I have tried to watch 'Game of Thrones'.

For me it's pretty difficult to write negatively about a show that almost everybody - critics and the general public - seems to like. Instead, I'd like to rave about it and write how well made and how entertaining and full of substance it is.

In this case we're talking about 'Game of Thrones', a series that I started watching a couple of weeks ago. For some reason I had waited for years before I finally took the first step and decided to check how good it was.

Unfortunately, I haven't enjoyed 'Game of Thrones'. In many ways the show has been a big disappointment. As a writer, it's been disheartening to see that the series isn't well written. When it comes to its scripts, Game of Thrones has been genuinely lacking.

One of the biggest problems I have had with the series has to do with its characters. I haven't been able to relate to them on the show. Pretty much all of them are one dimensional and don't seem to have qualities that would make you care.

Not only are the characters relatively bland, there are too many of them. At least when it comes to me, it has been really difficult to pay attention to what's going on. It seems that there's no focus on any of the characters. They can't all be equally important.

It's also doesn't help that even though the show is supposed to be a fantasy, it's not about good vs. evil. On the contrary, Game of Thrones looks like it's a show about bad people and really bad people. It's hard to relate to that kind of stuff.

When it comes to drama, there doesn't seem to be much, because everything is so fragmented. That's one of the reasons why there's really no tension on the show. There's no build up to anything, so things just seem to happen - if they happen.

Furthermore, I have found Game of Thrones to be too violent. In almost all cases it seems that the show is violent just for the sake of being violent. There doesn't seem to be any purpose behind any of it. It as if they're trying to distract us from those other flaws.

The same in my opinion applies to the nudity on the show. There's plenty of naked women in just about every episode. Even though I certainly prefer nudity over violence, I don't think that makes the show any better either.

All these flaws are especially disappointing when you consider those other positive aspects of the show. That is that the production values are pretty high and there's a lot of heavy-weight acting talent involved with the show too.

Yet, it's not enough  - at least for me  - that Game of Thrones looks good. It's not just about the production values that matter. As unfortunate as it is, the show really fails when it comes to its characters and its storylines.

As a whole, Game of Thrones could have been a pretty good show, but I don't think it really is. There are simply too many flaws that keep me from enjoying the series. It's just not my cup of tea, even though it probably should be.

Some reasons why I like tv more than movies.

["Don't you ever, EVER talk that way about television again" - Homer Simpson (I married Marge, S3E12)]

So even though I do have a problem with most television shows, I still like watching tv much more than I like watching movies. Here are some of the reasons why - at least in my opinion - you should like television more than you should like movies:

1. Watching tv shows in most cases is free.

One of the biggest reasons why I like tv is because watching it is pretty much free. I don't have to buy a ticket before I get to watch the latest episode of South Park or the latest episode of Modern Family for example.

Now, It is true that in order to be able to watch these shows live, in most cases you have to watch commercials. Yet, at least in my opinion - and let's be clear that I'm not a fan of commercials - that's still a relatively small price to pay.

I mean, even though networks are for profit corporations, it almost feels as if they in many cases are working for us. Very rarely have I thought that these guys are thinking about the bottom line  (even though they are). They give us stuff for free after all!

2. Television is much more down to earth.

One of the reasons why television feels so cozy and comfortable is that every season your favorite series is going to air multiple episodes. You might even get 24 episodes per season, which means that you'll see a new episode roughly every two weeks.

On the other hand, when it comes to films, it takes usually at least 2-3 years before you'll see the next installment in the series. That is of course if the film in question is successful enough at the box office to warrant a sequel.

For me it's so much about connecting with the series in question. It becomes almost an every day thingy and part of the weekly routine. Checking the boards, writing about the show and stuff  - waiting for the next episode to air.

3. Television shows are more likely to be good.

It's not a secret that the longer than the script is, the harder it is to keep the audience interested. It's almost impossible to write a movie script that is even remotely good. Unfortunately, almost none of the movies that are released are worth your time.

The reason that it's so difficult to write movies is that in most cases you have to start from scratch. You have to create new characters and you have to come up with a 120 minute story that doesn't feel completely manufactured.

On the other hand, when it comes to television, you're dealing with either 21 min or 42 minute episodes that have characters that we are already familiar with. It makes the whole thing so much easier and potentially so much more enjoyable.

