[BOOK SPOILERS] Nitpick without repercussion?

[fede989]

As far as I know, The New Yorker isn't the same as New York Times. I posted a link to The New Yorker. You replied with a link about New York Times being biased against GoT. Yeah, it must be me, with my points barely made...

In another news, the Hitfix guy, a non-reader one: that's Allan Sepinwall. Whose reviews I recommended to you in my post. I recommend someone to you, you recommend him back to me... My barely made points again, right?

And, thanks for collecting so many reviewers. Now, this may surprise you, but I often read them. Didn't read each and every one of those reviews, but many of them. And, I can't remember a single one in which bigger ASOIAF themes - only conveyed differently for the show - were discussed. These reviews are often more recaps than analysis, which is fine, I guess. And those recaps are sometimes quite an entertaining reads (though, I have to admit Hibberd from EW was funnier during the first season than later on), while What The Flick?! is usually interesting to watch (and, by the way, four of them are, with Sepinwall, perhaps closest to proper analysis of episodes, and they all strike me as genuinely and passionately in love with the show). Sean T. Collins is a strange case, because he's so minutial when talking and writing about books, while not nearly so when writing about the show.

But, if I may notice, you couldn't find any example of show inspiring discussions on all those "phantom themes", i.e. themes we purists from close-minded world of Westeros.org find entirely absent from the show, while you keep repeating they're there, only we don't see them cause we're biased. Themes like, for example, religions of Westeros and their importance in the story.

Sorry but have you read WinterisComing.net analysis or recaps? Because theirs analysis are very exhaustive on the themes presented on each episode and the series as a whole. They're pretty long but really are worth reading, even with the author occasional overindulgence with language.

[Khal-a-bunga]

But, if I may notice, you couldn't find any example of show inspiring discussions on all those "phantom themes", i.e. themes we purists from close-minded world of Westeros.org find entirely absent from the show, while you keep repeating they're there, only we don't see them cause we're biased. Themes like, for example, religions of Westeros and their importance in the story.

You're full of it. And all anyone would need to do to see that is actually read some of those reviews. Sims, Greenwald, VanDerWerff, and Poniewizak in particular all routinely discuss the thematic content of the series. You saying that you 'didn't see them' doesn't mean they aren't there. You know that, right? Perhaps it's just not in-depth enough for you... In which case, just head to the comments sections of any of these reviews to see those things discussed in further detail.

Also, I noticed the discrepancy with the two New York based reviews, and edited my original post to reflect that. And apparently I missed your recommendation to check out Sepinwall's reviews, which is why I posted a link to his recaps. I've been listening to his podcast with Fienberg and reading his reviews for several years now, so I'm familiar with his work.

As far as the comment from that review you posted: Since you didn't actually highlight what you were trying to convey, I had to assume that you were discussing how the author of the review feels about Dany. Correct? Except, as that comment points out, her story isn't done, and Dany has yet to feel the repercussions of the decisions she has made.

[Miodrag]

@Khal-a-bunga

Here, let me quote the most interesting part of The New Yorker review. It might help you grasp what some viewers - possibly majority of them, even - do pick up from the show and it's depiction of a place called Westeros:

But other, more recreational watchers—this one, for example—tend to be skeptical, peering at the complexity and filigree in a bemused haze. They started watching because they heard that “Game of Thrones” was good, and addictive, and HBO, and all the rest. (In her 2012 review in The New Yorker, Emily Nussbaum called it “the latest entry in television’s most esteemed category: the sophisticated cable drama about a patriarchal subculture.”) These more casual fans are solid on the Lannisters and the Starks, sure, but they get disoriented when they end up in the Iron Islands, dealing with the Greyjoys. At the Red Wedding, they weren’t just horrified by the carnage but also confused by who those terrible hosts were. They might have entertained, in Season One, the hope that the dragons were a legend or a metaphor, and been a bit saddened when Arya discovered their skulls in the basement. To them, the White Walkers, those glassy supernatural marauders, are like the flashbacks on “Mad Men”—Oh right, this again. They suffer through the severed hands, the threat of gang rape, the incantations, the murder of children’s friends and pets, because, optimists that they are, they want noble little Bran to save his family and to see his half-brother Jon Snow again.

