GoT, Better Call Saul, Walking Dead, Vikings, Arrow, Bones?

Current events, society, culture, science, insights. The music. Cinema. The books. The theater. The art.

Moderators: ZenMaster, Shpati

User avatar
Plako
Posts: 3858
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:21 am
Location: NYC
Team: Partizani
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 164 times
Contact:

DigBick wrote:
Plako wrote: Vikings is good but not enough interesting characters like GOT and it has a smaller budget so the cinematography is not as good either.
I agree on the cinematography, but I sympathize much more with characters from Vikings than GoT. Vikings is a historical piece. People used to live like this. It's amazing seeing the clash of cultures and people being faced with cognitive dissonance that throws off their moral compass. I personally couldn't care for most of the characters on GoT, as they're not relatable at all. A girl trying to take back a kingdom with dragons...Cersei being a rich, spoiled bitch. Jon Snow and Tyrion are the only two characters you can have sympathy for.
Well, the Stark kids are all relatable characters. While not relatable, King Joffrey and Tywin Lannister and were great characters. Jamie Lannister has turned around and become a lovable character, despite his past faults. Overall I feel like the characters in GOT have more depth and the show is more Machiavellian than Vikings, although I have to admit Vikings is almost just as Machiavellian. Also the acting in GOT is much better as most of the actors have background in Shakespearean theater. Travis Fimmel, who plays Lagnar Lothbrok, was an underwear model :) The one flaw for me in GOT is Daenerys, she's horribly cast and is not believable at all, much like Gabriel Byrne in Vikings.

Don't get me wrong I love Vikings and it has filled the void left by GOT for me but i don't think the two can compare.
User avatar
Shpati
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:06 am
Location: United States
Team: Albania, New York Mets, New York Giants, Liverpool F.C.
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 15 times
Contact:

Nobody watches GoT because they relate to the characters. It's a fantasy world. But the characters are interesting nonetheless, except the dragon queen. Her story was drawn out way too much.
User avatar
Plako
Posts: 3858
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:21 am
Location: NYC
Team: Partizani
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 164 times
Contact:

Shpati wrote:Nobody watches GoT because they relate to the characters. It's a fantasy world. But the characters are interesting nonetheless, except the dragon queen. Her story was drawn out way too much.
Agreed, I liked her when she was the Khaleesi but as a dragon queen she's not convincing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pjetër
Posts: 830
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 7:37 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 14 times
Contact:

i don't understand why people care so much about film/novel/tv characters being "relatable."
User avatar
Berti
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 7:30 pm
Location: London
Team: Leeds
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Plako wrote:
Well, the Stark kids are all relatable characters. While not relatable, King Joffrey and Tywin Lannister and were great characters. Jamie Lannister has turned around and become a lovable character, despite his past faults. Overall I feel like the characters in GOT have more depth and the show is more Machiavellian than Vikings, although I have to admit Vikings is almost just as Machiavellian. Also the acting in GOT is much better as most of the actors have background in Shakespearean theater. Travis Fimmel, who plays Lagnar Lothbrok, was an underwear model :) The one flaw for me in GOT is Daenerys, she's horribly cast and is not believable at all, much like Gabriel Byrne in Vikings.

Don't get me wrong I love Vikings and it has filled the void left by GOT for me but i don't think the two can compare.
Plako, I fully agree on the acting level. Gabriel Byrne was pathetic. Travis Fimmel does an ok job and so does Lagatha (whatever her name is)
Floki is the man and King Ecbert is awsome but the whole show for me is Athiston. He basically explains why we watch the show.
User avatar
Shpati
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:06 am
Location: United States
Team: Albania, New York Mets, New York Giants, Liverpool F.C.
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 15 times
Contact:

Plako wrote:
Shpati wrote:Nobody watches GoT because they relate to the characters. It's a fantasy world. But the characters are interesting nonetheless, except the dragon queen. Her story was drawn out way too much.
Agreed, I liked her when she was the Khaleesi but as a dragon queen she's not convincing.
She was actually intended to go ahead and invade Westeros with the Dothraki. But the story expanded by a lot with more characters so more time was needed to develop things. So I feel all this boring stuff she is doing in the Middle East is just filler.

Doesn't help that the show creators are practically in-love with her so they give her more scenes than she ever had in the source material.
User avatar
Plako
Posts: 3858
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:21 am
Location: NYC
Team: Partizani
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 164 times
Contact:

Berti wrote:
Plako wrote:
Well, the Stark kids are all relatable characters. While not relatable, King Joffrey and Tywin Lannister and were great characters. Jamie Lannister has turned around and become a lovable character, despite his past faults. Overall I feel like the characters in GOT have more depth and the show is more Machiavellian than Vikings, although I have to admit Vikings is almost just as Machiavellian. Also the acting in GOT is much better as most of the actors have background in Shakespearean theater. Travis Fimmel, who plays Lagnar Lothbrok, was an underwear model :) The one flaw for me in GOT is Daenerys, she's horribly cast and is not believable at all, much like Gabriel Byrne in Vikings.

Don't get me wrong I love Vikings and it has filled the void left by GOT for me but i don't think the two can compare.
Plako, I fully agree on the acting level. Gabriel Byrne was pathetic. Travis Fimmel does an ok job and so does Lagatha (whatever her name is)
Floki is the man and King Ecbert is awsome but the whole show for me is Athiston. He basically explains why we watch the show.
Floki is definitely one of the better characters and the actor does a great job. I've only watched the first 2 seasons so I have some catching up to do. The other thing about Vikings is that we have. Protagonist that you can follow and sympathize with unlike GOT where you root for different people every episode :)

I also like Peter Baylish in GOT.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
Plako
Posts: 3858
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:21 am
Location: NYC
Team: Partizani
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 164 times
Contact:

Shpati wrote:
Doesn't help that the show creators are practically in-love with her so they give her more scenes than she ever had in the source material.
I want to like her character but I just can't due to her acting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
Simboli i Diellit
Posts: 5420
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:26 am
Location: Milan
Team: AC Milan
Has thanked: 372 times
Been thanked: 211 times
Contact:

So Shpati liked the submissive Khalessi :P I agree with DigBick , Vikings is more attracting that GOT to me because they refer to real historical facts most of the time and i find it curious to know about the pagan northmen lifestyle. These people distributed as south as danube even Tetova area and mixed with the local population.
User avatar
Berti
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 7:30 pm
Location: London
Team: Leeds
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Dragoi wrote:So Shpati liked the submissive Khalessi :P I agree with DigBick , Vikings is more attracting that GOT to me because they refer to real historical facts most of the time and i find it curious to know about the pagan northmen lifestyle. These people distributed as south as danube even Tetova area and mixed with the local population.
That human sacrifice ritual episode at the end of season 1 is absolutely magestic. When they go to that village recreating Valhalla. The worship methods and the manner of celebration was top viewing.
I love GOT. Wonderful show. But some characters have been dragging on and also been adapted to present commercial viewing. Khaleesi is top of the list. Geoffrey had to go as it was pathetic and didn't appeal to anyone above 12. That guy can't act. The show just can't survive without Tyrion and Little Finger. Aria for me has to be followed more. Overall the show has lost somewhat the raw power it started with. Jamie has become a teen throb, Tyrion lost his henchman. Father dead. Dog gone. John Snow staying strong and has a future. Sansa is developing (in every sense). Khaleesi is a different show altogether now and not a good one. In the series coming im only interested in Aria's journey, Little finger and Sansa plans and John Snow up north.
Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests