I'm utterly sick of Game of Thrones

[Drathnoxis]

Okay...?

Also, I never said that the show was perfect, and I've also said that there are things that I don't like that I think are stupid, but that I don't go seeking them. I'm not gonna stop people from enjoying a thing I don't like, in my case Harry Potter. I think the books and movies are stupid, and incredibly boring. Not gonna be on my friend's case if they talk about it when I'm around and making references I don't get. Because I don't really care.

Perhaps that is just me.

Also also, what do you want the rest of us to say? He's clearly made up his mind and he just wanted a vent. Furthermore, don't presume my intentions because I never said "You don't deserve to watch a thing", nor was I condescending. I'm just wondering why he's making a deal about a piece of entertainment that he doesn't like and can clearly avoid.

I'd like to see people actually discuss the topic, which is the point of forums like this. Statements in the vein of "don't like it, don't watch it" don't have any discussion value and tend to be a subtle way of trying to stifle discussion because there is also an implied "...and shut up about it." This is because there is the implication that you are wrong to be talking about something that you don't like instead of just ignoring it. The statement is so obvious and general that it doesn't expand on the discussion in any other way. We all know that we can simply ignore a show we don't like, there isn't a way to respond to it and remain topical. When someone says something like Don't Like/Don't Watch it says to me that they don't actually have an interest in discussing the topic and just want to put themselves above the other person by saying something that cannot be disputed.

OP obviously wants have a discussion on GoT and put a lot of effort into his thread, so saying something like that is basically shutting the door in his face.

 

[Zhukov]

I hate Patrick Rothfuss ROWRWOWROWR

Kvothe is an unreliable narrator. There's evidence littered throughout the books that you're getting an excessively floral and biased interpretation of events.

I actually think it's pretty clever.

I'm aware, but I don't think that counters any of my specific gripes ROWRWOWROWR.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Okay...?

Also, I never said that the show was perfect, and I've also said that there are things that I don't like that I think are stupid, but that I don't go seeking them. I'm not gonna stop people from enjoying a thing I don't like, in my case Harry Potter. I think the books and movies are stupid, and incredibly boring. Not gonna be on my friend's case if they talk about it when I'm around and making references I don't get. Because I don't really care.

Perhaps that is just me.

Also also, what do you want the rest of us to say? He's clearly made up his mind and he just wanted a vent. Furthermore, don't presume my intentions because I never said "You don't deserve to watch a thing", nor was I condescending. I'm just wondering why he's making a deal about a piece of entertainment that he doesn't like and can clearly avoid.

I'd like to see people actually discuss the topic, which is the point of forums like this. Statements in the vein of "don't like it, don't watch it" don't have any discussion value and tend to be a subtle way of trying to stifle discussion because there is also an implied "...and shut up about it." This is because there is the implication that you are wrong to be talking about something that you don't like instead of just ignoring it. The statement is so obvious and general that it doesn't expand on the discussion in any other way. We all know that we can simply ignore a show we don't like, there isn't a way to respond to it and remain topical. When someone says something like Don't Like/Don't Watch it says to me that they don't actually have an interest in discussing the topic and just want to put themselves above the other person by saying something that cannot be disputed.

OP obviously wants have a discussion on GoT and put a lot of effort into his thread, so saying something like that is basically shutting the door in his face.

Okay, this is the last time I'm entering this thread because I'm tired of repeating myself, and because I have a lot of shit to do before my massive move.

I'm not stopping the OP from doing anything, and I did qualify my statement with a "This could just be me" so I'm speaking for mainly myself with my own opinion, so I'm not telling the OP anything. And from what I can see the OP is talking with people, and that's awesome.

So, no door is being slammed by me.

Cheerio.

