Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

I was channel surfing last sunday and happened to catch game of thrones on hbo canada. At first my inner geek was tempted and I started to watch hoping to see some sword fighting and pitched battles. However that wasn't the case and so far it was character development and getting viewers into the story. I thought it was solid story telling and it didn't matter if they were swinging swords or were clad in armour, I forgot about that halfway thru. My only beef was the excess nudity, but I guess it helps accent the sexuality of the show and make that aspect a central theme. Now this show airs on prime time and is rated 14A. All in all I was presently surprised by the show and wouldn't recommend it to mr. Canada because well his head would explode.

I would like to know what our more knowledgeable and articulate tv and film afficionados (kimmy and august1991 and others) think about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 912
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Lady Olenna was the most interesting character on the show. How did Dany not send troops to defend Highgarden!?!?!?!??! Tyrion is interesting but he's playing the Game of Thrones awfully. Who car

Don't get too attached to adult male StarksĀ 

I'm thinking that, given the options of submitting to Danys and getting executed, and fighting her and losing and getting executed, Cersei might even try to reach an 'accommodation' with the Night Kin

I would like to know what our more knowledgeable and articulate tv and film afficionados (kimmy and august1991 and others) think about it.

Aw thanks! :wub:

I just heard of it yesterday. I'm not familiar with the source material, but I'm always up for fantasy and science-fiction themed programming. I plan to check it out.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd recommend watching a streaming online episode if one can find it. I have a feeling it could be lost like in that jumping in partway through could make it harder to follow.

Don't worry, I have sources. :)

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was channel surfing last sunday and happened to catch game of thrones on hbo canada. At first my inner geek was tempted and I started to watch hoping to see some sword fighting and pitched battles. However that wasn't the case and so far it was character development and getting viewers into the story. I thought it was solid story telling and it didn't matter if they were swinging swords or were clad in armour, I forgot about that halfway thru. My only beef was the excess nudity, but I guess it helps accent the sexuality of the show and make that aspect a central theme.

But your pointing this out only makes some of us want to watch it more! I'm not a porno-user, so I have to get my nudity through more plausibly artistic means. Then I can justify the fact that I'm a c***-hound, but still a decent and respectful guy. :)

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to post
Share on other sites

My only beef was the excess nudity, but I guess it helps accent the sexuality of the show and make that aspect a central theme. Now this show airs on prime time and is rated 14A. All in all I was presently surprised by the show and wouldn't recommend it to mr. Canada because well his head would explode.

I would like to know what our more knowledgeable and articulate tv and film afficionados (kimmy and august1991 and others) think about it.

Great, now I have to see it to see what is meant by "excess nudity."

My bias is I'd rather see lots of sex n' flesh than blood n' guts since I find North American puritanical cultural influences strange, to say the least.

As for knowing what Kimmy would have to say about it - yes that would be interesting if she could see it.

As for August - well, we all know that she doesn't need to see anything before writing paragraphs about it. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is one of the best new productions from HBO in years; the US reviews offer nothing but praise. I was afraid I would be disappointed but it is more than I ever expected, and my understanding is that future episodes will not disappoint. This review was posted on another forum and I found it helpful in filling in some of the blanks, which were many upon my first viewing.

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/tv/review-game-of-thrones-premiere-hbo.php

Link to post
Share on other sites

The books are very popular and hugely praised. I bought the first book in the series, read most of it, but didn't continue. I thought it was too dark and depressing.

The first show of the series didn't strike me in the same way, but it obviously was putting its time into familiarizing people with the world, culture and people. There was some nudity, including, interestingly, an incestuous scene between the Queen and her brother, and what looked like the lead-in to another one between the Targaryen siblings.Ah well, you know these inbred royals. I'm just surprised an American network would show it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did manage to watch this... and it certainly has potential. The premise struck me as being a lot like Dune, with the treachery and intrigue between rival noble houses and all that. It looks like a good cast as well. I like Sean Bean and Lena Headley.

That said, I didn't exactly fall head over heels for it... and probably the reason is just the large number of characters they introduced in a short period of time and the amount of background and exposition they had to cover was pretty daunting.

I'm interested enough to keep watching, and I expect that as they spend more time with the characters it will become pretty addictive.

