the service.

[Miodrag]

Your position though that "apologists" (and that is clearly meant to be derogatory, unlike "purists") KNOW that Game of Thrones is bad and defend it anyway is completely subjective and incorrect. I love the show, because it is an excellent show. The things about it that you find to be of poor quality are merely your interpretation in comparison to the book series which you are an intense fan of, because either it was a change you didn't like or it wasn't "as good" as you thought it was in the books.

It appears you’re able to contradict yourself all the time. Like Talisa. No wonder you like her. First, you accuse me of being subjective; then, your very next sentence goes like this: “I love the show, because it is an excellent show” – which you consider... what? Non-subjective statement? Objective? An axiom, as oppose to “merely your interpretation”, which is a description you reserved only for my views? Just like with Jaime and the Mad King: however I take your first paragraph, I’ll break one interpretation or another. Help, please.

You know, it’s really hard to argue with someone who has two sets of standards: one for himself, and one for everybody else. But, I’ll try. If you read my previous post again, you’ll find that I didn’t define “apologist” in a way you interpreted it. I didn’t and I don’t claim that apologists necessarily know something is bad. Just like I didn’t and I don’t claim that apologists are unable to see faults of the subject they defend (which was your previous take on the term “apologist”). What I wrote about apologia is what I wrote. I guess you’ll have an easy time interpreting my words second time around; if you’re interested, of course; I wouldn’t want you to make the mistake I did and loose your precious time over something you don’t actually like.

And, since you’re so objective all the time, thanks for explaining to me that I’m indeed suffering! And that my suffering is so obvious! You even found that I’m offended over the show, which is, I don’t know, something that never crossed my mind. Thanks, really. And now, hope you won’t mind if I pull an Olenna and take back the authority over myself in my own hands. Because, when interpreting me you somehow managed to miss even more than when interpreting “apologia”, or GoT, or ASOIAF; and that is quite an achievement.

[Khal Porno]

Youe reaction makes no sense. You treat a piece of complex art as though it's monolithic. A TV show is a combination of many aspect, from writing, to acting, to directing, to cinematography, to set and costume design, to music composition, to lighting... etc.

So it's not a binary choice of either I like it or I hate it, it's entirely possible to like certain aspect of the show and continue to be annoyed by certain other aspects of the show, so I will watch it for the parts I enjoy, but why should that stop me from critiquing the parts I don't like?

To use your restaurant example. What if I love the steak at this restaurant but find the service less than satisfactory? Why should I stop going back for the steak? But should that mean I can't comment on the poor service? So yes, I will continue to go back for the food, and I will continue to critique the service, and I don't need you to tell me to stop going if I hate the service.

I don't know if you have done what I am talking about, I mean a number of people here (the ones who criticize the show for "butchery," etc and for just being shit).

[Khal Porno]

It appears you’re able to contradict yourself all the time. Like Talisa. No wonder you like her. First, you accuse me of being subjective; then, your very next sentence goes like this: “I love the show, because it is an excellent show” – which you consider... what? Non-subjective statement? Objective? An axiom, as oppose to “merely your interpretation”, which is a description you reserved only for my views? Just like with Jaime and the Mad King: however I take your first paragraph, I’ll break one interpretation or another. Help, please.

You know, it’s really hard to argue with someone who has two sets of standards: one for himself, and one for everybody else. But, I’ll try. If you read my previous post again, you’ll find that I didn’t define “apologist” in a way you interpreted it. I didn’t and I don’t claim that apologists necessarily know something is bad. Just like I didn’t and I don’t claim that apologists are unable to see faults of the subject they defend (which was your previous take on the term “apologist”). What I wrote about apologia is what I wrote. I guess you’ll have an easy time interpreting my words second time around; if you’re interested, of course; I wouldn’t want you to make the mistake I did and loose your precious time over something you don’t actually like.

And, since you’re so objective all the time, thanks for explaining to me that I’m indeed suffering! And that my suffering is so obvious! You even found that I’m offended over the show, which is, I don’t know, something that never crossed my mind. Thanks, really. And now, hope you won’t mind if I pull an Olenna and take back the authority over myself in my own hands. Because, when interpreting me you somehow managed to miss even more than when interpreting “apologia”, or GoT, or ASOIAF; and that is quite an achievement.

Haha! Whatever man, "it is a show and I love it" because you believe it's awful and I believe it's excellent.

