Discussion:
Game of Drones
(too old to reply)
Ignis Fatuus
2011-04-21 06:47:56 UTC
Permalink
I was evidently wrongheaded in thinking that this pseudo-medieval
fantasy would have anything in common with Lord of the Rings or even
Legend of the Seeker. Instead we were treated to the bedroom antics of
a bunch of uniquely unpleasant characters, in a soft-porn soap that
has more in common with Dallas, Dynasty, and the like. The unfolding
plot is complex, repetitive, and unremittingly dull.
Soze
2011-04-21 07:44:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
I was evidently wrongheaded in thinking that this pseudo-medieval
fantasy would have anything in common with Lord of the Rings or even
Legend of the Seeker. Instead we were treated to the bedroom antics of
a bunch of uniquely unpleasant characters, in a soft-porn soap that
has more in common with Dallas, Dynasty, and the like. The unfolding
plot is complex, repetitive, and unremittingly dull.
Despite the remarkably rave reviews from all and sundry I've never been
particularly interested in seeing this. But now that you've panned it I'm
off to the torrent sites post haste!! If it's half as good as all the other
shows I love and you hate then it could turn out to be a favourite...
Ignis Fatuus
2011-04-21 09:25:43 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:44:46 +0100, "Soze"
Post by Soze
Post by Ignis Fatuus
I was evidently wrongheaded in thinking that this pseudo-medieval
fantasy would have anything in common with Lord of the Rings or even
Legend of the Seeker. Instead we were treated to the bedroom antics of
a bunch of uniquely unpleasant characters, in a soft-porn soap that
has more in common with Dallas, Dynasty, and the like. The unfolding
plot is complex, repetitive, and unremittingly dull.
Despite the remarkably rave reviews from all and sundry I've never been
particularly interested in seeing this. But now that you've panned it I'm
off to the torrent sites post haste!! If it's half as good as all the other
shows I love and you hate then it could turn out to be a favourite...
Did I not mention that it's probably right up Your street? HBO
apparently ordered a second series on the strength of the first
night... so you've plenty to look forward to.
john smith
2011-04-21 13:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Post by Ignis Fatuus
I was evidently wrongheaded in thinking that this pseudo-medieval
fantasy would have anything in common with Lord of the Rings or even
Legend of the Seeker. Instead we were treated to the bedroom antics of
a bunch of uniquely unpleasant characters, in a soft-porn soap that
has more in common with Dallas, Dynasty, and the like. The unfolding
plot is complex, repetitive, and unremittingly dull.
Despite the remarkably rave reviews from all and sundry I've never been
particularly interested in seeing this. But now that you've panned it I'm
off to the torrent sites post haste!! If it's half as good as all the
other shows I love and you hate then it could turn out to be a
favourite...
Reverse reviews! I love it! I thought it was very ho-hum. Where's the
fucking fantasy? More like a dull period/medieval drama. I'll watch Ep.
2 - just to see what happens to that kid (he has to survive but be in a coma
or summat, just for the plot, don't ya reckon?) - but if there aren't any
dragons or unicorns or other phantastical beasts, I'm off...

Anyone watched "Rubber" yet? That film about the homicidal psychokinetic
TYRE? It's mental as fuck... but it turned out I loved it... The ending is
like that Clive Barker story "The Body Politic"... only with rubber instead
of hands...
Michael Urban
2011-04-21 13:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by john smith
Reverse reviews! I love it! I thought it was very ho-hum. Where's the
fucking fantasy? More like a dull period/medieval drama. I'll watch Ep.
2 - just to see what happens to that kid (he has to survive but be in a coma
or summat, just for the plot, don't ya reckon?) - but if there aren't any
dragons or unicorns or other phantastical beasts, I'm off...
George RR Martin started out writing a sort of fictionalized or
fantasy version of the Wars of the Roses, but it took on its own
life before long. There will be plenty of political intrigue
and complicated relationships among many noble families before it's
done.

I haven't seen the HBO series yet, but as a reader, what I particularly
liked about the first book (which seems to be the volume being
adapted for the present series) was precisely that although this
is clearly a magical world that has (or has had) dragons and magical
groves and rumours of the undead north of not-hadrian's Wall, it
is all offstage and low-key and there were only hints that these
magical elements are about to return to prominence in this world.
That is, until the last chapter or three, when the cork pops out
of the bottle in a very satisfying way. Where's the fantasy? It's
there, waiting (or lurking ominously) in the wings for its big
entrance. Don't rush it. This isn't 'Merlin'.
Ignis Fatuus
2011-04-21 15:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Urban
Post by john smith
Reverse reviews! I love it! I thought it was very ho-hum. Where's the
fucking fantasy? More like a dull period/medieval drama. I'll watch Ep.
2 - just to see what happens to that kid (he has to survive but be in a coma
or summat, just for the plot, don't ya reckon?) - but if there aren't any
dragons or unicorns or other phantastical beasts, I'm off...
George RR Martin started out writing a sort of fictionalized or
fantasy version of the Wars of the Roses, but it took on its own
life before long. There will be plenty of political intrigue
and complicated relationships among many noble families before it's
done.
I haven't seen the HBO series yet, but as a reader, what I particularly
liked about the first book (which seems to be the volume being
adapted for the present series) was precisely that although this
is clearly a magical world that has (or has had) dragons and magical
groves and rumours of the undead north of not-hadrian's Wall, it
is all offstage and low-key and there were only hints that these
magical elements are about to return to prominence in this world.
That is, until the last chapter or three, when the cork pops out
of the bottle in a very satisfying way. Where's the fantasy? It's
there, waiting (or lurking ominously) in the wings for its big
entrance. Don't rush it. This isn't 'Merlin'.
So there might be a dragon or two in the last episode (as a teaser for
the next series); but in the meanwhile it's an endless round of
shagging and backstabbing?
Duggy
2011-04-22 00:12:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
So there might be a dragon or two in the last episode (as a teaser for
the next series); but in the meanwhile it's an endless round of
shagging and backstabbing?
Ignis Fatuus
2011-04-22 00:18:54 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:12:21 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
Post by Ignis Fatuus
So there might be a dragon or two in the last episode (as a teaser for
the next series); but in the meanwhile it's an endless round of
shagging and backstabbing?
Yes, I recall I did say that. Thanks for reminding me.
john smith
2011-04-22 23:08:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
Post by Michael Urban
Post by john smith
Reverse reviews! I love it! I thought it was very ho-hum. Where's the
fucking fantasy? More like a dull period/medieval drama. I'll watch Ep.
2 - just to see what happens to that kid (he has to survive but be in a coma
or summat, just for the plot, don't ya reckon?) - but if there aren't any
dragons or unicorns or other phantastical beasts, I'm off...
George RR Martin started out writing a sort of fictionalized or
fantasy version of the Wars of the Roses, but it took on its own
life before long. There will be plenty of political intrigue
and complicated relationships among many noble families before it's
done.
I haven't seen the HBO series yet, but as a reader, what I particularly
liked about the first book (which seems to be the volume being
adapted for the present series) was precisely that although this
is clearly a magical world that has (or has had) dragons and magical
groves and rumours of the undead north of not-hadrian's Wall, it
is all offstage and low-key and there were only hints that these
magical elements are about to return to prominence in this world.
That is, until the last chapter or three, when the cork pops out
of the bottle in a very satisfying way. Where's the fantasy? It's
there, waiting (or lurking ominously) in the wings for its big
entrance. Don't rush it. This isn't 'Merlin'.
So there might be a dragon or two in the last episode (as a teaser for
the next series); but in the meanwhile it's an endless round of
shagging and backstabbing?
It's like a grubby medieval version of "The Borgias"...
Ignis Fatuus
2011-04-22 23:27:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 00:08:38 +0100, "john smith"
Post by john smith
Post by Ignis Fatuus
Post by Michael Urban
Post by john smith
Reverse reviews! I love it! I thought it was very ho-hum. Where's the
fucking fantasy? More like a dull period/medieval drama. I'll watch Ep.
2 - just to see what happens to that kid (he has to survive but be in a coma
or summat, just for the plot, don't ya reckon?) - but if there aren't any
dragons or unicorns or other phantastical beasts, I'm off...
George RR Martin started out writing a sort of fictionalized or
fantasy version of the Wars of the Roses, but it took on its own
life before long. There will be plenty of political intrigue
and complicated relationships among many noble families before it's
done.
I haven't seen the HBO series yet, but as a reader, what I particularly
liked about the first book (which seems to be the volume being
adapted for the present series) was precisely that although this
is clearly a magical world that has (or has had) dragons and magical
groves and rumours of the undead north of not-hadrian's Wall, it
is all offstage and low-key and there were only hints that these
magical elements are about to return to prominence in this world.
That is, until the last chapter or three, when the cork pops out
of the bottle in a very satisfying way. Where's the fantasy? It's
there, waiting (or lurking ominously) in the wings for its big
entrance. Don't rush it. This isn't 'Merlin'.
So there might be a dragon or two in the last episode (as a teaser for
the next series); but in the meanwhile it's an endless round of
shagging and backstabbing?
It's like a grubby medieval version of "The Borgias"...
I'm not planning to watch any more; so the group will be mercifully
spared any more of my comment.
p***@aol.com
2011-04-21 20:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Urban
Reverse reviews!  I love it!  I thought it was very ho-hum.  Where's the
fucking fantasy?  More like a dull period/medieval drama.  I'll watch Ep.
2 - just to see what happens to that kid (he has to survive but be in a coma
or summat, just for the plot, don't ya reckon?) - but if there aren't any
dragons or unicorns or other phantastical beasts, I'm off...
George RR Martin started out writing a sort of fictionalized or
fantasy version of the Wars of the Roses, but it took on its own
life before long.  There will be plenty of political intrigue
and complicated relationships among many noble families before it's
done.  
I haven't read any Martin, but I'm reading (and loving) Brandon
Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy, and he's been favourably compared with
Martin - it's recognisable from Iggy's descrioption of complex plots
with unlikeable characters (but then, so is Battlestar Galactica)!
Post by Michael Urban
I haven't seen the HBO series yet, but as a reader, what I particularly
liked about the first book (which seems to be the volume being
adapted for the present series) was precisely that although this
is clearly a magical world that has (or has had) dragons and magical
groves and rumours of the undead north of not-hadrian's Wall, it
is all offstage and low-key and there were only hints that these
magical elements are about to return to prominence in this world.
That is, until the last chapter or three, when the cork pops out
of the bottle in a very satisfying way.  Where's the fantasy? It's
there, waiting (or lurking ominously) in the wings for its big
entrance.  Don't rush it.  This isn't 'Merlin'.
Hmm...Sanderson's a bit different, in that magic takes centre stage,
in a very reductionist way that makes pretty good efforts to make it
self-consistent and abide by pseudo-scientific rules, but most other
fantasy elements are muted. Nonhumans don't make much of an appearance
until the second book, and then they aren't quite what they seem -
aside from the absence of most advanced technology or gunpowder
weapons, the world is mock-Victorian, albeit with mystical rather than
industrial sources of pollution.

