More season two reviews
By Winter Is Coming on in Reviews.

The reviews for season two of Game of Thrones continue to come in and most are positively glowing. I’m not going to try and link to all of them, but here are some notable ones.

Mo Ryan of The Huffington Post writes in her season two review:

It’s gratifying to be able to say that the first four hours of Season 2 of “Game of Thrones” are far more elegant and engaging [than early Season 1 episodes]. It helps that most of the characters are already established, but there’s more to it than that; the confidence and dexterity that were on display in the second half of Season 1 are even more in evidence in Season 2. The show occasionally felt weighted down by expectations in its first season, but it demonstrates a lighter touch this year

Alan Sepinwall has this to say in his review for HitFix:

The show feels more confident in many other ways. It’s smoother in transitioning from character to character, city to city, even as it has to do it more quickly than ever before. (The one major returning character who seems to suffer a bit is Daenerys, as her appearances in the early going tend to be brief, and still a continent away from the rest of the action.) It’s even more willing to use humor to keep the fantasy elements from seeming ponderous, while being bolder in its depiction of the magical side of things. (Among other things, I finally understand what the big deal is with the direwolves.)

Lori Rackl of The Chicago Sun-Times admits to becoming a fan this season, after not watching season one:

When the screener for hotly anticipated season two landed in my mailbox, I figured I’d try an experiment: Could a “Thrones” virgin jump in at the start of the second season and a) have any idea what’s going on and b) become hooked?

The answer to “a” is kind of; for “b,” definitely.

After watching the season two premiere, I camped out on my couch that weekend and plowed through season one. Not because I had to, although it certainly cleared up a lot of questions. I did it because I wanted to, because this season’s premiere was so engrossing I had to know the narrative that led up to it.

Verne Gay of Newsday calls Thrones TV’s best drama:

“Thrones” is the rarest of the rare — a TV show with lofty intellectual ambitions that manages to be entertaining and even strangely relevant at the same time. How so? Think of “Game of Thrones” as a long meditation on opposites — light and darkness, north and south, night and day, fire and ice, realism and magic, true gods (and kings) and false idols, country and city, good and evil — and how these rule human affairs, notably the quest for power. That’s your connective thread, or (better yet) your flashlight, as you pick your way through the dark mysterious byways of this thrilling series.

David Hinckley of the NY Daily News seems to like the show, despite its complexity:

“Game of Thrones” still isn’t for everyone, and viewers just arriving Sunday for the premiere of season two should budget extra time to figure out the back story. But for fans of fantasy-world drama, “Game of Thrones” has a coherence on multiple levels that was missing in a similarly ambitious project like “Terra Nova.” You just wish sometimes that the players would wear numbers so you could buy a program to help keep them straight. Then, too, the players keep changing, because the show keeps killing them off. Human life is cheap on “Game of Thrones.”

While Neil Genzlinger of the NY Times finds the show confusing AND somewhat beneath him:

Some people love this kind of stuff, of course, and presumably those addicted to the George R. R. Martin books on which the series is based will immerse themselves in Season 2, just as they did in Season 1. Will anyone else? You have to have a fair amount of free time on your hands to stick with “Game of Thrones,” and a fairly low reward threshold. If decapitations and regular helpings of bare breasts and buttocks are all you require of your television, step right up.

Winter Is Coming: Great reviews! Well, except for that NY Times one. How out-of-touch does that guy sound? The show doesn’t have an audience outside of book fans and D&D nerds? Tell that to the HBO execs, who are currently swimming in piles of money earned off of this show.


96 Comments

  1. userj
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    I said this before but the NYT review is totally legitimate. He doesn’t like the series not because he’s “confused” or “elitist”. He doesn’t like it because he feels it’s all politics and no substance. I have may friends and family who feel the same way about the books. It’s too bleak, and there’s no one they empathized with enough to keep reading after Ned died. This is not elitism. It’s a legitimate opinion, however insultingly phrased.

    (first???)

  2. Damián Erro
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    First! awww yeaaah!

    edit: damn..

  3. TastesLikeTheSea
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    BOOOO New York.

  4. the waif
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    loved them all (except NYT)…..this season is gonna break all the record…
    by the way GOT blue ray Sales made HBO $32M as per the-numbers.com

    damn i thought ,i was first

  5. Dee
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    (The one major returning character who seems to suffer a bit is Daenerys, as her appearances in the early going tend to be brief, and still a continent away from the rest of the action.)

    I’m afraid this will only become more pronounced in future seasons. It will be interesting to see if the show handles it any better than the books.

  6. Paco
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    Sepinwalls review gives me hope that the direwolves will be finally be adequately represented in this season

  7. DavosFTW!
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    Davos not good enough for you Neil? Well you can go fornicate elsewhere.

    DavosFTW!

    also, 5th!!

    Oh yeah even better 7th!!! Woohoo. Seven gods batches none of this one business!

  8. Maxwell James
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    userj,

    Summarizing my response from prior thread: I agree there’s nothing elitist about having difficulty connecting to the characters or plot of the story. Obviously, that hasn’t been a problem for me, but I also have loved ones and friends who tried the books (and/or show) & couldn’t get into it.

    But the job of a critic is to try to at least understand the appeal of a work of art before judging whether it was successful or not. He didn’t even try. And he did cloak his dismissal of it with snobbery, which is elitism by definition.

  9. Sindragosa
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    Any word from Ginia Bellafante?

  10. Ours is the Fury
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    userj,

    Speaking sneeringly of the Dungeons and Dragons crowd reeks of snobbery. Not to mention its just a lousy comparison, so it’s sloppy writing. He had legit criticisms of the show but buried them with his attitude.

  11. Carcin
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    He doesn’t like it because he feels it’s all politics and no substance. I have may friends and family who feel the same way about the books. It’s too bleak, and there’s no one they empathized with enough to keep reading after Ned died.

    Err, just curious: in what way is feeling “it’s all politics and no substance” the same as “It’s too bleak, and there’s no one they empathized with” ?

    These are two entirely different points of view…

    And, as has been pointed out: D&D bashing is the absolute laziest way to approach a genre review, “legitimate” or not. So I think that colors the reaction.

  12. H, aka Vee
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    Maxwell James:
    But the job of a critic is to try to at least understand the appeal of a work of art before judging whether it was successful or not. He didn’t even try. And he did cloak his dismissal of it with snobbery, which is elitism by definition.

    Agreed. “Some people love this kind of stuff” and a D&D reference? That’s dismissive of the genre right off the bat, which undercuts whatever legitimate points he makes throughout the rest of the review. He’s making a back-handed judgment of the audience at that point.

  13. Mirax
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    userj,

    I’m sure it would be a a more respected review if it didn’t seem so out of touch with the reality of the series.

    “Thinking of jumping into the new season without having seen the first? Don’t even try; your brain doesn’t have that many neurons. ” This quote is especially funny when considering the article written by the Chicago Sun Times reviewer (http://t.co/180VkXfr) about how he watched the first ep of season 2 without having watched season 1 specifically to see if he could follow, and while it wasn’t super easy, it was doable. Here’s a quote, “I figured I’d try an experiment: Could a “Thrones” virgin jump in at the start of the second season and a) have any idea what’s going on and b) become hooked? The answer to “a” is kind of; for “b,” definitely. After watching the season two premiere, I camped out on my couch that weekend and plowed through season one. Not because I had to, although it certainly cleared up a lot of questions. I did it because I wanted to, because this season’s premiere was so engrossing I had to know the narrative that led up to it.”

    Throw in lines like this: “If decapitations and regular helpings of bare breasts and buttocks are all you require of your television, step right up” and “What “Game of Thrones” needs if it is to expand its fan base beyond Dungeons & Dragons types”, and it’s easy to see why fans are so dismissive of the reviewer as having a legit criticism.

    EDIT:: Not trying to jump your case, I wrote this when there were only two comments. Apparently I’m not as fast as I thought I was. : )

  14. Sangbaran Dasgupta
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    If decapitations and regular helpings of bare breasts and buttocks are all you require of your television, step right up. …. was the reporter smoking a pot while watching GOT??
    If he wants decapitation and nudity and sex…spartacus is the series.
    I haven’t watched a series whcih has such an intense story and so many twists and turns.
    guess the journo was hoping for Twilight. #moron

  15. Nick
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    userj,

    I disagree – I think the NYT reviewer IS confused, as evidenced by his clearly incorrect statement that enemies and allies might as well be assigned by throwing darts at a board. This seems to me to suggest that he just hasn’t put in the time/effort to really understand the series – whether it’s because he went in with preconceived notions or just because he didn’t really care, I’m not sure.

    To make the obvious comparison, the various relationships in The Wire were similarly complex, and everyone’s allegiances were never completely laid out all at once (and often shifted to suit their own desires). I get the feeling that the reviewer would have been willing to put in the “work” in deciphering that show because it felt “important,” while he feels this is nothing but a nerdy fantasy series that isn’t worth his time.

    And yes, as others have pointed out the D&D comparison is about as lazy as it gets. It’s almost as bad as the argument that so many print or TV journalists like to make that all bloggers “live in their mother’s basement.”

  16. the waif
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 12:10 pm | Permalink
  17. Joshua Taylor
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    userj,

    Yeah it’s funny though how a critic of his mindset can criticize GoT for being bleak and violent yet they praise shows like The Wire.

    Again it comes to this: there are many people who do not see the point of mixing gritty realism in fantasy.

    I agree the critic have been more open minded with the demographic but I got the sense that he was disturbed by it all. “What’s the point of it all?” sort of sums his perspective up.

  18. serum
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    Sangbaran Dasgupta,

    yeah, his review really sucked and he really had no clue what he was talking about, I dont think he even watched the show, someone probably told him about it and thats he formed his opinion!

  19. fiende
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    New York Times: The FOX News of fantasy-drama.

  20. Anvil
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    Sindragosa:
    Any word from Ginia Bellafante?

    Neil Genzlinger seems to be her replacement.

  21. GoTtranscendsFantasy
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    Mirax,

    Right on! And I actually have always hated Fantasy and anything to do with Dungeons and Dragons, or medeival or ancient times. I thought the Lord of the Rings movies were the most overrated ever. Ditto for “Gladiator” with Russel Crowe. “Spartacus” and “Camelot” on Starz totally suck. “Harry Potter” is for kids and nerds who love magic and that sort of thing. The DD comment can be made for everything mentioned in this paragraph.

    GoT though? Come on, you have to be a total idiot or someone who can’t tolerate the realities of life, to not be a fan of the show. It’s much more like “Sopranos” or “Deadwood”, or even “The Wire” than anything Fantasy. The NY Times reviewer needs to be fired immediately!

  22. userj
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    Nick: his clearly incorrect statement that enemies and allies might as well be assigned by throwing darts at a board.

    But isn’t one of the major themes of the books that alliances are both arbitrary (like a dart board) and short-lived? That’s what I get out of that statement. Its not incorrect.

    This seems to me to suggest that he just hasn’t put in the time/effort to really understand the series – whether it’s because he went in with preconceived notions or just because he didn’t really care, I’m not sure.

    The fact that his criticisms match exactly ones I’v heard from friends/family to me indicates that he gets it as much as they did. Maybe his preconceived notion was “I enjoy series in which I care about the characters with the most screentime more than ones where I barely care about anyone.”

    the various relationships in The Wire were similarly complex, and everyone’s allegiances were never completely laid out all at once (and often shifted to suit their own desires). I get the feeling that the reviewer would have been willing to put in the “work” in deciphering that show because it felt “important,” while he feels this is nothing but a nerdy fantasy series that isn’t worth his time.