Let's move on, I'm not interested in discussing this anymore with you, especially if we're going to be comparing each other to fictional characters. We've derailed Ran's thread enough as it is.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

I don't know if you have done what I am talking about, I mean a number of people here (the ones who criticize the show for "butchery," etc and for just being shit).

That doesn't mean there aren't parts of the show they enjoy, they're just choosing to talk about the part they didn't like. That's just human nature, people complain about the one car that cut them off, they don;t talk about the one hundred cars that didn't.

[Miodrag]

Haha! Whatever man, "it is a show and I love it" because you believe it's awful and I believe it's excellent.

Let's move on, I'm not interested in discussing this anymore with you, especially if we're going to be comparing each other to fictional characters. We've derailed Ran's thread enough as it is.

Fictional?! Jaime, Aerys and Olenna fictional?! You really don't know when to stop with insults, do you?

Kidding, of course. I agree completely, let's move on. Cheers.

[PatrickStormborn]

I don't know if you have done what I am talking about, I mean a number of people here (the ones who criticize the show for "butchery," etc and for just being shit).

I've always maintained the position that I like a lot about the show, but I just hate a lot of the writing, characterisation and general showrunning. When compared to the quality of the dialogue and characterisation in the books, the problems are a lot more evident.

[Pinkie Baelish]

I've always maintained the position that I like a lot about the show, but I just hate a lot of the writing, characterisation and general showrunning. When compared to the quality of the dialogue and characterisation in the books, the problems are a lot more evident.

That's like saying "I like a lot about pizza, I just hate the crust, the cheese, and the toppings".

[Honourable Ser]

That's like saying "I like a lot about pizza, I just hate the crust, the cheese, and the toppings".

Cheers for making my day! :rofl:

[protar]

That's like saying "I like a lot about pizza, I just hate the crust, the cheese, and the toppings".

Pizza is like Game of Thrones: Even when it's bad it's still pretty good.

I love the show, hands down my favourite thing on television (though I don't really watch very much so maybe that has something to do with it :P ). But I have a right to criticise it, especially when a lot of the flaws (e.g sexist, homophobic writing, plot holes etc. etc.) do not exist in the books.

[PatrickStormborn]

That's like saying "I like a lot about pizza, I just hate the crust, the cheese, and the toppings".

No, it's like saying "I like a lot about pizza, but some pizzas just can't seem to manage to get the crust, cheese and toppings right". :)

The show has good aspects: scenery, directing, the cast, the music. But the writing and showrunning is very flawed. A deep analysis of any episode from season two onwards will reveal a multitude of plot-holes, and also inconsistent and poor writing and characterisation. Then there are problems the show has faced since season one (sexist and homophobic portrayals of characters, and gratuitous female nudity).

[Talbot]

No, it's like saying "I like a lot about pizza, but some pizzas just can't seem to manage to get the crust, cheese and toppings right". :)

The show has good aspects: scenery, directing, the cast, the music. But the writing and showrunning is very flawed. A deep analysis of any episode from season two onwards will reveal a multitude of plot-holes, and also inconsistent and poor writing and characterisation. Then there are problems the show has faced since season one (sexist and homophobic portrayals of characters, and gratuitous female nudity).

Can you list some of the plotholes you've found? I don't care if they're minscule or game-changing, but I really want to see them. I've only found a couple in S3; the Freys having enough men to bolster the Northern army and the Karstark forces being half of Robbs army off the top of my head.

I don't really think there are a lot of plot holes in the sense that its a hole in the plot''s narrative, but please point out to me what you've found, because I'd like to discuss it further.

The writing isn't that bad, for certain scenes yes, but not on the whole. Sure, some of the dialogue is cheesy at times, and just plain bad at points, but not to the point where its "very flawed". I just think thats you being over-negative to combat the positiveness that the majority of posters display when reviewing the episodes.

Poor characterization, yea its there for some characters, but don't act like its a rampant problem. I really only see it in Tyrion (the whitewashing thats been discussed at length) and Catelyn. Tyrion still can start to spiral downhill, and I have no excuse for Cat, she's just a different character. Loras as well, they just stereotyped him to make him being gay more important than being this great, young, southern tourney knight.

I really don't give a shit about the "gratuitous" (at what point does it become a gratuitous use of the word gratuitous?) female nudity. The only time where I felt it really dragged the plot down was Theon's scene in 3x07, but at that point I was just tired of the Theon/Ramsay scenes. Nothing against Alfie and Rheon, because they're damn good actors and I like the dialogues, but it got old.

