|
I read this article in the NY Times; and I was sort of pissed. (see the link)
http://tv.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/arts/television/game-of-thrones-begins-sun day-on-hbo-review.html
I mean I know there are certianly women who don't like fantasy and there are men who don't like fanatasy. But to say that no woman is going to like Game of Thrones because it is about fantasy? I have to think this journalist/hack is not living in our current times. but please tell me if I am off base here. Granted this is a not the best website to go to get an unbiased view, still it seems like she is really off base here.
|
I read this article in the NY Times; and I was sort of pissed. (see the link)http://tv.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/arts/television/game-of-thrones-begins-sun day-on-hbo-review.html
I mean I know there are certianly women who don't like fantasy and there are men who don't like fanatasy. But to say that no woman is going to like Game of Thrones because it is about fantasy? I have to think this journalist/hack is not living in our current times. but please tell me if I am off base here. Granted this is a not the best website to go to get an unbiased view, still it seems like she is really off base here.
Link does not work, so I can not comment on what exactly was stated.
Erik Mona had an interesting topic thread that's tangential to this thread and article. It started out like this from his FB fan page:
Enjoyed Game of Thrones on HBO. I haven't read the books, but I assume at some point the female characters evolve into something more than f#@k-chattel?
Spanned an interesting 57 comment response in that thread.
|
|
I mean I know there are certianly women who don't like fantasy and there are men who don't like fanatasy. But to say that no woman is going to like Game of Thrones because it is about fantasy? I have to think this journalist/hack is not living in our current times. but please tell me if I am off base here. Granted this is a not the best website to go to get an unbiased view, still it seems like she is really off base here.
The author's point is not that the series is bad because it's about fantasy, but that if you stripped the Dungeons and Dragons elements from the production, what you're left with is bland, only partially executed characterisation and story themes that have become passe. If she's right about this assessement the only thing that might be good about this production would be the special effects.
The vast majority of Dungeons and Dragons inspired series, and movies have fallen into this trap of being nothing other than a fairly bland plot with elves, dwarves, dragons, and wizards tossed in for flavor. From her observations, this may join a long line of similar failures it's only distinction being the greater expense being lavished on a failure.
For men this may be less of an issue, give guys lots of hitting, a bit of post fight bonding, chases, and explosions and they'll be happy. Women however, are more interested in character interaction and this series may come up short in those elements.
I think it is deeper than that. Using the words boy not guy, there and the part about not knowing any women who would prefer to read the "Hobbit" in their book club.
(her quote: "The true perversion, though, is the sense you get that all of this illicitness has been tossed in as a little something for the ladies, out of a justifiable fear, perhaps, that no woman alive would watch otherwise. While I do not doubt that there are women in the world who read books like Mr. Martin’s, I can honestly say that I have never met a single woman who has stood up in indignation at her book club and refused to read the latest from Lorrie Moore unless everyone agreed to “The Hobbit” first. “Game of Thrones” is boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half." )
Strong words which seem to have dual meaning here. No "real" women read trash or would want to watch a show like this one since it is fantasy. I don't think I am the only one who got this from the review there were other rviews which have a simuliar tone see below the WSJ.
The WSJ also had an article about the show.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576244951109037560.h tml
Also not very nice, ("Set in a fictional world known as the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros (or "the realm"), "Game of Thrones" breaks with other HBO dramas like "Treme" or the recent "Mildred Pierce" miniseries that chase a high-end, highly educated audience. Instead, the series base audience is Trekkie-ish fans obsessed with Mr. Martin's series "A Song of Ice and Fire," of which "A Game of Thrones" is the first of seven books (three aren't out yet)." )
Again I think I see a trend here and perhaps I am being too sensitive. But it seems to be directing this idea that no one unless you are a Trekkie (strange because I was not aware Trekkie's were fantasy buffs or that they were under educated dolts.) Clearly there seems to be a trend I have noticed in some reviewers to move against this genre and hope it does not succeed. Just my own observation which I find a tad bit alarming.
Erik Mona had an interesting topic thread that's tangential to this thread and article. It started out like this from his FB fan page:
** spoiler omitted **
Spanned an interesting 57 comment response in that thread.
Did someone already tell him that later in the series they become highly-motivated f%~# chattel?
Did someone already tell him that later in the series they become highly-motivated f+!# chattel?Erik Mona had an interesting topic thread that's tangential to this thread and article. It started out like this from his FB fan page:
** spoiler omitted **
Spanned an interesting 57 comment response in that thread.
