Is game of thrones a bit shit?

[senordesol]

Not a raving fan, but I really like the show.

The theme of deconstucting the romanticism of the medieval period is something that not a lot of people have dared to do (or at least dared to do so well).

The fact that Danny can't rule her way out of a wet paper bag is fitting, I feel. She strikes me as all idealism with only an ounce or two of guile. She suffers, in many ways, from the affliction of her brother (i.e.: overestimating her own destiny) and we already saw where that gets you...

What became of Ned Stark was great as well; all puffed up about 'honor' and 'justice'. In any other story, he'd have been the protagonist; but it turns out that he was superfluous.

My main complaint with the show at this point is how it's meandering it's gotten in the new season. Apart from the showdown with Stanis and the Boltons; there's no driving crisis at this point (Seriously! When are the White Walkers getting here!?).

A bit shit? That assessment strikes me a tad hyper-critical. I'd say it's fine (if a bit lacking in the later hours) as is, and a damn sight better than most of the tripe that passes for television programming in this day and age.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Game of thrones is dumb. It's rated fantasticaly and far too many people are raving about it... and yet it is dumb. (the books, in contrast, do far fewer dumb things) from the top of my head:

Mm... Disagree.

The show is an exploitative tits'n'blood fest. It's dumb. It kind of knows its dumb, even if the fans haven't figured it out yet. All in all, it's kind of a blast.

The books, however, are also dumb. They are bog standard genre fantasy with just enough pseudo-medieval realism that some people seem to have become convinced they are some kind of epiphany for fantasy as genre, and that's fine, but what really annoys me is that GRRM seems to have bought his own hype on this one. Really, he's doing exactly the same thing as all the other fantasy novels he's claiming to have broken away from.. I mean, I'm really hoping it's all a big setup and actually the ending will be a total middle finger, but at this point assuming that's not true it's incredibly obvious what the big reveal and consequent resolution is going to be. The pieces are pretty much all in place.

Also, one massive pet peeve.

Spoiler

- magic in the tv series is overt and obvious. In the books it's subtle.

You mean, apart from all the 9th level D&D clerics running around casting "raise dead" on important characters.

Yeah, it happens in the TV show as well, but not for anyone we care about yet, and thank God.. because making us care about a death and then undoing it because a wizard said so is the dramatic equivalent of taking a shotgun to your own scrotum. Nothing you do can have real impact when the audience knows one of the characters can waggle their fingers and make it go away, and that you as an author have the complete lack of balls to let them.

Other than that:

Ros (a.k.a, "random whores") should have been in the books. She is actually a far better exposition tool than most of the POV characters. Through her, Theon Greyjoy actually gets a basic level of characterization prior to leaving Winterfell, for example, which the books really don't give him.

Series Dany is a much more interesting character. There, I said it. Various aspects of her personality in the book don't make sense in the context under which she grew up and thus come off as simplistic and Freudian ("I was mistreated as a child, so I'm going to be really kind to everyone!"). She's also a massively problematic example of the "white savior" narrative, which is worse in the books because she is presented as ridiculously competent and is always morally justified.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

They are bog standard genre fantasy with just enough pseudo-medieval realism that some people seem to have become convinced they are some kind of epiphany for fantasy as genre, and that's fine, but what really annoys me is that GRRM seems to have bought his own hype on this one.

They were revolutionary for their time and helped reshape the genre. It's rather like sitting in 1980 and pissing about Tolkien's "hype" because it's identical to all the other fantasy.

Ros (a.k.a, "random whores") should have been in the books. She is actually a far better exposition tool than most of the POV characters. Through her, Theon Greyjoy actually gets a basic level of characterization prior to leaving Winterfell, for example, which the books really don't give him.

Ros is a terrible non-entity and symptomatic of the showrunners inability to conceive of or write interesting characters.

Series Dany is a much more interesting character. There, I said it. Various aspects of her personality in the book don't make sense in the context under which she grew up and thus come off as simplistic and Freudian ("I was mistreated as a child, so I'm going to be really kind to everyone!"). She's also a massively problematic example of the "white savior" narrative, which is worse in the books because she is presented as ridiculously competent and is always morally justified.

Absolutely untrue. Her entire book 5 arc is about deconstructing her "hero" narrative.

 

[Terminal Blue]

They were revolutionary for their time and helped reshape the genre.

I don't disagree.

Maybe I'm harsh because I actually don't like that genre (despite enjoying a lot of fantasy games) and thus maybe I want someone to rip its heart out and point out how ridiculous the whole thing is. Thus, maybe my ill feelings towards the books stem from disappointment that GRRM, in my eyes, seemed at times to come so close to doing so and yet ultimately seems so set to fail.

