Mo Ryan and Ryan McGee have a new episode of their Talking TV with Ryan and Ryan podcast that focuses wholly on Game of Thrones. Not only that, but they invited myself and Elio and Linda of Westeros.org to join them. What followed was around an hour of Thrones talk, including sharing our thoughts on the first 6 episodes. Check it out!
Also, Ryan McGee published his review of Game of Thrones. It is a long, but very interesting read, and Ryan does a good job explaining exactly what it is that felt off about the series to him.
Moreover, as the hours passed, I realized that the central thing that people point to when praising the books–its realism–only really appears consistently in the show in the political, not psychological, realm. I’m willing to bet that the books do a much better job of revealing characters and their motivations, because the show has the unenviable task of introducing a completely unfamiliar world and then populating it with various races that share thousands of years of history between them. All of them essentially want one thing–the throne. That’s a fairly easy point to grasp, but trying to introduce why all of them want it and the historical conflicts between them all swallows up entire episodes, leaving the machinations intact but the signs of actual beating heartbeats often muted at best, ignored at worst.
The review goes into much more detail than this, so be sure to read it. It is certainly one of the most well-written criticisms of the show to date and is sure to spark lots of great discussion.
Loading ...
133 Comments
it’s nice to get some criticism from these latest reviews outside of “eww fantasy”
feyrbandQuote Reply
Looking forward to listening to the podcast! Very cool!
Mike RosenzweigQuote Reply
Just read Ryan McGee’s review, which is very thoughtful and rewritten. I have to say it has confirmed some of my worries that I’ve had reading interviews from D&D that talk about the political machinations and reviews that just go on and on about how “gritty” and “sexy” it is. I’m worried the series may have lost its emotional heart, which is what hooked me to A song of Ice and Fire in the first place. Because- in the books the plot is driven completely by the characters, however from what McGee says (and I haven’t seen anything in any other reviews to refute this)-the plot seems to drive the actions the characters in the show.
Although, I can certainly still see myself really enjoying the show, as I am already invested emoti0nally in all of the characters.
dtbQuote Reply
Reading that review I got the impression that the author was hoping/looking for more of a ‘popcorn’ entertainer and what he got was much, much deeper. He would probably have a lot of the same criticisms about the book(with the POVs jumping all over the place, no true unifying theme).
MikeQuote Reply
An interesting perspective. I suspect that no reader of the book can really separate what they know from the books from what they know from the show, and I think not reading the books ahead of time was a good choice for him giving a review strictly of the show (though I think he should read the first book after the season concludes, comparing the 2 after the fact would be interesting).
I have high hopes for the show, but understand that some people want to have a clear “hero” to cheer for, and lack of defined heroes is the strength and weakness of the story depending on what you are looking for. I personally like that most of the characters are neither completely good or evil, though some of them you don’t see their other side til later books.
I imagine in a TV series where you do not get the tons of internal monologue and thoughts of the characters who’s perspective is being told much is lost in character and history development.
That being said it seems that there have been other non-reader reviewers who have enjoyed the show, so odds are good that there will be plenty of people who have never read the books that will still enjoy it.
TCQuote Reply
i’m going to check now!
Elena AmiciQuote Reply
Of course, Sepinwall didn’t read the books either but he pretty much says the opposite in his podcast.
NickQuote Reply
Oh, well. You can’t please everyone. I’m pretty heartened by Sepinwall loving the show to be honest and his review was the one I was looking forward to the most so the other reviews, as eager as I am to read them, aren’t important to me as much anymore. I’m just happy this one is well-written and actually points out the reasons he didn’t enjoy the show.
“There’s a moment in Episode 5 between two characters I barely cared about until that moment which unexpectedly turns into a scene between two people that suddenly recognize one another after decades lost in each other’s presence. It’s a marvelous scene, and perhaps the highlight of the season’s first half.”
Now, I’m curious. Anyone know who those characters could be? I haven’t read Game of Thrones in ages so my memory on certain events are pretty blurry.
HannahQuote Reply
Well we finally have a negative review that’s well written.
I think there’s hope in that he’s fallen for the usual trinity of arya/jon/tyrion given that they’re the ones that are going to be pushing the show forward in the long run, in theory he should like it more and more as the story progresses.
One thing I’m wondering about(and have been worried about before) is that he’s had mo ryan drooling all over him about this show for over a year…maybe the hype worked against his enjoyment by not only raising expectations too high but also causing a bit of an internal backlash.
I don’t think the potential of “over hype” is of much risk to the general audience but I can certainly see some critics ending up rooting against the show just because every other critic is praising it to high heaven.
GrandmaFunkQuote Reply
Great review.
I suspect that for some the gray palette with which Martin paints may leave things too “blended”, too ambiguous to enjoy. As has been stated, as readers we have access to internal dialogue, or organically introduced backstory, that illuminates the action in the now. That the show will be a success I have no doubt. Whether the show can pull in this other percentage remains to be seen. Can’t wait for Sunday.
cardusQuote Reply
I’d imagine its the Robert and Cersei “how is the kingdom held together” scene we’ve seen snippets of?
cardusQuote Reply
I think this review may be more the rule for people who come into this series cold. Martin’s books really are dense in that he spends all of his time either in lavish description or making every word count, and a show that truncates that further still while also dealing with the anti-fantasy stigma is going to have to work extra hard.
I will also say that despite some absolute shocking moments, A Game of Thrones is not what locked me in as a die-hard for ASoIaF and GRRM in general. What locked me in was A Storm of Swords. There’s a lot of groundwork in the first book, a lot building a foundation, and I think the season as a television show is burdened with that doubly. I just hope we get a season 2 to really stretch some legs.
Jonathan LeardQuote Reply
ha. figures just as i post a link to the podcast in the other thread for everybody WiC has a new post up making my work utterly useless.
listening to the podcast now … will read the McGee review afterwards.
Who Is Jacopo Belbo?Quote Reply
I get that the lot of people want a good guy and a bad guy and clear black and white motivations and less ambiguity but … I really hate that :(
Maybe Sean Bean really is JUST THAT GOOD, but I while I love Ned very much, I’ve always thought he’s probably the LEAST realistic character in the novels. Nobody is that noble and good and selfless, nobody. If we listen to certain theories, his one single flaw (outside of being TOO PERFECT) is actually just the most unbelievable example of what an amazing sacrificing person he is.
The fact that the other character this reviewer is loving is Arya, and aGoT era Arya is basically every spunky smiling loveable little rascal ever, makes me pretty sure that that’s what he really wants … characters with more true and noble hearts. And the lack of those true and noble hearts is what I love about this series.
My least favourite character is Dany. Because she’s too “good.” I get that some people WANT good. But you can get it anywhere. I don’t want the characters the be good people. I want them to be selfish, flawed, and real.
EDIT: it may be entirely likely that the HBO version really does make their characters “murky,” who knows. I’m just arguing based on the book version. But I think what I’m saying has some merit.
RoseQuote Reply
I’ve been reading/listening to Ryan’s reviews for over a year now. I don’t agree with him all the time, but he’s always fair. It’s possible (even likely) that GoT just isn’t his cup of tea, what with all the moral greyness and lack of heroes etc. That’s fine. People like having someone to root for. I can take it or leave depending on the story. In this case, I enjoy the moral greyness of it all, because I care about the characters. Most of the reviews have been overwhelmingly positive, I’m choosing to focus on that. :D
MichelleQuote Reply
Rose,
I don’t think that’s what he’s saying at all. It’s more like he wants some time away from the throne, at what defines them outside their ambitions. I imagine he’ll love Tyrion and Bron’s lonely little discussion about father Tywin, for example.
Freely SeekQuote Reply
One point on the ambigous nature of the characters. In Game of Thrones are the characters really that morally ambivalent? Jaime and Cersei are clearly the villains throughout the story. One of my concerns is that the show has been written in a way to create an opaque morality that really doesn’t exist until later in the series.
BTW I agree with the previous poster who notes aGoT is a little slow. During my recent reread I felt like it was all prologue.
Christian MQuote Reply
Though well-written. The Ryan McGee review mostly seems like an attempt to find as many problems with the show and expand them as much as humanly possible.
It just does not feel like a review. He also gets a little frustrated at one point during the podcast at the positives from the others. He is certainly not just bashing the show in his review, but it seems like he saw all the gushing reviews as a challenge presented to him. I think he likes being a part of the “rebel resistance”.
sjweningsQuote Reply
I’m aware that this is generally an unpopular view, but I’ve never really seen Cersei as a true villain. As the books progress, her story really becomes one more of familial neglect and sexism. She has extremely high intelligence and talent, and yet her family and father totally shove her to the sideline and force her into political marriages to further their own ambitions. And even though Joffrey is a monster, he’s still her child. Most of her actions in the book are really just an attempt to prove that she’s not as worthless as she’s always been told, and/or attempts to protect her loved ones, as awful as they may be. A lot of her love for Jaime stems from the fact that he’s the only person in her life who’s ever acknowledged her as an actual competent person.
Jaime, similarly, starts out as a villain, but by the third and fourth books he really comes into his own as a sort of anti-hero who’s finally “seen the light”.
If I had to pick actual villains in the series, it would be Melisandre and Viserys, and perhaps a few minor characters like Illyrio. I’m still kind of unsure about Littlefinger, since I have a feeling he’s part of a much broader plot we haven’t seen yet.
Jonathan RossQuote Reply
Here’s my response to Ryan’s review, which I left on his blog. Thought you might all enjoy the perspective:
Ryan – I appreciate your honest and thoughtful critique. It’s great getting the perspective of a non-reader of the book series.
Your comments on Petyr Baelish not being a character whose motives you understand (and therefore causing you to not really care about his character) are interesting, but not really concerning to me in regard to the show’s potential for success. I say this because the book is not much different in this regard. For the entire first and second books, Petyr is really a bit of a mystery (both to the reader and the characters). What’s clear is that he is a schemer that can’t be trusted, from which point it sounds like the HBO series has properly presented him based on you saying you don’t trust anything he says. So, I’m not too concerned that you don’t really care for him since you’re not sure whether or not you should like him or what his motives are.
Perhaps you are more bugged by this as a viewer because it’s not clear to you that he’s a somewhat minor character (at least at this stage of the game). In the book, you see him through Ned’s eyes, who likewise is unsure of Petyr’s motives and likewise isn’t sure if he can trust him. But I can see how in the television series you may feel like you need to be able to make your mind up about him. And that since you can’t (and consequently don’t care about this character), you see this as a failing of the show’s writers.
For me reading the book, I knew that Petyr’s motives were some mystery yet to be revealed (which finally happens at the conclusion of the third book). Since he was not one of the POV/major characters, this wasn’t a problem for me, and I hope that it won’t be a problem for non-readers watching the television series either, as it unfortunately was for you.
Now, had you said that you didn’t understand the motives of Arya, Ned, or Jon, and therefore didn’t really care about them or their fates either, I would have had grave reason for concern. However, it sounds like this is not the case at all. Likewise, when I was reading the first book, I knew I liked Jon, Tyrion, Ned, and Arya; and that I disliked Jaime, Cersei, Sansa, and (at times) Catelyn. I was always pretty lukewarm toward Dany, not really enjoying her chapters (something I believe may prove the opposite on the small screen).
So in short, I guess what I’m saying is that while I understand and appreciate your review, it doesn’t worry me too much, because it seems like your reaction to the characters on the screen is no different than my reactions were to the characters on the pages. I say this not to discredit your opinion (I respect it and am glad you have shared it), but rather to put mine (and other fans of the books) fears to rest regarding the show’s potential to entertain and delight non-readers who view the series. For surely we will need their viewership if the show is ever to get past two seasons.
furreverQuote Reply
I’m concerned about one structural problem noted by Mr. McGee, which he apparently sees in almost all of the six episodes—the lack of a powerful and satisfying ending to each installment. This is exactly the kind of challenge those undertaking adaptations need to master, not adding “new” characters or mucking about with motivations/attributes. Endings don’t have to be the much-overused cliffhanger, but they have to be both engaging and convincing. Pacing seems to be another concern.
Other reviewers seemed to be able to live with the eps structurally or found the action compelling enough to overlook structural flaws. Thank god it’s only a few more days til we see for ourselves.
DH87Quote Reply
sjwenings,
the guy started off by complaining about how nice the first Maester’s Path scent box was. that is just stupid. the review was fine, well written. but starting with that and some of the rest of it just seemed like whinging. what did he want them to do, just throw out some actor interviews as promotion for the show? or for the Maester’s Path stuff to be done without artistry or detail or quality? it really is just a ridiculous criticism.
plus some of his other criticisms of this show are things i know he doesn’t have a problem with in other shows he likes. Spartacus was garbage in the beginning and the characters were flat and the acting not very good … and now the two of them never shut up about that show and how good the characters developed over the whole show (which in truth they did get better and more flushed out). but it didn’t happen overnight and some of the characters always just stayed shallow and poorly acted. he is complaining that every single character isn’t a fully flushed out masterpiece of easily understood complexity for him right from the get go. he even listed 4 characters he really connected with. well how many did you want to connect with? all of them? that isn’t how this work or this show works dude. every character is grey (maybe except Ned, who not coincidentally turns out to be one of the most dead characters.) and many are ambiguous but each of them has traits that some will identify with. each person brings to the books and hopefully the show a set of personality traits and moralities and tastes that they then can see in one or two of the characters and that is who they most strongly identify with.
his complaining that the psychology of every character isn’t immediately scrutible and realistic to him … well i have news for you … neither was it in the Wire or even for that matter that utter pile of shite Lost. hell in lost half of those characters didn’t have deeply ingrained psychologies because the people who wrote the show didn’t know where the hell it was going overall and just threw a bunch of cool trickster shit at the wall and hope it stuck. so forgive me if i find that particular criticism a bit hypocritical.
as for some of the story feeling a bit expository, that i am afraid is just the nature of the beast. what they are trying to do is immense. if it were a simple story like Camelot it would be easy but it isn’t and it’s not and faulting it for not perfectly pulling off the balance of appealing to those that know it all (readers) and those that don’t know anything (non readers) is hardly something that surprises anybody nor really needs be dwelled on. the exposition is a necessary evil and there are plenty of shows and books that i’ve watched and read that at some point you just don’t understand the fullness of each and everything right up front, you just accept it and deal with being unsure in the hope that it will eventually all become clear … the Wire comes to mind here. a show he loved and a show in which he apparently didn’t have a problem accepting some amount of uncertainty while the show progressed.
essentially it is better thought out than the trash reviews from earlier but mostly it is still quite nonsensical in many of its supposed criticisms. the box was too nice … sheesh. next time they’ll just send out a bag of coasters with coat of arms on them for you Ryan so you don’t think they’ve put too much misplaced effort into the promotional work.
Who Is Jacopo Belbo?Quote Reply
Jonathan Ross,
You are making my point for me. All that nuance you describe around Cersei does not become apparent until later in the series. In Game of Thrones she does the following:
Takes part in the attempted murder of an eight year old, forces Robert to rule that Lady must be killed, manipulates and uses Sansa, arranges the death of her husband, is accused of killing Jon Arryn.
Am I missing anything? I don’t see Cersei as sympathetic until ASoS when Tywin is pushing her to marry Willas Tyrell. That is a great Tyrion chapter BTW.
Christian MQuote Reply
I believe this is due to our fandom complaining that all of the negative reviewers just dismissed the series out of hand without giving any reasons. He states in the article that the idea of having to write this bothered him. If I was in his position, I’d much rather over – explain than say too little. As fans we can’t have it both ways. It can’t be a bad review because there were no reasons given and also because there were too many.
MiraxQuote Reply
It really bothers me the way _some_ commenters really get defensive about the show when they haven’t even seen it yet.
dtbQuote Reply
Has anyone else read Adam Serwer’s review from The Atlantic? He voices some similar concerns about the show and he is a reader. I love that The Atlantic is running five straight days of GOT coverage. I remember when a blurb in variety made me fully tumescent, we have come along way. Here is the link:
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/04/game-of-thrones-when-fantasy-looks-like-reality/237196/
Christian MQuote Reply
Mirax,
I’m not complaining about him overexplaining.
Rather about seemingly wanting to inflate the problems with the show as much as possible – punishing the show more harsly than he would another show with the same problems.
sjweningsQuote Reply
sjwenings,
I think any negative reviews are going to try and act as a counterweight to all the other reviewers who are waxing poetic. It happens.
Christian MQuote Reply
I’ve never actually commented, although I have been lurking here for well over a year now. I just wanted to say thanks for posting Ryan’s review. It was ridiculously well written and a much more moderate take on what I’m hoping to see. While I fully expect to enjoy the show a great deal, a lot of the reviews I’ve read have basically said “OMG THIS IS THE BEST THING EVAR” or else were the heavily criticized (rightly or wrongly) few that barked up the genre tree. It’s hard to know what other people are thinking based on the hype. I think westeros.org’s review of the first six were the most moderate of the raving book fan reviews, but it’s nice to see a non-reader’s critical take on things.
All of that aside, thanks for all of your hard work doing interviews, posting production spoilers, and collecting every interview and review ever :D!
John AsplerQuote Reply
I thought McGee brought up a lot of legitimate complaints about the show. None of them really worry me as far as my enjoyment of the series goes, but I have to say his point about the exposition and backstory being brought up in conversations worries me a little. I find it annoying in tv shows when it becomes obvious characters are only talking about something in order to inform the audience. However, with GoT the backstory is crucial and there’s really no other way to introduce it other than having an opening narrator like LOTR, which imo would be lame.
Arrogant BastardQuote Reply
Christian M,
Oh! That’s a really great one too! I hadn’t seen it, thanks for the post.
John AsplerQuote Reply
Yeah it was a good review. He hit on some things other negative, and even positive reviews have missed.
The structure: since each episode starts and ends at arbitrary time units in the book, the episodes don’t have the thematic resonance that makes good tv. Good tv has 3 acts in each episode, while still fitting within the larger story. Even a complex show like the wire followed this model. Since this is an adaptation, and a fairly literal one it seems, they didn’t have that luxury of perfect little units of story.
(In the book, those perfect units of story are called chapters, and one chapter per episode would make for a long and even more terrible adaptation).
Another point about the structure, is it seems that the scenes are edited a bit from what they were in the books. In a chapter, you have ONE viewpoint character, and are privy to all their thoughts about what is happening. You also have enough time from that perspective to not feel jolted when the next chapter comes up and it takes place somewhere else. The way the show is edited sounds more jumpy. You’re over here, then you’re over there, and you don’t have those POV characters to anchor you to any one place at any particular time. Without those anchors, you are even less likely to know who to root for.
It’s not about who is stereotypically “good” or who is stereotypically “bad”, like some of you want to criticize Ryan as wanting. It’s about which characters actually have depth at this point in the story, and which characters are side characters. Without good framing, solid storytelling, and good pacing, an uninitiated viewer doesn’t know which characters are which. That could be extremely confusing, and off-putting. If you don’t know who to hope for, from a character perspective, and only know what’s going on plotwise, you have no reason to care about what’s happening.
Ultimately, I think there will be many viewers who are left cold in this way, who may have benefited from a less literal adaptation. One that maybe would have angered more fans, certainly. They could have altered the structure (and they mentioned this on the podcast) to stay with one group of people longer. For instance, episode 1, winterfell, leading up to when the party leaves, and maybe a little beyond; episode 2, a dany heavy episode; episode 3, focus on king’s landing, etc. It would have been much harder to keep the story accurate with this approach, and I’m not saying it would have been better for ME if they had done this, but it might have been better for newcomers.
I think the points Ryan McGee brings up make it less likely than I had thought for newcomers to enjoy the show, and more likely than I had thought for fans to be able to appreciate it. And it could still very much be that these problems are not as big for a lot of people. Objectively, they do sound like genuine problems. How much they matter to people, or if they notice them at all, remains to be seen.
I can’t wait for the show so we can have a better discussion, without “I think it will be this way” or “it could have this reaction” or “it might be big in ratings” or “probably not as big as you guys think” etc :) There is very little chance of not loving it every bit as much as I expect to.
salukQuote Reply
sjwenings,
i really think he’s just trying to be thorough for us.
feyrbandQuote Reply
People are taking this show way too seriously. This isn’t The Wire, it doesn’t have to be some perfect social commentary.
Lighten up, it’s a fantasy adventure ffs. Just be happy it isn’t as cheesy as Lost or True Blood and enjoy the ride.
JoseQuote Reply
Who Is Jacopo Belbo?,
I may be wrong, but I believe the reviewer was using the maester’s box as a metaphor for the problems he found in the show and not as an example of over-the-top marketing per se.
DH87Quote Reply
Here’s Ryan’s take on Boardwalk Empire:
http://boobtubedude.com/index.php/2010/12/07/chuck/the-top-10-television-shows-of-2010-part-1/
“Everything about the show is done correctly, but without a sense of surprise, a sense of play, or a sense that it’s interested in showing a pulse beneath the gorgeously designed exterior.”
He seems to have a knack for missing the emotional punch of shows that hit me straight in the gut. I see nothing to worry about.
paulgudeQuote Reply
Just got out of a screening of the pilot. No major complaints, it was amazing. It focused on Bran the most out of the children, to set you up for the event at the end of the episode.
title sequence spoilers:
The title sequence was interesting. It starts out with a burning sphere (either the sun or the comet I guess) and vaults across the map to King’s Landing, where the castle and city sort of spin out of the ground into the z-axis. Then up to Winterfell for the same thing. There was a clearly outlined town outside the castle walls; I know some people had questioned if it was there for the show. Then up to the Wall where it rises up in terraces, then back down to KL and across the narrow sea to Pentos. I assume they will change the sequence to include the Eyrie and other locations once they go there in the show.
Standouts of the pilot for me were Catelyn and Viserys. Tyrion and Arya were good in their limited time on screen. Dany didn’t have much to do but look scared and get naked a few times. It will be interesting to see how often the Targaryen storyline comes up in conversation back on Westeros. In order to link the story I’m guessing it will come up more often than in the books. There was a bit of nudity but nothing ever as gratuiously softcore-porn -esque as in Spartacus.
As for criticisms, I wasn’t crazy about the music. The ambient music was superb but the themes itself will probably take some time to grow on me. The sound mix was good for all but the feast scene, but that could have been the theater.
I went with a friend who had no knowledge of the series and he said everything was easy to follow. They gave us a family tree type booklet (I’ll try and upload it tonight) though beforehand which laid out who was who. All in all, thumbs up!
rufusQuote Reply
Who Is Jacopo Belbo?,
I bought The Wire sight unseen because of the critical acclaim. It took me three episodes to get into it because they didn’t waste any time explaining what was going on. I got dropped into this world and had to figure it all out on the fly. I always wonder if I would have stuck with it had I not paid so much for the series and felt obligated to my investment.
Of course, after those three episodes I was hooked and the whole thing opened up for me. Future-me hated past-me for ever doubting that the show was worth it.
paulgudeQuote Reply
paulgude,
Sounds like a very accurate description of BE to me. I’ve watched a little more than half a season, and plan on finishing it out at some point, but it’s just so hard to care.
rufus,
Thanks for the impressions! Hearing nudity is not softcore porn is a good sign, although it was only one episode. I want to watch this with my family, but I’m worried about some of the content. Spartacus is an example of a show that I just didn’t feel comfortable watching with other people :)
salukQuote Reply
On the other hand, judging by Boardwalk Empire’s sagging ratings, the rest of America probably agrees with him, which is a worrisome precedent for Game of Thrones.
ZackQuote Reply
Here are some pictures of the booklet they handed out.
http://thrones.imgur.com/thrones_booklet
rufusQuote Reply
Just want to point out that not all uncertainty is the same. There can be uncertainty with a strong impression that there is something there that will eventually be revealed, and uncertainty with a feeling that you’ll never have the answer. The uncertainty of the last few seasons of lost are a good example of that. Stuff happens for seemingly no reason, and by that point you stop expecting the writers to wow you with an actual answer of why. The wire, from the first episode on, always felt like a grounded world, and anything that was not known I felt like there WAS an answer out there (and I didn’t have to go look up a fan wiki to figure out).
I think the wire is a good example. The entirety of the wire’s 5 seasons would maybe be 1 or 2 books of Game of Throne’s length. The whole 5 seasons is like a fat novel. Here, the pacing is totally different. You have a fat novel stuffed into one season, to make room for 6 more fat novels to come :)
I don’t feel like Ryan’s criticisms will matter to most of us, but I think they are interesting and worth discussing. I don’t think his review is “nonsensical” as you put it.
salukQuote Reply
paulgude,
i think a lot of the best shows do that. 33 (the first episode of BSG) is a great example. they just dumped you into the middle of everything and you just figured it out as it went along and sometimes that took a while and sometimes it didn’t.
honestly i don’t really care what Ryan thinks or what any critic thinks. i will watch it and i will either enjoy it or not. i just know what other shows he likes and i know they suffered from the same sort of issues or worse issues so his criticisms ring a bit hollow and come off of mostly focusing on and trying to be contrarian. obviously he isn’t an idiot and didn’t just focus on negatives but in the end i have no idea whether he liked or disliked the show all things considered. did the good outweigh the bad? did he still find it compelling watching despite some of the flaws he found as a newbie? i have no idea because he seemed fixated on some issue which knowing what other shows he claims to adore are very often common problems with complex and “outside the box” non formulaic shows. so why all the hyper-focus on them for GoT? holding it to a higher standard? has the man love for shows like Spartacus obscured and glossed over the early wretchedness of the show (far worse than anything i can imagine in GoT, fingers crossed)?
Who Is Jacopo Belbo?Quote Reply
saluk,
Great Post. I agree with a lot of what you said.
The Ryan Mcgee review does say that they created a fully realized world with great visuals and art direction. His concern is that they move characters on this stage in a clunky way. Since they can’t rely on the books POV chapter format, it seems like they are trying to anchor the stories to the various locales. Based on some of the positive reviews it works for plenty of people.
He also has an issue with the lack of characters to root for. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it sounds like the Jaime and Cersei are being painted as very nuanced from the start. I think that may be problematic because in the book they are clearly villains, it certainly makes it easier to root for the Starks if the Lannisters are less ambigous.
I just need the show here and now. This is getting unhealthy.
Christian MQuote Reply
rufus,
Awesome, just out of curiosity, did you notice the reactions of other people in the screening, particularly to the end of the episode? i’m interested if an audience maintained interest
Arrogant BastardQuote Reply
paulgude,
True dat!
