|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 17, 2017 14:57:11 GMT
Not sure I agree.
The bulk of fascination with the story is clearly tied to prophesy not realism and those prophesy have fantasy through out them.
Without the fantasy aspect, is a fictional recreation of history and at least half of the characters would be inconsequential.
It would be a story about how Lannisters rose to power in their slow and painful assault on the wintery North after murdering the king that usurped the previous one.
That isn't worth 7 seasons.
I fully disagree. It doesn't make you wrong in your appreciation of the success of the story, only partially pertinent. Let's admit it as a fact that there are people like you and people like me, plus a few other types whose appreciation of the show will be rooted elsewhere. A logical explanation of GoT's success will be that is manages to please people with widely different interests. I am of those who think the fantasy aspect stands in the way. I'd rather watch King's Landing all the time and I think what draws (some) people and keeps them glued to the story is the varied level of identification, love, hate and questioning they get from the characters. They love this one but they hate his brother and they actually want the other family to win but not fully and it's all so complicated and conflicted they can't get away. This is fully examplified by what we saw in The Spoils Of War. Most of the reaction videos on Youtube show people who say they "hate the Lannisters" but cannot bear to see Jaime or Bronn die. Look at this one, I no longer know what she was "rooting" for: The characters of GoT are both grey and archetypal, exaggerated, so viewers get to choose sides and change them or mix them. All in all, it is a great identification game without easy choices. In a way it is very much like politics when you start finding out that all parties do say things that make sense. It doesn't matter what either of us prefer. I like the fact that it's like a very good game of RISK and is also a very good version of fantasy.
What matters is the what is the interesting thing about the show that makes it popular.
The [melo]dramatic elements of the show lend to it's support, but it's a mistake to think that just because the historically grounded portions of the show are liked by most, the fantasy elements can be dismissed.
It is a fundamentally different show without the fantasy elements. This should have been evident considering both the book and show literally started with ice zombies.
|
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Aug 17, 2017 15:12:02 GMT
Drunk girls don't lie?!!! Come on, you know that's what they all say. This one doesn't like Cersei, sadly. The full drunk girl video was over 38 minutes? I bet thats torture. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 17, 2017 15:23:10 GMT
I like fantasy, but a lot of it is garbage. Most of the shows are for networks like syfy or direct to syndication. Nobody watches them, which is why nobody fronts the money to make them better quality to begin with. I started reading the books because the mix of fantasy and period fiction appealed to me. If you were to remove the fantasy, the characters were compelling enough to keep me riveted to the story. If you were to dumb down the plot and focus on the fantastical, I wouldn't have bothered reading the books, or watching the show. I'm not saying dragons and walking dead make the story worse, I just disagree with the premise that the fantasy elements are the main draw. Not sure I agree.
The bulk of fascination with the story is clearly tied to prophesy not realism and those prophesy have fantasy through out them.
Without the fantasy aspect, is a fictional recreation of history and at least half of the characters would be inconsequential.
It would be a story about how Lannisters rose to power in their slow and painful assault on the wintery North after murdering the king that usurped the previous one.
That isn't worth 7 seasons.
Not when you make it sound that boring. It's a good thing the show's popularity is built upon the brilliant writing of GRRM and the actors' depictions of the nuanced, so very human characters from the book. Peter Dinklage won an emmy. Name the actor who plays the Night King. (Hint, there have been several and nobody cares.) |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 17, 2017 15:31:47 GMT
Not sure I agree.
The bulk of fascination with the story is clearly tied to prophesy not realism and those prophesy have fantasy through out them.
Without the fantasy aspect, is a fictional recreation of history and at least half of the characters would be inconsequential.
It would be a story about how Lannisters rose to power in their slow and painful assault on the wintery North after murdering the king that usurped the previous one.
That isn't worth 7 seasons.
Not when you make it sound that boring. It's a good thing the show's popularity is built upon the brilliant writing of GRRM and the actors' depictions of the nuanced, so very human characters from the book. Peter Dinklage won an emmy. Name the actor who plays the Night King. (Hint, there have been several and nobody cares.) I'm not sure why you are pretending that several characters that are heavy on the fantasy aspect did not get nominated. Did they suck because they didn't win?
In any event, I think the main point of my statement is the same. Our individuals preferences are inconsequential to the whole.