 

[dscross]

The Sopranos follows a brutal, ruthless, murdering mob boss who is completely unrepentant and uses his therapy to inform his reptilian crime dealings. In like, the third episode he murders an informant while on a college trip with his daughter. There's a brutal, graphic rape played out on screen. GoT can be a vicious series, but it has nothing on The Sopranos, nor is it anywhere close to as nihilistic in its worldview. Paulie Walnuts cracking the occasional one-liner or some deft comedic direction by Buscemi does not change the ethos of the series as a whole. GoT has a good versus evil storyline running down its spine, however obscured by its War of the Roses political wrangling. There are Genuinely Good characters, even in the books where their flaws run deeper. If, however, you find tone more important than theme, you might enjoy Joe Abecrombie. His books are arguably even more vicious than Martin's...instead of grey/grey morality he indulges in a lot of grey/black morality. However, he has an extremely pacy writing style, and a very good ear for blackly comedic dialogue and character development. What could be an impossibly dour exercise is as a consequence hugely entertaining in a way ASOIAF's more conservative prose is not.

I'm not disputing that shows like the sopranos have overall darker themes and very uncomfortable things happen in it. 'Cracking occasional one liners' isn't all that happens. There are lots of jokes, going to psychiatrists, happy family moments, friendships. I agree that gangsters shouldn't be happy and it's morally repugnant - but there's lots of respite from the darkness. That's what makes it work - My point is that dark moments work better when there are happy moments as well, because then the horrible things have much more impact. It's a an error that plays into your point about GRRM's writing.

Dark horrible tone is fine to a point. No laugher or moments of respite in shows that run for a million years (like GoT) is not.

 

[dscross]

I really like GoT. It's just really good drama I think but set in a setting of knights, kings and dragons which I never thought would have such mainstream appeal. I don't think this show is either too depressing or dark but ofcourse this was the medieval period in which everything was more honest and raw. Unlike the typical shows/movies with a fantasy setting that never takes itself serious GoT finally does the period some justice. Like I said I think it's the mix of drama and fantasy that makes the show so good. Espescially in the later seasons the setpieces look absolutely gorgeous as well. I always look forward to a new episode or season and I have that with pretty much no other TV show. I do agree though that some plotlines are cliche(Daenerys, Jon) but they don't bother me too much.

Why do you think it DOES have such mainstream appeal, just out of interest? The same psychological mechanisms that soaps use to keep you watching? Also what do you mean by 'does the period some justice'? What period? It's made up.

 

[wizzy555]

I really like GoT. It's just really good drama I think but set in a setting of knights, kings and dragons which I never thought would have such mainstream appeal. I don't think this show is either too depressing or dark but ofcourse this was the medieval period in which everything was more honest and raw. Unlike the typical shows/movies with a fantasy setting that never takes itself serious GoT finally does the period some justice. Like I said I think it's the mix of drama and fantasy that makes the show so good. Espescially in the later seasons the setpieces look absolutely gorgeous as well. I always look forward to a new episode or season and I have that with pretty much no other TV show. I do agree though that some plotlines are cliche(Daenerys, Jon) but they don't bother me too much.

Why do you think it DOES have such mainstream appeal, just out of interest? The same psychological mechanisms that soaps use to keep you watching? Also what do you mean by 'does the period some justice'? What period? It's made up.

Name one Netflix series that doesn't do this? Even Star Wars does this.

Game of Thrones has interesting and distinct characters engaging in character consistent but unpredictable human drama over a backdrop of heroes journeys and political intrigue. It appeals to soap, mystery and adventure themes all at the same time.

People go on an on about the tits, but frankly to me they just fall into the background, I was focusing too much on the dialogue.

I am reminded of a some article that wrote "if it wasn't for the sex, women wouldn't watch it". Which I just find funny.

If you don't like it fine. But if you can't see anything but soap opera dynamics, frankly I doubt your critical ability.

 

[dscross]

I really like GoT. It's just really good drama I think but set in a setting of knights, kings and dragons which I never thought would have such mainstream appeal. I don't think this show is either too depressing or dark but ofcourse this was the medieval period in which everything was more honest and raw. Unlike the typical shows/movies with a fantasy setting that never takes itself serious GoT finally does the period some justice. Like I said I think it's the mix of drama and fantasy that makes the show so good. Espescially in the later seasons the setpieces look absolutely gorgeous as well. I always look forward to a new episode or season and I have that with pretty much no other TV show. I do agree though that some plotlines are cliche(Daenerys, Jon) but they don't bother me too much.

Why do you think it DOES have such mainstream appeal, just out of interest? The same psychological mechanisms that soaps use to keep you watching? Also what do you mean by 'does the period some justice'? What period? It's made up.