Such viewers—good-hearted but unconvinced, and perhaps a bit lazy—have no better friend than Daenerys Targaryen. She’s pale and elfin and easy to recognize; her magical powers seem to be some kind of feminism, expressed through benevolent dragons; she’s always outsmarting despots. While characters in other story lines are freezing, pretending to love their captors, or clutching a wine chalice as they insult someone in a dimly lit whorehouse, Dany is always in a sunny climate, all blue skies and bright horizons, overtaking a foreign army with nothing but decency and savvy and her three little dragons, her platinum hair blowing as she makes some fair, courageous pronouncement. In Season Three, she has been a reassuring presence. She’s moved steadily through the country, liberating slaves and inspiring one to keep his slave name, Gray Worm, because that was the name he had when she freed him. It’s good to see things going well for somebody. At the conclusion of last night’s finale, a crowd of freed slaves, chanting “Mhysa”—“Mother”—bore her up like a crowd surfer on the world’s happiest mosh pit, and the cameras swirled up to the sky as the dragons squawked with joy. The scene reassures us that someone decent might make it through this world alive, intact, and beloved—and slyly encourages us, skeptics and devotees alike, to love dragons and all that comes with them, into treacherous Season Four and beyond.

(end quote)

These two paragraphs, as honest as they come in the reviews of GoT, show exactly what is the problem with the show: it's confusing, it doesn't explain important things to average viewers, it doesn't suck viewers that deep into it's world, it's a joy to watch in terms of spectacle but a problem to understand in it's essence... To avoid confusion: the reviewer doesn't say these underlined things. She just describes what she sees in the show. What's underlined is a series of logical conclusions on what's responsible for such a review.

[boojam]

As far as I know, The New Yorker isn't the same as New York Times. I posted a link to The New Yorker. You replied with a link about New York Times being biased against GoT. Yeah, it must be me, with my points barely made...

Yes the New York Times and The New Yorker are not connected, disjoint publishers.

Well the N.Y. Times is kind of schizophrenic , Mike Hale wrote , well, non-favorable season previews of the show for 2012 and 2013 (the reviewer for 2011 has not written about the show since), then with the close of season 3 Hale wrote a positive 'blog' about the show.

Dave Itzkoff , who is very genre friendly , writes more about the show than Hale for the N.Y. Times, but they are mainly expository , about actors and overall production, he has been positive without being explicit. I don't know why Itzkoff does not write reviews of the show, he has done film , TV and book reviews over the years. He did a big splash article on the Arts page about GOT before season 3.

A.O. Scott , who is also genre friendly , just does only film reviews, I don't think he has ever written about the show.

I must say GOT does get shorted by the N.Y. Times while other HBO shows get a little more coverage.

[Khal-a-bunga]

@Khal-a-bunga

Here, let me quote the most interesting part of The New Yorker review. It might help you grasp what some viewers - possibly majority of them, even - do pick up from the show and it's depiction of a place called Westeros:

But other, more recreational watchers—this one, for example—tend to be skeptical, peering at the complexity and filigree in a bemused haze. They started watching because they heard that “Game of Thrones” was good, and addictive, and HBO, and all the rest. (In her 2012 review in The New Yorker, Emily Nussbaum called it “the latest entry in television’s most esteemed category: the sophisticated cable drama about a patriarchal subculture.”) These more casual fans are solid on the Lannisters and the Starks, sure, but they get disoriented when they end up in the Iron Islands, dealing with the Greyjoys. At the Red Wedding, they weren’t just horrified by the carnage but also confused by who those terrible hosts were. They might have entertained, in Season One, the hope that the dragons were a legend or a metaphor, and been a bit saddened when Arya discovered their skulls in the basement. To them, the White Walkers, those glassy supernatural marauders, are like the flashbacks on “Mad Men”—Oh right, this again. They suffer through the severed hands, the threat of gang rape, the incantations, the murder of children’s friends and pets, because, optimists that they are, they want noble little Bran to save his family and to see his half-brother Jon Snow again.

Such viewers—good-hearted but unconvinced, and perhaps a bit lazy—have no better friend than Daenerys Targaryen. She’s pale and elfin and easy to recognize; her magical powers seem to be some kind of feminism, expressed through benevolent dragons; she’s always outsmarting despots. While characters in other story lines are freezing, pretending to love their captors, or clutching a wine chalice as they insult someone in a dimly lit whorehouse, Dany is always in a sunny climate, all blue skies and bright horizons, overtaking a foreign army with nothing but decency and savvy and her three little dragons, her platinum hair blowing as she makes some fair, courageous pronouncement. In Season Three, she has been a reassuring presence. She’s moved steadily through the country, liberating slaves and inspiring one to keep his slave name, Gray Worm, because that was the name he had when she freed him. It’s good to see things going well for somebody. At the conclusion of last night’s finale, a crowd of freed slaves, chanting “Mhysa”—“Mother”—bore her up like a crowd surfer on the world’s happiest mosh pit, and the cameras swirled up to the sky as the dragons squawked with joy. The scene reassures us that someone decent might make it through this world alive, intact, and beloved—and slyly encourages us, skeptics and devotees alike, to love dragons and all that comes with them, into treacherous Season Four and beyond.

