For every poorly-written negative review, it seems we get two or three well-written positive ones. The latest two reviews to wax poetic about Game of Thrones come from Variety and IGN TV.
Brian Lowry of Variety writes in his review:
Although “Mad Men’s” Don Draper partially scratched the itch, premium TV has been actively seeking its next Tony Soprano. While Showtime’s medieval “The Borgias” directly promoted that analogy, HBO comes much closer with “Game of Thrones,” which reaches even farther afield — to Westeros, a mythical land of seven kingdoms where dragons once lived — to deliver a mob boss (OK, king) beset by plotting, intrigue and fractious families on all sides. Massive in scope and cinematic in detail, this dense piece of storytelling should resonate beyond just fans of George R.R. Martin’s novels, providing HBO its own formidable seat of power.
Matt Fowler of IGN writes, in his review of the first episode:
From the opening moments of HBO’s new series, Game of Thrones, involving the ill-fated Waymar Royce search party, most fans of the George Martin “A Song of Fire and Ice” series of books can tell that this would be a faithful, sturdy adaptation. We are indeed going to be led through the frozen hell-zone of the Northern Territory of Westeros and we are going to go head to head with the supernatural “Others” that inhabit that land. As with any book adaptation, fans will worry and wonder as to what will be left out and what will be kept in, but the premiere episode, “Winter is Coming,” not only effortlessly takes us along, faithfully, through the book, but it also manages to capture the majestically morbid spirit of Martin’s pages and turn them into thrilling television.
Also of interest is the Game of Thrones Metacritic page where the various reviews are compiled, given a score and the average of those scores is the series’ overall critical rating. Currently there are only two reviews, but more should be added soon and the overall rating calculated.
Loading ...
131 Comments
This is awesome, these reviewers have a lot of readers. I am getting my hopes up!
KnurkQuote Reply
…it also manages to capture the majestically morbid spirit of Martin’s pages and turn them into thrilling television.
Annd it’s Christmas again!
(Have decided unto myself that cranky, close-minded critics hate GoT, and good-looking, youthfully-spirited critics love it. Siding with the kids on this one… ;) )
Franny BeeQuote Reply
I think it is worth mentioning that it is a lot harder to please critics than the general public. So if critics love the show I can only imagine how people who aren’t analyzing every detail will feel about the show. And I love that the Variety review focuses on the show rather than comparing it to other genre shows and talking down fantasy.
Crossing my fingers for this to be a breakout hit show of 2011.
Jessica C.Quote Reply
from variety.com
hm, they stalked WiC.net! ;)
BeneQuote Reply
I’ve decided not only is this the case but that one’s review of Game of Thrones is their defining characteristic. A reviewer who writes about Game of Thrones negatively is tautologically incompetent, philistine, and morally flawed on a fundamental level. A reviewer who speaks highly of it is cleansed of all their sins, and may be held up as a paragon for the rest of us to emulate.
Notmy RealnameQuote Reply
I mean… one is guessing GoT is more like Sopranos than even Mad Men (I don’t get that), and the second is from IGN (geeknews).
Fat Sword of DoomQuote Reply
Just read the Variety review. It should get a score on Metacritic no lower than a 90. It sounded like a 100 to me. The only negative thing Lowry mentioned that there were some pacing problems in the later episodes. But that happens with every show.
Based off their tweets, I know that Matt Roush of TV Guide and James P. of TIME are going to write great reviews. However, I know those two have read the books as opposed to Lowry. At this point I am more interested in reviews from people who are unfamiliar with the series.
Chris Kw.Quote Reply
Franny Bee,
Verily, it is so. Until I see a negative review that concerns itself with more than herp-derping about strange weather patterns or implying that the people who would watch it are basement-dwelling virgins, that is. Love this hype train!
I wish I could read Lowry’s review, but Variety wants me to subscribe to their site, and that’s not gonna happen.
ZackQuote Reply
Zack,
That’s weird, I have no problem reading the article, no subscription required.
OT, but apparently yesterday two interviews with Alfie Allen and Richard Madden were published in some newspapers, did someone read them and were there any new informations?
LisaQuote Reply
Jessica C.,
I agree that critics are harder to please than the average audience. But sadly, there is a large number of shows that were critically beloved yet shunned by the masses. Let’s hope GoT won’t join those :)
burthQuote Reply
Lisa,
Thanks for letting me know! Because of you I tried it in another browser (Safari instead of Chrome) and it did load after all. Wonder why…
ZackQuote Reply
I press the stop button just before the page fully loads with a subscribe splash screen on top :)
Hear Me RoarQuote Reply
Thrones is part Western, part horror film, and part film noir.
From the IGN review…LOVE this summary! So much better than “The Sopranos in Middle Earth.”
ElaineQuote Reply
Yep yep. I watched the first double episodes of Camelot and The Borgias, and both fall kinda flat — well in Camelot’s case flat as a single sheet of graphite. But having seen the first episode, Throne’s is looking (my review here).
Andrew GavinQuote Reply
Regarding the addition of more reviews to the metacritic page, I noticed that metacritic lists the WSJ review as a mixed review. IMHO that’s a generous interpretation of the review. I had the impression that the conclusion was: watch if you are into infantile violence, vulgarisms and nudity, don’t watch for everyone else. The only redeeming features named are “satisfyingly brooding, ominous look” and wolf pups. Compared to that a negative review seems hardly possible to me ;)
elzoidoQuote Reply
So many good reviews! The show is going to be epic.
wingQuote Reply
So the first review begs the question: Just who is Tony Soprano’s counterpart in GOT?
Cersei? Littlefinger? Tywin? The Late Lord Frey?? One person it is not is King Robert – he doesn’t have the cunning and never wanted real power in the first place.
ArajQuote Reply
Can you stop now? You do realize that after a brief bump in traffic, you’ve successfully made sure nobody will ever visit your page again, right?
