|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 10, 2019 2:12:10 GMT -5
I can read sarcasm lol. But I should have been a little more clear. I know its a popular show, i just wanted some of yalls opinions on it I read the f*cking books. Don't tempt me to give out some spoilers on the book vs TV series difference.
|
|
|
Post by gnu2vball on Jan 10, 2019 9:15:20 GMT -5
I read the f*cking books. Don't tempt me to give out some spoilers on the book vs TV series difference. Don't waste your time with the books. They pretty much suck. They're about 10% story, and 90% atmospherics. And besides, HBO's presentation left the books in the dust a couple seasons ago.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 10, 2019 10:09:55 GMT -5
They're about 10% story, and 90% atmospherics. While this is true, not everyone would agree that is a formula for a book that sucks. Plot is only part of any story. I will admit, though, that by the end of the fifth book I was just skipping every chapter except those told by Arya.
|
|
|
Post by yoda on Jan 10, 2019 11:12:30 GMT -5
I would recommend a 3 season (so far) series on Amazon Prime Video called Bosch. Also a big fan of Justified.
|
|
|
Post by gnu2vball on Jan 10, 2019 18:37:31 GMT -5
They're about 10% story, and 90% atmospherics. While this is true, not everyone would agree that is a formula for a book that sucks. Plot is only part of any story. I will admit, though, that by the end of the fifth book I was just skipping every chapter except those told by Arya. I'll admit that saying the books suck is a lazy way to sum up what I think of Martin's effort. Here's how I'd describe the books' content: I've heard that successful artists in the 1400-1600 had salons in which they had apprentices paint a lot of the background in their paintings and that they would step in and paint the subject's face and other key elements of the painting. I see the same possibilities in the "Thrones" series in which Martin has people describe the character's dress, genealogy, what they're eating, where they are, the last several hundred years of history..... so that Martin can come in and deliver the dialogue and other key story elements. You dealt with it by reading what Arya had to "say." My approach has been the 10/90 story/sh*t ratio and deciding I'll never read another book in the series--although I can't imagine why Martin would bother to write any more of that schlock.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 10, 2019 19:02:13 GMT -5
While this is true, not everyone would agree that is a formula for a book that sucks. Plot is only part of any story. I will admit, though, that by the end of the fifth book I was just skipping every chapter except those told by Arya. I'll admit that saying the books suck is a lazy way to sum up what I think of Martin's effort. Here's how I'd describe the books' content: I've heard that successful artists in the 1400-1600 had salons in which they had apprentices paint a lot of the background in their paintings and that they would step in and paint the subject's face and other key elements of the painting. I see the same possibilities in the "Thrones" series in which Martin has people describe the character's dress, genealogy, what they're eating, where they are, the last several hundred years of history..... so that Martin can come in and deliver the dialogue and other key story elements. You dealt with it by reading what Arya had to "say." My approach has been the 10/90 story/sh*t ratio and deciding I'll never read another book in the series--although I can't imagine why Martin would bother to write any more of that schlock. I don't see that at all. Pretty much the opposite, actually. It's common with writers who invent a really complicated setting that they want to show it off. They slide into telling you all about the background and forget to tell you the story. Or they give you way, way too much detail. The Lord Of The Rings is like this, except Tolkien was just good enough at it that most readers fall in love with the book as a travelogue and history of Middle Earth. But generally speaking, writers aren't the second coming of Tolkien. David Weber seems to publish 1000 page novels every other month or so. The guy is a tremendously fast writer (and in fact is known to dictate most of his books to speech recognition programs). And he sells a %*$#load of books, so his publishers don't really seem to edit his stuff at all. They are all about 200 pages of interesting story mixed in with 800 pages of drivel about every detail of the technology, culture, history, and political philosophy of the setting. I read them (well, some of them), but I tend to skim them for the story and just slide right over when he is spending a whole chapter showing the slimy Conservatives and stupid Liberals plotting to go around behind the backs of the noble and patriotic Crown Loyalists and force the Empress to yada yada yada yada. In one series, Weber has gotten so much into the details that he split the novels into at least three different streams of focus and then repeated (word for word) certain key scenes in the novels in all three streams. And his dialog tends to be the characters telling each other things they already know as a way for you, the reader, to find out about it. But he sells a LOT of books, and it's all because people are invested in the stories buried inside all this other nonsense. A Song Of Ice And Fire is somewhere in between these. Martin is a lot better writer than Weber, but not as good as Tolkien. His plots are more complicated than Weber's but not really as fun. (Tolkien hardly had a plot at all: Frodo carries the ring from the Shire to Mordor and throws it into the volcano. Meanwhile, everybody else distracts Sauron.) I think the main problem with ASOFAI is that the scope is too large. The story got out of control, and that's one reason why he seems reluctant to try to finish it. The reason I ended reading the Arya sections by themselves is that I think just the story of Arya, by herself, would have been a great novel (or even series of novels).
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 10, 2019 20:23:31 GMT -5
At the end of the day, some like the books, some don't. Some like the TV series, some don't. Whichever you prefer, live and let live.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 10, 2019 21:31:41 GMT -5
I'll admit that saying the books suck is a lazy way to sum up what I think of Martin's effort. Here's how I'd describe the books' content: I've heard that successful artists in the 1400-1600 had salons in which they had apprentices paint a lot of the background in their paintings and that they would step in and paint the subject's face and other key elements of the painting. I see the same possibilities in the "Thrones" series in which Martin has people describe the character's dress, genealogy, what they're eating, where they are, the last several hundred years of history..... so that Martin can come in and deliver the dialogue and other key story elements. You dealt with it by reading what Arya had to "say." My approach has been the 10/90 story/sh*t ratio and deciding I'll never read another book in the series--although I can't imagine why Martin would bother to write any more of that schlock. But he sells a LOT of books, and it's all because people are invested in the stories buried inside all this other nonsense. Come to think of it, that applies to the Harry Potter books as well, the earlier entries had tight plotting while the later entries just spent too much time meandering around the wizarding world without advancing the storyline. Now I get it that Potter fans like to see their fantasy world get fleshed out more fully and the details in those meandering side stories fulfill that wish. But for me, when I read a novel, I want a page turner, not a textbook on what the world is like. Sure, there has to be some descriptions of a fantasy world, it's rules, norms and other details to give the reader some context. But the purpose of that is to drive the story and not be a rambling stream of consciousness that the later Potter entries were in danger of becoming. I don't like it when I have to dig out the story like a puzzle from the maze of seemingly irrelevant details. So in that sense, I actually prefer the later Potter movies, which focuses on the core of the story, to the books. And I like the earlier Potter books, with their better pacing, to the slow and languid early Potter movies.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 10, 2019 21:43:46 GMT -5
But he sells a LOT of books, and it's all because people are invested in the stories buried inside all this other nonsense. Come to think of it, that applies to the Harry Potter books as well, the earlier entries had tight plotting while the later entries just spent too much time meandering around the wizarding world without advancing the storyline. Now I get it that Potter fans like to see their fantasy world get fleshed out more fully and the details in those meandering side stories fulfill that wish. But for me, when I read a novel, I want a page turner, not a textbook on what the world is like. Sure, there has to be some descriptions of a fantasy world, it's rules, norms and other details to give the reader some context. But the purpose of that is to drive the story and not be a rabbling stream of consciousness that the later Potter entries were in danger of becoming. I don't like it when I have to dig out the story like a puzzle from the maze of seemingly irrelevant details. So in that sense, I actually prefer the later Potter movies, which focuses on the core of the story, to the books. And I like the earlier Potter books, with their better pacing, to the slow and languid early Potter movies. This culminated in the infamous "camping trip" of Book 7.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 10, 2019 22:14:32 GMT -5
Come to think of it, that applies to the Harry Potter books as well, the earlier entries had tight plotting while the later entries just spent too much time meandering around the wizarding world without advancing the storyline. Now I get it that Potter fans like to see their fantasy world get fleshed out more fully and the details in those meandering side stories fulfill that wish. But for me, when I read a novel, I want a page turner, not a textbook on what the world is like. Sure, there has to be some descriptions of a fantasy world, it's rules, norms and other details to give the reader some context. But the purpose of that is to drive the story and not be a rabbling stream of consciousness that the later Potter entries were in danger of becoming. I don't like it when I have to dig out the story like a puzzle from the maze of