swan_tower (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
swan_tower) wrote2011-04-17 11:17 pm
swan_tower) wrote2011-04-17 11:17 pm
Entry tags:
AROTGOTTVSP,AWBSNSFAPOAPCFTFG
A Review of the Game of Thrones TV Series Premiere, As Written by Someone Not Starting from a Position of A Priori Contempt For the Fantasy Genre
(LJ won't let me have a post title that long.)
I thought it was pretty good. The three of us watching who had read the books thought it was a faithful and effective adaptation of the source material; the fourth member of the audience, who had not read the books, said it succeeded at getting her interested, which is what you want from a premiere. Lots of good casting choices, and because it's a series, it can take the time it needs to build up the characters and the world by methods more gradual than Ye Olde Info-Dumpe.
It being HBO, of course, they were not shy about showing you the nekkid, and things that were faintly disturbing on the page become moreso when you actually see them happening. (In particular, it's hard to miss how problematic the Dothraki are.) But I didn't feel they were gratuitously amping the R-rated stuff up just for the sake of spectacle, which is my usual HBO complaint.
I definitely want to see more. Though we'll probably go the route of recording several eps and then watching them in one go, rather than doling it out an hour each week.
And that, New York Times, is how you do it. You get a reviewer who actually likes the genre to give you an opinion. Not somebody who is convinced of the worthlessness of fantasy before they ever sit down to watch the show. Please remedy this error in the future.
(LJ won't let me have a post title that long.)
I thought it was pretty good. The three of us watching who had read the books thought it was a faithful and effective adaptation of the source material; the fourth member of the audience, who had not read the books, said it succeeded at getting her interested, which is what you want from a premiere. Lots of good casting choices, and because it's a series, it can take the time it needs to build up the characters and the world by methods more gradual than Ye Olde Info-Dumpe.
It being HBO, of course, they were not shy about showing you the nekkid, and things that were faintly disturbing on the page become moreso when you actually see them happening. (In particular, it's hard to miss how problematic the Dothraki are.) But I didn't feel they were gratuitously amping the R-rated stuff up just for the sake of spectacle, which is my usual HBO complaint.
I definitely want to see more. Though we'll probably go the route of recording several eps and then watching them in one go, rather than doling it out an hour each week.
And that, New York Times, is how you do it. You get a reviewer who actually likes the genre to give you an opinion. Not somebody who is convinced of the worthlessness of fantasy before they ever sit down to watch the show. Please remedy this error in the future.
no subject
But they were 1,000 times worse in the show. Umm, why are there 'ZOMG naked-boobied Black women!' in what's essentially a hard-R-rated cartoon *Mongol* analogue!? For me it was less that it became more problematic when depicted visually, and more that the cheesy costume design, dancing, casting, etc., made the caricature 1,000 times more preposterous.
Also, Dany was totally stripped of even the problematic nascent agency she has in the wedding/consumation scenes in the books. This fact exacerbated both the episode's T&A problems and the racist Drogo problem.
Sorry, but the book is more nuanced than 'Quivering white girl raped by savage.'
All that said, DINKLAGE! And Arya! And direwolf puppies! And...yeah, I had a blast and will def be watching each week.
no subject
Dany was . . . interesting. I felt she came across as weak, but the friend who hasn't read the books had a much more charitable interpretation; she said Dany came across as trapped by her circumstances but not bowing to them, and felt the character had strength that was going to become more apparent with time. So for that audience member at least, some of the nuance managed to come through -- though, of course, mileage varies depending on who's watching, and I don't expect that everybody got the same things out of that scene. It's why I'm curious to see how Dany proceeds, because I remember a lot of her strength and nuance being internal (at least at first), and that doesn't translate very well to the screen.
As for the direwolves -- heh. We were mocking the NYT review with its "they totally shoehorned in some sex because otherwise women would never watch this" b.s. It's really all about the FUZZY PUPPIES GO RAR. Direwolves bring all the ladies to the yard, yo.
no subject
no subject
no subject
This. As I was watching the women dance during the wedding scene all I could think was "its like BET channel music videos with a fantasy theme. Look, its a classic hip hop booty shake!" as they popped their ass up and down.
no subject
no subject
(Which is a pity, because in anthro classes I saw videos of the kind of dancing they could have been going for instead, and that would have been more interesting.)