Lord Ned’s HeadQuote Reply
Yeah some great shows do take some time to get going. Maybe HBO should have sent out all 10 instead of only 6? Although 6 really should be enough to find out if you like something or not, I’m not sure I was fully on board with GOT until it was well over halfway over. But again, just because the process mentioned worked in another show, that doesn’t mean that the same process works here.
(Personally I was not a fan of BSG’s first few eps. My friend raved about how good the miniseries was and I really didn’t care to watch the show after that. I can’t remember why I stuck with it, but probably halfway into the first season it became one of my top shows of all time.)
salukQuote Reply
Jonathan Ross,
If I had to pick actual villains in the series, it would be Melisandre and Viserys, and perhaps a few minor characters like Illyrio.
Wow, Jonathan, that’s hysterical, because I think Melisandre and Illyrio both think they will be the heroes when this history is written. I think Mel is just the victim of un-self-critical zealotry. If you buy into the theory that R’hllor is the One True God, as I do, then it’s hard to see Melisandre as a villain. She just picked the wrong messiah and, in her zealotry, refuses to see the mounting signs that she’s wrong. But she is a huge supporter of the fight against the Others, so can she really be evil? I think that aFfC and aDwD are going to be the fulcrum points that turns all our expectations built from the first three books on their heads–e.g., Bran turns out to be one of the bad guys, R’hllor is the moral heart of light and good, Dany redeems the Targaryens and makes us actually want a restoration, etc. And Illyrio has been the agent all along of that restoration, along with Littlefinger, so those two guys end up being heroes in the sense that they are creating what is the “right thing” for Westeros. They are just doing it in Machiavellian and/or scheming ways, so we think they’re bad. And what about Maester Marwin, Quentyn Martell, etc etc.? All on the side of these “villains”? So does that make them villains too or does it redeem the “villains” they side with?
Can’t wait to hear the podcast!
David ThomasQuote Reply
Arrogant Bastard,
I would guess most of the people there were familiar with the books to be honest. I thought the closing scene could have benefited from being a bit more sudden. The timing of “The things I do for love” and the push were a bit off from my mental image. Everything seemed telegraphed, but maybe that was just me being supercritical. The last shot comes from beneath Bran as he falls into the camera. Also, the HBO people running it were not very clear if we were seeing the second episode or not (unfortunately no), and the house lights didn’t come up for at least a couple minutes after the end of the credits so there was a bit of awkward silence there. The theater was only half full so they could have easily fit many more people in. Great hospitality though, can’t beat free food and booze.
There were more laughs than I imagined there would be. The only things that confused my friend were
The waking the dragon line – Dany is naked in this scene (or maybe the one before) and friend thought it was a clear euphemism for arousal. There was a subtle incest vibe in the scene already. Who knows, maybe that was intended.
The fall at the end – friend assumed Bran was dead. To be expected.
rufusQuote Reply
saluk,
“To me” being the operative word. Both you and Ryan are entitled to your opinions. All I’m saying is that since I like Boardwalk Empire and didn’t have the problem both of you seem to have had, Ryan’s criticism doesn’t worry me at all.
I should point out that when I say “doesn’t worry me,” I’m specifically talking about using it as a barometer for whether or not I’ll like the show. I can’t control people’s minds and am not part of HBO’s marketing department, so worrying about whether anyone else likes it isn’t very constructive for me.
paulgudeQuote Reply
Speaking of the podcast, I’m scratching my head trying to figure out the counter-criticism. At one point Mo (I think it wasMo) frets that there is too much exposition between the characters. Her very next point is that she is missing out on alot of the historical richness from the books.
Being a huge fan of the historical aspects of ASOIaF, I am certain there will be alot not explained that I lament over, but short of costly and time-consuming flashbacks, exposition is the quickest way to set something up.
I think the fangurl in Mo really wanted so see everything possible from the book come to the screen (heck, we all do), but its just not something we can realistically hope for.
Fortunately the vast minutia of historical background in GoT isn’t something a new viewer will miss. Like most new shows, the new viewer needs only be interested in the motivations of and the relationship between the players on the screen.
Example: The new Showtime program the Borgias features a pope and his family in renaissance Rome. We know there were other popes (the Mad King and other Targs), we know about Jesus (dragons and white walkers once roamed the land) and we know the Pope has a special guard (the Kingsguard). But as a new viewer, I don’t need to know the succession of previous Popes, that Jesus turned water into wine, or the names of the various captains of the Swiss Guard to enjoy what I am watching. If I am so inclined I can look up most of the stuff online to supplement and enhance my enjoyment for the show. Speaking of the Borgias, from what I can tell, the characters are all pretty much morally deficient. My friend told me today that he only wants to keep watching so he can see how all of them die!
It is my sincere hope that GoT will give us more of a spectrum of characters with varying degrees of honesty, integrity, ambition and love among other motivations. From what I can tell (only the first 15 min preview so far) it looks as though they have. I really get the sense that Ned and his family care for each other deeply. I can only hope the new viewer does as well.
Lord Ned’s HeadQuote Reply
Zack,
I’m speaking to my personal enjoyment of the show, not ratings. Sadly, shows I like tend to get cancelled often. Sorry, everyone.
paulgudeQuote Reply
paulgude,
Our opinions on the review and BE for that matter are a match!
Lord Ned’s HeadQuote Reply
saluk,
I’m wondering if they only sent out six because sending out all ten would have made it too tempting to spill the beans on future developments…
paulgudeQuote Reply
Lord Ned’s Head,
All of this is kind of moot until I actually see all six episodes, of course, but HBO has a great track record with me so I’m being optimistic.
paulgudeQuote Reply
paulgude,
One thing about the Wire is that going back after really “getting into” the show and seeing those first few episodes is a revelation, and actually makes re-watching it just as rewarding (which is true for a lot of shows, but I found particularly true for this since for awhile at first I had that same sense of “WTF?”).
And for that reason I wonder if HBO’s plans to broadcast the first episode several times might be an attempt to gain this same effect, but more quickly. I’m sure plenty of people (besides us freaks) will, after that final scene in the first episode, be saying “WTF?” and may want to immediately re-watch the episode now that they know what rat bastards these twins are, and will already be more familiar with the characters than an hour earlier. And it would be wise for HBO to replay episodes often to assist viewers in this way. I mean I know when I first read the book I was constantly flipping back to earlier chapters to try to get a handle on characters and events, and since viewers won’t have that luxury repeat viewings will come in very handy (as would an easily-accessed online cheat sheet).
Steven SwansonQuote Reply
Lord Ned’s Head,
I’m old enough to remember when Dune was released and our little Midwestern movie theater handed out “cheat sheets” to get viewers up to speed.
I also remember listening to farm boys recounting some of the crazier parts of the film while baling hay. Gives me hope for the future.
paulgudeQuote Reply
Steven Swanson,
I was thinking that as well.
Game of Thrones definitely is one of those shows where new viewers might feel put-off by having to play catch-up. Multiple air-times is a great way to get folks in on the ground floor.
paulgudeQuote Reply
Didn’t the Ryan guy only see the first 3 episodes? Maybe he should watch the other 3
superdeluxeQuote Reply
I’m actually going to be watching the last episode of the first season of the Wire tonight. The first few episodes were really ho-hum and cop shows in general really aren’t my thing, but I’m pretty into it at this point. Again in this show it took me a little while to care about the characters. I’m starting to root for some and against others. Funny enough Omar and Bubs seem to be my faves.
Lord Ned’s HeadQuote Reply
Sounds great! I can’t wait to see the look on the people I inflict this upon. (evil grin)
I have a hard time imagining a way that final scene will go down in which it doesn’t feel telegraphed. I’ve envisioned it so many times.
At the end of the day, everyone has their own opinion. Still, when someone has a lack of emotional connection to something which is meant to be emotional, is that lack a failing on the part of the viewer, or of the party trying to communicate it? I have heard more people feel the way I do about BE than those who really make that connection, so I’m inclined to believe it has more to do with the show than the viewers. But it is always a two way street. It’s how receptive you are to whatever something is trying to say, AND how well it says it.
The last few episodes of BE I watched were almost there, it’s just hard to power up the will to push on when I have so many other things to watch that I enjoy more.
Anyway, I’m about 80% sure Ryan’s criticisms are valid (cross examining against other postivie reviews, none of which really praise the structural aspects), 50% sure that Ryan’s criticisms will be valid for some people, and 99% sure that they won’t matter to me, and probably most of us. We are going to be more bothered by to little detail than too much (and potentially too much not well put together). I know I’m going to like the show, so the only interesting thing for me to do right now is analyze other people’s opinions :)
And ultimately, I think even this criticism is REALLY lite compared to what we could have gotten. Great acting? Great special effects? Believable world? Exciting plot twists? We’re more than halfway to a great show already, let alone at least a good one.
Or put it another way. If it’s ONLY as good as BE, it could win an emmy :)
salukQuote Reply
You guys do all realize Ryan McGee is lurking here reading what you’re all saying about him and his review. He’s tweeting some quotes from some of the posts here.
Just thought you’s want to know that, haha
MetalgoddessAMBQuote Reply
Some positivity for this thread:
Can I just say how CRAZY HAPPY I am for Maisie Williams?