seemingly irrelevant details. So in that sense, I actually prefer the later Potter movies, which focuses on the core of the story, to the books. And I like the earlier Potter books, with their better pacing, to the slow and languid early Potter movies. This culminated in the infamous "camping trip" of Book 7. Exactly. Don't get me wrong, I think the overall story and characters of Harry Potter is still really great and worth reading, but it's just that the later series burdened the plot with too much unnecessary details and side plots that led nowhere. It's like Rowling became so engrossed with the world she created, she can't help but describe it in all it's intricate details, and I'm sure the Potter fans love that too. But for me, just as a casual reader, it really didn't help. It just slows and dragged down an otherwise roaring good yarn. The same with the late Tom Clancy, but only worse. I like the Hunt for Red October a lot, that kept me up into the wee hours of the morning. But his later works were simply unreadable. He seems more interested in displaying his knowledge of the latest military tech than in actually telling a good story. In fact, I struggled to find a story at all. Still, whatever her faults, Rowling at the end of the day can still tell a good story, the same can't be said for Meyer's Twilight. I tried not to judge and be prejudicial when my wife gave her copy to me to "try it out", but I'm sorry, I can't get through even the first chapter. Atrocious writing. Heck, I suppose even I can write better. And don't get me started on Fifty Shades, the porno-take on Twilight. Beats me why so many women fell for it. But then, I'm a guy, so what do I know?
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Jan 10, 2019 22:20:41 GMT -5
No need to debate Game of Thrones. Just watch the damn show. It's pretty damn awesome -- well seasons 1-4. I thought it started to decline from season 5.
I would not go so far as to say it's my favorite show of all time, but it's on my list of Top 10 -- and there have been some really good ones.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 10, 2019 22:22:04 GMT -5
No need to debate Game of Thrones. Just watch the damn show. It's pretty damn awesome -- well seasons 1-4. I thought it started to decline from season 5. I would not go so far as to say it's my favorite show of all time, but it's on my list of Top 10 -- and there have been some really good ones. Season 5 was the worst out of all the seasons. Too much unnecessary violence.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Jan 10, 2019 22:28:36 GMT -5
My wife initially didn't want to watch Game of Thrones because she's not a fan of: (1) medieval settings, (2) gratuitous violence, sex, and nudity, (3) dragons, (4) castles, (5) battles among royalty, (6) excessive visual effects, and (7) gratuitous use of British accents. But she started to watch because I wanted to watch it and she got hooked. I think she loves it more than I do.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 10, 2019 22:39:51 GMT -5
My wife initially didn't want to watch Game of Thrones because she's not a fan of: (1) medieval settings, (2) gratuitous violence, sex, and nudity, (3) dragons, (4) castles, (5) battles among royalty, (6) excessive visual effects, and (7) gratuitous use of British accents. But she started to watch because I wanted to watch it and she got hooked. I think she loves it more than I do. Well, most of the actors are British actors and the medieval fantasy setting was based loosely on the real War of the Roses, which was of course took place in England. So it would make sense for them to speak English with a British accent. As for the Brtish accent, like the American accent, it's not all one and the same. There is the standard Queen's English, the "prestige" tone that occupies the same status as General American. But then there are Scottish, Welish accents (not the language, but their English accent), and a lot of other regional and class-based accents, there is far more variety than American English. One should be more tolerant of different accents. Heck, I have a hard time understanding Australian accent but I got used to it after knowing a few Australian colleagues at work.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 10, 2019 23:21:56 GMT -5
The series is actually shot in Ireland. I visited the Bombardier C-Series wing production plant in Belfast a few years ago, and they are located right next door to the Titanic Studios where Game Of Thrones is shot. (Many of the outdoor locations are also in Northern Ireland. Taking tourists on Game Of Thrones location tours is big business in Belfast.)
|
|