* $2.5 million-plus: The amount episodes are fetching overseas. (It’s already HBO’s best-selling series abroad more than 50 percent above the international price tag for The Sopranos.)
* 162: Total number of speaking roles in the series. (Seventeen cast members’ names appear during the opening credits
Yeah no that slate review is utter shit. Not because it's negative but because the review itself is shit.
Ryan McGee's review was negative but it was well written and it made sense, and Mo Ryan gave a mixed review that was also very interesting to read.
To each his own, sunshine. As I said, I'm a fan. But it's hardly useful comparing a short form review in an online news magazine to a 5000 word essay on some Dude's blog.
Edit: And it looks like he's willing to engage with his detractors! Truly we live in an enlightened age. From the comments of the review:
Troy Patterson
Oh, wow, you guys are intense. That Rex Reed insult really stung.
I suppose that I should have learned as much in reading the recent New Yorker story by the lovely Laura Miller:
Click the Like button on this post if you'd like me to see me try some kind of ongoing Game of Thrones conversation.
I will also consider your written suggestions.
Please do tame your uncouth tongues, boys.
Thanks for reading.
P.S. May I also see a show of hands for Rex Reed's Esquire profile of Ava Gardner. Great piece, right?
How is this guy a professional journalist? My issue with what has has written thus far is not its content but it's form. He's barely coherent and entirely unreadable.
If you thought he was bad the NYT review was worse, the reviewer basically spending the entire piece on a rant about how fantasy is "fiction for boys" and lamenting that HBO spent their good money to make a fantasy series rather than something higher brow.
Not a single comment on actors, characters, plots, etc, showed up anywhere in the "review".
The New York Times review was just weird. I feel like she has a chip on her shoulder with regard to fantasy in general, and she is hilariously wrong about HBO adding the sex/relationships to appeal to female viewers.
"boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half."
I think we can generally agree that we'd like to see more substance to the reviews than "eww fantasy, thats for NERDS."
And I've yet to see a single comparison to Pillars of the Earth which seems to me to be at least as natural a comparison as the Tudors, the Borgias etc.
Edit: And it looks like he's willing to engage with his detractors! Truly we live in an enlightened age. From the comments of the review:
If by engage you mean, turns "douche" up to 11.
That's "douche"? The internet must be a truly horrifying place for you.
Folks are approaching this with a degree of earnestness that isn't warranted. The books themselves, and I'm a fan, are light entertainment. The TV adaptation is bound to be even lighter. The books are fun. TV is fun. The review was fun. Serious business this is not.
No, the review is not fun. The "review" is shit. Because the review has nothing to do with the actual show and is just an excuse for the writer to bitch about how much he dislikes a certain genre. It's an obsensibly professionally written review. It shouldn't be a piece of shit screed about why you dislike fantasy. It should be about the show itself.
My take on the premature death is that it is probably
Hoster Tully. He hasn't been cast yet, never does anything, and can die offscreen without affecting the narrative in anyway. Edmure being lord rather than heir will probably make things easier to follow, rather than occasional references to an off-screen real lord. The only event of significance I can think of involving him is the whole Tansy bit about Lysa, and that's not really crucial as we find out the information other ways anyway.
The other characters who might die would have far too much effect on the long term narrative. Beric would throw off the Brotherhood Without Banners thing (which is pretty major in book three). Gregor, Tywin, Robb and Jeor are obviously all far too important to be offed casually. Rast is a possibility, but he's barely a character to start with (as shown by the fact that some people didn't even know who he was), and if he wasn't wanted they could have just left him out completely without making any difference.
Honestly, the review just seems really self indulgent by going with a high fantasy style to talk about a high fantasy book. There really isn't much of a review of the series itself in there. It's dull? OK. What else? There's sex and violence. OK. The show builds tension well at the end. It's wordy. That's pretty all he's saying.
I wouldn't call ASOIAF "light entertainment." It's a four books and a gazillion pages and has some pretty heavy shit go down.