Phil
Ignis Fatuus
2011-04-21 21:20:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Michael Urban
Reverse reviews!  I love it!  I thought it was very ho-hum.  Where's the
fucking fantasy?  More like a dull period/medieval drama.  I'll watch Ep.
2 - just to see what happens to that kid (he has to survive but be in a coma
or summat, just for the plot, don't ya reckon?) - but if there aren't any
dragons or unicorns or other phantastical beasts, I'm off...
George RR Martin started out writing a sort of fictionalized or
fantasy version of the Wars of the Roses, but it took on its own
life before long.  There will be plenty of political intrigue
and complicated relationships among many noble families before it's
done.  
I haven't read any Martin, but I'm reading (and loving) Brandon
Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy, and he's been favourably compared with
Martin - it's recognisable from Iggy's descrioption of complex plots
with unlikeable characters (but then, so is Battlestar Galactica)!
Which managed to rise above the basic 'Who's shagging Who' plotlines
of the average bedroom soap. What's worse, in Drones, was the
inordinate amount of time spent watching them at it like so many dogs
in the street.
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Michael Urban
I haven't seen the HBO series yet, but as a reader, what I particularly
liked about the first book (which seems to be the volume being
adapted for the present series) was precisely that although this
is clearly a magical world that has (or has had) dragons and magical
groves and rumours of the undead north of not-hadrian's Wall, it
is all offstage and low-key and there were only hints that these
magical elements are about to return to prominence in this world.
That is, until the last chapter or three, when the cork pops out
of the bottle in a very satisfying way.  Where's the fantasy? It's
there, waiting (or lurking ominously) in the wings for its big
entrance.  Don't rush it.  This isn't 'Merlin'.
Hmm...Sanderson's a bit different, in that magic takes centre stage,
in a very reductionist way that makes pretty good efforts to make it
self-consistent and abide by pseudo-scientific rules, but most other
fantasy elements are muted. Nonhumans don't make much of an appearance
until the second book, and then they aren't quite what they seem -
aside from the absence of most advanced technology or gunpowder
weapons, the world is mock-Victorian, albeit with mystical rather than
industrial sources of pollution.
Phil
p***@aol.com
2011-04-21 21:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Michael Urban
Reverse reviews!  I love it!  I thought it was very ho-hum.  Where's the
fucking fantasy?  More like a dull period/medieval drama.  I'll watch Ep.
2 - just to see what happens to that kid (he has to survive but be in a coma
or summat, just for the plot, don't ya reckon?) - but if there aren't any
dragons or unicorns or other phantastical beasts, I'm off...
George RR Martin started out writing a sort of fictionalized or
fantasy version of the Wars of the Roses, but it took on its own
life before long.  There will be plenty of political intrigue
and complicated relationships among many noble families before it's
done.  
I haven't read any Martin, but I'm reading (and loving) Brandon
Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy, and he's been favourably compared with
Martin - it's recognisable from Iggy's descrioption of complex plots
with unlikeable characters (but then, so is Battlestar Galactica)!
Which managed to rise above the basic 'Who's shagging Who' plotlines
of the average bedroom soap. What's worse, in Drones, was the
inordinate amount of time spent watching them at it like so many dogs
in the street.
Oh dear, that sounds unpromising.

Phil
Duggy
2011-04-22 00:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
Which managed to rise above the basic 'Who's shagging Who' plotlines
of the average bedroom soap. What's worse, in Drones, was the
inordinate amount of time spent watching them at it like so many dogs
in the street.
There were, what, 3 sex scenes? A honeymoon night of an ex-Dragon
King's sister and the head of the army that is going to help restore
the Dragon King's power, a imp with prostitutes and the Queen and her
brother caught at it leading to the murder of a witness.

You've been watching film on fast forward for the dirty bits again,
haven't you?

===
= DUG.
===
Ignis Fatuus
2011-04-22 00:26:37 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:16:14 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
Post by Duggy
Post by Ignis Fatuus
Which managed to rise above the basic 'Who's shagging Who' plotlines
of the average bedroom soap. What's worse, in Drones, was the
inordinate amount of time spent watching them at it like so many dogs
in the street.
There were, what, 3 sex scenes? A honeymoon night of an ex-Dragon
King's sister and the head of the army that is going to help restore
the Dragon King's power, a imp with prostitutes and the Queen and her
brother caught at it leading to the murder of a witness.
You've been watching film on fast forward for the dirty bits again,
haven't you?
No. If I were after dirty bits I'm sure I could find dirtier bits
elsewhere. Lots of tits and bums and long faces and sweaty copulation
and folk being King or wanting to be King or plotting to be King or
resenting being bastards... but I was hoping for a bit of a story.
Duggy
2011-04-25 01:09:51 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:16:14 -0700 (PDT),Duggy
Post by Duggy
You've been watching film on fast forward for the dirty bits again,
haven't you?
No. If I were after dirty bits I'm sure I could find dirtier bits
elsewhere. Lots of tits and bums and long faces and sweaty copulation
One guy with a prostitute, one girl naked twice (once on her wedding
night), one brief scene with a body double and some drunken topless
and semi-topless revellry at the wedding. In 60 minutes of scene
time.

There was a lot more going on then that. Get over it.

===
= DUG.
===
Ignis Fatuus
2011-04-25 01:16:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 18:09:51 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
Post by Duggy
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:16:14 -0700 (PDT),Duggy
Post by Duggy
You've been watching film on fast forward for the dirty bits again,
haven't you?
No. If I were after dirty bits I'm sure I could find dirtier bits
elsewhere. Lots of tits and bums and long faces and sweaty copulation
One guy with a prostitute, one girl naked twice (once on her wedding
night), one brief scene with a body double and some drunken topless
and semi-topless revellry at the wedding. In 60 minutes of scene
time.
There was a lot more going on then that. Get over it.
A lot of unpleasant folk stabbing each other in the back and scheming
to grab each others' lands. <Yawn>. I'm over it, won't be watching any
more. You're the one keeps harping on.
Duggy
2011-04-25 06:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
A lot of unpleasant folk stabbing each other in the back and scheming
to grab each others' lands. <Yawn>. I'm over it, won't be watching any
more. You're the one keeps harping on.
One character was planning to try to get his old throne back, but he
certainly wasn't backstabbing anyone (just abusing his sister).

There were 2 characters scheming, but I don't recall them trying to
get anyone else's lands... one of the was Queen: she's already got the
lands.

===
= DUG.
===
p***@aol.com
2011-04-22 00:26:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
Which managed to rise above the basic 'Who's shagging Who' plotlines
of the average bedroom soap. What's worse, in Drones, was the
inordinate amount of time spent watching them at it like so many dogs
in the street.
There were, what, 3 sex scenes?  A honeymoon night of an ex-Dragon
King's sister and the head of the army that is going to help restore
the Dragon King's power, a imp with prostitutes and the Queen and her
brother caught at it leading to the murder of a witness.
You've been watching film on fast forward for the dirty bits again,
haven't you?
Hmm, I'm inclined to take Iggy's reactions with a pinch of salt
generally (I think he may have moaned about Being Human - which has
had something like half a dozen sex scenes over a three year run - for
being nothing but sex scenes) but ... an imp with prostitutes?
Restoring the Dragon King's power? One just sounds silly, the other's
a dull cliche with a 'randomly generate your name from a list of
common fantasy words' title thrown in.

Still, I'll at least give it a try if I ever have a TV.

Phil
Ignis Fatuus
2011-04-22 00:58:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Ignis Fatuus
Which managed to rise above the basic 'Who's shagging Who' plotlines
of the average bedroom soap. What's worse, in Drones, was the
inordinate amount of time spent watching them at it like so many dogs
in the street.
There were, what, 3 sex scenes?  A honeymoon night of an ex-Dragon
King's sister and the head of the army that is going to help restore
the Dragon King's power, a imp with prostitutes and the Queen and her
brother caught at it leading to the murder of a witness.
You've been watching film on fast forward for the dirty bits again,
haven't you?
Hmm, I'm inclined to take Iggy's reactions with a pinch of salt
generally (I think he may have moaned about Being Human - which has
had something like half a dozen sex scenes over a three year run - for
being nothing but sex scenes) but ...
The only mention I've given that heap of tripe is that I watched a
couple of episodes and it was shite. Didn't even realise it had sex
scenes. Seemed like a bunch of werewolves and vampires exploring their
deep inner feelings and releasing the pain and anguish of their
predicament <yech!>. If I want some of that I'll put on The Jungle
Book and watch King Louie Wanna Be Like You-hoo-hoo... At least it's
entertainment; not the ramblings of self-obsessed morons...
Post by p***@aol.com
an imp with prostitutes?
Restoring the Dragon King's power? One just sounds silly, the other's
a dull cliche with a 'randomly generate your name from a list of
common fantasy words' title thrown in.
Still, I'll at least give it a try if I ever have a TV.
Phil
solar penguin
2011-04-22 07:25:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
Post by p***@aol.com
Hmm, I'm inclined to take Iggy's reactions with a pinch of salt
generally (I think he may have moaned about Being Human - which has
had something like half a dozen sex scenes over a three year run - for
being nothing but sex scenes) but ...
The only mention I've given that heap of tripe is that I watched a
couple of episodes and it was shite. Didn't even realise it had sex
scenes. Seemed like a bunch of werewolves and vampires exploring their
deep inner feelings and releasing the pain and anguish of their
predicament <yech!>. If I want some of that I'll put on The Jungle
Book and watch King Louie Wanna Be Like You-hoo-hoo... At least it's
entertainment; not the ramblings of self-obsessed morons...
I agree completely. I could've almost written that myself word for
word (except I wouldn't've thought of the King Louie bit - nice
touch!)

Even ignoring the fact that anything with vampires in is crap, we're
still left with just a typical, bland, middle-market mess, with actors
earnestly emoting angst so we don't notice how one-dimensional their
characters really are.

This modern trend of relying on emoted angst instead of real
characterisation is that the characters are motivated entirely by what
they don't want or don't like (e.g. The "Alonzo" actor's character
doesn't like being a werewolf) rather than anything positive that
might actually move or inspire them.

But hey, it gives the straight fangirls and gay fanboys a chance to go
"Awww! He looks so cute when he does his angsty face!" so why bother
with proper characterisation anyway...?
p***@aol.com
2011-04-25 21:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
Post by p***@aol.com
Hmm, I'm inclined to take Iggy's reactions with a pinch of salt
generally (I think he may have moaned about Being Human - which has
had something like half a dozen sex scenes over a three year run - for
being nothing but sex scenes) but ...
The only mention I've given that heap of tripe is that I watched a
couple of episodes and it was shite. Didn't even realise it had sex
scenes. Seemed like a bunch of werewolves and vampires exploring their
deep inner feelings and releasing the pain and anguish of their
predicament <yech!>. If I want some of that I'll put on The Jungle
Book and watch King Louie Wanna Be Like You-hoo-hoo... At least it's
entertainment; not the ramblings of self-obsessed morons...
I agree completely.  I could've almost written that myself word for
word (except I wouldn't've thought of the King Louie bit - nice
touch!)
Even ignoring the fact that anything with vampires in is crap, we're
still left with just a typical, bland, middle-market mess, with actors
earnestly emoting angst so we don't notice how one-dimensional their
characters really are.
This modern trend of relying on emoted angst instead of real
characterisation is that the characters are motivated entirely by what
they don't want or don't like (e.g. The "Alonzo" actor's character
doesn't like being a werewolf) rather than anything positive that
might actually move or inspire them.
Since you've admitted to liking Dallas and Dynasty I can see why you
see it this way - however outside soap operas characters can have more
than one personality trait that defines them. You've got a character
who's a werewolf; it would be rather odd if he didn't react to that
fact in some way, either to be happy about it or to use it as a source
of 'emotional angst'. Another thing you'll have missed with your
neglect of post-80s drama is this odd concept that came up in the mid-
to late-90s called 'character development'. No longer do writers
create a character in the pilot episode and they remain a static,
unchanging personality for the next seven years (the character
doesn't, that is - the writer may well do), never learning from their
experiences or apparently remembering anything that happened in
previous episodes. If you're after that sort of thing then - to use my
favoured example of trash TV that trots out all the standard cliches
and general failings of TV drama - there are seven years' worth of
Star Trek: The Next Generation you can rewatch. Being Human has a
fairly tight story arc, and much of George's early development was
devoted to his gradual acceptance of his situation as a werewolf -
which rather necessitated starting off with him disliking it...

Phil
john smith
2011-04-26 01:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
Post by p***@aol.com
Hmm, I'm inclined to take Iggy's reactions with a pinch of salt
generally (I think he may have moaned about Being Human - which has
had something like half a dozen sex scenes over a three year run - for
being nothing but sex scenes) but ...
The only mention I've given that heap of tripe is that I watched a
couple of episodes and it was shite. Didn't even realise it had sex
scenes. Seemed like a bunch of werewolves and vampires exploring their
deep inner feelings and releasing the pain and anguish of their
predicament <yech!>. If I want some of that I'll put on The Jungle
Book and watch King Louie Wanna Be Like You-hoo-hoo... At least it's
entertainment; not the ramblings of self-obsessed morons...
I agree completely. I could've almost written that myself word for
word (except I wouldn't've thought of the King Louie bit - nice
touch!)
Even ignoring the fact that anything with vampires in is crap, we're
still left with just a typical, bland, middle-market mess, with actors
earnestly emoting angst so we don't notice how one-dimensional their
characters really are.
This modern trend of relying on emoted angst instead of real
characterisation is that the characters are motivated entirely by what
they don't want or don't like (e.g. The "Alonzo" actor's character
doesn't like being a werewolf) rather than anything positive that
might actually move or inspire them.
Since you've admitted to liking Dallas and Dynasty I can see why you
see it this way - however outside soap operas characters can have more
than one personality trait that defines them. You've got a character
who's a werewolf; it would be rather odd if he didn't react to that
fact in some way, either to be happy about it or to use it as a source
of 'emotional angst'. Another thing you'll have missed with your
neglect of post-80s drama is this odd concept that came up in the mid-
to late-90s called 'character development'. No longer do writers
create a character in the pilot episode and they remain a static,
unchanging personality for the next seven years (the character
doesn't, that is - the writer may well do), never learning from their
experiences or apparently remembering anything that happened in
previous episodes. If you're after that sort of thing then - to use my
favoured example of trash TV that trots out all the standard cliches
and general failings of TV drama - there are seven years' worth of
Star Trek: The Next Generation you can rewatch. Being Human has a
fairly tight story arc, and much of George's early development was
devoted to his gradual acceptance of his situation as a werewolf -
which rather necessitated starting off with him disliking it...

Phil




Well... you would, wouldn't you?

(No great innovative storytelling there. It's the very obvious jumping-off
point.)
solar penguin
2011-04-28 10:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@aol.com
Since you've admitted to liking Dallas and Dynasty I can see why you
see it this way - however outside soap operas characters can have more
than one personality trait that defines them.
Sorry, I should've made it clearer. I was actually arguing in favour
of characters having more than just one personality trait, as opposed
to the modern trend of only having characters defined by nothing but
angst. I want some positive, feel-good enotions in there as well.
Post by p***@aol.com
No longer do writers
create a character in the pilot episode and they remain a static,
unchanging personality for the next seven years (the character
doesn't, that is - the writer may well do),
You've put your finger on it with "the writer may well do." In the
real world, people's personalities don't change much. AFAIK my
personality hasn't really changed over the past seven years. Has
yours?

But then we're already fully developed personalities, and not being
sent on a contrived emotional journey by a writer who thinks that
"character development" somehow makes up for being too lazy to create
properly developed characters from the start of the series.
Post by p***@aol.com
If you're after that sort of thing then - to use my
favoured example of trash TV that trots out all the standard cliches
and general failings of TV drama - there are seven years' worth of
Star Trek: The Next Generation you can rewatch.
Ugh! Please, why would I enjoy crap like that?

I like fun, feel-good TV full of fun, feel-good characters. ST:TNG is
depressing, feel-dull-but-worthy TV full of depressing, dull but
worthy characters. It's the exact _opposite_ of shows like Dallas and
Dynasty. If you can't see the difference, you've no business
commenting on TV at all!
Post by p***@aol.com
Being Human has a
fairly tight story arc, and much of George's early development was
devoted to his gradual acceptance of his situation as a werewolf -
which rather necessitated starting off with him disliking it...
OTOH if the writers had started with the acceptance, you'd've been
spared all that depressing angst, and gone straight to the fun, feel-
good stage, which is what good TV ought to be about.
p***@aol.com
2011-04-28 21:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@aol.com
Since you've admitted to liking Dallas and Dynasty I can see why you
see it this way - however outside soap operas characters can have more
than one personality trait that defines them.
Sorry, I should've made it clearer.  I was actually arguing in favour
of characters having more than just one personality trait,
Then you chose odd examples - no wonder it wasn't clear! You might as
well have used classic Dr Who as an example of a show with well-
rounded characters...

as opposed
to the modern trend of only having characters defined by nothing but
angst.
You seem to be missing my point - that's not all that defines the
character, just because it happens to be one of his personality
traits.

 I want some positive, feel-good enotions in there as well.

Well, if you're looking for the Teletubbies with fangs, Being Human
won't fit the bill. But it's a show about characters proactively
trying to solve the problems in their world, and to some extent
succeeding, which is surely what good drama should do.
Post by p***@aol.com
No longer do writers
create a character in the pilot episode and they remain a static,
unchanging personality for the next seven years (the character
doesn't, that is - the writer may well do),
You've put your finger on it with "the writer may well do."  In the
real world, people's personalities don't change much.  AFAIK my
personality hasn't really changed over the past seven years.  Has
yours?
Personalities, probably not, but attitudes to events in their lives
are another matter. Do you still get hung up and angsty about an event
in your life that happened seven years ago, for instance? Being Human
introduces George, I think, six months after he was turned into a
werewolf - it's now been around three years (bearing in mind that an
implausibly large number of full moons occur during a 6-8 week season,
each season covers somewhere in the region of 6-8 months). Of course
his attitude to it will change.
But then we're already fully developed personalities, and not being
sent on a contrived emotional journey by a writer who thinks that
"character development" somehow makes up for being too lazy to create
properly developed characters from the start of the series.
Surely it's a better approach than being too lazy to create properly
developed charavcters from the start of the series and also fail to
develop them? TNG springs to mind once more...
Post by p***@aol.com
If you're after that sort of thing then - to use my
favoured example of trash TV that trots out all the standard cliches
and general failings of TV drama - there are seven years' worth of
Star Trek: The Next Generation you can rewatch.
Ugh!  Please, why would I enjoy crap like that?
I could ask you the same about Dallas...
I like fun, feel-good TV full of fun, feel-good characters.  ST:TNG is
depressing, feel-dull-but-worthy TV full of depressing, dull but
worthy characters.
This much is very true.
Post by p***@aol.com
Being Human has a
fairly tight story arc, and much of George's early development was
devoted to his gradual acceptance of his situation as a werewolf -
which rather necessitated starting off with him disliking it...
OTOH if the writers had started with the acceptance, you'd've been
spared all that depressing angst, and gone straight to the fun, feel-
good stage, which is what good TV ought to be about.
No, I don't think Being Human's the sort of show that goes for a fun,
feel-good stage, with or without werewolf angst...

Phil
Duggy
2011-04-22 00:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Reverse reviews!  I love it!  I thought it was very ho-hum.  Where's the
fucking fantasy?
Seen a lot of direwolves have you?

===
= DUG.
===
Charles E Hardwidge
2011-04-21 15:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Despite the remarkably rave reviews from all and sundry I've never been
particularly interested in seeing this. But now that you've panned it I'm
off to the torrent sites post haste!! If it's half as good as all the
other shows I love and you hate then it could turn out to be a
favourite...
The second I heard of Game of Thrones I twigged what audience it was being
aimed at and had zero interest. After reading comment by the easily hooked
and emo types that's not changing. Still, I'm sure it will be a dazzling
emotional rollercoaster if you're into that sort of thing.

Christ, I've had more fun at a funeral.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
The Doctor
2011-04-21 19:52:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles E Hardwidge
Post by Soze
Despite the remarkably rave reviews from all and sundry I've never been
particularly interested in seeing this. But now that you've panned it I'm
off to the torrent sites post haste!! If it's half as good as all the
other shows I love and you hate then it could turn out to be a
favourite...
The second I heard of Game of Thrones I twigged what audience it was being
aimed at and had zero interest. After reading comment by the easily hooked
and emo types that's not changing. Still, I'm sure it will be a dazzling
emotional rollercoaster if you're into that sort of thing.
Christ, I've had more fun at a funeral.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Said a corpse.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
Stop Stephen Harper ! on 2 May 2011 vote Harper out and Ignatieff in!
powrwrap
2011-04-21 18:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
I was evidently wrongheaded in thinking that this pseudo-medieval
fantasy would have anything in common with Lord of the Rings or even
Legend of the Seeker. Instead we were treated to the bedroom antics of
a bunch of uniquely unpleasant characters, in a soft-porn soap that
has more in common with Dallas, Dynasty, and the like. The unfolding
plot is complex, repetitive, and unremittingly dull.
MetaCritic score = 81 out of 100

User Score = 9 out of 10 (only Sherlock, Season 1 tops this User
Score)

http://www.metacritic.com/tv/game-of-thrones/season-1
Ignis Fatuus
2011-04-21 20:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by powrwrap
Post by Ignis Fatuus
I was evidently wrongheaded in thinking that this pseudo-medieval
fantasy would have anything in common with Lord of the Rings or even
Legend of the Seeker. Instead we were treated to the bedroom antics of
a bunch of uniquely unpleasant characters, in a soft-porn soap that
has more in common with Dallas, Dynasty, and the like. The unfolding
plot is complex, repetitive, and unremittingly dull.
MetaCritic score = 81 out of 100
User Score = 9 out of 10 (only Sherlock, Season 1 tops this User
Score)
http://www.metacritic.com/tv/game-of-thrones/season-1
I'm not sure I see the relevance. Are you telling me that our opinions
should now be programmed into us?

<Gee it's Brilliant... it got a Huge score...>
solar penguin
2011-04-21 22:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
I was evidently wrongheaded in thinking that this pseudo-medieval
fantasy would have anything in common with Lord of the Rings or even
Legend of the Seeker. Instead we were treated to the bedroom antics of
a bunch of uniquely unpleasant characters, in a soft-porn soap that
has more in common with Dallas, Dynasty, and the like. The unfolding
plot is complex, repetitive, and unremittingly dull.
I'm not quite sure what this is about, and Googling "Game of Drones"
didn't give anything helpful, but... Why are you suggesting being like
Dallas and Dynasty is a bad thing?

After all, they were really great soaps, full of glamour and escapism
and excitement. Much better than the soaps we get nowadays. I'd take
them over the gloom of EastEnders, or the blandness of Corrie any time.
Soze
2011-04-21 23:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
I was evidently wrongheaded in thinking that this pseudo-medieval
fantasy would have anything in common with Lord of the Rings or even
Legend of the Seeker. Instead we were treated to the bedroom antics of
a bunch of uniquely unpleasant characters, in a soft-porn soap that
has more in common with Dallas, Dynasty, and the like. The unfolding
plot is complex, repetitive, and unremittingly dull.
I'm not quite sure what this is about, and Googling "Game of Drones"
didn't give anything helpful, but... Why are you suggesting being like
Dallas and Dynasty is a bad thing?
Game of Thrones...it's an apparently quite expensive new TV show based on a
popular series of sword and sorcery type books. I think it's being shown on
SKY. The reactions to it have been incredibly strong overall and it's
already been granted a second series...I can't say it appeals to me
personally but I'll give the first few episodes a go and see if takes hold.
Duggy
2011-04-22 00:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Game of Thrones...it's an apparently quite expensive new TV show based on a
popular series of sword and sorcery type books.
Sword and Sorcery how?

===
= DUG.
===
Soze
2011-04-22 08:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Game of Thrones...it's an apparently quite expensive new TV show based on a
popular series of sword and sorcery type books.
Sword and Sorcery how?
I haven't seen it, from what I know of it is has lots of people fighting
with swords. Perhaps I'm wrong about the sorcery part but someone mentioned
dragons earlier on and the 2 normally go hand in hand in books of these
sort.
Duggy
2011-04-25 01:15:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
Game of Thrones...it's an apparently quite expensive new TV show based on a
popular series of sword and sorcery type books.
Sword and Sorcery how?
I haven't seen it, from what I know of it is has lots of people fighting
with swords. Perhaps I'm wrong about the sorcery part but someone mentioned
dragons earlier on and the 2 normally go hand in hand in books of these
sort.
Fantasy has many subgenres. Swords & Sorcery is one. High Fantasy is
another.

Conan is swords and sorcery. Tolkien is high fantasy.

Game of Thrones is high fantasy.

Just because something has swords and/or sorcery in it doesn't make it
swords and sorcery.

