But I can't hold it against HBO. I love Treme (by David Simon, who also did my favorite show, The Wire) and Boardwalk Empire is pretty good.
I'm actually curious to know if it's just me. Anyone else expected to like GoT but ended up not liking it? The dwarf character was great, but even he couldn't save that show for me.
In short, it lacks the depth that the books provide. This is probably true of most adaptations, but because they appear to be keeping as closely to the book as possible; it is much more noticeable.
As an aside, the Wire is my all time favorite television show.
To be honest though, I know I'm getting old as the level of non-sensical sex in the show put me off a bit.
Tyrion for the win.
It was quite an interesting experience, being able to place faces and voices from the show onto book characters as I read along.
I'm glad I've read them first though because I think that without reading the books character motivations would not be clear. Even in the books all the connections are introduced kind of slow (and don't even get me started on the characters that travel in the far lands for the fifth book now :)
I also think that he killed too many characters too aggressively and by the fifth book he had to slow down. :)
Fifth book took forever to be written. On the light side there is a good chance we'll see last two books within 5 years - most likely contract with the HBO has specific dates preset, they have to finish the series with or without Martin.
One thing in common though was that each one who didn't enjoy it preferred non-fiction (or semi realistic) to fiction in their reading. Note this is a sample size of 5 so its nothing scientific, just a general observation.
I'm not trying to crap all over something you liked, just trying to give more data points.
Acting I found quite good, particularity the imp. I don't have an artists eye/voice for this but seemed fine to me. The dialogue was alright. Its a but above most other fantasy stuff which is usually quite slapstick in comparison.
With you on the big/small events having the same focus is right though. May be due to an inexperienced team creating the show though. I found for a show based on a book it came across quite well and certainly better then LOTR (I still cant believe they didn't just fly an eagle in and drop the ring off straight away. The show could have been 5 minutes long that way.)
I might give the book a go as a comparison, but supposedly its very slow.
The eagles were Tolkien's favorite go-to when his plot ran into trouble. He just never got enough of them delivering a deus ex machina.
Consider:
- Bilbo and friends are stuck in trees which goblins have lit on fire. (The Hobbit.)
- Everyone is fighting everyone and the goblins have come with the greatest army. (The Hobbit.)
- Gandalf is stuck in a tower and Saruman has been revealed to be a meglomaniac. (The Fellowship of the Ring)
- Gandalf is stuck on top of a mountain after being sent back as Gandalf the White and beating a balrog. (The Two Towers)
- Frodo and Samwise are stuck on an exploding volcano after destroying the Ring. (The Return of the King)
(If you read his other works, like _The Silmarillion_, you'll find more examples.)
I will say one thing it has going for it -- that theme music really stuck in my head.
As for the racial stereotypes, I can see what people mean, but how exactly do you portray different (fictional) ethnicities without evoking those responses?
Culturally, they seem to be based on the ancient Mongols, not on any particular currently-existing culture. Not to mention that as far as I'm aware there aren't any ethnic groups who stereotypically give gifts of snakes to people.
I think it's just reading way too much into a fantasy show that seems to take deliberate pains not to stereotype real-life ethnicities (except for maybe the feudal British).
But what I've noticed in a broader sense is that in these types of fictional worlds, you often have the bare-chested, dark-skinned people doing barbarous things and making gutural noises. Sometimes being downright evil without much reason (because they actually enjoy it or whatever), and they mostly don't have real '3D' characters but are a plot device for violence and other uncivilized actions. They're so cookie cutter that you could see any number of them killed without really feeling anything.
On the other side, you have the Northern European bunch, some of whom can be quite evil too, but usually for complex geopolitical reasons or other more human motivations. In other words, they don't do evil things just for fun or because they don't know better, but because they think they're actually doing the right thing, somehow. Their characters are usually much more developed.
Maybe it's just like this because of the way our evolved brains work, and the target audience can't help but identify with a certain 'tribe'. I don't know.
Further, it makes sense that a group of barbaric nomads who ride horseback on the plains would have darker pigment than those who spend their lives at court in a castle. That part isn't fantasy, it's evolution.
This is actually very true. The Seven Kingdoms are based on the Heptarchy (Lancaster --> Lannister, York --> Stark) and so the story is (very) loosely based upon the War of the Roses.
But yeah, Lancaster->Lannister seemed like a good hint that the War of the Roses was the template for this dynastic struggle.
I thought most of the non-brown-skinned people traveling with the Dothraki were slaves received as tribute or taken in battle?
Agreed. I love the theme music.
Another show that has great music is John Adams. I bought the soundtrack. I LOVED that miniseries. Highly recommended if you haven't seen it.
It's about taste and connecting with the characters. If you don't connect, emotional reaction falls flat.
I think you will enjoy this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yydcG9woWA
Deadwood and Rome not so much.
Out of curiosity, have you seen Band of Brothers and The Pacific, and what did you think of each?
I was also annoyed that Inigo Montoya died so soon.
Am I missing something? How are you a couple books in and that was a spoiler?
Hm. Seems we need a new term. Spoilers tend to be things that people see, and immediately go "OMG WHY DID YOU SHOW ME THAT". This is closer to "huh. dragons.". Maybe "fridge horror"[1] is the closest? A "fridge spoiler"?
[1]: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeHorror