The New York Times Slams Game of Thrones Viewers

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

funny.... i never experienced a round of roleplaying with as much chronic backstabbing disorder as Game of thrones has.

GoT gets a bad review, people bitch and moan until it gets a good one.

Not surprised.

I disagree, Game of Thrones massively held my attention and interest for 10 weeks, D&D barely held my attention for 10 minutes.

Then again, "anything with a sword in it is d&d", hes absolutely right. Kill Bill, The Last Samurai, Gladiator, Fearless, Hero, Sharpe. They all practically scream of medieval era dragon fighting wizardry and sorcery. My eyes have opened.

The New York Times hasn't slam the Game of Thrones Viewers, that would be wrong.

The truth is: The Game of Thrones advertisement division decides to pay a campaign to slam his viewers through the New York Times to ramp up views. Yes, it is that. They seek to create these news (did they pay you to talk about it too?, this is an honest question, not claiming anything wrong here nor trying to be sarcastic) so there's more talk about the series and some non fans, hearing the anger decide to give it a try.

So here's my reply: you pay insulting campaigns? Your grandma can go watch you.

Detective Prince:
Sorry...The women are now the ones watching for the sex? Wow.

That's not a new concept. You ever heard of romance novels? You know the ones that had Fabio on the cover during the 90s. Those books are filled with women-porn.

Toothache of Sauron:
The New York Times hasn't slam the Game of Thrones Viewers, that would be wrong.

The truth is: The Game of Thrones advertisement division decides to pay a campaign to slam his viewers through the New York Times to ramp up views. Yes, it is that. They seek to create these news (did they pay you to talk about it too?, this is an honest question, not claiming anything wrong here nor trying to be sarcastic) so there's more talk about the series and some non fans, hearing the anger decide to give it a try.

Are you actually being serious?

Removed: Wrong topic.

Just seem's like people are angry someone didn't agree with them about Game of Thrones, if you're writing a review you go in wanting to be impressed. So they didn't like it? What's the point in demanding they get someone who likes Game of Thrones to watch it so they can say how awesome it is. Just seem's like am empty victory.

A review is meant to be a critique on the subject. It's not an essay on why something you like is amazing. You can get that by talking to the person who posted above you and below you and get the same feeling from reading a good review.So someone has a different opinion to you? I doubt HBO care and do you honestly care that someone doesn't like your favourite show? I mean some people in these comments have made it clear they don't like D&D but are you mad at that?

A paper you don't read said something about a show you and I hope your friends like too, so don't read the review. I know I won't, I mean I don't gain anything from it apart from the knowledge that some people are missing out on a good time if they were willing to invest time into it rather then writing it off. That's their loss, not mine.

Okay, I can get how the sex scenes would inherently be amped-up going from a book to a more visual medium, since what was a single sentence (eg. "They had sex") becomes a full scene.

But why are people saying that the books were borderline pornographic at points? I'm just at the end of A Storm of Swords and I don't see what they're getting at. Okay, to be honest there are a fair few sex scenes but most of them just seem to vaguely detail the position and then get on with it. Or maybe I'm just incredibly desensitized... Yeah, that sounds more likely.

People complain when a book adapted to TV skips on details.
Now they whine when a series is fully committed to the book and does not skip a thing (Well, almost), no matter how brutal and dark.
I guess they will lose their popularity if they miss out on a chance to cause a controversy.

Sensationalism, I never expected the New York Times to stoop to that lvl. Maybe they are just behind the times. "Elitist" comes to mind, but they are the New York Times.

Wonder what they said about Spartacus: Blood&Sands & Vengeance, if they were so fixated on the few scenes of graphic violence and sex so far in the Game of Thrones. XD

Heres hoping Game of Thrones season 2 doesn't turn out like Walking Dead season 2...i'm still trying to finish it, its hard as the characters in the show are all lobotomized that all of their actions could not be explained otherwise. (WHY OH WHY AMC DID YOU HAVE TO STRAY SO FAR FROM THE SOURCE MATERIAL?! >.<)

In my opinion, anyone who resorts to seriously (not satirically) insulting the fans, or perceived demographic, of something they dislike is a lousy reviewer and should be fired.
There's a difference between poking fun at someone and flat out maliciously demeaning them.

