web
counter
 

Game of Groans: Why "Game of Thrones" Is Not As Good As You Think It Is

By Dan Saipher | Posted Under TV Reviews | Comments (101)



GAME-OF-THRONES-A-Golden-Crown-2-550x366.jpg

Since my name is attached to this work, I feel it is within the best practices to protect my personal safety by beginning with the following prefaces.

1) I like “Game of Thrones.” A lot. I enjoy the art direction, the intrigue, the unforgiving nature in which the show treats characters. It’s a blast. My most common description to friends is that “Game of Thrones” is Lord of the Rings without the homosexual undertones. Replace Frodo with Dudley Moore, add tits, a dash of Conan, sprinkle of Dangerous Liasons. Blend well.” I feel, however, that it’s important to examine the rust in the proverbial Damascene armor to enhance the discussion of content.

2) For the silmarillionth time, I haven’t read the books, nor do I give a crap about how they relate to the show. I’m not here to argue plot points, because that would be shooting fish in a barrel with a grenade launcher. Hey, Ned Stark, why don’t you maybe tell some people Joffrey is a product of incest? I bet there are a few blokes who would be interested in that detail. Dear Sansa; nice of you to stop being a four-year old by the end of the series. The show exists outside the confines of the book; while it follows the pre-determined destinies of characters, adding scenes and interpretations and omitting the same, it should create a product that stands on its own merits. Streamline it. Refine it.

Everyone has their favorite characters, which to a degree allows you to ignore the underwhelming performances and the underdeveloped personas. And certainly everyone loves the occasional break in the action that centers on various characters bits n’ pieces. This is far from a “perfect” show, and criticism for criticism’s sake should not decidedly make you like it less, but hopefully look forward to the show’s evolution more.

The Use of Sex

The concept that sex was a dangerous weapon was damned interesting. It speaks to the baser instincts of human nature, those that illustrate how desire is infinitely more powerful than logic. But as the series dragged on, it somehow became boring. Scenes became less about how giving someone the old in-out were relevant plot moments, and more about quick flashes of pink asses and deep psychological problems. In the series finale, more attention is given to the shot of young Lancel Lannister’s ass getting back to bed, not how incredibly disturbed it is seeing Cersei sleep with another family member. Why is it that there’s no time spent telling us why she can’t help but sleep with other Lannisters? Is something going on between her and Tywin? No, don’t ask, just watch the boy ass. The best bit of between-the-sheets dialogue was between Renly and the Knight of Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That. Even after that, exchange, however, do we even see Renly for but a brief moment at King’s Landing? What of Loras?

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.

Lack of Depth

With such a deep and varied cast of characters, we end up at the end of season focused on a few, but how much do we really know about them?

The two point-of-view characters I enjoyed the most were Jon Snow and Daenerys Targaryen, and even though each of them were revealed with (sort-of) opposite devices, I was not left satisfied.

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.

While Jon is heavy on talk and light on action, Dany takes the opposite approach. Once she moves out of the shadow of her brother’s pissant whining, she moves into the role of a heroine. All across the realm exists a wonderfully complex history of the Targaryen family, and the exodus of the last children of Aerys across the sea. But for her trajectory, from shotgun wedding to Cliffside rape to Queen to Dragon Lady, her personality moves without explanation. One episode she’s coming to grips with her place beside Drogo, and then quickly we move forward and the royal couple are exchanging celestial sobriquets. How did Drogo win her over?

Again, confessing I haven’t read the books so I can’t tell you where these two are actually headed, I wanted to know more. If the “Song of Fire and Ice” is meant to actually chronicle the converging stanzas of Dany (dragon’s “fire”) and Jon (winter’s “ice”), I want as much introspection with these characters as possible. One of them waits for his turn to fight, and other is pressed to control a destiny that men found her incapable of seizing by her petite self.

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.

Sun-shine, Lollipops, and Nametags

Alright, if you can’t cut out a swath of the budget to give me a Battle of Stirling Bridge, we need to clarify a few things.

1) If you have to kill all the cool characters (Syrio, Drogo, Mark Addy) the season needs to end with a roast beast size order of comeuppance for the bad guys. We begin with the unease of Robert Baratheon’s seat of power, grow to hate every human-size Lannister and slippery snake of King’s Landing, and yet at the season’s end all we get is three dragons and the unease that Jamie Lannister is about to get traded for a lefty specialist out of the bullpen and a fourth outfielder.

2) Help me figure out which one is Rickon, and which one is Bran. I shouldn’t have to wait until one of them is riding Marla Singer or Sloth to figure it out.

3) If you have a hulking badass who can chop off a horse’s head with one strike, don’t tell me he’s off raping and pillaging and having a grand old time. Visual would be nice.

4) For the sake of the rotund and the cherubic, make one of the fat characters useful. There are stupid fat boys who see fit to piss off Arya, eunuchs with hidden agendas, and Jon’s sidekick Friar Schmuck. I know the latter is going to start to show his potential, so stop making him so whiny.


I can’t wait for the next season of “Game of Thrones,” as we start seeing the developments of season one start to pay off with big changes for the characters. Noting that it’s obviously impossible to make these kinds of changes while unveiling filmed episodes, the hope going forward is that it stops for a minute to consider how to improve itself. Crom willing, that includes more of Charles Dance (Brother Numsi!) as Tywin Lannister, James Cosmo (“Fine display, young Wallace!”) leading the Night’s Watch vanguard north as Jeor Mormont, and the prophetic decree that “Winter is Coming” no longer hangs as just an ancient threat.

Dan Saipher thinks Peter Dinklage is a horrible, unusable, no-talent, slow, overestimated, weak, child-like, easily forgotten, pointless basketball player.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Pajiba After Dark 6/27/11 | My Secret Crush on the T-Mobile Girl is Vindicated: Carly Foulkes To Play Retro Girl in "Powers" Adaptation









Comments

“Game of Thrones” is Lord of the Rings without the homosexual undertones. Replace Frodo with Dudley Moore, add tits, a dash of Conan, sprinkle of Dangerous Liasons. Blend well.” I feel, however, that it’s important to examine the rust in the proverbial Damascene armor to enhance the discussion of content."


Wanna know how I know this whole piece is bullshit?

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at June 27, 2011 2:39 PM

Wanna know how I know this whole piece is bullshit?

YEP.

Posted by: JakesAlterEgo at June 27, 2011 2:44 PM

If you have to kill all the cool characters (Syrio, Drogo, Mark Addy) the season needs to end with a roast beast size order of comeuppance for the bad guys.

*whoosh*

Posted by: Pete at June 27, 2011 2:50 PM

Like those who have followed the series for a decade or two, you'll just have to wait for your resolutions and revelations, Dan. Or you could just, you know, read the books.

Posted by: admin at June 27, 2011 2:51 PM

While I really can't argue with some of your points (and that makes me sad), other parts of your article are kind of irrelevant. But maybe I just think that because I've read the books a billion times and know the plot inside and out. I'm not looking at it fresh.

Posted by: Snath at June 27, 2011 2:53 PM

You hit a lot of points, so I'll just make a couple of my own and move on:

I hate to say it since it's the one thing you don't want to hear, but most of your answers can be found in the fact that it is based very closely on the books, and the series is now about 4,000 pages deep with several thousand more pages on the horizon. Saying things like, "If you have to kill all the cool characters (Syrio, Drogo, Mark Addy) the season needs to end with a roast beast size order of comeuppance for the bad guys," is an unrealistic expectation since we KNOW this shit is going to continue for years to come. If the bad guys get some comeuppance now, where's the story go for the next 6 seasons or so? And isn't this one of the series' angles that is so compelling? That the "bad guys" are being allowed to win and fuck everyone over with abandon? This story is unbelievably complex and many characters you're pining for will get their face-time soon enough, don't worry.