I think I have to admit that if someone wrote genre fantasy to appeal to what I want, I don't imagine anyone would have heard of them because people who are actually fans of fantasy actually seem to love all the things I despise about the genre.

Ros is a terrible non-entity and symptomatic of the showrunners inability to conceive of or write interesting characters.

That's the thing though. Writing "interesting characters" for a book is incredibly easy, because you can explain to the audience what they're feeling and how they think and that kind of voyeuristic element is fundamentally easy to make interesting. With visual media, that can't happen (short of voice overs, which are generally disliked for a reason) so you need situations which will make characters reveal information. Ros herself is not an interesting character and I don't think she's meant to be. She's the straight woman, she's the basically likable, down to earth person whom the other, more interesting characters bounce off. Without her, for example, Theon for most of the early series would just be what he is in the first book, a smirky prick hanging around in the background about whom we know nothing and don't really care.

Absolutely untrue. Her entire book 5 arc is about deconstructing her "hero" narrative.

Is it, really?

She fails in small ways due to things which are entirely not her fault and which, at absolute best, she merely failed to prevent. That isn't a disruption of the hero narrative, it's the "Road of Trials" from Joseph Campbell's monomyth.

 

[Innocent Flower]

Thing is George originaly conceived the series as an alt historical novel. Then he gradualy put a bit of magic into it. originaly there were no dragons (but there were a type of medieval flamethrower, which isn't unrealistic) then his friends begged him for dragons. Anyhow: the tv series really is more fantastical than the books. Martin's game of thrones is pretty much 'logical world+different but believable cultures+ a few magical things whilst the show's game of thones is simply a fantasy world with more curses and schemes. along with that, they're doing some incredibly dumb things with characters.

Series Dany is a much more interesting character. There, I said it. Various aspects of her personality in the book don't make sense in the context under which she grew up and thus come off as simplistic and Freudian ("I was mistreated as a child, so I'm going to be really kind to everyone!"). She's also a massively problematic example of the "white savior" narrative, which is worse in the books because she is presented as ridiculously competent and is always morally justified.

She isn't perfect in the books, but nor is she ridiculously incompetent and always wrong. you should also note that it doesn't make sense in the tv series to put her in charge of anything, much less cite her as competent.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I'm sorry, OP, what did you say?

There are approximately 12.7 breasts on screen during each and every episode so I sort of lost track of the discussion.

Something about tits, right?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I think I have to admit that if someone wrote genre fantasy to appeal to what I want, I don't imagine anyone would have heard of them because people who are actually fans of fantasy actually seem to love all the things I despise about the genre.

George was writing to subvert a lot of classic fantasy tropes, which he more or less succeeded at. That subsequent authors such as Lynch or Abercrombie have taken this formula further and made Martin look positively conservative by comparison doesn't change the fact A Song of Ice and Fire was a serious game changer.

I'm curious, though, what it is that you find overly traditional about the books?

That's the thing though. Writing "interesting characters" for a book is incredibly easy, because you can explain to the audience what they're feeling and how they think and that kind of voyeuristic element is fundamentally easy to make interesting. With visual media, that can't happen (short of voice overs, which are generally disliked for a reason) so you need situations which will make characters reveal information. Ros herself is not an interesting character and I don't think she's meant to be. She's the straight woman, she's the basically likable, down to earth person whom the other, more interesting characters bounce off. Without her, for example, Theon for most of the early series would just be what he is in the first book, a smirky prick hanging around in the background about whom we know nothing and don't really care.

They could have as easily given Theon scenes with a Stark, or crafted a three dimensional character in Ros's place. They've proven time and time again that they can't. They're either grotesque anachronisms (Talissa), one note cartoons (Karl) or dull bits of scenery. Martin's issue as a writer is certainly NOT an inability to provide his novels with more shabby/disinteresting POV characters with which to give us additional insight into supporting players. Quite the opposite. If the show spent less time with its idiotic DIY projects and more time with the central cast, it might not feel so rushed and choppy.

Is it, really?

She fails in small ways due to things which are entirely not her fault and which, at absolute best, she merely failed to prevent. That isn't a disruption of the hero narrative, it's the "Road of Trials" from Joseph Campbell's monomyth.

Small ways?