Seriously if you can't critique something without insulting those that enjoy it in a cold-blooded and/or ignorant manner, then you need to go back to working in retail or fast food.

Micalas:
Interesting. When did the stereotype of "only watching for the nekkid" shift to women?

I think that particular statement meant that the women were watching for the affairs and drama, not the physical part of the sex intrigue. I could be wrong.

But seriously, people read the New York Times for TV reviews?

Aiddon:
Well, that was ignorant. Though I wish Martin would tone the nudity back a tad, it's not exactly a deal breaker. I do find it funny how these reviewers mock fantasy when in fact stuff like Lord of the Rings is far beyond the D&D crowd

To be fair it's not really Martin adding in the majority of the nudity. It's the producers of the show. And I'm sure HBO is OK with them doing it.

Shjade:

Micalas:
Interesting. When did the stereotype of "only watching for the nekkid" shift to women?

I think that particular statement meant that the women were watching for the affairs and drama, not the physical part of the sex intrigue. I could be wrong.

But seriously, people read the New York Times for TV reviews?

I read the New York Times for elections coverage. For TV reviews, I tend to watch an episode. It's 45 minutes out of my day. If it's wasted, whatever.

13 nominations 2 won... NY Times: eat your shorts

image

"What Game of Thrones needs if it is to expand its fan base beyond Dungeons & Dragons types is what most of the United States didn't get this year: a hard winter,"

Bitch, I'd kill a small child and a nun to get someone to make a TV show with the Game of Thrones budget based around the D&D setting of Planescape.

A small child and a NUN!

there are seasons of indeterminate length? WTF? That is a METAPHOR dammit!(mostly, maybe there is an ice age somewhere, but mostly metaphor) This Reviewer has lost all credibility. Hopefully next time they get it slightly less wrong, it is too far gone for me to hope for them getting their points across in a non offensive, non appalling manner.

This kind of thing is happening more and more often.

If 'professional' reviewers and critics cannot even be professional, what is the point in them? There are thousands of very talented amateurs who work for free for their favourite forums and websites, who manage to write enjoyable reviews without resorting to childish insults of people they do not know.

I think people are starting to see that for the most part, 'professionals' in this line of work just cannot be trusted. If they are not being paid off directly, they are being pressured from everybody around them.

Well NYT has completely missed the point of the tv adaptation of Game of Thrones. It actually bridges the gap between said D&D viewers and, say, people who really enjoyed The Tudors or Rome. It's its distinct lack of fantasy elements which raises it above the supposed catering to a D&D audience. It's why I have many friends who have read A Song of Ice and Fire, but wouldn't go anywhere near the Hobbit. Honestly, how on earth did they miss that?!

Not surprised, New York is full of loud mouthed arrogant biggots and yellow taxis.

(see NYT, I can do it too!)

rapidoud:
GoT gets a bad review, people bitch and moan until it gets a good one.

Not surprised.

There's a difference between a bad review and an insulting review.

I am an avid pen and paper role player... and I DON'T like game of thrones.

What will NYT say to that!?

Wait, what? The New York Times still exists? And people actually still read it?

Wow.

If you think this is bad, try reading their occasional game reviews. It quickly becomes clear that their reviewers had never held a game controller before getting the assignment. I don't mind people having a negative opinion about something I like or having a positive view of something I don't, however, to attempt to speak with authority when you clearly have no understanding of something, well, it's sad.

I'm a lady and a D&D player and I've only tangentially experienced the series. By the NYT token I should be drawn to it like a moth to a flame, right? Well, I don't read papers to be told what entertainment I'd like to consume anyways. (Pretty much the only paper I read are the free ones I pick up at the college I go to :P) I hope the NYT enjoys never getting a dime of my money.

I'm just going to leave this here:

Try telling Vin Diesel that he's a dork. Just try it. You'll be shitting out your own teeth for a month.

Hmm. Sounds like the New York Times is low on advertising revenue. So, they have to make up some link-bait to get hits. What better way than to incense any group that tends to have a significant presence on the Internet.

Nope. Nope. Nope.
But I must chortle at them calling GoT effectively a mindless parade of smut. Highly amusing.

