No Right Answer: Is Game of Thrones Overrated?

[LaoJim]

Gah, my detailed reply just got eaten when I accidentally clicked on one of the adverts on the side. Anyway I try and rewrite, keeping it a bit briefer.

I would argue that the plot isn't really that unfocused in any of the first three books. (Books four and five are more problematic, there's lots of good stuff in them, however given that they are happening at the same time and given that Martin had to finish book five earlier in the story than he was intending because he was seriously late with it, the plot there is kind of unfocused) Anyway...

Book/Season 1: Focuses on court politics, one of namely the animosity that starts between the Starks and Lannisters after the apparent murder of one of the Starks relatives (Jon Arryn), leading to the eventual civil war over the throne.
Book/Season 2: Focuses on war; from Sansa and Tyrion we see the war from the court's perspective, Catlyn sees the war from the field, Arya sees the effect of the war on ordinary people; Bran deals with the running of the estates by the old and young while the adult males are away fighting.
Book/Season 3: Focuses on political maneuverings off the battlefield. Hostages are exchanged (or not as it turns out), Marriages are made. Despite winning all the battles, Robb loses the war (and his head) because of betrayal by his own men.

The slight complications comes from the fact that at the same time you have separate stories from Dany and Jon Snow going on. Again I'd argue that each of these stories has a clear arc for each book/season (i.e. for Jon you have 1) Basic training at the wall 2) Travelling north of the wall 3) Joining the Wildings) For the first three books these don't really join up with the main story that much, but I'd argue they are interesting in their own right so it doesn't matter.

I think the video is perhaps right in that more could be made of the White Walkers, after all even by the end of book five we still don't know much about them; whether they are a force of nature or controlled by some sort of dark lord. It is interesting to wonder if the books could have had an extra character who travelled further north and interact with them in some way so the reader/viewer knows more about the threat, even if the other characters don't (Benjen Stark, Ned's nightwatchman brother, who disappeared in season 1 might have been a good POV character for this, assuming he's still alive). I'm not sure if this would be an improvement or not.

 

[Madman123456]

"Is 'game of thrones' overrated?" Well, yes. Short video.
But yes, the structure is stupid, i wonder when some of the character will ever interact; will blonde dragonlady have a chance to see what's going on in the city she tries to get to before she gets killed off? We might never know.
I didn't hate it quite as much but i eventuall stopped caring shortly before the red wedding scene. Things go on and on and i still don't know where this thing is going.
A friend told me that i just had to watch the red wedding and i found out that some characters get killed. I saw this happen in another show, in "Spartacus: Blood and Sand" every roman that has a name gets killed because every single one is constantly scheming to kill all the others all the time and they're all assholes. Luckily, Spartacus and his people are mostly nice.

Game of thrones however has a much higher asshole concentration and i get tired of watching assholes all the time.
Weirdly, this show wants to make characters into bad guys and then turn them into good guys again. See that greyjoy moron and later that kingslayer dude.
Next one will be king inbred asshat, who'll turn into a saint and tell a tragic story about how he has had a hard childhood or whatever.

 

[Skeleon]

I dunno, I haven't watched or read any of it yet. And the more people tell me how great it is, the less I feel motivated to try it.

 

[Balkan]

Chris is wrong and a Hipster.

More detailed response. Chris can't handle complexity "Is it drama? is it political intrigue? oh wait dragons I SO CONFOOSED"

Also, you can't keep up with the character names? Boo hoo for you, I have this remarkable ability called "paying attention". Can you name all the characters from The Wire? I doubt it.

I suppose one point I can concede is that GoT does have too much sex and some of it feels just added for the sake of it.

