Double Donut
Member
This is such a bullshit pretentious thing to say.
It's fine if you simply don't like the show, but "junk food"? Come on now.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Game of Thrones is bad. Like, really bad. Here's why. (Spoilers)
- Thread starter pashmilla
- Start date
- Status
It's fine if you simply don't like the show, but "junk food"? Come on now.
Lord of Castamere
Member
Yes, I know. He didn't have a broken leg with a bone protruding in the books though. It was just an infection. Which is my point. They gave him those wounds as a door close in the show, but brought him back anyway. In the context of how it played out in the show, it made no sense.
It's supposed to be a realistic world where you die in realistic ways. Like an infection from a cut killing you, or how difficult it is to fight more than a couple people at a time, no matter how good of a swordmans you are. Having magical elements is irreverent if they weren't used during the scene, or his recovery, which they weren't. It was magical though, magically shitty writing.
The jetpack criticism is not about them not showing literal step a character takes, it is instead about characters defying space and time to get to places to move some plot, I know this might not seem like a big deal in today age of cars and airplanes, but traveling and movement was a huge huge thing in the time GoT is portraying, so having a character just teleport around is silly and bad writing.
EDITED: A perfect example of how current seasons have bullshited this, is in how long it took Arya to go from the Twins to Braavos the first time, while this season you just saw her teleport from Braavos to the twins.
If you really think its just a few iffy moments I really think you should check this out https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXU7XVK_2Wd6tAHYO8g9vAA/videos more precisely the "Preston's Game of Thrones" videos, it is genuinely entertaining even if you don't agree with it, and if you don't please do come and say why you think a lot of his arguments are wrong (genuinely want to see a fact based argument around this).
I would completely disagree. It's a fantasy world where people die in multiple ways but none of them are realistic. Gold poured on your head? The Mountain crushing a guys head with his bare hands? I mean none of the main deaths are realistic. They're just atypical for the fantasy genre so they stand out.
If you want to stand on the hill and talk about how shitty the show is be my guest. I'm just saying I disagree and from the thread as well it seems I'm not the only one.
Red Arremer
Member
You forgot to add that the thing that did him in was that his "squire" told the priests that he has a birthmark on his leg.
Squires, a profession that is specifically about helping their masters dress and bathe and what have you. Especially for super high-end nobles that the ruling family of the Reach certainly qualifies at.
But apparently the SQUIRE seeing the naked LEG of his master is proof enough to convict him.
I think that season 1 to 4 are pretty darn good, but I still agree with most of your points. I think in season 5 and 6 the writing completely went to shit.
I honestly don't understand why season 6 has that great of a reputation. Yes, it had three great episodes (which was three more than season 5), but the rest of the episodes were pretty damn awful. I mean it had stuff like Euron Greyjoy being just some dude who strolls in an election, straight up tells everyone he killed his brother and is planning on killing his niece and nephew and then wins an election on some vague promise about dragons and Arya's 'epic' chase which features classic writing like Arya forgetting she has a life-threatening wound, an assassin famous for changing appearances and blending in not changing appearances and just blindly running into a crowd and that member of a famous assassin guild being caught off-guard by a little girl putting out a candle.
Season six also had a real problem with keeping up with claims and rights of succession: It had Yara/Asha sailing off to Meereen, claiming Euron stole her birthright, even though the Iron Islands have an electoral system, so the throne was nobody's birthright and Euron, even though he used shitty arguments that really shouldn't have won him anything, got the throne fair and square. Ellaria somehow enacting her vengeance by murdering the entire family of her late lover and claiming power even though she has zero claim to anything. Jon Snow becoming King of the North without any claim to power
. And finally, Cersei becoming Queen without any claims and after murdering all her opposition and basically blowing up the Vatican, an action of which she's basically the only possible suspect and which would realistically make every person in the world hate her. I mean, I get that she's got most of the guards in her pocket, but I somehow highly doubt all her personal guards could protect her from the shitstorm that blowing up the single most important religious building in the world would cause.
I honestly don't understand why season 6 has that great of a reputation. Yes, it had three great episodes (which was three more than season 5), but the rest of the episodes were pretty damn awful. I mean it had stuff like Euron Greyjoy being just some dude who strolls in an election, straight up tells everyone he killed his brother and is planning on killing his niece and nephew and then wins an election on some vague promise about dragons and Arya's 'epic' chase which features classic writing like Arya forgetting she has a life-threatening wound, an assassin famous for changing appearances and blending in not changing appearances and just blindly running into a crowd and that member of a famous assassin guild being caught off-guard by a little girl putting out a candle.