Name one Netflix series that doesn't do this? Even Star Wars does this.

Game of Thrones has interesting and distinct characters engaging in character consistent but unpredictable human drama over a backdrop of heroes journeys and political intrigue. It appeals to soap, mystery and adventure themes all at the same time.

People go on an on about the tits, but frankly to me they just fall into the background, I was focusing too much on the dialogue.

I am reminded of a some article that wrote "if it wasn't for the sex, women wouldn't watch it". Which I just find funny.

If you don't like it fine. But if you can't see anything but soap opera dynamics, frankly I doubt your critical ability.

There was no need for that personal attack at the end. I just asked you a question - why you thought it appealed to people -and I named one option to give you some inspiration. I also didn't say it was the only one. Also you didn't answer my 2nd question.

 

[wizzy555]

There was no need for that personal attack at the end. I just asked you a question - why you thought it appealed to people -and I named one option to give you some inspiration. I also didn't say it was the only one. Also you didn't answer my 2nd question.

Well the original question wasn't addressed to me but ok. Game of Thrones is seeking to reproduce/reference/explore the family and power dynamics of medieval Europe/Britain, if you are British, the whole Northerners and Southerners thing is all too familiar and a dead giveaway. The dragons and the magic didn't exist, but the power and family dynamics and superstitions all did. They are fairly explicit parallels in this regard. There is a host of youtube videos on the historical parallels.

The show effectively explains why people were so ruthless in that period of history. People like Tywin Lanister are fairly successful while the honourable Starks get slaughtered. I have seen critics call it Machiavellian pornography.

It seems like a soap opera because in Medieval times family dynamics were power dynamics.

 

[DaCosta]

I'll add that there's nothing quite like seeing two characters that you've grown to care for go into battle on opposite sides of a conflict. Now that's drama right there.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'm not disputing that shows like the sopranos have overall darker themes and very uncomfortable things happen in it. 'Cracking occasional one liners' isn't all that happens. There are lots of jokes, going to psychiatrists, happy family moments, friendships. I agree that gangsters shouldn't be happy and it's morally repugnant - but there's lots of respite from the darkness. That's what makes it work - My point is that dark moments work better when there are happy moments as well, because then the horrible things have much more impact. It's a an error that plays into your point about GRRM's writing.

Dark horrible tone is fine to a point. No laugher or moments of respite in shows that run for a million years (like GoT) is not.

And I disagree completely. Keep in mind I'm not a GoT fanboy...you can find me in the other thread slamming the show on a weekly basis...but it's no darker than most of the prestige dramas of the last 1.5 decades. It's had plenty of heroic beats, plenty of quippy/jokey characters, plenty of glad reunions and tender moments. Some characters...Pod, Bronn, Sam...have often been milked relentlessly for comic relief (often at cost to their character development). The show's reputation for grimdark hinges largely on the Red Wedding and the (at the time) surprising beheading of Ned Stark.

Where was the respite in Sopranos? The show has just as many cruel reversals of fortune, brutality, violence, murders of innocents, etc, etc. Only the victims are often average citizens in modern day America, and not soldiers in a fantasy kingdom. And the protagonists are, virtually without exception, vile human beings...rotten to the core, utterly irredeemable. That the show gets you rooting for them is testament to the strength of the writing and acting, but you should feel as comfortable cheering Tony Soprano as you do Ramsay Bolton.

I love Sopranos. It is vastly superior to GoT in almost every conceivable way. But it's a far, far darker show. Not least of which because the evil on display is far more banal, and far closer to what we actually experience. I imagine the ending of GoT will be uplifting in a bittersweet, painful way. The ending of Sopranos was designed to leave you numb.

And don't even get me started on Breaking fucking Bad.

 

[Kyman102]

I admit I've never actually watched the show. That's because I didn't get into the books. I mean, I TRIED. Lord knows I tried. I've just never been able to finish the first SoIaF book.