===
= DUG.
===
Ignis Fatuus
2011-04-25 01:25:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 18:15:51 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
Post by Duggy
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
Game of Thrones...it's an apparently quite expensive new TV show based on a
popular series of sword and sorcery type books.
Sword and Sorcery how?
I haven't seen it, from what I know of it is has lots of people fighting
with swords. Perhaps I'm wrong about the sorcery part but someone mentioned
dragons earlier on and the 2 normally go hand in hand in books of these
sort.
Fantasy has many subgenres. Swords & Sorcery is one. High Fantasy is
another.
Conan is swords and sorcery. Tolkien is high fantasy.
Game of Thrones is high fantasy.
Just because something has swords and/or sorcery in it doesn't make it
swords and sorcery.
In this particular instance it just makes dross. Seeker was crudely
done but far more entertaining.
Duggy
2011-04-25 06:25:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
In this particular instance it just makes dross. Seeker was crudely
done but far more entertaining.
Legend of the Seeker was a LCD paint by numbers show for kids that
seemed to think the view needed to be told everything 5 or 6 times to
even begin to get it.

===
= DUG.
===
Soze
2011-04-25 17:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
Game of Thrones...it's an apparently quite expensive new TV show based
on
a
popular series of sword and sorcery type books.
Sword and Sorcery how?
I haven't seen it, from what I know of it is has lots of people fighting
with swords. Perhaps I'm wrong about the sorcery part but someone mentioned
dragons earlier on and the 2 normally go hand in hand in books of these
sort.
Fantasy has many subgenres. Swords & Sorcery is one. High Fantasy is
another.
Conan is swords and sorcery. Tolkien is high fantasy.
Game of Thrones is high fantasy.
Just because something has swords and/or sorcery in it doesn't make it
swords and sorcery.
Not being a particular fan of fantasy I didn't realise there were so many
sub genres to be had. What does `high fantasy` constitute?? As far as I'm
concerned if something features swords and sorcery in any form of measure
then I'm justified in calling it sword and sorcery!
john smith
2011-04-25 20:24:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
Game of Thrones...it's an apparently quite expensive new TV show based
on
a
popular series of sword and sorcery type books.
Sword and Sorcery how?
I haven't seen it, from what I know of it is has lots of people fighting
with swords. Perhaps I'm wrong about the sorcery part but someone mentioned
dragons earlier on and the 2 normally go hand in hand in books of these
sort.
Fantasy has many subgenres. Swords & Sorcery is one. High Fantasy is
another.
Conan is swords and sorcery. Tolkien is high fantasy.
Game of Thrones is high fantasy.
Is it? Having not read the books and just having seen the TV series, on
what evidence? Apart from a few mentions of dragons and some petrified
dragon eggs, it could just be any old medieval saga...
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
Just because something has swords and/or sorcery in it doesn't make it
swords and sorcery.
Not being a particular fan of fantasy I didn't realise there were so many
sub genres to be had. What does `high fantasy` constitute?? As far as I'm
concerned if something features swords and sorcery in any form of measure
then I'm justified in calling it sword and sorcery!
Like "Jason and the Argonauts"? Like all the "Sinbad" films?
Charles E Hardwidge
2011-04-25 21:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by john smith
Is it? Having not read the books and just having seen the TV series, on
what evidence? Apart from a few mentions of dragons and some petrified
dragon eggs, it could just be any old medieval saga...
Dualism in action. People like labels and differentiations especially the
suits and marketing types. Makes them feel competent and fuzzy.

Saw some chart laying out different art movements and the thing looked like
a ball of string a cat had been playing with.

Doesn't take much of a leap to figure most of the world is like that only
our dim minds doesn't see enough of it to go batshit insane.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
The Doctor
2011-04-25 23:09:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles E Hardwidge
Post by john smith
Is it? Having not read the books and just having seen the TV series, on
what evidence? Apart from a few mentions of dragons and some petrified
dragon eggs, it could just be any old medieval saga...
Dualism in action. People like labels and differentiations especially the
suits and marketing types. Makes them feel competent and fuzzy.
Saw some chart laying out different art movements and the thing looked like
a ball of string a cat had been playing with.
Doesn't take much of a leap to figure most of the world is like that only
our dim minds doesn't see enough of it to go batinsane.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Any chance you can be cherry for once?
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
Stop Stephen Harper ! on 2 May 2011 vote Harper out and Ignatieff in!
john smith
2011-04-26 01:34:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles E Hardwidge
Post by john smith
Is it? Having not read the books and just having seen the TV series, on
what evidence? Apart from a few mentions of dragons and some petrified
dragon eggs, it could just be any old medieval saga...
Dualism in action. People like labels and differentiations especially the
suits and marketing types. Makes them feel competent and fuzzy.
Saw some chart laying out different art movements and the thing looked like
a ball of string a cat had been playing with.
Doesn't take much of a leap to figure most of the world is like that only
our dim minds doesn't see enough of it to go batshit insane.
I am Cthulhu and I claim you as my shoggoth!
Post by Charles E Hardwidge
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Duggy
2011-04-26 00:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Post by Duggy
Game of Thrones is high fantasy.
Is it?  Having not read the books and just having seen the TV series, on
what evidence?  Apart from a few mentions of dragons and some petrified
dragon eggs, it could just be any old medieval saga...
You obviously missed the walking dead during the pre-credit openning.
Post by Soze
Post by Duggy
Just because something has swords and/or sorcery in it doesn't make it
swords and sorcery.
Not being a particular fan of fantasy I didn't realise there were so many
sub genres to be had. What does `high fantasy` constitute?? As far as I'm
concerned if something features swords and sorcery in any form of measure
then I'm justified in calling it sword and sorcery!
Like "Jason and the Argonauts"?  Like all the "Sinbad" films?
Swords and Sandals films.

===
= DUG.
===
john smith
2011-04-26 01:39:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Post by Duggy
Game of Thrones is high fantasy.
Is it? Having not read the books and just having seen the TV series, on
what evidence? Apart from a few mentions of dragons and some petrified
dragon eggs, it could just be any old medieval saga...
You obviously missed the walking dead during the pre-credit openning.



They were walking dead, were they? How am I supposed to know that if it's
not mentioned in the bloody programme? Just coz you've read the books
doesn't mean you have to be such an apologist for the TV series...
Post by Soze
Post by Duggy
Just because something has swords and/or sorcery in it doesn't make it
swords and sorcery.
Not being a particular fan of fantasy I didn't realise there were so many
sub genres to be had. What does `high fantasy` constitute?? As far as I'm
concerned if something features swords and sorcery in any form of measure
then I'm justified in calling it sword and sorcery!
Like "Jason and the Argonauts"? Like all the "Sinbad" films?
Swords and Sandals films.


Rubbish! 'Swords and sandals' are generally pure historicals, Roman, Greek,
etc., and don't have magic and demons, flying carpets and reanimated
skeletons, mythological creatures and giant brass statues stomping around
the shop...

That is, if you want to *label* everything like you seem to...




===
= DUG.
===
Ignis Fatuus
2011-04-26 02:08:02 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 02:39:23 +0100, "john smith"
Post by Duggy
Post by Soze
Post by Duggy
Game of Thrones is high fantasy.
Is it? Having not read the books and just having seen the TV series, on
what evidence? Apart from a few mentions of dragons and some petrified
dragon eggs, it could just be any old medieval saga...
You obviously missed the walking dead during the pre-credit openning.
They were walking dead, were they? How am I supposed to know that if it's
not mentioned in the bloody programme? Just coz you've read the books
doesn't mean you have to be such an apologist for the TV series...
Post by Soze
Post by Duggy
Just because something has swords and/or sorcery in it doesn't make it
swords and sorcery.
Not being a particular fan of fantasy I didn't realise there were so many
sub genres to be had. What does `high fantasy` constitute?? As far as I'm
concerned if something features swords and sorcery in any form of measure
then I'm justified in calling it sword and sorcery!
Like "Jason and the Argonauts"? Like all the "Sinbad" films?
Swords and Sandals films.
Rubbish! 'Swords and sandals' are generally pure historicals, Roman, Greek,
etc., and don't have magic and demons, flying carpets and reanimated
skeletons, mythological creatures and giant brass statues stomping around
the shop...
That is, if you want to *label* everything like you seem to...
Is Crap a genre? If so would that make Boring Crap a sub-genre? Might
then Drivel, Bollocks, and Soap be regarded as related categories?
This classification business is trickier than I thought.
Duggy
2011-04-26 03:24:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duggy
You obviously missed the walking dead during the pre-credit openning.
They were walking dead, were they?  How am I supposed to know that if it's
not mentioned in the bloody programme?
Actually watch the show. Dead girl pinned to tree turns up moments
later as glowing-eyed not-dead girl.

She's walking dead or something magical. I don't know what. Whatever
it is it is more than "a few mentions of dragons and some petrified
dragon eggs"
Post by Duggy
Post by Soze
then I'm justified in calling it sword and sorcery!
Like "Jason and the Argonauts"? Like all the "Sinbad" films?
Swords and Sandals films.
Rubbish!  'Swords and sandals' are generally pure historicals, Roman, Greek,
etc.,
Really? Hercules, Samson, Golith, etc. These are purely historical
to you?
Post by Duggy
That is, if you want to *label* everything like you seem to...
Yes. I'm the only one.

===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
2011-04-30 07:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duggy
You obviously missed the walking dead during the pre-credit openning.
They were walking dead, were they?  How am I supposed to know that if it's
not mentioned in the bloody programme?
Actually watch the show.  Dead girl pinned to tree turns up moments
later as glowing-eyed not-dead girl.
She's walking dead or something magical.  I don't know what.  Whatever
it is it is more than "a few mentions of dragons and some petrified
dragon eggs"
Post by Duggy
Post by Soze
then I'm justified in calling it sword and sorcery!
Like "Jason and the Argonauts"? Like all the "Sinbad" films?
Swords and Sandals films.
Rubbish!  'Swords and sandals' are generally pure historicals, Roman, Greek,
etc.,
Really?  Hercules, Samson, Golith, etc.  These are purely historical
to you?
Post by Duggy
That is, if you want to *label* everything like you seem to...
Yes.  I'm the only one.
As I though, Mr Smith, you run away when you're beaten.

===
= DUG.
===
john smith
2011-04-30 14:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duggy
You obviously missed the walking dead during the pre-credit openning.
They were walking dead, were they? How am I supposed to know that if
it's
not mentioned in the bloody programme?
Actually watch the show. Dead girl pinned to tree turns up moments
later as glowing-eyed not-dead girl.
She's walking dead or something magical. I don't know what. Whatever
it is it is more than "a few mentions of dragons and some petrified
dragon eggs"
Post by Duggy
Post by Soze
then I'm justified in calling it sword and sorcery!
Like "Jason and the Argonauts"? Like all the "Sinbad" films?
Swords and Sandals films.
Rubbish! 'Swords and sandals' are generally pure historicals, Roman,
Greek,
etc.,
Really? Hercules, Samson, Golith, etc. These are purely historical
to you?
Post by Duggy
That is, if you want to *label* everything like you seem to...
Yes. I'm the only one.
As I though, Mr Smith, you run away when you're beaten.




It's the only sane response, isn't it? ;-)



===
= DUG.
===
p***@aol.com
2011-05-02 01:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duggy
Post by Duggy
Game of Thrones is high fantasy.
Is it? Having not read the books and just having seen the TV series, on
what evidence? Apart from a few mentions of dragons and some petrified
dragon eggs, it could just be any old medieval saga...
You obviously missed the walking dead during the pre-credit openning.
They were walking dead, were they?  How am I supposed to know that if it's
not mentioned in the bloody programme?  
What about that whole sequence about them finding the corpses, and
then later observing that they'd moved camp... Or the zombie girl come
to that?

Phil
john smith
2011-05-02 02:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duggy
Post by Duggy
Game of Thrones is high fantasy.
Is it? Having not read the books and just having seen the TV series, on
what evidence? Apart from a few mentions of dragons and some petrified
dragon eggs, it could just be any old medieval saga...
You obviously missed the walking dead during the pre-credit openning.
They were walking dead, were they? How am I supposed to know that if it's
not mentioned in the bloody programme?
What about that whole sequence about them finding the corpses, and
then later observing that they'd moved camp... Or the zombie girl come
to that?

Phil



Could've been any old fantasy bollocks... (Weren't they called White
Walkers or somesuch?)
Duggy
2011-05-02 04:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Duggy
Game of Thrones is high fantasy.
Is it? Having not read the books and just having seen the TV series, on
what evidence? Apart from a few mentions of dragons and some petrified
dragon eggs, it could just be any old medieval saga...
What about that whole sequence about them finding the corpses, and
then later observing that they'd moved camp... Or the zombie girl come
to that?
Could've been any old fantasy bollocks...  (Weren't they called White
Walkers or somesuch?)
So you admit it was fantasy. Thank you.

