Game of Thrones

[megabyteme]

You have to remember only one thing in this story the characters are becoming heroes and then they have to die painful . So if you have to choose a character to bond with choose the ones you normally hate.

The only real disadvantage is that it is a tv production and will be difficult to presents the battles of the following books (Just pre-ordered the 5th in amazon). Besides that it's the best production ever made for TV

Fuck and kill the Lannisters. All of them

But...but...I've been cheering for the Lannisters. Make up your mind.

[clocker]

The problem with that is I prefer my heroes to come out on top and my ending to be happy.

Still grieving over Two and a Half Men, eh?

Edit: I've already said that Thrones is "relentlessly unsentimental" and if you weren't kidding about your heroes winning and happy endings, don't look here.
Those plucky little hobbits from the Lord of the Rings epic would have been gutted and roasting on spits within the opening credits of GoT, Gandalf would have made all his prophetic speeches whilst getting a hummer and Elves would have stood aside, taking bets on the war's outcome.
Would have been a much better trilogy if these things had actually happened...

I haven't read the books (still on the fence about whether or not to begin) but it's already obvious that the usual tropes will not prevail in this series... the hero is NOT safe, good intentions are useless and apparently minor characters can/will have major effects on the storyline.

Dammit, I have to wait a year for it to start up again?

[IdolEyes787]

The problem with that is I prefer my heroes to come out on top and my ending to be happy.

Still grieving over Two and a Half Men, eh?

Edit: I've already said that Thrones is "relentlessly unsentimental" and if you weren't kidding about your heroes winning and happy endings, don't look here.
Those plucky little hobbits from the Lord of the Rings epic would have been gutted and roasting on spits within the opening credits of GoT, Gandalf would have made all his prophetic speeches whilst getting a hummer and Elves would have stood aside, taking bets on the war's outcome.
Would have been a much better trilogy if these things had actually happened...

I haven't read the books (still on the fence about whether or not to begin) but it's already obvious that the usual tropes will not prevail in this series... the hero is NOT safe, good intentions are useless and apparently minor characters can/will have major effects on the storyline.

Dammit, I have to wait a year for it to start up again?

I actually thought the LotR movies were mostly simplistic and childish and paled greatly compared to the books that beget them.As for heroes not being safe that is so now commonplace as to be the stuff of parody ( see Feast).
If that hadn't come from you ,someone who's opinion I respect, I would take it as more adolescent fanboy rambling which seems to rule the day in bt land.

Making things turn out bad or heroes less than praiseworthy is not adult or even necessarily interesting, it is simply a device that certain sectors of humanity seem to prefer over feeling good.I'm not saying that everything has to be sunshine and roses and big eyed puppies but whatever occurs in the interim things should end on some note that doesn't leave me wishing to slit my wrists. Take for example since I used it in another thread, Glory. Everyone dies but not everything is lost.
That I'm fine with. Unlike something oft praise like Requiem for a Dream which is just a better structured essay in Eli Roth type degradation.

Btw having not seen most of Game of Thrones I could be entirely off base in my criticism since obviously different people are going to view certain aspects differently and maybe it's not all nihilism,sadism and despair.

[megabyteme]

Those plucky little hobbits from the Lord of the Rings epic would have been gutted and roasting on spits within the opening credits of GoT, Gandalf would have made all his prophetic speeches whilst getting a hummer and Elves would have stood aside, taking bets on the war's outcome.
Would have been a much better trilogy if these things had actually happened...

... the hero is NOT safe, good intentions are useless and apparently minor characters can/will have major effects on the storyline.

Love the rewrite idea, clocker. Glad to hear you are watching as I always enjoy your comments on such shows.

July 11-(ish?, from memory) is when Breaking Bad finally returns. WOOT!

Making things turn out bad or heroes less than praiseworthy is not adult or even necessarily interesting, it is simply a device that certain sectors of humanity seem to prefer over feeling good.I'm not saying that everything has to be sunshine and roses and big eyed puppies but whatever occurs in the interim things should end on some note that doesn't leave me wishing to slit my wrists. Take for example since I used it in another thread, Glory. Everyone dies but not everything is lost.
That I'm fine with. Unlike something oft praise like Requiem for a Dream which is just a better structured essay in Eli Roth type degradation.

Btw having not seen most of Game of Thrones I could be entirely off base in my criticism since obviously different people are going to view certain aspects differently and maybe it's not all nihilism,sadism and despair.

GoT stands out, for me, due to its massive cast, with a followable, yet complex interactions across a vast landscape. The story seems not to be about evil getting its way, but that each character serves their own best interest- without necessarily being all good, nor all bad (largely). There are no saints in the mix, but the calling of power (different definitions apply to different characters) brings out a darkside in the majority. Also, once easy-going individuals are eventually called into doing things that seem out-of-character for them initially. We don't so much see lines of good and evil, but the ebb and flow of power changing hands as circumstances change, and individuals are no longer able to control what they had.

