Some more big reviews
By Hear Me Roar on in Reviews.

Willa Paskin of Salon writes:

The cornerstone of “Games” success is its fidelity to Martin’s big genre advancement: to write magical fantasy like a realist. “Games” is a fantasy only insofar as it’s not taking place somewhere real. Nothing that happens there is a dream. It contains all the necessary, hugely entertaining genre staples — swords and armor, jousts and magic, kings and queens — but also the emotional and physical realism, the blood and guts, the twisted and tragic motivations that characterize TV’s other best shows. It’s not just about what would happen if Tony Soprano were a king, but, you know, if Newt Gingrich were one too. The bloodletting has only just begun.

Charlie Jane Anders at io9 has many good things to say as well:

We called Game of Thrones season one an astounding achievement — and this continues to be true in season two. This show is continuing to redefine what’s possible on television. Some of the leaping around from subplot to subplot may get a bit dizzying, but you see pretty quickly how it’s going to pay off, and the show is continuing to do a great job of developing minor characters and strengthening the connections between them. Most of all, this is a great political epic, in which the nature of power and government is questioned, over and over again, and it’s left to the audience to come up with its own disquieting answers.


Mary McNamara of Los Angeles Times is still fully on board:

As with the novels, this “Game of Thrones” is breathtakingly ambitious, an ever-unfurling tapestry that threatens, at times, to overwhelm its frame. That it does not is a testament to the power of piecework — art is not defined by the space it occupies but by its details, the truth it captures. Many heads bend over this adaptation, each belonging to a master of his or her craft, and what emerges is a truly new, and miraculously accurate, definition of epic television.

Robert Bianco of USA Today demonstrates how to write a review well even if  you would prefer the show more accessible and think it may reach more audience if it were a more clear-cut good vs. evil story (see, it’s not that hard, New York Times):

This is a sprawling, exciting, blood-soaked story, filled with great set pieces and wonderful actors — led by Peter Dinklage, whose Tyrion Lannister gives Game what little humor it has. Don’t, however, expect to find a rooting interest in this kingly competition. It’s better to think of it as The Borgias with tiny dragons.

Jace Lacob from The Daily Beast finds season two fantastic:

Ultimately, Season 2 is a return to a world of dragons and of bones that many of us have missed terribly. With war approaching on multiple fronts, treacherous double-crosses now de rigueur, and the possible return of long-dead magic to the land, Season 2 of Game of Thrones is fantastic, overflowing with majesty and mystery. The night, we’re told, is dark and full of terror, and so is this provocative and enthralling show. Miss an episode—or even a minute—at your own peril.

Matt Zoller Seits reviews season two for Vulture:

Game of Thrones is doing for sword-and-sorcery what the remake of Battlestar Galactica did for science-fiction on TV, and what the Godfather series did for the gangster story: foregrounding its mythic power, and showing that the genre can be brazenly serious, even ostentatiously artful, and unquestionably adult, without killing its simple pleasures.

Cory Everett of The Playlist likes it:

Most of the time ‘GoT’ plays like a medieval drama (or occasionally high-end soap opera) so when fantasy elements intrude — like the dragon birth at the end of season 1 or the “holy shit” moment that concludes episode 4 — it makes it all the more exciting. Featuring instantly quotable dialogue like “The night is dark and full of terrors” and “Power resides where men believe it resides,” season 2 should delight fans who worshipped the first season. While it may not achieve the depth of a show like “The Sopranos,” the intricate plotting and epic scope continue to make “Game of Thrones” really unlike really anything else on TV.

Christopher Orr of The Atlantic has this to say:

However one feels about Benioff and Weiss’s infidelities, though, it is clear that they know what they’re doing. The meticulousness of the show may differ in its particulars from the meticulousness of the novels, but it is unmistakable—in the first-rate dialogue, the sharp segues, the careful sowing of seeds that will bear fruit episodes later. The spirit of Martin’s epic, moreover, is ever in evidence, glinting with malice and irony.


52 Comments

  1. Nimble Dick
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    first
    i cant believe that i was first
    last night watching some of last season i was hoping for different results to happen . but it did not

  2. stile
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    I’ve enjoyed all these glowing reviews as much as anyone, but are there any NEGATIVE reviews around? I haven’t found any, but I’m sure there are some…I’d be interested to know what reviewers think some of the FLAWS in the second season might be…

  3. McSherrie
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    All of these – even Bianco’s – just make me more eager for Sunday. Is it time yet?

  4. Nimble Dick
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    stile,

    io9 said maybe too much Tyrion….i say BULLSHIT

  5. Alwyn Joseph
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    ^ New york times review
    Not a very fair review though.

  6. Maxwell James
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    I think you tweeted it already, but there’s also Alyssa Rosenberg’s thoughtful review: http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/03/30/455336/game-of-thrones-is-better-in-its-second-seasonparticularly-for-female-characters/

    I really liked Seitz’ review – he’s one of the few TV critics that pays close attention to technique, and appreciates Thrones all the more because of it. And for those interested in (or, especially, fed up with) The Killing, his most recent review of it is a classic.

  7. Maxwell James
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    stile,

    Business Week and NPR reviews were both fairly critical, without descending to nerd-taunting like the Times.

  8. Superdeluxe
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    But I love all these great reviews.

    Jace Lacob and Matt Zoller Seitz I’ve followed since last year.

  9. Cari D. Burstein
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    I’m glad to see one of the reviewers agrees with my biggest beef- nobody at the wall wears hats! It’s amazing any of them still have ears. I know it would cover their pretty faces, but still, it’s kind of silly to show a place that’s supposed to be ridiculously cold and have everyone walking around with their heads uncovered.

  10. Hear Me Roar
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    Superdeluxe,

    Refresh the page ;)

  11. Robbet
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    It is so good that there are so many positive reviews on Season 2! Sunday is Coming, and I am getting more excited and excited! :)

  12. Superdeluxe
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

    New York Times review is extremely negative.

    stile:
    I’ve enjoyed all these glowing reviews as much as anyone, but are there any NEGATIVE reviews around? I haven’t found any, but I’m sure there are some…I’d be interested to know what reviewers think some of the FLAWS in the second season might be…

  13. DigDoug
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

    So many stories today, tough to comment. Bravo. Lets go already.

  14. Superdeluxe
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    Has anyone come up a list of journalists/critics that will be doing weekly recaps/reviews of the show? I’ve created my own list, but I’m not sure how current it is and would like to add other thoughtful recappers/reviewers.

  15. andrea
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

    Maxwell James,

    Seits wrote: “…and what the Godfather series did for the gangster story…”
    He stole from you!

  16. stile
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

    Oh wow…just checked out the NYT review. Thanks for pointing me at it, guys.

    I know this is a fan site and dedicated to mainly positive coverage, but it might be interesting to get a post collecting all the NEGATIVE reviews…even if it’s for no other reason than to let us readers complain about them in the comments section :D

  17. RitariKnight
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    Superdeluxe:
    Has anyone come up a list of journalists/critics that will be doing weekly recaps/reviews of the show?I’ve created my own list, but I’m not sure how current it is and would like to add other thoughtful recappers/reviewers.

    TV.com’s Tim Surette will be doing his again, so there’s one if you didn’t already have that.

  18. Carol
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    Not a review, but here’s a story from the Globe and Mail with some quotes from a few actors and D&D. They mention a couple of second-season incidents without getting very specific, though they do warn about spoilers before that happens.

    I’m sorry if I missed someone posting this already. There are too many posts and comments to keep up! (Not that I’m complaining.)

  19. Steven Swanson
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    Cari D. Burstein: I’m glad to see one of the reviewers agrees with my biggest beef- nobody at the wall wears hats! It’s amazing any of them still have ears. I know it would cover their pretty faces, but still, it’s kind of silly to show a place that’s supposed to be ridiculously cold and have everyone walking around with their heads uncovered.

    It’s especially strange considering they were actually filming on a glacier in winter, so the actors had to feel every bit of that.

  20. Steven Swanson
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

    stile: I’ve enjoyed all these glowing reviews as much as anyone, but are there any NEGATIVE reviews around? I haven’t found any, but I’m sure there are some…I’d be interested to know what reviewers think some of the FLAWS in the second season might be…

    You might want to check out the review on Westeros, since it was written by ultra-fans of the books. They apparently enjoyed it but with a lot of reservations specifically related to changes made for the series.