Season six also had a real problem with keeping up with claims and rights of succession: It had Yara/Asha sailing off to Meereen, claiming Euron stole her birthright, even though the Iron Islands have an electoral system, so the throne was nobody's birthright and Euron, even though he used shitty arguments that really shouldn't have won him anything, got the throne fair and square. Ellaria somehow enacting her vengeance by murdering the entire family of her late lover and claiming power even though she has zero claim to anything. Jon Snow becoming King of the North without any claim to power
and you just know that next season they're going to play the Targaryen card, even though he's still a claimless bastard just with a different father
andythinkpad
Member
I kind of gave up on the world and lore after I realized GRRM is turnning Dany into super mary sue.
Strange realisation to have after he spent the whole of her ADWD chapters explaining she can't be both the floppy rabbit eared peaceful ruler and the fire and blood mother of dragons.
errr, might need to reread the books
Cesare Borgia
Banned
I guess you didn't read Dance With Dragons huh.
Langdon Alger
Banned
Cersei's cartoonish transformation into Darth Vader scene in season six, complete with cringe-worthy costume was pretty bad.
In the books his sexuality is never really expanded on at all, nor is he much of a character at all.
I'll take a somewhat stereotypical representation and gratuitous gay sex scenes over having the only gay representation be some nonexplicit remarks about minor side characters.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I like the OP's breakdown. Kudos.
It's refreshing to get a well-reasoned, structured and thoughtful argument on what would obviously be a controversial opinion. And whilst I definitely enjoy the show and really loved the latest season, having never read the books, the OP does a good job pointing out not just why the writing is reductive on its own, but downright offensive in context of the book.
Kudos, OP.
It's refreshing to get a well-reasoned, structured and thoughtful argument on what would obviously be a controversial opinion. And whilst I definitely enjoy the show and really loved the latest season, having never read the books, the OP does a good job pointing out not just why the writing is reductive on its own, but downright offensive in context of the book.
Kudos, OP.
It had epaulettes. EPAULETTES. She looked like a Romulan!
You're confusing GRRM for the show's writers. In GRRM's writing she's literally the opposite of what a Mary Sue is, pretty much every decisions she makes blows up in her face.
Knuckle Sandwich
Member
It's pretty looking schlock. I've gone from liking S1, being bored by s2-4, hating 5 and then just enjoying the shittyness.
I keep hoping the success will spawn a good copycat show but no luck yet. Same with TWD. :-(
I keep hoping the success will spawn a good copycat show but no luck yet. Same with TWD. :-(
andythinkpad
Member
Then how come she is still alive? If she is not Mary Sue then there must be another name for this literary trope.
Plot armour. Tyrion has it too.
This reminds me, one of my favourite moments for her in ADWD is how she justifies to herself near the end that she stayed in Meeren because she was tired and needed a break when at the start she justified staying to create security and end slavery.
A good example of her Mary Sueness in the show is how easily she ended the whole slave owner revolt.
Yep, this is it. She's still alive because GRRM doesn't want her to die yet. A Mary Sue is a character who succeeds at everything he/she does.
flintstryker
Banned
My biggest grievance is how badly they butchered Stannis though I still enjoy it for what it is the season before the latest one (5?) was mostly terrible though
Wow OP gives a thoughtful breakdown, and it makes me sad to see people being so dismissive.
"You're a book purist" is not a valid criticism. Think of it this way, OP is pointing to perceived flaws of the show and using the book as a point of comparison because they feel the correct approach already exists for a majority of their points. It's like saying "here are the problems, and here's how this could be done better", but it just to happens to already have been done better in their eyes.
If you've got thoughtful responses, then great. If your rebuttal is just an attempt to discredit the OP directly, that's weak.
Myself, I haven't read the books, only watched the show. I think the show is interested in different things, but much of the criticism by the OP, even without the book comparisom rings true. I don't agree on all points, but some really hit the mark. Like Tyrion. He works in a lot of ways, as the show is less gray than the book, but man has he become an audience favorite character that the show is aware of being an audience favorite. There might as well be an applause track every time he shows up. Lines like "I drink and I know things" sound written to be retweeted than to inform character.
That being said, I think it's a good show that is interested in broader themes than the book. It's just that I've found myself caring for anything about it less and less over time. You have given me a lot to think about with your "-ism"s criticism.
