So...is it worth trying to watch the Game of Thrones series?

luiz said:
Of course they did, and I already clarified I didn't mean PC in a derogatory way here (except for the anti-slavery crusade which I find ridiculous). While obviously there were a lot of powerful women and gays throughout history, they certainly aren't very prominent in classical works of the genre, to say the least. That, coupled with the warrior-women (and gay warriors), the anti-slavery crusade, etc, they all point to an appeal to modern sensibilities, as you say.
Click to expand...
That seems more like a comment on the conservatism of fantasy as a genre, rather than the PC-ness of Game of Thrones specifically. It's like, if a Western shows black cowboys, that isn't a PC gesture, because there were a ton of black cowboys, it's just that racist Hollywood studios wrote them out of the genre. It's not distorting its subject/inspiration in favour of modern sensibilities, it's merely failing to distort it in favour of old fashioned ones.
 
Darkflight said:
The brutality and cheap shock value in the Aliens movies are useless to what I think the movies are, and they are a big part of what makes the movies pretty bad overall. It was still tolerable because of the distinction between a thinking individual making a decision to use violence against another member of its species and an animal without proper reasoning skills fighting for survival any way it can, but the aliens movies would have been far better off if they focused on showing off the aliens instead of trying to scare and shock the viewer. AvP1 shows off the aliens without resorting to graphic violence far better then any of the other movies featuring aliens, and it is my favourite for it. It's still nowhere near perfect though.
Click to expand...

What? Alien and Aliens are terrific. Two of the best movies ever made. If you wanted to make an example out of pretty-but-useless movies, I dunno, there is a lot of other stuff for that.
 
I think we've established by now that Darkflight just hates fun.
 
Traitorfish said:
That seems more like a comment on the conservatism of fantasy as a genre, rather than the PC-ness of Game of Thrones specifically. It's like, if a Western shows black cowboys, that isn't a PC gesture, because there were a ton of black cowboys, it's just that racist Hollywood studios wrote them out of the genre. It's not distorting its subject/inspiration in favour of modern sensibilities, it's merely failing to distort it in favour of old fashioned ones.
Click to expand...
True, but GoT is not a historic documentary nor even a novel set in a real historical context, like a Western (or semi-real like Robin Hood stories). It is a work of pure fiction in the sword-and-magic tradition. In my opinion the author has clearly moved away from several characteristics of that tradition in order to please modern sensibilities, with mixed results in terms of show improvement.

Crezth said:
What? Alien and Aliens are terrific. Two of the best movies ever made. If you wanted to make an example out of pretty-but-useless movies, I dunno, there is a lot of other stuff for that.
Click to expand...

Avatar comes to mind...
 
Are you telling me that GoT isn't loosely based around things from the past? That any similarities between the things and events in the show/books and real things and events in history are purely coincidental? You don't think that GoT in particular, or the swords-and-spells fantasy genre in general, aren't a little bit based on mediaeval Europe? When you first watched/read GoT, you didn't often think things like "oh yeah that's just like Hadrian's wall!" It's just a coincidence that all the costumes, characters, titles of nobility, rules of inheritance, traditions, occupations, buildings, and socio-economic circumstances looked a little bit like those might find in mediaeval Europe?

I think it's safe to say that it's based on mediaeval Europe. If the author wants to choose a more accurate rendering of mediaeval life than those traditionally chosen by other fantasy novelists, then surely that's an a priori good thing. I don't think you can criticise it for being more realistic.

Sent from a phone, apols for any mistakes.
 
luiz said:
True, but GoT is not a historic documentary nor even a novel set in a real historical context, like a Western (or semi-real like Robin Hood stories). It is a work of pure fiction in the sword-and-magic tradition. In my opinion the author has clearly moved away from several characteristics of that tradition in order to please modern sensibilities, with mixed results in terms of show improvement.



Avatar comes to mind...
Click to expand...

I think its a better improvement but I can see how its a taste thing. I think one of the show directors made an analogy once that GOT "was basically LOTR, but for adults", the tastes of today haven't really kept up with stagnant stuff like LOTR

But the women characters in GOT I don't really find too unplausible. You have Yara who is basically the only surviving child/heir of a Viking like culture, explaining why she would become warrior like. You have Daenerys who was a bargaining chip as a bride, not that unrealistic - and her meandering through the desert isn't that unusual when you compare to historical armies in exile. There is Cersei who does whatever she can for her son, the heir to the throne - not exactly something revolutionary there.

Really the one woman I see that doesn't really fit the "tradition" is lady Brienne who is just sort of there as a warrior woman, but again isn't that revolutionary if you think about it either.
 
Completely disagree on Daenerys, Gucumatz. She does begin as a "chip" in the Game of Thrones but by the latter part of series 2 (?) she is a serious challenger.
You missed out on Lady Catelyn too, who pretty much sabotages some stuff for her own personal feelings. (I'm not getting into specifics here as I don't want to spoil it for anybody).
 
Traitorfish said:
That seems more like a comment on the conservatism of fantasy as a genre, rather than the PC-ness of Game of Thrones specifically. It's like, if a Western shows black cowboys, that isn't a PC gesture, because there were a ton of black cowboys, it's just that racist Hollywood studios wrote them out of the genre. It's not distorting its subject/inspiration in favour of modern sensibilities, it's merely failing to distort it in favour of old fashioned ones.
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you.
 