I was repeating one of my mainstay stories to some friends and one of them starting beating me with a pillow and saying “Don’t be an Andrew Gavin” . I also created a new label for my DVD of Groundhog Day called “Andrew Gavin Day” My parents are on vacation at the Grand Canyon and they told me that when they yelled into the canyon, instead of echoes, they were greeted with “Andrew Gavin reviewed Game of Thrones. Click here. Click here. Click here.”
stevelabnyQuote Reply
stevelabny,
Ha, I was about to bring up that very same point, albeit you did it much better than I would have.
BobbyQuote Reply
I know it’s been already said but I have to repeat it!
“Good review is good; bad review is invalid because it.. bla bla bla (nerd dissertation that no one except us nerds care about).”
Also! Come on everyone, get happy!
And a single WSJ is only worth about 10,000 IGN reviews, because IGN’s audience is probably already sold. BUT HAVING SAID THAT, WSJ is like totally close minded ;)
Come on everyone, get happy!
I am starting to hope again!
Polly WannaQuote Reply
stevelabny,
Well said…you read my mind…lol…
coltaine777Quote Reply
I think the operative point is that these bad reviews aren’t even bad reviews……was there a single substantive negative raised that went beyond the show’s genre trappings?
cardusQuote Reply
Well, my past nerd experience with sci-fi and fantasy shows/movies, etc. is that lots of good reviews tends to mean that I’ll probably be happy with the product, BUT it definitely hasn’t always meant that the general public will be (i.e. Firefly movie).
My goal is for the show to be an awesome viewing experience, and for it to be popular enough that it runs as long as it needs to/the show runners want it to. Having it be popular and loved by the masses with super high viewing numbers is nice I suppose, but never what I expected, nor particularly what I need to feel validated.
I just don’t think people should be hinging their hopes on awesome viewing numbers. I’m more interested in solid, reasonable viewing numbers and AMAZING DVD sales to get us through the long haul. I mean, way back when we were all just scared the show was going to be cr*p, and clearly that’s no longer the main concern here. So I’m happy.
Stephen BerryQuote Reply
thinkhero.com interviews GRRM during the Westeros Food Truck campaign on youtube
marzmanQuote Reply
I don’t know.. I consider myself half nerd, (the other half biscuit) but I never understood the draw for Firefly. I tried to watch it several times. GoT is a LOT more accessible to the general public. Sure, there are people who don’t like this kind of thing, but GoT has a hell of a lot more draw than Firefly.
There was someone in an earlier post that complained that Sci_Fi gets better pop support than fantasy, but that’s not true. GoT in Fantasy is the equivalent of the “Space Odyssey” subgenre in Sci_fi. There are many types of fantasy, and science. For example, someone like Philip K Dick whose books are source of many sci-fi movies, are fantastic, but not necessarily space odyssey.. clearly another more accessible sub-genre.
Now think back on how many times DW and DB have said “Sure, it’s fantasy, but it’s good.” That message is for all those people who are on the fence, who have not read the books, who are like.. normal people (Yes, it’s terrible but but true, there are normal people out there). And that is the most important message right now IMO, if you want the show to succeed.
DaveyQuote Reply
Thanks for this one. I’ve come to the realization I have seen a CRAPLOAD of interviews with GRRM over the past year. More than any other author — it’s not even close, really.
So a chance to get some “sort of new” responses from GRRM is nice.
Steel_WindQuote Reply
Andrew Gavin,
we really know about your review by now.
BeneQuote Reply
The guy made Crash Bandicoot – cut him some slack!
1984Quote Reply
Andrew Gavin,
I agree with Bene above. You can stop linking your review in every single post. Those that want to read it have.
EricQuote Reply
Excellent reviews by two well-respected publications. Someone get these added to Metacritic and we should have ourselves a score of 88. Not bad at all!
furreverQuote Reply
Ok I am really glad that for every undeserved bad critic we also get 5 that highly praise the show. I am not worried in the slightest that the bad ones will hurt us cause they are unfounded and lacking in any specifics. “I don’t like it cause its fantasy”. Well I don’t especially like idiots and I don’t make a blog about it. And what’s with the “nerds”?? We ain’t nerds because we like something different which is intelligent, wellpaced, gritty and encourages people to make a genuine effort to really enjoy all the aspects of the show in question (and books, many things I noticed when reading them for like the 5th time) by concentrating on what they read and not skipping every 3rd page, I mean it is like saying that everyone who watched Sopranos was a mafia member and only prospective criminals watch the Godfather… I hate it when people label I mean how would they feel if I said that these GoT haters are “usually sexless frustrated trolls that, by lustily eyeing them, make sheep cringe in terror” just cause I don’t approve of their taste.. Excuse me for not being a Big Brother fan..
Anyway really excited about the show and I hope that we will retain good reviews on Metacritic and IMDB. I am soo hoping for at least 4 seasons! :)
Andrija Andrew PQuote Reply
I laughed so hard I hurt myself.
RoseQuote Reply
I totally agree. I also like the blurb about how people who don’t like GoT enjoy sex with sheep. That should get them to think twice before calling fantasy fans ‘infantile’.
Polly WannaQuote Reply
*snickers*
MiraxQuote Reply
Polly Wanna,
There is a difference between people not liking the GoT because they have a valid argument and people not liking it because it is fantasy, does not warrant reading/watching and therefore is crap and all those enjoying it are out of their mind.. If you want to pass judgment read the bloody book or watch the show….
Andrija Andrew PQuote Reply
Andrija Andrew P,
Not liking the Fantasy genre is a totally valid argument. It’s not one most here would agree with, but it’s entirely valid.