But please, the plotholes. Lets get them out here.

[protar]

Plotholes include:

• Why on earth did Robb not want to take Casterly Rock when he was in the Westerlands and at his strongest?
  
• If Volantis is such a totalitarian slave city why are the poor kids allowed to mingle with the rich when playing in the Rhoyne?
  
• Why is Ros able to make it to KL in less time than it takes Robert to finish hunting? Is he out in the woods for weeks?
  
• How on earth are Xaro and Pyat able to take Qarth so easily? What do the heirs to the Thirteen and the other major nobles have to say about the coup?
  
• Why does Shae say she's only been serving Sansa for a few weeks in BW, when Jaime implies that he's been in prison for a year?
  
• Why doesn't Dany change clothes until episode 6 this season? :P
  

[Joyful Union]

• Why is Ros able to make it to KL in less time than it takes Robert to finish hunting? Is he out in the woods for weeks?
  
• How on earth are Xaro and Pyat able to take Qarth so easily? What do the heirs to the Thirteen and the other major nobles have to say about the coup?
  
• Why does Shae say she's only been serving Sansa for a few weeks in BW, when Jaime implies that he's been in prison for a year?
  

Noblemen's hunts used to last weeks, it is fairly possible.

The Thirteen aren't noblemen, they're merchants. Presumably they've become leaders of Qarth through their own merits, meaning their heirs can't do much.

Jaime was a prisoner between S1 and s2, the time could have been considerable in between the two seasons. Or maybe Jaime wasnt counting properly in his cell? Or he rounded it up by a few months.

[Cas Stark]

Other continuity problems and logic fails include:

• Mel saying fear spoils the blood and proceeding to scare the hell out of Gendry while she's getting the blood.
  
• Arya spending an entire season at Harenhall with no Northern soldiers anywhere to be seen, yet theyr'e massacred at the same place at the beginning of season 3
  
• Talisa traveling through a war zone alone, with no visible means of protection or financial support.
  
• The Frey army that Robb picked up at the twins was never seen again and never seen departing after his marriage, it may not even have been referred to.
  

The viewer should not have to create elaborate excuses and rationalizations to make these aspects fit with the narrative or make sense within the story, they are obviously inconsistent in the first case with the previous scene, in the second with everything previously known about what went on at Harenhall and in the third with any reasonable interpretation of a middle ages war zone and its safety level for a woman alone.

[PatrickStormborn]

Can you list some of the plotholes you've found? I don't care if they're minscule or game-changing, but I really want to see them. I've only found a couple in S3; the Freys having enough men to bolster the Northern army and the Karstark forces being half of Robbs army off the top of my head.

I don't really think there are a lot of plot holes in the sense that its a hole in the plot''s narrative, but please point out to me what you've found, because I'd like to discuss it further.

Here's a few off the top of my head:

• Robb's vague war in the westerlands.
  
• Also Robb talking about "our country" in the West - what is he referring to?
  
• Robb's concern over losing men, but nobody mentions the 4000 soldiers he lost when he married Talisa.
  
• Similarly, the major retcon concerning the Frey soldiers. In episode 9 Catelyn reveals that the Freys will join Robb, but this season he reveals that they still haven't declared a side.
  
• The Karstarks holding half the Northern bannermen.
  
• Jorah questioning Daenerys in front of Kraznys. Dany's arc last season (whilst badly written) at least led to Jorah realising that he can trust Daenerys because she knows what she's doing.
  
• Littlefinger thanking Tyrion for freeing Ros even though Tyrion was the reason Ros was arrested in the first place, and even though Tyrion was incapable of doing anything after the Battle of the Blackwater (i.e. Tyrion did not actually release her).
  
• Ramsay killing four of his own men.
  
• Mance sending a group of 20 to attack Castle Black.
  
• Two Lannister children being able to recognise Talisa as Robb's wife, despite no one in King's Landing even being aware of Robb's marriage yet. Or worse: if everyone in King's Landing is aware of Robb breaking his oath to the Freys, why is no one discussing it?
  
• Again, I'll stress this: no one in King's Landing has mentioned Robb's marriage to Talisa.
  
• The lack of funds to pay for Unsullied. Dany could buy around 127 Unsullied if she sold the ship (that isn't hers to sell), her goods, and her Dothraki. So why did Jorah suggest buying Unsullied if Daenerys couldn't afford them?
  