4. Television writers have more control over the product.

As a writer I'm much more interested in being a television writer because when it comes to tv, writers and showrunners have more power over the final product. In many cases they are artistically in charge of the product that is going to air.

Television is a great place for prolific writers like David Kelley and Aaron Sorkin who can churn out scripts every three days. If they know what they're doing, there's a good chance that the audience is going to enjoy the stuff that is going to air.

When it comes to movies, writers don't have that much control over the product. This is mostly because movie scripts are that difficult to write. If the first draft isn't great, there will be multiple rewrites by multiple writers and the movie will likely suck big time.

5. Best television shows win the awards that they deserve.

Finally, when it comes to television and Emmy awards, usually critics know which shows are going to win. As usual, Modern Family will likely receive the top prize and it's going to win it relatively deservedly. The right shows seem to win much more consistently.

On the other hand, when it comes to the Academy Awards, this isn't really the case. Nowadays anything can happen every year. Even jingoistic pro-war movies like The Hurt Lucker and Argo have managed to win the top prize.

As unfortunate as it is - with winners like these movies - Oscars are becoming more and more irrelevant every passing year. It's a shame and I don't see that things are going to get any better in the near future.

Some reasons why one becomes a writer.

So what are the reasons why someone should think of becoming a writer? I'm trying to post here some of the reasons that - at least in my opinion - made me become a writer. I hope that these are somewhat good reasons to become a scribe:

1) There's a good chance that you're better than most writers.

This is one of the best reasons that one should become a writer. It's not a secret that most - even working - writers are not that good. So if you're much, much better than your average professional, you probably should think of becoming a writer yourself.

Notice however that this is only a 'reason' to become a writer. It's another thing to get motivated and to have a compelling need to start writing, which usually takes a bit more effort and luck. Not surprisingly, I myself didn't start writing right away.

2) Even your hero writers are going to retire / pass away some day.

This is one of the things that you shouldn't forget. As far as I know, even my personal hero David Kelley isn't going to live forever. One day he is going to retire and then someone else needs to step up to the plate and deliver the goods.

In my case I believed pretty strongly that there weren't that many guys on the planet who were capable of replacing him and that I was probably one of them. So I had an even bigger reason to start writing and stop postponing.

3) "At some point you'll go crazy if you don't start writing".

I don't know about you, but at least in my case, depression, anxiety and panic attacks pretty much forced me to start writing. I had to give it a chance, otherwise I would have gone totally crazy. I had no choice but to write.

Although, to be honest, it did help a lot that I was being encouraged by others who told me that I should try writing  It really helps when people believe in you and actually care. I'm grateful that I wasn't completely alone.

4) Finishing a screenplay / book / blog post etc. makes you feel good.

There's a reason why mental health professionals recommend that people with psychological issues should write stuff (like for example keep a diary). Writing really helps and gives us a chance to connect with our inner child.

As far as I know, finishing a script gives you one of the best feelings there is. It makes you feel that you have created something genuine and real. It gives you a sense of eternity that no amount of money can buy.

5) There's a chance that you can make others happy too.

I'm not saying that writing stuff doesn't have anything to do with trying to make a living. At the same time, it's not all about the money or being competitive or trying to win awards. Those shouldn't be the sole reasons why one wants to become a writer.

At least when it comes to me, writing is about trying to make sense out of the chaos that is around us. It's about trying to connect with others and giving them hope, that we're in this together and that things are going to be okay.

Roger Moore is my kind of James Bond.

As usual, James Bond movies have been playing here in my country the last few weeks. They keep showing all the films every few years on one of our television channels. I never seem to get bored watching the old Bond movies that actually managed to be pretty good.

Nevertheless, everyone seems to have an opinion on who is the best Bond. In my case I have to say that Roger Moore happens to be my favorite Bond, even though I have nothing particular against any of the actors that have played 007.

There are a number of reasons why I prefer Moore's Bond over the others. Most importantly, I think that Sir Roger is the best 007, because at least in my opinion his Bond is the most well rounded person. He's the whole package, as they say.

The problem with the other Bonds is that I think they are too serious, at least for my tastes. By that I mean that Roger's James Bond was able to be serious when it was required, but unlike those other Bonds, he was capable of being genuinely funny and humorous too.

In fact, Roger had the ability to be downright silly when it was needed - which is why many Bond 'purists' can't stand him at all. They say that James Bond is supposed to be a cold blooded killer who drinks Vodka Martinis and beds women.

