What are you watching & why? (splain)

Working my way through Cromwell. 1970. Richard Harris, Alec Guinness, and Timothy Dalton. I actually forgot I was watching Richard Harris and not Jared Harris. Their voices sound so similar! I didn’t realize they were father and son. I’ve never seen it before. It’s slower than I expected.
 
dericdesmond said:
Warden & I just started Game of Thrones and finished season 1. Its ok but definitely not seeing what all the fuss is about. Breaking Bad season 1 had me way more hype (Hell even BCS).

Hoping these baby dragons add more to it. Pretty excited to see what they bring to the show.
Click to expand...
It gets worse every season.
 
I wish I had the stomach for Game of Thrones. It’s so highly acclaimed, but I’m a lightweight when it comes to that sort of conflict, drama, and butchery. I only made it halfway into episode two of season one. I enjoyed The Witcher, which was supposed to be like Game of Thrones light, from everything I’ve read. Not well-reviewed, but fun. Part of my problem could also be that I’ve read several of the relevant Witcher books, but not A Song of Ice and Fire.
 
I have restarted Game of Thrones several times. For whatever reason, I just can never get into it. I am easily entertained and I have a soft spot for sword and sorcery, medieval violence types. I just couldn't get into the series.

Part of it could be that I read the books - the irreverence for life is an effective plot device in the novels but it's definitely a bummer and a bit hard to have it play out all over again on screen.
 
Pàdruig said:
I have restarted Game of Thrones several times. For whatever reason, I just can never get into it. I am easily entertained and I have a soft spot for sword and sorcery, medieval violence types. I just couldn't get into the series.

Part of it could be that I read the books - the irreverence for life is an effective plot device in the novels but it's definitely a bummer and a bit hard to have it play out all over again on screen.
Click to expand...
It's one of those, "Different strokes for different folks" types of things.

Some folks are turned off by all the explicitly depicted violence and brutality, other folks are turned on by it. In my case, having studied HEMA as well as Asian sword arts (along with some of the history, which to me, is part and parcel of the learning experience), violence and brutality were very real parts of our own history, which the series is partially based on.

Royals and elites DID go about slaughtering and executing commoners, on a whim, and over perceived slights.

Personally, I found it interesting and refreshing that GRRM had no problem with killing off or maiming main/important characters, unlike many writers where the main characters somehow continually avoid any severe outcomes. And only side/unimportant characters die.

I will say that the difference between GRRM's intricate, complex storylines vs whatever the heck they came up with once they ran out of GRRM's material to follow, was pretty stark.

Therein lie the inherent pitfalls of starting a show based on the popularity of the first couple books in a series, written by an author who writes slower than molasses in January.
 
bluemax_1 said:
It's one of those, "Different strokes for different folks" types of things.

Some folks are turned off by all the explicitly depicted violence and brutality, other folks are turned on by it. In my case, having studied HEMA as well as Asian sword arts (along with some of the history, which to me, is part and parcel of the learning experience), violence and brutality were very real parts of our own history, which the series is partially based on.

Royals and elites DID go about slaughtering and executing commoners, on a whim, and over perceived slights.

Personally, I found it interesting and refreshing that GRRM had no problem with killing off or maiming main/important characters, unlike many writers where the main characters somehow continually avoid any severe outcomes. And only side/unimportant characters die.

I will say that the difference between GRRM's intricate, complex storylines vs whatever the heck they came up with once they ran out of GRRM's material to follow, was pretty stark.

Therein lie the inherent pitfalls of starting a show based on the popularity of the first couple books in a series, written by an author who writes slower than molasses in January.
Click to expand...
Didn't read the books, but watched the show. I think what made the first "shocking kill" even more surprising was who played the character (trying to be vague for any that haven't seen it lol). You kinda figure if they bring in a well known person, they're gonna be in it for the long haul.
 
jlauffer said:
Didn't read the books, but watched the show. I think what made the first "shocking kill" even more surprising was who played the character (trying to be vague for any that haven't seen it lol). You kinda figure if they bring in a well known person, they're gonna be in it for the long haul.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's not like they cast Michael Biehn, where you see him and know, "Well, this dude's going to die..."


🤣🤣🤣
 
bluemax_1 said:
It's one of those, "Different strokes for different folks" types of things.

Some folks are turned off by all the explicitly depicted violence and brutality, other folks are turned on by it. In my case, having studied HEMA as well as Asian sword arts (along with some of the history, which to me, is part and parcel of the learning experience), violence and brutality were very real parts of our own history, which the series is partially based on.

Royals and elites DID go about slaughtering and executing commoners, on a whim, and over perceived slights.

Personally, I found it interesting and refreshing that GRRM had no problem with killing off or maiming main/important characters, unlike many writers where the main characters somehow continually avoid any severe outcomes. And only side/unimportant characters die.

I will say that the difference between GRRM's intricate, complex storylines vs whatever the heck they came up with once they ran out of GRRM's material to follow, was pretty stark.

Therein lie the inherent pitfalls of starting a show based on the popularity of the first couple books in a series, written by an author who writes slower than molasses in January.
Click to expand...

For the record, I have no issues with depictions of violence on screen and am pretty familiar with humanity's brutal history - it isn't something I shy away from. I enjoyed the books and like I mentioned, Martin's "nothing is sacred" approach to storytelling is an effective and interesting plot device. When I am watching film though, I like to see a protagonist/anti-hero rise above and be triumphant in some manner or another. Watching said figure (in whatever iteration is being presented) get repeatedly cut down throughout the course of a show may demonstrate reality in some cases but not all and that sort of trope gets tired in a quick hurry.

I think, as trite as it might sound, I like to see goodness in humanity prevail now and then.
 
People who watched Game of Thrones were drawn in by the million plot points which we wanted to see resolved. Who the heck is this person, what's going on with these people, why did this person do this...the problem was the show never resolved 99% of them, and the guy never bothered to finish the books either.
 
Finedirk said:
People who watched Game of Thrones were drawn in by the million plot points which we wanted to see resolved. Who the heck is this person, what's going on with these people, why did this person do this...the problem was the show never resolved 99% of them, and the guy never bothered to finish the books either.
Click to expand...
The ultimate cliffhanger! Think of how awesome the ending will be when we get it in 2055, though!! 🤣
 
D4IxSRTXoAYjBup.jpg:large
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top