I do agree about the excessive use of ass and tits got a bit indulgent, but Emilia Clarke can walk around naked on my TV until the final credits roll on the entire series and I'll die a happy man.

Your thirst for blood is understandable, but you'll have to come to terms with the fact that this story is heavy on political machinations and the "Game of Thrones" initiated by Robert's death, and filming enormously expensive battles would detract from the other 95% of the show. Not a trade I would make, but this seems like more of a personal preference.

As for the characters, they are who they are. Your frustration is in not knowing enough, which will be sated by either reading the fucking books, or waiting for next season just like everyone else, you wordy motherfucker.

Posted by: Kballs at June 27, 2011 2:57 PM

It's almost as if you are complaining about the people who like the books and the show because the things they like in the books have yet to be depicted.

Posted by: JakesAlterEgo at June 27, 2011 2:59 PM

Thanks for this--I came into the series fresh, and it's nice to see a dissenting opinion amidst all the gushing accolades this show seems to have garnered. I don't dislike it, I'll keep watching next season, but most of the reviews I've read are glossing over the weak points you mention or not even acknowledging them.

Posted by: The Fatling at June 27, 2011 2:59 PM

It's impossible for me to divorce myself from the books, so perhaps there's no point in my even trying to counter anything you say as if I could.

I wanted one Braveheart-style battle too. The show's creators had planned to show us that battle that Tyrion missed, but they simply ran out of time and money. Season two promises to have at least one great one, though. If the show continues to be a success, perhaps those corners will no longer need to be cut. And that duel at the end of Rob Roy, as well as the duels in Game Of Thrones, were mighty cool at least.

As for Lancel, Loras, and all the characters that you felt needed more story, we'll get there. It's a large ensemble, and questions will be answered in time. That's just the pace we must accept for a story of this scope. If the worst thing you can say about a show is that it left you wanting more of something that you will eventually receive, that's not too bad.

Don't expect comeuppance to be doled out in any steady, satisfying fashion for the "bad guys." That's just not the sort of story this is.

Finally, don't hold your breath on the "winter is coming" ancient threat, Dan. As defensive as I might get about your criticisms, we wouldn't want to lose you to asphyxiation. The book titles are a tip as to how quickly the season will change.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at June 27, 2011 3:01 PM

I can sympathize with a number of your points, but I don't know that reading the first book would help you all that much. I did and it created in me a firm resolve to wait for internet spoilers on ultimate finale -- assuming there is one.

Posted by: Brett at June 27, 2011 3:06 PM

Behead the heretic.

Posted by: King of the whatever at June 27, 2011 3:07 PM

Overuse of sex and nudity?

Yes, absolutely.

The rest of your points are stupid. Sorry, but if you want mindless action and a story for simple minds, watch Legend of the Seeker.

Posted by: FabMax at June 27, 2011 3:11 PM

I've neither read the books nor seen the show (fuck you rich HBO-having motherfuckers) but "read the books" is a pisspoor response to complaints about the TV show. Either the show stands on its own or it doesn't. If a show needs the audience to fill in 1,400 pages of plot and characterization then it has failed as a TV show.

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at June 27, 2011 3:11 PM

3) If you have a hulking badass who can chop off a horse’s head with one strike, don’t tell me he’s off raping and pillaging and having a grand old time. Visual would be nice.

/facepalm

For the sake of the rotund and the cherubic, make one of the fat characters useful. There are stupid fat boys who see fit to piss off Arya, eunuchs with hidden agendas, and Jon’s sidekick Friar Schmuck. I know the latter is going to start to show his potential, so stop making him so whiny.

Varys...not "useful"...?

.
.
.

OK, that's it, this whole article has to be a troll.

Complaining that you didn't get to see the rapings and saying that the characters of Varys and Sam are useless is just....I don't even...

Dan Saipher thinks Peter Dinklage is a horrible, unusable, no-talent, slow, overestimated, weak, child-like, easily forgotten, pointless basketball player.

Whew, OK, now I *know* this whole thing is one big trolling. Faith in humanity restored.

Posted by: Foxeye at June 27, 2011 3:13 PM

I began reading this article ready and waiting to break some heads. Now that I'm done, I think that this is a pretty fair list of criticisms. I don't agree with all of them, but I definitely see where you're coming from.

This is the only bit that made my eyebrows raise:

1) If you have to kill all the cool characters (Syrio, Drogo, Mark Addy) the season needs to end with a roast beast size order of comeuppance for the bad guys.

Sorry, sir. Life doesn't work that way and neither does good fiction. Yeah, sometimes the baddies get their bit of karma, but to go into any sort of story (whether via books, movies, t.v.) demanding that each villain receive their just desserts is going to leave you more depressed than necessary. Yeah, it makes everybody squirm, but injustice is a large part of life and, as such, it must sometimes be displayed through art.

Posted by: Kala at June 27, 2011 3:22 PM

As for Dany winning over Drogo, the show framed this moment around her becoming sexually aggressive with him and earning his respect. From there she just supported him and tried to do what was right.

And this hints at a dynamic of the show that I LOVE, in that you need to pay attention every single moment or you'll miss crucial information. The episodes were packed tighter than a fat man's underwear and you gotta dig your face deep into that shit or you'll get lost in a big hurry.

Posted by: Kballs at June 27, 2011 3:22 PM

This (unhelpful gesturing at the whole of season one/book 1 page 0 to 807) is the starters. Not the main course. Winter isn't there yet.

Posted by: Rooks at June 27, 2011 3:27 PM

1) If you have to kill all the cool characters (Syrio, Drogo, Mark Addy) the season needs to end with a roast beast size order of comeuppance for the bad guys.

I agree. My biggest problem with The Wire was that, at the end of the first season, drugs still existed.

Posted by: JakesAlterEgo at June 27, 2011 3:27 PM

It's almost as if you are complaining about the people who like the books and the show because the things they like in the books have yet to be depicted.

(Warning: oversimplification to follow) How is this unlike something akin to the film version of Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone? The feeling was that people who had read the series at that time were willing to overlook obvious flaws in how this segment of the story was portrayed based on where they knew the series was going. Yes, the characters develop more fully as the series progresses, and there are measures of comeuppance. If this is supposed to be for more than just those who have read the books (Why don't you just read the books?!), doesn't bringing some more characters along make sense for everyone?

Or, to put it more succinctly, what Tracer said. As usual.

Posted by: branded at June 27, 2011 3:28 PM

First off, the same way you'd like us book readers not to condemn you for just watching, you can't condemn us for reading. It is impossible to divorce yourself from the knowledge you already have - those of us with the wealth of information provided by reading four books worth of material cannot watch this show without seeing it through the lens of what we already know and what is to come. To expect anything else is absolutely ridiculous.

That being said, I think Kballs said a lot of what I wanted to already. A couple of your points are valid, but a lot of it seems like impatience and unreasonable expectations. There are an enormous amount of characters in these books - most of them will get their time in the sun, no worries. But you have to wait for it. I really wanted to see the Battle of the Whispering Wood as well, but I get that this season didn't allow for that kind of budget or timing - the unfortunate limitations of television.

As regards the comeuppance thing? Dude. You are missing the point. One of the things that sets this series apart is that there is no promised happy ending. Good people die and bad people win, just like in life. Some people do get theirs, but it isn't always what you expect, and that is what is awesome.

The show does have its shortcomings, but I'm not sure this article was great at addressing them. It seemed like more of a grab at page views and comments by attempting to annoy a percentage of the usual readership here, which I suppose I'm giving in to, but whatever.