Polly WannaQuote Reply
Meh. Can’t read the Variety review because it requires subscription to the magazine.
duckyQuote Reply
Polly Wanna,
I suppose it is, but when they say it like that it puts an image in the reader’s heads which is very unlike GoT. To the vast majority of people, what is fantasy? LoTR. Big battles, evil orcs and heroes being heroic, wizards leading groups of people there and back again. When GoT is a political drama in a kingdom that hasn’t figured itself out yet.
We feel like these reviews have skewed their readers into thinking GoT is something it isn’t.
Freely SeekQuote Reply
Actually you can. You see there’s “close this” button in the subscription window.
PremRackQuote Reply
There is a difference between not liking something because you have a valid argument and just not liking something because it is not your thing. A valid argument is not “I don’t like fanatsy”. If you are writting a review for everyone to see it is at least expected that you will be openminded about what you are seeing. It is like saying “I don’t like SF because there are aliens in it” and that’s that. Also calling a few million people who bought the books and did read them infantile and geeks is just not right..
Andrija Andrew PQuote Reply
All reviews put ideas in the reader’s head., good or bad.
The only ‘bad’ review that matters so far is from WSF. I don’t think it is so negative that it would discourage everyone from watching it at all. In many ways, the WSF has a reverse psychology effect. The list of things that it says are infantile about GoT are actually a draw in most tv/movies.
On the other hand I know many people who like to watch ‘easy’ entertainment (think THE CLIENT). Fantasy is not really easy. And this one is particular is brutal. So if you are one of the people who like easy entertainment, would you not benefit from having read the WSJ?
And if you enjoy nudity and violence and dragon eggs, would you not have benefited from reading the WSF review?
The way this community has been associating the other, laughable negative reviews next to WSJ, gives power to a general imagined force of negativity. To me they are very different types of unassociated reviews, and I like to keep them that way.
Polly WannaQuote Reply
PremRack,
There is no close button in the subscription window that I am getting.
duckyQuote Reply
I wasn’t really talking about the WSJ. I was talking about the ones who laughed it off because it was fantasy.
Freely SeekQuote Reply
Personally I think you have to take the ‘I don’t like it because it’s fantasy’ argument seriously. Some people will be put off by that fact, both those tainted by previous experience of lame fantasy TV and those with no interest.
I also think you can’t dismiss the anti-fantasy reviews out of hand, without also dismissing some of the reviews that have been probably far too pro-fantasy. Some of the reviews I’ve read so far have been overly fawning – although that IGN preview has some really good insights that I’ve not picked up on elsewhere (the Western/Horror/Film Noir comment is just so on-the-money, it should instantly replace the ‘Sopranos in Middle Earth’ tag.
I’m waiting for reviews in a few of the more mainstream TV media outlets here in the UK. Previews tend to go out far closer to air time here – and reviews only once the show has aired. (I’m thinking main news outlets) – those will be the previews that will make a huge difference to figures here. Of those – the ones appearing in next weekend’s news colour supplements will be the real key to unlocking the numbers.
MartinQuote Reply
I don’t think Pollywana understands the concept of an “argument”. If we can hypothesize that the argument of a poor tv show review is that readers shouldn’t watch, “I don’t like fantasy” fails to support said argument.
cardusQuote Reply
Ummm fantasy is silly nonsense.
And when you think you’ve read the greatest silly nonsense of all time, more power to you, man.
But if you are going to spend a second arguing why you are exactly not a geek and infantile for liking the GREATEST SILLY NONSENSE? I’ll tell you something true; you’re wrong.
DaveyQuote Reply
Geek is one thing – infantile is something I reserve as a term for people trolling
MartinQuote Reply
Well then you should write to the editorial page on WSJ. You may get a sentimental housewife to agree with you, if she even knows what you mean by ‘trolling’.
DaveyQuote Reply
Speaking personally, I’ve found myself becoming more and more disinterested in a lot of the positive reviews we’ve had recently. This is not because I’m not super excited for the show, but because it feels as though the lack of any criticism whatsoever is do to a similar biased view to those negative reviews we had a few days ago.
That said, I genuinely enjoyed reading all three of these, primarily because they were more specific about what it was they liked about the show.
Although I realize it isn’t aimed at, and probably wouldn’t be useful to non-readers, Ran and Linda’s review on westeros.org has probably seemed the most balanced review I’ve read. Regardless of whether or not, ultimately, I end up agreeing with their assessments of the show, they don’t flinch away from criticism when they feel it is necessary, and nor do they dismiss changes without reflecting first on the reasons behind them.
I’m definitely looking forward to next Sunday. XD Just one week! Does anyone know of any Thrones watching parties going on in Toronto??
Steve Hugh WestenraQuote Reply
Is it me or all the negative reviews came from women? I don’t know if it means something tough. Probably more interested in other shows like Sex and the City or Dancing with the Stars.
No offense intended to all the ladies out there, just making the point that the average girl has different interests than the average boy (ya know, beer, football, videogames, porn…)
Pablo JainagaQuote Reply
I know! I can’t believe it’s in one week. I remember two years ago, waiting for months between pieces of news. This is very exciting. I loved the books and I still can’t believe the amount of work and talent that has been put together for this adaptation. It’s hard to believe this is really happening. In my opinion, even though I have only seen clips and trailers, GoT is raising the bar a notch for television entertainment.
Polly WannaQuote Reply
Not liking fantasy is a personal preference, not an argument.
Thinking fantasy is bad is an opinion, not an argument.
Staying GoT is bad because you don’t like fantasy is a non-sequitor demonstrative of the speaker’s intellectual weakness, not an argument.
One could attempt to make an argument that GoT is bad. To achieve validity as an argument the party would need cite the elements of good fiction and develop cogent reasons why GoT fails to satisfy the elements by citing examples. This has yet to be done by any critic.