  21. Knurk
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    Jesus, everytime you hit refresh there is a new post. Must be a recordsetting day huh? Huge props to all the mods for keeping us updated, don’t forget to eat and drink and most of all enjoy it yourselves! (you don’t wantto get a Game of Thrones overdose right before sunday)

  22. Thiago Slash
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    Carol,

    nice article ^^

    also, it´s nice to see GoT receiving all this attention! ^^

  23. Steven Swanson
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    Maxwell James: stile, Business Week and NPR reviews were both fairly critical, without descending to nerd-taunting like the Times.

    They sound like people jaded from watching a whole lot of tv, particularly the NPR one. But then whether or not this show wins over that kind of person is probably more relevant to its success than what fanboys think.

  24. Del
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 6:23 pm | Permalink
  25. Josh
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    Steven Swanson: You might want to check out the review on Westeros, since it was written by ultra-fans of the books. They apparently enjoyed it but with a lot of reservations specifically related to changes made for the series.

    I find those to be the worst sort of reviews.

  26. Michael Harper
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    Del,

    Bastard…I thought this was real haha. Was funny though :P

  27. Steven Swanson
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    Josh: I find those to be the worst sort of reviews.

    I thought it was a little annoying myself, but it was absolutely worth reading. It was similar to their assessment last year, they were thoughtful but anal.

  28. Mimsy
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    Del,

    LMAO

  29. Chris
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    Seems like a lot of critics are mentioning something crazy at the end of episode 4, which has to be the shadow baby, right? Most everyone talks about it in an “Oh shit!” awesome kind of way, and not a cheesy kind of way, which is good because that’s long been considered a specific scene that could go very wrong on screen.

  30. Varamyr Fourskins
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    I can’t decide whether Newt Gingrich is more of a petulant boy-king, like Joffrey, or a cunning eunuch like Varys.

    In the case of Varys, he definitely has the manipulation thing down, and the girth, but his numerous wives would seemingly preclude him from such a comparison.

    So, Joffrey it is then.

  31. LanisterPaysHisDebts
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    Will the House of the Undying be seen in season 2? I’m skeptical that it will since Rhaegar Targaryen wan’t cast (Dany sees a vision of him in the book)

  32. Damián Erro
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    Del:
    New intro for GoT for Season 2:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=25KABvPbq-U

    Haha nice one!! anyway here’s the real deal..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

  33. Solar
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

    stile,

    Elio (dude who runs Westeros.org) is critical of the second season. But he comes across more as a purist who doesn’t like the changes.

  34. Mike Chair
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

    Christopher Orr: The meticulousness of the show may differ in its particulars from the meticulousness of the novels, but it is unmistakable—in the first-rate dialogue, the sharp segues, the careful sowing of seeds that will bear fruit episodes later.

    In the full review, Mr. Orr discusses how after watching the first season, he decided to read the first book:

    Then came the books. My initial plan was to read only the first, and save the others (there are a total of five to date) until after I’d watched the relevant seasons of the show. That plan lasted for perhaps an hour beyond my completing the first book. (Perhaps less.) A Clash of Kings, A Storm of Swords, A Feast for Crows, A Dance with Dragons—the pages flew like ravens, despite the burgeoning girth of each successive tome. (The most recent could double as an end table.) And then: emptiness. An absence of purpose. The endless ticking of days until the resumption of HBO’s exceptional adaptation, by David Benioff and D.B. Weiss.

    Relief is at hand, at last.

    Yes it is. Two days.

  35. NousWanderer
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

    We’re at 90/100 on Metacritic. 18 critical reviews have been counted. The New York Times have offered the most significantly negative review, which was given a score of 40. This is 40 points less than the next worst review, which received a score of 80. A score of 80 is one point higher than the first season’s aggregate score of 79.

    http://www.metacritic.com/tv/game-of-thrones/season-2

    Awesome.

  36. Mike Chair
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

    NousWanderer: The New York Times have offered the most significantly negative review

    Name names, please. Neil Genzlinger. His wiki page will probably be changed soon to remove its accuracies. Thus, I shall quote it here so the truth will remain somewhere:

    Commonly regarded as a pompous douchebag, Neil Genzlingers reviews are generally regarded with much disdain by the public as well as his less self righteous peers.