Mostly because I just flat-out stopped caring halfway through. And that was my SECOND try. The first one I didn't even get THAT far. Half of the characters I liked were dead, ALL of the characters I liked had won and were in higher positions and seemed to be immune to any attempts at sweet sweet justice catching them for the shit they pulled. Plus, it was over halfway through and we were still getting introduced to new characters and FFS I already have trouble keeping these chucklefucks separate in my head, even after clearing out the dead ones, YOU WANT MORE?!

Also... There's one point where I really, really, REALLY do not respect GRRM as a writer. His philosophy of ensuring reader worry by pointing a metaphorical gun at his characters, pulling the trigger, and then looking at the readers and yelling "I'LL DO IT AGAIN, I SWEAR I WILL!"

Like, ooooh, how edgy, killing a character to ensure drama. The comparison someone made upthread about it seeming like a soap opera DO seem pretty apt, thinking on that.

Look, if a writer is any good, they can make you forget that assumption that "Oh the main character will be fine, they're the main character!"

In my mind the best example of this is in Pacific Rim. Those who've seen Pacific Rim know what I'm talking about. There's a scene of a flashback to when Mako Mori, one of the main characters, is a young child on foot during a Kaiju attack. And until she gets rescued by a Jaeger, my girlfriend and I were convinced that that little girl was doomed.

To reiterate: The scene was so effective that we thought a character was going to die IN A FLASHBACK, where we know full well that she DOES live.

If GRRM wanted me to worry by ensuring "Anybody can die", he went too far with the bleak tone of his books. It's like Attack on Titan. Don't get attached, the Titans are coming and will eat the people you thought were charming and entertaining.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I admit I've never actually watched the show. That's because I didn't get into the books. I mean, I TRIED. Lord knows I tried. I've just never been able to finish the first SoIaF book.

Mostly because I just flat-out stopped caring halfway through. And that was my SECOND try. The first one I didn't even get THAT far. Half of the characters I liked were dead, ALL of the characters I liked had won and were in higher positions and seemed to be immune to any attempts at sweet sweet justice catching them for the shit they pulled. Plus, it was over halfway through and we were still getting introduced to new characters and FFS I already have trouble keeping these chucklefucks separate in my head, even after clearing out the dead ones, YOU WANT MORE?!

Also... There's one point where I really, really, REALLY do not respect GRRM as a writer. His philosophy of ensuring reader worry by pointing a metaphorical gun at his characters, pulling the trigger, and then looking at the readers and yelling "I'LL DO IT AGAIN, I SWEAR I WILL!"

Like, ooooh, how edgy, killing a character to ensure drama. The comparison someone made upthread about it seeming like a soap opera DO seem pretty apt, thinking on that.

Look, if a writer is any good, they can make you forget that assumption that "Oh the main character will be fine, they're the main character!"

In my mind the best example of this is in Pacific Rim. Those who've seen Pacific Rim know what I'm talking about. There's a scene of a flashback to when Mako Mori, one of the main characters, is a young child on foot during a Kaiju attack. And until she gets rescued by a Jaeger, my girlfriend and I were convinced that that little girl was doomed.

To reiterate: The scene was so effective that we thought a character was going to die IN A FLASHBACK, where we know full well that she DOES live.

If GRRM wanted me to worry by ensuring "Anybody can die", he went too far with the bleak tone of his books. It's like Attack on Titan. Don't get attached, the Titans are coming and will eat the people you thought were charming and entertaining.

Chum I cannot tell you what to like or not like, but if you denigrate the writing in ASOIAF and celebrate the writing in fucking Pacific Rim then you are taking the concept of idiosyncratic taste to dizzying new heights.

 

[dscross]

There was no need for that personal attack at the end. I just asked you a question - why you thought it appealed to people -and I named one option to give you some inspiration. I also didn't say it was the only one. Also you didn't answer my 2nd question.

Well the original question wasn't addressed to me but ok. Game of Thrones is seeking to reproduce/reference/explore the family and power dynamics of medieval Europe/Britain, if you are British, the whole Northerners and Southerners thing is all too familiar and a dead giveaway. The dragons and the magic didn't exist, but the power and family dynamics and superstitions all did. They are fairly explicit parallels in this regard. There is a host of youtube videos on the historical parallels.

The show effectively explains why people were so ruthless in that period of history. People like Tywin Lanister are fairly successful while the honourable Starks get slaughtered. I have seen critics call it Machiavellian pornography.