What some attempt to do is to set forth the reasons why GoT will not be a successful television series on HBO. This is a different argument and, to be a valid one, it requires the challenger to cite the elements of a good television show and compare GoT to those elements. Several popular elements cited as requirements for a successful television show seem to be (1) that the show does not contain fantasy, (2) that the show does not have too many characters, (3) that the show’s setting is not too geographically vast and (4) that the show must not be too violent or morally base. Please comment if I left any out. Once the elements are extracted from the negative criticism and laid out thusly the fallacy is exposed.
Anyone can take any one of those elements and cite lists of successful television shows that defy its validity. Here is a list of the top 100 fantasy television shows of all time which is topped by Buffy, LOST and Heros. http://home.austarnet.com.au/petersykes/fantasy100/lists_tv.html , As for having too many characters, the same can be done with the same list, e.g. Lost and Heros. The geography argument drew a comparison to LOST and was cited as how GoT will have similar problems with characters constantly traveling from place to place. To this I say, so what? They travel. GRRM handles this well (as did LOST) by switching the storyline while another is on the move or by having fun and interesting stuff happen on the journey. It works. Finally, the violence/morality element fails on its face. Sex and violence sells. We all know it. Especially on HBO. The only point that could possibly remain is that, while overcoming any one or two of these points may be possible, taken in their totality, GoT will fail. However, the negative critics have not made this argument because, in order to do so, they would have to list their points plainly, as I have, and thereby expose their weakness.
The results are well written, positive reviews that are organized, cite examples and draw comparisons versus poorly written, negative reviews that come across as disorganized and whiny.
Mike ChairQuote Reply
Yay for good reviews!
OT, but the opening theme music is already getting stuck in my head! Particularly the opening bars (you can hear them at the start of this Kit Harington interview). I love how it goes from a minor chord into a major chord.
LexQuote Reply
Steve Hugh Westenra,
I agree Ran and Linda’s review was the only review so far to actually give any legitimate criticisms witch to me is amazing because they are sort of the king and queen of all us hard core fans of the books over at westeros.org
Oh and on a side note JOE Abercrombie is interviewing George RR Martin about the show among other things for SKY
If your a fan of GRRM you really should check out Abercrombie’s work. her is a link to his blog post about the interview with GRRM check it out
ogbebabaQuote Reply
Pablo Jainaga,
Two negative reviews really isn’t a big enough sample to draw any conclusions from!
There will be people who, for whatever reason, just don’t like the show. And that’s fine. My hope is that if one of them happens to be writing a review, they go with the ‘not my cup of tea, but worth a try to see if you’ll like it or not, x,y,z is good’ rather than simply saying they don’t like it. I can’t stand romantic comedy films, but having sat throught a couple to keep a housemate company, I can tell that the acting is far worse in some than others (really!). Even if I spend all of them quietly wishing for an alien spacecraft to descend and kill everyone. (Imagining this is an excellent technique for getting through them).
ShinyteapotQuote Reply
Lex,
I’ve been humming it non stop! Really hope we get a soundtrack release :)
Gytha OggQuote Reply
Nah… too infantile for me (because it’s fantasy).
Whiney the PoobarQuote Reply
Pablo Jainaga,
Thems fightin’ words – I hate Sex and the City, and I don’t get women who identify themselves with shallow, self-centered whores (or ‘independent, fun-loving, sexually-evolved women’, as some would say). There were a bunch of them in the HBO store in NYC, and I nearly ate my own liver.
Alas. I held my tongue , as Jon Snow would do. XD
True that. I hate WESTERNS, but I am aware that my personal bias is just that. It makes sense to review the characters and the cinematography by looking beyond the piles of rednecks and tumbleweeds to find relevancy. I wish fantasy-haters would do the same.
Franny BeeQuote Reply
Davey,
Yeah,sure, when you are 10 you read Ana Karenjina, Inferno, Decameron and Die Leiden des jungen Werthers between playing tag and arguing with your mother about eating string beans for lunch as opposed to LOTR… Fantasy genre probably works best if you start reading it when you are young and it kinda stays with you through the years but calling it a nonsense if grown ups like it?? I think not. I started reading LOTR when I was like 10 or 11 and I liked those books ever since. If you are implying that fantasy is silly because they have dragons and magic that are not present in the real world then you can say the same thing about virtually every book that is not completely based on actual events, scientific facts etc. Il nome della rosa, I mean a medieval friar and a Benedictine novice solving murders and the whole book is based upon Eco’s scholarly guesses and imagination. Silly.
Or what Kafka wrote in The Metamorphosis about a man waking up to find himself transformed into a monstrous insect?? Nonsense.
Or Antoine de Saint-Exupéry and his novella Le Petit Prince? “On ne voit bien qu’avec le cœur. L’essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.” or A person sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the naked eye.”
I think that YOU are the one who is waaaay off here.
Andrija Andrew PQuote Reply
Lex,
thanks for the link
I couldn’t help but LOL at KIT’s discription of John Snow the part where he says he has this fire in him he must have gotten from his mother if R+l=J is true he got the traits from the parents reversed I agree with his assessment of John character but there is a theory about johns parents makes that part very funny
ogbebabaQuote Reply
Re: fantasy haters
Longstanding criticisms of the fantasy genre, such as overreliance on well-worn narrative tropes (e.g., farmboy quests, dark lords), one-dimensional black-and-white characterizations, overused settings, and magical events that release the author from playing by coherent rules…these are all very serious criticisms indeed and they hit the mark quite painfully for the majority of fantasy works on both page and screen. I have the same problems with the vast majority of fantasy literature and movies/shows.
However, for many of us, the reason we think so highly of GRRM is precisely because we take these criticisms seriously. Despite superficial resemblance to stereotypical fantasy (medieval settings, dragons, supernatural creatures) ASoIaF either deconstructs or does away completely with most of typically-problematic elements of the fantasy genre…it shows convincingly that whatever the problems that plague most fantasy, those problems are not inherent to fantasy per se, and that fantasy is capable of matching the best of non-genre literature in narrative and thematic seriousness, engagement, meaning, and importance.