Someone make Chris watch Game of Thrones again as punishment for his hubris

The reason why Game of Thrones is confusing and convoluted is the clusterfuck of a development team the show has. Almost every episode is written and directed by different people and that twists everything into one mess of a plot. Characters change their behavior at will, Cersei, her brother and Deneris being the most shining examples. That's not depth, that's the show's creators wanting to go in different directions.
You mentioned The Wire and in contrast that show actually has main themes by which the story is crafted, while GOT has a shit ton of plot points that go nowhere. There's no philosophy or subtext, just a hollow shell of intrigue and stupid betrayals. The only messege I'm getting from GOT is that everyone is shit except when the scene demands they aren't. Hell, it might be due to bad acting and bland dialogue. I can't give you a GoT quote that isnt something repeated multiple times throughout the show. Yeah, I get it, the night is dark, winter is coming, a Lanister always pays up, Joh Snow is a bastard and he knows nothing. Shame, because I'm kind of a quote junkie. I started watching True Detective for the awesome lines coming from Rust and Marty, but what kept me to the end was the amazing writing and depth the story had.
This comment turned into more of a rant than a response to yours, so I'll have to wrap it up. My last thing to say would be this- I enjoyed GoT while my brain didn't dwell on it too much, when I gave it a deeper analysis, my opinion lowered steadily.

 

[Flunk]

Meh, people like different things. If you measure it against popular TV shows like Bones or 2 1/2 men... yeah it makes way more sense.

I'm watching it because there isn't anything better on TV. It's interesting enough. Can't take lazy Hollywood shlock and think it through, it's just crap.

 

[Nurb]

I like the show, but I do think it's overrated a little. The red wedding didn't really shock me because I had gotten used to characters who appeared to be happy or had something going for them being killed. Also, the new pretty pregnant wife wasn't around enough or did enough for me to care about her.

The build up to the white walkers is just getting to be a pain in the ass as well after years of waiting and teasing. This is probably because the effort of a big production and time involved in waiting is different than it is for novels, but Martin is setting himself up for a release once a decade and at his age it's going to be a problem.

Then you hear the worst, the book fanboys who say Martin doesn't owe anyone anything can take as along as he wants etc etc... I almost wish he does take too long and kicks the bucket so the rabid fanboys/girls never get their conclusion after years and years of waiting.

So yea, great show, but nearly unbearable fanbase

 

[Vegosiux]

If you're not enjoying the experience, it's unlikely that you're paying full attention.

Oh hogwash. You can pay full attention and not like the experience, and you know it. Ever been in a math class?

Jokes aside, I paid full attention and didn't like it. Can't really put a finger on why, but my reaction was pretty much "Huh? This is it? It's definitely not pure distilled awesomeness I was told it was going to be." Basically, the way it all turned out, it was simply mediocre, I saw nothing special in it. I would have likely disliked it less had I not been paying full attention.

Maybe the hype is the reason, actually. Or my inability to comprehend just how much of hyperbole people are capable of, who knows. But if you drab on and on about something that's "The best thing since sliced bread", I'm going to expect the best thing since sliced bread, not merely "Something decent enough it might be above average".

Or maybe I'm just that much of a snob and hard to impress, which is maybe also a possibility.

In the end, there's no accounting for taste. The weird part is that I generally do like "dark fantasy", but I don't know, too often I simply get the feeling writers are conflating "mature" and "rated M".

 

[Magmarock]

You made a 6 minute video and you want a 30 second reply... yeah not happening. I will try to keep this as short as I can.

I hardly watch this show, I often find myself strongly disagreeing with it's content and the people on it; which is fine each to their own right.

However I will take you up on your little challenge in the form of this comment

1.I do agree that the focus meanders around a bit but here is why.

The entire first session of this show is basically the first act to the whole story. It's there to establish the characters and lore of the world and with so much ground to cover it does meander around. Its' unavoidable but it's focus does improve over time.

2. The overall theme of the show is political, and the premise is in the title, (Game of Thrones) but let me be more clear on that. There are several families and factions who all believe that they are entitled to the ion throne. Things like Winter, zombies and dragons are just the obstetrical that these people will have to face along with their own desires to rule all the seven kingdoms. Will they set aside their differences; will the mother of dragons come and kick everyone's ass and take the throne for herself. These are the questions people want to know and why they keep watching.