Nearly every single review has praised her, specifically. HOW FREAKING COOL IS THAT? :D
LexQuote Reply
I love her already, can’t wait to see her in action. Arya is my favorite character.
come on Sunday!
MetalgoddessAMBQuote Reply
I got quoted! I’m famous!
I actually did think of Star wars when making that remark. And he even confirmed my suspicions – sort of.
sjweningsQuote Reply
Yeah, hehe, the “rebel resistance” thing
MetalgoddessAMBQuote Reply
He’s not the first reviewer that has been taking note of the critiquing of the critics on these boards before writing a review.
Perhaps we should just refrain from commenting on (more or less) negative reviews – other than comments of agreement – from now on. We might be provoking bad reviews here.
Just a somewhat tongue-in-cheek theory…
sjweningsQuote Reply
McGee’s critique is well-written and provides a good counterpoint to the more effusively positive reviews and I don’t doubt he’s quite sincere in it (McGee, along with Mo Ryan, is one of the still-tiny-a-year-later handful of critics who has actually shown willingness to move past the critical hivemind and engage Spartacus as legitimate television, so this isn’t some snob we’re dealing with here).
However, at the same time, it doesn’t worry me – or at least it doesn’t unless I watch the show and feel the same way. Everyone’s got their own opinions. For example, McGee’s podcast partner Mo Ryan can’t stand Community, which is one of my top 10 shows of the last decade and one of the only currently running shows that Game of Thrones will have a very difficult time toppling for me personally. Mo’s feelings on Community don’t effect mine on it, and (again, assuming I actually like the show as much as I hope I will) McGee’s feelings on Game of Thrones won’t have any effect on mine either.
Mr. WuQuote Reply
sjwenings,
I noticed another critic who posted on the other thread. I’m a bit… perplexed on how they seem to really care what we think of their reviews!
MetalgoddessAMBQuote Reply
Actually, this is what I felt when I read the book, so it’s good to know it translates well to screen.
Amir MishaliQuote Reply
I wonder if this whole “meta-review” fiasco that’s going on with this show isn’t more of a problem of reviewers caring too much about fan communities. I doubt Roger ebert gave a shit what mugglenet thought of his Harry potter 2 review.
Dan MulhernQuote Reply
Liked the podcast quite a bit. The whole thing, including Ryan, sounds much more positive in tone.
Nice to see Winter, and Elio & Linda as guests!
LexQuote Reply
Lex,
It was rather enjoyable. I wonder what Mo Ryan thinks of Thrones, though. She didn’t really say.
sjweningsQuote Reply
One of the points brought up in the podcast which I found interesting was, that the first 15 covered 1 and 1/2 chapters, while the rest covered over 7. I thought the first 15 was amazing, but I could understand how squeezing 7 chapters into 45 minutes could be a bit confusing and subtlety’s left out.
The DarkStarQuote Reply
sjwenings,
She mentioned watching one of the episodes three times, and almost gushed over a couple characters (Varys was one). I think she likes it.
LexQuote Reply
Lex,
Sure, but does she “just” like it or love it? And also, it would be nice to hear more about why.
sjweningsQuote Reply
Yea, she really took a back seat, I would love to hear her expand on her thoughts. Does she have a review up?
The DarkStarQuote Reply
The DarkStar,
She said she’s written 6, but none are posted yet.
LexQuote Reply
As interesting as Ryan’s review is, I have a serious problem with it, which is I couldn’t understand whether he actually liked the show or not. Well, this is what he had to say about this in one of his comments:
“I think the last line of the article sums up my feelings: it’s good, but should be great. It’s something I WANT to be great. But it’s not there yet. Doesn’t preclude it from ever being great, but here’s where I am at this point.”
Not so bad, I think. Probably 7-8/10?
Amir MishaliQuote Reply
Amir Mishali,
I think it’s the old problem of tone being difficult to convey over the internet. The tone of Ryan’s review felt very negative to me. Even if he didn’t say he hated it, it just felt like he disliked it…
But he sounded quite different on the podcast. I think the tone of his written review is coloured by the pressure he felt regarding the fanbase, and possibly by his hopes that he might love it instead of merely liking it.
LexQuote Reply
Amir Mishali,
I’d say this means Ryan would giv it about 7/10. Better than i would have thought after reading the review.
I suppose he’ll put it at 8/10 after having watched the last 4 episodes, which i almost assume will be the best.
sjweningsQuote Reply
I think this is a new review of the show. The writer has seen six epsiodes. She mentions being halfway through the first book, and shares some D&D quotes about the story in general, and the adaptation process.
The writer doesn’t say all that much about her opinion, but it seems positive in tone. She does say this: “…Stark has some of the most interesting children to be seen on HBO since Meadow and A.J. Soprano.” And this: “”Game of Thrones” is a show worth watching based on a book worth reading.”
LexQuote Reply
Yeah, I figured that could have been a purposeful entendre.
I didn’t mention it before, but the thrice “no” scene was superb.
rufusQuote Reply
I’m getting all confused about all this. I am thinking WAY TO MUCH on all the reviews, comments, pictures, clips and videos we have been given the last few weeks.
The countdown clock is finally nearing an end, and sunday (mondayt morning) I i can sit back, enjoy and make up my own opinion.
Thanks to the WiC staff for serving us all this juicy news, rumors and facts. Thanks for making me look forward to arrive at work and turn on my computer every day. I think I’ve had nearly every moring coffee infront of this site for a year now.
But for now, Im signing off, to build up my own expectations and hopes for Game of Thrones. To all – enjoy this show, and dont get hung up in every detail and change. Just enjoy it!!
And good luck to all GoT staff and to GRRM
Check back in monday, when the Raven is out of the cage.
MariusQuote Reply
I wonder, with some of the reviews, whether their thoughts would be the same if they experienced the show the way the punter will, as a weekly episodic show. Taken too quickly, such dense material might be too much to take in and appreciate, mull over and feel the nuances.
Steve ReynoldsQuote Reply
Steve Reynolds,
In my personal experience, the more difficulties I have with something, the better it is if I consume it faster. When I am very bored with a section of a book, I find that if I force myself to read a bit faster, it changes my perspective entirely. I’m not sure if the same happens with shows, although I know that part of the problem with serial shows can be if you wait too long between episodes and forget what is going on. Not sure which method is best here. Probably wont know for 4 (4!) days, although I imagine the wait for ep2 is going to be almost as bad as the wait for ep1 :)
salukQuote Reply
Ouch.. Now we have a well thought out negative review. Hard to read for a fan such as myself who desperately wants this show to be great.
I just hope (and it seemed like it some times) he’s become too much of a critic. That he’s so busy trying to find things to critique that he’s left too little of his mind to actually enjoy the show. Instead of watching and enjoying, he’s observing and taking notes (even in his head). I really hope that’s the case :)
I doubt it though. He seems too smart to fall into that trap.
I have to agree with one thing Who is J..? is saying though (and pretty much only one thing). It really felt like reaching for something negative to say about the show when he said he felt a “warning sign” when he saw the scent box..
rtm1981Quote Reply
Thanks for that. There seem to be a couple of mistakes in it, though.
First of all, it claims Dany’s age as thirteen, which is correct for the book, but not for the show; at least that’s what I’ve come to understand that the child characters have been aged up a couple or a few years for the show.
Secondly, it states that Jaime is the hair to Casterly Rock, which he can’t be after being named in the Kingsguard. Unless they changed that for the show.
RitariKnightQuote Reply
Sorry, even though that review seems to be well-written, I’m not reading it.
I know, I know. I’m wearing blinders. Sticking my fingers in my ears and closing my eyes until Sunday at nine p.m.
I actually don’t mind the flip reviews from reviewers who hate fantasy. It’s the ones that are cogent and well-written that I am afraid of.
Never the less, I want to make my OWN judgments when the show premieres. I don’t want to go in with this reviewer’s criticisms in my head, because then I will be looking for them.
I’ll come back and read it after a few episodes. Does anyone understand where I’m coming from?
HollyoakQuote Reply
Actually when I read this review I thought that D&D must have gotten the ASOIAF vibe perfectly!
It’s exactly the charme of this series that it has a slow pace. That it feels life-like. You get a very subtle feeling of something having happened “at some point” and you don’t know what it is but it’s threatening.
And the sheer desperation you can feel about the incredibly sad, the incedibly hopeless situaion of ALL characters. Especially since you know as a reader — as well as a TV audience from what the preview showes — that there is a much more terrible thing coming down upon them all, no matter how honest, dishonest, wealthy, poor, beautiful and ugly they are.
The beauty lies in the description, in the settings, in the language, in the conflicts and I believe, that’s exactly what they achieved when I read Ryan’s reaction.
So I conclude that ASOIAF is maybe generally not to his taste. There are people like that. My mother for example. She finds it depressing.
