Reviewing the Rains of Castamere

[HouseLark]

But what I really do not understand is this need by some people to impose their opinion as the prevailing one, with the sole interest of denying others the joy of watching the show. It is a smug attitude. You could just simply express your opinion in one or two posts and move on. The show does not have to be one of the best of all time in order for us to enjoy it.

I agree with your position on the episode but come on, with that last bit you're walking into somebody else's house and telling them you don't like the decor. You're on a ASOIAF website that covers GoT because it kind of has to so you know the perspective you're going to get from the admin. You get the same from APOIAF crew. If you want people who agree with you then WIC and GoO will offer unbridled enthusiasm for the show. I'm a fan of the series and disagree with Linda's position, shared to a bit of a lesser extent by Elio, but they both give good copy and criticism keeps people honest and as an unabashed liberal, I see challenges to my views and the defence of them as part of udnerstanding why I believe the thigns that I do. So I come to Westeros and listen to APOIAF to enjoy good, contrary analysis (and the dick jokes in the case of APOIAF) and I'd be disappointed if all I got was the perspective I already get from WIC.net.

As long as it's not trolling places like this should be for any and all views, expressed repeatedly if necessary.

[boojam]

OK, how does GoT hold when compared with, let's say, "The Wire"? In terms of pure production they're incomparable, all right ("The Wire" was located in Baltimore alone, and didn't contain special effects), but we can compare other aspects: the acting, directing, editing, and, above all, the writing. Is GoT better than "The Wire"? Worse? Try to imagine they're competing for the Emmys this year, and you're in the jury. What show would you vote for?

Then, how about a comparison with "The Sopranos"? And, by the way, it's nobody other than David Benioff who brought this comparison up, when he teased the public with "The Sopranos of The Middle Earth" phrase he used to describe GoT.

Let's go further: GoT against "Mad Men". Now, I've lost interest in the "Mad Men" long ago, after their first season, but I'm aware of the popularity and critical praise the show enjoys. Not my cup of tea, but I trust you or someone else on this forum can undertake this comparison.

How about "Breaking Bad"? Contrary to many other viewers, I'm fairly disappointed with the last two seasons of Walter White's shenanigans, but the first three seasons were quite good and refreshing. What do you like more, BB or GoT?

Let's go to the past once again, to "The Battlestar Galactica". If we disregard epochs of their respective plots, these two shows are quite a match: both epic, with numerous characters, with human drama combined with special effects and supernatural forces... (And they're both adaptations, only TBG had a terrible source material, while GoT has a great one - but, we can disregard source materials for now.) Can you compare TBG with GoT? Just one product with another?

What about "Deadwood"? A period piece, not unlike GoT (except for the scale, which is, undoubtedly, much smaller in "Deadwood").

Now, these are the shows from the last decade and from the top of my head, that are usually regarded as top-tier. If you feel the comparison with ASOIAF is too hard and too demanding - which just may be true - then we at least should be able to compare GoT with these shows.

The short answer as visual media I am as entertained by GOT as the Wire, Breaking Bad,The Sopranos or Deadwood .... say not to forget ROME!

And yes I am a reader of ASoIaF.

I was not a real fan of the new "The Battlestar Galactica", it just never grabbed me, (with emphasis on NEW, cause I thought the old one was too 'comic book' for my taste).

Deadwood is an odd ball because David Milch since a lot of it is based on a newspaper published in Deadwood at the time, and historical figures...

The Wire , even if based on the experience of David Simon as a newspaper writer is mostly a creation not really based on a single piece of source material.

ROME is one half based on known recorded history, and one half (brilliantly!) follows EVERYDAY LIFE IN ANCIENT TIMES, following the story of our two Roman back street characters is something I have never seen in an ancient history story.

Adaptation is hard , lord how many film have mangled source material ... tho there are good examples: John Huston could be amazing at times , he actually improved Rudyard Kipling's THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING, and made masterpieces out of The Maltese Falcon , The Treasure of the Sierra Madre ... just to name a few.

I always have had this feeling that David Benioff and D. B. Weiss really seem to show beginners faults at times, they are both excellent writers but I swear they have things that interest them to the point of distraction and visual narrative they can't seem to master (for neglect , I think) , to wit, Dany's story in season 2. They are best at dialog, Charles Dance is no foolish tyro and has said so many times he likes his lines. Over all continuity , 10 episode seasons and GRRM's amount of material has been a challenge they have had a hard time defeating, but I don't think if George had of written every script this problem could have been solved.

[Honourable Ser]

OK, how does GoT hold when compared with, let's say, "The Wire"? In terms of pure production they're incomparable, all right ("The Wire" was located in Baltimore alone, and didn't contain special effects), but we can compare other aspects: the acting, directing, editing, and, above all, the writing. Is GoT better than "The Wire"? Worse? Try to imagine they're competing for the Emmys this year, and you're in the jury. What show would you vote for?