And this is why it’s so frustrating to see negative reviews that criticize Game of Thrones for being a fake world and having funny names, crudeness, breasts, and leather thongs. That kind of criticism is fundamentally lazy in its emphasis on superficial similarity to fantasy tropes, and indicates the reviewer has utterly failed to divest the minimum effort needed to comprehend the substance of the show.
JRQQuote Reply
You don’t get it, but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to get. It’s just not for you for whatever reason.
Some people will disagree with you. But your opinion is a perfectly valid reason to hate the show in general, and to write a bad review based on your preferences. A review is not a logical debate, know what I mean?
Polly WannaQuote Reply
Hey people, guess what I did today? Got my HBO Adria! :D
Croatia is lock n loaded for 18th April, Game of Thrones at 21:00 baby!
m4st4Quote Reply
JRQ,
You probably want to remember that you are putting multiple reviews together, so of course it won’t make sense. WSJ said excessive nudity and violence is childish. They didn’t say excessive nudity and violence was fantasy-specific. The other review (that doesn’t like long winters) actually tried to reason why she doesn’t like fantasy (and failed because it’s as silly as explaining why fantasy is great). She should have just said ‘fantasy is silly nonsense’ and left it at that.
Polly WannaQuote Reply
Andrija Andrew P,
As Gene Wolfe once said: All writers of fiction write fantasy; some are just more honest about it than others.
JRQQuote Reply
Polly Wanna,
Not reviewing, just hatin’. In a real review, I’d try to sound a little less indignant/ignorant, I think. I hope. XD
Franny BeeQuote Reply
Andrija Andrew P,
I read your post but what I understand was only a sense of defensiveness, like your intelligence is questioned. I’m guessing.
If you are so smart, why respond to a ridiculous, laughable review?
DaveyQuote Reply
Pablo Jainaga,
Really? I mean, you are joking right? You’re just trying to start an argument, right? *sigh*
Becky WilsonQuote Reply
Pablo Jainaga,
The thing about the women…
I think it is just coincidence nothing more.
Remeber the whole lotta (even more nonsense) negative reviews during the LOTR premiere time written by men.
Just to add something: being 30+ female the only thing I found really offensive is the review from WSJ.
I also want to point out that I understand raging of the fans and especialy of us ardent Gatewatchers , but please, do not use rude language, let s stay above that :)
The RabbitQuote Reply
(Thumbs Up) Cool story Bro!
EdQuote Reply
Davey,
Try reading it again, more slowly. Iam explaining things to you here, not trying to be defensive. You talk about “nonsense”. OK, I am talking about why that belief of yours is not correct.
Andrija Andrew PQuote Reply
Pablo JainagaQuote Reply
Andrija Andrew P,
I think you can’t win this one. If you point him to be wrong he’ll probably say you aren’t really understanding what’s he saying and that you’re sounding defensive. ( in fact I think he said just that somewhere but I am too lazy to look for it). On the other hand if you agree with him he will probably be happy with the fact that a fantasy fan is essentially confirming what he said. That fantasy is suitable for five year-olds.
Maester IvoQuote Reply
Tweets from the TV-addict, the Surfreport and Herc from Aintitcool all very positive.
Edit: people do realize that Davey/Whineythepoohbar etc. is the same person trolling these boards since the beginning days of this site right? He feels obliged whenever there is no discussion he should stir things up, so if you want to fall for it I’m not stopping you guys!
KnurkQuote Reply
What’s with all the trolls popping out of the woodwork in the past month?
Is this the sign of mainstream legitimacy for which we’ve all secretly hungered? I mean as annoying as it is, a fairly steady stream of “Hey, you’re all nerds. Bye.” posts suggests to me that HBO’s marketing campaign is gathering a lot of attention. Sure, it’s not the attention one hopes for, but I would think/hope that for every d-bag who decides to spend his or her (well, let’s be honest, likely “his”) time insulting people on a comment section of a blog, there’s got to be a handful who think “huh, looks interesting, I’ll check out the first episode or two…”
JonSnow’sBastardQuote Reply
Polly Wanna,
No, the WSJ review most certainly has exactly the kind of superficial fantasy-specific criticism I was talking about. Witness:
1) the dig at characters with british accents: “…various warriors and women with British accents”.
2) The smarmy and misleading potshot at the tendency of fantasy to include non-human races: “…a scary race called the Dothraki, whose men look like centaurs who have lost their extra legs.”
3) The back-handed “well-if-you-like-that-sort-of-thing” for fantasy-inclined: “…the basic appeal for role-players and other fans of a realm that provides a limitless playing field for their own imaginations.”
4) The direct admission that crudeness is what she expects from fantasy: “Say what you like about creative artistry in this whole new generation of swordsman sagas. One way or another, it was always about the thong.”
JRQQuote Reply
Lots of readers and pull from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, loving these glowing reviews.
FromChaosQuote Reply
wow… the debate is getting hot here and I need to join in with a very small comment of mine. It was already mentioned a couple of times but I would like to go more into the difference between having an opinion and having an argument. The difference is actually quite easy. An opinion basically cannot make an claims of being convincing towards other people. “I like icecream” is an opinion. What do you want to argue about that? So, saying that GoT is awesome or stupid simply because one loves or hates fantasy is an opinion. I think it would be fair to say that some of the reviewers stated an opinion which is not enough for anything to be called a review. This point, however, goes both ways. A review that is highly positive because the reviewer loves fantasy is not enough either.
Now an argument requires a couple of more things. It needs to allow people to be able to disagree which requires 1) a statement, 2) an explanation as to why somebody believes the statement is valid and 3) support by examples. “GoT is great/stupid because I love/hate fantasy” does not fulfill any of the requirements. However, if a reviewer would say something like 1)”GoT is not a good tv-show” because 2)” the acting is bad” and here are a couple of examples, then it would be a different story alltogether.
