Game of Thrones in the Media
Posted Apr 14, 2011 @ 7:24 PM
She has a few issues with parts of the show but, like other reviews, points out the excellence of later episodes. She summarizes her overall thoughts, thusly:
At this stage, 'Game of Thrones' is not everything it could be, and if there are future seasons, the producers will have to be much more bold if they don't want their version of Martin's ever-expanding tale to become unwieldy, but there are several things to recommend HBO's rendition of the story, most notably the cast and many of the visuals.
Edited by jcin617, Apr 14, 2011 @ 7:27 PM.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 @ 8:29 PM
Posted Apr 14, 2011 @ 8:37 PM
Metacritic score is up to 82 from 12 reviews.
Glad to find this new TWOP Forum for this show. That other thread would not be able to cope with the amount of discussion this show is going to generate.
This was in the old thread but in case people have missed it due to the Forum reorganization, HBO have released 5 clips from this coming first episode. Looks great to me...
Posted Apr 14, 2011 @ 8:50 PM
The first line of the review say it all in my opinion:
I'm not sure whether The NYT review is positive or not.
The critic seems to take it as a personal insult that the show even exists, let alone have a bigger budget than shows like Mad Men. She seems to take it as some sort of betrayal that HBO would do a fantasy show.
With the amount of money apparently spent on ďGame of Thrones,Ē the fantasy epic set in a quasi-medieval somewhereland beginning Sunday on HBO, a show like ďMad MenĒ might have the financing to continue into the second term of a Malia Obama presidency.
Like almost all of the negative reviews Iíve read so far itís not so much a review as a rant against fantasy in general. I find it insulting that they donít even bother to pretend to be objective.
Edited by Azure Owl, Apr 14, 2011 @ 8:53 PM.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 @ 10:59 PM
I actually prefer it that way. If their editors told them to review in an objective manner, they probably would just make up reasons to attack the show. Instead they spend half their articles saying, "Fantasy = Bad", so any newbie coming into Game of Thrones objectively will know to discount those reviews.
Like almost all of the negative reviews Iíve read so far itís not so much a review as a rant against fantasy in general. I find it insulting that they donít even bother to pretend to be objective
Posted Apr 15, 2011 @ 11:01 AM
I figured she'd dig it based off her twitter comments. I always try to read Mo Ryan's reviews. I only agree with her about half the time, but she makes her points clearly and I appreciate the fact that she never trashes fans or other reviewers whose opinions differ from hers. Unlike the NYT review who basically spent most of its space making fun of guys who like scifi/fantasy and claiming the only reason women will watch is for the sex scenes. Stay klassy, NYT.
Maureen Ryan's Review (former TV critic for the Chicago Tribune)
She has a few issues with parts of the show but, like other reviews, points out the excellence of later episodes.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 @ 1:01 PM
Most? try all. The main a reason why a bunch of critics including Mo Ryan and Ryan McGee, whose own reviews were mixed, are bashing the NYTimes review is I don't think she mentions acting or writing really, other than a comment about a "supernatural global warming threat", which I laughed my a** off at
Unlike the NYT review who basically spent most of its space making fun of guys who like scifi/fantasy and claiming the only reason women will watch is for the sex scenes. Stay klassy, NYT.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 @ 3:28 PM
Seriously. WTF was that all about?
"supernatural global warming threat"
Posted Apr 15, 2011 @ 4:30 PM
• His younger sister Daenerys (she starts all Memoirs of a Geisha, unknowing and sexually inexperienced, but will grow into being a badass Joan of Arc. Or, like a Peggy Olsen who speaks to dragons).
Edited by hardy har, Apr 15, 2011 @ 4:31 PM.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 @ 4:41 PM
[T]he feverish buildup for this TV adaptation of George R.R. Martin's best-selling fantasy series, "A Song of Ice and Fire,'' still somehow manages to meet its soaring expectations. "Game of Thrones'' is worth every single line of effusive blog geekery and promotional buzz it has elicited in the past year.
Edited by jcin617, Apr 15, 2011 @ 4:53 PM.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 @ 5:58 PM
1o9's response to the NYT article spoilers abound.
I think the word that the NYT reviewer is looking for is, 'touchť'.
I really despair sometimes, at the pompous, highbrow nature of some critics. Complaining that Mad Men could have been given a few more seasons with the money from this? That's really neither here nor there. This is something that HBO thought would draw a large audience, and make them a lot of money. Just because it's got swords and boobs in it doesn't automatically make it unworthy of being treated with respect by these people.
But these same people probably moaned about Rome and True Blood, and every other series that's been made with a setting outside contemporary, mainstream USA.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 @ 6:06 PM
Posted Apr 15, 2011 @ 7:46 PM
For a fantasy show I couldn't have possibly expected more.
Posted Apr 16, 2011 @ 4:12 PM
Posted Apr 16, 2011 @ 4:19 PM
Posted Apr 16, 2011 @ 6:04 PM
Posted Apr 16, 2011 @ 11:30 PM
The NYT "review" is a perfect example of why the Boards on Boards talk ban is such a great rule here @TWoP. Talk about the show. Insulting fans and proclaiming (wrongly) why they like what they like is a fools' game that can only get one in trouble. Why didn't she just out and out say that she felt it intellectually beneath her to even have to review a sword-and-pony fantasy?
I serioulsy wonder if she even watched the show before writing her review. How can anyone reviewing the show even come up with a line like..." We are in the universe of dwarfs, ....."?
She was determined that this would be a Tolkien type fantasy that she was predisposed to hate. The entire review is complete rubbish.
Also, fwiw, when did dwarfs become an acceptable spelling?
Posted Apr 17, 2011 @ 12:39 AM
I don't mind if some critics don't care for this show; it won't be for everyone; but I agree that some of the negative reviews come off like the critics are just being negative either for attention or just because they feel like it. It they don't like it, by all means review it that way, but slamming fans or whining about how they could have used the money for other shows, just comes off mean-spirited and immature, and it makes me hope it does real well, so they can cry and eat their words.
Edited by thuganomics85, Apr 17, 2011 @ 1:37 AM.
Posted Apr 17, 2011 @ 12:48 AM
Quasi-Medieval, Dragon-Ridden Fantasy Crap
Really??? How do these people get paid to write that drivel?
Posted Apr 17, 2011 @ 12:55 AM
Posted Apr 17, 2011 @ 1:12 AM
when did dwarfs become an acceptable spelling?
I've heard that dwarfs was the traditional spelling, and that "Dwarves" and "elves" only came into use with J.R.R. Tolkien's writings.