So you would have to show me where the majority of viewers are watching while groaning at the fantasy elements as opposed to the majority of them that are watching it because of the whole story including the fantasy aspects of it. It's not either or, so don't try to contort into such.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 17, 2017 15:34:07 GMT
How do fantasy shows do for ratings typically? Why doesn't a network like HBO finance a show that leans more on fantasy than political intrigue? Could it be because nobody would watch a show about giants and dragons if it wasn't about anything? How much magic was there in season 1 of Game of Thrones? The fantasy makes it more fun, but it isn't why people have been with the show from the beginning. Most of the show's biggest moments are human moments. For every Hardhome or dragon birth there's a Red Wedding, Purple Wedding, Blackwater, Battle of the Bastards, Ned's execution, etc. The people pull you into the story, the fantasy elements just raise the stakes and provide spectacle. But keep telling yourself people are tuning in to see the fantasy and not the social dynamic. The Borgias and Spartacus aren't remotely close to GOT in terms of production value or storytelling in general. (And for the record, I enjoyed the hell out of Spartacus for what it was.) As great as Rome was, it didn't have nearly as many twists and fascinating characters as season 1 of GOT alone. HBO is planning GOT spinoffs, maybe they should put your theory to the test and just do a show about dragons flying around or giants stomping on walking skeletons in the woods. Let's see how many people tune in for that one. You said the show would be even more popular without the fantasy elements and I gave numerous examples of well written shows that were all about political intrigue in similar settings to GOT minus the fantasy. Are you saying those shows were not the phenomenal successes GOT is? Gosh that means your theory is wrong, huh? What difference does production value mean when it's all about that political intrigue, right? It should have no bearing at all although if you were being honest you would admit the shows I mentioned looked great and were not cut rate productions by any stretch of the imagination. Also at no point did I make ANY claims about why people watched. However, that show about dragons flying around and giants stomping on walking skeletons sounds familiar. I wonder why? Oh yeah because that's Game of Thrones you moron. Quit pretending this goofy soap opera is some type of high brow think fest because it's far from anything close to that. It's boobs and dragons and violence. You act embarrassed that it's a sword and sorcery show with soft core scenes but thats exactly what it is so stop fooling yourself. What was the very first scene in the show? Was it some political intrigue or was it violence and wights? What was the final scene in Season 1? Was it machinations or dragons? Feel free to rewatch before you answer if you need to remind yourself. You are wrong and all your sad attempts to rationalize different just make you look as silly as most of the convenient "political intrigue" plots. Upset? I stated fantasy fails on tv while GOT, which is based more on political intrigue than fantasy, has succeeded. You don't like the show, it's all good. But filling your post with insults makes you look like a child. What I find comical is that I was going to begin my original response to you with, "Why are you so upset," because you legitimately seemed angry about such a trivial topic and I couldn't understand why. I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, but apparently you are angry. I suppose a message board is as good a therapy as you're going to find for free. Good luck with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 17, 2017 15:46:25 GMT
Not when you make it sound that boring. It's a good thing the show's popularity is built upon the brilliant writing of GRRM and the actors' depictions of the nuanced, so very human characters from the book. Peter Dinklage won an emmy. Name the actor who plays the Night King. (Hint, there have been several and nobody cares.) I'm not sure why you are pretending that several characters that are heavy on the fantasy aspect did not get nominated. Did they suck because they didn't win?
In any event, I think the main point of my statement is the same. Our individuals preferences are inconsequential to the whole.
So you would have to show me where the majority of viewers are watching while groaning at the fantasy elements as opposed to the majority of them that are watching it because of the whole story including the fantasy aspects of it. It's not either or, so don't try to contort into such.
I never said they were groaning at the fantasy elements, so I'm not sure how to reply to that. My opinion is that the story and the characters are the main draw for the audience, and the fantasy elements highlight the human struggle. You can't have one without the other, I never said you could. The books drew me in due to their combination of period fiction and fantasy elements, I assume most viewers enjoy the show for the same reason. However, I also believe those who do not watch the show due to the fantasy aspect of it would have been pulled in by the story itself; it takes long time storytelling tropes and turns them on their head. You wouldn't need magic to make Cersei and Jamie's relationship interesting and disturbing. You don't need magic to make Tyrion a lovable underdog. You don't need magic to make events like the Red Wedding and Ned's execution riveting storytelling. Agreed, our individual preferences are irrelevant. I love the magic so I win either way. As great as this imaginary Middle Age world is with swords, armor and banners; shades of gray instead of true heroes and villains; it's all the better for having dragons, direwolves, wights and faceless men. My stance is that the show doesn't need them to be successful. The human story is just that fascinating and original. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2017 17:21:19 GMT
It would still be a great show.
|
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Aug 17, 2017 17:25:22 GMT
They are barely in it now.
Think about it.
The average shot of the Night King is about .5 seconds.
The last episode was arguably the first significant dragon action, except for maybe the arena scene.
|
|