"You're a book purist" is not a valid criticism. Think of it this way, OP is pointing to perceived flaws of the show and using the book as a point of comparison because they feel the correct approach already exists for a majority of their points. It's like saying "here are the problems, and here's how this could be done better", but it just to happens to already have been done better in their eyes.
If you've got thoughtful responses, then great. If your rebuttal is just an attempt to discredit the OP directly, that's weak.
Myself, I haven't read the books, only watched the show. I think the show is interested in different things, but much of the criticism by the OP, even without the book comparisom rings true. I don't agree on all points, but some really hit the mark. Like Tyrion. He works in a lot of ways, as the show is less gray than the book, but man has he become an audience favorite character that the show is aware of being an audience favorite. There might as well be an applause track every time he shows up. Lines like "I drink and I know things" sound written to be retweeted than to inform character.
That being said, I think it's a good show that is interested in broader themes than the book. It's just that I've found myself caring for anything about it less and less over time. You have given me a lot to think about with your "-ism"s criticism.
uncelestial
Member
I am sensitive to the blasé argument, even though I've disagreed with people who single out what happened to Sansa as "pure shock." Her directly talking to her rapist about the horror she went through just before exacting revenge was a big moment for her character -- in fact my guess is many who initially objected to "the Sansa scene" in the beginning would have to admit that the arc came around and blood was paid for that event. I could see the criticism more if it were just entirely backdrop and never was referred to again -- like Craster's Keep, which I agree with you about.
Eh, you're losing me here. You should read the article I shared; there have been many great moments for female characters on that show that you might be forgetting. I think the show does play favorites as you say, Tryion being a clear example, but I don't think that sword only cuts against female representation.
I don't like a couple changes they've made in the series, but I like a few others. I don't like the changes done to Stannis, for example. But I actually enjoy the changes done to Tyrion. You might argue that book Tyrion is a more complex character and you'd probably be right - but to be perfectly 100% honest, Tyrion being more likeable in the show makes the show a lot more fun for me. It's a dark, depressing world and I enjoy having a character or two I genuinely can root for. It's not what the book is going for, but I enjoy it more.
There are issues with the show and yes there is something to be said about the show losing some coherence in its direction with the "revenge never has repercussions" thing from later seasons.
But overall I still find it a greatly enjoyable show that knows how to keep me at the edge of my seat.
There are issues with the show and yes there is something to be said about the show losing some coherence in its direction with the "revenge never has repercussions" thing from later seasons.
But overall I still find it a greatly enjoyable show that knows how to keep me at the edge of my seat.
I always hear this. I'm curious, what are the differences between Stanis in the books & the show? I only read up to A Feast for Crows.
I totally get the OP's criticism and it's not about not getting an exact adaptation. The books have been praised in parts for not being "traditional fantasy", with black and white characters, but with actual nuance. Characters that are total dicks, but you can sort of root for, characters that you hate (Cersei), but still enjoy reading about.
Most, if not all, of that is lost in the TV series.
Most, if not all, of that is lost in the TV series.
Napalm_Frank
Member
Seasons 5 and 6 have been pretty bad. I still enjoy them but there is a ton of stupid shit in there nowdays.
Also they just kill some of the most interesting characters off for no real reason (Stannis, Doran, Roose, Barristan). Damn, are Qyburn, Jorah and Davos the only reoccuring oldish male characters still around? lol
The whole Dorne stuff was just unbelieveably bad but that's just beating a dead horse at this point. And I will be friggin shocked if they can do anything interesting with whatever they are doing with Euron.
edit: and I will never forgive them for giving my man Manderly a cold shoulder in favour of super ninja Arya.
Also they just kill some of the most interesting characters off for no real reason (Stannis, Doran, Roose, Barristan). Damn, are Qyburn, Jorah and Davos the only reoccuring oldish male characters still around? lol
The whole Dorne stuff was just unbelieveably bad but that's just beating a dead horse at this point. And I will be friggin shocked if they can do anything interesting with whatever they are doing with Euron.
edit: and I will never forgive them for giving my man Manderly a cold shoulder in favour of super ninja Arya.
The text and the show handle rape and sexual assault very differently, so a direct comparison of number of instances isn't an entirely accurate assessment of the end result and certainly doesn't take into account that visual representation of violent acts read differently than text, no matter how evocatively written.
There are certainly uncomfortable and horrific depictions of sexual assault in the books, but they are always intended to read precisely as that and are seldom treated casually. Meanwhile the show had scenes with women being raped in the background, serving only as decorative set dressing, while other things happened in the foreground. I guess this was the inevitable escalation of the disturbing trend of using women engaged in sex acts as background decoration for monologues.