Then, how about a comparison with "The Sopranos"? And, by the way, it's nobody other than David Benioff who brought this comparison up, when he teased the public with "The Sopranos of The Middle Earth" phrase he used to describe GoT.

Let's go further: GoT against "Mad Men". Now, I've lost interest in the "Mad Men" long ago, after their first season, but I'm aware of the popularity and critical praise the show enjoys. Not my cup of tea, but I trust you or someone else on this forum can undertake this comparison.

How about "Breaking Bad"? Contrary to many other viewers, I'm fairly disappointed with the last two seasons of Walter White's shenanigans, but the first three seasons were quite good and refreshing. What do you like more, BB or GoT?

Let's go to the past once again, to "The Battlestar Galactica". If we disregard epochs of their respective plots, these two shows are quite a match: both epic, with numerous characters, with human drama combined with special effects and supernatural forces... (And they're both adaptations, only TBG had a terrible source material, while GoT has a great one - but, we can disregard source materials for now.) Can you compare TBG with GoT? Just one product with another?

What about "Deadwood"? A period piece, not unlike GoT (except for the scale, which is, undoubtedly, much smaller in "Deadwood").

Now, these are the shows from the last decade and from the top of my head, that are usually regarded as top-tier. If you feel the comparison with ASOIAF is too hard and too demanding - which just may be true - then we at least should be able to compare GoT with these shows.

And we can compare it with them. It's better in my eyes and indeed with much of the public given the IMDB ratings for them. I love Deadwood, Mad Men and Rome, but they don't hold a candle to Game of Thrones.

[Miodrag]

Except I already did that in the "How would you rate episode 309" thread, where I clearly stated that Breaking Bad has Game of Thrones beat in both depth and artistic integrity. I never claimed that the show is one of the all-time greats, and still don't consider it to be GOAT status. There's nothing wrong with judging the show as an adaptation, but it is a TV show, first and foremost, and thus should be compared and judged by the same standards as any of the shows you mentioned above. In fact, that's my main basis of judgment when I try to judge the show as a whole.

Trust me: if the show was as bad as some people like to think, it would not be receiving near unanimous levels of critical praise from many critics that have never read the books.

First, what's GOAT status?

Second, trust me: if there were no novels, I probably wouldn't watch the show. It is just me, but that's how it is. The main reason I keep watching it is because of the source material. You know: let's see how did they adapt this and that. Without that, I wouldn't follow it, because I wouldn't find it not nearly rewarding as the shows I love. (And, by the way, I also try to avoid comparing GoT to ASOIAF in my posts here, because a lot of other posters are doing it pretty well so there's no need for repeating. It's more that, when bringing details from ASOIAF, I often intent to show that the proper adaptation of the novels would produce the show that would dwarf all other TV shows I've seen, even the best ones, those I counted in previous post.)

Third, trust me once again, since I'm in the journalism business: TV critics are creatures of fashion. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is true. The critical appraisal may indeed mean that the show is good. But, it could also mean that they're trying to benefit from the popularity of it. When something is as popular as GoT is at the moment, it's hard to resist writing about it if you're a TV critic. And, if you loved the first season of it and gathered some readership by hailing it, then maybe, just maybe, you wouldn't be so eager to criticize it harshly, even if you lost some of the respect for it. Now, I don't claim it has to be the case with all of the critics. But, I'm pretty sure that or something similar is exactly the case with some of them. It happened to the better shows, too, like "The Wire" - I really don't believe that all those critics were so delighted with "The Wire" as they claimed they were.

Looking at your signature, GoT strikes me very similar to "The Dark Knight" trilogy. It also was insanely popular; it also was praised by the various critics; it also was praised as a superb cinema on the level with the classics. But, after all the hype is gone, I believe we can agree that TDK is far below the league of "The Godfather I and II", Kurosava's masterpieces, "Apocalypse Now", "Blade Runner", Zhang Yimou's "Hero", "There Will Be Blood"...

[Honourable Ser]

Your third point about the journalists seems very unfair to me. The fact is, the show gets good reviews because people like it. Even if as you say the journalists are slaves to fashion, then clearly the fashion is because people are in love with the show.

[Dotini]

I subscribe to the basic idea that Winter is Coming, and that plot characters such as Robb and his mother who let their lust and other emotions get in the way of serving Westeros - call it the realm - against the coming of Winter and the Others deserve to be eliminated. RW serves that purpose admirably.

[Miodrag]

And we can compare it with them. It's better in my eyes and indeed with much of the public given the IMDB ratings for them. I love Deadwood, Mad Men and Rome, but they don't hold a candle to Game of Thrones.