I mean if ASOIAF is light, what do you consider heavy, or even medium?
ASOIAF is light for me, heavy would be reading any factual information on the current state of politics or energy in the real world
So your heavy 'entertainment' consists of essentially reading the news. While I don't disagree that reading the 'factual information on politics or energy' is useful, I would hazard that your definition of that being considered 'entertainment' falls far outside the norm. Keep in mind, we're talking about heavy entertainment, not heavy reading, in which case I might agree with you.
Even if you meant the tone of the piece was 'fun', as you called it, it still doesn't discount the fact that the review was poorly written, and doesn't address the core criteria of a review (ie, overview of the source material, relatively unbiased view of aspects the reader may/may not enjoy). If you meant the article itself was fun, well, I'd still raise the point that it would barely qualify as a review, and it should be moved to the obituary section instead, for the sheer dearth of humour.
Frankly, the author is quite a shoddy writer, but I'm quite sick of either interpretation of this review
A) Poor workmanship, that is overlooked by editing staff, and excused by readers Purposeful trolling, in attempt to garner more attention and reads.
Anyway - Back on topic, reasonable interested in this show, the screenshots I've seen capture the kind of feel I imagined for the books, but do think the storyline will get *extremely* difficult to follow in later books, given the large number of recurring characters. Although I guess they get killed off as quickly as others get introduced ...
My take on the premature death is that it is probably
Hoster Tully. He hasn't been cast yet, never does anything, and can die offscreen without affecting the narrative in anyway. Edmure being lord rather than heir will probably make things easier to follow, rather than occasional references to an off-screen real lord. The only event of significance I can think of involving him is the whole Tansy bit about Lysa, and that's not really crucial as we find out the information other ways anyway.
The other characters who might die would have far too much effect on the long term narrative. Beric would throw off the Brotherhood Without Banners thing (which is pretty major in book three). Gregor, Tywin, Robb and Jeor are obviously all far too important to be offed casually. Rast is a possibility, but he's barely a character to start with (as shown by the fact that some people didn't even know who he was), and if he wasn't wanted they could have just left him out completely without making any difference.
my thoughts
I think it is Rast. I think he'll be killed during the attack by the wights on Castle Black. What we 'see' in the book is Jon saving the old bear and killing the wight that attacked him, but they talk about how the other one managed to kill I think a few black brothers before being brought down. The TV series is going to have to play up the threat from the north a bit more than we saw in the books I think, so we're going to get Rast established as a known character, possibly likable at some point, and then offed by the wights. Ups the drama a bit, makes the threat of wight walkers & wights more real. That's my take anyway.
ARGH! Last year, the wife and I swapped book series when she was excited about the Guardians of Ga'hoole movie and I the looming Game of Thrones release. No surprise, its taken her longer to get through Game of Thrones than I through the first couple of Guardians books (reading them to my daughter at bedtime). Within the past month, though, she finished GoT and is now halfway through CoK. Better yet, she's devouring up show news as much as, if not more than, myself. But today, I learned that while she was sating her curiousity online whether Arya and Nymeria ever reunite, she has accidently spoiled herself on the *that* part of Storm of Swords. I've been denied the joy of seeing her get her guts stomped on, not fair at all! At least she hasn't spoiled all of SoS for herself so there's still a few shocking moments to come.
My wife knows hardly anything about this world other than the 15 minute preview they showed, and she is quite intrigued. I cannot wait to watch her experience this story, but I am kind of worried about how I should act. for instance...
Episode 1 spoiler....major.
...pretty much the entire point of the first episode is seeing bran get flung from that tower. It's the initial hook to the entire season. So how do I play it? She's obviously going to want to know whether or not he lives, and that's what David and Dan are going for. That's what is going to bring people back for the next episode. So as we see Bran through the first episode...should I be detached? She knows that I know what happens...so if I reacted to Bran at all, she would likely know that he lives past the first freaking episode...it's a quandary. Ok, so I'm over-thinking it. I may have been drinking.