There was some nudity, including, interestingly, an incestuous scene between the Queen and her brother, and what looked like the lead-in to another one between the Targaryen siblings.

I don't think the latter scene was intended to show any romantic feeling. I think it was intended to show just the opposite: she's just an object as far as he's concerned. He doesn't think of her as his sister or even as a person, she's just a shiny bauble to bribe the barbarians with.

Pet peeve tangent alert: it bugs me when a show uses hair-color as a substitute for characterization. They might as well have Sean Bean's family wandering around with white cowboy hats and Lena Headley's family and the Targaryan twins wandering around in black cowboy hats. Lena Headley looks kind of weird as a blonde anyway.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, now I have to see it to see what is meant by "excess nudity."

My bias is I'd rather see lots of sex n' flesh than blood n' guts since I find North American puritanical cultural influences strange, to say the least.

As for knowing what Kimmy would have to say about it - yes that would be interesting if she could see it.

As for August - well, we all know that she doesn't need to see anything before writing paragraphs about it. :rolleyes:

I am a pretty big prude, but I won't let something like that ruin a show for me and I try to keep an open mind. I was a little miffed at the lack of ass kickery in the show, but I figured it was a good enough story so far to balance that out. I liked the ass kickery of the pacific and if there could be ass kickery on that scale I would be a happy cowboy. Sounds like the show will probly get a fair balance of t and a with people being fileted.

I wonder if this is shaping up to be like the borgias.

I'm surprised it got the 14a rating

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a pretty big prude, but I won't let something like that ruin a show for me and I try to keep an open mind. I was a little miffed at the lack of ass kickery in the show, but I figured it was a good enough story so far to balance that out. I liked the ass kickery of the pacific and if there could be ass kickery on that scale I would be a happy cowboy. Sounds like the show will probly get a fair balance of t and a with people being fileted.

I'm curious--and this isn't a judgement--why you'd be a self-confessed prude about sexuality, but not about violence?

Don't get me wrong--I love violent entertainment. I really, really do.

I'm just not clear of why violence would be preferable to sexuality in any sort of moral sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious--and this isn't a judgement--why you'd be a self-confessed prude about sexuality, but not about violence?

Don't get me wrong--I love violent entertainment. I really, really do.

I'm just not clear of why violence would be preferable to sexuality in any sort of moral sense.

That would be culture and how a person grew up. Each household is different. I happen to prefer watching a pitched battle on tv than people making out.

So the answer would be the same reason why people prefer sexuality to violence. Some people get put off by violence as I get put off by sexuality in cinema. That's just people being different and there's nothing wrong with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be culture and how a person grew up. Each household is different. I happen to prefer watching a pitched battle on tv than people making out.

So the answer would be the same reason why people prefer sexuality to violence. Some people get put off by violence as I get put off by sexuality in cinema. That's just people being different and there's nothing wrong with that.

No. I have never seen a movie that I abhor for its violence, and I've had debates (here on this forum) where I've been informed that my love of horror movies makes me "sick." So, you'll get no judgement from me on entertainment tastes. I was just curious.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a big fan of the books. I read the whole series and I've got to say it is one of the best fantasy series I've ever read, and I've read just about all of the well known ones and most of the obscure ones too. Judging by the first episode, the show is staying very close to the plot of the first book. It also looks well produced and the acting is pretty decent.

Anyway, for those that like fantasy shows, I highly recommend this, if it keeps following the books, it will have one of the most awesome plot lines of a TV show ever. Fair warning though, the world is extremely grim and horrible things will happen to people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I have never seen a movie that I abhor for its violence, and I've had debates (here on this forum) where I've been informed that my love of horror movies makes me "sick." So, you'll get no judgement from me on entertainment tastes. I was just curious.

The Killer Inside Me. I clicked on it while surfing channels and saw maybe sixty seconds. It made me, not physically, but maybe emotionally ill. Awful stuff. I would rather watch any amount of porn than that sort of nasty, deliberate violence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Killer Inside Me. I clicked on it while surfing channels and saw maybe sixty seconds. It made me, not physically, but maybe emotionally ill. Awful stuff. I would rather watch any amount of porn than that sort of nasty, deliberate violence.

