I'm utterly sick of Game of Thrones

[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.

 

[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.

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.

Well, I think there must be some psychology at play here that obviously doesn't appeal to my personality type.

1. Frustration that never ends: Throughout the show people keep getting frustrated by seeing the bad ones do many bad things without getting caught or punished. Because that frustration is hardly released people keep watching the show hoping that the bad guys will get punished.

2. The unconscious desire to be liberal : Some people , unconsciously, like the world where incest, homosexuality and all other kinds of sexual encounters are possible and allowed. While those people will hardly claim that directly still it's one of the reasons they like the show. Of course many of those who love the show get offended by those scenes.

3. Curiosity: The fact that the plot is so complicated and that guessing the next event is really hard takes curiosity to a new level. Also the fact that the events are too slow to unfold keeps people curious. (Too convoluted for me).

4. Some people enjoy the complexity: Intellectual people usually enjoy the level of complexity they see in game of thrones (even though to me it just says poor storytelling).

5. Love of violence: One of the unconscious elements behind loving war movies and violent games is the love for violence and gore. Game of the thrones has a shocking amount of violence that appeals to violence fans.

In addition to these I imagine women like how women rise to power: So many women like Game of thrones because it shows how women rise to power in a manly world. This is pretty much analogous to the difficulties women face in the real world.

The only thing that I can see that would appeal to me is seeing the power struggle between families, but that type of thing only really appeals to me when it's based in reality - there are soooo many actual REAL historical dramas do that better that I don't need it. There are too many others flaws in the show for me to buy into it. There are so many things that annoy me about the show that I think I'm blind to most of the positives. You keep mentioning the 'period' like it's based on something concrete - it's not set in a real place or a real time.

 

[dscross]

Game of Thrones is a heavily flawed show. The most important problem being it's pacing.

But none of the things you listed are legitimate criticisms. It's mostly you complaining about how you don't like the setting for... reasons? Or lack thereof? Why would a medieval universe have a fast method of communication? The lack of information and travel was a major issue is medieval times. Do you expect the to have email?

I don't get what you are on about here. To say my criticisms are not legitimate is not legitimate. You put 'because reasons' as if I put no reasons when I extensively listed my reasons. I barely mentioned setting - I mentioned acting, how the scenes work in conjunction with each other (I used the setting to underline that point), bad mythology, and tone - all legitimate opinions. I agree pacing is also an issue in later seasons. I think you missed what I was saying.

 

[Fox12]

Game of Thrones is a heavily flawed show. The most important problem being it's pacing.

But none of the things you listed are legitimate criticisms. It's mostly you complaining about how you don't like the setting for... reasons? Or lack thereof? Why would a medieval universe have a fast method of communication? The lack of information and travel was a major issue is medieval times. Do you expect the to have email?

I don't get what you are on about here. To say my criticisms are not legitimate is not legitimate. You put 'because reasons' as if I put no reasons when I extensively listed my reasons. I barely mentioned setting - I mentioned acting, how the scenes work in conjunction with each other (I used the setting to underline that point), bad mythology, and tone - all legitimate opinions. I agree pacing is also an issue in later seasons. I think you missed what I was saying.

Nah, I got it, it just wasn't legitimate.

You complain about the acting, but then proceed to describe character traits that are the result of writing, and not acting. This doesn't follow. You also claim that none of the characters are compelling. This is an opinion that you're certainly entitled to, but you never explain why you believe this.

You complain about how the scenes hang together badly, but instead of analyzing the editing, or even the writing, you complain about the setting. But your complaints about the setting don't make any sense either. You say that it takes too long for information to spread because everyone relies on ravens, horses, or first hand experience. But, in this case, you may as well complain about fantasy settings as a whole. The slow spread of information was a reality of the ancient and medieval world. Wars were lost, won, and started because of communication, and miscommunication. Just look at the battle of New Orleans, which was fought after a peace treaty had been signed. It makes sense that this universe would include that information in its universe. Lord of the Rings did the same thing. Gandalf would disappear for years at a time, gathering information. Your criticism makes little to no sense in this situation, unless your issue is simply with the setting, and with history in general.

You then complain about the mythology. There's no doubt that Tolkien understood the roots of myth far better than Martin could ever hope to. After all, it was tied to his career. But using fantasy and mythological creatures in your work is not bad in and of itself. Neither is combining different mythologies, or changing myth to fit your own culture. The Ancient Greeks did this. The Romans did this (just read the Aeneid). The Hebrews did this, borrowing from myths like the Epic of Gilgamesh. There's nothing wrong with Martin doing this. Now, you can complain that he doesn't write well, or that his work is unoriginal, and explain why you believe that. But all you really did was say that you get a vibe that he doesn't know what he's doing. This criticism is so vague as to be pointless, and is therefore illegitimate.

Finally you find this show joyless. This complain is also illegitimate. Obviously your only describing your own subjective emotional response, which helps no one, but even if you were correct, you never explain why being joyless is bad. Plenty of great things are joyless. Silent Hill 2 is Joyless. All of Lars Von Triers films are joyless. The Sound and the Fury is joyless. None of this says anything about the quality of the work, only about your reaction to it, and maybe something about its tone. Because of this fact, this criticism is also illegitimate.

 

[Strazdas]

WEll i think enough people told you you can just stop watching it, so ill adress the points instead.

1. The acting.

I disagree, i think the acting is pretty well done. It is dramatic, yes, but it is supposed to be. You have to be able to look at facial expressions and it certianly helps watching it in high quality for that. There are many subtle hints that show pretty great acting if you care to look for it. For example every time Littlefinger is on screen you just feel the presence his character is supposed to give.


2. The pacing

Its intentional and as a fan of slower moving Japanese cinema i certainly appreaciate. Yes, the storylines are slow moving, but thats just following how it was in the books. It also gives more realistic pacing and avoids constant cliffhanger gotcha moments so many tv shows seems to be infested with.

3. The history

I highly suggest reading "The Untold History of Westeros [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17345242-the-world-of-ice-fire]". The mythology and history of the world is much more consistent than you think, the show just doesnt spell everything out for you.

4. Joyless

I think thats quite a fresh breath of air in TV where almost every show good guys must win at the end of the episode. I understand that is not for everyone, and thats totally fine, but personally i enjoy the story being realistically grim where everyone looses. War is not a joyful thing, and the kingdoms are at war.

 

[RunsWithBears]

What bothered me about Game of Thrones was the lack of male role models.
Sean Bean, but he got killed off before the series even started. The rest of the males were either complete tools or had something else wrong with them.

It also had a weird obsession with emasculation.

Lastly, the series relied too much on shock factor. The problem with this is that it loses it's impact after a while.