Game of Thrones

[hrothgar]

Any one else as excited about this as I am?

 

Between

 

The Killing

Game of Thrones

Community

Parks and Recreation

 

There may actually be hope for TV...

[PassedOut]

Any one else as excited about this as I am?

 

Between

 

The Killing

Game of Thrones

Community

Parks and Recreation

 

There may actually be hope for TV...

My youngest son subscribed to HBO just because Game of Thrones will be on. My eldest texted me last night to remind me not to miss it.

[luke warm]

i thought they did a good job... i hope it lives up to the hype, i've been looking forward to it

[Fluffy]

I stopped reading at the beginning of the third book, couldn't stand anymore that the politics and traitors would always win and survive while the noble soldiers would keep dieing.

[blackshoe]

"When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die. There is no middle ground." -- Cersei Lannister

[hrothgar]

I stopped reading at the beginning of the third book, couldn't stand anymore that the politics and traitors would always win and survive while the noble soldiers would keep dieing.

 

I had a somewhat different interpretation of events:

 

1. "Practical" trumps "noble"

2. "Luck" is a fickle mistress

 

I don't think that the traitors always won.

They certainly don't always prosper.

 

However, doing something stupid is very likely to get you killed.

[Fluffy]

yeah I agree this is what happens on real life, but I read fiction to dream of another world, not the ***** of this one

 

 

EDIT: Now that I remember, there are some characters that you know they have to die because of how the plot goes, but the way they die is completelly artificial, for example I remember the main character of the first book, (Stark?) he does something so stupid that could be considered suicide, and he is suposed to be smart. It made no sense to me, if you need the plot to kill someone, at least you should pay more attention to how you kill a main character.

[kenberg]

Man, am I out of it. I didn't know it was a book and lacking this thread I would not have known it was a series. But I taped it last night and I will give it a try. Fluffy's comments give me pause. I can handle gritty, or I guess I can, but more than just sometimes I decide they can sling the grit without me. I'll give it a try though.

[hrothgar]

Man, am I out of it. I didn't know it was a book and lacking this thread I would not have known it was a series. But I taped it last night and I will give it a try. Fluffy's comments give me pause. I can handle gritty, or I guess I can, but more than just sometimes I decide they can sling the grit without me. I'll give it a try though.

 

I had the chance to see the first episode of the series...

 

I thought that it was pretty good, however, as of yet it isn't as strong as the novel.

 

Admittedly, I thought that the novels were extremely strong.

They stood head and shoulders above most of the fantasy coming out at that time.

 

The series is good enough and there is a good crop of actors. However, it has a tough row to hoe...

[blackshoe]

Hollywood rarely does as well as the books they base movies or TV series on. Still, the series may turn out to be pretty good.

 

A Dance With Dragons is due out July 12th, according to G.R.R. Martin's web site.

[Rain]

I am boycotting his stuff till he finishes the series. A heart can only take so many delays!

 

I don't think Martin knows how to end the series. He's added too much stuff.

Also, HBO has a terrible record at adaptation - look at the recent Tudor one. Lots of naked bodies injected to spice up the series, a great story to work with, but they have so many blatant historical inaccuracies. Makes me think they will destroy the song of ice and fire series too.

[luke warm]

The series is good enough and the actors seem pretty strong. However, it has a tough row to hoe...

this is true of most any classic (and i consider this to be classic scifi/fantasy) novel... i liked it, but if i remember correctly the opening scene won't be fully explained until the 4th book or so

[1eyedjack]

Interesting that Hrothgar ranks Parks and Recreation up there. Not seen any of it yet and may have a go based on this. Wiki says that it received mixed reviews and was a spin-off from NBC's hit show "the Office". The original "Office" was a UK production featuring Ricky Gervais which I though at the time was really good, but when they announced that it was being sold over the pond I wondered whether it would really suit the sense of humour over there (most UK hit comedies flop in USA).

 

Anyway, someone has just introduced to me to Boardwalk Empire, which I am really getting into and am pleased to see that a second season is coming out this autumn.

[Elianna]

Haven't been to BBOF in a long time, didn't see you had a thread about this!

 

I made Adam get HBO for this series. I've been enjoying it so far, but I have been concerned about some of the changes. Like they seem to be trying to make Cat less hateful.

 

Fluffy, two of the "bad" guys gets theirs in the third book.

 

Also, he actually finished! Looks like GRRM might make that July 12 date! Yeay! I just hope that he stays ahead of the series. And that there will be enough of a series for him to stay ahead of.

[JLOGIC]

Elianna, I haven't read the books, so this is from a "virgin" standpoint with the series. I think Cat is a horrible person, the way she treated John Snow really drove it home. Loving the series fwiw

[mike777]

I never read the books and had no idea about the series.

 

I found the first episode disappointing.

 

I found the second episode almost unwatchable.

 

 

1) Young child on death bed watch for most of second episode

2) Another young child is slaughtered like a side a beef, thrown over a horse.

3) Finally to end the second episode a beloved and loyal pet is murdered by I think one of the good guys(father).

 

If I understand the premise these kingdoms have been around 8,000 years with no progress beyond the "dark ages".

 

Throw in a bunch of naked women being raped by random guys.

[awm]

I never read the books and had no idea about the series.

 

I found the first episode disappointing.

 

I found the second episode almost unwatchable.

 

 

1) Young child on death bed watch for most of second episode

2) Another young child is slaughtered like a side a beef, thrown over a horse.

3) Finally to end the second episode a beloved and loyal pet is murdered by I think one of the good guys(father).

