Critiquing the Critics

[Abaddon]

Oh no, we've lost the religiously conservative Mormon audience. What will we ever do.

[Brienne the Beauty]

Oh no, we've lost the religiously conservative Mormon audience. What will we ever do.

Orson Scott Card is a famous homophobe. No doubt there was one sexposition scene in particular that he took exception to. :rofl:

He also claims that "But Martin never, not once, uses sex pornographically." which I would take exception to. Martin never includes a sex scene with zero character development, true, but neither do the showmakers. We always learn a little about the characters from them. I would classify the "Dany's handmaid" scene from the books as at least as gratuitous as anything HBO have done, as it seems designed primarily to titillate, and only secondarily to inform us about the characters and story. I wouldn't say it should be removed (what's wrong with a bit of sex?), but it is pretty gratuitous.

[Frumpus]

Pajiba posted a [pretty shitty] review of the season of GoT yesterday. The writer raises some good points, but in the worst and most obnoxious way possible. I mean, really, he wanted the bad guys to lose and the good guys to win in the very first season? I don't even think that labels such as 'good guy' and 'bad guy' fully applies to ASoIaF.

Loved this comment. (They have a pretty strict no book spoilers policy, so beware if you would like to comment.)

While it was unreasonable to expect that outcome, I actually thought that review represented a good perspective from a non book reader. For instance, as book readers we never saw Gregor Clegane's pillaging so we didn't expect it, but a non book reader would have. I'd say he has some legitimite criticisms, or rantings rather.

Also it's clear that despite the guy's unhappiness with the story so far, that he loves the show since he is eagerly awaiting the next season.

[Sharpes]

Abigail Nussbaum's critic is quite interesting. She seems to have enjoyed the series a lot more than her negative experience reading Game of Thrones back in 2005:

http://wrongquestions.blogspot.com/2011/06/game-of-thrones-season-1.html

http://wrongquestions.blogspot.com/2005/12/epic-fantasy-virgin-reads-george-rr.html?showComment=1135392600000#c113539264263274601 (her 2005 review of Game of Thrones)

[blackzoid]

While it was unreasonable to expect that outcome, I actually thought that review represented a good perspective from a non book reader. For instance, as book readers we never saw Gregor Clegane's pillaging so we didn't expect it, but a non book reader would have. I'd say he has some legitimite criticisms, or rantings rather.

Also it's clear that despite the guy's unhappiness with the story so far, that he loves the show since he is eagerly awaiting the next season.

Its a very true analysis of the season.

"In Jon’s case, he is the Stark “child” we spend the most time with. The very first scenes are those that hint the White Walkers, and the price paid by deserters fleeing service of the Night’s Watch. So up north goes our little bastard hero, and though his interactions with Tyrion, Jeor, and Master Aemon are insightful and educational, NOTHING HAPPENS ON THE FRIGGIN WALL. This massive glacial formation is set up to be all that separates the world from going to hell-in-a-Himalayan-hand basket, but there’s no expedition north until the very last episode."

Expect a lot more bitching about the non-progress of the White Walkers storyline from the non-book readers. A lot.

"Don’t Tease Me With Braveheart and Give Me Rob Roy

It is impossible to expect to see armies of 20,000 ironclad conscripts charging at each other on a television show, no matter what the budget. Yet as the season continued on, all of the stealthy chess moves appeared destined to pay off as Robb Stark ascended to lead the men of the north against Tywin Lannister and his well-funded men.

There never was a battle. There were, in fact, very few skirmishes that didn’t involve single combat. For all the dark, foreboding proclamations of blood spilled and victory earned, “Game of Thrones” cut corners. The rampaging horde of Dothraki is presented as a Mongol parable, yet is never presented as a truly monumental column of riders cutting swaths through golden grasslands. Jamie Lannister is captured and presented to Robb and Catelyn Stark, yet for the boasts of greatness and snickering “Kingslayer” remarks he goes untested and unproven for ten episodes (it’s clear he’s better than Ned when they fight, but you just don’t know how valid a test that was for either of them).