It seems like a soap opera because in Medieval times family dynamics were power dynamics.

Two things to say here -
1) Game of Thrones isn't set in any era. It's a made up era from GRRM - mythology done badly in my opinion.
2) there are lots of historical dramas that do not seem like soaps even though if they have the exact dynamics you describe. The Tudors is one is them, which have lots of different historical points and themes to project

This is pretty much all a description of GoT (im including the more recent books not just the show: A soap opera is a more regressive family drama series which stresses more on emotions and melodrama instead of some particular issue. A soap opera just has a broad story-line and much of the story goes on developing on its own, as the episodes are aired. It is the ratings which decide the fate of a soap opera. Soap operas stress more on family values and culture, and may come up with different story lines at different times, involving a family member or stranger. Since these shows are rating driven, they tend to be filled with stunts and plot twists like sudden death or reincarnation of a family member, someone's kidnapping, or marriage or prospect of becoming pregnant and so on. These plots are decided to garner viewership. These shows, in general, do not represent some particular niche or practice of society, however there are exceptions. Soap operas tend to continue over years and years if garnering ratings, and if not, they wrap up within six months. Production of shows of this kind are less organised.

 

[Callate]

I'm still watching GoT, though I'm grousing at it a bit. There are some characters and storylines I'm quite interested to see how they will conclude; I'm just not sure it's quite the same ones the show thinks are central.

On a grand scale, I think they started running into troubles thematically. You can either be "and then character 'x' dies out of the blue because life is hard and unfair and sometimes shit happens", or you can be "and then melodrama and irony conspire to have characters 'x' and 'y' come together at the moment appropriate for emotional catharsis (or what the writers think that is, anyway) despite the sheer unlikelihood of that coming about".

You cannot try to be both without most members of your audience who occasionally activate their brains while watching a show looking at you sideways and going, "The @#$% you say?"

On a smaller scale, I'm actively starting to laugh at how lackadaisical they are about matters of time and distance. You know when the gold train from Highgarden gets more than one scene's worth of travel that something is going to go down- simply because it didn't get that handy instantaneous teleport that occurs when nothing plot relevant needs to happen en route.

I know there are people who defend this with "well, they never said things were happening concurrently despite when they occur in sequence in the show", but let's face it- it's lazy storytelling and bad signposting. They can keep doing it, but I'm going to keep laughing at them for it.

 

[wizzy555]

There was no need for that personal attack at the end. I just asked you a question - why you thought it appealed to people -and I named one option to give you some inspiration. I also didn't say it was the only one. Also you didn't answer my 2nd question.

Well the original question wasn't addressed to me but ok. Game of Thrones is seeking to reproduce/reference/explore the family and power dynamics of medieval Europe/Britain, if you are British, the whole Northerners and Southerners thing is all too familiar and a dead giveaway. The dragons and the magic didn't exist, but the power and family dynamics and superstitions all did. They are fairly explicit parallels in this regard. There is a host of youtube videos on the historical parallels.

The show effectively explains why people were so ruthless in that period of history. People like Tywin Lanister are fairly successful while the honourable Starks get slaughtered. I have seen critics call it Machiavellian pornography.

It seems like a soap opera because in Medieval times family dynamics were power dynamics.

Two things to say here -
1) Game of Thrones isn't set in any era. It's a made up era from GRRM - mythology done badly in my opinion.
2) there are lots of historical dramas that do not seem like soaps even though if they have the exact dynamics you describe. The Tudors is one is them, which have lots of different historical points and themes to project

This is pretty much all a description of GoT (im including the more recent books not just the show: A soap opera is a more regressive family drama series which stresses more on emotions and melodrama instead of some particular issue. A soap opera just has a broad story-line and much of the story goes on developing on its own, as the episodes are aired. It is the ratings which decide the fate of a soap opera. Soap operas stress more on family values and culture, and may come up with different story lines at different times, involving a family member or stranger. Since these shows are rating driven, they tend to be filled with stunts and plot twists like sudden death or reincarnation of a family member, someone's kidnapping, or marriage or prospect of becoming pregnant and so on. These plots are decided to garner viewership. These shows, in general, do not represent some particular niche or practice of society, however there are exceptions. Soap operas tend to continue over years and years if garnering ratings, and if not, they wrap up within six months. Production of shows of this kind are less organised.