    This is possible – do we have a review of The Wire by the same critic? But to put a personal spin on it, when I watched the first few episodes of The Wire I really thought it wasn’t for me and stopped watching for more than a year. Not because I was “confused” but because – like this review – I didn’t care about anyone. Everyone seemed morally bankrupt and the world was so grimdark I didn’t care to spend more time feeling depressed in front of my TV. I’m still trying to get into it because of all the comparisons to GoT, but it’s been difficult.

    Carcin: Err, just curious: in what way is feeling “it’s all politics and no substance” the same as “It’s too bleak, and there’s no one they empathized with” ?

    They are both criticisms that this reviewer made (see my tumblr for the relavent quotes if you like)

  23. HB
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    That NYT guy has fair points. Some of the things he says are things we have all worried about. Mostly prior to season one, but whether non-book readers can keep up with everything is a fair point. However, it is wrapped in a foul package of snobbery.

    Sangbaran Dasgupta: I haven’t watched a series whcih has such an intense story and so many twists and turns.

    I hope you meant that about Spartacus, because that show is on par with GoT when storytelling is concerned. It is a different type of show and its production values might not be as high as GoT. On the story front however, it is definitely very, very good.

  24. John W
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    Great news!

  25. the waif
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    Mirax: Chicago Sun Times reviewer (http://t.co/180VkXfr) about how he watched the first ep of season 2 without having watched season 1 specifically to see if he could follow, and while it wasn’t super easy, it was doable. Here’s a quote, “I figured I’d try an experiment: Could a “Thrones” virgin jump in at the start of the second season and a) have any idea what’s going on and b) become hooked? The answer to “a” is kind of; for “b,” definitely. After watching the season two premiere, I camped out on my couch that weekend and plowed through season one. Not because I had to, although it certainly cleared up a lot of questions. I did it because I wanted to, because this season’s premiere was so engrossing I had to know the narrative that led up to it.

    HB,

    he was a non-book reader and he get glued to the show….

  26. Convivial Edd
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    NY Times being snobby and pretentious?

    There’s a departure.

  27. garik16
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    I’m amused that the Slate reviewer calls her “Asha” Greyjoy when they’ve apprently changed her name to Yara. Methinks he either has read the book or has looked up on a wiki the name of the character.

  28. purplejilly
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    from Sepinwall:

    There are a few instances where more actually is a bit less — the show becomes even more brazen in its use of what TV academic/blogger Myles McNutt dubbed “sexposition,” where characters only reveal their innermost secrets while cavorting with naked prostitutes — but almost everywhere you look in Westeros, and in “Game of Thrones” season 2, more is better.

    Ugh, this isn’t what I wanted to hear! More Ros-position on the way…

  29. Michael Tschuertz
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    funny thing:
    over at fleshbot they have
    A Field Guide To Emilia Clarke
    but careful totaly not safe for work.

  30. KG
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    Ours is the Fury,

    What’s wrong with playing Dungeons & Dragons?

    (Suspicious glare)

  31. Mirax
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    GoTtranscendsFantasy: GoT though? Come on, you have to be a total idiot or someone who can’t tolerate the realities of life, to not be a fan of the show.

    Not sure if you’re agreeing with me or being sarcastic. In any case, to clarify, when I wrote

    Mirax: I’m sure it would be a a more respected review if it didn’t seem so out of touch with the reality of the series.

    I didn’t mean he should like it because the series has a gritty, realistic nature. I meant that his comment about what the series needs in order to expand past the geek/nerd/D&D fan base is an out of touch statement. More than enough data has been released on viewership numbers, book sales, box set sales, and online non-fantasy fan “confessions” about liking the series to show that it has ALREADY surpassed the geek/nerd/D&D fan base. My point was that in the minds of fans, the validity of his review is hurt by these condescending and inaccurate statements.

  32. FacelessMan
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    “If you find yourself looking forward to Joffrey’s scenes, there’s something wrong with you. ”

    I love it when reviewers make such mocking generalizations about the audience. What a brilliant — and not at all snobby — review.

  33. Billy
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    fiende,

    Hmm, I didn’t find the review fair and balanced at all.

  34. Ours is the Fury
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    KG,
    Did you actually read my post? I spoke poorly of the critic for sneering about it.

  35. Steven Swanson
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    H, aka Vee: Agreed. “Some people love this kind of stuff” and a D&D reference? That’s dismissive of the genre right off the bat, which undercuts whatever legitimate points he makes throughout the rest of the review. He’s making a back-handed judgment of the audience at that point.

    He’s pandering to his own audience, both the elitist snobs who pay him and the people they think read their esteemed paper.

    He came off to me like either somebody who forgot to take his Ritalin so had trouble focusing (“Wait, who’s the hero? Who do I care about? I can’t focus, arrghh!!!”) or somebody who just isn’t very smart and doesn’t particularly care about making the necessary effort that would allow him to become absorbed in the storyline.

  36. Arya Stark
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    Weese. Dunsen, Chiswyck, Polliver, Raff the Sweetling. The Tickler and the Hound. Ser Gregor, Ser Amory, Ser Ilyn, Ser Meryn, King Joffrey, Queen Cersei. Ginia Bellafante, Neil Genzlinger and New York Times.

    Nancy DeWolf Smith is off the hook for now, but her change of opinion was fishy. Valar Morghulis, Valar Dohaeris.