===
= DUG.
===
p***@aol.com
2011-04-25 21:32:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
Game of Thrones...it's an apparently quite expensive new TV show based
on
a
popular series of sword and sorcery type books.
Sword and Sorcery how?
I haven't seen it, from what I know of it is has lots of people fighting
with swords. Perhaps I'm wrong about the sorcery part but someone mentioned
dragons earlier on and the 2 normally go hand in hand in books of these
sort.
Fantasy has many subgenres.  Swords & Sorcery is one.  High Fantasy is
another.
Conan is swords and sorcery.  Tolkien is high fantasy.
Game of Thrones is high fantasy.
Just because something has swords and/or sorcery in it doesn't make it
swords and sorcery.
Not being a particular fan of fantasy I didn't realise there were so many
sub genres to be had. What does `high fantasy` constitute?? As far as I'm
concerned if something features swords and sorcery in any form of measure
then I'm justified in calling it sword and sorcery!
While there are definitely subgenres of fantasy, I don't understand
the distinction being suggested between 'high fantasy' and 'swords and
sorcery' - high fantasy is just the name fans apply to the genre
detractors call 'swords and sorcery'! It's nonsense to say that
Tolkien *isn't* swords and sorcery when its his work that frames the
public conception that fantasy = swords and sorcery! Thematically,
there's not much to distinguish Conan from LotR - he gets into more
punch-ups, but it's the same style of battles, monsters, magic, epic
quests and kingdoms at war that characterises LotR.

Phil
Duggy
2011-04-26 03:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@aol.com
While there are definitely subgenres of fantasy, I don't understand
the distinction being suggested between 'high fantasy' and 'swords and
sorcery' - high fantasy is just the name fans apply to the genre
detractors call 'swords and sorcery'! It's nonsense to say that
Tolkien *isn't* swords and sorcery when its his work that frames the
public conception that fantasy = swords and sorcery! Thematically,
there's not much to distinguish Conan from LotR - he gets into more
punch-ups, but it's the same style of battles, monsters, magic, epic
quests and kingdoms at war that characterises LotR.
Conan has very few epic quests, which is the major distinction.

High Fantasy a world is created and the characters change that world.
There is a one ring and it must be destroyed to free all the lands
from the evil.

Swords and Sorcery, there's a guy on a horse and he runs into
adventure. (It may not be a guy, (s)he may not have a horse).

===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
2011-04-26 00:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Not being a particular fan of fantasy I didn't realise there were so many
sub genres to be had.
High fantasy, low fantasy, magic realism, contempory fantasy, dark
fantasy, sword and sorcery, science fantasy, Bangsian fantasy,
fairytales, heroic fantasy, historical fantasy, mythology, paranomal
romance.
Post by Soze
What does `high fantasy` constitute??
High Fantasy are epic story set in created world, sagas and battles
between good and evil.
Sword & Sorcery are pulp like stories swashbuckling tales of adventure
and personal stakes.
Post by Soze
As far as I'm concerned if something features swords and sorcery in any form of measure
then I'm justified in calling it sword and sorcery!
You only use that term because you've others use it but clearly didn't
know how to use it properly.

Terminator 2 had steam and punks in it. Terminator 2 must be
steampunk.

Bones has science in it and is fiction. Bones must be science
fiction.

===
= DUG.
===
Soze
2011-04-26 20:53:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
As far as I'm concerned if something features swords and sorcery in any form of measure
then I'm justified in calling it sword and sorcery!
You only use that term because you've others use it but clearly didn't
know how to use it properly.
In my defence I think only the most anal of fantasy fans would know the
difference between all those split genres. To most people fantasy is sword
and sorcery. That's not an insult, there are things I'm anal about...this
just isn't one of them.
Duggy
2011-04-27 10:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
As far as I'm concerned if something features swords and sorcery in any form of measure
then I'm justified in calling it sword and sorcery!
You only use that term because you've others use it but clearly didn't
know how to use it properly.
In my defence I think only the most anal of fantasy fans would know the
difference between all those split genres. To most people fantasy is sword
and sorcery. That's not an insult, there are things I'm anal about...this
just isn't one of them.
Not so much fantasy, but a degree in English Literature.

===
= DUG.
===
p***@aol.com
2011-04-27 12:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duggy
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
As far as I'm concerned if something features swords and sorcery in any
form of measure
then I'm justified in calling it sword and sorcery!
You only use that term because you've others use it but clearly didn't
know how to use it properly.
In my defence I think only the most anal of fantasy fans would know the
difference between all those split genres. To most people fantasy is sword
and sorcery. That's not an insult, there are things I'm anal about...this
just isn't one of them.
Not so much fantasy, but a degree in English Literature.
Oh, you poor guy. Admitting to being a fantasy nerd would probably
have been less embarrassing...

Phil
john smith
2011-04-28 01:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duggy
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
As far as I'm concerned if something features swords and sorcery in any
form of measure
then I'm justified in calling it sword and sorcery!
You only use that term because you've others use it but clearly didn't
know how to use it properly.
In my defence I think only the most anal of fantasy fans would know the
difference between all those split genres. To most people fantasy is sword
and sorcery. That's not an insult, there are things I'm anal
about...this
just isn't one of them.
Not so much fantasy, but a degree in English Literature.
Oh, you poor guy. Admitting to being a fantasy nerd would probably
have been less embarrassing...

Phil



LOL! That's exactly what I was thinking!
Duggy
2011-04-28 02:33:01 UTC
Permalink
LOL!  That's exactly what I was thinking!
LOL! You were thinking?

===
= DUG.
===
john smith
2011-04-28 15:52:59 UTC
Permalink
LOL! That's exactly what I was thinking!
LOL! You were thinking?

===
= DUG.
===



Well, what passes for 'thinking' in my head, anyway... ;-)
Duggy
2011-04-30 01:20:01 UTC
Permalink
LOL! That's exactly what I was thinking!
LOL!  You were thinking?
Well, what passes for 'thinking' in my head, anyway... ;-)
I know the feeling.

===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
2011-04-28 02:31:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Duggy
Not so much fantasy, but a degree in English Literature.
Oh, you poor guy. Admitting to being a fantasy nerd would probably
have been less embarrassing...
I know, I know.

===
= DUG.
===
john smith
2011-04-28 01:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
As far as I'm concerned if something features swords and sorcery in any form of measure
then I'm justified in calling it sword and sorcery!
You only use that term because you've others use it but clearly didn't
know how to use it properly.
In my defence I think only the most anal of fantasy fans would know the
difference between all those split genres. To most people fantasy is sword
and sorcery. That's not an insult, there are things I'm anal about...this
just isn't one of them.
Not so much fantasy, but a degree in English Literature.



What's that got to do with the price of Spam?



===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
2011-04-28 02:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by john smith
What's that got to do with the price of Spam?
What does literature sub-genre labeling have to do with having studied
literature?

===
= DUG.
===
Ignis Fatuus
2011-04-21 23:36:54 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:55:15 -0700 (PDT), solar penguin
Post by solar penguin
Post by Ignis Fatuus
I was evidently wrongheaded in thinking that this pseudo-medieval
fantasy would have anything in common with Lord of the Rings or even
Legend of the Seeker. Instead we were treated to the bedroom antics of
a bunch of uniquely unpleasant characters, in a soft-porn soap that
has more in common with Dallas, Dynasty, and the like. The unfolding
plot is complex, repetitive, and unremittingly dull.
I'm not quite sure what this is about, and Googling "Game of Drones"
didn't give anything helpful, but... Why are you suggesting being like
Dallas and Dynasty is a bad thing?
Curious. It worked for me without a problem. Something to do with your
browser settings, perhaps? Have you tried connecting to the internet?
Post by solar penguin
After all, they were really great soaps, full of glamour and escapism
and excitement. Much better than the soaps we get nowadays. I'd take
them over the gloom of EastEnders, or the blandness of Corrie any time.
If that's your idea of excitement then go for it. I'm sure you'll be
enthralled.
Duggy
2011-04-22 00:18:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
If that's your idea of excitement then go for it. I'm sure you'll be
enthralled.
I understand, mindless action is the only thing that you count as
excitement. Got you.

===
= DUG.
===
Ignis Fatuus
2011-04-22 00:43:34 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:18:17 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
Post by Duggy
Post by Ignis Fatuus
If that's your idea of excitement then go for it. I'm sure you'll be
enthralled.
I understand, mindless action is the only thing that you count as
excitement. Got you.
No, I'm more the cerebral type, if you follow me. Dark mysteries,
cunning plots, trials, tribulations and human endeavour. All this
dickwaving and tepid palace intrigues are as exciting as a night in
the snug at the Rovers Return. If Tolkein had wallowed in this kind of
flummery, we might never have seen beyond Bag End.
Duggy
2011-04-25 01:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
No, I'm more the cerebral type, if you follow me. Dark mysteries,
cunning plots, trials, tribulations and human endeavour.
You should like Game of Thrones then. I'd look for it if I was you.
Post by Ignis Fatuus
All this dickwaving
You're thinking of Sparticus.
Post by Ignis Fatuus
and tepid palace intrigues are as exciting as a night in
the snug at the Rovers Return. If Tolkein had wallowed in this kind of
flummery, we might never have seen beyond Bag End.
Yeah, 'cause Tolkien was fast paced.

===
= DUG.
===
Ignis Fatuus
2011-04-25 01:23:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 18:11:57 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
Post by Duggy
Post by Ignis Fatuus
No, I'm more the cerebral type, if you follow me. Dark mysteries,
cunning plots, trials, tribulations and human endeavour.
You should like Game of Thrones then. I'd look for it if I was you.
I wasn't thinking about the dull ploddings of a bunch of surly
aristocrats.

Pillars of the Earth was more my kind of thing.
Post by Duggy
Post by Ignis Fatuus
All this dickwaving
You're thinking of Sparticus.
Never heard of it. Were you thinking of Spartacus? The Kubrick/Douglas
version was pretty good. Exceptional score by Alex North.
Post by Duggy
Post by Ignis Fatuus
and tepid palace intrigues are as exciting as a night in
the snug at the Rovers Return. If Tolkein had wallowed in this kind of
flummery, we might never have seen beyond Bag End.
Yeah, 'cause Tolkien was fast paced.
Not particularly. He just knew how to spin a more intriguing yarn.
p***@aol.com
2011-05-02 01:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duggy
Post by Ignis Fatuus
If that's your idea of excitement then go for it. I'm sure you'll be
enthralled.
I understand, mindless action is the only thing that you count as
excitement.  Got you.
In fairness, mindless action is generally preferable to mindless
inaction, which is pretty much what the first episode of Game of
Thrones delivered...

Phil
Duggy
2011-05-02 04:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Duggy
Post by Ignis Fatuus
If that's your idea of excitement then go for it. I'm sure you'll be
enthralled.
I understand, mindless action is the only thing that you count as
excitement.  Got you.
In fairness, mindless action is generally preferable to mindless
inaction, which is pretty much what the first episode of Game of
Thrones delivered...
I disagree with the mindless.

===
= DUG.
===
solar penguin
2011-04-22 06:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:55:15 -0700 (PDT), solar penguin
Post by solar penguin
I'm not quite sure what this is about, and Googling "Game of Drones"
didn't give anything helpful, but... Why are you suggesting being like
Dallas and Dynasty is a bad thing?
Curious. It worked for me without a problem. Something to do with your
browser settings, perhaps? Have you tried connecting to the internet?
Actually, Google did suggest "Did you mean 'Game of Thrones'?" but I
rather naively assumed you didn't mean it, because if you'd meant
that, then you'd've said it in the first place!
Charles E Hardwidge
2011-04-22 00:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by solar penguin
I'm not quite sure what this is about, and Googling "Game of Drones"
didn't give anything helpful, but... Why are you suggesting being like
Dallas and Dynasty is a bad thing?
After all, they were really great soaps, full of glamour and escapism
and excitement. Much better than the soaps we get nowadays. I'd take
them over the gloom of EastEnders, or the blandness of Corrie any time.
You almost couldn't get a bigger separation between US and UK TV. It pretty
much shows up the different psychologies. Exactly how much this is down to
the management classes versus the rest is another thing.

