On one hand the script can be pretty terrible at times, and sure the characterizations are all over the place, it can be heavy handed and really silly.
On the other hand...
-
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
I barely remember Loras being a character in the book so I'm not sure what people are talking about him being ruined. He's a bit stereotypical gay in the show, but nothing too bad. I still welcome a bit more focus on sexual diversity (and man on man action) even if it's not done perfectly.
"Hey, Loras does some pretty cool knightly things in the book."
"Unnecessary bloat. Let's change the character for the show. Any ideas?"
"Well, he's gay"
"Hey, remember when Margaery was on trial for false treachery and adultery charges? Let's put Loras on trial for being gay instead."
"Nice! And then Margaery falsely testifies about her brother and gets put on trial! Because he's gay"
Maybe I'm tainted by being a book purist, but it just feels like such a dumb and unneeded change.
All while being brought to us by the shining light that brought us the absolute worst of television in Dexter's final seasons. I have so much confidence in that show, you wouldn't believe.
Ofcourse writing is a big part of it too, not saying that. But much more goes into a film or a tv production that defines it's quality. The title doesn't say "the writing of GOT is bad" but it condems the series as a whole. And most of the criticisms about writing was accompanied by "in the books" rather than explanation "this is why it's bad".
And the jetpack critique is way silly, it kinda has to be like that for a better TV show. As the writer / producer Bryan Cogman has said:
”One thing since a few people have asked me. The timelines of the various story threads don't necessarily match up all the time," he wrote. ”This is to avoid things like, say, Arya spending four episodes on a boat."
”Oh, and in case people think I'm annoyed at the question, I'm not. I tied myself in knots season one trying to make it all lineup. We realised right quick doing so would kill momentum. So there you go."
This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in a show. And complaining about it seems a bit nitpicky, while your point about the sense of scale missing is valid I think. It's sacrified for a better overall product.
For the writing / plot sure it can be inconsistent, there's some stuff I'm not a fan of. But I feel that other merits of the show can make up for it, so the show isn't ruined. It's not all badly written IMO. And I guess I'm at advantage at watching the show because I can't make any unfair comparisons with the books. It's fine to prefer the books over the show, but to say the show is bad I think more should be said about the show itself without any book comparison. Since the critique is already colored by apparent changes in plot and characterization. It can be difficult to be unbiased when you love something.
For the sexism, racism and homophobia. I'm not the right person to comment on that. I've seen all those happen in the show, but to me it hasn't felt like the show writers are such but some of the characters and the world they live in. But as I said, I'm not gonna argue if someone has maybe felt offended by this. And to be honest, I didn't understand OP:s examples at all about the subject matter since it wasn't written in constructive way but rather mockingly.
Should of ended after season 3 really.
Don't let it be known much to the series fans as they are unable to process that due to the high amount of time they already spent watching it thou.
This shit of a show just runs completely on shock value and nerdy fanboyism. "omg Daenerys is so cool!" Man gtfo with that.
This show runs on the same shit formula that made the first season "interesting" somehow, kill off one of the main characters so that everyone is "shocked", make it known that this world is shit, rinse and repeat.
I let it go more or less by the 4th season upon the realization that I actually don't give 2 shits about any of the characters left. Jon Snow is boring as fuck, who cares wtf happens to Theon? The whole frost zombie thing coming screams of Deus ex machina bullshit and Tyrion has plot armor so big the joker could give the midget a nod.
Let's face it, the first season alone who of been shit if Stark didn't die, it was boring until then in the first place.
Don't let it be known much to the series fans as they are unable to process that due to the high amount of time they already spent watching it thou.
This shit of a show just runs completely on shock value and nerdy fanboyism. "omg Daenerys is so cool!" Man gtfo with that.
This show runs on the same shit formula that made the first season "interesting" somehow, kill off one of the main characters so that everyone is "shocked", make it known that this world is shit, rinse and repeat.
I let it go more or less by the 4th season upon the realization that I actually don't give 2 shits about any of the characters left. Jon Snow is boring as fuck, who cares wtf happens to Theon? The whole frost zombie thing coming screams of Deus ex machina bullshit and Tyrion has plot armor so big the joker could give the midget a nod.