JennyQuote Reply
I think it’s interesting that even the most negative reviews (even some of the more badly-written ones) haven’t completely written it off. There also seems to be an acceptance that shows aren’t usually 100% brilliant from the off and take a while to build up to being great. For some reason, IMO, this is much more prevalent with HBO than others: I didn’t really connect with THE WIRE until Episode 4 (the infamous one-word crime scene investigation), ROME until the same (probably more down to the BBC cutting the first three to ribbons; they seem stronger on DVD) and TRUE BLOOD until Episode 5 (Bill’s discussion about the Civil War in the Church). I also hated DEADWOOD’s first episode, but the overwhelming critical acclaim has convinced me to get the box set and go back and check it out again.
For those reasons, the fact that so many people seem to love the first couple of episodes is very welcome, and some of the critics seem to be saying that ropey elements in the first few episodes (particularly pacing issues) are less problematic later on. Generally speaking, the critical reception the show is getting seems to be good to excellent, and the negative ones seem to be highlighting problems that were expected.
Adam WhiteheadQuote Reply
Is there a way to get the podcast without going to iTunes or installing QuickTime? I’m not touching either of those with a 3.048 meter pole.
Tywin’s BastardQuote Reply
This is one of Ryan’s responses to the comments on his site:
“I honestly want nothing more than for everyone that watches this (or really, most things I review) to love it. And I imagine that I will be in the minority on this, just as I’m in the seeming minority on the other end of the spectrum on something like “Spartacus.” If negative opinions about that show don’t sway my personal love for it, I don’t pretend that this will change anyone’s love for “Thrones.” I can only write what I feel, and as long as people think the perspective is honest, they can disagree with me all they like. Respectfully, I hope. No need to throw me through a moon door or anything.”
He likes Spartacus. He doesn’t like Game of Thrones. That’s really all I need to know.
But here’s another, regarding the scent box:
“The Maester’s Path was quite the dramaturgical specimen, but it caused far too many people to prematurely associate the quality of a box with a quality of a show.”
What!?! You don’t even cite a single reviewer/article in defense of this argument. You really think people like this show because of a “scent box”? It was cool, inventive HBO swag, nothing more.
Then when he actually starts discussing the show, he admits that he likes Ned, Arya, Jon and Tyrion, while bemoaning the fact that Littlefinger is, “an excellent actor, not an excellent character.”
Did you think we (the readers) knew Littlefinger’s motivations halfway through the first book? How boring would the story be if you knew exactly how everyone would act in the future?
And as far as, “There’s a ton of exposition in those latter hours, which helped me figure out what everyone had been obliquely referencing up until that point, but it’s delivered in ways so blatantly inorganic as to defy belief. Often, these scenes take place in the form of a literal Q&A, where one person quizzes the other on information both know perfectly well, and know perfectly well that both know perfectly well.”
1) You probably should watch again, because what you think everyone knows, or what they think they know, is neither common knowledge nor necessarily even true.
2) Although this is a 10 hour series, certain expository liberties were always going to be a foregone necessity, both for budgetary and time considerations.
Bottom line:
This is the best work of fantasy that any studio has ever attempted to adapt. Although I have not seen any of the actual episodes yet, everything I have seen to date indicates that the creators have made it their utmost priority to deliver the greatest, and most faithful, adaptation as humanly possible. I really hope you stick around for at least the rest of the season. Because, honestly, you ain’t seen nothin yet.
the goatQuote Reply
The booklet looks nice, but saying Dany is 13 is indeed a mistake- she’s of a similar age to Robb and Jon (has to be given the timing of the war) even if this isn’t stated explicitly.
It is for identifying the characters on screen rather than for extra information I think, dead characters and offscreen characters aren’t mentioned. At first glance I thought it odd that there’s no mention that Ned and Benjen used to have two more siblings, but if the purpose of the booklet is purely ‘who is that I’m watching?’ it’s fair enough.
ShinyteapotQuote Reply
Amir Mishali,
that is my major issue with the review. he’d like you to leave with the impression that the show was “good but not great”. well i doubt anybody is going to read that and think the show was good. good would be a B and great would be an A (C medicore, D bad, F utter rubbish) and a B is an 80%.
meaning he, if he thinks the show is good, shouldn’t he like about 80% of the show and have issues/not like about 20%? does anybody want to try and defend or claim that the break down of that article’s praise/criticism ratio is 80/20? yeah, i didn’t think so. it is about 30/70 (being generous) the other way.
if you think a show is good why spend 70% of the article focusing on what you DON’T like. sure put in some of what concerned you but 70% of the article? if he truly wants people to get the impression the show was good but not great his review totally missed that point. there was another review (the 2nd Atlantic review) where the reviewer did a much better job of raising the same issues while still leaving the overall impression that he liked the show and thought it was good but did have a few weaknesses.
which is why Ryan just comes of as whinging or being contrarian or having a higher/double standard for GoT (compared to some of his other favourite shows tha had the same or worse issues thru their first 6 episodes aka The Wire, Spartacus, Lost, etc). far be it from me to tell a professional critic how to do his job but i am going to go out on a limb and say that if you want to write a review of a show you think is “good” than you might want to dedicate at least half the review to saying what you liked and what was good and somewhere less than half the review complaining and criticizing the show. that’s just a friendly tip.
Who Is Jacopo Belbo?Quote Reply
Agreed completely – none of the criticisms in this (imho very fair and well-written) review were things that would make me not want to watch it. But then again, I too have a track record of loving shows a large chunk of the rest of humanity were kind of “meh” about. I think GoT is going to be an exception, but…who knows? TV audiences are fickle things.
FWIW I really like Boardwalk Empire, but I can see why it’s got a lot of criticism. For a show that was so expensive and so hyped, it isn’t really that clever or that unconventional in terms of narrative or characterisation. Still, it’s perfectly entertaining and worth watching. I just think people saw the production values and the advertising and thought they were getting another The Wire or Deadwood when really they got another Rome. Mind you, I loved Rome too. :D
It seems though that these high-profile HBO shows, if they’re not game-changing obviously-the-best-thing-on-TV-ever type things, end up getting thought of as disappointing by comparison. I hope that doesn’t happen to GoT. Actually, I hope GoT is a game-changer, but if it isn’t and turns out to “only” be a very well-written, well-acted well-produced fantasy drama, then I hope critics and audiences are fair to it. So far, it seems like the critics are being – apart from that tool writing for the Wall Street Journal! :D
A Bear_A BearQuote Reply
I’ve read the review and it’s well written and seems honest.
Still I have trouble understanding why he needs to know the motivations of a character like Littlefinger. Personally I think it’s more suitable to be in the dark about him just as much as Ned is. Despite that we don’t have the POV aspect of the show we’re still primarily following Ned through the mysteries of King’s Landing.
Speaking of POV’s I suspect he wouldn’t like the books either as the POV aspect further hides the motivations and desires of non-POV characters, unless they are friendly and talk about it, or clumsy and obvious.
I think his view on how much the viewer needs to know is pretty boring but I respect it and he obviously doesn’t like my view either (but probably respects it all the same). The main thing I can take with me from his review is that I don’t feel I have to worry about his criticisms being things that make me not enjoy the show, something I think would have been true even if I hadn’t read the book.
Tywin’s BastardQuote Reply
When the positive reviews were published, I doubt people started going through the reviewers’ histories and posting “He likes GOT. He doesn’t like The Sopranos, or Big Love, or Project Runway (= GOT must be terrible because his taste doesn’t line up exactly with mine).” GOT would have a very small audience indeed if it was only for viewers who only like dark dramas with numerous complex plotlines and would never enjoy unwinding by watching Dancing With the Stars or Spartacus (did you stick around for the full season of Spartacus, which most viewers agree improved greatly from the beginning? If you did and just didn’t like it, I’m not going to insist you’re wrong even though I personally ended up liking the show; if you gave up after the dodgy first few episodes, why should GOT be treated any differently by viewers?). Spartacus had a terrible premiere episode, but it ended up being very entertaining TV for the kind of show it is. Mainly because it felt like the second half of the season was really being written for episodic TV, with themed episodes and plotlines that slowly and continually built up towards the confrontations in the finale.
That is one problem GOT could well have: how to take the character POV-based buildup of the books and make it work on TV when, as this reviewer points out with his mention of “unconnected vignettes”, a strictly chronological progression of the story could lead to a lot of interesting scenes that don’t lead to an interesting overall story as well as a different approach might. When I watch the show, I’ll be interested to see what they do with Dany’s plot: I think occasional Dany-heavy episodes might work better than obligatory “this is what Dany is doing this week”-scenes, but of course, so far I can only comment on the books and previews, not the episodes themselves since I don’t know which option they’ve chosen for Dany.