They say the Moore made the character a joke for being too 'campy'. Supposedly no one could take the character and the series seriously after Moore was so absurd and comical. For them the only real James Bond is always going to be the 'Ian Fleming'-type.

I myself can't see being humorous as a negative thing. What's really the point in being serious when it's not that necessary? If you can be both serious and funny at the same time, where's the problem in that? It's not like there's too much laughter in the world anyway.

Besides, it's not like it's that easy to be charming and funny. If you want to be a humorous action star, you need to have a talent for that. After all, it's much, much easier to be dramatic and dead-serious than it's to be light-hearted and tongue-in-cheek.

I mean, for example, could anyone really imagine any other Bond pulling off what Moore did in the movie Octopussy? In one of the most absurd, yet dramatic scenes of the whole series, Bond goes to a circus dressed as a clown to defuse a small atomic bomb.

Despite what some others might claim, that whole sequence leading up to the climax was really well made. I think it's one of those moments in cinema's history that won't get the credit that it likely deserves. It was full of entertainment and real suspense.

In any case, Roger Moore's era as James Bond is the one when the producers of the series probably tried their hardest. That is when the series took its biggest risks artistically and in most cases those risks paid off rather well in my opinion.

This is not to say that every Roger Bond movie was that good. But I think it's rather safe to say that 'The Spy Who Loved Me' and 'For Your Eyes Only' are likely the best movies in the series. They had the best combination of drama and comedy.

All in all, Roger Moore's 007 movies remind me of the times when just about anything was possible and not everything had to be taken that seriously. That was the Golden Age of movies and in my opinion the golden age of James Bond films too.

Being Creative is About Making Sense.

One of the things that has kinda bothered me over the years is when certain people say that this and that writer is supposedly so awesomely creative. They think these writers are so prolific compared to those other writers in the business.

This kind of thinking is rather common with television shows that have rabid fan bases. The fans of these shows - and the media too - are convinced that these certain guys are awesome and that others don't come close when it comes to being genuinely creative.

The problem I have had with this all is that too many times that I have heard these certain people being praised, at least in my opinion they haven't really earned that praise. Their so called creations haven't honestly been that good.

There are numerous examples of this; like for example from Joss Whedon (Firefly) to Dan Harmon (Community), from Bryan Fuller (Pushing Daisies) to guys like Michael Schur (Brooklyn Nine-Nine). These are the people that fans tend to rave about.

But why all that praise? Why do so many people think that these guys who have pretty shaky track records - or even really bad ones - are supposedly so creative, and conversely those others who have been successful and won the biggest awards are not.

Let's not forget that there are actually people who have been both genuinely creative and successful - and pretty much nobody is singing praises for them. For some reason they think that these creative people haven't done anything worthwhile.

For example, I have never seen anyone telling us how the creators of 24 are creative geniuses. In my opinion it's obvious that 24, a real-time action show that was originally supposed to be a real-time wedding show, is indeed a genius concept.

But nobody keeps raving about these guys, Joel Surnow and Robert Cochran. They get no praise, as didn't get Everybody Loves Raymond's Phil Rosenthal - a genius - either. I guess it's not cool to praise a concept and a show that actually works and isn't completely flawed.

In my opinion in many ways it comes to this. As weird as it sounds, too many people think that you're being creative when you produce shows that don't really work. They think that you're being 'ambitious', so it's not really your fault that you failed.

If the show gets cancelled after its first season, it's the network that you can blame. If the show didn't get even decent ratings, you can always blame the audience. Your creative guy was just being misunderstood, or even yet, 'ahead of his time'.

In reality though, being creative means that you create stuff that makes sense. If it works, you're by definition a creative person. There's not much more that you can do than to make your concept work and reach its potential.

On the other hand, if the show doesn't work and if the concept doesn't have enough potential, you aren't really doing things right. After all, you are only trying to be creative - which is not the same thing as actually being creative.

The Problems With Silicon Valley's 'Delete' Episode.

I'm fairly confident in saying that the most consistent and the most solid comedy series this year has been HBO's Silicon Valley. In my opinion its second season has been much better than its somewhat shaky and inconsistent first season. 

So I had pretty much enjoyed every episode that had aired this season. Therefore it was really unfortunate that last Sunday we got to see S2E08 "White Hat - Black Hat". This was an episode that probably should have never aired. It was really that flawed.

