Game of Thrones - TV Series (NO BOOK SPOILERS)

[Pheran]

Starting up!

 

[datalink7]

I don't have HBO but I really am looking forward to this. Hopefully it is quick to DVD/Netflix.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Does anyone know how long it usually takes shows to hit HBO GO?

 

[dwell]

Does anyone know how long it usually takes shows to hit HBO GO?

It's up already. Pretty cool version with (optional) Blu-ray style special features.

 

[Newbian]

I don't have HBO but I really am looking forward to this. Hopefully it is quick to DVD/Netflix.

Normally the same for me so will have to get from online but hbo is free for 15th-18th for dish network so will be able to catch tonight's first one on tv.

 

[Chriscross3234]

I'm interested to hear what you all think, I thought it was pretty good! It followed the book very closely in terms of plot and dialogue and I can only think of a couple of things that they left out.

 

[Pheran]

I thought the first episode was extremely well done, and there was a ton of subtext you could pick up on if you've read the books.

I still think the number of characters is daunting for the non-readers, but hopefully things will become clear in time - it takes a while to figure everything out when you start reading the series as well.

 

[Perknose]

It's now DVR'ed and I will watch. I hope some of the more ardent fans here won't assplode at some of the particulars in this NYT review:

The show has been elaborately made to the point that producers turned to a professional at something called the Language Creation Society to design a vocabulary for the savage Dothraki nomads who provide some of the more Playboy-TV-style plot points and who are forced to speak in subtitles.

[...]

The imagined historical universe of “Game of Thrones” gives license for unhindered bed-jumping — here sibling intimacy is hardly confined to emotional exchange.

[...]

The true perversion, though, is the sense you get that all of this illicitness has been tossed in as a little something for the ladies, out of a justifiable fear, perhaps, that no woman alive would watch otherwise.

[...]

“Game of Thrones” is boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half.

[...]

“Game of Thrones” serves up a lot of confusion in the name of no larger or really relevant idea beyond sketchily fleshed-out notions that war is ugly, families are insidious and power is hot. If you are not averse to the Dungeons & Dragons aesthetic, the series might be worth the effort. If you are nearly anyone else, you will hunger for HBO to get back to the business of languages for which we already have a dictionary.

Hey! Who said the daytime soaps are dead? Maybe they just switched centuries and switched channels!

 

[GoodRevrnd]

It's up already. Pretty cool version with (optional) Blu-ray style special features.

aha woot

stream quality leaves a little bit to be desired though.

 

[Pheran]

It's now DVR'ed and I will watch. I hope some of the more ardent fans here won't assplode at some of the particulars in this NYT review:

Hey! Who said the daytime soaps are dead? Maybe they just switched centuries and switched channels!

I'm already familiar with that idiotic review. Now, understand that I have no problem with negative reviews - not everyone is going to like it. But consider the following points:

1. The review says virtually nothing about the acting or plot points in the film, other than a bunch of vague, offhand references. It literally does not mention the name of a single actor or character in the show. It is so nebulous that it leads one to question whether the reviewer watched the show at all.

2. The review essentially insults all women by implying that they cannot enjoy fantasy unless it's laced with sex and says they are better off with the literary equivalent of chick flicks (and the reviewer is a woman - go figure).

3. The reviewer seems to think that the story is some kind of allegory for global warming. /facepalm

I would have no issue with an intelligently argued negative review, but that one is utter drivel.

 

[ghost recon88]

Lots of boobs already D:

 

[Perknose]

I'm already familiar with that idiotic review. Now, understand that I have no problem with negative reviews - not everyone is going to like it. But consider the following points:

1. The review says virtually nothing about the acting or plot points in the film, other than a bunch of vague, offhand references. It literally does not mention the name of a single actor or character in the show. It is so nebulous that it leads one to question whether the reviewer watched the show at all.

2. The review essentially insults all women by implying that they cannot enjoy fantasy unless it's laced with sex and says they are better off with the literary equivalent of chick flicks (and the reviewer is a woman - go figure).

3. The reviewer seems to think that the story is some kind of allegory for global warming. /facepalm

I would have no issue with an intelligently argued negative review, but that one is utter drivel.

You might be right, I don't know, I haven't seen any of the show yet and I didn't read the book(s). It certainly wasn't a sympathetic review, I'll say that!

 

[Newbian]

Lots of boobs already D:

At least they are legal unlike in the book, Daenerys Targaryen was 13 when she wed and got busy in the books.

A few others like Sansa have it in the books but since the actress playing her is only 14 hopefully it won't get to awkward compared to in the books.

 

[ghost recon88]

That blond girl, who was given the dragon eggs, not sure her name but man she is hot

 

[Newbian]

That blond girl, who was given the dragon eggs, not sure her name but man she is hot

That is "Daenerys Targaryen" in the books, play by the actress Emilia Clarke.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

That blond girl, who was given the dragon eggs, not sure her name but man she is hot

Seriously. I was in awe. The trailers didn't really do her justice.

 

[Aikouka]

Interesting show so far... although, I'm not sure if it paces itself so well for a TV series.

 

[fustercluck]

It's a beautiful looking show but I'm not interested in the story. Monsters/Dragons don't help either, I was hoping it to be somewhat realistic.

 

[Newbian]

It's a beautiful looking show but I'm not interested in the story. Monsters/Dragons don't help either, I was hoping it to be somewhat realistic.

If it's going to be based on the books then you should watch something else.

 

[JujuFish]

It's a beautiful looking show but I'm not interested in the story. Monsters/Dragons don't help either, I was hoping it to be somewhat realistic.

Do you know what the term "fantasy" means?

 

[BoomerD]

Watched the opening episode. I never read the books...in fact, I've never heard of it until HBO started touting the show.

It's not bad, but IMO, not great. We'll see what the coming episodes bring.

 

[DangerAardvark]

It was great. I'm impressed with the amount of depth they managed to cram into the world in an hour.

 

[Printer Bandit]

CGI was lame. hope they improve it.

 

[fustercluck]

Do you know what the term "fantasy" means?

I know now it's fantasy, but didn't know what to expect before watching it. Not everyone salivated over this series for the past 3 months and knows everything about it - Also I don't like dark depressing stuff (go figure) so another reason I won't continue to watch, even though I'm sure it'll be a fine series.

 

[BoomerD]

CGI was lame. hope they improve it.

Meh...don't hold your breath. CGI is always lame.