Sure, everybody is entitled to an opinion. But a reviewer should be able to argue why s/he thinks the review is valid.
marzmanQuote Reply
So.. I just read the WSJ ‘review’. Is that really a review? More like a humorous blurb. I do think the part about Dothraki looking like centaurs is hysterical. The whole thing is meant to be humorous isn’t it? The title of the blurbs is “Servants, Swords and Sad Sex”, and it’s about Borgias, Camelot, GoT, and some other thing. I think the Borgias gets the worst of it, except for the fact they apparently love to post Jeremy Irons’ face up. Poor Irons: remember Dungeons & Dragons the movie with Thora Birch, and even worse, Eragon?
Whiney the PoobarQuote Reply
Who said fantasy is silly nonsense? GTFO!
m4st4Quote Reply
m4st4,
A neki tip se hoće svađati pa bzvz izlučuje tu po komentarima tj. troll-a. A ovaj gore kaj se svađa sam sa sobom mi je najgenijalniji, peca komentare jer si brije da nitko nije pročital lektiru u osnovnoj pa misli kak je strašno pametan.
Anyway how much do you pay per month for HBO Adria? Can you pay for just a month or do you have to sign a contract for 6 months/a year??
Maester IvoQuote Reply
Well, it looks like were gonna get our first “I LIKE fantasy, but not so much GOT”-review. From this guy. http://twitter.com/TVMcGee
Almost looking foward to some possibly well-written critisism. It would be the first (and thats not bad, lets remember that.) Also, his review won’t be read by too many, i guess.
sjweningsQuote Reply
New EW article: http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/04/06/game-of-thrones-sean-bean-cast-fans/
Apparently, the fandom is a hateful, petty and unforgiving *rolleyes*
… Though I’m quite inclined to assume that the author of the article has decided to quote the actors out of context, the same way the fact that the fans’ reactions have been mostly positive until now is completely overlooked.
raliaQuote Reply
I have always agreed with the opinion that Sex and the City was about gay men in NYC, but that casting the show with male actors (pre-Logo TV) was a non-starter in the 1990s.
Maybe that will make you feel a bit better about us women in general. (Not that it excuses the ladies you came across in the HBO store. :)
DH87Quote Reply
Yeah, i mean three out of six of them just say that there have been some silly/stupid comments about them, and i do not disagree. No prob at all. Also, the fans seem to all have come around to accept, even like, NCWs nose…
sjweningsQuote Reply
sjwenings,
Perhaps the show isn’t FANTASY enough for him. In which case, he need not write a word; he shall be immediately dubbed incapable of writing a Game of Thrones review.
Don QuixoteQuote Reply
I find the reviews annoying for most of the reasons already listed. They bash fantasy rather than pointing out anything specific to the show that they do not like. I am female, a geek, and proud of it. I am thrilled that in my 29 years I haven’t lost the ability to fall into a good story and empathize with characters even if the setting isn’t possible in reality.
On the other hand, I find the reviews reassuring. While hoping that the show appeals to a wider audience than just those of us that have picked up the books, we all (hopefully) know that not everyone will like it. The fact that some reviewers are dismissing it out of hand should tell us that HBO and co. did it right. For good or ill, Martin incorporated fantasy elements into the beginning of the story, and it seems that these reviewers see those elements and are turned off. Do I wish they’d written unbiased reviews? Of course, but these kinds should still be expected.
MiraxQuote Reply
sjwenings,
yeah, I don’t have a problem with that story at all — everything they say in that article is true.
JRQQuote Reply
Finally, GRRM saw the first two episodes on the big screen.
He seems very pleased.
The RabbitQuote Reply
T-minus one week! So excited for the hype to be over and the real thing to get here!
DanteQuote Reply
As long as you approve, all is well. ;)
Fat Sword of DoomQuote Reply
Sorry, a bit OT:
I’ve been lurking around here forever, but I thought I’d leave a quick post to tell you guys something awesome.
Today they aired a new Game of Thrones trailer before the movie I went to see in the cinema. I had no idea they were doing that, so it caught me unawares! It was great to see it on the big screen. If only I could watch the series that way too…
Anyway, it seemed to be a mix of some of the other trailers; I didn’t catch any new scenes as far as I could tell. Still, it was great to see the show reaching even more people (I heard quite a few people wondering about it after it was shown).
EvrinQuote Reply
Maester Ivo, volim kad se mi domaći prebacimo na samo nama znani jezik, kao da ne znamo za druge haha, ugl:
HBO Adria is like 55 kunas per month, 40 kunas per 6 months, 25-30 kunas per year. And you can unlock it any time inside your max-tv menu, enjoy bro! ;)
Winter is coming!
m4st4Quote Reply
MSNBC:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40200348/ns/today-entertainment/
Mike ChairQuote Reply
I don’t. Ad Astra (a Toronto SF con) is wrapping up around now, so it’s possible that people there are/were making some arrangements.
I intend to watch it that night, of course, but I’m not sure my husband (who hasn’t read the books) will be back from out of town: if he is, I’ll watch it at home with him; if he isn’t and I’m mobile enough, I might be willing to meet up with locals (my place really isn’t convenient or conducive for gatherings).
By the way, Ontario people, TVOntario is showing The Station Agent with Peter Dinklage on Saturday night. I don’t know if it’s by chance or deliberate, but I appreciate it either way.
Carol WittQuote Reply
Fat Sword of Doom,
So, I gather you approve of my approval. Likewise, I certainly approve of your approval of my approval.
JRQQuote Reply
Ruh roh. Ryan McGee and Dan Owen just posted on twitter they are less than thrilled with GOT. Dan said it’s “been hyped well above its worth”, and Ryan calls his forthcoming review “not a hate piece, but it’s not a lovefest”.