  37. Catbot
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    Mike Chair: Name names, please.Neil Genzlinger.His wiki page will probably be changed soon to remove its accuracies.Thus, I shall quote it here so the truth will remain somewhere:

    The guy gave Season 1 Storage Wars a 80. Come on!

  38. Carol
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 12:22 am | Permalink

    And here’s the review from the Globe and Mail: “Game of Thrones: Screaming for the teenage male”.

  39. Meg
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 12:27 am | Permalink

    Vulture’s thoughtful criticism that the TV show thus far lacks lyricism and unexpected irony is valid. Not Deadwood/Wire class yet.

  40. Dolph Lundgren
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 12:41 am | Permalink

    Carol:
    And here’s the review from the Globe and Mail: “Game of Thrones: Screaming for the teenage male”.

    Another negative review based on admitted knee-jerk reactions to fantasy and nudity. Swords+armor+magic = brooding, acne-ridden teenage boys. Nudity = automatic loss of all substance. It bothers me to see even such a small minority of critics using this mentality. Universal praise must be achieved!!!

  41. NousWanderer
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 12:49 am | Permalink

    Meg:
    Vulture’s thoughtful criticism that the TV show thus far lacks lyricism and unexpected irony is valid. Not Deadwood/Wire class yet.

    This is probably fair, at least where S1 is concerned. There were moments I felt it was verging in that direction, but it didn’t feel quite confident enough to make that leap.

    This isn’t to say I didn’t completely love the show–I did–but there’s that additional element of pathos that wasn’t regularly tapped into, and, I think, probably couldn’t be on full display without further departures from the text. The show’s philosophy and characterization has been adequately mustered, but it lacks poetry.

    This wouldn’t be on account of any failings within the text, but simply the difficulty in representing a world where most of the romanticism, longing and abstracted emotion is wrapped up in psychological description and not externalized behaviors. The very mechanism that seeks to translate said internal activity to visible action probably condemns the show to a slightly less than poetic existence, when it’s an inventive use of film’s visual language / editing that would ultimately take the show to those heights (which would basically demand new scenes and presentations that aren’t found in the novels).

    This is why I’m largely for departures from the text. I want the show to completely earn its own voice.

  42. Steven Swanson
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 1:09 am | Permalink

    Varamyr Fourskins:
    I can’t decide whether Newt Gingrich is more of a petulant boy-king, like Joffrey, or a cunning eunuch like Varys.

    In the case of Varys, he definitely has the manipulation thing down, and the girth, but his numerous wives would seemingly preclude him from such a comparison.

    So, Joffrey it is then.

    Karl Rove’s more the Varys type, pulling strings and manipulating behind the scenes.

  43. Meg
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 1:13 am | Permalink

    NousWanderer,

    This is why I’m largely for departures from the text. I want the show to completely earn its own voice.

    Me too. I never thought that Martin’s prose was outstandingly poetic/lyrical, so I would like to see D&D flex their muscles in that department. The gorgeous dialogue in Deadwood just can’t be matched; going against David Milch is a feat. However, the interplay between the “chief” and Swearengen and Omar selling Prop Joe’s stolen drugs back to him are some scenes that I think D&D should study. Hilarious, heavily ironic, and poignant. Any others?

  44. Pau Soriano
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    Meg:
    NousWanderer,

    Me too. I never thought that Martin’s prose was outstandingly poetic/lyrical, so I would like to see D&D flex their muscles in that department.The gorgeous dialogue in Deadwood just can’t be matched; going against David Milch is a feat. However, the interplay between the “chief” and Swearengen and Omar selling Prop Joe’s stolen drugs back to him are some scenes that I think D&D should study. Hilarious, heavily ironic, and poignant. Any others?

    I’m not sure that would be a good idea myself. As you say Martin style is not particulary lyrical, and not all shows have to be unexepectedly ironic to be great. It’s also OK if it’s not as good as The Wire.

    I’m personally more worried about how they gonna adapt books 4 and 5, the weakest of all imo. That’s what will make the show a classic…or not. In my opinion ;)

  45. Piaget
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    Dolph Lundgren: Another negative review based on admitted knee-jerk reactions to fantasy and nudity. Swords+armor+magic = brooding, acne-ridden teenage boys. Nudity = automatic loss of all substance. It bothers me to see even such a small minority of critics using this mentality. Universal praise must be achieved!!!