(end quote)

These two paragraphs, as honest as they come in the reviews of GoT, show exactly what is the problem with the show: it's confusing, it doesn't explain important things to average viewers, it doesn't suck viewers that deep into it's world, it's a joy to watch in terms of spectacle but a problem to understand in it's essence... To avoid confusion: the reviewer doesn't say these underlined things. She just describes what she sees in the show. What's underlined is a series of logical conclusions on what's responsible for such a review.

Yes, we get it - you cherry-picked this review to showcase that this particular reviewer is confused about certain aspects of the show. And you still argue that additional minor characters, sub-plots, and various other minutiae should be included, as you view this as a failure in the adaptation process. Maybe it's just that the books are incredibly complicated? I mean, you've said several times that the show has 'dumbed down' the story, and yet, this review contradicts that point. Like many other serialized shows, viewers are rewarded for paying attention to the details, and the information is there within the show for anyone who is paying attention to find and absorb. It just so happens that this is an incredibly dense, intricate show not set in a real world.

What's also odd about you choosing that review, is that the reviewer is asking for a more traditional story - she outright states that she wants Bran to save his family, and for everything to be happy. How, in any way, is her mentality the fault of the show and not also a fault of the book series? You're not being very clear here in your critique or your choice of examples to extrapolate on said critique.

I could go through and cherry-pick a number of quotes from the dozens of reviews I linked to above, as well.

[Miodrag]

You're full of it. And all anyone would need to do to see that is actually read some of those reviews. Sims, Greenwald, VanDerWerff, and Poniewizak in particular all routinely discuss the thematic content of the series. You saying that you 'didn't see them' doesn't mean they aren't there. You know that, right? Perhaps it's just not in-depth enough for you... In which case, just head to the comments sections of any of these reviews to see those things discussed in further detail.

Al right, then: any review (with or without comments) that addresses religions?

Any review (with or without comments) that addresses heritage and family values recognized by the different families?

Any review (with or without comments) that addresses different forms of duty and different perceptions of it? (Let me help you a little: Sepinwall addressed it briefly, in the review of episode 7 of the first season, when he compared Drogo's promise to Dany with Jon's and Sam's NW oath.)

Any review (with or without comments) that addressed economy of Westeros?

And I could go on and on. Cause, there's a legion of themes that weren't addressed in the show. And hey, it's fine, we all know they don't have the time for everything. But, whenever someone brings up themes that are absent from the show, you reply we're biased and therefore blind and we miss those themes in the show.

[Miodrag]

Yes, we get it - you cherry-picked this review to showcase that this particular reviewer is confused about certain aspects of the show. And you still argue that additional minor characters, sub-plots, and various other minutiae should be included, as you view this as a failure in the adaptation process. Maybe it's just that the books are incredibly complicated? I mean, you've said several times that the show has 'dumbed down' the story, and yet, this review contradicts that point. Like many other serialized shows, viewers are rewarded for paying attention to the details, and the information is there within the show for anyone who is paying attention to find and absorb.

And I posted several series of reviews that follow along with everything just fine, for the most part. What's also odd about you choosing that review, is that the reviewer is asking for a more traditional story - she wants Bran to save the day, and for everything to be happy. How, in any way, is her mentality the fault of the show and not also a fault of the book series? You're not being very clear here.

Sepinwall is also far from impressed by the show. He watches it, likes it to a certain extent, but that's it. "Atlantic" reviewers too. And no, it's not about the mentality of the reviewer. It's about how successful show is in sucking viewers into it's world. Maybe this review is odd, but seems pretty honest to me, much more honest than some other reviewers.

[Miodrag]

The thing is, it's practically impossible to make you admit there's a single fault in the show. Which is, again, fine. But, it does sound odd if you of all people go around and tell others they are biased and blind and we're close-minded here. But, even that is fine. At the end of the day, you're amusing.

If I fall asleep soon (2 a clock at the morning in Serbia) before you post some links, I'll address them tomorrow. And don't restrict yourself to the themes I counted in my post. Pick any theme any of "usual suspects" among us purists found missing from the show.