  37. Michael Tschuertz
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    FacelessMan:
    “If you find yourself looking forward to Joffrey’s scenes, there’s something wrong with you. ”

    I love it when reviewers make such mocking generalizations about the audience. What a brilliant — and not at all snobby — review.

    so there is something wrong with me? good to know! ;-)

  38. Tolgeros
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    In the second-to-last episode last season, “Game of Thrones” in effect ate its own heart by killing off its main and most noble character, Ned Stark, who was played by Sean Bean, perhaps the best-known actor in this cast-of-thousands extravaganza.

    So the question for HBO as Season 2 begins on Sunday is this: Who is going to replace Ned as a focus of the series? The answer, at least four episodes in: no one.

    The death of Ned is the personification of the idea that this ain’t your grandpa’s fantasy. There needn’t always be a main character, and those who the audience would consider “honorable” don’t always get what they deserve, especially in a dark medieval setting. Ned, the most central and sympathetic character, lost at the game of thrones and paid for it with his life. To expect that the show is just going to replace Ned with another “focus of the series” is to miss the point entirely.

    Everyone else is busy preparing for war, though against whom seems to be almost random, as if enemies and allies were assigned by throwing darts at a wall chart. “Another king?” Cersei (Lena Headey) says in the season’s second episode, referring to one of those who are gathering armies and staking a claim to the throne. “How many is that now? Five? I’ve lost count.” You aren’t the only one, Your Majesty.

    If he’d paid attention during season 1, he would’ve realized that the five kings are anything but random. Renly was clearly hinted at becoming a king in his scene with Loras. Stannis was mentioned a thousand times to be the rightful heir (if you accept Joffrey’s bastardom). Robb was already made King in the North. The only king that maybe comes out of left field is Balon Greyjoy, who, as season 1 explains, has a history of rebellion. I’m sure this will be elaborated on in Theon’s scenes. These facts about kings and factions may seem complicated, but it’s really not any more complicated than many other HBO programs. The Wire comes to mind. Not being jaded about an entire genre helps.

    Some people love this kind of stuff, of course, and presumably those addicted to the George R. R. Martin books on which the series is based will immerse themselves in Season 2, just as they did in Season 1. Will anyone else? You have to have a fair amount of free time on your hands to stick with “Game of Thrones,” and a fairly low reward threshold. If decapitations and regular helpings of bare breasts and buttocks are all you require of your television, step right up.

    The insulting nature of this paragraph is self-evident.

    Also I’m not sure what he means by needing a fair amount of free time on your hands to enjoy GoT. You watch an episode, and then the next, and then the next. It’s not like you have to do homework. Most people seem to get most if not all of the relevant information in each episode without having to re-watch it. Maybe he’s dumb? Just a hypothesis.

    What “Game of Thrones” needs if it is to expand its fan base beyond Dungeons & Dragons types[...]

    Is this really in a professional review???

  39. Alan
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    It’s not elitist to not like the series. But acting as if the series is unattractive to anyone who doesn’t like fantasy is inaccurate.

    I have a ton of friends who won’t touch fantasy books or shows normally who love this show. He’s projecting strongly his own dislike, which is admittedly what critics are supposed to do. But it feels odd and insulting when a) there’s so much counter evidence out there and b) he phrases it as he does.

    It’s actually not very fantasy to have no clear hero or an ambiguous sense of wrong and right. In a lot of ways, this book won’t appeal to everyone who loved say, Lord of the Rings. It has much in common with the characters from Mad Men (pretty much wholly unlikeable) or the Sopranos (more likeable characters but still).

  40. Mike Johnson
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    It is permissible to combat elitism with elitism. Therefore…

    Neil,

    I am a college literature professor and Department Chair. I teach fantasy as a literary genre and as a college course. Fantasy is sometimes harder to understand than other forms of literature because it refuses to accept realism as the only valid literary mode of critiquing and observing the real world. Some readers are intellectually challenged by negotiating that divide between reality and fantasy; they often find themselves incapable of employing their imaginations to the extent that the fantasy genre demands. That difficulty often extends to viewing fantasy and appreciating its thematic complexity. It’s ok. Those readers and viewers can still be comforted by the vast number of books and television shows that don’t present such imaginative or intellectual challenges.

    Love,

    Mike

  41. Steel_Wind
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    the waif:
    …..this season is gonna break all the record…by the way GOT blue ray Sales made HBO $32M as per the-numbers.com

    And another $20 million in DVD sales, too. That’s in only the first two weeks! Long term, there is every reason to think that the cost of the entire first season could be paid for by the gross sales of the DVD and Blu-Rays alone.

    Which makes every dollar earned on subscriptions and licensing pretty much pure profit after marketing expenses are accounted for. In $$ terms, Game ofThrones is set to move into HBO’s pole position.

    This should come as no surprise to anyone.

    HBO must have always hoped that a well executed series would bring a legion of fans to avidly buy the collector’s sets for each season as well. Hoping is not the same thing as knowing — but now they have the proof in those sales figures. I am sure that these exceptionally strong sales figures for the disc collections have the HBO execs high-fiving and smiling, reaching for cigars and brandy snifters.

    Make no mistake, with sales numbers like that, it literally does not matter what the season opener ratings are. Season 3 and 4 will be greenlit based on the strong disc sales of Season 1 alone.

    Game of Thrones is a perfect storm for HBO. It wins awards and is critically acclaimed. It brings prestige to the network among the glitterati. And it’s popular, too. So much so it may now be in a position to truly drive subscription sales. Game of Thrones is an ongoing novel series with at least two more books to come with a fanbase that is FAR more engaged and hardcore in a way that Charlaine Harris’ Sookie Stackhouse Southern Vampire novels just are not and never will be.

    Moreover, GRRM fans are COLLECTORS of the series in a way that Charlaine Harri’s Tru Blood fans are not, either. The proof is not only in the # NYTimes sales figures, it’s in your local used bookstore.