For starters, even the first and the least significant storyline - that cigarette smoking plot didn't feel right or plausible. I don't really understand what they were trying to achieve with it.  Nobody really cares if you smoke, like seriously.

But it got worse when Pied Piper's crucial representation was about to happen. Richard decided to talk to the only guy who could screw things up for his company. He decided to talk to a system administrator (hacker) who was fired because of them.

This whole thing did not make much sense. But I thought that perhaps Richard wanted to be a decent person. By that I mean that maybe he would get the guy to work for Pied Piper - or something - and that this is how the storyline would eventually be resolved. 

Unfortunately this is not how it played out. Instead we got a 'complication' where the admin guy vowed that he would make Pied Piper pay. He would hack into their system and make sure that their representation wouldn't go well.  

So I thought this story thread would still be resolved in a way that would make the audience sigh in relief. But as it happened, that's not what eventually occurred. Richard met the guy again and made him even more angry. This was just depressing to watch.

The problem here is that it was completely obvious that the story was driving the characters and not the other way around. There's just no way that Richard would be that dumb, even though he's supposed to be somewhat inept socially.

However, that still was not the worst part about the episode. The thing that got people (the audience) really mad was the moment when despite Gilfoyle's assurances that their system was hacker proof, stuff started to disappear from their screens.

What made it so unforgivably bad was the explanation for this 'climax'. Pied Piper's and their client company's server data was being erased - but this all happened because their billionaire financier misplaced his bottle of scotch so that it hit the delete button. 

Absolutely nobody thought that was plausible even in the slightest. That's simply not how it works.  I couldn't believe my eyes. It was so disappointing to watch a show that has most of the time been relatively plausible to let us down that way.

I mean, it's as if the writers in charge weren't really thinking at all. They decided that since - in their opinion - they needed another setback for our nerds, it wouldn't matter what they would come up with here. But that was just too implausible, way too implausible.

In any case, I genuinely hope that this boo-boo was a one time thing and that they won't screw up as badly again. After all, as a whole Silicon Valley has perhaps been the best comedy (or dramedy) series this season. We can only hope that things will get better again.

I'd like to see a good lawyer show on tv again.

It's not exactly a secret that I have been a fan of numerous television shows that were created by David E. Kelley. I loved watching Picket Fences, I loved Ally Mcbeal, I loved The Practice and I also liked watching Boston Legal too.

All these shows had something to do with the law and how the justice system is supposed to work. Even though Picket Fences was also about other things and Ally Mcbeal was partly a romantic comedy, all these shows were shows that you were able to take seriously.

Nevertheless, after Boston Legal went off the air in late 2008 and after the cancellation of Harry's Law in 2012, there haven't been any lawyer shows on television that have been worth watching. Unfortunately all of them have been pretty horrible.

I have tried watching shows like The Good Wife and Franklin & Bash, but to be honest, there's really no reason to waste your time watching them. You won't learn anything about anything. What's even worse, these shows aren't even entertaining.

One of the biggest reasons - if not the biggest reason - that all the current lawyer shows suck is that none of these people who are making these shows actually have a clue what they are doing. They simply don't understand drama.

The truth is that making legal stuff entertaining isn't that easy. It's not easy to come up with a good lawyer show concept because jurisprudence by default isn't that interesting. You need writing talent in order to make the audience care.

I mean, it's not compelling tv when nothing's at stake. It's not good television when the characters aren't taking their jobs seriously. The audience doesn't care when our protagonists grandstand instead of defending their clients like there's no tomorrow.

Instead of having shows where both sides have equally strong arguments, we have shows where there aren't any real arguments. The cases aren't believable or meaningful. They aren't important and most certainly they aren't well represented.

Instead of these lawyers giving us well thought-out closing arguments full of soul, substance and entertainment, what we get is stuff where the characters mainly show up in the courtroom, smugly spout a few random lines and then leave. 

That's not how it's supposed to go. As unfortunate as it is, long gone are those days when the cases would actually make you think and even consider your views. Gone are those days when you were on the edge of your seat and couldn't wait to see what happens next.

In any case, even though the last few years haven't been kind to lawyer shows, that doesn't mean that things can't get better. We just need to have the right people making these shows -  talented people who know what they're doing and actually care.