Personally I’m really interested to see if they can come up with some valid reasons why GoT is not the best TV ever made.
There also have been some more tweets of people who loved it, including Jack Moore of ology.com who bought the book after episode 6 because he can’t wait for the show to air to find out what happens next :)
It’s about to get real!
salukQuote Reply
m4st4,
hahaha a dobro dođe tu i tam :)
Thnx for the info I think it is worth it. I mean I usually spend more on coffee in just one week so I think this is a good investment. BTW there is some talk about meeting with fellow GoT fans on Sferakon in May 13-15, I hope that some of our local ppl from this page will be coming there. Znamo da nas ima, ali ne i tko smo. Čista ilegala :)
Maester IvoQuote Reply
Sancho Panza,
Troll? Hmm. Not sure how I earned that…
JRQQuote Reply
Okay. Please remain calm. I’m doing my best to not get overly excited about this. Seriously. It’s probably nothing, but if it’s not too much trouble, can some bottom supporter kindly explain to me in the simplest of terms what this new WSJ piece means when it says this:
Do they mean previews?
Do they mean later in the season episodes will appear first on HBO Go?
If so, when?
Or … * hyperventilating* … do they mean the first episode might available on HBO Go before next Sunday?
Again, I’m trying really hard not to panic. I also urge all of us to remain calm. This is probably a mistake.
So, please, someone, for the love of The Crone, lend us some wisdom.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704843404576251270485306178.html
Mike ChairQuote Reply
The HBO Go schedule has Ep1 listed for 10.05 pm on the 17th so just after it airs on TV.
Maybe future episodes will be put up early.
MormegilQuote Reply
Okay, my brain is totally way too focused on Game of Thrones. I was reading CNN, and saw the headline “Syrian death toll continues to rise” and the first thing I think of is someone over there at CNN is keeping track of Syrio’s bodycount. D’oh!!
purplejillyQuote Reply
Mike Chair,
you just made me go check hbogo and hbo on demand in panic! LOL! and then I spent time watching trailers again because I couldn’t help myself.
purplejillyQuote Reply
Thank you. I’ve stopped shaking. I didn’t see the HBO Go schedule. It isn’t available on HBOGo.com. I found it on HBO.com.
It seems that Ep1 will be available on HBO Go after it airs as you stated. This makes it available on HBO Go before it’s available on Demand which is listed as April 18th.
How about the rest of that article?
Mike ChairQuote Reply
That Variety review is one of the key “gets” for the series or any series. That one holds a lot of weight. A few more national and international review of that nature and GOT will own the “critically acclaimed” title already.
(A.S.T.B.)
Larry D CurtisQuote Reply
More Epic goodness, new GoT promo???!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVQsyZLtKg&feature=player_embedded
David GilroyQuote Reply
ogbebaba,
It seems like he Harington of has to hastily add that the “fire” comes from his mother’s side, as opposed to his Stark side. Otherwise he’s just being spoilerish about R+L=J (if it’s true, and he seems to think it is).
But yeah, it’s pretty amusing.
Notmy RealnameQuote Reply
I suppose I deserved that.
Mike ChairQuote Reply
Mike Chair,
;-)
David GilroyQuote Reply
stevelabny,
This made me laugh XD
As I mentioned on Cultural Learnings, I have a handful of critics I follow because we share similar interests. I don’t always agree with them, but for the most part I respect their opinions. I am waiting for their reviews (to pass the time between now and the premier) and not worrying myself over critics I am not familiar with. Plus, my opinion of the show outweighs the critics any day. Until I see the series, I can’t defend the TV series, but I can say that a critic who hates fantasy or TV series with sex (are there really any TV series these days without sex??) loses credibility with me since they were never going to like this series regardless of how well made the show is.
sareetaQuote Reply
Pablo Jainaga,
It’s also a fact that men tend to cite scientific evidence to support their preconceived notions. I read about it in a study somewhere.
Steven SwansonQuote Reply
Could someone kindly remind me who the hell Ryan McGee and Dan Owen are?
the goatQuote Reply
the goat,
I didn’t know them before seeing their tweets, they seem to both be tv bloggers. Ryan McGee does a podcast with Maureen Ryan called Ryan + Ryan: http://web.me.com/mcgeeryan/The_Pod_Squad/Talking_TV_with_Ryan_and_Ryan/Talking_TV_with_Ryan_and_Ryan.html.
Owen’s blog is here: http://danowen.blogspot.com/
I agree with a lot of his reviews, not all of them of course, but I like his writing style. It will interesting to have a british perspective I think. Not sure when their reviews are coming out, but I think one of Ryan’s tweets mentioned the next podcast tomorrow would be GoT oriented. In which case we can hear Mo talk about it as well.
salukQuote Reply
Saw this on twitter and didn’t see it posted here, I posted this on the latest thread as well.
Craziest HBO GoT marketing
The DarkStarQuote Reply
Steven Swanson,
next time I attend a soccer game I will remember you and wonder If my preconceived distribution of 90% men 10% women had any basis or if I got it right just out of pure luck.
But it seems the pollitically correct thing is saying I expect fifty-fifty because men and women are alike and share the same interests.
Get over it. Yesterday I had a family meeting and me and my cousin were talking about how cool Game of Thrones will be. We both have read the books. His girlfriend and my wife said they would watch the show just to please us, but though It was a genre for nerds and freaks. My mom, aunt, two sisters, girl cousing, all said no way on earth I watch that. My dad, uncle, sister´s boyfriend, all said I will give it a chance.
Take a random woman reviewing the show and the chances she dislikes it just for being fantasy are high. Not saying anything negative about them (I love you girls), it´s just a fact.
