Hacker News Reader

Comment by MikeCapone | Hacker News Reader

I expected to like it - I really liked Rome, also from HBO - but Game of Thrones fell completely flat for me. Somehow the directing/acting/script just didn't produce much emotion or attachment to the characters from me. There were some interesting scenes here and there, but overall, it was a bit like The Pacific (I loved Band of Brothers and expected to love Pacific too (I read the biographies on which it is based), but it fell completely flat for me.

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.

View on HN

The show is really for people who have read the books. It is accurate to the first novel and even contains a significant amount of dialog from it, but it doesn't frame things as well as George Martin's writing can. I especially noticed this watching the show with my wife (who has not read the books) and having to continually explain things to her that were obviously lacking in the show. Many of the characters actions and some events only seem aligned with the characters if you understand them from the novels.

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.

I watched the season without knowing anything about the books and expected not to like it at all, as swords/sandals/fantasy isn't my thing. I was immediately hooked on the first episode and am now reading the first book.

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.

HBO has always included a substantial amount of nudity and sex in many of their shows (Rome comes to mind as one of biggest offenders/supporters). Unsurprisingly, sex and violence sells. I am not wholly against this, as there are scenes in the show that wouldn't work if they tried to hide or remove the sex. That said, I cannot watch this show during a flight and some of the nudity is a bit over the top.

I watched the show first and it made me want to read the remaining books.

It was quite an interesting experience, being able to place faces and voices from the show onto book characters as I read along.

Strange; everyone else I've spoken to is in love with the show. Some of my coworkers - who I would never expect to be interested in something like GoT - have been asking questions about the show and are starting to read the books. Ride the NYC subway and invariably you'll see someone reading the books.

I was somewhat surprised what kind of boost in popularity books got from the show (Position 3 in books: http://www.amazon.com/best-sellers-books-Amazon/zgbs/books/ !).

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.

I personally like it, but a few of my friend didn't. I asked them why and mostly they didn't like the pace of the show and found it boring.

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.

That does make sense, but it's not the issue for me. It's really what I perceive as wooden acting, boring and predictable dialogue, characters that make decisions that don't really make sense, big events that are treated kind of the same as much less important events, etc. It also sometimes had that 'book' feeling, and by that I mean, you watch it and think 'hmm, I think I know what they're trying to do here, and it probably worked better in the book'.

I'm not trying to crap all over something you liked, just trying to give more data points.

No that's fine.

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.

I still cant believe they didn't just fly an eagle in and drop the ring off straight away.

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 did like the imp character. Best thing on the show IMO, though even his batting average wasn't quite 100%.

Well, you can't make something that everyone likes. The vast majority of people I've talked to have greatly enjoyed the show, and the critics are raving as well. But there are definitely going to be a few people like you for whom it just doesn't work.

It's not just you. I heard it was great from coworkers and friends, but I also find the characters pretty flat and the plot predictable. I always get this vaguely racist feeling from these medieval fantasy worlds -- in this case form the way the grassland people are depicted as backward with gifts of snakes at weddings.

I will say one thing it has going for it -- that theme music really stuck in my head.

Wait a minute: you thought the plot was predictable? How far in advance were you able to predict things? Of all the faults in the books and TV show, that's a new one to me.

As for the racial stereotypes, I can see what people mean, but how exactly do you portray different (fictional) ethnicities without evoking those responses?

Yeah that is a strange thing to complain about. Of all its faults, I can't really say GoT was predictable.

I, too, get concerned for the civil rights and public image of fictional races.

Potential issues can arise when fictional races are transparently based on real ethnic groups, though.

If you look closely though, there are people of many different real-life races among the Dothraki (I counted white, black, and asian people, not to mention Jason Momoa whose race I have no idea about).

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).

Well, it's not like I've written a dissertation on this and have very complex arguments, so you might be right.

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.

If you've only read the first book (or only watched the show), I can sort of see how you'd make that statement, but in the lands outside of Westeros, there are dark-skinned people who are wise, spiritually enlightened, and better spoken than the bulk of the 'Northern European' folks presently on the show.

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.

> not to stereotype real-life ethnicities (except for maybe the feudal British).

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.

Except that the Heptarchy were East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Mercia, Northumbria (Bernicia, Deira), Sussex, Wessex (I know it's true because wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heptarchy told me ;-)

But yeah, Lancaster->Lannister seemed like a good hint that the War of the Roses was the template for this dynastic struggle.

> there are people of many different real-life races among the Dothraki (I counted white, black, and asian people, not to mention Jason Momoa whose race I have no idea about).

I thought most of the non-brown-skinned people traveling with the Dothraki were slaves received as tribute or taken in battle?

> I will say one thing it has going for it -- that theme music really stuck in my head.

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.

I on the other hand, was blown away by the shows and it gives me shivers to re-listen to that theme song.

It's about taste and connecting with the characters. If you don't connect, emotional reaction falls flat.

-it gives me shivers to re-listen to that theme song

I think you will enjoy this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yydcG9woWA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC-ZmlwBWKM is also rather awesome.

I'm curious to know what are some other TV series that you really liked. Maybe I could decipher a pattern...

I loved Sopranos, The Wire, Boardwalk Empire and GoT.

Deadwood and Rome not so much.

I liked all of those including Rome (and I haven't seen all of Deadwood). Also a big Firefly fan ;)

Out of curiosity, have you seen Band of Brothers and The Pacific, and what did you think of each?

My major peeve with the show is how the exciting villains introduced in the first five minutes never return.

I was also annoyed that Inigo Montoya died so soon.

Assuming the first five minutes is the same as the prologue of the book, they show up as a significant factor later down the line.

I absolutely loved the books, haven't watched the show yet, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com