 

If I understand the premise these kingdoms have been around 8,000 years with no progress.

 

Amusingly, these are some of the reasons I like the series (and the books). There are plenty of fantasy stories out there where nothing bad ever happens to good people (or children, or pets) and where the "good guys" always triumph. This is definitely not that sort of story. Despite being fantasy, parts of it are pretty gritty and realistic depictions of life in the middle ages. Children (and especially "commoner" children) did get killed... a lot.

[Elianna]

Elianna, I haven't read the books, so this is from a "virgin" standpoint with the series. I think Cat is a horrible person, the way she treated John Snow really drove it home. Loving the series fwiw

 

I've been trying not to say anything that would spoil the series for those who haven't read the books (or at least put it in spoiler text, and even that is not too specific, I hope).

 

I'm glad that you're loving the series. I am really impressed with the good job that they are doing with the whole "feel" from the books.

 

This is not a spoiler, but what sealed the deal on the Cat hate from me is in the book, during Jon's goodbye to Bran, she told him that she wished it were Jon that had fallen. That's what I think that they cut to try to make her less hateful.

[Elianna]

Also, to show how nerdy Adam and I are:

 

 

(and there's two more versions where that came from. :) )

[hrothgar]

Amusingly, these are some of the reasons I like the series (and the books). There are plenty of fantasy stories out there where nothing bad ever happens to good people (or children, or pets) and where the "good guys" always triumph. This is definitely not that sort of story. Despite being fantasy, parts of it are pretty gritty and realistic depictions of life in the middle ages. Children (and especially "commoner" children) did get killed... a lot.

 

This is one of the most interesting open ended questions about the series

 

Will the mass market accept a series

 

1. Without clearly identified heroes and villains

2. With so much casual cruelty

 

The science fiction / fantasy community clearly has. A Song of Ice and Fire is one of the most popular series in recent memory. Where this has mass market appeal is another question. I wonder whether ratings might start dropping precipitously as life in Westeros gets progressively more grim.

[hrothgar]

 

3) Finally to end the second episode a beloved and loyal pet is murdered by I think one of the good guys(father).

 

 

Couple points worth clarifying

 

1. Abandon any notion that you will be able to identify "good guys". There are definitely characters for whom you'll have zero sympathy, however, those are few and far between. (Even characters like "the Hound" who ran down the servent boy in last week's episode exhibit some traits that are sympathetic and others than are less so). There are other characters who start out very sympathetic and devolve over time. Simple put, the world is full of shades of grey.

 

2. Ned Stark is definitely one of the characters that you are suppose to sympathize with and the act of killing the pet is meant to elict sympathy for him. "Lady" was going to be put down one way or another. Stark's decision to kill the pet himself was a protest against the King. (King Robert was willing to order the act done, but wasn't willing/able to do the deed himself. Stark wasn't willing to gainsay the King, but also wouldn't delegate the task to avoid getting his hands dirty)

[hrothgar]

 

If I understand the premise these kingdoms have been around 8,000 years with no progress beyond the "dark ages".

 

 

Given your economic leanings, I was quite sure that you had mastered "Willing suspension of disbelief"

[hrothgar]

Interesting that Hrothgar ranks Parks and Recreation up there. Not seen any of it yet and may have a go based on this. Wiki says that it received mixed reviews and was a spin-off from NBC's hit show "the Office". The original "Office" was a UK production featuring Ricky Gervais which I though at the time was really good, but when they announced that it was being sold over the pond I wondered whether it would really suit the sense of humour over there (most UK hit comedies flop in USA).

 

Parks and Recreation is stylistically and thematically similar to The Office, however, I wouldn't ever think to call it a spin off.

 

"Joanie loves Chacci" was a spin off from "Happy Days"

"The Ropers" was a spin off from "Three's Company"

"The Misadventures of Sheriff Lobo" was a spinoff from "BJ and the Bear".

 

"Parks and Recreation" and "The Office" fail to share common characters, locations, or conventions.

 

I certainly agree that many UK comedies fail when they try to cross the pond. However, some of America's best beloved sit coms are based on UK series (Threes Company, All in the Family, and now The Office are the best examples). I think that the US version of The Office is (arguably) better than the UK original.

 

For what its worth, the best TV series of 2011 (or at least the one that I liked most) was called "Episodes". The entire conceit was attempting to take a witty British comedy and repackage it for the US market.

 

For me, one of the great puzzles in life was what went wrong with "Coupling?" The UK version of Coupling was absolutely hysterical. Not sure if I have ever laughed as hard as I did during "Jane and the Truth Snake" (I'm still hopelessly in love with Gina Bellman). The US version was yanked almost as fast as "The Paul Reiser Show"...

[xxhong]

ME! The TV series is pretty good. The pace is a little too fast to those who never read the novel though. Also, it's a pity that "yet not all bastards need be dwarfs" was cut in the TV series.

[blackshoe]

Catelyn Stark's treatment of Jon Snow grates on modern sensibilities, but look at it from her (medieval) point of view. Snow is her husband's bastard son by some unknown woman, who may have ambitions of her own for her son. Lord Eddard treats him almost as well as one of his legitimate sons. Catelyn may well see Jon Snow as a threat to her children. IIRC, Jon is older than Robb, Catelyn's oldest. If Eddard were to "recognize" him, he would (I think, it's been a while since I've read the books) become the heir to Winterfell, supplanting Robb. Catelyn is a woman of her time. Small wonder she doesn't like Jon Snow, nor want him around.

 

HBO is doing a good job with this series, imo. The mass market is fickle though, so who knows?