And, please don't bother with links from WiC.net. All due respect for them, but they're too irrational in their love for the show and too hostile to any critic whatsoever, to be considered serious.

[Miodrag]

Sorry but have you read WinterisComing.net analysis or recaps? Because theirs analysis are very exhaustive on the themes presented on each episode and the series as a whole. They're pretty long but really are worth reading, even with the author occasional overindulgence with language.

Hope you won't mind me saying, but I quit visiting them long time ago. They're far too fanboyish for my taste. While visiting, can't seem to remember I ever encountered a reasonable discussion there. I understand all that, really, they are dedicated to the show exclusively, after all, but it really isn't my thing to read "curtain calls" and praising D&D for replacing "that stupid Jeyne with strong character like Talisa" (that's from the comments section) and other stuff I can't describe with any other word but juvenile. We're both probably better off without each other.

[Khal-a-bunga]

Al right, then: any review (with or without comments) that addresses religions?

Any review (with or without comments) that addresses heritage and family values recognized by the different families?

Any review (with or without comments) that addresses different forms of duty and different perceptions of it? (Let me help you a little: Sepinwall addressed it briefly, in the review of episode 7 of the first season, when he compared Drogo's promise to Dany with Jon's and Sam's NW oath.)

Any review (with or without comments) that addressed economy of Westeros?

And I could go on and on. Cause, there's a legion of themes that weren't addressed in the show. And hey, it's fine, we all know they don't have the time for everything. But, whenever someone brings up themes that are absent from the show, you reply we're biased and therefore blind and we miss those themes in the show.

Are you serious? These are all basic discussion points for the show itself that have been touched upon consistently throughout the entire run of the series. Religion has become a further topic of discussion beginning this season (with the revelation that there are many worshipers of the Lord of Light in Westeros), and the finances of the crown have been discussed both in the first season (when Ned discovered the debt owed to the Lannister family) and this season (the fact that Littlefinger has borrowed from the Iron Bank of Braavos). You basically listed some of the most obvious discussion points imaginable, and then proceed to say that these things are never touched upon in reviews or discussion of the show... Seriously? Come on, man. If you're trolling, then congratulations - you got me. If you're being sincere, then you're delusional.

Sepinwall is also far from impressed by the show. He watches it, likes it to a certain extent, but that's it. "Atlantic" reviewers too. And no, it's not about the mentality of the reviewer. It's about how successful show is in sucking viewers into it's world. Maybe this review is odd, but seems pretty honest to me, much more honest than some other reviewers.

Sepinwall listed the show as his 7th favorite of 2011, and his 16th favorite show of 2012, and has mentioned in his podcast that he feels like this season may have been the strongest, overall.

http://www.hitfix.co...1-overall-shows

http://www.hitfix.co...t-of-the-rest/2

Is there no end to your bullshit? And really, Alan's main issue with the show is something that they'd be hard pressed to do anything about, which is the structure. He's mentioned several times that he thinks the optimal way to watch the show is in quick succession, but that he's not able to do that because of his job to review the show for the site.

Just for reference, his partner Daniel Fienberg listed the show as his 5th favorite of 2011, and 7th favorite of 2012:

http://www.hitfix.co...cond-10-of-2011

http://www.hitfix.co...-the-fien-print

And in their first annual TV Critics Poll that occurred in 2012, the show placed 5th overall (44 individual publications took part):

http://www.hitfix.co...s/tvcriticspoll

As far as things I have an issue with in the show:

- The handling of Qhorin Halfhand & Xaro

- The way that they choose to skip from scene to scene (the transitions could be smoother)

- The missed opportunities (one recently mentioned was that Catelyn and Edmure didn't get to share a scene together) for character interactions

- The lack of battles (budgetary, but it's not as if the show doesn't make them enough money to show something other than a black screen with swords clanging, as in the season premiere)

...I could go on...

And, please don't bother with links from WiC.net. All due respect for them, but they're too irrational in their love for the show and too hostile to any critic whatsoever, to be considered serious.

Oh, the irony. What's especially egregious is that you stated the review you posted felt "more honest" than "some other reviews".

I'm done. We've hogged up enough of this thread (which, by the way; you should really learn how to edit your posts instead of double, triple, or quadruple posting), and you've clearly done nothing but make yourself look like a fool. Not for having an opinion, mind you; but for posting a bunch of nonsense that clearly isn't true.

