Kal_1993
Sophomore
@kalyan1993
Posts: 475
Likes: 26
|
Post by Kal_1993 on Aug 16, 2017 12:44:17 GMT
If such were the story, I guess the popularity of that show would have been less than half of what it is now.
But then if we think about it, weren't dragons and wights at least till episodes like "Hardhome" and "Spoils of War" were nothing more than "fan-bait"? They didn't serve any true purpose on the show so far nor do we know much about them. GoT fans have always been crazy as hell waiting for more screentime and answers for Dragons and Wights.
Lets have a look at Dany's storyline, its always been a pattern.
1. Dany invades a city 2. Dany tries to make it better 3. Dany creates more problems and run into trouble 4.Drogon comes to the rescue 5. Dany plays dragon card to gain more support This has happened thrice.
While this was obviously more complex in the books, but on the TV show her storyline has largely been underwhelming. Fans have always been waiting for her dragons to come to Westeros to fight the battles and it took 7 years for a 5-minute dragon war. Yet, surprisingly most fans find Dany interesting.
Same goes with Jon and white walkers, its always about the future than present.
Now the show is almost at the end, but I'm not sure if these dragons and walkers are gonna makeup even 25% of remaining show-time. Are we ever gonna get the answers and was 7 year freakish obsession was worth the wait? Even if we do get the answers, do you think the show would live upto the hype?
Shouldn't GoT fans assess the present rather than getting excited for an allegedly optimistic future as we have always been?
TL;DR: Is GoT another LOST in making?
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 16, 2017 12:55:19 GMT
I would probably like it a lot more if it had no silly fantasy element. Do Daenerys fans find her interesting? No, I doubt it. They don't have the intellect needed to find things interesting. They love her, yes, they "root" for her as they say in their primitive dialects, they believe in her bullshit just like they'll vote for some other fake of her ilk as soon as they are of age.
The obsession with the show does not come from its story. It's not the outcome people are so invested in, but the characters and what they mean to them. It's more like a baroque and addictive identification game.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 16, 2017 13:05:56 GMT
1. America invades a country 2. America tries to make it better 3. America creates more problems and run into trouble America plays human rights card to gain more support This has happened many times The theme seems familiar. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Aug 16, 2017 13:07:41 GMT
I actually think it would be the same...or more. I know plenty of people that are turned off by the more supernatural aspects of fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 16, 2017 13:15:36 GMT
I actually think it would be the same...or more. I know plenty of people that are turned off by the more supernatural aspects of fantasy. Absolutely. Many think of it as a genre for belated male teenagers who never got out of The Lord Of The Rings and meet with friends to be warriors, dwarves or magicians in role playing games. The fantasy side was a reason for me to dismiss the series when I first read about it.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 16, 2017 13:23:02 GMT
1. America invades a country 2. America tries to make it better 3. America creates more problems and run into trouble America plays human rights card to gain more support This has happened many times The theme seems familiar. I agree. That parallel has been drawn before but America never came back to invade England by burning the Queen's armies.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 16, 2017 13:44:49 GMT
Agree with most of the replies, it would probably be more popular without the fantasy elements. Most casual fans love the political and familial intrigue, the big battles and yes, the sex. The dragons, giants, direwolves and walking dead are just bonus eye candy. The fantasy is what turns some people off to the show.
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Aug 16, 2017 13:51:24 GMT
It would be an even better show, just less popular.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Aug 16, 2017 13:59:14 GMT
Agree with most of the replies, it would probably be more popular without the fantasy elements. Most casual fans love the political and familial intrigue, the big battles and yes, the sex. The dragons, giants, direwolves and walking dead are just bonus eye candy. The fantasy is what turns some people off to the show. That must be why The Tudors and The Borgias and Rome and The White Queen and Spartacus were all much more popular that GOT, right? Without the fantasy elements like dragons and wights those shows drew all those fans of political intrigue in ancient settings that don't like GOT as well as all the people who watch GOT anyway. A quick search will back up the theory so many of you are espousing I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 16, 2017 15:23:15 GMT
I disagree with the notion of Dany's story not being compelling.
I would argue that her ad Jon are the only true favorites with Jon being a favorite among book reading dudes.
Yes, dragons are a component of her popularity, but it's incorrect to go through steps based solely on your interpretation of her accomplishments.
The reality is she does something to endear the people to her, she faces pushback, and then she kicks the enemy's butt.
No other person in Game of Thrones has accomplished as much as she has, it's just her accomplishments are tied to places the fans of other houses don't care about.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 16, 2017 15:49:58 GMT
I disagree with the notion of Dany's story not being compelling. Compelling and interesting have very different meanings. I find the Daenerys storyline interesting in that is shows the attraction of modern tyrants on the masses, even those of today. This is not 1917 Russia, 1933 Germany or whenever the most murderous regimes took form in Asia. This is 2017 and modern, young people love her. I find it scary too. They find it compelling.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 16, 2017 16:57:46 GMT
Agree with most of the replies, it would probably be more popular without the fantasy elements. Most casual fans love the political and familial intrigue, the big battles and yes, the sex. The dragons, giants, direwolves and walking dead are just bonus eye candy. The fantasy is what turns some people off to the show. That must be why The Tudors and The Borgias and Rome and The White Queen and Spartacus were all much more popular that GOT, right? Without the fantasy elements like dragons and wights those shows drew all those fans of political intrigue in ancient settings that don't like GOT as well as all the people who watch GOT anyway. A quick search will back up the theory so many of you are espousing I'm sure. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 16, 2017 17:13:18 GMT
That must be why The Tudors and The Borgias and Rome and The White Queen and Spartacus were all much more popular that GOT, right? Without the fantasy elements like dragons and wights those shows drew all those fans of political intrigue in ancient settings that don't like GOT as well as all the people who watch GOT anyway. A quick search will back up the theory so many of you are espousing I'm sure. How do fantasy shows do for ratings typically? Not well. That was a main concern before the show was taken on. None of the most popular TV shows before were based on fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 16, 2017 18:12:41 GMT
How do fantasy shows do for ratings typically? Not well. That was a main concern before the show was taken on. None of the most popular TV shows before were based on fantasy. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 17, 2017 13:02:41 GMT
Here's why Game Of Thrones is the best show. Drunken girls never lie.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 17, 2017 14:02:40 GMT
Not well. That was a main concern before the show was taken on. None of the most popular TV shows before were based on fantasy. 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.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Aug 17, 2017 14:16:49 GMT
That must be why The Tudors and The Borgias and Rome and The White Queen and Spartacus were all much more popular that GOT, right? Without the fantasy elements like dragons and wights those shows drew all those fans of political intrigue in ancient settings that don't like GOT as well as all the people who watch GOT anyway. A quick search will back up the theory so many of you are espousing I'm sure. 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. Why are you so upset? 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.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Aug 17, 2017 14:23:37 GMT
Here's why Game Of Thrones is the best show. Drunken girls never lie. Drunk girls don't lie?!!! You haven't been around many girls, huh? I couldn't bear to watch that moron for more than a few seconds so summarize why she thinks GOT is popular. Let me guess. Something to do with cersei?
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 17, 2017 14:29:34 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.
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.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 17, 2017 14:31:58 GMT
Drunk girls don't lie?!!! Come on, you know that's what they all say. This one doesn't like Cersei, sadly.
|
|