Let's face it, the first season alone who of been shit if Stark didn't die, it was boring until then in the first place.
Chuckie
Member
Wow that looks terrible.
I think it makes sense to give an artist the benefit of the doubt if you see potential in the work. You may want something to be good, but in the end it just doesn't deliver. Better to finish experiencing a work so you can have a fully formed opinion than to dismiss something without having seen the conclusion.
At the very least, you will be more informed should you end up debating the matter.
I found the first 100 pages of Dune to be a pretty dry read and kind of struggled to get through it. Then the book took off and I fucking fell in love and ended up reading all 6 novels in a couple months.
I thought Breaking Bad kind of sucked for those first few episodes. The first season was something I had to watch as background noise. But man, that show pretty good in season 2 and by season 3 i was truly hooked. Season 5 is some of the best TV ever.
So yeah.
I don't think the problem was that they changed something from the books. I think the problem is that the show just sucks ass at dealing with any delicate matter with subtlety or respect. It shines when it's a relatively brain dead "bad ass" cool moment without any need for nuance. Watching GoT is like watching WWE. I'll never say "turn your brain off" but rather "know what to expect". Loras is totally wasted as a character, as is Sansa. But we'll be able to see one of them bang a Sand Snake in Iron Fist!
oh my...
moltonasty
Member
What do you want me to deny it? I'm easily distracted by flashy shit that sounds nice okay.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
The show has stripped the nuance and subtlety from the books and instead thrives on "shock moments" and various big sequences (that are often adapted in entirely different contexts). I thought last season had multiple strong moments but the previous two seasons were largely weak to me.
Television is full of grey characters. Tony Soprano is perhaps the modern blueprint. Would a major (expensive) show that has become a phenomenon be able to get away with adapting Tyrion as he is in the books? Maybe. I understand why they made him more likable for audiences.
Or even with Jon and how they changed the reason why he was murdered. In the books he breaks his vows, unquestionably, and is betrayed for it. He openly supports Stannis' claim, including giving him key advice that turns Stannis into a northern power. And of course at the end he decides to lead a wildling army to Winterfell, all but declaring himself King In The North (or King Beyond the Wall?). In the show...I'm still not sure what the catalyst was. We get no impression letting the wildlings through was a disaster - in fact it seems to go completely smoothly.
They have also whitewashed Dany. She's a bloody conqueror in the books who has all the near-of-age male children of slave owners killed in Astapor. And she's...not a good ruler, not yet. The last two books in many ways are about the demands of leadership/ruling, highlighting Cersei/Jon/Dany. All of whom have pretty large failures or consequences by the end.
Speaking of Dany's failures...the absence of that plot+killing Barristan early really made for worse television. After years of people assuming the show would fix Dany's Dance storyline they made it worse lmao. And robbed Barristan of his glory.
Television is full of grey characters. Tony Soprano is perhaps the modern blueprint. Would a major (expensive) show that has become a phenomenon be able to get away with adapting Tyrion as he is in the books? Maybe. I understand why they made him more likable for audiences.
Or even with Jon and how they changed the reason why he was murdered. In the books he breaks his vows, unquestionably, and is betrayed for it. He openly supports Stannis' claim, including giving him key advice that turns Stannis into a northern power. And of course at the end he decides to lead a wildling army to Winterfell, all but declaring himself King In The North (or King Beyond the Wall?). In the show...I'm still not sure what the catalyst was. We get no impression letting the wildlings through was a disaster - in fact it seems to go completely smoothly.
They have also whitewashed Dany. She's a bloody conqueror in the books who has all the near-of-age male children of slave owners killed in Astapor. And she's...not a good ruler, not yet. The last two books in many ways are about the demands of leadership/ruling, highlighting Cersei/Jon/Dany. All of whom have pretty large failures or consequences by the end.
