1. Jerik02

   10

   Having not read the books, I was thoroughly surprised by the series and found myself enjoying it so far immensely. The show is good because the original author retains control, a "realistic" element runs strong and the backgrounds and extras are adequately fleshed out. Can't wait for more.… Expand

   • Helpful?

     47 of 47 users said yes
2. marquis_de_vaux

   4

   Coming from the perspective of someone who hasn't read George R. R. Martin's novels, but who is a massive fan of high-quality TV drama, I have to confess that, for me, Game of Thrones started in an underwhelming way. Not only that, it shows many worrying signs of being a bit of a stinker, in spite of the effort put into its undoubtedly fancy production design. Having read my fair share of fantasy series in years gone by, in the run-up to the Game of Thrones debut I found myself deeply curious as to what it was that made this series sufficiently distinct as to be worthy of a big-budget TV adaptation. So far, I'm not sure. Cliché abounds in the first episode, from unfunny jokes about fat kings to the awkward acquisition of symbolic familiars, from steroidally-enhanced, woad-daubed barbarians (wearing mascara) to rumblings of trouble 'brewing in the north', there's little to set the subject matter apart from the legion of other fantasy universes out there which readers swear blind to be 'brilliant' but that, to many outsiders of the genre, typically seem a little bit silly. Clearly a great deal of money has been lavished on the series however, with lots of candles, beautiful haircuts, distinctly cut leather armour and fur-trimmed cloaks aplenty. I do have to query why all this pageantry been assembled though - beyond providing a sort of Hercules: The Legendary Adventures for grown ups. And certainly the pilot boasts symbols of maturity - topless ladies appear every fifteen minutes or so, and brooding men with swords frequently use naughty words - but the whole thing, to me, seemed overbearingly camp and, unfortunately, riddled with adolescent preoccupations. Admittedly, there is serious subject matter here, with baddies engaged in incest and hints at the severe duties involved in courtly life, but I ultimately couldn't believe in the universe that the series-makers had fashioned for me, and as a result felt rather like I was watching people play dress-up rather than an exploration of the genuine issues to which the characters were party. So far then, the next big thing in the current Golden Age of TV this ain't. I'm not suggesting that fans of the swords and sorcery genre won't enjoy Game of Thrones - I imagine that many will - but I would suggest that few viewers who don't will be won over by this pilots' limited charms. It is refreshing to see Peter Dinklage given a central role in a series, and it's also great to see Joseph Mawle receiving some prime-time exposure, but the cast are hard-pressed to convince while discussing such clangingly unreal topics as orphaned dire wolf pups or their eagerness to sell family members into sex slavery. And on that topic, the pilot's eagerness to see women sexually exploited is, to me, a little worrying, and risks alienating many potential viewers before it's even got going. Undeniably, creating 'grown up' fantasy series' is a tough business, and Game of Thrones' pilot does seem to hint that there will be more depth to proceedings as things develop, but to put Game of Thrones on a level with other top-tier HBO or AMC output is unthinkable. Even The Walking Dead, the subject matter of which many might have thought beyond the interest of the average viewer, managed to fashion itself into a series that was, for the most part, mature and intriguing. Likewise, Mad Men's debut introduced us to a sexist culture in ways that left viewers reeling, and The Soprano's spent time exploring how counterproductive its characters' regressive views were, encouraging us to look at its characters as incredibly dangerous buffoons, and anything but stereotypes. In its own pilot however, Game of Thrones fails to show any of this promise, or that, in this post-Gladiator, post-Lord of the Rings world, that 'fantasy' has grown up. Although fans of Sean Bean's work in The Black Death, or such similar efforts as Nicholas Cage's recent The Season of the Witch or Michael J. Bassett's Solomon Kane, might lap up Game of Thrones as a big step forward for the genre, those of us looking for nuance, tension, believability - or even plausibility - in a drama set in an imaginary world full of axes, horses and mud... well, it looks like we're destined to be disappointed by this one.… Expand

   • Helpful?

     35 of 153 users said yes
3. Cynical

   0

   There is something sinister going on here. HBO is using an existing story/book franchise with an established reputation as some kind of human shield. The culprit holding it at sword-point as they shuffle along for ten hours is a t*ts & as* ratings-grabber. The opening scenes appear to be written by, directed, shot and edited by a completely different crew to the one responsible for the rest of the first episode. Which is probably why I enjoyed the opening. It contained well-executed scenes and a promise of a story with intrigue and action to come. And there ended the budget. From then on, it becomes a domestic family feud soapie with bad dialogue and a story that leaves you drifting off and patting the cat. This costume test of a show is hacked up with laughably gratuitous sex scenes, and we all know what that really means in a program this immature - naked women scenes. Usually prostitutes. HBO loooves prostitutes in their shows - no time wasted introducing superfluous female characters there for one thing - instant boobs and bum shots, and [only] occasional full frontals. Let's not cheapen it. Some of the main actresses tend to pull down the show with the weight of their carefully casted boobs, too. But not very far - it's at no great height to begin with. But at least these actresses get three lines of dialogue and storyline invested in them before it's tops off. And that's just sad. If a show reeeaally is designed to be a camp, sexy ratings vehicle, at least be equal opportunistic. Clearly this is yet another old-fashioned fuddy-duddy-made show with double standards, where only women are portrayed gratuitously and there is a glaringly obvious disorder of sexynudemanphobia. I'll give the creators a tip here - perhaps that's why the sex scenes don't work? You need both/all parties to appear remotely sexy? Let's face it, how many juvenile homophobic males who don't understand that aspects of a show might not be aimed at them can there be? Maybe one day, these shows will grow some balls [pardon the pun], or even better - grow some story and action and lose the crotch altogether. I mean, crutch. Oh I know I've rambled on mostly about the gratuitous sex [naked female] scenes. But really - what else is there to this show? Promotion from an existing book? It's like a bad ad - if the audience can see they're being manipulated, it just doesn't sell.… Expand

   • Helpful?

     14 of 114 users said yes

See all 259 User Reviews