Poll: According to the chart in the original post, which Game of Thrones character are you?

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I definitely see the reasons they had to do most of the above. Still points of critique for me.
What is special about the books is how realistical the world is compared to real world medieval times. IMO the tv show has strayed too far from that in some things because someone in marketing said "people want xyz".

Someone in marketing may have said that, but time has proven them wise. It's like the number one show and has surpassed the books in popularity.

 

[Aginor]

Sure. But popular and good are two things I consider separate, although in entertainment I admit it is hard to draw the line.

 

[Killer Angel]

The problem with books is that Martin is dragging the main story. Too many sub plots, too many things going on that are left unresolved and he doesn't close them because he opens new ones...

I am sick to wait for Martin to complete the story.
The show is already giving me lots of the things i want ( Arya's revenge, for example)

 

[Aginor]

The problem with books is that Martin is dragging the main story. Too many sub plots, too many things going on that are left unresolved and he doesn't close them because he opens new ones...

I am sick to wait for Martin to complete the story.
The show is already giving me lots of the things i want ( Arya's revenge, for example)

Definitely agree with those points.
Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time also has a lot of subplots but at least he made sure to resolve them.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Sure. But popular and good are two things I consider separate, although in entertainment I admit it is hard to draw the line.

I agree. But in this case the show is popular because it is entertaining. I think on some level it is fair to equate entertaining with good (in terms of tv and cinema). Exceptions apply (reality tv).


For instance, in the 1978 Oscars, Annie Hall won best picture over Star Wars. So is Annie Hall the better picture? Or is the fact that Star Wars was far more beloved, popular and entertaining the more important factor?

 

[Aginor]

Well, IMO it is possible to judge objective stuff like camera work, the plot, special effects, acting, and a lot of other stuff (most of ehivh have categories at the Oscars), basically the "tools of the trade". There are loads of movies that were not very successful in the theater for a number of reasons but are "good" and other ones that are really bad in many aspects but popular.

And frankly: Star Wars is a phenomenon. It just is. For a lot of reasons. But judging by many criteria the stories are mediocre at best, and have always been. So for example if anyone complains to me about plot holes or lazy writing in the current Star Wars movies I just point them at a few equally bad things in older SW movies that had to be filled with stuff from comics and the universe built around the movies years after that.

In the end I still think that popular and good have to be separate. Just with the added reminder that liking something that isn't good by objective measurements is not wrong. Example: Top Gun is a godawful cheesy movie in many aspects and I still love it. Nothing wrong with that.

Counter example since you mentioned it:
Annie Hall is a brilliant movie, better than Star Wars in almost every regard that you can objectively measure, and it rightfully earned best picture that year.
I still don't care about it.

It is like in the year the first Lord of the Rings movie was released. It was great but IIRC the best picture award went to "A beautiful mind", and rightfully so. Even though as a fantasy fan you just have to shake your head.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Annie Hall is a brilliant movie, better than Star Wars in almost every regard that you can objectively measure, and it rightfully earned best picture that year.
I still don't care about it.

But the point is that very few people care about it. Star Wars has entertained more people. Star Wars has been more memorable. Star Wars has had a greater influence on other works. Star Wars has better proven itself over time. These things can be measured as well and I would argue that they are more important.

In the end I still think that popular and good have to be separate.

And to a certain level I would agree. Box office success does not necessarily equate to something being good (the Transformers movies are a great example of this). However, something that stands the test of time is a different story. Star Wars has proven itself across the last 4 decades. That is something that is pretty unique and amazing. I would say that something that so thoroughly captures the hearts and minds of such a large audience across such a large span of time is something that is truly special.

 

[Aginor]

But the point is that very few people care about it. Star Wars has entertained more people. Star Wars has been more memorable. Star Wars has had a greater influence on other works. Star Wars has better proven itself over time. These things can be measured as well and I would argue that they are more important.