Speaking of Dany's failures...the absence of that plot+killing Barristan early really made for worse television. After years of people assuming the show would fix Dany's Dance storyline they made it worse lmao. And robbed Barristan of his glory.
Yeah, I don't really see the problem there. The show has to pare down the focus on minor characters that George's books get bogged down in. I get that people liked Loras's characterization in the books, but minor characters getting less fleshed out is the exact thing you would expect to happen in a TV adaptation. And the changes they've made are not unreasonable and certainly not homophobic.
Hate to break it to you, but stripping a gay character down to nothing but their sexuality is definitely homophobic.
Glass Shark
Banned
I don't think the show is that great, the only reason I still watch it is because my wife loves it.
CopperPuppy
Member
Bad Pussy, anybody?
Karl Fookin Tanner?
Intimidating Shirtless Ramsay?
20 Good Men?
I'm gonna puke.
He's not a POV character. But he's one of the best fighters in Westeros. Like a young Jaime, handsome, cocky and adored by everyone. Aside from that he is fully dedicated to Renly and Margaery to the point he joins the Kingsguard to protect her and takes a vow of celibacy. He's also shown as an interesting father figure to Tommen.
In the show he's the horny gay idiot.
Its even worse because a lot of the plot here makes no sense.
And he is overtly effeminate because they need to communicate his one defining character trait as quickly and definitely as possible.
I dunno if I would say homophobic, but it's certainly a lameass depiction of homosexual people. The show doesn't consider homosexuality to be anything more than a trope. Homosexuals on the show are all flamboyant caricatures of what gay people "might" be like in such a world. It's a joke.
Orbis Tabula
Member
The frustrating thing about discussions like this is, if you're trying to argue "the characters are poorly written and the themes aren't being realized" then there is no better way to make that argument than to point to an alternate work with stronger characterization and themes. And, in this case, the natural object for comparison happens to be a book series with a bunch of characters and locations and plot events in common. But, if you try to use those books things as an example of how to avoid the mistakes the show made, you're a book purist.
I always saw book purist as a term that referred more to people who were upset about Asha/Yara or "Only Cat/Your Sister." I don't think most of OPs claims are that 'book purist'y.
I always saw book purist as a term that referred more to people who were upset about Asha/Yara or "Only Cat/Your Sister." I don't think most of OPs claims are that 'book purist'y.
Battle of the Bastards is the best medieval battle Ive ever seen. Hardhome is a masterpiece.
Just that makes the show fantastic.I agreed that season 5 was mediocre, however, I sitll enjoyed it.
Game of Thrones is to me a super enjoyable and entertaining TV show even at it's worst episodes (I see you, Mylod). That's why it's good imo.
Just that makes the show fantastic.I agreed that season 5 was mediocre, however, I sitll enjoyed it.
Game of Thrones is to me a super enjoyable and entertaining TV show even at it's worst episodes (I see you, Mylod). That's why it's good imo.
chromatic9
Member
Have never watched an episode yet. Of course I've heard of it being a big show for a long time but it's only on Sky in the UK I believe and it's HBO, they don't let their content out or allow streaming from a subscription from say Amazon or Netflix, just like The Wire.
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
I agree. A book purist is someone who wants the adaptation to be as literal as possible. What OP wants is for the spirit of the characters and the themes of the books to remain intact. Big difference.
I don't care that you cut Tom Bombadil out of Fellowship of the Ring but I sure as shit take issue with Faramir keeping the ring in Two Towers.
So it actually is a book comparison complaint after all?
Poor GRIMES
Banned
I knew walking into this thread it would be comparing the show to the books. Spare me.
Enosh
Member
to be fair "Middle ages" is like 1000 years and things change and it's different from region to region
but think of it from the pov of a peasant, what exactly is the point of marrying a bunch of 12 year olds together? they don't need to play the whole politics games that nobles do and even in the middle ages 12 years old aren't the most reliable work force, sure they help out and probably know more about farming than kids do today, but they are still limited by biology, so they can't live on their own because they aren't fully self sufficient yet and if they live with one of the parents you just gain another mouth to feed that still needs to be thought a lot
so overall I'd say two fully grown self sufficient adults marrying was probably more common than a bunch of kids among peasants
Nothing but their sexuality? So I guess I just imagined those scenes in S6 showing the sibling love between Loras and Margaery? That was a pretty important aspect of both characters and one that gave some emotional weight to their deaths.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
Nah, you're right. I disagree with the OP on a good number of points, though I agree with some. And a few do cross the line into purism, but most don't. Saying Jaime is a more complex and interesting character in the books isn't purism. It's just a fact.
soundscream
Member
Da Fuck?