In this way, rape was given the same weight and value as any other background detail. Like sexual assault is essentially as noteworthy as random dead corpse #4 as Robb passed through a battleground. Devaluing the significance and trauma of these events and making it just another inevitable part of the fabric of this world -- particularly when the show has worked to routinely remove the moments that actually consider and weigh the impact violent acts have on innocent lives -- really misses some of the point.
It's possible to think GRRM probably puts too much rape into his writing and still think the way the show handles these scenes is far more disturbing.
When the show decided to spend more time on Loras, it would have been totally possible to both show explicit expressions of his sexuality and also not write him as a one-note stereotype that seeks to routinely ignore what a masculine badass he is in the source material because lol he's gay tho. I feel like the show views queer sexuality as just another accessory to make it Mature, which is why the character remained so utterly disposable, despite the increased presence.
MercurialTurnip
Member
Now that President Trump is a real thing Euron's election doesn't seem that farfetched, especially when we know that the Iron Islanders are pretty much all dumb as shit. The Arya stuff was definitely dumb though.
As for Cersei, that whole sequence happened in the very last episode, we really don't know what's going to happen there so I don't think it's fair to call it out for not making sense.
I agree that the show is basically just popcorn entertainment now; while it is pretty to look at and the acting is generally good the writing itself is just nonsensical: characters teleporting to satisfy whatever plot threads the showrunners come up with that day, characters themselves being Flanderised sometimes multiple times within arcs. Though what annoys me most is the way the show is so willing to piss all over the world building done by the books to make the next big spectacular scene - the Dothraki, for example, are reduced to violent, rapist savages as opposed to disparate groups clinging on to their traditions in order to preserve whatever order they can in a violent, harsh wasteland. To be fair to the show, they are sort of stuck because the audience has grown to expect a big bloody battle, a major character death and several otherwise shocking moments every season and the third and fourth book are pretty much the opposite in that they are meditations on all the crazy shit that happened before and the destruction of order that threatens to take hold, as well as setup for the big finale.
On a different note, I watched the scene in Westworld where Hopkins' character and the arrogant cockney(?) guy clash over how to proceed with a new storyline and I couldn't help that the writers were throwing a bit of shade at GoT with the arrogant guy suggesting a story full of mindless violence and sex and Hopkins' character slapping him down, saying a good story needs to be much more than that. (Though I may just be reading into that a bit much...)
On a different note, I watched the scene in Westworld where Hopkins' character and the arrogant cockney(?) guy clash over how to proceed with a new storyline and I couldn't help that the writers were throwing a bit of shade at GoT with the arrogant guy suggesting a story full of mindless violence and sex and Hopkins' character slapping him down, saying a good story needs to be much more than that. (Though I may just be reading into that a bit much...)
In the books: Stannis is a proud, stern man who loves his family. Sure, he signs off on the deaths of Renly and Edric Storm, but he expresses huge doubts (in Edric's case) and in Renly's case he expresses severe grief about it and even regrets doing it. He's also shown as a very sceptical man, who doesn't actually believe in R'hllor, but likes what Melisandre is willing to do for him. That said, he explicitely doesn't take Melisandre with him when he rides to Winterfell because he knows that more than half of his men don't believe in the Red God and that if he took her with him, that people would be talking more about her than him. He's also a master tactician.
In the show: Stannis is a religious nut. He's outclassed by 'twenty good men' who sneak into his camp and burn some stuff. Then, when he's snowed in for like a day Melisandre is able to convince him to kill his only daughter and sole living heir because of reasons. Then, even though more than half of his men left him after the murder of his daughter he still goes to battle, losing spectacularly and then he's killed by Brienne who happened to be strolling by.
Honestly, Trump was what I thought when that scene first aired.
lastplayed
Member
I love the show but I enjoyed that rant, thanks OP.
Moff
Member
to be fair, everything after your first sentence happens in the story that is not available in book form, yet. so that is really impossible to compare.
personally, I never got the hate for show stannis. I think the non-book viewers felt the same way about him as I did. he was unlikeable up until he crushed the wildlings at the wall and after that he was bling bling stannis up until he burned his daughter. we'll see how that plays out in the book.
They completely removed Jon Connington from the series though.