Also, I doubt the reviewer wants to be told Littlefinger’s master plan in a lecture: it sounds like he just didn’t get a glimpse at what might make the character tick, that Littlefinger trolls Ned very wittily but is too obviously a troll too much of the time. Without emotion characters are just puppets being moved around by the plot. It’s not asking to know “exactly how everyone would act in the future”, just to feel invested in characters who have their own likes, dislikes and dreams so that it matters what they want, why they want it and whether they’re thwarted. For example, the story of Tyrion and Tywin builds up towards their confrontation in ASOS and it’s a favourite scene for many fans; I believe that’s largely because of how well we come to know those characters. I prefer that gradual development, the establishment of the relationship and the issues the characters have with each other, to being totally shocked by “I can’t believe Tywin said that! Tyrion did that!”, even though the end of that confrontation might be called predictable by some: more importantly to me, it feels like the natural result of this conflict between father and son, and not like interchangeable puppets being shocking for the sake of being shocking with nothing else to recommend it. And though exposition is necessary, it’ll still be nice if the show presents it in an engaging manner: clunky As You Know, Bob scenes aren’t immune to criticism because they aren’t the only way of getting information across. I think the scene with the Starks in the 15 minute preview is good exposition because of how it sets up the family dynamics without Luwin having to tell Theon the stunning news that “Arya is a tomboy, Sansa is feminine and Catelyn doesn’t much like that her husband’s son by another woman is around.” I got the impression from the review that unfortunately there are some scenes that struck the reviewer as the latter kind of exposition.
Why should viewers stick around if they don’t enjoy the first half of the season or are told they need to read the books? They’ll either give up or wait for the DVD. Of course I hope that all the plotting for the overall structure of the season, the intertwining of the storylines and the handling of exposition end up working out and GOT is enjoyable to large numbers of readers and newcomers alike. But if some newcomers give it a chance and just don’t enjoy it, I’m not going to act like that makes them idiots incapable of having an opinion on TV and badger them about how wrong they are; that’s not going to make them consider giving it a second chance. They’ll likely dig in their heels if faced with condescending fans who talk about how they’re bad people who just can’t handle depth or moral complexity, how there is only One Opinion about GOT the Series (Greatness!). It’s best to stay positive about the show without bashing the personal preferences of the viewers, so that if they see that DVD set they won’t dismiss it immediately.
KarenQuote Reply
Ryan’s review is the type of criticism I’ve been waiting for. Not because I necessarily WANTED to see criticism, but because I knew I’d see it eventually and when I did, I wanted it to be worth reading.
What sets this apart from the other reviews I’ve read is that Ryan didn’t just criticize the show for being fantasy. He honestly and fairly approached the show for what it is. And if he didn’t like it/was worried by it, that’s his opinion. The big problem I had with the other reviews was a lack of logic that made the articles hard to read and demonstrated that the critics didn’t really make an effort to get to know the show. I think Ryan did the opposite. I’m not saying I agree with everything he said, but I respect his opinion because it seems like he genuinely tried to approach the series with an open mind.
“Petyr Baelish is a really fun character, but I don’t believe a goddamn thing he says. Maybe that thrills you, but until I get a lock on his real motivation, nothing is does registers as much more than white noise at this point. His charisma at this point is an empty as one of the scents in the Maester’s Box, until flesh-and-blood reasons for his actions take shape. ”
I almost wanted to laugh when I read this, because I’m pretty sure that all of us who have read through AFfC still have no idea what Littlefinger’s real motivations are. What interests me in his character is his political brilliance, which, regardless of his motivations, I think readers can appreciate. You might hate him for what he’s done, but you can’t deny the guy is smart. I think this will be better demonstrated as time goes on, and we learn just how calculating he is. For instance, when I read in SoS about how Littlefinger convinced Lysa to poison Jon and write to Cat, I had a “holy shit!” moment. I had completely forgotten about Jon Arryn’s death and had just subconsciously assumed that the Lannisters had orchestrated it, despite their denials. That revelation kind of slapped me in the face and proved how Littlefinger really is a puppet master with very long strings…and a lot of puppets.
I’m glad that Ryan praises Arya (and indirectly Maisie!), and I think she’s probably the type of character he would like because she doesn’t hide her motives. Arya doesn’t calculate and manipulate (the only exception possibly being Jaqen); if she wants something done, she does it. In a sort of twisted way she very much lives by Ned’s code: If she condemns someone to die, she swings (pokes?) the sword.
LinaQuote Reply
Karen,
Great response Karen. You basically said everything I wanted to say after reading some of these petulant responses to this well-thought-out review. Since I haven’t seen the show yet, I can only hope at this point that I find it personally enjoyable (as I do the books) and that enough other people enjoy it enough so that it sticks around for a while. But I’m not going to belittle or bemoan those who don’t enjoy it quite as much as I do.
DanteQuote Reply
Tangential squee here.
The talk on the podcast about ‘what do you hope the show can uniquely do’ combined with the praise heaped on Harry Lloyd’s portrayal of Viserys is making me very excited about something the show CAN do: give us a full and equal view of non-POV characters!
Already we know that there’ll be access to people having conversations completely outside the view of POV characters. But what I’m really looking forward to is portrayals that aren’t so heavily coloured by the view of whatever POV character happens to be telling the scene.
If we assume further seasons go ahead… I could not be more excited about seeing Robb without Catelyn constantly interspersing reports of what he says or does with ‘oh my son, he is all grown up, I am more scared than proud’. It’s not that I don’t like Catelyn, but having Robb constantly at arms-length sometimes makes him frankly boring to me as a reader. But the reason behind that is entirely due to the lens we see him through and not due to him or his deeds.
So there is so much potential!
EleanorQuote Reply
I’ve hesitated a while before posting this… Some commenters on this site really need to not take it personally every time a negative review is released. It really makes you look crazy. It’s ok if someone doesn’t like GOT because it’s fantasy. It’s ok if they found it confusing or hard to tell who is the “good guy”. You can’t force someone to like GOT. And it really makes everyone here look bad when there are degrading comments about reviewers based on shows they like, or other unrelated things. Especially as most of us are judging the reviews based on our knowledge of the books, and not the show that we haven’t yet seen! (“It makes sense in the book” or “It makes sense in book 4, when we find out…”)
The reviewers are just doing their job. Disagree if you like, but lets not turn WiC into one of those creepy sites that is a laughingstock of the professional world. It really turns away casual fans who see the vehemence from “hardcores” towards innocent people who might not agree 100% (“too deep for you”) and makes us all look bad.
Anyway, keep critiquing the critics, but I just think personal attacks are really uncool, and not worthy of this awesome site.
(Some extra clarification – as I’m really worried that I’ll be misinterpreted: I do feel that lots of people have had good responses to the criticism that has been given so far, but there are those few outliers who are dragging things down.)
MelarraQuote Reply
Hannah,
I think he must be referring to a scene involving Daenerys and Viserys. My guess is it could be the “crowning”, or perhaps just the earlier confrontation where she slaps him with a belt.
userjQuote Reply
Philly.com
Another glowing review! :)
John KeadyQuote Reply
i liked the podcast, my only thing i would add to people who feel kinda lost in the first few episodes. That how i felt reading the books, we were given so much information i really did not understand every thing that was going on till my second read threw. So i would tell people who feel a little lost that that is how it is.
Jason WQuote Reply
I was amused that Ryan raised the same issue I did in the previous article on the 15 minute preview: pacing. And also cited Baen as the only one who didn’t seem trapped in it.
As to villains, I agree with Christian M that for book 1, Cersei/Jaime are painted as villains. Jaime redeems himself some when he gets his own chapters, and I wouldn’t mind it if they started trying to play some of those nuances early, such as building the relationship between him and Tyrion. Cersei only starts to have more nuance built in during the siege of Kingsport, when she presides over the feast with Ser Illyn behind her, ready to behead her if they lose. Before then she’s a harsh foil for the easy-going Robert. Followed by a slower-witted foil for the clever Tyrion. She should be played mainly as the villain.
As to heroics, I put forward Ned. Ned is a black and white honorable hero. A somewhat reluctant hero in that he doesn’t want to leave the North, but there’s no question of rooting for him.
Jon & Arya are truly Ned’s children and very straightforward, even if Jon has to learn to get along with his brothers.
And I’d put forth Tyrion as the trickster hero. His heart is always in the right place. He helps Jon. He helps Bran. He’s loyal to his family even when they do questionable things. He’s kind to Sansa. Maybe his character will change in Dances with Dragons, but he’s pretty clearly a hero in his ethics.
Though I’d have to see the show to judge if it depicts these things well.
As I noted when talking about the prologue adaptation, there’s little bits of dialogue in the books, such as Royce & Gerad’s disagreement over fire which would both add to characterization as newbie in command of an old-timer and tie into later issues with the Others in 2 books if we get that far.
So while translating some of the things from first person into visuals is part of the issue, this makes me concerned that they’re not doing a good job of seeing the bits of dialogue that can be used, and not writing particularly good additional material to cover it (which I hadn’t been worried about since the scene written to set up the Stark family was so very good at portraying them as a family unit and their relations to each other).
world_dancerQuote Reply
Mo Ryan just announce on Twitter her review goes live in 25 minutes….