ARGH! Last year, the wife and I swapped book series when she was excited about the Guardians of Ga'hoole movie and I the looming Game of Thrones release. No surprise, its taken her longer to get through Game of Thrones than I through the first couple of Guardians books (reading them to my daughter at bedtime). Within the past month, though, she finished GoT and is now halfway through CoK. Better yet, she's devouring up show news as much as, if not more than, myself. But today, I learned that while she was sating her curiousity online whether Arya and Nymeria ever reunite, she has accidently spoiled herself on the *that* part of Storm of Swords. I've been denied the joy of seeing her get her guts stomped on, not fair at all! At least she hasn't spoiled all of SoS for herself so there's still a few shocking moments to come.
My wife knows hardly anything about this world other than the 15 minute preview they showed, and she is quite intrigued. I cannot wait to watch her experience this story, but I am kind of worried about how I should act. for instance...
Episode 1 spoiler....major.
...pretty much the entire point of the first episode is seeing bran get flung from that tower. It's the initial hook to the entire season. So how do I play it? She's obviously going to want to know whether or not he lives, and that's what David and Dan are going for. That's what is going to bring people back for the next episode. So as we see Bran through the first episode...should I be detached? She knows that I know what happens...so if I reacted to Bran at all, she would likely know that he lives past the first freaking episode...it's a quandary. Ok, so I'm over-thinking it. I may have been drinking.
Every time any character shows up on screen go "He dies." "She's not dead yet?" "I thought they were murdered already." "They wont end well.". Then she wont know who really dies and she'll be totally surprised when it's everyone!
ARGH! Last year, the wife and I swapped book series when she was excited about the Guardians of Ga'hoole movie and I the looming Game of Thrones release. No surprise, its taken her longer to get through Game of Thrones than I through the first couple of Guardians books (reading them to my daughter at bedtime). Within the past month, though, she finished GoT and is now halfway through CoK. Better yet, she's devouring up show news as much as, if not more than, myself. But today, I learned that while she was sating her curiousity online whether Arya and Nymeria ever reunite, she has accidently spoiled herself on the *that* part of Storm of Swords. I've been denied the joy of seeing her get her guts stomped on, not fair at all! At least she hasn't spoiled all of SoS for herself so there's still a few shocking moments to come.
My wife knows hardly anything about this world other than the 15 minute preview they showed, and she is quite intrigued. I cannot wait to watch her experience this story, but I am kind of worried about how I should act. for instance...
Episode 1 spoiler....major.
...pretty much the entire point of the first episode is seeing bran get flung from that tower. It's the initial hook to the entire season. So how do I play it? She's obviously going to want to know whether or not he lives, and that's what David and Dan are going for. That's what is going to bring people back for the next episode. So as we see Bran through the first episode...should I be detached? She knows that I know what happens...so if I reacted to Bran at all, she would likely know that he lives past the first freaking episode...it's a quandary. Ok, so I'm over-thinking it. I may have been drinking.
Every time any character shows up on screen go "He dies." "She's not dead yet?" "I thought they were murdered already." "They wont end well.". Then she wont know who really dies and she'll be totally surprised when it's everyone!
When I watched Rome with some friends this is how I responded when they'd ask me questions fishing for spoilers. "Yeah, that guy dies later on. It's pretty brutal."
Doesn't work as well with Rome because you can Wikipedia the historical characters to see what happened, but still.
Got my picture taken on the Iron Throne today in LA. Woohoo! And I did it with me reading my old original edition of A Game of Thrones (the one with the silver cover with the Iron Throne embossed on it). It's my attempt at being meta. 8-)
That Slate review was terribly unprofessional drival.
I think it's defining statement would be this:
You see, Game of Thrones—adapted by David Benioff and Dan Weiss from a series of novels by George R.R. Martin—is quasi-medieval, dragon-ridden fantasy crap. That's not a comment on its quality but a definition of its type.
It's "fantasy crap". That's totally just a fact and not a comment on quality. Seriously!
Indeed.
It's a bit like saying the reviewer is an idiot. That's not a comment on his intelligence though, but a definition of his type.