Spoiler: Serious Book 5 Spoilers

She completely destabilizes the region, resulting in the collapse of its economy, its worker class, and its primary food sources. She creates enemies everywhere she goes (and completely loses control of every city once she leaves it), creates a massive army of refugees she can neither protect nor feed, gets her field-army bogged down doing patrol work where they are whittled away by an army of insurgents, consistently fails to identify who the dissidents are, loses control of her principal asset (her dragons), and due to the overcrowding and unhygienic conditions a lethal plague is triggered that could absolutely decimate the population of the region.

Her reign is utterly catastrophic, there is literally nothing positive to say about it. Even the freed slaves are requesting to be returned to bondage so they can eat and provide for their families. Book 4 and 5 are entirely about characters attempting and failing to rule due to their bone deep character flaws. Daenerys is a conqueror, not a ruler, and it shows. Jon's insistence on being a "noble man" instead of a responsible Lord Commander/brother of the Night's Watch gets him murdered. Cersei's belief that she is "Tywin Lannister with teats" sees her overestimate her political acumen time and time again until she's completely lost control. The Boltons' inability to engender loyalty save through fear has their army self-destructing from the inside out.

You might also consider that it is far from fait d'accompli that Dany is the hero that prevents the Long Night. Or even Jon, Targaryen blood or not. It would be atypical for Martin, who spends his entire series stubbornly subverting tropes, to suddenly revert to one of the oldest and hoariest right at the end. What role does Bran play? Arya? Sansa? The wolves? What of the potential Greyscale plague Connington brings to Westeros (book 5 is riddled with Greyscale foreshadowing)? What's the end game? I think it's still far from clear. And at the rate that bearded molasses golem writes, we might never find out.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I've felt honestly that GRRM is poor writer.

Sorry, couldn't resist picking this sentence out.

Ug Game of Throne me no like!

Informative post there, sir.

 

[Thaluikhain]

No, it's a lot. Admittedly, only watched up to about halfway through series 3, so maybe the fans saying "Keep watching, it gets good eventually" aren't wrong.

Ok, you've got your grimdark, and tits, and rape and incest prostitutes and then more rape and tits. For no real reason, other than we are supposed to find all this to be realistic.

Every so often it looks like something actually interesting might happen for some reason, then they cut away to some more boring grimdark tits and incest and rape. By the time they go back to the interesting thing, it almost always either happened off screen or wasn't interesting anyway.

In fairness, ever so often they decide to put the grimdark tits away to at least seem to try to do something worth watching, and just do it very badly. Fair enough, they tried. Also, Tyrion is fairly watchable.

Otherwise...the series starts with interesting looking undead in the snow. The first series keeps going on about how exciting the show will be once they finally pop up. It looks like they might turn up and do things in the second series, but they didn't do anything until the end. In the third series they wandered off again. This seems to be completely separate to anything going on in the rest of the show.

Likewise, you've got...um...that special white girl who is in charge of the PoC savages and trying to teach them how to behave. Which...ok. She's evidently totally going to do something interesting. Just not right now.

 

[Metailurus]

So I've been watching the fifth season, and I need to know if I'm too biased because of being a book reader, or if non book readers would agree with me too.

Firstly, I'd like to apologise for my poor english/grammar. Secondly, I'd like to point out there are spoilers from this point on, but I've tried to keep them vague.

Game of thrones is dumb. It's rated fantasticaly and far too many people are raving about it... and yet it is dumb. (the books, in contrast, do far fewer dumb things) from the top of my head:

Spoiler

Adding simple cliche's (I've got this one key to this vault filled with all the treasure...)
Logic unfriendly costume design (poor lanister soldiers in plate armour, uniform-like wildlings etc.)
Many massively coincidental meetings. (Why is brienne meeting everyone?)
really, really dumb character descisions. Pointing primarily to dany (who is somehow praised for her imbecility) , but Arya fairs far worse here than she does in the books.
-That one rape scene.
The inconsistency of arya. In the first episode, she's a master archer. Later in the series, she's a total novice. In the first series she learns acrobatics, stealth and swordplay from syrio... and forgets most of it immediately, to fuck up later. She also entirely fucks up her three names for jaquen (it was more reasonable in the books, where she wasn't the cupbearer of important names)
-people revealing their master plans.
-Jon snow sidequests. Now.Now including special-ops Jamie lanister and Bron.
-Littlefinger. Written and acted poorly.
-Random whores.