Wouldn't go so far to take IMDB ratings seriously, they're way too foolish and fanboyish (not just for GoT, but in general). Your personal judgment, however, is entirely different case, and I’ll happily debate it.

Let's see... Of the three shows you counted, I'd exclude Rome, because, while enjoyable and watchable, it suffered from the similar inconsistencies and ridiculousness as GoT is (and it was also choking with over-the-top sex). Mad Men is, as I said, not my cup of tea, but in the one season of it I've seen, there wasn't a single stupidity on par with "Pod The Sex Deity" or with "I invoke sumae" or with some other embarrassing-to-watch stuff we're debating here for years. My view is that the chain is as strong as it’s weakest link is. Based on a personal interest, we can all prefer this show or that show, but if we measure the weakest links, I believe we’ll get closer to objectivity in our judgment. So, while Mad Men never grabbed my interest, it didn’t contain a single link that is as weak as the stupidest scenes from GoT, which is why I rate it higher than GoT, even if I stopped watching it.

I can say something similar for “Deadwood”. It interested me more than Mad Men did, but I wasn’t some huge fan of it. However, once again I can’t recall the single thing “Deadwood” did that made me embarrassed as a watcher. Closest thing to a stupidity would be the Al-Bulock fight at the beginning of the second season, that ended abruptly with a convenient arrival of latter’s wife; which is, like, some lame writing, but not near the lamest we’ve seen in GoT.

Which brings me to this conclusion: GoT would’ve been a much better show, if the adaptation was put in the hands of David Simon or David Chase or David Milch or Whiner... Simon even said in some interview that he watches and likes GoT (it was after the first season ended). Just imagine him and Pelecanos and other writers from “The Wire” scripting the episodes of “Game of Thrones”: wouldn’t it be, like, in the league of it’s own?!

[Mr Fixit]

This adaptation suffers majorly on the whole from a lack of ambition and a lack of intelligence, it is often made to cater to the lowest common denominator in order to secure high viewing figures for HBO.

Jesus Christ. I am at a loss for words. I really do hope you lose all the ties to the show, what few remain.

It's one thing to say you don't like something. But to accuse the show of lack of intelligence and catering to the lowest common denominator, it's simply utter, callous blindness. (Hm, can blindness be callous? :cool4: )

[Miodrag]

Your third point about the journalists seems very unfair to me. The fact is, the show gets good reviews because people like it. Even if as you say the journalists are slaves to fashion, then clearly the fashion is because people are in love with the show.

Just wanted to say that critical appraisal – while it is surely valuable and no small achievement for any show and is inevitably an indication – doesn’t have to be rooted purely in the quality of the product itself. Some quality is required, of course, but let’s not forget that shows like “The X Files” and “Lost” also received a critical acclaim in their time. Watchable they were, entertaining also, even smart to a certain degree... But was it a high-drama stuff? Hardly...

[Cas Stark]

I agree that critics have a certain level of bandwagon mentality, and so once they've jumped on the bandwagon, they will usually stay on it.

Season 1 of GOT certainly deserved all the critical praise it received. But, now critics are on that bandwagon.

As far as comparing GOT to other shows, I don't think it comes close to the writing of The Sopranos or to the consistently great direction of the The Sopranos. It has great acting for the most part, wonderful sets, but the writing itself and the direction are wildly inconsistent to my eye, even within a single episode, which is probably because with the multilple shoots the "director" is not actually shooting every segment, but putting the final package together.

It's a very good show, but it falls short of what it could be and what it should be due to a lack of attention to detail and to the show increasingly taking a "we know better" attitude and adding more and more invented plotlines and characters.

[Mr Fixit]

the show increasingly taking a "we know better" attitude and adding more and more invented plotlines and characters.

Will someone let this tired notion of "D&D just think they are sooo smart, don't they" die a swift and brutal death via multiple stabbings to the belly. Thank you. :wideeyed:

[Cas Stark]

Will someone let this tired notion of "D&D just think they are sooo smart, don't they" die a swift and brutal death via multiple stabbings to the belly. Thank you. :wideeyed:

It's not a notion it's an obvious fact to me since each season they create more invented scenes, make more fundamental changes from the source material that cannot reasonably be attributed to budget or to keeping the number of characters down.

[Mr Fixit]

Well, judging by 3x07, maybe they do know better. Har har.

[Cas Stark]

Well, judging by 3x07, maybe they do know better. Har har.

Because popularity is always a sign of a quality product? Michael Mann thanks you.

