![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I saw the pilot episode of Game of Thrones tonight. Prior to viewing it, I read a smattering of non-spoilery reviews, two by people who love the fantasy genre and have fairly eclectic taste, both professional television reviewers, Matt Rush of TV Guide and Ken Tucker of Entertainment Weekly, and three from female reviewers who, well, are either 1)not fans of the fantasy genre or 2)not fans of the books and viewed it unfavorably and then compared it to television series that aren't even in the same trope. This would be akin to me telling you that I dislike Fringe because it doesn't have the scope and multi-faceted point of view or as many various characters as say, The Killing or Game of Thrones. Or stating that Glee isn't as good as Buffy the Vampire Slayer - two different tropes, the only thing they have in common is they are both in high schools. CS Lewis is not wrong - it is dangerous to review a series that falls within a genre that you are not fond of, and even more dangerous to compare it to a television series that is vastly different than it. Granted, you could say Camelot and Borgias are similar - except, I don't believe so, they are historical narratives based on legends, folklore and histories that have been written down by lots of people and are fairly well known and well-studied by many academics and scholars, much like The Tudors and Merlin, as opposed to a series of epic fantasy novels about a make-believe world intricately written by one writer over a ten-fifteen span a lot like say Tolkien did with Lord of the Rings. I haven't seen either (Camelot or The Borgias) and based on the reviews from those who love such things? Have relatively little interest in either for a simple enough reason - I find historicals based on historical record to be relatively dull and often soap-operaish. And I've grown tired of Arthurian Legends that restrict themselves to one version of the mythos, the Medievalist view, ignoring all prior takes. In short, it occurs to me in reading reviews including my own that they are largely subjective and generally unreliable.
The best reviewers I've found are those who have widely diverse taste, even more diverse than mine, perhaps? ( attempt to explain myself )
I know I've commented on all of that before, rather recently in fact, but sometimes I think it bears repeating and it's a topic that has been sticking in my craw lately. So this is me ripping it out.
Did I like Game of Thrones and more importantly will you? Ah. I can answer the first question rather easily, but I'm not certain of the second. Very difficult to determine whether someone else, regardless of how well we know them will like something. Was discussing this with Momster over the phone the other night. About what my father likes. There is no discernible pattern that I can find to his tastes. For example - over 30 years ago - he loved Upstairs Downstairs, he does not however like the new version or Downton Abbey - finds both to be rather slow. Yet, he adores Ballykissangel - which is an Irish Soap Opera and rather similar. Also, he loved Prime Suspect, but finds The Killing to be too bleak. And is a fan of NCIS? Mind boggling. I'd say the man was into sports, but he goes to sleep during football games or he will take off in the middle of one to go rake leaves. OTOH - he has been known to insist on watching the games, and has watched four in a row. Throughout my life - my father has verbally smacked me upside the head for making generalizations, and forcing me to back my arguments up. Which he would probably do here, if he were to read this - stating you can't pigeon hole people or determine a pattern to their tastes any more than you can your own.
( Preamble on the Books, no spoilers, just why I like them and recommend them- somewhat long )
Enuf preamble - The Review
In adapting the television series - HBO is attempting to do what George RR Martin did - create an epic fantasy for television, with multiple points of view, from various ages, genders, etc, and in various settings and locals. It's an ambitious endeavor, far more ambitious than well anything else I've seen to date. Can they pull it off? Don't know yet. Hard to tell from the first episode. But I like experimental television - or "cult" tv. TV which surprises me. This is meant to be a series of novels for television, with each scene building on the next, each character, each point of view,
slowly over time, chapter, by chapter. Intricately layered like one might construct a castle.
In some respects the endeavor reminds me a little of Battlestar Galatica - or maybe the Wire (which I have not seen and can't really comment on - except to say that I know the Wire was an attempt to create an intricately layered novel for television - I'm not sure, but I don't believe it was adapted from an established work and it is within a completely different genre, so comparisons between the two don't work past the fact that they are both experiments. In addition the Wire is over with - it is complete. While Game of Thrones is just beginning.)
The first episode of the television series Game of Thrones sets the scene rather well - we are introduced to the main characters in the initial arc. Others will be introduced as time progresses. And yes, in case you were wondering and have not read it elsewhere - it does follow the book rather closely. There are differences here and there, I'm certain, but I can't remember the book well enough to know what they are. When I state Martin's books are detailed, I'm not joking, you can smell, taste, and touch his world - his language pulls you inside it. You hear his characters talk. Their voices distinctly their own. Here, in the adaptation, I feel that as well, to a degree. There are actors that work in the adaptation better than others.
( spoilers for the television series )
The sex and violence in Martin's novels is somewhat graphic. Although he really doesn't dwell on sexual violence, so much as refer to it. Not sure if that will be true here or not. In my view, it makes the story more realistic. There's a primal feeling to that time period which I think Martin conveys well in his books, a raw energy. And this episode demonstrates that well.
I rather enjoyed this episode and am very pleased that I got HBO. So many perks. First off, no commercials, something people outside the US most likely can't fully appreciate. But to watch a tv show without any breaks in the flow, the need to fast-forward, or the jarring interruption of a commercial - is a pleasure. Also, to be able to not worry about unloading the DVD...so nice.