Mise said:
Are you telling me that GoT isn't loosely based around things from the past? That any similarities between the things and events in the show/books and real things and events in history are purely coincidental? You don't think that GoT in particular, or the swords-and-spells fantasy genre in general, aren't a little bit based on mediaeval Europe? When you first watched/read GoT, you didn't often think things like "oh yeah that's just like Hadrian's wall!" It's just a coincidence that all the costumes, characters, titles of nobility, rules of inheritance, traditions, occupations, buildings, and socio-economic circumstances looked a little bit like those might find in mediaeval Europe?

I think it's safe to say that it's based on mediaeval Europe. If the author wants to choose a more accurate rendering of mediaeval life than those traditionally chosen by other fantasy novelists, then surely that's an a priori good thing. I don't think you can criticise it for being more realistic.

Sent from a phone, apols for any mistakes.
Click to expand...


I think Martin once said his overall plot was inspired by the War of the Roses.
 
Kyriakos said:
I haven't watched a full episode of that series, ever. I don't intend to read the books either. I did see a number of videos from it, and some were brutal enough to make an impression (juxtaposed to the somewhat anodyne LOTR film-making, anyway).

So i felt like asking if those who have seen the game of thrones (4rth season now running) deem it as interesting, or just as a gore-fest.

Got to say that the one scene which made me consider watching the series was the one where poor Jaime loses half of his touch :jesus:
Click to expand...
It's pretty awesome. Both the show & the books, IMO. OTOH...

From what I've read of your posts, you probably shouldn't watch it, or read it. Granted, it's just a message board, but my impression of you is that you'd only have enjoyed it if you started reading it before it became popular. So, pre-2010, let's say. Better yet, back in 1996, when the books first came out.

If you started right now, you'd resent the whole series, because it surged in popularity before you became aware of it. Again, just spit-balling here. Could be wrong. You'd feel the urge to point out why it was dumb, it let you down, didn't live up to the hype, or how other, more esoteric works, did it all better. You'd cite stuff most people had never heard of from Greece or wherever to illustrate how it'd been done better before.

IMO, you'd be best served by not watching it or reading it. Just my take. Ignore as you wish. No offense meant.

EDIT: Basically I predict you'd be let down & tell us about it.
 
TBH that was my reaction too. Rob was cool enough to level with ya.
 
Cutlass said:
I think Martin once said his overall plot was inspired by the War of the Roses.
Click to expand...

I don't think there were that many dragons, ice demons, and long winters in the War of the Roses. I mean some, but not many.

Misogyny, though - well, we have to be faithful to history there.
 
Cutlass said:
I think Martin once said his overall plot was inspired by the War of the Roses.
Click to expand...

He said that about a million times ;)

But he also indicated people should not look too much into it. His world is a collage of bits and pieces taken from various parts of the world and various times in history. The parallels abound, but that doesn't mean you can say "this place is that place in the real world, this event is that event from history, etc."

And that's fine. There's a good interview with GRRM in Rolling Stones magazine:

Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it's not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn't ask the question: What was Aragorn's tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren't gone – they're in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?
Click to expand...

Love the way he thinks about this :lol:
 
there are no baby orcs nadahsgdiuashdopiajfapifjakn
 
Mise said:
Are you telling me that GoT isn't loosely based around things from the past? That any similarities between the things and events in the show/books and real things and events in history are purely coincidental? You don't think that GoT in particular, or the swords-and-spells fantasy genre in general, aren't a little bit based on mediaeval Europe? When you first watched/read GoT, you didn't often think things like "oh yeah that's just like Hadrian's wall!" It's just a coincidence that all the costumes, characters, titles of nobility, rules of inheritance, traditions, occupations, buildings, and socio-economic circumstances looked a little bit like those might find in mediaeval Europe?

I think it's safe to say that it's based on mediaeval Europe. If the author wants to choose a more accurate rendering of mediaeval life than those traditionally chosen by other fantasy novelists, then surely that's an a priori good thing. I don't think you can criticise it for being more realistic.

Sent from a phone, apols for any mistakes.
Click to expand...

I don't think there were many openly gay/bisexual Princes in medieval Europe (who were also great warriors); I don't think there were many overpowering female warriors, and I don't think there were many princesses leading a mighty army in a slave-liberating crusade.

So let me turn the question back: do you think Martin added those and other elements to make it more appealing to modern sensibilities or do you actually think it is all an attempt to be more realistic?
 
Or do you think he just added those elements for the hell of it? Because it kinda looks like that, given how hodge-podge the whole thing is.
 
Crezth said:
Or do you think he just added those elements for the hell of it? Because it kinda looks like that, given how hodge-podge the whole thing is.
Click to expand...

Some maybe for the hell of it; and they do work well. Others were transparently to suit modern sensibilities.
 
Btw, speaking of 'modern sensibilities' or PC etc, is there any Black actor in the series, or character in the books?

I recall some 'oriental' and middle-eastern ones, but in the scenes i have watched on yt there seems to be no african actor.

Not making this note as a critique or anything (if the work is supposed to be in fantasy northern medieval 'europe'/'england', it makes sense to not have all races around).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Evie
Amazon goes insane: LOTR prequel series incoming
13 14 15
Replies
281
Views
21K
Evie
Evie
G
The mid to end game of Civ6 is so bland
4 5 6
Replies
101
Views
37K
Olleus
Olleus
Kyriakos
  • Poll
So, who was the best swordsman in the Game of Thrones?
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
azzaman333
azzaman333
M
HBO Game of Thrones Inspired by the Moors.
5 6 7
Replies
131
Views
20K
mitsho
mitsho
LightFang
The Only Republican Plan Is To Destroy Democrats, Not Solve Problems
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
7K
Aegis
Aegis
Top Bottom