Author Topic: Game of Thrones (no spoilers) (Read 7073 times)

roo_ster · « **on:** July 27, 2011, 11:23:05 AM »

Buddy of mine has the episodes all "tivoed" on his linux media machine.

[FTR GOT is an HBO series based on some fantasy books.]

Saw the first one. Objectively, it was decent TV, though not great. It was decidedly dark and twisted, like so much else put out by Hollywierd...and nearly every series on pay-cable channels nowadays.

I am not against self-consciously "gritty" or dark storylines, but I do wonder at what point does iconoclastic or "edgy" become orthodox and banal? I suspect we have already passed that point.

Also, I sometimes get a little tired with "generic high medieval" fantasy settings that give the setting little thought. I don't know if the books do this, but I saw many, many anachronisms in the episode. I'm not asking for JRRT-level depth, but please leave the khopesh swords out of the generic high medieval Europe-ish setting.

Balog · « **Reply #1 on:** July 27, 2011, 11:39:54 AM »

I saw the first episode. Pretty good, and fairly true to the books from what I recall. The books are quite a bit darker and grittier (and more realistic to the sort of things history shows actually happened) than most things I've seen.

Iirc the knopesh looking swords were used by the Dothraki, who are more analogous to the Mongolian hordes than generic Europe. Also, isn't it self-contradictory to complain that the setting is generic medieval Euro, then complain when the setting deviates from generic Euro? I also note that "high fantasy" is by definition not dark or gritty.

As for the depth of world building in the books, it's not as ~~anal retentive~~ deep as Robert Jordan and his lengthy dissertations on the clothing, hair styles, and chief exports of every freaking nation in the world. And I am incredibly glad of it. I swear RJ was getting payed by the word towards the end...

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #2 on:** July 27, 2011, 12:00:51 PM »

Quote

Also, I sometimes get a little tired with "generic high medieval" fantasy settings that give the setting little thought. I don't know if the books do this, but I saw many, many anachronisms in the episode. I'm not asking for JRRT-level depth, but please leave the khopesh swords out of the generic high medieval Europe-ish setting.

Tolkien has other-than-European swords used by some Noldor in Silmarillion, I think.

roo_ster · « **Reply #3 on:** July 27, 2011, 02:24:10 PM »

My point about the khopesh swords is that they were used in ancient Egypt. They had been out of use for 1000-2000 years by anyone by the later medieval years. And they were made of bronze, to be used by infantry and maybe a crazed charioteer who eschewed spears & javelins. A decidedly clumsy weapon with which to burden a cavalryman.

Somehow I doubt the horse-barbarians were engaging in a conscious, retrospective neo-egyptian homage in a way the neo-classicists in vogue at the time of the American Revolution were engaging in Greek & Roman revival.

Quote

I saw the first episode. Pretty good, and fairly true to the books from what I recall. The books are quite a bit darker and grittier (and more realistic to the sort of things history shows actually happened) than most things I've seen.(1)

Iirc the knopesh looking swords were used by the Dothraki, who are more analogous to the Mongolian hordes than generic Europe. Also, isn't it self-contradictory to complain that the setting is generic medieval Euro, then complain when the setting deviates from generic Euro? I also note that "high fantasy" is by definition not dark or gritty.(2)

As for the depth of world building in the books, it's not as anal retentive deep as Robert Jordan and his lengthy dissertations on the clothing, hair styles, and chief exports of every freaking nation in the world. And I am incredibly glad of it. I swear RJ was getting payed by the word towards the end...(3)

(1) There is some irony of claiming realism in a setting that is lacking internal consistency.

(2) No. Hence the "-ish." I wish they'd get it right or go home, rather than treat history as a buffet table.

Also, high fantasy != high medieval. They are different critters. One is a literary genre, another is an historical period.

(3)I never read anything by Robert Jordan. Judging his books by their spines, he could have used an editor wielding a meat cleaver.