I don't agree with the detractors. The characters resonated with me. I love Scean Bean's weary Ned Stark, and Catelynn who begs him not to go. Mark Addy's Robert - the King, who really just wants to hunt and whore to his heart's content. And the devilish twins, Jamie and Cersei, one who just wants his sister and to sword-fight, taking little seriously, the other who desires power at any cost.
All the characters, everything about it - fascinates and thrills me like a shiny new toy. Something chewy, to play with. I think I may like the tv series better than I liked the books.
But despite all that? Does this episode succeed in its' aim? To introduce the world, the characters, and the main plot arcs - in a short period of time, without boring exposition? And remain faithful to the books from which it is adapted? All the while jumping between numerous points of view and innovatively expanding on the art form? Yes, I believe it does succeed on all those points. While far from perfect, but things rarely are, it does do what it aims to do, and rather well I think.
Overall rating? A
The best reviewers I've found are those who have widely diverse taste, even more diverse than mine, perhaps? ( attempt to explain myself )
I know I've commented on all of that before, rather recently in fact, but sometimes I think it bears repeating and it's a topic that has been sticking in my craw lately. So this is me ripping it out.
Did I like Game of Thrones and more importantly will you? Ah. I can answer the first question rather easily, but I'm not certain of the second. Very difficult to determine whether someone else, regardless of how well we know them will like something. Was discussing this with Momster over the phone the other night. About what my father likes. There is no discernible pattern that I can find to his tastes. For example - over 30 years ago - he loved Upstairs Downstairs, he does not however like the new version or Downton Abbey - finds both to be rather slow. Yet, he adores Ballykissangel - which is an Irish Soap Opera and rather similar. Also, he loved Prime Suspect, but finds The Killing to be too bleak. And is a fan of NCIS? Mind boggling. I'd say the man was into sports, but he goes to sleep during football games or he will take off in the middle of one to go rake leaves. OTOH - he has been known to insist on watching the games, and has watched four in a row. Throughout my life - my father has verbally smacked me upside the head for making generalizations, and forcing me to back my arguments up. Which he would probably do here, if he were to read this - stating you can't pigeon hole people or determine a pattern to their tastes any more than you can your own.
( Preamble on the Books, no spoilers, just why I like them and recommend them- somewhat long )
Enuf preamble - The Review
In adapting the television series - HBO is attempting to do what George RR Martin did - create an epic fantasy for television, with multiple points of view, from various ages, genders, etc, and in various settings and locals. It's an ambitious endeavor, far more ambitious than well anything else I've seen to date. Can they pull it off? Don't know yet. Hard to tell from the first episode. But I like experimental television - or "cult" tv. TV which surprises me. This is meant to be a series of novels for television, with each scene building on the next, each character, each point of view,
slowly over time, chapter, by chapter. Intricately layered like one might construct a castle.
In some respects the endeavor reminds me a little of Battlestar Galatica - or maybe the Wire (which I have not seen and can't really comment on - except to say that I know the Wire was an attempt to create an intricately layered novel for television - I'm not sure, but I don't believe it was adapted from an established work and it is within a completely different genre, so comparisons between the two don't work past the fact that they are both experiments. In addition the Wire is over with - it is complete. While Game of Thrones is just beginning.)
The first episode of the television series Game of Thrones sets the scene rather well - we are introduced to the main characters in the initial arc. Others will be introduced as time progresses. And yes, in case you were wondering and have not read it elsewhere - it does follow the book rather closely. There are differences here and there, I'm certain, but I can't remember the book well enough to know what they are. When I state Martin's books are detailed, I'm not joking, you can smell, taste, and touch his world - his language pulls you inside it. You hear his characters talk. Their voices distinctly their own. Here, in the adaptation, I feel that as well, to a degree. There are actors that work in the adaptation better than others.
( spoilers for the television series )
The sex and violence in Martin's novels is somewhat graphic. Although he really doesn't dwell on sexual violence, so much as refer to it. Not sure if that will be true here or not. In my view, it makes the story more realistic. There's a primal feeling to that time period which I think Martin conveys well in his books, a raw energy. And this episode demonstrates that well.
I rather enjoyed this episode and am very pleased that I got HBO. So many perks. First off, no commercials, something people outside the US most likely can't fully appreciate. But to watch a tv show without any breaks in the flow, the need to fast-forward, or the jarring interruption of a commercial - is a pleasure. Also, to be able to not worry about unloading the DVD...so nice.
I don't agree with the detractors. The characters resonated with me. I love Scean Bean's weary Ned Stark, and Catelynn who begs him not to go. Mark Addy's Robert - the King, who really just wants to hunt and whore to his heart's content. And the devilish twins, Jamie and Cersei, one who just wants his sister and to sword-fight, taking little seriously, the other who desires power at any cost.
All the characters, everything about it - fascinates and thrills me like a shiny new toy. Something chewy, to play with. I think I may like the tv series better than I liked the books.
But despite all that? Does this episode succeed in its' aim? To introduce the world, the characters, and the main plot arcs - in a short period of time, without boring exposition? And remain faithful to the books from which it is adapted? All the while jumping between numerous points of view and innovatively expanding on the art form? Yes, I believe it does succeed on all those points. While far from perfect, but things rarely are, it does do what it aims to do, and rather well I think.
Overall rating? A