And to a certain level I would agree. Box office success does not necessarily equate to something being good (the Transformers movies are a great example of this). However, something that stands the test of time is a different story. Star Wars has proven itself across the last 4 decades. That is something that is pretty unique and amazing. I would say that something that so thoroughly captures the hearts and minds of such a large audience across such a large span of time is something that is truly special.

I agree. But that's not only the movie. Star Wars I in itself is good but it has many flaws. The special thing about Star Wars is that it is a mass phenomenon across all media, aimed towards a very broad audience and with all the merchandise and so on. And it started exactly at the right time.

 

[Lord-Marcus]

I agree. But that's not only the movie. Star Wars I in itself is good but it has many flaws. The special thing about Star Wars is that it is a mass phenomenon across all media, aimed towards a very broad audience and with all the merchandise and so on. And it started exactly at the right time.

Star wars had luck on it's side.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I agree. But that's not only the movie. Star Wars I in itself is good but it has many flaws. The special thing about Star Wars is that it is a mass phenomenon across all media, aimed towards a very broad audience and with all the merchandise and so on. And it started exactly at the right time.

Nothing is perfect, but Star Wars was revolutionary for its time. Before all the toys and media, simply people seeing and experiencing it for the first time. Those other things slowly aggregated around the staggering success of the original film to create the phenomenon you speak of.

Star wars had luck on it's side.

I can't believe you set me up so easily...

 

[Hyperborean]

Its why I appreciate the show for what it is despite preferring the books. While Georgie ain't the world's best writer he still has some serious talent there! (his other short story stuff like Wild Cards is pretty damn good!) And I adore what he has created, its all very skillful.

I am not a fan of the show I will state this outright, I just...I just don't enjoy it. BUT there is stuff there visually and action wise that is going to grab the audience soooo much more than a book and I respect that.

Like with Star Wars vs Oscar winning movies just because it hasn't necessarily won that big award doesn't mean its without its merit. Star Wars really propelled effects forward and was a really big proper space opera. So while the story is your basic hero's tale through and through just all that beautiful extended stuff help make it shine.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

While Georgie ain't the world's best writer

So who are some of the authors that you would confidently claim are better than George within the same genre?

 

[Aginor]

I'd probably say these are up there as far as Sci-Fi screenplay writers are concerned:
- Dan O'Bannon (Alien)
- Stanley Kubrick (2001)
- David Peoples (Blade Runner, 12 Monkeys)
- James Cameron (Terminator)
- Christopher Nolan (Interstellar, Batman movies)
- Lawrence Kasdan (who wrote all the good parts of Star Wars)

In fact even the Wachowskis (who also did a few ....very mediocre ones) have some stuff that IMO beats many of George's writing.

 

[Hyperborean]

Personally I like Patrick Rothfuss with his Kingkiller Chronicles and Scott Lynch with the Gentleman Bastards. Dan Simmons too but only with Hyperion Cantos (sadly read some of his other stuff and it was just as the kids say not good)

They don’t write the big high fantasy epics but I find it easier to pick their stuff back up after long periods of time. I feel much better connected to their characters as well and have an easier time getting into the story.

George can be dry for long stretches of time and ASOIAF isn’t something I can easily pick right back up to read. So while he does write an engaging story the actual engaging takes a long time for me. That’s my own personal gripe however.

 

[Aginor]

Wait I think we were talking fantasy/sci-fi screenplay writing?
Writing in general.... dozens of authors.

 

[Lord-Marcus]

Someone just told me GoT looks like the world's most expensive rennaisance faire.

 

[Aginor]

The costumes are top notch!

 

[Lord-Marcus]

The costumes are top notch!

I applaud the armorers

 

[Aginor]

What I really like is that sloooowly the myth of "knights in armor cannot move properly" is dying.
Shows like GoT that have people walking around in heavy armor, fighting halfway properly, helps a lot with that.

 

[Hyperborean]

I applaud the armorers and additionally the amount of detail work in the embroidery of the dresses and characters regular clothes. As much as I gripe about the show here and there at home there two things I will never ever ever complain about: The dragons and the costumes (and the casting honestly)