RainyKincaid Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 [url=http://tv.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/arts/television/game-of-thrones-begins-sunday-on-hbo-review.html?hp] Chilly review by a female critic in the Times today calling the series "boy fiction." "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."..."Since the arrival of “The Sopranos” more than a decade ago, HBO has distinguished itself as a corporate auteur committed, when it is as its most intelligent and dazzling, to examining the way that institutions are made and how they are upheld or fall apart: the Mafia, municipal government (“The Wire”), the Roman empire (“Rome”), the American West (“Deadwood”), religious fundamentalism (“Big Love”).When the network ventures away from its instincts for real-world sociology, as it has with the vampire saga “True Blood,” things start to feel cheap, and we feel as though we have been placed in the hands of cheaters. “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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abaddon Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 There's a lot of hostility in that review (and the WSJ review, not quite as bad, but similarly insulting). I don't know if the reviewers in those cases being women has anything to do with it -- there are a plethora of glowing reviews from women so far, as well as some less glowing but very thoughtful criticisms -- or if maybe it has something to do with a general air of snobbery associated with those newspapers. Whatever it is, it's really painful to read such a bitter review and makes you wonder what it is exactly that offends their sensibilities so much that they have to hurl 3rd-grade level insults as they are doing so.At the end of the day, however, she's flat out wrong in her assessment. There are enough reviews at this point from people that are not interested typically in fantasy, both male and female, to know that her final line shows her as very out of touch. We've seen a lot of very valid criticism in other reviews; this one, not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainyKincaid Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Hi Abbadon,I browsed a few of that critics other reviews and she tends to be irreverent and snarky. I don't usually read a lot of TV reviews but I think Alan Sepinwall's very respected. Here's his take on GoT, very complimentary.My link(sorry if I'm not doing the links right) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobMRobM Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Boston Globe has a rave today. http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2011/04/15/hbos_game_of_thrones_is_fantastical/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 The Independent in its weekly TV guide today has Game of Thrones as one of its picks for Monday, although the quote does seem to be somewhat damning with faint praise.Screen fantasy doesn't get any better than this - it just depends on whether you like fantasy in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted April 16, 2011 Author Share Posted April 16, 2011 I suspect The Times in the U.K. is going to pan it, I'm afraid. Their critic, or one of them anyways, was chortling on Twitter about how poor it was, laughing about there being someone named Brandon (???), and then going on a tangent about Emilia Clarke's derrière which had turned her 100% lesbian... Epic fantasy has a hell of a time among mainstream U.K. critics. I sometimes wonder if it's mostly because they're utterly horrified by the fact that Tolkien was English. If he had been an American, it'd just be this quaint American thing they could enjoy. But that such a thoroughly English Englishman, an Oxford don no less, could be the source of this ... it's inconcievable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andhaira Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 http://tv.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/arts/television/game-of-thrones-begins-sunday-on-hbo-review.htmlThoughts? Seems like a bunch of bullshit to be honest. Also, is this the first negative review the series has gotten yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 Given the main "epic" fantasy on TV in recent years in the UK has been Xena, it's not too surprising. Besides, the Times is staunchly Conservative, and the retired Colonels and respectable middle-aged housewives who are its stereotypical readership wouldn't be the target market anyway.On the other hand, Sky Atlantic are currently using the Sean Bean on the Iron Throne pic as their Twitter avatar, and the 15 minute preview will be on at 10 tonight after the premiere of The Pacific.And because I'm too much of a geek to let the opportunity pass me by - "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamjm Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 I suspect The Times in the U.K. is going to pan it, I'm afraid. Their critic, or one of them anyways, was chortling on Twitter about how poor it was, laughing about there being someone named Brandon (???), and then going on a tangent about Emilia Clarke's derrière which had turned her 100% lesbian...The Sunday Times' preview of it seems fairly positive:Against this impressively presented background - think early-medieval Europe - promising characters and subplots emerge as beheadings, bonkings and terror of creatures in the wilderness add spice. It is an imagining that should please an audience beyond the already established fans of the genre.Given the drama's origins, it is a surprise to see so many British actors - maybe for Americans the accent spells Dark Ages authenticity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah2 Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I can actually answer the Brandon thing because it bothered me when I first read the books - in the UK the only well-known Brandon is Brandon Walsh from the original 90210, thus its forever associated with Californian rich kids as a name in the UK. I imagine that the Times reviewer will make some reference to this, it just seems very unlikely as the name of a quasi-medieval fantasy character because of that, although that said it's not something I would dwell on unless I was looking for a cheap laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebla Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Charles Brandon would be disappointed. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah2 Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I know, his name besmirched.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWHamel Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I guess Sir William Brandon too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dixiehellcat Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I was just looking at GRRM's blog & loved his comment re the sucky excuse for a review in the NYT:"I am not going to get into it myself, except to say(1) if I am writing "boy fiction," who are all those boys with breasts who keep turning up by the hundreds at my signings and readings?and(2) thank you, geek girls! I love you all."hehe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.