    While I agree that the comments about horses, swords and fighting being only for teenage boys are completely ridiculous and out of touch with reality, I can understand where people are coming from in terms of excessive nudity. I am a long time fan and at times have been very annoyed with the over the top prescence of female only nudity. It felt gratuitous and cheap at times (looking at you, Ros) and I don’t blame people for feeling it’s pandering to a certain audience (because let’s be honest, it is).

    What I am trying to say is that we should not have a knee-jerk reaction to criticisms that might be valid and which the show could do much better at. I want GOT to be remembered as a dramatic, deep masterpiece, and not some sort of trashy Spartacus that throws naked whores at you any chance it gets.

  46. mummer
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    Piaget,
    I sort of agree, about the “[almost] female only” part. I think it’s basically true to the spirit of the books, and I don’t think it’s inappropriate to the story (since women really are seen as sexual objects much more than men are in Westeros), but I think it’s something that will make the series seem dated 40 years from now. This imbalance isn’t something D&D created, it’s based on the attitudes lots and lots of people have toward sex and nudity.

    Judging by the way people discuss things like the 2 seconds of naked Theon, or the 2 seconds of “naked” Pycelle in silhouette, or anything like that in any movie, male nudity sticks out like… a sore thumb. A male actor even showing his ass is still considered slightly daring. In some cases that’s just because (at least on the Internet) the vast majority of people doing the talking are straight guys, but there are a lot of women talking about GOT too and there’s clearly a double standard– I mean, I’ve heard some women say things like “They’re going overboard with the T&A,” but I’ve never heard them say “OMG, WTF, female frontal nudity? I don’t want to have to look at that ever!!” And I heard a lot of nervous giggles and bad jokes about the Renly/Loras scene where nothing was seen except a bare chest, because you could hear the sound of oral sex for like one second– and anyone who’s ever had any kind of sex knows that you can hear much louder and grosser sounds than that, so I think the reaction was more to a mental image of a penis.

    So basically I’m somewhat impressed that the show has gone even as far as it has in that direction. But it’s a thing of its time, and one day we’ll all be old people and the kids will be making fun of us for how we thought naked guys were shocking.

  47. mummer
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    Solar:
    Elio (dude who runs Westeros.org) is critical of the second season. But he comes across more as a purist who doesn’t like the changes.

    I think Elio would readily admit to being a purist– I think it’d be hard not to be a purist, if you’d been running a massive GRRM fan site for like 200 years!

    I’m not bothered at all when he and Linda say “I don’t like this change from the book”; the only part of that review that bugged me was when he said it seemed like “change for the sake of change.” I don’t think there’s any reason to think that D&D are sitting around saying “Oh what the hell, let’s just change something for the sake of changing it.” That doesn’t mean I think they’re brilliant perfect artists– I just don’t think it’s realistic. In a huge, complicated, challenging, collaborative production, people don’t think that way unless they’re total idiots; 99.99% of the time they think there’s a good reason why they can’t do X, and either they feel like Y will work much better, or they’re not sure what to do but they think they might as well try Y. Of course Y may turn out to be stupid, but that doesn’t mean X would definitely have worked. I may find the background color of the Westeros site kind of annoying, but I’m sure it looks good to Elio & Linda, so I wouldn’t say they just picked “orange for the sake of orange.”

    I think fans in general (including me) are too prone to think that “if those guys had really paid attention to the book then they’d agree with me and do it the right way, because it’s just so obvious.”

  48. mummer
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    Cari D. Burstein:
    I’m glad to see one of the reviewers agrees with my biggest beef- nobody at the wall wears hats! It’s amazing any of them still have ears. I know it would cover their pretty faces, but still, it’s kind of silly to show a place that’s supposed to be ridiculously cold and have everyone walking around with their heads uncovered.

