Why Game of Thrones is the best thing on television | Hacker News Reader

Why Game of Thrones is the best thing on television

arstechnica.com

36 pointsevo_921 comments

Here's the primary reason it's not: There is currently no way for me to pay for a digital copy until the DVDs come out. I know they're angling for subscribers, but they're still leaving money on the table for all those like me who've cut the cable cord entirely. Get with the times, HBO.

+1. As a "cable cord cutter", I have no way of getting their content. I would gladly pay an ala carte subscription, or even buy episodes of the show on Amazon.com or another online VOD site (as I do for many other cable shows that I enjoy). I have seen all the arguments for the "franchise fees being their lifeblood", but if you wait until it's too late to explore other sources of revenue, it's going to be just that: too late.

What about HBO Go?

If I'm not mistaken, HBO Go requires an HBO subscription.

Edit: Which requires cable.

Just so everyone knows, Game of Thrones is based off of the first book in the A Song of Ice and Fire series:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire

So if you like the tv show you'll probably love the books.

I'm not convinced. The show is pretty good, the books less so, for reasons I wrote about in detail here: http://jseliger.com/2011/04/17/people-like-a-game-of-thrones... .

I suspect this is a case of The Godfather and other book-to-movie adaptations I can't recall off the top of my head: the adaptation transcends its source material.

Fight Club is my go-to example of a film that was better than the original novel.

I think you have much higher standards for your books than for your TV.

GOT the TV show is being touted as the best TV show of the year. GOT the book is far from being the best book of 1996, yet I still believe the book is better than the TV show.

I believe that my opinion is the majority opinion. But it's nice to say that the TV adaptation is so good that a good case can be made for the other side.

I was hooked after the first ten minutes of the first episode. Also, best opening credits and theme music probably since the X-Files.

That said, I find the show distasteful at times (the use of 'sexposition'), and sometimes it mishandles morality, making it hard to sympathize with any of the characters if you evaluate their decisions objectively. I suspect that like The Wire (and it's probably in that sort of league) it's weakest point will be unrelenting naturalism - constantly trying to show us how terrible and pointless life is, not offering much to aspire to.

But heck, it's mostly just outrageous fun.

I think the reason you're finding it difficult to sympathize with characters is that you're trying to evaluate their decisions objectively. My favorite part about this show is that no action, character, or decision exists within a binary black/white, good/evil way.

Try to get inside the character's head, think about what perceived injustices they have been wronged by, what their stake is in the decision, how their decision will influence the way in which they are viewed by their peers, etc, but most importantly, view it within the context of the character's emotional state at the time the decision was made.

I rate the GoT and Fringe themes as tops. I love the visuals of the GoT intro, too.

Absolutely agree with you. G0T's theme song is unusually long. Yet, I haven't forwarded past it even once.Same with Fringe (I love the little changes they make based on the episode's universe or timeframe). The retro theme song was absolutely nerdgasmic. I also used to be quite fond of Rome and Prison Break's (chiefly because of the music, which is also composed by the music director of GoT) opening sequences.

Here is an interview I enjoyed with the director of the title sequence - it includes sketches and concept art.

http://www.artofthetitle.com/2011/05/12/game-of-thrones/

How does a Game of Thrones "mishandle morality"? In my opinion, the shows (and books) present human morality more realistically than any other fiction I've ever seen

It mishandles it because some signals that set certain characters up as the good guys that we should route for are in conflict with actions they take which destroy some of our sympathy for them, indicating that the writers didn't really think through the moral implications of those actions, brushing them off too lightly.

For instance, when the butcher boy is killed, Stark looks mildly perturbed but doesn't protest about it, and is still willing to throw his lot in with the despicable Lannisters. It's mostly shrugged off, but the incident was far too dark for that. Or another example, Robb Stark sacrificing two thousand soldiers on a suicide mission which was a strategic feint. Although one can see how the tactic might work, it just makes no sense on a human scale, unless you buy into that glorious death-in-battle nonsense big time (on a Kling-on scale it would be ok).

As the name suggests, it's all about politics.

I tried reading the book, and by the end of the preview on my Kindle app, I hadn't yet managed to care about any of it.

I tried the TV series and liked it even less.

And I -wanted- to like it. All my friends like it. I just can't.

Spoiler Warning!!

I love the first book and like the HBO show, but I'm curious what people who haven't read the books think about the plot. Does it make sense? Is it just a jumble of characters that don't seem to have any depth?

It's complex and there are a lot of characters to follow, but many of them are developed very well - which is rare on TV and wonderful to see.

It's not strictly a topic for HN but I concur.

I would disagree. From the guidelines on what is acceptable for HN: "If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."

I have not had my intellectual curiosity challenged by a television show like this in years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com