It does get very brutal, no question. At any rate, I found the whole thing kinda diappointing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does get very brutal, no question. At any rate, I found the whole thing kinda diappointing.

The only thing I found disappointing was that someone didn't come in while he was beating Jessica Alba and throw him through a window. :angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Ok, I've checked out Game of Thrones. It is very impressive. HBO is building up a really good repertoire.

In a way, I prefer GoT to Lord of the Rings. It's darker, danker, and has superior characterization. (That's not really an insult to LotR, which after all is a different kind of animal in many ways.)

For a television program, it rivals the Sopranos and Boardwalk Empire for its intelligence, its really awesome dialogue (outstanding dialogue) and its excellent characters.

Good stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I've checked out Game of Thrones. It is very impressive. HBO is building up a really good repertoire.

In a way, I prefer GoT to Lord of the Rings. It's darker, danker, and has superior characterization. (That's not really an insult to LotR, which after all is a different kind of animal in many ways.)

For a television program, it rivals the Sopranos and Boardwalk Empire for its intelligence, its really awesome dialogue (outstanding dialogue) and its excellent characters.

Good stuff.

I have really enjoyed it as well. After the slightly bewildering first episode, they've been able to spend more time with the central characters and they're all compelling in their own ways.

I've seen movies where I'd already read the book, and I've read books after seeing the movie. This time I'm trying something new: reading the book as I follow the series. The book fleshes out the characters and the cultures in ways the tv show can only hint at... but watching something unfold in live action has a magic of its own.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have really enjoyed it as well. After the slightly bewildering first episode, they've been able to spend more time with the central characters and they're all compelling in their own ways.

Yeah, it's got a bit of that "Russian novel problem," but a little patience pays off. :)

I love "the imp," Tyrion Lannister. He's awesome. And the children are uniformly good, and are real characters rather than set-pieces, which is nice to see.

I've seen movies where I'd already read the book, and I've read books after seeing the movie. This time I'm trying something new: reading the book as I follow the series. The book fleshes out the characters and the cultures in ways the tv show can only hint at... but watching something unfold in live action has a magic of its own.

-k

No doubt. I won't get to the books till later, but I do plan to give them a shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's got a bit of that "Russian novel problem," but a little patience pays off. :)

I love "the imp," Tyrion Lannister. He's awesome. And the children are uniformly good, and are real characters rather than set-pieces, which is nice to see.

No doubt. I won't get to the books till later, but I do plan to give them a shot.

Yes, he's an awesome character, and only gets more awesome in the follow up books. I highly recommend reading them! I also enjoyed the Game of Thrones book series (The Song of Ice and Fire) more than I did the Lord of the Rings series (though both pale in comparison to Tolkien's master work, The Silmarillion).

With the TV series, I wasn't super excited after the 1st and 2nd episodes, but it is really starting to pick up in episode 3 and 4. I hope it gets through at least 3 seasons, cause the 3rd book is the most awesome and I'd love to see those events on screen.

For a television program, it rivals the Sopranos and Boardwalk Empire for its intelligence, its really awesome dialogue (outstanding dialogue) and its excellent characters.

All the awesome lines are taken literally word for word from the books. And there's a lot more where that came from!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have really enjoyed it as well. After the slightly bewildering first episode, they've been able to spend more time with the central characters and they're all compelling in their own ways.

I've seen movies where I'd already read the book, and I've read books after seeing the movie. This time I'm trying something new: reading the book as I follow the series. The book fleshes out the characters and the cultures in ways the tv show can only hint at... but watching something unfold in live action has a magic of its own.

-k

I haven't seen the tv episodes but I tried to read the books. I just couldn't get into them! I found them so convoluted and dark as to stifle my interest. Perhaps I should watch an episode to see if it grabs me better.

This was an anomalous experience for me, someone who has been devouring SF and fantasy all his life and even more, has read and enjoyed many books by the author, George R Martin.

Back in the 80's he wrote a book called "The Armageddon Rag" which I KNOW you would love, Kimmy! It's the story of a writer from the "Rolling Stone" magazine days of the 60's Viet Nam hippy dippy protester era who finds himself investigating the murder of a rock and roll developer who had been the agent for one of the most popular bands of that time. This leads him to a new promoter who is reviving the band, complete with a young "ringer" for the lead singer, who had been shot on stage at a big "Woodstock" style outdoor concert years before.

