Posted on 08/22/2022 12:33:39 PM PDT by algore
Watched it and won’t watch it again. Bet.
If garbo TV is your ticket, keep watching.
After all, it’s a personal choice, yeah?
So many choices……
Must be a King!
Why’s that?
He doesn’t have **** all over him
It sounds almost Python-ish
Because that’s all Sean Bean
I only tuned in to see Sean Bean get killed in the first episode and he’s not even in it. :)
“British actor Sean Bean has become one of Hollywood’s most killable actors, with a staggering two dozen on-screen deaths in his nearly 40 year career.”
https://screenrant.com/sean-bean-deaths-onscreen-game-thrones-lord-rings/
I enjoyed every episode of GOT and watched last night and enjoyed it as well and will continue watching the show.
As far as the sex and violence, in the real world with wars were fought with shields, spears, and bow & arrows, etc...in Rome they built a coliseum basically for human sacrifice, it was violence galore, people ruled areas by who was the most savage.
So why would a TV series set during that era be any different.
Thanks. I was going to post on this, but one of my resolutions for the movie ping list is to stay focused on good (or at least non-woke) movies. I violated my own rule recently for The Woman King and didn’t want to be guilty twice in a row. But since you bring it up:
I did watch the first episode. My initial reaction is that this knockoff show is going to fail. That will be an interesting question, however, because a lot of today’s at-home viewers are basically zombies. They are slack-jawed morons who turn on the tv every night because they have nothing on their minds and are looking for a casual distraction. HBO is counting on this. The theory is that there are enough such people who will make the jump from Game of Thrones to make House of the Dragon a success, just as there are still people who will watch every new Star wars or Star Trek project, no matter how bad they are. Zombies are not critical viewers and don’t care if the franchise has been brain dead for years.
That may not work for House of the Dragon, however, because Game of Thrones sucked wind the moment the show outran the books. The last couple of seasons were so epically bad that they alienated a lot of the core audience (and virtually everyone who had read the books). I’m guessing that a lot of these people may give House of the Dragon a trial run through the first couple of episodes but won’t like what they see. It was a hugely expensive production so the bar is set pretty high. I’m slightly interested in how it pays out, but probably not enough to watch it unless it improves rapidly.
First reaction: the depiction of violence is even more intense than Game of Thrones, which was not squeamish. It’s bloody and graphic, although the camera cuts away from the shocking images pretty quickly.
There is still nudity and sex, but it has been reined in considerably from the early seasons of Game of Thrones. The nudity and sex in Game of Thrones itself was toned way down after the first couple of seasons, partly due to complaints and partly because the softcore porn had done its job in attracting an audience, who then got hooked on a pretty good story. (No one watched Tyrion, Stannis, Brienne, the Hound, Arya, Ser Jorah, Ser Davos, etc. for sex appeal. Those were good characters with a good story.) In the first episode of House of the Dragon, the nudity is mostly seen in flashes rather than lingering as it did in early Game of Thrones. As with the violence, the camera cuts away quickly. And at least in the first episode, it’s mostly butts on display. Game of Thrones was — ahem, somewhat more revealing.
Will future episodes step it up? Don’t know. Don’t much care.
The wokery is painful but is primarily a matter of tone. The driving issue in episode one is the resistance of a misogynist, patriarchal Westerosi elite to accepting a woman on the Iron Throne. Imagine that. A medieval warrior culture ruled by a warrior aristocracy has an ingrained tradition that the king should be a fighting man. What pigs. Women can and should rule, at least if they’re first born. Any green haired wokester with too many piercings and tattoos can tell you that. Let us translate 21st century feminism into a medieval warrior society, and there’s your story line. This is a matter of nuance and tone. The canonical story does indeed involve a disputed succession, with the claimants being an older daughter by a first marriage and a younger son by a second marriage. The basic dynamic is correct in terms of the GRRM story. But the phrasing and projected attitudes are 21st century Hollywood femspeak, not medieval Westerosi. This is just bad writing.