[briantw]

Which brings me to this conclusion: GoT would’ve been a much better show, if the adaptation was put in the hands of David Simon or David Chase or David Milch or Whiner... Simon even said in some interview that he watches and likes GoT (it was after the first season ended). Just imagine him and Pelecanos and other writers from “The Wire” scripting the episodes of “Game of Thrones”: wouldn’t it be, like, in the league of it’s own?!

Man, if people want to complain about D&D thinking they know better, I can't even imagine how they'd feel if David Simon, one of the all-time great pompous and arrogant know-it-alls, was behind the wheel. :laugh:

And look, I think The Wire is the greatest television show ever made, but I don't think making The Wire makes David Simon at all qualified to make Game of Thrones. In fact, I'd argue the opposite. Nothing he did on The Wire, aside from the writing, makes me think he'd be a good fit for a high-budget epic show like Thrones. And even with the writing, when has Simon ever written anything that makes anyone here think he can handle fantasy?

[Ser Not Appearing]

I think that you have to move the forum to a dedicated server of its own, I was unable to sign in for the last ten days and when at last manage to do so yesterday, I couldn't post anything. It didn't work.

I had trouble all day yesterday. Good to see so many enjoying Martin's work... but it does come with certain annoyances.

[Dragonstoned]

Except I already did that in the "How would you rate episode 309" thread, where I clearly stated that Breaking Bad has Game of Thrones beat in both depth and artistic integrity. I never claimed that the show is one of the all-time greats, and still don't consider it to be GOAT status. There's nothing wrong with judging the show as an adaptation, but it is a TV show, first and foremost, and thus should be compared and judged by the same standards as any of the shows you mentioned above. In fact, that's my main basis of judgment when I try to judge the show as a whole.

Trust me: if the show was as bad as some people like to think, it would not be receiving near unanimous levels of critical praise from many critics that have never read the books.

Judging it as a show is the right thing to do, but has anyone actually said it's a crap show? The people who criticise Game of Thrones will still say how good a show it is - e.g. I think it's one of the best of all time and I have said before probably third behind The Wire and Firefly. The 'book purist' frustration is it could be up there at GOAT status, and in 'our' opinion the way to do this would be to adhere to the books more closely, thus 'we' give it stick as an adaptation. Elio & Linda's reviews appraise the show as an adaptation and I don't think they criticise it very much at all as a show in its own right.

The way I see it book purists do what all the other bookreaders do and praise Game of Thrones for being an amazing show, and just do something else on top which is to criticise the series as an adaptation. If it appears book purists never praise the show and are always criticising the adaptation then it's probably because everyone knows by now how good a show it is, so the praise in a way goes without saying. I've seriously never seen anyone say it's less than a really good show, if you can find examples of people doing so then please show them to me and I will be the first to take it up with them.

Basically let's all be friends! If you manage to separate the show and the books in your mind then well done and I wish I could do that. I couldn't work out before how anyone could have read the books and not find the show often disappointing, but I think it is just the ability to see them as two distinct things. I see a lot here people telling others to get over the fact the book and show will be different, but there's no use telling people this - if you can't do it then you can't do it. You can step back afterwards and admire the show for itself but the initial natural reaction is usually to look at it in relation to the books.

Your weekly avatars are a highlight of the board btw. Expecting one of Ramsay in a Bolton cloak next week, unless they show Robb with Greywind's head.

[Miodrag]

Man, if people want to complain about D&D thinking they know better, I can't even imagine how they'd feel if David Simon, one of the all-time great pompous and arrogant know-it-alls, was behind the wheel. :laugh:

And look, I think The Wire is the greatest television show ever made, but I don't think making The Wire makes David Simon at all qualified to make Game of Thrones. In fact, I'd argue the opposite. Nothing he did on The Wire, aside from the writing, makes me think he'd be a good fit for a high-budget epic show like Thrones. And even with the writing, when has Simon ever written anything that makes anyone here think he can handle fantasy?

I have a feeling that Simon, as well as the other TV authors I respect, would be smart enough to follow the steps of a greater creative mind – GRRM. I’d say that Simon, despite his attitude which may strike some as pompous and arrogant, would react to ASOIAF just like he reacted to real-life people whose personal stories he used for narrative purposes in “The Wire”: he had so much respect for them, and he wanted to picture them so faithfully, that he even ended up casting many of them in the show. Hence, my guess is he would be clever enough to follow the novels as closely as possible.

Of course, we’ll never know how would he approach it.

[Mr Fixit]

Because popularity is always a sign of a quality product? Michael Mann thanks you.

Huh? Who's talking about popularity?

[Mr Fixit]

I have a feeling that Simon, as well as the other TV authors I respect, would be smart enough to follow the steps of a greater creative mind – GRRM.

Well, that's all I wanted to hear, to be honest. Now we can finally come to the root of the problem.