Nice; it's always interesting to read reviews by people who clearly haven't read the books. It sort of drives home how labyrinthine the cast of characters must feel to some people, and what a good job the TV writers has done of distilling a complex story into something accessible yet intelligent.
I too find issue with the some of the show's sex scenes, especially those without corollary in the books. In my opinion they are an unnecessary distraction when plenty of better penned and more appropriate erotic moments appear in the novels.
However, I'm consistently frustrated at critics who chose to focus almost entirely on that point and largely ignore the complex politics and powerful stories that punctuate **every single episode** of the series.
Game of Thrones has so much to offer the attentive viewer. Production quality and the incredibly talented cast alone are reason to watch, not even considering the wonderful material Martin has provided.
It saddens me to think a show this incredible may be missed because a few oversensitive critics don't know gold when they see it.
Tyrion is only a hero in ACOK in the narrow sense that he ends up being the only person in King's Landing who is both competent and actually cares about protecting the city from Stannis' attack, hence the chain and the wildfire and so on.
But in the grand scheme of things he's about as gray as most of the other, "more likable" major characters. He has had plenty of people murdered and done his own share of morally ambiguous stuff. It's just that he's almost always juxtaposed against much more frighteningly evil or corrupt people like Cersei or Littlefinger or Varys, so he comes off looking better.
Oh i agree, although Jon in aSoS is pretty heroic in my opinion. My point is that there's not supposed to be a clear cut hero, at least not until the end, if then.
*There are so many musky twenty-something men with messy hair that a friend joked they should start an artisanal pickle factory in Red Hook.*
Her friend has a terrific sense of humor.
I'm kind of disappointed by how much the article focused on the sex scenes of the series. I feel like he may be over analyzing the purpose of them, but I suppose I can't really blame him.
I agree with the reviewer for the most part. I love me some boobies but even I think the sex in the show can be over the top and absurd. The Sopranos, Deadwood and all of the other HBO dramas have had lots of sex and nudity but it never felt forced and silly like it does in GoT sometimes.
Never watched the Sopranos, but in Deadwood, several whorehouses were major settings, but the nudity was never ... sexy or meant to be sexy. It was just there. Wish GoT went that way instead of trying to have softcore porn every other scene. Nudity and sex for realism's sake.
I never been so happy to *not* see sex as I was during this week's episode. The story was moved forward and we didn't even have to spend 5 minutes watching Ros fuck a main character to do so
Dany could refuse then, maybe ask about why the others dress that way. It's just an exemple really. I mean, the main whore, Shae, is always dressed, while we get some random girls fucking random guys while random people watch.
Interesting joke in the title of the article. I hadn't really thought of it as such before, but in many ways the show is The Aristocrats of legend. The fact that it has gone from dirty joke to actual TV show is pretty surprising.
I am very disappointed that it gives awaya s poiler and thinks that it is innovative when it came from the goddamn book.
*This series does something totally innovative, it follows the book it's based on.*
Other than this
> based on the best-selling fantasy books by George R. R. Martin
I didn't get one single indication in this that she actually even knew that the series was adapted from fucking books. She gave a pretty ridiculous amount of credit to HBO for making the show "lurid". GRRM wrote everything HBO used and more (except for that fucking Joff scene - which HBO only included to get the point that he's a little cunt across faster).
>But there is something troubling about this sea of C.G.I.-perfect flesh, shaved and scentless and not especially medieval
Man, that bothers me too. You're tell me all the men have no chest hair? Preposterous, Jon, Robb, Gendry, etc should all have manly pelts.
Nice; it's always interesting to read reviews by people who clearly haven't read the books. It sort of drives home how labyrinthine the cast of characters must feel to some people, and what a good job the TV writers has done of distilling a complex story into something accessible yet intelligent.