Yeah, I really don't know where this is coming from. Characters don't randomly die. They are killed wilfully by other characters who have long established motives and ability. The storylines are following themes and the characters are following consistent philosophies.

The Tudors is just a soap on historical rails.

 

[Kyman102]

Chum I cannot tell you what to like or not like, but if you denigrate the writing in ASOIAF and celebrate the writing in fucking Pacific Rim then you are taking the concept of idiosyncratic taste to dizzying new heights.

In that particular instance of keeping the audience invested and feeling a sense of dread, then yes, that one flashback scene in Pacific Rim was far more effective for me at its intended purpose than ASOIAF has ever been.

Edit: I admit that OVERALL yes, Pacific Rim has its writing shortcomings. But frankly, it kept me invested. Which is more than I could say for ASOIAF, which seemed to do its level best in one book to keep me from caring about ANYBODY because they'll be on the chopping block at any moment.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I admit that OVERALL yes, Pacific Rim has its writing shortcomings. But frankly, it kept me invested. Which is more than I could say for ASOIAF, which seemed to do its level best in one book to keep me from caring about ANYBODY because they'll be on the chopping block at any moment.

After five doorstopper novels at around 5,000 pages of written text, ASOIAF has seen the death of:

1 Major POV character (of a total of 14) - Eddard Stark
2 Minor POV characters (of a total of 10) - Arys Oakheart and Quentyn Martell (the former had VERY few chapters)

7 characters die in prologue and epilogue chapters (all of which contain a character dying), but they are all single-chapter characters introduced for the purpose of dying in the prologues and epilogues.

This is a lower primary character death rate than Harry Potter. I have to ask...who on earth were you caring about so desperately that all shuffled off by the end of the FIRST BOOK?

 

[dscross]

There was no need for that personal attack at the end. I just asked you a question - why you thought it appealed to people -and I named one option to give you some inspiration. I also didn't say it was the only one. Also you didn't answer my 2nd question.

Well the original question wasn't addressed to me but ok. Game of Thrones is seeking to reproduce/reference/explore the family and power dynamics of medieval Europe/Britain, if you are British, the whole Northerners and Southerners thing is all too familiar and a dead giveaway. The dragons and the magic didn't exist, but the power and family dynamics and superstitions all did. They are fairly explicit parallels in this regard. There is a host of youtube videos on the historical parallels.

The show effectively explains why people were so ruthless in that period of history. People like Tywin Lanister are fairly successful while the honourable Starks get slaughtered. I have seen critics call it Machiavellian pornography.

It seems like a soap opera because in Medieval times family dynamics were power dynamics.

Two things to say here -
1) Game of Thrones isn't set in any era. It's a made up era from GRRM - mythology done badly in my opinion.
2) there are lots of historical dramas that do not seem like soaps even though if they have the exact dynamics you describe. The Tudors is one is them, which have lots of different historical points and themes to project

This is pretty much all a description of GoT (im including the more recent books not just the show: A soap opera is a more regressive family drama series which stresses more on emotions and melodrama instead of some particular issue. A soap opera just has a broad story-line and much of the story goes on developing on its own, as the episodes are aired. It is the ratings which decide the fate of a soap opera. Soap operas stress more on family values and culture, and may come up with different story lines at different times, involving a family member or stranger. Since these shows are rating driven, they tend to be filled with stunts and plot twists like sudden death or reincarnation of a family member, someone's kidnapping, or marriage or prospect of becoming pregnant and so on. These plots are decided to garner viewership. These shows, in general, do not represent some particular niche or practice of society, however there are exceptions. Soap operas tend to continue over years and years if garnering ratings, and if not, they wrap up within six months. Production of shows of this kind are less organised.

Yeah, I really don't know where this is coming from. Characters don't randomly die. They are killed wilfully by other characters who have long established motives and ability. The storylines are following themes and the characters are following consistent philosophies.

The Tudors is just a soap on historical rails.

