https://www.cnet.com/news/sophie-turner-slams-petition-demanding-game-of-thrones-season-8-redo/
Nerds raging about this. Oh well. Dragons show blew. Still finding more entertainment with the drama surrounding GoT than the last season itself, such a pity.
Can't wait for their Star Wars.
Sophie Turner slams petition demanding Game of Thrones season 8 redo
"It's disrespectful to the crew, and the writers, and the filmmakers who have worked tirelessly over 10 years," the star tells The New York Times.
Nerds raging about this. Oh well. Dragons show blew. Still finding more entertainment with the drama surrounding GoT than the last season itself, such a pity.
Can't wait for their Star Wars.
Yea. She can hold that. Main beef people had were with D&D and the writers for dropping the ball. I know people can't be very inhumane to others and OD with their words, but the writers aren't above criticism. I think the petition is dumb af, but that ain't it.
I think it's just hit the typical far too entitled nerd threshold. Petitions, harassing staff, crew, etc. Her and Kit getting far too much shit for just defending a thing they worked on. Folks need to chill but they won't.
By domino Go To PostBull's eye.
Lack of elegance on-line. I mean, we all struggle with finding the right attitude in our internet life, but I hope eventually we all get there.
By Laboured Go To PostI heard about this a few weeks ago. It must be why the Jon and Dany love scenes always felt so convincing.
By Gaby Go To PostBull's eye.The writing is shit. The fans are idiots. Everyone's a loser.
Lack of elegance on-line. I mean, we all struggle with finding the right attitude in our internet life, but I hope eventually we all get there.
Actually enjoying pictures of the Stark children. As much as I currently despise what happened, the actors at least seemed like they're having fun.
By Laboured Go To PostNot me. I'm actually feeling incredibly aloof about all of this.Oh, to have equinimity....
By Fenderputty Go To PostMetal as fuck.
That honestly sounds horrible, like some Sega Genesis MIDI version of the song. It aint the same without the violins.
man im gonna miss that feeling i'd get in my chest and the big grin on my face when the opening credits kicked in every week
By FligureSkatingFan Go To PostOh, to have equinimity….
By domino Go To Postman im gonna miss that feeling i'd get in my chest and the big grin on my face when the opening credits kicked in every week
fuck
this would have been sumfin
That bit when Theon fucks the prostitute and then immediately his cock is flaccid
This is when i knew this show would be no good
This is when i knew this show would be no good
By n8 dogg Go To PostThis is very good - https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-real-reason-fans-hate-the-last-season-of-game-of-thrones/Requoting this, finally got around to it, actually has some interesting bits about how the storytelling went from being about a greater thing to suddenly on the shoulders of individual players. And how a story like GoT revolves around a time and a place more than people yet it turned into being about keeping characters around and basically shat on itself.
I find the article a bit disingenuous/mistaken/superficial, because Game of Thrones, even at its best, was "sociological" in only the most myopic and shallow ways. Social structures and functions were rarely under consideration, and from the beginning it was about the dramatic squabbles of small families of nobles without any real critical distance. The vast majority of society is completely ignored by the show, despite tossing in the occasional Davos or Gendry reference to Flea Bottom.
Feudal rulers were parasites, whether they were 'honorable' like the Starks or 'ruthless' like the Lannisters. They were willing to see tens of thousands murdered so they could claim this or that bit of land for their own wealth and vanity; they sent entire armies to the slaughter because your son wronged my father. Feudal war is the personal spat fought using other people's children. The show pays a bit of lip service to that through the Brotherhood without Banners, but a truly sociological show would acknowledge when the war was somewhere else the peasants didn't care or probably even know, and when the war was here it didn't matter whom your ruler was, because you were fucked.
Ken Liu's The Grace of Kings (from another fantasy series, but one with more actual sociological awareness) has a memorable children's song that captures this reality quite succinctly:
When Haan falls, the people suffer.
When Haan rises, the people suffer.
When Haan is poor, the people are poor.
When Haan is rich, the people are poor.
When Haan is strong, the people die.
When Haan is weak, the people die.
When Daenerys said she wanted to liberate Winterfell, and the ignorant viewer gasped, because 'who could be against the noble Starks?', it was because the show was never sociological, and calling it so is a massive disservice to the study of society. It mindlessly glorified society's war-mongering, execution-delivering, sit-in-my-hall-and-feast-while-you-plow-the-fields masters, and postmodern middle-class dunces cheered them on.
Feudal rulers were parasites, whether they were 'honorable' like the Starks or 'ruthless' like the Lannisters. They were willing to see tens of thousands murdered so they could claim this or that bit of land for their own wealth and vanity; they sent entire armies to the slaughter because your son wronged my father. Feudal war is the personal spat fought using other people's children. The show pays a bit of lip service to that through the Brotherhood without Banners, but a truly sociological show would acknowledge when the war was somewhere else the peasants didn't care or probably even know, and when the war was here it didn't matter whom your ruler was, because you were fucked.