and, for book readers:
- magic in the tv series is overt and obvious. In the books it's subtle. In the tv series I just want to slap brienne. 'nah girl, don't tell him it was a shadow, tell him it was a smoke monster brought fourth by foul sorcery, There's a witch with stanis. They'll believe it.' (plus, shouldn't the warlocks have infinite power or something, how'd they fail to kill someone with that kind of magic?)
-The weird skipping over characters and storylines (which is now replayed in additional superfluous ones that the writers added in to slow down the series)
-all those missing flashback
-all that warging stuff. where's it gone?
-The removal of the fabulous (but not unrealistic) outfits of people in essos. be it that one boob dress in quarth, the wonderful colours of the bravosi and pentoshi
-Removal of riverrun
-Brienne meeting everyone.
- The lack of flashbacks
-Arya should be an artful badass. Yes, the tv version has arya do some severe things... but she's nowhere near the level of book arya. (also, if I'm not mistaken in mentioning it; arya is supposed to be a girl who begins plain and then succeeds in puberty monumentally. I sadly don't see it happening with this actor) I'm aware that book arya might be seen as some kind of psychotic mary sue, but she was damn great to read about.
- Kindly man has a familiar face. what the fuck?
- Rob's alternative wife. there are differences here that might be important.
-
- The darker side of tyrion. I like TV tyrion, but the problem is here is that he's too likeable. It's hard to see how anyone would think of him as a monster. It's not just down to the fact that peter dinklage makes dwarves sexy, it's more down to the lack of his lamentation (and when he does lament, it's open and really too lightly done, even if on heavy topic)
-Why did that important character die in s5e5 I can forgive reed, but what the fuck!
-Where the hell is strong belwas (the greatest character ever). I know he's not important to the plot, but he is important to all of humanity.

Things I'l give the series credit for:
Varys is spot on. Brienne is quite tolerable. Joffery was excellently played. Darvos is pretty accurate. I'l also give the series points for skipping over something I didn't like in the books... nah, I probably won't. Most of that struck me as being likely to be well done if they were converted. But I can kinda understand skipping over the battle of the blackwater for budget reasons.

A lot of the things you dont seem to like, I'm a huge fan of, particularly more random whores.

That said, the TV series has to operate within limitations of time constraints and the the corners they have cut to get to where they are.

The book series has turned into a trainwreck and needs to come to an end. GRRM has already been surpassed by several other authors such as Brandon Sanderson when it comes to storytelling.

 

[JayRPG]

Coming from someone who hasn't read any of the books and got to the TV series very late (didn't start watching season 1 until season 4 was almost over).

I quite enjoy the show, but really, it's only for a handful of characters. I never found the Starks interesting at all, far too much emphasis on characters that really don't matter (and aren't interesting, but seem to have a cult following).

I love Petyr Baelish, and Varys. I noticed a few people hating on how littefinger is acted and portrayed in the show compared to the books but I love him in the show.

Spoiler

Brienne killing the Hound really pissed me off, I know it didn't happen in the books, and it doesn't annoy me because it was a girl killing the hound, but because it was so unnecessary, why did she kill him? because she wanted to protect someone he was already protecting who didn't want her protection? It was just stupid.

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

Funny you should mention that: I recently read the first book then watched the first season and I was shocked at how faithful it was to it (only cutting stuff out, not really adding stuff in), and now I'm doing the same with the second book/season and... BETRAYAL. What the hell are they making changes for? Why is it so important to have the Arya investigation be significantly less uplifting and well, good, for the sake of the camera? Probably because of the show's fascination with sexuality I guess.

Yep, first season was VERY loyal. Not entirely (y u cut Sansa and Hound, show, y? y u do dis?) but for the most part. Deviations started piling up after that.

If you think season 2 is bad just you wait. It gets absolutely ridiculous later on. And virtually without exception, the deviations make absolutely no sense.

I disagree; some of the deviations make absolute sense -- for instance I'm looking forward (in Season 5: haven't seen it, but have read the books that it "covers") to the absence of most of the Greyjoys, the shortening of Brienne's hair-pullingly pointless tangent across Westeros, and likewise the shortening of Tyrion's narrative (there's probably more superfluities that I've forgotten). Martin really lost his way after ASOS: whereas the first three books were tight, pacey affairs, they afterwards became bloated and meandering.

If you can't tell, I'm a fan of the series and the books, but am quite open to saying that the series exceeds the books in some ways.

 

[maninahat]

I've only read the first book and seen the first few episodes of the first season. But what I saw was quite dumb. Fantasy in general often depends on a certain degree of inherent stupidity in the way countries, families and characters work with one another, so that can be accepted for the sake of providing the means to have regular drama and action. Game of Thrones is about a world in which the goddamn King doesn't even have the power to acquire a more comfortable chair, and who knowingly employs the least reliable spy master in the world. Some characters seem aware of how ridiculous it all is, others don't. We are meant to recognise that this is a problematic world in which sexism, ableism, pederasty, incest, regicide and bastadry are big issues, but meant to ignore the often irrational behaviour and intellectual gymnastics characters need to go through to behave the way they do.

