Game of Thrones Blu-ray disc set Historically, TV generally doesn’t do ‘epic fantasy’ well: Merlin, Robin of Sherwood, He-Man and the Masters of the Universe. All noble efforts, but ultimately flawed in vision and execution. Heck, outside of Jackson’s Rings trilogy, even the movies often fail to get the genre right. Game of Thrones Season One Blu-ray Thrown …
While still reading the books, and never having seen this epic on a screen yet, I think that to try and capture the pictures the words portray could be a pretty tall order.
I still think the baseline to be beaten is B5 - considering it's age it's still pretty good, visually and story line.
I think you will be very pleasantly surprised when you get a chance to see the TV version. Martins style of writing it in chapters from the viewpoint of a single character makes it particularly easy to translate to the screen. Series 2 started transmission last Sunday, so they'll be on a torrent near you soon.
"Best ever" is worth taking seriously IMO. I'm a huge B5 fan but if the later series live up to the first then I think this will have it beat.
Production values are higher (no insult to B5, but its true). It doesn't try to fit itself into a strict episodic format the way early B5 series do. The story arc will be at least its equal if later series live up to the first - to be honest the amazing thing about the story arc in B5 is simply that it exists, if you were feeling churlish it wouldn't be hard to poke a few holes in it here and there.
If you haven't watched it, it is absolutely amazing. As you would expect it doesn't contain everything from the books, but dedicating an entire series to the first book means that there is a lot there. I watched the series and then read the books, so I'm not the best judge of this, but in my opinion it truly does bring the world to life. Its the same way I felt about Lord of the Rings - it seemed impossible that they could bring that world to life, and then they absolutely nailed it.
But at £45 for one series (10 episodes) which is unlikely to get more than a couple of viewings, are they seriously expecting people to splash out for this rather than download the episodes. They may claim that piracy is killing the industry, but this is arguably a fine example of price-gouging doing a better job of it.
I got it for £37 off the shelf at Tesco, which is perfectly good value and does everything I need to do to encourage HBO to commit to many more of the same. If you're too miserly to drop that much, go and download it and I'm sure you'll be back here later moaning about the lack of quality TV.
I wouldn't put iTunes on my computer if you paid me. My partner is unfortunate enough to have this crapware on her laptop and has to deal with its foibles on a near-daily basis.
I'm sure HBO deserver to make a profit from this series. I suspect they have already made their money back several times over. I haven't so far been able to (legally) watch it, as I don't give my money to the Murdoch family. If it were priced more reasonably (you might think £39 in Tescos is reasonable, I don't), then I would buy it.
The evidence from the games market indicates that if you lower the price of the product, you make more sales and more profit. A number of games on platforms such as Steam illustrate this point. The 'piracy' problem pretty much goes away. I'm not saying they should give it away, but a price that is much closer to the manufacturing cost seems fairer to me.
As far as I know, there is no evidence from the games market that if you lower price you *will* make more profit - publishers tend to be pretty cagey with their data. Gabe Newell's (Steam) oft-cited interview is actually about *promoted discounts* improving *gross revenues* not lower pricing in general improving profits.
Certainly it would be more difficult to have discounts if the day one price was near the manufacturing cost (aside from the fact that no-one in between the manufacturer and the customer would bother getting out of bed).
Perhaps some people forget there is a large capital investment in making a videogame and putting it in a box, which is a cost that must be recouped otherwise the business goes under - therefore there is a relatively high day one price (that inevitably decreases over time).
The excuse for piracy here is "I want this game now but I don't want to wait until next month when it will be half the price".
>A number of games on platforms such as Steam illustrate this point.
Yeah? Like when my Shogun 2, solo mode, stopped working because it couldna call home on Steam servers?
And like when I looked up the Steam "support" page related to my error message and it looked like a bored dev had slapped together a few paragraphs of "re-install, check Direct X, disable your firewall" hocus pocus and dead chicken administration rites.
Rather than a serious user-friendly troubleshooting guide explaining how I would get my $59 value from a game legally purchased, after the stupid anti-piracy network connectivity goes tits up.
