WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] 0 pt (edited )

What exactly made the first few seasons "great" ? Was it just the deviant sexual (which were abundant) scenes ? Because the story of the Starks is very millennial soy induced. (i.e.. "girl = boy", raising others children, and kidnapping) The Lannister's are war mongering , incestual, and miscreants. Then you have the promotion of eunuchs, pimps, and "girl power" everywhere...blech.

The dragons themselves were well done CGI. That's no where near enough for me to say "great show". The insults and put downs of other cultures, ones own family were (again) nothing more than social sabotage for those who watch it. (normalization of what one does in those scenarios, and to those people).

I watched the show because of the hoopla it got. I was hoping it'd get better, it always got more sadist and terrible.

None of the above. I liked it more or less for the power dynamics and corruption, which I felt were portrayed realistically in shades of gray, rather than pure black and white morality of most high fantasy.

[–] 0 pt

Succession (https://www.hbo.com/succession) is a more realistic approach/setting for what you're seeking. Its also superior in its dialogue and doesn't rely on generic vague philosophies to drive home a point.

"wizards and dragons" are very 13 year old-esque thinking.

I'll have to check out Succession when I get the chance.

"wizards and dragons" are very 13 year old-esque thinking.

Heh. That's a false dichotomy based on only your subjective world view, one where someone is trying too hard to appear "adult". Looks like Tolkien, Robin Hobb, Terry Pratchett, Scott Lynch, R.F. Kuang, Douglas Adams, and many others did not get that same memo.