3. Some of the people do look similar especially the St-arks I'll give you that, but I think they are well written and their personalities carry though. I'll kill two birds with one stone by both giving you an example of this and using the red wedding as my example.

So you said that the we have no reason to care for the people who died at the red wedding. Not true, Robert Stark and his army were proving to be quite a threat to the Lannisters. They devastated many of their armies, and had they played their cards better or maybe allied themselves with Stannis Baratheon then they might have actually overthrown the Lannisters. Since they were the good guys and even though they were in a bit pf a pickle it looked like they might pull through and kill Joffrey. However, this was not the case and now there are only a few good guys left in the show.


4. I will now talk a little about the sex. While it's true that the sex was probably added to improve the ratings it's a bit silly considering how easy it is to find on the internet these days. while I agree that some of the sex scenes are pointless and would rather see more battle myself. I will say that there is something to be shown for it. Little finger is manipulative little spy who runs a brothel. Even in this fantastic fantasy world, there's not a lot do expect battle, practice magic and have lots of sex. In short sex is a huge commodity and little finger uses it to advance himself politically and it's impotent to see how he does all this. He knows everyone's little secrets and kinks which does give me an edge.

5. Finally, the characters are well whiten and structured it's just not well paced. I personally took multiple watches to understand most of what's going on. One of my personal favorite moments of the show is SPOILER!!



when Jamie Lannister falls in love with Brienne. It's by far the most convincing attraction between two characters I have ever seen. At first they don't like each other, but then they go throw some rough passages together and save each others asses a few times. It's absolutely perfectly done and for the first time I found myself actually caring for the relationship between two fictional characters.

Yeah there is no way I would be able to fit all of this in a 30 second video and this is the short version of what I want to say :/

 

[Verlander]

If you're not enjoying the experience, it's unlikely that you're paying full attention.

Oh hogwash. You can pay full attention and not like the experience, and you know it. Ever been in a math class?

Jokes aside, I paid full attention and didn't like it. Can't really put a finger on why, but my reaction was pretty much "Huh? This is it? It's definitely not pure distilled awesomeness I was told it was going to be." Basically, the way it all turned out, it was simply mediocre, I saw nothing special in it. I would have likely disliked it less had I not been paying full attention.

Maybe the hype is the reason, actually. Or my inability to comprehend just how much of hyperbole people are capable of, who knows. But if you drab on and on about something that's "The best thing since sliced bread", I'm going to expect the best thing since sliced bread, not merely "Something decent enough it might be above average".

Or maybe I'm just that much of a snob and hard to impress, which is maybe also a possibility.

In the end, there's no accounting for taste. The weird part is that I generally do like "dark fantasy", but I don't know, too often I simply get the feeling writers are conflating "mature" and "rated M".

Valid criticisms, and yeah, the hype is ridiculous. I find that about a lot of things - if I'm told in advance how awesome they are, I go into the experience almost looking to be disappointed. I attend a lot of live music events, and I was told repeatedly by many people that Rammstein are the greatest live act of all time. They're not. It was enjoyable, but probably doesn't dent my top 10. I can't deny that the hype may have ruined the experience

 

[RyQ_TMC]

I think the big reason of why GoT is so popular is that it hits all the right buttons in the theme. We've replaced the romantic medieval stereotypes (high fantasy) with Enlightenment medieval stereotypes (dark fantasy). We recognize the former as being exaggerated and often outright false, but we haven't realized that about the latter yet. We see knights in shining armor and say "oh, that's bullshit with no basis in the real world", but then we see a crapsack world where everyone who shows a slightest bit of intellect is labelled a "witch" and rape is the primary means of reproduction, and we go "OMG REALISM!!!"

GoT hits the current stereotypes, and that gave it a popularity boost. In that sense, you could say it is overrated, i.e. if it came out ten years ago during the heyday of LOTR, it would be more niche (and notice that ASOIAF, while having been moderately popular before, wasn't a massive cultural phenomenon until the TV series). If it came out ten years from now, when (in my optimistic fantasyland) we've finally learned to stop thinking of historical eras as theme park rides, it would also be more niche. Dark and gritty themes with pretenses to "realism" are the hot stuff now. But the label of "realism" is just like the label of "mature" - it's not really "realistic", it just appears that way to people who lack knowledge of specific historical periods it draws inspiration from. Same as the label "mature" is not really that, it's just things kids aren't allowed to see, so they think that's all that adult world is.

This is probably the right moment to say that I don't think GoT is a bad show. And I freely admit that GRRM does show his research in the books, so some aspects of the series really do reflect the real-life late Middle Ages rather accurately. But its so steeped in gore&tits, and the condescending "Medieval Morons" stereotype, that it's really just another example of the dark fantasy genre.

Closing remark: I haven't watched any episode of "No Right Answer" before, but this one didn't leave me craving for more. Too ranty, too emotional. I expected the series to be more about level-headed debates and choice of arguments, this one was more "these things infuriate me!".

 

[crotalidian]

Preface: I am a Huge Fanboy of this show. I have met the cast, follow as much as I can about it and will be at a premiere party on Sunday with Friends to watch this show

Chris: Some good points. The show has had some tone/consistency issues, there is a buttload of characters with fantasy names that are hard to follow and HBO seems to have some issues putting Sex/nudity in when its not required

What I will say is that I read the books that the series is adapted from well before I started watching the show so I would be interested to see you reaction to reading the books (or at least the first) you may have some issues with Tone again as it dips its toe in High fantasy then abandons/ignores it to delve into family drama and political intrigue. The books are DEEP which means a TV show will always have trouble in adaptation. If I had not read the books I'm sure I would still like the show but maybe not at quite the level I enjoy it now

I look forward to the rebuttal video once its complete

Thanks

 

[Littaly]

Can we not be so adversarial when "debating" things we don't like? "I'm going to sh*t all over this thing that you like, and then you're gonna yell at me!" is not a good setup for anything even remotely meaningful to happen. It's bed when it's the implied setup for a conversation, when it's explicit it's like we're not even trying to discuss pop-culture in a meaningful way anymore. Everything has to boil down to "BEST THING EVER! NO DISCUSSION!" or "SUCKS! AND YOU SUCK FOR SUGGESTING OTHERWISE!".

I had a really good conversation with a colleague of mine a while back about Guns 'n Roses. He claimed they were one of the greatest rock bands ever, I claimed they were good and that I liked them, but thought they got more praise than they deserved. None of us yelled at the other, I walked away from it maintaining my original opinion but having learned some new things about the history of a band, and somewhat eager to revisit their discography. I can't speak for my colleague, but at least he got his view challenged and hopefully, he too got something out of that.

Anyway, regarding Game of Thrones.

I can't say much about the tone, rapidly changing perspectives, vague tagline or same-y, boring characters. I've never had a problem with it personally, I always comprehended it and found it meaningful. I've got a couple of movies and series like that myself where I just don't get it and everyone else for some reason does. I can't really explain why, hopefully someone else can.

As for the whole softcore porn aspect. To me it's always been good in spite of it, rather than because of it. The way it depicts and approaches sexuality is easily one of the show's biggest weaknesses. One or two scenes are actually meaningful and important to the show and the story, one or two are unnecessarily graphic but can be justified to a lesser extent but the rest are pretty much just porn. Even if that stuff is in the book, I see no good reason to keep it there.

It's interesting to contrast it with Boardwalk Empire, which I had much the same reaction to in the first season, but appeared to tone it down significantly in the second season which had much fewer sex scenes and the ones that it had were a lot less graphical and mostly relevant to the story. (I could of course be wrong about that, I haven't exactly counted and I've only watched each season once with a lot of time passing in between).