The writer has a personal odyssey of re-discovering his own values, much of it through the music of the times. Throw in some magic, possibly satanic, where the "ringer" appears at times to be possessed on stage by the spirit of the original singer, exerting an unearthly effect on the audience and you have a story worthy of a Steven King!

To me, as a George Martin fan this is THE book! As an old hippy myself all the references went straight to my heart. You being younger might miss a few but you would catch enough to give you a good insight into the spirit of those times, an insight which somehow never seems to be widely expressed in other books or media. I know that radio rarely plays much of the music of those times. Conspiracy, maybe? The music then was so wrapped up in politics - with the anti-war movement and what happened at Kent State and also the riots in Chicago at the political convention.

If you are still enjoying playing "Smoke on the Water" you would enjoy this book! :P

Edited by Wild Bill
Link to post
Share on other sites

I love "the imp," Tyrion Lannister. He's awesome. And the children are uniformly good, and are real characters rather than set-pieces, which is nice to see.

Yes, Tyrion is terrific.

And the children are very much characters rather than props. In the book (I've just finished reading to where the TV show ended the first episode) the narrative moves to different points of view, and Arya and Bran's points-of-view have a really authentic quality that makes me think that George RR Martin must have been a middle-sibling himself.

One thing that's been deliberately changed from the book to the TV show: the children on the TV show are older than they are in the book. On the show, Sansa is 13, Bran is 10, Arya is between them... in the book, Sansa is 11 and Bran is 7. On the show, Jon and Daenarys appear to be young adults... in the book they're 14 and 13 respectively. The book seems based on a medieval sensiblity where you're an adult almost as soon as you're old enough to have children. And it seems like the producers of the show were not exactly comfortable with the idea of having a girl married and pregnant at age 13, or betrothed at 11, or a boy sent off to join a military order at age 14. They've bumped everything up for the sake of not freaking out the viewers.

Yes, he's an awesome character, and only gets more awesome in the follow up books. I highly recommend reading them! I also enjoyed the Game of Thrones book series (The Song of Ice and Fire) more than I did the Lord of the Rings series (though both pale in comparison to Tolkien's master work, The Silmarillion).

Wow! I didn't think there was anybody else out there who'd not just read the Silmarillion from start to finished but also enjoyed it. It's nice to know I'm not alone. :)

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed this week's episode as well.

We didn't see any of Jon and the gang at the Wall this week, and no sign of Daenarys and her barbarian horde, either, though she was much-discussed. Instead, we got to meet Catelyn's sister, and spend a little time with the Lannister twins. Which was a good thing, because up until this episode they have been more or less stock villains. Cersei the scheming heartless bitch, Jaime the smug and sneering douchebag.

The chat between Cersei and King Robert kind of put her in a different light. It was not surprising that they hate each other... but a little surprising that he's always hated her, and quite surprising that she actually seemed to care. It made me feel just a little sympathy for her, or at least made her seem like a human being for the first time on the show.

And I liked seeing Jaime Lannister throw down with Ned Stark. Jaime, up until now, has been just a rich-guy in silk shirts with a droll sense of humor and a smug, sneering contempt for pretty much everybody except his siblings. The show hadn't hinted at him being anything more than a dastardly pretty-boy who crippled a small boy without a moment's regret. There's a character we're all used to seeing, the cowardly villain who hides behind his minions and does everything to avoid the righteous fury of our hero; our hero inevitably smacks the shit out of him in a climactic battle. And pretty clearly... Jaime Lannister is the exact opposite of that guy. He hasn't the slightest fear of Stark, and for good reason apparently. He can back up his attitude with his sword. He picked a fight with the biggest dog in the yard and made his point. You can't blame Jaime for being upset that they abducted his brother, can you?

And ... the overheard conversation ("The Lion and the Wolf will be at each other's throats", meaning the Lannisters and Starks...) makes one wonder if all of them are being played. And how does the angle about Jon Arryn seeking out Robert's illegitimate offspring figure into things? And by the way, does anybody remember that there were frozen zombies in the opening minutes of the very first episode? What happened to that story?

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...