Considering that the trial is portrayed as very inqusition like it's not that weird that such tangential evidence would be enough to convict him. I didn't really have the feeling that they were looking for the truth.
adamantypants
Member
At this point, comparing the show with the books is exactly the same scenario as The Walking Dead (show vs comic). They're not the same story. I never read the books and like the show just fine
Trump's election is not good excuse to shrug off bad writing. And even then, Trump's campaign is more plausible than what Euron pulled off. Don't forget, the people there don't know Euron, he literally came back two days earlier from a ten (or more) years long voyage around the world. So, if we were to compare it with Trump... imagine if the US election literally lasted one single day, then on that day a guy named Donald Trump comes barging in from out of nowhere, says that he killed his ex-wife and will kill his opposition if he's elected and then talks some shit about Mexicans. Would he still be elected? Because that's what happened with Euron in the show.
I specifically didn't want to bring the books into this, but it's important to point out the difference. In the books the arrival of Euron was pretty much the same, but with three key differences: 1. There were more possible candidates than just Euron and Asha/Yara, so the vote was already split. 2. Euron didn't go around claiming he killed the last king and 3. He had actual magic and proof of dragons to convince the Iron Islanders, while the rest had only promises. Of course, with the Iron Islanders all being a god-fearing supersticious bunch, that is worth quite a bit more, so it makes complete sense that they would elect someone who's clearly evil incarnate.
As for your second point, it's still fair to call it out IMO. The scene with Olenna and Varys happens at least a few weeks after blowing up the Sept, considering Olenna learned about her son's and grandkids deaths, then send a raven to the Sand Snakes about a meeting and then the Sand Snakes had to travel half the world to get to Olenna. Now, why the hell would no one in that meeting mention a major rebellion taking place in the capital when they're specifically talking about taking down Cersei? This pretty much confirms to me that the entire thing will be handwaved away in Season 7. Yeah, people will probably cheer when Dany comes riding in on her dragons, but in a world with realistic consequences, Dany would come in and find that Cersei's head is already on a pike somewhere.
We can actually compare though, because the situation as it happens in the show is literally impossible in the books, since neither Shireen nor Melisandre are anywhere near Stannis. Sure, Shireen will still die on the pyre, but Stannis will not have anything to do with it.
Moff
Member
I wouldn't be too sure. We don't know when and how that will happen in the books, GRRM might surprise us. But it's certainly possible and even likely at this point.
I just think it's worth pointing out that 90% of the hate for Show Stannis comes from decisions and events that the readers do not even have in book form, yet.
eot
Banned
The Wire, The Sopranos, Twin Peaks, Six Feet Under, Babylon 5
GoT is not bad. It just has moments where it's absolute shit and some seasons have too many of those. As for BB, I would say that it's simply boring, has bad characterization and too much forced drama. Maybe it's good by some metric, but I think it's a waste of time.
Red Arremer
Member
Sure, but it's super flimsy evidence at best, and they imprisoned the only son of one of the most powerful families in the realm, one that provided a shitload of food to the capital, one that is loved by the common people, one that has a massive military presence in the capital. A sham trial like that should not have worked.
This edgy bullshit needs to stop. He gave his reasons why he thinks the way he does
karmaforgotme
Member
I am a big Six Feet Under fan, but it got pretty bad in season 4 (Lisa almost ruined the show). It is one of my favorite shows, but I wouldn't put it on the same level as The Wire and The Sopranos. Also Twin Peaks only had one good season (can't speak about Babylon 5 since never watched it). I would add Deadwood and Mad Men to the top level instead. Still I think Breaking Bad is pretty close to it, and GoT is still a step down from that. I would actually put SFU and GoT on the same level.
Red Arremer
Member
Also, don't get me started on the fucking bullshit plot in Dorne. The political outcome of the Sand Snakes taking over shouldn't have happened in any scenario whatsoever, and the fact they got away murdering not only Doran but also his son and the daughter of the queen without repercussions makes me still mad.
I can fish out the posts I wrote about it in the GoT threads if desired.
I can fish out the posts I wrote about it in the GoT threads if desired.
Teren_Kanan
Member
I agree with nearly everything you said! Point for point I can't disagree with much of anything.
The show does not hold a candle to the books. Not much does !
It's still fantastic television though, so I completely disagree with your "theme". Just because the book is superior in every way, does not make the show bad.
The show does not hold a candle to the books. Not much does !
It's still fantastic television though, so I completely disagree with your "theme". Just because the book is superior in every way, does not make the show bad.
I thought Season 5 was shit, but Season 6 really turned my opinion around. I was among the 'books are superior in every possible way' crowd, but that's not really true.
The show has many failings but nowhere near enough to think of it as anything but a good adaptation of the source material.
The show has many failings but nowhere near enough to think of it as anything but a good adaptation of the source material.
- Status