That Slate review was terribly unprofessional drival.
I think it's defining statement would be this:
You see, Game of Thrones—adapted by David Benioff and Dan Weiss from a series of novels by George R.R. Martin—is quasi-medieval, dragon-ridden fantasy crap. That's not a comment on its quality but a definition of its type.
It's "fantasy crap". That's totally just a fact and not a comment on quality. Seriously!
Indeed.
It's a bit like saying the reviewer is an idiot. That's not a comment on his intelligence though, but a definition of his type.
The fact he used 'crap' in a 'professional' review shows how low-brow it is.
Oh man, I honestly can't wait till this Sunday. This is one of the rare times where I resisted looking at any previews or sneak peaks..I want to start off the thing as fresh as I can.
And apparently HBO is now in talks of turning American Gods into a series...which, you know, it isn't Good Omens but it would still be awesome.
Looking at metacritic's reviews of the first episode really pisses me off... not because it got some bad reviews (we're talking an 81% average and more 100%'s than scores below 60%). No one can argue it's getting GREAT reviews overall.
But it pisses me off because the last two scores, and the two lowest by a LONG shot (a jump from 60% to 40%) are so fucking insulting and arrogant.
The small quotes of these reviews off metacritic are literally summed up into "fantasy is for kids and D&D players". I mean you've all read the BAD critic reviews by now I'm sure, but just the way meta-critic summarizes them so perfectly sums up why they're terrible.
It actually OFFENDS me that people will read this article and NOT watch the show because it's "all about the thongs." I have a feeling thats like saying the Sopranos is all about boobs because there's a strip club in it. FUCK YOU.
These people should NOT be allowed to write articles.
CALM down Wishpig. Calm down. It's just a review.
Wishpig on
WARNING: Picture below may cause spontaneous growth of facial hair and/or body hair.
Image by Sharpwriter on deviantart.com
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
The Wire was all about gangsta rap and glorifying heroin.
That Slate review was terribly unprofessional drival.
I think it's defining statement would be this:
You see, Game of Thrones—adapted by David Benioff and Dan Weiss from a series of novels by George R.R. Martin—is quasi-medieval, dragon-ridden fantasy crap. That's not a comment on its quality but a definition of its type.
It's "fantasy crap". That's totally just a fact and not a comment on quality. Seriously!
That Slate review was terribly unprofessional drival.
I think it's defining statement would be this:
You see, Game of Thrones—adapted by David Benioff and Dan Weiss from a series of novels by George R.R. Martin—is quasi-medieval, dragon-ridden fantasy crap. That's not a comment on its quality but a definition of its type.
It's "fantasy crap". That's totally just a fact and not a comment on quality. Seriously!
What the fuck. This is a quote from a review?
Depends on our definition of 'review'. It's supposed to be Slate's review, but it is more of the Slate reviewer's long-standing hatred of anything remotely related to fantasy.
I've often said, but reviews for TV and television are no longer helpful in this day and age.
Their loss. Word of mouth ftw.
This is bollocks, frankly.
Word of mouth from whom, exactly? Other people, who've seen it, and have reported their reaction to it in a helpful way, thus enabling you to make a judgement on seeing it or not. Sounds almost like a review.
Look, the examples referenced here are pretty terrible reviews from people who don't want to get the loser-stink of fantasy over their nice shiny credibility, and are pretty pitifully poor. So what? Reviewers have blind spots, or can be horrifically wrong. But what they do is give you something to get your teeth into more than a vague word of mouth yay or nay gleaned from an amorphous internet gabble.
I know when I'm trying to decide if I want a video game I'm much better off making my decision based off of vague word of mouth yay or nay gleaned from an amorphous internet gabble than I am looking at official reviews. If the word of mouth is from friends or forumers you're familiar with, even a pithy "this is great!" or "the controls are weird" can tell you more than thousands of words in a review could.
Bollocks? Okay. I can choose to listen to one guy or I can choose to listen to the vibe coming from everybody, the "amorphous gabble."