I was going to mention it in an earlier topic but, simply, most top
economists recognise Britain's broken economic fundaments. That's wrapped up
in the class structure, history, and culture. It's competition gone wrong
and so twisted back on itself it cant change.

It's an old line and one I've used myself but popularised more recently when
Obama (who I don't think is very bright) said "it's an individual and
collective problem" during his presidential campaigning.

The invisible hand of mass culture and individual psychology are linked.
Sometimes this can be very hard to spot as we live within it, and outside
forces challenging that are misunderstood or repelled. At its extreme it's
the classic cult or terrorist cell mentality. That's where choice or more
importantly being aware we have a choice matters.

The US definitely gets the idea of quality character driven shows with story
arcs now just as British TV is getting a clue about format and production.
So some positive change has happened. Exactly how far it goes and how longs
it lasts, I guess, we'll find out.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
solar penguin
2011-04-22 06:40:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles E Hardwidge
Post by solar penguin
Why are you suggesting being like
Dallas and Dynasty is a bad thing?
After all, they were really great soaps, full of glamour and escapism
and excitement. Much better than the soaps we get nowadays. I'd take
them over the gloom of EastEnders, or the blandness of Corrie any time.
You almost couldn't get a bigger separation between US and UK TV.
I think it's more a seperation between "then" and "now", rather than
US and UK. Even the USA doesn't make proper, old-fashioned dramas
like Dallas and Dynasty any more, just awful modern-style middle-brow,
middle-market rubbish that's neither lowbrow enough to be fun nor
highbrow enough to be satisfying.

Yes, yes, I know people say that things like Rome and The Tudors were
a bit like Dallas or Dynasty. But these people were just plain
wrong. It was always going to be a mistake mixing the wonderfully
lowbrow gloss and glamour and glitz of those soaps with the highbrow
history of "I, Clavdivs" or "The 6 Wives of Henry VIII". The end
result was a bland, ugly mess, as if you'd put your favourite main
course and your favourite dessert in a liquidiser and blended them
together.

So anyway, I'm not sure why Iggy is taking the trouble to start a
thread complaining that a modern TV drama isn't very good. You could
say that about almost any of them from the past 15 years! What did he
expect? OTOH if by some miracle someone actually manages to make a
modern drama that isn't crap, then that would be worth mentioning...
Soze
2011-04-22 08:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by solar penguin
So anyway, I'm not sure why Iggy is taking the trouble to start a
thread complaining that a modern TV drama isn't very good. You could
say that about almost any of them from the past 15 years! What did he
expect? OTOH if by some miracle someone actually manages to make a
modern drama that isn't crap, then that would be worth mentioning...
As a general rule of thumb there are 2 or 3 shows on in any given year that
draw me in....and this has been the same for as long as I can remember. I
enjoy about the same rate of TV now as I did 25 years ago. Admittedly stuff
like Dynasty and Dallas doesn't appeal to me at all mind. I think if I were
to compile a list of my favourite TV shows most of them would be post 1990.
Horses for courses I guess.
solar penguin
2011-04-22 09:18:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Post by solar penguin
So anyway, I'm not sure why Iggy is taking the trouble to start a
thread complaining that a modern TV drama isn't very good. You could
say that about almost any of them from the past 15 years! What did he
expect? OTOH if by some miracle someone actually manages to make a
modern drama that isn't crap, then that would be worth mentioning...
As a general rule of thumb there are 2 or 3 shows on in any given year that
draw me in....and this has been the same for as long as I can remember. I
enjoy about the same rate of TV now as I did 25 years ago. Admittedly stuff
like Dynasty and Dallas doesn't appeal to me at all mind. I think if I were
to compile a list of my favourite TV shows most of them would be post 1990.
Horses for courses I guess.
Yes, there are still 2 or 3 good shows in any given year. The only
difference is that nowadays they're not dramas, but gameshows or other
light entertainment programmes.
Soze
2011-04-24 16:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Post by solar penguin
So anyway, I'm not sure why Iggy is taking the trouble to start a
thread complaining that a modern TV drama isn't very good. You could
say that about almost any of them from the past 15 years! What did he
expect? OTOH if by some miracle someone actually manages to make a
modern drama that isn't crap, then that would be worth mentioning...
As a general rule of thumb there are 2 or 3 shows on in any given year that
draw me in....and this has been the same for as long as I can remember. I
enjoy about the same rate of TV now as I did 25 years ago. Admittedly stuff
like Dynasty and Dallas doesn't appeal to me at all mind. I think if I were
to compile a list of my favourite TV shows most of them would be post 1990.
Horses for courses I guess.
Yes, there are still 2 or 3 good shows in any given year. The only
difference is that nowadays they're not dramas, but gameshows or other
light entertainment programmes.
We have such differing tastes! Light entertainment is simply appalling
nowadays.
Soze
2011-04-28 22:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Watched the first episode of this tonight ( looking for my next TV show fix
after ploughing through the quite frankly brilliant third series of Being
Human ).

What a terrible bore. It's far too dry and po-faced with none of the wit nor
charm necessary to make something like this work. The opening hour
introduces far too many non descript characters prattling on about tedious
matters that I've been given no reason to care about. I could barely tell
one person from another and come the credits would be hard pressed to give
anyone a run down of what I've just sat through.

Whether that's my fault or the shows' I'll leave for others to decide. It
could just be that after 40 years of reading and watching genre fiction my
head is so full of useless crap that there's simply no room for any more of
it. I'm not sure I can be arsed with any more made up kingdoms, mythologies,
histories and Lords. Especially when they're as dreary as this lot. I've
downloaded the second episode and will probably give it a watch ( I've
learnt the folly of giving up on TV shows too quickly before ) but I need to
see a rapid increase in quality to stick around much longer.
john smith
2011-04-28 23:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Watched the first episode of this tonight ( looking for my next TV show
fix after ploughing through the quite frankly brilliant third series of
Being Human ).
What a terrible bore. It's far too dry and po-faced with none of the wit
nor charm necessary to make something like this work. The opening hour
introduces far too many non descript characters prattling on about tedious
matters that I've been given no reason to care about. I could barely tell
one person from another and come the credits would be hard pressed to give
anyone a run down of what I've just sat through.
Whether that's my fault or the shows' I'll leave for others to decide. It
could just be that after 40 years of reading and watching genre fiction my
head is so full of useless crap that there's simply no room for any more
of it. I'm not sure I can be arsed with any more made up kingdoms,
mythologies, histories and Lords. Especially when they're as dreary as
this lot. I've downloaded the second episode and will probably give it a
watch ( I've learnt the folly of giving up on TV shows too quickly
before ) but I need to see a rapid increase in quality to stick around
much longer.
I thought Episode 2 was a big improvement. The characters are starting to
develop (particularly the King and the Sean Beane character), there's
intrigue a-brewing, and those pet wolves are just great! Where can I get
one?
Soze
2011-04-29 17:44:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Watched the first episode of this tonight ( looking for my next TV show
fix after ploughing through the quite frankly brilliant third series of
Being Human ).
What a terrible bore. It's far too dry and po-faced with none of the wit
nor charm necessary to make something like this work. The opening hour
introduces far too many non descript characters prattling on about tedious
matters that I've been given no reason to care about. I could barely tell
one person from another and come the credits would be hard pressed to give
anyone a run down of what I've just sat through.
Whether that's my fault or the shows' I'll leave for others to decide. It
could just be that after 40 years of reading and watching genre fiction my
head is so full of useless crap that there's simply no room for any more
of it. I'm not sure I can be arsed with any more made up kingdoms,
mythologies, histories and Lords. Especially when they're as dreary as
this lot. I've downloaded the second episode and will probably give it a
watch ( I've learnt the folly of giving up on TV shows too quickly
before ) but I need to see a rapid increase in quality to stick around
much longer.
I thought Episode 2 was a big improvement. The characters are starting to
develop (particularly the King and the Sean Beane character), there's
intrigue a-brewing, and those pet wolves are just great! Where can I get
one?
I have the 2nd episode to watch but I was so utterly underwhelmed by the
first I can't bring myself to watch it yet. Planning on An American Werewolf
in London tonight, haven't seen it in years!
john smith
2011-04-29 23:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
Watched the first episode of this tonight ( looking for my next TV show
fix after ploughing through the quite frankly brilliant third series of
Being Human ).
What a terrible bore. It's far too dry and po-faced with none of the wit
nor charm necessary to make something like this work. The opening hour
introduces far too many non descript characters prattling on about
tedious matters that I've been given no reason to care about. I could
barely tell one person from another and come the credits would be hard
pressed to give anyone a run down of what I've just sat through.
Whether that's my fault or the shows' I'll leave for others to decide. It
could just be that after 40 years of reading and watching genre fiction
my head is so full of useless crap that there's simply no room for any
more of it. I'm not sure I can be arsed with any more made up kingdoms,
mythologies, histories and Lords. Especially when they're as dreary as
this lot. I've downloaded the second episode and will probably give it a
watch ( I've learnt the folly of giving up on TV shows too quickly
before ) but I need to see a rapid increase in quality to stick around
much longer.
I thought Episode 2 was a big improvement. The characters are starting to
develop (particularly the King and the Sean Beane character), there's
intrigue a-brewing, and those pet wolves are just great! Where can I get
one?
I have the 2nd episode to watch but I was so utterly underwhelmed by the
first I can't bring myself to watch it yet. Planning on An American
Werewolf in London tonight, haven't seen it in years!
Hey, Soze! As your friendly resident only-YOU-give-a-toss that I force
myself to endure all this trash (mainly films, not TV) so you don't have
to... "Die Tur"... "The Door"... In fact, everyone here should watch it as
it's about time travel (or maybe Capgras syndrome - who knows?) and - oh my
god, man! just watch it! - but it does stuff with the tropes of time
travel that kinda show up Moffat's idea of it, in that - lemme think - you
should play time travel stuff DOWN, not up - keep it low-key - Whereas
Moffat's trynna rewrite the Doctoring-the-Time-Lord stuff a bit too much...

He's gonna trip himself up - and the programme with it - if he's not as
clever as HE and others think... Episode 2 tmoz and I can't wait! Can you
download a Dalek vocader program or owt where you can make it say "SUSPEND
ALL CRITICAL THOUGHT!!!!" to have on in the background, rather than "BEWARE!
GAY AGENDA!" which was always so cleverly subliminally broadcast during
RTD's atrocious era of bringing the programme back after years?
Charles E Hardwidge
2011-04-30 00:22:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by john smith
Hey, Soze! As your friendly resident only-YOU-give-a-toss that I force
myself to endure all this trash (mainly films, not TV) so you don't have
to... "Die Tur"... "The Door"... In fact, everyone here should watch it
as it's about time travel (or maybe Capgras syndrome - who knows?) and -
oh my god, man! just watch it! - but it does stuff with the tropes of
time travel that kinda show up Moffat's idea of it, in that - lemme
think - you should play time travel stuff DOWN, not up - keep it low-key -
Whereas Moffat's trynna rewrite the Doctoring-the-Time-Lord stuff a bit
too much...
He's gonna trip himself up - and the programme with it - if he's not as
clever as HE and others think... Episode 2 tmoz and I can't wait! Can
you download a Dalek vocader program or owt where you can make it say
"SUSPEND ALL CRITICAL THOUGHT!!!!" to have on in the background, rather
than "BEWARE! GAY AGENDA!" which was always so cleverly subliminally
broadcast during RTD's atrocious era of bringing the programme back after
years?
WTF was all that gibbering about?
--
Charles E Hardwidge
The Doctor
2011-04-30 00:24:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by john smith
Hey, Soze! As your friendly resident only-YOU-give-a-toss that I force
myself to endure all this trash (mainly films, not TV) so you don't have
to... "Die Tur"... "The Door"... In fact, everyone here should watch it
as it's about time travel (or maybe Capgras syndrome - who knows?) and -
oh my god, man! just watch it! - but it does stuff with the tropes of
time travel that kinda show up Moffat's idea of it, in that - lemme
think - you should play time travel stuff DOWN, not up - keep it low-key -
Whereas Moffat's trynna rewrite the Doctoring-the-Time-Lord stuff a bit
too much...
He's gonna trip himself up - and the programme with it - if he's not as
clever as HE and others think... Episode 2 tmoz and I can't wait! Can
you download a Dalek vocader program or owt where you can make it say
"SUSPEND ALL CRITICAL THOUGHT!!!!" to have on in the background, rather
than "BEWARE! GAY AGENDA!" which was always so cleverly subliminally
broadcast during RTD's atrocious era of bringing the programme back after
years?
What was all that gibbering about?
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Must you storm?
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
Stop Stephen Harper ! on 2 May 2011 vote Harper out and Ignatieff in!
p***@aol.com
2011-04-28 23:31:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Watched the first episode of this tonight ( looking for my next TV show fix
after ploughing through the quite frankly brilliant third series of Being
Human ).
What a terrible bore. It's far too dry and po-faced with none of the wit nor
charm necessary to make something like this work. The opening hour
introduces far too many non descript characters prattling on about tedious
matters that I've been given no reason to care about. I could barely tell
one person from another and come the credits would be hard pressed to give
anyone a run down of what I've just sat through.
Isn't that what Iggy said? I'm going to be watching it tonight with
luck, so we'll see if I agree...