So maybe Game of Thrones is a little too dumb sometimes. The show more so, especially in the way it treats the viewr like they're dumb ("oh shit, here is a scene in which characters talk for more than five minutes. We'll need to stick a lesbian sex scene in the background, or they'll change the channel!")

 

[Innocent Flower]

I never read the books and I'm thouroughly enjoying the TV show. That's all that matters to me, really.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I disagree; some of the deviations make absolute sense -- for instance I'm looking forward (in Season 5: haven't seen it, but have read the books that it "covers") to the absence of most of the Greyjoys, the shortening of Brienne's hair-pullingly pointless tangent across Westeros, and likewise the shortening of Tyrion's narrative (there's probably more superfluities that I've forgotten). Martin really lost his way after ASOS: whereas the first three books were tight, pacey affairs, they afterwards became bloated and meandering.

You've listed a lot of ways in which the books got rambling and overstuffed...I won't disagree. Martin loses grip on his pacing in the latter volumes, and seems to suffer from a surfeit of POV characters which dilutes his narrative unnecessarily. All bad things. The television does not improve on them in the slightest, unless you're prepared to make an argument that its slapdash, confusing muddle of a plot-line is somehow improved by forcing the audience to fill in the gaps with imagination. Season 5 Tyrion is just as tedious as Book 5 Tyrion, only he's now white-washed and emptied of all complexity of personality. We threw out the Greyjoys (good and bad), we've got some weird, hollow approximation of Dorne with terrible acting and an absolutely ridiculous Jaime sub-plot that makes no sense and has everyone involved looking like idiots. The harrowing Winterfell chapters have somehow become boring onscreen...Sansa's presence has actually SAPPED them of tension, Ramsay is acting like a clown and has had his edges softened, no Manderley or Meat Pies, no murders in the darkness, no blizzard. Dany's chapters have followed the book almost exactly, although once again everyone is inexplicably acting like an idiot (Hey it's Barristan, literally the ONLY Queensguard, and he's roaming the streets! With only light armor on!). Quentyn's subplot was tedious in the books right up until the end, but was it MORE boring than, say, watching Missandei and Grey Worm staring gormlessly at one another for another 5 minutes?

The show has taken problematic books and made them, somehow, even more meandering and pointless, whilst decimating what good content there WAS. There was enough book material there for a strong season 5. Instead, the show-writers thought they'd try their hands at surpassing best selling/award winning material, with rather predictable results. These being the all stars who gave us Karl the Fookin' Legend Tanner, Talissa the 21st Century Emancipated Woman, and delightfully pointless speedbumps like Ros and Myranda.

The book series has turned into a trainwreck and needs to come to an end. GRRM has already been surpassed by several other authors such as Brandon Sanderson when it comes to storytelling.

Oy.

There are authors that have arguably surpassed Martin in his genre...I'd say Rothfuss and Abercrombie are two that leap to mind. Sanderson is not one of them. He's a hack. His characters are paper thin and he eschews world building in favor of fussy, tedious magic systems.

It's a pity, too, I like door-stopper novels and he's prolific, but I'm not thirteen anymore and his amateurish YA Fantasy-Lite approach to characterization makes him almost unreadable.

 

[Zhukov]

Oy.

There are authors that have arguably surpassed Martin in his genre...I'd say Rothfuss and Abercrombie are two that leap to mind. Sanderson is not one of them. He's a hack. His characters are paper thin and he eschews world building in favor of fussy, tedious magic systems.

It's a pity, too, I like door-stopper novels and he's prolific, but I'm not thirteen anymore and his amateurish YA Fantasy-Lite approach to characterization makes him almost unreadable.

Oy.

Are we talking about Patrick Rothfuss?

He whose main character is an exotically toned, brooding, bereaved badass who is naturally brilliant at literally everything he tries his hand at, who wields the most special named sword of them all, who knows all of the magic and who was taught the ways of love by an angel?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Oy.

Are we talking about Patrick Rothfuss?

He whose main character is an exotically toned, brooding, bereaved badass who is naturally brilliant at literally everything he tries his hand at, who wields the most special named sword of them all, who knows all of the magic and who was taught the ways of love by an angel?

You can argue that Kvothe shows signs of Mary Sue syndrome, but there's the question of unreliable narration that has yet to be answered, and even on his worst day Rothfuss is miles ahead of Sanderson at characterization.