    If there should be any doubt, go look in your local used bookstore and search for used copies of any of the novels in A Song of Ice and Fire. On an off week, you *may* find one here and there with a TV series tie-in cover. But my bet is that it is most likely that *you won’t find a single one of them for sale in the used section*. This series is still ongoing and it is kept and treasured by GRRM’s fans who will do the same with the disc collections on an ongoing basis, too. And that promise of future sales of more collectors sets is money in the bank for HBO.

    While you are in that used bookstore, looking for and NOT FINDING copies from A Song of Ice nad Fire, have a look for Charlaine Harris’ books too. My bet: you will find multiple copies of virtually every one of those novels ever written, at least 8 or 9 of the 11 in her Southern Vampire Series will be on the used shelf in abundance.

    Mainstream fans are fickle and today’s pop culture is tomorrow’s trash. GRRM’s fans, on the other hand, are in it for the long haul. These two “fantasy” series in production by HBO are only superficially similar. In terms of bigger and a more sustained profit over time? Game of Thrones is the smarter bet, by far.

    You watch the ratings for this one on Sunday Night. My expectation is that ratings will be up at 4 million + and those ratings will climb for most of the season, too.

  42. Thiago Slash
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    I think the NYT post just underestimates people. hence, I thought it ridiculous.

    it basically says everyone is a Homer Simpson, and won’t understand it’s twists and intricate plots, so they shouldn’t bother trying to watch the show at all.

  43. Olena
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    I hate fantasy, but I LOVE this show :)

  44. Kieran E
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    I can certainly see why some people may not like GoT, but to sum up its appeal for those who will be satisified with it as decapitations and bare breasts and buttocks (when in fact the presence of sexposition was something many people who loved the show mocked) is intended to be an insult, as opposed to just saying, ‘people who don’t like the fantasy genre will not find much payoff’, which is defensible even if I think it is misguided.

    Curious that apparently he feels most characters have no depth though, when the depth of characters is usually highlighted as a major positive for the books, and indeed the show so far. I think he’s wrong, but at least I don’t feel I’ve been told I’m a stupid, horny nerd for liking the show with points like that.

  45. Thiago Slash
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    the waif:
    interview about dinklage to mope up stains?lol…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/peter-dinklage-was-smart-to-say-no.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all?src=tp

    great interview indeed. the more I hear of Dinklage, the more I like him! nie to know his background history

  46. saphana
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    Ours is the Fury,

    Ours is the Fury:
    KG,
    Did you actually read my post? I spoke poorly of the critic for sneering about it.

    Our’s is The Fury,

    please don’t be so hard on KG. In a way, s/he represents a majority of “viewers” (= not having read the books, not having been immersed in season 1 etc.), which actually means – the D&D players are an audience HBO is trying to target. The NYT article isn’t helping here, branding all D&D lovers as “looneys”; and yes, the article is “sneering”. OTOH, given the choice to discuss the series with the “untouched” D&D audience – as opposed to the “the cast must be white-skinned to match the canon of the book (as represented by Linda Antonsson) hardcores, I’m positive, the former are a much more rewarding partner. I’d rather argue the absence of real magic with a D&D nerd than Nonso Anozie’s lack of white skin for a Quartheen (or his – according to Linda Antonsson: poor acting) with westeros.org.

  47. nate
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    I really don’t understand the reviewers or people in general whom continue to compare Game of Thrones to The Sopranos. It’s NOTHING like the Sopranos. The Sopranos had one central character who was the focus of the show. The show centered around him, his family and mafia buddies and their criminal activities. Game of Thrones does not have one central character, is set in a fantasy world and covers a tapestry of themes, many not related to crime or family. Not to say The Sopranos was low-brow, it definitely had substance, but please stop the comparison with GOT. GOT is a unique and groundbreaking show. The most similar show was The Wire, with it’s multiple grey characters and no central character, but even the Wire tended to focus on one issue at a time. GOT has many interweaving plots happening in tandem.

  48. David W.
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    Just a note: Game of Thrones is up on Metacritic with a score of 93. I know their exact numbers are basically fudged, but hey it’s good publicity!

  49. Restore The Day
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    I found this one much more interesting, and promising:

    http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/11583734-421/the-game-of-thrones-world-pulls-in-another-new-viewer.html

    Now i want to invite the non-S1-viewers to my party!

  50. Chris
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    The line between “geek” and “not-geek” is growing ever more blurred. I don’t think that is due to geeks “growing out” of being geeks, but more so, there is a growing recognition that there is a lot of quality work and art in what might be considered “geek” mediums.

    To say that to not like the show means to not be a fan of “Dungeons and Dragons”-esque things doesn’t come off as insulting to me, but just laughably silly.

    Also, it hints at a growing disconnect between magazines like NYT and WSJ and reality today, and probably also hints at their ever-decreasing subscriptions. It’s like they are chuckling and making pandering jokes to readers that they don’t even realize aren’t reading anymore.

  51. Restore The Day
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    Come on guys, this threads make you sound like RottenTomatoes commenters jumping at any negative (or positive!!) review that breaks their “perfect score”.

    One other interesting review, about women in Game of Thrones. A nice counterpart to a couple reviews that aired last year and were widely controversed:
    http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/story/2012-03-28/game-of-thrones/53836540/1

  52. Sam DeGree
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    David W.:
    Just a note: Game of Thrones is up on Metacritic with a score of 93.I know their exact numbers are basically fudged, but hey it’s good publicity!

    This is good publicity, but note that it doesn’t yet include the NY Times review. When that is added (let’s say it’s a “40″), the score will be around 88–on par with Mad Men is still certainly a very good thing.

  53. Tom Hilton
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    That Neil Genzlinger guy is obviously trying as hard as humanly possibly, but in the end he fails: he just can’t write a review as dumb as Ginia Bellafante’s.

    Almost as dumb. But not quite there.