It's good, adult-oriented fun, has an incredible budget ($10 million an episode, I believe), and is able to tell a story that follows the real novels FAR more than a low-budget production, or a 3 hour movie ever could.

Sit back, grab a box of tissues (for whichever bodily fluid you tend to spill while watching adult-oriented shows), and enjoy.

[clocker]

Making things turn out bad or heroes less than praiseworthy is not adult or even necessarily interesting, it is simply a device that certain sectors of humanity seem to prefer over feeling good.I'm not saying that everything has to be sunshine and roses and big eyed puppies but whatever occurs in the interim things should end on some note that doesn't leave me wishing to slit my wrists. Take for example since I used it in another thread, Glory. Everyone dies but not everything is lost.
That I'm fine with. Unlike something oft praise like Requiem for a Dream which is just a better structured essay in Eli Roth type degradation.

Just watch it, fer crissake.
I think you'll like it.

The whole "good guys all get killed" aspect has been overemphasized (even by me, I guess) and nihilistic is certainly not a description I'd use.
If there's an adult slant to the story (of which, keep in mind, I have no real knowledge...yet), it's that there are consequences to everything and sooner or later, every one pays the price.

Please, watch the damn thing (isn't winter about to set in again up there? So, you've got the time) and then we can talk.

[brightsid]

But...but...I've been cheering for the Lannisters. Make up your mind.

as a redhair fanboy or as just a pure voyeur?

[megabyteme]

I've been taking notice lately of my (normal) reaction to dislike characters who cause turmoil, such as the Lannisters, and how "everything would have gone well if it hadn't been for them". However, it is that conflict that makes shows interesting. I think we internally find it painful to watch because in our own lives that sort of underhandedness is anything but "interesting". It is all of the backstabbing, and power imbalances (often through wealth) that make life difficult.

I shun such interactions, and people, IRL like them, but am drawn in while despising them on-screen.

[brightsid]

Ok you are right they are more interesting than the straight fighting for good Ned especially for the developing of the story.

On the other hand if I was the story teller Danny's "It's not your screams I want, only your life" would be addressed to a different recipient

[mr. nails]

[Rart]

Making things turn out bad or heroes less than praiseworthy is not adult or even necessarily interesting, it is simply a device that certain sectors of humanity seem to prefer over feeling good.I'm not saying that everything has to be sunshine and roses and big eyed puppies but whatever occurs in the interim things should end on some note that doesn't leave me wishing to slit my wrists.

Idol - I think one of the biggest differences between GRRM's AGOT (and the other books in the series) as opposed to the other authors' standard fare is that he isn't afraid to kill off a main or "good" (and this line will further continue to be blurred in the upcoming seasons) character if it serves to further the story. He isn't just killing off the "good guys" willy nilly in order to make a statement or just to show simply that he can - it's always for a very particular reason. Without giving too much away, the death of certain characters will set off events for many books to come, and the further you go, the clearer it becomes that he killed off certain characters with a purpose in mind. And GRRM can get away with it as well - unlike other novels in which one or two characters make up the bulk of the novel, there is so much diversity and richness in the characters and their development in AGOT that another one can easily pick up the pace.

And that is what makes this series so excellent - yes, it is based around a tried and true medieval fantasy setting shared by so many other books - but that's where the similarities end. There are fantastical elements - but only light touches here and there (in fact there is practically no signs of magic until the last few episodes) but it only serves to supplement the storyline, never as a substitute. There is no "magic saves the day" or and it doesn't any character out of ridiculously impossible situations. There are no archetypical "heroes" or "villains", no cliched love story, no hero overcoming insurmountable odds, etc. etc. Just a brilliant story of politics, intrigue and action woven through a massive array of characters that while all seemingly so different and so separate, always manage to intertwine in a way that just seems natural. Simply put, this is an excellent adaptation of a group of books that many directors shunned off as "unfilmable", yet comes off as one of, if not the best series on television.

The books are a great read as well. I'm not quite done with them, they are certainly far more dense than the TV series, but provide a lot more background to the world itself, in addition to clues to the many mysteries and unknowns within the story. Many characters as well who seemed to have been largely glanced over (ie Bran) get significantly more facetime in the books as well.

On another note, as Clocker mentioned, Peter Dinklage is simply amazing in AGOT. It's as if the role was made for him. That man deserves an Emmy. Of course, that's not to say other actors aren't amazing as well. The casting has been spot on, no doubt in part by the fact that GRRM is one of the producers on the show.