[Miodrag]

Are you serious? These are all basic discussion points for the show itself that have been touched upon consistently throughout the entire run of the series. Religion has become a further topic of discussion beginning this season, and the finances of the crown have been discussed both in the first season (when Ned discovered the debt owed to the Lannister family) and this season (the fact that Littlefinger has borrowed from the Iron Bank of Braavos). You basically listed the most outer level discussion points imaginable, and then proceed to say that these things are never touched upon in reviews or discussion of the show... Seriously?

In that case, it probably won't be too big trouble for you to direct me to one of those reviews/discussions, that prove the show is a thematic match to the books, as you keep claiming. Since I'm so full of it, you'll do it in no time, I guess, let alone until the time I wake up.

About Sepinwall: that satisfies you? Like, you're happy with a guy - who isn't the second coming or anything, but is respected in circles and is famous for admiring shows that are usually recognized as great - listing the show at 7th place in it's first year and 16th in it's second? What do you think, I wonder: did Sepinwall underrated the show? Overrated it? Or was he about right?

I'd say he got it about right. Which, concerning the competition, doesn't speak very highly of this adaptation.

About your complaints: you OK with Talisa? With Tywin but scolding Amory? The House of the Undying? And I really could go on.

[Khal-a-bunga]

In that case, it probably won't be too big trouble for you to direct me to one of those reviews/discussions, that prove the show is a thematic match to the books, as you keep claiming. Since I'm so full of it, you'll do it in no time, I guess, let alone until the time I wake up.

What a straw man... Go find one quote where I said the show is a "thematic match to the books". Since I've 'claimed it' several times, it shouldn't take long...

About Sepinwall: that satisfies you? Like, you're happy with a guy - who isn't the second coming or anything, but is respected in circles and is famous for admiring shows that are usually recognized as great - listing the show at 7th place in it's first year and 16th in it's second? What do you think, I wonder: did Sepinwall underrated the show? Overrated it? Or was he about right?

I'd say he got it about right. Which, concerning the competition, doesn't speak very highly of this adaptation.

Sepinwall in neither my favorite reviewer, nor one that I consistently agree with. You're the one who seemed to put an inordinate amount of credit into his opinion. Truth be told, while I enjoy his podcast, he's always come across as rather glib, and has a penchant for network comedies that I don't share. As for the competition not 'speaking highly' of his placement of the show...

Friday Night Lights

Justified

Louie

Breaking Bad

Mad Men

Treme

Luck

Boardwalk Empire

Yeah, what awful competition. Some of these are only among the best shows of all-time, after all. And, like I mentioned, the show placed 5th in their overall poll. So I don't see why I would take issue with his placement.

About your complaints: you OK with Talisa? With Tywin but scolding Amory? The House of the Undying? And I really could go on.

Talisa is an improvement over Jeyne, at least, though I don't love this part of the story in either the show or the books. Could not care less about Tywin scolding Amory (and seriously, who would?). And I think the House of the Undying could have used a blue rose, but was otherwise fine with it. The writers have already said that prophesies and the history will be implemented slowly throughout the series, when it is most relevant to the story line. No need to have what essentially amounts to an info-dump at the end of the second season. And for what it's worth, the sequence felt just symbolic enough to hint at future developments, without outright spelling things out (as showing a king with the head of a wolf with dead bodies strewn about would have done).

[Miodrag]

Man, you complain on my editing? You're an English speaker, and you keep editing them all the time, and you complain to me? Jesus...

What a straw man... Go find one quote where I said the show is a "thematic match to the books". Since I've 'claimed it' several times, it shouldn't take long...

You posted this few hours ago, in a respond to "Masamune", after which I reacted:

"Venture outside of the close-minded world of Westeros.org, and you'll find that the show often does convey the things that we all loved about the series to viewers who have never read the books. That information is often conveyed, by necessity, in a different manner (or on a different time line) and with less detail than it was in the novels, but that's to be expected."

By "the thing we all loved" I assumed themes, among other aspects of the novels. In case you didn't think of themes, as in, you don't think themes are part of "things that we all loved about the series", allow me to clear the misunderstanding with a direct question: do you think the show is a thematic match to the novels?

(I'm pretty sure you did imply something along that line in some of our previous discussions. As soon as I find time and energy, I'll check, and post the results, whatever they are.)

About the competition: all those shows may be good, some of them are possibly great (though I doubt any is in the league of The Wire and The Sopranos), but... How would you position GoT in some all-time list? Would it be among all-time greats? Let's say, in the top 10? Or top 20 maybe? Just asking.