  54. Tom Hilton
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    In the second-to-last episode last season, “Game of Thrones” in effect ate its own heart by killing off its main and most noble character, Ned Stark, who was played by Sean Bean, perhaps the best-known actor in this cast-of-thousands extravaganza.

    And Tolkien ruined his saga by relegating Bilbo to a minor role and instead focusing on a bunch of unknowns.

  55. Knurk
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    Here’s Knurk’s review of the first two episodes: fucking amazeballs. If you loved season 1, you’ll be fucking ecstatic with what they did with season 2. My sister who doesn’t read the books loved it just as much as I did. She said to me: “I totally forgot how much I fucking loved this show.”

    I want to adress the observation of more sex-scenes this season: in episode 1 there is one very short sex-scene (no sexposition). In episode 2 there are 3 sex-scenes, 1 sexposition scene but this one is literally from the book (saltwives exposition). They were all very, very well done! Maybe the sex explodes in episode 3 and 4?

    These episodes were so much more fluent than season 1, the hours just flew by and there were no clunky scenes. My sister asked me if these episodes were much shorter than the season 1 episodes because she really had the idea last year episodes were a LOT longer.

    Also excellent cinematogrophy, great work from Taylor again. Direwolves and dragons look superb (though I think a running Direwolf will be a very tough assignment and look more fake).

    Nice little changes from the books, nothing bothering at all for me but some people won’t like them.

    If anyone wants to ask me or have any concerns just ask away!

  56. Meg
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

    Wow, the epic smackdowns of the NYT review in the comments are much more entertaining than the review itself. At least one good thing came out of it: excellent writing!

    @knurk – did you get to see the episode where Cersei threatened Littlefinger? How did it play?

  57. Knurk
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    Meg,

    yes, that was episode 1. That was probably the most clunky scene, but for me it established Cersei as a ‘lesser’ player than Littlefinger. She thinks she has the upper hand with her ‘power is power’, but it gave me the impression that Littlefinger’s ‘knowledge is power’ is clearly the better hand. Littlefinger did provoke her though, so her action did seem natural.

  58. Matthew David Bennett
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    I just spent my afternoon reading the flame war going on in the NYT Review comment section. EPIC!!!

    But seriously: I’m not surprised that these reviews are coming in. I don’t think my fandom has blinded me to the fact that this is a genuinely good show. I’m just glad that people who are paid to view it objectively agree as well.

  59. Tom Hilton
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    FYI, there’s an interesting discussion on Twitter right now among Tim Goodman, Daniel Fienberg, Alan Sepinwall, and James Poniewozik about that idiotic NYT review.

  60. Knurk
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    purplejilly:
    from Sepinwall:

    There are a few instances where more actually is a bit less — the show becomes even more brazen in its use of what TV academic/blogger Myles McNutt dubbed “sexposition,” where characters only reveal their innermost secrets while cavorting with naked prostitutes — but almost everywhere you look in Westeros, and in “Game of Thrones” season 2, more is better.

    Ugh, this isn’t what I wanted to hear! More Ros-position on the way…

    I didn’t mind the sexscenes in season 1, but I did get the impression the sexscenes in the first two episodes were handled better than last year’s episodes.

    I’ll write them out in spoilers:

    episode 1 has 1 sexscene, Ros (as Chataya I think) instructs (Ros in clothes mind you) a new girl how to have sex. Very brief sexscene with a lot of screaming, Ros is telling her she is doing it all wrong. This scene probably is needed to establish Ros as a bigger character in season 2, it was cool to see she played ‘Littlefinger’ in this scene. This scene sets up a heart-breaking scene…

    Episode 2 has Theon and the Captain’s daughter. Very graphic scene, probably a bit too long for some people. But this played out like in the books, with some exact same lines. Theon explains what a saltwife is during the sex, so here we have our first sexposition.

    In episode 2 we have a scene with a few people having sex, this one is excellent done in my eyes. After a couple of shots we get a grumpy customer who complains about a crying whore. Littlefinger gives him another one, he has to whipe some cum of here face though… This scene sets up an excellent dialogue between LF and the crying whore!

    And then we have Melisandre and Stannis doing it on the Westeros-table, that one was well done. No talking here, awesomely shot.

  61. Prankster
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    Let’s face it, guys: we’re never going to LIKE a negative review of this show, no matter how it’s phrased. Just accept that it’s never going to be for everyone, and take solace in the fact that we’re looking more and more likely to see the whole story adapted for television, something we were legitimately worried about for a while there.

  62. andrea
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

    Knurk,

    I trust you.

    Are you a critic? (because I´ve said bad things about critics O_O) Sorry? * shrinks with fear*

  63. Lala
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    If my non-political 50-year-old mother who reads Victoria Holt novels in her spare time LOVES the show, understands it, and what is more, can’t wait for the 2nd season, then I sure as hell don’t know what that self-righteous NYT “critic” was talking about.

  64. Knurk
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    andrea,

    lol no, I’m almost ashamed how fanboyishly awesome I think everything is. I just loved every second of it, loved loved loved it.

    Last year I had quite a few niggles and naggles about a lot of things, especially the first 2 episodes. This year all I have is praise. I must say that rewatching the episodes on bluray made me see more flaws in season 1, so maybe I’ll have something to complain about when rewatching these episodes the next weeks when my excitementlevel is toned down a bit.

  65. andrea
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    Knurk,

    Surely I don´t trust critics of any kind, suckers for the show or not but I will put my trust on you.
    I’m pretty sure they have learned a lot from season 1.

  66. Arthur
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    Knurk,

    Wow, sounds awesome! Thanks for that information…

    I hope series two takes everything to the next level and pushes forward all the limits and boundaries of cable television.