You're making me even more depressed that I don't have HBO. Ah well, there's always internet pr0n. :P
The reviewer of the NY Times article had no real business reviewing the series. She doesn't like fantasy first of all, and would object to the series simply out that dislike. It's obvious she doesn't like the content, but the notion that the sex scenes are added to capture an apparently low brow, simple-minded female audience is sort of laughable.
My question is, how many episodes did she see? (I may have actually missed that while reading the article) If it was only the first episode, then what does she have to go on as far as plot or character development. I've read the current books, so I'm a bit spoiled on where things are going, but the first few episodes are just going to be establishing character, setting and plot. It's going to be hard to pick out the entirety of where the series goes, or where it will end just from that.
As for females not liking fantasy: Well, that's just ignorance, and I think most of us on Paizo's boards know that. My sister-in-law subscribed to HBO just for this series. I have two very good lady-friends who are by far the biggest LotR fan-girls I know. They made spectacular costumes for the opening of each of the films(one of them does it professionally for a theater). Both are crazy excited for the Hobbit. My buddies wife likes FarScape as much, or more than he does. And quite frankly women create some of my favorite PC's for games I'm in or run, and I'd almost rather game with women then men a lot of times.
Personally I'll be happy to read a review from some one who's a fan of the genre and get their thoughts. I thought the first episode was solid, not perfect, but definitely a step in the right direction over all.
|
For men this may be less of an issue, give guys lots of hitting, a bit of post fight bonding, chases, and explosions and they'll be happy. Women however, are more interested in character interaction and this series may come up short in those elements.
I may be the exception to the rule then.
Spartacus is a phenominal show. The graphics and action are pretty damn bad, but the story and characters I find very interesting, and thus, I enjoy it.
|
For men this may be less of an issue, give guys lots of hitting, a bit of post fight bonding, chases, and explosions and they'll be happy. Women however, are more interested in character interaction and this series may come up short in those elements.
Having read ahead (if the series stays on course) the character interaction, complicated themes and sub plots do not come up short. The fantasy elements are minimal, beyond being in a imagined kingdom and the violence is generally appropriate. Family issues and greed are themes that don't get old because they are always with us.
She hates it, and she is a b!%$%. Straight up. I didn't even know you could make hate and derision ooze off of every word, like she does.
I think that was Your Highness's problem, too. Critics didn't hate it because it was a bad movie-which it isn't . They hated the idea of it. Just like Cowboys and Aliens is going to be hated. "Cowboys and Aliens?" They'll say with a snort, "what a horrid concept that makes no sense. I find the idea of it stupid, therefore the movie sucks." Irregardless of whether or not it was a good movie, I guarantee it will be panned.
And I truly hate some of the Artsy-fartsy movies that apparently critics love. I'm here to be entertained, not to be caught up in the melodramatic crap most of those movies are filled with.
The general loathing and scorn of the elite 'intelligentsia' of the critc community for anything fantasey or sci-fi is nothing new. Fantasy has always been considered immature. It was not till 30 years(?) before the works of Tolkien actualy was well recieved by actual intelligent people. Heck alot of them still ignore it...or barely acknowledge his works.
Personaly I have always felt that the rabid reaction of 'fan boys' is in reaction to well to be honest the fan boyish hate most critics have these geners.
I remember when I was in HS I wanted to do a Summer book report on one of the Dragonlance novels...the teacher nearly laughed at me and called it a 'super market' novel and childish...yet she...'bleeped' ot the F word in Cather and the Rye.
Anyway I have learned to ignore all critics....as really critics are just a bunch of uncreative people filled with self-importance.
The author's point is not that the series is bad because it's about fantasy, but that if you stripped the Dungeons and Dragons elements from the production, what you're left with is bland, only partially executed characterisation and story themes that have become passe. If she's right about this assessement the only thing that might be good about this production would be the special effects.
Except there are no real Dungeons and Dragons elements in the setting in the first place. In fact, the notion that 'fantasy' equals either 'Lord of the Rings' or 'Dungeons and Dragons' is itself pretty limiting. The genre is considerably more varied and interesting than that, and bringing all comparisons back to the same old markers is tiresome.
The vast majority of Dungeons and Dragons inspired series, and movies have fallen into this trap of being nothing other than a fairly bland plot with elves, dwarves, dragons, and wizards tossed in for flavor. From her observations, this may join a long line of similar failures it's only distinction being the greater expense being lavished on a failure.
Except that, as mentioned earlier, this is not a D&D-inspired production and there are no elves, dwarves, orcs or wizards in the setting. There's barely any magic, and more overt fantastical elements don't start showing up until the second book/season. So this criticism would also be invalid.
For men this may be less of an issue, give guys lots of hitting, a bit of post fight bonding, chases, and explosions and they'll be happy. Women however, are more interested in character interaction and this series may come up short in those elements.
An extremely generalised statement. First off, plenty of guys enjoy character interaction and development and plenty of girls enjoy hitting, chases and explosions. More to the point, a lot of people enjoy both in their place regardless of gender.
In this specific case, the books and the TV series are motivated by character interactions and decisions (to the point where some major plot developments have happened that were unplanned by the author, but the characters' attitudes and motivations ensured they would happen). Here the characters drive the story, not the other way around.
The general loathing and scorn of the elite 'intelligentsia' of the critc community for anything fantasey or sci-fi is nothing new. Fantasy has always been considered immature. It was not till 30 years(?) before the works of Tolkien actualy was well recieved by actual intelligent people. Heck alot of them still ignore it...or barely acknowledge his works.
To be absolutely fair, the vast majority of fantasy, and a lot of science fiction movies if you removed the special effects and the glitz and judged on film merits, they'd seriously be wanting.
Yes, there is a prejudice against fantasy films, but that's because the genre DOES feature bad films more so than average. I will admit to being a tough grader as I consider just about all the Trek films save for Number 2 to range from mediocre to a criminal waste of celluloid. The last film though the one I call Star Trek:Reboot was fairly decent.
Wrath of Khan however was a film you could love without being a Trekkie.
There have been critically acclaimed SciFi films that were well received by the "intelligentsia" you so deride. Gattaca got good reviews and so did "Moon" ,the latter I consider one the five best written and executed science fiction films in the last decade. I doubt however that the majority of the SF "fan" community would have liked the latter film though.
Sure I agree with you...there are some critics out there who actualy look at a movie. And the fact that only Star Trek 2 and the latest reboot movie were any good in the Trek universe. And I am not even saying all movies of in the gener are great(alot of them are actualy quite bad). But from the reading the review it is pretty obvious to me atleast the reviewer did not read the books...or even watch the show.
One there was some small fantasy element in the opening scene...and the Dire Wold...which by the way used to exist on Earth...so how exactly that is fantasy is beyond me.
Two there was absolutely NO special effect to strip away...there was no battle scenes....there was no elves...no dwarves...or etc.
As for Moon I have not got a chance to watch though the sci-fi 'fans' I know have said it is a great movie...so I don't know how you got your preconceptions about sci-fi fans?
Critic who pan fantasy and sci-fi shows...novels...movies when they have not actualy seemingly read or watched the thing they are critizing loose all credibility with me. Anbd it seems like everytime I read a review of fantasy...and sci-fi...I see those kinda of reviews very often.
So yes I will continue to deride critics who give lousey reviews for things they have not actualy watched or read.
Seeing how only one episode has aired thus far, the author seems to be jumping the gun on panning the entire series.
I find this comment amusing: "We are in the universe of dwarfs, armor, wenches, braids, loincloth."
Aside from lacking an "and" somewhere in there, I'm not sure how to take this. With dwarfs, we're talking about the genetic condition, not the stout, bearded, axe-wielding race. In fact, I find that character to be one of the most compelling right off the bat. He's of noble blood, but his condition makes him a joke. Seeing how he lives in the face of that prejudice is compelling.
As for the take on women, I can see how this might be a turn-off. Women are indeed objectified and the political power seems to be male-dominated. Still, looking at the young Stark girl, one can see a bucking of the male dominated power structure. Likewise, the young trophy wife of the queen appears to be calculating and intelligent (if rather...well, perverse.)
But then why take critics seriously? Watch what you like.
As for the take on women, I can see how this might be a turn-off. Women are indeed objectified and the political power seems to be male-dominated. Still, looking at the young Stark girl, one can see a bucking of the male dominated power structure. Likewise, the young trophy wife of the queen appears to be calculating and intelligent (if rather...well, perverse.
Don't worry, several women come into their own later in the series.
George RR Martin used the War of the Roses as a reference for a lot of the series (with a little Hundred Years War and other Middle Age/ Renaissance eras thrown in for good measure). If one has done a background study of those times, women were indeed repressed and it was certainly a male dominated society back then. Only a few strong women, like Isabella "the She Wolf" of France or Margaret of Anjou managed to throw off the yoke somewhat and attain a degree of real power. If one uses these eras as a guideline, it's probably a realistic portrayal of how women were considered (probably a great deal better than how they were actually treated). Especially considering a Mongol-like barbarian society such as the Dothraki. If it were the Mongols, Dany would have probably been one of many nomadic chieftain's "wives".