Talisa: she's tells Robb she's pregnant; he's obviously surprised; she asks: "You angry with me?" Now, please, in the name of everything you hold sacred, please explain to me what does it mean? Why on earth would he be angry at her? What's going on in her pretty little head at that moment? And, finally: you really think a character with that kind of lines is an improvement over anything in ASOIAF?!

Tywin: Amory sent Lannister's war plans to their enemies. And Tywin only scolds him. First: how is it possible to send a raven to the wrong side in the war? Second: would you just scold a guy who exposed you war strategy to the enemy and jeopardized your son's life (Tywin's words)?

HoTU: wasn't talking about prophesies, but, funny enough, Benioff was, in the video about this year's finale, in which he said Mhysa scene is a fulfillment of a prophecy. Which prophecy is that, by the way? But, I was talking about dear old Pyat. Why did he bother with false "dreams"? Why didn't he chained Dany right away? And, when he did chain her finally, why did he put her by her dragons? And then positioned himself in the line of flames?!

Me fool: yeah, I made myself look like one. But, it's not me eluding your questions and your points; it's the other way around. It's not me encouraging myself by trash-talking to you; it's the other way around. It's not me accusing you of anything; it's really the other way around.

[Khal-a-bunga]

Just give it up. Your posts are contradictory, nonsensical, and ignore facts in the service of attempting to push your agenda. The quotation of mine you put in bold above proves my point, not your own, for goodness sake. Anyone who can read can see this. I'm done responding to you; enjoy hating the show, I'll enjoy enjoying it.

[Winter In My Heart]

It's always so amusing reading debates. Particularly show apologists. They think there better than everyone else and act very rude. Not to mention the fact they completely ignore points other people put in front of them lol.

(Not that all are like that. But some of the rudest people I've seen on the forums have been people that so viciously defend the show.)

[Pinkie Baelish]

It's always so amusing reading debates. Particularly show apologists. They think there better than everyone else and act very rude. Not to mention the fact they completely ignore points other people put in front of them lol.

Shit, we've been exposed. Better retreat to our elitist caves, fellow show apologists! Because as everyone knows, it's the show apologists that make statements such as "Game of Thrones is made for the lowest common denominator".

[CarCrashFiance]

It's always so amusing reading debates. Particularly show apologists. They think there better than everyone else and act very rude. Not to mention the fact they completely ignore points other people put in front of them lol.

They are being rude by even posting in this thread. It's supposed to be a thread to criticize the show without the defenders and apologists whining that you offended them by exposing the faults of their sacred cow. Nitpick....without...repercussion. There are literally hundreds of threads to praise the show or discuss individual sequences and debate them.

[Khal-a-bunga]

It's always so amusing reading debates. Particularly show apologists. They think there better than everyone else and act very rude. Not to mention the fact they completely ignore points other people put in front of them lol.

(Not that all are like that. But some of the rudest people I've seen on the forums have been people that so viciously defend the show.)

So it's rude to call people out on their bullshit? Well, fine with me, in that case.

[Winter In My Heart]

Shit, we've been exposed. Better retreat to our elitist caves, fellow show apologists! Because as everyone knows, it's the show apologists that make statements such as "Game of Thrones is made for the lowest common denominator".

Hey I'm just saying from what I've read. I didn't say anything about any sort of statements that you or anyone else post. I know I never said that statement even though I have my gripes with the show. Its kind of funny you take my rather innocent comment out of text when all I said was that the rudest people I've seen on the site happen to be those who adamantly defend the show and won't admit it had faults. (And I even said that obviously not all show apologists are like that.)

All I'll say is all shows seem to be like that not just GoT. Tv nowadays seem to think people are stupid and have to dumb everything down. I do think a lot in the show is simplified compared to the books but I wouldn't expect any less considering the world we live in and how most media is like that.

[Winter In My Heart]

So it's rude to call people out on their bullshit? Well, fine with me.

By all means go for it if you think it's bullshit. But the way you talk to other people, just from what I've read in this forum alone, comes of condescending and like your better than everyone. But whatever I don't care. I'm only saying this because you decided to quote me.

They are being rude by even posting in this thread. It's supposed to be a thread to criticize the show without the defenders and apologists whining that you offended them by exposing the faults of their sacred cow. Nitpick....without...repercussion. There are literally hundreds of threads to praise the show or discuss individual sequences and debate them.

Yeah your right about that.