Phil
Soze
2011-04-29 17:43:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Watched the first episode of this tonight ( looking for my next TV show fix
after ploughing through the quite frankly brilliant third series of Being
Human ).
What a terrible bore. It's far too dry and po-faced with none of the wit nor
charm necessary to make something like this work. The opening hour
introduces far too many non descript characters prattling on about tedious
matters that I've been given no reason to care about. I could barely tell
one person from another and come the credits would be hard pressed to give
anyone a run down of what I've just sat through.
Isn't that what Iggy said? I'm going to be watching it tonight with
luck, so we'll see if I agree...
Yes, more or less. A rare case of us agreeing on something!
Ignis Fatuus
2011-04-29 19:18:14 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:43:22 +0100, "Soze"
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
Watched the first episode of this tonight ( looking for my next TV show fix
after ploughing through the quite frankly brilliant third series of Being
Human ).
What a terrible bore. It's far too dry and po-faced with none of the wit nor
charm necessary to make something like this work. The opening hour
introduces far too many non descript characters prattling on about tedious
matters that I've been given no reason to care about. I could barely tell
one person from another and come the credits would be hard pressed to give
anyone a run down of what I've just sat through.
Isn't that what Iggy said? I'm going to be watching it tonight with
luck, so we'll see if I agree...
Yes, more or less. A rare case of us agreeing on something!
<a rare case of him admitting to it>
john smith
2011-04-29 23:01:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:43:22 +0100, "Soze"
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
Watched the first episode of this tonight ( looking for my next TV show fix
after ploughing through the quite frankly brilliant third series of Being
Human ).
What a terrible bore. It's far too dry and po-faced with none of the wit nor
charm necessary to make something like this work. The opening hour
introduces far too many non descript characters prattling on about tedious
matters that I've been given no reason to care about. I could barely tell
one person from another and come the credits would be hard pressed to give
anyone a run down of what I've just sat through.
Isn't that what Iggy said? I'm going to be watching it tonight with
luck, so we'll see if I agree...
Yes, more or less. A rare case of us agreeing on something!
<a rare case of him admitting to it>
Rather churlish and Hartnelly and ungracious of you, Iggy: now I see where
you're coming from...

How many points are you in the lead so far?
Ignis Fatuus
2011-04-30 01:28:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 00:01:46 +0100, "john smith"
Post by john smith
Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:43:22 +0100, "Soze"
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
Watched the first episode of this tonight ( looking for my next TV show fix
after ploughing through the quite frankly brilliant third series of Being
Human ).
What a terrible bore. It's far too dry and po-faced with none of the wit nor
charm necessary to make something like this work. The opening hour
introduces far too many non descript characters prattling on about tedious
matters that I've been given no reason to care about. I could barely tell
one person from another and come the credits would be hard pressed to give
anyone a run down of what I've just sat through.
Isn't that what Iggy said? I'm going to be watching it tonight with
luck, so we'll see if I agree...
Yes, more or less. A rare case of us agreeing on something!
<a rare case of him admitting to it>
Rather churlish and Hartnelly and ungracious of you, Iggy: now I see where
you're coming from...
How many points are you in the lead so far?
Not nearly as many points as Hartnell has in the lead on every
replacement.
john smith
2011-04-30 14:28:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 00:01:46 +0100, "john smith"
Post by john smith
Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:43:22 +0100, "Soze"
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
Watched the first episode of this tonight ( looking for my next TV
show
fix
after ploughing through the quite frankly brilliant third series of Being
Human ).
What a terrible bore. It's far too dry and po-faced with none of the
wit
nor
charm necessary to make something like this work. The opening hour
introduces far too many non descript characters prattling on about tedious
matters that I've been given no reason to care about. I could barely tell
one person from another and come the credits would be hard pressed to give
anyone a run down of what I've just sat through.
Isn't that what Iggy said? I'm going to be watching it tonight with
luck, so we'll see if I agree...
Yes, more or less. A rare case of us agreeing on something!
<a rare case of him admitting to it>
Rather churlish and Hartnelly and ungracious of you, Iggy: now I see where
you're coming from...
How many points are you in the lead so far?
Not nearly as many points as Hartnell has in the lead on every
replacement.
Except the poor guy is long dead and buried, and life - like TV franchises -
goes on, eh?
Ignis Fatuus
2011-04-30 14:39:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:28:35 +0100, "john smith"
Post by john smith
Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 00:01:46 +0100, "john smith"
Post by john smith
Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:43:22 +0100, "Soze"
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
Watched the first episode of this tonight ( looking for my next TV
show
fix
after ploughing through the quite frankly brilliant third series of Being
Human ).
What a terrible bore. It's far too dry and po-faced with none of the
wit
nor
charm necessary to make something like this work. The opening hour
introduces far too many non descript characters prattling on about tedious
matters that I've been given no reason to care about. I could barely tell
one person from another and come the credits would be hard pressed to give
anyone a run down of what I've just sat through.
Isn't that what Iggy said? I'm going to be watching it tonight with
luck, so we'll see if I agree...
Yes, more or less. A rare case of us agreeing on something!
<a rare case of him admitting to it>
Rather churlish and Hartnelly and ungracious of you, Iggy: now I see where
you're coming from...
How many points are you in the lead so far?
Not nearly as many points as Hartnell has in the lead on every
replacement.
Except the poor guy is long dead and buried, and life - like TV franchises -
goes on, eh?
Indeed it does; however, no matter how far and how fast it goes on,
his prestige as The First Doctor is inviolable and unassailable.
john smith
2011-04-30 15:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:28:35 +0100, "john smith"
Post by john smith
Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 00:01:46 +0100, "john smith"
Post by john smith
Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:43:22 +0100, "Soze"
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
Watched the first episode of this tonight ( looking for my next TV
show
fix
after ploughing through the quite frankly brilliant third series of Being
Human ).
What a terrible bore. It's far too dry and po-faced with none of the
wit
nor
charm necessary to make something like this work. The opening hour
introduces far too many non descript characters prattling on about tedious
matters that I've been given no reason to care about. I could barely tell
one person from another and come the credits would be hard pressed
to
give
anyone a run down of what I've just sat through.
Isn't that what Iggy said? I'm going to be watching it tonight with
luck, so we'll see if I agree...
Yes, more or less. A rare case of us agreeing on something!
<a rare case of him admitting to it>
Rather churlish and Hartnelly and ungracious of you, Iggy: now I see where
you're coming from...
How many points are you in the lead so far?
Not nearly as many points as Hartnell has in the lead on every
replacement.
Except the poor guy is long dead and buried, and life - like TV franchises -
goes on, eh?
Indeed it does; however, no matter how far and how fast it goes on,
his prestige as The First Doctor is inviolable and unassailable.
I don't dispute that - he'll always be the daddy by virtue of being the
first. Doesn't mean we can't enjoy the stories of his successors...
john smith
2011-04-29 22:46:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
Watched the first episode of this tonight ( looking for my next TV show fix
after ploughing through the quite frankly brilliant third series of Being
Human ).
What a terrible bore. It's far too dry and po-faced with none of the wit nor
charm necessary to make something like this work. The opening hour
introduces far too many non descript characters prattling on about tedious
matters that I've been given no reason to care about. I could barely tell
one person from another and come the credits would be hard pressed to give
anyone a run down of what I've just sat through.
Isn't that what Iggy said? I'm going to be watching it tonight with
luck, so we'll see if I agree...
Yes, more or less. A rare case of us agreeing on something!
Come on, though. Give it a go, eh? I've never read the novels - I'm no
apologist for it; I expected dragons and weird shit if it is "high fantasy"
(whatever), and there aren't any SO FAR (the implication being we might have
to sit through 18 episodes before a ghoolie appears! Luv me ghoolies,
me!) - but there's worse things to pass the time to the grave with, eh?

Imagine you're on your deathbed though! "Wish I hadn't watched that Game of
Thrones. Could've gone out and had a few picnics and a pint instead...")

Wasn't that Oscar Wilde's epitaph? ;-)

(I'm drunk! Leave me alone!)
Ignis Fatuus
2011-04-30 01:30:16 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 23:46:49 +0100, "john smith"
Post by john smith
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
Watched the first episode of this tonight ( looking for my next TV show fix
after ploughing through the quite frankly brilliant third series of Being
Human ).
What a terrible bore. It's far too dry and po-faced with none of the wit nor
charm necessary to make something like this work. The opening hour
introduces far too many non descript characters prattling on about tedious
matters that I've been given no reason to care about. I could barely tell
one person from another and come the credits would be hard pressed to give
anyone a run down of what I've just sat through.
Isn't that what Iggy said? I'm going to be watching it tonight with
luck, so we'll see if I agree...
Yes, more or less. A rare case of us agreeing on something!
Come on, though. Give it a go, eh? I've never read the novels - I'm no
apologist for it; I expected dragons and weird shit if it is "high fantasy"
(whatever), and there aren't any SO FAR (the implication being we might have
to sit through 18 episodes before a ghoolie appears! Luv me ghoolies,
me!) - but there's worse things to pass the time to the grave with, eh?
Imagine you're on your deathbed though! "Wish I hadn't watched that Game of
Thrones. Could've gone out and had a few picnics and a pint instead...")
Wasn't that Oscar Wilde's epitaph? ;-)
(I'm drunk! Leave me alone!)
I imagine myself on my deathbed saying Thank Fuck; life was too short
to Waste on all that Shite.
john smith
2011-04-30 14:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 23:46:49 +0100, "john smith"
Post by john smith
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
Watched the first episode of this tonight ( looking for my next TV show fix
after ploughing through the quite frankly brilliant third series of Being
Human ).
What a terrible bore. It's far too dry and po-faced with none of the
wit
nor
charm necessary to make something like this work. The opening hour
introduces far too many non descript characters prattling on about tedious
matters that I've been given no reason to care about. I could barely tell
one person from another and come the credits would be hard pressed to give
anyone a run down of what I've just sat through.
Isn't that what Iggy said? I'm going to be watching it tonight with
luck, so we'll see if I agree...
Yes, more or less. A rare case of us agreeing on something!
Come on, though. Give it a go, eh? I've never read the novels - I'm no
apologist for it; I expected dragons and weird shit if it is "high fantasy"
(whatever), and there aren't any SO FAR (the implication being we might have
to sit through 18 episodes before a ghoolie appears! Luv me ghoolies,
me!) - but there's worse things to pass the time to the grave with, eh?
Imagine you're on your deathbed though! "Wish I hadn't watched that Game of
Thrones. Could've gone out and had a few picnics and a pint instead...")
Wasn't that Oscar Wilde's epitaph? ;-)
(I'm drunk! Leave me alone!)
I imagine myself on my deathbed saying Thank Fuck; life was too short
to Waste on all that Shite.
Cloz instead you 'wasted' it on all that *other* shite... TV, crosswords,
films, suduko, art, poetry, picnicking and caravanning... It's ALL just
filler, you know? The grave yawns for all of us...
john smith
2011-04-29 22:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
Post by Soze
Watched the first episode of this tonight ( looking for my next TV show fix
after ploughing through the quite frankly brilliant third series of Being
Human ).
What a terrible bore. It's far too dry and po-faced with none of the wit nor
charm necessary to make something like this work. The opening hour
introduces far too many non descript characters prattling on about tedious
matters that I've been given no reason to care about. I could barely tell
one person from another and come the credits would be hard pressed to give
anyone a run down of what I've just sat through.
Isn't that what Iggy said? I'm going to be watching it tonight with
luck, so we'll see if I agree...
Yes, more or less. A rare case of us agreeing on something!
You're made for each for other!