Ken Liu's The Grace of Kings (from another fantasy series, but one with more actual sociological awareness) has a memorable children's song that captures this reality quite succinctly:
When Haan falls, the people suffer.
When Haan rises, the people suffer.
When Haan is poor, the people are poor.
When Haan is rich, the people are poor.
When Haan is strong, the people die.
When Haan is weak, the people die.
When Daenerys said she wanted to liberate Winterfell, and the ignorant viewer gasped, because 'who could be against the noble Starks?', it was because the show was never sociological, and calling it so is a massive disservice to the study of society. It mindlessly glorified society's war-mongering, execution-delivering, sit-in-my-hall-and-feast-while-you-plow-the-fields masters, and postmodern middle-class dunces cheered them on.
I dislike the prose, but I enjoy the plot. I've never read all of them, though - not even most of them. I've read the first a couple times, most of the second, and only sections of the others. Basically, I mine them for understanding their story and world in ways that the show couldn't capture.
That said, if he ever finishes the series, I plan to properly read them all, because I acknowledge that his work will be better than the bile the show disgorged over its final seasons. I'd just like a competent conclusion to the whole damned thing.
That said, if he ever finishes the series, I plan to properly read them all, because I acknowledge that his work will be better than the bile the show disgorged over its final seasons. I'd just like a competent conclusion to the whole damned thing.
There's an entire plotline on the 4th book about the effects that the constant wars has had on the common men, too bad they took it out
By FligureSkatingFan Go To PostI find the article a bit disingenuous/mistaken/superficial, because Game of Thrones, even at its best, was "sociological" in only the most myopic and shallow ways. Social structures and functions were rarely under consideration, and from the beginning it was about the dramatic squabbles of small families of nobles without any real critical distance. The vast majority of society is completely ignored by the show, despite tossing in the occasional Davos or Gendry reference to Flea Bottom.Does a show really lack any sort of sociologically story telling if it's focusing on a specific group of people? I don't disagree that we should see more of the impact of decisions made by those on top, I asked for as much because even GoT got myopic for me with just caring about Winterfell and KL but I don't necessarily agree with your stance here.
Feudal rulers were parasites, whether they were 'honorable' like the Starks or 'ruthless' like the Lannisters. They were willing to see tens of thousands murdered so they could claim this or that bit of land for their own wealth and vanity; they sent entire armies to the slaughter because your son wronged my father. Feudal war is the personal spat fought using other people's children. The show pays a bit of lip service to that through the Brotherhood without Banners, but a truly sociological show would acknowledge when the war was somewhere else the peasants didn't care or probably even know, and when the war was here it didn't matter whom your ruler was, because you were fucked.
Ken Liu's The Grace of Kings (from another fantasy series, but one with more actual sociological awareness) has a memorable children's song that captures this reality quite succinctly:
When Haan falls, the people suffer.
When Haan rises, the people suffer.
When Haan is poor, the people are poor.
When Haan is rich, the people are poor.
When Haan is strong, the people die.
When Haan is weak, the people die.
When Daenerys said she wanted to liberate Winterfell, and the ignorant viewer gasped, because 'who could be against the noble Starks?', it was because the show was never sociological, and calling it so is a massive disservice to the study of society. It mindlessly glorified society's war-mongering, execution-delivering, sit-in-my-hall-and-feast-while-you-plow-the-fields masters, and postmodern middle-class dunces cheered them on.
but a truly sociological show would acknowledge when the war was somewhere else the peasants didn't care or probably even know, and when the war was here it didn't matter whom your ruler was, because you were fucked.They pretty much did this with KL often. The people carried on as usual till the threat was literally at the gates because what else were they supposed to do? I don't feel like defending GoT but I think your requirements need honing. There are people in the books apparently who are basically eyes on the ground, it's just the show didn't really include tons of characters, which to be fair why would they, they already had tons and most people could barely follow that.
edit: Also forgot Arya in the earlier seasons is pretty much a window into the world of people who are servants.
By Random Ass Username Go To PostDoes a show really lack any sort of sociologically story telling if it's focusing on a specific group of people? I don't disagree that we should see more of the impact of decisions made by those on top, I asked for as much because even GoT got myopic for me with just caring about Winterfell and KL but I don't necessarily agree with your stance here.Focusing on a specific group (in this case, class) of people can be sociological, but I don't see any examples of it in the show. The closest we get is a focus on familial relations and their variations, but it doesn't have much to say other than that family is important, family earns titles through continuous striving (except when people just accept those characters' titles because 'middle ages'), and family is worth killing for (except when family is just worth killing).
Most often, that's what makes the deaths work: because the unit under consideration was the family more than the person, and a death in the family catalyzed the rest of the family into action. But that's not sociological, per se; that's just expanding the scope of the protagonist and antagonist from separate people to the family itself. It's narrative technique, not analytical acuity. It doesn't tell us anything about why those families really make those decisions (unless you count vague notions of ambition and tradition as explanatory in themselves); it just provides fertile circumstances for transgenerational drama.