Give me a £39 BD over that anyday ;-)
"I'm sure HBO deserver to make a profit from this series. I suspect they have already made their money back several times over."
I wouldn't be so sure. GoT cost them an absolute assload. It's probably, overall, done well enough that they'll make the money back, but it was a hell of a gamble. And it'll definitely need significant non-broadcast sales (discs, iTunes rentals, what have you) to make a profit.
45 quid for 6 Blu-Ray disks? Seems pretty good to me.
Yes, you could download them (which is why they are sat on my NAS right now...) but to be honest you are paying just as much for the extras, which may be be hard and painfully slow to get as torrents...) than the episodes.
So, yes I'll probably go out and buy it, and it is a set of disks I can see being lent to friends that have not seen it in the future too...
But I must admit I wonder how the series is going to follow the books - the later ones spread the story so wide, following so many different characters, that progress is only made in the tiniest of steps.
I love the books but I find that one of the two flaws, that they don't progress apace. The other is that the story is unfinished and the bugger only releases one every five years... Still, that leaves him another four or so before the telly catches up with the novels.
Agreed.
One of the biggest sucess measures for the series will be if it manages not to get sunk in the somewhat turgid mire the books have ended up in. Individually they are still good books but Mr Martin is more concerned with his characterisation than progressing the story - its passed frustrating at this stage.
At this rate the series will be over before the books are.
That's my biggest worry too. I only found out about the book series as a result of the TV show, but from maybe episode 3 in the first series to about now I've read GM's entire output, and judging from previous form, can't expect the next book for another 5 years.
I also worry that GM hasn't really grasped how he is going to finish this. Book 5 just spreads the story wider and wider, without getting particularly close to anything you might consider a conclusion.
If you have read them all, you may have also noticed that time slows down massively as the books go forward, with each book taking up less and less 'wall time', but the stories growing wider in scope, and the books getting chronologically out of order (parts of book 3 happen after parts of book 4, similar in 5).
Having said that, the show barely holds a candle to the books. It has some wonderful visuals, but the detail that the books go into is what really envelopes you. Compare and contrast the events at 'Crasters Hall' as shown in the most recent episode with what is in the books - nothing that stops the story from progressing, but the flavour and character of Craster and his wives comes through much clearer in the book.
Still the best thing on TV though.
I'm only half way through the second book, but I second the concerns that things seem to be slowing down a bit - sad if it gets worse in later books. One of the things that hit me about the first book was that quite a lot happens in it; I'm less surprised that the TV adaptation worked than that they managed to fit most of it in. On the other hand, at least some of the characters come across without the "comedy dwarf" tweaks that Jackson felt the need to make to LoTR.
The thing that really put me off the first series was that some of the early acting - even by relatively experienced actors - seemed incredibly stilted. Some of it was very good, but Littlefinger's need to orate everything really grated; even Lena Headey (who's been good in plenty of other things) didn't seem very comfortable. It's possible it got better as the series progressed, or maybe I just got used to it.
I'm also not all that impressed with the need to age the entire cast (because it stops some of them acting their age and the shock of what they go through is lost a bit), but I guess they'd have had problems broadcasting it if there was really the requisite amount of child nudity.
Here's hoping that the pay cheque persuades the author to find a way to finish the story.
I agree with you about aging the cast, it really breaks the impact of what they are doing. I'll try to avoid too many spoilers for those who haven't read the books, but Rob is supposed to be 14-15, which makes the reactions of the adults to what he's doing make more sense.
Aria is about 10 in the latest book. I think she was 8 when she killed her first person! Daenerys has her 14th birthday after starting to build her army. Making them all older takes something away from it., as well as making some of their decisions and actions seem foolish.
That said, I do understand the reasons for it, I can't imagine it having been made at all if they were all kept to their supposed ages, It would have been extremely difficult to get the required performances in a reasonable amount of time.
Cmon, they did it for western sensibilities. Daenerys is listed as 12 when she marries Drogo in the book, and even HBO won't show kiddy porn.