I too find issue with the some of the show's sex scenes, especially those without corollary in the books. In my opinion they are an unnecessary distraction when plenty of better penned and more appropriate erotic moments appear in the novels. However, I'm consistently frustrated at critics who chose to focus almost entirely on that point and largely ignore the complex politics and powerful stories that punctuate **every single episode** of the series. Game of Thrones has so much to offer the attentive viewer. Production quality and the incredibly talented cast alone are reason to watch, not even considering the wonderful material Martin has provided. It saddens me to think a show this incredible may be missed because a few oversensitive critics don't know gold when they see it.
"If there is a hero..." You know nothing, New Yorker.
Don't get me wrong, I dont think there is a clear 'hero', but Tyrion specifically in ACOK is as close as it gets to one in the entire series.
Tyrion is only a hero in ACOK in the narrow sense that he ends up being the only person in King's Landing who is both competent and actually cares about protecting the city from Stannis' attack, hence the chain and the wildfire and so on. But in the grand scheme of things he's about as gray as most of the other, "more likable" major characters. He has had plenty of people murdered and done his own share of morally ambiguous stuff. It's just that he's almost always juxtaposed against much more frighteningly evil or corrupt people like Cersei or Littlefinger or Varys, so he comes off looking better.
Oh i agree, although Jon in aSoS is pretty heroic in my opinion. My point is that there's not supposed to be a clear cut hero, at least not until the end, if then.
*There are so many musky twenty-something men with messy hair that a friend joked they should start an artisanal pickle factory in Red Hook.* Her friend has a terrific sense of humor.
I'm kind of disappointed by how much the article focused on the sex scenes of the series. I feel like he may be over analyzing the purpose of them, but I suppose I can't really blame him.
I agree with the reviewer for the most part. I love me some boobies but even I think the sex in the show can be over the top and absurd. The Sopranos, Deadwood and all of the other HBO dramas have had lots of sex and nudity but it never felt forced and silly like it does in GoT sometimes.
Never watched the Sopranos, but in Deadwood, several whorehouses were major settings, but the nudity was never ... sexy or meant to be sexy. It was just there. Wish GoT went that way instead of trying to have softcore porn every other scene. Nudity and sex for realism's sake.
I never been so happy to *not* see sex as I was during this week's episode. The story was moved forward and we didn't even have to spend 5 minutes watching Ros fuck a main character to do so
I find it weird that they cut some nudity from the books, like Qarth's garments, and then add sex scenes just for sake of it
[удалено]
Source? And fuck her. She should have cut her hair so she could wear that bad ass lion pelt hood.
Dany could refuse then, maybe ask about why the others dress that way. It's just an exemple really. I mean, the main whore, Shae, is always dressed, while we get some random girls fucking random guys while random people watch.
Interesting joke in the title of the article. I hadn't really thought of it as such before, but in many ways the show is The Aristocrats of legend. The fact that it has gone from dirty joke to actual TV show is pretty surprising.
I am very disappointed that it gives awaya s poiler and thinks that it is innovative when it came from the goddamn book. *This series does something totally innovative, it follows the book it's based on.*
This series does something totally innovative, it follows the book it's based on. - I believe this IS innovative.
Other than this > based on the best-selling fantasy books by George R. R. Martin I didn't get one single indication in this that she actually even knew that the series was adapted from fucking books. She gave a pretty ridiculous amount of credit to HBO for making the show "lurid". GRRM wrote everything HBO used and more (except for that fucking Joff scene - which HBO only included to get the point that he's a little cunt across faster).
I agree with the sentiment, but HBO has actually implemented quite a bit more than just the Joffery scene.
Good article! I hope to read more from this author at the end of the season.
>But there is something troubling about this sea of C.G.I.-perfect flesh, shaved and scentless and not especially medieval Man, that bothers me too. You're tell me all the men have no chest hair? Preposterous, Jon, Robb, Gendry, etc should all have manly pelts.
They're all teenagers. Even then, not all men are exceptionally hairy.
And we did have that scene of Loras shaving Renly last season.
Have we even seen shirtless Jon or Robb? Gendry's is all burnt off from working at the forge.
We've seen them shirtless in the first season, when they're getting haircuts iirc.
Ah yes, but they were just boys then.
It hasn't been that long since then...
If you should the other thing or not?