In the comically woke Hollywood productions today, of course, women can beat up on men twice their size. In a concession to the reality principle, they sometimes have an equalizer. I refer, of course, to flying spandex, which gives them superpowers and makes them invincible. In House of the Dragon, spandex hasn’t been invented yet, but the Targaryen women have dragons, which serve the same purpose. This at least has solid grounding in GRRM’s magical universe. Aegon didn’t conquer the Seven Kingdoms alone; his sisters rode the other two dragons. And the Targaryens did marry brothers and sisters, because the magic that allowed them to control the dragons was a matter of blood and they liked to keep it in the family. (As in the Harry Potter universe, too much inbreeding among the purebloods does lead to chronic insanity.)
The biggest problem, in my view, is that House of the Dragon doesn’t seem to be grounded in the complex history of myth, legend, ancient books and prophecies that gave Game of Thrones its depth. There is a passing reference to an ancient prophecy of a terrible winter and a battle for the survival of the world of the living, but it seemed perfunctory. The tone of episode one suggests that the show will be a stylistic continuation of the disastrous late seasons of Game of Thrones, nothing more than a sex and blood medieval dynastic struggle, with dragons.
Maybe I’m wrong. If I had been whispering in the ear of the writers, I’d have had Melisandre put in an appearance. She was around, although I don’t recall if she was in Westeros at this time.
If you’re wondering: yes, I read the books and no, I don’t think GRRM will ever finish his story.
Yes it is.
The first season was based entirely on Catherine Grahams novel. I suspect she had major issues with organized religion. If you were a vicar you either got killed or was a killer.
I made it through one episode of GOT and only really enjoyed Peter Dinklage’s role.
Makes total sense
Demokkkommies should love it..
The sick, young psycho minds view this crap and a scant few then enact their murderous shootings.
We’re working our way through Death in Paradise these days. It’s Australian but have you seen the Miss Fisher Mysteries?
In the 80’s it wasn’t an action flick unless Al Leong got killed.
I remember hearing violence on TV discussed over fifty three years ago.
Back then TV shows were so safe it was called “The national baby sitter.”
Movies were under the Hays Code and most were so safe for kids you could drop them off and not worry.
Then Bobby Kennedy was murdered by a Palestinian immigrant and the media went berserk!
They blamed “violent TV shows, pulp fiction, toy guns and movies which “glorified violence!”
So to keep Federal interference away the TV shows dumbed down to kiddie shows.
Pulp fiction changed their covers, toy guns disappeared from stores,
Movies shown on TV were butchered to remove scenes of “violence”.
But the movie industry got a pass when they said they would replace the Hays Code with a ratings system. “G,M,R,X” was the first.
So with the Hays Code gone, movie makers re-shot scenes adding more blood, gore, guts, and lots of sex to get the now coveted “R” and “X” rating.
It got worse through out the 1970s. Also at this time the mental institutions were closed down, porn was legalized so comic book publishers began to publish violent porn comics “for adults only” but the kids were reading them.
In the 1980s movies were deluged with serial killer movies hacking young teens. The camera giving us closeups of the most brutal murders, with lots of spurting blood.
Also in the 1980s cable TV made a big comeback and bypassed the FCC rules showing many of these uncut brutal movies all the time.
By the 1990s came the Internet and ultra-violent video games.
I recently saw about ten minutes of an ultra-violent movie for adults but aimed at kids. Dozens of the most violent deaths that would have never been allowed under the Hays Code.
Since those days we have released onto society a whole generation steeped in blood and gore with no moral guidance, who think shooting up a school or night club or church is no different than a video game. Fun!
As I said, fifty three years the TV and movies were blamed. Not a word about the ultra-violent TV and movies today from the news channels today. They only blame guns.
We’ll stick with Only Murders in the Building, that’s edgy enough for us. Hey! It’s pretty edgy! Now with Lesbians!
Heart that show to the max, highly recommended. Hulu original.
***I am curious if Snow White gets gang banged or not.***
When rescued she was still a virgin. But there were seven slight dents in her maidenhead. (I stole that from a Playboy Magazine joke over fifty three years ago)
There was suggested incest forty five years ago on the PBS BBC show I CLAUDIUS. When Caligula butchered his sister Drusilla, still haunts me to this day.
But that was when some shows on TV still had class. unlike Hollywood claptrap today.
Death in paradise is on my list. Looks interesting. Do you watch Miss Fisher through amazon?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.