Posted by: KatSings at June 27, 2011 3:28 PM

I have no idea what any of y'all are talking about. And I'm fine with it. Maybe I'll wait till it ends, buy the DVDs and watch it all at once.

Posted by: Slash at June 27, 2011 3:30 PM

While I feel HBO definitely upped the sexiness value of the show and overused the titacularness of its cast.

Also I know they did a crap shoot job of even mentioning Rickon at all this season but if you can't tell the kid whom you've seen all season as Bran, you know the one that the FIRST EPISODE was a pretty big cliff hanger is, maybe this show is more then your attention can handle. It seems as though you want something easy to watch and not something that requires constant attention. This show most definitely is not going to be that, the source material is chock full of moments you don't realize are important till books later.

So in the end I think your looking for a Braveheart meets King Arthur when this show is probably more Lord of the Rings meets Dallas.

Posted by: hoover19 at June 27, 2011 3:31 PM

Tracer >> I agree with you 100 percent, although I would add that I have encouraged most people to "read the books" not to address their confusion or to minimize the television version's shortcomings, but rather because I feel that the television show is more enjoyable if you have read them. A television program should stand on its own independent of the material it adapts, but if the two work together essentially in concert to strengthen each other, I do not see anything wrong with that.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at June 27, 2011 3:36 PM

Folks, you have to remember something. Most of us have been weaned on American television, where most story arcs get buttoned up at the end of the season and the bad guys lose to the good guys.

"A Song of Ice and Fire" is not that kind of storytelling. If that's an issue, don't watch the show. This article does point out some of the weak points in the show (Ros the Expository Whore being one of the glaring examples that I agree with wholeheartedly) but the question becomes do these weaknesses detract from the overall product? In my opinion, it doesn't. As for reading or not reading the books, need I remind you all that that is the same defense the Twihards use?

Personally I waited til the tail end of the series to start reading the first book. Surprisingly enough, the show is a pretty faithful adaptation. If you want swift resolutions, go watch Weeds or House. If you want to watch a show where the bad guys win sometimes, watch Game of Thrones. It's really that simple.

Posted by: bignick at June 27, 2011 3:37 PM

Once again Pajiba doesn't fail to disappoint. Take something wildly popular, critically acclaimed, give it a few weeks and then in the tradition of the trying-too-hard-to-be-above-it contrarians, someone at Pajiba (writer or regular contributor) will find an excuse to go against the grain. The following back and forth: "Oh, you LIKE (insert name of whatever "of the moment" film/show/actor/actress/etc.)? Well, I'm SO over it!" could have been invented by this site.

Then why do I continue to visit? Because hidden beneath the veneer of the above, the unnecessary snark, the (admittedly quite rare) casual racism and the tiresome "gimmick" reviews (though these have been less, lately...seems Mr. Rowles has "grown out of it"), I really do like some of the writing and the subjects of the posts.

Sorry, saw the title of the post and couldn't help it.

Posted by: Carlos at June 27, 2011 3:41 PM

BTW, totally agree on the Ros the Sexposition Fairy hate. So tacky and distracting. The sex really isn't used well in this show, and it could be - so valid point there. Forgot to mention that.

Posted by: KatSings at June 27, 2011 3:42 PM

I disagree with the title of thie piece.

Game of Thrones is exactly as good as I think it is.

A lot of the issues raised here aren't terribly universal or all that original and the clever little names aren't particularly clever.

Would I love to see more battles? Yes, yes I would. I would have loved to see "The Whipering Woods" battle or, at the very least, Jamie Lannister cutting down ten men. But the show has a limited budget and only 10 hours to pack in everything. Like the producers said, they'd rather have no battle at all and pack in a little more character time then just do some half-assed battle.

As for the majority of the other issues raised here, others have said it. It's book one of (at least) seven. Loras, Renly, Dany, Jon, Lancel, etc, and what they were doing and the roles they have to play will be revealed as the story moves forward.

Given all possible outcomes for this show, it's really as good, if not better, than I could have realistically imagined and hoped for. Is it perfect? No. But perfect would have involved a huge budget and another several hours.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at June 27, 2011 3:42 PM

Let's look at this show in the context of two other pieces of entertainment. Boardwalk Empire, another HBO series with violence and nudity galore, not to mention stellar production values and a bang up cast moves if anything more slowly than GoT. Yet, it's still watchable. Frustrating sometimes, but part of watching the show instead of readng is the visual impact. I'll live with a somewhat languid pace, because there are hours and hours to tell the story.
Now contrast GoT with it's closest relative LoTR. The battle at helm's Deep, which takes up what 85% of the second movie is the model for the big battle scene. Much more time and effort are spent on it than in the book. Yet, after the first viewing I find myself fast forwarding through a lot of hte battle, because slo-mo shots of screaming and bleeding are only cool the first or second time. Now there are epci battles in GoT that I really want to see, although I don't think the series will ever get enough money to do them. And if they have to make a choice, keep giving me the character-driven stuff because there's not a lot of that out there.
That being said, a lot of the weaknesses you point out have to do with the source material. Yes the series should stand on it's own, but at some level as good as the books are, there are characters who you just won't like.

Posted by: Mrcreosote at June 27, 2011 3:51 PM

Apparently Dan Saipher DOES want to awake the dragon.

Posted by: mswas at June 27, 2011 3:56 PM

This series isn't like Harry Potter - there is no mini-arc for each book that feeds into the longer series arc. This is just one big-ass story with no promise of any ending, let alone a happy one. That's why I stopped reading the series - at the time Martin would not even confirm how many books there were going to be, and I was not going to slog through thousands of pages with no guarantee of an actual ending.

So all your problems with the series are due to the fact that you are looking at it as a season of television, when in fact the season will never be over until the series is. It's just one looooooong season that might get cancelled half-way through.

Posted by: Three-nineteen at June 27, 2011 3:59 PM

Three-nineteen took time from his busy motivational speaking tour to uplift us all. Thank you, friend.

Posted by: Kballs at June 27, 2011 4:04 PM

Also, just because the protagonist uses a sword does not mean the show is in any way related to Lord of the Rings.

Posted by: JakesAlterEgo at June 27, 2011 4:04 PM

problems with the series are due to the fact that you are looking at it as a season of television, when in fact the season will never be over until the series is. It's just one looooooong season that might get cancelled half-way through. Posted by: Three-nineteen at June 27, 2011 3:59 PM

Now, that there is some bona-fide valid criticism. My biggest fear is that HBO will pull the plug due to high costs.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at June 27, 2011 4:07 PM

My biggest fear is that HBO will pull the plug due to high costs.

I'm more worried that GRRM will croak before he finishes the books.

Posted by: mswas at June 27, 2011 4:15 PM

Why Pajiba isn't as good as you think it is: obvious ploys at contrarianism like this article.

Posted by: seth at June 27, 2011 4:19 PM

What a bunch of whiny babies. The article has some valid criticisms and some suspect ones. Game of Thrones is a great show, but it has some flaws, some of which are pointed out here. "Read the books" or "this will happen later" is not a valid response to criticism of the show, as it has to stand on its own. The author of the article specifically mentions that upfront, but commenters seem to gloss right by it. He didn't call your mother a whore, he simply threw out a few barbs at a show that he likes a lot.

Posted by: Headshaker at June 27, 2011 4:20 PM

"Also, just because the protagonist uses a sword does not mean the show is in any way related to Lord of the Rings."

You're right-it is however an epic story that takes place in a world inspired by Britian in the middle ages. Yes, yes I know LoTR is childish because there are hobbits and elves and such, and GoT is much grittier. In the sliding scale of movies and mini-series I still contend that GoT and LoTR are first cousins. One is simply more realistic (and more compelling for a modern audience) than the other.