By Random Ass Username Go To PostThey pretty much did this with KL often. The people carried on as usual till the threat was literally at the gates because what else were they supposed to do? I don't feel like defending GoT but I think your requirements need honing. There are people in the books apparently who are basically eyes on the ground, it's just the show didn't really include tons of characters, which to be fair why would they, they already had tons and most people could barely follow that.This was motivational at most and gestural at worst. It was Margaery feeding the poor for popular support; it was Jon learning the stories of his Night's Watch brothers to instill empathy in him; it was Arya learning to suffer for a longer-term goal. It was a set of curtains framing what we're really focused on, who the story is only ever really about: a bunch of family-obsessed nobles. Even the destruction of King's Landing and all those people was only ever there to set up the dramatic assassination of one would-be queen by her nephew.
edit: Also forgot Arya in the earlier seasons is pretty much a window into the world of people who are servants.
Alright I can see where you're coming from. You could label a lot of the stuff as shallow plus Arya was like on the street for 2 whole days or whatever.
On a completely different note my issue with the Wire comparisons is the ratings weren't so hot when it aired. People complained of it being boring and now it's a cult classic, "one of the best." It also had the advantage of being able to hyperfocus on a particular element each season, drugs/gangs, policing, politicians, schools, unions, etc rather than characters. I can see why something more critical and less opulent, vibrant and shallow wouldn't be much in the interest of people looking to generate viewership.
On a completely different note my issue with the Wire comparisons is the ratings weren't so hot when it aired. People complained of it being boring and now it's a cult classic, "one of the best." It also had the advantage of being able to hyperfocus on a particular element each season, drugs/gangs, policing, politicians, schools, unions, etc rather than characters. I can see why something more critical and less opulent, vibrant and shallow wouldn't be much in the interest of people looking to generate viewership.
Yeah...the characters were excellent in the wire. I think the system and the characters shared pretty equal spotlight. The people that claim the wire was boring never bothered watching more than a few episodes. It never winning an emmy is straight up racism imo.
I don't see anyone comparing GoT to the wire, Breaking Bad seems to be the go-to comparison. Both shows were far better than Thrones though.
I don't see anyone comparing GoT to the wire, Breaking Bad seems to be the go-to comparison. Both shows were far better than Thrones though.
My Wire comparisons are purely based off of the chess metaphors and "the game" being no different between the two shows. Game of Thrones, Game of Corners or The Streets: same shit. Pawns and the poor get sacrificed by the noble, treacherous, indignant, or otherwise: all for the title of king. Absolutely nothing to do with quality.
Some of the weird tweets about "people mad at the writers for obviously mailing in the last few seasons shouldn't do that because most of the critics couldn't write a major TV series" feel... very weird.
It's like tweeting "Magic fans mad at Dwight Howard for quitting on the Magic and demanding a trade shouldn't be mad because Dwight is much better than them at basketball."
It's like tweeting "Magic fans mad at Dwight Howard for quitting on the Magic and demanding a trade shouldn't be mad because Dwight is much better than them at basketball."
By blackace Go To PostWire actually had better characters tho…They mailed in the last season though.
By EldritchTrapStar Go To PostMy Wire comparisons are purely based off of the chess metaphors and "the game" being no different between the two shows. Game of Thrones, Game of Corners or The Streets: same shit. Pawns and the poor get sacrificed by the noble, treacherous, indignant, or otherwise: all for the title of king. Absolutely nothing to do with quality.shame thrones forgot the plot after season 3-4
By Lunatic Go To PostThey mailed in the last season though.hmm I don't quite feel as let down by the characters as I did in GoT
By IWMTB19 Go To PostSome of the weird tweets about "people mad at the writers for obviously mailing in the last few seasons shouldn't do that because most of the critics couldn't write a major TV series" feel… very weird.its standard drivel to try to deflect criticism in any media, you also see a lot of gamers saying reviewers couldnt make a better game when they give something an 8 instead of a 9
It's like tweeting "Magic fans mad at Dwight Howard for quitting on the Magic and demanding a trade shouldn't be mad because Dwight is much better than them at basketball."
By blackace Go To PostWire actually had better characters tho…I agree I was just saying for all the praise it gets stuff like the Wire will suffer a slump of ratings when its out then suddenly folks give a fuck. Don't mind me though I'm just bitter about good shit getting cancelled in its prime or other things not renewed with excuses about "money" while they fund some piece of crap.
Yeah, the on-line toxicity defense force is on some BS.
Calling Dwight Howard a scrub, as some people do in arenas and on-line, is as much a bitch-move. People don't just say he could have put in more effort in a polite way. Game crowds are full of idiots who like hating more than they like the game. They should feel lucky to see Dwight play.
Calling Dwight Howard a scrub, as some people do in arenas and on-line, is as much a bitch-move. People don't just say he could have put in more effort in a polite way. Game crowds are full of idiots who like hating more than they like the game. They should feel lucky to see Dwight play.