Last, I can see where the series is headed without googling it. The story is going to rely more on its dark tones to bully through rather than a creative plot, the basis of which was shouted out all during episode #1. Perhaps the books are otherwise well-written and rewarding, though.

PTK · « **Reply #4 on:** July 27, 2011, 02:31:19 PM »

GREAT SHOW, after the first episode. The first episode dramatically differed from the book, being 15 minutes of plot and about 50 minutes of T&A to hook viewers. After that, it improved and started being in line with the story. I eagerly await season 2. :)

Balog · « **Reply #5 on:** July 27, 2011, 02:33:21 PM »

It's only internally inconsistent if their history is exactly the same as ours. Saying "It's an Egyptian weapon and Egypt was not a viable empire long before medieval Europe" when the fantasy setting is not based on history is... Odd.

And, no offense, but seeing a tv show that portrays a few chapters from the first book of a huge series and then assuming you know exactly where it is going, and dismissing it as uncreative is rather silly.

When I mentioned high fantasy I was referring to the genre not time period. And it's a huge error to say "Well, the approximate tech of this civilization is equal to Europe at X date, therefor the civ is just Europe at X date and any deviation from the actual history of Europe at X date is not consistent."

agricola · « **Reply #6 on:** July 27, 2011, 03:00:55 PM »

Thought the whole series was great, myself.

roo_ster · « **Reply #7 on:** July 27, 2011, 06:08:51 PM »

SPOILER ALERT AND POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT

Quote from: Balog on July 27, 2011, 02:33:21 PM

It's only internally inconsistent if their history is exactly the same as ours. Saying "It's an Egyptian weapon and Egypt was not a viable empire long before medieval Europe" when the fantasy setting is not based on history is... Odd.

And, no offense, but seeing a tv show that portrays a few chapters from the first book of a huge series and then assuming you know exactly where it is going, and dismissing it as uncreative is rather silly.

When I mentioned high fantasy I was referring to the genre not time period. And it's a huge error to say "Well, the approximate tech of this civilization is equal to Europe at X date, therefor the civ is just Europe at X date and any deviation from the actual history of Europe at X date is not consistent."

OK, internal consistency is not something you care about.

How about this:
1. King's son is not his, it is his BIL's
2. New war leader is to be whacked by king's wife & her brother(s), but they hold off until he can repel the invasion of the khopesh-wielding horsey folk and the pretender to the throne. Former war leader likely whacked because he knew too much.
3. Once Horse-folk beat back, war leader murdered and the incestuous couple are regents until their son's majority.
4. King is murdered sometime after horsey folk beaten back or dies during the war.
5. Toss in some intrigue and a few more betrayals and mix until smooth and spread out over 10 episodes.

Quote from: PTK on July 27, 2011, 02:31:19 PM

GREAT SHOW, after the first episode. The first episode dramatically differed from the book, being 15 minutes of plot and about 50 minutes of T&A to hook viewers. After that, it improved and started being in line with the story. I eagerly await season 2. :)

That is heartening.

Portraying a book in one season of a 10 episode series is a pretty good approach. I enjoyed the LOTR movies, despite their flaws, but the books really needed more screen time (and a director who understood JRRT's voice, not just the action & dialog--also, not ALL dwarves can be comic relief). Here's hoping Jackson can manage to capture the spirit of The Hobbit, which is much easier and lighter.

And how about the John Carter trailer?
http://disney.go.com/johncarter/?cmp=wdsmp_jcm_url_johncarterarrives#video

Balog · « **Reply #8 on:** July 27, 2011, 06:13:45 PM »

You either misread my post, or have a very different definition of "internal consistency" than I do.

As for your summation of the plot, you are incorrect. Although I suppose I should disclaimer that I haven't read the latest book in the series, but as far as the first book goes you're off.

Seenterman · « **Reply #9 on:** July 27, 2011, 06:56:08 PM »

They have summers that last 10 years man! So unrealistic!