• Melisandre getting on a boat and sailing away from Dragonstone without knowing where she has to go. And worse: conveniently being able to locate Gendry and bring him back to Dragonstone. It feels very much like a deus-ex-machina.
  
• Dany having no one guarding her tent... Not realistic at all.
  
• Robb bringing Talisa, the Blackfish and Catelyn to the Red Wedding. In the books, bringing Cat made sense because she was being sent away from Riverrun. But why unnecessarily risk danger by bringing Talisa and Cat to the wedding, if they don't need to be there? And why not leave the Blackfish to defend Riverrun? He certainly doesn't need to be at the wedding.
  
• Why has Robb abandoned the North and the Riverlands to fight a war in the west? A war they most certainly can't win; if the Karstarks had half the Northern army (which was 18,000 in season 1), that means they had around 9,000 troops. Or it means they had less troops and the overall size of the army is far smaller. Either way the army is far too small to defeat the Lannisters, even with the 4,000 Frey soldiers (unless they've retconned the amount of troops the Freys have). The Lannister/Tyrell army stands at over 100,000... There's no chance Robb can defeat them. Turning North is the only option.
  
• Cersei openly threatening Margaery when the Tyrells are crucial to her son remaining in power.
  

We can certainly argue about whether these can be defined as "plot-holes", but I'm sure most can agree that the vast majority of these are either cases of lazy writing, inconsistencies or plot-holes.

The writing isn't that bad, for certain scenes yes, but not on the whole. Sure, some of the dialogue is cheesy at times, and just plain bad at points, but not to the point where its "very flawed". I just think thats you being over-negative to combat the positiveness that the majority of posters display when reviewing the episodes.

The writing is bad in comparison to the books - I have maintained this view throughout the season. Does that mean it's bad? Not really. The writing is just average most of the time, except when it sounds too modern or is inconsistent with characterisation. But average is certainly a problem when we consider the superiority of the dialogue in the books.

Do you realise how awful your argument is? I'm not criticising the show because the reception is positive. Why would I do that? I genuinely want to enjoy the show. The problem is that - for me at least - the show is very flawed in ways that the books were excellent. And the show is certainly flawed in dialogue compared to other great TV shows such as Breaking Bad.

Poor characterization, yea its there for some characters, but don't act like its a rampant problem. I really only see it in Tyrion (the whitewashing thats been discussed at length) and Catelyn. Tyrion still can start to spiral downhill, and I have no excuse for Cat, she's just a different character. Loras as well, they just stereotyped him to make him being gay more important than being this great, young, southern tourney knight.

The characters have been reduced to tropes and cliches that GRRM either avoided or subverted. I could list them, but we'd literally be here all day.

Obviously there are time constraints which limit strong characterisation, but that can hardly be a problem when the character with the most screentime (Tyrion) is probably the most flat character on the show.

I really don't give a shit about the "gratuitous" (at what point does it become a gratuitous use of the word gratuitous?) female nudity. The only time where I felt it really dragged the plot down was Theon's scene in 3x07, but at that point I was just tired of the Theon/Ramsay scenes. Nothing against Alfie and Rheon, because they're damn good actors and I like the dialogues, but it got old.

Gratuitous female nudity is a huge problem. It's extremely sexist and damages the reputation of the show.

[protar]

Noblemen's hunts used to last weeks, it is fairly possible.

The Thirteen aren't noblemen, they're merchants. Presumably they've become leaders of Qarth through their own merits, meaning their heirs can't do much.

Jaime was a prisoner between S1 and s2, the time could have been considerable in between the two seasons. Or maybe Jaime wasnt counting properly in his cell? Or he rounded it up by a few months.

• I'm no expert on noble hunts so I wouldn't know. It just seemed to stretch credibility for me.
  
• Dany was apparently able to break into Xaro's manse undetected with about a dozen dothraki (incidentally the number of her dothraki also seems fairly inconsistent to me.). Any powerful merchant in the city would've been able to do the same with ease and Xaro's act just made Qarth a free-for-all.
  
• It doesn't seem to me like the gap between S1 and 2 was anymore than a few weeks. Tyrion isn't going to take months to get to KL. Shae's comment in blackwater establishes that E3 to episode 9 takes about a month. It's hard to believe the remaining three episodes, plus the season gap take up the other 11. It seems to me S2 lasts no more than a couple of months.
  

[PatrickStormborn]

Noblemen's hunts used to last weeks, it is fairly possible.

A hunting party consisting of four people lasting weeks is very unlikely.