    Remember, any publicity is good publicity. All these people who complain about and are outraged about the sexual content, ALWAYS tune in the next week to see more. It seems sometimes as if they look forward to being “offended”, because they seem to know every detail of all the sexposition scenes in the whole series better then I do. I find that kind of funny.

    I look forward to seeing the limits of television being pushed forward on all fronts. Be it of a sexual, violent, or taboo subject matter. We are all adults here and I am sick of the opinions of the easily offended few, have the entire content censored out for the many of us that don’t mind more graphic scenes. Fact of the matter is, Westeros is a very violent world where war, sex and many other adult things happen. Martin doesn’t shy away from these facts, nor should the TV series.

  67. Black Lion
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

    Knurk,

    You are a very lucky Knurk ;). And damn, that sex scene in episode 2 with Stannis and Mel on the Table sounds awesome.

    One of my major gripes with handling sex scenes in S1 was that almost all of them were forced sex or prostitution so I am glad that Loras and Renly won’t be the only pair of genuine lovers who got some attention.

  68. nate
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    Chris,

    agree completely, good post

  69. JamesL
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    Knurk,

    You say the Theon and Captains daughter scene is long and very graphic, is it worse than that Littlefinger brothel scene in s1?

  70. TastesLikeTheSea
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 7:00 pm | Permalink
  71. Steven Swanson
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    Prankster: Let’s face it, guys: we’re never going to LIKE a negative review of this show, no matter how it’s phrased. Just accept that it’s never going to be for everyone, and take solace in the fact that we’re looking more and more likely to see the whole story adapted for television, something we were legitimately worried about for a while there.

    Personally I don’t care if a review is negative, but I do care if it’s stupid and negative, emphasis on the stupid. And yes, that NYT review was incredibly stupid.

  72. Joshua Taylor
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    Prankster,

    Bad news for Linda Antonnson and co. Who would rather have two or three seasons of slavish adaptation and be cancelled than to have the series go on so everyone but them can enjoy it.

  73. the waif
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    Good review of LA

  74. Macha
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    Knurk,

    Love your enthusiasm! Heck, I knew season 2 was going to be good, but I didn’t expect quite so many positive reviews, this is fantastic.

    And can I just say…Mel&Stannis’ scene sounds f****** awesome. It’ll make some book readers go insane though… and what a glorious sight that will be!

  75. the goat
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

    userj: userj
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 12:19 pm | Permalink
    Nick: his clearly incorrect statement that enemies and allies might as well be assigned by throwing darts at a board.

    But isn’t one of the major themes of the books that alliances are both arbitrary (like a dart board) and short-lived? That’s what I get out of that statement. Its not incorrect.

    So the 20 years GRRM has spent creating the story, with ~5,000 published pages and over 10,000 years of history, seems as random and arbitrary as “throwing darts at a dartboard”? Yes, the alliances and loyalties are constantly shifting, that’s what makes the story interesting, but they are anything but random. There are reasons for everything that happens. Just because he’s ignorant does not make him correct.

  76. Knurk
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    JamesL,

    no, I believe it’s shorter than that and it even starts out with a missionary lol. It’s raw sex and we get very close, that’s what I meant with graphic (not some crazy asspanking, heavy panting or the sorts).

  77. Knurk
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

    Black Lion,

    I must say that it wasn’t completely genuine love. Melisandre definitely needed to seduce Stannis to give himself fully to the lord of light, so there was some talking beforehand. All the Stannis-fangirls will cry in outrage because he’s keeping his clothes on.

    andrea,

    thanks for the support! I’m really interested in what you think when you’ve seen the episodes. You’ll be happy to know there is (very small spoiler for episodes 11 and 12)no Varys/Littlefinger sparring in the first 2 episodes haha.

  78. andrea
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    Knurk,

    All the Stannis-fangirls will cry in outrage because he’s keeping his clothes on. hihihi I expected no less from him. Stannis is fun (without wanting, so, much more fun for me).

    Well, thanks to you for that interest :) And you hooked your reluctant sister to the series! (I hope “hooked” is an accurate expression because as far as I know, you’re not a Lannister).

    Oh, that´s really really good news!!! But I fear for Varys/Tyrion. I heard one already: “I keep paddling”. *shudder*

  79. Langkard
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    The NYT guy said a viewer must have a “fair amount of free time” to stick with Game of Thrones? Really? When did 1 hour a week become too much time to spend watching a TV show? This tool probably spends twice that getting his toenails manicured and his unibrow shaved. Did Rupert Murdoch buy the NYT when I wasn’t looking? They sure seem to be hurting for quality writing lately.

  80. julandro
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

    Knurk,

    That disappointment! I see that there is nothing between Lancel and Cersei. NOO!

  81. Yoshi
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

    Userj, stop apologizing for the NYT idiot. It’s a futile attempt.

  82. skipdutch
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

    Sam DeGree: This is good publicity, but note that it doesn’t yet include the NY Times review. When that is added (let’s say it’s a “40″), the score will be around 88–on par with Mad Men is still certainly a very good thing.

    Its a 40. Brings it down to 89% with the others that was added, still, pretty good. Wish the dude could have allowed himself to enjoy it as much as Storage Wars or Unforgettable, but thats his loss.

    Still it sits alone at the bottom, half of the next lowest score, that should bode well overall. It would be difficult to get it below ‘universal Acclaim’ at this point…

    Also, I agree with the folks who say NYT dude has a right to his opinion. GOT simply isn’t for everyone, and those who don’t like it shouldn’t be expected to lie and say they did, or make excuses because it didn’t appeal to them.

  83. the goat
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

    me reading the NYT review:
    http://i40.tinypic.com/e5h6au.jpg

  84. Arrogant Bastard
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

    I think it’s safe to disregard the NYT review, or at least I couldn’t care less what he thinks. Looking at the show he reviews, it’s a lot of reality tv garbage that I can’t stand. And I don’t know if he submits the score or metacritic assigns one based on his review, but he gave the show H8er the same score as Game of Thrones.