Does the show have magic or magical creatures in it, or is it just set in that time period?

Detective Prince:
Sorry...The women are now the ones watching for the sex? Wow. Also. I adore Game of Thrones and own all the books and have never played D&D in my life. Sure I've been asked but I haven't ever taken an interest in it. You'd never use a generalizing statement like "Well if you're a white man you'll love this..." so why use it other generalizing statements that can be just as incorrect?

Dungeons and Dragons, now its in your genes. xD

Noelveiga:

[In] the interest of fairness, there is something else worth pointing out. It is this:

The full text of the review in question isn't in the link featured in the article. Or in the link featured in the article that link leads to. It's three links away. This is a quote of a quote of a quote.

The full review is here:

http://tv.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/arts/television/game-of-thrones-on-hbo.html

And seems to point out that the show starts slow, has a humongous cast and, while it shows some potential, it's doing a fair amount of wheel spinning, mostly because, without Ned, there is no single character to carry the weight of the show until either Tyrion or Daenerys are given more to do.

That, to be fair, is a decent point, even if you disagree with the review as a whole.

So, to clarify, the people being defined by this review:

- A moderately snooty TV reviewer, and
- A few internet bloggers quoting incendiary out of context stuff, presumably for clickbaiting or simple lack of professionalism.

You are like one of three people in the comments that are worth to be read. Salute to you. Comments like this need more exposure and not your "I don't like D&D but GoT or vice versa so the review (as presented by the escapists who did a terrible job at that) of NYT is total BULLSHITT *fanrage*!!!111"
So yes I repeat myself: the author of this "news" did a terrible job depending on a quote of a quote.
The reviewer's critique is valid saying if you want to start watching the show because it is the season's start it is too confusing to just jump right in and needs incredible time investment. This is a valid point because what you usually see with popular Tv shows is they are easy to get into because they at most require some idea of the premise of the show. The rest will explain itself on the way. The review was aimed at normal people who just wanted to know they can watch the show from this season's start, it was not aimed at people who watched the first season know all the characters and want to keep watching. Reading the original review I can safly assume the reviewer is not familiar with the source material as he wants the plot to move on to the hinted danger of the winter and invasion from the north. That again reenforces me claiming he is reviewing for the everyman who did not read the books nor had previous exposure to the material of Game of Thrones. He is one of them. I would say you do not need to be one who did read the books to give the Tv show a fair chance to be judged. The Tv show is supposed to stand on its own two feets and entertain people, not because they enjoyed the books.
He is underwhelmed with the season's start even though he did watch the previous season. He has an advantage over average Joe who goes in blind and gives him a consumer advice. But here we are and reading how wrong he is with his opinion because "we do like the show not because of its sex scenes" or "we do like the show not because we like D&D". I do notwant to say the users are stupid but ignorant because of the unfair reporting presented to us on this website about this review which was realy just clickbait.

Nikolaz72:

Detective Prince:
Sorry...The women are now the ones watching for the sex? Wow. Also. I adore Game of Thrones and own all the books and have never played D&D in my life. Sure I've been asked but I haven't ever taken an interest in it. You'd never use a generalizing statement like "Well if you're a white man you'll love this..." so why use it other generalizing statements that can be just as incorrect?

Dungeons and Dragons, now its in your genes. xD

;) You don't know the people I know. I wouldn't be surprised if it was in theirs.

DVS BSTrD:
A writer going out of their way to insult the fanbase of a genre and franchise they clearly have no understanding of or appreciation for?

I didn't know Movie Bob worked for the New York Times.

You sir, just won multiple internets! Enjoy!

Panda Mania:
*stern look* New York Times, I'm disappointed in you! You & the Wall Street Journal don't usually drop the ball like this. If you can give fair consideration to InFamous and True Blood, then you can take Game of Thrones seriously. -_- Please, you have a reputation to maintain...well, at least with me. >.>

EDIT: I actually went and read the whole article...it's not as bad in context. *shrug* Just sounds like a frustrated, grumpy guy who finds the show gratuitous. I guess he's entitled to his opinion...still, it could have been more eloquently worded. -_-

EDIT: dang. clicked "quote" instead of "edit"... :P

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here