After the Thrones

Nice to see a Grantland-esque studio set up and running again. They provide play by play recaps of the episodes and pepper in analysis and background info on characters. They show where scenes are happening on the world map, this actually helps a lot.

But the overall feel is weird.

This might be mean but I feel Greenwald and Chris Ryan have zero pull when it comes to being on screen outside of podcast recordings on Youtube. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of them as people, I read their recaps on Grantland all season last year and they were the best. Everyone from the Ringer/Grantland including Simmons himself is far better in print.

I eagerly awaited this show, and was incredibly disappointed to find it is so bad that it is just not watchable. The hosts are so bad it is almost funny; seriously, they were just god awful. It feels like they probably had no more experience than a Youtube channel; I am shocked that HBO let these clowns run such an important show.

If you want to see the right way to do this type of show, watch Chris Hardwick on The Talking Dead. These hosts seemed to not really know the content, and did not have a clue about their audience.

In summary, this show is a complete waste of time, even for die-hard fans.

The problem with "After the Thrones" is that it seems that they're just trying too hard and the result is this stilted, awkward mess of a show. The constant game of "how many pop culture references can we shoehorn into the show" is very tiresome as is the incessant one upsmanship on display.

It might be unfair to compare AtT to "Talking Dead", which is the gold standard of after shows, but because of the nature of the format, the comparisons are inevitable. AtT suffers from not having the same level of access that TD has. There are no show runners, cast members or writers as guests and because of a lack of access, the show's time slot is pushed to the next evening which is kind of pointless. These types of shows are essentially post game shows and who exactly is going to watch a post game the day after the game aired? Everything has already been chewed over and discussed. You have to be bringing something REALLY special to the table to make a day after show a worthwhile watch.

I must say that the "Who the Fcuk was That?" segment is very useful and brings insight to the audience. Mallory Rubin is also another standout, but even she sometimes comes off as trying too hard to be "one of the guys." I can also do without the cringeworthy sports references. I'm a big sports fan and I get that the show started out at Grantland, but I do not tune into this type of show for ham-fisted Rajon Rondo references. They also need to scrap the "Who Won the Week?" segment. It comes off as filler from some third-rate ESPN afternoon opinionfest.

I really wanted to like this show and gave it a fair shot, but after four episodes, my watch has ended.

The tone is lighter than the actual show, and no it's not The Talking Dead which is a moderated discussion of the show and comparing it to that isn't necessarily correct IMO. Chris Ryan and Andy Greenwald show their enthusiasm for the show, and they've helped in trying to organize the vast ouvre of this universe. The segments: "Who The That" helps figure out people who have not been in the forefront of the narrative "Who Won The Week" is a fun look at which character did well for themself.

The argument that they're giggly and all that stuff is a matter of preference, as someone who listened to "Watch The Thrones" on Grantland I'm really happy to see these guys do their thing under HBO and I hope to see them til the end. Mallory Rubin has been awesome and we need more Jason Concepcion. The people complaining about this show doesn't like the tone but the content is fine.

I think it's safe to assume many people thought this show was going to be like "Talking Dead," and sure it's not AMC so it wouldn't be identical but the aftershow standard has been set with "Talking Dead/Bad/Saul" and hell even in "Bachelor Live/After Paradise" from what I've seen when my girlfriend watches them; "After the Thrones" is nothing like them. In fact, if I were to compare it to anything it would be a YouTube video podcast. This means no interviews, no guest stars, no special features, no extended previews-- just two people talking about the episode.

Now, two people talking about the episode could be fine (especially if you are used to their personalities like the Rooster Teeth guys or the lesser known Geekdom101 or Chris Stuckmann), but when you have no idea who they are and they don't act like human beings, it becomes difficult. Watching these two hosts is like watching HBO executives talk about "Game of Thrones," or basically if NPR hosts decided to try stand up comedy. I honestly don't know how to explain it, but they don't feel genuine. It feels oddly scripted because of their robotic feel. If you went to college and had a very upbeat, smiling RA who over accentuate their personality, that is exactly how these hosts are. Chris Hardwick on "Talking Dead" is a great example of how you can act like a human/fanboy and a host. Same with Sue Perkins on "Thronecast," which I'll get into at the end.

THE CONS: Uncomfortable Hosts (see above); long clips from the prior GoT episode (we literally just saw the episode, why do I need to see a clip reminding me what I know-- could also say that about the show but they do call it a "re-cap show"); they call a segment "Preview" when all it encompasses is questions the think about for the next episode (not a bad concept, but it's not a preview, so don't call it that); a weird reluctance to mention the novels (they almost seem to forget that it exists outside the show, the great thing about Hardwick on TD is that he will drop a comic/show comparison and acknowledge them; I guess their "Ask The Expert" segment is with someone who memorized all the books and teleplays, but they never really explained how she's an expert so idk); no studio audience (this may be nit-picky but it adds to the human feel of an aftershow); it airs the next day (already talked about the show with friends and family, why do I need to watch people talk about it? I hate to be repetitive but "The Walking Dead"/"Bachelor" aftershows air immediately after the show so it's fresh).

THE PROS: Their segment "Who The F!&K Is That?" is conceptually a great idea because it's easy to forget small or minor characters; and I guess the map that shows where all the characters are (however, "Thronecast" does the same exact thing").

HBO really missed their mark on this one. It's obvious they wanted to capitalize on an aftershow but it's even more obvious that they really didn't think it through. If they wanted to make a show like "Talking Dead" they should have just followed a similar formula. The five minute "Inside the Episode" show they broadcast after the show is more so worth your time.

This show is almost universally disliked and at this point, HBO has three options: 1) Listen to the fans and their criticisms on how to make the show better, 2) cancel the show, or 3) air "Thronecast" in it's place. The latter is a fan produced after show aired exclusively in the UK with a likable humorous host, celebrity guests (random, cast/former cast members, crew members), studio audience, cool and lively set, fan interaction via Twitter, informative and interesting clips about the lore and history as well as humorous countdown clips and such.... So basically everything "After the Thrones" should have been!

I gave this show four episodes to improve or grow on me and it's done neither. Probably dropping it and I suggest you don't make the same mistake I made.