As for what I actually like about GoT. I really like the plot, the way the narrative progresses, the way events are connected and the way they impact the characters. The worldbuilding I found to be really good too. As for the characters, it might as well be called The Lannister Show as far as I'm concerned. The rest of the characters (with an exception for Arya Stark) range from boring to mildly interesting, but everything just lights up as soon as it goes back to the Lannisters. Just the level of dysfunction to that family... the way the members scheme and plot against each other while trying to maintain an agenda for their collective interest makes for some of the best drama I've seen on TV. The way you can see how each member and their flaws have helped shape the others into equally disturbed individuals. I really do love to hate them, the show manages to strike a perfect balance between the inhumanity in them that drives the plot and the few redeeming qualities that keep you invested in what happens to them.

 

[ThreeKneeNick]

It's ok not to like the show but this is a very ignorant video. The complaint about the white walkers disappearing for so long - it's in the books like that. You are supposed to forget about them, remember that nobody believes they exist. Everybody is supposed to forget about them and focus on their own petty problems. Same thing with the winter, it doesn't come in the books until like book 4 either, you are supposed to forget about it. And a lot of other things that develop slowly.

The show doesn't even have half the characters the book does.

I've read the books before watching the show - everybody looks exactly like what i imagined them while reading. The cast is perfect. They all look like normal humans too, it does not have the hollywood aesthetic other fantasy shows have.

I know what it's like though, you've missed the boat to get into the show on your own terms, before everyone sang to you how awesome it is and ruined it for you with hype. Still, this video was uncalled for.

 

[Strazdas]

So your points why GOT sucks is:
you are incapable of understanding the tone shifts and call them confusing.
you are incapable of remmebering chracter names because reasons?
you dont line nudity because reasons you failed to explain

and, thats sort of it.

so in summary, you provided no points why the show is bad, only that you could not follow it, and then went on a rant about "The evil nudity" as if nude human body was something that shouldnt be shown (tip: were not living in the 30s cenrsohip anymore).
So so far you got 0 points, meaning that anyone even saying as much as one single reason why the show is good is won the debate.

 

[Redd the Sock]

Part of me can't argue against any of that, and part of me wonders if that's a fault in the show, or how used to a certain structure we are with TV shows. Using your Heroes examples, it's things like devoting an episode primarily to a single character, having a cast that strives to make sure no character can be mistaken for another visually, using some levels of creative exposition that people don't really say (Hiro we've been friends since childhood), obvious seasonal arcs, obisously pointing out important characters, filler plots to deepen characterization, stuff like that which exist to help the viewser keep up with minimal effort, especially if the come in in the middle. GOT throws you into the deep end and expects you to pay attention, keep up, and wait for a payoff. I get this as offputting. Even as a fan I sometimes have to fall to the internet to tell me why a scene was important, or who a character was. still, I like it trying to do better than a lot of the dumbed down drivel that passes for TV these days.

 

[RaikuFA]

Dunno if it's overrated but I can tell you this... It was advertised wrong. It was advertised as this huge action packed medieval series like a Dragon Age type show. Instead it's Downton Abbey with kings, queens and knights. And that's fine if you like it but I expected steak and got chicken instead which left a bad taste in my mouth. LOTR had the same issue. Advertised as action packed but that Clerks 2 scene pretty much sums up the trilogy.

 

[Krai]

One concept that has helped people to understand the characters is to consider them as characters in a Greek Tragedy; each character has a main virtuous trait that eventually they take to an extreme and that extreme is what causes their fall. Catelyn Stark cares about her faimily (which is generally considered a good attribute), but her loyalty to her family causes her capture Tyrion because she thinks he might have been involved with Bran's fall, later it causes her to release Jamie on the slim chance that this might get her daughters back. This works for a lot of the characters.

As far as remembering who everyone is get a cheat sheet that tells you which characters you actually need to focus on and gives the basics on what they are about. Pretty sure there's a couple floating around the internet.

Honestly I think some of the problems you saw are that HBO is worried that there isn't a market for Fantasy Political Drama (or whatever you want to call it.) I think there were fewer sex scenes where there was no real point to the sex scenes (beyond including boobs) after season one. There are still sex scenes they just tended to serve some purpose to the narrative after season 1.