MetalgoddessAMBQuote Reply
McGee’s review would actually encourage me to go watch the show, I really don’t see it as a negative one. There is enough to like about it. I like his cautionnes so I can still be overwhelmed when i watch the show myself, because all those glowing reviews were getting my hopes way too far up. And although I don’t see it as a negative review, for the people who do: this guy has a small audience, the big reviews that matter are EW, Variety, Times and TVGuide. Those reviews will influence a large number of people to actually start watching this show, not a review on boobtube.
Oh and Winter, you really need to buy a decent microphone for your podcasts…
KnurkQuote Reply
Maureen’s review is up:
http://www.tvsquad.com/2011/04/13/game-of-thrones-hbo-attempts-fantasy-review/
SuperdeluxeQuote Reply
paulgude:
Haha, I know. I’m in the same boat. I loved Deadwood more than anything. Its cancellation still eats at my soul :(
I was also a Carnivale fan, even though that one is generally overlooked in cancellation discussions these days, when people mainly talk about Deadwood and Rome.
More recently, I watched with rapt attention every episode of Boardwalk Empire. The reaction from most is lukewarm at best, though. I’m hoping it gets to go on for at least a few more seasons…
Meanwhile, True Blood is in it’s eleventeenth season, more or less, and Big Love is wrapping up after like ten. Neither of those captivated me to any degree.
So my tastes and America’s tastes may not match up that often. I really hope Game of Thrones is changes that trend, but I’m preparing myself for the worst.
ZackQuote Reply
Superdeluxe,
Another so-so review. I think I’ve read enough reviews and need to watch the damn thing myself!
KnurkQuote Reply
At this point, if you’ve gotten this far, you’re probably wondering whether you should watch this show or not. Yes, you should watch it. You’ll know within the first few episodes whether it’s for you, and if you stick with the drama through the middle of the season, you may find the tale growing on you.
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. If nothing else, it’s going to look great in HDTV.
For the Metacritic devotees among you, here’s how I’d rate the first six episodes (each score is out of 100): episode 1: 80; episode 2: 50 (not the show’s finest hour by a long shot); episode 3: 60 (mainly due to the final scene); episode 4: 70 (mainly due to the terrific Wall scenes); episode 5: 90 (exceptional work by the cast, excellent writing); episode 6: 70.
Sounds like she liked it okay, but feels it needs MUCH work.
SuperdeluxeQuote Reply
Yeah, the books aren’t for everyone either. I don’t hold that against anyone, if it doesn’t grab you it doesn’t grab you. I think Ryan McGee however will be more on board with this once he sees what unfolds in the final 4 episodes and if it doesn’t then he should move on because it’s just not for him.
dizzy_34Quote Reply
Out of the non-glowing reviews. This one was the first of which i have nothing to critique.
I wish i did, but no.
Mo just liking it. Deeming it good but nothing special, is dissappointing. I’m glad this is not the first review i read.
Edit: Also glad i’m not the most nitpicking of people. Being a professional TV-critic must take a little of the magic out of many shows.
sjweningsQuote Reply
A surprisingly negative review from Maureen given that she appears to actually like the show. Also, many of her dislikes did not seem to worry other critics, notably Alan Sepinwall.
Quite interesting on how each reviewer picks up on different things.
Matt NQuote Reply
Well, Mo Ryan really “got” why I liked the books, so i expect I will feel similarly when watching the show. My guess is that the Metacritic score will end up around 70-75, which isn’t bad, but given the source material and the early reviews I hoped for better.
dtbQuote Reply
This is depressing. From the last few reviews I gather that this show is just not that good. Granted they haven’t been purely negative reviews, but it looks like we have an average adaptation on our hands. Really disappointing. Of course I will judge for myself, but my expectations have dropped severely.
YeremiahQuote Reply
Yeremiah,
Serious? you let 2 reviews, one that have not even watched all 6 episodes, makes your expectations drop severely?
What about all of the glowing indepth reviews, calling it the best TV series of the year etc?
SuperdeluxeQuote Reply
Superdeluxe,
I am an overreacter and a flip flopper. As soon as someone posts a completely positive review I will probably flip back to the other side.
YeremiahQuote Reply
I understand that, but like some people here have said..those that have read the series most likely will not have issues with what Maureen had.
SuperdeluxeQuote Reply
Yes, this is very disappointing. I have the sense that, unlike others, Mo was very much predisposed to liking the show, starting at a Metacritic 100, but had no choice but to begin to deduct points as she went along, rather than force the show to push its way up.
A Metacritic 75 is not going to be good news. The second half of the season had better blow our collective doors off. I think Season 3 of True Blood was an 82 or higher. My god, Season 10 of American Idol got a 77.
DH87Quote Reply
Bah! I’ve had enough of all these critics and their roller coaster opinions ;) No more reviews for me. Need to form my own opinion of this show. Four days to go.
BobbenQuote Reply
Nick,
Thank you for that. I think Ryan’s criticism needs to be taken with a grain of salt. His “opinion” which is the word he likes to hide behind when his review receives criticism, seems to lack accuracy when it is contridicted by many other reviewer’s “opinions”. His criticism of the promotional box makes absolutely no sense at all unless you underline his childish frustration on not receiving one. I rarely agreed with his commentary on Lost so it is no surprise that I find his opinions on GOT to lack substance and validity.
NeolokiQuote Reply
Mo has telegraphed a Metacritic 70 (if my third grade math skills are holding up).
That makes Ms. WSJ’s 40 much harder to dismiss. Who would have thought?
DH87Quote Reply
Both the mcgee and Ryan have seen the first 6 episodes, only Jon Weisman of variety didn’t see all 6.
KnurkQuote Reply
After watching the explosion of posts and reading the replies to the first few negative reviewers, I was a little embarrassed. It’s no wonder why other reviewers are nervous and over explanatory in their reviews or worried about saying anything negative.
I am not surprised one of the reviewers is watching to see the reaction the fans have.
This is the first time I have posted here but I am a long time lurker and just as emotionally invested as the rest of you.
We all want to love GoT the TV series. We all want everyone else to love it too. I know it’s hard for some not to counter the opinions of reviewers who haven’t read the books or “just don’t get it”. But negative or less glowing reviews will happen. It is the nature of life and the internet.
How many of us have actually seen the tv series yet?
Please set aside the lynch mob pitch forks, otherwise we run the risk of scaring off the audience that may help keep the series going.
NymeraQuote Reply
First of all, I want to agree with some of the people who’ve posted here wishing that my fellow book fans would stop posting such harsh attacks on people who have the temerity to not love the adaptation of “Game of Thrones” – most of us have yet to see a single episode, so to my mind, it’s a little hard to argue with someone who HAS seen episodes of the show about whether their personal opinion about it is valid or not.
Secondly, however, I am little confused about the “no one to root for” aspects of “Game of Thrones” being such a turnoff – I would like to submit “The Sopranos” in which I regularly found myself thinking that all the characters were morally reprehensible, although fascinating. And if “Game of Thrones” is filled with similar characters, I really don’t think that in and of itself should be a problem for people who loved “The Sopranos” (or even “Mad Men” for that matter – I loathe Don Draper, but I still enjoy the show.)
Regina ThorneQuote Reply
Hahahahahaha,
I’m not a “metacritic”, but if I ever gave an episode of a TV show anything less than an 80 (or 8/10), you can be damn sure that I will never, ever watch that particular episode of television again. So Mo, are you saying that you will never, ever watch Episode 2, 3, 4 and 6 again (or at least Ep. 2 & 3)? I call bullshit.
Rob VolzQuote Reply
I was looking forward to Ryan McGee’s review of the show because I was really interested in hearing the observations of someone who hasn’t read the books. However, he starts out defending how people might perceive his review. Then he speculates about what he might be missing because he hasn’t read the books. He wonders if the show is missing the spirit of the books by trying to include too much detail from the books (which he has no way of knowing without reading them). Then he worries that the latter episodes are explaining so much that fans of the books will be bored. He spends so much of the review talking about what his impression might have been and what others’ impressions might be that I’m left wondering exactly what he did think.
LauraQuote Reply
You know there is medication available for that.
Steven SwansonQuote Reply
Rob Volz,
I think there’s a difference here between people who watch a shitload of tv and those who only turn it on for a show they love. I fall into the latter category and it sounds like you do too.
Plus with her being a fan of the books probably the only thing that could keep her away is the show being absolutely dreadful, which it’s pretty clear it’s not, she just has reservations. And I’m sure we all will to some extent. But that sure isn’t keeping me away, it’s already obvious to me without even seeing a full episode that this show is well done and honestly better than I could have hoped for even a few short years ago.
Steven SwansonQuote Reply
DH87,
Wow talk about overeaction. The main reasons that shows like American Idol receives 77% for their 10th season is because its not being critiqued by every critic out there.
How about comparing season 1 ratings of one show vs season 1 of another show?
Mad Men, Dexter, and Breaking Bad all got under 80% for their first season because it was being critiqued by all the major publications out there.Those critics who gave those shows negative reviews usually move on and never bother rating the following seasons. Those shows were no slouches.
jayfkQuote Reply
Thank you for this article, I really enjoyed this! I will definitely share.
Rehoboth Beach Real EstateQuote Reply