I'll keep doing what I'm doing - patiently waiting a day or two, listen to what is being said by the general public, and then if still interested, watch it my self and form my own opinion.
I just don't enjoy the current review culture for most media, and I often don' think the way journalists approach entertainment is doing anyone any favors. And I don't think I need to find a favorite trusted reviewer for all facets of my entertainment (and I find this most tiresome of all).
Just because you don't find them useful, does not make them useless.
There is value there if you are willing to look for it, and in a well written review (of which the slate and NYT pieces are not, but of which there are already plenty for this show) you will get a goof sense of wether or not you will like the show or appreciate what it has to offer even if you don't agree with the reviewer.
A well done review is not just an espousal of an opinion, but a discussion of how and why that opinion was formed while dissecting the piece of art or entertainment in question. Personally I find that much more interesting and engaging than a bunch of people saying "it was cool!" without any further context, but that's me
That's a use I hadn't considered, I suppose. I'm at the point in my life where I only have a little bit of spare time, and I'd rather spend that time enjoying the entertainment rather then read about it.
To that end, there are simpler methods for me to figuring out what's hot and what's not. There was a time where I'd let myself get riled up on video game reviews, now I just regard it as wasted energy.
Well, I'm going to excuse myself from any discussion about video game reviews because I don't read those either, mainly because those don't tend to slant towards the well written variety. I was mainly talking about film and tv criticism because those are things I do enjoy.
If you are curious about reviews about GoT that I found well written and engaging I'd cite James Poniewozik of TIME (from the perspective of someone who's read the books) and the aforementioned Alan Sepinwall (from the perspective of a non reader)
Posts
Some of my favorites:
If they were looking for places to expand the narrative, they've obviously found them.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
How is this guy a professional journalist? My issue with what has has written thus far is not its content but it's form. He's barely coherent and entirely unreadable.
Not a single comment on actors, characters, plots, etc, showed up anywhere in the "review".
"boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half."
I think we can generally agree that we'd like to see more substance to the reviews than "eww fantasy, thats for NERDS."
And I've yet to see a single comparison to Pillars of the Earth which seems to me to be at least as natural a comparison as the Tudors, the Borgias etc.
ASOIAF is light for me, heavy would be reading any factual information on the current state of politics or energy in the real world
No, the review is not fun. The "review" is shit. Because the review has nothing to do with the actual show and is just an excuse for the writer to bitch about how much he dislikes a certain genre. It's an obsensibly professionally written review. It shouldn't be a piece of shit screed about why you dislike fantasy. It should be about the show itself.
The other characters who might die would have far too much effect on the long term narrative. Beric would throw off the Brotherhood Without Banners thing (which is pretty major in book three). Gregor, Tywin, Robb and Jeor are obviously all far too important to be offed casually. Rast is a possibility, but he's barely a character to start with (as shown by the fact that some people didn't even know who he was), and if he wasn't wanted they could have just left him out completely without making any difference.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
So your heavy 'entertainment' consists of essentially reading the news. While I don't disagree that reading the 'factual information on politics or energy' is useful, I would hazard that your definition of that being considered 'entertainment' falls far outside the norm. Keep in mind, we're talking about heavy entertainment, not heavy reading, in which case I might agree with you.
Even if you meant the tone of the piece was 'fun', as you called it, it still doesn't discount the fact that the review was poorly written, and doesn't address the core criteria of a review (ie, overview of the source material, relatively unbiased view of aspects the reader may/may not enjoy). If you meant the article itself was fun, well, I'd still raise the point that it would barely qualify as a review, and it should be moved to the obituary section instead, for the sheer dearth of humour.
Frankly, the author is quite a shoddy writer, but I'm quite sick of either interpretation of this review
A) Poor workmanship, that is overlooked by editing staff, and excused by readers
Anyway - Back on topic, reasonable interested in this show, the screenshots I've seen capture the kind of feel I imagined for the books, but do think the storyline will get *extremely* difficult to follow in later books, given the large number of recurring characters. Although I guess they get killed off as quickly as others get introduced ...
my thoughts
twit feed
My wife knows hardly anything about this world other than the 15 minute preview they showed, and she is quite intrigued. I cannot wait to watch her experience this story, but I am kind of worried about how I should act. for instance...