Pablo JainagaQuote Reply
It’s not a “fact”. I know as many guys who would say that about fantasy as I do girls. It’s a cultural thing.
There’s no innate “girlness” or “guyness” in the actual content, but I would agree the genre does skew towards male as a whole. Lord of the Rings, one of the most famous, had very few female characters, and of those they were kind of shoehorned into bigger parts. Still, the ladies flocked to it.
If you pick a random fantasy book off the shelf, chances are the depicted character is either male, or a female on the verge of a wardrobe malfunction. It comes down to less male authors than female.
But it’s more the perception of these things than the actual content that scares people away, and the stigma attached to it (if I like this, people will think I’m a geek, because in high school we made fun of people who liked this sort of thing). I think girls might be more made fun of for liking it, in the same way guys might be ostracized for liking Jane Eyre, even though that’s a really good story.
But with things like Twilight, Time Travelers wife, and other popular fantasy/sci-fi type books aimed at the female market, I think the walls are really coming down. And then there is the historical fiction draw, for instance the Tudors was really popular among women to see what crazy antics the hot Rhys Meyers was up to next; and some of that love could easily spill over into something like GoT. I don’t personally know any guys who liked that show in fact. But the women do for some reason…
There’s really not a lot of facts to go on at this point. I know that in my family, the women are more interested than the men on average (me being the only one who read the book). I even almost got my sister to read the book, and she doesn’t like long ones :) She hasn’t read it yet, but maybe someday, or maybe she’ll just stick with the show! On the other hand, her boyfriend couldn’t even be convinced to watch the 15 minutes.
Anecdotes don’t get us very far.
salukQuote Reply
Maester Ivo,
brojčano smo iznenadili i sami sebe :)
The_Rabbit01Quote Reply
correct – making sweeping gender/ genre statements based on anecdotal evidence your bound to run into problems.
there is a perceived notion that fantasy is more a blokes thing that a chicks thing but i’m sure its just that – perceived – authors such as Ursula Le Guin and Tamorra Pierce, Anne McCaffery, Marion Zimmer Bradley are all very well established female authors writing fantasy which has always been well recieved by a female audience and from what i can tell GRRM has a huge female following.
Just cos there were no chicks at our D&D sessions when we were youngsters doesn’t mean chicks don’t dig good fantasy and women don’t write equally awesome fantasy.
David GilroyQuote Reply
An OT question.
Will the next season “knock on wood” allso be named Game of Thrones, or will they go with A Clash of Kings?
Seems like marketing suicide to change the title of the show.
D94Quote Reply
D94,
I’m sure it will be called Game of Thrones, Season 2.
LexQuote Reply
Not exactly a review, but a pretty cool and positive overview of the show, along with new interview quotes from Sean Bean:
“The amount of production value that was put into Game of Thrones was incredible, unlike anything I’ve been in, including Lord of the Rings,” Bean said. “I was proud to be a part of it, frankly — the attention to detail, the sheer size of it all, the craftsmanship of the sets, the studio, the costumes, everything … I hope everyone who sees it will be fascinated by what we’ve achieved.”
http://www.timescolonist.com/entertainment/plays+Game+Thrones/4574621/story.html
AceQuote Reply
The WSJ reviewer also said she liked Camelot much better than the Borgias.
That itself disqualifies her from reviewing.
The Borgias kept me glued to the screen – Camelot had me turn it off.
Obviously, there’s somebody who cannot handle the complex and gritty. Somebody who was probably a Xena fan.
JennyQuote Reply
gods. all these “they said XY so they are idiots” towards the reviewers.
we cant blame them for having prejudices against fantasy and at the same time bringing up such nonsense.
BeneQuote Reply
My dear, have you seen both Borgias and Camelot?
There is an undeniable gap between the production value of those two in terms of acting, plot, script, props and CGI.
There is no comparing them.
I don’t mind the reviewer’s opinion but for us as GOT fans her review is not interesting since obviously her idea of quality is not our own.
JennyQuote Reply
There’s people who like Bieber better than Beethoven.
Yet, I don’t believe there can be any doubt about who’s the better composer.
JennyQuote Reply
LOL I’ll remember that on my next World of Warcraft raid tonite and laugh…and our guild is run by a girl, our priest CL and co-RL is a girl and we have 2 more girls in it…but 90+% of WoW players are guys. (And therer’s millions of us. Pretty big statistical sample)
Man and Woman have different interests, get over it.
PS: And thank god for it.
PSS: If u don’t believe it, ask any publicist. They make money out of it.
PSSS: What I dont agree is that a female reviewer is biased againts it just for being female. That is a discrete example, and will depend solely in that revier particular interests.
ThorrgalQuote Reply
And there are those of us who prefer Ozzy to both. That reminds me. How do we get Ozzy a cameo in GoT?
Mike ChairQuote Reply
Mike Chair,
Wan’t that Ozzy playing the Wight?
Fate’s BitchQuote Reply
now that sounds more reasonable.
but i actually wasnt arguing about borgias or camelot but about prejudices.
your
is something that was done pretty often here lately. you take one of her statements / opinions and form an overall judgement about the writer out of it.
if we expect others (especially reviewers) to be open minded about fantasy and the show, it would seem we shouldnt be at hand with such cheap statements ourselves.
no offence intended, jenny, i just picked your quote bcs it was the last in a long row of such statements.
BeneQuote Reply
Some fantasy is certainly more traditionally masculine; think Glen Cook’s Black Company, or a Warhammer novel. Some fantasy novels play up to masculine ideals, are purely plot-driven, and have almost no female characters.
Bilbo Baggins the HoQuote Reply
That ’40′ score on Metacritic kills me. Does anyone else have the feeling Nancy DeWolf Smith didn’t bother going beyond the first episode? From what I understand all of the “infantile” things she describes appear fairly early on…
Sam DeGreeQuote Reply