Awww, how sweet, on a Royal Wedding day an' all!
p***@aol.com
2011-05-01 22:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
I was evidently wrongheaded in thinking that this pseudo-medieval
fantasy would have anything in common with Lord of the Rings or even
Legend of the Seeker. Instead we were treated to the bedroom antics of
a bunch of uniquely unpleasant characters, in a soft-porn soap that
has more in common with Dallas, Dynasty, and the like. The unfolding
plot is complex, repetitive, and unremittingly dull.
Well, I've seen it now, and while I wouldn't call it unmissable, I
don't recognise most of the above - though not necessarily for
positive reasons. I can't see, for instance, how such cliched
characters can be described as 'uniquely unpleasant', nor how a plot
that so far has amounted to "the bad guy doing a Lucius Malfoy
impression is planning an invasion using equally caricatured barbarian
horsemen as his army, while back home the Henry VIII clone has
appointed his loyal but dull friend as his deputy. Oh, and by the way
there's some ancient evil in the woods because, well, where else would
an ancient evil lurk in a fantasy world?" can be described as either
"complex" or "repetitive"; there's roughly as much nuance to the
unfolding story so far as there is to the villain telling his sister
that he'd let the entire barbarian horde sleep with her to get their
army.

All that being said, however, I enjoyed it - good fantasy, especially
good TV fantasy (which is much rarer even than good TV sci-fi), is
about world-building and atmosphere, and the first episode scores on
that count due to having the highest production values I've seen in a
fantasy TV series (with admittedly the odd slip up - who knew that
dragons laid pinecones? No wonder they're always in a bad mood).
What's more I know from experience with fantasy novels that they often
have a slow build and characters that appear shallow and caricatured
at first - this is a novel adaptation (and, as I understand it, a
rather faithful one) rather than a made-for-TV show, and so it's not
necessary or necessarily desirable for it to put in a self-contained
plot with setpiece action in each conveniently 45-minute-long section.

I do agree that it was oversexed - at least four sex scenes, and more
nakedness, is by no means necessary in 45 minutes, and it's neither an
enjoyable spectator sport nor, in all but one case right at the end,
obviously relevant to the plot. I hope that gets toned down in
subsequent episodes, since it does raise a concern that this might
degenerate into the kind of "cool kids think sex on TV is adult" teen-
opera that I hear True Blood was, and which killed any desire I might
have had to watch that (along with equally juvenile slang like
'fangbangers' in that case). But for now I'm prepared to stick with it
for another few episodes - it's no instant winner as I found Being
Human to be, and so far I haven't been struck by any especially good
writing, strong dialogue or intelligent insights of the kind I've
encountered in fantasy novels by Martin's contemporaries or
successors, but it's watchable enough.

Phil
Duggy
2011-05-02 04:10:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@aol.com
that so far has amounted to "the bad guy doing a Lucius Malfoy
impression
A Game of Thrones - 1996.
Harry Potter & the Philosopher's Stonew - 1997.

===
= DUG.
===
p***@aol.com
2011-05-02 12:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duggy
Post by p***@aol.com
that so far has amounted to "the bad guy doing a Lucius Malfoy
impression
A Game of Thrones - 1996.
Harry Potter & the Philosopher's Stonew - 1997.
I'm referring mainly to the visuals - the ridiculous hair, the casting
of an actor with a resemblance etc, which is much more recent than the
Harry Potter films. Characterwise, Lucius Malfoy was hardly an
original creation (indeed, you'd be hard-pressed to find any trace of
origiinality in Harry Potter - surely it's exactly that which lends it
its nostalgic appeal); this 'dragon king' could be any random sneering
villain at this point

Phil
Ignis Fatuus
2011-05-02 07:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Ignis Fatuus
I was evidently wrongheaded in thinking that this pseudo-medieval
fantasy would have anything in common with Lord of the Rings or even
Legend of the Seeker. Instead we were treated to the bedroom antics of
a bunch of uniquely unpleasant characters, in a soft-porn soap that
has more in common with Dallas, Dynasty, and the like. The unfolding
plot is complex, repetitive, and unremittingly dull.
Well, I've seen it now, and while I wouldn't call it unmissable, I
don't recognise most of the above - though not necessarily for
positive reasons. I can't see, for instance, how such cliched
characters can be described as 'uniquely unpleasant',
It's pretty unique to find a show with No 'sympathetic' of likeable
characters (or maybe it's just rare for me to find myself watching
one). So you object to the word 'Uniquely'.
Post by p***@aol.com
nor how a plot
that so far has amounted to "the bad guy doing a Lucius Malfoy
impression is planning an invasion using equally caricatured barbarian
horsemen as his army, while back home the Henry VIII clone has
appointed his loyal but dull friend as his deputy. Oh, and by the way
there's some ancient evil in the woods because, well, where else would
an ancient evil lurk in a fantasy world?" can be described as either
"complex" or "repetitive"; there's roughly as much nuance to the
unfolding story so far as there is to the villain telling his sister
that he'd let the entire barbarian horde sleep with her to get their
army.
Complex in the sense that to follow it you need to grasp the numerous
genealogies, alliances, feuds, resentments, betrayals, and
backstabbings... all of which promise to be dull as Dynasty, and none
of which hold the slightest interest for me. So it's the word
'complex' that you disagree with here.
Post by p***@aol.com
All that being said, however, I enjoyed it - good fantasy, especially
good TV fantasy (which is much rarer even than good TV sci-fi), is
about world-building and atmosphere, and the first episode scores on
that count due to having the highest production values I've seen in a
fantasy TV series (with admittedly the odd slip up - who knew that
dragons laid pinecones? No wonder they're always in a bad mood).
What's more I know from experience with fantasy novels that they often
have a slow build and characters that appear shallow and caricatured
at first - this is a novel adaptation (and, as I understand it, a
rather faithful one) rather than a made-for-TV show, and so it's not
necessary or necessarily desirable for it to put in a self-contained
plot with setpiece action in each conveniently 45-minute-long section.
I do agree that it was oversexed - at least four sex scenes, and more
nakedness, is by no means necessary in 45 minutes, and it's neither an
enjoyable spectator sport nor, in all but one case right at the end,
obviously relevant to the plot. I hope that gets toned down in
subsequent episodes, since it does raise a concern that this might
degenerate into the kind of "cool kids think sex on TV is adult" teen-
opera that I hear True Blood was, and which killed any desire I might
have had to watch that (along with equally juvenile slang like
'fangbangers' in that case). But for now I'm prepared to stick with it
for another few episodes - it's no instant winner as I found Being
Human to be, and so far I haven't been struck by any especially good
writing, strong dialogue or intelligent insights of the kind I've
encountered in fantasy novels by Martin's contemporaries or
successors, but it's watchable enough.
To summarise... You disagree with my choice of two adjectives, but
aside from that we concur on almost every point, except that despite
the stifling dullness of the whole production you enjoyed it.
p***@aol.com
2011-05-02 12:32:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignis Fatuus
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Ignis Fatuus
I was evidently wrongheaded in thinking that this pseudo-medieval
fantasy would have anything in common with Lord of the Rings or even
Legend of the Seeker. Instead we were treated to the bedroom antics of
a bunch of uniquely unpleasant characters, in a soft-porn soap that
has more in common with Dallas, Dynasty, and the like. The unfolding
plot is complex, repetitive, and unremittingly dull.
Well, I've seen it now, and while I wouldn't call it unmissable, I
don't recognise most of the above - though not necessarily for
positive reasons. I can't see, for instance, how such cliched
characters can be described as 'uniquely unpleasant',
It's pretty unique to find a show with No 'sympathetic' of likeable
characters (or maybe it's just rare for me to find myself watching
one). So you object to the word 'Uniquely'.
Well, 'unpleasant' is pushing it too - we saw very little of most of
the characters, and the three or four the show did focus on mostly had
too little distinct personality to object to. The king was fun, cliche
as he was, and Ned is clearly intended to be sympathetic - I suspect
they deliberately chose an actor with the most annoying fake cockney
accent they could find just so the viewers would cheer when Ned had
him killed.
Post by Ignis Fatuus
Post by p***@aol.com
nor how a plot
that so far has amounted to "the bad guy doing a Lucius Malfoy
impression is planning an invasion using equally caricatured barbarian
horsemen as his army, while back home the Henry VIII clone has
appointed his loyal but dull friend as his deputy. Oh, and by the way
there's some ancient evil in the woods because, well, where else would
an ancient evil lurk in a fantasy world?" can be described as either
"complex" or "repetitive"; there's roughly as much nuance to the
unfolding story so far as there is to the villain telling his sister
that he'd let the entire barbarian horde sleep with her to get their
army.
Complex in the sense that to follow it you need to grasp the numerous
genealogies, alliances, feuds, resentments, betrayals, and
backstabbings..
Well, as it goes along we probably will, but there's little of that in
evidence now. The house to which the villain belonged was turfed out
of the kingdom and he wants it back so allies with the barbarians, the
hero is the king's friend (deputy aren't they always?) and now deputy,
and the prince killed the last deputy making it look like a fever. So
far it's disappointingly unsubtle, with about one each of alliances,
feuds, resentments and backstabbings.

. all of which promise to be dull as Dynasty, and none
Post by Ignis Fatuus
of which hold the slightest interest for me. So it's the word
'complex' that you disagree with here.
And 'repetitive'.
Post by Ignis Fatuus
Post by p***@aol.com
All that being said, however, I enjoyed it - good fantasy, especially
good TV fantasy (which is much rarer even than good TV sci-fi), is
about world-building and atmosphere, and the first episode scores on
that count due to having the highest production values I've seen in a
fantasy TV series (with admittedly the odd slip up - who knew that
dragons laid pinecones? No wonder they're always in a bad mood).
What's more I know from experience with fantasy novels that they often
have a slow build and characters that appear shallow and caricatured
at first - this is a novel adaptation (and, as I understand it, a
rather faithful one) rather than a made-for-TV show, and so it's not
necessary or necessarily desirable for it to put in a self-contained
plot with setpiece action in each conveniently 45-minute-long section.
I do agree that it was oversexed - at least four sex scenes, and more
nakedness, is by no means necessary in 45 minutes, and it's neither an
enjoyable spectator sport nor, in all but one case right at the end,
obviously relevant to the plot. I hope that gets toned down in
subsequent episodes, since it does raise a concern that this might
degenerate into the kind of "cool kids think sex on TV is adult" teen-
opera that I hear True Blood was, and which killed any desire I might
have had to watch that (along with equally juvenile slang like
'fangbangers' in that case). But for now I'm prepared to stick with it
for another few episodes - it's no instant winner as I found Being
Human to be, and so far I haven't been struck by any especially good
writing, strong dialogue or intelligent insights of the kind I've
encountered in fantasy novels by Martin's contemporaries or
successors, but it's watchable enough.
To summarise... You disagree with my choice of two adjectives, but
aside from that we concur on almost every point, except that despite
the stifling dullness of the whole production you enjoyed it.
Well, not really;, since those adjectives describe the way you
(mis)characterise the plot and characters, I'd say those are fairly
major points of disagreement. What I can't deny is that neither the
plot nor the characters yet do much to hold my interest - but not only
is this par for the course in the early stages of many novels, you're
missing the most important part of the fantasy, which is the
atmosphere, You might as well complain about Dracula because Harker
and van Helsing aren't likeable characters - that's sort of beside the
point. You don't read/watch horror primarily for the characterisation
or the plots; ditto fantasy, A lot of people gave up on Robert
Jordan's Wheel of Time a few books back when nothing much seemed to
happen plotwise, because Jordan was busy taking the reader on a tour
of his entire world - and one that was sufficiently well-realised to
keep the rest of us engaged.

Phil

Loading...