Totally and utterly disagree. The bit about the Tudors makes no sense, because although embellished, it broadly helps you learn about the period if you know nothing about it because most of it actually happened. It's not a bad respresentation of events at all - the inaccuracies for the sake or drama can be forgiven because it's telling a story.

I'll need you to cite me some examples if you want me take your point about deaths, but I wasn't just talking about deaths anyway - you brought that up. I only mentioned death once in that whole paragraph as an example of a plot twist.

 

[dscross]

I'm not disputing that shows like the sopranos have overall darker themes and very uncomfortable things happen in it. 'Cracking occasional one liners' isn't all that happens. There are lots of jokes, going to psychiatrists, happy family moments, friendships. I agree that gangsters shouldn't be happy and it's morally repugnant - but there's lots of respite from the darkness. That's what makes it work - My point is that dark moments work better when there are happy moments as well, because then the horrible things have much more impact. It's a an error that plays into your point about GRRM's writing.

Dark horrible tone is fine to a point. No laugher or moments of respite in shows that run for a million years (like GoT) is not.

And I disagree completely. Keep in mind I'm not a GoT fanboy...you can find me in the other thread slamming the show on a weekly basis...but it's no darker than most of the prestige dramas of the last 1.5 decades. It's had plenty of heroic beats, plenty of quippy/jokey characters, plenty of glad reunions and tender moments. Some characters...Pod, Bronn, Sam...have often been milked relentlessly for comic relief (often at cost to their character development). The show's reputation for grimdark hinges largely on the Red Wedding and the (at the time) surprising beheading of Ned Stark.

Where was the respite in Sopranos? The show has just as many cruel reversals of fortune, brutality, violence, murders of innocents, etc, etc. Only the victims are often average citizens in modern day America, and not soldiers in a fantasy kingdom. And the protagonists are, virtually without exception, vile human beings...rotten to the core, utterly irredeemable. That the show gets you rooting for them is testament to the strength of the writing and acting, but you should feel as comfortable cheering Tony Soprano as you do Ramsay Bolton.

I love Sopranos. It is vastly superior to GoT in almost every conceivable way. But it's a far, far darker show. Not least of which because the evil on display is far more banal, and far closer to what we actually experience. I imagine the ending of GoT will be uplifting in a bittersweet, painful way. The ending of Sopranos was designed to leave you numb.

And don't even get me started on Breaking fucking Bad.

I think we'll need to agree to disagree - you obviously saw more joyful moments in GoT than I did. I'm watching the sopranos now. It starts as black comedy really (much less dark in the opening few seasons) so I think it's not comparable at all in tone - I think the premise of this conversation is probably a moot point tbh.

 

[stroopwafel]

I really like GoT. It's just really good drama I think but set in a setting of knights, kings and dragons which I never thought would have such mainstream appeal. I don't think this show is either too depressing or dark but ofcourse this was the medieval period in which everything was more honest and raw. Unlike the typical shows/movies with a fantasy setting that never takes itself serious GoT finally does the period some justice. Like I said I think it's the mix of drama and fantasy that makes the show so good. Espescially in the later seasons the setpieces look absolutely gorgeous as well. I always look forward to a new episode or season and I have that with pretty much no other TV show. I do agree though that some plotlines are cliche(Daenerys, Jon) but they don't bother me too much.

Why do you think it DOES have such mainstream appeal, just out of interest? The same psychological mechanisms that soaps use to keep you watching? Also what do you mean by 'does the period some justice'? What period? It's made up.

The storylines are engaging. The acting is often intense. The characters are distinct sometimes bordering on caricature but you can always tell them apart. There is a degree of unpredictability to everything with important characters being killed off. There is a rich lore but the show itself is accessible without being shallow. The setpieces are often gorgeous. There is drama and fantasy in complementary fashion. The creators of the show just did everything to make the illusion seem real. Surely the show is made up and not a homage to the real middle ages but in an esoteric sense it stays much more true to the period than, say, Blackadder or The Lord of the Rings. Usually fantasy devolves into cliche fairytales with goody two shoes and evil wizards or as a campy setting for a British parody. GoT actually adds engaging drama in a fantasy setting that is taken seriously. Whatever problems people have with it's execution don't take away from the fact that there is no real other show like it.