Having said that, there is no acknowledgement that a Westerosi year is the same as an Earth year, so say each Westerosi year is a 1.5 Earth years, she was 18. So all cool.
and no, not an apple-hater. iTunes not an option because it hasn't been released on iTunes UK. A problem I'm already heartily familiar with as a brony without piratical instincts... :-) But in this case I'm actually a bit surprised given it is being shown in the UK and - as this article notes - the bluray is out.
(I'm renting them from lovefilm; seeing it for the first time.)
I have to say that the books of A Song Of Ice And Fire are in my top 3 fantasy book series, the other 2 being Lord of the Rings and Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time. All three are excellent, although so different I cannot choose a favourite.
However, Game of Thrones is most definitely my favourite fantasy TV/Film. They have portrayed the world wonderfully, keeping in so much detail I haven't noticed anything missing yet (which is what spoiled the Lord of the Rings film for me), and yet it also hasn't spoiled my enjoyment of the books. Even better, my SWMBO likes it too, and has even started reading the books because of it!
I am seriously considerring buying a Blu Ray Player just for this. I can call it my Game of Thrones player, and it can sit in the corner until I want to revisit this fantastic Epic.
I would say that even the *authors* fail to get the genre right. As a group, fantasy authors show a crippling lack of imagination which is tied oh so very closely to Tolkien and Dungeons&Dragons (which is also tied pretty closely to Tolkien).
At least this time round we're spared Elves and Dwarves, but there's no shortage of medieval stasis and dragons.
More authors like China Mieville, please.
This.
I tried to watch the first episode, but got bored and switched off after 10 minutes.
This was unoriginal Tokienian rubbish. If this is the best George "Ronald Ruel" Martin can do, I'll pass, thanks. If I want to watch a bunch of Shakespearean thespians chewing the scenery like an overacting Doctor Who villain, I can always watch Doctor Who.
Why in the name of buggeration do so many people equate "fantasy" with "orcs, elves, dwarfs, trolls, dragons, etc."? It reveals a distressing lack of imagination—not least because the very first recognised English novel* was not only a fantasy, but was also rather more original. It's bad enough that readers do this, but the sheer number of writers cranking out these undisguised rip-offs of Tolkien is astonishing. (And it's even worse in the games industry, where every feckless twit seems to want to make an MMORPG with the same damned list of highly unoriginal tropes.)
Tolkien wasn't as good a writer as his hagiographers make him out to be. He was an academic at heart, and it shows in his writing style. Pacing is all over the place. The plot—such as it is—wanders wildly. The protagonists don't act, but react to events that just happen to them. Gandalf is killed and resurrected for no adequately explored reason**. And, worst of all, his characters all sound very similar; he clearly didn't have the same ear for dialogue as many of his peers, like Wodehouse or Christie.
Meh. Wake me up when HBO spends their money on something a bit more original than a western, a cop show, or a Tolkienesque fantasy novel.
* "Gulliver's Travels", by Jonathan Swift. Terry Pratchett is arguably the closest modern equivalent, using his fantasy settings to send up Tolkien and society itself. Pratchett's earlier novels are very much straight parodies, but his later novels have cranked the satire lever all the way up to 12. And Swift was a lot more original about it too.
** The only way to get to their destination was to go through a dangerous disused underground citadel, full of nasty creatures? Presumably no trading was ever done between the two regions on either side of this mountain range.
Nice troll.
Game of thrones features some walking undead, a couple of eggs that hatch eventually, and a whole lot of men. Not an elf, orc, troll or dwarf in sight, other than normal human mutant Tyrion.
You may not like the series, but please try and at least read the show description next time.
And as for your criticism of Tolkein - you may have missed the part where they had to avoid going through the *very large open gap in the hills* where the main trade route went on the grounds that the big enemy army held the fortress in the middle of it. You may have seen the battle in the second film with the Ents recapturing it, it was fairly prominent.
The second side trip (through the paths of the dead to summon the Deus Ex Machina army) was done because there was indeed no trading between those two realms and hence no other way.