Iain · « **Reply #10 on:** July 27, 2011, 07:05:19 PM »

Quote from: Balog on July 27, 2011, 06:13:45 PM

As for your summation of the plot, you are incorrect.

To put it mildly.

MikeB · « **Reply #11 on:** July 27, 2011, 07:13:01 PM »

Quote from: roo_ster on July 27, 2011, 06:08:51 PM

SPOILER ALERT AND POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT

OK, internal consistency is not something you care about.

How about this:
1. King's son is not his, it is his BIL's
2. New war leader is to be whacked by king's wife & her brother(s), but they hold off until he can repel the invasion of the khopesh-wielding horsey folk and the pretender to the throne. Former war leader likely whacked because he knew too much.
3. Once Horse-folk beat back, war leader murdered and the incestuous couple are regents until their son's majority.
4. King is murdered sometime after horsey folk beaten back or dies during the war.
5. Toss in some intrigue and a few more betrayals and mix until smooth and spread out over 10 episodes.

I heard about the series and have only seen two or three episodes but read the books and it is probably darker and more graphic than you really think right now.

1. Yes if it is the character I believe you are referring to, it could be more than one possibly.
2. I believe you are way way off on the storyline other than someone was wacked because they knew too much, but a lot of people are wacked for that.
3. Probably not even close to the eventual story.
4. Again not even close.
5. Well there is a lot of intrigue and betrayals, but ten episodes can't come close to the story, but may via hollywood interpretation. One interesting thing about the series is I understand the author is a Hollywood writer and the series is written closer to a screenplay than a traditional novel, it does seem to work though.

Stand_watie · « **Reply #12 on:** July 27, 2011, 09:33:51 PM »

Is anybody else still p.o.'d that RJ had the temerity to up and die on us?

Balog · « **Reply #13 on:** July 27, 2011, 09:38:56 PM »

Re WoT and RJ...

I couldn't make it past book 4 or so. Dude really really needed some editorial work.

Stand_watie · « **Reply #14 on:** July 27, 2011, 10:44:58 PM »

Quote from: Balog on July 27, 2011, 09:38:56 PM

Re WoT and RJ...

I couldn't make it past book 4 or so. Dude really really needed some editorial work.

Some of us like clandestine, byzantine rabbit trails. Dislike dying before finishing.( veins throbbing in neck) "NOT COOL MAN! NOT COOL AT ALL!!!"

Jocassee · « **Reply #15 on:** June 11, 2012, 09:34:56 AM »

I bulldozed through the first season last weekend and half of the second season this weekend. I'm enjoying it much more than I thought I would, seeing as I don't usually go for fantasy. My favorite character is the Hound. Not a nice man but a total badass.

HankB · « **Reply #16 on:** June 11, 2012, 02:21:08 PM »

Quote from: Balog on July 27, 2011, 09:38:56 PM

Re WoT and RJ...

I couldn't make it past book 4 or so. Dude really really needed some editorial work.

This.

I liked the first couple of books, but around #4 or #5 they began to be filled with pages and pages of irrelevancies that neither developed the characters nor advanced the story; I think he WAS getting paid by the word and . . . it showed. I tried to stick it out, but I gave up in disgust around #6 in the series. (Here's a thought - maybe Robert Jordan discovered Atlas Shrugged and thought The Speech was great writing?)

agricola · « **Reply #17 on:** June 11, 2012, 04:49:30 PM »

Watched it, loved it, thought episode 9 of series 2 was the high point so far.

charby · « **Reply #18 on:** June 11, 2012, 05:14:10 PM »

Tonks gets naked...

lupinus · « **Reply #19 on:** June 11, 2012, 06:14:47 PM »

Great show, live the books as well

RocketMan · « **Reply #20 on:** June 16, 2012, 02:06:16 PM »

Started watching GoT on HBO On Demand the other night. Didn't expect to like it, just wanted to see what the fuss was about after reading about it elsewhere. Dang it, I'm hooked. Finished season one in four days, now on to season two. Not going to finish the kitchen remodel this weekend.