The show is not for everyone if you don't like don't watch it. I get annoyed when people refuse to give the show a chance, but you clearly have so if you don't like it that's cool.

 

[daibakuha]

The reason why Game of Thrones is confusing and convoluted is the clusterfuck of a development team the show has. Almost every episode is written and directed by different people and that twists everything into one mess of a plot. Characters change their behavior at will, Cersei, her brother and Deneris being the most shining examples. That's not depth, that's the show's creators wanting to go in different directions.
You mentioned The Wire and in contrast that show actually has main themes by which the story is crafted, while GOT has a shit ton of plot points that go nowhere. There's no philosophy or subtext, just a hollow shell of intrigue and stupid betrayals. The only messege I'm getting from GOT is that everyone is shit except when the scene demands they aren't. Hell, it might be due to bad acting and bland dialogue. I can't give you a GoT quote that isn't something repeated multiple times throughout the show. Yeah, I get it, the night is dark, winter is coming, a Lannister always pays up, Jon Snow is a bastard and he knows nothing. Shame, because I'm kind of a quote junkie. I started watching True Detective for the awesome lines coming from Rust and Marty, but what kept me to the end was the amazing writing and depth the story had.
This comment turned into more of a rant than a response to yours, so I'll have to wrap it up. My last thing to say would be this- I enjoyed GoT while my brain didn't dwell on it too much, when I gave it a deeper analysis, my opinion lowered steadily.

I'm going to try and put this the nicest way possible, you have no idea what you're talking about. What you call a "clusterfuck" of development is standard operating procedure for any major television production. The show has multiple writers and directors, but they don't work in a vacuum.

Furthermore I'd like to see an example of characters acting differently from episode to episode based on what you observe to be the writer's or director's will.

I don't see where the bad acting comes from, the show has some great moments from larger and smaller actors alike. Dinklage is probably one of the most shining moments in the show, and he's back by a wonderful Lena Heady and fantastic Charles Dance. I would honestly say Shae is probably the weakest actor of the cast, but even then she has fairly small amount of screen-time where she isn't with another, much better actor.

Also disagree about there not being any memorable lines that aren't the ones repeated in the show. Jaime in particular gets lots of them through season 1 and 2. Including the " There are no men like me. Only me." line that really captures his character.

 

[daibakuha]

Dunno if it's overrated but I can tell you this... It was advertised wrong. It was advertised as this huge action packed medieval series like a Dragon Age type show. Instead it's Downton Abbey with kings, queens and knights. And that's fine if you like it but I expected steak and got chicken instead which left a bad taste in my mouth. LOTR had the same issue. Advertised as action packed but that Clerks 2 scene pretty much sums up the trilogy.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The show has always been advertised as a political show with some fantasy and action elements.

Here's every trailer for season 1, not a single one of them is advertising the show to be more than it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihKK0PixYAs

Here's another for season 2, again not displaying the show as anything more than what it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKfFzk1uQs

And season 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtkdje5OfY

And Season 4:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZY43QSx3Fk

So I find your claims that it's advertised "wrong" to be completely without any kind of merit.

 

[RaikuFA]

Dunno if it's overrated but I can tell you this... It was advertised wrong. It was advertised as this huge action packed medieval series like a Dragon Age type show. Instead it's Downton Abbey with kings, queens and knights. And that's fine if you like it but I expected steak and got chicken instead which left a bad taste in my mouth. LOTR had the same issue. Advertised as action packed but that Clerks 2 scene pretty much sums up the trilogy.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The show has always been advertised as a political show with some fantasy and action elements.

Here's every trailer for season 1, not a single one of them is advertising the show to be more than it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihKK0PixYAs

Here's another for season 2, again not displaying the show as anything more than what it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKfFzk1uQs

And season 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtkdje5OfY

And Season 4:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZY43QSx3Fk

So I find your claims that it's advertised "wrong" to be completely without any kind of merit.

Didn't see those. Only advertising I saw was from my cable provider. That did show all action.