Oh, and as I understand it the oldest English novel is generally considered to be Robinson Crusoe from 1704, though Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur goes back to the fifteenth century.
"Game of thrones features some walking undead, a couple of eggs that hatch eventually, and a whole lot of men. Not an elf, orc, troll or dwarf in sight, other than normal human mutant Tyrion."
Whatever. I watched the first 10 minutes. I thought it sucked. At that point, my interest and commitment to researching this series ended; I see no point in debating the exact details of its fantasy universe; I know it's got dragons, it's magic, and the clichéd Medieval Costume Drama setting. That it's swapped orcs for some zombies is hardly anything to get excited about. Tolkien's Orcs were much the same thing anyway.
As for the trolls: referring to that tired old codswallop as the best tele-fantasy ever is trolling. Especially as it is well known that "The Clangers" > *. There's more charm, character, wit and—above all—originality in the first 10 minutes of that low-budget children's TV animation than I saw in the first ten minutes of "Game of Thrones".
"you may have missed the part where they had to avoid going through the *very large open gap in the hills* where the main trade route went on the grounds that the big enemy army held the fortress in the middle of it. You may have seen the battle in the second film with the Ents recapturing it, it was fairly prominent."
Riiiight. Because, of course, mountain ranges only have one end, going on forever and ever in the other direction. And going around the other way therefore wasn't an option, despite—you know—having access to horses. And elves. And Gandalf's flying friends. (You know: the ones who rescued him from Saruman, and the two Hobbits from the side of an exploding volcano at the very last minute like some wingéd Deus ex Machina.)
Or did the mighty Gandalf the Chromatically Challenged not consider any of those options?
Granted, the guy's only a 2000-year-old wizard. Maybe he had dementia.
"Whatever. I watched the first 10 minutes. I thought it sucked."
One of my mates has been going on about this programme for ages, and how good it is, and that I would love it. I finally, after a year, sat down to watch it in HD (and I like fantasy). I watched the first episode and thought the production was amazing (i.e. movie quality) - but when finished I just said - Meh! and haven't watched another one since.
It is down to taste I suppose - I don't think it sucked - I just didn't enjoy it at all, even though it is very well made.
Sean,
You don't like a lot of popular fantasy; fair enough.
You seem to want to:
a) convince the world that things they enjoy actually suck
b) redefine a genre into something less popular / different.
Telling people that, essentially, their tastes suck and yours are awesome isn't really a winning strategy. Nor is it going to make you any friends.
I guess my point is: grow up.
You are naturally entitled not to like the show - but do you realize how idiotic you sound when you criticize the show after having seen only the first ten minutes? Every episode is about 50 minutes, and the first season has ten episodes in it. So, you were able to form an opinion having seen 2% of it. Good for you. I take it you watch a 90 minute movie for less than two minutes and decide it's not worth your time?
Even more so than 'Rome', this has got to be the most expensive soap ever made. The first season, all talk and nary any action. I've spoken to people who said, yeah, but it's only the beginning. Ok, on to season two. Talk, talk, talk, more talk, interspersed with brief bolts of conversation, followed by more talk. Honestly, it's like watching football, without the game in-between.
Yes, the costumes and acting are all wonderfully done, but I already stopped caring about who does what to who. And that king Jeoffrey, he wouldn't make it longer than five minutes in the real world, guess that's why they call it fantasy.
I'd rather say "the best so far". If the story has any point it is that nothing can be said in terms of "ever".
One moan I had is that it seems the script-writers have fallen into the Hollywood trap. "The first series is loved by all. The first series has cursing. Put more of that in the second so it will be even more loved".
I'm no prude and I curse like a trooper myself when the need arises (and it arises often), but the opening of season two had me struggling to find the plot amidst the rather gratuitous - even in Westeros terms - levels of "witty badinage".
And yes I've read the books, and mostly liked 'em. The bits I dislike have nothing to do with the colorful metaphors, but things that break the suspension of disbelief.
I'm also loving this comment thread, especially the bits written by the leader of the Linear Guild. "Make the talky-man stop!" More of this please.