Posted by: Mrcreosote at June 27, 2011 4:21 PM

I haven't read the books but will eventually and dude, seriously these are the things you want to complain about!?!

You bitch about too much nudity but then complain that you don't get to witness the rape scenes? How bout complaining that all of the full frontal nudity is done by women. I had to watch Roz wash out her vadge and the only wang we got to see was fat Carl (not his name I know). Where is the Drogo penis, or the Rob naked, or Jon naked? Not fair. Not fair at all.

That said, you better move to a bomb shelter cause you're about to hear it.

Posted by: Melody Be at June 27, 2011 4:23 PM

I liked the Game of Thrones, watched the whole season on the weekend. I described it to friends as 10 hours of gladiator. IMHO it is better than True Blood, another show I enjoy. I agree there is to much sound and fury signifying nothing. However hopefully with the good reviews and ratings they have the budget next year for more battles and more effects. I wish they would make the Earthsea Trilogy of Robert Silverbergs Lord Valintine series into a TV show, both would be better stories.

Posted by: steve at June 27, 2011 4:32 PM

Melody Be

I believe there actually might have been more male full frontal than female. Was there any female full frontal other Roz? In the male category you had Hodor, Theon and a sort of the silhouette of Grand Maester Pycelle's dong through his night shirt thing. So, as far as I can recall, it's 2.5 men and 1 women.

Headshaker, I don't believe the comments are whiny in tone at all. They are reasoned responses to the opinions expressed. If you think this is whiny or some sort fanboy/fangirl hysteria, you should explore the internet a bit more and see what that's really like.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at June 27, 2011 4:32 PM

You want uplifting from anything connected to A Song of Ice and Fire? Boy, are you looking in the wrong place.

Posted by: Three-nineteen at June 27, 2011 4:36 PM

I may change my screen name to "Ros the Expository Whore."

Posted by: Slash at June 27, 2011 4:54 PM

Oh man, mswas, that is my biggest fear as well. He isn't exactly a young, strapping man. If he kicks it before those books are done...

Posted by: KatSings at June 27, 2011 4:56 PM

I'll tell you one thing, they really went the extra mile when they allowed about 50 seconds of slurping sound effects when Sir Loras went to town on Renly's cock.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at June 27, 2011 4:57 PM

Forbiddendonut, I'm pretty sure Hodor counts as one and a half. =P

Posted by: Pam at June 27, 2011 4:59 PM

You can't tell me I'm not allowed to use the book to defend the show, when the show is based on the book. This slow boil, where we only very slowly learn about these characters over thousands of pages, over multiple books is how the books are written. If you want to really get into Cersei's motivations for fucking Lannisters, you need to read book 4. So, the book they're adapting for the screen is written like that, so that's how they have to do the show, unless you want them to completely rewrite it and just slap the name on the top.

You're just the typical critic douchebag who thinks it's brave to not like things that other people like.

Posted by: John G. at June 27, 2011 5:00 PM

Yay, but did anyone want to see any of that dong? There has been no hot guy dong. None. We've seen Roz naked numerous times, need I remind you of the cringe-worthy fisting scene with Roz and the other pro. Eww.

Posted by: Melody Be at June 27, 2011 5:04 PM

There's not much that I can say that hasn't already been said by others more eloquent than myself, but I'd still like to agree with those who stated that if you want a series where the bad guys get a "roast beast size order of comeuppance" then this series isn't for you. The fact that it's much more complex than that with characters that operate in all kinds of shades of gray is exactly what I love about it.

Legend of the Seeker is on instant Netflix. Just saying.

Posted by: beckster at June 27, 2011 5:14 PM

My only comment is that you seem to be mostly bitching that the show doesn't fall to the same tired cliches that most series fall to.
The reason this series is so popular is because it isn't some typical fantasy tale. There are no commupances. The hero dies. The villain continues to be villainous without being put in his place by the good guy. People are both good and bad, like Jaime.
You're complaining about things that are exactly why the story is so awesome. It's real. The bad guy wins. The good guy dies.
As for the arcs that aren't fleshed out? Some of them are still hanging even after five books, so if you're looking for instant gratification you're going to be really annoyed later.

Posted by: Protoguy at June 27, 2011 5:29 PM

I would add that yes, the sex has been the worst and most unnecessary part of this series AND the part that HBO added or embellished. Martin used sex as a way to help detail the character and expand plot, not because he felt he needed to spice things up

Posted by: Protoguy at June 27, 2011 5:33 PM

""this will happen later" is not a valid response to criticism of the show, as it has to stand on its own."

If "this will happen later" isn't a valid response, then you are insinuating that you want everything to happen all at once. It's logically and realistically impossible for you to think that. Some of the story has happened and some has not. If you don't want to watch the show, then find some cliffnotes or something so you can find out everything that happened all at once.

As for the entirety of the article; the only criticism I find as relevant in any way in the overuse of nudity. However, it should be completely expected since it's on HBO, and I don't see that it takes too much away from the show and the story.

No, the fact that they didn't include any gigantic bloody battle like that of Braveheart is not a problem with the show. It makes it in no way worse.

The bad guys need their comeuppance? I'm glad we're claiming that if the show isn't wrapped up in a nice bow of happiness that it is somehow less of a quality show.

Lack of depth? Holy shit...I guess you prefer The Killing to Game of Thrones?

Finally...if you couldn't tell who was Rickon and who was Bran you either weren't actually watching Game of Thrones or you should only watch shows where everyone wears a name tag like The Price Is Right.

Posted by: jasonk at June 27, 2011 5:40 PM

Anybody read the "Obernewtyn Chronicles?"

Isobelle Carmondy started writing them in 1988.

She still hasn't produced the last 2 books.

Now THAT is some literary blue balls shit.

Martin is on track to finish this stuff, I think. He's promised the final book by the end of 2012, right? Right? Oh, please tell me I'm not misinformed about that. "Dragons" comes in July -- THIS July... and it wraps up end of next year. That was the last I heard.

Anyway... About this critique: The mallet knocking out Tyrion was fucking cheap. In more ways than one. The constant sex scenes are cheap.

There are weaknesses. Granted. Many. Watched with a critical eye, it is not perfection. Correct.

(But if you can't tell Bran from Rickon, you need to go back and watch Episode 1 again. Rickon is... almost non-existent, and Bran is... you know, fuckin' paralysed and exquisite.)

But so what? It's rollicking good.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at June 27, 2011 5:49 PM

Why do you need everything explained to you? Maybe you should just, you know, watch and pay attention to what the characters are saying.

Posted by: xoxoxoe at June 27, 2011 5:55 PM

Maryscott >> If only. Dance With Dragons is only a couple weeks away from release, yes. However, there are supposedly two more books scheduled to complete the story after that one, and given the number of delays we've already seen in delivering a single book...

Posted by: DarthCorleone at June 27, 2011 6:01 PM

It's kinda funny when the comments are smarter and make more sense than the article. Or sad.

Posted by: logan at June 27, 2011 6:08 PM

Thank you for this article. I have already been savaged on one site for saying exactly this. I won't add on too much except to say these two things:
1. I agree fully that it is a TV show and as such should be able to stand on its own as a TV show. I fully expect that there are going to be HUGE problems with a literary adaptation where the source material is as thick as the Oxford's English Dictionary but if that is the case than don't adapt it. Otherwise, it's a show, and able to be reviewed as such. HBO didn't air an hour of "hey, why don't you take this opportunity to read"" they aired a TV show.
2. There seem to be comments such as "well if you can't take it that the bad guys win it doesn't mean that it's a good show." That is true. BUT if the bad guys started out winning, continued to win, and then won it means that there was no character arc. That is my main complaint - Ned was the protagonist of the TV show, he started out getting his a** handed to him by the Lannisters, continued to get his a** handed to him by the Lannisters, and then got his head handed to him by the Lannisters. That means your main protagonist had absolutely no character arc. It's not just because I love rainbows and unicorns, it's an actual plot problem. Before any of you chime in with "not all fiction works that way" I'll say this - good fiction does, and has for thousands of years. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of stuff that happened. If you like watching evil people continuously screw over good people with no kind of redemption, feel free to join me at work in the banking industry tomorrow.

