So.. I'm taking it that Slate's TV reviewer dosen't like Game of thrones all that much.. and wants to take out his anger on someone.. He apparently already hates the Fantasy Genre before even going into it. Fair enough. But I'd expect some one who reviews TV shows to be objective in reviewing well.. a TV show..
It would be like if I reviewed 'Mad Men'. It's obviously a great program, well written, with lots of drama and all that jazz. Good costumes, sets, actors giving great performances. But it's also about Ad executives.. people who make it onto my top 5 lists of "Those who will not be allowed into the bunker when the end comes" along with Lawyers, Politicians, Insurance claims adjusters and people who say ' Thats what she said' ". I wouldn't be objective, my dislike of the manipulative act of selling people stuff they don't need, negatively colours my opinion of the program before anything else is even taken into account. The same is true of 'Walking Dead' I don't like zombies, 'Jersey Shore' I don't like stupid people. I could go on and on.. but I've explains my position.
I've not seen anymore of the show than anyone else at this point. That 10 minute preview, I've read the first 100 pages of the book. It didn't really do much for me. But I'm going to cheerfully give the show a chance. See thats something else the reviewer assumes. That just because it's fantasy, means that every fantasy fan will enjoy it. Thats simply not true. I certainly wouldn't enjoy a film based on the works of R. Scott Bakker.. any more than I enjoy films based on the works of Cormac Mcarthy. Just because the Road was Science Fiction dosen't mean I went to go see it. I imagine plenty of people who tuned into Krod Mandoon just as quickly tuned back out. Obviously the same is true of the recent Your Highness, which seems to have just as many supporters among Fantasy enthusiasts as detractors.
The problem is now however, that his review is the review of the series for that website. He is their TV reviewer and he obviously hated it. And at the same time wants you to know how dumb you are for liking it.
If you read that.. the whole thing kinda reminded me of this
The Convincing Villain
5 hours ago
3 comments:
On top of which, it's a crap review. Three paragraphs of self-referential rambling before he even mentions what he's reviewing, and the whole thing left me confused. Very poor job by Slate all around.
The guy is a dink. He admits to calling LOTR in league with Lawrence of Arabia but now saying "So What"?
He is admitting in the review that he is a feather in the wind, he's a liar.
Why would I ever trust anything he reviews again?
Here's what I learned from the article about the writer: he hates fantasy. He finds history boring. He doesn't enjoy Chaucer, not because of content, but because he cannot grasp Middle English.
Here's what I learned about the TV series of "A Song of Ice and Fire": Very, very little.
This is not a review, and shouldn't be labelled as such.
Post a Comment