mockhare asked: Do you think "purist" criticisms of "Game of Thrones" are valid? I have no problems with other criticisms of the TV show, but the purist arguments seem to be both "more Catholic than the pope" (if it changed, it's bad) and also miss the very fundamental limitations of differences in the medium - time, budget, and differences in what can be effectively conveyed in a visual medium. Or is it simply a matter of looking at GoT as an adaptation, rather than versus other prestige dramas?
It sorta comes down to semantics here. At a certain level, really the only objections to the show I feel are valid are the ones I myself have — if I thought there was really something to the other objections, I’d have them myself, right? And since I am not a book purist, I therefore do not consider purist criticisms “valid.” But they’re not somehow less valid than any other criticisms I don’t share.
That said, I agree with your beefs with this particular strain of criticism, the unwillingness or inability to consider the needs of television as television and the tendency to treat minor details as make-or-break issues foremost among its flaws.