  85. superkick
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 12:38 am | Permalink

    17 reviews on metacritic. 16 positive. 15 of which are 90+ average score. One negative review from NYT who rated season 2 a 40 ( which is a total insult). Dropped overall score from 95 to 89 sadly. At least the numbers prominently display that the negative review is quite the outlier.

  86. superkick
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 12:43 am | Permalink

    I think its also amusing that the NYT critic has never rated a show above 80 on metacritic… Why be a tv critic if theres not a show on tv you actually like? Dude must hate his job…

  87. Suzaku
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 3:19 am | Permalink

    To me, the NYT guy comes across as someone not interested in the show or genre being forced to review it, not really giving it a chance, and then dismissing it.

    He has some valid points, most notably the series does meander heavily. That’s a perfectly valid criticism, even within the books, the ultimate destination of a journey is rarely where originally intended. I can see where that might frustrate certain people.

    However, thus far Thrones is all about the journey. While each character obviously has their own arc, even after five books there has been very little closure for the story as a whole. Characters and houses rise and fall, new elements are gradually introduced, but above all else, the world itself is built up and the characters within it grow. That’s the appeal of the show.

    I get the impression that the NYT reviewer needs a show that has frequent milestones to mark the progress and approaching conclusion. Thrones doesn’t really have those kind of milestones — its milestones are typically moments that turn everything on their head and veil the conclusion in even more mystery.

  88. Restore The Day
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 3:19 am | Permalink

    superkick,

    so giving 4/5 to a show is not liking it?

    darn, i’m a fanboy but there is a lot of sectarism here. Not everybody will like it or even try to understand it, get over it.

  89. Greyscaled dragon
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 4:19 am | Permalink

    nate:
    I really don’t understand the reviewers or people in general whom continue to compare Game of Thrones to The Sopranos.It’s NOTHING like the Sopranos.The Sopranos had one central character who was the focus of the show.The show centered around him, his family and mafia buddies and their criminal activities.Game of Thrones does not have one central character, is set in a fantasy world and covers a tapestry of themes, many not related to crime or family.Not to say The Sopranos was low-brow, it definitely had substance, but please stop the comparison with GOT.GOT is a unique and groundbreaking show.The most similar show was The Wire, with it’s multiple grey characters and no central character, but even the Wire tended to focus on one issue at a time.GOT has many interweaving plots happening in tandem.

    I agree that the sopranos is nothing like GoT. I disagree about your reasoning though. The sopranos were also multilayered thematically. It had a relatively fixed cast with one protagonist but a lot of new characters added and offed each season. You make the sopranos sound like Friends or Seinfeld. I think that people compare got to sopranos because of the moral ambiguity. We’re suddenly shifting allegiance from one character to another. But it’s definitively a flawed conparison.
    The comparison with the wire is also flawed imo. Sure, you have a large ensemble cast in both shows but the wire was also a bit more inaccesible because of its insistence on realism; the slang, the pace etc.etc. It was almost like a social documentary. That’s the last thing I would call GoT. The only thing they have in common is the number of characters, but even then, I feel that GoT/asoiaf has sooo many more characters. Bigger is not always better though, and I’m interested for how long the show can keep non-readers engaged.

  90. Pau Soriano
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    Ok those people talking about the Bluray+Dvd sales, the $32M and $20M are profit or sales??

    Because of each sale no more than half is direct profit for HBO. I’d say more like 1/3. Then you have to discount the marketing money used to promote the BR/DVD, and I’m not sure how taxes work in the US.

    So still a long way to go to $60M ;)

  91. Knurk
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 7:43 am | Permalink

    Pau Soriano,

    it’s sales. But really, don’t trust that website. They are wildly guessing, I asked them about the discrepancy between their numbers and HBO’s press release and they would look into it. All they did was adjust their numbers a bit down, but in no way it bridged the gap between their and HBO’s numbers.

  92. Onion
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 8:35 am | Permalink

    Should we be surprised by the NYT review? Recall last year?

    http://tv.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/arts/television/game-of-thrones-begins-sunday-on-hbo-review.html

    I’ll bet more people hate these reviewers than like them, I look at it positively: I think their reviews worked against them.

  93. julandro
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    Please. Anyone who has seen the four episdios, I can say something about Lancel and Cersei? Is there anything interesting? PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEE

  94. superkick
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/neil_genzlinger/index.html?inline=nyt-per

    Neil states in his profile he does not review big budget TV shows he sticks to smaller obscure shows to give them recognition. So he either believes GOT is obscure and unpopular aka lives under a rock…. Or went out of his way to purposely shit on GOT

  95. Pau Soriano
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    superkick:
    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/neil_genzlinger/index.html?inline=nyt-per

    Neil states in his profile he does not review big budget TV shows he sticks to smaller obscure shows to give them recognition.So he either believes GOT is obscure and unpopular aka lives under a rock…. Or went out of his way to purposely shit on GOT

    Most likely the person that would normally do the review (can’t remember her name… Gina Bellafonte?) didn’t wanna do it so he had to do it in spite of himself, hence the poor result

  96. Yoshi
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

    Restore The Day,

    I think your comment totally misses the point. Of course not everyone will like it or write positive reviews. My wife has absolutely no interest in the show and I don’t love her one bit less for it. But you can dislike something and give your reasons without being insulting, demeaning, or dismissive. And when you are all of those things and you pretty clearly have pre-judged the entire genre? You’re going to get a deservedly negative reaction.

  • Recent Comments

  • More from FanSided

  • Archives

    • 2014 (302)
    • 2013 (679)
    • 2012 (550)
    • 2011 (512)
    • 2010 (309)
    • 2009 (174)
    • 2008 (47)
  •