Episode 1 spoiler....major.
twit feed
Every time any character shows up on screen go "He dies." "She's not dead yet?" "I thought they were murdered already." "They wont end well.". Then she wont know who really dies and she'll be totally surprised when it's everyone!
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
When I watched Rome with some friends this is how I responded when they'd ask me questions fishing for spoilers. "Yeah, that guy dies later on. It's pretty brutal."
Doesn't work as well with Rome because you can Wikipedia the historical characters to see what happened, but still.
Indeed.
It's a bit like saying the reviewer is an idiot. That's not a comment on his intelligence though, but a definition of his type.
The fact he used 'crap' in a 'professional' review shows how low-brow it is.
And apparently HBO is now in talks of turning American Gods into a series...which, you know, it isn't Good Omens but it would still be awesome.
Looking at metacritic's reviews of the first episode really pisses me off... not because it got some bad reviews (we're talking an 81% average and more 100%'s than scores below 60%). No one can argue it's getting GREAT reviews overall.
But it pisses me off because the last two scores, and the two lowest by a LONG shot (a jump from 60% to 40%) are so fucking insulting and arrogant.
The small quotes of these reviews off metacritic are literally summed up into "fantasy is for kids and D&D players". I mean you've all read the BAD critic reviews by now I'm sure, but just the way meta-critic summarizes them so perfectly sums up why they're terrible.
It actually OFFENDS me that people will read this article and NOT watch the show because it's "all about the thongs." I have a feeling thats like saying the Sopranos is all about boobs because there's a strip club in it. FUCK YOU.
These people should NOT be allowed to write articles.
CALM down Wishpig. Calm down. It's just a review.
Image by Sharpwriter on deviantart.com
What the fuck. This is a quote from a review?
Depends on our definition of 'review'. It's supposed to be Slate's review, but it is more of the Slate reviewer's long-standing hatred of anything remotely related to fantasy.
Their loss. Word of mouth ftw.
This is bollocks, frankly.
Word of mouth from whom, exactly? Other people, who've seen it, and have reported their reaction to it in a helpful way, thus enabling you to make a judgement on seeing it or not. Sounds almost like a review.
Look, the examples referenced here are pretty terrible reviews from people who don't want to get the loser-stink of fantasy over their nice shiny credibility, and are pretty pitifully poor. So what? Reviewers have blind spots, or can be horrifically wrong. But what they do is give you something to get your teeth into more than a vague word of mouth yay or nay gleaned from an amorphous internet gabble.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I'll keep doing what I'm doing - patiently waiting a day or two, listen to what is being said by the general public, and then if still interested, watch it my self and form my own opinion.
I just don't enjoy the current review culture for most media, and I often don' think the way journalists approach entertainment is doing anyone any favors. And I don't think I need to find a favorite trusted reviewer for all facets of my entertainment (and I find this most tiresome of all).
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
There is value there if you are willing to look for it, and in a well written review (of which the slate and NYT pieces are not, but of which there are already plenty for this show) you will get a goof sense of wether or not you will like the show or appreciate what it has to offer even if you don't agree with the reviewer.
A well done review is not just an espousal of an opinion, but a discussion of how and why that opinion was formed while dissecting the piece of art or entertainment in question. Personally I find that much more interesting and engaging than a bunch of people saying "it was cool!" without any further context, but that's me
To that end, there are simpler methods for me to figuring out what's hot and what's not. There was a time where I'd let myself get riled up on video game reviews, now I just regard it as wasted energy.
If you are curious about reviews about GoT that I found well written and engaging I'd cite James Poniewozik of TIME (from the perspective of someone who's read the books) and the aforementioned Alan Sepinwall (from the perspective of a non reader)