It's our modern sensibilities that make it so confronting and have us take issue with it. And rightfully so.
As for Moon I have not got a chance to watch though the sci-fi 'fans' I know have said it is a great movie...so I don't know how you got your preconceptions about sci-fi fans?Experience. Yes I'm aware that there are such rare animals among the SF fan community that can appreciate film and literary aesthetics. But from my experience as an SF convention goer, if you canvass what's popular among the (primarily male) SF community at large it'll generally be films that have the following.
1. T&A, otherwise known as "fan service".
2. Lots of explosions.
3. Big Guns.
In other words the same standard things that appeal to most non-SF action/adventure fans.
1) Have you canvass the average convention goer?
2) Also I consider it a big mistake to consider the 'conventional goer' as a baseline for anything. Most of these people are extrem,ely on the the fringe anyway.
Experience. Yes I'm aware that there are such rare animals among the SF fan community that can appreciate film and literary aesthetics. But from my experience as an SF convention goer, if you canvass what's popular among the (primarily male) SF community at large it'll generally be films that have the following.
1. T&A, otherwise known as "fan service".
2. Lots of explosions.
3. Big Guns.
In other words the same standard things that appeal to most non-SF action/adventure fans.
The SFF community hasn't been 'primarily male' for a good two decades or so, so I'm assuming your convention-going experience was in the dim and distant past.
In fact, your posts have been based on nothing but extremely generalised and unsubstantiated comments which seem to take cliched and badly out-of-date views of SFF fandom and their preferences as read.
MOON was extremely well-received by the general SFF community, as were SUNSHINE and DISTRICT 9, other reasonably-intelligent SF movies, whilst AVATAR and the new STAR TREK had a much more mixed reception and a lot of other guns/explosions movies have been utterly derided (the TRANSFORMERS movies, TERMINATOR SALVATION etc). So I'm not sure what your point is.
The general cinema-going audience shows a distinct preference for explosion-fuelled action flicks over intelligent 'hard SF' movies, sure, but that's true of all genres, not just SF.
|
|
The author's point is not that the series is bad because it's about fantasy, but that if you stripped the Dungeons and Dragons elements from the production, what you're left with is bland, only partially executed characterisation and story themes that have become passe. If she's right about this assessement the only thing that might be good about this production would be the special effects.Except there are no real Dungeons and Dragons elements in the setting in the first place.
But, but they mention dragons and the crypts could sort of be dungeons, so it must be Dungeons & Dragons!
I feel bad for anyone that avoids entertainment based upon critical acclaim or scorn. I could see the point in using a review to withold on rushing out to watch something in the theaters immediately, but not for wholesale avoidance. In fact I tend to queue up badly reviewed movies on my dvd list BECAUSE of the bad reviews if it is a genre I typically like.
Luckily George RR Martin built up a fan base for his hit TV series years ago. We are now seeing his truly masterful plan at work...he meant for it to be on screen the whole time and managed to sell his proto-scripts to a publisher to mask them as novels.
I don't really think the NY Times or any other outlet is going to chase it off the screen. This is no Firefly-esque "Oh crap I missed it already!?" scenario. They are beginning casting for season two already (if Mark Strong doesn't end up being Stannis Baratheon I may have to sob a little)...
Now if it could just be July 12th so that I can spend a weekend avoiding all friends and family locked in my study with a flashlight under a blanket like Sebastian from Never Ending Story...
Maybe I have a more expansive view on how I define the "SF" community.
If by 'expansive' you mean, 'wrong', than yes, yes you do :)
I'm pretty much talking about the summ audience that partakes of shows like the Star Trek franchises and watches films like "Riddick". All of the Star Trek shows from the original to Enterprise have relied on women in fan service suits to spice up ratings, especially 7 of 9 of Voyager, the vulcan officer on Enterprise, and of course the skirt of the week Kirk...
Again, that's to appeal to the general audience who will watch SF but are not part of the SF community or fandom, who wil never, ever go to a convention or discuss these shows online.
STAR TREK indeed had stages of using women in skimpy clothing (and was not immmune to showing male characters with their shirts off either) to try to appeal to a broader audience, though not continuously (DS9 completely lacked them, a few individual episodes aside). But then so did a lot of other shows in the 1980s and 1990s (remember this was the time when BAYWATCH was the most popular and profitable show on-air), and this was to appeal to the broad-base demographic, not the regular SF or TREK fans who'd have been invested in tuning in regardless of what the characters were wearing.
|
|
As for the take on women, I can see how this might be a turn-off. Women are indeed objectified and the political power seems to be male-dominated. Still, looking at the young Stark girl, one can see a bucking of the male dominated power structure. Likewise, the young trophy wife of the queen appears to be calculating and intelligent (if rather...well, perverse.)
I think this is one of the unfortunate elements of the series that people who have not read the books will fixate on to their detriment.
The series very much starts with many women being classic strumpet figures, or at best being seen not heard. There are exceptions, obviously.
But, and I think it is a big but, as the series goes on with each chapter, the series is absolutely dominated by powerful female figures from Ladies, queens, pristesses, pirates ... and on.
Frankly, I wouldn't hesitate to put money on the idea that by the end of the books, the true players of The Game of Thrones will have all been female. Which I find really cool.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
STAR TREK indeed had stages of using women in skimpy clothing (and was not immmune to showing male characters with their shirts off either) to try to appeal to a broader audience, though not continuously (DS9 completely lacked them, a few individual episodes aside). But then so did a lot of other shows in the 1980s and 1990s (remember this was the time when BAYWATCH was the most popular and profitable show on-air), and this was to appeal to the broad-base demographic, not the regular SF or TREK fans who'd have been invested in tuning in regardless of what the characters were wearing.
In my experience, Trekkies get turned on more by the ships than by the skirts.
In a sense then, each Trek series has been more fan-servicey than the last.
Meh my wife likes Game of Thrones, and she reads Fantasy/Sci-Fi.
Funnily enough she also likes UFC, and is a rabid fight fan.
You wouldn't pick any of these things by looking at her as she has more the MILF secretary thing going on, so it's not like the nerd finger can be pointed.
I know a few of her yummy mummy friends think the same way.
I think the journo was a hack.
IrregardlessNOT A WORD!
IT IS TOO! I INVENT S&$!!
THAT WAS FUNNYIT IS TOO! I INVENT S*%%!IrregardlessNOT A WORD!
WHY ARE WE YELLING?!
Okay, kinda off topic here, but I just watched the first two episodes and I have to ask, is the third just as bleak? Because if it is I am going to have to go get seriously wasted before I watch it.
To each their own, my wife likes the game of thrones, while we both hate Camelot from Stars channel. It doesn't take too much to associate a fantasy movie with D&D. It is just one of those stereotypes you come to accept.
Okay, kinda off topic here, but I just watched the first two episodes and I have to ask, is the third just as bleak? Because if it is I am going to have to go get seriously wasted before I watch it.** spoiler omitted **
I told my brother, and a few friends at work that if they enjoyed feeling the emotion of anger (or in your case depression/melancholy) then they were going to love this series. But yeah, what bugleyman says in his spoilers in otherwords.
|
|
Okay, kinda off topic here, but I just watched the first two episodes and I have to ask, is the third just as bleak? Because if it is I am going to have to go get seriously wasted before I watch it.** spoiler omitted **I told my brother, and a few friends at work that if they enjoyed feeling the emotion of anger (or in your case depression/melancholy) then they were going to love this series. But yeah, what bugleyman says in his spoilers in otherwords.
** spoiler omitted **
I don't mind dark, or even grim, but that much right after a criminal law final was such that anymore and I might be borrowing my neighbor's eyeliner and changing my name to Bloodthorne or something.
Also: I'm out of my head when you're not around.
|
|
To be absolutely fair, the vast majority of fantasy, and a lot of science fiction movies if you removed the special effects and the glitz and judged on film merits, they'd seriously be wanting.The general loathing and scorn of the elite 'intelligentsia' of the critc community for anything fantasey or sci-fi is nothing new. Fantasy has always been considered immature. It was not till 30 years(?) before the works of Tolkien actualy was well recieved by actual intelligent people. Heck alot of them still ignore it...or barely acknowledge his works.
To be even more fair, this is true of the vast majority of ANY genre of film. The difference? Drama doesn't have the stigma, so the fact that 95% of drama films are unredeemable drek somehow doesn't tarnish the entire genre. Meanwhile, the 95% of horror/science fiction/fantasy movies that are unredeemable drek damn those genres entirely in the eyes of "respected critics".
I don't mind dark, or even grim, but that much right after a criminal law final was such that anymore and I might be borrowing my neighbor's eyeliner and changing my name to Bloodthorne or something.
LOL