GIVE ME A BATTLE! I want blood! I want a pretty voice from those North Sea isles chanting old words over a chorus of clashing metal and desperate cries! Whacking Tyrion with a mallet, only to be trampled and awakened after battle’s end, was synonymous for how the show treated us. At least have the courtesy to have Bronn turn and wink at us through the camera."

This is so true that it hurts. I can understand the lack of budget for the battle of the camps and the green fork. But the lack of the Whispearing Wood battle? Which is the ONLY battle which establishes that Jamie is really a bad-ass. (Which this reviewer specifically complains about). And the fact that its a low scale battle to begin with, so it should have been easier to budget for.

"Every instance of carnal relations hinted at the psychoses of the characters, but the show never went further than that. It presents characters in moments of weakness, over-compensation, and cocksure arrogance, but the motivations and deeper meanings of these trysts are never fully fleshed out. Poor Ros has turned into Dr. Quinn, Medicine Trollop, as every Longclaw in the realm sees fit to use her as the traveling psychiatrist’s couch. Moments that should be used to advance our comprehension of current events are interrupted by BOOBS!, like trying to read the paper while at a titty bar."

This review is spot on in so many ways. I urge everyone to read it with an open mind.

[Grogsmash]

"Don’t Tease Me With Braveheart and Give Me Rob Roy

Is this meant to be an insult? Rob Roy is a superior film to Braveheart in many ways. Yes, they shouldn't have shortchanged every battle but anyone making this comparison as an insult needs to get a clue.

Point on about the sexposition though. HBO really went over the top with it.

[blackzoid]

I know Rob Roy is a superior film. But read the context of the reviewers complaint. The entire of episode 8 and 9 is the buildup of huge armies converging. Than we get the after results. Thats what he complains about. Rob Roy didn't do that. It was always explictly low-scale.

Its the fact that A Game of Thrones showed all the scenes of armies marching beforehand that is problematic. A huge tease to the non-book reading viewers.

And to be honest all I needed is Jamie killing 10 men in a row as he goes after Robb. Thats it. Nothing else. Along with some sound effects in the background to imply that a huge battle is going on around them. He complains that there is no evidence for Jamie to be so arrogant. And he's right. There isn't.

[Bronn Stone]

Good discussion of the sexposition issue (alas, not using the term) in the LA Times tomorrow.

This column puts GoT in its place among the HBO pantheon and does a great job of distinguishing nudity that advances the plot and nudity that seems only to be there because the producers thought the scene too boring without it.

[Padraig]

Expect a lot more bitching about the non-progress of the White Walkers storyline from the non-book readers. A lot.

I think that's why you'll see the prologue in aSoS brought forward into the last episode of S2. move that plot forward. OTOH, people should realise that the final battle against the White Walkers will be at the end of the series. Not during S2.

The only mistake regarding the lack of battles is that the producers should have admitted before hand that we weren't going to see any. Budget-wise it was entirely logical.

It presents characters in moments of weakness, over-compensation, and cocksure arrogance, but the motivations and deeper meanings of these trysts are never fully fleshed out.

I don't actually agree with that. Those sexposition scenes had a purpose and they did touch upon motivations and deeper meanings. But they did go too far on at least one occassion.

[The hairy bear]

We know Cressen had sex with prostitutes.

Sorry to nitpick, but it was Pycelle (and unpaid underage maids :blushing: )

But you'r reight. Besides anything involving Ross, all the sex in the show could be considered as "canon".

[Padraig]

Sorry to nitpick, but it was Pycelle (and unpaid underage maids :blushing: )

Thanks. I always get those 2 mixed up for some reason.

[Eärendil]

Nice review and example of a female non-reader. Or, in this case, a reader that in the past tried but failed to get very far into the first book. She approached the show begrudgingly, yet, subsequently fell in love with it.

Sylte: It's not Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants: Game of Thrones

[The Heir]

late pass but grantland had a nice piece about GoT vs The Killing

link: http://www.grantland.com/blog/hollywood-prospectus/post/_/id/499/the-game-of-thrones-guarantee

[lokisnow]

Awesome rebuttal of the McNamara idiocy from a few days back. It's too bad far fewer industryites will see the Salon piece as read the LATimes piece.

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/feature/2011/07/06/game_of_thrones_sex_and_nudity/