I've seen this before - with Legend of the Seeker. I thought LotS was a brilliant series, with loads of plot twists and a real examination of trust and treachery, but then, come the second season, loads of people started rubbishing it, for no good reason, to the point where it got canned on a cliffhanger.
What I'm seeing in this thread is the start of the same thing again. People whose interpretational abilities probably can't encompass anything beyond Idol and Big Brother start weighing in and rubbishing a brilliant show. So now it'll probably be canned at the end of Season 2, just like LotS was, just because the millions of Idol-watching retards have to open their whining mouths.
Downvote me all you want; I don't care. I love GoT and would love to see it last a few more seasons, but I have a feeling the hordes of armchair critics will put paid to it before it has a chance to go anywhere.
Comparing Game of Thrones to Legend of the Seeker is just wrong!
LotS had no story beyond Season 1 really, just "magic" and New Zealand. Game of Thrones is the start of an epic.
Also, no worries about GoT not getting picked up again. It's renewed for a third season already, and is on HBO, so is not reliant on chasing mass viewing figures for advertising. Plus its the number one show in the US.
Legend of the Seeker might have done better had it born any resemblance to the books. Instead it was just a week by week standalone story with a vague thread running through it approximating the books. The casting of Richard was wrong although it did have a very attractive Kahlan, but even she wasn't enough to save a pretty badly written low budget poor interpretation.
Game of Thrones sticks much better to the original books so hopefully people with stick with it. The writing and production values far exceed Seeker.
Big fan of the books and a reasonable fan of the series. Maybe with the increased budget of series 2 they'll be able to give a better sense of a living kingdom filled with people. So far, we've not really had that. Kings Landing seems no more occupied than the Frenchies castle in The Holy Grail, and as for any armies... Drogo's 40,000 odd clan looks more like a couple of dozen people looping round the camera.
It's been awhile since I've seen episode 1, but nudity is common when bathing, as is sex in a brothel.
I'm certain the marketing value of bare boobs has not been lost on the producers, but it's more realistic in those contexts than the artfully arranged wisp of steam or locks of hair glued to the breasts. I think your sense of "gratuitous" has been warped by the normal prudishness we see on TV, particularly in the US.
On first viewing I did think the Daenerys Targaryen nude bath scene went on a bit, but it bookended perfectly with the final scene in series 1.
the only criticism of Game Of Thrones I can think of is that sometimes it is painfully obviously that they couldn't afford to film scenes with large crowds. Eg most of the scenes with Drogo's khalasar, it was supposed to be a vast gathering of people yet you can really tell they're trying to get around that with sneaky camera angles and other trickery.
Other than that, it's all good!
We have to remember this is book/series for adults, depicting a more realistic depiction of the times.
where sex/violence was common place.
I for one applad the grittyness.
Think of the scene in Two Towers where the orc wants to gut the hobbits.
"I'll take out your innards" is not what violent grotesk orc would say.
While sex and graphic violence may be neccessary for good adult drama swearing always is.
Nothing ruins good drama than people not swearing when they are in stressful situations.
I personally think after the watershed there isnt enough swearing, certainly far less than there is in real life
I agree that it may be the best epic fantasy ever seen on television, certainly in terms of execution - detailed, consistent, lavish, lovingly crafted.
Unfortunately, that level of execution is difficult to sustain (regardless even of whether the audience likes it or not) which is why I doubt it will go beyond three seasons, maybe not even beyond two.
GoT is bloody good. I caught the telly series last year after a couple of mates recommended it. I'm now reading the first book which is a real pleasure. When I'm finished I'm going to watch series one all over again.
It's been a long time since I felt quite so immersed in a story of this genre.
Playing the disc would result in a blank screen and the player would freeze. Sometimes waiting 2-5 minutes would help, other times I gave up. Only a hard reset would bring the player back to life. I'm not the only one, found complaints on some BR forums. Apparently the S580 and some Samsung players had problems too.
No, updating the firmware didn't help. Yes, blame me for buying a Sony.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