And it shouldn't be a defining trait. Show Loras is awful.
Karsticles
Member
A phobia is an irrational fear - there's no fear involved here.
No, it's a writing fundamentals complaint.
Ocarina_117
Banned
I don't recall it ever being outright stated that Loras is homosexual in the books.
His relationship with Renly just becomes more apparent as you read on.
Edit - my point is Loras' homosexuality was never, and should never, be his defining trait.
His relationship with Renly just becomes more apparent as you read on.
Edit - my point is Loras' homosexuality was never, and should never, be his defining trait.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
What an awful bunch of posts.
OP, I agree with most things, but i am going to focus on your critiques i dont agree with.
Jetpack/Fast Travel: This is one thing I am glad they finally embraced on the show. The first few seasons, or rather the second and third season were all about a bunch of characters traveling together. It was a bad buddy comedy. Brienne/Jamie... walking and talking. Arya/Hound... walking and talking. Bran and his crew/walking and talking. THere is a reason why the show's best bits were set in King's Landing and the Wall. It focuses the plot lines and gets to the point fast. I loved how Theon went from Winterfell to his home and then to Dany in one season. The show is in its SIXTH season. Let's just get to the point and move on.
Tyrion wanting to rape everyone including his own sister,wife and nephew: Glad this was left out. I get it, it's not true to the book, but you cant have all that in the show and still expect people to root for Tyrion. The tv medium is a completely different beast and unless they start having internal monologues in every episode, that simply couldnt work on screen. Same goes for Cersei. She comes across as a total bitch and one dimensional villain in your description of her. The changes they made to her character makes her morally ambiguous and slightly more relatable.
Agree with the rest. The show has made some pretty questionable changes to the characters that completely ruined some of the bigger moments.
Good analysis although I have never found Dany, or at least the way GRRM portrays her, to be a compelling character. Her character progression has been slow as molasses and full of bad decisions. Young Griff in ADWD gets more done than Dany has in five books to lay claim to the throne.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
Homophobia is not a phobia. You're making a pointless semantic argument.
well if the difference is one thing is good in the books and bad in the show that's fine?
That is literally the exact opposite of what he is saying. Any character stripped down to a single, static characteristic is a poor one.
Well writing matters more for this show than others. It deals with heavy topics such as rape, sexism, race and a whole host of things. I definitely won't say it's the only thing that matters but it is a huge aspect of the show. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to point out how it is in the books, for example Jaime is completely butchered compared to his book counterpart. It shows how things could be better in the TV series and why the TV show might be lacking in certain areas. I do personally think the OP goes overboard in his book comparisons but I don't find them to be necessarily out of place considering we're talking about an adaptation that at least early on tried to stay true to the source material.
As for the jetpack thing, there are multiple ways they could handle Littlefinger and Varys seemingly warping across the country such as the use of an emissary. It feels like they're a bit too cavalier with the negation of traveling such as the ending of S6 with Varys. I'm not saying Arya needs to spend four episodes on a boat but the show writers also need to do better than what they've been doing.
The show does have its good points such as the acting and battle scenes but if somebody was looking at it largely from a writing perspective, I wouldn't disagree that it's pretty much schlock at this point. It didn't need to be like this either, as if the show was better written they could have still hit those action high marks. I also generally don't have a high opinion of the overall direction in the show besides the episodes that Miguel Sapochnik directed.
They bring these issues up but they have no meaningful insights or commentary about these issues. It's just "hey guys, isn't this just the worst!?"
IMO, it borders on exploitation.
- Status