lenvm I like the way that the show seems detached from GoT even though it has the network's imprimatur. Thankfully, there are no actors or directors as guests, which would turn the discussion into a mere celebration of the show. In fact, "After the Thrones" avoids evaluating the show at all. At its best, the show offers a helpful focus on themes and "big ideas." (In this respect, it's better than the weekly discussions of GoT on TYT's "What the Flick," for example.)The two hosts are amateurs who are unlikely ever to get another show, and this makes them likable. Their willingness to be corrected by GoT expert Mallory made them sympathetic at first, but after a few episodes this repeated format gets annoying. Other aspects of the format that seem forced are the "Who Won the Week?" discussion, as though they were forgetting that the show is fiction and not a sports contest.The two hosts and two guest experts are likable, although they try too hard to steer a middle ground between being too geeky on the one hand, and too cool on the other; their references to "bros" and sports figures feel like forced attempts at sophistication. There's an annoying tendency to play everything for laughs.The best parts of the discussion are when the hosts play their roles as really smart English majors and take a stab at synthesizing the big ideas. Hearing that kind of discussion is thought-provoking. It's harder to come up with an argument than with a ton of sophisticated pop-culture references. Stick with the big ideas rather than the fireworks.

LouieInLove Trying to Intellectualise a fantasy show for entertainment is like trying to analyse an art gallery toilet; it's just too much & mind blowingly boring.Talking Dead works because it doesn't take anything seriously, it's very tongue-in-cheek & informal, ergo entertaining. After The Thrones made me feel like I was watching an instructional video for clockmaking; it's almost a comedic caricature of boring.Seriously! I could do a better job & I'm not a people person; I do not work well in teams & I dislike pets. Nevertheless, my anti-social communicative skills, driven by my natural contempt for the audience, would be more engaging & entertaining than this parboiled potato of a show.

Ricky Haas (saahdrahcir) 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.

info-97595 I couldn't believe the lack of sincerity this show displayed. It was just a vulgar display of what the co-hosts feel they know. Moving at a pace that was neither watchable or entertaining, a juxtaposed conversation that was just too hard to absorb. Malory -when she made her appearance- was informative and watchable, though I do suspect if the other two were not there warbling away she would have quite comfortably taken their places. The way it was presented,one might have been watching four teenagers discussing their prom night. Too much banter and one-uppmanship for my liking-thanks but no thanks. Send it to a teenagers channel.