The Imp
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2008
- Messages
- 5,377
GRRM just posted a sort of response to the Times review.
I was livid, not only becuase of the lies, disrotions and how obvious it was that this person hadn't watched with an open mind or given the show a chance. her review probably ruined the efforts I had made in trying to get my wife to watch at least the first episode of GOT.
?Game of Thrones? Begins Sunday on HBO - Review - NYTimes.com
I read it after she went to bed and sent her a snarky email telling her what I thought of the reviewer. I then followed up with the follwing. i'm sure much more can be added.
GRRM must be REALLY pissed if it affected him as badly as it did me, and for him it was much worse.
The email to my wife. Quoted parts are the reviewer.
Keeping track of the principals alone feels as though it requires the focused memory of someone who can play bridge at a Warren Buffett level of adeptness. In a sense the series, which will span 10 episodes, ought to come with a warning like, "If you can’t count cards, please return to reruns of ‘
Sex and the City.’ " no, maybe instead it should say "if you like mindkless **** that lacks wit, intelligence, inticately woven plotlines, etc. this isn't for you. VIewers will actually have to WATCH THE ******* SHOW and not spend half their time tweeting and surfing"
classist, elitist snobbery at it's worst. Only the rich are worth caring about?
I guess she would have preferred "OOOOOH, me wantum shiny beads. Me tradeum 5 horse for 1 shiny bead". Creating a real language with a real grammatical structure and a (as of right now) 3 thousnad word vocabulary is a bad thing I guess. Savage should speak as "savage". Keep them darkies in their place.
Now the series is perverted. Nice job. And who says women won't like it? And what does this paragraph have to do with anything other than trying to snarkily say that it's a series for men, which it isn't.
More fiction. Trust me, this is just a distortion and fictionalization of what the series will be about. And how the hell dcoes she know these are sketchily fleshed out? She clearly hasn't read the books or seen more than a few minutes of episode one, if that much.
She now reduces everything down to a board game. Nicely done. This is a pathetic excuse for a review. Notice she gives virtually no detail (becuase she hasn't watched it0 and speaks in the broadest of negative generalities.
But it MUST be true becuase it's in the New York TImes, the paper of record, all the news that's fit to print
I was livid, not only becuase of the lies, disrotions and how obvious it was that this person hadn't watched with an open mind or given the show a chance. her review probably ruined the efforts I had made in trying to get my wife to watch at least the first episode of GOT.
?Game of Thrones? Begins Sunday on HBO - Review - NYTimes.com
I read it after she went to bed and sent her a snarky email telling her what I thought of the reviewer. I then followed up with the follwing. i'm sure much more can be added.
GRRM must be REALLY pissed if it affected him as badly as it did me, and for him it was much worse.
The email to my wife. Quoted parts are the reviewer.
She makes fun of the show because they spent a lot of money on it?With the amount of money apparently spent on "Game of Thrones," the fantasy epic set in a quasi-medieval somewhereland beginning Sunday on HBO, a show like "Mad Men" might have the financing to continue into the second term of a Malia Obama presidency
Keeping track of the principals alone feels as though it requires the focused memory of someone who can play bridge at a Warren Buffett level of adeptness. In a sense the series, which will span 10 episodes, ought to come with a warning like, "If you can’t count cards, please return to reruns of ‘
Sex and the City.’ " no, maybe instead it should say "if you like mindkless **** that lacks wit, intelligence, inticately woven plotlines, etc. this isn't for you. VIewers will actually have to WATCH THE ******* SHOW and not spend half their time tweeting and surfing"
Pure fiction."Embedded in the narrative is a vague global-warming horror story"
How did this come to pass? We are in the universe of dwarfs, armor, wenches, braids, loincloth. The strange temperatures clearly are not the fault of a reliance on inefficient HVAC systems. Given the bizarre climate of the landmass at the center of the bloody disputes — and the series rejects no opportunity to showcase a beheading or to offer a slashed throat close-up — you have to wonder what all the fuss is about. We are not talking about Palm Beach.
classist, elitist snobbery at it's worst. Only the rich are worth caring about?
The bigger question, though, is: What is "Game of Thrones" doing on HBO? The series claims as one of its executive producers the screenwriter and best-selling author David Benioff, whose excellent script for
Spike Lee’s post-9/11 meditation, "25th Hour," did not suggest a writer with Middle Earth proclivities. Five years ago, however, Mr. Benioff began reading George R. R. Martin’s series of books, "A Song of Ice and Fire," fell in love and sought to adapt "Game of Thrones," one of the installments. What does this even mean??? HBO shouldn't be doing such a show becuase........?????
The show has been elaborately made to the point that producers turned to a professional at something called
the Language Creation Society to design a vocabulary for the savage Dothraki nomads who provide some of the more Playboy-TV-style plot points and who are forced to speak in subtitles.
I guess she would have preferred "OOOOOH, me wantum shiny beads. Me tradeum 5 horse for 1 shiny bead". Creating a real language with a real grammatical structure and a (as of right now) 3 thousnad word vocabulary is a bad thing I guess. Savage should speak as "savage". Keep them darkies in their place.
There IS no unhindered bed jumping. This is another complete fabricationLike "The Tudors" and "The Borgias" on Showtime and the
"Spartacus" series on Starz, "Game of Thrones," is a costume-drama sexual hopscotch, even if it is more sophisticated than its predecessors. It says something about current American attitudes toward sex that with the exception of the lurid and awful "Californication," nearly all eroticism on television is past tense. The imagined historical universe of "Game of Thrones" gives license for unhindered bed-jumping — here sibling intimacy is hardly confined to emotional exchange.
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. While I do not doubt that there are women in the world who read books like Mr. Martin’s, I can honestly say that I have never met a single woman who has stood up in indignation at her book club and refused to read the latest from Lorrie Moore unless everyone agreed to "The Hobbit" first. "Game of Thrones" is boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half.
Now the series is perverted. Nice job. And who says women won't like it? And what does this paragraph have to do with anything other than trying to snarkily say that it's a series for men, which it isn't.
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.
More fiction. Trust me, this is just a distortion and fictionalization of what the series will be about. And how the hell dcoes she know these are sketchily fleshed out? She clearly hasn't read the books or seen more than a few minutes of episode one, if that much.
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.
She now reduces everything down to a board game. Nicely done. This is a pathetic excuse for a review. Notice she gives virtually no detail (becuase she hasn't watched it0 and speaks in the broadest of negative generalities.
But it MUST be true becuase it's in the New York TImes, the paper of record, all the news that's fit to print