    Yeah, I think anyone who grew up anywhere that has serious weather will be wincing at those scenes. But I get it– there’s no way they’re going to bundle everyone up and make them unrecognizable. It’s like how in every outer-space movie ever made, the spacesuit helmets have clear glass and are lighted from the inside so you can see the actors, when in real life that would be dangerous and the astronauts wouldn’t be able to see– but it’s easier to suspend disbelief there, because most people aren’t astronauts but lots of people have had cold ears. (I’d love to see a SF movie that used Larry Niven’s idea of making your spacesuit recognizable by putting ostentatious paintings on it, like custom car art.)

    I guess they could give them really distinctive hats, but then we’d be complaining about how the Night’s Watch wouldn’t really have all those different kinds of hats…

  49. DH87
    Posted April 1, 2012 at 1:04 am | Permalink

    NousWanderer:
    We’re at 90/100 on Metacritic. 18 critical reviews have been counted. The New York Times have offered the most significantly negative review, which was given a score of 40. This is 40 points less than the next worst review, which received a score of 80. A score of 80 is one point higher than the first season’s aggregate score of 79.

    http://www.metacritic.com/tv/game-of-thrones/season-2

    Awesome.

    Yes, every critic paid for his/her opinion but the NYT’s now realizes the show they thought was terrible—or at best ok (79 Metacritics) last year —was really landmark television WITH NO CHANGE IN WRITING, EDITING, DIRECTING, OR NEW STARS FROM SEASON 1 TO SEASON 2. Explain that, you pointy heads!

    In other words, “Oh, hai—wez sorry. It waz grate after all!” Now we’re at a Metacritics 90 when the show no longer needs it. All these critics seems to be a complete waste of space. At least the NYT has the guts to stay clueless for two years in a row. It takes a small nuclear device detonation to budge those guys.

    Only the stunning “Homeland” S1 is outranking GOT2. Great news, but totally moot at this point.

  50. KatyaJ
    Posted April 1, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    Chris,

    Pretty sure the big moment is Renly’s death. The episode synopsis says something about how the Baratheon siblings “settle” their dispute.

  51. The Red Avenger
    Posted April 1, 2012 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    Said it before and I’ll say it again – a purist will never be happy. So what’s the point? What works on the written page, won’t necessarily work on film. Also you have to take into consideration the vast majority of people who watch this won’t have read or have any intentions of reading the books. It has to be its own show and it has to be coherent. As I like to think of it, it’s telling the same story from somebody else’s viewpoint. It won’t be the same and some things will be told differently, there may even be new unseen scenes. It’s still the same story.

  52. DH87
    Posted April 1, 2012 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    The Red Avenger:
    Said it before and I’ll say it again – a purist will never be happy. So what’s the point? What works on the written page, won’t necessarily work on film. Also you have to take into consideration the vast majority of people who watch this won’t have read or have any intentions of reading the books. It has to be its own show and it has to be coherent. As I like to think of it, it’s telling the same story from somebody else’s viewpoint. It won’t be the same and some things will be told differently, there may even be new unseen scenes. It’s still the same story.

    So holds convention wisdom.
    True Blood fans sat through four years of folks saying the identical thing. They had an Academy Award winner for original screenwriting, Alan Ball, taking on a down-market series of books by a little southern lady writing in her rec room. Surely the Mighty Oz knew better how to write her humble story for TV than she did—so don’t complain! He’s a genius!
    Four years into the show, hundreds of parlor games are founded on which is the worst World Rules gaff in his “new and improved” True Blood. Is it that the telepathic heroine can hear the thoughts of a character sometimes but not others, as the “plot” requires? Is it that the male lead character suddenly sprouts “abilities” he sincerely disavowed three seasons earlier, without explanation? Is it that the cornerstone of the supe world AB embraces—-that strength accrues through age—is upended because the male lead is married to the show’s female lead?
    The critics stopped dating TB years ago and quietly moved on to Homeland, GOT, and Mad Men, leaving the befuddled TB fans mewing sadly all over the Internet, especially the folks who for four years have proudly said they’ve never read the books, never want to, but what the hell has happened to the show?
    The moral of this story: An original screenwriter is not necessarily a successful adaptor of other material, and once you’ve let the author’s World Rules out of the bottle it’s damn hard to get them back in again.


  • Recent Comments

  • Archives

    • 2014 (849)
    • 2013 (679)
    • 2012 (550)
    • 2011 (512)
    • 2010 (309)
    • 2009 (174)
    • 2008 (47)
  •