Posted by: negative 1 at June 27, 2011 6:29 PM

"That is my main complaint - Ned was the protagonist of the TV show, he started out getting his a** handed to him by the Lannisters, continued to get his a** handed to him by the Lannisters, and then got his head handed to him by the Lannisters. That means your main protagonist had absolutely no character arc. It's not just because I love rainbows and unicorns, it's an actual plot problem."

----------------------------------------

And you know what? That is a legitimate and clearly presented grievance (even if I don't agree), but that is NOT how this article presents its criticism. That's the problem people have with the article.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at June 27, 2011 6:42 PM

Your insistently Puritanical noncomprehension of what's been laid out displays a tell-tale sign of Pajiba staff as of late. The books have sex in them. Fucking deal with it.

I am not going to waste my time explaining how the series DID hit on many points you say "weren't explained".

Dustin, your standards of staff writing/writers fucking suck.

End of story.

Posted by: Recondite at June 27, 2011 6:53 PM

I disagree, Game of Thrones is exactly as good as I think it is. Most of your argument boils down to the show not giving you what you'd like to see. Which is by no means reason to say it's bad show, it's just not the show you want it to be.

I personally don't like Lord of the Rings for a number of reasons, one being how much of the movie is devoted to battle scenes. But, I would never call it a bad movie for that, just one that doesn't appeal to me.

I will however agree on your assessment of their use of sex. Most of the nudity is pandering to the audience while they allow a character to discuss some plot points that would in the original medium just be written out. Initially it didn't bother me, however the continued use seems lazy as if they couldn't think of any other way to fit the exposition in.

Posted by: Delilah at June 27, 2011 6:54 PM

"That is my main complaint - Ned was the protagonist of the TV show, he started out getting his a** handed to him by the Lannisters, continued to get his a** handed to him by the Lannisters, and then got his head handed to him by the Lannisters. That means your main protagonist had absolutely no character arc. It's not just because I love rainbows and unicorns, it's an actual plot problem."

Mayhaps, if your main character dies at the end of the first season, then he is not, in fact, your main character?

Mayhaps, your main character's rigid belief that doing the 'right' thing at all times and then being proven wrong is the lesson of Ned Stark? Maybe Ned Stark is important because he's a catalyst? Maybe his lack of an arc inspires arcs in others?

Posted by: JakesAlterEgo at June 27, 2011 6:56 PM

I have to go with BarbadoSlim here. The article brings up good points about the show. However, the snark (intended or not) present in the article reeks of a person who expects stories to follow the traditional vein and is upset when it doesn't.

@negative 1: There are many good books out there that don't follow the traditional formula (As I Lay Dying and Ulysses being just two examples). Just because that's the way stories have been told doesn't mean everyone has to follow that. Just based on the show (not the books), Ned's story arc can best be described as "what happens when the honorable thing to do isn't the right thing to do".

Posted by: bignick at June 27, 2011 7:00 PM

"BUT if the bad guys started out winning, continued to win, and then won it means that there was no character arc." -negative

No, just lots of no. Character should drive the plot, not the other way around. The protagonist losing is not equal to nothing happening. It may not be the typical 'Path of the Hero' arc, but it doesn't mean no story is being told.

Posted by: Delilah at June 27, 2011 7:01 PM

That is a very compelling point JakesAlterEgo,. Admittedly I haven't read the books I'm debating whether I should on account of spoiling the experience. Which brings me to your point, I'm leaning towards one of the kids being the true protagonist(s), the little girl, the crippled kid brother on the Stark side. Then you got the other families, see it's just not possible to have ONE protagonist here, each family has major players, on the Lannister side you get the little dude and then you have the dragon hottie, last of her line she might end up on top, bitch just got major back-up.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at June 27, 2011 7:07 PM

I'm reading the books right now, and I honestly might stop. Not because they're not enjoyable as hell (they are), but because I think it might be taking away from my enjoyment of the show. My husband doesn't read fiction (weirdo), and his reaction to the final scene of this season was shock and amazement. But I knew what was coming, so it didn't really do anything for me. It made me sad. I wanted to feel that wonder and surprise. I don't know if it's a good trade-off to know more about the characters' feelings and motivations if at the same time I'm dulled to the surprise of their actions.

Posted by: Melissa at June 27, 2011 8:17 PM

I agree with some of your points, but this is probably the ugliest thing I've ever seen in a Pajiba article:

...hate every human-size Lannister...

I hope you had a good chuckle at what a clever boy you are, Dan.

Posted by: RudeMorgue at June 27, 2011 8:28 PM

@negative- Ned Stark is not the protagonist, he never was, he's a catalyst. Just because someone starts the ball rolling does not mean they are necessarily the protagonist. Honestly, a story doesn't necessarily have to have a true protagonist at all.

As for the plot complaints, especially in regard to the bad guys not getting theirs and the lack of character growth: we all know this will be at least a seven season series (probably more since the last few books are so long), so this isn't even the end of Act I as far as the whole story arc goes. This is basically just the introduction to the cast of characters and the cultures they live in, of course they aren't fully developed or moving along their arcs yet, we've just met them. This is marathon viewing, not sprints. I agree it can be frustrating, it can be frustrating with the books too, to be honest, but it's a different kind of storytelling than we usually get. If you don't like it, that's fine, but it isn't bad and it isn't done for no good reason, it's different. If in seven years you still think there was no development, then you will be able to make a solid argument. This isn't a cop out or a 'read the books' argument, I agree that you shouldn't HAVE to read the books to enjoy the show, but it's something that's been laid out as the concept for the series from the beginning, so decide to let it play out or decide it isn't for you.

I will totally agree, though, that I felt the Dothraki storyline got a bit of the short shrift. It really did compress the evolution of Danaerys and her relationship with Drogo in a way that didn't quite work for me personally, there was a lot you sort of had to just 'go with' which I could fill in having read the book, but would really bug me if I hadn't.

I would also have liked a battle scene and while I wasn't necessarily jonesing for a rape and pillage scene, I was a little disappointed they didn't show a bit more of what was happening outside the respective castles. I'm willing to give them season two to get to that, though. They packed a lot of information into ten episodes, I'm not sure how they could have added much of that without leaving out more vital story points.

Posted by: lumenatrix at June 27, 2011 8:33 PM

@ JakesAlterEgo

Then who prey tell is? And isn't that a different kind of problem? In that particular plot thread your only other choice is Cersei Lannister, and why should she be the protagonist any more than Ned was? She also didn't really have any real growth to her story. Or Jaime. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I am really pointing out that I don't see anyone who had any kind of growth or redemption at all in that whole plot thread. If I'm wrong, it will probably only enhance my enjoyment of the show to see that I was looking at it from the wrong perspective.
To your second point - I didn't say that there was no lesson to Ned Stark, just no arc. He was stubborn and stupid throughout. Why did you need more than one episode of his honor getting in the way to illustrate the point? And yet we got plenty, but it didn't really change his situation or his beliefs. That is the crux of my complaint of no character arc.

@ delilah

You're right, the character losing doesn't mean nothing's happening. The character continuously making the same stupid decision and having the same awful consequences means nothing's happening. I don't really get how "the character drives the plot" is a disagreement to what I wrote, except that if the character doesn't change at all how is it an interesting story? It's not the Path of the Hero arc, that would imply that he overcame something or learned something or made a decision that was ultimately his downfall. His insistence on honor was (continuously beaten into our head) pretty much his character, so it wasn't really a decision.

@ bignick

Yes but Ulysses still had a protagonist who overcame several obstacles in order to achieve redemption. I realize there can be experimentation, but generally it tries to achieve a point in its refusal to obey convention. If this was trying to prove a point by having the first plot where no characters grow or change in any way, what statement was it trying to make by saying that?
Plus I never read As I Lay Dying, so just assume that is because of a good reason not because I watch too much TV.

Posted by: negative 1 at June 27, 2011 8:39 PM

negative 1 >> You haven't seen the "whole plot thread" yet with respect to the entire saga, so I don't know how you can make that assessment. This is essentially the prologue of a lengthy story, and the entire growth/redemption arc for *any* of the characters has not yet been completed. If you had to isolate season one, though, I think I could describe some mini-arcs that happen for several of the characters that are dynamic enough for what constitutes only part one.

That said, in answer to your critique I will say the following: Ned is not the protagonist (as others stated above). In my opinion, knowing some of what's coming, there are two protagonists in the most traditional sense of the word Martin's series.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at June 27, 2011 9:04 PM

I thought that scene with Littlefinger giving Lesbian Sex 101 Lessons was incredibly stupid. It actually made me angry from how useless and stupid and pandering it was. There was absolutely no point to it and even took away some of the surprise at Petyr's betrayal.

That, plus the fact that we get some gorgeous women's breasts and the two penises we see...we don't want to see. BE FAIR GODDAMNIT.

So yeah, I agree with that first point. I don't like how sex is depicted. It's cheap.

The rest of it? You're so wrong, and you're gonna have to wait for some answers. BUT it was really well written and it was really interesting to read about the show from someone who hasn't read the books. MrFig never has and he made some of the same points as you did. He loves the show, but he has pointed out some weaknesses that I happen to agree with. It's not a perfect show.

Posted by: Figgy at June 27, 2011 9:13 PM

It's not perfect, but it's about as close to perfect as I've ever seen in series television ten hours into a drama. Of course, it could all fall apart, and I'm not going to place it next to the greatest television shows ever without at least another two or three quality seasons. If HBO doesn't see it through to the end, we might say it wasn't even worth it in the end analysis.

So it might not be as good as I think it is, but I'll happily take nominations for what superior shows I should be watching instead that are exactly as good as anyone claims that they are.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at June 27, 2011 9:38 PM

Ice arcing through the air may have meant the end of Ned, but that was only the beginning of the story. All the pieces are in place now, everyone with an important part to play is just getting warmed up. Ned and Robert and John Arryn had their rebellion, their glory. Their time has come and gone. It's what happens after them that makes up The Song of Ice and Fire (not Fire and Ice).

Also, Syrio lives!

Posted by: Kolby at June 27, 2011 10:08 PM

Game of Thrones gets bitched at for not showing Braveheart-esque battles, but everyone gives True Blood a pass despite having the production value of a 90's WB show.

Posted by: Jason Harris at June 27, 2011 10:21 PM

BROTHER NUMSI!!!! Thank FUCK! That's been bouncing around my head for weeks and I couldn't quite place the guy. Oh, thank you so much!

Posted by: Az at June 27, 2011 10:41 PM

Personally, I don't need to actually SEE the huge dude raping and pillaging but to each their own. And there were some rapes later - so maybe it compensates.

I don't miss battle scenes either, I've seen countless computer-generated battles already. This show, to me, is mostly about politics and power, not about warriors clashing to the sound of orchestra and back pipes. It's called "A Game of Thrones" for crying out loud.

Anyway. Are you serious about being unable to recognize the face of that crippled kid that was the kernel of a crucial plot throughout the first few episodes?

Despite the snark and attempted humor this review is simply a half-arsed attempt.

PS Never read the books either.

Posted by: Sir Realist at June 27, 2011 10:57 PM

I would also add that the reason there were no major battles you seem to so need to fill out your personal desire for the series, is because this novel is called "A Game of Thrones", not "The Battle for the Throne". The next book is appropriately called "A Clash of Kings" and therefore has more fighting, while the third is called "A Storm of Swords" and has more as well.

Again, most of the time I read people whining about character development and story arcs and bitching about the Michael Bay "SPLOSION" downfall of entertainment and yet here you are bitching about there not being enough SPLOSIONS!!1!!

Posted by: Protoguy at June 27, 2011 11:19 PM

The more article-positive comments I read the more I feel like people really DO want their stories spoon-fed to them with healthy doses of Bay-esque blockbuster crap.

Ned had no real character arc for the very real reason that his character was an old, honor-bound soldier and Lord. He has no arc because everything happens in like 2 months - not nearly enough time for major growth and change in a man of his age and position AND, except for being screwed over in the end by Joffrey, he played his role exactly as a man in his position HAD to play it - with the honor he held as closely as his own soul and the one time he relinquished his honor, he paid the ultimate price.

Posted by: Protoguy at June 27, 2011 11:29 PM

"The character continuously making the same stupid decision and having the same awful consequences means nothing's happening."

I'm thinking you don't really mean "nothing's happening" because clearly a lot happens. Both to him and because of him. To say nothing's happened simply because he hasn't fulfilled your need for character growth is cheap. I find your meatloaf to be shallow and pedantic.

I'm kinda flabbergasted that much of the article and the article-positive comments revolve around some need to have or find the true protagonist. Why? Are we so slogged down with our Literature I class lessons that we simply must follow the rules that Mr. Wickerson beat in our heads in school? Sure, technically there is always some sort of protagonist, but there's no reason they need to be a pure, easily identifiable one, nor does it mean that the protagonist can't switch sides, be killed or not turn out to be the hero or even the only protagonist.

It reminds me of Orson Scott Card's book on how to write novels where he admits that when he wrote Ender's Game he didn't know any of "the Rules" yet somehow managed to write an award winning story. I personally feel like it's exactly because he didn't know or follow "the Rules" that he wrote such a great story. IMO Ender's Game is far superior to anything he wrote afterwards, and GoT and SoIaF are superior for the same reasons. Real life isn't fair, the bad guy wins sometimes, good people die and you don't get a front-damn seat to the war.

Posted by: Protoguy at June 28, 2011 12:04 AM

This troll's narrative boundaries are about as wide as a fucking paper cut. I'm about done feeding this site's shitty writers and chuckling overlord hits and ideas.

Take some lit. theory classes, blow your brains out, fucking something...

Posted by: Recondite at June 28, 2011 12:20 AM

Okay, because I'm a bitch.


Since my name is attached to this work, I feel it is within the best practices to protect my personal safety by beginning with the following prefaces."

Let's make it clear: I'm bashing you for a half-arsed, poorly argued article and not for criticizing the show. And screw the books, never read them.

My most common description to friends is that “Game of Thrones” is Lord of the Rings without the homosexual undertones. Replace Frodo with Dudley Moore, add tits, a dash of Conan, sprinkle of Dangerous Liasons. Blend well.”

No it's not like that at all. You're basically saying that The Wire is like Sherlock Holmes, only with drugs, black dudes, guns and a lesbian sex scene. In other words, the fact that there are detectives in both narratives is not enough.


Hey, Ned Stark, why don’t you maybe tell some people Joffrey is a product of incest? I bet there are a few blokes who would be interested in that detail.

Ha ha, snarky. Now - Ned FUCKING DIES AND DESTROYS HIS FAMILY. Because he's stupid, honorable, knightly, naive whatever. I just can't understand how fact that a character acts foolishly and bears the consequences of it is a weakness of the show.

In the series finale, more attention is given to the shot of young Lancel Lannister’s ass getting back to bed, not how incredibly disturbed it is seeing Cersei sleep with another family member.

This is just a matter of what you personally chose to look at.

Why is it that there’s no time spent telling us why she can’t help but sleep with other Lannisters?

In other words, why are there unanswered questions! *stomp stomp*

her personality moves without explanation.

Daeny's first step towards transformation was reaching for power in a society that praises only raw strength. She changes from an object passed from one man (her brother) to another (her husband) into someone who literally mounts the leader of the Horde. (Sorry for the bad pun). On the way to personal empowerment and awakening of the dragon blood (hinted at from the very start by the repeated short scenes with her and the dragon eggs) she slowly embraces the culture, as shown by her changing clothes, her attitude to those surrounding her, her expression. The ceremony of eating the raw heart is one of key moments. I could go on, there is no space, just watch the fucking show.


If the “Song of Fire and Ice” is meant to actually chronicle the converging stanzas of Dany (dragon’s “fire”) and Jon (winter’s “ice”)

Fire and Ice is a poem by Robert Frost. The book is called Song of Ice and Fire.

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

Okay, I'm guessing here that Rob Roy symbolizes disappointment because I honestly can't see parallels between a story of individual's rebellion and a sweeping political drama of epic proportion.

However, the point is - when were we *ever* promised Braveheart? I mean, if not from the first, then definitely from the second episode onwards (the moment Stark moves to King's Landing) it's sort of obvious battles will not be the main theme of the show.

There never was a battle. There were, in fact, very few skirmishes that didn’t involve single combat.

Again, this is not the problem of the show, it is the problem of your expectations. The show delivers what it promised at the beginning: political intrigue and drama.

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!

I know this is one of the many instances of humor in the text, so I'm skipping this one.

If you have to kill all the cool characters (Syrio, Drogo, Mark Addy) the season needs to end with a roast beast size order of comeuppance for the bad guys

This one's too easy so I'm skipping it too.

Help me figure out which one is Rickon, and which one is Bran. I shouldn’t have to wait until one of them is riding Marla Singer or Sloth to figure it out.

This is (again) your problem. Maybe take notes. Or pay attention.

If you have a hulking badass who can chop off a horse’s head with one strike, don’t tell me he’s off raping and pillaging and having a grand old time. Visual would be nice.

It would be totally unjustified as he's not a major character, and it'd detract from the more important plot points for no reason other than to show rape and pillage.

For the sake of the rotund and the cherubic, make one of the fat characters useful. There are stupid fat boys who see fit to piss off Arya, eunuchs with hidden agendas, and Jon’s sidekick Friar Schmuck. I know the latter is going to start to show his potential, so stop making him so whiny.

1) Eunuch = high pitched voice, no way around that
2) Eunuch with a hidden agenda - a bit of an understatement, as he's plotting the downfall of Seven Kingdoms.I don't know if it's "useful" - I'd say as a narrative device it is.

_______________________


A poorly written text pretending to be smarter than it is. The snark will not save it.


Posted by: Sir Realist at June 28, 2011 12:31 AM

Mrcreosote,

I don't know if there are that many epic battles, which I like. The Tyrion battle from book 1 that everyone keeps mentioning is really Tryion being in a small part of an epic battle and mostly comes down to his battle with one other person. Where the books excel is by not depicting epic battles, which are faceless and amorphous, but by depicting far more horrible things happening to two or three people who are on a separate journey. Like Brienne and Vagor Hoat, or Arya and Ser Gregor. You get a real taste for war that way. And even when Dany is doing her thing, the books usually cut to the next day and fill in basic details later on.

Posted by: John G. at June 28, 2011 12:38 AM

The fact that you decided to title the article "Game of Groans" invalidates everything that comes after.

Posted by: Clark at June 28, 2011 12:43 AM

@ JakesAlterEgo

valar morghulis!

Posted by: John G. at June 28, 2011 12:51 AM

I have not yet read the books, and I enjoyed the hell out of the series. Obviously, visual media cannot give us the same depth of character and machinations as literature can, so they had to find ways to tell us who is who and what the stakes are.

It seems to me that your main issue is that Ned Stark is the catalyst for a whole bunch of plot variables, but he is not the ultimate protagonist. I figured that out several episodes in. There was simply no way that a man like Ned could survive in the world he'd fought to preserve, because that world no longer exists. THAT is your story arc. It's not that hard to identify.

Failure to listen to the honorable man led to Drogo swearing to go to war for his wife and son. Attacking and holding prisoner that honorable man led to a war that has already destroyed the (barely) unified kingdom. I have no doubt that watching that honorable man fall will force Arya and Sansa to grow and change, though I don't necessarily believe it will be for the better in both cases. Knowing the honorable man was cut down made Jon break his vow, setting his friends in motion to remind him of it.

We are told, by those who recite the rules by which one is given access to the vaunted world of published authors, that novels have to begin in media res or we will lose the interest of the attention-span-deficit audience. In essence, novels have moved to be more like movies. Since I am growing old, and read widely for fun before it became required of me, I remember fondly the slow introduction and subsequent build up. Perhaps that is why the pace of this show bothers me not at all.

On the other hand, the sex was ridiculous and many times unnecessary, at least in the way presented. I don't need to see the entirety of human anatomy to know what folks do with it, and the way it was filmed came across as a cheap trick in an otherwise thought-provoking show.

Posted by: Reba at June 28, 2011 1:06 AM

If you have to kill all the cool characters (Syrio, Drogo, Mark Addy) the season needs to end with a roast beast size order of comeuppance for the bad guys

"You want it to be one way ... but it's the other way"

-Marlo Stanfield

Posted by: Soylent Green is Sheeple at June 28, 2011 3:29 AM

"I don't really get how "the character drives the plot" is a disagreement to what I wrote, except that if the character doesn't change at all how is it an interesting story?" -negative

Ned could have wised up earlier and told, but it would have likely resulted in the deaths of Cersei's children. Had that happened I think it would have brought up a lot of "How could Ned have children killed?" It simply doesn't feel authentic to the character. It's the plot driving the character to do something anomalous and it would stick out as that to anyone watching. And I'd argue he does change in the very end when he realizes his kids are at risk and confesses to save them. In that last moment after Joffery asks for his head you can see him realize the weight of his, somewhat foolish, actions.

"It's not the Path of the Hero arc, that would imply that he overcame something or learned something or made a decision that was ultimately his downfall. His insistence on honor was (continuously beaten into our head) pretty much his character, so it wasn't really a decision."

Yes, my point was he wasn't following that arc because he's not the protagonist. His insistence on honor was indicative of the simple man he was. He never wanted to be king, or even the hand of the king because he didn't understand all the intricacies necessary to be part of that world. But he knew that, it was his loyalty to his friend that coerced him into going to King's landing. Ultimately he stayed true to his character, he was just out of his element and that showed in his decisions that led to his death.

Posted by: Delilah at June 28, 2011 6:26 AM

Wow! That has got to be the lamest opening to a half assed review. You title this ADD review as if you had a clue and the bitch cause you don't. I started watching this show without reading the books. Once the season ended I was entertained enough to want to buy the books and learn what the show couldn't give me. I love this show and I'm sure I'll love these books too. I can appreciate both for what they are. The books I can't put down now. I thank the show for introducing me to them. As far as the show the acting is great, the characters are on point with the book. If your complaining about it being over sexual and what not it's your own damn fault. HBO has to placate to ADD people, who can't follow anything for more the 20 mins without some horrific violence or nudity to break up all the talking and character development. Dan Saipher is a homophobe who hates little people.

Posted by: Kevin at June 28, 2011 6:34 AM

I have never read a newspaper while patronizing a titty bar.

But I have read a magazine while the dancer was shaking her bits all over the place. I'd occasionally reach up with both hands to feed another bill into her g-string, just to keep her and the bouncers happy.

Good article, too.

Posted by: The Wanderer at June 28, 2011 8:27 AM

YOU SIR ARE A HIPSTER CUNT. You disgust me.

Posted by: supafly at June 28, 2011 9:34 AM

This show has it all. Seriously, one of the best plot driven shows in years. Everything the characters do have consequences. And nearly everything they say has some deeper meaning. At first it was hard to follow, but that makes a second viewing all the better. I love this show and will accept its shortcomings. But it is anything other than groan worthy.

Posted by: Muteki at June 28, 2011 9:37 AM

As soon as I read A Game of Thrones, sometime in 2000, it instantly became my favorite book. Ever since then, I’ve been trying to recommend the series to anyone who will listen (OK, anyone who’s a fan of sci fi/ fantasy who would listen) and how did I describe it? “It’s like Lord of the Rings but 100% better.” So I don’t fault the comparison when I hear it from others, like Dan wrote above. I think it’s a fair comparison.

Posted by: Scully at June 28, 2011 10:18 AM

Your inability to correctly describe GoT does not justify the OP's similar inability.

Posted by: Ender at June 28, 2011 10:47 AM

I'm barely halfway through the first book and I love the show, so I believe it stands on its own just fine.

Nudity: As far as network notes go, being forced to put more boobs in a show is hardly something to bitch about. Most shows on other channels put up with prude censorship and network ignorance. If they put this on NBC the entire series would be over already because 90% of the content would be cut.

Lancel Lannister's ass:I was too busy actually being disturbed that Cersei was again keeping it in the family to notice that his ass was getting extra camera time. If there was extra focus on it, then it must have been solely for people who needed to be hit over the head with it to make sure they understand that she was indeed screwing him.

Comments:This was actually more civil than I expected to see from something like this. Those that are relatively flipping out though:

It's just a fucking article, people. He started out with "I like [GoT] a lot." There are a number of points in the piece that are obviously tongue-in-cheek and some that I'm sure were just to rile up the "Gawl, I'm so sick of this site that no one forces me to visit" crowd. Like the Bran/Rickon thing. If that wasn't a troll, then this whole article is moot.

Posted by: Paultera at June 28, 2011 11:03 AM

At least it follows the books.

Posted by: MRod at June 28, 2011 11:17 AM

GoT could end now and still it would earn its place with the best shows in history. Everyone has their gripes, I suppose, but couching it as "I'm right, and the rest of you are stupid." (even though I know this was largely tongue-in-cheek) just comes across as asinine.

Its been said before, but the TV series is one of the most accurate book-to-screen adaptations I have ever seen. Game of Thrones is how this country spanning conflict will begin. That is why Deaenerys is the focus at the end, why the dragons are such a big deal. That is why the end credits (I think for the first time) are a more anthemic version of the opening title song. Because now Daenerys is a player in the game, and a force to be reckoned with. She is the true heir to the Iron Throne.

While the Lannisters and Starks have it out they are not going to see her coming. Ned had to die so that Rob, Jon, Bran, Sansa, and Arya (and I guess Rickon) would grow. His execution eliminated any chance Winterfell would accept a truce. The murder of one Hand (Jon Arryn) set everything in motion, the murder of the second Hand (Ned Stark) insures there will be no peace between the Starks and Lannisters and all their banners.

It also structurally is meant to show the viewer that no one, no matter how prominent their billing, is safe.

Posted by: TylerDFC at June 28, 2011 11:43 AM

It's all just a conversation piece. What else are we going to do for 10 mos,
awaiting the return of the dragons. Unfortunately, you may have taken it
a wee bit too seriously.
Outstanding show. Really interesting exposition / exploration. Flesh is
neat-o. Dany is really purdy. Haven't read the books and might not.
Go Team direwolf. ;-)

Posted by: Ms MoMo at June 28, 2011 12:07 PM

I think dear ol' Dan has been taken through the ringer quite thoroughly in the previous 93 comments, so I have little to add. I guess I'll make a list, as that's the way I roll...

*So, you wish the bad guys got their comeuppance at the end, eh? I can see how this series would piss you off. I bet Rome also pissed you off, and The Wire, and The Sopranos, and The Tudors. And why won't my grandmother come back to life!

*I really don't understand the desire for a huge bloody battle sequence. If there's any film trope that's overdone, it's the pointless and extravagant battle sequence. You don't need to have a slaughter-wank to move forward character and plot development. In fact, such sequences often distract and bore the audience unless they are a vehicle for some kind of important development. Compare the original Star Wars Trilogy to the prequels. There was genuine tension in the dogfight to destroy the first Death Star, because the Rebel forces were fighting to stave off the annhilation of their last base, and Luke was recovering from Obi-Wan's death and looking to take the first step on his path of destiny. By contrast, not a single battle in the prequel trilogy was compelling in any way. You could argue that Obi-Wan and Anakin's "epic" battle had some underlying tension, but it was so drawn-out and ridiculously over-the-top as to stifle whatever emotional component was in play.

Posted by: StoatCat at June 28, 2011 12:21 PM

@negative 1: "That is my main complaint - Ned was the protagonist of the TV show, he started out getting his a** handed to him by the Lannisters, continued to get his a** handed to him by the Lannisters, and then got his head handed to him by the Lannisters. That means your main protagonist had absolutely no character arc."

As has been mentioned, Ned really isn't the protagonist. However, I don't want to spoil the series for those who haven't read it, so I'm limited in what I'll post about this. This is an unusual story though in that there is not one clear "hero", but rather a number of characters of varying moralities interacting. There are several heroic characters though, and some of them are major characters. And some characters have very compelling arcs, but I don't want to spoil those, either. Suffice it to say that some Lannisters and some Starks will change over time, for better or worse.

Also note that not every character needs a character arc in the present timeline, and further, some arcs take place in flashbacks. You can piece together how Ned grew to be the man he was, but that man doesn't change all that much over the course of this show; it's not necessary or appropriate that he do so though. Ned is already fully developed as a character; it's more interesting to watch him placed into circumstances that force him to make impossible choices, than it would be to see him turned into someone else.

I honestly don't agree with your concerns at all, but then I've read the books and know the bigger picture. I think it's a lot more satisfying this way, but again, without spoiling the story for you, there isn't any good way to reassure you.

Yes, this is nontraditional storytelling. Yes, it does work out well as a narrative device, overall, once you see how things work out. No, this was never Ned's story, though he's one of the most sympathetic characters and the one initially at the center of the shitstorm.

Posted by: foolsage at June 28, 2011 1:53 PM

Complain about people comparing the show to the books if you must, but the show is directly informed by the series and hence does not exist within a vacuum. Song of Ice and Fire is a slow burn and of course the show is going to reflect that. Yes, the show has its flaws ("shocking" sex scenes, neutering Tyrion's awesome character a bit), but overall HBO did a fine job in Season 1.

Posted by: stryker1121 at June 28, 2011 2:03 PM

As for the nudity, well it is Home BOX Office after all...

Posted by: JJ at June 28, 2011 2:53 PM

"My most common description to friends is that “Game of Thrones” is Lord of the Rings without the homosexual undertones. Replace Frodo with Dudley Moore, add tits, a dash of Conan, sprinkle of Dangerous Liasons. Blend well.”

Wow..hate to say this but I am surprised after reading this supremely pretentious mess that you have anyone to talk to at all.

Posted by: jp at June 29, 2011 12:29 PM

Thanks for making me smile at the end of long and stressful day.

Posted by: Kendall Linet at August 23, 2011 12:07 PM