SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Mike Hale writes in the NYT that after Sunday night's Season 5 finale the wildly popular show seems to have lost its way, and to be losing faith with a growing number of its viewers. After two or three seasons of coherent and satisfying action, the show is spinning in place, stalling for time as it crawls toward an ending that will be more disappointing the longer it's delayed. Sound familiar? As with "Lost," there may be a blueprint, but it's not looking very sound. According to Hale, the escalating series of shocks in the season finale was a prime example of substituting sensation for imagination, busyness for drama. "Not content to kill off a mid-major character, the episode moved on to whipping girls, putting a major female character through an excruciatingly long, nude walk of shame and, in its closing seconds, assassinating a fan favorite who was one of the few wholly sympathetic figures in the show."
Amy Sullivan says that the problem is that it's incredibly hard to craft a epic series without getting necessarily bogged down in the middle installments. "Your protagonists are usually in some long-term predicament or up against an enemy who will keep winning until some resolution is reached in the finale," says Sullivan. "So the need to throw in a few shocking moments for the sake of surprise and to keep readers/audiences off-balance is understandable." According to Hale when you look at the overall framework, nearly all the characters are where they were when the season began. "The usurping Boltons are still in Winterfell; Sansa is still on the run; Arya is still hiding in Braavos; the dragon queen Daenerys Targaryen and the sly dwarf, Tyrion, are still marooned in Essos; the Lannisters still occupy the castle in King's Landing," concludes Hale. "This can be blamed on the show's semidependent relationship with Mr. Martin's novels, but viewers (like me) who haven't read the books don't care about that. The question is how much longer we'll care at all."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday June 16 2015, @07:21PM
Is there anything to it? And no responses about "just read all the books and watch all the shows" thats BS I'm not going to invest the time. "Go read Plutarch" or "Go read Gibbon" sure.
What I'm getting at is a huge letdown as a kid was learning "adult" merely means sex and violence. I guess I was expecting some kind of secret masonic spell to turn my sister into a frog or who killed JFK but instead I get "adult means boobs and blood" what a let down.
So all the news media coverage I can't avoid focuses solely on naked chicks and beheadings so is there anything to it besides gore, porn, and gore porn?
I mean its always possible to trivialize, "Tolkien's work was just a bunch of walking around" or whatever. But is there really anything to it, or is it like Sopranos where five years later people won't even remember it beyond some weird nostalgia post like this one (I never watched that either).
Where I work nobody talks about it, but the media implies 100% of the population is watching, so WTF about that.
(Score: 3, Funny) by VLM on Tuesday June 16 2015, @07:24PM
And related to above post, bonus points for best star trek series analogy and best automobile analogy.
I'm guessing as a guy who hasn't seen one episode the best ST series analogy would be DS9 and the best car analogy would be an extensively riced Corolla with an extremely loud aftermarket exhaust and a giant spoiler. It would be funny if I actually got that correct.
(Score: 2, Funny) by DutchUncle on Tuesday June 16 2015, @07:41PM
DS9 finally got a nice story arc. Sadly, it was the story from Babylon 5.
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Wednesday June 17 2015, @03:49AM
and best automobile analogy
Okay, imagine as TV shows being cars.
When we are young, we have matchbox cars. That's your run of the mill reality TV show, your cooking show, your talk show, comedy crap.
Then, when we get into adolescence we move to a remote controlled car. There's more stuff here in these, it's your science fiction shows, drama shows - there are real parts/characters. Things can go wrong, but generally fixable, either by replacing a part or putting new batteries in.
Now, we get to a real car. This is the really real thing. GoT is basically a real car compared to matchbox cars or even remote controlled toys. Sometimes in a car, a tyre blows or there is a drunk driver and accidents are caused. This is akin to some of the plots on "really real" shows. Sometimes good people do bad things, sometimes bad people change. Sometimes, a brake pedal fails and the most wonderful family in the world all dies driving off a cliff.
While reading a lot of the comments here, a few people have said "Why build them up only to kill them off meaninglessly?" and I actually have to say that while I often wish that some of the characters hadn't been killed off, at the same time it brings a certain sense of realism. People die. A lot of people die quietly and alone, others die needlessly and yet others, who barely deserve life continue on for years and years spreading their misery.
A real automobile is much more complex than a toy - even if it's a complex toy. GoT is much more complex than reality TV or most TV shows.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 17 2015, @11:42AM
So the general theme I'm getting from many posters is its pretty much "The Sims" but non-interactive with human actors and medieval theme.
I've read a lot of comments along the line of not having a plot, its just a snapshot of famous and dramatic lives. If there is an overall plot no one is talking about it.
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Wednesday June 17 2015, @12:15PM
I think/hope there is a plot - and actually I sort of enjoy the fact that I am seeing it as it is happening, somethings thinking that I know what is going on, what is going to happen - and at other times not having a clue as to how things will unravel. I would be surprised if the outcome didn't make the entire storyline make sense, but I do like the fact that there are possibilities that sometimes do not come to be just because they weren't lucky enough to end up being - no matter how much I would have liked them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @03:48PM
Because the story isn't about the characters, they're just a plot device used to tell the story. There is no protagonist character, the world is the protagonist.
(Score: 2) by TK on Tuesday June 16 2015, @08:10PM
That depends on you. The boobs and blood are an excellent way to get people talking about it, which gets more people to start watching, but I don't think that's what keeps people watching. The characters are nuanced and human, with motivations running the whole gamut, that will make viewers love or hate them with equal intensity. Heroes and villains die with about equal frequency, and the power struggles keep evolving, so it doesn't get boring. Aside from the episodes that are just spent on building up the next episodes, but I see them as a necessary part of the story.
Life in the world is brutal and uncensored, whether this is a good or bad thing, that's up to the viewer.
As for the original article, GRRM does seem to have at least some amount of planning when it comes to his overarching story, so I'm cautiously optimistic.
The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
(Score: 2, Informative) by darnkitten on Tuesday June 16 2015, @08:30PM
I like the books--for me it's like reading gritty, medieval historical novels, only without knowing where the story will end up. If you enjoy Thomas Asbridge's histories; Maurice Druon's ; Gene Cook's Black Company, or Bernard Cornwell's novels, it's worth the read. If, however, you prefer a dryer, more academic history; a more sanitized Middle Ages; or Romantic Fantasy (noble Heroes, stalwart Companions, defined Quests and/or a clear-cut sense of Good and Evil), it may not be your cup of tea.
As for the TV show--I'll wait 'till it's finished and then buy it and watch it all. I've heard good things about it--not least, that the design was worth watching on it's own and that the NI landscape was featured brilliantly.
Happy Reading!
(Score: 1) by darnkitten on Tuesday June 16 2015, @10:43PM
Correction--Glen Cook, not Gene.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday June 17 2015, @11:36AM
Wiener, wiener wiener, wiener wiener, wiener wiener, ...
Nah, I lie, there's zombies too now.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves